Eduard Balling: Korsch and the Question of Workers' Education
In early 1922, the Communist Party of Germany’s publishing house, Viva, released a 24-page pamphlet titled The Essence of Marxism (Die Quintessenz des Marxismus), authored by Karl Korsch. Intended as a primer on Marxism, it was primarily designed for small reading circles and workers seeking self-study. Its core content was organized into 37 questions and concise answers.
After elucidating the political goals of Marxism, the pamphlet poses the sixth question: "According to the materialist view of society, how do the various components of human society function together?" The diagram provided as an answer presents the view that the "economic base" or economic order is the fundamental prerequisite for various forms of the "superstructure"—ranging from institutions such as the family and the state to educational organizations like churches and schools, as well as voluntary associations. These institutions, in turn, exert influence on law, customs, and habits. "Ideas in the human head" reside at the highest level of this order, though their significance and influence might not be prominent.
As the only diagram in The Essence of Marxism, it occupies a vital position in the book's argumentative structure. It serves as an extension to supplement why the "political goals cannot be regarded as utopian dreams, but are established on the objective development of society," a point raised at the book's opening. By demarcating the economic base from the superstructure, the diagram justifies the emphasis placed on the former. The economic order clarifies the core issue of capitalist society—exploitation—which is the root of the social contradictions leading to the "inevitable" collapse of capitalism. Notably, Korsch does not revisit the elements of the "superstructure" in the remainder of the pamphlet.
The approach in The Essence of Marxism of prioritizing economic determinism while neglecting the "superstructure" might remind one of the "vulgar Marxism" [1] held in contempt by Western Marxists such as Georg Lukács, Korsch himself, and Antonio Gramsci. Indeed, the details of this diagram recall the very sharpest criticisms Korsch leveled against such thought in his subsequent publication, Marxism and Philosophy (1923). Korsch noted: "For vulgar Marxism, reality has three levels: (1) the economy, which in the final sense is the only objective and non-ideational reality; (2) law and the state, which are already slightly less real due to their ideological character; (3) pure ideology, which is entirely non-objective and unreal ('pure futility')." However, if we take a moment to read the introduction carefully, such a judgment is called into question, for the author of The Essence of Marxism was not some anonymous politician, but Korsch himself.
Historians of ideas generally pay little attention to pamphlets like The Essence of Marxism, preferring works written by intellectuals for communication with other intellectuals over texts with educational intent aimed at students. The latter are often seen as relatively dull, as they merely repeat old refrains to students in a popular form rather than expounding new ideas. However, this view is mistaken.
First, for most figures studied by historians of ideas, education was a significant undertaking. But for radical thinkers, particularly Marxists, education was of paramount importance. For most Marxists in the early 20th century, the enlightenment of the working class opened the "broad highway" [2] to revolution. This is why Marxist parties often invested massive resources in the cause of worker education. During the interwar period, tens of thousands of mental laborers engaged in worker education, utilizing various media such as publishing houses, educational institutions, and local reading circles spread across Europe for propaganda. in terms of scale and resources, worker education surpassed other endeavors favored by historians of ideas.
At the time, The Essence of Marxism was the most widely circulated of Korsch’s works. Although sales figures are difficult to verify, given its publisher and price, sales likely reached tens of thousands of copies—an order of magnitude higher than that of his classic work Marxism and Philosophy. While Marxism and Philosophy first appeared in the Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung (Archives for the History of Socialism and the Workers' Movement) edited by Carl Grünberg, The Essence of Marxism was not only circulated among the German working class but was rapidly translated into other languages. For instance, it was translated into Russian twice in December 1922 and 1923, and into English, Greek, and Norwegian in 1924. That same year, Gramsci even proposed translating it into Italian. To my knowledge, this is the only time Gramsci mentioned Korsch’s work. In contrast, Marxism and Philosophy was not widely translated into multiple languages until the 1960s.
Second, despite the obvious differences between pedagogical texts and Marxist classics, the two are inextricably linked. Worker education triggered a series of the most pressing questions that Marxist intellectuals sought to resolve: What are the thoughts and beliefs of the working class? What kind of knowledge must they acquire to possess class consciousness? How does this knowledge relate to their experiences and life backgrounds? Who is best suited to impart this knowledge? What is the most effective way to foster this knowledge among workers? Debates between Marxist intellectuals were often inspired and influenced by the practical and theoretical needs of worker education.
This article illustrates how reflections on worker education transform our understanding of Marxist theory by focusing on Korsch. First, I will detail Korsch’s involvement in and contribution to the cause of worker education, particularly his authorship of The Essence of Marxism. Second, I will argue how the demands of worker education influenced the arguments in Marxism and Philosophy, thereby clarifying its role in Korsch’s broader theoretical and practical work. Although scholars tend to interpret Marxism and Philosophy as an attempt to restore the philosophical complexity of Marxist theory—viewing its focus as being on high-level intellectuals keen on partisan debate—I contend that the book’s primary motivation was Korsch’s concern for the spiritual life of workers. Finally, I will trace Korsch’s theoretical development in the late 1920s and throughout the 1930s, explaining how his attitude toward worker education influenced changes in his political stance and ultimately led to his break with Soviet Communism. Korsch was not an intellectual who happened to be involved in worker education, but a teacher who used his theoretical writings to resolve the problem of imparting Marxist theory to the working masses.
I. Democracy, Socialism, and Revolution
Korsch was born into a middle-class German family in 1886. Although he clearly demonstrated sympathy for social reform during his early education, he was not yet a Marxist or a true revolutionary at that time. During his studies in Jena, Korsch was a leading figure in the Free Student Movement, primarily dedicated to alleviating the harms of capitalism by promoting redistributive policies. On the eve of World War I, Korsch spent two and a half years in Britain, during which time he was deeply attracted to Fabianism and eventually became a member of the Fabian Society. What Korsch admired most was the Fabians’ "democratic socialist" program—namely, support for a democratic form of government and the socialization of land and industry. This was also the driving force behind his educational plan. The Fabians refused to become a political party in the traditional sense, believing that such an approach could only attract a small segment of society; instead, they sought to win the entire nation over to socialism. Through inexpensive pamphlets, public lectures, and a series of summer schools, the Fabians created a "socio-cultural knowledge center" to promote collectivism as the "ultimate ideal of the human cultural will."
Germany’s defeat in 1918 provided Korsch with the opportunity to put these ideas into practice. The Social Democratic Party (SPD) took power during the November Revolution. Although the new regime made slow progress in implementing reforms, change was quietly arriving. In 1919, Korsch joyfully proclaimed: "The era of socialism has arrived." At the time, Korsch served as an assistant to the socialist-leaning Professor Robert Wilbrandt and participated in the work of the Socialization Commission initiated by the new SPD regime. In a pamphlet released in March 1919, Korsch articulated his position, proposing a set of nested, semi-independent organizations extending from factory councils to the national level. He argued that such an organizational structure would achieve "industrial autonomy" and grant real power to workers and consumers.
However, such reform could only provide an incomplete embryonic form of socialism. To construct a socialized society on a physical level eroded by capitalism, one must first follow the principle of "equal pay for equal work"—that is, workers retain ownership of their labor and are compensated according to their labor. Korsch believed it was necessary to respect "mental laborers" and pay higher wages to secure their political support. Only after the class struggle had achieved victory and socialized labor had become a reality would the conditions exist to cultivate a "public consciousness" or true "spirit of comradeship." When these conditions were fully developed, it would be possible to construct a fully socialist society according to the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
This is why Korsch prioritized "cultural-political measures" alongside institutional and economic change. The final section of his pamphlet on socialization was titled: "What Should We Do Now?—Conduct Socialist Education." Korsch believed that on the road ahead, one must "carry out tireless educational work for the rising generation." Any impatient revolutionary despairing at the slow pace of change should dedicate themselves to instilling the socialist spirit in the masses. In the article "On the Possibility of Socialist Educational Work," written the month after the publication of the socialization pamphlet, Korsch outlined the urgent tasks: (1) "Work associations" and their affiliated groups should organize dialogues, discussions, and related courses for the purpose of discussing socialist issues; (2) a suitable educational propaganda textbook should be written; (3) association members should consistently support one another to fully master and implement socialist theory, particularly through independent research work conducted in collaboration between groups; (4) association members should actively participate in all public activities conducted by authorities, organizations, and parties related to socialism and socialization issues.
Korsch went on to state clearly that the length of propaganda pamphlets should not exceed 40 pages, be printed on "good paper," and be sold at cost. Parts of the pamphlet might be difficult to understand (this being the nature of thought), but the phrasing should be easy to grasp rather than relying on technical jargon. At the same time, Korsch also believed that educational materials should be "neutral"—that is, free from the "strict dogmas of party programs"—opening the door to those who were already socialists and those who might yet become so. Korsch believed that Fabianism met these criteria and should serve as a model.
In 1919, Korsch believed that a socialist society could be established by transforming the material base eroded by capitalism through the socialization of the means of production and by enhancing socialist sentiment through education. However, Korsch’s hopes for top-down change were quickly dashed. As he later remarked, signs of missed opportunities were everywhere and impossible to ignore: the new Weimar Constitution of August 11, 1919, established economic freedom; the SPD abandoned revolutionary action, as evidenced particularly in the 1921 Görlitz Program; and the Socialization Commission ended in stumbles. Korsch noted with bitterness that the SPD leadership had concluded that capitalism must first be rebuilt and reformed before socialism could be realized. However, Korsch harbored deep skepticism as to whether socialism could emerge from internal reform. In January 1920, Korsch declared that there existed a brutal choice between socialism and capitalism with no third way, and thus socialists were left with no alternative. In his disappointment, Korsch began to turn to the Left, first joining the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USPD) and then joining the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in 1920.
Korsch's disappointment with the socialization process and the Social Democratic-led government is significant not only for understanding his turn toward the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and his consequent deeper engagement with Marxist theory, but also for explaining the emphases and problems addressed in his later works. Due to the failure of the socialization process, Korsch no longer believed that social transformation could be produced through the mutual reinforcement of institutional reform and education. First, education had to become the Party's top priority; the formation of socialist consciousness was a necessary prerequisite for revolution. Second, the Party could not rely on the socialization process to provide the economic conditions Korsch deemed necessary to foster such consciousness. Korsch had to explain how this consciousness could be generated within capitalist society. To resolve this issue, he began to realize that socialism was not an objective theory or an ahistorical ideal that workers needed to "accept"; rather, socialism was the expression of the workers' experiences and aspirations as a class.
This constitutes the relevant background to Korsch’s compilation of the textbook The Quintessence of Marxism. Based on the courses Korsch was teaching at the time, it aimed to show workers that their interests implied a revolutionary struggle. Writing The Quintessence of Marxism was only one part of Korsch’s broader involvement in the cause of workers' education. After 1920, Korsch regularly held lectures at trade unions and community colleges, using Marxist methods to interpret labor law. The content of these lectures was published as a book in 1922, titled Labor Law for Factory Councils (Die Arbeitsrecht für Betriebsräte). He also wrote a series of other pamphlets, including a paperback edition of Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme which he edited and published that same year. In his introduction to the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Korsch stated that it was precisely Marx's 1875 critique of the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany’s Gotha Programme [5] that inspired his own critique of the Social Democratic Party of Germany’s 1921 Görlitz Programme. The Gotha Programme supported Lassallean [6] positions and invoked bourgeois ideas regarding ethics, rights, and the state. Marx believed that the Gotha Programme lacked a sufficient materialistic understanding of history—a materialistic understanding that could have explained how these ideas arose from and were inextricably linked to capitalism. Ferdinand Lassalle bound socialism to the capitalist superstructure, making socialism a utopian dream. Korsch argued that the Social Democrats of his day were doing the same, abandoning the revolutionary power of Marxism in order to uphold the "moral demands" of change. Korsch concluded with an injunction that "every worker must ultimately become a materialist"—that is, they should understand that communist theory arises from the conditions of their own lives and struggles. In practice, they should abandon the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and join the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) instead.
II. Revolutionary Movement
While Korsch dedicated himself in his educational career to showing workers how Marxist theory responded to their most fundamental interests and viewed them as active participants in a revolutionary movement, this was not the primary task of his academic writing. However, there is a close connection between the two. To clarify this, we need to place Korsch’s work within the broader tradition of Marxist pedagogy. Although Korsch strongly opposed the theories of the Second International—especially the views found in the works of Karl Kautsky—the core of his work remained closely tied to the project Kautsky formulated in the Erfurt Programme (1892). In this programme, Kautsky provided a framework for understanding the production of "class consciousness." He argued that in daily life, workers become aware of the conflict between themselves and their employers, as well as their solidarity with employees in other factories and industries, but this "class instinct" is not sufficient to bring about a revolution. In most cases, this class instinct leads workers to unite to demand improvements in working conditions and wages, but it also carries the risk of workers losing their way in anarchist fantasies.
Kautsky therefore asserted that Social Democracy required the participation of intellectuals who could use scientific tools to point out to workers that safeguarding their own interests required not just reform, but thorough economic transformation—meaning the "ultimate goal" of the workers' movement is socialism. Kautsky also showed workers that economic forces were driving society toward this ultimate goal according to "natural necessity." When the Party brought these conclusions to the workers through its propaganda and agitation, it would be able to transform their "class instinct" into a revolutionary "class consciousness." This is precisely what Korsch consistently focused on in The Quintessence of Marxism. Korsch pointed out to the workers the "ultimate goal" of the revolutionary movement as well as the economic forces for achieving those goals.
Kautsky believed not only that socialist propaganda and education should transmit the ideas of scientific socialism to the workers' movement, but also analyzed how scientific socialism itself was born. In Kautsky’s view, Marx did not develop his views merely through traditional academic research. He went deep into the workers' movement, paying attention to its needs and practices. As mentioned previously, Kautsky believed that workers developed a "class instinct" within capitalist exploitation. Starting from this foundation, Marx used the tools of modern science, particularly political economy, to elaborate upon this instinct. Marx’s theory of scientific socialism drew out the latent truths from the "class instinct" of the workers. Kautsky extended this argument to other intellectuals, arguing that Social Democracy required "thinkers who arm themselves with all the tools of bourgeois science and, standing on the standpoint of the proletariat, develop from it a new proletarian social outlook."
Kautsky argued that, given the inequality of educational opportunities, most intellectuals capable of undertaking this role would likely come from the bourgeoisie, but this was not inevitable. Rather, Kautsky was focused on a specific type of mental labor that anyone could engage in in principle. Furthermore, although workers often lacked the necessary training, they had certain advantages because they were not bound by the bourgeois worldview. This mental labor was applicable to the lives and experiences of workers and was therefore not alien to them. At the very least, workers could quickly understand and accept Marx’s theory.
Korsch's more academic writings followed these arguments of Kautsky, explaining how Party intellectuals (including those from both the working class and the bourgeoisie) should develop theory and then impart its conclusions more broadly to the workers. In his 1923 article "Marx's Dialectic," Korsch stated at the outset: "The great significance of Karl Marx's theoretical achievement for the practice of the proletarian struggle lies in this: Marx was the first to formally integrate the entire content of those new perspectives that transcend the bourgeois horizon into a solid unity, constructing a living totality of a scientific system—perspectives which necessarily arise from the social conditions of the proletariat and enter into the consciousness of this class."
Korsch further pointed out that Marx organized the "‘natural’ class standpoint of the proletariat"—including fragmented or amorphous emotions—and transformed them into "theoretical concepts and propositions." As a systematic whole, these theoretical concepts and propositions constituted scientific socialism. Marx did not create the proletarian movement or proletarian consciousness; rather, he elevated proletarian consciousness to a higher level. In Korsch’s view, Marx clarified how to construct a theory that responded directly to the interests and living conditions of workers. In other words, Marx demonstrated how to represent the workers' movement with an appropriate, scientific theory.
The concept of "expression" (表现) is the cornerstone of Korsch’s thought during this period; it runs through his more academic works and is crucial to understanding the connection between those works and his educational career. "Expression" elucidates what Korsch saw as the necessary relationship between the working class and theory—a relationship whose implications the Party needed to disseminate to the working class through pamphlets, lectures, and reading groups. However, this concept has long been misunderstood. Louis Althusser bears some responsibility for this. In the 1960s, Althusser opposed Hegelian interpretations of Marx’s theories. In the polemics of that time, he feared that Hegelian readings would reduce the complexity of history to the unfolding of a so-called essential "core." He understood Korsch’s concept of "expression" as if theory were the "direct" product of the working class: "The proletariat thus becomes philosophy in action, and the political practice of the proletariat becomes philosophy itself. In this case, Marx’s role is reduced to giving a simple form of self-consciousness to this philosophy that acts and exists in its own birthplace." The key word here is "simple" (or "mere"). Althusser believed that if one held such an idea, Marx’s contribution would become insignificant, and ultimately the proletariat would be the "sole historical actor" of theory. Martin Jay, in his book Marxism and Totality, followed Althusser's view. According to Jay’s reading of "Marx’s Dialectic," Korsch believed that Marxist theory necessarily arose from the practice of the working class, leading to the conclusion that the practice of the revolutionary proletariat was the "sole source of radical theory."
This misunderstanding is perhaps excusable. After all, the core and longest section of Marxism and Philosophy treats socialist theory and the "proletarian revolutionary movement" as two parallel historical threads. As Korsch put it, the proletarian revolutionary movement is "the other side" of socialist theory. During the revolutionary period of the 1840s, Marx’s writings were revolutionary in character, best represented—according to Korsch—by the Communist Manifesto of 1848. The stagnant revolutionary movement after 1848 changed the state of affairs. In the absence of the possibility of total transformation, the workers' movement, in the form of trade unions and political parties, began to push for small-scale reforms. At the end of the 19th century, Second International theorists including Rudolf Hilferding and Kautsky viewed Marxism as "a set of pure scientific observations, without any direct connection to politics or other practices of class struggle." Korsch’s view was that, before true transformation arrived, revolutionary theory could only exist by separating itself from social conditions. It was for this reason that no matter how much the Social Democratic Party "talked the talk" [7], it actually only supported small-scale changes. He argued that Bernstein’s revisionism, which emphasized reform over revolution, ran counter to orthodox Marxism, yet its political manifesto was consistent with the slogans of the workers' movement. After 1900, a new revolutionary moment emerged, which found expression in the works of Rosa Luxemburg and Vladimir Lenin. On this point, Korsch went to great lengths to deny that what Lenin presented was simply a reduced version of the "true Marx." Rather, because scientific socialism is the expression of the experience of the workers' movement, Lenin further developed Marx’s theory to respond to the concerns of the new revolutionary moment.
Here, although Korsch seems to describe scientific socialism as an inevitable and direct product of the proletarian movement, a moment's reflection reveals that this is not the case. Taking Korsch’s "Marx’s Dialectic" as an example: contrary to Jay’s view, Korsch believed that Marxist theory did not necessarily arise from the social conditions of the working class, but rather from the unscientific standpoint of the proletariat. Following Kautsky, Korsch pointed out that intellectuals must work upon these disordered materials to produce scientific socialism. Korsch explicitly denied understanding this "reshaping" as a "simple, passive 'reflection'." For Korsch, the concept of "expression" was not a simple, direct operation, but a transformation.
Korsch employs the terms "form" and "content" in several works to describe the construction of Marxist theory. He argues that Marx provided a form that systematized the content of the "proletariat's 'autonomous driving force,'" thereby enabling the proletariat to "recognize its own historical calling"; at this point, Marxist theory was born. Korsch is well aware that this form originates from the traditions of bourgeois thought. Therefore, the sources of scientific socialism are not unitary but dual: the practice of the proletariat and the philosophy inherited from the bourgeoisie. Such dual sources explain why education is a necessity. If scientific socialism arose directly from the revolutionary practice of workers, the Party would not need to transmit this theory to them. Although scientific socialism is deeply rooted in the life and experience of the worker, it differs significantly from the worker’s own thoughts and beliefs, making worker education both necessary and difficult.
III. Science and Philosophy
Korsch's view that scientific socialism does not necessarily arise from the practice of the labor movement but requires intellectuals to articulate and systematize it is very close to Kautsky's perspective. However, Korsch diverges from Kautsky on one key issue. Kautsky believed that intellectuals—whether originating from the bourgeoisie or the proletariat—should use the tools of bourgeois science to articulate class instinct; Korsch, by contrast, argues that intellectuals require the legacy of bourgeois philosophy. Now, philosophy seems to face a strange choice. Korsch recognizes that Marx and Engels viewed their task as "not only replacing bourgeois idealist philosophy, but simultaneously replacing the whole of philosophy." As their focus shifted toward political economy in the 1850s, this task was further reinforced. It was precisely because of this that Kautsky and other philosophers believed socialist theory needed a broader appeal to science. But Korsch argues that Marx’s turn to political economy was the result of his reflections and explorations of philosophical questions—that is, Marx’s "abolition of philosophy" was a process with both subjective motivations and objective results. This was an abolition in the philosophical sense, produced by and deeply rooted in philosophical problems. Therefore, philosophy did not entirely vanish from Marx’s political economy. Korsch contends that only bourgeois prejudice leads thinkers to confine philosophy to "purely philosophical" concepts, failing to see that the ideas contained within philosophy can "survive equally well within the positive sciences and social practice."
For Korsch, there are three important reasons for appealing to philosophy. First (and most importantly), philosophy allows Korsch to more clearly articulate the core premise of Kautsky’s theory, a premise which in his view remained insufficiently elaborated. Kautsky believed the economy developed according to "natural necessity," while simultaneously committing himself to developing and raising class consciousness, which implied that ideological education among workers was vital and might even involve a form of voluntarism [8]. For Korsch, philosophy explains the importance and the "why" of ideological force.
Such an argument makes the book Marxism and Philosophy [9] questionable in certain respects. Both in this book and in subsequent works, Korsch maintains that his primary focus is a relatively narrow question: "How is philosophy related to the social revolution of the proletariat, and how is the social revolution of the proletariat related to philosophy?" However, as the book progresses, it becomes clear that this question is important largely because it draws attention to the significance of broader ideology—especially working-class ideology. Korsch argues: "In the manner of dialectical materialism, we must solve not only 'the question of the relation of the state to social revolution and social revolution to the state' (in Lenin's words), but also 'the question of the relation of ideology to social revolution and social revolution to ideology.'"
The reason philosophy can draw attention to broader ideological issues is that philosophy is the source of dialectical thinking, which negates the separation between consciousness and reality—a separation that is a manifestation of a dualistic metaphysical outlook. As parts of a totality, both consciousness and reality are fundamental elements of the revolutionary struggle. Korsch places particular emphasis on the importance of those forms of social consciousness associated with capitalism that help maintain it. In addition to political economy, Korsch mentions aesthetic and religious ideas. In capitalist society, the relations of production depend upon a "pre-scientific and bourgeois-scientific consciousness"; without these forms of consciousness, capitalism could not survive. In short, Korsch believes that philosophical questions will "guide Marx and Engels to pay attention to the problem of ideology."
This claim has important implications for the present. Theorists "must grasp philosophy and other ideological systems as reality in theory, and treat them as such in practice." For intellectuals, this is not merely a matter of participating in technical academic debates. Korsch argues that paying attention to the ideological struggle is as much a key to revolutionary success as paying attention to politics and economics. He once explicitly pointed out that, in addition to "revolutionary, scientific critique" (which may be related to the concerns of intellectuals), one should also focus on "agitation work" prior to the seizure of state power—the latter being something intellectuals alone cannot achieve. Korsch believes that a philosophically grounded Marxism will make intellectuals pay attention to the ideological commitments of the broader masses and require them to participate in the cause of worker education.
Secondly, philosophy elucidates why revolutionary education work can facilitate revolution. This resolves a problem that had haunted Korsch since the First World War: how can a working class eroded by capitalism transition toward socialism? After he came to believe that Marxism was the expression of the life and experience of the revolutionary working class, this problem became even more acute. Korsch, as always, articulates this issue from the perspective of working-class consciousness. In Marx's Dialectic, Korsch complains that the "complex proletarian class viewpoint" has been distorted by the "bourgeois viewpoint," noting that "initially, they were interconnected due to the characteristics of the formation process." "Science" is of no help in solving this problem, as it is subject to the illusion of bourgeois "disinterested" research. Philosophy might also seem useless, as it is rooted in bourgeois tradition. However, Korsch argues that philosophy can "purify" (reinigen) the bourgeois contamination of the proletarian viewpoint. In other words, if philosophy is brought into the class instinct of the proletariat, it produces a theory that can transcend the limitations of capitalism; when these theories are taught to the workers, they can lead them toward a socialist society.
In his works of this period, Korsch insists that philosophy is less closely tied to the social and economic base than other forms of thought. Some forms of thought are directly related to material production, while others are only directly related to the relations of production. Unlike the human sciences, philosophy is related only to the "production of knowledge." Precisely because of this, Korsch points out in Marxism and Philosophy that the relationship between philosophers and the classes they represent is complex, and philosophy is especially distant from its "material and economic base."
In fact, within idealist philosophy—especially in Hegel—the logic of thought moves in a revolutionary direction; it was only the "bourgeois standpoint" of mid-19th-century philosophers that blinded them to this. When Korsch argues that "the bourgeois viewpoint must theoretically stop where it must stop in social practice—so long as it does not intend to cease being a 'bourgeois' viewpoint," we should note his discussion of the limitations of the bourgeois standpoint, but also the way philosophy breaks through these limitations. A "revolutionary movement in the realm of ideas" can "transform" the ideological expression of the bourgeois revolutionary movement into the expression of the "proletarian revolutionary movement." Philosophy provides communists with a means to transcend the ideological limitations of capitalism, thereby opening a path to socialism.
The two aforementioned advantages of philosophy clarify the conditions for the possibility of revolutionary education. By contrast, the third advantage of philosophy lies in providing guidelines for the content of revolutionary education. Korsch believes philosophy proves the necessity of Marxism adapting to the historical moment. Historical configurations, the experience of the labor movement, and its practice change over time. Marxism, as its expression, must likewise change. In Marxism and Philosophy, we find that Korsch does not simply describe a process in which Marxism arises from the experience of the working class; he also endows it with historicity. However, the close link between theory and the movement is precarious. When Korsch speaks of a "necessary" relationship between the revolutionary movement and its expression, this relationship is normative rather than descriptive. That is, such a relationship should exist, but in reality, it does not always do so. This is why Korsch’s treatment of theory as "another aspect" of the revolutionary movement can be misleading; at certain moments, theory and the revolutionary movement are detached. In fact, this is precisely what occurred in the first decade of the 20th century.
Around 1900, at the dawn of a new revolutionary era, a chasm emerged between theory and the labor movement. Consequently, the theories of the Second International—whether the diluted "orthodoxy" or revisionism as its antithesis—had become obsolete "traditions." Borrowing Marx's metaphor from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Korsch condemned this ghost of a former era for "weighing 'like a nightmare' on the heads of the laboring masses whose revolutionary socio-economic position no longer objectively corresponds to these evolutionary doctrines." Korsch argued that orthodox Marxism was the legacy of a previous era and therefore could not represent the labor movement at its current stage. Instead, Korsch praised the view in Lenin's 1917 The State and Revolution as a "conscious reconstruction" of the inner link between theory and practice.
In Korsch's view, the criteria for governing the expressive relationship between theory and the movement come from philosophy, not science. He once explicitly stated that Marx’s understanding of totality, and by extension of "expression," was a philosophical inheritance, no matter how much it aligned with the revolutionary drive of the proletariat. As Hegel's famous dictum goes, philosophy is "its own time apprehended in thoughts." This means thought is not autonomous or floating, but rooted in its historical moment. Hegel's dialectic had an "idealist" coloration because it ultimately understood history as the unfolding of the "Idea." Because of this, Marx had to reshape the dialectic from a materialist perspective by emphasizing economic change. Korsch argues that the statement by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto—that "the theoretical conclusions of the Communists... merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes"—should be understood as a materialist interpretation of Hegel’s "Owl of Minerva." [10] In Korsch's view, the dialectical method provided by philosophy alerts socialist theorists to the contingent and fragile link between theory and movement, thereby helping them keep this link alive. This dialectical method shows that scientific socialism arises first from the proletarian masses; intellectuals must therefore pay close attention to their ideas and interests.
We can now understand why Kautsky’s neglect of philosophy led to such grave consequences. By separating theory from practice, Kautsky allowed the "vibrant principles of dialectical materialism" to be lost—a loss that was the "general expression" of a non-revolutionary moment. Kautsky articulated the conditions and prospects of the labor movement at that time; however, in doing so, he abandoned philosophy and, with it, the tools needed to maintain this expressive relationship over the long term. In Korsch's view, the "betrayal" of the war and the Russian Revolution by Social Democrats in 1914 and 1917 was the result of a lack of attention to philosophical questions; they failed to realize that Marxism must be constantly updated to remain relevant to the labor movement. Thus, Kautsky's problem did not lie in the pseudo-revolutionary theory he proposed in the 1890s, but in his continued adherence to that claim after 1900. More precisely, Korsch believes that Party intellectuals cannot simply reprint old textbooks year after year or rely on the same yellowed lecture notes. They must rewrite the teaching materials to adapt to the changing times.
IV. Popular Marxism and Vulgar Marxism Korsch’s perspective indicates that however close the connection between the Marxism of the laboring masses and the Marxism of the intellectuals may be, a clear distinction remains between them. This distinction involves three levels. As stated in Marxism and Philosophy, Party intellectuals (the first level) need to employ philosophical and dialectical analysis to break the shackles of bourgeois thought. Through this, they will recognize the importance of the ideological struggle (especially among workers) and commit themselves to renewing Marxist theory so as to most effectively represent the ever-changing workers' movement.
The task of imparting Marxist theory to the working class falls to theoretically-minded workers (the second level). They might lead Marxist study groups, but they do not author study materials. In 1922, Korsch wrote another pamphlet for this group—The Point of Departure of the Materialist Conception of History, also published by the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) press. Although this work did discuss philosophy as part of the history of Marxist thought, it did not explicitly demand the application of philosophy to renew Marxist theory, nor did it offer any extended discussion of "dialectics." Nevertheless, the book highlighted the ideological struggle. After all, this group at the middle level stood at the very forefront of the struggle. Korsch argued that Marxism was not an unpremised and traditional "science" in the bourgeois sense, even though such a characterization had "for decades brought unspeakable benefits to the honest vulgar souls [11] of countless German Social Democrats." On the contrary, Marx's thought was a "critique" of bourgeois ideology, and particularly of bourgeois political economy, from the standpoint of the working class. Marx pointed out that although bourgeois thought claimed universality, it was in fact rooted in, and thus protected, the economic position of the bourgeoisie. Consequently, the book discussed the "superstructure" in detail and emphasized the importance of overcoming religious belief. Korsch urged his readers to practice "positive atheism" and encouraged the proletarian masses to do the same. He also criticized the Social Democrats' treatment of religion as a "private matter."
Korsch made it clear that this understanding of ideology and Marxist theory would exceed the cognition of most other workers. Only after the revolution can the masses attain a "completely immanent consciousness of the world." Until then, in the struggle against capitalism, popular Marxism will bear the distinct imprint of the society it seeks to escape. Korsch believed that most workers could not transcend bourgeois and "contemplative" (anschauenden) naturalism to recognize the close connection between communist theory and practice. They would continue to believe in the "supra-historical validity of certain theoretical or practical 'ideas'" and regard Marxist theory as eternal objective truth rather than proletarian truth. In this way, communism remains a "religion" for the masses, albeit an "immanent religion" (Religion des Diesseits). In The Point of Departure of the Materialist Conception of History, Korsch presented his readers with profound insights that most students would be unable to reach.
By contrast, The Quintessence of Marxism was directed toward the broader masses to cultivate the class consciousness of the grassroots (the third level). According to the framework of The Point of Departure of the Materialist Conception of History, The Quintessence of Marxism provided the dogmas of the Marxist faith. Like its predecessor, it did not suggest the necessity of renewing Marxist theory. But in this book, Korsch abandoned the discussion of the superstructure and chose to expound Marx’s economic theory as objective truth. However, if dialectical thinking means recognizing the importance of the ideological struggle and responding to the current needs of the working class, then this book was not entirely devoid of superstructural content either.
Korsch argued in The Point of Departure of the Materialist Conception of History that Marx did not overly emphasize his philosophical views in Capital, nor did he provide a theoretical exposition of his historical and social concepts. Instead, Capital was a "presentation on the spot," functioning more as a practice than as a sermon. We can read The Quintessence of Marxism in the same way. First, although Korsch emphasized economic processes and "necessity" in this pamphlet, he ensured that he did not contradict his own arguments elsewhere regarding the importance of conscious proletarian action. For example, in answering the first question, Korsch mentioned that Marxism proves a certain necessity; here, he was referring not to the historical process, but to the goals and means of communism. He immediately added: "This also involves acting in accordance with this doctrine (practice)." Referring to the split in the Left at the time, Korsch noted that the recognition of this necessity was what distinguished the Communist Party from other Marxist parties. That is to say, Korsch’s "necessity" was not describing an inevitability, but rather the principles the working class must follow when seeking revolution. Therefore, in the later discussion of the "necessity" of the collapse of capitalism, Korsch’s primary focus was not on economic forces but on the "conviction" of communists that the capitalist system was doomed. The evidence he provided was not the necessary development of internal contradictions, but "historical facts" and developments over the past century—facts that convinced revolutionaries that economic forces were on their side. Thus, Korsch’s main goal was not to objectively describe economic reality, but to shape the way workers understood that reality.
Second, at the end of the text, Korsch linked The Quintessence of Marxism to the new communist theory proposed in Marxism and Philosophy (published the following year), viewing it as an expression of the revolutionary moment of the time. Korsch believed that the economic forces of the day did not clearly point the way forward. He assured readers that, in the long run, economic contradictions would lead to the collapse of capitalist society. However, given that capitalism had not yet been fully realized on a global scale, the moment of collapse remained in the distant future. Economic conditions at the time might not make a socialist revolution inevitable in the short term, but they certainly made its realization possible. To realize this possibility, "what we lack... is the organization of the proletariat into a class capable of political and social action," which would show that the proletariat had already prepared for the revolution within and through revolutionary action. Here, Korsch posed a question: can we ensure the victory of the proletariat? His answer was that historical struggles end either in revolutionary transformation or in the common "ruin" of the contending classes. But this should not lead to despair; instead, it should serve as a call to action.
Korsch believed that The Quintessence of Marxism embodied the most modern and advanced Marxism, a Marxism transformed from old dogmas to respond to a new revolutionary era. This can be seen in his response to a hostile and nitpicking review written by Hermann Duncker for the Communist Party journal Die Internationale. Before World War I, Duncker had been a traveling instructor for the Social Democratic Party and began teaching at the Party school in Berlin in 1912. In 1925, Duncker co-founded the Marxist Workers' School (MASCH) in Berlin for the KPD. He was thus a leading figure in the Communist Party's educational enterprise. But for Korsch, Duncker represented the past; his critique of The Quintessence of Marxism was merely one link in a series of instances where Korsch deviated from the version of Marxist theory that the elder man had "introduced to his audience in speech and writing for decades." However, merely pointing out this difference was not enough because, as the title of Korsch’s response to Duncker suggested, Duncker and his generation merely held Marxist theory "in lease" (Erbpacht). The time had come to return it; the laboring masses needed a new generation to take over the Party’s educational work and to constantly renew Marxist theory in the New Era [12].
Thus, the popular Marxism presented in The Quintessence of Marxism was distinct from what Korsch called "vulgar Marxism." Insofar as Marxism is an objective and eternal science and in its overriding concern with the economic base, the two might appear similar. But popular Marxism avoided the fatal flaws of vulgar Marxism because it was inspired by the educational philosophy Korsch elaborated in Marxism and Philosophy. Although workers might regard The Quintessence of Marxism as a summary of ahistorical truths about society, the pamphlet presented a contemporary, historically specific form of Marxism to meet the needs of the moment. No matter how much it seemed focused on economic processes, it did not ignore consciousness; rather, it viewed the workers’ understanding of the economy as the most important battlefield in the ideological struggle. As a contribution to the cause of worker education, the very existence of The Quintessence of Marxism was a refutation of vulgar Marxism.
V. Between the Party and the Masses From the perspective of The Quintessence of Marxism, Marxism and Philosophy highlights several contradictions in Korsch’s thought: Marxist intellectuals realize they must forge a truly proletarian science through engagement with bourgeois philosophy; having recognized the crucial role of culture and ideology in the revolution, intellectuals should dedicate themselves to worker education—not an education in philosophy, art, and literature, but in the workings of the economic system. Here, philosophy brings the intellectual into close contact with the laboring masses while simultaneously drawing a line between them. Consequently, Korsch’s answer to the problem of worker education established an unstable relationship between the worker masses, who desired power, and the Party elite, who were responsible for empowering them.
First, Korsch emphasized the necessity for the Party, as the bearer of an advanced and dialectical consciousness, to guide a working class deprived of such consciousness. In two reviews published in Die Internationale in the first half of 1924, Korsch defended Lukács—who was under attack by communist critics—by citing Lenin’s 1922 exhortation to communists to study Hegelian dialectics. This was particularly important in the context of the Comintern’s "United Front" policy, under which the proletariat had to build alliances with other classes (including peasants and colonial subjects) and exercise "hegemony" over them. For this reason, Korsch endorsed Lukács’s view that the Party is the "conscious leadership of the proletariat" and criticized Luxemburg’s marginalization of the Party as one-sided and unfounded. Korsch’s theoretical contributions earned him a place in political life. In January 1923, the French invasion of Germany’s Ruhr and Rhine regions caused severe economic and political turmoil, weakening the Social Democrats and boosting the status of the KPD. In October of the same year, Korsch was elected Minister of Justice in the Thuringian state government. However, his political performance was unsatisfactory, and by November, he was forced into hiding as the government banned both the KPD and the Nazi Party to stem the tide of radicalism.
Although Korsch’s embrace of the Communist Party explicitly aligned him with Lenin, this failed to prevent his conflict with the Comintern. At the Fifth World Congress of the Comintern, Grigory Zinoviev and Lukács together attacked Korsch for providing a "revisionist" and "professorial" interpretation of Marxist theory. Following Korsch's return to Germany, Zinoviev wrote an open letter against the "ultra-left" in 1924, launching a fierce assault on Korsch. Korsch viewed Zinoviev’s criticism as an attack on the dialectical form of Marxism, which led him to reassess Soviet theory and the status of the Communist Party. Korsch suggested that perhaps Party leaders were failing to empower the proletariat by providing them with appropriate theory, and were instead using education to control the workers. Dialectics was not something bourgeois imposed upon workers, but the only way to maintain the close connection between Marxist theory and the workers' movement. On September 9, 1925, Korsch publicly accused the Comintern of "Red Imperialism," for which he was forced to relinquish his editorship of the Party journal. The following year, he was expelled from the KPD.
Korsch's changing view of the Soviet Union prompted him to re-evaluate the primary defects existing in the development of Marxist theory. In the 1930 reissue of Marxism and Philosophy, Korsch authored a new introduction as an "anti-critique," equating Lenin with the "vulgar" Kautsky. At this time, Korsch believed that both Lenin and Kautsky had abandoned the "dialectical" component of Marxism—a component essential for encouraging theorists to maintain focus on the specific perspectives and conditions of workers.
Under these circumstances, Korsch began to rethink his arguments regarding the necessity of Party leadership. He opposed Luxemburg’s position that "only in a socialist society will the Marxist method of analysis become the complete property of the proletariat," because this implied that Marxist theory stood above revolutionary practice and the Party stood above the people. Diverging from his 1923 stance, Korsch now argued that workers could achieve a truly dialectical understanding of Marxism on their own (thus no longer requiring instillation "from the outside"), and no longer needed to adopt the simplified theoretical methods found within The Quintessence of Marxism.
We can see the results of this shift in Korsch's approach to worker education. Rather than writing new textbooks, Korsch set about preparing an edition of Volume I of Marx’s Capital. In 1932, Korsch published a paperback edition of Capital, printing 50,000 copies for workers to read independently. Naturally, many readers might require assistance when encountering this literature. In the introduction, Korsch offered suggestions on how to best read Volume I of Capital. He advised readers to skip the more difficult opening pages and begin with Chapter Five, followed by Chapter Eight, Chapters Eleven through Thirteen, and Chapter Twenty-Four. He maintained that the most challenging parts of the book—such as the form of value in Chapter One and money in Chapter Three—were the result of Marx’s use of the "dialectical method" and were vital for understanding the entire work. Korsch believed that, overall, the book's content was sufficient to motivate "uneducated" readers to overcome these difficulties and comprehensively grasp the complexities of Marxist theory. While Korsch had once believed some workers might read Capital on their own and viewed his Quintessence of Marxism as preparatory material for that task, he now viewed workers reading Capital independently not as a natural extension of Party education, but as a necessary act of counter-balance. In a defensive essay published later that year responding to another critical review by Duncker, Korsch pointed out that his edition of Capital transferred power away from Party leaders, ensuring they were no longer "monopolists of Marxist theory."
In 1937, Korsch, now writing in English, went further. Criticizing Kautsky’s practice of applying bourgeois science to the problems of the workers' movement, he noted: "According to Rosa Luxemburg, the 'ultimate goal' should be everything, and the Social Democratic movement of the time distinguished itself from bourgeois reformist politics through this goal; yet the fact that this goal was never realized in subsequent actual history accords with Bernstein's sober observation of reality." Korsch remained opposed to reformism, but he was equally opposed to the idea of the proletariat discovering its revolutionary impetus through the acceptance of a certain theory—especially one stamped with the brand of bourgeois tradition. Using Marx’s own words, Korsch pointed out: "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves." In his final article published in 1950, "Ten Theses on Marxism Today," Korsch reached the ultimate conclusion of his theoretical development: revolutionaries should break free from the shackles of Marxist theory and instead work toward all oppressed classes directly controlling their own lives.
VI. Western Marxism and Worker Education
Korsch was not the only Western Marxist involved in the cause of worker education. In 1919, Lukács served as the Deputy People's Commissar for Education and Culture in the Hungarian Soviet Republic, responsible for organizing school curricula, establishing a cultural "Red Vanguard," and promoting the further development of historical materialism. Education was similarly vital to Gramsci’s political career. In 1924, Gramsci became the leader of the Communist Party of Italy and personally participated in organizing Marxist theoretical correspondence courses, enrolling 600 students. Like Korsch, joining the cause of worker education triggered much reflection for them. Lukács argued that "class consciousness" needed to be understood in conjunction with the institutions and practices through which communists attempted to awaken the consciousness of the working class. Gramsci’s exploration of the concept of "hegemony" in his Prison Notebooks was, to a large extent, a reflection on the successes and failures of the Italian Communist Party’s early attempts to impart Marxist theory to the masses. Furthermore, as Charles Clavey recently pointed out, debates over the best methods for worker education formed the fundamental background for much of the empirical research conducted by the Frankfurt School in the 1930s and 1940s, which in turn shaped the continuous development of its theory.
"Western Marxism" as a subject of academic research has become dated. During its heyday in the 1970s and 1980s, historians of thought and other scholars viewed it as a source of profound critique of capitalism. However, scholars later began to doubt whether—given the early Western Marxists' embrace of Lenin—their work possessed a uniquely "Western" character. If it indeed did, it seemed to reinforce a broader Eurocentrism within the Marxist tradition, as the foundation of its historical narrative was based on the experiences of a few European countries. Consequently, many historians have naturally turned their attention to non-Western forms of Marxism, seeking to understand how these different forms subverted Marxist narrative modes and applied them to new situations. Although Korsch may have initially been enthusiastic about Lenin’s revolution, the ideal of worker education allowed him to distinguish his work from Soviet-style communism.
Furthermore, analyzing the relationship between Western Marxism and worker education provides another avenue for understanding the specificity of this theory in Europe. As Korsch stated, intellectuals needed not only to adapt Marxism to local economic conditions but also to the different experiences and insights of the local working class—both to ensure that Marxism was not a set of externally imposed doctrines and to promote the absorption of Marxism to drive revolutionary action. Only in this way could Marxism realize its democratic vision. Based on similar considerations, Lukács emphasized the importance of the living connection between the Party and the masses and criticized "bureaucratization." Gramsci also proposed the concept of cultivating "organic intellectuals" who would develop a "philosophy of praxis" through dialogue with exploited groups. Worker education may have been an international undertaking, but its focus was on local populations.
Therefore, the demands of worker education led intellectuals to self-consciously "provincialize" [13] Marxist theory in different ways. For those Marxists whose countries lacked a massive industrial working class, the task was even more arduous. They could no longer simply rely on the alleged compatibility between Marxist theory and the proletariat, but had to adapt the theory to appeal to other potential revolutionary groups. It was based on this line of thinking that José Carlos Mariátegui sought to update Marxist theory in the 1920s to engage in dialogue with Peru’s indigenous groups. He noted that these groups accounted for "four-fifths of the population" of Peru, and the goal was not to "copy or imitate" European thought, but to engage in "heroic creation. We must create an Indo-American socialism in our own language, aimed at our actual reality." In the 1950s and 1960s, Léopold Sédar Senghor used African socialism as the foundation for his mass party (not just a proletarian party), attempting to combine this socialism with what he called the "Negro-African" or "Berber-African" way of thinking. Of course, this kind of conceptualized political education could fall into its own illusions—namely, the idealization of the "indigenous" or the "subaltern." However, as long as this serves to open rather than block genuine dialogue, the union of Marxists and exploited groups treats the latter not only as objects of analysis but also as interlocutors.