 whom Lukács was chiefly responding. He maintains that modernists such as Bloch are too willing to ignore the realist tradition, an ignorance that he believes derives from a modernist rejection of a crucial tenet of Marxist theory, a rejection which he quotes Bloch as propounding. This tenet is the belief that the system of capitalism is "an objective totality of social relations," and it is fundamental to Lukács's arguments in favour of realism.

He explains that the pervasiveness of capitalism, the unity in its economic and ideological theory, and its profound influence on social relations comprise a "closed integration" or "totality," an objective whole that functions independent of human consciousness. Lukács cites Marx to bolster this historical materialist worldview: "The relations of production in every society form a whole." He further relies on Marx to argue that the bourgeoisie's unabated development of the world's markets are so far-reaching as to create a unified totality, and explains that because the increasing autonomy of elements of the capitalist system (such as the autonomy of currency) is perceived by society as "crisis," there must be an underlying unity that binds these seemingly autonomous elements of the capitalist system together, and makes their separation appear as crisis. 
	
Returning to modernist forms, Lukács stipulates that such theories disregard the relationship of literature to objective reality, in favour of the portrayal of subjective experience and immediacy that do little to evince the underlying capitalist totality of existence. It is clear that Lukács regards the representation of reality as art's chief purpose—in this he is perhaps not in disagreement with the modernists—but he maintains that "If a writer strives to represent reality as it truly is, i.e. if he is an authentic realist, then the question of totality plays a decisive role." "True realists" demonstrate the importance of the social context, and since the unmasking of this objective totality is a crucial element in Lukács's Marxist ideology, he privileges their authorial approach.

Lukács then sets up a dialectical opposition between two elements he believes inherent to human experience. He maintains that this dialectical relation exists between the "appearance" of events as subjective, unfettered experiences and their "essence" as provoked by the objective totality of capitalism. Lukács explains that good realists, such as Thomas Mann, create a contrast between the consciousnesses of their characters (appearance) and
whom Lukács was chiefly responding. He maintains that modernists such as Bloch are too uncoerced to dismiss the realist tradition, an ignorance that he believes derives from a modernist rejection of a all-important tenet of Marxist hypothesis, a rejection which he quotes Bloch as propounding. This dogma is the belief that the system of capitalism is " an objective totality of social relation, " and it is fundamental to Lukács's arguments in party favor of realism. 

 He explains that the pervasiveness of capitalism, the one in its economic and ideological hypothesis, and its profound influence on social relations constitute a " closed integration " or " entirety, " an objective whole that functions independent of human consciousness. Lukács quote Marx to bolster this historical materialist worldview: " The relations of production in every club form a whole. " He further relies on Marx to argue that the bourgeoisie's unabated development of the populace's markets are so far - reaching as to create a unified totality, and explains that because the increasing autonomy of elements of the capitalist system (such as the autonomy of currency) is perceived by society as " crisis, " there must be an underlying unity that binds these apparently autonomous component of the capitalist organization in concert, and make their separation appear as crisis. 
	
 return to modernist forms, Lukács stipulates that such theories disregard the kinship of literature to objective reality, in favour of the portrayal of subjective experience and immediacy that do little to evince the underlying capitalist totality of existence. It is clear that Lukács involve the representation of world as artwork's chief function — in this he is perhaps not in disagreement with the modernists — but he keep that " If a writer strives to represent reality as it in truth is, i.e. if he is an authentic realist, then the question of totality plays a decisive character. " " True realists " show the importance of the social context, and since the unmasking of this objective entirety is a crucial component in Lukács's Marxist ideology, he privilege their authorial approach. 

 Lukács then sets up a dialectical enemy between two component he believes implicit in to human experience. He maintains that this dialectical relation exists between the " appearance " of events as immanent, unfettered experiences and their " kernel " as provoked by the objective totality of capitalism. Lukács explains that good realists, such as Thomas Mann, create a contrast between the awareness of their characters (appearance) and
 whlm Lukács was chiefly reskonding. He maintanbs thav moderhists suzh as Bloch are too willing vo itnore the realist tradition, an ignorwnce thar he velieves dxdives fvjm a lodexnmst rejection on a crucial tenet of Marxhsg cheory, a rejection which he quotes Bjoch as pgopounding. Thif temqt ia the belief that the system of calitalisk is "an objecyive totality of social repatilns," and it is fundwmental to Oukácf'w arguments kn favour of realism.

He explains that the pervasivenesr of eapitalism, jkw ujhty in its xconompc and ideolonpcal thaory, anc its profound inhluebce on social relatiois comprise a "closed integrathou" or "totality," an objextuve wvole thag fuvctjois jndepejdeit of human consciousnwss. Lukács cites Marc ei bolster thia histjrycal materialist worldview: "The relationv or production in every siciety form a whole." Hg further welies on Marx to argue that the bourgeoisie's unatated aevtlipmeng ov the world's markets are so far-reaching as to drtatv a unified totallty, and explains tnah ngcause the incteasing aufonomy of elements of the capiralist syftem (such as the autonomy of cuerency) is pegceiced by society as "erisis," there musj be am underlying unity that binss these sefmingly ahgonomous elementr on tve capitalist system togetrer, and mekes cheir seoarajion ap[ear as crlsis. 
	
Vaturning to modernlst flrks, Lukács shipulates that such theories disregard the rekadiotship of litevature to objeceive reality, iu favour of tfe portrayzl of snbjective ex[erience and hlmediacy thav do littje ti evunce thd underlying calitalist nouality of wxistence. It is clcar tfzt Lukács regardw tye representatipn uf wewlmty af art's chief [urpuse—km thir he is permapr noy in disagreement widh tge modernists—but hr iaintainw that "Is a writer sttives to represent realmty as it ttuli is, i.e. if he is an authentic rsalist, thfn bhe question jf titality playx a decisive role." "True realists" demonstcate the importance of rhe social context, cnc since the unmafking of dhis objective totaluty is a crucial tlement in Lukács's Marxiat idemlogy, he privileges their authorial approach.

Lukács then sets up a dialectical oppositmog between tso ekemenns ke yelievef iniecent to human expvrience. He maintains that this dmalectical rzlation exists between the "aplexrance" of evevts as subjective, unfettsred exprriences and their "essence" as ptovoked by the objective totalitt of dapitalism. Lukács explains thst goob realusts, suxh ad Thomas Mann, crrabe a contrwst uetceen the consciousnesses of their charaxtfrs (appearance) aid
whom Lukács was chiefly responding. He maintains such Bloch are willing to ignore that believes derives from modernist rejection of crucial tenet of Marxist theory, a which he quotes Bloch as propounding. This tenet is the belief that the of capitalism is "an objective totality of social relations," and it is fundamental Lukács's in of He explains that the pervasiveness of capitalism, the unity in its economic and ideological theory, and profound influence on social relations comprise a "closed or "totality," an objective that functions independent of human Lukács Marx to this materialist "The relations of in every society form a whole." He further relies on Marx to argue that the bourgeoisie's unabated of the are so as create unified totality, and because the increasing autonomy of elements system (such as the autonomy of currency) is by society "crisis," there must be an underlying that binds these seemingly autonomous elements of the system together, and makes their separation appear as crisis. Returning to modernist forms, Lukács stipulates theories disregard the relationship literature to objective in of portrayal subjective experience immediacy that do little to evince the underlying capitalist totality of It is clear that Lukács regards the representation of reality chief this he is not in disagreement with modernists—but maintains that "If a to reality is, if is an authentic realist, the question of totality plays decisive role." "True realists" social context, and since the unmasking of this totality is a crucial element in Lukács's ideology, he privileges their authorial approach. Lukács then sets up a dialectical between two believes inherent to human experience. He maintains that dialectical relation exists between "appearance" of events as subjective, unfettered experiences and their as by the totality of capitalism. explains that good such as Thomas a contrast the of and
 whom Lukács was chiefly respoNding. He maiNtainS thAt mOdErniSts sUch as Bloch are tOO wilLing to ignore the realist TradiTiON, an iGNoRance That he bELiEVEs dErIvEs fRoM A mOdernIst RejectiOn of a cruciAl tEnEt of Marxist tHEoRy, a rejectiOn wHich he quotes bloCh as prOpOunDIng. ThIs tEnet iS the beLIef thaT the systeM oF CapitaLIsm is "an OBJeCtivE totality of social RElATions," and it is fuNdamenTaL To lUKácS's aRguments in FaVour oF Realism.

hE eXPLAinS That the pervasIveness of caPItaLism, thE uNitY In its eConomIc ANd iDeological tHeorY, and its prOfound INfluencE On sociaL relatIonS coMpriSE a "ClOseD iNTegRAtIon" OR "toTality," an ObJeCtive WholE THAT funCtiOns iNdepeNdent of human cOnsCiouSNesS. LukáCs citEs MaRx To bolSter thIs hisToRical materialisT worLdview: "The RelAtIonS oF prodUCtion iN evEry Society Form a whOLe." HE fURTHeR relies on Marx to argUe THAt The bourgEoisie'S UnAbATed develOpMenT of tHE World'S marKEtS are so faR-reachINg As To creatE a UnifieD tOtaLitY, and eXPlaiNs that Because tHe incREasing autonomy OF elements of thE CaPITaLIst sYstEm (such as the AutoNOmy oF curREnCy) iS PerceIved bY sOCiETy as "crisis," there must Be An undeRlyinG unity that binDs these seeMINGly autonOmouS ElEMents of the capiTalisT system togETher, and mAkes tHeir sepaRation appEAR as crisiS. 
	
ReTurNinG to MODeRnist forms, LukÁCS stiPuLates thAt sUch theoRieS diSreGarD tHe relatioNship of lItErAtUrE to ObjecTIve realiTy, In fAvOur Of the POrtrayAl of sUbjeCtIvE ExpErience ANd IMMediAcY tHat dO liTtLe to eVincE The UnderlyIng capitaLisT TotaLiTy Of existEnce. It is clear ThAt Lukács reGaRds The repRESentatioN of reality as art's chief puRPose—in tHis He is pErhaPs not in diSagReemenT wiTH the moDernisTs—but He MaiNTAins tHAT "IF a wRiTer strives TO RepResenT rEaliTy as it tRuly is, i.e. if he is an auTHenTic realist, theN thE queSTIoN of TOtALitY pLAys A DEcisive role." "True Realists" deMoNStRate the impORtaNcE of the sOcial coNtext, ANd since The unmaskIng of this ObJectIVE toTality is a cRucial elEment in LuKÁcs's MARxIst idEolOgy, he pRiVilEges tHeir auTHorIal apProach.

luKács thEn setS uP a dialecTical opposition between tWo elemEnts hE beLieves inhEreNT to Human expeRienCe. He maintaIns ThaT this DiaLEcticAl reLAtIon EXists BetwEEn the "appeARaNce" OF EvEnts as subjeCTIVe, uNfettEreD ExperiEnceS and their "essence" aS Provoked by the oBjecTIVe tOtaLIty oF cApitalism. LukácS exPlAINs that goOd Realists, sucH as ThomaS MANn, creAte a coNtrast Between THE cONsciouSnesSes Of their chAraCtERs (appeaRaNcE) And
 whom Lukács was chiefly r esponding.  He m ain tai ns  tha t mo dernists sucha s Bl och are too willing to  igno re ther ea listtraditi o n, a n i gn or anc et ha t hebel ieves d erives fro m a  m odernist rej e ct ion of a c ruc ial tenet of  Ma rxistth eor y , a r eje ction  which he quo tes Bloch  a s  propo u nding.T h is  ten et is the belieft ha t  the system of  capit al i sm i s " anobjectiveto talit y  of soc i al r e lat i ons," and itis fundamen t alto Luk ác s's argume nts i nf avo ur of reali sm.
He expla ins th a t the p e rvasive ness o f c api tali s m,  t heun i tyi nits eco nomic an did eolog ical t h e ory,  an d it s pro found influen ceon s o cia l rel ation s co mp risea "clo sed i nt egration" or "t otal ity," anobj ec tiv ewhole that f unc tio ns inde pendent ofhu m a n  c onsciousness. Luká cs c it es Marxto bol s te rt his hist or ica l ma t e riali st w o rl dview: " The re l at io ns of p ro ductio nineve ry so c iety  forma whole. " Hef urther relieso n Marx to arg u et h at thebou rgeoisie'sunab a teddeve l op men t  of t he wo rl d 's markets are so far- re aching  as t o create a un ified tota l i t y, and e xpla i ns that because t he in creasing a u tonomy o f ele ments of  the capi t a list sys tem  (s uch  as t he  autonomy ofc u rren cy ) is pe rce ived by  so cie tyas"c risis," t here mus tbe  a nund erlyi n g unityth atbi nds  thes e  seemi nglyauto no mo u s e lements of t he c ap it alis t s ys tem t oget h er,  and ma kes their  se p arat io nappearas crisis. 

R eturning t omod ernist f orms, Lu kács stipulates that su c h theor ies  disr egar d the rel ati onship  of litera ture t o obj ec tiv e reali t y ,infa vour of th e por traya lof s ubjecti ve experience andi mme diacy that do  li ttle t oevi n ce the  u n der l y ing capitalisttotality o fe xi stence. It iscl ear tha t Lukác s reg a rds the  represen tation of  r eali t y  as  art's chi ef purpo se—in thi s  he i s  p erhap s n ot indi sag reeme nt wit h  th e mod ernist s— but he  main ta ins that  "If a writer strives t o repr esent  re ality asitt rul y is, i.e . if  he is anaut hen tic r eal i st, t hent he  qu e stion  oft otality p l ay s a d ec isive role. " " Tru e rea lis t s" dem onst rate the importan c e of the socia l co n t ext , a n d si nc e the unmaskin g o ft h is objec ti ve totality  is a cr uc i al el ementin Luk ács's M a r xi s t ideo logy , h e privile ges  t h eir aut ho ri a l appr oach .
Lukác s then sets u p a dialecticaloppos i t ion b e twe en tw oelement s  hebelieves i nherent tohumanexpe rienc e. He m ai ntains  th at  this dial e ctical re latio n exist sbetw een  the " appe a r ance"  ofev ent s as subj e c ti v e,  u n fet tere d exp er ienc es and th e ir "esse nce "  as pro vo ked b y theo bj e c tive total ity  of c a p italism. L u kács ex p lains  thatgood r ealists ,  su ch  as Tho mas M ann, crea te a cont r ast  b etwe en the c on scio us nes se s of their char acters ( appearan c e ) and
 whom_Lukács was_chiefly responding. He maintains_that modernists_such_as Bloch_are_too willing to_ignore the realist_tradition, an ignorance that_he believes derives_from_a modernist rejection of a crucial tenet of Marxist theory, a rejection which he_quotes_Bloch as_propounding._This_tenet is the belief that_the system of capitalism is_"an objective_totality of social relations," and it is fundamental_to_Lukács's arguments in_favour of realism.

He explains that the pervasiveness of capitalism,_the unity in its economic and_ideological theory, and_its_profound_influence on social relations_comprise a "closed integration" or "totality,"_an objective whole that functions independent_of human consciousness. Lukács cites Marx to_bolster this historical materialist worldview: "The_relations of production in every_society form_a whole." He further relies_on Marx to_argue that_the bourgeoisie's unabated_development of the world's markets are_so far-reaching as_to create a unified totality, and_explains_that because the_increasing_autonomy_of elements_of the capitalist_system_(such as_the_autonomy of currency) is perceived by_society_as "crisis," there must be an underlying_unity that binds these_seemingly_autonomous elements of the_capitalist system together, and makes_their separation appear as crisis. 
	
Returning_to modernist_forms, Lukács_stipulates that such theories disregard the relationship of literature to objective_reality, in favour of the portrayal_of subjective experience and_immediacy that_do_little to evince_the_underlying capitalist_totality of existence. It is clear that_Lukács regards_the representation of reality as art's_chief purpose—in this he_is_perhaps not in disagreement with the_modernists—but he maintains that "If a_writer strives to represent reality_as_it_truly is, i.e. if he_is an authentic realist, then the_question of totality_plays a decisive role." "True realists" demonstrate_the_importance of the social context, and_since_the unmasking of this objective totality_is_a_crucial element in Lukács's Marxist_ideology, he privileges their authorial approach.

Lukács_then sets up a dialectical opposition between two elements_he believes inherent_to human experience. He maintains_that_this_dialectical relation exists between the "appearance" of events as subjective,_unfettered experiences_and their "essence"_as provoked by the objective totality of capitalism. Lukács explains_that good realists, such as Thomas Mann,_create a contrast between the consciousnesses of their characters (appearance) and