The light roof of the greenhouse could be seen from behind the trees. Late hour. It was such a night as I have never seen since. A full moon stood over the house behind us, so that it was not visible, and half the shadow of the roof, Russian language

Vladimir Lenin

Materialism and empirio-criticism

Critical Notes about one reactionary philosophy

Whole line writers who want to be Marxists have undertaken a real campaign against the philosophy of Marxism this year. In less than six months, four books were published, devoted mainly and almost entirely to attacks on dialectical materialism. This includes, first of all, “Essays on (? I should have said: against) the philosophy of Marxism,” St. Petersburg, 1908, a collection of articles by Bazarov, Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Berman, Gelfond, Yushkevich, Suvorov; then books: Yushkevich - “Materialism and Critical Realism”, Berman - “Dialectics in the Light of Modern Theory of Knowledge”, Valentinov - “Philosophical Constructions of Marxism”.

All these persons cannot but know that Marx and Engels dozens of times called their philosophical views dialectical materialism. And all these faces, united - despite the sharp differences political views- hostility against dialectical materialism, while at the same time claiming to be Marxists in philosophy! Engels’ dialectics is “mysticism,” says Berman. Engels’s views are “outdated,” Bazarov throws out in passing, as if it were a matter of course, “materialism turns out to be refuted by our brave warriors who proudly refer to “ modern theory knowledge”, to “newest philosophy” (or “newest positivism”), to “philosophy modern natural science"or even "the philosophy of natural science of the 20th century." Relying on all these supposedly newest teachings, our destroyers of dialectical materialism fearlessly agree on direct fideism (Lunacharsky is clearest of all, but he is not the only one!), but they immediately lose all courage, all respect for their own convictions when it comes to before direct definition their relationship to Marx and Engels. In fact, it is a complete renunciation of dialectical materialism, i.e., Marxism. In words - endless evasions, attempts to circumvent the essence of the issue, to cover up one’s retreat, to put one of the materialists in the place of materialism in general, a decisive refusal to directly analyze the countless materialist statements of Marx and Engels. This is a real “revolt on the knees,” as one Marxist rightly put it. This is typical philosophical revisionism, for only the revisionists have gained a sad reputation for their deviation from the basic views of Marxism and their fear or their inability to openly, directly, decisively and clearly “reckon” with abandoned views. When the orthodox happened to speak out against the outdated views of Marx (for example, Mehringou against some historical positions), this was always done with such certainty and thoroughness that no one ever found anything ambiguous in such literary statements.

However, in “Essays on the Philosophy of Marxism” there is one phrase that is similar to the truth. This is Lunacharsky’s phrase: “maybe we” (i.e., obviously, all the employees of “Essays”) “are mistaken, but we are looking” (p. 161). That the first half of this phrase contains absolute, and the second - relative truth, I will try to show this in all detail in the book offered to the reader’s attention. Now I will only note that if our philosophers spoke not on behalf of Marxism, but on behalf of several “seeking” Marxists, then they would show more respect both for themselves and for Marxism.

As for me, I, too, am a “seeker” in philosophy. Precisely: in these notes, I set myself the task of finding out why people have gone crazy, presenting something incredibly confused, confused and reactionary under the guise of Marxism.

September 1908

Preface to the second edition

This edition, except for some text corrections, does not differ from the previous one. I hope that it will be useful, regardless of the polemics with the Russian “Machists,” as a guide for familiarizing yourself with the philosophy of Marxism, dialectical materialism, as well as with the philosophical conclusions from the latest discoveries natural sciences. As for the latest works of A.A. Bogdanov, which I did not have the opportunity to familiarize myself with, the article below by Comrade. V.I. Nevsky gives the necessary instructions. Comrade V.I. Nevsky, working not only as a propagandist in general, but also as a figure in the party school in particular, had every opportunity to be convinced that, under the guise of “proletarian culture,” bourgeois and reactionary views were being pursued by A.A. Bogdanov.

INSTEAD OF INTRODUCTION

HOW SOME “MARXISTS” REFUTED MATERIALISM IN 1908 AND SOME IDEALISTS IN 1710

Anyone who is at all familiar with philosophical literature should know that there is hardly one modern professor philosophy (as well as theology), which would not directly or indirectly refute materialism. Hundreds and thousands of times they declared materialism refuted, and for the hundred-first, thousand-first time they continue to refute it to this day. Our revisionists are all engaged in refuting materialism, while pretending that they actually refute only the materialist Plekhanov, and not the materialist Engels, not the materialist Feuerbach, not the materialist views of J. Dietzgen - and then that they refute materialism from the point of view of the “modern” and “modern” positivism, natural science, etc. Without citing quotes, which anyone can collect by the hundreds in the books mentioned above, I will recall the arguments with which Bazarov, Bogdanov, Yushkevich, Valentinov, Chernov and other Machists defeat materialism. This last expression, as it is shorter and simpler, and has already received the right of citizenship in Russian literature, I will use everywhere along with the expression: “empirio-critics.” That Ernst Mach is currently the most popular representative of empirio-criticism is generally recognized in the philosophical literature, and Bogdanov and Yushkevich’s deviations from “pure” Machism are of completely secondary importance, as will be shown below.

Materialists, we are told, recognize something unthinkable and unknowable - “things in themselves,” matter “outside experience,” outside our knowledge. They fall into real mysticism, admitting something otherworldly, something worthwhile beyond the limits of “experience” and knowledge. Interpreting that matter, acting on our sense organs, produces sensations, materialists take as a basis the “unknown”, nothing, because they themselves declare our feelings to be the only source of knowledge. Materialists fall into “Kantianism” (Plekhanov - admitting the existence of “things in themselves”, i.e. things outside our consciousness), they “double” the world, preach “dualism”, because behind the phenomena they also have a thing in themselves, behind direct data of the senses - something else, some kind of fetish, an “idol”, an absolute, a source of “metaphysics”, a double of religion (“holy matter”, as Bazarov says).

Preface to the first edition

A number of writers who want to be Marxists have undertaken a real campaign against the philosophy of Marxism this year. In less than six months, four books were published, devoted mainly and almost entirely to attacks on dialectical materialism. This includes, first of all, “Essays on (? I should have said: against) the philosophy of Marxism,” St. Petersburg, 1908, a collection of articles by Bazarov, Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Berman, Gelfond, Yushkevich, Suvorov; then books: Yushkevich - “Materialism and Critical Realism”, Berman - “Dialectics in the Light of Modern Theory of Knowledge”, Valentinov - “Philosophical Constructions of Marxism”.

All these persons cannot but know that Marx and Engels dozens of times called their philosophical views dialectical materialism. And all these persons, united - despite the sharp differences in political views - by hostility against dialectical materialism, at the same time claim to be Marxists in philosophy! Engels' dialectics is “mysticism,” says Berman. Engels’s views are “outdated,” Bazarov throws out in passing, as if it were a matter of course, “materialism turns out to be refuted by our brave warriors, who proudly refer to the “modern theory of knowledge,” to “the latest philosophy” (or “the latest positivism”), to "philosophy of modern natural science" or even "philosophy of natural science of the 20th century." Relying on all these supposedly newest teachings, our destroyers of dialectical materialism fearlessly agree on direct fideism (Lunacharsky is clearest of all, but he is not the only one!), but they immediately lose all courage, all respect for their own convictions when it comes to before directly defining their relationship to Marx and Engels. In fact, it is a complete renunciation of dialectical materialism, i.e., Marxism. In words - endless subterfuges, attempts to circumvent the essence of the issue, to cover up one’s retreat, to put one of the materialists in general in the place of materialism, a decisive refusal to directly analyze the countless materialist statements of Marx and Engels. This is a real “revolt on the knees,” as one Marxist rightly put it. This is typical philosophical revisionism, for only the revisionists have acquired a sad reputation for their deviation from the basic views of Marxism and their fear or their inability to openly, directly, decisively and clearly “reckon” with abandoned views. When the orthodox happened to speak out against the outdated views of Marx (for example, Mehringou against some historical positions), this was always done with such certainty and thoroughness that no one ever found anything ambiguous in such literary statements.

However, in “Essays on the Philosophy of Marxism” there is one phrase that is similar to the truth. This is Lunacharsky’s phrase: “maybe we” (i.e., obviously, all the employees of “Essays”) “are mistaken, but we are looking” (p. 161). That the first half of this phrase contains absolute, and the second - relative truth, I will try to show this in all detail in the book offered to the reader’s attention. Now I will only note that if our philosophers spoke not on behalf of Marxism, but on behalf of several “seeking” Marxists, then they would show more respect both for themselves and for Marxism.

As for me, I, too, am a “seeker” in philosophy. Precisely: in these notes, I set myself the task of finding out why people have gone crazy, presenting something incredibly confused, confused and reactionary under the guise of Marxism.