Date: 1908-02-25
Source: ru:PSS/v47
Source: CW vol 47

monist and empiriosymbolist into the swamp. To assure the reader that "faith" in the reality of the external world is "mysticism" (Bazarov), to confuse materialism and Kantianism in the most deplorable manner (Bazarov and Bogdanov), to preach a variety of agnosticism (empiriocriticism) and idealism (empiriomonism), - to teach the workers "religious atheism" and "adoration" of higher human potentialities (Lunacharsky), - to declare Engels' doctrine of dialectics to be mysticism (Berman), - to draw from the foul source of some French "positivists" - agnostics or metaphysicians, damn them, with their "symbolic theory of knowledge" (Yushkevich)! No, this is too much. Of course, we, rank-and-file Marxists, are not well-read in philosophy, - but why insult us so by presenting such stuff as Marxist philosophy!

I would rather be quartered than agree to participate in an organ or on a board that preaches such things.

I was again drawn to "Notes of a Rank-and-File Marxist on Philosophy," and I began writing them 148, and while reading "Outlines," I, of course, expressed my impressions directly and crudely to A. A.

What does your article have to do with this? - You will ask. - It has to do with the fact that at a time when these disagreements among the Bekists were threatening to become particularly acute, you clearly began to set forth the views of one trend in your work for Proletary. Of course, I do not know how it would have turned out as a whole. Besides, I believe that an artist can derive much that is useful from any philosophy. Finally, I fully and unconditionally agree that in matters of artistic creation, all books are in your hands, and that, drawing such views from both your artistic experience and from even idealistic philosophy, you may come to conclusions that will be of great benefit to the workers' party. All this is true. Nevertheless, Proletary must remain absolutely neutral in all our philosophical disagreements, giving readers no grounds whatsoever to associate the Bekists, as a trend, as a tactical line of the revolutionary wing of Russian Social-Democrats, with empiriocriticism or empiriomonism.

When, after reading and rereading your article, I told A. A. that I was against its publication, he became as black as thunder. The atmosphere of a split hung over us. Yesterday we convened a special meeting of our editorial triumvirate to discuss the matter. Here, a foolish prank in the journal Neue Zeit unexpectedly came to our aid. In No. 20, an unknown translator published Bogdanov's article on Mach, adding in the preface that the disagreement between Plekhanov and Bogdanov tended to become a factional disagreement between the Bekists and the Meckists among the Russian S.D.s! With these words, the fool who wrote the preface united us. We immediately agreed that a statement of our neutrality was absolutely necessary in the very first issue of Proletary. This completely corresponded to my mood after the appearance of the Outlines. We composed the statement, unanimously approved it, and it will appear in No. 21 of Proletary and be sent to you*.

As for your article, we decided to postpone the question, explaining the whole situation to you in three letters from each of the three editors of Proletary, and hastening my and Bogdanov's trip to see you.

You will, therefore, receive a letter from A. A. and from the third editor, about whom I wrote to you earlier.

I consider it necessary to tell you my opinion quite straightforwardly. I now regard a certain fight between the Bekists on the question of philosophy as completely inevitable. But, in my view, it would be foolish to split over this. We formed a bloc to carry through a definite tactic in the workers' party. We have conducted and are still conducting this tactic without disagreements (the only disagreement was over the boycott of the Third Duma, but, firstly, it never sharpened to the point of even hinting at a split between us; secondly, it did not correspond to the disagreement between the materialists and the Machists, for, for example, the Machist Bazarov, like myself, * See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 5th ed., Vol. 16, p. 421. Ed.