V. I.

Lenin

25.11.1908

Dear A. M., I did not answer your letter immediately because, strange as it may
seem at first glance, we had quite a serious fight on the editorial board
with

Al. Al. [2] over your article, or rather in a certain connection with
it. Ahem, ahem... I spoke not in that place and not on that
subject which you thought!

It happened like this.

The book, Studies in the Philosophy of Marxism , [3] has considerably sharpened the old differences
among the Bolsheviks on questions of philosophy. I do not consider myself
sufficiently competent on these questions to rush into print. But I have
always followed our Party debates on philosophy very closely,
beginning with Plekhanov’s struggle against Mikhailovsky and Go. in
the late eighties and up to 1895, then his struggle against the Kantians
from 1898 onwards (here I not only followed it, but participated in it to
some extent, as a member of the Zarya editorial board since 1900),
and, finally, his struggle against the empirio-critics and Co.

I have been following Bogdanov’s writings on philosophy since his
energeticist book, The Historical View of Nature , which I studied
during my stay in Siberia. For Bogdanov, this position was merely a
transition to other philosophical views. I became personally acquainted
with him in 1904, when we immediately gave each other presents—I, my Steps , [4] he, one of his current philosophical works. [5] And I at once (in the spring or the early summer of 1904)
wrote to him in Paris from Geneva that his writings strongly convinced me that his views were wrong and as strongly convinced me that those of
Plekhanov were correct.

When we worked together, Plekhanov and I often discussed
Bogdanov. Plekhanov explained the fallacy of Bogdanov’s views to me,
but he did not think the deviation a terribly serious one. I remember
perfectly well that in the summer of 1903 Plekhanov and I, as
representatives of the Zarya editorial board, bad a conversation
in Geneva with a delegate from the editors of the symposium Outlines of a Realistic World Outlook , [6] at which we agreed to
contribute—I, on the agrarian question, Plekhanov on anti-Machist philosophy . Plekhanov made it a condition of his
collaboration that he would write against Mach, a condition that the
symposium delegate readily accepted. Plekhanov at that time regarded
Bogdanov as an ally in the fight against revisionism, but an ally who erred
in following Ostwald and, later on, Mach.

In the summer and autumn of 1904, Bogdanov and I reached a complete
agreement, as Bolsheviks , and formed the tacit bloc, which tacitly
ruled out philosophy as a neutral field, that existed all through the
revolution and enabled us in that revolution to carry out together the
tactics of revolutionary Social-Democracy (= Bolshevism), which, I am
profoundly convinced, were the only correct tactics.

There was little opportunity to engage in philosophy in the heat of the
revolution. Bogdanov wrote another piece in prison at the beginning of
1906—the third issue of Empirio-monism , I believe. He presented it to me in the summer of 1906, and I sat downs to study
it. After reading it I was furious. It became clearer to me than ever that
lie was on an absolutely wrong track, not the Marxist track. I thereupon
wrote him a “declaration of love”, a letter on philosophy
taking up three notebooks. I explained to him that I was just an ordinary Marxist in philosophy, but that it was precisely his lucid,
popular, and splendidly written works that had finally convinced me that he
was essentially wrong and that Plekhanov was right. I showed these note
books to some friends (including Lunacharsky) and thought of publishing
them under the title “Notes of an Ordinary Marxist on
Philosophy”, but I never got round to it. I am sorry now that I did
not have them published at the moment.

I wrote to St. Petersburg the other day to have these note books hunted out
and forwarded to me. [7]

Now the Studies in the Philosophy of Marxism have appeared. I have read
all the articles except Suvorov’s (I am reading it now), and every article
made me furiously indignant. No,no, this is not Marxism! Our empirio-critics,
empirio-monists, and empirio-symbolists are floundering in a bog. To try to
persuade the reader that “belief” in the reality of the external
world is “mysticism” (Bazarov); to confuse in the most disgraceful
manner materialism with Kantianism (Bazarov and Bogdanov); to preach a variety
of agnosticism (empirio-criticism) and idealism (empirio-monism); to teach the
workers “religious atheism” and “worship” of the higher
human potentialities (Lunacharsky); to declare Engels’s teaching on
dialectics to be mysticism (Berman); to draw from the stinking well of some
French “positivists” or other, of agnostics or metaphysicians, the
devil take them, with their “symbolic theory of cognition”
(Yushkevich)! No, really, it’s too much. To be sure, we ordinary Marxists are
not well up in philosophy, but why insult us by serving this stuff up to us as
the philosophy of Marxism! I would rather let myself be drawn and quartered than
consent to collaborate in an organ or body that preaches such things.

I felt a renewed interest in my “Notes of an ordinary Marxist on
Philosophy” and I began to write them, [8] but to Al. Al., in the process of reading the
Studies , I gave my impressions bluntly and sharply, of course.

But what has your article got to do with it, you will ask? It has this
to do with it: just at a time when these differences of opinion among the
Bolsheviks threaten to become particularly acute, you are obviously
beginning to expound the views of one trend in your article for
Proletary . I do not know, of course, what you would have made of
it, taken as a whole. Besides, I believe that an artist can glean much that
is useful to him from philosophy of all kinds. Finally, I absolutely agree
with the view that in matters that concern the art of writing you are the
best judge, and that in deriving this kind of views both from your
artistic experience and from philosophy, even in idealistic philosophy , you can arrive at conclusions that will be of tremendous
benefit to the workers’ party. All that is true; nevertheless
Proletary must remain absolutely neutral towards all our divergencies in philosophy
and not give the reader the slightest grounds for associating the
Bolsheviks, as a trend, as a tactical line of the revolutionary wing of the
Russian Social-Democrats, with empirio-criticism or empirio-monism.

When, after reading and re-reading your article, I told A. A. that
I was against its publication, he grew as black as a thundercloud. The
threat of a split was in the air. Yesterday our editorial trio held a
special meeting to discuss the matter. A stupid trick on the part of
Neue Zeit came unexpectedly to our rescue. In its issue No. 20, an
unknown translator published Bogdanov’s article on Mach, and blurted
out in a foreword that the differences between Plekhanov and Bogdanov had a
tendency, among Russian Social-Democracy, to become a factional
disagreement between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The fool, whether
man or woman, who wrote this foreword succeeded in uniting us. We agreed at
once that an announcement of our neutrality was now essential in the very
next issue of Proletary . This was perfectly in keeping with my own
frame of mind after the appearance of the Studies . A statement was
drawn up, unanimously endorsed, and tomorrow it will appear in issue No. 21
of Proletary , which will be forwarded to you. [1]

As regards your article, it was decided to postpone the matter, explain
the situation to you in letters from each of Proletary’s
three editors, and hasten my and Bogdanov’s trip to see you.

And so you will be receiving a letter also from Al. Al. and from the third editor, [9] about whom I wrote you previously.

I consider it necessary to give you my opinion quite frankly. Some sort
of fight among the Bolsheviks on the question of philosophy I regard now as
quite unavoidable. It would be stupid, however, to split on this. We formed
a bloc in order to secure the adoption of definite tactics in the workers’
party. We have been pursuing these tactics up to now without disagreement (the only difference of opinion was on the boycott of the
Third Duma, but that, first, was never so sharp among us as to lead to even
a hint of a split, and, secondly, it never corresponded to the disagreement between the
materialists and the Machists, for the Machist Bazarov, for example, was
with me in opposing the boycott and wrote a long article on this in
Proletary ).

To hinder the application of the tactics of revolutionary Social-Democracy in
the workers’ party for the sake of disputes on the question of materialism or
Machism, would be, in my opinion, unpardonable folly. We ought to fight over
philosophy in such a way that Proletary and the Bolsheviks, as a
faction of the party, would not be affected by it . And
that is quite possible.

And you, I think, ought to help in this. You can help by contributing
to Proletary on neutral questions (that is, unconnected with
philosophy) of literary criticism, publicism, belles lettres, and so on. As
for your article, if you wish to prevent a split and help to localise the
new fight— you should rewrite it, and everything that even indirectly
bears on Bogdanov’s philosophy should be placed somewhere else. You
have other mediums, thank God, besides Proletary . Everything that
is not connected with Bogdanov’s philosophy—and the bulk of your article is not connected with it—you could set
out in a series of articles for Proletary . Any other attitude on
your part, that is, a refusal to rewrite the article or to collaborate with
Proletary would, in my opinion, unavoidably tend to aggravate the
conflict among the Bolsheviks, make it difficult to localise the new fight,
and weaken the vital cause, so essential practically and politically, of
revolutionary Social-Democracy in Russia.

That is my opinion. I have told you all my thoughts and am now looking forward
to your reply.

We intended to go to you today, but find that we have to postpone our
visit for not less than a week, perhaps two or three weeks.

With very best regards, Yours, N. Lenin