Date: 1908-02-25
Source: ru:PSS/v47


Source: CW vol 47

25. II. 08.

Dear A. M.! I did not reply to your letter immediately, because in connection with or partly related to your article, a rather serious quarrel broke out between us and A. A. in the editorial office of No. 142... Hm, hm... I spoke not where and not on the occasion you thought!

The matter turned out as follows.

The book "Outlines of the Philosophy of Marxism" 143 sharply intensified long-standing disagreements among the Bolsheviks on philosophical issues. I do not consider myself sufficiently competent in these matters to rush into print. But I have always followed our party debates on philosophy closely - starting from Plekhanov's struggle against Mikhailovsky and Co. at the end of the 1880s up to 1895, then his struggle with the Kantians in 1898 and the following years (at that time I not only followed but also partly participated, as a member of the editorial board of Zarya from 1900), and finally, his struggle with the empirio-criticians and Co.

I followed Bogdanov's works on philosophy since his energetic book "An Historical View of Nature," which I studied while in Siberia. For Bogdanov, this position was merely a transition to other philosophical views. I met him personally in 1904, when we immediately presented each other with: I - "Steps" 144, he - one of his then current philosophical works 145. And I immediately wrote to him from Geneva to Paris (in the spring or early summer of 1904) that his writings were strongly convincing me of the incorrectness of his views and strongly convincing me of the correctness of Plekhanov's views.

When Plekhanov and I worked together, we often discussed Bogdanov. Plekhanov explained to me the erroneous nature of Bogdanov's views, but did not consider this deviation to be desperately great. I distinctly remember that in the summer of 1903, Plekhanov and I, on behalf of the editorial board of Zarya, talked with a delegate from the editorial board of "Outlines of Realistic Worldview" in Geneva, and we agreed to cooperate, I on the agrarian question, Plekhanov on philosophy against Mach 146. Plekhanov made his appearance against Mach a condition for cooperation, which the delegate of the "Outlines" editorial board fully accepted. At that time, Plekhanov viewed Bogdanov as an ally in the struggle against revisionism, but an ally who was mistaken insofar as he followed Ostwald and further, Mach.

In the summer and autumn of 1904, we finally came together with Bogdanov as Bolsheviks and concluded that silent and silently neutralizing philosophy, as a neutral area, bloc, which lasted throughout the revolution and allowed us to jointly carry through the tactics of revolutionary Social-Democracy (= Bolshevism) into the revolution, which, in my deepest conviction, was the only correct one.

During the heat of the revolution, there was little time to engage in philosophy. In prison at the beginning of 1906, Bogdanov wrote another work, apparently, the third volume of "Empiriomonism."

In the summer of 1906, he presented it to me, and I settled down to read it carefully. After reading it, I became extraordinarily angry and enraged: it became even clearer to me that he was going along a most unfaithful, non-Marxist path. I then wrote him a "declaration of love," a little letter on philosophy the size of three notebooks. There I explained to him that, of course, I am an ordinary Marxist in philosophy, but that precisely his clear, popular, excellently written works finally convinced me of his fundamental incorrectness and of Plekhanov's correctness. I showed these little notebooks to some friends (including Lunacharsky) and thought about publishing them under the title "Notes of an Ordinary Marxist on Philosophy," but I did not get around to it. Now I regret not having published them immediately. Recently, I wrote to Petersburg asking to find and send me these notebooks 147.

Now "Outlines of the Philosophy of Marxism" have come out. I read all the articles except Suvorov's (which I am reading), and with each article, I raged with indignation. No, this is not Marxism! And our empirio-criticians, empiriomonists, and empiriosymbolists are plunging into the swamp. To assure the reader that "belief" in the reality of the external world is "mysticism" (Bazarov), to confuse materialism and Kantianism in the most outrageous way (Bazarov and Bogdanov), to preach a variety of agnosticism (empiriocriticism) and idealism (empiriomonism), to teach workers "religious atheism" and "adoration" of higher human potentials (Lunacharsky), to declare Engels' teaching on dialectics to be mysticism (Berman), to draw from the stinking 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, ordinary Marxists, are not well-read in philosophy, but why insult us so much by presenting such a thing as the philosophy of Marxism!

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

I was again drawn to "Notes of an Ordinary Marxist on Philosophy," and I began writing them 148, and to A. A. - during my reading of the "Outlines" - I, of course, expressed my impressions directly and bluntly.

What does your article have to do with this? - You will ask. - And the point is that just at a time when these disagreements among the Bolsheviks threatened 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 and what would have come out in the whole. Besides, I believe that an artist can draw many useful things 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 philosophy, even if it is idealistic, you can come to conclusions that will bring great benefit to the workers' party. All this is true. Nevertheless, Proletary must remain absolutely neutral in all our disagreements in philosophy, without giving readers the slightest reason to associate the Bolsheviks, 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 dark as a thundercloud. The atmosphere of a split hung over us. Yesterday we convened a special meeting of our editorial trio to discuss the issue. 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, with a preface stating that the disagreement between Plekhanov and Bogdanov had a tendency among Russian SDs to become a factional disagreement between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks! With these words, the author of this preface, a fool or a fool, united us. We immediately agreed that a statement of our neutrality was absolutely necessary in the very first issue of Proletary. This corresponded perfectly to my mood after the publication of the "Outlines." We composed the statement, unanimously approved it, and it will appear tomorrow in No. 21 of Proletary and be sent to you*.

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

So, you will receive a letter from A. A. and from the third editor, about whom I wrote to you once before.

I consider it necessary to tell you my opinion quite straightforwardly. I now consider a certain fight between the Bolsheviks on the question of philosophy to be completely inevitable. But to split over this, in my opinion, would be foolish. We formed a bloc to carry through a certain tactic in the workers' party. We have been and are still carrying out this tactic without disagreements (the only disagreement was about the boycott of the Third Duma, but, firstly, it never sharpened between us even to a hint of a split; secondly, it did not correspond to the disagreement between the materialists and the Machists, for example, the Machist Bazarov, like me, was against the boycott and wrote a large feuilleton about it in Proletary).

* See V. I. Lenin. Collected Works, 5th ed., Vol. 16, p. 421. Ed.

Materialists and Machists, for example, the Machist Bazarov, like myself,

* See V. I. Lenin. Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 16, p. 421. Ed.

was against the boycott and wrote a large feuilleton about it in "Proletary").

To hinder the cause of implementing the tactics of revolutionary social-democracy in the workers' party over disputes about whether materialism or Machism is correct, would, in my opinion, be an inexcusable stupidity. We must fight over philosophy in such a way that "Proletary" and the Beki, as a faction of the party, are not affected by this. And this is entirely possible.

And you should, in my opinion, help with this. You can help by working in "Proletary" on neutral (i.e., not connected with philosophy) issues of literary criticism, journalism, and artistic creation, etc. As for your article, if you want to prevent a split and help localize the new fight, you should revise it: everything even indirectly related to Bogdanov's philosophy should be moved elsewhere. Thank goodness, you have other places to write besides "Proletary." All that is not connected with Bogdanov's philosophy—and a large part of your article is not connected with it—should be presented in a series of articles for "Proletary." Any other behavior on your part, i.e., refusing to revise the article or refusing to collaborate with "Proletary," will, in my opinion, inevitably lead to an escalation of the conflict among the Beki, to difficulties in localizing the new fight, and to weakening the urgent, practically and politically necessary work of revolutionary social-democrats in Russia.

This is my opinion. I have told you everything I think, and now I await your response.

We wanted to come to see you today, but it turned out that we had to postpone it for at least a week, and perhaps two or three.

I shake your hand firmly.

Yours, N. Lenin

---

Sent from Geneva to Capri Island (Italy)

First published in 1924 in the Lenin Collection I

Printed from the manuscript