Date: 1908-03-24
Source: ru:PSS/v47

Source: PSS vol 47

You must understand—and you will, of course— that once a party member has come to the firm conviction of the utter fallacy and harmfulness of a particular doctrine, he is duty-bound to speak out against it. I would not have made such a fuss if I had not become absolutely certain (and the more I delve into the primary sources of Bazarov’s, Bogdanov’s, and Co.’s wisdom, the more firmly I am convinced each day) that their book is nothing but absurd, pernicious, philistine, priestly through and through—from its very branches down to its roots, right up to Mach and Avenarius. Plekhanov is entirely correct in his fundamental critique of them; he simply lacks the skill—or perhaps the will, or maybe just the inclination—to articulate this clearly, thoroughly, straightforwardly, without needlessly intimidating the public with philosophical subtleties. And I, for my part, will say it in my own way, come what may.

What “reconciliation” could there possibly be here, dear A. M.? For heaven’s sake, it’s laughable even to mention such a thing. Conflict is utterly inevitable. And party members must direct their efforts not toward glossing over, postponing, or evading the issue, but rather toward ensuring that the party’s indispensable work remains undisturbed. You must take care of this—and nine-tenths of Russia’s backroom operatives will gladly assist you in doing so, and they will be deeply grateful.

How can this be achieved? By “neutrality”? No. There can be no neutrality—and there never will be—in a matter like this. If one can speak of neutrality at all, it is only in a conditional sense: we must keep this entire quarrel separate from the faction itself. Up to now, you have written “on the sidelines,” outside of factional publications—continue to do so. Only in this way can the faction remain uncommitted, uninvolved, and spared from being forced tomorrow or the day after to make decisions, to cast votes, to turn what began as a heated dispute into a chronic, protracted, hopeless conflict.

That is why I oppose the publication of any kind of philosophy in Journal 156. I know I’ll be criticized for this: some will accuse me of trying to silence others while I myself have yet to open my mouth! But think it through calmly.

Journal with Philosophy. No. 1—three articles by Bazarov, Bogdanov, and Lunacharsky attacking Plekhanov. One article of mine, arguing that “Essays on the Philosophy of Marxism” is nothing less than Berdyaevism and clericalism.

No. 2—three times three articles by Bogdanov, Bazarov, and Lunacharsky, hurling vitriol at Plekhanov and Lenin in an increasingly strident tone. One article of mine, which on the other side demonstrates that “Essays on the Philosophy of Marxism” is, in fact, clericalism.

No. 3—howling and abusive rhetoric!

I could write six or twelve articles against “Essays on the Philosophy of Marxism,” one article for each author and for each side of their respective views. Could this go on indefinitely? How long can it continue? Will it not inevitably lead to schism, fueled by endless escalation and mounting bitterness? Will it not end up binding the faction to a resolution: “Resolve the matter once and for all—settle the ‘debate’ with a vote…”

Think carefully about this—if you fear schism. Will practical activists really take up the task of distributing books embroiled in such “battles”? Is there not a better path? Write as before, on the sidelines, outside of factional publications. Let the faction wait—for now, let the battle rage on the fringes.

In my view, the only way to mitigate the inevitable rise in animosity is precisely this.

You write that the Mensheviks will benefit from the quarrel. You are mistaken—deeply mistaken, A. M.! They will win only if the Bolshevik faction fails to distance itself from the philosophy of those three “backroom operators.” Then they will triumph once and for all. But if the philosophical skirmish continues to unfold outside the faction, then the Mensheviks will ultimately be reduced to mere politics—and therein lies their doom.

I say: separate the quarrel from the faction. Of course, carrying out this separation among living people is no easy task—it is painful, indeed. It takes time. It requires caring comrades. Here, the practical activists can help—and you, too, must lend a hand—this is where “psychology” comes into play, where you must take the reins, armed with books in hand. I believe you could do much to help here—if, of course, after reading my book* against “Essays,” you do not fall into the same furious rage against me that I have fallen into against them.

Think carefully about the journal and reply to me soon. I am somewhat uncertain whether it is worth our traveling together to see you now. Why needlessly fray our nerves over matters that can hardly be avoided? “Farewell ceremonies”… but without conflict, we cannot truly part. Wouldn’t it be better to skip the long negotiations and the solemn formalities?

* Referring to the book “Materialism and Empiriocriticism” (see Collected Works, 5th ed., Vol. 18). Ed.