V. I.

Lenin

MATERIALISM and EMPIRIO-CRITICISM

Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy

T here are four standpoints from which a Marxist must proceed to form a judgment
of empirio-criticism.

First and foremost, the theoretical foundations of this
philosophy must be compared with those of dialectical materialism. Such a comparison, to which the first three
chapters were devoted, reveals, along the whole line of epistemological problems, the thoroughly reactionary character of empirio-criticism, which uses
new artifices, terms and subtleties to disguise the old errors
of idealism and agnosticism . Only utter ignorance of the nature of philosophical materialism generally and of the
nature of Marx’s and Engels’ dialectical method can lead one
to speak of “combining” empirio-criticism and
Marxism.

Secondly, the place of empirio-criticism, as one very small
school of specialists in philosophy, in relation to the other
modern schools of philosophy must be determined. Both Mach and
Avenarius started with Kant and, leaving him, proceeded not
towards materialism, but in the opposite direction, towards
Hume and Berkeley. Imagining that he was “purifying experience” generally, Avenarius was in fact only
purifying agnosticism of Kantianism. The whole school of Mach
and Avenarius is moving more and more definitely towards
idealism, hand in hand with one of the most reactionary of the
idealist schools, viz ., the so-called immanentists.

Thirdly, the indubitable connection between Machism and one
school in one branch of modern science must be borne in
mind. The vast majority of scientists, both generally and in
this special branch of science in question, viz ., physics, are invariably on the side of materialism.

A minority of new physicists, however, influenced by the breakdown of old
theories brought about by the great discoveries of recent
years, influenced by the crisis in the new physics, which has
very clearly revealed the relativity of our knowledge, have,
owing to their ignorance of dialectics, slipped into idealism
by way of relativism. The physical idealism in vogue today is
as reactionary and transitory an infatuation as was the
fashionable physiological idealism of the recent past.

Fourthly, behind the epistemological scholasticism of empirio-criticism one must not fail to see the struggle of
parties in philosophy, a struggle which in the last analysis
reflects the tendencies and ideology of the antagonistic
classes in modern society. Recent philosophy is as partisan as
was philosophy two thousand years ago. The contending parties
are essentially, although it is concealed by a pseudo-erudite
quackery of new terms or by a feeble-minded non-partisanship,
materialism and idealism. The latter is merely a subtle,
refined form of fideism, which stands fully armed, commands
vast organisations and steadily continues to exercise influence on the masses, turning the slightest vacillation in
philosophical thought to its own advantage. The objective,
class role of empirio-criticism consists entirely in rendering
faithful service to the fideists in their struggle against
materialism in general and historical materialism in particular.

---
Notes: