On the Significance of Militant Materialism
As for the general tasks of the journal “Under the Banner of Marxism,” Comrade Trotsky has already said everything essential—and in a most masterful way—in Issues 1–2. I would like to focus on certain questions that more precisely define the content and program of the work that the journal’s editorial board has proclaimed in its introductory statement to Issues 1–2.
The statement asserts that not all those who have united around the journal “Under the Banner of Marxism” are communists; rather, they are all consistent materialists. I believe that this alliance between communists and non‑communists is absolutely indispensable and rightly defines the journal’s mission. One of the greatest—and most perilous—mistakes made by communists (as with revolutionaries in general who have successfully initiated a great revolution) is the notion that a revolution can be accomplished solely by the hands of revolutionaries themselves. On the contrary, for any serious revolutionary undertaking to succeed, it is essential to understand—and to put into practice—that revolutionaries can fulfill their role only as the vanguard of a genuinely viable, forward‑looking class. The vanguard fulfills its vanguard role only when it does not sever itself from the masses it leads, but instead truly guides the entire mass forward. Without forging alliances with non‑communists across the broadest possible range of fields of activity, there can be no question of successful communist construction.

This applies equally to the task of defending materialism and Marxism, which the journal “Under the Banner of Marxism” has undertaken. Fortunately, Russia’s leading schools of progressive thought boast a solid materialist tradition. Leaving aside G. V. Plekhanov, it suffices to mention Chernyshevsky—whose work the modern Narodniks (Popular Socialists, Socialist Revolutionaries, and the like) often retreated from, chasing after fashionable, reactionary philosophical doctrines, seduced by the glittering facade of what was purportedly the “latest word” in European science, yet unable to discern beneath that veneer the various forms of bourgeois subservience, the prejudices of the bourgeoisie, and the reactionary tendencies inherent in bourgeois ideology.
In any case, we in Russia still have—indeed, without doubt will continue to have for quite some time—materialists from among the non‑communist camp, and it is our unshakable duty to draw all adherents of consistent, militant materialism into joint efforts to combat philosophical reaction and the philosophical prejudices of so‑called “educated society.” Dühring the Elder—whom one must not confuse with his son, a writer who was as pretentious as he was unsuccessful—expressed the fundamental Marxist perspective on the dominant philosophical currents prevalent in bourgeois countries and receiving attention among their scholars and publicists, stating that, in contemporary society, philosophy professors are, in most cases, nothing more than “diploma-holding lackeys of clericalism.” 21
Our Russian intellectuals—who, like their counterparts in every other country, love to fancy themselves as the avant‑garde—are deeply averse to bringing the issue down to the level of the assessment articulated by Dühring’s words. But they dislike it precisely because the truth stings their eyes. It is enough to reflect, even briefly, on the profound state-based, then macroeconomic, then everyday, and myriad other forms of dependence that modern educated people bear toward the ruling bourgeoisie—to recognize the absolute correctness of Dühring’s sharp critique— On the Significance of Militant Materialism
of the bourgeois class. It is sufficient to recall the vast majority of fashionable philosophical movements that so frequently emerge in European countries—from those that arose in the wake of the discovery of radium, to those that now seek to latch onto Einstein—to grasp the intimate connection between the class interests and class position of the bourgeoisie, its relentless support for all manner of religious forms, and the ideological content of these trendy philosophical schools.
From the foregoing, it is clear that a journal seeking to serve as an organ of militant materialism must, first and foremost, be a militant instrument for the unwavering exposure and prosecution of all contemporary “diploma-holding lackeys of clericalism”—whether they present themselves as representatives of official science or as freelance scribblers who style themselves as “democratic leftists” or ideologically socialist publicists.
Such a journal must, secondly, be an organ of militant atheism. We do have departments—or at least state institutions—charged with carrying out this work. Yet this work is conducted with extreme sluggishness, in a thoroughly unsatisfactory manner, seemingly burdened by the overarching conditions of our truly Russian (though Soviet) bureaucratic system. It is therefore critically important that, in addition to the efforts of the relevant state institutions—both to correct and to invigorate their work—the journal dedicated to the task of becoming an organ of militant materialism should tirelessly engage in atheist propaganda and struggle. We must closely monitor all relevant literature in every language, translating it or, at the very least, summarizing and reviewing whatever is of any real value in this field.
Engels long ago advised the leaders of the modern proletariat to translate for wide popular dissemination the militant atheist literature of the late eighteenth century. 22 To our shame, we have still not done so (one of the many proofs…

…that it is far easier to seize power in a revolutionary epoch than it is to wield that power wisely. Sometimes, this sluggishness, inaction, and ineptitude on our part are excused with all manner of “high-flown” arguments—for example, the claim that the old atheistic literature of the eighteenth century has become outdated, unscientific, naïve, and so forth. Nothing could be worse than such ostensibly scholarly sophisms, which either mask pedantry or reveal a complete misunderstanding of Marxism. Of course, there is no shortage of works in the atheistic literature of eighteenth‑century revolutionaries that are unscientific and even naïve. But nothing prevents the publishers of these writings from abridging them and supplementing them with brief afterwords that point out the progress made by human beings since the late eighteenth century in the scientific critique of religion, cite relevant contemporary works, and so on. It would be a grave—and indeed the worst—mistake a Marxist could make to believe that the millions of ordinary people (especially peasants and artisans), condemned by modern society to ignorance, illiteracy, and superstition, can emerge from this darkness solely through the straightforward path of purely Marxist enlightenment. These masses must be provided with the most diverse materials for atheist propaganda; they must be introduced to facts drawn from the broadest possible range of life’s domains; they must be approached from every angle, in every possible way, in order to spark their interest, rouse them from their religious slumber, shake them awake from multiple directions and by myriad means—and much more besides.
The lively, spirited, talented, and sharply—yet openly—critical journalism of the old atheists of the eighteenth century, which boldly attacked the dominant clerical establishment, often proves to be a thousand times more effective at awakening people from their religious stupor than the dull, dry, almost entirely devoid of carefully selected factual evidence retellings of Marxism that dominate our literature—and which, let’s face it, frequently distort Marxism. All of Marx and Engels’ major works have been translated into our language. There is absolutely no reason to fear that the old atheism…

ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MILITANT MATERIALISM
and that the old materialism will remain incomplete, lacking those corrections introduced by Marx and Engels. The most crucial thing—what our so‑called Marxists often forget, though in reality they are but grotesque distortions of Marxism—is to succeed in engaging the still largely undeveloped masses in a conscious engagement with religious questions and in a deliberate, critical examination of religion.
On the other hand, take a look at the representatives of modern scientific criticism of religion. Almost always, these figures from the educated bourgeoisie “supplement” their own refutations of religious prejudices with arguments that immediately expose them as ideological servants of the bourgeoisie—“diplomated lackeys of clericalism.”
Consider two examples. In 1918, Professor R. Yu. Vipper published a small book titled “The Origins of Christianity” (published by Faros, Moscow). While recounting the main findings of contemporary scholarship, the author not only fails to confront the prejudices and deceptions that constitute the church’s weapons as a political organization; he not only sidesteps these issues altogether, but actually advances a frankly ludicrous and deeply reactionary claim: that he can rise above both “extremes”—both idealism and materialism. This is nothing less than servility toward the ruling bourgeoisie, which around the globe spends hundreds of millions of rubles—drawn from the profits extracted from working people—to prop up religion.
The renowned German scholar Arthur Drews, in his book “The Myth of Christ,” refutes religious prejudices and fables, demonstrating that no historical Jesus ever existed. Yet at the very end of the book, he advocates for religion—albeit a renewed, purified, and subtly refined form of religion, one capable of resisting “the increasingly powerful naturalistic current that grows stronger with each passing day” (p. 238, 4th German edition, 1910). This is a direct, conscious reactionary—one who openly aids the exploiters in replacing old, decaying religious prejudices with new, even more insidious and vile prejudices.

This does not mean that we should refrain from translating Drews. Rather, it means that communists—and all committed materialists—must, while forging a certain degree of alliance with the progressive elements of the bourgeoisie, relentlessly expose the bourgeoisie whenever it veers into reaction. To shy away from an alliance with the bourgeois representatives of the eighteenth century—that is, with the era when the bourgeoisie was itself revolutionary—would amount to betraying Marxism and materialism, for in one form or another, to whatever extent, an “alliance” with figures like Drews is indispensable in our struggle against the dominant forces of religious obscurantism.
The journal “Under the Banner of Marxism,” which seeks to be the organ of militant materialism, must devote ample space to atheist propaganda, to surveys of relevant literature, and to correcting the vast shortcomings in our state’s work in this field. Particularly important is the use of books and pamphlets that contain abundant concrete facts and comparisons, revealing the intricate connections between the class interests and class organizations of modern-day bourgeoisie and the institutions of religious worship and religious propaganda.23
Of utmost importance are all materials pertaining to the United States of North America, where the official, state‑sanctioned, government‑controlled nexus between religion and capital is less pronounced. Yet here, too, it becomes abundantly clear that what is commonly called “modern democracy” (before which the Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and, to some extent, anarchists and others so foolishly crash their heads) is nothing more than the freedom to preach whatever the bourgeoisie finds profitable to preach—and what is most profitable for them to preach are the most reactionary ideas: religion, superstition, the defense of exploiters, and the like.
One can only hope that a journal aspiring to be the organ of militant materialism will offer its readership surveys of atheistic literature, providing detailed assessments of which works might be suitable for particular audiences and in what respects—and pointing out what has recently appeared…

On the Significance of Militant Materialism
We have, for now, only a handful of reasonably decent translations to work with—and much more remains to be published.
Beyond forging alliances with staunch materialists who are not members of the Communist Party, it is no less, if not more, crucial for the task that militant materialism must accomplish to cultivate ties with representatives of contemporary natural science who lean toward materialism and do not shy away from defending and propagating it against the fashionable philosophical drifts toward idealism and skepticism that prevail in what is commonly referred to as “educated society.”
The article by A. Timiryazev on Einstein’s theory of relativity, published in Issues 1–2 of the journal “Under the Banner of Marxism,” gives reason to hope that the journal will succeed in cultivating this second kind of alliance as well. We must pay closer attention to it. We must bear in mind that it is precisely from the profound upheavals currently reshaping modern natural science that reactionary philosophical schools and sects, trends and sub-trends, spring up time and again. Consequently, keeping abreast of the questions raised by the latest revolution in the natural sciences—and engaging natural scientists in philosophical journals to address these questions—is a task without which militant materialism can neither truly be militant nor remain materialist in any meaningful sense. If Timiryazev had to note in the journal’s first issue that a vast multitude of representatives of the bourgeois intelligentsia across all nations had already seized upon Einstein’s theory—Einstein himself, according to Timiryazev, was not waging any active campaign against the fundamental tenets of materialism—then this applies not just to Einstein alone, but to an entire cohort, if not the majority, of great innovators in the natural sciences, beginning in the late nineteenth century.
And in order to avoid reacting to such developments in a purely instinctive or unconscious manner, we must understand that without a solid philosophical foundation, no natural science—and no materialism—can withstand the struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the resurgence of bourgeois worldviews. To endure this struggle and carry it through to complete victory, the natural scientist must be a modern materialist, a conscious advocate of the materialism expounded by Marx—that is, he must be a dialectical materialist. To achieve this goal, the staff of the journal “Under the Banner of Marxism” must organize systematic study of Hegel’s dialectics from a materialist perspective; namely, that dialectics which Marx put into practical use both in his “Capital” and in his historical and political writings—and which he employed with such success that today, as new classes awaken to life and to struggle in the East (Japan, India, China)—that is, among those hundreds of millions of human beings who constitute the vast majority of the Earth’s population and whose historical inertia and prolonged slumber have, until now, perpetuated stagnation and decay in many of Europe’s most advanced states—each day, as new peoples and new classes rise to life, Marxism is increasingly vindicated. Of course, the task of studying, interpreting, and propagating Hegel’s dialectics in this way is extraordinarily demanding, and it is certain that our initial efforts in this regard will be fraught with errors. But only those who do nothing never make mistakes. Drawing upon how Marx applied Hegel’s dialectics in a materialistically informed manner, we can—and indeed must—develop this dialectics from every angle: publishing excerpts from Hegel’s major works in the journal, interpreting them from a materialist standpoint while illustrating their application through Marx’s own use of dialectics, and also drawing upon the rich array of dialectical examples found in the realms of economic and political relations—examples that recent history, especially the modern imperialist war and the revolutionary upheaval, has yielded in abundance. In my view, the editorial board and staff of the journal “Under the Banner of Marxism” should form something akin to a “society of materialist friends of Hegel’s dialectics.”

On the Significance of Militant Materialism
Contemporary natural scientists will find—insofar as they know how to search, and insofar as we learn to assist them—in Hegel’s dialectically interpreted materialism a host of answers to those philosophical questions that the revolution in natural science has brought to the fore—and to which the intellectual adherents of bourgeois fashion so often retreat in reaction.
Without setting such a goal for itself and systematically pursuing it, materialism cannot be militant materialism. As Shchedrin once put it, it will remain less a force that fights than one that is fought. Without this, even leading natural scientists will, as often as before, find themselves helpless in their philosophical conclusions and generalizations. For natural science is advancing at such a rapid pace, undergoing a period of profound revolutionary upheaval in every field, that philosophy is absolutely indispensable to natural science in every respect.
To conclude, let me offer an example that does not pertain to the realm of philosophy—but which, in any case, relates to the sphere of social issues, to which the journal “Under the Banner of Marxism” likewise seeks to devote its attention.
This is but one example of how so‑called “science” in the modern era often serves, in reality, as a conduit for the crudest and most abhorrent reactionary views.
Recently, I received Issue 1 of Volume 24 of the journal “The Economist,” published by the Eleventh Department of the Russian Technical Society. The young communist who sent me this journal—likely having had little time to peruse its contents—unwisely expressed a highly favorable opinion of it. In truth, the journal is, though I cannot say how consciously, an organ of modern-day serfholders, cloaked, of course, in the mantle of scientific rigor, democratic principles, and the like.
A certain Mr. P. A. Sorokin publishes in this journal extensive, ostensibly “sociological” studies entitled “On the Impact of War.” The scholarly article is replete with learned citations to the author’s own “sociological” works, as well as to the numerous foreign mentors and colleagues who have shaped his thinking. Such, then, is his scholarly erudition:

On page 83, I read:
“Out of every 10,000 marriages in Petrograd, there are now 92.2 divorces—a figure that is nothing short of fantastic. Of the 100 marriages that are dissolved, 51.1 had lasted less than one year; 11% had lasted less than a month; 22% had lasted less than two months; 41% had lasted between three and six months; and only 26% had endured for more than six months. These figures make it clear that modern, legally sanctioned marriage is, in essence, a façade concealing extramarital sexual relations—and it provides those who indulge in ‘strawberry’ affairs with a ‘legitimate’ means to satisfy their appetites” (“The Economist,” No. 1, p. 83).
There is no doubt that both this gentleman and the Russian Technical Society—which publishes the journal and features such arguments within its pages—claim to be champions of democracy and would regard it as the greatest insult were they to be called what they truly are: feudal landlords, reactionaries, “diplomated lackeys of clericalism.”
Even a cursory examination of the marital, divorce, and illegitimate‑children legislation in bourgeois countries—as well as of the actual state of affairs in this regard—will reveal to anyone genuinely interested in these issues that modern bourgeois democracy, even in the most ostensibly democratic bourgeois republics, manifests itself in precisely this way: as a form of feudalism toward women and toward children born out of wedlock.
Of course, this does not prevent the Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, certain anarchists, and all the corresponding parties in the West from continuing to cry out about democracy—and about how the Bolsheviks allegedly violate it. In truth, it is the Bolshevik Revolution that stands as the only consistently democratic revolution when it comes to matters such as marriage, divorce, and the status of illegitimate children. And yet this is an issue that directly affects the interests of more than half of any nation’s population. For the first time, despite the countless bourgeois revolutions that preceded it—and which styled themselves as democratic—the Bolshevik Revolution waged a resolute struggle in this very domain, combating not only reactionary tendencies

ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MILITANT MATERIALISM
and feudalism alike, but also the pervasive hypocrisy of the ruling and propertied classes.
If Mr. Sorokin regards 92 divorces per 10,000 marriages as a fantastical figure, then one must either conclude that the author has lived and been raised in some monastery so utterly isolated from real life that few would believe such a monastery could ever exist—or that he is deliberately distorting the truth in service of reaction and the bourgeoisie. Anyone with even a basic understanding of social conditions in bourgeois countries knows that the actual number of de facto divorces (certainly those not sanctioned by either church or law) is immeasurably higher everywhere. Russia differs from other nations in this respect only in that its laws do not sanctify hypocrisy or the powerless status of women and their children; instead, in the name of state authority, they openly declare a systematic war against all forms of hypocrisy and all forms of legal disenfranchisement.
The Marxist journal will have to wage war against these modern “educated” feudal lords as well. Indeed, a significant portion of them even receive state funding and serve in government positions devoted to the education of youth—though for this very purpose, they are no more fit than notorious corruptors would be suited to serving as supervisors in schools for younger children.
The working class in Russia has succeeded in seizing power—but it has yet to learn how to wield it effectively. For if it had, it would long ago have politely dispatched such teachers and members of learned societies to the lands of bourgeois “democracy.” There, such feudal lords would find their true place.
If only they had the desire to learn.
March 12, 1922.
“Under the Banner of Marxism,” No. 3, March 1922.

Signed: N. Lenin

Printed according to the text of the journal “Under the Banner of Marxism.”