IMG45

Ernst Much

Othcr lcading Russian socialists who publishcd articlcs or books fa-voring Mach’s idcas includcd V. Bazarov, Anatoly Lunacharsky, and V. Valcniinov. Bazarov, cotranslator of Marx into Russian, prcparcd thc way by rcjccting much of Engcl’s philosophy of scicncc as old-fashioned and in necd of rcvision. A. V. Lunacharsky in his articlc, “The Fuiure of Rcligion" (1908), uscd his presentationalist philosophy to help rcconcilc socialism with the spirit of rcligion.³⁸ And Valentinov, in his book Ernst Mach and Marxistn (1908), madę perhaps the most determined Russian effort to ally socialism and science by mcans of Mach’s philosophy.

Revising Marxism was one thing, but redefining it in Machian terms was quitc another, yet Bazarov, Bogdanov. Lunacharsky, and Valenti-nov tried to do just that in two books, the first coauthorcd by the first threc men and titlcd The Philosophy oj Mancism (1908) and the scc-ond book written by Valentinov in the same year, The Philosophical Constructions of Marxistn. Nccdless to say, such radical daring pro* vokcd a storm from the morę “traditionar’ followcrs of Marx and Engels, and especially from the leader of the majoriiy faction of the “Russian Social Dcmocratic Workcr's Party” himsclf, Vladimir Lenin. The question was no longcr one of "modernizing” socialist doctrine, but of determining just what Mancism was so that one could distin-guish Mancists from non-Marxists and force the lattcr cither to change their opinions or to lcavc the party or at least the Bolshcvik wing of it.

IV

George Plekhanov (1857-1918) had long been the leading Russian philosophical interpreter of Marxism. In 1904 at the time of the Bo!shevik-Mcnshcvik split he sided briefly with Lenin and then took a morę independent position. Leszek Kołakowski has dcscribcd his criticisms:

Plekhanov’s writings at the time stre^sed the fact that a rcvolution can-not be succcssful unlcss the cconomic and historical condiiions arc ripc for it (the proletariat cannot seizc power beforc capitalism has reached a cer-tain stage of developmcnt). Together with Trotsky, he accused Lenin of "Blanąuism," belief in an arbitrary, “conspiratorial" attempt to speed up social dcvclopment. At the time, he saw a conncction hctwccn the Bolshc-viks’ political position and the popularity of this philosophy among them. The Russian followers of Mach wcrc unawarc of any incompatiliility lv-

V

iwcęn thcir own position and Marxism; they pointed to the Thescs on Feuerbach, which thcy interpreted in a subjccti\ist spirit.^a!'

Lenin had dccp admiration for Plckhanov despite thcir difTercnccs and hoped to bring him back into the Bolshevik fraction. Lenin be-licvcd that a tightly disciplincd party could win power in Russia by mcans of a violcnt rcvolution without necessarily having to wait umil an advanccd capitalist cconomy providcd the right opportunity for succcss. He agreed with Plckhanov that Bogdanov and his Machist followcrs wcrc taking a "subjectivi$t” philosophical course, but he denied that his own so-called Blanquism necessarily implied Bogdanov’s philosophy.⁴⁰

Lenin at this time (1904) did not publish a philosophical attack against Bogdanov, bul lic did support much of Plckhanov’s attack against the lattcr, and spccifically requested Lyubov Aksclrod to writc an article against Bolshcvik Machism (“A New Variation of Rcvi-sionism”).⁴¹ Ncithcr Plckhanov nor Aksclrod, howcver, were able to silcnce Bogdanov and his followers. Indeed, thcir philosophical influence both insidc and outsidc the fraction sccmcd to grow by leaps and bounds.

Lenin also tritd a pcrsonal approach: “I madę his [Bogdanov’s] ac-quaintancc in 1904 when I presented him with my "Steps." and he presented mc with his philosophical work of that time (Empirio-Monitni. Vol. I). I immcdiatcly wrotc him from Genewa to Paris that his writings firmly pcrsuadcd me of the incorrcctncss of his views and convinccd mc of the corrcctncss of Plckhanov’s vicws." ⁴²

Bogdanov finished the last two volumes of his opus in 1906 and oncc again Lenin expresscd his dismay, this time in a letter to Gorky: "I havc becomc unusually annoycd and angry; Bogdanov is taking an cxceedingly wrong non-Marxist linę.”⁴³

The situation was by now well out of hand. Bogdanov had combined his philosophical dcviation with a political heresy, labeled "Otzovism": Bogdanov wanted socialist deputies to boycott the Russian Duma; Lenin opposcd this policy. Perhaps the last straw camc when Bogdonov and his Machist followcrs won Maxim Gorky himsclf as a philosophical ally.⁴⁴

By this time Alexanc!er Bogdanov was widely recognizcd as the sec ond most important figurę in the Bolshevik wing, in spite of his schismatic influence. Lcnin’s finał personal attempt to changc Bogda

241