IMG44

Err.st Mach

I must leli you with rcgrci tliat our ncw philosophical socicty has taken a comical dircciion: aggressivc orthodox-positivism one could cali it. Frcc-dom of thought has bccn cxdudrd. I walkcd out. The gentlcmcn could noi conccivc that positive science and philosophical posilivism arc iwo dificrcni things, ihat ihc firsl has nevcr hccn so strong and the sccond ncvcr so wcak. 1 lence, I am oncc again conipletcly alonc, likc an island. . . .-’⁰

By this timc, howcvcr, Mach’s philosophical influence had hecomc if noi rcally wcll entrcnchcd, al least widcly circulated. Mach had scveral highly enihusiastic Russinn corrcspondcnts. Dr. W. Sharwin wrotc cxuberant leticrs from Moscow (1906).™ Alexander Jollos cagerly adopted Mach‘s philosophy al Heidelberg and afrer his return 10 Moscow (1908) vigorously helpcd spread MachN idcas.³¹ Mach’s point of view also had numerous su[)porters in the Ukrainę. Lcvintov, an Odessa student, was cspccially attractcd (1901) to Mach’s rcjection of Du Bois-Rcymond’s philosophy of science/² Gottesmann in Kicv cven as latc at 1911 was iinpresscd by the continuing incrcasc of Machs philosophical influence.³³ Engelmcyer in 1912 spoke of Machs impact in Kharkov.³⁴

Mach had an cspccially interesting corrcspondcncc with dic Ukrai-nian Vladimir Nocholowich (1908-1911) who was first a student at Yckaterinoslav (Dncpropctrovsk) and latcr—following Mach’s advice— at the Tcchnical Univcrsiry of Ziirich. Nochotowich has given an interesting glimpsc from a non-Marxist point of view of Mach’s contro-versial impact on Russian socialist ideology. (Betwcen 1905 and 1917 there was a measurc of press freedom in Russia.) The letter was dated Fcbruary 26. 1910:

It is probahly not unknown to you that at present many circlcs in Russia havc dircctcd their attention to your ideas. But evcn beyond this (which I think will surprisc you a great deal) vioIent newspaper battlcs arc being fought around your namc. Thcrc is evcn a spccial exprcssion “Machism.” You may ask, what havc you donc to causc this. And in fact you arc only a passivc originator of this conflict.

You arr known herc morc as an F.inpirio-Criticist than studied 3S a scicn-tist, with the result being the abovc-mcntioncd battlcs in the Marxisi carnp.³⁵

in

In order to understand Mach’s influence on prominent Russian so-cialistó lei mc start by rnentioning that few socialists had a reliablc

Pohtics, Russia. and Vladimir Lenin

undcrstanding of the cpistemological and ontological assumptions of Marx and Engels, and that all socialists had not yet concluded that the reccntly dcad Marx (1883) and Engels (1895) had providcd the finał answer to all philosophical as well as all social and economic prob-lcms. Many socialists bclicvcd tliat Marx’s "scicntific socialism” could be strcngthened and popularizcd by linking it with the most modern philosophy of science hcld by a large number of practicing scicntists thcmselvc$. For the large number of Russians who had studied at Zurich, or who had bccn taught by professors who had studied there, this could only mcan that Marxism should be upd3tcd by the “Empirio-Criticism” of Mach and Avcnarius. Many socialists honesrly helicvcd, as did many Central Europeans, that Machs philosophy of science had swept away the “mctaphysięaT past and that it represented not only the ideology of current science but of futurę science as wcll.^K

The most important Bolshevik followcr of Ernst Mach was Alcxan-der Bogdanov (1873-1928). He was influcnced toward phenomenalism by the Russian author V. V. Lesevich, a former student of Avcnarius.³' Bogdanov has bccn accused of passing through scveral different philosophical positions in the course of less than a decadc (1899-1908) with OstwakTs “Energcticism" immediatcly prcccding his switch to Machs “Elementism,” but whether thcsc shifts havc been cxaggeratcd by critics or not, his major philosophical work, Empirio-Monism (3 vols.; 1904-1906), was clcarly in the prcsentationalist spirit of Mach and Avcnarius. Bogdanov bccamc the most conspicuous Russian “Machist” with his prcfacc to the first Russian edition of Mach’s Analysis of Sen- ; sations (1907). This prcfacc, “What Should the Russian Reader Look for in Mach?,” bccamc extremcly controvcrsiaJ. Non-Marxists were annoyed by its polidcal orientation, and many socialists opposcd its philosophical “idealism.” Dr. Scharwin, an anti-Marxist, protested in the foliowing letrer to Mach, dated October 4, 1907:

It is very dcfinitcly to be regretted that Mr. Bogdanov has taken so much irouble to writc such a completely unsuitable prcfacc to your work. This juxtaposition clashes so disharmoniously, as if someonc wanted to play Offenbach as an introduction to Bccthovcn’s Fifth Symphony. Why this agitation handbill? Why docs “comrade” Bogdanov polemicizc againsc “comradc" Pleklianov? What has Carl Marx and ”thc rcvolutionarv prole tariat" to do with your Analysis? This prcfacc can only have a vcrv dninag ing cffcct, nnturally not for your tnajestic work. but for the unknowing pcoplc who will lay your book aside becausc of Bogda nov’> work. without ever becoming acquaintcd with the bcauty of your idcas.

239