IMG47

Ernst Mach

catcd members of thc communist movcmcm to grasp thc diffcrcnce.

A conscqucncc of this difficulty was Lcnin’s dccision to usc cxtrcmcly abusivc and pcrsonal languagc against his philosophical opponcnts. If hc could not pcrsuadc thcm at least hc could insult their intclligcnce, frighten thcm, or somehow intimidatc thcm. Though thc mcans wcrc somcwhat brutal, hc was as wc know, succcssful. On thc othcr band, hc also gaincd a numbcr of intćntional philosophical allics, who thought they acccptcd Lcnin s understandmg of thc philosophical assumptions of “dialcctical matcrnalism " but who actuaUy did not, mostly again, bccausc of lack of clarity ovcr thc diffcrcnces bctwccn rcprescntationalist and prcscntationalist cpislcmology.

Lenin took cspccial cxccption to Bogdanov’s tricky “rcnunciation” of most aspects of Mach‘s philosophy wliilc retaining cpistcmological presentationalism (along with Mach’s “ncutral monism,” “elcmcntism,” theory of “funcdonal rclations," and othcr theories):

Bogdanov, arguing against Plckhanov in 1906, wrotc: "I cannot own mysclf a Machian in philosophy. In thc generał philosophical conccption therc is only one thing I borrowed from Mach—thc idea of thc neutrality of the elcmcnts of exprrience in relation to thc 'physical' and ‘psychical/ and thc depcndcncc of thcsc charactcristics solcly on thc connection of cx-pcricncc.” This is as though a religious man wcrc to say—r cannot own mysclf a bclicvcr in rcligion, for there is "only one thing" I havc borrowed from thc bclicvcrs—thc belief in God. This “one thing” which Bogdanov borrowed from Mach is thc basie error of Machism, thc basie falsity of iis entire philosophy.⁴⁰

Besides clarifying thc philosophical assumptions of what has subsc-qucntly bccn labclcd “Mamsm-Leninism," the leader of thc Bolshcvik wing also challcngcd Bogdanov’s contcntion that Machism was thc philosophy of science held by most up-to-date scicntists themseWes. Lenin argucd that most scicntists wcrc materialists in practice rcgardlcss of their philosophical opinions or those of most philosophers of science, and that Machism or Empirio-Criticism far from bcing “modern” was dcrivcd from and closcly rcsemblcd thc idcalistic yiews of Bishop Berkeley, who had livcd almost two ccnturies bcforc.⁶⁰ Fmthcrmorc, as thc bishop himsclf gladly admitted, his vicws wcrc adopted not to aid science but to protcct thc Christian rcligion from attacks cmanating from “aihcistic” discovcrics rnade by science.

Lenin probably could have strcngthcned his case against prcscntationalist philosophy of science had hc introduccd morc cxamplcs of its

unfortunatc ctfect on thc dcvelopment of science, particularly the pre-sentationalist opposition of Cardinal Bcllarmine to Galileo and to the Copernican theory, of Mach to the atomie theory, and of Pcarson to Mendcls theory. Lenin’s timing, howcvcr, was exccllcnt. His book, Maferialism and Empirio-Criticism, pcrfcctly "crossed the T " of four books by Mach in Russian rranslntion, all launched in i^.⁶¹ Even morę important—and fortuiious—Max Planck’s bitter criticisms of Mach’s philosophy, and incrcascd evidcncc for thc reality of atoms and moleeules, coincidcd almost exactly wirh thc publication of Lcnins book so that one of Lcnin’s major purposes, to prove that Mach’s philosophy was not idcntical with thc vicws of most up-to-date scien-tists, was accomplishcd. cvcn if not primarily by mcans of his own book.

Lenin did not cxprcss, but clcarly belicvcd in, a sccond linę of argument against all Machist and presentationalist philosophy. Lenin re-alized that causal rcprescntationalist philosophy, was compatible with understanding action in terms of particular forces located at particular placcs and times and that presentationalist philosophy with its rcliance on "mathcmatical functions” was not. ‘ Forcclcss” cxplanation might have valuc in kinematics or in understanding ideał types of problcms, but whcrc thc problcms wcrc particular and real as in politics, and Bol-shevism was a political movcment, a reliablc understanding of forcc in generał and of historical forccs in particular was a ncccssity for political survival, let alone victory. Given the need to understand and usc force in a practical and cffcctive way, Bolshevism had to bc based on a rep resentationalist, and hcncc “anti-Machian," philosophy.

Lenin had originally welcomed Bogdanov and his Machist followers into the BoIshcvik wing of thc party. Indecd, immcdiately after the Bolshcvik-Mcnshevik split Lenin necdcd all thc supporters hc could muster, but with his own incrcasing emphasis on violent revolution as a mcans of taking power, on the need for a morę disciplincd fraction, and on his desirc to place morę members of “the working class" in positions of authority in a workers party, it bccame morę and morę cvident that “intcllectuals” with no practical grasp of force in cither causal understanding or political action had no place in thc upper cchclons of thc fraction or perhaps cvcn in thc party.

Bogdanov, himsclf, gave some dctails on his own decline and fali: "In thc sum mer of 1909 Krasin and mysclf wcrc e\pcllcd as lcft Bol-sheviks from the Bolshcvik 'Zentrum* . . . and in January 1010 with

^45