Toggle menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Vladimir Lenin/Materialism and empirio-criticism - Preface to the second edition

From ProleWiki, the proletarian encyclopedia


Table of contents

  1. Prefaces
    1. Preface to the first edition
    2. Preface to the second edition
    3. In lieu of an introduction
  2. The theory of knowledge of empirio-criticism and of dialectical materialism
    1. Part I
      1. Sensations and complexes of sensations
      2. “The discovery of the world-elements”
      3. The principal co-ordination and “naive realism”
      4. Did nature exist prior to man?
      5. Does man think with the help of the brain?
      6. The solipsism of Mach and Avenarius
    2. Part II
      1. The “thing-in-itself,” or V. Chernov refutes Frederich Engels
      2. “Transcendence,” or Bazarov “revises” Engels
      3. L. Feuerbach and J. Dietzgen on the thing-in-itself
      4. Does objective truth exist?
      5. Absolute and relative truth, or the eclecticism of Engels as discovered by A. Bogdanov
      6. The criterion of practice in the theory of knowledge
    3. Part III
      1. What is matter? What is experience?
      2. Plekhanov’s error concerning the concept “experience”
      3. Causality and necessity in nature
      4. The “principle of economy of thought” and the problem of the “unity of the world”
      5. Space and time
      6. Freedom and necessity
  3. The philosophical idealists as comrades-in-arms and successors of empirio-criticism
    1. The criticism of kantianism from the Left and from the Right
    2. How the “empirio-symbolist” Yushkevich ridiculed the “empirio-criticist” Chernov
    3. The immanentists as comrades-in-arms of Mach and Avenarius
    4. Whither is empirio-criticism tending?
    5. A. Bogdanov’s “empirio-monism”
    6. The “theory of symbols” (or hieroglyphs) and the criticism of Helmholtz
    7. Two kinds of criticism of Dühring
    8. How ould J. Dietzgen have found favour with the reactionary philosophers?
  4. The recent revolution in natural science and philosophical idealism
    1. The crisis in modern Physics
    2. “Matter has disappeared”
    3. Is motion without matter conceivable?
    4. The two trends in modern Physics and English spiritualism
    5. The two trends in modern Physics, and German idealism
    6. The two trends in modern Physics and French fideism
    7. A Russian “idealist physicist”
    8. The essence and significance of “physical” idealism
  5. Empirio-criticism and historical materialism
    1. The excursions of the German empirio-criticists into the field of the social sciences
    2. How Bogdanov corrects and “develops” Marx
    3. Suvorov’s “Foundations of Social Philosophy”
    4. Parties in philosophy and philosophical blockheads
    5. Ernst Haeckel and Ernst Mach
    6. Conclusion
    7. Supplement to chapter four, section I
      1. From what angle did N. G. Chernyshevsky criticise kantianism?

With the exception of a few corrections in the text, the present edition does not differ from the previous one. I hope that, irrespective of the dispute with the Russian “Machians,” it will prove useful as an aid to an acquaintance with the philosophy of Marxism, dialectical materialism, as well as with the philosophical conclusions from the recent discoveries in natural science. As for A. A. Bogdanov’s latest works, which I have had no opportunity to examine, the appended article by Comrade V. I. Nevsky gives the necessary information.[1] Comrade V.I. Nevsky, not only in his work as a propagandist in general, but also as an active worker in the Party school in particular, has had ample opportunity to convince himself that under the guise of “proletarian culture”[2] A. A. Bogdanov is imparting bourgeois and reactionary views.

— Vladimir Lenin. 2nd September, 1920.


Footnotes

  1. V. I. Nevsky’s article “Dialectical Materialism and the Philosophy of Dead Reaction” was published in 1920 as an appendix to the second edition of the book Materialism and Empirio-criticism.
  2. A. Bogdanov put forward the idea of “proletarian culture” as early as 1909, by which he meant that the proletariat should elaborate its “own” culture in contradistinction to that of the past. After the October Socialist Revolution Bogdanov and his fellow-thinkers adopted the so-called proletarian cultrual-educational organisations (Proletcult) as the field of their activities. With the aid of this convenient rostrum, they began actively to propagade anti-Marxist views, virtually denied the importance of the cultrual inheritance of the past, and endeavoured “by laboratory methods” divorced from life to create a culture for the proletariat, counterposing the latter to the rest of the working people and above all to the peasantry. Lenin waged a consistent struggle against the separatism and sectarianism of the Proletcult and against the anti-Marxist views of its ideologists. In 1920 the Central Committee of the Party adopted a special decision on subordination of the activities of the Proletcult to the People’s Commissariat for Education. In the twenties, the Proletcult organisations began to decline and in 1932 they ceased to exist.