Due to some matters, my reading plan has been postponed several weeks again. Now, in order to ensure the continuation of my theoretical studies, I purchased the original text and commentary of Lenin’s “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.” I plan to focus on this original work first. The commentary I bought is very good, so while taking notes, I am also posting the auxiliary materials I collected here.
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
Explanation in the materials:
First, let’s talk about the title of this book. From the name, it has a distinct party character, marking the struggle between two philosophical lines, that is, the opposition between Marxist philosophy and revisionist philosophy.
“Empirio-Criticism” is a synonym for “Machism,” which is subjective idealism. Empirio-Criticism has two founders: one is Mach (1838-1916), an Austrian physicist and idealist philosopher; the other is Avenarius (1843-1896), a German idealist philosopher. When reading this book, we often have to interact with them.
Why do Mach and Avenarius call their philosophy Empirio-Criticism? Criticism is a term Kant used for his idealism; Mach and Avenarius believe that the task of philosophy is to critically understand experience, but the experience they refer to is different from what we mean. Their experience, which Mao Zedong explained in parentheses in “On Practice,” is the “so-called introspective experience of idealism,” which is subjective and self-generated, based on imagination rather than objective experience. The criticism they speak of is the critique of materialism’s understanding of experience.
Empirio-Criticism opponents oppose materialism, but they do not admit they are idealists; instead, they boast that their philosophy is above ultra-materialism and idealism, and is a supra-party latest philosophy. At that time, Russian revisionists used this Empirio-Criticism as their theoretical basis, using it to revise Marxist philosophy, pretending to be Marxist. Lenin directly opposed this with Marxist materialism and Empirio-Criticism, hence the title of this book, “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.”
Now, a brief introduction to the historical background of this book.
This book was written during the White Terror period after the failure of the 1905 Russian Revolution. Lenin began writing it in February 1908 and completed it by October of the same year; it was published in Moscow in May 1909. The great leader Mao Zedong taught: “The task of the Communist is to expose reactionary and metaphysical errors, propagate the true dialectics of things, promote their transformation, and achieve the revolutionary goal.” He also said: “Our comrades should be educated in dialectical materialist epistemology to correct their thoughts, investigate and research well, summarize experience, overcome difficulties, make fewer mistakes, and do good work.” Lenin’s “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” was written to oppose revisionist distortions of Marxist philosophy, to defend and develop dialectical and historical materialism, and to arm the Russian Bolsheviks and proletariat with a scientific worldview to build confidence, strengthen fighting spirit, overcome difficulties, and carry the revolution through to the end.
After the failure of the 1905 revolution, the Tsarist government implemented the White Terror, known in Russian history as the Stolypin reactionary period. The Tsarist regime formed an anti-revolutionary alliance with all reactionary parties and launched a frantic attack on revolutionary people. This anti-revolutionary alliance used arbitrary dismissals, wage reductions, blacklists, and other methods to brutally persecute workers. In rural areas, they colluded with rich peasants, forcing most farmers into bankruptcy and homelessness. Under the direct command of Minister Stolypin, the country was filled with gallows, prisons, exile stations, gendarmes, and secret agents, with thousands of revolutionaries murdered. At this time, the revolution was in a low tide.
During this reactionary period, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was in disarray. Many comrades who had infiltrated the revolution during its peak, especially some unconverted intellectuals, left the party, some became traitors or secret agents, greatly weakening the party organization. In Petrograd, there were 8,000 members in 1907, but by 1909, only three to four hundred remained, less than one twentieth. The situation in Moscow and other cities was even worse. The failure of the revolution cast a cloud of decadence and cynicism over these intellectuals, who cried and ran from one camp to another, taking sides everywhere. Mao Zedong taught us: “Intellectuals, when they have not merged with the masses’ revolutionary struggle, and have not resolutely served the interests of the masses and integrated with them, tend to have subjectivist and individualist tendencies. Their thoughts are often hollow, and their actions are often wavering. Therefore, although the vast revolutionary intellectuals in China play a pioneering and bridging role, not all of them can carry the revolution to the end. Some, at critical moments, will detach from the revolutionary team and adopt a passive attitude; a few will become enemies of the revolution.” The history of the Russian party also proves this.
Reactionary forces, while adopting suppression policies politically, also launched a large-scale ideological offensive. Democratic parties representing the bourgeoisie were the most active, exposing their reactionary nature. In 1909, a group of organizationalists published a collection called “The Guide,” summarizing their reactionary experiences from a reactionary standpoint. They openly opposed the Marxist worldview of dialectical materialism, declared a break from the 1905 revolutionary movement, and slandered the 1905 revolution, urging people to “repent and introspect,” to obey the Tsarist government, and to thank the Tsarist regime for using bayonets and forced labor to block the storm of the people. They shamelessly promoted the philosophy of traitors. Mao Zedong taught us: “Class struggle in society must be reflected within our party.” Under this double attack (one from the Tsarist government’s repression, and the other from bourgeois ideological offensive), the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party experienced great turmoil and confusion. Some disillusioned members even questioned whether to continue the revolution or switch to underground work, and how to do so. This led to a fierce ideological struggle within the party, opposing Menshevik liquidationism and Bolshevik recallism.
As early as the 1905 revolution, the Mensheviks followed an opportunist line. They claimed the revolution was bourgeois and advocated that the bourgeoisie lead it, with the proletariat merely assisting, fiercely opposing Lenin and the Bolshevik revolutionary line. As Lenin pointed out, during bourgeois revolutions, in crises, disintegration, and collapse, opportunist factions within the workers’ party inevitably either become cancelers or are captured by cancelers. The Mensheviks, represented by Potresov, openly betrayed the revolution, demanding the abolition of the secret social democratic party, organizing a legalistic workers’ party, and abandoning party program and traditions for legal recognition. Hence, they were called the Stolypin Party. This rightward tendency is known as Menshevik cancellationism.
In 1908, some Bolsheviks demanded the recall of social democratic representatives in the Tsarist Duma, known as the recall faction. They opposed the party using all legal organizations for work, effectively canceling the party’s work among the masses, so Lenin called them the reformist “recall” faction, a “left” cover for right-wing tendencies. This internal Bolshevik recallism was a line that appeared “left” in name but was actually right in essence.
The struggle between the two lines within the party ultimately boils down to a conflict of worldviews. The “left” or right cancellationism aims to abolish the revolution and the party, which fundamentally denies Marxism and the dialectical materialist worldview. Bogdanov, Bazarov, Lunacharsky, and others, who joined the Bolsheviks in 1905, and Berman, who joined in 1908, along with Yushkevich and Valentinov, who were Mensheviks, united in attacking Marxist philosophy. They launched a fierce counter-revolutionary campaign, publishing four books within half a year. They viciously attacked and slandered Marxist dialectical materialism as “mysticism,” claimed that the views of Marx and Engels were “outdated,” and used Machism to replace dialectical materialism. The opposition party worked painstakingly among the masses, creating theoretical grounds for opportunism and capitulation.
Why did the Russian revisionists choose Machism to replace dialectical materialism? Because Machism’s characteristics suited the needs of Russian revisionism. As mentioned earlier, Machism is essentially subjective idealism, but it does not openly declare itself as such. Instead, it cloaks idealism with a scientific veneer, using vague and hollow concepts to obscure its essence, claiming to be the “latest science” philosophy. Especially since Mach himself was a famous physicist, this added to its deception. This is the first characteristic of Machism. Another feature is its false neutrality, masking its class nature. They often claim their philosophy is “above parties,” “beyond materialism and idealism,” and that it overcomes their partiality, representing a “middle way” or “third road.” Because of this, Machism became popular at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, deeply infiltrating the workers’ movement and becoming the most vicious enemy of Marxist philosophy. Revisionists themselves are surrendering traitors, but they lack the courage to admit their reactionary stance, so Lenin called them “revolting while kneeling.” Their political hypocrisy and double-dealing make Machism a suitable “middle” philosophy.
Lenin once pointed out: “In philosophy, revisionism follows the ‘science’ of bourgeois professors.” Russian philosophical revisionists also adopted Machism as a fashionable weapon to oppose and attack Marxist philosophy. To thoroughly defeat Russian Machists’ revision of Marxism, defend the purity of Marxist philosophy, summarize revolutionary experiences and scientific achievements, and develop Marxist philosophical theory, Lenin wrote this important work, “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.” Stalin emphasized its significance, stating that summarizing Engels’ and Lenin’s most important scientific achievements based on materialist philosophy, and criticizing anti-materialist factions opposing Marxism from all sides, was a crucial task. It was precisely Lenin who completed this task in his masterpiece, “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.”
