Originally published in “Morning Glow” magazine, Issue 1, 1975, by Gao Yilong
In May 1907, a fifth congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was held in an old, narrow wooden church on the outskirts of London. The Russian revolutionary writer Gorky, as a formal delegate, came from Italy. When Lenin saw Gorky, he shook his hand happily and talked about Gorky’s recently completed long novel “Mother.” Lenin praised: “This is a very timely book. Many workers have unconsciously and spontaneously participated in the revolutionary movement. Now, reading ‘Mother,’ they will certainly benefit greatly.” Why did Lenin evaluate this novel so highly? This was no coincidence. In “Mother,” Gorky created heroic images of the proletariat, such as the young Russian worker Pavel Vlasov and his mother Nirovna. They differed from workers depicted in past literary works; they no longer confined themselves to protesting capitalist crimes but clearly realized the grand historical mission of the working class and fought tenaciously to realize revolutionary ideals. This had never happened before in the history of literature. Therefore, even before “Mother” was published as a standalone book, the Tsarist censors reported that the novel “notably shows complete and clear sympathy for socialist ideas” and “incites rebellion.” The Tsarist government not only banned and destroyed copies but also issued a wanted notice for Gorky. However, the truth cannot be suppressed. The workers warmly welcomed “Mother,” and the novel was quickly translated into many European languages and widely circulated. Lenin’s high regard for “Mother” was not only because it was the first in literary history to shape the heroic image of the proletarian revolutionary but also because it played a powerful role in mobilizing the revolution at that time; moreover, it was also because he was pleased to see Gorky’s worldview shift and progress. Like Marx and Engels, Lenin always valued the growth of the proletarian literary team and cared more about the authors than their works. For the proletariat to dominate the field of arts, such a team was indispensable. The extensive literary criticism left by revolutionary mentors fully proves this point. Although Gorky started as a child laborer, wandering everywhere and suffering various oppressions and exploitation, as a writer, despite exposing Tsarist darkness and people’s suffering in his works, he had not yet broken free from bourgeois worldview. It was only when he began reading Lenin’s articles published in “Iskra” that he gradually clarified the nature of Russian society, revolutionary motivation, and tasks. Gorky candidly said: “In Bolsheviks, in Lenin’s writings, I felt a true revolutionary spirit.” Under Lenin’s guidance, Gorky actively participated in the 1905 Russian Revolution and, based on his experiences in this revolutionary practice, created the first shining model of a proletarian revolutionary in literary history. “Mother” marked Gorky’s beginning to use Marxist worldview to guide his creation, entering a new era. At that time, Gorky was an influential writer. His transformation and progress would inevitably trigger a chain reaction, prompting other writers to change their stance. This was also one of the reasons why Lenin especially valued “Mother.” However, a worldview shift is a long and painful process, especially for intellectuals. Gorky’s ideological path was extremely tortuous. Originally, he intended to continue shaping the heroic image of the proletarian revolution and planned to write a novel “Son” as a continuation and development of “Mother.” Lenin actively encouraged and urged him to realize this plan. But because Gorky had not thoroughly severed ties with bourgeois philosophy and literary views, and lacked the ability to criticize revisionism, by 1908 he had fallen into the trap of Machism and “god-building” advocated by Bogdanov and others. As a result, he could not complete the revolutionary novel “Son” and instead wrote a novel “Confession” with serious errors. “Confession” exudes a dark and gloomy tone throughout and is a mid-length novel Gorky was later very dissatisfied with. Its protagonist, Matvey, is an orphan who grew up in humiliation and suffering. He longed to find God and truth, experiencing the bitterness and hardships of the world, and finally concluded that a new just and loving God must be created. The book shouts at the end: “God is the consistent demand of people’s psychology, created by their own thoughts.” This novel reflected a significant regression in Gorky’s worldview. In “Mother,” Gorky was full of confidence in the cause of the proletarian revolution, believing that the working class could liberate itself, exemplified by Pavel and his mother Nirovna, embodying the excellent qualities and forward path of Russian revolutionary workers in the early 20th century. But in “Confession,” the heroic images of the proletariat disappeared, leaving a bunch of gray and pitiful characters, ultimately hoping for a newly created God. Who would create it? The working class does not need a savior; thus, the creators of God could only be a handful of bourgeois agents like Bogdanov. This worldview mistake led to political and artistic missteps, placing Gorky on the edge of a dangerous abyss. At this critical moment, Lenin sharply criticized Gorky, pointing out: “Regarding materialism as a worldview, I think that in essence, you and I are not in agreement.” Gorky often emphasized his disinterest in philosophy, believing that philosophy conflicted with his personal subjective experience. In fact, like the natural scientists Engels criticized, who initially thought “only by ignoring or insulting philosophy can one be liberated from its shackles,” most became “the worst slaves of philosophy.” (“Dialectics of Nature”) Gorky’s neglect of Marxist philosophy and failure to criticize bourgeois ideology ultimately made him a prisoner of bourgeois philosophy. The shift from “Mother” to “Confession” reflects this process. Lenin’s education of Gorky fully embodied the spirit of clarifying thoughts and uniting comrades—on one hand, maintaining principled criticism, and on the other, offering enthusiastic help. In his book “Materialism and Empiriocriticism,” Lenin thoroughly criticized Bogdanov’s reactionary philosophy but repeatedly educated Gorky, who was blinded by this reactionary philosophy, on worldview issues. In late July 1910, Lenin took a ship from Marseille to Italy, arriving in Naples on August 1, then went to Capri to visit Gorky. Gorky greeted Lenin at the dock. Upon meeting, Lenin said to Gorky: “I know, Aleksei Maksimovich, you always hope I can reconcile with Machism, although I already told you in advance in my letter: this is impossible. Please do not entertain such thoughts.” On the way to the residence, Gorky said: “Since my youth, I have developed a bad habit of not believing in any philosophy. To me, the world is growing, but philosophy slaps it in the face, inappropriately asking: where are you going? Why?” Then he made a metaphor: “Philosophy is like a woman, possibly very unattractive, even ugly, but if she is dressed cleverly and attractively, people will treat her as a beauty.” Lenin laughed and said: “Hmm, that’s a humorous way of speaking. But what you said about the world just beginning and growing is really good. Think carefully about it, and from that starting point, you will reach the place you should have already reached.” In Capri, Lenin and Gorky rowed boats, fished, and visited nearby Naples Museum, Pompeii ruins, and Vesuvius. He patiently and carefully influenced Gorky’s thoughts, guiding him back onto the right path. At that time, Bogdanov, Bazarov, and others were also in Capri, and Lenin fought against them mercilessly. Once, Lenin and Gorky directly questioned Bogdanov: “Please explain, what does your ‘substitute’ give to the working class? Why is Machism more revolutionary than Marxism?” Bogdanov stammered trying to explain but increasingly failed to justify himself, and even Gorky found his words vague. Lenin said: “Forget it, someone—I think it was Joliot—once said: ‘Telling the truth is better than being a minister.’ I want to add: better than being a Machist.” After returning to Paris from Capri, Lenin continued to write to Gorky, guiding him to understand the correctness of the Party’s line, clarifying materialism and criticizing idealism, and politically encouraging him to distance himself from Bogdanov. His letters were filled with passionate words, including concern for Gorky’s health and life. With Lenin’s education and help, Gorky finally decided to break with the Bogdanov faction.
Bogdanov and Lenin playing chess, with Gorky in the middle, taken in Capri, 1908
However, truly establishing a firm Marxist worldview is not easy. This long process involves constant setbacks and struggles. In 1913, Moscow Art Theatre staged a reactionary novel “The Demons” by Dostoevsky, and Gorky responded with two articles protesting and criticizing it. Lenin read these and initially felt pleased; but when he saw the phrase “You have no God there, you haven’t created one yet. Do not seek God, create God,” he immediately wrote two long letters to Gorky, sincerely saying: “While reading your articles, I was exploring how such a slip could happen in your writing. I find it inexplicable. What is going on? Is it residual from that ‘Confession’ you also disapprove of? Or its aftershock?” Lenin clearly saw that although Gorky publicly broke with Bogdanov’s group politically, he had not thoroughly severed his worldview. Therefore, although he was dissatisfied with the reactionary novel “Confession” that expressed idealist errors, under certain circumstances, he unconsciously repeated the same mistakes. Lenin sharply pointed out to Gorky that the difference between the heresy of seeking God and the heresy of creating or building God was not much different from the difference between yellow ghosts and blue ghosts. The proletariat does not need any gods. Belief in gods essentially means distrust of the power of the working class. Any form of heresy of creating gods is just a sweet poison wrapped in sugar. The mountains cannot hide the eastward flow. With Lenin’s help, Gorky finally corrected his errors step by step, and before the October Revolution, he produced many excellent revolutionary works. Lenin’s criticism and help for Gorky embodied the concern and expectations of the proletarian revolutionary mentors for proletarian literature, from which we can still draw profound lessons today. Art is a form of ideology, a superstructure. Artists reflect social life and create artistic images, which are always governed by a certain class’s worldview. Since liberation, the fierce struggle within the art field between two classes and two lines ultimately boils down to whether to follow Marxism or revisionism. Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao, in their sinister schemes to restore capitalism, distorted the political direction of socialist art, promoting various idealist fallacies and using reactionary bourgeois worldview to corrupt and disintegrate the artistic team. Under the poison of reactionary art, neglecting to study Marx and Lenin’s works and Mao’s writings, and abandoning the transformation of worldview, led to political and artistic confusion and deviation. There are many painful lessons in this. Since the Cultural Revolution, especially after the campaign against Lin Biao and Confucius, socialist artistic creation has flourished. The historical and current class struggle experience tells us that only by firmly establishing the Marxist worldview can we see through and crush the heresies of idealism and metaphysics spread by a few Lin Biao types, reflect the essence of our great era through the heroic images of the proletariat, and enable art to flourish along the direction pointed by Chairman Mao. Using the Marxist worldview as guidance is the soul of proletarian art and the fundamental difference between proletarian art and all exploitative and old art. We must unwaveringly uphold this, work tirelessly, and fight a long-term battle. Chairman Mao’s “On Contradiction” and “On Practice” inherit, defend, and develop Marxist philosophy, and we should study them carefully. Using the Marxist worldview as guidance is the soul of proletarian art and the fundamental difference between proletarian art and all exploitative and old art. We must unwaveringly uphold this, work tirelessly, and fight a long-term battle. Chairman Mao’s “On Contradiction” and “On Practice” inherit, defend, and develop Marxist philosophy, and we should study them diligently.