The Debate Between the Deborinism and Mechanism Schools

In the early 1920s, there appeared the trend of philosophical nihilism which denied the role of philosophy in the Soviet Union. The philosophical nihilists have argued that philosophy similar to religion, was a kind of speculative dogma which was separated from real life and science and it served the exploitative class, therefore, both philosophy and exploitative class should be sent to the grave together in the course of the proletarian revolution. In his article entitled “Throwing Philosophy Overboard!” published in 1922 in the magazine Under the Banner of Marxism, S. Minin, a representative of the philosophical nihilism trend of thought, argued that for the proletariat, armed with philosophy, as its “spiritual inspiration”, was not only unnecessary but also harmful, so philosophy should be thrown away completely, and that all the proletariat needed was science. This trend of philosophical nihilism was characterized by a clear naïve mechanism, and its basic view was that philosophy can be contained and replaced by the natural sciences, and that science should be used to replace philosophy entirely. In 1924, I.I. Stepanov published the article “Historical Materialism and Contemporary Natural Science”, in which he proposed: “For Marxists, there is no study field of philosophy separate and distinct from science, with a peculiar and specialized method of research. In the conception of Marxists, materialist philosophy is the latest and most general conclusion of contemporary sciences.” In his view, Marx and Engels’ methods of studying nature and natural dialectics were mechanical materialism. Therefore, “any Marxist should say directly and openly that he accepts this mechanical view of nature, adopt an understanding of nature from the point of view of mechanics.” The publication of this article marked the official formation of the mechanistic trend of thought. The mechanistic trend denies the value of materialistic dialectics as a science in its own right, and thus it shares with the philosophical nihilist trend that science itself is the philosophy and that philosophy should be set aside.

In addition to I.I.Stepanov, the philosopher Akselrod and the natural scientist Timiryazev were the representatives of the mechanistic trend. Mechanists use the view of mechanical motion to explain all phenomena in nature and society. A group of “dialecticians” led by Deborin criticized the mechanist thought, which provoked the first big debate in the history of Soviet Philosophy—the debate between Deborinists and mechanists.

In 1925, the debate between the two competing parties reached its climax. I.I. Stepanov published an article titled “Engels and the Mechanist Concept of Nature” on Engels’ Dialectics of Nature, in which he advocated his view which described Engels as a mechanist. In response to I.I. Stepanov’s article, Deborin wrote the article “Engels and the Dialectical Concept of Nature”, criticizing I.I. Stepanov’s mechanist view, especially criticized his misinterpretation of Engels’ viewpoint. Deborin pointed out that I.I. Stepanov and his colleagues actually abandoned dialectical materialism, and their viewpoint was the very metaphysical mechanism criticized by Engels in Dialectics of Nature. Until 1929, the protracted debate continued and it ended with the complete victory of the Deborinists.

The polemic was summed up at the Second All-Soviet Congress of Scientific Research Institutions on Marxism-Leninism, held at the Communist Academy from April 8 to 13, 1929.

The two resolutions adopted at the end of the Congress condemned the mechanists and made it clear that the mechanists, by replacing revolutionary dialectics with vulgar evolutionism and replaced materialism with positivism, had clearly departed from the Marxist position and were, therefore, an active revisionist group. The resolution, while also criticizing Deborinism for confusing Marxist materialistic dialectics with Hegel’s dialectics.

The polemics between the Deborinists and the mechanists, while having positive theoretical implications, have more limited social and political significance. This is because the Deborinists focused mainly on the polemic with the mechanists and confined the polemic primarily to the question of the relationship between philosophy and the natural sciences. Thus, making the study of philosophical theory unable to meet the needs of the extremely complex and urgently needed major social practices facing the Bolshevik Party in the early years of the Soviet Union. The detachment from reality was a major flaw of the Deborinists in their philosophical polemics and philosophical studies.