Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
Lenin’s work which criticizes the ideological trend of idealist philosophy, systematically expounds dialectical materialism and historical materialism, especially the important philosophical works of Marxist epistemology. It was written in Geneva and London between February—October 1908 and published by Zerno Book Publishers in May 1909. This work has been translated into more than 20 languages.
The Chinese translation is included in Vol. 18 of the second revised edition of Complete Works of Lenin.
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism consists of prefaces to two editions, the “lieu of introduction”, six chapters of the main body, and a conclusion part. The prefaces to two editions explain the reasons and purposes for writing this book.
In the “Lieu of Introduction”, Lenin examines the philosophical relationship between Berkeley, Hume, Mach, and Bogdanov, exposing the theoretical sources of the subjective idealism of Russian revisionist philosophy.
In the first three chapters, Lenin revealed the opposition between materialism and idealism in two aspects of the fundamental problems of philosophy, exposed the theoretical origin and ideological essence of empirio-criticism, and illustrated the epistemological errors of Machism disguised in new terminology and sophistry.
In the first chapter, Lenin presents two opposing lines of understanding, exposing the theoretical essence of Machism.
In the second chapter, while criticizing Machism, Lenin expounded some important basic principles of the epistemology of dialectical materialism.
In the third chapter, Lenin criticized Machism’s denial of the material unity of the world, revealing the objective reality of time and space, the dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness, and the relationship between freedom and necessity.
The fourth chapter mainly analyzes the history and development trend of Machism from the perspective of philosophy history, determined the position of empirio-criticism in other modern philosophical schools, and pointed out that it started from Kant, criticized Kantism from the right side, and gradually moved towards Berkeley’s subjective idealism and Hume’s agnosticism.
In chapter five, he exposed the philosophical struggle caused by the natural science revolution from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, revealed the real connection between Machism and physics idealism. This chapter analyzed the causes and essence of physics idealism, and revealed the essence of Mach doctrine’s claim that it is “philosophy of modern natural science”.
The sixth chapter examined the opposition between the sociology of Machism and historical materialism and revealed the class essence of the reactionary Machism. He pointed out that Russian Machism’s attempt to combine Machism and historical materialism was futile, and that the opposition between Marxism and empirical-critical epistemology was a philosophical struggle of the party.
The conclusion section is the summary of the whole book.
Lenin’s main views are as follows:
(1) He revealed the theoretical basis of empirio-criticism and pointed out that Russian revisionist philosophy is in line with the old theory of subjective idealism. In “Lieu of Introduction” and chapter four, Lenin examined the philosophical relations among Berkeley, Hume, Mach and Bogdanov.
Firstly, expose the tactics and basis of the Russian Machist attack on Marxism. They seem to be attacking only the materialist Plekhanov, but in fact, they are attacking materialism as a whole. Under the pretence of the latest discoveries in natural science, they disguised the essence of their idealism by attacking materialism as Kantianism and mysticism if it admits “things-in-themselves”.
Secondly, Lenin pointed out that Russian Machism was just a variant of Berkeley-ism. They denied the objectivity of matter, just like Berkeley’s views claim that “to exist is to be perceived” and “objects are combinations of sensations”. Empirical monism of Russian Machist Bogdanov’s, based on a single “experience” as a philosophical foundation, holds that the “elements” begin with a chaotic world, then arise as a mental experience, and finally emerge as a physical experience and the awareness that arises from such things, i.e., socially organized experience. Lenin refuted this fallacy and reiterated the basic position of materialism the physical world exists independently of human consciousness, it existed before the appearance of human beings, before any human experience arose; mental things, consciousness, etc. are the highest products of matter (i.e., physical things), the functions and properties of the human brain.
(2) He presented that philosophically materialism and idealism are two fundamentally opposed lines of understanding.
In the first three chapters, Lenin gave a critique of Machism by applying the fundamental problems of philosophy to epistemology, linking the question of the origin of the world to the question of the origin of knowledge. He expounded the two fundamentally opposing philosophical lines in-depth and analyzed the different philosophical schools.
Lenin discussed the question of the source of thoughts and feelings from the first aspect of the fundamental problem of philosophy. Are we to proceed from things to sensation and thought? Or are we to proceed from thought and sensation to things? Engels advocated the former line, i.e, materialism, Machism advocates the latter, idealism.
He exposed the subjective idealist nature of Machism, criticized the “elemental” theory of Avenarius that the real unity of the world lies in the complex of senses, pointing out that this is a simple repetition of Berkeleyism, a subjective idealism that uses objective terms to disguise the true nature of solipsism.
From this premise, the existence of anyone other than oneself cannot be recognized, which is the purest form of egoism. Lenin saw matter as a product of sensations and considered the sensations as a reflection of the external world in the human brain. Lenin exposed Machists’ so-called “neutrality” and “transcendence”, and pointed out that eclecticism was precisely the most important feature of Machism.
First of all, he emphasized that matter is primary and recognized the pre-existence of matter, and the earth existed at a time when there could not have been any life on it. Organic matter is the result of subsequent long-term evolution, and thought, consciousness, and feeling are the products of the high development of matter. He denied the idea of Avenarius; “indissolubly connection of the self and the environment”. Secondly, he showed that the objectivity of the content of consciousness. Our senses and our consciousness are only reflections of the external world, and there can be no reflection without the reflected.
(3) Lenin introduced dialectics into epistemology and presented three important conclusions of epistemology.
One of the most important philosophical outcomes of Materialism and Empirio-Criticism is the formulation of three epistemological conclusions: Firstly, that things exist outside of us, independent of our consciousness, and independent of our senses.
Secondly, there is and cannot be any difference in principle between the phenomenal existence and the self-existent. The difference exists only between what is already known and what is not known yet.
Thirdly, in epistemology, as in other areas of science, we should think dialectically and analyze how to move from not-knowing to knowing, from incomplete and inaccurate knowledge to more complete and accurate knowledge. This statement draws a clear line between Marxist epistemology and non-Marxist epistemology.
(4) Lenin further elaborates on the dialectical materialist view of truth.
He elaborated the connotation of objective truth. Lenin criticized Bogdanov’s fallacy that truth is nothing but an organized form of human experience and that the basis of its objectivity does not lie in the objective reality that exists apart from human sensory experience. Bogdanov thought that reality is only the sum of the collective experience of all people, pointing out that this is to provide convenient access to the clergy and to open the ground for the organized form of religious experience. Lenin explained the objectivity of truth in terms of its content and pointed out the consistency of absolute truth and objective truth, making the famous assertion that “to regard our sensations as images of the external world, to recognise objective truth, to hold the materialist theory of knowledge—these are all one and the same thing.”
Lenin explained the absolute truth, relative truth, and their dialectical relationship. The first is his elaboration of the connotation of absolute truth and relative truth in terms of the capacity and scope of human cognition. He pointed out that if there is objective truth, then can the human representation of objective truth represent it immediately, completely, unconditionally, and absolutely, as well as only approximately and relatively. The former is absolute truth, which contains objective content that does not depend on man and has unconditionality. The latter is relative truth, which implies that any truth is limited by the scope and conditions of its application and is subject to expansion and deepening. Lenin also pointed out that the distinction between absolute and relative truth: “It is sufficiently ‘indefinite’ to prevent science from becoming a dogma in the bad sense of the term, from becoming something dead, frozen, ossified; but it is at the same time sufficiently ‘definite’ to enable us to dissociate ourselves in the most emphatic and irrevocable manner from fideism and agnosticism, from philosophical idealism and the sophistry of the followers of Hume and Kant.” Secondly, Lenin opposed the metaphysical absolutist or relativist conception of truth, advocating that truth is the unity of absolute and relative ones, and that absolute and relative truths are both mutually distinct, interdependent, and mutually inclusive. Human understanding is a continuous process of moving from relative truth to absolute truth.
He advocated that practice is the only criterion for testing truth, and this criterion is also the unity of certainty and uncertainty. First of all, Lenin made the famous assertion that “The standpoint of life, of practice, should be first and fundamental in the theory of knowledge.” He pointed out that the criterion for testing the truthfulness of knowledge is neither the mere empirical appearance nor the logical self-consistency of thinking, nor the subjective utility of pragmatism, but only the social practice. At the same time, Lenin pointed out that the criterion of practice is the unity of certainty and indeterminacy. Certainty means its absolute nature, i.e., only practice can ultimately make a test of the truth of knowledge. Uncertainty refers to its relativity because the practice itself is historical, human practice is a process of continuous development. The practice at each specific historical stage cannot completely confirm or refute human knowledge, but only the sum of constantly developing human practice is the only criterion to test the truthfulness of knowledge. The practice at a certain historical stage cannot immediately and completely confirm or refute a kind of knowledge, it depends on long-term practice to test. Lenin also illustrated the significance of the distinction between the certainty and indeterminacy of the criterion of practice: criterion of practice can never, in the nature of things, either confirm or refute any human idea completely. This criterion too is sufficiently “indefinite” not to allow human knowledge to become “absolute”, but at the same time it is sufficiently definite to wage a ruthless fight on all varieties of idealism and agnosticism.
(5) He revealed the philosophical significance of the revolution in physics.
It shows that the purpose of studying revolution in physics is to reveal the essence of different philosophies. In the fifth chapter, Lenin discusses the philosophical struggles arising from the recent revolutions in natural science. He states: “...It is far from being our intention to deal with specific physical theories. What interests us exclusively is the epistemological conclusions that follow from certain definite propositions and generally known discoveries...Our object, therefore, will be confined to explaining clearly the essence of the difference between these various trends and the relation in which they stand to the fundamental lines of philosophy.”
Lenin revealed the essence of the crisis of physics. He suggested that the essence of the crisis of modern physics lies in how the old and new physics perceive and explain the modern physical revolution from a philosophical perspective. The old physics considered its theories to be the knowledge of the reality of the material world, a reflection of the objective reality. The new school of thought in physics considers theories as mere symbols, signs, and marks for practice, which means that it denies the existence of an objective reality that does not depend on and is reflected by our consciousness. This crisis shows that the materialist epistemology spontaneously accepted by the old physics has been replaced by an idealist and agnostic epistemology. Lenin argued that fideism took advantage of this replacement.
It was a philosophical explanation of the implication of the “disappearance of matter” in physics. The meaning of this phrase is that the limit we have reached in the knowing matter so far is disappearing and our knowledge is deepening. Those properties of matter (immutability, impenetrability, inertia, mass, etc.) that once seemed absolute, unchanging, and original were disappearing, and now they were apparently relative and inherent only to certain states of matter. Since the only “quality” of the matter is its objective reality, it exists outside of our consciousness.
He proposed the scientific concept of matter. In response to the Machists’ denial of the existence of matter and thus of matter as the basis of materialism by means of the latest achievements of natural science, Lenin proposed a philosophically complete definition of matter. He started from the dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness, i.e., matter is the philosophical category that marks the objective reality, which is perceived by man through his senses, which does not depend on our senses for its existence, and which is reproduced, captured, and reflected.
Lenin’s concept of matter adheres to the principle of the objective reality of matter, adheres to materialist monism, and draws the line between idealist monism and dualism. His concept adheres to the theory of dynamic reflection and knowability, and strongly criticizes agnosticism; insists on the unity of materialism and dialectics, and draws the line between the dialectical materialist view of the matter and the metaphysical view of the matter.
(6) He criticized the neutrality theory of Machism and proposed the principle of philosophical partisanship.
He presented the principle of the partisanship of philosophy. In response to the Machists’ use of neutral terms such as “experience”, “elements”, and “energy” to label the “non-partisanship” of their philosophy a “third line”, “centrist philosophy” that transcends the opposition between materialism and idealism in order to conceal the opposition between philosophical materialism and idealism. Lenin used the terms “two basic trends”, “two schools”, and “two camps” to emphasize the principle of the party in philosophy.
He pointed out the essence of the philosophical partisan struggle. Behind the tiresome statements of empirical-critical epistemology, one cannot fail to see the philosophical partisan struggle, which in the final analysis expresses the tendencies and ideologies of rival classes in modern society. The philosophical struggle is the ideological expression of the class struggle.
(7) He put forward the important proposition that dialectical materialism and historical materialism are “a single piece of steel”.
In the sixth chapter, he criticized Bogdanov’s revision of the fundamental aspects of Marx’s view of history. Bogdanov argued that sociability and consciousness are inseparable and that social existence and social consciousness, in the exact sense of the two terms, were equivalent. In this regard, Lenin pointed out that the confusion of social consciousness with social existence actually negates the answer to the question of the relationship between social existence and social consciousness, which is the criterion for distinguishing the materialistic and idealistic conceptions of history. Lenin put forward the important proposition that dialectical materialism and historical materialism were “a single of steel”. He pointed out that consciousness in general reflects being—that is a general thesis of all materialism. It is impossible not to see its direct and inseparable connection with the thesis of historical materialism: social consciousness reflects social being. In both cases, consciousness is nothing more than a reflection of existence, or at best an approximately correct (proper, very exact) reflection of existence. In this Marxist philosophy, which forged that “one piece of steel”, no basic premise, no essential part, can ever be removed, or else it will leave the objective truth and fall into the arms of the bourgeois reactionary fallacy.
In the conclusion, Lenin evaluated empirical-criticism in four ways. First, he compared the theoretical foundations of this philosophy with those of dialectical materialism. Second, he identified the place of empirical-criticism among other modern philosophical schools. Third, he gave attention to the connection between Machism and modern natural science. Fourth, underneath the epistemology of empirio-criticism, it is important to see the philosophical partisan struggle which, in the final analysis, expresses the tendencies and ideological systems of rival classes in modern society. Lenin upheld and developed Marxist philosophy in his struggle against empirio-criticism.
In Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin exposed the subjective idealist nature of Russian revisionist philosophy and its theoretical sources and substances. He presented two opposing lines of understanding, deeply expounded Marxist true theory, analyzed the philosophical struggles triggered by the revolutions in natural science since the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and proposed the material definition of science and the party principle of philosophy. This work is one of the landmark achievements in the development of Marxist philosophy to the Leninist stage and is one of the most important philosophical masterpieces of Leninism.