Canadian Slavonic Papers

Politics and Philosophy in Russian Social Democracy: Alexander Bogdanov and the
Sociotheoretical Foundations of "Vpered"
Author(s): John Eric Marot
Source: Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, Vol. 33, No. 3/4
(September-December 1991), pp. 263-284
Published by: Canadian Association of Slavists
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40869316 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 00:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Canadian Association of Slavists and Canadian Slavonic Papers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
John Eric Marot

Politics and Philosophy in Russian Social

Democracy: Alexander Bogdanov and the
SociotheoreticalFoundationsof Vpered
INTRODUCTION
In the aftermathof the defeat of the 1905 RevolutionMensheviksand
Bolsheviksstruggled to determine thepoliticaldirectionof theRussianSocial
DemocraticLaborParty.In 1909a thirdtendency emerged,Vpered,whosechief
theoretician and representative was AlexanderBogdanov.Bogdanovand the
Vperedistsopposed boththeMensheviksand theBolshevikson fundamental
questionsof the revolutionary movement.Bogdanov was also a prominent
exponent of neo-Kantianism or "Machism" in RussianSocial Democracyand,
along with other Social Democrats, had developed the epistemological
implications of recentdiscoveriesin thenaturalsciencesforthesocial sciences
and, thus,forMarxism.1But despitephilosophicaldisagreement withLenin,
Bogdanov had collaborated closely with the philosophically"orthodox"
Bolshevikleaderbetween1904 and 1908 becausebothmenhad agreedon the
necessityof buildingthe Partyto bring"fromthe outside" revolutionary
consciousnessto workers.The experienceof the 1905 Revolutionconvinced
Lenin to revisesharplythethesesof Whatis to be Done? on thispoint.That
same experience,on theotherhand,led Bogdanovenergetically to reaffirm in
1909 his tutelaryconceptionof thePartyin theworkers'movement.2 In this
essay I attemptto establishthenatureand reasonsforthetutelary role of the
Partyvis--vistheworking class.
My methodological pointof departureseeksto graspBogdanov's viewsin
philosophy and in
politicaleconomy relationship to his politicalpracticein
Vpered because he wanted to help workers contest thecomingdominationof
capitalist society,specifically,the impersonalrule of the marketand the
attendantideological mystification engenderedby its operation - bourgeois
ideology.The ideologicalrestructuring ofworkers'consciousness, ifsuccessfully
accomplished by Vpered, would shorten the era of bourgeoisideological

1 I examinethisdebatein "Marxism, Science,Materialism:

Towarda Deeper
of the1908-1909Philosophical
Appreciation Debatein RussianSocialDemocracy."
Studiesin Soviet Thought(forthcoming).
2 JohnEric Marot,"AlexanderBogdanov,Vpered,and theRole of theIntellectual
in the Workers' Movement," The Russian Review (1990): 241-264 and "The
Bogdanov Issue: Replyto My Critics,"The RussianReview(1990): 457-465.

Canadian
Slavonic canadienne
Papers/Revue desslavistesVol.XXXIII,
Nos.3-4,September-December
1991

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
264 JOHNERIC MAROT

hegemony and hasten the transitionto socialism. I shall argue thatBogdanov's

variant of Mach' s empirio-criticism- his "empiriomonism"- furnished a
philosophical basis for Vpered7s strategyof educating workers politically by
means of "proletarian universities"run by RSDLP intellectuals.3In particular,
Bogdanov's uniquely empiriomonistic interpretationof Marx's theory of
commodityfetishismprovided the necessary social-theoreticallink between his
"Machist" epistemological views, on the one hand, and the politics of
"proletarianculture" advocated by Vpered, on the other.Thanks to his special
study of the political economy of bourgeois and proletarian ideology under
capitalism, Bogdanov was able to theorize an organic connection between his
philosophical views and his affiliationto Vpered.

THE POLITICAL CONJUNCTURE

To show the natureof the connection between Bogdanov's philosophical ideas
and his political project,a surveyof the workers'movementis essential. For the
Vperedist tendency did not serve merely to sustain Bogdanov's general
intellectual outlook, it also expressed the changing characterof workingclass
activityafterthe 1905 Revolution.
Mass strikes, the formationof Soviets and factorycommittees,in short,
collective forms of protest and organization had characterized the workers'
movement at the zenith of its social power in 1905. The brutalsuppression of
the Moscow insurrectionof December 1905 triggereda downward spiral in the
strength of the working class. In response, workers adopted increasingly
sectoraliststrategiesforsurvivalas the focus of the labor movementshiftedfrom
the complete destructionof tsarismto the formationof trade unions. Stolypin's
coup d'tat of June 1907 dealt one more blow to workers.Trade unions were
now forbiddento act as trade unions; theirmembershipsconsequentlyplunged.
The bulk of the workingclass sank into apathyand indifference. Terrorizedinto
abandoning revolutionarypolitical activity, workers leftthe RSDLP in droves.
The ever-diminishingnumberof workerswho stillfeltthepulse of the 1905
Revolution resortedprogressivelyto formsof organizationthatwould minimize
conflict with the employers and the state or that would avoid such clashes
altogether.Accordingly,thenumberof producerand consumercooperativesgrew
sharplyand became importantin this period.4Because workersmade demands
not on the employer or on the state but on fellow workers, they were less
susceptible to police repression.Simultaneously,culturaland educational clubs,
particularlyin St. Petersburgand Moscow, flourishedas neverbefore.This form

3 Bogdanov,"Ne nado zatemniat1 " Ko vsemtovarishcham

(Paris, 1910) 4-5.
4 I.M. Pushkareva,Rabochee dvizheniev Rossii v period reaktsii,1907-1910 gg
(Moscow, 1989) 97-98.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POLITICS AND PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY 265

of working class activity,dating back to the 1880s, came to the fore in this
period of retreatbecause, like the cooperative movement,the clubs did not, on
the whole, make political demands on the established order.The clubs stood on
the peripheryof politics and society, but many workerscherishedthem as "the
centerof theirentireintellectual"lives, havens where theycould systematically
develop their "world view."* Sympathetic intellectuals, many in or close to
Social Democracy, gave lecturesand organized culturalactivities.Tolerated by
the authorities,the clubs multiplied and theirnominal combined membership
peaked in 1909 at 7,000. Meanwhile, and most expressive of the manifold
directionsof various trendsin the workingclass, organized membershipin the
RSDLP continued to fall to 1,000 and below- withno sign of a turnabout.
Amid this general and frightening rout,Bogdanov saw signs of movement
precisely in the efflorescence of the workers' cultural clubs, where the most
enlightened workers were already implementingthe program of "proletarian
culture," albeit haphazardly and inconsistently,owing largely to the RSDLP' s
failure to capitalize on their desire for cultural advancement. Bogdanov was
determinedto correctthe RSDLP' s error.The Party'sprimarytask,as Bogdanov
saw it, was to facilitatethe formationof a complete Social Democratic world
view by making workersconscious of the natureof the connectionbetween their
cultural/educational ventures on the one hand, and their social/economic
undertakingson the other.Specifically,Bogdanov wanted workersto generalize
intellectuallythe practicalexperience theywere accumulatingin the cooperative
movementbecause the latteranticipated- althoughonly on a local level and in
an isolated way- the social cooperation of the working class in organizing
productionand distributionas a whole: socialism. Bogdanov believed workers
active in producer and consumer cooperatives would respond favorablyto his
political project because it would be relevantto theirlives. Still, the significance
of that activity was not self-evidentand required complex interpretationby
Bogdanov.

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY

Bogdanov accorded enormous importanceto the studyof political economy and
allotted the greatestnumberof course hours to the subject in the curriculumof
the "Highest PartySchool" organized by the Vperedists,firston the Isle of Capri
and then in Bologna. The two schools were experimental precursors to the

5 St. Petersburg metalworkers' unionnewspaper"Nadezhda,"September26, 1908:

8; cited in Victoria Bonnell, Roots of Rebellion: Workers' Politics and
Organizationsin St. Petersburgand Moscow, 1900-1914 (Berkeley,1983) 332. The
materialon the workers'culturalmovementin thisperiodis drawnfromchapter7,
"Workers'Organizationsin the Years of Repression,1907-1911."

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
266 JOHNERICMAROT

proletarianuniversity and Bogdanovalonetaughtpoliticaleconomyin both.He

was theexpertin thisdomain,havingrecently superviseda Russiantranslation
of Marx's Capital (publishedin 1909) and writtennumerousintroductory
works.6
Bogdanov believedtwo ideologieswerecompetingforhegemonyin the
capitalistsocietyemergingin Russia: theproletarian and thebourgeois.They
were the direct productand outcome of two differentsocial conditions,
corresponding to thelivedexperienceof theproletariat and thebourgeoisie.In
otherwords,theproletarian and bourgeoisworldviewshad a material-practical
basis in the dual realityof moderncapitalistsociety.The destructionof
bourgeois society,withinwhich both ideologies struggledfor supremacy,
required,as a firststep,thedestruction of bourgeoisideologyby theworking
class.
Bourgeoisintellectuals, Bogdanovasserted, characterizedsocietybyanarchy
of production andcompetition in themarketplace,whereeach individuallooked
afterhis own interest in competition withothers.This reciprocalisolationand
atomization of theproducersled to a Hobbesianstateof war.Yet theresultwas
not an annulmentof particularindividualinterestsand the negationof the
general,social interestbecausemediating themutualrelations ofindividuals was
therelationship each individualhad to thatrelationship, thatis, to thesocial
network(the market),created by the totalityof individualsatomistically
pursuingtheirprivateinterests. Fromthevantagepointofeach individualtaken
singly,the social network appearedas something thatpositeditselfforitself,
independently ofthesumtotalofindividuals thatitlinkedtogether. This was the
"fetishized" outlookof bourgeoisideologypopularizedin AdamSmith'snotion
of a "hiddenhand" thatsystematically realized the interestsof individuals,
and
competing exchanging in themarketplace.Bogdanovnotedthatin an
anarchicalsystemof production,in the midstof the terriblestruggleof interests,
in
the chaos of competition,the spontaneousforcesof social existence,incarnatedin
the market,assertthemselvesabove and beyondthe individual.Powerlessto master
theseforcesin practice,theindividualis equallypowerlessto understand
them.7

A "distorted" understandingof society characterizeda fetishisticoutlook,

Bogdanov wrote. It was the distorted view that the essential and defining

6 For a detailed accountof the pedagogicalactivitiesof the Vperedistssee Jutta

Scherrer,"Les coles du Partide Capri et de Bologne: la formation
de l'intelligentsia
du parti,"Cahiersdu monderusseet sovitique19 (1978): 259-84.
7 Bogdanov, "Filosofiia sovremennogoestestvoispytatelia," in Bogdanov, et al.,
Ocherki filosofiikollektivizma(St. Petersburg,1908) 60.
8 Bogdanov, Padenie velikogo fetishiztna: krizis sovremennoi ideologii
(Moscow, 1911) 33.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POLITICSANDPHILOSOPHYINRUSSIANSOCIALDEMOCRACY 267

property of social relationships,overriding or assimilating everyothersingle

attributeor qualitytheypossessed,was theirindependence fromand externality
to any individual,what Bogdanov called theirobjectivity.For bourgeois
ideologues- and themalone- all societies(past and present)weretypified by
commodityproduction,whereby individual actionsto maximize self-interest
(concretely, bymaximizing price/cost ratiosin themarket)werenotcoordinated
withthe actions of otherindividualsactingin an identicallyself-interested
manner.Bogdanovaverredthatcompetition in themarketplace had historically
generated spontaneous pattern developmentleading to unintended
a of
consequencesforthesumtotalof individuals caughtup in theweb ofexchange:
stock-market crashes,economiccollapse,war,famineand(today)thedestruction
oftheenvironment.
Bogdanov's themewas familiarto Marxists.Now it is commonlycalled
alienation,i.e., theinabilityof theindividualmembersof societyto bringtheir
own social processesof production underconsciouscontrol.Whentheproducts
of labor assume the formof commodities,Marx wrote,"the relationships
betweentheproducers, withinwhichthesocialcharacteristics of theirlaborsaie
manifested, takeon theformofa socialrelationbetweentheproducts oflabor. .
. a relationwhichexistsapartfromand outsidetheproducers."9 As a result,
production normallytookplace anarchically, without theknowledge,foresight,
andactionoftheproducers.
ExtendingMarx's conceptof alienationto pre-capitalist social formations,
Bogdanov saw an "uninterrupted continuity" between the "life-likeidolatry"of
naturaleconomiesand the"abstract fetishism" ofcapitalistsociety,betweenthe
"crudelymaterialheavens"[grubomaterialnykh nebes] of medievalreligious
thought and the "unknowable noumenal world" of modern bourgeois
philosophy.10 to
According Bogdanov, the medieval religiousthinker and the
modem bourgeoisphilosopherbothgraspedthe objectivityof relationships,
whether worldlyor otherworldly, in sucha wayas to excludethesubject,man.
The pre-bourgeois scholasticlookeduponGod's worldinthesamemanneras the
bourgeois philosophergrasped the noumenal world, or as the bourgeois
economistperceivedtheworldofthemarket, namely,as self-subsistingrealities,
positingthemselvesforthemselves, independently of man.All conceptualized

9 Marx, Capital, vol.1 (1867; London, 1977) 164-165. Emphasis added. "The
mysterious characterof thecommodityformconsiststherefore simplyin thefactthat
the commodityreflectsthe social characteristics of men's own labor as objective
characteristics
of the productsof labor themselves,as the socio-natural propertiesof
thesethings.Hence it also reflectsthesocial relationof theproducersto thesum total
of laboras a social relationbetweenobjects."
1U Bogdanov, "Strana idolov i filosofiiamarksizma,"in Bogdanov et al., Oc/ierki
p filosofi!marksizma218.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
268 JOHNERIC MAROT

man as a predicate of the Spirit or Matter, a plaything of "impersonal and

incomprehensible"spiritualor materialforces.Bogdanov developed this idea at
great lengthin virtuallyall his writings.
Bogdanov denied and rejected, as did the empirio-criticsgenerally, all
"dualistic" world views, secular or religious,thatposited theexistence of worlds
outside and beyond human activity.It matteredlittleto Bogdanov whetherthe
philosophical hypostatization of objectivity was conceived as Spirit by the
idealists or as Matter by the materialists.To the ideologists of the bourgeoisie
(and to Marxists influencedby them,such as Lenin and Plekhanov), the market
appeared to enjoy an existence independentof man because the forcesof social
existence that acted there escaped conscious practical mastery. Bourgeois
intellectuals represented these as objective forces. "The mysteries and
contradictions,the impersonaland incomprehensibleforcesthat,in theirtotality,
determine the fate of the individual at this stage of development" Bogdanov
wrote,"are condensed by theideologistsof thecommodityworldintoimpersonal
and abstractdivinities,into the Absolute of the metaphysicians."11
Marx, like Bogdanov afterhim, also drew an analogy between the "misty
realm" of religion and the "world of commodities." In religion, Marx
commented, the products of men's minds appeared as autonomous figures
"endowed witha life of theirown" thatenteredintorelationwitheach otherand
with human beings. Likewise in the commodity world. Here the products of
"men's hands" were endowed witha life of theirown and enteredinto relations
with one another and with other men because men's capacities to labor had
themselves become commodities whose movementsin the marketwere dictated
by the operationof the market.12
Crucially, Marx at once pointed out the peculiar limitationof this analogy.
Afterall, the gods could never enteron theirown intorelationswithone another
and with men because they owed theirexistence to men. Commodities, on the
otherhand, could and did enterinto such relationson theirown because workers
owed theirexistence to them.Commodities were productsof theirlabors, not of
their brains- they had a material, not ideal, existence; furthermore,their
movementon the marketcould and did dictatethemovementof workersbecause
labor had itself become a commodity- wage-labor. Marx commented on the
epistemological peculiarityof thisdistinction:

discoverythattheproductsof labor,in so faras theyare values,

The belatedscientific
are merelythe materialexpressionsof the humanlabor expendedto producethem,

11 Bogdanov, "Strana idolov i filosofiiamarksizma,"in Bogdanov et al., Ocherki

p filosofi marksizma218.
12 Marx, Capital, vol. 1, 165.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POLITICS AND PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY 269

marksan epoch in the historyof mankind'sdevelopment, but by no means banishes

the semblance of objectivitypossessed by the social characteristics of labor . . .
[just] as the factthatthe scientificdissectionof the air intoits componentpartsleft
the atmosphereitselfunalteredin its physicalconfiguration.13

Because the discovery thatthe "characteristicsof labor" were "social" and

"objective" ratherthancognitiveand subjective,it did nothingto alteror abolish
the "semblance of objectivity" that these characteristicspossessed. But it is
preciselyon thispoint thatBogdanov surpassedMarx's view by developing what
he believed to be a more fullyMarxist approach, a class approach. Bogdanov
removed the epistemological and historical limitations Marx placed on the
analogy by equating fetishism/alienation withobjectivity.To conceive society
and nature, the Object, as existing independentlyof the Subject, man, was
fetishistic.To thinkfetishisticallymeant to thinkthe world was externalto us.
Objectivitywas fetishism.Bogdanov further distinguishedhimselffromMarx by
asserting that in a class-divided society the reality of fetishism/objectivity
differedaccording to class position, whereas in Marx class position had no
bearing on the reality of alienation. Objectivity possessed a "semblance of
reality" only among the "ideologists of the commodity world" because the
outlook of bourgeois intellectuals was circumscribed by, and limited to, the
sphere of the market and exchange and, therefore,founded on the notion of
objectivityseparate from,and independentof, subjectivity.The class position of
bourgeois ideologues caused them to attributea genuine realityto the gulf that
separated subjective and objective spheres because the social relation of men
could only appear to them as a relation between the products of men's labors
endowed with self-movement.They could not help grantingtrueobjectivityto
the Object because, again, theirmental horizon was hemmed in and confinedto
the commodityworld. It was otherwisewiththe outlook of workers.

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF PROLETARIANIDEOLOGY

The workers' view of the world in the broadestpossible sense of the term,i.e.,
the relationshipbetween Subject and Object, was differentbecause theirworld
was different.They inhabitedthe world of production,a world founded on the
fusion,throughlabor, of the object and subject in an undifferentiated "monistic"
whole. At the heartof the productiveprocesses of modem society,the working
class alone recognized thatsociety was nothingbut the creationof the workers'
collective labor, the objectificationof workers' physical and intellectualpowers
taken in their totality. Most directly to the point, behind the appearance of
isolated competitive production and the reification of social relationships

13 Marx,Capital, vol. 1, 167. Emphasisadded.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
270 JOHNERICMAROT

engendered bytheoperationofthemarketwas theinner,cooperative essenceof

modernrelationsofproduction: theinterdependence of workers arisingfromthe
de factocooperationof workersthrough a social divisionof laborspanningthe
whole globe. Such interdependence was immediateand directwithineach
individualunitof production in thefactory.In 1909,in thegrowingcooperative
movementof Russia, the interdependence was also freeand voluntary.In
producer andconsumer cooperativestherelationofworkers toone another andto
theproductsof theirlaborwas as clearas day.It was "conscious,""comradely,"
and "cooperative"Bogdanovrepeatedindefatigably. The laborof each worker
represented theconsciousindividualapplicationof thecombinedlaborof the
collective.The workersachievedtheircooperationin a directand "comradely"
way,via a plan of production and distribution.The network of cooperationdid
notexistoutsidetheworkerswho werecoordinating it. And so, hidden"behind
-
the outershell of competition"in themarket whichbourgeoisintellectuals
never venturedto penetrate - was "cooperation"in the factory;behindthe
"independent and unconscious linkingof people to one another"that so
fascinatedexponentsof the bourgeoisworldview, was the workers'factory
"collective."14Thanksto theircentralpositionin the factory, workerswere
strategicallyplaced to conceivethe of a
plannedcooperation "greatcollectivity"
directly,i.e., beforethiscooperationtookthefetishized formof theunplanned
exchangeof theproductsof theirlaboras undercapitalism.15 Theypossesseda
naturalaptitudeforgoingbeyondfetishized modesof thought, fortranscending
the objectifiedappearancesof moderncapitalistsocietythatso mesmerized
bourgeoisthinkers becausetheycould see therelationsbetweentheirlaborsfor
what theyreally were: directrelationsbetweenpersonsin theirwork.The
organization ofproduction withinthefactory was socialismwritsmall.
The superiorproductive powers achieved bya divisionof labor,based on a
definiteplan, was proved and exemplifiedregularly.Throughuniversal
competition, artisanalmodesofproduction werebreaking up and givingwayto
industrialones; mom-and-pop operations were to
yielding giantfactories. This
concentration and centralizationof production was inexorably ousting old
the
social divisionof labor based on the producers'possessionof the means of
productionand the unplannedexchangeof theirproductsof labor by a new
planneddivisionof laborembodiedin thefactory. The workersweretherefore
increasinglyopen to a superior,proletarian world view based on thisever
expanding The
experience. factory preparedthemtoexecutetheirsocial-historical
mission because it trainedthemto cooperate. It also created a "general

14 Bogdanov, Padenie velikogo fetishizma ... 114.

15 Bogdanov, Kratkii kurs politicheskoi ekonomii (Moscow, 1924) 97-98.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANDPHILOSOPHY
POLITICS INRUSSIAN
SOCIALDEMOCRACY 271

intelligence" amongworkers, enabling them tocarry outtheir diverse productive

functions thanks tomodern machinery, andthesystematic applicationofscience
andtechnology toproduction.16
It shouldbe notedinpassingthatBogdanov's fellow"Machists" raisedno
to
objection granting class a role in the social and historicalconditioning of
knowledge. As Marxists, theyall agreedthatclasswasanindubitable socialand
historical phenomenon. On theother hand,onlyBogdanov singled classfor
out
specialanalysis because he
only thought class had speciallyconditioning
properties in theformation of ideas.Thisclass determination of reasonand
perceptiondistinguished Bogdanov'sEmpiriomonism as a sociologyof
knowledge, andhemaywellhavebeentheoriginal theoristofclassscienceand
class philosophy, antedating Georg Lukcs by a few years.17 Of course,
Bogdanov didnotdissent from thelarger outlook oftheempirio-critics, centered
as it was on thehistoricity andthesocialrelativity of knowledge. Butonly
Bogdanovlookeduponclassas forming a category apart.Although thisdidnot
transcend thebroader framework ofneo-Kantianism (ofwhichempiriomonism
wasa subset), itdidgiveBogdanov's philosophical viewsa sociallydeterminate
andtherefore politicallyactionable focus.
As noted, thegrowing factory experience ofworkers formed thedeveloping
material-practical basis forthemto achievesocialistconsciousness and to
elaboratea proletarian worldview.It also formed thebasisforworkers to
assimilateand understand thephilosophical premises of that world view:
Empiriomonism. The regulating idea of empiriomonism - "socialbeingand
socialconsciousness are,intheexactsenseoftheterms, - expressed
identical"18
therelationship of theworker'sactivity to material production and to the
production of social The
relationships. working class was unconditionally
responsible forcontinually producing andreproducing theconditions ofitsown
existence directly, through theproduction ofuse-valuesinthelaborprocess, and
indirectly, via the establishment of the cooperative interdependence ofworkers,
i.e.,society. Further, giventhat, inBogdanov'sview,nature itselfwasnothing
but "sociallyorganizedexperience,"19 an internal moment of society,the
cybernetics of thenaturalworldwerebestunderstood in termsof thesocial
organization and movement of theworking class's intellectual andphysical
powers taken in their totality.Consequently, theepistemological principlesof

16 Bogdanov,Kultur nyezadachi nashego vremeni(Moscow, 1911) 53

17 Lukcs acknowledgedthepositiveintentof the"Machist"
projectin Historyand
Class Consciousness(Cambridge,Mass, 1971) 3-4.
18 Bogdanov, Iz psikholof>ii
obshchestva(St. Petersburg,1904) 50-51.
*9 Bogdanov, Empiriomonizm(Moscow, 1906) vol. 3, 36

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
272 JOHNERIC MAROT

empiriomonismwere "social-democratic."20Empiriomonismwas theappropriate

"collectivist philosophy" of the proletariat because the world of science,
industry,and technology could not be meaningfullyunderstoodapart fromthe
collective labor of the workingclass. The scientific-mindedBogdanov clothedhis
metaphysic of Labor in epistemology. Bogdanov* s thinkers-in-arms,
Lunacharskii and Gorkii,made do withoutscience and epistemologyand gave it
to theirpublic straight:theydeifiedLabor.21
The worker's authentic reality, then, was comradely cooperation in the
immediateprocess of production.On the otherhand, the authenticrealityof the
bourgeois was the atomized competitionof individuals in the market.Neither
reality existed independently of one's class position in society. Each class
produced a world view determined,immediatelyand directly,by its differentially
lived experience. The lived experience of the working class and of the
bourgeoisie were incompatibleand excluded one another.Life itselfhad shown
them to be mutuallyexclusive: Bourgeois ideology reignedsupreme,exercising
its undivided sway over the working class as a whole. But the proletarian
ideology must dispute bourgeois ideology for supremacy.Hence the historical
necessityof combatingbourgeois ideology,hence also theexistenceof Vpered.
The supremacy of bourgeois ideology in the minds of the workers had
dangerousepistemological ramifications, in Bogdanov' s view, because it deluded
workersinto thinkingthatrealityand its representationin thoughtwere distinct,
thatthinkingand doing, theoryand practice,subject and object were separate.To
Bogdanov, such fetishisticmodes of thought,whetherreligious or secular, were
inappropriateforworkersbecause theywere irrelevantto theworkers'experience.
So long as bourgeois ideology transfixed workers, no action could be
commanded because this ideology hindered the workers' will to act by
objectifying bourgeois social relationships and placing them, so to speak,
beyond the reach of workers. This "Great Fetish," i.e., the objectivity of
bourgeois society, had to be destroyedby transforming the minds of workers
through education in proletarian universities run by RSDLP intellectuals.22
Through such intellectual the
transformation, cognitive bases of objectivity
would be annihilated. Moreover, by reestablishing the general connection

20 Bogdanov, Empiriomonizm(Moscow, 1906) vol. 3, xix

21 For one perspectiveon the "god-builders"as Lenin christenedthem, see
ChristopherRead, Religion, Revolutionand the Russian Intelligentsia:1900-1912
(London, 1979).
22 Hence thetitleof Bogdanov's seminalwork:Padenie velikogofetishizma:krizis
sovremennoiidelogii- The Downfallof a GreatFetish: The Crisisof Contemporary
Ideology.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POLITICSANDPHILOSOPHYINRUSSIANSOCIALDEMOCRACY 273

betweenworkers'ideas and workers'activity intoa "monisticwhole,"workers

wouldresumetheirmovement towardsocialism.
All thingsdulyandcalmlyconsidered, Bogdanovrecognized thatinpractice,
as a matterof commonsense and simplefact,the workingclass had yet to
elaboratean integraland well thoughtout ideologyof its own. Since this
unfortunate stateof affairsobtained,workerswerenecessarilyin thetoils of
bourgeoisideology,victimsof bourgeoisideologistswho imposedtheirown,
market-based ofsocietyandthereby
interpretation obscuredandmystified thereal
organization of the economy under In
capitalism. sum, they elevated their
partial,one-sided,class-basedworldviewof societyand natureto universality.
Bourgeois ideology,despite its scientificpretensions,was littlemore than
"religionin disguise"" becauseitdidnotcorrespond to theworkers'experience.
Above all, bourgeoisideologicaldeceptionwas the basis forthecreationof
"idols"and"fetishes"and,ultimately, formisguided politicalactionbyworkers.
Bogdanov'sidea was to unmask,demystify thisfetishismand showworkers, by
education, that theyalready ran production and needed only to destroythe
capitalistpropertyform,i.e., the market,which existed only because the
ideologicalexpressionofthatformsubjugatedandenslavedworkers'reasoning.
Workersneededtocastoffthisideologicalformandcreatetheirownthrough the
systematicstudy of"economic science"in universities:
proletarian
Economic science studies real relationsbetweenpeople . . . [But] the doctrineof
fetishism,for example, has nothingto do with it. It belongs to the science of
ideology,of spiritualculturebut not to economicscience . . . [This doctrine]may
play a role in the critiqueof economicdoctrines,but thenwe are not talkingabout
economicrelationsbutabouteconomicviews whichare an ideologicalproduct.24

The "doctrineof fetishism" had nothingto do with"realrelationsbetween

people" becausefetishism pertained to thespiritual -
cultureof thebourgeoisie
not the economicscience of the proletariat. Workerswould bringtheirown
socialprocessesofproduction undertheirconsciouscontrolbyfirst demystifying
theirconsciousness,i.e., byunderstanding thatthefetishofobjectivity
arosenot
out of the workers' material experience but out of the bourgeoisie's
(super)impositionof its objectivisticideologicaldiscourseon thatexperience.
BogdanovexpectedthatVperedwouldmeetwithsuccessin theworkingclass
(and therefore
amongSocial Democrats),becausehe was convincedthatworkers
wouldultimately destroythe"GreatFetish"thanksto theirspecialinsighton the
truenatureof bourgeoissociety,insightthatmerelyneededto be awakenedand
valorizedpolitically.It was in lightof thesegeneralperspectivesthatBogdanov

23 Bogdanov, Padenie velikogofetishiztna

. . . 133.
24 Bogdanov,"Iz mirakriticheskikhuvlechenii,"Zliizn' (March, 1901): 187.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
274 JOHNERICMAROT

attackedLeninand theBolsheviksin 1909 fornotpublishing a singlebook or

brochureforworkers.The "HighestPartySchool on theIsle of Capri"had to
remedythisunconscionable stateof affairsby forming a "strongand influential
nucleusof workerspossessinga fullandcompletesocialisteducation"and able
to lead theRSDLP in thepolitically correctdirection.25
Bogdanov's solutionto theproblemoftheworkers'falseconsciousnesswas
ultimately pedagogicalbecause,in his view,workers'ignoranceexplainedthe
domination ofbourgeoisideology.Critical"gaps"intheworker's "knowledge"26
prevented him fromperceivinghis actual positionand role in society,from
graspinghis situationas it reallywas. The workerdid notknowthatbourgeois
ideologydominatedhis thinkingwheneverhe venturedbeyondthe factory.
Withoutsuchknowledge,ideologicaldelusionsprevailed.Bogdanov'skeyidea
was thattheworkercouldnotachieveideologicalself-clarification andannihilate
objectivitybecause the bourgeoisieexerciseda monopolyon theproduction of
ideologyin schools,universities, andin themediagenerally. True,workerswere
fashioning theideal formsappropriate toall spheresofproduction, buttheywere
doing this only partially,incompletely, only withinthe factory,as it were,
because,undercapitalism,theplannedcharacter ofproduction was evidentonly
there.Theyhad to be won overto a proletarian worldviewthrough systematic
educationin proletarianuniversities. The axis of Vperedistpoliticsrevolved
aroundeducatingworkersto abandonfetishized modesof thought, to freethem
frombourgeoisideologyin orderto speed thetransition to socialism.Since
socialistintellectualscould grasptheSocial Democratic,Marxistworldview
moresystematically thancouldmostworkers, theyhada criticalpedagogicalrole
to playin thedestruction of bourgeoisideologyamongthem.
The character of Bogdanov'spoliticalresponseto theproblemsconfronting
the workers'movement,thecentrality accordedto socialistschoolingin the
for
Vperedprogram proletarian culture, in hisgeneralpoliticalstrategy,
and was
not onlyconnectedto his socioeconomicanalysisand to his appraisalof the
limits of the workers' movement. It was also closely linked to the
epistemological framework of Bogdanov'sgeneralintellectual outlook.We need
to examinetheconceptualinterrelationships of thisframework carefully,and
fromdifferent to
angles, assess fullyits relevanceto Bogdanov's Vperedist
politics.

25 Bogdanov and L.B. Krasin, "Otchet tovarischambolshevikamustrannenikh

chlenov rasshirennoiredaktsiiProletarii,"Protokoly soveschaniia rasshirennoi
redaktsii"Proletaria"(June,1909): 243-244.
26 Bogdanov, "Stranaidolov i filosofiiamarksizma,"
Bogdanovet al., Ocherkipo
filosofilamarksizma215.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POLITICSANDPHILOSOPHYINRUSSIANSOCIALDEMOCRACY 275

THEEND OFEPISTEMOLOG Y
Bogdanov "intellectualized" boththedomination of bourgeoisideologyamong
workersand theprocess,essentially pedagogical,bywhichworkers castoffthis
domination.Accordingto him,workerswereimposing - through cooperative
labor in the immediate,technicalprocessesof productionat the level of the
factory - practicalandcognitiveorderon the"chaotic"and"elemental"worldof
nature.Unfortunately, workershad yet to extendthiskindof orderbeyond
factories, thatis, to thesocial processesofproduction in theirentirety.
Here,the
chaoticelementalworldofthemarket, moreprecisely,itsideologicalexpression,
i.e., bourgeoisideology,dominatedworkers'thinking. But,forBogdanov,the
worker'sauthentic realitywas thefactory whiletherealityofthemarket existed
only outside factories and thus at the intersticesof the workers' factory
experience.The marketformed theboundary oftheworkers'experiencebutwas
notpartof it. Yet, accordingto Bogdanov,workers'mindswereswayedby the
ideologyof thisinauthenticmarketreality.Therewas an intolerabletension
betweenthe worker'sactual "false" consciousnessand his ideal "authentic"
proletarianbeing. But Bogdanov's epistemologicalconceptsreconciledthe
disparity, thoughnotwithout costas we shallsee.
In reconstructing Bogdanov's intricate reasoningwe mustalwaysbear in
mindthatBogdanov presumedin the worker'sgeneraloutlooka "monistic"
identity betweenobjectand subject,betweenbeingandconsciousness, between
experienceanditsrepresentation in thought,
pairsthatformed an undifferentiated
unity,a self-contained Totalityboundedby a "totalizing"class experience.
this
Bogdanovexpressed epistemological presumption in his beliefthatworker
knowledgewas unmediated, theproductof pure,direct,and immediate sensory
contactwiththeworldthrough labor.But bourgeoisknowledgewas abstract, a
purely intellectual and mental creationtiedexclusively to the experience of the
marketand therefore foundedon thenotionof objectivity separatefromand
independent ofsubjectivity.In schoolsanduniversities, theworkerwas taughtto
view the world throughthe mediationof bourgeoiscognitiveformsthat
transformed anddistorted hissensoryfaculties bymediating theimmediacy ofhis
experience.Thatis, mediationarbitrarily demarcated experienceintoobjective
and subjectiveelements.Butitwas notthebourgeoischaracter ofthemediation
thatdestroyed the"wholeness"of theworkers'thought becausemediationwas
the separatingout of the sensory/practical componentof knowledgefromits
intellectual/ideal component.Bogdanov believedthatsuch distinctions were
irremediably bourgeoisand antiproletarian. The workerhad to be reeducatedin
proletarianuniversitiesto view society in its entiretythroughmonistic
proletarian cognitiveformsthathadno use formediation.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
276 JOHNERICMAROT

Let us look at this matterfromanotherangle. Bogdanov denied thata

genuine relationshipstood between the worker'sbeing and the worker's
consciousnessbecause onlyheterogeneous entities(thoughtand being,subject
and object)couldbe related - a pointN.A. Berdiaevhighlighted in hisreviewof
Osnovnyelementyistoricheskogo na
vzgliada prirodu(St. Petersburg, 1899),
one of Bogdanov's earliestworks.27 Bogdanov thushypothesizedno real or
objectivedistinction betweentheworker'srepresentation ofhisrealityandreality
itself,lesttheconceptualmonismoftheworkers'experience be disrupted andthe
antiepistemological thrust of empiriomonism blunted. Epistemologywas
withering in
away, Bogdanov's view, and relationalassertionsweremistaken
because theywere relational,i.e., epistemological, not because theyasserted
particular relations.Anydistinction withintheworkers'experience hadtherefore
to ariseand remainwithintheworker'srepresentation of hisexperience,in his
thinking aboutit. A (faulty)relationship withintheworker'srepresentation of
hisauthentic causedbya lackofknowledge,
reality, couldbe corrected byadding
knowledge whereverthere were "gaps."
AlthoughBogdanovincorporated theconsciousnessof theworker'sclass
experienceas an undifferentiatedmomentof thatclass experience,that
consciousnessturnsoutto be- as a straightforward matter of empiricalfact- a
bourgeoisconsciousness. Bogdanovfounditanalytically unacceptableto account
forthisdiscrepancy byseekingitscausal originsoutsidetheTotalityofworker's
class experiencebecause it meantdifferentiating thatTotalitybyexternalizing
partof it. In otherwords,to explainthedifference betweentheworkers'actual
bourgeois consciousness and his ideal proletarian
being,byadverting to causes
originatingoutside the workers'experience,was to specifythe difference
objectively accordingto Bogdanov'sconceptualschema.Butto adoptthismode
of inquirymeantto succumbconceptuallyto the fetishistic notionthat,for
workers,experience and its in
representation thought were thatbeing
distinct,
and consciousnesswere not identical.Bogdanovdid notfallforthefetishof
objectivity in either its materialistor idealist guise. He held on to
Empiriomonism. Bogdanovthought he couldavoidchoosingbetweentheworld
as it actually was and how it appeared to workers by realizing the
antiepistemologicalpremisses of Empiriomonismand contractingany
27 "Epistemologystudiesthe problemof the compositionand validityof thought"
wroteBerdiaev,and "epistemologicalcontroversies are conductedover the question
of the relationof thoughtto reality.An evolutionary
or, in Bogdanov's terminology,
historicalepistemologyis not so muchfalse as impossible,since it does notgive an
answer to the epistemologicalquestionconcerningthe validityof thoughtand its
relation to reality." "From an epistemologicalpoint of view it is impossible to
conceive of thoughtwithoutassuminga subjectand an object and necessarylogical
presuppositions."Voprosyfilosofiii psikhlogii(September-October, 1902): 842.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POLITICS AND PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY 277

discordance between the worker's thought and reality into his thought or
representationof reality.The workerneeded firstto change his mind- and then
his world. And this movement, within thought, from ignorance to
enlightenment,from false or illusory knowledge to real knowledge, was an
eminently pedagogical movement. It was not an epistemological movement
takingplace between thoughtand objective realityor non-thought.Here was the
antiepistemologicalnub and hub of Bogdanov's pedagogical perspectives.
Correlatively,Bogdanov downgraded the realityof marketcompetition,as
well as the realityof bourgeois ideology correspondingto it, to the level of an
ideological illusion, a mirage, an illusive show put on by the bourgeoisie's
command of the instruments of ideological production.Bogdanov thusattacheda
purely subjective meaning to the appearance of bourgeois ideology among
workersbecause he detached it fromany workingclass reality.In a sense, this
ideology came out of the blue, its trueoriginsunknownto workers.
For Bogdanov the problem of reorganizingsociety meant reorganizingthe
contents of the worker's consciousness through education in proletarian
universities. The cardinal idea to be drilled into the worker's mind was that
society was a product of the collective labor of humanity;that the only class
open to this knowledge was the workingclass; thatthe acquisition and mastery
of such knowledge would, in turn,guide workersto transform the world in their
own interests."The proletariat's ideological revolution- the achievement of
class self-consciousness- precedes the all-roundsocial revolution,"Bogdanov
peremptorilydeclared. There could be no doubt thatthe workingclass "can and
mustestablish the wholeness of thoughtbeforeit can establish the wholeness of
society."28
The wholeness of society- socialism- expressed the collectively planned
organizationof productionand was prefiguredby theequally planned acquisition
of class self-consciousness in proletarianuniversities.For Bogdanov the social
revolution had firstto take place in the head. Later, the hand, with complete
foreknowledge,would execute the transformation practically.The transformation
itself,practice,added nothingthatwas notalreadyknown.
Bogdanov thusderivedfromhis class analysis of ideology undercapitalisma
batteryof (anti-)epistemologicalconcepts thatharmonizedwiththe pedagogical
politics of Vperedism.

TWO CONCEPTIONS OF POLITICS: VPEREDIST AND "ORTHODOX" MARXIST

For Bogdanov the workers'bourgeoisconceptionof societydid notcorrespondto
the objective structureof bourgeois society as a whole, no matterwhat one's

28 Bogdanov,Padenie velikogofetishizma... 114.

Emphasisadded.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
278 JOHN
ERICMAROT

locationin it, but onlyto a conception of societyheld by bourgeois

intellectuals.
Bogdanov thereforeassigned theproletarian a keyrolein
university
freeing workers frombourgeois societysimply byshowing thattherealityof
bourgeois ideologywasbuta product oftheworker's befuddlement.
In "TheAttitude oftheWorker's Party toReligion," writteninMay1909,
Leninindirectly attackedthisidealistviewbycriticizing thepedagogicaland
intellectualist
conceptionofpoliticsfrom which itwasderived. Leninadverted to
thematerialist epistemology he had defended in hisjustpublished Materialism
and Empirio-criticism toexplainhowthe"political lineofMarxism," in the
struggle againstthedomination ofnon-Social Democratic worldviewsamong
workers, was determined byand"inseparably boundup withitsphilosophical
principles."29 Withoutnamingnames,Leninarguedagainstthoseparty
comradeswho believedthateducationwas primarily a wayto undermine
workers' He wrote
beliefs.
religious thisessayimplicitly against
Bogdanov since
thelatter consideredbourgeois ideology tobe a form ofreligion.WhileLenin's
philosophical viewsare notthefocusof thispaper - I have treatedthem
elsewhere - theyareexamined brieflyin strictconjunction withLenin'sattack
on a generalconception ofpoliticswithwhichBogdanovandtheVperedists
identified.
To combatreligion successfully,andfalseideasgenerally, thesourceof
in
faithandreligionhad to be explained a materialist waybyexamining its
"socialroots," beganLenin."Noeducational bookcaneradicate forit
religion,"
wasnotprincipally a matterofignorance. Therewasa genuinely objectivebasis,
onelyingoutsidethesubject, forreflectingtheworldinthisway.Thematerial
basisofthisreflection wasmodern capitalism,regardless ofone'sclassposition
in it. Forthrightlyanddirectly, Lenindescribed thesocialrootsof religious
beliefs,ofnon-scientific,
non-Social Democratic ideasinthefollowing way:
The deepest root of religiontoday is the socially downtroddenconditionof the
workingmasses and theirapparentlycompletehelplessnessin the face of the blind
forcesof capitalismwhich,everyday and everyhour,inflictupon ordinaryworking
people the most horriblesuffering and the most savage torment, a thousandtimes
more severe thenthose inflictedby extraordinary eventssuch as wars,earthquakes,
etc. "Fear made thegods." Fearof theblindforceof capital(blindbecauseitcannotbe
foreseenby the masses of people)- a forcewhichat everystep in the life of the
proletarianand small proprietorthreatensto inflict,and does inflict,"sudden,"
"unexpected,""accidental" ruin,destruction,pauperism,prostitution, death from
starvation.Such is the root of modernreligionwhichthe materialistmustbear in
mindfirstand foremost . . . .30

29 Lenin, Collected Works,vol. 15, 405.

30 Lenin, Collected Works,vol. 15, 405-406.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POLITICS AND PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY 279

Bogdanov gave a similardescription:

The spontaneous dominationof the marketover the producersis virtuallyas

sovereignas was thatof externalnaturein the past: But in its manifestation the
dominationof the formeris strippedof theconcreteness, simplicity, and definiteness
characteristic
of thelatter.The peasantcan see how sun or hail can destroyhis crops;
but the commodityproducer. . . does not see how prices arise, how supply and
demandare established. . . [When]abruptpricechangesdrivethesmall producerto
ruin and destitution,the process is incomprehensibleto him. Here, fetishismdoes
not take a lucidlyconcreteform[konkret no-iasnoe] but an obscurelyabstractone
?l
[otvlechvenno-tumannoi]

Though bothmen's sociological descriptionsof "false consciousness"were

virtuallyidentical,theirpoliticalprescriptions
divergedwidely.
In Lenin's view,onlythedevelopment oftheclass struggle
againstthe "rule
"
ofcapital, and theinsecurity oflifeitbrought,coulduprootreligiousbeliefs.32
The taskofdiffusing "atheist
propaganda" was "subordinated"totherequirements
of developingthisstrugglewhichalone wouldconvert"Christianworkersto
Social Democracyand to atheisma hundredtimesbetterthanbald atheist
propaganda."Since only the concretepracticeof the class movementcould
eliminatethe social basis of religion,it followedthatthe struggleagainst
religionhad to be linkedto thatmovement.33 The heavenlycommunity would
fallparipassu withtheriseoftheearthly one.
But forthosewho (like Bogdanov)saw the"ignorance"of workersas the
chiefcause of theirreligious,non-SocialDemocraticideas,thedissemination of
atheistSocial Democraticviewswas naturally seenas the"chieftask"to which
thetaskof developingtheclass strugglewas subordinated. Leninderidedthe
inconsequent politicsderived from this view":
"superficial
The combatingof religioncannotbe confinedto abstractideologicalpreaching,and
it mustnotbe reducedto such preaching.It mustbe linkedto theconcretepracticeof
the class movement,whichaims to eliminatethe social rootsof religion.Whydoes
religionretainits hold on the backwardsectionsof the town proletariat,on broad
sectionsof the semi-proletariat,
and on the masses of thepeasantry?Because of the
ignorance of the people, replies the bourgeois progressist,the radical, or the
bourgeois materialist.And so: "Down with religion and long live atheism: the
disseminationof atheistviews is our chieftask!" The Marxistsays thatthisis not
true,thatthisis a superficial
view,theview of narrowbourgeoisuplifters.
It does not
explain the rootsof religionprofoundlyenough;it explainsthemnotin a materialist
butin an idealistway/

31 Bogdanov, "Stranaidolov i filosofiiamarksizma,"

Bogdanovet al., Ocherkipo
filosofiimarksizma218.
-^ Lenin, Collected Works,vol. 15, 406.
33 Lenin, Collected Works,vol. 15, 407.
34 Lenin, Collected Works,vol. 15, 405.
Emphasisadded.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
280 JOHNERIC MAROT

Reason alone could not underminefaith,in Lenin's view. Marxist science

could confrontreligion only indirectly,by explaining the source of religious
faith"in a materialistway," by recognizingthattheexplanationitselfwould not
directly undermine religious consciousness because this consciousness, by
definition, was not immediately open to science and its methods. Though
religious representations of the world were false, nonetheless, they had a
practical, material basis, and were not the productof sheer ignorance,of mere
subjectiveerror,as Bogdanov tendedto believe in accountingfortheabsence of a
scientificSocial-Democratic world view among most workers. Lenin thought
philosophic materialism better suited to a political outlook thatgave pride of
place to changing the natureof society practically,throughparticipationin the
class struggle.He rejected changing the workers' conception of society chiefly
via pedagogy in proletarian universities. Such a changed conception would
follow- not precede- a changed relationshipto society; the latter,in turn,could
only be achieved throughrevolutionaryactivity.35
But Bogdanov had come to explain the appearance of "fetishism"among
workerslargely,if not exclusively,in termsof theirignorance,their"knowledge
gap." By 1909 his solution had come to be identifiedwith,and largelyconfined
to, education and the dissemination of the Social Democratic world view in
proletarianuniversities.Having placed instructionat the centerof theirpolitical
activity, the Vperedists maintained a pedagogical conception of politics,
stemmingfromwhat theyperceived to be the ultimatelycognitivefoundationof
workers' false consciousness. Bogdanov's philosophicalstandpointwas suited to
a conception of politics thatgave pride of place to pedagogy as the chief means
to transform the social consciousness of workers.
In shaip contrast,philosophically"orthodox"Social Democrats- European
and Russian, Bolshevik and Menshevik- affirmedthata scientificunderstanding
of the nature of society, including recognitionof the socially and historically
conditionedcharacterof thatunderstanding, did not eo ipso altersociety's nature,
precisely because society's nature was an objective one, existing outside our
cognition. In this instance, although Bolsheviks and Mensheviks had different
politics, nevertheless,theyhad a political notpedagogical conceptionof politics,
stemmingfromtheircommon materialistrecognitionthatworkers' ideas were
not primarilythe result of (mis)education but of oppressive social conditions
thatlimitedtheiractivityand, consequently,narrowedthescope and restrictedthe
validity of theirideas about society. While neitherBolsheviks, Mensheviks, or
"orthodox" Marxists denied the pedagogical element in politics, all understood

^5 See also Sean Sayers, Reason and Reality: Dialectic and the Theory of
Knowledge (New York,1985) 208.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POLITICSANDPHILOSOPHYINRUSSIANSOCIALDEMOCRACY 28 1

formalpoliticalinstruction obtainedin studycirclesand schoolsto be no more

thana subordinate element;all regardedpedagogicalconcernsas predicatedon
politics, not constitutingit. For them,the establishmentof schools and
universitiesdid not,by itself,constitutea politics- no matterwhatwas taught
in theseestablishments. The Vperedistslookedat theworldupsidedown,and
thiswas reflected in theirpoliticalpracticebytheirinversion of therelationship
betweenpoliticsandpedagogics:theyturnedpedagogyintoan entity existingin
itsown rightand subordinated politicsto it.Thus, when Lenin, in his polemics
againsttheVperedistsappealedto materialist philosophical
principles to explain
the subordinaterole played by pedagogyin politics,he did not link these
principlesto thisfactionexclusivelysincetheMensheviksde factoagreedwith
himon thisquestion.Because Lenin's hostility to theVperedistshad a general
or abstractaspect, lyingoutside eitherMenshevikand Bolshevikfactional
affiliation,that aspect was best grasped in factionallyneutralterms,i.e.,
philosophically.

EPILOGUE:BOGDANOVANDVPEREDINHISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
A greatmanyquestionscould be askedof Bogdanov'sideas,butspace permits
onlyone to be raised,and methodological considerations requirethatit be this
one: Whatwas therelevanceofthisSocial Democrat'stheories to thepracticeof
theworkers'movement?
Bogdanov'spoliticalprojectdidnotmeetwithsuccessamongworkers. The
producerand cooperativemovement quicklyarrivedat an impassesinceit was
impossibleto significantly increasetheworkers'shareof thenationalincome
merelyby marginallyredistributing thatshare amongthem.Above all, the
withdrawal of intellectuals
fromtheworkers'movement compelledworkersto
shutdown most of the clubs. Both phenomenahad become casualties of a
giganticrevolutionary upsurgeof theworkingclass againsttheemployersand
theState,detonatedby theshootingsat theLena gold fieldsin April1912.The
materialbasisofVperedist politicsnarrowed.In response,BogdanovleftVpered
in 1911; it dissolvedde factoin 1912. The outbreakof WorldWarI postponed
therevolutionary dnouementforthreeyears,until1917. Then,the October
Revolution openeda newbutbriefepochof"proletarian culture."
Proletarian culturewas thegrandtermusedbya handful ofintellectualsand
worker-intellectuals influencedbyBogdanovto describethepoignantaspiration
of thousandsupon thousandsof newlyemancipatedbut culturallydestitute
workersto advance theirknowledgeof the artsand of the sciences,in part
throughthe Proletkul'torganization.But neitherBogdanov nor the political
tendency of whichhe had oncebeentheanimating spiritwas trulyvindicated by
thepracticeof theworking class movement in thisperiod.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
282 JOHNERICMAROT

The OctoberRevolutiondoubtlessshowedthatworkers possesseda capacity

forculturaladvancement as Bogdanov,speakingforall Marxists,had believed.
But Bogdanov utterlymisjudgedthe characterof themotivationto use this
capacityon a massscale. Bogdanovhadthought thatworkers wouldbe drivento
revolutionizesociety practicallythrougha prior process of intellectual
transformation.The Octoberrevolutiondecisivelyrefutedthisthesisandturned it
upsidedown:workersrosefirstto revolutionary action,establishedclass-based
Sovietsand factory committees - notuniversities
- and,bycreatingnew forms
in practice,createdthematerialbasisfornew,collectivist
of solidarity formsof
consciousness. The institutionalmechanisms and strategiesof action through
whichworkers forcultural
realizedtheirpotential development borelittleaffinity
to Bogdanov's precepts.In thiscentralrespect,thepoliticsand philosophyof
"Bogdanovism"provedthoroughly impracticalandidealist- as Leninandother
Marxistshademphatically maintained.36

36 The historicinterrelationships betweenthe Soviet State, the Bolshevik Party,

Vpere d and Proletkul't have yet to be properlyestablished. Regardless of
methodologyand "ideological" outlooks, most historianstrace the lineage of
Proletkul'tto Vperedand,on thebasis of theantagonism betweentheBolsheviksand
the Vperedists in 1909, posit a similar antagonismbetween Bolshevism and
Proletkul'tten years later, in 1917-1921. [See, for example, ChristopherRead,
Cultureand Power in Revolutionary Russia (London,1990) and LynnMally,Culture
of the Future: The ProletkuVt Movementin Revolutionary Russia (Berkeley,1990)].
While it is no doubt truethatLenin attackedthe theoryof a uniquelyproletarian
culture,pushedby Bogdanovand a handfulof others,it is incorrect to concludefrom
thisthatProletkul'tand the BolshevikPartywerehostile.In fact,theoverwhelming
majorityof therankand filedelegatesattending Proletkul'tCongressesweremembers
of the Bolshevik Party;the elected leadershipsof Proletkul'twere almost without
exceptionmembersof theBolshevikParty;Proletkul't, as an organizedexpressionof
the workers' movement, was funded exclusively by the Commissariat of
Enlightenment, headed by the Bolshevik Lunacharskii;the policies of the Soviet
State(of whichLunacharskiiwas a member)weredetermined by theBolshevikParty;
finallyand emblematically, thedelegatesto theFirstCongressof Proletkul't in June
1918 electedLenin as theirHonoraryPresident!For all practicalintentsand purposes
Proletkul'tistsand Bolshevikswereone and the same. Moreover,to regardProletkul't
as the lineal descendentof theideas and activitiesof Bogdanovand his associatesin
Vpered is profoundly misleadingbecause, as Trotskyonce remarked, the "different
aspects of a revolutionarymovementas a homogeneoushistoricalprocess and
generally as a developmentpossessing survival value are neitheruniformnor
harmoniousin contentor movement."Stain (New York, 1946) 88. Between 1909
and 1917 the relationshipof Vperedismto the workingclass movementas a whole
had undergonean asymmetrical inversion.In 1909 theculturalpoliticsof Vperedhad
articulateda dominantaspectof theorganizedactivityof a subordinate and repressed
workingclass. A decade later the "proletarianculture" movementhad grown
vertiginouslyand yet it articulatedonly a subordinateaspect of workingclass
activitybecause the workingclass was now dominantand emancipated,a positionto
which it had been broughtby Bolshevism,not Vperedism.Put linearly,worker

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POLITICSANDPHILOSOPHYINRUSSIANSOCIALDEMOCRACY 283

However,in another,equallycentralrespect,Bogdanovand theorthodox

Marxists,Lenin included,were vindicated.Besides Utopianpoliticsand an
idealistphilosophy, therewas in Bogdanov's worldviewthesoundlyscientific
component of his sociology.
It was axiomaticforall Marxists,includingBogdanov,thatthenonsocialist
aspirations andinterests ofthepeasantmajority constituted
an insuperable barrier
to combiningdemocracywithsocialismand workers'rule.Peasantsweresmall
property ownersandas suchhadno interest incollectiveownership ofthemeans
of productionand a plannedeconomy.Theirarchaic,individualizedformof
production could notbe freelytransformed intoa modernsocializedone. Such
socialization,the Marxistshad theorized,could only come about forcibly,
throughthecontradictory actionand fulldevelopment of a capitalistmode of
production.
The latentand theoreticalantagonismof interestsbetweenpeasantand
workerwas renderedactiveand practicalby theOctoberRevolution.Peasants
individually appropriated thefeudallords'estatesthrough themechanism of the
mir,whileworkersestablisheda Sovietstateandmovedto organizeproduction
collectively.But thesocial and economicconditionsfortheestablishment of
socialismstilllay in theWest,withitsculturally developingproletariat, in
not
Russia, with itsculturallyunderdeveloped workers surrounded bya sea of small-
holdingpeasants.
Thoughall Marxistsrecognizedthattheobjectiveconditionsforbuildinga
democraticsocialismin Russia were stillabsentin 1917, theydid not agree
politicallyaboutwhatwas to be done thatyear.Bogdanovconcurredwiththe
MensheviksthatRussia had just begunthe transition to a moderncapitalist
economy and had developed to a pointwhere only a "democratic republic"was
feasiblein 1917.37TheBolshevik-led seizureofpowerbytheSovietsin October
was consequentlyviewedby Bogdanovas a calamity.Thattheproletariat had
rallied in its overwhelmingmajorityto Bolshevismmerelytestifiedto its
cultural immaturity.As a consequence Bogdanov harboredthe deepest
reservations andpreciouslittleenthusiasm fortheextantproletarian culturemade

cultural activity expanded immensely thanks to the success of the October

Revolution,but Vperedism could not legitimatelyclaim credit for this cultural
breakthrough because Vperedismhad nothingto do withsecuringthe victoryof the
October Revolution.
37 Bogdanov, Zadachi rabochikhv revoliutsii(Moscow, 1917) 17. Bogdanov's
Menshevismundercutsthe view thatempirio-criticism was a "voluntarist"revolt
againstdeterminism and materialism,
as Aileen Kelly affirms
in heressay "Empirio-
criticism:A BolshevikPhilosophy?"Cahiersdu monderusseet sovitique21 (1981):
89-118.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
284 JOHNERICMAROT

possibleby thefleeting politicalvictoryof"Leninism."Since Russialackedthe

rudiments of modernscience and industry to underpinproletarian culture,the
latterwas destinedto be thesicklyoffspring ofa prematurely executedpolitical
revolution.^8Bogdanov's manifolddoubtsand misgivings aboutthefutureof
socialismin Russia wereconfirmed by thesubsequenthistoryof theworkers'
movement there.
The Bolsheviks,ofcourse,agreedwithBogdanovandtheMensheviks thata
socialistrevolutionin an isolatedRussia wouldinevitably degenerate, butthey
counteredthatworkers'rulewouldgeneratesocialistrevolutions abroadin the
very near future. This would break Russia's isolation by reconnectingthe
country to an advancedEuropeandAmericawithina singleshellofinternational
socialism.BogdanovturnedtheBolshevikargument insideout.Having,likethe
Mensheviks, excluded the of
verypossibility extending theRevolution abroador
of reversing itat home,he concludedthatworkers hadno choicebutto catchup
culturallyto Russia's now advancedpoliticalforms.But the success of this
daunting enterprise demandedthatthepioneersofproletarian culturebe isolated
fromtheirhostileand threatening peasant environment. In short,theyneededto
incubate,hot-housefashion, a proletarianculture.
Politically, the attempt to create a proletarianculturein an artificial
environment, despite theOctober Revolution,whichhad prematurely exposed
workersto materialcircumstances inimicalto thenaturaldevelopment of sucha
culture,proved ill-fated,a fuite en avant. Yet the materialistkernel in
Bogdanov'sfantastic project,his and theclassicalMarxist'sabidingconviction
thatRussia's backwardness wouldworkprogressively toundermine thefuture of
socialism,was corroborated in the mostdevastatingway. For the failureof
proletarianrevolutionin the West sequesteredthe materialachievementsof
modemcapitalismfromRussia,removing foran entireepochthematerialbasis
forthe freedevelopmentof the workingclass. In therubbleof the October
Revolutiongrewthe"culture"of Stalinism.

38 Bogdanov, "Sud'by rabocheipartiiv nyneshneirevoliutsii,"Novata zhizn' 26,

27 January(February8, 9) 1918.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:18:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions