Engineer Menni and the Prose of Project Management

The recent efforts of Mckenzie Wark to rehabilitate Bogdanov have brought back more than just the lovable vampiric theorist from his bloody grave. With him emerge the concurrent spectres of utopia, state socialism and grandiose public works. Bogdanov, the activist revolutionary of 1905, had by 1917 become a theorist of the abstract, a scientific socialist, and a constructor of tangible Martian utopias. It is on Mars that Bogdanov pursues the doppelganger of Earthly socialism, and so, it is to Mars we go, by means of the collected translation Red Star: The First Bolshevik Utopia.

What is Mars for Bogdanov? If he defines Nature as “that which labor encounters,” Mars becomes something like “that which theory encounters”.

Mckenzie Wark makes use of the Deleuzian notion of molar and molecular in order to reach Bogdanov. If the molar is the realm of abstract grand thinking, high level concepts, and authoritarian pronouncements, then the molecular is the unseen, the below the below, the minute and particular, carbon liberation, and the world of “actually existing theoritism”. We must contrast the molar concepts of history, philosophy, love, art, with the molecular concepts of metabolic rift, development, attraction, and labor.

What does Bogdanov’s Mars represent? It is a world that is much older than ours, and yet has only progressed a few hundred years ahead of humanity (at least by 1905 – who knows what they’re up to now). They are a communist utopia of course, but have graduated to that position in much more molar way than the Earthlings were trending; because Mars is a harsher, larger, and sadder world, the populace, constrained to smaller plots of inhabitable land; Martians are much more tolerant of social development, much less cruel, much more abstract themselves as historical characters. Leonid (or affectionately, “Lenni”), the main character of Red Star, notices in Martian culture, art, politics, a certain abstract remove which contrasts with the brashness and threatening asymmetry of the development of the proletarian movement on Earth. As comes out in discussion:

“I don’t know,” he said thoughtfully, “but I think that you are wrong. True, the conflicts on Earth have been more acute than ours, and the natural environment has always shown a greater tendency to retaliate with death and destruction. But perhaps this is due to the fact that Earth is so much more richly endowed with natural resources and the life-giving energy of the sun. Look how much older our planet is, yet our humanity arose only a few tens of thousands of years before yours and is at present a mere two or three hundred years ahead of you in development. I tend to think of our two humanities as brothers. The elder one has a calm and balanced temperament, while the younger one is stormy and impetuous. The younger one is more wasteful with his resources, and prone to serious errors. His childhood was sickly and turbulent, and as he now approaches adolescence he often suffers from convulsive growing pains. But might he not become a greater and more powerful artist and creator than his elder brother? And in that case, will he not eventuaily be able to adorn our great Universe even better and more richly? I cannot be certain, but its seems to me that this is what may happen.”

Which is the molecular and which is the molar? In some sense, Mars is the same sort of abstraction as that used by Marx in Das Kapital, the abstractions that David Harvey’s brilliant youtube course makes commodity-clear; in Marx, certain real variables must be factored out of the equation because they over-complicate the development of a solution or tendency. In this sense, Martian society has progressed along molar lines. Big ideas have always managed to triumph with relative ease; the great public works of the canals have succeeded. Earth, on the other hand, is out-of-whack; it is full of metabolic rift, molecular instability, ideas emerge too soon or too late, and coalitions are much more radioactive. They even have a chiller, more widely read Martian doppelganger of Karl Marx, the “renowned Xarma”.

In this we see, not a rejection of the molar as such as Wark sometimes seems to suggest, but a comparison of the abstract with the concrete – by means of hypothetical abstraction (science fiction). The model of Mars, the cool temperaments of its inhabitants, serve as a template that the Earth is already corrupting beyond repair. In this sense, the Martian sequence can never be a program for the Earth, only ever a vague, super-egoic tease, an unreachable success-factor. Or in a more optimistic vein, Martian technical socialism is the idea that must be pursued by the various romantic truth procedures of love, science, art and politics on Earth, pursued but never fully actualized. Only on Mars is a cohesive “poetics of labor” capable of emerging as a whole. Maybe all that Earth can hope to do in the stead of a fully realized poetics of labor, is capture that movement into a banal realism, a “prose of project management”?

It is funny that Red Star, the more traditional utopia of travel, was a huge best-seller during the Russian Revolution, while its much superior prequel Engineer Menni went pretty much unnoticed. Yet the latter is perhaps the heart of Bogdanov’s project; to turn vulgar Marxism into a technical ideal of socialism, and this technical development, through the figure of the Engineer – the Martian Engineers Menni and Netti, who pre-figure the stupid figures of socialist realism and far surpass them.

Engineer Menni gives humanity hope that it can reach the molar one day too. It is the great manifesto of molar projection. The book is presented as a novel from Mars, translated into English by Leonid. As Leonid mentions in Red Star, there is a certain coolness to Martian literature that seems to find more aesthetic joy in the technical – a kind of latent suprematism or Neue Sachlichkeit. Bogdanov is true to his word when, in Engineer Menni, he really does compose such a novel. The device of writing, not about aliens, but an alien novel as such, is really quite brilliant. The gesture practiced in Menni is very compelling, nigh Lovecraftian in its staging of uncanny familiarity:

Translation from the single Martian language into those of Earth is much more difficult than translation from one Earthly language to another, and it is often even impossible to give a full and exact rendering of the content of the original. Imagine trying to translate a modern scientific work, a psychological novel, or a political article into the language of Homer or into Old Church Slavonic. I am aware that such a comparison does not Batter us Earthlings, but it is unfortunately no exaggeration-the difference between our respective civilizations is just about that great.

But who is Menni? The molar hero. The great architect, engineer, project manager, and a Lycurgus or pre-foundational figure of vulgar, technical, molar Marxism. The novel is about his great project and his interpersonal relationships, but moreso the former. Menni has an idea that will greatly expand the territory of Martian life and progress, exploit the untapped resources of the planet, and progress the species of Martian humanity, which feels cramped and narrow in its tiny pockets of inhabitable land, much like the characters in more recent fictions like Attack on Titan.

This is a socialist realist technique, to write about public works, and the great (projected) unity of state, technology, and labor against the elements. The whole trend of Bogdanov’s science fiction is the unity of labor against natural ferocity. He refutes a future left of localism not yet developed in his era; as Žižek proclaims, the Negri style pockets of progress and local contributions do not suffice to deal with the problems of a socialist race, even once the proletariat has conquered. The real enemy is not a rival class, but nature herself.

Thus in Red Star, the great debate of the Martians is whether to colonize Earth or Venus. Placid and artistic, hedonistic even on the surface, the Martians are all bitterly melancholic because the natural world is trying to kill them and their socialist paradise; a dilemma emerges – colonize and kill the humans in the name of a greater more developed humanity (the view of the Martian Sterni) or go to the inhospitable Venus to mine its resources? They have only enough fuel for one project, and they choose the more comradely, leaving Earth its chance.

Menni shows more the pure poetry of labor and project management, a struggle against organizational inertia and natural obstacles, and how class development and ideational progress attach themselves to technical developments in the concrete world. It is a strange novel. The strangest part is the long hallucinatory sequence of the vampire, the representative of old ideas and once-useful historical processes, like democracy or parliamentarism, that have become dead letters but continue to live on and pester the progressive forces.

Technicality triumphs, and history goes with her, but only, it seems, on Mars.

So far.

We have signs. Everybody on Earth now speaks English. The Martians too had a coming together of language. Beercroft’s “universal language” is now a reality.

But the idea lives on after the man disappears, and you have come to understand the main thing: the creativity that found one of its incarnations in you has no end.

The possibility of the Project Management Novel

So that’s why I came up with the phrase “prose of project management”, as a kind of realist response to the Bogdanovite “poetry of labor”. We need to recognize that tektological and organizational thinking brings about a weird counter-swing from the molar to the molecular and back to the molar again. Like Bogdanov’s notion of “crisis” as either a conjunction or a destruction (crisises C and D respectively). His point is that no crisis is just a pure crisis-D or crisis-C, but that the interesting features of either can appear to be dominantly one or the other, depending on your point of observation. Likewise, the “poetry of labor” needs its “managemental prose”. This is the molar prose of the technical abstraction, the Brechtian “crude thinking”, the concept-as-blunt-object used by committees to bludgeon reactionaries.

This is clearly a different spin on the idea of the “project” from the (quite molecular) “project-as-self” or any other individualistic narcissism; it is almost classically soviet in comparison to what is prevalent today. It should not be taken in the same vein as the Invisible Committee describes the “I AM WHAT I AM”, the petty atomistic personal project of the self:

The maintenance of the self in a permanent state of deterioration, in a chronic state of near-collapse, is the best-kept secret of the present order of things. The weak, depressed, self-critical, virtual self is essentially that endlessly adaptable subject required by the ceaseless innovation of production…It is at the same time the most voracious consumer and, paradoxically, the most productive self, the one that will most eagerly and energetically throw itself into the slightest project, only to return later to its original larval state. 

The PM methodology to be derived from Bogdanov emphatically rejects this. No slight projects, no larval pupas, and certainly no return. In this sense, molar.

Like the dreams of Benjamin, Platonov, Ehrenberg, Lunacharsky, and Piscator, among many others, the hope of functionalizing or socializing the novel form is so old to criticism that it’s surprising that it hasn’t actually manifested itself more frequently. The valorization of the report, the blueprint, the newspaper as aesthetic endstates was a constant refrain in the 1920s. Eventually this led to a re-capture within literature itself – Brecht and Alfred Döblin, for example, made heavy use of reportage and workerist flavoured functionality for artistic ends.

If rhyme really is of feudal provenance, then the same may be said of many other good and beautiful things.

If the Soviet Union’s contribution to the great unreadable genres of mankind was the production novel, Engineer Menni stands as an elegant and surprisingly readable precursor. Yet although production is certainly an element, it is far more high level. We see in Menni the possibility for something like a management or project novel. A novel or literary form that takes as its architecture not story arcs, but phases; not character development, but resource management; not plot resolutions, but outcomes; and finally, not moral platitudes or zen like moments of observation, but strictly documented lessons learned.

All of a suddenly he understood that one didn’t have to invent it all from scratch, that it was a matter of making something new by synthesis of all that was good in what came before.

Kim Stanley Robinson.

This functional trend seemed to have gone away for awhile. But the rehabilitation of Red Star/Engineer Menni opens up the possibility for a severe détournement; the language of management, organization, abstract project coordination can be stolen for aesthetic development. And once the literary captures this thinking, it can return it back with a vengeance. No longer will the notions of finance or human resources be linked to solely spreadsheets; a utilitarian flavor will remain, but legends and heroes, or perhaps even new methodologies embodied as heroes. Engineer Menni stands for both a political finality or class division, and a new methodology for the commune as a whole. A vindication of the major or state project, and as such, an aesthetic as much as political vindication.

Our Cause | Two Grenadiers (wordpress.com)

 

Mckenzie Ward’s “Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocence” – Cyborg, Who’re You Calling Bourgeois!?

McKenzie Wark’s Molecular Red is a “low theory” book of weird alternatives. Cyborgs, climate science, and soviet Utopian lunacy come together in what I can only describe as a science fair project for a Marxist robot high school of the future. It provides a fascinating account of Bogdanov, the forgotten, the soviet sci-fi alt-scientist, and of course, the political and philosophical “anti-Lenin”. Wark makes the case for a revival Bogdanov’s never-yet-popular Tektology as a corrective methodology appropriate to a world where environmental and technological rifts are increasingly radical and irreversible.

His science fiction super-villain, the “Carbon Liberation Front”, a collective and hilariously well chosen name for the anthropo-technical forces that have (unconsciously) brought about the emancipation of carbon into the atmosphere, causing a situation where there is no back button (or in Wark/Marx, a “metabolic rift”).

Wark wants thinking at the low-level (“designs for Life, low theory and everyday practice from the labor point of view”) to take its place next to, or perhaps push aside this generation’s inheritors of critical theory, Western Marxism, and all those, like Badiou and Žižek, whom he characterizes as worshipers at the the altar of a “psychoanalytic Leninist sublime”.

Wark’s book is very interesting. A revival is always interesting. Wark’s efforts are spent on the hopelessly maligned as Bogdanov, a wonderful crack-pot who, in 1908, almost took over the Bolsheviks, in 1917, was pushing an apolitical/non-revolutionary/technical Marxism, and in 1928 died from a weird blood transfusion experiment gone horribly wrong. Wark’s success in rehabilitating Bogdanov shows the truth behind Benjamin’s statement that “nothing that has ever happened should be regarded as lost for history“:

The idea is a sort of impossible crystal, dead and inert, without which boredom and grief weather us. But the idea on its own is only the concept of death…Better to live then on a secondary idea, which mediates between the idea and labor, keeping the dead ideal from direct contact with life, where either the idea of death will live and kill life, or life itself will kill the deathly idea. The secondary idea should be practical, attaching itself to the problem of life and inert matter, rather than life and soul. The secondary idea is usually a design problem, and hence, in principle, soluble…Our species-being is lost when we make a fetish of a particular idea, a particular love, or a particular labor, as Bogdanov might say..

REPORT THIS AD

Bogdanov was a big weird character, but Wark focuses on his biggest, weirdest project, Tektology, a proto-systems theory that humbly tries to describe and subsume all extant knowledge, practice and natural phenomenon as “organizational”. It is a work of emancipatory org-design as molecular connector – a kind of metaphor machine that allows one to freely and creatively import/export concepts from one science or praxis to another – a “zip and download” function for theory.

The formal process of a given activity can be the experimental template for another.

That this is a very useful train of thinking to revive in this era of design, “big data”, information systems, and metadata goes without saying too much. As a practicing information architect and information management consultant, I am actually salivating to use some of Bogdanov’s thinking around “conjunction” et al. in my professional work, and think they will even bear fruit. It is a “labor point of view” that design and information science sorely needs to hack its seemingly unstoppable sequences and processes for a “comradely” future.

Similarly cool is Wark’s willingness to be totally on side with Bogdanov’s Proletkult, the most avant-garde pre-Stalinist art/education movement in pretty damn avant-garde era of history. This is exemplified in the writing of Platonov, who, now that his works are published and translated, is getting the belated title of “best soviet writer ever”, totally snatching it from Pasternak or whomever. Wark’s readings of Platonov are both welcome and timely, convincing and unexpected. I feel like everyone who has ever been inspired by the avant-garde soviet 10s and 20s secretly was waiting for just this sort of justification of “literary factories”, out of the box proletarian education and artistic creation “from the labor point of view”. Think this kind of production with what the Italian collective Wu Ming are doing, and perhaps frame it with Badiou’s literary subject, and maybe we’ve got something worth doing.

The connections get weirder as Wark follows the Utopian chem-trail from Bogdanov’s utopia Red Star, the first great work of soviet sci-fi, to California, where we find Paul Feyerabend, Donna Haraway (and her cyborg offspring), and the sci-fi protege of Frederic Jameson, Kim Stanley Robinson. Here we have a look at the critical, queer-feminist-cyborg side of California Ideology. For those not familiar with the antihumanist joys of terraforming and cyborg-theorizing, this latter half of the book will inspire weird thoughts from the depths of the uncanny valley. His account of climate science as a potlatch but revolutionary vast-machine, heretofore unthinkable, ties well with his Platonov focus on the below the below, the infrastructure beneath the superstructure, and the sub-infrastructure or non-infrastructure, the gaping foundation pits of half-citizens and mad men.

The main thesis that underlies these excursions and revivals is that “molar” thinking, the thinking of high theory, western Marxism, philosophy etc., while perfectly comfortable thinking around the “death of God” , has not yet convincingly thought around the “death of the Goddess” (i.e. Nature). Only at the level of metabolic rifts, exact scientific accounts hacked by metaphors, détournements (or hijackings) of existing concepts, short-circuitings, a focus on “secondary”, rather than first, principles etc. can we confront the problems, the main problems, to shared and “comradely” life today.

Praxis starts and ends with the struggle for life; everything else is just useless duplicity or dangerous theology.

So why does he see all this as so incompatible with current theory? My main issue with Wark comes from the unnecessary name-calling, the denigrating, and the proletarian posturing he sporadically adopts against his bugbear Žižek and the other “western Marxists”, which near the end he labels outright as proponents of a beyond-useful critical theory, or hypocritical theory:

First – and last: from Bourgeois to Proletarian. Hypocritical theory is in love with the lovely things of its own class – bourgeois things. It makes a fetish of leaders, idolizing Lenin or Mao. It doesn’t want to talk about workers; it wants to deal only with representatives. Or: it finds excuses to remain within the detritus of a lost bourgeois culture – Wagner, Hegel, and Mallarmé. Or: it takes refuge in theology, as if only the gods could save us…

We get that you probably don’t headbang to Wagner, but as someone who is pushing the Apple infused world of “design problems”, and a theorist of “organizational science, isn’t this a little pot vs kettle?

We have to ask, who’re you calling bourgeois, Mr. Cyborg? If we’re going to play the ouvriériste, let’s go all the way. Isn’t Wark the one trying to rehabilitate Bogdanov, perhaps (by 1917 at least) the only non-Revolutionary Bolshevik? A writer who seems to imply that education and culture calmly plodding along and adding to the “shared life” stock pile will simply progress to, uh, more “shared life”? Has he ever played Starcraft? Is Wark aware that worker bees have enemies?

His point about the necessity to share comradely struggles against the environment, nature etc. is well taken, but his disdain for political activity and fetish for techno-science is, without a real revolutionary or subjective thrust, almost entirely compatible with the kind of Silicon Valley Common sense he is trying to combat. Are we all just going to throw out lot in with hackers and open-source coders and read sci-fi, and hope that comradely activity emerges unimpeded?

If the “molar thinking” thinking of a Badiou is in the clouds, and a Bogdanov is representative of good, molecular thinking, how does he explain tektology as “organizational design”? Isn’t organizational design the area par excellence of bourgeois, molar thinking today? In a review of Žižek’s Absolute Recoil, Wark claims:

The molar is the language of management. It’s the dialogue of ideas, in which the experience of those who organize labor substitutes for the experience of those whose labor organizes the material world directly.

If he ever does a survey of management theory, I think he’ll be surprised at how close it sounds, not to the “bourgeois communism” of Badiou, but precisely to his beloved Bogdanov. There is no reason in your book to address the Maos and the Lenins, the Shanghai and Paris Communes of history; but no need to attack those who theorize along those “molar” lines; thinking which, incidentally, the workers of history have always found easier to digest. Aren’t grand narratives precisely the narratives of the worker? Isn’t molecular thinking the luxury of the scientist who doesn’t have to work a minimum wage job all day?

If there is something to suspect in “molar” thinking, we mustn’t forget that Bogdanov is a writer who, in praising organization unabashedly, sees more value in the First World War than in the Bolshevik Revolution. Isn’t he being just the slightest bit “managemental” in his attitude to the workers when he says things like:

The World War turned out to be the greatest school of organization; it called for an unparalleled effort of organizational abilities from any person or any collective which was directly or indirectly involved in the War, giving it an invaluable organizational experience…For example, deficiency in people is compensated either by a reinforcement of the technical means of destruction or by an ideological rallying of people, raising the fighting spirit of a military collective through Inspiring and elucidating spheres and orders; deficiency in technical means is equalized by a replenishment of human material, etc. The unity of the organizational point of view intrudes here with the greatest force and creates an acute necessity for the unity of organizational methods.

To be proletarian alongside the bourgeois is perhaps even more unreasonable that believing in a subjectivized “bourgeois communism”. There is no compelling reason to toss out current thinkers like Badiou, who capture and rehabilitate in the name of the Event many elements of art, history, science and love from the enemy camp. Indeed, reading the high-level “organizational” categories of Bogdanov, every good information architect might smirk a little at the abstract philosophical generality that is present. Badiou’s use of Cantor and company certainly represents a more genuine encounter with real modern mathematics than Bogdano-Debordian détournements of science, however cool the latter may be.

But the differences are perhaps not even so stark as Wark thinks. Badiou uses mathematics as an empty or “void” ontology in exactly the same way Bogdanov seems to. There is no magic or bourgeois sentimentality in Badiou’s ontology, and his approach and Bogdanov’s are mutually understanding here. It is Wark who might re-read this paragraph from the Tektology:

Is it really possible that the same laws can be applied to combinations of cosmic worlds and biological cells, living people and etheric waves, scientific ideas and energy atoms? Mathematics provides a decisive and indisputable answer: yes, it is quite possible because it is in fact… Thus mathematics is simply the tektology of neutral complexes, developed before other parts of the universal organizational science.

Indeed, although a little buried beneath the blood, chloride and tektols, Bogdanov’s own concept of an eternal-type “truth” is not all that different from Badiou’s materialist dialectic:

Tektology will preserve and save for mankind much of its labour, crystalized in the verities of the past. Undoubtedly, contemporary verities will also become obsolete and die in their time; but tektology guarantees that even they will not be simply discared and will not be converted in the eyes of future generations into naked, fruitless illusions.

Wark’s book is compelling, fucked up, and probably true on many counts; his rehabilitations are not only interesting, they are obscure, cunning, funny and welcome. He is also probably justified in proposing a new, tektologically informed scientific molecular theory to go alongside the molar. It is something I, as a smarmy cognitarian, find not only exciting in the abstract, but actually applicable. It opens up whole new bypaths of thinking, and will undoubtedly help us, the unhelpable cyborg conglomerate of the 21st century. Molar and molecular need to be the new dynamic duo of critical theory. I Just don’t want to spoil the vibe by calling the one proletarian and the other bourgeois; that move is petty, weirdly archaic, and not at all “comradely”.

Our Cause | Two Grenadiers (wordpress.com)

 

Lenin's polemic against the School of Mach  (Materialism and Empiriocriticism, 1909)

The need to explore the context in which Josef Popper's ideas matured obliges us not to neglect to deal with the most famous of the controversies against the whole school of empiriociriticists. First of all, I would like to point out to the reader that the text's approach is based on that of the well-known 'Anti-Dühring', which Engels had written several years earlier. Even in the"Anti-Dühring" there is a fierce (though good-natured) criticism of the way of thinking of a German academic; also there is at the same time the illustration of the most recent discoveries of the natural science of the time in the light of a dialectical materialist interpretation. But here the similarity stops; since Engels' criticism of Dühring is, as I said earlier, good-natured, he sings his opponent, condemning him to a not very flattering judgment: but Engels is very aware of the developments of science, and the criticism is always timely, even if he himself modestly acknowledged that he was sometimes not up to the task as a scientific communicator. It is therefore that ofthe 'Anti-Dühring' a pleasant and useful reading. The difference that comes to the fore reading "Materialism and Impiriocriticism" is the tone not at all good-natured; what we'll see later. Another difference is the method of criticism used by Lenin - he criticizes an entire school of thought all together, every ermpiriocriticist he knows, at the same time: he quotes the sentence of one, below the sentence of another, juxtaxtaxtats the sentence of a third, and so on. In doing so, he has a good game in asading the pieces so that they adhere to the interpretation that he himself has already given a priori. Much more scientific value would have had the book if it had taken the thought of only one of its opponents - let us put it ernst mach- the undisputed head of the school of empiriocriticists, and had placed it to severe criticism. But that was not , I believe , the purpose of the book; the goal was to divide between good and bad, here orthodox dialectic materialists and there the iconoclasts of materialism, and to make one appear respectively as the only true Marxists and the other of mere reactionary agents of the bourgeoisie. One of the main objectives is certainly Aleksandr Bogdanov, who we find a Bolshevik member of the central committee of the Russian Social Democratic Party at the time of the failed revolution of 1905 and then expelled from the central committee in 1909, for touting his ideas incompatible with Orthodox Marxism. And of which - regardless of the actual political role - we now generally find its primogeniture accepted in the formulation of the general theory of systems. In 1926, he established the world's first transfusion center in Moscow, and died in 1928, attempting a scientific experiment on himself. From reading Lenin's text, one might think that Bogdanov was sent to Siberia for at least twenty years in a re-education camp. That was not the case, and it is indeed extraordinary how the unacceptable harshness of his words was accompanied by tolerance and personal respect. In fact, we read "Bogdanov personally is a sworn enemy of every reaction and in particular of the bourgeois reaction. Bogdanov's replacement and the theory of the identity of being social and social consciousness, serve this reaction. This is a sad fact, but it is always a fact." [Lenin, Complete collection of works. V.18. p. 346] Despite the disagreements, Bogdanov considered the October Revolution to be the greatest social achievement, and it was Lenin who supported his project of the transfusion center in Moscow, in the last years of their lives. However, it is difficult not to be impressed by the classifier intent of "Materialism and Impiriocriticism" ; While it is not possible to speak of an inquisition - since there was no repression under Lenin - on the other hand it is frightening because there is a perfect glimpse of the possibility for others to use his words to justify far more tragic consequences. And in any case, it is possible not to recognize that constantly referring to the purity of a doctrine - because otherwise it is barbarism - is, whether we like it or not, a method of doom. In the sequel I will not even try to pursue Lenin in his hunt for all the reactionary little bourgeois who lurk inside the empiriocriticists (try who is capable of it); I shall confine myself to cropping his text so as to highlight only one of his attacks on Ernst Mach and to discuss it. We read a passage of "Materialism and Impiriocriticism": The 'principle of the economy of thought' and the question of 'unity of the world'. "The principle of 'lower force consumption', placed by Mach, Avenarius and many others, based on the theory of knowledge, is... undoubtedly a 'Marxist' tendency in gnoseology". This is what Bazarov asserts in the Essays (p. 69). Marx is about "economics." Mach is about "economics." Is it really "indisputable" that there is even a shadow of a bond between them? In Avenarius' work Philosophy as the thought of the world according to the principle of less consumption of force (1876), this "principle" is applied, as we have seen, in such a way as to declare in the name of the "economy of thought" that sensation is the only thing existing. Causality and "substance" (a term that professors willingly use to "give themselves airs", instead of the more precise and clearer term of matter) are declared "eliminated" in the name of that same economy and in other words you get the feeling without matter, the thought without the brain. [Lenin, p.166] [...] Mach, as usual, creates confusion and machists contemplate and adore this confusion! In Knowledge and Error,in the chapter Examples of researchmethods, we read: "The 'complete and simpler description' (Kirchhoff, 1874), the 'economic representation of facts' (Mach, 1872), as well as the 'concordance of thought with the being and concordance of thought with each other' (Grassmann, 1844) express the same thought with small variations". Isn't that a pattern of confusion? [Lenin, p.167] To deal with the previous step, the difficulty is that Lenin juxtatats all four concepts he opposes: the economic representation of facts, phenomenological physics as "solipsistic psychiasm", criticism of the notion of causality and that of the notion of substance. The different aspects need to be addressed separately. Science as an "economic representation of facts" and criticism of absolute space It is enough to have studied a little mechanics to know that from a certain point of view the whole question of "economic representation" can be connected in a clarifying way to the question of whether it is for example objective truth that the sun turns around the earth, or that it is the earth that turns on itself, generating an apparent motion. It is clear that we are entitled to assert that the earth here and now is my reference system, and therefore to say that it is the sun that is spinning. But if we do some experiments on motion, we'll find out the existence of forces (called Coriolis forces) that tend to shift the trajectory of a body moving along a meridian, forces that are easily explained by earth's rotation. It is those same forces that cause when water falls down the sink hole, they make it form a vortex counterclockwise (for the northern hemisphere); because the center point of the vortex has a higher linear velocity than the points closest to the pole, and less than those closest to the equator (when you are exactly at the equator, the water descends from the hole without forming any vortex!). Does that allow us to say that it is the earth that is turning on itself? The fact is that that is not the point, it depends on our purposes; it is certain that, if we want to keep the centre of our reference system anchored to the Earth's surface, we will have to introduce apparent forces - including coriolis forces - to describe it accurately; it will be our system (called non-inertial)therefore more complex than anchoring the reference system - let's say - in the center of the sun, with the earth circling around itself and the sun. Both ways may give correct results, but the theory will be easier if we put the sun in the center. Only in this sense can we say that it is the earth that is spinning, but in no way can we say that this is the objective truth - since we are placing the sun still, but the sun falls towards another star, and therefore we would need to consider as a reference system the "fixed stars", which are not fixed. But to say that it is the earth that turns, is certainly a cheaper representation of the facts. We therefore see that already with classical mechanics - and classical relativism - we can question the notion of objective truth, unless we shift our attention to functional relationships between the entities considered, which are invariant regardless of the reference system. They would become an "objective truth", with foundation; Unfortunately, this would not help Galileo in his trial before the inquisitors of his time. It is not possible to address this issue as Lenin does: Is it cheaper to "think" that the atom is indivisible or that it is composed of positive and negative electrons? Is it cheaper to "think" that the bourgeois revolution in Russia is directed by liberals or against liberals? You only have to ask the question of to what extent it is absurd and subjective to apply the category of 'thought economy' here. Man's thought is "economic" when it exactly reflects the objective truth, and practice, experiment, industry serve as a criterion for its accuracy. Only by denying objective reality, that is, the very foundations of Marxism, can we seriously talk about the economics of thought in the theory of knowledge! [Lenin, p.166] Because, as was shown before, there are experiments that can refute a theory that doesn't predict their results, but there are different theories -- simpler and simpler -- that can predict identical results; they may predict any possible identical result, and therefore shall be equivalent; or diverge in some aspect. To paraphrase Lenin: is it cheaper to think that the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth turns on itself? The answer is that it is equally possible to think of the two things, but that it is cheaper to think that it is the earth that turns on itself, since we will not need to insert coriolis forces as immanent to the reference system. That's it. All masses, all speeds, so all forces are relative. There is no difference between relative and absolute, which we can grasp with the senses. On the other hand, there is no reason why we should admit this difference, since admission does not bring us any theoretical or other advantage. Modern authors who allow themselves to be convinced by the Newtonian argument of the water vessel [ndA: analogous to what I have just shown] to distinguish between absolute motion and relative motion, do not realize that the system of the world is given to us only once, and that Ptlemaic and Copernican theory are only interpretations, and both equally valid. Try to keep the Newtonian vase still, rotate the sky of the stars and check for the absence of centrifugal forces. [Mach, p. 246] And Lenin actually seems to be making this pointless Herculean effort... Contemporary physics, he says, preserves Newton's idea of absolute time and space, time and space as such. This "there" conception seems absurd, Mach continues, without suspecting, evidently, the existence of materialists and materialistic theory of knowledge. [Lenin, p. 175] But let's see another step by Mach: Yet Newton also needs to be criticized. There is no difference between referring the laws of motion to absolute space and enunciated in abstract form, that is, without explicitly indicating the reference system. This last method is practical and does not bring harm, since every mechanical scholar, when dealing with a particular case, first of all looks for a reference system that is usable. Whenever possible, the first process was understood in this way, and precisely therefore the incorrect Newtonian idea of absolute space has produced little harm in such a long time. [Mach, p. 288] And how angry Lenin is: This naïve remark about the harmlessness of materialistic conception turns against Mach! [...] Such "harmlessness" is synonymous with accuracy. "Harmful" is Mach's idealistic conception of space and time, since, firstly, it opens the door to fideism, and, secondly, induces Mach himself to reactionary conclusions. [Lenin, p.175] The reader may wonder where fideism is and where reactionary conclusion is: he will not find them in Mach's text, but in Lenin's text, as a necessary logical consequence. It just sounds like a quote from Lupus et agnus... Lenin's method throughout the book is always the same: being "wrong" the foundations of Mach's theory of knowledge - according to idealistic and fideistic Lenins, actually fruitfully critical -, then the conclusions (and any subsequent action) can only be reactionary. One would naturally be led to excuse Lenin for not being a physicist - ignorance masked by a huge amount of reading - if it were not for insults: The philosophy of the scientist Mach is for the natural sciences what was for Christ the kiss of the Christian Judas. Likewise, Mach betrays the natural sciences for fideism, essentially siding with philosophical idealism. When Mach denies the materialism of the natural sciences, he performs an act in all reactionary senses: we have seen it with sufficient clarity talking about the struggle of "physical idealists" against the majority of scientists who remain faithful to the old philosophy. We will see this even more clearly by comparing the famous scientist Ernst Haeckel [ndA: a critic of Mach] with the famous (among the small reactionary bourgeois) philosopher Ernst Mach. [Lenin, p.342] [...] But Willy [ndA: in turn a critic of Haeckel] cannot but see that one hundred thousand haeckel readers mean a hundred thousand spitting directed at the philosophy of Mach and Avenarius. [...] The "war" against Haeckel has shown that our view corresponds to objective reality, that is, the class nature of modern society and its class ideologies. [Lenin, p.346] Instead of the hundred thousand spitting,let's take a look at the calmer reflection of a certainly calm man, Albert Einstein, who attributed to Mach, instead of the kiss of Judas, even the authorship of the conceptions that had led him to elaborate the theory of general relativity: The truth is that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something that is not observable by striving to replace in mechanics an average acceleration referring to the totality of the masses of the universe instead of an acceleration referring to absolute space. But inertial resistance to the relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes remote action; and since the modern physicist does not believe that he can accept this action at a distance, we return again, if you follow Mach, to the ethere, which must serve as a means for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ethere, to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking, differs essentially from the ethere as conceived by Newton, Fresnel, and Lorentz. Mach's ethere not only affects the behavior of the masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them. Mach's idea finds its full development in the ethere of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory, the metric qualities of the space-time continuum differ in the environment of different points of spacetime, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside the territory under consideration. [from Einstein: Ethere and Relativity - 1920] It should be noted that Einstein always remembered even in his late teens the debt that he himself attributed to Mach, which he called the incorruptible skeptic. causality On causality, Mach essentially adhered to Hume's skeptical stance. Although it is obviously not possible to affirm Mach's authorship also on quantum mechanics, it is curious that in a few years the principle of causality would have been called into question. Heisenberg, the inventor of the famous uncertainty principle, as an example of a crisis of the causality principle proposes the decay of radio(Physics and Philosophy,p. 92-93), so one can determine the probability of a decay event occurring without it being possible to determine its cause. But the example is not very fitting, since it is a practical impossibility to know all the necessary variables, without interference by the observer invalidating all the observation. Heisenberg therefore denies the possibility of a law of causality a priori,as Kant wanted. The literature on the problems of the principle of causality in quantum mechanics is endless and I have no intention of going into the theoretical means to delve into the subject here. Suffice it to say that the greatest physicists have been in bitter disagreement throughout the twentieth century over whether or not the principle of causality is valid at the quantum level, and moreover all quantum mechanics is based on functions of probability amplitudes. Let's quote this cute anecdote about the great American physicist Richard Feynman, nobel laureate for inventing quantum electrodynamics: Thirty years ago Dick Feynman told me about his "sum on stories" version of quantum mechanics. "The electron does anything he likes," he said. "He goes in any direction at any speed, back or forth in time, however he likes, and then you add the amplitudes and he gives you the wave function." I said, "You're crazy," but he wasn't. [Freeman Dyson] Considering electrons that go back in time as a normal part in physical calculus - in addition to verifying a maverick mind - indicates that the principle of causality can also be denied (albeit at the microscopic and local level) and yet there is still a science, capable of providing us with transistors, integrated circuits, CD players and computers. Substance - phenomenological physics and "solipsistic sensism" In the song quoted at the opening, Lenin states [...] and the "substance" (a term that the professors willingly use to "give themselves airs", instead of the more precise and clearer term of matter) are declared "eliminated" in the name of that same economy and in other words you get the feeling without matter, the thought without the brain. [Lenin, p.167] Instead, we see that Mach does not think at all that the matter does not exist, rather gives an operational definition: Elsewhere [ndA: in theAnalysis of Sensations] I tried to clarify how the constant stability of the connection between different sensations led to the hypothesis of absolute stability, which is called substance. The first and most immediate example of a substance is offered by a moving body detached from its surroundings. If we consider this body to be divisible into homogeneous parts, each of which has a constant complex of properties, we come to the representation of a substantial entity that varies quantitatively and that we call matter. What is taken out of one body, occurs in another: the amount of matter in its entirety is constant. Speaking more precisely, however, we must say that the substantial properties are as many as there are properties of bodies, and that matter has only the function of representing the constant bond of the various properties, one of which is mass. [Mach, p. 217] Here we see that what Lenin scornfully calls "solipsistic sensism" is actually a knowledge setting on what we can actually know - the sensitive properties of bodies. The existence of an outside world in the senses is never denied (and accusing a physicist of the opposite is truly bizarre). While distinguishing the elements of sensitive knowledge of matter we arrive at a fairly clear definition - except perhaps for Lenin? - of the mass: The amount of matter itself is not a mass, nor is it thermal capacity, combustion heat, nor nutritional value, etc. The "mass" has no thermal meaning, but only dynamic. The way forward is another. The different physical quantities are proportional to each other. Two or three bodies of unit mass together form a body of mass two or three times greater by dynamic definition, and the same additive property applies to thermal capacity by virtue of thermal definition. [Mach, p. 280] In which one only dissects the matter analytically between its different characteristics in order to be able to treat each of them consistently. We see that this is in fact his criticism of the school concept of substance. conclusion. Lenin's text is hard and over the top. You can't really find (I at least couldn't find it) the bourgeois reaction within Mach's philosophy of knowledge, and that's puzzling. Mach's ideas seem to have helped to give - at a time when the very foundations of physics seemed to falter - general guidelines on which other physicists were then able to work profitably. The most interesting recognition in this regard is that of Einstein. Why so fiercely then? Lenin's fear seems to be the consideration - all extra-scientific- that criticism of the foundations of the natural sciences could be exploitedby the bourgeois establishment, to deny scientific validity to Marx's theories and thus induce the proletariat into bewilderment; but with this it was certainly a bad service to Marx himself as a scientist of history and economics, and forced the Marxist left to reject without deepening a large number of new concepts that were being elaborated in that fruitful period. The divergence in political positions between Mach and Lenin is noticeably evident in the footnote in which Lenin talks about Josef Popper: In the same spirit Mach speaks for the bureaucratic socialism of Popper and Menger that guarantees the "freedom of the individual", while the doctrine of the Social Democrats that "disadvantageously differs" from this socialism, threatens "a slavery more general and heavier than that of the monarchical or oligarchic state". See Erkenntus und Irrtum [Knowledge and Error], 2. ed., 1906, pp. 80–81. [Lenin, p. 316] That finally makes us fully understand the ultimate motivation for lenin writing his book. And it had nothing to do with the philosophy of knowledge! We can therefore imagine that Lenin went backwards: wanting to counter his political position vis-à-vis the Bolsheviks,he tried to refute the basis of Mach's thought - his philosophy of knowledge, but, as we have seen, with unsatisfactory results. If so - as I think - one can imagine that vice versa, affirming the validity of one's philosophy of knowledge, logically involved trusting in a more just and less fallible action. This is obviously a vain hope; having a solid foundation has never prevented men from doing terrible things equally, or terrible nonsense... Unfortunately for Lenin, the socialism of the USSR was by no means bureaucratic; and regarding Popper, we do not know in any case if he ever read his Nährpflicht,which only came out in 1912 (we are still here in 1909), and therefore we do not even know how much he spoke about it in full knowledge of the facts in the aforementioned note. From the point of view of science, the influence of Materialism and empiriocriticism was heavy; in 1959, former Nazi Heisenberg had a good game of making fun of Soviet physicists: "Among the different idealistic tendencies of contemporary physics, the so-called Copenhagen school [ndA: Bohr, Born, Dirac, Heisenberg, Pauli] is the most reactionary. This article is dedicated to exposing the agnostic and idealistic speculations of this school on the fundamental problems of quantum physics", blochinzev writes in his introduction. The harshness of the controversy shows that here we are dealing not only with science but with a confession of faith, with adherence to a certain creed. The purpose is expressed in the end with a quote from Lenin's work: "However wonderful, from the point of view of the human intellect, the transformation of the imponderable ether into ponderable matter, however strange in electrons the lack of anything other than electromagnetic mass, however unexpected the restriction of the mechanical laws of motion to a single sector of natural phenomena and their subordination to the deeper laws of electromagnetic phenomena, and so on... all this is nothing more than a confirmation of dialectical materialism". This last statement seems to make Blochinzev's discussion of the relationship of quantum theory with the philosophy of dialectical materialism less interesting, as it seems to be downgraded to a preordained debate in which the judgment is already known before it begins. [Heisenberg, p.138] using pseudoscientific topics in search of materialistic ontology; it should be emphasized here that Einstein also criticized the Copenhagen approach from a materialistic point of view, famous his phrase to Born "you believe a God who plays dice, and I in strict laws in a world that exists objectively", but he has never obviously been accused of having reactionary ontology. And why would he, for that matter? What does quantum mechanics have to do with socialism? Nothing, really nothing. In the end of the Cold War, we try not to lose any good ideas due to prejudice.

(2004) fabio petrosillo Bogdanov (libero.it)

Bibliographical notes Except where otherwise specified, citations refer to the following works: [Lenin] Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Materialism and Empiriocriticism,1909 (ed. 1964,1973 - Editori Riuniti) [Mach] Ernst Mach, La Meccanica in his historical-critical development,1883,1912 (ed. it. 1977 - Universale Bollati Boringhieri) [Heisenberg] Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy,1959 (ed. 1961 - The Essayist) [Einstein] The Collected papers of Albert Einstein (Volume 7 - Princeton University Press)

 

А. А. BOGDANOV Biographic essay

Alexander Alexandrovich Bogdanov (original family name – Malinovsky, other most famous pen-names – Maximov, Ryadovoy, Verner) was born on 10 (22) of August, 1873, in Sokolka town of Grodnenskaya province. He was the second of six children in the family of a people’s teacher A.A.Malinovsky, born in an aboriginal family of Vologda. "My farther soon rose to the post of teacher-inspector in the municipal college, and due to this fact, being 6-7 years old, I got access to the college library and its small cabinet of Physics, - Bogdanov wrote in his autobiography. – Studied in Tula gymnasium, lived in barracks or prison-like conditions; its malicious and stupid administration taught me to hate and be afraid of powerful and deny authorities"1. Being just a boy, Alexander gave financial help to his family, earning by working as a coach; after finishing the gymnasium with golden medal, in 1893 he entered Natural department of the Moscow University. For participation in "Narodnaya volya" of the Union of Northern Countrymen Associations in December of 1894 he was expelled from the University and exiled to Tula, where a worker-armourer Ivan Savelyev draw him in studies in working circles. Talking with workers on economical and political themes, Bogdanov soon felt unsatisfied with legal text-books on politeconomy (N.A.Karysheva, I.I.Ivanyukova and others), and following Savelyev’s advice, guided by "Capital" of Marx, began compiling special lectures. Those lectures later grew into "Short course of economic science" (M., 1897), serving in pre-Revolutionary years as one of main manuals on studying Marxist economic theory in working circles. In his review of the 1st edition of the course V.I.Lenin called it "a remarkable phenomenon in our economic literature" " the absolutely best" manual on the given problem2, marking main merits of this work to be contained in the fact, that the author "gives clear and exact definition of the subject of political economy" and "consistently sticks to historical materialism"3 Bogdanov’s intercourse with workers was conductive to his passage from ideas of "Narodnaya volya" to social-democratism4, and his acquaintance with the article by V.I.Lenin "Economic content and critics of Narodnaya volya in a book by Mr.Struve" became "a decisive factor towards Marxist theory"5. On the basis of A.A.Bogdanov-I.I.Savelyev’s circle, whose each member had to create his own circle of 3-5 workers, by 1897 there has grown Tula social-democratic organization6. Wide and diverse requirements of workers impelled Bogdanov to a thorough study of "common worldview" problems, which resulted in his first philosophic work "Basic elements of historical view on nature" (Cпб.,1899). In 1899 Bogdanov graduated from Kharkov University, medical department; the same year he married a doctor’s assistant Natalya Bogdanovna Korsak (1865-1945), a daughter of a landlord, left her family and joined in active Revolutionary work. Bogdanov soon was arrested for social-democratic propaganda, spent half a year in a Moscow prison, and then was exiled to Kaluga, where he was at the head of political convicts circle, later become Bolsheviks (I.I.Skvortsov-Stepanov, A.V.Lunacharsky, B.V.Avilov, V.A.Bazarov). Being suspect Bogdanov was exiled from Kaluga to Vologda for 3 years, where he worked as a doctor in a hospital for mental deseases. Polemical articles against the market theory of M.I.Tugan-Baranovsky and idealistic philosophy of N.A.Berdyayev, S.N.Bulgakov, S.L.Frank are also dated by this period. Those, personally knew Bogdanov, marked his versatility and universal education, as well we his deep honesty, sincerity, tactful attitude towards his comrades.7 After the banish was over, in spring of 1904, Bogdanov left for Switzerland, where took resolutely the side of Bolsheviks in their desperate fight against Mensheviks8. After a meting of "22 steadfast" (30 July-1 August,1904), proposed the task to fight for a new Party Congress, Bogdanov returned to Russia as a representative of the Bureau of majority committees and did a great job on attracting major workers to participate in the III Party congress9. On the Congress, took place in London on 12-27 of April in 1905, "Comrade Maximov" came out with a summary report on behalf of Organizational committee of Bureau of majority committees, with a report on armed revolt and a report on organizational problems (about the Party Rules) 10. Then he was already elected in CC RSDLP, where he was reelected on IV (1906) and V (1907) Party Congress11. Bogdanov took an active part in the First Russian revolution, was arrested for being a member of executive committee of St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, after discharge from prison, returned again to Party work. In 1907 he became a member of the three, editing Bolshevist’s CO "Proletary" (V.I.Lenin, I.F.Dubrovinsky, A.A.Bogdanov). It was the editorial office, where a heated argument between V.I.Lenin and A.A.Bogdanov flared up. First V.I.Lenin condemned "ultimatism" of A.A.Bogdanov and his supportes (demands of ultimatum submission of the Duma faction to "revolutionary Party tactics") for being a revolutionary phrase, and then criticized A.A.Bogdanov’s attempts "to supplement" Marxism with elements of E.Mach’s idealistic philosophy and V.Ostvald’s energetism. Analyzing mistakes of Bogdanov’s works "Empiriomonism" (1904-1906) and "Iz psikhologii obschestva" (Of the society psychology) (1905), V.I.Lenin convincingly showed "dead philosophical idealism to catch live Marxist Bogdanov". "Bogdanov personally, - he underlined, - is a sworn enemy of every reaction and bourgeouis reaction in particular. Bogdanov’s substitution and the theory of identity of social being and social consciousness, serve this reaction. This is a sad fact, but it’s still a fact"12. For propagandizing views, incompatible with Marxist philosophy, on an enlarged session of "Proletary" editorial board (July, 1909), Bogdanov was removed from its staff and from Bolshevist Center, and on a "uniting" plenum of Central Committee of RSDLP (January, 1910) – from the Party Central Committee. However, Bogdanov never stopped his scientific work during this period: he edited a complete translation of K.Marx’s "Capital" by V.A.Bazarov and I.I.Skvortsov-Stepanov, and together with I.I.Skvortsov-Stepanov wrote the 1st volume of the full "Course of political economy" (М., 1910). In 1909 Bogdanov with A.M.Gorky, A.V.Lunacharsky and a worker-revolutionary N.E.Vilonov established a "higher social-democratic school" on the Capri island, which was conceived by the organizers as a center, where workers-propagandists were trained for Russia and problems of "proletarian culture" were worked out. But "philosophy of proletarian struggle" popularized in the school, was of some left-opportunistic character, which made its activity somehow factional, and this caused a protest among a number of workers, headed by N.E.Vilonov, left Capri for Paris, to V.I.Lenin. At the end of 1909 Bogdanov and his supporters formed a group "Vpered", characterized by V.I.Lenin as "lampoon Bolsheviks"13. Bogdanov’s aspiration for creating an organization for culture education of proletariat on the basis of the group "Vpered" turned to be futile. G.Aleksinsky, acquired considerable influence on the group, began to demoralize it with his "degenerative ambitions"14, denied Bogdanov’s idea of "proletarian culture", tried to involve the group in political intrigues and make it an instrument of struggling against Central Committee of RSDLP. Having come out against Aleksinsky’s intrigues, Bogdanov broke up with the group "Vpered"15and stepped aside from active political activity, starting his work at "Universal organizational science". During the First world war he was mobilized into Field Forces and served a year as a front doctor. With respect to imperialistic war he took a consistent internationalist position. A.A.Bogdanov took no part in the Great October Revolution, but considered it to be the greatest social achievement16 and worked actively in Soviet organizations. According to V.I.Lenin’s directions he was engaged in teaching activity17. In 1918-1921 he was working as professor of political economy of the 1st MSU; was one of the founders of Socialist (later Communist) academy (1918), a member of its Presidium (1918-1926), working in the ideological section and commission on translating into Russian of K.Marx’s and F.Engels’s works. Being a member of Comacademy, A.A.Bogdanov participated actively in economic discussions of 20s – about historical boundaries of political economy (1925), "the law of value" (1926), abstract labour (1927). At the first of the mentioned discussions Bogdanov resolutely supported I.I.Skvortsov-Stepanov, come out with critics of "limiting" interpretation of politeconomy, widely spread in 20s, advocating Marx’s thesis about political economy in the broad sense of the word. Bogdanov and Skvortsov-Stepanov consistently defended historical method in political economy in their two-volume fundamental "Course of political economy", endured a number of editions. А. А. Bogdanov criticized an opinion (expressed by Sh.M.Dvolaitsky) about non-applicability of the method of K.Marx’s "Capital" to the analysis of non-capitalist social-economic formations, having underlined that the problem lied not in variation of investigation methods, but in variation of "initial abstractions", thus, though indirectly, rising the problem of initial economic categories of different methods of production. In the course of discussion about "the law of value" A.A.Bogdanov exposed to fair criticism an identification by E.A.Preobrazhensky of law of value with law of supply and demand, taking at the same time the position of non-historical understanding of value as public labour input. Bogdanov’s concept of the general "law of the labour costs", proceeding spontaneously, as law of value, in commodity-capitalist economy, and regularly under socialism, caused a sharp discussion in Soviet economic literature. In 20s there were repeatedly reedited "A short course of economic science" and "Elementary course of political economy", written by Bogdanov. These text-books had both positive sides (lucidity and good composition of statement, critics of bourgeois economic theories), and negative ones (mechanicism, division of economic epochs into periods in accord with the degree of barter progressing and others), but as a whole, they played an important role in distribution of economic knowledge. А. А. Bogdanov was one of the pioneers of Not movement in the USSR. Yet in 1913 he wrote a brochure "Between a Man and machine", where he analyzed separate progressive sides of Taylor system and its reactionary social nature. In the supplied edition of this work (1918) he rose a question about the use of scientific elements of Taylor system for "rising working capacity of masses up to the highest level, compatible with maintaining health of workers and possibility to develop culturally"18. With the example of Taylor system Bogdanov showed, that "we had to learn from the bourgeois world everything, suitable for achieving our goals, but take it consciously, with critics, analyzing what and where should be applied, giving up all useful or just unfit. Then we’ll be able to rise above the bourgeois world and conquer it both in the struggle and in construction"19. At the first All-Union conference on scientific labour organization (1921) Bogdanov suggested an idea of discriminating organizational art and organizational science, close to modern ideas about correlation of management science and art.20 In 1918-1920 Bogdanov was a member of Central Committee of Proletkult. Bogdanov’s concept of "proletarian culture" had much erroneous and disputable, but, undoubtedly, there were positive moments as well. He proposed democratization of scientific knowledge, based on creation of workers’ encyclopedia, establishment of workers’ universities, development of proletarian art, imbued with the spirit of labour collectivism and comradely cooperation. The task of new culture – is formation of a "new human type, harmonious-integral, free from former narrowness, generated by crushing of a person within specialization, free from individual reserving of will and feelings, caused by economic separation and fight"21. A problem of proletarian culture, he believed, "should be solved on the basis of live reality", in its versatility, not proceeding "entirely" from machine production engineering (as, for example, A.K.Gastev thought)22. "A new culture comes form the old one, learns from it"23. As for the problems of the art form, Bogdanov stated, that it was "simplicity, lucidity and clearness of forms" characteristic of Russian classics in XIX century, that best corresponded the aims of arising proletarian art. "We use to have great masters, - he wrote, - deserving to be first teachers of art forms for the great class"24. In 20s there were repeatedly reedited and enjoyed a great popularity works of fiction by Bogdanov "Red star" and "Engineer Menni". A high appreciation of "Red star", written in 1908, was given by a famous soviet writer, Vice-president of the World Association of Science-fiction Yeremey Parnov25. A little less successful was "Engineer Menni" (written in 1911), reflected in a number of moments philosophical delusions of the author. V.I.Lenin, after reading the novel, pointed at machism, deeply "hidden" in it 26. А. А. Bogdanov was the first to see great prospects, which mastering of atomic energy reveals for the mankind, as well as that jeopardy, concealed in its uncontrolled use. He warned, that achievements of the science of substance constitution can result in the fact, that "militarism of nations, hostile to each other, would have destructive arms of unprecedented power, and the whole planet could be devastated within several months"27. Application of atomic energy, he believed, should be carried out just by the power of common to all mankind collective. In his last years of life, Bogdanov was energetically working as a director of the first Institute of blood transfusion in the world, founded by him in 1926. He considered the method of blood transfusion as an opportunity to apply in medicine theses, developed by "universal organizational science", as means of rising an organism viability, extending human life. The idea of creating the Institute of blood transfusion was supported by V.I.Lenin28 and peoples’ commissar of public health services of RSFSR N.A.Semashko. From its very opening the Institute undertook not only research and development tasks, but practical ones as well. Bogdanov wrote: "In practice of Western clinics and big hospitals transfusion has become quite usual means. Our country, for long years being cut off the scientific life of the West by the war and blockade, fell far behind in this respect. Meanwhile, we have no less need in this method here. We even don’t mention the fact, that it could have been a criminal negligence to let our enemies have such an advantage, in case of breaking up the war, threatening us – an advantage in this precious method to save bleeding or gas-poisoned soldiers and speed up recovery of the exhausted with wounds and illnesses. But our labour industrial army with its unavoidable and, unfortunately, too frequent traumas… constantly needs this very powerful method as well. As for blood diseases, after the hard years of war and devastation they , undoubtedly, intensified. Various forms of anaemia at all ages spread more then ever – primary forms, and secondary ones, depending on tuberculosis, malaria and so on. Struggle with all those waits its turn. In some cases transfusion can become the basis for it, in other – a secondary, but still very important means"29. "During the short period of time, Bogdanov was working in the Institute of blood transfusion, - academician A.A.Bogomolets mentioned, - in a number of cases, including experiments on himself, using objective scientific analysis methods, he undoubtedly proved the possibility to return energy and flexibility of biotic developments, rise mental and physical efficiency of an organism, weaken manifestation of senile withering through blood transfusion"30. Solution of scientific-experimental problems of the Institute was connected with a certain risk. Bogdanov considered possible to make most risky experiments only on himself. The twelfth experiment ended tragically – with his hard disease and death on 7 of April, 1928. Bogdanov’s heroic death rose a broad response among soviet public. N.K.Krupskaya in her warm letter to Bogdanov’s wife presented her deep condolences31. Articles, devoted to A.A.Bogdanov, were presented by many outstanding figures of Communist party and soviet science and culture – N.I.Bukharin, I.I.Skvortsov-Stepanov, B.V.Legran, P.N.Lepeshinsky, A.V.Lunacharsky, N.A.Semashko, V.M.Friche and others. Resolution by Sovnarkom RSFSR of 13 of April, 1928, named State scientific institute of blood transfusion by A.A.Bogdanov. А. А. Bogdanov is buried on Novodevichy burial ground in Moscow. The encyclopedic dictionary "Granat". V. 41. P. I (1926). Supplement "Deyateli SSSR i Oktyabrskoy revolyutsii" [Figures of USSR and October Revolution]. Clmn. 30. Lenin V.I. Complete collection of works. V. 4. p. 35. Idem. pp. 35, 37. The encyclopedic dictionary "Granat". V. 41. P. I (1926). Supplement "Deyateli SSSR i Oktyabrskoy revolyutsii" [Figures of USSR and October Revolution]. Clmn. 31. Bogdanov A.A. Moye prebyvaniye v Tule [My staying in Tula]//Revolutsionnoye byloye. Тula, 1923. N° 2. p. 16. One of Bogdanov’s students – a worker S.I.Stepanov, after the Oktober revolution, became the director of Tula cartridge plant. Istoriya filosofii v SSSR [History of philosophy in USSR]. V. 5. Book 1. М., 1985. p. 207; Yermolayev I.E Moi vospominaniya [My memoirs]//Sever. 1923. № 3-4. pp. 8-9. Lepeshinsky P.N. Na povorote [At the turn]. S.-P., 1928. pp. 202-204. Lunacharsky A.V. Vospominaniya i vpechatleniya. [Memoirs and impressions] М., 1968. p. 35. The third Party Congress. Minutes. М.: Politizdat, 1959. pp. 11 -15, 106- 114, 956-975. On the V Congress of RSDLP (London, 13 of May – 1 of June, 1907) A.A.Bogdanov appeared as co-reporter from Bolshevics with the Central Committee report (V Party Congress. Minutes. М.: Politizdat, 1963. pp. 725 - 738; Tyutyukin S. Vazhnaya pobeda bolshevizma [Important conquer of Bolshevism]//Pravda. 1987. 13 of May). Lenin V.I. Complete collection of works. V.18. p. 346. Lenin V.I. Complete collection of works. V. 19. p. 19. Lunacharsky A.V. Vospominaniya i vpechatleniya. [Memoirs and impressions] p. 236. Pod znamenem marksizma. 1928. № 4. p. 183. Idem stated, that A.A.Bogdanov "took no part in further political intrigues of the group: block with Trotsky, participation in the August block and so on", and that "after the February Revolution "Vpered" asked Bogdanov to become a leader of their group, but he advised them not to register separately but enter the Bolshevist party". The Great October Socialist Revolution. Encyclopaedia. М., 1987. p. 63. Pod znamenem marksizma. 1928. № 4. p. 185. Bogdanov A. Mezhdu chelovekom i mashinoyu [Between a man and machine]. М., 1918. p. 15 Idem Bogdanov A.A. Essays of Universal organizational science. Samara, 1921. . 297. Introduction to: Likhtenshtadt V.O. Gete. М., 1920. p. V. Boganov A.A. O proletarskoy kulture [About proletarian culture]. S.-P.- М., 1924. p. 316. А. А. Bogdanov called young proletarian writers for learning not only from their own collective with its revolutionary ideology, but also from those, "who made for it a wide road with their great creative power",- classics of the world literature, such as Shakespeare, Balzak, Gete, Shiller, Bayron, Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Nekrasov, Tolstoy, Gorky, Rynis, Verharn (А. А. Bogdanov "About proletarian culture". pp. 168-170). When a famous poet of "Proletcult" V.Kirillov threw a poetic slogan: "Vo imya nashego zavtra – sozhem Rafaelya, razrushim muzei, rastopchyem iskusstva tsvety" [In the name of our future – let’s burn Rafael, destroy museums, trample flowers of art], Bogdanov resolutely condemned this fit of nihilism, underlining the idea of "generations cooperation" (Idem p. 179). Bogdanov "About proletarian culture". P. 170 Parnov E.I. Zerkalo Uranii [Mirror of Urania]. М., 1982. p.54. Novel "Red star" is three times reedited in the USSR during the last decade. Lenin V.I. Complete collection of works. V.45. p. 369. Bogdanov A.A. Engineer Menni. М., 1912. p. 3. Lazebnikov A.E. Ikh znal Ilyich [They were known by Ilyich]. М., 1967. p. 90 Bogdanov A.A. God raboty Instituta perelivaniya krovi [A year of working in the Institute of blood transfusion]. М., 1927. pp. 3-4. Service of blood transfusion in USSR, initiated by A.A.Bogdanov, played a great role during Great Patriotic War, providing help to soldiers of Soviet Army. Bogomolets A.A. Selected works. Kiev, 1957. V. 2. p. 419. Belove A.A., A.A.Bogdanov // Outstanding figures of soviet health services. М., 1974. pp. 53-54. Bogdanov (libero.it)

 

ALEXANDER BOGDANOV LIBRARY

Alexander Bogdanov Library – (Project of the Historical Materialism Series at Brill)

Alexander Bogdanov

RESEARCH PAPERS AT ACADEMIA.EU

Recent papers in Alexander Bogdanov

(99+) Alexander Bogdanov Research Papers - Academia.edu

Alexander Bogdanov - Leftypedia
https://leftypedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bogdanov

Biography []. Alexander Bogdanov was born in Tula, the son of a schoolteacher. He first joined revolutionary groups in the early 1890s and had already written the popular Marxist work Short Course of Economic Science in 1897. The work received praise from none other than future Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin, who wrote a review of the work calling it "remarkable" and …



Marxist Writers: Aleksandr Bogdanov
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bogdanov/index.htm

Aleksandr Bogdanov 1873–1928. Biography. Works. Socially Organised Society: Socialist Society, 1919. The Situation of Russian Industry, January 1923. Proletarian Poetry, June 1923. Religion, Art and Marxism, August 1924. The Workers’ Artistic Inheritance, September 1924 . Class and Art, Trotsky in discussion with a group of Bolsheviks about Proletkult, May 1924. More by Bogdanov …

Russian Science Fiction Literature and Cinema:
A Critical Reader

Cultural Syllabus Series Editor MARK LIPOVETSKY (University of Colorado, Boulder)

Edited and Introduced by ANINDITA BANERJEE

Boston 2018

FREE DOWNLOAD PDF

Russian Science Fiction Literature And Cinema: A Critical Reader 161811722X, 9781618117229 - DOKUMEN.PUB