Quote from Timothy Fitzpatrick on April 27, 2026, 17:38

On the Meaning of Militant Materialism

By Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin
1922

On the general tasks of the magazine "Under the Banner of Marxism" com. Trotsky in № 1-2 has already said everything essential and said it perfectly. I would like to dwell on some issues that more closely determine the content and program of the work proclaimed by the editorial board of the journal in the opening statement to № 1-2.

This statement says that not all those united around the magazine "Under the Banner of Marxism" are communists, but all are consistent materialists. I think that this alliance of communists with non-communists is absolutely necessary and correctly defines the tasks of the magazine. One of the biggest and most dangerous mistakes of communists (as well as revolutionaries in general, who successfully started the great revolution) is the idea that a revolution can be carried out by the hands of revolutionaries alone. On the contrary, for the success of any serious revolutionary work, it is necessary to understand and be able to implement that revolutionaries are able to play a role only as the vanguard of a truly viable and advanced class. The avant-garde only fulfills the tasks of the avant-gard when it is able not to break away from the mass it manages, but really to lead the whole mass forward. Without an alliance with non-communists in a variety of fields of activity, there can be no question of any successful communist construction.

This also applies to the work of defending materialism and Marxism, which was undertaken by the magazine "Under the Banner of Marxism". Fortunately, the main directions of advanced public thought in Russia have, fortunately, a solid materialistic tradition. Not to mention G. V. Plekhanov, it is enough to name Chernyshevsky, from whom modern populists (people's socialist revolutionaries, etc.) often retreated in the purview of fashionable reactionary philosophical teachings, succumbing to the tinsel allegedly "last word" of European science and not being able to understand under this tinsel of one or another kind of servility of the bourgeoisie, its prejudices and bourgeois reactionary.

In any case, we in Russia still have - and for quite a long time, undoubtedly, will be - materialists from the non-communist camp, and our unconditional duty is to involve all supporters of consistent and militant materialism in the fight against the philosophical reaction and philosophical prejudices of the so-called "educated society". The father of Ditzgen, who should not be confused with his equally pretentious as the unsuccessful son-writer, correctly, accurately and clearly expressed the main point of view of Marxism on the dominant philosophical trends in bourgeois countries and enjoying the attention among their scientists and publicists, saying that professors of philosophy in modern society are in most cases in fact nothing more than "diplomated lackeys of Popovshchyna".

Our Russian intellectuals, who like to consider themselves advanced, as well as their fellows in all other countries, do not like to transfer the issue to the plane of the assessment given by Ditzgen's words. But they don't like it because the truth stings their eyes. It is enough to think at some time about the state, then general economic, then domestic and all other dependence of modern educated people on the dominant bourgeoisie to understand the absolute correctness of the sharp characterization of Ditzgen. It is enough to recall the vast majority of fashionable philosophical trends that so often arise in European countries, starting at least with those that were associated with the discovery of radium, and ending with those that now seek to cling to Einstein, to imagine the connection between class interests and the class position of the bourgeoisie, its support of all forms of religions and the ideological content of fashionable philosophical trends.

From the above it can be seen that the magazine, which wants to be an organ of militant materialism, should be a combat organ, firstly, in the sense of steady exposure and persecution of all modern "certified lackeys of the popovshchina", regardless of whether they act as representatives of official science or as free shooters calling themselves "democratic left or ideological socialist" publicists.

Such a magazine should be, secondly, an organ of militant atheism. We have departments or, at least, state institutions that are in sawnd of this work. But this work is carried out extremely sluggishly, extremely unsatisfactorily, apparently experiencing the oppression of the general conditions of our truly Russian (although Soviet) bureaucracy. It is extremely important, therefore, that in addition to the work of the relevant state institutions, in correcting it and reviving it, a magazine dedicated to the task of becoming an organ of militant materialism, conducts tireless atheistic propaganda and struggle. It is necessary to carefully monitor all relevant literature in all languages, translating or, at least abstracting everything valuable in this field.

Engels has long advised the leaders of the modern proletariat to translate the military atheist literature of the late 18th century for mass distribution among the people. To our shame, we have not done it yet (one of the many proofs that it is much easier to win power in the revolutionary era than to be able to use this power correctly). Sometimes this our lethargy, inactivity and incompetence are justified by all kinds of "squesive" considerations: for example, they say, the old atheistic literature of the XVIII century is outdated, unscientific, naive, etc. There is nothing worse than such supposedly scientific sophisms, covering either pedantry or complete misunderstanding of Marxism. Of course, there are many unscientific and naive in the atheistic works of revolutionaries of the XVIII century. But no one prevents the publishers of these essays from shortening them and providing them with short afterwords indicating the progress of scientific criticism of religions made by mankind since the end of the 18th century, with an indication of the relevant latest works, etc. It would be the greatest mistake and the worst mistake a Marxist can make to think that the multi-million people's (especially peasant and craft) masses, condemned by the whole modern society to darkness, ignorance and prejudice, can get out of this darkness only along the direct line of purely Marxist enlightenment. These masses need to be given a wide variety of material on atheistic propaganda, to acquaint them with facts from a variety of areas of life, to approach them and so in order to interest them, to awaken them from a religious dream, to shake them from a variety of sides, in a variety of ways, etc.

The lively, lively, talented, witty and openly attacking the dominant popovshchina publicism of the old atheists of the XVIII century will be a thousand times more suitable for awakening people from a religious sleep than the boring, dry, illustrated by almost no skillfully selected facts retellings of Marxism, which prevail in our literature and which (no sin to hide) often distort Marxism. All the major works of Marx and Engels have been translated from us. There is absolutely no reason to fear that the old atheism and the old materialism will remain incomplete with the corrections made by Marx and Engels. The most important thing - most often this is what our supposedly Marxist communists forget, but in fact disfigure Marxism - is to be able to interest the still undeveloped masses with a conscious attitude to religious issues and conscious criticism of religions.

On the other hand, take a look at the representatives of modern scientific criticism of religions. Almost always these representatives of the educated bourgeoisie "complement" their own refutation of religious prejudices with such reasoning that immediately exposes them as ideological slaves of the bourgeoisie, as "diploted lackeys of the popovshchina".

Two examples. Prof. R. In 1918, Wipper published the book "The Emergence of Christianity" (ed. "Faros". Moscow). Retelling the main results of modern science, the author not only does not fight with prejudices and deception, which constitute the weapon of the church as a political organization, not only bypasses these issues, but also declares a directly ridiculous and reactionary claim to rise above both "extremes": both idealistic and materialistic. This is the servory of the ruling bourgeoisie, which all over the world uses hundreds of millions of rubles from the profits it squeezed out of workers to support religion.

The famous German scientist, Arthur Drews, refuting religious prejudices and fairy tales in his book "The Myth of Christ", proving that there was no Christ, at the end of the book speaks for a religion, only renewed, refined, cunning, able to resist the "rever-increasing naturalistic flow" (page 238 of the 4th German edition, 1910). This is a direct, conscious reactionary, openly helping exploiters to replace old and rotten religious prejudices with new, even more usty and mean prejudices.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't translate Drevs. This means that communists and all consistent materialists must, to some extent their alliance with the progressive part of the bourgeoisie, steadily expose it when it falls into reaction. This means that to shive the alliance with the representatives of the bourgeoisie of the XVIII century, i.e. the era when it was revolutionary, would mean changing Marxism and materialism, because the "allicion" with the Drevs in one form or another, to one degree or another, is mandatory for us in the fight against the dominant religious obscurants.

The magazine "Under the Banner of Marxism", which wants to be an organ of militant materialism, should devote a lot of space to atheist propaganda, review of relevant literature and correction of huge shortcomings of our state work in this area. It is especially important to use those books and brochures that contain many specific facts and comparisons showing the connection between class interests and class organizations of the modern bourgeoisie with the organizations of religious institutions and religious propaganda.

All materials related to the United States of North America are extremely important, in which the official, state, state connection of religion and capital is less manifest. But it becomes clearer to us that the so-called "modern democracy" (before which Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and partly anarchists, etc. break their foreheads so unreasonably) is nothing more than the freedom to preach what is profitable for the bourgeoisie to preach, and it is profitable for it to preach the most reactionary ideas of religion, obscurantism, protection of exploiters, etc.

I would like to hope that the magazine, which wants to be an organ of militant materialism, will give our reading public reviews of atheistic literature with a description of the range of readers and in what respect certain works could be suitable, and with an indication of what appeared in our country (only tolerable translations should be considered as having appeared, and there are not so many of them) and what should still be published.

---

In addition to the union with consistent materialists who do not belong to the Communist Party, no less, if not more important for the work that militant materialism must do, the alliance with representatives of modern natural science, who are inclined to materialism and are not afraid to defend and preach it against the fashionable philosophical fluctations in the direction of idealism and skepticism that dominate in the so-called "educated society".

Placed in the 1-2nd issue of the magazine "Under the Banner of Marxism" article A. Timiryazev about Einstein's theory of relativity allows us to hope that the magazine will be able to implement this second union. We need to pay more attention to it. It must be remembered that it is from the steep break that modern natural science is experiencing that reactionary philosophical schools and schools, directions and directions will be born. Therefore, to monitor the issues raised by the latest revolution in the field of natural science and to involve naturalists in this work in the philosophical journal is a task without which militant materialism can in no case be either militant nor materialism. If Timiryazev in the first issue of the magazine was supposed to stipulate that the theory of Einstein, who himself, according to Timiryazev, does not lead any active campaign against the foundations of materialism, has already been seized by a huge mass of representatives of the bourgeois intelligentsia of all countries, then this applies not to one Einstein, but to a number, if not to most of the great transformers of natural science, since the end of the XIX century.

And in order not to treat such a phenomenon unconsciously, we must understand that without a solid philosophical justification, no natural sciences, no materialism can withstand the struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of bourgeois worldview. To withstand this struggle and carry it out to the end with complete success, the naturalist must be a modern materialist, a conscious supporter of the materialism represented by Marx, that is, he must be a dialectical materialist. To achieve this goal, the employees of the magazine "Under the Banner of Marxism" must organize a systematic study of Hegel's dialectics from a materialistic point of view, i.e. the dialectic that Marx practically applied both in his "Capital" and in his historical and political works and applied with such success that now every day of awakening new classes to life and to struggle in the East (Japan, India, China), - i.e. those hundreds of millions of humanity, who make up most of the world's population and which by their historical inaction and their historical dream have so far caused stagnation and decay in many advanced states of Europe, - every day of awakening to life of new peoples and new classes is increasingly confirmed by Marxism.

Of course, the work of such study, such interpretation and such propaganda of Hegelian dialectic is extremely difficult, and, undoubtedly, the first experiments in this regard will be associated with errors. But only the one who does nothing is not wrong. Based on how Marx applied Hegel's materialistically understood dialectic, we can and should develop this dialectic from all sides, print excerpts from Hegel's main works in the journal, interpret them materialistically, commenting on Marx's examples of the application of dialectics, as well as those samples of dialectics in the field of economic and political relations, which modern history, especially the modern imperialist war and revolution give an unusually many examples. The group of editors and employees of the magazine "Under the Banner of Marxism" should be, in my opinion, a kind of "society of materialistic friends of Hegelian dialectics". Modern naturalists will find (if they know how to search and if we learn to help them) in Hegel's materialistically interpreted dialectics, a number of answers to those philosophical questions that are posed by the revolution in natural science and on which intellectual admirers of bourgeois fashion "react".

Without setting such a task and systematically performing it, materialism cannot be a militant materialism. He will remain, using the generous expression, not so much fighting as fighting. Without this, major naturalists will be as often as before, helpless in their philosophical conclusions and generalizations. For natural science is progressing so fast, experiencing a period of such a deep revolutionary withdrawal in all areas that natural science cannot do without philosophical conclusions in any case.

In conclusion, I will give an example that does not relate to the field of philosophy, but in any case relates to the field of social issues, to which the magazine "Under the Banner of Marxism" also wants to pay attention.

This is one of the examples of how modern supposedly science actually serves as a conductor of the crudest and most vile reactionary views.

Recently I was sent the magazine "Economist" 24 № 1 (1922), published by the XI department of the Russian Technical Society. The young communist who sent me this magazine (probably not had time to get acquainted with the contents of the magazine) carelessly spoke extremely sympathetic about the magazine. In fact, the magazine is, I don't know how consciously, an organ of modern serfs, covered, of course, by the mantle of science, democracy, etc.

A certain g. P. A. Sorokin places in this journal extensive allegedly "sociological" research "On the impact of war". The scientific article is full of scientific references to the "sociological" works of the author and his numerous foreign teachers and associates. Here's his learning:

On page 83 I read:

"There are now 92 for 10,000 divorces per 10,000 divorces in Petrograd - a fantastic figure, and out of 100 dissolved marriages, 51, 1 were less than one year, 11% - less than one month, 22% - less than two months, 41% - less than 3-6 months and only 26% - more than 6 months. These figures indicate that modern legal marriage is a form that essentially hides extramarital sex and allows "strawberry lovers" to "legally" satisfy their appetites" ("Economist" № 1, p. 83).

There is no doubt that both this gentleman and the Russian technical society, which publishes the magazine and places such reasoning in it, consider themselves supporters of democracy and will consider it the greatest insult when they are called what they really are, i.e. serfs, reactionaries, "diploma lacks of popovshchina".

The slightest acquaintance with the legislation of bourgeois countries on marriage, divorce and children out of wedlock, as well as with the actual state of affairs in this regard, will show to any person interested in the issue that modern bourgeois democracy, even in all the most democratic bourgeois republics, manifests itself in this respect precisely serfdom in relation to women and in relation to children out of wedlock.

This does not prevent, of course, the Mensheviks, Socialist-revolutionaries and some anarchists and all relevant parties in the West from continuing to shout about democracy and its violation by the Bolsheviks. In fact, it is the Bolshevik revolution that is the only consistently democratic revolution in relation to such issues as marriage, divorce and the situation of children born out of wedlock. And this is an issue that directly affects the interests of more than half of the population in any country. Only the Bolshevik revolution for the first time, despite the huge number of preceding it and calling themselves democratic bourgeois revolutions, conducted a decisive struggle in this respect, both against reactionary and serfdom, and against the usual hypocrisy of the ruling and wealthy classes.

If g. Sorokin's 92 divorces for 10,000 marriages seems to be a fantastic figure, then it remains to assume that either the author lived and was brought up in some monastery so fenced off from life that hardly anyone will believe in the existence of such a monastery, or that this author distorts the truth to please the reaction and the bourgeoisie. Any person who is somewhat familiar with the social conditions in bourgeois countries knows that the actual number of actual divorces (of course, not sanctioned by the church and the law) is immeasurably greater everywhere. Russia differs from other countries in this respect only in that its laws do not sanctify the hypocrisy and disenfranchised position of a woman and her child, but openly and on behalf of the state power declare a systematic war against all hypocrisy and all disenfranchisement.

The Marxist magazine will have to wage war against such modern "educated" serfs. Probably, not a small part of them even receives state money from us and is in the public service to educate the youth, although for this purpose they are no more suitable than known molesters would be suitable for the role of wardens in educational institutions for younger age.

The working class in Russia managed to win power, but has not yet learned to use it, because, otherwise, it would have politely transmitted such teachers and members of scientific societies to the countries of bourgeois "democracy" long ago. There is a real place for such serfs.

I'll learn, I'd like to learn.

N. Lenin

12. III.1922.

Source: http://libelli.ru/works/45-1.htm