Materialism and Empirio-Criticism

by Vladimir Ilich Lenin

This text is a classic of Lenin - his essay explores materialism and its relation to capitalism and how Communism can get over this psychological wish for material and empirical ownership.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Theory, Lenin, Science, History and Politics

392 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 1909

About the author

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Vladimir Lenin, was a Russian revolutionary, leader of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks), statesman and political theorist. After the October Revolution he served as the first and founding head of government of Soviet Russia from 1917 until his death in 1924 and of the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1924.

Reviews

[Jason P · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book from Lenin and probably one of the best texts on dialectical materialism. Lenin thoroughly refutes the idealists, spiritualists, and agnostics while arguing for militant materialism. This is a must read for any Marxist.

[Ferio · Rating 4 out of 5]

Este es el libro de Lenin que todos los reaccionarios deberían leer antes de abrir la boca, y digo esto sin ser leninista; supongo que cualquiera con dos dedos de frente se habrá dado cuenta a estas alturas de la partida de que cualquier dirigente, sea del color que sea, es juzgado negativamente por la Historia por el mero hecho de haber estado en esa posición. Esta es una de esas muchas cosas que los anarquismos vinieron a solucionar, pero no es de eso de lo que hemos venido a hablar hoy aquí, sino de esta obra tan de su tiempo, en la que el bueno de Vladimir Ilich arremete contra el Empiriocritismo y, más particularmente, contra el Machismo (nada que ver con género, más bien con el filósofo Mach) por haberse orientado filosóficamente hacia el Idealismo, postura que él entiende completamente apartada de las bases del Marxismo clásico, verdadero y funcional, llamado a ser la explicación del motor histórico y del progreso de la Humanidad.

Así que nada de Política realmente (aunque todo lo sea al final), nada de matar gente por sus ideas, nada de ejercer el autoritarismo con puño de hierro: básicamente un escrito muy denso, tan ininteligible como el de cualquier marxista que se precie, sobre por qué los pensadores europeos que decían ser marxistas no pertenecían en su mayoría, según él, a dicha corriente. Quizá sin estar de acuerdo con él en todo o casi nada, me parece un buen ejercicio, muy propio de su tiempo y que, si se tuviera la capacidad de entenderlo, limpiaría bastante la suciedad sobre su nombre. O no, ni siquiera es eso lo que yo querría, creo, pero maldita sea, que hemos de valorar las cosas en su contexto y justa medida y dejarnos de imposiciones externas sobre lo que debemos pensar.

[Olivier Turbide · Rating 4 out of 5]

Une exposition extrêmement claire de la position matérialiste en philosophie et de ce qu’elle implique, mais aussi et surtout une réfutation parfaite de la méthode trompeuse et fondamentalement fausse qu’emploie tous ceux qui encore aujourd’hui cherchent à « actualiser » le marxisme avant même de l’avoir étudié ou compris. Plus souvent qu’autrement, ces carriéristes universitaires s’empressent de s’imaginer qu’ils ont « révolutionné » la vision marxiste, qu’ils ont « découvert » ce que Marx, Engels, Lénine et Trotsky n’avaient pas découvert, mais dans 99% des cas, ces « découvertes » sont tout simplement des déviations des principes fondamentaux du marxisme et des adaptations aux préjugés bourgeois et idéalistes prédominants dans l’académie. Un must-read!

(J’enlève une étoile seulement parce que le livre est très répétitif. Lénine aurait pu démolir tout autant ses adversaires en moitié moins de pages pour être honnête)

[Erik · Rating 1 out of 5]

Lenin was far from an idiot, as revealed in this polemic against the new positivism of Ernst Mach and his Russian followers. It is, however, a disgraceful misunderstanding of Machian positivism which influenced its reception in Russia and elsewhere. It also set back materialism, which remained the crude Marxian kind, absent all nuance. Machian positivism was in reality a sophisticated kind of materialism which included mental phenomena, such as sensations, alongside physical phenomena under the heading of elements. Elements were neither physical nor mental, but more like neutral events with individual concrete qualities, when taken one by one. Grouped together they can be formed into either material objects or mental phenomena. It is a very advanced point og view which continued in William James and Bertrand Russell and even today perhaps in the work of Aussie philosopher David Chalmers. Lenin is best forgotten.

[Trystan W · Rating 1 out of 5]

You'd think for a book about theoretical philosophy (epistemology, no less!), that Lenin would actually try to be civil for once and not just go on chapter-long tangents about how so-and-so is a reactionary, and idealist, and an idiot. No, Lenin: you are the idiot, I'm afraid.

[Bradley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lenin basically knows nothing of Kant... and it shows.

[Illiterate · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a disagreeable polemic. Lenin crudely misrepresents Mach and aggressively abuses him and his followers. A model of how not to do philosophy.

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 5 out of 5]

No philosophical approach but dialectic materialism can be the founder of truth.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Vladimir Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism stands as a polemical intervention in the philosophical debates of early 20th-century Marxism, responding directly to the rise of neo-Kantian and Machist currents among Russian and European intellectuals. Written in 1908 while Lenin was in exile, the work is a robust defense of dialectical materialism against the perceived encroachments of subjectivist epistemologies. It has had a profound, if controversial, influence on Soviet philosophy, cementing materialist orthodoxy within Marxist-Leninist doctrine and shaping the ideological trajectory of the USSR’s philosophical institutions.


Lenin’s primary targets are the Russian “empirio-criticists,” particularly Alexander Bogdanov, Anatoly Lunacharsky, and other thinkers influenced by Ernst Mach and Richard Avenarius. These figures sought to reconcile Marxism with elements of positivism and the emerging philosophy of science, particularly the denial of a mind-independent material reality in favor of experience as the primary datum. Lenin, interpreting such views as a dangerous idealist deviation, mounts a thorough critique aimed at restoring the philosophical foundations of scientific socialism.


The structure of the book follows a polemical logic rather than a systematic exposition. Lenin begins with an outline of the philosophical positions of the empirio-criticists, presenting them as covert idealists who—by denying the objective existence of matter—undermine the foundations of scientific realism. The subsequent chapters examine concepts such as “sensation,” “experience,” and the “thing-in-itself,” and juxtapose them with the materialist epistemology rooted in Marx and Engels. Lenin frames these discussions within a wider historical materialist analysis, emphasizing the ideological function of philosophical idealism as a reactionary force aligned with religious and bourgeois mystification.


One of Lenin’s central contributions is his restatement of the epistemological position that “matter is a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations.” This formula, while lacking the dialectical subtlety of Engels’s later writings, becomes the doctrinal basis for Soviet materialism. Lenin argues for the essential unity of the world, the knowability of nature, and the adequacy of scientific concepts to capture objective processes. In this respect, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism is both a reaffirmation of classical Enlightenment rationalism and an early instance of philosophical instrumentalization within a revolutionary framework.


From an academic perspective, the work’s strengths lie in its historical engagement and its unwavering commitment to philosophical clarity in service of a political cause. Lenin demonstrates an impressive command of contemporary philosophical discourse, referencing not only Mach and Avenarius but also Kant, Hume, Berkeley, and Hegel. He also places the debate in the context of class struggle, arguing that idealism in philosophy is inherently linked to reactionary politics.


However, the work is not without its limitations. Critics have noted the rhetorical excesses and often polemical tone that hinder its philosophical nuance. Lenin’s representation of rival viewpoints tends toward caricature, and his treatment of complex figures like Kant and Hume often overlooks their internal subtleties. Additionally, the lack of engagement with the dialectical aspects of Marxist epistemology—especially the developmental and contradictory nature of knowledge—has led some scholars, particularly in Western Marxist traditions, to view Materialism and Empirio-Criticism as overly dogmatic and reductionist.


Nonetheless, the text remains a foundational document for understanding the ideological consolidation of Marxist materialism in the 20th century. It exemplifies a moment when philosophy was not an abstract discipline but an instrument of political clarity and revolutionary praxis. Its legacy, both in terms of content and method, continues to shape debates within Marxist philosophy and the philosophy of science.


Materialism and Empirio-Criticism is not merely a philosophical tract but a political weapon. Its enduring value lies in its demonstration of how philosophical positions are not only metaphysical but ideological choices with real historical consequences. For scholars of Marxist theory, Soviet philosophy, or the history of science, Lenin’s intervention remains an essential, if contested, point of reference.

GPT

[An · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lenin, amor meu, vols dir que feia falta fer una crítica tan extensament detallada de quatre friquis empirocriticistes?

Aquest llibre recull les tesis filosòfiques principals del marxisme, és a dir, el materialisme històric i dialèctic. Segons Lenin aquest consisteix en el fet que existeix un món exterior a nosaltres (ontologia), que pot ser conegut (epistemologia/gnoseologia) i que el coneixement científic és una aproximació històricament específica a la realitat externa i que, tanmateix, existeix el coneixement objectiu (filosofia de la ciència). Una de les idees centrals és que en el conflicte entre idealisme i materialisme, aquells que es postulen com a superadors de la distinció acostumen a ser idealistes o materialistes no conseqüents. Igual que en política, hom s'ha de posicionar i no serveixen mitges tintes.

L'exposició d'aquesta filosofia no és sistemàtica sinó que es realitza mitjançant la crítica als filòsofs empirocriticistes (Mach i Avenarius) i, sobretot, alguns dels seus deixebles que es reivindicaven com a marxistes. Lenin ofereix extenses cites de tots els pensadors que critica i es fa molt pesat a no ser que t'interessi especialment l'empirocriticisme. Resumint, que no recomano gaire el llibre.

Lenin defensa que l'empirocriticisme només és una actualització del pensament de Berkeley. És a dir una primacia de l'experiència i un rebuig a l'existència de la matèria que condueix al solipsisme. Lenin també qüestiona la dificultat que tenen els empirocriticistes de relacionar-se amb les ciències naturals. Per exemple, la seva teoria porta a la impossibilitat de l'existència de la terra abans de l'aparició dels humans, ja que consideren que no hi ha res fora de l'experiència. Els seguidors de Mach critiquen aquells materialistes que, postulant l'existència d'un món més enllà de l'experiència, divideixen el món i requereixen de 'la cosa en si' kantiana. Però el mateix desenvolupament dels Machistes els obliga, en haver de negar l'existència del món extern i de totes les coses pretèrites, a tornar a Kant. Així, l'empirocriticisme situant-se més enllà del vell debat entre materialistes i idealistes cau de nou en els vells erros de l'idealisme i l'agnosticisme.

El que m'ha agradat més són les crítiques al materialisme mecanicista en oposició al dialèctic. Aquest debat pren total actualitat en l'aparició de les tesis reaccionàries del feminisme transexcloent i demostra la capacitat del marxisme per combatre-les. Us deixo una cita de Lenin que espero que ajudi a clarificar la qüestió:

"La admisión de elementos immutables cualesquiera, de la 'immutable esencia de las cosas', etc., no es materialismo: es un materialismo metafísico, es decir, antidialéctico". (p.301)

Un petonet que existeix més enllà de l'experiència sensorial!

[melancholinary · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the angriest and politically motivated philosophy book I ever read. It was fun to read how Lenin was anxious with the rise of Bogdanov and Russian Machist within the Bolsheviks, hence denounces their theoretical works as idealist and calls for the 'real' dialectical materialism. However, I think Bogdanov offers a more interesting interpretation of Machian philosophy in Empiriomonism (I only read the excerpt, but it was way more engaging) which perhaps became the foundation of his further work on Tektalogy.

[Connor Leavitt · Rating 5 out of 5]

A foundational text on the method of dialectical materialism, deeply seated in a polemic against the Russian Machists. Every word is pointed toward a systematic takedown of "Studies in the Philosophy of Marxism." The political significance of this takedown is fully elucidated in the final chapter. After the Machist trend has been analyzed, Lenin reviews the political implications of the trend.

[Lucas]

lenin on top, idealister BTFO

[Jack Tye Tye Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not an easy read, but more than worthwhile. Machism may have fallen by the wayside, but the subjective idealism underpinning it is alive and kicking in academia and even the sciences today. Lenin - with his usual acerbic wit - fiercely defends the fundamentals of materialism, while pointing out that only a dialectical approach can overcome the limitations of mechanical materialism. Minus one star as I think Lenin's style is needlessly dense in parts. Sorry Vlad.

[Voyager · Rating 5 out of 5]

Taking aim at the idealist, anti-Marxist trends that arose in philosophy in the aftermath of the defeat of the Russian Revolution of 1905 which drew on the philosophical views of Kant, Hume, and even advocated the creation of a new religion, this book, through its defence of dialectical materialism, offers a truly unparalleled exposition of Marxist philosophy (ironically one of the main books Lenin polemicises in this book heralds itself as an authoritative book on Marxist philosophy, but it is instead Lenin's refutation of this book that is the actual authority).

Andrei Zhdanov was a million times write when he summed up this book saying “every sentence is like a piercing sword, annihilating an opponent”, certainly fulfilling the author's intention of having this book be a refutation of the prevailing idealist trends. But the timeless value of this book lay in that, although mainly intended as a polemic and definitely written in that polemical style reminiscent of Engels' Anti-Duhring or Marx's Poverty of Philosophy, through the concerned subject matter Lenin gives an unparalleled explanation of the relation between matter and spirit, theory of knowledge, and develops Engels' philosophical conclusions in Anti-Duhring by demonstrating how, in the field of natural science, the scientific developments since Marx and Engels' time don't disprove dialectical materialism but actually further prove it.

On the subject of natural science, some of what Lenin dwells on (and Lenin's conclusions) was addressed already by Engels in his manuscripts for Dialectics of Nature (which, being that they were not made publicly available until after the creation of the Soviet Union, Lenin would have been unaware of) although there is still much here that Engels' could not have touched on owing to the scientific limitations of the time that Lenin here now goes to great lengths in explaining, such as the relation of atoms and electrons to matter as a whole (which Mach and his followers deny the existence of). Moreover, although what Lenin says here about the theory of knowledge and relation of matter to spirit can be compared to Engels' conclusions in Anti-Duhring and Ludwig Feuerbach, Lenin, owing to the erroneous assertions of the enemies of Marxist philosophy, is able to go into far greater detail (more than one-hundred pages to this topic in fact) and will likely cure any lingering common idealist misconceptions in one's thinking through the course of reading.

It must be said that while there are parts in this book that will appear quite difficult to the reader unfamiliar with, say, natural science (like Dialectics of Nature), the author does take great care to make this book not be inaccessible to the less knowledgeable reader, writing in a style that, although dealing with extremely complicated subject matter, should remain easily understood and if one paragraph or section should fly over the reader's head, the next will put things right for the reader.

Overall, a masterful work in the development of dialectical materialism and, like Zhdanov said, an indulable weapon, even today, against the idealist attacks on Marxism which the bourgeois class is so fond of. Indispensable for any Marxist.

[Donovan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Every accusation a confession, every argument a repetition of presuppositions, every refutation a begging of questions of definition, every direct criticism an ad hominem.

In the entire 400-page book there are exactly three direct quotations from Marx's own work. Only one (the second thesis on Feuerbach) is from his theoretical work, the other two are passing comments from his correspondence. And what can one say about a text that pretends to be grounded in the history of philosophy while continually equating fideism and skepticism!

For a sense of how fundamentally dishonest and incompetent the book is: Lenin repeatedly appeals to the authority of Marx and Engels, claiming they "frequently" and "scores of times termed their philosophical views dialectical materialism." Neither Marx nor Engels used the term, which was coined by Dietzgen and popularized by Kautsky, Plekhanov, and Lenin, all philosophical lightweights or nullities compared to Marx.

[Cent · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lenin’s text defends his materialism against from what he calls as “empirico-criticism,” which for him well represented by Mach. The empirico-criticism accordingly cloaks an idealist epistemological position, a view that can be traced from Berkeley, where matter could not exist without the subjective perception, “esse est percipi.”

However, throughout the text, Lenin’s reasoning merely clarifies the distinction between empirico-criticism from his materialism. His usual argument simplistically lead to show how empirico-criticism misunderstood the position held by the materialists, which he traced from Marx, Engels, and even of Plekhanov. Despite of how he lambasted the idealists as “bourgeois philosophy,” most of his points are based on a dogmatic belief that materialism is more advanced because it is coherent with the various "scientific" discoveries and achievements, and also because it is held by Marx and Engels.

Lenin did not subject his form of Materialism into a critical examination, perhaps this flaw just highlights his theoretical inadequacy compare to Marx. His idea that the subject merely reflects the matter (with its laws and causes) impels a question as to, how the “subject” could be revolutionary, or developed a “revolutionary consciousness” if it merely reflects the reality. The dialectical logic, which even Engels recognizes, where the “rational” must be “real,” is not well elaborated in Lenin’s apologies. Further, if one only bases in the “scientific discoveries” as the measurement of how advanced one’s theoretical standpoint, then how could one critically question the “sciences,” which Marx has done in his critique of the science of the political economy.

It should be noted that most of the ideas of Lenin about Marx in his text does not arise from his thorough understanding of Marx’s philosophy and his texts. Lenin at this point was unaware of the existence of the Paris Manuscripts and other texts. Most of the passages he quoted from Marx only came from the Theses,which could not well represent Marx's thought. He also assumed that both Engels and Marx hold the same epistemological views, which is rather erroneous.

The text at best could provide clarification as to the epistemological view of Lenin’s Marxism, but certainly it is a poor guide in understanding Marx epistemological position, especially the form of the “new materialism” he mentioned. One must also be cautious in reading Lenin's Materialism, especially when he merely adopts the idea simply because it is from Marx and Engels, and dismisses others because they are accused as form of bourgeois thinking.

[Niko · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have such mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, nearly everything he says about what Bogdanov thinks is just flat out wrong. On the other hand, when he stops neurotically shitting on Bogdanov for no reason, he actually has insightful things to say, and makes solid points about what the foundations of a materialist epistemology should look like. About 50 percent of the time I was thinking “this is great,” and the other 50 percent I was like “this is utter horseshit” and of course, the horse shit mostly comes up when he’s talking about Bogdanov. Overall, I would recommend this book, but if you decide to read it, keep in mind that pretty much every criticism he makes of Bogdanov is just utter nonsense or flat out wrong. What makes it worth reading are the positive statements he makes about epistemology and materialism, not his criticism of Bogdanov.

[Sinan Öner]

Lenin's philosophy book "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" contains different chapters about the relations between sciences and philosophy. Lenin discusses "developments in physics" and "methodological changes in the modern philosophical sciences" in his book. Lenin thinks about "metaphysics" and "dialectics" in 20. Century with the help of new knowledge and thoughts. There is Lenin's criticism of Mach and other modern "idealists" in his book. Lenin wrote hundred pages about the the modern philosophical sciences and thought with their scientific and social relations.

[Julian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Auch wenn die Auseinandersetzung mit Machisten bzw. Empiriokritizisten zunächst rein historisch wirkt, gibt es immer wieder Stellen, in denen Lenin konkret die Philosophie des Marxismus weiterentwickelt und so z.B. aufzeigt, wie eine Erkenntnistheorie Marx und Engels folgend auszusehen hat. Gerade seine Schlusspunkte, die u.a. verdeutlichen, dass die Philosophie immer parteiisch ist und sein muss, sich immer entweder progressiv oder reaktionär verhält, sollte man gelesen haben.

[John Victor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really cleared up a lot of the finer points of Marxist philosophy for me

[Cecilia Muñoz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro muy difícil de leer, que cita a agrandes autores de ambas corrientes filosóficas, sin embargo, es muy interesante. Si te gusta la filosofía este libro es un must!

[Ramzey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book debunking bourgeoisie philosphy and idealism!
One of the few books you must read in your life.

[Tomás · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un imprescindible para las y los marxistas.

[Álvaro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pensé que nunca acabaría.

[Suryashekhar Biswas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Will just leave the words of E. Ilyenkov below:

"Materialism and Empirio Criticism teaches this above all else if it is read in the light of the entire subsequent history of the political and intellectual development in Russia and the entire international revolutionary movement of the working class. History has clearly shown where the path of Lenin has led and is leading. It has also shown the crooked pathways of revising the principles of the logic of revolution from the point of view of positivism.

Nowadays matters are far different from the beginning of the century, when very many scientists were hypnotised by positivist demagogy. Now an enormous number of scientists, and not only in our country, have become conscious allies of Leninist dialectics This alliance is broadening and growing stronger, despite all the attempts of the ideologists of positivism (which cannot be ignored even today) to prevent this. Such an alliance is invincible, and the duty of philosophers is to widen and strengthen it.

This is the heart of Lenin’s testament, and the main lesson of his brilliant book. From this point of view it is necessary to read and re-read it. It is alive, just as the scientific cognition of nature and society is alive and will continue to live, just as the international communist movement is alive and will continue to live, bringing scientific socialism into realisation throughout the world."

[Glenn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A vital text for all Marxists. Lenin explains the partisan nature of philosophy, thoroughly contrasts the two great camps of Materialism and Idealism, and defends the philosophy of Marxism against those (agnostics) who claim themselves as Marxists (among other things) but in fact tend towards Idealism and import all its reactionary ideas into the labour movement.

It is a dense book, probably best read in a group, but well worth the effort. It is important we read it, not as merely a philosophy book, but as a weapon in the ongoing struggle against Idealism today — descendants of the Empirio-criticists, and the 'new' post-modernists — who continue (openly or not) to attack Marxism on all fronts, and (more importantly) dress up in radical sounding phrases to weigh down the labour movement with their own reactionary influence from within.

It is absolutely right that Wellred, publishers of the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), have chosen now to republish this important work, with a new introduction outlining the general argument and its significance today.

[Iñigo · Rating 4 out of 5]

En este libro, Lenin critica las posiciones empiriocriticistas que vienen desarrollando varios filósofos y algunos científicos, supuestamente superando la histórica división entre materialistas e idealistas.

Lenin se dedica a analizar los fundamentos del empiriocriticismo y a contraponerlos con el materialismo dialéctico, concluyendo que lejos de superar esta disyuntiva filosófica, estas posiciones introducen el idealismo dentro de pretendidas posiciones materialistas.

Aprovecha para recordar el papel partidista de los filósofos y como mantener una firme base filosófica es fundamental para el materialismo histórico.

En suma, es una defensa del materialismo frente a los últimos desarrollos. Ah, y RIP Bogdanov.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

«El hilo que atraviesa de parte a parte todos los escritos de todos los machistas es la necia pretensión de «elevarse sobre» el materialismo y el idealismo, de superar esta «anticuada» oposición; pero, en realidad, toda esta ralea cae a cada instante en el idealismo, sosteniendo contra el materialismo una guerra sin tregua ni cuartel.»

[Sinan Öner]

Rusya'da 1905 Devrimi'nin yenilgisi ile, Lenin, Rusya'yı terk etmiş, bir süre Avrupa ülkelerinde, farklı kentlerin kütüphanelerinde çalışmış, kitaplar yazmıştı! Lenin'in, 1905 Devrimi'nin yenilgisi ile ilgili yazdıkları yazılar, kitaplar yanında, felsefe yazıları, kitapları yazdığı yıllardır sürgün yılları. Lenin, 1907 yılında, Rusya'da felsefe alanındaki tartışmalara yanıt niteliğinde "Materyalizm ve Ampiryokritisizm" kitabını yayınlar. Fizik bilimlerindeki son gelişmeleri özetleyen Lenin, felsefenin bilimlerle etkileşimleri ile ilgili ayrıntılı notlar yazar. Lenin'in 1905 Devrimi sonrası felsefe alanındaki çalışması, fizik bilimlerindeki gelişmelerle, tartışmalarla, 1905 Devrimi'nin yenilgisinin politik yorumlanışlarının getirdiği bir "çöküş felsefesi"ni eleştirisini de kapsayan bir kitap, ama, Lenin'in Rus Halkı'nın politik bilincini geliştirmek için yazdığı kitaplardan farklı bir kitap, fizik bilimlerinden, felsefe bilimlerinden, sosyal bilimlerden anlayan okurları için yazdığı bir felsefe yapıtı - bir yapıt, Lenin'in okurlarına saygısının bir kanıtı olarak da bir sanat yapıtı!

[Shaun · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is essential reading for anyone wanting to study the philosophy of Marxism: dialectical materialism. In defending Marxist philosophy from petit-bourgeois academic and idealist deviations, Lenin takes up the theoretical struggle armed with the same weapons as Marx and Engels. Fighting against the supposedly 'new', 'updated' or 'critical' ideas of the Machians and their negative influence on the Russian revolutionaries, Lenin's struggle to clarify and defend the fundamental ideas of Marxism mirrors our contemporary fight against 'postmodern' theories.