Revolution and Culture: The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy

by Zenovia A. Sochor

Zenovia A. Sochor here assesses one of the most important debates within the Bolshevik leadership during the early years of Soviet power-that between A. A. Bogdanov and V. I. Lenin. Once comrades-in-arms, Bogdanov and Lenin became political rivals prior to the October Revolution. Their disagreements over political and cultural issues led to a split in the Bolshevik Party, with Bogdanov spearheading the party's left-wing faction and attracting a following of notable intellectuals. Before Lenin died in 1924, however, he had succeeded in shaping Soviet society according to his own vision, and today Bolshevism is commonly identified with Leninism while Bogdanovism is little known. Sochor provides the first full exposition in English of Bogdanov's views, which, she asserts, must be understood to appreciate the choices available and the paths not taken during the formative years of the Soviet regime.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Russia

256 pages, Hardcover

First published March 28, 1988

Reviews

[Benjamin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Contains a valuable overview of Bogdanov’s thought on revolutionary strategy and proletarian culture, in comparison with Lenin’s.

What is especially valuable about this book is its second half, which situates the debate in the struggle in and around the Bolshevik party before and after the revolution, discussing in detail what Lenin objected to in Proletkult’s activities, why it concerned him, and how he undermined them. Also of particular interest is the comparison of Bogdanov’s thought to that of Trotsky, Bukharin, Stalin, and Lunacharsky, and the positions they took when Lenin pursued his crusade against Proletkult. Another useful insight is Sochor’s recapitulation of her work linking the thought of Bogdanov and Gramsci, which is very persuasive in arguing that Gramsci was attempting to synthesise the thought of Bogdanov and Lenin, though I believe she presents him as more aligned with Bogdanov’s perspective than he really was.

The book certainly has a pro-Bogdanov bias, situating the debate in the in vogue 1980s leftist academic ideas of Bukharinism as a more democratic alternative to Leninism, which distorts the discussion of the debate to some degree, neglecting the ways that Bogdanov and Bukharin’s cybernetic approach which emphasised coherebcd presumed in advance the unity of proletariat and so lent itself to commandism (this is discussed in The Tragedy of Bukharin). She does, however, recount useful insights from Bogdanov on tendencies towards commandism in Lenin and Trotsky rooted in Trotsky’s militarism and Lenin’s dogmatism.

The somewhat unbalanced perspective in favour of Bogdanov is exacerbated by the academic method of argumentation, which simply cites various criticisms of each thinker, presented with the Sochor’s opinion, without much working through of the logic and validity of the critique. This is tiresome when done with contemporary scholars, whose relevance isn’t always made clear, and infuriating when done with Bolshevik criticisms of Bogdanov, especially in relation to his philosophy, a more detailed discussion of which would have aided in understanding the incompatibility of his strategy (although to be fair this would be contrary to Sochor’s opposition to Lenin’s partyism in philosophy, which I have some sympathy for). A more detailed discussions of these debates would have clarified the ideas of either sides and the intellectual context, but might have required a discussion of philosophy that went beyond the scope of the book.

To end a more positive note, a particularly inspiring part of the book is the discussion of Proletkult’s pedagogical methods, which anticipate those found in people like Freire and Rancière.