Wang Rongyou and Zhu Wanjing: The Critique of Machism in "Materialism and Empirio-criticism"

From the late 19th century to the early 20th century, Machism spread widely throughout Europe. The core founder of this trend of thought was the Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach; its theoretical system was constructed and progressively developed around the ideas of empiriocriticism established by Mach. At that time, revisionist tendencies within the Second International ^[1] were gradually expanding, and Machism, which branded itself as a "philosophy of science," attempted to use the perspectives of empiriocriticism to perform a so-called "revision" of Marxist epistemology. This behavior brought serious ideological interference to the cause of proletarian revolution. In order to conduct a thorough philosophical liquidation of this erroneous trend of thought and defend the core positions of Marxist philosophy, Lenin specifically authored the work Materialism and Empirio-criticism, conducting a comprehensive and profound dissection of it. Sorting through the logical framework of this critique is not only a core essential for grasping the principle of the party-spirit of Marxist philosophy ^[2], but also holds profound realistic significance for contemporary society in resisting the erroneous tendencies of idealism and adhering to a scientific worldview.

Directly Targeting the Essence of the "Theory of Elements"

At the ontological level, Machism advocates a "theory of elements," holding that "neutral elements" constitute the world, attempting to dissolve the dualistic opposition between materialism and idealism through these "neutral elements." It proposes views such as "the real elements of the world are not things, but sensations such as colors and sounds" and "the world consists only of our sensations." Lenin launched a critique against this theoretical cornerstone of Machism. Lenin pointed out that this "neutral viewpoint," which claims to transcend materialism and idealism, is in fact merely an illusion created by them. It is precisely the notion that "objects are complexes of sensations" that exposes this Machist illusion to the fullest extent. Aiming at the Machist attempt to dissolve material substance into a collection of sensations entirely dependent on the subject, Lenin emphasized: "Matter is that which, acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensation; matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation." He proposed that matter is an objective reality that does not change due to the cognitive activities of the subject. On the surface, Machism appears to transcend materialism and idealism; in reality, "neutral elements" cannot exist apart from human perception, and their essence is to take subjective experience as the ultimate basis of the world. "Elements" are used by Machism to evade the fundamental questions of philosophy ^[3], inevitably leading to its slide into the camp of idealism.

Of course, Lenin’s critique of Machism had clear theoretical boundaries; he criticized only the idealistic philosophical essence of Machism, not the scientific value of certain discoveries made by Mach as a physicist in the field of physics—yet these scientific achievements cannot cover up his philosophical errors. Here, we must strictly distinguish between the essential differences of specific scientific research and a philosophical worldview. At the same time, Lenin attached great importance to the warning role that Machism played for Marxist epistemology in the realm of cognition; that is, through the struggle against erroneous arguments, Machism pushed for the improvement and development of Marxist epistemology from the negative side. Finally, this critique was grounded in the specific historical context of the interior of the Second International at the beginning of the 20th century; it inevitably bears a distinct brand of the era, yet its core principles possess eternal value, such as the principle of the party-spirit of philosophy and the principle that practice is the criterion for testing truth. This determines that Lenin's critique is necessarily historical, which is precisely the foundation upon which we inherit Lenin's philosophical legacy.

Clarifying the Fundamental Position and Testing Role of Practice in the Process of Cognition

At the epistemological level, empiriocriticism is the fundamental position of Machism. Machism holds that subjective experience is the starting point of cognition, and the end point is an empirical description that conforms to the "principle of economy of thought." Machism proposes that experience is "neither mental nor physical" raw material, and that there is no cleavage between "objective matter" and "subjective consciousness." For example, in The Analysis of Sensations, Mach uses a sharp-pointed object as an illustration; he points out that the "constant core" of the object should be this point, rather than the secondary phenomenon of a skin prick—this causes the core of the object to inevitably lose its sensuous content and become an abstract symbol. Mach's viewpoint actually denies that objects possess objectivity, thereby inverting the relationship between objects and sensations—denying the sensuous basis of the objective reality of objects to provide support for his advocacy of agnosticism. Machism proposes that the essence of experience is the connection between elements; that is, "all natural science can only describe and reproduce those complexes of elements which we usually call sensations; the key lies in the connection of these elements." It limits scientific research to the category of sensation and denies the possibility of cognizing the objective material world. Lenin launched a critique by clarifying the status and role of practice in the process of cognition. Precisely because Machism limits human cognitive activity to the category of subjective experience and severs the link between the subjective and objective worlds, it ultimately leads to an agnostic position. In view of this, Lenin emphasized: "The standpoint of life, of practice, should be first and fundamental in the theory of knowledge." He proposed that cognition is the active reflection of objective things by the subject, rather than a simple superposition of sensory experiences. Furthermore, practice is not only the foundation and driving force of cognition but also the criterion for testing the correctness of human knowledge. Humans can progressively cognize the objective world through practice and transform the "thing-in-itself" into a "thing-for-us"—that is, turning ideas into reality—which fundamentally refutes the agnosticism of Machism.

Defending the Objectivity and Dialectics of Truth

At the level of the theory of truth, Machism advocates a relative theory of truth centered on the "principle of economy of thought." It holds that the criteria for truth are "simplicity" and "utility"—that is, a theory that can explain and predict empirical phenomena in the simplest form is truth—and opposes the existence of objective truth. Lenin criticized this relative theory of truth of Machism by expounding on the objectivity and dialectics of truth. First, truth possesses objectivity. Lenin pointed out that human cognition can reach a consensus with objective reality; humans can gradually cognize the objective world through practice and cognitive activities, and this point does not change due to the subject or the "economy of description." Second, truth possesses dialectics. Lenin pointed out that truth is an organic whole in which absoluteness and relativity are interdependent and mutually transforming. Human cognition is a dialectical developmental process from ignorance to knowledge, and from relative truth to absolute truth. Truth contains both an objective reality independent of any subject and the fact that human cognition is limited by historical conditions, always remaining in a process of moving toward and infinitely approaching truth. Machism is exactly the opposite: it infinitely exaggerates the relativity of truth and denies its objectivity; this tendency inevitably leads into the quagmire of sophistry and provides conditions for the emergence of revisionism.

Revealing the Class Essence Behind the Branded "Non-positional" Thought

The core philosophical position of Machism is subjective idealism; it proposes that scientific theories are merely convenient hypotheses with no distinction between right and wrong, emphasizing scientific neutrality. Lenin elevated the critique of Machism to the standpoint of the principle of the party-spirit of philosophy. He profoundly pointed out that in a class-stratified society, there can be no "non-partisan" or "impartial" philosophical thought as branded by Machism. Lenin pointed out that the contest between the two major camps of materialism and idealism has always been the most fundamental contradiction in the field of philosophy, and this contradiction actually reflects the interest-based gaming between various social classes. However, Machism deliberately blurs the fundamental distinction between materialism and idealism, objectively becoming a theoretical tool for bourgeois ideology to penetrate the workers' movement. To prevent this from occurring, it is urgent for the proletarian party to consciously establish the guiding position of materialism and ensure clear cognitive understanding and a firm stance in theory. The principle of class attributes in the field of philosophy is precisely an important theoretical tool relied upon by the proletariat to carry out struggles in the ideological field.

Lenin's critique directed at Machism not only comprehensively dismantled the architectural system of that theory but also greatly promoted the progress of dialectical materialist epistemology, consolidating the ideological foundation for the Bolshevik Party and the international communist movement. It fully demonstrates the robust vitality possessed by Marxist philosophy in theoretical confrontations. In an environment where contemporary ideology and culture present diversity and various schools of idealistic thought continue to emerge, deeply studying Materialism and Empirio-criticism and clarifying its critical logic holds profound realistic value for defending the fundamental position of Marxist philosophy and enhancing the ability to discern and resist ideologies. Lenin's philosophical theory remains, to this day, an important tool for us to critique erroneous trends of thought and persist in a scientific worldview.