In magazine of SPGB “Socialist Standard” (April 2007) was published article of Stefan “Bogdanov, technocracy and socialism”.
The name of Russian great revolutionary Marxist Alexander Bogdanov (1873 – 1928) is almost totally forgotten as in Russia, as in West. He is forgotten not only by academic science (devil with it!), but in revolutionary milieu too. In this milieu long decades of years he was known only as object of criticism of Lenin in Lenin’s work “Materialism and empiriocriticism”.
He don’t deserve such oblivion. Not only because he was sincere revolutionary, talented scientist (physician, economist etc.) and one of leaders of early Bolshevism of 1903 – 1907 years, in this period second only after Lenin. First of all, he was great theoretician of historical materialism, who in creation of historical materialism as Weltanschauung was second only after Marx. Secondly, “group of RSDLP “Forward””, leader of which he was – left – Bolshevik split from Leninist Bolshevism in epoch after defeat of revolution 1905 – 1907 years – was in its antiparliamentarism forerunner of such Left Communist currents, as German-Dutch and Italian Communist Lefts.
If Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Bordiga gave as theoreticians priority to concrete analysis of politics and economics, priority of theoretical researches of Bogdanov was study of materialist theory of history in general. It was his weakness, but it was his strength too. As theoretic of historic materialism, Bogdanov was more and more high, than different Lucaczs and Althussers.
I haven’t place here to speak in details about pure philosophical views of Bogdanov. Enough to say, they had big similarity with views of Anton Pannekoek (both were disciples of J. Dietzgen in this sphere). Philosophical works of Bogdanov was written before great proletarian revolution with goal to give the proletariat spiritual weapon for victory in revolution, work of Pannekoek “Lenin as philosopher” was written after defeat of proletarian revolution, with goal to understand this defeat (as it seems from “Lenin as philosopher”, Pannekoek didn’t read works of Bogdanov).
Most important are views of Bogdanov not in philosophy and epistemology, but in materialist theory of history. He tried to free materialist theory of history from remnants of Hegelian metaphysics, existence of which was caused by historic origin of materialist theory of history. For Bogdanov, every society is system of production and reproduction of things, men and ideas, system, which is in final result determinated by its interaction with environment – i.e. with nature. Main method of such interaction with nature is labor.
Every society is system of production and reproduction of things, men and ideas. Production of things is material production in vulgar using of this notion. When we speak about production of men, we speak not so about production of them as biological being, but about production of them as elements of concrete social relations, i.e. about power relations. Production of ideas – it is ideological production. All 3 spheres are necessary for each other, their division can be not in reality, but only in scientific abstraction. Superstructure, politics and ideology is not accidental reflection of material basis, but necessary organizing element of material basis.
Bogdanov was supporter of so called organizational theory of origins of classes – only theory, which is corresponded to historical materialism. Main feature of every society is its struggle with nature, i.e. labor, because it origin of classes is result of development of labor process itself. At some stage of complication of society and productive forces, are appearing division of labor into organizational and executive labor. Because it appearing division of society into order-giving, commandeer, exploiter classes and into order-taking, submissive, oppressed, exploited classes. Abolition of division of labor into organizational and executive labor is necessary precondition of abolition of division of society into classes. Such abolition is possible only at determined stage of development of productive forces.
In article in “Socialist Standard” Stefan wrote: “… he [Bogdanov] expected the coming revolution against capitalism to lead to a technocratic society. This was because the workers lacked the knowledge and initiative to seize control of social affairs for themselves. One reason for this situation was the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of the capitalist production process”. As characteristics of views of Bogdanov, it is mistake (as it seems, author of article “Bogdanov, technocracy and socialism” don’t read works of Bogdanov in Russian, and know about his views from second hands).
In his late fundamental work “Tectology. All-general organizational science” Bogdanov had wrote:
“Proletariat of machine production in the main and permanent conditions of his life had point of departure for overcoming of spirit of specialization [i.e. for overcoming of division of labor into organizational and executive]…
…The most deep division in labor cooperation was such, which divide organizer from execututive, mental effort from physical effort. In the scientific technique labor of worker unites both types. Work of organizer is governing and control over executive: work of executive is physical action upon object of labor. In machine production activity of worker is governing and control over “iron slave” – machine – by means of physical action upon it….Unification of both types [organizational and executive labor] are becoming more and more clear in correlation with development and complication of machines, approaching of them to type of “automatic”, self-acting mechanism, when essence of work of men are becoming [not rude physical force, but] living control, initiative interference, permanent active attention. Unification [of organizational and executive labor] will be totally completed, when will be created yet highest form of machines – self-regulating mechanisms. It is, of course, cause of future, but even today unifying tendency exists enough clear to paralyze in thought of worker influence of former disunity of “mental” and “physical” labor” (A. A. Bogdanov. Tektologiya. Vseobshchaya organizatsionnaya nauka. Moskva, 1989, t. 1, ss. 107 – 108).
In this words of Bogdanov, mistake mixed with prophecy. He forget about oppressive, suffocate influence upon worker of detailed machine division of labor (future fordism and taylorism), but he predicted computerized, automated, self-regulating productive forces, which will appear to the end of 20th century and with help of which uprising proletarians will abolish division of labor and class division of society generally.
Bogdanov divided mistake of many socialist theoreticians of his time (A. Gramsci, O. Bauer, V. Chernov etc.), who identified progress of capitalism with progress of socialist consciousness and socialist organization of proletariat. Experience of 20th (and beginning of 21th century) had proved their mistake. More close to truth was extreme left wing of Russian revolutionary narodnichestvo – S-R- maximalists, who thought, that strength of capitalism had as its consequence weakness of proletariat, and because it is necessary to destroy capitalism, while it is weak.
From historical optimism to relative historical pessimism Bogdanov had moved under influence of First Imperialist War. He stood at clear internationalist position, but he seen cause of crush of II International in cultural dependence of proletariat from bourgeoisie. Because it he refused from direct revolutionary activity and had gone into scientific (he was physician by profession) and especially in culture work (he was ideologue and moving force of Proletkult – created in 1917 year in Russia “Organization of Proletarian Culture”). It was idealism and culturalism of pure water. He was revolutionary and he was great theoretician, but he was not great revolutionary.
He consider Russian Revolution as great progressive event, but not as proletarian socialist revolution. For him, it was bourgeois (or even petty-bourgeois) revolution. He thought, because low level of development of world productive forces and low level of real consciousness of world proletariat, world communist revolution is impossible in his time. It was main reason of his refuse from participation in direct political struggle. He can’t to struggle against Lenin and his party, because think, they do great, progressive and only possible in this time cause, he can’t to go in common with Lenin and his party, because think, this great progressive cause was not socialist. He refused propositions of militants of KAPD about cooperation, despite some similarity in theoretical analysis, because didn’t have faith in victory of world proletarian revolution in near future. He consider necessary to do long preparatory work. In 1923 small group of young Bolshevik militants (most oldest from them was 28-year Letton girl), who, as teenagers, was Bolshevik militants before revolution and who heroically struggled in Civil war, created first underground Marxist group in USSR – “Workers Truth”. This group was based upon theoretical analysis of Bogdanov, that RKP(b) already is not workers party, but party of new exploiter organizer class – state bourgeoisie. Bogdanov personally didn’t participate in its activity (despite it, after annihilation of “Workers Truth” by political police, he was arrested and was some weeks in prison).
He consider as fruitless immediate revolutionary socialist struggle (analogy with Bordiga in 30th years). He can’t to sing “hosanna” to new state-capitalist regime. After abolition by state of autonomy of Proletkult, he totally had gone in science, and had died in 1928 after unhappy experience with transfusion of blood upon himself. In any case, he was doomed in state-capitalist regime…
And about some very important mistakes in article “Bogdanov, technocracy and socialism”. Author of this article prone to see in Bogdanov not revolutionary socialist, not proletarian collectivist, but “technocrat”. Proof of it he find in two science fiction novels of Bogdanov, “Red Star” and “Engineer Menni”. He wrote:
“ “Engineer Menni” was popular between Soviet planners at the time of the First Year Plan, and Menni is certainly a heroic figure with whom any aspiring technocrat might readily identify”.
In reality, engineer Menni is deeply tragic figure, because, despite his subjective sincerity, total devotion to science and progress of productive force, despite his strong subjective antipathy to capitalist class, objectively he is agent of this hated class and enemy of proletarian collective, and he understand all it only few time before his death.
Other prove of “technocratism” of Bogdanov is his other science fiction, “Red Star”. Stefan wrote:
“…the speakers at a conference convened to consider Martian colonization of earth are an astronautical engineer, a physician and a mathematician…Martians in managerial positions move around in flying “gondolas” that do not seem to be available to ordinary Martians (If they were, air traffic control would be a nightmare)”.
Firstly, “an astronautical engineer, a physician and a mathematician” are only technical experts in very difficult question, but decision is taken by all habitants of communist Mars. Secondly, Bogdanov had write science fiction novel, not detailed plan of future communism in Mars, including scheme of air-traffic.
Bogdanov was Marxist. But in his youth he was Revolutionary Narodnik, and all life he preserved Narodnik idea about duty of revolutionary intelligents to give all their knowledge to the laboring people. His first book – “Short course of economic science” was written by him as result of discussions with revolutionary workers – metalworkers from workers’ Marxist circle in Tula. As slogan of all his life is possible to remember excellent words of Lassale: “In our rotten and decaying bourgeois world exists only two new, healthy and fresh forces – science and workers. When science and workers will unite, they in common will crush cursed old world”.
And yet moment, where author of article about Bogdanov do big mistake. He writes about “hierarchical and authoritarian mode of organization of Bolshevik Party, although Bogdanov considered such organization necessary and inevitable – he was Bolshevik, after all”.
For overwhelming apologists or critics of Bolshevism the latter is not real phenomena of history, but loving or hated myth. They apologize or curse not real Bolshevism, but their own myths about it.
Real history of origin of Bolshevism was very and very simple. In 1903 year had place democratically elected II Congress of RSDLP. This Congress had elected (and had all rights to do it) new leading organs of party. Overwhelming majority of historic leaders of party (Plekhanov, Zasulich, Axelrod, Martov, Potresov – all, except Lenin) had sabotaged decisions of democratically elected Congress of Party, they wanted to remain uncontrolled and undisputed chefs of party. Initial Bolshevism was democratic uprising of rank-and-file party militants against clique of uncontrolled chefs. Such is reality.
Many years after, in 1917 year Bogdanov had wrote in newspaper of M. Gor’ky “New Life”:
“In time of his first bloom, in 1904 – 1907 years, Bolshevism was brightly democratic – not only according its program, but too according mood, which dominated inside organization. It is impossible to say, that leadership was totally absent, but it was limited by such way, that if somebody would say “line of Bolshevism is determined by comrade X”, for it was not necessary even special refutation. Lenin was most experienced and influential politician, but nobody can ever imagine, that necessary to wait opinion of Lenin, before create own opinion. Very often Lenin was in minority, and was must to realize common decision, against which he voted.
Enmity to authorities, even, was character feature of Bolshevism. Word “leader” in relation to ours comrades usually used in ironic sense, as and word “emigrant”. And how many was jokes over Mensheviks for their cult of chefs, how many bitter jokes over their icons! Word “Bolshevik” sounded then very proudly!
The turn had begun with victory of reaction after defeat of revolution of 1905 – 1907 years. Our organizations had become weaker and weaker every day, the will of majority was depressed. Old regime had triumphed politically and economically, and spirit of authoritarianism had spread in social atmosphere” (A. Bogdanov. Chto zhe my svergli? (What we had crushed?)// Novaya Zhizn’ (New Life), 1917, N 25)
It is necessary to ask: why had triumphed Leninist line in Bolshevism, and left-Bolshevik group “Forward”, main leader of which was Bogdanov, and which preserved revolutionary and democratic (democratic – in good sense) sides of early Bolshevism, had desintegrated in few years after defeat of revolution 1905 – 1907years, and even not remained stabile ideological tradition?
I will limit my answer only by two causes of this.
First of all. Bogdanov, as and contemporary to him revolutionary syndicalists, was strong supporter of “workers’ socialism”. Victory, even partial victory, of revolution in Russia was possible only in case of union of socialist industrial proletariat with anticapitalist communal peasantry. Enmity to communal peasantry in Bogdanov’s “workers’ socialism” was more and more strong, than in Leninist Bolshevism. Because it such “workers’ socialism” was sterile, it can’t to lead revolution even to temporary victory.
Second. Bogdanov was sincere revolutionary, good party organizer and great theoretician of historical materialism. He was bad politician and bad strategist. In October – November 1905 year, when he was leader of organization of Bolsheviks in Sanct – Petersburg, he prevented work of Bolsheviks in Workers Soviet (leader of which was Trotsky), because, if party exists, Soviets are without necessity. Only arrival from emigration of “anti-democrat” Lenin had changed the situation…
Bogdanov was not Saint Icon. In most degree between all great theoreticians of Marxism, he was enemy of all Saint Icon’s, all absolute truths. He understood, that every truth is relative, but relative truth is truth – truth for own time.
Bogdanov was our teacher – as Marx, as Engels, as Bordiga, as such titans of non-Marxist revolutionary socialism, as Babeuf, Blanqui, Chernyshevskiy, Bakunin. To be faithful to teacher – is not to sit down at his grave, but go forward to his goal – to goal of liberation of all oppressed and exploited. We will do it.
Yet two moments. From all great theoreticians of revolutionary Socialism Bogdanov most clear, than all others, had understood, that essence of socialism is in abolition division of labor into organizational and executive, in transformation of all humanity in one comradely collective, which at the end of the end will triumphed over all unconsciousness’ forces of nature.
And yet. The name of our group is International Union of the Proletarian Revolutionaries – Collectivists. First in workers movement, who had begun to use word “collectivists” (in any case, in Russia) for self-denomination, was Bogdanov and his disciples from underground group of 1923 year “Workers Truth”.
