LENIN AS PHILOSOPHER
405
"god-creating" and all metaphorical talk of "faith" and "worship,"
but the leading contender in the realm of tactics for the command
of
his
factiori.
I am completely and unconditionally of the opinion [he hast–
ened to assure Gorky] that you possess the most unerring judg–
ment in artistic creation and that, when you create such views,
both out of your artistic experience and out of philosophy, even
if this philosophy is an idealistic one, you may come to conclu–
sions which may be of enormous value to the workers' party....
This respect for the creative freedom of artists and their "un-
erring judgment in artistic creation" was one of the nobler aspects
of Lenin which he never succeeded in handing down to his disciples.
Significantly, when Lenin's book on philosophy appeared,
it
did
not contain one reference to Maxim Gorky. Lunacharsky, however,
had some pretensions as philosopher and sociologist. More important,
his metaphorical avowals of "religion" and "faith" were a most use–
ful stick with which to beat Bogdanov. Lunacharsky, therefore, ap–
pears on the very first page as if he were going to be the central
target in the book :
Leaning upon all these supposedly most recent doctrines, our
annihilators of dialectic materialism go so far as to speak openly
in favor of fidejsm (in the case of Lunacharsky this is most out–
spoken, but in this he does not stand alone by any means!).
Since Lenin defines fideism as "putting faith in place of k11.owledge,"
the charge is not true even of Lunacharsky, still less of Bogdanov
who deplored the former's coquetry with religious terminology. More–
over, if Lunacharsky is indeed "the most outspoken advocate .of
fideism," and fideism is the objective of Lenin's attack, one would
expect that somewhere in the 300-odd pages there would be an
analysis and refutation of Lunacharskis views. But nothing of the
sort. He is mentioned a dozen times, but always glancingly and
ironically, in a series of three names, in order to tie up his "out–
spoken fideism" with Bogdanov and Bazarov.
Bogdanov pointed out in answer (in
Faith and Science,
1910)
that Lunacharsky had already repented of his religious metaphors by
the time Lenin's book appeared. These metaphors of Lunacharsky's,
said Bogdanov, could "only hinder the exact scientific analysis of
historic religions, which have always been in the first place
authoritar–
ian
. . .
and might preserve in: the minds of readers remnants of an
unconscious respect for notions which ought to be abandoned."
It
was all right to criticize such terminology before Lunacharsky had
