Lunacharsky and the formation of Marxist criticism

Chapter I. Search for Synthesis

"Disapproving Behavior..."

Lunacharsky's childhood and youth passed in Kyiv. 1 Here he studied at the First Kiev Gymnasium. 2 Studied, by his own admission, unimportant, disdainful of the gymnasium program, “considering the gymnasium and everything that comes from it as a pernicious beginning and a worthless attempt by the tsarist government to take possession of my soul and fill it with content harmful to me.” 3 But on the other hand, an inquisitive high school student diligently studies on his own. Already in his gymnasium years, he knew European languages well, especially French and German, was fond of Russian and Western European literature, music, and fine arts. The enormous knowledge of Lunacharsky is primarily the result of active and long-term self-education. Lunacharsky found deep inner satisfaction in his creative activity. The habit of purposeful work, despite the most unfavorable external conditions, developed in him very early and remained throughout his life.

In the last years of his studies at the gymnasium, Lunacharsky became close to the revolutionary-minded youth of Kyiv and took an active part in the activities of underground student circles. "1892 or, perhaps, 1893" Lunacharsky called the date of his entry into the ranks of the Social Democracy. 4

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were a number of student organizations in Kyiv, different in their orientation: Ukrainophile-minded groups, anarchists, populists, and social democratic circles. They did not have a definite political program. The hostile attitude to the "case teachers", to the barracks gymnasium orders - that's what united their members at first. But gradually the students begin to become interested in political issues, and a Marxist circle arises at the Second Kyiv Gymnasium, led by I. N. Moshinsky (Yu. Konarsky). “Late in the evening,” I. Moshinsky writes about the acquaintance of the circle members with the students of the First Kyiv Gymnasium, “in the favorite place of our excursions, in the old Vydubetsky monastery, the new audience opened up for a friendly conversation. Turns out, that our new friends are not only masters of singing, but also intensively engaged in self-development and read a lot. Particularly distinguished among these comrades was the frail-looking Anatoly Lunacharsky. His somewhat stooped figure and his short-sighted eyes, thanks to constant reading, testified to intensified mental work. Well-read beyond his age, and obviously well-educated, this talented young man somewhat embarrassed our coarse company with his outward good manners. But soon all the conventions were eliminated, and we entered into the closest friendship. apparently received an excellent education, this talented young man somewhat embarrassed our rude company with his outward good manners. But soon all the conventions were eliminated, and we entered into the closest friendship. apparently received an excellent education, this talented young man somewhat embarrassed our rude company with his outward good manners. But soon all the conventions were eliminated, and we entered into the closest friendship.5

Initially, the circle in which Lunacharsky was a member was under the influence of populist and narodnaya volya ideology. During the meetings, its participants studied the works of N. Mikhailovsky and P. Lavrov, Russian critics and writers. Even then, Lunacharsky and his comrades met Chernyshevsky's forbidden novel What Is To Be Done? “We worked out this rarest unique item, obtained with great difficulty, with particular care, as well as subsequently his (i.e. Chernyshevsky. - I.K. ) notes to Mill.” 6

Since the spring of 1893, the interest of the circle members in Marxism has become apparent. An important role here was played by the letters of N. Fedoseyev to N. Mikhailovsky, which went from hand to hand, in whose philosophical and political works there were attacks on the “Marsyats”. Acquaintance with the works of G. V. Plekhanov helped the Kyiv Social Democrats finally break with populism. In the same year, 1893, they received his work Socialism and the Political Struggle, and somewhat later the collections of The Social Democrat. “All our populist illusions, all the utopian views inspired by Mikhailovsky and Lavrov scattered very quickly, and now ... we quickly moved in the direction of pure Marxism.” 7

The members of the circle had the opportunity to get directly acquainted with the first works of V. I. Lenin. For the distribution of the book by V. I. Lenin “What are the “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats? (1894) a member of the circle L. Fedorchenko (N. Charov) was exiled. L. Fedorchenko was also associated with the People's Will, he told his comrades about the exploits and sufferings of the older generation of revolutionaries, about the short and wonderful life of N. Kibalchich, A. Ulyanov, about the trials of the Seventies and the First of March. The stories captured the imagination of the circle members. In the spring of 1894, a flotilla of boats, hired for conspiratorial reasons from different people and at different times, headed up the Dnieper to the mouth of the Desna, and here an illegal gathering took place at the Chertoroy. Lunacharsky made a big speech. eight“Real political work,” Lunacharsky later recalled, “I started in the 7th grade. I then joined a party organization working among the artisans and proletarians of the railway depot in the so-called Solomenka, on the outskirts of Kyiv. The main leader of this organization was my friend D. Netochaev, a student of the same class and the same First Gymnasium. But the role of the most lively propagandist-agitator passed immediately to me. nine

The first in the history of educational institutions of the city was a large student demonstration of protest, the reason for which was the suicide of one student, who had been expelled from a real school shortly before. Lunacharsky delivered a speech at the grave. If earlier the police, not having concrete facts at their disposal, were rather reserved about the existence of underground student circles, then the demonstration of protest alarmed them in earnest. In 1895, a wave of arrests took place in Kyiv. Many of Lunacharsky's friends paid with exile, others left the city, fleeing the persecution of the authorities. The organization collapsed. The “provocative” behavior of Lunacharsky did not remain without consequences, because since 1894 he was in the minds of the police department as a “politically unreliable person.” 10A B in behavior in the matriculation certificate has become a serious obstacle to continuing education at Russian universities.

In this house, in Totma, Lunacharsky lived in 1903-1904. The Fundamentals of Positive Aesthetics, Dialogue on Art, etc. were written here.

We dwelled in some detail on Lunacharsky's gymnasium years, primarily because this page in his biography has not yet been truly read by researchers. Of course, one should not exaggerate the degree of revolutionism of the Kyiv schoolboys. Participation in underground circles for many was an accidental episode in their lives, and later they moved away from politics. Others joined the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, and Cadets, and therefore Lunacharsky's paths decidedly diverged from them. So, in the autumn of 1893, N. Berdyaev became a member of the circle and a friend of Lunacharsky 11and in February 1902 they met in Vologda already as ideological opponents, and after the very first dispute there was a complete break between them. Lunacharsky himself of those years should not be considered a fully formed and convinced Marxist revolutionary. His worldview was formed along with the growth of the labor and social democratic movement in the country. In the history of Russian social democracy, the 1980s and early 1990s were the time when, as a political party, it was going through a "process of uterine development." 12

Lunacharsky later wrote about gymnasium gatherings, heated youthful disputes, and experiments in propaganda among the workers in the article “The First Steps of the Social Democratic Movement in Kyiv” (1902 or 1903). 13

In the spring of 1895 Lunacharsky went abroad. He lived first in Switzerland and then in France, where he helped his sick brother Plato. About the three years of Lunacharsky's stay abroad, we have only fragmentary recollections of Anatoly Vasilyevich himself. It is clear, however, that Lunacharsky's first sojourn abroad contributed much to his political development. He meets J. Jaures, P. Lafargue, P. B. Axelrod, V. Plekhanov, and also works a lot in libraries and museums, studies the art of Western Europe. These were mainly the years of apprenticeship, the formation of Lunacharsky's socio-political and philosophical views. Direct participation in the revolutionary struggle began somewhat later, in 1898-1899, in Moscow. The following years, until the autumn of 1904, were the time of prisons and exiles, wanderings through the "towns and villages" of the Russian Empire.

The significance of this period (1899–1904) in Lunacharsky's life can hardly be overestimated. In 1898, a young man of socialist aspirations returned from abroad, but with a vague idea of the real conditions of the political struggle in Russia. In the autumn of 1904, when Lunacharsky again went abroad, a fully formed revolutionary of the Bolshevik orientation was leaving. Behind was underground work, the cells of the Taganskaya and Lukyanovskaya prisons in Moscow and Kyiv, open police supervision in Kaluga, exile to Vologda and Totma. 14

The time before 1902 was for Lunacharsky predominantly a period of accumulation of knowledge. In Vologda and Totma, a rapid process of their processing and active return began. Lunacharsky recalled exile to Vologda and Totma (1902-1904) as a significant stage in the formation of his views. His interests in philosophy, aesthetics, art and literature were largely determined during these years. Lunacharsky's ability to work exceptionally intensively and fruitfully, which always amazed his contemporaries, manifested itself in exile. Already the first articles, treatises, reviews of Lunacharsky testified to the arrival of a bright and original talent in literature. Since the Vologda exile, Lunacharsky's biography has ceased to be only his personal affair. It becomes a direct part of the history of the Communist Party, the history of Russian social thought, the history of Soviet culture.

Labyrinths of scholasticism

Back in 1883, G. V. Plekhanov wrote about the first Russian Marxists: “The philosophical and historical part of Marx’s teaching remained for them an unread chapter of their favorite book.” 15 They, according to Plekhanov, did not understand the organic trinity of the teachings of Marx and Engels (scientific socialism, political economy and the philosophy of dialectical materialism). Marxism was understood primarily as a system of economic views. As for philosophy, many Marxists of the 1990s were careless on this score and even considered it a private affair of every Social Democrat. It took years of Lenin's intense struggle against all kinds of apostates and revisionists before Marxist philosophy took its proper place in the system of social sciences. To a certain extent, this historically abnormal situation was explained by the fact that the main philosophical works of Marx and Engels (for example, "Introduction. (From the economic manuscripts of 1857-1858)", "Dialectics of Nature", etc.) in Russia in the 90s did not were known.

In his first autobiography in 1907, Lunacharsky writes: “Next to this (that is, the works of Marx and Engels. - I.K. ), a keen interest in philosophy arose in me. Mill, Ben, Darwin and Spencer were my schoolboy influences." 16 The words “next to this…” are very revealing here, i.e. for Lunacharsky of those years Marx and Engels were not yet philosophical authorities. In 1919, Lunacharsky recalls: “In the last classes of the gymnasium, I was very fond of Spencer and tried to create an emulsion of Spencer and Marx. This, of course, was not very successful for me, but I felt that it was necessary to bring some serious positive philosophical foundation under the building of Marx. 17

Positivism is emphatically anti-philosophical. Its founders O. Comte, G. Spencer, D. Mill repeatedly expressed their dislike for philosophical problems and said that the dispute about the primacy of the material or ideal principle cannot lead to any fruitful results. The Hegelian view of philosophy as the science of sciences, the pinnacle of the development of a self-cognizing absolute spirit, was rejected by Comte and Spencer. Knowledge about the world, they believed, can be obtained with the help of individual natural sciences, which do not need any philosophical and methodological justification. The philosophy of the positivists of the first stage (O. Comte, G. Spencer, A. Bain) was dissolved in biology, ethics, psychology, etc. characteristic of positivist philosophy.

Lunacharsky became interested in philosophy in general and positivism in particular when the crisis of this influential current of European social thought was already revealed. The further progress of the natural sciences at the end of the 19th century, and above all of physics and psychology, cuts the ground from under the feet of the positivists of the first stage. The “ultimate truths” proclaimed by them, in turn, turned out to be the subject of scientific analysis, scientific verification.

Lunacharsky's attempt to place a philosophical foundation under Marxism in the form of Spencerian positivism was doomed from the very beginning to failure. And Lunacharsky himself was soon convinced of this. True, references to Spencer's opinion can be found in his mature works, but this circumstance only testifies to Lunacharsky's excellent knowledge of philosophical literature.

Lunacharsky became acquainted with empirio-criticism back in Kyiv through the works of the first Russian popularizer of philosophy, Avenarius VV Lesevich, which did not fully satisfy him. Interest in the new philosophical system was so great that after graduating from the gymnasium, Lunacharsky chose Zurich to continue his education, where R. Avenarius worked at the university. With Avenarius, Lunacharsky attended a psychology course and participated in two seminars: a philosophical one and a special one for the study of biopsychology. And although the classes with the Zurich philosopher were short - in 1896 Avenarius died, his influence on Lunacharsky turned out to be significant and long in time.

Years will pass, and Lunacharsky will remember those times when "the cunning and confused philosophical thought of Avenarius, Mach and their supporters and students seduced a certain part of the Marxists in Russia and abroad", 18 and condemn his errors. But the liberation from empirio-criticism was a difficult, dramatic, and in many ways instructive process.

It is no accident that GV Plekhanov called empirio-criticism "cowardly idealism." 19 The fact is that Avenarius, in contrast to open idealists, tries to bypass, to declare obsolete the basic question of philosophy about the relationship of consciousness to being, spiritual to material. The captivating side of his philosophy for an inexperienced mind is its deceptive naturalness, "naive realism", an appeal to the simplest concepts and ideas of human life and consciousness.

“Being” and “consciousness”, “material” and “ideal” are abstract concepts, they cannot be perceived by the senses, and if so, empirio-critics argue, then they do not exist, there is only what we can see, feel, perceive . Satisfactory and solid knowledge about the world can only be achieved when we look at things in the simplest way, forgetting all theories, abstractions, hypotheses. The task of the New Philosophy is to describe the facts as we perceive them, and the connection between these facts as we find it. In full accordance with positivism, a negative attitude to the theoretical, philosophical explanation of the world is proclaimed.

From the “Critique of Pure Experience in the popular exposition of A. Lunacharsky” it follows: “We must completely discard fantasies: such as, for example, that all phenomena are material, or that all of them are our idea; the most accurate, complete, and consistent description of the facts is the task of the cognizer. Conclusions are drawn from this description itself, and conclusions, perhaps striking in their unexpectedness, because until now philosophers have never wanted to confine themselves to facts and now sought to explain them by some analogy, some kind of picture comparison, which were presented as the essence of phenomena. which obfuscated and obscured the study.20

In any research, the accumulation of facts and the establishment of the simplest connections between them is an essential, albeit initial, stage of knowledge. But Avenarius declared such an empirical approach to be the main method and purpose of research. Thus, empirio-criticism led to the ultimate limitation of the subject of philosophy at the expense of individual sciences, primarily physics and psychology. To a certain extent, this was due to the fact that the founders of empirio-criticism were themselves natural scientists: R. Avenarius was a psychologist, and E. Mach was a physicist. And since they were rather prominent specialists in their fields, this circumstance was a well-known positive attestation for Lunacharsky and other readers: the impression was created that the new philosophy was a continuation of the natural sciences, and therefore had a solid foundation of positive knowledge.

“Cognition is a process of harmonizing experience, understanding its elements and their relationships,” Lunacharsky states. And further: “We recognize experience as the only “data”, on the basis of which knowledge is built. 21 These judgments do not yet contradict materialism. It's all about what is meant by experience. “It is known from the history of philosophy that the interpretation of the concept of “experience” divided the classical materialists and idealists,” 22 wrote V. I. Lenin.

Marxist philosophy considers experience an important component of cognition, an essential part of practice. The complexity of the structure of experience lies in the fact that, in its psychological form, it acts as direct knowledge of objects that exist outside and independently of the cognizing subject. “Every psychic fact,” writes the Soviet psychologist and philosopher S. L. Rubinshtein, “is both a piece of real reality and a reflection of reality — not one or the other, but one and the other; It is precisely in this that the originality of the psychic lies, that it is both the real side of being and its reflection, the unity of the real and the ideal. 23At that point in the process of cognition, which we call experience, there is the closest convergence and interweaving of matter and consciousness, their dialectical transition from one quality - the fact of objective reality, real life - into another quality - the fact of human consciousness.

Avenarius, and after him Lunacharsky, declaring experience to be the primary cause of all that exists, evade in every possible way from explaining its properties and qualities, from defining the relation of experience to matter and consciousness. The characteristic features of experience, according to Avenarius, are the following features: “1. Everything that people attribute to experience is taken by them to be something that exists or has existed. 2. It is recognized by them as something perceived or perceived. 3. It is given out by them as something passively perceived, found, for something given to them, and not created by their imagination. 24

E. Mach is more frank. By experience, he understands a complex of elements - sensations and perceptions of a person. Outside of a person, with his death, his sensations, his experience also disappear, thereby disappearing the real real world, which is the world for us and which is unthinkable without us.

So the circle is closed. Empirio-criticism has returned to the very idealistic positions from which it so resolutely—in words—disclaimed. The attempt to find a "third way" in philosophy led - and could not but lead - to a repetition of the backs of subjective-idealistic philosophy.

The task of cognition, according to the views of Mach and Avenarius, is to systematize the content of experience, which for them is both the basis and the boundary of cognition. The endless stream of experience that makes up knowledge presents a huge and extremely varied picture. The task of the philosopher is to decompose experience into its component parts as long as this decomposition is possible. In the end, this analysis leads us to the elements of experience, which, according to Mach, are identical with sensations.

An important concept of the philosophy of Mach-Avenarius is "vitality" - the desire of the body for balance. Any action, any experience requires the expenditure of a certain energy, as a result of which the correspondence between "nutrition" and "work" is violated. Numerous fluctuations of the system, deviations from the natural level up and down constitute the psycho-physiological content of human activity. Lunacharsky often used the term "vitality".

In the further presentation of the Critique of Pure Experience, Lunacharsky devotes much space to the classification of sensations, or, in the terminology of Avenarius, "evaluations of characters." Evaluation can be affective, that is, aesthetic, sensual; adaptive, that is, the perception of a thing directly, as familiar or unfamiliar; privileged - the subject can be more or less conscious of us, have greater or lesser significance, interest; positional - memory of perceptions. In turn, “character assessments” are divided into smaller subgroups, and special designations have also been invented for them. Thus, additive characters can be fidential - relations of similarity or dissimilarity between objects - and idenal - relations of the known or unknown. And for fidentials, Avenarius invented even smaller subdivisions: existentials, securals, notals...

V. I. Lenin contemptuously called Avenarius’s terminology ““biological” spillikins.” 25 Indeed, inventing more and more new terms turns into a scholastic and fruitless game, and this despite the fact that the attempt to classify sensations in itself deserves attention.

Philosophy, according to Avenarius, is a thousand-year life series, passing from generation to generation, from people to people. This is a typical example of meaningless phraseology. Lunacharsky also feels the unconvincingness of this definition, it seems to him insufficient, although he does not completely reject it. “Of course, the change in the methods of thinking and explanation,” writes Lunacharsky, “depended not only on this, because the economic, and at the same time, the social situation of a person, his social environment also changed ... dependence not only on the basic properties of the brain and the characteristics of the world environment, but also on the direction of life habits, due to the height of economic technology and the methods of production of a given people in a given era. 26

Before us is the case when Lunacharsky goes beyond the limits of exposition of empirio-criticism. And this case is interesting, because here we see not only a student and commentator of Avenarius, but also an author who is familiar with the Marxist theory of the development of society and shares it. The history of philosophy was conceived by Lunacharsky not only as abstract theorizing and a biological property of the brain, but as a product of social development, which in turn is conditioned by the economic basis. True, Lunacharsky does not oppose these points of view and even considers it possible to combine them, to supplement one another, which is very indicative of his position of those years.

Lunacharsky, unconditionally following Avenarius, thus violated his talent, refusing what was most valuable in him. But Lunacharsky could not be completely in the labyrinths of scholasticism, hence the “exits” to those areas where his talent felt freer.

Such a very characteristic feature also draws attention. Often saying the same thing as the empirio-criticists, Lunacharsky spoke his own and in his own way. This may seem strange at first glance, if you do not take into account the uniqueness of the personality of Lunacharsky - a thinker, publicist and artist at the same time. To illustrate what has been said, let us turn to another "exposition" of Lunacharsky - Holtzapfel's book "Panideal".

One of the students of Avenarius, R. Goltzapfel, is in all respects an ordinary figure in the field of philosophy. His book Panideal, if of any interest, is by no means philosophical, but rather, as a psychological document, one of the evidence of the decadent decadent mentality of a certain part of the intelligentsia of the late 19th century. A sympathetic preface to it was written by E. Mach, and, presumably, it was primarily because of the preface that G. V. Plekhanov drew attention to this book, who, with merciless harshness and murderous mockery, spoke of the work of R. Goltzapfel.

The author of the book set himself a responsible and urgent task: the study of the psychology of society and the social feelings of people, but his methodology - “simple reflective self-observation”, approved by Mach, did not allow him to count on success. “Thanks to this method,” wrote G. V. Plekhanov, “Mr. Holtzapfel’s problem would remain unsolved even if he were ten times more gifted than he really is.” Demonstrating examples of Goltsapfel's "profound thinking", G. V. Plekhanov made a devastating conclusion: "All this is below any criticism." 27

Lunacharsky's attitude is much more benevolent. He even calls Holtzapfel's book "remarkable". At the same time, if in his previous work he followed Avenarius, only occasionally allowing himself digressions or critical remarks, then in relation to Holtzapfel there is no longer this reverence. 28 Here Lunacharsky is more free and does not simply expound Goltzapfel's thoughts, but makes a start from them for independent reasoning.

G. V. Plekhanov called "Panideal" a "dreary" work, because a large place in it is given to the "analysis" of such human states as hope, longing, prayer. Holtzapfel, as a typical decadent, is inclined to interpret them very broadly and sees in them the motivating source of all human activity.

Lunacharsky often invests in these concepts a different meaning, different from Holtzapfel's. Thus, Lunacharsky asserts: “Prayer is directly related to art, the greatest works of art are prayers…” In essence, he himself understands the failure of his convergence of art with religion, creativity with prayer. And the very concept of "prayer" under his pen is deprived of its usual religious content.

Further, Lunacharsky writes: “If faith in God were destroyed, then the need for public prayer, expressed in free and artistic, dramatic, lyrical and epic forms, would by no means be destroyed, and with it the need for churches decorated with all means of architectural beauty free from dogmatism. , sculptural and pictorial. 29 If we discard the conditional and inappropriate expression "prayer", then Lunacharsky's thought will appear in the following form: the destruction, the disappearance of religion is not the disappearance of art. On the contrary, with the destruction of religion, art becomes the main means of communication between people. This idea is correct and very essential for understanding Lunacharsky's worldview, although it is clothed in a god-building shell. And in the future, Lunacharsky will repeatedly return to these ideas. 30

The reader of Lunacharsky encounters a similar phenomenon quite often. The free use of concepts and terms from the field of political, philosophical and natural sciences creates considerable difficulties for the study of his views. 31Combining, bringing together things and phenomena that are far from each other or even completely alien, Lunacharsky sometimes discovered in them completely unexpected qualities and properties. The idea acquired expressiveness, the brightness of the artistic image, but at the same time lost the accuracy of the scientific concept, became rather vague and indefinite. In the future, we will have to deal more than once with cases of Lunacharsky’s free use of the concepts of “religion”, “aesthetics”, “idealism”, “materialism”, “realism”, etc. In such cases, before condemning the author and generally evaluating his views , you should calmly understand them on the merits. Here is one of the examples when Lunacharsky, in the formulas of idealistic philosophy, expresses lofty revolutionary ideas: “The panidealist sets as his task the development of mankind, and not its happiness. development. If mankind had to be pitied, patronized, protected, then the panidealist would be imbued with contempt for such a frail offspring. 32

A panidealist, i.e., a "general idealist", under the pen of Lunacharsky, is not a supporter of a certain trend in philosophy. The word is not used by him in the usual sense. Idealism, or pan-idealism, is a state of revolutionary enthusiasm, spiritual elation, and the opposite of it will be not materialism, but egoism, opportunism, petty-bourgeois concern for self-preservation. Under the pan-ideal, Lunacharsky (but by no means Goltsapfel) sees the socialist development of society, which is why he rejects abstract humanity.

Lunacharsky's "panidealist" sees in struggle the way of emancipating working people and thereby developing in them the best moral qualities. And even when he has to sacrifice himself, this sacrifice is justified, because his personality goes beyond the limits of individual life, becomes a stage in the struggle for the realization of a great social ideal, and thereby merges with it. This sacrifice is conscious, voluntary.

We will appreciate the socio-political meaning of these arguments, if we take into account that they date back to the time of the first Russian revolution of 1905.

Holtzapfel justifies all kinds of illusions, deceit, recognizes them as useful, if only they contribute to the achievement of good goals. Lunacharsky disagrees with Golzapfel on this question as well. He believes that the end and the means are not separated from each other by a wall, that it is impossible to achieve high goals with the help of low and dirty means. He poses the question point-blank: can truth kill humanity, does it need comforting deceptions? And he very vigorously objects to such a thought: “As for the person who personally writes these lines, humanity, unable to cope with the truth and in need of deceit, does not satisfy his aesthetic sense to such an extent that he would lose all interest in such humanity and in its safety." 33

Lunacharsky is a staunch supporter of truth, truth, no matter how bitter and tragic they may be. It is not difficult to find here the coincidence of his views with the views of A. M. Gorky, the opponent of comforting lies.

No matter how strong the influence of Avenarius on the young thinker, it disappeared when faced with the reality of the proletarian struggle in Russia, with direct participation in this struggle. V. I. Lenin was well aware that practical work in the party is a sure remedy against ideological vacillations. The living material of art, to which Lunacharsky always gravitated, also came into conflict with the dead dogmas of Avenarius's scholasticism. However, Machist philosophy had quite authoritative supporters in the Russian Social Democracy (A. Bogdanov), and they supported Lunacharsky's delusions. His spiritual development was still destined to zigzag, marking the path not only with victories.

Atheistic "religion"
God-building 34 is a whole knot of problems of a philosophical, aesthetic, and socio-political nature, the most "difficult" episode in Lunacharsky's biography, which he repeatedly recalled in the Soviet years, and the assessments became more and more harsh and harsh. A conversation about Lunacharsky's god-building should be thorough and detailed. One cannot, for example, confine oneself to the statement that Lunacharsky demanded the union of Marxism with religion and asserted that "socialism is religion." This is true, but too brief to characterize his views and position, because it can give rise to the idea of Lunacharsky as some kind of religious missionary who almost wanted to convert misguided socialists into the bosom of the "holy church." The whole point is what religion is and how Lunacharsky understands it.

Bourgeois students of philosophy, or, as Lenin called them, "scientific clerks of theologians," worked hard to confuse and distort the essence of religion, to hide its epistemological and social roots. “Not a single one of these professors,” V. I. Lenin asserted, “capable of giving the most valuable work in the special fields of chemistry, history, physics, can be trusted in a single word, since it comes to philosophy.” Marxists must use the valuable factual material contained in the works of bourgeois scholars and mercilessly expose the reactionary tendencies of their writings, fighting "with the entire line of forces hostile to us ...". 35

Marxism-Leninism gave an exhaustive answer to the question about the essence of religion, about its origin, explained the reasons for the persistence of religious prejudices and superstitions, and indicated a program to combat them. According to the views of Marx, Engels and Lenin, religion, like philosophy, morality, law, art, is one of the forms of social consciousness. However, unlike other forms of ideology, religion is based not on scientific knowledge, but on faith in something supernatural, standing above the laws of the material world, on faith that does not allow verification, analysis, and draws strength from itself. Therefore religion is a perverted consciousness. The reason for this perversity, according to Marx, is rooted in the struggle of antagonistic classes - the earthly basis of religion; religion is engendered by the helplessness of man in the fight against the forces of nature or the forces of an exploiting society.

The specific features of religion come out more sharply when compared with other types of human spiritual activity, and above all science and art. Art, unlike religion, "does not pass off its creations as something other than what they really are, that is, other than the creations of art." 36As you know, artists, for various reasons, often turned to ideas and images borrowed from religion. An unambiguous assessment of works created on subjects from the Bible, the Koran, etc., of course, is impossible: everything is decided by talent, the idea and its implementation, the historical era. However, it is obvious that success awaited the creator when the source of his inspiration was not pure religious dogmas, but real life, the artist’s everyday experience, his aesthetic ideals, even if all this was clothed in the shell of Christian or any other religious myths. It is also obvious that the artist suffered a complete or partial defeat if the whole or almost the whole world closed up for him in religion, if religion obscured real life for him. The tragedy of the last years of Gogol's life and work is one example of the crimes of religion against art. Religion seeks to convince not by scientific arguments, but by blind faith. On a healthy and growing tree of human knowledge, religion is that parasite that has always existed at the expense of others, exploiting art, morality, and partly science.

It seems to Lunacharsky that Engels, in his total negative attitude towards religion, did not go further than the French materialists of the 18th century (Holbach, Helvetius), who saw in religion only a deception of churchmen and therefore rejected it from the standpoint of common sense. What interpretation of religion seems to be the most correct for Lunacharsky? Having gone through various arguments and definitions of L. Feuerbach, I. Dietzgen, G. V. Plekhanov, which did not fully satisfy him, Lunacharsky gives his own: “Religion is such thinking about the world and such a worldview that psychologically resolves the contrast between the laws of life and the laws of nature” . 37

As we can see, under the pen of Lunacharsky, religion becomes an extremely broad and indefinite concept. In the following exposition, the infinity of this concept is further strengthened. It turns out that "religion" is religion proper, that is, Brahmanism, Judaism, the religion of the ancient Greeks, and Christianity. A critical analysis of these systems is the main content of Lunacharsky's book. But at the same time, "religion" is also a philosophy, whether materialistic or idealistic. And under the sign of the newly discovered "religion" he considers the philosophy of Spinoza, Descartes, the eighteenth-century French materialists Diderot, Holbach, and the German classical idealists Fichte, Kant, Schelling, and Hegel. But this is not enough. "Religion" also turns out to be the dialectical materialism and scientific socialism of Marx and Engels. “I am inclined to believe,” writes Lunacharsky, “that Marxism, as a philosophy, is the new, last, deeply critical, purifying, and at the same time synthetic religious system.”38

As a result, it turns out that the new “religion” is a synonym for the spiritual activity of a person, and above all for his mental state, unless this activity and this state lead to pessimistic conclusions and strengthen a person in his struggle against the hostile forces of nature and society. With such an interpretation of religion, the actual picture of the clash between progressive and reactionary ideas, science with superstition, and materialism with idealism is incredibly confused and distorted. It turns out that the history of the development of human thought is the history of religion, the history of the purification and liberation of thought from everything imposed by the conditions of an exploiting society. Everything dissolves in "religion": morality and law, art and philosophy.

In "Religion and Socialism" Lunacharsky demonstrated an enviable erudition: in his field of vision are all the major religions of the world, especially Christianity. He freely uses the extensive material of European philosophy, and makes extensive use of the literature on religion. However, the author does not draw a principled line in philosophy, or rather, the principle itself consists in erasing this line, and therefore his book gives the impression of a kaleidoscope of names, quotations, facts, original and sometimes witty judgments and ... internal unconvincing. In this largest and, alas, most unsuccessful work of his, Lunacharsky made at least three serious mistakes. First, he gave a non-Marxist definition of religion, which perverted its role and did not give the author the opportunity to reveal its social functions. Secondly, he tried to bring philosophy and socialist teachings closer to "religion".

There is no religion without a god, without a fantastic being endowed with supernatural power. For Lunacharsky, the question of God is the most difficult one. As soon as you recognize God, you have completely broken not only with Marxism, but with the scientific explanation of the world in general, and you have become a reactionary obscurantist. The recognition of God would have brought Lunacharsky into the same company with Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Filosofov and Merezhkovsky, with all the decadent God-seekers against whom he constantly fought. The denial of the idea of God is the defining feature of any atheistic worldview.

But then what about religion?

Lunacharsky tries to bypass the question of God with the help of his special interpretation of religion. He believes that the cult of the gods was inherent only in the old creeds. He is deeply hostile to the official Christian religion and well shows the failure of its dogmas. These are the best pages in the book. However, the denial of the old religion is necessary for Lunacharsky to "construct", "create" a new one, freed from any idea of God. "Religion without God" - already one combination of words contains a deep contradiction, and it is the main thing in the book. “The solution of the religious problem of the world,” Lunacharsky wrote, “presupposes the admission of a higher power, akin to the individual, close to him, on which he can place his hopes. For an old religious person, these are spirits, gods or a god, they express the supra-individual element of religion. For a new-religious person, there is only that which he finds in experience; he rejects the over-experienced. But in experience two great supra-individual quantities are given: the cosmos and humanity. It is on them that the new religious thought rests.39

How it is possible to deify nature and humanity, Lunacharsky himself has no clear idea. But logic obliges, and, having embarked on the “religious” path, you involuntarily begin to speak the language of a believer. And now on the pages of "Essays on the Philosophy of Marxism" appears a "prayer" in honor of nature and man, composed by the author of the article "Atheism". Lunacharsky had never gone so far from Marxism! And we won't find anything else like it in the future. It was these "flirtations with religion" that aroused "disgust" in Lenin. 40 And Plekhanov pointedly remarked that Lunacharsky's "prayer" has only one "value": "it can lead the serious reader into a very cheerful frame of mind." 41

Consequently, Lunacharsky's "religion" is not a religion at all. Therefore, God-building is not a complete and harmonious system of some principles and provisions, even if they are false and incorrect. In the very construction of a new "religion" a mass of inconsistencies and logical inconsistencies is revealed. Plekhanov pointed them out in his article "On the So-Called Religious Searches in Russia" (1909) and showed well what such operations lead to. "Your religion is nothing more than a fashion game," 42 he wrote.

A. Bogdanov was inclined to reduce the matter to Lunacharsky's use of incorrect terms. He condemned Lunacharsky for this: “Such metaphors cannot be approved in any way. They can only interfere with an accurate scientific analysis of historical religions, which have always been primarily authoritarian, and, moreover, can maintain in the minds of readers the remnants of an unconscious respect for such concepts, which must be done away with. 43 However, nowhere did he say that empirio-monism, which is based on the "collective experience of the proletariat", and the new "religion" with its deification of "the highest human potentialities" are related to each other and come from the same source - an idealistic worldview.

And even N. Berdyaev, in one of his writings, amidst a muddy stream of half-mystical and half-anti-Soviet arguments, admits that Lunacharsky "preached god-building, which in essence was a form of atheism and even militant atheism." 44

The atheistic character of Lunacharsky's writings is quite obvious, and it was noted by all Lunacharsky's contemporaries, regardless of the general assessment they gave to his god-building quests. It is necessary to talk about the atheistic orientation of "Religion and Socialism" and other works adjoining this book because otherwise we will not understand how the god-builder and "prophet of the fifth religion" Lunacharsky after the October Revolution became an active fighter of the atheistic front. In numerous books, pamphlets, articles and speeches, the People's Commissar of Education tirelessly argued "why you can't believe in God", why religion is hostile to culture, morality and the entire worldview of Soviet people. We will not dwell on this important aspect of Lunacharsky's activities, 45however, we consider it necessary to emphasize that it would not have been possible if his pre-revolutionary works did not already contain, albeit in a god-building shell and terminology, the foundations of his later mature views. "Religion and Socialism" contains not only Machist and God-building heresies, and therefore it is impossible not to support the researcher of Lunacharsky's atheistic views I.P. 46

For Lunacharsky, during the period of his fascination with Mach, Avenarius and Bogdanov , reality itself could not be conceived without a knowing subject. The center of gravity moved to it. Religion interests him primarily not in epistemological, but in aesthetic terms, he is primarily interested in the special mental state of the believer - religious feeling. In order to understand this aspect of god-building, one should make a short digression into the history of the issue.

The immediate motive for writing the book Religion and Socialism was a survey conducted by the French magazine Mercure de France. The questionnaire suggested the following question: "Are we present at the decay or evolution of the religious idea and religious feeling?" In April 1907, the magazine published 33 responses from political and public figures from different countries, writers and philosophers. Among them were Strindberg, Verharn, Lemaitre, Nordau, as well as G. V. Plekhanov and A. M. Gorky. For Lunacharsky, the last two opinions were of particular importance. He comments on them in detail in Religion and Socialism.

According to Gorky, the idea of a deity is doomed to gradual dying. A proud consciousness of humanity develops only under the influence of science and art. Religion separates people, creates antagonism between them, while science can lead to spiritual unity. “Moses, Christ, Mohammed and other preachers of faith in God were fanatics of the same idea of subordinating man to higher powers,” Gorky wrote in his reply. “In all religious systems, people appear as some kind of material on which the deity is experimenting.” 47

After such a resolute condemnation of religion itself, it would be natural to expect the same attitude towards the spiritual state of man generated by religion. However, Gorky makes a sharp turn and begins to sing the praises of a religious feeling, which, he believes, contributes to the unification of people. “A religious feeling,” he asserts, “is a joyful and proud feeling of the harmony of the bonds that connect a person with the universe ... The path of humanity, no matter what people of sick faith say, leads to spiritual perfection, and the creation of this process in every healthy person should cause what I call a religious mood, that is, a creative and complex feeling of faith and strength, hope for victory, love of life, amazement at the harmony that exists between his mind and the whole universe. 48

Like Lunacharsky, Gorky is an irreconcilable opponent of all obscurantism, clericalism, spiritual oppression, and just like Lunacharsky, Gorky calls religious feelings revolutionary enthusiasm, cooperation of working people, a person’s desire for harmonious development and unity with nature. In both cases, we have before us not religion, but “coquetry with the idea of God,” which, however, did not make V. I. Lenin more condescending. On the contrary, since these views were propagated by the Social Democrats, the Bolsheviks, he saw in them a particular danger, and in his letters to Gorky he explained in detail and convincingly where God-building could lead.

With Lunacharsky, these mindsets were embodied in works of a rather mixed genre: partly historical research, partly journalism, partly philosophy, and partly something like a sermon; Gorky - in the story "Confession", written on behalf of a wanderer in God's places. The best author's commentary on "Confession" is Gorky's answer to the Mercure de France questionnaire. The coincidence of the positions of Gorky and Lunacharsky was facilitated by their joint stay at that time in Capri, intensive cooperation, work in the party school organized by them.

G. V. Plekhanov, making a distinction between religion and religious feeling, noticed that one gives rise to the other. The scientific, and therefore materialistic point of view, he wrote, leads to the destruction of both religion and religious feeling. True, he made a reservation, there is more conservatism in feelings than in ideas. “There may still be and will be, in all probability,” Plekhanov observed, “survivals that will give rise to bastard, semi-materialistic, semi-spiritualistic conceptions of the world.” 49 But on the whole, Plekhanov rightly asserted, the progress of mankind carries a death sentence both for religious ideals and for the feelings they evoke.

Lunacharsky did not agree with this verdict and considered it necessary to put these feelings at the service of the proletariat and the revolution. Of course, he did not specifically represent the combination of the scientific socialism of Marx and Engels and the new "religion". But Lunacharsky's intentions were good.

Recall that during the period of philosophical discussion Gorky wrote the novels of the Okurovsky cycle, and Bunin wrote The Village. In these works, with a well-known difference in approach, provincial Russia appeared as a "district, bestial wilderness", where everything alive and healthy perishes. In the world of ignorance, savagery, anarchist rebellion there is no place for truly scientific revolutionary knowledge. How to stir up this "dark kingdom" of Old Testament isolation, how to introduce its best representatives to advanced ideas? 50 This question arose sharply before Gorky, Lunacharsky, and not only before them.

If the revolution of 1905-1907 was also defeated in the course of an armed uprising, then is it possible to overthrow the autocracy with the help of a newly invented "religion", is it possible, by adopting its forms from religion, to "squeeze" socialist convictions, the teachings of Marx, into the people's consciousness? Perhaps, in such a "traditional Russian" form, Marxism will turn out to be more acceptable to those numerous sections of the working people who have just embarked on the path of protest and struggle? Calling on the help of religious feeling, Lunacharsky did not in any way renounce the revolution and, as it seemed to him, Marxism, but proposed a new tactic. Lunacharsky's god-building is a kind of doping or, as Plekhanov called it, "revolutionary comfortism." 51

In the cruel years of the Stolypin reaction, "on the night after the battle" (the title of V. Vorovsky's pamphlet), Lunacharsky seized on religion as a saving grace that could breathe new strength into the crushed movement. With her help, he tried to fight against the mood caused by the reaction. At the same time, god-building was nourished by these sentiments. Lunacharsky himself wrote that the main provisions of "Religion and Socialism" had formed with him long ago, at the time of his youth. And indeed, already in the first works (for example, in the exposition of Holtzapfel's book "Panideal") we will find arguments in the spirit of god-building. However, then "religious" notes did not determine the content of the work, did not make the weather. It is indicative that it was during the period of reaction that these mindsets prevailed.

As you can see, Lenin had serious grounds for sharp criticism of his recent collaborator. Personally, Lunacharsky on the pages of "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" is given little space in comparison with A. Bogdanov, whose refutation of his views constitutes a significant part of Lenin's combat book. This is apparently explained by the fact that Lunacharsky's main god-building work, Religion and Socialism (vol. 1), during the period of Lenin's intensive work on Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, had not yet been published. Lenin could judge Lunacharsky's philosophical position from his separate small articles (mainly from the article "Atheism", which went into the collection "Essays on the Philosophy of Marxism") and, of course, but personal conversations. However, that “small area” allotted by Lenin to Lunacharsky turned out to be quite sufficient for a fundamental assessment of his philosophical errors of the period of reaction.

Lenin points to a direct connection between Lunacharsky's god-building and Bogdanov's empirio-monism. Both have nothing in common with Marxist philosophy, but instead grow from the same idealist root and lead their authors to direct fideism. Lenin repeatedly recalls the words of Lunacharsky: "Maybe we are mistaken, but we are looking for." 52 He shows that the first part of this phrase contains absolute, and the second only relative truth. The good intentions and honesty of Lunacharsky are beyond doubt for Lenin (and that is why a “comradely war” with him is still possible, that is why Lenin does not equate him with the renegade Pyotr Struve), but he believes that they do not justify Lunacharsky: “That is the shame Lunacharsky's statements that he couldassociate them with your "good" intentions. That is the evil of his 'theory', that it admits such means or such conclusions to the realization of good intentions. “It’s not you who are looking for, but you are being looked for, that’s the trouble!” 53 , Lenin declared sternly.

Although this was said on a very specific occasion, in response to Lunacharsky's statement, we have before us not only Lenin's polemical remark, but an important methodological principle. Whatever good and honest intentions may accompany the search for truth, they will lead to useful results if the path itself is true. It is noteworthy that Lunacharsky himself, albeit on a different occasion, came to the same conclusions.

In the same ill-fated 1908, Lunacharsky published an extensive article, The Book of the New Theatre. Particularly convincing was the chapter on Vs. Meyerhold. The tireless nature of this remarkable theatrical reformer sometimes led him to quite unexpected ideas. Thus, during this period, Meyerhold toyed with the idea of a motionless theatre, substantiating it with references to ancient drama, Maeterlinck's work, etc. A motionless theater is the same paradox as an atheistic "religion". The theater is first and foremost action, and the inactive, immobile actor is transformed into a statue that has no place on the stage, into a wax figure, like those that can be seen in the Paris wax museum (Museo Grevin). And Lunacharsky brilliantly proved the failure of the talented director's plan. "G. Meyerhold is looking for,” wrote Lunacharsky. - It's good. But when he finds some trifle, he puts it in a red corner and starts banging his forehead in front of a tiny fetish. Maeterlinck's old boot, a button from Schopenhauer's pantaloons, scraps of rough cut dropped by Bryusov at the crossroads - this is what our progressive director provided his museum with.54

But after all, only by changing the names, Lunacharsky could have redirected these same convincing words to himself. "The Lost Seeker" is what Lunacharsky called Meyerhold. But after all, he himself got lost in the wilds of idealistic and religious teachings and terms. Lunacharsky ended his analysis of Meyerhold's "search" with an energetic tirade: "You must burn this rubbish." 55 But after all, V. I. Lenin called Lunacharsky to this.

The speeches of Lenin and Plekhanov are an attack from the left. But Lunacharsky's book was also met with hostility in the camp of decadent literature. If Lenin and Plekhanov were outraged by the concessions to religion that were unacceptable for a Marxist, Yanovsky (a pseudonym of A. Bely), a critic of the symbolist journal Vese, lashes out at Religion and Socialism because its author did not completely break with Marxism, because the Marxist Lunacharsky dared to talk about religion. “Lunacharsky's book,” he declares, “evokes a smile. You already know its contents. 56

Relatively benevolent was the response of the non-partisan democratic journal Obrazovanie. Articles by M. Olminsky, V. Vorovsky, V. Fritsche and Lunacharsky himself were published on its pages, and in 1906 chapters from V. I. Lenin’s work “The Agrarian Question and “Marx’s Critics”” appeared. The reviewer of this journal, in contrast to Yanovsky , found Lunacharsky’s thoughts “interesting”, especially “the author’s attempt to trace the influence and significance of labor in the history of various religions.” Pointing to the consistency in carrying out his views, the critic nevertheless notes that “such an outlook on the essence of the socialist worldview is far from usual for social -democrat, moreover, it is contrary to the usual views of the Social Democracy on religion.” 57 This was, of course, a fair remark.

The second volume of "Religion and Socialism" was coolly received in the journals "Russian Thought", "Russian Wealth", "Modern World". The reviewer of Kievskaya Mysl, D-on, wrote: "It is difficult to discover the motivating reason for Lunacharsky's widespread interpretation of the term 'religion'." 58 Lunacharsky's book was not fully accepted by anyone, it was criticized by representatives of various, directly opposite views.

God-building was generated by a whole complex of reasons of an objective and subjective order. It is essential to consider these causes as a whole, otherwise it is easy to fall into one-sidedness. It is true that the new "religion" is a characteristic phenomenon of the epoch of reaction, that it is associated with similar currents among the Russian intelligentsia, but the question remains why Lunacharsky became one of the founders of god-building. After all, this craze has affected only a certain insignificant part of the Russian Social-Democracy. On the other hand, the origin of "religion" cannot be explained by Lunacharsky's personal qualities alone, his susceptibility, searching nature, the peculiarities of his upbringing, study and revolutionary activity, mainly among the intelligentsia.

The flowers of God-building could not have bloomed at any other time, for example, during the events of 1905 or later, in 1914, or even more so in 1917. A favorable situation for them developed after the suppression of the first Russian revolution. A certain role was played by such a fact as Lunacharsky's life in Italy in the position of a political emigrant, far from the center of party work, from Lenin, who at that time was in Paris. The totality of all these circumstances helps us understand why the years 1908-1910 were for Lunacharsky "an era of a whole accumulation of all sorts of mistakes." 59“Who is mistaken in the vast majority of cases, is subjectively honest and creates for himself a special world in which his ideas seem to be the only correct and prompted by life,” Lunacharsky wrote in 1925 about his position during the period of reaction. - There is something like Einstein's theory of relativity: you belong to some closed world, where you have your own time, your own space and your own causal dependence, and when you leave this little world, when the life force throws you out of there, you look with surprise from the side at it bizarrely illogical proportions and its foreignness to the surrounding big world. 60

... In June 1909, a meeting of the expanded editorial board of the Bolshevik newspaper Proletary discussed the issue of god-building. In the decision taken, it was pointed out that this trend, especially vividly propagated by Lunacharsky, was incompatible with the foundations of Marxism, that it was harmful to the revolutionary Social Democratic work of educating the working masses, that the Bolshevik faction had nothing in common with such a perversion of scientific socialism. 61 This decision was one of the manifestations of that "vital force" that Lunacharsky later recalled.

We know little about the early childhood years of Anatoly Vasilyevich Lunacharsky, mainly from the memoirs of Lunacharsky himself. Father, Alexander Ivanovich Antonov - the manager of the control chamber in Nizhny Novgorod - was a well-educated person, very radical views and atheistic beliefs. Even as a child, Anatoly loved, sitting comfortably in an old easy chair, listening to his father read to his mother and comment on Saltykov-Shchedrin, Dickens, the magazines Otechestvennye Zapiski and Russkaya Mysl. But soon after the unsuccessful operation, his father died, and his mother, Alexandra Yakovlevna (nee Rostovtseva), turned into a gloomy, despotic woman, from whose harsh temper everyone around suffered.

Anatoly received his last name from Vasily Fedorovich Lunacharsky. Information about him is even scarcer. From official documents it is known that he was an official, owned a small estate Suprunovka in the Poltava province. In January 1904, VF Lunacharsky was 76 years old, his mother was 61 years old (State Archive of the Vologda Region, f. 18, item 809, sheet 75).

Anatoly Vasilyevich had four brothers. Plato is a psychiatrist by profession. As a result of a serious illness and an unsuccessful operation performed in Paris, he was paralyzed (left-sided paralysis). Nevertheless, P. Lunacharsky took an active part in the revolutionary movement, was a member of the Moscow Committee of the RSDLP. Mikhail graduated from the St. Petersburg Conservatory. Yakov was a barrister, and after the revolution a lawyer of the State Publishing House. Brother Nikolai studied at Kiev University.

K. Paustovsky left interesting memoirs about the morals, orders, students and teachers of the First Kyiv Gymnasium in the story “Distant Years” (the first part of “The Tale of Life”). True, Paustovsky studied there after Lunacharsky. Note that the writer is mistaken when he claims that Lunacharsky signed his articles in Kievskaya Mysl with the pseudonym Homo novus (Paustovsky K. Sobr. soch., vol. 4. M., 1968, p. 178). In fact, this pseudonym belonged to the famous theater critic A. R. Kugel.
Lunacharsky A.V. Memories and impressions. M., 1968, p. 16. _
Ibid, p. 18. Member of the Kyiv "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class" B. Eidelman believed that Lunacharsky could not join the ranks of the Social Democracy in these years. But he also wrote: “In general, it was these years, 1892-1893, that singled out many Social Democrats from their student and other Marxist circles in Kyiv” (Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya, 1923, No. 14, p. 616).
Moshinsky I. N. (Konarsky Yu.) Nineties in the Kiev underground. Organizations of student youth. - "Katorga and exile", book. 35. M., 1927, p. 38. _
Ibid, p. 43. _
Ibid, p. 45. _
TsGIA of the Ukrainian SSR, fund of the Prosecutor of the Kyiv Judicial Chamber, 1895–1896, d. 1045, l. 100-a, 126, 143; Fedorchenko L. (Charov N.) The first steps of social democracy in Kiev. - "Katorga and exile", 1926, No. 6 (27), p. 21–33.
Lunacharsky A. V. Memories and impressions, p. 18. _
TsGAOR, f. 124, MJ, 1900, d. 47, l. 108 rpm
Tuchapsky P. L. From the experience. - In the book: First Congress of the RSDLP. Documents and materials. M., 1958, p. 215. _
Lenin V. M. Full. coll. cit., vol. 6, p. 180. _
The manuscript of the article, signed by L-ki, is stored in the TsPA IML . There is an assumption that it was intended by Lunacharsky for Iskra, as evidenced by the notes of the editorial secretary N. K. Krupskaya. Translated into Ukrainian, with a preface and comments by S. M. Shmorgun, the article was published in the Ukrainian Historical Journal (1959, No. 4, pp. 121–132).
The revolutionary biography of Lunacharsky is described in detail in the articles by I. A. Trifonov, I. F. Shostak “A. V. Lunacharsky and "Moscow affair" 1899 and I. P. Kokhno “The Vologda exile of Lunacharsky” (Literary heritage, vol. 82, pp. 587–620).
Plekhanov G. V. Selected philosophical works, vol. 1. M., 1956, p. 64. _
Literary heritage, vol. 82, p. 550. _
Lunacharsky A. V. Memories and impressions, p. 18. _
Lunacharsky A.V. Sobr. op. in 8 volumes, vol. 8. M., 1967, p. 408–409. Further references to the Collected Works of Lunacharsky are given in the text in parentheses, indicating the volume and page.
This is how Plekhanov called his review of the book by I. Petzold “Problems of the World from the Point of View of Positivism” (see: Plekhanov G. V. Selected Philosophical Works, vol. 3. M., 1957, pp. 448–480).
R. Avenarius. Criticism of pure experience in the popular exposition of A. Lunacharsky. M., 1905, p. 5. _
Lunacharsky A. V. Etudes. M. - Pg., 1922, p. fifteen; He is. against idealism. M., 1924, p. 45. _
Lenin V.I. Full. coll. cit., vol. 18, p. 153. _
Rubinshtein S. L. Fundamentals of general psychology, ed. 2nd. M., 1946, p. 5. _
R. Avenarius. Criticism of pure experience in the popular exposition of L. Lunacharsky, p. 99. _
Lenin V.I. Full. coll. cit., vol. 18, p. 338.
R. Avenarius. Criticism of pure experience in the popular exposition of A. Lunacharsky, p. 113.
Plekhanov G.V. Works, vol. 17, p. 153. _
Lunacharsky's apologetic attitude towards Avenarius was condemned even by Bogdanov. “Piety is a good thing, but one should not get carried away,” he remarked (see: Bogdanov A. Empiriomonism, book 1. St. Petersburg:, 1908, p. 174).
A new theory of positive idealism. Goltzapfel. Panideal. Critical presentation by A. Lunacharsky. M., 1905, p. 156. _
See, for example, Lunacharsky's article "Easter" (Pravda, April 15, 1928).
“Terminology,” Lunacharsky argued, “is a technique of cognition, and any term can only be valued as a good or bad tool for the development of thought” (see: Lunacharsky A.V. To all comrades. Paris, 1909, p. 8).
A new theory of positive idealism. Goltzapfel. Panideal. Critical presentation by A. Lunacharsky, p. 162–163.
A new theory of positive idealism. Goltzapfel. Panideal. Critical presentation by A. Lunacharsky, p. 151. _
Lunacharsky outlined his god-building ideas in the articles “The Future of Religion” (“Education”, 1907, No. 10–11); "Atheism" (in Sat: Essays on the Philosophy of Marxism. St. Petersburg, 1908); “On the XXIII collection “Knowledge”” (in the collection: Literary decay, book 2. St. Petersburg, 1909) and mainly in the two-volume essay “Religion and Socialism” (vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1908; v. 2, 1911).
Lenin V.I. Full. coll. cit., vol. 18, p. 363, 364.
Feuerbach L. Selected Philosophical Works, vol. 2. M., 1955, p. 693. V. I. Lenin singled out these words in the summary of Feuerbach's book Lectures on the Essence of Religion.
Lunacharsky A. V. Religion and socialism, vol. 1. SPb., 1908, p. 40,
Ibid., vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 213. _
Lunacharsky A.V. Religion and socialism, vol. 1, p. 43–44.
Lenin V.I. Full. coll. cit., vol. 18, p. 195. _
Plekhanov G. V. Selected philosophical works, vol. 3, p. 384.
Ibid., p. 389.
Bogdanov A. The fall of the great fetishism. Faith and Science. M., 1910, p. 194. _
Berdyaev N. Origins in the meaning of Russian communism. Paris, b. g., s. 132.
Lunacharsky's atheistic works were published in two collections of his works: "Why can't you believe in God?" (M., 1965 - introductory article by F. N. Oleshchuk) and "Lunacharsky on atheism and religion" (M., 1972 - foreword by A. F. Okulov). See also the detailed work by P. F. Rekuts “Philosophical Problems of the Criticism of Religion in the Atheistic Legacy of A. V. Lunacharsky” (Minsk, 1976).
Yaroshevsky I. P. The path of A. V. Lunacharsky to scientific atheism in the pre-revolutionary period. - "Proceedings of the Tajik Polytechnic Institute", 1971, no. V. Comparing "Religion and Socialism" with the essay "From Spinoza to Marx" (1925), I. P. Yaroshevsky shows Lunacharsky's great work in freeing his worldview from the influence of empirio-criticism. Unfortunately, the author did not avoid contradictions in the coverage of Lunacharsky's pre-revolutionary searches. Plekhanov's speeches against the Machists and Lunacharsky are described as excessively sharp, as Menshevik.
Cit. according to Art.: Lunacharsky A. V. The future of religion. - "Education", 1907, No. 10, p. 5. _
Ibid, p. 6. _
Plekhanov G. V. Selected philosophical works, vol. 3, p. 105. _
Plekhanov expressed his impression of The Life of Matvey Kozhemyakin with Pushkin's words to Gogol after reading Dead Souls: "God, how sad Russia is!" Further, Plekhanov compares Gorky's story with Ostrovsky's accusatory plays and continues: "Dobrolyubov thought that the end had already come to this dark kingdom, but it existed 50 years after his death, and now continues to exist, hanging like a heavy weight on the feet of the Russian people" (See: Plekhanov G. V. Art and Literature. M., 1948, p. 756).
Philosophical and literary heritage of G. V. Plekhanov, vol. 1. M., 1973, p. 92. From lat. confortatuvum is an aphrodisiac.
Lunacharsky A. V. Atheism. — In: Essays on the Philosophy of Marxism. SPb., 1908, p. 101. _
Lenin V.I. Full. coll. cit., vol. 18, p. 306; with. 364.
Lunacharsky A. V. King about the priestly theater. - "Education", 1908, No. 4, p. 36. _
There.
"Scales", 1908, No. 9, p. 72. _
"Education", 1908, No. 8, p. 76, 77. The review is signed by the pseudonym V. S-ev. Who signed them is unknown. Dictionary of pseudonyms by I. F. Masanov does not provide explanations on this matter.
Kyiv Thought, December 12, 1911, No. 343. D-on is the pseudonym of the economist P. P. Maslov. This review of "Religion and Socialism" is recorded in the index "Proceedings of A. V. Lunacharsky" (see No. 309).
Literary heritage, vol. 82. p. 497.
Ibid., vol. 80. M., 1971, p. 598–599.
CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee, vol. 1. M, 1970, p. 276–277.