The Critique of Machism in *Materialism and Empirio-Criticism*

From the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, Machism spread widely in Europe. The core founder of this trend of thought was the Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach, whose theoretical system was constructed and gradually developed around the empirio-criticism he established. At that time, the revisionist tendency within the Second International was gradually expanding, and Machism, which styled itself as a “scientific philosophy,” attempted to use the viewpoint of empirio-criticism to carry out a so-called “revision” of Marxist epistemology. This behavior brought serious ideological interference to the cause of the 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 wrote the work *Materialism and Empirio-Criticism*, subjecting it to a comprehensive and profound analysis. Sorting out the logical framework of this critique is not only the key point for grasping the Party spirit principle of Marxist philosophy, but also has profound practical significance for contemporary society in resisting the erroneous tendency of idealism and adhering to a scientific worldview.

19世纪末至20世纪初，马赫主义在欧洲广泛传播。该思潮的核心奠基人是奥地利物理学家、哲学家恩斯特·马赫，其理论体系以马赫所创立的经验批判主义思想为核心建构并逐步发展而成。当时，第二国际内部的修正主义倾向逐渐扩大，而以“科学哲学”自我标榜的马赫主义，则企图借助经验批判主义的观点对马克思主义的认识论进行所谓的“修正”，这种行为给无产阶级革命事业带来严重的思想干扰。为了对这种错误思潮进行彻底的哲学清算，捍卫马克思主义哲学的核心立场，列宁专门创作了《唯物主义和经验批判主义》这一著作，对其进行了全面而深刻的剖析。对这一批判的逻辑框架进行梳理，不仅是把握马克思主义哲学党性原则的核心要点，对于当代社会抵制唯心主义的错误倾向、坚持科学世界观也有深远的现实意义。

Directly Targeting the Essence of the “Theory of Elements”

直指“要素说”的本质

At the ontological level, Machism advocates the “theory of elements,” holding that “neutral elements” constitute the world, and attempts to dissolve the binary opposition between materialism and idealism through “neutral elements.” It puts forward views such as “the real elements of the world are not things, but sensations like color, sound, etc.” and “the world is constituted solely by our sensations.” Lenin launched a critique of the theoretical foundation of Machism. Lenin pointed out that this “neutral viewpoint,” which claims to transcend materialism and idealism, is in fact merely an illusion it creates. It is precisely “the complex of sensations is the object” that exposes this illusion of Machism thoroughly. In response to Machism’s 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, which does not change due to the subject’s perceptual activity. On the surface, Machism appears to transcend materialism and idealism, but in reality, the “neutral elements” cannot be separated from human perception; its essence is to take subjective experience as the ultimate basis of the world. “Elements” are used by Machism to evade discussing the fundamental questions of philosophy, inevitably leading it to slide into the idealist camp.

在本体论层面，马赫主义主张“要素论”，认为“中性要素”构成了世界，企图通过“中性要素”消解唯物和唯心的二元对立。它提出“世界的真正要素不是物，而是颜色、声音等感觉”“世界仅仅由我们的感觉构成”等观点。列宁对马赫主义的理论基石展开批判。列宁指出，这种自称能超越唯物和唯心的“中立性观点”，实际上只是其制造的一种假象而已。正是“物体是感觉的复合”将马赫主义的这种假象暴露得淋漓尽致。针对马赫主义企图把物质实体消解为完全依赖主体的感觉集合，列宁强调：“物质是作用于我们的感官而引起感觉的东西；物质是我们通过感觉感知的客观实在。”他提出，物质是一种客观实在，它不会因主体感知活动而发生变化。马赫主义表面上看似超越了唯物和唯心，实则“中性要素”离不开人的感知，本质是将主观经验作为世界的终极依据。“要素”被马赫主义用来逃避探讨哲学的根本问题，必然导致其滑向唯心主义阵营。

Of course, Lenin’s critique of Machism has a clear theoretical boundary. What he criticized was only the idealist philosophical essence of Machism, not the scientific value of certain discoveries Mach made as a physicist in the field of physics. However, these scientific achievements cannot conceal the errors Mach committed in philosophy. Here we need to strictly distinguish the essential difference between specific scientific research and the philosophical worldview. At the same time, Lenin also attached great importance to the warning role Machism played in epistemology for Marxist epistemology, namely, through struggle against erroneous viewpoints, Machism promoted the perfection and development of Marxist epistemology from the opposite side. Finally, this critique is grounded in the specific historical context within the Second International at the beginning of the 20th century; it inevitably bears a distinct stamp of its era, but its core principles possess eternal value, such as the Party spirit principle of philosophy and practice as the criterion of truth. This determines that Lenin’s critique must be historical, which is precisely the basis for us to inherit Lenin’s philosophical legacy.

当然，列宁对马赫主义的批判具有明确的理论边界，他批判的只是马赫主义的唯心主义哲学本质，并不是马赫作为物理学家在物理学领域某些发现的科学价值，但是这些科学成果无法掩盖其在哲学上所犯的错误。在此需要我们严格区分具体科学研究与哲学世界观的本质差异。同时，列宁也很重视马赫主义在认识论上对马克思主义认识论所起到的警示作用，即通过与错误论点的斗争，马赫主义从反面推动了马克思主义认识论的完善和发展。最后，该批判是立足于20世纪初第二国际内部这一具体的历史语境中的，它必然带有鲜明的时代烙印，但是其核心原则却具有永恒价值，如哲学的党性原则、实践是检验真理的标准等。这就决定了列宁的批判一定具有历史性，这正是我们继承列宁哲学遗产的基础。

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

明确实践在认识过程中的根本地位与检验作用

At the epistemological level, empirio-criticism is the fundamental stance of Machism. Machism holds that subjective experience is the starting point of cognition, and the endpoint is an empirical description conforming to the “principle of economy of thought.” Machism proposes that experience is a “neither mental nor material” raw material, and there is no separation between “objective matter” and “subjective consciousness.” For example, in *The Analysis of Sensations*, Mach uses a pointed object as an example. He points out that the “constant core” of the object should be this point, not the accidental phenomenon of pricking. This inevitably causes the core of the object to lose its perceptual content and become an abstract symbol. This view of Mach actually denies the objectivity of the object, thereby inverting the relationship between the object and sensation, i.e., denying the perceptual basis of the objective reality of the object, in order to provide support for the agnosticism he advocates. Machism proposes that the essence of experience is the connection between elements, i.e., “all natural science can only depict and reproduce the complexes of those elements we usually call sensations; the key lies in the connection of these elements.” It confines scientific research to the category of sensation, denying the possibility of knowing the objective material world. Lenin launched a critique of this by clarifying the position and role of practice in the process of cognition. Precisely because Machism confines human cognitive activity to the category of subjective experience, severing the connection 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 the first and fundamental standpoint of the theory of knowledge.” He proposed that cognition is the active reflection of the subject on objective things, not a simple accumulation of sensory experiences. Furthermore, practice is not only the basis and driving force of cognition, but also the criterion for testing the correctness of human cognition. Humans can gradually understand the objective world through practice and transform “things-in-themselves” into “things-for-us,” i.e., turning ideas into reality, which fundamentally refutes the agnosticism of Machism.

在认识论层面，经验批判主义是马赫主义的根本立场，马赫主义认为主观经验是认识的起点，终点是符合“思维经济原则”的经验描述。马赫主义提出经验是“非心非物”的原始素材，不存在“客观物质”和“主观意识”的割裂。例如，在《感觉的分析》中，马赫用尖端物体举例，他指出物体“恒定的核心”应该是这个尖端，而非刺痛这一偶然现象，这就使得物体的核心必然失去其感性内容，成为抽象符号。马赫的这个观点实际上否定物体具有客观性，从而颠倒了物体和感觉之间的关系，即否定物体客观实在性的感性基础，以为其主张的不可知论提供支撑。马赫主义提出经验的本质是要素之间的关联，即“所有自然科学只能描绘和再现我们通常称为感觉的那些要素的复合体，关键在于这些要素的关联”，它将科学研究局限在感觉范畴，否定了认识客观物质世界的可能性。列宁通过明确实践在认识过程中的地位和作用对其展开批判。正是因为马赫主义把人类的认识活动限定在主观经验的范畴之内，割裂了主客观世界之间的联系，因而最终导向不可知论的立场。有鉴于此，列宁强调：“生活、实践的观点，应该是认识论的首要的和基本的观点。”他提出，认识是主体对客观事物的能动反映，而非感官体验的简单叠加。此外，实践不仅是认识的基础和驱动力，还是检验人类认识正确与否的标准。人类能够通过实践逐步认识客观世界，并把“自在之物”转化为“为我之物”，即将想法变成现实，这从根本上对马赫主义的不可知论进行了反驳。

Defending the Objectivity and Dialectical Nature of Truth

捍卫真理的客观性和辩证性

At the level of the view of truth, Machism advocates a relativistic view of truth centered on the “principle of economy of thought.” It holds that the criterion of truth is “simplicity” and “utility”; that is, a theory that can explain and predict empirical phenomena in the simplest form is truth, and it opposes the existence of objective truth. Lenin criticized this relativistic view of truth of Machism by expounding the objectivity and dialectical nature of truth. First, truth has objectivity. Lenin pointed out that human cognition can be consistent with objective reality, and humans can gradually understand the objective world through practice and cognitive activity; this does not change due to the subject or “economy of description.” Second, truth has a dialectical nature. Lenin pointed out that truth is an organic whole in which absoluteness and relativity are interdependent and transform into each other. And human cognition is a dialectical development process from ignorance to knowledge, from relative truth to absolute truth. Truth contains both the objective reality independent of any subject and the fact that human cognition is limited by historical conditions, forever in a process of moving towards truth and infinitely approaching truth. Machism, on the contrary, infinitely exaggerates the relativity of truth and denies the objectivity of truth. This tendency inevitably leads to the quagmire of sophistry, providing conditions for the emergence of revisionism.

在真理观层面，马赫主义主张以“思维经济原则”为核心的相对真理观。它认为真理的标准是“简洁性”和“实用性”，即能用最简洁的形式解释和预测经验现象的理论就是真理，反对客观真理的存在。列宁通过阐述真理的客观性与辩证性批判了马赫主义的这种相对真理观。一是真理具有客观性。列宁指出，人类的认识与客观实际可以达成一致，人类能够通过实践和认识活动逐步认识客观世界，这一点不因主体或“描述的经济性”而有所改变。二是真理具有辩证性。列宁指出，真理是绝对性和相对性相互依存、相互转化的有机整体。而人类的认识是从不知到知、从相对真理到绝对真理的辩证发展过程。真理既包含不依赖于任何主体的客观实在性，也包含人类的认识受到历史条件的限制，永远处在一个朝向真理、无限接近真理的过程中。而马赫主义正好相反，它无限夸大真理的相对性，否定了真理的客观性，这种倾向必然会导向诡辩的泥潭，为修正主义的出现提供了条件。

Revealing the Class Essence Behind the Claimed “Non-Position” Thought

揭示标榜“无立场”思想背后的阶级本质

The core philosophical stance of Machism is subjective idealism. It proposes that scientific theories are merely convenient hypotheses, with no distinction between right and wrong, emphasizing the neutrality of science. Lenin elevated the critique of Machism to the standpoint of the Party spirit principle of philosophy. He profoundly pointed out that in a society with class divisions, it is impossible to have the “non-partisan” and “impartial” philosophy that Machism claims. Lenin pointed out that the struggle between the two camps of materialism and idealism has always been the most fundamental contradiction in the field of philosophy, and this contradiction actually reflects the interest competition among various social classes. However, Machism deliberately confuses the fundamental distinction between materialism and idealism, objectively becoming a theoretical tool for bourgeois ideology to infiltrate the workers’ movement. To prevent this situation, the proletarian party urgently needs to consciously establish the guiding position of materialism, ensuring clear theoretical cognition and a firm stance. The principle of class attributes in the field of philosophy is precisely an important theoretical tool for the proletariat to wage struggle in the ideological field.

马赫主义的核心哲学立场是主观唯心主义，它提出科学理论只是方便使用的假说，无对错之分，强调科学的中立性。列宁将对马赫主义的批判提升到哲学党性原则的立场上。他深刻地指出，在阶级分化的社会里，不可能存在马赫主义所标榜的“无党派”“不偏倚”的哲学思想。列宁指出，唯物主义与唯心主义两大阵营之间的较量一直是哲学领域最根本的矛盾，而这种矛盾实际上反映了社会各阶级之间的利益博弈。然而，马赫主义刻意混淆唯物与唯心的根本区别，客观上成为资产阶级意识形态渗透工人运动的理论工具。为了防止这种情况的发生，无产阶级政党亟须自觉确立唯物主义的指导地位，确保理论上的清晰认知和坚定立场。哲学领域的阶级属性原则，恰恰是无产阶级在意识形态领域开展斗争所凭借的重要理论工具。

Lenin’s critique directed against Machism not only thoroughly dismantled the theoretical architecture of that doctrine but also greatly advanced the progress of dialectical materialist epistemology, thereby consolidating the ideological foundation for the Bolshevik Party and the international communist movement. It fully demonstrates the robust vitality of Marxist philosophy in the course of theoretical confrontation. In the contemporary environment where ideological and cultural diversity prevails and various currents of idealist thought constantly emerge, an in-depth study of *Materialism and Empirio-Criticism* and a clarification of its critical logic hold profound practical value for defending the fundamental stance of Marxist philosophy and enhancing the capacity to discern and resist ideological influences. Lenin’s philosophical theory remains to this day an important tool for us to criticize erroneous trends of thought and to adhere to a scientific worldview.

列宁针对马赫主义展开的批判，不仅全面瓦解了该理论的体系架构，还极大地促进了辩证唯物主义认识论的进步，为布尔什维克党以及国际共产主义运动筑牢了思想根基。它充分体现了马克思主义哲学在理论交锋中所具备的强劲生命力。在当代思想文化呈现多样性、各类唯心主义思潮不断涌现的环境下，深入学习《唯物主义和经验批判主义》，厘清其中的批判逻辑，对于捍卫马克思主义哲学的根本立场、提升对意识形态的辨别能力与抵御能力，具有深远的现实价值。列宁的哲学理论，至今仍是我们批判错误思潮、坚守科学世界观的重要工具。

(The authors are a second-level professor at Jiangxi Normal University; and a researcher at the Jiangxi Research Center for the Practice of Civilization in the New Era, Jiangxi Normal University.)

（作者系江西师范大学二级教授；江西师范大学江西新时代文明实践研究中心研究员）