Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 3 - From Marx to Mao

UNCRITICAL CRITICISM
631
Marxism in accordance with the changing conditions and
with the local characteristics of the different countries, and
further elaborating the theory of dialectical materialism and
the political-economic teachings of Marx; the other group
reject certain more or less important aspects of Marx’s teachings,
and in philosophy, for instance, take the side, not
of dialectical materialism, but of neo-Kantianism, and in
political economy the side of those who label some of Marx’s
teachings as “tendentious,” etc. The former on this account
accuse the latter of eclecticism, and in my opinion have very
good grounds for doing so. The latter call the former “orthodox,”
and it should never be forgotten that use of this term
has been made by opponents in controversy, that the
“orthodox” do not reject criticism in general, but only
“criticism” by eclectics (who would only be entitled to call
themselves advocates of “criticism” to the extent that in the
history of philosophy the teachings of Kant and of his followers
are called “criticism,” “critical philosophy”). In the
same article I named authors (p. 1569, footnote, and
p. 1570, footnote*) who, in my opinion, are representatives of
the consistent and integral, and not eclectic, development of
Marxism, and who have done for this development—in
the field of philosophy, in the field of political economy and
in the field of history and politics—incomparably more
than, for example, Sombart or Stammler,** the mere repetition
of whose eclectic views is regarded by many today as a
big step forward. It is scarcely necessary for me to add that
latterly the representatives of the eclectic trend have grouped
themselves around E. Bernstein. I shall limit myself to
these brief remarks on the question of my “orthodoxy,” both
because it is not immediately relevant to the subject of my
article, and because I am unable here to elaborate in detail
the views of the former, and must refer those who are interested
to the German literature. On this subject the Russian
controversies are merely echoes of the German, and unless
* See present edition, Vol. 4, Once More on the Theory of
Realisation.—Ed.
** Cf. against Stammler the very proper remarks made by G. Cunow,
part of whose article was translated and published in the Nauchnoye
Obozreniye in 1899; then B. Lvov’s The Social Law (ibid.), and
the translation of Mr. Sadi Gunter’s article which the Nauchnoye
Obozreniye promises to publish in 1900.