The book is devoted to the fortune of empiriocriticism in Russia. This Western European philosophical current had a greatest influence among academics, philosophers, scientists, as well as among revolutionary intellectuals, of different political orientations. In particular it was widely discussed within Russian social-democratic movement. Although it was a very relevant phenomena in Russian culture, the fortune of empiriocriticism is quite e new theme, even in the most recent Russian studies.
Empirio-criticism had a huge impact in Russia, where the works of Ernst Mach and Richard Avenarius works were avidly translated and discussed, while the question of whether or not their ideas could be combined with Marxism provoked many disputes within the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party or RSDRP (Rossijskaja social-demokratičeskaja rabočaja partija). Anatolij Lunačarskij, who attended Avenarius's classes and seminars in Zurich, particularly appreciated the opportunity to blend critical evaluation, emotion, and objective knowledge. In this period prior to the Revolution, Lunačarskij developed a sort of 'religious' Marxism, full of hope and enthusiasm for a final human conquest of nature, views that he continued to hold into Soviet times.
AbstractThe roots of the controversial readings of Spinoza during Soviet times date back to the history of Russian Marxism. Spinoza was a most influential figure whom different Marxist currents and thinkers wanted to have on their side. This article examines the most relevant interpretations. First, it sketches some fundamental traits of Plekhanov's understanding of Spinoza's ontology and epistemology, from his critique of German revisionism at the end of the 1890s to his polemics against empiriocriticism and its Russian impact. Spinoza was a particularly relevant and authoritative thinker for the so-called "Machists" as well, and some of their different interpretations are analyzed as representing their critical approach to Marxism. Finally, Lunacharskii's discussion is considered as a peculiar alternative to Plekhanov's orthodox understanding not only of Spinoza but of Marxism itself. While Plekhanov judged Spinoza's "theological" language a relic of his epoch, Lunacharskii maintained that it was precisely his "religious" feelings that made Spinoza a forerunner of Marxism.
Si traccia un panorama degli studi di filosofia russa in Italia a partire dai primi del Novecento. In particolare si esaminano tre direzioni di ricerca: il pensiero filosofico-religioso, l'interesse per le tematiche politiche, la prospettiva più "laica" della ricostruzione dei contesti della storia delle idee.
