The article discusses Alexander Bogdanov’s path from his early philosophic work, formed under the influence of Ernst Mach, Richard Avenarius, and Wilhelm Ostwald and dubbed by him “empiriomonism,” to the oeuvre of his life—the universal organization science of tectology (or tektology). In his papers and letters, Vladimir Lenin was always blaming Bogdanov for his failure to abandon his empirio-critical views and for attempting, again and again, to “drag” them (in Lenin’s wording) into every new work that was issuing from his pen. The question is: Was Lenin right about this, or should we trust Bogdanov, who maintained that he had long grown out of this early stage and that philosophy was no longer of interest to him (moreover, with the emergence of tectology, philosophy should, according to him, simply become extinct as a human activity)? The article provides arguments in favor and against either viewpoint. Understanding of these viewpoints is important to our appreciation of Alexander Bogdanov’s creative legacy.

中文翻译：

---

亚历山大·博格达诺夫（Alexander Bogdanov）：从一元论到构造论

本文讨论了亚历山大·博格达诺夫（Alexander Bogdanov）从早期哲学著作（由恩斯特·马赫（Ernst Mach），理查德·阿韦纳留斯（Richard Avenarius）和威廉·奥斯特瓦尔德（Wilhelm Ostwald）的影响下形成，并被他称为“经验主义”）到他一生的发展之路—普适性的组织学（或tektology） ）。弗拉基米尔·列宁（Vladimir Lenin）在论文和书信中总是指责博格达诺夫（Bogdanov）未能放弃他的经验批判性观点，并一次又一次地试图（用列宁的话）将其“拖曳”到他用笔发表的每本新作品中。问题是：列宁是对的，还是我们应该信任博格达诺夫，他坚称博格达诺夫早在这个早期阶段就已经长大，哲学不再对他感兴趣（此外，随着构造学的兴起，哲学应该，按照他的说法，只是因为人类活动而灭绝）？本文提供了赞成和反对两种观点的论点。了解这些观点对于我们赞赏亚历山大·博格达诺夫（Alexander Bogdanov）的创作遗产很重要。