Organizational Hegemony: Rethinking Gramscian Power Analysis in Light of Bogdanov’s Tektology^[1]

Örsan Şenalp

ABSTRACT: This text explores the profound intellectual relationship between Antonio Gramsci and Alexander Bogdanov, two pivotal figures of 20th-century Marxism whose legacies have historically been viewed as parallel but independent. Recent discoveries, most notably Gramsci’s 1920s Italian translation of Bogdanov’s science fiction novel Red Star, conclusively prove that Gramsci directly and deeply engaged with Bogdanov’s ideas during a critical phase of his own theoretical development even though explicit references are missing. Central to the text is the reconstruction of Gramscian hegemony through Bogdanov’s Tektology (Universal Organizational Science). ‘Organization’ is identified as the primary point of convergence. By integrating Gramsci’s power analysis with Bogdanov’s systemic insights—which pioneered the ‘systems paradigm’, the text proposes a new framework: Organizational Hegemony. This synthesis offers a sophisticated methodology for analyzing the complex, data-driven power structures of contemporary neoliberal globalization and provides a renewed foundation for revolutionary socialist strategy.

KEYWORDS: Bogdanov, Gramsci, tektology, organization, hegemony, Marxist systems analysis.

Introduction: New findings, new sources, new readings

The relationship between Gramsci and Bogdanov carries significant potential for the reconstruction of Marxist theory and the renewal of revolutionary political praxis. In particular Marxist analysis of socio-political-economic systems could gain from a synthesis of the two perspectives combining a view on organizational structures (and infrastructures) with the bottom-up approach of the critique of socio-cultural hegemonies. The fact that Gramsci translated Red Star (hereafter RS), written by Bogdanov and considered the first example of Bolshevik science fiction, into Italian was first noted by Righi (Righi 2011).^[2] However, it was Ghetti’s work that first addressed this finding from a broader perspective (Ghetti 2016). Thus, the existence of a direct relationship between two key figures of 20th-century Marxism was established, and the debate, ongoing since the 1970s, has been elevated to a new stage. Until now, the possibility of a direct relationship between the two figures remained at the level of hypothesis. The basis for this hypothesis was the striking similarities in the theoretical and practical approaches developed by Bogdanov and Gramsci, particularly regarding the role of culture and ideology in the context of the proletarian-socialist revolution.

The most striking similarity between the two legacies was evident in the significant convergence of Gramsci’s ideas on proletarian cultural hegemony with those of Bogdanov in the post-1920 period. In addition, it is known that Gramsci founded the Italian branch of the Proletarian Cultural and Educational Organization (Proletkult) in 1921–22, which had been established in Saint Petersburg a week before the October Revolution. Despite these connections, Gramsci’s failure to explicitly cite Bogdanov, one of the founders and main theorists of Proletkult, and the fact that only one of Bogdanov’s articles (published in two parts on 9 and 27 October 1921) appeared in L’Ordine Nuovo (hereafter ON) raised significant questions. Although Righi argued in a recent article that the reason for Gramsci’s “neglect” of Bogdanov could not be Lenin’s opposition to him (Righi 2019), as we shall see below, new findings demonstrate that this claim is not accurate.

While no concrete evidence of a direct relationship between them had yet been found, researchers agreed that Gramsci’s ideas likely developed independently but in parallel with Bogdanov’s (Riechers 1970, Sochor 1981, Guzzone 2023). This situation changed with the discovery of the RS translation and the realization that Gramsci was aware of Lenin’s opposition to Bogdanov. We now understand that Gramsci, because of Lenin’s attitude, which is most clearly and harshly expressed in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (hereafter M&E), took a great political risk by translating this work together with Yuilia Schucht, who would later become the mother of his children, and attempting to smuggle the text out of Russia for publication in Italy (Ghetti 2016).

Although the Gramsci-Schucht-translation has not yet seen the light of day, thanks to this project, whose existence we know with certainty, we can now affirmatively answer questions such as “Did Gramsci know about Bogdanov?” or “Had he read Bogdanov’s writings?” Therefore, it is no longer tenable to think that Gramsci overlooked Bogdanov. The fact that the only book Gramsci translated into Italian during his visit to Russia—a visit highly pivotal to his theoretical and political development—was Bogdanov’s novel, at a time when the letter was under intense critical attack and arrested on charges of anti-party and anti-revolutionary activities, demonstrates the depth of the Italian revolutionary’s interest in his Russian counterpart. This situation necessitates a better understanding of Gramsci’s stance. To this end, answering questions such as the following is crucial: When and how did Gramsci’s interest in Bogdanov’s ideas begin? Which of Bogdanov’s works did he read, and to what extent did he adopt them? On what points did Gramsci converge with or diverge from Bogdanov regarding the philosophical foundations of Marxism and the understanding of science?

A detailed examination of the convergences and divergences between these two key figures in Marxist theory and practice is inherently valuable, as it points to possibilities for transcending the East-West or Orthodox-Heterodox Marxism distinctions. Indeed, authors such as Sochor (1988) and Stokes (1996) have evaluated Bogdanov’s legacy as a precursor to the “critical” and “cultural” approaches prominent in ‘Western Marxism,’ rooted in revolutionary Russian Marxism.

Moreover, for the contemporary reconstruction of Marxism and revolutionary strategy, understanding the nature of the direct relationship between Bogdanov and Gramsci will yield even more significant outcomes. This potential is tied to Bogdanov’s recognition today as the first systematic forerunner of the “systems paradigm.” This paradigm, signaling a revolutionary transformation in modern science, is linked not only to fields such as cybernetics, systems theory, and complexity science but also to various intellectual movements that emerged in the first half of the 20th century, including structuralism and functionalism, phenomenology, Gestalt theory, operations research, game theory, and information theory, as expressions of the evolving nature of science (von Bertalanffy 1951, Blauberg et al. 1977). While Bogdanov’s legacy was cursed and forgotten in the Soviet Union, this new scientific understanding he pioneered took concrete form particularly in Western Europe and the United States. With the post-war implementation of these new approaches, technologies such as computers, guided missiles, satellite and communication systems, artificial intelligence, genetics, and robotics became widespread. Integrated systems such as transnational corporations, global production chains, and global financial architecture, built upon these technologies, have increasingly brought about the radical transformation of social formations on a global scale. These revolutionary transformations have inevitably had significant impacts on ‘reel’ and democratic socialism practices and Marxist theory (see, for example, Gerovitch 2002 and 2008, Eden 2014). Bogdanov’s rediscovery in the Soviet Union from the 1950s onward emerged in parallel with these developments (Susiluoto 1982, Biggart et al. 1998). Today, the Russian revolutionary’s most important work, universal organizational science or tektology, is increasingly recognized as the first systematic forerunner of this new scientific paradigm (Rispoli 2012 and 2015, Şenalp and Midgley 2023).

Thus, the primary significance of the RS translation lies in demonstrating that Gramsci directly engaged with ideas that pioneered this new scientific paradigm. Riechers, the first to critique Gramsci from a left-communist perspective and compare their legacies, argued that Gramsci’s theories of hegemony and the party constituted an abstract “systems theory” inspired by Bogdanov’s organizational theory (Riechers 1970). Other researchers have also noted that Bogdanov’s systemic ideas—particularly regarding hegemony, the state, and civil society—were transmitted to Gramsci through Bukharin, who was significantly influenced by Bogdanov (Buci-Glucksmann 1975, Cohen 1975, McNally 2008). Bogdanov’s new vision of science, conceived as the “science of practice,” formed the foundation of the RS; in its prequel, Bogdanov’s second novel Engineer Menni, this science was clearly outlined in broad strokes (Bogdanov 1984). This situation prompts us to consider and investigate the potential direct influence of Bogdanov’s pioneering ideas on Gramsci, considering the repressive effects of Lenin and Stalin. This line of thought leads to the idea that, by reversing Riechers’ approach, Bogdanov’s organizational science could be utilized when applying Gramsci’s theory of hegemony to the analysis of today’s increasingly complex power structures.

The complexity of both figures’ political experiences, the controversial nature of their legacies within the left, and the possibility that Gramsci may have consciously concealed Bogdanov’s influence make it challenging to uncover the details and scope of this relationship. However, today, thanks to developments such as the progress made in the MEGA (Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe) project, the new national critical edition of Gramsci’s writings (Epistolario dell'Edizione nazionale degli scritti di Gramsci), and the translation of Bogdanov’s fundamental works into English (Alexander Bogdanov Library), it has become possible for the first time to conduct collective work in this direction. These developments have, on the one hand, led to an expanding literature with new findings, as seen in the works of Ghetti (2016, 2022, 2025), Sclocco (2021), Ghetti and Iacarella (2021), Iacarella (2025) and, on the other hand, facilitated the systematic examination of similarities between Gramsci and Bogdanov’s writings on science, philosophy, and methodology, as in Guzzone’s (2023) study. Therefore, this text should be read as a call to re-evaluate, deepen, and advance the discussions initiated by scholars who have previously worked on Gramsci and Bogdanov, while proposing some directions for future research and theorization. We believe that in the coming years, the legacies of these two revolutionaries, when re-examined in a comparative framework with the intellectual contributions of Marx and Engels, will mutually enrich one another and make significant contributions to humanity’s struggle for emancipation and the building of a new world. 

The assumption of a direct relationship

Whether there was direct theoretical interaction between Gramsci and Bogdanov has remained a controversial topic for many years, albeit within a limited circle. According to the commonly accepted view, the intellectual and practical legacies of the two thinkers developed in parallel but independently of each other (Riechers 1970, Sochor 1981, Guzzone 2023). The information that Gramsci, together with Yuilia Schucht, translated one of Bogdanov’s novels, likely RS, was first mentioned in a footnote by Righi, one of the editors of Epistolario (Volumes 1–2) (Righi 2011, 1018, footnote 63). Following Righi, Brandist, a year later, also in a footnote, acknowledged learning of this finding through Alessandro Carlucci and referenced Gramsci’s possible translation of RS (Brandist 2012, 39, footnote 5). Although Brandist promised to address this topic in detail later, his book published three years later, which also examined the relationship between Gramsci and Bogdanov more closely, did not revisit the translation. Instead, he noted that he and Peter Thomas were preparing a chronology focusing on Gramsci’s time in Russia (Brandist 2015, 9, footnote 32). This study is currently being prepared for publication.

Ghetti’s book was the first to thoroughly explore the findings highlighted by Righi (Ghetti 2016). To better assess the significance and implications of these findings, Ghetti situated the issue within a multilayered historical context. This context was shaped by Italian politics, the founding of the PCd’I, the rise of fascism, and leadership struggles; on the other hand, developments within the USSR, the CPSU, and the Comintern, as well as debates surrounding Proletkult and post-revolutionary cultural policy. Within this historical context, Ghetti drew attention to the complex and close relationship between Gramsci and the Schucht sisters. Specifically, Gramsci’s romantic relationships with Yuilia and Eugenia (and later his bond with Tatiana); the fact that the sisters’ father, Apollon, was Lenin’s childhood friend; the Schucht family’s unbroken ties with Lenin during their exile in Geneva and Italy; Eugenia’s role as Krupskaya’s (Lenin’s wife) secretary at the time she met Gramsci; and, finally, Yuilia’s active involvement in the party after 1925 collectively create a strong impression that Gramsci could not have been unaware of the Lenin-Bogdanov conflict. Thus, Ghetti’s work was the first to establish a profound connection between the writings of Gramsci and Bogdanov.

In contrast, Righi, in a 2019 article, argued—based on the fact that ON published only two of Bogdanov’s articles (actually one article in two parts), implying that Gramsci may not have attributed much importance to Bogdanov despite the translation—that Gramsci’s “neglect” of Bogdanov could not be explained by the Lenin-Bogdanov conflict. Righi supported this view by citing Togliatti’s testament, in which Togliatti stated that Lenin’s M&E existed in very few copies at the time and was almost unknown in Italy. Relying on Togliatti’s statement, Righi concluded that Gramsci was unaware of Lenin’s criticisms of Bogdanov (Righi 2019, 142, footnote 37). However, as Ghetti’s work also indicated, Gramsci’s firsthand connections suggest that it was entirely possible for him to have obtained information on this critical issue through other channels.

Two years after Righi’s paper, Sclocco reiterated Riechers’ 1970 argument, demonstrating that Gramsci must have been aware of Lenin’s book and its contents (Sclocco 2021). Riechers stated: “Lenin’s critique of Bogdanov in Materialism and Empiriocriticism was known in its broad outlines among the leadership of the Italian Communists by early 1924 at the latest” and even claimed that this knowledge could be traced back to 1921 (Riechers 1970, 141). Sclocco revisited Riechers’ claim and the sources provided as evidence in greater detail, revealing how Bordiga used Lenin’s M&E in his polemics against Gramsci in 1924–25. The documents highlighted by Sclocco conclusively show that Bordiga, in criticizing Gramsci, relied on Lenin’s book and its critique of Bogdanov (Bordiga 1924a-b, 1925). According to Bordiga, Gramsci’s understanding of Marxism, much like Bogdanov’s, exhibited a tendency toward subjective idealist “deviation.” Riechers echoed this critique of Gramsci based on Bordiga’s argument. We will return to this polemic between Gramsci and Bordiga below.

Sclocco’s work and the counterargument she revisited strongly supported the perspective put forward by Ghetti. However, the final piece of evidence in this debate was provided by Iacarella’s finding while this text was being completed. This latest finding stems from an article published on January 10, 1920 issue of ON edited by Gramsci himself, which provides details about the history of Lenin’s struggle against Bogdanov. The article’s author, Charles Rappoport, a French-Russian Marxist who knew Lenin during the formative years of Bolshevism, reported that Lenin, to protect the “purity” of doctrine and tactics against Lunacharsky, Bogdanov, and their associates, was compelled to “become a philosopher” at the age of forty and wrote M&E. Rappoport conveyed this struggle, a testament to Lenin’s extraordinary resolve, with the following words:

A group of his followers (Lunacharsky, Bogdanov, etc.) attempted a philosophical reconciliation between Marxism and the naturalist and empiricist theories of the Austrian philosopher Mach. Lenin sensed a danger to the purity of doctrine and, above all, of tactics, and at the age of forty, immersed himself in the study of philosophy and wrote a critical book to vehemently denounce the philosophical ‘deviation’ of his old friends. Those who know the difficulties of philosophical studies can appreciate this trait of Lenin’s character—becoming a philosopher to safeguard the theoretical cohesion of his Party. (Rappoport 1920, 263)

Thus, it has been definitively proven that Gramsci was aware of the conflict between Lenin and Bogdanov by early 1920 at the latest. The emergence of the RS translation reveals that Gramsci, during his visit to the Soviet Union, which was a crucial leap forward for him both politically and theoretically, did not hold back from translating Bogdanov's novel into Italian. It is evident that Gramsci took up this translation within two to three months of arriving in Russia (Ghetti 2016, Wu Ming-2 2019). Gramsci’s decision to translate a popular novel by Bogdanov—whom Lenin fiercely opposed and fought against—rather than choosing one of the theorists known for their adherence to the “doctrinal purity” of Russian Marxism, such as Lenin, Plekhanov, Zinoviev, Bukharin, or Trotsky, is an act of no small significance—especially considering that the Russian revolutionary was under intense attack orchestrated by Lenin himself and in a period marked by extremely tense political conditions.

Despite this, the fact that Gramsci, after 1920, particularly in the context of his Marxist readings in the Notebooks, never referenced either Lenin’s M&E stands out as a critical question (Omodeo 2020). Sclocco centered her study on the question of why Gramsci never referred to Lenin’s book and attempted to provide an answer (Sclocco 2021).^[3] In our view, this crucial question should be considered alongside the second question of why Gramsci, under extremely tense circumstances, took a great political risk in translating Bogdanov but did not refer to him anywhere—except for a single bibliographical note referring to both of them simultaneously. In the following sections, we focus on the issue of Lenin’s opposition to Bogdanov, which we believe provides answers to both these interconnected questions.

Lenin’s Curse

Unfortunately, there are very few studies that systematically address the relationship between the ideas and actions of Bogdanov and Gramsci. Lenin’s stance against Bogdanov and the strategic struggle he waged against him have clearly been significant factors in the limited interest in this topic.^[4] As Sochor noted: “It would not be an exaggeration to say that Leninism was shaped, at least in part, by the struggle against Bogdanovism” (Sochor 1988, p. 17). In particular, Lenin’s M&E, first published in 1909, played a central role in the context of the leadership conflict that erupted in 1908 between Lenin and Bogdanov, along with figures such as Gorky, Lunacharsky, and Bazarov, over the general strategy the RSDLP would pursue after 1905 (Lenin 1909, Bakhurst 2018, White 2019). Lenin’s first and only book on Marxism was a product of this struggle, as described by Rappoport in an article published in the January 1920 issue of ON, cited above. Indeed, this book, especially after its second edition in 1920, effectively embedded opposition to Bogdanov within the foundations of the new Soviet regime.

The impact of M&E on Bogdanov's legacy was decisive due to Lenin's growing political power after the October Revolution. The intensity of this power increased alongside the ideological and political hegemony of Leninism,^[5] which spread in an “unequal and combined” manner throughout Russia and internationally. Lenin's practice of establishing hegemony, supported by instruments of violence but operating on the basis of consent production through various ideological instruments, clearly inspired some of Gramsci's ideas in his Prison Notebooks (Brandist 2015, Omodeo 2020). The process of Bolshevization that Gramsci was forced to endorse after 1924 can be seen as a strategy to transform the hegemony of Leninism, which had spread beyond Russia, into the main and “pure doctrine” of the socialist revolution to be carried out worldwide through the Third International (Comintern), designed as a world party.

This process began with the October Revolution and gained momentum by 1920, while Lenin was still active. Lenin outlined the main contours of his vision for establishing the hegemony of his doctrine in his pamphlet Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, published in Russian in June 1920 and distributed in German, French, and English at the Comintern’s Second Congress held in Petrograd and Moscow in July–August of that year (Lenin, 1920b). The theses advanced in this pamphlet largely formed the basis for the decisions taken at the congress. Lenin’s theses were grounded in the central idea that the Soviet model and the Bolshevik tactics shaped under his leadership—although emerging within the specific conditions of Russia—had acquired international significance following the October Revolution. Thus, Lenin argued that these elements should serve as a model for revolutionary Marxist parties in other countries. Lenin’s defense for his theses was embodied in the historical struggle against the strategies and tactics of “right” (such as opportunists, reformists, economists, and social-chauvinists, whom he associated with the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks) and “left” (such as left-Bolsheviks and anarchists) groups that the Bolsheviks confronted within Russia. However, the primary target was the “left communists” who criticized the October Revolution and the Bolsheviks from the left within the new Comintern. In the Russian context, since these groups, according to Lenin, corresponded to the left-Bolsheviks—who prompted Lenin to write M&E—this specific example, though not dominant in terms of volume, constituted the substantive center of the pamphlet.

Therefore, it cannot be considered a coincidence that the second edition of M&E was released less than a month after the conference. For this new edition, Lenin had Nevsky prepare an introductory essay attacking Bogdanov.^[6] This edition also included a very brief preface, written by Lenin himself. The short preface by Lenin, dated 2 September, clearly emphasizes that the book directly targets Bogdanov and it gives away the fact that Nevsky’s introduction was indeed an assignment instructed by himself: 

With the exception of a few corrections in the text, the present edition does not differ from the previous one. I hope that, regardless of the dispute with the Russian ‘Machians,’ it will prove useful as an aid to an acquaintance with the philosophy of Marxism, dialectical materialism, as well as with the philosophical conclusions from the recent discoveries in natural science. As for A. A. Bogdanov’s latest works, which I have had no opportunity to examine, the appended article by Comrade V. I. Nevsky gives the necessary information. Comrade V. I. Nevsky, not only in his work as a propagandist in general, but also as an active worker in the Party school in particular, has had ample opportunity to convince himself that under the guise of ‘proletarian culture’ A. A. Bogdanov is imparting bourgeois and reactionary views. (Lenin 1920a) 

In a sense, with this new edition of the book that prominently foregrounded his opposition to Bogdanov, Lenin lay out the philosophical foundations of the general strategy he had articulated a month earlier in Left-Wing Communism and his struggle against the left-Bolsheviks. Thus, he effectively declared that his interpretation of Marxism would be the foundational ideology of the Soviet revolution. A year later, in 1921, following the outbreak of workers' uprisings, the banning of factions within the party, which were generally outside the opposition, laid the groundwork for Leninism to become the sole legal ideology within the Soviet Union. The consolidation of Stalinism after 1928 would find its legitimacy in this book, which was written against Bogdanov (Stalin 1924 and 1939).

Just before the rise of Lenin as the leader of Russian Revolution, the failure of the Second International’s planned final congress in 1914 and its dissolution in 1916 left Marxist orthodoxy without a champion. The most significant factor shaping Russia’s objective conditions was the civil war that followed the revolution and the intervention by central capitalist powers, fearing the spread of the revolution. In this context, particularly due to the failure of anticipated revolutions in Europe, Lenin positioned himself as the leader who inherited the orphaned banner of orthodoxy from the “deviant” leaders of the Second International, who had betrayed Marx and Engels by implementing their ideas. Thus, what was termed the “New Orthodoxy” was built upon Lenin’s interpretation of Marxism, seen as the most accurate and faithful representation of Marx and Engels’ thought, enabling the revolution. This allowed Lenin to establish himself not only as the leader of Russian Marxism but also of global Marxism. Indeed, it is clear that the theses articulated in Left-Wing Communism are pointed in this direction. From 1917 to late 1923, all of Lenin’s steps were taken toward building his political and ideological hegemony. At the end of this process, it was claimed—perhaps not by Lenin himself, but by those closest to him—that Leninism was the sole ideology not only of the USSR state, but also of the international socialist and communist movement.^[7]

Between 1917 and 1920, Bogdanov’s interpretation of Marxism posed a significant challenge to the establishment of Lenin’s political and ideological hegemony. This interpretation, which Lenin disparagingly called “Bogdanovshchina,” emerged from the pen and practice of Bolshevism’s leading figure—considered by some its second leader—between 1903 and 1909 (White 2018, Le Blanc 2021). Lenin won the first round of his struggle against Bogdanov’s Marxist practice, which began in late 1907, securing Bogdanov’s expulsion first from the editorial board of Proletary, then from the Bolshevik Center, and later from the party leadership by 1910. Bogdanov's radical and revolutionary interpretation of Marxism was one that Lenin did not approve of, and it emerged as the strongest alternative to the interpretation formulated by Plekhanov, the most important theorist of the Menshevik faction, whom Lenin clearly regarded as his teacher in terms of Marxist philosophy (Sochor 1988, Kononov 2025). Although Bogdanov abandoned political militancy in 1913 to dedicate himself to proletarian culture and science, his ideas did not lose their influence on revolutionary intellectuals and worker leaders during this period (Biggart 1981, White 2019). On the contrary, especially after the October Revolution, this influence grew through Proletkult (Sochor 1988, Mally 1990). His widely published books, like RS and the first Marxist political economy textbooks (A Short Course of Economic Science and Course on Political Economy), earned Bogdanov widespread and enduring recognition among revolutionary intellectuals (Lecourt 1978, Strada 1994).^[8]

In the context of Lenin’s efforts to transform his policies into an international revolutionary strategy and dominant ideology, parallel to the Second Congress of the Comintern, the Proletkult leadership, with the participation of some Comintern members, held a meeting on August 12. This meeting resulted in the establishment of the temporary international bureau of Kultintern, envisioned as Proletkult’s international superstructure (Biggart 2016). This development signified the reentry of Bogdanov’s vision and ideas into international circulation, which was unacceptable from the perspective of Lenin’s hegemonic strategy. Consequently, it became necessary to sever Bogdanov from Proletkult and create an unbridgeable chasm between these two Marxist interpretations at the core of Bolshevism.

Indeed, Lenin’s final major move against Bogdanov was to remove him from the Proletkult leadership (Sochor 1988, Mally 1990, White 2019). With the new 1920 edition of M&E, Lenin aimed to suppress Bogdanov’s interpretation of Marxism, which he perceived as a threat to his ideological authority, while this move also paved the way for Bogdanov’s removal from Proletkult. The note added to Lenin’s preface by the publishing house to the later editions that were published during the Stalinist era clearly documents the impact of Lenin's campaign on Bogdanov and his activities within the framework of Proletkult: 

After the October Socialist Revolution Bogdanov and his fellow-thinkers adopted the so-called Proletarian Cultural-educational Organizations (Proletkult) as the field of their activities. With the aid of this convenient rostrum, they began actively to propagate anti-Marxist views, virtually denied the importance of the cultural inheritance of the past, and endeavored “by laboratory methods” divorced from life to create a culture for the proletariat, counterposing the latter to the rest of the working people and above all to the peasantry. Lenin waged a consistent struggle against the separatism and sectarianism of Proletkult and against the anti-Marxist views of its ideologists. In 1920, the Central Committee of the Party adopted a special decision on the subordination of Proletkult activities to the People’s Commissariat for Education. In the 1920s, Proletkult organizations began to decline, and in 1932 they ceased to exist.” (Lenin 1920a)

As mentioned above, this was a step toward establishing the “doctrinal purity” required for “unity” both domestically and internationally amid the civil war and foreign interventions following the October Revolution. In practice, this reflected the need for Lenin’s views to establish hegemony over the entirety of Russian Marxism for the Bolsheviks to secure hegemony over the state and bureaucracy. In this context, the most effective and widespread media outlets, along with secret services, law enforcement agencies, and semi-official bodies, were engaged in interrelated struggles to establish control over the state apparatus and society. Meanwhile, the Comintern served as a lever to extend the hegemony being consolidated domestically to the international socialist movement. Thus, the gradual establishment of Leninism's hegemony within the USSR and the establishment of Bolshevism's hegemony within the Comintern, which was identified with Lenin's views, became a closely interlinked mechanism.

Through this, Lenin’s opposition to Bogdanov, as part of his broader strategy, permeated the new communist parties and movements established in other countries. In subsequent years, prominent Marxist leaders and theorists outside the USSR evaluated Bogdanov based on the portrait drawn by Lenin in M&E. Ironically, Lenin’s opposition to Bogdanov, whom he implied—without naming—represented the left tendency within Bolshevism in Left-Wing Communism, even influenced the left-communist leaders who were the primary targets of the pamphlet’s critiques.^[9] Figures like Pannekoek and Korsch did not hesitate to assert Lenin’s correctness against Bogdanov, despite having read almost none of his texts (Pannekoek 1938, Korsch 1923 and 1938).

The most striking and direct reflection of this from Gramsci’s perspective was that Bordiga, a key figure in left communism and leader of the PCd’I, criticized Gramsci, who succeeded him after his arrest by the Fascist regime, based on M&E. Although Lenin, in his pamphlet Left Communism, likened the anti-parliamentarist attitude of the Italian left communists to the “oztvotism” that Bogadanov claimed to have led in the post-1907 period, Bordiga, in a 1925 article based on Lenin's book, would imply that Gramsci, like Bogdanov, tended to deviate from Marxism.^[10] The tragic statement cited by Sclocco, delivered by Bordiga at a conference in February 1924 following Lenin’s death, clearly prove that his 1925 criticism of Gramsci was grounded in Lenin’s M&E:

At a certain point in the complex history of the Russian Marxist movement, a school emerges, led by the philosopher Bogdanov, which seeks to revise the Marxist materialist and dialectical conception to provide the workers’ movement with a philosophical foundation of an idealistic and almost mystical character. This school aims to make Marxists acknowledge the supposed surpassing of materialist and scientific philosophy by modern neo-idealistic philosophical schools. Lenin responded decisively to this in a work (Materialism and Empiriocriticism), unfortunately little translated and little known, which appeared in Russian in 1908. In this work, Lenin critiques ancient and modern idealistic philosophical systems, defends the conception of dialectical realism of Marx and Engels, and finally demonstrates how modern idealistic schools are an expression of a recent mindset of the bourgeois class. Lenin establishes, in a way that leaves no further doubt for us, that ‘there cannot be a socialist and proletarian doctrine on spiritualist, idealistic, mystical, or moral bases.’ (Bordiga 1924a)

What makes Bordiga’s statements tragic is that Bogdanov’s interpretation of Marxism was far from being philosophical, idealistic, or mystical. On the contrary, as we will reiterate in the final section, developments in the scientific field in the 1950s proved that Bogdanov made one of the most significant contributions to successfully grounding the revolutionary ideas of Marx and Engels on a scientific basis, extending beyond philosophy (see Rowley’s introduction to Bogdanov 2025). Nevertheless, Bordiga, Pannekoek (1938), Korsch (1923 and 1938), and later, for example, influential leaders and theorists like Mao (1964) and Althusser (1968a, b), saw no issue in voicing these criticisms without reading Bogdanov’s texts and relying entirely on Lenin’s book.

As a first step toward breaking the influence of Bogdanov’s ideas and establishing his own ideological dominance over all alternative interpretations of Marxism, Lenin, after Plekhanov’s death in 1918, rehabilitated Plekhanov—who had adopted a “social chauvinist” stance during the war and openly opposed the revolution and Bolshevism after October 1917—as the “Father of Russian Marxism.” After taking the steps listed above, Lenin also ensured that important publications such as Pravda served to consolidate his political power. By 1922, the magazine Pod Znamenem Marksizma (Under the Banner of Marxism) was launched with the same aim in the ideological sphere. Lenin entrusted Trotsky, who was ideologically submissive to him, with announcing the journal’s aims and objectives in its first issue.^[11] In a letter to the journal’s editor, Trotsky listed the enemies that the new generation of Marxists should combat, including the “empirio-criticism” school (represented by Bogdanov) that Lenin frequently criticized (Trotsky 1922). The journal’s first editor was Ter-Vaganyan, known for his loyalty to Lenin and the true strategic line of the journal was articulated by Lenin himself in the third issue, published in March, in an article titled “On the Significance of Militant Materialism” (Lenin 1922a).^[12] 

During Gramsci’s time in Moscow between 1922 and 1924, he is believed to have read this journal (Sclocco 2021 and 2024, Guzzone 2023). In 1923, when Bogdanov was arrested on charges of opposing the revolution and the party, he was questioned by an interrogator about why the “Workers’ Truth” group followed his ideas. Bogdanov responded:

Allow me to remind you of my situation over the past three years. I have been subjected to not dozens, but probably hundreds of attacks, both from influential individuals and powerful circles. These attacks appeared in official documents, public speeches, newspaper and magazine articles, and even entire books. I once said that Under the Banner of Marxism was published half against me. One of the journal’s closest contributors, Sh.M. Dvolaytsky, corrected me: ‘Not half, but entirely.’ My attempts to respond were not published, and responding to everything was unthinkable anyway. A toxic, hostile atmosphere was created around me... This was the only thing that made the emergence of my cause possible. And this atmosphere provided it with material—pushing the necessary people toward ‘Bogdanovism.’ (Bogdanov 1923a)

In the September 1923 issue of Under the Banner of Marxism—when Lenin was not yet completely incapacitated—the journal’s editor, Ter-Vaganyan, under the pseudonym “Materialist,” published a book review. The review discussed two books published that year, one in Moscow and the other in Ukraine: I. Lenin and G. Plekhanov Against A. Bogdanov and G.V. Plekhanov Against Bogdanov: Three Articles (Ter-Vaganyan 1923). These books emphatically underscored the opposition of Lenin, the theoretical favorite son of Russian Marxism, and Plekhanov, its father, to Bogdanov. This so-called book review, penned by the journal’s editor and containing heavy accusations against Bogdanov, coincided with his arrest on September 8, 1923.^[13]

The intense anti-Bogdanov campaign, which Gramsci must have witnessed during his time in Moscow, and the subsequent arrest became a definitive seal on Bogdanov’s legacy. After Lenin’s death, Under the Banner of Marxism became a battleground for the struggle over Leninism among figures like Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Trotsky, and Stalin. By 1928, it came fully under Stalin’s control. The journal ceased publication in 1944, having lost its purpose, and no trace remained of the political strategy that had defined Leninism. However, Lenin’s opposition to Bogdanov became an inseparable part of the official Soviet ideology, ossified as Marxism-Leninism.^[14]

Shadow of Stalin

It is well known that Stalin assimilated and modified Marxism and Leninism while constructing his personal dictatorship. In this process, Stalin relied on Lenin’s anti-Bogdanov texts not only to eliminate prominent rivals like Bukharin, who was known to be influenced by Bogdanov’s ideas, but also Bogdanov’s followers like Bazarov and Groman, who played active roles in high-level bureaucratic management by developing and applying Bogdanov’s ideas to economic planning. M&E was naturally the most significant among these texts. In his ‘famous’ text summarizing his interpretation of Marxism-Leninism (Hist-Mat and Dia-Mat) and recounting the history of Bolshevism, Stalin, following in the footsteps of Plekhanov and Lenin, branded Bogdanov as one of the leading opponents of Marxism, alongside Dühring and Bernstein (Stalin 1939). In the years that followed, Bogdanov’s name was practically erased from Soviet history, and his intellectual legacy was almost entirely banned and forgotten for decades. The seal Lenin placed on Bogdanov’s legacy to establish political hegemony in line with his strategic goals grew into a dark curse during Stalin’s era.^[15]

One of the tragic pieces of evidence documenting this curse is Bukharin’s Philosophical Arabesques, written while he was imprisoned in 1937. Stalin did not allow its publication, so it, along with other texts Bukharin wrote in prison, was only published after the collapse of the USSR (Cohen 1975, Sheehan 2005). Until the publication of Philosophical Arabesques, Bukharin’s most significant theoretical work in terms of Marxist theory was Historical Materialism (henceforth HM), published in 1920, which had a significant impact -and was subjected to sharp criticism by Gramsci in his Notebooks. In this final theoretical work written before his death, Bukharin sought to prove to Stalin that he had completely purged himself of the Bogdanov influence he had not concealed in HM and other writings, and that he had read and understood dialectics, heeding the warning Lenin made in his famous testament, which was only revealed in 1956 (Lenin 1922b, Bukharin 1937).

In HM, the subject of Gramsci’s systematic critique in the Notebooks, Bukharin developed a synthesis of Lenin’s interpretation of Marxism and Bogdanov’s pre-Empiriomonism ideas, which were relatively positively referenced in M&E. This synthesis equates Bogdanov’s concept of “dynamic equilibrium,” one of the central concepts in his writings from 1899–1906, with the concept of “dialectics,” the core of Orthodox Marxism, critically adopted by Marx and Engels from Hegel (see McNally 2008). Additionally, under Bogdanov’s influence, Bukharin replaced Hegel’s concept of “totality” with the concept of “system” (Hoffman 1972). In his testament, Lenin accused Bukharin of “not reading or understanding dialectics,” specifically pointing to his influence from Bogdanov on this matter (Lenin 1922b). When the time came, Stalin would use these statements to demonstrate that Bukharin, like Bogdanov, was not a Marxist. In our view, it is highly significant that Gramsci, in the Notebooks, criticized Bukharin, who synthesized Lenin and Bogdanov’s philosophical writings, rather than directly engaging with their debate. Gramsci’s critique of Bukharin can be read as an indirect intervention in the Lenin-Bogdanov debate.^[16] We will return to this point below.

As a result of Lenin's strategic opposition to Bogdanov turning into a kind of curse during Stalin's era, it was impossible to mention Bogdanov's name in any positive context within the USSR until the 1990s (Sochor 1981, Susiluoto 1982). This effect persisted both within and outside the Soviet Union even after the regime’s collapse. Even today, some circles maintain that it is impossible to consider Bogdanov’s legacy outside the framework of Lenin’s critique (White 2001 and 2018). One of the most negative consequences of this situation is that, until recently, only a limited portion of Bogdanov’s significant works had been translated into languages other than Russian. Consequently, Bogdanov scholarship outside Russia has largely been confined to the work of historians and specialists (Biggart 1998). The fact that the first book-length biography of Bogdanov in English was published more than ninety years after his death underscores the gravity of this situation (White 2019).

Interestingly, attention to Bogdanov’s legacy has remained limited even within Western Marxism or the New Left, which developed outside the USSR and China and positioned itself against authoritarian or dogmatic ‘Eastern Marxism.’ One reason for this may be the extent of the influence of anti-positivism and post-structuralist critique within these movements. Indeed, Sochor argues that Bogdanov’s rediscovery—based on the kinship between his thought and the paradigms of structuralism and systems theory—was limited due to the empiricist, natural-scientific, and particularly pro-positivist tendencies associated with his work (Sochor 1988). Paradoxically, we can argue that Lenin’s M&E had a significant impact—both directly and through the Frankfurt School—on the establishment of this anti-positivism within Western Marxism and the New Left, which positioned itself against the positivism inherent in Second and Third International Marxisms, and thus in Leninism and Stalinism (see Horkheimer’s 1928 assessment; also Schmidt 1987 and Jekel 2017). Similarly, it must be emphasized that the critique of positivism is seen as one of the fundamental points where Gramsci diverged from Bogdanov (Sochor 1981, Guzzone 2023). In our view, this critical issue is closely linked to the paradigmatic shift in the understanding of science that began during Gramsci’s prison years—a shift later recognized as pioneered by Bogdanov—and still awaits full illumination.^[17]

Stalin's influence also played a destructive role in terms of Gramsci's legacy. In the first phase, we see that the Notebooks were published piecemeal and on a thematic basis from the 1940s onwards under the control of the PCI leadership, which were close to Stalin's line. In this way, while creating a useful icon for the “new party” that Togliatti wanted to establish, the aim was also to give Gramsci's interpretation the character of “Italian communism” (Mastrogregori 2008, Vittoria 2014). Following Stalin's death, efforts to purge Leninism of Stalinism came to the fore, and Gramsci was associated with this pure Leninism. Finally, in the 1970s, the critical and chronological publication of Gramsci's notes came to the fore, and the readings of this period were influenced by the rise of European Communism and the New Left. Ultimately, conflicting and unrealistic interpretations emerged, competing with one another and serving the political goals of their respective eras (Strada 1982). The ongoing effort to determine the original contribution of Gramsci’s thought remains significant. Indeed, the initiative for a new critical national edition of all of Italian communist’s writings is seen as a critical turning point for understanding the unique contribution of his legacy (Thomas, 2009).

An important point to note is that, since the 1970s, the scholarship on Gramsci, both in Italy and internationally, has been incomparably broader and deeper than that on Bogdanov. One reason for this disparity is that studies and discussions on Gramsci have transcended the historical dimensions of his thought, applying it to contemporary Marxist theory and socialist strategy debates. These applications have profoundly influenced intellectual and political movements in Latin America and Asia, beyond Europe and America. Moreover, Gramsci’s texts have significantly impacted mainstream scholarship beyond Marxism, including fields like postcolonialism, cultural, communication and media studies. So much so that Gramsci’s thought has even attracted interest from right-wing political actors. This is evidence of Gramsci’s universality and originality. Unfortunately, the same level of impact cannot yet be claimed for Bogdanov.

In conclusion, over the past half-century, the original contributions of Gramsci and Bogdanov, rediscovered to varying degrees and depths, and the relationship between them—despite striking similarities—have not been systematically and widely studied. The number of works addressing this relationship is extremely limited. Illuminating this relationship in all its dimensions, beyond the scope of this text, is vital for revealing the true meaning and significance of both figures’ legacies and for enabling these legacies to enrich and revalorize each other. Recent developments, the emergence of new sources, and ongoing translations offer a promising new context.

New Context

In the context of the global systemic crisis that has marked the first quarter of the 21st century, with a Gramscian global interregnum in world politics and the left undergoing a profound crisis, Marxism is experiencing a revival. We observe a growing interest among new generations in Marxist sources. The increasing volume of Marxist publications across various fields confirms this trend. In this context, the most significant development is undoubtedly the publication, and planned publication, of new volumes under the MEGA project, which includes all published and unpublished writings of Marx and Engels. With the emergence of new sources containing the original ideas of Marx and Engels, it has become inevitable to rethink and reconstruct what is known as Marxism as a whole.

The publication of all works constituting Classical Marxism is of great importance for fully clarifying the Gramsci-Bogdanov relationship. Because these publications call for a reevaluation not only of Classical Marxism but also of the Marxist orthodoxy shaped within the Second International and the “New Orthodoxy” built upon Leninism, later stamped with Stalin’s influence. In such an environment, the translation of Bogdanov’s major works into English enables a rereading of the relationship between Lenin and Bogdanov, or Leninism and “Bogdanovism,” against the backdrop of newly available texts by Marx and Engels. This means that Bogdanov’s interpretation, branded as heretical by the Plekhanov-Lenin-Stalin versions of the New Orthodoxy that became hegemonic within Russian Marxism, can now be subjected to a healthier evaluation (see White 2001 and 2018). In today’s conditions, where the anti-Bogdanov sentiment that turned into a curse under Stalin is gradually losing its influence, and with the critical national edition of Gramsci’s complete works coming to fruition, the similar criticisms voiced by Gramsci and Bogdanov against both the old and new orthodoxies can be freely rethought within the framework of the dynamic development of Marx and Engels’ thought. All this points to the emergence of a new context for the reconstruction of Marxism and the global revolutionary movement.

As mentioned, Bogdanov’s major texts have only begun to be translated into English in the last decade.^[18] Bogdanov’s responses to Lenin and his M&E contained in Faith and Science were published in Italy in the 1980s (Strada 1982).^[19] The German edition of this book was released last year (2024), and its English translation, completed under the Alexander Bogdanov Library, awaits publication. Thus, Bogdanov’s responses to Lenin, which were entirely suppressed during the Stalin era, will reach a much wider readership after more than a century since the debate. Beyond this, other significant texts—besides Tektology and A Short Course of Economic Science (Bogdanov 1923b), the latter being the first Marxist textbook written for workers and originally published in 1897—are also becoming available to English readers. For instance, The Struggle for Viability: Collectivism Through Blood Exchange was published in 2002, and Art and the Working Class appeared in 2022. 

The encounter of these texts with a new generation of readers is a vital development for the reclamation of Bogdanov’s lost legacy.

In addition to these translations, the recent publication of the first book-length intellectual biography of Bogdanov in English marks another critical milestone (White 2019, reviewed by Le Blanc 2021). Prior to White’s biography, the only available biography was Grille’s, written in 1966 and published only in German (Grille 1966). In addition to White’s and Grille’s books, Rowley included Bogdanov’s autobiography and a biographical essay written by his close friend and follower Bazarov in the introduction to the Empiriomonism translation (Bazarov 1928). Thus, basic information about Bogdanov’s life and intellectual contributions has reached a much broader audience.

Moreover, alongside these translations and biographical works, books on Bogdanov by prominent figures have emerged. For example, books by science historian Krementsov (2011), influential media and communication theorist Wark (2016), internationally renowned journalist Mason (2016), and world-famous theoretical physicist Rovelli (published in Italian in 2020 and English in 2021) are among such works. The emergence of popular books by well-known authors has been another significant development in accelerating the rediscovery of Bogdanov’s legacy.^[20]

Italy has been one of the places where the process of reclaiming Bogdanov’s legacy has gained momentum. Although the Gramscian translation is lost, works such as RS and Engineer Menni—considered the starting point of Bolshevik science fiction and increasingly translated into world languages—as well as Faith and Science, were published in Italian in the 1980s. Building on recent new translations by the Ulyanov collective, the Wu Ming author collective published Proletkult, a novel designed as a continuation of Bogdanov’s two novels (Wu Ming 2018). Another significant development was the publication of the Italian translation of correspondence between Bogdanov and Gorky regarding the Capri party school by Scherer and Steila (2017).

The convergence of evidence proving the direct relationship between Gramsci and Bogdanov, previously only hypothesized, occurred in this environment, particularly following the publication of the critical National Edition, including Gramsci’s previously unpublished correspondence. As noted in the introduction, Righi, one of the editors of the Epistolaria, first brought this issue to light in a 2011 article, and Ghetti’s work was the first to follow this lead. Consequently, Righi’s discovery and Ghetti’s critical intervention confirmed that Gramsci had firsthand knowledge of Bogdanov’s ideas. This deepens an ongoing significant debate within the new context created by emerging sources and translations. Based on this new evidence, we now know with certainty that Gramsci’s intellectual and political interest in Bogdanov was far greater than previously thought by researchers, and further investigation must proceed on this new foundation.

Gramsci’s Code

The striking similarities between Gramsci and Bogdanov’s experiences with Proletkult and party schools, as well as their thoughts on cultural revolution, ideology, intellectuals and working-class consciousness, have been competently addressed by researchers such as Sochor (1981), Bermani (1981), Mally (1990), Samà (1992), and Brandist (2012 and 2015). However, the new situation brought to light by Ghetti’s intervention pushes us beyond these studies. The reconstructions presented by Wu Ming 2 (2019), Ghetti (2022 and 2025), Ghetti and Iacarella (2021), and Iacarella (2025) have been significant steps toward a better understanding of the extent of Gramsci’s interest in Bogdanov. Moreover, these recent texts broaden our perspective by clarifying when and how this interest emerged. As research in this direction continues, there is now a need to systematically focus on the writings of both figures concerning the philosophical and scientific foundations of Marxism, which, at first glance, appear to share significant similarities alongside some fundamental differences. In this regard, there are only a few studies, such as Riechers’ work and Guzzone’s recent book (Riechers 1970, Guzzone 2023).

At this point, we emphasize that for research on the nature of the relationship between the two legacies to progress, it must account for the possibility that Gramsci may have had to conceal his interest in Bogdanov due to the opposition from Lenin and Stalin. The obstacle we encounter here is the possibility that Gramsci was forced to censor himself while writing due to the intensity of the opposition at the time, which targeted Bogdanov. Below, we review the historical records currently available to us and point out some directions in which the research could proceed, while highlighting several elements that support our conclusion.

In our view, the most important thing to bear in mind about RS is that, beyond providing a sharp and detailed depiction of a future collectivist society, as noted in the introduction, the novel also encapsulates a summary of Bogdanov’s thoughts on the new science he developed based on Marxism. From this, we can infer that Gramsci was at least aware of this new science as presented in RS. We will return to this point in the final section.^[21] Apart from the RS translation, we mentioned that Gramsci published a translation of Bogdanov’s article “Proletarian Poetry” in two parts in ON in 1921 (October 9 & 27). It is worth noting that the publication dates of these translations coincide with the congress where Bogdanov stepped down from the leadership of Proletkult. This article was first published in 1918 in Proletarskaya Kultura, the main theoretical organ of Proletkult.^[22] This also shows us that Gramsci and the editors of ON were aware of this publication at that time, albeit indirectly. Kononov, in a recent article, points out that Bogdanov’s articles appeared in all but one issue of this journal (Kononov 2025). While not definitive, this leads us to speculate that Gramsci may have been aware of Bogdanov’s other writings published in this journal and could have accessed them, particularly during his time in Russia.

Additionally, we know that a report on Proletkult, signed by “A Russian comrade,” was published in ON (Year 2, No. 5, June 12, 1920, 37–39; cited by Guzzone 2023, 63, footnote 192). Considering the information in the chronology provided in the introduction to Gerratana’s critical edition of the Notebooks (also available on the ISG website), we see that as early as December 1917, Gramsci had conceived the idea of establishing a proletarian cultural association in Italy and corresponded with Giuseppe Lombardo Radice on this matter.^[23] These facts indicate that Gramsci, unable to realize this project within the PSI, attempted to implement it four years later in 1921 by founding the Italian branch of Proletkult as soon as the PCd’I was established. We do not know whether, between the October Revolution and the publication of the “Russian Proletkult” report in ON in June 1920, Gramsci directly sought information or made efforts to connect with Proletkult and Bogdanov. Iacarella’s discussion is valuable and illuminating in this regard (Iacarella 2025). In our view, such an initiative or flow of information could likely have occurred through Lunacharsky, who was fluent in Italian and had established connections with Italian socialists, including Avanti! editor Enrico Ferri, during the Second International’s Stuttgart and Copenhagen congresses in 1907 and 1910, respectively, representing the Bolsheviks and the Bogdanov-led Vpered (Forward) group.^[24]

Finally, there is a single reference, allegedly written by Gramsci, that makes the situation even more intriguing. According to Guzzone, citing Sclocco (Guzzone 2023, 63–64, footnote 189), in the first issue of the relaunched, biweekly ON in March 1924, following Lenin’s death, a short Lenin biography titled “Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov”—published unsigned but believed to be authored by Gramsci—includes the following note: “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism – 1909. Lenin combats philosophical deviations from Marxism in a group of Russian socialists led by the economist A. Bogdanov” (ON, 3rd Series, No. 1, p. 4). The same issue’s front page also features an unsigned editorial titled “Capo” (Leader), also attributed to Gramsci. Sclocco convincingly argues that both texts were written by Gramsci while he was in Vienna preparing the issue (Sclocco 2021). If Sclocco’s claim is accurate, this unsigned note is the only place where Gramsci simultaneously referred to both M&E and Bogdanov. In this case, the note can be considered further evidence, complementing Rappaport’s article cited above, of Gramsci’s knowledge of Lenin’s book and his opposition to Bogdanov. Crucially, during the period when this note was written and published, Gramsci’s translation of Bogdanov’s novel was completed and he was corresponding with Yuilia and Terracini about taking the translated manuscript out of the USSR (Righi 2011, Ghetti 2016). The note refers to Bogdanov as an economist and states that Lenin fought against his philosophical deviations from Marxism, which can be explained by the context of Bordiga’s critique of heresy, mentioned earlier, published in February 1924—just a month before Gramsci wrote this note—and the political sensitivities of the time.^[25]

Therefore, we can conclude that Gramsci had sufficient knowledge of the content, intensity, and history of the Lenin-Bogdanov debate when he arrived in Russia between 1922 and 1924, and that he deepened his knowledge on the subject after arriving in Russia, at least with the help of Yuilia. Therefore, we must assume that the Italian revolutionary acted with an awareness of the weight of this highly sensitive political situation. In our view, Gramsci must have clearly recognized that openly revealing his interest in or affinity for Bogdanov’s ideas on Marxism would have been political suicide for his position within PCd’I and the Comintern. Consequently, he must have seen it as a necessity to conceal both his interest and his translation. Thus, we can conclude that the “hegemonic” effect of Lenin’s campaign against Bogdanov, particularly between 1920 and 1924, must have led Gramsci to refrain from referencing either Bogdanov or Lenin’s M&E in his writings, except for the aforementioned unsigned note. In our view, these facts demonstrate how consistent and long-term Gramsci’s strategy was in this regard.

Within this framework, it is highly likely that Gramsci, while developing his thoughts on Marxism in the Notebooks, employed a strategy like that used by Machiavelli in writing The Prince. Gramsci underscores this strategy with a quote from Foscolo in the fourth notebook, note §<4> in Gerratana’s edition: “while softening the scepter of rulers, even as he deprives them of the crowns of their victories and allows the people to see.” From this perspective, we can argue that instead of directly engaging in the Leninism-Bogdanovism conflict by neither openly referencing nor confronting Lenin’s book targeting Bogdanov or Bogdanov’s ideas, Gramsci chose to present his original reading of Marxism. Thus, it is possible that Gramsci made a Machiavellian intervention. We understand that Gramsci distinguished Lenin’s Machiavellian and pragmatic political practice, which he believed influenced “common sense,” from his conservative philosophical stance or ideas on Marxism. In this sense, while acknowledging Lenin’s success in constructing political hegemony, when it came to examining and developing the scientific and philosophical foundations of Marxism and the issue of cultural hegemony, Gramsci leaned closer to Bogdanov and his “heretical” position. Therefore, the Italian communist directed his critical arrows indirectly—on one hand toward Bukharin, who synthesized Lenin and Bogdanov, and on the other toward Plekhanov, whom Lenin critically adopted in his polemic with Bogdanov. In this way, while endorsing Leninist practice in terms of seizing political power and building political hegemony, Gramsci left a legacy that, at least for future generations, emphasized the importance of a heterodox stance, close to Bogdanov, on many fundamental and methodological issues concerning the construction of the working class’s cultural hegemony and the scientific and philosophical development and updating of Marxism.

Beyond this point, there is an intriguing situation that leads us to believe that Gramsci may have used a coding strategy, consistent with the Machiavellian approach described above, while developing his thoughts on Marxism in the Notebooks. This situation relates to Gramsci’s choice to begin the fourth notebook, written between 1930 and 1932, where he started articulating his readings of Marxism’s foundations, with notes that at first glance seem unrelated. These notes concern Part Ten (Canto X) of Dante’s Divine Comedy’ first canticle, Inferno (Hell). The focus is on the sixth circle of Hell, where heretics—those who deny divine truths—are punished. In these notes, Gramsci critiques Croce’s interpretation of Dante’s work, offering his own original reading (Ghetti 2014). In Gerratana’s arrangement, these notes were placed at the end of the fourth notebook, as they appeared unrelated to the notebook’s overall content and were thought to have been written later than the subsequent notes (Gramsci 1996, preface). However, it is unthinkable that a meticulous and thoughtful writer like Gramsci would have made such an arrangement by mistake or randomly. Considering that he was deeply engaged with Machiavelli during this period, we conclude that the placement of these notes warrants reconsideration.

In our view, the original placement of Gramsci’s notes on Canto X was not coincidental. It is plausible to think that Gramsci was conveying a message. This message likely relates to the theme of heresy, around which this section of Dante’s text is constructed. What prompts this interpretation is that in the third note of the fourth notebook (in Gerratana’s version), titled “Two Aspects of Marxism,” Gramsci delves into the issue of heresy. Referencing Luxemburg’s pamphlet on Marx, he poses the question, “Why have even official Marxists ‘combined’ Marxism with non-Marxist philosophies?” In the second part of the note, he brings the discussion to the original concept of “heresy” in Christian theology, thereby drawing a historical comparison with the phenomenon of heresy within Marxism. In our view, this third note establishes a connection between the notes on Canto X, which follow it, and the subsequent notes on Marxist philosophy and science that Gramsci began to take.

Gramsci’s decision to begin the fourth notebook with notes on Canto X and his introduction to these notes—before presenting his own Marxist interpretation—suggests that he was aware of committing the “crime” labeled as heresy in the eyes of Leninism and Stalinism and was critiquing the “Orthodox” stance inherited from Plekhanov and Kautsky. Indeed, the interventions in Gramsci’s legacy by Togliatti and others after the discovery of the Notebooks, as well as accusations by writers like Riechers, who echoed Bordiga’s earlier charges against Bogdanov by directing them at Gramsci, demonstrate the accuracy of the Sardinian communist’s awareness and critique on this matter.

In rethinking the relationship between Gramsci and Bogdanov, precisely because of this “heresy” label, the inferences we are forced to make through probabilities lead us to this point today: Such a rethinking can only yield results if we consider the possibility that Gramsci concealed the influence of Bogdanov on his thought due to Lenin’s opposition.

The Deep Traces of Bogdanov’s Organizational Thought in Gramsci

The discussion above aimed to uncover the historical connections, long lost until recently, that indicate the need for a more systematic and in-depth comparison of the similarities and differences between Gramsci’s and Bogdanov’s thought. The following two sections continue to point toward directions for new research while serving as a call to reintegrate and apply the ideas of these two figures to contemporary conditions for the reconstruction of socialist theory and practice.

At this stage, it is essential to focus on the primary convergence that suggests Gramsci was influenced by Bogdanov’s thought. This convergence centers on the concept of organization, which lies at the heart of both thinkers’ ideas and represents the most significant link between their legacies. This observation was first made by Riechers in his book mentioned earlier (Riechers 1970). In the subsection titled “Marxism as Idealism, Socialism as Organization,” the German author claims that Gramsci’s early Marxist thought was shaped by the influence of idealist bourgeois thinkers such as Garofalo, Mondolfo, Croce, and Gentile, leading him to reduce historical materialism to idealism. He then asserts that Bogdanov’s concept of organization was also central to Gramsci’s thought.

According to Riechers: “For Gramsci, organization becomes, as it did for Bogdanov and his followers in the Russian revolutionary movement during the same period, a similarly independent and fetishized umbrella term” (Riechers 1970, 51). He further states: “Although the first traces of a Bogdanov-style organization theory appear only in the prison writings, Gramsci is already following a path similar to Bogdanov’s.” In other words, according to Riechers, even before the Notebooks, Gramsci employed a concept of organization akin to Bogdanov’s, and in his prison notes, there are traces of a theory resembling the one Bogdanov developed in Tektology. Though his intent is negative, we believe Riechers’ observation is highly significant, and this claim requires thorough and systematic investigation. We will examine the basis of this claim in the Notebooks more closely in the next section.

In the continuation of the paragraph, Riechers argues that in Gramsci, as in Bogdanov, the concept of socialism is overshadowed by the concept of organization, which is primarily tied to culture. This inference is drawn from the following quote from Gramsci: “Socialism is an organization, and not only a political and economic organization, but also and especially an organization of knowledge and will, sustained through cultural activity” (p. 51).

Riechers further explains the cultural purpose of organization—or its synonymous term, unity—through another quote from Gramsci: 

Within the class, organization necessarily takes the place of individualism for the proletariat, absorbing its energy and rationality. (...) The fundamental purpose of unity is to accustom people to selflessness: honesty, work, and initiative become ends in themselves; they provide individuals only with intellectual satisfaction and moral joy, not material privileges... Work has now become a moral duty. (Riechers 1970, 51)

Indeed, we observe that, starting from 1916, Gramsci began to use the concept of organization—crucial to his own intellectual and practical experience—in a manner approaching, though not fully coinciding with, the meaning Bogdanov formulated in its most mature form during 1911–12 while writing Tektology. The quotes provided by Iacarella (2025) confirm this: 

We must break this habit and stop perceiving culture as encyclopedic knowledge, where a person is seen merely as a vessel to be filled and stored with empirical data (...). Culture is something very different. Culture is organization, the discipline of one’s inner self, the appropriation of one’s personality, the conquest of a higher consciousness through which one understands one’s historical value and function in life.” (Gramsci 2019, 128–9)

In this passage, in alignment with Riechers’ quote above, we see Gramsci defining culture as organization, much like Bogdanov. And a year later, in The City of Future, Gramsci uses the concept of organization in the context of socialism and culture, reminiscent of the future society described in Bogdanov’s RS, while also linking it to the concept of free will: 

I give culture this meaning: the exercise of thought, the acquisition of general ideas, the habit of connecting causes and effects. For me, everyone is already cultured, because everyone thinks, everyone connects causes and effects. But they are so empirically, primordially, not organically. (...) And since I know that culture is also a basic concept of socialism, because it integrates and concretizes the vague concept of freedom of thought, I would like it to be enlivened by the other, by the concept of organization. (...) Is this need widespread or limited to a few? Let the few begin. (Gramsci 2015, 673–4)

Here, too, we see Gramsci proposing to “enliven” the concept of culture by equating it with the concept of organization. Remarkably, though the term was not widely used at the time in this sense, he calls for initiating this conceptual identification, even if it starts only with a few people. Even at this point, we can see Gramsci closely aligning with Bogdanov.

What we consider decisive is Bogdanov’s emphasis on the universal meaning of the concept, which aligns with Riechers’ commentary cited above. In the first section of Tektology, written in 1911–12, where Bogdanov lays out its conceptual and methodological foundations and main principles, he discusses why this universality is crucial, addressing how bourgeois culture and science, rooted in individualism, fail to recognize it (Bogdanov 1980 and 1996). At the beginning of his introduction, Bogdanov complains that the term “organization” is misused in both scientific and everyday language, narrowly applied to human and social institutions. According to him, every kind of physical or mental “complex whole” or “system” can be seen as an organizational process and analyzed on this basis; from atoms and molecules to celestial bodies and star systems, from organic and living organisms to humans, societies, economies, languages, ideas, and all processes of formation, transformation, and dissolution in the universe should be fundamentally treated as organizational processes. He argues that, based on this principle and the method of natural sciences, the most general science can be constructed. The failure to grasp this universality of the organization concept remains a significant issue even today (Rispoli 2012 and 2015, Şenalp and Midgley 2023). Therefore, Gramsci’s recognition of this generality at that time represents significant convergence.

Again, as Iacarella quoted from Bergami (2025), Gramsci writes in a letter to Lonetti: 

Education, culture, and the widespread organization of knowledge and experience ensure the independence of the masses from intellectuals. (...) This work cannot be postponed until tomorrow, until we are politically free. This work is itself freedom, it stimulates action and is a condition for action (...); socialism is organization, and not only political and economic, but also and especially an organization of knowledge and will, achieved through cultural activity (Gramsci 2023, p. 622).

Here, too, confirming Riechers’ claims cited above, we see that as early as 1918, Gramsci’s conception of the term aligns with Bogdanov’s. In Bogdanov’s view, various forms of ideology—such as mythologies, religions, philosophy, and science—as well as language and social institutions, which are part of culture (i.e., superstructural forms), are developed tools or new organs (resulting from evolutionary selection) for organizing life experience (Bogdanov 1996). From this perspective, praxis itself is always organizational: it aims to organize (or, conversely, disorganize, i.e., disrupt or transform existing organizational forms) reality and its perception, i.e., “experience” (Bogdanov 2015 and 2019). In the passage above, we see Gramsci using the concept of organization in a manner very close to Bogdanov’s expressed meaning, particularly in associating knowledge and culture with the “organization of experience,” the source of which directly stems from Bogdanov.

Beyond the quotes above, looking at Gramsci’s pre-Notebooks writings, the following lines from a programmatic text published around the time of the Italian Communist Party’s founding in 1920 are particularly striking: “In the Communist Party, the worker thus transforms from an executor to an initiator, from a mass to a leader... from being organized to becoming an organizer” (Gramsci 1920). The expression of workers transitioning from executors to initiators, from “being organized” to “becoming organizers,” clearly bears traces of Bogdanov’s ideas, articulated in connection with his cultural revolution perspective. According to Bogdanov, class struggles take place between organized classes and the classes that organize them and is essentially a struggle between organizational forms (Sochor 1988). The Russian revolutionary expresses this as follows: 

If classes and groups in society clash destructively and subvert one another, it is precisely because each collective aims to organize the world and humanity according to its ideals, for itself. This is a result of the organizing forces being separated and isolated; it is a result of the lack of unity and a common, harmonious organization. This is a struggle of organizational forms. (Bogdanov 1980, 4)

It is possible that Gramsci drew this final conceptualization from Bogdanov’s article “Proletarian Poetry,” published in ON as mentioned above. However, an undeniable alternative is that Gramsci may have been aware of the expanded text of Bogdanov’s book, published as a series of articles in Proletarskaya Kultura between 1919 and 1921 and compiled in 1921 under the title Essays in Tektology (Bogdanov 1980). In connection with the quote above, in the lines where Gramsci outlines the ideas he considered as slogans for the Communist Party, we see him almost using Bogdanov’s terminology, which Lenin had dismissed as “organizational nonsense”: “Organization, the maximum effort of organization, structuring the new party, and maximum speed in organization” (Gramsci 1990, 3).

We see that Riechers’ claims hold some truth. Gramsci’s thought bears deep traces of the universal concept of organization. Although Gramsci does not imbue the concept of organization with the same breadth and universality as Bogdanov and primarily uses it in the context of human institutions and organizations, his frequent generalization of the term to encompass culture and ideology, and his view of education and knowledge as the organization of experience, demonstrates his close alignment with Bogdanov. Additionally, confirming Riechers, we must note that the concept of organization, along with other terms from Bogdanov’s organizational vocabulary, is among the key concepts in the Notebooks.^[26]

Gramsci’s tendency to limit the application of the organization concept to phenomena within the realm of social and human sciences can largely be explained by his linguistic education and his critical stance against positivism, empiricism, and the natural-scientific approach (i.e., the idea of applying the methods of natural sciences to social sciences), influenced by his readings of Labriola and Croce. However, it is also true that if Gramsci had gone further and applied the concept of organization to physical reality, which is the domain of natural sciences, and had taken it to its fullest meaning as universal, this would have meant that his ideas would have coincided to a greater extent with Bogdanov's, and this coincidence would have reached an undeniable level. In fact, we know that Gramsci did not completely reject the idea of overcoming the distinction between natural sciences and social and human sciences, which underlies the distinction between base and superstructure. We can deduce this from the note he took in the context of Lukács's critique of Engels (Quaderni, Notebook 4, note 43).

Before concluding this section, we reiterate the importance of tracing the ideas Gramsci may have presented indirectly or covertly, for the reasons outlined in previous sections. Therefore, to clarify the relationship between the two legacies, systematic studies aiming to deepen this inquiry, particularly to textually and theoretically establish whether Gramsci developed a general organization theory reminiscent of Bogdanov’s in the Notebooks, as Riechers suggested, are essential.

Toward a Bogdanovian Reconstruction of Gramscian Hegemony

The synthesis of the research directions outlined above leads us, regardless of the potential outcomes of future studies, to the idea that the complex and influential power relations analysis presented by the Italian revolutionary in the Notebooks must be reconstructed based on Bogdanov’s universal science of organization. This final section brings together some key historical and theoretical facts that substantiate this idea or claim.

First, it must be stated that Gramsci’s most significant contribution, widely recognized as triggering the most important Marxist debates of the post-1960s period, is his original and complex power analysis, which connects elements such as ideology, the state, civil society, the party, and the role of intellectuals, with a sophisticated hegemony theory at its core. Although sharply criticized Gramsci’s interpretation of Marxism, Riechers explicitly stated that Gramsci’s theories of hegemony and the party could not have been merely superficially influenced by Bogdanov’s thought. Moreover, as noted above, Riechers went so far as to suggest that the party theory Gramsci began to develop in The Modern Prince is akin to Bogdanov’s abstract organization theory. The thesis we wish to clarify here is that this theoretical project, which remained in its initial stages in Gramsci—perhaps deliberately underdeveloped to conceal his connection to Bogdanov—needs to be advanced and applied to the present. To this end, Gramsci’s theoretical ideas should be reconstructed based on Bogdanov’s universal organization theory, as fully developed in Tektology.

Confirming Riechers’ thought and independently of it, French author Buci-Glucksmann, in her 1975 book, also noted traces of Bogdanov’s thought in Gramsci’s theories of the state, classes, and hegemony. However, she argued that these traces originated not directly, as Riechers implied, but through Bukharin, who occupies a significant place in Gramsci’s Notebooks. Buci-Glucksmann focused on this indirect influence and noted that the concept of “dynamic equilibrium,” frequently used by Gramsci and borrowed from Bukharin, originated in Bogdanov’s organization theory (Buci-Glucksmann 1975).

The first systematic and positive examinations of the Gramsci-Bogdanov similarity after Riechers came in 1981 with articles by Sochor and Bermani (Sochor 1981, Bermani 1981). Bermani’s work focused on the history of Italian Proletkult, while Sochor compared Gramsci and Bogdanov’s ideas on Marxism and socialist revolution, highlighting their similarities and differences with Lenin. Both studies primarily focus on cultural hegemony in relation to proletarian revolution, without deeply engaging with Bogdanov’s organization science. Sochor’s 1988 book, Revolution and Culture, while not ruling out the idea of direct influence, remains cautious and points to similarities in Gramsci and Bogdanov’s ideas on cultural hegemony within the framework of socialism and revolutionary strategy. Although Sochor emphasizes that Bogdanov’s universal organization science is inseparable from his ideas on cultural revolution/hegemony, unlike Riechers, she does not establish a direct link between Gramsci’s theoretical texts and Tektology in her analysis.

Another study that seriously and deeply examines the relationship between Bogdanov’s organization science and Gramsci’s writings after Riechers is McNally’s 2008 work (McNally 2008). Following Buci-Glucksmann, McNally argued that both the concepts of “dynamic equilibrium” and “balance,” as well as Bogdanov’s central concept of “organization,” reached Gramsci through Bukharin. McNally further contended that these concepts played a decisive role in transforming Gramsci’s notion of political hegemony, inherited from Lenin and Russian Marxism, into a more sophisticated, even “systemic,” theory of hegemony, civil society, and the state. Without referencing Riechers, McNally noted not only Bogdanov but also Sraffa’s provision of neoclassical economics texts (by Pantaleoni and Marshall) and Trotsky’s thought influenced this conceptual transfer. However, McNally did not revisit Bogdanov’s influence on Gramsci in later publications.

Subsequently, the most recent studies addressing the Gramsci-Bogdanov relationship within the framework of hegemony theory are Brandist's 2012 article and its book version published in 2015. However, Brandist does not see the same overlap that the authors mentioned above point out, and he evaluates any possible overlap as a convergence limited to the cultural and linguistic dimensions of hegemony. Although Brandist agrees with McNally that Gramsci's contact with Russian Marxism led to a leap in the development of the Italian communist's thought, he believes that Gramsci distanced himself from Bogdanov's thought after 1924 and moved closer to Lenin. Therefore, Brandist believes that, although Bogdanov's ideas within the framework of proletarian culture did not completely disappear in the Notebooks, they were transformed into new ideas shaped by new goals (personal communication).

Our thesis, however, is that following the discovery of a direct relationship between Gramsci and Bogdanov, we must now move beyond the indirect influences highlighted by Buci-Glucksmann, Sochor, McNally and Brandist, and pursue the strong possibility of direct influence suggested by Riechers. Accordingly, we believe that a systematic study of the Notebooks, expanding on the examples provided in the previous section, will place our thesis on firmer ground.

At this point, we would like to emphasize that Guzzone's recent book (2023) is a study that goes a step further than Riechers and examines the similarities and differences between the fundamental ideas developed by Gramsci and Bogdanov on Marxism, science, and philosophy, albeit in an introductory manner, through a philological comparison of the texts. Guzzone's work, which focuses primarily on Gramsci's thoughts on science, does not see a Bogdanovian theory of organization in Gramsci, as Riechers does, but it presents a more systematic comparison between Gramsci's texts and Bogdanov's texts, which we believe is a direction and type of research that should be followed in the future. Furthermore, Guzzone's comparison of the two thinkers' ideas in the context of Bukharin's critique in the Notebooks is also valuable. This study brings together many findings that form the basis for the thesis we put forward.

Without delving into the theoretical depth of the issue, we will examine some evidence—confirming and even surpassing Riechers’ claim—that Gramsci’s overall power analysis, not just his party theory, is grounded in an organization theory akin to (or may be directly derived from) Bogdanov’s. The first piece of evidence is that Gramsci explicitly mentions a “science of organization” (scienza dell’organizzazione) in four places: in note 62 of Notebook 9, written in 1932, and later in notes 2 and 31 of Notebook 13, and note 2 of Notebook 22. Riechers overlooks this centrally important evidence; in presenting his argument in the ninth section of his book, titled “Gramsci’s Party Theory as an Abstract Science of Organization: The Influence of Sorel and Proudhon,” Riechers does not pursue Gramsci’s mention of a “science of organization” (Riechers 1970).

Secondly, in relation to his references to the science of organization, Gramsci introduces the “law of definite proportions” in notes 61, 62, and 70 of Notebook 9; notes 31, 34, and 70 of Notebook 13; and note 2 of Notebook 22. Riechers gives reference only one of these notes but fails to pursue the main connection, particularly with the science of organization (Riechers 1970, 217). We consider the note titled “Machiavelli. The Theorem of Definite Proportions” in Notebook 9, note 62, to be particularly significant. This note begins as follows (bold emphasized are ours): 

This principle [the law of definite proportions] can be used to clarify many discussions related to organization and even general politics (such as the analysis of situations, power dynamics, and the question of intellectuals). However, it should be noted that the application of the principle of definite proportions has a metaphorical value and cannot be applied mechanically. Each organism has its own optimal principle of definite proportions. Nevertheless, the science of organization must rely on this principle. Its application is clearly seen in the military.                        

A paragraph later, the following statements appear: 

From a political perspective, this principle [definite proportions] can be studied in parties and factories, and it can be observed that each social group has its own proportions, which vary depending on the cultural level, mental independence, and initiative capacity of its most backward and peripheral members.

As seen in the quotes above, Gramsci discusses applying the law of definite proportions within the framework of a general science of organization, suggesting it can be applied to the analysis of nearly all social structures. Following these sentences, Gramsci cites Italian economist Pantaleoni’s 1931 work, Principles of Pure Economics, quoting the definition of the theorem provided in the book: 

Substances combine chemically only in definite proportions, and any amount of an element exceeding the quantity necessary to combine with other elements is left free; if the quantity of an element is insufficient relative to the quantities of other elements present, the combination occurs only to the extent permitted by the element in lesser quantity. (Pantaleoni 1931, 83)

Gramsci draws this quote from Pantaleoni’s book, which treats economics as a pure science. The definition provided is the law’s application in chemistry, discovered by John Dalton. In the original passage, Pantaleoni states that this principle is one of the “most general laws of the natural sciences” and that only a specific dimension of it is applied to economics. Had Riechers followed this clue, he would have seen that this principle, which the Italian neoclassical economist borrowed from chemistry and applied to economics, is incorporated in Bogdanov’s universal science of organization as the “Law of the Minimum” or the “Law of Least Resistance” (Bogdanov 1980 and 1996). This conceptualization almost exactly aligns with the ideas expressed in the notes quoted from Gramsci.

In note 70 of Notebook 9, Gramsci further analyzes this theorem in the context of national wars and their relation to struggles among groups within countries. He develops these texts in Notebook 13, where he gives his power analysis a more systemic and holistic form. In the introduction to note 31 of Notebook 13, the above statements are reorganized as follows: 

This theorem [definite proportions] can be usefully applied to clarify many discussions related to the science of organization (e.g., the study of administrative structures, demographic composition, etc.) and general politics (e.g., the analysis of situations, power relations, the question of intellectuals, etc.) in a clearer and more schematic manner. It must always be borne in mind that the use of the theorem of definite proportions has a schematic and metaphorical value and cannot be applied mechanically. Because in human communities, the qualitative factor (the technical and intellectual capacity of individuals) plays a dominant role and cannot be mathematically measured. Therefore, it can be said that each human community has its own specific, optimal principle of definite proportions. The science of organization can usefully rely on this theorem, and this is clearly seen in the military. 

These notes can be considered to confirm, and even provide the basis for, the inference made by Riechers. Furthermore, contrary to Mastroianni’s claim, they demonstrate that the Italian revolutionary was not entirely indifferent to the Bogdanovian-Bukharinist methodology (cited by Guzzone 2023, 63–68, footnote 195). Indeed, Guzzone, referencing Tagliagambe, notes that “Gramscian critique of Bukharin did not concern his “attempt to analyze society on the basis of a systems theory (influenced, precisely, by Bogdanov)” (ibid., 89–90, footnote 70).

It is also significant that throughout the 1920s, the law of definite proportions was frequently discussed in the vital debates on economics and planning within the USSR, which Gramsci had the opportunity to closely observe. Bogdanov’s organizational science as well as his interpretation of the law of definite proportions were part of these discussions (Belykh 1990 and 2022). In particular, the debate between Preobrazhensky and Bukharin in the context of the NEP centered on the concepts of definite proportions, equilibrium, and balance (Preobrazhensky 1926).

Bringing together these pieces of evidence and observations, we can reason as follows: Neither in Bukharin’s HM (or Manual), which Gramsci sharply criticized for applying natural science methods to the social domain, nor in Pantaleoni’s book, which applied this principle from natural sciences to economics, is the law of definite proportions conceptualized within the framework of a general “science of organization” as it is in Bogdanov. As we see, Gramsci explicitly does this. Considering that no other widely accepted science of organization existed in the modern sense at the time Gramsci wrote these notes, it gives the impression that, despite citing other sources, Gramsci had Bogdanov’s scientific ideas in mind. Indeed, like his Russian comrade, the Italian communist believed that the law of definite proportions could be applied not only to superstructural analyses of politics, war, armies, parties, institutions, classes, power struggles, and the state but also to economics, indicating its universal applicability. As we see in note 2 of Notebook 22, titled “Americanism and Fordism,” subtitled Rationalization of the Demographic Composition of Europe (Quaderno 22 (V), 1934, §⟨2⟩), Gramsci also addresses these views in the context of economics, i.e., the base, Gramsci appears to have applied this methodological approach into theory. However, the Italian revolutionary seems to believe that the theory of definite proportions represents only one element within a more general science of organization, to be understood as a comprehensive analysis of power, including hegemony, and not just as a theory of the party as Riechers suggests in his book.

The sentences emphasized in italics in the quotes above underscore Gramsci’s view that this application cannot be done mechanically. Although Bogdanov developed his science of organization in alignment with the natural scientific model, he, too, did not believe that its core principles could be applied directly, mechanically, or mathematically to all domains, particularly the social and human sciences. Thus, contrary to previous observations (e.g., Sochor 1988, Sclocco 2021), it cannot be said that there is complete opposition between the two thinkers on this matter, even if there is not an exact alignment. We can thus argue that the “science of organization,” which Gramsci explicitly states has universal applicability, may have been referring to the Russian revolutionary. While Gramsci’s notes on Marxism, science, and philosophy in the Notebooks do not entirely align with Bogdanov (Guzzone 2023), the ideas highlighted above, in bold letters, prove that the Italian communist’s complex power relations analysis is significantly compatible with Bogdanov’s science of organization. In any case, further research, as indicated by Guzzone’s work is needed to clarify the relationship between the seemingly divergent elements in the thought of the two thinkers. For now, we believe there is sufficient evidence to support the idea of theoretical integration of their works.

Considering the major crisis faced by the global left since the 1970s and its current restructuring process, a brief review of the post-war debates and reconstructions within Western Marxism and Neo Marxism, as well as the transformations in the base that interacted with these superstructural forms, is sufficient to see the potential of a systematic relationship established between Gramsci’s power analysis and Bogdanov’s universal science of organization.

First, it should be noted that one of the most significant influences in the revival and renewal of Marxist theoretical debates, particularly outside Russia, has been the rediscovery of Gramsci’s thought. Another major influence has been the emergence of scientific paradigms such as structuralism-functionalism, cybernetics, general systems theory, and related fields (e.g., information theory, game theory, operations research). For instance, the influence of structuralism and later post-structuralism on various currents within Western and Neo Marxism is well-known. However, it is less recognized that Bogdanov’s universal science of organization was a precursor to these new scientific paradigms and fields, which marked a paradigmatic shift in the understanding of science in the 21st century (Blauberg et al. 1977, Susiluoto 1982, Şenalp and Midgley 2023). Gramsci's ideas, in fact, first took shape in contact with the new conceptualization of science presented from the perspective of the working class as an extension of the ideas of Marx and Engels, and in contact with the ideas of Bogdanov and Bukharin. This means that these two sources, which had a significant impact on the most important theories that emerged in post-war Marxism, were already interconnected from the very beginning.

Indeed, since the 1960s, both in the West and the East, the most prominent Marxist theorists and influential debates have been shaped by Gramsci’s writings, these new scientific paradigms, or a combination thereof. For example, Althusser’s structuralist interpretation of Marxism, which he later rejected, and his theoretical contributions based on his critique of Gramsci’s humanism and historicism emerged through the mediation of these two major influences. Similarly, the Marxist critique of mainstream modernization theories by Sweezy, Baran, and Frank (Dependency School) was directly influenced by Parsons’ structuralist-functionalist social systems theory. The structuralist history school Annales and Wallerstein’s World-Systems Analysis (shaped under the influence of Prigogine’s systems theory), as a critique of both modernization theories and the Dependency School, provide another example. The theoretical contributions of the Frankfurt School and French post-structuralists can also be said to have been shaped under these influences. Within this framework, the Neo Gramscian school, driven by thinkers like Hall, Hobsbawm, Laclau, and Mouffe, emphasizing pluralism and difference in language, culture, text analysis, and the revolutionary subject, also bears traces of these influences. Additionally, Regulation School theorists like Aglietta, Boyer, and Jessop, influential in state debates in France, Germany, and the UK, were heavily influenced by systems and complexity theories (e.g., Jessop from Luhmann’s social systems theory), as well as Gramsci and structuralist/post-structuralist debates. The autonomist and workerist (operaismo and post-operaismo) currents, which emerged in Italy and France with considerable impact, were also shaped under these influences.

Thus, it is not an exaggeration to argue that the paradigmatic framework of the broadest debates encompassing state, classes, ideology, culture, and socialist strategy—starting with Althusser’s Ideological State Apparatuses (1970), Anderson’s reading of Gramsci and Western Marxism, and the contributions of Foucault, Chomsky, Marcuse, Habermas, Poulantzas, Miliband, Derrida, Deleuze, Lyotard, Jameson, and many other leading (structuralist, post-structuralist, new, or post-) Marxist theorists—was largely shaped by Gramsci’s rediscovery as well as the new scientific approaches pioneered by Bogdanov. These theorists, schools, and debates have profoundly influenced the most impactful critics of capitalism in the past sixty years. However, while Gramsci’s influence on these debates has been direct, albeit not without issues, Bogdanov’s legacy could not exert a direct influence on them for nearly half a century due to the reasons summarized above. While Gramsci’s thought, particularly due to the growing availability of translations of his Notebooks, became a global phenomenon from the 1980s onward, Bogdanov’s rediscovery was far more laborious and delayed.

The theoretical openings and renewals within post-war Marxism naturally emerged in connection with significant transformations in the economic base. In this regard, technological advancements have played a significant role. The economic and technological leaps in the USSR and China, as well as in the West, were directly linked to the application of new scientific approaches. The integration of computer and satellite technology, quantum and nanotechnology applications, media and publishing technology, genetics, medicine, and other fields, based on cybernetics and dynamic systems analysis, into production and distribution chains, finance, transportation, and other infrastructural systems of the economy, led to an unprecedented transformation in the functioning of global capitalism. The emergence of a new international division of labor and a world market occurred on this basis. The ruling classes’ development of capabilities in social control, consent production, and perception management, based on these material transformations, gave rise to highly complex social power structures. Over the past two decades, particularly with advancements in information and communication capabilities, the ruling classes have reached the point of collecting and integrating all kinds of data about individuals’ pasts, daily lives, bodies, psychologies, and interactions into existing power structures. In the advanced stage of late capitalism, referred to as neoliberal globalization, which has engulfed the entire planet, Bogdanov’s legacy—despite its potential to serve as a critical tool for radical social opposition to analyze the political, economic, ideological, and cultural power mechanisms established by the ruling classes—remained unused for a long time.

While Bogdanov’s universal science of organization—developed from a working-class perspective while remaining faithful to the essence of Marxism (Rowley 2024a, b, c)—was suppressed and forgotten, the impact of cybernetics, systems, and complexity theories, developed from a managerial class perspective abstracted from this radical transformative vision, underscores the significance of Bogdanov’s legacy. The same can now be said for the impact of Gramsci’s complex power analysis and hegemony theory. We believe that the open and complete reintegration of these two cultural legacies holds strong potential for constructing and implementing a radical counter-hegemony project. Such a synthesis would enhance Marxism’s capacity, as a radical social critique, to respond to contemporary global capitalism and its crises, and it would aid in creating renewed theoretical tools for mobilizing oppressed masses in future struggles.^[27]

Conclusion: Reuniting Bogdanov with Gramsci for the victory

The relationship between Gramsci and Bogdanov has great potential for the reconstruction of Marxist theory. The RS translation, which emerged from the work of Righi and Ghetti has proven that there is a direct link between these two revolutionary thinkers and has brought the discussions that had remained at the level of speculation for years to a new level. Gramsci was directly and indirectly influenced by Bogdanov's organizational thinking, and this influence was not limited to issues such as hegemony, culture and proletarian consciousness it was an influence that affected Gramsci’s general Machiavellian analysis of power. However, Lenin and Stalin's ideological condemnation of Bogdanov prevented this influence from being clearly expressed and led Gramsci to conceal his interest in Bogdanov.

It is now clear that Bogdanov’s Tektology was a forerunner of the scientific paradigms of the 20th century such as cybernetics, systems theory and complexity science. When combined with Bogdanov’s universal science of organization, Gramsci’s power analysis and theory of hegemony offers a powerful tool for analyzing the complex hegemony of neoliberal globalization its organic crisis as well as constructing a counter-hegemonic line and project from the perspective of workers and other oppressed classes. The MEGA project, along with new sources such as English translations of Bogdanov's works^[28] and critical editions of Gramsci's writings, creates a unique opportunity to reassess these two legacies. In this context, the systematic integration of Gramsci and Bogdanov's ideas will strengthen Marxism's capacity to respond to contemporary global capitalism and open a new theoretical horizon for the future of socialist strategy.

References

Althusser, Louis. 1968a. Lenin and Philosophy. Paris: François Maspero. Accessed July 7, 2025. http://marx2mao.com/Other/LPOE70.html.

———. 1968b. For Marx. Translated by Ben Brewster. London: Allen Lane.

———. 1970. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes towards an Investigation.” In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Bailes, Kendall E. 1967. “Lenin and Bogdanov: The End of an Alliance.” In Columbia Essays in International Affairs, vol. 2, edited by Andrew W. Cordier, 196–225. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bakhurst, David. 2018. “On Lenin’s Materialism and Empiriocriticism.” Studies in East European Thought 70 (2–3): 107–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-018-9303-7.

Ballestrem, Karl G. 1969. “Lenin and Bogdanov.” Studies in Soviet Thought 9 (4): 283–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044195.

Bazarov, Vladimir. 1928. “Bogdanov as a Thinker.” In Empiriomonism: Essays in Philosophy, by Alexander Bogdanov, translated by David Rowley. Leiden: Brill, 2019.

Belykh, A. A. 1990. “A. A. Bogdanov’s Theory of Equilibrium and the Economic Discussions of the 1920s.” Soviet Studies 42 (3): 571–82.

———. 2022. “Communism = Soviet Power + Planning: Planning and Mathematical Economics in the Soviet Union.” In Communist Planning versus Rationality: Mathematical Economics and the Central Plan in Eastern Europe and China, edited by János Mátyás Kovács. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Benjamin, Walter. 1926. “Letter from Benjamin to Gerhard Scholem.” In Gesammelte Schriften: Briefe, vol. 1–2, 416–19. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1978.

Bergami, Giancarlo. 1977. Il giovane Gramsci e il marxismo 1911–1918. Milan: Feltrinelli.

Bermani, Cesare. 1981. “Breve storia del Proletkul’t italiano.” In Gramsci, gli intellettuali e la cultura proletaria, 121–55. Milan: Colibrì, 2007.

Biggart, John. 1981. “‘Anti-Leninist Bolshevism’: The Forward Group of the RSDRP.” Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes 23 (2): 134–53.   https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.1981.11091682.

———. 1998. “The Rehabilitation of Alexander Bogdanov.” In Bogdanov and His Work: A Guide to the Published and Unpublished Works of Alexander A. Bogdanov (Malinovsky) 1873–1928, edited by John Biggart, Georgii Gloveli, and Avraham Yassour, 1–15. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.             
https://www.academia.edu/50121899/The_Rehabilitation_of_Bogdanov.

———. 2016. “Alexander Bogdanov and the Short History of the Kultintern.” Vestnik Mezhdunarodnogo Instituta A. Bogdanova 3 (7): 76–87. https://www.academia.edu/attachments/57750641/download_file?s=portfolio.

———. 2020. “Lunacharsky at the Copenhagen Congress of the Socialist International (1910).” 
https://www.academia.edu/44824280/Lunacharsky_at_the_Copenhagen_Congress_of_the_Socialist_International_1910_.

———. 2021. Alexander Bogdanov and the Suppression of “Collectivism.”https://www.academia.edu/60162576/Alexander_Bogdanov_and_the_suppression_of_Collectivism_.

Biggart, John, Peter Dudley, and Francis King, eds. 1998. Alexander Bogdanov and the Origins of Systems Thinking in Russia. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Biggart, John, Georgiy Gloveli, and Avraham Yassour, eds. 1998. Bogdanov and His Work: A Guide to the Published and Unpublished Works of Alexander A. Bogdanov (Malinovsky) 1873–1928. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Blauberg, Igor V., Vadim N. Sadovsky, and Erik G. Yudin. 1977. Systems Theory: Philosophical and Methodological Problems. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Bogdanov, Alexander. 1907. “Open Letter to Plekhanov.” Vestnik Zhizni (The Herald of Life), no. 7.

———. 1923a. “Diary Entries about Arrest and Stay in the Internal Prison of the GPU with the Attachment of Letters Addressed to the Chairman of the GPU F. E. Dzerzhinsky, 25 Oktyabrya 1923.” In Neizvestnyy Bogdanov, vol. 3, book 1, 34–44. Moscow: ITS AIRO-XXI, 1995. Accessed July 7, 2025. https://ihst.ru/projects/sohist/document/bog95b2.htm.

———. 1923b. A Short Course of Economic Science. Translated by J. Fineberg. London: Labour Publishing Company.

———. 1980. Essays in Tektology. Translated by George Görelik. Systems Inquiry Series. Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications.

———. 1984. Red Star, Engineer Menni, and A Martian Stranded on Earth. Edited by Loren R. Graham and Richard Stites. Translated by Charles Rougle. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

———. 1996. Bogdanov’s Tektology: Book 1. Edited by Peter Dudley and Valentin N. Sadovsky. Translated by Vladimir Kelle et al. Hull, UK: Centre for Systems Studies Press.

———. 2002. The Struggle for Viability: Collectivism Through Blood Exchange. Translated by Dough Huestis. Xlibris.

———. 2015. The Philosophy of Living Experience: Popular Outlines. Translated by David Rowley. Bogdanov Library, Historical Materialism Book Series. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2019. Empiriomonism: Essays in Philosophy, books 1–3. Translated by David Rowley. Bogdanov Library, Historical Materialism Book Series. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2021. Toward a New World: Articles and Essays, 1901–1906. Translated by David Rowley. Bogdanov Library, Historical Materialism Book Series. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2022. Art and the Working Class. Translated by Taylor R. Genovese. Madison, WI: Iskra Books.

———. 2024. Glauben und Wissenschaft: Eine Erwiderung auf Lenins “Materialismus und Empiriokritizismus.” Translated by Werner Hedeler. Berlin: Dietz.

———. 2025. Towards the Scientific Defence of Historical Materialism: Basic Elements of the Historical View of Nature, Cognition from the Historical Point of View, The Science of Social Consciousness. Translated by David Rowley. Bogdanov Library, vol. 1, Historical Materialism Book Series. Leiden: Brill.

Bogdanov, Alexander, and Anatoly Lunacharsky. 1909. “Ko vsem tovarishcham! (To All Comrades!).” Rossiyskaya Sotsial Demokraticheskaya Rabochaya Partiya.    
http://lunacharsky.newgod.su/lib/ko-vsem-tovarishcham/.

Bogdanov, Alexander, et al. 1982. Fede e scienza: La polemica su Materialismo ed empiricriticismo di Lenin. Edited by Vittorio Strada. Turin: Einaudi.

Bordiga, Amadeo. 1924a. Lenin nel cammino della rivoluzione. Naples: Prometeo. Republished in La sinistra comunista in Italia sulla linea marxista di Lenin, edited by Programma Comunista. Milan: Programma Comunista, 1964.

———. 1924b. “La conferenza.” Stato Operaio, February 28, 1924, and Prometeo, March 15, 1924.

———. 1925. “Il pericolo opportunista e l’Internazionale.” L’Unità, September 30, 1925.

Brandist, Craig. 2012. “The Cultural and Linguistic Dimension of Hegemony: Aspects of Gramsci’s Debt to Early Soviet Cultural Policy.” Journal of Romance Studies 12 (3): 24–43. https://doi.org/10.3167/jrs.2012.120303.

———. 2015. The Dimensions of Hegemony: Language, Culture and Politics in Revolutionary Russia. Leiden: Brill.

Buci-Glucksmann, Christine. 1975. Gramsci and the State. Translated by David Fleybach. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1980.

Bukharin, Nikolai. 1920. Historical Materialism: A System of Sociology. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1926.

———. 1937. Philosophical Arabesques. Translated by Renfrey Clarke. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2005.

Cohen, Stephen I. 1975. Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution. New York: Vintage Books.

Eden, Medina. 2014. Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende’s Chile. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Freyberg, Sascha, and Giorgi Kobakhidze. 2024. “Beyond Ideology: Revisiting Dialectical Materialism in the Soviet Tradition.” In The History and Philosophy of Materialism, edited by Charles T. Wolfe and Joseph Symons, 334–50. London: Routledge.

Gerovitch, Slava. 2002. From Newspeak to Cyberspeak: A History of Soviet Cybernetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

———. 2008. “InterNyet: Why the Soviet Union Did Not Build a Nationwide Internet.” History and Technology 24 (3): 335–50.            https://doi.org/10.1080/0734151080190033.

Ghetti, Noemi. 2014. Gramsci nel cieco carcere degli eretici. Rome: L’Asino d’Oro Edizioni.

———. 2016. La cartolina di Gramsci: A Mosca, tra politica e amori, 1922–1924. Rome: Donzelli.

———. 2022. “Gramsci, i ‘bolscevichi di sinistra’ e il Proletkult torinese.” In L’Europa di Gramsci: Filosofia, letteratura e traducibilità, edited by L. La Porta and F. Marola. Rome: Bordeaux.

———. 2025. “Collettivismo e organizzazione: Tra dogma ed eresia, la difficile via culturale all’altra rivoluzione.” In Bogdanov, Gramsci e l’Altra Rivoluzione: Cultura, organizzazione, egemonia. Rome: Donzelli.

Ghetti, Noemi, and Andreas Iacarella. 2021. “Tra Russia e Italia, da Bogdanov a Gramsci: La via culturale alla rivoluzione.” Pandora Rivista, April 11.  
https://www.pandorarivista.it/articoli/tra-russia-e-italia-da-bogdanov-a-gramsci-la-via-culturale-alla-rivoluzione/.

Ghetti, Noemi, Andreas Iacarella, and Örsan Şenalp. 2025. Bogdanov, Gramsci e l’Altra Rivoluzione: Cultura, organizzazione, egemonia. Rome: Donzelli.

Gloveli, Georgiy J., and Nina K. Figurovskaya. 1990. “Tragedy of the Collectivist.” In Bogdanov, A. A.: Questions of Socialism: Works of Different Years, edited by Leonid I. Abalkin, compiled by Georgiy D. Gloveli, Nina V. K. Parmenov, and Nina K. Figurovskaya. Moscow: Politizdat.        
http://teatr-lib.ru/Library/Bogdanov/sociolism/.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1916. “Pietro Gavosto.” In Cronache torinesi, 1913–1917, edited by Sergio Caprioglio, 89–90. Turin: Einaudi, 1980.

———. 1920. “The Communist Party.” In Selections from Political Writings, 1910–1920, edited by Quintin Hoare, 333. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1990.

———. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

———. 1975. Quaderni del carcere. Edited by Valentino Gerratana. Rome: Giulio Einaudi Editore.

———. 1990. Selections from Political Writings, 1921–1926. Edited by Quintin Hoare. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

———. 1996. Prison Notebooks. Vol. 2. Edited and translated by Joseph A. Buttigieg. New York: Columbia University Press.

———. 2009. Epistolario, vol. 1, gennaio 1906–dicembre 1922. Edited by David Bidussa, Francesco Giasi, Giancarlo Luzzatto Voghera, and Maria Luisa Righi. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.

———. 2015. Scritti (1910–1926), vol. 2, 1917. Edited by L. Rapone, M. L. Righi, and B. Garzarelli. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.

———. 2019. Scritti (1910–1926), vol. 1, 1910–1916. Edited by G. Guida and M. L. Righi. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.

———. 2023. Scritti (1910–1926), vol. 3, 1918. Edited by L. Rapone and M. L. Righi. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.

Grille, Dietrich. 1966. Lenins Rivale: Bogdanov und seine Philosophie. Cologne: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik.

Guzzone, Giuliano. 2023. Ogni uomo è scienziato: Dialettica e scienze della natura nei Quaderni del carcere di Gramsci. Rome: Viella.

Haupt, Georges, and Jutta Scherrer. 1978. “Gor’kij, Bogdanov, Lenin: Neue Quellen zur ideologischen Krise in der bolschewistischen Fraktion (1908–1910).” Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique 19 (3): 321–34. https://doi.org/10.3406/cmr.1978.1323.

Hecker, Julius F. 1934. “The Empiriomonistic Revision of Marxism by A. Bogdanov.” In Russian Sociology, 279–300. London: Chapman & Hall.

Hoffman, David. 1972. “Bukharin’s Theory of Equilibrium.” Telos 14: 126–36.                https://doi.org/10.3817/1272014126.

Horkheimer, Max. 1928. “Lenin, Empiriokritizismus.” Typescript.  
 http://sammlungen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/horkheimer/content/pageview/6553849.

Iacarella, Andreas. 2025. “«Una vaga passione di una vaga cultura proletaria»: visioni, pratiche e lotte di un’idea rivoluzionaria.” In Bogdanov, Gramsci e l’Altra Rivoluzione: Cultura, organizzazione, egemonia. Rome: Donzelli.

Jekel, Michael. 2017. “Horkheimer on Lenin’s ‘Empiriocriticism’: Max Horkheimer’s 1928–29 Reaction to Lenin’s Epistemological Polemic Materialism and Empiriocriticism.” Platypus Review 98 (July–August).    
https://platypus1917.org/2017/07/21/horkheimer-lenins-empiriocriticism-max-horkheimers-1928-29-reaction-lenins-epistemological-polemic-materialism-empiriocriticism/.

Kononov, Illia F. 2025. “Prichiny upadka levoy idei cherez prizmu problemy kul’turnoy gegemonii proletariata: Lenin, Bogdanov, Gramshi i sovremennost.” Istorex. https://www.istorex.org/post/illia-kononov-pricini-upadka-levoi-idei.

Korsch, Karl. 1923. Marxism and Philosophy. Translated by Fred Halliday. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2008.

———. 1938. “Lenin’s Philosophy.” In Lenin as a Philosopher: A Critical Examination of the Philosophical Foundations of Leninism, by Anton Pannekoek.    https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/app-korsch.htm.

Krementsov, Nikolai. 2011. A Martian Stranded on Earth: Alexander Bogdanov, Blood Transfusions, and Proletarian Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Le Blanc, Paul. 2021. “Learning from Bogdanov: A Review of Red Hamlet: The Life and Ideas of Alexander Bogdanov by James D. White.” Historical Materialism. https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/learning-from-bogdanov/.

Lecourt, Dominique. 1978. Proletarian Science? The Case of Lysenko. Translated by Ben Brewster. New York: Humanities Press.

Lenin, Vladimir I. 1909. Materialism and Empirio-criticism: Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987.

———. 1920a. “Preface to the Second Edition.” In Materialism and Empirio-criticism: Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/pref02.htm.

———. 1920b. “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder. In Collected Works, vol. 31, 17–118. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964.

———. 1922a. “On the Significance of Militant Materialism.” Pod Znamenem Marksizma 3. Republished in Collected Works, vol. 33, 227–36. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972.

———. 1922b. “Last Testament: Letters to the Congress.” Kommunist 9 (1956). Republished in Collected Works, vol. 36, 593–611. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1997.

Mally, Lynn. 1990. Culture of the Future: The Proletkult Movement in Revolutionary Russia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mao, Zedong. 1964. “Talk on Questions of Philosophy.” August 18, 1964. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_27.htm.

Mason, Paul. 2016. Post-Capitalism: A Guide to Our Future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Mastrogregori, Massimo. 2008. I due prigionieri: Gramsci, Moro e la storia del Novecento italiano. Genoa: Casa Editrice Marietti.

McNally, Mark. 2008. “The Organization of Balance and Equilibrium in Gramsci’s Hegemony.” History of Political Thought 29 (4): 662–89

Nevsky, Vladimir. 1920. “Dialectical Materialism and the Philosophy of Dead Reaction.”
https://libcom.org/library/dialectical-materialism-philosophy-dead-reaction-vladimir-nevsky.

Omodeo, Daniel P. 2020. “The Struggle for Objectivity: Gramsci’s Historical-Political Vistas on Science against the Background of Lenin’s Epistemology.” Journal of History of Science and Technology 14 (2): 13–49.

Pannekoek, Anton. 1938. Lenin as a Philosopher: A Critical Examination of the Philosophical Foundations of Leninism.   
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/index.htm.

Pantaleoni, Maffeo. 1898. Pure Economics. Translated by T. Boston Bruce. New York: Macmillan.

Plekhanov, Georgi. 1907–10. “Materialismus Militans: Reply to Mr. Bogdanov.” In Selected Philosophical Works, vol. 3, 188–283. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976.

Preobrazhensky, Eugene A. 1926. The New Economics. Translated by Brian Pearce. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Rappoport, Charles. 1920. “Come conobbi Lenin.” Ordine Nuovo 1 (33), January 10, 1920: 263.

Riechers, Christian. 1970. Antonio Gramsci: Marxismus in Italien. Frankfurt am Main: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

Righi, Maria Luisa. 2011. “Gramsci a Mosca tra amori e politica (1922–1923).” Studi Storici 52 (4): 1005–8.

———. 2019. “Sulle rive dell’ampia Moscova: Gramsci nella Russia di Lenin.” In Gramsci nel movimento comunista internazionale, edited by Paolo Capuzzo and Silvio Pons, 133–56. Rome: Carocci.

Rispoli, Giulia. 2012. Dall’empiriomonismo alla tectologia: Organizzazione, complessità e approccio sistemico nel pensiero di Aleksandr Bogdanov. Preface by E. Gagliasso. Rome: Aracne.

———. 2015. Tektologia: Energia e cosmo-evoluzione nel pensiero sistemico russo. PhD diss., Sapienza University of Rome.

Rovelli, Carlo. 2021. Helgoland: Making Sense of the Quantum Revolution. New York: Penguin.

Rowley, David G. 2021. “The Influence of Friedrich Engels on Alexander Bogdanov’s Basic Elements of the Historical View of Nature.” Studies in East European Thought 73: 407–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-021-09414-9.

———. 2024a. “The Dual Meaning of ‘Empiriomonism’ in the Work of Alexander Bogdanov.” Studies in East European Thought 77: 329–50.                https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-024-09537-1.

———. 2024b. “Marxism as a Natural Science: Alexander Bogdanov’s Anti-Revisionist Revisionism.” Historical Materialism 32 (2): 265–94.       https://doi.org/10.1163/1569206X-12342024.

———. 2024c. “Alexander Bogdanov’s Synthesis of Newton and Hegel (via Engels): How His Early Works Resolved the Crisis in Science at the Turn of the Twentieth Century.”
https://www.academia.edu/120319920/Alexander_Bogdanovs_Synthesis_of_Newton_and_Hegel_via_Engels_How_His_Early_Works_Resolved_the_Crisis_in_Science_at_the_Turn_of_the_Twentieth_Century.

Samà, Antonio. 1992. “Fu Gramsci la risposta italiana a Bogdanov?” Bollettino filosofico 10: 311–19.

Scherrer, Jutta. 1979. “Bogdanov e Lenin: Il bolscevismo al bivio.” In Storia del marxismo, vol. 2, Il marxismo nell’età della Seconda Internazionale, 493–546. Turin: Einaudi.

Scherrer, Jutta, and Daniela Steila, eds. 2017. Gor’kij-Bogdanov e la scuola di Capri: Una corrispondenza inedita (1908–1911). Rome: Carocci.

Schmidt, Alfred. 1987. “Editorische Vorbemerkung.” In Max Horkheimer: Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 11, 171. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag.

Sclocco, Camilla. 2021. “Antonio Gramsci e le scienze sperimentali.” Consecutio Rerum 5 (10): 123–62.

———. 2024. “Epistemologia e filosofia della praxis: le ‘scienze sperimentali e naturali’ in Antonio Gramsci.” PhD diss., École normale supérieure de Lyon.

Shcheglov, Alexander. 1937. Bor’ba Lenina s bogdanovskoy reviziyey marksizma [Lenin’s Struggle with Bogdanov’s Revision of Marxism]. Moscow: State Publishing House.

Sheehan, Helena. 2005. “Introduction: A Voice from the Dead.” Preface to Nikolai Bukharin, Philosophical Arabesques. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Soboleva, N. A. 2008. “From the History of Soviet Political Symbolism.” Russian Studies in History 47 (2): 59–91.

Sochor, Zenovia A. 1981. “Was Bogdanov Russia’s Answer to Gramsci?” Studies in Soviet Thought 22: 59–81.

———. 1988. Revolution and Culture: The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Stalin, Joseph. 1924. Foundations of Leninism. Translated by Victor Barraza. In Works, vol. 6, 71–196. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953.

———. 1939. History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course. New York: International Publishers.         
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/index.htm.

Stokes, Kenneth M. 1996. Paradigm Lost: Cultural and Systems Theoretical Critique of Political Economy. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Strada, Vittorio. 1982. “Né fede né scienza.” In Fede e scienza: La polemica su Materialismo ed empiriocriticismo di Lenin, edited by Vittorio Strada, 3–54. Turin: Einaudi.

———. 1994. L’altra rivoluzione: Gor’kij, Lunačarskij, Bogdanov. La Scuola di Capri e la costruzione di Dio. Capri: La Conchiglia.

Susiluoto, Ilmari. 1982. The Origins and Development of Systems Thinking in the Soviet Union. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Şenalp, Örsan. 2025. “Verso un’egemonia organizzativa: ripensare l’analisi del potere di Gramsci alla luce della Tectologia di Bogdanov.” In Bogdanov, Gramsci e l’Altra Rivoluzione: Cultura, organizzazione, egemonia. Rome: Donzelli.

Şenalp, Örsan, and Gerald Midgley. 2023. “Alexander Bogdanov and the Question of Unity: An Emerging Research Agenda.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 40 (2): 328–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2866.

Şenalp, Örsan, Gerald Midgley, Viacheslav Maracha, and Svetlana Shchepetova. 2023. “Resurrecting Bogdanov on the 150th Anniversary of His Birth.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 40 (2): 285–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2922.

Ter-Vaganian. 1923. “I. Lenin and G. Plekhanov Against A. Bogdanov; G. V. Plekhanov: Three Articles Against Bogdanov.” Pod Znamenem Marksizma 8–9 (August–September): 285–87.

Thomas, Peter. 2009. The Gramscian Moment: Philosophy, Hegemony and Marxism. Leiden: Brill.

Trotsky, Leon. 1922. “Attention to Theory: Letter to the Editor of Under the Banner of Marxism.” Platypus Review 34 (April 2011).         
https://platypus1917.org/2011/04/03/attention-to-theory-letter-to-the-editor-of-under-the-banner-of-marxism/.

Utechin, Sergei V. 1958. “Bolsheviks and Their Allies After 1917: The Ideological Pattern.” Soviet Studies 10 (2): 113–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668135808410107.

Vittoria, Albertina. 2014. Togliatti e gli intellettuali: La politica culturale dei comunisti italiani (1944–1964). Rome: Carocci.

von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. 1951. “General System Theory: A New Approach to Unity of Science. 1. Problems of General System Theory.” Human Biology 23 (3): 302–12.

Wark, McKenzie. 2016. Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene. London: Verso.

White, James D. 2001. Lenin: The Practice and Theory of Revolution. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

———. 2018. Marx in Russia: The Fate of a Doctrine. London: Bloomsbury.

———. 2019. Red Hamlet: The Life and Ideas of Alexander Bogdanov. Leiden: Brill.

Williams, Alex. 2020. Political Hegemony and Social Complexity: Mechanisms of Power After Gramsci. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wu Ming. 2018. Proletkult. Rome: Giulio Einaudi.

Wu Ming 2. 2019. “Quando le eteronavi atterravano a Torino: Antonio Gramsci e la ‘quistione bogdanoviana’.”   
https://www.wumingfoundation.com/giap/2019/02/quando-le-eteronavi-atterravano-a-torino-antonio-gramsci-e-la-quistione-bogdanoviana/.

Yassour, Avraham. 1967. “Leçons de la Révolution de 1905: La controverse Lénine-Bogdanov.” PhD diss., Paris.

———. 1981. “Lenin and Bogdanov: Protagonists in the ‘Bolshevik Center’.” Studies in Soviet Thought 22 (1): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00835544.

Zinoviev, Gregory. 1918. Lenin: Speech to the Petrograd Soviet Celebrating Lenin’s Recovery from Wounds Received in the Attempt Made on His Life on August 30, 1918.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/zinoviev/works/1918/lenin/index.htm.

Biography

Örsan Şenalp, a Turkish-Dutch intellectual / knowledge worker, conducts research at the University of Amsterdam and works at Eindhoven University of Technology. His research focuses on Bogdanov's intellectual and political legacy.