Skip to content

Helgoland a quantum physicists crusade against Lenin

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The article argues that Carlo Rovelli's Helgoland is not a neutral contribution to quantum mechanics but a philosophical attack on materialism, and by extension on Lenin, the twentieth century's most formidable defender of the materialist worldview. Rovelli's "relational interpretation" of quantum mechanics is exposed as a variant of subjective idealism dressed in new terminology. The central claim is that Rovelli, despite professing to reject both materialism and idealism, ultimately lands squarely in the idealist camp — and that this is not incidental but politically consequential. The article insists that philosophical struggles over the nature of matter are inseparable from the class struggle, and that Rovelli's flirtation with Machism and his political sympathy for Bogdanov represent a coherent retreat from revolutionary Marxism.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is grounded in Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-criticism (1909), which the article treats as the definitive Marxist refutation of the Machian positivism that Rovelli revives. The argument draws on several key Lenin-derived concepts:

  • The "sole property" of matter — that it exists objectively, independently of consciousness. The article uses Lenin's formulation to counter the claim that matter "disappears" as science advances, arguing instead that it is only our limited understanding of matter that retreats.
  • The critique of "economy of thought" — Lenin's demonstration that this principle is a subjectivist evasion of the question of objective truth. The article applies this directly to Rovelli's dismissal of Bohmian mechanics as "uneconomical."
  • The critique of "energeticism" — Lenin's refutation of Ostwald and Mach's attempt to replace matter with energy. The article shows that Rovelli's substitution of "relations" for matter repeats the same error: it evades rather than answers the materialist-idealist divide.
  • The distinction between revising the form of materialism and betraying its essence — a crucial Leninist distinction that the article uses to expose Rovelli's claim to be combating only "naive materialism" as a cover for abandoning materialism altogether.

The article situates itself within the Marxist tradition's long engagement with natural science, from Engels's Dialectics of Nature through Lenin's polemic against Bogdanov to contemporary defences of dialectical materialism. It explicitly rejects the notion that philosophy can be bracketed from scientific practice, citing the Nazi physicist Pascual Jordan as proof that the class enemy understands the stakes perfectly.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article connects Rovelli's philosophical idealism to the broader political and ideological conjuncture in several ways:

  • The revival of Machism in popular science writing. Rovelli's book was a commercial success, endorsed by major liberal publications (The Times, Financial Times, The Guardian). The article treats this as evidence that idealism has become fashionable in bourgeois intellectual circles, precisely as Marxism faces renewed interest among a new generation.
  • The political trajectory of the "old left." Rovelli is identified as a veteran of 1970s communist circles who has abandoned Leninism for a vague, anti-authoritarian leftism. The article draws a direct line from this political retreat to his philosophical embrace of Bogdanov — the implication being that philosophical idealism and political opportunism are structurally linked.
  • The resurgence of Bohmian mechanics. The article notes that David Bohm's pilot-wave theory — a materialist, deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics — was suppressed during the McCarthy era and is now experiencing a revival. This is presented as evidence that the scientific establishment's hostility to materialism is politically motivated, not scientifically grounded.
  • The ideological function of "quantum mysticism." The article argues that the ruling class, which once produced daring materialist thinkers during the Scientific Revolution, now promotes obscurantism as a weapon against working-class consciousness. The struggle over quantum mechanics is thus a front in the class war.

Where the Argument Continues

The article is part of a broader corpus of Marxist interventions on science and philosophy. The argument continues in:

  • Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-criticism — the foundational text that the article repeatedly invokes. Any serious engagement with the article's claims requires reading Lenin's original polemic.
  • Other In Defence of Marxism articles on dialectical materialism and natural science. The journal regularly publishes on the philosophy of science, the history of materialism, and the critique of positivism. These provide the theoretical context for the specific argument against Rovelli.
  • Against the Stream episodes — the RCI's podcast series, which has covered the relationship between Marxism and science, the legacy of Bogdanov, and the political history of the Machian controversy.
  • The Wellred Books edition of Materialism and Empirio-criticism — promoted at the end of the article as the essential companion text.

The article leaves open the question of how dialectical materialism can positively contribute to the interpretation of quantum mechanics — it defends the possibility of a materialist interpretation (citing Bohm) but does not develop one. This is a gap the tradition continues to address.

Connections

  • V.I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-criticism — the unavoidable reference point. The article is essentially a contemporary application of Lenin's 1909 polemic.
  • Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature — the broader Marxist framework for understanding the dialectics of natural science.
  • David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order — the materialist alternative to the Copenhagen and relational interpretations.
  • Pascual Jordan — cited as the clearest example of a quantum physicist who understood the political utility of idealism. His writings are a useful primary source for the argument that quantum mysticism serves counter-revolutionary ends.
  • Alexander Bogdanov — the historical figure at the centre of the political-philosophical split. Rovelli's dedication to Bogdanov is treated as a political statement.
  • Bernardo Kastrup — the contemporary idealist philosopher who explicitly endorses Rovelli's interpretation. The article uses Kastrup's clarity to expose what Rovelli leaves ambiguous.

Key Quotes

  1. "For the sole 'property' of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our mind." (Lenin, quoted in the article)

  2. "Is it 'more economical' to 'think' of the atom as indivisible, or as composed of positive and negative electrons? ... Human thought is 'economical' only when it correctly reflects objective truth, and the criterion of this correctness is practice, experiment and industry." (Lenin, quoted in the article)

  3. "If we replace matter with 'energy' or 'motion' as the fundamental basis of reality, the question is still posed whether we are talking about motion occurring in an objective, material world independent of us, or in our minds. If we replace the terms 'energy' and 'motion' in the aforementioned quotation with 'relations', it reads as a direct answer to Rovelli."

  4. "The struggle against idealism is thus bound up with the struggle for a scientific outlook towards all areas of society and nature, and it is bound up with the struggle of the proletariat to achieve a clear insight into its interests and historic tasks."

  5. "It is a sign of the rottenness of the capitalist class, that once produced such pioneers, that the whole thrust of their thinking is once more towards medievalism. They now turn from reality, obfuscating and sowing mysticism, in order to dupe the masses."

  6. "We criticise the Machians not for making such a revision, but for their purely revisionist trick of betraying the essence of materialism under the guise of criticising its form and of adopting the fundamental precepts of reactionary bourgeois philosophy..." (Lenin, quoted in the article)