A. A. Bogdanov, as an original and important thinker, is beginning to get his long-overdue recognition. Both Marot and Biggart articles are welcome contributions to expanding scholarship on Bogdanov. Together, they highlight an important element Bogdanov's thinking, namely, role of intellectuals before and after revolution. To extent that these two articles overlap, however, Marot and Biggart offer different on role of intellectuals. Although I am sympathetic to Marot's intellectual thrust of asking big question, I find myself agreement with Biggart's more carefully constructed analysis. Marot poses a fairly specific question to start: why was there a split between Lenin and Bogdanov? Although a variety of answers have been offered by historians, and most conclude that several reasons accumulated to precipitate a split, Marot remains He dissects issue of otzovism, and concludes that this was not reason for split, hence raising doubts about the validity of all interpretations which heretofore included otzovism. In addition, Marot asserts (without fully investigating) that neither intra-Party differences, at level of strategy or tactics, nor philosophical differences between Lenin and Bogdanov occasioned split. Rather, Marot argues that in 1909, Bogdanov's political perspective clashed with Lenin's. They no longer shared a common paradigm. Spelled out more detail, Marot claims that Bogdanov still adhered to intellectualist presuppositions of What Is to Be Done?, while Lenin had meanwhile reconsidered and sharply revised those presuppositions. At this point, it is my turn to remain unconvinced. Lenin kicked Bogdanov out of Party, forced a crisis within Bolshevism, lost some of leading Party intellectuals, all because Bogdanov insisted on remaining true to Lenin's own ideas (former or not). Nevertheless, I am less interested arguing over reasons for split than discussing conflict over long-term perspectives. Marot has raised a number of issues that cannot be passed over: 1. Did Lenin abandon (or even substantially revise) main arguments contained What Is to Be Done? In my opinion, he did not, but I