The Dissemination of *Capital* in Russia and the Formation of Lenin’s Conception of Capitalism

From the 1870s to the 1890s, intellectuals of various factions in Russia offered multiple interpretations of *Capital* and engaged in polemics over the question of Russian capitalism. Given this situation, there was an urgent need for someone to answer the practical question of where Russian capitalism was heading. From the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, Lenin, drawing on historical materialism and the economic theory of *Capital*, criticized the Russian liberal Narodniks and Russian legal Marxism, and ultimately formed a Marxist conception of capitalism.

19世纪70年代至90年代，俄国不同派别的知识分子对《资本论》进行了多种解读并围绕俄国资本主义问题展开了论战。基于这种状况，亟须有人对俄国资本主义向何处去的现实问题作出回答。19世纪末至20世纪初，列宁根据唯物史观和《资本论》的经济理论，批判俄国自由民粹派和俄国合法马克思主义，最终形成了马克思主义的资本主义观。

I. The Russian Debate on *Capital*

一、俄国关于《资本论》的辩论

After the publication of the first edition of Volume 1 of *Capital* in 1867, Russian intellectuals not only produced the earliest foreign-language translation of *Capital* in the world, but also never ceased their debates and interpretations surrounding it. In January 1873, in the Postface to the newly published second edition of Volume 1 of *Capital*, Marx specifically highlighted the research of the Russian scholar Sieber on the economic theory of *Capital* and the research of Kaufmann on its methodology. From 1877 to 1879, a debate on *Capital* erupted among Russian economists, sociologists, and liberal thinkers, making Russia the country where *Capital* was most fervently discussed in the world at that time. This debate was sparked by an article by the Russian economist Zhukovsky, after which the Russian liberal Narodnik thinker Mikhailovsky, the Russian economist Sieber, and the Russian liberal thinker Chicherin joined the polemic. Their debate greatly promoted the dissemination and interpretation of *Capital* in Russia.

自1867年《资本论》第1卷第1版出版以后，俄国知识分子不仅在世界上最早翻译出版了《资本论》的外文译本，而且围绕《资本论》的辩论和解读从来就没有停止过。1873年1月，马克思在新出版的《资本论》第1卷第2版《跋》中，特别强调了俄国学者季别尔关于《资本论》经济理论的研究，以及考夫曼关于《资本论》方法论的研究。1877年至1879年，俄国经济学家、社会学家和自由主义思想家围绕《资本论》发生了一场辩论，这使俄国成为当时世界上最热烈讨论《资本论》的国家。这场辩论由俄国经济学家茹科夫斯基的文章引起，之后俄国自由民粹主义思想家米海洛夫斯基、俄国经济学家季别尔、俄国自由主义思想家契切林加入论战，他们的辩论极大地促进了《资本论》在俄国的传播和解读。

In September 1877, Zhukovsky published an article, “Karl Marx and His *Capital*,” in the September 1877 issue of *European Herald*. In the article, he criticized Marx as a formalist, denied the continuity between Marx’s economic theory and classical British political economy, and attacked the theory of surplus value in *Capital*. This article immediately attracted the attention of Russian intellectual circles. In October–November 1877, Mikhailovsky published “Karl Marx Before the Court of Mr. Yu. Zhukovsky” in the October issue of *Notes of the Fatherland*, and Sieber published “Some Remarks on Mr. Yu. Zhukovsky’s Article ‘Karl Marx and His *Capital*’” in the November issue of the same journal. Both articles defended *Capital* on the basis of criticizing Zhukovsky’s misunderstanding of it. In 1878, Chicherin also joined the debate. He published “The German Socialists” in the 1878 Volume 6 of *Collection of State Knowledge*. This article was divided into two parts: “I. Lassalle” and “II. Marx.” Although, like Zhukovsky, he took a critical stance toward *Capital*, he acknowledged its value: “His work — *Capital* — is the highest expression of German socialist doctrine. Although only the first volume has been published so far, the theoretical system is fully unfolded.” In February 1879, Sieber published an article criticizing Chicherin, “P. Chicherin Against Karl Marx,” in *Rech*, again defending *Capital*. He argued that Marx, on the basis of the most accurate official data, explained the concentration of capital, the association of labor, the application of machinery, and the emancipation of man, and foresaw the end of the capitalist mode of production.

1877年9月，茹科夫斯基在《欧洲通报》1877年第9期上发表文章《卡尔·马克思和他的〈资本论〉一文》，在文章中批评马克思是形式主义者，否认马克思的经济理论与英国古典政治经济学的继承关系，批判《资本论》的剩余价值理论。这篇文章立刻引起了俄国思想界的关注。1877年10月至11月，米海洛夫斯基在《祖国纪事》第10期上发表《卡尔·马克思在尤·茹科夫斯基先生的法庭上》，季别尔在《祖国纪事》第11期上发表《对于尤·茹科夫斯基先生〈卡尔·马克思和他的《资本论》〉一文的若干意见》，这两篇文章都是在批评茹科夫斯基对《资本论》错误理解的基础上，为《资本论》辩护的。1878年，契切林也加入了这场辩论。他在《国务知识汇编》1878年第6卷上发表了《德国的社会主义者》，这篇文章分为两部分：《Ⅰ拉萨尔》和《Ⅱ马克思》。虽然他与茹科夫斯基一样，对《资本论》持批评态度，但是他承认《资本论》的价值：“他的著作——《资本论》是德国社会主义学说的最高表现。虽然到目前为止仅仅出版了第一卷，但是理论体系完全展开了。”1879年2月，季别尔在《言论》上发表批评契切林的文章《波·契切林反对卡尔·马克思》，再次为《资本论》辩护，认为马克思以最准确的官方资料为基础来说明资本的集中、劳动的联合、机器的运用以及人的解放，并且预见资本主义生产方式的终结。

Marx and Engels’ Russian friends, Kovalevsky and Lavrov, not only wrote to inform them of the fierce polemic that *Capital* had sparked in Russia, but also sent them articles commenting on *Capital* from Russia. In a letter to Engels in August 1878, Lavrov wrote: “Have you noticed the fierce polemic that has been raging around his name in the Russian press over the past year? Zhukovsky (the renegade) and Chicherin against Marx, Sieber and Mikhailovsky for Marx. And these are all long articles. I don’t think there is anywhere else where so many articles commenting on Marx’s works have appeared.” In fact, as early as November 1877, Marx had responded to Mikhailovsky’s article in *Notes of the Fatherland*; this was the famous “Letter to the Editorial Board of *Notes of the Fatherland*.” However, this letter was never sent or published during Marx’s lifetime, and even Engels only discovered it after Marx’s death. What interested Marx most was the question raised by Mikhailovsky concerning the scope of application of *Capital*. In the letter, he explicitly opposed turning the historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe in *Capital* into a historico-philosophical theory of a general path of development, and also opposed regarding the Western European path as a path that all peoples must follow. After Marx’s death in 1883, this letter circulated in Russia for a long time in the form of a French manuscript copy, and was later published for the first time, thanks to the efforts of Danielson, in the 1886 issue 5 of *The People’s Will Herald*.

马克思恩格斯的俄国朋友柯瓦列夫斯基、拉甫罗夫不仅写信告诉他们《资本论》在俄国引起的激烈论战，而且给他们寄去了俄国评论《资本论》的文章。拉甫罗夫在1878年8月致恩格斯的信中写道：“您有没有注意去年俄国报刊上围绕他的名字而进行的激烈的论战？茹科夫斯基（叛徒）和契切林反对马克思，季别尔和米海洛夫斯基支持马克思。而且这些都是长篇大论的文章。我看其他任何地方评论马克思著作的文章都没有这么多。”实际上，马克思早在1877年11月就对米海洛夫斯基在《祖国纪事》杂志上的文章作出了回应，这就是著名的《给〈祖国纪事〉编辑部的信》，但是这封信在马克思生前一直没有寄出也没有发表，甚至恩格斯也是在马克思逝世后才发现这封信的。马克思最感兴趣的是米海洛夫斯基提出的关于《资本论》适用范围的问题，并在信中明确表示反对把《资本论》关于西欧资本主义起源的历史概述变成一般发展道路的历史哲学理论，也反对把西欧道路看成一切民族都要走的道路。1883年马克思逝世后，这封信以法文手抄本的形式在俄国流传很久，之后在丹尼尔逊的努力下第一次公开发表在《民意导报》1886年第5期上。

This debate of the 1870s had a profound impact in Russia. As Engels said: “This letter, like everything that came from Marx’s pen, attracted great attention among various circles in Russia and was interpreted in the most diverse ways.” In the 1880s and 1890s, intellectuals of various factions in Russia, in their works studying *Capital* and Russian capitalism, would all mention the debate of the 1870s, and fierce polemics broke out due to different understandings of this debate.

19世纪70年代的这场辩论在俄国产生了深远的影响。正如恩格斯所说：“这封信同所有出自马克思手笔的东西一样，在俄国各界人士中引起极大注意，并被作了极不相同的解释。”19世纪八九十年代，俄国各派知识分子在研究《资本论》和俄国资本主义的著作中都会提到70年代的这场辩论，并且由于对这场辩论的不同理解而发生了激烈的论战。

II. The Polemic on the Question of Russian Capitalism

二、关于俄国资本主义问题的论战

While *Capital* was receiving great attention from Russian intellectuals, issues such as Russian land ownership and the rural commune also entered the purview of Marx’s research for *Capital*. As Engels stated in the Preface to Volume 3 of *Capital*: “For the chapter on ground rent, Marx undertook entirely new specialized research in the 1870s. For years, he studied, in the original, the statistical data and other publications on land ownership that inevitably appeared in Russia after the ‘Reform’ of 1861 — which his Russian friends provided to him in a very complete form — and made excerpts, intending to use them when reworking this chapter. Because of the diverse forms of land ownership and the exploitation of agricultural producers in Russia, Russia was to play the same role in the chapter on ground rent that England played in the first book in the study of industrial wage labor.” Unfortunately, Marx was unable to realize this plan.

《资本论》在备受俄国知识分子关注的同时，俄国的土地所有制以及农村公社等问题也进入马克思《资本论》研究的视野。正如恩格斯在《资本论》第3卷序言中所说：“马克思为了写地租这一篇，在70年代曾进行了全新的专门研究。他对于俄国1861年‘改革’以后必然出现的关于土地所有权的统计资料及其他出版物，——这是他的俄国友人以十分完整的形式提供给他的，——曾经根据原文进行了多年的研究，并且作了摘录，打算在重新整理这一篇时使用。由于俄国的土地所有制和对农业生产者的剥削具有多种多样的形式，因此在地租这一篇中，俄国应该起在第一册研究工业雇佣劳动时英国所起的那种作用。”遗憾的是，马克思没有能够实现这个计划。

This Russian friend who provided Marx with Russian research materials was none other than Danielson, the Russian translator of *Capital*. In his correspondence with Marx in the 1870s and 1880s, he deeply explored the issues of the Russian rural commune and Russian capitalism. Encouraged by Marx, in October 1880, Danielson published an article under the pseudonym Nikolai — on, “The Socio-Economic Situation in Our Country After the Reform,” in the October issue of the journal *Rech*. In February 1881, Marx read Danielson’s article with great interest, praised it as “indeed a highly ‘original’ article,” and offered suggestions for Danielson’s work: “The next question you should first study is the astonishing growth of the debts of the upper classes, the representatives of the landlords in agriculture, and you should show how they ‘crystallize’ in the social alembic under the supervision of the ‘new social pillar’.” At the same time, another representative figure of the Russian liberal Narodniks, Vorontsov, published a collection of essays, *The Fate of Capitalism in Russia*, under the pseudonym V. V. in 1882. In 1883, Russia’s first Marxist, Plekhanov, published the book *Our Differences*, in which, on the basis of criticizing the Russian liberal Narodniks, he initially expounded the Marxist conception of capitalism held by Russian Marxists. The question of Russian capitalism formally became an important issue explored by Russian intellectual circles in the 1880s and 1890s.

这位向马克思提供俄国研究资料的俄国友人正是《资本论》的俄国译者丹尼尔逊，他在19世纪七八十年代与马克思的通信中深入探讨了俄国农村公社问题、俄国资本主义问题。在马克思的鼓励下，1880年10月，丹尼尔逊以笔名尼古拉·—逊在《言论》杂志第10期上发表文章《我国改革后的社会经济概况》。1881年2月，马克思怀着极大的兴趣读完了丹尼尔逊的文章，称赞“这篇文章的确是极富于‘独创性的’”，并对丹尼尔逊的工作提出了建议：“您下一步首先要研究的问题，就是上层阶级在农业中的代表，地主们的债务的惊人增长，并且要指出，他们是怎样在‘新的社会支柱’的监督下在社会蒸馏器里面‘结晶’的。”与此同时，俄国自由民粹派的另一位代表人物沃龙佐夫在1882年以笔名瓦·沃·出版论文集《俄国资本主义的命运》。1883年，俄国第一位马克思主义者普列汉诺夫出版《我们的意见分歧》一书，他在批判俄国自由民粹派的基础上初步阐述俄国马克思主义者的资本主义观。俄国资本主义问题正式成为19世纪八九十年代俄国思想界探讨的重要问题。

In the 1890s, the Russian populists represented by Nikolai Danielson, the legal Marxists represented by the liberal thinker Pyotr Struve, and the revolutionary Marxists represented by Georgi Plekhanov—various factions of Russian intellectuals—engaged in a protracted and in-depth debate over the question of Russian capitalism. This debate was reflected not only in their writings but also in their correspondence with Engels. In 1893, Danielson supplemented and enriched an article he had published in 1880, publishing in St. Petersburg the monograph *Sketches of Our Post-Reform Social Economy*, in which he attempted to show readers that all of Russia’s economic ills were caused by the new forms of production, whose development made Russia’s suffering more acute. In October 1893, Struve published an article, “A Critique of the Development of Capitalism in Russia,” in issues 1–2 of the *Central Journal of Social Politics*, criticizing Danielson’s views. Subsequently, in 1894, he published the book *Critical Remarks on the Question of Russia’s Economic Development*, which on the one hand criticized the Russian populists’ rejection of capitalism and on the other hand expounded the “view of capitalism” held by the Russian legal Marxists. From 1894 to 1895, Danielson responded to Struve’s criticism in letters to Engels, arguing that Struve’s views contradicted both facts and theory and that he failed to understand the fact that all industrial sectors are closely interconnected. From May 1894 to March 1895, Plekhanov also repeatedly criticized Danielson’s view of capitalism in his letters to Engels. In a letter to Engels in July 1894, Plekhanov criticized Danielson: “Nikolai—on raises the question of capitalism as if capitalism did not yet exist in Russia. In fact, we have already tasted the bitter fruits of capitalism, and in addition, we are still suffering from the underdevelopment of capitalism.” In February 1895, Plekhanov again criticized Danielson’s dangerous idea of harboring illusions about the tsarist government, arguing that this would bring great harm to the Russian revolutionary movement, and requested that Engels refute Danielson’s distortion of *Capital*. In his reply, Engels said: “As for Danielson, I’m afraid nothing can be done with him… It is impossible to argue with this generation of Russians, who still believe in that spontaneous communist mission, which supposedly distinguishes Russia, the truly holy Rus, from other secular nations.”

19世纪90年代，以丹尼尔逊为代表的俄国自由民粹派、以自由主义思想家司徒卢威为代表的合法马克思主义者、以普列汉诺夫为代表的革命的马克思主义者等俄国各派知识分子关于俄国资本主义问题进行了持久而深入的论战，不仅体现在他们的著作中，而且也体现在他们与恩格斯的书信中。1893年，丹尼尔逊对1880年发表的文章进行了补充和丰富，在圣彼得堡出版了专著《我国改革后的社会经济概况》，试图向读者表明俄国的一切经济祸害都是新的生产形式造成的，这种生产形式的发展使俄国的痛苦更为剧烈。1893年10月，司徒卢威在《社会政治中央导报》第1—2期上发表《评俄国资本主义的发展》一文，批评丹尼尔逊的观点，之后在1894年出版《俄国经济发展问题的评述》一书，一方面批判俄国自由民粹派对资本主义的拒斥，另一方面阐述俄国合法马克思主义者的“资本主义观”。1894年至1895年，丹尼尔逊在致恩格斯的信中对司徒卢威的批评作出了回应，认为司徒卢威的观点同事实和理论相矛盾，且不了解一切工业部门彼此都密切联系的这一事实。1894年5月至1895年3月，普列汉诺夫也在致恩格斯的信中多次批评丹尼尔逊的资本主义观。普列汉诺夫在1894年7月致恩格斯的信中批评丹尼尔逊：“尼·—逊这样来提出资本主义问题，似乎资本主义在俄国还不存在。事实上，我们已经尝到了资本主义的苦头，此外，还在尝资本主义不够发达的苦头。”1895年2月，普列汉诺夫再次批评丹尼尔逊对沙皇政府抱有幻想的危险思想，认为这将给俄国革命运动带来巨大的危害，并请求恩格斯批驳丹尼尔逊对《资本论》的曲解。恩格斯在回信中说：“至于说到丹尼尔逊，恐怕对他无可奈何……同他所属的这一代俄国人是无法进行辩论的，他们至今还相信那种自发的共产主义使命，似乎这种使命把俄罗斯、真正神圣的罗斯同其他世俗民族区别开来。”

In this debate, the various factions of Russian intellectuals formed three views of capitalism: the Russian populists, represented by Danielson and Vasily Vorontsov, feared the destructive consequences of capitalism and sought to keep Russia from taking the capitalist path; the Russian legal Marxists, represented by Struve, emphasized the historical inevitability of capitalism but avoided mentioning its destructive effects; and the Russian Marxists, represented by Plekhanov, while criticizing the Russian populists and arguing that Russia had already entered the path of capitalist development, neither responded to the views of the legal Marxists nor established a Marxist view of capitalism in Russia.

俄国各派知识分子在这场论战中形成了三种资本主义观：以丹尼尔逊和沃龙佐夫为代表的俄国自由民粹派害怕资本主义带来的破坏性后果，力图使俄国避免走资本主义道路；以司徒卢威为代表的俄国合法马克思主义者强调资本主义的历史必然性，但避而不提资本主义的破坏性影响；以普列汉诺夫为代表的俄国马克思主义者虽然在批判俄国自由民粹派的基础上提出俄国已经进入资本主义发展道路的观点，但是既没有对俄国合法马克思主义的观点作出回应，也没有在俄国确立马克思主义的资本主义观。

III. The Formation of Lenin’s View of Capitalism

三、列宁资本主义观的形成

In the 1890s, Lenin, drawing on the interpretations of *Capital* by various factions of Russian intellectuals and the debate over the question of Russian capitalism, recognized the necessity of establishing a Marxist view of capitalism. The formation of Lenin’s view of capitalist development in Russia can be divided into three aspects: first, from 1893 to 1897, Lenin’s critique of the Russian populists in works such as *On the So-Called Market Question*, *What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats*, *A Critique of Economic Romanticism*, and *What Heritage Are We Rejecting?*; second, from 1894 to 1895, Lenin’s brief alliance with the Russian legal Marxists in *The Economic Content of Narodism and Its Critique in Mr. Struve’s Book*; and third, from 1895 to 1899, Lenin’s critique of the legal Marxists in articles such as *A Note on the Question of the Market Theory*, *Once More on the Theory of Realization*, *Capitalism in Agriculture*, and *The Agrarian Question and the “Critics” of Marx*.

19世纪90年代，列宁从俄国各派知识分子对《资本论》的解读以及围绕俄国资本主义问题的论战中，认识到必须建立马克思主义的资本主义观。列宁俄国资本主义发展观的形成可以分为三个方面：一是1893年至1897年，列宁在《论所谓市场问题》《什么是“人民之友”以及他们如何攻击社会民主党人？》《评经济浪漫主义》《我们拒绝什么遗产？》等著作中对俄国自由民粹派的批判；二是1894年至1895年，列宁在《民粹主义的经济内容及其在司徒卢威先生的书中受到的批评》中与俄国合法马克思主义的短暂联合；三是1895年至1899年，列宁在《市场理论问题述评》《再论实现论问题》《农业中的资本主义》《土地问题和马克思的“批评家”》等文章中对合法马克思主义的批判。

Nikolai Mikhailovsky’s subjective sociology was the philosophical foundation of the Russian populists and the main target of Lenin’s critique. As Lenin stated in *What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats*: “It is obvious that Marx’s basic idea of the natural-historical process of development of socio-economic formations radically destroyed this naive preaching that masqueraded as sociology.” This metaphysical sociology had never studied any social formation, had not even clarified the concept of a social formation, and had not conducted any actual research or objective analysis of any social relations; it always a priori concocted theories that were forever fruitless. As mentioned earlier, Mikhailovsky had defended the economic theory of *Capital* in 1877 and raised the question of the scope of its applicability, but he later changed his view. In 1894, Mikhailovsky wrote in *Literature and Life*: “*Capital* contains brilliant pages of historical content, but… these pages, in accordance with the book’s main theme, are limited to a specific historical period; they do not establish the basic principles of economic materialism, but merely touch upon the economic aspects of a certain type of historical phenomenon.” Lenin opposed Mikhailovsky’s characterization of Marx and Engels’ materialism as “economic materialism,” because the basic idea of Marx and Engels was to divide social relations into material social relations and ideological social relations, with ideological social relations being the superstructure of material social relations, while material social relations are formed independently of human will and are the forms of human activity for maintaining survival.

米海洛夫斯基的主观社会学是俄国自由民粹派的哲学基础，也是列宁批判的主要对象。正如列宁在《什么是“人民之友”以及他们如何攻击社会民主党人？》中所说：“显而易见，马克思关于社会经济形态发展的自然历史过程这一基本思想，从根本上摧毁了这种以社会学自命的幼稚说教。”这种形而上学的社会学没有研究过任何一种社会形态，甚至没有明确社会形态这个概念，没有对任何一种社会关系进行实际的研究和客观的分析，总是先验地臆造一些永远没有结果的理论。如前所述，米海洛夫斯基曾在1877年为《资本论》的经济理论辩护，并提出《资本论》的适用范围问题，但是他改变了之前的看法。1894年，米海洛夫斯基在《文学与生活》中指出：“《资本论》中有一些有历史内容的光辉篇页，但是……这些篇页也是按照此书的主旨，仅限于一个一定的历史时期，它们并不是确立经济唯物主义的基本原理，不过是涉及某类历史现象的经济方面。”列宁反对米海洛夫斯基把马克思恩格斯的唯物主义称为经济唯物主义，因为马克思恩格斯的基本思想是把社会关系分成物质的社会关系和思想的社会关系，思想的社会关系是物质的社会关系的上层建筑，而物质的社会关系是不以人的意志为转移而形成的，是人维持生存的活动的形式。

Lenin began his critique of the economic theory of the Russian populists from the perspective of market theory. In the opening of his early article *On the So-Called Market Question*, he wrote: “Can capitalism develop and fully develop in Russia when the masses of the people are very poor and growing poorer?” The Russian populists answered this question by saying: the development of capitalism requires a vast domestic market, but the impoverishment of the peasantry destroys the domestic market, making it impossible to establish a capitalist system; due to the impoverishment of the masses, Russian capitalism is weak, rootless, and cannot become the foundation of Russia’s social economy. Using *Capital* as his theoretical basis, Lenin criticized the erroneous understanding of *Capital* held by Danielson and other representatives of the Russian populists, who “were unable to explain our capitalism and built their arguments about capitalism on pure fiction.” Subsequently, representatives of the Russian populists, such as Nikolai Karyshev, put forward an economic program for the populists, which consisted of three main points: first, to reorganize the Peasant Land Bank, regulate the leasing of state lands, and develop the people’s economy; second, to remove all obstacles currently binding the village commune, transition to collective farming (agricultural socialization), and develop commune-based processing industries; and third, to grant low-interest loans, organize cooperative-style operations, invent cheaper engines, and implement other technical improvements. Lenin pointed out the illusory and impractical nature of this program: “What they want is a commodity economy without capitalism, a petty-bourgeois capitalism without expropriation or exploitation, which can only barely survive under the patronage of benevolent landlords and liberal administrators.” They refused to recognize the bourgeois nature of all production relations and were unwilling to see the inevitability of class struggle within this system.

列宁从市场理论入手批判俄国自由民粹派的经济理论，在早期文章《论所谓市场问题》的开头中写道：“在人民大众很穷而且愈来愈穷的时候，资本主义能否在我们俄国发展并充分发展起来呢？”俄国民粹派对此的回答是：资本主义的发展需要广大的国内市场，农民的破产破坏了国内市场，资本主义制度无法建立；由于群众的贫困化，俄国资本主义软弱无力，没有根基，不能成为俄国社会经济的基础。列宁以《资本论》为理论根据批评俄国自由民粹派代表丹尼尔逊等人对《资本论》的错误理解，他们“没有本领说明我国的资本主义，而把自己关于资本主义的论断建筑在纯粹的虚构上面”。之后，俄国自由民粹派的代表卡雷舍夫等人提出了自由民粹派的经济纲领，主要有三点：一是改组农民银行，整顿官地租佃，发展人民经济；二是扫除目前束缚村社的一切障碍，过渡到共耕制（农业社会化），发展村社加工业；三是发放低利贷款，组织劳动组合式的经营，发明更便宜的发动机和实行其他技术改良。列宁指出了这个纲领的虚幻性和不切实际性，“他们要的是没有资本主义的商品经济，要的是没有剥夺也没有剥削，只有在仁慈的地主和自由派的行政官庇护下勉强维持生活的小市民的资本主义”，他们不承认一切生产关系的资产阶级性质，不愿看见在这个制度下的阶级斗争的必然性。

In the process of criticizing the Russian liberal Narodniks, Lenin had a brief alliance with Legal Marxism. From the end of 1894 to the beginning of 1895, Lenin expressed support for Legal Marxism by writing the article “The Economic Content of Narodism and Its Criticism in Mr. Struve’s Book.” Lenin agreed with Struve’s criticism of Danielson: “Mr. Struve, in criticizing Nikolai—on, focuses his criticism on the fact that ‘this Russian political economist completely fails to understand Marx’s doctrine of class struggle and the state,’ and this is perfectly correct… Nikolai—on, because he fails to understand class struggle, becomes a utopian socialist, for ignoring the class struggle of capitalist society means ignoring the entire actual content of the socio-political life of that society, and inevitably leads to indulging in naive fantasies in order to realize his own wishes.” However, Lenin did not agree with Struve’s reduction of the essence of Narodism to a theory of Russia’s unique economic development or to a belief in such development. In Lenin’s view, “the essence of Narodism lies deeper: not in the doctrine of unique development, nor in Slavophilism, but in representing the interests and ideas of Russia’s small producers.” Consequently, while Struve criticized the subjectivism of Narodism, he fell into objectivism, as Lenin stated: “This is the language of an objectivist, not that of a Marxist (materialist). There is a difference between these two concepts (systems of views), and we must clarify it, because the main shortcoming of Mr. Struve’s book is that it does not fully grasp this difference, which is evident in most of his arguments.”

在批判俄国自由民粹派的过程中，列宁与合法马克思主义曾有过短暂的联合。1894年底至1895年初，列宁通过写作《民粹主义的经济内容及其在司徒卢威先生的书中受到的批评》一文对合法马克思主义予以声援。列宁赞同司徒卢威对丹尼尔逊的批评：“司徒卢威先生批评尼古·—逊先生时，重点是批评‘这位俄国政治经济学家完全不懂马克思关于阶级斗争和国家的学说’，这是十分正确的……尼古·—逊先生由于不懂阶级斗争而成了空想主义者，因为忽视资本主义社会的阶级斗争，从而就会忽视这个社会的社会政治生活的全部实际内容，就会为了实现自己的愿望而不可避免地沉溺在天真的幻想之中。”但是，列宁并不赞同司徒卢威把民粹主义的实质归结为俄国经济独特发展理论或者是对这种发展的信仰。在列宁看来，“民粹主义的实质在更深的地方：不在独特发展的学说，也不在斯拉夫主义，而在代表俄国小生产者的利益和思想”。因此，司徒卢威在批判民粹主义的主观主义的同时陷入了客观主义，正如列宁所说：“这是客观主义者的语言，而不是马克思主义者（唯物主义者）的语言。这两种概念（观点体系）是有差别的，我们应当加以说明，因为司徒卢威先生这本书的主要缺点就是没有完全弄清这一差别，这表现在他的大部分论断中。”

Lenin still began from the theory of markets to analyze the Legal Marxists’ view of capitalism, but the Legal Marxists had significant disagreements on the issue of capitalist markets. Tugan-Baranovsky criticized Bulgakov for lacking originality, Bulgakov criticized Tugan-Baranovsky for incorrectly understanding the doctrines of pre-Marxian economists, and Struve criticized both Tugan-Baranovsky and Bulgakov for misunderstanding Marx’s theory of realization. In August 1899, Lenin published “Once More on the Theory of Realization” in issue No. 8 of the journal *Nauchnoye Obozreniye* (Scientific Review), summarizing this disagreement: “In my view, Struve’s polemic with the aforementioned authors stems less from substantive differences of opinion than from Struve’s erroneous understanding of the content of the theory they were defending.” The market theory of bourgeois economists fundamentally differs from Marx’s theory of realization. The former holds that products are exchanged for products, so production and consumption should correspond; the latter analyzes how the reproduction and circulation of total social capital proceed in capitalist society and how products are realized. In this process, not only is coordination between production and consumption impossible, but the contradictions inherent in capitalism are also manifested. Struve misunderstood Marx’s theory, fantasizing that it could become a theory for reviving capitalism and a theory for defending the bourgeoisie. In contrast, Lenin believed that Marx’s theory provides the most powerful weapon against such apologetics. Marx’s theory not only elucidates the process of reproduction and circulation of total social capital but also points out the contradictions inherent in capitalism. Therefore, one must recognize both the historical progressiveness of capitalism and its historical transience.

列宁仍然是从市场理论入手分析合法马克思主义的资本主义观，但是合法马克思主义者关于资本主义的市场问题存在着较大分歧，杜冈-巴拉诺夫斯基批评布尔加柯夫毫无创见，布尔加柯夫批评杜冈-巴拉诺夫斯基没有正确地理解马克思之前的经济学家的学说，司徒卢威则批评杜冈-巴拉诺夫斯基、布尔加柯夫没有正确理解马克思的实现论。1899年8月，列宁在《科学评论》杂志第8期上发表《再论实现论问题》对这场分歧作了总结：“在我看来，司徒卢威同上述作者进行论战，与其说是由于实质性的意见分歧，不如说是由于司徒卢威错误地理解了他们所捍卫的理论的内容。”资产阶级经济学家的市场理论同马克思的实现论有根本的区别，前者认为产品是用产品来交换的，因此生产和消费应当适应，后者则分析资本主义社会中社会总资本的再生产和流通是如何进行的，产品是如何实现的。在这个过程中不仅生产与消费无法协调，而且表现出来的是资本主义所固有的矛盾。司徒卢威错误地理解马克思的理论，幻想马克思的理论成为复活资本主义的理论和为资产阶级辩护的理论。相反，列宁认为，马克思的理论提供了最有力的武器去反对这种辩护论，马克思的理论既阐明了社会总资本的再生产过程和流通过程，也指出了资本主义所固有的矛盾，因此不仅要认识到资本主义的历史进步性，同时也要认识到资本主义的历史短暂性。

In summary, on the one hand, Lenin criticized the subjective sociology of the Russian liberal Narodniks and the objectivism of Legal Marxism on the basis of historical materialism; on the other hand, he criticized the Russian liberal Narodniks’ rejection of capitalism and the Legal Marxists’ glorification of capitalism on the basis of *Capital*. Ultimately, by correctly applying historical materialism and *Capital*, he formed a Marxist view of capitalism.

总的来说，列宁一方面根据唯物史观批判俄国自由民粹派的主观社会学和合法马克思主义的客观主义，另一方面，根据《资本论》批判俄国自由民粹派拒斥资本主义和合法马克思主义美化资本主义的错误思想。最后，在正确运用唯物史观和《资本论》的基础上形成马克思主义的资本主义观。

IV. Lenin and the “Russian *Capital*”

四、列宁与“俄国的《资本论》”

*Capital* was the earliest Marxist work that Lenin studied in depth. From 1888 to 1894, Lenin made extensive annotations on the first German edition of Volume 1 of *Capital*, the first Russian edition of Volume 1, the 1885 German edition of Volume 2, the 1886 Russian edition of Volume 2, and the 1894 German edition of Volume 3. He placed great importance on *Capital*’s study of simple cooperation, manufacture, and large-scale machine industry in the development of capitalist production, as well as their interrelations and the transitional forms through which they successively replaced one another. Lenin repeatedly praised the great achievements of *Capital* in his works: “The success of *Capital* is so great because this book by the ‘German economist’ shows the reader the entire capitalist social formation as a living entity, with all its aspects of daily life, with the actual social manifestations of the class antagonism inherent in its relations of production, with the bourgeois political superstructure that defends the rule of the capitalist class, with bourgeois ideas such as freedom and equality, and with bourgeois family relations.”

《资本论》是列宁最早深入研读的马克思主义著作。从1888年至1894年，列宁对《资本论》第1卷德文第1版、《资本论》第1卷俄文第1版、《资本论》第2卷1885年德文版、《资本论》第2卷1886年俄文版、《资本论》第3卷1894年德文版作了大量的批注，非常重视《资本论》对资本主义生产发展中的简单协作、工场手工业、大机器工业以及它们之间的相互关系及其依次更迭的过渡形式的研究。列宁多次在著作中高度赞扬《资本论》的伟大成就：“《资本论》的成就之所以如此之大，是由于‘德国经济学家’的这部书使读者看到整个资本主义社会形态是个活生生的形态，有它的日常生活的各个方面，有它的生产关系所固有的阶级对抗的实际社会表现，有维护资本家阶级统治的资产阶级政治上层建筑，有资产阶级的自由平等之类的思想，有资产阶级的家庭关系。”

Although intellectuals of various Russian schools acknowledged the great achievements and theoretical contributions of *Capital*, they could not correctly understand its methodology, especially its proper application to the study of Russian capitalism. However, their debates promoted the dissemination of Marxism in Russia. They not only emphasized the important influence of *Capital* in Russia in their works but also demonstrated the significance of applying *Capital* to the study of Russian problems. The representative of Russian Legal Marxism, Struve, wrote in his book *Critical Remarks on the Question of Russia’s Economic Development*: “Nowhere have Marx’s ideas been accepted as quickly as in Russia, and not only by the journalistic world but also by the so-called ‘scientific’ world.” “Marx’s theory is of enormous significance for understanding the problems of Russia’s economic development.” In summarizing this controversy, Lenin stressed: “The creation of a new methodology and a new theory of political economy was a tremendous advance in social science and a huge step forward for socialism. Therefore, as soon as *Capital* appeared, ‘the fate of capitalism in Russia’ became the main theoretical question for Russian socialists, the focus of the most heated debates, and the pivot on which the resolution of the most important programmatic principles turned.” Lenin’s critique of the Russian liberal Narodniks and Russian Legal Marxism was precisely an application of the methodology and economic theory of *Capital*. It not only answered the question of the fate of capitalism in Russia but also resolved the problem of how to apply *Capital* to Russia.

俄国各派知识分子虽然承认《资本论》的伟大成就和理论贡献，但是不能正确地理解《资本论》的方法论，特别是不能正确运用《资本论》研究俄国资本主义问题，但是他们的争论促进了马克思主义在俄国的传播。他们不仅在著作中强调《资本论》在俄国的重要影响，而且说明运用《资本论》研究俄国问题的重要意义。俄国合法马克思主义的代表司徒卢威在《俄国经济发展问题的评述》一书中写道：“马克思的思想无论在哪里都没有像在俄国这样迅速地被接受，它不仅为政论界所接受，而且也为所谓的‘科学’界所接受。”“马克思的理论对认识俄国经济发展的问题有着巨大的意义。”列宁在总结这场论争时强调：“新的方法论和新的政治经济学理论的创立，是社会科学的极大进步，是社会主义的巨大进展，所以《资本论》一出现，‘俄国资本主义的命运’问题就成了俄国社会主义者的主要理论问题，最热烈的争论都集中在这个问题上，最重要的纲领性原理的解决都以这个问题为转移。”列宁对俄国自由民粹派和俄国合法马克思主义的批判正是对《资本论》的方法论和经济理论的运用，不仅回答了俄国资本主义命运的问题，而且解决了《资本论》如何运用于俄国的问题。

From 1895 to 1899, while publishing a series of critical articles, Lenin also completed the book *The Development of Capitalism in Russia*. This work was not only a direct continuation of *Capital*, but in a certain sense could be called “the Russian *Capital*”; its publication marked the establishment of Lenin’s view of the development of capitalism in Russia. As the preface to the first edition states: “This book (most of which was already set in type when we received it) is the most noteworthy masterpiece among the latest economic writings after the third volume of *Capital*.” [28]28 V. I. Lenin, *The Development of Capitalism in Russia*, preface to the first edition, quoting a review by an unnamed critic. The purpose of this book was to examine the question of how the domestic market for Russian capitalism was formed. Lenin emphasized that “this question was long ago raised by the main representatives of the populist viewpoint (headed by Mr. V. V. and Mr. N. —on)” [29]29 V. I. Lenin, *The Development of Capitalism in Russia*, preface to the first edition. “V. V.” was the pseudonym of Vladimir Vorontsov (1847–1918), a leading Russian liberal populist economist; “N. —on” was the pseudonym of Nikolai Danielson (1844–1918), a Russian populist economist and translator of *Capital*. and, on this basis, using historical materialism and *Capital*, he answered the question of the fate of Russian capitalism: “To acknowledge the progressive nature of this role is fully consistent with the complete acknowledgment of the negative and dark sides of capitalism, and with the complete acknowledgment of the profound and comprehensive social contradictions inevitably inherent in capitalism, which reveal the historical transience of this economic system.” [30]30 V. I. Lenin, *The Development of Capitalism in Russia*, chapter 1, section 9. It was precisely through this dialectical analysis of the role of capitalism that Lenin, while criticizing the Russian liberal populists’ rejection of capitalism, came to recognize the historical inevitability of capitalism, and, while criticizing the Russian legal Marxists’ beautification of capitalism, came to recognize the historical transience of capitalism. Thus, from the dual perspectives of the history of Marxist development and the history of Russian thought, he established the Marxist view of capitalism.

1895年至1899年，列宁在发表一系列批判文章的同时还完成了《俄国资本主义的发展》一书，这本著作不仅是《资本论》的直接继续，而且在一定意义上可以称之为“俄国的《资本论》”，它的出版标志着列宁的俄国资本主义发展观的确立。正如第一版序言所说：“这部书（我们收到它时，本书大部分已经排好）是继《资本论》第3卷之后最新经济学著述中最值得注意的杰作。”这本著作的目的是考察俄国资本主义的国内市场如何形成的问题，列宁强调“这个问题早就由民粹派观点的主要代表者（以瓦·沃·先生和尼·—逊先生为首）提出”，并在此基础上运用唯物史观和《资本论》对俄国资本主义的命运问题做出了回答：“承认这种作用的进步性，与完全承认资本主义的消极面和黑暗面，与完全承认资本主义所必然具有的那些揭示这一经济制度的历史暂时性的深刻的全面的社会矛盾，是完全一致的。”正是通过对资本主义作用的辩证分析，列宁在批判俄国自由民粹派对资本主义拒斥的基础上认识到资本主义的历史必然性，在批判俄国合法马克思主义对资本主义美化的基础上认识到资本主义的历史暂时性，从而在马克思主义发展史和俄国思想史的双重视阈下确立了马克思主义的资本主义观。

As the Yugoslav scholar Predrag Vranicki said, Lenin “saw the real trends of Russian society and the structure of this society more deeply than all other Marxists, and this was a prerequisite for Lenin’s ability to assess the concrete historical situation in Russia at that time so correctly and clearly.” [31]31 Predrag Vranicki, *History of Marxism*, Vol. 2, Zagreb: Naprijed, 1971, p. 213. Lenin not only correctly understood the methodology and economic theory of *Capital*, but also creatively applied Marx’s doctrine to study and solve Russian social and economic problems. On the basis of criticizing the erroneous views of capitalism held by the Russian liberal populists and legal Marxists, he established the Marxist view of capitalism and applied it to the practice of the Russian revolution. This not only advanced the ideological process of adapting Marxism to the Russian context, but also brought Russian Marxism into the new stage of Leninism.

正如南斯拉夫学者普雷德拉格·弗兰尼茨基所说，列宁“比所有其他马克思主义者更深刻地看清俄国社会的真实动向和这个社会的结构，而这又是列宁能够如此正确地和清楚地估计当时俄国历史具体形势的一个前提”。列宁不仅正确地理解《资本论》的方法论和经济理论，又创造性地运用马克思的学说研究和解决俄国社会和经济问题，在批判俄国自由民粹派和合法马克思主义者的错误的资本主义观的基础上建立了马克思主义的资本主义观，并将之用于俄国革命的实践，不仅推动了马克思主义俄国化的思想进程，而且使俄国马克思主义进入列宁主义的新阶段。

References:

参考文献：

[1]1 The Narodniks (from the Russian *narod*, “people”) were a Russian populist movement of the late 19th century that believed Russia could bypass capitalism and build socialism on the basis of the peasant commune. The “liberal Narodniks” were a later, reformist wing that abandoned revolutionary struggle. *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 5, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009.

[1]《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，北京：人民出版社，2009年。

[2]2 “Legal Marxism” was a current of Russian Marxist thought in the 1890s that operated within the limits of tsarist censorship (“legally”). Its proponents, such as Peter Struve, emphasized the progressive role of capitalism in Russia and later largely abandoned revolutionary Marxism for liberalism. Zheng Jin, ed., *Research on the Editions and Dissemination of Capital*, Beijing: Central Compilation and Translation Press, 2013.

[2]郑锦主编：《〈资本论〉版本及传播研究》，北京：中央编译出版社，2013年。

[3]3 Nikolai Sieber (1844–1888) was a Ukrainian-born Russian economist and early defender of Marx’s economic theory. Liu Changjun, ed., *A Study Reader on Lenin’s The Development of Capitalism in Russia*, Beijing: Central Compilation and Translation Press, 2014.

[3]刘长军编著：《列宁〈俄国资本主义的发展〉研究读本》，北京：中央编译出版社，2014年。

[4]4 Ilya Kaufman (1848–1916) was a Russian economist whose review of *Capital* Marx cited approvingly in the Postface to the second edition for correctly describing his dialectical method. Wang Qingfeng, *The Reappearance of Capital*, Beijing: Central Compilation and Translation Press, 2016.

[4]王庆丰：《〈资本论〉的再现》，北京：中央编译出版社，2016年。

[5]5 Yuly Zhukovsky (1822–1907) was a Russian economist and liberal publicist. Ma Longshan, *Russian Populism and Its Cross-Century Influence*, Guilin: Guangxi Normal University Press, 2013.

[5]马龙闪：《俄国民粹主义及其跨世纪影响》，桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2013年。

[6]6 Nikolai Mikhailovsky (1842–1904) was a leading Russian liberal Narodnik sociologist and literary critic. Bai Gang, *Return to Capital: A “Critique of Political Economy” for the 21st Century*, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2018.

[6]白刚：《回到〈资本论〉：21世纪的“政治经济学批判”》，北京：人民出版社，2018年。

[7]7 Boris Chicherin (1828–1904) was a Russian liberal jurist, philosopher, and historian. Zhang Leisheng, ed., *History of the Development of Marxism*, Vol. 2, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2018.

[7]张雷声主编：《马克思主义发展史》第2卷，北京：人民出版社，2018年。

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑