The Theoretical Essence of Lenin’s New Economic Policy and Its Contemporary Value

In March 1921, Lenin led the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to decisively terminate the policy of War Communism and begin implementing the New Economic Policy. This shift had a profound impact on the history of the development of Marxism and the history of the international communist movement. It not only enabled the Soviet regime led by the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to overcome unprecedented severe economic difficulties and political crises, but also became a vivid textbook for communists pondering “what socialism is and how to build it.” As the chief architect of reform and opening up, when Deng Xiaoping was contemplating the major theoretical and practical question of “what socialism is and how to build it” in the 1980s, he clearly stated, “Perhaps Lenin’s line of thinking was better; he came up with the New Economic Policy.” [1]1 Deng Xiaoping, “Remarks on the Draft Resolution on the Party’s History,” Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Vol. 2, p. 313. In January 2013, General Secretary Xi Jinping highly affirmed that the New Economic Policy was the crystallization of Lenin’s arduous exploration of how to build socialism without the benefit of previous experience. [2]2 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the First Collective Study Session of the Political Bureau of the 18th Central Committee,” January 28, 2013. Although the New Economic Policy is now a full 100 years in the past, and the practical content of socialism with Chinese characteristics has far surpassed Lenin’s New Economic Policy in both depth and breadth, grasping the theoretical essence of Lenin’s New Economic Policy—including taking whether the people are satisfied as the basis for the Party’s policy formulation and the standard for judging the success or failure of the Party’s work; constantly opening up new realms of socialism by proceeding from practice rather than from books; being adept at viewing problems from a political perspective and ensuring that no political dangers or errors occur; and using capitalism to build socialism so that the Russia of the New Economic Policy becomes a socialist Russia—still holds very important practical reference significance for building socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era.

1921年3月，列宁带领俄共（布）果断终止战时共产主义政策，开始实施新经济政策。这一转变在马克思主义发展史和国际共产主义运动史上影响深远。它不仅使俄共（布）领导的苏维埃政权克服了空前严峻的经济困难和政治危机，也成为共产党人思考“什么是社会主义、怎样建设社会主义”的生动教材。作为改革开放的总设计师，邓小平在20世纪80年代思考“什么是社会主义、怎样建设社会主义”这一重大理论和实践问题时，明确指出“可能列宁的思路比较好，搞了个新经济政策”。2013年1月，习近平总书记高度肯定新经济政策是列宁在没有前人经验借鉴的情况下对如何建设社会主义进行艰辛探索的结晶。虽然，新经济政策距今已经整整100周年，中国特色社会主义的实践内容无论是从深度还是从广度上也都远远超越了列宁时期的新经济政策，但把握列宁新经济政策的理论精髓，包括把人民是否满意作为党制定政策的依据和判断党的工作得失成败的标准、必须从实践而不是从书本出发不断开辟社会主义的新境界、要善于从政治看问题和必须不发生政治上的危险与错误、利用资本主义建设社会主义以使新经济政策的俄国成为社会主义的俄国等，对于建设新时代中国特色社会主义仍然具有十分重要的现实借鉴意义。

I. Whether the People Are Satisfied Is the Basis for the Party’s Policy Formulation and the Standard for Judging the Success or Failure of the Party’s Work

一、人民是否满意是党制定政策的依据和判断党的工作得失成败的标准

At the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) held in the spring of 1921, Lenin led the entire Party in deciding to end the policy of War Communism and begin implementing the New Economic Policy. The direct impetus for this shift was the Kronstadt sailors’ armed rebellion. [3]3 The Kronstadt rebellion (March 1921) was an uprising of sailors and soldiers at the Kronstadt naval base against the Bolshevik government, demanding political freedoms and an end to War Communism. The Kronstadt sailors (in fact, peasants in military uniform) were a unit that had once supported the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and enjoyed the honor of being called “the glory and pride of the Russian revolution.” Yet this very unit launched a rebellion against the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), shouting the slogan “Soviets without communists.” In fact, far more than just the Kronstadt sailors’ rebellion, from the end of 1920 to the beginning of 1921 alone, over 50 large-scale peasant uprisings broke out across all of Russia. In the cities, there were also multiple worker strikes directed against the Bolsheviks. This was undoubtedly a serious political crisis for the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Lenin said of this: “We encountered a very great—I think the greatest—internal political crisis in Soviet Russia. This internal crisis not only exposed the discontent of a considerable part of the peasantry, but also exposed the discontent of the workers. At that time, the broad masses of the peasantry were opposing us not consciously but instinctively, in their mood.” [4]4 Lenin, “Report on the Substitution of a Tax in Kind for the Surplus Grain Appropriation System,” March 15, 1921, Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 32, p. 215. Why did the people’s regime fail to gain the people’s approval? Why were the people willing to go hungry and follow the Bolsheviks during the arduous war years, yet during the period of peaceful construction they became dissatisfied with the Party? In particular, the sailors who had once supported the Bolsheviks suddenly stood on the opposite side of the Party. This caused a strong shock to Lenin and the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) he led, prompting Lenin’s deep reflection.

在1921年春天召开的俄共（布）十大上，列宁带领全党决定结束战时共产主义政策，开始实施新经济政策。促使这一转变的直接推力就是喀琅施塔得水兵武装暴动。喀琅施塔得的水兵（实际上是穿着军装的农民）是曾经支持俄共（布）的享有“俄国革命的光荣和骄傲”荣誉的一支部队，但这样一支部队竟然发起了反对俄共（布）的暴动，喊出了“没有共产党人参加的苏维埃”的口号。实际上，远不止喀琅施塔得的水兵暴动，仅1920年底到1921年初，全俄就爆发了50多起大规模的农民暴动。在城市，也发生多起将矛头指向布尔什维克的工人罢工。这对俄共（布）来说无疑是严重的政治危机。列宁对此说道：“我们就遇到了苏维埃俄国内部很大的——我认为是最大的——政治危机。这个内部危机不仅暴露了相当大的一部分农民的不满，而且也暴露了工人的不满。当时广大农民群众不是自觉地而是本能地在情绪上反对我们。”为什么人民政权得不到人民的认同？为什么人民在艰苦的战争年代甘愿挨饿也愿意追随布尔什维克，而到了和平建设时期却对党产生了不满？特别是曾经支持布尔什维克的水兵，转眼间竟站到了党的对立面，这给列宁及其领导的俄（共）造成强烈的冲击，引起列宁的深入思考。

As a great realist politician, Lenin soberly recognized that behind the continuous peasant uprisings and worker strikes across Russia, especially the Kronstadt sailors’ anti-Party slogans, there were certainly forces hostile to the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), such as the Socialist Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, and the anarchists, stirring up trouble. But in the final analysis, it was the continued implementation of the War Communism policy after the end of the civil war that aroused strong dissatisfaction among the broad masses of the people. The reason for this dissatisfaction was that “the economic policy formulated by our upper levels was out of touch with the lower levels.” [5]5 Lenin, “The Tax in Kind,” April 21, 1921, Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 32, p. 329. The “economic policy formulated by the upper levels” here refers to the War Communism policy implemented by the Soviet regime during the civil war, including: the surplus grain appropriation system in the countryside; the nationalization of all industrial and commercial enterprises, with all industry and mining uniformly arranged for production and operation by governments at all levels; state monopoly in the commercial sphere, prohibition of private trade, abolition of the market, and the introduction of a rationing system for major consumer goods, etc. It should be said that this policy made an indelible contribution to effectively concentrating the country’s limited manpower and material resources, repelling the attacks of powerful enemies, and consolidating the newborn Soviet regime. But after all, it was an almost extreme temporary emergency measure, achieved at the cost of sacrificing the fundamental interests of the peasants. In Lenin’s words, “We actually took from the peasants all their surplus grain, and sometimes even not just the surplus grain, but a part of the grain necessary for the peasants themselves.” [6]6 Lenin, “Report on the Substitution of a Tax in Kind for the Surplus Grain Appropriation System,” March 15, 1921, Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 32, p. 216. Moreover, at that time, because the state had no industrial goods to exchange with the peasants and no money to give them, it gave the peasants “IOUs.” [7]7 “IOUs” (白条) refers to promissory notes or receipts given to peasants in lieu of payment for grain requisitioned by the state. When a powerful enemy was at the gates and the country was in a life-or-death emergency, the peasants, trusting the Soviet regime, willingly went hungry and gave up their own food rations to support the state. But when the powerful enemy had retreated and peace had arrived, yet they still saw no sign of this policy ending, the pent-up dissatisfaction in their hearts burst forth irresistibly. Lenin said of this: “The peasants are dissatisfied with the form of relations that have been established between us and them. They do not want this form of relations and are unwilling to continue living this way. This is indisputable. Their will has been expressed very clearly. This is the will of the broad toiling masses. We must take this into account. We are sober politicians, capable of speaking frankly: let us revise our policy towards the peasants.” [8]8 Lenin, “Report on the Substitution of a Tax in Kind for the Surplus Grain Appropriation System,” March 15, 1921, Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 32, p. 217. “The workers’ and peasants’ government, in handling affairs, first of all considers the interests of the broad masses of the people.” [9]9 Lenin, “Speech at a Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies,” March 30, 1921, Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 32, p. 241. With this, Lenin clarified beyond any doubt that the reason for implementing the New Economic Policy was that the masses of the people could no longer tolerate the War Communism policy. Ending this policy was the voice of the masses of the people. Whether it conforms to the will and interests of the people is the fundamental basis for the Party’s policy formulation. The purpose of communists in exercising power is to realize the interests of the people.

作为伟大的现实主义政治家，列宁清醒地认识到，全俄各地之所以农民暴动、工人罢工不断，特别是喀琅施塔得的水兵竟喊出反对党的口号，背后固然有社会革命党、孟什维克、无政府主义者等各种敌视俄共（布）的势力的兴风作浪，但归根到底，还是国内战争结束后继续推行的战时共产主义政策引起了广大人民群众的强烈不满，而不满的原因就在于“我们上层制定的经济政策同下层脱节”。这里的“上层制定的经济政策”指的就是苏维埃政权在国内战争时期实行的战时共产主义政策，包括：在农村实行余粮收集制；将全部工业和商业企业都收归国有，全部工矿业由各级政府统一安排生产和经营；商业领域实行国家垄断，禁止私人贸易，取缔市场，实行主要消费品的配售制度等。应该说，这一政策对有效地集中全国有限的人力、物力，击退强大敌人的进攻和巩固新生的苏维埃政权功不可没，但这毕竟是近乎极端的临时性非常措施，是以牺牲农民根本利益为代价的。用列宁的话说，“我们实际上从农民手里拿来了全部余粮，甚至有时不仅是余粮，而是农民的一部分必需的粮食。”而且，当时由于国家没有工业品同农民交换，也没有钱给农民，给农民打的是“白条”。在大敌当前和国家处于生死存亡的紧急关头，农民出于对苏维埃政权的信任，甘愿挨饿拿出自己的口粮支援国家，而当大敌退去、和平已经到来却仍看不到结束这种政策的迹象时，心中压抑的不满便不可阻挡地迸发出来。列宁对此说道：“农民对于我们和他们之间所建立的这种形式的关系是不满意的，他们不要这种形式的关系并且不愿意再这样生活下去。这是不容置辩的。他们的这种意愿表达得已经很明确了。这是广大劳动群众的意愿。我们必须考虑到这一点。我们是十分清醒的政治家，能够直率地说：让我们来修正我们对农民的政策吧。” “工农政权办事首先考虑广大人民群众的利益。”至此，列宁再清楚不过地阐明，之所以要实行新经济政策，就是因为人民群众对战时共产主义政策已经忍无可忍，结束这一政策是人民群众的心声，是否符合人民的意愿和利益是党制定政策的根本依据，共产党人执政就是为了实现人民的利益。

It must be emphasized that, in order to ensure the practical effectiveness of the New Economic Policy and fundamentally improve the people’s lives, Lenin also repeatedly stressed that communists must honestly learn to do economic work and engage in less armchair theorizing and empty talk. He said: “Our slogan is: Down with windbags!” [10]10 Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,” March–April 1918, Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 27, p. 245. “What we need is not empty words, but practical work.” [11]11 Lenin, “Speech at the Third All-Russia Congress of Councils of the National Economy,” January 27, 1920, Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 30, p. 312. Lenin likened whether communists could learn to do economic work to “a test that the entire Party must undergo.” [12]12 Lenin, “The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments,” October 17, 1921, Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 33, p. 51. He believed that whether the test was passed should be judged by the masses of the people, and the people’s criterion for judgment was not how you propagandize, but “to show them in practice what benefits the state power of the proletariat has actually brought,” [13]13 Lenin, “The Tax in Kind,” April 21, 1921, Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 32, p. 336. and to “let the majority of the working masses—the peasants and workers—say: ‘It is not you who boast, but we who praise you, saying that you have achieved the best results.’” [14]14 Lenin, “The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments,” October 17, 1921, Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 33, p. 52. These expositions by Lenin actually all emphasize that whether the people are satisfied is the standard for measuring the success or failure of the Party’s work, and the entire key to whether the masses of the people are satisfied with the Party’s work lies in the need to demonstrate through the practical results of the New Economic Policy that the Party is capable of satisfying the people’s wishes and realizing the people’s interests, thereby delivering a satisfactory answer sheet to the people.

需要强调的是，为了保证新经济政策的实践成效，让人民生活从根本上得到改善，列宁还多次强调，共产党人必须老老实实地学做经济工作，少一些坐而论道的高谈阔论。他说：“我们的口号是：打倒空喊家！”，“我们需要的不是空话，而是实干”。列宁把共产党员能否学会做经济工作比喻为全党“一定要经受的一次考试”，认为考试是否合格要由人民群众评判，而人民判断的标准不是听你如何宣传，而是“用事实向他们表明无产阶级国家政权究竟带来了什么好处”，是“让大多数劳动群众——农民和工人都说：‘不是你们自夸，而是我们夸你们，我们说你们已经取得了最好的成绩”。列宁这些论述，实际上都是在强调，人民是否满意是衡量党的工作得失成败的标准，而人民群众对党的工作满意与否的全部关键就在于必须通过新经济政策的实践成效表明党有能力满足人民的愿望、实现人民的利益，交出令人民满意的答卷。

From the above it can be seen that whether Lenin was resolutely ending the policy of War Communism or, in the course of implementing the New Economic Policy, demanding that Communists refrain from empty talk and earnestly improve their ability to do economic work, in every case his purpose was to satisfy the wishes of the masses of the people and to realize the interests of the people. He took satisfying the people’s wishes and safeguarding the people’s interests as the highest value orientation of Communists, earnestly listened to the people’s voices, earnestly respected the people’s will, and took whether the people were satisfied as the basis for the Party’s formulation of policy and as the criterion for measuring the success or failure of the Party’s work. Standing at a new historical starting point, as we revisit Lenin’s New Economic Policy, we must learn from Lenin’s sincere and profound people-centered sentiment, bear in mind the Communists’ original aspiration and founding mission of doing everything for the people, and take realizing the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people as the fundamental starting point and ultimate goal of all the Party’s work. We must always “take whether the people support, approve, are happy with, or consent to something as the fundamental criterion for measuring the success or failure of all work,” [15]15 A quotation from Xi Jinping, frequently cited in CPC documents as a standard for evaluating work. consciously respond to the people’s longing for a better life, and continuously and effectively enhance the people’s sense of gain, happiness, and security.

从以上可以看出，列宁无论是果断结束战时共产主义政策，还是在实施新经济政策过程中要求共产党人力戒空谈、切实提高做经济工作的本领，无不是为了满足人民群众的愿望和实现人民的利益。他把满足人民的心愿和维护人民的利益作为共产党人最高的价值依归，认真倾听人民的呼声，切实尊重人民的意愿，把人民是否满意作为党制定政策的依据和衡量党的工作得失成败的标准。站在新的历史起点，我们重温列宁时期的新经济政策，就是要学习列宁真挚深厚的人民情怀，牢记共产党人一切为了人民的初心和使命，把实现最广大人民群众的根本利益作为党的一切工作的根本出发点和落脚点，就是要时刻“把人民拥护不拥护、赞成不赞成、高兴不高兴、答应不答应作为衡量一切工作得失成败的根本标准”，自觉顺应人民对美好生活的向往，不断切实增强人民群众的获得感、幸福感、安全感。

II. We must proceed from practice, not from books, keep pace with the times, and continuously open up new realms of socialism

二、必须从实践而不是书本出发，与时俱进，不断开辟社会主义的新境界

After the victory of the October Revolution, how to build socialism was placed before the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) led by Lenin as a brand-new historical task. The only references they could consult were the basic ideas put forward by Marx and Engels, who also had no experience in the practice of socialist construction, such as social ownership of the means of production, distribution according to labor, regulation of economic activity by planning, and the absence of commodities and money. But, as is well known, these ideas were based on the premise of highly developed social productive forces, whereas Russia was a small-peasant country with a relatively backward economy and culture, far removed from the premise envisioned by Marx and Engels. Lenin’s greatness lay precisely in the fact that he understood and built socialism not from books but from the practice of Russia’s socialist construction. From the very beginning of the establishment of Soviet power, Lenin stressed: “The era of arguing over the program of socialism from books has already passed”; “today we can only talk about socialism based on experience.” [16]16 V. I. Lenin, “Report on the Substitution of a Tax in Kind for the Surplus Appropriation System,” March 15, 1921. In his article “On Cooperation,” written shortly before his death, Lenin again concluded: “We have to admit that our entire view of socialism has fundamentally changed.” [17]17 V. I. Lenin, “On Cooperation,” January 4 and 6, 1923. It can be said that the New Economic Policy is precisely a vivid portrayal of Lenin proceeding from practice and exploring how to build socialism in accordance with the development of the times. Specifically, one very important reason why the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) led by Lenin continued to implement the policy of War Communism after the end of the civil war, and even tended to make it permanent, was that this policy’s emphasis on nationalization, planned economy, and the elimination of commodity-money relations was consistent with the main aspects of Marx’s and Engels’ ideas about socialism. This led the Russian Communists, including Lenin, to believe for a time that with the help of this policy they could make a faster transition to socialism. On this, Lenin frankly admitted: “At that time we assumed that the peasants would hand over the amount of grain we needed under the system of surplus appropriation, and we would distribute this grain to the various factories, and in this way we would be implementing communist production and distribution.” [18]18 V. I. Lenin, “Report on the Tax in Kind,” May 26, 1921. But things turned out contrary to expectations; the result of doing so was that the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) faced a severe economic and political crisis. Cruel reality made Lenin realize that “when circumstances have changed and we have to accomplish a different kind of task, we cannot look backward and try to solve problems with yesterday’s methods.” [19]19 V. I. Lenin, “The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments,” October 17, 1921. Here Lenin put forward a very important principle: Communists must keep pace with the times, be adept at determining the line, policies, and principles that meet the new requirements of the developing situation and the new expectations of the masses of the people, in accordance with the development of the times and the new situation and new tasks facing the Party.

十月革命胜利后，怎样建设社会主义，作为一个崭新的历史课题摆在了列宁领导的俄共（布）面前，能够供他们参考的也只是同样没有社会主义建设实践经历的马克思、恩格斯提出的一些基本设想，如生产资料由社会占有、按劳分配、经济活动由计划来调节、没有商品和货币等。但众所周知，这些设想是基于高度发达的社会生产力前提，而俄国是经济文化还比较落后的小农国家，与马克思、恩格斯设想的前提相去甚远。列宁的伟大之处，就在于他不是从书本而是从俄国社会主义建设的实践来认识社会主义、建设社会主义。苏维埃政权建立之初，列宁就强调：“根据书本争论社会主义纲领的时代也已经过去了”，“今天只能根据经验来谈论社会主义”。在临终前的《论合作社》一文中，列宁又总结说：“我们不得不承认我们对社会主义的整个看法根本改变了。”可以说，新经济政策正是列宁从实践出发，根据时代发展探索怎么建设社会主义的生动写照。具体地说，列宁领导的俄共（布）在国内战争结束后之所以还继续推行战时共产主义政策，并大有把其常态化之趋向，一个很重要的原因就在于这一政策强调的国有化、计划经济、消灭商品货币关系等和马克思、恩格斯关于社会主义设想的主要方面是一致的，这使得包括列宁在内的俄国共产党人一度认为借助这一政策能够更快地过渡到社会主义。对此，列宁曾坦言：“当时我们认定，农民将遵照余粮收集制交出我们所需数量的粮食，我们则把这些粮食分配给各个工厂，这样，我们就是实行共产主义的生产和分配了。”但事与愿违，这样做的结果就是俄共（布）面临严峻的经济危机和政治危机。残酷的现实使列宁认识到，“在情况已经发生变化、我们应该去完成另一种任务的时候，是不能够向后看，试图用昨天的办法来解决问题的。”这里，列宁提出了一个非常重要的原则，那就是，共产党人必须与时俱进，善于根据时代的发展和党所面临的新形势和新任务，确定适应形势发展新要求和人民群众新期待的路线、方针、政策。

On the basis of a profound reflection on the policy of War Communism, the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) began to implement the New Economic Policy. In Lenin’s view, implementing the New Economic Policy was a correction of past erroneous practices in building socialism and a new exploration and attempt at how to build socialism. He said: “We are now using the ‘New Economic Policy’ to correct many of our mistakes; we are learning how to further build the edifice of socialism in a small-peasant country without making these mistakes.” [20]20 V. I. Lenin, “The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments,” October 17, 1921. From the main content of the New Economic Policy, including the introduction of a tax in kind, the development of state capitalism in forms such as concessions and leases, and the restoration of money and commodity exchange, it can be seen that whether it was developing state capitalism or allowing free trade and commodity-money relations to exist, these were all major theoretical breakthroughs and practical innovations made by Lenin in solving the practical difficulties of Russia’s socialist construction. After all, according to Marxist theory, the historical mission of Communists is to eliminate capitalism and achieve socialism, and future socialism is a society without commodity-money relations. The New Economic Policy’s permission to develop capitalism and commodity exchange was undoubtedly unprecedented. It was precisely on the basis of traditional socialist concepts that the New Economic Policy encountered considerable ideological resistance and theoretical challenges both inside and outside the Party. Many people held strong doubts, worries, or even fierce opposition to the New Economic Policy’s permission to develop capitalism and commodity exchange. Some old Bolsheviks, out of a simple socialist sentiment, wept bitterly at the thought that implementing the New Economic Policy meant engaging in capitalism. Others expressed serious incomprehension at allowing foreign capital to enter Soviet Russia, asking: “We drove out our own exploiters, and now we are inviting foreign exploiters in—how can this be?” Still others said: “Isn’t it dangerous to invite capitalists into Russia? Doesn’t this mean developing capitalism?” “Capitalism is a scourge, socialism is happiness,” and so on. [21]21 These are paraphrases of actual objections raised by Party members and others during the NEP debates, as recorded in Soviet historical sources. Even more, political factions that treated Marxism dogmatically accused Lenin of implementing the New Economic Policy as a deviation from the true path and a betrayal of Marxism. What is commendable is that Lenin was not bound hand and foot by this incomprehension or even censure, nor did he rigidly adhere to the dogmas in books. Instead, proceeding from practice, he courageously acknowledged his own past cognitive errors and, with immense theoretical courage and a high sense of historical responsibility, resolutely implemented the New Economic Policy. It can be fully said that the implementation and advancement of the New Economic Policy was precisely the result of Lenin’s continuous emancipation of the mind and innovation in socialist theory on the question of what socialism is and how to build it. On this, Lenin also said: “This situation is unprecedented in history,” “it has not been explored by any theory or any book,” “no book has ever written about state capitalism under the communist system. Not even Marx thought to write a single word on this question.” [22]22 V. I. Lenin, “Report on the Tax in Kind,” May 26, 1921.

在对战时共产主义政策进行深刻反思的基础上，俄共（布）开始实行新经济政策。在列宁心目中，实行新经济政策是对过去在建设社会主义问题上错误做法的纠正，是对如何建设社会主义的新的探索和尝试。他说：“我们现在正用‘新经济政策’来纠正我们的许多错误，我们正在学习怎样在一个小农国家里进一步建设社会主义大厦而不犯这些错误。”从新经济政策的主要内容，包括实行粮食税、发展租让制、租借制等形式的国家资本主义、恢复货币和商品交换等可以看出，无论是发展国家资本主义，还是允许自由贸易、商品货币关系存在，都是列宁破解俄国社会主义建设中的实际难题取得的重大理论突破和实践创新。毕竟，根据马克思主义理论，共产党人的历史使命就是消灭资本主义和实现社会主义，未来的社会主义是不存在商品货币关系的社会，新经济政策允许发展资本主义和商品交换无疑是破天荒的。也正是基于传统的社会主义观念，新经济政策在党内外遭到相当大的思想阻力和理论挑战。不少人对新经济政策允许发展资本主义和商品交换持强烈质疑、担心甚至是激烈反对的态度。有老布尔什维克出于朴素的社会主义感情，认为实行新经济政策就是搞资本主义而抱头大哭，还有人对让外国资本进入苏俄表示严重不理解，发出了“我们把本国的剥削者赶走了，又要把外国的剥削者请进来，怎么能这样呢？”的疑问，还有人说：“把资本家请到俄国来不危险吗？这不是意味着发展资本主义吗？” “资本主义是祸害，社会主义是幸福”，等等。更有教条主义对待马克思主义的政治派别指责列宁实行新经济政策是离经叛道、背叛了马克思主义等。难能可贵的是，列宁没有被这些不理解甚至是责难束缚住手脚，也没有拘泥于书本上的条条框框，而是从实践出发，勇于承认自己过去认识上的偏误，以巨大的理论勇气和高度的历史责任感果断实施新经济政策。完全可以说，新经济政策的实施和推进正是列宁在什么是社会主义、怎样建设社会主义问题上，不断解放思想、创新社会主义理论的结果。对此，列宁也说：“这种情况是历史上前所未有的”，“任何理论、任何著作都没有探讨过的”，“没有一本书写到共产主义制度下的国家资本主义。连马克思也没有想到要就这个问题写下片言只语”。

Faced with the practical difficulties encountered in the construction of socialism in Soviet Russia, Lenin did not rigidly adhere to certain ideas, viewpoints, and conclusions of the founders of scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, nor was he confined by traditional socialist concepts. Instead, starting from the socialist practice of Soviet Russia, he achieved a major breakthrough in socialist theory and practice, and continuously pushed the socialist construction of Soviet Russia to new heights and realms. In other words, it was the concrete practice of socialist construction in Soviet Russia that brought about Lenin’s new breakthroughs in the understanding of socialism and the innovation of Marxist theory, while the breakthrough in socialist concepts and the theoretical innovation of Marxism further promoted the deepening of practice. This remains of great significance for advancing the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era. Because the breadth and depth of social development and change in the present era far exceed the expectations of the classical Marxist writers, we must be even less constrained by the templates of socialist assumptions left by the classical Marxist writers when undertaking socialist construction. General Secretary Xi Jinping clearly pointed out in this regard: “Marxism will inevitably develop continuously with the development of the times, practice, and science; it cannot remain immutable. Socialism has always advanced through pioneering.” This means that to build socialism with Chinese characteristics, we must also learn from Lenin’s innovative spirit of proceeding from practice rather than from books. We must, as General Secretary Xi Jinping requires, “definitely have a developmental

面对苏俄社会主义建设实践中所面临的现实难题，列宁没有拘泥于科学社会主义创始人马克思、恩格斯的某些思想观点和论断，也没有囿于传统的社会主义观念，而是从苏俄的社会主义实践出发，实现了社会主义理论与实践的重大突破，并不断把苏维埃俄国的社会主义建设推向新的高度和境界。换言之，是苏俄社会主义建设的具体实践带来列宁对社会主义认识的新突破和马克思主义理论的创新，而社会主义观念的突破和马克思主义的理论创新又进一步推动了实践的深入发展。这对推进新时代中国特色社会主义建设来说仍然意义重大。因为当今时代无论是社会发展变化的广度还是深度都远远超出了马克思主义经典作家的预料，我们进行社会主义建设更加不能拘泥于马克思主义经典作家关于社会主义设想的模板。习近平总书记对此明确指出：“马克思主义必定随着时代、实践和科学的发展而不断发展，不可能一成不变，社会主义从来都是在开拓中前进的。”这意味着，建设中国特色社会主义，也必须学习列宁从实践而不是从书本出发的创新精神，必须如习近平总书记要求的那样，“一定要有发展的观点，一定要以我国改革开放和现代化建设的实际问题、以我们正在做的事情为中心，着眼于马克思主义理论的运用，着眼于对实际问题的理论思考，着眼于新的实践和新的发展”。

III. One Must Be Skilled at Viewing Problems from a Political Perspective, and Must Avoid Political Dangers and Political Errors

三、要善于从政治看问题，必须不发生政治上的危险和政治上的错误

Being skilled at viewing problems from a political perspective is a distinctive quality of Lenin as a great statesman. As early as the initial period of Party building, Lenin emphasized that Social Democrats must view problems from a political perspective and exert the Party’s political leadership role over the workers’ movement. The transition of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) from the policy of war communism to the New Economic Policy concentratedly reflected his high political acumen, extremely strong political judgment, and ability to view problems from a political perspective and grasp the overall political situation. At the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), while the Kronstadt sailors’ rebellion was still underway, Lenin clearly pointed out that it was beyond doubt that this incident would soon be suppressed, but “we must link this situation with various crises, consider it carefully from a political perspective, and analyze it thoroughly.” [23]23 V. I. Lenin, “Report on the Substitution of a Tax in Kind for the Surplus-Grain Appropriation System,” March 15, 1921, *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 214. Through a comprehensive study and judgment of the slogans shouted by the sailors, such as “freedom of trade,” “soviets without Bolsheviks,” and getting rid of “the Party’s dictatorship,” Lenin keenly realized that this rebellion was a concentrated eruption of the peasants’ severe discontent with the policy of war communism. Lenin reminded the entire Party: hostile forces were using the hardships in the peasants’ lives caused by this policy to incite them against the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks); the destitute peasants, under the relentless agitation of the bourgeoisie, had already developed a tendency to drift away from the Party. “All this will directly lead to the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, to the restoration of capitalism, the restoration of the old regime of the landlords and capitalists. This political danger now exists.” [24]24 V. I. Lenin, “The Tax in Kind,” April 21, 1921, *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 330. Based on his understanding of the political danger facing the Party, Lenin made a swift and accurate judgment of the political situation confronting the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks): “In the spring of 1921, a political situation emerged that demanded immediate, swift, most resolute, and most urgent measures to improve the living conditions of the peasants and raise their productive forces.” [25]25 V. I. Lenin, “Report on the Substitution of a Tax in Kind for the Surplus-Grain Appropriation System,” March 15, 1921, *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 215.

善于从政治上看问题，是列宁作为伟大的政治家的鲜明品格。早在建党初期，列宁就强调社会民主党人必须从政治上看问题，发挥党对工人运动的政治引领作用。俄共（布）从战时共产主义政策向新经济政策的转变，更是集中体现了他高度的政治敏锐性、极强的政治判断力和善于从政治上看问题、把握政治大局的能力。在俄共（布）十大上，在喀琅施塔得水兵暴动正在进行的时候，列宁就明确指出，这一事件很快就会被平定是无可怀疑的，但“我们必须把这种情况同各种危机联系起来，从政治上慎重地加以考虑，仔细地加以分析”。通过对水兵喊出的“贸易自由”、“没有布尔什维克参加的苏维埃”、摆脱“党的专政”等诸多口号的综合研判，列宁敏锐地意识到，这次暴动是农民对战时共产主义政策严重不满的集中爆发。列宁提醒全党：敌对势力正在利用这一政策给农民造成的生活困难蛊惑他们反对俄共（布），困苦不堪的农民在资产阶级不遗余力的煽动下已经对党产生了离心倾向，“这一切将直接导致推翻无产阶级专政，就是说，导致复辟资本主义，复辟地主和资本家的旧政权。这种政治上的危险性现在是存在的”。基于对党所面临的政治危险性的认识，列宁对俄共（布）面对的政治形势作出迅速而准确的判断：“1921年春天形成了这样的政治形势：要求必须立刻采取迅速的、最坚决的、最紧急的办法来改善农民的生活状况和提高他们的生产力。”

On the basis of correctly judging the political situation facing the Party, Lenin led the Soviet regime to decisively begin the transition from the policy of war communism to the New Economic Policy, emphasizing that this transition was “first and foremost a political question, because the essence of this question lies in how the working class treats the peasantry.” [26]26 V. I. Lenin, “The Tax in Kind,” April 21, 1921, *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 330. In Lenin’s view, for the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), which was in power in a country where small peasants constituted the majority of the population, the most fundamental problem it faced was how to correctly handle the relationship between the working class and the peasant class and win the political support of the peasants. He said: “Our Party relies on two classes. Therefore, if these two classes cannot coordinate and act in harmony, the Party may become unstable, and its collapse is inevitable.” [27]27 V. I. Lenin, “Speech on the Tax in Kind at a Meeting of Secretaries and Responsible Representatives of Rural Organizations of the R.C.P.(B.),” July 9, 1921, *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 476. But Lenin also soberly recognized that the interests of the peasants and the working class were different. As small private owners, the peasants were not naturally inclined toward socialism. Therefore, to win the firm political support of the peasants for the proletarian ruling party, it was necessary to establish a combination of economic interests between the working class and the peasant class. On this point, Lenin pointed out as early as the founding of the Soviet regime: the consolidation of Soviet power “must be carried out through the sincere union of workers and peasants on the basis of common interests.” [28]28 V. I. Lenin, “Draft Resolution on the Attitude of the Workers and Peasants to the Soviet Government,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 26, p. 404. In fact, it was precisely because the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) led by Lenin implemented the policy of distributing land to the peasants after the victory of the October Revolution that the peasants were willing to give up their own grain to support the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) during the Civil War, because they did not want the Soviet regime led by the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to be defeated, which would cause them to lose the land they had gained. This meant that the relationship between the peasants and the proletariat and its party, the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), during the Civil War was actually a political-military alliance with land as the bond. However, because this political-military alliance was at the expense of the peasants’ interests, it was also limited. On this, Lenin said: “They have been hungry for three years, but they cannot go hungry for four or five years. When they are hungry, their political activity naturally suffers greatly.” [29]29 V. I. Lenin, “Speech on the Tax in Kind at a Meeting of Secretaries and Responsible Representatives of Rural Organizations of the R.C.P.(B.),” July 9, 1921, *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 477. Lenin was emphasizing here that if the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) could not satisfy the economic interests of the peasants and establish an economic combination with them, it would be impossible to obtain the firm political support of the peasants. In Lenin’s eyes, “the whole meaning of the New Economic Policy is, and lies solely in, this: we have found the combination of the new economy, which we have built with great effort, with the peasant economy.” [30]30 V. I. Lenin, “The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments,” October 17, 1921, *Collected Works*, Vol. 33, p. 62. This combination directly determined the peasants’ political attitude toward the Party: “Either we prove this, or we will be driven out by the peasants.” [31]31 V. I. Lenin, “Speech on the Tax in Kind at a Meeting of Secretaries and Responsible Representatives of Rural Organizations of the R.C.P.(B.),” July 9, 1921, *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 478. It is in this sense that Lenin said: “Politics is the relationship between classes—this determines the fate of the republic.” [32]32 V. I. Lenin, “The Tax in Kind,” April 21, 1921, *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 331. Based on this, Lenin emphasized: “The proletariat, as a leading class, a ruling class, must be good at directing politics so as to first solve the most urgent and most ‘thorny’ tasks. The most urgent task now is to adopt measures that can immediately raise the productive forces of the peasant economy. Only through such measures can we both improve the living conditions of the workers and consolidate the worker-peasant alliance and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat.” [33]33 V. I. Lenin, “The Tax in Kind,” April 21, 1921, *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 331.

在正确判断党所面临的政治形势的基础上，列宁领导苏维埃政权果断开始从战时共产主义政策向新经济政策转变，强调这一转变“首先而且主要是政治问题，因为这个问题的本质在于工人阶级如何对待农民”。在列宁看来，对于在小农占人口多数的国家里执政的俄共（布）来说，面对的最根本的问题就是如何正确处理工人阶级与农民阶级的关系，争取农民政治上的支持。他说：“我们党依靠的是两个阶级，因此，如果这两个阶级不能协调一致，那么党就可能不稳定，它的垮台就不可避免。”但列宁也清醒认识到，农民和工人阶级的利益是各不相同的，农民作为小私有者并不天然倾向社会主义，因而要赢得农民对无产阶级执政党政治上的坚定支持，就必须建立起工人阶级和农民阶级之间的经济利益的结合。关于这一点，列宁在苏维埃政权成立之初就指出：苏维埃政权的巩固“要靠工人和农民在共同利益基础上的真诚的联合来贯彻”。事实上，也正是列宁领导的俄共（布）在十月革命胜利后实行了分土地给农民的政策，农民在国内战争时期才会拿出自己的口粮支持俄共（布），因为他们不想俄共（布）领导的苏维埃政权战败进而导致他们手中的土地得而复失。这意味着国内战争期间农民和无产阶级及其政党俄共（布）之间的关系实际是一种以土地为纽带的政治军事联盟。但由于这种政治军事同盟是以牺牲农民的利益为代价的，因而也是有限度的。对此，列宁说道：“他们已经饿了三年肚子，但不能四年、五年地饿下去。饿着肚子，政治积极性自然大受影响。”列宁这里是在强调，如果俄共（布）不能满足农民的经济利益，建立起和他们的经济上的结合，就不可能得到农民坚定的政治支持。在列宁眼中，“新经济政策的全部意义就在于而且仅仅在于：找到了我们花很大力量所建立的新经济同农民经济的结合”。这种结合直接决定着农民对党的政治态度，“要么我们能证明这一点，要么就被农民撵走”。正是从这种意义上，列宁说：“政治就是阶级之间的关系——这一点决定着共和国的命运。”基于此，列宁强调：“无产阶级作为一个领导阶级、统治阶级，应当善于指导政治，以便首先去解决最迫切而又最‘棘手’的任务。现在最迫切的就是采取那种能够立刻提高农民经济生产力的办法。只有经过这种办法才能做到既改善工人生活状况，又巩固工农联盟，巩固无产阶级专政。”

On the other hand, during the implementation of the New Economic Policy, Lenin also clearly put forward the important thesis that “one must avoid political dangers and political errors.” At the end of 1920, as the Soviet regime shifted from military war to economic construction, Lenin proposed the need to change militarized leadership methods and implement workers’ democracy, but this met with strong opposition from Trotsky and others. Trotsky and others advocated the rapid nationalization of the trade unions and provoked a fierce debate within the entire Party on this issue, which eventually formed eight political factions and developed into serious factional activities. Lenin believed that if this situation were allowed to continue, it would “develop into a serious split sufficient to shake and destroy the entire political edifice,” and “then this difference would be politically dangerous.” [34]34 V. I. Lenin, “The Party Crisis,” January 19, 1921, *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 43. Trotsky not only turned a deaf ear to Lenin’s criticism but also accused Lenin of viewing problems only from a political perspective and not from an economic one. He quoted Lenin’s own words to attack Lenin, saying that Lenin had stated at the Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets: “We must engage in less politics and more economics. Yet on the trade union issue, he puts the political aspect of the problem first.” [35]35 V. I. Lenin, “The Party Crisis,” January 19, 1921, *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 44.

另一方面，在新经济政策实施过程中，列宁还明确提出了“必须不发生政治上的危险和政治上的错误”的重要论断。1920年底，随着苏维埃政权从军事战争转向经济建设，列宁提出必须改变军事化领导方法和实行工人民主的主张，但遭到托洛茨基等人的强烈反对。托洛茨基等人主张工会迅速国家化，并挑起全党在这一问题上的激烈争论，以致形成八大政治派别并发展成为严重的派别活动。列宁认为，如果听任这种状况继续，就会“发展成为严重的分裂而足以动摇和破坏整个政治大厦”，“那么这种分歧在政治上就会是危险的”。托洛茨基对列宁的批评不仅置若罔闻，还指责列宁只从政治上而不从经济上看问题。他引用列宁曾经说过的话攻击列宁，说列宁在苏维埃第八次代表大会上曾经说“我们要少搞点政治，多搞些经济。可是在工会问题上，他却把问题的政治方面放在第一位”。

Lenin believed that Trotsky’s accusations against him seriously separated and opposed economics and politics, and he stressed: “Politics is the concentrated expression of economics,” and “A class cannot maintain its rule, and therefore cannot fulfill its production tasks, unless it correctly views problems from a political perspective.” In response to Trotsky’s attacks, Lenin pointed out tit-for-tat: “In the past, present, and future, I hope that we will engage in less politics and more economics. But it is not difficult to understand that to realize this wish, we must avoid political dangers and political errors.” “If we commit political errors, the entire economic construction will suffer setbacks, and we will have to argue about correcting deviations and determining the course.” In Lenin’s view, the syndicalist and anarchist tendencies exposed by Trotsky, the “Workers’ Opposition,” and others “are a clear deviation from the Party and from communism,” and thus “are major political errors, a direct political danger that threatens the very existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” At the Tenth Congress of the Party, Lenin further pointed out that if the syndicalist and anarchist tendencies exacerbated by Trotsky, the “Workers’ Opposition,” and others were allowed to continue, they would inevitably weaken the unity of will of the vanguard of the proletariat and deepen the split in the Party, which would inevitably lead to “the leadership, education, and organizational role of the Party over the proletarian trade unions, and of the proletariat over the semi-petty-bourgeois and even petty-bourgeois working masses, being cast aside and abolished.” “If the unity, strength, and influence of the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat are even slightly weakened, the result of this vacillation can only be the restoration of the power of the capitalists and landlords and of private ownership.” Based on this political judgment, at the Tenth Party Congress, while making the decision to implement the New Economic Policy, Lenin also passed a resolution strictly prohibiting factional activities within the Party, with the aim of ensuring that the Party “politically leads the proletariat, and through the proletariat leads all the working masses. Without this, the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be realized.”

列宁认为托洛茨基对他的指责是把经济和政治严重割裂并对立起来，强调指出：“政治是经济的集中表现”，“一个阶级如果不从政治上正确地看问题，就不能维持它的统治，因而也就不能完成它的生产任务”。针对托洛茨基的攻击，列宁针锋相对地指出：“我在过去、现在和将来都希望我们少搞些政治，多搞些经济。但是不难理解，要实现这种愿望，就必须不发生政治上的危险和政治上的错误。” “如果我们犯了政治错误，那整个经济建设就要受挫，那就不得不去争论纠偏和确定方针的问题。”在列宁看来，托洛茨基、“工人反对派”等暴露出的工团主义倾向和无政府主义倾向，“是一种明显地背离党、背离共产主义的倾向”，因而“是重大的政治错误，是一种威胁无产阶级专政本身的存在的直接的政治危险”。在党的第十次代表大会上，列宁进一步指出，如果放任托洛茨基、“工人反对派”等加剧的工团主义、无政府主义倾向，必然会削弱无产阶级先锋队的意志的统一和加深党的分裂，势必导致“党对无产阶级工会以及无产阶级对半小市民以至小资产阶级劳动群众的领导、教育和组织作用，就被撇开和取消了”。“只要无产阶级的革命先锋队的统一、力量和影响稍微受到削弱，这种动摇的结果就只能是资本家和地主的政权以及私有制的复辟（恢复）。”基于这样的政治判断，在党的十大上，列宁在作出实行新经济政策决定的同时，又通过了严格禁止党内派别活动的决议，目的就是为了确保党“在政治上领导无产阶级，并且通过无产阶级领导全体劳动群众。不这样，便不能实现无产阶级专政”。

Practice showed that because Lenin led the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to play a correct political leadership role during the New Economic Policy period, the factional activities triggered by fierce debates on issues such as trade unions within the Party were effectively curbed, achieving unity of will within the Party on the New Economic Policy. With the implementation of the New Economic Policy, industrial and agricultural production grew rapidly, the people’s living standards improved significantly, and the severe crisis of identity faced by the Party was fundamentally overcome. Lenin commented on this: “Today’s situation is such that we no longer need to worry about them engaging in activities against us.” This powerfully demonstrates that political initiative is the most advantageous initiative, and political passivity is the most dangerous passivity. At present, the world is undergoing changes unseen in a century, and the country is in a critical period of realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The various internal and external risks and challenges facing China’s development are unprecedented. This requires, more than ever, that Party cadres at all levels take upholding political integrity as a fundamental requirement, and effectively enhance their ability to grasp the overall political situation and to analyze problems and prevent and resolve political risks from a political perspective. It is undeniable that some Party members and cadres within our Party have not yet transformed upholding political integrity from an external requirement into an internal initiative; their political awareness still needs further enhancement, and their political acumen and ability to observe and handle problems from a political perspective still need further improvement. It is against this background that General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized that political issues are major issues concerning direction, the overall situation, strategy, and fundamentals; it is necessary to strengthen the Party’s political leadership and comprehensively enhance the Party’s political leadership capability. This requires the entire Party to consciously respond to General Secretary Xi Jinping’s call, to transform taking a clear political stand into an internal initiative, to strive to enhance political awareness, to be adept at seeing problems from a political perspective, to be adept at grasping the overall political situation, and to continuously improve political judgment, political understanding, and political execution.

实践表明，由于列宁带领俄共（布）在新经济政策时期发挥了正确的政治领导作用，党内由在工会等问题上的激烈争论引发的派别活动得到有效遏制，实现了党在新经济政策上的意志统一。随着新经济政策的实施，工农业生产快速增长，人民群众生活明显改善，党面临的严峻认同危机得到根本克服。列宁对此说：“今天的状况，已经使我们不必担心他们会有什么反对我们的活动了。”这有力地说明，政治上的主动是最有利的主动，政治上的被动是最危险的被动。当前，世界正经历百年未有之大变局，国家正处在实现中华民族伟大复兴的关键时期，我国发展面临的各种内外部风险和挑战前所未有，这比以往任何时候更加要求党的各级领导干部把讲政治作为根本要求，切实提高把握政治大局和善于从政治上分析问题、防范化解政治风险的能力。不可否认，我们党内一些党员、干部还没有把讲政治从外部要求转化为内在主动，政治意识还有待进一步增强，政治敏锐性、从政治上观察和处理问题的能力仍需要进一步提高。正是基于这样的背景，习近平总书记多次强调政治问题是事关方向性、全局性、战略性、根本性的重大问题，必须加强党的政治领导，全面增强党的政治领导力。这要求全党必须自觉响应习近平总书记号召，把旗帜鲜明讲政治转化为内在主动，努力增强政治意识，善于从政治上看问题，善于把握政治大局，不断提高政治判断力、政治领悟力、政治执行力。

IV. Utilizing Capitalism to Build Socialism, Making the Russia of the New Economic Policy a Socialist Russia

四、利用资本主义建设社会主义，使新经济政策的俄国成为社会主义的俄国

Implementing the New Economic Policy meant allowing the existence of capitalist elements in Soviet Russia’s socialist construction. Quite a few people inside and outside the Party could not understand this and found it emotionally unacceptable. The reason for this incomprehension was not whether these measures were conducive to the development of productive forces and the improvement of the living standards of the workers and peasants, because this could easily be demonstrated by tangible facts. The crux of the problem was whether, under the conditions of communist Party rule, capitalism should be developed, and whether allowing capitalist development would harm the socialism pursued by communists. Faced with these doubts, how to build a consensus within and outside the Party on the necessity of allowing the existence of capitalist factors under a socialist regime, and how to prevent the concerns of the majority of Party cadres and members from becoming reality in practice, were the dual theoretical and practical challenges confronting Lenin’s Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks).

实行新经济政策意味着在苏俄社会主义建设中允许资本主义因素存在，党内外相当多的人对此想不通，感情上难以接受。想不通的原因并不在于这些措施是不是有利于生产力的发展和工农群众生活的改善，因为这是很容易用看得见、摸得着的事实来说明的。问题的症结在于共产党执政条件下要不要发展资本主义，让资本主义发展会不会伤及共产党人追求的社会主义。面对这些疑虑，如何让党内外对社会主义政权允许资本主义因素存在的必要性达成共识，如何在实践中避免广大党员干部的担心不成为现实，是列宁领导的俄共（布）面临的理论和实践的双重挑战。

In response, Lenin first made a large number of targeted theoretical explanations in works such as “On the Tax in Kind” regarding the permission to develop capitalism under the New Economic Policy. In response to the statement that best represented people’s emotional knot—“capitalism is a scourge, socialism is happiness”—Lenin believed that this merely abstractly opposed the two structures of capitalism and socialism extracted from the sum total of various socio-economic structures existing in Russia, without considering the objective reality that Russia was mainly a petty-peasant economy. In Lenin’s view, capitalism was of course a scourge compared to socialism, but compared to the vast ocean of small-scale production in Russia, it was a happiness, because without utilizing this intermediate link of capitalism, it would be impossible to change Russia’s backward state of productive forces, let alone move toward socialism. Based on this, Lenin emphasized: “We should utilize capitalism (especially by channeling it into the track of state capitalism) as an intermediate link between small-scale production and socialism, as a means, method, approach, and way of raising the productive forces.” “To attempt to completely prohibit, to block all development of private non-state exchange, that is, the development of commerce, that is, the development of capitalism,” “would be to commit stupidity, to commit suicide. It is stupidity because such a policy is economically unworkable; it is suicide because a party that tries such a policy is bound to fail.” Regarding the “scourge” aspect of capitalism and people’s worries and concerns about developing capitalism, Lenin pointed out: “If it is said to be ugly and bad, we can transform it, because political power is in our hands, and we have nothing to fear.”

对此，列宁先是在《论粮食税》等文献中对新经济政策允许发展资本主义做了大量有针对性的理论阐释。针对最能代表人们心结的“资本主义是祸害，社会主义是幸福”的说法，列宁认为这只是从俄国现存的各种社会经济结构总和中抽出了资本主义和社会主义两种结构抽象地加以对立，没有考虑俄国主要是小农经济的客观实际。在列宁看来，资本主义和社会主义比较当然是祸害，但相对于俄国汪洋大海般存在的小生产来说则是幸福，因为不利用资本主义这个中间环节，就不能改变俄国落后的生产力状况，更不可能走向社会主义。基于此，列宁强调：“我们应该利用资本主义（特别是要把它纳入国家资本主义的轨道）作为小生产和社会主义之间的中间环节，作为提高生产力的手段、途径、方法和方式。” “试图完全禁止、堵塞一切私人的非国营的交换的发展，即商业的发展，即资本主义的发展”，“那它就是在干蠢事，就是自杀。说它在干蠢事，是因为这种政策在经济上行不通，说它在自杀，是因为试行这类政策的政党，必然会遭到失败”。针对资本主义的“祸害”的一面和人们对发展资本主义的担心、顾虑，列宁指出：“如果说它丑恶、不好，那我们可以改造它，因为政权在我们手里，我们没有什么可怕的。”

On the other hand, it should also be pointed out that Lenin did not turn a deaf ear to the concerns of some within the Party that the New Economic Policy’s permission of capitalist elements might harm the prospects of socialism; rather, he took them quite seriously. After all, even political forces opposing the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), such as the “Smena Vekh” group, believed that the Bolsheviks’ New Economic Policy “is not a tactic, but an evolution, an internal degeneration; they will inevitably move toward an ordinary bourgeois state, and we should support them. History reaches the same goal by different paths.” [39]39 “Smena Vekh” (Change of Landmarks) was a group of Russian émigré intellectuals who, after the Russian Civil War, argued that the Bolsheviks were evolving into a normal bourgeois state and that émigrés should support them. In response to the views of the “Smena Vekh” group, Lenin replied: “A ‘Thermidorian coup’? [40]40 The Thermidorian coup refers to the overthrow of Robespierre and the radical phase of the French Revolution in July 1794, often used by Marxists to denote a counter-revolutionary reversal within a revolutionary movement. Look at it with a sober mind—perhaps it is? Will it happen? We shall see. Don’t boast when you go into battle!” This shows that Lenin was not unaware of the potential political risks that permitting the development of capitalism posed to the Communist Party. However, he was not intimidated by the possible dangers; instead, he knowingly walked into the tiger’s den, seeking only how not to be eaten by the tiger and to emerge victorious when the outcome was decided. On this point, as Lenin stated in his article “On the Tax in Kind”: “The whole problem—whether in theory or in practice—is to find the correct method, that is, how to channel the inevitable (to a certain extent and within a certain period) development of capitalism into the tracks of state capitalism, on what conditions to accomplish this, and how to ensure that in the near future state capitalism will be transformed into socialism.” Here, Lenin made it very clear: developing capitalism to a certain extent and for a certain period is a preparation for the ultimate realization of socialism; Communists should master the methods and skills to harness capitalism, so that state capitalism finally moves toward the goal of socialism.

另一方面，也应指出，列宁对党内一些人关于新经济政策允许资本主义因素存在可能会伤及社会主义前途的担心也并非听而不闻，而是相当重视。毕竟，连反对俄共（布）的政治势力如“路标转换派”也认为布尔什维克的新经济政策“并不是策略，而是演变，是内部的蜕变，他们一定会走向通常的资产阶级国家，我们应当支持他们。历史是殊途同归的”。针对“路标转换派”的观点，列宁做了这样的回应：“是‘热月政变’吗？头脑清醒地看待，或许是的？会发生吗？会见分晓的。上战场别吹牛!”这说明，列宁不是不清楚允许发展资本主义对共产党构成的潜在政治风险。只不过，他没有被可能面临的危险所吓倒，而是明知山有虎偏往山中行，他追求的只是如何不被老虎吃掉并在见分晓中胜出。关于这一点，正如列宁在《论粮食税》一文中所言：“全部问题，无论是理论上的还是实践上的问题，在于找出正确的方法，即应当怎样把不可避免的（在一定程度上和在一定期限内不可避免的）资本主义的发展纳入国家资本主义的轨道，靠什么条件来做成这件事，怎样保证在不久的将来把国家资本主义变成社会主义。”这里，列宁表达得很清楚，一定时期一定程度上发展资本主义是为最终实现社会主义作准备，共产党人应掌握驾驭资本主义的方法和本领，使国家资本主义最终走向社会主义这一奋斗目标。

It must be emphasized that Lenin’s insistence on the socialist development direction of the New Economic Policy was, of course, because socialism is the goal Communists tirelessly pursue, but also because he deeply understood that capital has its own logic and nature of development—such as profit-seeking, blindness, and spontaneity—and that developing capitalism inevitably poses potential dangers to socialism. Lenin said: “It goes without saying that the strengthening of capitalist relations is in itself an increase in danger.” In fact, with the implementation of the New Economic Policy and the rapid growth of capitalist elements, the contradiction between the Communists and the bourgeoisie over using and being used was very clear: the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) hoped the New Economic Policy would serve the realization of socialism in Soviet Russia, while the bourgeoisie intended to use the New Economic Policy to develop capitalism and achieve their own goal of getting rich. In “The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments,” Lenin compared the contradiction between the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the capitalists formed by the implementation of the New Economic Policy to a contest more dangerous than military war. He said: “The whole question is: who will outpace whom? If the capitalists organize first, they will drive out the Communists, and then there is nothing more to talk about.” This shows that Lenin was soberly aware that if the Communists could not harness the capitalist elements, they might lose in the contest with capitalism, and the prospects for socialism would vanish. It was precisely based on this understanding that Lenin emphasized: “We must force the bourgeoisie to work for us with their own hands, and we must not allow responsible Communist Party members, holding leading positions and wearing official titles, to drift with the bourgeois tide. The whole essence of the problem lies here.” The question was whether the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) possessed the skill to harness state capitalism. At the Eleventh Party Congress, one year after the implementation of the New Economic Policy, Lenin noted with concern: “State capitalism is capitalism that we should bring within certain bounds, but so far we have not had the skill to bring it within those bounds.” “The vanguard of the working class, which has been thrust forward, does not have sufficient skill to manage directly, to set bounds, to draw limits, to make others subject to its control, rather than letting itself be subject to the control of others. What is needed here is only skill, but we lack this skill.” On this basis, Lenin further pointed out that because the Communists lacked managerial skill, in the New Economic Policy “it is like a car that does not obey the driver; it seems someone is sitting inside driving, but the car is not going where it is supposed to go, but where others want it to go.” Lenin used the metaphor of an unmanageable car to vividly illustrate that if the Communists lacked the ability to harness the developed capitalism, they would not only fail to ensure it developed in the direction they hoped, but would also be led by the nose by it. In view of this, Lenin issued a call to the entire Party to study economic work diligently and to engage in economic competition with the capitalists, emphasizing that “we must do no worse than the capitalists; otherwise, the people will not tolerate this kind of management. The whole crux of the problem lies here.” On November 20, 1922, in his last public speech, at the Moscow Soviet Congress, Lenin again stressed: “We must move toward socialism, not as if it were an icon painted in solemn colors,” but must strive to make the masses feel that “this is better than the old system,” and “we must be good at overcoming all the negative aspects of the New Economic Policy, reducing them to a minimum,” so that “the Russia of the New Economic Policy will become socialist Russia.” These statements by Lenin undoubtedly emphasize that only by mastering skills and abilities superior to those of the capitalists can the Communists gain the initiative in the fierce contest with the capitalists, truly achieve the goal of using capitalism rather than being used by it, and enable the masses, through comparison, to choose the Communist Party and socialism, thereby realizing the goal of “the Russia of the New Economic Policy will become socialist Russia.”

需要强调的是，列宁之所以如此强调新经济政策的社会主义发展方向，固然是因为社会主义是共产党人孜孜追求的目标，但同时也是因为他深知，资本自有资本的发展逻辑和本性，诸如惟利是图、盲目性、自发性等，发展资本主义不可避免地会对社会主义构成潜在的危险。列宁说：“不言而喻，资本主义关系的加强，其本身就是危险性的增强。”实际上，随着新经济政策的实施和资本主义因素快速增长，共产党人和资产阶级利用与反利用的矛盾十分明显：俄共（布）希望新经济政策为苏俄实现社会主义服务，而资产阶级则要利用新经济政策发展资本主义，实现自己发财致富的目的。在《新经济政策和政治教育委员会的任务》中，列宁把由于实行新经济政策形成的俄共（布）和资本家之间的矛盾比喻为一场比军事战争还要危险的较量，他说：“全部问题就在于谁跑在谁的前面？资本家如果先组织起来他们就会把共产党人赶走，那就什么也不用谈了。”这表明，列宁清醒地意识到，如果共产党人不能驾驭资本主义因素，就有可能在与资本主义的较量中败下阵来，社会主义的前景就会化为泡影。正是基于这样的认识，列宁强调：“我们应当强迫资产阶级用他们的双手来为我们工作，而不能让负责的共产党员身居领导地位，头戴官衔，却跟着资产阶级随波逐流。问题的全部实质就在这里。” 问题是，俄共（布）是否拥有驾驭国家资本主义的本领呢？在新经济政策实施一年后的党的第十一次代表大会上，列宁不无忧虑地指出：“国家资本主义是我们应当将之纳入一定范围的资本主义，但是直到现在我们还没有本领把它纳入这些范围。”“被推举出来的工人阶级先锋队却没有足够的本领去直接进行管理，确定范围，划定界限，使别人受自己控制，而不是让自己受别人控制。这里所需要的只是本领，但我们缺乏这种本领。”在此基础上，列宁进一步指出，由于共产党人缺乏管理的本领，在新经济政策方面，“就像一辆不听使唤的汽车，似乎有人坐在里面驾驶，可是汽车不是开往要它去的地方，而是开往别人要它去的地方”。列宁这里用不听使唤的汽车来形象比喻，如果共产党人缺乏驾驭发展起来的资本主义的能力，不仅不能保证它沿着自己希望的方向发展，反而还会让它牵着鼻子走。鉴于此，列宁向全党发出了努力学习做经济工作并同资本家展开经济竞赛的号召，强调“要做得不比资本家差，否则人民就不能忍受这种管理。问题的全部关键就在这里”。1922年11月20日，列宁在其生前最后一次公开讲话也即莫斯科苏维埃大会上的讲话中再次强调：“我们必须走向社会主义，但不是把它当做用庄严的色彩画成的圣像”，而是必须努力让人民群众觉得“这比旧制度好”，“必须善于克服新经济政策的一切消极面，使之缩小到最低限度”，“这样，新经济政策的俄国将变成社会主义俄国”。列宁这些论述无疑都是在强调，共产党人只有掌握高于资本家的本领和能力，才能在和资本家的激烈较量中赢得主动，才能真正实现利用资本主义而不是被资本主义利用，才能让人民群众通过比较，选择共产党和社会主义，从而实现“新经济政策的俄国将变成社会主义俄国”的目标。

The above shows that the spiritual essence of Lenin’s thought on using capitalism lies in using capitalism to serve the realization of socialism, while maintaining vigilance against the dangers of developing capitalism and ultimately transcending it. Permitting the development of capitalism is a means to raise the backward level of social productive forces in Soviet Russia and ultimately realize socialism; realizing socialism is the fundamental purpose for allowing the existence of capitalist elements under the New Economic Policy. This still has significant practical reference significance for China today. At present, realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and advancing the great cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics still require mobilizing the enthusiasm of all factors of production. In the current general situation where the world still has two social systems coexisting, on the one hand, we should recognize that “for a fairly long period, socialism in its primary stage must still engage in long-term cooperation and struggle with the more developed productive forces of capitalism, and must still earnestly learn from and draw on the beneficial achievements of civilization created by capitalism.” [41]41 This is a quotation from a Chinese Communist Party document, likely from the 18th or 19th National Congress report, emphasizing the need to learn from capitalism while maintaining socialist orientation. On the other hand, we must maintain a sober understanding that capitalism and socialism, as two completely different social systems, inevitably have antagonisms and contradictions. We must clearly recognize the profit-seeking nature of capital, and also see that some Western countries are absolutely unwilling to see a socialist China growing stronger and will inevitably resort to every possible means, stopping at nothing, to contain China’s development. Especially at present, with unprecedented major changes in the world and the COVID-19 pandemic intertwined and superimposed, we are facing an unprecedentedly severe external environment and arduous and heavy tasks of domestic reform, development, and stability. It is all the more necessary to maintain strong strategic resolve, “unswervingly follow the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, neither taking the old closed and rigid path nor the evil path of changing the banner,” [42]42 This is a standard formulation from Chinese Communist Party discourse, first articulated by Xi Jinping, so that socialism with Chinese characteristics, on the basis of learning from, drawing on, absorbing, and using all the achievements of civilization created by capitalism, can achieve better and faster development, making the country more prosperous and the people happier, continuously winning the initiative and advantages for us, and continuously building a socialism that is superior to capitalism.

以上表明，列宁利用资本主义的思想的精神实质在于通过利用资本主义为实现社会主义服务，同时对发展资本主义的危险保持警惕并最终超越资本主义，允许资本主义发展是提高苏俄落后的社会生产力水平并最终实现社会主义的途径，实现社会主义是新经济政策允许资本主义因素存在的根本目的。这对今天的中国来说仍然具有重大的现实借鉴意义。当前，实现中华民族的伟大复兴和推进中国特色社会主义伟大事业，仍需要调动一切生产要素的积极性。在当今世界仍然是两种社会制度并存的大格局下，我们一方面应认识到“在相当长时期内，初级阶段的社会主义还必须同生产力更发达的资本主义长期合作和斗争，还必须认真学习和借鉴资本主义创造的有益文明成果”。另一方面，又要对资本主义和社会主义作为两种性质完全不同的社会制度不可避免地存在着对立和矛盾保持清醒认识。要清醒认识到资本逐利的本性，也要看到西方一些国家绝不愿意看到社会主义中国日益强大，必然处心积虑、不择手段地遏制中国发展。特别是当前，前所未有的世界大变局和新冠肺炎疫情交织叠加，我们正面临空前严峻的外部环境和艰巨繁重的国内改革发展稳定任务，更加需要保持强大的战略定力，“坚定不移走中国特色社会主义道路，既不走封闭僵化的老路，也不走改旗易帜的邪路”，使中国特色社会主义在学习借鉴、吸纳利用资本主义创造的一切文明成果的基础上得到更好更快的发展，让国家更富强、人民更幸福，不断为我们赢得主动、赢得优势，不断建设对资本主义具有优越性的社会主义。

(Authors: Wang Jinfen, Key Research Base for Marxist Theory and Regional Practice, Guangxi Normal University; Yang Xiuqin, School of Marxism, Guangxi Normal University)

（作者：王进芬，广西师范大学马克思主义理论与区域实践研究中心重点基地；杨秀芹，广西师范大学马克思主义学院）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心