Lenin’s Exploration of Russia’s Path of Social Development before the October Revolution and Its Significance

Lenin’s influence on China began with the October Revolution; therefore, Lenin’s thought during and after the October Revolution has always been a focus of domestic academic attention and research, and the relevant research results are extremely abundant. However, the fact that backward Russia was able to take the lead in embarking on the socialist development path through the October Revolution was inseparable from Lenin’s arduous exploration of Russia’s path of social development before the October Revolution. During the more than twenty years from 1893 to 1917, Lenin, from discussing how Russia could move toward a socialist society to specifically exploring how to transform Russia’s old system of land tenure, tirelessly sought a path of social development that could both rapidly promote the development of productive forces and maximize the protection of the interests of the workers and peasants. Through arduous theoretical exploration and practice, Lenin pointed the way for the Russian workers and peasants to choose the correct path of struggle and provided a scientific cognitive premise for the formulation of the New Economic Policy. In the New Era, reviewing Lenin’s exploration of Russia’s path of social development before the October Revolution still holds important practical revelatory significance.

列宁对中国的影响是从十月革命开始的，因此十月革命及之后时期的列宁思想一直以来都是国内学界关注和研究的重点，相关的研究成果也极为丰硕。然而，落后的俄国能够通过十月革命率先走上社会主义发展道路离不开列宁在十月革命之前对俄国社会发展道路的艰辛探索。在从1893年到1917年的二十余年时间里，列宁从探讨俄国如何走向社会主义社会的问题，到具体探讨如何变革俄国旧的土地占有制的问题，始终孜孜以求一条既能促进社会生产力快速发展又能最大程度照顾工农群众利益的社会发展道路。通过艰辛的理论探索与实践，列宁为俄国工农群众选择正确的斗争道路指明了方向，为新经济政策的提出提供了科学的认识前提。在新时代，回顾列宁在十月革命之前对俄国社会发展道路的探索仍具有重要的现实启示意义。

I. On the Question of Whether Russia Could Take the Populist “Non-Capitalist” Path

一、关于俄国能否走民粹派式“非资本主义”道路的问题

In the early 1890s, when Lenin, as a young Marxist, stepped onto the Russian political stage, the debate between Russian Marxists and Narodniks [1]1 “Cut-off lands” (отрезки) refers to the portions of land taken from the peasants during the 1861 emancipation reform and retained by the landlords, which became a major source of peasant grievance and struggle in late imperial Russia. was in full swing. The core issue of the debate was whether Russia could bypass the stage of capitalist development and directly enter a socialist society on the basis of the communal land ownership of the rural commune.

19世纪90年代初，当列宁作为一名年轻的马克思主义者登上俄国政治舞台时，俄国马克思主义者与民粹主义者之间的论战正酣，二者争论的核心问题是俄国能否不经过资本主义发展阶段在农村公社土地公有制的基础上直接进入社会主义社会。

This question was first raised by Herzen and Ogarev in the 1840s, aiming to find a Russian path to a socialist society. Herzen ultimately discovered that the commune was the key for serf-owning Russia to directly transition to a socialist society, because the commune practiced public land ownership and there was a tradition of mutual aid and cooperation among the commune peasants. Nevertheless, Herzen did not consider the Russian commune a unique product of human history, but explicitly pointed out that this organization had once existed among all Slavic tribes. However, the Russian Narodniks, formed in the 1860s, not only regarded the commune as a unique product of Russia but also trumpeted the superiority of the commune economy over the capitalist economy, grandly discussing the ideal of bypassing the stage of capitalist development and directly entering a socialist society on the basis of the commune. The error of this “non-capitalist” path theory lies not in seeking a special path for Russia, but in failing to understand historical materialism, failing to see the historically progressive role of capitalism, and vainly attempting to graft a socialist society onto the economic organization of small-scale production. Therefore, Lenin believed that the Narodniks were merely indulging in empty talk about the possibility of “the motherland taking another path,” and characterized their theory as reactionary utopian socialism.

这一问题最先由赫尔岑和奥加辽夫在19世纪40年代提出，旨在探求过渡到社会主义社会的俄国式道路。赫尔岑最终发现村社才是农奴制的俄国直接过渡到社会主义社会的钥匙，因为村社实行的是土地公有制，且村社农民中有一种互助合作的传统。尽管如此，赫尔岑并不认为俄国村社是人类历史上独一无二的产物，而是明确指出这种组织曾存在于所有的斯拉夫部族中。然而，形成于19世纪60年代的俄国民粹派不仅把村社视为俄国独特的产物，还鼓吹村社经济优越于资本主义经济，大谈绕过资本主义发展阶段在村社基础上直接进入社会主义社会的理想。这种“非资本主义”道路理论的错误不在于为俄国寻找特殊的道路，而在于不理解历史唯物主义，看不到资本主义的历史进步作用，妄图把社会主义社会嫁接在小生产的经济组织之上。所以，列宁认为民粹派只不过是在清谈“祖国走另外道路”的可能性，并把他们的理论定性为反动的空想社会主义。

More seriously, the theory of the Narodniks was the “prevailing theory” in Russia in the mid-to-late 19th century, seriously affecting the spread and development of Marxism in Russia. Lenin said: “Russian Marxism arose in the writings of an émigré group (the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ group) in the early 1880s.” [1]1 “Cut-off lands” (отрезки) refers to the portions of land taken from the peasants during the 1861 emancipation reform and retained by the landlords, which became a major source of peasant grievance and struggle in late imperial Russia. (P378) This means that when the “non-capitalist” path theory of the Narodniks had already become widely known to the Russian intelligentsia and even the peasants, Russian Marxism was still in its infancy. Consequently, the problem Russian Marxism faced in its initial stage was: “it was completely incomprehensible to its opponents, and there were various forces trying to suppress the new trend as soon as it appeared.” [2]2 The *Potemkin*: A Russian battleship whose crew mutinied in June 1905 during the Revolution of 1905. The mutiny, though ultimately unsuccessful, became a famous symbol of revolutionary resistance within the military. (P428) Narodism was at the forefront of these “various forces.” Based on this, Lenin even referred to the period before 1897 as the “most intense period” for the Russian Social Democratic Party in terms of theory.

更为严重的是，民粹派的理论在19世纪中后期的俄国是“流行的理论”，严重影响了马克思主义在俄国的传播和发展。列宁说：“俄国的马克思主义是在上一世纪80年代初期的一个侨民团体(‘劳动解放社’)的著作中产生的。”[1](P378)这就意味着，在民粹派的“非资本主义”道路理论已经广为俄国知识分子甚至农民所知①时，俄国马克思主义尚处于起步阶段。这样一来，俄国马克思主义在最初阶段面临的问题是：“它根本不为对手们所了解，又有种种势力力图在新派别一出现时就把它压下去”。[2](P428)民粹主义更是居于“种种势力”之首。基于此，列宁甚至把1897年之前的时期称为俄国社会民主党理论方面“最紧张的时期”。

To overcome the Narodnik “non-capitalist” path theory, Lenin, guided by Marxism, concretely examined the state of Russia’s socio-economic development since the 1861 serfdom reform [2]2 The *Potemkin*: A Russian battleship whose crew mutinied in June 1905 during the Revolution of 1905. The mutiny, though ultimately unsuccessful, became a famous symbol of revolutionary resistance within the military., and deeply criticized the Narodniks’ “artificiality theory,” “destruction theory,” and “stagnation theory” regarding the development of capitalism in Russia.

为战胜民粹派“非资本主义”道路理论，列宁以马克思主义为指导，切实考察了1861年农奴制改革以来俄国社会经济发展的状况，深入批判了民粹派在俄国资本主义发展问题上的“人为论”“破坏论”和“停滞论”。

The “artificiality theory” was the basic argument of the Narodniks that capitalism could not develop in Russia. The Narodniks believed that Russia lacked the conditions for capitalist development, and that the development of some capitalist industries in Russia was purely the result of artificial support by the tsarist government. To criticize this argument, first, Lenin focused on analyzing the Narodniks’ “market problem” and “contradiction problem” regarding the obstacles to capitalist development in Russia, pointing out that the impoverishment of the masses and the formation of the domestic market were two sides of the same process, a manifestation of the development of capitalism in Russia, and that there was no so-called market problem in Russia; contradiction did not mean impossibility, any society has contradictions in its development process, and contradictions are the internal driving force that prompts the disintegration of capitalism and its transformation into a higher social formation. Second, by analyzing the relations of production in the Russian countryside at the end of the 19th century, Lenin discovered that the commune peasants had already undergone capitalist differentiation, that the commune peasants were by no means opponents of capitalism, and that the so-called “artificial” bourgeoisie had grown spontaneously in Russia. Lenin further pointed out that although Russian capitalism had already developed, compared with contemporary Western European capitalism, it was still at a lower stage of development, manifesting as “an undeveloped embryonic state.”

“人为论”是民粹派关于资本主义在俄国发展不起来的基本论调。民粹派认为，俄国不具备资本主义发展的条件，一些资本主义工业在俄国的发展纯属沙皇政府人为扶植的结果。为批判这一论点，首先，列宁重点分析了民粹派关于阻碍俄国资本主义发展的“市场问题”和“矛盾问题”，指出人民大众的贫穷化与国内市场的形成是同一过程的两个方面，是资本主义在俄国发展的表现，俄国不存在所谓的市场问题；而矛盾不等于不可能，任何一个社会在其发展过程中都存在矛盾，矛盾是促使资本主义瓦解和向更高级社会形态转化的内在动力。其次，列宁通过分析19世纪末俄国农村中的生产关系，发现村社农民已经发生了资本主义的分化，村社农民根本不是资本主义的对抗者，所谓的“人为的”资产阶级完全是在俄国自发生长的。列宁进一步指出，俄国资本主义虽然已经发展起来，但与同时代的西欧资本主义相比，还处于较低的发展阶段，表现为“不发达的萌芽状态”。

The “destruction theory” was the main argument of the Narodniks that Russia should not take the capitalist path of development. The formation of capitalist relations of production presupposes the bankruptcy of a large number of small producers, and its development is realized through the exploitation of wage labor by capital. Moreover, the development of capitalism also causes various social problems such as economic crises, widening wealth gaps, and moral decline. Therefore, the development of capitalism in Russia was undoubtedly a disaster for the vast majority of commune peasants. Consequently, the Narodniks, who were wholeheartedly seeking the welfare of the commune peasants and trying to preserve the commune organization, believed that Russia should not take the capitalist path of development. Lenin, proceeding from historical materialism, concretely analyzed the historically progressive role played by the development of capitalism in Russia, especially its role in raising the social productive forces of labor and the socialization of labor. Lenin further pointed out: “Acknowledging the progressive nature of this role is entirely consistent with fully acknowledging the negative and dark sides of capitalism, and with fully acknowledging the profound and comprehensive social contradictions inevitably inherent in this economic system, which reveal its historical transience (we have tried to point this out in detail at every stage of presenting the facts).” [3]3 The “American” path and the “Prussian” path: Terms used by Lenin (following Marx’s analysis of different routes to capitalist agriculture) to describe two ideal-typical paths of agrarian capitalist development. The “American” path involves the revolutionary abolition of feudal landholding and the development of a free farmer economy. The “Prussian” path involves a slow, reformist transition where the old landlord class gradually transforms into capitalist farmers, preserving many semi-feudal features. (P548) It is precisely because capitalism has this historically progressive role that Marx and Engels’ “theory of the leap” [3]3 The “American” path and the “Prussian” path: Terms used by Lenin (following Marx’s analysis of different routes to capitalist agriculture) to describe two ideal-typical paths of agrarian capitalist development. The “American” path involves the revolutionary abolition of feudal landholding and the development of a free farmer economy. The “Prussian” path involves a slow, reformist transition where the old landlord class gradually transforms into capitalist farmers, preserving many semi-feudal features. emphasizes that backward countries need to absorb all the achievements of positive capitalist civilization. Of course, acknowledging the historical progressiveness of capitalism does not mean acting as an apologist for capitalism. This is also the difference between Russian Marxists and the “Legal Marxists.” [4]4 “Legal Marxists” were Russian intellectuals in the 1890s who used Marxist terminology to defend capitalist development in Russia but rejected the revolutionary conclusions of Marxism, advocating instead for gradual reform within the existing system. The latter, on the issue of Russian capitalism, took opposite extremes from the Narodniks, either completely affirming or completely denying it, lacking both historical perspective and dialectical spirit. In contrast, while affirming the progressive role of Russian capitalism, Lenin never forgot its historical transience and explicitly pointed out that it would inevitably be replaced by a higher social formation.

“破坏论”是民粹派关于俄国不应该走资本主义发展道路的主要论据。资本主义生产关系的形成是以大量小生产者的破产为前提的，其发展是通过资本剥削雇佣劳动来实现的。不仅如此，资本主义的发展还会造成诸如经济危机、贫富差距拉大、道德滑坡等各种各样的社会问题。所以，资本主义在俄国的发展对于绝大多数的村社农民来说无疑是一场灾难。因此，一心为村社农民谋福利并试图保全村社组织的民粹派认为俄国不应该走资本主义发展道路。列宁则从历史唯物主义出发，具体分析了资本主义在俄国的发展中所产生的历史进步作用，特别是在造成俄国社会劳动生产力的提高和劳动的社会化这两个方面的作用。列宁还进一步指出：“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(我们在叙述事实的每一阶段上都力求详细指明这一点)。”[3](P548)正因为资本主义有这种历史进步作用，马克思、恩格斯的“跨越论”才强调落后国家需要吸收资本主义积极文明的一切成果。当然，承认资本主义的历史进步性不等于充当资本主义的辩护人。这也是俄国马克思主义者与“合法马克思主义”者的不同之处。后者在俄国资本主义问题上，与民粹主义者各执一端，不是全盘肯定就是全盘否定，既没有历史眼光又缺乏辩证精神。相反，列宁在肯定俄国资本主义进步作用的同时，丝毫没有忘记它的历史暂时性，并明确指出它必将被更高的社会形态所取代。

The “stagnation theory” was the basic view of the Narodniks on the characteristics of Russian capitalist development. Severely constrained by the remnants of serfdom, Russian capitalism developed very slowly compared with contemporary Western European capitalism; Lenin even described it as “crawling like a tortoise.” Proceeding from appearances, the Narodniks labeled Russian capitalist production as “stagnant” and concluded that it had no future. Lenin believed that the characteristic of Russian capitalism actually lay in its “backwardness,” specifically manifested in the atypical mode of production, relatively backward production technology, extreme imbalance in development between industry and agriculture and between regions, and a weak political superstructure. Consequently, Lenin advocated using revolutionary means to eradicate the remnants of serfdom and create conditions for the full development of capitalism.

“停滞论”是民粹派关于俄国资本主义发展特点的基本观点。俄国资本主义由于受到农奴制残余的严重束缚，与同时代的西欧资本主义相比，发展十分缓慢，列宁甚至用“乌龟爬行”来形容它。民粹派从表象出发，将俄国资本主义生产贴上“停滞”的标签，断定其没有发展前途。列宁则认为，俄国资本主义的特点实际上在于“落后”，具体表现为生产方式不够典型、生产技术比较滞后、工农业间和区域间的发展极不平衡以及政治上层建筑薄弱。由此，列宁主张用革命的方式铲除农奴制残余，为资本主义的充分发展创造条件。

II. On the Question of Whether the Russian Proletariat Should Be the “Leader” or the “Promoter” of the Democratic Revolution

二、关于俄国无产阶级做民主革命的“领导者”还是“推动者”的问题

After the previous question was thoroughly resolved, Russia experienced its first bourgeois democratic revolution in history in 1905. The outbreak of the revolution first raised the question of leadership, i.e., who should lead the democratic revolution. For the Russian proletariat and its party, this question concerned not only the advancement of the proletariat’s revolutionary strategy but also the future prospects of the Russian revolution, making it an extremely important theoretical and practical issue. However, on this question, the two factions of the Russian proletarian party, the Social Democratic Labor Party, had serious differences. In Lenin’s words: “The Bolshevik and Menshevik factions themselves reduced the divergence to this opposition: should one be the revolutionary ‘leader’ and ‘director’ who ‘guides’ the peasants ‘forward,’ or should one be the ‘revolutionary promoter’ who ‘supports’ certain measures of the bourgeois democrats?”[1]1 “Cut-off lands” (отрезки) refers to the portions of land taken from the peasants during the 1861 emancipation reform and retained by the landlords, which became a major source of peasant grievance and struggle in late imperial Russia.(P347)

在上一问题得以彻底解决后，俄国于1905年爆发了历史上的第一次资产阶级民主革命。革命的爆发首先提出了领导权的问题，即谁来领导民主革命。对于俄国无产阶级及其政党来说，这一问题不仅事关无产阶级革命战略的推进，还事关俄国革命的发展前途，是一个极为重要的理论与实践问题。然而，在这一问题上，俄国无产阶级政党即社会民主工党的两个派别却产生了严重的分歧。用列宁的话说：“布尔什维克和孟什维克这两个派别自己把分歧归结为这样的对立：是做‘引导’农民‘前进’的革命‘领袖’和‘领导者’呢，还是做‘支持’资产阶级民主派某些措施的‘革命推动者’。”[1](P347)

The Menshevik faction advocated that the proletariat should act as the “promoter” of the democratic revolution. The basis for this position was: first, the 1905 revolution was a bourgeois democratic revolution, a struggle of the general democratic forces against the autocracy and the landlords; after its victory, what was to be established was a bourgeois democratic republic, and such a state should naturally be in the hands of the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat; second, proletarian leadership of the revolution would not only scare off the bourgeoisie but also cause Russia’s current democratic revolution to transition directly into a socialist revolution, which was premature in Russia; third, the occurrence of the proletariat seizing and holding state power should depend on whether the revolutionary process had already extended to Western European countries where conditions for building socialism were already present. Therefore, in the Menshevik view, the 1905 revolution could only be led by the bourgeoisie; the proletariat could neither lead the revolution nor hold state power, nor was it even permissible to participate in state power; it could only support the bourgeoisie in the revolution, i.e., play the role of “promoter.”

孟什维克派主张无产阶级做民主革命的“推动者”。这一主张的依据是：第一，1905年革命是资产阶级性质的民主革命，是一般的民主派反对专制制度和地主的斗争，革命胜利之后所要建立的是资产阶级民主共和国，这样的国家理应由资产阶级而不是无产阶级掌握政权；第二，无产阶级领导革命不仅会吓跑资产阶级，还会使俄国当前的民主革命直接过渡到社会主义革命，而社会主义革命在俄国还为时过早；第三，无产阶级夺取和掌握政权的发生，应该依赖于革命进程是否已经扩展到西欧已经具备建立社会主义条件的国家。所以，在孟什维克看来，1905年革命只能由资产阶级来领导，无产阶级既不能领导革命，也不能掌握政权，甚至连参与政权都是不可以的，只能在革命中支持资产阶级，即扮演“推动者”的角色。

Lenin, however, argued that the proletariat should be the “leader” of the democratic revolution. This position was not something Lenin concocted. From a theoretical perspective, Marx and Engels, when summing up the experiences and lessons of the German workers in the 1848 European revolutions, pointed out that workers should not “go to serve as the echo of the bourgeois democrats,”[4]4 “Legal Marxists” were Russian intellectuals in the 1890s who used Marxist terminology to defend capitalist development in Russia but rejected the revolutionary conclusions of Marxism, advocating instead for gradual reform within the existing system.(P558) should not be controlled and led by the bourgeois democrats, but should maintain their own independence. Proceeding precisely from this idea, Lenin creatively put forward the proposition that the proletariat should lead the democratic revolution rather than act as the tail of the bourgeois democrats. He said: “Marxism teaches the proletarian not to stay away from the bourgeois revolution, not to be indifferent to the bourgeois revolution, not to surrender the leadership of the revolution to the bourgeoisie, but, on the contrary, to take the most energetic part in it, to fight most resolutely for consistent proletarian democracy, for carrying the revolution through to the end.”[5]5 The Narodniks (from the Russian *narod*, “people”) were a Russian populist movement in the late 19th century that believed Russia could bypass capitalism and build socialism on the basis of the traditional peasant village commune (*obshchina*). Lenin wrote extensively against their theories.(P34) From a practical perspective: first, the Russian bourgeoisie was characterized by weakness and compromise and could not carry the democratic revolution through to the end; second, the revolutionary consciousness of the 20th-century Russian peasantry was insufficient, making it difficult for them to occupy the primary position in the revolution as the early Western European peasantry had; third, the 20th-century Russian proletariat already had a relatively mature party and possessed the ability to lead the democratic revolution; fourth, the European and American countries entered an era of political turmoil and revolution at the beginning of the 20th century, and the proletariat could no longer confine itself to the defensive struggles of the era of political reaction. For this reason, Lenin proposed that the process of social historical development is not a slow, uniformly rising straight line without leaps; the proletariat, under specific historical conditions, could fully lead the bourgeois democratic revolution and establish a revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants.

列宁则认为，无产阶级应该做民主革命的“领导者”。这一主张并不是列宁臆想出来的。从理论方面看，马克思、恩格斯在总结1848年欧洲革命时期德国工人在革命中的经验教训时指出，工人不应该“去充当资产阶级民主派的随声附和的合唱队”，[4](P558)不应该受资产阶级民主派的控制和领导，而应该保持自己的独立性。正是从这一思想出发，列宁创造性地提出无产阶级应当领导民主革命而不是充当资产阶级民主派尾巴的主张。他说：“马克思主义教导无产者不要避开资产阶级革命，不要对资产阶级革命漠不关心，不要把革命中的领导权交给资产阶级，相反地，要尽最大的努力参加革命，最坚决地为彻底的无产阶级民主主义、为把革命进行到底而奋斗。”[5](P34)从实践方面看，一是俄国资产阶级具有软弱和妥协的特点，不可能将民主革命进行到底；二是20世纪的俄国农民的革命自觉性不足，难以像早期的西欧农民那样在革命中占据首要地位；三是20世纪的俄国无产阶级已经有了较为成熟的政党，具备领导民主革命的能力；四是欧美国家在20世纪初进入了政治动荡和革命时代，无产阶级不能再局限于政治反动时代的防御性斗争。为此，列宁提出，社会历史的发展过程并非一条缓慢而均匀上升的没有飞跃的直线，无产阶级在特定的历史条件下完全可以领导资产阶级民主革命和建立工农革命民主专政。

So, how could the Russian proletariat realize this leadership? Lenin put forward several very important views: First, it was necessary to raise the socialist consciousness of the proletariat. If the proletariat lacked sufficient socialist consciousness, it could easily lead to confusion between the democratic minimum program and the socialist maximum program, thereby affecting the smooth progress of the democratic revolutionary movement. Second, it was necessary to put forward correct tactical slogans. To achieve leadership over the revolutionary masses, the proletariat and its party needed to use certain tactical slogans to summon and mobilize the masses. Third, it was necessary to lead the proletariat in choosing the most appropriate means of struggle. The revolutionary movement is a practice; the revolutionary subject needs to act upon the revolutionary object by means of certain methods or instruments. To this end, Lenin said: “The Social Democratic Party must not only lead the proletariat in putting forward correct slogans, but must also lead the proletariat in choosing the most resolute and most appropriate means of struggle.”[6]6 The Mensheviks (from the Russian *men’shinstvo*, “minority”) were a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party that opposed Lenin’s Bolshevik faction. They generally argued that Russia must first complete a bourgeois-democratic revolution before a socialist revolution could occur.(P374) Thus, the crux of the issue lay in how to choose the most appropriate means of struggle. Lenin believed that specific means of struggle were adapted to specific environments of struggle, and the revolutionary movement could not be confined to any single fixed form of struggle. Fourth, it was necessary to broadly develop all aspects of the workers’ movement. In October 1905, the Odessa Committee of Russia prioritized preparations for an armed uprising, relegating the task of leading trade union struggles to second place. Lenin considered this formulation erroneous both in theory and in tactics. Because trade union struggle is a manifestation of economic struggle, while armed uprising is a specific means of political struggle under particular revolutionary circumstances; the two cannot be equated. Furthermore, the proletariat could only achieve final victory by simultaneously waging political struggle, economic struggle, and theoretical struggle, i.e., by closely linking these three aspects of struggle. Fifth, it was necessary to establish Party cells within all non-Party organizations. During the 1905 revolution, Russia’s cooperatives, trade unions, soviets of workers’ deputies, the Duma, and various cultural and educational societies were all non-Party organizations, i.e., organizations that did not have a partisan character and were not influenced or led by a specific party, especially the proletarian party. However, these non-Party organizations played an important role in Russia’s political life at the time. If the proletarian party could make them transition from being non-Party to having a Party character, the strength of the Russian democratic revolution would be greatly enhanced. To produce such an influence, it was necessary to establish Party cells within non-Party organizations. Sixth, it was necessary to free the petty bourgeoisie from the influence of the liberal bourgeoisie. In early 20th-century Russia, the petty bourgeoisie, primarily composed of peasants, constituted the majority of the population. Therefore, “the outcome of the bourgeois revolution depends first of all on the political attitude of the small producers.”[7]7 This is a direct quotation from Lenin. The citation “[14](P7)” refers to the original source in the author’s bibliography.(P24) However, their status as small proprietors made the petty bourgeoisie more susceptible to the influence of the liberal bourgeoisie. To this end, Lenin emphasized: “The fundamental task of the Social Democrats (a task completely incomprehensible to the Mensheviks) is to persistently break the leadership of the liberals over the democrats, persistently liberate the petty-bourgeois masses from under the wing of the Constitutional Democrats, and bring them under the influence and leadership of the Social Democrats.”[8]8 The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) was the Marxist revolutionary party founded in 1898. It split into the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions in 1903.(P39) Seventh, it was necessary to struggle against the bourgeoisie while utilizing it. How to correctly handle the relationship with the bourgeoisie was a key issue for the Russian proletariat in leading the democratic revolution. While fighting side-by-side with the Russian bourgeoisie, Lenin not only exposed its intention to exploit the revolution for speculation but also competed with the Constitutional Democrats for Duma votes during the elections for the Second Duma.

那么，俄国无产阶级如何才能实现这一领导权呢?列宁提出了一些非常重要的观点：一是要提高无产阶级的社会主义觉悟。如果无产阶级缺乏足够的社会主义觉悟，很容易造成民主主义最低纲领同社会主义最高纲领混淆的情况，从而影响民主革命运动的顺利推进。二是要提出正确的策略口号。要实现对革命群众的领导，无产阶级及其政党就需要通过一定的策略口号来号召和发动群众。三是要领导无产阶级选择最适当的斗争手段。革命运动是一种实践，革命主体需要借助一定的方式或手段作用于革命对象。为此，列宁说：“社会民主党不仅应该领导无产阶级提出正确的口号，而且应该领导无产阶级选择最果断最适当的斗争手段。”[6](P374)如此，问题的关键在于如何选择最适当的斗争手段。列宁认为，具体的斗争手段是与具体的斗争环境相适应的，不能把革命运动局限于某一种固定的斗争形式。四是要广泛发展工人运动的各个方面。1905年10月，俄国敖德萨委员会把为武装起义作准备的任务提到首位，把领导工会斗争的任务降到第二位。列宁认为这种提法不论在理论上还是在策略上都是错误的。因为，工会斗争是经济斗争的表现，而武装起义是政治斗争在特定革命形势下的一种具体手段，二者不能相提并论。此外，无产阶级只有在开展政治斗争的同时开展经济斗争和理论斗争，即将这三个方面的斗争紧密联系起来，才能最终取得胜利。五是要在一切非党的组织内建立党支部。1905年革命时期，俄国的合作社、工会、工人代表苏维埃、杜马和各种文化教育团体都属于非党组织，即不具有党派性质、不受某个党派特别是无产阶级政党影响和领导的组织。然而，这些非党组织在当时俄国的政治生活中发挥着重要作用。如果无产阶级政党能够使其从无党性变成有党性，俄国民主革命的力量就会得到大大的增强。要产生这样的影响，就必须在非党组织内建立党支部。六是要使小资产阶级摆脱自由派资产阶级的影响。在20世纪初的俄国，以农民为主体的俄国小资产者占总人口的大多数。因此，“资产阶级革命的结局首先取决于小生产者的政治态度”。[7](P24)然而，小业主身份使得小资产阶级更容易受自由派资产阶级的影响。为此，列宁强调：“社会民主党的基本任务(这个任务孟什维克根本不能理解)，就是要坚持不懈地破除自由派对民主派的领导，坚持不懈地把小资产阶级群众从立宪民主党的卵翼下解放出来，使他们受社会民主党的感化和影响。”[8](P39)七是要在利用资产阶级的同时与之作斗争。如何正确处理与资产阶级之间的关系是俄国无产阶级领导民主革命的一个关键问题。在与俄国资产阶级并肩作战的同时，列宁不仅揭露其投机革命的意图，还在第二届杜马选举期间与立宪民主党人争夺杜马的选票。

III. On the Question of Whether the Development of the Russian Revolution Should Take the “Direct Path” or the “Tortuous Path”

三、关于俄国革命的发展走“直接的道路”还是“曲折的道路”的问题

To quell the rising revolutionary tide, the tsarist government promulgated a decree on August 6, 1905, concerning the establishment of a State Duma. This posed a new question for the developing Russian revolution: whether the next step of the revolution should take the “direct path” or the “circuitous path,” specifically manifested as boycotting the Duma or participating in it. Lenin pointed out: “The objective situation has posed a question for the contending social forces to resolve: will the next victory be achieved by the direct path, that is, the path of direct revolutionary struggle and the direct establishment of representative organs on the basis of full democracy, or by the circuitous path, the path of constitutional monarchy and a police-style ‘constitutional’ (so-called!) organ of the ‘Duma’ type.” [9]9 “Dual power” refers to the situation in Russia between the February Revolution (March 1917) and the October Revolution (November 1917), when political authority was shared between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.(P12) On this issue, the Russian bourgeois liberals were the first to turn to the “circuitous path,” followed closely by the Menshevik faction, which publicly condemned the Bolshevik faction for insisting on the “direct path.”

为平息日益高涨的革命浪潮，沙皇政府于1905年8月6日颁布了关于设立国家杜马的法令。这就给正在向前发展的俄国革命提出了一个新的问题，即革命下一步应该走“直接的道路”还是“曲折的道路”，具体表现为抵制杜马还是参加杜马?列宁指出：“客观形势提出了一个让斗争着的各种社会力量去解决的问题：在下一步将要取得胜利的是直接的道路，即进行直接的革命斗争和革命在充分民主的基础上直接建立代表机关的道路呢，还是迂回曲折的道路，即君主立宪和‘杜马’类型的警察式‘立宪’(所谓的!)机关的道路。”[9](P12)在这一问题上，俄国资产阶级自由派最先转向“曲折的道路”，孟什维克派紧随其后，并公开谴责布尔什维克派坚持走“直接的道路”。

If the Russian bourgeoisie’s choice of the path of constitutional monarchy stemmed from its weakness and compromise, then the Mensheviks, as a faction of the Russian proletarian party, also endorsing such a path seemed difficult to understand. In response, Lenin commented: “The opportunist wing of the Social Democratic Party, represented by the new *Iskra*, is an exception, a regrettable and deplorable exception that disrupts the integrity of the clear division of class camps.” [10]10 The New Economic Policy (NEP) was a policy introduced by Lenin in 1921 that temporarily allowed a degree of private enterprise and market mechanisms within the Soviet economy to revive production after the Russian Civil War.(P13) So, what was the fundamental reason for the Mensheviks’ choice? The root cause was their failure to understand the dialectics of revolution and their inability to see Russia’s specificity. Starting from the general role of parliaments, they fantasized about turning Russia’s parliament, the Duma, into an instrument of revolution. In Western capitalist countries, parliaments did provide a platform for the proletariat to engage in peaceful struggle. Marx and Engels did not deny that the proletariat in some countries could seize power through peaceful means. Furthermore, the Second International had established parliamentary struggle as the primary means of struggle. Influenced by this, the Mensheviks, despite knowing that the tsarist government’s Duma was a false representative body, still harbored illusions about it. One of the main Menshevik leaders, Axelrod, said: “For us, we should not concentrate our Party’s strength and the strength of the general democratic forces on the utopia of obstructing the implementation of the Bulygin plan, but rather on mobilizing and organizing those forces capable of transforming this official reactionary scheme into a weapon and instrument of revolution.” [11]11 The Bolshevik Party (from the Russian *bol’shinstvo*, “majority”) was the faction of the RSDLP led by Lenin that successfully led the October Revolution and later became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.(P73) Thus, in the Menshevik view, what the proletariat needed to do was not to boycott the creation of the Duma, but to impel this representative body to become a weapon and instrument of revolution, thereby achieving the revolutionary goal.

如果说俄国资产阶级选择走君主立宪道路源于其软弱性和妥协性，那么孟什维克派作为俄国无产阶级政党的一个派别也赞成走这样的道路似乎就很难理解了。针对此，列宁评论道：“以新《火星报》为代表的社会民主党机会主义派是一个例外，一个破坏了清楚的阶级营垒划分完整性的可悲的、令人遗憾的例外”。[10](P13)那么，孟什维克派到底为何如此选择呢?根本原因在于他们不懂得革命辩证法，看不到俄国的特殊性，从一般议会的作用出发，幻想将俄国的议会即杜马变成革命的工具。在西方资本主义国家，议会确实为无产阶级提供了和平斗争的讲坛。马克思、恩格斯也不曾否认，一些国家的无产阶级可以通过和平的方式取得政权。此外，第二国际还把议会斗争确立为主要的斗争手段。受此影响，孟什维克派明知沙皇政府的杜马是虚假的人民代表机关，仍对其抱有幻想。孟什维克主要领导人之一阿克雪里罗德说：“对我们来说，不应该把我们党的力量和一般的民主力量集中在阻碍布里根计划的实现这一空想上，而应该集中在动员和组织那些能够把官方这种反动计谋转变为革命的武器和工具的力量上。”[11](P73)可见，在孟什维克看来，无产阶级需要做的不是抵制杜马的产生，而是要促使这一代表机关成为革命的武器和工具，并且以此达成革命目的。

Lenin, however, believed that Marxists should be adept at helping the masses take the “direct path.” The “direct path” is the path of revolutionary development most beneficial to the people. First, the “direct path” sweeps away or fundamentally shakes the tsarist autocracy through the direct assault of the revolutionary masses, enabling the Russian workers and peasants to be liberated from the shackles of serfdom remnants as early and thoroughly as possible. Second, the “direct path” is the path of a democratic revolution led by the proletariat; once the revolution achieves victory, it can place state power in the hands of the proletariat and the peasantry. Third, the victory achieved via the “direct path” can provide the proletariat with the fullest political freedom, enabling it to strive for and realize socialism under conditions of freedom. However, whether this path can be taken depends on the existence of the necessary conditions, namely, the presence of a revolutionary upsurge. If the revolutionary momentum is weak and the revolutionary forces are insufficient to deliver a direct blow to the old regime, the “direct path” is not feasible. Lenin had a very profound understanding of this. He said: “1905 clearly demonstrated the possibility of direct mass struggle in the form of a general strike (the strike wave after January 9) and army mutiny (the *Potemkin*). That is, the direct revolutionary struggle of the masses was a fact.” [9]9 “Dual power” refers to the situation in Russia between the February Revolution (March 1917) and the October Revolution (November 1917), when political authority was shared between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.(P3) Since the possibility of taking the “direct path” existed, why not strive for it?

列宁则认为，马克思主义者应当善于帮助群众走“直接的道路”。“直接的道路”是对人民最有利的革命发展道路。第一，“直接的道路”用革命群众直接冲击的方式扫除或者根本动摇沙皇专制政权，能够使俄国工农群众尽早并彻底地从农奴制残余的束缚下解放出来；第二，“直接的道路”是无产阶级领导的民主革命道路，一旦革命取得胜利就能够使国家政权掌握在无产阶级和农民手中；第三，“直接的道路”导向的胜利能够为无产阶级提供最充分的政治自由，使无产阶级在自由的条件下争取和实现社会主义。但是，能否走这样的道路还要看是否具备相应的条件即革命高潮的存在。如果革命势头较弱，革命力量不足以对旧政权产生直接的冲击作用，“直接的道路”就是行不通的。列宁对此有十分深刻的认识。他说：“1905年清楚地表明，存在着进行总罢工(1月9日以后的罢工浪潮)和军队起义(‘波将金号’)这种直接的群众斗争的可能性。也就是说，群众的直接的革命斗争是事实。”[9](P3)既然存在走“直接的道路”的可能性，为何不去争取呢?

Regarding the “circuitous path,” Lenin proposed that Marxists do not reject compromises dictated by circumstances. The “circuitous path” is also a kind of compromise, a necessary compromise made by revolutionary forces against counter-revolutionary forces under specific historical conditions. Lenin acknowledged: “History usually develops along circuitous paths, and it is indisputable that a Marxist must be able to appreciate the extremely complex and bizarre circuitous paths of history.” [9]9 “Dual power” refers to the situation in Russia between the February Revolution (March 1917) and the October Revolution (November 1917), when political authority was shared between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.(P6) However, Lenin did not consider the “circuitous path” to be the primary choice for Marxists in revolution; rather, he saw it as a choice made reluctantly when revolutionary forces were insufficient. It was from this perspective that, after the Russian Revolution of 1905 entered a low ebb, Lenin turned to compromise, shifting from his earlier call to boycott the Duma to advocating participation in it, and even criticizing those who, disregarding the objective revolutionary situation, still insisted on boycotting the Duma. It should be pointed out that although Lenin later turned to advocating participation in the Duma, his view of the Duma also differed from that of the Mensheviks. Lenin believed that the Duma could only indirectly promote revolution and could never become an instrument of revolution. Tsar Nicholas II’s direct purpose in agreeing to establish the State Duma was to use it to curb the revolution, not to genuinely grant the people political freedom. Therefore, the Russian State Duma was in fact a counter-revolutionary tool of the tsarist government. Such a Duma could not have a direct driving effect on the development of the revolution. As Lenin pointed out, making speeches in the Duma would never spark a revolution. However, using the Duma for propaganda would yield no less benefit for the Russian Social Democratic Party than propaganda through other channels. Thus, in Lenin’s thinking, the Russian proletariat could utilize the Duma, but its significance was limited and must not be exaggerated. He emphasized: “If ‘utilize’ refers to what the Mensheviks prattle about, such as the Duma being an instrument of revolution, etc., then of course it cannot be utilized.” [9]9 “Dual power” refers to the situation in Russia between the February Revolution (March 1917) and the October Revolution (November 1917), when political authority was shared between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.(P25)

关于“曲折的道路”，列宁提出马克思主义者不拒绝形势注定的妥协。“曲折的道路”也是一种妥协，是特定历史条件下革命力量对反革命力量作出的必要妥协。列宁承认：“历史通常都是循着曲折的道路发展的，马克思主义者必须善于重视历史的极其复杂奇特的曲折道路，这是无可争辩的。”[9](P6)但列宁并不认为“曲折的道路”是马克思主义者在革命中的首要选择，而认为其是在革命力量不足时不得已作出的选择。正是从这样的观点出发，在俄国1905年革命进入低潮阶段后，列宁才转向妥协，从之前的号召抵制杜马转向主张参加杜马，甚至还批评那些不顾客观革命形势依然坚持抵制杜马的做法。需要指出的是，尽管后来列宁转向主张参加杜马，但他对杜马的看法也是不同于孟什维克派的。列宁认为，杜马只能间接地促进革命，不可能成为革命的工具。沙皇尼古拉二世同意设立国家杜马的直接目的是利用它来遏制革命，而不是为了真正地赋予人民以政治自由。所以，俄国国家杜马实为沙皇政府的反革命工具。这样的杜马不可能对革命的发展有直接的推动作用，诚如列宁所指出的，在杜马中发表演说绝不会引起革命。但是，利用杜马来宣传，对于俄国社会民主党来说，得到的好处也不会少于通过其他渠道进行宣传所得到的好处。如此，在列宁思想上，俄国无产阶级可以利用杜马，但它的意义有限，绝不能夸大。他强调：“要是‘利用’指的是孟什维克侈谈的所谓杜马是革命的工具等等，那当然是不能利用的。”[9](P25)

IV. The Question of Whether the Resolution of the Russian Agrarian Problem Should Follow the “American” or the “Prussian” Path

四、关于俄国土地问题的解决走“美国式”还是“普鲁士式”道路的问题

After the State Duma convened, representatives of various classes within it engaged in heated debates over how to resolve the agrarian problem. The agrarian problem was also the fundamental issue of the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution. On this issue, the specific plans of each class differed. As Lenin pointed out: “The various classes of bourgeois Russia each strive in their own way to complete and conclude this destruction.” [12](P286) Lenin believed that these plans for resolving the problem could be reduced to two types: whether the old landownership system would be destroyed by the landlords or by the peasants. This corresponded to the two paths of capitalist evolution in Russian agriculture: the “Prussian” path or the “American” path.

国家杜马召开后，杜马中各阶级代表围绕如何解决土地问题展开了激烈的争论。土地问题也是俄国资产阶级民主革命的根本问题。在这一问题上，各阶级的具体方案各不相同，诚如列宁所指出的：“资产阶级俄国的各个不同阶级都力图按自己的方式来完成、了结这种破坏”。[12](P286)列宁认为，这些解决问题的方案可以归结为两类，即由地主来破坏旧的土地所有制还是由农民来破坏旧的土地所有制，对应着俄国农业资本主义演进方式就是“普鲁士式”道路还是“美国式”道路。

In fact, the land question in Russia had a long history. In February 1861, Tsar Alexander II promulgated a decree abolishing serfdom, whereby peasants could be liberated together with the land, but had to pay a high redemption fee. Because the redemption fee far exceeded what peasants could bear, this solution to the land question aroused strong discontent among peasants everywhere. Thus, the peasants’ struggle for land never ceased in Russia after the abolition of serfdom. Lenin also said: “The peasants, who constitute eight- or nine-tenths of the entire petty bourgeoisie of Russia, are fighting primarily for the land.”[8]8 The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) was the Marxist revolutionary party founded in 1898. It split into the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions in 1903.(P51) For the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, to carry out a revolutionary movement in a backward country where peasants formed the majority of the population, it was essential to win the support of the peasants. Therefore, it was extremely important to pay attention to the peasant question and formulate a programme that supported the peasants’ land demands. As early as before the founding of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, Plekhanov’s “Emancipation of Labour” group had put forward a draft land programme for the Russian Social Democrats, calling for a “radical change in land relations”. Lenin considered this programme too abstract, offering no concrete views on the issue. In July 1903, the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party adopted its first land programme, which demanded the “return of the cut-off lands”.[1]1 “Cut-off lands” (отрезки) refers to the portions of land taken from the peasants during the 1861 emancipation reform and retained by the landlords, which became a major source of peasant grievance and struggle in late imperial Russia. The basic principle this programme followed was: support the peasant movement, strive to develop the class struggle in the countryside, and make this struggle conscious. However, after the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution, the peasants’ performance in the revolution, especially the widespread development of the peasants’ struggle to seize the landlords’ land everywhere, showed that the peasants’ demands were not merely for the “return of the cut-off lands”, but for the expropriation of all the landlords’ land. This meant that the 1903 land programme was already outdated, and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party needed to revise its original programme. In this regard, Lenin pointed out in his analysis: “The fundamental error of the 1903 land programme was, at the very least, the lack of a precise understanding of why the land struggle could and certainly would unfold during the bourgeois revolution in Russia, and a lack of precise understanding of the objectively possible forms of capitalist agricultural evolution that might emerge depending on which social forces were victorious in this struggle.”[9]9 “Dual power” refers to the situation in Russia between the February Revolution (March 1917) and the October Revolution (November 1917), when political authority was shared between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.(P223) On this basis, at Lenin’s insistence, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party revised the clause on “return of the cut-off lands” to “confiscation of the landlords’ land”, in order to express support for the peasants.

实际上，土地问题在俄国由来已久。1861年2月，沙皇亚历山大二世颁布了废除农奴制的法令，农民可以连带土地获得解放，但是必须付高额赎金。由于赎金大大超出了农民的可承受范围，这一解决土地问题的方案引起了各地农民的强烈不满。如此，农民争取土地的斗争在废除农奴制后的俄国从未停止过。列宁也说：“占整个俄国小资产阶级十分之八九的农民，他们首先是为土地而斗争。”[8](P51)对于俄国社会民主工党来说，要在一个农民占人口大多数的落后国家开展革命运动，必须获得农民的支持。因此，重视农民问题并制定一个支持农民的土地要求的纲领是极其重要的。早在俄国社会民主工党成立之前，普列汉诺夫领导的“劳动解放社”就提出了俄国社会民主党人的土地纲领草案，提出了“彻底改变土地关系”的要求。列宁认为这个纲领太抽象，对问题没有任何具体的看法。1903年7月，俄国社会民主工党第二次代表大会通过了第一个土地纲领，提出了“归还割地”的要求。这一纲领遵循的基本原则是：支持农民运动，努力发展农村中的阶级斗争，并使这一斗争具有自觉性。然而，1905年革命爆发后，农民在革命中的表现，特别是各地农民争夺地主土地斗争的广泛发展，表明农民的要求不仅仅是“归还割地”，而是要剥夺地主的全部土地。这就意味着1903年的土地纲领已经过时，俄国社会民主工党需要修订原有的纲领。对此，列宁分析指出：“1903年土地纲领的基本错误，至少是对于在俄国资产阶级革命过程中土地斗争为什么可能而且一定会开展起来这一问题缺乏确切的认识，对于在这种或那种社会力量在这一斗争中取得胜利的情况下客观上可能出现的几种资本主义农业演进的方式缺乏确切的认识。”[9](P223)基于此，在列宁主张下，俄国社会民主工党将“归还割地”的条款修订为“没收地主土地”，以表示对农民的支持。

Later, the peasant representatives in the Duma, i.e., the Trudoviks, raised the slogan of land nationalisation. After the establishment of the First State Duma, peasants from all over the country sent the Trudoviks their resolutions, letters, telegrams, mandates and other documents concerning the solution of the land question. Based on the demands expressed by the peasants in these various documents, the Trudoviks, in their speeches at Duma sessions, explicitly opposed the redemption of land and proposed the nationalisation of all land. The peasant representative Nechitailo said: “These lands belong to the people, yet some tell us we must buy the land. Are we foreigners from England, France, or other countries? We are all natives here. Why should we buy our own land? The blood, sweat, and money we have shed could have redeemed this land ten times over.”[9]9 “Dual power” refers to the situation in Russia between the February Revolution (March 1917) and the October Revolution (November 1917), when political authority was shared between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.(P364) Although the Russian peasants and their representatives were not aware that land nationalisation would lead to the development of capitalism, their proposal was undoubtedly a thorough negation of the old system of landlord landownership.

后来，杜马中的农民代表即劳动派提出了土地国有化的口号。在第一届国家杜马成立后，各地农民纷纷把他们关于解决土地问题的决议、书信、电报和委托书等文件寄给劳动派。基于农民在各种文件中提出的诉求，劳动派在杜马会议的发言中，明确表示反对赎买土地，并提出将一切土地收归国有。农民代表涅奇泰洛说：“这些土地是属于人民的，有人却对我们说，要花钱买地。难道我们是从英国、法国等国家来的外国人吗?我们都是本地人，为什么我们要花钱买自己的土地呢?我们流的血汗、花的金钱已经可以把这些土地赎回十次了。”[9](P364)虽然俄国农民及其代表并没有意识到土地国有化会造成资本主义的发展，但是他们的主张无疑是对旧的地主土地占有制的彻底否定。

Lenin highly appraised land nationalisation. He said: “Land nationalisation is not only the sole way to completely abolish medieval institutions in agriculture, but also the best possible land system under capitalism.”[9]9 “Dual power” refers to the situation in Russia between the February Revolution (March 1917) and the October Revolution (November 1917), when political authority was shared between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.(P393) If land nationalisation were implemented under the historical conditions of Russia at that time, all artificial boundaries on the land would be eliminated, land would thereby become truly free land, and capitalism could develop freely. At the same time, the serfdom system in agriculture, which relied on the system of landlord landownership, would be completely abolished, and the peasants could be truly liberated from the shackles of serfdom. Lenin further analysed the spiritual significance of nationalisation. He pointed out: “The spiritual significance of nationalisation in a revolutionary era lies in the proletariat helping to strike a blow against ‘one form of private property’, a blow that is bound to reverberate throughout the world.”[9]9 “Dual power” refers to the situation in Russia between the February Revolution (March 1917) and the October Revolution (November 1917), when political authority was shared between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.(P289) Tsarist Russia had once acted as the “gendarme” of the European revolution. If the plan for land nationalisation could be transformed from theory into practice in Russia, it would break this last counter-revolutionary feudal stronghold, thereby promoting the development of the proletarian revolution in Europe. Thus, Lenin established land nationalisation as the sole programme of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in the bourgeois revolution. Since land nationalisation was precisely the core content of the “American” path, Lenin highly appraised the “American” path, calling this evolution “the most rapid development of the productive forces, and the best living conditions for the peasant masses (within the limits possible under commodity production)”.[9]9 “Dual power” refers to the situation in Russia between the February Revolution (March 1917) and the October Revolution (November 1917), when political authority was shared between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.(P209)

列宁高度评价土地国有化。他说：“土地国有化不仅是彻底消灭农业中的中世纪制度的唯一方式，而且是在资本主义制度下可能有的最好的土地制度。”[9](P393)在俄国当时的历史条件下推行土地国有化，土地上的一切人为界限也就被消灭，土地由此成为真正的自由土地，资本主义便可以自由地发展起来。与此同时，农业中依托于地主土地占有制的农奴制度也将被彻底消灭，农民可以真正地从农奴制的束缚下解放出来。列宁还进一步分析了国有化的精神意义。他指出：“革命时代的国有化的精神意义，就在于无产阶级帮助打击‘一种私有制形式’，这种打击必然会在全世界引起反响。”[9](P289)沙皇俄国曾充当着欧洲革命的“宪兵”，如果土地国有化方案能在俄国由理论转化为实践，则可以将这一最后的反革命封建堡垒打破，从而推动欧洲无产阶级革命的开展。由此，列宁将土地国有化确定为俄国社会民主工党在资产阶级革命中的唯一纲领。由于土地国有化正是“美国式”道路的核心内容，列宁高度评价“美国式”道路，称这种演进“意味着生产力的发展最为迅速，意味着农民群众获得最好的(在商品生产条件下可能的范围内)生活条件”。[9](P209)

In contrast, the “Prussian” path, as a path of solving the land question in the manner of the landlords, had insurmountable limitations, even though it could also promote the development of capitalism. First, it could not liberate all Russian peasants from the shackles of the remnants of serfdom. Because it was a reform imposed from above by the landlord class, it was destined that the primary beneficiaries would be the landlords, not the peasants. Whether it was the serfdom reform of 1861 or the Stolypin land reform of 1907, both plundered the peasants while liberating them, subjecting the vast majority of peasants to the exploitation of the remnants of serfdom for a long time. Second, it could not promote the freest and fullest development of capitalism in Russia. The “Prussian” path was a reformist path of a bourgeois nature, a path of allowing serfdom to die out slowly. The long-term existence of the remnants of serfdom inevitably placed certain fetters on the development of capitalism. Therefore, Lenin commented that taking the “Prussian” path “means the slowest development of capitalism, the narrowest scope, and the heaviest burden of the remnants of serfdom”.[13](P120)

相比之下，“普鲁士式”道路作为一条按照地主方式解决土地问题的道路，有着难以克服的局限性，尽管它也能促进资本主义的发展。首先，它不能将俄国全体农民从农奴制残余的束缚下解放出来。由于是地主阶级推行的自上而下的改革，注定其第一受益者是地主而不是农民。不论是1861年的农奴制改革还是1907年的斯托雷平土地改革，都是在解放农民的同时掠夺农民，使绝大多数的农民长期遭受农奴制残余的剥削。其次，它不能促进俄国资本主义最自由、最充分地发展。“普鲁士式”道路是具有资产阶级性质的改良道路，是让农奴制缓慢消亡的道路，农奴制残余的长期存在必然对资本主义的发展形成一定的束缚。所以，列宁评价说，走“普鲁士式”道路“意味着资本主义的发展速度最缓慢、范围最狭窄、承受农奴制残余的负担最沉重”。[13](P120)

Thus, pursuing and supporting the “American” path became Lenin’s inevitable choice. Since serfdom in Russia was destined to perish, and serf-owning Russia was bound to move towards modernisation, why not choose a path of evolution that could maximise the interests of the worker and peasant masses and be most conducive to the strategy of the proletarian revolution? Lenin said: “We resolutely oppose all old forms of landownership in Russia, both landlord landownership and peasant allotment landownership. We resolutely advocate the violent destruction of this rotten old system, which is corroding and poisoning everything new, and we advocate bourgeois land nationalisation.”[9]9 “Dual power” refers to the situation in Russia between the February Revolution (March 1917) and the October Revolution (November 1917), when political authority was shared between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.(P400)

由此，追求和支持“美国式”道路成了列宁的必然选择。既然农奴制在俄国注定要消亡，农奴制的俄国必将走向现代化，为何不选择一条能够最大限度照顾工农群众利益以及最有利于推进无产阶级革命战略的演进道路呢?列宁说：“我们坚决反对俄国一切旧的土地占有制形式，既反对地主土地占有制，也反对农民份地占有制。我们坚决主张用暴力手段摧毁这个正在腐蚀和毒害一切新事物的腐朽的旧制度，我们主张资产阶级性的土地国有化”。[9](P400)

V. The Historical Significance and Contemporary Enlightenment of Lenin’s Exploration

五、列宁探索的历史意义与现实启示

Lenin’s exploration of Russia’s path of social development before the October Revolution is an extremely important chapter in the history of the Bolshevik Party. It not only has important historical significance for Russia’s social development, but also enlightens the Chinese Communists to persist in arming the whole Party with the Party’s innovative theory in the New Era, to be adept at grasping the laws and general trends of historical development, and to consolidate the Party’s original aspiration of seeking happiness for the people.

列宁在十月革命之前对俄国社会发展道路的探索是布尔什维克党史中极为重要的篇章，不仅对俄国社会发展具有重要的历史意义，还启示中国共产党人在新时代要坚持用党的创新理论武装全党，要善于把握历史发展规律和大势，筑牢党为人民谋幸福的初心。

From the perspective of historical significance, first, it pointed the direction for the Russian workers and peasants to choose the correct path of struggle. Serfdom in Russia was destined to perish, but where was Russia to go after that? Although the Russian Narodniks [5]5 The Narodniks (from the Russian *narod*, “people”) were a Russian populist movement in the late 19th century that believed Russia could bypass capitalism and build socialism on the basis of the traditional peasant village commune (*obshchina*). Lenin wrote extensively against their theories. sought a path of social development different from that of the West, proceeding from Russia’s particularity, they started from a subjective sociology, empty-talked about the necessity of bypassing the stage of capitalist development, and attempted to graft socialist society directly onto the traditional village commune economic base. If this kind of utopian theory were allowed to spread, it would be very detrimental to Russia’s social development. Thus, it was a very necessary task to use Marxism to defeat Narodism, eliminate the erroneous influence of Narodism on the Russian workers and peasants, and thereby guide the Russian workers and peasants to choose the correct path of struggle. After the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution, faced with the successive emergence of questions such as who should lead the democratic revolution, how the revolution should develop, and how the land question should be resolved, the propositions put forward by political parties of different classes, and even by different factions within the same political party, were all different. Proceeding from Russia’s reality, starting from the fundamental and long-term interests of the proletariat, Lenin creatively put forward the idea of the proletariat leading the democratic revolution, advocated giving priority to choosing the direct path of revolutionary development, and supported the peasants’ demand for the nationalization of land. This was of great significance for eliminating the influence of Menshevik [6]6 The Mensheviks (from the Russian *men’shinstvo*, “minority”) were a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party that opposed Lenin’s Bolshevik faction. They generally argued that Russia must first complete a bourgeois-democratic revolution before a socialist revolution could occur. opportunism and thereby guiding the Russian workers and peasants to correctly carry out the revolutionary movement.

从历史意义看，一是为俄国工农群众选择正确的斗争道路指明了方向。农奴制在俄国注定是要消亡的，但之后的俄国该何去何从?俄国民粹派虽从俄国特殊性出发寻找一条不同于西方的社会发展道路，但他们从主观社会学出发，空谈绕过资本主义发展阶段的必要性，试图把社会主义社会直接嫁接在传统的村社经济基础之上。如果任由这种空想理论的传播，对俄国社会发展是十分不利的。如此，用马克思主义战胜民粹主义，消除民粹主义对俄国工农群众的错误影响，进而引导俄国工农群众选择正确的斗争道路，是一件十分必要的工作。1905年革命爆发后，面对谁来领导民主革命、革命该如何发展、土地问题该怎么解决等问题的相继提出，不同阶级的政党甚至是同一政党内部的不同派别提出的主张都不一样。列宁立足于俄国实际，从无产阶级的根本利益和长远利益出发，创造性地提出无产阶级领导民主革命的思想，主张优先选择革命发展的直接道路，支持农民的土地国有化要求。这对于排除孟什维克机会主义的影响，从而指导俄国工农群众正确开展革命运动具有非常重要的意义。

Second, it laid a solid theoretical and practical foundation for Russia’s development after the October Revolution. Lenin said: “Without the ‘general rehearsal’ of 1905, the victory of the October Revolution of 1917 would have been impossible.” [14] (P7) [7]7 This is a direct quotation from Lenin. The citation “[14](P7)” refers to the original source in the author’s bibliography. Obviously, the generation of this “general rehearsal” effect was not spontaneous, but was built on the arduous exploration and courageous struggle of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party [8]8 The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) was the Marxist revolutionary party founded in 1898. It split into the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions in 1903. represented by Lenin. Based on the theoretical innovations and struggle experience of the 1905 Revolution period, the October Revolution, under the leadership of the proletariat, took the direct path of revolutionary development, used the method of “direct assault by the masses” to end the situation of dual power [9]9 “Dual power” refers to the situation in Russia between the February Revolution (March 1917) and the October Revolution (November 1917), when political authority was shared between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies., and realized the dictatorship of the proletariat and the poor peasants. Furthermore, regarding the land question, Lenin put forward the proposition of “nationalizing all land within the country” in the strategic thought of the October Revolution, and extended the nationalization plan to solving the problem of capitalist monopoly organizations. Later, during the period of Soviet Russia’s socialist construction, Lenin’s ability to propose the New Economic Policy [10]10 The New Economic Policy (NEP) was a policy introduced by Lenin in 1921 that temporarily allowed a degree of private enterprise and market mechanisms within the Soviet economy to revive production after the Russian Civil War. also benefited from his exploration of Russia’s path of social development before the October Revolution. From criticizing the Narodniks’ theory of the “non-capitalist path” to utilizing capitalism for a roundabout transition, it shows that socialism cannot be built on a backward economic base; from supporting the peasants’ demand for land nationalization to implementing a series of special transitional measures, it shows that the revolution and construction of economically backward countries cannot do without the support of the peasants.

二是为十月革命之后俄国的发展奠定坚实的理论与实践基础。列宁说：“没有1905年的‘总演习’，就不可能有1917年十月革命的胜利。”[14](P7)显然，这种“总演习”作用的产生不是自发的，而是建立在以列宁为代表的俄国社会民主工党人的艰辛探索和勇于斗争的基础之上。基于1905年革命时期的理论创新和斗争经验，十月革命在无产阶级的领导下，走革命发展的直接道路，用“群众直接冲击”的方式结束两个政权并存的局面，实现无产阶级和贫苦农民的专政。此外，针对土地问题，列宁在十月革命战略思想中提出了“把国内一切土地收归国有”的主张，并将国有化的方案推广到解决资本主义垄断组织问题上。后来，在苏俄社会主义建设时期，列宁能够提出新经济政策也得益于他在十月革命之前对俄国社会发展道路的探索。从批判民粹派的“非资本主义道路”理论到利用资本主义进行迂回过渡，表明社会主义不能建立在落后的经济基础之上；从支持农民土地国有化主张到推行一系列特殊的过渡办法，表明经济落后国家的革命与建设离不开农民的支持。

From the perspective of practical inspiration, first, it is necessary to always arm the entire Party with the Party’s innovative theory. Some people believe that Lenin lacked theoretical innovation in his early period and basically transplanted Marxism to Russia. In reality, this view is merely a one-sided conclusion drawn from Lenin’s criticism of Narodism. From Lenin’s exploration of Russia’s path of social development before the October Revolution, it is not difficult for us to discover that Lenin not only defended Marxism, but also developed Marxism based on Russia’s reality, forming a Russianized Marxism. Precisely because of the guidance of innovative theories conforming to Russia’s national conditions, the Bolshevik Party [11]11 The Bolshevik Party (from the Russian *bol’shinstvo*, “majority”) was the faction of the RSDLP led by Lenin that successfully led the October Revolution and later became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. ultimately led the Russian people to achieve victory in the October Revolution and proposed the scientific plan of the New Economic Policy for a roundabout transition. Reviewing the century-long exploration process of the Chinese Communist Party, it is not difficult to find that “the history of our Party is a history of continuously advancing the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context, a history of continuously advancing theoretical innovation and theoretical creation.” [15] (P12) Thanks to the theoretical innovation of the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese nation has achieved a historic leap from standing up and growing rich to becoming strong. In the New Era, to further advance the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics and realize the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, it is still necessary to continuously advance the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context and arm the entire Party with the latest theoretical achievements of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context.

从现实启示看，一是要始终用党的创新理论武装全党。有人认为，列宁早期缺乏理论创新，基本上是把马克思主义移植到俄国。实际上，这种看法仅是从列宁批判民粹主义中得出的片面结论。从十月革命前列宁对俄国社会发展道路的探索中，我们不难发现，列宁不仅捍卫了马克思主义，还立足俄国实际发展了马克思主义，形成了俄国化的马克思主义。正因为有了符合俄国国情的创新理论的指导，布尔什维克党才最终领导俄国人民取得了十月革命的胜利，并提出了新经济政策这一迂回过渡的科学方案。回顾中国共产党的百年探索历程，不难发现，“我们党的历史，就是一部不断推进马克思主义中国化的历史，就是一部不断推进理论创新、进行理论创造的历史”。[15](P12)得益于中国共产党的理论创新，中华民族实现了从站起来、富起来到强起来的历史性飞跃。在新时代，推进中国特色主义的进一步发展，实现中华民族伟大复兴的中国梦，仍需要不断推进马克思主义中国化并用马克思主义中国化的最新理论成果武装全党。

Second, it is necessary to be adept at grasping the laws and general trends of historical development. Historical development has objective laws independent of human will. Only by correctly grasping the laws of historical development and acting in accordance with the trend can one master the initiative in development and effectively promote social development. On the question of Russia’s social development, the Narodniks replaced the general laws of historical development with Russia’s particularity, while the Mensheviks replaced Russia’s particularity with the general laws of historical development; neither was able to correctly grasp the laws of historical development. Therefore, their plans for transforming society were ultimately proven wrong. In his theoretical exploration, Lenin overcame the shortcomings of the Narodniks and the Mensheviks. He not only respected the general laws of human historical development, but was also adept at dynamically grasping the laws of Russia’s social development in concrete practice. In China, the Chinese Communist Party, guided by Marxism, has led the practice of China’s revolution, construction, and reform to achieve one victory after another precisely by correctly grasping the dialectical unity of the general and specific laws of historical development. Xi Jinping pointed out: “In the course of a hundred years of struggle, our Party has always used the basic principles of Marxism to analyze and grasp the general trends of history, correctly handle the relationship between China and the world, and been adept at seizing and making good use of various historical opportunities.” [15] (P13) In the New Era, only by further grasping the laws and general trends of historical development can our Party master the initiative in development amidst the changes unseen in a century and lead the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era.

二是要善于把握历史发展规律和大势。历史发展有不以人的意志为转移的客观规律，只有正确把握历史发展规律，顺势而为，才能掌握发展的主动，切实地推动社会的发展。在俄国社会发展问题上，民粹派以俄国的特殊性取代历史发展的一般规律，孟什维克派则以历史发展的一般规律取代俄国的特殊性，二者都未能正确地把握好历史发展规律。因此，他们改造社会的方案都最终被证明是错误的。列宁在理论探索中克服了民粹派和孟什维克派的缺点，不仅尊重人类历史发展的一般规律，还善于在具体实践中动态地把握俄国社会发展规律。在中国，以马克思主义为指导的中国共产党，正是在正确把握历史发展的一般规律和特殊规律的辩证统一关系中领导中国革命、建设和改革的实践取得了一个又一个的胜利。习近平指出：“在一百年的奋斗中，我们党始终以马克思主义基本原理分析把握历史大势，正确处理中国和世界的关系，善于抓住和用好各种历史机遇。”[15](P13)在新时代，我党只有进一步把握好历史发展规律和大势，才能在百年未有之大变局中掌握好发展的主动权，引领好新时代中国特色社会主义的发展。

Third, it is necessary to consolidate the Party’s original aspiration of seeking happiness for the people. Lenin’s exploration of the question of Russia’s path of social development before the October Revolution was also a process of continuous choice. In the process of choosing, besides following the scale of history, Lenin paid even more attention to the scale of value. The value Lenin pursued was, fundamentally, to maximize the care for and realization of the interests of the broad masses of Russian workers and peasants. For example, on the question of the path of revolutionary development, although the “tortuous path” could also brew and develop revolutionary factors, Lenin still advocated giving priority to choosing the “direct path,” because this path was most beneficial to the people. This was also Lenin’s practice of the nature and purpose of a Marxist political party under the specific conditions of Russia. In China, the Chinese Communist Party, as a Marxist political party, has always placed the interests of the people first in its practice of leading China’s revolution, construction, and reform, continuously seeking happiness for the people. This is also the secret of our Party gaining the trust and support of the broad masses of the people. Regarding this, Xi Jinping summarized and pointed out: “The hundred-year history of our Party is a history of fulfilling the Party’s original aspiration and founding mission, a history of the Party sharing the same heart, breathing the same breath, and sharing the same fate with the people.” [15] (P15) In the New Era, only by deeply understanding the nature and purpose of the Party, consolidating the original aspiration and founding mission, and taking the people’s aspiration for a better life as the goal of struggle, can our Party unite the strength of 1.4 billion Chinese people to jointly build the Chinese Dream.

三是要筑牢党为人民谋幸福的初心。十月革命前列宁对俄国社会发展道路问题的探索，也是一个不断选择的过程。列宁在选择的过程中除了遵从历史的尺度，还更加关注价值的尺度。列宁追求的价值，从根本上说是最大限度地照顾和实现俄国广大工农群众的利益。如在革命发展道路问题上，尽管“曲折的道路”也能够酝酿并发展革命的因素，列宁还是主张首要选择“直接的道路”，因为这条道路对人民最有利。这也是列宁在俄国具体条件下对马克思主义政党的性质和宗旨的践行。在中国，作为马克思主义政党的中国共产党，在领导中国革命、建设和改革的实践中也始终把人民的利益放在第一位，不断地为人民谋幸福，这也是我党获得广大人民群众信赖和支持的奥秘所在。针对此，习近平总结指出：“我们党的百年历史，就是一部践行党的初心使命的历史，就是一部党与人民心连心、同呼吸、共命运的历史。”[15](P15)在新时代，我们党只有深刻认识党的性质宗旨，筑牢初心使命，把人民对美好生活的向往作为奋斗目标，才能凝聚起14亿中国人民的力量共筑中国梦。

(The author is an Associate Professor at the School of Marxism, Nanjing Normal University)

（作者系南京师范大学马克思主义学院副教授）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心