Lenin’s Late Thought on the Particularity of the Path of Social Development in Soviet Russia

Lenin’s late period is generally considered to have begun after the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1921. During this period, Lenin’s thought on the path of building a socialist society reached maturity. In works such as *On the Tax in Kind*, *The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Department*, and *On the Significance of Gold Now and After the Complete Victory of Socialism*, he expounded important ideas on the particular path of building a socialist society in Soviet Russia. On the eve of his death, in his dictated article *On Our Revolution*, he once again set forth profound, comprehensive, and logical ideas on the particularity of the path of construction in Soviet Russia.

列宁晚年，一般认为即1921年俄共（布）十大以后。这一时期，列宁探索建设社会主义社会途径的思想臻于成熟。他写作《论粮食税》《新经济政策和政治教育委员会的任务》《论黄金在目前和在社会主义完全胜利后的作用》等著作，就苏俄建设社会主义社会的特殊途径阐述了重要的思想。在去世前夕，他在口授的《论我国革命》一文中再次就苏俄建设途径的特殊性阐述了深刻、全面、具有逻辑性的思想。

I. The Root of the Particularity of the Path of Social Development in Soviet Russia — The Particular Russian Revolution

一、苏俄社会发展途径特殊性的根源——特殊的俄国革命

The root of the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia — in other words, why could and must Soviet Russia adopt a particular path to achieve social development? Why could and must it realize the transition to a socialist society through a particular path of development? This question can be answered from many aspects. For Lenin, answering this question must begin with the particularity of the Russian revolution.

苏俄社会发展途径特殊性的根源，换言之，苏俄为什么可以而且必须采取特殊途径实现社会发展呢?它为什么可以而且必须以特殊发展途径实现向社会主义社会的过渡呢?对于此问题，可以从许多方面作出回答。对列宁而言，回答此问题，首先要从俄国革命的特殊性入手。

Lenin believed that the particularity of the Russian revolution lay in its connection with the First World War. The First World War, which broke out in July 1914, was an unjust war between two imperialist blocs to redivide world territory and spheres of influence. Viewed from a global perspective, this war was a manifestation of the acute and extensive contradictions in the transition of world capitalism to the stage of imperialism. At that time, the contradictions in the world were, first, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; second, the contradictions among the various imperialist countries; and third, the contradictions between the imperialist countries and the colonies and oppressed nations. These three contradictions were intertwined, interconnected, and mutually influential, acting upon the evolution of world history. When the contradictions among the imperialist countries intensified, the First World War broke out. The war was exceptionally brutal; more than thirty countries and 1.5 billion people were drawn into it, resulting in 30 million casualties and incalculable economic losses for all countries. Consequently, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie within the imperialist countries, and the contradictions between the imperialist countries and the colonies and oppressed nations, also intensified. It was against this backdrop that the October Revolution of 1917 broke out. On this basis, Lenin pointed out in *On Our Revolution*: “This is a revolution connected with the first imperialist world war. Such a revolution is bound to manifest certain new features, or features altered precisely because of the war, for the world had never before seen a war of this kind occurring under such circumstances.” [1]1 This is a direct quotation from Deng Xiaoping’s opening speech at the 12th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, held in September 1982. The 12th National Congress formally introduced the concept of “building socialism with Chinese characteristics.” His meaning was that such a war — the First World War — was a war never before seen in world history, that is, it was a war with its own particularity. The October Revolution in Russia, being connected with this war, “is bound to manifest certain new features.” In other words, in Lenin’s thought, the October Revolution itself was a revolution with particularity.

列宁认为，俄国革命的特殊性在于它是同第一次世界大战相联系的革命。1914年7月爆发的第一次世界大战，是两大帝国主义集团之间重新瓜分世界领土和势力范围的不义战争。以世界的视角看这场战争，它是世界资本主义向帝国主义阶段过渡中激烈的、广泛的矛盾的表现。此时世界上的矛盾一是无产阶级与资产阶级之间的矛盾，二是各个帝国主义国家之间的矛盾，三是帝国主义国家与殖民地以及被压迫民族之间的矛盾。三种矛盾交织在一起，相互联系和影响，对世界历史的演进发生作用。当帝国主义国家之间的矛盾激化时，爆发了第一次世界大战。战争异常惨烈，先后有30多个国家、15亿人口卷入战争，致使3000万人伤亡，各国的经济损失无以计数。由此，帝国主义国家内无产阶级与资产阶级之间的矛盾、帝国主义国家与殖民地以及被压迫民族之间的矛盾也激化了。正是在这样的背景下，1917年十月革命爆发。列宁据此在《论我国革命》中指出：“这是和第一次帝国主义世界大战相联系的革命。这样的革命势必表现出一些新的特征，或者说正是由于战争而有所改变的一些特征，因为世界上还从来没有过在这种情况下发生的这样的战争。”他的意思是，这样的战争即第一次世界大战，是世界历史上从来没有过的战争，即它是一场具有本身特殊性的战争。俄国的十月革命同这场战争相联系，“势必表现出一些新的特征”。换言之，在列宁的思想中，十月革命本身是一场具有特殊性的革命。

In Lenin’s thought, one manifestation of the particularity of the October Revolution in Russia was that this revolution occurred under the conditions of a combination of the peasant war and the workers’ movement. The First World War severely devastated Russia’s economy; war and famine threatened millions of working people. In January and February 1917, at least 670,000 workers nationwide went on strike, opposing the government’s war policy and demanding bread. In mid- and late February, 30,000 workers from the Putilov Plant in Petrograd took to the streets in demonstrations, protesting food shortages and soaring prices. Workers from many other factories supported this struggle and joined its ranks. On February 25, 300,000 workers in Petrograd stopped work and launched a general political strike. On the 27th, the workers’ strike broadly transformed into an armed uprising, and 60,000 soldiers of the garrison also went over to the side of the revolution. On that day, the February Revolution achieved victory, and the tsarist autocracy was overthrown. The bourgeois Provisional Government established thereafter carried on the legacy of the tsarist government, disregarding the life and death of the people, and continued to participate in the imperialist war. Workers’ strikes and demonstrations in Russia surged like a rising wind and spreading clouds. In late April, mid-June, and early July, workers’ demonstrations against the Provisional Government in Petrograd reached three successive high tides, hastening the demise of the bourgeois Provisional Government. At the same time, the struggle of the Russian peasants also developed. After the February Revolution, the peasants strongly demanded the resolution of the land question. However, the bourgeois Provisional Government, along with the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, delayed resolving the land question. Consequently, peasants in various regions rose up in revolt, seizing the landlords’ land. The Provisional Government sent troops and police to the countryside to suppress them, and the insurgent peasants fought back, defending the fruits of their struggle. In the course of the struggle, the peasants established leading organs for the uprising, namely the All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies, and founded the newspaper *Izvestia of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies* to propagate their views and demands. In 1917, peasants in many localities submitted their views and demands on the land question in written form, resulting in over 200 peasant mandates on the land question. The peasants’ slogan demanding “land,” linked with the slogans of “peace” and “bread,” inspired and spurred the Russian people to fight courageously. These circumstances indicate that in 1917, Russia formed a situation combining the workers’ movement and the peasant war. Lenin was keenly aware of this situation, and because of it, he recalled Marx’s words in a letter to Engels on April 16, 1856: “The whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing the proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasant War.” [2]2 “Three rights” separation refers to the policy of separating the ownership rights, contract rights, and management rights of rural land contracted by households, allowing farmers to transfer their land management rights while retaining their contract rights. Marx meant that the victory of the socialist revolution in Germany depended on the outbreak of a peasant war in Germany to support the proletarian revolutionary movement; or, in other words, the German proletarian revolution could only achieve victory if it combined with a peasant war. Such a situation did not occur in German history, but it did occur in Russia in 1917 — that is, a situation combining the workers’ movement and the peasant war took shape. Starting from this situation in Russia, Lenin connected the above words and thought of Marx with the Russian situation, carefully analyzed and judged it, and strove to draw a scientific conclusion. He wrote in *On Our Revolution*: “What if the completely unique situation has placed Russia, which, as we well know, is on the border of the East, where the revolution is just beginning or has already begun, in a position that made possible precisely the combination of the ‘peasant war’ with the workers’ movement, which, as Marx, a ‘Marxist’ if ever there was one, suggested in 1856 as a possible prospect for Prussia? What then?” [3]3 This is a quotation from Xi Jinping, likely from a speech or written work, emphasizing the unique and independent nature of China’s development path. The answer is clear: the proletarian party should guide the situation according to the trend and launch the proletarian socialist revolution, seizing victory. The profundity of Lenin’s above judgment lies in this: the First World War was the particular environment of the Russian revolution, and launching the proletarian socialist revolution under the conditions of the combination of the workers’ movement and the peasant war was one important manifestation of the particularity of the Russian revolution.

在列宁的思想中，俄国十月革命特殊性的表现之一是：在农民战争与工人运动相结合的态势下发生了这场革命。第一次世界大战使俄国的经济遭到严重的破坏，战乱、饥荒威胁着千百万劳动人民。1917年1月和2月，全国至少有67万工人进行罢工，反对政府的战争政策和要求获得面包。2月中旬和下旬，彼得格勒普梯洛夫工厂的3万工人走上街头，游行示威，抗议粮食不足和物价飞涨。其他许多工厂的工人支持这一斗争，也加入斗争的行列。2月25日，彼得格勒30万工人停止工作，展开政治总罢工。27日，工人罢工普遍地转变为武装起义，卫戍部队的6万士兵也转向革命方面。这一天二月革命取得胜利，沙皇专制制度被推翻。此后建立的资产阶级临时政府继承沙皇政府的衣钵，罔顾人民的生死存亡，继续参与帝国主义战争。俄国工人的罢工和游行示威斗争风起云涌。4月下旬、6月中旬和7月上旬，彼得格勒工人反对临时政府的游行示威斗争先后三次形成高潮，加速了资产阶级临时政府的灭亡。与此同时，俄国农民的斗争也开展起来。二月革命以后，农民强烈要求解决土地问题。可是资产阶级临时政府以及社会革命党、孟什维克拖延解决土地问题，于是各地的农民纷纷举行起义，夺取地主的土地。临时政府派军警下农村予以镇压，起义的农民则与其进行作战，捍卫斗争的成果。在斗争过程中，农民建立了起义斗争的领导机关即全俄农民代表苏维埃，并创办了《全俄农民代表苏维埃消息报》，用以宣传自己的主张和要求。1917年许多地方的农民分别以书面的形式提出了自己关于土地的主张和要求，形成了200多份农民的土地问题委托书。农民要求“土地”的口号，与“和平”“面包”的口号联系在一起，鼓舞和鞭策着俄国人民奋勇进行斗争。这些情况表明，1917年俄国形成了工人运动和农民战争相结合的态势。列宁洞悉此情况，并且由于此情况联想起马克思1856年4月16日在给恩格斯的信件中说过的话：“德国的全部问题将取决于是否有可能由某种再版的农民战争来支持无产阶级革命。”马克思的意思是，德国社会主义革命的胜利，有赖于德国爆发农民战争以支持无产阶级的革命运动，或者说德国的无产阶级革命只有同农民战争结合起来，才能走向革命的胜利。德国的历史上未出现这样的情况，可是1917年的俄国出现了这样的情况，即形成了工人运动和农民战争相结合的态势。列宁从俄国的这个情况出发，将上述马克思的话语及思想同俄国的情况联系起来，认真地分析和判断，力求得出科学的结论。他在《论我国革命》中写道：“既然特殊的环境把俄国卷入了西欧所有多少有些影响的国家也被卷入的帝国主义世界大战，其次使处于东方即将开始或部分已经开始的革命边缘的俄国，发展到有条件实现像马克思这样的‘马克思主义者’在1856年谈到普鲁士时曾作为一种可能的前途提出来的‘农民战争’同工人运动的联合，那该怎么办呢？”答案是很清楚的：无产阶级政党因势利导地发动无产阶级社会主义革命，夺取革命的胜利。列宁上述论断的深刻之处是：第一次世界大战是俄国革命的特殊的环境，在形成工人运动同农民战争相结合的态势下发动无产阶级社会主义革命是俄国革命特殊性的重要表现之一。

In Lenin’s thought, another manifestation of the particularity of the October Revolution in Russia is that it was a revolution that fully applied and displayed the “revolutionary dialectics” of Marxism. According to the basic principles of Marxism, a proletarian socialist revolution can be carried out only where the capitalist economy has been fully developed. This is because building socialism requires a high level of productive forces, a solid economic base, and favorable conditions in education, science, and culture. Hence, when Marx and Engels discussed the question of socialist revolution during their lifetimes, they generally confined themselves to discussing socialist revolution in some of the more economically developed countries of the West. In an 1892 article, Engels pointed out: “The victory of the European working class does not depend solely on England. At least the joint efforts of England, France, and Germany are needed to ensure victory.” “In Germany, the victory of the workers’ movement is even within sight. The progress of the movement there over the last twenty-five years has been unprecedented. It is advancing at an ever-accelerating pace.” [1]1 This is a direct quotation from Deng Xiaoping’s opening speech at the 12th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, held in September 1982. The 12th National Congress formally introduced the concept of “building socialism with Chinese characteristics.” This judgment suffices to show that, in Engels’s thought, the countries that could possibly achieve victory in socialist revolution were only the economically developed countries of Western Europe, or, more precisely, only England, France, and Germany. This was not only because these countries possessed the material conditions needed to realize socialism, but also because they had a powerful proletarian contingent and a vigorously developing workers’ movement. Engels was particularly optimistic about the German workers’ movement, believing that its victory—that is, the victory of socialist revolution—was imminent, and that Germany could become the “stage for the first great victory” of European socialist revolution. [2]2 “Three rights” separation refers to the policy of separating the ownership rights, contract rights, and management rights of rural land contracted by households, allowing farmers to transfer their land management rights while retaining their contract rights. The above-mentioned thought of Marx and Engels was grounded in the actual economic and social development of 19th-century Europe and the actual state of the workers’ movement; it was adapted to reality. In 1917, when Lenin confronted the revolutionary situation in Russia, he not only reviewed and applied the general Marxist theory of proletarian revolution, but also reviewed and applied that which is “decisive” in Marxism, namely, the “revolutionary dialectics” of Marxism. In Lenin’s thought, this revolutionary dialectics tells people that proletarian revolutions in different epochs and different countries cannot be regarded as things of a single model, immutable and ossified. Specifically, the German workers’ movement and socialist movement cannot be taken as the template for demanding that the Russian proletarian revolution conform to them. Russia’s national conditions differ from Germany’s, so the Russian proletarian revolution was bound to have many characteristics different from the German workers’ movement and socialist movement. Yet at that time, the Russian Mensheviks and the right-wing thinkers of the Second International understood nothing of this. They criticized and attacked the Russian proletarian revolution, saying it had deviated from the German model. In responding to their criticism, Lenin pointed out: “All our petty-bourgeois democrats, like all the heroes of the Second International, are pedants. What is striking is their blind imitation of the past; as for their extreme cowardice—even the best of them become reserved at the mere mention of departing slightly from the German model—this trait, fully displayed by all petty-bourgeois democrats throughout the revolution, need not even be mentioned.” [3]3 This is a quotation from Xi Jinping, likely from a speech or written work, emphasizing the unique and independent nature of China’s development path. He also pointed out: “They all call themselves Marxists, but their understanding of Marxism is pedantic to the highest degree. They do not understand at all the decisive thing in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics. They completely fail to understand even Marx’s direct instruction that in a revolutionary moment there must be the greatest flexibility.” [4]4 This is a paraphrase of Xi Jinping’s speech at the New Year gathering of the CPPCC National Committee on December 31, 2013, and other occasions. Here, Lenin’s criticism that the Mensheviks and the right-wing thinkers of the Second International did not understand the “revolutionary dialectics” of Marxism, did not know that in a revolutionary moment there must be “the greatest flexibility,” and only knew how to blindly imitate the past, not daring in the slightest to depart from the German model, serves as a foil to Lenin’s own emphasis on applying the “revolutionary dialectics” of Marxism, his advocacy of “the greatest flexibility” in revolutionary strategy, and his courage to depart from the German model (the model of carrying out the workers’ socialist movement, especially parliamentary struggle) and to choose new revolutionary strategies and means in accordance with Russia’s actual conditions. In other words, Lenin’s above-quoted judgments not only criticized the error of the Mensheviks and the right-wing thinkers of the Second International in not understanding “revolutionary dialectics” and revolutionary “flexibility,” but also reflected Lenin’s own thought of applying the “revolutionary dialectics” of Marxism. It must also be pointed out that applying the “revolutionary dialectics” of Marxism was not only Lenin’s proposition and thought, but also Lenin’s revelation of the particularity of the October Revolution in Russia in 1917—that is, it was a revolution that fully applied and displayed the “revolutionary dialectics” of Marxism. It can also be understood as follows: with regard to the conditions for carrying out a proletarian revolution, the October Revolution did not rigidly adhere to the previous understanding that revolution could be carried out only in economically developed countries like England, France, and Germany, but instead carried out revolution in relatively backward Russia; with regard to the means of revolution, it departed from the German model of carrying out the workers’ socialist movement and parliamentary struggle, and chose the method of seizing state power by armed force. On these questions, it realized the change and development of people’s understanding of things, embodied the materialist dialectics of Marxism, and put into practice the “revolutionary dialectics” of Marxism. Hence it can be said that this was a revolution that fully applied and displayed the “revolutionary dialectics” of Marxism.

在列宁的思想中，俄国十月革命特殊性的另一个表现是：它是一场充分运用和展示马克思主义“革命辩证法”的革命。根据马克思主义基本原理，只有在资本主义经济得到充分发展的地方，才可以进行无产阶级社会主义革命。因为建设社会主义需要高水平的生产力，需要深厚的经济基础和优良的教育科学文化条件。所以马克思恩格斯在世时论及社会主义革命问题时，往往限于论述西方一些经济较为发达国家的社会主义革命。恩格斯1892年在文章中指出：“欧洲工人阶级的胜利不是仅仅取决于英国。至少需要英法德三国的共同努力，才能保证胜利。” “在德国，工人运动的胜利甚至指日可待了。那里运动的进展在最近25年是空前的。它正以日益加快的速度前进着。”这一论断足以说明，在恩格斯的思想中，有可能取得社会主义革命胜利的，只能是西欧经济发达的国家，或者说只能是英法德三个国家。这不仅由于这几个国家具有实现社会主义所需要的物质条件，还由于这几个国家拥有强大的无产阶级队伍以及蓬勃发展的工人运动。恩格斯特别看好德国的工人运动，认为它的胜利即社会主义革命的胜利指日可待了，认为德国有可能成为欧洲社会主义革命“第一次伟大胜利的舞台”。上述马克思恩格斯的思想立足于19世纪欧洲经济社会发展的实际以及工人运动实际的基础上，是同实际相适应的。在1917年，列宁面对俄国的革命形势时，不仅回顾并运用了马克思主义关于无产阶级革命的一般理论，而且回顾并运用了马克思主义中“有决定意义的东西”，即马克思主义的“革命辩证法”。在列宁的思想中，这种革命辩证法告诉人们，不能把不同时代的、不同国家的无产阶级革命看成是同一个模式的、一成不变的、僵死的事物。具体来说，不能以德国的工人运动和社会主义运动为样板来要求俄国的无产阶级革命。俄国的国情不同于德国，所以俄国的无产阶级革命必然会有许多不同于德国工人运动和社会主义运动的特点。可是当时俄国的孟什维克和第二国际右翼思想家却对此完全不懂。他们批评和攻击说俄国的无产阶级革命偏离了德国的榜样。列宁在回应他们的批评时指出：“我国所有小资产阶级民主派也和第二国际全体英雄们一样迂腐。引人注目的是他们对过去的盲目模仿，至于他们非常怯懦，甚至其中的优秀人物一听说要稍微离开一下德国这个榜样，也要持保留态度，至于所有小资产阶级民主派在整个革命中充分表现出来的这种特性，就更不用说了。”他还指出，“他们都自称马克思主义者，但是对马克思主义的理解却迂腐到无以复加的程度。马克思主义中有决定意义的东西，即马克思主义的革命辩证法，他们一点也不理解。马克思说在革命时刻要有极大的灵活性，就连马克思的这个直接指示他们也完全不理解”。这里列宁批评孟什维克和第二国际右翼思想家不理解马克思主义的“革命辩证法”，不懂得在革命时刻要有“极大的灵活性”，只知道对过去盲目地模仿，丝毫不敢离开德国的榜样，反衬出列宁本人重视运用马克思主义的“革命辩证法”，主张革命策略的“极大的灵活性”，敢于离开德国的榜样（开展工人社会主义运动特别是进行议会斗争的榜样），根据俄国的实际选择新的革命策略和手段。也就是说，列宁的上述论断不仅批评了孟什维克和第二国际右翼思想家不懂得“革命辩证法”和革命“灵活性”的错误，而且反映了列宁本人主张运用马克思主义“革命辩证法”的思想。还需要指出的是，运用马克思主义的“革命辩证法”，不仅是列宁的主张和思想，而且是列宁对1917年俄国十月革命的特殊性的揭示，即这是一场充分运用和展示马克思主义“革命辩证法”的革命。也可以理解为，十月革命在进行无产阶级革命的条件上，不拘泥于以往关于只有英法德等经济发达国家才可以进行革命的认识，在比较落后的俄国进行了革命；在革命的手段上，它离开了德国开展工人社会主义运动和议会斗争的榜样，选择了武装夺取政权的方式。在上述这些问题上，它实现了人们对事物认识的变化和发展，体现了马克思主义的唯物辩证法，实践了马克思主义的“革命辩证法”。所以说这是一场充分运用和展示马克思主义“革命辩证法”的革命。

II. The Profound Connotation of the Particularity of the Path of Social Development in Soviet Russia

二、苏俄社会发展途径特殊性的深刻内涵

Because of the particularity of the October Revolution in Russia, the Russian proletariat and its party seized state power in 1917. Thereafter, Soviet Russia began the process of exploring the path of building and developing socialism. In his later years, Lenin, after summing up the experience and lessons of practice, formed and put forward the thought of the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia. In Lenin’s thought, what is the profound connotation of the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia? Or, what are the important contents of this concept? This is a question worthy of in-depth exploration and study.

由于俄国十月革命的特殊性，俄国无产阶级及其政党1917年掌握了国家政权。此后苏俄开始了探索建设和发展社会主义途径的过程。列宁晚年经过总结实践中的经验教训，形成和提出了苏俄社会发展途径特殊性的思想。在列宁的思想中，苏俄社会发展途径特殊性的深刻内涵是什么?或者说，这个概念的重要内容是什么?这是值得深入探讨和研究的问题。

In Lenin’s thought, one connotation of the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia is that the proletariat and its party, when conditions are insufficient, first seize political power and establish a worker-peasant state, then use the power of that state to develop the productive forces and develop social civilization, create the conditions for realizing socialism, and then establish a socialist society. As noted above, according to the basic principles of Marxism, a proletarian socialist revolution can be carried out only where the productive forces and the various conditions for realizing socialism have reached the necessary level. Clearly, Russia was not such a place. Under the background of the First World War, when the workers’ movement and the peasant war were united, the Russian proletariat, applying the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism, successfully carried out a proletarian revolution and established a Soviet state where workers and peasants were the masters. In Lenin’s thought, after establishing the worker-peasant state, the proletariat can use the power of the state in its hands to develop the productive forces, develop the economy, culture and other undertakings, and raise the level of civilization of the whole society. This process is a process of preparing the conditions for realizing socialism. At a certain stage of this process, that is, when the various conditions for realizing socialism have been prepared, socialism is then established. From this perspective, the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia lies in the fact that, when conditions were insufficient, the proletariat first seized political power and established a worker-peasant state, then used the power of the state in its hands to develop the productive forces and create the various conditions, and then established a socialist society. On this question, Lenin pointed out: “Our enemies have told us more than once that we were taking a reckless step in introducing socialism in a country that was not sufficiently cultured. But they were mistaken. We did not start from the end prescribed by theory (the theory of all pedants), and our political and social revolution turned out to be the forerunner of the cultural revolution, the cultural transformation we are now facing.” [1]1 This is a direct quotation from Deng Xiaoping’s opening speech at the 12th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, held in September 1982. The 12th National Congress formally introduced the concept of “building socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Here, “the end prescribed by theory” refers to developing the productive forces, developing the economy, and raising the level of civilization of the whole society. “We did not start from that end” means that the Russian proletariat did not choose the line of first developing the productive forces, developing the economy, and raising the level of civilization of society, waiting for conditions to be ripe before carrying out a proletarian revolution — that is, the line of not carrying out revolution for the time being — but instead first carried out revolution and established a worker-peasant state, and then developed the productive forces and created the various conditions. The “political and social revolution” here became the “forerunner of the cultural revolution, the cultural transformation” then being faced, meaning that the Russian proletariat’s carrying out of the revolution, the establishment of the worker-peasant state, and the changes in political and social life that resulted, preceded the development of culture, the development of the economy, and the development of the whole of social civilization — that is, the seizure of political power and the establishment of the worker-peasant state became the “forerunner” of many other aspects of development. This is precisely an argument and explanation for the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia. Lenin also pointed out: “Since a situation of utter hopelessness increased the strength of the workers and peasants tenfold, enabling us to adopt a method different from that of all the other West European countries for creating the fundamental prerequisites for the development of civilization, what was to be done?” [2]2 “Three rights” separation refers to the policy of separating the ownership rights, contract rights, and management rights of rural land contracted by households, allowing farmers to transfer their land management rights while retaining their contract rights. Here, the so-called “fundamental prerequisites for the development of civilization” refers to the fact that state power and the political system related to it are the fundamental forces for developing social civilization. Soviet Russia’s adoption of a method different from that of the West European countries for creating the fundamental prerequisites for the development of civilization means that Soviet Russia obtained the fundamental force for creating civilization and realized its own development by means of a proletarian revolution and the establishment of a worker-peasant state, which is different from the development carried out by West European countries under bourgeois political systems. Lenin also pointed out: “Since the establishment of socialism requires a certain level of culture (although nobody can say exactly what that ‘certain level of culture’ is, for it differs in every West European country), why could we not first, by revolutionary means, achieve the prerequisites for reaching that level, and then, on the basis of a worker-peasant state and the Soviet system, catch up with the other nations?” [3]3 This is a quotation from Xi Jinping, likely from a speech or written work, emphasizing the unique and independent nature of China’s development path. Here, the so-called “first, by revolutionary means, achieve the prerequisites for reaching that level” means that the proletariat first establishes a worker-peasant state through revolution — this state is the “prerequisite” for developing the social economy and culture — and then uses the power of this state to develop the economy and culture, enabling Soviet Russia’s economic and cultural level to surpass that of other countries, and enabling Soviet Russia to establish a socialist society.

在列宁的思想中，苏俄社会发展途径特殊性的内涵之一是，无产阶级及其政党在条件不足时先夺取政权和建立工农政权，然后利用工农政权的力量发展生产力和发展社会文明，创造实现社会主义的条件，进而建立社会主义社会。如前所述，根据马克思主义基本原理，只有在生产力以及实现社会主义的各项条件达到必要的高度的地方，才可以进行无产阶级社会主义革命。显然俄国不是这样的地方。俄国无产阶级在第一次世界大战的背景下，在工人运动和农民战争联合起来的时候，运用马克思主义的革命辩证法，成功地进行无产阶级革命，建立了工农当家作主的苏维埃政权。在列宁的思想中，无产阶级在建立了工农政权以后，可以利用手中政权的力量，发展生产力，发展经济、文化等各项事业，提高整个社会的文明水平，这个过程是准备实现社会主义条件的过程，在这个过程的一定阶段上，即实现社会主义的各种条件已经准备完成时再建立社会主义社会。由此看，苏俄社会发展途径的特殊性在于，它在条件不足的时候由无产阶级先夺取政权和建立工农政权，再利用手中政权的力量发展生产力和创造各项条件，进而建立社会主义社会。关于这个问题，列宁指出：“我们的敌人曾不止一次地对我们说，我们在一个文化不够发达的国家里推行社会主义是冒失行为。但是他们错了，我们没有从理论（一切书呆子的理论）所规定的那一端开始，我们的政治和社会变革成了我们目前正面临的文化变革，文化革命的先导。”这里，理论“所规定的那一端”，指发展生产力、发展经济以及提高整个社会的文明水平。我们没有“从那一端开始”，指俄国无产阶级没有选择先发展生产力、发展经济以及提高社会的文明水平，等待条件具备时再进行无产阶级革命的路线，即当前不要搞革命的路线，而是先进行革命和建立工农政权，再发展生产力和创造各项条件。这里的“政治和社会变革”成了目前正面临的“文化变革，文化革命的先导”，指俄国无产阶级进行革命、建立工农政权以及所产生的政治生活和社会生活的改变，走在文化发展、经济发展以及整个社会文明发展的前面，即夺取政权和建立工农政权成为其他许多方面发展的“先导”。这正是对苏俄社会发展途径特殊性的论证和说明。列宁还指出：“既然毫无出路的处境十倍地增强了工农的力量，使我们能够用与西欧其他一切国家不同的方法来创造发展文明的根本前提，那又该怎么办呢？”这里所谓“发展文明的根本前提”，指国家政权以及与此相关的政治制度是发展社会文明的根本力量。苏俄用与西欧国家不同的方法来创造发展文明的根本前提，指苏俄以无产阶级革命和建立工农政权的方式获取创造文明的根本力量，并实现自己的发展，不同于西欧国家在资产阶级政治制度下进行的发展。列宁还指出：“既然建立社会主义需要有一定的文化水平（虽然谁也说不出这个一定的‘文化水平’究竟是什么样的，因为这在各个西欧国家都是不同的），我们为什么不能首先用革命手段取得达到这个一定水平的前提，然后在工农政权和苏维埃制度的基础上赶上别国人民呢？”这里所谓“首先用革命手段取得达到这个一定水平的前提”，指无产阶级先通过革命建立工农政权——这个政权是发展社会经济和文化的“前提”，然后利用这个政权的力量发展经济和文化，使苏俄的经济和文化水平超过别的国家，并使苏俄能够建立起社会主义社会。

In Lenin’s thought, the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia is not inconsistent with the general laws of world historical development. The so-called “general laws of world historical development” here is a concept Lenin put forward in “On Our Revolution.” [4]4 This is a paraphrase of Xi Jinping’s speech at the New Year gathering of the CPPCC National Committee on December 31, 2013, and other occasions. Its meaning can be understood as the laws of world historical development revealed by the theory of Marx and Engels, that is, after human society ends the feudal system, it first passes through the development of capitalism, and on the basis of a relatively full development of capitalism, carries out a socialist revolution and establishes a socialist society. Although before Lenin put forward this concept, the theory of Marx and Engels had not been confirmed by history, or rather this law existed only in theory, the relevant theories of Marx and Engels possess rigorous logic and irrefutable scientificity. However, the development of Soviet Russia did not conform to this law. As noted above, in it, a proletarian revolution occurred and a worker-peasant state was established when capitalist development was insufficient, and the power of the worker-peasant state was used to develop the productive forces and create the various conditions needed for establishing a socialist society, and then a socialist society was established. That is to say, Soviet Russia had its own particular path of social development. So, how to explain, ideologically and cognitively, the relationship between Soviet Russia’s particular path of social development and the general laws of world historical development? Lenin’s thought is: the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia is not inconsistent with the general laws of world historical development. At that time, the Mensheviks [5]5 This is a paraphrase of Xi Jinping’s speech at the celebration of the 95th anniversary of the founding of the CPC on July 1, 2016. and the right-wing thinkers of the Second International [6]6 The Second International (1889–1916) was the international organization of socialist and labour parties; its right wing, associated with figures like Karl Kautsky, held that socialist revolution was only possible in advanced capitalist countries. did not recognize this, denying the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia. In criticizing them, Lenin pointed out: “They absolutely refuse to believe that the general laws of world historical development do not in the least exclude, but rather presuppose, that certain stages of development exhibit particularity in their form or order.” [7]7 V. I. Lenin, “Our Revolution” (1923). Here, Lenin expounded on the relationship between the universality and particularity of contradictions with regard to revolution and the path of social development. The social development of Soviet Russia embodied the particularity of contradiction. Moreover, if other countries were to carry out revolution and undertake the cause of social development, the revolution and the process of social development in each country would have its own particularity. Without the particularity of many countries, there would be no universality (that is, the universality of human society advancing from capitalism to socialism and communism). Lenin also criticized: “They have not even thought that, for example, Russia is a country situated between the civilized countries and the countries of the whole East, the countries outside Europe, which were first drawn into the orbit of civilization by this war. Consequently, Russia could and had to exhibit certain particularities, which, while certainly conforming to the general line of world development, distinguished its revolution from those of the West European countries and introduced certain partial innovations in the Eastern countries.” [8]8 Ibid. Here, firstly, it affirms that Russia’s path of social development has its particularity; secondly, it points out that the reason lies in the fact that Russia is a country situated between the advanced Western countries and the backward Eastern countries — that is, Russia is a relatively backward country; thirdly, it points out that the particularity of Russia’s social development conforms to the general line of world development — that is, the two are not inconsistent; fourthly, it points out that the future revolution and path of social development of the even more backward Eastern countries will have even more particularity.

在列宁的思想中，苏俄社会发展途径的特殊性与世界历史发展的一般规律并行不悖。这里所谓“世界历史发展的一般规律”，是列宁在《论我国革命》中提出的概念。它的含义可以理解为马克思恩格斯的理论所揭示的世界历史发展的规律，即人类社会在结束封建主义制度以后，先经过资本主义的发展，在资本主义得到较充分发展的基础上进行社会主义革命并建立社会主义社会。虽然在列宁提出这个概念以前，马克思恩格斯的理论并未得到历史的证实，或者说这个规律只是理论上的，但是马克思恩格斯的相关理论具有严密的逻辑性和无可辩驳的科学性。然而，苏俄的发展不符合这个规律。如前所述，它在资本主义发展不充分的时候发生了无产阶级革命并建立了工农政权，利用工农政权的力量发展生产力和创造建立社会主义社会所需要的种种条件，进而建立社会主义社会。也就是说，苏俄有自己特殊的社会发展途径。那么，怎样从思想上、认识上说明苏俄特殊的社会发展途径同世界历史发展一般规律之间的关系?列宁的思想是：苏俄社会发展途径的特殊性与世界历史发展的一般规律并行不悖。当时孟什维克和第二国际右翼思想家不认可这一点，否定苏俄社会发展途径的特殊性。列宁在批评他们时指出：“他们根本不相信任何这样的看法：世界历史发展的一般规律，不仅丝毫不排斥个别发展阶段在发展的形式或顺序上表现出特殊性，反而是以此为前提的。”这里列宁就革命和社会发展途径的问题阐述了矛盾的普遍性和特殊性之间的关系。苏俄的社会发展体现了矛盾的特殊性。不仅如此，如果其他国家发生革命并展开社会发展事业的话，每个国家的革命以及社会发展过程都有自己的特殊性。没有许许多多国家的特殊性，也就没有普遍性（即人类社会由资本主义向社会主义和共产主义前进的普遍性）。列宁还批评说：“他们甚至没有想到，例如，俄国是个介于文明国家和初次被这场战争最终卷入文明之列的整个东方各国即欧洲以外各国之间的国家，所以俄国能够表现出而且势必表现出某些特殊性，这些特殊性当然符合世界发展的总的路线，但却使俄国革命有别于以前西欧各国的革命，而且这些特殊性到了东方国家又会产生某些局部的新东西。” 这里一是肯定俄国的社会发展途径有其特殊性，二是指明其原因在于俄国是介于西方先进国家与东方落后国家之间的国家即俄国是个比较落后的国家，三是指明俄国社会发展的特殊性符合世界发展的总的路线即两者并行不悖，四是指明东方那些更落后的国家将来的革命和社会发展途径将会有更多的特殊性。

In Lenin’s thought, the second connotation of the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia is that it developed the productive forces and created the conditions for establishing a socialist society through many special measures. It should be said that from the victory of the October Revolution and the establishment of Soviet power, Lenin and the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) [RCP(b)] were exploring the use of special measures to develop the productive forces and the economy. For example, Lenin advocated the equal distribution of all land in Soviet Russia to peasants who needed it for cultivation, the implementation of “supervision and accounting” measures in industrial and mining enterprises, the employment of scientific and technical experts and managers from the old society, and the implementation of state capitalism. These measures were not measures for carrying out socialist revolution and construction, but special measures for Soviet Russia to develop the productive forces, restore the economy, and thereby consolidate Soviet power. In Lenin’s later years, that is, after entering the period of the New Economic Policy [NEP], this exploration entered a new stage. For example, he advocated improving the living and production conditions of peasants and supporting the development of the small-peasant economy; permitting the opening of small private industrial enterprises in the cities and supporting their development; leasing some large state-owned enterprises that the state temporarily lacked the strength to restore production to foreign capitalists, so that they could bring capital and technology to Soviet Russia and help these enterprises resume production; simultaneously leasing some large state-owned enterprises that had not yet resumed production to domestic capitalists, for them to restore production and manage; implementing freedom of trade and monetary exchange, developing commerce; and so on. These measures were also not measures for carrying out socialist revolution and construction, but measures for Soviet Russia to develop the productive forces, develop the economy, and thereby create the conditions for establishing a socialist society. In *On the Tax in Kind*, Lenin defined these special measures as the “intermediate path” or “intermediate link” between small production and socialism. He said: “In order that ‘we’ may successfully complete our task of direct transition to socialism, we must understand what intermediate paths, methods, means, and auxiliary measures are needed to make the transition from pre-capitalist relations to socialism.” The so-called “direct transition” here refers to the transition to a socialist society achieved on the basis of fully developed capitalism, that is, the actions taken after the victory of the proletarian revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat to transform capitalist private ownership into socialist public ownership and bring society into a socialist society. Because there is no intervening layer between capitalist society and socialist society, it is called a “direct transition.” Clearly, the transition to socialism in Soviet Russia was not a direct transition, because its actual social foundation was mainly small production. Between a society where small production predominates and a socialist society, there is a considerable distance. Over this distance, the proletariat holding state power must find and implement special measures. As Lenin said, it is necessary to find “intermediate paths, methods, means, and auxiliary measures.” On this issue, Lenin also pointed out: “In the next few years, we must be adept at considering those intermediate links that facilitate the transition from the patriarchal system, from small production, to socialism.” “Since we cannot yet achieve a direct transition from small production to socialism, capitalism, as the spontaneous product of small production and exchange, is to a certain extent inevitable, so we should utilize capitalism (especially by channeling it into the orbit of state capitalism) as an intermediate link between small production and socialism, as a means, path, method, and mode of raising the productive forces.” Clearly, in Lenin’s thought, the reason Soviet Russia needed to find special measures, or seriously consider the issue of “intermediate links,” was that its actual foundation was the “patriarchal system” and “small production”; the content of the special measures or “intermediate links” could have many aspects, and in nature they might be capitalist or state-capitalist; implementing these measures under the background of the workers and peasants firmly holding state power was not frightening; the purpose of implementing these special measures or “intermediate links” was to create the conditions for establishing a socialist society, so as to facilitate Soviet Russia’s establishment of a socialist society.

在列宁的思想中，苏俄社会发展途径特殊性的内涵之二是，它通过许多特殊的措施发展生产力和创造建立社会主义社会的条件。应该说，从十月革命胜利和苏维埃政权建立时起，列宁和俄共（布）就在探索以特殊的措施发展生产力和发展经济。如列宁主张把苏俄全部土地平均分配给需要耕种土地的农民，在工矿企业实行“监督和计算”的措施，启用旧社会过来的科技专家和管理者，实施国家资本主义等。这些措施都不是进行社会主义革命和建设的措施，而是苏俄发展生产力、恢复经济从而巩固苏维埃政权的特殊的措施。列宁晚年即进入新经济政策时期以后，这方面的探索进入一个新的阶段。如他主张改善农民的生活条件和生产条件，支持小农经济的发展；允许在城市开办私人小型工业企业，支持其发展；将一部分国家暂时没有力量恢复生产的大型国有企业出租给外国资本家，使其把资金和技术带到苏俄来，帮助这些企业恢复生产；同时将一部分尚未恢复生产的国有大企业出租给国内资本家，由他们来恢复生产并经营；实行贸易自由和货币交换，发展商业；等等。这些措施也不是进行社会主义革命和建设的措施，而是苏俄发展生产力、发展经济从而创造建立社会主义社会的条件的措施。在《论粮食税》中，列宁将这些特殊的措施定义为小生产与社会主义之间的“中间的途径”或“中间环节”。他说：“为了使‘我们’能顺利地完成我们直接向社会主义过渡的任务，就必须懂得，需要经过哪些中间的途径、方法、手段和辅助办法，才能使资本主义以前的各种关系过渡到社会主义。”这里所谓的“直接过渡”，指在资本主义充分发展的基础上实现的向社会主义社会的过渡，也就是无产阶级革命胜利和无产阶级专政建立以后实施的把资本主义私有制改变为社会主义公有制并使社会进入社会主义社会的行动。由于从资本主义社会到社会主义社会之间没有间隔层，所以说是“直接过渡”。显然苏俄向社会主义过渡不是直接过渡，因为它的现实社会基础主要是小生产。小生产占优势的社会与社会主义社会之间，有相当长的一段距离。在这一段距离上，掌握政权的无产阶级必须找到特殊的措施并实施这些措施。如同列宁所说的，必须找到“中间的途径、方法、手段和辅助办法”。关于此问题，列宁还指出：“在最近这几年，必须善于考虑那些便于从宗法制度、从小生产过渡到社会主义的中间环节。”“既然我们还不能实现从小生产到社会主义的直接过渡，所以作为小生产和交换的自发产物的资本主义，在一定程度上是不可避免的，所以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。”显然，在列宁的思想中，苏俄需要找到特殊的措施或者说需要认真地考虑“中间环节”的问题，是因为它的现实基础是“宗法制度”和“小生产”；特殊措施或“中间环节”的内容可以有许多方面，从性质上看它们也许是资本主义性质或者国家资本主义性质；在工农牢牢掌握国家政权的背景下实施这些措施并不可怕；实施这些特殊措施或者“中间环节”，目的在于创造建立社会主义社会的条件，以利于苏俄建立社会主义社会。

III. The Goal of Soviet Russia’s Development along a Special Path Was to Establish a Socialist Society

三、苏俄以特殊途径发展的目标是建立社会主义社会

Starting from the Tenth Congress of the RCP(b), Soviet Russia implemented the New Economic Policy, that is, using special policies and measures to restore and develop the economy. It can be said that from this time on, Russia had embarked on a path of social development through special means. However, what the goal of achieving social development through special means was has been a question of constant concern. Here, it can be affirmed that in the thought of Lenin and the RCP(b), the goal of development was a socialist society.

从俄共（布）十大开始，苏俄实施新经济政策，即以特殊的政策和措施恢复和发展经济。可以说，从此时起俄国已经迈向了以特殊途径实现社会发展的道路。然而，以特殊途径实现社会发展，其目标是什么，是一个一直受到人们关注的问题。在此，可以肯定地说，在列宁和俄共（布）的思想中，发展的目标是社会主义社会。

Lenin proposed that development along a special path in Soviet Russia meant the “political leadership” of the proletariat and its party, that is, it meant they focused on solving the problems of consolidating the worker-peasant alliance and the dictatorship of the proletariat and striving for the complete victory of socialism. The most important policy and measure of the Soviet NEP was the implementation of the tax in kind. Lenin and the RCP(b) decided to implement this policy and measure with the aim of allowing peasants to retain the rest of their grain for themselves after paying the tax, that is, to retain more of the fruits of their own labor, changing the situation during the Civil War where the state collected too much grain from the peasants, so as to improve the living and production conditions of the peasants. At that time, Lenin and the RCP(b) placed the improvement of the living and production conditions of the peasants in a very prominent position. As Lenin said, implementing the NEP and improving the living conditions of all the people “should begin with the peasantry.” At this time, some within the Party raised objections: placing the improvement of the living and production conditions of the peasants first rather than placing the improvement of the living and production conditions of the workers first meant putting the interests of the peasants first. Was there not a danger of “abandoning” the leading position of the proletariat in the state and society and “abandoning” the dictatorship of the proletariat? Lenin criticized such arguments. He pointed out: “The dictatorship of the proletariat is the political leadership of the proletariat. The proletariat, as the leading and ruling class, must be adept 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 economic productivity of the peasantry. Only through this method can we both improve the living conditions of the workers and consolidate the worker-peasant alliance and the dictatorship of the proletariat.” The meaning here is that the proletariat, as the leading class of the state, must have political vision and be adept at seeing problems from a political perspective. The current political problem in Soviet Russia was that the worker-peasant alliance and the class foundation of the dictatorship of the proletariat were being weakened. If the living and production conditions of the peasants could be rapidly improved, the peasants would inevitably eliminate the discontent with Soviet power formed during the Civil War and stand firmly under the banner of the proletariat and the RCP(b). In this way, the worker-peasant alliance and the dictatorship of the proletariat would be powerfully consolidated. In Lenin’s thought, the consolidation of the worker-peasant alliance and the dictatorship of the proletariat in Soviet Russia was the foundation for the advance of the socialist cause. Therefore, the fundamental significance of Soviet Russia’s change in grain policy and implementation of the tax in kind was that it could promote the development and victory of the socialist cause. This is what Lenin meant when he said: “In a small-peasant country, the correct policy for the proletariat exercising its class dictatorship is to exchange the industrial goods needed by the peasants for grain. Only such a grain policy can meet the tasks of the proletariat, only such a grain policy can consolidate the foundations of socialism and enable socialism to achieve complete victory.” Viewed in this way, in Lenin’s thought, the many changes in policies and measures surrounding the grain issue in Soviet Russia, such as allowing peasants to retain more of the grain they produced and permitting the circulation and exchange of grain and other agricultural and sideline products between town and country, or, in other words, achieving development through a special path, had the fundamental value orientation of “enabling socialism to achieve complete victory,” or establishing a socialist society in Soviet Russia.

列宁提出，苏俄以特殊途径发展意味着无产阶级及其政党对“政治的领导”，即意味着他们着力于解决巩固工农联盟和巩固无产阶级专政并争取社会主义完全胜利的问题。苏俄新经济政策中最重要的政策和措施是实行粮食税。列宁和俄共（布）决定实行此项政策和措施，目的在于让农民在纳税后自己占有其余的粮食，即较多地占有自己的劳动成果，改变国内战争时期国家政权过多地收取农民粮食的状况，以利于改善农民的生活条件和生产条件。当时，列宁和俄共（布）把改善农民的生活条件和生产条件置于十分突出的地位，如同列宁所说的，实施新经济政策和改善全体人民的生活条件“应该从农民方面开始”。这时党内有人提出了异议：把改善农民的生活条件和生产条件放在第一位而不是把改善工人的生活条件和生产条件放在第一位，等于把农民的利益放在第一位，这样做是否有“放弃”无产阶级在国家和社会上的主导地位和“放弃”无产阶级专政的危险？列宁批评了这样的议论。他指出：“无产阶级专政就是无产阶级对政治的领导。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。”这里的意思是，作为国家领导阶级的无产阶级必须具有政治的眼光，善于从政治上看问题，当前苏俄政治上的问题是工农联盟受到削弱和无产阶级专政的阶级基础受到削弱；如果能够迅速改善农民的生活条件和生产条件，农民势必消除国内战争时期形成的对苏维埃政权的不满情绪，坚定地站在无产阶级和俄共（布）的旗帜下，这样工农联盟和无产阶级专政将得到有力的巩固。在列宁的思想中，苏俄的工农联盟和无产阶级专政得以巩固，是社会主义事业前进的基础，所以苏俄改变粮食政策并实行粮食税，根本的意义在于它能促进社会主义事业的发展和胜利。这就是列宁所说的：“在小农国家内实现本阶级专政的无产阶级，其正确政策是要用农民所必需的工业品去换取粮食。只有这样的粮食政策才能适应无产阶级的任务，只有这样的粮食政策才能巩固社会主义的基础，才能使社会主义取得完全的胜利。”这样看来，在列宁的思想中，苏俄围绕着粮食问题所做的许多政策和措施的改变，如让农民较多占有自己生产的粮食，允许城乡之间进行粮食和其他农副产品的流转和交换，或者说以特殊途径实现发展，根本的价值取向在于“使社会主义取得完全的胜利”，或者说在苏俄建立社会主义社会。

Lenin proposed that Soviet Russia develop through a particular path, such as development through commerce, with the intention of “building the foundation of the socialist system economically.” According to the vision of Marx and Engels, socialist society abolishes commodity production and monetary exchange, a point of which Lenin and other leaders of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) were fully aware. At the beginning of the implementation of the New Economic Policy in Soviet Russia, while the tax in kind was introduced, free trade was restored, permitting free buying and selling within a certain local scope. At that time, the issue of conducting commerce on a nationwide scale had not yet been placed on the agenda. In October 1921, Lenin finally recognized the necessity and importance of commerce for the proletarian state and led the practice in this area. At this point, some within the Party raised objections: commerce and socialism and communism are “things as different as chalk and cheese, utterly unrelated, poles apart”; how could a communist party, whose goal is to realize socialism and communism, engage in commerce? In Lenin’s thinking, given the actual conditions of Soviet Russia at the time, commerce was the only possible economic link between town and country, between millions of small peasants and large-scale industry; commerce might appear extremely distant from communism, yet it was the particular path of development for Soviet Russia, and it was precisely this path that could advance the cause of Soviet Russia toward socialism and communism. In his work “The Role of Gold in the Present and After the Complete Victory of Socialism,” he pointed out: “In the chain of historical events, in the various transitional forms of our socialist construction in 1921–1922, commerce is precisely the ‘link that our proletarian state power, our leading Communist Party, must grasp with all our might.’ If we can now ‘grasp’ this link firmly, then in the near future we will certainly be able to hold the entire chain. Otherwise, we will not be able to hold the entire chain, nor will we be able to build the foundation of socialist socio-economic relations.” Here, he elevated the question of whether communists could grasp the “link” of developing commerce to the level of whether they could build the “foundation of socialist socio-economic relations.” The so-called “foundation of socialist socio-economic relations” is, in fact, also the foundation of socialist society. From this perspective, Lenin’s purpose in advocating that Soviet Russia engage in commerce was to lay the economic foundation for socialist society. In reviewing the work of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Soviet government over the preceding years, Lenin also stated: “To build the foundation of the socialist system economically. In this respect, the most important and fundamental work has not yet been completed. And this is our most reliable undertaking — whether from the standpoint of principle or practice, whether from the standpoint of the current situation of the Russian Federation or from the international standpoint, it is the most reliable undertaking.” Here, he first proposed that establishing the economic foundation of socialist society is of great significance, and second, that this task has not yet been completed and requires redoubled practical effort. It is evident that Lenin, with an eye toward building and completing socialist society, proposed achieving development through particular paths such as commerce.

列宁提出，苏俄通过特殊途径发展如通过商业实现发展，意图在于“从经济上建设社会主义制度的基础”。根据马克思恩格斯的设想，社会主义社会消灭了商品生产和货币交换，对此列宁和俄共（布）其他领导人是十分明白的。在苏俄实施新经济政策之初，在实行粮食税的同时恢复了自由贸易，允许在一定的地方范围内自由买卖。此时，在全国范围内开展商业的问题尚未提上日程。1921年10月，列宁终于认识到无产阶级国家开展商业的必要性和重要性，领导展开了这方面的实践。这时党内又有人提出了异议：商业与社会主义和共产主义“是风马牛不相及、毫不相干、相去甚远”的东西，以实现社会主义和共产主义为目标的共产党怎么可以搞商业呢？在列宁的思想中，就当时苏俄的实际而言，商业是城乡之间、千百万小农和大工业之间的唯一可能的经济联系；看起来商业距离共产主义十分遥远，可它是苏俄特殊的发展途径，正是它才能够把苏俄的事业推进到社会主义和共产主义。他在《论黄金在目前和在社会主义完全胜利后的作用》中指出：“在历史事变的链条中，在1921—1922年我国社会主义建设的各种过渡形式中，商业正是我们无产阶级国家政权、我们居于领导地位的共产党‘必须全力抓住的环节’。如果我们现在能紧紧‘抓住’这个环节，那么不久的将来我们就一定能够掌握整个链条。否则我们就掌握不了整个链条，建不成社会主义社会经济关系的基础。”在这里，他把共产党人能不能掌握发展商业的“环节”提升到能不能建成“社会主义社会经济关系的基础”的高度来认识。所谓“社会主义社会经济关系的基础”，实际上也是社会主义社会的基础。由此看来，列宁主张苏俄开展商业的目的在于为社会主义社会奠定经济基础。列宁在回顾几年以来俄共（布）和苏维埃政权的工作时还提出：“从经济上建设社会主义制度的基础。在这方面，最主要最根本的工作还没有完成。而这是我们最靠得住的事业，——无论从原则来看或从实践来看，也无论从俄罗斯联邦的现状来看或从国际方面来看，都是最靠得住的事业。”这里一是提出建立社会主义社会的经济基础意义十分重大，二是提出这个任务尚未完成，需要加倍努力的实践。可见，列宁是着眼于建设和建成社会主义社会而提出通过商业等特殊途径实现发展的。

Lenin proposed that Soviet Russia adopt particular development paths, such as implementing state capitalism, with the aim of “transforming state capitalism into socialism” in the near future. After the implementation of the New Economic Policy, due to the permission and support for the development of the small-scale economy, and the permission and development of free trade, capitalist economic factors grew. At this point, some within the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) advocated restricting capitalist economic factors, i.e., blocking the channels for their development. Lenin criticized this, stating that if the proletarian ruling party did so, it would be committing a foolish act, an act of suicide, because it would inevitably lead to the failure of its own cause; the correct policy and measure were not to block the development of capitalist economic factors, but to strive to channel this development onto the track of state capitalism. This is what he pointed out: “The whole problem — whether theoretical or practical — lies in finding the correct method, that is, how to channel the inevitable (to a certain extent and within a certain period, inevitable) development of capitalism into the track of state capitalism, what conditions to rely on to accomplish this, and how to ensure the transformation of state capitalism into socialism in the near future.” It can be seen that in Lenin’s thinking, state capitalist measures must be applied to capitalist economic factors, i.e., their development must be guided and intervened by the policies of the Soviet state, so that their development benefits the interests of the state and the broad masses of working people as much as possible. More importantly, Lenin had already indicated that it must be ensured that “state capitalism is transformed into socialism in the near future.” This shows that in Lenin’s thinking, state capitalism was merely a “transition” in the development process, or an “intermediate link” in the development process, with socialist society being the goal of development. Indeed, completing the transition to socialism in Soviet Russia at that time was an extremely difficult task. For example, the level of productive forces had to be greatly raised, transforming small-scale urban and rural production into large-scale production; the nature of existing economic relations had to be changed, replacing various forms of private ownership with public ownership; science, education, and culture had to be developed, raising the level of civilization of the whole society and the cultural level of the entire people; and so on. Lenin clearly recognized the arduousness of the task, while simultaneously demonstrating unparalleled courage, determination, and confidence in overcoming the difficulties. For instance, in a report to a relevant conference, he said: “No matter how difficult this task is, no matter how unfamiliar it is to us compared with our previous tasks, no matter how many difficulties it brings us, as long as we all work together, not tomorrow, but over a period of several years, we will in any case solve this task, and then the Russia of the New Economic Policy will become socialist Russia.” The message this judgment conveys to people is that the completion of the transition to socialism in Soviet Russia, the transformation from the current state of implementing the New Economic Policy into a genuine socialist society, is an inevitable progressive trend, and achieving this goal is not a very distant prospect. This constitutes Lenin’s late socialist value orientation and his confidence in the inevitable victory of socialism.

列宁提出，苏俄采用特殊发展途径如实行国家资本主义，目的是在不久的将来“把国家资本主义变成社会主义”。实行新经济政策后，由于允许并支持小经济的发展，且允许和发展自由贸易，资本主义的经济因素得到增长。这时俄共（布）内有的人主张限制资本主义经济因素即堵塞资本主义经济因素发展的通道。列宁批评说，无产阶级执政党如果这样做的话，那它是在干蠢事，是自杀，因为这样做必然会导致自己事业的失败；正确的政策和措施不是堵塞资本主义经济因素的发展，而是努力把这种发展纳入国家资本主义的轨道。这就是他所指出的：“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。”可以看出，在列宁的思想中，对于资本主义经济因素必须实施国家资本主义措施，即必须以苏维埃国家的政策来引导和干预它的发展，使它的发展尽可能多地有利于国家的利益和广大劳动者的利益。更为重要的是，列宁已经指明，必须保证在“不久的将来使国家资本主义变为社会主义”。这说明，在列宁的思想中，国家资本主义只不过是发展过程中的一个“过渡”，或者说是发展过程中的“中间环节”，社会主义社会才是发展的目标。诚然，在当时的苏俄完成向社会主义过渡，是一项十分困难的任务。如必须大大提高生产力水平，使城乡小生产发展成为大生产；必须改变现有的经济关系的性质，以公有制取代各种形式的私有制；必须发展科学教育文化事业，提高全社会的文明程度和全体人民的文化水平；等等。列宁明确地认识到任务的艰巨性，同时他表明了战胜困难的无与伦比的勇气、决心和信心。如他在有关会议上的报告中说：“不管这个任务是多么困难，不管它和我们从前的任务比起来是多么生疏，不管它会给我们带来多少困难，只要我们大家共同努力，不是在明天，而是在几年之中，无论如何会解决这个任务，这样，新经济政策的俄国将变成社会主义的俄国。”这个论断给人们的信息是：苏俄完成向社会主义过渡的任务，由当前实施新经济政策的状况变成真正的社会主义社会，是不可避免的前进趋势，而且达到这个目的不是十分遥远的事。这就是列宁晚年的社会主义价值取向和社会主义必胜的信心。

IV. The Historical Status and Contemporary Significance of Lenin’s Thought

四、列宁思想的历史地位和现实意义

Lenin’s late thought on the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia possesses an important historical status.

列宁晚年关于苏俄社会发展途径特殊性的思想，具有重要的历史地位。

For the first time in the history of scientific socialism, it systematically and scientifically revealed the question of the path by which Soviet Russia, a relatively economically and culturally backward country, could build socialism, and revealed the possibility and inevitability of Russia’s transition to a socialist society. Scientific socialism is a developing science. Marx and Engels already stated in the 1872 German edition preface to the *Manifesto of the Communist Party* (hereinafter referred to as the *Manifesto*) that in applying the basic principles of the *Manifesto*, attention must be paid to changes in the times and changes in historical conditions, grasping and applying these principles from the starting point of new historical conditions, or, in other words, flexibly altering certain expressions and formulations in light of new historical conditions to form understandings and viewpoints that correspond to current practice, so as to guide people’s practice. Moreover, after the conclusion of the 1848 revolution and after the conclusion of the 1871 Paris Commune revolution, Marx and Engels both summarized the experiences of the revolutions, put forward new theoretical viewpoints, and enriched and developed scientific socialism. After the 1870s, Marx’s response in relevant letters to the question of whether Russia could achieve a socialist society on the basis of the rural commune was: “He [Marx’s critic — author’s note] must transform my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general path of development prescribed by fate to all peoples, regardless of the historical circumstances in which they find themselves… But I must ask his pardon. (He would both honor and shame me too much by doing so.)” [1]1 This is a direct quotation from Deng Xiaoping’s opening speech at the 12th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, held in September 1982. The 12th National Congress formally introduced the concept of “building socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Clearly, Marx did not approve of using his theory to explain the question of Russia’s path of development. This indicates that, in his thinking, the question of Russia’s social development path required new exploration starting from Russia’s actual conditions and achieving theoretical development. Moreover, regarding the viewpoint put forward by the Russian Narodniks [2]2 “Three rights” separation refers to the policy of separating the ownership rights, contract rights, and management rights of rural land contracted by households, allowing farmers to transfer their land management rights while retaining their contract rights. about achieving socialism on the basis of the rural commune, he expressed neither affirmation nor negation; that is, he adopted a cautious attitude and a rational viewpoint. In 1894, in a relevant work, Engels put forward a new idea on the question of Russia’s development path, namely the “four-step” idea: in the near future, a revolution overthrowing the tsarist system would break out in Russia, and this revolution would generate immense impetus, prompting the outbreak and victory of proletarian socialist revolutions in Western countries; the victory of socialist revolutions in Western countries and the establishment of socialist systems there would set an example for the Russian people on how to build socialism and provide aid and support to the Russian people; with the help of Western socialism, Russia would achieve the victory of its socialist revolution and establish a socialist society; other backward countries in the East would, with the help of Western socialism and Russian socialism, move towards the path of socialism and establish socialist societies. Although this idea of Engels affirmed that Russia could achieve the victory of its socialist revolution and establish a socialist society in the near future, it emphasized that this was premised on Western countries achieving socialist victory before Russia. Therefore, this idea was less a theory of Russia’s transition to a socialist society and more a theory of the global socialist process, or a theory of the victory of Western socialism.

它在科学社会主义史上第一次系统地、科学地揭示了经济文化比较落后的苏俄以怎样的途径建设社会主义的问题，揭示了俄国走向社会主义社会的可能性和必然性。科学社会主义是发展着的科学。马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》（以下简称《宣言》）1872年德文版序言中即已提出，对于《宣言》中基本原理的运用，要注意时代的变化和历史条件的变化，从新的历史条件出发掌握和运用其中的原理，或者说要根据新的历史条件灵活地改变其中的某些话语和提法，形成同当前的实践相适应的认识和观点，以利于指导人们的实践。并且在1848年革命结束以后和1871年巴黎公社革命结束以后，马克思恩格斯都通过总结革命的经验，提出新的理论观点，丰富和发展了科学社会主义。19世纪70年代以后，马克思在有关信件中就俄国能否在农村公社的基础上实现社会主义社会问题作出的回应是：“他（马克思的批评家——作者注）一定要把我关于西欧资本主义起源的历史概述彻底变成一般发展道路的历史哲学理论，一切民族，不管它们所处的历史环境如何，都注定要走这条道路……但是我要请他原谅。（他这样做，会给我过多的荣誉，同时也会给我过多的侮辱。）”显然，马克思不赞成用他的理论来说明俄国发展道路的问题。这说明，在他的思想中，关于俄国社会发展道路的问题，需要从俄国的实际出发进行新的探索并实现理论的发展。而且他对俄国民粹派提出的所谓在农村公社基础上实现社会主义的观点，未表示肯定的意见，也未表示否定，即他持谨慎的态度和理智的观点。恩格斯1894年在有关著作中就俄国发展道路问题提出了新的思想即“四步骤”的思想——俄国近期内爆发推翻沙皇制度的革命，且这场革命产生极大的推动力，促使西方各国爆发无产阶级社会主义革命并取得胜利；西方各国社会主义革命的胜利并建立起社会主义制度，为俄国人民树立如何建设社会主义的榜样并向俄国人民提供援助和支持；俄国在西方社会主义的帮助下取得社会主义革命的胜利并建立社会主义社会；东方其他落后国家在西方社会主义和俄国社会主义的帮助下走向社会主义道路并建立社会主义社会。恩格斯的这个思想虽然肯定俄国可以在近期内走向社会主义革命胜利并建立社会主义社会，但是它强调必须以西方各国先于俄国走向社会主义胜利为前提。所以这个思想与其说是俄国走向社会主义社会的理论，不如说是全世界社会主义进程的理论，或者说是西方社会主义胜利的理论。

Lenin continuously enriched and developed scientific socialism in the process of leading revolution and construction. In his later years, in his important works *On the Tax in Kind* and *On Our Revolution*, he formed and put forward the idea of the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia, systematically and scientifically revealing for the first time in the history of scientific socialism the question of how a relatively economically and culturally backward Soviet Russia could build socialism, and revealing the possibility and inevitability of Russia’s transition to a socialist society. He believed that the Russian revolution had its particularity, namely that it was a revolution linked to the First World War. That is to say, because of the war, Russia had formed a situation where the workers’ movement was combined with the peasant war, and the proletarian party was inevitably obliged to guide the people in launching a revolution to seize power for the proletariat and establish a worker-peasant government. The Russian proletarian party was a party armed with Marxist theory, a party firmly implementing the Marxist revolutionary line. The “revolutionary dialectics” of Marxism and Marx’s idea of having “extreme flexibility” at revolutionary moments inspired this party to boldly lead the people in a great revolution. Associated with the particularity of the Russian revolution was the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia, namely that the proletariat first seizes power and establishes a worker-peasant government when conditions are not yet fully sufficient, then uses the power of the worker-peasant government to develop the productive forces and create the various conditions needed for achieving socialism, and thereby moves towards the victory of the socialist revolution and the establishment of a socialist society. This system of thought provided an ideological weapon for the people of Soviet Russia, and also provided an ideological weapon for the people of other backward countries in the East engaged in revolutionary movements and socialist movements, enabling the people in these places to generate theoretical consciousness and confidence in theory [3]3 This is a quotation from Xi Jinping, likely from a speech or written work, emphasizing the unique and independent nature of China’s development path. to advance the cause of revolution and construction.

列宁在领导革命和建设的过程中不断丰富和发展科学社会主义。他晚年在其重要著作《论粮食税》和《论我国革命》中形成和提出苏俄社会发展途径特殊性的思想，在科学社会主义史上第一次系统地、科学地揭示了经济文化比较落后的苏俄如何建设社会主义的问题，揭示了俄国走向社会主义社会的可能性和必然性。他认为，俄国革命有其特殊性，即它是同第一次世界大战相联系的革命，也就是说，由于大战，俄国形成了工人运动同农民战争相结合的态势，无产阶级政党必然因势利导地领导人民开展无产阶级夺取政权和建立工农政权的革命；俄国无产阶级政党是用马克思主义理论武装起来的党，是坚定地执行马克思主义革命路线的党，马克思主义的“革命辩证法”以及马克思关于在革命时刻要有“极大的灵活性”的思想激励着这个党果敢地领导人民进行伟大的革命。同俄国革命的特殊性相关联的是苏俄社会发展途径的特殊性，即无产阶级在条件尚不充足的时候先夺取政权和建立工农政权，然后以工农政权力量的发展来发展生产力和创造实现社会主义所需要的各种条件，进而走向社会主义革命胜利和建立社会主义社会。这个思想体系给苏俄人民以思想武器，也给东方其他落后国家进行革命运动和社会主义运动的人民以思想武器，使这些地方的人民能够产生理论自觉和理论自信，以推进革命和建设事业。

Lenin’s thought on the particularity of the path of social development in Soviet Russia has important practical significance.

列宁关于苏俄社会发展途径特殊性的思想，具有重要的现实意义。

The idea that the proletariat first seizes power and establishes a worker-peasant government when conditions are not yet fully sufficient, and uses the power of the worker-peasant government to develop the productive forces and create the various conditions needed for achieving socialism, has practical implications. This system of thought has a high degree of correspondence and applicability to the revolutionary and construction cause of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The CPC’s seizure of power, its exercise of power, and its carrying out of socialist revolution and construction in China were necessary and correct. During the War of Resistance Against Japan, the CPC already possessed a powerful revolutionary army, and it had already won the support and endorsement of all peace-loving, democratic, and progressive people in China. Just as Russia in 1917 had formed a situation where the workers’ movement was combined with the peasant war, China formed a united front of all democratic forces and progressive forces, and this united front was gathered under the banner of the CPC. In such a situation, the CPC should have taken state power, or rather, it was inevitable that it would take state power. After the CPC took state power, it clearly recognized that China was a backward country, but it believed that it could rely on the leadership of the Party, the power of the people’s democratic dictatorship, and the power of the entire people to change China’s backward appearance and build China into a prosperous, strong, modern socialist country. After the founding of New China, the socialist practice and exploration led by the Party can be divided into two historical periods: before reform and opening up and after reform and opening up. Regarding the relationship between these two historical periods, Xi Jinping pointed out: “Without the founding of New China in 1949 and the socialist revolution and construction that followed, which accumulated important ideological, material, and institutional conditions, and accumulated experience from both positive and negative aspects, reform and opening up would have been difficult to advance smoothly… The socialist practice and exploration before reform and opening up accumulated conditions for the socialist practice and exploration after reform and opening up, and the socialist practice and exploration after reform and opening up was an adherence to, reform of, and development of the previous period.” [4]4 This is a paraphrase of Xi Jinping’s speech at the New Year gathering of the CPPCC National Committee on December 31, 2013, and other occasions. Xi Jinping also pointed out: “The highest ideal of communism pursued by Chinese Communists can only be realized on the basis of the full development and high level of advancement of a socialist society. Thinking that one can enter communism in one or two moves is unrealistic.” [5]5 This is a paraphrase of Xi Jinping’s speech at the celebration of the 95th anniversary of the founding of the CPC on July 1, 2016. Based on these statements and ideas of Xi Jinping, one can affirm that since taking state power, the CPC has been continuously creating conditions for building a socialist society, continuously striving to explore the correct path for building socialism, and that up to the present, the aforementioned process of creating conditions and the process of exploring the correct path are far from over. It needs to be pointed out that using Lenin’s aforementioned idea — the idea that the proletariat seizes power and establishes a worker-peasant government when conditions are not yet sufficient, and uses the power of the worker-peasant government to develop the productive forces and create the conditions for establishing a socialist society — to view the CPC’s seizure of power, its socialist revolution and construction, and the practical process of reform and opening up is highly fitting and appropriate. It can be seen that studying and mastering the aforementioned ideas of Lenin is beneficial for people to correctly understand the practical course of the CPC since it seized power and founded New China.

关于无产阶级在条件尚不充足的时候先夺取政权和建立工农政权、以工农政权的力量发展生产力和创造实现社会主义所需要的各种条件的思想，具有现实启示。这个思想体系对于中国共产党革命和建设事业有高度的契合性和适用性。中国共产党在中国夺取政权、掌握政权以及进行社会主义革命和建设具有必要性和正确性。中国共产党在抗日战争过程中已经拥有强大的革命军队，并且它已经得到中国一切热爱和平、民主、进步的人民的拥护和支持。如同俄国1917年形成了工人运动和农民战争相结合的态势一样，中国形成了一切民主力量和进步力量的联合，而且这种联合聚集在中国共产党的旗帜下。在这样的态势下，中国共产党应该掌握国家政权，或者说它不可避免地要掌握国家政权。中国共产党掌握国家政权以后，明确地认识到中国是一个落后国家，但认为可以依靠党的领导力量和人民民主专政的力量以及全体人民的力量，改变中国落后的面貌，把中国建设成为富强的社会主义现代化国家。新中国成立后，党领导人民进行的社会主义实践探索有改革开放前和改革开放后两个历史时期。针对这两个历史时期之间的关系，习近平指出：“如果没有一九四九年建立新中国并进行社会主义革命和建设，积累了重要的思想、物质、制度条件，积累了正反两方面经验，改革开放也很难顺利推进……改革开放前的社会主义实践探索为改革开放后的社会主义实践探索积累了条件，改革开放后的社会主义实践探索是对前一个时期的坚持、改革、发展。”习近平还指出：“中国共产党人追求的共产主义最高理想，只有在社会主义社会充分发展和高度发达的基础上才能实现。想一下子、两下子就进入共产主义，那是不切实际的。”根据习近平的这些论断及思想，人们可以认定，中国共产党自掌握政权以来一直在为建设社会主义社会创造条件，一直在努力探索建设社会主义的正确途径，而且直到目前上述创造条件的过程和探索正确途径的过程远远没有结束。需要指出的是，用列宁的上述思想——关于无产阶级在条件尚不足的时候夺取政权和建立工农政权、利用工农政权的力量发展生产力和创造建立社会主义社会的条件——来看中国共产党夺取政权、进行社会主义革命和建设以及改革开放的实践过程，是十分契合的和恰当的。可以看出，学习和掌握上述列宁的思想，有利于人们正确地认识中国共产党夺取政权和成立新中国以后的实践历程。

Lenin’s thought on Soviet Russia’s realization of social development through special measures has practical enlightening significance. In Lenin’s thinking and in the history of Soviet Russia, these special measures included improving the living and production conditions of the peasantry and supporting the development of individual peasant economies; permitting the opening of small private industrial enterprises in the cities; leasing some large state-owned enterprises that the state was temporarily unable to restore production to foreign capitalists, while simultaneously leasing some other large state-owned enterprises that had not yet resumed production to domestic capitalists, to be operated respectively by foreign and domestic capitalists; implementing freedom of trade and developing commerce; and so forth. In Lenin’s thought, the above-mentioned special measures embodied the “intermediate links” between small-scale production in Soviet Russia and socialist society. If Lenin, because he recognized that a direct transition from small-scale production to socialism was impossible, put forward the idea of achieving development and creating conditions through “intermediate links,” then the Chinese Communists not only recognized that their own national conditions necessitated the adoption of special measures to achieve development, but also became aware of the need to achieve development through special measures after learning the lesson of having blindly copied other countries’ models in the past. On September 1, 1982, Deng Xiaoping stated in his opening speech to the 12th National Congress of the CPC: “China’s modernization drive must proceed from China’s actual conditions. Copying foreign experience and foreign models blindly has never been successful. ‘Integrating the universal truth of Marxism with China’s concrete reality, taking our own path, and building socialism with Chinese characteristics — this is the basic conclusion we have drawn from summing up our long historical experience.’” [1]1 This is a direct quotation from Deng Xiaoping’s opening speech at the 12th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, held in September 1982. The 12th National Congress formally introduced the concept of “building socialism with Chinese characteristics.” In China, the new measures, or special measures, adopted since reform and opening up mainly include: implementing the household contract responsibility system, abolishing agricultural taxes, livestock taxes, and special agricultural product taxes, implementing the “three rights” separation [2]2 “Three rights” separation refers to the policy of separating the ownership rights, contract rights, and management rights of rural land contracted by households, allowing farmers to transfer their land management rights while retaining their contract rights. of contracted rural land, winning the battle against poverty, and implementing the rural revitalization strategy; establishing special economic zones such as Shenzhen, opening up to the outside world along the coast, borders, rivers, major transportation routes, and inland central cities, joining the World Trade Organization, jointly building the Belt and Road Initiative, establishing pilot free trade zones, and planning free trade ports with Chinese characteristics; transitioning from a single public ownership system to one where public ownership is dominant and diverse forms of ownership develop together; transitioning from the traditional planned economy system to the unprecedented socialist market economy system, and then to letting the market play a decisive role in resource allocation and the government playing its role better; and so forth. Comparing the special measures of Lenin’s era with those of China’s reform and opening up, the common spirit between them is: daring to use non-socialist measures to develop oneself, in order to achieve the goal of rapidly strengthening one’s own power. Viewed from this common spirit, the above-mentioned Leninist thought on achieving development through special measures provides ideological enlightenment for people to correctly understand the reform and opening up measures adopted by the CPC. It must be pointed out that the measures of China’s reform and opening up, in terms of the economic fields they involve and the depth of change they have achieved, have far surpassed the measures of the New Economic Policy. From this perspective, the theory and practice of the CPC have greatly enriched and developed Lenin’s relevant thought. It must also be pointed out that the Chinese Communists’ understanding of the significance of implementing the above measures has greatly surpassed Lenin’s relevant ideological understanding. Lenin recognized that implementing special measures was necessary because “intermediate links” had to be adopted to achieve development at the current stage; the Chinese Communists, however, have elevated this practice to the height of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Xi Jinping pointed out: “We have always believed that the development path of each country should be chosen by its own people. The so-called ‘China model’ is the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics created by the Chinese people in their own struggle and practice. We firmly believe that, with the continuous development of socialism with Chinese characteristics, our system will become increasingly mature, the superiority of our socialist system will be further demonstrated, our path will become broader and broader, and the influence of our development path on the world will grow ever greater.” [3]3 This is a quotation from Xi Jinping, likely from a speech or written work, emphasizing the unique and independent nature of China’s development path. Here, Xi Jinping elevates reform and opening up, along with the new guidelines, measures, and policies, to the height of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, greatly enriching and developing the above-mentioned Leninist thought. The enrichment and development of Lenin’s relevant thought by the Chinese Communists proves that the theory of the CPC is a continuous and coherent lineage with Lenin’s thought.

列宁关于苏俄以特殊措施实现社会发展的思想，具有现实启示意义。在列宁的思想中和苏俄的历史上，这些特殊的措施包括改善农民的生活条件和生产条件，支持个体农民经济的发展；允许在城市开办私人小型工业企业；将一部分国家暂时没有力量恢复生产的大型国有企业出租给外国资本家，同时将一部分尚未恢复生产的国有大企业出租给国内资本家，分别由外国资本家和本国资本家来经营；实行贸易自由和发展商业；等等。在列宁的思想中，上述这些特殊的措施体现了苏俄小生产与社会主义社会之间的“中间环节”。如果说列宁是因为认识到从小生产不能直接过渡到社会主义才提出通过“中间环节”实现发展并创造条件的思想的，那么中国共产党人则不仅是由于认识到自己的国情决定必须采取特殊的措施实现发展，而且是由于吸取过去照搬别国模式的教训后才意识到必须以特殊措施实现发展的。1982年9月1日邓小平在党的十二大开幕词中提出，中国的现代化建设，必须从中国的实际出发，照抄照搬别国经验、别国模式，从来不能得到成功。“把马克思主义的普遍真理同我国的具体实际结合起来，走自己的道路，建设有中国特色的社会主义，这就是我们总结长期历史经验得出的基本结论。”在中国，改革开放以来采取的新措施或者说特殊措施主要有：实行家庭联产承包，取消农业税、牧业税和特产税，农村承包地“三权”分置，打赢脱贫攻坚战，实施乡村振兴战略；兴办深圳等经济特区，沿海、沿边、沿江、沿线和内陆中心城市对外开放，加入世界贸易组织，共建“一带一路”，设立自由贸易试验区，谋划中国特色自由贸易港；从单一公有制到公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展；从传统的计划经济体制到前无古人的社会主义市场经济体制，再到使市场在资源配置中起决定性作用和更好发挥政府作用；等等。将列宁时期的特殊措施同中国改革开放过程中的特殊措施相比较，两者共同的精神是：敢于用非社会主义性质的措施来发展自己，以达到快速增强自己力量的目的。由两者之间共同的精神看，上述列宁以特殊措施实现发展的思想对于人们正确地认识中国共产党采取的改革开放措施具有思想启示。需要指出的是，中国改革开放的措施就其涉及的经济领域来看，就其达到的变革深度来看，已经远远超越了新经济政策的措施。由此来看，中国共产党的理论和实践大大丰富和发展了列宁相关的思想。还需要指出，中国共产党人对实行上述措施的意义的认识，大大超越了列宁相关的思想认识。列宁认识到实行特殊措施是因为必须采取“中间环节”实现目前阶段的发展，中国共产党人则把这方面的实践提升到中国特色社会主义的高度来认识。习近平指出：“我们始终认为，各国的发展道路应由各国人民选择。所谓的‘中国模式’是中国人民在自己的奋斗实践中创造的中国特色社会主义道路。我们坚信，随着中国特色社会主义不断发展，我们的制度必将越来越成熟，我国社会主义制度的优越性必将进一步显现，我们的道路必将越走越宽广，我国发展道路对世界的影响必将越来越大。”在这里，习近平把改革开放以及新方针、新措施、新政策提升到中国特色社会主义道路、中国特色社会主义制度的高度来认识，大大丰富和发展了上述列宁有关的思想。中国共产党人对列宁相关思想的丰富和发展证明，中国共产党的理论同列宁的思想是一脉相承、前后贯通的关系。

(The author is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Public Administration, Nanjing Normal University)

（作者系南京师范大学公共管理学院教授、博士生导师）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心