Lenin’s Early Critique of Non-Marxist Trends of Thought in Russia

In the 1880s and 1890s, Russia, then in a period of social transition, saw various social contradictions manifest themselves with increasing sharpness; trends of thought came thick and fast, and political factions stood in great numbers. During this period, around the “question of the fate of capitalism in Russia,” Lenin engaged in fierce polemics with various Russian political currents. Among them, the liberal Narodniks [n1] abandoned the revolutionary theory of the old Narodism, advocating a bypassing of capitalism and a march toward socialism along Russia’s own unique path; “Legal Marxism” [n2], cloaked in the garb of Marxism, extolled and glorified capitalism; the “Economist” [n3] faction within the Party revered Bernsteinism [n4] and advocated a path of capitalist reform. Based on the historical conditions of Russia’s social development, Lenin, in the course of his struggle against non-Marxist trends of thought, elucidated the laws and characteristics of the development of capitalism in Russia, defended and developed Marxism, and pointed out the path of development for the Russian revolution. Revisiting Lenin’s early critique of non-Marxist trends of thought in Russia, as well as the important theses he advanced on the question of capitalism, carries significant theoretical and practical significance.

19世纪80—90年代，正处于社会转型时期的俄国，各种社会矛盾更加尖锐地表现出来，社会思潮纷至沓来，政治派别林立。这一时期，围绕“俄国资本主义的命运问题”，列宁同俄国各政治流派展开了激烈的交锋。其中，自由主义民粹派抛弃旧民粹主义的革命理论，主张避开资本主义，通过自己独特的道路走向社会主义；“合法马克思主义”披着马克思主义的外衣，极力颂扬和赞美资本主义；党内“经济派”推崇伯恩施坦主义，主张走资本主义改良的道路。基于俄国社会发展的历史状况，列宁在与非马克思主义思潮斗争的过程中，阐明了俄国资本主义发展的规律和特点，捍卫和发展了马克思主义，指明了俄国革命的发展道路。重温列宁早期对俄国非马克思主义思潮的批判，以及他在对待资本主义问题上提出的重要论断，具有重要的理论意义和现实意义。

I. Critique of the Russian Narodniks’ “Non-Capitalist Path”

一、对俄国民粹主义“非资本主义道路”的批判

Russia at the end of the 19th century was in a period of great transformation. In this transformation, the Narodniks, representing the small producers, in order to establish and maintain the mode of production of the small producers, vehemently denied the universality of the emergence and development of the capitalist economy, obliterated the established fact of the appearance of capitalism in Russia, and argued that Russia possessed special historical conditions for its own development, and that Russia’s way out lay in a direct transition to socialism through the village commune [n5]. Through his critique of the Narodniks’ “environmental determinism,” “theory of the narrow domestic market,” and “subjective sociology,” Lenin comprehensively exposed the erroneous essence of Narodism and demonstrated the possibility and inevitability of Russia taking the capitalist road.

19世纪末的俄国正处于一个大变革时期。在这场变革中，以小生产者为代表的民粹主义为建立和维护小生产者的生产方式，极力否定资本主义经济产生和发展的普遍性，抹杀俄国出现资本主义的既定事实，认为俄国存在自身发展的特殊的历史条件，俄国的出路是通过村社直接过渡到社会主义。列宁通过对民粹主义“环境决定论”“国内市场狭窄论”及“主观社会学”的批判，全面揭露了民粹主义的错误实质，论证了俄国走上资本主义道路的可能性与必然性。

(1) Critique of the Narodniks’ “Environmental Determinism”

（一）批判民粹主义的“环境决定论”

An important basis for the Narodniks’ denial of the universality of the development of the capitalist economy was their belief that Russia lacked the objective conditions for the development of capitalism, and that Marx’s thesis on the necessary transition from the feudal mode of production to the capitalist mode of production was also at odds with Russia’s economic conditions. The Narodniks said: “We do not want England’s economic maturity; the Russian stomach cannot digest it.” [n6] They believed that Russia had neither reached the level of productive forces of Western European countries nor possessed the natural conditions suitable for the development of capitalism. Vasily Pavlovich Vorontsov [n7] argued that even if Russia possessed the conditions for the development of capitalist forms of production, the ultimate result of these favorable conditions was that “all arable land now presents a picture of poor pasture and desolation, because the natural meadows have all been plowed up and no one has sown grass.” [n8] Thus, the Russian Narodniks believed that Russia could never reach the level of productive forces of Europe and could only take the path of a direct transition to socialism through the village commune.

民粹主义否认资本主义经济发展普遍性的重要依据在于，他们认为俄国不具备发展资本主义的客观条件，而马克思关于从封建生产方式必然过渡到资本主义生产方式的论断亦与俄国的经济状况相悖。民粹派说道：“我们不要英国的经济成熟性，俄国人的胃消化不了它。”他们认为俄国既没有达到西欧国家的生产力水平，也没有适合资本主义发展的天然条件。瓦西里·巴夫洛维奇·沃龙佐夫（ Василий Павлович Воронцов）认为，即使俄国具备发展资本主义生产形式的条件，但这些有利条件最终的结果却是“全部可耕地目前已呈现出牧草贫瘠、一片荒芜的景象，原因是自然草场已全部翻耕又无人播种牧草”。由此，俄国民粹主义者认为，俄国永远不可能达到像欧洲那样的生产力水平，只能走通过村社直接过渡到社会主义的道路。

In response to the Narodniks’ idea of “environmental determinism,” Lenin subjected it to sharp criticism in works such as *New Economic Developments in Peasant Life* and *The Development of Capitalism in Russia*. First, in Lenin’s view, after the emancipation reform of 1861 [n9], economically backward Russia had already seen the sprouts of capitalism. In his 1893 work *New Economic Developments in Peasant Life*, Lenin, proceeding from the general background of the capitalist commodity economy, explained the process of the emergence and development of agricultural capitalism, revealing the “direct exploitation” relations among the commune peasants, thereby scientifically shattering the Narodnik fallacy that Russia’s natural environment was unsuitable for the development of capitalism. In *The Development of Capitalism in Russia*, Lenin pointed out that it was precisely the social division of labor that divided the commune peasants into a bourgeoisie and a proletariat, breaking the primitive commune state of the Russian countryside and forming a capitalist economic structure. Second, Lenin argued that, judging from the state of development of Russian agriculture and industry at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, “peasant handicraft industry, although its overall situation was pitiful, its workshops very small, its labor productivity extremely low, its technology crude, and its number of hired workers small, already contained capitalism within it.” [n10] Lenin profoundly revealed the fact that Russia’s traditional patriarchal economy in the countryside had already begun to disintegrate under the impact of capitalism and was gradually taking the capitalist road, using this to refute the Narodniks’ clamor that Russia lacked the climate, transportation, and other conditions for the development of capitalism. In Lenin’s view, the Narodniks’ stubborn adherence to the “Russian commune socialism” path, divorced from the reality of Russia’s social development, could only ultimately fall into the rut of “utopian socialism.”

针对民粹派提出的“环境决定论”的思想，列宁在《农民生活中新的经济变动》《俄国资本主义的发展》等著作中进行了尖锐的批判。其一，在列宁看来，1861年农奴制改革后，经济落后的俄国就已出现资本主义萌芽。列宁在1893年撰写的《农民生活中新的经济变动》中从资本主义商品经济总的背景出发，阐释了农业资本主义产生和发展的过程，揭示了村社农民中“直接的剥削”关系，从而科学地粉碎了民粹主义关于俄国自然环境不适合发展资本主义的谬论。列宁在《俄国资本主义的发展》一书中指出，正是社会分工把村社农民分化为资产阶级和无产阶级，打破了俄国农村原始的村社状态，形成了资本主义经济结构。其二，列宁认为，从19世纪末20世纪初俄国农业、工业等发展状况来看，“农民手工业虽然总的情况很可怜，作坊规模很小、劳动生产率极低、技术简陋、雇佣工人不多，但其中已经有了资本主义”。列宁深刻揭示了俄国农村传统的宗法制经济在资本主义冲击下已然开始瓦解、逐步走上资本主义道路的事实，并以此来驳斥民粹派叫嚷俄国不具备发展资本主义的气候、交通等条件的说法。在列宁看来，民粹主义固守“俄国村社社会主义”道路，脱离俄国社会发展实际的思想，最终只会陷入“空想社会主义”的窠臼。

(2) Critique of the Narodniks’ “Theory of the Narrow Domestic Market”

（二）批判民粹主义的“国内市场狭窄论”

After the emancipation reform of 1861, a heated debate unfolded in Russia over whether to take the capitalist road. Among them, the Narodniks, representing the petty bourgeoisie, claimed that capitalism could not be realized in Russia, whether domestically or internationally. The Narodniks argued that the bankruptcy and differentiation of small producers led to a gradual shrinking of the domestic market, and that because Russia had taken the capitalist road very late, it lacked the advantages for expanding the foreign market in competition with Western European capitalist countries. Therefore, the Narodniks arrived at the conclusion of the “theory of the narrow domestic market.”

1861年农奴制改革后，俄国就是否走资本主义道路展开了激烈讨论。其中以小资产阶级为代表的民粹派声称，无论从国内还是国外来看，资本主义都不可能在俄国实现。民粹主义认为，小生产破产和分化导致国内市场逐渐缩小，又由于很晚才走上资本主义道路，在与西欧资本主义国家竞争中，俄国根本不具备拓展国外市场的优势。因此，民粹主义得出“国内市场狭窄论”的结论。

In response to the above views, Lenin refuted them one by one, laying the foundation for the formation of Russian revolutionary theory. In Lenin’s view, the differentiation of small producers in post-reform Russia caused a portion of the means of production to be freed from the small commodity producers; these means of production were taken over by new capitalists, and due to new commodity production, the new products expanded the domestic market. At the same time, in the production process, capitalists put forward demands for means of production such as tools and raw materials to the market, expanding the consumer market. That is, “the result of the massive expropriation of our peasants in the post-reform era was not to reduce but to increase the total national production and to expand the domestic market.” [n11] Lenin pointed out that what determines the expansion or contraction of the domestic market share is productive consumption, not personal consumption. The Narodniks, proceeding from pure abstract theory, were doomed to head toward a utopian fantasy. Furthermore, Lenin also pointed out: “The so-called problem of realization is how to find, for each part of the capitalist product, in terms of value and material form, another part of the product on the market to replace it.” [n12] In other words, the problem of realization is ultimately determined by the proportions of distribution among the various departments; it should not be linked with foreign trade, as doing so would only attend to one thing and lose sight of another. While criticizing the Narodniks’ “theory of the narrow domestic market,” Lenin also criticized the Narodniks’ erroneous theory that the development of capitalism caused the “impoverishment of the people.” Lenin believed that the bankruptcy of the small peasant was a natural phenomenon of capitalist development, a result of the peasant expanding his arable land excessively due to the need for money. In *On the So-Called Market Question*, Lenin pointed out: “The wailing about the destruction of our industry for lack of a market is nothing but a transparently false trick of our capitalists.” [n13] Lenin argued: “Only with the boundless fantasy and naivete of the Narodniks could one take the wailing about the market (which is the crocodile tears of the already very strong and arrogant bourgeoisie) as proof of the ‘impotence’ of our capitalism!” [n14] Here, Lenin sharply exposed the erroneous essence of Narodism. Lenin emphasized: “‘The impoverishment of the masses of the people’ (which is an indispensable component of all the Narodniks’ arguments about the market) not only does not hinder the development of capitalism, but, on the contrary, itself reflects the development of capitalism, is a condition of capitalism, and strengthens capitalism.” [n15] On this basis, Lenin, taking the social division of labor as his starting point and basing himself on the reality of Russia’s social development, scientifically analyzed the relationship between the bankruptcy of small producers and the domestic market, delivering a powerful critique of Narodism.

针对以上观点，列宁逐一进行回击，为俄国革命理论的形成奠定了基础。在列宁看来，改革后俄国小生产者的分化造成一部分生产资料从小商品生产者手中游离出来，这些生产资料被新的资本家占有，由于新的商品生产，新产品又扩大了国内市场。同时，资本家在生产过程中又向市场提出了工具、原料等生产资料的需求，扩大了消费市场，即“我国农民在改革后时代遭受大量剥夺的结果，不是缩小而是增加了全国总生产量和扩大了国内市场”。列宁指出，决定国内市场份额扩大或缩小的是生产消费而非个人消费。民粹主义者从单纯的抽象的理论出发，注定走向空想的乌托邦。此外，列宁还指出：“所谓实现问题，就是如何为每一部分资本主义产品按价值和物质形态在市场上找到替换它的另一部分产品。”质言之，实现问题归根结底是由各部门之间分配的比例决定的，不应将其与对外贸易结合在一起，这样只会顾此失彼。列宁在批判民粹主义“国内市场狭窄论”的同时，也批判了民粹主义关于资本主义的发展造成“人民贫困化”的错误理论。列宁认为，小农破产是资本主义发展的自然现象，是农民因需要钱而过分扩大耕地的结果。列宁在《论所谓市场问题》中指出：“关于我国工业将因市场不够而毁灭的哀号，不过是我国资本家欲盖弥彰的骗人伎俩。”列宁认为：“只有具备漫无涯际的民粹派的空想和稚气，才能把关于市场的哀号（这是已经十分强壮并已经神气起来的资产阶级的鳄鱼眼泪）当做我国资本主义‘无力’的证明！”在这里，列宁尖锐地揭露了民粹主义的错误实质。列宁强调：“‘人民大众的贫穷化’（这是民粹派所有关于市场的议论的不可或缺的组成部分）不仅不阻碍资本主义的发展，相反，它本身就反映了资本主义的发展，是资本主义的条件并且在加强资本主义。”基于此，列宁以社会分工为基础，立足于俄国社会发展的实际，科学分析了小生产者破产同国内市场的关系，对民粹主义进行了有力的批判。

(3) Critique of the Narodniks’ “Subjective Sociology” Thought

（三）批判民粹主义的“主观社会学”思想

Russian populism, proceeding from a subjectivist idealist sociology, regarded the development of capitalism in Russia as an “accidental,” “artificial,” and “unfortunate” phenomenon. It firmly believed in Russia’s particularity, attempting to transition directly to socialism through the village commune, holding that the peasant’s nature was inherently inclined toward socialism and that socialist elements were already fixed in the peasant’s consciousness.

俄国民粹主义从主观唯心主义社会学出发，将俄国资本主义的发展看成是一种“偶然的”“人为的”“不幸的”的现象。他们坚信俄国的特殊性，试图通过村社直接过渡到社会主义，认为农民的本性就是倾向于社会主义的，社会主义因素早已固定在农民的意识中。

Lenin considered the populist “subjective sociology” a “reactionary utopia,” a romanticized fictional “fantasy” divorced from realism, and “their failure to understand social (or historical) materialism.” Lenin criticized it mainly from the following aspects.

列宁认为，民粹主义的“主观社会学”是一种“反动的空想”，是脱离现实主义的带有浪漫主义色彩的虚构“幻想”，是“他们对社会的（或历史的）唯物主义的不理解”。列宁主要从以下几个方面对其予以批判。

First, proceeding from the standpoint of historical materialism, Lenin explored and examined the historical laws of Russian capitalist development, clarified the evolutionary process of Russian capitalism, and completely shattered the populist “theory of destruction” of capitalism. Second, Lenin pointed out that the populists’ use of “human nature” as the criterion for judging social phenomena was entirely mistaken. In Lenin’s view, “historical materialism affirms the necessity of human action, discards the absurd myth of so-called free will, but in no way cancels out human reason, human conscience, or the evaluation of human action; the idea of historical necessity in no way negates the role of the individual in history, but individual activity can achieve significant results only when it conforms to historical laws and merges into the struggle of the masses of the people.” Here, Lenin clearly indicated that the populist view was actually a delusion attempting to change the direction of historical development according to subjective will. Third, Lenin pointed out the contradictions within populist theory: on the one hand, it regarded the peasant as the main revolutionary force, emphasized the role of the peasant, and claimed “everything for the peasant”; on the other hand, it regarded the peasant as a “rabble” and described the broad masses of the people as a “herd.” Lenin stressed that only by correctly understanding the historical laws of the development of human society and understanding the role of the masses of the people in the long river of human history could one avoid falling into empty fantasies and deviating from the track of real life. Hence, the tragedy of populism lay in the fact that “life had left them behind, and they had left life behind.”

其一，列宁从历史唯物主义的立场出发，探究和考察俄国资本主义发展的历史规律，阐明俄国资本主义的演进过程，彻底粉碎了民粹主义的资本主义“破坏论”。其二，列宁指出，民粹派将“人的本性”作为判断社会现象的标准是完全错误的。在列宁看来，“历史唯物主义确认人的行为的必然性，屏弃所谓意志自由的荒唐神话，但丝毫不取消人的理性、人的良心以及对人的行动的评价；历史必然性的思想也丝毫不否定个人在历史上的作用，但是个人的活动只有符合历史规律，而且汇合到人民群众的斗争中去，才能取得重大成果”。在这里，列宁明确指出，民粹派的观点实际上是企图按照主观意志改变历史发展方向的妄想。其三，列宁指出民粹主义理论内部的矛盾性：一方面将农民看成革命的主要力量，重视农民的作用，声称“一切为了农民”；另一方面却将农民看成“乌合之众”，将广大人民群众说成是“群氓”。列宁强调，只有正确认识人类社会发展的历史规律，了解人民群众在人类历史长河中的作用，才能避免落入空洞的幻想、偏离现实生活的轨道。因而，民粹主义的悲剧就在于“生活脱离了他们，他们也脱离了生活”。

In short, Lenin soberly recognized that economic development must be guided by Marxism; otherwise, economic construction would deviate from the track and go astray. Lenin objectively analyzed the actual situation of Russian society, dissected the economic conditions of Russian agriculture and industry, further emphasized the foundational role of the social mode of production and the historical status and role of the masses of the people, affirmed the revolutionary nature of the proletariat in struggle, and clarified that class struggle is the driving force of class society’s development. He argued that “there is only one way out of this society, necessarily arising from the essence of the bourgeois system, and that is the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.” Using the basic principles of Marxism, Lenin forcefully refuted the populist “theory of environmental determinism,” “theory of the narrow domestic market,” and “subjective sociology,” profoundly exposed that the root of the populists’ “belief in the special path of Russian life and the village commune system” lay in a mistaken idealist view of history, enabling people to recognize the theoretical essence of populism and consciously resist the influence and harm of populist erroneous ideas. In his critique of the populist “non-capitalist path” viewpoint, Lenin further clarified the direction of Russian capitalist development and the tasks of the Russian proletarian party, and also greatly promoted the spread and development of Marxism in Russia.

总之，列宁清醒地认识到，必须在马克思主义指导下发展经济，否则，经济建设就会偏离轨道、步入歧途。列宁客观分析了俄国社会实际情况，剖析了俄国农业、工业等经济状况，进一步强调社会生产方式的基础性作用以及人民群众的历史地位和作用，肯定了无产阶级在斗争中的革命性，阐明阶级斗争是阶级社会发展的动力，认为俄国“要摆脱这个社会只能有一条从资产阶级制度本质中必然产生的出路，这就是无产阶级反对资产阶级的阶级斗争”。列宁运用马克思主义基本原理对民粹派的“环境决定论”“国内市场狭窄论”“主观社会学”等错误观点进行有力回击，深刻揭露民粹派“相信俄国生活的特殊方式和村社制度”的根源在于错误的唯心主义历史观，使人们认清民粹主义的理论实质，自觉抵制民粹主义错误思想的影响和危害。列宁在对民粹主义“非资本主义道路”观点的批判中进一步指明了俄国资本主义发展的方向以及俄国无产阶级政党的任务，也极大地推动了马克思主义在俄国的传播和发展。

II. Critique of “Legal Marxism” and the “Theory of the Eternity of Capitalism”

二、对“合法马克思主义”“资本主义永恒论”的批判

In late 19th-century Russia, various social currents of thought emerged one after another. “Legal Marxism” was a political trend advocated by the liberal bourgeois intelligentsia of Russia, with main representatives including Pyotr Berngardovich Struve, Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov, and Mikhail Ivanovich Tugan-Baranovsky. On the one hand, “Legal Marxism” stood together with Lenin and other Marxists in criticizing populism; on the other hand, it went to the opposite extreme, namely,极力美化资本主义制度，颂扬资产阶级 [16]16 The Chinese text reads: “极力美化资本主义制度，颂扬资产阶级” (extremely beautify the capitalist system and eulogize the bourgeoisie).. “Legal Marxism” was in fact a case of using Marxism’s “legal cloak” to oppose Marxism in practice. Lenin criticized the “Legal Marxist” erroneous theories of “Russian agricultural overpopulation,” “the law of diminishing soil fertility,” and “the theory of the stability of small-scale peasant farming,” exposing the hypocrisy and deceptiveness of their ideas, enabling people to correctly understand the laws of the emergence, development, and demise of capitalism, scientifically grasp the particularity of Russian capitalist development, and clearly recognize the inevitability of the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

19世纪末的俄国，各种社会思潮层出不穷。“合法马克思主义”是俄国自由资产阶级知识分子倡导的政治思潮，主要代表人有彼得·伯恩哈多维奇·司徒卢威（ Петр Бернгардович Струве）、谢尔盖·尼古拉耶维奇·布尔加柯夫（Сергей Николаевич Булгаков）、米哈伊尔·伊万诺维奇·杜冈-巴拉诺夫斯基（Михаил Иванович Туган-Барановский）等。“合法马克思主义”一方面和列宁等马克思主义者站在一起批判民粹主义，另一方面走向另一个极端，即极力美化资本主义制度，颂扬资产阶级。“合法马克思主义”实际上是披着马克思主义的“合法外衣”行反马克思主义之实。列宁对“合法马克思主义”的“俄国农业人口过剩”“土地肥力递减规律”“小农经济稳固论”等错误理论展开了批判，揭露其思想的虚伪性和迷惑性，使人们正确认识资本主义产生、发展、灭亡的规律性，科学把握俄国资本主义发展的特殊性，清楚认识无产阶级同资产阶级作斗争的必然性。

(1) Critique of the “Legal Marxist” Theory of “Russian Agricultural Overpopulation”

（一）批判“合法马克思主义”的“俄国农业人口过剩”理论

In his *Critical Remarks on the Question of Russia’s Economic Development*, Struve attributed the causes of “Russian agricultural overpopulation” to “the incompatibility of population growth with the means of subsistence,” arguing his case from such points as “population growth is directly proportional to the fertility of the land,” “land shortage,” and “insufficient production is the basic and main fact of our national economy.”

司徒卢威在《俄国经济发展问题的评述》中将导致“俄国农业人口过剩”的原因归结为“人口增殖和生活资料不适应”，他从“人口增长与土地的肥沃程度成正比”“地少”“生产不足是我国国民经济中基本的和主要的事实”等方面论证了自己的观点。

In response, in his first work criticizing “Legal Marxism,” namely *The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book*, Lenin refuted Struve’s views one by one. Lenin first criticized Struve’s view that “land fertility is directly proportional to population growth.” In Lenin’s view, on the one hand, the data Struve used to derive the “law of the compatibility of population growth with the means of subsistence” was too scanty to be convincing; on the other hand, if overpopulation were simply attributed to “suitability for the natural economy,” then it would be equally reasonable to consider this overpopulation more suitable for the serf economy. In reality, the slow growth of population was not due to a lack of sufficient means of production and subsistence; the fundamental reason was that the vast majority of means of production and subsistence were controlled by big landowners and big capitalists. Struve’s error lay in “ignoring historically specific social relations and their stage of development and constructing an abstract law of population according to the formula of the compatibility of population growth with the means of subsistence,” failing to realize the fact that capital had already penetrated the agricultural economy while still being in an underdeveloped stage, and thereby completely denying the capitalist character of overpopulation. Second, Lenin criticized the populist “land shortage” theory for committing the “simple” error of abstraction. Lenin argued: “This stale populist talk about ‘land shortage’ can hardly have any scientific significance; apart from being taken as ‘well-intentioned words’ … it can hardly serve any other purpose.” Struve’s view on “land shortage” actually ignored the specific socio-economic relations of the time, namely, capitalist economic relations. Finally, Lenin criticized the narrowness and ambiguity of Struve’s objectivism. Lenin pointed out that it was precisely because Struve ignored the various stages formed in the process of bourgeois agricultural development, and ignored class contradictions, that he ultimately fell into self-contradictory arguments about the peasantry.

对此，列宁在其批判“合法马克思主义”的第一部作品即《民粹主义的经济内容及其在司徒卢威先生的书中受到的批评》中对司徒卢威的观点一一进行了驳斥。列宁首先批判了司徒卢威的“土地肥力与人口增长成正比”的观点。在列宁看来，一方面，司徒卢威得出“人口增殖和生活资料相适应的规律”依据的资料太少，不具有说服力；另一方面，如果将人口过剩简单地归结于“适合自然经济”，那同样有理由认为，这种人口过剩是更加适合农奴制经济的。实际上，人口增长缓慢并不在于没有足够的生产生活资料，根本原因是绝大多数生产生活资料都被大地主大资本家操控。而司徒卢威的错误在于“忽视历史上特定的社会关系体系及其发展阶段而按照人口增殖和生活资料相适应的公式来建立抽象的人口规律”，没有意识到资本已经侵入农业经济且尚处于不发达阶段的事实，进而完全否认了人口过剩的资本主义性质。其次，列宁批判民粹派的“地少”理论犯了抽象“简单”的毛病。列宁认为：“民粹派这种‘地少’的陈腐议论未必有什么科学意义，它除了可以当做‘善意的言论’……未必能有什么别的用处。”司徒卢威关于“地少”的观点实际上是忽视了当时具体的社会经济关系，即资本主义的经济关系。最后，列宁批判了司徒卢威客观主义的狭隘性和模糊性。列宁指出，正是由于司徒卢威忽视了资产阶级农业发展过程中形成的各个阶段，忽视了阶级矛盾，最终才陷入关于农民的自相矛盾的议论中。

(2) Critique of the “Legal Marxist” Theory of the “Law of Diminishing Soil Fertility”

（二）批判“合法马克思主义”的“土地肥力递减规律”理论

The “law of diminishing soil fertility” refers to the idea that the yield from land decreases successively as soil fertility declines. The essence of this theory is to conceal the exploitation of the working people by the bourgeoisie and to defend the capitalists. Bulgakov and others inherited and developed this view.

“土地肥力递减规律”是指土地的收益会随着土地肥力的减退而依次递减。这种理论的实质是掩盖资产阶级剥削劳动人民，为资本家辩护。布尔加柯夫等人继承和发展了这种观点。

First, in order to give the “law of diminishing returns of land” universal significance, Bulgakov proposed substituting human labour for natural forces. He said: “What was formerly a free gift of nature must now be produced by man.” Bulgakov and other Legal Marxists believed that over time, man gradually conquers nature and initiates the process of artificial production. In response, Lenin pointed out that the Legal Marxists had degenerated to the level of vulgar economics, and that Bulgakov “is going backwards, retreating to that bourgeois political economy which uses fictitious ‘eternal laws’ to conceal social relations.” In Lenin’s view, Bulgakov’s “law of diminishing returns of land” was an erroneous conclusion drawn by setting aside the actual level of technology and the state of the productive forces. To talk loftily about the “law of diminishing returns of land” while divorcing oneself from the reality of technology and production could only deviate from the track of Marxist economic theory and fall into the abstract, eternal trap of old political economy. Second, Bulgakov regarded technological progress as a “temporary” trend, refused to acknowledge the impact of technological progress on agricultural development, and attributed the difficulties of workers’ lives to nature. In response to this argument, Lenin pointed out that the development of capitalism in Russia had intensified the bankruptcy of small producers in agriculture; these bankrupt peasants could only obtain the means of subsistence by renting land from landlords or capitalists. Because land rents were exorbitant, the poor peasants became even poorer. Moreover, the rise in agricultural product prices and the intensification of market competition forced more and more bankrupt small producers to become wage workers. Thus, the real cause of the poverty of the Russian workers and peasants was the capitalist relations of production. Therefore, Lenin said: “The apologists of the bourgeoisie naturally try to evade the social and historical causes of the backwardness of agriculture and attribute this backwardness to ‘the conservative force of nature’ and ‘the law of diminishing returns of land.’ This notorious law contains nothing but apologetics and muddled thinking.”

首先，为了使“土地肥力递减规律”具有普遍意义，布尔加柯夫提出用人的劳动代替自然力量。他说：“从前是自然界的无偿赐物的东西，现在却要人来生产了。”布尔加柯夫等合法马克思主义者认为随着时间的推移，人逐渐征服自然，开启人工生产过程。对此，列宁指出，合法马克思主义者已经堕落到庸俗经济学的水平，布尔加柯夫“是在开倒车，倒退到用虚构的‘永恒规律’来掩盖社会关系的资产阶级政治经济学那里去了”。在列宁看来，布尔加柯夫的“土地肥力递减规律”是在抛开技术水平和生产力状况的基础上得出的错误结论。这种离开技术和生产的实际，高谈“土地肥力递减规律”只会偏离马克思主义经济理论的轨道，落入旧政治经济学抽象的、永恒的陷阱。其次，布尔加柯夫将技术的进步看做“暂时”的趋势，不承认技术进步对农业发展的影响，将工人生活的困难归因于自然界。针对此种论调，列宁指出，资本主义在俄国的发展加剧了农业中小生产者的破产，这些破产的农民只能通过租用地主或资本家土地的方式赚取生活资料。由于地租价格高昂，贫苦农民愈加贫穷。此外，农产品价格的上涨、市场竞争的加剧，使越来越多破产的小生产者不得不沦为雇佣工人。可见，造成俄国工农群众贫困的真正原因是资本主义生产关系。因此，列宁说：“资产阶级的辩护士自然要设法回避农业落后的社会原因和历史原因，而把这种落后归咎于‘自然力的保守性’和‘土地肥力递减规律’。这个臭名远扬的规律所包含的无非是辩护术和糊涂思想。”

(3) Critique of the Legal Marxist “Theory of the Stability of Small-Peasant Economy”

（三）批判“合法马克思主义”的“小农经济稳固论”

The Legal Marxists, represented by Bulgakov, trumpeted the superiority of small-scale production in capitalist agriculture, strove to suppress the established fact that large-scale socialised production is superior to small-scale production, loudly proclaimed the “stability” of the small-peasant economy under capitalism, advocated the “theory of the stability of the small-peasant economy,” praised capitalism, opposed Marxism, and obliterated real class contradictions. Lenin subjected each of these erroneous views of the “Legal Marxists” to profound criticism.

以布尔加柯夫为代表的合法马克思主义者鼓吹资本主义农业中小生产的优越性，极力扼杀社会化大生产优于小生产的既定事实，大肆宣扬小农经济在资本主义农业中的“稳固性”，鼓吹“小农经济稳固论”，赞美资本主义，反对马克思主义，抹杀现实的阶级矛盾。针对“合法马克思主义”者的错误观点，列宁一一进行了深刻的批判。

First, in the view of the Legal Marxists, the mechanical factor of production was opposed to the living factor of production. They firmly believed in the dominant role of nature in production, because the instruments of labour were “in the hands of Mother Nature.” In response, Lenin emphasised that machinery had long been introduced into agriculture and was exerting a powerful transformative effect on it. Who did not know that steam ploughs, seed drills, threshing machines, etc., were all making work more “reliable and precise”? Second, in response to the Legal Marxists’ claim of an “increase in independent peasant households,” Lenin, through analysis of a large amount of data, concluded that the majority of German peasants were engaged in subsidiary occupations, with only a minority not doing so; at the same time, the social division of labour was prompting agriculture to combine with other industries, which inevitably led to class differentiation among the peasants, the development of wage labour and small commodity production, meaning that the peasants’ independence was diminishing and the small-peasant economy was gradually being broken up. Finally, the Legal Marxists proclaimed the “stability” of small peasant households. They believed that the qualities of diligence, hard work, and endurance of hardship were the root cause of their long-term stability. In response to this point, Lenin pointed out that they were using the “middle peasant” to whitewash the concept of “peasant.” In essence, Bulgakov and others were concealing the fact of peasant differentiation under capitalist conditions and concealing the proletarianisation of the majority by surreptitiously substituting concepts, thereby creating confusion; this was completely erroneous.

首先，在合法马克思主义者看来，机械生产因素同活的生产因素是对立的。他们坚信自然在生产中的主宰作用，因为劳动工具“掌握在自然－母亲的手里”。对此，列宁强调，机器在农业中早已推广开来，且对农业起着强有力的改造作用。又有谁不知道蒸汽犁、条播机、脱粒机等都在使工作更加“可靠和精确”？其次，针对合法马克思主义者提出的“独立农户的增加”说，列宁通过大量的数据分析得出，德国大部分农民都在从事副业，只有少数不从事副业的农民；与此同时，社会分工促使农业开始与其他行业相结合，这势必造成农民的阶级分化，雇佣劳动、小商品行业日趋发展，也就意味着农民的独立性愈来愈少，小农经济逐渐被打破。最后，合法马克思主义者宣扬小农户的“稳固性”。他们认为，小农勤恳、吃苦耐劳的品质是他们长期保持稳固性的根源所在。针对这一点，列宁指出他们是在拿“中等农民”粉饰“农民”这个概念。质言之，布尔加柯夫等人在通过偷换概念的方式掩盖资本主义条件下农民分化的事实，掩盖大多数人的无产阶级化，从而达到混淆视听的效果，是完全错误的。

Whether it was the “theory of agricultural overpopulation in Russia,” the “law of diminishing returns of land,” or the “theory of the stability of the small-peasant economy,” at root they were all “fig leaves” used by “Legal Marxism” to extol capitalism and oppose the worker-peasant alliance. In response, Lenin pointed out incisively: “The greatest characteristic of bourgeois philosophers is that they regard the categories of the bourgeois system as eternal and natural categories; hence they define capital, for example, as accumulated labour for the purpose of continuing production, i.e., they regard capital as an eternal category of human society, thereby obliterating the historically specific and particular economic formation…” That is to say, the Legal Marxists only explained and understood capitalism from the perspective of the development of productive forces and economic progress under capitalist conditions, completely ignoring the historical transience of the capitalist system, i.e., “in this economic formation, this accumulated labour, organised by the commodity economy, falls into the hands of those who do not labour and is used to exploit the labour of others.” In other words, the erroneous arguments of “Legal Marxism,” which ignored capitalist relations of production and prattled about the “perfection of capitalism,” were bound to run counter to Marxism. In his critique of the Legal Marxists’ denial of the inevitable demise of capitalism, Lenin profoundly elucidated Marx’s theory of class struggle and proletarian revolution. In Lenin’s view, denying the inevitable demise of capitalism was very dangerous for the proletariat; the proletariat must adhere to the theory of uninterrupted revolution, fully recognise that it must continue the revolution on the basis of completing the bourgeois revolution, and wage the struggle to overthrow capitalism, in order to achieve the goal of establishing a socialist system.

无论是“俄国农业人口过剩论”，还是“土地肥力递减规律”理论，抑或是“小农经济稳固论”，究其根本皆是“合法马克思主义”用来颂扬资本主义，反对工农联盟的“遮羞布”。对此，列宁一针见血地指出：“资产阶级哲学家最大的特点，就是把资产阶级制度的范畴看做永恒的和自然的范畴；因此，他们对资本下了这样的定义，例如，说资本是为了继续生产而积累的劳动，即认为资本是人类社会的永恒范畴，从而抹杀历史上一定的特殊的经济形态……”也就是说，合法马克思主义者仅从资本主义条件下生产力的发展、经济的进步等方面阐述和理解资本主义，完全忽视了资本主义制度的历史暂时性，即“在这种经济形态中，由商品经济所组织的这种积累的劳动落到不劳动的人的手里，并被用来剥削他人的劳动”。换言之，“合法马克思主义”无视资本主义生产关系、空谈资本主义“完美论”的错误论调注定是与马克思主义背道而驰的。列宁在对合法马克思主义者否认资本主义必然灭亡观点的批判中，深刻阐明了马克思关于阶级斗争、无产阶级革命的理论。在列宁看来，否认资本主义必然灭亡对于无产阶级是非常危险的，无产阶级必须坚持不断革命的理论，充分认识到必须在完成资产阶级革命的基础上继续革命，进行推翻资本主义的斗争，才能实现建立社会主义制度的目标。

III. Critique of the “Economist Trend” within the Russian Party

三、对俄国党内“经济主义思潮”的批判

At the beginning of the 20th century, social contradictions in Russia became increasingly acute, and the mass movement against the tsarist autocratic system grew ever more intense. At the same time, the three main political factions existing in Russian society—the liberal bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeois democrats, and the proletarian revolutionaries—were all promoting their own policies and programmes. Among them, the Russian Economists, who championed Bernsteinism, temporarily gained the upper hand within the Social Democratic Labour Party, becoming a serious obstacle to the establishment of a new type of Marxist party. In response, Lenin launched his critique mainly from the following three aspects.

20世纪初，俄国社会矛盾日益尖锐，反对沙皇专制制度的群众性运动日益高涨，与此同时，俄国社会中存在的三个主要政治派别，自由派资产阶级、小资产阶级民主派、无产阶级革命派都在推行自己的政策和纲领。其中，推崇伯恩施坦主义的俄国经济派在社会民主工党内一时占据优势，成为当时建立马克思主义新型政党的严重障碍。对此，列宁主要从以下三个方面展开了批判。

(1) Critique of the “Economists’” Idea of the “Spontaneity of the Workers’ Movement”

（一）批判“经济派”的“工人运动自发性”思想

In the mid-1890s, the “Economists” who emerged within the Social Democratic Labour Party attributed everything to the material environment, exalted economic struggle, belittled the role of politics, turned a blind eye to socialist consciousness, and denied the leading role of the Party in the workers’ movement. The “Economists” wrote in *Rabochaya Mysl*: “…the workers’ movement is so full of vitality because the workers have finally wrested their own destiny from the hands of the leaders and taken it into their own hands…” Here, the “Economists” completely ignored the leading role of the leaders (the Social Democratic Labour Party) and unabashedly proclaimed the workers’ own powerful vitality—spontaneity.

19世纪90年代中期，在社会民主工党内出现的“经济派”将一切都归咎于物质环境，抬高经济斗争，贬低政治作用，对社会主义意识视而不见，否定党在工人运动中的领导作用。“经济派”在《工人思想报》上说道：“……工人运动如此富有生命力，是因为工人终于从领导者手里夺回了自己的命运，由自己来掌握了……”在这里，“经济派”完全忽视领导者（社会民主工党）的领导作用，毫不掩饰地宣扬工人本身强大的生命力——自发性。

On this basis, Lenin pointed out sharply that the “Economist” faction was in fact a variant of international opportunism, which determined that the “Economists” could not erase their reformist essence. Lenin pointed out that because the “Economists” were unclear about the relationship between the spontaneous and the conscious factors, they failed to recognize that the greatest problem facing them at the time was the lack of thinkers with a high level of theoretical cultivation (i.e., Marxist revolutionaries). In Lenin’s view, workers could not spontaneously generate Social-Democratic consciousness on their own; it had to be instilled into them from outside. Therefore, the task of the Social Democrats was to oppose spontaneity, to prevent workers from any act of detaching from or belittling socialist ideology, and to dispel workers’ spontaneous tendency toward trade unionism. Russia had to change “what exists” (i.e., the tsarist autocratic system), oppose the worship of this existing thing, and oppose any reconciliation with it. The “Economists” precisely overlooked this point, blindly worshipping the spontaneity of the workers and becoming the tail of the movement. On the basis of his profound critique of the “Economists’” idea of “spontaneity in the workers’ movement,” Lenin further elaborated the importance of the leading role of a new-type proletarian party in the workers’ movement. Lenin believed that the key to the victory of the Russian socialist movement lay in the leadership of the proletarian party. Lenin thoroughly analyzed the leading position of the new-type proletarian party in the revolutionary movement and profoundly exposed the opportunist essence of the “Economists.” In 1902, in his book *What Is to Be Done? (Burning Questions of Our Movement)*, Lenin comprehensively expounded the idea of building a new-type working-class party and exposed the reformist essence of the “Economists,” who advocated economic struggle and belittled socialist consciousness. Lenin elaborated the great significance of the Marxist party as the leader of the workers’ movement, emphasizing that the Marxist party must clearly recognize the importance of advanced theory: “Since socialism has become a science, it demands that people treat it as a science, that is, that people study it.”

基于此，列宁鲜明地指出“经济派”实际上是国际机会主义的变种，这就决定“经济派”抹不掉改良主义的实质。列宁指出，“经济派”由于不清楚自发和自觉因素的关系，以致于认识不到当前面临的最大问题是缺少具有很高理论修养的思想家（即马克思主义革命家）。在列宁看来，工人自己是不可能自发产生社会民主主义意识的，必须从外部灌输给他们，因此，社会民主党人的任务就是反对自发性，防止工人有任何脱离和轻视社会主义思想体系的行为，打消工人工联主义的自发倾向。俄国必须改变“现有的东西”（即沙皇专制制度），反对崇拜这个现有的东西，且反对同它调和。“经济派”恰恰忽略这一点，盲目崇拜工人的自发性，做运动的尾巴。列宁在深刻批判“经济派”“工人运动自发性”思想的基础上，进一步阐述了新型无产阶级政党在工人运动中领导作用的重要性。列宁认为俄国社会主义运动取得胜利的关键在于无产阶级政党的领导。列宁详尽剖析了新型无产阶级政党在革命运动中的领导地位，深刻揭露了“经济派”的机会主义实质。1902年，列宁在《怎么办？（我们运动中的迫切问题）》一书中全面阐述了建立新型工人阶级政党的思想，揭露了“经济派”鼓吹经济斗争，贬低社会主义意识的改良主义实质。列宁阐述了马克思主义政党作为工人运动领导者的重要意义，强调马克思主义政党必须清楚地意识到先进理论的重要性，“社会主义自从成为科学以来，就要求人们把它当做科学来对待，就是说，要求人们去研究它”。

(II) Critique of the “Economists’” Idea of “Trade-Unionist Politics”

（二）批判“经济派”的“工联主义政治”思想

The “Economists,” represented by Alexander Martynov (i.e., Alexander Samoilovich Pikker, Александр Мартынов, Александр Самойлович Пикер), put forward the slogan “to impart a political character to the economic struggle itself,” attempting to improve workers’ labor and living conditions through economic reform. On the one hand, the “Economists” loudly propagated political agitation, using articles and exposé-style publications to describe the real conditions of workers’ lives and expose the actual poverty of factory workers; on the other hand, the “Economists” regarded the economic struggle as the most universally applicable means of drawing the masses into active political struggle, advocating that political agitation should be subordinated to economic agitation and emphasizing the important role of the economic struggle.

以亚历山大·马尔丁诺夫（即亚历山大·萨莫伊洛维奇·皮凯尔，Александр Мартынов，Александр Самойлович Пикер）为代表的“经济派”提出“赋予经济斗争本身以政治性质”的口号，试图通过经济改良来改善工人的劳动和生活条件。一方面，“经济派”大肆宣扬政治鼓动，通过发表文章和揭露性的出版物等途径叙述工人生活的真实情况，揭露工厂工人贫困的实际情况；另一方面，“经济派”将经济斗争看做吸引群众参加积极的政治斗争的最普遍适用的手段，主张政治鼓动应该服从于经济鼓动，强调经济斗争的重要作用。

In response to the above views, Lenin first pointed out the error of “political agitation.” Lenin believed that the “Economists” devoted most of their energy to exposing factory conditions, which was in fact trade unionism divorced from Social-Democratic activity. In Lenin’s view, the “political agitation” advocated by the “Economists” was limited to exposing economic aspects, that is, it only concerned the relationship between workers and factory owners in a particular trade and dealt only with ugly phenomena in a particular economic sphere; it was merely a “purely trade-union” movement. In this regard, Lenin stressed that the political education of workers should be actively carried out to raise their political consciousness and enhance their awareness of participating in revolutionary activities. Secondly, Lenin sharply pointed out that regarding the economic struggle as “the most universally applicable means” was completely incorrect. By citing examples such as peasants suffering corporal punishment and officials accepting bribes, Lenin exposed the “Economists’” attempt to one-sidedly exaggerate the economic struggle and narrow the scope of political agitation. In Lenin’s view, the economic struggle advocated by the “Economists” ultimately dragged the Party backward and was a trade-unionist politics that deviated from the socialist political path. In fact, the ideas promoted by the “Economists,” such as “the most universally applicable means” and “to impart a political character to the economic struggle itself,” were essentially a reformist economic movement. Lenin unequivocally exposed the “Economists’” movement as a trade-unionist movement that, under the guise of improving workers’ conditions through economic struggle, actually exaggerated the economic struggle and belittled the political struggle.

针对以上观点，列宁首先指出了“政治鼓动”的错误。列宁认为，“经济派”将大部分的精力都投入到揭露工厂的工作中去，实际上是脱离社会民主主义活动的工联主义。在列宁看来，“经济派”提倡的“政治鼓动”仅限于揭露经济方面，即只涉及某个职业中工人和厂主之间的关系，解决的也只是某个经济领域的丑恶现象，只是一种“纯粹工会的”运动。对此，列宁强调，应该积极开展工人的政治教育工作，提高工人的政治觉悟，增强工人参加革命活动的自觉性。其次，列宁尖锐地指出，将经济斗争看做“最普遍适用的手段”是完全不正确的。列宁通过列举农民遭受体罚、官吏贪污受贿等事例，揭露了“经济派”片面夸大经济斗争，缩小政治鼓动范围的企图。在列宁看来，“经济派”倡导的经济斗争归根结底都是把党拉向后退，是脱离社会主义政治道路的工联主义政治。实际上，“经济派”推崇的“最普遍适用的手段”以及“赋予经济斗争本身以政治性质”等思想，本质上就是一种改良主义的经济运动。列宁旗帜鲜明地揭露了“经济派”以进行经济斗争改善工人状况为名，实则是夸大经济斗争贬低政治斗争的工联主义运动。

(III) Critique of the “Economists’” Idea of “Handicraft Methods”

（三）批判“经济派”的“手工业方式”思想

In order to profoundly expose the opportunist manifestations of the “Economists,” Lenin further examined their political errors and analyzed the symptoms of “handicraft methods.” Lenin pointed out that “handicraft methods” mainly contained two layers of meaning: first, a lack of cultivation; second, a narrow revolutionary scale.

为了深刻揭露“经济派”的机会主义表现，列宁进一步考察了“经济派”在政治上的错误，剖析了“手工业方式”的病症所在。列宁指出，“手工业方式”主要包含两层含义：一是缺乏修养，二是革命规模狭小。

First, a lack of cultivation, that is, a lack of revolutionary consciousness. Lenin believed that the lack of cultivation among practical workers themselves was not terrible; what was terrible was those who tried to defend this narrow theory and worship spontaneity. Lenin wrote: “These people, at the mention of the word ‘theorist,’ put on a look of extreme contempt…” This statement shows that the “Economists,” because they did not understand the actual tasks, erroneously lowered political tasks and overemphasized economic activities, advocating that the economic struggle be primary and the political struggle secondary. Lenin fully endorsed Marx’s view that “every class struggle is a political struggle” and, based on the harsh political environment faced by the Russian Social Democrats, emphasized: “The workers’ struggle against the capitalists necessarily becomes a political struggle as this struggle gradually becomes a class struggle.” Therefore, the task of the Social Democratic Labor Party was to transform the spontaneous struggle into a political struggle for the realization of social ideals. In order to enhance the revolutionary consciousness of the members of the Social Democratic Labor Party, Lenin proposed in *Urgent Questions* that the Party’s organization must be improved and an all-Party newspaper must be founded, pointing out: “Only then can our wish to turn the Social Democrats into the advanced fighters for democracy be realized.” Second, a narrow revolutionary scale, that is, a lack of revolutionary organization. Lenin believed: “The critical transitional state of our movement can be expressed in two phrases: there are no people, yet there are many people.” In other words, “many people” means that people under the oppression of the feudal autocratic system were becoming increasingly dissatisfied and indignant; these people would become the main force opposing the autocratic system. “No people” refers to the lack of a unified leading revolutionary organization. Therefore, Lenin believed that the most urgent task at the time was to cultivate “worker revolutionaries,” not to reduce workers to the level of “the worker masses.” In this regard, Lenin further emphasized the main task of the Social Democratic Labor Party in *A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social Democracy*, namely, “to overthrow the autocratic system and win political freedom.” In Lenin’s view, in the early stages of the revolution, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party’s own laxity and lack of firmness gave the “Economists” an opportunity to exploit. The “Economists” attempted to “make use of the fashionable Bernsteinism, the fashionable ‘criticism of Marxism,’ which raises a new banner to spread old bourgeois ideas.” Lenin further stressed that the connection between the workers’ movement and the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party must be strengthened, and a unified party organization must be established. In Lenin’s view, the Russian working class contained immense revolutionary strength; it was necessary to continuously raise the political consciousness of the working class and unite it with all the forces of the Russian revolutionaries to carry out political struggle. Lenin emphasized: “We are living through a stormy time: Russian history is advancing by leaps and bounds, and one year now sometimes equals several decades of a peaceful period. People are summing up half a century of the post-reform era and laying the foundation stones for the social and political edifice that will determine the fate of the country for a long time to come.” Here, while affirming the Russian social revolution, Lenin further pointed out the importance of cultivating revolutionary leaders and the fighting organization of revolutionaries uniting with the masses of the Russian proletariat.

其一，缺乏修养，即缺少革命自觉性。列宁认为，实际工作者本身缺乏修养并不可怕，可怕的是企图为这种狭隘的理论辩护，并且崇拜自发性的那些人。列宁写道：“这些人一提到‘理论家’这个词就做出一副极端鄙视的怪样子……”这句话表明，“经济派”由于不了解实际的任务，错误地降低政治任务而过分强调经济活动，主张经济斗争为主政治斗争为辅。列宁十分赞同马克思所说的“一切阶级斗争都是政治斗争”的观点，并基于俄国社会民主党人所处的恶劣的政治环境强调指出：“工人同资本家的斗争随着这个斗争逐渐成为阶级斗争而必然成为政治斗争。”所以，社会民主工党的任务是将自发斗争转变成实现社会理想的政治斗争。为了提升社会民主工党人的革命自觉性，列宁在《迫切的问题》中提出必须改善党的组织和创办全党机关报，指出：“只有到那时候，我们把社会民主党变成争取民主的先进战士的愿望才能实现。”其二，革命规模狭小，即缺少革命组织。列宁认为：“我们运动的危急的过渡的状态可以用两句话来表述：没有人，而人又很多。”换言之，人很多，意味着在封建专制制度压迫下的人们，愈来愈不满与愤慨，这些人将成为反对专制制度的主力军；没有人，是指缺少统一领导的革命组织。因而列宁认为，目前最迫切的任务是培养“工人革命家”，而不是将工人降低为“工人群众”。对此，列宁在《俄国社会民主党中的倒退倾向》中进一步强调社会民主工党的主要任务，即“推翻专制制度，争取政治自由”。在列宁看来，革命初期，俄国社会民主工党自身的涣散性、不坚定性给“经济派”以可乘之机。“经济派”企图通过“利用那种打起新的旗帜传播旧的资产阶级思想的时髦的伯恩施坦主义，时髦的‘对马克思主义的批评’”。列宁进一步强调，必须加强工人运动同俄国社会民主工党的联系，建立统一的政党组织。在列宁看来，俄国工人阶级蕴藏着无穷的革命力量，要不断提升工人阶级的政治自觉性，使其和俄国革命者的一切力量联合起来，进行政治斗争。列宁强调：“我们正经历着一个暴风雨的时代：俄国的历史一日千里地向前发展，现在的一年有时要超过平静时期的几十年。人们在给改革后时代的半个世纪作总结，在为那些将长久决定全国命运的社会政治大厦奠立基石。”在这里，列宁在肯定俄国社会革命的同时，进一步指出了培养革命领导者及革命者的战斗组织与俄国无产阶级群众联合起来的重要性。

IV. The Contemporary Value of Lenin’s Early Critique of Non-Marxist Currents of Thought in Russia

四、列宁早期对俄国非马克思主义思潮批判的当代价值

Lenin’s struggle against non-Marxist trends of thought in Russia in his early period, together with the important ideas and viewpoints he put forward in that struggle, profoundly revealed the general laws of capitalist economic development, enriched and developed Marxist economic theory, and pointed the way for the future path of Russia’s social development. An in-depth examination of Lenin’s critique of non-Marxist trends of thought in Russia provides a powerful theoretical weapon for criticizing erroneous social trends, dialectically analyzing the new changes in contemporary capitalism, and defending Marxism in the present era.

列宁早期与俄国非马克思主义思潮的斗争及其在斗争中提出的重要思想观点，深刻揭示了资本主义经济发展的一般规律，丰富和发展了马克思主义经济理论，为俄国未来社会的发展道路指明了方向。深入考察列宁对俄国非马克思主义思潮的批判，为当今时代批判错误社会思潮、辩证地分析当代资本主义新变化和捍卫马克思主义提供了有力的理论武器。

(I) Scientifically Analyzing Contemporary Social Trends of Thought, Providing a Theoretical Weapon for Criticizing Erroneous Trends

（一）科学分析当代社会思潮，为批判错误思潮提供理论武器

In Russia at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, when the question of “whither Russia” was being confronted, non-Marxist trends such as populism, “legal Marxism,” and opportunism grew and spread in the shadows, seriously impeding and obstructing the dissemination and development of Marxism in Russia. Amid the fierce collision of various erroneous trends of thought, Lenin adhered to the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method, and thoroughly criticized the theory of the liberal populists that “the village commune can directly transition to socialism,” the statements of “legal Marxism” that extolled capitalism, and the “political reformism” of the opportunists within the Party. Lenin emphasized that the Russian revolution must be guided by Marxism, stating that “only a party guided by an advanced theory can fulfill the role of an advanced fighter.” [24] Lenin’s struggle against erroneous trends of thought in Russia drew a clear line of demarcation between Marxism and non-Marxist trends, and defended the dominant position of Marxism.

19世纪末20世纪初的俄国在面临向何处去的问题时，民粹主义、“合法马克思主义”、机会主义等非马克思主义思潮滋生暗长，严重冲击和阻碍马克思主义在俄国的传播与发展。在各种错误思潮的激烈碰撞中，列宁坚持马克思主义立场、观点和方法，对自由主义民粹派“村社直接过渡到社会主义”的理论、“合法马克思主义”极力美化资本主义的言论、党内机会主义者“政治上的改良主义”思想进行了彻底批判。列宁强调，必须以马克思主义为指导引领俄国革命，“只有以先进理论为指南的党，才能实现先进战士的作用”。列宁同俄国错误思潮的斗争，划清了马克思主义与非马克思主义思潮的界限，捍卫了马克思主义的主导地位。

Against the backdrop of deepening economic globalization, the increasing infiltration of Western ideology has given rise to the emergence of non-Marxist trends of thought within China, and has impacted our country’s ideological security. For example, non-Marxist trends represented by populism have gradually appeared in the public eye in forms such as extreme democracy and online populism. In response to the complex and diversified trends in the ideological sphere, we must strengthen our position awareness and uphold the guiding role of Marxism in the ideological domain. In this regard, Xi Jinping has pointed out: “In the sphere of ideology and public opinion, there are broadly three zones: the red zone, the black zone, and the gray zone. The red zone is our main position, and we must hold it firmly; the black zone consists mainly of negative content, and we must dare to draw our swords and greatly compress its territory; the gray zone must be won over with great fanfare, transforming it into the red zone.” [25] We must wage a resolute struggle against erroneous trends of thought, must accurately grasp the main theme, main line, mainstream, and essence of the Party’s historical development, always hold high the banner of Marxism, continuously strengthen our historical resolve, and enhance the ambition, backbone, and confidence of being Chinese.

在经济全球化不断深入发展的时代背景下，西方意识形态的日益渗透，催生了国内非马克思主义思潮的产生，并对我国的意识形态安全造成了冲击。例如，以民粹主义为代表的非马克思主义思潮逐渐以极端民主主义、网络民粹主义等形式出现在大众的视野中。针对意识形态领域呈现出来的复杂化、多样化的趋势，我们必须强化阵地意识，坚持马克思主义在意识形态领域的指导地位。对此，习近平指出：“思想舆论领域大致有红色、黑色、灰色‘三个地带’。红色地带是我们的主阵地，一定要守住；黑色地带主要是负面的东西，要敢于亮剑，大大压缩其地盘；灰色地带要大张旗鼓争取，使其转化为红色地带。”必须同错误思潮作坚决斗争，必须准确把握党的历史发展的主题主线、主流本质，始终高举马克思主义旗帜，不断增强历史定力，增强做中国人的志气、骨气、底气。

(II) Upholding the Leadership of the Party, Defending and Developing Marxism in Practice

（二）坚持党的领导，在实践中捍卫和发展马克思主义

The socialism pursued by Russian populism was a utopia divorced from Russia’s actual conditions; the “legal Marxism” of Russia extolled a bourgeois theory that, while waving the banner of Marxism, in fact defended the capitalist system; the Russian “Economist” faction was enamored with an opportunist theory that neglected political struggle and was infatuated with the spontaneity of the workers’ movement. In response, Lenin emphasized: “The fundamental economic interests of the proletariat can only be satisfied through a political revolution that replaces the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with the dictatorship of the proletariat,” and that the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat requires a strong revolutionary leader. Here, Lenin demonstrated the necessity of establishing a unified Marxist party, criticized the opportunist view of the “Economists” who opposed the formation of an organization of revolutionaries, and arrived at conclusions that those bound by the narrowness of the bourgeoisie could not reach, thereby providing an ideological weapon for the liberation of the proletariat and a theoretical guide for the socialist revolution in Russia.

俄国民粹主义追求的社会主义是脱离俄国实际的空想；俄国“合法马克思主义”推崇的是打着马克思主义的旗号，却维护资本主义制度的资产阶级理论；俄国“经济派”热衷的是忽视政治斗争、迷恋工人运动自发性的机会主义理论。对此，列宁强调：“无产阶级的基本经济利益只能通过用无产阶级专政代替资产阶级专政的政治革命来满足”，无产阶级的自发斗争必须有坚强的革命领导者。在这里，列宁论证了建立一个统一的马克思主义政党的必要性，批判了“经济派”反对建立革命家组织的机会主义观点，得出了那些被资产阶级狭隘性所束缚住的人所不能得出的结论，从而成为无产阶级解放的思想武器，为俄国社会主义革命提供了理论指南。

“Without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement.” [26] Xi Jinping has emphasized: “Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology upon which our Party and our country are founded and established; it is the soul and banner of our Party. The Communist Party of China adheres to the basic principles of Marxism, seeks truth from facts, proceeds from China’s actual conditions, discerns the general trend of the times, seizes historical initiative, carries out arduous exploration, continuously advances the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, and guides the Chinese people in continuously advancing the great social revolution. Why the Communist Party of China is capable, why socialism with Chinese characteristics is good, ultimately comes down to the fact that Marxism works!” [27] This profoundly reveals, in the dialectical unity of Marxism “working,” the Communist Party of China “being capable,” and socialism with Chinese characteristics “being good,” the great significance and value of Marxism as the soul and banner of the Communist Party of China. In the new development stage of embarking on a new journey of building a modern socialist country and striving for the second centenary goal, we must continue to develop Marxism for contemporary China and Marxism for the 21st century, providing strong theoretical support for the new journey of building a modern socialist country.

“没有革命的理论，就不会有革命的运动。”习近平强调：“马克思主义是我们立党立国的根本指导思想，是我们党的灵魂和旗帜。中国共产党坚持马克思主义基本原理，坚持实事求是，从中国实际出发，洞察时代大势，把握历史主动，进行艰辛探索，不断推进马克思主义中国化时代化，指导中国人民不断推进伟大社会革命。中国共产党为什么能，中国特色社会主义为什么好，归根到底是因为马克思主义行！”这在马克思主义“行”、中国共产党“能”、中国特色社会主义“好”三者的辩证统一中深刻揭示了马克思主义作为中国共产党的灵魂和旗帜的重大意义和价值。在开启社会主义现代化国家建设新征程、奔向第二个百年目标的新发展阶段，我们要继续发展当代中国马克思主义、21世纪马克思主义，为社会主义现代化国家建设新征程提供强大理论支撑。

In summary, Russia at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century was in an important period of social transformation, facing the major epochal proposition of “whither Russia” in political, economic, and ideological terms. From the perspective of the international environment, the contradictions of capitalism intensified during this period, and Russia became the center of revolution; from the domestic perspective, various non-Marxist trends of thought emerged one after another in Russia, seriously hindering the dissemination and development of Marxism. In such a complex historical period, Lenin, standing on the Marxist position, successively waged struggles against populism, “legal Marxism,” opportunism, and others, resolutely criticized erroneous non-Marxist trends of thought, defended and developed Marxism, and realized the Russification of Marxism. Studying Lenin’s early critique of non-Marxist trends of thought in Russia can provide a reference for being vigilant against and criticizing erroneous trends of thought in the contemporary era. Xi Jinping has pointed out:

综上所述，19世纪末20世纪初的俄国正处于社会转型的重要时期，无论是在政治上、经济上，还是思想上都面临着解决俄国将向何处去的重大时代命题。从国际环境看，这一时期资本主义矛盾愈演愈烈，俄国成为革命的中心；从国内看，俄国各种非马克思主义思潮层出不穷，严重阻碍马克思主义的传播与发展。在这样一个复杂的历史时期，列宁站在马克思主义立场上，先后同民粹主义、“合法马克思主义”、机会主义等进行斗争，坚决批判非马克思主义的错误思潮，捍卫和发展了马克思主义，实现了马克思主义的俄国化。学习列宁早期对俄国非马克思主义思潮的批判，可以为当代警惕、批判错误思潮提供借鉴。习近平指出：“我们共产党人的斗争，从来都是奔着矛盾问题、风险挑战去的。”但是，“斗争精神、斗争本领，不是与生俱来的”。在新征程中，我们要统筹中华民族伟大复兴战略全局和世界百年未有之大变局，敢于同各种错误思潮斗争，做敢于亮剑的斗士，推进马克思主义中国化时代化大众化，建设具有强大凝聚力和引领力的社会主义意识形态。

Web editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心