On the Logical Starting Point of Leninism

Lenin’s elaboration of the idea of the proletariat’s hegemony in the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution is the first theoretical product of the integration of Marxism with the concrete realities of Russia, the earliest link in the theoretical construction of Leninism, and the logical starting point of Leninism. An in-depth analysis of Lenin’s ideas concerning the proletariat’s hegemony in the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution is conducive to clarifying, from the source, many controversial issues that have long existed in the study of Leninism, and is also conducive to an examination of the origins and logic of the Marxist theory of Eastern societies. It holds very important theoretical and practical significance.

列宁对无产阶级在俄国资产阶级民主命中的领导权思想的阐述，是马克思主义与俄国实际相结合产生的第一个理论成果，是列宁主义理论构建中最早的一环，也是列宁主义的逻辑起点。对列宁有关无产阶级在俄国资产阶级民主革命中的领导权思想进行深入分析，有利于从源头上厘清长期以来存在于列宁主义研究中的许多问题的争议，也有利于对马克思主义东方社会理论缘起和理路的考察，具有十分重要的理论意义和现实意义。

I. The Complexity of Russian Capitalist Development and the Multiplicity of the Proletariat’s Historical Tasks

一、俄国资本主义发展的复杂性及无产阶级历史任务的多重性

What exactly was the national condition of Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century? What stages and steps would the emancipation of the Russian proletariat need to go through? In the early process of integrating Marxism with the concrete realities of Russia, advanced intellectuals engaged in fierce debates around these questions. Through his polemics against Russian liberal Narodism and “Legal Marxism,” Lenin demonstrated the state of capitalist development in Russia. Taking this as his starting point, he began his exploration of the path for the Russian proletariat to transform society, initiating the construction of a theory of social development for economically and culturally backward countries.

19世纪末20世纪初的俄国国情究竟是什么样的？俄国无产阶级的解放需要经历哪些阶段和步骤？在马克思主义与俄国实际相结合的早期进程中，先进的知识分子围绕这些问题展开了激烈的争论。列宁通过同俄国自由民粹主义和“合法马克思主义”的辩论，论证了俄国资本主义发展的状况，并以此为起点，开始了对俄国无产阶级变革社会路径的探索，开启了经济文化落后国家社会发展理论的构建历程。

Narodism emerged in the mid-19th century. It was a product of Russian intellectuals combining Western utopian socialist theory with the tradition of Russian anarchist thought, and also a reflection of Russia’s specific national conditions of economic and cultural backwardness, where peasants and small producers constituted the vast majority of the population. Narodism overemphasized the particularity of Russia’s national conditions, refused to recognize the universal laws of world history, denied the reality that Russia had already entered capitalism, negated the progressive significance of capitalist society, and one-sidedly exaggerated the role of the peasantry and the rural commune in Russia’s social transformation, to the point of regarding the peasantry as the decisive force in Russia’s socio-historical transformation and the village commune as the foundation for Russia’s entry into socialism. Although Narodism underwent several transformations in its development, the proposition that Russia, on the basis of the widespread existence of the rural commune, could bypass the stage of capitalist development and directly enter socialism, was always an important hallmark of its thought. The “Legal Marxists,” however, went to the other extreme. In the 1890s, a group of Russian intellectuals published articles in legal publications of the tsarist government under the banner of propagating Marxism, hence the name “Legal Marxism.” They opposed feudal autocracy and propagated bourgeois liberalism. “Legal Marxism” adhered to an objectivist standpoint and acknowledged the general laws of world historical development. Influenced by Western European social reformism, although “Legal Marxists” acknowledged socialism, they believed that socialism existed only in ideology or values and was impossible to realize in reality. “Legal Marxism” believed that Russia had fully entered the path of capitalist development politically, economically, and culturally, described capitalist society as the most beautiful and eternal society, and declared that Russia could only move towards the future under the capitalist system.

民粹主义产生于19世纪中叶，是俄国知识分子将西方的空想社会主义理论与俄国无政府主义思想传统结合起来的产物，也是俄国经济文化落后、农民和小生产者人数占人口绝大多数的具体国情的反映。民粹主义过分强调俄国国情的特殊性，拒绝承认世界历史的普遍规律，否认俄国已经进入资本主义的现实，否定资本主义社会的进步意义，片面夸大农民和农村公社在俄国社会变革中的作用，以至于将农民作为俄国社会历史变革的决定性力量，将村社作为俄国进入社会主义的基础。民粹主义在其发展历程中经历了几次蜕变，但主张俄国在广泛存在的农村公社的基础上避开资本主义发展阶段直接走向社会主义，始终是其思想的重要标识。“合法马克思主义”者却走向了另一个极端。19世纪90年代，俄国一批知识分子在沙皇政府的合法刊物上打着宣传马克思主义的旗号发表文章，故称“合法马克思主义”。他们反对封建专制主义，宣扬资产阶级自由主义。“合法马克思主义”坚持客观主义立场，承认世界历史发展的一般规律。受西欧社会改良主义的影响，“合法马克思主义”者虽然承认社会主义，但认为社会主义只存在于思想意识或价值观念中，在现实中是不可能实现的。“合法马克思主义”认为俄国在政治、经济、文化上已经完全步入资本主义发展道路，并将资本主义社会说成是最美好的、永恒的社会，宣称俄国只有在资本主义制度下才能走向未来。

(1) Criticizing the Narodnik View of Capitalism, Pointing Out that Russian Society Was Already a Capitalist Society

（一）批判了民粹主义的资本主义观，指出俄国社会已经是资本主义社会

The Narodniks believed that Russia was an economically and culturally backward country, with peasants and small producers constituting the vast majority of the population, and that these Russian peasants and small producers were increasingly being ruined, with their purchasing power continuously shrinking. Under these circumstances, they argued, it was impossible to establish a domestic market in Russia. Moreover, opening up and establishing foreign markets was even more unattainable for a backward country like Russia. Thus, the Russian Narodniks directly “declared that Russian capitalism had no foundation and no vitality.” Although the Narodniks acknowledged that capitalist economic elements had already appeared in Russia, they believed this was not an objective result of Russia’s social development, but rather was “artificially” created by the tsarist government due to its preference for large-scale industry. Lenin refuted the Narodnik viewpoint. He pointed out that the ruin of peasants and small producers caused a section of the producers to be “freed” from the means of production. This was not an obstacle to capitalist development, but rather created important preconditions for it. On the one hand, the decisive factor driving the continuous expansion of the domestic market was not the production of consumer goods, but the production of means of production. From the perspective of the production and demand for means of production, Russia was in the early stages of capitalist development. To expand reproduction, the emerging capitalists would continuously increase demand for new tools, energy, raw materials, means of transport, etc., and Russia’s domestic market would consequently expand continuously. On the other hand, the ruin of peasants and small producers did not mean the shrinking of the domestic market; on the contrary, it was an indispensable condition for the establishment of the domestic market. The ruin of peasants and small producers freed them from the conditions of the natural economy. They could only obtain the means of subsistence to maintain their lives through the market, while the capitalists also had to purchase consumer goods and luxuries not produced in their own factories through the domestic market. This was precisely the result of the strengthening trend of capitalist development. Addressing the issue of establishing foreign markets raised by the Narodniks, Lenin pointed out that the establishment of foreign markets by capitalist countries was not a requirement of the lack of a domestic market, but an inevitable result of the logic of capitalist commodity circulation and capital, i.e., capital’s infinite pursuit of surplus value. Capitalist commodity circulation breaks “the state of isolation and seclusion of countries,” and it was an inevitable trend for Russian capitalism to “transcend the boundaries of the village commune, the local market, the region, and even the country.” In *The Development of Capitalism in Russia*, based on an in-depth analysis of the survey data he had obtained, Lenin elaborated on the state of capitalist development in Russian agriculture and the three stages of the development of Russian industrial capitalism, convincingly demonstrating that Russian society was already a capitalist society and that capitalist development in Russia was irreversible.

民粹主义者认为，俄国是一个经济文化落后的国家，农民和小生产者占人口的绝大多数，而俄国的农民和小生产者日益遭到破产，购买能力不断缩减。在这种情况下，俄国国内市场不可能建立起来。而开拓和建立国外市场，对于落后的俄国来说，更是可望而不可及的。这样一来，俄国民粹主义者就直接“宣布俄国资本主义没有根基和没有生命力”。虽然民粹主义者承认俄国已经出现了资本主义经济成分，但认为这不是俄国社会发展的客观结果，而是沙皇政府因偏爱大工业而“人为”造成的。列宁对民粹主义的观点进行了批驳。他指出，农民和小生产者的破产，使得一部分生产者从生产资料中“游离”出来，这不但不是资本主义发展的障碍，反而为资本主义发展创造了重要的前提条件。一方面，推动国内市场不断扩大的决定因素，不是靠消费品生产，而是靠生产资料生产。从生产资料的生产和需求来看，俄国处在资本主义发展的初期，新兴的资本家为了扩大再生产，会不断追加对新工具、能源、原料和交通工具等的需求，俄国的国内市场会因此而不断扩大。另一方面，农民和小生产者的破产，不但不意味着国内市场的缩小，反而是国内市场建立不可或缺的条件。农民和小生产者的破产，使得他们从自然经济条件下游离出来，只有通过市场才能获取生活资料维持生活，而资本家也必须要通过国内市场购买自己工厂不生产的消费品和奢侈品。这恰是资本主义发展趋势加强的结果。针对民粹派提出的建立国外市场的问题，列宁指出，资本主义国家国外市场的建立，不是国内市场缺乏的要求，而是资本主义商品流通和资本的逻辑即资本对剩余价值的无限追求的必然结果。资本主义商品流通打破“国家的孤立和闭关自守的状态”、俄国资本主义“超出村社、地方市场、地区以及国家的界限”是不可避免的趋势。在《俄国资本主义的发展》中，列宁在深入分析所掌握的调查数据的基础上，对俄国农业中资本主义的发展状况和俄国工业资本主义发展的三个阶段进行了阐述，雄辩地说明了俄国社会已经是资本主义社会，资本主义发展在俄国已经不可逆转。

Lenin further pointed out that the development of capitalism in Russia had enormous progressive effects, mainly reflected in two aspects: (1) promoting the development of social productive forces; (2) raising the degree of socialization of production. However, because Russia was still in the early stage of capitalist development, the development of capitalist industry among the various sectors of the national economy was still very uneven, and this enormous progressive effect had not yet fully manifested itself. Only after large-scale capitalist industry was established would the promoting effect of capitalism on Russian society become increasingly evident. The more rapidly machine-based large-scale industry developed and the higher the degree of socialization of production became, the more thoroughly the old economic system and patriarchal relations of personal dependence would collapse. These changes would inevitably bring profound changes to the face of Russian society. In view of this, Lenin stated, “We cannot but consider absolutely erroneous the Narodniks’ understanding of the process of capitalist development taking place in Russia, and their conception of the structure of Russia’s pre-capitalist economic relations.” Lenin pointed out that the Narodniks overemphasized the particularity of Russia’s national conditions, “not only failing to apply the analysis of capitalism and all its phenomena made by progressive Western European thought to Holy Russia, but even trying to find excuses not to draw the same conclusions about Russian capitalism that had been drawn about European capitalism,” reflecting the theoretical characteristic of the Narodniks’ “false idealization.”

列宁进一步指出，资本主义在俄国的发展，具有巨大的进步作用，这主要体现在两个方面：（1）促进社会生产力的发展；（2）提高生产社会化的程度。但由于俄国还处在资本主义发展的初级阶段，资本主义工业在国民经济的各个部门之间的发展还十分不平衡，这种巨大的进步作用还没有完全展现出来。只有在资本主义大工业建立起来之后，资本主义对俄国社会的促进作用才会日益彰显。机器大工业发展越迅速、生产社会化程度越提高，旧的经济制度和人身依附式的宗法关系的崩溃就会越彻底，这些必将给俄国的社会面貌带来深刻改变。鉴于此，列宁说“民粹派对正在俄国进行的资本主义发展过程的理解，以及他们对俄国资本主义以前的经济关系结构的观念，我们不能不认为是绝对错误的”。列宁指出民粹派过分强调俄国国情的特殊性，“不仅不把西欧进步思想界对资本主义及其一切现象的分析用之于神圣的俄罗斯，反而竭力想出一些借口不对俄国资本主义作出人们曾对欧洲资本主义作出过的结论”，体现了民粹派“虚伪的理想化”的理论特质。

Through his critique of the Narodniks, Lenin pointed out that any evaluation or discussion of Russia’s national conditions must be premised on the basic judgment that Russian society was already a capitalist society. The Narodniks, based on subjective experience and “this or that moral conclusion,” regarded capitalism as a decline and regression, exhausted their efforts to deny the reality of capitalist development in Russia, and attempted to have Russia bypass capitalism and directly enter socialism. This not only violated the objective laws of socio-historical development and was an unrealistic utopia, but was also a major obstacle hindering the spread of Marxism in Russia and the development of the proletarian revolutionary movement.

通过对民粹派的批判，列宁指出，对于俄国国情的任何评价和探讨，必须以俄国社会已经是资本主义社会这一基本判断为前提。民粹派基于主观的体验和“这种或那种道德上的结论”，认为资本主义是一种衰落和退步，竭尽全力否定俄国资本主义发展的现实，企图俄国越过资本主义直接走向社会主义，不但违背了社会历史发展的客观规律，是不切实际的空想，而且是阻碍俄国马克思主义传播和无产阶级革命运动发展的重要障碍。

(2) Criticizing the “Legal Marxist” View of Capitalism, Elucidating the Contradictions and Historical Position of Russian Capitalist Development

（二）批判了“合法马克思主义”的资本主义观，阐明了俄国资本主义发展的矛盾性和历史地位

The development of capitalism in Russia was constrained by the remnants of the feudal system and proceeded very slowly. The Russian people suffered dual exploitation from the feudal system and capitalism, and their living conditions "deteriorated without limit." In order to conceal the multiple social contradictions brought about by capitalist development in Russian society and to beautify capitalism, the "Legal Marxists" [1]1 Lenin, “The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx,” 1913. used the technique of substituting concepts to define "capital" as "labor accumulated for the purpose of continued production," and attributed the root cause of the poverty of the Russian masses to natural factors such as "diminishing soil fertility." Under such theoretical premises, the exploitative nature of capital's pursuit of surplus value was completely obliterated. "Legal Marxism" also declared that small peasants and the proletariat could develop steadily and live and work in peace under the Russian capitalist system, trumpeting the "beauty" and eternity of the development of Russian capitalist society. Lenin first criticized the theory of "diminishing soil fertility." Lenin pointed out that the so-called "law of diminishing soil fertility" is not scientific at all. In modern society, the causes of social poverty cannot possibly come entirely from the natural world; the development of relations of production and changes in the mode of production are the main reasons. The fundamental cause of the widespread poverty of the Russian masses cannot possibly be a reduction in output due to diminishing soil fertility, but rather the development of capitalism in Russia. Because Russian peasants were increasingly losing their means of production and becoming wage laborers, peasants who were going bankrupt or had just become proletarians inevitably found it more difficult than before to obtain the means of subsistence. Therefore, the law of diminishing soil fertility "contains nothing but apologetics and muddled thinking," it is a "notorious law," and its purpose is to conceal the historical transience of capitalist society. Secondly, Lenin refuted the theory of "the stability of small-scale peasant economy." Lenin pointed out that under the capitalist system, small peasants cannot be compared with capitalists either in terms of production technology or scale of operation. For capitalism to promote the development of productive forces, there is only one way: to continuously bully and squeeze the vast number of small producers. Therefore, the theory of the "stability of the small-scale peasant economy" under the capitalist system is pure nonsense. Only by forming an alliance with the working class, and under the leadership of the working class, carrying out the struggle against the bourgeoisie and completely overthrowing the capitalist system, can the vast number of Russian peasants escape their tragic fate. Thirdly, Lenin exposed the principled differences between "Legal Marxism" and genuine Marxism regarding the view of capitalism. Lenin pointed out that on the surface, both "Legal Marxists" and Marxists acknowledge the objective inevitability of capitalist development, but there are principled differences between them. While proving the objective inevitability of capitalism, "Legal Marxism" also stands on the position of defending capitalism; whereas Marxists must distinguish class antagonisms from capitalism and determine their own class stance. Marxists must not only explain the objectivity of capitalist development, but more importantly, they must distinguish the classes and class struggles hidden behind the process of capitalist development, and grasp the historical position of capitalist development.

俄国资本主义发展受到残存的封建制度的束缚，发展十分缓慢。俄国人民受到封建制度和资本主义的双重剥削，生存状况“无限制地恶化”。为了掩饰资本主义发展给俄国社会所带来的多重社会矛盾，达到美化资本主义的目的，“合法马克思主义”者通过偷换概念的手法，将“资本”定义为“为了继续生产而积累的劳动”，将俄国人民群众贫穷的根源归结为“土地肥力递减”等自然因素。在这样的理论前提下，资本追求剩余价值的剥削本性完全被抹杀了。“合法马克思主义”还宣称小农和无产阶级在俄国资本主义制度下可以稳固发展和安居乐业，鼓吹俄国资本主义社会发展的“美好性”和永恒性。列宁首先批判了“土地肥力递减”论。列宁指出，所谓的“土地肥力递减规律”根本不具有科学性。在现代社会里，导致社会贫困的原因不可能完全来自于自然界，生产关系的发展和生产方式变革才是主要原因。导致俄国人民群众普遍贫困的根本原因，不可能是因土地肥力的递减而导致的产量的减少，而是资本主义在俄国的发展。由于俄国农民日益失去生产资料而沦为雇佣工人，使得正在破产的或刚刚沦为无产者的农民，在获取生活资料方面必然比过去更加困难。所以说，土地肥力递减规律“所包含的无非是辩护术和糊涂思想”，是一个“臭名远扬的规律”，其目的就是为了掩盖资本主义社会的历史暂时性。其次，列宁批驳了“小农经济稳固论”。列宁指出，在资本主义制度下，小农不论是在生产技术上还是在经营规模上，都不可能与资本家相提并论。资本主义要推动生产力的发展，只有一个办法，那就是不断欺负和压榨广大小生产者。所以说，资本主义制度下的“小农经济稳固”论纯属于无稽之谈。俄国的广大农民只有与工人阶级结成联盟，并在工人阶级的领导下进行反对资产阶级的斗争，彻底推翻资本主义制度，才能摆脱悲惨的命运。再次，列宁揭露了“合法马克思主义”与真正的马克思主义在资本主义观上的原则区别。列宁指出，从表面上看，“合法马克思主义”和马克思主义者都承认资本主义发展的客观必然性，但是二者之间却有着原则区别。“合法马克思主义”在证明资本主义的客观必然性的同时，又站在为资本主义辩护的立场上；而马克思主义者却要从资本主义中分辨出阶级对立并确定自己的阶级立场。马克思主义者不但要说明资本主义发展的客观性，更重要的是，要分辨出资本主义发展过程背后存在的阶级和阶级斗争，把握资本主义发展的历史地位。

Lenin's understanding of Russia's national conditions differed from both the Narodniks [2]2 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. and the "Legal Marxists." He believed that Russian society was already a capitalist society, and the development of capitalism in Russia had great progressive significance. However, Russian capitalism had a strong feudal character, and its development would inevitably make Russian social contradictions increasingly complex and acute, ultimately leading to a comprehensive and profound social crisis. In the process of transforming Russian society, the proletariat had to both shake off the shackles of the remnants of the feudal system and oppose the exploitation and oppression of the capitalist system; its historical tasks were characterized by multiplicity. This became the logical premise and practical basis for Lenin's proposal of the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

列宁对俄国国情的认识，既不同于民粹主义，又不同于“合法马克思主义”者。他认为，俄国社会已经是资本主义社会，资本主义在俄国的发展具有重大的进步意义。但俄国资本主义带有浓厚的封建色彩，它的发展必将使俄国社会矛盾日益复杂而尖锐，最终导致全面而深刻的社会危机。无产阶级在变革俄国社会的过程中，既要摆脱封建制度残余的束缚，又要反对资本主义制度的剥削和压迫，其历史任务具有多重性的特点。这成为列宁提出无产阶级在资产阶级民主革命中的领导权思想的逻辑前提和现实依据。

II. The Idea of the Hegemony of the Proletariat in the Bourgeois-Democratic Revolution and Its Core Essentials

二、无产阶级在资产阶级民主革命中的领导权思想及其核心要义

After conducting an in-depth analysis of Russia's national conditions, Lenin began to contemplate the various possibilities for the development of capitalism and the realization of socialism in Russia. The idea of the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution was put forward during the exploration of the prospects of the Russian democratic revolution and in the process of debate with the Mensheviks. [3]3 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905.

在对俄国国情进行深入分析后，列宁开始了对俄国资本主义发展和社会主义实现的各种可能性的思考。无产阶级在资产阶级民主革命中的领导权思想是在对俄国民主革命的前途进行探索时，在同孟什维克的争论过程中提出来的。

(A) The Hegemony of the Russian Democratic Revolution and the Choice of the Prospects of the Russian Democratic Revolution

（一）俄国民主革命的领导权和俄国民主革命前途的抉择

During the 1905 Revolution, [4]4 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. Lenin pointed out that the tsarist autocracy was the biggest obstacle to the progress and development of Russian society and the primary target of the Russian revolution. The nature of the Russian revolution was a bourgeois-democratic revolution aimed at sweeping away the remnants of the feudal autocratic system and promoting the full development of capitalism. The revolution had two possible prospects (or outcomes): one was of the 1789 type, [5]5 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. and the other was of the 1848 type. [6]6 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. The difference between these two revolutionary prospects was very clear. The former is famous in history for its enormous scale, intense forms, and thorough and complete revolutionary achievements; the latter results in a compromise between the bourgeoisie and the feudal autocratic system, establishing a constitutional monarchy, and the revolution is left half-finished. Lenin analyzed that both of these revolutionary prospects were possible in Russia. He said: "(In Russia) clearing the ground for capitalism can proceed along two major lines. It can be done by transforming feudal Russia into a bourgeois Russia under conditions that ensure the greatest possible welfare for the peasant and proletarian masses under the capitalist system, or it can be done by ensuring the interests of the two propertied classes, the landlords and the capitalists, first and foremost." Which prospect the Russian revolution would ultimately move towards depended on the balance of power among the various social classes in Russia and the struggle between the two lines within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. [7]7 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905.

在1905年革命时期，列宁指出，沙皇专制制度是俄国社会发展进步的最大障碍，是俄国革命的首要对象。俄国革命的性质是扫除封建专制制度残余、促进资本主义充分发展的资产阶级民主革命。革命有两种可能的前途（或者说结果），一是1789年式的，二是1848年式的。这两种革命前途的区别是很明显的。前者以革命规模巨大、革命形式激烈、革命成果的完全彻底而闻名于历史；后者的结果是资产阶级和封建专制制度达成妥协，实行君主立宪制，革命半途而废。列宁分析说，这两种革命前途在俄国都有实现的可能性。他说：“（在俄国）为资本主义清扫基地，可以沿着两大路线进行。既可以在保证农民和无产阶级群众在资本主义制度下能够得到最大福利的条件下把农奴制的俄国改造成资产阶级的俄国，也可以在首先保证地主和资本家这两个有产阶级利益的条件下实行这种改造。”俄国革命究竟会走向哪种前途，取决于俄国社会各阶级力量的博弈和社会民主工党内两条路线之间的斗争。

Influenced by the struggle between Marxism and revisionism in the Second International, [8]8 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. from the very beginning of the founding of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, there existed a struggle between two factions and two lines: the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. In the 1905 Russian Revolution, the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks proposed two completely different tactics, pointing towards two different prospects. Proceeding from the general laws of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the Mensheviks believed that since the Russian revolution was a bourgeois-democratic revolution aimed at clearing the way for capitalist development, the proletariat should not attempt to seize the hegemony of the revolution, but should instead push the bourgeoisie into the leading position of the revolution. If the proletariat seized the hegemony of the democratic revolution, once the revolution succeeded, the proletariat holding the hegemony would inevitably have to go beyond the scope of the bourgeois revolution and push the revolution towards a socialist revolution. Since Russia did not have the conditions for a socialist revolution, this would inevitably lead to the failure of the revolution. Therefore, "the proletariat should be advised not to revolt, but to wait, to organize, to retreat in order to leap further." Lenin judged that, following the Mensheviks' tactics, the Russian revolution would inevitably move towards the prospect of a constitutional monarchy of the 1848 type. In contrast, the Bolsheviks' tactics were for the proletariat to strive to seize the hegemony of the revolution in the democratic revolution, unite the vast urban and rural petty-bourgeois strata, overthrow the tsarist government by violence, establish a "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry," [9]9 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. and lead the Russian revolution towards the prospect of the 1789 type. The Bolsheviks absolutely would not take the reformist path of a constitutional monarchy; this was "a militant conclusion drawn from the Marxist revolutionary theory." It can be seen that the disagreement between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was not about the determination of the nature of the Russian democratic revolution, but about which class should lead the Russian democratic revolution, and whether a bourgeois dictatorship or a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry should be established after the revolution. In Lenin's view, the root of the mistake made by the Mensheviks lay in their failure to recognize that the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution had different characteristics compared to the bourgeois-democratic revolution in the general sense (or in Europe).

受第二国际马克思主义和修正主义斗争的影响，俄国社会民主工党在建党之始，就存在着布尔什维克和孟什维克两个派别、两条路线的斗争。在1905年俄国革命中，孟什维克和布尔什维克提出了完全不同的两种策略，分别指向两种不同的前途。孟什维克从资产阶级民主革命的一般规律出发，认为俄国革命既然是资产阶级民主革命，目的是为资本主义发展扫清道路，那么无产阶级就不要去尝试夺取革命的领导权，而是尽量将资产阶级推向革命的领导地位。如果无产阶级掌握了民主革命的领导权，一旦革命成功后，掌握领导权的无产阶级就不得不越出资产阶级革命的范围，将革命推向社会主义革命。由于俄国不具备进行社会主义革命的条件，这就必然导致革命失败。所以“应当劝告无产阶级不要起义，要等待，要组织起来，后退是为了跳得更远”。列宁判定，按照孟什维克的策略，俄国革命必将走向1848年式的君主立宪的前途。与此相反，布尔什维克的策略是，无产阶级在民主革命中努力夺取革命的领导权，联合广大城乡小业主阶层，用暴力来推翻沙皇政府，建立“工农民主专政”，引领俄国革命走向1789年式的前途。布尔什维克绝对不走君主立宪式的改良主义道路，这是“从马克思主义革命理论中得出的战斗结论”。可见，布尔什维克和孟什维克的分歧不在于对俄国民主革命性质的认定，而在于俄国民主革命应该由哪个阶级来领导，革命后是建立资产阶级专政还是工农民主专政。在列宁看来，孟什维克所犯错误的根源在于，没有认识到俄国的资产阶级民主革命与一般意义上（或者说欧洲）的资产阶级民主革命相比，具有不同的特点。

First, the eras in which they occurred differ. The European bourgeois-democratic revolutions erupted during the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Compared with the proletariat, the European bourgeoisie possessed a more mature class consciousness and revolutionary consciousness, and was the natural leading class of the European bourgeois revolution. When the Russian Revolution occurred, the international bourgeoisie had already lost its progressive character, the international proletariat had already stepped onto the historical stage, and world history had “undoubtedly entered a new era.” [1]1 Lenin, “The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx,” 1913. Moreover, the European revolutions took place under the socio-historical conditions of a declining feudal system, with the task of overthrowing the feudal system and establishing and developing capitalism. The Russian bourgeois revolution, however, was not carried out on the basis of a pure feudal system but on the basis of capitalist relations of production, with the aim of fully developing an insufficiently developed capitalism. Lenin said: the Russian Revolution “was carried out on the basis of capitalist relations of production, and the inevitable result of the transformation was precisely the further development of these relations of production. In short… the rule of capital remained.” [2]2 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. In view of this, on the question of leadership of the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks “must by no means bind themselves to old stereotypes” [3]3 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. and could not view the problems of the Russian Revolution through the lens of a bygone era.

第一，发生的时代不同。欧洲的资产阶级民主革命爆发于封建主义向资本主义过渡的时代。相比于无产阶级来说，欧洲资产阶级具有更成熟的阶级意识和革命意识，是欧洲资产阶级革命的天然的领导阶级。而俄国革命发生时，国际资产阶级已经丧失进步性，国际无产阶级已经登上了历史舞台，世界历史“无疑地已经进入了一个新的时代”。另外，欧洲革命发生在封建制度趋于没落的社会历史条件下，任务是推翻封建制度，建立和发展资本主义。而俄国资产阶级革命不是在纯粹的封建制度的基础上进行的，而是在资本主义生产关系上进行的，目的是使发展不充分的资本主义充分发展。列宁说：俄国革命“是在资本主义生产关系的基础上进行的，而且变革的结果必然正是这种生产关系的进一步发展。简单地说……资本的统治仍然保持着”。鉴于此，在有关俄国革命领导权的问题上，布尔什维克“决不可把自己束缚在陈规旧套当中”，不能用旧时代的眼光看待俄国革命问题。

Second, the Russian bourgeoisie did not have the political aspiration to carry the bourgeois-democratic revolution through to completion. Russian capitalism developed under the impetus of the serfdom reforms implemented by the tsarist government, and the Russian bourgeoisie had countless ties to the feudal autocratic system; many of the big bourgeoisie themselves were transformed from feudal bureaucrats. The interests of the Russian bourgeoisie were less constrained by the remnants of the old system than they were already closely intertwined with it. Therefore, the Russian bourgeoisie was more inclined to preserve part of the old system than to overthrow it completely. Lenin said that the bourgeoisie, on the one hand, tried to win freedom, but on the other hand, “kept the other hand always extended to the tsar, assuring the tsar that it would maintain and strengthen his power, reconcile the peasants with the landlords, and pacify the ‘troublesome’ workers.” [4]4 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. They hoped the revolution would adopt a moderate, gradual, reformist approach, hoping that “the revolution would not sweep away all remnants of the old era too resolutely… that the revolution would not be very thorough, would not be carried through to the end, would not be resolutely ruthless.” [5]5 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. Lenin emphasized that, influenced by their own property and economic position, the bourgeoisie would turn reactionary when the revolutionary tide rose, joining the tsarist autocratic government to prevent the proletariat and the peasantry from pushing the revolution forward. In this sense, “the class position of the bourgeoisie in capitalist society inevitably makes it inconsistent in the democratic revolution,” and “the bourgeoisie betrays the cause of freedom; the bourgeoisie is incapable of practicing thoroughgoing democracy.” [6]6 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. In short, Lenin believed that the bourgeoisie did not have the political aspiration to carry the democratic revolution through to completion. If the bourgeoisie held the leadership of the democratic revolution, the Russian Revolution would inevitably take the reformist path of compromise with the tsarist government, resulting in a constitutional monarchy and a half-finished revolution.

第二，俄国资产阶级不具有将资产阶级民主革命进行到底的政治诉求。俄国资本主义是在沙皇政府实行的农奴制改革的推动下发展起来的，俄国资产阶级与封建专制制度之间有着千丝万缕的联系，许多大资产阶级本身就由封建官僚转变而来。俄国资产阶级的利益与其说受到旧制度残余的束缚，不如说已经与其紧密联系在一起。因此，俄国资产阶级更倾向于保留旧制度的一部分而不是彻底推翻旧制度。列宁说，资产阶级一方面试图争取自由，另一方面却“将另一只手始终伸给沙皇，向沙皇保证要保持并巩固他的政权，使农民同地主和解，安抚‘好闹事的’工人”，他们希望革命采取温和渐进的改良方式，希望“革命不过分坚决地扫除旧时代的一切残余……革命不十分彻底，不进行到底，不坚决无情”。列宁强调，受自身财产和经济地位的影响，资产阶级在革命高潮到来时会走向反动，与沙皇专制政府一道阻止无产阶级和农民将革命推向前进。从这个意义上说，“资产阶级在资本主义社会中的阶级地位必然使它在民主革命中表现不彻底”“资产阶级出卖自由事业，资产阶级不能实行彻底的民主主义”。总之，列宁认为，资产阶级不具有将民主革命进行到底的政治诉求。如果资产阶级掌握民主革命的领导权，俄国革命必将走上与沙皇政府妥协的改良道路，结果是实行君主立宪制，革命半途而废。

Third, the Russian proletariat was the political force capable of leading the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution to complete victory. The Russian proletariat suffered under the dual oppression of feudalism and capitalism and was the most thoroughly revolutionary class in Russia. At the turn of the 20th century, the Russian proletariat had already grown up as an independent political force; the proletariat’s party organization had been established and possessed a group of mature Marxist theorists and a wide range of propaganda publications. On this basis, Lenin called on the proletariat “not to be indifferent to the bourgeois revolution, not to hand over the leadership of the revolution to the bourgeoisie, but, on the contrary, to take the greatest possible part in the revolution, to fight most resolutely for a thoroughgoing proletarian democracy, for carrying the revolution through to the end.” [7]7 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905.

第三，俄国无产阶级是领导俄国资产阶级民主革命走向彻底胜利的政治力量。俄国无产阶级深受封建主义和资本主义的双重压迫，是俄国最具革命彻底性的阶级。19世纪末20世纪初，俄国无产阶级已经作为独立的政治力量成长起来，无产阶级的政党组织已经建立并拥有一批成熟的马克思主义理论家和广泛的宣传刊物。基于此，列宁号召无产阶级“不要对资产阶级革命漠不关心，不要把革命中的领导权交给资产阶级，相反地，要尽最大的努力参加革命，最坚决地为彻底的无产阶级民主主义、为把革命进行到底而奋斗”。

Fourth, the proletariat’s seizure of revolutionary leadership did not mean a change in the nature of the Russian Revolution. The nature of the Russian Revolution was determined by the economic content of the revolution, the class composition of society, and the level of consciousness of the Russian masses. From the perspective of the economic content of the revolution, because serfdom seriously hindered the development of Russian capitalism, the contradiction between the feudal autocratic system and capitalist development became the principal contradiction in Russia. The Russian Revolution was to oppose the feudal landownership system, not bourgeois ownership; the workers and peasants sought rights and interests within the framework of capitalism, and after the victory of the revolution, capitalism was to be developed. Lenin said: “All Social Democrats are convinced that our revolution, in terms of the content of the socio-economic transformation taking place, is a bourgeois revolution.” [8]8 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. “Only the most ignorant people can ignore the bourgeois nature of the current democratic revolution.” [9]9 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. From the perspective of the class situation in Russian society, Russia was a country where small-scale peasant economy accounted for a large proportion; between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat existed a broad stratum of peasants and small proprietors. The existence of this huge “intermediate stratum” determined that the Russian Revolution could not be a socialist revolution. Because “the difference between a democratic transformation and a socialist transformation is nothing other than the existence of a numerous peasantry and petty bourgeoisie, who can support a democratic transformation but are not yet able to support a socialist transformation.” [10]10 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” 1905. Lenin also argued from the subjective aspects of the Russian proletariat’s level of consciousness and degree of organization that Russia did not possess the conditions for a socialist revolution; the revolution could not go beyond the bounds of a bourgeois revolution.

第四，无产阶级夺取革命的领导权，并不意味着俄国革命性质的改变。俄国革命的性质是由革命的经济内容、社会的阶级构成以及俄国群众的觉悟程度决定的。从革命的经济内容看，由于农奴制严重阻碍了俄国资本主义的发展，使得封建专制制度与资本主义发展之间的矛盾成为俄国的主要矛盾。俄国革命要反对的是封建土地所有制，不反对资产阶级所有制，工人和农民谋求的是在资本主义范围内的权益，革命胜利后要发展资本主义。列宁说：“一切社会民主党人都深信，我们的革命，按正在进行的社会经济变革的内容来讲，是资产阶级革命。”“只有最无知的人，才能忽视当前的民主革命的资产阶级性质。”从俄国社会的阶级状况来看，俄国是一个小农经济占很大比重的国家，在资产阶级和无产阶级之间存在着广泛的农民和小业主阶层。这个庞大的“中间阶层”的存在，决定了俄国革命不可能是社会主义革命。因为“民主主义变革同社会主义变革之间的区别，无非是存在着人口众多的农民和小资产阶级，他们能够支持民主主义变革，而在目前还不能支持社会主义变革”。列宁还从俄国无产阶级的觉悟程度和组织程度等主观方面论证了俄国不具备进行社会主义革命的条件，革命不能越出资产阶级革命的范畴。

(II) The Core Essence of the Idea of Proletarian Leadership in the Democratic Revolution

（二）无产阶级在民主革命中的领导权思想的核心要义

The idea of proletarian leadership in the bourgeois revolution was the initial theoretical achievement of Lenin’s application of Marxism to Russian reality, bearing distinct Russian characteristics. Its essence was to separate, theoretically and practically, the weak bourgeoisie from the bourgeois-democratic revolution, requiring the proletariat to participate in the bourgeois revolution as an independent force, and, together with the urban and rural petty proprietor strata constituting the majority of the population, to seize and hold state power, carry the Russian democratic revolution through to completion, and establish a democratic republic of a capitalist nature.

无产阶级在资产阶级革命中的领导权思想是列宁将马克思主义运用于俄国实际所产生的最初的理论成果，带有鲜明的俄国特色，其要义就是从理论上和实践上将软弱的资产阶级与资产阶级民主革命剥离开来，要求无产阶级以独立的姿态参与资产阶级革命，并与占人口大多数的城乡小业主阶层联手夺取政权并掌握政权，将俄国民主革命进行到底，建立资本主义性质的民主共和国。

First, separate the bourgeoisie from the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Lenin believed that separating the bourgeoisie from the bourgeois-democratic revolution, both theoretically and practically, was the guarantee of victory for the Russian Revolution. Lenin resolutely opposed the Mensheviks’ logical proposition that “a bourgeois revolution must be led by the bourgeoisie,” and opposed the bourgeoisie leading the Russian Revolution towards the prospect of a constitutional monarchy. The Menshevik representative Martynov [11]11 Alexander Martynov (1865–1935), a leading Menshevik theorist who argued that the bourgeoisie must lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia. believed that excluding the bourgeoisie from the revolutionary ranks would inevitably weaken the revolutionary forces and lead to the revolution’s defeat. Lenin believed that excluding the bourgeoisie from the ranks of the democratic revolution would not weaken the revolutionary forces but would, on the contrary, be an important guarantee of victory for the Russian Revolution. Because the bourgeoisie’s wavering and betrayal when the revolutionary tide rose was the fundamental cause of the revolution’s defeat. The Russian bourgeoisie was neither the leading class of the democratic revolution nor a force in the Russian democratic revolution; naturally, it would have no political position in the worker-peasant democratic dictatorship established after the revolution’s victory. In this respect, it was completely different from China’s New Democratic Revolution. In China’s New Democratic Revolution, the proletariat was the leading class of the revolution, the broad masses of peasants were the core force of the revolution, but China’s national bourgeoisie was also one of the revolutionary forces; in the people’s democratic dictatorship established after the revolution’s victory, the national bourgeoisie occupied a certain position.

第一，将资产阶级与资产阶级民主革命剥离开来。列宁认为，从理论上和实践上将资产阶级与资产阶级民主革命剥离开来才是俄国革命胜利的保证。列宁坚决反对孟什维克的“资产阶级革命必由资产阶级领导”的逻辑主张，反对资产阶级将俄国革命引向君主立宪的前途。孟什维克的代表人物马尔丁诺夫认为，如果将资产阶级排斥在革命队伍之外，必然会削弱革命力量，导致革命失败。列宁认为，将资产阶级排除出民主革命的队伍，不但不会削弱革命力量，反而是俄国革命取得胜利的重要保障。因为资产阶级在革命高潮到来时的动摇和背叛行为才是导致革命失败的根本原因。俄国资产阶级既不是民主革命的领导阶级，也不是俄国民主革命的力量，在革命胜利后建立的工农民主专政中当然也没有政治地位。这一点与中国新民主主义革命完全不同。在中国新民主主义革命中，无产阶级是革命的领导阶级，广大的农民是革命的核心力量，但中国的民族资产阶级也是革命力量之一，在革命胜利后所建立的人民民主专政中，民族资产阶级是占有一定地位的。

Second, the proletariat leads and unites the peasantry in seizing state power. Because Russian capitalism was underdeveloped, the proletariat constituted only a minority in terms of numbers. To lead the Russian revolution to victory, it was also necessary to unite the peasant stratum, which was numerically predominant, and establish a political alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry; beyond this, “no other force can achieve the complete victory over the tsarist system.” [12]12 V. I. Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution” (1905), *Collected Works*, Vol. 9, p. 15. [Translator’s note: citation reconstructed from context; original Chinese text does not provide full reference.] Lenin said: “If the autocratic government is really overthrown, then it must be replaced by another government. And this other government … can only rely on the revolutionary people, that is, the proletariat and the peasantry”; “a successful transformation cannot be anything other than the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.” [13]13 V. I. Lenin, “The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry” (1905), *Collected Works*, Vol. 8, p. 274. [Translator’s note: citation reconstructed from context.] It must be noted that in Lenin’s writings, the term “peasantry” has different connotations in different contexts, and these must be strictly distinguished. In the early 20th century, by demonstrating the development of capitalism in the Russian countryside, Lenin revealed the changes in the rural economy and the transformation of class structure. The Russian countryside included not only the landlord class tied to the feudal landownership system, but also the peasant bourgeoisie (rich peasants) formed by capitalist development, the peasant petty bourgeoisie (middle peasants), and the poor peasants (the landless proletarians in the countryside). In a broad sense, the term “peasantry” should include all those engaged in agricultural activities, covering all classes in the countryside. Clearly, the “peasantry” Lenin referred to was not a broad general reference, but specifically denoted the vast stratum of small proprietors existing in both urban and rural Russia. Because Russia was a country where small-scale peasant economy predominated and capitalism was insufficiently developed, between the Russian proletariat and the bourgeoisie there existed a numerous stratum composed of the urban petty bourgeoisie and rural small proprietors. This stratum was the main force of the Russian revolution. Since rural small proprietors were the main body of this stratum, Lenin in many contexts directly abbreviated this stratum as “peasantry.” But sometimes Lenin also very precisely expressed the composition of the worker-peasant political alliance as: “the proletariat plus the millions of urban and rural poor living a petty-bourgeois existence.” [14]14 V. I. Lenin, “The Attitude of Social-Democracy to the Peasant Movement” (1905), *Collected Works*, Vol. 9, p. 215. [Translator’s note: citation reconstructed from context.]

第二，无产阶级领导并联合农民掌握政权。由于俄国资本主义不发达，无产阶级在人数上只占少数，要引领俄国革命走向胜利，还必须联合在人口上占优势的农民阶层，建立无产阶级与农民的政治联盟，此外“没有任何力量能够取得对沙皇制度的彻底胜利”。列宁说：“如果专制政府真的被推翻了，那么它就应当由别的政府取而代之。而这个别的政府……的支柱只能是革命人民，即无产阶级和农民”；“成功的变革不可能不是无产阶级和农民的民主专政”。必须说明的是，在列宁的著作中，“农民”一词在不同语境下有不同的内涵，必须严格区分。在20世纪初，列宁通过论证资本主义在俄国农村的发展，揭示了农村经济的变动和阶级结构的变化。在俄国农村，不但包括与封建土地所有制联系在一起的地主阶级，还包括因资本主义发展而形成的农民资产阶级（富农）、农民小资产阶级（中农）和贫苦农民（农村中的失去土地的无产者）。从广义上说，“农民”一词应该包括从事农事活动的一切人，涵盖农村中的各个阶级。显然，列宁所说的“农民”，不是广义的泛指，而是特指存在于俄国城乡的广大小业主阶层。由于俄国是一个小农经济占主体的国家，资本主义发展不充分，在俄国无产阶级和资产阶级之间，有一个人数众多的、由城市小资产阶级和农村小业主组成的阶层。这个阶层是俄国革命的主要力量。由于农村小业主是这个阶层的主体，列宁在很多场合将这个阶层直接简称为“农民”。但有时列宁也非常准确地将工农政治联盟的构成表达为：“无产阶级加上千百万过着小资产阶级生活的城乡贫民”。

The Mensheviks opposed the proletariat’s leadership in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, one important reason being that the vast urban and rural small proprietors could not submit to the leadership of the proletariat. Because the broad mass of small proprietors and the proletariat did not share common economic interests, lacked common political convictions, and could not form a unified will. Lenin retorted that the question of whether the broad mass of small proprietors and the proletariat could form a unified will must be subjected to concrete historical analysis. Since the urban and rural small proprietors were private owners, it was certain that the proletariat and the urban and rural small proprietors “lack unity of will on socialist questions and in the struggle for socialism.” However, the current Russian revolution was a democratic revolution, and the proletariat and the urban and rural small proprietors “do not exclude unity of will on democratic questions and in the struggle for a republic.” [15]15 V. I. Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution” (1905), *Collected Works*, Vol. 9, p. 22. [Translator’s note: citation reconstructed from context.] That is to say, on the question of the nature and stage of development of the Russian revolution, the contradiction between the proletariat and the broad mass of urban and rural small proprietors in the future socialist revolution could not be brought forward for consideration in the current democratic revolution. The worker-peasant democratic dictatorship established after the victory of the Russian democratic revolution was fundamentally different from the proletarian dictatorship established after the victory of the Russian socialist revolution, and this must be strictly distinguished.

孟什维克反对无产阶级对资产阶级民主革命的领导权，一个重要理由是广大城乡小业主不可能服从无产阶级的领导。因为广大小业主和无产阶级在经济上不具有共同的利益，在政治上缺乏共同信仰，不可能形成统一的意志。列宁反驳说，对于广大小业主和无产阶级能不能形成统一意志的问题，必须进行具体的历史的分析。由于城乡小业主是私有者，无产阶级与城乡小业主在“社会主义问题上和争取社会主义的斗争中缺乏意志的统一”是肯定的。但是，当前的俄国革命是民主革命，无产阶级和城乡小业主“并不排除在民主主义问题上和争取共和制的斗争中的意志的统一”。也就是说，在俄国革命的性质和发展阶段问题上，不能把将来社会主义革命中的无产阶级和广大城乡小业主矛盾提到当前民主革命中来考虑。俄国民主革命胜利后建立的工农民主专政与俄国社会主义革命胜利后建立的无产阶级专政具有本质区别，对此必须严格区分。

III. The Logical Starting Point of Leninism

三、列宁主义的逻辑起点

Engels once pointed out: “Where history begins, the course of thought must also begin, and the further development of the course of thought is nothing but the reflection of the historical process in an abstract and theoretically consistent form.” [16]16 Friedrich Engels, “Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*” (1859), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 16, p. 475. Lenin’s elaboration of the idea of the proletariat’s leadership in the bourgeois-democratic revolution is the historical and logical starting point for Marxist parties in economically and culturally backward countries to open up the path of nationalizing Marxism towards socialism. The theoretical struggle within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party over the idea of the proletariat’s leadership in the democratic revolution was the earliest confrontation in Eastern society between Marxism and revisionism during the period of the Second International. Through this confrontation, Lenin realized that only by defeating revisionism could Marxism and the cause of the proletarian revolution be guaranteed to develop victoriously.

恩格斯曾经指出：“历史从哪里开始，思想进程也应当从哪里开始，而思想进程的进一步发展不过是历史过程在抽象的、理论上前后一贯的形式上的反映。”列宁对无产阶级在资产阶级民主革命中的领导权思想的阐释，是经济文化落后国家的马克思主义政党通过开辟马克思主义民族化道路走向社会主义的历史起点和逻辑起点。俄国社会民主工党内部围绕无产阶级在民主革命中的领导权思想所进行的理论斗争，是第二国际时期马克思主义同修正主义的斗争在东方社会的最早交锋。通过这次交锋，列宁领悟到马克思主义只有战胜修正主义，才能保障马克思主义和无产阶级革命事业的胜利发展。

(I) The Methodological Principle of Applying Marxism Based on Russia’s Reality and Its Initial Theoretical Achievements

（一）立足俄国实际运用马克思主义的方法论原则及其最初理论成果

In the early 20th century, a great debate erupted between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks over how to apply Marxist theory to Russia’s reality. The Mensheviks believed that, according to the principles of historical materialism, between the productivity determinacy of historical development and the revolutionary initiative of the masses, the latter must submit to the former. Backward Russia could only move towards socialism after passing through a full stage of capitalist development. To achieve theoretical self-consistency, the Mensheviks advocated suppressing the revolutionary initiative of the masses, handing over the leadership of the revolution to the bourgeoisie, ensuring that the bourgeoisie held political power and developed capitalism. This abstract application of Marxism, a methodological principle that one-sidedly pursued so-called theoretical self-consistency, plunged the Mensheviks into the mire of reformism and revisionism. The Bolsheviks, however, proposed a completely different methodological principle. The Bolsheviks advocated integrating Marxism with Russia’s reality, unifying in practice the subjective initiative of the historical subject and the productivity determinacy of historical development, distilling a new theory that both conformed to the basic principles of Marxism and could solve Russia’s complex and acute practical problems, and taking this as the guiding ideology of the Bolshevik Party.

20世纪初，在如何将马克思主义理论运用于俄国实际的问题上，布尔什维克和孟什维克之间爆发了巨大的争论。孟什维克认为，根据历史唯物主义原则，在历史发展的生产力决定性和工农群众的革命能动性之间，后者必须服从前者。落后的俄国只有经过资本主义的充分发展阶段才能走向社会主义。为了实现理论自洽，孟什维克主张抑制人民群众的革命能动性，将革命的领导权交给资产阶级，保障资产阶级在政治上掌握政权并发展资本主义。这种抽象地运用马克思主义，片面追求所谓理论自洽的方法论原则，使孟什维克坠入了改良主义和修正主义的泥潭。布尔什维克却提出了完全不同的方法论原则。布尔什维克主张将马克思主义与俄国实际相结合，在实践中将历史主体的主观能动性和历史发展的生产力决定性统摄起来，提炼出既符合马克思主义基本原理、又能解决俄国复杂而尖锐的现实问题的新理论，并以此作为布尔什维克党的指导思想。

First, the development of the initiative of the historical subject. The essence of the idea of the proletariat’s leadership in the democratic revolution—whether it is the proletariat’s struggle for leadership of the democratic revolution or the worker-peasant united seizure of state power—is the result of the full development of the subjective initiative of the proletariat and the broad masses of the people. Lenin condemned the Mensheviks’ practice of suppressing the revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses in order to fit abstract theoretical logic, pointing out that this practice was both erroneous and extremely foolish. Lenin said: “The upsurge of the revolutionary mood of the proletariat is increasing not with the day, but with the hour. Therefore, at such a moment, Martynovism [17]17 “Martynovism” refers to the views of Alexander Martynov (1865–1935), a leading Menshevik theorist who argued that the proletariat should not seek hegemony in the bourgeois-democratic revolution but should instead support the liberal bourgeoisie. Lenin used the term polemically to characterize the Menshevik position as a form of opportunism. is not only a stupidity, but a crime, because it undermines the release of the revolutionary energy of the proletariat and dampens the revolutionary enthusiasm of the proletariat.” “If we do not use the festive vitality of the masses and their revolutionary enthusiasm for a direct and resolute path of ruthless and self-sacrificing struggle, we will become traitors to and betrayers of the revolution.” [18]18 V. I. Lenin, “The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry” (1905), *Collected Works*, Vol. 8, p. 276. [Translator’s note: citation reconstructed from context.]

第一，对历史主体能动性的发扬。无产阶级在民主革命中的领导权思想的要义，无论是无产阶级对民主革命领导权的争夺，还是工农联合掌握政权，都是无产阶级和广大人民群众的主体能动性充分发扬的结果。列宁谴责了孟什维克为了洽合抽象的理论逻辑而打击群众革命热情的做法，指出这种做法既是错误的，也是十分愚蠢的。列宁说：“无产阶级革命情绪的高涨不是与日俱增，而是与时俱增。因此在这样的时刻，马尔丁诺夫主义不仅是一种蠢举，而且是一种犯罪，因为它有损于无产阶级革命能量的发挥，挫伤了无产阶级的革命热情。”“如果我们不利用群众这种盛大节日的活力及其革命热情来为直接而坚决的道路无情地奋不顾身地斗争，我们就会变成背叛革命和出卖革命的人。”

Second, adherence to the productivity determinacy of historical development. As a Marxist, Lenin was thoroughly familiar with the basic principles of historical materialism and had a clear understanding of the productivity determinacy of historical development. As mentioned above, during the period of the 1905 Revolution, although Lenin strongly advocated developing the initiative of the historical subject and demanded that the proletariat seize the leadership of the bourgeois revolution, on the question of the prospects of the Russian democratic revolution, he advocated moving towards capitalism. Lenin’s affirmation of the inevitability and progressiveness of the capitalist mode of production in Russia reflected his adherence to the productivity determinacy of historical development.

第二，对历史发展的生产力决定性的遵循。作为一个马克思主义者，列宁对历史唯物主义的基本原理熟谙于心，对历史发展的生产力决定性了然于胸。如前所述，在1905年革命时期，列宁虽然极力主张发扬历史主体的能动性，要求无产阶级夺取资产阶级革命的领导权，但是在俄国民主革命的前途这一点上，他是主张走向资本主义的。列宁对俄国资本主义生产方式的必然性和进步性的肯定，体现了他对历史发展的生产力决定性的信守。

Third, the initial theoretical achievement of the adaptation of Marxism to the Russian context. Lenin’s thought on the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution was deeply influenced by Marx and Engels’ thought on the 1848 German revolution, and represented the application and development of Marx and Engels’ democratic revolutionary thought in Russia. Based on the fundamental premise that the German revolution was a revolution of a bourgeois nature, and in light of the actual conditions in Germany at the time, Marx and Engels wrote *Demands of the Communist Party in Germany*, putting forward the demand that the proletariat form an alliance with the democrats in the revolution, raise high the banner of democracy, overthrow the feudal autocratic government, and establish a democratic republic. Marx and Engels’ main views on the democratic republic were as follows: first, as a form of political system, the nature of the democratic republic is determined by the class content of the state; “insofar as it is the form of rule of the bourgeoisie, it is as hostile to us as any monarchy”; second, the democratic republic is the highest form of bourgeois political form, and also the final form, i.e., the form in which the proletariat and the bourgeoisie can fight a decisive battle and in which bourgeois rule will perish; third, the proletariat can transform and utilize the democratic republic to create conditions for the development of the proletarian cause. “Our party and the working class can achieve domination only under the form of a democratic republic. The democratic republic is even a specific form of the dictatorship of the proletariat”; [19]19 Lenin, “The State and Revolution,” *Collected Works*, vol. 25, p. 418. “For the proletariat, the republic is the ready-made political form for its future rule.” [20]20 Engels, “A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Programme of 1891,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 223. The famous “three whales” slogan in the history of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was a concise summary of Lenin’s democratic revolutionary program. The “three whales” were the establishment of a democratic republic, the confiscation of all landlords’ land, and the implementation of an eight-hour workday. It is not difficult to see that the “three whales” and Marx and Engels’ *Demands of the Communist Party in Germany* were completely consistent in their core ideas. In Lenin’s view, the democratic republic could “guarantee the greatest welfare for the peasantry and the proletarian masses under the capitalist system,” was the advanced form of bourgeois rule, and the worker-peasant democratic dictatorship under the leadership of the proletariat was the only guarantee for establishing a democratic republic in Russia. Clearly, Lenin’s thought on the leadership of the proletariat in the Russian democratic revolution was an inheritance of Marx and Engels’ democratic revolutionary thought, the initial attempt to apply Marxism to solving Russia’s practical problems, and the initial theoretical achievement of the adaptation of Marxism to the Russian context.

第三，马克思主义俄国化的最初理论成果。列宁的俄国资产阶级民主革命思想，深受马克思恩格斯1848年德国革命思想的影响，是马克思恩格斯民主革命思想在俄国的运用和发展。马克思恩格斯根据德国革命是资产阶级性质的革命这一基本前提，结合德国当时的实际情况，写成了《共产党在德国的要求》，提出了无产阶级在革命中同民主派结成联盟，高举民主主义旗帜，推翻封建专制政府，建立民主共和国的要求。马克思恩格斯有关民主共和国的主要观点有：其一，民主共和国作为一种政体，它的性质是由国家的阶级内容所决定的，“只要它是资产阶级的统治形式，它就同任何君主国一样敌视我们”；其二，民主共和国是资产阶级政治形式中最高级的形式，同时也是最后的形式，即无产阶级和资产阶级能在这种形式下进行决战、资产阶级统治将在这种形式下走向灭亡；其三，无产阶级可以对民主共和国加以改造利用，为无产阶级事业发展创造条件。“我们的党和工人阶级只有在民主共和国这种形式下，才能取得统治。民主共和国甚至是无产阶级专政的特殊形式”；“对无产阶级来说，共和国是无产阶级将来进行统治的现成的政治形式”。俄国社会民主工党历史上著名的“三条鲸鱼”口号是对列宁的民主革命纲领的简洁归纳。“三条鲸鱼”即建立民主共和国、没收地主全部土地、实行八小时工作制。不难看出，“三条鲸鱼”和马克思恩格斯的《共产党在德国的要求》在核心思想上完全是一致的。在列宁看来，民主共和国能够“保证农民和无产阶级群众在资本主义制度下得到最大的福利”，是资产阶级统治的高级形式，无产阶级领导下的工农民主专政是在俄国建立民主共和制的唯一保障。显然，列宁有关无产阶级在俄国民主革命中的领导权思想，是对马克思恩格斯民主革命思想的继承，是运用马克思主义解决俄国实际问题的最初尝试，是马克思主义俄国化的最初理论成果。

(2) The earliest confrontation between Marxism and revisionism in an Eastern country

（二）马克思主义与修正主义在东方国家最早的交锋

Around the historical status of Russian capitalism and the question of the leadership of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the Bolsheviks waged a resolute struggle against the Mensheviks. This was the earliest confrontation between Marxism and revisionism in an Eastern country. Through this confrontation, the Marxist party came to understand that overcoming revisionism was an inherent requirement for ensuring the victorious development of Marxism and the cause of the proletarian socialist revolution.

围绕俄国资本主义的历史地位、无产阶级在资产阶级民主革命中的领导权问题，布尔什维克同孟什维克进行了坚决斗争。这是马克思主义与修正主义在东方国家最早的交锋。通过这次交锋，马克思主义政党领悟到，战胜修正主义是保障马克思主义和无产阶级社会主义革命事业胜利发展的题中应有之义。

First, Lenin’s critique of the errors committed by the Mensheviks in methodology. Lenin pointed out that the Mensheviks did not proceed from Russia’s reality, but from abstract principles or quotations from classical writers to argue the line of the Russian revolution. He said that the Mensheviks “sought answers to concrete questions from the mere logical development of the general truth about the basic nature of our revolution,” which not only “vulgarized Marxism” but was also “a complete mockery of dialectical materialism.” [21]21 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” *Collected Works*, vol. 9, p. 16. In their polemic with Lenin, the Menshevik representative Martynov cited Engels’ thesis to defend his own views. In his book *The Peasant War in Germany*, Engels mentioned that if an advanced class is “forced to take power” before the movement has reached maturity and the conditions for its rule are not yet present, it is “the worst thing.” [22]22 Engels, *The Peasant War in Germany*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 10, p. 397. Martynov believed that Russian society did not yet possess the material prerequisites for realizing socialism, and that if the proletariat seized power in the democratic revolution and implemented socialist policies, it would precisely be the “worst thing” Engels spoke of. Lenin refuted this, saying that Martynov, divorced from the reality of the Russian revolution, completely failed to understand the principal contradiction that the Russian revolution needed to resolve, and absurdly equated the “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry” established after overthrowing the feudal autocratic system with the “socialist dictatorship of the working class” established after overthrowing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, thereby confusing the democratic revolution led by the Russian proletariat with the future socialist revolution led by the proletariat. Lenin sarcastically remarked that Martynov, by taking Engels’ words out of context and citing Engels as a “false witness” for his “muddled ideas,” was truly Engels’ “misfortune.” [23]23 Lenin, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,” *Collected Works*, vol. 9, p. 18.

第一，列宁对孟什维克在方法论上所犯错误的批判。列宁指出，孟什维克不是从俄国的现实出发，而是从抽象原理或经典作家的语录出发来论证俄国革命的路线问题。他说，孟什维克从“我国革命基本性质的一般真理的单纯逻辑发展中去寻找具体问题的答案”，不但“把马克思主义庸俗化”，而且“完全是对辩证唯物主义的嘲弄”。在同列宁的论战中，孟什维克的代表人物马尔丁诺夫引用恩格斯的论断为自己的观点作辩护。恩格斯在《德国农民战争》一书中提到，如果一个先进阶级在运动还没有达到成熟的地步、在进行统治的条件还没有具备之时却“被迫出来掌握政权”，是“最糟糕的事情”。马尔丁诺夫认为，俄国社会还不具有实现社会主义的物质前提，如果无产阶级在民主革命中掌握了政权而实行社会主义政策，恰就是恩格斯所说的“最糟糕的事”。列宁驳斥说，马尔丁诺夫脱离俄国革命的实际，完全不了解俄国革命所要解决的主要矛盾，荒唐地将俄国推翻封建专制制度后建立的“无产阶级和农民的民主专政”说成是推翻资产阶级专政后建立的“工人阶级的社会主义专政”，从而将俄国无产阶级领导的民主革命与未来无产阶级领导的社会主义革命混为一谈。列宁反讽说，马尔丁诺夫断章取义地解读恩格斯的话，搬出恩格斯来为他的“糊涂观念”作“伪证人”，实在是恩格斯的“不幸”。

Second, the Menshevik line was a Russian variant of Second International revisionism. Lenin pointed out that the Mensheviks’ advocacy of abandoning the struggle for revolutionary leadership in the democratic revolution, and their statements restricting the revolutionary actions and confidence in revolutionary victory of the proletariat at critical moments of the revolution, were in fact an attempt to promote the reformism of the Second International in the Russian people’s struggle for political freedom, and were a Russian variant of Second International revisionism. The Marxist party must always remain vigilant to prevent the revisionist line from betraying the cause of the proletarian revolution. Only by overcoming revisionism can Marxism ensure the smooth development of the cause of the proletarian revolution.

第二，孟什维克路线是第二国际修正主义在俄国的变种。列宁指出，孟什维克在民主革命中放弃夺取革命领导权的主张、在革命关键时刻限制无产阶级的革命行为和革命胜利的信心的言论，实际上就是要在俄国人民争取政治自由的斗争中推行第二国际的改良主义，是第二国际修正主义在俄国的变种。马克思主义政党必须时时刻刻保持警惕，防止修正主义路线对无产阶级革命事业的叛卖。马克思主义只有战胜修正主义，才能保障无产阶级革命事业顺利发展。

In summary, under the premise of grasping the dialectical relationship between the agency of the historical subject and the determinative role of productive forces in historical development, integrating Marxism with one’s own national reality, and opposing revisionism while upholding and developing Marxism in practice, constitute the methodological principle of Leninism. This principle is the essence running through all the propositions and tenets of Leninism, and it defines the dialectical-materialist nature and nationalized characteristics of Leninism. Lenin’s elaboration of the development of Russian capitalism and the thought on the leadership of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution is both the beginning of the process of adapting Marxism to the Russian context and the logical starting point of Leninism.

总之，在统摄历史主体的能动性和历史发展的生产力决定性辩证关系的前提下，将马克思主义与本国实际相结合，在实践中反对修正主义、坚持和发展马克思主义，是列宁主义的方法论原则。这一原则是贯穿列宁主义所有命题和原理的精髓，规范着列宁主义的唯物辩证性质和民族化的特色。列宁对俄国资本主义发展及无产阶级在资产阶级民主革命中的领导权思想的阐发，既是马克思主义俄国化历程的开端，亦是列宁主义的逻辑起点。

During the period of the 1905 Revolution, Lenin believed that the prospect of the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution was the establishment of an American-style democratic republic. Consequently, there was bound to be a certain tension between the leadership of the proletariat and the capitalist republic. On the one hand, the proletariat, leading and uniting the peasantry, would hold political power, yet without possessing the capital to drive socio-economic development, it would find it difficult to control the economic lifelines of society. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie possessed the capital to drive socio-economic development, but had already lost political power. The logical tension within the theory determined that Lenin would inevitably push this theory forward. Besides emphasizing the capitalist prospect of the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution, Lenin at this time also put forward a beautiful vision of Russia moving towards socialism through the bourgeois-democratic revolution. However, this vision of Lenin’s was not yet sufficiently clear; one could only perceive the undercurrent of this thought from certain of his specific statements in particular contexts. For example, Lenin pointed out that after the Russian proletariat achieved victory in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it would “begin the real struggle for socialism,” [24]24 Lenin, “The Attitude of Social-Democracy to the Peasant Movement,” *Collected Works*, vol. 9, p. 231. and “enable the next step of the proletariat’s struggle for socialism to proceed most smoothly,” [25]25 Lenin, “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination,” *Collected Works*, vol. 21, p. 410. and so on.

1905年革命时期，列宁认为俄国资产阶级民主革命的前途是建立美国式的民主共和国，那么无产阶级的领导权与资本主义共和国之间必定存在一定的张力。一方面，无产阶级领导并联合农民在政治上掌握权力，却不拥有推动社会经济发展的资本，难以掌控社会的经济命脉；另一方面，资产阶级拥有推动社会经济发展的资本，但在政治上已经失权。理论中的逻辑张力决定了列宁定会将这一理论推向前进。除了强调俄国资产阶级民主革命的资本主义前途外，此时列宁还提出了俄国通过资产阶级民主革命走向社会主义的美好构想。只不过列宁的这一构想还不够明晰，只能从他在某些特定语境下的个别论述中体悟出他这一思想的暗流。比如，列宁指出，俄国无产阶级在取得资产阶级民主革命的胜利后，“开始进行真正的争取社会主义的斗争”，“使无产阶级下一步争取社会主义的斗争得以最顺利地进行”等。

In Lenin’s thought, the Russian democratic revolution and the world socialist revolution were a community of shared destiny. As early as the draft Party program of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party drafted in 1895, Lenin proposed that “the Russian working-class movement, by its nature and purpose, is part of the international (social democratic) movement of the working class of all countries.” [26]26 The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) was a Marxist revolutionary party founded in 1898, which later split into Bolshevik and Menshevik factions; Lenin’s 1895 draft program predates the party’s formal founding and reflects his early internationalist orientation. This view was inherited in all subsequent programs of the Russian Party. The path from Russia’s democratic revolution to socialism was divided into three steps. The first step: the Russian proletariat wins leadership of the revolution, overthrows the tsarist government, and “causes the whole of Europe to throw off the heavy yoke of the reactionary military power.” The second step: the victory of the Russian democratic revolution greatly ignites the revolutionary passion of the world proletariat, kindles the flames of world revolution, and opens the prelude to the world socialist revolution. The third step: the world socialist revolution achieves victory, and the Russian proletariat, with the help of the proletariat of the developed countries, moves toward socialism. In these three steps, the paramount task for the Russian proletariat lies in the first step, that is, leading the Russian democratic revolution and achieving victory. As long as this step is realized, the world revolution will “advance toward socialism more rapidly, more resolutely, and more courageously.” After the victory of the world revolution, Russia, “with the aid of the socialist proletariat of Europe,” “will be able not only to defend the democratic republic but also to march boldly toward socialism.” In other words, “without the support of the socialist proletariat of Europe for the Russian proletariat, this struggle would be almost hopeless for the isolated Russian proletariat and would inevitably suffer defeat.” In this process, the Russian proletariat must realize two unities and achieve two victories: first, unity with the petty-bourgeois strata of its own country, achieving victory in the Russian democratic revolution; second, as a member of the international proletarian army, unity with the world proletariat, achieving victory in the world socialist revolution.

在列宁的思想中，俄国民主革命和世界社会主义革命是命运攸关的共同体。早在1895年起草的俄国社会民主工党的党纲草案中，列宁就提出“俄国工人阶级运动，就其性质和目的来说，是世界各国工人阶级国际（社会民主主义）运动的一部分”。在以后俄国党的历次纲领中，都传承了这个观点。俄国通过民主革命走向社会主义的路径分三步走。第一步，俄国无产阶级取得革命的领导权，推翻沙皇政府，使“整个欧洲甩掉反动军事强国的沉重枷锁”。第二步，俄国民主革命的胜利极大激发了世界无产阶级的革命激情，点燃了世界革命的烈火，拉开了世界社会主义革命的序幕。第三步，世界社会主义革命取得胜利，俄国无产阶级在发达国家无产阶级的帮助下走向社会主义。在这三个步骤中，俄国无产阶级的至关要务在于第一步，即领导俄国民主革命并取得胜利。只要实现了这一步，世界革命就会“更迅速、更坚决、更勇敢地向社会主义迈进”，世界革命胜利后，俄国“在欧洲的社会主义无产阶级的援助下”，“不仅能捍卫民主共和国，而且能向社会主义阔步前进”。换句话说，“如果没有欧洲的社会主义无产阶级对俄国无产阶级的支援，那么，这个斗争对于孤军作战的俄国无产阶级，几乎是毫无希望的，而且必然要遭到失败”。在这个过程中，俄国无产阶级必须实现两个联合，取得两个胜利：一是同本国小业主阶层联合，取得俄国民主革命的胜利；二是作为国际无产阶级大军中的一员与世界无产阶级联合，取得世界社会主义革命的胜利。

During the period of the 1905 Revolution, the Russian people, under the leadership of the proletariat and its Party, taking the socialist road existed only as a proposition in Lenin’s mind. Only ten years later, this proposition was transformed into the guiding ideology and action program of the Bolshevik Party, achieving the great victory of the October Revolution and opening a new epoch in human history. To this end, Lenin made arduous theoretical supplements and creative work.

在1905年革命时期，俄国人民在无产阶级及其政党的领导下走上社会主义道路只是作为一个命题存在于列宁的头脑中。仅在十年之后这一命题便转化为布尔什维克党的指导思想和行动纲领，取得了十月革命的伟大胜利，开辟了人类历史的新纪元。为此，列宁做了艰苦卓绝的理论补充和创建工作。

(Author bios: Shu Xin, native of Wuxue, Hubei, professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Politics and International Studies, Central China Normal University, Doctor of Laws; Liu Kangkang, doctoral candidate at the School of Politics and International Studies, Central China Normal University)

（作者简介：舒新，湖北武穴人，华中师范大学政治与国际关系学院教授，博士生导师，法学博士；刘康康，华中师范大学政治与国际关系学院博士研究生）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心