The History of the Chinese Translation of Several Concepts in Lenin’s Economic Works

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the world’s major capitalist countries successively moved from the stage of free competition to the stage of monopoly, that is, the stage of imperialism. Contrary to the expectations of Marx and Engels, the socialist revolution first achieved victory in Russia, “the weakest link in the imperialist chain.” In order to explore the path of socialist economic construction in Soviet Russia, where small-scale peasant production predominated, Lenin creatively enriched and developed Marxist economic theory, which had emerged in the era of free competition. He deepened theoretical understanding of concepts such as the market, commodity economy, and state capitalism, and creatively answered the question of how countries with relatively backward economic and cultural conditions could transition to socialism. “The salvoes of the October Revolution brought Marxism-Leninism to China.” With the early dissemination of Marxism-Leninism in China, Lenin’s works and theories were also translated and introduced to China, initiating a preliminary process of adapting them to the Chinese context, and providing useful reference for the theory and practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

I. Lenin’s Economic Writings and Their Dissemination in China

Lenin did not write many works focusing specifically on economic issues; many of his views and discussions on economic questions are scattered across various writings. At the end of the 19th century, as world capitalism entered the stage of imperialism, it became particularly necessary to further develop Marxist economic theory. In the course of theoretical struggle against the Narodniks, Lenin wrote a series of articles and works on the development of capitalism in Russia, including *New Economic Developments in Peasant Life*, *On the So-Called Market Question*, and *What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats*. He pointed out that the development of capitalism in Russia was causing the peasantry in the countryside to differentiate into an agricultural bourgeoisie and a proletariat—that is, kulaks and farm laborers—and that therefore, although its level of economic development still lagged far behind most European countries, Russia was already a capitalist country. In the early 20th century, in works such as *Anarchism and Socialism*, *The Agrarian Question and the Struggle for Freedom*, *The Agrarian Question and the Forces of Revolution*, and *The Agrarian Question in Russia at the End of the 19th Century*, Lenin used the basic principles of Marxism to analyze the land situation in Russia and expounded on issues of the market, commodity economy, land, banks, and money in capitalist society. Around the time of the October Revolution, in response to problems arising in Russia’s economic development, changes in the nature of the means of production, and the idea of a “direct transition” to communism, Lenin continued the traditional view of opposing the commodity economy and state capitalism to socialism in works such as *The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution*, *The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It*, and *Draft Program of the RCP(b)*. Later, based on a profound reflection on the setbacks suffered in socialist construction, Lenin discussed issues of the commodity economy and state capitalism in socialist society in reports such as the *Report on the Substitution of a Tax in Kind for the Surplus-Grain Appropriation System* at the Tenth Congress of the RCP(b), the *Political Report of the Central Committee* at the Eleventh Congress of the RCP(b), and in works such as *On the Tax in Kind* and *On Cooperation*.

After the May Fourth Movement, these writings containing Lenin’s economic thought were introduced into China in forms such as partial translations, excerpted translations, and paraphrased translations. For example, in 1920, WPK and Zhen Ying respectively translated excerpts from Lenin’s work *Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat*, which expounded on the economic characteristics of the socialist transition period; in 1921, Li Li translated and introduced Lenin’s work *The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government*, which argued for socialist economic construction measures based on traditional socialist concepts; in 1921, 1922, and 1924, Wei Zhi, Mo Han, and Li Chunfan respectively translated excerpts from *On the Tax in Kind*; in 1924, Song Yu translated *On Cooperation*. After the outbreak of the First Revolutionary Civil War, due to the shift in the revolutionary situation, Lenin’s writings on the proletarian revolution and Party building became the focus of translation and introduction. From the Yan’an period to around the founding of the People’s Republic of China, in response to the needs of economic construction, Lenin’s economic writings were widely translated and introduced. The main publications included Volume 16 of the Chinese edition of *Selected Works of Lenin* published by Jiefang Press in 1945, Volume 2 of *Selected Works of Lenin* published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House in 1947, *Lenin on the New Economic Policy* published by Zhongwai Press in 1949, and the first volume of *Lenin and Stalin on Socialist Economic Construction*, a compulsory reading book for cadres published by Jiefang Press. These were collections of Chinese translations of works containing Lenin’s economic theories. After reform and opening up, Chinese translations of Lenin’s works related to economic construction increased markedly. For example, *Lenin on Socialist Economic Construction in Soviet Russia* published by People’s Publishing House in 1979, and *Two Draft Revisions by Lenin of the Theses on the Implementation of the New Economic Policy* published in Issue 14 of *Materials on the Compilation and Translation of Marxist-Leninist Classics* edited by the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau in 1981, had a significant impact on the Chinese Communists’ study and use of Lenin’s economic construction ideas to guide socialist practice.

Alongside the appearance of Chinese translations of writings containing Lenin’s economic thought, the study and research of Lenin’s economic thought by Chinese Marxists and the Chinese Communist Party also began. As early as the end of the 19th century, Marxist theory was introduced to China from Japan through Sino-Japanese exchanges. During the process of Chinese intellectuals studying in Japan translating early Japanese Marxist works into Chinese, Chinese concepts such as market (市场), economy (经济), economics (经济学), property (财产), ownership (所有制), and means of production (生产资料) either emerged as needed or underwent significant changes. After the October Revolution, the early dissemination of Leninism in China and the Chinese translation of Lenin’s works brought terms with Leninist characteristics, such as commodity economy (商品经济), market (市场), market economy (市场经济), cooperation (合作社), and state capitalism (国家资本主义), into the purview of Sinicized Marxism. Among these were both Lenin’s original concepts and concepts that Lenin gradually deepened in the practice of socialist construction. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese Communists consistently integrated Marxism-Leninism with China’s actual conditions in socialist economic construction. Especially around the time of reform and opening up, Lenin’s series of explorations regarding the New Economic Policy once again attracted the attention of Chinese Communists and Chinese Marxists, and many vivid elements of Lenin’s economic thought became the harbinger of China’s reform and opening up. In the process of actively learning from and drawing on the experiences and lessons of Soviet socialist economic construction, the Chinese Communists continuously deepened their understanding of the laws of socialist economic construction. Concepts such as the market, commodity economy, and state capitalism, which were originally regarded as belonging to the category of capitalism, were incorporated into the category of socialism. Through continuous shifts in meaning and enrichment of meaning in Chinese practice, they played an important role in China’s socialist economic construction.

Concepts are the foundation of theory. In the interaction between theory and practice, the Chinese Communists studied Lenin’s economic thought, and through the absorption, adoption, and adaptation of the conceptual terms in Lenin’s original texts, they constructed a political economy with Chinese characteristics. This article selects the concepts of “market,” “commodity economy,” and “state capitalism,” which still possess vital relevance today, as the objects of study to examine the evolution of conceptual meanings in the process of translating Lenin’s works into Chinese. The concept of “market” is not only the starting point of Lenin’s theoretical research on economics but also a red thread running through Lenin’s practice of leading the proletarian revolution and socialist construction; the concept of “commodity economy” is closely related to the concept of “market economy” in the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics; the concept of “state capitalism” once played an important role in promoting China’s socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production. Lenin’s deepening understanding and renewed elaboration of the above concepts reflect his profound reflection on what socialism is and how to build it, in the context of the setback of the idea of a “direct transition” to communist society. Clarifying the trajectory of the reproduction of the meanings of these concepts and studying the law of “change and continuity” contained in the process of transforming original Marxist concepts into Sinicized Marxist concepts is of great significance for adhering to the basic principles of Marxism, promoting the revolution of the conceptual terminology of Marxist political economy, and upholding and developing Sinicized Marxist political economy in the 21st century.

II. The Return and Transference of the Concept of "Market"

II. The Return and Transference of the Concept of “Market”

The term “market” (市场) existed in ancient Chinese, originally referring to a specific place where common people engaged in commodity exchange (buying and selling) activities, i.e., what is commonly called a “marketplace” (集市). For instance, in the *Zhongchao Stories* (中朝故事) by Yuchi Wo of the Southern Tang dynasty, it is said: “Whenever I visit the market (市场), ascend a tavern, and meet someone, I am pleased with them.” Here, “market” contains the above meaning. At the end of the 19th century, the modern-meaning Sino-Japanese loanword “market” (市场), along with its meaning, was introduced into China from Japan as a foreign word. According to relevant research, Japanese first produced the Chinese-character form “market” (市场) through translation or paraphrase of the English words “market” and “market place” (1862, kun-reading *ichiba*; 1886, on-reading *shijō*). When this word was introduced into China, it referred to the region where commodities were sold or the place of commodity exchange. In Chinese, the earliest appearance of the modern-meaning concept of “market” can be traced back to 1877. At that time, He Ruzhang, the first Qing envoy to Japan, introduced new concepts derived from Japan, such as “market” (市场), “park” (公园), “railway” (铁道), and “funds” (经费), in his *Brief Account of an Envoy to the East* (使东述略). Additionally, in 1890, the term “market” appeared in Huang Zunxian’s *Records of Japan* (日本国志): “The high and low prices of Japanese silk and tea are entirely controlled by the European market (市场), and have nothing to do with the weight of production costs in the East.” We can see that the concept of “market” here had already subtly changed compared to its original meaning in ancient Chinese. By the early 20th century, the concept of “market,” after its first transference and acceptance by the Chinese people, also appeared in the early dissemination of Marxism. In the first complete Chinese translation of the *Communist Manifesto*, Chen Wangdao translated it as follows: “Under the industrial organization of the feudal era, production was monopolized by the guilds; at this point, it could no longer meet the increased demand in the new market (市场); thus, the manufacturing system took its place.” Clearly, this is the concept of “market” still belonging to the capitalist category after its first transference.

“Market” is both a core term in Marxist political economy and the starting point of Lenin’s study of economic issues. Lenin’s attitude toward the market changed during the period when he proposed and implemented the New Economic Policy. Initially, in his theoretical struggle against the Populists at the end of the 19th century, Lenin criticized the erroneous view that the differentiation of peasants would lead to the closure of the market, arguing that as long as social division of labor and commodity production exist, the market must necessarily exist. He also discussed the causes of the emergence of the Russian domestic market and the relationship between the market and the social division of labor, i.e., the “market in general” within the capitalist category. While affirming the market’s role in regulating production, Lenin clearly stated that in a society with public ownership of the means of production, “production will not be regulated by the market, as it is now, but by the producers themselves, by the workers’ society itself; then the means of production will not belong to private individuals but to the whole society.” Clearly, at this time Lenin considered the “market” to belong to the capitalist rather than the socialist category, and through an analysis of the market’s role and nature, he pointed out its incompatibility with socialist society.

By the early 20th century, Lenin, in connection with Russia’s land question, elucidated that monetary power, commodity production, and the market are the foundations of capitalist society, and stated: “As long as the market economy exists, as long as monetary power and the power of capital are maintained, no law in the world can eliminate inequality and exploitation. Only by establishing a large-scale socialized planned economy, with all land, factories, and tools transferred to the ownership of the working class, can all exploitation be eliminated.” While pointing out the opposition between “market economy” and “planned economy,” Lenin also believed that under capitalist relations of production, the existence of the market would inevitably bring about commodity exchange, thereby creating the power of money, turning agricultural products and labor power into money, and making commodity production capitalist production. In this situation, the concept of the market was naturally excluded from the socialist category. Therefore, after the October Revolution, proceeding from the traditional view of eliminating capitalist private ownership and establishing socialism, he advocated replacing the market with the production and distribution of products under the supervision of workers’ Soviets. Especially during the period of implementing the policy of War Communism, he further advocated gradually eliminating private trade through planned product exchange and completely closing the market, which was regarded as belonging to the capitalist category.

However, as Soviet Russia encountered setbacks in socialist construction, Lenin deepened his understanding of the market through reflection. In particular, the convening of the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) marked the beginning of Soviet Russia’s shift to the New Economic Policy. It was in this process that Lenin conceived the idea of using the existing market to develop the economy. By the end of 1921, as commodity exchange transformed into private buying and selling and currency circulation, Lenin’s understanding of the market further deepened. In his article “The Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution,” he pointed out: “We planned (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say we poorly conceived) to adjust the production and distribution of the country’s products according to communist principles by directly ordering the proletarian state in a small-peasant country. Reality has shown us we were wrong.” Consequently, Lenin began to attempt to have the state regulate commerce and currency circulation, allowing the market, as a channel and means of commodity exchange, to gradually shift from a supporting role to a leading role. However, in his later years, Lenin still attached importance to the role of cooperatives in socialist construction, and Soviet Russia’s recovery and development of the economy through the market occurred only during the implementation of the New Economic Policy. Therefore, “Lenin’s idea of combining plan and market in the early period of socialist construction was still in an embryonic state and should not be overestimated… especially, he did not put forward the idea of using the market as the basis for resource allocation.” Nevertheless, Lenin’s practice of using the international and domestic markets to restore and develop the economy not only served as an inspiration for China’s implementation of reform and opening up and the development of a market economy but also left room for exploration in our adherence to the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, against the backdrop of reform and opening up, the content of the New Economic Policy received concentrated attention in our country. Chinese Communists actively drew on the experience and lessons of the Soviet Union in practice, deepened their understanding of the laws of socialist economic construction, incorporated the concept of “market” into the socialist category, and gained a completely new understanding and grasp of it. When exploring what socialism is and how to build it, Deng Xiaoping highly endorsed and fully drew on Lenin’s ideas on the New Economic Policy. He pointed out: “What exactly socialism looks like, the Soviet Union worked on it for many years and still did not fully figure it out. Perhaps Lenin’s line of thinking was better; he came up with the New Economic Policy.” In February 1987, Deng Xiaoping further pointed out: “Planning and the market are both methods. As long as they are beneficial to the development of the productive forces, they can be used. If they serve socialism, they are socialist; if they serve capitalism, they are capitalist.” In early 1992, in his Southern Talks, Deng Xiaoping stripped the “market” from the essential level that distinguishes the nature of social systems: “More planning or more market is not the essential distinction between socialism and capitalism… Planning and the market are both economic means.” In this way, the market was no longer a marker distinguishing the nature of society, but a method for promoting and regulating production, a means or mode of resource allocation under the principle of equivalent exchange of commodities. Its relationship with planning transformed into a relationship with the government. With the development of the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the position of the market in resource allocation underwent a transformation from “planning as the mainstay, market as a supplement” to the market “playing a fundamental role” and then to “playing a decisive role.” In October 2017, the report of the 19th National Congress of the CPC, based on the new historical juncture and changes in the principal contradiction in society, further emphasized the need to “enable the market to play a decisive role in resource allocation and better play the role of the government.” The concept of the market in Marxist political economy, after its dissemination and adaptation in China, underwent a second shift in meaning and was then embraced by the economics of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

III. The Adoption and Adaptation of the Concept of “Commodity Economy”

The concept of “commodity economy” was absorbed from Lenin’s economic theory, and there is no doubt that the term “commodity economy” has a deep Russian origin. The Chinese “commodity economy” (商品经济) is a translation of the term “товарное хозяйство” from Lenin’s original texts. As some research has verified: “‘Commodity economy’ is a Russian word expressing the same content as ‘monetary economy’ and ‘credit economy,’ whereas in German there is no such word as ‘commodity economy.’ Therefore, Marx in *Capital* only used concepts like ‘monetary economy,’ ‘credit economy,’ and ‘exchange economy.’”

At the end of the 19th century, Lenin proposed the concept of “commodity economy” in his theoretical struggle against the Narodniks. In 1893, Lenin wrote in his article “New Economic Changes in Peasant Life”: “To prove that small-scale economy is inevitably supplanted by large-scale economy, it is not enough to establish that large-scale economy is more profitable (its product costs are much lower); it is also necessary to establish that the monetary economy (or more precisely, the commodity economy) overwhelms the natural economy.” When Lenin first proposed the concept of commodity economy, he not only affirmed its progressiveness relative to the natural economy but also considered it equivalent to the “monetary economy” within the capitalist category. In 1894, Lenin stated unequivocally in *What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats*: “The basis of our economic system is the commodity economy, and the leader of the commodity economy, in our country as elsewhere, is the bourgeoisie.” This pointed out the capitalist nature of the commodity economy. Furthermore, in the article “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book,” Lenin directly stated: “Using Russian materials, one can also confirm the law that ‘the commodity economy is the capitalist economy.’” Thus, the “commodity economy” initially proposed by Lenin was a concept corresponding to the natural economy and belonging to the capitalist category.

Before implementing the New Economic Policy, in the practice of “direct transition” to socialism, Lenin consistently adhered to traditional Marxist concepts, viewing the commodity economy as something alien to socialism. He said: “Socialism demands the abolition of the power of money, the power of capital, the abolition of all private ownership of the means of production, and the abolition of the commodity economy.” “As long as exchange still exists, talking about socialism is ridiculous.” After the October Revolution, Lenin put this concept of the incompatibility of the commodity economy with socialism into practice in socialist construction. On the one hand, he adopted measures to “expropriate the expropriators,” attempting to eliminate private ownership of the means of production—the basis for the existence of the commodity economy—through the nationalization of banks, land, transportation, and postal and telecommunications departments, thereby achieving public ownership of the means of production. On the other hand, he sought to eliminate the commodity economy at the stage of commodity exchange. Particularly during the period of the War Communism policy from 1918 to 1920, Lenin advocated adjusting the country’s production and distribution according to communist principles, attempting to further eliminate the commodity economy through measures such as abolishing commodity-money relations, closing markets, and replacing free trade with planned product exchange.

In March 1921, the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) adopted a resolution to transition from War Communism to the New Economic Policy. In the early period of implementing the New Economic Policy, Lenin, for the purposes of consolidating the relationship between the proletariat and the peasantry, restoring and developing agricultural production, and securing the minimum grain needed for cities and factories, stated that as long as “proportions could be maintained,” it was possible “to a certain extent to restore freedom of trade for the small peasants.” This allowed, to a certain degree, for the existence of the commodity economy. By the end of 1921, after commodity exchange conducted through cooperatives had transformed into commodity trade, commodity buying and selling, currency circulation, and cash transactions, Lenin proposed the idea of the state further retreating and only playing a regulatory role over commerce and currency circulation. This was, in fact, a breakthrough from traditional Marxist concepts. Although in 1922 he again proposed to “master commerce, guide commerce, and keep it within certain bounds,” and even in *On Cooperation* re-emphasized the importance of cooperatives for building socialism, still regarding the “commodity economy” as an antithesis to the socialist category, he had nonetheless made a breakthrough in the traditional concept of the “commodity economy.”

As an original concept of Lenin, the concept of “commodity economy” was introduced into China in the 1920s with the early dissemination of Leninism and the Chinese translation of Lenin’s works. Its initial meaning referred to “an economic form of production for exchange.” In 1920, Volume 2, Issue 1 of the magazine *Shuguang* and Volume 8, Issue 4 of the magazine *New Youth* respectively published translations by WPK and Zhen Ying of *The Economy of the Transition Period* and *The Economy of the Transition Period*, which was Lenin’s *Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat* written on the second anniversary of the establishment of Soviet power. The translations sporadically mentioned some of Lenin’s views on the commodity economy. In the partial translations of *On the Grain Tax* by Wei Zhi, Mo Han, and Li Chunfan in 1921, 1922, and 1924 respectively, there was also content analyzing the five economic components in the Russian economy and the use of commerce—this capitalist factor—to restore agricultural development. For example, Lenin pointed out: “We cannot completely prohibit or prevent the development of private exchange that bypasses the state, that is, commerce, that is, capitalism. It is as unavoidable as the existence of countless small producers.”

In June 1923, Qu Qiubai began to use the term “commodity economy” in *The Development of the Chinese Bourgeoisie*; in September of the same year, he used this concept again in *From Democracy to Socialism* and pointed out: “On the basis of a commodity economy, the development of capitalism is inevitable; no matter what, the growth of the bourgeoisie cannot be prohibited. To try to skip over the bourgeoisie and immediately realize utopia is absolutely impossible.” [16]16 Qu Qiubai (1899–1935) was a leading early member of the CPC, a translator of Marxist texts, and a key figure in introducing Marxist theory into China. By the late 1920s and early 1930s, the concept of “commodity economy” within the category of capitalism had been absorbed into the Chinese language. For example, the 1930 *Chinese Encyclopedia Dictionary* defined it as: “Under the capitalist system of private property, all products are produced not for one’s own needs but for the market; these are commodities. The economy that produces for the market is the commodity economy.”

Unlike the situation with the translation and introduction of the concept of “market” in China, Lenin’s view that during the socialist transition period capitalism should be utilized to develop the socialist economy through the “commodity economy” characterized by commodity-money relations attracted great attention from Chinese Marxists after the “Three Great Transformations.” [17]17 The “Three Great Transformations” (1953–1956) were the socialist transformations of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce in China. After the founding of New China, the question of understanding the commodity economy gradually emerged. In particular, after the completion of the “Three Great Transformations” and the establishment of the socialist system, the “Great Leap Forward” and the “Communist Wind” [18]18 The “Communist Wind” (共产风) refers to the tendency during the Great Leap Forward (1958–1961) to prematurely introduce communist principles of distribution, such as free supplies, ignoring the actual level of productive forces. in economic construction led to a “Left” erroneous ideological trend that the commodity economy must be eliminated. In November 1958, Mao Zedong addressed this issue, stating: “Only when the state has the power to control all products can the commodity economy become unnecessary and disappear. As long as two forms of ownership exist, commodity production and commodity exchange are extremely necessary and extremely useful.”

Although Chinese Communists had long used the concept of the commodity economy, it was only after reform and opening up that they truly made adjustments in line with China’s actual conditions. In October 1984, the *Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Reform of the Economic System* adopted at the Third Plenary Session of the 12th Central Committee of the CPC pointed out: “The socialist planned economy is a planned commodity economy on the basis of public ownership”; “the full development of the commodity economy is an insurmountable stage in the development of the socialist economy”; “the traditional concept that sets the planned economy in opposition to the commodity economy must be broken through”; “the difference between the socialist economy and the capitalist economy does not lie in whether the commodity economy exists or whether the law of value plays a role, but in the difference in ownership, in whether the exploiting class exists… and in the purpose of production.” This theoretically explained the determining-determined relationship between social nature and the commodity economy, freeing it from the ideological shackles of the traditional view that the commodity economy is opposed to socialism. In April 1986, the *Report on the Seventh Five-Year Plan* approved by the Fourth Session of the Sixth National People’s Congress further stated: “The commodity economy we seek to develop is, in its totality, a socialist commodity economy. This commodity economy is based on public ownership, implements the principle of distribution according to work, and is planned and controlled.”

The proposal of the “socialist commodity economy” developed Lenin’s concept of the “commodity economy,” equating its institutional mechanisms with the socialist market economy, and serving the construction of the socialist economy with Chinese characteristics.

IV. The Introduction and Application of the Concept of “State Capitalism”

“State capitalism” originally belonged to the category of capitalist economics. It was only during the period of the Soviet Union’s New Economic Policy that it came to be frequently used as a concept within the socialist category. As a basic Marxist concept, Lenin’s “state capitalism” refers to “a form of capitalist economy controlled by the state. Its nature and function are determined by the nature of the state.” At the end of 1916, Lenin first used this concept in the *Draft Theses for the International Socialist Committee and the Socialist Parties of Various Countries* to reveal the essence of the changes in capitalism during the First World War. Lenin pointed out: “World capitalism has not only taken a step forward toward general concentration, but has also taken a step forward on a larger scale than before in the transition from general monopoly to state capitalism.” Clearly, the concept of “state capitalism” Lenin used here refers to state monopoly capitalism, capitalism directly controlled by the capitalist state under the conditions of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and belongs to the category of capitalist concepts.

Around the time of the October Revolution, Lenin put forward the idea of transforming and utilizing state capitalism, even regarding it as a preparatory stage, an economic component, and a strategic line for socialism, but essentially he still placed it within the capitalist category. During the implementation of the New Economic Policy, facing the question of what state capitalism in communist society actually was, Lenin, on the basis of a profound reflection on the practice of socialist construction, established a special concept of “state capitalism” under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. First, Lenin proposed the “4+1” main forms of state capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat. In April 1921, in *On the Tax in Kind*, Lenin detailed four main forms of state capitalism: the concession system aimed at foreign capitalists, the cooperative system uniting with small commodity producers, the commission agency system with domestic merchants, and the leasing system with domestic big capitalists. In January 1923, in *On Cooperation*, Lenin pointed out: “Under our existing system, cooperative enterprises differ from private capitalist enterprises; cooperative enterprises are collective enterprises, but they do not differ from socialist enterprises.” This essentially incorporated cooperative enterprises, which combine private capitalist enterprises under the socialist system with thorough socialist enterprises, into the socialist category. Second, Lenin also re-elaborated the concept of “state capitalism” under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In July 1921, in his *Report on the Tactics of the Russian Communist Party* at the Third Congress of the Communist International, Lenin stated that although the practice of state capitalism was the same in states of two different natures, in a proletarian state, even if it meant paying tribute to the bourgeoisie, it was still beneficial to the working class. In March 1922, in the *Central Committee Political Report* at the Eleventh Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Lenin explained the concept of “state capitalism” in a proletarian state: “It is capitalism that we can restrict, that we can set limits to; this state capitalism is connected with the state, and the state is the workers, the advanced part of the workers, the vanguard, that is, us.” Here, the concept of “state capitalism” Lenin spoke of is capitalism whose nature is determined by the “state,” the combination of capital with the state power of the socialist state, a form of capitalist economy under the control and command of the proletarian state. Thus, after a profound reflection on the setbacks of socialist construction, Lenin incorporated the concept of “state capitalism” from the capitalist category into the socialist category.

After the May Fourth Movement, the concept of “state capitalism” entered China along with the early dissemination of Leninism in China. Its initial meaning referred to a system in which the state, dominated by the bourgeoisie, nationalizes the means of production and manages industry. According to existing historical sources, as early as September 1, 1920, the Chinese term “国家资本主义” (guojia zibenzhuyi), as a translation of the English term “State Capitalism,” appeared in *My Life in Russia* by the Englishman Wilfred K. Humphries, translated by Han Jun and published in *New Youth*. [19]19 The May Fourth Movement (1919) was an anti-imperialist, anti-feudal cultural and political movement led by Chinese intellectuals and students, widely seen as a watershed in modern Chinese history. *New Youth* was a leading progressive journal of the time. Subsequently, in the process of translating Lenin’s writings into Chinese, this concept converged with Lenin’s original term “Государственный капитализм.” From May 12 to June 15, 1921, Qu Qiubai, in a series of reports titled *Economic Problems of Soviet Russia*, paraphrased the four main forms of state capitalism proposed by Lenin. On July 3 of the same year, Zuo Lin, in an article titled *Lenin’s Discourse on Statism* published in *Morning Post*, excerpted and translated some of Lenin’s discussions on state capitalism: “Lenin said: State capitalism—that is, organized production under the rule and management of the state on the basis of capitalism—represents a great step forward for Russia.” “Advancing to a kind of state capitalism cannot be said to be a return to the old position. In truth, it is a legitimate progress.” On August 10, 1922, Lin Keyi published an article titled *Why Russia Adopted the New Economic Policy* in *The Eastern Miscellany*, Volume 19, No. 15, which paraphrased Lenin’s concept of “state capitalism” under the dictatorship of the proletariat: “The state capitalism they practice is naturally not in the sense of the establishment of capitalism, but in the sense of a transition to socialism.” “State capitalism practiced under the dictatorship of the proletariat can have its control over the national economic forces swayed by the will of the proletariat.”

The earliest appearance of the concept of “state capitalism” in the currently available Chinese translations of Lenin’s works is in *On the Tax in Kind*. On November 25, 1921, *The Eastern Miscellany*, Volume 18, No. 22, published an excerpt translated by Weizhi titled *Russia’s Current Economic Situation*. This is the earliest Chinese translation of Lenin’s writings to contain an explanation of the concept of “state capitalism,” including some of the content of Lenin’s exposition of state capitalism at that time. In 1922 and 1924, Chinese translations with the same content, excerpted by Mo Han and Li Chunfan respectively, appeared successively. On June 15, 1923, *New Youth*, Issue No. 1, published a Chinese translation excerpted from Lenin’s report to the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, *Five Years of the Russian Revolution and the Prospects of the World Revolution*, titled *Five Years of the Russian Revolution*. The text stated: “Our state capitalism is therefore different from ordinary state capitalism. Since the land belongs to the state of the proletariat, and the most important industries also belong to the state of the proletariat.” On March 10, 1924, *The Eastern Miscellany*, Volume 21, No. 5, published a Chinese translation of *On Cooperation* containing Lenin’s discussion of “state capitalism.” During the Yan’an period, the second volume of *Selected Works of Lenin*, published in 1947, also included other writings on the content of state capitalism during the period of implementing the New Economic Policy.

However, under the historical conditions of Soviet Russia at the time, state capitalism did not develop significantly. After the founding of New China, Chinese Communists invoked Lenin’s concept of “state capitalism” in the socialist transformation of national capitalist industry and commerce, while also making adjustments. First, in terms of the forms of realization of state capitalism, China adopted two transitional forms: primary and advanced. The primary forms referred to commissioned processing, planned ordering, unified purchase and marketing in industry, and commissioned distribution and sales on commission in commerce. The advanced forms referred to the joint state-private management of individual enterprises beginning in 1953 and the joint state-private management of entire industries beginning in 1955. That is, state shares entered private enterprises and were managed by state agents, while the original capitalists acted as agents for the capitalist side, and production profits were distributed according to the “four-way distribution” method. [20]20 “Four-way distribution” (四马分肥) was a method used during the socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce in the 1950s, dividing enterprise profits into four portions: state taxes, enterprise funds, worker welfare funds, and capitalist dividends. By the end of 1956, China had basically completed the socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce, thereby further enriching and developing the Marxist-Leninist theory of the transitional period to socialism. Second, in the current stage, China’s basic economic system, with public ownership as the mainstay and diverse forms of ownership developing together, retains the economic components of state capitalism. These include Sino-foreign joint ventures, wholly foreign-owned enterprises, and private enterprises that process or act as subcontractors for state-owned enterprises. The essence of these economic forms is that they can be restricted by the state of the people’s democratic dictatorship, their scope of activity can be defined, and they serve as a beneficial supplement to China’s socialist economy.

V. Conclusion

The process of translating Marxist classics into Chinese is an indispensable step in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. It not only promoted the widespread dissemination of Marxism-Leninism in China but also influenced the historical process of the emergence and development of Marxism adapted to the Chinese context, especially exerting a profound impact on the generation of conceptual terminology in Marxism adapted to the Chinese context. The evolution of the meaning of concepts in the process of translating Lenin’s economic works into Chinese is likewise a microcosm of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. The Chinese translations of these texts have had an important impact on Chinese Marxists and on Marxism adapted to the Chinese context in different periods of China’s revolution, construction, and reform.

By examining the evolution of the meanings of the concepts “market,” “commodity economy,” and “state capitalism” in the process of translating Lenin’s economic works into Chinese, we can clearly see: First, the socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics is a creative inheritance and innovative development of Marxist-Leninist political economy. This is mainly manifested in the fact that after Lenin’s economic thought was introduced into China, through our continuous translation, study, and dissemination of the classic original works, new economic concepts and terms were introduced or generated, while some old concepts and terms underwent new changes. These changes not only adhered to dialectical materialism and historical materialism but also contained the unique understanding of early advanced Chinese intellectuals. They not only better fit the Chinese context but also more closely matched China’s actual conditions, deepening our understanding of Marxist-Leninist economic theory. Second, due to the particularities of spatiotemporal context, national culture, differences in thinking, and cross-linguistic transmission of language, it was inevitable that the dissemination of Marxist-Leninist economic theory in China would involve phenomena of conceptual transference and enrichment of meaning. This change was not a simple distortion, tailoring, or grafting, but a new development of theory based on adhering to Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods in combination with concrete realities. It not only avoided the ossification and dogmatization of Marxist-Leninist economic theory but also promoted its dissemination and reception in China and the birth of the economic theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics, realizing the passing on of the torch of Marxist-Leninist economic theory in China. Therefore, through the succession of conceptual terms, we can see that the transformation of original concepts from Marxist-Leninist economic classics into concepts of Marxist political economy with Chinese characteristics is a process of continuous back-and-forth between text and practice, theory and practice, rather than a linear theoretical input or “planting grass.” [21]21 “Planting grass” (种草) is a colloquial Chinese term meaning to introduce or recommend something (e.g., a product or idea) to others, often implying a superficial or one-sided promotion.

At present, China’s reform and opening up has already traversed more than 40 years. We have not only achieved great success in practice, but also made significant progress in theory. In particular, since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, including its economic thought, has realized a new leap in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. [22]22 The 18th National Congress of the CPC was held in 2012, marking the beginning of the New Era under Xi Jinping’s leadership. Looking back at the evolution of the meanings of concepts in the Chinese translation of Lenin’s economic works, we can see that the basic conceptual terms of Marxist-Leninist economic thought were not immutable after being introduced into China, but were very vivid and dynamic; promoting the revolution of conceptual terms is not only a fine tradition of Marxism-Leninism, but also an inexhaustible driving force and inherent law for promoting the innovative development of Marxist-Leninist theory. This still has important reference significance for us to further emancipate the mind and promote the revolution of conceptual terms and theoretical development and innovation in socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics. On May 17, 2016, General Secretary Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences, pointing out: “To give full play to the role of China’s philosophy and social sciences, attention must be paid to strengthening the construction of discourse systems. In interpreting Chinese practice and constructing Chinese theory, we should have the greatest right to speak, but in fact the voice of China’s philosophy and social sciences in the international arena is still relatively small, and we are still in a situation where we have reason but cannot express it, and even if we express it, it cannot be spread. We must be good at refining iconic concepts, creating new concepts, new categories, and new expressions that are easy for the international community to understand and accept, and guide the international academic community to carry out research and discussion.” [23]23 The Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences was a key meeting where Xi Jinping outlined the direction for developing Chinese discourse in the social sciences. In summary, on the basis of firmly adhering to dialectical materialism and historical materialism, we should be good at combining the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the excellent traditional Chinese culture, scientifically create and condense new concepts, new terms, and new expressions of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics that not only have Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese manner but also can integrate China and the rest of the world, and actively promote the innovative and creative development of Marxist-Leninist political economy thought in China.

(Author: Zhou Qiang, School of Marxism, Guangxi Normal University)

Online Editor: Tongxin