Lenin’s *What Is to Be Done?* and Its Critique of the “Economists”: Contemporary Lessons

*What Is to Be Done?* is a polemical pamphlet written by Lenin between 1901 and 1902. One hundred and twenty years ago, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party led by Lenin was in a state of organizational disunity and ideological confusion. Not only was the habit of scattered circles deeply entrenched within the Party, but the erroneous trend of economism was also spreading. Economism attracted a large number of followers within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, forming a factional clique headed by Martynov, known as the “Economists,” which endangered the Party’s leadership and its ideological foundation. In response, Lenin wrote *What Is to Be Done?* aimed at achieving ideological unity within the Party, exposing and criticizing the erroneous views of the “Economists.” This not only politically educated the Party membership but also largely eliminated the negative influence of the “Economists’” factional activities and their erroneous theories, thereby defending the Party’s leading core and the guiding position of Marxism, and strengthening the Party’s political leadership over the workers’ movement. This article revisits Lenin’s *What Is to Be Done?* from the perspective of contemporary political practice, re-examining and historically exploring the multiple purposes of its critique of the “Economists,” in order to seek theoretical reference and practical guidance for our current “what is to be done?”

《怎么办？》是列宁于1901年至1902年间写成的一本论战性质的小册子。120年前，列宁所领导的俄国社会民主党处于组织涣散、思想混乱的状态，不仅党内分散的小组习气严重存在，而且蔓延着经济主义的错误思潮。经济主义吸引了俄国社会民主党内的大批追随者，形成了以马尔丁诺夫为首的宗派小集团即“经济派”，危及党的领导与党的思想基础。对此，列宁撰写了旨在实现党内思想统一的《怎么办？》，揭批“经济派”的错误观点，不仅从政治上教育了党员群众，而且在极大程度上消除了“经济派”宗派活动及其错误理论的负面影响，捍卫了党的领导核心和马克思主义的指导地位，加强了党对工人运动的政治领导。本文基于当代政治实践重温列宁的《怎么办？》一书，对该书中批判“经济派”的多重目的进行重新梳理与历史探讨，以期为当前我们“怎么办？”探寻理论参照与实践指导。

I. Struggling against the Words and Deeds of the “Economists” That Undermined the Party’s Leadership, and Defending the Party’s Leading Core and Centralized Unified Leadership

一、与“经济派”损害党的领导的言行作斗争，捍卫党的领导核心与集中统一领导

According to Lenin’s original plan, the pamphlet *What Is to Be Done?* was only intended to elaborate in detail the ideas touched upon in the article “Where to Begin?” and would not have been very long. However, because the erroneous words and deeds of the “Economists” seriously damaged the Party’s leadership, in order to “wage a resolute struggle against this trend, which is vague, lacking in clarity, yet relatively stubborn and capable of reviving in various forms,”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.2 Lenin changed his original writing plan and substantially expanded the content. Therefore, the direct cause of Lenin’s great effort in writing *What Is to Be Done?* was the harm caused by the erroneous words and deeds of the “Economists” to the newly established Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, including serious organizational division and ideological confusion. One of its purposes was to wage a resolute struggle against the words and deeds of the “Economists” that undermined the Party’s leadership, and to defend the Party’s centralized unified leadership.

按照列宁的原定计划，《怎么办？》这本小册子只是准备详细发挥《从何着手？》一文中所谈到的思想，篇幅并不会很长，但是由于“经济派”的错误言行严重破坏了党的领导，为了“同这个模糊不清、缺乏明确性、可是却比较顽固并能在各种形式下复活起来的派别作坚决的斗争”[1]2，列宁改变了之前的写作计划并且在内容上进行了大幅扩充。因此，列宁之所以如此下大力气写作《怎么办？》，直接导因在于“经济派”的错误言行对刚成立的俄国社会民主党造成了严重的组织分化、思想混乱等危害，其目的之一是与“经济派”损害党的领导的言行作坚决斗争，捍卫党的集中统一领导。

The “Economists,” as an opportunist faction within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, drafted independent programmatic documents and published a series of erroneous political views that denied the Party’s unified leadership. Regarding the workers’ movement, the “Economists” worshipped the spontaneity of the movement, belittled the role of the “conscious element,” i.e., the role of the Social Democratic Party, and emphasized that workers should “take their fate back from the hands of the leaders”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.36 and “take it into their own hands,”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.34 arguing that the ultimate outcome of social change depended on the spontaneity of the workers’ movement rather than the political guidance of the proletarian party. Regarding the organizational form of the workers’ movement, the “Economists” exaggerated the role of workers’ economic organizations such as workers’ savings funds and workers’ unions, even “confusing these organizations with organizations of revolutionaries.”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.120 They opposed the establishment of centralized, secret organizations of revolutionaries, denied the necessity of establishing a leading core within the Party, and even slandered the revolutionary organization advocated by Lenin as “Narodovolism,”[n] as conflicting with “democratic principles,” and as having “anti-democratic tendencies,” while prattling about “broad democratic principles”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.129-132 in disregard of reality. Regarding the relationship between the masses and leaders, the “Economists” accused the revolutionary organization of leading the revolutionary movement as actually making these professional revolutionaries “think for everyone,”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.119 slandered the professional revolutionary organization as a “conspiratorial” organization detached from the masses,[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.127 “defiling the title of revolutionary,”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.121 undermined the masses’ trust in leaders, and opposed the establishment of an authoritative central leading core.

“经济派”作为19世纪末20世纪初俄国社会民主党内的一个机会主义派别，起草了独立的纲领性文件，发表了一系列否定党的统一领导的错误政治主张。在工人运动方面，“经济派”崇拜运动的自发性，轻视“自觉因素”的作用即社会民主党的作用，强调工人要“从领导者手里夺回自己的命运”[1]36“由自己来掌握”[1]34，认为社会变革的最终结果取决于工人运动的自发性而非无产阶级政党的政治引领。在工人运动的组织形式上，“经济派”夸大工人储金会、工人联合会等工人经济组织的作用，甚至将这些组织“同革命家的组织混为一谈”[1]120。他们反对建立集中、秘密的革命家组织，否定在党内确立领导核心的必要性，甚至污蔑列宁所主张的革命家组织是“民意主义”、同“民主原则”相抵触、具有“反民主倾向”，而罔顾实际侈谈“广泛民主原则”[1]129-132。在群众与领袖的关系上，“经济派”指责由革命家组织领导革命运动实际上是让这些职业革命家“代替大家动脑筋”[1]119，污蔑职业革命家组织是同群众相脱离的“密谋”组织[1]127，“玷污革命家的称号”[1]121，破坏群众对领袖的信任，反对建立权威的中央领导核心。

The above erroneous political views of the “Economists” and their dissemination exacerbated the original tendencies toward disunity and spontaneity within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, becoming a serious obstacle to the establishment of a centralized and unified workers’ party. In the early days of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, Lenin and many other Marxist revolutionaries were in exile, and the Party lacked a strong leading core. At the same time, due to severe disruption by the Tsarist police, the Party suffered a heavy blow at its very inception. Lacking unified leadership, local Party organizations were steeped in a strong circle mentality and were lax and disorganized. Against this background, the “Economists,” who emerged in the mid-1890s, quickly gained an advantage within the Party, wantonly spreading erroneous views detrimental to the Party’s centralized unified leadership. It should be said that the spontaneous tendency within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party fueled the spread of the “Economists’” erroneous views, while the “Economists’” erroneous views in turn exacerbated the Party’s ideological confusion and organizational disunity. At that time, differences of opinion and organizational fragmentation within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party were severe; almost everywhere there was a phenomenon of each acting on its own and scattered forces, with various groups and “struggle associations” emphasizing their own particularities and pursuing mutually opposing struggle strategies. Consequently, there was a lack of necessary linkage between revolutionary circles, a lack of a long-term, systematic plan, and due to weak secrecy awareness, they were extremely vulnerable to enemy disruption. In short, the opportunist views of the “Economists” had a serious negative impact on Party organizations at all levels, plunging the Party into a major crisis of wavering, confusion, and disunity. Regarding this situation, Plekhanov, another founder of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, lamented: “We must, by any means, get out of this chaotic and shameful situation. It is truly unfortunate for the Party to endure this state of confusion.”[2]2 The “Economists” (经济派) were a faction within the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party in the late 1890s and early 1900s. They argued that the working class should limit itself to economic struggles (trade unionism) and that political struggle should be left to the bourgeoisie, opposing the creation of a centralized, vanguard party of professional revolutionaries as advocated by Lenin.195 Lenin also considered this the “real disease”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.95 of the Russian workers’ movement. Clearly, an urgent task facing Lenin and other Russian Marxists was the necessity of establishing a centralized and unified workers’ party and an authoritative central leading core. This leading core had to be composed of professional revolutionaries with a high level of theoretical competence, firm political quality, and proven through practical tests. Due to the Tsarist autocracy and the lack of basic political freedom, such a revolutionary organization could only exist in a state of extreme secrecy.

“经济派”的上述错误政治主张及其传播，加剧了俄国社会民主党内原有的分散性和自发性倾向，成为建立集中统一的工人政党的严重障碍。俄国社会民主党成立初期，列宁等许多马克思主义革命家正遭流放，党缺乏一个坚强的领导核心。与此同时，由于沙皇警察的严重破坏，党在建立之初便遭受重创。由于缺乏统一领导，地方党组织中小组习气浓厚、自由涣散。在这种背景下，19世纪90年代中期出现的“经济派”在党内迅速占据优势，肆意散播有损于党的集中统一领导的错误观点。应该说，俄国社会民主党内的自发倾向助长了“经济派”错误观点的蔓延，而“经济派”的错误观点又加剧了党的思想混乱和组织涣散。当时，俄国社会民主党内意见分歧和组织分化严重，几乎到处发生各自为政、力量分散的现象，各团体和“斗争协会”都在强调各自的特殊性和奉行相互对立的斗争策略。这样，革命小组之间缺乏必要的联动，缺乏一个长期、系统的计划，且由于保密意识不强而极容易遭到敌人的破坏。总之，“经济派”的机会主义观点对各级党组织产生了严重负面影响，致使党陷入了动摇、混乱、涣散的重大危机。对于这种情况，俄国社会民主党另一位创始人普列汉诺夫曾这样感叹道：“我们无论如何要摆脱这种混乱而可耻的局面。党忍受这种混乱状态真是不幸。”[2]195列宁也认为，这是俄国工人运动的“真正病症”[1]95。显然，摆在列宁等俄国马克思主义者面前的一个紧迫任务，就是必须建立一个集中统一的工人政党，确立一个权威的中央领导核心。这个领导核心必须由理论水平较高、政治素质过硬、经得住实践考验的职业革命家组成。由于沙皇专制统治、缺乏起码的政治自由，这种革命家组织只能是处在极端秘密的状态。

Therefore, in response to the “Economists’” destruction of the Party’s unified leadership and the corrosive effect of their erroneous views on the broad Party membership, Lenin always paid close attention and, together with other Marxists in exile, exposed and criticized the economistic erroneous tendency within the Party. In fact, before writing *What Is to Be Done?*, Lenin, on behalf of 17 Marxists in exile, wrote the “Protest of the Russian Social Democrats,” denouncing economism. He also independently wrote articles such as “Our Programme,” “Our Immediate Task,” “An Urgent Question,” “A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social Democracy,” “The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement,” “Where to Begin?” and “A Talk with Defenders of Economism,” fiercely criticizing the erroneous views of the “Economists.”

因此，针对“经济派”破坏党的统一领导及其错误观点对广大党员群众的腐蚀作用，列宁始终高度关注并联合流亡海外的其他马克思主义者揭批党内的经济主义错误倾向。实际上，在写作《怎么办？》之前，列宁就以流放地17名马克思主义者的名义撰写出《我国社会民主党人抗议书》，声讨经济主义，又独立撰写了《我们的纲领》《我们的当前任务》《迫切的问题》《俄国社会民主党中的倒退倾向》《我们运动的迫切任务》《从何着手？》《同经济主义的拥护者商榷》等文章，对“经济派”的错误主张予以猛烈批判。

However, the “Economists,” disregarding the protests and criticisms of Lenin and many other Marxists, became increasingly rampant in their activities and formed a factional clique headed by Martynov within the Party. Using newspapers and magazines such as *Rabochaya Mysl* (Workers’ Thought) and *Rabocheye Delo* (Workers’ Cause) as their mouthpieces, they vigorously promoted opportunist views within the Party and blatantly carried out anti-Marxist propaganda. Even when their erroneous views were refuted by Lenin, the “Economists” vehemently attacked the revolutionary Social Democrats led by Lenin. This went beyond the scope of “partial differences of opinion” within the Party and even led to “the fundamental opposition of two factions”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.2 within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. It should be pointed out that the “Economists,” who advocated “freedom of criticism,” on the one hand were very afraid of openness and criticism, and on the other hand spread anti-Marxist言论 within the Party, opposing the establishment of a centralized and unified workers’ party, and slandering the professional revolutionary organization that Lenin advocated establishing. This was clearly a typical manifestation of factional activity within the Party.

但“经济派”罔顾列宁等众多马克思主义者的抗议和批评，活动愈发猖獗，并且在党内形成了以马尔丁诺夫为首的宗派小集团。他们以《工人思想报》《工人事业》杂志等报刊为舆论喉舌，在党内极力鼓吹机会主义的观点，明目张胆进行反马克思主义的宣传。甚至在自己的错误观点遭到列宁驳斥时，“经济派”就极力攻击以列宁为首的革命社会民主党人，这已经超出了党内“局部的意见分歧”的范围，甚至导致俄国社会民主党内“两个派别的根本对立”[1]2。需要指出的是，鼓吹“批评自由”的“经济派”一方面非常害怕公开、害怕批评，另一方面又在党内散布反马克思主义、反对建立集中统一工人政党的言论，污蔑列宁所主张建立的职业革命家组织，这显然是党内派别活动的典型表现。

In view of the fact that the factional activities of the “Economists” constituted “the confusion and vacillation which characterized an entire period in the history of the Russian Social-Democratic Party,”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.3 Lenin stated that, “although we have done everything possible to prevent a complete break with the ‘Economists,’ that break has nevertheless become inevitable.”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.3 Under these circumstances, Lenin was compelled, in the midst of his many pressing tasks, to write *What Is to Be Done?*, adopting a polemical approach to systematically review the disputes between the two sides, and to thoroughly criticize the erroneous views of the “Economists” in as accessible a manner as possible and with a wealth of concrete examples. In this regard, Lenin quoted a passage from a letter Lassalle wrote to Marx as the opening words of *What Is to Be Done?*: “Party struggles impart to a party strength and vitality; the greatest proof of a party’s weakness is its diffuseness and the blurring of clear demarcations; a party becomes stronger by purging itself,”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.1 thereby indicating the purpose of his writing. Clearly, in order to end as soon as possible the party’s internal splits and chaos, to establish the party’s leading core and ensure its centralized unity, the Social-Democrats had to draw a clear line of demarcation with the “Economists” and wage an inner-party struggle.

鉴于“经济派”宗派活动构成了俄国社会民主党历史上“整整一个时期的特点的混乱和动摇”[1]3，列宁表示，虽然“我们已经做了我们所能做到的一切来防止同‘经济派’完全决裂，但是这一决裂毕竟是不可避免的了”[1]3。在这种情况下，列宁不得不在百忙之中写作出《怎么办？》，采取论战的方式从头梳理双方之间的争论，用尽可能通俗的方式和大量具体的例证，对“经济派”的错误观点进行彻底批判。对此，列宁引用拉萨尔在写给马克思的信中的一段话作为《怎么办？》的开场白，即“党内斗争给党以力量和生气。党本身模糊不清，界限不明，是党软弱的最大明证。党是靠清洗自己而巩固的”[1]1，来表明自己此次写作的目的。显然，为了尽早结束党内分裂和混乱的局面，确立党的领导核心和保证党的集中统一，社会民主党人就必须与“经济派”划清界限和开展党内斗争。

Through writing *What Is to Be Done?*, Lenin explained to the entire party the harmfulness of the “Economists’” factional activities and their propositions, emphasizing the necessity of attaching great importance to “tested political leaders”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.115 — that is, the party’s leading core. It must be pointed out that the main weakness of the Russian Social-Democratic Party at that time lay precisely in the lack of a strong and unified leading core, and in the complete absence of secrecy; the tsarist police could easily destroy party organizations by seizing just one or two issues of a newspaper that had been published and distributed. Therefore, by exposing and criticizing the erroneous words and deeds of the “Economists,” Lenin admonished the Social-Democrats that to overcome the state of dispersion, backwardness, and each going their own way, they must strengthen the party’s centralized and unified leadership, concentrate all secret functions in the hands of a small number of professional revolutionaries, and attach importance to the role of the party’s leading core. As a result, Lenin’s critique of the “Economists” elevated the ideological understanding and political level of the Russian Social-Democrats and safeguarded the party’s leadership. Lenin’s wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, pointed out: “*What Is to Be Done?* achieved particularly great success. This book answered a whole series of the most pressing questions. Everyone felt strongly the great need to establish a secret organization that worked according to a plan.”[3]3 Bernsteinism (伯恩斯坦主义) refers to the revisionist theories of Eduard Bernstein (1850–1932), a German Social-Democrat who argued for the evolutionary, parliamentary path to socialism, rejecting the necessity of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.61-62

列宁通过撰写《怎么办？》向全党说明了“经济派”宗派活动及其主张的危害性，强调了要高度重视“经过考验的政治领袖”[1]115即党的领导核心的必要性。需要指出，当时俄国社会民主党的主要弱点恰恰在于缺乏一个坚强统一的领导核心且毫无秘密可言，沙皇警察通过一两期报纸的出版和散发便可以轻而易举摧毁党的组织。因此，列宁通过揭批“经济派”的错误言行，告诫社会民主党人要克服分散落后、各自为政的状态，就必须加强党的集中统一领导，就必须把所有秘密的职能集中在少数职业革命家手中，重视党的领导核心的作用。结果，列宁对“经济派”的批判，提升了俄国社会民主党人的思想认识和政治水平，捍卫了党的领导。列宁的妻子娜·康·克鲁普斯卡娅指出：“《怎么办？》一书获得了特别大的成就。这本书回答了一连串最急于解决的问题。大家都强烈地感觉到非常需要建立一个秘密的、按计划进行工作的组织。”[3]61-62

II. Exposing and Criticizing the Erroneous Ideas of the “Economists” and the Harmfulness of Their Dissemination, Consolidating the Ideological Foundation for Party Unity and Solidarity

二、揭批“经济派”错误思想及其传播的危害性，夯实党团结统一的思想基础

Lenin’s *What Is to Be Done?* is a classic work of the fierce confrontation between Marxism and Economism in the struggle to seize the ideological battleground, closely linked to Economism’s denial of Marxism’s guiding position. Its second purpose in being written was to expose and criticize the erroneous ideas of the “Economists” and the harmfulness of their dissemination, thereby consolidating the ideological foundation for party unity and solidarity.

列宁的《怎么办？》是马克思主义与经济主义激烈交锋、抢夺意识形态阵地的经典之作，与经济主义否定马克思主义的指导地位紧密相关，其写作目的之二是揭批“经济派”错误思想及其传播的危害性，夯实党团结统一的思想基础。

The Economism advocated by the “Economists,” as a Russian variant of Bernsteinism, used “freedom of criticism” as a pretext to deny the guiding position of Marxism. At the end of the 19th century, significant changes had occurred in Western European capitalism’s economic conditions, class structure, workers’ treatment, and class contradictions, demanding that Marxism provide timely and convincing explanations. However, it was precisely during this critical period that the founders of Marxism, Marx and Engels, passed away one after another, thereby providing a certain space for Bernstein to revise and attack Marxism. Once Bernsteinism appeared, it was echoed by opportunists of various countries ideologically, theoretically, and in action, and as an international trend it quickly spread across Europe and America. In Russia, the “Economists” not only translated and introduced Bernstein’s works but also vigorously imitated Bernstein, using the slogans “oppose orthodoxy” and “long live freedom of criticism,” and “almost acquired a monopoly on the condemnation of Marxism.”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.16 In 1899, the “Economists,” in their programmatic document *Credo*, stated that the difficulties of the current political movement proved the “crisis of Marxism” and the correctness of Bernsteinism, asserting that “dogmatic Marxism, negating Marxism, primitive Marxism (with its excessively rigid view of the division of social classes) will give way to democratic Marxism.”[4]4 *Credo* (信条) is the title of a document written in 1899 by the Russian “Economist” E. D. Kuskova, which served as a programmatic statement of the Economists’ views.148 Moreover, the “Economists” even declared that Marxism had “no value”[4]4 *Credo* (信条) is the title of a document written in 1899 by the Russian “Economist” E. D. Kuskova, which served as a programmatic statement of the Economists’ views.149 for the practical tasks of the Russian workers’ movement and was “harmful from a practical point of view.”[4]4 *Credo* (信条) is the title of a document written in 1899 by the Russian “Economist” E. D. Kuskova, which served as a programmatic statement of the Economists’ views.149 Even more seriously, the “Economists” opposed Marxism in practice under the guise of innovating and developing Marxism, using highly seductive and inflammatory slogans or rhetoric to obscure the reactionary essence of their distortion, belittlement, denigration, and opposition to the scientific theory of Marxism, thereby confusing right and wrong, confounding black and white, and deceiving the public.

“经济派”所鼓吹的经济主义作为伯恩斯坦主义在俄国的变种，以“批评自由”为幌子，否定马克思主义的指导地位。19世纪末，西欧资本主义的经济状况、阶级结构、工人待遇、阶级矛盾等均发生了重大变化，要求马克思主义能够作出适时的、令人信服的解释，但马克思主义的创始人马克思恩格斯也正是在这一关键时期相继辞世，从而为伯恩斯坦修正和攻击马克思主义提供了一定空间。伯恩斯坦主义一经面世，便得到各国机会主义者在思想上、理论上和行动上的附和，作为一种国际性思潮很快在欧美各国蔓延开来。在俄国，“经济派”不仅译介伯恩斯坦的著作，而且极力效法伯恩斯坦，打着“反对正统”“批评自由万岁”的旗号，“几乎取得了‘谴责’马克思主义的垄断权”[1]16。1899年，“经济派”在其纲领性文件《信条》中提出，当前政治运动的困难证明了“马克思主义的危机”和伯恩斯坦主义的正确，断言“固执己见的马克思主义，否定一切的马克思主义，原始的马克思主义（对于社会阶级的划分持过分死板的看法），将让位于民主主义的马克思主义”[4]148。不仅如此，“经济派”还宣称马克思主义对俄国工人运动的实际任务“没有什么价值”[4]149，“从实践的意义来说也是有害的”[4]149。尤为严重的是，“经济派”甚至以创新和发展马克思主义之名行反对马克思主义之实，以极具诱惑力和煽动性的标语或说辞，遮蔽其歪曲、矮化、贬损以及反对马克思主义这一科学理论的反动实质，混淆视听、颠倒是非、蛊惑人心。

It must be pointed out that the reason Economism was able to attract a large number of followers within the party was certainly related to the “Economists’” “pretending to invoke the name of Marx in order to belittle the significance of theory,”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.23 but to a greater extent it was due to the low level of Marxist theoretical training among the majority of members of the Russian Social-Democratic Party at that time. On the one hand, in the early period of the Russian Social-Democratic Party’s establishment, the organizational composition was complex, with “quite a few people who had very poor, or even no, theoretical training, having joined the movement because they saw its practical significance and practical results.”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.22 These people, due to their low level of Marxist theoretical cultivation, were easily influenced by Economism. With the development of the workers’ movement and the widespread dissemination of Marxism, many intellectuals from propertied class backgrounds joined the Russian Social-Democratic movement. Many of them lacked both practical struggle experience and adequate theoretical preparation, “often knowing only fragments of Marxism from discussions in legal publications.”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.35 These people not only drew nourishment from Bernstein’s works but also acquired Marxist knowledge from legal publications; their existence was a hotbed for the breeding of revisionism and opportunism within the party. On the other hand, due to the tsarist government’s repression, Lenin and other tested Marxists were exiled abroad, and many party members were so busy with practical survival that they relatively neglected the theoretical study of Marxism, leading to a chaotic situation within the party where various trends of thought — Marxism, populism, nationalism, legal Marxism, Economism — were interwoven and overlapping. Many leading cadres within the party were unable to distinguish between Marxism and opportunism, and lacked vigilance and immunity to Economism, which inevitably left greater room for the distortion of Marxism. For example, the League of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad “was still unwilling to regard ‘so-called Economism’ as opportunism.”[1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.19 In this regard, if the party’s leading cadres were unclear in their theoretical understanding and indistinct in their political demarcations, it goes without saying that the broad masses of workers were even more so.

需要指出，经济主义之所以能够在党内吸引大批追随者，诚然与“经济派”“假借马克思的名义来竭力贬低理论的意义”[1]23不无关系，但更大程度上是因为当时俄国社会民主党内多数成员的马克思主义理论水平不高所致。一方面，俄国社会民主党建立初期组织成分复杂，“有不少理论修养很差甚至毫无理论修养的人，由于看见运动有实际意义和实际成效而加入了运动”[1]22，这些人由于马克思主义理论素养不高而容易受经济主义的影响。随着工人运动的发展和马克思主义的广泛传播，许多有产阶级出身的知识分子参加了俄国社会民主主义运动。他们其中的很多人，既缺乏实际斗争经验，又理论准备不足，“往往只是从合法书刊上的论述中知道马克思主义的一些片断”[1]35。这些人不仅从伯恩斯坦的著作中汲取养料，而且也从合法刊物上获取马克思主义知识，他们的存在是党内滋生修正主义、机会主义的温床。另一方面，由于沙皇政府的镇压，列宁等饱经考验的马克思主义者流亡海外，很多党员更是忙于实际存活而相对忽略了马克思主义的理论学习，以致于党内出现了马克思主义、民粹主义、民族主义、合法马克思主义、经济主义等各种思潮层叠交织的混乱现象。党内很多领导干部无法辨别马克思主义与机会主义的区别，对经济主义的警惕性和免疫力不强，这势必为曲解马克思主义留下更大的余地。例如，国外俄国社会民主党人联合会“还不愿把‘所谓经济主义’看做机会主义”[1]19。就此而言，党的领导干部都理论认识不清、政治界限不明，就更不必说广大工人群众了。

Clearly, the ideological system of the “Economists” and its spread within the Party had already posed a serious threat to Marxism. If these erroneous positions were ignored and left unchecked, they would inevitably exacerbate ideological confusion within the Party, ultimately leading the Party to abandon Marxism as its guiding ideology and slide into the quagmire of opportunism, thereby forfeiting the theoretical character of the proletarian party and its political leading role in the workers’ movement. In response, Lenin soberly recognized that it was necessary to win back the Party members and masses, especially some Party leading cadres, who had been deeply influenced by the erroneous ideas of the “Economists.” When enumerating the significance of Engels’ theoretical struggle, Lenin specifically explained to the entire Party the extreme importance of establishing Marxism’s guiding status, namely, “only a party guided by an advanced theory can fulfill the role of an advanced fighter” [1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.24, while warning the entire Party that “without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement” [1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.23, especially “when a tendency toward the most narrow-minded practical activity is combined with fashionable opportunist preaching, this idea must be persistently upheld” [1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.23. At the same time, he believed that Social Democrats must systematically expound Marxist theory and must “inculcate” this socialist ideological system “from outside” into the entire workers’ movement; otherwise, it would be equivalent to accepting the bourgeois ideological system, because in a class society, there is only “bourgeois ideology or socialist ideology” [1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.38, and “there can be no non-class or supra-class” [1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.38 “third” ideology. In other words, in the ideological battlefield, if proletarian ideology does not occupy the ground, bourgeois ideology will; if Marxism does not occupy it, various non-Marxist or anti-Marxist ideologies will. Based on this understanding, Lenin emphasized that “any belittling or any departure from socialist ideology means the strengthening of bourgeois ideology” [1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.38, and is a negation of the Party’s leadership.

显然，“经济派”的思想体系及其在党内的传播，已经对马克思主义构成了严重威胁。如果对这些错误主张置若罔闻、放任自流，势必会加剧党内思想混乱，最终导致党放弃马克思主义的指导地位和滑向机会主义的泥沼，进而丧失无产阶级政党的理论底色和对工人运动的政治引领作用。对此，列宁清醒地认识到，必须把深受“经济派”错误思想影响的党员群众尤其是一些党的领导干部争夺回来。列宁在列举恩格斯理论斗争的意义时，特别向全党说明了确立马克思主义指导地位的极端重要意义，即“只有以先进理论为指南的党，才能实现先进战士的作用”[1]24，同时告诫全党“没有革命的理论，就不会有革命的运动”[1]23，尤其是“在醉心于最狭隘的实际活动的偏向同时髦的机会主义说教结合在一起的情况下，必须始终坚持这种思想”[1]23。与此同时，他认为，社会民主党人要系统阐发马克思主义理论，并且要将这种社会主义思想体系“从外面灌输给”整个工人运动，否则就等同于接受资产阶级的思想体系，因为在阶级社会中，只有“资产阶级的意识形态，或者是社会主义的意识形态”[1]38，“不可能有非阶级的或超阶级”[1]38的“第三种”意识形态。换言之，思想领域的阵地，无产阶级思想不去占领，资产阶级思想就会占领，马克思主义不去占领，各种非马克思主义或反马克思主义就会占领。基于这样的认识，列宁强调，“对社会主义意识形态的任何轻视和任何脱离，都意味着资产阶级意识形态的加强”[1]38，都是对党的领导的否定。

Therefore, to establish Marxism’s guiding status, Social Democrats must draw a clear line of demarcation from the erroneous views of Economism and wage a resolute struggle against them. Lenin divided the history of the Russian Social Democratic Party since its founding into three periods: the first period was “the period of the emergence and consolidation of the theory and program of Social Democracy” [1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.171; the second was the period when Social Democracy “emerged as a social movement, as the upsurge of the masses, as a political party” [1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.171; the third was the period of “confusion, disintegration, and vacillation” [1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.172 caused by erroneous trends such as Economism. He also asked “when the third period will end” [1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.173 and “when the fourth period will begin” [1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.173, in which “militant Marxism will be consolidated.” Here, Lenin undoubtedly meant to express that the prerequisite for establishing Marxism’s guiding status was to eliminate the negative influence of Economism within the Party. On this basis, Lenin borrowed Marx’s words to express his resolute attitude of struggle against the “Economists”: “one must never make a principle a matter of bargaining, and never make theoretical ‘concessions’” [1]1 Narodovolism (民意主义) refers to the ideology and methods of the Russian populist organization Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which advocated individual terror and conspiratorial tactics. Lenin’s critics used this term to accuse him of favoring a narrow, elitist revolutionary organization.23. Through the unremitting efforts and reasoned arguments of Lenin and his comrades, the Economism trend was finally crushed. In Lenin’s words, “the struggle against ‘Economism’ had already subsided and completely ceased in 1902” [5]5 The League of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad (国外俄国社会民主党人联合会) was an organization of Russian Marxist émigrés founded in 1894 in Geneva. It was initially a unified body but later became a stronghold of the “Economist” faction.384. From then on, the “Economists” and their erroneous positions had no market within the Russian Social Democratic Party; the newspapers *Rabochaya Mysl* (Workers’ Thought) and the magazine *Rabocheye Delo* (Workers’ Cause), which the “Economists” prided themselves on as their ideological propaganda positions, also ceased publication in 1902. Although the “Economists” launched a new magazine, *Krasnoye Znamya* (Red Banner), in November 1902, attempting to use it to continue propagating opportunist views, it ceased publication after only three issues. By writing *What Is to Be Done?*, Lenin ideologically crushed Economism completely, consolidated the Party’s ideological foundation, not only meeting the needs of the Russian Social Democratic Party for ideological Party building but also holding significant importance within the Second International for opposing Bernsteinism and defending Marxism’s guiding status.

因此，要确立马克思主义的指导地位，社会民主党人就必须与经济主义的错误观点划清界限，并与之展开坚决斗争。列宁将俄国社会民主党成立以来的历史划分为3个时期，第一个时期是“社会民主党的理论和纲领产生和巩固的时期”[1]171，第二个时期是社会民主党“作为社会运动，作为人民群众的高潮，作为政党出现”[1]171的时期，第三个时期是经济主义等错误思潮所导致的“混乱、瓦解和动摇的时期”[1]172，并且指出“第三个时期什么时候完结”[1]173“使战斗的马克思主义巩固起来”的“第四个时期什么时候开始”[1]173。这里，列宁无疑是想表达，确立马克思主义指导地位的前提，就是必须清除经济主义观点在党内的负面影响。基于此，列宁借用马克思的话来说明自己对“经济派”的坚决斗争态度，即“决不能拿原则来做交易，决不要作理论上的‘让步’”[1]23。经过列宁及其战友的不懈努力和据理力争，终于粉碎了经济主义思潮。按照列宁的话说，那就是“反对‘经济主义’的斗争还在1902年就平息下去了，完全停止了”[5]384。从此，“经济派”及其错误主张在俄国社会民主党内便再无市场，“经济派”引以为傲的思想舆论阵地《工人思想报》《工人事业》杂志在1902年也相继停刊。虽然“经济派”于1902年11月又创办了一个《红旗》杂志，试图以此为依托继续宣扬机会主义的观点，但也只出版3期就停刊了。列宁通过撰写《怎么办？》，从思想上彻底粉碎了经济主义，巩固了党的思想基础，不仅满足了俄国社会民主党从思想上建党的需要，而且在第二国际也具有反对伯恩斯坦主义和捍卫马克思主义指导地位的重要意义。

IV. Contemporary Lessons from Lenin’s Critique of the “Economists’” Erroneous Ideas

四、列宁批判“经济派”错误思想的当代鉴示

Lenin’s writing of *What Is to Be Done?* not only resolved the pressing issues of the Russian revolutionary movement at the time but also provided a vivid demonstration for how a proletarian party can establish the guiding status of the Party’s leading core and scientific theory and enhance the Party’s political leadership. It still holds important lessons for us today in safeguarding the Party’s leading core and the authority of the Party Central Committee, promoting the entire Party’s unity in thought, will, and action, and strengthening the Party’s political leadership.

列宁撰写《怎么办？》不仅解决了当时俄国革命运动中的迫切问题，而且为无产阶级政党如何确立党的领导核心和科学理论的指导地位、提升党的政治领导力提供了生动示范，对当前我们维护党的领导核心和党中央权威，推动全党统一思想、统一意志、统一行动，加强党的政治领导，仍具有重要的鉴示意义。

First, it is necessary to struggle against words and deeds that harm the Party’s leading core and to defend the authority of the Party Central Committee and its centralized, unified leadership. In Lenin’s view, no class can achieve a position of dominance without its own political leaders and advanced representatives [4]4 *Credo* (信条) is the title of a document written in 1899 by the Russian “Economist” E. D. Kuskova, which served as a programmatic statement of the Economists’ views.336. Similarly, no proletarian party can achieve victory in its revolutionary cause without a strong and capable leading core. For this reason, in response to the “Economists’” words and deeds that negated the Party’s leading core, Lenin wrote *What Is to Be Done?* to refute them, repeatedly emphasizing the extreme urgency of establishing an organization of professional revolutionaries and a leading core for the Party. Needless to say, what Party building in the New Era faces is also “many problems of vague understanding and weak action regarding upholding the Party’s leadership, many problems of weakened, hollowed-out, diluted, and marginalized implementation of Party leadership, especially the ineffective implementation of major decisions and deployments of the Party Central Committee, with some playing the game of ‘the higher levels have policies, the lower levels have countermeasures,’ even saying one thing and doing another, and acting without authorization” [8]8 The Second International (1889–1916) was the worldwide organization of socialist and labor parties; Lenin’s work was part of the struggle against revisionist currents within it.50. If such erroneous words and deeds are allowed to go unchecked and are tolerated, they will inevitably weaken the authority of the Party Central Committee and the Party’s centralized, unified leadership, leading to Party organizational laxity, each going its own way, and a heap of loose sand, making it difficult to gather the mighty force for realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. In this regard, Xi Jinping emphasizes: “The Party and the people have placed us in this position; the baton of history has been passed into our hands. We must be responsible to the Party, the country, the nation, and the people, and we must dare to struggle against words and deeds that undermine the Party’s leadership and harm the Party’s organism; otherwise, we will become the sinners of history!” [9]9 The “leading core” (领导核心) refers to the central leadership figure of the Party, a concept emphasized in Chinese Communist Party discourse, particularly in relation to Xi Jinping.17. Therefore, under new historical conditions, we still need, just as Lenin struggled against the “Economists,” to resolutely struggle against all words and deeds that harm the Party’s leading core and to defend the authority of the Party Central Committee and its centralized, unified leadership.

首先，必须与损害党的领导核心的言行作斗争，捍卫党中央权威和集中统一领导。在列宁看来，任何阶级倘若没有自己的政治领袖和先进代表，就不可能取得统治地位[4]336。同样，无产阶级政党倘若没有一个坚强有力的领导核心，就不可能取得革命事业的胜利。正因为如此，针对“经济派”否定党的领导核心的言行，列宁撰写《怎么办？》予以批驳，反复强调建立职业革命家组织和确立党的领导核心的极端紧迫性。毋庸讳言，新时代党的建设所面临的也是“存在不少对坚持党的领导认识模糊、行动乏力问题，存在不少落实党的领导弱化、虚化、淡化、边缘化问题，特别是对党中央重大决策部署执行不力，有的搞上有政策、下有对策，甚至口是心非、擅自行事”[8]50。如果对这种错误言行听之任之、姑息纵容，势必会削弱党中央权威和党的集中统一领导，党组织涣散、各行其是、一盘散沙，就难以汇聚起实现中华民族伟大复兴的磅礴力量。对此，习近平强调：“党和人民把我们放在这个位置上，历史的接力棒传到我们手中，我们就要对党、对国家、对民族、对人民负责，就要敢于同破坏党的领导、损害党的肌体的行为作斗争，否则我们就会成为历史的罪人！”[9]17因此，在新的历史条件下，我们仍然需要像列宁与“经济派”作斗争那般，坚决同一切损害党的领导核心的言行作斗争，捍卫党中央权威和集中统一领导。

Second, we must ensure that the whole Party studies Marxist theory well, thereby consolidating the ideological foundation for Party unity and solidarity. Political steadfastness comes from theoretical clarity; unity in action stems from unity in thought. The reason why the erroneous views of the “Economists” gained considerable traction within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was that many Party members had a low level of Marxist theoretical cultivation, so much so that they could not see the distinction between Marxism and Economism, still less perceive the class interests reflected by Economism or the direction of the workers’ movement it represented; they thus became advocates and facilitators of Economism within the Party. Hence Lenin wrote *What Is to Be Done?* to stress the importance of “comprehensively mastering Marxist theory,” “raising the level of political and theoretical understanding,” and “training Marxist cadres.”[10]10 The “second centenary goal” (第二个百年奋斗目标) refers to building China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful by the middle of the 21st century, following the completion of the first centenary goal (building a moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2021). Today, a situation similar to that in history is that some leading cadres in our Party have a low level of Marxist theoretical cultivation, insufficient learning ability, and inadequate initiative in study; they are easily influenced by various erroneous theories, to the point of wavering convictions, loss of values, vacillating positions, and even political nihilism. Therefore, standing at a new historical starting point, we must likewise ensure that the whole Party studies Marxist theory well, so that the entire Party always maintains unified thought. This is also the advantage and valuable historical experience that has enabled the cause of the Chinese Communist Party to flourish. As Xi Jinping has pointed out:

其次，抓好全党的马克思主义理论学习，夯实党团结统一的思想基础。政治上的坚定来自理论上的清醒，行动上的一致源于思想上的统一。“经济派”的错误观点之所以在俄国社会民主党内颇有市场，就在于很多党员的马克思主义理论素养不高，以致于看不清马克思主义与经济主义之间的区隔，更看不到经济主义所反映的阶级利益和所代表的工人运动走向，沦为了经济主义在党内的鼓吹者和助力者。因此，列宁撰写《怎么办？》强调“全面掌握马克思主义理论”“必须提高政治和理论水平”“培养马克思主义干部”的重要性[10]。时至今日，与历史相似的就是我们党内有些领导干部马克思主义理论素养不高、学习能力不足、学习主动性不够，容易受各种错误理论的影响，以致于信念动摇、价值缺失、立场摇摆乃至政治虚无。因此，站在新的历史起点上，我们同样必须抓好全党的马克思主义理论学习，使全党始终保持统一的思想，这也是中国共产党事业兴旺发达的优势所在和宝贵历史经验。正如习近平指出的：“回顾党的奋斗历程可以发现，中国共产党之所以能够历经艰难困苦而不断发展壮大，很重要的一个原因就是我们党始终重视思想建党、理论强党，使全党始终保持统一的思想、坚定的意志、协调的行动、强大的战斗力。”[11]74这就要求全党必须传承好这一重要历史经验，越是在国家和民族发展的重大关头，越是在应对复杂局面和各种风险挑战的关键时刻，就越是要加强马克思主义理论学习，提升马克思主义理论素养，夯实党团结统一的思想基础。

Third, resolutely criticize erroneous social trends of thought, and use the latest theoretical achievements of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times to win over the masses. “Theory, once it grasps the masses, also becomes a material force”[12]12 “When people are of one heart, Mount Tai can be moved” (人心齐，泰山移) is a Chinese proverb meaning that unity makes the impossible possible.9 — this truth is known not only to Marxists; various non-Marxists and anti-Marxists are naturally well aware of it as well. Therefore, in the ideological sphere, if the guiding position of Marxism is even slightly loosened, various non-Marxist or anti-Marxist currents will seize the opportunity and compete with Marxism for the masses by every possible means. Erroneous theories represent the interests of the non-proletariat; if allowed to spread unchecked, they will inevitably form factional groups within the Party. The erroneous views of the “Economists” took advantage of the fact that Marxism had not yet gained a firm foothold within the Russian Social Democratic Party, developed rapidly, and won over many Party members and masses. It must be pointed out that under the new circumstances, the struggle in the ideological sphere remains acute and complex. Erroneous social trends of thought such as historical nihilism, neoliberalism, constitutional democracy, and “universal values” are growing and spreading, interlinking with one another, and waiting for an opportunity to act. Some people, like the “Economists” in Lenin’s time, operate under the guise of “freedom of criticism” and shout “the most fashionable slogans,” ostensibly criticizing current ills but in reality shaking the people’s Marxist faith and slandering the Party’s leadership. Therefore, in the face of the complex and intertwined struggle in the ideological sphere, Lenin’s writing of What Is to Be Done? enlightens us that to establish the leading core of the Party and the guiding position of scientific theory, we must resolutely criticize erroneous social trends of thought. Political firmness stems from theoretical clarity, and one important manifestation of theoretical clarity is the criticism of erroneous social trends of thought. Only by criticizing erroneous social trends of thought can we deeply understand, explain, and disseminate Marxism, use the latest theoretical achievements of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times to win over the masses, and defend the Party’s leadership. Finally, be adept at seeing problems from a political perspective, and continuously enhance the Party’s political leadership. Lenin criticized the “Economists’” error of neglecting politics while prating about economic struggle from a political height, demanding that Social Democrats must see problems from a political perspective in order to strengthen the Party’s political leadership over the workers’ movement. History shows that Lenin led the Bolshevik Party to achieve correct political leadership over the workers’ movement, won recognition and support from more people, and ultimately seized state power. This powerfully demonstrates: political initiative is the most advantageous initiative, and political passivity is the most dangerous passivity. Taking a clear stand on political matters is not only a distinctive feature of a Marxist political party but also a consistent political advantage of our Party. At present, the changes unseen in a century in the world and the strategic overall situation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation are interwoven and interacting, and the various risks and challenges facing China’s development are unprecedented. This likewise requires Party cadres and members to take a clear stand on political matters and effectively enhance their ability to observe and handle problems from a political perspective and to prevent and defuse political risks. It is undeniable that “the political problems existing within our Party have not yet been fundamentally resolved; the problems of some Party organizations and Party cadres and members neglecting politics, downplaying politics, and not talking about politics are still quite prominent, and some even have serious problems deviating from the direction of socialism with Chinese characteristics.”[13]13 “Seek the greatest common denominator and draw the largest concentric circle” (寻求最大公约数、画出最大同心圆) is a metaphor used in Chinese political discourse to describe the goal of maximizing unity and consensus among diverse groups.794 Based on this, Xi Jinping repeatedly emphasizes the need to always keep the string of taking a clear stand on political matters tightly taut, strengthen the Party’s political leadership, enhance the Party’s political leadership, and ensure that all undertakings of the Party and the state always develop in the correct political direction. It must be pointed out that “the political direction is the primary issue concerning the Party’s survival and development, and it concerns the Party’s future, destiny, and the success or failure of its cause.”[11]11 The Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee (党的十九届六中全会) was held in November 2021 and adopted a landmark resolution on the Party’s history.93 “If there is a deviation on the issue of direction, it will lead to a subversive mistake.”[11]11 The Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee (党的十九届六中全会) was held in November 2021 and adopted a landmark resolution on the Party’s history.93 Therefore, “the closer we get to the goal, the more complex the situation, and the more arduous the task, the more we must give full play to the political advantage of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party”[11]11 The Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee (党的十九届六中全会) was held in November 2021 and adopted a landmark resolution on the Party’s history.294 to ensure that the political direction does not deviate. This requires the entire Party to enhance political awareness, be adept at seeing problems from a political perspective and grasping the overall political situation, and continuously improve political judgment, political understanding, and political execution.

再次，坚决批判错误社会思潮，用马克思主义中国化时代化的最新理论成果掌握群众。“理论一经掌握群众，也会变成物质力量”[12]9的道理，并非只有马克思主义者知道，各种非马克思主义或反马克思主义者自然也非常清楚。因此，在意识形态领域，马克思主义的指导地位但凡稍微松动，各种非马克思主义或反马克思主义就会乘虚而入，千方百计地与马克思主义争夺群众。错误理论代表的是非无产阶级的利益，如果任其泛滥势必在党内形成宗派集团。“经济派”的错误观点正是趁着马克思主义在俄国社会民主党内立足未稳，得到迅速发展且俘获了不少党员群众。需要指出，新形势下意识形态领域的斗争依然尖锐复杂，历史虚无主义、新自由主义、宪政民主、“普世价值”等错误社会思潮滋长蔓延、相互勾连、伺机而动。一些人如同列宁时期的“经济派”那般打着“批评自由”的幌子、喊着“最时髦的口号”，明面上是针砭时弊，实则是动摇民众的马克思主义信仰、诋毁党的领导。因此，面对意识形态领域错综复杂的斗争形势，列宁撰写《怎么办？》启示我们，确立党的领导核心和科学理论的指导地位，就必须坚决批判错误社会思潮。政治上的坚定源自理论上的清醒，理论上清醒的一个重要表现就是批判错误社会思潮。只有对错误社会思潮进行批判，才能深刻领会、阐释和传播马克思主义，用马克思主义中国化时代化的最新理论成果掌握群众，捍卫党的领导。最后，善于从政治上看问题，不断提升党的政治领导力。列宁站在政治高度批判“经济派”轻忽政治而侈谈经济斗争的错误，要求社会民主党人必须从政治上看问题，以加强党对工人运动的政治领导。历史表明，列宁带领布尔什维克党实现了对工人运动的正确政治领导，得到了更多民众的认同与支持并且最终赢得政权。这就有力地说明：政治上的主动是最有利的主动，政治上的被动是最危险的被动。旗帜鲜明讲政治，既是马克思主义政党的鲜明特征，也是我们党一以贯之的政治优势。当前，世界百年未有之大变局和中华民族伟大复兴战略全局同步交织、相互激荡，我国发展面临的各种风险挑战前所未有，同样要求党员干部必须旗帜鲜明讲政治，切实提高从政治上观察和处理问题、防范化解政治风险的能力。不可否认，我们党内“存在的政治问题还没有得到根本解决，一些党组织和党员干部忽视政治、淡化政治、不讲政治的问题还比较突出，有的甚至存在偏离中国特色社会主义方向的严重问题”[13]794。基于此，习近平反复强调要时刻紧绷旗帜鲜明讲政治这根弦，加强党的政治领导、提升党的政治领导力，确保党和国家各项事业始终沿着正确政治方向发展。需要指出，“政治方向是党生存发展第一位的问题，事关党的前途命运和事业兴衰成败”[11]93，“如果在方向问题上出现偏离，就会犯颠覆性错误”[11]93。因此，“越是接近目标，越是形势复杂，越是任务艰巨，越要发挥中国共产党领导的政治优势”[11]294，确保政治方向不偏离。这就要求全党必须增强政治意识，善于从政治上看问题和把握政治大局，不断提高政治判断力、政治领悟力、政治执行力。

III. Relying on Unity and Struggle to Create a Bright Future

三、依靠团结奋斗开创美好未来

The successful convening of the 20th National Congress of the CPC marked that the Party, uniting and leading the people of the whole country, has embarked on a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country and advancing toward the second centenary goal. The requirements of the New Era for unity and struggle run through the entire report of the 20th National Congress, clearly reflected in the title, theme, introduction, main body, conclusion, and other parts. Unity and struggle must be consistently upheld. The Chinese Communist Party, leading the Chinese people, has created a glorious history through unity and struggle, and it must rely on unity and struggle to open up a bright future.

党的二十大胜利召开，标志着党团结带领全国人民迈上了全面建设社会主义现代化国家、向第二个百年奋斗目标进军的新征程。团结奋斗的新时代要求贯穿于党的二十大报告全篇，在标题、主题、导语、正文、结束语等各个部分都明确体现出来。团结奋斗要一以贯之。中国共产党带领中国人民靠团结奋斗创造了辉煌历史，还要靠团结奋斗开辟美好未来。

Unity and struggle must adhere to the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. Lenin pointed out, “As long as millions of working people unite as one person and follow the outstanding figures of their own class, victory is guaranteed” (Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 38, People’s Publishing House, 2017, p. 270). The Chinese Communist Party is the vanguard of the Chinese working class, simultaneously the vanguard of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation, and the leading core of the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The “Resolution on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century” adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC summarized the Party’s ten valuable historical experiences, the first of which is “upholding the Party’s leadership,” and clearly states: The most fundamental reason why the Chinese people and the Chinese nation were able to reverse their historical fate since modern times and achieve today’s great accomplishments is the strong leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. Both history and reality prove that without the Chinese Communist Party, there would be no New China, and there would be no great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. To govern the world’s largest political party and the most populous country well, we must uphold the Party’s overall leadership, especially the centralized and unified leadership of the Party Central Committee, adhere to democratic centralism, and ensure that the Party always oversees the overall situation and coordinates all parties. As long as we unswervingly uphold the Party’s overall leadership, resolutely safeguard the Party’s core and the authority of the Party Central Committee, give full play to the political advantages of the Party’s leadership, and implement the Party’s leadership in all areas, aspects, and links of the Party’s and the state’s undertakings, we will surely be able to ensure that the entire Party, the entire military, and the people of all ethnic groups in the country unite as one and march forward.

团结奋斗，必须坚持中国共产党的领导。列宁指出，“只要千百万劳动者团结得像一个人一样，跟随本阶级的优秀人物前进，胜利也就有了保证”（《列宁全集》第38卷，人民出版社2017年版，第270页）。中国共产党是中国工人阶级的先锋队，同时是中国人民和中华民族的先锋队，是中国特色社会主义事业的领导核心。党的十九届六中全会通过的《中共中央关于党的百年奋斗重大成就和历史经验的决议》概括总结党的十条宝贵历史经验，第一条就是“坚持党的领导”，并明确指出：中国人民和中华民族之所以能够扭转近代以后的历史命运、取得今天的伟大成就，最根本的是有中国共产党的坚强领导。历史和现实都证明，没有中国共产党，就没有新中国，就没有中华民族伟大复兴。治理好我们这个世界上最大的政党和人口最多的国家，必须坚持党的全面领导特别是党中央集中统一领导，坚持民主集中制，确保党始终总揽全局、协调各方。只要我们坚持党的全面领导不动摇，坚决维护党的核心和党中央权威，充分发挥党的领导政治优势，把党的领导落实到党和国家事业各领域各方面各环节，就一定能够确保全党全军全国各族人民团结一致向前进。

United struggle requires the guidance of scientific theory and shared ideals and convictions. Lenin pointed out that without a revolutionary theory there can be no strong party, because revolutionary theory enables the whole party to unite, “for they can derive all their convictions from it, and they can use it to determine their methods of struggle and forms of activity” (*Lenin: Collected Works*, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 1991, p. 274). Mao Zedong pointed out: “A doctrine is like a flag; once the flag is raised, people have something to look to and know where to go.” Deng Xiaoping also pointed out: “The most important thing is the unity of the people. To achieve unity we must have common ideals and firm convictions. In the past decades of arduous struggle, we relied on firm convictions to unite the people and fight for their own interests.” “The importance of the human factor does not refer to ordinary people, but to people with firm convictions who recognize their own interests and fight for them” (*Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping*, Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 1993, p. 190). Possessing the guidance of the scientific theory of Marxism is the fundamental reason why the Communist Party of China has firm faith and convictions and grasps the historical initiative. Over the past 100 years, the reason why the Party has been able to unite and lead the people to accomplish the arduous tasks that no other political force in China could accomplish, through repeated explorations, setbacks, and pioneering efforts, is, in the final analysis, that Marxism works, and that Marxism adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of the times works. On the new journey, we must uphold our firm faith in Marxism and our firm conviction in socialism with Chinese characteristics. Under the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the latest theoretical innovation achievement in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, we must strive in unity to build a modern socialist country in all respects and advance the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

团结奋斗，必须有科学理论指引、有共同的理想信念。列宁指出，没有革命理论，就不会有坚强的党，因为革命理论能使全党团结起来，“他们从革命理论中能取得一切信念，他们能运用革命理论来确定斗争方法和活动方式”（《列宁选集》第1卷，人民出版社1991年版，第274页）。毛泽东指出：“主义譬如一面旗子，旗子立起了，大家才有所指望，才知所趋赴。”邓小平也指出：“最重要的是人的团结。要团结就要有共同的理想和坚定的信念。我们过去几十年艰苦奋斗，就是靠用坚定的信念把人民团结起来，为人民自己的利益而奋斗。”“人的因素重要，不是指普通的人，而是认识到人民自己的利益并为之而奋斗的有坚定信念的人。”（《邓小平文选》第3卷，人民出版社1993年版，第190页）拥有马克思主义科学理论指导是中国共产党坚定信仰信念、把握历史主动的根本所在。100年来，党之所以能够团结带领人民在一次次求索、一次次挫折、一次次开拓中完成中国其他各种政治力量不可能完成的艰巨任务，归根到底是马克思主义行，是中国化时代化的马克思主义行。在新征程上，我们要坚持对马克思主义的坚定信仰、对中国特色社会主义的坚定信念，在习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想这一马克思主义中国化时代化最新理论创新成果指引下，为全面建设社会主义现代化国家、全面推进中华民族伟大复兴而团结奋斗。

United struggle requires upholding the united front. The united front is an important magic weapon for the Party to defeat enemies, govern the country, and rejuvenate the nation; upholding the united front is also a valuable historical experience drawn from the Party’s century-long struggle. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “The essential requirement of united front work is great unity and great alliance; what it addresses is the issue of people’s hearts and strength” (Document Research Office of the CPC Central Committee, ed., *Selected Important Documents since the 18th National Congress* [Vol. 2], Central Party Literature Press, 2016, p. 556). In every historical period of revolution, construction, and reform, the Party has always placed the united front and its work in an important position in the work of the whole Party, striving to unite all forces that can be united and mobilize all positive factors that can be mobilized, thereby creating very favorable conditions for the continuous development of the Party and the people’s cause. When people are of one heart, Mount Tai can be moved. [12]12 “When people are of one heart, Mount Tai can be moved” (人心齐，泰山移) is a Chinese proverb meaning that unity makes the impossible possible. People’s hearts need to be united; unity is strength. We must uphold and improve the system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, and consolidate and develop the broadest possible patriotic united front. As the organization of the broadest patriotic united front, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference was born from unity, exists by unity, and thrives on unity. On the new journey, we must give full play to the important role of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference as a united front organization, effectively use institutional advantages to seek the greatest common denominator and draw the largest concentric circle, [13]13 “Seek the greatest common denominator and draw the largest concentric circle” (寻求最大公约数、画出最大同心圆) is a metaphor used in Chinese political discourse to describe the goal of maximizing unity and consensus among diverse groups. work with one heart and in concert, gather the mighty force of the Chinese people’s common struggle, and compose an even more splendid chapter of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era.

团结奋斗，必须坚持统一战线。统一战线，是党克敌制胜、执政兴国的重要法宝；坚持统一战线，也是党的百年奋斗得出的一条宝贵历史经验。习近平总书记指出：“统战工作的本质要求是大团结大联合，解决的就是人心和力量问题。”（中共中央文献研究室编：《十八大以来重要文献选编》〈中〉，中央文献出版社2016年版，第556页）在革命、建设、改革各个历史时期，党始终把统一战线和统战工作摆在全党工作的重要位置，努力团结一切可以团结的力量、调动一切可以调动的积极因素，为党和人民事业不断发展营造了十分有利的条件。人心齐，泰山移。人心需要联合，团结就是力量。要坚持和完善中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度，巩固和发展最广泛的爱国统一战线。作为最广泛的爱国统一战线组织，人民政协就是因团结而生、依团结而存、靠团结而兴的。在新征程上，要充分发挥人民政协作为统一战线组织的重要作用，有效运用制度优势寻求最大公约数、画出最大同心圆，勠力同心、和衷共济，凝聚起中国人民共同奋斗的磅礴力量，谱写出新时代中国特色社会主义更加绚丽的华章。

United struggle requires daring to struggle and being good at struggle. Society advances through the movement of contradictions; where there are contradictions, there will be struggle. Only when contradictions are resolved through struggle can unity be achieved. Mao Zedong pointed out: “To talk only about unity and not about struggle is not Marxism-Leninism. Starting from the desire for unity, through struggle, new unity can be achieved. Unity transforms into struggle, and struggle transforms back into unity. One cannot only talk about unity and harmony and not about contradictions and struggle” (*Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 7, People’s Publishing House, 1999, p. 373). For example, during the War of Resistance Against Japan, the Communist Party of China always held high the great banner of the Anti-Japanese National United Front, waged a principled, well-founded, and measured struggle against the behavior of the die-hard Kuomintang faction that was actively anti-communist and passively anti-Japanese, safeguarded the overall situation of anti-Japanese unity, ensured the great victory of the entire nation’s War of Resistance, and became the mainstay of the war. History proves that unity achieved through struggle endures, while unity achieved through concessions perishes. Without struggle there is no progress; great causes all develop through struggle. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “The great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation will never be achieved easily, with beating drums and gongs.” “To realize the great dream, we must carry out a great struggle.” Daring to struggle does not mean fighting blindly; one must also be good at struggle. We must reasonably choose the methods of struggle, grasp the intensity of struggle, focus on the principal contradiction and the principal aspect of the contradiction, adhere to the principles of being principled, well-founded, and measured, make no concessions on matters of principle, and be flexible and agile on matters of strategy. According to the needs of the situation, grasp the “timing, intensity, and effect,” [14]14 “Timing, intensity, and effect” (时度效) is a term in Chinese political communication referring to the need to consider the appropriate moment, the appropriate degree of force, and the expected effect when carrying out propaganda or struggle. promptly adjust the strategy of struggle, and ultimately win a new victory in the great struggle.

团结奋斗，必须敢于斗争、善于斗争。社会是在矛盾运动中前进的，有矛盾就会有斗争。经过斗争，矛盾得到解决才能达成团结。毛泽东指出：“只讲团结一致，不讲斗争，不是马列主义。从团结的愿望出发，经过斗争，才能达到新的团结。团结转化为斗争，斗争再转化为团结。不能光讲团结和一致，不讲矛盾和斗争。”（《毛泽东文集》第7卷，人民出版社1999年版，第373页）例如在全民族抗战中，中国共产党始终高举抗日民族统一战线伟大旗帜，同国民党顽固派积极反共消极抗日的行为进行了有理有据有节的斗争，维护了抗日团结大局，保证了全民族抗战的伟大胜利，成为抗日战争的中流砥柱。历史证明，以斗争求团结则团结存，以退让求团结则团结亡。没有斗争就没有进步，伟大事业都是在斗争中日益发展的。习近平总书记指出：“中华民族伟大复兴，绝不是轻轻松松、敲锣打鼓就能实现的。”“实现伟大梦想，必须进行伟大斗争。”敢于斗争不是乱斗一气，还要善于斗争。要合理选择斗争方式、把握斗争火候，抓主要矛盾、抓矛盾的主要方面，坚持有理有利有节，在原则问题上寸步不让，在策略问题上灵活机动，根据形势需要，把握“时度效”，及时调整斗争策略，最终夺取伟大斗争新胜利。

(Author: Li Qinggang, Deputy Director and Professor of the Teaching and Research Department of CPC History, Party School of the CPC Central Committee [National Academy of Governance])

（作者：李庆刚，中央党校（国家行政学院）中共党史教研部副主任、教授）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心