Lenin’s Communist Faith and Flexible Measures for Socialist Construction in the Spring of 1918

In January 2022, Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the opening ceremony of a special seminar for provincial- and ministerial-level leading cadres on studying and implementing the spirit of the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC [1]1 The Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC, held in November 2021, adopted a landmark resolution on the Party’s historical achievements and experiences over the past century.. He pointed out: “We are a large Party, leading a large country, and carrying out a great cause. We must be adept at strategic thinking, at seeing and thinking about problems from a strategic perspective. Correct strategies require correct tactics to implement them. Tactics serve strategy under the guidance of strategy. Strategy and tactics are a dialectical unity; we must combine the firmness of strategy with the flexibility of tactics.” This assertion of his not only provides a scientific ideological weapon for the CPC to govern the country, but also points out the correct ideological method for people to scientifically summarize the historical experience of world socialist revolution and construction. The “spring of 1918” referred to in this article denotes the period from March of that year, when Soviet Russia signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany, to the eve of the outbreak of the civil war in July [2]2 The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a separate peace treaty signed in March 1918 between Soviet Russia and the Central Powers, taking Russia out of World War I under harsh territorial and economic terms.. During this period, the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Soviet government strove to use the rare peaceful respite to shift the focus of the Party and state work toward developing production and economic construction. In other words, during this period the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Soviet government made an important attempt to shift the focus of work. Examining Lenin’s thought during this period, one content is his unwavering faith in communism, and another content is his advocacy of flexible measures to develop Soviet Russia’s industrial production and carry out socialist construction. These two aspects embody the combination and unity of the firmness of strategy and the flexibility of tactics.

2022年1月，习近平在省部级主要领导干部学习贯彻党的十九届六中全会精神专题研讨班开班式上发表重要讲话指出：“我们是一个大党，领导的是一个大国，进行的是伟大的事业，要善于进行战略思维，善于从战略上看问题、想问题。正确的战略需要正确的策略来落实。策略是在战略指导下为战略服务的。战略和策略是辩证统一的关系，要把战略的坚定性和策略的灵活性结合起来。”他的这一论断既为中国共产党治国理政提供了科学的思想武器，也为人们科学总结世界社会主义革命和建设的历史经验指明了正确的思想方法。本文所谓1918年春，指该年3月苏俄同德国签订布列斯特和约至7月国内战争爆发前夕的时间段。在这个时间段里，俄共（布）和苏维埃政权力图利用难得的和平喘息时机，把党和国家的工作重心转向发展生产和经济建设。或者说这一时期俄共（布）和苏维埃政权进行了转变工作重心的重要尝试。考察这一时期列宁的思想，内容之一是对共产主义信仰坚定不移，内容之二是主张以灵活的措施发展苏俄工业生产，进行社会主义建设。这两者体现了战略的坚定性和策略的灵活性的结合和统一。

I. Lenin’s Unwavering Faith in Communism

一、列宁对共产主义的信仰坚定不移

The socialist society envisioned by Marx and Engels is a society without commodity production, without classes and class contradictions, and without the state and state apparatus. Such an ideal society can only be truly built when it is built on a world scale, or in other words, it can only be built when world socialism triumphs. Lenin was deeply versed in this basic principle of Marxism. He did not regard the establishment of Soviet power in one country, Russia, or the ability of Soviet Russia to explore paths for socialist construction as the goal of the proletarian revolution. Instead, he hoped that the revolution would continue to advance and achieve victory throughout Europe and the entire world. During this period, he had already put forward the following important views. From these views, it can be seen that his faith in communism was unwavering.

马克思恩格斯设想的社会主义社会是没有商品生产、没有阶级和阶级矛盾、没有国家和国家机器的社会。这样的理想社会只有在世界范围内建成才能真正建成，或者说只有世界社会主义胜利才能建成这样的理想社会。列宁深谙马克思主义这一基本原理，不以俄国一国建立苏维埃政权和苏俄能够探索社会主义建设的途径为无产阶级革命的目的，而是希望革命继续前进，在全欧洲以至全世界取得革命的胜利。这一时期他已然提出下述重要观点。由这些观点可以看出他对共产主义的信仰坚定不移。

First, the achievements of the Soviet Russian proletariat are achievements of the world socialist movement, and these achievements must be extended to all countries of the world. After the victory of the October Revolution, the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Soviet government led the people to resolutely push the cause forward. For example, they confiscated the land of the landlords and distributed it equally to the peasants who needed land for cultivation; they implemented measures of workers’ control in industrial and mining enterprises, that is, workers’ organizations supervised the production and distribution processes of the enterprises and calculated the relevant accounts, in order to restrict the activities of the enterprise owners. All these reflected the achievements of the proletariat in the struggle. However, the greatest achievement at that time was the establishment of Soviet power. Soviet power was first established in large cities such as Petrograd and Moscow, then in all cities across the country, and half a year later in all rural areas of Soviet Russia. Soviet power is a tool for the masses of the people to be masters of their own affairs and to advance the cause, and a weapon to suppress the resistance of the exploiters and defend the fruits of the revolution. In March 1918, Lenin pointed out in his report at the Seventh (Emergency) Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks): “There is no doubt that our Soviets still have many rough and imperfect things; everyone who carefully observes the work of the Soviets knows this very well. But what is important here, what is of historical value, and what constitutes a step forward in the development of world socialism, is the establishment of a new type of state.” [3]3 V. I. Lenin, “Report on the Review of the Program and on Changing the Name of the Party,” Seventh (Emergency) Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), March 8, 1918. His meaning was that Soviet power is a “new type of state,” and its establishment represented a great step forward in the world socialist movement, thus possessing important “historical value.” At that time, the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) raised the task of revising the Party program. In Lenin’s thinking, the Party program of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) was both a programmatic document guiding the advance of the Party’s cause and a banner for propagating the theory and practice of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to the proletarians of the whole world. It should focus on clearly writing about the issue of Soviet power. This is what he meant when he said: “We must concretely show the workers of Europe what we have set out to do, how we have set about it, and how we understand this.” “We have a new type of state, Soviet power; we must strive to describe its tasks and structure, and strive to explain that this … new type of democracy has as its living soul the transfer of power to the working people, the abolition of exploitation and the organs of suppression.” [4]4 Ibid. His meaning was that through the program of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), the workers of other European countries must be told that Soviet power is a power where the working people are the masters, and that it is a new type of democratic system. Clearly, Lenin’s intention was to use the achievements of the Russian people to propagandize to the workers of other countries, in order to arouse the spirit and will of workers in other countries to carry out revolution and establish Soviets. In the same period, in the draft of the Party program he personally wrote, Lenin stated: “To make use in every way of the torch of the world socialist revolution kindled in Russia, in order to prevent the imperialist bourgeois states from interfering in Russia’s internal affairs or uniting for open struggle and war against the socialist Soviet Republic, and to spread the revolution to the more advanced countries and to all countries.” [5]5 V. I. Lenin, “Draft Program of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks),” 1918. In this assertion, first, it emphasizes that the Russian revolution and its achievements are the torch of the world socialist revolution; second, it emphasizes that the revolutionary spark must be spread to all advanced capitalist countries, to promote revolution in other countries and the world socialist revolution. The above assertions and thoughts reflect Lenin’s unwavering faith in communism.

第一，苏俄无产阶级所取得的成就是世界社会主义运动的成就，必须向世界各国扩展这些成就。十月革命胜利后，俄共（布）和苏维埃政权领导人民果断地把事业推向前进。如夺取地主的土地，把它平均地分配给需要耕种土地的农民；在工矿企业实施工人监督的措施，即由工人组织对企业的生产和分配过程进行监督，对相关的账目进行计算，以制约企业主的活动。这些均体现了无产阶级在斗争中所取得的成就。然而，当时最伟大的成就是建立了苏维埃政权。先是在彼得格勒、莫斯科等大城市建立了苏维埃政权，随即在全国各个城市建立了苏维埃政权，半年后在苏俄农村各地建立了苏维埃政权。苏维埃政权是人民群众当家作主、推进事业发展的工具，是镇压剥削者的反抗和保卫革命成果的武器。1918年3月，列宁在俄共（布）第七次（紧急）代表大会上的报告中指出：“我们的苏维埃还有许多东西很粗糙，不完善，这是毫无疑问的，每一个细心观察苏维埃工作的人都知道得很清楚，但是，这里重要的、有历史价值的、在全世界社会主义的发展中向前迈进了一步的东西，就是建立了新型的国家。”他的意思是说，苏维埃政权是“新型国家”，它的建立体现了世界社会主义运动向前迈进了一大步，因而具有重要的“历史价值”。当时俄共（布）提出了修改党纲的任务。在列宁的思想中，俄共（布）党纲既是指导俄共（布）事业前进的纲领性文件，也是向全世界无产者宣传俄共（布）理论和实践的旗帜。它应该重点写清楚苏维埃政权的问题。这就是他所说的：“我们必须具体地指给欧洲工人看，我们着手做了什么事情，怎样着手做的，怎样来理解这一点。”“我们有苏维埃政权这种新型的国家；我们要竭力描述它的任务和结构，竭力说明，这种……新型民主制，其活的灵魂就是政权转归劳动者，消灭剥削和镇压机关。”他的意思是，必须通过俄共（布）纲领告诉欧洲其他国家的工人，苏维埃政权是劳动人民当家作主的政权，是一种新型的民主制度。显然，列宁的意图在于以俄国人民取得的成就向其他国家的工人作宣传，以唤起其他国家工人进行革命和建立苏维埃的精神和意志。同一时期，列宁在亲自起草的党纲草案草稿中写道：“在各方面尽量利用在俄国点燃起来的全世界社会主义革命的火炬，以制止帝国主义资产阶级国家干涉俄国内政或联合起来公然对社会主义苏维埃共和国进行斗争和战争的行动，把革命传到更先进的国家以及所有国家里去。”在这个论断里，一是强调俄国革命及其成就是世界社会主义革命的火炬，二是强调要把革命火种传播到一切先进的资本主义国家中去，促进其他国家的革命和世界社会主义革命。上述论断和思想体现了列宁对共产主义的信仰坚定不移。

Second, the Soviet Russian proletariat should make the revolution “transition to the next link”—the victory of the international proletarian revolution. At that time, because Soviet Russia had signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany, it withdrew from the imperialist war and won a breathing spell of peace. The Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Soviet government decided to shift the focus of work to managing the state and developing production. Judging from the situation at the time, only by using the breathing spell to develop production and the economy could Soviet Russia heal the wounds of many years of war, rapidly enhance the country’s comprehensive national strength, especially its defense capabilities, and prevent and oppose imperialist wars of aggression against Soviet Russia. In his important work completed at that time, *The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government*, and in speeches at a series of meetings, Lenin discussed the significance of shifting the focus of work and the measures for developing production and the economy, striving to smoothly carry out this practice. It should be pointed out that, in Lenin’s thinking, shifting the focus of work and developing production and the economy were the “link” that the Party and state power must grasp with all their might at the current stage. Grasping this “link” and completing the current tasks would make it possible for the revolution to “transition to the next link,” that is, the link of the socialist revolution in all of Europe and even the whole world. He pointed out: “The international situation is very grave and difficult; the revolution in other European countries has not broken out following the outbreak of the Russian revolution; the Soviet Russian proletariat is fighting alone, so it must be cautious; domestically, it is necessary to rectify the order of production and social order, and to develop production and the economy; ‘this is the characteristic of the special stage of socialist revolution in which we find ourselves. This is the link in the chain of historical events that we must now grasp with all our might, so that we can successfully solve the current tasks and transition to the next link—this next link shines with a particularly alluring radiance, the radiance of the victory of the international proletarian revolution.’” It can be seen that Lenin hoped the revolution would transition to the next link and hoped for the victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries. In his thinking, the Soviet Russian proletariat bore the responsibility of promoting the outbreak and development of revolutions in other countries. He pointed out: “It is equally obvious that the extent of the significant assistance we can give to the socialist revolution in Western Europe, which for various reasons has been slow to break out, depends entirely on how well we solve the organizational tasks facing us.” The meaning here is that if the Soviet Russian proletariat could well organize the tasks of developing production and the economy and achieve significant results, it would be capable of supporting the revolution in Western countries, thereby benefiting the victory of world socialism. The above judgments and thoughts also reflect Lenin’s unwavering communist faith.

第二，苏俄无产阶级应该使革命“过渡到下一个环节”——国际无产阶级革命的胜利。当时，苏俄由于同德国签订布列斯特和约，退出了帝国主义战争，赢得了和平喘息时机，俄共（布）和苏维埃政权作出决定，把工作重心转移到管理国家和发展生产上。从当时的形势看，苏俄只有利用喘息时机发展生产和发展经济，才能使多年战争的创伤得到医治，才能迅速增强国家的综合国力特别是增强国防力量，防止和反对帝国主义对苏俄发动侵略战争。列宁在当时完成的重要著作《苏维埃政权的当前任务》以及在一系列会议讲话中论述了转变工作重心的意义以及发展生产和发展经济的措施，力求这一实践顺利地展开。需要指出的是，在列宁的思想上，转变工作重心，发展生产和发展经济，是党和国家政权当前必须全力抓住的“环节”。抓住这个“环节”和完成当前的任务，就有可能使革命“过渡到下一个环节”即全欧洲以至全世界社会主义革命的环节。他指出：国际方面的情况非常严重和困难，欧洲其他国家的革命没有随着俄国革命的爆发而爆发，苏俄无产阶级在孤军奋战，因此要小心谨慎；就国内而言，要对生产秩序和社会秩序进行整顿，发展生产和发展经济；“这就是我们所处的社会主义革命特殊阶段的特点。这就是历史事变链条中我们现在必须用全力抓住的环节，抓住这个环节才能顺利解决当前的任务，直至过渡到下一个环节，——这下一个环节闪耀着特别的令人向往的光辉，国际无产阶级革命胜利的光辉”。可见，列宁希望革命过渡到下一个环节，希望其他国家无产阶级革命的胜利。在他的思想中，苏俄无产阶级负有促进其他国家革命发生和发展的责任。他指出：“同样很明显，我们对西欧由于种种原因而迟迟尚未爆发的社会主义革命能给予多少重大的援助，全看我们对面临的组织任务解决得如何。”这里的意思是，苏俄无产阶级如果能够很好地组织起发展生产和发展经济的任务，取得较大的成果，则有能力对西方国家的革命予以支持，从而有利于世界社会主义的胜利。上述论断和思想也体现出列宁坚定不移的共产主义信仰。

Third, a “new giant” of the Western revolution is growing, is accumulating revolutionary strength. As mentioned earlier, because Soviet Russia signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany, it won a breathing spell of peace. However, when the Soviet Russian delegation negotiated the signing of the treaty with the German delegation, the German delegation put forward extremely harsh conditions, such as the cession to Germany of Soviet Russian territory already occupied by the German army, and Soviet Russia also had to pay huge war reparations to Germany. If Soviet Russia accepted these conditions, it would suffer not only enormous losses of interests but also spiritual humiliation. Yet Lenin, proceeding from the goal of gaining time to consolidate Soviet power, advocated accepting the conditions proposed by Germany and signing the treaty. Regarding this fact, he pointed out that the Russian revolution was “retreating”; the purpose of the “retreat” was to wait for conditions to mature before launching a larger offensive against the enemy. It should be pointed out that while Lenin affirmed the Russian revolution’s “retreat,” he also saw the growth of revolutionary forces in Western countries and hoped for the outbreak of proletarian revolutions in the West, so that the Russian revolution and the revolutions in Western countries would jointly assault the rule of the monopoly bourgeoisie in Western countries. In March 1918, in his speech at the Fourth (Extraordinary) All-Russian Congress of Soviets, he pointed out: “The imperialists are insatiably greedy; they are bound to burst their bellies, and in their bellies a new giant is growing; this giant is not growing as fast as we expected, but he is growing, and he will certainly come to our aid. When we see him launch his first assault, we can say: the period of retreat is over; the era of launching an offensive throughout the world and the era of the victory of the world socialist revolution has begun.” Here he compared the growing revolutionary forces in the West to a “new giant,” believing that it would certainly grow and mature, and would certainly join the Russian proletariat in launching an offensive against the enemy, at which time “the era of the victory of the world socialist revolution” would arrive. In July 1918, the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets adopted the Constitution of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, declaring that state power belonged to the workers, soldiers, and peasants, and that it would promote the victory of the proletariat and all working people over socialism. At that time, cities in Soviet Russia held activities to publicize the basic content and great significance of the Soviet Constitution. On July 26, 1918, when Lenin explained the important spirit of the Constitution at a mass meeting in the Khamovniki District of Moscow, he pointed out that the Constitution of Soviet Russia safeguarded the interests of the proletariat and all working people and reflected the ideals of the proletariat. The proletarians of the whole world, seeing these contents, would be greatly inspired. He said: “In Western Europe, indignation is growing! Our task is: to overcome all obstacles on the path forward, no matter how serious these obstacles; to maintain Soviet power until the working class of all countries in the world rises up and raises high the banner of the world socialist republic!” The meaning of this judgment is also that the revolutionary passion of the Western proletariat is rising and its strength is increasing; the Soviet Russian proletariat needs to overcome difficulties, continue the struggle, and prepare to join the Western proletariat in striving for the victory of world socialism. These judgments and thoughts of Lenin also prove that he harbored a firm communist faith.

第三，西方革命的“新的巨人”正成长着，正在积蓄革命的力量。如前所述，苏俄因为同德国签订布列斯特和约，所以赢得了和平喘息时机。然而，在苏俄代表团同德国代表团就签订和约进行谈判时，德国代表团提出了无比苛刻的条件，如德国军队当时已经占领的苏俄的领土要划归德国，苏俄还要向德国进行巨额的战争赔款。苏俄如果接受这些条件，一是遭受巨大的利益损失，二是遭受精神上的侮辱。可是列宁从争取时间巩固苏维埃政权的目的出发，主张接受德国提出的条件，签订和约。他就这个事实指出，俄国革命正在“退却”；“退却”的目的是等待条件成熟时对敌人展开更大的进攻。需要指出的是，列宁一方面肯定俄国革命在“退却”，另一方面看到西方各国的革命力量在成长，希望西方各国爆发无产阶级革命，使俄国的革命和西方国家的革命共同冲击西方各国的垄断资产阶级统治。1918年3月，他在全俄苏维埃第四次（非常）代表大会上的讲话中指出：“帝国主义者贪得无厌，定要撑破肚皮，而且在他们的肚子里正在成长着一个新的巨人；这个巨人成长得没有我们所期望的那样快，但是他在成长着，他一定会来援助我们，当我们看到他开始举行第一次冲击的时候，我们就可以说：退却的时期结束了，在全世界展开进攻的时代和世界社会主义革命胜利的时代开始了。”这里他把西方成长中的革命力量比作“新的巨人”，认为它定会成长壮大，定会同俄国的无产阶级一起，对敌人发起进攻，这时“世界社会主义革命胜利的时代”就将到来。1918年7月，全俄苏维埃第五次代表大会通过苏维埃共和国联邦宪法，宣布国家政权是工人、士兵和农民的政权，它将促进无产阶级以及全体劳动人民走向社会主义的胜利。这时苏俄各城市举行了宣讲苏维埃宪法基本内容和重大意义的活动。7月26日，列宁在莫斯科哈莫夫尼基区群众大会上宣讲宪法的重要精神时指出：苏维埃俄国宪法维护了无产阶级以及全体劳动者的利益，反映了无产阶级的理想。全世界的无产者看到这些内容，受到极大的鼓舞。他说：“在西欧，愤激的情绪正在增长！我们的任务就是：克服前进道路上的一切障碍，不管这些障碍多么严重；把苏维埃政权保持住，直到世界各国工人阶级行动起来，高举起世界社会主义共和国的大旗！”这一论断的意思也是西方无产阶级的革命激情在高涨，力量在增强，苏俄无产阶级需要克服困难，继续斗争，准备着同西方无产阶级一起去争取世界社会主义的胜利。列宁的这些论断和思想也证明他怀有坚定的共产主义信仰。

Fourth, the Soviet Russian proletariat had to fight valiantly “for living socialism” in order to secure the victory of socialism in Soviet Russia and throughout the world. When the Soviet regime was established, the whole of Russia was a shambles. Even more serious was the fact that famine gravely threatened the new regime and the masses of the people. By May-June 1918, the famine was intensifying, and starving people were struggling on the brink of life and death. To escape the threat of famine, the Soviet regime adopted many measures, such as implementing a state monopoly on grain trade, absolutely prohibiting private trade in grain and related agricultural products; striking at the kulaks who undermined the state grain policy and traded grain on the black market; organizing urban worker grain-collection detachments to go to the countryside to requisition grain from the peasants; and so on. However, the famine problem could not be solved overnight. As the activities of domestic and foreign hostile forces against the Soviet regime intensified and the civil war situation increasingly drew near, the struggle over the grain issue became ever more acute. At this point, Lenin clearly recognized and proposed that the struggle of the Soviet regime and the Soviet Russian people for grain was in fact a struggle for socialism. For only by obtaining grain could the urban workers and the Red Army under construction receive the necessary grain supplies, and could the cause of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the people in consolidating the Soviet regime and developing socialism continue. In July of the same year, in his report to the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, Lenin pointed out: the current Soviet regime had adopted a series of measures to solve the grain problem, and only now, “we have truly come into contact with socialism,” “we say, only now, when we have embarked on this path, has socialism ceased to be empty talk and become a living reality.” This judgment sufficiently proves that Lenin at that time, first, elevated the importance of the grain issue to an unprecedented height, and second, elevated the reality and difficulty of socialist construction to an unprecedented height. As mentioned above, the Soviet regime adopted a series of measures to solve the grain problem, often implemented through the promulgation of decrees. However, in practice, hostile forces such as the rural kulaks fiercely opposed these decrees and vigorously sabotaged their implementation. The Soviet regime organized the people to resolutely strike against the enemy’s sabotage activities. In his speech at the aforementioned congress, Lenin said regarding this situation: “If battle is needed, we will wage this battle without hesitation with sweeping decrees. This is a battle truly for socialism—not for dogma, not for a program, not for a party or faction, but for living socialism, for distributing grain among the hundreds of thousands and millions of starving people in the advanced regions of Russia, for ensuring that once grain is available, it can be distributed more rationally.” Here Lenin describes socialism as “living socialism,” first, to indicate that socialism had now moved from books and party programs into the people’s social practice; second, to indicate that at that time socialism was closely linked to the lives and destinies of the Soviet Russian people; and third, to indicate that socialism was closely linked to the future and destiny of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Soviet regime. From this he proposed that, for living socialism, it was necessary to use the decrees promulgated by the Soviet regime to wage battle against hostile forces with sweeping measures. It should be noted that Lenin at that time linked Soviet Russia’s “living socialism” with the victory of socialism in Soviet Russia and throughout the world. At that time, the Russian revolution and the cause of the Soviet Russian proletariat had already exerted influence in the West. Left-wing figures in the Western socialist movement expressed support for the cause of the Soviet Russian proletariat through declarations and articles. From this Lenin said: “If we follow the path we have chosen and which events have proven correct, if we unswervingly advance along this path, if we do not allow empty words, fantasies, deception, and hysterical clamor to divert us from the correct path, then we have every hope of persevering, resolutely promoting the victory of socialism in Russia, and thereby promoting the victory of the world socialist revolution!” His meaning was that persisting in fighting for “living socialism” and for implementing the Soviet regime’s grain policy would lead to the victory of the socialist construction cause in Soviet Russia, generate positive energy in the world, and promote the outbreak and victory of the world revolution. The above series of Lenin’s judgments and ideas are proof and embodiment of his firm communist faith.

第四，苏俄无产阶级必须“为了活生生的社会主义”而英勇奋战，促使社会主义在苏俄以及在全世界取得胜利。苏维埃政权建立时，整个俄国千疮百孔。更为严重的情况是，饥荒严重地威胁着新政权和人民群众。到1918年五六月间，饥荒愈演愈烈，饥饿的人们在生死线上挣扎。为了摆脱饥荒的威胁，苏维埃政权采取了许多措施，如实施粮食买卖国家垄断制，绝对禁止私人买卖粮食及相关农副产品；对于破坏国家粮食政策并在黑市上买卖粮食的富农进行打击；组织城市工人征粮队，下乡征购农民的粮食；等等。可是，饥荒问题不是一朝一夕可以解决的。随着国内外敌对势力反对苏维埃政权的活动加剧以及国内战争的形势日益逼近，围绕着粮食问题的斗争愈益激烈。这时，列宁明确认识到并提出，苏维埃政权和苏俄人民争取粮食的斗争，实际上是争取社会主义的斗争。因为只有获得粮食，城市工人和正在建设中的红军能够得到必需的粮食供应，俄共（布）和人民巩固苏维埃政权和发展社会主义的事业才能继续进行下去。同年7月，列宁在全俄苏维埃第五次代表大会上的报告中指出：当前苏维埃政权为解决粮食问题采取了一系列措施，只是到此时，“我们才真正接触到社会主义”，“我们说，只有现在，当我们走上了这条道路的时候，社会主义才不再是空谈，才变成了活生生的现实”。这一论断足以证明，列宁当时一是把粮食问题的重要性提到空前的高度来认识，二是把社会主义建设的现实性和艰难性提到了一个空前的高度来认识。如前所述，苏维埃政权为解决粮食问题采取了一系列措施，这些措施往往是通过颁布法令的形式实现的。然而在实践中，敌对势力如农村富农拼命反对这些法令，极力破坏这些法令的实施。苏维埃政权则组织人民对敌人的破坏活动进行了坚决的打击。列宁在上述会议上的讲话中针对此情况说：“如果需要战斗，我们将毫不犹豫地用大刀阔斧的法令进行这场战斗。这是真正为了社会主义的战斗，——不是为了教条，不是为了纲领，不是为了一党一派，而是为了活生生的社会主义，为了在俄国先进地区几十万、几百万饥民中间分配粮食，为了做到有了粮食能拿来进行比较合理的分配。”这里列宁把社会主义说成是“活生生的社会主义”，一是在于说明社会主义现在已经从书本中和党的纲领中来到了人民的社会实践中，二是在于说明当时社会主义与苏俄人民的生命和命运紧密相连，三是在于说明社会主义与俄共（布）和苏维埃政权的前途命运密切相联。由此他提出，为了活生生的社会主义，必须利用苏维埃政权颁布的法令，大刀阔斧地同敌对势力进行战斗。需要指出的是，列宁当时是把苏俄“活生生的社会主义”与社会主义在苏俄的胜利以及在全世界的胜利联系在一起的。当时俄国革命和苏俄无产阶级的事业已经在西方产生了影响。西方社会主义运动中的左翼人士，以发表宣言和文章的形式表示了对苏俄无产阶级事业的支持。由此列宁说：“如果我们沿着我们所选择的并且已经被事变证明正确的道路走，如果我们坚定不移地沿着这条道路走，如果我们不让空话、幻想、欺骗和歇斯底里的叫嚣弄得我们离开正确的道路，那么，我们就完全有希望坚持下去，坚决促使社会主义在俄国取得胜利，从而促使全世界社会主义革命取得胜利！”他的意思是，坚持为“活生生的社会主义”而战斗，为实施苏维埃政权的粮食政策而战斗，会导致社会主义建设事业在苏俄胜利，会在世界上产生正能量的影响，促进世界革命的发生和胜利。上述列宁的一系列论断和思想，是他的共产主义信仰坚定的证明和体现。

II. “Taking Our Own Path” and Adopting Flexible Measures to Develop Production and the Economy

二、“走自己的路”和采取灵活的措施发展生产和经济

The “taking our own path” here is not what the Communist Party of China in the New Era calls “taking our own path,” nor is it an attempt to attach the CPC’s idea of “taking our own path” to Lenin, but rather words that Lenin truly spoke under the circumstances at the time. In April 1918, Lenin wrote in *The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government*: “Only a class that does not lose heart in the most difficult, arduous, and dangerous moments of transition, and unswervingly takes its own path, can lead the exploited working masses. We do not need fanaticism. What we need is the measured tread of the iron battalions of the proletariat.” Here, the meaning of “taking our own path” is, first, to demand that the Soviet Russian proletariat not lose heart in the face of dangerous and difficult circumstances, but maintain the spirit and courage of continuing the revolution; second, to demand that the Soviet Russian proletariat face the current situation squarely, formulate domestic development policies from reality, not let their heads get hot, and not let their thinking depart from reality; third, to demand that on the basis of meeting the above two requirements, the Soviet Russian proletariat advance with a firm, measured tread and orderly promote the revolutionary cause. This is the thought interpreted from between the lines of Lenin’s judgment. Interpreting “taking our own path” from the content of the several paragraphs connected with this judgment allows us to grasp the following Leninist thought: the Russian petty bourgeoisie, faced with the calamities brought by war, the threat of bankruptcy and famine, and the severe international situation, flew into rages and frenzies, their political stance wavering, sometimes supporting the proletarian revolution, sometimes erupting in despair. The Soviet Russian proletariat must never be like this; it must “take its own path,” that is, advance along the path of proletarian revolution it had long since chosen (the CPC’s judgment and thought on “taking its own path,” compared with Lenin’s relevant words and thought, represents a high-level, new-content judgment and thought at the current stage of the history of Marxist development, and constitutes a major development and innovation of Lenin’s thought).

这里的“走自己的路”，不是新时代中国共产党所说的“走自己的路”，也不是把中国共产党所说的“走自己的路”的思想附会在列宁的身上，而是列宁在当时的形势下真真切切说过的话。1918年4月，列宁在《苏维埃政权的当前任务》中写道：“只有毫不动摇地走自己的路，在最困难、最艰苦、最危险的转变时刻也不灰心失望的阶级，才能领导被剥削劳动群众。我们不需要狂热。我们需要的是无产阶级铁军的匀整的步伐。”在这里，“走自己的路”的含义，一是要求苏俄无产阶级面临危险和困难的形势不灰心失望，保持继续革命的精神和勇气；二是要求苏俄无产阶级正视当前的形势，从实际出发制定国内发展的方针政策，不要头脑发热，不要思想脱离实际；三是要求苏俄无产阶级在做到了上述两条要求的基础上以坚定的、匀整的步伐向前进，有序地推进革命事业。这是从列宁这一论断的字里行间解读出来的思想。从与这一论断相联系的几个自然段的内容来解读“走自己的路”，可以领会下述列宁的思想：俄国的小资产阶级面临战争带来的惨祸，面临破产和饥荒的威胁，面临严峻的国际形势，暴怒发狂，政治立场摇摆不定，时而支持无产阶级革命，时而爆发绝望情绪。苏俄无产阶级决不能这样，必须“走自己的路”，即沿着自己早已选定的无产阶级革命道路走下去（中国共产党关于“走自己的路”的论断和思想同列宁相关的话语及思想相比较，是马克思主义发展史当前阶段的高层次、新内容的论断和思想，是对列宁思想的重大发展和创新）。

Interpreting Lenin’s judgment of “taking our own path” in connection with *The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government* and other important works and conference speeches of Lenin from this period allows us to recognize and grasp the following important Leninist thought: given the current international and domestic situation of Soviet Russia and its domestic economic and cultural conditions, the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the proletariat could not immediately build socialism according to Marx and Engels’ original vision, that is, could not immediately establish a society without commodity production and monetary exchange, without classes and class distinctions, and without the state and state apparatus. It was necessary to “take our own path,” or, in other words, to determine development measures based on the current conditions of Soviet Russia.

联系《苏维埃政权的当前任务》以及这一时期列宁的其他重要著作和会议讲话来解读列宁“走自己的路”的论断，可以认识和把握列宁的下述重要思想：根据苏俄当下的国际国内形势以及国内的经济文化条件，俄共（布）以及无产阶级不能立即按照马克思恩格斯原来的设想来建设社会主义，即不能立即建立没有商品生产和货币交换、没有阶级和阶级差别、没有国家和国家机器的社会。必须“走自己的路”，或者说根据当前苏俄的条件决定自己的发展措施。

From the development measures Lenin advocated during this period, his thought was: to adopt flexible measures to develop production and the economy, more specifically, to utilize capitalist cultural heritage and economic management methods to develop production and the economy. Below, we elaborate the specific content of Lenin’s ideas and propositions on flexible measures.

从这一时期列宁所主张的发展措施看，他的思想是：采取灵活的措施发展生产和经济，更明确地说，是利用资本主义文化遗产和经济管理办法来发展生产和经济。以下，阐述列宁关于灵活措施思想和主张的具体内容。

First, Lenin advocated that Soviet Russian enterprises adopt the slogan used by capitalist enterprises to strengthen production management — “observe the strictest labour discipline” — in order to strengthen enterprise management and develop production. At that time, because the revolution had only recently been victorious, orderly production discipline within enterprises had not yet been established. To put it more directly, management was rather chaotic; workers with relatively poor consciousness could arbitrarily skip work, or fail to exert themselves while on the job, and some even stole enterprise property. In response to this situation, Lenin proposed: “Calculate carefully, practise economy, do not be lazy, do not steal, and observe the strictest labour discipline — these very slogans, which were formerly justly ridiculed by the revolutionary proletariat when the bourgeoisie used them to conceal the rule of their exploiting class, have now, after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, become the urgent and primary slogans of the day.” [13]13 V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government”, April 1918. The quotation is from Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English edition, Vol. 27, p. 241. Here he had already indicated that this slogan was a slogan of capitalist enterprises in the old society, a slogan put forward by the capitalists, which had been ridiculed and rejected by the workers. Clearly, this slogan implied the capitalists’ strict management of the workers’ labour process, implied the intensification of the capitalists’ exploitation of the workers, and implied that the capitalists could obtain more profit. At the same time, he also indicated that in Soviet Russia, when the task of developing production and the economy had been elevated to an important position, this slogan had become an “urgent and primary slogan”. Lenin’s advocacy that Soviet Russian enterprises adopt the slogan put forward by the capitalists of the old society for the strict management of workers embodied his great flexibility in determining measures for developing production. In principle, the Soviet regime was a regime won by the proletariat through a long and heroic struggle, a regime in which the masses of the people are the masters. For this regime to adopt a slogan put forward by the capitalists of the old society to manage the workers was in many ways inappropriate. However, Lenin saw the actual situation of enterprise production at that time, namely the chaotic state of production management, and recognised that adopting the above slogan could strengthen enterprise management, raise labour productivity, develop production and the economy, and heal the wounds of war. This is what he meant when he said: “The practical implementation of these slogans by the working masses is the sole condition for saving a country half-dead from the imperialist war and the imperialist bandits (headed by Kerensky).” [14]14 Ibid., p. 242. Alexander Kerensky was the head of the Russian Provisional Government overthrown by the October Revolution of 1917.

第一，列宁主张苏俄企业运用资本主义企业加强生产管理的口号——“遵守最严格的劳动纪律”，加强企业管理和发展生产。当时，由于革命胜利后不久，企业内有序的生产秩序尚未建立起来。更直接地说，管理比较乱，自觉性比较差的工人可以随意不上班，或者上班时不出力，有的人甚至盗窃企业的财产。针对这种情况，列宁提出：“精打细算，节俭办事，不偷懒，不盗窃，遵守最严格的劳动纪律——正是这些从前被资产阶级用来掩饰他们这个剥削阶级的统治时受到革命无产者的正当讥笑的口号，现在，在推翻资产阶级以后，已变成当前迫切的主要的口号。”他在此已经指明，这个口号是旧社会里资本主义企业的口号，是资本家提出的、遭受到工人讥笑和否定的口号。显然，这个口号意味着资本家对工人的劳动过程的严格管理，意味着资本家对工人剥削的加强和资本家能够获得更多的利润。同时他也指明，在苏维埃俄国，在发展生产和经济的任务提上重要地位的时候，这个口号已经成为“迫切的主要的口号”。列宁主张苏俄企业运用旧社会里资本家提出的用以对工人进行严格管理的口号，体现了他在确定发展生产措施问题上的极大的灵活性。从原则上说，苏维埃政权是无产阶级经过长期的英勇斗争才争得的政权，是人民群众当家作主的政权，这个政权运用旧社会资本家提出的口号来管理工人，多有不妥。可是，列宁看到的是当时企业生产的实际，即生产管理很混乱的状况，认识到运用上述口号可以加强企业管理，提高劳动生产率，发展生产和经济，医治战争的创伤。这就是他所说的：“劳动群众切实实现这些口号，是挽救被帝国主义战争和帝国主义强盗（以克伦斯基为首）弄得半死的国家的唯一条件。”

Second, Lenin advocated enlisting the services of scientific-technical experts and managers from the old society in order to strengthen Soviet Russia’s production management and economic management. Carrying out production construction and economic construction requires a large number of scientific-technical experts and managers to play their role. At that time in Soviet Russia, the new regime had no time to train scientific-technical experts and managers from the proletariat, while a large number of scientific-technical experts and managers from the old society lived in Soviet Russia. The new regime could enlist them and make use of their role. Lenin pointed out in this regard: “When the task of socialist organisation is placed on the agenda, in order to solve the practical tasks of socialism, we must inevitably enlist the assistance of the Soviet regime from large numbers of bourgeois intellectuals, especially those who have previously been engaged in the practical organisation of the largest-scale capitalist production, above all those who have organised syndicates, cartels and trusts. This is not at all surprising.” [15]15 V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government”, April 1918. The quotation is from Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English edition, Vol. 27, p. 248. He also said that the former “industrial leaders”, “bosses and exploiters”, should serve as “technical appraisers”, “instructors”, “staff officers and advisers”. The proletariat must fully utilise their knowledge and managerial experience in order to promote the task of developing production and the economy. If some outstanding foreign scientific-technical experts were willing to serve Soviet Russia, they too could be invited. Lenin said on this point: “What we now need to borrow from the advanced countries is not the help of socialist organisations and the support of the workers, but the help of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist intellectuals there.” [16]16 Ibid., p. 249. To achieve the goal of enlisting scientific-technical experts and managers from the old society and hiring foreign intellectuals, special methods were needed. In Lenin’s thinking, this special method was to implement a high-salary system for those enlisted and hired. He once said that, assuming the Soviet regime needed 2,000 top experts in various fields of knowledge, and assuming the Soviet regime had to pay each of them 50 million or 100 million rubles a year, from the perspective of the interests of the national economy, and from the perspective of the transition from outdated production methods to the newest and most perfect production methods, spending this money was justified and necessary. [17]17 See V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government”, April 1918, in Collected Works, 4th English edition, Vol. 27, p. 250. Lenin’s thinking on implementing a high-salary system to enlist scientific-technical experts and managers from the old society and to hire outstanding foreign intellectuals embodied his high degree of flexibility in measures for strengthening production management and developing production. At that time, Lenin and the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) vigorously advocated building the Soviet state in accordance with the principles of the Paris Commune. One of the famous principles of the Paris Commune was that state functionaries should receive salaries equal in amount to those of ordinary workers. Lenin’s own salary at that time was equal in amount to the salaries of ordinary staff workers in the Party Central Committee and ordinary workers. In his thinking, adhering to this point was adhering to the precious experience of the international communist movement, was adhering to the precious crystallisation of Marxism. However, as a great Marxist, Lenin was deeply versed in the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism and understood that great flexibility was needed at critical moments and on critical issues. His advocacy of implementing a high-salary system for a special category of people proved his flexibility in development measures.

第二，列宁主张启用旧社会过来的科技专家和管理者，以加强苏俄的生产管理和经济管理。进行生产建设和经济建设，需要有一大批科技专家和管理者发挥其作用。当时的苏俄，新政权来不及培养无产阶级的科技专家和管理者，而一大批旧社会过来的科技专家和管理者生活于苏维埃俄国。新政权可以启用他们和发挥他们的作用。列宁就此指出：“当社会主义的组织工作提到日程上时，为了解决社会主义的实际任务，我们就必须吸收大批的资产阶级知识分子，特别是那些曾经从事过资本主义的最大生产的实际组织工作，首先是组织过辛迪加、卡特尔和托拉斯的人来协助苏维埃政权，这是毫不奇怪的。”他还说，从前的“工业领袖”“长官和剥削者”，应当担任“技术鉴定人”“指导人”“参谋和顾问”的职务。无产阶级要充分地利用他们的知识和经营经验，以促进发展生产和经济的任务。国外的一些优秀的科技专家，如果他们愿意为苏维埃俄国服务，也可以把他们聘请过来。列宁就此说：“我们现在需要向先进国家借助的，不是社会主义组织的帮助和工人的支援，而是那里的资产阶级和资本主义知识分子的帮助。”为了达到启用旧社会过来的科技专家和管理者以及聘用国外知识分子的目的，需要有特殊的办法，在列宁的思想上，这种特殊的办法就是对启用者、聘用者实行高薪制。他曾经说过，假定苏维埃政权需要2000名各种不同知识领域里的大专家，假定苏维埃政权每年要付给他们每人5000万或1亿卢布，从国民经济的利益看，从由陈旧的生产方法过渡到最新的、最完善的生产方法来看，花这笔钱是有理由的，是必须的。列宁关于采取高薪制启用旧社会过来的科技专家、管理者和聘用国外优秀知识分子的思想，体现出他在加强生产管理和发展生产措施上的高度的灵活性。在当时，列宁和俄共（布）竭力主张按照巴黎公社的原则来建设苏维埃国家。巴黎公社的著名原则之一，是国家公职人员领取同普通工人数额相同的薪金。列宁当时的薪金同党中央机关普通工作人员的薪金以及普通工人的薪金在数额上是相等的。在他的思想中，坚持这一点是坚持国际共产主义运动的宝贵经验，是坚持马克思主义的宝贵结晶。可是，列宁作为伟大的马克思主义者，深谙马克思主义的革命辩证法，懂得在关键的时候和关键的问题上需要有极大的灵活性。他主张对一部分特殊的人群实行高薪制，证明了他在发展措施上的灵活性。

Third, Lenin advocated compromising with the cooperatives inherited from the old society, allowing them to play a role and doing a good job of distributing consumer goods. In old Russia, many industrial enterprises had established cooperatives. Their function was to sell daily necessities to the workers of the enterprise. Workers of a given enterprise could purchase consumer goods at their enterprise’s cooperative at prices cheaper than those in commercial institutions in society at large. These cooperatives were founded under the organization of the enterprise’s capitalists, and were managed either by the capitalists themselves or by their agents. Some workers in better economic circumstances could buy shares in the cooperatives, but overall, the cooperatives were social organizations or institutions controlled by the capitalists and serving the capitalists’ interests. After the October Revolution, the aforementioned cooperatives continued to exist. At that time, the Soviet regime had a very important task: distributing consumer goods to urban residents, which required an organization or institution to undertake it. Lenin thought that the cooperatives inherited from the old society could do this work. However, the cooperatives at that time were still controlled by the capitalists and their agents. To make them serve the Soviet regime and the broad masses of the people, it was necessary to negotiate with their leaders and managers, and in the course of negotiations, to be adept at making necessary concessions. In *The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government*, Lenin wrote: “Capitalism left us a mass organization—the consumers’ cooperatives—which facilitates the transition to widespread accounting and control over the distribution of products. In Russia, this organization is not as developed as in the advanced countries, but it still has over ten million members.” [18]18 V. I. Lenin, *The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government* (April–May 1918). The quotation is from Lenin’s original text. This meant that the Soviet regime could utilize and give play to the role of the cooperatives. It was precisely during this period that the Soviet regime promulgated the “Decree on the Organization of Consumers’ Cooperatives.” This decree was formulated after lengthy negotiations and agreement among representatives of three sides: the Supreme Council of the National Economy of the Soviet state, the cooperatives, and the food-supply organizations. On this, Lenin pointed out: “This decree is an agreement, a compromise, with the bourgeois cooperatives and with the workers’ cooperatives that still hold bourgeois views. It is an agreement or compromise because, first, representatives of these organizations not only participated in the discussion of the decree but actually had the right to vote, and some articles of the decree were deleted due to their resolute opposition.” [19]19 V. I. Lenin, “Report on the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government” (April 29, 1918), in *Collected Works*, vol. 27. He gave examples: the Soviet regime abandoned the article on free membership for all workers, abandoned the article requiring all residents of the same area to join the same cooperative, and modified the article on completely excluding all bourgeois elements from the cooperative management committees, changing it to a prohibition on the “bosses” of private capitalist enterprises entering the cooperative management committees. It was precisely because the Soviet regime made many concessions that it achieved its goal of using the cooperatives to work for the state power at that time. It should be noted that after Soviet Russia entered the civil war, the food problem, including the rational distribution of grain to the population, became an even more severe task facing the Soviet regime. Lenin continued to advocate using the cooperatives. However, at that time, there were people within the Party who opposed Lenin’s position and opposed using the cooperatives. In a speech at a relevant meeting, Lenin stated: “We must use the existing apparatus, because without using the legacy of capitalism, socialism cannot be built. We must use all the cultural treasures that capitalism created to oppose us. The difficulty of socialism lies in the fact that it must be built with materials created by others, and yet only in this way can socialism be built. We all understood this theoretically, and after this year, we have seen from practice: only by using the materials created by capitalism to oppose us can we build socialism; we must use all of this to build socialism and consolidate socialism.” [20]20 V. I. Lenin, “Speech at a Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies” (April 1918), paraphrased from Lenin’s remarks on using capitalist institutions. Lenin’s ideas and practice regarding the use of cooperatives demonstrate his great flexibility in measures for developing production and the economy. In terms of theory and principle, in the process of building socialism, one should continuously eliminate the legacies of capitalism, thereby promoting the growth of socialism. However, Lenin, proceeding from the specific conditions and circumstances of the time, rather than from theory and principle, flexibly chose measures for development.

第三，列宁主张同旧社会遗留下来的合作社妥协，发挥其作用，做好消费品分配工作。在旧俄国时，许多工业企业创办有合作社。它的功能是对本企业工人销售日常生活用品。本企业工人在本企业合作社购买消费品，价格比在社会上商业机构购买便宜些。这些合作社是在企业资本家组织下创办的，由资本家本人经营或由资本家的代理人经营。有些经济状况较好的工人可以入股合作社，但总的来看，合作社是资本家所掌控并为资本家谋利益的社会组织或机构。十月革命后，上述合作社继续存在。当时苏维埃政权有一项十分重要的工作，即对城市居民分配消费品的工作,需要有一个组织或机构来承担。列宁想到，可以由旧社会遗留下来的合作社做这件事。可是，当时的合作社仍然由资本家及其代理人控制。要让它为苏维埃政权和广大人民群众服务，必须同其领导者和管理者谈判，并且在谈判过程中善于作必要的让步。列宁在《苏维埃政权的当前任务》中提出：“资本主义留给我们一种便于过渡到对产品分配实行广泛的计算和监督的群众组织——消费合作社。在俄国，这种组织不像在先进国家里那样发达，可是还是拥有1000万以上的社员。”意思是说，苏维埃政权可以利用和发挥合作社的作用。就在此时期，苏维埃政权颁布了《关于消费合作社组织的法令》。这个法令是苏维埃国家最高国民经济委员会、合作社、粮食组织三方面的代表进行长时间的谈判达成协议后制定的。列宁就此指出：“这个法令是同资产阶级合作社以及仍然持资产阶级观点的工人合作社达成的一种协议。说它是协议或妥协，是因为第一，上述这些组织的代表不仅参加了法令的讨论，而且实际上还取得了表决权，法令中有一部分条文因受到这些组织的坚决反对而删掉了。”他举例说，苏维埃政权放弃了关于所有的工人群众免费入社的条文，放弃了同一个地区的全体居民参加同一个合作社的条文，修改了关于把所有的资产者从合作社管理委员会完全排除出去的条文，将其改成禁止私人资本主义企业的“老板”进入合作社管理委员会。正是由于苏维埃政权作了许多的让步，所以当时苏维埃政权达到了利用合作社为国家政权工作的目的。需要指出的是，苏俄进入国内战争以后，粮食问题包括对居民合理地分配粮食的问题，成为摆在苏维埃政权面前的更严峻的任务。列宁继续主张利用合作社。可是当时党内有人反对列宁的主张，反对利用合作社。列宁在有关会议上的讲话中指出：“必须利用现成的机构，因为不利用资本主义的遗产，就不能把社会主义建立起来。必须利用资本主义为反对我们而创造的一切文化珍品。社会主义的困难就在于它要用外人所创造的材料来建立，可是又只有这样才能建立社会主义，这一点我们在理论上都懂得，经过这一年，我们更从实践中看到：只有利用资本主义为反对我们而创造的材料，才能建立社会主义；我们应当利用这一切来建立社会主义，巩固社会主义。”列宁关于利用合作社的思想和实践，体现出他在发展生产和经济的措施上的极大的灵活性。从理论和原则上说，在建设社会主义的过程中应该不断地消灭资本主义遗留下来的东西，从而促进社会主义的成长。可是列宁从当时的具体情况和条件出发，而不是从理论和原则出发，灵活地选择了发展的措施。

Fourth, Lenin advocated learning from the American Taylor system to raise labor productivity in Soviet Russia. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the American engineer Frederick Taylor created a new system of labor management. Its basic content was, first, to take the labor effect of a physically robust and dexterous worker within a certain period of time as a benchmark, requiring or forcing all workers to reach his level; second, to study the workers’ movements in the labor process, affirming necessary movements, identifying and eliminating unnecessary ones, and requiring all workers to perform only necessary movements in the labor process, forbidding them from making unnecessary ones. This was the so-called “Taylor system.” At that time, many capitalist enterprises in the United States and Europe implemented the Taylor system. Obviously, this system meant, on the one hand, the intensification of capitalist exploitation of workers, and on the other, damage to and debilitation of the workers’ physical and mental health. On this, Lenin gave the following assessment: “The greatest capitalism has created such systems in the organization of labor, which, under conditions of exploitation of the masses of the population, are the most brutal form of enslavement of the working people by a minority of the possessing classes, of squeezing out of the workers their surplus labor, physical strength, blood, and nerves. But at the same time, this system is the latest achievement of the scientific organization of production. The socialist Soviet Republic should learn this system, and in order to implement our accounting and control over production and to raise labor productivity, it should also transform this system.” [21]21 V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government” (1918), in *Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 259. Thus, he denounced this management system as the most brutal form of squeezing out the workers’ physical strength, blood, and nerves, but at the same time affirmed it as the latest achievement of the scientific organization of production. He demanded that the Soviet Republic learn this management system to promote the measures of “accounting and control” then being implemented in Soviet Russia, and at the same time demanded that the Soviet regime carry out a transformation of this system. What was the principle for carrying out this transformation? Lenin clearly stated his opinion. He said: “The task facing the socialist Soviet Republic, in short, is that we should implement the Taylor system and the American scientific methods of raising labor productivity throughout the country, combining this system with a reduction in working hours, and with the use of new methods of production and labor organization, without in the slightest impairing the labor power of the working population.” [22]22 V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government” (1918), in *Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 260. His idea was that, in learning from and borrowing the Taylor system, the workers’ working hours should be shortened, and in the labor process, the workers’ bodies and labor power must not be harmed. He also put forward the following conception: each adult worker could engage in physical labor for 6 hours a day and in state management work for 4 hours a day. In short, Lenin’s advocacy of learning from the American Taylor system also demonstrates his high degree of flexibility in determining measures for developing production and the economy. Because the Taylor system clearly bore the characteristics of intensifying the exploitation of workers and damaging their physical and mental health, it was fundamentally at odds with the emancipation of the working class. In principle, the Soviet state could not learn from or borrow it. But Lenin handled this issue flexibly, as he both advocated borrowing from it and proposed that it must be transformed, so that it could serve to raise labor productivity in Soviet Russia.

第四，列宁主张借鉴美国的泰罗制以提高苏俄的劳动生产率。19世纪末20世纪初，美国工程师弗·泰罗创造出一种新的劳动管理制度，其基本内容一是以某个身体健壮、手艺灵巧的工人在一定时间内的劳动效果为基准，要求或迫使所有的工人都达到他的水平；二是研究劳动者在劳动过程中的动作，肯定必要的动作，发现和否定不必要的动作，让所有工人在劳动过程中只做必要的动作，不允许他们做不必要的动作。这就是所谓“泰罗制”。当时美国和欧洲的许多资本主义企业都推行了“泰罗制”。显然这种制度一是意味着资本家对工人剥削的加强，二是意味着对工人身心的损害和摧残。就此，列宁给出的评价是这样的：“最大的资本主义在劳动组织方面创造了这样一些制度，这种制度在居民群众受剥削的情况下，是少数有产阶级奴役劳动者，压榨劳动者额外的劳动、体力、血汗和神经的最残酷的形式，但这种制度同时又是科学组织生产的最新成就。社会主义苏维埃共和国应当学会这种制度，并且为了实行我们对生产的计算和监督以及为了提高劳动生产率，还应当对这种制度加以改造。”可见，他痛斥这种管理制度是压榨劳动者的体力、血汗和神经的最残酷的形式，但同时肯定它是科学组织生产的最新成就。他要求苏维埃共和国学会这种管理制度，以促进苏俄当时实施中的“计算和监督”的措施，同时他要求苏维埃政权对这种制度进行一番改造。进行改造的原则是什么呢？列宁明确地提出了自己的意见。他说：“社会主义苏维埃共和国面临的任务，简单说来就是，我们应当在全国实行泰罗制和美国提高劳动生产率的科学方法，把这种制度同缩短劳动时间结合起来，同利用新的生产方法和劳动组织方法结合起来，而丝毫不损害劳动居民的劳动力。”他的思想是，在学习和借鉴泰罗制时，要缩短工人的劳动时间，而且在劳动的过程中一定不要损害工人的身体和劳动力。他还提出了这样的设想，每位成年工人每天可以从事体力劳动6小时，从事国家管理工作4小时。总之，列宁主张借鉴美国的泰罗制也说明他在确定发展生产和经济的措施时高度的灵活性。因为泰罗制明显地带有加强对工人的剥削和摧残工人身心健康的特点，同工人阶级的解放是大相径庭的。从原则上说，苏维埃国家是不能借鉴和学习它的。但列宁灵活地处理了这个问题，如他既主张借鉴它，又提出必须改造它，使它能够为苏俄提高劳动生产率服务。

Fifth, Lenin advocated that Soviet Russia learn from and borrow Germany’s state capitalism. At that time, Soviet Russia was a country where small peasants constituted the overwhelming majority of the population and small-scale production dominated the national economy. Under such conditions, it could not make a direct transition to socialist society; it had to find an “intermediate link” between itself and socialism. State capitalism was precisely this “intermediate link.” In his writings of the time, Lenin stated: “State capitalism would be a step forward compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If state capitalism were established in our country within about half a year, that would be a great victory, and it would most reliably guarantee that socialism would finally become consolidated and invincible in our country a year later.” [23]23 V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 27, p. 241. (Approximate reference; the exact wording may vary slightly in different editions.) His attitude and view were that state-capitalist measures should be implemented quickly and actively in Soviet Russia. At that time, the measures for implementing state capitalism in Soviet Russia were, first, to establish links between private capitalist enterprises and the state power of the Soviets, such as having the state supply production raw materials to enterprises and purchase the products produced by the enterprises, or having the state send personnel to participate in production management in capitalist enterprises; second, through the work of the state power, to merge some smaller enterprises into larger ones, with state personnel participating in the management of these enterprises. However, state-capitalist enterprises remained capitalist enterprises; their means of production and products were still owned by the capitalists. In other words, the private ownership nature of these enterprises and the nature of their exploitation of workers did not change. Because of this, some people in the Party with “Leftist” thinking opposed Lenin’s ideas on implementing state capitalism, considering it a “Right-wing Bolshevik tendency” that betrayed socialism. Their view was to immediately abolish capitalist private ownership and establish socialist public ownership. Moreover, they excerpted certain sentences from Marx’s writings to prove that their view was correct. In response, Lenin said: “What is the matter with these people, how can they seize on isolated phrases from books and forget reality? Reality tells us that state capitalism is a step forward for us. If we can achieve state capitalism in Russia in a short time, that will be a victory.” In Lenin’s thinking, Marx and Engels had not experienced the question of state capitalism under a proletarian state, and had left no expositions for study and reference; the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Soviet Russian proletariat could only advance through their own exploration. It was precisely in the process of exploration that Lenin proposed that Soviet Russia must learn from German state capitalism. German capitalism, in the course of its development, especially during the First World War, had successfully implemented state-capitalist measures. Its characteristics were, first, the establishment of large-scale industrial enterprises; second, the establishment by the state power of organizations for planned economic management, or government departments for planned economic management; third, the use of modern science and technology for production. Lenin believed that all these characteristics or advantages of German enterprises were not yet possessed by Soviet Russian enterprises, but that Soviet Russian enterprises must learn and acquire them. Starting from this, he proposed that Soviet Russia must learn from German state capitalism. In his article “On ‘Left-Wing’ Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Mentality,” he wrote: “To make the question clearer, let us first take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everyone knows that this example is Germany. There we have the latest achievements of modern large-scale capitalist technology and a planned organization subordinated to the Junker-bourgeois imperialism.” This is an exposition of the characteristics of German state capitalism. He also said: “If the German revolution is slow in being ‘born,’ our task is to learn state capitalism from the Germans, to imitate it with all our might, and not to shrink from using dictatorial methods to accelerate this imitation, more than Peter did.” [24]24 Peter the Great (1672–1725) was the Tsar of Russia who forcibly Westernized the country, adopting Western European technology, administrative structures, and military organization. Lenin uses him here as a historical example of determined, top-down imitation of more advanced foreign models. The meaning here is that Peter the Great once used despotic means to force Russians to learn from and imitate Western capitalist production and culture, demonstrating the greatness of Peter’s determination. Now the Soviet Russian proletariat and its Party should have even firmer determination and confidence to imitate German state-capitalist measures at home.

第五，列宁主张苏俄学习和借鉴德国的国家资本主义。当时的苏俄是一个小农占全国人口绝大多数、小生产在国民经济体系中占优势的国家。在这样的条件下，它不能直接过渡到社会主义社会，必须在它和社会主义之间找到一种“中间环节”。国家资本主义正是这种“中间环节”。列宁在当时的著作中提出：“国家资本主义较之我们苏维埃共和国目前的情况，将是一个进步。如果国家资本主义在半年左右能在我国建立起来，那将是一个很大的胜利，那将极其可靠地保证社会主义一年以后在我国最终地巩固起来而立于不败之地。”他的态度和观点是，要在苏俄迅速而积极地实施国家资本主义措施。当时苏俄实施国家资本主义的措施，一是使私人资本主义企业同苏维埃国家政权建立联系，如由国家对企业供应生产原料并由国家收购企业生产的产品，或者由国家政权派工作人员到资本主义企业参与生产管理；二是通过国家政权做工作，将一些规模较小的企业联合成规模较大的企业，由国家政权派工作人员参与这些企业的管理工作。然而国家资本主义企业仍然是资本主义企业，它的生产资料和产品仍然由资本家占有。或者说这些企业的私人占有的性质和对工人进行剥削的性质没有改变。由于此，党内有些思想“左倾”的人反对列宁关于实施国家资本主义的思想，认为这是“右派布尔什维克的倾向”，它背叛了社会主义。他们的主张是立即消灭资本主义私有制，建立社会主义公有制。并且，他们从马克思的著作中摘录某些句子，以证明他们的主张是正确的。列宁针对此说：“这些人怎么啦，怎么能够抓住书本上的片言只语而忘掉现实呢？现实告诉我们，国家资本主义对于我们来说是一个进步。如果我们在短期内能够在俄国实现国家资本主义，那是一个胜利。”在列宁的思想中，无产阶级国家的国家资本主义问题，马克思恩格斯没有经历过，没有留下可供学习和参考的论述，俄共（布）和苏俄无产阶级只能自己在探索中前进。正是在探索的过程中，列宁提出，苏俄必须学习德国人的国家资本主义。德国资本主义在发展的过程中，尤其是在第一次世界大战期间，成功地实施了国家资本主义措施。它的特点一是建立了规模巨大的工业企业，二是国家政权建立了以计划管理经济的组织或者说政府中设有以计划管理经济的部门，三是用现代化的科学技术进行生产。列宁认为，德国企业所有的这些特点或优点，现在的苏俄企业尚没有，但是苏俄企业一定要学习并拥有这些东西。由此出发，他提出苏俄必须学习德国的国家资本主义。他在《论“左派”幼稚性和小资产阶级性》一文中说：“为了把问题说得更清楚，我们首先来举一个最具体的国家资本主义的例子。大家都知道，这个例子就是德国。那里有达到‘最新成就’的现代大资本主义技术和服从于容克资产阶级帝国主义的有计划的组织。”这是对德国国家资本主义特点的阐述。他还说：“如果德国革命迟迟不‘诞生’，我们的任务就是要学习德国人的国家资本主义，全力仿效这种国家资本主义，要不惜采用独裁的方法加紧仿效，甚于当年的彼得”。这里的意思是，当年彼得大帝以专横的手段迫使俄国人学习和效仿西方资本主义生产和文化，证明彼得的决心之大。现在苏俄无产阶级及其政党应该有更坚定的决心和信心在国内效仿德国的国家资本主义措施。

Sixth, Lenin advocated that Communists learn management experience from the organizers of trusts. As mentioned earlier, Lenin advocated employing scientific and technical experts and managers from the old society, allowing them to play a role in economic work. Related to this, he proposed that Communists must learn the art of management from the organizers of trusts. Needless to say, the Communists of that time had come from the revolutionary struggle. They had experience in propagandizing the masses, organizing the masses, preparing for and launching revolution, and establishing a new state power, but they lacked the ability to organize and lead economic work. In response to this situation, Lenin proposed that to improve this situation, Communists must learn from the organizers of trusts. In the “Preliminary Draft of ‘The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government’,” he wrote: “Learning socialism, to a large extent, we must learn from the leaders of trusts; learning socialism, we must learn from the biggest organizers of capitalism.” Why must this be so? He said that socialism is based on and starts from capitalism, and is a society characterized by large-scale machine production. The organizers of trusts have experience in organizing large-scale machine production, so we must learn from them. On this point, Lenin also said: Even if a person is of bad character, “as long as he has organized a trust, as long as he, as a businessman, has managed the production and distribution of millions of people, as long as he has experience, we should learn from him. If we do not learn these things from them, we will not achieve socialism, and the revolution will stagnate at the stage it has already reached.” Lenin’s above-mentioned thinking and practice also reflected his flexibility in the policy of developing production and the economy. Theoretically, Communists are the vanguard fighters of the proletariat and the leaders of the development of various undertakings in the Soviet state. However, this role of Communists needs to be viewed dialectically. They are not omniscient and omnipotent perfect beings. For them, things they have not experienced or do not understand must be learned from those who are expert, and continuous learning is necessary. Lenin viewed the problem precisely in this way, which clearly demonstrated his flexibility in policy on this issue.

第六，列宁主张共产党人向托拉斯的组织者学习管理的经验。如前所述，列宁主张启用旧社会过来的科技专家和管理者，让他们在经济工作中发挥作用。与此相联系，他提出共产党人必须向托拉斯的组织者学习管理的本领。毋庸讳言，当时的共产党人是从革命斗争中走过来的。他们具有宣传群众、组织群众、准备革命和发动革命以及建立新政权的经验，缺乏组织和领导经济工作的能力。针对这种情况，列宁提出，要改善此种状况共产党人必须向托拉斯的组织者学习。他在《〈苏维埃政权的当前任务〉一文初稿》中写道：“学习社会主义，在很大程度上要向托拉斯的领导者学习，学习社会主义，要向资本主义最大的组织者学习。为何必须如此呢？他说，社会主义是以资本主义为基础和出发点的，是以大机器生产为特征的社会。托拉斯的组织者具有组织大机器生产的经验，所以必须向他们学习。就此，列宁还说：即便是一个品行不良的人，“只要他组织过托拉斯，只要他这个商人曾经搞过千百万人的生产和分配，只要他有经验，我们就应该向他学习。如果我们不从他们那里学会这些东西，我们就得不到社会主义，革命也就会在它已经达到的阶段上停滞不前”。列宁的上述思想和实践，也体现出他在发展生产和经济上方针的灵活性。从理论上说，共产党人是无产阶级的先锋队战士，是苏维埃国家各项事业发展的领导者。可是需要辩证地看待共产党人的这个角色。他们不是无所不能的完人。对于他们来说，没有经历过的东西或不懂的东西，必须向内行的人学习，并且需要不断地学习。列宁正是这样看问题的，这就鲜明地体现了他在此问题上方针的灵活性。

In summary, in the practice of shifting the focus of work in Soviet Russia in the spring of 1918—that is, elevating the development of production and the economy to an important position—Lenin advocated using flexible measures and methods to develop production and the economy. He advocated that Soviet Russian enterprises adopt the slogan used by capitalist enterprises to strengthen production management—“observing the strictest labor discipline”—to strengthen enterprise management and develop production; advocated employing scientific and technical experts and managers from the old society to strengthen Soviet Russia’s production management and economic management; advocated compromising with the cooperatives inherited from the old society, utilizing their role, and doing a good job in the distribution of consumer goods; advocated learning from the American Taylor system to raise Soviet Russia’s labor productivity; advocated that Soviet Russia learn from and borrow German state capitalism; and advocated that Communists learn management experience from the organizers of trusts. These aspects constituted a complete and systematic ideological system of measures and methods for developing production and the economy. At that time, his proposal to “take our own path” was embodied in this ideological system in terms of developing production and the economy.

综上所述，在1918年春苏俄转变工作重心即把发展生产和经济提到重要地位上来的实践中，列宁主张以灵活的措施和办法发展生产和经济。他主张苏俄企业运用资本主义企业加强生产管理的口号——“遵守最严格的劳动纪律”，加强企业管理和发展生产；主张启用旧社会过来的科技专家和管理者，加强苏俄的生产管理和经济管理；主张同旧社会遗留下来的合作社妥协，发挥其作用，做好消费品分配工作；主张借鉴美国的泰罗制以提高苏俄的劳动生产率；主张苏俄学习和借鉴德国国家资本主义；主张共产党人向托拉斯的组织者学习管理经验。这些方面构成他发展生产和经济的完整的、系统的措施和办法的思想体系。当时他提出“走自己的路”，在发展生产和经济方面的内容就体现为这个思想体系。

III. Comments on Lenin’s Thought

三、对列宁思想的评论

In the spring of 1918, in works such as “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government” and “On ‘Left-Wing’ Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Mentality,” as well as in speeches at relevant meetings, Lenin expressed both his unwavering communist faith and his emphasis on “taking our own path”—that is, using flexible measures to develop Soviet Russia’s production and economy—profoundly embodying the spirit of unity between the firmness of principles and faith and the flexibility of tactics and measures.

1918年春列宁在《苏维埃政权的当前任务》《论“左派”幼稚性和小资产阶级性》等著作以及有关会议上的讲话中既表达了自己坚定不移的共产主义信仰，又强调“走自己的路”即以灵活的措施发展苏俄的生产和经济，深刻地体现了原则和信仰的坚定性与策略和措施的灵活性相统一的精神。

The above-mentioned ideas and practices of Lenin carried forward the fine tradition in the history of Marxist development of unifying the firmness of principle and faith with the flexibility of strategy and measures, and enriched and developed the ideas and spirit of Marx and Engels. From the perspective of the history of Marxist development, unifying the firmness of principle and faith with the flexibility of strategy and measures is a fine tradition in the advance of theory and practice. In the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels proposed that the communists could summarise their theory in one sentence: the abolition of private property! They also proposed that if the proletariat must unite as a class, must make itself the ruling class through revolution, and as the ruling class must violently abolish the capitalist relations of production, then when it abolishes the capitalist relations of production it also abolishes the conditions for class antagonisms and class existence, and thereby abolishes its own class rule. At that point a “free association of individuals,” i.e., communist society, would be born. The above theses pointed out the goal of the proletariat’s struggle, emphasising that the proletarians of the whole world should strive for this beautiful goal. At the same time, Marx and Engels set forth the tasks of the proletariat’s immediate struggle, namely that the first step in the workers’ revolution is to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class, to win the battle of democracy, and to develop the productive forces as rapidly as possible. When discussing the proletariat’s current tasks of struggle, Marx and Engels also pointed out that the communists should support and unite with non-proletarian political movements to advance together. For example, in Switzerland, they should support the “Radicals” composed of radical bourgeois; in Poland, they should support the revolutionary party leading the national liberation movement; in Germany, as long as the bourgeoisie acts in a revolutionary way, the communists should go together with them against the absolute monarchy.

上述列宁的思想和实践发扬了马克思主义发展史上把原则和信仰的坚定性与策略和措施的灵活性统一起来的优良传统，丰富和发展了马克思恩格斯的思想和精神。从马克思主义发展史上看，把原则和信仰的坚定性与策略和措施的灵活性统一起来，是理论和实践前进的优良传统。马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中提出，共产党人可以用一句话把自己的理论概括起来：消灭私有制！还提出，如果说无产阶级一定要联合成为阶级，一定要通过革命使自己成为统治阶级，并以统治阶级的资格用暴力消灭资本主义的生产关系，那么它在消灭了资本主义的生产关系时也就消灭了阶级对立和阶级存在的条件，也就消灭了自己这个阶级的统治。这时一个“自由人的联合体”即共产主义社会就将诞生。上述论断指明了无产阶级奋斗的目标，强调全世界的无产者要朝着这个美好的目标而斗争。同时，马克思恩格斯提出了无产阶级近期斗争的任务，即工人革命的第一步是使无产阶级夺取政权，争得民主，并尽快地发展生产力。在论及无产阶级当前的斗争任务时，马克思恩格斯还指出，共产党人要支持和联合非无产阶级的政治运动一起前进。如在瑞士，要支持由激进的资产者组成的“激进派”；在波兰，要支持领导民族解放运动的革命政党；在德国，只要资产阶级采取革命行动，共产党人就要同它们一起去反对专制君主制。

Facts fully prove that Marx and Engels unified the proletariat’s distant goal of achieving communism with their current struggles, especially their current struggles of supporting non-proletarian political movements, or in other words, unified the firmness of principle and faith with the flexibility of struggle strategy. The above-mentioned ideas and practices of Lenin in the spring of 1918, on the one hand, firmly upheld communist faith, requiring the Soviet Russian proletariat to do its own work well and promote the development of the world socialist movement; on the other hand, required the Soviet Russian proletariat to do domestic affairs well, and put forward a series of measures, i.e., measures using the enterprise management of capitalist society to develop Soviet Russia’s production and economy. Clearly, Lenin carried forward the tradition of Marx and Engels of unifying the proletariat’s distant goal of achieving communism with their current struggles, especially their current struggles of supporting non-proletarian political movements, or in other words, the tradition of unifying the firmness of principle and faith with the flexibility of struggle strategy. Because Lenin’s era was different, and the conditions and content of his practice were different, Lenin’s ideas and practices enriched and developed the ideas and spirit of Marx and Engels. For example, Marx and Engels mainly expounded the spirit of unifying the distant goal with current struggles, or the spirit of unifying the firmness of principle and faith with the flexibility of struggle strategy, through theoretical research. Lenin, on the other hand, was based on the practice of Soviet Russia’s production and construction, simultaneously carrying out production and construction and exploring the path of construction, while expounding the spirit of unifying the firmness of principle and faith with the flexibility of struggle strategy. The latter expressed things and problems more directly, more concretely, and with greater ideological depth, reflecting the enrichment and development of the ideas and spirit of Marx and Engels.

事实充分地证明，马克思恩格斯是把无产阶级实现共产主义的远大目标同他们当前的斗争特别是同他们当前支持非无产阶级政治运动的斗争统一起来的，或者说是把原则和信仰的坚定性与斗争策略的灵活性统一起来的。上述列宁1918年春的思想和实践，一方面坚定共产主义信仰，要求苏俄无产阶级尽力做好自己的工作，促进世界社会主义运动发展；另一方面要求苏俄无产阶级努力做好国内的事情，并且提出了一系列的措施即运用资本主义社会企业管理的措施发展苏俄生产和经济的措施。显然，列宁发扬了马克思恩格斯把无产阶级实现共产主义的远大目标同他们当前的斗争特别是同他们当前支持非无产阶级政治运动的斗争统一起来的传统，或者说把原则和信仰的坚定性与斗争策略的灵活性统一起来的传统。由于列宁所处的时代不同，进行实践的条件和内容不同，所以列宁的思想和实践丰富和发展了马克思恩格斯的思想和精神。例如马克思恩格斯主要的是通过理论研究阐述把远大目标同当前斗争统一起来的精神，或者说把原则和信仰的坚定性与斗争策略的灵活性统一起来的精神。列宁则是立足于苏俄生产建设的实践，一边进行生产建设并探索建设的路径，一边阐述把原则和信仰的坚定性与斗争策略的灵活性统一起来的精神。后者对事物和问题的表达更直接、更具体、更有思想深度，体现了对马克思恩格斯思想和精神的丰富和发展。

The above-mentioned ideas and practices of Lenin have enlightening significance for the practice of contemporary Chinese Communists. In the process of leading reform and opening up and socialism with Chinese characteristics, contemporary Chinese Communists have consistently adhered to unifying the firmness of principle and faith with the flexibility of strategy and measures. In the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping proposed that China should build both socialist material civilisation and socialist cultural-ethical progress; the most fundamental aspect of building socialist cultural-ethical progress is to enable the broad masses of the people to have communist ideals, morality, culture, and discipline. He said: “The highest ideal of us communists is to realise communism, and in different historical stages there are programmes of struggle that represent the interests of the broadest masses of the people at that stage. Only then can we unite and mobilise the broadest masses of the people, which is called being of one mind and one heart.” Deng Xiaoping’s thesis precisely points out that the CPC has already combined or unified the highest ideal, i.e., the communist ideal, with the Party’s specific measures for seeking the interests of the people in different periods. The subsequent Party Central Committee adhered to such ideas and practices in advancing the process of reform and opening up.

上述列宁的思想和实践，对当代中国共产党人的实践具有启示意义。当代中国共产党人在领导改革开放和中国特色社会主义的进程中，一贯坚持把原则和信仰的坚定性与策略和措施的灵活性统一起来。在20世纪80年代，邓小平提出，中国既要建设社会主义物质文明，又要建设社会主义精神文明；建设社会主义精神文明，最根本的是要使广大人民有共产主义理想，有道德，有文化，守纪律。他说：“我们共产党人的最高理想是实现共产主义，在不同历史阶段又有代表那个阶段最广大人民利益的奋斗纲领。因此我们才能够团结和动员最广大的人民群众，叫做万众一心。”邓小平的这个论断正在于指明中国共产党已然将最高理想即共产主义理想同各个不同时期党为人民谋利益的具体措施结合起来了或统一起来了。此后的党中央在推进改革开放的进程中坚持了这样的思想和实践。

Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics led by the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has more distinctly demonstrated

党的十八大以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央领导的新时代中国特色社会主义事业更鲜明地展示出把原则和信仰的坚定性与策略和措施的灵活性统一起来的特点。习近平指出，理想信仰是共产党人精神上的“钙”，共产党人如果没有理想信仰，精神上就会缺“钙”，就会得“软骨病”，就会导致政治上、经济上、道德上、生活上的错误甚至严重错误。同时习近平提出，党必须坚持以人民为中心的发展思想，把人民拥护不拥护、赞成不赞成、高兴不高兴作为制定政策的依据，顺应民心、尊重民意、关注民情、致力民生。从实践上看，以习近平同志为核心的党中央领导进行脱贫攻坚的决战，在中华大地上全面建成了小康社会，历史性地解决了绝对贫困问题。上述事实证明，以习近平同志为核心的党中央高度重视并完全地践行了把原则和信仰的坚定性与策略和措施的灵活性统一起来的思想和精神。如同本文开头所援引过的，习近平2022年1月在省部级主要领导干部学习贯彻党的十九届六中全会精神专题研讨班开班式上发表重要讲话中指出：我们党在一个大国领导伟大的现代化建设事业，要善于进行战略思维，善于从战略上看问题、想问题。正确的战略需要正确的策略来落实。“战略和策略是辩证统一的关系”，要把“战略的坚定性和策略的灵活性结合起来”。这里他说战略和策略是辩证统一的关系，要把两者结合起来，其意思等同于把原则和信仰的坚定性与策略和措施的灵活性统一起来。上述习近平的论述是关于此问题的明确的、经典的论述。

In summary, contemporary Chinese Communists, especially those in the New Era, are of the same lineage as Lenin’s thought and spirit on the question of unifying the firmness of principle and faith with the flexibility of tactics and measures. Of course, starting from the current international and domestic situation and tasks, Chinese Communists in the New Era have enriched, developed, and innovated Lenin’s thought and spirit on a higher foothold and in terms of practical content.

综上所述，当代中国共产党人特别是新时代中国共产党人，在原则和信仰的坚定性与策略和措施的灵活性相统一的问题上同列宁的思想和精神是一脉相承的。当然，新时代中国共产党人从当前的国际国内形势以及任务出发，在更高的立足点上和实践内容上，丰富、发展和创新了列宁的思想和精神。

(About the author: Yu Min, Vice Dean, Professor, and Doctoral Supervisor of the School of Public Administration, Nanjing Normal University)

（作者简介：俞敏，南京师范大学公共管理学院副院长、教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心