Lenin’s Critique of Russian Populism and Its Contemporary Implications

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was in an era of awakening and the emergence of independent thought. New developments in the economic sphere, combined with sharp class contradictions, were reflected in the ideological realm as the Russian intellectual world “immersed itself in the tense and concentrated atmosphere of the cultural-ethical renaissance of the early twentieth century.” On one side stood a powerful materialist movement and a rising workers’ movement; on the other, the intellectual world dominated by Russian Populism, whose “non-capitalist development” path, petty-bourgeois stance, and subjective sociological method were undermining revolutionary struggle. Against this backdrop, Lenin, proceeding from material practice, launched a critique of Russian Populism as a “sham socialism.” This was, of course, no ordinary ideological struggle. The critique itself, moving from destruction to construction and combining both, emphasized construction as the foundation, with the aim of elaborating a “scientific ideology” and establishing Marxism as the sole scientific revolutionary theory. In this respect, it aligns with the New Era’s principle of “upholding the unity of constructiveness and criticalness, transmitting mainstream ideology, and confronting various erroneous views and trends of thought,” [n] thereby demonstrating significant contemporary value.

19世纪末20世纪初，俄国正处在觉醒和唤起独立思维的时代，经济领域的新变化与尖锐的阶级矛盾，反映在意识形态领域表现为俄国思想界“沉浸于二十世纪初精神文化复兴的紧张和浓缩的氛围之中”。一方面是强有力的唯物主义运动和日益高涨的工人运动；另一方面是以俄国民粹主义为主导的思想界，其“非资本主义发展”道路、小资产阶级立场和主观社会学方法正在破坏革命斗争。在此背景下，列宁从物质实践出发，展开对俄国民粹主义这一“冒牌的社会主义”的批判。这里当然不是一般性的思想斗争，批判本身的由破到立、立破并举，强调的是以立为本，其目的在于阐述“科学的意识形态”,确立马克思主义为唯一科学的革命理论。此方面，正与新时代“坚持建设性和批判性相统一，传导主流意识形态，直面各种错误观点和思潮”相一致，彰显着重要的现实价值。

I. The Ideological Debates of a Period of Social Transformation Urgently Required Lenin to Make a Judgment on Russian Populism

一、社会转型期的思想论争亟待列宁对俄国民粹主义作出研判

“Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement.” The lack of guidance from scientific thought was precisely the theoretical “crisis” facing Russia’s spontaneous workers’ movement at the end of the 19th century. Lenin recognized that to awaken the revolutionary struggle consciousness of the workers, “it was necessary to achieve firm ideological unity and eliminate differences of opinion and ideological confusion.” This required a scientific judgment on the social trends of thought, primarily Russian Populism.

“没有革命的理论，就不会有革命的运动”。缺乏科学思想的指导恰恰是19世纪末俄国自发的工人运动面临的理论“危机”。列宁认识到要唤醒工人的革命斗争意识，“必须做到巩固的思想一致，排除意见分歧和思想混乱”,这就要对以俄国民粹主义为主的社会思潮进行科学研判。

First, the dilemma of cultural choice during Russia’s social transformation required theoretical discrimination and guidance. Having been drawn into the capitalist system, Russia’s unprecedented economic growth intensified the sharpening of social contradictions, the rupture between old and new forces, and the loss of national cultural identity. A group of intellectuals with different worldviews, amid the confrontation and fusion of the national and the foreign, the traditional and the modern, embarked on different explorations of Russia’s development path. Russian Populism, a representative of Russian exceptionalism, hoped to find a unique path to a peasant-commune socialism from Russia’s traditional “people’s economy.” Bourgeois liberalism, representing the emerging bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy, emphasized both the consistency of Russia’s historical development path with that of Western Europe and the desire to preserve the status quo of landlord landownership, that is, it envisioned achieving a constitutional monarchy as its future political ideal through top-down reform. The “Legal Marxists” emphasized the decisive role of the economy in social life and attempted to lead Russia onto the capitalist development path through peaceful reform. Russian Marxism had principled differences with democracy, liberalism, and other currents, holding that the commune itself could not become a source of social renewal, while calling on the working class to achieve liberation through revolution. In fact, among the debates of various social trends, it was Russian Populism that held the main “discursive power.” Its vulgar views on the question of Russia’s capitalist development deeply imprisoned the consciousness of the Russian intelligentsia and tempted the working class to abandon revolutionary struggle. Especially in the 1890s, Russian Populists used the publications at their disposal to openly provoke debates, extensively citing Marx’s words to distort Marxism, “even claiming that spreading Marxism to Russia, which was developing along a unique path, was an insult to Marx,” [n] thus becoming “the most vicious enemy of the Social Democrats.” The spread of Marxism in Russia was obstructed. How should Russia take the socialist path? The Russian intellectual world was shrouded in the vacillation, fragmentation, and mixing of cultural choices during the social transformation, urgently requiring the identification of the best theory suited to Russia’s reality. At this time, the critique of Russian Populism became an unavoidable and important issue for Lenin and other Russian Marxists.

第一，俄国社会转型期的文化选择困境需要从理论上作出甄别和引导。卷入资本主义体系的俄国，前所未有的经济增长趋势加剧了社会矛盾的激化、新旧力量的断裂以及民族文化认同的迷失。一批具有不同世界观的知识分子，在民族与外来、传统与现代的文化对抗与融合中展开了对俄国发展道路的不同探索。俄国民粹主义是俄国特殊论的代表，寄希望从俄国传统的“人民经济”中寻找一条独特的农民村社社会主义之路。资产阶级自由主义作为新兴资产阶级和贵族地主的代表，既强调俄国与西欧历史发展道路的一致性，又希望保留地主土地所有制的现状，即设想通过自上而下的改革，把君主立宪制作为未来的政治理想。“合法马克思主义者”则强调经济在社会生活中的决定性作用，试图通过和平改良的方式把俄国引上资本主义发展道路。俄国马克思主义与民主主义、自由主义等有原则性的分歧，认为公社本身不能成为社会革新的源泉，同时号召工人阶级通过革命的方式获得解放。事实上，各种社会思潮的论争中，掌握主要“话语权”的为俄国民粹主义，其在俄国资本主义发展问题上的庸俗见解，深刻禁锢着俄国知识分子的思想意识，并引诱工人阶级放弃革命斗争。尤其是在19世纪90年代，俄国民粹主义者利用手中的刊物公开挑起论战，大量援引马克思的言论来歪曲马克思主义，“甚至声称把马克思主义传播到沿着独特道路发展的俄国，是对马克思的凌侮”,俨然成了“社会民主党最凶恶的敌人”。马克思主义在俄国的传播遭到阻碍，俄国应该如何走上社会主义道路?俄国思想界笼罩在社会转型期文化选择的摇摆、分裂与混合之中，亟待辨析出符合俄国实际的最佳理论。此时，对俄国民粹主义的批判成为列宁等俄国马克思主义者不可回避的重要问题。

Second, the evolution of Russian Populism meant that “every class-conscious worker should closely follow the evolution of this ideology.” Tracing back to the 1840s, Herzen, who came from the nobility and questioned the debates between the Slavophiles and the Westernizers, “regarded communal land tenure and the peasants’ ‘right to land’ as ‘socialist’” political ideals, and set off a quiet nihilist movement. It was precisely the ambiguity in the historical views and political ideals of the founders of Russian Populism that made this ideology “the origin of the discourse of traditional superiority or ‘latecomer overtaking,’” [n] thereby leading Russia’s modernization onto a development path that vainly attempted to directly transcend industrial capitalism through an agricultural socialism. By the period of revolutionary Populism, Russian Populists first established the “Land and Liberty” society, later formed the “Black Repartition” and the “People’s Will,” and “treated the people as ‘revolutionary material,’” launching large-scale “going to the people” movements and terrorist activities. Although this helped to stimulate the struggle of the working masses, it pushed Russian social thought toward radicalism. Therefore, the efforts of Russian Populism in the 1870s to consciously awaken the peasants yielded little substantive effect. Lenin was quite right to define the progressive and revolutionary elements present in the revolutionary Populists as “enlighteners” and a historical “heritage.” [n] Thus, the greater social harm came in the stage of liberal Populism. At this point, having deviated from the original intention of believing in a “people’s revolution,” it sought a path of reform and compromise relying on the Tsar. This inevitably led Russian Populism, even after the development of capitalism had already become established, to remain mired in a special path of modernization that transcended universality for Russia, fantasizing about preventing the “tragic aspects” of the capitalist system. By the period of the Socialist Revolutionaries, these ideas reached the limit of left-wing Populist thought, continuing to strengthen views on Russian uniqueness and the revolutionary potential of the peasantry. It should be noted that over more than half a century of development and evolution, Russian Populism not only formed a complex ideological system, but its theoretical views had already spread widely among the workers and peasants. Therefore, without a profound analysis of this trend of thought, it would be impossible to achieve Marxism’s “close connection with the practice of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement.”

第二，俄国民粹主义的流变，使得“任何一个觉悟工人都应当密切注意这一意识形态的演变”。追溯到19世纪40年代，由于质疑斯拉夫派与西方派的争论，贵族出身的赫尔岑，“把村社土地占有制和农民的‘土地权’思想看做‘社会主义’”的政治理想，并掀起了一场悄无声息的虚无主义运动。正是俄国民粹主义创始人在历史观与政治理想上的模糊不清，使这一思想成为“传统优势论或‘后发反超前’论调的滥觞”,由此把俄国现代化引上了妄想通过农业社会主义直接超越工业资本主义的发展之路。到革命民粹主义时期，俄国民粹主义者先期成立了“土地和自由社”,后组成“土地平分社”和“民意党”,并“把人民当做‘革命的材料’”,发动大规模的“到民间去”运动和恐怖主义活动。虽然这有利于激发工人群众的斗争，却使俄国社会思潮走向激进主义。因此，19世纪70年代俄国民粹主义有意唤起农民的努力实质收效甚微。列宁将革命民粹主义者身上所具有进步的和革命的成分定义为“启蒙者”、历史“遗产”是再合适不过的了。如此，更大的社会危害则为自由民粹主义阶段。由于此时背离信仰“人民革命”的初衷，寻求依靠沙皇的改良与妥协道路。这必然导致俄国民粹主义在资本主义发展已然定型的情况下，仍然沉溺在俄国超越普世性的特殊现代化转型之路中，幻想防范资本主义制度的“悲惨方面”。这些思想到社会革命党人时期，更是达到了左派民粹主义思想的极限，继续强化俄国独特论、农民革命潜力论等观点。需要注意的是，在长达半个多世纪的发展演变中，俄国民粹主义不仅形成了庞杂的思想体系，而且其理论观点早已泛滥于工农群众之中。因而，不深刻分析这一思潮，就不能实现马克思主义“同真正群众性的和真正革命的运动的实践密切地联系起来”。

Third, the inadequacy of the critique of Russian populism by “Legal Marxism” and the early Russian Marxism headed by Plekhanov urgently required a thorough eradication from the essence. At the end of the 19th century, in the struggle against the populist faction, the “Legal Marxists” Struve, Baranovsky, and others were fellow travelers of the Russian proletarian movement. Standing on an objectivist position, they cited a large number of facts and data to demonstrate the process of development of the Russian economic system, arguing that the development of capitalism in Russia was “a necessary result of the material process,” thereby forcefully refuting the Russian populist “old ‘people’s’ forms of life.” However, “Legal Marxism” went to great lengths to beautify the infinite possibilities and eternal permanence of capitalist economic progress, thereby obliterating class contradictions and revolutionary struggle, revealing a misunderstanding of historical materialism. At the same time, the first to deal a heavy blow to the populist faction using Marxism as a theoretical weapon were the early Russian Marxists represented by Plekhanov. In works such as *Socialism and the Political Struggle*, *Our Differences*, and *On the Question of the Role of the Individual in History*, Plekhanov criticized the economic theories and idealist conception of history of Russian populism, exposing the utopian nature of its revolutionary program and strategy. It can be said that Plekhanov’s critique had “very great” merits. [5]5 V. I. Lenin, *Collected Works*, Vol. 20, p. 59. (Reference to Lenin’s assessment of Plekhanov’s role.) Nevertheless, Plekhanov’s theory did not achieve a close integration with the concrete national conditions of Russia. For example, in his economic views, he exaggerated the degree of development of capitalist economic relations in Russia; in his revolutionary views, he regarded the proletariat and the peasantry as two opposing political forces. Precisely because of the limitations of the above theories, the task of ideologically smashing Russian populism could not be accomplished. In order to sound the strongest note of the working-class struggle and to create a purely “quiet” revolutionary environment for the Russian democratic revolutionary movement, Lenin had to shoulder the historical task of theoretical struggle and ideological critique, launching a comprehensive and thorough critique of Russian populism.

第三，“合法马克思主义”和普列汉诺夫为首的早期俄国马克思主义对俄国民粹主义批判的不足，急需从本质上完成彻底肃清。19世纪末，在反对民粹派的斗争中，“合法马克思主义者”司徒卢威、巴拉诺夫斯基等曾是俄国无产阶级运动的同路人。他们站在客观主义立场，列举大量事实和数据论证了俄国经济制度的发展过程，认为资本主义的发展在俄国是“物质过程的必要结果”,有力反驳了俄国民粹主义“旧的‘人民的’生活形式”。但是“合法马克思主义”却极力美化资本主义经济进步的无限可能性和持久永恒性，以此抹杀阶级矛盾和革命斗争，表现出对历史唯物主义的误解。同时，第一个以马克思主义为理论武器给民粹派沉重打击的，是普列汉诺夫为代表的早期俄国马克思主义者。普列汉诺夫在《社会主义与政治斗争》《我们的意见分歧》《论个人在历史上的作用问题》等著作中对俄国民粹主义的经济理论、唯心史观等内容进行了批判，揭露了其革命纲领和策略的空想性质。可以说，普列汉诺夫的批判，功绩“是很大的”。然而，普列汉诺夫的理论并没有实现与俄国具体国情的紧密结合，如经济观上，过分夸大俄国资本主义经济关系的发展程度；在革命观上，把无产阶级和农民看作两种相反的政治力量。正是由于上述理论的局限性，无法完成思想上粉碎俄国民粹主义的任务。为了奏响工人阶级斗争的最强音，也为了营造俄国民主革命运动纯粹“安静”的革命环境，列宁不得不肩负起理论斗争和意识形态批判的历史任务，展开对俄国民粹主义全面彻底的批判。

II. Dispelling Ideological Misconceptions: Lenin’s Systematic Critique of Russian Populism

二、破解思想误区：列宁对俄国民粹主义的系统批判

Russian populism, supported by Eastern Orthodox faith, was a romantic social trend of thought, but it also overstepped the bounds of thought and culture itself, becoming an important socio-political ideological school. In exploring Russia’s “special character,” it pronounced a “death sentence” on Russia’s capitalist development on the path of social development, proposing a “non-capitalist” view of social development; in terms of social ideals and revolutionary dynamics, it propagated the “theory of the realization of socialism.” In essence, this was an idealist conception of history completely opposed to historical materialism. By exporting political views, economic theories, and value concepts that reflected its ideology, Russian populism manifested its nihilistic cultural essence and reflected a misguided direction for Russia’s development. Lenin opposed general, abstract, and utopian ideological understandings, and instead launched his critique based on Russia’s actual development and revolutionary practice.

东正教信仰支撑的俄国民粹主义，是一种浪漫主义的社会思潮，但又僭越了思想和文化本身，成为重要的社会政治思想派别。它为探索俄国“特殊的东西”,在社会发展道路上给俄国的资本主义发展判了“死刑”,提出“非资本主义”社会发展观；在社会理想和革命动力上宣扬“社会主义实现论”。实质上，这是同唯物史观完全对立的唯心史观。俄国民粹主义通过输出反映意识形态的政治观点、经济理论、价值观念等，体现出其虚无主义的文化本质，且折射出对俄国发展方向的错误引导。列宁反对一般抽象的、空想的思想认识，继而基于俄国发展实际和革命实践展开批判。

First, Lenin criticized the “non-capitalist” path of development of Russian populism.

第一，列宁批判俄国民粹主义的“非资本主义”发展道路。

Russian populism regarded the development of capitalism in Russia as merely an “accidental phenomenon.” In response, they proposed “idly discussing the possibility of the motherland taking ‘another path.’” “Is Russia ‘obliged’ or ‘not obliged’ to go through the ‘school’ of capitalism?” Lenin, “examining all phenomena from the concrete environment and development,” initially, through V. E. Postnikov’s book *The Peasant Economy of Southern Russia*, mastered the statistical materials on the development of the Russian peasant economy after the abolition of serfdom. After a comparative analysis of the property status, scale of operation, nature, methods, and systems of various types of peasants, Lenin discovered that the “diversity” of the peasant economy and the “disparity” in wealth levels could not be explained by Postnikov’s “reduction in allotment land and scale of operation.” When the expansion of the scale of operation of the upper and middle households and the development of commercial interests had to be achieved through extensive wage labor, even the bankruptcy of the lower households, this “was no longer just a disparity, but direct exploitation,” undoubtedly a qualitative change. Secondly, Lenin saw that “peasant differentiation” and the penetration of commodity production into agriculture caused the separation of laborers from the means of production in terms of ownership relations, and the growth of production and consumption continuously expanded the capitalist domestic market. The reason Russian populism used the “lack of a domestic market” to propagate the fallacy that capitalist development was a “defect” of policy was that, from Smith to Sismondi to Russian populism, all consumption was classified as personal consumption, “naturally giving rise to the doctrine that the capitalist cannot realize surplus value.” [6]6 This refers to the underconsumptionist theory of crises associated with Sismondi and later adopted by the Russian populists, which Lenin refuted in his early economic works. Similarly, in the analysis of industrial capitalism, the reason Russian populism judged the nature of “people’s industry” based on the standard of large-scale machine production was mainly that this “easiest way of understanding” only focused on the highest stage of capitalism, ignoring that the development of things is a unified process of multiple stages, and thus failed to see the nature of the underdeveloped stages of capitalism. The fact was that the economic environment in which Russia found itself “contained all the contradictions inherent in any commodity economy and any capitalism,” and the practice of Russian populism in defending the “non-capitalist” path of development and vainly attempting to stop the “wheel of history” was absurd.

资本主义在俄国的发展，俄国民粹主义认为只是“偶然现象”。对此，他们提出“清谈‘祖国走另外道路’的可能性”。“俄国是‘必须’还是‘毋须’经过资本主义的‘学校’呢”?列宁“从具体环境和发展中考察一切现象”,最初通过弗·叶·波斯特尼柯夫《南俄农民经济》一书，掌握了农奴制改革后俄国农民经济发展的统计材料。在对各类农民财产状况、经营规模、性质、方式、制度的对比分析后，列宁发现农民经济的“多样性”和富裕程度的“悬殊”,并不是波斯特尼柯夫“份地数量和经营规模缩小”所能解释的。当上等户、中等户经营规模扩大与商业利益发展要靠大量雇佣劳动，甚至是下等户的破产来实现时，事实上“这已经不只是悬殊，这是直接的剥削”,无疑是质的改变。其次，列宁看到“农民分化”和商品性生产渗入农业，引起了占有关系上劳动者与生产资料的分离，生产消费的增长不断扩大着资本主义国内市场。俄国民粹主义以“缺少国内市场”来宣扬资本主义发展是政策“缺陷”的谬论，原因在于从斯密到西斯蒙第再到俄国民粹主义都把全部消费归为个人消费，“自然就会产生出资本家不能实现额外价值的学说”。同样，对工业资本主义的分析，俄国民粹主义之所以会以大机器工业生产为标准判断“人民工业”的性质，主要在于这种“最容易的理解方式”只关注资本主义的最高阶段，忽视了事物发展是多阶段的统一过程，也就看不到资本主义不发达阶段的性质。事实是俄国所处的经济环境“存在着任何商品经济和任何资本主义所固有的一切矛盾”,而俄国民粹主义为“非资本主义”发展道路辩护，妄想阻止“历史车轮”前进的做法是荒谬的。

Of course, Lenin also proposed a dialectical and historical view of capitalism. In *The Development of Capitalism in Russia*, he said: “Finally, we must also sum up what the literature calls the ‘mission’ of capitalism.” The development of capitalism brings about highly developed productive forces and the socialization of production, but this also intensifies its inherent contradictions. Therefore, the progressive role of capitalism and its historical transience exist dialectically. The realization of socialism in Russia “cannot skip over or abolish the natural stages of development by decree.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Preface to the First German Edition. (The phrase “iron necessity” is Marx’s characterization of the developmental laws of capitalist production.) Lenin, using Marx’s “iron necessity,” explained that capitalism is inevitably replaced by a higher social formation—socialism. In this sense, utilizing capitalism and developing socialism are consistent.

当然，列宁也提出辩证、历史地看待资本主义。在《俄国资本主义的发展》中，他说：“最后，我们还要对著作界称之为资本主义的‘使命’问题”作出总结。资本主义发展带来生产力高度发达和生产的社会化，但这也促使其固有矛盾激化。所以，资本主义的进步作用与历史暂时性是辩证存在的。俄国社会主义的实现“不能跳过也不能用法令取消自然的发展阶级”,列宁以马克思“铁的必然性”,说明资本主义不可避免被更高的社会形态——社会主义所代替。从这层意义上来说，利用资本主义与发展社会主义具有一致性。

Second, Lenin criticized the petty-bourgeois roots of Russian populism.

第二，列宁批判俄国民粹主义的小资产阶级根源。

The “illusory hope of ‘eliminating the new exploiters—the capitalists—all at once’ by preserving the rural commune” [8]8 This is a paraphrase of the populist position, which Lenin frequently criticized for its romantic and reactionary utopianism regarding the rural commune (*obshchina*). of Russian populism was reflected in the ideological and cultural sphere as an indulgence in the nihilistic body of moral evaluation. They despised traditional university education, neglected the relationship between intellectuals and the people, and especially their class consciousness “imbued with communal sentiments.” As early as in the enlighteners Herzen and Chernyshevsky, there was an admixture of the intuitive and irrational abstract philosophical foundations of Kant, Hegel, and Fichte. Lenin proposed that reactionaries always talk metaphysically about what cultural role is, being “confused non-Party elements.” [9]9 Lenin’s critique of “non-Partyism” (*bezpartiinost’*) as a cover for bourgeois objectivism and a lack of revolutionary principle. If the study of facts is not placed on a scientific basis, and subjective factors are blindly advocated, intellectuals will inevitably lose their political direction. Taking Engelhardt’s *Letters from the Countryside* published in *Notes of the Fatherland* as an example, Lenin analyzed this populist literary work, which did not strenuously whitewash the “commune” ideal, but on the contrary exposed the astonishing individualism among the small peasants. Here “‘progress’ and ‘culture’ are undoubtedly ‘connected with private property,’” [10]10 Lenin’s analysis of Engelhardt’s letters, showing that the development of commodity economy among the peasantry inevitably led to capitalist relations, contrary to populist illusions. and the real material forces shattered the romantic illusions. The utopian shell of Russian populism could no longer conceal the democratic kernel that carefully distinguished the condition of the peasantry, to the point of manifesting the contradictory duality of the petty-bourgeois ideological system.

俄国民粹主义通过保存农村公社“把资本主义新剥削者‘一并’消灭掉的虚幻的冀望”,反映在思想文化领域则沉溺于道德评价的虚无主义肌体中。他们鄙视传统的大学教育、忽视知识分子与人民的关系，尤其是其“具有村社感情的”的阶级意识。早在赫尔岑、车尔尼雪夫斯基等启蒙者身上，就沾染了康德、黑格尔、费希特等直感而又非理性的抽象哲学基础。列宁提出反动者总是形而上学地谈论什么是文化作用，是“糊涂的无党性分子”。如果不把对事实的研究放在科学的基础上，一味倡导主观因素，知识分子必然失去政治方向。列宁以恩格尔哈特发表在《祖国纪事》上的《农村来信》为例，剖析这部民粹主义文学作品，并没有卖力地粉饰“村社”理想，相反却揭露了小农中惊人的个人主义。这里的“‘进步’和‘文化’无疑是同‘私有制’有联系的”,现实的物质力量打破了浪漫主义的幻想。俄国民粹主义乌托邦的外壳已经掩饰不了细心辨别农民状况的民主主义内核，以至表现出小资产阶级思想体系两重性的矛盾。

Third, Lenin criticized the “subjective sociology” method of Russian populism.

第三，列宁批判俄国民粹主义的“主观社会学”方法。

The divergence in ideas and viewpoints is embodied in the philosophical method: does one proceed from objective economic facts or from subjective wishes? Mikhailovsky’s subjective sociology “begins with a certain utopia” and takes “human nature” as its starting point, resulting in the denial of the objective laws of social development and the a priori fabrication of a theory of Russian social-historical development. Consequently, Russian populism slanders the Marxist doctrine of the laws of social development, claiming that it “relies on the ‘incontestability’ of the dialectical process,” that is, that it is entirely a fallacy deduced from Hegel’s purely speculative “triad.” In the first part of *What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats*, Lenin exposed the distorting method of Mikhailovsky and others, who only know one side of the matter and not the other — a method not uncommon in the history of Marxism. When the opportunists of the Second International “revised” Marxism, Bernstein asserted that “to provide socialism with a purely materialist justification is neither possible nor necessary,” which serves as an example. As early as 1873, in the “Afterword” to the first volume of *Capital*, Marx refuted the bourgeois critics’ outcry about “Hegelian sophistry,” distinguishing between the method of presentation and the method of inquiry. Similarly, in *Anti-Dühring*, Engels refuted Dühring’s distortion that Marx pinned the future on the “negation of the negation,” acting as a midwife delivering from the womb of the past — a complete inversion of the truth. Lenin developed the views of Marx and Engels, further explaining that materialist dialectics is by no means a “polished gold coin.” “Since these gentlemen cannot offer any substantive objection to this doctrine, they seize upon Marx’s mode of expression, attack the origin of the theory, and try thereby to shake its foundations.” The despicable polemical method of Russian populism is nothing but a plagiarism of the worn-out fabrications of bourgeois “critics.”

思想观点的分歧，体现在哲学方法上是从客观的经济事实出发还是从主观的愿望出发。米海洛夫斯基的主观社会学，“从某种空想开始”,以“人的本性”为出发点，结果是否定社会发展的客观规律，先验地臆造了俄国社会历史发展的理论。由此，俄国民粹主义污蔑马克思主义关于社会发展规律的学说其“所依靠的是辩证过程的‘无可争辩性’”,也就是，完全是从黑格尔纯思辨的“三段论”推理出来的谬论。在《什么是“人民之友”以及他们如何攻击社会民主党人?》一书的第一编中，列宁揭露了米海洛夫斯基等人只知其一，不知其二的歪曲方式，在马克思主义发展史上并不少见。第二国际机会主义者在“修正”马克思主义时，伯恩斯坦声称“给社会主义提供纯粹唯物主义的论证，既是不可能的，也是不必要的”,就是例证。早在1873年，马克思在《资本论》第1卷的“跋”中就驳斥过资产阶级评论家叫喊的“黑格尔的诡辩”分不清叙述方法与研究方法的不同。同样，恩格斯在《反杜林论》中也曾驳斥杜林歪曲马克思把未来维系在“否定的否定”的断定，起到的是从过去胎胞中脱生出来的助产婆观点，纯属颠倒黑白。列宁发展了马克思、恩格斯的观点，进一步说明唯物辩证法决不是“磨光了的金币”,“这帮先生不能从实质上对这个学说提出任何反驳，就拼命抓住马克思的表达方式，攻击这个理论的起源，想以此动摇这个理论的根基”。俄国民粹主义卑劣的论战方式，正是剽窃了资产阶级“批判家”用烂的捏造手法，如此而已。

III. Radical Reform: The Spiritual Essence of Lenin’s Critique of Russian Populism

三、正本清源：列宁批判俄国民粹主义的精神实质

Lenin’s critique of Russian populism concerns the question of whether Russia should uphold and develop Marxism. To demonstrate the scientific nature of Marxism, Lenin placed ideological critique within the context of the entire process of social-historical development, seizing upon the “material relations” of social existence. This not only uncovered the material basis of Russia’s modern economic relations but also demonstrated the inherent coherence between the transformation of the economic structure and the establishment and development of proletarian ideology in Russia. It fundamentally grasped the inner laws of Russia’s social development and pointed the way toward the emancipation of the proletariat.

列宁对俄国民粹主义的批判，是关于俄国是否坚持和发展马克思主义的问题。为了论证马克思主义的科学性，列宁将思想批判置于整个社会历史发展的进程中来考察，抓住了社会存在的“物质关系”,这不仅揭开了俄国现代经济关系的物质基础，而且论证了经济结构变革与无产阶级意识形态在俄国确立与发展的内在贯通性，从根本上把握了俄国社会发展的内在规律，指明了无产阶级解放的道路。

First, using Marxist dialectical thinking to reveal the essential attributes of Russian populism. From the perspective of its main ideas and evolution, regardless of how complex Russian populism was internally, the general characteristic of all its factions was to expose the barbarism of capitalism from the standpoint of communal socialism. To some extent, this reflected the democratic demands of Russian society. However, this trend’s defense of small producers could not bring into play the historical initiative of the people. On how to evaluate Russian populism, in works such as *Two Utopias* and *On Populism*, Lenin explicitly used “utopia,” eclecticism, and “peasant democracy” to express the actual content and social significance of populism. That is, in terms of class nature, “populism is the ideology (system of ideas) of the Russian peasant democrats.” The conservative and reactionary sectarian notions of Russian populism ignored all revolutionary action. As the Russian revolutionary movement developed and the forms of class struggle were determined, “this illusion of transcending class struggle increasingly lost any practical significance and any theoretical basis.” Regarding this kind of utopian socialism, which appeared and recurred repeatedly in the history of Marxism, Engels had criticized it as a contradiction between economic facts and moral sentiments. As Lenin analyzed its historical role, “as a socialist utopia it is wrong, but as a peculiar, historically limited expression of the democratic struggle of the peasant masses, it is correct.” Hence, the evaluation Marx and Engels gave to “critical-utopian socialism and communism” in the *Communist Manifesto* applies equally to Russian populism.

第一，运用马克思主义辩证思维观揭示俄国民粹主义的本质属性。从主要思想观点和发展演变看，俄国民粹主义无论其内部如何繁杂，各派别的一般特性都是站在村社社会主义的立场来揭露资本主义的野蛮性，某种程度上反映了俄国社会的民主要求，然而这一思潮对小生产者的维护，并不能发挥人民的历史主动性。关于如何评价俄国民粹主义，在《两种乌托邦》《论民粹主义》等著作中，列宁明确用“乌托邦”、折中主义、“农民民主主义”来表述民粹主义的实际内容和社会意义。即在阶级性质上，“民粹主义是俄国农民民主派的意识形态(观念体系)”。俄国民粹主义保守而又反动的宗派观念无视一切革命行动，随着俄国革命运动的发展和阶级斗争形式的确定，“这种超乎阶级斗争的幻想，这种反对阶级斗争的幻想，就越失去任何实践意义和任何理论根据”。针对这种空想性质的社会主义在马克思主义发展史上的时有出现和反复盛行，恩格斯曾批判它们是经济事实与道德情感的矛盾体。正如列宁对其历史作用的分析，“作为社会主义乌托邦是错误的，但是，作为农民群众的特殊的、有历史局限性的民主主义斗争的表现，却是正确的”。因而，《共产党宣言》中马克思恩格斯对“批判的空想的社会主义和共产主义”的评价同样适用于俄国民粹主义。

Second, from the “material social relations,” “concretely study all forms of Russia’s economic antagonisms, their connections and their consistent development.” As noted above, by the end of the 19th century, Russia objectively already possessed the basic features of capitalist economic development. At this time, Russian populism still insisted on understanding Russia’s economic reality from the perspective of “human nature.” Lenin realized that judging an era of transformation could not be based on subjective consciousness; rather, one must seek the “main criterion for measuring the entire development of society” on the basis of the development of productive forces. Does this mean that Marxism regards economic factors as the sole factor in the historical development of human society? Or, is Marxism the mechanical economic determinism that Mikhailovsky preached? Lenin criticized that the distortion of Marxism into “economic materialism,” and the subsequent accusation that Marx “in explaining his world outlook, merely called it materialism,” is untenable. In fact, Marx “did not confine himself to ‘economic theory’ in the usual sense; although he entirely used relations of production to explain the constitution and development of the given social formation, he nevertheless constantly investigated the superstructure corresponding to these relations of production, giving flesh and blood to the skeleton,” forming a unified organic whole, ensuring that Russia developed along the path of the succession of social formations in accordance with its laws.

第二，从“物质的社会关系”中“具体地研究俄国经济对抗的一切形式，研究它们的联系和一贯发展”。如前面所述，19世纪末的俄国，客观上已经具备资本主义经济发展的基本特征。此时，俄国民粹主义仍坚持从“人类天性”出发认识俄国经济现实。列宁意识到判断一个变革的时代，不能以主观意识为根据，而要在生产力发展的基础上寻找衡量“整个社会发展的主要标准”。那是不是说马克思主义把经济因素视为人类社会历史发展的唯一因素?或者说，马克思主义是不是米海洛夫斯基宣扬的机械的经济决定论?列宁批判道，把马克思主义歪曲为“经济唯物主义”,继而指责马克思“在说明自己的世界观时，只是把它叫做唯物主义而已”的观点是不成立的。其实马克思“并不仅以通常意义的‘经济理论’为限；虽然他完全用生产关系来说明该社会形态的构成和发展。但又随时随地探究与这种生产关系相适应的上层建筑，使骨骼有血有肉”,构成统一的有机整体，确保俄国合乎规律地沿着社会形态更替的路径发展。

Third, proposing that “historical inevitability” does not exclude “free will.” Russian populism regarded historical materialism as fatalism and believed that a conflict between historical inevitability and the role of the individual existed. Lenin refuted this, stating that Marxism never examines the role of the individual in isolation, nor does historical inevitability in any way nullify the role of individual thought and action, because all history is constituted by the individual actions of active figures. When the activity of an individual represents the direction of social progress and converges with the struggle of the masses, it forms a resultant force of countless individual wills, driving history forward. The so-called “historical inevitability” of Russian populism is merely the idea of treating historical actors as “puppets” caught in a historical drama — a “blurred and unclear” understanding of the role of the individual in historical activity. Furthermore, Lenin also realized the need to correctly handle the relationship between historical figures and the ordinary masses, expressed in the terminology of Russian populism as the relationship between “intellectuals and the people.” Historical materialism affirms the principal role of the masses in history while simultaneously affirming the role of historical figures, because the masses’ activity in creating history can only better advance history when organized and led by leading figures. In *The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement*, Lenin summarized the revolutionary significance of leading figures as: “No class in history has achieved political supremacy without producing its own political leaders and advanced representatives capable of organizing and leading the movement.” Compared with the Russian populist view that “the mob crosses some mysterious and terrible threshold in a single bound at the very first step taken by the leading figure,” Lenin reduced the activity of “living individuals” to the activity of classes governed by the laws of the material world, thereby correctly “defining the method of reducing individual factors to their social roots.”

第三，提出“历史必然性”并不排斥“自由意志”。俄国民粹主义认为历史唯物主义是宿命论，认为历史必然性与个人作用的冲突是成立的。列宁反驳道，马克思主义从来不是孤立地考察个人的作用，历史必然性也决不含糊个人思想和行为的作用，因为全部历史正是由活动家的个人行动构成的。当个人的活动代表社会进步的方向，并且汇合到人民群众的斗争中便能构成无数个人意志的合力，推动历史前进。俄国民粹主义所谓“历史必然性”不过是把历史活动家当成被抓到历史剧作中的“傀儡”的思想，是对历史活动中个人作用的“模糊不清”。另外，列宁也意识到要正确处理好历史人物与普通大众的关系，用俄国民粹主义的术语，表述为“知识分子与人民”的关系问题。唯物史观确认人民群众的历史主体地位，同时肯定历史人物的作用，因为群众创造历史的活动只有被领袖人物组织和领导起来才能更好地推动历史前进。在《我们运动的迫切任务》中，列宁将领袖人物的革命意义概括为“任何一个阶级，如果不推举出自己的善于组织运动和领导运动的政治领袖和先进代表，就不可能取得统治地位”。与俄国民粹主义强调的“群氓都是在领袖人物刚刚迈出第一步的一瞬间，一举越过了某种神秘而可怕的门槛”的观点相比，列宁是把“活的个人”的活动归结为受物质世界规律支配的、阶级的活动，从而正确“规定了把个人因素归结为社会根源的方法”。

Fourth, in the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, one must act as the scientific leader of thought. Russian populism’s “humanitarianism and love of the people” appears to explain the omnipotence of the intelligentsia through “classlessness,” yet the petty-bourgeois democratic style of its adherents cannot in any way erase “real social forces” and class position. Lenin held that, concealed beneath material things, class character is a fundamental feature of ideology; there is no “third” type of thought or concept that transcends classes, and “wherever it is concealed by the political history, legal characteristics and traditional theoretical prejudices of capitalism, it must be exposed.” [17]17 V. I. Lenin, “What Is to Be Done?” (1902), *Collected Works*, vol. 5, p. 342. For “at all times, any belittling of or departure from socialist ideology means a strengthening of bourgeois ideology,” and the connection between Russian populism and capitalism is the greatest reactionary force. Lenin put forward the proposition of “scientific ideology” and the question of the proletarian party’s leadership in the democratic revolution, urging class-conscious workers to “declare war” on all populists. “If the task of socialists is to be the ideological leader of the proletariat,” then it is necessary, through political, ideological and organizational leadership, to prevent dogmatism and sectarianism from distorting Marxism, so as to avoid handing over the leadership of the revolution to the bourgeoisie. Indeed, Lenin applied ideology as both a critical and a constructive concept in his critique of erroneous trends of thought, thereby endowing it with the content of class struggle — this is also what distinguished Lenin from the theorists of the Second International. In this struggle, which “occupied the primary position,” Lenin acted as the forger of the pure steel of the Marxist worldview, laying the ideological foundation for the proletariat to seize victory in the Russian revolution and to master the ideological leadership during the period of socialist construction.

第四，要在“无产阶级与资产阶级”的阶级斗争中做科学思想的领导者。俄国民粹主义“人道性和爱人民性”似乎在以“无等级性”阐释知识分子的万能，然而他们身上的小资产阶级民主派作风，却丝毫不能抹去“现实的社会力量”和阶级地位。列宁认为在物的掩蔽下，阶级性作为意识形态的基本特征，人类没有超阶级的“第三种”思想观念，所有被资本主义“政治史、法制特点和传统理论偏见所掩盖的地方，都应把它揭示出来”。因为无论何时“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”,而俄国民粹主义与资本主义的联系就是最大的反动派。列宁提出“科学的意识形态”的命题和无产阶级政党在民主革命中的领导权问题，劝告觉悟的工人向一切民粹派“宣战”。“如果社会主义者的任务是要做无产阶级的思想领导者”,就要通过政治上、思想上和组织上的领导来阻止教条主义和宗派主义对马克思主义的歪曲，以防止把革命的领导权交给资产阶级。诚然，列宁把意识形态既作为批判性概念又作为建设性概念运用到对错误思潮批判中，便赋予其阶级斗争的内涵，这也是列宁与第二国际理论家所不同的。这场“居于首要地位”的斗争中，列宁担当了马克思主义世界观纯钢的铸造者，为无产阶级夺取俄国革命的胜利，以及掌握社会主义建设时期的意识形态领导权打下了思想基础。

IV. The Contemporary Implications of Lenin’s Critique of Russian Populism

四、列宁批判俄国民粹主义的现实启示

If “discovering the new world through the critique of the old world” is the great significance of the creation and development of Marxism, then the significance of Lenin’s critique of Russian populism is by no means a mere matter of ideological understanding or academic viewpoint, but rather an important question of political principle. Lenin ran the spiritual essence of his critique of erroneous trends of thought through his entire life’s construction of ideology. Among this, the critical approach of “taking establishment as the foundation, establishing and breaking simultaneously” expounded the proletarian worldview in the course of critique and polemics, directly embodying the characteristic of Marxism developing through struggle. Xi Jinping has pointed out: “Adhering to positive propaganda as the main approach by no means implies giving up the struggle over public opinion.” [18]18 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the National Conference on Propaganda and Ideological Work” (19 August 2013). This requires that the Communist Party of China, under the conditions of the new era, still inherit Lenin’s basic stance, viewpoint and method in criticizing Russian populism, adhere to a Marxist scientific attitude in responding to the challenges of various social trends of thought, and constantly demonstrate the powerful theoretical force of Marxism.

如果说“通过批判旧世界发现新世界”是马克思主义创立与发展的重要意义，那么，列宁对俄国民粹主义的批判其意义决不是简单的思想认识和学术观点问题，而是重要的政治原则问题。列宁把对错误思潮批判的精神实质贯穿到一生的意识形态建构中，其中“以立为本，立破并举”的批判思路，在批判与论战中阐释了无产阶级世界观，直接体现了马克思主义在斗争中发展的特点。习近平提出：“坚持正面宣传为主，决不意味着放弃舆论斗争。”这就要求中国共产党在新的时代条件下仍要继承列宁批判俄国民粹主义的基本立场、观点和方法，坚持以马克思主义的科学态度应对各种社会思潮的挑战，不断展现马克思主义强大的理论威力。

First, dare to unsheathe the sword against erroneous trends of thought, and draw a clear line between Marxism and anti-Marxism.

第一，敢于向错误思潮亮剑，划清马克思主义与反马克思主义的界限。

Truth exists and develops in comparison and struggle with error. Lenin’s process of criticizing Russian populism not only refuted erroneous views but, more importantly, made truth clearer through debate. Of course, erroneous trends of thought often disguise themselves as Marxism, existing in various forms. Whether it is the rash assertion of the “obsolescence of Marxism” or a dogmatic understanding of Marxism, they are essentially anti-Marxist in nature. In the New Era, upholding Marxism’s guiding position in the ideological domain requires both guiding the people to consciously arm their minds with scientific thought and enabling the weapon of critique to play a more important role in social development. Only in this way can the ideological defense line be held, interference from various erroneous trends of thought be swept away, and the rudder of thought be steadied at its root.

真理是同谬误相比较而存在、相斗争而发展的。列宁批判俄国民粹主义的历程，不仅反驳了错误观点，更为重要的是使得真理越辩越明。当然，错误思潮往往装扮成马克思主义的样子，以各式各样的姿态存在，不管是轻率断言马克思主义的“过时论”,还是对马克思主义的教条式理解，本质上都具有明显的反马克思主义性质。新时代坚持马克思主义在意识形态领域指导地位，既要引导人民自觉地用科学思想武装头脑，又要让批判的武器在社会发展中扮演更重要的作用。只有这样才能守住思想防线，扫清各种错误思潮干扰，从根源上把稳思想之舵。

Second, strengthen confidence in the theory, and persist in observing, interpreting and leading China’s social development with Marxism.

第二，增强理论自信，坚持用马克思主义观察、解读和引领中国社会发展。

To bring into play the guiding role of theory in practice, attention must be paid to studying and applying theory. Guided by Marxism, Lenin pointed out the correct direction for Russia, which was wandering at the crossroads of socialism. Likewise, the Chinese people, having gone through setbacks, awakening, practice and breakthroughs, have successfully blazed a path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Lenin’s experience shows that on this path, “we must be unswerving, and at no time or under any circumstances may we waver in the slightest.” Objectively, the transformation of China’s principal social contradiction, the new demands brought by the development of information technology, and the contests and conflicts in the ideological battlefield on a global scale constantly pose new challenges to the consolidation of socialist ideology. The scientific nature and powerful vitality of Marxism lie in the fact that it is always the unity of conformity to law and conformity to purpose. The “changed reality” and the “developing era” still require finding the essence and laws of the development of things from the perspective of historical materialism, as we advance toward the second centenary goal. [19]19 The second centenary goal 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.

发挥理论对实践的指导作用，则要注重学习和运用理论。列宁以马克思主义为指导，为徘徊在社会主义十字路口的俄国指明了正确方向。同样是经过碰壁、觉醒、实践和突破的中国人民也成功走出一条中国特色社会主义道路。列宁的经验说明，在这条道路上，“必须坚定不移，任何时候任何情况下都不能有丝毫动摇”。客观上，中国社会主要矛盾的转变、信息技术发展等带来的新要求，以及世界范围内意识形态战场上的较量与冲突，不断为凝聚社会主义意识形态带来新挑战。而马克思主义的科学性和强大生命力在于它始终是合规律性与合目的性的统一，“变化了的实际”和“发展着的时代”依然需要从唯物史观中找到事物发展的本质和规律，向着第二个百年奋斗目标迈进。

Third, base oneself on national conditions, and constantly promote the development of Marxism through contemporary Chinese practice.

第三，立足国情，不断用当代中国实践推动马克思主义发展。

In the face of Russia’s new economic changes and the ever-developing revolutionary situation, Lenin did not rigidly adhere to the basic principles of Marxism but instead undertook an investigation of Russia’s actual conditions. This not only transcended the utopian nature of Russian populism but also realized the Russification of Marxism. For Lenin had already realized that “it is not enough for thought to strive for realization; reality must itself strive toward thought.” [20]20 Karl Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law: Introduction” (1844). Against the backdrop of the strategic layout for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the changes unseen in a century, the more we must carry out the great social revolution of upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics, the more we must realize the integration of the theoretical and practical aspects of Marxism. Of course, this is also a process of enhancing Marxism’s ability to guide social trends of thought in practice. In contemporary China, with profound transformations in fields such as production development and scientific-technological innovation, every step forward must adhere to a problem-oriented approach, test truth through practice, resolve contradictions and tackle difficulties in practice, so as not to be misled by erroneous trends of thought and to make China’s original contributions to the innovative development of Marxism.

俄国新的经济变动和不断发展的革命形势，列宁没有固守马克思主义的基本原则，而是展开了对俄国现实状况的考察，这不仅超越俄国民粹主义的空想性，而且实现了马克思主义的俄国化。因为列宁已经意识到“光是思想力求成为现实是不够的，现实本身应当力求趋向思想”。在中华民族伟大复兴的战略布局和世界百年未有之大变局的时代背景下，越是要把坚持和发展中国特色社会主义这场伟大社会革命进行好，就越要实现马克思主义理论性和实践性的结合。当然，这也是在实践中增强马克思主义引领社会思潮能力的过程。当代中国在生产发展、科技创新等领域的深刻变革，每走一步都要坚持问题导向，用实践检验真理，在实践中化解矛盾、破解难题，才能不为错误思潮所迷惑，为马克思主义的创新发展作出中国的原创性贡献。

Fourth, uphold the Party’s leadership and discursive power over ideological work.

第四，坚持党对意识形态工作的领导权和话语权。

Every ideology is the embodiment of the class will of a particular class; socialist ideology is the aggregate of the ideals, beliefs, values and moral concepts of the proletarian party. In criticizing the attacks of Russian populism on scientific socialism, Lenin affirmed that in a class society there is no ideology that transcends classes, and that the prerequisite and foundation for the working class to defend Marxism is to seize ideological leadership, which is “the political influence of the working class (and its representatives) over other sections of the population.” In the New Era, whether from the perspective of the importance of ideological work, from the angle of enhancing cultural influence and communication power, or from the viewpoint of consolidating the management authority over ideological work, consolidating mainstream ideology cannot “deviate from the direction guided by the Party’s political construction.” At the same time, more forceful measures should be taken to strengthen the management of positions and the management of the talent contingent, enhance the Party’s discursive capacity and management capacity, improve the working mechanisms for guiding public opinion, implement the institutional mechanisms of the Party managing propaganda and the Party managing the media, and strengthen the political responsibility and leadership responsibility for ideological work.

每一种意识形态都是一定阶级的阶级意志的体现，社会主义意识形态则是无产阶级政党的理想信念、价值理念和道德观念的集合体。列宁批判俄国民粹主义对科学社会主义的攻击时，肯定了在阶级社会没有超阶级的意识形态，而工人阶级捍卫马克思主义的基础和前提是夺取意识形态领导权，也“就是工人阶级(及其代表)对其他居民的政治影响”。新时代无论是从意识形态工作的重要性来看，还是从提升文化影响力、传播力的角度，亦或是压实意识形态工作管理权的视角，巩固主流意识形态都不能“背离党的政治建设指引的方向”。同时，要以更有力的举措加强阵地管理和人才队伍管理，增强党的话语能力和管理能力建设，完善舆论引导工作机制，贯彻党管宣传、党管媒体的体制机制，强化意识形态工作政治责任、领导责任。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心