Three Major Misreadings and Correct Interpretations of Lenin’s New Economic Policy

“What is socialism and how to build it” is a major theoretical and practical issue facing the proletariat and its political party after seizing political power. In early 1921, Lenin led the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to terminate the policy of War Communism, begin implementing the New Economic Policy (NEP), and gradually transition to socialism. The NEP is a milestone in the history of socialist development, providing important reference for later socialist construction and reform. Deng Xiaoping pointed out: “What socialism actually looks like, the Soviet Union spent many years and still did not fully figure it out. Perhaps Lenin’s line of thinking was relatively good; he came up with the New Economic Policy.” Since its implementation, the NEP has attracted high attention from all sides, and there have also been various misreadings, the more representative of which include the “temporary theory,” the “retreat theory,” and the “preparation for offensive theory.” These misreadings, each with its own emphasis yet interwoven with one another, have caused certain harm to people’s correct understanding and grasp of the scientific connotation and great significance of the NEP. Clarifying these misreadings, restoring the original appearance of the NEP, and scientifically grasping the ideological essence of the NEP have important theoretical value and practical significance.

“什么是社会主义、怎样建设社会主义”是无产阶级及其政党夺取政权后面临的重大理论和实践课题。1921年初，列宁带领俄共（布）终止战时共产主义政策，开始实施新经济政策，逐渐向社会主义过渡。新经济政策在社会主义发展史上具有里程碑式的意义，为后来的社会主义建设和改革提供了重要借鉴。邓小平指出：“社会主义究竟是个什么样子，苏联搞了很多年，也并没有完全搞清楚。可能列宁的思路比较好，搞了个新经济政策。”新经济政策自推行以来，受到各方的高度关注，也存在着各种误读，较具代表性的有“暂时论”“退却论”“进攻准备论”等。这些误读，各有侧重又相互交织，对人们正确认识和把握新经济政策的科学内涵和重大意义造成了一定的危害。澄清这些误读，还原新经济政策的原貌，科学把握新经济政策的思想精髓，具有重要的理论价值和现实意义。

I. The “Temporary Theory” Regarding the New Economic Policy

一、关于新经济政策的“暂时论”

The “temporary theory” holds that the NEP was a “temporary” tactic adopted to cope with the political and economic crisis at the time. At the beginning of the NEP’s implementation, some within the Bolshevik Party already held this view. For example, Preobrazhensky, then Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Council of People’s Commissars, believed that the NEP was only a temporary phenomenon; once the flames of world revolution ignited, all commodity trade and currency would have to be abolished. [1]1 Evgeny Preobrazhensky (1886–1937) was a Soviet economist and a leading Bolshevik theorist; he later opposed Stalin and was executed. The “temporary theory” spread widely and had great influence. The 2009 textbook *Russian History (1900–1945): A Teacher’s Reference Book* published by the Russian Education Publishing House adopted this view. The editors of the book believed: “One should try as much as possible to explain the judgment that the NEP was for the Bolsheviks not only ‘forced’ but also ‘temporary,’ with the aim of being able to extricate themselves from the acute political and socio-economic crisis of late 1920 to early 1921. In fact, it was a question of how to hold onto power.” The book *Russia: A History* edited by American scholars Nicholas Riasanovsky and Mark Steinberg also holds: “The NEP was a compromise, a temporary retreat on Russia’s road to socialism, intended to give the country a chance to catch its breath and recover.”

“暂时论”认为，新经济政策是为了应对当时的政治和经济危机而采取的“暂时”策略。新经济政策推行之初，布尔什维克党内部分人士就持有此观点。例如，时任人民委员会财政委员会主席的普列奥布拉任斯基就认为，新经济政策只是一种暂时现象，一俟世界革命之火燃起，所有的商品贸易、货币都得取消。“暂时论”流传甚广、影响很大。俄罗斯教育出版社2009年出版的《俄罗斯历史（1900—1945）教师参考书》就采用了这种观点。该书的编者认为：“应当尽量说明那一判断，即认为新经济政策对布尔什维克而言不仅是‘迫不得已’的，也是‘暂时的’，目的是能够摆脱1920年末到1921年初尖锐的政治和社会经济危机。实际上，这是一个如何保住政权的问题。”美国学者尼古拉·梁赞诺夫斯基和马克·斯坦伯格编著的《俄罗斯史》也认为：“新经济政策是一种妥协，是俄国通往社会主义道路上的一次暂时的退却，为的是给国家一个喘息和恢复的机会。”

The “temporary theory” takes the implementation period of the NEP as its argumentative basis, while Lenin, when discussing the NEP, emphasized: “We are to pursue this policy seriously and for a long time (but, as we have correctly pointed out, of course, not forever).” [2]2 V. I. Lenin, “Report on the Substitution of a Tax in Kind for the Surplus-Grain Appropriation System,” March 15, 1921. In other words, from the perspective of macroscopic historical development, the NEP could not exist forever; after completing its mission of transitioning to socialism, it would inevitably withdraw from the historical stage. In this sense, the NEP indeed has a temporary character, but within the transition period, the NEP has the characteristic of being long-term. At the Tenth All-Russian Conference of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Lenin highly affirmed Osinsky’s formulation that the NEP was to be “seriously and for a long time,” and warned the entire Party to “firmly remember, remember well.” [3]3 N. Osinsky (Valerian Obolensky, 1887–1938) was a Bolshevik economist and politician; he advocated for the NEP to be a long-term policy. Lenin believed that from socialism to communism it was necessary to go through “a long and complex transition,” and that the NEP, as a policy of the transition period, was to be “implemented over a number of years for a long time.” [4]4 Lenin, “The Tax in Kind,” April 1921. As for the specific duration of the NEP’s implementation, Lenin held a reserved attitude; he emphasized: “I do not want to predict exactly how long it will take, but I think what he said is somewhat pessimistic. We would be very grateful if we could estimate the situation for 5–10 years; usually we cannot even estimate accurately for five weeks.” [5]5 Lenin, “Speech at a Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies,” November 20, 1922. It is not difficult to see that, compared to theoretically predicting the development of future society, Lenin was more inclined to solve practical problems. The long-term implementation of the NEP was a response to the development of reality, and moreover, it was the necessary path for the Soviet Union to raise productive forces. In November 1922, in his last public speech, Lenin again emphasized the long-term nature of the NEP. He pointed out: “The New Economic Policy remains the current, main, urgent, all-embracing slogan.” [6]6 Ibid.

“暂时论”以新经济政策的推行时间为立论依据，而列宁在谈及新经济政策时强调：“我们要认真地和长期地（当然，正如我们已经正确指出的，并不是永远）执行这个政策”。换句话说，从宏观历史发展来看，新经济政策不可能一直存在，在其完成向社会主义过渡的使命后必然会退出历史舞台。在这个意义上，新经济政策确实具有暂时性，但是在过渡时期内，新经济政策则具有长期性的特征。在俄共（布）第十次全国代表会议上，列宁对奥新斯基提出新经济政策是“认真地和长期地”的提法给予了高度肯定，并告诫全党“需要牢牢记住，好好记住”。列宁认为从社会主义到共产主义需要经历“一个漫长而复杂的过渡”，新经济政策作为过渡时期的一项政策，“要在若干年内长期实行”。至于新经济政策实施的具体期限问题，列宁持有保留态度，他强调：“我不想预测依我看究竟要多长时间，但是我认为，他说的多少有点悲观。我们能估计到5—10年的情况，就谢天谢地了，通常我们连5个星期的情况也估计不准”。不难发现，相较于理论上预测未来社会的发展，列宁更偏向于解决实践问题。长期执行新经济政策是对现实发展的回应，更是苏维埃提高生产力的必由之路。1922年11月，列宁在最后一次公开讲话中再次强调了新经济政策的长期性。他指出：“新经济政策仍然是当前主要的、迫切的、囊括一切的口号。”

The NEP was not only an expedient measure to resolve the crisis, but also a major exploration of socialism. The serious crisis brought about by the policy of War Communism made Lenin realize that a new policy must be adopted to overcome the political and economic crisis. The initial and most direct purpose of the NEP was indeed to save the Soviet regime, which was in crisis. However, as practice gradually advanced, Lenin’s thinking on the NEP deepened and expanded. He clearly pointed out that the NEP was not an “expedient measure,” but rather “we estimated the correlation of class forces, and noted how the proletariat should act in order to lead the peasantry to clear away all obstacles and advance toward communism.” [7]7 Lenin, “The Tax in Kind.” In human history, no institutional design can be perfect; even the communist system envisioned by Marx and Engels needs to go through historical processes such as optimization, reform, and development. Compared to the temporary nature of the War Communism policy, the NEP was a historical exploration based on the long-term development of socialism, and its purpose was to realize the transition to socialism. Soviet practice had already proven that the method of directly implementing socialism was unfeasible. The NEP was an innovation made by Lenin on the basis of inheriting Marx’s thought on the transition to socialism, combined with the specific reality of the Soviet Union; it opened up a realistic path for backward countries to transition to socialism. In summary, the NEP was not a “temporary” expedient measure, but a long-term institutional exploration and systematic construction for socialist construction.

新经济政策不仅是化解危机的权宜之计，更是对社会主义的重大探索。战时共产主义政策带来的重大危机使列宁意识到，必须采取新的政策以克服政治经济危机。新经济政策最初、最直接的目的，确实是为了拯救处于危机中的苏维埃政权。但是，随着实践的逐渐推进，列宁对新经济政策的思考逐步深化、拓展。他明确指出，新经济政策并非“权宜之计”，而是“我们估计到阶级力量的对比，注意到无产阶级应当如何行动，以便领导农民排除一切障碍向共产主义前进”。人类历史上，任何一种制度设计都不可能是完美无缺的，即便是马克思、恩格斯所设想的共产主义制度，也需要经历优化、改革、发展等历史过程。相较于战时共产主义政策的临时性，新经济政策是基于社会主义的长远发展而进行的历史探索，其目的是实现向社会主义的过渡。苏维埃的实践已经证明，直接实行社会主义的方式不可行，新经济政策是列宁在继承马克思向社会主义过渡思想的基础上，结合苏维埃具体现实所进行的创新，它开创了落后国家向社会主义过渡的现实道路。综前所述，新经济政策并非一种“暂时”的权宜之计，而是一项长期的社会主义建设的制度探索和系统建构。

II. The “Retreat Theory” Regarding the New Economic Policy

二、关于新经济政策的“退却论”

The “retreat theory” holds that the NEP was a “retreat,” a “degeneration” toward capitalism, indicating that Lenin “returned to Marx’s original proposition that socialism could only be the heir of mature capitalism.” Its core view is that Russia must make up for the stage of capitalist development. This assertion runs counter to Lenin’s original intention and purpose in proposing the NEP, and neglects the diversity of paths of socialist development.

“退却论”认为，新经济政策是一种“退却”，是向资本主义的“蜕变”，表明列宁“回到了马克思原来关于社会主义只能是成熟的资本主义的继承人的主张”，其核心观点是认为俄国必须补上资本主义发展阶段这一课。这种论断，有悖于列宁提出新经济政策的初衷和目的，忽略了社会主义发展道路的多样性。

The “Smenovekhovtsy” [8]8 “Smenovekhovtsy” (from the Russian *smena vekh*, “change of landmarks”) were a group of émigré Russian intellectuals in the 1920s who argued that the Soviet regime under the NEP was evolving into a normal bourgeois state and should be supported. were typical representatives of the “retreat theory,” their main body being Russian intellectuals in exile abroad. They proposed that the NEP “is not a tactic, but an evolution, an internal degeneration; they will inevitably move toward an ordinary bourgeois state, and we should support them. History reaches the same goal by different paths.” [9]9 Lenin, “On the Smenovekhovtsy,” 1922. The representative figure of this group, Ustryalov, believed that the Soviet regime implementing the NEP “had set foot on the road toward an ordinary bourgeois regime.” [10]10 Nikolai Ustryalov (1890–1937) was a leading Smenovekhovtsy theorist; he later returned to the USSR and was executed. Lenin pointed out that the views of the “Smenovekhovtsy” reflected the views of various bourgeois intellectuals and some Soviet functionaries participating in NEP work. [11]11 Lenin, “On the Smenovekhovtsy.” Indeed, within the Soviet Union, some people, while acknowledging the necessity of implementing the NEP, held a negative attitude toward its specific practices. For example, Preobrazhensky believed that “state capitalism is capitalism.” [12]12 Preobrazhensky, “The New Economic Policy,” 1921. In addition, some people with an ultra-leftist stance within the Party even believed that the NEP was a surrender to the bourgeoisie, a “retreat,” and some even withdrew from the Party because they opposed the NEP.

“路标转换派”是“退却论”的典型代表，其主体是俄国流亡国外的知识分子。他们提出，新经济政策“并不是策略，而是演变，是内部的蜕变，他们一定会走向通常的资产阶级国家，我们应当支持他们。历史是殊途同归的”。该派代表人物乌斯特里亚洛夫认为，实行新经济政策的苏维埃政权“踏上了走向通常的资产阶级政权的道路”。列宁指出，“路标转换派”的观点反映了各色各样资产阶级知识分子和部分参与新经济工作的苏维埃职员的观点。确实，苏维埃内部也有一部分人虽然承认实施新经济政策的必要性，但对于其具体做法则持否定态度，如普列奥布拉斯基就认为“国家资本主义就是资本主义”。此外，党内一些极左立场的人甚至认为，新经济政策是向资产阶级投降，是一种“退却”，一些人甚至因反对新经济政策而退党。

The “retreat theory” has considerable influence in academic circles. Its representative, Leszek Kołakowski, argued that the New Economic Policy confirmed the conclusion that the “stage of capitalist development is insurmountable” in Russia, claiming that the War Communism policy implemented at the beginning of the establishment of Soviet power was a Jacobin-style terror policy that brought only temporary success and would inevitably be unsustainable in the long run. He stated: “Like the Jacobins, he [Lenin] found himself on the edge of a precipice, although he was still able to retreat at the last moment.” [13]13 Leszek Kołakowski, *Main Currents of Marxism*, Vol. 2, trans. by Ma Qinghuai, Sun Xiaolu, et al., Harbin: Heilongjiang University Press, 2005, p. 393. Some proponents of the “retreat theory” also delineated the scope of retreat based on the implementation of the New Economic Policy. For example, E. B. Genkina believed that the New Economic Policy did not retreat in the political sphere or in the sphere of large-scale industry; “the retreat involved only the commercial aspect of the circulation sphere and the permission of private capitalist commerce.” [14]14 E. B. Genkina, *Lenin’s Struggle for the Socialist Construction of the Soviet State (1921–1925)*, trans. by Mei Ming and Chang Lin, Beijing: Life·Reading·Xinzhi Sanlian Bookstore, 1957, p. 106.

“退却论”在学界有较大影响。“退却论”的代表莱泽克·科拉科夫斯基提出，新经济政策证实了俄国“资本主义发展阶段不可逾越”的结论，认为苏维埃政权建立之初实施的战时共产主义政策是雅各宾派式的恐怖政策，带来的只是暂时的成功，长期来看必将难以为继，并说道：“和雅各宾党人一样，他发现自己正处于悬崖的边缘，尽管他在最后时刻还能够退却”。有的“退却论”者还结合新经济政策的实施情况，划分了退却的范围，如埃·鲍·根基娜认为，新经济政策在政治领域与大工业领域并没有退却，“退却只涉及流通领域中的商业方面和准许私人资本主义商业方面”。

On the one hand, the “retreat theory” distorts the original intention of “retreat.” Returning to the historical era in which Lenin lived, it can be seen that the “retreat” of the New Economic Policy was intended to align with practice. Lenin once pointed out: “The New Economic Policy is a retreat; we have gone further than we could control.” [15]15 *Collected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 43, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1987, p. 278. Past policies not only failed to enable Russia to make a direct transition to socialism but also caused serious political and economic crises. Under conditions where small-scale production predominated in Russia, it was necessary to adopt the New Economic Policy, to use intermediate links, and to take a circuitous or indirect approach to the transition to socialism. However, this was not a retreat to capitalism. Lenin pointed out: “Prudently and gradually master them, or, in other words, make it possible to subject them to state regulation only to the extent that they are activated.” [16]16 *Collected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 41, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1986, p. 50. Under the premise of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the New Economic Policy utilized state capitalism to develop the productive forces and the economy. This was not a “degeneration” into capitalism; on the contrary, it was conducive to the ultimate realization of socialism.

一方面，“退却论”扭曲了“退却”的初衷。回到列宁所处的历史时代可以发现，新经济政策的“退却”是为了与实践相统一。列宁曾指出：“新经济政策是一种退却，我们走得比我们能够控制的远了一些。”过去的政策不仅未能使俄国直接过渡到社会主义，反而造成了严重的政治、经济危机，在俄国小生产占优势的情况下，要采用新经济政策，通过中间环节，采取迂回过渡或间接的方式向社会主义过渡，但是，这并非退回到资本主义。列宁曾指出：“审慎地逐渐地掌握它们，或者说，做到有可能只在使它们活跃起来的范围内对它们实行国家调节。”在无产阶级专政的前提下，新经济政策利用国家资本主义发展生产力和经济，这并非向资本主义“蜕变”，相反，这有利于最终实现社会主义。

On the other hand, the “retreat theory” maintains that the New Economic Policy was a “degeneration,” which in effect negates the Soviet exploration of the path of socialist development. After the victory of the October Revolution in Russia, the dictatorship of the proletariat had already been established. The “retreat theory” equates the necessary “retreat” at a certain stage of proletarian development with surrender to capitalism, and equates state capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat with capitalism in general. This conclusion is drawn by ignoring the premise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It must be pointed out that state capitalism under Soviet leadership, as a special means of transition to socialism, had the ultimate goal of achieving socialism, not capitalism. Lenin emphatically noted that Soviet Russia’s state capitalism was different from capitalist state capitalism. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, state capitalism “is capitalism that we can limit, whose scope we can define; this state capitalism is connected with the state, and the state is the workers, the advanced part of the workers, the vanguard, us.” [17]17 *Collected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 43, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1987, p. 84. In essence, the New Economic Policy reflects the diversity of paths of socialist development. Although Soviet Russia employed certain means of state capitalism, such as the concession system, the leasing system, cooperatives, and the commission system, it only changed the method of economic construction, not the nature of the state. The “retreat” of the New Economic Policy had a far-reaching goal: to move toward socialism and ultimately achieve communism.

另一方面，“退却论”主张新经济政策是一种“蜕变”，实则否定了苏维埃对社会主义发展道路的探索。俄国十月革命胜利后，无产阶级专政已然建立。“退却论”将无产阶级发展阶段上必要的“退却”等同于向资本主义投降，将无产阶级专政下的国家资本主义等同于一般意义上的资本主义，是无视无产阶级专政的前提而得出的结论。需要指出的是，苏维埃领导下的国家资本主义作为向社会主义过渡的特殊手段，其最终目标是实现社会主义而非资本主义。列宁着重指出，苏俄的国家资本主义不同于资本主义的国家资本主义，在无产阶级专政下，国家资本主义“就是我们能够加以限制、能够规定其范围的资本主义，这种国家资本主义是同国家联系着的，而国家就是工人，就是工人的先进部分，就是先锋队，就是我们”。从实质上讲，新经济政策体现了社会主义发展道路的多样性。苏俄虽然运用了一定的国家资本主义手段，如租让制、租赁制、合作社、代销制等，但只是改变了经济建设的方式，并没有改变国家的性质。新经济政策的“退却”具有远大目标，即走向社会主义，最终实现共产主义。

III. On the “Preparation for Offensive Theory” of the New Economic Policy

三、关于新经济政策的“进攻准备论”

The “preparation for offensive theory” merges some views of the “temporary theory” and the “retreat theory,” holding that the New Economic Policy was a preparation for an “offensive” based on the strategy of a “temporary retreat.” At the beginning of the implementation of the New Economic Policy, some within the Party regarded it as a respite before another offensive, advocating that once conditions changed, the policy of attacking capitalism should be resumed. Zinoviev believed: “The New Economic Policy—this is a retreat similar to Brest, a retreat similar to the retreat after June 1917. When the proletarian revolution matures in other countries and the Western proletariat gives us help, we will begin the offensive again. For now, all we have is a ‘respite.’” [18]18 *Collected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 42, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1987, p. 244. One year after the implementation of the New Economic Policy, Lenin raised the slogan of “ceasing the retreat.” The interpretation of this idea caused great divergence within the Soviet Union. Among these, the debate between Stalin and Bukharin in the late 1920s was the most representative. Bukharin pointed out: “In the past, we thought we could eliminate market relations at one stroke. But reality shows that we must move toward socialism precisely through market relations”; “The existence of market relations—to a certain extent—is the decisive factor of the New Economic Policy. This is an important criterion for determining the essence of the New Economic Policy.” [19]19 *Selected Works of Bukharin*, Vol. 2, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1981, pp. 392–393. Bukharin believed that, given the historical conditions of the time, the road to socialism in the Soviet Union was still very long; the New Economic Policy was not only not outdated but, on the contrary, was of great significance and had to be sustained for a considerable period. Stalin, on the other hand, argued that Bukharin had only noticed the aspect of the New Economic Policy that utilized the market, but he had ignored another aspect, namely, “the New Economic Policy permits a certain degree and a certain scope of freedom for private trade, on the condition that the state ensures its regulatory role in the market. This is the second aspect of the New Economic Policy,” and this second aspect “is more important for us.” [20]20 *Collected Works of Stalin*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1955, p. 40. Stalin pointed out that the essence of the New Economic Policy was to accumulate strength through a “temporary retreat” in order to launch a new offensive against capitalism. “The New Economic Policy is a policy by which the Party allows the struggle between socialist and capitalist elements and anticipates that the socialist elements will defeat the capitalist elements. In fact, the New Economic Policy begins with a retreat, but it intends to regroup forces and launch an offensive during the retreat.” [21]21 *Collected Works of Stalin*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1955, p. 151. In Stalin’s view, the New Economic Policy could no longer meet the requirements of socialist development; therefore, he emphasized launching an “offensive” against “capitalism.”

“进攻准备论”融合了“暂时论”与“退却论”的一些观点，认为新经济政策是在“暂时退却”的策略基础上为了“进攻”而做的准备。新经济政策推行之初，党内一些人把新经济政策看成是再次进攻之前的喘息，主张一旦条件改变，就重新实行向资本主义进攻的政策。季诺维也夫认为：“新经济政策——这是类似于布列斯特的退却，是类似于1917年6月以后的退却。当无产阶级革命在其他国家成熟和西方无产阶级给予我们帮助时，我们就重新开始进攻。暂时我们所有的只是‘喘息’。”新经济政策推行一年后，列宁提出了“停止退却”的口号。对于这一思想的解读，苏维埃内部产生了极大的分歧。其中，以20世纪20年代后期，斯大林同布哈林的论争最具代表性。布哈林指出：“过去我们认为，我们可以一举消灭市场关系。而实际情况表明，我们恰恰要通过市场关系走向社会主义”；“市场关系的存在——在某种程度上——是新经济政策的决定性因素。这是确定新经济政策实质的重要的标准”。布哈林认为，依据当时的历史条件，苏联实现社会主义的道路还很漫长，新经济政策不仅没有过时，相反意义重大且必须持续较长时间。斯大林则认为，布哈林只注意到了新经济政策利用市场的一个方面，但他忽略了另一个方面，即“新经济政策是在保证国家对市场起调节作用的条件下容许私人贸易在一定限度、一定范围内的自由。这就是新经济政策的第二个方面”，且第二个方面“对我们更为重要”。斯大林指出，新经济政策的实质就是借助“暂时的退却”积蓄力量，以便向资本主义展开新的进攻。“新经济政策是党容许社会主义成分和资本主义成分斗争并预计社会主义成分要战胜资本主义成分的政策。其实，新经济政策只是以退却为开始，但它打算在退却过程中重新部署力量并举行进攻。”在斯大林看来，新经济政策已经不能适应社会主义的发展要求，因此他强调要对“资本主义”发起“进攻”。

The “preparation for offensive theory” neglects the long-term nature of the New Economic Policy and the “circuitousness” of entering socialism. To clarify the misreading of the “preparation for offensive theory,” it is necessary to return to Lenin’s exposition of the idea of “retreat,” especially his exposition of the idea of “ceasing the retreat.”

“进攻准备论”忽略了新经济政策的长期性，以及进入社会主义的“迂回性”。澄清“进攻准备论”的误读，需要回到列宁对“退却”思想，尤其是关于“停止退却”思想的阐述。

First, Lenin’s proposal to “cease the retreat” meant that no further concessions would be made to the capitalist economy, not that the implementation of the New Economic Policy would be stopped. One year after the implementation of the New Economic Policy, Lenin pointed out: “We have been retreating for a year. We should now declare on behalf of the Party: enough! The goal that the retreat was intended to achieve has been achieved.” [22]22 *Collected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 43, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1987, p. 10. In other words, “ceasing the retreat” meant that the goal of the retreat had already been attained and that the retreat had reached its limit. Judging from the practice of the time, the New Economic Policy had initially formed a certain operational model and had explored a circuitous transitional path; no further concessions would be made to capitalism. Lenin clearly stated: “One must not interpret the phrase ‘temporarily cease the retreat’ to mean that we already consider our foundation (the new economic foundation) to be laid and that we can confidently move forward. No, the foundation has not yet been laid. We cannot yet look to the future with confidence.” [23]23 *Collected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 43, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1987, p. 10. In short, “ceasing the retreat” by no means meant stopping the implementation of the New Economic Policy. “Ceasing the retreat not only does not change the New Economic Policy, but it also means riding the steed of the New Economic Policy into socialism.” [24]24 *Collected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 43, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1987, p. 330.

第一，列宁提出“停止退却”是指对资本主义经济的让步不会再进一步，而非停止推行新经济政策。列宁在新经济政策推行一年后指出：“我们已经退了一年。我们现在应当代表党宣告：够了！退却所要达到的目的已经达到了。”换句话说，”停止退却“在于退却的目的已然达到，并且退却已达到极限。从当时的实践来看，新经济政策已经初步形成了一定的运转模式，探索出了迂回过渡道路，不会再对资本主义作出进一步的让步。列宁明确指出：“决不能把暂时停止退却这句话理解为：我们已经认为，我们的基础（新经济的）已经打好，我们可以放心地前进了。不，基础还没有打好。我们还不能放心地展望未来。”总之，“停止退却”绝不等于停止推行新经济政策。“停止退却不仅不是改变新经济政策，而且还要骑着新经济政策这个骏马跨入社会主义。”

Second, in the face of the risks brought by the New Economic Policy, after “stopping the retreat” it was necessary to “redeploy forces” rather than rashly “attack.” The implementation of the New Economic Policy restored capitalist economic elements to a certain extent, exposing Soviet Russia to dual political and economic risks. Economically, in the process of utilizing capitalism, because the proletariat was unfamiliar with economic management, there was a high likelihood of being exploited by the bourgeoisie; politically, with the rapid growth of capitalist economic components, capitalists would inevitably seek political status, and combined with the influence of bureaucratism, it was very easy for unhealthy tendencies to breed among Party and state public officials. Faced with these problems, Lenin advocated starting from the Party’s own construction, strengthening state intervention and cultivating management-oriented talent. He pointed out that the key at present “lies not in politics, that is, not in changing the policy line,” but “in talent, in selecting talent,” and this was also the core content of “redeploying forces.” After Lenin announced “stopping the retreat” at the Eleventh Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), the next goal he immediately proposed was redeploying forces. It must be emphasized that “stopping the retreat” does not equal “attacking.” Lenin advocated using capitalism to develop socialism; during the construction of the proletarian state, “instead of trying to prohibit or block the development of capitalism, we should strive to channel this development into the track of state capitalism.” Shortly after the victory of the October Revolution in Russia, Lenin analyzed the economic components of Soviet Russia and pointed out that the principal contradiction in society was not the opposition between state capitalism and socialism, “but that the petty bourgeoisie and private capitalism together are fighting both state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie resists any state interference, accounting, and supervision, whether it is state capitalist or state socialist.” The purpose of allowing capitalism to exist under the New Economic Policy was to use capitalism to raise social productive forces, accumulating material strength for moving toward socialism and ultimately realizing communism. The proletariat should not organize an “attack” on capitalism through political means; instead, it should use capitalist components to compete with socialist components, raise social productive forces, and lay a solid economic foundation for socialism.

第二，面对新经济政策所带来的风险，“停止退却”后需要“重新部署力量”而非贸然“进攻”。新经济政策的推行，使资本主义性质的经济在一定程度上得到了恢复，使苏俄面临着政治与经济双重风险。经济方面，在利用资本主义的过程中，由于无产阶级对于经济管理方面不熟悉，很有可能出现被资产阶级利用的危险；政治层面，随着资本主义经济成分的快速增长，资本家必然会谋求政治地位，加之官僚主义的影响，极容易在党和国家的公职人员中滋生不正之风。面对这些问题，列宁主张从党的自身建设出发，加强国家干预与培养管理型人才。他指出，目前的关键“并不在于政治，就是说不在于改变方针”，而“在于人才，在于挑选人才”，这也是“重新部署力量”的核心内容。列宁在俄共（布）第十一次代表大会宣告“停止退却”后，紧接着提出的另一个目标就是重新部署力量。需要强调的是，“停止退却”不等于“进攻”。列宁主张利用资本主义经济发展社会主义，在无产阶级国家建设期间，“不去试图禁止或堵塞资本主义的发展，而努力把这一发展纳入国家资本主义的轨道”。俄国十月革命胜利后不久，列宁分析了苏维埃俄国的经济成分，指出社会的主要矛盾不在于国家资本主义与社会主义的对立，“而是小资产阶级和私人资本主义合在一起，既同国家资本主义又同社会主义作斗争。小资产阶级抗拒任何的国家干涉、计算与监督，不论它是国家资本主义的还是国家社会主义的”。新经济政策允许资本主义存在的目的，在于利用资本主义提高社会生产力，为走向社会主义并最终实现共产主义积蓄物质力量。无产阶级不应通过政治手段组织对资本主义的“进攻”，而应该利用资本主义成分与社会主义成分竞赛，提高社会生产力，打好社会主义的经济基础。

Undeniably, Lenin did mention the term “attack,” but the “attack” slogan he proposed was only a strategy to appease radicals within the Party. Lenin once pointed out that those “revolutionaries accustomed to attacking,” faced with the retreat of the New Economic Policy, “unworthily burst into tears like little children.” After the New Economic Policy was proposed, some within the Party opposed it or regarded it only as a temporary strategy to deal with the crisis. To maintain Party unity to the greatest extent, Lenin proposed “stopping the retreat” and preparing to attack. However, Lenin never gave a specific time for the “attack”; instead, he stated: “Where and how we should now regroup, adapt to the situation, and reorganize so that after the retreat we can begin an extremely tenacious forward attack—this we do not yet know.” Lenin believed that rather than focusing on this uncertain future issue, it was better to pay more attention to the current concrete situation, which also indirectly reflected that Lenin did not place the focus of his work on the “attack.”

不可否认，列宁确实提及过“进攻”一词，但是他提出的“进攻”口号，只是安抚党内激进人士的一种策略。列宁曾指出，对于那些“习惯进攻的革命家”，面对新经济政策的退却，“竟很不应该地像小孩子那样大哭起来”。新经济政策提出后，党内一部分人持反对立场，或者只把其看做应对危机的暂时策略。为了在最大程度上维护党内团结，列宁提出“停止退却”，准备进攻。但是，列宁从未给出过“进攻”的具体时间，反而指出：“我们现在应该在什么地方和怎样重整队伍、适应情况、重新组织，以便在退却之后开始极顽强地向前进攻，这一点我们还不知道”。列宁认为，与其关注这个不确定的未来问题，倒不如多关注当下的具体情况，这也从侧面反映出列宁并未将工作重点放在“进攻”之上。

IV. Methodological Principles for Correctly Understanding the New Economic Policy

四、正确认识新经济政策的方法论原则

The various misreadings of the New Economic Policy each have their own emphases yet are intertwined. To clarify these misreadings, it is necessary to return to the historical context in which Lenin implemented the New Economic Policy. Lenin’s understanding and exposition of the New Economic Policy underwent a process from simple to complex, from the initial single grain tax policy to later gradual enrichment and development into a complete system encompassing a series of economic and political policies. Genkina pointed out that Lenin’s discussions of the New Economic Policy at different times and in different settings were all directed at certain aspects of the policy and did not form a complete definition. This scattered, diverse expression easily leads to misreadings that grasp only one point while ignoring the rest. However, Lenin’s scattered discussions of the New Economic Policy, “taken together, created a complete and unified doctrine on the economic policy of the proletarian state during the transition period from capitalism to socialism.” A correct grasp of the New Economic Policy requires returning to Lenin’s era, understanding its essence from Lenin’s systematic exposition of the policy, and adhering to the following methodological principles.

关于新经济政策的种种误读各有侧重又相互交织。要澄清这些误读，需要回到列宁实施新经济政策的历史背景中。列宁对新经济政策的认识和阐述，经历了一个从简单到复杂的过程，从最初单一的粮食税政策，到后来逐渐充实、发展为包括一系列经济和政治政策的完整体系。根基娜指出，列宁在不同时间、不同场合对新经济政策作出的论述，都是针对新经济政策中的某个方面，并没有形成一个完备的定义。这种分散、多样性的表述，容易让人产生只及一点、不及其余的误读。但是，列宁关于新经济政策的分散的论述，“合在一起创造了关于无产阶级国家在从资本主义向社会主义过渡时期的经济政策的完整而统一的学说”。对新经济政策的正确把握，需要回到列宁所处的时代，从列宁对新经济政策的系统论述中认识其本质，并坚持以下方法论原则。

(A) Correctly Grasp the Dialectical Unity of Universality and Particularity in Historical Development

（一）正确把握历史发展的普遍性和特殊性的辩证统一

Marxist historical materialism reveals the universal laws of human historical development. This universality is embodied in particularity and expressed through it. In criticizing the views of Sukhanov and others, Lenin pointed out: “The general laws of world historical development do not in the least exclude particular stages of development that exhibit special features in form or order; on the contrary, they presuppose them. Therefore, Russia is bound to exhibit and will inevitably exhibit certain special features, which of course conform to the general line of world development but distinguish the Russian revolution from the earlier revolutions of Western Europe, and these special features will produce certain partial new elements in the Eastern countries.”

马克思主义唯物史观揭示了人类历史发展的普遍规律。这种普遍性寓于特殊性之中，并通过特殊性表现出来。列宁在批评苏汉诺夫等人的观点时指出：“世界历史发展的一般规律，不仅丝毫不排斥个别发展阶段在发展的形式或顺序上表现出特殊性，反而是以此为前提的。所以俄国能够表现出而且势必表现出某些特殊性，这些特殊性当然符合世界发展的总的路线，但却使俄国革命有别于以前西欧各国的革命，而且这些特殊性到了东方国家又会产生某些局部的新东西。”

How to build socialism after the proletariat seizes power is a major issue in the history of socialist development. Marx and Engels put forward some principled ideas on this question, such as eliminating commodity production, with the state formulating unified plans and arranging economic production uniformly. These ideas were based on the premise of highly developed social productive forces. The basic principles of Marxism have universal guiding significance, but this guidance must be combined with the concrete conditions of each country and each historical stage. After the victory of the October Revolution, Russia was still a country with a backward economy and culture, far from the premise of highly developed productive forces envisioned by Marx and Engels. Based on this, Lenin emphasized: “The era of arguing about socialism according to books has passed”; “today we can only talk about socialism based on experience.” The concrete situation Russia faced when implementing the New Economic Policy “was unprecedented in history,” “not explored by any theory or any work,” “no book has ever written about state capitalism under the communist system. Even Marx did not think to write a single word on this question.” The particularity of the New Economic Policy lies in allowing capitalism to exist and function to a certain extent and within a certain scope while ensuring the basic principles of socialism; implementing the New Economic Policy was a new exploration based on actual conditions. Lenin pointed out: “We are now using the ‘New Economic Policy’ to correct many of our mistakes, and we are learning how to further build the socialist edifice in a small-peasant country without making these mistakes.” The implementation and advancement of the New Economic Policy were the product of Lenin’s combination of the universal laws revealed by Marxism with Russia’s specific conditions.

无产阶级夺取政权后怎样建设社会主义是社会主义发展史上的重大问题。马克思、恩格斯对这个问题提出了一些原则性设想，如消除商品生产，国家统一制定计划、统一安排经济生产等。这些设想基于高度发达的社会生产力前提。马克思主义基本原理具有普遍性的指导意义，但这种指导需要与各个国家、各个历史阶段的具体情况结合起来。十月革命胜利后，俄国还是一个经济文化落后的国家，与马克思、恩格斯设想的生产力高度发达的前提相去甚远。基于此，列宁强调：“根据书本争论社会主义纲领的时代也已经过去了”，“今天只能根据经验来谈论社会主义”。新经济政策推行时俄国面临的具体情况“是历史上前所未见的”，“任何理论、任何著作都没有探讨过的”，“没有一本书写到过共产主义制度下的国家资本主义。连马克思也没有想到要就这个问题写下片言只语”。新经济政策的特殊性在于，在保证社会主义基本原则的前提下，允许资本主义在一定程度、一定范围内存在并发挥作用，实行新经济政策是根据实际情况进行的新的探索。列宁指出：“我们现在正用‘新经济政策’来纠正我们的许多错误，我们正在学习怎样在一个小农国家里进一步建设社会主义大厦而不犯这些错误。”新经济政策的实施和推进，是列宁将马克思主义所揭示的普遍规律与俄国的具体情况相结合的产物。

Carrying out socialist construction cannot be rigidly bound to the ideas of the classical Marxist writers about socialism; it is necessary to adhere to emancipating the mind, seeking truth from facts, upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground. The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC points out: “When we adhere to the guidance of Marxism, we mean to apply its scientific worldview and methodology to solve China’s problems, not to recite and repeat its specific conclusions and phrases, still less to treat Marxism as an immutable dogma.” Therefore, it is necessary to be adept at integrating the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture.

进行社会主义建设不能拘泥于马克思主义经典作家关于社会主义的设想，必须坚持解放思想、实事求是、守正创新。党的二十大报告指出：“我们坚持以马克思主义为指导，是要运用其科学的世界观和方法论解决中国的问题，而不是要背诵和重复其具体结论和词句，更不能把马克思主义当成一成不变的教条。”因此，要善于把马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合、同中华优秀传统文化相结合。

(B) Correctly Grasp the Dialectical Unity of Retreat and Attack in the Socialist Movement

（二）正确把握社会主义运动退却和进攻的辩证统一

The development of human history often manifests itself as a spiral ascent and a wave-like advance. The cause of proletarian emancipation is the greatest cause of humanity and is bound to be fraught with difficulties and dangers. Lenin frequently quoted a saying of Chernyshevsky — “History does not proceed along the Nevsky Prospekt” — and held that the socialist road would not be a broad, straight highway, but would often require traversing “the narrowest, most difficult, most tortuous and most dangerous mountain paths.” [28]28 Nevsky Prospekt is the main, broad, and straight avenue in St. Petersburg, Russia. Chernyshevsky’s phrase is a metaphor for a smooth, easy path. At the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Lenin clearly stated: “One thing we know for certain: the resolution of the Ninth Congress assumed that our movement would proceed along a straight line, but in fact, as is often the case in the history of revolution, the movement proceeds in a zigzag.” In the process of socialist development, there can be only advance and no retreat; under specific conditions, retreat itself is also a form of advance.

人类历史的发展往往表现为螺旋式的上升和波浪式的前进。无产阶级解放事业是人类最伟大的事业，必定充满艰难险阻。列宁经常引用车尔尼雪夫斯基说过的一句话——“历史活动并不是涅瓦大街的人行道”，并认为社会主义道路不会是宽阔笔直的大马路，经常需要“穿行最窄狭、最难走、最曲折和最危险的山间小道”。列宁在俄共（布）第十次代表大会上明确指出：“有一点我们心中明白：第九次代表大会的决议设想我们的运动将沿着直线前进，而事实上，正像在革命史上常见的那样，运动是曲折前进的。”社会主义发展进程中，不可能只有进攻没有退却，在特定条件下退却本身也是一种前进。

The dialectic of retreat and advance is profoundly embodied in Lenin’s thought on the New Economic Policy. On the one hand, the New Economic Policy was a “strategic retreat,” not a surrender of one’s own positions to capitalism. Lenin explained this “strategic retreat”: “The task of introducing the New Economic Policy arose because, after the experiment of directly building socialism under unprecedentedly difficult conditions, under the conditions of civil war, under the conditions in which the bourgeoisie forced us to adopt cruel forms of struggle, by the spring of 1921 it had become clear that it was not a matter of directly building socialism, but of retreating in many economic spheres to state capitalism; not of launching a frontal assault, but of waging an extremely arduous, difficult and unpleasant protracted siege, accompanied by a series of retreats. To set about solving the economic problem — that is, to ensure the transition of the economy to a socialist foundation — it was necessary to do this.” On the other hand, a temporary retreat is for the purpose of preserving strength, accumulating forces to prepare for a new, greater advance, and ultimately laying the foundation for the transition to socialism; its essence is to advance by retreating, to retreat in order to advance. “We are now retreating, it seems we are moving backward, but we are doing this in order to take a few steps back, then take a run-up, and leap forward more forcefully.”

退却与进攻的辩证法深刻体现在列宁的新经济政策思想中。一方面，新经济政策是一种“战略退却”，并不是向资本主义让出自己的阵地。列宁对于“战略退却”进行了解释：“提出改行新经济政策的任务，是因为经过了在空前困难的条件下，在国内战争的条件下，在资产阶级强迫我们采用残酷斗争的形式的条件下直接进行社会主义建设的试验之后，到1921年春天情况已经很清楚：不是直接进行社会主义建设，而是要在许多经济领域退向国家资本主义；不是实行强攻，而是进行极其艰苦、困难和不愉快的长期围攻，伴以一连串的退却。要动手解决经济问题，也就是说，保证经济转到社会主义的基础之上，就必须这样做。”另一方面，暂时的退却是为了保存实力、积蓄力量以准备新的、更大的进攻，并为最终向社会主义过渡奠定基础，其本质是为进而退、以退为进。“我们现在退却，好像是在向后退，但是我们这样做是为了先后退几步，然后再起跑，更有力地向前跳。”

In the history of socialist development, many of the errors committed by proletarian parties have originated from treating the replacement of capitalism by socialism as a linear evolution, neglecting the arduousness and tortuousness of revolution, and failing to handle the relationship between advance and retreat, between linear evolution and circuitous transition. Deng Xiaoping once profoundly pointed out: “We are all engaged in revolution, and people engaged in revolution are most prone to impatience,” and “China in the past committed the error of impatience.” [29]29 The 20th National Congress of the CPC was held in October 2022. Its report outlined the tasks and challenges for the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC pointed out that in the New Era, “comprehensively building a modern socialist country is a great and arduous undertaking, with a bright future but a heavy and long road ahead,” and “we must strengthen our awareness of potential dangers, adhere to bottom-line thinking, be prepared for danger in times of peace and make provisions before trouble occurs, and be ready to withstand major tests of high winds, choppy waters, and even perilous waves.”

在社会主义发展史上，无产阶级政党所犯的错误，很多都源于把社会主义取代资本主义当成是直线演进，忽略了革命的艰巨性、曲折性，没有处理好进攻与退却、直线演进与迂回过渡的关系。邓小平曾深刻指出：“我们都是搞革命的，搞革命的人最容易犯急性病”，“中国过去就是犯了性急的错误”。党的二十大报告指出，新时代“全面建设社会主义现代化国家，是一项伟大而艰巨的事业，前途光明，任重道远”，“我们必须增强忧患意识，坚持底线思维，做到居安思危、未雨绸缪，准备经受风高浪急甚至惊涛骇浪的重大考验”。

(III) Correctly Grasp the Dialectical Unity of Utilizing Capitalism and Transcending Capitalism

（三）正确把握利用资本主义和超越资本主义的辩证统一

The ultimate goal of socialism is to abolish capitalism and realize communism. Marx pointed out: “No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” To abolish capitalism and build socialism, it is necessary to be adept at learning from and utilizing the strengths of capitalism. As Mao Zedong stated: “It is possible to abolish capitalism and yet engage in capitalism.” During the period of implementing the War Communism policy, Soviet Russia attempted to transition directly to socialism through public ownership, but ultimately failed. The New Economic Policy permitted and encouraged the development of small private ownership economies and capitalist economies, with the aim of utilizing capitalism to achieve a circuitous transition to socialism. At that time, Soviet Russia had five major economic components: patriarchal economy, small commodity economy, capitalist economy, state capitalism, and socialism. Under the coexistence of multiple economic components, there existed a structure of ownership encompassing multiple economic components. To raise the level of development of productive forces, Lenin advocated using capitalism to serve socialist construction. To this end, Lenin opposed abstractly opposing capitalism and socialism, emphasizing the need to analyze capitalism from a dialectical and historical perspective. He pointed out: “Compared with socialism, capitalism is an evil. But compared with the medieval system, with small production, with the bureaucracy arising from the dispersion of small producers, capitalism is a blessing.” Compared with small production, capitalist production has greater superiority, “so we should utilize capitalism (especially by channeling it into the track of state capitalism) as an intermediate link between small production and socialism, as a means, a path, a method, and a way of raising the productive forces.”

社会主义的最终目标是消灭资本主义，实现共产主义。马克思指出：“无论哪一个社会形态，在它所能容纳的全部生产力发挥出来以前，是决不会灭亡的；而新的更高的生产关系，在它的物质存在条件在旧社会的胎胞里成熟以前，是决不会出现的。”要消灭资本主义、建设社会主义，必须善于学习、利用资本主义的长处。正如毛泽东所言：“可以消灭了资本主义，又搞资本主义。”实施战时共产主义政策时期，苏俄曾尝试通过公有制直接过渡到社会主义，但最终失败了。新经济政策允许和鼓励小私有制经济与资本主义经济发展，目的是利用资本主义实现向社会主义的迂回过渡。当时的苏俄存在五大经济成分：宗法式经济、小商品经济、资本主义经济、国家资本主义、社会主义。多种经济成分并存下，就存在包含多种经济成分的所有制结构。为了提高生产力发展水平，列宁主张利用资本主义为社会主义建设服务。为此，列宁反对将资本主义与社会主义进行抽象的对立，强调要以辩证的、历史的眼光分析资本主义。他指出：“同社会主义比较，资本主义是祸害。但同中世纪制度、同小生产、同小生产者涣散性引起的官僚主义比较，资本主义则是幸福”，相较于小生产，资本主义生产具有更大的优越性，“所以我们应该利用资本主义（特别是要把它纳入国家资本主义的轨道）作为小生产和社会主义之间的中间环节，作为提高生产力的手段、途径、方法和方式”。

At the beginning of the implementation of the New Economic Policy, many inside and outside the Party questioned: Would measures such as restoring the market and free trade in commodities lead to the restoration of capitalism? Would they impact socialism? Lenin was soberly aware of this danger, so he likened the implementation of the New Economic Policy to a contest between Communists and capitalists that was even more dangerous than revolutionary struggle. He pointed out: “The whole question is who will outpace whom? If the capitalists organize first, they will drive the Communists out, and then there will be nothing to talk about.” During the implementation of the New Economic Policy, if the Communists could not control the capitalist elements, they might be devoured by capitalism. However, the Communists could not abandon utilizing the strengths of capitalism to develop socialism simply because of this risk. To the doubts of opponents, Lenin clearly replied: “Theoretically, is it possible to restore a certain degree of freedom of trade and freedom of capitalism to the small peasants without thereby undermining the foundations of the proletarian state power? Is it possible to do so? It is possible, because the question is one of knowing the proper measure.” How to grasp the proper measure? Lenin pointed out that the key lay in ensuring that capitalist elements did not endanger the proletarian state power: “The proletarian state, without changing its essence, can permit freedom of trade and the development of capitalism.” At the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, Lenin pointed out that the essence of the New Economic Policy was mainly: (α) the state holds the land; (β) also holds all the commanding heights in the means of production (transport, etc.); (γ) freedom of trade in the sphere of small production; (δ) state capitalism in the sense of attracting private capital (concessions and joint-stock companies). In addition to emphasizing free trade and state capitalism, Lenin also stressed that the prerequisite for implementing the New Economic Policy lay in the state’s control over the land and in the state’s control over all the commanding heights in the means of production; these two lines were the bottom line that the New Economic Policy would never concede, fundamentally guaranteeing the socialist character. In his last public speech before his death, Lenin emphasized: “We must move toward socialism, but not treat it as an icon painted in solemn colors.” Only by mastering skills and abilities superior to those of the capitalists could the Communists enable the masses to feel, through comparison, that socialism was “better than the old system,” and “thus the Russia of the New Economic Policy will become socialist Russia.”

新经济政策推行之初，党内外很多人都质疑：恢复市场、商品自由贸易等措施，会不会导致资本主义复辟？会不会冲击社会主义？列宁清醒地意识到存在这样的危险，因此他把实行新经济政策比喻为共产党人和资本家之间的一场比革命斗争还要危险的较量。他指出：“全部问题就在于谁跑在谁的前面？资本家如果先组织起来，他们就会把共产党人赶走，那就什么也不用谈了。”新经济政策实行过程中，如果共产党人不能驾驭资本主义因素，就有可能被资本主义反噬。但是，共产党人不能因为存在这种风险，就放弃利用资本主义的长处来发展社会主义。对于反对者的质疑，列宁明确回答道：“从理论上说来，能不能在一定的程度上给小农恢复贸易自由、资本主义自由而不至于因此破坏无产阶级政权的根基呢？能不能这样做呢？能够，因为问题在于掌握分寸”。如何掌握分寸？列宁指出，关键在于确保资本主义因素不至于危害无产阶级政权，“无产阶级国家在不改变其本质的情况下，可以容许贸易自由和资本主义的发展”。列宁在共产国际第四次代表大会上指出，新经济政策的实质主要是：（α）国家掌握土地；（β）也掌握生产资料方面的一切命脉（运输等等）；（γ）小生产领域中的贸易自由；（δ）在吸收私人资本（租让和合营公司）意义上的国家资本主义。除了强调自由贸易、国家资本主义的内容，列宁还强调实行新经济政策的前提在于国家对土地的掌控，在于国家掌握生产资料方面的一切命脉，这两条是新经济政策绝不会退让的底线，从根本上保证了社会主义的性质。列宁在其生前最后一次公开讲话中强调：“我们必须走向社会主义，但不是把它当做用庄严的色彩画成的圣像”，共产党人只有掌握高于资本家的本领和能力，才能让人民群众通过比较觉得社会主义“比旧制度好”，“这样，新经济政策的俄国将变成社会主义的俄国”。

In the history of socialism, Lenin’s New Economic Policy was the initial exploration of breaking through unitary public ownership and developing productive forces under the socialist system. These ideas have important reference significance for China’s socialist construction and reform endeavors. On the one hand, in the process of reform, it is necessary to adhere to the basic principles and development path of socialism, uphold the dominance of public ownership, and always ensure the correct direction of socialist reform; on the other hand, China’s socialist construction and reform need to utilize market relations and develop a diverse range of ownership forms. At the beginning of the establishment of the socialist system, Mao Zedong pointed out: “We must mobilize all positive factors, both domestic and international, to serve the socialist cause.” [30]30 Mao Zedong, “On the Ten Major Relationships” (1956). During the period of reform and opening up, Deng Xiaoping emphasized actively learning from the advanced production technologies and productive forces of Western capitalism, “on the basis of adhering to self-reliance, we also need to open up to the outside world, absorb foreign capital and technology to help us develop.” [31]31 Deng Xiaoping, “We Must Open Up to the Outside World” (1984). As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters the New Era, China is still in the primary stage of socialism and still needs to correctly handle the dialectical relationship between utilizing capitalism and transcending capitalism. Xi Jinping pointed out: “For a considerable period, socialism in the primary stage must still engage in long-term cooperation and struggle with more developed capitalist productive forces, and must still earnestly study and draw on the beneficial achievements of civilization created by capitalism.” [32]32 Xi Jinping, speech at the New Year gathering of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (2018). On this basis, “through continuous reform and innovation, make socialism with Chinese characteristics more efficient than the capitalist system in liberating and developing social productive forces, liberating and enhancing social vitality, and promoting the all-round development of people, better able to stimulate the initiative, enthusiasm, and creativity of all the people, better able to provide favorable conditions for social development, better able to win comparative advantage in competition, and fully manifest the superiority of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics.” [33]33 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Celebration of the 95th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China” (2016).

在社会主义发展史上，列宁新经济政策是社会主义制度下突破单一公有制，发展生产力的最初探索。这些思想，对中国的社会主义建设和改革事业具有重要借鉴意义。一方面，在改革过程中，必须坚持社会主义基本原则和发展道路，坚持公有制为主体，始终确保社会主义改革的正确方向；另一方面，中国的社会主义建设和改革需要利用市场关系，发展多种所有制经济。社会主义制度建立之初，毛泽东就指出：“要把国内外一切积极因素调动起来，为社会主义事业服务”。改革开放时期，邓小平强调积极借鉴西方资本主义的先进生产技术和生产力，“在坚持自力更生的基础上，还需要对外开放，吸收外国的资金和技术来帮助我们发展”。中国特色社会主义进入新时代，中国仍处于社会主义初级阶段，仍需要正确处理利用资本主义和超越资本主义的辩证关系。习近平指出：“在相当长时期内，初级阶段的社会主义还必须同生产力更发达的资本主义长期合作和斗争，还必须认真学习和借鉴资本主义创造的有益文明成果”，在此基础上，“通过不断改革创新，使中国特色社会主义在解放和发展社会生产力、解放和增强社会活力、促进人的全面发展上比资本主义制度更有效率，更能激发全体人民的积极性、主动性、创造性，更能为社会发展提供有利条件，更能在竞争中赢得比较优势，把中国特色社会主义制度的优越性充分体现出来”。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心