Lenin’s View of the Essence of Socialism: An Economic and Political Perspective

Lenin was the founder of the world’s first socialist state. Compared with Marx and Engels, Lenin had rich practical experience in leading socialist construction. On the question of the essence of socialism, Lenin adhered to the basic views of Marx and Engels, and, through a contrast with the essence of capitalism and amid the arduous exploration of socialist construction, arrived at conclusions that possess both high theoretical value and practical significance, providing valuable theoretical resources for later generations to deeply understand and practice the essence of socialism.

列宁是世界上第一个社会主义国家的缔造者。相对于马克思恩格斯，列宁有着丰富的领导社会主义建设的实践经验。在社会主义本质问题上，列宁坚持了马克思恩格斯的基本观点，在与资本主义本质的对比中，在艰难的社会主义建设探索中，得出了既具较高理论价值又富有现实意义的结论，为后人深入认识并践行社会主义本质提供了宝贵理论资源。

I. Attention to the Question of Human Development

一、对人的发展问题的关注

Marx and Engels devoted a great deal of writing to the question of human emancipation and development, while Lenin’s direct discussions on this topic are relatively few. The earliest discussion appears in the 1902 “Draft Program of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party”: “For the working class to achieve genuine emancipation, it must carry out the social revolution prepared by the entire development of capitalism, i.e., abolish private ownership of the means of production, transform them into public property, and organize socialist production of products undertaken by the whole society to replace capitalist commodity production, so as to ensure the full welfare and free all-round development of all members of society.” [1]1 V. I. Lenin, “Draft Program of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 6, p. 23. The above ideas, after slight textual adjustments, were written into the Party programs of 1903, 1917, and 1919. The complete formulation in the 1919 “Program of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” is: “The proletarian social revolution, by replacing private ownership of the means of production and circulation with public ownership, by systematically organizing the social production process to ensure the welfare and all-round development of all members of society, will abolish the class division of society, and thereby emancipate all oppressed humanity, for it will abolish all forms of exploitation of one part of society by another.” [2]2 “Program of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks),” 1919. The 1919 Party program was the last Party program before Lenin’s death.

马克思恩格斯用大量的笔墨来论述人的解放与发展问题，列宁在这方面的直接论述则不多。最早的论述，是在1902年的《俄国社会民主工党纲领草案》中：“工人阶级要获得真正的解放，必须进行资本主义全部发展所准备起来的社会革命，即消灭生产资料私有制，把它们变为公有财产，组织由整个社会承担的社会主义的产品生产代替资本主义商品生产，以保证社会全体成员的充分福利和自由的全面发展。”上述思想，经过文字上的略微调整，被写入1903年、1917年和1919年党章。1919年颁行的《俄国共产党（布尔什维克）纲领》的完整表述是：“无产阶级的社会革命以生产资料和流通手段的公有制代替私有制，有计划地组织社会生产过程来保证社会全体成员的福利和全面发展，将消灭社会的阶级划分，从而解放全体被压迫的人类，因为它将消灭社会上一部分人对另一部分人的一切形式的剥削。”1919年党纲，是列宁去世前的最后一个党纲。

In 1902, the Russian revolution was still in its infancy. By 1919, two years had passed since the victory of the October Revolution. Although the situation in all respects had undergone fundamental changes, the core ideas of the 1919 Party program and the 1902 draft program were highly consistent, differing only slightly in wording: the 1902 draft program’s “full welfare and free all-round development of all members of society” became in the 1919 program “the welfare and all-round development of all members of society,” with the modifiers “full” and “free” removed. Thus, “public ownership of the means of production and circulation” is the means, while “the welfare and all-round development of all members of society” is the goal of socialism, and fundamentally embodies the essence of socialism. Outside the Party program, Lenin did not discuss the question of human emancipation and development at great length. However, he made a major theoretical contribution on this issue: he gave a clear definition of class. Class is a core concept of Marxism. Marxism holds that, in societies since the dissolution of primitive communism, human beings first exist as members of classes. To talk abstractly about human beings and their value while ignoring social individuals and groups with different occupations and different economic and social statuses can solve no question concerning human beings. The basic relationship between classes is one of rule and being ruled, exploitation and being exploited, regardless of whether individual class members are aware of it. Human emancipation and development must be achieved through the emancipation of classes. Therefore, apart from a few discussions envisioning the state of human existence in future society, such as the association of free individuals discussed in *The Communist Manifesto* and *Capital*, Marx and Engels more often used the concept of class to expound their theory. Even the concept of the people, Marx and Engels used only when necessary—they believed that the people are divided into classes, and that the various classes constituting the people have different positions in the revolution; to speak vaguely of the people can only blur class boundaries, thereby causing difficulties for the emancipation of the proletariat. Nevertheless, Marx and Engels never gave a clear definition of class. This task was completed by Lenin. “Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labor of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy.” [3]3 V. I. Lenin, “A Great Beginning,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 29, p. 421. “The abolition of classes” is the “ultimate aim” of socialism. [4]4 V. I. Lenin, “The Tasks of the Youth Leagues,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 31, p. 291. To a certain extent, the connotation of “the abolition of classes” is highly consistent with “the welfare and all-round development of all members of society”; both are revelations and expressions of the essence of socialism.

1902年，俄国革命尚处在幼年时期。1919年，十月革命已经胜利两年。尽管各方面形势发生了根本变化，但1919年党纲与1902年党纲草案的核心思想，是高度一致的，只是文字表述上略有差异：1902年党纲草案的“社会全体成员的充分福利和自由的全面发展”，在1919年党纲中是“社会全体成员的福利和全面发展”，后者删除了“充分”与“自由的”两个修饰词。由此可见，“生产资料和流通手段的公有制”是手段，“社会全体成员的福利和全面发展”才是社会主义的目的，也从根本上体现了社会主义本质。在党纲之外，列宁没有过多谈论过人的解放和发展问题。但他在这个问题上，有一个重大的理论贡献，就是给阶级下了明确定义。阶级，是马克思主义的一个核心概念。马克思主义认为，在原始社会解体以来的社会中，人首先是以阶级成员的身份存在的。抽象地谈论人及其价值，而无视有着不同职业、不同经济社会地位的社会个体与群体，是解决不了任何关于人的问题的。阶级之间的基本关系，是统治与被统治、剥削与被剥削，不管作为阶级成员的个体是否意识到。人的解放和发展，必须通过阶级的解放来实现。所以，除少数展望未来社会人的存在状态的论述，如《共产党宣言》《资本论》中论及的自由人联合体，马克思恩格斯更多地使用阶级这个概念来阐明他们的学说。甚至人民这个概念，马克思恩格斯也只是在必要情况下才使用——他们认为，人民是分阶级的，构成人民的各个阶级，在革命中的地位是不同的；含混地谈论人民，只能模糊阶级界限，从而给无产阶级解放造成困扰。尽管如此，马克思恩格斯却没有给阶级下过明确定义。这个工作，是列宁完成的。“所谓阶级，就是这样一些大的集团，这些集团在历史上一定的社会生产体系中所处的地位不同，同生产资料的关系（这种关系大部分是在法律上明文规定了的）不同，在社会劳动组织中所起的作用不同，因而取得归自己支配的那份社会财富的方式和多寡也不同。所谓阶级，就是这样一些集团，由于它们在一定社会经济结构中所处的地位不同，其中一个集团能够占有另一个集团的劳动。”“消灭阶级”，是社会主义的“最终目的”。在一定程度上，“消灭阶级”的内涵，与“社会全体成员的福利和全面发展”高度一致，都是对社会主义本质的揭示与表达。

Many scholars have noted that Lenin did not discuss the question of human emancipation and development at great length. Some scholars believe that “such philosophical categories as the human being and the essence of the human being seem to be a logical missing link in the theoretical structure of Lenin’s philosophy.” The reason, they suggest, “is probably the consequence of a closed theoretical circuit produced by the brainwashing of those economic-determinist theorists since the Second International through the agency of positivism,” and “perhaps” “is also one of the historical reasons why the entire later traditional Marxist philosophical interpretive framework neglected the question of the human being.” [5]5 This is a reference to a scholarly interpretation of Lenin’s theoretical framework. This view has some validity, but it is by no means the whole truth. Lenin once sharply criticized “the capitalist epoch, in which the working masses are constantly subjected to exploitation and are unable to develop their various abilities,” [6]6 V. I. Lenin, “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 1, p. 413. and also placed his hopes on the broad masses of working people, after the victory of the revolution, to “overcome the selfishness, fragmentation, backwardness, and weakness engendered by private property,” [7]7 V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 27, p. 259. to display their “full initiative and vitality,” [8]8 V. I. Lenin, “How to Organise Competition?” *Collected Works*, Vol. 26, p. 404. to “truly learn to build socialism from their own practical experience,” [9]9 V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 27, p. 259. and to “establish a free union of free workers.” [10]10 V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revolution,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 25, p. 462. More importantly, theory comes from practice. From the perspective of revolutionary practice, the fact that Lenin did not discuss the question of the human being as extensively as Marx and Engels, especially in the early period of their theoretical activity, has a greater and more direct relationship with the environment and the problems of his era. The theoretical question of human emancipation and development had already been satisfactorily resolved by Marx and Engels. The key lay in how to implement and realize it under different conditions. In particular, as capitalism entered the imperialist stage, as imperialist powers launched a world war to carve up the globe, as the working-class movement in the developed capitalist countries fell into a trough, the working class became to a considerable extent bourgeoisified, and working-class parties became reformist, the emancipation of the Russian proletariat and peasantry, and the national liberation of the vast colonial and semi-colonial countries, became the main issues of Lenin’s concern. Under these circumstances, Lenin’s main task was to deeply analyze and accurately grasp the essence of capitalism, especially imperialism, in the new stage of revolution, to make full use of the new situation of revolution and war to educate, organize, and lead the proletariat to victory; after the victory of the revolution, it was to creatively practice the basic principles of socialism according to the specific level of development and actual conditions, and to manifest the essence of socialism in different fields.

很多学者都曾注意到，列宁没有过多地论述人的解放和发展问题。有学者认为，“诸如人、人的本质一类的哲学规定，似乎是列宁哲学理论构境中的逻辑缺环”。究其原因，“这恐怕是第二国际以来，那些经济决定论式的理论家们假手实证主义进行洗脑而造成的闭合性理论回路的后果”，“或许”“也是以后全部以后传统马克思主义哲学解释构架忽视人的问题的历史原因之一”。这种见解有一定道理，但决不是事实的全部。列宁曾经严厉批判过“工人群众不断遭受剥削而不能发展人的各种才能”的“资本主义时代”，也曾经寄希望于广大劳动群众，能够在革命胜利后“克服私有制所造成的自私、分散、劣根性和软弱性”，发挥自己的“全部主动性和活力”，“从自己的实际经验中真正地学习建设社会主义”，“建立自由工作者的自由联盟”。更重要的是，理论来源于实践。从革命实践的角度看，列宁没有像马克思恩格斯那样过多地论述人的问题，尤其是在他们理论活动的早期，与他所处的环境与时代问题关系更大、更直接。理论上的人的解放和发展问题，在马克思恩格斯那里已经得到圆满解决。关键在于，在不同条件下如何落实、实现。尤其是，在资本主义进入帝国主义阶段，在帝国主义国家挑起瓜分世界的世界大战之际，在发达资本主义国家工人阶级运动陷入低潮、工人阶级在相当程度上资产阶级化、工人阶级政党改良主义化之时，俄国无产阶级与农民阶级的解放，广大殖民地半殖民地国家的民族解放，成为列宁关注的主要问题。在这种情况下，列宁的主要任务，是深入分析、准确把握革命新阶段资本主义特别是帝国主义的本质，充分利用革命与战争的新形势，教育、组织、领导无产阶级取得成功；在革命取得胜利后，是根据具体发展程度和现实条件，创造性地实践社会主义的基本原则，在不同领域展现社会主义本质。

Engels once pointed out that things should be studied from their “historical or logical process of formation.” [11]11 Friedrich Engels, “Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 16, p. 469. Lenin also emphasized that Marx “generally does not give definitions,” [12]12 V. I. Lenin, “Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 94. and that one should understand “the essence of things” from “experience” rather than from existing “legal definitions.” [13]13 V. I. Lenin, “The State,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 29, p. 470. When discussing the essence of the capitalist mode of production, Lenin pointed out that it was necessary to “examine the essence of the capitalist mode of production in comparison with other, pre-capitalist, historical modes of production.” [14]14 V. I. Lenin, “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 1, p. 413. This judgment undoubtedly also applies to Lenin’s understanding of the essence of socialism. Without understanding Lenin’s understanding of the essence of capitalism, it is difficult to grasp his view of the essence of socialism.

恩格斯曾经指出，要从事物的“历史的或逻辑的形成过程”中来研究事物。列宁也强调，马克思“一般是不下定义”的，要从“经验”而非既有的“法律的定义”认识“事情的本质”。列宁在谈到资本主义生产方式的本质时指出，要“从同资本主义以前的历史上其他生产方式的对比来看资本主义生产方式的本质”。这个论断，无疑也适用于列宁对社会主义本质的认识。不了解列宁对资本主义本质的认识，也就很难理解他的社会主义本质观。

II. Understanding the Essence of Capitalism

二、对资本主义本质的认识

A scientific understanding of the historical evolution, essential character, basic features, and developmental trends of capitalism is a basic prerequisite for the smooth progress of the proletarian revolution. Discussions on the essence of capitalism run through Lenin’s works from his early to his late period. Although not very systematic, their basic spirit is consistent throughout.

科学理解资本主义的历史演变、精神实质、基本特征与发展趋势，是无产阶级革命顺利推进的基本前提。关于资本主义本质的论述，贯穿于列宁从早期到晚期的著作中，尽管不是非常系统，但基本精神却是始终如一的。

In February 1919, in the “Draft Program of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” written for the Eighth Party Congress, Lenin proposed that “the proletarian revolution has begun in Russia and is developing rapidly everywhere. To understand this revolution, one must understand the essence of capitalism and the inevitability of its development into the dictatorship of the proletariat.” [15]15 The Eighth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) was held in March 1919. It adopted a new Party program, replacing the 1903 program of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Regarding the essence of capitalism, Lenin explained, “the essence, i.e., the basic character, of capitalism and bourgeois society” was “set forth in our old Marxist Party program in the following formulation.” The “old Marxist program” Lenin referred to is the program adopted at the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903. Lenin then quoted eight paragraphs of this “following formulation,” totaling over 1,200 characters. These theoretical statements on the general laws and developmental trends of capitalism became an official part of the “Program of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” at the Eighth Party Congress, the first paragraph of which reads: “The main feature of this society is commodity production based on capitalist relations of production, under which the most important and a very large part of the means of production and of the means of circulation of commodities belong to a numerically small class, while the overwhelming majority of the population are proletarians and semi-proletarians whose economic position compels them constantly or periodically to sell their labour-power, i.e., to hire themselves out to the capitalists, and by their labour to create income for the upper classes of society.” A length of over 1,200 characters makes it difficult to explain the essence of capitalism in a reasonable and concise manner. Lenin also recognized this shortcoming, stating that “this first draft is in many respects not yet complete, especially in its wording, so that in some places explanatory formulations have been used instead of programmatic ones,” but in the officially adopted program, this defect was not remedied. Nevertheless, the first and most important paragraph of the “explanatory formulation” quoted above provides us with valuable clues for understanding Lenin’s view of the essence of capitalism.

1919年2月，在为党的八大而作的《俄共（布）纲领草案》中，列宁提出，“无产阶级革命在俄国已经开始并在各地迅速发展。要了解这个革命，必须了解资本主义的本质及其向无产阶级专政发展的不可避免性。”对于资本主义本质，列宁解释说，“资本主义和资产阶级社会的本质即基本性质”，“我们那个旧的马克思主义的党纲曾用如下的表述作了说明”。列宁所说的“旧的马克思主义的纲领”，指1903年俄国社会民主工党第二次代表大会通过的党纲。接下来，列宁引用了“如下的表述”八段共1200余字。这些关于资本主义一般规律和发展趋势的理论表述，在俄共（布）八大上，成为《俄国共产党（布尔什维克）纲领》的正式组成部分，其中第一段是：“这个社会的主要特点是以资本主义生产关系为基础的商品生产，在资本主义生产关系下，最重要的和很大部分的生产资料和商品流通手段归一个人数不多的阶级所有，绝大多数的居民却是无产者和半无产者，他们由于自己的经济地位不得不一直出卖或定期出卖自己的劳动力，即受雇于资本家，并以自己的劳动为社会的上层阶级创造收入。”1200余字的篇幅，难以合理、简洁地说明资本主义本质。列宁也认识到这个缺陷，提出“这个初稿有许多地方还写得不完善，特别是在文字方面，因此有些地方暂时用了解释性的表述而没有用纲领的表述方式”，但在正式通过的纲领中，并没有补正这个缺陷。尽管如此，上面引用的“解释性的表述”中的第一段也是最重要的一段，为我们认识列宁的资本主义本质观，提供了宝贵线索。

What we first see is that Lenin treats “commodity production based on capitalist relations of production” as the “main feature” of capitalist society. In his 1893 work “On the So-Called Market Question,” Lenin defined commodity production and capitalism separately: “By commodity production is meant a social economic organization in which products are produced by separate, isolated producers, each specializing in the production of one particular product, so that to satisfy social needs the purchase and sale of products (which thereby become commodities) is necessary. By capitalism is meant that stage of the development of commodity production in which not only human labour products are commodities, but also human labour-power itself becomes a commodity.” From this passage, we can draw three conclusions: first, commodity production encompasses different historical stages, and capitalist production is one of them; second, producers produce to satisfy social (others’) needs, so labour products become commodities through market exchange; third, the fact that producers’ labour-power becomes a commodity is the unique hallmark of commodity production under capitalist conditions. Lenin also used the example of “the gradual changes occurring in the economic system of a village community of six producers” to outline “the various stages of the transformation of natural economy into capitalist economy” and the historical process. In 1894, in “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book,” Lenin further refined the above view: “According to Marx’s theory, the essential features of capitalism are two: (1) commodity production is the general form of production. In various social production organisms, products take the form of commodities, but only in capitalist production is this form of the product of labour universal, not particular, individual, and accidental. (2) Not only the product of labour takes the form of a commodity, but labour itself, i.e., human labour-power, also takes the form of a commodity.” In this passage, in addition to emphasizing that labour-power becomes a commodity, Lenin also stressed that “commodity production is the general form of production.” Lenin undoubtedly understood capitalism based on human history up to his own era. By treating commodity production as the general form of production and labour-power becoming a commodity as the essential features of capitalism, he highlighted the essential difference between capitalism and pre-capitalist societies in terms of the purpose of production and economic operation—namely, natural economy for one’s own needs versus commodity economy for the pursuit of profit—but he excluded the possibility that future societies might adopt commodity production, including labour-power becoming a commodity. In fact, this possibility is already implicit in the discussion of “the various stages of the transformation of natural economy into capitalist economy”: if commodity production is not equal to capitalist production and predates it, why could it not exist in the economic and social forms after capitalism? There is an obvious logical gap here.

我们首先看到的，列宁把“以资本主义生产关系为基础的商品生产”当作资本主义社会的“主要特点”。在1893年的《论所谓市场问题》中，列宁分别给商品生产与资本主义下了定义：“所谓商品生产，是指这样一种社会经济组织，在这种组织之下，产品是由个别的、单独的生产者生产的，同时每一生产者专门制造某一种产品，因而为了满足社会需要，就必须在市场上买卖产品（产品因此变成了商品）。所谓资本主义，是指商品生产发展的这样一个阶段，在这个阶段上，不仅人类劳动产品是商品，而且人的劳动力本身也成了商品。”在这段论述中，我们可以得出两个结论：一是商品生产包含着不同历史阶段，资本主义生产是其中之一；二是生产者为满足社会（他人）需要而生产，因而劳动产品经由市场交换而成为商品；三是生产者的劳动力成为商品，是资本主义条件下商品生产的独特标志。列宁还以“6个生产者组成的村社经济体系中渐次发生的变化”为例，勾勒了“自然经济转化为资本主义经济的各个阶段”与历史过程。1894年，在《民粹主义的经济内容及其在司徒卢威先生的书中受到的批评》一文中，列宁进一步完善了上述观点：“根据马克思的学说看来，资本主义的本质特征有两个：（1）商品生产是生产的普遍形式。在各种不同的社会生产机体中，产品都具有商品形式，但只有在资本主义生产中，劳动产品的这种形式才是普遍的，而不是特殊的、个别的和偶然的。（2）不仅劳动产品具有商品形式，而且劳动本身即人的劳动力也具有商品形式。”这段论述，除强调劳动力成为商品外，列宁还强调了“商品生产是生产的普遍形式”。列宁无疑是依据截至他那个时代为止的人类历史来认识资本主义的。他把商品生产是生产的普遍形式与劳动力成为商品，当作资本主义的本质特征，纵然从生产目的、经济运行方面突出了资本主义与前资本主义社会的本质差异，即为自身需要而生产的自然经济与为追逐利润而生产的商品经济，但却排除了未来社会采取商品生产包括劳动力成为商品的可能性。实际上，这种可能性，已经暗含在关于“自然经济转化为资本主义经济的各个阶段”的论述中：商品生产不等于资本主义生产，且早于资本主义生产，为什么不会存在于资本主义之后的经济社会形态中？这里存在着明显的逻辑漏洞。

Treating “commodity production” as the main feature of capitalism was a common understanding among Marxists of Lenin’s era, including Lenin himself, and it also conformed to Marx and Engels’ theoretical prediction that commodity production would not exist in a future society. The reason for this understanding lies in a Marxist common sense that, from our present-day height, has significant limitations: the dominance of commodity production inevitably leads to anarchy of production, which is unique to capitalism; under large-scale production, society’s demand for products is, at least quantitatively, limited, so there is an objective requirement for planned and proportional production. It is for this reason that Lenin emphasized, “It is only in this respect, i.e., in respect of the proportionality, system, and planning of production, that Marx equated small-peasant economy with the economy of ‘associated producers.’ … Capitalism differs from both these socio-economic systems in the anarchy of production.”

把“商品生产”作为资本主义的主要特点，是列宁那个时代包括列宁在内的马克思主义者的普遍认识，也符合马克思恩格斯未来社会不存在商品生产的理论预测。之所以有这样的认识，在于以我们今天的高度来看是有重大局限性的马克思主义常识：占统治地位的商品生产，必然导致生产的无政府状态，后者是资本主义所独有的；在大生产条件下，既定社会对产品的需要，至少在量上是有限度的，因而存在按计划、有比例生产的客观要求。正因为如此，列宁强调，“只是在这方面，即在生产的比例性、系统性和计划性方面，马克思才拿小农经济同‘联合起来的生产者’的经济等量齐观。……资本主义同这两种社会经济制度的区别就在于生产的无政府状态。”

However, in the formulation “commodity production based on capitalist relations of production,” “commodity production” is the subject, but the more important content is its modifier, i.e., the “basis” of “capitalist relations of production.” “Under capitalist relations of production, the most important and a very large part of the means of production and of the means of circulation of commodities belong to a numerically small class, while the overwhelming majority of the population are proletarians and semi-proletarians whose economic position compels them constantly or periodically to sell their labour-power, i.e., to hire themselves out to the capitalists, and by their labour to create income for the upper classes of society.” This passage from the program of the Eighth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) captures the essence of capitalist relations of production: a numerically small bourgeoisie owns the means of production, while the proletarians and semi-proletarians, who constitute the majority of the population, do not own the means of production and are compelled to live by selling their labour-power, creating surplus value for the bourgeoisie. Understanding the economic essence of the capitalist system from the dimension of relations of production, especially the ownership of the means of production, is more accurate and scientific than understanding it from the dimension of commodity production, i.e., the mechanism of economic operation. Commodity production, in theory and in history, is not unique to capitalist society, even though it only achieved a universal form under capitalism; it is inappropriate to treat it as the main feature or essential characteristic of capitalism. The productive practices of humanity after Marx, Engels, and Lenin, especially the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics, have fully demonstrated this point.

然而，在“以资本主义生产关系为基础的商品生产”论述中，“商品生产”是主词，但更重要的内容却是它的限定语即“资本主义生产关系”这个“基础”。“在资本主义生产关系下，最重要的和很大部分的生产资料和商品流通手段归一个人数不多的阶级所有，绝大多数的居民却是无产者和半无产者，他们由于自己的经济地位不得不一直出卖或定期出卖自己的劳动力，即受雇于资本家，并以自己的劳动为社会的上层阶级创造收入。”俄共（布）八大党纲中这段论述，抓住了资本主义生产关系的本质：人数不多的资产阶级占有生产资料，占人口主体的无产者和半无产者，却不占有生产资料，不得不依靠出卖劳动力为生，为资产阶级创造剩余价值。从生产关系特别是生产资料所有制维度认识资本主义制度的经济本质，较之从商品生产即经济运行机制维度认识，更准确、更科学。商品生产，在理论上和历史上都不是资本主义社会独有的，尽管在资本主义社会才取得了普遍形式，不宜作为资本主义的主要特点或本质特征。马克思恩格斯列宁身后的人类生产实践，尤其是中国特色社会主义实践，已经充分说明了这个问题。

In the view of Marx and Engels, socialist society has no politics, and it would triumph almost simultaneously in the advanced capitalist countries. Therefore, Marx and Engels’ exposition on the essence of socialism mainly revolves around human liberation and development, unfolding from the dimensions of material production, exchange, distribution, and consumption. Their exposition on capitalism likewise focuses on how capitalist production severs and distorts human liberation and development. In Lenin’s era, revolution first achieved victory in a single country, Russia, which faced capitalist encirclement and strangulation. At the same time, in the view of that generation of proletarian revolutionary leaders, the Russian revolution was merely the fuse for world revolution; they bore the sacred mission of serving as the vanguard of world revolution. Without the ultimate victory of world revolution, there could be no socialism in a single country like Russia. Under these circumstances, it was necessary to understand the essence of capitalism and the essence of socialism from multiple levels, including the economic and the political.

在马克思恩格斯那里，社会主义社会没有政治，且在发达资本主义国家几乎同时胜利。所以，马克思恩格斯关于社会主义本质的论述，主要是围绕人的解放和发展，从物质生产、交换、分配、消费等维度展开的。他们关于资本主义的论述，重点同样在于资本主义生产对人的解放与发展的割裂、扭曲。在列宁的时代，革命首先在俄国一个国家取得胜利，面临资本主义的包围与扼杀。与此同时，在列宁那一辈无产阶级革命领袖看来，俄国革命仅仅是世界革命的导火索，他们担负着作为世界革命先锋队的神圣使命。没有世界革命的最终胜利，也就没有俄国一个国家的社会主义。这种情况下，有必要从经济、政治等多个层面去理解资本主义本质、社会主义本质。

Lenin himself analyzed the “class essence of the ‘liberals’” in Russia from both the economic and political aspects: “From the economic point of view,” this essence was manifested in “the economic privileges of the bourgeoisie,” namely “the ownership of capital” and the “profits” it brought; “from the political point of view,” this essence was manifested in “the political privileges cherished by the bourgeoisie.” In Lenin’s works, the concept of “economic essence” appears many times. In his 1916 work “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism,” Lenin held that “the replacement of free competition by monopoly” was “the economic essence of imperialism.” In 1917, in “Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme,” he revised this view: “It is precisely the combination of these two mutually contradictory ‘principles’—competition and monopoly—that is the essence of imperialism.” On the political side, Lenin also used the concept of “political essence,” but not in relation to the question of social systems; rather, he applied it to the “petty bourgeoisie.” The following passage, written in *The State and Revolution* shortly before the October Revolution, can fully reflect Lenin’s view on the political essence of capitalism: “The forms of bourgeois states are extremely varied, but their essence is the same: all these states are, in the last analysis, inevitably a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” Of course, what fundamentally determines the fate of capitalism is still its economic essence: “Replacing the monarchical form of administration with a democratic republican form in no way touches the economic essence of the capitalist system of exploitation; on the contrary, as long as the methods of struggle for the protection of the sacred and inviolable profits of capitalism are changed, these profits can be just as successfully preserved under a democratic republic as under an absolute monarchy.”

列宁本人就从经济与政治两个面向分析过俄国“自由派的阶级本质”：“从经济上来看”，这种本质表现在“资产阶级的经济特权”即“对资本的占有”及其带来的“利润”；“从政治上来看”，这种本质表现在“资产阶级所珍惜的政治特权”上。在列宁的著作中，多次出现过“经济本质”的概念。在1916年的《论面目全非的马克思主义和“帝国主义经济主义”》中，列宁认为“垄断代替了自由竞争”是“帝国主义的经济本质”。1917年，在《修改党纲的材料》中，他对这个观点进行了修正：“正是竞争和垄断这两个互相矛盾的‘原则’的结合才是帝国主义的本质”。在政治方面，列宁也使用过“政治本质”概念，但不是用在社会制度问题上，而是用在“小市民”身上。写作于十月革命前不久的《国家与革命》中的下面这段话，可以充分体现列宁关于资本主义政治本质的观点：“资产阶级国家的形式虽然多种多样，但本质是一样的：所有这些国家，不管怎样，归根到底一定都是资产阶级专政。”当然，从根本上决定资本主义命运的，还是它的经济本质：“用民主共和的管理形式代替君主制的管理形式，丝毫也不会触动资本主义剥削制度的经济本质，相反地，只要把保护神圣不可侵犯的资本主义利润的斗争方式改变一下，在民主共和制下照样可以顺利地保持这种利润，如同在专制君主制下一样。”

Based on the above understanding, our sorting, extraction, and summarization of Lenin’s relevant expositions on the essence of socialism also proceed from both the economic and political aspects, or, in other words, we understand Lenin’s view of the essence of socialism from the two dimensions of economics and politics.

基于以上理解，我们对列宁关于社会主义本质的相关论述的梳理、提炼、概括，也从经济与政治两个面向展开，或者说从经济与政治两个维度来认识列宁的社会主义本质观。

III. The Economic Essence of Socialism

三、社会主义的经济本质

As the founder of the world’s first socialist state, in the process of transforming socialism from theory into practice, Lenin faced vastly different real conditions. While enriching and developing socialist theory, he inevitably encountered a tension between theoretical understanding and practical demands. This tension led to a more complex situation in the understanding of the essence of socialism. In his works, there exists both socialism in theory and socialism in practice.

作为世界第一个社会主义国家的缔造者，在社会主义从理论变为实践的过程中，面对迥异的现实条件，列宁在丰富和发展社会主义理论的同时，不可避免地遭遇到理论认识与实践要求之间的张力。这种张力，使得对于社会主义本质的认识出现更为复杂的情况。在他的著作中，既存在理论上的社会主义，也存在实践中的社会主义。

What is called socialism in theory is a question of what ought to be. “As long as workers and peasants exist, socialism has not yet been realized.” “Only when classes no longer exist, and all the means of production belong to the working people, will socialism arrive.” As for whether this “ought to be” possesses real rationality and feasibility, it was unknowable in Lenin’s environment. Therefore, when discussing the issue of distribution, he pointed out, “Direct transition to pure socialist forms and pure socialist distribution is beyond our strength.” Undoubtedly, this “pure socialist form” is a theoretical postulate—a logical abstraction by Marx and Engels based on the reality of developed European capitalism. Lenin also referred to this “pure socialism” as “complete socialism”: “Socialism means the abolition of classes. As long as workers and peasants exist, different classes exist, and therefore complete socialism is impossible.” What is called socialism in practice, on the other hand, is a question of what actually is—that is, socialism constrained by Russia’s real conditions and possessing practical feasibility. On this question, Lenin stated very clearly: “Socialism is now no longer a question of the distant future, or an abstract picture, or an icon. We still hold the same negative view of icons. We have dragged socialism into everyday life, and we must come to grips with this.” It is precisely on the basis of this socialism in “everyday life” that Lenin drew the following conclusion: “Under the conditions of public ownership of the means of production, under the condition of the proletariat having achieved class victory over the bourgeoisie, the system of civilized cooperative workers is the socialist system.”

所谓理论上的社会主义，是一个应然问题。“只要还存在着工人和农民，社会主义就还没有实现。”“只有阶级不存在了，全部生产工具归劳动者所有，社会主义才会到来。”至于这个“应然”是否具有现实合理性与可行性，在列宁所处的环境中是不得而知的。因此，他在论及分配问题时指出，“向纯社会主义形式和纯社会主义分配直接过渡，是我们力所不及的”。无疑，这种“纯社会主义形式”，就是一种理论设定——马克思恩格斯基于欧洲发达资本主义现实而进行的逻辑抽象。这种“纯社会主义”，列宁也曾称其为“完全的社会主义”：“社会主义就是消灭阶级，而既然存在着工人和农民，也就存在着不同的阶级，因而也就不能有完全的社会主义”。所谓实践中的社会主义，则是一个实然问题，即受俄国现实条件限制、具有现实可行性的社会主义。对于这个问题，列宁讲得很清楚：“社会主义现在已经不是一个遥远将来，或者什么抽象图景，或者什么圣像的问题了。说到圣像，我们仍持原来那种否定的看法。我们把社会主义拖进了日常生活，我们应当弄清这一点。”正是根据这种“日常生活”中的社会主义，列宁才得出以下结论：“在生产资料公有制的条件下，在无产阶级对资产阶级取得了阶级胜利的条件下，文明的合作社工作者的制度就是社会主义的制度”。

The period of Lenin’s direct leadership of socialist construction practice was very brief. His understanding of socialism was influenced by both theory and practice. On the economic side, this is specifically reflected in the following points: First, large-scale industry is the foundation of socialism. “Large-scale machine industry is the only possible economic foundation of socialism.” “The development of resources, the real and only foundation for building a socialist society, is large-scale industry. Without capitalist large-scale factories, without highly developed large-scale industry, there can be no question of socialism.” This understanding is unproblematic. Socialism not based on large-scale industry is not the scientific socialism advocated by Marx and Engels, which is founded on the full development of capitalism. Second, public ownership of the means of production. This understanding is largely unproblematic. The key lies in the form of public ownership and its proportion within the overall ownership structure. For example, is 100% public ownership required for socialism, or 50%, or some specific quantitative standard? More importantly, the specific forms of realizing public ownership need to be explored in practice. Third, state planning regulates production and distribution. “The system of state production and state distribution” is “an economic system of production and distribution different from the previous one,” and “our task now” is “calculation, control, raising labor productivity, and strengthening discipline.” From the perspective of state-led production and distribution, “exchanging the products of large-scale industry (‘socialized’ industry) for the products of the peasants—this is the economic essence of socialism, the foundation of socialism.” This criterion is related to the aforementioned understanding of capitalism. Since capitalism implements commodity production and exchange, leading to anarchy, then as its replacement, socialism must abolish commodity production and exchange, replacing them with some social mechanism (in the presence of the state, the state plays the role of formulating production plans and leading product distribution). Hence, “calculation and control are the essence of socialism.” It is in this sense that the concept of “the essence of the socialist system” appears, uniquely, in Lenin’s works: “I repeat, socialism is no longer a dogma, perhaps no longer a program either. … Today the principle of socialism is the rational and equal distribution of grain. … The war has brought us such great calamity that we now experience the entire essence of the socialist system in the grain question.”

列宁直接领导社会主义建设实践的时间非常短促。他关于社会主义的认识，受到理论和实践的双重影响。在经济方面，具体体现在以下几点：第一，大工业是社会主义的基础。“大机器工业是社会主义唯一可能的经济基础。”“开发资源、建立社会主义社会的真正的和唯一的基础只有一个，这就是大工业。如果没有资本主义的大工厂，没有高度发达的大工业，那就根本谈不上社会主义。”这种认识，没有问题。不以大工业为基础的社会主义，不是马克思恩格斯主张的、建立在资本主义充分发展的基础上的科学社会主义。第二，生产资料公有制。这个认识，大体上没有问题。关键在于，公有制的形式以及在整个所有制结构中所占比例。例如，是否100%的公有制才算社会主义，还是50%或某个具体数量标准。更重要的是，公有制的实现形式，需要在实践中探索。第三，国家计划调节生产和分配。“国家生产和国家分配的制度”是“与以前不同的生产和分配的经济制度”，“现在我们的任务”是“计算、监督、提高劳动生产率和加强纪律”。从国家主导生产和分配角度看，“用大工业（‘社会化’工业）的产品来交换农民的产品，这就是社会主义的经济实质，社会主义的基础。”这条标准，与前述的对资本主义的认识有关。既然资本主义实行商品生产与交换，且导致了无政府状态，那么作为它的替代物，社会主义就要废除商品生产与交换，而由某种社会机制（在国家存在的情况下，国家扮演制定生产计划、主导产品分配的角色）取而代之，因而“计算和监督是社会主义的实质”。正是在这种意义上，“社会主义制度的本质”这个概念，才唯一一次出现在列宁的著作中：“我再说一遍，社会主义已经不再是教条，或许也不再是纲领了。……今天社会主义的原则，就是合理和平均地分配粮食。……战争给我们带来了这么大的灾难，使我们现在在粮食问题上体验到了整个社会主义制度的本质”。

When expounding on the state’s planned regulation of production and distribution under socialist conditions, Lenin used the concept of “commodity exchange,” but the “commodity exchange” he spoke of had nothing whatsoever to do with markets, trade, or commerce. In Lenin’s understanding, “For hundreds of years, freedom of trade and freedom of exchange have been regarded by millions of people as an economic axiom and have become a deeply ingrained habit of hundreds of millions. This freedom, like the other ‘freedoms’ proclaimed and implemented by the bourgeoisie, such as ‘freedom of labor’ (which should be read as: freedom to starve to death), is a sheer lie, a cover for capitalist deception, violence, and exploitation.” Under conditions where the proletariat holds political power, “What content does the concept of commodity exchange include? … It envisages that, on a national scale, industrial products will be exchanged for agricultural products more or less in a socialist manner, and that through this commodity exchange, large-scale industry, the sole foundation of the socialist structure, will be restored. … The result was that commodity exchange failed. By failure, I mean that it turned into commodity buying and selling. … Commodity exchange yielded no results whatsoever; the private market proved stronger than we were, and ordinary buying and selling, trade, replaced commodity exchange.” This “commodity exchange,” which excluded commerce and the market, was to be accomplished through a tightly organized plan directed by the state. The reason “commodity” remained “commodity” was that the products produced by laborers were not mainly for their own use but were to be exchanged for use by other laborers. However, in this scenario, the exchange was conducted not through the market but through the state. In other words, Lenin’s “commodity” had already lost the original meaning of a commodity exchanged through the market. In this new context, advanced science and technology were the conditions for state-led commodity production and exchange, or planning. Hence Lenin stressed, “Without large-scale capitalist technology built on the latest achievements of modern science, and without a planned state organization that makes millions of people strictly observe a unified standard in the production and distribution of products, socialism is inconceivable.”

在阐述社会主义条件下国家计划调节生产与分配时，列宁使用了“商品交换”概念，但他说的“商品交换”同市场、贸易、商业等毫无关系。依照列宁的认识，“几百年来，贸易自由、交换自由被千百万人奉为经济学上的金科玉律，成了亿万人根深蒂固的习惯。这种自由同资产阶级宣布并实行的其他‘自由’，如‘劳动自由’（应读作：饿死的自由）等等一样，都是十足的谎言，都是用来掩饰资本主义的欺骗、暴力和剥削的。”在无产阶级掌握政权的条件下，“商品交换这个概念包括一些什么内容呢？……它设想，在全国范围内，或多或少要按照社会主义方式用工业品换取农产品，并通过这种商品交换来恢复作为社会主义结构唯一基础的大工业。……结果是商品交换失败了。所谓失败，是说它变成了商品买卖。……商品交换没有得到丝毫结果，私人市场比我们强大，通常的买卖、贸易代替了商品交换。”这种排斥商业、市场的“商品交换”，是在依靠国家组织的严密计划来完成的。“商品”之所以依然是“商品”，是因为劳动者生产出来的产品，主要不是供自己使用的，而是通过交换供其他劳动者使用的。只不过这种情景下的交换，不是通过市场而是通过国家进行的。换言之，列宁所说的“商品”，已经失去了通过市场交换的商品的原初含义。在新的语境中，先进的科学技术，是国家主导商品生产与交换或计划的条件。所以列宁强调，“没有建筑在现代科学最新成就基础上的大资本主义技术，没有一个使千百万人在产品的生产和分配中严格遵守统一标准的有计划的国家组织，社会主义就无从设想。”

Lenin’s emphasis on organization and organizational capacity had both a vivid practical basis and solid theoretical support. “Organization is undoubtedly the main weapon of the working class. If the laboring masses, scattered and oppressed by the capitalists, cannot produce a class capable of learning to do organizational work and of personally building this large-scale industry, urban life, and the entire socialist culture and civilization, then the advanced detachment of the workers cannot destroy capitalism, nor can it actually set about organizing a new socialist society.” In economic construction, organizational capacity meant planning in production and distribution. Lenin believed that with capitalism entering the imperialist stage, monopoly and state intervention themselves signified the strengthening of organization and planning: “The tendency to create a single, integrated world economy regulated by the proletariat of all countries according to a general plan, a tendency that has already become quite evident under capitalism, will inevitably continue to develop and be perfected under socialism.” The reality of the Russian economy—the dominance of individual peasants and small commodity production, combined with the disorder caused by war—required immense organizational capacity to change. “To allow the anarchy of small private owners to continue is the greatest and most serious danger; it will undoubtedly bury us. … Once the working class has learned how to defend state order against the anarchy of small private owners, once it has learned how to organize large-scale national production on the principles of state capitalism, … the consolidation of socialism will be guaranteed.” Concretely, at the policy level, this meant the great significance of “agricultural communes, production associations, and all economic organizations aimed at transforming individual small-peasant farming into public, cooperative, or associated farming, and all organizations aimed at gradually promoting this transformation,” because “without changing the impoverished peasant economy as it was, there can be no talk of firmly establishing a socialist society.”

列宁对于组织与组织性的重视，既有鲜活的现实基础，也有坚实的理论支撑。“组织无疑是工人阶级的主要武器。如果受资本家压迫的、一盘散沙似的劳动群众不能产生一个能学习做组织工作并亲自建设这个大工业、城市生活、整个社会主义文化和文明的阶级，那么劳动者的先进部队就不能摧毁资本主义，就不能实际着手组织社会主义新社会”。在经济建设上，组织性意味着生产与分配的计划性。列宁认为，资本主义进入帝国主义阶段，垄断与国家干预本身，就标志着组织性与计划性的强化：“建立统一的、由各国无产阶级按总计划调整的完整的世界经济的趋势，这种趋势在资本主义制度下已经十分明显地表现出来，在社会主义制度下必然会继续发展而臻于完善”。俄国经济的现实，是个体农民、小商品生产占统治地位与战争导致的失序，需要极大的组织性去改变。“让小私有者的无政府状态继续下去就是最大、最严重的危险，它无疑会葬送我们……工人阶级一经学会了怎样保卫国家秩序来反对小私有者的无政府性，一经学会了怎样根据国家资本主义原则来整顿好全国性的大生产组织，……社会主义的巩固就有了保证”。具体在政策层面，这意味着“农业公社、劳动组合以及一切旨在把个体小农经济转变为公共的、共耕的或劳动组合的经济组织，一切旨在逐渐促进这个转变的组织”的重大意义，“因为原来那种贫困不堪的农民经济如果不加改变，就谈不上巩固地建立社会主义社会”。

In this regard, “the prerequisite for socialism” is “social labor carried out under the strictest calculation, supervision, and inspection by the organized vanguard, i.e., the advanced part, of the workers,” in order to eradicate “the remnants and habits left to us by capitalist society, such as scattered labor, distrust of the common economy, and the old habits of small proprietors.” Communism, in turn, means “unpaid labor organized on a large scale to meet the needs of the whole country,” labor that “is voluntary labor, labor without quotas, labor that expects no remuneration, that sets no conditions for remuneration, that is performed out of the habit of working for the common good and out of the conscious demand (which has become habitual) that one must work for the common good, and that is a need of a healthy body.” Based on this understanding, Lenin held that, even before reaching socialist society, the surplus grain appropriation system [37]37 The surplus grain appropriation system (prodrazvyorstka) was a policy of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic during the period of War Communism (1918–1921), under which the state requisitioned all surplus grain from peasants at fixed prices, often forcibly, to supply the Red Army and urban workers. It was replaced by a tax in kind under the New Economic Policy in 1921. implemented during the “War Communism” policy period—later abolished due to peasant opposition—was a “socialist method” rather than a “capitalist method.” In contrast to “the spontaneously expanding domestic and international markets, which are the basic organizing force of capitalist society built up in anarchy,” “carrying out our procurement and distribution plans at state prices” meant that “we have embarked on the road to socialism.” From this it can be concluded that, in Lenin’s cognition, the economic essence of socialism is to organize labor and distribute the fruits of labor through the state (society) rather than through the market, thereby eliminating the anarchy of production. At the operational level, this includes social ownership of the means of production and planned regulation of social production and distribution.

就此而言，“社会主义的前提”是“在劳动者的有组织的先锋队即先进部分施行最严格的计算、监督和监察下进行社会劳动”，以铲除“资本主义社会给我们留下了诸如分散的劳动、对公共经济的不信任、小业主的各种旧习惯这样一些遗迹和习惯”。共产主义，则意味着“大规模组织起来以满足全国需要的无报酬的劳动”，这种劳动“是自愿的劳动，是无定额的劳动，是不指望报酬、不讲报酬条件的劳动，是按照为公共利益劳动的习惯、按照必须为公共利益劳动的自觉要求（这已成为习惯）来进行的劳动，这种劳动是健康的身体的需要。”基于以上认识，列宁认为，即便还没有达到社会主义社会，“战时共产主义”政策时期实行的、后因农民反对而取消的余粮收集制，是“社会主义的方法”而不是“资本主义的方法”。与“自发地向广度和深度发展的国内市场和国际市场是在无政府状态中建立起来的资本主义社会的基本组织力量”相反，“按照国家价格执行我们的收购计划和分配计划”则意味着“我们走上了社会主义的道路”。由此可以得出结论，在列宁的认知中，社会主义的经济本质，是不通过市场而通过国家（社会）组织劳动，分配劳动成果，消除生产的无政府状态。体现在操作层面，包括生产资料社会所有制、社会生产与分配计划调节。

IV. The Political Essence of Socialism

四、社会主义的政治本质

The “socialism” in “the political essence of socialism” refers to socialism in practice, not the socialism in Marx and Engels’ theory—where the state has withered away—that Lenin accepted. It was precisely on the basis of the latter that Lenin considered the New Economic Policy a transition to socialism and that Russia under the New Economic Policy was not yet socialist Russia. Socialism in practice is socialism in “everyday life.” In “everyday life,” the state has not yet withered away, and politics still plays a significant role; hence there exists a problem of understanding socialism from a political perspective, or the political essence of socialism.

“社会主义的政治本质”中的“社会主义”，是实践中的社会主义，而非马克思恩格斯理论中的被列宁所接受的政治与国家已经消亡了的社会主义。正是依照后者，列宁才认为新经济政策是向社会主义的过渡，实行新经济政策的俄国并非社会主义俄国。实践中的社会主义，是“日常生活”中的社会主义。在“日常生活”中，国家还没有消亡，政治还发挥很大作用，因而存在一个从政治方面认识社会主义或社会主义政治本质的问题。

When discussing the political essence of socialism, let us first look at Lenin’s exposition of the political essence of capitalism, i.e., the essence of the bourgeois state. Lenin pointed out, “To decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to repress and oppress the people in parliament—that is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism.” In contrast to the political essence of capitalism, “The transition from capitalism to communism certainly cannot but yield a very rich and diverse array of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Reality is far more complex than theory. In real life, after a series of economic and social transformations, the Communists ended the transition period and established the socialist system, but classes and the state still exist. Under these circumstances, following Lenin’s understanding of the essence of the bourgeois state, the dictatorship of the proletariat is both the essence of the state in the transition period and the political essence of a socialist society in which the state and classes still exist.

论及社会主义的政治本质，我们先来看看列宁关于资本主义政治本质即资产阶级国家本质的论述。列宁指出，“每隔几年决定一次由统治阶级中的什么人在议会里镇压人民、压迫人民，——这就是资产阶级议会制的真正本质”。与资本主义政治本质相反，“从资本主义向共产主义过渡，当然不能不产生非常丰富和多样的政治形式，但本质必然是一样的：都是无产阶级专政。”现实远比理论复杂。在现实生活中，共产党人经过一系列经济社会改造，结束了过渡时期，确立了社会主义制度，但阶级、国家依然存在。在这种情况下，依照列宁关于资产阶级国家本质的认识，无产阶级专政既是过渡时期国家的本质，也是存在着国家、阶级的社会主义社会的政治本质。

The dictatorship of the proletariat means the state power held by the proletariat. “The period of transition from bourgeois society to socialist society corresponds to a special state (that is, a special system of organized use of violence against a certain class), namely, the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Lenin emphasized, “Only one who understands that the dictatorship of a class is necessary not only for any class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period between capitalism and ‘classless society,’ i.e., communism, only such a person has grasped the essence of Marx’s doctrine of the state.” This political power rules with an “iron hand”: “Any great revolution, and especially a socialist revolution, even if it does not involve an external war, will never be without an internal war, i.e., a civil war, and the economic destruction caused by a civil war will be greater than that caused by an external war; in a civil war there will be millions of cases of wavering and defection, creating a state of extreme uncertainty, extreme instability, and extreme chaos. … To eliminate this phenomenon requires time and an iron hand.” It is precisely for this reason that Lenin warned, “To think that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without coercion, without dictatorship, is the height of stupidity and the most absurd utopianism. … For a country that has developed very rapidly through several very sharp turns, under conditions of severe economic destruction caused by a disastrous war, there is simply no other way out.” The famous theoretical generalization of dictatorship as an “iron regime” is made in this sense.

无产阶级专政，意味着无产阶级掌握的国家政权。“同资产阶级社会到社会主义社会的过渡时期相适应的，是一种特殊的国家（这就是对某一阶级有组织地使用暴力的特殊制度），即无产阶级专政。”列宁强调，“只有懂得一个阶级的专政不仅对一般阶级社会是必要的，不仅对推翻了资产阶级的无产阶级是必要的，而且对介于资本主义和‘无阶级社会’即共产主义之间的整整一个历史时期都是必要的，——只有懂得这一点的人，才算掌握了马克思国家学说的实质。”这个政权，用“铁的手腕”进行统治：“任何大革命，尤其是社会主义革命，即令不发生外部战争，也决不会不经过内部战争即内战，而内战造成的经济破坏会比外部战争造成的更大，内战中会发生千百万起动摇和倒戈事件，会造成极不明确、极不稳定、极为混乱的状态。……要消除这种现象，需要时间，需要铁的手腕。”正因为如此，列宁警告，“认为不要强制，不要专政，便可以从资本主义向社会主义过渡，那就是极端的愚蠢和最荒唐的空想主义。……对于这个经过了几次非常急剧的转变而非常迅速地发展的国家，在灾难性的战争造成惨重经济破坏的情况下，根本不可能有其他出路。”著名的专政即“铁的政权”的理论概括，就是从这个意义上说的。

The dictatorship of the proletariat means that the proletariat alone holds state power. Lenin first used the concept of dictatorship in the sense of sole rule, or the political power of a single class, or the leadership and rule of a single party, in 1906. In the preface to the Russian translation of Karl Kautsky’s pamphlet *The Driving Forces and Prospects of the Russian Revolution*, Lenin pointed out, “The Russian revolution is not a socialist revolution, because it cannot lead to the sole rule or dictatorship of the proletariat. … Under the objective conditions of the current revolution, which class is the ally of the proletariat? It is the peasantry.” Since it is a democratic revolution, the victory achieved by the proletariat leading its allies “is not the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, but the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.” The joint dictatorship of workers and peasants means that the peasantry shares political power with the working class, even if under the leadership of the working class. The October Revolution was a socialist revolution. The political power established was proletarian power. “If we translate the scientific historical-philosophical term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ which is of Latin origin, into ordinary language, its meaning is: in the struggle to overthrow the oppression of capital, in the process of overthrowing this oppression, in the struggle to maintain and consolidate victory, in the cause of creating a new socialist social system, in the entire struggle for the complete abolition of classes, only one class—the industrial workers of the cities, in short, the factory workers—can lead all the exploited working masses.” From this it follows that “the dictatorship of the proletariat is the political power of a single class, a class that must take over the entire new state apparatus, defeat the bourgeoisie, and neutralize the entire petty bourgeoisie, i.e., the peasants, the petty urban strata, and the intelligentsia.”

无产阶级专政，意味着无产阶级一个阶级执掌政权。列宁初次在唯一的统治或一个阶级的政权或一个政党的领导和执政意义上使用专政概念，是在1906年。在《卡·考茨基的小册子〈俄国革命的动力和前途〉的俄译本序言》中，列宁指出，“俄国革命也不是社会主义革命，因为它决不能导致无产阶级实行唯一的统治或专政。……在当前革命的客观条件下，究竟哪个阶级是无产阶级的同盟者呢？是农民”。既然是民主革命，无产阶级领导其同盟者所取得的胜利，“不是无产阶级的社会主义专政，而是无产阶级和农民的民主专政”。工农联合专政，意味着农民阶级与工人阶级分享政权，即便是在工人阶级的领导之下。十月革命，是社会主义革命。所建立的政权，是无产阶级政权。“如果我们把无产阶级专政这个原出拉丁文的、历史哲学的科学用语译成普通的话，它的意思就是：在推翻资本压迫的斗争中，在推翻这种压迫的过程中，在保持和巩固胜利的斗争中，在创建新的社会主义的社会制度的事业中，在完全消灭阶级的全部斗争中，只有一个阶级，即城市的总之是工厂的产业工人，才能够领导全体被剥削劳动群众。”由此而言，“无产阶级专政是一个阶级的政权，这个阶级要掌握全部新的国家机构，要战胜资产阶级，要中立整个小资产阶级，即农民、小市民阶层和知识分子。”

The dictatorship of the proletariat means the political leadership of the proletariat over society. In 1919, in his *Theses on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat*, Lenin pointed out, “The dictatorship of the proletariat is the leadership of the proletariat over the working masses (and over society as a whole).” Lenin further elaborated on the meaning of “leadership”: “Dictatorship is leadership, it is uniting the scattered, disorganized working masses, rallying them into a single whole against the capitalists, in order to defeat the capitalists, in order to prevent a repetition of the bloody slaughter that has already cost 10 million lives and left 20 million crippled. To defeat this force, backed by powerful armies and modern civilization, requires the unity of all working people, requires a single, iron will.” The task of uniting the scattered working masses can only be accomplished through persuasion, exemplary demonstration, and reasonable material guarantees. In this sense, “the dictatorship of the proletariat is the political leadership of the proletariat.” After the proletariat takes power, “politics” is no longer primarily about violence. “Our main politics now should be: engaging in the economic construction of the state, harvesting more grain, mining more coal, solving the problem of using this grain and coal more appropriately, eliminating famine—this is our politics.”

无产阶级专政，意味着无产阶级对社会的政治领导。1919年，列宁在《论无产阶级专政的小册子的几个提纲》中指出，“无产阶级专政是无产阶级对劳动群众（和整个社会）的领导。”列宁进一步阐释了“领导”的含义：“专政就是领导，就是联合那些分散的、涣散的劳动群众，把他们团结成一个反对资本家的统一的整体，以便战胜资本家，以便不再重演已经使1000万人丧命和2000万人残废的血腥大厮杀。为了战胜这种以强大军队和现代文明为后盾的力量，就需要全体劳动者的团结，就需要统一的钢铁般的意志。”联合分散的劳动群众的任务，只能依靠说服、典型示范与合理的物质利益保障。在这个意义上，“无产阶级专政就是无产阶级对政治的领导”。无产阶级掌握政权之后，“政治”主要不再表现为暴力。“现在我们主要的政治应当是：从事国家的经济建设，收获更多的粮食，开采更多的煤炭，解决更恰当地利用这些粮食和煤炭的问题，消除饥荒，这就是我们的政治。”

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the political essence of socialism. However, this political essence must also be expressed through concrete forms. Lenin once pointed out, “The political forms of the advanced imperialist countries—the USA, Britain, France, Germany—are very different, although they are essentially the same. … All nations will inevitably move toward socialism, but their paths will not be exactly the same; each nation will have its own characteristics in this or that form of democracy, in this or that type of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the speed of socialist transformation in various aspects of social life.” That is to say, the dictatorship of the proletariat has concrete forms of realization or “types.” Among various forms, Lenin once considered that the Soviets, with direct popular participation, best embodied the essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets truly inherited the spirit of the Paris Commune. “The real essence of the Commune is not where the bourgeoisie usually looks for it, but in the fact that it created a special type of state. Such a state has already been born in Russia—the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies!” In view of this, Lenin regarded the Soviets as the highest form of genuine democracy. But Lenin never treated the Soviets as the only form of the dictatorship of the proletariat to be imitated by all countries. At the same time, Lenin also believed that, due to the insufficient cultural level of the people, who were not yet capable of directly undertaking the task of management, the advanced stratum or vanguard of the proletariat—the Communist Party—had to “rule on behalf of the people.” This is also a difficult problem in the transition from socialism from theory to practice, especially in economically and culturally backward countries.

无产阶级专政，是社会主义的政治本质。然而，这个政治本质，还要通过具体形式体现出来。列宁曾经指出，“美、英、法、德这些先进的帝国主义国家的政治形式更加各不相同，虽然它们在本质上是一样的。……一切民族都将走向社会主义，这是不可避免的，但是一切民族的走法却不会完全一样，在民主的这种或那种形式上，在无产阶级专政的这种或那种形态上，在社会生活各方面的社会主义改造的速度上，每个民族都会有自己的特点。”也就是说，无产阶级专政，有具体的实现形式或“形态”。在各种形式中，列宁曾经考虑，人民直接参与的苏维埃，最能体现无产阶级专政的本质。苏维埃，真正继承了巴黎公社的精神。“公社的真实本质并不在资产者通常寻找的那些地方，而在于它创立了一种特殊的国家类型。这样的国家在俄国已经诞生，这就是工兵代表苏维埃！”鉴于此，列宁认为苏维埃是真正的最高形式的民主。但列宁从来没有把苏维埃当成各国都要加以效仿的唯一的无产阶级专政形式。与此同时，列宁也认为，由于人民文化程度不够，还担负不起直接参与管理的任务，而不得不由无产阶级先进阶层或先锋队——共产党——来“为民作主”。这也是社会主义从理论到实践中的一个难题，尤其是在经济文化落后的国家。

Conclusion

结语

Engels pointed out, “Our views on the features of the future non-capitalist society in contrast to modern society are derived from exact conclusions drawn from historical facts and processes of development; without being elucidated in connection with these facts and processes, they have no theoretical value or practical value.” [38]38 Friedrich Engels, “A Contribution to the Critique of the Draft of the Social-Democratic Program of 1891,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 217. Historical facts are the most reliable and fundamental basis for understanding socialism and its essence. Socialism is constantly changing, and the degree to which the essence of socialism is realized at different stages of development also differs qualitatively and quantitatively. People’s subjective understanding of the essence of socialism is always in the process of deepening. On the basis of adhering to Marx and Engels’ fundamental principles concerning the liberation of humanity, Lenin, grounded in the practice and experience of the Russian revolution, revealed the essence of socialism from two dimensions—economic and political—in contrast to the essence of capitalism. In his view, the essence of socialism is the welfare and all-round development of all members of society. This is reflected economically, or as the economic essence of socialism, in organizing production and distribution in a manner different from capitalism. It is reflected politically, or as the political essence of socialism, in the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the proletariat, through its vanguard, holding state power and exercising political leadership over the whole of society. Lenin’s explorations and achievements made an important contribution to the subsequent scientific understanding of the essence of socialism. Fully drawing on Lenin’s exploratory achievements and continuously raising the degree and quality of the realization of the essence of socialism is an inherent requirement of the historical process in which contemporary Chinese Communists lead the people to comprehensively advance the building of a modern socialist country and comprehensively advance the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. It is also a major contribution of the Communist Party of China to the development of world socialism. How the Communist Party of China understands the essence of socialism is another topic that requires special discussion.

恩格斯指出，“我们对未来非资本主义社会区别于现代社会的特征的看法，是从历史事实和发展过程中得出的确切结论；不结合这些事实和过程去加以阐明，就没有任何理论价值和实际价值。”历史的事实，是认识社会主义及其本质的最可靠也是最根本的依据。社会主义在不断变化，社会主义本质在不同发展阶段的实现程度也有质与量的差别。人们对社会主义本质的主观认识，永远处在不断深化之中。在坚持马克思恩格斯关于人的解放的基本原理的基础上，列宁立足于俄国革命的实践和经验，在与资本主义本质的对比中，从经济和政治两个维度揭示了社会主义本质。在他看来，社会主义的本质，是社会全体成员的福利和全面发展。体现在经济上，或者说社会主义的经济本质，是依照与资本主义不同的方式组织生产与分配。体现在政治上，或者说社会主义的政治本质，是无产阶级专政，即无产阶级通过自己的先锋队掌握国家政权并对全社会实施政治领导。列宁的探索及成果，为后人科学认识社会主义本质问题做出了重要贡献。充分借鉴列宁的探索成果，不断提升社会主义本质的实现程度与质量，是当代中国共产党人领导人民全面推进社会主义现代化强国建设、全面推进中华民族伟大复兴历史进程的题中应有之义，也是中国共产党为世界社会主义的发展做出的重大贡献。中国共产党怎么认识社会主义本质问题，则是另一个需要专门论述的课题了。

(Author’s bio: Wang Zhongru, Deputy Director and Professor of the Department of Teaching and Research on Scientific Socialism, Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC [National Academy of Governance])

（作者简介：王中汝，中共中央党校（国家行政学院）科学社会主义教研部副主任、教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心