Lenin’s Critique of “Freedom of Criticism” and Its Implications

“Freedom of criticism” was a slogan raised by Eduard Bernstein, who, using the pretext of new features of capitalist development, criticized, negated, and “revised” Marxism from a bourgeois standpoint. Infected by this, a so-called “new critical trend” emerged within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Under the banner of “freedom of criticism,” it attacked and negated Marxism, leading to ideological confusion and political wavering within the Party. Under these grave circumstances, analyzing the essence of “freedom of criticism,” educating and guiding the proletariat and the masses to recognize its harm, and winning all advanced fighters over to the Marxist position were the theoretical prerequisites and ideological foundation for achieving the political freedom of the entire people. To defend the truth thoroughly and heroically, and to foster the revolutionary fighting spirit of the working class, Lenin wrote several works, including *What Is to Be Done?*, in which he refuted “freedom of criticism” and provided a scientific exposition of Marxism.

“批评自由”是爱德华·伯恩施坦借口资本主义发展新特点，用资产阶级观点批判、否定和“修正”马克思主义提出的口号。受此熏染，俄国社会民主工党内滋生出所谓“新的批判潮流”,它打着“批评自由”的旗号攻击和否定马克思主义，导致党内出现了思想上的混乱和政治上的动摇。在严峻的形势下，剖析“批评自由”的实质，教育引导无产阶级和人民群众认清“批评自由”的危害，把一切先进战士争取到马克思主义立场上来，是实现全体人民政治自由的理论前提和思想基础。为彻底地、英勇地捍卫真理，发扬工人阶级的革命斗志，列宁撰写了《怎么办?》等多篇论著，对“批评自由”进行批判驳斥，对马克思主义作出科学阐释。

I. The Origin of “Freedom of Criticism” and Its Variants in Russia

一、“批评自由”的缘起及其在俄国的变种

The late 19th and early 20th centuries were an era of great transformation for capitalism. The drastic changes in the conditions of social life and the deep-seated shifts in class relations were reflected in the ideological sphere, “namely, a profound disintegration, confusion, and all kinds of vacillation—in short, an extremely serious internal crisis of the Marxist movement.” [1]1 V. I. Lenin, *What Is to Be Done?*, in *Collected Works*, vol. 5, p. 369. In this period of new changes, Marxism faced the most severe test since its birth. First, the widespread application of science and technology in capitalist countries fully demonstrated the role of the “lever of history.” [2]2 “Lever of history” is a metaphor used by Marx and Engels to describe the revolutionary role of science and technology in social development. As technology was applied to the production process and transformed into actual productive capacity, the economy—especially heavy and chemical industries—developed rapidly. The scale of enterprise production expanded continuously, production and capital concentrated swiftly, and monopoly emerged naturally. This expanded the capacity of capitalist relations of production beyond their original limits, breaking through, to a certain extent, the narrow boundaries within which the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production had frequently erupted during the period of free competition. Capitalism thus presented a temporary picture of peaceful prosperity. Second, the new features of capitalism were reflected in class relations through changes in the ruling policies of the bourgeoisie. To split the working class and paralyze its revolutionary will, the bourgeoisie either used a small portion of the superprofits obtained through violent plunder to cultivate a “labor aristocracy,” or, within the framework of the system, limitedly expanded democracy, enabling the proletariat to gain some benefits through “legal” means. Consequently, the question of whether the conclusion drawn by Marx and Engels—that capitalism was inevitably doomed—still held, and whether the goals, strategic means, and certain important principles of the proletarian revolution were correct, were raised with great sharpness. Around these issues, an inevitable and large-scale debate erupted among the theorists of the late Second International. Bernstein’s series of articles published in *Die Neue Zeit* from 1896 to 1898 under the general title *Problems of Socialism* became the “vanguard” in “revising” Marxism. [3]3 *Die Neue Zeit* (The New Times) was the theoretical journal of the German Social Democratic Party, published from 1883 to 1923. In October 1900, the Second International held its Fifth Congress in Paris. Around the entry of the French Socialist Millerand into the government, [4]4 Alexandre Millerand (1859–1943) was a French socialist who, in 1899, entered the bourgeois government of Waldeck-Rousseau as Minister of Commerce, an act that sparked a major controversy within the Second International over the question of socialist participation in bourgeois governments. different opinions emerged: some strongly opposed it in principle and demanded sanctions, some defended it in a veiled form, and others gave it full support. This marked the clear and distinct split within the Second International, with revisionism gaining the upper hand. In September 1901, at the Lübeck Congress of the German Social Democratic Party, [5]5 The Lübeck Congress of the German Social Democratic Party was held in September 1901, where Bernstein’s revisionist views were debated. Bernstein publicly demanded “freedom of criticism” for Marxism, sparking an international wave of “revising” Marxism.

19世纪末20世纪初，是资本主义发生大转折的时代，社会生活条件的剧烈变化和阶级关系的深层次变动反映到意识形态领域，“就是深刻的瓦解、混乱、各种各样的动摇，总而言之，就是马克思主义运动的极端严重的内部危机”。在充满新变化的历史时期，马克思主义经受着自诞生以来最为严峻的考验。首先，被各资本主义国家广泛应用的科学技术充分显示出“历史杠杆”的作用。伴随着科技运用于生产过程并转化为实际生产能力，经济特别是重化工业迅猛发展，企业生产规模不断扩大，生产和资本迅速集中，垄断就自然而然地出现了。这使资本主义生产关系的容纳能力在原有基础上有所扩大，在一定范围内突破了自由竞争时期生产力和生产关系矛盾频繁出现的狭隘界限，资本主义发展呈现暂时的和平繁荣景象。其次，资本主义出现的新特点反映到阶级关系上，就是资产阶级统治政策的改变。为了分化工人队伍、麻痹工人革命意志，资产阶级或是用通过暴力掠夺得来的超额利润的一小部分培植“工人贵族”,或是在制度范围内有限地扩大民主，使无产阶级可以通过“合法”方式取得一些利益。于是，马克思、恩格斯阐述的资本主义必然崩溃的结论是否成立的问题，无产阶级革命的目标、策略手段以及一些重要原则是否正确的问题，被十分尖锐地提了出来。围绕这些问题，第二国际后期的理论家之间不可避免地发生了一场规模浩大的论争。伯恩施坦于1896—1898年在《新时代》杂志上发表的总标题为《社会主义问题》的一组文章，成为“修正”马克思主义的“急先锋”。1900年10月，第二国际在巴黎召开第五次代表大会，围绕法国社会党的米勒兰入阁事件，形成了从原则上强烈反对并要求制裁、以隐蔽的形式为其辩护、给予十足支持的不同意见,标志着第二国际内部分裂的格局已经清晰明朗，修正主义在第二国际中占据了上风。1901年9月，在德国社会民主党卢卑科代表大会上，伯恩施坦公开要求对马克思主义有“批评自由”,在国际上掀起了“修正”马克思主义的狂潮。

Under the influence of the spread of revisionism in the Second International, a new “critical” faction emerged in Russia, namely “Legal Marxism.” [6]6 “Legal Marxism” was a trend in late 19th-century Russia whose proponents used legal publications to express Marxist ideas while distorting them in a bourgeois-liberal direction. As the Russian revolutionary struggle ebbed and flowed, the “critical” faction evolved internally, ultimately taking the form of social chauvinism, which manifested the bourgeoisie’s influence on the proletariat and the “revision” and “distortion” of Marxism. In the first period, the early days of the founding of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, “Legal Marxism” formed a pair of opportunist twins with Economism. [7]7 Economism was an opportunist trend within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that argued the working class should limit its struggle to economic demands and leave political struggle to the bourgeoisie. On the one hand, it belittled and neglected revolutionary theory; on the other, it betrayed Marxism under the banner of “freedom of criticism.” In the second period, the stormy revolutionary test of 1903–1908, the thoroughly revolutionary tactics of Bolshevism were strengthened, deepened, and tested. At the same time, this period also “brought all the dregs from beneath the current to the surface again,” [8]8 V. I. Lenin, *The Historical Meaning of the Inner-Party Struggle in Russia*, in *Collected Works*, vol. 16, p. 374. revealing that the tactics and open actions pursued by Menshevism objectively equated to making the proletariat dependent on the liberal bourgeoisie and excluding the guidance of Marxism over the Russian socialist movement. This made Menshevism, both ideologically and organizationally, the direct heir of Economism. In the third period, the counter-revolutionary period of 1908–1914, Menshevism set in motion a mistaken trend of abandoning the struggle for another revolution and abandoning secret organizational activities, giving rise to Liquidationism. [9]9 Liquidationism was a trend within Menshevism in the period of reaction after the 1905 Revolution that called for the liquidation (abolition) of the illegal, underground revolutionary party organization. This placed the issues of opportunist tactics and revolution on the agenda in a completely new form. In the fourth period, the First World War of 1914–1915, the main groups of the Liquidators whitewashed the reactionary and aggressive nature of the war, deceived the workers, and turned to social chauvinism. Thus, although the forms and causes of the struggle differed in each period, there was not only an ideological connection but also a direct historical inheritance between the main representative currents of “freedom of criticism” across different periods. Therefore, Lenin’s attacks on its main currents at each stage constituted a general campaign to criticize “freedom of criticism.”

在第二国际修正主义泛滥的影响下，俄国出现了新的“批评”派，即“合法马克思主义”。伴随俄国革命斗争的起伏发展，“批评”派内部不断演变，最后以社会沙文主义的形式呈现出资产阶级对无产阶级的影响和对马克思主义的“修正”与“篡改”。第一个时期即俄国社会民主党成立初期，“合法马克思主义”与经济主义结成了一对机会主义的孪生兄弟,一方面轻视、忽视革命理论，另一方面打着“批评自由”的旗号背弃马克思主义。第二个时期即1903—1908年疾风暴雨般的革命考验时期，一方面，布尔什维克主义彻底革命的策略得到加强、深化和检验，另一方面，也使“巨流底下的全部渣滓重新泛起”,暴露出孟什维克主义所奉行的策略和公开行动，客观上等同于让无产阶级依附自由派资产阶级，排除马克思主义对俄国社会主义运动的指导，不仅在思想上而且在组织上成了“经济主义”的直接继承者。第三个时期即1908—1914年的反革命时期，孟什维克主义掀起了放弃争取另一次革命斗争、放弃秘密组织的活动的错误潮流，产生了取消主义，以全新的形式把机会主义策略和革命的问题提上了日程。第四个时期即1914—1915年的第一次世界大战期间，取消派的主要集团粉饰战争的反动性和侵略性，欺骗工人群众，转向了社会沙文主义。可见，虽然斗争的形式和起因在不同时期的表现不同，但“批评自由”在不同时期的主要代表性流派之间不仅有思想上的联系，而且有直接的历史继承关系。因此，列宁在每个阶段对其主要流派的抨击构成了批判“批评自由”的一个总的战役。

Focusing on analyzing the essence and harm of “freedom of criticism,” Lenin provided a thorough analysis and explanation of its essence in terms of principles, characteristics, content, and purpose. Lenin pointed out that “freedom of criticism,” in terms of principles, manifested as “the inner hypocrisy of the position,” that is, “the free criticism of Marxism by various open and disguised bourgeois ideologists”; in terms of characteristics, under the guise of “opposing dogma,” it meant “freely discarding any complete and well-thought-out theory”; in terms of purpose, it attempted to “turn Marxism into empty preaching,” [10]10 V. I. Lenin, *What Is to Be Done?*, in *Collected Works*, vol. 5, p. 369. thereby dissolving its guiding role in the workers’ movement; in terms of content, it was directly transferred from bourgeois publications to socialist publications, fully exposing its “indifference and incapacity for theoretical thought.” [11]11 Ibid., p. 370. On this basis, Lenin pointed out with pinpoint accuracy that the theoretical criticism of “freedom of criticism” was in fact serving and justifying political demands: to turn the workers’ movement into the “tail” of the liberals, to transform the revolutionary workers’ party into a reformist party, and to openly or covertly “criticize all the fundamental ideas of Marxism from a bourgeois standpoint.” [12]12 Ibid., p. 371. Therefore, it was urgently necessary to complete the theoretical work of discarding the false and retaining the true, and of setting things straight, so as to eliminate “freedom of criticism” from within the Party. Marxism is the guiding ideology and banner of the working class’s struggle, and the foundation of all activities in the working class’s struggle for liberation. The new “critical trend” distorted and attacked Marxism, creating numerous obstacles to the integration of socialism and the workers’ movement. This caused the workers’ movement not only to appear “fragmented” but also to lose its “political significance,” [13]13 Ibid., p. 372. thereby exacerbating differences of opinion within the Party on major theoretical, programmatic, and strategic issues, and seriously harming the healthy development of the revolutionary cause. Standing at a new historical height, Lenin insisted on the organic unity of value stance and dialectical thinking, and scientifically expounded the fundamental principles consistently upheld by Marxism: its inherent attribute of being systematically complete and tightly structured, its practical function of attending to social transformation and material life, and its living characteristic of being situated within a historical process yet full of creativity. This drew a clear line between Marxism and “freedom of criticism,” achieved the innovative development of Marxism under new historical conditions, guided the Russian workers’ movement onto the revolutionary path of opposing the tsarist system and capitalism, and inaugurated a new epoch in human history.

列宁以剖析“批评自由”的实质与危害为重点，从原则、特点、内容和目的上对“批评自由”的实质进行了透彻的分析和说明，列宁指出，“批评自由”。从原则来说，表现为“立场的内在的虚伪性”,即“各种公开的和伪装的资产阶级思想家自由批评马克思主义”;从特点上看，是在“反对教条”的外壳掩饰下，“自由地抛弃任何完整的和周密的理论”;从目的上看，试图“把马克思主义变成了空洞的说教”,消解对工人运动的指导作用；从内容上看，是直接从资产阶级的书刊上搬到社会主义的书刊上，充分暴露出其“对理论思想发展的冷淡和无能”。在这一基础上，列宁一针见血地指出了“批评自由”的理论批评；其实质是为政治要求服务和辩护的，为了把工人运动变成自由派的“尾巴”,把革命的工人政党变为改良主义的政党，公开地或隐晦地“用资产阶级观点来批评马克思主义的一切基本思想”。因此，亟需从理论上完成去伪存真、正本清源的工作，将“批评自由”从党内清除出去。马克思主义是工人阶级斗争的指导思想和旗帜，是工人阶级争取解放斗争的一切活动的基础。新的“批判思潮”曲解和攻击马克思主义，给社会主义和工人运动的结合带来了重重阻力，导致工人运动不仅呈现出“零散状态”,而且失去了“政治意义”,进而助长了党内在重大理论、纲领、策略问题上的意见分歧，严重危害着革命事业的健康发展。列宁站在新的时代高度，坚持把价值立场同辩证思维有机统一起来，科学阐述了马克思主义一贯坚持的根本原则：具有体系完备又结构严密的内在属性，关照社会变革与物质生活的实践功能，处于历史过程之中又富有创造性的鲜活特征。这就划清了马克思主义与“批评自由”的界限，实现了马克思主义在新的时代条件下的创新发展，引导俄国工人运动走上反对沙皇制度和资本主义的革命道路，开创了人类历史的新纪元。

II. Criticizing the Hypocrisy of “Freedom of Criticism” with the Marxist View of the People

二、以马克思主义人民观批判“批评自由”的虚伪性

The divergence between the new “critical trend” and the Bolsheviks on major issues such as theory, organization, and strategy stems from a fundamental divergence in political stance. They professed to “stand on the position of the proletariat’s class struggle for political and economic emancipation,” yet their discourse was saturated with an apologetic tone for capitalism. For instance, “legal Marxism” [14]14 “Legal Marxism” refers to a trend among Russian intellectuals in the 1890s who used Marxist terminology in legal (i.e., censored) publications but essentially advocated bourgeois liberalism and capitalist development, later openly opposing revolutionary Marxism. went to great lengths to “whitewash” capitalism, blatantly declaring, “We are uncivilized, so let us learn from capitalism,” and extolling capitalism’s “infinite possibilities.” At the same time, at the critical juncture when the breathing spell of the revolution had already ended, Menshevism [15]15 Menshevism was the faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party that opposed Lenin’s Bolsheviks, advocating a looser party organization and a more gradual, “democratic” path to socialism. in actual practice lulled the initiative of the masses, effaced the role of human subjective factors and active activity in the process of historical development, and became a serious obstacle to raising the political consciousness of the people. Even more harmful was the fact that the “critical faction” simply “sought temporary ease and comfort” under the capitalist system, advocating “turning the workers’ party into an organization representing well-paid workers detached from the masses.” Lenin pointed out that they were “petty-bourgeois democrats singing quasi-socialist tunes,” [16]16 V. I. Lenin, “The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution” (1917). and he subjected their bourgeois Party spirit to profound critique. In the process of firmly upholding the people’s standpoint, clarifying value principles, and stimulating value creation, he vividly interpreted the Marxist view of the people.

新的“批评思潮”与布尔什维克在理论、组织、策略等重大问题上的分歧源于根本政治立场的分歧。他们标榜自己“站在无产阶级争取政治和经济解放的阶级斗争的立场上”,但其言论中却充满为资本主义辩护的气息。如“合法马克思主义”极力“粉饰”资本主义，直接露骨地宣扬“我们不文明而去向资本主义学习”,赞美资本主义具有“无限可能性”。同时，在革命的喘息时期已经结束的紧要关头，孟什维克主义在实际运动中麻痹群众的积极性，抹煞人的主观因素和积极活动在历史发展过程中的作用，成为提高人民群众觉悟的严重障碍。更具危害性的是，“批评派”一味在资本主义制度下“苟且偷安”,主张“把工人的党教育成为一群脱离群众而代表工资优厚的工人的人物”。列宁指出，他们是“唱着准社会主义的高调的小资产阶级民主派”,对其表现出的资产阶级党性给予了深刻的批判，并在坚定人民立场、明确价值原则、激发价值创造的过程中生动地诠释出马克思主义的人民观。

First, unswervingly defend the interests of the people by standing on the people’s standpoint. Unwaveringly adhering to the standpoint of the most exploited and oppressed proletariat, and never forgetting the most fundamental interests, not only does not hinder a correct understanding of the objective process of human social development, but is on the contrary a necessary condition for the deepest and most correct understanding of reality and for exposing the class essence of erroneous trends of thought. It was precisely on the basis of the value principle of maximizing the protection of the interests of the workers and peasants that Lenin subjected the slogan “freedom of criticism” to a profound Marxist analysis, pointing out that “freedom of criticism” is an ideological reflection of the political, economic, and cultural demands of the bourgeoisie. He said that one must not be deceived by the outward “fine dress” or seduced by “high-sounding names”; rather, one must see through the surface to the essence, and through words to deeds. Freedom, as a slogan of the anti-feudal period, had great historical significance. However, after the bourgeoisie seized power, under the banner of industrial freedom it launched the most predatory wars, under the banner of freedom of labor it plundered the workers, and especially when advanced public opinion began to turn toward Marxism and the conscious workers’ movement began to sprout, the various factions of the bourgeoisie gathered under the hypocritical banner of “freedom” to attack Marxism. Therefore, the new “critical trend” was not about defending the interests of the people, but about defending its own interests, and in the final analysis, about defending the interests of the bourgeoisie. In response to this view that discarded the interests of the people, Lenin held that only by courageously standing on the standpoint of the broadest proletariat, which reveals the objective laws of capitalist contradictions and class struggle, and by recognizing the antagonistic nature of modern society, could political freedom and a democratic system be won. “The entire new era in Russia was won and sustained precisely by the enthusiasm of the people.” [17]17 V. I. Lenin, “The Present Situation and the Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power” (1918).

第一，站在人民立场始终不渝地捍卫人民利益。毫不动摇地坚守住最受剥削和压迫的无产阶级立场，始终不忘最根本的利益，不仅不妨碍正确地认识人类社会发展的客观过程，反而是最深刻、最正确地认识现实、揭露错误思潮阶级实质的必要条件。正是基于最大限度维护工农群众利益的价值原则，列宁对“批评自由”这一口号作了深刻的马克思主义分析，指出“批评自由”是资产阶级政治、经济、文化诉求的一种观念反映。他说，不能被外表的“漂亮礼服”所迷惑，不能被“动听的名字”所取悦，而是要透过表面看本质，透过言语看行动。自由作为反封建时期的口号，具有伟大的历史意义。可是，资产阶级取得统治地位后，在工业自由的旗帜下发动最具掠夺性的战争，在劳动自由的旗帜下掠夺劳动者，特别是当先进舆论开始转向马克思主义、自觉的工人运动开始萌芽的时候，资产阶级各派就打着虚伪的“自由”旗号聚集在一起攻击马克思主义。因此，新的“批判思潮”不是要捍卫人民的利益，而是要捍卫自己的利益，归根结底是捍卫资产阶级的利益。针对这种丢弃人民利益的观点，列宁认为，只有勇于站在揭示资本主义矛盾发展和阶级斗争客观规律的最广大无产阶级的立场上，认识现代社会的对抗性，才能争取到政治自由和民主制度，“俄国的整个新纪元正是靠人民的热情赢得并且支持下来的”。

Second, fully train and develop the initiative of the masses. In contrast to the advocates of “freedom of criticism,” who paralyzed the revolutionary will of the masses, Lenin waged a heroic struggle for real people—that is, for the workers and peasants doubly oppressed by the dark reality. He attached importance to mobilizing the social forces capable of waging struggle and concerned with such struggle, and focused on mobilizing and training the masses, teaching them “self-knowledge and self-awareness” [18]18 V. I. Lenin, “What Is to Be Done?” (1902). so that they would grow and strengthen irresistibly. Lenin pointed out: “The difference between Marxism and all other socialist theories lies in its excellent combination of two aspects: a completely scientific and sober analysis of the objective situation and the objective course of evolution, and a very resolute recognition of the revolutionary energy, revolutionary creativity, and revolutionary initiative of the masses (and, of course, of individuals, groups, organizations, and parties that are adept at finding and establishing links with certain classes).” [19]19 V. I. Lenin, “The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War” (1915). Therefore, Lenin attached great importance to promoting the maturation of the subjective conditions for revolution. The proletarian revolution and construction activities he led were carried out on the basis of mobilizing the broad masses of the people. First, he skillfully employed methods and strategies of struggle to expand the breadth of collective action by the masses. Lenin pointed out that, unlike Western Europe with its full political freedoms, Russia could not use stable, continuously developing trade unions to wage struggle; it had to continuously raise the consciousness of the masses through flexible use of struggle methods, so that the mass movement would become “ever deeper, ever more resolute.” [20]20 V. I. Lenin, “The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution” (1917). Second, at the most decisive revolutionary junctures, he regarded the strength of the working people as “the deepest source of revolutionary victory” [21]21 V. I. Lenin, “The Bolsheviks Must Assume Power” (1917). and seized the opportune moment to advance the revolutionary process. Through a comprehensive analysis of the domestic situation, Lenin deeply recognized the harm of compromising with the capitalists, saw that the deceptive pronouncements of the “coalition government” [22]22 The “coalition government” refers to the Provisional Government formed after the February Revolution of 1917, which included both bourgeois liberals and moderate socialists (Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries) and continued the war effort. were rife among the army, peasants, and workers, and that “discontent, indignation, and resentment were growing,” [23]23 V. I. Lenin, “The Crisis Has Matured” (1917). so that, with the subjective and objective conditions mature, a revolutionary upsurge relying on the people was inevitable. Third, he promoted socialist construction by unleashing the enthusiasm, initiative, and heroic spirit of the masses. Lenin held that organizing and relying on the proletariat and working people was always a necessary condition for maintaining Soviet power and organizing the construction of a new society. On the eve of the October Revolution, in response to the argument that the Bolsheviks could not retain power, Lenin retorted: “All class-conscious workers, all active and honest peasants, all exploited toilers, will do their utmost to resolve this extremely important historical question in practice.” [24]24 V. I. Lenin, “Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?” (1917). After the October Revolution, Lenin unequivocally pointed out that only by attracting more strata of the people to participate in social construction and awakening their long-dormant initiative could “revolutionary reforms” be achieved. [25]25 V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government” (1918).

第二，充分锻炼和发扬群众的主动精神。相比“批评自由”的拥护者麻痹群众的革命意志，列宁则是为了现实的人，即为了深受黑暗现实双重压迫的工农群众而英勇斗争，重视调动能够进行斗争和关心这种斗争的社会力量，注重动员锻炼群众，教会他们“自我认识和自我意识”,使其不可遏制地成长壮大。列宁指出：“马克思主义和其他一切社会主义理论的不同之处在于，它出色地把以下两方面结合起来：既以完全科学的冷静态度去分析客观形势和演进的客观进程，又非常坚决地承认群众(当然，还有善于摸索到并建立起同某些阶级的联系的个人、团体、组织、政党)的革命毅力、革命创造性、革命首创精神的意义。”因此，列宁高度重视促进革命主观条件的成熟，他领导的无产阶级革命与建设活动，是在发动广大人民群众的基础上进行的。一是巧妙运用斗争方法和策略，扩大群众的集体行动的广度。列宁指出，有别于政治自由充分的西欧，俄国不能运用巩固的、不断发展的工会去开展斗争，必须通过灵活使用斗争方法不断提高群众的觉悟，这样，群众运动才能“愈来愈深刻、愈来愈坚决”。二是在最具决定性的革命关头，把劳动人民的力量看成是“革命取得胜利的最深的泉源”,不失时机地推动革命进程。通过对国内形势的全面分析，列宁深刻认识到同资本家妥协的危害性，看到了“联合政府”发表的欺骗性言论充斥在军队、农民和工人中间，“不满，愤慨和怨恨的情绪日益增长”,因此在主客观条件成熟的情况下依靠人民的革命高潮不可避免。三是通过发挥群众的热情、积极性和英勇精神推进社会主义建设。列宁认为，组织和依靠无产阶级和劳动人民始终是保持苏维埃政权、组织新社会建设的必要条件。十月革命前夕，面对质疑布尔什维克无法保持政权的论调，列宁针锋相对地反驳说：“一切觉悟的工人，一切活跃的正直的农民，全体被剥削劳动者，一定会竭尽全力在实践中解决这个极其重大的历史性的问题”。十月革命后，列宁旗帜鲜明地指出，只有吸引更多阶层的人民参加社会建设，激发他们一直沉睡的积极性，才能实现“革命的改革”。

Third, the source of the Party’s strength and invincibility lies in its ability to maintain and strengthen its firm ties with the workers and peasants. Enhancing the Party’s strength is the fundamental guarantee for achieving all victories. So, whence does the Party’s strength come? Lenin pointed out that going deep among the masses, understanding their sentiments, understanding everything about them, being good at approaching them, and winning their absolute trust and support—this is the “invincible source” of the Party, the Soviet government, and even the entire world communist movement. Lenin believed that the Mensheviks wavered and always fruitlessly attempted to pour new wine into the old wineskins of the old state bureaucratic apparatus because they feared the masses, feared unleashing their creativity and initiative, and therefore could not wholeheartedly support them in all respects or establish close ties with them. Consequently, Lenin provided a profound explanation, from both positive and negative aspects, of the harm of divorcing oneself from the masses and the importance of maintaining contact with them. First, maintaining Party-mass ties is an important channel for supplementing the Party’s own experience. It was precisely on this principle that Lenin sought ways to carry out the socialist transformation of Russia’s economic system. This is because, even though the necessity of transforming private ownership of the means of production has been precisely elucidated by scientific theory from the perspective of the laws of historical development, there is no ready-made answer for the specific methods and pace of transformation; only the experience of millions of working people provides the “decisive guidance.” Therefore, it is essential to maintain extremely close ties with the working class, the peasantry, and the working intelligentsia. Second, maintaining close ties with the broad masses of workers and peasants is the basic condition for guiding the masses “along the path of conscious class policy.” Through a scientific analysis of the political situation and an accurate assessment of the balance of class forces, Lenin recognized that only the proletariat and the peasantry were the forces capable of achieving “a complete victory over the tsarist system.” However, the working people do not spontaneously become conscious of their own interests and situation. This requires the Party organization to merge with all working people and the exploited, and “to carefully and objectively check at all times and in all places: whether contact is maintained with the masses, and whether the contact is close,” so that, under a unified will, the spontaneous revolutionary torrent of millions of masses is placed under the Party’s influence, enabling the proletariat’s struggle for socialism to proceed smoothly. Third, resolutely struggle against Party members, styles of work, and actions that divorce themselves from the masses. After the implementation of the New Economic Policy, Lenin repeatedly emphasized that the practice of divorcing oneself from the masses seriously corrodes the stability and consolidation of the Soviet organization and seriously affects the mobilization of the masses’ initiative. To this end, the Bolshevik Party re-registered Party members more than once, in order to expel those “who had wormed their way into the Party,” retaining only conscious, truly loyal communists within the Party.

第三，党强有力和不可战胜的根源是善于保持和加强同工农群众的牢固联系。增强党的力量是取得一切胜利的根本保证。那么，党的力量来自于何处?列宁指出，深入群众，了解他们的情绪，了解他们的一切，善于接近他们，赢得他们的绝对信任和拥护，是党和苏维埃乃至全世界共产主义运动“不可战胜的根源”。列宁认为，孟什维克之所以摇摆不定，总是毫无成效地企图在旧的国家官僚机构的旧皮袋中装新酒，是因为他们害怕人民群众，害怕发挥他们的创造性、主动性，所以不能全心全意地从各方面支持他们，不能与之发生紧密的联系。因此，列宁从正反两个方面对脱离群众的危害性、与群众保持联系的重要性进行了深刻的说明。一是保持党群联系是补充党自身经验的一条重要渠道。列宁正是根据这一原则来寻求对俄国经济制度进行社会主义改造的途径的。这是因为，即使改造生产资料私有制的必要性已被科学理论从历史发展规律的角度精准阐明，但具体改造的方式和速度却没有现成的答案，只有千百万劳动者的经验才是“决定性的指示”。因此，必须与工人阶级、与农民、与劳动知识分子保持极为密切的联系。二是紧密联系广大工农群众是引导群众“沿着自觉的阶级政策的道路前进”的基本条件。列宁通过对政治局势的科学分析和对阶级力量对比的准确估量，认识到只有无产阶级和农民，才是能够取得“对沙皇制度的彻底胜利”的力量。但劳动人民不会自觉地意识到自身的利益和处境，这要求党组织与全体劳动者和被剥削者融成一片，并且“要随时随地仔细客观地检查：是否同群众保持着联系，联系是否密切”,从而在统一的意志下把千百万群众自发的革命洪流置于党的影响之下，使无产阶级争取社会主义的斗争得以顺利地进行。三是坚决同脱离群众的党员、作风和行为作斗争。新经济政策实行后，列宁一再强调，脱离群众的实践严重腐蚀苏维埃组织的稳定与巩固，严重影响群众积极性的发挥。为此，布尔什维克党不止一次地重新登记党员，以便把这种“混进党里来的人”清除出去，只让有觉悟的真正忠于共产主义的人留在党内。

III. Criticizing “Freedom of Criticism” for Dismembering Marxism from the Perspective of the Marxist Holistic View

三、以马克思主义整体观批判“批评自由”肢解马克思主义

The new “critical trend,” influenced by the decadent bourgeois world outlook, attempted to destroy the integrity and thoroughness of Marxism, supplementing it with revisionist ideas to guide the Russian socialist movement. They “crawled on their bellies before bourgeois science,” abandoned the complete and clear Marxist world outlook, and “subjected the theoretical foundations and basic principles of Marxism to distortions from diametrically opposite directions,” thereby leading to the dismemberment of the Marxist system. The most typical example is that “Legal Marxism” vigorously sought to expel philosophy from the Marxist system, supplementing it with the Kantianism they revered as a standard. After the defeat of the 1905 Revolution, the politically passive and decadent Menshevism continued to launch ferocious attacks on Marxist philosophy. At the same time, under the influence of the decadent world outlook, a mistaken perception of “Marxism’s incompleteness” emerged, for instance, the view that Marx’s doctrine “had a one-sided character.” Faced with the wanton dismemberment by the new “critical” school, Lenin focused on expounding how to grasp Marxist ideas and viewpoints in their entirety, educating the broad masses of revolutionaries to establish a scientific world outlook, and repelling the revisionist assault on the integrity of the theory.

新的“批评思潮”受到资产阶级陈腐世界观的影响，企图破坏马克思主义的完整性和周密性，以修正主义思想进行补充并指导俄国社会主义运动。他们“匍匐在资产阶级科学面前”,放弃了完整的、明确的马克思主义世界观，“使马克思主义的理论基础和基本原理受到了来自截然相反的各方面的曲解”,从而导致了对马克思主义体系的肢解。最为典型的是，“合法马克思主义”极力把哲学从马克思主义体系中驱逐出去，用他们奉为圭臬的康德主义进行补充。1905年革命失败后，在政治上消极颓废的孟什维克主义继续向马克思主义哲学发起气势汹汹的进攻。同时，在陈腐世界观的影响下又造成“马克思主义不完备”的错误认知，例如认为马克思的学说“有片面性”。面对新的“批评”派的恣意肢解，列宁着重论述了如何完整把握马克思主义的思想和观点，教育广大革命者树立科学的世界观，击退了修正主义对理论整体性的攻击。

First, Marxism provides people with a complete and new world outlook.

第一，马克思主义为人们提供了完整的崭新世界观。

Lenin pointed out that Marx and Engels, in order to break free from the limitations of old philosophies, “paid particular attention to building up the upper story of materialist philosophy,” making it a truly consistent, complete, and rigorous world outlook. However, when “new strata of the working people were drawn into the movement one after another,” the broad masses of workers were easily influenced by the bourgeois world outlook. This led to the existence of completely different views within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party on important issues such as solving the problem of Party building, the nature of political agitation, and organizational tasks. “Freedom of criticism” was precisely the direct product of the bourgeois world outlook and its influence; it prevented the Party from unifying its thinking, plans, and actions. Therefore, in order to steer the workers’ movement along a healthy track, Lenin paid particular attention to maintaining and consolidating the integrity and purity of the Marxist world outlook. He clearly pointed out that the proletariat must effect the most thorough rupture with the traditional concepts of capitalism, forging a strict, complete world outlook that does not compromise or reconcile with bourgeois “science.” In the face of the encroachment and restoration of bourgeois ideology, one must avoid being unprincipled and failing to distinguish right from wrong; one must wage a resolute struggle against it. When confronting the “scientific” achievements of the bourgeoisie, one must never “abandon one’s own complete and clear world outlook,” but rather pay attention to them, utilize them, critically absorb and transform them. One must be adept at identifying their rational components while also being able to eliminate their reactionary tendencies.

列宁指出，马克思、恩格斯为了摆脱以往旧哲学的局限性，“特别注意的是修盖好唯物主义哲学的上层”,使其真正成为首尾一致、完备而严密的世界观。但当“一个个新的劳动群众阶层被卷入运动”,广大工人很容易受到资产阶级世界观的影响，这使俄国社会民主工党内在解决建党问题、政治鼓动的性质、组织任务等重要问题上存在全然不同的观点。“批评自由”正是资产阶级世界观及其影响的直接产物，它使党不能统一思想、统一计划、统一行动。因此，为了使工人运动沿着健康的轨道前进，列宁特别注重维护和巩固马克思主义世界观的完整性与纯洁性，明确指出无产阶级必须同资本主义的传统观念实行最彻底的决裂，铸造严格的、完整的、不与资产阶级“科学”相妥协和调和的世界观。面对资产阶级思想的侵袭和复辟，切忌不讲原则、不分是非，必须与之作坚决斗争；面对资产阶级的“科学”成果时，绝“不放弃自己完整的明确的世界观”,而是要注意它、利用它、批判地吸收与改造它，既要善于识别其中的合理成分，又要能消除其反动倾向。

Second, Marxism is a rigorous scientific system “cast from a single piece of steel.”

第二，马克思主义是“由一整块钢铸成的”严整的科学体系。

Lenin always adhered to the guidance of the scientific world outlook, sharply refuting the acts of severing and distorting Marxism, regarding Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism as “a single piece of steel,” and resolutely defending the complete unity of the Marxist theoretical system. Closely focusing on the historical mission and complete emancipation of the proletariat, Lenin explained that Marxism is an organic whole, profoundly expounding the internal connections among the three main components of Marxism. He pointed out that dialectical materialism and historical materialism pointed the way for the proletariat to escape from the “spiritual enslavement from which it had long suffered.” Previous thinkers, in order to establish their own interests on the basis of exploiting members of society outside their own class, often went to the opposite side of history, subjecting the broad masses of working people to long-term spiritual enslavement. The creation of dialectical materialism and historical materialism provided “a path for comprehensive and thorough research” for revealing the laws governing the evolution of socio-economic formations, conducive to restoring the true face of history and enabling the working class to understand real history more deeply. Marxist political economy, in turn, explained the true position of the proletariat within the entire capitalist system. After an in-depth analysis of the internal structure of capitalist economic relations, the concealed exploitative relations were fully exposed, revealing the secret of the exploitation of laborers by capital, and thereby leading to the scientific conclusion that the proletariat is the material force driving social development. The various parts constituting the overall Marxist theory do not exist in isolation from each other but reflect the whole through their mutual integration, thus presenting rigor, completeness, and consistency in logical expression. Lenin noted that due to changes in the themes of the times, the focus of research differed at different stages, and people highlighted different aspects of Marxism in different historical periods. “In Germany, before 1848, the formation of Marxist philosophy was particularly prominent; in 1848, it was Marxist political thought; in the 1850s and 1860s, it was Marx’s economic theory.” [26]26 Lenin, “The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 23, p. 1. But this does not mean attending to one thing and losing sight of another; rather, it always remains within a holistic framework, forming a unified whole on a new basis.

列宁始终坚持科学世界观的指导，尖锐地批驳割裂和曲解马克思主义的行径，把马克思主义哲学、政治经济学、科学社会主义看成是“一整块钢”,坚决维护马克思主义理论体系的完整统一。列宁紧密着眼于无产阶级的历史使命和彻底解放，说明马克思主义是有机联系的整体，深刻论述了马克思主义三个主要组成部分之间的内在联系，指出辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义为无产阶级摆脱“至今深受其害的精神奴役”指明了出路。以往的思想家们为了把自身利益建立在对本阶级之外的社会成员的剥削基础之上，往往走向历史的反面，对广大劳动人民进行长期的精神奴役。辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的创立，为揭示社会经济形态演进的规律提供了“全面而周密的研究的途径”,有利于还原历史的本来面貌，使劳动阶级能够更深刻地认识真实历史。马克思主义政治经济学则说明了无产阶级在整个资本主义制度中的真正地位。在深入剖析资本主义经济关系内部结构后，被掩盖的剥削关系充分地暴露了出来，揭示了劳动者被资本剥削的秘密所在，进而得出无产阶级是推动社会发展的物质力量的科学结论。构成马克思主义理论整体的各个部分，不是彼此脱离的孤立存在，而是在彼此融合中映照着整体，从而在逻辑表现上呈现严密性、完整性和一贯性。列宁注意到，由于时代主题的转变，不同阶段研究的着力点有所不同，人们在不同历史时期分别突出马克思主义的不同方面。“在德国，在1848年以前，特别突出的是马克思主义哲学的形成；在1848年，是马克思主义的政治思想；在50年代和60年代，是马克思的经济学说。”但这并不意味着顾此失彼，而是始终保持在一个整体性的框架内，在新的基础上构成统一的整体。

Third, Marxism is a doctrine rich in content and free from one-sidedness.

第三，马克思主义是内容丰富而无片面性的学说。

Lenin pointed out that Marxism, on the basis of summarizing the latest scientific achievements, depicts a scientific picture of the entire external world, including thorough materialism encompassing social life, the most comprehensive and profound theory of development, and rich theories on class struggle and world revolution. However, “now it is said everywhere that these doctrines are incomplete.” To this end, Lenin, through a systematic review of intellectual history, demonstrated that Marxism is a rich and comprehensive ideological theory. He reviewed and summarized the course of Marxism’s struggle since its inception against various erroneous trends of thought and reactionary forces: in the first fifty years of struggle, Marx and Engels successively debated and settled accounts with the Young Hegelians, Proudhonism, Bakuninism, Dühringism, and all other relatively complete and fundamentally hostile theories, achieving absolute victories in all respects and completing the overall construction of philosophy, economics, and the socialist movement, thereby showing that Marxism is a rich and comprehensive whole; in the second fifty years of struggle, the doctrine hostile to Marxism was “fairly systematic” revisionism, whose “revision” of Marxism covered philosophy, the theory of crisis and collapse, value theory, political theory, and many other aspects, which precisely proved by contrast that Marxism is a rich and comprehensive whole. For an ideological system as complete in content and rigorous in structure as Marxism, how should its specific principles be applied scientifically and accurately? Lenin’s answer was that one must consider not only the connections between different theoretical viewpoints and between theory and reality, but also link them to other principles within the context of the vertical and horizontal transformation of historical time and space, so as to accurately understand all of Marxism’s views.

列宁指出，马克思主义在总结最新科学成就的基础上描绘了关于整个外部世界的科学图景，其中包括社会生活在内的彻底的唯物主义、最全面最深刻的发展学说、关于阶级斗争世界革命等丰富理论。但是，“现在到处都有人说这些学说不完备”。为此，列宁通过系统的学术史回顾，论证了马克思主义是内容丰富的思想理论。他回顾和总结了马克思主义创立以来同各种错误思潮、反动势力进行战斗的历程：在斗争的前50年，马克思、恩格斯先后与青年黑格尔派、蒲鲁东主义、巴枯宁主义、杜林主义等一切比较完整的根本敌对理论进行了论战与清算，在各个方面取得了绝对性的胜利，在哲学、经济学、社会主义运动方面完成了整体建构，表明了马克思主义是内容丰富的整体；在斗争的第二个50年，与马克思主义敌对的学说是“相当严整”的修正主义，它对马克思主义的“修正”内容涉及哲学、危机论与崩溃论、价值理论、政治理论等多方面，恰恰反面证明了马克思主义是内容丰富的整体。对于马克思主义这样一个内容完备、结构严整的思想体系，应当如何科学准确地运用其具体原理?列宁的回答是，既要考虑到不同理论观点之间、理论与现实之间的联系，还要在历史时空纵横转化的脉络中联系到其他原理,这样才能准确地理解马克思主义的全部观点。

IV. Criticizing the Theoretical Verbiage of “Freedom of Criticism” with the Marxist View of Practice

四、以马克思主义实践观批判“批评自由”的理论空谈

The new “critical trend of thought,” when observing, studying, analyzing, and reflecting on all theoretical and practical issues—such as examining the political situation, evaluating Marxism, and formulating strategies—divorced itself from Russian reality and from the actual conditions of a given historical period, propagating various stale and vague fallacies. Lenin pointed out that they first lacked the consciousness to correctly understand the development of the objective political situation, “always binding their own hands and feet with preconceived plans or methods of political struggle”; they also did not know how to test theory in practice, concluding that Marxism had “become outdated,” and were rendered impotent by skepticism; moreover, they did not know how to realize theory in practice, discarding the revolutionary character of Marxism and subjectively reducing the primary task of the mass workers’ movement—overthrowing the autocratic system—to “the task of striving for the realization of the most immediate political demands.” Lenin criticized the “critical faction” of vulgar Marxism for never having pondered Marx’s words that material force must be replaced by the criticism of weapons. This subjective idealist essence in thought, combined with political reaction, not only “turned the ideas of the most steadfast, most active advanced revolutionary class into the ideas of the most backward stratum of this class,” but also dissolved the practical character of Marxism. Lenin profoundly criticized this fatal error that “corrodes the living spirit of Marxism entirely,” expounding the priority, decisiveness, and world-changing leverage of practice, thereby comprehensively demonstrating the practice-oriented nature of Marxism.

新的“批评思潮”在观察、研究、分析、思考一切理论与实际问题，如考察政治态势、评判马克思主义以及制定策略时，脱离俄国实际，脱离一定历史时期的现实条件，宣扬种种陈腐的空泛谬论。列宁指出，它们首先缺乏正确了解客观政治局势发展的自觉性，“总是用事先想好的政治斗争的计划或方法来束缚自己的手脚”;也不懂得在实践中检验理论，得出了马克思主义“已经过时”的论断，因怀疑论而软弱无能；更不懂得在实践中实现理论，抛弃马克思主义的革命性，把推翻专制制度这一群众性工人运动的首要任务，从主观上降低为“争取实现最近的政治要求的任务”。列宁批判庸俗马克思主义的“批评派”从来没有思索过马克思所说的必须用武器的批判来代替批判的武器的话。这种思想上的主观唯心主义实质加上政治上的反动性，不仅把“最坚定、最积极的先进革命阶级的思想变成了这个阶级中最落后的阶层的思想”,更是消解了马克思主义的实践品格。列宁对这种“把马克思主义的活的精神全部腐蚀掉”的致命错误进行了深刻批判，阐述了实践的优先性、决定性以及改变世界的撬动作用，全面展现了马克思主义的实践导向。

First, taking facts as the basis is the Marxist method of thinking. When discussing the plans and methods of struggle, the “critical faction” proceeded from their own wishes and interests, lacking a rigorous analysis of facts. For example, after the June 3rd Coup [27]27 The June 3rd Coup (1907) refers to the dissolution of the Second State Duma by Tsar Nicholas II and the alteration of the electoral law, marking the end of the 1905 Revolution and the onset of the Stolypin reaction., liquidationism held that Russia’s democratic revolution had been completed and therefore advocated abandoning the Party’s program in exchange for legal status, which easily reduced the socialist movement to empty theorizing. Regarding assertions that were “vague” or “approximate,” lacking factual basis and arbitrarily abused, Lenin particularly emphasized the importance of facts. Lenin pointed out that facts are not only the most stubborn thing, as Engels said, but also “absolutely conclusive evidence.” What Marx first analyzed in *Capital* was the economic fact of commodity exchange, which occurs billions of times in a commodity society—this extremely simple fact is precisely the key to unlocking the mystery of capital. Lenin’s new understanding of modern society, his analysis of changes in class relations, and his formulation of policies at critical junctures were also based on reliable facts; he seized the most basic and common facts newly emerging in the early 20th century and made many scientific judgments, truly practicing “building his theory on a solid and reliable factual basis.” Furthermore, Lenin had a thorough and profound understanding of the grasp of facts, emphasizing that facts must be analyzed from the totality of facts, i.e., from their interconnections, for them to become a genuine foundation. This is because each individual case is situated in a specific historical environment; focusing on concrete time and space is Marx’s requirement and method. Only by grasping all aspects of the facts, their mutual dependence and mediation, and mastering all facts related to the issue under study can one obtain an accurate, indisputable, and uniquely solid foundation. If individual facts are extracted or certain facts are arbitrarily selected, and the objective connections and interdependence of all historical phenomena are replaced by subjective fabrications, “then they can only be a kind of child’s play.” Regarding Bernstein and his followers who vigorously used “new materials on economic development” to assert that trusts made it possible to fundamentally eliminate crises, Lenin profoundly pointed out that “merely making a superficial generalization of one-sidedly extracted facts, without linking them to the entire capitalist system,” was done to defend a despicable act.

第一，以事实为依据是马克思主义的思想方法。“批评派”在谈论斗争的计划与方法时，从自己愿望和利益要求出发，缺乏对事实的严格分析。如“六三”政变后，取消主义认为俄国的民主革命已经完成，故而主张放弃党的纲领以换取合法地位，这很容易使社会主义运动沦为空谈主义。对于没有事实依据的、被恣意滥用的“空泛的”或“大致的”的论断，列宁特别强调事实的重要性。列宁指出，事实不仅是恩格斯所说的最顽强的东西，更是“绝对确凿的证据”。马克思在《资本论》中首先分析的就是商品交换这一在商品社会中碰到亿万次的经济事实，这一极为简单的事实恰恰是解开资本奥秘的关键。列宁对现代社会的新认识、对阶级关系变动的分析、对关键时期政策的制定，也是以事实作为可靠的依据，他抓住了20世纪初新出现的最基本、最常见的事实，作出了诸多科学论断，真正践行了“把自己的理论建立在确凿可靠的事实基础上”。此外，列宁对事实的把握有着透彻而深刻的理解，强调要从事实的总体即从事实的彼此关联中着手分析，才能使其成为真正的基础。这是因为，每一个别情况都处于特定的历史环境，聚焦到具体的时间和空间是马克思的要求和方法，只有把握事实之间的一切方面、彼此的依存性以及媒介，掌握与所研究问题有关的全部事实，才是准确的、不容争辩的和唯一牢固的基础。如果抽取个别的事实或者随意挑选出某些事实，用主观臆造的东西来代替全部历史现象的客观联系和相互依存关系，“那么它们就只能是一种儿戏”。针对伯恩施坦及其追随者们极力使用“经济发展的新材料”、断言托拉斯使危机的根本消除成为可能，列宁深刻指出，仅仅对“片面抽出的事实作肤浅的概括，而没有把它们同整个资本主义制度联系起来看”,这是为了替卑鄙的勾当做辩护。

Second, Marxism is a theory verified by practice; “it confirms that this reflection (within the scope shown to us by practice) is objective, absolute, and eternal truth.” Lenin had an extremely sober understanding and a scientific, rational analysis of the setbacks Marxism experienced in its development. First, based on the basic principles and great behests of Marx’s *General Rules of the International Workingmen’s Association*, and taking into account the experience of the world and of Russia, he concluded that the integration of socialism with the workers’ movement must go through a long and arduous road, pointing out that “various vacillations and doubts appearing in this process are nothing particularly strange.” Second, between bourgeois ideology and socialist ideology, the former emerged earlier and possessed incomparably more perfected means and tools of dissemination than the latter; its ideological representatives did everything to cultivate a mood of decadence, carrying out long-term ideological enslavement and deception of the workers, causing differences of opinion on key issues—a situation that was also not uncommon. The crux of the problem was that, under conditions where slogans like “opposing orthodoxy” and “freedom of criticism” were rampant, many people believed that Marx’s doctrine had “become outdated.” In response, Lenin insisted on making judgments and analyses with a strictly scientific attitude, regarding practice as the criterion for verifying whether cognition possesses objectivity, thereby eliminating the pernicious influence of viewing problems apart from the standard of practice. Lenin believed that the answer to this question could not be derived directly from subjective wishes and prejudices, but should be sought from the study of the material forms and developmental picture of modern society; the development of social life in the economic and political spheres, and the masses’ struggle to change reality, convincingly proved “the correctness of Marxist views.” At the same time, Lenin deeply explored “the dialectical path of cognizing objective reality,” pointing out that due to the limitations of many conditions, Marxism must also supplement certain individual issues through repeated cycles of practice and cognition, thereby achieving the continuous approximation of thought to the object.

第二，马克思主义是依靠实践来验证的理论，“它证实这一反映(在实践向我们表明的范围内)是客观的、绝对的、永恒的真理”。对马克思主义在其发展过程中所经历的挫折，列宁有着极为清醒的认识和科学理性的分析。一是依据马克思撰写的《国际工人协会共同章程》的基本原理和伟大遗训，又考虑到世界的和俄国的经验，总结出社会主义与工人运动相结合要经过漫长、艰苦的道路，指出“在这个过程中出现各种动摇和怀疑，不是什么特别奇怪的事情”。二是在资产阶级思想和社会主义思想之间，相较于后者，前者产生较早且拥有后者无法比拟的完善的传播手段和工具，它的思想代表者千方百计地培植颓废情绪，对工人进行长期的思想奴役和欺骗，使其在关键问题上出现意见分歧，这种情况也是屡见不鲜的。问题的关键是，在“反对正统”“批评自由”等论调大行其道的状况下，不少人认为马克思的学说已经“过时了”。对此，列宁坚持以严格科学的态度进行判断与分析，把实践看成是验证认识是否具有客观性的准绳，肃清了离开实践标准看问题的恶劣影响。列宁认为，对这个问题的答案不能直接从主观愿望与偏见中作出，而应从对现代社会的物质形态和发展图景的研究中去寻找，社会生活在经济领域和政治领域的发展以及群众队伍改变现实的斗争，令人信服地证明“马克思主义观点的正确性”。同时，列宁深入探讨了“认识客观实在的辩证途径”,指出由于诸多条件的限制，对于某些个别问题的论述，马克思主义也要通过实践和认识的多次反复进行补充，从而实现思维向客体的不断接近。

Third, “only the revolutionary Marxist theory can become the banner of the working-class movement,” and its ultimate value is realized through revolutionary practical activity. Lenin’s understanding of Marxism did not stop at a textual interpretation at the theoretical level, but focused on a practical interpretation aimed at transforming existing society. Regarding the relationship between Marxism and the external world, it is not self-contemplation, but a theory that confronts reality, confronts the living predicament of the proletariat, and fights unceasingly for the liberation of the entire oppressed class. Yet Lenin pointed out that in the Russian workers’ movement from 1895 to 1913, the “critical faction” all inclined toward reformism and the idea of class collaboration, and after the outbreak of the First World War this tendency reached its peak. That is to say, whether it was Bernsteinism, which proclaimed “the final goal is nothing to me, the movement is everything,” or the Economists, who advocated narrowing political agitation, or their successors who abandoned the Party’s program and revolutionary traditions in exchange for legal status, all of them wandered on a non-revolutionary track. To free the masses from the influence of this thinking and to fight for an independent workers’ movement in Russia, Lenin criticized the arguments of the “critical faction” that excluded revolutionary practice. The problem is not only to interpret the world, but to change the world through revolutionary practical activity; “without revolutionary action, all promises, all beautiful prospects can only be castles in the air.” Lenin pointed out that to carry out a revolutionary struggle to transform social relations, to eliminate the social system that forces the poor to sell themselves to the rich, and thereby to achieve the “final goal” of the movement, one cannot rely on “concocting all sorts of plans for transforming society,” still less confine oneself to fighting for economic reforms; the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party must lead the working class to persist in its revolutionary task to the end in order to realize this theory. Based on this understanding, and on observing practice and analyzing the development of the Russian revolution, Lenin actively guided the class consciousness of the working class from spontaneity to consciousness, put forward the scientific prediction that the socialist revolution in Russia might first achieve victory, formulated a strategy of action for itself [28]28 “Strategy of action for itself” (自为行动策略) refers to Lenin’s concept of the proletariat moving from a “class in itself” to a “class for itself,” i.e., from spontaneous economic struggle to conscious political revolution. full of the meaning of dialectical materialism, and thereby inaugurated a new epoch in the Russian revolution and even the world revolution.

第三，“只有革命的马克思主义理论才能成为工人阶级运动的旗帜”,其最终价值通过革命实践活动得以实现。列宁对马克思主义的理解，不是停留在理论水平上的文本阐释，而是着眼于改造现存社会的实践解读。就马克思主义同外部世界的关系来说，它不是自我关照，而是面对实际，面对无产阶级的生活困境，为解放整个被压迫阶级而不息战斗的理论。但列宁指出，在1895—1913年的俄国工人运动中，“批评派”都倾向于改良主义和阶级合作的思想，第一次世界大战爆发后这种思想发展到了顶点。也就是说，不论是宣扬“这个目的无论是什么，对我来说都是毫不足道的，运动就是一切”的伯恩施坦主义，还是主张缩小政治鼓动的经济派，以及奉行放弃党的纲领和革命传统以换取合法地位的后继者们，都是在非革命的轨道上徘徊。为了使群众摆脱这种思想的影响，为俄国的独立工人运动而斗争，列宁对“批评派”宣扬的排除革命实践的之类论调进行了批判。问题不仅在于解释世界，更在于通过革命实践活动改变世界，“没有革命行动，一切诺言、一切美好的前景只能是空中楼阁”。列宁指出，要进行改造社会关系的革命斗争，消灭迫使穷人卖身给富人的社会制度，从而达到运动的“最终目的”,这不能依靠“臆造种种改造社会的计划”,更不能局限于争取经济改良，俄国社会民主工党人必须带领工人阶级把自己的革命任务坚持到底来实现这个理论。基于这种认识，基于观察实践和分析俄国革命的发展，列宁积极引导工人阶级的阶级意识由自发向自觉转变，提出俄国社会主义革命可能首先获得胜利的科学预见，制定充满唯物辩证法意义的自为行动策略，由此开创了俄国革命乃至世界革命的新纪元。

V. Criticizing the “Simple Copying” of “Freedom of Criticism” with the Marxist View of Development

五、以马克思主义发展观批判“批评自由”的“简单抄袭”

The new “critical trend of thought” made no effort to understand the scientific implications of the doctrines of Marx and Engels, but instead directly aimed its “criticism” at Marxism, clamoring for a struggle against “dogmatism, scholasticism,” and “the ossification of the Party.” Yet it neither advanced science nor taught the proletariat any new methods of struggle. Therefore, Lenin profoundly pointed out that “freedom of criticism” does not mean replacing one theory with another; it not only fails to manifest itself as any criticism, but also manifests itself as having no independent opinion at all, merely judging current reality by individual principles and treating Marx’s theory as a historical-philosophical formula that must be strictly followed. Whether it was Economism, which “simply understood” and “simply copied” the resolutions of other countries, or Menshevism, which at a critical historical juncture excluded the proletariat from the leadership of the revolution, or Otzovism, [29]29 Otzovism (取消主义) was a faction within the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party that advocated recalling (withdrawing) Social Democratic deputies from the Duma and abandoning all legal work, which Lenin criticized as sectarian and adventurist. which did not understand flexible tactics, none of them kept pace with changes in the times, advances in science, or the call of the proletarian revolution. They obsessed over a particular exposition, deeply indulged in a particular judgment, or blindly adhered to a particular conclusion with an extremely one-sided and extremely abnormal attitude, which very clearly proved their “poverty of thought” and “simplicity of mind.” In response, Lenin used dialectical thinking to eliminate erroneous and untimely ideas, demonstrating that Marxism reveals its infinite vitality and thorough persuasive power in its close connection and intrinsic coupling with the process of human historical development, the world cultural system, and the practice of the proletarian revolution, thereby pointing the direction for how Marxists should develop Marxism.

新的“批判思潮”没有下功夫去理解马克思和恩格斯学说的科学意蕴，却把“批评”的矛头直接对准马克思主义，叫嚷同“教条主义、学理主义”“党的僵化”作斗争，但它既没有把科学向前推进，也没有教给无产阶级任何新的斗争方法。所以，列宁深刻指出，“批评自由”不是用一种理论替代另一种理论，它不仅没有表现为任何批评，而且表现为根本没有独立的见解，仅仅用个别原理裁判当前的现实，把马克思的理论当成必须严加遵循的历史哲学公式。不论是“简单了解”“简单抄袭”别国决议的经济主义，还是在千钧一发的历史关头将无产阶级排除在革命领导权之外的孟什维克主义，抑或是不懂得变通策略的取消主义，都没有跟进时代的变化、科学的进步和无产阶级革命的呼声，用极片面和极反常的态度过分纠结某一论述、深度沉迷某一判断、盲目坚守某一结论，这十分清楚地证明他们的“思想贫乏”和“头脑简单”。对此，列宁以辩证思维革除了错误的、不合时宜的思想观念，说明了马克思主义是在与人类历史发展过程、世界文化体系、无产阶级革命实践密切关联和内在耦合中，彰显出无限的生命力和彻底的说服力，为马克思主义者怎样发展马克思主义指明了方向。

First, Marxist theory is linked to a definite stage of historical development and must inevitably develop continuously in accordance with the historical process. First, the “natural historical process” of human society determines that modern materialism will inevitably be pushed forward. Lenin regarded human society as a living organism in constant development, and considered this process to be absolute and unconditional in its essence; therefore, he believed that “all milestones” of the ever-developing human sciences “have a temporary, relative, approximate character.” On the basis of this understanding, Lenin pointed out that only by “advancing this science in all directions” can one “not fall behind actual life.” The science Lenin refers to here is not a system of thought that claims to be the ultimate truth, but a broad science with a historical and developmental character; social development will not come to an end, and the development of theory is naturally unlimited. Thus, the logical process of theory is closely linked to the objective process of historical development; to whatever extent history develops, theory must follow to that extent. The theory of “victory in one country” [30]30 “Victory in one country” (一国胜利论) is Lenin’s theory, developed during World War I, that socialism could be established initially in a single capitalist country, contrary to Marx and Engels’ earlier expectation of simultaneous revolution in advanced capitalist nations. founded by Lenin, the theory of the new meaning, nature, and characteristics of imperialism, and the theory of the meaning and nature of war and peace, among others, are major theoretical developments of essential significance accomplished in response to the demands of historical development. Second, the particularity of world history in individual stages of development requires that theory achieve its own development in accordance with specific historical circumstances. Lenin believed that in the general trend of historical development, each country has “specific characteristics different from those of other countries”; therefore, one cannot harshly demand that Marx answer all specific questions on the road to socialism. Theory must grasp reality and specific historical characteristics to elucidate and develop them; this is both Marx’s method of thinking and the absolute requirement of Marxism.

第一，马克思主义理论与历史发展的一定阶段相联系，必然循着历史的进程不断发展。一是人类社会的“自然历史过程”决定了现代唯物主义必将不断向前推进。列宁把人类社会视作处在不断发展中的活的机体，并且认为这一过程按其本质是绝对的且无条件的，因此认为日益发展的人类科学的“一切里程碑都具有暂时的、相对的、近似的性质”。在这种认识的基础上，列宁指出，只有“在各方面把这门科学推向前进”,才不会“落后于实际生活”。列宁在此处所指的科学，不是以终极真理自诩的思想体系，而是具有历史性和发展过程性的广义科学，社会的发展不会终结，理论的发展自然也是无限的。可见，理论的逻辑进程与客观的历史发展进程紧密相连，历史发展到什么程度，理论就要跟进到什么程度。列宁创立的“一国胜利论”,帝国主义新的含义、性质和特征的理论，战争与和平的含义、性质的理论等，就是顺应历史发展要求完成的具有本质意义上的重大理论发展。二是世界历史在个别发展阶段表现出的特殊性，要求理论根据具体的历史环境实现自身的发展。列宁认为，在历史发展的总趋势中，每个国家都有“不同于其他各国的具体特点”,所以不能刻薄地要求马克思解答走向社会主义道路上的一切具体问题，理论要把握现实和具体的历史特点加以阐明和发挥，这既是马克思的思想方法，也是马克思主义的绝对要求。

Second, Marxism is a scientific theoretical form commensurate with the status and mission of the proletariat, and it must be continuously enriched and developed in the course of the proletariat’s struggle for its own emancipation. First, from the perspective of the entire process of the workers’ movement, the lowly economic position of the proletariat “irresistibly impels it” to strive for its own ultimate emancipation. As the theoretical weapon of the proletariat in its struggle for human liberation, Marxism must develop continuously along with the proletarian liberation movement. Lenin believed that Marx’s doctrine revealed the world-historical role of the proletariat and was the theory and program of the workers’ movement in all countries. As for the movement, “it must be viewed not only from the perspective of the past, but also from the perspective of the future.” [31]31 A reference to the danger of the Party changing its fundamental nature and direction; the phrase is drawn from Xi Jinping’s speeches on political line and ideological security. That is to say, the “dynamic” workers’ movement must be examined from an extremely broad perspective, always ready to perfect and mature one’s revolutionary theory by generalizing new experience. This is necessary both to serve the proletariat in completing its own cause of emancipation and to respond to real problems in the revolutionary process so as to adapt to the continuous advance of the revolutionary movement. Lenin pointed out that Marx himself appeared in the workers’ movement as a “practical adviser,” thereby “raising the entire movement to a higher stage.” [32]32 “Comprehensively building a modern socialist country” refers to the goal of achieving socialist modernization by the middle of the 21st century, as articulated in the strategic plan of the CPC. Second, from the perspective of the stages of the era’s evolution, Marxism develops in accordance with the development of the proletariat’s liberation struggle in the given era. Based on the reality of world political economy and overall international issues, Lenin linked the general international situation of different eras with the tasks of revolutionaries. Taking “conspicuous historical events” as dividing points, he held that the era after the First World War differed qualitatively from the previous historical period in its main objective content and developmental trends. This directly determined that the workers’ movements of the two eras had their own distinct characteristics in form and content, which required that theoretical predictions, assumptions, policies, and strategies inevitably change and develop with the changes and development of concrete practical problems. Specifically, from the Paris Commune to the eve of the First World War, it was an era when new classes slowly gathered strength and contradictions among the great powers gradually deepened but had not yet become acute; hence it was a peaceful era characterized by “lifelessness,” “stagnation,” and “tortoise-like development.” Lenin pointed out: “Marx attached great importance to the use of legal means of struggle in an era of political stagnation and the dominance of legality tolerated by the bourgeoisie.” [33] In his later years, Engels also repeatedly emphasized the need to use “new weapons,” including universal suffrage and the parliamentary system, for peaceful and legal struggle. As for the era after the outbreak of the First World War, Lenin pointed out that its social content and class content were entirely different; it was “the era of imperialism, the era of convulsions and convulsion-caused by imperialism,” [34] which was inaugurating a new epoch of social revolution. Therefore, starting from this general foundation, supporting and advancing all revolutionary actions, and theoretically occupying and consolidating positions were the inescapable responsibilities of socialists. During this period, Lenin continued to formulate the theory and strategy of the Bolshevik Party on issues of war and revolution, continued to point out the path of revolution and the means of international unity, and further developed the doctrine on imperialism and socialist revolution.

第二，马克思主义是与无产阶级地位和使命相适应的科学理论形态，要在无产阶级争取自身解放的斗争中不断丰富和发展。一是从工人运动的整个进程看，无产阶级低贱的经济地位会“无可遏止地推动它”争取自身的最终解放，马克思主义作为无产阶级争取人类解放的理论武器，必然要随着无产阶级解放运动不断发展。列宁认为，马克思的学说揭示了无产阶级的世界历史作用，是世界各国工人运动的理论和纲领，而对运动，“不仅要从过去的观点来看，而且要从将来的观点来看”。即是说，要用极其广阔的视角来考察“动态的”工人运动，随时准备通过概括新的经验使自己的革命理论臻于完善和成熟，这既是服务无产阶级完成自身解放事业的需要，更是回应革命进程中现实问题以适应革命运动不断向前推进的需要。列宁指出，马克思本人是以“实际的顾问”的姿态出现在工人运动中，从而“把整个运动提到了更高的阶段”的。二是从时代演进的阶段性看，马克思主义依据所处时代无产阶级解放斗争的发展而发展。列宁立足于世界政治经济的现实和国际整体问题，把不同时代下的国际总概况和革命者的任务联系起来，以“引人注目的历史事件”为分界点，认为第一次世界大战后的时代，其主要客观内容和发展趋势与前一历史分期有着质的不同，直接决定了两个时代的工人运动在形式和内容上有着各自明显的特点，这就要求理论上的预测、设想、政策和方略必然要随着具体实践问题的发展变化而发展变化。具体而言，从巴黎公社到第一次世界大战前，是新的阶级慢慢聚集力量、列强之间的矛盾逐渐加深但尚未尖锐的时代，因此是带有“死气沉沉”“停滞的”“龟行发展”的和平时代。列宁指出：“马克思十分重视在政治停滞和资产阶级所容许的合法性占统治地位的时代利用合法斗争手段。”恩格斯晚年也多次强调，要利用包括普选制、议会制在内的“新武器”进行和平合法的斗争。而对于第一次世界大战爆发之后的时代，列宁指出，其社会内容和阶级内容已经全然不同，是“帝国主义时代，是帝国主义发生动荡和由帝国主义引起动荡的时代”,正在开创一个社会革命的新纪元。因此，从这一总的基础出发，支持和推进一切革命行动，从理论上占领和巩固阵地，是社会党人不可推诿的责任。列宁在这个时期继续制定布尔什维克党在战争与革命问题上的理论和策略，继续指明革命的进程与国际联合的途径，进一步发展了关于帝国主义和社会主义革命问题的学说。

Third, Marxism is an open system that collides and exchanges with other ideological systems, and it never refuses to absorb all advanced ideas and theories that emerge in human development. Lenin believed that the history of philosophy and the history of social science have shown that the emergence of Marxism is inseparable from objective historical conditions and equally inseparable from certain ideological and theoretical conditions. First, Marxism emerged on the great road of world civilization’s development and is the inheritance and continuation of the crystallization of human wisdom and science. Lenin pointed out that Marx and Engels not only absorbed the scientific achievements of their great predecessors but also, under the new conditions of the changing times, solved major theoretical issues that had been raised but not resolved by them, thus representing “the latest achievements in science.” [35] Second, Marxism “never claimed to explain everything,” [36] but rather, with the development of cultural integration, it supplements and perfects its own theory. Lenin believed that exchanges in culture and ideas are premised on changes in material life, and the development of capitalism facilitated “the development and increasing frequency of various kinds of intercourse among them.” [37] Therefore, after the founding of scientific socialism, as the interconnectedness of the world continuously increased, it was necessary to combine the cultural background of the entire era and constantly critically examine the theoretical achievements of the same period.

第三，马克思主义是与其他思想体系相互碰撞、交流的开放体系，永不拒绝吸纳人类发展中所出现的一切先进思想和理论。列宁认为，哲学史和社会科学史已经表明，马克思主义的产生离不开客观的历史条件，同样离不开一定的思想理论条件。一是马克思主义在世界文明发展大道中产生，是人类智慧和科学结晶的继承与延续。列宁指出，马克思和恩格斯不仅汲取了以往伟大先驱的科学成就，并在时代变化的新条件下解决了由他们提出而又没能解决的重大理论课题，因此代表着“科学上的最新成就”。二是马克思主义“从来没有企求说明一切”,而是随着文化交融的发展，补充完善自己的理论。列宁认为，文化、观念上的交流是以物质生活的改变为前提的，资本主义的发展促成了“彼此间各种交往的发展和日益频繁”。因此，科学社会主义创立后，随着世界的联系性不断增强，必须要结合整个时代的文化背景，不断地批判考察同时代的理论成果。

VI. The Implications of Lenin’s Critique of “Freedom of Criticism”

六、列宁批判“批评自由”的启示

Lenin’s critique of “freedom of criticism” is a dialectical unity of critique and construction. It not only shattered the conspiracy of “freedom of criticism” with a firm, revolutionary, and thorough theory, winning the defensive counterattack on the ideological and political front, but also constructed Russian socialist ideology from multiple dimensions. It fully reflects the Marxist spirit of seeking truth from facts, continuous innovation, and independence, as well as the new contributions and theoretical creations made by true Marxists under new historical conditions. Xi Jinping pointed out: “To disrupt a society and sub

列宁对“批评自由”的批判，是批判性与建设性的辩证统一，不仅以坚定的、革命的、彻底的理论粉碎了“批评自由”的阴谋，打赢了思想政治战线的防御反击战，又多维度地建构了俄国社会主义意识形态，充分反映了实事求是、不断创新、独立自主的马克思主义精神，也反映了真正的马克思主义者在新的历史条件下所作的崭新贡献和理论创造。习近平指出：“搞乱一个社会、颠覆一个政权，往往先从意识形态领域打开缺口，先从搞乱人们思想入手。”这要求我们在新形势下必须牢牢把握列宁批判“批评自由”所运用的科学世界观与方法论，坚持立破并举、正本清源，更好统一思想、凝魂聚力，在中国式现代化道路上走出强国复兴的铿锵步伐。

First, at all times we must attach great importance to anti-Marxist trends of thought that fly the banner of Marxism. Lenin once concluded that Marxism, having passed through successive battles, grows ever more vigorous. This causes its enemies often to disguise themselves as Marxists, making it difficult for the masses to distinguish the true from the false and the good from the evil. In the course of China’s social development, there likewise exist theoretical currents and surging social trends packaged as Marxism, which “attempt to make our Party change its banner and change its name.” [31]31 A reference to the danger of the Party changing its fundamental nature and direction; the phrase is drawn from Xi Jinping’s speeches on political line and ideological security. This demands that our eyes be especially sharp, our minds especially clear, that we hold fast to the “key battlefield” of ideology, remain vigilant against and guard against various hostile ideas that disturb people’s thinking through disguise, persist in guiding the masses with thorough theory, and wage struggle with correct theory. Only thus can we achieve total victory in the struggle in the realm of thought and public opinion.

第一，任何时候都要高度重视打着马克思主义旗号的反马克思主义思潮。列宁曾总结到，马克思主义经过历次战斗愈发生机勃勃。这使得它的敌人往往把自己装扮成马克思主义者使群众难辨真假、难分善恶。中国社会发展过程中同样存在包装成马克思主义的理论流派和暗流涌动的社会思潮，它们“企图让我们党改旗易帜、改名换姓”。这要求我们眼睛要特别明亮，头脑要特别清醒，坚守好意识形态的“关键战场”,警惕和防范各种敌对思想通过伪装扰乱人们的思想，坚持用彻底的理论引导群众，用正确的理论进行斗争。如此，才能取得思想舆论领域斗争全胜。

Second, hold fast to the people’s standpoint and forge a theory that the people love, identify with, and grasp. The activities of the masses constitute the foundation of all social life. Only by holding fast to the people’s standpoint can theory be most persuasive and most effective, and can it maximally unleash the role of “material force.” The people-centered character is the distinctive quality of Lenin’s thought and theory. Persisting in acting for the masses, trusting the masses, and relying on the masses, he fully consolidated the revolutionary potential hidden deep within the Russian people and swept away the obstacles that hindered the entire people from striving for political freedom. On the new journey, only by adhering to the primacy of the people and fully expressing the thoughts and wishes of the people in theoretical thought can we maximally unite people’s hearts, gather people’s strength, and continuously create new prospects for the development of our cause.

第二，坚守人民立场，形成人民所喜爱、认同和掌握的理论。人民群众的活动构成整个社会生活的基础，只有坚守人民立场，理论才最具说服力、最有作为，才能最大限度发挥出“物质力量”的作用。人民性是列宁思想理论的鲜明本色，坚持为了群众、相信群众、依靠群众，从而充分凝聚起深藏于俄国人民中的革命潜力，扫除了阻碍全体人民争取政治自由的路障。在新的征程上，只有坚持人民至上，充分表达人民心声和愿望的思想理论，才能最大限度地凝聚人心、汇聚民力，不断开创事业发展的新局面。

Third, firmly establish a “complete and clear worldview” and resolutely struggle against acts that corrode the healthy organism of Marxism. Because he possessed a worldview that made no compromise with any reactionary force, when Lenin understood Marxism he first regarded it as a rigorous block and an indivisible whole, and on this basis he more deeply understood the nature, characteristics, and functions of each of its component parts, effectively resisting the fashionable revision of bourgeois “science.” Today, creating oppositions among the classical writers, or degrading scientific theory into humanism and the theory of alienation, are all customary methods by which hostile thought dismembers Marxism. In response to this, we must fully unleash the role of the worldview as the “master switch” and the “main gate” as an ideological weapon, and safeguard the complete unity of Marxism.

第三，牢固树立“完整的明确的世界观”,坚决同腐蚀马克思主义健康机体的行为作斗争。由于有着不与任何反动势力相妥协的世界观，列宁在认识马克思主义时，首先将其看做一个严密的板块和不可分割的整体，以此为基础更深刻地认识各个组成部分的性质、特点和功能，有力地抵御了资产阶级“科学”的时髦修正。如今，制造经典作家的对立，抑或是将科学理论贬抑为人本主义和异化理论，都是敌对思想肢解马克思主义的惯用手法。对此，必须充分发挥世界观“总开关”和“总闸门”的思想利器作用，维护马克思主义的完整统一。

Fourth, adhere to proceeding from reality in everything, and deepen theory into the practical activity of transforming the objective world. Practice has a fundamental and decisive significance for theory. Lenin insisted on using the scientific view of practice to analyze Russian reality, grasping the most decisive facts from the myriad of complex matters, and at the same time insisted on taking revolutionary theory as the guide for action, so that the great power of scientific theory was fully manifested in revolutionary practical activity. Under the new historical conditions, we must still use the scientific view of practice to grasp the laws of history, plan the development of the cause, and respond to risks and challenges, so that scientific theory can play a huge role in the practice of comprehensively building a modern socialist country.

第四，坚持一切从实际出发，把理论深入到改造客观世界的实践活动中去。实践之于理论，具有根本性和决定性的意义。列宁坚持用科学的实践观解析俄国现实，从千头万绪的复杂事物中把握最具决定意义的事实，又坚持以革命的理论作为行动的指南，使科学理论的伟力在革命实践活动中充分彰显出来。在新的历史条件下，依然要用科学的实践观掌握历史规律、谋划事业发展、应对风险挑战，使科学理论在全面建设社会主义现代化国家的实践中发挥出巨大作用。

Fifth, profoundly observe the trends of the times and human progress, and constantly open up the path of Marxism. Compared with the pedantic fallacy of the opportunists who use rigid and unchanging theoretical frameworks to prescribe the development of world history, Lenin did not stop at existing theories, but made major developments to Marxism with new important discourses, thoughts, and conclusions. Today, the complexity of the problems we face and the difficulty of solving them have increased unprecedentedly, and the task of promoting theoretical innovation has not become lighter, but heavier. This requires us to both grasp the characteristics and laws of the changes of the times and absorb the latest valuable intellectual achievements created by humanity, promptly absorb new experiences and form new creations, so as to better lead the development of the times.

第五，深刻洞察时代发展和人类进步的潮流，不断开辟马克思主义前进的道路。相比于机会主义者用一成不变的理论框框规定世界历史发展的迂腐谬论，列宁没有停留在已有的理论上，而是以新的重要话语、思想和结论，对马克思主义作出重大发展。今天，我们所面临问题的复杂程度、解决问题的艰巨程度空前增大，推进理论创新的任务不是轻了，而是更重了。这要求我们既要把握时代变化的特点和规律，又要吸收人类创造的最新的有价值的思想成果，及时吸收新经验、形成新创造，更好引领时代的发展。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心