Lenin’s Critique of Erroneous Trends of Thought on the Question of Russia’s Path of Development

From the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, “Whither Russia?” became a fiercely debated question in Russian intellectual circles. The essence of this debate was whether economically and culturally backward Russia should choose capitalism or socialism on its path of development, and how to view and handle the relationship between socialism and capitalism. Around this question, Russia first saw, before the October Revolution, the populism that advocated a “non-capitalist path” and the “legal Marxism” that extolled the “eternity” of capitalism. After the victory of the October Revolution, there emerged figures such as Plekhanov, Kautsky, and Sukhanov, who questioned, attacked, and decried Lenin’s leadership of the October Revolution, the establishment of Soviet power, and the construction of socialism, giving rise to such erroneous trends as the “theory of historical catastrophe,” the “theory of premature birth,” “economic determinism,” and, on the question of the New Economic Policy, “petty-bourgeois reformism” and “petty-bourgeois revolutionism.” These erroneous trends of thought seriously undermined the rationality and legitimacy of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) leading the people in revolution, seizing power, and carrying out socialist construction, causing great ideological confusion for Russia’s social development. To clear away the ideological fog on Russia’s socialist development path, Lenin subjected these erroneous trends of thought to profound critique. Under new historical conditions, revisiting Lenin’s critique of erroneous trends of thought on Russia’s path of development and the ideological viewpoints he elaborated in the course of that critique holds important practical significance.

19世纪末到20世纪初，“俄国向何处去？”成为俄国思想界激烈争论的问题。这一争论的实质是，经济文化落后的俄国在发展道路上究竟是应该选择资本主义还是社会主义以及如何看待和处理社会主义与资本主义的关系。围绕这一问题，俄国先是在十月革命前出现了主张“非资本主义道路”的民粹主义和颂扬资本主义“永恒论”的“合法马克思主义”，十月革命胜利后又出现普列汉诺夫、考茨基、苏汉诺夫等人质疑、攻击和唱衰列宁领导十月革命、建立苏维埃政权和进行社会主义建设的“历史灾难论”“早产论”“经济决定论”以及新经济政策问题上的“小资产阶级改良主义”和“小资产阶级革命主义”。这些错误思潮严重消解俄共（布）领导人民进行革命、夺取政权及开展社会主义建设的合理性和正当性，给俄国社会发展造成极大思想困扰。为廓清俄国社会主义发展道路上的思想迷雾，列宁对这些错误思潮进行了深刻的批判。新的历史条件下，重温列宁在俄国发展道路上对错误思潮的批判及在批判中阐发的思想观点具有重要的现实意义。

I. Criticizing the Populist “Non-Capitalist Path,” Emphasizing That Backward Russia Must Move Toward Socialism by Harnessing the Progressive Role of Capitalism and Eliminating Feudal Remnants

一、批判民粹主义的“非资本主义道路”，强调落后的俄国要通过发挥资本主义进步作用和清除封建残余走向社会主义

In the second half of the 19th century, with the rapid development of European capitalism and the beginning of the spread of Marxism in Russia, a debate over “Whither Russia?” unfolded in Russian intellectual circles. In this debate, a relatively influential school of thought emerged, represented by Herzen, Chernyshevsky, and Danielson, namely the Populists. This school was deeply distressed by Russia’s backwardness, yet the disasters capitalism had inflicted on humanity also filled them with disappointment. Consequently, they fantasized about bypassing capitalism and relying on the Russian village commune, still based on small-scale peasant production, to transition directly to socialism. For instance, Herzen pointed out: “What we call Russian socialism is a socialism that originates from the land and the life of the peasant, from the fact that every peasant actually has a share of land, from the redistribution of land, from the communal ownership of land and the management of the commune.” [1]1 Herzen, Alexander (1812–1870): Russian writer and thinker, often considered the “father of Russian populism.” Chernyshevsky, Nikolai (1828–1889): Russian revolutionary democrat and materialist philosopher. Danielson, Nikolai (1844–1918): Russian economist and populist theorist, translator of Marx’s *Capital* into Russian. Chernyshevsky also regarded the Russian peasant commune as a “means for a new stage of development” that would transition to “a Western European capitalist society higher than class antagonism.” [2]2 “Legal Marxism”: a trend in 1890s Russia that used Marxist phrases to defend capitalist development while rejecting the revolutionary conclusions of Marxism; its leading figures included Peter Struve. Danielson and others believed that Russia simply lacked “the most basic conditions for the development of capitalist production.” [3]3 Plekhanov, Georgi (1856–1918): “father of Russian Marxism,” later a Menshevik who opposed the October Revolution. Kautsky, Karl (1854–1938): leading German-Austrian Marxist theorist of the Second International, later criticized by Lenin as a “renegade.” Sukhanov, Nikolai (1882–1940): Russian economist and journalist, author of *Notes on the Revolution*, whose criticisms of the Bolshevik seizure of power were rebutted by Lenin in his 1923 article “Our Revolution.” All of this, in summary, amounted to “advocating another path for Russia’s development, namely the non-capitalist path.” [4]4 “Theory of premature birth” (早产论): the argument, made by Plekhanov and others, that the October Revolution was “premature” because Russia lacked the economic prerequisites for socialism. Lenin considered this “a reactionary and harmful theory, because it throws social thought into confusion, fosters stagnation and all sorts of Asiatic things,” [5]5 “Economic determinism”: a vulgar Marxist view that reduces historical development solely to economic factors, ignoring the role of political will and revolutionary action; Lenin attacked this in his late writings. and therefore argued that it must be resolutely combated ideologically.

19世纪下半叶，随着欧洲资本主义快速发展以及马克思主义开始在俄国传播，俄国思想界展开了一场“俄国向何处去”的争论。在争论中，出现一个以赫尔岑、车尔尼雪夫斯基、丹尼尔逊为代表的影响比较大的思想派别，即民粹派。这一派别十分痛心于俄国的落后，但资本主义给人类造成的灾难又令他们感到失望，因而幻想不经过资本主义、依靠仍然是小农生产方式的俄国村社直接过渡到社会主义。比如，赫尔岑指出：“我们称之为俄国社会主义的是这样一种社会主义：它来源于土地和农民的生活，来源于每个农民实际有一份土地，来源于土地的再分配，来源于村社占有土地和村社的管理”。[1] 车尔尼雪夫斯基也把俄国农民公社视为过渡到“高于阶级对立的西欧资本主义社会”的“新的发展阶段的手段”[2]。丹尼尔逊等认为俄国根本不具备“发展资本主义生产的最起码的条件”[3] 等。所有这些归纳起来，就是“鼓吹俄国发展的另一条道路，即非资本主义的道路”[4]。列宁认为这是“一种反动的和有害的理论，因为它使社会思想发生混乱，助长停滞现象和各种亚洲式的东西”[5]，因而主张对其必须进行坚决的思想斗争。

On the one hand, Lenin criticized the Populist “non-capitalist path” as an “erroneous” “socialist utopia” representing the interests of Russia’s small producers. According to the Marxist theory of social formations, the driving force governing the succession of human societies is the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, with the ultimate determining factor being the level of development of the productive forces. That is, the hand mill gives you feudal society, the steam mill gives you capitalist industrial society, and socialism, as a social formation higher than capitalism, necessarily presupposes highly developed productive forces. Yet the Populists advocated relying on the village commune, based on small-scale production, to transition directly to socialism. This could not but be described as a reactionary trend of thought that violated the laws of social development. Its starting point was not the liberation of the working people, which socialism pursues, but the defense of petty-bourgeois interests. On this point, Lenin’s critique of the Populist representative Herzen was incisive: “Herzen regarded the emancipation of the peasants with land, communal landownership, and the peasants’ idea of a ‘right to land’ as ‘socialism’… there is not a grain of socialism in it. It is, like the various forms of ‘Western European socialism of 1848,’ a sentimental phrase and a pious wish expressing the revolutionary spirit of the bourgeois peasant democrats of Russia.” [6]6 “Petty-bourgeois reformism” and “petty-bourgeois revolutionism”: two opposed but equally erroneous tendencies Lenin identified in debates over the New Economic Policy (NEP, 1921–1928) — the former wanting to abandon socialism for capitalism, the latter wanting to abolish NEP and return to “war communism” methods. The “Western European socialism of 1848” referred to here is the petty-bourgeois socialism fiercely criticized by Marx and Engels in the *Communist Manifesto*. It refers to the petty bourgeoisie of Western Europe in the 1840s, who, lamenting the worsening of their own status and interests in modern bourgeois society, always criticized capitalism from a petty-bourgeois perspective and yardstick, fantasizing about returning to the old small-scale mode of production and idyllic relations. Marx and Engels regarded it as a “reactionary and at the same time utopian” socialism, because they “try to force back the modern means of production and exchange into the framework of the old property relations that have been, and are, burst asunder by them.” [7]7 “Asiatic things”: a term used by Marx and Lenin to refer to backward, despotic, and stagnant features of pre-capitalist societies, especially in Asia, as opposed to the dynamic but contradictory development of Western capitalism. In Lenin’s view, Russian Populism, which regarded the Russian village commune as the cornerstone for transition to socialism, was essentially identical to the petty-bourgeois socialism of Western Europe in 1848. Regarding the essence of Populism, Lenin clearly stated: “Its content, however, represents the interests and views of the Russian small producer, i.e., the petty bourgeois… One face looks to the past, wanting to consolidate his small economy… the other face looks to the future, hating the capitalism that is ruining him.” [8]8 “Legal Marxism” (легальный марксизм) was a current of Russian Marxist thought in the 1890s that used Marxist terminology to argue for the progressive role of capitalism in Russia while rejecting revolutionary conclusions, such as the necessity of proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Its leading figure was Pyotr Struve. Regarding the reactionary nature of Populism, Lenin analyzed: “It is reactionary because it strives to preserve its own petty-bourgeois position, to hinder and turn back the country’s development along capitalist lines.” [9]9 The “village commune” (община) refers to the traditional Russian peasant communal landholding system, which the populists (narodniki) idealized as a potential basis for a non-capitalist transition to socialism. Regarding the utopian nature of Populism, Lenin commented: The Populist position reflected the “illusory hopes” of millions of small working people deeply exploited by feudalism “to ‘wipe out’ the new capitalist exploiters as well,” but “this democracy, as a socialist utopia, is erroneous.” [10]10 Nikolay Chernyshevsky (1828–1889) was a Russian revolutionary democrat, materialist philosopher, and utopian socialist writer, whose ideas influenced the populist movement.

一方面，列宁批判民粹主义“非资本主义道路”是代表俄国小生产者利益的“错误的”“社会主义乌托邦”。根据马克思主义社会形态理论，支配人类社会更替的动力是生产力和生产关系的矛盾运动，最终的决定性因素是生产力的发展水平，即手推磨产生的是封建社会，蒸汽机产生的是资本主义大工业社会，社会主义作为高于资本主义的社会形态必然以高度发达的生产力为前提。但民粹派却主张依靠小生产方式为主的村社直接过渡到社会主义，这不能说不是一种违背社会发展规律的反动思潮，其出发点并不是社会主义所追求的劳动者的解放而是维护小资产阶级利益。关于这一点，列宁对民粹主义代表人物赫尔岑的批判可谓一针见血：“赫尔岑把农民连带土地的解放，把村社土地占有制和农民的‘土地权’思想看做‘社会主义’，……是没有一点社会主义气味的。它也像西欧‘1848年的社会主义’的各种形式一样，是一种表示俄国的资产阶级农民民主派的革命性的温情的词句和善良的愿望。”[6] 这里的“西欧‘1848年的社会主义’”是马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中猛烈批判的小资产阶级社会主义，指的是19世纪40年代的西欧小资产阶级，由于哀伤于自身地位和利益在现代资产阶级社会日益恶化，总是以小资产阶级的眼光和尺度批判资本主义，幻想回到过去的小生产方式和田园诗歌般的关系。马克思恩格斯将其视为“反动的，同时又是空想”的社会主义，因为他们是“企图重新把现代的生产资料和交换手段硬塞到已被它们突破而且必然被突破的旧的所有制关系的框子里去”[7]。在列宁看来，俄国的民粹主义把俄国村社看作向社会主义过渡的基石，这和1848年时的西欧小资产阶级社会主义可谓如出一辙。就民粹主义的实质，列宁明确指出：“其内容则是代表俄国小生产者即小资产者的利益和观点。……一副面孔看着过去，想巩固自己的小经济……另一副面孔则看着未来，仇视使他破产的资本主义。”[8] 就民粹主义的反动性，列宁分析说：“它是反动的，因为它极力保存自己的小资产阶级地位，力图阻止和扭转国家朝着资本主义方向的发展。”[9] 就民粹主义的空想性，列宁评论道：民粹主义的主张反映了千百万深受封建剥削的小资产阶级劳动者“要把资本主义新剥削者‘一并’消灭掉的虚幻的冀望”，但“这种民主主义作为社会主义乌托邦是错误的”[10]。

On the other hand, Lenin forcefully criticized the “theory of the artificiality of capitalism” and the “theory of the destructiveness of capitalism” spread by populism, profoundly elucidating the objective inevitability and historical progressiveness of capitalist development in Russia. First, in response to the liberal populists’ “theory of the artificiality of capitalism” in Russia—that is, the absurd claim that capitalism “in the West is a process of development, while in our country it is transplantation and imitation” and that “Russia lacks even the minimal conditions for the development of capitalist production”[11]11 “Legal Marxism” (легальный марксизм) was a trend of thought in Russia in the 1890s whose proponents used Marxist terminology in legal publications but sought to justify capitalism and oppose revolutionary struggle, later evolving into liberalism.—Lenin wrote with great urgency, proving with irrefutable facts that capitalism in Russia, as an inevitable result of the development of commodity production, had already become a dominant mode of production both in the countryside and in the cities, thereby forcefully demonstrating that “the development of capitalism is not only possible but inevitable.”[12]12 The Second International (1889–1916) was an international organization of socialist and workers’ parties. The Mensheviks were a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party that opposed Lenin’s Bolsheviks, advocating a more gradual, democratic path to socialism. Second, in response to the “theory of the destructiveness of capitalism” propagated by the populists—that is, the view that capitalism in Russia “has become a means of exploiting the labor of the people for the private interests of a tiny handful who not only play no progressive historical role but, on the contrary, hinder the normal development of industry”[13]13 “On Our Revolution” (О нашей революции) is a 1923 article by Lenin, written shortly before his death, defending the October Revolution against criticisms from Menshevik and Second International theorists.—Lenin criticized it as “being incapable of explaining capitalism, indulging in fantasies instead of being willing to study and clarify reality, and consequently inevitably negating the significance and power of capitalism.”[14]14 The “Change of Landmarks” (Russian: *Smena vekh*) group was a current among Russian émigré intellectuals in the early 1920s who argued that the Soviet regime was evolving into a normal bourgeois state and urged cooperation with it. He emphasized that “the progressive role of capitalism lies precisely in its destruction of the old, narrow conditions of life that made producers dull-witted and incapable of controlling their own destiny.”[15]15 Nikolai Ustryalov (1890–1937) was a leading ideologist of the “Change of Landmarks” movement, a former Constitutional Democrat who advocated acceptance of the Soviet regime on the grounds that it would lead to national revival and capitalist development. To this end, Lenin specifically used a comparative method to explain: “One need only think of the astonishing dispersal of small producers, the inevitable consequence of this patriarchal agriculture, to be convinced of the progressiveness of capitalism, for it thoroughly destroys the old economic forms and ways of life, together with their long-standing stagnation and inertia, destroys the settled state of the peasant trapped in medieval barriers, and creates new social classes which, out of necessity, strive to link up, unite, and actively participate in the entire economic (and not only economic) life of the country and the whole world.”[16]16 The Eleventh Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), held in March–April 1922, was the last congress Lenin attended; it focused on consolidating the New Economic Policy and combating internal and external threats to the Party’s direction. Here, Lenin profoundly elucidated that the progressiveness of capitalism lies in its fundamental transformation of the economic methods and ways of life that had caused Russia’s prolonged stagnation and inertia, thereby not only greatly promoting the rapid development of the productive forces but also giving rise to a new class with a high degree of historical initiative—the proletariat. When analyzing why Chernyshevsky was a utopian socialist, Lenin clearly pointed out that his limitation lay in his failure to recognize that “only the development of capitalism and the proletariat can create the material conditions and social forces for the realization of socialism.”[17]17 The Twelfth All-Russian Conference of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), held in August 1922, adopted resolutions on Party unity and on combating anti-Soviet parties and tendencies, including the “Change of Landmarks” group. He thus profoundly indicated that the immense development of the productive forces brought about by capitalism and the growing strength of the proletariat are indispensable material conditions and social forces for the realization of socialism. Without highly developed productive forces, and without the maturation of the proletariat as the class force for achieving social transformation, any attempt to realize socialism on the basis of the village commune was doomed to be a utopian political fantasy. At this point, through his forceful critique of the populist “theory of the artificiality of capitalism” and “theory of the destructiveness of capitalism,” Lenin not only profoundly elucidated the inevitability and progressiveness of capitalist development in Russia, arguing that the inherent contradictions of capitalism “by no means exclude the possibility of capitalism, nor do they exclude its progressiveness compared with all previous socio-economic systems,”[18]18 The “Change of Landmarks” (Smena Vekh) group was a current of thought among Russian émigré intellectuals in the 1920s who argued that the Bolsheviks’ New Economic Policy represented a retreat from revolutionary socialism toward a bourgeois-nationalist evolution, and that intellectuals should reconcile with Soviet power on this basis. but also inherently contained his correct answer to the question of how an economically and culturally backward Russia should treat capitalism on its path toward modern civilization, namely: “The first demand to be realized is to promote the development of capitalism, to clear away feudal remnants for capitalism.”[19]19 A reference to the Thermidorian Reaction of 1794 in the French Revolution, when the radical Jacobin regime of Robespierre was overthrown, often used by Marxists to denote a counter-revolutionary reversal within a revolutionary process.

另一方面，列宁有力批判了民粹主义散布的“资本主义人为论”和“资本主义破坏论”，深刻阐明了俄国资本主义发展的客观必然性和历史进步性。其一，针对自由主义民粹派的俄国资本主义“人为论”，即认为资本主义“在西方是一个发展过程，在我国则是移植、是模仿”“俄国不存在发展资本主义生产的最起码的条件”[11] 等荒谬言论，列宁奋笔疾书，以无可辩驳的事实证明，俄国资本主义作为商品生产发展的必然结果，无论是在乡村还是城市，已经成为一种占统治地位的生产方式，从而有力论证了“资本主义的发展已不仅是可能的，而且是必然的”[12]。其二，针对民粹主义者鼓吹的“资本主义破坏论”，即认为资本主义在俄国“变成了为一小撮不但不起任何进步的历史作用，相反却阻碍工业正常发展的人的私利而剥削人民劳动的方式”[13]，列宁批判其是“没有本领解释资本主义，耽于空想而不愿研究和弄清现实，结果必然否定资本主义的意义和力量”[14]，并强调“资本主义的进步作用正在于它破坏了使得生产者愚钝和没有可能自己掌握自己命运的、旧有的狭隘生活条件”[15]。对此，列宁特地用对比的方法加以阐释：“只要想到小生产者的惊人的分散性这种宗法式农业的必然后果，就可以确信资本主义的进步性，因为它彻底破坏了旧的经济形式和生活方式以及它们长期以来停滞不前和因循守旧的状态，破坏了陷于中世纪壁垒中的农民的定居状态，造成了新的社会阶级，这些阶级根据需要而竭力联系起来，联合起来，并积极参加国家和全世界的整个经济（而且不只是经济）生活。”[16] 这里，列宁深刻阐明，资本主义的进步性就在于它从根本上改变了导致俄国长期停滞落后和因循守旧的经济方式和生活方式，进而不仅极大地促进了生产力的快速发展，也造就出了一个具有高度历史主动性的新兴阶级即无产阶级。在分析车尔尼雪夫斯基为什么是空想社会主义者时，列宁明确指出其局限性就在于没能认识到“只有资本主义和无产阶级的发展，才能为社会主义的实现创造物质条件和社会力量”[17]，从而深刻指出，由资本主义所带来的生产力的极大发展和无产阶级的日益壮大，是实现社会主义的必不可少的物质条件和社会力量。没有高度发展的生产力，没有作为实现社会变革的阶级力量即无产阶级的成熟，试图在村社基础上实现社会主义，注定是乌托邦式的政治幻想。至此，列宁通过对民粹主义的“资本主义人为论”“资本主义破坏论”的有力批判，不仅深刻阐明了俄国资本主义发展的必然性和进步性，认为资本主义的固有矛盾“决不排除资本主义的可能性，也决不排除它与从前各种社会经济制度相比起来的进步性”[18]，而且也内在地包含着他对经济文化落后的俄国在走向现代文明道路上如何对待资本主义的正确解答，即：“首先应该实现的要求是促进资本主义的发展，替资本主义清除封建残余。”[19]

II. Criticizing “Legal Marxism,” Which Preached the “Theory of the Eternity” of Capitalism, and Emphasizing the Historical Transience of Russian Capitalism

二、批判宣扬资本主义“永恒论”的“合法马克思主义”，强调俄国资本主义具有历史暂时性

In the debate over “Whither Russia?” there also emerged in Russian intellectual circles a school of thought diametrically opposed to the populist position, represented by Struve, which extremely praised capitalism. This school often used Marx’s theoretical viewpoints in legally published newspapers and magazines—that is, those permitted by the tsarist government—to argue for the inevitability, superiority, and eternity of capitalism. Lenin therefore called it “Legal Marxism.”

在关于“俄国向何处去”的争论中，俄国思想界还出现了一个与民粹主义主张截然相反的以司徒卢威为代表的极度赞美资本主义的思想派别。这一派别经常在当时合法的也就是经过沙皇政府准许的报纸杂志上，利用马克思的理论观点论证资本主义必然性、优越性、永恒性，列宁因此将其称之为“合法马克思主义”。

Because “Legal Marxism” also strongly opposed the populist “non-capitalist path” thesis, Lenin adopted a positive attitude toward “Legal Marxism” in his struggle against populism, praising Struve’s view that the capitalist commodity economy “is not only a negative but also a positive great cultural force” as “completely correct.”[20] However, there was a fundamental divergence between them regarding the prospects for capitalist development. Specifically, Lenin criticized the populist “non-capitalist path” because he believed that relying on the village commune to build socialism was a pipe dream, and he argued that Russia should move toward socialism by fully utilizing the progressive role of capitalism and clearing away feudal remnants. In contrast, “Legal Marxism” turned its critique of the populists into a eulogy for the capitalist system. They only described the “historical inevitability” and “rationality” of capitalist development in Russia, while avoiding discussion of the profound contradictions of Russian capitalism and the disasters it caused. They denied the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, believed that capitalism could last forever, and advocated that Russia should take the capitalist path of development. In this regard, Rosa Luxemburg incisively pointed out that the Russian “Legal Marxists” had overdone their victory over their opponents, the “populists.” She argued that the original question of the debate was “whether capitalism in general, and capitalism in Russia in particular, had the possibility of development,” but the “Legal Marxists,” in proving the possibility of capitalist development in Russia, theoretically proved that “capitalism could exist forever.”[21]

由于“合法马克思主义”也强烈反对民粹主义的“非资本主义道路”主张，因而列宁在反对民粹主义的斗争中，对“合法马克思主义”持积极态度，赞扬司徒卢威提出的资本主义商品经济“不仅是一种否定的而且是一种肯定的巨大文化力量”的观点是“完全正确的”[20]，但二者对资本主义发展前景的认识却存在根本分歧。具体地说，列宁批判民粹主义的“非资本主义道路”，是在于他认为依靠村社建立社会主义是痴人说梦，主张俄国应通过充分发挥资本主义的进步作用和清除封建残余走向社会主义。而“合法马克思主义”则把对民粹派的批判变成了对资本主义制度的颂扬。他们只描述资本主义在俄国发展的“历史必然性”和“合理性”，避而不谈俄国资本主义存在的深刻矛盾及其造成的灾难，否认无产阶级革命和无产阶级专政，认为资本主义能够永世长存，主张俄国走资本主义发展道路。对此，罗莎·卢森堡曾精辟指出，俄国“合法马克思主义”者对他们的论敌“民粹派”的胜利过了头，认为原本二者争论的“问题是资本主义就一般而论以及资本主义特别在俄国发展是否有发展的可能”，而“合法马克思主义”者在证明资本主义在俄国发展的可能性时，却从理论上证明“资本主义能够永远存在下去”[21]。

While affirming the historical progressiveness of Russian capitalism, Lenin stressed that one must not for a moment “forget its inherent profound social contradictions.”[22] Lenin’s critique of “Legal Marxism” was precisely carried out through a deep exposure of the “inherent profound social contradictions” of Russian capitalism and their harms. For example: in response to the “Legal Marxists” who vigorously preached that capitalism had not caused the impoverishment of the masses and that the income gap between the propertied and the propertyless was narrowing rather than widening, Lenin analyzed and pointed out that this was an attempt to fool and deceive the working masses by beautifying capitalism, because although workers’ incomes had increased somewhat compared to the past, the growth in the necessary expenses workers paid for their labor power far exceeded the increase in workers’ wages, “the wealth of capitalist society grows at an incredible speed, while at the same time the masses of workers are increasingly impoverished”;[23] in response to the “Legal Marxists” who propagated that Marx’s theory of capitalist economic crises was outdated and that capitalist class contradictions were showing a trend of weakening and easing, Lenin satirized those spreading such views as “the most shortsighted people,” because “the forms, sequence, and circumstances of crises have changed, but crises remain an inevitable component of the capitalist system,”[24] and so on. There are many such exposures. Lenin’s critique of the various eulogistic statements about capitalism by the “Legal Marxists” was intended to show that, although capitalism has progressiveness, it is not an ideal social system without flaws; no matter how the “Legal Marxists” beautify capitalism, they cannot conceal its profound contradictions and the disasters they cause. Moreover, due to the existence of remnants of serfdom in Russia, the contradictions inherent in capitalism manifested themselves in Russia more profoundly, complexly, and sharply than in Western European countries, causing “capital not only did not eliminate the oppression, exploitation, and poverty suffered by the masses, but created these disasters in new forms, and revived old disasters on a ‘modern’ basis.”[25] In a word, it was precisely the “profound and comprehensive social contradictions” of Russian capitalism that determined “the historical transience of this economic system.”[26] The “Legal Marxists’” hope that capitalism could last forever was also destined to be an illusory utopia. Lenin clearly pointed out on this: “The various contradictions of capitalism prove its historical transience and explain the conditions and causes of its disintegration and transformation into a higher form.”[27] This means that for backward Russia to move toward modern civilization, it must both see the progressiveness of capitalism and see the historical transience of capitalism; to sum up in one sentence, it must both fully utilize capitalism and transcend capitalism.

列宁在肯定俄国资本主义历史进步性的时候，强调丝毫也不能“忘记它固有的深刻的社会矛盾”[22]。列宁对“合法马克思主义”的批判正是通过对俄国资本主义所“固有的深刻的社会矛盾”及其危害的深刻揭露展开的。例如：针对“合法马克思主义”者极力鼓吹资本主义并没有造成群众的贫苦化以及有产者和无产者之间的收入差距不是在扩大而是在缩小的言论，列宁分析指出，这是试图通过美化资本主义愚弄和欺骗工人群众，因为工人的收入虽然相比于过去有一定增加，但工人支付劳动力必要费用的增长要远远超过工人工资的增加，“资本主义社会的财富以难于置信的速度增长着，与此同时工人群众却日益贫困化”[23]；针对“合法马克思主义”者宣扬马克思资本主义经济危机论已经过时、资本主义阶级矛盾呈减弱和缓和趋势的言论，列宁讽刺散布这样言论的人是“最近视的人”，因为“各个危机的形式、次序和情景是改变了，但是危机仍然是资本主义制度的不可避免的组成部分”[24] ，等等。这样的揭露还有很多。列宁对“合法马克思主义”种种颂扬资本主义言论的批判，旨在表明，虽然资本主义具有进步性，但它并不是尽善尽美的理想社会制度，无论“合法马克思主义”者怎样美化资本主义，都掩盖不了其存在的深刻矛盾及其造成的灾难。并且，由于俄国农奴制残余的存在，导致资本主义所固有的矛盾在俄国表现得比西欧国家更加深刻、复杂、尖锐，造成“资本不仅没有消除群众所受到的压迫、剥削、贫困，反而以新的形式制造了这些灾难，并且在‘现代的’基础上复活了旧的灾难”[25]。一句话，正是俄国资本主义“深刻的全面的社会矛盾”决定了“这种经济制度的历史暂时性”[26]。“合法马克思主义”希冀资本主义能够永世长存，注定也是一种虚幻的乌托邦。列宁对此明确指出：“资本主义的种种矛盾，证明了它的历史暂时性，说明了它瓦解和向高级形态转化的条件和原因。”[27] 这意味着，落后的俄国要走向现代文明，既要看到资本主义的进步性，又要看到资本主义的历史暂时性，归结起来一句话，就是既要充分利用资本主义又要超越资本主义。

III. Criticizing Plekhanov and Others’ “Theory of Historical Disaster,” “Theory of Premature Birth,” and “Economic Determinism” That Denied the October Revolution, Emphasizing That Backward Russia Could First Seize Power and Then Carry Out Socialist Construction

三、批判普列汉诺夫等人否定十月革命的“历史灾难论”“早产论”“经济决定论”，强调落后的俄国可以先夺权再进行社会主义建设

After the victory of the October Revolution, theorists of the Second International and the Mensheviks, such as Plekhanov, Kautsky, and Sukhanov, using the lack of objective preconditions for building socialism in backward Russia as their argument, vigorously questioned, attacked, and decried the October Revolution led by Lenin, the Soviet regime established, and the socialist construction carried out. Plekhanov believed that “Russian history has not yet ground the flour needed to bake the white-flour pie of socialism,”[28] pointing out that the October Revolution and the socialism it established were “the path of the greatest historical disaster.”[29] Kautsky attacked the socialist state established by the October Revolution as being like a “premature baby,” and believed that “a child born like this usually cannot survive.”[30] Sukhanov raised the argument that “Russia’s productive forces have not yet developed to the level where socialism can be implemented,”[31] and so on. These statements can be summarized as the “theory of premature birth,” the “theory of historical disaster,” and “economic determinism.” Their intention was to deny the legitimacy and rationality of Lenin leading the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in carrying out the revolution, establishing the Soviet regime, and conducting socialist construction. If allowed to develop, they would inevitably seriously shake the broad masses’ political identification with the Party and the Soviet regime, as well as the common ideological foundation of the Party leading the people in united struggle.

十月革命胜利后，普列汉诺夫、考茨基、苏汉诺夫等第二国际和孟什维克的理论家以落后的俄国缺乏建设社会主义客观前提为论据，大肆质疑、攻击和唱衰列宁领导的十月革命、建立的苏维埃政权和进行的社会主义建设。普列汉诺夫认为“俄国历史还没有磨出烤制社会主义的白面馅饼所需要的面粉” [28]，指出十月革命及其建立的社会主义是“最大的历史灾难的道路”[29]。考茨基则攻击十月革命所建立的社会主义国家像是一个“早产儿”，并认为“这样生下来的孩子，通常是活不成的”[30]。苏汉诺夫提出“俄国生产力还没有发展到可以实行社会主义的高度”[31] 等。这些言论可以概括为“早产论”“历史灾难论”“经济决定论”，其用意在于否定列宁领导俄共（布）进行革命和建立苏维埃政权、开展社会主义建设的正当性和合理性，如果任其发展，必将严重动摇广大群众对党和苏维埃政权的政治认同以及党带领人民团结奋斗的共同思想基础。

In response to the above statements by Plekhanov, Kautsky, Sukhanov, and others, Lenin criticized them for not understanding the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism. Although Lenin also believed that Russia’s economy and culture were very backward, he stressed: “If we say that because we admit the disparity between our country’s economic ‘strength’ and political strength, ‘therefore’ we should not seize power, that would be an irreparable mistake.”[32] Lenin pointed out that the reason this view was mistaken was that it mechanically understood the Marxist view that productive forces are the decisive factor in social development, taking only Russia’s level of development in isolation as the sole criterion for judging whether socialist revolution and socialist construction could be carried out, without examining the particularity, inevitability, and necessity of the Russian October Revolution from the perspectives of the international situation, historical conditions, and so on. Lenin criticized: “They all call themselves Marxists, but their understanding of Marxism is pedantic to the utmost degree. They do not understand at all the decisive thing in Marxism, namely, the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism.”[33] The “revolutionary dialectics” in Lenin’s words refers to the fact that the choice of revolution and development path cannot be completely rigidly bound to some inherent thought or unified path, but must be combined with the country’s actual conditions, and be adept at making choices as the situation changes. On this point, Lenin had clearly pointed out before the October Revolution: “All nations will inevitably move toward socialism, but the paths they take will not be exactly the same.”[34] In his final work, “On Our Revolution,” Lenin further clearly pointed out: “The general laws of world historical development not only do not in the least exclude the particularity of individual stages of development in their forms or order, but on the contrary presuppose it.”[35] Specifically for Russia, although economically Russia before the October Revolution had not yet reached the level for realizing socialism, at that time, due to the dark autocratic rule of the tsar and the inaction of the bourgeois provisional government, and also because Russia’s defeat in the First World War intensified the domestic crisis, various contradictions further intensified and sharpened, giving rise to surging revolutionary forces of workers and peasants and a revolutionary situation on the verge of eruption. Lenin believed that the Bolsheviks seizing the favorable opportunity for revolution, decisively launching the revolution and establishing the Soviet regime, not only did not violate the laws of human social development, but on the contrary embodied the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism and the Bolsheviks’ initiative spirit in leading the people to create history. Lenin thus asked rhetorically: “Driven by a hopeless situation, could they not rise up and fight, in order to at least gain some opportunity to win for themselves not entirely ordinary conditions for further developing civilization?”[36]

针对普列汉诺夫、考茨基、苏汉诺夫等人的上述言论，列宁批判其是不懂马克思主义的革命辩证法。虽然列宁也认为俄国经济文化非常落后，但他又强调：“如果说我们既然承认我国经济‘力量’和政治力量不相称，‘因而’就不应该夺取政权，那就犯了不可救药的错误。”[32] 列宁指出，这种观点之所以错误，就在于它机械地理解马克思主义关于生产力是社会发展决定性因素的观点，只是孤立地把俄国的发展水平作为判断是否能够进行社会主义革命和社会主义建设的唯一标准，没有从国际形势、历史条件等方面来考察俄国十月革命的特殊性、必然性和必要性。列宁批判道：“他们都自称马克思主义者，但是对马克思主义的理解却迂腐到无以复加的程度。马克思主义中有决定意义的东西，即马克思主义的革命辩证法，他们一点也不理解。”[33] 列宁话语中的“革命辩证法”指的是革命和发展道路的选择，不能完全拘泥于某种固有的思想和统一的道路，而要结合本国实际，善于随着形势的变化而做出选择。关于这一点，列宁在十月革命前就曾明确指出：“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。”[34] 在临终前的《论我国革命》中，列宁进一步明确指出：“世界历史发展的一般规律，不仅丝毫不排斥个别发展阶段在发展的形式或顺序上表现出特殊性，反而是以此为前提的。”[35] 具体到俄国来说，十月革命前的俄国虽然从经济条件上还没有达到实现社会主义的高度，但此时的俄国由于沙皇的黑暗专制统治和资产阶级临时政权的不作为，也由于俄国在第一次世界大战中战败加剧了国内危机，各种矛盾进一步加剧和激化，出现了汹涌澎湃的工农革命力量和一触即发的革命形势。列宁认为，布尔什维克抓住革命的有利时机，果断发动革命并建立苏维埃政权，不仅不违背人类社会发展规律，反而体现了马克思主义革命的辩证法和布尔什维克带领人民创造历史的主动精神。列宁就此反问道：“在毫无出路的处境逼迫下，难道他们就不能奋起斗争，以求至少获得某种机会去为自己争得进一步发展文明的并不十分寻常的条件吗？”[36]

It is necessary to point out that Lenin did not deny the view put forward by Plekhanov and others that Russia lacked the objective prerequisites for building socialism; on the contrary, he explicitly acknowledged that this view was indisputable. Furthermore, the disagreement between Lenin and Plekhanov and others did not lie in whether economically and culturally backward Russia possessed the civilizational prerequisites necessary for realizing socialism, but rather in whether such a Russia could carry out a socialist revolution and build socialism. On this question, Plekhanov and others dogmatically understood and rigidly adhered to Marx’s historical materialism, citing Russia’s lack of the economic conditions required for socialism as grounds for insisting that what Russia needed first was a bourgeois revolution, after which, by developing capitalism, the objective conditions needed for socialism would be created, and only then could a socialist revolution be launched and a socialist state power be established. Lenin, by contrast, argued that the proletariat and its party should give full play to the historical initiative, seize upon the favorable revolutionary situation and revolutionary opportunity to first take state power, and then strive to create the civilizational conditions conforming to the requirements of socialism, that is: “Since the building of socialism requires a certain level of culture… why cannot we first use revolutionary means to achieve the prerequisites for reaching that certain level, and then, on the basis of the workers’ and peasants’ power and the Soviet system, catch up with other nations?” [37] From this it can be seen that the significance of the October Revolution lay in the fact that Lenin’s Bolsheviks, under specific historical circumstances, adhered to an organic combination of Marx’s historical materialism and the exertion of historical initiative, thereby opening up for backward Russia a path different from Western modernization—that is, achieving a fundamental change in the social system through revolution, then striving to create the modern civilization needed for socialism, and ultimately establishing socialism.

有必要指出，列宁并没有有否认普列汉诺夫等人提出的俄国不具备建设社会主义客观前提的观点，而是明确承认这一观点是无可争辩的。进而言之，列宁和普列汉诺夫等人的分歧，并不在于经济文化落后的俄国是否具备实现社会主义所需要的文明前提，而在于这样的俄国能不能进行社会主义革命和建设社会主义？在这一问题上，普列汉诺夫等人教条主义地理解和固守马克思唯物史观，以落后的俄国不具备社会主义所需要的经济条件为由，强调在俄国首先应该进行的是资产阶级革命，然后通过发展资本主义创造出社会主义所需要的客观条件后，再发动社会主义革命和建立社会主义国家政权。列宁则主张，无产阶级及其政党应发挥历史主动精神，利用有利的革命形势和革命时机先夺取政权，然后努力创造符合社会主义要求的文明条件，即：“既然建立社会主义需要有一定的文化水平……我们为什么不能首先用革命手段取得达到这个一定水平的前提，然后在工农政权和苏维埃制度的基础上赶上别国人民呢？”[37] 至此，可以看出，十月革命的意义就在于列宁领导的布尔什维克在特定的历史背景下，坚持马克思唯物史观与发挥历史主动精神的有机结合，为落后的俄国开辟了一条不同于西方现代化的道路，即通过革命实现社会基本制度变革，然后努力创造社会主义所需要的现代文明并最终建立社会主义。

IV. Criticizing the “Petty-Bourgeois Reformism” and “Petty-Bourgeois Revolutionism” on the Question of the New Economic Policy, Emphasizing the Need to Utilize Capitalism While Ensuring the Socialist Direction of Development of NEP Russia

四、批判新经济政策问题上的“小资产阶级改良主义”和“小资产阶级革命主义”，强调要利用资本主义并保证新经济政策俄国的社会主义发展方向

In March 1921, in order to overcome the severe economic difficulties facing the Soviet regime and the consequent crisis of political identification among the workers and peasants toward the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Lenin led the RCP(B) in decisively adopting the decision to implement the New Economic Policy, including replacing the surplus appropriation system with a tax in kind, implementing a system of leasing and concessions, and permitting the existence of money and commodity relations. However, fierce debates erupted around this policy. The debates manifested mainly as two sharply contrasting voices: one was the “Change of Landmarks” group, which took capitalism as its political faith and trumpeted that the New Economic Policy would lead Russia toward capitalism, calling on its members to actively participate in all kinds of work in Soviet Russia so as to promote this transformation. They believed that the New Economic Policy was not a strategy for building socialism, “but an evolution, an internal degeneration, that they would inevitably move toward an ordinary bourgeois state” [38]. The representative figure of the “Change of Landmarks” group, Ustryalov, stated explicitly: “I support the Soviet regime in Russia, and I support it because it has set foot on the road toward an ordinary bourgeois regime” [39]. The journal *Change of Landmarks* even published an article arguing that Russia’s socialist nature had already changed under the influence of the New Economic Policy, that Russia was “rolling into the ordinary bourgeois mire” [40]. Lenin clearly recognized that the political intention of the “Change of Landmarks” group was to use peaceful means to impel Russia onto the capitalist path of development, and therefore he called it “petty-bourgeois reformism.” The other voice, in stark contrast to the jubilation of the “Change of Landmarks” group, was one of anxious doubt, even fierce opposition to the New Economic Policy. Proceeding from traditional socialist concepts and simple socialist sentiments, these people could not understand why the New Economic Policy permitted the development of capitalism, saying things like “Capitalism is a scourge, socialism is happiness” [41]. Lenin called this trend of thought “petty-bourgeois revolutionism.”

1921年3月，为了克服苏维埃政权面临的严重经济困难以及由此而来的工农群众对俄共（布）的政治认同危机，列宁带领俄共（布）果断做出了实施新经济政策的决定，包括以粮食税代替余粮收集制、实行租借制和租让制、允许货币和商品关系存在等。但围绕这一政策却出现了激烈的争论。争论主要表现为两种截然不同的声音：一种是以资本主义为政治信仰的“路标转换派”鼓吹新经济政策将会把俄国引向资本主义，号召成员积极参加苏俄的各项工作以促进这种转变。他们认为新经济政策并不是建设社会主义的策略，“而是演变，是内部的蜕变，他们一定会走向通常的资产阶级国家”[38]。“路标转向派”的代表人物乌斯特里亚洛夫明确说道：“我赞成支持俄国的苏维埃政权，我之所以赞成，是因为它踏上了走向通常的资产阶级政权的道路。”[39] 《路标转换》杂志甚至发文认为，俄国的社会主义性质在新经济政策影响下已经发生改变，即俄国“正在滚进通常的资产阶级泥潭”[40]。列宁清醒认识到“路标转换派”的政治意图就是用和平的手段促使俄国走资本主义的发展道路，因此将其称为“小资产阶级改良主义”；另一种与“路标转向派”的欢欣鼓舞形成鲜明对比，是忧心忡忡地质疑、甚至是激烈反对新经济政策。他们从传统社会主义观念和朴素的社会主义感情出发，对新经济政策允许发展资本主义想不通，说什么“资本主义是祸害，社会主义是幸福”[41]，列宁将这种思潮称之为“小资产阶级革命主义”。

The “petty-bourgeois reformism” and “petty-bourgeois revolutionism” that emerged around the New Economic Policy touched upon a major theoretical and practical question that Lenin’s RCP(B) had to confront: Where would the New Economic Policy lead Russia? Would it lead to socialism or to capitalism? The essence of the question was: After an economically and culturally backward country chooses the socialist path of development, how should it treat capitalism? Under conditions permitting the development of capitalism, how can communists ensure the socialist direction of development?

围绕新经济政策出现的“小资产阶级改良主义”和“小资产阶级革命主义”，涉及的是列宁领导的俄共（布）必须面对的一个重大理论和现实问题，即新经济政策将会把俄国引向何处？是引向社会主义还是资本主义？问题的实质在于，经济文化落后的国家选择社会主义发展道路后该如何对待资本主义？共产党人在允许资本主义发展条件下如何保证社会主义发展方向？

Faced with the dual challenge of the aforementioned “petty-bourgeois reformism” and “petty-bourgeois revolutionism,” Lenin clearly recognized that the ideological fog surrounding the New Economic Policy had to be cleared away in order to ensure that NEP Russia would develop along the correct path.

面对上述“小资产阶级改良主义”和“小资产阶级革命主义”的双重挑战，列宁清醒认识到，必须廓清新经济政策问题上的思想迷雾，以保证新经济政策的俄国沿着正确方向发展。

On the one hand, Lenin criticized the “petty-bourgeois revolutionism” that doubted and opposed the New Economic Policy as an unrealistic “revolutionary phrase,” emphasizing that economically backward Russia must utilize capitalism to build socialism. With regard to the phrase that best expressed the knot in the hearts of the petty-bourgeois revolutionaries—“Capitalism is a scourge, socialism is happiness”—Lenin argued that this did not proceed from the basic national condition of Russia, which was predominantly small-peasant economy, but instead abstractly opposed capitalism and socialism by taking them out of the totality of the various socio-economic structures existing in Russia. Lenin frankly admitted that if one made only an abstract comparison, capitalism was undoubtedly a scourge relative to socialism, but if one took into account the fact that what still existed in large numbers in Russia was scattered and backward small-peasant production, then capitalism was not a scourge but rather a happiness. If communists tried to block the development of capitalism, it would be extremely foolish and “would inevitably lead to defeat” [42]. On this basis, Lenin stressed that it was essential to treat state capitalism “as an intermediate link between small production and socialism, as a means, a path, a method, and a way of raising the productive forces” [43].

一方面，列宁批判质疑、反对新经济政策的“小资产阶级革命主义”是不切实际的“革命空谈”，强调经济落后的俄国必须利用资本主义建设社会主义。针对那句最能代表小资产阶级革命主义者心结的“资本主义是祸害，社会主义是幸福”，列宁认为这不是从俄国主要是小农经济的基本国情出发，而是把资本主义和社会主义从俄国现存的各种社会经济结构总和中拿出来并抽象地加以对立。列宁坦言，如果只是抽象地比较，资本主义相对于社会主义毫无疑问是祸害，但若考虑到俄国大量存在的依然还是涣散落后的小农生产，资本主义就不但不是祸害而且是幸福。如果共产党人试图堵塞资本主义发展，就愚蠢至极并“必然会遭到失败”[42]。基于此，列宁强调，务必要把国家资本主义“作为小生产和社会主义之间的中间环节，作为提高生产力的手段、途径、方法和方式”[43]。

On the other hand, in response to the “petty-bourgeois reformism” of the “Change of Landmarks” group, which trumpeted that the New Economic Policy would lead Russia toward capitalism, Lenin emphasized that communists must be vigilant against the danger of capitalist restoration. In the political report to the Eleventh Congress of the RCP(B), Lenin called the “Change of Landmarks” group, which trumpeted that the New Economic Policy was an “evolution,” a “class enemy,” and said that they had spoken a “class truth,” pointing out that “the Change of Landmarks group reflects the mood of hundreds of thousands and millions of bourgeois of all kinds or of Soviet employees who participate in our New Economic Policy work. This is the main, real danger” [44]. In August 1922, the resolution of the Twelfth All-Russian Conference of the RCP(B) “On Anti-Soviet Parties” pointed out: “Among the Change of Landmarks group, the tendency toward bourgeois restoration is also very strong” [45]. This also shows that Lenin did not ignore the worries of the “petty-bourgeois revolutionism” that the New Economic Policy might lead Russia onto the capitalist path; on the contrary, he took them extremely seriously, repeatedly stressing the need “to prevent capitalist restoration and to ensure the path toward communism” [46].

另一方面，针对“路标转换派”鼓吹新经济政策会使俄国走向资本主义的“小资产阶级改良主义”，列宁强调共产党人必须警惕资本主义复辟的危险。在俄共（布）十一大政治报告中，列宁将鼓吹新经济政策是“演变”的“路标转换派”称为“阶级敌人”，认为他们说出了“阶级真话”，指出“路标转换派反映了成千成万的各色各样资产者或者参加我们新经济政策工作的苏维埃职员的情绪。这是一个主要的真正的危险”[44]。1922年8月，俄共（布）第十二次全国代表会议通过的《关于反苏维埃的党派的决议》指出：“在路标转换派中资产阶级复辟的倾向也是很强烈的。”[45] 这也表明，列宁对“小资产阶级革命主义”关于新经济政策有可能将俄国引向资本主义道路的担心并不是置之不理，而是极其重视，多次强调“要防止资本主义复辟和保证走共产主义道路” [46]。

Lenin’s greatness lies in the fact that he was not intimidated by the growth of capitalist elements brought about by the New Economic Policy and the attendant danger of a possible restoration of capitalism, but instead displayed a fighting spirit of knowing full well that there are tigers in the mountains yet insisting on going there. In response to the view of the “Change of Landmarks” group [18]18 The “Change of Landmarks” (Smena Vekh) group was a current of thought among Russian émigré intellectuals in the 1920s who argued that the Bolsheviks’ New Economic Policy represented a retreat from revolutionary socialism toward a bourgeois-nationalist evolution, and that intellectuals should reconcile with Soviet power on this basis. that the New Economic Policy was “not a tactic, but an evolution,” Lenin retorted: “Is it a ‘Thermidorian coup’? [19]19 A reference to the Thermidorian Reaction of 1794 in the French Revolution, when the radical Jacobin regime of Robespierre was overthrown, often used by Marxists to denote a counter-revolutionary reversal within a revolutionary process. If we look at it soberly, perhaps it is? Will it happen? We shall see. Don’t brag when you go into battle!” [47] Here, Lenin had already likened the contradiction between the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the bourgeoisie brought about by the New Economic Policy to a contest concerning the future and destiny of socialism, the key being how to win this contest, “how to ensure that in the near future state capitalism is transformed into socialism.” [48] He said: “We must force the bourgeoisie to work for us with their own hands, and not allow responsible Communist Party members, occupying leading positions and bearing official titles, to drift with the bourgeois current. The whole essence of the matter lies here.” [49] Lenin here is undoubtedly emphasizing that if Communists lack leadership ability and are inferior to the bourgeoisie in economic work, they will be led by the nose by it, and the future of socialism will become a bubble. It is precisely on the basis of such a sober understanding that Lenin further stressed in his last public speech: “We must move toward socialism, but not treat it as an icon painted in solemn colors” [50]; rather, we must strive to make the broad masses feel that “this is better than the old system,” and “we must be good at overcoming all the negative aspects of the New Economic Policy.” [51] This shows that socialism was the unswerving pursuit of Lenin’s Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and also the fundamental purpose of the New Economic Policy, but the New Economic Policy could bring the danger of a restoration of capitalism. For Communists to ensure that the state does not change its color under conditions of permitting the development of capitalism, the most fundamental thing is to be able to effectively utilize and control capital and achieve results in socialist construction that satisfy the people. Only in this way will the masses, through comparison, firmly follow the Communist Party on the socialist path, thereby ensuring that “the Russia of the New Economic Policy will become the socialist Russia.” [52]

列宁的伟大在于没有被新经济政策带来的资本主义因素增长以及由此可能出现的资本主义复辟的危险吓到，而是表现出一种明知山有虎偏往虎山行的斗争精神。针对“路标转换派”认为新经济政策“不是策略，而是演变”的观点，列宁反问道：“是‘热月政变’吗？头脑清醒地看待，或许是的？会发生吗？会见分晓的。上战场别吹牛！”[47] 这里，列宁已经把由新经济政策带来的俄共（布）和资产阶级之间的矛盾比喻成事关社会主义前途命运的一场较量，关键是如何在这场较量中获胜，“怎样保证在不久的将来把国家资本主义变成社会主义”[48]。他说：“我们应当强迫资产阶级用他们的双手来为我们工作，而不能让负责的共产党员身居领导地位，头戴官衔，却跟着资产阶级随波逐流。问题的全部实质就在这里。”[49] 列宁这里无疑是强调，共产党人如果缺乏领导能力，在做经济工作方面不如资产阶级，就会被其牵着鼻子走，社会主义的前途也就成了泡影。正是基于如此清醒的认识，列宁在最后一次公开讲话中进一步强调，“我们必须走向社会主义，但不是把它当作用庄严的色彩画成的圣像” [50]，而是必须努力使广大群众觉得“这比旧制度好”，“必须善于克服新经济政策的一切消极面”[51]。这表明，社会主义是列宁领导的俄共（布）坚定不移的追求，也是新经济政策的根本目的，但新经济政策有可能带来资本主义复辟的危险，共产党人要在允许资本主义发展的条件下保证国家不变色，最根本的还在于能够有效利用和驾驭资本，取得令人民满意的社会主义建设成效。只有这样，人民群众才会通过对比，坚定追随共产党走社会主义道路，从而保证“新经济政策的俄国将变成社会主义的俄国”[52]。

(The author is a researcher at the Research Center for Marxist Theory and Regional Practice, Guangxi Normal University, and a professor at the School of Marxism, Guangxi Normal University)

（作者为广西师范大学马克思主义理论与区域实践研究中心研究员，广西师范大学马克思主义学院教授）

[This article is a phased result of the National Social Science Fund key project “Lenin’s Critique of Erroneous Trends of Thought after the October Revolution and Its Contemporary Value” (Project No. 23AKS023)]

【文为国家社科基金重点项目《十月革命后列宁对错误思潮的批判及其当代价值》（项目编号：23AKS023）的阶段性成果】

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心