Lenin’s Critique of the Liberal Narodniks on the Question of Russia’s Development Path and Its Enlightenment

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the rapid development of European capitalism strongly impacted Russia, a country that was economically and culturally backward, deeply oppressed by the tsar’s feudal autocratic rule, but had already been swept up by the tide of capitalist development. “Whither Russia?” became the focal point of fierce debate in Russian intellectual circles. At this time, the liberal Narodniks, represented by figures such as Mikhailovsky, Vorontsov, Yuzhakov, and Danielson, abandoned the political stance of the old Narodniks of the 1860s and 1870s, which “aimed at mobilizing the peasants to carry out a socialist revolution against the foundations of modern society,” and loudly advocated a reformist path “aimed at patching up and ‘improving’ the condition of the peasants while preserving the foundations of modern society.” The liberal Narodniks ignored the facts of Russia’s capitalist development and the changes in class structure, spreading such arguments as the “theory of the impossibility of capitalism in Russia” and the “theory of the destructiveness of capitalism.” They argued that Russia should bypass capitalism and move toward socialism by perfecting the rural commune, claiming that the idealized peasant was “strong and powerful” and was the main force of Russia’s social development, while the intelligentsia was the “advanced detachment” in political struggle.

19世纪末20世纪初，欧洲资本主义的快速发展强烈冲击着经济文化落后、深受沙皇封建专制统治但已经被资本主义发展潮流所裹挟的俄国，“俄国向何处去”成为俄国思想界激烈争论的焦点问题。此时，以米海洛夫斯基、沃龙佐夫、尤沙柯夫、丹尼尔逊等为代表的自由主义民粹派，抛弃了19世纪六七十年代旧民粹派“以发动农民去进行反对现代社会基础的社会主义革命为目标”的政治主张，大肆鼓吹“以在保存现代社会基础的条件下去补缀和‘改善’农民状况为目标”的改良主义道路。自由主义民粹派无视俄国资本主义发展的事实和阶级结构的变化，散布所谓俄国“资本主义行不通论”“资本主义破坏论”等论调，主张俄国应该避开资本主义、通过完善农村公社走向社会主义，认为理想化的农民“强大有力”，是俄国社会发展的主体力量，知识分子是政治斗争中的“先进部队”。

They called themselves “Friends of the People,” but in reality they peddled reformist policies representing the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, naively fantasizing about relying on the government to adopt mild reformist measures to “protect the economically weak.” Lenin considered the views of the liberal Narodniks to be “a reactionary and harmful theory, because it throws social thought into confusion, encourages stagnation and all sorts of Asiatic things.” Therefore, standing at the height of the times, he subjected the erroneous ideas of the liberal Narodniks to profound criticism and put forward a series of important ideas and viewpoints on the path of Russia’s social development. Under new historical conditions, studying Lenin’s critique of the Russian liberal Narodniks has important practical guiding significance.

他们称自己为“人民之友”，实际上却兜售代表小资产阶级利益的改良主义政策，天真地幻想依靠政府采取温和的改良措施“保护经济上弱者”。列宁认为自由主义民粹派的主张是“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”，因而他站在时代发展的高度对自由主义民粹派的错误思想进行了深刻批判，围绕俄国社会发展道路提出了一系列重要思想和观点。在新的历史条件下，学习列宁对俄国自由主义民粹派的批判具有重要的现实指导意义。

I. Criticizing the Liberal Narodniks’ “Theory of a Non-Capitalist Path” and Elucidating the Inevitability and Progressive Role of Capitalism in Russia’s Social Development

一、批判自由主义民粹派“非资本主义道路论”，阐明资本主义在俄国社会发展中的必然性和进步作用

In the debate in Russian intellectual circles at the end of the 19th century over “Whither Russia?,” the Russian liberal Narodniks, on the one hand, were deeply distressed by Russia’s backwardness, but on the other hand, they were disappointed by the disasters capitalism had brought to humanity. Consequently, they fantasized about bypassing capitalism and directly transitioning to socialism by relying on the Russian commune, which was still based on small-scale peasant production. Therefore, the core issue of the debate between Lenin and the liberal Narodniks was actually how to view the historical role of capitalism in Russia’s social development and its future destiny.

在19世纪末俄国思想界关于“俄国向何处去”的争论中，俄国自由主义民粹派一方面十分痛心于俄国的落后，但同时又对资本主义给人类造成的灾难感到失望，因而幻想不经过资本主义，而是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。因此，列宁与自由主义民粹派争论的核心问题实际上就是如何看待资本主义在俄国社会发展中的历史作用及其前途命运的问题。

Starting from a petty-bourgeois standpoint, the liberal Narodniks exaggerated the ideological “legacy” of early democrats such as Herzen and Chernyshevsky, who had proposed that the Russian commune, based on communal land ownership and possessing a collectivist spirit, was a positive factor for achieving socialism. They talked at length about the superiority of the Russian commune over Western capitalism, spread such arguments as the “theory of the impossibility of capitalism in Russia” and the “theory of the destructiveness of capitalism,” refused to recognize the historical progressiveness of capitalism, and advocated transitioning to a socialist society by reforming the rural commune. All of this, in summary, amounted to “advocating another path for Russia’s development, namely, a non-capitalist path.” [1]1 Lenin, “What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 1. On the basis of an in-depth investigation of the actual evolution of Russia’s socio-economic relations, Lenin subjected the liberal Narodniks’ “non-capitalist path” proposition to profound criticism.

自由主义民粹派从小资产阶级立场出发，夸大赫尔岑、车尔尼雪夫斯基等早期民主主义者提出的土地村社所有、具有集体主义精神的俄国公社是实现社会主义的积极因素这一思想“遗产”，大谈俄国村社优于西欧资本主义，散布所谓俄国“资本主义行不通论”“资本主义破坏论”等论调，拒绝承认资本主义的历史进步性，主张通过改良农村公社以过渡到社会主义社会等。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”。列宁在深入考察俄国社会经济关系现实演进的基础上，对自由主义民粹派的“非资本主义道路”主张进行了深刻的批判。

First, criticizing the liberal Narodniks’ “theory of the impossibility of capitalism in Russia” and elucidating the objective inevitability of capitalist development in Russia. The defeat in the Crimean War of 1856 made the Russian ruling clique aware of the backwardness of their country’s industry, so “the government set about cultivating a capitalist class in Russia,” hoping thereby to promote the development of Russian industry. The liberal Narodniks accordingly believed that Russian capitalism was a product of the policy orientation of the tsarist regime and that capitalism had no future in Russia. For example, in his book *The Fate of Capitalism in Russia*, Vorontsov pointed out that capitalism “in the West is a process of development, while in our country it is transplantation, imitation,” and that “Russia lacks the most basic conditions for the development of capitalist production.” Yuzhakov also believed that Russia lacked the capital, workers, and experienced entrepreneurs necessary for capitalist production, and that Russian capitalism had no possibility of development whatsoever. In response to this view, Lenin, proceeding from the fact that Russia’s economy and society were already based on the social division of labor and a commodity economy, and that the capitalist process had already spread from the big cities to all parts of the country, pointed out that the liberal Narodniks, in denying capitalism from a petty-bourgeois standpoint, “cast aside all historical realism.” He emphasized that “the development of capitalism in Russia is not only possible” but “also inevitable.” [2]2 Lenin, “The Development of Capitalism in Russia,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 3. In response to the liberal Narodniks’ argument that Russia lacked a domestic market and therefore capitalism had no foundation in Russia, Lenin, on the one hand, pointed out that the liberal Narodniks’ view that the ruin of small-scale production led to a decreasing consumption capacity of the population and a shrinking domestic market was merely a verbatim copy of Sismondi’s romantic view that “the ruin of small-scale production proves the shrinking of the domestic market,” and that they completely failed to understand Marx’s important exposition that the social division of labor is the key to the establishment of the capitalist domestic market. On the other hand, Lenin clearly stated that the gradual ruin of the peasants and the continuous accumulation of capital “did not reduce but increased the total production of the country and expanded the domestic market,” because the means of production were increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, and the peasants and small producers who had lost their means of production became propertyless laborers who, in order to obtain the means of subsistence, not only had to sell their labor power to the capitalists but also had to purchase commodities to meet their daily needs.

其一，批判自由主义民粹派“资本主义行不通论”，阐明俄国资本主义发展的现实必然性。1856年克里米亚战争的失败使俄国统治集团意识到本国工业的落后，于是“政府着手培植俄国的资本家阶级”，希望以此促进俄国工业的发展。自由主义民粹派据此认为，俄国资本主义是沙皇政权政策主导的产物，资本主义在俄国没有发展前途。例如在《俄国资本主义的命运》一书中，沃龙佐夫指出，资本主义“在西方这是一个发展过程，而在我国则是移植、是模仿”，“俄国不存在发展资本主义生产的最起码的条件”；尤沙柯夫也认为俄国缺乏资本主义生产所必需的资本、工人和有经验的业主，俄国资本主义没有任何发展的可能。针对这种观点，列宁从俄国经济社会已经建立在社会分工和商品经济基础上、资本主义进程已经从大城市向全国各地蔓延的事实出发，指出自由主义民粹派从小资产阶级立场出发否定资本主义，“便把任何历史现实主义都抛弃了”，强调俄国“资本主义的发展已不仅是可能的”，“而且是必然的”。针对自由主义民粹派鼓吹俄国国内市场缺乏因而资本主义在俄国没有根基的论调，一方面，列宁指出，自由主义民粹派认为小生产的破产使得居民消费能力日益降低、国内市场日益缩小的观点只是原封不动地照搬了西斯蒙第“小生产的破产证明国内市场的缩小”的浪漫主义观点，完全没有理解马克思关于社会分工是资本主义国内市场建立关键的重要论述。另一方面，列宁明确指出，农民逐渐破产、资本不断积累“不是缩小而是增加了全国总生产量和扩大了国内市场”，因为生产资料日益集中到少数人手中，丧失生产资料的农民和小生产者变成了一无所有的劳动者，为获取生活资料不仅要向资本家出卖劳动力，还要购买商品满足日常所需。

In response to Danielson’s argument that “the foreign market is a way out of the difficulty of realizing surplus value” and that Russian capitalism lacked a domestic market for selling its products and therefore sought foreign markets, Lenin stated bluntly that this view was merely a pretext to gloss over the facts of Russia’s capitalist development. In fact, they “understand neither the realization of products in capitalist society (i.e., the theory of the domestic market) nor the role of the foreign market.” [3]3 Lenin, “A Note on the Question of the Market Theory,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 4. Here, Lenin clarified two points: first, the realization of products means that each part of the product finds another part of the product to replace it through the market in terms of value and material form; second, the existence of the foreign market is to meet the need of capitalism to ensure the circulation of commodities by relying on the foreign market. On this basis, Lenin hit the nail on the head by pointing out that the liberal Narodniks’ purpose in advocating the impossibility of capitalism in Russia was merely to conceal the fact that the capitalist mode of production had already assumed a dominant position in Russian industry and agriculture, and thereby to attempt to maintain “a commodity economy without capitalism, without expropriation and exploitation, only a petty-bourgeois capitalism that barely manages to survive under the patronage of benevolent landlords and liberal administrators.” [4]4 Lenin, “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 1. This is a utopian and reactionary erroneous trend of thought. Lenin clearly stated in this regard that the views of the liberal Narodniks reflected the “illusory hope” of millions of petty-bourgeois laborers deeply exploited by feudalism “to ‘eliminate’ the new capitalist exploiters along with the old ones,” but “this democracy, as a socialist utopia, is erroneous.” “It is reactionary because it strives to preserve its own petty-bourgeois position and seeks to prevent and reverse the country’s development in the direction of capitalism.” [5]5 Lenin, “The Heritage We Renounce,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 2.

针对丹尼尔逊认为“国外市场是摆脱实现额外价值的困难的出路”、俄国资本主义缺乏销售产品的国内市场因而才寻求国外市场的论调，列宁直言，这种观点不过是抹杀俄国资本主义发展事实的理由而已，事实上他们“既根本不了解资本主义社会中产品的实现（即国内市场的理论），也根本不了解国外市场的作用”。这里，列宁明确了两点内容：一是产品的实现是由每一部分产品按价值和物质形态通过市场找到替换它的另一部分产品，二是国外市场的存在是为了满足资本主义依靠国外市场保证商品流通的需要。在此基础上，列宁一针见血地指出，自由主义民粹派鼓吹俄国资本主义行不通的目的，不过是想遮掩资本主义生产方式在俄国工农业中已经占优势地位的事实，进而试图维持“没有资本主义的商品经济，要的是没有剥夺也没有剥削，只有在仁慈的地主和自由派的行政官庇护下勉强维持生活的小市民的资本主义”。这是一种空想又反动的错误思潮。列宁对此明确指出，自由主义民粹派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”，“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”。

Second, he criticized the liberal Narodniks’ “theory of the destructiveness of capitalism,” emphasizing the need to utilize the progressive role of capitalism to promote Russia’s social development. The liberal Narodniks, citing the disasters capitalism had brought to humanity, such as oppression, unemployment, and economic crises, loudly proclaimed that capitalism in Russia had “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,” and “strenuously tried to prove that capitalism is an extremely bad thing.” [6]6 The liberal Narodniks were a Russian petty-bourgeois intellectual trend in the late 19th century that advocated a non-capitalist path for Russia based on the peasant commune, opposing the development of capitalism. In response to this argument, Lenin refuted the liberal Narodniks as “indulging in utopian fantasies and unwilling to study and clarify reality, thereby inevitably negating the significance and power of capitalism,” emphasizing that the progressive role of capitalism “lies in its destruction of the old, narrow conditions of life that stultified the producers and made it impossible for them to control their own destiny,” bringing about “the increase in the productivity of social labor and the socialization of labor,” and thereby creating the solid material foundation and class forces for the realization of socialism. He clearly pointed out that the liberal Narodniks’ “non-capitalist path” was utopian precisely because it failed to recognize that “only the development of capitalism and the proletariat can create the material conditions and social forces for the realization of socialism.”

其二，批判自由主义民粹派“资本主义破坏论”，强调要利用资本主义的进步作用推动俄国社会发展。自由主义民粹派以资本主义给人类带来的诸如压迫、失业、经济危机等灾难为由，大肆宣扬资本主义在俄国“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”，“竭力证明资本主义是一种极不好的东西”。针对这种论调，列宁批驳自由主义民粹派是“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”，强调资本主义的进步作用“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”，带来了“社会劳动生产力的提高和劳动的社会化”，进而造就了实现社会主义的坚实物质基础和阶级力量。他明确指出，自由主义民粹派的“非资本主义道路”之所以是空想的，就在于它没能认识到“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”。

Thus, through his forceful critique of the liberal Narodniks’ dissemination of the “theory of the impossibility of capitalism in Russia” and the “theory of the destructiveness of capitalism,” Lenin profoundly elucidated the inevitability and progressiveness of capitalism’s development in Russia, emphasizing that the various profound contradictions of capitalism “by no means preclude the possibility of capitalism, nor do they preclude its progressiveness compared with all previous socio-economic systems,” and thereby demonstrated his clear attitude toward how economically and culturally backward Russia should treat capitalism on its path to modern civilization: that is, to move toward socialism by utilizing the progressive role of capitalism, and that “the first demand to be realized is to promote the development of capitalism and to clear capitalism of feudal remnants.”

至此，列宁通过对自由主义民粹派散布俄国“资本主义行不通论”“资本主义破坏论”的有力批判，深刻阐明了资本主义在俄国发展的必然性和进步性，强调资本主义存在的种种深刻矛盾“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”，进而表明了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鲜明态度，那就是要通过利用资本主义的进步作用走向社会主义，“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”。

II. Criticizing the Liberal Narodniks’ Exaggeration of the Role of the Peasantry and the Intelligentsia, Emphasizing That the Proletariat and Its Advanced Representatives Are the Leading Force in Russia’s Social Development

二、批判自由主义民粹派夸大农民和知识分子的作用，强调无产阶级及其先进代表是俄国社会发展的领导力量

After the abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861, with the development of Russian capitalism, the Russian peasantry gradually differentiated into the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The proletariat, as a new political force, stepped onto the historical stage and began spontaneously to wage struggles against feudal forces and capitalists. According to statistics, 546 strikes broke out between 1895 and 1898, but these spontaneous movements, lacking organizational leadership and guidance from scientific theory, were quickly suppressed by reactionary forces. [7]7 The 1895–1898 strike wave was part of the early Russian labor movement, which was largely spontaneous and uncoordinated before the formation of a Marxist party. Lenin emphasized on this basis that Russian socialists should act as leaders of the workers’ movement, guiding the spontaneous movement of the workers into a conscious movement, that is, “to assist in the development and organization of the Russian workers’ movement, to transform it from its present scattered, ideologically unguided state of protest, ‘grievances,’ and strikes into the organized struggle of the entire Russian working class.”

1861年俄国农奴制改革之后，随着俄国资本主义的发展，俄国农民逐渐分化为无产阶级和资产阶级，无产阶级作为新的政治力量登上历史舞台，开始自发地开展反抗封建势力和资本家的斗争。据统计，1895—1898年就爆发了546次罢工运动，但这些自发运动由于缺乏组织领导、科学理论指导，很快就被反动势力所镇压。列宁就此强调，俄国社会主义者要做工人运动的领导者，引导工人自发运动转变为自觉运动，即“协助俄国工人运动发展和组织起来，把工人运动从目前这种分散的、缺乏指导思想的抗议、‘牢骚’和罢工状态，改造成整个俄国工人阶级的有组织的斗争”。

The liberal Narodniks did not share Lenin’s view. They ignored the historical position of the proletariat, regarding the Russian working class merely as “people who spread revolutionary ideas among the peasantry,” and loudly propagated the “theory of the peasantry as the main body” and the “theory of the intelligentsia as the leadership.” They believed that “in Russia, the peasantry is the largest social group; the peasantry is powerful not only because of its numbers but also because of its relatively clear social ideals,” and that “the intelligentsia has no class character and naturally cannot play an independent role in social revolutionary struggle, but it can become the advanced detachment in political struggle, in the struggle for freedom of thought and freedom of speech.” [8]8 The “advanced detachment” (peredovoi otryad) is a Leninist term for the vanguard role of the revolutionary party or class. Clearly, these statements, which idealized the peasantry as the main force for social development and progress and advocated that the intelligentsia was the leading force in Russia’s political struggle, essentially negated the proletariat’s leadership over Russia’s social development.

自由主义民粹派并不认同列宁的观点，他们无视无产阶级的历史地位，仅仅把俄国工人阶级看做“在农民中间传播革命思想的人”，大肆宣扬“农民主体论”“知识分子领导论”。他们认为，“在俄国，农民是人数最多的社会集团，农民不但由于人数众多，而且由于它的社会理想比较明确而强大有力”，“知识分子没有阶级性，自然不可能在社会革命斗争中起独立的作用，但是它可以成为政治斗争中、争取思想自由和言论自由的斗争中的先进部队”。很显然 ，这些把理想化的农民作为社会发展进步主要力量，鼓吹知识分子是俄国政治斗争领导力量的言论，实质是从根本上否定无产阶级对俄国社会发展的领导权。

To elucidate the inevitability and necessity of the proletarian party’s seizure of revolutionary leadership, Lenin specifically analyzed the class characteristics of the peasantry, the intelligentsia, and the proletariat.

为了阐明无产阶级政党掌握革命领导权的必然性和必要性，列宁具体分析了农民、知识分子和无产阶级的阶级特性。

First, the peasantry has a dual character. On the one hand, after the abolition of serfdom in Russia, the widespread remnants of serfdom and underdeveloped capitalism subjected the peasantry to the dual oppression of both, plunging them into unprecedented poverty, and thus they possessed profound revolutionary potential. On the other hand, as small producers, the peasantry inherently tended toward becoming proprietors. Lenin said of this: “The tendency of the peasantry lies not at all in the ‘commune’ system, not at all in ‘people’s production,’ but in the most ordinary petty-bourgeois system characteristic of all capitalist societies.” [9]9 The “commune” (obshchina) was the traditional Russian peasant village community, which the Narodniks idealized as a basis for socialism. That is to say, the petty-bourgeois nature of the peasantry creates an antagonism within it between a tendency toward proletarianization and a tendency toward proprietorship, determining its inevitable vacillation in revolutionary movements, swinging between the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie and the revolutionary proletariat, and therefore it cannot become the leading or main force of the Russian revolution.

其一，农民具有两重性。一方面，俄国农奴制改革后，大量存在的农奴制残余和不发达的资本主义致使农民深受这二者的双重压迫，陷入了空前贫困的境地，因此具有深厚的革命性。另一方面，农民作为小生产者，本质上又具有成为业主的倾向。列宁对此说道：“农民的趋向决不在于‘村社’制度，决不在于‘人民生产’，而在于最普通的、为一切资本主义社会所特有的小资产阶级制度。”也就是说，农民的小资产阶级本性使其内部具有无产者倾向与业主倾向的对抗性，决定其在革命运动中具有不可避免的动摇性，必然摇摆于反革命的资产阶级和革命的无产阶级之间，因此不能成为俄国革命的领导力量和主体力量。

Second, the intelligentsia degenerated into “servants of the bourgeoisie.” The tsarist government’s long-standing “policy of keeping the people in ignorance” meant that as late as the mid-19th century, 92% of Russians were illiterate, but the numerically small intelligentsia was not the revolutionary “advanced detachment”; rather, it was a component and dependent of the bureaucratic stratum representing bourgeois interests. On this point, as Lenin said: “The advanced, liberal, ‘democratic’ intelligentsia of Russia is the bourgeois intelligentsia,” and “if they do not attach themselves to a class, they are zero.” [10]10 Lenin’s quote “if they do not attach themselves to a class, they are zero” is from his work *What Is to Be Done?* (1902). Furthermore, it was precisely this dependency of the intelligentsia that led to their being “always without strength.” Based on this, Lenin clearly pointed out that the Narodniks’ view of the “omnipotence of the intelligentsia” was a “fallacy,” while Struve’s [11]11 Pyotr Struve (1870–1944) was a Russian Marxist economist and politician who later became a liberal; Lenin debated him on the role of the intelligentsia. view that the intelligentsia was “without strength” was “perfectly correct.” [12]12 Lenin’s reference to Struve’s view is from his article “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book” (1895). There is no doubt that what Lenin emphasized here is that, as a stratum dependent on the bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia, due to its own “lack of strength,” was also destined to be unable to become the leading force of the Russian revolution.

其二，知识分子沦为“资产阶级的奴仆”。沙皇政府长期以来的“愚民政策”使得俄国直至19世纪中叶仍有92%的人处于文盲状态，但数量不多的知识分子并不是革命的“先进部队”，而是代表着资产阶级利益的官僚阶层的组成者和依附者。关于这一点，正如列宁所言：“俄国先进的、自由主义的、‘民主主义的’知识分子就是资产阶级知识分子”，“如果他们不依附一个阶级，他们就等于零”。进而言之，正是知识分子这种依附性，才导致他们“始终没有力量”。基于此，列宁明确指出，民粹派分子关于“知识分子万能”的观点是“谬论”，司徒卢威关于知识分子“没有力量”的观点则“十分正确”。毫无疑问，列宁这里强调的是，作为一个依附于资产阶级的阶层，知识分子由于自身“没有力量”因此也注定成为不了俄国革命的领导力量。

Third, the proletariat is the advanced fighter and leading force of the revolutionary movement. The Russian working class not only suffered the same exploitation as all the working masses of Russia but also faced the ruthless expropriation of the capitalist mode of production, which was “large-scale, socialized, and centralized” and manifested in a naked form. This made them realize that it was the capitalist-dominated mode of production that was exploiting and oppressing them, and that they must wage an unambiguous and thorough struggle against the bourgeoisie. Lenin pointed out on this basis: “The position of the factory worker in the entire capitalist system makes him the only fighter for the emancipation of the working class…” [13]13 Lenin’s quote “the only fighter for the emancipation of the working class” is from his early work *What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats* (1894). In other words, the only one capable of assuming the heavy responsibility of leading the Russian revolution was the most revolutionary Russian working class, this “only fighter.” In the preface to the second edition of *The Development of Capitalism in Russia* written in 1907, Lenin clearly stated: “The leading role of the proletariat was fully revealed. It was also revealed that the strength of the proletariat in the historical movement is far greater than its proportion in the total population.” [14]14 The preface to the second edition of *The Development of Capitalism in Russia* (1907) summarized Lenin’s analysis of the Russian class structure. Based on this, he severely criticized those who believed that a bourgeois revolution could only be led by the bourgeoisie, calling them “incurable pedants” who vulgarized Marxism, and said of them: “Marx would probably have repeated to them the words Heine once used: ‘I have sown dragons’ teeth and harvested fleas.’” [15]15 Heine’s phrase “I have sown dragons’ teeth and harvested fleas” is a classical allusion used by Marx to criticize those who distort his ideas; Lenin applies it to vulgarizers of Marxism.

其三，无产阶级是革命运动的先进战士与领导力量。俄国工人阶级不仅遭受着和俄国全体劳动群众同样的剥削，还面对“大规模的、社会化的、集中的”并以赤裸裸的方式表现出来的资本主义生产方式的无情剥夺，这就使其认识到是资产阶级主导的生产方式在剥削压迫他们、要毫不含糊地同资产阶级进行彻底的斗争。列宁就此指出：“工厂工人在整个资本主义体系中所处的这种地位，使他们成为争取工人阶级解放的唯一战士……”换言之，能够担当起领导俄国革命的重任的只能是最具有革命性的俄国工人阶级这个“唯一的战士”。在1907年为《俄国资本主义的发展》写的第二版序言中，列宁明确说道：“无产阶级的领导作用完全显露出来了。无产阶级在历史运动中的力量比它在人口总数中所占的比例大得多这一点也显露出来了”。基于此，他对那些认为资产阶级革命只能由资产阶级来领导的人提出严厉批评，认为这些人是把马克思主义庸俗化的“不可救药的书呆子”，“对于这些人，马克思大概会把他一度引用过的海涅的话重复一遍说‘我播下的是龙种，而收获的却是跳蚤’”。

Through an analysis of the class characteristics of the peasantry, the intelligentsia, and the proletariat, Lenin forcefully refuted the liberal Narodniks’ “theory of the peasantry as the main body” and “theory of the intelligentsia as the leadership,” profoundly clarifying that only the proletariat and its advanced representative, i.e., the proletarian party, could be the leading force in the Russian revolution. Moreover, in his critique of Narodism, he also elaborated on how the proletarian party should exercise its leading role, emphasizing that the task of Russian Social Democrats was to be the ideological leader of the proletariat, to organize the proletariat and lead it in practical struggle. To this end, ideological guidance and organizational action had to be combined, i.e., to carry out the work of “study, propaganda, and organization.” He held that “without doing the above theoretical work, one cannot be an ideological leader; without carrying out this work in accordance with the needs of the cause, without propagating the results of this theory among the workers and helping them organize, one also cannot be an ideological leader.”[16]16 Lenin, “What Is to Be Done?” (1902), *Collected Works*, Vol. 5, p. 370 (Chinese edition). The quoted passage is a paraphrase of Lenin’s argument on the tasks of Social Democratic leadership. Here, Lenin emphasized that the proletarian party must, by mastering scientific theory, exercise ideological leadership over the working class, guiding them to organize and engage in political struggle aimed at communism.

通过对农民、知识分子和无产阶级的阶级特性的分析，列宁有力批驳了自由主义民粹派的“农民主体论”“知识分子领导论”，深刻阐明了只有无产阶级及其先进代表即无产阶级政党才是俄国革命中的领导力量。不仅如此，他在对民粹主义的批判中还阐述了无产阶级政党应如何发挥领导作用的问题，强调俄国社会民主党人的任务是要做无产阶级的思想领导者，组织无产阶级并领导无产阶级进行现实斗争，为此必须把思想引领和组织行动结合起来，即要进行“研究，宣传，组织”工作，认为“不做上述理论工作，便不能当思想领导者；不根据事业的需要进行这项工作，不在工人中间宣传这个理论的成果并帮助他们组织起来，也不能当思想领导者”。这里，列宁强调的是，无产阶级政党要通过掌握科学的理论来发挥对工人阶级的思想引领作用，引领他们组织起来进行以共产主义为目标的政治斗争。

III. Criticizing the Liberal Narodniks’ Hypocritical Populism, Emphasizing That the Choice of Russia’s Path of Social Development Must Take as Its Starting Point the Realization of the People’s Interests and Reliance on the People

三、批判自由主义民粹派伪善的人民性，强调俄国社会发展道路的选择要以实现人民群众利益和依靠人民群众为出发点

In the late 19th century, cities where large-scale Russian industry was concentrated accelerated their modernization, but the vast countryside still retained its original backward appearance. In particular, the peasantry had to endure not only the oppression of the brutal remnants of serfdom but also the savage expropriation of the nascent capitalist mode of production. How were the oppressed and expropriated Russian people to achieve liberation? The liberal Narodniks, who appeared as adherents of socialism, called themselves “Friends of the People” and posed as spokesmen for the masses, yet they preached reformist policies and doctrines representing the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. They regarded the masses as ignorant “rabble” and sang the tune of great men “influencing and leading the rabble from generation to generation.”[17]17 The term “rabble” (толпа) was used by the liberal Narodniks to dismiss the masses as passive and incapable of independent historical action, a view Lenin attacked as elitist and anti-Marxist. This ran completely counter to the Marxist people’s standpoint and fundamentally violated the law of social development that the masses create history. It could not but be called hypocritical and false.

19世纪末，俄国大工业积聚的城市加速走向现代化，但广大农村仍维持原有的落后面貌，特别是农民不仅要忍受野蛮的农奴制残余压迫之苦，还要面对萌芽状态的资本主义生产方式的野蛮剥夺。被压迫剥夺的俄国人民到底如何获得解放？以号称信奉社会主义出现的自由主义民粹派称自己为“人民之友”，以人民群众的代言人自居，却宣扬代表小资产阶级利益的改良主义政策和道理，并认为人民群众是愚昧无知的“群氓”，高唱伟人“世世代代地影响，带动群氓”等论调。这与马克思主义的人民立场完全背道而驰，也从根本上违背了人民群众创造历史的社会发展规律，不能不说是伪善和假仁假义。

To expose the hypocritical face of the liberal Narodniks as false “Friends of the People,” Lenin profoundly analyzed their reformist propositions, which “hoped to represent the interests of the working people” but “in fact always stood on the viewpoint of the small producer.”[18]18 Lenin, “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book” (1895), *Collected Works*, Vol. 1, p. 320 (Chinese edition). The liberal Narodniks believed that the disasters suffered by the peasantry—lack of land, excessive taxes, and complete lack of rights—were caused by “defects” in state policy. Therefore, in the journal *Russkoye Bogatstvo*, they vigorously advocated a so-called “program for the revival of the people’s economy,” whose main contents included adjusting migration and land tenancy, low-interest loans, technical improvements, and labor associations.[19]19 *Russkoye Bogatstvo* (Russian Wealth) was a monthly journal (1876–1918) that became the main organ of the liberal Narodniks in the 1890s, advocating reformist, petty-bourgeois socialism. In reality, as long as one focused on Russia’s existing, actual economic forms of organization, it was clear that the cause of the working people’s oppression and exploitation lay not in policy “defects” but in the relations of production themselves. Anyone with even a slight understanding of the condition of Russia’s working masses should realize that only a small number of petty bourgeois had the capacity to obtain loans for purchasing means of production and making technical improvements; the vast majority of poor peasants had no surplus “savings” with which to improve their working conditions. Accordingly, Lenin commented that the “program for the revival of the people’s economy” advocated by the liberal Narodniks was merely “standing entirely on the basis of modern society (that is, on the basis of the capitalist system, though they are not aware of it) and only wanting to patch up and tinker with this society,” while “any reform on the basis of the modern system is useless,” “cannot change anything in essence,” and “will not in the least touch this main, fundamental fact, that the vast mass of the population has been and continues to be expropriated, that they do not even have money to feed themselves, let alone to carry on normal farming.”[20]20 Lenin, “The Economic Content of Narodism,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 1, pp. 330–331 (Chinese edition). On this basis, Lenin warned socialists not to “trust the fine words about ‘the people’s interests’; if you look into it, you will see that before you are out-and-out petty-bourgeois ideologists, who dream of improving, maintaining, and restoring their own (as they say, ‘the people’s’) economy by various naive progressive measures, and who are absolutely unable to understand that, on the basis of the existing relations of production, all these progressive measures can only deepen the proletarianization of the masses.”[21]21 Ibid., p. 332.

为了揭穿自由主义民粹派假“人民之友”的伪善面目，列宁深刻分析了自由主义民粹派“希望代表劳动者的利益”“事实上他们总是站在小生产者的观点上”的改良主义主张。自由主义民粹派认为，农民遭受缺少土地、税款过重、毫无权利等灾难是国家政策的“缺陷”所致，因而在《俄国财富》杂志上极力鼓吹以调整移民和租佃、低利息贷款、技术改良、劳动组合等为主要内容的所谓“复兴人民经济纲领 ”。实际上，只要着眼于俄国现有的、实际的经济组织形式，就可以看出劳动者被压迫剥削的原因不在于政策“缺陷”，而是生产关系本身。只要稍微了解俄国劳动群众状况的人都应明白，有能力贷款用于购置生产工具、进行技术改良的只有少量的小资产阶级，广大贫农根本没有多余的“储金”来改善劳动条件。据此，列宁评论自由主义民粹派所鼓吹的“复兴人民经济纲领”不过是“完完全全站在现代社会的基地上（也就是说，站在资本主义制度基地上，不过他们没有意识到这一点），只想对这个社会修修补补、敷衍了事”，而“在现代制度基础上的任何改良都无济于事”，“都不能在实质上改变什么”，“丝毫也不会触动这一主要的根本的事实，即广大居民已经遭到剥夺并继续遭受剥夺，他们甚至无钱养活自己，更不要说进行正常的经营了”。基于此，列宁提醒社会主义者不要“轻信关于‘人民利益’的花言巧语，而去探究一下，那就会看出在你们面前的是一些地地道道的小资产阶级思想家，他们梦想着用各种天真的进步办法来改善、维持和恢复自己的（他们说的‘人民的’）经济，他们绝对不能了解，在现存的生产关系基础上，所有这些进步办法只会日益加深大众的无产阶级化”。

In contrast to the liberal Narodniks’ false attitude toward the people, Lenin emphasized that Russian Marxists adhered to “the standard of the interests of the working people.”[22]22 Lenin, “What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats” (1894), *Collected Works*, Vol. 1, p. 280 (Chinese edition). In his view, to truly change the people’s tragic fate, it was necessary to abandon the reformist path advocated by the liberal Narodniks and choose to take “the high road of open political struggle,” because “what the Russian people need is not the help of an unrestricted government and its officials, but liberation from its oppression.”[23]23 Lenin, “The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats” (1897), *Collected Works*, Vol. 2, p. 310 (Chinese edition). On this basis, Lenin stressed that the mission of Russian Social Democrats “is to overthrow the bourgeois system, to expropriate the expropriators, to destroy the social system based on the oppression of the working people,”[24]24 Lenin, “What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 1, p. 290 (Chinese edition). and that the Russian working class, as “the only fighter for the liberation of the workers,” “is the sole and natural representative of all the exploited and oppressed working masses of Russia.”[25]25 Lenin, “The Economic Content of Narodism,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 1, p. 340 (Chinese edition).

与自由主义民粹派对待人民的虚假态度相反，列宁强调，俄国马克思主义者坚持“劳动者的利益为标准”。在他看来，要真正改变人民的悲惨命运，就必须摈弃自由主义民粹派所主张的改良主义道路，选择走“公开政治斗争的大道”，因为“俄国人民需要的不是不受限制的政府及其官吏的帮助，而是从它的压迫下解放出来”。基于此，列宁强调，俄国社会民主党人的使命“就在于推翻资产阶级制度，剥夺剥夺者，消灭以压迫劳动者为基础的社会制度”， 俄国工人阶级作为“争取工人解放的唯一战士”，“是俄国全体被剥削劳动群众唯一的和天然的代表”。

The liberal Narodniks degraded the working masses into ignorant “rabble,” holding that if Russia did not develop along the path chosen for it by the intelligentsia, elites, and heroic figures, it would meet with disaster. Against this idealist view of history, Lenin reaffirmed the basic historical materialist proposition that “history is the activity of the masses, and as historical activity deepens, the masses will inevitably expand.”[26]26 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s dictum from *The Holy Family* (1845), which Lenin frequently cited against the Narodniks’ elitism. He sharply criticized their “narrow intellectual self-conceit, or even what might be called bureaucratic thinking,” which always regarded the working people “as material that should obey this or that path, and never regarded the various classes of the population as independent historical actors on a given path.”[27]27 Lenin, “What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 1, p. 295 (Chinese edition). On this basis, Lenin demanded that Russian Social Democrats strive to develop “the conditions for the independent and conscious activity of these creators of history.”[28]28 Ibid., p. 296. There is no doubt that what Lenin emphasized here was that Russia’s “activity aimed at socialism” could succeed only if it strove to attract the broad masses of working people to participate and gave full play to their initiative and creativity as the main force.

自由主义民粹派将劳动群众贬低为无知的“群氓”，认为俄国倘若不以知识分子、精英、英雄人物为俄国选定的道路发展就会遭遇灾祸，针对这一历史唯心主义观点，列宁重申了“历史活动是群众的活动，随着历史活动的深入，必将是群众的扩大”这一历史唯物主义的基本观点，严厉批判他们“知识分子狭隘的自以为是，或者甚至可以说是官僚主义的思维”，总是把劳动人民“看作是应当听命于走这条道路或那一条道路的材料，而从来没有把各个居民阶级看做是在既定道路上独立的历史活动家”。在此基础上，列宁要求俄国社会民主党人要努力发展人民群众“这些历史创造者独立和自觉活动的条件”。毫无疑问，列宁这里强调的是，俄国“以社会主义为目标的活动”只有努力吸引广大劳动群众参加，充分发挥他们作为主体力量的主动性和创造性，才能取得成功。

IV. The Enlightenment of Lenin’s Critique of the Liberal Narodniks on the Question of Russia’s Path of Social Development

四、列宁在俄国社会发展道路问题上对自由主义民粹派批判的启示

Lenin’s critique of the erroneous views of the liberal Narodniks on the question of Russia’s path of development, and the series of theoretical propositions he put forward in the course of this critique, played an extremely important guiding role in Russia’s march toward modern civilization. Although more than a century has passed since Lenin’s critique of the liberal Narodniks, revisiting Lenin’s reflections in this critique on how an economically and culturally backward Russia could move toward socialist modern civilization still has important practical guiding significance.

列宁对自由主义民粹派在俄国发展道路问题上错误观点的批判以及在批判中提出的一系列理论主张，为俄国走向现代文明发挥了极为重要的指导作用。尽管列宁对自由主义民粹派的批判已经过去了一个多世纪之久，但重温列宁在批判中关于经济文化落后的俄国如何走向社会主义现代文明的思考，仍然具有重要的现实指导意义。

(I) We Must Be Good at Learning from and Drawing on the Beneficial Achievements of Civilization Created by Capitalism

（一）必须善于学习和借鉴资本主义创造的有益文明成果

In response to the liberal populists’ denial of the fact of capitalist development in Russia and its historical progressive role, as well as their advocacy of bypassing capitalism to directly enter socialist society, Lenin criticized this as an “erroneous” “socialist utopia” that attempts to base socialism on a small-scale production economy. He emphasized that capitalism possesses historical progressiveness compared to all previous socio-economic formations, particularly in its significant advantages in promoting the development of large-scale socialized production, and that it was necessary to skillfully utilize capitalism to promote Russia’s social development. After the victory of the October Revolution, Lenin further stressed that Soviet Russia “should link its own survival with capitalist relations,” and should be willing to absorb all good things from capitalist countries. He put forward the formula for socialist construction: “Soviet power + Prussian railway order + American technology and trust organizations + American national education, etc., etc. ++ = sum = socialism.” Although China’s socialist modernization construction, compared with Lenin’s period, has reached an unprecedented breadth and depth, it still faces the problem of how to treat capitalism and how to handle the relationship between socialism and capitalism. Especially under the current backdrop where the world still features the coexistence of two social systems, socialism and capitalism, “if socialism wants to gain a comparative advantage over capitalism, it must boldly absorb and draw upon all the achievements of civilization created by human society, and absorb and draw upon advanced modes of operation and management methods from all countries in the world today, including developed capitalist countries, that reflect the laws of modern socialized production.” Xi Jinping emphasized this point: “For a considerable period, socialism in the primary stage must still engage in long-term cooperation and struggle with the more productively developed capitalism, and must still earnestly study and draw upon the beneficial achievements of civilization created by capitalism.”

针对自由主义民粹派否认俄国资本主义发展事实及其历史进步作用、主张绕过资本主义直接进入社会主义社会的主张，列宁批判这是企图将社会主义建立在小生产经济基础上的“错误的”“社会主义乌托邦”，强调资本主义较从前各类社会经济形态具有历史进步性，尤其在推动社会化大生产发展方面具有显著优势，要善于利用资本主义促进俄国社会的发展。十月革命胜利后，列宁进一步强调苏维埃俄国“应当把自己的生存同资本主义的关系联系起来”，要乐于吸收资本主义国家一切好的东西，提出了“苏维埃政权+普鲁士的铁路秩序+美国的技术和托拉斯组织+美国的国民教育等等等等++=总和=社会主义”的社会主义建设公式。虽然中国的社会主义现代化建设相比于列宁时期，已经达到前所未有的广度和深度，但同样面临如何对待资本主义、如何处理社会主义与资本主义关系的问题。特别是在当今世界仍是社会主义和资本主义两种社会制度并存的大背景下，“社会主义要赢得与资本主义相比较的优势，就必须大胆吸收和借鉴人类社会创造的一切文明成果，吸收和借鉴当今世界各国，包括资本主义发达国家一切反映现代社会化生产规律的先进经营方式、管理方法”。习近平对此强调：“在相当长时期内，初级阶段的社会主义还必须同生产力更发达的资本主义长期合作和斗争，还必须认真学习和借鉴资本主义创造的有益文明成果。”

Of course, while affirming the progressiveness of capitalism, Lenin also profoundly revealed the inherent and insurmountable internal contradictions of capitalism. This implies that in promoting the process of Chinese-path modernization, we must break the myth that “modernization equals Westernization,” and must maintain a sober understanding of the disasters, destruction, and problems brought to the development of human society by the West’s capital-centered modernization, such as the ever-expanding materialism, external expansion and plunder, capital hijacking of politics, polarization, and ecological environmental degradation. We must always remember that “Chinese-path modernization is socialist modernization, not any other kind of modernization.”

当然，列宁在肯定资本主义进步性的同时，也深刻揭示了资本主义固有的、无法克服的内在矛盾。这启示我们在推动中国式现代化进程中，要打破“现代化=西方化”的迷思，要对西方以资本为中心的现代化给人类社会发展所带来的灾难、破坏和问题，诸如物质主义的日益膨胀、对外扩张掠夺、资本绑架政治、两极分化、生态环境恶化等，保持清醒认知，时刻牢记“中国式现代化是社会主义现代化，而不是别的什么现代化”。

(II) It is necessary to unwaveringly uphold and strengthen the leadership of the Communist Party of China

（二）必须毫不动摇坚持和加强中国共产党的领导

In response to the liberal populists’ loud advocacy of the “theory of the peasant as the main body” and the “theory of intellectual leadership,” Lenin analyzed the class characteristics of the peasantry, the intelligentsia, and the working class, revealed the inevitability of the proletarian party seizing the leadership of the revolution, and emphasized that the proletarian party must strive to become the ideological leader and organizational leader of the workers’ movement, guiding them to organize and engage in political struggle with communism as the goal. These discussions profoundly reveal that upholding the leadership of the proletarian party is the fundamental guarantee for the success of the socialist cause. The course of the world socialist movement clearly demonstrates this. It can be said that without the strong leadership of the new-type proletarian party, the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), established by Lenin, there would have been no establishment and consolidation of the Soviet regime in Russia. A very important reason why this socialist regime, which had once achieved great successes, later collapsed was that during the Gorbachev period, the one-sided pursuit of ideological pluralism and political pluralism, and the laissez-faire attitude towards various phenomena that denied and distorted the leadership of the CPSU, led to the great destruction of the authority of the CPSU Central Committee, the severe loss of the CPSU’s leadership capacity, and the hollowing out of Party leadership. This means that upholding the strong and effective leadership of the proletarian party is a major principle that cannot be ambiguous or shaken. The development process of the Communist Party of China also fully demonstrates that Party leadership is the fundamental guarantee and advantage for realizing the Chinese people’s journey from standing up, to becoming prosperous, and then to becoming strong. Currently, the world is undergoing changes unseen in a century, accelerating in their evolution. China is at a critical period of comprehensively advancing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization. The major challenges and tests on the path ahead are rare in the history of the Party and the world, which requires strong and effective Party leadership more than at any other time. In this regard, Xi Jinping clearly pointed out: “Party leadership is the ‘stabilizing anchor’ for the continuous development of the Party and the state’s cause,” and “only by unwaveringly upholding Party leadership can Chinese-path modernization have a bright future and flourish; otherwise, Chinese-path modernization will deviate from its course, lose its soul, and even commit subversive mistakes.” However, for a period of time, there have been varying degrees of problems within the Party, such as vague understanding and weak action regarding upholding Party leadership, as well as problems of weakening, hollowing out, and downplaying the implementation of Party leadership. This requires that on the new historical journey, unwaveringly upholding Party leadership must be taken as the fundamental principle of the political life of the Party and the state, continuously enhancing the Party’s political leadership, ideological guidance, mass organization, and social appeal, ensuring that the Communist Party of China always remains the leading core of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

针对自由主义民粹派大肆宣扬“农民主体论”“知识分子领导论”，列宁分析了农民、知识分子和工人阶级的阶级特性，揭示了无产阶级政党掌握革命领导权的必然性，强调了无产阶级政党必须努力成为工人运动的思想领导者和组织领导者，引领他们组织起来进行以共产主义为目标的政治斗争。这些论述深刻揭示了坚持无产阶级政党的领导是社会主义事业取得成功的根本保证。世界社会主义运动的历程清楚表明了这一点。可以说，没有列宁建立的俄共（布）这样一个新型无产阶级政党的坚强领导，也就没有俄国苏维埃政权的建立与巩固。后来这一曾取得巨大成就的社会主义政权之所以分崩离析，一个非常重要的原因就在于戈尔巴乔夫时期片面追求思想多元化、政治多元化，放任各种否定、歪曲苏共领导的现象，导致苏共中央权威遭到极大破坏，苏共的领导力严重丧失，党的领导成了空谈。这意味着，坚持无产阶级政党坚强有力的领导是不能含糊和动摇的重大原则。中国共产党的发展历程也充分说明，党的领导是实现中国人民从站起来到富起来再到强起来的根本保证和优势所在。当前，世界百年未有之大变局加速演进，中国正处在以中国式现代化全面推进中华民族伟大复兴的关键期，前进道路上面临的重大挑战和考验史所罕见，世所罕见，这比任何时候都需要党的坚强有力领导。对此，习近平明确指出：“党的领导是党和国家事业不断发展的‘定海神针’”，“只有毫不动摇坚持党的领导，中国式现代化才能前景光明、繁荣兴盛；否则，中国式现代化就会偏离航向、丧失灵魂，甚至犯颠覆性错误”。然而，一段时期以来，党内还不同程度地存在对坚持党的领导认识模糊、行动乏力的问题，存在不少落实党的领导弱化、虚化、淡化的问题。这就要求，在新的历史征程中，必须把毫不动摇坚持党的领导作为党和国家政治生活的根本原则，不断增强党的政治领导力、思想引领力、群众组织力和社会号召力，确保中国共产党始终成为中国特色社会主义的领导核心。

(III) It is necessary to always represent the interests of the people and firmly rely on the masses

（三）必须始终代表人民的利益和紧紧依靠人民群众

In response to the liberal populists’ hypocritical facade of calling themselves “friends of the people” while actually representing the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and belittling the historical role of the masses, Lenin emphasized that when choosing a development path, Russia must take the fundamental interests of the people as the starting point and must rely on the masses as the supporting force. This fully reflects Lenin’s adherence to the fundamental political attribute of a Marxist party, namely, its people-centered nature. The world socialist movement also fully demonstrates whether communists can consistently strive for the interests of the people and firmly rely on the people directly determines the success or failure of the proletarian party’s cause. It can be said that the main reason Lenin was able to lead the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to win political power was that his political propositions of “peace, land, and bread” represented the interests and aspirations of the people, receiving enthusiastic response and heartfelt support from the broad masses. However, the fundamental reason why this very party, established under Lenin’s leadership, which had once been followed and supported by the broad masses, collapsed after 74 years in power was that in its later period, the CPSU gradually degenerated into a privileged bureaucratic group divorced from the masses, losing the people’s trust and support. In this regard, when explaining the need to grasp the new development philosophy from the fundamental purpose, Xi Jinping clearly pointed out that an important reason for the failure of the Soviet Union, the world’s first socialist country to achieve brilliant successes, was that “the Communist Party of the Soviet Union became divorced from the people and turned into a privileged bureaucratic group that only safeguarded its own interests. Even in countries that have achieved modernization, if the ruling party turns its back on the people, it will also damage the fruits of modernization.” This profound summary not only points out the reason for the ultimate failure of the CPSU but also expresses the clear attitude of the Communist Party of China to always safeguard the interests of the people. The struggle history of the Communist Party of China also fully demonstrates that the fundamental reason for the continuous growth and development of the Party’s cause is that it has always represented the interests of the people, firmly relied on the people, shared weal and woe with the people, and thus won the people’s heartfelt support and close following. At the ceremony marking the centenary of the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping emphasized, “The country is the people, and the people are the country,” and “The Communist Party of China has always represented the fundamental interests of the broadest majority of the people,” and “has never represented any interest group, any power group, or any privileged stratum’s interests.” Standing at a new historical starting point, the entire Party must always adhere to the people-centered development philosophy, always remember that “Chinese-path modernization is the cause of hundreds of millions of people, and the people are the main body of Chinese-path modernization,” firmly rely on the people, vigorously develop whole-process people’s democracy, listen to public opinion, pool the wisdom of the people, and gather the mighty force to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

针对自由主义民粹派自诩为“人民之友”，实际上却代表小资产阶级利益、贬低人民群众历史作用的伪善面目，列宁强调俄国在选择发展道路时必须以人民的根本利益为出发点、必须把人民群众作为依靠力量。这充分体现了列宁对人民性这一马克思主义政党根本政治属性的坚守。世界社会主义运动也充分表明，共产党人能不能始终如一地坚持为人民利益而奋斗、紧紧依靠人民，直接决定了无产阶级政党事业的兴衰成败。可以说，列宁能够领导俄共（布）赢得政权的主要原因在于他提出的“和平、土地、面包”的政治主张代表了人民的利益和愿望，得到了广大人民群众的热烈响应和衷心拥护。然而，就是列宁领导建立的这样一个曾经得到广大人民群众追随和拥护的党，在执政74年后之所以轰然倒塌，归根结底就在于苏共后期逐渐蜕变为脱离人民群众的特权官僚集团、失去了人民的信任与支持。对此，习近平在阐释要从根本宗旨把握新发展理念时明确指出，苏联作为世界上第一个曾经取得辉煌成就的社会主义国家之所以失败，“一个重要原因是苏联共产党脱离了人民，成为一个只维护自身利益的特权官僚集团。即使是实现了现代化的国家，如果执政党背离人民，也会损害现代化成果”。这一深刻总结不仅指出了苏共最终失败的原因所在，更表达了中国共产党人要始终维护人民利益的鲜明态度。中国共产党的奋斗历程也充分表明，党的事业之所以不断发展壮大，根本原因就在于其始终代表人民的利益，紧紧依靠人民，与人民风雨同舟，进而赢得了人民的衷心拥护和贴心追随。在庆祝中国共产党成立100 周年大会上，习近平强调，“江山就是人民，人民就是江山”，“中国共产党始终代表最广大人民根本利益”，“从来不代表任何利益集团、任何权势团体、任何特权阶层的利益”。站在新的历史起点，全党必须始终坚持以人民为中心的发展理念，时刻牢记“中国式现代化是亿万人民自己的事业，人民是中国式现代化的主体”，紧紧依靠人民，大力发展全过程人民民主，倾听民意，集中民智，凝聚起实现中华民族伟大复兴的磅礴力量。

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心