Lenin’s Reflections on How to Build a Socialist Economy in a Backward Country

After the October Revolution of 1917, under conditions of internal and external troubles and an economy on the verge of collapse, the Soviet Russian government implemented the policy of War Communism from 1918 to 1920. Thereafter, as circumstances changed, Lenin, after thorough consideration, began in March 1921 to implement the New Economic Policy (NEP) as a transition to socialism, replacing War Communism. An important element of the NEP was the replacement of grain requisitioning with a tax in kind on grain, which greatly lightened the burden on the peasants. At the same time, the NEP also allowed foreign capitalist enterprises to manage enterprises that the state was temporarily unable to run, restored commodity-money relations, and regulated production. This article, drawing on Lenin’s reports and writings on the NEP from 1922–1923 and the classic works he left in the final moments of his life, *On Cooperation* and *Better Fewer, But Better*, analyzes his reflections on how to build a socialist economy in a backward country.

1917年十月革命后，在内忧外患和经济濒临崩溃的情况下，苏俄政府在1918年—1920年实行战时共产主义政策。此后，由于形势变化，列宁经过充分考虑，于1921年3月开始实行向社会主义过渡的新经济政策以取代战时共产主义政策。新经济政策的一项重要内容，是以征收粮食税代替余粮收集制，这大大减轻了农民的负担。同时，新经济政策还允许外资企业管理国家暂时无力经营的企业，恢复商品货币关系，对生产进行调节。本文结合1922年—1923年列宁涉及新经济政策的报告、著作及其在生命最后时刻留下的经典著作《论合作社》《宁肯少些，但要好些》，分析其对落后国家如何进行社会主义经济建设的思考。

I. The Challenges of the New Economic Policy and the New Connotation of State Capitalism

一、新经济政策的挑战和国家资本主义的新内涵

On March 27, 1922, Lenin delivered a political report on behalf of the Central Committee at the Eleventh Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) [RCP(b)], summarizing three points of experience gained from one year of implementing the NEP. The NEP was a major turning point in the economic policy of Soviet Russia, marking the end of the War Communism policy of the period of internal and external troubles.

1922年3月27日，列宁代表中央委员会在俄共（布）第十一次代表大会上作政治报告，总结了执行新经济政策一年来的三点经验。新经济政策是苏俄经济政策的一个重大转折点，标志着内忧外患时期战时共产主义政策的终结。

(1) The Three Major Experiences of the New Economic Policy

（一）新经济政策的三大经验

The first point was the most gratifying: “we have found that combination of the new economy, which we have built with such great effort, with the peasant economy,” [1]1 Lenin, “Political Report of the Central Committee of the RCP(b), March 27, 1922,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 33, p. 278. “previously there was no such combination, so now we must first establish this combination,” and economic construction must “combine our socialist work in large-scale industry and agriculture with the work that every peasant engages in.” [2]2 Ibid. For Lenin, this was the first basic political lesson of the NEP: “to merge with the peasant masses, with the ordinary working peasants, and begin to move forward together, although much more slowly than we expected, immeasurably more slowly, but the entire mass will truly move forward together with us.” [3]3 Ibid., p. 279.

第一点是最令人欣慰的，“找到了我们花很大力量所建立的新经济同农民经济的结合”，“以前没有这种结合，所以现在我们首先要建立这种结合”，经济建设必须“使我们在大工业和农业中的社会主义工作同每个农民从事的工作结合起来”。对列宁来说，这就是新经济政策的第一个基本政治教训：“同农民群众，同普通劳动农民汇合起来，开始一道前进，虽然比我们所期望的慢得多，慢得不知多少，但全体群众却真正会同我们一道前进。”

The second experience was actually a challenge, and also an inevitable result of the NEP: “to test the managerial ability of the Communists through competition between state enterprises and capitalist enterprises.” [4]4 Ibid., p. 280. Lenin openly stated that the problem was “we do not know how to run things.” [5]5 Ibid. However, in joint-stock companies (with both state capital and private capital, both foreign capitalists and Russian capitalists) and in the broader sphere of production, passing this test was crucial: “either we pass the examination in this competition with private capital, or we fail completely.” [6]6 Ibid., p. 281. In any case, the lesson drawn from this was “to start learning from scratch.” [7]7 Ibid.

第二个经验实际上是一种挑战，同时也是新经济政策的必然结果，“通过国营企业同资本主义企业的竞赛来检验共产党人的经营管理水平”。列宁公开表示，问题在于“我们不会经营”。但是，在合营公司（既有国有资本，也有私人资本，既有外国资本家，也有俄国资本家）以及更广泛的生产领域，通过这一检验至关重要，“或者我们能在这场同私人资本竞赛的考试中及格，或者我们完全失败”。无论如何，从这里得出的教训是要“从头学起”。

The third experience Lenin emphasized concerned state capitalism. To some extent, this report and other writings from the months before and after provided a new exposition of this theme. In polemicizing with Bukharin’s dogmatic position, Lenin pointed out that books “write about state capitalism under the capitalist system, but not a single book has written about state capitalism under the communist system. Not even Marx thought to write a single word on this question; he died without leaving any clear, quotable texts or irrefutable instructions. Therefore, we must now find our own way out.” [8]8 Ibid., p. 283. In fact, “as all economic works explain, state capitalism is a form of capitalism in which the state power directly controls these or those capitalist enterprises under the capitalist system. But our country is a proletarian state; it relies on the proletariat, grants the proletariat various political privileges, and through the proletariat draws the lower strata of the peasantry to its side.” [9]9 Ibid. In other words, “our society has already departed from the capitalist track but has not yet entered the new track; however, the state is no longer led by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat. We are unwilling to understand that when we speak of the ‘state,’ this state is ourselves, is the proletariat, is the vanguard of the working class… State capitalism is the capitalism that we must confine within certain limits, but so far we have not yet acquired the ability to confine it within these limits. That is the whole point. What this state capitalism will become depends on us.” [10]10 Ibid., pp. 283–284. Lenin pointed out that in the Soviet state, the nature and limits of state capitalism are determined by the vanguard of the working class, i.e., the Communist Party. But this vanguard must be capable of doing so, and so far it lacks this ability. Lenin’s idea was to establish a dual political structure between private capitalism (which must be permitted, “capitalist economy and capitalist circulation must be allowed to operate as usual, because the people need it and cannot live without it” [11]11 Ibid., p. 284.) and the state power. However, if those in power are incompetent, the state power under the dual political structure faces the danger of losing control. It is worth noting that for Lenin, this power was economic power. It is precisely in the economic sphere that it must defeat private capital. This victory is not achieved by decrees, but by the ability to organize the economy better than private capital (to be proven in practice).

列宁强调的第三点经验涉及国家资本主义。在部分意义上，列宁的这一报告和前后几个月的其他著作都对这一主题进行了新的阐述。列宁在与布哈林的教条主义立场进行论战时指出，书里“写的是资本主义制度下的国家资本主义，而没有一本书写到过共产主义制度下的国家资本主义。连马克思也没有想到要就这个问题写下片言只语，他没有留下任何明确的可供引用的文字和无可反驳的指示就去世了。因此现在我们必须自己来找出路”。事实上，“照所有经济著作解释，国家资本主义就是资本主义制度下由国家政权直接控制这些或那些资本主义企业的一种资本主义。但是我国是一个无产阶级国家，它依靠无产阶级，给无产阶级种种政治上的优先权，并通过无产阶级把下层农民吸引到自己方面来”。换句话说，“我们的社会虽已脱离资本主义轨道，但还没有走上新轨道，不过领导这个国家的已不是资产阶级，而是无产阶级。我们不愿了解，当我们说到‘国家’的时候，这国家就是我们，就是无产阶级，就是工人阶级的先锋队……国家资本主义是我们应当将之纳入一定范围的资本主义，但是直到现在我们还没有本领把它纳入这些范围。全部问题就在这里。这种国家资本主义将来会怎样，这就取决于我们了”。列宁指出，在苏维埃国家，国家资本主义的性质和界限是由工人阶级的先锋队，即共产党来决定的。但这个先锋队必须能够做到这一点，但到目前为止，它还缺乏这种本领。列宁的想法是在私人资本主义（这一点必须被允许，“必须让资本主义经济和资本主义流转能够像通常那样运行，因为这是人民所需要的，少了它就不能生活”）和国家政权之间建立一种二元政治结构。然而，若掌权者无能，二元政治结构下的国家政权会面临失控的危险。值得指出的是，对列宁来说，这种权力就是经济权力。正是在经济领域，它必须战胜私人资本。这种胜利不是靠法令实现的，而是靠比私人资本更好地组织经济的能力（要实实在在地证明）。

(2) A New Type of State Capitalism

（二）新型国家资本主义

During the Eleventh Congress of the RCP(b), Lenin again addressed the question of state capitalism, this time in the *Concluding Remarks on the Political Report of the Central Committee of the RCP(b)* in polemic with Preobrazhensky. Preobrazhensky argued that “state capitalism is capitalism, and it can only be understood and should only be understood in this way.” [12]12 Lenin, “Concluding Remarks on the Political Report of the Central Committee of the RCP(b), March 28, 1922,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 33, p. 293. Lenin retorted that this was a scholastic assertion; the development of Russia after the revolution exhibited new features “that neither Marx nor any Marxist could have foreseen.” [13]13 Ibid. In fact, state capitalism in Soviet Russia “is a very unexpected kind of capitalism, absolutely unforeseeable by anyone, because no one could have foreseen that the proletariat would come to power in a country belonging to the most underdeveloped category; it initially tried to organize large-scale production and distribution for the peasants, but later, due to cultural conditions, proved unable to accomplish this task and had to resort to capitalism.” [14]14 Ibid. In short, “our present state capitalism is not the state capitalism that the Germans discussed. It is the capitalism we have permitted.” [15]15 Ibid. Therefore, “state capitalism in the proletarian state should be made unable to exceed and dare not exceed the limits set for it by the proletariat and the conditions favorable to the proletariat.” [16]16 Ibid., p. 294.

在俄共（布）第十一次代表大会期间，列宁再次谈到了国家资本主义问题，这次是在《关于俄共（布）政治报告的总结发言》中与普列奥布拉任斯基论战。普列奥布拉任斯基认为，“国家资本主义就是资本主义，只能这样理解并且应该这样理解”。列宁反驳道，这是一种经院式的论断，革命后俄国的发展呈现出“不管是马克思还是哪个马克思主义者都未能预见到”的新特点。事实上，苏维埃俄国的国家资本主义“是一种非常意外的、谁都绝对预见不到的资本主义，因为谁也无法预见到，无产阶级竟会在一个属于最不发达之列的国家中取得政权；它起初试图为农民组织大规模的生产和分配，后来由于文化条件所限无力完成这个任务，不得不采用资本主义”。简言之，“我们现在的国家资本主义并非德国人论述过的国家资本主义。这是经我们容许的资本主义”。因此，“应该使无产阶级国家中的国家资本主义无法越出也不敢越出无产阶级为之规定的范围和有利于无产阶级的条件”。

Lenin believed that Soviet Russia was able to meet this challenge due to substantive objective reasons: the state controlled the land and the most important industrial sectors. As he stated in his report to the Fourth Congress of the Communist International on November 13, 1922: “The state capitalism we are implementing in our country is a special kind of state capitalism. It differs from the usual concept of state capitalism. We hold all the commanding heights of the economy… The difference between our state capitalism and state capitalism in the literal sense lies in the fact that our proletarian state not only controls the land but also all the most important industrial sectors.” [17]17 Lenin, “Report to the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, November 13, 1922,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 33, p. 428.

列宁认为，苏维埃俄国之所以能够应对这一挑战，有其实质性的客观原因：国家掌握了土地和最重要的工业部门。正如他在1922年11月13日向共产国际第四次代表大会所作的报告中所说的：“我们在我国实行的国家资本主义，是一种特殊的国家资本主义。它与国家资本主义的通常概念不同。我们掌握了一切经济命脉……我们的国家资本主义同从字面上理解的国家资本主义的区别就在于我们无产阶级国家不仅掌握了土地，而且掌握了一切最重要的工业部门。”

This essentially explains Lenin’s speech at the Third Congress of the Communist International: “State capitalism in a society where power belongs to capital and state capitalism in a proletarian state are two different concepts. In a capitalist country, so-called state capitalism means that capitalism is recognized and supervised by the state, thereby benefiting the bourgeoisie and harming the proletariat. In a proletarian state, the practice is the same, but it benefits the working class, for the purpose of contending and struggling with the still very strong bourgeoisie.” [18]18 Lenin, “Speech at the Third Congress of the Communist International,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 488. But in his speech at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, Lenin mentioned more. He clearly pointed out that in a proletarian state, the principal means of production belong to the state; this is a specific characteristic of the proletarian state.

这基本上阐释了列宁在共产国际第三次代表大会上的发言：“在政权属于资本的社会里的国家资本主义和无产阶级国家里的国家资本主义是两个不同的概念。在资本主义国家里，所谓国家资本主义，就是资本主义得到国家的认可并受国家的监督，从而有利于资产阶级而不利于无产阶级。在无产阶级国家里，做法相同，但是这有利于工人阶级，目的是为了和依然很强大的资产阶级抗衡和斗争。”但在共产国际第四次代表大会上的讲话中，列宁提到了更多内容。他明确指出，在无产阶级国家中，主要生产资料属于国家，这是无产阶级国家的具体特征。

Although Lenin made clarifications and distinctions, the use of the concept of “state capitalism” remained controversial within the Party. Trotsky delivered a report titled “On the New Economic Policy of Russia and the World Revolution” at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International. Lenin expressed his appreciation for this report and recommended its publication in newspapers and pamphlets, stating that Trotsky’s report was “particularly suitable for publicizing our New Economic Policy to foreign audiences.” However, Trotsky himself stated in the report that, with regard to the situation in Soviet Russia, he could not accept the use of the term “state capitalism.”

尽管列宁进行了澄清和区分，但“国家资本主义”这一概念的使用在党内仍存在争议。托洛茨基在共产国际第四次代表大会上发表了《关于俄国新经济政策和世界革命》的报告，列宁对此表示赞赏，并建议在报纸和宣传册上发表，认为托洛茨基的报告“特别适合向外国公众宣传我们的新经济政策”。但是，托洛茨基本人在报告中表示，就苏维埃俄国的情况，他不能接受使用“国家资本主义”一词。

(III) Successes and Mistakes

（三）成功与失误

Lenin’s report at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International was of great significance. This is because, in the report, Lenin not only reflected on state capitalism but also provided an important opportunity to summarize the successes of the New Economic Policy after a year and a half of its implementation.

列宁在共产国际第四次代表大会上的报告意义重大。因为列宁在报告中不仅对国家资本主义进行了反思，而且为大家提供了一个重要的机会，即在新经济政策执行一年半之后对其成功之处进行总结。

For Lenin, the first success was overcoming the most severe internal political crisis in Soviet Russia. Here, Lenin particularly emphasized the freedom of trade, and then mentioned the good results achieved in the collection of the grain tax, with almost no peasant protests or uprisings occurring. “Before 1921, peasant uprisings could be said to be a common phenomenon in Russia, but today they have almost completely disappeared. The peasants are satisfied with their current situation. We can confidently make this judgment.” [19]19 V. I. Lenin, “Five Years of the Russian Revolution and the Prospects for the World Revolution,” Report at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, November 13, 1922, *Collected Works*, Vol. 33, p. 419. [Translator’s note: The English edition of Lenin’s *Collected Works* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965) gives the title as “Five Years of the Russian Revolution and the Prospects of the World Revolution.”] These statements by Lenin have been largely corroborated by modern historiography: “With the implementation of the New Economic Policy, approximately 22 million peasant families not only realized their dream of owning land (they now owned 95% of the land, each family possessing more than 8 hectares), but also realized their desire to use this land and arrange their lives according to their own wishes… In short, the new situation was more favorable to the peasants than ever before.” [20]20 Giuseppe Boffa, *Storia dell’Unione Sovietica*, Vol. 1 (Milan: Mondadori, 1976), p. 159. Light industry experienced a general upswing. In contrast, the situation in heavy industry remained severe, partly because the Soviet Union was cut off from international capital markets. Nevertheless, Lenin emphasized that the state had begun to allocate funds (though still insufficient) for the reconstruction of heavy industry.

对列宁来说，第一个成功是克服了苏维埃俄国最严重的内部政治危机。在这里，列宁特别强调了贸易自由，然后提到了在征收粮食税方面取得的良好成果，而且几乎没有发生农民抗议和暴动的情况。“在1921年以前，农民暴动可以说是俄国的普遍现象，而今天差不多完全没有了。农民对他们目前的境况是满意的。我们可以放心地下这个论断。”列宁的这些论述基本上得到了近代史学界的认同：“随着新经济政策的实施，约2200万个农民家庭不仅实现了拥有土地的梦想（他们现在拥有95%的土地，每个家庭拥有8公顷以上的土地），而且还实现了按照自己的意愿使用这些土地和安排自己生活的愿望……总之，新的形势比以往任何时候都更有利于农民。”轻工业有了普遍的高涨。相比之下，重工业的形势依然严峻，部分原因是苏联被切断了与国际资本市场的联系。不过，列宁强调国家已开始拨出资金（尽管仍然是不够的）重建重工业。

However, Lenin’s speech, as always, was completely devoid of the self-satisfied sense of victory characteristic of various later stages of Soviet history, and was not lacking in reflection on mistakes, errors, and their roots. “There is no doubt that we have done and will continue to do many foolish things in the past.” [21]21 Lenin, “Five Years of the Russian Revolution,” p. 421. There were four main reasons: “First, we are a backward country. Second, our level of education is extremely low. Third, we receive no foreign aid. No civilized country helps us; on the contrary, they are all opposing us. Fourth, it is due to the faults of our state organs’ staff.” [22]22 Ibid., p. 422. Upon closer examination, each of these problems touches, from the negative side, on the prerequisites for achieving socialism that Lenin considered essential: the necessity of developing the productive forces, the development of mass culture, the Western revolution, and a break with the state apparatus inherited from the Tsarist era. But when Lenin addressed the last point, he did so with concern and irony: “We took over the old state apparatus staff; this is our misfortune. The state apparatus staff often oppose us. The thing is, after we seized power in 1917, the state apparatus staff carried out a go-slow against us. We were frightened at the time and begged: ‘Please come back to us.’ So they all came back, and that is our misfortune. Now we have a large number of functionaries, but we lack people with real talent to effectively manage them. In practice, it often happens like this: here, at the top, where we hold state power, the apparatus staff barely manage to fulfill their duties, but down below, they do whatever they want, and often oppose our measures… There is no way to fix this in a short period of time; that is beyond doubt. In this regard, we will need many years of effort to improve the apparatus, change its character, and absorb new forces.” [23]23 Ibid., pp. 422–423. Here, the fourth point is linked to the second point, namely raising the cultural level of the masses: “We have established Soviet schools and workers’ preparatory courses, with hundreds of thousands of young people studying. Perhaps they are studying too quickly, but the work has begun, and I think this work will surely yield results.” [24]24 Ibid., p. 423.

但是，列宁的讲话一如既往地完全没有后来苏联各个历史阶段所特有的那种自我满足的胜利感，不乏对失误、错误及其根源的反思，“毫无疑问，我们过去干了而且将来还会干出许多蠢事来”。主要有四个原因：“第一，我们是个落后的国家。第二，我国的教育程度极低。第三，我们得不到外援。没有一个文明国家帮助我们，相反地，它们都在反对我们。第四，由于我们国家机关工作人员的过错。”仔细观察，这些问题中的每一个都从反面提到了列宁所认为的实现社会主义的前提条件：生产力发展的必要性、群众文化的发展、西方革命以及与沙皇时期遗留下来的国家机关决裂。但是，列宁在谈到最后一个问题时，带着忧虑和讽刺：“我们接收了旧的国家机关工作人员，这是我们的不幸。国家机关工作人员常常反对我们。事情是这样的，1917年我们夺取政权之后，国家机关工作人员曾对我们实行怠工。当时我们被吓住了，便请求说：‘请回到我们这儿来吧。’于是他们全都回来了，而这就是我们的不幸。现在我们有一大批职员，但是缺乏有相当真才实学的人来切实地管理他们。实际上经常发生这样的事情：在这里，在上面，在我们执掌国家政权的地方，机关工作人员还在勉强履行其职责，可是在下面，他们要怎么干就怎么干，而且常常反对我们的措施……在这方面，短时期内是没有办法的，这是毫无疑问的。在这方面我们要作多年的努力，才能改善机关，改变它的面貌并吸收新的力量。”在这里，第四点与第二点即提高群众的文化水平联系在一起：“我们办了苏维埃学校和工人预科，有几十万青年在学习，也许学得太快了，但是，工作总算是开始了，我想，这个工作一定会收到成效。”

II. Lenin’s Reflections on Cooperatives, State Transformation, and Cultural Work in the Final Stage of His Life

二、列宁生命最后阶段对合作社与国家转型及文化工作的思考

When Lenin delivered his report in German at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, he had already been ill for some time. By the end of 1920, Lenin’s serious health problems became apparent, manifesting as migraines, insomnia, and difficulty concentrating. In December 1921, Lenin originally planned to take a week’s leave in Gorki, but the actual rest period far exceeded expectations. The Eleventh Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in March 1922 was the last congress Lenin was able to attend, although his ability to read and converse with delegates had declined. On May 27, 1922, Lenin suffered his first stroke, temporarily losing the ability to speak and write clearly. In the following months, his health improved somewhat. On October 2, Lenin was able to return to work fully, and in November he participated in the Fourth Congress of the Communist International. But in mid-December, a second stroke again deprived him of his ability to write. From then on, under strict medical supervision, Lenin could only work a few hours a day and had no choice but to dictate his manuscripts. During Lenin’s lifetime, only a portion of the manuscripts written by his secretaries based on his dictation in the last months of his life were published. From the perspective of his economic thought, two of these are particularly important: the first is “On Cooperation,” published in January 1923, and the second is “Better Fewer, But Better,” dictated and completed on March 2, 1923. A few days later, on March 6, 1923, a third stroke deprived Lenin of the ability to communicate, until his death on January 21, 1924.

当列宁用德语在共产国际第四次代表大会上作报告时，已经病了一段时间。到1920年年底，列宁严重的健康问题显现出来，表现为偏头痛、失眠和注意力难以集中。1921年12月，列宁原计划在哥尔克休假一周，结果实际休养时间远远超出了预期。1922年3月召开的俄共（布）第十一次代表大会是列宁能够参加的最后一次代表大会，尽管他的阅读能力和与代表们交谈的能力都有所下降。1922年5月27日，列宁第一次中风，暂时丧失了清晰的语言表达和书写能力。在接下来的几个月里，他的健康情况有所好转。10月2日，列宁得以全力恢复工作，并于11月参加了共产国际第四次代表大会。但在12月中旬，第二次中风再次使他丧失了写作能力。从那时起，在严格的医疗监护下，列宁每天只能工作几个小时，别无选择之下只能自己口述文稿。列宁在世时，秘书们在他生命的最后几个月里根据其口授所撰写的文稿只出版了一部分。从他的经济思想的角度来看其中两篇尤为重要：第一篇是1923年1月发表的《论合作社》，第二篇是于1923年3月2日口述完成的《宁肯少些，但要好些》。几天后，即1923年3月6日，第三次中风使列宁丧失与人交流的能力，直至1924年1月21日去世。

(I) The New Role of Soviet Power and Cooperatives

（一） 苏维埃政权与合作社的新作用

The article “On Cooperation” elaborates on the new role of cooperatives in the context of the New Economic Policy, and its importance extends beyond the specific subject it addresses. Lenin’s starting point is this: the ideals of the old cooperators contained many illusions and were rightly criticized by socialists. But why were these illusions out of touch with reality? Because they “did not understand the fundamental significance of the political struggle of the working class to overthrow the rule of the exploiters.” [25]25 V. I. Lenin, “On Cooperation,” January 4 and 6, 1923, *Collected Works*, Vol. 33, p. 467. In short, the utopianism of cooperative members lay in believing that socialism could be achieved solely through the development of the cooperative system. However, now that state power is in the hands of the working class, and all the means of production are in the hands of the working class, the situation is entirely different. Under the New Economic Policy, “we made concessions to the peasant as a trader, that is, to the principle of private trade… Now we have found the appropriate degree of combination of private interest, i.e., the interest of private trade, with the state’s inspection and supervision of that interest, and the appropriate degree of subordination of private interest to the common interest, which was the stumbling block for many socialists in the past.” [26]26 Ibid., p. 468. In this new context, cooperatives (“which we once scorned as mere trading cooperatives”) become “everything necessary for building a complete socialist society.” “This is not yet the building of socialist society, but it is everything necessary and sufficient for building socialist society.” [27]27 Ibid., p. 469. The important thing is to get the entire population to participate in cooperatives. Lenin did not mince words: to achieve this goal, “a whole historical epoch is needed. In the best case, it will take us one or two decades to get through this epoch.” [28]28 Ibid., p. 470. To achieve this goal, the state must “grant cooperatives all kinds of preferences in economic, financial, and banking matters.” [29]29 Ibid., p. 471.

《论合作社》一文阐述了合作社在新经济政策背景下的新作用，其重要性超出了它所涉及的具体主题。列宁的出发点是这样的：旧日合作社工作者的理想中有很多幻想，理应受到社会主义者的批判。但为什么这些幻想与现实脱节呢？因为他们“不懂得工人阶级为推翻剥削者统治而进行的政治斗争的根本意义”。简言之，合作社成员的乌托邦主义就是认为可以只通过发展合作社制度来实现社会主义。然而，国家政权既已掌握在工人阶级手里，全部生产资料既已掌握在工人阶级手里，情况就大不一样了。在新经济政策中，“我们向作为商人的农民作了让步，即向私人买卖的原则作了让步……现在我们发现了私人利益即私人买卖的利益与国家对这种利益的检查监督相结合的合适程度，发现了私人利益服从共同利益的合适程度，而这是过去许许多多社会主义者碰到的绊脚石”。在这一新的背景下，合作社（“曾被我们鄙视为做买卖的合作社”）成为“建成完全的社会主义社会所必需的一切”，“这还不是建成社会主义社会，但这已是建成社会主义社会所必需而且足够的一切”。重要的是让全体居民人人参加合作社。列宁毫不讳言，要实现这一目标，“需要整整一个历史时代。在最好的情况下，我们度过这个时代也要一二十年”，为了实现这一目标，国家必须在“经济、财政、银行方面给合作社以种种优惠”。

The cooperative question also provided Lenin with an opportunity to reaffirm his views on state capitalism. On the one hand, he distinguished between “ordinary state capitalism” and “that particular, even very particular, state capitalism”; on the other hand, he declared that there existed a “successive connection” between these two forms of state capitalism. Under three different social systems, cooperatives have different natures and functions: “Under private capitalism, cooperative enterprises differ from capitalist enterprises as collective enterprises differ from private enterprises”; “Under state capitalism, cooperative enterprises differ from state-capitalist enterprises in that cooperative enterprises are first of all private enterprises, and secondly collective enterprises”; “Under our present system, cooperative enterprises differ from private capitalist enterprises in that they are collective enterprises, but they do not differ from socialist enterprises if the land they occupy and the means of production they use belong to the state, i.e., to the working class.” In this context, Lenin did not equate the Soviet Russian system with state capitalism. Based on the above views, Lenin concluded: “Under our conditions, cooperatives often fully coincide with socialism.”

合作社问题也为列宁提供了一个机会重申自己对国家资本主义的看法。他一方面区分了“普通的国家资本主义”和“那种特别的，甚至非常特别的国家资本主义”，另一方面又宣称这两种国家资本主义之间存在着“继承性的联系”。在三种不同的社会制度下，合作社具有不同的性质和作用：“私人资本主义下，合作企业与资本主义企业不同，前者是集体企业，后者是私人企业”；“在国家资本主义下，合作企业与国家资本主义企业不同，合作企业首先是私人企业，其次是集体企业”；“在我国现存制度下，合作企业与私人资本主义企业不同，合作企业是集体企业，但与社会主义企业没有区别，如果它占用的土地和使用的生产资料是属于国家即属于工人阶级的”。在这个语境中，列宁并没有把苏俄的制度与国家资本主义相提并论。基于以上观点，列宁得出结论：“在我国的条件下合作社往往是同社会主义完全一致的。”

(2) Transforming the State Apparatus and Cultural Work

（二）改造国家机关与文化工作

With the establishment of Soviet power, it was not only the concept of cooperatives that needed to be transformed. In Lenin’s view, “We have to admit that our entire outlook on socialism has fundamentally changed. This fundamental change consists in the fact that formerly we placed, and had to place, the center of gravity on political struggle, revolution, the seizure of power, and so forth, whereas now the center of gravity is shifting to peaceful ‘cultural’ organizational work. If it were not for international relations, if it were not for the necessity of fighting for our positions in the international arena, I would say that our center of gravity has shifted to culturalism. If we set aside international relations and speak only of domestic economic relations, then the center of gravity of our work today indeed lies in culturalism.”

随着苏维埃政权的建立，需要转变的不仅仅是合作社的概念。在列宁看来，“我们不得不承认我们对社会主义的整个看法根本改变了。这种根本的改变表现在：从前我们是把重心放在而且也应该放在政治斗争、革命、夺取政权等等方面，而现在重心改变了，转到和平的‘文化’组织工作上去了。如果不是因为国际关系，不是因为必须为我们在国际范围内的阵地进行斗争，我真想说，我们的重心转移到文化主义上去了。如果把国际关系撇开不谈，只就国内经济关系来说，那么我们现在的工作重心的确在于文化主义。”

Lenin pointed out, “We are faced with two epoch-making tasks.” The first task is “to transform our state apparatus, which we inherited in its entirety from the old days and which is utterly useless; this apparatus, in the five years of struggle, we have not had time to, nor could we have, seriously remold.” The second task is “to carry out cultural work among the peasantry. This cultural work among the peasantry, in terms of its economic objective, is cooperation. If we fully achieve cooperation, we will have firmly established ourselves on the foundation of socialism.” The article concludes with the concept of a “cultural revolution” and clarifies its cultural and material prerequisites: “Now, once we achieve this cultural revolution, our country can become a fully socialist country. But this cultural revolution, both in terms of pure culture (because we are illiterate) and in terms of material conditions (because to be cultured, one must have a fairly developed production of material means of production and a fairly solid material base), is exceptionally difficult for us.”

列宁指出，“我们面前摆着两个划时代的主要任务”。第一个任务是“改造我们原封不动地从旧时代接收过来的简直毫无用处的国家机关；这种机关，我们在五年来的斗争中还来不及也不可能来得及认真加以改造”。第二个任务是“在农民中进行文化工作。这种在农民中进行的文化工作，就其经济目的来说，就是合作化。要是完全实现了合作化，我们也就在社会主义基地上站稳了脚跟”。文章的结尾提到了“文化革命”的概念，并阐明了其文化和物质前提：“现在，只要实现了这个文化革命，我们的国家就能成为完全社会主义的国家了。但是这个文化革命，无论在纯粹文化方面（因为我们是文盲）或物质方面（因为要成为有文化的人，就要有相当发达的物质生产资料的生产，要有相当的物质基础），对于我们说来，都是异常困难的。”

It is worth noting that the article “On Cooperation,” and more specifically the point that the development of cooperatives equals the development of socialism, was used in 1925 by Stalin and Bukharin to prove that Lenin was once convinced that Russia possessed all the necessary elements to build socialism and did not need foreign capital. [30]30 In 1925, Stalin and Bukharin used Lenin’s “On Cooperation” to argue that the Soviet Union could build socialism independently, without relying on revolution in the West, a position that became the basis for the “socialism in one country” theory.

值得注意的是，《论合作社》一文，更具体地说，指出合作社的发展等于社会主义的发展这一点，在1925年被斯大林和布哈林用来证明列宁一度确信俄国具备建成社会主义的所有要素，不需要外国资本 。

(3) Achieving the Victory of Socialism Between Tactics and Strategy

（三）在战术和战略之间取得社会主义的胜利

In his final work, “Better Fewer, But Better,” Lenin raised a question on this matter: “Under the conditions of our small and very small peasant production, under the conditions of our economic devastation, can we hold out until the day when the capitalist countries of Western Europe develop to socialism?” Lenin acknowledged that the completion of this developmental process in Western countries would not occur “as we had previously expected.” They would complete this process not through the balanced “maturation” of socialism in these countries, but “through the path of exploiting the first defeated country in the imperialist war, combined with the path of exploiting the entire East.” Furthermore, the capitalist powers, by fomenting civil war, had at least partially achieved the results they desired in Russia: “They did not overthrow the new system created by the revolution, but they also did not allow the new system to immediately take great strides forward, to confirm the predictions of the socialists, to enable it to rapidly develop the productive forces and unleash all the potential that could develop into socialism, and to demonstrate clearly and obviously to everyone that socialism harbors enormous forces, and that humanity has now entered a new stage of development with a brilliant future.” Russia was thrown back to its past economic level; “the national labor productivity, on the whole, is now much lower than before the war.”

列宁在最后一篇著作《宁肯少些，但要好些》中提出了这方面的一个问题：“在我国这种小农和极小农的生产条件下，在我国这种经济破坏的情况下，我们能不能支持到西欧资本主义国家发展到社会主义的那一天呢？”列宁承认，西方国家完成这一发展过程不会“像我们从前所期待的那样”。它们完成这一发展过程，不会是经过社会主义在这些国家里平衡“成熟”，而是经过“对帝国主义战争中第一个战败国进行剥削，再加上对整个东方进行剥削的道路来完成的”。此外，资本主义列强还通过煽动国内战争，在俄国至少部分地取得了它们想要的结果：“它们并没有推翻革命所创立的新制度，但是它们也不让新制度能够立刻大步前进，以证实社会主义者的预言，使他们能够迅速地发展生产力和发挥所有能发展成为社会主义的潜力，并向所有的人直观地清楚地证明：社会主义蕴藏着巨大的力量，人类现在已经转入一个新的、有着光辉灿烂前途的发展阶段。”俄国被抛回到过去的经济水平，“国民劳动生产率，整个说来，现在比战前低得多”。

In view of this, the question “What is to be done?” was clearly raised for coping and defense. Lenin first urged caution: “Under such circumstances, what tactics should our country adopt? Obviously, we should adopt such tactics: in order to preserve the workers’ power in our country, to preserve the prestige and leadership of the workers’ power among our small and very small peasants, we must act with extreme caution and prudence.”

有鉴于此，“怎么办？”这个问题的提出显然是为了应对和防御。列宁首先敦促大家谨慎行事：“这样的形势下，我国应该采取怎样的策略呢？显然应该采取这样的策略：为了保住我国的工人政权，为了保持工人政权在我国小农和极小农中间的威望和对他们的领导，我们必须极其谨慎小心。”

In this article, as in his previous works, Lenin offered extraordinary insights into the world-historical significance of the uprisings of the exploited peoples of Asia: “The outcome of the struggle ultimately depends on the following: Russia, India, China, and so forth constitute the overwhelming majority of the world’s population.” Lenin believed that on this basis (and no longer on the basis of the victorious results of revolution in the West), the final victory of socialism was “fully and absolutely guaranteed.”

在这篇文章中，列宁像在以前的著作中一样，对亚洲被剥削人民起义的世界历史意义提出了非凡的见解：“斗争的结局归根到底取决于如下这一点：俄国、印度、中国等等构成世界人口的绝大多数。”列宁认为，在这个基础上（而不再是在西方取得革命胜利成果的基础上），社会主义的最终胜利是“完全和绝对有保证的”。

But the question the Russian Communist Party had to pose was tactical, not strategic: “What concerns us is not the inevitability of the final victory of socialism. What concerns us is the tactics we, the Russian Communist Party, we, the Russian Soviet government, must adopt to prevent the counter-revolutionary states of Western Europe from strangling us.” Lenin’s answer to this question boiled down to several points: on the one hand, “we must strive to build a state in which the workers can maintain their leadership over the peasants and maintain the peasants’ trust in them”; on the other hand, “we must make our state apparatus practice strict economy. We must eradicate all traces of the wastefulness that the tsarist Russia and its capitalist bureaucratic apparatus left behind in large quantities in our state apparatus.” The modesty displayed by these tactics led Lenin to raise a question: “Would this not become the rule of peasant narrow-mindedness?” His answer was clearly negative: “No, it will not. As long as we can maintain the leadership of the working class over the peasantry, we will be able, by relying on strict economy in our country, to save every bit of savings to develop our large-scale machine industry and develop electrification.” In short, the guidance Lenin gave in his final work was a path of gradual, steady internal accumulation. This path regarded the maximum reduction of the bureaucratic machine as one of its fundamental prerequisites.

但俄国共产党必须提出的问题是战术性的，而不是战略性的：“我们关心的并不是社会主义最终胜利的这种必然性。我们关心的是我们俄国共产党，我们俄国苏维埃政权为阻止西欧反革命国家扼杀我们所应采取的策略。”列宁对这一问题的回答归结为几个要点：一方面，“我们应当努力建成这样一个国家，在这个国家里工人能够保持他们对农民的领导，保持农民对他们的信任”；另一方面，“我们应当使我们的国家机关厉行节约。我们应当把沙皇俄国及其资本主义官僚机关大量遗留在我们国家机关中的一切浪费现象的痕迹铲除干净”。这些策略所表现出的谦恭使得列宁提出了一个问题——“这岂不是会成为农民局限性的天下吗？”他的回答显然是否定的，“不会的。只要我们能够保持工人阶级对农民的领导，我们就有可能在我国靠大力节约把任何一点积蓄都保存起来，以发展我们的大机器工业，发展电气化”。简言之，列宁在其最后一部著作中给出的指导，是一条循序渐进、平稳发展的内部积累道路。这条道路将最大限度地削减官僚机器视为其基本前提之一。

III. Conclusion

三、结语

In the years that followed, the Soviet Union experienced an unprecedented process of internal accumulation and economic modernization. [31]31 A reference to the rapid industrialization drive under Stalin’s Five-Year Plans, which involved forced collectivization and heavy state investment. However, this process was not gradual, and it was not without social trauma. This process was characterized by the expansion of the bureaucratic machine and its social and political influence. Of course, the theme of this article does not permit a more specific evaluation of it here, but there is no doubt that the expansion of the bureaucratic machine did not conform to the final instructions of the founder of Soviet Russia.

在此后的岁月里，苏联经历了一个史无前例的内部积累和经济现代化进程关于西方学者研究苏联工业化进程较有代表性的著作，。然而，这一进程并非循序渐进的，且其中不乏社会创伤。这一进程的特点是官僚机器及其社会和政治影响力的扩张。当然，本文的主题不允许在这里对其展开更具体的评析，但毫无疑问，官僚机器的扩张并不符合苏维埃俄国创始人的最后指示。

Nevertheless, the theoretical contributions Lenin made in the final year of leading the Soviet regime were destined to influence the subsequent development of the world socialist movement. These include the following themes: the complexity of socialist construction; the ability to proceed from the social context after the revolution, redefining the opposition to dogmatism as theoretical categories arising from the understanding of capitalist society and economic reality; the two interrelated issues of state transformation and the cultural emancipation of the workers; and the uprising of the exploited peoples of Asia, destined to change from objects to subjects of history, which is crucial for the victory of socialism on a world scale. These themes remain relevant and important a century later.

尽管如此，列宁在领导苏维埃政权的最后一年所作出的理论贡献，注定会对世界社会主义运动后来的发展产生影响。其中包括以下主题：社会主义建设的复杂性；要能够从革命后的社会背景出发，将反对教条主义重新定义为理解资本主义社会和经济现实而产生的理论范畴；国家转型和工人文化解放这两个相互关联的问题；注定要从历史的客体变为主体的亚洲被剥削人民的起义，对于世界范围内社会主义的胜利至关重要。这些主题在一个世纪后的今天仍具有现实意义和重要性。

(Author’s bio: Vladimiro Giacché, Vice President of the Italian 21st Century Marx Political and Cultural Association; Translator Li Kaixuan, Associate Researcher at the Institute of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

（作者简介：弗拉迪米洛·贾凯（Vladimiro Giacché），意大利21世纪马克思政治文化协会副主席；译者李凯旋，中国社会科学院马克思主义研究院副研究员）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心