Lenin’s Philosophical Critique of Russian Populism

Lenin’s philosophical thought is an important component of Marxist philosophy and a significant stage in the history of the development of Marxist philosophy. For a long time, scholarly research on Lenin’s philosophical thought has mostly concentrated on works such as *Materialism and Empirio-Criticism* and *Philosophical Notebooks*, while research on Lenin’s early philosophical thought has been relatively limited. An examination of Lenin’s intellectual history reveals that his initial exposition of Marxist philosophy was linked to his philosophical critique of Russian populism. Just as Engels, through his critique of Eugen Dühring’s erroneous views, for the first time comprehensively and systematically elucidated the main components of Marxism, Lenin, in the process of criticizing Russian populism, for the first time relatively systematically expounded his Marxist philosophical outlook. From the perspectives of epistemology, dialectics, and historical outlook, Lenin profoundly analyzed the philosophical thought of populism and systematically elaborated the basic viewpoints of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. This laid the philosophical foundation for the formation of Leninism and also became the starting point for the development of Lenin’s philosophical thought.

列宁哲学思想是马克思主义哲学的重要组成部分，是马克思主义哲学发展史上的重要阶段。长期以来，学界对列宁哲学思想的研究多集中于《唯物主义和经验批判主义》《哲学笔记》等著作，而对列宁早期哲学思想的研究相对有限。考察列宁的思想史可以发现，列宁最初对马克思主义哲学的阐释，是同其对俄国民粹主义的哲学批判联系在一起的。与恩格斯通过批判欧根·杜林的错误观点，第一次全面系统阐明马克思主义的主要组成部分相似，列宁则是在批判俄国民粹主义的过程中，第一次较为系统地阐释了其马克思主义的哲学观。列宁从认识论、辩证法、历史观等方面，深刻剖析了民粹主义的哲学思想，并系统阐发了辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的基本观点。这为列宁主义的形成奠定了哲学基础，也成为列宁哲学思想发展的起点。

I. Criticizing the Subjective Idealism of Populism in Epistemology

一、批判民粹主义在认识论上的主观唯心主义

In Russia at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries, faced with the autocratic rule of the tsarist government and the ideological shackles of the Orthodox Church, a group of intellectuals sought to find the answer to the question “Whither Russia?” Initially inspired by the French Revolution and the American War of Independence, they turned their gaze toward Enlightenment thought and bourgeois liberalism. However, as the Polish Uprising and the Decembrist Uprising were suppressed, these ideological theories gradually lost their appeal. To find a new way out, some among them turned to the study of Russia’s historical and cultural traditions, some turned to the study of German philosophy, while others drew inspiration from Western European utopian socialists such as Saint-Simon, attempting to combine socialism with Russia’s social reality. After the Emancipation Reform of 1861, Russian capitalism developed rapidly, a large number of peasants became differentiated, and the traditional Russian rural agricultural cooperative organization, the “commune” (община), gradually disintegrated. These intellectuals were deeply worried about this, hoping that Russia could bypass the pains of class antagonism under the capitalist stage and “transition” directly to a socialist society. This core proposition later developed into an important social trend of thought and movement in Russian history — populism (народничество).

在十八世纪末十九世纪初的俄国，面对沙皇政府的专制统治和东正教的思想禁锢，一批知识分子试图寻找“俄国向何处去”的答案。他们起初受到法国大革命和美国独立战争的鼓舞，将目光投向启蒙主义和资产阶级自由主义，但随着波兰起义和十二月党人起义遭到镇压，这些思想理论渐渐失去了吸引力。为了寻找新的出路，他们中的一些人转而研究俄罗斯的历史文化传统，一些人转而研究德国哲学，还有一些人则从圣西门等西欧空想社会主义者那里获得启迪，试图将社会主义与俄罗斯的社会现实相结合。1861年农奴制改革之后，俄国资本主义快速发展，大量农民分化，俄国农村传统的农业合作组织“村社”逐渐解体。这些知识分子对此忧心忡忡，希望俄国能够免于资本主义阶段阶级对立的痛苦而直接向社会主义社会“过渡”，这一核心主张后来发展为俄国历史上一场重要的社会思潮和运动—民粹主义。

Alexander Herzen was the founder of Russian populism. On the question of epistemology, influenced by Feuerbach’s philosophy, he opposed the “ostentatious style” in contemporary European philosophy and science, opposed the “scholastic appearance” brought about by “metaphysical gibberish,” and held that the foundation of science lies in the real world: “A science that does not rely on facts is precisely the illusory science of ostentatious people” (Herzen, 1962, p. 68). By introducing the philosophical thought of Hegel and Feuerbach, Herzen’s elaborated materialist views influenced a generation of young Russian intellectuals. As another founder of Russian populism, Nikolay Chernyshevsky, said, “our best publicists” (referring to Herzen and others) in the 1840s (the nineteenth century) had done their utmost to introduce the then-fashionable German philosophy to the Russian public. (See *Selected Works of Chernyshevsky*, Vol. 1, p. 133) Lenin also pointed out that Herzen “surpassed Hegel and followed Feuerbach toward materialism” (*Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 284). Compared with Herzen, Chernyshevsky went a step further in materialism. In his commentary on another populist thinker Pyotr Lavrov’s pamphlet *The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy*, he wrote: “Natural science is the foundation of that part of philosophy which studies questions of the external world; it is also the foundation of that part of philosophy which studies questions concerning man. The idea of the unity of the human organism, as established by natural science, is the principle of philosophy’s view of human life and all its phenomena.” (*Selected Works of Chernyshevsky*, Vol. 2, p. 233) Chernyshevsky not only inclined toward materialism in epistemology but also used it to conduct research in political economy. After reading Chernyshevsky’s book *Outline of Mill’s Political Economy*, Marx stated that Chernyshevsky had made an “excellent exposition” of the bankruptcy of that bourgeois political economy which attempted to reconcile class contradictions (*Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 2, p. 89). On the one hand, Lenin gave a positive evaluation of Chernyshevsky’s materialism, affirming that this “revolutionary of the commoner intelligentsia” represented the “solid materialist tradition” in Russia’s advanced social thought (*Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 4, p. 646). On the other hand, he agreed with Plekhanov’s criticism of the main defect of Chernyshevsky’s materialist system, namely that Chernyshevsky, like Feuerbach, focused almost entirely on the “theoretical” activity of human beings, without understanding human activity itself as the objective activity (gegenständliche Tätigkeit) that Marx spoke of in his *Theses on Feuerbach*. (See *Complete Works of Lenin*, Vol. 55, p. 539) In general, although Herzen and Chernyshevsky laid a materialist tone for the development of populist philosophy, their thought retained remnants of idealism to varying degrees. This point was later carried forward by the liberal populists and became an important target of Lenin’s critique of populism.

赫尔岑是俄国民粹主义的创始人，在认识论问题上，他受费尔巴哈哲学的影响，反对当时欧洲哲学和科学领域“华而不实的作风”，反对“形而上学的呓语”带来的“烦琐哲学的外表”，认为科学的基础在于真实的世界，“不依据事实的科学，正是华而不实的人的虚无飘渺的科学”（赫尔岑，1962年，第68页）。通过介绍黑格尔和费尔巴哈的哲学思想，赫尔岑阐发的唯物主义观点影响了一代俄国青年知识分子。正如另一位俄国民粹主义的奠基人车尔尼雪夫斯基所说，“我们的最优秀的政论家”（指赫尔岑等）在四十年代（十九世纪）曾经尽量向俄国公众介绍了风靡一时的德国哲学。（参见《车尔尼雪夫斯基选集》上卷，第133页）列宁也指出，赫尔岑“超过黑格尔，跟着费尔巴哈走向了唯物主义”（《列宁选集》第2卷，第284页）。相比于赫尔岑，车尔尼雪夫斯基在唯物主义上则更进一步。他在评介另一位民粹派思想家拉甫罗夫的小册子《哲学中的人本主义原理》中提出：“自然科学是研究关于外部自然界问题的那一部分哲学的根据，它也是研究关于人的问题的那一部分哲学的根据。自然科学所制定的关于人类机体统一性的思想，是哲学对于人类生命及其全部现象的观点的原则”。（《车尔尼雪夫斯基选集》下卷，第233页）车尔尼雪夫斯基不仅在认识论上倾向于唯物主义，还以此进行政治经济学研究。马克思在读过车尔尼雪夫斯基的《穆勒政治经济学概述》一书后，曾表示车尔尼雪夫斯基对于那种试图调和阶级矛盾的资产阶级政治经济学的破产作出过“出色的说明”（《马克思恩格斯选集》第2卷，第89页）。列宁一方面对车尔尼雪夫斯基的唯物主义给予正面评价，肯定这位“平民知识分子革命家”代表着俄国先进社会思潮中的“坚实的唯物主义传统”（《列宁选集》第4卷，第646页）；另一方面，认同普列汉诺夫对车尔尼雪夫斯基唯物主义体系主要缺陷的批评，即车尔尼雪夫斯基与费尔巴哈一样，几乎把注意力完全集中于人类的“理论”活动中，而没有把人的活动本身理解为马克思在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中所说的对象性的活动。（参见《列宁全集》第55卷，第539页）总的来说，虽然赫尔岑、车尔尼雪夫斯基为民粹主义哲学的发展奠定了唯物主义的基调，但他们的思想中都不同程度地保留着唯心主义的残余。这一点也被后来的自由主义民粹派发扬，成为列宁批判民粹主义的重要对象。

At the end of the nineteenth century, as Russian capitalism advanced irreversibly, a huge gap opened between the ideals of populism and actual economic changes, and within the populist camp there emerged a liberal populist faction that leaned toward the bourgeoisie. In order to “rationalize” their own political propositions, the liberal populists further shifted toward subjective idealism on epistemological questions. The most representative and influential figure among them was Mikhailovsky, known as the “chief ideologist” of liberal populism. In April 1872, the Russian edition of *Capital*, jointly translated by the populist revolutionary Lopatin and the populist economist Danielson, was published. Mikhailovsky published a review article in the journal *Notes of the Fatherland* — “On the Russian Edition of Marx’s Book” — recommending *Capital* to Russian readers while also expressing many populist philosophical views. Mikhailovsky argued that Russian social life should be viewed through a so-called “principle of all humanity” that was neither Western nor Eastern, and that the victory of this “principle” in Russia was only a matter of time. As for where this “principle” came from, Mikhailovsky’s answer was Russia itself — “from its past, and even from its present, one can see many such things; seize them and one can prevent the incorrect aspects of European civilization” (*Selected Works of Russian Populists*, p. 231). To this end, Mikhailovsky constructed a so-called “subjective method in sociology,” holding that the objective world should exist and develop in a way that conforms to subjective consciousness, and that the task of the “sociologist” is to elucidate the ideal conditions under which human nature can be realized and things can conform to human wishes. Some Western scholars, drawing on Lenin’s “economic romanticism” (Lenin’s critical assessment of populist economics), have defined Mikhailovsky’s philosophical views as a kind of “sociological romanticism” (cf. Walicki, p. 56). In 1877, Mikhailovsky published another article in *Notes of the Fatherland* — “Karl Marx in the Court of Mr. Y. Zhukovsky” — ostensibly defending Marx’s *Capital* but in fact distorting Marxism. By the 1890s, the incompatibility between Mikhailovsky’s “subjective sociology” and dialectical materialism had become increasingly evident. Because Mikhailovsky was influential in Russian intellectual circles at the time, and because his “subjective sociology” largely catered to the “voluntarist” ideological tendency within the populist movement, many Russian revolutionaries consciously or unconsciously accepted his idealist views. In 1894, Mikhailovsky published “Literature and Life” in *Russian Wealth*, the journal he led and which was a mouthpiece of liberal populism, formally launching a polemic against Russian Marxists. Against this intellectual backdrop, Lenin, who had just stepped onto the revolutionary stage, recognized that for scientific socialism to spread and develop in Russia, the influence of populism had to be eliminated, and the first step was to complete a philosophical critique of liberal populism.

十九世纪末，随着俄国资本主义不可逆转地向前发展，民粹主义的理想和现实的经济变化之间形成了巨大落差，民粹派中出现了一批向资产阶级靠拢的自由主义民粹派。为了使自身的政治主张“合理化”，自由主义民粹派在认识论问题上进一步转向主观唯心主义。其中，最具有代表性、影响最大的就是被称作自由民粹主义“首席思想家”的米海洛夫斯基。1872年4月，由民粹派革命家洛帕廷与民粹派经济学家丹尼尔逊共同翻译的《资本论》俄文版出版。米海洛夫斯基专门在《祖国纪事》杂志上发表评论文章—《读马克思一书俄文版》，向俄国读者推荐《资本论》，并附带着表达了很多民粹主义的哲学观点。米海洛夫斯基认为，应当用一种既非西方也非东方的所谓“全人类的原则”来看待俄国的社会生活现象，这种“原则”在俄国取得胜利只是时间问题。至于这一“原则”从何而来，米海洛夫斯基的回答是来自俄国——“从它的过去，以至它的现在都可以看到许多这样的东西，抓住它们就可以防止欧洲文明中那些不正确的方面”（《俄国民粹派文选》，第231页）。米海洛夫斯基为此构建了一套所谓“社会学中的主观方法”，认为客观世界应当以符合主观意识的方式存在和发展，而“社会学家”的任务就是阐明那些能够使人的本性得以实现、使事物合乎人心愿的理想条件。有西方学者借鉴列宁的“经济浪漫主义”（列宁对民粹主义经济学的批判性评价），将米海洛夫斯基的哲学观点定义为一种“社会学浪漫主义”（sociological romanticism）。（cf.Walicki, p.56）1877年，米海洛夫斯基再次在《祖国纪事》杂志上发表文章——《卡尔·马克思在尤·茹柯夫斯基先生的法庭上》，表面上是为马克思的《资本论》辩护，实则歪曲了马克思主义。到了19世纪90年代，米海洛夫斯基的“主观社会学”与辩证唯物主义之间的不相容愈发凸显。由于米海洛夫斯基在当时的俄国思想界很有影响，而且其“主观社会学”很大程度上迎合了民粹主义运动中“唯意志论”的思想倾向，很多俄国革命者自觉或不自觉地接受了其唯心主义的观点。1894年，米海洛夫斯基在其领导的自由主义民粹派刊物《俄国财富》上发表《文学和生活》一文，正式向俄国马克思主义者发起论战。在这样的思想背景下，刚刚登上革命舞台的列宁认识到，科学社会主义要想在俄国传播、发展，就必须肃清民粹主义的影响，首先要做的，就是完成对自由民粹主义的哲学批判。

Lenin pointed out that although Mikhailovsky claimed to be impressed by the enormous argumentative power of Marx and praised *Capital* as an example combining “logical force with profound erudition,” what he actually did was to narrow Marx’s thought into a purely economic theory, “completely ignoring the basic content of the doctrine and calmly continuing to play the old tune of ‘subjective sociology’” (*Complete Works of Lenin*, Vol. 1, p. 103). For Mikhailovsky, what mattered was only how society could satisfy the needs of human nature; “the theory he created did not raise the contradiction of social interests, but vainly hoped for another path of development” (ibid., p. 366). Borrowing the psychological activity of the character Agafya Tikhonovna from Gogol’s comedy *Marriage*, Lenin vividly compared this utopian attempt to “patch together the good things from here and there” to “a marriageable young lady who wants to put the nose of one suitor onto the chin of another” (cf. *Complete Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 477). Further, Lenin combined Marx’s classic exposition in the “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*” to profoundly expound the materialist philosophical view while criticizing “subjective sociology.” Lenin pointed out that the basic idea of materialism advocated by Marx and Engels was “to divide social relations into material social relations and ideological social relations. Ideological social relations are merely the superstructure of material social relations, while material social relations are formed independently of the will and consciousness of human beings and are the (resultant) forms of human activity for maintaining existence” (*Complete Works of Lenin*, Vol. 1, pp. 120-121). In other words, materialism discovered the origin of human social thought itself, reached the conclusion that the process of thought depends on the process of things, “is the only one compatible with scientific psychology,” and “for the first time raised sociology to the level of a science” (ibid., p. 109). Conversely, when faced with complex social phenomena, subjectivists are always unable to distinguish between important and unimportant phenomena, because they limit themselves to pointing out human social thoughts and purposes but cannot reduce them to material social relations, and thus can only resort to subjective explanations of the phenomena of social history.

列宁指出，虽然米海洛夫斯基宣称自己折服于马克思的巨大论证力量，并且恭维《资本论》是一个把“逻辑力量同渊博学识”结合起来的范例，但他实际上做的事情却是将马克思的思想狭隘化为纯粹的经济理论，“完全忽视学说的基本内容，若无其事地继续弹着‘主观社会学’的老调”（《列宁全集》第1卷，第103页）。对于米海洛夫斯基而言，重要的只是社会如何满足人性的需要，他“所创造的理论没有提出社会利益的矛盾，而是枉然地指望另外的发展道路”（同上，第366页）。列宁借用俄国作家果戈理的喜剧《婚事》中阿加菲娅·季洪诺芙娜这一人物的心理活动，将这种企图“东拼西凑把好东西收集起来”的空想，形象地比喻为“待字闺中的小姐想把一个求婚者的鼻子安在另一个求婚者的下巴上面一样”。（参见《列宁全集》第2卷，第477页）进一步，列宁结合马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中的经典论述，在批判“主观社会学”的同时深刻阐释了唯物主义的哲学观。列宁指出，马克思和恩格斯所主张的唯物主义基本思想“是把社会关系分成物质的社会关系和思想的社会关系。思想的社会关系不过是物质的社会关系的上层建筑，而物质的社会关系是不以人的意志和意识为转移而形成的，是人维持生存的活动的（结果）形式”（《列宁全集》第1卷，第120-121页）。换言之，唯物主义发现了人的社会思想本身的起源，得出了思想进程取决于事物进程的结论，“是唯一可与科学的心理学相容的”，“第一次把社会学提高到科学的水平”（同上，第109页）。相反，当面对错综复杂的社会现象时，主观主义者总是分不清重要和不重要的现象，因为他们仅限于指出人的社会思想和目的，却无法将其归结于物质的社会关系，所以只能将对社会历史现象的解释诉诸主观。

II. Critique of the Populist Distortion of the Marxist Dialectic

二、批判民粹主义对马克思主义辩证法的歪曲

In the nineteenth century, Russian intellectuals were deeply influenced by German classical philosophy, and the understanding of the dialectic was a particularly prominent aspect. Herzen himself was deeply influenced by Hegel. On the one hand, Herzen opposed the metaphysics that artificially created fragmentation and abstract ideas. In his view, “truth is living, just like all organic beings, and can only exist as a whole; dissect it into its parts, and its soul disappears, leaving behind a lifeless abstraction with the stench of a corpse” (Herzen, 1962, p. 16). On the other hand, Herzen also opposed pure speculative philosophy and longed to transform Hegel’s dialectic with the Russian spirit, making it an intellectual force for changing the objective world. From this, Herzen put forward a famous view: “Hegel’s philosophy is the algebra of revolution; it liberated humanity as never before, completely destroyed the Christian world, and destroyed the world of outdated tradition” (Herzen, 2018, p. 20). Herzen initially established the methodological foundation of populist philosophy, which was progressive in the history of Russian thought. Lenin also said that Herzen “grasped Hegel’s dialectic” and “understood that the dialectic is ‘the algebra of revolution’” (*Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 284). After Herzen, it was Chernyshevsky who truly combined the dialectic with the core propositions of populism. Although Chernyshevsky stated that he was not a follower of Hegel or Schelling, he highly evaluated the contributions of Hegel’s and Schelling’s dialectical systems to the development of science, and concisely summarized the dialectic as an axiom: “In form, the highest point of development resembles the starting point from which it proceeds” (*Selected Works of Chernyshevsky*, Vol. 2, p. 93). Chernyshevsky believed that the essence of Hegel’s entire system of thought lay in extending this axiom to all spheres and domains through all phenomena. Starting from this understanding, Chernyshevsky “drew on the idea of the dialectical law of the negation of the negation that development seems to be a return to the starting point” (An Qinian, p. 167) to argue that socialist revolution should precisely first occur in economically and culturally backward Russia.

十九世纪，俄国知识分子深受德国古典哲学的影响，其中，对辩证法的理解是一个较为突出的方面。赫尔岑本人就深受黑格尔的影响。一方面，赫尔岑反对人为制造割裂和抽象理念的形而上学。在他看来，“真理是活生生的，正像一切有机体生物一样，只能作为整体而存在；一把它解剖成为各个部分，其灵魂即行消逝，而剩下的乃是带有尸臭的无生命的抽象”。（赫尔岑，1962年，第16页）另一方面，赫尔岑也反对纯粹的思辨哲学，渴望用俄罗斯的精神来改造黑格尔的辩证法，使之成为改变客观世界的思想力量。赫尔岑由此提出一个著名观点：“黑格尔的哲学是革命的代数学，它空前解放了人，彻底摧毁了基督教世界，摧毁了过时的传统世界。”（赫尔岑，2018年，第20页）赫尔岑初步确立了民粹主义哲学的方法论基础，在俄国思想史上具有进步性。列宁也说赫尔岑“领会了黑格尔的辩证法”，“懂得辩证法是‘革命的代数学’”。（《列宁选集》第2卷，第284页）在赫尔岑之后，真正将辩证法与民粹主义的核心主张结合起来的是车尔尼雪夫斯基。虽然车尔尼雪夫斯基表示自己并非黑格尔或谢林的信徒，但他高度评价黑格尔和谢林的辩证法体系对科学发展作出的贡献，并凝练地将辩证法总结为一条公理——“在形态上，发展的最高点同其所由出发的起点相似”（《车尔尼雪夫斯基选集》下卷，第93页）。车尔尼雪夫斯基认为，黑格尔整个思想体系的实质就在于通过一切现象将这一公理引申到各个范围和领域。从这一认识出发，车尔尼雪夫斯基“借助了辩证法否定之否定规律关于发展似乎是向起点的回归的思想”（安启念，第167页），论证社会主义革命刚好应当在经济文化落后的俄国率先发生。

Thus Chernyshevsky constructed a logical consistency between the philosophical outlook and the political outlook of populism, a view that was later further elaborated by Mikhailovsky. The difference between the two lies in the fact that Chernyshevsky, in his own era, drove Russian intellectual circles out of the shackles of metaphysics and religious obscurantism, whereas Mikhailovsky, in his era, obstructed the spread of scientific socialism in Russia. Mikhailovsky believed that one of the theoretical cornerstones on which materialism could be established was the indisputability of the dialectical process, that the essential tool with which materialists analysed the regularity of the development of things was the Hegelian dialectical formula of “affirmation—negation—negation of the negation,” and that Marx’s outline of the history of philosophy was built on the foundation of Hegel’s law of the triad. In his essay “Karl Marx Before the Tribunal of Mr. Yuri Zhukovsky,” he wrote: “Capitalist private property is the negation of individual private property based on personal labour; then comes the historical negation of this negation, which restores individual property, but this restoration is built on the foundation of the achievements of the capitalist era, that is, on the basis of the cooperation of free workers and the common ownership of the land and the means of production produced by labour itself.” (Mikhailovsky, p. 37) In Mikhailovsky’s view, the historical process of things was essentially inscrutable; therefore he attempted to equate Marx’s use of the dialectic simply with the Hegelian “triad,” thereby shaking the foundations of dialectical materialism and consequently negating the truth of Marxist philosophy. Lenin subjected this to a profound critique. As the American scholar Kevin Anderson put it: “Mikhailovsky launched a new attack on Marx in the 1890s, arguing that Marx’s method was determined by Hegel’s dialectic and was therefore erroneous and distorted; Lenin sought to defend Marx.” (Anderson, p. 21)

由此，车尔尼雪夫斯基在民粹主义的哲学观和政治观之间建构起了逻辑一致性，他的这一观点后来在米海洛夫斯基那里得到了进一步的阐发。二者的不同之处在于，车尔尼雪夫斯基在他所处的时代里推动了俄罗斯思想界走出形而上学和宗教蒙昧主义的桎梏，而米海洛夫斯基则在他所处的时代阻碍了科学社会主义在俄国的传播。米海洛夫斯基认为，唯物主义得以成立的理论基石之一就是辩证过程的无可争辩性，唯物主义者分析事物发展规律性的本质工具就是“肯定—否定—否定之否定”这一黑格尔辩证法公式，而马克思的哲学史纲要就是建立在黑格尔三段论定律的基础上的。他在《卡尔·马克思在尤·茹柯夫斯基先生的法庭上》中写道：“资本主义私有制是对以私人劳动为基础的个人私有制的否定；然后是对这个否定的历史否定，重新恢复个人所有制，但这种恢复是建立在资本主义时代成果的基础上，也就是说建立在自由劳动者协作和对土地及劳动者本身生产的生产资料的共同占有基础之上的。”（米海洛夫斯基，第37页）在米海洛夫斯基看来，事物的历史进程本质上是不可捉摸的，因此他试图将马克思对于辩证法的运用简单地等同于黑格尔的“三段式”，以此动摇辩证唯物主义的根基，进而否定马克思主义哲学的真理性。对此，列宁作出了深刻批判。正如美国学者凯文·安德森（Kevin Anderson）所说：“米海洛夫斯基在19世纪90年代对马克思进行了新的攻击，认为马克思的方法是由黑格尔的辩证法所决定的，因而是错误和歪曲的，列宁则试图保卫马克思。”（安德森，第21页）

Lenin accurately discerned Mikhailovsky’s theoretical aim and pointed out mercilessly that, although Mikhailovsky used some formulations from Engels’s *Anti-Dühring* as evidence to support his own views, in fact Engels’s classic refutation of Dühring was equally applicable to refuting Mikhailovsky. Lenin reaffirmed that Marx did not “prove” anything by means of the Hegelian “triad”; his focus was always on studying the process of development of social things. As for the examples of natural and social phenomena that Engels gave to illustrate the “triad,” their purpose was to emphasise that “the task of the materialist is to correctly and accurately depict the real historical process; to insist on the dialectic and to select examples proving the correctness of the triad is merely a remnant of the Hegelianism from which scientific socialism grew, a remnant of the Hegelian mode of expression” (*Complete Works of Lenin*, Vol. 1, p. 133). Lenin further analysed Mikhailovsky’s deeper motive, namely, to evade the core content of the materialist dialectic: social evolution is a natural-historical process of socio-economic development. Although the liberal populists were unwilling to admit this, they were also incapable of refuting it, so they could only foist Hegelianism onto Marx, attempting to dissolve the scientific character of the materialist dialectic by highlighting the “purely dialectical nature” of Hegel’s philosophy. In Lenin’s view, the Marxist dialectic regards society as “a living organism in constant development” and is therefore “the scientific method in sociology,” diametrically opposed to the metaphysical methodology of “the subjective method in sociology.” Plekhanov also said that only Marxism had truly realised “the algebra of revolution” (*Selected Philosophical Works of Plekhanov*, Vol. 1, p. 72). In fact, it was Mikhailovsky himself who had truly fallen into Hegelian idealism. As noted above, Mikhailovsky’s “subjective sociology” maintained that the development of objective things should conform to some “universal human principle”; this was more like a Russian version of Hegelianism. The difference was that the objective “absolute spirit” in Hegel was subjectively transformed in Mikhailovsky’s hands.

列宁准确洞悉了米海洛夫斯基的理论企图，并毫不留情地指出，虽然米海洛夫斯基用恩格斯在《反杜林论》中的一些表述作为支撑自己观点的论据，但实际上，恩格斯反驳杜林的经典论述同样适用于反驳米海洛夫斯基。列宁重申，马克思并非用黑格尔的“三段式”来“证明”任何事物，其重心始终在于研究社会事物发展的过程，而恩格斯举过一些“三段式”的自然现象和社会现象作为例子的目的在于，强调“唯物主义者的任务是正确地和准确地描绘现实的历史过程；而坚持辩证法，选择例子证明三段式的正确，不过是科学社会主义由以长成的那个黑格尔主义的遗迹，是黑格尔主义表达方式的遗迹罢了”（《列宁全集》第1卷，第133页）。列宁还进一步剖析米海洛夫斯基的深层动机，即回避唯物主义辩证法的核心内容：社会演进是社会经济发展的一个自然历史过程。自由主义民粹派尽管不愿意承认这一点，但又没有能力驳倒这一点，只好将黑格尔主义硬加到马克思头上，试图通过突出黑格尔哲学的“纯粹辩证的性质”来消解唯物主义辩证法的科学性。在列宁看来，马克思主义的辩证法将社会看作“处在不断发展中的活的机体”，因而是“社会学中的科学方法”，是与“社会学中的主观方法”这种形而上学的方法论截然相反的。普列汉诺夫也讲过，只有马克思主义才真正实现了“革命的代数学”（《普列汉诺夫哲学著作选集》第1卷，第72页）。事实上，真正陷入黑格尔式唯心主义的，反而是米海洛夫斯基自己。如前所述，米海洛夫斯基的“主观社会学”主张客观事物的发展应当符合某种“全人类的原则”，这更像是某种黑格尔主义的俄国翻版。区别在于，在黑格尔那里客观的“绝对精神”，到了米海洛夫斯基这里则被主观化地改造了。

It should be noted that Lenin’s opposition to Mikhailovsky’s distortion of the Marxist method as the Hegelian “triad” does not mean that Lenin did not value the influence of Hegelian philosophy on the materialist dialectic. The reason Lenin mentioned this influence less frequently in his critique of populism was that, in the real theoretical struggle, it was necessary to emphasise the thorough transcendence of Hegelian philosophy by dialectical materialism in order to expose the fallacy of the populist philosophical outlook. Lenin gave a special explanation on this point, stating that what he was clarifying was the “present content” of materialism, not denying the connection of Marxism to Hegelianism in its historical origins. (See *Complete Works of Lenin*, Vol. 1, p. 356) In fact, in his later philosophical reflections and revolutionary practice, Lenin repeatedly stressed the importance of correctly viewing the Hegelian dialectic. For example, in *One Step Forward, Two Steps Back* (1904), he argued that one should never vulgarise “the great Hegelian dialectic, which Marxism accepted after setting it on its feet”; “the genuine dialectic does not defend individual errors, but studies inevitable transitions, and proves the inevitability of such transitions on the basis of a detailed study of the entire concrete situation of the process of development.” (See *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 1, p. 523)

需要说明的是，列宁反对米海洛夫斯基将马克思主义的方法论歪曲为黑格尔的“三段式”，并不意味着列宁不重视黑格尔哲学之于唯物主义辩证法的影响。列宁之所以在批判民粹主义时较少提及这种影响，是因为在现实的理论斗争中，必须通过更多地强调辩证唯物主义对黑格尔哲学的彻底超越，来说明民粹主义哲学观的谬误。对此，列宁曾作出过特别说明，即自己澄清的是唯物主义“现在的内容”，而非否认马克思主义在历史起源上同黑格尔主义的联系。（参见《列宁全集》第1卷，第356页）实际上，列宁在后来的哲学思考和革命实践中，多次强调正确看待黑格尔辩证法的重要性。例如，1904年在《进一步，退两步》中，列宁就提出任何时候都不应当把“马克思主义使之用脚立地后接受过来的伟大的黑格尔辩证法”庸俗化，“真正的辩证法并不为个人错误辩护，而是研究不可避免的转变，根据对发展过程的全部具体情况的详尽研究来证明这种转变的不可避免性”。（参见《列宁选集》第1卷，第523页）

Historically, from Herzen and Chernyshevsky to Mikhailovsky, the Russian populists had always tried to transform Hegel’s doctrine to make it serve the Russian revolution, but they were unable to accomplish this task. It was Marx who theoretically completed the “transformation” of Hegelianism, and it was Lenin who applied this crystallisation of thought to revolutionary practice and achieved great success. As the Western “Leninologist” Neil Harding put it: “Lenin rediscovered the Hegelian roots in the dialectical structure of Marx’s thought; this rediscovery was highly innovative and, at the time, unique.” (Harding, p. 13)

历史地看，从赫尔岑、车尔尼雪夫斯基到米海洛夫斯基，俄国民粹派一直试图改造黑格尔的学说，使之服务于俄国革命，但他们并没有能够完成这一任务。马克思在理论上完成了对黑格尔主义的“改造”，而将这一思想结晶运用于革命实践并取得巨大成功的，则是列宁。正如西方“列宁学”家尼尔·哈丁（Neil Harding）所说：“列宁重新发现了马克思思想辩证结构中的黑格尔主义根源，这一重新发现具有高度的创新性，在当时也是独一无二的。”（哈丁，第13页）

III. Critique of the Populist Idealist Conception of History and the Great-Man Conception of History

三、批判民粹主义的唯心史观和英雄史观

The conception of history is the most important aspect of the theoretical thought of Russian populism; in a certain sense, populism can even be said to be a historical philosophy concerning the special path of development of Russian society. Since Herzen, Russian populism, although tending toward materialism on epistemological questions, had shown a clear idealist tendency in its conception of history—that is, what Lenin called “having come right up to dialectical materialism, but stopping short of historical materialism” (*Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 284). As noted above, Russian populism tended to interpret the historical development of human society as an evolution conforming to some principle, rather than as a natural-historical process. They regarded the progress of human intellect and the dissemination of enlightenment ideas as the driving force of historical development, “not having completely shaken off the fetters of metaphysical modes of thought, and in particular retaining basically idealist views in the sphere of social history” (Miao Litan, p. 5). This gave rise to a fundamental contradiction with the Marxist materialist conception of history.

历史观是俄国民粹主义思想理论中最为重要的一个方面，甚至在某种意义上可以说，民粹主义就是一种关于俄国社会特殊发展观点的历史哲学。自赫尔岑以来，俄国民粹主义虽然在认识论问题上倾向于唯物主义，但在历史观上则表现出明显的唯心主义倾向，也就是列宁所说的，“已经走到辩证唯物主义跟前，可是在历史唯物主义前面停住了”（《列宁选集》第2卷，第284页）。如前所述，俄国民粹主义倾向于将人类社会历史发展解释为合乎某种原则的演进，而非一个自然历史过程。他们把人类智力的进步和传播启蒙思想看作历史发展的原动力，“并没有完全摆脱形而上学思想方法的束缚，特别是在社会历史领域中基本上仍保留着唯心主义观点”（苗力田，第5页），这就与马克思主义的唯物史观产生了根本矛盾。

Herzen believed that “the mission of man lies not only in logic, but also in the world of social history, in the world of spiritual freedom and active action” (Herzen, 1962, p. 86). Chernyshevsky attributed the driving force of social progress to the development of reason, holding that “people’s reason gradually breaks free from the shackles of their weaknesses and defects, and uses the power of reason to gradually improve people” (Selected Works of Chernyshevsky, Vol. 2, p. 479). In his representative work *Historical Letters*, Lavrov, though touching the threshold of historical materialism by proposing that the struggle of interest groups drives historical development, stopped there and instead emphasized that individual needs are the inevitable starting point for explaining any historical phenomenon — “all factors of historical phenomena can be reduced to the various needs of individuals” (Selected Works of the Russian Populists, p. 80). By the time of the liberal populists, those who clung to idealist historical views, such as Mikhailovsky and Vorontsov, even distorted historical materialism as merely a theory of historical inevitability. Mikhailovsky, who had read *The Communist Manifesto*, *Capital*, and *The Poverty of Philosophy*, actually claimed not to know in which work Marx had expounded the materialist conception of history. The ideological confusion that the populists caused among Russian revolutionaries worried many Russian Marxists, yet, limited by their insufficient theoretical training, they lacked the theoretical weapons to counter it. In 1894, the young Lenin, in a Marxist circle in St. Petersburg, read aloud his representative work criticizing the populists and expounding Marxism, *What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats* (hereinafter referred to as *What the “Friends of the People”?*). This pamphlet, nicknamed the “yellow notebook,” was quickly circulated after being printed by mimeograph, sparking widespread discussion and strong反响, and was regarded by Russian revolutionaries of the time as “the book that expounded the revolutionary social-democratic viewpoint best, most forcefully, and most completely” (Krupskaya, p. 7).

赫尔岑认为，“人的使命不只在于逻辑，而且也在于社会历史的世界，精神自由和积极行动的世界中进行建设”。（赫尔岑，1962年，第86页）车尔尼雪夫斯基将社会进步的动因归于理性的发展，认为“人们的理性逐渐由他们的弱点和缺陷的枷锁中挣脱出来，并以理性的力量来使人们逐渐改进”（《车尔尼雪夫斯基选集》下卷，第479页）。拉甫罗夫在其代表作《历史信札》中虽然触及了唯物史观的门槛，提出利益集团的斗争推动了历史发展，却也止步于此，转而强调个体的需求是解释任何历史现象的必然出发点——“历史现象的一切因素都可以归结为个人的各种需求”（《俄国民粹派文选》，第80页）。到了自由主义民粹派，抱持唯心史观的米海洛夫斯基和沃龙佐夫等人，甚至将唯物史观歪曲为仅仅是某种历史必然性的理论，读过《共产党宣言》《资本论》《哲学的贫困》的米海洛夫斯基竟然声称不知道马克思在哪部著作里阐述了唯物主义历史观。民粹派在俄国革命者中造成的思想混乱，让很多俄国马克思主义者感到忧虑，然而限于理论修养不足，他们缺乏回击的理论武器。1894年，青年列宁在彼得堡的马克思主义小组中宣读其批判民粹派、阐释马克思主义的代表作《什么是“人民之友”以及他们如何攻击社会民主党人？》（以下简称《什么是“人民之友”？》）。这本绰号为“黄笔记本”的小册子在胶印出版后很快传播开来，引起了广泛讨论和强烈反响，被当时的俄国革命者视作“把革命的社会民主主义的观点阐述得最好、最有力、最完满的一本书”（克鲁普斯卡娅，第7页）。

In *What the “Friends of the People”?*, Lenin pointed out that the populist conception of history “always a priori fabricates some general theories that are forever fruitless” (Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, p. 113). He firmly opposed Mikhailovsky’s accusation that Marxism claimed to “explain the entire past of mankind.” In Lenin’s view, historical materialism does not attempt to explain all history of all social formations, but as a scientific methodology for explaining history, historical materialism “must also be applicable to all other social formations, although these social formations have not yet undergone specialized practical research and detailed analysis” (ibid., p. 115). Compared with the idealist conception of history, historical materialism can find the most essential and fundamental issues amid complex social phenomena, namely, the interaction between productive forces and relations of production: “Only by reducing social relations to relations of production and reducing relations of production to the level of productive forces can we have a reliable basis for regarding the development of social formations as a natural-historical process” (Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, p. 110). Therefore, historical materialism “is not, as Mr. Mikhailovsky thinks, ‘mostly a scientific conception of history,’ but the only scientific conception of history” (ibid., p. 112).

列宁在《什么是“人民之友”？》中指出，民粹主义的历史观“总是先验地臆造一些永远没有结果的一般理论”（《列宁全集》第1卷，第113页）。他坚决反对米海洛夫斯基给马克思主义扣上“说明人类的全部过去”的帽子。在列宁看来，唯物史观并不试图解释一切社会形态的一切历史，但作为说明历史的科学方法论，唯物史观“也必然适用于其余各种社会形态，虽然这些社会形态还没有经过专门的实际研究和详细分析”（同上，第115页）。相比于唯心主义历史观，唯物史观能够在错综复杂的社会现象中找到最本质、最基础的问题所在，即生产力和生产关系的相互作用，“只有把社会关系归结于生产关系，把生产关系归结于生产力的水平，才能有可靠的根据把社会形态的发展看做自然历史过程”（《列宁全集》第1卷，第110页）。因此，唯物史观“并不像米海洛夫斯基先生所想的那样，‘多半是科学的历史观’，而是唯一科学的历史观”（同上，第112页）。

Lenin emphasized that without historical materialism there would be no social science. The problem with the populist conception of history is that, although it acknowledges historical laws, it only focuses on the role of people’s subjective social ideas and purposes, cannot go further to see the decisive role of material production, and even less recognizes the reality of classes as objective factors in socio-historical development. In contrast, Marxism “attributes the decisive influence in social development to objective forces, primarily ‘productive forces,’ and not to the subjective ideas of individual thinkers” (Cole, p. 408). In summary, Marxism overthrew the view that society is a contingent, mechanical aggregate of individuals that can be changed at the will of particular individuals. As Lenin said, Marxism “elucidated the concept of socio-economic formation as the sum total of given relations of production, elucidated that the development of such formations is a natural-historical process, and thereby for the first time placed sociology on a scientific basis” (Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, pp. 111-112). Lenin also offered a powerful counterattack against the populists’ reduction of historical materialism to a mere theory of historical inevitability. Lenin argued that although the populists also called themselves socialists, they could not scientifically answer the question of why socialism is possible and necessary. Starting from idealism, populism could only arrive at the subjectivist dogmatism that “only the socialist system is suitable for human nature” (ibid., p. 127). Unlike all previous socialists, Marx, “through this objective analysis of the capitalist system, proved the inevitability of the transformation of the capitalist system into a socialist system” (ibid.), thereby elevating historical materialism beyond general historical philosophy into a historical science.

列宁强调，没有唯物史观就不会有社会科学，民粹主义历史观的问题在于，虽然承认历史规律，但仅仅关注人主观的社会思想和目的的作用，无法更进一步地看到物质生产的决定性作用，更不承认阶级作为社会历史发展客观因素的真实性。与之相反，马克思主义“把社会发展中的决定性影响归之于客观力量，主要是‘生产力’，而不归之于思想家个人的主观思想”（柯尔，第408页）。概言之，马克思主义推翻了那种把社会看作偶然的、机械的个人结合体，可以随个别人的意志改变而改变的观点，如列宁所说，马克思主义“探明了作为一定生产关系总和的社会经济形态这个概念，探明了这种形态的发展是自然历史过程，从而第一次把社会学放在科学的基础之上”（《列宁全集》第1卷，第111-112页）。对于民粹派将唯物史观简单化为一种历史必然性理论，列宁也给出了有力的反击。列宁认为，虽然民粹派也自称是社会主义者，但是他们对于社会主义何以可能、何以必然的问题无法作出科学回答。民粹主义从唯心主义出发，得到的只能是“只有社会主义制度才适合人的本性”（同上，第127页）这样的主观主义独断论。而与以往所有社会主义者不同的是，马克思“以对资本主义制度的这种客观分析，证明了资本主义制度变为社会主义制度的必然性”（同上），从而使唯物史观超越了一般意义上的历史哲学，上升为一种历史科学。

Russian populism tended to believe that the true interests of the people are identified by a minority of intellectuals. For example, the voice of the peasants often conflicts with their “true” interests (cf. Copleston, p. 139), and this minority of intellectuals can, with a single call, educate and lead the people to participate in revolution. In his famous novel *What Is to Be Done?*, Chernyshevsky referred to these commoner intellectuals as “typical people,” believing that they had the responsibility to educate and guide the still-to-be-enlightened Russian people. Lavrov also believed that it was “separate, struggling individuals” who drove historical development, “who preserve in themselves all future possibilities. If there were no such people in society, any historical progress would immediately cease” (Selected Works of the Russian Populists, p. 68). Mikhailovsky went further, making a binary division of human society into “heroes” and “the mob”: “heroes” are “people who, by their example, lead the masses to do good or evil, to do the most noble or the most base, the most rational or the most irrational things” (ibid., p. 815); “the mob” are “people who can be led by the most noble or the most base, or by examples that are neither noble nor base” (ibid.). The most concentrated expression of the populist conception of history as the history of heroes is the near-sanctification of intellectuals in the *Basic Outline of the Populists*: “They transcend personal or class interests and are completely loyal to the potential truth in the working masses” (ibid., p. 554). The long-term consequence of this heroic conception of history was that, after the “Going to the People” movement subsided, the populist movement increasingly detached itself from the masses. It first split into a “seize-power faction” like Tkachev, which abandoned organizing and mobilizing the masses, and later gave rise to radical revolutionaries such as the “People’s Will” party and the “Combat Organization” of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, which resorted to terrorist assassination to achieve the democratic revolutionary goal of overthrowing tsarist rule. After his elder brother Alexander was executed for his involvement in an unsuccessful assassination attempt on the tsar by the “People’s Will,” the young Lenin realized that the populist movement had no future: “We will not take this road; the road we should take is not this one” (Chronicle of Lenin’s Life, Vol. 1, p. 36).

俄国民粹主义倾向于认为，人民的真正利益是由少数知识分子所识别的，比如农民的声音就常常与他们“真正”的利益相冲突（cf.Copleston, p.139），而少数知识分子可以一呼百应地教育、领导人民参加革命。车尔尼雪夫斯基在其小说名著《怎么办？》中，将那些平民知识分子称作“典型的人们”，认为这些人有责任教育和引领那些尚待启蒙的俄国人民。拉甫罗夫也认为，是一些“单独的、进行斗争的个人”推动了历史的发展，“他们在自己身上保存着未来的全部可能性。如果社会上没有这些人，任何历史进步就会马上中止”（《俄国民粹派文选》，第68页）。米海洛夫斯基则更进一步，对人类社会作“英雄”和“群氓”的二元划分：“英雄”是“以自己的榜样带动群众从善或行恶，去干最崇高的事或最卑鄙的事、合乎理性的事或毫无理性的事的人”（同上，第815页)；“群氓”则是“能够被最崇高的或最卑鄙的，或者既不高尚也不卑鄙的榜样带动的人”（同上）。民粹主义英雄史观最集中的体现就是《民粹派基本提纲》中对知识分子近乎神圣化的描述——“他们超脱了个人私利或阶级利益，完全忠于劳动群众中潜在的真理思想”（同上，第554页）。这种英雄史观长期影响的后果就是，自“到民间去”运动偃旗息鼓后，民粹主义运动就越来越脱离群众，先是分化出了像特卡乔夫那样放弃组织动员群众的“夺权派”，后来又出现了“民意党”和社会革命党“战斗组织”等将推翻沙皇统治的民主革命目标诉诸恐怖暗杀手段的激进革命者。在胞兄亚历山大参与“民意党”刺杀沙皇行动未遂而遭处决后，青年列宁就认识到民粹派运动没有出路：“我们不走这条路，应当走的不是这条路。”（《列宁年谱》第1卷，第36页）

Marx and Engels wrote in *The Holy Family*: “History is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims,” and “As history becomes more ‘massive,’ so the mass whose activity it is necessarily grows larger.” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, p. 287) Lenin adhered to the Marxist standpoint of the people as the subject of history and sharply criticized the populists’ binary opposition between heroes and the masses. In response to Mikhailovsky’s claim that historical materialism “ignores or incorrectly elaborates the role of heroes and the masses,” and to the populists’ constant belittling of the power of other social classes, holding that a handful of intellectuals could determine Russia’s development path, Lenin offered a clear refutation. In *What the “Friends of the People” Are* and *What Heritage We Reject*, he expounded the core historical-materialist view that the masses of the people are the drivers of history: “All history is made up precisely of the actions of individuals, who are undoubtedly active figures.” (Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, p. 129) “As the historical creative activity of men grows broader and deeper, the size of the mass of the population that is the conscious historical agent must also increase.” (Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, p. 127) Lenin pointed out that the populists always regarded the masses as objects of measures, “as material that must be made to follow this or that path, and never as independent historical actors on a given path.” (Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, pp. 127-128) In other words, the populist conception of heroes and history objectified and instrumentalized the masses, thereby erasing their status as subjects, whereas Marxism regards the people as “independent historical actors,” thus placing the masses in the subject position of driving historical development. In Lenin’s view, this was one of the most profound and important principles of historical materialism.

马克思恩格斯在《神圣家族》中曾说：“历史活动是群众的活动，随着历史活动的深入，必将是群众队伍的扩大。”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第287页）列宁坚持马克思主义的人民史观立场，针锋相对地批判了民粹派二元对立的英雄史观。针对米海洛夫斯基称唯物史观“忽视或不正确地阐述英雄和大众”，以及民粹派总是轻视其他社会阶级的力量，认为少数知识分子可以左右俄国发展道路的观点，列宁予以明确驳斥，并先后在《什么是“人民之友”？》和《我们拒绝什么遗产？》中阐释了唯物史观关于人民群众是历史推动者的核心观点：“全部历史正是由那些无疑是活动家的个人的行动构成的。”（《列宁全集》第1卷，第129页）“随着人们历史创造活动的扩大和深入，作为自觉的历史活动家的人民群众在数量上也必定增多起来。”（《列宁选集》第1卷，第127页）列宁指出，民粹派总是把群众看作采取措施的对象，“看做是应当听命走这一条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”（《列宁选集》第1卷，第127-128页）。换言之，民粹派的英雄史观将人民群众对象化、工具化，进而消弥其主体性地位，而马克思主义将人民看作“独立的历史活动家”，从而将人民群众置于推动历史发展的主体地位。在列宁看来，这正是唯物史观最深刻、最重要的原理之一。

IV. The Place of Lenin’s Philosophical Critique of Russian Populism in the History of His Thought

四、列宁对俄国民粹主义的哲学批判在其思想史上的地位

A survey of Lenin’s intellectual history shows that he rarely wrote specialized treatises on any single philosophical problem; rather, he more often used philosophy as a method for understanding and transforming the world, applying it in actual theoretical struggle and political practice. His critique of Russian populism was the initial application of the Marxist worldview and methodology in combination with the needs of practical struggle. Some very important views in Lenin’s philosophical thought can be found in embryonic form in his philosophical critique of populism.

纵观列宁的思想史可以发现，列宁较少就某一具体的哲学问题作专门论述，而是更多地将哲学作为认识世界、改造世界的方法，运用于实际的理论斗争和政治实践中。对俄国民粹主义的批判，就是列宁将马克思主义的世界观、方法论与实际斗争需要相结合的初步运用。列宁哲学思想中一些非常重要的观点，在他对俄国民粹主义的哲学批判中都能找到萌芽。

First, on the problem of epistemology. As we know, Lenin’s representative view on epistemology is the theory of active reflection, as stated in *Materialism and Empirio-Criticism*: “Our sensations, our consciousness, are only the image of the external world,” and “Materialism consciously takes the ‘naïve’ belief of mankind as the foundation of its theory of knowledge.” (Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 2, p. 66) Lenin systematically developed his Marxist epistemological thought in his critique of Machism, which, like Mikhailovsky’s “subjective sociology,” was a form of subjective idealism. In fact, as early as his critique of Mikhailovsky, Lenin noted that this Russian subjectivist “does not want to deny regularity, yet at the same time asserts that freedom of the will is a fact of our consciousness.” (Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, p. 382) Later, when criticizing Bogdanov, who adhered to Machist philosophy, Lenin again took Mikhailovsky as an example, pointing out that Bogdanov, like Mikhailovsky, “completely fails to understand ‘what idealism is’ and what materialism is.” (Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 2, p. 222) Lenin’s critique of Mikhailovsky’s “subjective sociology” provided theoretical preparation for his later critique of Bogdanov’s idealism. In addition, in his critique of the populists, Lenin particularly emphasized that materialism must not be vulgarized into a kind of objectivism. For materialism is not only “more consistent, deeper, and more comprehensive” than objectivism, but also acknowledges that any evaluation of things represents a definite class standpoint—that is, “materialism itself contains what is called partisanship.” (Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, p. 363) This line of thought later developed into the famous judgment in *Materialism and Empirio-Criticism*: “The latest philosophy is just as partisan as it was two thousand years ago.” (Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 2, p. 240) Thus it can be seen that the core idea of Lenin’s view that materialist philosophy has a partisan character had already taken initial shape in his critique of the populists in the mid-1890s.

其一，关于认识论问题。我们知道，列宁在认识论问题上的代表性观点是能动的反映论，即在《唯物主义和经验批判主义》中所说：“我们的感觉、我们的意识只是外部世界的映象”，“唯物主义自觉地把人类的‘素朴的’信念作为自己的认识论的基础”。（《列宁选集》第2卷，第66页）列宁在批判马赫主义时系统阐发了其马克思主义的认识论思想，而马赫主义与米海洛夫斯基的“主观社会学”一样，都是一种主观唯心主义。事实上，列宁在早期批判米海洛夫斯基时就表示，这位俄国的主观主义者既“不想否认规律性，同时又断言意志自由是我们意识的事实”（《列宁全集》第1卷，第382页），到了批判抱持马赫主义哲学的波格丹诺夫时，列宁再次以米海洛夫斯基为例，指出波格丹诺夫与米海洛夫斯基一样，“完全不懂‘什么是唯心主义’和什么是唯物主义”（《列宁选集》第2卷，第222页）。列宁对米海洛夫斯基“主观社会学”的批判为他后来批判波格丹诺夫的唯心主义提供了理论准备。此外，列宁在批判民粹派时还特别强调，不能将唯物主义庸俗化为一种客观主义。因为，唯物主义不仅比客观主义“更彻底、更深刻、更全面”，而且承认对任何事物的评价都代表一定的阶级立场，即“唯物主义本身包含有所谓党性”（《列宁全集》第1卷，第363页）。这一思考后来发展为《唯物主义和经验批判主义》中的著名论断——“最新的哲学像在两千年前一样，也是有党性的”（《列宁选集》第2卷，第240页）。由此可见，列宁关于唯物主义哲学具有党性思想的核心观点，在19世纪90年代中期批判民粹派时就已经初步形成。

Second, on the problem of dialectics. In his *Philosophical Notebooks*, Lenin put forward the famous idea of the “unity of the three” in dialectics: “In *Capital*, the logic, dialectics and theory of knowledge of materialism [three words are not needed: they are one and the same thing] are applied to one science, and this materialism has taken everything valuable from Hegel and developed it further.” (Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 55, p. 290) Scholars have long held different views on how to understand this idea of Lenin’s. Some argue that it shows Lenin’s dialectics belongs to “epistemological dialectics”; others emphasize that to separate Lenin’s understanding of the relation between thinking and being from his practical understanding, and merely reduce it to “applying dialectics to the theory of reflection,” does not accord with Lenin’s thought itself. (See Sun Zhengyu, p. 15) On this question, we may perhaps find some clues in Lenin’s relevant discussion in *What the “Friends of the People” Are*. Mikhailovsky believed that Marx “liked, even excessively liked, to resort to Hegelian dialectics” (Mikhailovsky, p. 35), and that Marx’s conclusion in *Capital* that the development of capitalism would inevitably lead to the expropriation of the expropriators was of a “purely dialectical character”—that is, the Marxist understanding of the laws of social development was “purely dialectically derived.” (Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, p. 137) In response to this distortion of Marx’s dialectical thought, Lenin pointed out that Marx’s requirement for social science was to describe the actual process exactly, not to impose a priori dialectical laws on the forms of social development: “In *Capital* he adhered to this requirement most strictly, i.e., he set himself the task of scientifically analyzing the capitalist social formation, and when he had proved what tendencies this organization actually displays in its development before our eyes, and that it must inevitably perish and be transformed into a higher organization, he concluded his analysis.” (Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, p. 147) Thus, from his youth onward, Lenin always started from actual social history and from the needs of practical problems in order to understand and apply dialectics, the “living soul of Marxism.” This was both the methodological guide for Lenin’s leadership of the victory of the October Revolution in Russia and the establishment of the first socialist state in human history, and an important precondition for the idea of a “revolutionary dialectics” that Lenin put forward in his later years, which possessed “a higher level of philosophical theoretical thinking and a world-historical height” (Wang Dong, p. 5).

其二，关于辩证法问题。列宁在《哲学笔记》中提出了著名的“三者一致”的辩证法思想——“在《资本论》中，唯物主义的逻辑、辩证法和认识论［不必要三个词：它们是同一个东西］都应用于一门科学，这种唯物主义从黑格尔那里吸取了全部有价值的东西并发展了这些有价值的东西。”（《列宁全集》第55卷，第290页）对于如何理解列宁的这一思想，学界长期以来有不同观点。有些学者认为这表明列宁的辩证法属于“认识论的辩证法”，也有学者强调离开列宁对思维和存在关系问题的实践论理解，而仅仅将其归结为“把辩证法应用于反映论”，是不符合列宁的思想本身的。（参见孙正聿，第15页）对于这个问题，我们或许可以从列宁在《什么是“人民之友”？》中的有关论述中找到一些线索。米海洛夫斯基认为，马克思“喜欢甚至过于喜欢借助黑格尔辩证法”（米海洛夫斯基，第35页），其在《资本论》中关于资本主义的发展将必然使剥夺者被剥夺的论断带有“纯粹辩证的性质”，即马克思主义关于社会发展规律的认识“纯粹是被辩证地提出来的”（《列宁全集》第1卷，第137页）。针对这一歪曲马克思辩证法思想的观点，列宁指出，马克思对社会科学的要求是，应当确切地描写现实过程，而非将先验的辩证规律套用于社会发展形态，“他在《资本论》里极严格地遵守了这个要求，即他给自己提出的任务是科学地分析资本主义社会形态，而当他证明了这个组织在我们眼前的实际发展具有什么样的趋势，这个组织必然会灭亡而转变为另一更高的组织时，他就结束了自己的分析”（《列宁全集》第1卷，第147页）。可见，列宁从青年时代开始就总是从现实社会历史出发、从实践问题的需要出发，来理解和运用辩证法这一“马克思主义活的灵魂”。这既是列宁领导俄国十月革命胜利、建立人类历史上第一个社会主义国家的方法论指导，也是列宁晚年提出“具有更高的哲学理论思维与世界历史高度”（王东，第5页）的“革命的辩证法”思想的一个重要前提。

Third, the question of the conception of history. In order to refute the liberal populists’ distortion of *Capital*, Lenin compared the materialist conception of history to the “skeleton” of *Capital* and pointed out that Marx, through two efforts, made this “skeleton” more fleshed and blooded: first, correctly analyzing “the mountains of actual material,” and second, “investigating everywhere and at all times” the superstructure corresponding to a given economic base. Since the publication of *Capital*, the materialist conception of history has ceased to be a hypothesis and has become a truth increasingly proven by science. Moreover, Lenin went a step further by applying the materialist conception of history to the analysis of Russia’s economic and social reality at different stages. Engels once stated that Marx had originally planned to analyze the question of landed property in Russia in the third volume of *Capital*, but ultimately did not carry out this plan. In the history of the development of Marxism, it was Lenin who completed this theoretical work, embodied most centrally in his political-economic work *The Development of Capitalism in Russia*, written to criticize populism. In *The Development of Capitalism in Russia*, Lenin learned from Marx’s method in writing *Capital* and, by analyzing voluminous economic statistical data, on the one hand thoroughly refuted the populist view that the development of capitalism in Russia was still quite insufficient, and on the other hand scientifically demonstrated the role of the working class as the political leading force and the peasantry as the ally of the proletariat. Lenin both “fully explained the depth of the sources of the peasant revolutionary movement and the depth of the foundations of the peasant masses’ revolutionary character” (*Complete Works of Lenin*, Vol. 3, p. 11) and profoundly showed that the peasantry’s “vacillation between the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie and the revolutionary proletariat is inevitable” (ibid.), thereby thoroughly negating the populist peasant-revolutionary view that the Russian peasantry could assume the revolutionary tasks of the industrial workers in Western European capitalist societies and that the Russian peasant revolution would therefore have a socialist character. This method of Lenin’s, of running the materialist conception of history through his political-economic research, was later developed in his 1916 work *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism* and became an important main thread running through the history of Lenin’s thought.

其三，关于历史观问题。为了反驳自由主义民粹派对《资本论》的歪曲，列宁将唯物史观比作《资本论》的“骨骼”，并指出马克思通过两方面的努力，使得“骨骼”变得更加有血有肉：一是正确分析“堆积如山的实际材料”，二是“随时随地探究”与一定经济基础相适应的上层建筑。自《资本论》问世以来，唯物史观就不再是一种假设，而是越来越被科学证明的真理。并且，列宁更进一步地将唯物史观运用于分析俄国不同阶段的经济社会现实之中。恩格斯曾表示，马克思原本计划在《资本论》第三卷中分析俄国的土地所有权问题，但最终没有实现这个计划。在马克思主义发展史上完成这一理论工作的是列宁，集中体现于他为批判民粹主义而写的政治经济学著作《俄国资本主义的发展》。在《俄国资本主义的发展》中，列宁学习马克思写作《资本论》的方法，通过分析卷帙浩繁的经济统计资料，一方面彻底驳斥了民粹派认为俄国资本主义发展还很不充分的观点，另一方面科学论证了工人阶级作为政治领导力量和农民作为无产阶级同盟军的作用。列宁既“充分说明了农民革命运动的泉源之深，农民群众革命性的根基之深”（《列宁全集》第3卷，第11页），又深刻表明农民“在反革命的资产阶级和革命的无产阶级之间的动摇不定是不可避免的”（同上），进而彻底否定了民粹派认为俄国农民可以承担西欧资本主义社会中产业工人的革命任务，因而俄国的农民革命将具有社会主义革命性质的农民革命观。列宁这种将唯物史观贯穿于政治经济学研究的方法，后来在1916年写作的《帝国主义是资本主义的最高阶段》中得到了发展，成为贯穿列宁思想史的一条重要主线。

Furthermore, beginning with his critique of the populist conception of the heroic individual in history, a firm people-centered conception of history ran through Lenin’s entire revolutionary life. Historically, many Bolshevik Party members had also been populists before turning to Marxism, so Lenin remained vigilant against the “resurgence” of the heroic-individual conception of history within the Bolshevik Party. For example, after the October Revolution, Lenin emphasized to the whole Party that it would be very naive to think that one could build a communist society relying only on Communist Party members. “Communist Party members are but a drop in the ocean, but a drop in the vast sea of the people. They can lead the people along their path only if they have correctly determined the path not only from the perspective of the direction of world-historical development” (*Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 4, p. 682). In practice, Lenin also took great care to avoid blind obedience to himself within the Party, always doing his utmost to persuade people with theory in ideological debates concerning major decisions. Of course, Lenin’s critique of the populist heroic-individual conception of history did not mean that he neglected the leading role of revolutionaries in the mass movement. Lenin believed that the fundamental force of the revolutionary movement lay in the masses, that “the vanguard alone cannot achieve victory” (ibid., p. 201), and that at the same time the leadership of revolutionaries armed with scientific theory was needed; both were indispensable for the victory of the revolution. As he said in *What Is to Be Done?*: “We will certainly be able to do this precisely because the spontaneously awakening masses will also select from their own ranks more and more ‘professional revolutionaries’” (*Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 1, p. 392).

此外，从批判民粹派的英雄史观开始，坚定的人民史观就贯穿了列宁革命的一生。从历史上看，很多布尔什维克党员在转向马克思主义之前也曾是民粹主义者，所以列宁对英雄史观在布尔什维克党内“死灰复燃”保持警惕。比如十月革命后，列宁就向全党强调，如果只想着靠共产党员来建立共产主义社会，将是十分幼稚的想法。“共产党员不过是沧海一粟，不过是人民大海中的一粟而已。他们只有不仅从世界历史发展方向来看是正确地确定了道路，才能领导人民走他们的道路。”（《列宁选集》第4卷，第682页）在实践中，列宁也十分注意避免党内对于他个人的盲从，在事关重大决策的思想争论中总是尽最大努力用理论说服人。当然，列宁批判民粹主义的英雄史观，并不意味着他忽视革命家对于群众运动的领导作用。列宁认为，革命运动的根本力量在于群众，“单靠先锋队是不能胜利的”（同上，第201页），同时需要革命家以科学的理论加以领导，二者对于革命的胜利而言都是不可或缺的。正如他在《怎么办？》中所说：“我们所以一定能够做到这一点，正是因为自发觉醒起来的群众也会从自己的队伍中选拔出愈来愈多的‘职业革命家’”。（《列宁选集》第1卷，第392页）

Another point that needs to be noted is that Lenin’s critique of Russian populism was not a blanket negation; rather, he focused on identifying, alongside the critique, the positive and historically progressive content of populism. Engels once proposed that “what is formally wrong from an economic perspective may be correct from a world-historical perspective” (*Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 204). Lenin attached great importance to this idea and demanded that Russian Marxists adhere to this “dialectics of history,” while criticizing the “dross in the utopia of populism,” “carefully extract the healthy and precious kernel of the sincere, resolute, and fighting democracy of the peasant masses that it contains” (*Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 301). The idea of the “dialectics of history” that Lenin prominently emphasized in his critique of populism is likewise a key to understanding the developmental thread of Lenin’s philosophical thought. “The early idea of the dialectics of history became the foothold from which Lenin thought about problems. Without seeing this, in a certain sense it is impossible to understand Lenin’s *Philosophical Notebooks*” (Yang Haifeng, p. 12).

还有一点需要指出的是，列宁对俄国民粹主义的批判并非一概否定，而是注重在批判的同时甄别出民粹主义积极的、具有历史进步价值的内容。恩格斯曾经提出，“从经济学来看形式上是错误的东西，从世界历史来看却可能是正确的”。（《马克思恩格斯文集》第4卷，第204页）列宁非常重视这一思想，要求俄国马克思主义者坚持这种“历史的辩证法”，在批判民粹主义“乌托邦中的糟粕”的同时，“细心剥取它所包含的农民群众的真诚的、坚决的、战斗的民主主义的健康而宝贵的内核”（《列宁选集》第2卷，第301页）。列宁在批判民粹主义时所突出强调的“历史的辩证法”思想，同样是理解列宁哲学思想发展脉络的一把钥匙。“早期历史辩证法思想成为列宁思考问题的立足点。看不到这一点，在一定的意义上就无法理解列宁的《哲学笔记》。”（仰海峰，第12页）

In sum, the philosophical critique of Russian populism is an important component of Lenin’s philosophical thought and an intellectual prelude to the development of Marxist philosophy into the “Leninist stage.” Together with Lenin’s later critique of empirio-criticism, it constitutes two important “philosophical critiques” in the history of Lenin’s thought. The former provided theoretical preparation for the latter, and the latter further deepened and developed the core viewpoints of the former. In his philosophical critique of Russian populism, Lenin initially elaborated his Marxist philosophical outlook, which laid a solid philosophical foundation for the formation and development of Leninism. The 20th National Congress of the CPC pointed out that only by adhering to and applying dialectical materialism and historical materialism can we answer the major questions posed by the times and practice, and only then can we always maintain the vigorous vitality and exuberant vitality of Marxism. Lenin’s philosophical critique of Russian populism is precisely a model in the history of Marxist philosophy of using dialectical materialism and historical materialism to solve revolutionary problems. The ideological characteristics contained therein, such as dialectical thinking, the people-centered conception of history, and problem-consciousness, are highly compatible with the “Six Musts” [15]15 The “Six Musts” (六个必须坚持) refer to six principles for applying the worldview and methodology of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era: upholding the primacy of the people, self-confidence and self-reliance, upholding integrity and innovation, upholding a problem-oriented approach, applying systems thinking, and maintaining a global vision. for grasping the worldview and methodology of Marxism adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, and constitute a valuable theoretical resource worthy of our in-depth study.

总的来说，对俄国民粹主义的哲学批判是列宁哲学思想的重要组成部分，也是马克思主义哲学发展到“列宁阶段”的一场思想先声，它和列宁后来对经验批判主义的批判一起，共同组成了列宁思想史中两次重要的“哲学批判”。前者为后者进行了理论准备，后者进一步深化发展了前者的核心观点。列宁在对俄国民粹主义的哲学批判中初步阐释了其马克思主义的哲学观，这为列宁主义的形成和发展奠定了坚实的哲学基础。党的二十大指出，只有坚持运用辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义，才能回答时代和实践提出的重大问题，才能始终保持马克思主义的蓬勃生机和旺盛活力。列宁对俄国民粹主义的哲学批判，正是马克思主义哲学史上运用辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义解决革命问题的典范，其中蕴含的辩证思维、人民史观、问题意识等思想特质，同把握中国化时代化马克思主义的世界观和方法论的“六个必须坚持”高度契合，是值得我们深入研究的宝贵思想理论资源。

(Author’s biography: Geng Renjie, born March 1987, is an Assistant Professor and Researcher at the Institute of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, Peking University. He concurrently serves as a council member of the China Lenin Thought Research Association and a researcher at the National Key Research Base for the Construction of the Textbook “An Introduction to Mao Zedong Thought and the Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” for Ideological and Political Theory Courses in Higher Education Institutions (Peking University). His research fields are the history of the development of Marxism and Marxist philosophy.)

（作者简介：耿仁杰，1987年3月生，北京大学习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想研究院助理教授、研究员，兼任中国列宁思想研究会理事、高校思想政治理论课毛泽东思想和中国特色社会主义理论体系概论国家教材建设重点研究基地（北京大学）研究员，研究领域为马克思主义发展史、马克思主义哲学）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心