Lenin’s Thought on Cultural Hegemony

The discourse on cultural hegemony is a distinctive feature of Lenin’s philosophical thought. If Marx and Engels’ work in the 19th century was devoted to decoding the mysteries of the globalization of the logic of capital, then Lenin’s historical mission in the 20th century was to establish and consolidate the proletarian state in the era of imperialism. Under the new circumstances of world history and the international communist movement, Lenin consciously turned to the study of cultural hegemony. In overview, Lenin’s thought on cultural hegemony inherits the Marxist tradition of cultural critique and encompasses three levels of ideological content: emphasizing the principle of Party spirit in proletarian cultural creation, firmly grasping the Party’s cultural hegemony in the development of proletarian culture, and constructing socialist cultural subjectivity through state cultural hegemony.

关于文化领导权的论述是列宁哲学思想中的突出特色。如果说马克思恩格斯在19世纪的工作是致力于解码资本逻辑世界化的奥秘，那么列宁在20世纪的历史使命就是在帝国主义时代建立和巩固无产阶级政权。在世界历史与国际共产主义运动的新形势下，列宁自觉地转向对文化领导权的研究。概观之，列宁的文化领导权思想继承了马克思主义的文化批判理论传统，包含了强调无产阶级文化创作的党性原则、在无产阶级文化发展中牢牢把握党的文化领导权、以国家文化领导权构建社会主义文化主体性这三个层次的思想内涵。

Emphasizing the Principle of Party Spirit in Cultural Creation

强调文化创作的党性原则

Lenin’s exploration of cultural hegemony is one of the ideological sources of his concept of Party spirit. The term “Party spirit” is formed from the Russian roots for “party” and “principle,” referring to the nature of a party that embodies the conscious awareness of the proletariat. It encompasses the fundamental nature of the proletariat and concretizes this class character into principles of ideological practice. As early as 1905, Lenin emphasized in “Party Organization and Party Literature”: “The socialist proletariat must put forward the principle of party literature, develop this principle, and implement it in the most complete and integral form possible.” [1]1 V. I. Lenin, “Party Organization and Party Literature” (1905), *Collected Works*, vol. 10, p. 45. In Lenin’s view, literature is an important vehicle for cultural creation, and cultural creation is a concentrated expression of class struggle. Therefore, cultural creation necessarily possesses Party spirit, which reveals the ideological and cultural attributes of Party spirit.

列宁关于文化领导权的探讨是其提出党性概念的思想源头之一，“党性”一词由俄文的“政党”与“原则”词根合成，指的是体现无产阶级意识自觉的政党性质，涵盖了无产阶级根本性质，也将这种阶级性具象化为思想实践原则。早在1905年，列宁就在《党的组织和党的出版物》中强调：“社会主义无产阶级应当提出党的出版物的原则，发展这个原则，并且尽可能以完备和完整的形式实现这个原则。”在列宁看来，出版是文化创作的重要载体，文化创作则是阶级斗争的集中表现，因此文化创作必然具有党性，这揭示出党性所具有的思想文化属性。

Lenin emphasized the Party spirit of cultural creation and also stressed the dialectical grasp of the relationship between Party spirit and individual creativity, using the principle of Party spirit to guide the expression of individual creativity. He pointed out: “There is no question that in this field a broad scope for personal creativity and personal inclination, a broad scope for thought and fantasy, form and content, is absolutely necessary.” [2]2 Ibid., p. 46. Therefore, Lenin believed that guiding cultural creation with the principle of Party spirit requires avoiding the trap of “formulaism.” It should highlight the Party spirit of cultural creation on the basis of fully stimulating individual creativity. This is the theoretical and practical character of Party spirit. The understanding of the ideological and cultural attributes and the theoretical and practical character of Party spirit laid the foundation for Lenin’s revelation of the “principle of Party spirit in philosophy” in *Materialism and Empirio-Criticism* in 1908. [3]3 V. I. Lenin, *Materialism and Empirio-Criticism* (1908), *Collected Works*, vol. 14.

列宁强调文化创作的党性，也强调辩证把握党性与个体创造性的关系，以党性原则引导个体创造性发挥。他指出：“无可争论，在这个事业中，绝对必须保证有个人创造性和个人爱好的广阔天地，有思想和幻想、形式和内容的广阔天地。”因此，列宁认为，以党性原则指导文化创作，需避免陷入“公式主义”误区，应在充分激发个体创造性的基础上凸显文化创作的党性，这是党性的理论实践特质。对党性的思想文化属性与理论实践特质的理解，为1908年列宁在《唯物主义和经验批判主义》中揭示出“哲学党性原则”奠定了基础。

Lenin also pointed out that the principle of Party spirit is crucial for the Party’s leadership in the development of proletarian culture. After the victory of the October Revolution, Lenin observed the chaos of excessive administrative interference in the development of proletarian culture. In Lenin’s view, adhering to the principle of Party spirit in leading the development of proletarian culture is not crude administrative interference in cultural development, but rather reasonable guidance and coordination of cultural development. Lenin believed that adhering to the principle of Party spirit in leading cultural development requires not only pointing out the correct direction for cultural development but also respecting the objective laws of cultural development. This means avoiding unreasonable interference in cultural development, while insisting on not deviating from the basic direction of proletarian cultural development under the premise of giving full play to the autonomy of cultural development.

列宁还指出，党性原则对于党领导无产阶级文化发展至关重要。十月革命胜利后，列宁观察到无产阶级文化发展遭到行政过度干预的乱象。在列宁看来，坚持党性原则领导无产阶级文化发展，并非对文化发展的粗暴行政干预，而是对文化发展的合理引导与协调。列宁认为，坚持党性原则领导文化发展，不仅要为文化发展指明正确方向，而且要尊重文化发展的客观规律。这就要避免对于文化发展的不合理干预，而要在文化发展自主性充分发挥的前提下，坚持不偏离无产阶级文化发展基本方向。

Firmly Grasping the Party’s Cultural Hegemony

牢牢把握党的文化领导权

After the victory of the October Revolution, the issue of proletarian cultural development became increasingly prominent. It was necessary to promote the development of proletarian culture while adhering to the principle of Party spirit in cultural creation. This led Lenin to deeply recognize the importance of firmly grasping the Party’s cultural hegemony, which is a key element of Lenin’s thought on cultural hegemony.

十月革命胜利后，无产阶级文化发展的问题愈发突出，需要在坚持文化创作的党性原则的同时，推动无产阶级文化发展。这使得列宁深刻地认识到牢牢把握党的文化领导权的重要意义，这是列宁文化领导权思想的关键内容。

In criticizing the erroneous trends of the Proletarian Cultural Association, Lenin emphasized the need to uphold the Party’s cultural hegemony. In January 1919, the Proletarian Cultural Association adopted the “Organizational Program of the Proletarian Cultural Association,” which advocated that proletarian culture should be a pure culture completely free from “class impurities” and “remnants of the past,” and promoted cultural creation and activities independent of the Party. In response, Lenin clearly recognized that the Proletarian Cultural Association’s propositions did not conform to the objective laws of cultural development and posed a danger of undermining the Party’s cultural hegemony. To criticize this erroneous trend, on the one hand, Lenin pointed out in *On Proletarian Culture* that proletarian culture is neither created out of thin air nor fabricated by individuals, but arises from “the lawful development of all the knowledge that humanity has created under the oppression of capitalist, landlord, and bureaucratic society.” [4]4 V. I. Lenin, “On Proletarian Culture” (1920), *Collected Works*, vol. 31, p. 317. On the other hand, Lenin seriously pointed out that the Proletarian Cultural Association must “regard its tasks as part of the tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat, under the general leadership of the Soviet government and the Russian Communist Party.” [5]5 Ibid., p. 318.

在批判无产阶级文化协会的错误思潮时，列宁强调，要坚持党的文化领导权。1919年1月，无产阶级文化协会通过《无产阶级文化协会组织大纲》，主张无产阶级文化应当是一种完全摆脱“阶级杂质”和“过去残余”的纯粹文化，鼓吹独立于党进行文化创作和文化活动。对此，列宁清晰地认识到无产阶级文化协会的主张不符合文化发展的客观规律，存在瓦解党的文化领导权的危险。为批判这股错误思潮，一方面，列宁在《论无产阶级文化》中指出，无产阶级文化既非凭空产生，亦非由人杜撰，而是来自“人类在资本主义社会、地主社会和官僚社会压迫下创造出来的全部知识合乎规律的发展”；另一方面，列宁严肃地指出，无产阶级文化协会必须“在苏维埃政权和俄国共产党的总的领导下，把自己的任务当做无产阶级专政任务的一部分来完成”。

In dealing with traditional culture, Lenin believed that the Party’s cultural hegemony should be exercised and transformed. He put forward the theory of “two cultures”: that traditional culture often possesses both national and bourgeois cultural elements. One is the Great Russian culture of the likes of Purishkevich, Guchkov, and Struve, but there is also a Great Russian culture represented by the names of Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov. [6]6 Vladimir Purishkevich, Alexander Guchkov, and Pyotr Struve were right-wing political figures in late Imperial Russia; Nikolay Chernyshevsky and Georgi Plekhanov were revolutionary democrats and Marxist theorists. Marxists, when struggling against the former “culture,” must always distinguish the latter culture; therefore, traditional culture cannot be treated with a one-size-fits-all approach. Lenin further pointed out in *The Tasks of the Youth Leagues*: “It must be clearly recognized that only a precise knowledge of the culture created by the entire development of mankind, and only the transformation of this culture, can build proletarian culture. Without such an understanding, we cannot accomplish this task.” [7]7 V. I. Lenin, “The Tasks of the Youth Leagues” (1920), *Collected Works*, vol. 31, p. 287. In Lenin’s view, the national part of traditional culture contains proletarian ideology and thought and should be inherited and transformed. The bourgeois part of traditional culture contains the excellent components of human culture and can be critically transformed: “We must take all the culture that capitalism has left behind and use it to build socialism.” [8]8 V. I. Lenin, “Speech at the Third All-Russian Congress of the Russian Young Communist League” (1920), *Collected Works*, vol. 31, p. 291.

在对待传统文化方面，列宁认为应当发挥党的文化领导权并加以改造。他提出了“两种文化”理论：即传统文化往往兼具民族性和资产阶级性两种文化，一种是普利什凯维奇、古契柯夫和司徒卢威之流的大俄罗斯文化，但是还有一种是以车尔尼雪夫斯基和普列汉诺夫的名字为代表的大俄罗斯文化。马克思主义者在同前一种“文化”作斗争时，总是要把后一种文化区别开来，因此不能一刀切地对待传统文化。列宁在《青年团的任务》中进一步指出：“应当明确地认识到，只有确切地了解人类全部发展过程所创造的文化，只有对这种文化加以改造，才能建设无产阶级的文化，没有这样的认识，我们就不能完成这项任务。”在列宁看来，传统文化民族性的部分包含着无产阶级意识形态和思想，应当予以继承性地改造。而传统文化的资产阶级性的部分包含着人类文化的优秀成分，可以予以批判性地改造，“必须取得资本主义遗留下来的全部文化，用它来建设社会主义。”

Constructing Socialist Cultural Subjectivity

构建社会主义文化主体性

Cultural construction is an indispensable and important component of socialist construction. At the beginning of Russia’s socialist construction, Lenin elevated the Party’s cultural hegemony to the level of state cultural hegemony, emphasizing the construction of socialist cultural subjectivity. This is the fundamental foothold of Lenin’s thought on cultural hegemony.

文化建设是社会主义建设不可或缺的重要组成部分，在俄国社会主义建设伊始，列宁将党的文化领导权上升到国家文化领导权的高度，强调构建社会主义文化主体性，此为列宁文化领导权思想的根本落脚点。

Constructing socialist cultural subjectivity first requires raising the cultural level of the masses. Although Russia’s cultural achievements were globally renowned, the cultural level of the Russian people was very backward. In Lenin’s view, the subject of socialism is the people, and raising the people’s cultural level is a necessary prerequisite for promoting socialist construction. He pointed out: “Since the establishment of socialism requires a certain cultural level, why can’t we first use revolutionary means to achieve the prerequisites for reaching this certain level, and then, on the basis of the workers’ and peasants’ government and the Soviet system, catch up with other peoples?” [9]9 V. I. Lenin, “Our Revolution” (1923), *Collected Works*, vol. 33, p. 478. Thus, Lenin exercised cultural hegemony at the level of the socialist state, combining universal propaganda with compulsory education to raise the people’s cultural level, laying a solid foundation for the construction of socialist cultural subjectivity.

构建社会主义文化主体性，首先在于提升人民群众的文化水平。尽管俄国文化所取得的成就举世瞩目，俄国人民的文化水平却十分落后。在列宁看来，社会主义的主体是人民，提高人民文化水平是推动社会主义建设的必要前提，他指出：“既然建立社会主义需要有一定的文化水平，我们为什么不能首先用革命手段取得达到这个一定水平的前提，然后在工农政权和苏维埃制度的基础上赶上别国人民呢？”于是，列宁发挥社会主义国家层面的文化领导权，以普及性宣传与义务教育相结合的方式提升人民文化水平，为社会主义文化主体性的构建打下坚实基础。

Constructing socialist cultural subjectivity also requires avoiding and correcting the ideological error of “impetuous and rash advance.” During the period of War Communism, many policy tendencies of “impetuous and rash advance” emerged and gradually spread into the ideological and cultural sphere within the Bolshevik Party, producing many adverse effects. In response, Lenin repeatedly mentioned in articles such as *“Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder* and *Better Fewer, But Better* in 1920 the need to avoid “impetuous and rash advance,” and specifically pointed out: “In cultural matters, impetuous and rash advance is the most harmful.” [10]10 V. I. Lenin, “Better Fewer, But Better” (1923), *Collected Works*, vol. 33, p. 500. At this point, Lenin had already recognized that cultural hegemony at the state level must not only exercise Party leadership but also focus on the shaping of the subject of socialist culture.

构建社会主义文化主体性，还应避免和纠正“急躁冒进”的思想错误。在战时共产主义时期，出现了诸多“急躁冒进”的政策倾向，并逐渐蔓延到布尔什维克党内的思想文化领域，产生了诸多不良影响。对此，列宁在1920年的《共产主义运动中的“左派”幼稚病》《宁肯少些，但要好些》等文章中反复提及要避免“急躁冒进”，并特别指出：“在文化问题上，急躁冒进是最有害的。”此时，列宁已经认识到，在国家层面的文化领导权不仅要发挥党的领导，而且要着眼于对社会主义文化主体的塑造。

In constructing socialist culture, one must also be vigilant against bureaucratic practices. In many later documents, Lenin elaborated his critique of the bureaucratic ethos. The typical Russian bureaucrat was “Oblomov.” Lenin pointed out: “Russia has accomplished three revolutions, but the Oblomovs still exist, because Oblomov is not only a landlord, but also a peasant; not only a peasant, but also an intellectual; not only an intellectual, but also a worker and a Communist Party member.” [11]11 Oblomov is the titular character of Ivan Goncharov’s 1859 novel, a lazy and apathetic Russian landowner; Lenin used the name as a shorthand for ingrained bureaucratic inertia and passivity. In Lenin’s view, the “Oblomov” phenomenon manifests itself as formalism, overstaffing, detachment from the masses, and other bureaucratic practices, posing a grave threat to the Party’s and the state’s cultural leadership. This critique of bureaucracy reflects Lenin’s anxiety that the Party’s and the state’s cultural leadership might be won only to be lost again. To resolve this problem, it is necessary to go deep among the masses in order to reverse bureaucratic practices, and this cannot be separated from the construction of socialist culture.

构建社会主义文化，还应警惕官僚主义作风。在后来的诸多文献中，列宁阐发了对官僚主义风气的批判。俄国官僚主义的典型是“奥勃洛摩夫”。列宁指出：“俄国完成了三次革命，但奥勃洛摩夫们仍然存在，因为奥勃洛摩夫不仅是地主，而且是农民，不仅是农民，而且是知识分子，不仅是知识分子，而且是工人和共产党员。”在列宁看来，“奥勃洛摩夫”现象表现为形式主义、人浮于事、脱离群众等官僚主义作风，对党和国家的文化领导权威胁巨大。对于官僚主义的批判，体现出列宁对党和国家文化领导权得而复失的忧虑。要解决这一问题，就需要深入人民群众，来扭转官僚主义作风，这就离不开对社会主义文化的构建。

Looking at the three levels of Lenin’s thought on cultural leadership as a whole, the main thread is Lenin’s shift in the problem domain from the logic of proletarian revolution to the logic of socialist construction. This transformation came from the great changes in twentieth-century world history and the historical transformation of Russian society, as well as from the development of the internationalist movement and the practice of socialism in Russia. These two factors not only profoundly influenced Lenin’s understanding of cultural leadership, but also prompted Lenin to transform from a revolutionary leader into a socialist “architect.”

综观列宁文化领导权思想的三个层次，主线是列宁从无产阶级革命逻辑到社会主义建设逻辑的问题域转换。这一转变来自20世纪世界历史的巨变与俄国社会的历史转型，也来自国际主义运动与俄国社会主义实践的发展，此二者不仅深刻影响着列宁对文化领导权的理解，也促使列宁从革命领袖转变为社会主义“建筑师”。

(The author is a principal professor at the University of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and an associate research fellow at the Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.)

（作者系中国社会科学院大学主讲教授、中国社会科学院哲学研究所副研究员）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心