Marx and Engels’s Fourfold Critique of Russian Populism and Its Scientific Method

“Whither Russia” was the focal point of intellectual debate in Russia in the latter half of the 19th century, and the Russian Populist trend of thought, which claimed to have found an “alternative path” for Russia’s development, was precisely a product of this historical context. In the 1870s, the Russian Populists Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev and Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky each published articles criticizing Marx and Engels on the question of “Whither Russia.” To clarify their own stance and critique the erroneous views of the Russian Populists, Marx and Engels successively wrote *The Literature of Exile (IV)*, *On the Social Question in Russia*, and the *Letter to the Editorial Board of Otechestvennye Zapiski* as specific responses, thereby sparking two rounds of debate between Marxism and Russian Populism. In these debates, Marx and Engels comprehensively employed scientific methods such as historical analysis, comparative analysis, and class analysis to refute the Populists’ “theory of the superiority of the commune,” “theory of Russia’s revolutionary advantage,” and “theory of the peasantry as the revolutionary subject.” On this basis, they further criticized, from an overall dimension, the Populists’ “utopianism of a non-capitalist path,” providing theoretical confirmation and practical guidance for the choice of Russia’s development path, and also offering methodological guidance for our critique of erroneous social trends of thought today.

“俄国向何处去”是19世纪下半叶俄国思想界的关注焦点，自称找到俄国发展“另外的道路”的俄国民粹主义思潮正是这一历史背景下的产物。19世纪70年代，俄国民粹主义者彼·尼·特卡乔夫和尼·康·米海洛夫斯基分别就“俄国向何处去”问题发表批判马克思恩格斯的文章。马克思恩格斯为阐明自身态度、批判俄国民粹主义者的错误观点，先后写下《流亡者文献(四)》《论俄国的社会问题》《给〈祖国纪事〉杂志编辑部的信》等对其作专门回应，由此引发了马克思主义与俄国民粹主义的两次论战。在论战中，马克思恩格斯综合运用历史分析法、比较分析法、阶级分析法等科学方法，驳斥了俄国民粹主义者的“村社优越论”“俄国革命优势论”和“农民革命主体论”。在此基础上，他们进一步从整体维度批判了俄国民粹主义者的“非资本主义道路空想”,为俄国发展道路的选择提供了理论确证和实践指引，也为当今我们批判错误社会思潮提供了方法论指导。

I. Critique of the “Theory of the Superiority of the Commune,” Which Holds That the Russian Commune Is Superior to Western Capitalism

一、批判俄国村社优于西欧资本主义的“村社优越论”

Beginning with Alexander Herzen, the pioneer of Russian Populism, the rural commune (obshchina) was the cornerstone for the Populists’ assertion that Russia could “bypass” capitalism and directly enter socialism. In the view of the Russian Populists, the communal land ownership and the artel (labor association) form of the Russian commune possessed an inherent communist character. They therefore concluded that the Russian commune was far superior to Western capitalism and, on this basis, that Russia could rely on the commune to directly enter socialism—hence the “theory of the superiority of the commune.”

从俄国民粹主义的先驱亚·伊·赫尔岑开始，农村公社就是俄国民粹主义者确证俄国可以“绕过”资本主义直接进入社会主义论断的基点。在俄国民粹主义者看来，俄国村社的土地公社所有制和劳动组合形式带有天然的共产主义色彩，因此认为俄国村社远远优于西欧资本主义，并据此得出了俄国可以依靠村社直接进入社会主义的结论，即“村社优越论”。

On the basis of a certain historical investigation of communal land ownership, the artel, and the commune, Marx and Engels discovered that communal land ownership and the artel were forms of land ownership and cooperation adapted to backward social conditions. Judging by the historical evolution of the commune and the actual state of development of the Russian commune, the Russian commune was tending toward decline. Based on this, they sharply criticized the “theory of the superiority of the commune” as an idealized expression that deviated from the historical evolution of the commune.

马克思恩格斯在对土地公社所有制、劳动组合和村社作一定历史考察的基础上，发现土地公社所有制和劳动组合是与落后社会状态相适应的土地所有制和合作形式，按照公社的历史演变进程和俄国村社的发展现状来看俄国村社是趋于衰亡的。基于此，他们严厉批判“村社优越论”是背离公社演变历史的理想化表达。

Marx and Engels first employed the method of historical analysis to reveal the intrinsic essence and evolutionary trend of communal land ownership and the artel, clarifying that communal land ownership and the artel represented backward productive forces and relations of production. They pointed out that, viewed from the perspective of historical development, communal land ownership and the artel not only failed to prove the superiority of the Russian commune over Western capitalism but instead demonstrated the backward characteristics of the Russian commune.

马克思恩格斯首先运用历史分析方法揭示了土地公社所有制和劳动组合的内在本质与演变趋势，阐明土地公社所有制和劳动组合代表着落后的生产力和生产关系。他们指出，从发展历史看，土地公社所有制和劳动组合不仅无法证明俄国村社优于西方资本主义，反而展现出俄国村社的落后特性。

First, communal land ownership was a product of backward modes of production and social relations. The Russian Populists firmly believed that communal land ownership was superior to Western private land ownership because it bore an obvious “communist character.” In fact, communal land ownership had already appeared in Ireland in the early 17th century; this system was very common in the lower stages of development among Indo-European peoples, and Russia’s communal land ownership was not unique. Based on an investigation of the relationship between the development process of Indo-European peoples and communal land ownership, Engels pointed out that communal land ownership would, with social progress, gradually become a fetter on agricultural development and be eliminated. That is to say, communal land ownership was adapted to an undeveloped state of society; the fact that a large number of rural communes based on communal land ownership were preserved in Russia precisely indicated that the productive forces and relations of production in the Russian countryside were in a relatively backward state.

一是土地公社所有制是落后生产方式和社会关系的产物。俄国民粹主义者坚定地相信土地公社所有制比西欧土地私有制更优越，因为土地公社所有制带有明显的“共产主义色彩”。事实上，17世纪初的爱尔兰已经出现了土地公社所有制，这一制度在印欧国家的低级发展阶段十分常见，俄国的土地公社所有制并非独创。基于对印欧国家发展进程与土地公社所有制的关系考察，恩格斯指出土地公社所有制会随着社会进步逐渐成为农业发展的桎梏而被消灭。也就是说，土地公社所有制是与不发达的社会状态相适应的，大量以土地公社所有制为基础的农村村社在俄国得以保存恰恰说明俄国农村的生产力和生产关系正处在较为落后的状态。

Second, the artel was an undeveloped, simple form of cooperation. The Russian Populists believed that the artel could naturally link peasants, merchants, or artisans into independent rural or urban *mirs* (communal associations), and that it was an effective and rational principle of association beloved by the Russian people and proven by their long-term practice. In the view of Marx and Engels, the “name and fact” of the artel could be seen everywhere in the hunting activities of the Tatar, Kyrgyz, and Yakut peoples. The reason the artel became a “very common” form of cooperation in Russia was, on the one hand, that Russia’s vast territory had relatively little arable land, with a harsh climate and long winters, so peasants needed the artel to ensure agricultural production was completed within the limited time suitable for cultivation; on the other hand, the Russian people needed a large amount of industrial activity to compensate for the disadvantages of their underdeveloped production, and the artel could pool the resources of those engaged in the same industrial activity. On this basis, they emphasized that the artel was a very undeveloped, “simplest” form of cooperation. At the same time, Engels also used the example of the fishing industry to explain the actual situation of the Russian workers’ artel, indicating that the Russian artel had actually become a tool for capitalists to exploit workers: workers in the fishing industry were themselves unable to afford the funds needed to purchase boats and nets for fishing activities and could only borrow from usurers to carry out fishing. In this way, the usurers obtained most of the income of the artel, and the artel actually fell into the hands of the usurers, becoming a tool and means for them to reap huge profits.

二是劳动组合是一种不发达的简单合作形式。俄国民粹主义者认为劳动组合能够将农民或商人、手工业者自然地联结为独立的农村米尔或城市米尔，是为俄国人民所喜爱、为俄国人民长期实践所证明的行之有效的合理的联合原则。在马克思恩格斯看来，劳动组合的“名称和事实”在鞑靼族、吉尔吉斯族、雅库特族等民族的狩猎活动中到处可见，劳动组合之所以在俄国成为“很普遍的”合作形式，一方面是因为俄国国土广袤但适宜耕种的土地占比较少、气候严寒且冬季漫长，农民需要通过劳动组合保证在适宜耕种的有限时间内完成农业生产；另一方面是俄国人民需要以大量的工业活动弥补其生产不发达的劣势，劳动组合可以聚集从事同一工业活动的人的资源。据此，他们强调劳动组合是一种很不发达的、“最简单”的合作方式。同时，恩格斯还以捕鱼业为例解释了俄国工人劳动组合的现实状况，表示俄国的劳动组合实际成为资本家剥削工人的工具：捕鱼业的工人本身无力支付购买捕鱼活动所需渔船、渔网的资金，只能向高利贷者借贷进行捕鱼活动，这样高利贷者获得了劳动组合的大部分收入，劳动组合实际上落入了高利贷者的手里，成为其大肆牟利的工具和手段。

Next, Marx and Engels historically analyzed the evolution of the commune, emphasizing that the Russian rural commune was facing a situation of “internal and external difficulties” and a state of decline, revealing that the claim that “the Russian commune is far superior to Western capitalism” was an idealized expression of the future of the Russian commune.

接着，马克思恩格斯历史地分析了公社的发展演进，强调俄国农村公社正面临“内外交困”局面和衰败态势，揭示“俄国村社远远优于西欧资本主义”的主张是对俄国村社发展前途的理想化表达。

Starting from the historical development of the commune, Marx and Engels analyzed that the Russian rural commune internally harbored factors driving its decline. In Marx’s investigation, the development of the commune underwent an evolution from the “more archaic commune” to the “agricultural commune.” The “more archaic commune” referred to a type of primitive commune based on blood kinship as the standard of organization, where houses and dwellings were for public use, commune members jointly engaged in production and jointly possessed products, and products were distributed according to consumption needs in a planned manner. In comparison, the “agricultural commune” underwent many changes: the formation of the commune abandoned the single standard of blood kinship, arable land was divided into small plots for peasants to “manage on their own,” and houses, garden plots, and products became private property of the peasants. The changes in the “agricultural commune” meant that it inherently possessed a duality: public ownership of arable land in terms of institutions and, in fact, private ownership of small plots by peasants. The collision of these two aspects inevitably gave rise to internal contradictions and conflicts within the commune, quietly brewing factors that drove its demise. On this basis, Marx believed that the “agricultural commune” was the final stage of the primitive social formation and a transitional stage to secondary formations such as slave society and serf society. [1]1 Marx’s concept of “secondary formations” refers to social forms that emerge from the dissolution of the primitive commune, such as slave-owning and feudal societies, as distinct from the “primary formation” of primitive communism. The Russian commune, as a subordinate part of the “agricultural commune,” naturally also possessed the characteristic duality of the “agricultural commune,” internally harboring factors driving its decline.

马克思恩格斯从公社的发展历史出发，分析出俄国农村公社内部孕育着推动其衰亡的因素。在马克思的考察中，公社的发展经历了“较古的公社”到“农业公社”的演进。“较古的公社”是指以血缘亲属为组建标准，房屋、住所具有公共使用性质，公社成员共同从事生产、共同占有产品，且依照消费需要有计划地分配产品的原始公社类型。与之相比，“农业公社”发生了许多变化：公社的组建摒弃了血缘亲属单一标准，耕地被分割为小块以供农民“自力经营”,房屋、园地和产品归农民私有。“农业公社”的变化意味着其内在具有制度上的耕地公有与事实上的小块土地农民私有两重性，二者的碰撞必然引起公社内部的矛盾和冲突，推动其消亡的内部因素悄然酝酿。基于此，马克思认为“农业公社”是原始社会形态的最后阶段和向奴隶制社会、农奴制社会等次生形态过渡的阶段,从属于“农业公社”的俄国村社自然也具有“农业村社”特有的两重性，内部孕育着推动其衰亡的因素。

Furthermore, Marx and Engels also historically investigated the development of the Russian commune, recognizing that the Emancipation Reform of 1861 [2]2 The Emancipation Reform of 1861, also known as the abolition of serfdom in Russia, was a major reform under Tsar Alexander II that formally freed the serfs but imposed heavy redemption payments on them for land allotments. accelerated the disintegration of the Russian commune. The reform of 1861 resulted in high-quality land being seized into the hands of the nobility, while peasants not only had to bear high land taxes for barren land “too small to support a livelihood” but also bore the interest on state-advanced redemption payments, usury fees, and various levies. To survive, peasants could only repay debts through labor or flee, and the commune gradually disintegrated.

此外，马克思恩格斯还历史地考察了俄国村社的发展，认识到农奴制改革加剧了俄国村社的解体。1861年的农奴制改革使得优质土地被搜刮到贵族手中，而农民不仅需要为“小得无法赖以糊口”的贫瘠土地承担高昂的土地税，还要背负国家垫付赎金的利息、高利贷费用和各种捐税。为了生存，农民只能以劳动抵债或者出逃，村社逐渐解体。

Through the historical investigation of communal land ownership and the artel, and the analysis of the historical evolution of the commune, Marx and Engels concluded that the predominance of the commune based on communal land ownership and the artel in Russia could only indicate that Russia’s social state was more backward than that of Western Europe. They thus criticized the “theory of the superiority of the commune” propagated by Russian Populism, which held that Russia was superior to Western capitalism because of the existence of a large number of communes.

通过对土地公社所有制、劳动组合的历史考察和对公社历史演进的分析，马克思恩格斯认为以土地公社所有制和劳动组合为基础的村社在俄国占优势只能说明俄国社会状态落后于西欧，批判了俄国民粹主义宣扬的俄国因为存在大量村社而优于西欧资本主义的“村社优越论”。

II. Critique of the “Theory of Russia’s Revolutionary Advantage,” Which Holds That Russia Possesses Advantageous Conditions for a Socialist Revolution

二、批判俄国具有社会主义革命优势条件的“俄国革命优势论”

The Russian revolutionary populist Tkachev, on the basis of insisting on the “superiority of the village commune,” further argued that Russia possessed more favorable practical conditions for carrying out a socialist revolution, intending to support the view that Russia should undertake a socialist revolution by emphasizing Russia’s “particularity.” In 1874, in his “Open Letter to Mr. Friedrich Engels,” Tkachev accused Engels of being an “ignoramus” and an “outsider” who expressed opinions on Russia’s development path without understanding Russian reality. In his eyes, Russia had the advantage of being “very easy to incite revolution” for socialist revolution, namely that Russia had no urban proletariat or bourgeoisie, and that the Russian government, because it represented no class interests, was “powerless” to resist revolutionary forces.

俄国革命民粹主义者特卡乔夫在坚持“村社优越论”的基础上，进一步主张俄国具备更易进行社会主义革命的现实条件，意图通过强调俄国的“特殊性”为俄国应当进行社会主义革命的观点提供支撑。1874年，特卡乔夫在《给弗里德里希·恩格斯先生的公开信》中指责恩格斯是不懂俄国现实就对俄国发展道路发表意见的“无知者”和“外人”。在他眼中，俄国具有“很容易引起革命”的社会主义革命优势，即俄国没有城市无产阶级和资产阶级、俄国政府因不代表任何阶层利益而“无力”抵抗革命势力。

Based on historical materialism, Engels compared the necessary conditions for socialist revolution and Russia’s actual conditions with the “revolutionary advantages” advocated by Tkachev, criticizing the “theory of Russia’s revolutionary advantages” as a subjective judgment that ignored Russia’s actual situation and departed from the necessary conditions for socialist revolution.

恩格斯立足唯物史观，分别将社会主义革命必要条件、俄国现实条件与特卡乔夫主张的“革命优势”作了对比，批判“俄国革命优势论”是无视俄国现实状况和脱离社会主义革命必要条件的主观臆断。

First, he pointed out that socialist revolution has its “necessary prerequisites,” namely the existence of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Tkachev believed that Russia had no urban proletariat or bourgeoisie, and that workers only needed to struggle against “political power,” i.e., the tsar, and that struggling against the tsar was “much easier” than struggling against the bourgeoisie. In Tkachev’s view, this was a major advantage for Russia’s socialist revolution. In his response to Tkachev, “On the Social Question in Russia,” Engels defined the nature of socialist revolution at the outset, clearly stating that socialist revolution is a transformative activity initiated by the proletariat, targeting the bourgeoisie, and aiming for a classless state under highly developed productive forces. Engels emphasized that socialist revolution is a transformation in which “the proletariat defeats the bourgeoisie, and through the abolition of all class distinctions, establishes a new social organization,” and that the existence of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a necessary condition for socialist revolution. This is because the abolition of class distinctions to be achieved by socialist revolution is not a return to the classless state of the “savages and semi-savages,” but a progression to a classless state at a highly developed stage of productive forces. To achieve this goal, both the bourgeoisie, as a key element in creating enormous productive forces and promoting their high development, and the proletariat, with its thorough revolutionary character, are indispensable. Using the absence of the proletariat and bourgeoisie as evidence to prove Russia’s advantage for socialist revolution only shows that Tkachev lacks basic knowledge of socialism. Engels sarcastically remarked: “Whoever asserts that such a revolution is easier in a country which has no proletariat, but also no bourgeoisie, only proves that he still has to learn the ABC of socialism.” [3]3 Engels, “On the Social Question in Russia,” in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Collected Works*, vol. 24 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989), p. 399. [Translator’s note: This is a standard reference to the English edition of the Marx-Engels *Collected Works* (MECW).]

第一，指明社会主义革命有其“必要的先决条件”,即无产阶级和资产阶级的存在。特卡乔夫认为俄国没有城市无产者和资产阶级，工人只需要与“政治权力”即沙皇进行斗争，而与沙皇作斗争要比与资产阶级作斗争“容易得多”。在特卡乔夫看来，这是俄国进行社会主义革命的重要优势。恩格斯在回应特卡乔夫的《论俄国的社会问题》中开宗明义地对社会主义革命的性质进行了界定，明确说明社会主义革命是无产阶级发起的、以资产阶级为对象、以生产力高度发展下的无阶级状态为目的的变革活动。恩格斯强调，社会主义革命是“无产阶级战胜资产阶级，以及通过消灭一切阶级差别来建立新的社会组织”的变革，无产阶级和资产阶级的存在是进行社会主义革命的必要条件。这是因为社会主义革命要实现的消灭阶级差别不是回到“野蛮人和半野蛮人”时代的无阶级状态，而是要前进到生产力高度发达阶段的无阶级状态。要实现这一目标，作为创造巨大生产力、推动生产力高度发展关键要素的资产阶级和具有彻底革命性的无产阶级缺一不可，以没有无产阶级和资产阶级为论据证明俄国具有社会主义革命的优势，只能说明特卡乔夫缺乏对社会主义的基本认知。恩格斯辛辣地讽刺说：“谁竟然断言在一个虽然没有无产阶级然而也没有资产阶级的国家里更容易进行这种革命，那就只不过证明，他还需要学一学关于社会主义的初步知识。”

Second, he revealed that Russia’s state form represented the interests of the aristocratic class that lived by “sucking the blood of the peasants,” criticizing the claim that “the Russian state represents no class interests” as a departure from Russian social reality. Tkachev pointed out that from the real life of the Russian people, it could be seen that tsarist Russia represented no class interests, and its power was an illusory force “unrelated” to the existing social system; the state form “suspended in mid-air” determined that the enemy of Russia’s socialist revolution was powerless and easy to overthrow. By comparing the living conditions of Russian peasants and the aristocratic bureaucracy, Engels explained the essential connection between the tsarist state form and Russia’s economic life and social system. In Engels’s view, the power of the tsarist state form, representing aristocratic interests, was far greater than that of the oppressed and exploited peasant class: in terms of land ownership, the total land owned by the majority of peasants and the minority of aristocrats was almost equal; in terms of land quality, the harvest from land owned by aristocrats was twice that of peasants; in terms of land tax payments, peasants paid 15 times more land tax annually than aristocrats, and peasants also had to pay additional taxes under other headings such as state, provincial, and county taxes; peasants holding small plots of barren land had to maintain basic survival by borrowing from usurers or renting land at high prices from speculators. Clearly, Russia’s state form extracted benefits for the aristocratic class by severely oppressing the Russian peasants. The state that Tkachev described as easily overthrown, powerless, and “suspended in mid-air” actually possessed strong ruling power and the support of the aristocratic class. In response, Engels criticized: “If anything is suspended in mid-air, it is not the Russian state, but Mr. Tkachev himself.” [4]4 Engels, “On the Social Question in Russia,” p. 404.

第二，揭示俄国的国家形态代表着靠“吮吸农民血液”过活的贵族阶级利益，批判“俄罗斯国家不代表任何阶层利益”是对俄国社会现实的背离。特卡乔夫指出，从俄国人民的现实生活中可以看到沙皇俄国不代表任何阶级的利益，且其力量是同现存社会制度“毫不相干”的虚幻力量，“悬在空中”的国家形式决定了俄国社会主义革命的敌人是无力的、容易推翻的。恩格斯通过对比俄国农民和贵族官僚的生活现状，说明了沙皇国家形态与俄国经济生活、社会制度间的本质关联。在恩格斯看来，代表贵族利益的沙皇国家形态力量远远大于被压迫、剥削的农民阶级：从土地占有数量来看大部分农民和少数贵族占有的总体土地数量几乎相等，从土地质量来看贵族占有土地的收获量是农民的2倍，从土地税缴纳额来看农民每年缴纳的土地税是贵族的15倍且农民还需要额外缴纳国家、省、县等其他名目的捐税，占有贫瘠小块土地的农民不得不通过向高利贷者借贷或高价租种投机家的地等方式来维持基本生存。显然，俄国的国家形态以严重压迫俄国农民的手段为贵族阶级攫取利益，作为特卡乔夫口中极易被推翻的、无力的、“悬在空中”的国家实际上具有强大的统治力量和贵族阶级支持。对此，恩格斯批判道：“悬在空中的与其说是俄罗斯国家，倒不如说是特卡乔夫先生自己。”

So, did Russia really have no proletariat or bourgeoisie? Engels scientifically answered this question by comparing the economic production methods of capitalist countries and Russia. From the actual situation in Russia, the parasitic nature of capitalism in Russia had developed to the point where the entire country and people were covered and entangled in a net of capitalist parasitism; “the English truck system” and “the Irish middleman system” were widespread in Russia. The serfdom reform required peasants to pay high land redemption fees for barren land “too small to support a family” and bear various taxes. This redemption fee plunged most peasants into “extreme poverty,” forcing them to borrow from usurers or wealthy peasants to pay taxes. To repay debts, peasants had to sell part of the grain meant to feed their families, but grain merchants constantly lowered purchase prices and paid for grain with “goods calculated at high prices.” “The large-scale export of Russian grain is directly based on the starvation of the peasants.” [5]5 Engels, “On the Social Question in Russia,” p. 407. At the same time, there were also some speculators in Russia. Speculators leased land from the government, cultivated it themselves when the land was fertile, and when fertility declined, divided it into small plots and leased it to peasants who, struggling to make a living, “eagerly sought extra income.” This speculative method of exchanging exhausted land for high rents further deepened peasant poverty. In this sense, the exploitation of peasants by Russian aristocrats, usurers, and speculators had in fact taken on the embryonic form of capitalist economic relations. Russian peasants were “property owners” in name but “proletarians” in essence, while aristocrats, usurers, and speculators effectively became the bourgeoisie.

那么，俄国真的不存在无产阶级和资产阶级吗?恩格斯通过比较资本主义国家与俄国经济生产方式，科学回答了这一问题。从俄国的现实情况来看，资本主义在俄国的寄生性已经发展到整个国家和人民都被资本主义寄生的罗网覆盖和缠绕的程度，“英国式的实物工资制”和“爱尔兰式的中间人”在俄国普遍存在。农奴制改革要求农民为“小得无法赖以糊口”的贫瘠土地支付高昂土地赎买费用且担负各种捐税，这笔赎买费用使得大部分农民陷入“极其贫困的”境地，农民不得不向高利贷者或富农借钱来缴纳捐税。为了偿还债务，农民必须出售一部分用以养家糊口的粮食，但粮商会不断压低粮食的收购价格和用“按高价折合的商品”支付粮食购买费用给农民，“俄国粮食的大量出口是直接以农民挨饿为基础 的”。与 此同时，俄国还存在一部分投机家。投机家们向政府租赁一些土地，在土地肥力很好的时候自行耕种，等到土地肥力降到很低的时候便将其分割成小块租赁给难以糊口而“竭力寻找外快”的农民。这种用耗尽地力的土地换取高额地租的投机方式进一步加深了农民的贫困程度。在这一意义上，俄国贵族、高利贷者和投机家对农民的剥削在事实上已经具备资本主义经济关系的雏形，俄国农民是表面上的“有产者”、实质上的“无产者”,贵族、高利贷者和投机家事实地成为资产阶级。

Thus, starting from the theory of socialist revolution and the actual situation in Russia, Engels exposed the subjectivity of the Russian populists’ assertion that Russia possessed “advantages” for carrying out socialist revolution, and criticized the “theory of Russia’s revolutionary advantages” of the Russian populists through comparative analysis.

由此，恩格斯从社会主义革命理论和俄国现实情况出发，揭露了俄国民粹主义者极力主张的俄国具有进行社会主义革命“优势”论断的主观性，在比较分析中批判了俄国民粹主义者的“俄国革命优势论”。

III. Critique of the “Theory of the Peasantry as the Subject of Revolution,” Which Relies on Peasants to Achieve Socialist Revolution

三、批判依靠农民实现社会主义革命的“农民革命主体论”

The idea that the Russian peasantry were “instinctive communists” and therefore should be relied upon to achieve socialist revolution was also one of the key arguments used by Russian populists to prove that Russia could “bypass” capitalism and directly enter socialism. Russian revolutionary populists vigorously advocated that Russia should take the peasantry as the main subject of socialist revolution, but on the timing and specific methods of revolution, three representatives of revolutionary populism—Pyotr Lavrov, Mikhail Bakunin, and Tkachev—diverged. Lavrov believed that Russia had not yet reached the appropriate time for socialist revolution, and the task of the revolutionary party was to propagate knowledge of socialist revolution to the peasants under the premise of “strictly strengthening self-discipline,” helping them prepare for socialist revolution. Unlike Lavrov, Bakunin and Tkachev believed that the revolutionary moment had already arrived. Bakunin emphasized that the Russian peasantry were born socialists, and only by taking the “purely revolutionary” path of a nationwide uprising could Russia be saved; Tkachev argued that the Russian peasantry were instinctive revolutionaries, and the realization of socialist revolution depended on a minority of intellectuals conspiring to incite peasant uprisings and resistance.

俄国农民是“本能的共产主义者”,因此要依靠俄国农民实现社会主义革命，也是俄国民粹主义者论证俄国可以“绕过”资本主义直接进入社会主义观点的关键论点之一。俄国革命民粹主义者极力鼓吹俄国应当以农民为主体进行社会主义革命，但在革命的时机和具体方式上，彼得·拉甫罗夫、米哈伊尔·巴枯宁和特卡乔夫三位革命民粹主义代表者出现了分歧。拉甫罗夫认为，俄国尚未到进行社会主义革命的恰当时机，革命党的任务是在“严格地加强自我锻炼”的前提下向农民宣传社会主义革命知识，帮助农民做好社会主义革命的准备。与拉甫罗夫不同，巴枯宁和特卡乔夫则认为革命时机已然到来。巴枯宁强调俄国农民是天生的社会主义者，只有走全民暴动的“纯粹革命”道路，俄国才能得救；特卡乔夫主张俄国农民是本能的革命者，社会主义革命的实现要依靠少数知识分子密谋来唤起农民的起义和反抗。

Based on Russian social reality, Engels used class analysis to dissect the limitations of the Russian peasantry. From the perspective of the isolation and weakness of the Russian peasantry, he criticized the Russian revolutionary populists for exaggerating the revolutionary subject role of the peasantry.

恩格斯立足俄国社会现实，运用阶级分析方法剖析了俄国农民的局限性，从俄国农民的孤立性和软弱性的角度，批判俄国革命民粹主义者过度夸大了农民的革命主体作用。

On the one hand, the isolation of the peasants means that among them there are only “identical interests” but no “common interests,” so they cannot coalesce into a class whole capable of waging a powerful struggle. The Russian revolutionary populists believed that the peasants living in the commune were “imbued with the spirit of the principle of common ownership” and were “instinctive revolutionaries” who could consciously protest against government oppression and enslavement. Engels criticized this view of Russian populism as entirely inconsistent with the actual state of the Russian commune. The reality of the Russian rural commune was that the communes were isolated from one another; peasants who only acted and interacted within their own commune were more concerned with the affairs and interests of their own commune, and the world beyond the commune existed “only when it interfered in the affairs of his commune.” This doomed the peasants to have no will to unite actively to resist the tsarist government; the “instinctive revolutionary” was merely a “fairy tale” fabricated by the Russian revolutionary populists, for throughout history, Russian peasant uprisings “never opposed the tsar, except when someone impersonating the tsar acted as the peasant leader and sought to reclaim the throne.” [6]6 The phrase “冒名沙皇的人充任农民首领并要夺回王位” refers to the phenomenon in Russian peasant uprisings where leaders often claimed to be the rightful tsar (e.g., Pugachev) to legitimize their rebellion, a point Engels uses to argue that peasants lacked a revolutionary consciousness independent of monarchical ideology.

一方面，农民的孤立性致使农民之间只有“相同的利益”、没有“共同的利益”,无法汇聚成进行有力斗争的阶级整体。俄国革命民粹主义者认为，生活在村社中的农民“充满着公有制原则的精神”,是能够自觉地抗议政府压迫和奴役的“本能的革命者”。恩格斯批判俄国民粹主义的这一观点与俄国村社的现实状态全然不符。俄国农村公社的现状是村社之间相互隔绝，只在村社内部活动、交往的农民更关注自己所在村社的事务和利益，村社以外的世界“只有在干预他的公社事务时”才是存在的。这注定农民没有主动联合起来反抗沙皇政府的意愿，“本能的革命者”不过是俄国革命民粹主义者编造的“童话”,毕竟历来的俄国农民起义“除了冒名沙皇的人充任农民首领并要夺回王位以外，从来没有反对过沙皇”。

On the other hand, the weakness of the peasants determined that they were highly prone to wavering and compromise in revolution, lacking the resoluteness and thoroughness needed for a prolonged struggle. In the “ideal” of Russian populism, when peasants in several localities simultaneously erupted in discontent against the government, the uprising of the “instinctive revolutionaries” would possess an absolute advantage in victory that the tsarist government, “suspended in the air,” could not match. Engels acknowledged that the extreme poverty of Russian peasants after the abolition of serfdom indeed forced them to resist the tsarist government, but even assuming that the Russian peasants were “instinctively the most revolutionary possible,” the practice of peasant uprisings proved that peasants could hardly truly unite into a class with firm revolutionary will and thorough revolutionary character. Taking the Spanish peasant revolution organized by Bakunin as an example, this peasant revolution fully met the conditions for simultaneous peasant uprisings in several localities, yet the result was that each commune looked after itself, and the spark of the peasant uprising was completely extinguished within fourteen days. Ultimately, the aim of peasants engaged in small-scale production in resisting the tsarist government was to safeguard the smooth progress of their small-scale production; once they obtained enough land and conditions for small-scale production, the peasant revolution could no longer be sustained. On this basis, Engels criticized that the root of the Russian populists’ vigorous advocacy of relying on peasants to carry out a socialist revolution lay in their failure to conduct an in-depth analysis of the class limitations of the peasantry, rashly equating socialist revolution with a peasant uprising burdened by the limitations of isolation and weakness.

另一方面，农民的软弱性决定了农民在革命中极易动摇和妥协，缺乏长期革命的坚决性和彻底性。在俄国民粹主义的“理想”中，当几个地方的农民同时爆发对政府的不满，“本能的革命者”的起义将拥有“悬在空中”的沙皇政府所不具备的绝对胜利优势。恩格斯承认农奴制改革后俄国农民生活的极度贫困确实迫使他们不得不反抗沙皇政府，但即使假定俄国农民“本能上是最革命不过的”,农民起义的实践也证明农民难以真正联合成为具有坚定革命意志和彻底革命性的阶级。以巴枯宁组织的西班牙农民革命为例，这一农民革命完全满足在几个地方同时爆发农民起义的条件，但结果却是公社各自保全自身、农民起义的火花在14天内被完全扑灭。归根结底，从事小生产活动的农民反抗沙皇政府的目的在于维护其小生产的顺利进行，一旦获得了足以进行小生产的土地和条件，农民革命就难以为继了。基于此，恩格斯批判俄国民粹主义者极力鼓吹依靠农民进行社会主义革命的根源，在于他们没有对农民阶级的阶级局限性进行深入分析，轻率地将社会主义革命等同于带有孤立性和软弱性局限的农民起义。

IV. Critique of the “Utopian Non-Capitalist Path” That Ignores Russian Realities

四、批判不顾俄国实际的“非资本主义道路空想”

The core idea of Russian populism was that Russia could “bypass” capitalism and directly enter socialism—that is, take a “non-capitalist path” different from that of Western Europe. After using historical analysis, comparative analysis, and class analysis to refute one by one the supporting arguments of the Russian populist “non-capitalist path,” Marx and Engels dialectically analyzed the possibility and necessary conditions for Russia to take a “non-capitalist path,” criticizing the core idea of the Russian populists’ empty talk about Russia being able to “bypass” capitalism and directly enter socialism as a “utopian non-capitalist path.”

俄国能够“绕过”资本主义直接进入社会主义，即走一条不同于西欧的“非资本主义道路”是俄国民粹主义的核心思想。在运用历史分析方法、比较分析方法以及阶级分析方法对俄国民粹主义“非资本主义道路”思想的支撑观点进行逐一批驳后，马克思恩格斯辩证地分析了俄国走“非资本主义道路”的可能性与必要条件，批判俄国民粹主义者空谈俄国可以“绕过”资本主义直接进入社会主义的核心思想是一种“非资本主义道路空想”。

In the 1870s, voices emerged among the Russian populists that distorted Marx’s attitude toward which development path Russia should take. The most representative was Mikhailovsky, who distorted Marx’s analytical conclusions on the origin of capitalism in Western Europe, asserting that Marx denied that Russia could take a development path different from that of Western Europe. In response, Marx explicitly stated that someone “must transform my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general path of development prescribed by fate to all peoples, whatever the historical circumstances in which they find themselves, in order that they may ultimately arrive at the economic formation which ensures, together with the greatest development of the productive powers of social labor, the most complete development of man. But I must ask his pardon. (He would both honor and shame me too much.)” [7]7 This is a direct quotation from Marx’s 1877 letter to the editor of the *Otechestvennye Zapiski*, in which he rejects the idea that his analysis of Western European capitalism constitutes a universal historical law applicable to all societies. Taking his analysis of the Roman plebeians in *Capital* as an example, Marx emphasized that the same issue could lead to different possibilities under different conditions, and differences in historical circumstances could cause “very similar events” to lead to “completely different results.” Under the same situation where producers were separated from the means of production due to the expropriation of the means of production, the expropriated Western European peasants became wage laborers and pushed the feudal mode of production to develop into the capitalist mode of production; while the expropriated Roman plebeians became “idle vagabonds,” and their mode of production shifted from free small-scale production to the slave mode of production.

19世纪70年代，俄国民粹主义者中出现了歪曲马克思关于俄国走何种发展道路态度的声音。其中最具代表性的是米海洛夫斯基，他歪曲马克思关于西欧资本主义起源的分析结论，断言马克思否认俄国可以走一条不同于西欧的发展道路。对此，马克思明确声明，有人“一定要把我关于西欧资本主义起源的历史概述彻底变成一般发展道路的历史哲学理论，一切民族，不管它们所处的历史环境如何，都注定要走这条道路，——以便最后都达到在保证社会劳动生产力极高度发展的同时又保证每个生产者个人最全面的发展的这样一种经济形态。但是我要请他原谅。(他这样做，会给我过多的荣誉，同时也会给我过多的侮辱。)”马克思以他在《资本论》中对古罗马平民的分析为例，强调同一问题在不同条件下会有不同可能，历史环境的差异会导致“极为相似的事变”走向“完全不同的结果”。在同样是由于生产资料被剥夺而出现生产者与生产资料相分离的状况下，被剥夺生产资料的西欧农民转变为雇佣工人，并推动封建生产方式发展为资本主义生产方式；而被剥夺生产资料的古罗马平民则成为“无所事事的游民”,其生产方式由自由的小生产转变为奴隶制生产方式。

In their polemics with the Russian populists, Marx and Engels realized that although the Russian populists had from beginning to end emphasized that Russia could “bypass” capitalism through the commune and take a “non-capitalist path,” they had never discussed how to transform Russia’s existing conditions into the cornerstone supporting Russia’s “non-capitalist path,” merely engaging in empty talk about this path divorced from Russian reality. Therefore, on the basis of criticizing the Russian populist “theory of commune superiority,” “theory of Russian revolutionary advantage,” and “theory of the peasantry as the revolutionary subject,” they dialectically analyzed the possibilities for “where Russia is heading” based on Russia’s specific realities, pointing out that Russia had both the possibility of falling into the vortex of capitalism like Western Europe and the possibility of “bypassing” capitalism to take a “non-capitalist path,” using dialectical analysis to deeply criticize the Russian populist “utopian non-capitalist path.”

在与俄国民粹主义者的论战中，马克思恩格斯意识到俄国民粹主义者虽然自始至终都在强调俄国可以通过村社“绕过”资本主义走一条“非资本主义道路”,但从未讨论过如何将俄国现有的条件化为支撑俄国走的“非资本主义道路”的基石，只是在脱离俄国现实空谈这一道路。因而，他们在批判俄国民粹主义的“村社优越论”“俄国革命优势论”和“农民革命主体论”的基础上，以俄国特殊现实为依据辩证地分析了俄国“向何处去”的可能，指出俄国既有像西欧一样陷入资本主义旋涡的可能，也有“绕过”资本主义走“非资本主义道路”的可能，运用辩证分析方法深入地批判了俄国民粹主义的“非资本主义道路空想”。

First, the existence of the Russian commune must be viewed dialectically. From the perspective of the commune’s developmental trend, the Russian commune was an old thing adapted to a backward social state, and aside from spontaneously moving toward dissolution, it could “not grow anything else out of itself.” After the abolition of serfdom in Russia, capitalist factors developed rapidly in Russia, and Russia entered an “era of the rapid demise of land common ownership.” The foundation of the “non-capitalist path” advocated by the Russian populists—transitioning directly from the rural commune to socialism—was the unique condition of the existence of common ownership factors nationwide in Russia. The demise of land common ownership reflected the collapse of the foundation of the “non-capitalist path,” and the possibility of “bypassing” capitalism to directly enter socialism correspondingly diminished.

一是要用辩证的眼光看待俄国村社的存在。从公社的发展趋势来看，俄国村社是与落后社会状态相适应的旧事物，除了自发走向解体以外无法“从自己身上生长出任何别的东西”。俄国农奴制改革后，资本主义因素迅速在俄国发展，俄国进入了“土地公有制迅速灭亡的时代”。俄国民粹主义者所倡导的经由农村公社直接过渡到社会主义的“非资本主义道路”的基础，就是俄国全国范围内存在公有制因素的独特条件，土地公有制的消亡反映着“非资本主义道路”基础的瓦解，“绕过”资本主义直接进入社会主义的可能性随之减小。

Second, the relationship between Russia taking a “non-capitalist development path” and the socialist revolution in Western Europe must be viewed dialectically. From the perspective of world history and combined with a profound understanding of Russian reality, Marx and Engels believed that Russia had the potential to skip the “Caudine Forks” [8]8 “Caudine Forks” (卡夫丁峡谷) is a metaphor derived from a Roman military defeat in 321 BCE at the Caudine Forks pass, used by Marx to signify a catastrophic or humiliating experience; here it refers to the capitalist stage of development that Russia might avoid. of the capitalist system and directly move toward a “non-capitalist development path.” In the 1882 Russian edition preface to the *Communist Manifesto*, they pointed out that if the Russian revolution became the signal for the proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complemented each other, then “the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.” [9]9 This is a direct quotation from the 1882 Russian edition preface to the *Communist Manifesto*, co-authored by Marx and Engels, which conditionally held out the possibility of Russia’s commune serving as a basis for communist development. In their view, the possibility of Russia’s social development path depended not only on changes in Russia’s internal environment but also greatly on the influence of revolutions in Western European countries. Here, Marx and Engels actually provided a practical operational idea for how Russia could cross the “Caudine Forks” and take a “non-capitalist development path,” namely, the mutual complementarity of the Western proletarian revolution and the Russian revolution. Their analysis of the Russian commune and their analysis and explanation of the possibility of a Russian revolution not only reflected Marx and Engels’s cautious answer regarding Russia’s development path and their critique of the Russian populists’ empty talk about socialist revolution while ignoring Russia’s objective reality, but also highlighted their flexible application of the dialectical method of analysis.

二是要用辩证的眼光看待俄国走“非资本主义发展道路”与西欧社会主义革命的关系。从世界历史的视域出发，结合对俄国现实的深刻理解，马克思恩格斯认为俄国拥有跳过资本主义制度的“卡夫丁峡谷”,直接走向“非资本主义发展道路”的潜力。他们在1882年为《共产党宣言》所作的俄文版序言中指出，在俄国革命成为西方无产阶级革命的信号而双方互相补充的情况下，“现今的俄国土地公有制便能成为共产主义发展的起 点”。在 他们看来，俄国社会发展道路的可能性不仅取决于俄国内部环境的变化，也极大地受到西欧国家革命的影响。在这里，马克思恩格斯其实为俄国如何跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”、走“非资本主义发展道路”提供了现实的实践思路，即西方无产阶级革命与俄国革命的相互补充。对俄国村社的分析、对俄国革命可能性的分析与阐释，既体现出马克思恩格斯对俄国发展道路的谨慎回答和对俄国民粹主义者无视俄国客观现实空谈社会主义革命的批判，也凸显了马克思恩格斯对辩证分析方法的灵活运用。

Conclusion

结 语

Marx and Engels comprehensively employed analytical methods such as historical analysis, comparative analysis, class analysis, and dialectical analysis to forcefully refute the “theory of the superiority of the village commune,” the “theory of the advantage of the Russian revolution,” the “theory of the peasantry as the revolutionary subject,” and the “fantasy of a non-capitalist path” that Russian populists vigorously advocated and propagated. They profoundly dissected the theoretical deviations of Russian populism, powerfully criticized the trend of Russian populist thought, and provided important guidance for how Russia could take a “non-capitalist path.” Through a historical examination of the land commune system, labor associations, and the village commune, they pointed out the logical flaws in the “theory of the superiority of the village commune”; by comparing the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution with the actual situation in Russia, they revealed the crux of the error in the “theory of the advantage of the Russian revolution”; through a class analysis of the Russian peasantry, they exposed the inherent defects of the “theory of the peasantry as the revolutionary subject”; and they dialectically analyzed the multiple possibilities for Russia’s revolution and development path. Viewed from the course of the confrontation between Marx and Engels and the Russian populists, Marx and Engels’s critique of Russian populism was a long-term and thorough process. Their critique of Russian populism is not only reflected in documents directly debating the Russian populists, such as *The Literature of Exile (IV)*, *On the Social Question in Russia*, and the *Letter to the Editorial Board of Otechestvennye Zapiski*, but also appears in works such as the correspondence between Marx and Engels and Vera Zasulich, the preface to the Russian edition of the *Communist Manifesto*, and the *Postscript to On the Social Question in Russia*. After Marx’s death, Engels still emphasized that “it is necessary to fight against the populists everywhere.” Marx and Engels’s critique of Russian populism not only vividly demonstrates the scientific methods and unique wisdom they employed in struggling against different social trends of thought, but also provides methodological guidance and experiential reference for our current work of criticizing erroneous social trends of thought. (Author affiliation: Nanjing Normal University)

马克思恩格斯综合运用历史分析法、比较分析法、阶级分析法、辩证分析法等分析方法，有力批驳了俄国民粹主义者大力主张和宣扬的“村社优越论”“俄国革命优势论”“农民革命主体论”和“非资本主义道路空想”,深刻剖析了俄国民粹主义的理论偏差，有力批判了俄国民粹主义思潮，为俄国如何走“非资本主义道路”提供了重要指导。他们通过对土地公社所有制、劳动组合和村社的历史性考察指明了“村社优越论”的逻辑漏洞，通过对社会主义革命必要条件与俄国现实之间的差异对比揭示了“俄国革命优势论”的错误症结，通过对俄国农民的阶级分析揭露了“农民革命主体论”的内在缺陷，辩证分析了俄国革命与发展道路的多种可能。从马克思恩格斯与俄国民粹主义者的交锋历程来看，马克思恩格斯对俄国民粹主义的批判是一个长期的、彻底的过程。他们对俄国民粹主义的批判不仅体现在《流亡者文献(四)》《论俄国的社会问题》《给〈祖国纪事〉杂志编辑部的信》这些直接与俄国民粹主义者论战的文献中，在马克思恩格斯与查苏利奇的通信、《共产党宣言》俄文版序言、《论俄国的社会问题·跋》等论著中也都有体现。在马克思逝世后，恩格斯仍强调“必须同各地的民粹派作斗争”。马克思恩格斯对俄国民粹主义的批判不仅生动展现了他们与不同社会思潮斗争的科学方法和独特智慧，也为我们当今的错误社会思潮批判工作提供了方法指导和经验借鉴。（作者单位：南京师范大学）

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗