Lenin’s Critique of Erroneous Trends of Thought during the New Economic Policy Period

In the spring of 1921, Lenin led the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to begin implementing the New Economic Policy. The implementation of the New Economic Policy infused enormous vitality and dynamism into Russia’s economic and social development, but along with it, Russia’s intellectual sphere became increasingly active, with various old and new social trends of thought interacting and contending. Among them, diverse erroneous trends of thought not only seriously disturbed the people’s thinking, creating great ideological confusion for the implementation of the New Economic Policy, but also gravely endangered the ideological foundation of the Party’s united struggle with the Soviet Russian people. To clear away the ideological fog, Lenin subjected these erroneous trends of thought to profound critique, and in the course of this critique he put forward a series of important ideological viewpoints. Standing at a new historical starting point, reviewing Lenin’s critique of several major erroneous trends of thought during the New Economic Policy period and the ideological viewpoints he elucidated in that critique still carries important practical significance.

1921年春，列宁领导俄共（布）开始推行新经济政策。新经济政策的实施使俄国经济社会发展焕发出巨大的生机和活力，但与此相伴随，俄国思想界也愈发活跃，各种新旧社会思潮相互激荡，其中形形色色的错误思潮不仅严重扰乱了人民的思想，给新经济政策的实施造成了极大的思想困扰，而且严重危害了党带领苏俄人民共同奋斗的思想基础。为廓清思想迷雾，列宁对这些错误思潮进行了深刻批判，并在批判中提出了一系列重要的思想观点。站在新的历史起点上，重温列宁在新经济政策时期对几种主要错误思潮进行的批判及其在批判中阐释的思想观点，仍然具有重要的现实意义。

I. Criticizing the petty-bourgeois reformism and petty-bourgeois revolutionism that emerged around the New Economic Policy, emphasizing the need to be adept at utilizing and controlling capital, and to build the Russia of the New Economic Policy into a socialist Russia

一、批判围绕新经济政策出现的小资产阶级改良主义和小资产阶级革命主义，强调要善于利用和驾驭资本，将新经济政策的俄国建设成为社会主义的俄国

After three years of brutal civil war ended, the Soviet regime led by Lenin faced extreme economic difficulties. Because of the severe hardship in daily life, the broad masses of workers and peasants developed serious discontent with the Party and the Soviet regime. To overcome the grave economic difficulties facing Soviet Russia and the consequent crisis of political identity, in March 1921 Lenin convened the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), which formally announced the abandonment of the policy of War Communism and the adoption of the New Economic Policy. With the implementation of a series of measures—replacing the surplus grain appropriation system with a tax in kind, permitting freedom of trade, and implementing a system of leases and concessions—capitalist elements in Russia’s economy inevitably developed rapidly. In the ideological sphere, two diametrically opposed erroneous trends of thought also emerged around the New Economic Policy. In his article “A New Era and New Forms of Old Errors,” Lenin respectively called them petty-bourgeois reformism and petty-bourgeois revolutionism.

三年残酷的国内战争结束后，列宁领导的苏维埃政权面临极度经济困难，由于生活极端困苦，广大工农群众对党和苏维埃政权出现严重不满情绪。为克服苏俄面临的严重经济困难以及由此而来的政治认同危机，1921年3月，列宁主持召开俄共（布）第十次代表大会，正式宣布放弃战时共产主义政策，改行新经济政策。随着以粮食税代替余粮收集制、允许贸易自由、实行租赁制租让制等一系列措施的实施，俄国经济领域中资本主义因素不可避免地快速发展起来，思想领域围绕新经济政策也出现了两种截然不同的错误思潮，列宁在《新的时代和新形式的旧错误》一文中分别称之为小资产阶级改良主义和小资产阶级革命主义。

Petty-bourgeois reformism was represented by the “Change of Landmarks” group. [1]1 The “Change of Landmarks” (Смена вех) group was a current of thought among Russian émigré intellectuals in the early 1920s who argued that the Bolshevik regime was evolving into a normal bourgeois state and called for cooperation with it. The “Change of Landmarks” group applauded Russia’s implementation of the New Economic Policy measures because they believed that this policy would inevitably lead Soviet Russia onto the capitalist road, which was precisely in line with their own political convictions—namely, the so-called “all historical roads lead to the same destination.” They vigorously propagated that the New Economic Policy was causing a change in Russia’s socialist character, that Russia had “set foot on the road toward an ordinary bourgeois regime,” and that therefore the New Economic Policy was not a strategy for building socialism in Soviet Russia but an “internal degeneration” that would lead Soviet Russia to an “ordinary bourgeois state.” On this basis, the “Change of Landmarks” group changed their previous political attitude of hostility toward the Soviet regime and called on their members to actively participate in various construction projects in Soviet Russia in order to promote Russia’s transformation toward capitalism. Lenin clearly recognized that the “Change of Landmarks” group was attempting to use peaceful reform to steer Russia onto the capitalist road, and therefore he called them petty-bourgeois reformism.

小资产阶级改良主义以“路标转换派”为代表。“路标转换派”对俄国实行新经济政策的举措拍手称快，原因在于他们认为这一政策一定会将苏俄引向资本主义道路，而这恰恰与其政治信仰完全一致，即所谓“历史是殊途同归”的。他们大力鼓吹新经济政策正促使俄国的社会主义性质发生变化，即“踏上了走向通常的资产阶级政权的道路”，因而新经济政策对苏俄来说不是建设社会主义的策略，而是将苏俄引向“通常的资产阶级国家”的“内部的蜕变”。基于此，“路标转换派”一改以往与苏维埃政权为敌的政治态度，号召其成员要积极投身苏俄的各项建设，以促进苏俄向资本主义转变。列宁清醒地认识到“路标转换派”是企图以和平改良的方式促使俄国走上资本主义道路，因此称其为小资产阶级改良主义。

Contrary to petty-bourgeois reformism, a part of Russian society, including some Communists, due to excessive worry about the rapid growth of capitalist elements during the New Economic Policy period, expressed doubt about or even strong opposition to the New Economic Policy. Whether proceeding from a simple socialist sentiment or from traditional socialist conceptions, and using the argument that “capitalism is a scourge, socialism is happiness,” they held that the New Economic Policy’s permission for capitalist elements to exist and develop deviated from the Communists’ original goal of pursuing socialism. They thus questioned the rationality and legitimacy of the New Economic Policy, and even fiercely opposed its implementation, proclaiming that allowing capitalists to participate in Soviet Russia’s economic construction and obtain profits was “selling out Mother Russia,” that “the Bolsheviks no longer trust the working class,” and so on. On the surface, these arguments appeared in a revolutionary guise that favored socialism and opposed capitalism, but in essence they were what Lenin called the “verbally fierce and boastful” petty-bourgeois revolutionism.

与小资产阶级改良主义相反，俄国社会中也有包括共产党人在内的一部分人，由于对新经济政策时期资本主义因素的快速增长过度担忧，对新经济政策表现出质疑甚至强烈反对的态度。他们或基于朴素的社会主义感情，或从传统的社会主义观念出发，以“资本主义是祸害，社会主义是幸福”为由，认为新经济政策允许资本主义因素存在和发展背离了共产党人追求社会主义的初衷，进而质疑新经济政策的合理性和正当性，甚至激烈反对实行新经济政策，宣扬新经济政策允许资本家参与苏俄经济建设并获取利润是出卖俄罗斯母亲，“布尔什维克现在不相信工人阶级了”，等等。这些论调表面上以一种赞成社会主义、反对资本主义的革命面目出现，实质上是列宁所说的“口头上气势汹汹、夸夸其谈”的小资产阶级革命主义。

These two diametrically opposed trends of thought that emerged around the New Economic Policy—whether the petty-bourgeois reformism that “approved” of the New Economic Policy or the petty-bourgeois revolutionism that opposed it—both pointed in substance to the same question: Where, after all, would the New Economic Policy lead Russia? Would Russia ultimately move toward socialism or capitalism? How should Communists under socialist conditions treat capitalism? There is no doubt that these were questions that the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) led by Lenin needed to answer clearly.

围绕新经济政策出现的这两种截然相反的思潮，无论是“赞成”新经济政策的小资产阶级改良主义还是持反对态度的小资产阶级革命主义，其实质都指向同样的问题，即新经济政策究竟会使俄国向何处去？俄国最终会走向社会主义还是资本主义？社会主义条件下共产党人应如何对待资本主义？毫无疑问，这也是列宁领导的俄共（布）需要明确回答的问题。

In response to the “Change of Landmarks” group’s view that the New Economic Policy was an “internal degeneration,” Lenin pointed out explicitly in “A New Era and New Forms of Old Errors” that the ultimate purpose of all current work was “to lay the foundation for a truly socialist economy”—that is, to develop capitalism while ensuring the socialist direction of Russia’s development, rather than degenerating into capitalism as the “Change of Landmarks” group hoped. At the same time, Lenin also noted that the “Change of Landmarks” group had spoken “class truths,” and he repeatedly warned “to prevent the restoration of capitalism and to guarantee the path toward communism.” In “On the Tax in Kind,” Lenin clearly stated: “The bourgeoisie is not dead; it is still alive, lying in wait for us.” In his report to the Party’s Tenth All-Russian Conference in May 1921, responding to the “Change of Landmarks” group’s claim that the New Economic Policy was an “evolution,” Lenin retorted: “Is it a Thermidorian coup? [2]2 The Thermidorian coup refers to the overthrow of Robespierre and the radical Jacobins in July 1794 during the French Revolution, often used by Marxists as a metaphor for a counterrevolutionary reversal of a revolutionary process. Looking at it soberly, perhaps it is? Will it happen? We shall see. Don’t boast before the battle!” Clearly, Lenin already regarded the contradiction between the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)’s hope of developing a socialist economy through the New Economic Policy and the bourgeois forces’ attempt to use the New Economic Policy to undermine Russian socialism as a life-and-death struggle concerning the future and destiny of Russian socialism. The key question was how the Communists could win in this struggle.

针对“路标转换派”认为新经济政策是“内部的蜕变”的思想观点，列宁在《新的时代和新形式的旧错误》中明确指出，当前全部工作的最终目的都是为了“给真正社会主义的经济奠定基础”,即在保证俄国社会主义发展方向的前提下发展资本主义，而不是像“路标转换派”期望的那样蜕变为资本主义。同时，列宁也指出“路标转换派”是说出了“阶级真话”，多次提醒“要防止资本主义复辟和保证走共产主义道路”。列宁在《论粮食税》中明确指出：“资产阶级并没有死，它还活着，正在一旁窥伺着我们。”在1921年5月党的第十次全国代表会议的报告中，针对“路标转换派”宣扬新经济政策是“演变”的观点，列宁反问道：“是‘热月政变’吗？头脑清醒地看待，或许是的？会发生吗？会见分晓的。上战场别吹牛！”显然，列宁已经将俄共(布)希望通过实行新经济政策发展社会主义经济同资产阶级势力妄图借新经济政策瓦解俄国社会主义的矛盾，看成事关俄国社会主义前途命运的生死较量，问题的关键在于共产党人如何在这场较量中取胜。

In response to the arguments of petty-bourgeois revolutionism that fiercely opposed the New Economic Policy, Lenin considered this “revolutionary phrase-mongering” divorced from reality, which merely made a simple and abstract comparison between capitalism and socialism. Proceeding from the viewpoint of historical materialism, Lenin pointed out: “Compared with socialism, capitalism is a scourge. But compared with the medieval system, with small production, with the bureaucracy arising from the dispersion of the small producers, capitalism is a blessing.” Clearly, what Lenin emphasized here was that for Russia, where small-peasant economy was dominant, capitalism had a progressive role in promoting social development. Therefore, there was no need to regard the growth of capitalist elements resulting from the implementation of the New Economic Policy as a flood of monsters, but rather to be adept at using capitalism as an intermediate link to raise Russia’s backward level of productive forces and lay the material foundation required by socialism. Lenin explicitly stated: “Under the conditions of the existence of millions of small producers,” if the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) “attempts to completely prohibit, to block all development of private non-state exchange…that is, capitalist development,” then it “is committing stupidity, is committing suicide.” On this basis, in response to people’s concerns about whether the growth of capitalist elements would affect Russia’s socialist direction of development, Lenin emphasized that “the scope given to capitalism is quite narrow and ‘moderate’”—that is, the sphere of activity of capitalism in Russia was limited and would not exceed the state’s control.

针对小资产阶级革命主义极力反对新经济政策的论调，列宁认为这是脱离实际的“革命空谈”，只是将资本主义与社会主义二者拿出来简单抽象地对比。列宁从历史唯物主义观点出发指出：“同社会主义比较，资本主义是祸害。但同中世纪制度、同小生产、同小生产者涣散性引起的官僚主义比较，资本主义则是幸福。”显然，列宁在这里强调的是，对小农经济占主导地位的俄国来说，资本主义具有促进社会发展的进步作用。因此，没有必要把由于实行新经济政策而出现的资本主义因素的增长视为洪水猛兽，而要善于通过资本主义这个中间环节提高俄国落后的生产力水平，奠定社会主义所要求的物质基础。列宁明确指出：“在有千百万小生产者存在的条件下”，如果俄共（布） “试图完全禁止、堵塞一切私人的非国营的交换的发展……即资本主义的发展”，那么就是“在干蠢事，就是自杀”。在此基础上，针对人们担心资本主义因素增长会不会影响俄国社会主义发展方向的疑虑，列宁强调了俄国“给予资本主义的范围，是相当狭小而‘适度’的”，即资本主义在俄国的活动范围是有限的，并不会超越国家的管控范围。

From the above analysis it can be seen that, as a great statesman, Lenin on the one hand recognized that for Communists governing in economically and culturally backward Russia it was necessary to learn to use capitalism to build socialism, and on the other hand soberly recognized that the rapidly developing capitalist factors could indeed cause Russia to face a restoration of capitalism. How could Russia both use capitalism to develop and avoid taking the capitalist road? Lenin’s answer was that Communists must strive to improve their ability to use and harness capital, to outperform capitalists in economic work, so as to ensure that “the bourgeoisie work for us with their own hands” rather than being led by the nose, and only thus could “the inevitable development of capitalism be channeled into the track of state capitalism,” ensuring “the transformation of state capitalism into socialism in the near future,” and thereby ensuring that “the Russia of the New Economic Policy will become a socialist Russia.” Lenin frankly admitted that at the present stage the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) “is still very unskilled at this,” and that Communists still had much to learn from capitalists; he stressed that this was an examination that Communists must pass, and that the result of the examination directly concerned the life or death of the Russian socialist state power. The crux of the whole question lay in how to make Communists run ahead in the race with the capitalists; if the Communists could not win this competition, the capitalists “will drive the Communists out, and then there will be nothing to talk about.”

从以上分析可以看出，作为伟大的政治家，列宁一方面认识到，对于在经济文化落后的俄国执政的共产党人而言，必须学会利用资本主义建设社会主义，另一方面又清醒地认识到快速发展的资本主义因素的确有可能使俄国面临资本主义的复辟。如何既利用资本主义发展俄国，又避免俄国走上资本主义道路呢？列宁给出的答案是，共产党人必须努力提高其利用和驾驭资本的本领，在做经济工作方面优于资本家，以保证让“资产阶级用他们的双手来为我们工作”，而不是让他们牵着鼻子走，只有这样才能将“不可避免的资本主义的发展努力纳入国家资本主义的轨道”，保证“在不久的将来把国家资本主义变成社会主义”，进而保证“新经济政策的俄国将变成社会主义的俄国”。列宁坦率承认，现阶段的俄共（布）“还很不善于做这件事”，共产党人还有很多需要向资本家学习的地方，他强调这是共产党人必须通过的考试，考试的结果直接关系俄国社会主义国家政权的生死存亡，全部问题的关键就在于如何使共产党人在与资本家的赛跑中跑在前面，如果共产党人不能在这场竞赛中获胜，资本家“就会把共产党人赶走，那就什么也不用谈了”。

II. Criticizing the Mechanical Economic Determinism of Sukhanov and Others Who Dogmatically Interpreted Marxism on the Question of Russia’s Development Path, Emphasizing That Russia Could “Seize Power First, Then Create the Conditions”

二、批判在俄国发展道路问题上苏汉诺夫等人教条主义理解马克思主义的机械经济决定论，强调俄国可以“先夺权，后创造条件”

After the victory of the October Revolution, Russia established Soviet power under Lenin’s leadership and began to explore the construction of socialism, but voices of doubt, disparagement, and even cursing emerged in Russia’s ideological sphere. For example, Georgi Valentinovich Plekhanov believed that if Russia forcibly and artificially implemented socialism, it would mean pushing Russia “onto the road of the greatest historical disaster”; the leader of the Second International, Karl Kautsky, wrote the book *The Dictatorship of the Proletariat*, attacking the newborn Soviet regime in Russia as a “premature birth,” arguing that “a child born like this is usually not viable”; and N. Sukhanov even wrote a full seven volumes of *Notes on the Revolution* from 1918 to 1921, using the claim that “Russia’s productive forces have not yet developed to the level for implementing socialism” to deny the rationality of Lenin’s leadership of Russia toward socialism. There is no doubt that these arguments all proceeded from a vulgar Marxist view of “economic determinism,” denying the legitimacy of Lenin’s leadership of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in the October Revolution and socialist construction. If such erroneous ideas and views were allowed to develop, they would inevitably shake and dissolve the political identification of the broad masses of workers and peasants with the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the newborn Soviet regime, seriously hindering the practical process of Russia’s socialist construction. To this end, in January 1923, on his sickbed before his death, Lenin dictated the article “On Our Revolution,” which profoundly criticized the views of Plekhanov, Kautsky, Sukhanov, and others, expounded the particularity of the Russian revolution, and pointed the direction for how Russia should carry out socialist construction.

十月革命胜利后，俄国在列宁领导下建立了苏维埃政权，并开始探索建设社会主义，但俄国思想领域却出现了质疑、唱衰甚至诅咒的声音。比如，格奥尔基·瓦连廷诺维奇·普列汉诺夫认为，俄国如果硬要人为实行社会主义，那就意味着将俄国“推上最大的历史灾难的道路”；第二国际的领导人卡尔·考茨基则写下《无产阶级专政》一书，攻击俄国新生的苏维埃政权是“早产儿”，认为“这样生下来的孩子，通常是活不成的”；尼·苏汉诺夫更是于1918—1921年撰写了整整七卷本的《革命札记》，以“俄国生产力还没有发展到可以实行社会主义的高度”为由，否定列宁领导俄国走向社会主义的合理性。毫无疑问，这些论调都是从“经济决定论”的庸俗马克思主义观出发，否定列宁领导俄共（布）进行十月革命和社会主义建设的正当性。如果放任这类错误思想观点发展，势必会动摇和消解广大工农群众对俄共（布）和新生苏维埃政权的政治认同，严重阻碍俄国社会主义建设的实践进程。为此，1923年1月，列宁临终前在病床上口授了《论我国革命》一文，对普列汉诺夫、考茨基以及苏汉诺夫等人的观点进行了深刻的批判，阐述了俄国革命的特殊性，为俄国如何进行社会主义建设指明了方向。

In the article “On Our Revolution,” Lenin ridiculed the Sukhanovs, who, on the pretext that Russia lacked the material prerequisites for realizing socialism, questioned the October Revolution, claiming that although they all called themselves Marxists, their “understanding of Marx is pedantic to an unimaginable degree.” Lenin believed that although these people’s arguments seemed to adhere to the historical materialist view that productive forces are the decisive factor in social development, what they insisted on was a mechanical “economic determinism,” and they had in fact not truly understood or mastered the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism.

在《论我国革命》一文中，列宁讥讽以俄国缺乏实现社会主义的物质前提为由而质疑十月革命的苏汉诺夫们，虽然都自称马克思主义者，但是对“马克思的理解却迂腐到无以复加的程度”。列宁认为，这些人的论调貌似在坚守马克思主义关于生产力是社会发展决定性因素的唯物史观，但他们坚持的却是机械的“经济决定论”，实际上没有真正理解和掌握马克思主义的革命辩证法。

On the one hand, Lenin, with the vision of an outstanding statesman and revolutionary, examined the Russian revolution within the scope of world history, criticizing the Sukhanovs for taking the level of economic development in isolation and dogmatically as the sole criterion for judging whether a country could launch a socialist revolution, while ignoring Russia’s domestic revolutionary situation and its international environment—that is, they only emphasized the general laws of human social development, without recognizing the particularity, inevitability, and necessity of the October Revolution. In Lenin’s view, the Russian revolution did not exist in isolation from the world but broke out against the international background of the First World War. Russia’s defeat in the First World War exacerbated domestic economic depression, the people were destitute, and coupled with the dark autocratic rule of the tsarist regime and the bourgeois provisional government’s disregard for the people’s urgent desire to change the social status quo in Russia, this led to increasingly acute social contradictions and rapidly intensifying social crisis in Russia. Consequently, Russia’s revolutionary forces multiplied in a short period, and the revolutionary situation was on the verge of eruption. Lenin believed that economically and culturally backward Russia, under a severe revolutionary situation, timely seized the favorable opportunity to launch a proletarian revolution and establish a socialist regime, which was consistent with the general laws of human social development; this move also vividly embodied the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism. In response to the Sukhanovs’ failure to see the particularity of the Russian revolution, taking the level of economic development as the sole decisive factor for whether a revolution should be carried out and a socialist regime established, and thereby questioning the rationality and legitimacy of the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out: “The general laws of world historical development not only do not exclude the particularity of individual stages of development in form or sequence, but on the contrary presuppose it.” By examining the Russian revolution within the overall process of world historical development, Lenin believed that the Russian revolution had not only not deviated from the general line of world historical development but had added new revolutionary features and content to the general laws of world historical development. In response to the vulgar Marxists who fixed and formulized the Western European development path and thereby questioned the October Revolution, Lenin sharply retorted: “Faced with the revolutionary situation created by the first imperialist world war, could the people, driven by a hopeless predicament, not rise up and struggle, in order at least to obtain some opportunity to win for themselves not entirely ordinary conditions for the further development of civilization?” Here, Lenin emphasized that the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), whose mission was “to seize power through the proletariat to organize a socialist society,” should exert historical initiative, seize the favorable revolutionary opportunity, lead the people in revolution and the establishment of a new regime, rather than be bound hand and foot by the argument that “we have not yet grown to the point of implementing socialism.”

一方面，列宁以卓越的政治家和革命家视野，将俄国革命置于世界历史的范畴内审视，批判苏汉诺夫们只是孤立地、教条主义地将经济发展水平作为评判一个国家是否能够发动社会主义革命的唯一标准，而忽略了俄国国内的革命形势及其所处的国际环境，也就是只强调人类社会发展的一般规律，而没有认识到十月革命的特殊性、必然性和必要性。在列宁看来，俄国革命并非脱离世界孤立存在的，而是在第一次世界大战的国际背景下爆发的。俄国在第一次世界大战中的战败加剧了俄国国内的经济萧条，百姓民不聊生，再加上沙皇政权的黑暗专制统治和资产阶级临时政府对民众迫切要求改变俄国社会现状的愿望置若罔闻，导致俄国国内社会矛盾日益尖锐，社会危机迅速加剧，因此俄国革命力量短期内成倍增长，革命形势一触即发。列宁认为，经济文化落后的俄国在严峻的革命形势下适时地抓住有利时机发动无产阶级革命建立社会主义政权，与人类社会发展的一般规律并行不悖，这一举措也生动地体现了马克思主义的革命辩证法。针对苏汉诺夫等人看不到俄国革命的特殊性，只将经济发展水平作为是否应该进行革命并建立社会主义政权的唯一决定性因素，进而质疑十月革命的合理性和正当性，列宁指出：“世界历史发展的一般规律，不仅丝毫不排斥个别发展阶段在发展的形式或顺序上表现出特殊性，反而是以此为前提的”。列宁通过将俄国革命放在世界历史发展总进程中审视，认为俄国革命不仅没有偏离世界历史发展的总路线，反而为世界历史发展的一般规律增添了新的革命特征和内容。针对庸俗马克思主义者将西欧发展道路固定化、公式化进而质疑十月革命的错误思想,列宁尖锐反问道：“面对第一次帝国主义大战所造成的那种革命形势的人民，在毫无出路的处境逼迫下，难道他们就不能奋起斗争，以求至少获得某种机会去为自己争得进一步发展文明的并不十分寻常的条件吗？”这里，列宁强调的是，以“无产阶级夺取政权来组织社会主义社会”为使命的俄共（布），应该发挥历史主动精神，抓住有利的革命时机，领导人民进行革命和建立新的政权，而不是被“我们还没有成长到实行社会主义的地步”的论调束缚住手脚。

On the other hand, Lenin frankly admitted that “we have not yet grown to the point of implementing socialism,” but he simultaneously stressed that backward Russia need not be constrained by the fixed path of Western European countries in achieving modern civilization; the Russian revolution could “reverse” the historical sequence of development, first overthrowing the old regime and establishing a socialist regime through political revolution, then vigorously developing productive forces and creating the civilized conditions required for socialism. Lenin pointed out that if a certain level of culture was a necessary prerequisite for a country to build socialism, then Russia could first create the conditions for this prerequisite through revolutionary means, “and then, on the basis of the workers’ and peasants’ government and the Soviet system,” catch up with other countries. It can be seen that Lenin not only adhered to the historical materialist view emphasized by Marxism that socialism must be built on the basis of a highly developed economic and cultural level, but also achieved an organic integration of adhering to historical materialism and exerting historical initiative. Through his critique of the Sukhanovs’ “economic determinism,” Lenin creatively pointed the way for economically and culturally backward countries to take a socialist development path different from that of the West: that is, to establish a socialist regime through revolution, thereby obtaining the political prerequisite for building socialism, and then strive to create the modern civilization required for socialism and ultimately realize socialism.

另一方面，列宁坦率承认“我们还没有成长到实行社会主义的地步”，但是他同时强调落后的俄国不必拘泥于西欧国家实现现代文明的固定道路,俄国革命可以将历史发展顺序“颠倒”，首先通过政治革命推翻旧政权和建立社会主义政权，然后大力发展生产力，创造社会主义所需要的文明条件。列宁指出，如果说一定的文化水平是一个国家建设社会主义所必须具备的前提，那么俄国可以通过革命手段先一步为这个前提创造条件，“然后在工农政权和苏维埃制度的基础上”赶上别国。由此可见，列宁不仅坚守了马克思主义唯物史观所强调的社会主义必须建立在高度发达的经济文化水平基础上的观点，而且实现了坚持唯物史观与发挥历史主动精神的有机结合。列宁通过对苏汉诺夫们“经济决定论”的批判，创造性地为经济文化落后的国家如何走出一条有别于西方的社会主义发展道路指明了方向，即通过革命的方式建立社会主义政权，从而获得建设社会主义的政治前提，然后努力创造社会主义所需要的现代文明并最终实现社会主义。

III. Criticizing Anarcho-Syndicalism That Denied the Party’s Leadership, Emphasizing That the Party’s Unified and Centralized Leadership over All Work Must Be Adhered To

三、批判否定党的领导的无政府工团主义，强调必须坚持党对一切工作的集中统一领导

After the end of the three-year civil war, Soviet Russia began its transition to peaceful construction, setting about restoring the national economy and exploring how to build socialism. In this process, a fierce debate on the question of trade unions emerged within the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), giving rise to several relatively influential ideological factions within the Party, including the Trotskyist faction, the “Workers’ Opposition,” and the “Democratic Centralists.” The main point of contention was how to view the status, tasks, and role of trade unions in socialist construction. In November 1920, the Fifth All-Russian Trade Union Conference was convened in Moscow, with the aim of shifting away from the policy of war communism, restoring the war-ravaged national economy, and redeploying the tasks of the trade unions. At the conference, the Trotskyist faction raised the slogans of rapid nationalization of trade unions and militarization of labor, insisting on playing the role of trade unions within the framework of the military-communist system to restore the national economy. After the conference, Trotsky also published a programmatic pamphlet, *The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions*, to propagate his erroneous views, denying the role of trade unions in educating the masses and in establishing links between the vanguard and the masses. He argued that the sole function of trade unions was a productive one, proposing to “turn the trade unions into organs of the workers’ state,” thereby attempting to replace the state organs’ managerial functions in the national economy. The “Democratic Centralists,” for their part, demanded an increase in the power of trade unions in industrial management, granting them the right to nominate and remove members of the presidium of the Supreme Council of the National Economy, with the intention that the trade unions should take charge of the national economy. The “Workers’ Opposition” sought to place the trade unions above the Party and the state, advocating that the Party and the Soviets should manage politics while the trade unions should manage the economy, and that the All-Russian Congress of Producers should hold supreme managerial authority over the national economy. The “Workers’ Opposition” even wrote in its own program, the *Theses of the Workers’ Opposition*: “No one may be appointed to an economic management post without the consent of the trade unions.”

三年国内战争结束后，苏俄开始向和平建设过渡，着手恢复国民经济和探索如何进行社会主义建设。在这一过程中，俄共（布）出现了关于工会问题的激烈争论，党内形成了托洛茨基派、“工人反对派”和“民主集中派”等几个影响比较大的思想派别，其主要争论点在于如何看待工会在社会主义建设中的地位、任务和作用。1920年11月，全俄工会第五次代表会议在莫斯科召开，会议目的是转变战时共产主义政策，恢复饱受战争摧残的国民经济，并对工会的任务进行重新部署。托洛茨基派在会议上提出工会迅速国家化和劳动军事化的口号，坚持在军事共产主义体制框架下发挥工会作用以恢复国民经济。托洛茨基还在会后发表了纲领性小册子《工会的作用和任务》以宣传其错误主张，否认工会在教育群众和使先锋队和群众之间建立联系方面的作用，认为工会的唯一作用是生产作用，提出将“工会变为工人国家的机关”，企图替代国家机关在国民经济中的管理职能。“民主集中派”则要求增加工会在工业管理中的权力，使工会拥有对最高国民经济委员会主席团成员的推选权和任免权，其意图就是由工会来掌管国民经济。“工人反对派”则力图使工会凌驾于党和国家之上，主张由党和苏维埃管政治，工会来掌管经济，全俄生产者代表大会享有对国民经济的最高管理权，“工人反对派”甚至在自己的纲领《工人反对派的提纲》中写道：“未经工会同意不得委派任何人担任经济管理职务。”

This debate, seemingly a simple discussion of the trade union question, was in fact closely intertwined with a series of political issues such as the Party’s leadership and the dictatorship of the proletariat. As differences deepened, the “Workers’ Opposition” and the “Democratic Centralists” demanded unconditional democracy, sought to make themselves into political organizations independent of the Party, and even openly called on all Party organs and all Party members to resist the policies of the Party Central Committee, thereby embarking on a path of negating the Party’s leadership. Lenin characterized this tendency, which was bound to shake the dictatorship of the proletariat and weaken the leading role of the Party, as anarcho-syndicalism, and argued that “if this tendency is not completely cured, it will lead to the destruction of the Party.” To this end, Lenin called on all Party cadres and members to wage an uncompromising ideological struggle against anarcho-syndicalism, emphasizing that propagating anarchist views was incompatible with the status of a Communist Party member. To eliminate the negative influence of anarcho-syndicalism, Lenin subjected the anarcho-syndicalism represented by the Trotskyist faction, the “Workers’ Opposition,” and the “Democratic Centralists” to profound critique.

这场争论看似简单地讨论工会的问题，实则与党的领导、无产阶级专政等一系列政治问题紧密交织在一起。随着分歧的加深，“工人反对派”和“民主集中派”要求实行无条件的民主，力图使自己成为独立于党的政治组织，甚至公开号召党的一切机关和全体党员抵制党中央的政策，从而走上了否定党的领导的道路。列宁将这种势必动摇无产阶级专政和削弱党的领导作用的倾向称为无政府工团主义，认为“如果不把这种倾向彻底治好，就会亡党”。为此，列宁号召全体党员干部必须同无政府工团主义进行毫不妥协的思想斗争，强调宣传无政府主义主张同共产党员身份不相容。为了清除无政府工团主义的消极影响，列宁对以托洛茨基派、“工人反对派”和“民主集中派”为代表的无政府工团主义进行了深刻的批判。

On the one hand, Lenin pointed out that anarcho-syndicalism seriously weakened the Party’s leadership and the dictatorship of the proletariat, constituting a “major political error” and a “direct political danger.” In Lenin’s view, if anarcho-syndicalism were allowed to develop unchecked, the direct consequence would inevitably be the setting aside and abolition of the Party’s leading, educational, and organizational role in Russia’s socialist construction, objectively posing a serious threat to the dictatorship of the proletariat. To illustrate the point, Lenin analyzed that in a country like Russia, where petty-bourgeois spontaneous forces held a huge advantage and which was plagued by continuous warfare, economic depression, and successive crop failures, the petty-bourgeois and semi-proletarian masses displayed particular vacillation toward the newly born Soviet power. As long as “the unity, strength, and influence of the vanguard of the proletarian revolution are even slightly weakened,” it would be highly possible to cause the restoration of the exploiting classes’ political power. On this basis, Lenin emphasized the necessity of opposing any anarchist tendencies and upholding the Party’s centralized and unified leadership over all work, that is, “leading all united actions of the entire proletariat, that is, politically leading the proletariat, and through the proletariat leading all the working masses. Without this, the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be realized.” Here, Lenin not only clarified the leading position and tasks of the Party as the vanguard of the proletariat but also elevated the opposition to anarchism and the adherence to the Party’s leadership to the level of a matter concerning the very survival of the proletarian state power.

一方面，列宁指出，无政府工团主义严重削弱了党的领导和无产阶级专政，是“重大的政治错误”和“直接的政治危险”。在列宁看来，如果任由无政府工团主义发展，直接后果必然是党在俄国社会主义建设中的领导、教育和组织作用被撇开和取消了，客观上势必严重威胁无产阶级专政。为了说明问题，列宁分析道，在俄国这样一个小资产阶级自发势力占有巨大优势且战火连绵、经济萧条、连年歉收的国家，小资产阶级和半无产阶级群众对于新生的苏维埃政权表现出特别的动摇，而只要“无产阶级革命先锋队的统一、力量和影响稍微受到削弱”，就极有可能造成剥削阶级政权的复辟。基于此，列宁强调，必须反对任何无政府主义倾向，坚持党对一切工作的集中统一领导，即“领导全体无产阶级的一切联合行动，也就是说在政治上领导无产阶级，并且通过无产阶级领导全体劳动群众。不这样，便不能实现无产阶级专政”。这里，列宁不仅明确了党作为无产阶级先锋队的领导地位和任务，而且把反对无政府主义和坚持党的领导上升到事关无产阶级政权生死存亡的高度。

On the other hand, Lenin resolutely opposed the erroneous argument of anarcho-syndicalism that the trade unions should lead the national economy, and elucidated the status and role of trade unions under the conditions of socialist construction. Regarding the status of trade unions, Lenin believed that they were the foundation for realizing the dictatorship of the proletariat and played an indispensable role. However, under the national conditions of Russia at that time—economic decay, the low cultural level of the masses, and the still unstable Soviet power—it was impossible to realize the dictatorship of the proletariat entirely through the organization of all industrial workers. Instead, it had to be realized through the vanguard of the proletariat, namely the Bolshevik Party. By discussing the status and role of trade unions in realizing the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, Lenin further specified the role of trade unions in socialist construction: organizing the economy and educating the masses, rather than managing the national economy as an independent, isolated force. In Lenin’s view, by their status, trade unions were “not state organizations” but “educational organizations”; their role was to serve as a bridge between the vanguard of the proletariat and the masses, and their task was “to persuade the masses of that class which alone can lead us from capitalism to communism.” At the same time, “trade unions are a reservoir of state power,” gathering momentum for Russia’s transition from capitalist society to communist society, helping the Soviet power train the working class capable of engaging in large-scale production, and should become a transmission mechanism linking the vanguard and the masses, thereby helping Russia realize the dictatorship of the proletariat.

另一方面，列宁坚决反对无政府工团主义鼓吹由工会来领导国家经济的错误论调，并阐明了社会主义建设条件下工会的地位和作用。就工会的地位而言，列宁认为工会是实现无产阶级专政的基础，起着不可或缺的作用。但在俄国当时经济衰败、人民群众文化程度低下且苏维埃政权尚不稳固的国情下，要实现无产阶级专政，是不可能完全依靠全体产业工人的组织来实现的，而是要通过无产阶级的先锋队即布尔什维克政党来实现。列宁通过论述工会在俄国实现无产阶级专政中的地位和作用，进一步指明了工会在社会主义建设中的作用，即组织经济和教育群众，而不是作为一种独立、孤立的力量来管理国家经济。在列宁看来，工会就其地位而言“不是国家组织”而是“教育的组织”，其作用是充当无产阶级先锋队和人民群众之间的桥梁，任务是“说服那唯一能够领导我们从资本主义过渡到共产主义去的阶级的群众”。同时，“工会是国家政权的蓄水池”，为俄国从资本主义社会过渡到共产主义社会蓄势发力，帮助苏维埃政权培养能够从事大生产的工人阶级，应成为联结先锋队和人民群众的传动装置，从而帮助俄国实现无产阶级专政。

IV. Criticizing the Narrow, Impetuous, and Rash Cultural Views of the “Proletarian Cultural Group,” Emphasizing that Cultural Construction Must Adhere to the Party’s Leadership, Rely on the Broad Masses of the People, and Strive to Raise the People’s Cultural Level

四、批判“无产阶级文化派”狭隘的急躁冒进的文化观，强调文化建设必须坚持党的领导、依靠广大人民群众和努力提高人民文化水平

After the victory of the October Revolution, a “Proletarian Cultural Group” [7]7 “Proletarian Cultural Group” (Пролеткульт, Proletkult): A mass cultural and educational organization active in Soviet Russia from 1917 to the early 1920s, which advocated for the creation of a distinct “proletarian culture” independent of past traditions and state control, often clashing with the Bolshevik Party leadership over cultural policy. emerged in Russia around the question of cultural construction, represented by Alexander Alexandrovich Bogdanov and V. Pletnev. They pursued “autonomy” in the cultural sphere, refused to inherit historical and cultural heritage, denied the status and role of intellectuals, bourgeois specialists, and the broad peasant masses in cultural construction, and fantasized about creating a “pure” culture of a “proletarian” character in a cultural laboratory isolated from the world. Lenin considered the views of the “Proletarian Cultural Group” to be a narrow cultural outlook, not only extremely erroneous in theory but also extremely harmful in practice to Russia’s cultural construction under socialist conditions. Therefore, he severely criticized them on multiple occasions in articles such as *On Proletarian Culture*. However, even into the New Economic Policy period, some leaders of the “Proletarian Cultural Group” remained unrepentant, continuing to tirelessly propagate their extremely erroneous cultural views. For example, Pletnev, the chairman of the Proletarian Cultural Association, published an article, *On the Ideological Front*, in *Pravda* in September 1922, systematically presenting the cultural program advocated by the “Proletarian Cultural Group.” To promote the healthy development of Soviet Russian socialist culture, Lenin led the entire Party in continuing a resolute ideological struggle against the “Proletarian Cultural Group.”

十月革命胜利后，围绕文化建设问题，俄国出现了一个以亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇·波格丹诺夫和瓦·普列特涅夫为代表的“无产阶级文化派”。他们追求文化领域的“自治”，拒绝继承历史文化遗产，否定知识分子、资产阶级专家和广大农民在文化建设中的地位和作用，幻想在与世隔绝的文化实验室中制造一种“纯洁的”“无产阶级”性质的文化。列宁认为“无产阶级文化派”的观点是一种狭隘的文化观，不但在理论上是极端错误的，而且在实践上对于社会主义条件下俄国的文化建设也是极其有害的，因而在《论无产阶级文化》等文章中多次予以严厉批判。但直到新经济政策时期，“无产阶级文化派”的一些领导人仍然执迷不悟，继续不遗余力地宣扬他们极其错误的文化主张。例如，无产阶级文化协会主席普列特涅夫于1922年9月在《真理报》发表了《在意识形态战线》一文，系统提出了“无产阶级文化派”所主张的文化纲领。为了促进苏俄社会主义文化健康发展，列宁领导全党继续同“无产阶级文化派”进行了坚决的思想斗争。

First, he criticised the “Proletarian Cultural Group’s” erroneous claim that it sought to break away from the Party’s leadership, emphasising that the Party’s leadership over cultural construction must be upheld. Whether to uphold the Party’s leadership over socialist cultural construction was the primary principled divergence between Lenin and the “Proletarian Cultural Group.” As early as the initial period after the victory of the October Revolution, the “Proletarian Cultural Group” had already shown a tendency to try to break away from the Party’s leadership and develop independently. For example, in 1918, Lebedev-Polyansky publicly stated: “Proletarian culture can only develop under the condition that the proletariat enjoys full independence, free from the influence of any decrees issued by the government.” Bogdanov even propagated the erroneous view that the Bolsheviks were “nothing but a soldiers’ party,” arguing that such a party was inherently useless and incapable of shouldering the great task of leading Russia’s economic and cultural construction. In response to the “Proletarian Cultural Group’s” erroneous views denying the leadership of the Party and the state, Lenin led the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in an uncompromising struggle. After publishing articles and open letters in October 1920, such as “On Proletarian Culture” and “On the Proletarian Cultural Association,” aimed at strengthening leadership over the Proletarian Cultural Association, he then issued “Decision No. 78 on the Proletarian Cultural Association” in November 1921, stating: “The Proletarian Cultural Association should become one of the Party’s institutions for meeting the cultural needs of the proletariat.” This decision indicated that the Proletarian Cultural Association was merely an institution under the Party’s leadership, whose function was to meet the cultural needs of the proletariat, and therefore it had to uphold and submit to the Party’s leadership.

第一，批判“无产阶级文化派”力图脱离党的领导的错误主张，强调必须坚持党对文化建设的领导权。是否坚持党对社会主义文化建设的领导权是列宁同 “无产阶级文化派”首要的原则性分歧。早在十月革命胜利初期，“无产阶级文化派”就展现出了企图摆脱党的领导独立发展的倾向，例如1918年列别杰夫·波梁斯基公开说道：“无产阶级文化只有在无产阶级充分发挥独立性，不受政府颁布的任何法令影响的条件下才能发展。”波格丹诺夫更是宣扬布尔什维克“不过是士兵党”的错误论调，认为这样的党本性是不中用的，无法担当领导俄国经济文化建设的大任。对“无产阶级文化派”这种否定党和国家领导权的错误观点，列宁领导俄共（布）与之进行了毫不妥协的斗争，继1920年10月发表《论无产阶级文化》《论无产阶级文化协会》等旨在加强对无产阶级文化协会领导的文章和公开信后，又于1921年11月发布了《关于无产阶级文化协会的第78号决定》，指出：“无产阶级文化协会应成为党满足无产阶级文化需求的机构之一”。这一决定表明，无产阶级文化协会只是党领导下的一个机构，其职能是满足无产阶级的文化需求，因而必须坚持和服从党的领导。

Second, he criticised the “Proletarian Cultural Group’s” view that only a narrow sense of the proletariat could create proletarian culture, emphasising that the broad masses of the people should be taken as the main force in cultural construction. On the question of whom to rely on for the construction of proletarian culture, Lenin engaged in a fierce theoretical confrontation with the “Proletarian Cultural Group.” In 1922, Pletnev claimed in the article “On the Ideological Front”: “The task of building proletarian culture can only be solved by relying on the proletariat’s own strength, on scientists, artists, engineers, etc., of proletarian origin,” arguing that any non-proletarian elements should be excluded from the construction of proletarian culture. Lenin wrote in the margin: “sheer fabrication.” At the same time, under Lenin’s leadership, Anatoly Vasilyevich Lunacharsky, who was in charge of culture and education, and Lenin’s wife, Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya, also participated in the polemic with the “Proletarian Cultural Group,” successively publishing more than ten critical or discussion-oriented articles in *Pravda*. Lenin attached great importance to this polemic; he carefully clipped almost all articles related to it. At the same time, he personally commissioned and guided Alexander Nikolayevich Yakovlev, Deputy Head of the Central Agitation and Propaganda Department, to write the article “On ‘Proletarian Culture’ and the Proletarian Cultural Association,” criticising the erroneous statements of the “Proletarian Cultural Group.” Yakovlev’s article reflected Lenin’s views to a certain extent. The article argued that the “Proletarian Cultural Group’s” claim to rely only on a narrow sense of the proletariat’s strength to create proletarian culture was an ultra-“Left” kind of sectarianism and factionalism. On the one hand, the “Proletarian Cultural Group” excluded bourgeois intellectuals and experts from participating in cultural construction, which was of the same nature as the “Military Opposition” and the “Workers’ Opposition” that had once existed within the Party [8]8 The “Military Opposition” and the “Workers’ Opposition” were factions within the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) during and after the Russian Civil War. The Military Opposition (1918-1919) opposed the use of former Tsarist military experts in the Red Army. The Workers’ Opposition (1920-1922) argued for transferring economic management to trade unions controlled by the proletariat, rejecting the use of bourgeois specialists. — that is, mechanically transferring the mistakes some comrades had made towards military experts and industrial experts around the time of the October Revolution “into the cultural field.” In a small-peasant country like Russia, which had not yet escaped a semi-Asian state of uncivilisation in all aspects — economy, politics, culture, etc. — whether it could make good use of bourgeois intellectuals for cultural construction “was a matter of the very survival of Soviet power.” On the other hand, the article pointed out that the task of the New Economic Policy was to unite the proletariat and the peasantry into a combined force. Applied to the field of cultural construction, this meant absorbing the peasantry as an intermediate force into the ranks of the proletariat, enabling “the working class, together with the peasantry, to march towards culture,” emphasising that promoting socialist cultural construction should involve “the entire proletariat facing the struggle for culture, in which the peasant masses will follow the proletariat and advance together with the proletariat.”

第二，批判“无产阶级文化派”只依靠狭隘意义上的无产阶级来创造无产阶级文化的观点，强调将广大人民群众作为文化建设的主体力量。围绕无产阶级文化建设应该依靠谁的问题，列宁同“无产阶级文化派”展开了激烈的理论交锋。1922年，普列特涅夫在《在意识形态战线》一文中声称：“建设无产阶级文化的任务只有靠无产阶级自己的力量，靠无产阶级出身的科学家、艺术家、工程师等等才能得到解决”，认为任何非无产阶级分子在无产阶级文化建设中都应当被排除在外，列宁在一旁批注写下“十足的杜撰”。与此同时，在列宁的领导下，主管文化教育的阿纳托利·瓦西里耶维奇·卢那察尔斯基以及列宁的妻子娜杰日达·康斯坦丁诺夫娜·克鲁普斯卡娅等人也参与到与“无产阶级文化派”的论战中，先后在《真理报》发表十多篇批评或讨论性质的论文。列宁对这场论战极为重视，几乎所有与这场论战相关的文章都被他认真剪下来，同时他亲自委托和指导中央宣传鼓动部副部长亚历山大·尼古拉耶维奇·雅科夫列夫写作《论“无产阶级文化”和无产阶级文化协会》一文，对“无产阶级文化派”的错误言论进行批判，雅科夫列夫的这篇文章一定程度上反映了列宁的观点。该文认为，“无产阶级文化派”只依靠狭隘意义上的无产阶级力量来创造无产阶级文化的主张是一种极“左”的关门主义和宗派主义。一方面， “无产阶级文化派”排斥资产阶级知识分子和专家参加文化建设，与党内曾经存在过的“军事反对派”“工人反对派”等属于同一性质，即将一些同志在十月革命前后对待军事专家和工业专家们所犯的错误“机械地搬到文化领域来了”，在俄国这样一个经济、政治、文化等各方面都没有摆脱半亚洲式的不文明状态的小农国家，能否善用资产阶级知识分子来进行文化建设，“是事关苏维埃政权本身存亡的问题”。另一方面，该文指出新经济政策的任务是使无产阶级与农民形成合力，落实到文化建设领域就是将农民作为中间力量吸收到无产阶级的队伍中来，使“工人阶级同农民一起向文化进军”，强调推进社会主义文化建设应该是“整个无产阶级面临着争取文化的斗争，在这一斗争中农民群众将跟着无产阶级并同无产阶级一道前进”。

Third, he criticised the Proletarian Cultural Group’s impetuous and rash view of culture, emphasising that the main task of cultural construction was to raise the people’s cultural level. During the New Economic Policy period, on the question of Russia’s cultural construction, the divergence between Lenin and the “Proletarian Cultural Group” was not about whether to build proletarian culture, but whether, under the historical conditions of the time, backward Russia could build a truly meaningful proletarian culture. Pletnev, a leader of the “Proletarian Cultural Group,” believed that in the fifth year after the revolution, the cultural question in Russia had risen to become the primary issue, and he defined the basic goals and tasks of socialist cultural construction as “creating a new proletarian class culture” and “manifesting and concentrating the creative forces of the proletariat in the fields of science and art.” Pletnev’s view showed that he completely ignored Russia’s cultural reality, one-sidedly emphasised the class attribute in cultural construction, and blindly pursued the establishment of a proletarian culture in Russia that stood in opposition to bourgeois culture. In response, Lenin pointed out at the beginning of his later work “Better Fewer, But Better”: “We cannot help adopting this attitude towards those who talk too much and too lightly about ‘proletarian’ culture, for at the start we would be satisfied with real bourgeois culture.”

第三，批判无产阶级文化派急躁冒进的文化观，强调文化建设的主要任务是提升人民文化水平。新经济政策时期，在俄国的文化建设问题上，列宁同“无产阶级文化派”的分歧并不在于是否要建设无产阶级文化，而是在当时的历史条件下，落后的俄国能否建设成真正意义上的无产阶级文化。“无产阶级文化派”领导人普列特涅夫认为，在革命发生后第五个年头的俄国，文化问题已经上升为首要问题，并将社会主义文化建设的基本目标和任务明确为“创造新的无产阶级的阶级文化”和“在科学与艺术的领域里把无产阶级的创作力量表现出来与集中起来”。普列特涅夫的观点表明其完全忽视了俄国的文化现状，片面突出文化建设中的阶级属性，一味地追求在俄国建立起与资产阶级文化相对立的无产阶级文化。针对此，列宁在其晚年的《宁肯少些，但要好些》的开篇指出:“对那些过多地、过于轻率地侈谈什么‘无产阶级’文化的人，我们就不禁要抱这种态度，因为在开始的时候，我们能够有真正的资产阶级文化也就够了。”

This shows that Lenin believed that under Russia’s then-existing conditions of being “uncultured, uncivilised, semi-literate, and poor,” even reaching the level of bourgeois culture was questionable, let alone talking loftily about creating proletarian culture. Building a “proletarian” culture was not a goal that backward Russia at that time could achieve. On the issue of opposing “loose talk” about proletarian culture, Lenin warned the entire Party: “In cultural matters, impetuosity and rashness are most harmful.” Regarding how Russia should actually build and develop culture after the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out that the most urgent task was to raise the people’s cultural level. This was a key link concerning whether the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) could govern smoothly and successfully. In his view, it was ridiculous to talk about creating proletarian culture and implementing the New Economic Policy when even the basic task of universal literacy had not been completed. He emphasised that to consolidate Soviet power and develop the Soviet economy, it was not enough for the masses to merely be literate; they also needed to further study the scientific knowledge accumulated by humanity, diligently master science and technology, and improve their cultural literacy. Based on this, he demanded that the status of people’s teachers must be valued and improved in order to raise the level of national education as quickly as possible. He argued that if the status of teachers was not raised to the appropriate level, then Russia “could not speak of any culture at all, neither proletarian culture nor even bourgeois culture.”

这表明列宁认为在俄国当时“未开化的、不文明的、半文盲的、贫穷的”的国情下，就连达到资产阶级文化水平也是堪忧的，更不应高谈阔论创造无产阶级文化了，建设“无产阶级”的文化并不是当时落后的俄国所能达到的目标。在反对“侈谈”无产阶级文化问题上，列宁告诫全党：“在文化问题上，急躁冒进是最有害的。”对于十月革命后的俄国究竟应该如何建设和发展文化，列宁指出，最迫切的任务是提升人民文化水平，这是事关俄共（布）能否顺利执政和成功执政的关键环节。在他看来，在普遍识字这个基本任务都没有完成的情况下，谈论创造无产阶级文化和实施新经济政策是可笑的。他强调，巩固苏维埃政权，发展苏维埃经济，人民群众仅仅能识字是不够的，还需要进一步学习人类积累下来的科学知识，努力钻研科学技术，提高文化素养。基于此，他要求必须重视和改善人民教师的地位以尽快提高国民教育水平，认为如果不将教师的地位提到应有的高度，那么俄国“就谈不上任何文化，既谈不上无产阶级文化，甚至也谈不上资产阶级文化”。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗