Xu Qin: Lenin's Exploration of Russia's Social Development Path Before the October Revolution and Its Significance
Lenin’s influence on China began with the October Revolution; consequently, Lenin's thought during the October Revolution and the subsequent period has long been the focus and emphasis of domestic academic circles, yielding extremely fruitful research results. However, the ability of a backward Russia to take the lead in embarking on the path of socialist development through the October Revolution was inseparable from Lenin’s arduous exploration of Russia’s path of social development prior to the October Revolution. During the period of more than twenty years from 1893 to 1917, Lenin moved from exploring how Russia could move toward a socialist society to specifically investigating how to transform Russia's old system of land ownership. Throughout, he diligently sought a path of social development that could both promote the rapid development of the productive forces and look after the interests of the masses of workers and peasants to the greatest extent possible. Through arduous theoretical exploration and practice, Lenin pointed out the direction for the Russian masses of workers and peasants to choose the correct path of struggle, providing a scientific cognitive prerequisite for the proposal of the New Economic Policy. In the New Era, it remains of great practical and enlightening significance to review Lenin’s exploration of Russia’s path of social development before the October Revolution.
I. On the Question of Whether Russia Could Take a Narodnik-style "Non-Capitalist" Path
In the early 1890s, when Lenin stepped onto the Russian political stage as a young Marxist, the polemic between Russian Marxists and Narodniks [1] was in full swing. The core issue of their debate was whether Russia could directly enter a socialist society on the basis of the communal ownership of land in rural communes [2] without passing through a stage of capitalist development.
This question was first raised by Herzen [3] and Ogarev [4] in the 1840s, aiming to explore a Russian-style path of transition to a socialist society. Herzen eventually discovered that the village commune was the key for serf-based Russia to transition directly to a socialist society, because the commune practiced communal land ownership and there was a tradition of mutual aid and cooperation among the commune peasants. Nevertheless, Herzen did not believe the Russian village commune was a unique product in human history, but clearly pointed out that such organizations had existed in all Slavic tribes. However, the Russian Narodniks who emerged in the 1860s not only regarded the village commune as a unique product of Russia but also advocated for the superiority of the communal economy over the capitalist economy, speaking at length about the ideal of bypassing the capitalist stage of development to enter a socialist society directly on the basis of the commune. The error of this "non-capitalist" path theory did not lie in seeking a special path for Russia, but in failing to understand historical materialism, failing to see the historically progressive role of capitalism, and vainly attempting to graft a socialist society onto an economic organization of small-scale production. Therefore, Lenin believed that the Narodniks were merely engaged in empty talk about the possibility of the "fatherland taking another path," and he characterized their theory as reactionary, utopian socialism.
More seriously, the theory of the Narodniks was the "popular theory" in mid-to-late 19th-century Russia, seriously affecting the dissemination and development of Marxism in Russia. Lenin said: "Russian Marxism arose in the early 1880s in the works of an émigré group (the 'Emancipation of Labour' group)." 1 This means that by the time the Narodniks' "non-capitalist" path theory was already widely known to Russian intellectuals and even peasants [5], Russian Marxism was still in its infancy. In this way, the problem faced by Russian Marxism in its initial stage was that "it was not understood by its opponents at all, and various forces sought to suppress the new school as soon as it appeared." 2 Narodnism sat at the head of these "various forces." Based on this, Lenin even called the period before 1897 the "most intense period" in terms of the theory of the Russian Social Democratic Party.
To defeat the Narodniks' "non-capitalist" path theory, Lenin, guided by Marxism, empirically investigated the state of Russia's socio-economic development since the 1861 emancipation of the serfs, and deeply criticized the Narodniks' "artificiality theory," "destruction theory," and "stagnation theory" regarding the development of capitalism in Russia.
The "artificiality theory" was the basic tone of the Narodniks regarding the inability of capitalism to develop in Russia. The Narodniks believed that Russia lacked the conditions for capitalist development, and that the development of certain capitalist industries in Russia was purely the result of artificial cultivation by the Tsarist government. To criticize this point, Lenin first focused on analyzing the Narodniks' "market problem" and "contradiction problem" concerning the obstruction of Russian capitalism. He pointed out that the impoverishment of the masses and the formation of a domestic market were two sides of the same process—expressions of the development of capitalism in Russia—and that there was no so-called market problem in Russia. Furthermore, contradictions do not equal impossibility; any society has contradictions in its developmental process, and contradictions are the internal driving force prompting the disintegration of capitalism and its transformation into a higher social form. Secondly, by analyzing the relations of production in the Russian countryside at the end of the 19th century, Lenin found that capitalist differentiation had already occurred among the commune peasants. The commune peasants were not at all the antagonists of capitalism, and the so-called "artificial" bourgeoisie had grown entirely spontaneously in Russia. Lenin further pointed out that although Russian capitalism had developed, compared with the Western European capitalism of the same era, it was still in a lower stage of development, manifesting as an "undeveloped embryonic state."
The "destruction theory" was the main argument of the Narodniks regarding why Russia should not take the path of capitalist development. The formation of capitalist relations of production is predicated on the bankruptcy of a large number of small producers, and its development is achieved through capital's exploitation of wage labor. Not only that, the development of capitalism also creates various social problems such as economic crises, widening gaps between the rich and the poor, and moral decline. Therefore, the development of capitalism in Russia was undoubtedly a disaster for the vast majority of commune peasants. Thus, the Narodniks, who sought only the welfare of the commune peasants and tried to preserve the commune organization, believed that Russia should not take the capitalist path. Proceeding from historical materialism, Lenin concretely analyzed the historically progressive role produced by the development of capitalism in Russia, especially in causing the increase in social labor productivity and the socialization of labor. Lenin further pointed out: "Recognition of the progressive nature of this role is quite compatible (as we try to show in detail at every stage in our exposition of the facts) with the full recognition of the negative and dark sides of capitalism, with the full recognition of those profound and comprehensive social contradictions which are inevitable under capitalism and which reveal the historically transitory nature of this economic system." 3 Precisely because capitalism has this historically progressive role, the "leap-over theory" of Marx and Engels emphasized that backward countries need to absorb all the positive civilizational achievements of capitalism. Of course, recognizing the historical progressiveness of capitalism is not the same as acting as an apologist for capitalism. This was also the difference between the Russian Marxists and the "Legal Marxists" [6]. On the issue of Russian capitalism, the latter took a position opposite to the Narodniks, but either affirmed everything or denied everything, lacking both historical perspective and a dialectical spirit. Conversely, while affirming the progressive role of Russian capitalism, Lenin did not forget its historically transitory nature for a moment, and clearly pointed out that it would inevitably be replaced by a higher social form.
The "stagnation theory" was the basic viewpoint of the Narodniks regarding the characteristics of Russian capitalist development. Because Russian capitalism was severely constrained by the remnants of serfdom, its development was very slow compared to the Western European capitalism of the same period; Lenin even used "crawling like a tortoise" to describe it. Proceeding from appearances, the Narodniks labeled Russian capitalist production as "stagnating" and concluded it had no future. Lenin, however, believed that the characteristic of Russian capitalism actually lay in "backwardness," specifically manifesting in a non-typical mode of production, relatively backward production technology, extremely unbalanced development between industry and agriculture and between regions, and a weak political superstructure. Consequently, Lenin advocated for using revolutionary methods to eradicate the remnants of serfdom and create conditions for the full development of capitalism.
II. On the Question of Whether the Russian Proletariat Should Be the "Leader" or the "Promoter" of the Democratic Revolution
After the previous issue was thoroughly resolved, the first bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia's history broke out in 1905. The outbreak of the revolution first raised the question of leadership, namely, who would lead the democratic revolution. For the Russian proletariat and its party, this question was not only related to the advancement of the proletarian revolutionary strategy but also to the future development of the Russian revolution; it was an extremely important theoretical and practical issue. However, on this issue, the two factions of the Russian proletarian party—the Social Democratic Labour Party—had serious disagreements. In Lenin's words: "The two sections—the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks—themselves reduced their disagreements to the following antithesis: are we to be 'leaders' and 'guiders' of the workers 'onward' to a revolutionary 'leadership' of the peasants, or are we to be 'revolutionary promoters' of certain measures of the bourgeois democrats?" 1
The Menshevik faction advocated that the proletariat act as a "promoter" of the democratic revolution. The basis for this claim was: first, that the 1905 revolution was a bourgeois-natured democratic revolution, a struggle by general democrats against the autocracy and landlords; following the victory of the revolution, a bourgeois-democratic republic would be established, and such a state should naturally see the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat, hold power. Second, proletarian leadership of the revolution would not only scare away the bourgeoisie but would also cause the current democratic revolution in Russia to transition directly to a socialist revolution, which was still premature in Russia. Third, the seizure and holding of power by the proletariat should depend on whether the revolutionary process had already spread to Western European countries that already possessed the conditions for establishing socialism. Therefore, in the Menshevik view, the 1905 revolution could only be led by the bourgeoisie; the proletariat could neither lead the revolution nor hold power, and could not even participate in the government, but could only support the bourgeoisie in the revolution—that is, play the role of a "promoter."
Lenin, however, believed that the proletariat should be the "leader" of the democratic revolution. This claim was not something Lenin imagined. From a theoretical perspective, when Marx and Engels summarized the lessons learned by German workers in the 1848 European revolutions, they pointed out that workers should not "play the part of a mere chorus for the bourgeois democrats" 4 and should not be under the control and leadership of the bourgeois democrats, but should maintain their own independence. Proceeding exactly from this thought, Lenin creatively proposed that the proletariat should lead the democratic revolution rather than acting as a tail for the bourgeois democrats. He said: "Marxism teaches the proletarian not to keep aloof from the bourgeois revolution, not to be indifferent to it, not to allow the leadership of the revolution to be assumed by the bourgeoisie but, on the contrary, to take a most energetic part in it, to fight most resolutely for consistent proletarian democracy, for carrying the revolution to its completion." 5 From a practical perspective: first, the Russian bourgeoisie was weak and prone to compromise, making it impossible for them to carry the democratic revolution to the end; second, the revolutionary consciousness of the 20th-century Russian peasantry was insufficient, making it difficult for them to occupy the primary position in the revolution as early Western European peasants had done; third, the 20th-century Russian proletariat already had a relatively mature political party and possessed the ability to lead the democratic revolution; fourth, European and American countries entered an era of political turmoil and revolution at the beginning of the 20th century, and the proletariat could no longer be limited to defensive struggles during a period of political reaction. To this end, Lenin proposed that the process of socio-historical development is not a slow, evenly rising straight line without leaps; under specific historical conditions, the proletariat could fully lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution and establish a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.
How then was the Russian proletariat to achieve this hegemony? Lenin proposed several crucial points. First, it was necessary to raise the socialist consciousness of the proletariat. If the proletariat lacked sufficient socialist consciousness, it would be easy to confuse the democratic minimum program with the socialist maximum program, thereby hindering the smooth progression of the democratic revolutionary movement. Second, it was necessary to put forward correct tactical slogans. To achieve leadership over the revolutionary masses, the proletariat and its party needed to call upon and mobilize the masses through specific tactical slogans. Third, the proletariat had to be led in selecting the most appropriate means of struggle. The revolutionary movement is a form of practice; the revolutionary subject must act upon the object of revolution through certain modes or means. To this end, Lenin stated: "Social-Democracy must not only lead the proletariat in putting forward correct slogans but must also lead the proletariat in choosing the most resolute and appropriate means of struggle." 12 Thus, the crux of the matter lay in how to choose the most appropriate means. Lenin believed that specific means of struggle must be adapted to the specific environment of the struggle; the revolutionary movement could not be restricted to a single fixed form of struggle. Fourth, it was necessary to extensively develop all aspects of the workers' movement. In October 1905, the Odessa Committee in Russia prioritized the task of preparing for an armed uprising, relegating the leadership of trade union struggles to second place. Lenin considered this formulation erroneous both in theory and tactics. This was because trade union struggle is an expression of economic struggle, while an armed uprising is a specific means of political struggle under a particular revolutionary situation; the two cannot be placed on equal footing. Furthermore, the proletariat could only achieve final victory by carrying out economic and theoretical struggles simultaneously with the political struggle—that is, by linking these three aspects of struggle closely together.
Fifth, party branches had to be established within all non-party organizations. During the 1905 Revolution, Russia's cooperatives, trade unions, Soviets of Workers' Deputies, the Duma [7], and various cultural and educational groups were all non-party organizations—meaning they did not possess a partisan character and were not under the influence or leadership of any particular party, specifically the proletarian party. Nevertheless, these non-party organizations played a significant role in Russian political life at the time. If the proletarian party could transform them from non-partisan to partisan, the forces of the Russian democratic revolution would be greatly enhanced. To exert such influence, party branches had to be established within them. Sixth, the petty bourgeoisie had to be extricated from the influence of the liberal bourgeoisie. In early 20th-century Russia, the Russian petty bourgeoisie, primarily the peasantry, constituted the majority of the population. Therefore, "the outcome of the bourgeois revolution depends first of all on the political attitude of the small producers." 13 However, their status as small owners made the petty bourgeoisie more susceptible to the influence of the liberal bourgeoisie. For this reason, Lenin emphasized: "The basic task of Social-Democracy (a task which the Mensheviks absolutely fail to understand) is to persistently break the leadership of the liberals over the democrats, to persistently liberate the petty-bourgeois masses from the wing of the Cadets [8] and to place them under the influence and guidance of Social-Democracy." 14 Seventh, the bourgeoisie had to be utilized while simultaneously being struggled against. How to correctly handle the relationship with the bourgeoisie was a key issue for the Russian proletariat in leading the democratic revolution. While fighting alongside the Russian bourgeoisie, Lenin not only exposed their intentions to speculate on the revolution but also competed with the Cadets for Duma votes during the elections for the Second Duma.
III. On the Question of Whether the Russian Revolution Should Follow a "Direct Path" or a "Zigzag Path"
To quell the rising revolutionary tide, the Tsarist government issued a decree on August 6, 1905, regarding the establishment of a State Duma. This posed a new question for the advancing Russian revolution: should the next step be a "direct path" or a "zigzag path"—specifically manifested as boycotting the Duma or participating in it? Lenin pointed out: "The objective situation has posed a question for the various social forces in struggle to resolve: will the victorious path in the next step be the direct path—that is, the path of direct revolutionary struggle and the direct establishment of representative bodies by the revolution on a fully democratic basis? Or will it be the roundabout, zigzag path—that is, the path of constitutional monarchy and police-style 'constitutional' (so-called!) bodies of the 'Duma' type?" 15 On this issue, the Russian liberal bourgeoisie was the first to turn toward the "zigzag path," followed closely by the Menshevik faction, who openly condemned the Bolsheviks for persisting in the "direct path."
If the Russian bourgeoisie's choice of a constitutional monarchy stemmed from its weakness and tendency toward compromise, it seems difficult to understand why the Mensheviks, as a faction of the Russian proletarian party, also favored such a path. Addressing this, Lenin commented: "The opportunist wing of Social-Democracy, represented by the New Iskra [9], is an exception—a sad and regrettable exception that has broken the integrity of clear-cut class camp divisions." 16 Why then did the Mensheviks make this choice? The fundamental reason was that they did not understand revolutionary dialectics and failed to see Russia's particularity; proceeding from the general role of parliaments, they harbored the illusion of transforming the Russian parliament—the Duma—into a tool of revolution. In Western capitalist countries, parliaments did indeed provide a platform for the proletariat's peaceful struggle. Marx and Engels never denied that the proletariat in some countries could gain power through peaceful means. Furthermore, the Second International had established parliamentary struggle as the primary means of struggle. Influenced by this, the Mensheviks harbored illusions about the Duma, even though they knew the Tsarist government's Duma was a sham representative body for the people. Pavel Axelrod, one of the main Menshevik leaders, said: "For us, we should not focus our party's strength and general democratic forces on the utopia of obstructing the realization of the Bulygin plan [10], but on mobilizing and organizing those forces capable of transforming this official reactionary scheme into a weapon and instrument of revolution." 17 Clearly, in the Menshevik view, the proletariat did not need to boycott the creation of the Duma, but rather sought to urge this representative body to become a revolutionary weapon and instrument to achieve revolutionary goals.
Lenin, however, believed that Marxists should be adept at helping the masses take the "direct path." The "direct path" was the revolutionary path most beneficial to the people. First, the "direct path" used the method of direct assault by the revolutionary masses to sweep away or fundamentally shake the Tsarist autocracy, enabling the Russian worker and peasant masses to liberate themselves as early and as thoroughly as possible from the shackles of serfdom's remnants. Second, the "direct path" was the path of democratic revolution led by the proletariat; once victorious, it would place state power in the hands of the proletariat and the peasantry. Third, victory via the "direct path" would provide the proletariat with the fullest political freedom, allowing it to strive for and realize socialism under free conditions. However, whether such a path could be taken depended on the existence of appropriate conditions—namely, a revolutionary high tide. If the revolutionary momentum was weak and revolutionary forces were insufficient to deliver a direct blow to the old regime, the "direct path" would be unfeasible. Lenin had a profound understanding of this. He stated: "1905 clearly showed that there existed the possibility of direct mass struggle in the form of general strikes (the strike wave after January 9 [11]) and military uprisings (the Potemkin [12]). That is to say, the direct revolutionary struggle of the masses was a fact." 15 Since the possibility of taking the "direct path" existed, why not strive for it?
Regarding the "zigzag path," Lenin proposed that Marxists do not reject compromises dictated by the situation. The "zigzag path" was also a compromise—a necessary compromise made by revolutionary forces with counter-revolutionary forces under specific historical conditions. Lenin admitted: "It is indisputable that history usually develops through zigzag paths, and Marxists must be adept at prioritizing history's extremely complex and peculiar zigzags." 15 However, Lenin did not believe the "zigzag path" was the primary choice for Marxists in revolution; he saw it as a choice made only out of necessity when revolutionary forces were insufficient. It was from this perspective that, after the 1905 Revolution entered a low ebb, Lenin turned toward compromise, shifting from his previous call to boycott the Duma to advocating participation in it, even criticizing those who persisted in boycotting the Duma regardless of the objective revolutionary situation. It must be noted that although Lenin later turned to favor Duma participation, his view of the Duma remained distinct from that of the Mensheviks. Lenin believed the Duma could only indirectly facilitate the revolution and could never become an instrument of revolution. Tsar Nicholas II's direct purpose in agreeing to the State Duma was to use it to curb the revolution, not to genuinely grant political freedom to the people. Thus, the Russian State Duma was effectively a counter-revolutionary tool of the Tsarist government. Such a Duma could not have a direct driving effect on the development of the revolution; as Lenin pointed out, giving speeches in the Duma would never spark a revolution. However, using the Duma for propaganda would yield benefits for the Russian Social-Democrats no less than those gained through other channels. Thus, in Lenin's thought, the Russian proletariat could utilize the Duma, but its significance was limited and must not be exaggerated. He emphasized: "If 'utilization' refers to the Menshevik chatter about the Duma being an instrument of revolution and so on, then of course it cannot be utilized." 15
IV. On the Question of the "American" vs. "Prussian" Path for Resolving Russia's Land Problem
After the State Duma convened, representatives of various classes within it engaged in heated debates over how to resolve the land problem. The land problem was also the fundamental issue of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia. On this matter, the specific proposals of each class varied; as Lenin pointed out: "The various classes of bourgeois Russia are all striving to complete and settle this destruction in their own way." 18 Lenin believed these solutions could be categorized into two types: whether the old land ownership system would be destroyed by the landlords or by the peasants. This corresponded to two paths for the evolution of Russian agricultural capitalism: the "Prussian" path and the "American" path.
In reality, the land problem had existed in Russia for a long time. In February 1861, Tsar Alexander II issued a decree abolishing serfdom; peasants could be liberated along with land but had to pay a high ransom. Since the ransom far exceeded what the peasants could afford, this solution caused widespread dissatisfaction. Consequently, the peasants' struggle for land never ceased in post-abolition Russia. Lenin also stated: "The peasants, who constitute eight-ninths or nine-tenths of the entire Russian petty bourgeoisie, are struggling first and foremost for land." 14 For the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, conducting a revolutionary movement in a backward country where peasants made up the majority of the population required gaining peasant support. Therefore, it was extremely important to emphasize the peasant problem and formulate a land program that supported their demands. Even before the founding of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, the Emancipation of Labour group [13] led by Plekhanov had proposed a draft land program for Russian Social-Democrats, calling for a "radical change in land relations." Lenin considered this program too abstract, lacking specific views on the issue. In July 1903, the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party adopted its first land program, which demanded the "restitution of cut-off lands" (otrezki [14]). The basic principle followed by this program was to support the peasant movement, strive to develop the class struggle in the countryside, and make this struggle conscious. However, after the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution, the performance of the peasants—particularly the widespread struggle across various regions to seize landlord land—showed that the peasants' demands were not merely for the "restitution of cut-off lands," but for the expropriation of all landlord land. This meant the 1903 land program was obsolete, and the party needed to revise it. Regarding this, Lenin analyzed: "The basic error of the 1903 land program was a lack of a clear understanding of why the land struggle could and certainly would unfold in the course of the Russian bourgeois revolution, and a lack of clear understanding of several possible paths of capitalist agricultural evolution that might objectively emerge in the event of a victory of one or another social force in this struggle." 15 Based on this, under Lenin's advocacy, the party revised the "restitution of cut-off lands" clause to "confiscation of landlord land" to signify support for the peasants.
Later, the peasant representatives in the Duma, the Labor Group [15], proposed the slogan of land nationalization. Following the establishment of the First State Duma, peasants from various regions sent resolutions, letters, telegrams, and mandates to the Labor Group regarding the resolution of the land issue. Based on the demands raised by the peasants in these documents, the Labor Group explicitly opposed the redemption of land [16] in their Duma speeches and proposed bringing all land into state ownership. The peasant representative Nechitaylo stated: "This land belongs to the people, yet some tell us we must spend money to buy it. Are we foreigners from England or France? We are locals; why should we spend money to buy our own land? The blood, sweat, and money we have already spent could have redeemed this land ten times over." 23 Although the Russian peasants and their representatives did not realize that land nationalization would lead to the development of capitalism, their proposal was undoubtedly a thorough negation of the old system of landlord landownership.
Lenin held the nationalization of land in high regard. He stated: "The nationalization of land is not only the only way to completely eliminate medieval institutions in agriculture but is also the best possible land system under the capitalist system." 23 Under the historical conditions of Russia at that time, implementing land nationalization would eliminate all artificial boundaries on the land, thereby making it truly free land and allowing capitalism to develop freely. At the same time, the serf system in agriculture, which relied on landlord landownership, would be completely eliminated, and peasants could truly be liberated from the shackles of serfdom. Lenin further analyzed the spiritual significance of nationalization. He pointed out: "The spiritual significance of nationalization in a revolutionary era lies in the proletariat helping to strike a blow against 'one form of private property,' a blow that will inevitably resonate throughout the world." 23 Tsarist Russia had served as the "gendarme" of European revolution; if the land nationalization plan could be transformed from theory into practice in Russia, it could break this final counter-revolutionary feudal fortress, thereby promoting the development of the European proletarian revolution. Consequently, Lenin identified land nationalization as the sole program of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) during the bourgeois revolution. Since land nationalization was the core content of the "American-path," Lenin evaluated this path highly, claiming that such an evolution "means the most rapid development of productive forces and the best living conditions for the peasant masses (within the limits possible under commodity production)." 23
In contrast, the "Prussian-path," as a method of resolving the land issue in a landlord-oriented manner, possessed insurmountable limitations, even though it could also promote capitalist development. First, it could not liberate the entire Russian peasantry from the shackles of the remnants of serfdom. As a top-down reform promoted by the landlord class, its primary beneficiaries were destined to be the landlords rather than the peasants. Whether it was the Serfdom Reform of 1861 or the Stolypin Land Reform of 1907, both plundered the peasantry while "emancipating" them, leaving the vast majority of peasants to suffer long-term exploitation by the remnants of serfdom. Second, it could not promote the freest and most complete development of Russian capitalism. The "Prussian-path" was a reformist path of a bourgeois nature, a path that allowed serfdom to wither away slowly; the long-term existence of serfdom remnants inevitably imposed certain constraints on the development of capitalism. Therefore, Lenin remarked that taking the "Prussian-path" "means the slowest rate of capitalist development, the narrowest scope, and the heaviest burden of serfdom remnants." 27
Thus, pursuing and supporting the "American-path" became Lenin’s inevitable choice. Since serfdom was destined to perish in Russia and a serf-based Russia would inevitably move toward modernization, why not choose an evolutionary path that could maximally account for the interests of the worker and peasant masses and best facilitate the strategy of proletarian revolution? Lenin said: "We resolutely oppose all old forms of landownership in Russia, both landlord landownership and peasant allotment ownership. We resolutely advocate for the use of violent means to destroy this decaying old system that is corroding and poisoning all new things; we advocate for bourgeois land nationalization." 23
V. The Historical Significance and Practical Enlightenments of Lenin’s Exploration
Lenin’s exploration of Russia’s path of social development prior to the October Revolution is an extremely important chapter in the history of the Bolshevik Party. It not only holds significant historical meaning for Russia’s social development but also enlightens CPC members in the New Era to persist in arming the whole Party with the Party’s innovative theories, to be adept at grasping the laws and general trends of historical development, and to fortify the Party's original aspiration to seek happiness for the people.
From the perspective of historical significance, first, it pointed out the direction for the Russian worker and peasant masses to choose the correct path of struggle. Serfdom was destined to vanish in Russia, but where would Russia go thereafter? Although the Russian Narodniks sought a path of social development different from the West based on Russian exceptionalism, they started from subjective sociology and talked idly about the necessity of bypassing the stage of capitalist development, attempting to graft a socialist society directly onto the economic base of the traditional village commune (mir). If such utopian theories were allowed to spread, it would be extremely detrimental to Russia's social development. Thus, it was an essential task to use Marxism to defeat Narodnism, eliminate its erroneous influence on the Russian worker and peasant masses, and guide them toward the correct path of struggle. After the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution, as questions arose regarding who should lead the democratic revolution, how the revolution should develop, and how the land issue should be resolved, the proposals of different class-based parties—and even different factions within the same party—varied. Grounded in Russian reality and starting from the fundamental and long-term interests of the proletariat, Lenin creatively proposed the idea of proletarian leadership in the democratic revolution, advocated for the direct path of revolutionary development, and supported the peasants' demand for land nationalization. This was of great significance for excluding the influence of Menshevik opportunism and guiding the Russian worker and peasant masses in correctly carrying out the revolutionary movement.
Second, it laid a solid theoretical and practical foundation for Russia’s development after the October Revolution. Lenin said: "Without the 'dress rehearsal' of 1905, the victory of the October Revolution in 1917 would have been impossible." 28 Clearly, this "dress rehearsal" effect was not spontaneous but was built upon the arduous exploration and courageous struggle of the Russian Social Democrats represented by Lenin. Based on the theoretical innovations and struggle experiences of the 1905 Revolution, the October Revolution, under proletarian leadership, followed the direct path of revolutionary development and used the method of "direct mass onslaught" to end the situation of dual power and realize the dictatorship of the proletariat and the poor peasantry. Furthermore, regarding the land issue, Lenin proposed the demand to "nationalize all land in the country" within the strategic thinking of the October Revolution and extended this nationalization scheme to resolve the issue of capitalist monopolies. Later, during the period of socialist construction in Soviet Russia, Lenin’s ability to propose the New Economic Policy (NEP) also benefited from his exploration of Russia’s social development path before the October Revolution. From criticizing the Narodniks' "non-capitalist path" theory to utilizing capitalism for a roundabout transition, it was demonstrated that socialism cannot be built on a backward economic base; from supporting land nationalization to implementing a series of special transitional measures, it was shown that the revolution and construction of economically backward countries cannot succeed without the support of the peasantry.
From the perspective of practical enlightenments, first, we must always arm the whole Party with the Party’s innovative theories. Some believe that Lenin lacked theoretical innovation in his early years and basically transplanted Marxism to Russia. In fact, this view is a one-sided conclusion drawn only from Lenin's critique of Narodnism. From Lenin's exploration of Russia's social development path before the October Revolution, it is not difficult to see that Lenin not only defended Marxism but also developed Marxism based on Russian reality, forming a Russified Marxism. Precisely because of the guidance of innovative theories consistent with Russian conditions, the Bolshevik Party finally led the Russian people to the victory of the October Revolution and proposed the scientific scheme of the New Economic Policy as a roundabout transition. Reviewing the century-long journey of exploration by the Communist Party of China, it is clear that "the history of our Party is a history of continuously promoting the Sinicization of Marxism, and a history of continuously advancing theoretical innovation and theoretical creation." 29 Thanks to the CPC's theoretical innovation, the Chinese nation has achieved the historical leap from standing up and becoming prosperous to becoming strong. In the New Era, to promote the further development of socialism with Chinese characteristics and realize the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, we still need to continuously advance the Sinicization of Marxism and arm the whole Party with the latest theoretical achievements of Sinicized Marxism.
Second, we must be adept at grasping the laws and general trends of historical development. Historical development has objective laws that do not change according to human will. Only by correctly grasping these laws and acting in accordance with the trends can we take the initiative in development and effectively promote social progress. Regarding Russia's social development, the Narodniks replaced general laws of historical development with Russian exceptionalism, while the Mensheviks replaced Russian exceptionalism with general laws; both failed to correctly grasp the laws of historical development. Consequently, their programs for social transformation were ultimately proven wrong. In his theoretical exploration, Lenin overcame the shortcomings of both the Narodniks and the Mensheviks. He not only respected the general laws of human historical development but was also adept at dynamically grasping the laws of Russian social development in concrete practice. In China, the CPC, guided by Marxism, has achieved victory after victory in the practice of Chinese revolution, construction, and reform by correctly grasping the dialectical unity between the general and specific laws of historical development. Xi Jinping pointed out: "In our hundred years of struggle, our Party has always used the basic principles of Marxism to analyze and grasp historical trends, correctly handled the relationship between China and the world, and was adept at seizing and making good use of various historical opportunities." 29 In the New Era, only by further grasping these laws and trends can our Party maintain the initiative in development amidst the profound changes unseen in a century and lead the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era.
Third, we must fortify the Party's original aspiration to seek happiness for the people. Lenin's exploration of Russia's social development path before the October Revolution was also a process of continuous choice. In this process, besides following the scale of history, Lenin paid even more attention to the scale of values. The values Lenin pursued were, fundamentally, to account for and realize the interests of the vast Russian worker and peasant masses to the greatest extent. For instance, regarding the path of revolutionary development, although the "circuitous path" could also harbor and develop revolutionary factors, Lenin still advocated for selecting the "direct path" as the primary choice because it was most beneficial to the people. This was also Lenin's practice of the nature and purpose of a Marxist party under the specific conditions of Russia. In China, as a Marxist party, the CPC has always placed the people's interests first throughout its leadership of revolution, construction, and reform, constantly seeking happiness for the people; this is the secret behind our Party gaining the trust and support of the broad masses. In this regard, Xi Jinping summarized: "The hundred-year history of our Party is a history of practicing the Party’s original aspiration and founding mission, and a history of the Party being heart-to-heart with the people, breathing the same air, and sharing a common destiny." 29 In the New Era, only by deeply understanding the Party's nature and purpose, fortifying its original aspiration and founding mission, and taking the people's yearning for a better life as our goal, can our Party unite the strength of 1.4 billion Chinese people to build the Chinese Dream together.