Yu Min: Lenin's Thoughts on the Particularity of the Path of Social Development in Soviet Russia in His Later Years
Lenin’s later years are generally considered to be the period following the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1921. During this time, Lenin’s thoughts on exploring the paths for building a socialist society reached maturity. He authored works such as "The Tax in Kind," "The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments," and "The Importance of Gold Now and After the Complete Victory of Socialism," in which he expounded important ideas regarding the unique path of building a socialist society in Soviet Russia. On the eve of his death, in his dictated article "Our Revolution," he once again articulated profound, comprehensive, and logical thoughts on the particularity of the developmental path in Soviet Russia.
I. The Root of the Particularity of Soviet Russia’s Social Development Path: A Unique Russian Revolution
What was the root of the particularity of Soviet Russia’s social development path? In other words, why could and must Soviet Russia adopt a unique path to achieve social development? Why could and must it realize the transition to a socialist society through a particular developmental path? This question can be answered from many perspectives. For Lenin, answering this question required starting first with the uniqueness of the Russian Revolution.
Lenin believed that the uniqueness of the Russian Revolution lay in its connection to the First World War. The Great War, which broke out in July 1914, was an unjust war between two major imperialist blocs to re-divide the world’s territories and spheres of influence. Viewed from a global perspective, this war was a manifestation of the intense and widespread contradictions inherent in the transition of world capitalism to the stage of imperialism. At that time, the world was characterized by three sets of contradictions: first, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; second, the contradictions among various imperialist states; and third, the contradiction between imperialist states and the colonies and oppressed nations. These three contradictions were intertwined, mutually influencing and affecting one another, and acted upon the evolution of world history. When the contradictions among imperialist states intensified, World War I broke out. The war was exceptionally brutal, eventually involving more than 30 countries and 1.5 billion people, resulting in 30 million casualties and incalculable economic losses for all nations. Consequently, the contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie within imperialist states, as well as the contradictions between imperialist states and the colonies and oppressed nations, also intensified. It was against this backdrop that the October Revolution of 1917 erupted. Based on this, Lenin pointed out in "Our Revolution": "This is a revolution connected with the first imperialist world war. Such a revolution was bound to reveal new features, or rather, features modified precisely by the war, for there had never been such a war in such a situation in the world before." His meaning was that this war—World War I—was a conflict unlike any other in world history; it was a war with its own inherent particularities. The Russian October Revolution, being linked to this war, was "bound to reveal new features." In other words, in Lenin’s thought, the October Revolution was itself a uniquely characterized revolution.
In Lenin's thought, one manifestation of the uniqueness of the Russian October Revolution was that it occurred in a state where a peasant war [1] was integrated with the workers' movement. World War I caused severe destruction to the Russian economy; war and famine threatened millions of laboring people. In January and February 1917, at least 670,000 workers across the country went on strike to oppose the government's war policy and demand bread. In mid-to-late February, 30,000 workers from the Putilov factory in Petrograd took to the streets to demonstrate against food shortages and skyrocketing prices. Workers from many other factories supported this struggle and joined the ranks. On February 25, 300,000 workers in Petrograd stopped work and launched a general political strike. On the 27th, the workers' strikes universally transformed into an armed uprising, and 60,000 soldiers of the garrison also went over to the side of the revolution. On that day, the February Revolution achieved victory, and the Tsarist autocracy was overthrown. The Provisional Bourgeois Government established thereafter followed in the footsteps of the Tsarist government, disregarded the life and death of the people, and continued to participate in the imperialist war. The strikes and demonstrations of Russian workers surged like rising winds and scudding clouds. In late April, mid-June, and early July, the Petrograd workers' demonstrations against the Provisional Government reached three successive climaxes, accelerating the demise of the bourgeois government. Simultaneously, the struggle of the Russian peasants also commenced. After the February Revolution, peasants strongly demanded a solution to the land question. However, the Provisional Government, along with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks [2], delayed resolving the land issue. Consequently, peasants in various regions rose in rebellion and seized the landlords' land. The Provisional Government sent military and police forces to the countryside to suppress them, while the insurgent peasants fought back to defend the fruits of their struggle. During this process, the peasants established the leading organ of their uprising—the Soviets of Peasants' Deputies—and founded the Izvestia of the All-Russia Soviet of Peasants' Deputies to publicize their views and demands. In 1917, peasants in many areas submitted their views and demands regarding land in written form, producing over 200 peasant land mandates. The peasants' slogan for "land," linked with the slogans for "peace" and "bread," inspired and spurred the Russian people to fight forward courageously. These circumstances indicated that in 1917, Russia had formed a situation where the workers' movement and the peasant war were combined. Lenin had deep insight into this situation, which reminded him of words Marx wrote in a letter to Engels on April 16, 1856: "The whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing the proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasants' War." Marx’s meaning was that the victory of the socialist revolution in Germany depended on the outbreak of a peasant war to support the proletarian revolutionary movement—or rather, that the German proletarian revolution could only march toward victory if it combined with a peasant war. This situation never occurred in German history, but it did occur in Russia in 1917. Starting from this reality in Russia, Lenin linked Marx’s words and thoughts with the Russian situation, conducting a serious analysis and judgment to strive for a scientific conclusion. He wrote in "Our Revolution": "What if the complete hopelessness of the situation... drew Russia into the imperialist world war... and made her development... such that she could create those conditions... for the union of a 'peasant war' with the working-class movement, which no less a 'Marxist' than Marx himself spoke of in 1856 as one of the possible prospects for Prussia?" The answer was clear: the proletarian party should take advantage of the situation to launch the proletarian socialist revolution and seize revolutionary victory. The profound depth of Lenin’s assertion lies here: World War I was the unique environment of the Russian Revolution, and launching the proletarian socialist revolution under the conditions of a combined workers' movement and peasant war was a major manifestation of the revolution’s particularity.
In Lenin's thought, another manifestation of the uniqueness of the Russian October Revolution was that it was a revolution that fully utilized and demonstrated the "revolutionary dialectics" [3] of Marxism. According to the basic principles of Marxism, a proletarian socialist revolution can only take place where the capitalist economy is fully developed. This is because building socialism requires a high level of productive forces, a deep economic base, and excellent conditions for education, science, and culture. Therefore, when Marx and Engels discussed the issue of socialist revolution during their lifetimes, they generally confined their discussions to the socialist revolutions of economically advanced Western countries. In an 1892 article, Engels pointed out: "The triumph of the European working class does not depend upon England alone. It can only be secured by the cooperation of, at least, England, France, and Germany." He also noted, "In Germany, the victory of the working-class movement is even within sight. The progress of the movement there during the last twenty-five years is unprecedented. It is advancing with ever-increasing speed." This assertion is sufficient to show that in Engels’ thought, it was only the economically developed countries of Western Europe—namely England, France, and Germany—that could potentially achieve a victorious socialist revolution. This was not only because these countries possessed the material conditions required to realize socialism, but also because they had powerful proletarian ranks and flourishing workers' movements. Engels was particularly optimistic about the German workers' movement, believing its victory—that is, the victory of the socialist revolution—was "within sight," and that Germany could become the stage for the "first great victory" of the European socialist revolution. The aforementioned thoughts of Marx and Engels were based on the reality of the socio-economic development and workers' movements in 19th-century Europe and were adapted to those realities. In 1917, when facing the revolutionary situation in Russia, Lenin not only reviewed and applied the general Marxist theory of proletarian revolution but also reviewed and applied the "decisive thing" in Marxism—namely, its "revolutionary dialectics." In Lenin’s thought, these revolutionary dialectics tell us that we cannot view the proletarian revolutions of different eras and different countries as a single-mode, immutable, or dead thing. Specifically, one cannot demand that the Russian proletarian revolution follow the German workers' movement and socialist movement as a template. Russia’s national conditions differed from Germany’s; thus, the Russian proletarian revolution necessarily possessed many characteristics different from those of the German movements. However, the Russian Mensheviks and the right-wing thinkers of the Second International [4] completely failed to understand this. they criticized and attacked the Russian proletarian revolution for deviating from the German example. In responding to their criticism, Lenin pointed out: "Our petty-bourgeois democrats, all the heroes of the Second International, are as pedantic as ever. What is strikingly noticeable is their slavish imitation of the past. They are all extraordinarily faint-hearted; even the best of them begin to have reservations when it comes to the slightest deviation from the German model, not to speak of the characteristic that all petty-bourgeois democrats have shown throughout the revolution." He further noted, "They all call themselves Marxists, but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics. They have even failed to understand Marx’s plain statements that in times of revolution, the utmost flexibility is demanded." Here, Lenin criticized the Mensheviks and the right-wing thinkers of the Second International for failing to understand "revolutionary dialectics" and the need for "utmost flexibility" in revolutionary moments; they only knew how to blindly imitate the past and dared not deviate a single step from the German model. This contrasted with Lenin’s own emphasis on applying "revolutionary dialectics," advocating for "utmost flexibility" in revolutionary tactics, and daring to depart from the German model (the model of conducting workers' socialist movements, particularly through parliamentary struggle) to choose new revolutionary tactics and means according to Russian reality. That is to say, Lenin’s assertions not only criticized the errors of the Mensheviks and right-wing Second International thinkers, but also reflected his own advocacy for the application of Marxist "revolutionary dialectics." It must also be pointed out that applying "revolutionary dialectics" was not only Lenin’s advocacy and thought but also his revelation of the uniqueness of the 1917 Russian October Revolution—that is, it was a revolution that fully utilized and displayed Marxist "revolutionary dialectics." It can also be understood that regarding the conditions for proletarian revolution, the October Revolution did not cling to previous understandings that only economically developed countries like England, France, and Germany could revolt; it conducted a revolution in a relatively backward Russia. In terms of revolutionary means, it abandoned the German model of workers' socialist movements and parliamentary struggle, choosing instead the method of seizing power through armed force. On these issues, it achieved a transformation and development in human understanding, embodied Marxist materialist dialectics, and practiced Marxist "revolutionary dialectics." Thus, it was a revolution that fully utilized and demonstrated the "revolutionary dialectics" of Marxism.
II. The Profound Inner Meaning of the Particularity of Soviet Russia’s Social Development Path
Due to the particularities of the Russian October Revolution, the Russian proletariat and its party seized state power in 1917. Thereafter, Soviet Russia began the process of exploring paths for building and developing socialism. In his later years, after summarizing the experiences and lessons of practice, Lenin formed and proposed the idea of the particularity of the paths for Soviet Russian social development. What was the profound connotation of this particularity in Lenin's thought? Or rather, what were the important contents of this concept? These are questions worthy of in-depth exploration and study.
In Lenin's thought, one connotation of the particularity of Soviet Russia's social development path is that the proletariat and its party seized power and established a worker-peasant regime when conditions were insufficient, and then utilized the power of that regime to develop the productive forces and social civilization, creating the conditions for realizing socialism, and subsequently establishing a socialist society. As previously mentioned, according to the basic tenets of Marxism, a proletarian socialist revolution can only be carried out in places where the productive forces and various conditions for realizing socialism have reached the necessary height. Clearly, Russia was not such a place. Against the backdrop of the First World War, and at a moment when the labor movement and the peasant war were joined together, the Russian proletariat applied the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism to successfully conduct a proletarian revolution and establish a Soviet regime where workers and peasants were masters of their own affairs. In Lenin's thought, after establishing a worker-peasant regime, the proletariat could use the power of the state in its hands to develop the productive forces and various undertakings in the economy and culture, raising the level of civilization of the entire society. This process is one of preparing the conditions for realizing socialism; at a certain stage of this process—namely, when the various conditions for realizing socialism have been fully prepared—socialist society is then established. Seen this way, the particularity of the Soviet Russian social development path lies in the proletariat first seizing power and establishing a worker-peasant regime when conditions were insufficient, then using the power of that regime to develop productive forces and create various conditions, and subsequently establishing a socialist society. Regarding this issue, Lenin pointed out: "Our enemies have told us more than once that we are making a rash attempt to introduce socialism in a country with an insufficiently developed culture. But they were wrong; we did not start from the end that was prescribed by theory (the theory of all kinds of pedants); our political and social revolution proved to be the precursor of the cultural revolution, the cultural transformation, which we are now facing." Here, the "end prescribed by theory" refers to developing the productive forces, developing the economy, and raising the level of civilization of the entire society. That we did not "start from that end" means the Russian proletariat did not choose the route of first developing the productive forces, the economy, and the level of social civilization and waiting for conditions to be ripe before conducting a proletarian revolution—that is, the route of not engaging in revolution at present—but rather first conducted the revolution and established a worker-peasant regime, and then developed the productive forces and created various conditions. Here, the "political and social revolution" becoming the "precursor of the cultural revolution, the cultural transformation" means that the Russian proletariat’s revolution, the establishment of the worker-peasant regime, and the resulting changes in political and social life took precedence over cultural, economic, and overall social-civilizational development. That is to say, seizing power and establishing a worker-peasant regime became the "precursor" for development in many other aspects. This is precisely the demonstration and explanation of the particularity of the Soviet Russian social development path. Lenin also pointed out: "If a situation which was absolutely hopeless doubled the strength of the workers and peasants and enabled us to create the fundamental prerequisites of civilization in a different way from that of the West-European countries, what was to prevent us?" The so-called "fundamental prerequisites of civilization" here refer to state power and the political system associated with it as the fundamental force for developing social civilization. Soviet Russia’s use of a different method from West-European countries to create the fundamental prerequisites of civilization refers to Soviet Russia acquiring the fundamental power to create civilization through proletarian revolution and the establishment of a worker-peasant regime, thereby realizing its own development—a path different from the development carried out by West-European countries under bourgeois political systems. Lenin further noted: "If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite 'level of culture' is, for it differs in every West-European country), why cannot we began by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture by revolutionary methods, and then, with the aid of the workers' and peasants' government and the Soviet system, proceed to overtake the nations?" The phrase "first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level by revolutionary methods" means the proletariat first establishes a worker-peasant regime through revolution—this regime being the "prerequisite" for developing the social economy and culture—and then uses the power of this regime to develop the economy and culture, allowing Soviet Russia’s economic and cultural levels to surpass those of other countries and enabling Soviet Russia to establish a socialist society.
In Lenin's thought, the particularity of the Soviet Russian social development path and the general laws of world-historical development are not mutually exclusive. The concept of "general laws of world-historical development" was proposed by Lenin in Our Revolution. Its meaning can be understood as the laws of world-historical development revealed by the theories of Marx and Engels: namely, that after ending the feudal system, human society first undergoes capitalist development, and on the basis of the full development of capitalism, carries out a socialist revolution and establishes a socialist society. Although the theories of Marx and Engels had not been historically verified before Lenin proposed this concept—or rather, this law was only theoretical—the relevant theories of Marx and Engels possess a rigorous logic and irrefutable scientific character. However, the development of Soviet Russia did not conform to this law. As mentioned earlier, a proletarian revolution occurred and a worker-peasant regime was established when capitalism was insufficiently developed, utilizing the power of that regime to develop the productive forces and create the various conditions required for establishing a socialist society, and subsequently establishing that society. That is to say, Soviet Russia had its own particular path of social development. How, then, can we explain the relationship between Soviet Russia's particular social development path and the general laws of world-historical development from a conceptual and cognitive perspective? Lenin's thought was that the particularity of the Soviet Russian social development path and the general laws of world-historical development are not mutually exclusive. At that time, the Mensheviks and the right-wing thinkers of the Second International did not recognize this and denied the particularity of the Soviet Russian social development path. In criticizing them, Lenin pointed out: "They have a complete lack of understanding of the following: while the development of world history as a whole follows general laws, it is far from precluding, but, on the contrary, presumes, periods of development which yield peculiarities either in form or in order of sequence." Here, Lenin elaborated on the relationship between the universality and particularity of contradictions regarding the issue of revolution and social development paths. The social development of Soviet Russia embodied the particularity of contradictions. Not only this, but if revolutions were to occur and social development undertakings were to unfold in other countries, the revolution and social development process of every country would have its own particularity. Without the particularity of many countries, there would be no universality (i.e., the universality of human society advancing from capitalism toward socialism and communism). Lenin also criticized: "It does not even occur to them, for instance, that Russia stands on the borderline between the civilized countries and the countries which this war has for the first time definitely brought into the orbit of civilization—all the Oriental countries, countries outside Europe—and that therefore Russia could and was bound to reveal certain distinguishing features; although these, of course, are in keeping with the general line of world development, they distinguish her revolution from those which took place in the West-European countries and introduce certain partial innovations as the revolution moves on to the Oriental countries." Here, he first affirms that Russia's social development path has its particularity; second, he identifies the reason as Russia being a country situated between the advanced Western countries and the backward Eastern countries—that is, Russia was a relatively backward country; third, he specifies that the particularity of Russia's social development conforms to the general line of world development, meaning the two are not mutually exclusive; and fourth, he specifies that the future revolutions and social development paths of even more backward countries in the East will yield even more particularities.
In Lenin's thought, a second connotation of the particularity of Soviet Russia's social development path is that it develops productive forces and creates the conditions for establishing a socialist society through many special measures. It should be noted that from the moment the October Revolution was victorious and the Soviet regime was established, Lenin and the RCP(B) [5] were exploring the use of special measures to develop the productive forces and the economy. For example, Lenin advocated for the equal distribution of all Soviet Russian land to peasants who needed to farm it, the implementation of "supervision and accounting" measures in industrial and mining enterprises, the employment of technical experts and managers from the old society, and the implementation of state capitalism. These measures were not themselves measures for conducting socialist revolution and construction, but rather special measures for Soviet Russia to develop the productive forces and restore the economy, thereby consolidating the Soviet regime. In Lenin's later years, specifically after entering the period of the New Economic Policy, exploration in this area entered a new stage. For instance, he advocated for improving the living and production conditions of peasants and supporting the development of the small-peasant economy; he permitted the opening of private small-scale industrial enterprises in cities and supported their development; he leased a portion of large state-owned enterprises that the state temporarily lacked the strength to restore to foreign capitalists, allowing them to bring capital and technology to Soviet Russia to help restore production; at the same time, he leased a portion of large state-owned enterprises that had not yet resumed production to domestic capitalists for them to restore and manage; he implemented freedom of trade and currency exchange to develop commerce; and so on. These measures were also not measures for conducting socialist revolution and construction, but measures for Soviet Russia to develop productive forces and the economy, thereby creating the conditions for establishing a socialist society. In The Tax in Kind, Lenin defined these special measures as the "intermediate path" or "intermediate links" between small-scale production and socialism. He said: "In order that 'we' may successfully solve the problem of our direct transition to socialism, we must understand what intermediate paths, methods, means and auxiliary measures are necessary for the transition from pre-capitalist relations to socialism." The "direct transition" mentioned here refers to a transition to a socialist society realized on the basis of the full development of capitalism—that is, the action of changing capitalist private ownership into socialist public ownership and moving society into socialism after the victory of the proletarian revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Because there is no intervening layer between capitalist society and socialist society, it is called a "direct transition." Clearly, Soviet Russia's transition to socialism was not a direct transition because its actual social foundation was primarily small-scale production. There is a considerable distance between a society dominated by small-scale production and a socialist society. Over this distance, the proletariat in power must find and implement special measures. As Lenin stated, it is necessary to find "intermediate paths, methods, means, and auxiliary measures." Regarding this issue, Lenin also pointed out: "In the next few years we must learn to think of the intermediate links that can facilitate the transition from patriarchalism and small-scale production to socialism." "Since we are as yet unable to pass directly from small production to socialism, some capitalism is inevitable as the elemental product of small production and exchange; so we must utilise capitalism (particularly by directing it into the channels of state capitalism) as the intermediate link between small production and socialism, as a means, a path, and a method of increasing the productive forces." Clearly, in Lenin's thought, the reason Soviet Russia needed to find special measures or seriously consider the issue of "intermediate links" was that its realistic basis consisted of "patriarchalism" and "small production"; the content of these special measures or "intermediate links" could take many forms, and in terms of their nature, they might be of a capitalist or state-capitalist character; under the background of the workers and peasants firmly holding state power, the implementation of these measures was not to be feared; and the purpose of implementing these special measures or "intermediate links" was to create the conditions for establishing a socialist society, so as to facilitate Soviet Russia’s establishment of such a society.
III. The Goal of Soviet Russia’s Development via a Particular Path is the Establishment of a Socialist Society
Beginning with the Tenth Congress of the RCP(B), Soviet Russia implemented the New Economic Policy—that is, using special policies and measures to restore and develop the economy. It can be said that from this point forward, Russia had stepped onto the road of realizing social development via a particular path. However, what the goal of realizing social development via a particular path might be is a question that has consistently drawn people's attention. Here, it can be said with certainty that in the thought of Lenin and the RCP(B), the goal of development was a socialist society.
Lenin proposed that Soviet Russia’s development through a unique path meant the "political leadership" of the proletariat and its party; that is, it meant they would focus on solving the problems of consolidating the worker-peasant alliance, strengthening the dictatorship of the proletariat, and striving for the complete victory of socialism. The most important policy and measure within Soviet Russia’s New Economic Policy was the implementation of the tax in kind. Lenin and the RCP(B) [6] decided to implement this policy and measure with the aim of allowing peasants to retain their remaining grain after paying the tax—that is, to possess more of the fruits of their own labor—thereby changing the situation from the period of the Civil War [7] where the state power requisitioned excessive amounts of peasant grain, in order to facilitate the improvement of the peasants' living and production conditions. At that time, Lenin and the RCP(B) placed the improvement of peasant living and production conditions in a highly prominent position; as Lenin said, the implementation of the New Economic Policy and the improvement of the living conditions of all people "should start with the peasantry." At this juncture, some within the Party raised objections: to prioritize the improvement of the peasants' living and production conditions over those of the industrial workers was equivalent to putting the interests of the peasantry first. Was there not a danger of "abandoning" the leading position of the proletariat in the state and society and "abandoning" the dictatorship of the proletariat? Lenin criticized such arguments. He pointed out: "The dictatorship of the proletariat is the political leadership of the proletariat. The proletariat, as the leading and ruling class, must know how to direct politics so as to first solve the most urgent and 'thorny' tasks. Currently, the most urgent task is to adopt measures that can immediately increase the economic productive forces of the peasantry. Only through this method can we improve the living conditions of the workers while also consolidating the worker-peasant alliance and the dictatorship of the proletariat." The meaning here is that the proletariat, as the leading class of the state, must possess political vision and be adept at viewing problems from a political perspective. The political problem in Soviet Russia at that time was the weakening of the worker-peasant alliance and the class basis of the proletarian dictatorship. If the living and production conditions of the peasants could be rapidly improved, the peasants would inevitably eliminate the resentment toward Soviet power formed during the Civil War and stand firmly under the banner of the proletariat and the RCP(B); thus, the worker-peasant alliance and the dictatorship of the proletariat would be powerfully consolidated. In Lenin's thought, the consolidation of the worker-peasant alliance and the dictatorship of the proletariat in Soviet Russia was the foundation for the advancement of the socialist cause. Therefore, the fundamental significance of Soviet Russia changing its grain policy and implementing the tax in kind lay in its ability to promote the development and victory of the socialist cause. This is what Lenin meant when he said: "The correct policy for a proletariat exercising its dictatorship in a small-peasant country is to exchange for grain the industrial products needed by the peasants. Only such a grain policy can suit the tasks of the proletariat, only such a grain policy can consolidate the foundations of socialism and lead socialism to complete victory." Seen in this light, in Lenin's thought, the many changes in policies and measures surrounding the grain issue in Soviet Russia—such as allowing peasants to retain more of their produced grain, permitting the circulation and exchange of grain and other agricultural by-products between urban and rural areas, or in other words, achieving development through a unique path—had the fundamental value orientation of "achieving the complete victory of socialism," or establishing a socialist society in Soviet Russia.
Lenin proposed that Soviet Russia’s development through unique paths, such as development through commerce, was intended to "economically construct the foundation of the socialist system." According to the vision of Marx and Engels, socialist society eliminates commodity production and monetary exchange; Lenin and other leaders of the RCP(B) were fully aware of this. At the beginning of the New Economic Policy in Soviet Russia, free trade was restored alongside the implementation of the tax in kind, allowing for free buying and selling within certain local limits. At that time, the issue of conducting commerce on a national scale had not yet been put on the agenda. By October 1921, Lenin finally recognized the necessity and importance of the proletarian state conducting commerce and led the development of practice in this area. Again, some within the Party raised objections: commerce is something "utterly irrelevant, unrelated, and far removed" from socialism and communism; how could a Communist Party, whose goal is the realization of socialism and communism, engage in commerce? In Lenin's thought, regarding the reality of Soviet Russia at the time, commerce was the only possible economic link between the city and the countryside, and between millions of small peasants and large-scale industry. While commerce might appear far removed from communism, it was the unique path of development for Soviet Russia; it was precisely this that could advance Soviet Russia's cause toward socialism and communism. In his article "The Importance of Gold Now and After the Complete Victory of Socialism," he pointed out: "In the chain of historical events, in the various transitional forms of our socialist construction in 1921–1922, commerce is precisely the 'link that we must grab with all our might,' we the proletarian state power, we the leading Communist Party. If we can 'grab' this link tightly now, then in the near future we will certainly be able to master the whole chain. Otherwise, we will not be able to master the whole chain and will not be able to build the foundation of socialist socio-economic relations." Here, he elevated the question of whether Communists could master the "link" of developing commerce to the height of whether they could build the "foundation of socialist socio-economic relations." This so-called "foundation of socialist socio-economic relations" is, in fact, the foundation of socialist society itself. From this perspective, Lenin’s advocacy for Soviet Russia to conduct commerce aimed at laying the economic base for socialist society. Reviewing the work of the RCP(B) and Soviet power over the preceding years, Lenin also proposed: "Economically construct the foundation of the socialist system. In this regard, the most major and fundamental work has not yet been completed. Yet this is our most reliable cause—whether viewed from principle or practice, or from the current domestic situation of the Russian Federation or the international aspect, it is the most reliable cause." This firstly suggests that establishing the economic base of a socialist society is of great significance, and secondly suggests that this task is not yet complete and requires doubled practical efforts. It is evident that Lenin proposed achieving development through unique paths such as commerce with a focus on constructing and completing a socialist society.
Lenin proposed that Soviet Russia’s adoption of unique developmental paths, such as implementing state capitalism, aimed to "transform state capitalism into socialism" in the near future. Following the implementation of the New Economic Policy, because the development of the small-scale economy was permitted and supported, and free trade was allowed and developed, capitalist economic elements grew. At this time, some within the RCP(B) advocated for restricting capitalist economic elements—that is, blocking the channels for the development of capitalist economic elements. Lenin criticized this, saying that if a proletarian ruling party did so, it would be committing a stupidity, a suicide, because such actions would inevitably lead to the failure of its own cause. The correct policies and measures were not to block the development of capitalist economic elements, but to strive to bring this development onto the track of state capitalism. As he pointed out: "The whole problem, both theoretical and practical, lies in finding the correct methods of how to direct the inevitable (to a certain extent and for a certain period) development of capitalism into the tracks of state capitalism, what conditions are needed for this, and how to ensure the transformation of state capitalism into socialism in the near future." It can be seen that in Lenin's thought, state capitalist measures had to be implemented regarding capitalist economic elements; that is, the policies of the Soviet state had to be used to guide and intervene in their development, ensuring that this development benefited the interests of the state and the broad masses of laborers as much as possible. More importantly, Lenin had already indicated the necessity of ensuring that "state capitalism is transformed into socialism in the near future." This shows that in Lenin’s thought, state capitalism was merely a "transition" in the process of development, or an "intermediate link" in the development process, with socialist society being the ultimate goal. Granted, completing the transition to socialism in Soviet Russia at that time was an extremely difficult task. For instance, it was necessary to greatly increase the level of productive forces, allowing small-scale urban and rural production to develop into large-scale production; it was necessary to change the nature of existing relations of production, replacing various forms of private ownership with public ownership; it was necessary to develop science, education, and cultural undertakings to improve the degree of civilization of the entire society and the cultural level of all people; and so on. Lenin clearly recognized the arduousness of the task, while simultaneously demonstrating unparalleled courage, determination, and confidence in overcoming these difficulties. For example, in a report at a relevant meeting, he said: "No matter how difficult this task is, no matter how unfamiliar it is compared to our previous tasks, and no matter how many difficulties it brings us, as long as we all work together, not tomorrow, but within a few years, we will solve this task by any means, and thus, the Russia of the New Economic Policy will become Socialist Russia." This assertion conveyed the message that Soviet Russia’s completion of the transition to socialism—moving from the current state of implementing the New Economic Policy to becoming a truly socialist society—was an inevitable forward trend, and that achieving this goal was not a distant matter. This was the socialist value orientation and the confidence in the inevitable victory of socialism held by Lenin in his later years.
IV. The Historical Status and Contemporary Significance of Lenin's Thought Lenin's thought in his later years regarding the uniqueness of the path of social development in Soviet Russia holds an important historical status.
In the history of scientific socialism, it was the first time that the question of how an economically and culturally backward Soviet Russia could build socialism was systematically and scientifically revealed, manifesting the possibility and necessity of Russia moving toward a socialist society. Scientific socialism is a developing science. In the preface to the 1872 German edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party (hereinafter referred to as the Manifesto), Marx and Engels had already proposed that in applying the basic principles of the Manifesto, attention must be paid to changes in the era and historical conditions. One must grasp and apply these principles starting from new historical conditions, or in other words, flexibly change certain discourses and formulations based on new historical conditions to form understandings and viewpoints compatible with current practice, thereby facilitating the guidance of people's practice. Furthermore, after the end of the 1848 revolutions and the 1871 Paris Commune, Marx and Engels summarized the revolutionary experience to propose new theoretical viewpoints, enriching and developing scientific socialism. After the 1870s, Marx responded in relevant letters to the question of whether Russia could achieve a socialist society on the basis of the rural commune: "[My critic] feels he must absolutely transform my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general path every people is fated to tread, whatever the historical circumstances in which it finds itself... but I beg his pardon. (He is both honoring and shaming me too much.)" [8] Obviously, Marx did not approve of using his theory to explain the problem of Russia's developmental path. This indicates that in his thought, the question of Russia's social development path required new exploration and theoretical development based on Russia's reality. Moreover, regarding the so-called viewpoint proposed by the Russian Narodniks [9] of achieving socialism on the basis of the rural commune, he expressed neither a positive nor a negative opinion—that is, he maintained a cautious and rational perspective. In 1894, Engels proposed a new "four-step" idea regarding Russia's developmental path in relevant works: Russia would soon erupt in a revolution to overthrow the Tsarist system, and this revolution would generate a great impetus, prompting the outbreak and victory of proletarian socialist revolutions in Western countries; the victory of socialist revolutions in Western countries and the establishment of the socialist system would set an example for the Russian people on how to build socialism and provide them with aid and support; with the help of Western socialism, Russia would achieve victory in its socialist revolution and establish a socialist society; other backward countries in the East, with the help of Western and Russian socialism, would move toward the socialist path and establish socialist societies. Although this thought of Engels affirms that Russia could soon move toward the victory of a socialist revolution and establish a socialist society, it emphasizes that the victory of socialism in Western countries prior to Russia must be a prerequisite. Therefore, this idea is less a theory of Russia's path to socialism than it is a theory of the global socialist process, or a theory of the victory of Western socialism.
Lenin continuously enriched and developed scientific socialism through the process of leading the revolution and socialist construction. In his later years, specifically in the major works The Tax in Kind and Our Revolution, he formulated and proposed the idea of the particularity of Soviet Russia's path of social development. For the first time in the history of scientific socialism, this ideation systematically and scientifically revealed how Soviet Russia—a country with a relatively backward economy and culture—could build socialism, thereby demonstrating the possibility and inevitability of Russia's transition toward a socialist society. He argued that the Russian Revolution possessed its own particularity; namely, it was a revolution tied to the First World War. This meant that due to the Great War, a situation emerged in Russia where the workers' movement combined with peasant warfare. The proletarian party necessarily followed this trend and led the people in a revolution to seize power and establish a worker-peasant regime. The Russian proletarian party was armed with Marxist theory and steadfastly executed a Marxist revolutionary line. Both Marxist "revolutionary dialectics" and Marx’s idea that "great flexibility" [10] is required at revolutionary moments inspired this party to resolutely lead the people in a great revolution. Linked to the particularity of the Russian Revolution was the particularity of Soviet Russia's path of social development: the proletariat first seized political power and established a worker-peasant regime when conditions were not yet fully ripe, then utilized the power of that regime to develop the productive forces and create the various conditions necessary for realizing socialism, ultimately advancing toward the victory of the socialist revolution and the establishment of a socialist society. This theoretical system provided an intellectual weapon for the people of Soviet Russia and for those engaged in revolutionary and socialist movements in other backward countries of the East, enabling them to develop theoretical consciousness and theoretical confidence in advancing the cause of revolution and construction.
Lenin's thought on the particularity of Soviet Russia's path of social development holds significant contemporary relevance.
His idea that the proletariat can seize power first and then use the worker-peasant regime to develop productive forces and create the conditions for socialism offers practical enlightenment today. This theoretical system possesses a high degree of compatibility and applicability for the Chinese Communist Party's (CPC) cause of revolution and construction. It underscores the necessity and correctness of the CPC seizing and holding power and carrying out socialist revolution and construction in China. During the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, the CPC already possessed a powerful revolutionary army and had gained the support of all peace-loving, democratic, and progressive people in China. Just as Russia in 1917 saw the convergence of a workers' movement and peasant warfare, China saw a union of all democratic and progressive forces, a union gathered under the banner of the CPC. Given this situation, the CPC should have taken state power—or rather, its assumption of power was inevitable. After taking power, the CPC clearly recognized that China was a backward country, but believed it could rely on the leadership of the Party, the power of the people's democratic dictatorship [11], and the strength of the entire population to transform China's backwardness and build it into a prosperous, strong, socialist modernized country. Following the founding of New China, the socialist praxis and exploration led by the Party encompassed two historical periods: before and after the start of Reform and Opening-up. Regarding the relationship between these two periods, Xi Jinping pointed out: "If we had not established New China in 1949 and carried out socialist revolution and construction, accumulating important ideological, material, and institutional conditions, as well as both positive and negative experiences, it would have been difficult to advance Reform and Opening-up smoothly... The socialist exploration before Reform and Opening-up accumulated conditions for the exploration after it; the exploration after Reform and Opening-up is a continuation, reform, and development of the previous period." Xi Jinping further noted: "The ultimate ideal of communism pursued by Chinese Communists can only be realized on the basis of a fully developed and highly advanced socialist society. It is unrealistic to think we can enter communism in one or two steps." Based on these assertions, one can conclude that since taking power, the CPC has been creating conditions for building a socialist society and striving to explore the correct path for socialist construction—and even now, this process of creating conditions and exploring the correct path is far from over. It must be pointed out that applying Lenin’s aforementioned thought—regarding the proletariat seizing power when conditions are insufficient and using that power to create the objective conditions for socialism—yields an extremely fitting and appropriate analysis of the CPC's praxis in seizing power, conducting socialist revolution, and pursuing Reform and Opening-up. Mastering these Leninist ideas helps people correctly understand the CPC’s practical journey since the founding of New China.
Lenin's thought on realizing social development through "special measures" also offers practical enlightenment. In Lenin's thought and Soviet history, these special measures included improving the living and production conditions of peasants, supporting the development of the individual peasant economy, allowing the establishment of small private industrial enterprises in cities, and leasing out some large state-owned enterprises that the state temporarily lacked the strength to revive to foreign and domestic capitalists for operation. They also included implementing free trade and developing commerce. In Lenin's framework, these measures embodied the "intermediate links" [12] between small-scale production and socialist society. While Lenin proposed these "intermediate links" because he realized that small-scale production could not transition directly into socialism, the Chinese Communists realized the need for special measures not only because their national conditions demanded them, but also because they learned the lesson of having previously copied foreign models. On September 1, 1982, in his opening speech at the 12th National Congress of the CPC, Deng Xiaoping stated that China's modernization must proceed from Chinese reality, as copying the experiences and models of other countries has never succeeded. "To integrate the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete realities of China, blaze a path of our own, and build socialism with Chinese characteristics—this is the basic conclusion we have reached after summing up long-term historical experience." In China, the new or "special" measures adopted since Reform and Opening-up primarily include: the household contract responsibility system; the abolition of taxes on agriculture, animal husbandry, and special products; the "three-rights separation" [13] for rural contracted land; winning the battle against poverty; and implementing the rural revitalization strategy. They also include the establishment of the Shenzhen and other Special Economic Zones; the opening of coastal, border, riverine, and inland central cities to the outside world; joining the WTO; the joint construction of the "Belt and Road" Initiative; the establishment of Pilot Free Trade Zones; and the planning of Free Trade Ports with Chinese characteristics. Structurally, this has involved moving from a single system of public ownership to a system where public ownership remains the mainstay but various forms of ownership develop together; and transitioning from a traditional planned economy to an unprecedented socialist market economy, and further toward a system where the market plays a decisive role in resource allocation while the government plays its role better. Comparing the special measures of the Leninist period with those of China's Reform and Opening-up, the shared spirit is the courage to use measures of a non-socialist nature to develop oneself for the purpose of rapidly strengthening one's own power. This shared spirit shows that Lenin’s thought on development through special measures provides an intellectual catalyst for correctly understanding the CPC’s reform measures. It should be noted that China’s Reform and Opening-up measures have far surpassed those of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in terms of the economic fields involved and the depth of transformation achieved. From this perspective, the the CPC's theory and practice have greatly enriched and developed Lenin's related ideas. Furthermore, Chinese Communists’ understanding of the significance of these measures has moved far beyond Lenin’s. While Lenin saw these measures as temporary "intermediate links" for a specific stage of development, Chinese Communists have elevated this praxis to the level of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Xi Jinping has stated: "We have always believed that the development path of each country should be chosen by its own people. The so-called 'China Model' is the path of Socialism with Chinese characteristics created by the Chinese people through their own struggles and practice. We firmly believe that as Socialism with Chinese characteristics continues to develop, our system will become increasingly mature, the superiority of our socialist system will be further demonstrated, and our path will become broader and broader, exerting an ever-greater influence on the world." Here, Xi Jinping views Reform and Opening-up and the new policies as constitutional elements of the path and system of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, greatly enriching Lenin's thought. This enrichment proves that the CPC's theory and Leninist thought are a continuous lineage, consistent from beginning to end.