Chen Hong and Jiang Bo: Lenin's Early Critiques of Non-Marxist Ideological Trends in Russia

During the 1880s and 1890s, Russia was in a period of social transition, where various social contradictions manifested with increasing intensity. Social trends emerged in rapid succession and political factions proliferated. During this period, centered on the "question of the fate of Russian capitalism," Lenin engaged in a fierce confrontation with various Russian political currents. Among these, the Liberal Populists abandoned the revolutionary theories of Old Populism, advocating for the bypassing of capitalism to reach socialism via a unique path of their own. "Legal Marxism," cloaked in the mantle of Marxism, went to great lengths to laud and praise capitalism. Meanwhile, the "Economists" within the Party revered Bernsteinism ^[1] and advocated for a path of capitalist reform. Based on the historical conditions of Russian social development, Lenin, in the process of struggling against these non-Marxist trends, elucidated the laws and characteristics of Russian capitalist development, defended and developed Marxism, and pointed out the developmental path of the Russian revolution. Re-examining Lenin's early critique of non-Marxist social trends in Russia, as well as the important conclusions he proposed regarding the issue of capitalism, holds significant theoretical and practical importance.

I. The Critique of Russian Populism's "Non-Capitalist Path"

At the end of the 19th century, Russia was in a period of great transformation. In this upheaval, the Populists, representing small-scale producers, sought to establish and maintain the small-producer mode of production. They went to great lengths to deny the universality of the emergence and development of the capitalist economy, ignoring the established fact that capitalism had appeared in Russia. They believed that Russia possessed special historical conditions for its own development and that Russia’s way out was to transition directly to socialism through the village commune ^[2]. Through his critique of the Populists' "environmental determinism," the "theory of the narrowness of the domestic market," and "subjective sociology," Lenin comprehensively exposed the erroneous essence of Populism and demonstrated the possibility and necessity of Russia embarking on the capitalist path.

(1) Critique of the Populists’ "Environmental Determinism"

A key basis for the Populists' denial of the universality of capitalist economic development was their belief that Russia lacked the objective conditions for developing capitalism, and that Marx’s conclusion regarding the inevitable transition from a feudal mode of production to a capitalist one ran counter to Russia’s economic situation. The Populists said: "We do not want England's economic maturity; the Russian stomach cannot digest it." They believed that Russia had neither reached the level of productive forces of Western European countries nor possessed the natural conditions suitable for capitalist development. Vasily Pavlovich Vorontsov argued that even if Russia possessed the conditions to develop capitalist forms of production, the ultimate result of these favorable conditions was that "all arable land now presents a scene of barren pasture and desolation, because the natural grasslands have all been plowed up and no one has sown fodder crops." Consequently, the Russian Populists believed that it would be impossible for Russia to ever reach a level of productive forces like that of Europe, and its only option was to transition directly to socialism through the village commune.

Focusing on the idea of "environmental determinism" proposed by the Populists, Lenin conducted a sharp critique in works such as New Economic Developments in Peasant Life and The Development of Capitalism in Russia. First, in Lenin’s view, after the Emancipation Reform of 1861 ^[3], the seeds of capitalism had already appeared in economically backward Russia. In New Economic Developments in Peasant Life, written in 1893, Lenin proceeded from the general background of the capitalist commodity economy to explain the process of the birth and development of agricultural capitalism, revealing the "direct exploitation" relationship among the commune peasants. He thus scientifically shattered the Populist fallacy that Russia's natural environment was unsuitable for developing capitalism. In The Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin pointed out that it was the social division of labor that differentiated the commune peasants into the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, breaking the primitive communal state of the Russian countryside and forming a capitalist economic structure. Second, Lenin believed that looking at the development of Russian agriculture and industry at the turn of the 20th century, "although the general condition of peasant handicrafts is pitiable—the scale of workshops is very small, labor productivity is extremely low, technology is primitive, and hired laborers are few—capitalism already exists within them." Lenin profoundly revealed the fact that the traditional patriarchal economy of the Russian countryside had already begun to disintegrate under the impact of capitalism and was gradually embarking on the capitalist path. He used this to refute the Populists' clamor that Russia lacked the climate, transportation, and other conditions for developing capitalism. In Lenin’s view, the Populists' insistence on the "Russian communal socialist" path and their ideas—which were divorced from the reality of Russian social development—would ultimately fall into the trap of "utopian socialism."

(2) Critique of the Populists’ "Theory of the Narrowness of the Domestic Market"

After the Emancipation Reform of 1861, a heated discussion broke out in Russia over whether to pursue the capitalist path. The Populists, representing the petty bourgeoisie, claimed that capitalism could not be realized in Russia, whether from a domestic or foreign perspective. The Populists believed that the bankruptcy and differentiation of small production led to a gradual shrinking of the domestic market. Furthermore, because Russia had embarked on the capitalist path quite late, it possessed no advantage in expanding into foreign markets in competition with Western European capitalist countries. Therefore, the Populists arrived at the conclusion of the "theory of the narrowness of the domestic market."

Lenin struck back against these views one by one, laying the foundation for the formation of Russian revolutionary theory. In Lenin’s view, the differentiation of Russian small producers after the reform caused a portion of the means of production to be liberated from the hands of small commodity producers. These means of production were then appropriated by new capitalists; due to new commodity production, these new products in turn expanded the domestic market. At the same time, in the process of production, capitalists created a demand in the market for means of production such as tools and raw materials, thereby expanding the consumer market. That is, "the result of the mass dispossession of our peasantry in the post-Reform era has not been to narrow, but to increase the total volume of national production and to expand the domestic market." Lenin pointed out that what determines the expansion or contraction of the domestic market share is productive consumption rather than personal consumption. The Populists, proceeding from purely abstract theory, were destined to head toward an imaginary utopia. Furthermore, Lenin pointed out: "The problem of realization is simply the problem of how, for every part of the capitalist product, to find another part of the product on the market to replace it in terms of both value and material form." In essence, the problem of realization is ultimately determined by the proportions allocated between various departments; it should not be conflated with foreign trade, as doing so only sacrifices one for the other. While critiquing the Populists’ "theory of the narrowness of the domestic market," Lenin also critiqued their erroneous theory that the development of capitalism caused the "impoverishment of the people." Lenin believed that the bankruptcy of small peasants was a natural phenomenon of capitalist development, the result of peasants excessively expanding their cultivated land due to the need for money. In On the So-Called Market Question, Lenin pointed out: "The wailing about the ruin of our industry owing to the lack of markets is nothing but a deceptive trick of our capitalists, who are trying to conceal their tracks." Lenin believed: "Only the boundless utopianism and naivety of the Populists could mistake the wailing about markets—which are the crocodile tears of a bourgeoisie that has already become quite strong and arrogant—as proof of the 'impotence' of our capitalism!" Here, Lenin sharply exposed the erroneous essence of Populism. Lenin emphasized: "The 'impoverishment of the masses' (an indispensable part of all Populist arguments about the market) not only does not hinder the development of capitalism, but on the contrary, it is itself an expression of that development, a condition for capitalism, and serves to strengthen it." Based on this, using the social division of labor as a foundation and standing on the reality of Russian social development, Lenin scientifically analyzed the relationship between the bankruptcy of small producers and the domestic market, providing a powerful critique of Populism.

(3) Critique of the Populists’ "Subjective Sociology"

Proceeding from subjective idealist sociology, Russian Populism viewed the development of Russian capitalism as an "accidental," "artificial," and "unfortunate" phenomenon. Convinced of Russia's exceptionalism, they attempted a direct transition to socialism through the village commune, believing that the nature of the peasant was inherently inclined toward socialism and that socialist elements were already fixed in the peasant consciousness.

Lenin believed that the Populists' "subjective sociology" was a "reactionary utopia," a "fantasy" divorced from realism and tinged with romanticism, and a manifestation of "their failure to understand social (or historical) materialism." Lenin critiqued it primarily from the following aspects:

First, proceeding from the standpoint of historical materialism, Lenin explored and examined the historical laws of Russian capitalist development, elucidated the evolutionary process of Russian capitalism, and thoroughly shattered the Populists' "destruction theory" of capitalism. Second, Lenin pointed out that the Populists were completely wrong to use "human nature" as the standard for judging social phenomena. In Lenin's view, "Historical materialism confirms the necessity of human actions and rejects the absurd myth of so-called free will, but it does not in the least eliminate human reason, human conscience, or the evaluation of human actions; the idea of historical necessity does not in the least negate the role of the individual in history, but the activities of individuals can only achieve significant results if they conform to historical laws and merge into the struggle of the masses." Here, Lenin explicitly pointed out that the Populists' views were actually delusions attempting to change the direction of historical development according to subjective will. Third, Lenin pointed out the internal contradictions of Populist theory: on the one hand, they viewed the peasantry as the main revolutionary force, emphasized the role of the peasant, and claimed "everything for the peasants"; on the other hand, they viewed the peasantry as a "disorganized crowd" and described the broad masses of people as "the mob." Lenin emphasized that only by correctly recognizing the historical laws of human social development and understanding the role of the masses in the long river of human history can one avoid falling into empty pipe dreams and deviating from the track of real life. Thus, the tragedy of the Populists was that "life left them behind, and they left life behind."

In short, Lenin soberly realized that the economy must be developed under the guidance of Marxism; otherwise, economic construction would deviate from its track and go astray. Lenin objectively analyzed the actual conditions of Russian society, dissected the economic state of Russian agriculture and industry, and further emphasized the foundational role of the social mode of production as well as the historical position and role of the masses. He affirmed the revolutionary nature of the proletariat in the struggle and elucidated that class struggle is the driving force of development in class society, believing that for Russia "there can be only one way out of this society, a way that inevitably follows from the very nature of the bourgeois system, and that is the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie." Applying the basic principles of Marxism, Lenin delivered a powerful blow to the Populists' erroneous views such as "environmental determinism," the "theory of the narrowness of the domestic market," and "subjective sociology." He profoundly exposed that the root of the Populists' "belief in the exceptional way of Russian life and the communal system" lay in an erroneous idealist conception of history, allowing people to recognize the theoretical essence of Populism and consciously resist its influence and harm. In his critique of the Populists' "non-capitalist path" perspective, Lenin further pointed out the direction for the development of Russian capitalism and the tasks of the Russian proletarian party, greatly promoting the spread and development of Marxism in Russia.

II. The Critique of "Legal Marxism" and the "Theory of the Permanence of Capitalism"

In late 19th-century Russia, various social trends emerged endlessly. "Legal Marxism" was a political trend advocated by Russian liberal bourgeois intellectuals, with main representatives including Pyotr Bernhardovich Struve, Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov, and Mikhail Ivanovich Tugan-Baranovsky. On the one hand, the "Legal Marxists" stood with Marxists like Lenin in critiquing Populism; on the other hand, they went to another extreme, doing their utmost to beautify the capitalist system and praise the bourgeoisie. "Legal Marxism" was essentially practicing anti-Marxism under the "legal cloak" of Marxism. Lenin launched a critique of the "Legal Marxists'" erroneous theories—such as "Russian agricultural overpopulation," the "law of diminishing soil fertility," and the "theory of the stability of the small-peasant economy"—exposing the hypocrisy and deceptiveness of their thinking. This enabled people to correctly recognize the laws governing the birth, development, and demise of capitalism, to scientifically grasp the particularity of Russian capitalist development, and to clearly understand the necessity of the proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie.

(1) Critique of the "Legal Marxists’" Theory of "Russian Agricultural Overpopulation"

In The Characterization of Russian Economic Development, Struve attributed the causes of "surplus agricultural population in Russia" to the "incompatibility between population multiplication and the means of subsistence." He argued his point by asserting that "population growth is proportional to the fertility of the land," citing "land scarcity," and claiming that "insufficient production is the fundamental and primary fact of our national economy."

In response, Lenin refuted Struve's arguments point by point in his first work criticizing "Legal Marxism," titled The Economic Content of Narodnism and the Criticism of it in Mr. Struve’s Book. Lenin first critiqued Struve’s view that "soil fertility is proportional to population growth." From Lenin's perspective, on the one hand, the data Struve used to conclude there was a "law of compatibility between population multiplication and means of subsistence" was too scant to be persuasive. On the other hand, if overpopulation were simply attributed to being "compatible with a natural economy," one would have equal reason to believe such overpopulation was more "compatible" with an economy based on serfdom. In reality, slow population growth did not stem from a lack of sufficient means of production and subsistence; the fundamental reason was that the vast majority of these means were controlled by great landowners and big capitalists. Struve’s error lay in "establishing an abstract law of population according to the formula of compatibility between population multiplication and means of subsistence, while ignoring historically specific systems of social relations and their stages of development." He failed to realize the fact that capital had already invaded the agricultural economy—albeit in an underdeveloped stage—and thus completely denied the capitalist nature of overpopulation. Second, Lenin criticized the Narodnik theory of "land scarcity" as suffering from the defects of being abstract and "simplistic." Lenin argued: "This hackneyed Narodnik talk about 'land scarcity' can hardly have any scientific significance; it can hardly be of any use except for 'well-meaning speeches'..." ^[4] Struve’s views on "land scarcity" actually ignored the concrete socio-economic relations of the time—namely, capitalist economic relations. Finally, Lenin criticized the narrowness and ambiguity of Struve’s objectivism. Lenin pointed out that it was precisely because Struve ignored the various stages formed during the development of bourgeois agriculture and ignored class contradictions that he ultimately fell into self-contradictory arguments regarding the peasantry.

(2) Criticism of the "Law of Diminishing Returns" Theory of "Legal Marxism"

The "law of diminishing returns" refers to the theory that the yield of land decreases sequentially as soil fertility declines. The essence of this theory is to conceal the bourgeoisie's exploitation of the working people and to provide a defense for the capitalists. Bulgakov and others inherited and developed this viewpoint.

First, to give the "law of diminishing returns" universal significance, Bulgakov proposed replacing natural forces with human labor. He stated: "That which was once a free gift of nature must now be produced by man." Legal Marxists like Bulgakov believed that over time, humans gradually conquer nature and initiate artificial production processes. To this, Lenin pointed out that the Legal Marxists had degenerated to the level of vulgar economics, and that Bulgakov "is moving backward, retreating to the bourgeois political economy that covers up social relations with fictitious 'eternal laws'." In Lenin’s view, Bulgakov’s "law of diminishing returns" was an erroneous conclusion reached by setting aside the level of technology and the state of productive forces. To talk grandly of the "law of diminishing returns" while detached from the reality of technology and production would only cause one to deviate from the track of Marxist economic theory and fall into the abstract, eternal trap of old political economy. Second, Bulgakov viewed technological progress as a "temporary" trend, refusing to recognize its impact on agricultural development and attributing the hardships of workers' lives to nature. Targeting this rhetoric, Lenin pointed out that the development of capitalism in Russia exacerbated the bankruptcy of small producers in agriculture; these bankrupted peasants could only earn a living by renting land from landlords or capitalists. Due to exorbitant land rents, the poor peasants became even more impoverished. Furthermore, the rising prices of agricultural products and intensified market competition forced more and more bankrupted small producers to become wage laborers. It is evident that its real cause of poverty among the Russian worker and peasant masses was the capitalist relations of production. Therefore, Lenin said: "The apologists of the bourgeoisie naturally try to evade the social and historical causes of agricultural backwardness, and blame this backwardness on the 'conservatism of natural forces' and the 'law of diminishing returns.' This notorious law contains nothing but apologetics and muddled thinking."

(3) Criticism of the "Stability of Small-Scale Farming" Theory of "Legal Marxism"

Legal Marxists, represented by Bulgakov, touted the superiority of small-scale production in capitalist agriculture, desperately localized the established fact that large-scale socialized production is superior to small-scale production, and loudly proclaimed the "stability" of the small-peasant economy within capitalist agriculture. They advocated the "theory of the stability of the small-peasant economy," praised capitalism, opposed Marxism, and erased actual class contradictions. Lenin conducted a profound point-by-point critique of these erroneous views of the "Legal Marxists."

First, in the eyes of the Legal Marxists, the factors of mechanical production and the factors of living production were antithetical. They firmly believed in the dominant role of nature in production because the instruments of labor "rest in the hands of Mother Nature." To this, Lenin emphasized that machinery had long since been popularized in agriculture and played a powerful role in transforming it. Who does not know that steam plows, seed drills, and threshing machines are making work more "reliable and precise"? Second, regarding the claim of an "increase in independent peasant households" proposed by the Legal Marxists, Lenin concluded through extensive data analysis that most German peasants were engaged in side-lines, with only a few not doing so. Simultaneously, the social division of labor prompted agriculture to begin integrating with other industries, which inevitably caused class differentiation among the peasants. The daily development of wage labor and small-commodity sectors meant the peasants had less and less independence, and the small-peasant economy was gradually being broken down. Finally, the Legal Marxists preached the "stability" of small households. They believed the diligent and hardworking qualities of small peasants were the root of their long-term stability. Against this point, Lenin pointed out that they were using the "middle peasant" to gloss over the general concept of the "peasantry." In essence, Bulgakov and others were using the method of switching concepts to cover up the fact of peasant differentiation under capitalist conditions and the proletarianization of the majority, thereby achieving the effect of misleading the public. This was entirely erroneous.

Whether it was the theory of "agricultural overpopulation in Russia," the "law of diminishing returns," or the "stability of the small-peasant economy," these were all fundamentally "fig leaves" used by "Legal Marxism" to extol capitalism and oppose the worker-peasant alliance. Regarding this, Lenin pointed out incisively: "The greatest characteristic of bourgeois philosophers is that they regard the categories of the bourgeois system as eternal and natural categories; therefore, they define capital as, for example, labor accumulated for further production—that is, they consider capital an eternal category of human society, thereby erasing specific historical economic forms..." ^[5] That is to say, the Legal Marxists explained and understood capitalism only from the perspective of the development of productive forces and economic progress under capitalist conditions, completely ignoring the historical transience of the capitalist system—namely, that "under this economic form, this accumulated labor organized by the commodity economy falls into the hands of those who do not work and is used to exploit the labor of others." In other words, the erroneous "Legal Marxist" rhetoric that ignored capitalist relations of production and talked idly of a "perfected" capitalism was destined to run counter to Marxism. In his critique of the Legal Marxists' denial of the inevitable demise of capitalism, Lenin profoundly expounded Marx's theories on class struggle and proletarian revolution. In Lenin’s view, denying the inevitable demise of capitalism was extremely dangerous for the proletariat. The proletariat must adhere to the theory of permanent revolution ^[6], fully realizing that they must continue the revolution on the basis of completing the bourgeois revolution and engage in the struggle to overthrow capitalism to achieve the goal of establishing a socialist system.

III. Criticism of the "Economist Trend" within the Russian Party

At the beginning of the 20th century, social contradictions in Russia became increasingly acute, and mass movements against the Tsarist autocracy grew daily. Simultaneously, the three main political factions in Russian society—the liberal bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeois democrats, and the proletarian revolutionaries—were all promoting their own policies and programs. Among them, the Russian "Economists," who admired Bernsteinism ^[7], momentarily held the upper hand within the Social Democratic Labour Party, becoming a serious obstacle to the establishment of a new type of Marxist party at that time. Regarding this, Lenin launched a critique mainly from the following three aspects.

(1) Criticism of the "Spontaneity of the Workers' Movement" Thought of the "Economists"

In the mid-1890s, the "Economists" who emerged within the Social Democratic Labour Party attributed everything to material circumstances, extolled economic struggle, disparaged the role of politics, turned a blind eye to socialist consciousness, and denied the Party's leading role in the workers' movement. The "Economists" stated in Rabochaya Mysl (Workers' Thought): "...the workers' movement is so full of vitality because the workers have finally snatched their fate from the hands of the leaders and taken it into their own..." Here, the "Economists" completely ignored the leading role of the leaders (the Social Democratic Labour Party) and blatantly touted the powerful vitality—the spontaneity—of the workers themselves.

Based on this, Lenin clearly pointed out that the "Economists" were actually a variant of international opportunism, which dictated that they could not wash away their reformist essence. Lenin pointed out that because the "Economists" were unclear about the relationship between spontaneous and conscious elements, they failed to recognize that the greatest problem currently faced was the lack of thinkers with high theoretical cultivation (i.e., Marxist revolutionaries). In Lenin's view, it was impossible for the workers themselves to spontaneously generate Social-Democratic consciousness; it had to be infused into them from the outside. Therefore, the task of Social-Democrats was to oppose spontaneity and prevent any behavior by workers that detached from or belittled the socialist ideological system, dispelling the workers' spontaneous tendency toward trade-unionism. Russia had to change "what is" (i.e., the Tsarist autocracy), oppose the worship of "what is," and oppose reconciling with it. The "Economists" precisely ignored this point, blindly worshipped the spontaneity of the workers, and became the "tail" of the movement ^[8]. On the basis of profoundly criticizing the "spontaneity of the workers' movement," Lenin further elaborated on the importance of the leading role of the new type of proletarian party in the workers' movement. Lenin believed the key to the victory of the Russian socialist movement lay in the leadership of the proletarian party. He detailed analyzed the leading position of the new type of proletarian party in the revolutionary movement and profoundly exposed the opportunist essence of the "Economists." In 1902, in the book What Is to Be Done? (Burning Questions of Our Movement), Lenin comprehensively expounded the idea of building a new type of working-class party, exposing the reformist essence of the "Economists" who advocated economic struggle and disparaged socialist consciousness. Lenin elaborated on the significance of the Marxist party as the leader of the workers' movement, emphasizing that the Marxist party must clearly realize the importance of advanced theory: "Since socialism has become a science, it demands that it be treated as a science, that is, that it be studied."

(2) Criticism of the "Trade-Unionist Politics" Thought of the "Economists"

The "Economists," represented by Alexander Martynov (i.e., Aleksandr Samoylovich Piker), put forward the slogan "to lend the economic struggle itself a political character," attempting to improve the labor and living conditions of workers through economic reform. On the one hand, the "Economists" extensively promoted political agitation, describing the real conditions of workers' lives and exposing the poverty of factory workers through articles and "exposure" publications. On the other hand, they viewed economic struggle as the most universally applicable means of attracting the masses to participate in active political struggle, advocating that political agitation should be subordinated to economic agitation and emphasizing the primary role of economic struggle.

Regarding these viewpoints, Lenin first pointed out the errors of "political agitation." Lenin believed that the "Economists" devoted most of their energy to exposing factory conditions, which was in fact a form of trade-unionism divorced from Social-Democratic activities. In Lenin’s view, the "political agitation" advocated by the "Economists" was limited to economic exposures—that is, it only concerned the relationship between workers and employers within a specific trade and addressed only the abuses within a specific economic field. This was merely a "purely trade-union" movement. In response, Lenin emphasized the need to actively carry out political education for workers, raise their political consciousness, and increase their initiative in participating in revolutionary activities. Second, Lenin sharply pointed out that viewing the economic struggle as the "most widely applicable means" was entirely incorrect. By citing examples such as peasants suffering corporal punishment and the corruption and bribery of officials, Lenin exposed the attempt of the "Economists" to unilaterally exaggerate the economic struggle and narrow the scope of political agitation. In Lenin's view, the economic struggle advocated by the "Economists" ultimately pulled the Party backward; it was trade-unionist politics divorced from the socialist political path. In reality, the ideas promoted by the "Economists," such as the "most widely applicable means" and "lending the economic struggle itself a political character," were essentially a reformist economic movement. Lenin unequivocally exposed the "Economists" for using the pretext of improving the workers' condition through economic struggle to actually conduct a trade-unionist movement that exaggerated economic struggle and disparaged political struggle.

(3) Critique of the "Economists'" Ideology of "Primitivism" To profoundly expose the opportunist manifestations of the "Economists," Lenin further examined their political errors and analyzed the pathology of "primitivism" ^[9]. Lenin pointed out that "primitivism" mainly consists of two layers of meaning: first, a lack of preparation (cultivation), and second, the narrow scope of the revolution.

First, the lack of preparation refers to a lack of revolutionary consciousness. Lenin believed that it was not frightening for practical workers themselves to lack preparation; what was frightening were those who attempted to justify this narrow theory and who worshiped spontaneity. Lenin wrote: "These people turn up their noses in extreme contempt at the very word 'theoretician'..." This sentence indicates that because the "Economists" did not understand the actual tasks at hand, they erroneously downgraded political tasks while overemphasizing economic activities, advocating that economic struggle should be primary and political struggle secondary. Lenin fully agreed with Marx's view that "all class struggle is political struggle," and based on the harsh political environment faced by Russian Social-Democrats, he emphasized: "The struggle of the workers against the capitalists inevitably becomes a political struggle as it gradually becomes a class struggle." Therefore, the task of the Social-Democratic Labour Party was to transform spontaneous struggle into a political struggle for the realization of social ideals. To enhance the revolutionary consciousness of the Social-Democrats, Lenin proposed in Urgent Tasks that the Party organization must be improved and a central Party organ (newspaper) established, noting: "Only then will our desire to transform the Social-Democratic Party into a vanguard fighter for democracy be realized." Second, the narrow scope of the revolution refers to the lack of a revolutionary organization. Lenin believed: "The critical transitional state of our movement can be expressed in two phrases: there are no people, yet there are many people." In other words, "many people" meant that under the oppression of the feudal autocratic system, people were increasingly dissatisfied and indignant; these people would become the main force against the autocracy. "No people" referred to the lack of a revolutionary organization with unified leadership. Thus, Lenin believed the most urgent task was to train "worker-revolutionaries" rather than reducing workers to the "working masses." Regarding this, Lenin further emphasized in A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy that the primary task of the Social-Democratic Labour Party was "overthrowing the autocracy and striving for political liberty." In Lenin's view, during the early stages of the revolution, the fragmentation and instability of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party gave the "Economists" an opportunity. The "Economists" attempted to "make use of the fashionable Bernsteinism ^[10], the fashionable 'criticism of Marxism,' to spread old bourgeois ideas under a new banner." Lenin further emphasized that the link between the workers' movement and the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party must be strengthened, and a unified political party organization must be established. In Lenin's view, the Russian working class harbored infinite revolutionary power; its political consciousness needed constant elevation so it could unite with all forces of Russian revolutionaries to conduct the political struggle. Lenin emphasized: "We are living through a stormy period: Russian history is advancing with giant strides, and every year now signifies more than decades of 'tranquil' periods. We are summing up the results of the half-century of the post-Reform ^[11] era and laying the foundation-stones of the socio-political structures which will determine the fate of the whole country for a long time to come." Here, while affirming the Russian social revolution, Lenin further pointed out the importance of training revolutionary leaders and uniting the militant organization of revolutionaries with the Russian proletarian masses.

IV. The Contemporary Value of Lenin's Early Critiques of Russian Non-Marxist Trends of Thought Lenin's early struggle against Russian non-Marxist trends and the important theoretical viewpoints he proposed during these struggles profoundly revealed the general laws of capitalist economic development, enriched and developed Marxist economic theory, and pointed the way forward for the future social development of Russia. An in-depth examination of Lenin's critique of Russian non-Marxist trends provides a powerful theoretical weapon for critiquing erroneous social trends in the present era, dialectically analyzing new changes in contemporary capitalism, and defending Marxism.

(1) Scientifically Analyzing Contemporary Social Trends and Providing Theoretical Weapons for Critiquing Erroneous Trends When Russia faced the question of "whither to go" at the turn of the 20th century, non-Marxist trends such as Narodnism, "Legal Marxism," and opportunism grew clandestinely, seriously impacting and hindering the spread and development of Marxism in Russia. Amidst the fierce collision of various erroneous trends, Lenin adhered to the Marxist standpoint, viewpoints, and methods, conducting a thorough critique of the Liberal Narodniks' theory of "direct transition from the village commune to socialism," the "Legal Marxists'" rhetoric that tried to beautify capitalism, and the "political reformism" of the opportunists within the Party. Lenin emphasized that the Russian revolution must be guided by Marxism: "Only a party guided by an advanced theory can act as an advanced fighter." Lenin's struggle against erroneous Russian trends drew a clear line between Marxist and non-Marxist trends and defended the dominant position of Marxism.

In the context of the continuous and profound development of economic globalization, the increasing penetration of Western ideology has catalyzed the emergence of domestic non-Marxist trends, impacting China's ideological security. For example, non-Marxist trends represented by Narodnism have gradually appeared in the public eye in forms such as extreme democratism and internet populism. Given the complex and diversified trends in the ideological sphere, we must strengthen our "position-consciousness" ^[12] and persist in the guiding role of Marxism in the ideological field. Regarding this, Xi Jinping pointed out: "In the field of thought and public opinion, there are roughly 'three zones': red, black, and gray. The red zone is our main battlefield and must be held; the black zone is primarily composed of negative things—we must dare to 'unsheathe the sword' ^[13] and greatly compress its territory; the gray zone must be vigorously fought for to transform it into a red zone." We must resolutely struggle against erroneous trends, accurately grasp the main themes and essential nature of the Party's historical development, always hold high the banner of Marxism, and continuously strengthen our historical resolve and the "ambition, integrity, and backbone" of being Chinese.

(2) Persisting in Party Leadership and Defending and Developing Marxism in Practice The socialism pursued by Russian Narodnism was a utopia divorced from Russian reality; Russian "Legal Marxism" promoted a bourgeois theory that used the banner of Marxism to defend the capitalist system; and the Russian "Economists" were obsessed with an opportunist theory that ignored political struggle and worshiped the spontaneity of the workers' movement. In response, Lenin emphasized: "The fundamental economic interests of the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution that will replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the proletariat." The spontaneous struggle of the proletariat must have a strong revolutionary leader. Here, Lenin demonstrated the necessity of establishing a unified Marxist party, critiqued the "Economists'" opportunist view against establishing an organization of revolutionaries, and reached conclusions that those bound by bourgeois narrowness could not, thereby providing an intellectual weapon for proletarian liberation and a theoretical guide for the Russian socialist revolution.

"Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." Xi Jinping stressed: "Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology upon which our Party and country are founded; it is the soul and banner of our Party. The Communist Party of China persists in the basic principles of Marxism, persists in seeking truth from facts, proceeds from China’s reality, gains insight into the general trends of the era, grasps historical initiative, conducts arduous explorations, and continuously promotes the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, guiding the Chinese people to continuously advance the great social revolution. Why is the Communist Party of China 'capable'? Why is socialism with Chinese characteristics 'good'? Ultimately, it is because Marxism 'works'!" This dialectical unity—Marxism "working," the CPC being "capable," and socialism with Chinese characteristics being "good"—profoundly reveals the great significance and value of Marxism as the soul and banner of the CPC. On the new journey of building a modern socialist country and rushing toward the Second Centenary Goal ^[14], we must continue to develop contemporary Chinese Marxism and 21st-century Marxism to provide powerful theoretical support for the New Era.

In summary, at the turn of the 20th century, Russia was in an important period of social transformation, facing the major question of the era—whither Russia—politically, economically, and ideologically. From the perspective of the international environment, capitalist contradictions were intensifying, and Russia became the center of revolution. Domestically, various non-Marxist trends emerged in succession, seriously hindering the spread and development of Marxism. In such a complex historical period, Lenin, standing on a Marxist position, successively struggled against Narodnism, "Legal Marxism," and opportunism, resolutely critiquing erroneous non-Marxist trends, defending and developing Marxism, and realizing its "Russian-ization." Studying Lenin’s early critiques provides a reference for modern-day vigilance and critique of erroneous trends. Xi Jinping pointed out: "The struggle of us Communists is always aimed at contradictions, problems, risks, and challenges." However, "the spirit of struggle and the ability to struggle are not innate." On the new journey, we must coordinate the overall strategy for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation with the world's great changes unseen in a century, dare to struggle against various erroneous trends, be fighters who dare to "unsheathe the sword," promote the Sinicization, modernization, and popularization of Marxism, and build a socialist ideology with strong cohesive and guiding power.

(Author's Unit: School of Marxism, Hainan Normal University) Web Editor: Tong Xin Source: Contemporary World and Socialism, Issue 1, 2022