Shu Xin and Liu Kangkang: On the Logical Starting Point of Leninism
Lenin’s exposition of the idea of proletarian hegemony in the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution was the first theoretical fruit of the integration of Marxism with Russian reality. It was the earliest link in the theoretical construction of Leninism and served as its logical starting point. A deep analysis of Lenin’s thought regarding proletarian hegemony in the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution helps clarify many long-standing controversies in Leninist studies at their source. It also facilitates an investigation into the origins and logic of the Marxist theory of Eastern societies, carrying immense theoretical and practical significance.
I. The Complexity of Russian Capitalist Development and the Multiplicity of the Proletariat's Historical Tasks
What exactly was the state of Russia at the turn of the 20th century? What stages and steps were required for the liberation of the Russian proletariat? In the early process of integrating Marxism with Russian reality, advanced intellectuals engaged in heated debates over these questions. Through debates with Russian Liberal Populism and "Legal Marxism," Lenin demonstrated the state of capitalist development in Russia. Taking this as his starting point, he began exploring the path for the Russian proletariat to transform society, thereby initiating the construction of a social development theory for economically and culturally backward countries.
Populism [1] emerged in the mid-19th century as a product of Russian intellectuals combining Western utopian socialist theories with the Russian tradition of anarchist thought. It reflected the specific national conditions of a backward Russia where peasants and small producers constituted the vast majority of the population. Populism overemphasized the exceptionalism of Russian conditions, refused to recognize the universal laws of world history, denied the reality that Russia had already entered capitalism, and rejected the progressive significance of capitalist society. They unilaterally exaggerated the role of peasants and the rural commune [2] in Russian social transformation, going so far as to regard the peasantry as the decisive force for social-historical change and the village commune as the foundation for Russia's entry into socialism. Although Populism underwent several transmutations during its development, the assertion that Russia could bypass the stage of capitalist development and head directly toward socialism—based on the widespread existence of rural communes—remained its central ideological hallmark.
The "Legal Marxists," however, went to the other extreme. In the 1890s, a group of Russian intellectuals published articles in legal periodicals of the Tsarist government under the banner of propagating Marxism—hence the name "Legal Marxism." They opposed feudal absolutism and promoted bourgeois liberalism. "Legal Marxism" maintained an objectivist stance and acknowledged the general laws of world historical development. Influenced by Western European social reformism, though they acknowledged socialism, they believed it existed only as an ideology or a set of values and was unattainable in reality. "Legal Marxism" held that Russia had already fully entered the path of capitalist development in political, economic, and cultural terms. They portrayed capitalist society as the most beautiful and eternal society, claiming that Russia could only reach the future under the capitalist system.
(1) Criticizing the Populist view of capitalism and pointing out that Russian society was already capitalist
The Populists believed that because Russia was an economically and culturally backward country where peasants and small producers made up the vast majority—and because these groups were facing increasing bankruptcy and shrinking purchasing power—a domestic Russian market could not be established. Furthermore, opening and establishing foreign markets was an unattainable goal for a backward Russia. Consequently, the Russian Populists directly "declared Russian capitalism to be rootless and devoid of vitality." Although the Populists admitted that capitalist economic elements had appeared in Russia, they argued this was not an objective result of social development, but rather something "artificially" created by the Tsarist government due to its favoritism toward large-scale industry.
Lenin refuted the Populist views. He pointed out that the bankruptcy of peasants and small producers caused a portion of producers to be "set loose" from the means of production. Rather than being an obstacle to capitalist development, this created a vital prerequisite for it. On one hand, the decisive factor driving the expansion of the domestic market was not the production of consumer goods, but the production of the means of production. Regarding the production of and demand for means of production, Russia was in the early stages of capitalist development. To expand reproduction, emerging capitalists would continuously increase demand for new tools, energy, raw materials, and means of transportation, causing the domestic market to expand. On the other hand, the bankruptcy of peasants and small producers did not mean the shrinking of the domestic market; rather, it was an indispensable condition for its establishment. Their bankruptcy freed them from the conditions of a natural economy; they could only obtain the means of subsistence through the market, while capitalists also had to purchase consumer and luxury goods they did not produce themselves through the domestic market. This was precisely the result of the strengthening trend of capitalist development.
Regarding the issue of establishing foreign markets raised by the Populists, Lenin pointed out that the establishment of foreign markets by capitalist countries was not a requirement born of a lack of a domestic market, but an inevitable result of the logic of capitalist commodity circulation and capital—namely, capital's infinite pursuit of surplus value. It was an inevitable trend for capitalist commodity circulation to break "the state of national isolation and seclusion" and for Russian capitalism to "exceed the limits of the commune, the local market, the region, and the state." In The Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin, based on an in-depth analysis of surveyed data, expounded on the state of capitalist development in Russian agriculture and the three stages of Russian industrial capitalism. He eloquently demonstrated that Russian society was already a capitalist society and that capitalist development in Russia was irreversible.
Lenin further pointed out that the development of capitalism in Russia played a tremendously progressive role, manifested mainly in two aspects: (1) promoting the development of productive forces; and (2) increasing the degree of socialization of production. However, because Russia was still in the early stages of capitalist development, and the development of capitalist industry across various sectors of the national economy remained highly uneven, this progressive role had not yet been fully revealed. Only after large-scale capitalist industry was established would the promotional effect of capitalism on Russian society become increasingly apparent. The more rapidly large-scale machine industry developed and the more the socialization of production increased, the more thorough the collapse of the old economic system and the patriarchal relations of personal dependence would be. These changes would inevitably bring profound shifts to the social landscape of Russia. Given this, Lenin stated, "the Populists' understanding of the process of capitalist development currently underway in Russia, as well as their conception of the structure of economic relations prior to Russian capitalism, must be regarded by us as absolutely erroneous." Lenin noted that the Populists overemphasized the uniqueness of Russian conditions and "not only failed to apply the analysis of capitalism and all its phenomena made by the progressive thinkers of Western Europe to Holy Russia, but exerted every effort to invent excuses not to draw the same conclusions about Russian capitalism as had been drawn about European capitalism," reflecting the "false idealization" inherent in Populist theory.
Through his critique of the Populists, Lenin pointed out that any evaluation or investigation of Russian conditions must take the basic judgment that Russian society is already capitalist as its premise. Based on subjective experience and "one or another moral conclusion," the Populists viewed capitalism as a form of decline and regression. They did their utmost to deny the reality of Russian capitalist development in an attempt to have Russia bypass capitalism and go directly to socialism. This not only violated the objective laws of social-historical development and constituted an unrealistic utopia, but it also served as a major obstacle to the spread of Marxism in Russia and the development of the proletarian revolutionary movement.
(2) Criticizing the "Legal Marxist" view of capitalism and elucidating the contradictory nature and historical status of Russian capitalist development
The development of Russian capitalism was constrained by the remnants of the feudal system, making its progress extremely slow. The Russian people suffered under the dual exploitation of both feudalism and capitalism, leading to an "unlimited deterioration" of their living conditions. To disguise the multiple social contradictions brought about by capitalist development and to beautify capitalism, the "Legal Marxists" employed a sleight of hand by redefining "capital" as "accumulated labor for continued production." They attributed the source of the masses' poverty to natural factors such as the "diminishing fertility of the land." Under such theoretical premises, the exploitative nature of capital's pursuit of surplus value was completely erased. The "Legal Marxists" also claimed that the small peasantry and the proletariat could develop steadily and live in peace and contentment under the Russian capitalist system, advocating for the "beauty" and eternity of Russian capitalist social development.
Lenin first criticized the theory of "diminishing fertility of the land." He pointed out that this so-called "law" was entirely unscientific. In modern society, the causes of social poverty cannot come entirely from nature; rather, the development of relations of production and changes in the mode of production are the primary causes. The fundamental cause of the widespread poverty of the Russian masses could not be a decrease in output due to diminishing soil fertility, but was instead the development of capitalism in Russia. As Russian peasants increasingly lost their means of production and were reduced to wage laborers, those who were going bankrupt or had just become proletarians inevitably found it more difficult to obtain the means of subsistence than in the past. Therefore, the law of diminishing soil fertility "contains nothing but apologetics and muddled thinking"; it was a "notorious law" designed to conceal the historical transience of capitalist society.
Secondly, Lenin refuted the "stability of the small-peasant economy" theory. He pointed out that under the capitalist system, small peasants could not compare with capitalists in terms of production technology or scale of operation. To promote the development of productive forces, capitalism has only one method: the constant bullying and squeezing of the vast number of small producers. Thus, the theory of "stable small-peasant economy" under capitalism was pure nonsense. Only by forming an alliance with the working class and engaging in struggle against the bourgeoisie under working-class leadership to completely overthrow the capitalist system could the vast Russian peasantry escape their tragic fate.
Thirdly, Lenin exposed the fundamental difference between "Legal Marxism" and genuine Marxism regarding the view of capitalism. Lenin noted that while on the surface both "Legal Marxists" and Marxists acknowledged the objective necessity of capitalist development, there was a principled distinction. While demonstrating the objective necessity of capitalism, "Legal Marxism" stood in a position of defending it. Marxists, however, sought to distinguish class antagonisms within capitalism and determine their own class position. Not only must Marxists explain the objectivity of capitalist development, but more importantly, they must discern the classes and class struggle existing behind the process of capitalist development and grasp its historical status.
Lenin's understanding of Russian conditions differed from both the Populists and the "Legal Marxists." He believed that Russian society was already capitalist and that its development was of great progressive significance. However, Russian capitalism carried a heavy feudal color; its development would inevitably make social contradictions increasingly complex and sharp, eventually leading to a comprehensive and profound social crisis. In the process of transforming Russian society, the proletariat had to both break free from the shackles of feudal remnants and oppose the exploitation and oppression of the capitalist system. Its historical tasks were characterized by multiplicity. This became the logical premise and realistic basis for Lenin’s proposal of the idea of proletarian hegemony in the bourgeois-democratic revolution.
II. The Theory of Proletarian Hegemony in the Bourgeois-Democratic Revolution and Its Core Essentials
Following his in-depth analysis of Russian conditions, Lenin began to reflect on the various possibilities for the development of capitalism and the realization of socialism in Russia. The idea of proletarian hegemony in the bourgeois-democratic revolution was proposed during the exploration of the future of the Russian democratic revolution and in the process of debate with the Mensheviks.
(1) Leadership of the Russian democratic revolution and the choice of its future
During the period of the 1905 Revolution, Lenin pointed out that the Tsarist autocracy was the greatest obstacle to the progress of Russian social development and the primary target of the Russian revolution. The nature of the Russian revolution was a bourgeois-democratic revolution aimed at sweeping away the remnants of the feudal-autocratic system and promoting the full development of capitalism. The revolution had two possible futures (or results): one was of the 1789-style [3], the other was of the 1848-style [4]. The difference between these two revolutionary paths is manifest. The former is renowned in history for its immense scale, its fierce methods, and the complete thoroughness of its results; the outcome of the latter is a compromise between the bourgeoisie and the feudal autocracy, the implementation of a constitutional monarchy, and a revolution abandoned halfway. Lenin analyzed that both of these revolutionary futures were possible in Russia. He said: "There are two ways [in Russia] of clearing the ground for capitalism. It can be transformed from a serf-holding Russia into a bourgeois Russia under conditions that ensure the maximum welfare of the peasants and the proletarian masses under capitalism, or it can be carried out under conditions that primarily ensure the interests of the two propertied classes: the landlords and the capitalists." Whether the Russian revolution would ultimately follow which path depended on the power struggle between the various classes of Russian society and the struggle between the two lines within the Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP).
Influenced by the struggle between Marxism and revisionism in the Second International, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was characterized by the struggle between two factions and two lines—the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks—from its very inception. During the 1905 Russian Revolution, the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks proposed two entirely different strategies, pointing toward two different futures. Proceeding from the general laws of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the Mensheviks argued that since the Russian revolution was a bourgeois-democratic one with the aim of clearing the path for capitalist development, the proletariat should not attempt to seize leadership of the revolution. Instead, it should try its best to push the bourgeoisie into the leading position. If the proletariat were to hold leadership over the democratic revolution, once the revolution succeeded, the proletariat in power would be forced to overstep the bounds of the bourgeois revolution and push it toward a socialist revolution. Since Russia lacked the conditions for a socialist revolution, this would inevitably lead to failure. Therefore, "the proletariat should be advised not to rise in insurrection, but to wait and organize; to retreat in order to leap further." Lenin judged that, following the Menshevik strategy, the Russian revolution would inevitably move toward an 1848-style constitutional monarchist future. Conversely, the Bolshevik strategy was for the proletariat to strive to seize leadership in the democratic revolution, unite with the broad masses of small proprietors in both urban and rural areas, use violence to overthrow the Tsarist government, establish a "democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants," and lead the Russian revolution toward a 1789-style future. The Bolsheviks would absolutely not take the reformist path of a constitutional monarchy; this was a "militant conclusion drawn from Marxist revolutionary theory." Thus, the disagreement between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks did not lie in their identification of the nature of the Russian democratic revolution, but in which class should lead it, and whether a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or a democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants should be established after the revolution. In Lenin's view, the root of the error committed by the Mensheviks lay in their failure to recognize that the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution possessed different characteristics compared to bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the general sense (that is, the European ones).
First, it occurred in a different era. The European bourgeois-democratic revolutions erupted in the era of transition from feudalism to capitalism. Compared to the proletariat, the European bourgeoisie possessed a more mature class consciousness and revolutionary consciousness; it was the natural leading class of the European bourgeois revolutions. Yet when the Russian revolution occurred, the international bourgeoisie had already lost its progressiveness, the international proletariat had already stepped onto the stage of history, and world history "has undoubtedly entered a new era." Furthermore, the European revolutions took place under socio-historical conditions where the feudal system was in decline; the task was to overthrow feudalism and establish and develop capitalism. The Russian bourgeois revolution, however, was not carried out on the basis of a pure feudal system, but on the basis of capitalist relations of production; its aim was to allow the insufficiently developed capitalism to develop fully. Lenin said: The Russian revolution "is being carried out on the basis of capitalist relations of production, and the result of the change will inevitably be the further development of precisely those relations of production. In simple terms... the rule of capital will remain." In light of this, on the issue of leadership of the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks "must by no means bind themselves to old-fashioned formulas" and cannot view the problems of the Russian revolution through the lens of a bygone era.
Second, the Russian bourgeoisie lacked the political demand to carry the bourgeois-democratic revolution through to the end. Russian capitalism developed under the impetus of the serfdom reforms implemented by the Tsarist government; the Russian bourgeoisie had a thousand-and-one links to the feudal-autocratic system, and many of the big bourgeoisie were themselves transformed from feudal bureaucrats. The interests of the Russian bourgeoisie were not so much constrained by the remnants of the old system as they were tied closely to them. Therefore, the Russian bourgeoisie was more inclined to retain part of the old system rather than completely overthrow it. Lenin said that while the bourgeoisie attempted to strive for freedom on one hand, on the other hand it "always extends the other hand to the Tsar, assuring him that it will maintain and consolidate his power, reconcile the peasants with the landlords, and pacify the 'troublesome' workers." They hoped the revolution would take a moderate and gradual reformist form, hoping that "the revolution would not sweep away all the remnants of the old era too resolutely... that the revolution would not be very thorough, would not be carried to the end, would not be resolute and ruthless." Lenin emphasized that, influenced by its own property and economic status, the bourgeoisie would turn reactionary when the high tide of the revolution arrived, joining the Tsarist autocratic government to prevent the proletariat and the peasantry from pushing the revolution forward. In this sense, "the class position of the bourgeoisie in capitalist society inevitably makes it inconsistent in the democratic revolution," and "the bourgeoisie betrays the cause of liberty; the bourgeoisie is incapable of carrying out consistent democracy." In short, Lenin believed that the bourgeoisie lacked the political demand to take the democratic revolution to its conclusion. If the bourgeoisie held leadership over the democratic revolution, the Russian revolution would inevitably take the path of reformist compromise with the Tsarist government, resulting in the implementation of a constitutional monarchy and a revolution abandoned halfway.
Third, the Russian proletariat was the political force to lead the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution to a complete victory. The Russian proletariat suffered under the dual oppression of feudalism and capitalism and was the most consistently revolutionary class in Russia. By the turn of the 20th century, the Russian proletariat had already grown into an independent political force; the proletarian party organization had been established and possessed a group of mature Marxist theorists and extensive propaganda publications. Based on this, Lenin called on the proletariat "not to be indifferent to the bourgeois revolution, and not to leave the leadership of the revolution to the bourgeoisie, but on the contrary, to take the most active part in the revolution and struggle most resolutely for consistent proletarian democracy and for carrying the revolution to the end."
Fourth, the seizure of leadership by the proletariat did not imply a change in the nature of the Russian revolution. The nature of the Russian revolution was determined by its economic content, the class composition of society, and the degree of consciousness of the Russian masses. Regarding the economic content of the revolution, since serfdom severely hindered the development of Russian capitalism, the contradiction between the feudal-autocratic system and capitalist development became the primary contradiction in Russia. What the Russian revolution opposed was feudal land ownership, not bourgeois ownership; workers and peasants sought rights and interests within the framework of capitalism, and capitalism was to be developed after the revolution's victory. Lenin said: "All Social Democrats are convinced that our revolution, in terms of the content of the socio-economic transformations currently underway, is a bourgeois revolution." "Only the most ignorant people can ignore the bourgeois character of the present democratic revolution." From the perspective of the class situation in Russian society, Russia was a country where the small-peasant economy accounted for a large proportion; a broad stratum of peasants and small proprietors existed between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The existence of this massive "middle stratum" dictated that the Russian revolution could not be a socialist revolution. This is because "the difference between the democratic transformation and the socialist transformation lies in nothing other than the existence of the numerous peasantry and petty bourgeoisie, who can support the democratic transformation but cannot as yet support the socialist transformation." Lenin also argued from subjective aspects, such as the degree of consciousness and organization of the Russian proletariat, that Russia did not possess the conditions for a socialist revolution and that the revolution could not overstep the bounds of a bourgeois revolution.
(2) The Core Essence of the Idea of Proletarian Leadership in the Democratic Revolution
The idea of proletarian leadership in the bourgeois revolution was the initial theoretical achievement resulting from Lenin's application of Marxism to Russian reality, bearing distinct Russian characteristics. Its essence was to theoretically and practically decouple the weak bourgeoisie from the bourgeois-democratic revolution, requiring the proletariat to participate in the bourgeois revolution with an independent posture, and to join hands with the small proprietors of urban and rural areas—who made up the majority of the population—to seize and hold power, thereby carrying the Russian democratic revolution to the end and establishing a democratic republic of a capitalist nature.
First, decoupling the bourgeoisie from the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Lenin believed that only by decoupling the bourgeoisie from the bourgeois-democratic revolution in both theory and practice could the victory of the Russian revolution be guaranteed. Lenin resolutely opposed the Menshevik logical proposition that "a bourgeois revolution must be led by the bourgeoisie," and opposed the bourgeoisie leading the Russian revolution toward a constitutional monarchist future. The leading Menshevik figure Martynov [5] argued that if the bourgeoisie were excluded from the revolutionary ranks, it would inevitably weaken the revolutionary forces and lead to the revolution's failure. Lenin argued that excluding the bourgeoisie from the ranks of the democratic revolution would not only not weaken the revolutionary forces, but was actually an important guarantee for the victory of the Russian revolution. This is because the vacillation and betrayal of the bourgeoisie at the high tide of the revolution were the fundamental reasons for its failure. The Russian bourgeoisie was neither the leading class of the democratic revolution nor its source of strength; naturally, it would have no political status in the democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants established after the revolution's victory. This point is entirely different from the Chinese New Democratic Revolution. In the Chinese New Democratic Revolution, while the proletariat was the leading class and the broad peasantry was the core force, the Chinese national bourgeoisie was also one of the revolutionary forces. After the victory of the revolution, the national bourgeoisie held a certain status in the established People's Democratic Dictatorship.
Second, the proletariat leads and unites with the peasantry to seize power. Because Russian capitalism was underdeveloped, the proletariat was a minority in terms of numbers. To lead the Russian revolution to victory, it was necessary to unite with the numerically dominant peasant stratum and establish a political alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry; beyond this, "there is no other force capable of achieving a complete victory over Tsarism." Lenin said: "If the autocratic government is really overthrown, it must be replaced by another government. And that other government... can only be supported by the revolutionary people, i.e., the proletariat and the peasantry"; "a successful transformation cannot but be the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry." It must be clarified that in Lenin's works, the word "peasant" has different connotations in different contexts and must be strictly distinguished. In the early 20th century, by demonstrating the development of capitalism in the Russian countryside, Lenin revealed the shifts in the rural economy and changes in the class structure. The Russian countryside included not only the landlord class linked to feudal land ownership, but also the peasant bourgeoisie (kulaks), the peasant petty bourgeoisie (middle peasants), and the poor peasants (proletarians in the countryside who had lost their land) formed by the development of capitalism. In a broad sense, the word "peasant" should include everyone engaged in agricultural activities, encompassing all classes in the countryside. Clearly, the "peasantry" of which Lenin spoke was not a broad, general reference, but referred specifically to the vast stratum of small proprietors existing in Russia's urban and rural areas. Since Russia was a country dominated by a small-peasant economy and insufficient capitalist development, there existed between the Russian proletariat and the bourgeoisie a numerous stratum composed of the urban petty bourgeoisie and rural small proprietors. This stratum was the main force of the Russian revolution. Since the rural small proprietors were the main body of this stratum, Lenin on many occasions simply referred to this stratum as the "peasantry." However, at times Lenin also expressed the composition of the worker-peasant political alliance very accurately as "the proletariat plus the millions of urban and rural poor who live a petty-bourgeois life."
An important reason given by the Mensheviks for opposing the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution was the claim that the vast masses of small proprietors in both urban and rural areas could not possibly submit to proletarian leadership. Because these small proprietors and the proletariat shared no common economic interests and lacked a common political faith, it was argued that they could not form a unified will. Lenin countered by stating that the question of whether the small proprietors and the proletariat could form a unified will required a concrete historical analysis. Since the urban and rural small proprietors were property owners, it was certain that the proletariat and these small proprietors "lack unity of will on the question of socialism and in the struggle for socialism." However, the current Russian revolution was a democratic revolution, and the relationship between the proletariat and the small proprietors "does not exclude a unity of will on the question of democracy and in the struggle for a republic." In other words, on the question of the nature and developmental stage of the Russian revolution, the contradictions between the proletariat and the small proprietors in a future socialist revolution could not be brought forward into the considerations of the current democratic revolution. The democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry to be established after the victory of the Russian democratic revolution was essentially different from the dictatorship of the proletariat to be established after the victory of the Russian socialist revolution; a strict distinction had to be maintained between the two.
III. The Logical Starting Point of Leninism
Engels once pointed out: "Where history begins, the process of thought must also begin, and the further development of the process of thought is nothing but the reflection of the historical process in an abstract and theoretically consistent form." Lenin’s exposition on the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution constitutes the historical and logical starting point for a Marxist party in an economically and culturally backward country to move toward socialism by opening a path for the Sinicization [6] of Marxism. The theoretical struggle within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party surrounding the idea of proletarian hegemony in the democratic revolution was the earliest encounter in Eastern society between Marxism and revisionism during the period of the Second International. Through this encounter, Lenin realized that only by defeating revisionism could Marxism ensure the victorious development of the Marxist and proletarian revolutionary cause.
(1) Methodological Principles and Initial Theoretical Results of Applying Marxism Based on Russian Reality
At the beginning of the 20th century, a massive debate erupted between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks over how to apply Marxist theory to Russian reality. The Mensheviks believed that, according to the principles of historical materialism, the revolutionary subjective activity [7] of the worker-peasant masses must be subordinate to the determinacy of the productive forces in historical development. Backward Russia could only move toward socialism after passing through a stage of full capitalist development. To achieve theoretical self-consistency, the Mensheviks advocated suppressing the revolutionary subjective activity of the masses and handing the leadership of the revolution to the bourgeoisie, ensuring that the bourgeoisie would hold political power and develop capitalism. This method of abstractly applying Marxism and onesidely pursuing so-called theoretical self-consistency caused the Mensheviks to fall into the mire of reformism and revisionism. The Bolsheviks, however, proposed entirely different methodological principles. They advocated combining Marxism with Russian reality, integrating the subjective activity of the historical subject with the determinacy of the productive forces in practice, and distilling a new theory that both conformed to the basic tenets of Marxism and could solve the complex and sharp practical problems of Russia. They used this as the guiding ideology of the Bolshevik Party.
First, the promotion of the subjective activity of the historical subject. The essence of the idea of proletarian hegemony in the democratic revolution—whether it be the proletarian struggle for leadership or the joint exercise of power by workers and peasants—was the result of the full exertion of the subjective activity of the proletariat and the broad masses. Lenin condemned the Menshevik approach of dampening the revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses for the sake of fitting an abstract theoretical logic, pointing out that such an approach was both wrong and extremely foolish. Lenin said: "The revolutionary mood of the proletariat is rising not by the day, but by the hour. At such a moment, Martynovism is not only a folloy but a crime, for it undermines the exertion of the proletariat's revolutionary energy and dampens its revolutionary enthusiasm." "If we do not take advantage of this energy of the masses’ great festival and their revolutionary enthusiasm to fight ruthlessly and selflessly for a direct and resolute path, we shall become traitors to and betrayers of the revolution."
Second, adherence to the determinacy of the productive forces in historical development. As a Marxist, Lenin was well-versed in the basic principles of historical materialism and understood the determinacy of the productive forces. As mentioned earlier, during the 1905 Revolution, although Lenin strongly advocated for the exertion of the historical subject's agency and demanded that the proletariat seize leadership of the bourgeois revolution, he maintained that the future of the Russian democratic revolution was toward capitalism. Lenin's affirmation of the necessity and progressiveness of the capitalist mode of production in Russia reflected his commitment to the determinacy of the productive forces in historical development.
Third, the initial theoretical results of the Russification [8] of Marxism. Lenin’s thoughts on the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution were deeply influenced by Marx and Engels' ideas on the 1848 German Revolution; they were an application and development of those ideas in Russia. Based on the fundamental premise that the German revolution was bourgeois in nature, and combined with the actual situation in Germany at the time, Marx and Engels wrote the Demands of the Communist Party in Germany. They proposed that the proletariat should form an alliance with the democrats in the revolution, hold high the banner of democracy, overthrow the feudal autocratic government, and establish a democratic republic. Marx and Engels' main views on the democratic republic included: first, as a form of government, its nature is determined by the class content of the state—"so long as it is a form of bourgeois rule, it is as hostile to us as any monarchy"; second, the democratic republic is the highest and final form among bourgeois political forms, the form under which the proletariat and the bourgeoisie can fight the decisive battle and under which bourgeois rule will head toward its doom; third, the proletariat can transform and utilize the democratic republic to create conditions for the development of the proletarian cause. "Our party and the working class can only achieve rule under the form of a democratic republic. The democratic republic is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat"; "For the proletariat, the republic is the ready-made political form for the future rule of the proletariat." The famous "Three Whales" [9] slogan in the history of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was a concise summary of Lenin’s democratic revolutionary program. The "Three Whales" were: the establishment of a democratic republic, the confiscation of all landed estates, and the implementation of an eight-hour working day. It is easy to see that the "Three Whales" were entirely consistent in core thought with Marx and Engels' Demands of the Communist Party in Germany. In Lenin’s view, a democratic republic could "guarantee the maximum welfare for the peasants and the proletarian masses under the capitalist system" and was the advanced form of bourgeois rule. The democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry under proletarian leadership was the only guarantee for establishing a democratic republic in Russia. Clearly, Lenin's thoughts on proletarian hegemony in the Russian democratic revolution were an inheritance of Marx and Engels' ideas on democratic revolution; they were the first attempt to use Marxism to solve Russian practical problems and the initial theoretical result of the Russification of Marxism.
(2) The Earliest Encounter Between Marxism and Revisionism in an Eastern Country
Around the questions of the historical status of Russian capitalism and the leadership of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the Bolsheviks carried out a resolute struggle against the Mensheviks. This was the earliest encounter between Marxism and revisionism in an Eastern country. Through this clash, the Marxist party realized that defeating revisionism is an inherent requirement for ensuring the victorious development of the Marxist and proletarian socialist revolutionary cause.
First, Lenin’s critique of the methodological errors committed by the Mensheviks. Lenin pointed out that the Mensheviks did not start from Russian reality but from abstract principles or quotes from classical authors to argue the line of the Russian revolution. He stated that the Mensheviks sought "answers to concrete questions from a simple logical development of the general truth about the basic nature of our revolution," which not only "vulgarized Marxism" but was "a complete mockery of dialectical materialism." In the polemic with Lenin, the Menshevik figure Martynov cited Engels' conclusions to defend his own views. In the book The Peasant War in Germany, Engels mentioned that it is "the worst thing" if a leader of an advanced class is "compelled to take over the government" before the movement has reached maturity and before the conditions for rule are present. Martynov believed that Russian society did not yet possess the material prerequisites for realizing socialism; if the proletariat seized power in the democratic revolution and implemented socialist policies, it would be exactly the "worst thing" Engels described. Lenin retorted that Martynov was detached from the reality of the Russian revolution, completely failed to understand the main contradiction the Russian revolution sought to solve, and absurdly equated the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" (established after overthrowing feudal autocracy) with the "socialist dictatorship of the working class" (established after overthrowing the bourgeois dictatorship), thereby conflating the proletarian-led democratic revolution with the future proletarian-led socialist revolution. Lenin ironically remarked that Martynov's reading of Engels' words out of context and bringing Engels forward as a "false witness" for his own "confused notions" was a true "misfortune" for Engels.
Second, the Menshevik line was a Russian variant of Second International revisionism. Lenin pointed out that the Mensheviks' advocacy for giving up the leadership of the revolution in the democratic revolution, and their rhetoric restricting the revolutionary actions and confidence of the proletariat at critical moments, was in fact an attempt to promote the reformism of the Second International within the Russian people's struggle for political freedom. It was a Russian variant of Second International revisionism. Marxist parties must remain vigilant at all times to prevent the betrayal of the proletarian revolutionary cause by revisionist lines. Only if Marxism defeats revisionism can it ensure the smooth development of the proletarian revolutionary cause.
In short, under the premise of integrating the dialectical relationship between the subjective activity of the historical subject and the determinacy of the productive forces in historical development, the methodological principle of Leninism is to combine Marxism with the reality of one's own country while opposing revisionism and upholding and developing Marxism in practice. This principle is the essence that runs through all propositions and tenets of Leninism, regulating its dialectical-materialist nature and its national characteristics. Lenin’s elucidation of the development of Russian capitalism and his thoughts on proletarian hegemony in the bourgeois-democratic revolution were both the beginning of the journey of the Russification of Marxism and the logical starting point of Leninism.
During the 1905 Revolution, Lenin believed the future of the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution was the establishment of an American-style democratic republic; thus, there was bound to be a certain tension between proletarian hegemony and a capitalist republic. On the one hand, the proletariat led and allied with the peasantry to hold political power but did not possess the capital to drive socio-economic development, making it difficult to control the economic lifeblood of society. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie possessed the capital to drive socio-economic development but had lost political power. This logical tension in theory determined that Lenin would inevitably push this theory forward. Besides emphasizing the capitalist future of the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution, Lenin also proposed at this time the beautiful vision of Russia moving toward socialism through the bourgeois-democratic revolution. However, this vision of Lenin’s was not yet clear; one can only sense this undercurrent of thought from individual statements in specific contexts. For example, Lenin pointed out that after the Russian proletariat achieved victory in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it would "begin the real struggle for socialism," "allowing the proletariat's next step in the struggle for socialism to be carried out most successfully," and so on.
In Lenin’s thought, the Russian democratic revolution and the world socialist revolution constitute a community with a shared destiny. As early as the draft program for the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party written in 1895, Lenin proposed that "the Russian working-class movement, by its nature and aims, is part of the international (Social-Democratic) movement of the working class of all countries." All subsequent programs of the Russian Party inherited this perspective. The path for Russia to move toward socialism through a democratic revolution was envisioned in three steps. First, the Russian proletariat would seize leadership of the revolution and overthrow the Tsarist government, enabling "all Europe to cast off the heavy yoke of a reactionary military power." Second, the victory of the Russian democratic revolution would greatly stimulate the revolutionary passion of the global proletariat, igniting the flames of world revolution and serving as the prelude to the world socialist revolution. Third, the world socialist revolution would achieve victory, and the Russian proletariat, with the assistance of the proletariat in developed countries, would move toward socialism. Among these three steps, the paramount task of the Russian proletariat lay in the first: leading the Russian democratic revolution to victory. Once this step was realized, the world revolution would "march toward socialism more rapidly, more resolutely, and more courageously." After the victory of the world revolution, Russia, "with the assistance of the socialist proletariat of Europe," could "not only defend the democratic republic but also stride forward toward socialism." In other words, "without the support of the socialist proletariat of Europe for the Russian proletariat, this struggle for the lone Russian proletariat would be almost hopeless and would inevitably suffer defeat." In this process, the Russian proletariat had to achieve two alliances and secure two victories: first, an alliance with the domestic stratum of small proprietors to win the victory of the Russian democratic revolution; and second, as a member of the great international proletarian army, an alliance with the world proletariat to win the victory of the world socialist revolution.
During the 1905 Revolution [10], the idea of the Russian people embarking on the path to socialism under the leadership of the proletariat and its vanguard party existed only as a proposition in Lenin’s mind. Merely a decade later, this proposition was transformed into the guiding ideology and program of action for the Bolshevik Party, achieving the great victory of the October Revolution and opening a new era [11] in human history. To this end, Lenin performed arduous work in theoretical supplementation and creation.
(Author Profiles: Shu Xin, a native of Wuxue, Hubei, is a Professor, Doctoral Supervisor, and PhD in Law at the School of Politics and International Relations, Central China Normal University; Liu Kangkang is a doctoral student at the School of Politics and International Relations, Central China Normal University.)
Web Editor: Tongxin Source: Socialism Studies, Issue 1, 2022.