Tian Hui and Sun Laibin: Lenin's Outlook on Socialist Civilization in His Later Years and Its Significant Value
In the second half of the 19th century, under the intense impact of modern capitalist civilization, the question of a path forward for Russia’s modern civilization became the central theme of reflection for generations of intellectuals. Due to Russia's unique geography and culture, a long-standing debate existed in its history between an Eastern-style path and a Western-style path. From placing hopes in the developmental model of West European capitalist civilization to advocating for "village community socialism" [1] that emphasized Russian exceptionalism, Russian intellectuals underwent an arduous psychological journey. Lenin and a group of fellow intellectuals "found Marxism, the only correct revolutionary theory, through a period of suffering" [2]. In the process of criticizing erroneous trends of thought such as Populism, Lenin pointed out the developmental direction of modern socialist civilization for Russia. To transform Russia’s civilizational backwardness, Lenin—through the practice of socialist revolution and construction—initially identified a feasible path for economically and culturally backward countries to advance toward modern civilization via socialism. In his later years (roughly starting from the spring of 1921), Lenin engaged in profound reflections on the issue of socialist civilization. Although he did not use contemporary formulations such as "material civilization," "political civilization," or "spiritual civilization" in his final works, he frequently employed the concepts of "civilization" (文明, wenming) and "culture" (文化, wenhua). These two concepts possess rich and complex meanings; various interpretations exist within academic circles, and grasping their precise definitions requires analysis according to specific contexts. Lenin’s concept of "civilization" generally encompasses several meanings: first, from the perspective of historical comparison, understanding "civilization" as a more progressive, advanced, and developed stage of social development; second, from the perspective of the development of production, understanding "civilization" as all positive achievements gained by humanity in the practice of understanding and transforming nature and society; and third, in a general sense, understanding "civilization" as being advanced and enlightened in opposition to backwardness and barbarism, thereby indicating a degree of civility. In the context of Lenin’s later works, "culture" is synonymous with "civilization" in a broad sense, while in a narrow sense, it refers to the totality of human spiritual activities and their products relative to economy and politics. Lenin’s late-life reflections on socialist civilization contain rich ideological content and significant value.
I. Creating the Premise for Civilizational Development through "Seizing Power First, Constructing Later"
After the October Revolution, Russia faced a contradiction between an advanced social system and a backward civilizational foundation. Could an economically and culturally backward country truly embark on the socialist path ahead of Western countries? In response to the criticisms raised by Sukhanov [3] and others—who alleged that Russia lacked the productive force prerequisites for building socialism—Lenin, in his article "Our Revolution," combined the universality and particularity of human civilizational development to profoundly elucidate the historical necessity of Russia’s path toward socialist civilization.
(1) "Seizing power first, constructing later" does not violate the universality of civilizational development According to the basic principles of Marxism, when productive forces develop to a certain point, they necessitate breaking the shackles of old relations of production, thereby fundamentally transforming the old superstructure. First, the occurrence of the October Revolution possessed historical necessity. Following the reforms of 1861 [4], capitalism in Russia developed rapidly, yet the vestiges of Tsarist autocracy and serfdom seriously hindered the development of capitalist productive forces, creating an urgent demand for a change in the relations of production. The Tsarist government’s monarchical constitutional reforms ended in failure, and the bourgeois Provisional Government was weak and incompetent, unable to meet the requirements of developing productive forces. The unique environment of World War I provided a historical opportunity for the October Revolution; Lenin led the Russian worker and peasant masses to opportunely transform the democratic revolution into a socialist revolution, achieving victory. Second, the occurrence of the October Revolution did not violate the universality of human civilizational development. Viewed from the historical process of global civilizational development, the transition between civilizational forms is not always uniform. Within specific stages of civilizational development, phenomena of irregularity and overlapping often emerge. "Historically, there have been precedents for feudal society replacing slave society, and capitalist society replacing feudalism, starting from underdeveloped regions." For instance, China entered feudal society much earlier than Western Europe, yet the historical development of capitalist civilization in China occurred later than in the West.
(2) Unique national conditions determine the particularity of civilizational development Russia was situated between the Western "civilized" countries and the various Eastern nations that were being drawn into the ranks of civilization; it was a unique "semi-civilized" country. These distinct national conditions caused Russia's civilizational development to manifest certain particularities. At the beginning of the 20th century, with the development of Russian monopoly capitalism, industrial workers became more concentrated in major cities and large factories. Most came from rural backgrounds and thus maintained close ties with the peasantry. Due to long-term endurance of multiple forms of cruel oppression, they possessed both a fine revolutionary tradition and extremely intense revolutionary demands; most importantly, they had the correct leadership of a strong and powerful Bolshevik Party. As Lenin stated, "the general laws of world history... do not in the least exclude, but on the contrary, presuppose the possibility of certain stages of development manifesting particularities in either the form or the sequence of development." Furthermore, when subjective and objective conditions for revolution were relatively mature, Lenin’s view was that Russia could first acquire the political premises required for socialism and then create the material and cultural conditions necessary for it. This proposed a logic of civilizational development centered on "seizing power first, constructing later." By judging the causes of the Russian Revolution solely through the factor of productive forces, Sukhanov and others committed the error of mechanical materialism. Although Marx and Engels emphasized the decisive role of productive forces over relations of production, they also argued that the superstructure has a reactive effect on the economic base and can transform relations of production through revolutionary means, thereby promoting the development of productive forces. Lenin also discussed the particularity of the social development paths of other backward Eastern nations, emphasizing that "the subsequent revolutions in Oriental countries, which possess infinitely larger populations and infinitely more varied social conditions, will undoubtedly display even more particularities than the Russian Revolution."
(3) The urgency of resolving civilizational development issues after the revolution "A thorough social revolution is linked to certain historical conditions of economic development." First, socialist revolution and complete socialism are two different issues. The victory of the October Revolution at most created the political premises for Russia’s civilizational development; it did not mean the completion of a "thorough social revolution." Without highly developed material and cultural premises, socialism in Russia would remain a mere utopia. Lenin confirmed: "To build socialism, civilization is required." Second, socialism at different stages of development requires different civilizational premises. "For the former premise [the political one], the standard cannot be set too high, otherwise one commits a 'Rightist' error like Sukhanov or Kautsky... whereas for the latter premise [the material/cultural one], the standard cannot be set too low, otherwise one commits a 'Leftist' error, delusional enough to believe socialism has been built when the economy is underdeveloped and civilizational development is insufficient." Finally, after the victory of the October Revolution, Lenin repeatedly emphasized shifting the focus of work toward the economy and increasing labor productivity. The setbacks of War Communism [5] made Lenin soberly realize: "Either we sacrifice all the political achievements secured by Soviet power, or we lay an economic foundation for these achievements." To solve this dilemma, in addition to appropriately adjusting the relations of production, the most fundamental method was to accelerate the development of productive forces.
II. Moving Toward Socialist Civilization via a "Circuitous Path"
After the failure of the policy of War Communism, Lenin gained a deeper understanding of the problem of civilizational backwardness in his later years and frankly admitted: "We have not even completed the construction of the foundations of a socialist economy." Lenin paid closer attention to the basic national condition of being a backward small-peasant country and unremittingly explored a new path for Russia’s socialist civilizational development.
(1) The arduous journey of exploring a transitional path Lenin compared the entire work of the Communist Party to "a promotion exam from the third grade to the fourth grade," believing that Russia would surely graduate successfully from this school. He provided a dialectical evaluation of the policy of War Communism. On one hand, War Communism was a crisis-response measure that performed "limited" service in consolidating Soviet power; on the other hand, this policy did not suit Russia’s national conditions, causing severe dissatisfaction among peasants and even leading to the Kronstadt Rebellion [6]. Lenin frankly admitted: "Reality shows we were wrong." Consequently, Lenin promptly implemented the New Economic Policy (NEP) [7]. The exploration of this "circuitous path" underwent two retreats: from March to October 1921, Russian economic policy chose its first retreat, back to state capitalism and commodity exchange; from October 1921 to March 1922, the second retreat was implemented, moving "from state capitalism to the state regulation of buying, selling, and monetary circulation." The implementation of the NEP initially eased the crisis of Russia’s economic and social development, proving to be a correct path through practice. From late 1922 to March 1923, in his "Late Testament," Lenin reflected on how to implement political reform and a "cultural revolution" while practicing the NEP, grasping a development strategy of coordinated integration between the three. In his final conceptualizations, Lenin broke through traditional theoretical frameworks and systematically elucidated the vision of a circuitous, incremental path.
(2) The great innovation of the circuitous path Through the practice of "actually existing socialism," Lenin broke through the socialist transition theories of Marx and Engels. Adapting to the situation, he struck out on a new path, proposing original insights on transitioning to socialism via a circuitous route. First, this was a path shifting from direct transition to indirect transition. At that time, Russia lacked the material foundation for large-scale socialist industry and could not obtain support from the proletariat of advanced Western countries. Facing cruel reality, Lenin had to admit: "Direct transition to purely socialist forms and purely socialist distribution is beyond our capacity." Therefore, for Russia to build socialism, it had to reach a compromise with the peasantry, first developing agriculture and a small-commodity economy to lay the material foundation for machine-based large industry, utilizing intermediate links to transition indirectly to socialism. Second, this was a path shifting from revolution to reform. War Communism had essentially used revolutionary methods, attempting to use the decrees of the proletarian state to directly destroy old production structures and replace them with new ones. The NEP, by contrast, was an adjustment of already implemented socialist policies—a reform consisting of an incremental transition toward socialism. Lenin profoundly recognized: "For a true revolutionary, the greatest danger—perhaps even the only danger—is to exaggerate the role of revolution." Thus, Lenin applied the "emergency brake" and turned toward the path of reform. Finally, this was a path shifting from advancement to retreat. The NEP was a policy of retreating from an offensive, but it was a strategic retreat—moderate, principled, and intended to transition into a strategic counter-offensive at the opportune moment.
(3) The long-term nature of socialist civilizational development
Lenin pointed out, “No power on earth can save capitalism from collapse, nor can anything block the working class from triumphing over the bourgeoisie” [14]83. Lenin understood even more profoundly that “truly transforming a semi-Asiatic country into a civilized, socialist country” [11]155 would be a long road fraught with hardships and obstacles. First, the recovery of Russian industrial production faced immense difficulties, meaning the path of socialist construction would be a protracted process. A high level of industrial development is a necessary condition for achieving “complete” socialism; yet, after the devastation of domestic and foreign wars, Russia's productive forces had regressed severely. There was a shortage of food and fuel to develop large-scale industry and a lack of capital for heavy industry, “leaving us with an exceptionally difficult and long road” [11]215. Second, the overall backward state of Russian civilization meant that the path of socialist transition would be a protracted process. Building socialism requires civilization, yet the cultural and material foundations of Russia at the time were extremely thin; it would take a long time even to learn how to participate in cooperatives in a civilized manner or how to conduct trade in a Western European fashion. Although Russia had broken the military encirclement following the revolutionary victory, it remained under the economic blockade of capitalist powers. Lenin noted that “the capitalist powers of Western Europe, half-consciously and half-spontaneously, were doing everything possible to cast us back to previous levels” [11]392. Finally, socialism is an unprecedented undertaking, and the exploration of the laws governing its development will be a protracted process. Lenin pointed out that socialism was still in the stage of carving out its path: “There are no vehicles here, no roads, nothing—absolutely nothing that has been previously tested or approved!” [14]459 Lenin believed it was normal for the Soviet government to “do stupid things” [11]289 because of its backwardness. To this end, Russia had to pay a price for its backwardness and poverty; the learning stage required paying “tuition fees” [8].
III. Surpassing Capitalist Civilization via Utilization
Socialism cannot exist in isolation from the main road of the development of human civilization. Lenin pointed out: “We cannot imagine any other socialism than that built upon the foundation of all the lessons and experiences acquired by the massive capitalist culture” [16]252.
(1) The Necessity of Utilizing Capitalism
First, this is determined by the objective laws of human civilization's development. Marx said: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past” [17]669. The development of human civilization is a successive process. Socialism is born out of capitalist society and is established and developed on the basis of subduing and transcending [9] capitalism; therefore, the two cannot be placed in absolute opposition. Second, this is determined by the objective requirements for developing socialism. Socialism is the replacement and transcendence of capitalism, but it can only be built upon the material foundation of modernized, socialized large-scale production. The highly developed material achievements created by capitalism must be fully utilized to build socialism. Lenin argued that the proletariat must abandon the “psychology of the Central African inhabitant” [16]252; although Russia would pay a certain price in the process of utilizing capitalism, it would gain corresponding development. Finally, this is determined by the reality of capitalist development in Russia at the time. In the Russia of that era, prohibiting or blocking the development of capitalism was tantamount to “suicide” [18]210. Peasants then accounted for roughly 80% of the total population, and the relationship with the peasantry determined the stability of the Soviet worker-peasant regime. Only by establishing an economic alliance with the peasantry could the final victory of socialism be achieved. Under these realistic conditions, capitalism was progressive relative to a small-peasant economy. Furthermore, it was necessary to open up to the outside world, implement the system of concessions [10], attract foreign capital, and develop foreign trade.
(2) The Primary Methods of Utilizing Capitalism
In the face of doubts and concerns from within the proletarian party regarding the New Economic Policy, Lenin emphasized not to fear capitalism; the key lay in “learning how to utilize” it. First, Lenin advocated utilizing state capitalism as an intermediate stepping stone to develop the socialist economy. Building on Marxist theory and analyzing Russia's economic structure, Lenin profoundly elaborated on the importance and necessity of utilizing state capitalism during the transition period to socialism. In The Tax in Kind, he systematically outlined several main forms of state capitalism: concessions, cooperatives, commission agencies, and leasing. Lenin advocated guiding the inevitable development of capitalism into state capitalism; internally, this could consolidate the economic alliance between workers and peasants while supervising and overcoming petty-bourgeois forces; externally, it could introduce capital and technology through concessions. Second, he emphasized utilizing advanced capitalist management experience, science, technology, and organizational forms. Lenin opposed subjective fabrication and advocated drawing on capitalist organizational forms of large-scale production, such as syndicates, to establish the socialist economic base. Lenin particularly affirmed modern capitalist management experience, repeatedly emphasizing that “we should organize in Russia the study and teaching of the Taylor system, systematically trialing it and adapting it” [16]171. Lenin also encouraged learning science and technology from the bourgeoisie, as only advanced science and technology could promote the rapid development of the socialist economy. Finally, Lenin emphasized the utilization of bourgeois experts and management talent. Bourgeois experts possessed modern science, technology, and production management experience, which had driven the development of capitalist productive forces. Since Russia had not yet cultivated its own talent, it had to absorb and utilize bourgeois experts to serve socialism. Lenin applied the principle of flexible transformation and education for these experts, granting them appropriate social status politically, generous remuneration economically, and trust in their work.
(3) Primary Means of Controlling Capitalism
Lenin not only attached great importance to the necessity of utilizing capitalism but also remained highly vigilant against the dangers its development posed to society. He focused on its control and supervision to ensure it developed in a direction favorable to socialism. First, two major levers were used to control capitalism: political levers and economic levers such as taxation and pricing. The normative role of the legal system was to be leveraged to crack down on all criminal elements, with doubled sanctions for those involved in tax evasion or price gouging. Second, strict state accounting and supervision were implemented. The development of capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat had to be moderate and placed “under state supervision and control” [15]150-151. Without accounting and supervision, control is an empty phrase. Beyond this, the scope and degree of capitalist activities had to be strictly limited, forcing them to become a “well-behaved” [11] [14]439 capitalism. Third, utilizing capitalism is the means, while surpassing capitalism is the end. The New Economic Policy was a race against capitalism, and its ultimate goal was to serve the civilized development of socialism. This was a matter of strategy and tactics; only by surpassing capitalist countries in economic strength—enabling the people to truly recognize in their economic lives that socialist life is better than capitalist—could final victory be secured.
IV. Outlining the Prospects for Russian Socialist Civilized Development with a Brand-New Vision
In the five works comprising his “Political Testament,” Lenin summarized the experience of Russian socialist civilized development over the past five years and proposed a comprehensively innovative vision for development: “developing the commodity economy, building a new type of democracy, and implementing a cultural revolution,” thereby outlining the prospects for Russian socialist civilization.
(1) Building the Economic Base by Utilizing Commodity-Money Relations
In his later years, Lenin pioneered a brand-new path for economic development: the planned utilization of commodity-money relations. This included the following measures: First, implementing the national electrification plan. Large-scale machine industry is the only economic base for socialism, and to modernize industry, a transition to electrification was required. Lenin convened experts to formulate a national electrification plan, proposing the construction of small power stations in rural areas and the promotion of electrified, socialized production in agriculture. To this end, Lenin proposed: “to move from the horse of the peasant, the rustic, the impoverished—from the horse of economy practiced in a ruined peasant country—to the horse which the proletariat is seeking and cannot but seek, to the horse of large-scale machine industry, electrification, the Volkhov hydroelectric project, and so forth” [11]396. Second, utilizing commodity-money relations to develop the socialist economy. Lenin understood that until large-scale production achieved complete victory and recovery, the small peasant, small-scale production, and small commodities would still predominate in the economy. “We must strive to satisfy the demands of the peasants” [15]53 and allow free trade. Commerce was precisely the “link that must be grasped with all one's might” [14]259; commodity production should be actively developed, and commodity-money relations utilized in a planned manner. Consequently, Lenin called on Communists to learn how to manage the economy and how to “trade in a civilized way.” Third, establishing civilized cooperatives. In his later years, Lenin put forward a brand-new proposition: “the system of civilized cooperators is the system of socialism” [11]369. Through the method of cooperatives, which was relatively easy for peasants to accept, the proletariat could form an alliance with millions of small peasants and realize the transition to the new system.
(2) Innovating State Systems to Build a New Type of Democratic Politics
Following the unique developmental path Lenin explored, Russia, after establishing Soviet power, inevitably had to give full play to the leveraging role of advanced political institutions to promote the development of the economic base. Lenin attached great importance to political institutional reform, exploring a unique path for the development of a new type of democracy in a small-peasant country. Specific measures were as follows: First, reforming state organs and overcoming bureaucratism. Lenin regarded the transformation of state organs as one of the epoch-making tasks, believing that the thorough transformation of the entire state apparatus was the fundamental guarantee for overcoming bureaucratism. The existence of bureaucratism in Russia was long-standing and deep-rooted, making it difficult to eradicate. Under the economic and cultural conditions of the time, it was impossible to eliminate it completely through simple and quick methods; it could only be reduced through “chronic therapy.” This required a set of effective plans: streamlining organizations, improving efficiency, practicing strict economy, eliminating waste, valuing talent, selecting through tiers, and implementing strict evaluations with clear rewards and punishments. Second, enhancing the democratization of internal Party life and improving democratic centralism. Achieving the Party’s own reform is the impetus and source for advancing the new democratization process. To prevent personal power monopolies and Party splits, Lenin began by reforming the Central Committee, absorbing dozens of ordinary workers and peasants into it; he sought to prevent and avoid personality cults and to place leading officials under the supervision of the whole Party; and he granted legislative functions to the State Planning Commission (Gosplan), implementing the Party's principle of respecting knowledge and talent. Third, strengthening the people's right of supervision and developing a new type of socialist democracy. Lenin believed: “The Soviet system provides the maximum degree of democracy for the workers and peasants” [14]183. Historically, it is a higher type of democracy than bourgeois democracy, yet in practice, Soviet institutions faced problems such as formalism. Lenin never evaded these problems, noting: “In words, the Soviet apparatus is accessible to all working people; in practice, it is far from accessible to everyone” [18]150. Faced with the predicament where the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection was a mere facade and the masses were helpless, Lenin set about fundamentally reforming the work of people's supervision, proposing measures such as absorbing large numbers of ordinary workers and peasants into the Central Control Commission and increasing the authority of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection.
(3) Implementing a Cultural Revolution to Strengthen Cultural Construction
Following the improvement of the economic situation after the implementation of the New Economic Policy, Lenin argued that to forge a new type of socialist civilization, a cultural revolution was necessary. "Now, if we can but realize this cultural revolution, our country will become a fully socialist country" [14]:372. To this end, the following measures had to be taken: First, the eradication of illiteracy to escape the state of "semi-Asiatic" [11] incivility. Lenin regarded national literacy as a "general political issue" [14]:362 and launched a literacy campaign throughout Russia. He advocated for increasing the investment of national education funds, prioritizing expenditures for public instruction; raising the status of public school teachers and tangibly improving their material living conditions, so that teachers would be transformed "from the bulwark of the bourgeois system into the bulwark of the Soviet system" [14]:362; and carrying out cultural and educational work among the peasantry. Second, the active assimilation of the civilizational achievements of all humanity. Opposing the cultural nihilism of Bogdanov [12] and others, Lenin pointed out: "Proletarian culture must be the logical development of the sum total of knowledge created by mankind under the oppression of capitalist, landowner, and bureaucratic society" [11]:334. At the same time, he emphasized that one must innovate on the basis of critical inheritance when dealing with the civilizational achievements of humanity, noting that one must "be able to select from the old school what is necessary for communism" [11]:333. Third, the elevation of the cultural literacy of the proletariat and its vanguard. Lenin required institutional workers to study diligently to enhance their professional quality and management capabilities. Consequently, in his article "Better Fewer, But Better," Lenin proposed: "In order to renovate our state apparatus, we must at all costs set ourselves the task: first, to study; second, to study; and third, to study" [14]:384. Lenin believed the focus should be on improving the work efficiency of state organs and filling them with truly outstanding talents.
V. Demonstrating the Major Value of the Socialist Conception of Civilization Through Great Transcendence
Lenin's thought on the development of socialist civilization in his later years is an important component of Leninism. It reflects the organic unity of scientific socialism, Russian cultural tradition, and the trend of modern human civilization. It is a new type of conception of civilization in the history of socialist development and the history of human thought, possessing significant historical, theoretical, and practical value.
(1) A Triple Transcendence of the Concept of Civilizational Development
"Our enemies have often said that it was a rash act on our part to implant socialism in an insufficiently cultured country. But they were wrong: we did not start from the end that was prescribed by theory (the theory of all kinds of pedants)" [14]:372. This passage profoundly demonstrates the creativity and transcendence of Lenin's socialist conception of civilization in his later years.
First, it transcended the path of civilizational development of Western Europe. Leading Russia to open a new path for the development of socialist civilization through a unique historical sequence, Lenin broke the singular model of the Western European capitalist development path. This provided a brand-new choice for countries with relatively backward economies and cultures to explore their own paths of civilizational development. This was a path of development fundamentally different in nature from that of Western Europe: Western Europe followed an endogenous, gradualist path of capitalist civilization, whereas Russia followed a latecomer, leapfrog path of non-capitalist civilizational development. While Western Europe followed a path where the logic of capital was supreme, Lenin in his later years initiated a new path of development that transcended the logic of capital, constructing a ternary structure for modern society dominated by labor: labor (the people) as the leading force, an innovative state, and the guidance of capital [22].
Second, it transcended the Russian Populists' [13] propositions regarding the path of social development. The Russian Populists advocated establishing a socialist system through ancient communal organizations (the obshchina), thereby avoiding the miseries of Western European capitalism. The Populists completely denied the historical progressiveness and necessity of capitalism, advocating that Russia's development of socialism should rely on the peasantry and a small-production economy. Indisputably, the Populists held to a form of utopian socialism. In his early years, Lenin thoroughly criticized the anti-modern civilizational thoughts of the Populists, using facts such as the development of Russian industry and agriculture and new changes in peasant life to fully expound upon the progressive significance of capitalism. He advocated for utilizing the civilizational achievements of capitalism and emphasized using capitalism to develop socialism, thereby achieving a critical transcendence of the Populists' propositions.
Finally, it transcended Marx's later "non-capitalist path" hypothesis. Lenin inherited and developed Marx's precious idea that, under certain conditions, backward countries could possess the civilizational achievements of capitalism without passing through the "Caudine Forks" [14] of capitalism. Simultaneously, he transformed Marx's reflections on whether Russian rural communes could leap over capitalism into a reflection on whether countries with backward economies and cultures could leap over the advanced stage of capitalism. By leading the formulation and implementation of the New Economic Policy, he broke through traditional ideas of direct transition and moved toward socialism through state capitalism, achieving innovation and transcendence in the developmental history of Marxism.
(2) A Great Innovation of the Global Path to Modernization
Prior to the October Revolution, global modernization had undergone centuries of preparation and development, experiencing a typical wave of capitalist modernization. Lenin, however, opened a new historical path for modern socialist civilization, effectively launching a new wave of global modernization and initiating what Li Dazhao [15] called the "Third New Civilization." Leninism not only had a major direct influence on the Chinese Revolution but also served as a medium and bridge for the Communist Party of China to understand Marxist theory. As a pioneer of Marxist theory in China, Li Dazhao was the first to realize that the Russian Revolution was the "creation of a new civilization for the century" [23]:329. In his article "Fundamental Differences Between Eastern and Western Civilizations," Li Dazhao elaborated on the formation process of the new Russian civilization and proposed the "Third New Civilization" view: "Since Oriental civilization is decaying in stagnation, and Western civilization is exhausted under the weight of materialism, if a Third New Civilization does not arise to save the world's crisis, it will not be enough to cross this precipice. The civilization of Russia is truly capable of undertaking the task of mediating between East and West" [23]:311.
For a long time, Western discourse has controlled the field of modernization theory. "Through the interpretation of mainstream Western modernization theory, modernization became a synonym for capitalization and Westernization... In this regard, we should restore the historical status that Lenin's thought deserves in the history of world modernization, recognize its unique contributions by seeking truth from facts, and break the long-standing erroneous cognitive mindset regarding modernization" [24].
(3) Important Inspirations for Creating a New Form of Human Civilization
"The salvos of the October Revolution brought us Marxism-Leninism" [25]:1471. Chinese Communists have led the Chinese people to forge ahead along the path opened by Lenin, "upholding the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China's specific realities and with fine traditional Chinese culture" [26]:13, constantly endowing the "Third New Civilization" with new Chinese connotations. Currently, as we further promote and expand the new path of Chinese-path modernization and create a new form of human civilization, we can draw precious ideological nourishment from Lenin's later socialist conception of civilization.
First, we must deeply understand the universality and particularity of the development of socialist civilization. In his journey of exploring the path of development for Russian socialist civilization, Lenin achieved an ideological leap from "according to books" to "according to experience," and from following the path envisioned by Marx to following a path suitable for Russia's development. This opened a new historical path for countries with relatively backward economies and cultures to move toward modern civilization. It inspires us to both uphold the universal principles of scientific socialism and unswervingly follow our own path.
Second, we must deeply understand the long-term and arduous nature of the development of socialist civilization. For countries with relatively backward economies and cultures to develop socialist civilization is a pioneering exploration. Such countries generally face the difficult problem of social leaping versus civilizational lag, which means the tasks of civilizational development will be long-term and arduous. It inspires us to clearly define this long-term and arduous nature while remaining firm in the developmental direction of socialist civilization throughout the long journey.
Third, we must deeply understand the continuity and innovativeness of the development of socialist civilization. Taking Marxist theory as an example, Lenin demonstrated the continuity of human civilization, profoundly pointing out: "Communism grows out of capitalism; it can only be built from what is left of capitalism" [27]:249. When dealing with the civilizational achievements of humanity, one must innovate on the basis of critical inheritance. It inspires us to achieve a dialectical unity of utilization and transcendence regarding the civilizational achievements of capitalism.
Fourth, we must deeply understand the integrity and focus of the development of socialist civilization. Lenin focused on shifting the work priorities of different periods in a timely manner based on changes in the primary tasks facing the Bolshevik Party. In his final strategic vision, he reflected systematically on the relationship between socialist economic, political, and cultural development, organically unifying the three within the practice of developing Russian socialist civilization. Lenin's exploration inspires us to focus on solving the key problems of economic and social development in different periods while also promoting coordinated economic and social development. Currently, we must particularly focus on the coordinated development of material, political, spiritual, social, and ecological civilizations. Xi Jinping has profoundly noted: "We must have a holistic view, possessing a clear understanding of various contradictions, but at the same time, we must closely pivot around the principal contradiction and central tasks, prioritizing the resolution of the principal contradiction and the primary aspect of the contradiction. By doing so, we can drive the resolution of other contradictions, achieve breakthroughs in key areas within an overall advancement, lead the overall jump in the level of economic and social development through these breakthroughs, and move continuously toward the goal of building a modern socialist primary power in all respects" [28].