Yu Min: Lenin's Communist Faith and Flexible Measures for Socialist Construction in the Spring of 1918
In January 2022, Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the opening ceremony of a study session for provincial and ministerial-level leading officials on studying and implementing the spirit of the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee. He pointed out: “We are a large Party, leading a large country, and carrying out a great cause. We must be adept at strategic thinking and good at looking at and considering problems from a strategic perspective. A correct strategy requires correct tactics for implementation. Tactics serve the strategy and are guided by it. Strategy and tactics exist in a relationship of dialectical unity; we must combine strategic resolve with tactical flexibility.” This assertion not only provided a scientific ideological weapon for the Communist Party of China's governance of the country but also pointed out the correct ideological method for people to scientifically summarize the historical experience of the world socialist revolution and construction.
What this article refers to as the "spring of 1918" is the period from the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between Soviet Russia and Germany in March of that year until the eve of the outbreak of the Civil War in July. During this period, the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Soviet regime attempted to utilize a rare "breathing space" of peace to shift the focus of Party and state work toward the development of production and economic construction. In other words, during this period, the RCP (B) and the Soviet regime made an important attempt to shift the focus of their work. In examining Lenin's thought during this period, one element is his unwavering faith in communism, and another is his advocacy for flexible measures to develop Soviet Russian industrial production and carry out socialist construction. These two elements embody the combination and unity of strategic resolve and tactical flexibility.
I. Lenin’s Unwavering Faith in Communism
The socialist society envisioned by Marx and Engels was a society without commodity production, without classes and class contradictions, and without the state and the state apparatus. Such an ideal society can only be truly realized if it is built on a worldwide scale—or rather, only the victory of world socialism can bring such an ideal society to fruition. Lenin was well-versed in this basic principle of Marxism. He did not view the establishment of the Soviet regime in Russia alone or Soviet Russia's ability to explore paths for socialist construction as the ultimate goal of the proletarian revolution. Instead, he hoped the revolution would continue to advance and achieve victory throughout Europe and the entire world. During this period, he had already proposed the following important viewpoints. From these points, one can see his unwavering faith in communism.
First, the achievements made by the Soviet Russian proletariat are achievements of the world socialist movement and must be extended to all countries. After the victory of the October Revolution, the RCP (B) and the Soviet regime led the people in decisively pushing the cause forward. For example, they seized land from the landlords and distributed it equally among the peasants who needed to till it; they implemented measures for worker supervision [1] in industrial and mining enterprises—that is, the supervision of the production and distribution processes by workers' organizations and the auditing of relevant accounts to restrain the activities of enterprise owners. All of these embodied the achievements gained by the proletariat in its struggle. However, the greatest achievement at that time was the establishment of the Soviet regime. First, Soviet regimes were established in major cities such as Petrograd and Moscow, followed by all cities across the country; six months later, they were established throughout the rural areas of Soviet Russia. The Soviet regime is a tool for the masses to be masters of their own affairs and to promote the development of the cause; it is a weapon for suppressing the resistance of exploiters and defending the fruits of the revolution.
In March 1918, in his report to the Seventh (Extraordinary) Congress of the RCP (B), Lenin pointed out: "There is no doubt that our Soviets are still very crude and imperfect in many ways; anyone who observes the work of the Soviets closely knows this very well. But what is important here, what is of historical value and represents a step forward in the development of world socialism, is the establishment of a new type of state." He meant that the Soviet regime is a "new type of state," and its establishment embodied a great step forward for the world socialist movement, thus possessing significant "historical value." At that time, the RCP (B) proposed the task of revising the Party Program. In Lenin's mind, the RCP (B) Program was both a programmatic document guiding the progress of the RCP (B)’s cause and a banner for propagating the theory and practice of the RCP (B) to the proletarians of the whole world. It should focus on clearly explaining the issue of the Soviet regime. This is what he meant by saying: "We must specifically show the European workers what we have set out to do, how we have set about it, and how this is to be understood." "We have a new type of state in the Soviet regime; we must endeavor to describe its tasks and structure, to explain that... the living soul of this new type of democracy is the transfer of power to the laborers, and the abolition of the apparatus of exploitation and suppression." His point was that the RCP (B) Program must inform the workers of other European countries that the Soviet regime is one where the working people are the masters, representing a new type of democratic system.
Clearly, Lenin's intention was to use the achievements of the Russian people to conduct propaganda among workers in other countries, so as to awaken the spirit and will of workers elsewhere to conduct revolutions and establish Soviets. During the same period, in a draft of the Party Program he personally authored, Lenin wrote: "Use the torch of the worldwide socialist revolution ignited in Russia to the greatest extent possible in all aspects, in order to stop the imperialist bourgeois states from interfering in Russia’s internal affairs or uniting to openly conduct struggles and wars against the Socialist Soviet Republic, and to spread the revolution to more advanced countries and to all countries." In this assertion, he first emphasized that the Russian Revolution and its achievements were the torch of the world socialist revolution, and second, emphasized the need to spread the seeds of revolution to all advanced capitalist countries to promote revolutions in other countries and the world socialist revolution. The aforementioned assertions and ideas reflect Lenin's unwavering faith in communism.
Second, the Soviet Russian proletariat should enable the revolution to "pass to the next link"—the victory of the international proletarian revolution. At that time, because Soviet Russia had signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany and withdrawn from the imperialist war, it had gained a breathing space of peace. The RCP (B) and the Soviet regime decided to shift the focus of work to managing the state and developing production. Looking at the situation then, only by using this breathing space to develop production and the economy could Soviet Russia heal the wounds of years of war and rapidly enhance the country’s comprehensive national strength—especially its national defense—to prevent and oppose imperialist wars of aggression.
In his important work completed at the time, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, as well as in a series of conference speeches, Lenin discussed the significance of shifting the focus of work and the measures for developing production and the economy, striving for this practice to unfold smoothly. It should be noted that in Lenin's mind, shifting the work focus to developing production and the economy was the "link" that the Party and state power had to grasp with all their might at that moment. By grasping this "link" and fulfilling the current tasks, it would be possible for the revolution to "pass to the next link"—that is, the link of the socialist revolution throughout Europe and the whole world. He pointed out: the international situation is extremely serious and difficult; revolutions in other European countries did not break out following the Russian Revolution; the Soviet Russian proletariat is fighting alone and must therefore be cautious. Domestically, it is necessary to consolidate the order of production and society, and develop production and the economy. "This is the characteristic of the special stage of the socialist revolution we are in. This is the link in the chain of historical events that we must now grasp with all our might; only by grasping this link can we successfully solve the current tasks until we pass to the next link—the next link which shines with a particularly alluring brilliance, the brilliance of the victory of the international proletarian revolution." Clearly, Lenin hoped the revolution would pass to the next link and desired the victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries. In his mind, the Soviet Russian proletariat bore the responsibility of promoting the occurrence and development of revolutions in other countries. He noted: "It is also very clear that the extent of the significant assistance we can give to the socialist revolution in Western Europe, which for various reasons has been delayed, depends entirely on how well we solve the organizational tasks facing us." The meaning here is that if the Soviet Russian proletariat could successfully organize the tasks of developing production and the economy and achieve significant results, it would have the capacity to support the revolutions in Western countries, thereby benefiting the victory of world socialism. These assertions and ideas also reflect Lenin's unwavering faith in communism.
Third, the "new giant" of the Western revolution is growing and accumulating revolutionary strength. As mentioned earlier, Soviet Russia gained a breathing space of peace because it signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany. However, when the Soviet delegation negotiated the treaty with the German delegation, the latter proposed incredibly harsh conditions—for instance, Soviet territory already occupied by the German army was to be ceded to Germany, and Soviet Russia was to pay huge war reparations. If Soviet Russia accepted these conditions, it would suffer both a massive loss of interests and a spiritual humiliation. Yet, proceeding from the aim of winning time to consolidate the Soviet regime, Lenin advocated for accepting the German conditions and signing the treaty. Regarding this fact, he pointed out that the Russian Revolution was "retreating"; the purpose of the "retreat" was to wait for conditions to ripen to launch a larger offensive against the enemy.
It should be noted that while Lenin acknowledged the Russian Revolution was "retreating," he simultaneously saw the revolutionary forces in Western countries growing. He hoped for the outbreak of proletarian revolutions in Western countries, so that the Russian Revolution and the Western revolutions could together strike at the rule of the monopoly bourgeoisie in the West. In March 1918, in his speech at the Fourth (Extraordinary) All-Russia Congress of Soviets, he pointed out: "The imperialists are insatiable and will surely burst their bellies, and inside their bellies a new giant is growing; this giant is not growing as fast as we hoped, but he is growing, and he will surely come to our aid. When we see him beginning his first strike, we can say: the period of retreat has ended, and the era of offensive on a world scale and the era of the victory of the world socialist revolution has begun." Here, he compared the growing revolutionary forces in the West to a "new giant," believing it would certainly grow strong and join the Russian proletariat in launching an offensive against the enemy, at which point the "era of the victory of the world socialist revolution" would arrive.
In July 1918, the Fifth All-Russia Congress of Soviets adopted the Constitution of the Soviet Republic, announcing that state power belonged to the workers, soldiers, and peasants, and that it would promote the victory of socialism for the proletariat and all working people. At that time, activities were held in various cities in Soviet Russia to explain the basic content and significance of the Soviet Constitution. On July 26, while explaining the important spirit of the Constitution at a mass rally in the Khamovniki District of Moscow, Lenin pointed out: The Constitution of Soviet Russia protects the interests of the proletariat and all laborers and reflects the ideals of the proletariat. Proletarians throughout the world are greatly inspired when they see these contents. He said: "In Western Europe, the mood of indignation is growing! Our task is: to overcome all obstacles on the road ahead, no matter how serious they are; to maintain the Soviet regime until the working class of all countries rises up and raises high the banner of the World Socialist Republic!" The meaning of this assertion is also that the revolutionary passion of the Western proletariat is rising and its strength is increasing; the Soviet Russian proletariat needs to overcome difficulties and continue the struggle, preparing to join the Western proletariat in striving for the victory of world socialism. These assertions and ideas of Lenin further prove that he possessed a steadfast faith in communism.
Fourth, the Russian proletariat had to fight heroically for the sake of "living socialism," promoting its victory both within Soviet Russia and throughout the world. When the Soviet power was first established, all of Russia was riddled with scars. Even more serious was the fact that famine posed a severe threat to the new regime and the masses. By May and June 1918, the famine intensified, leaving a starving population struggling on the brink of survival. To escape this threat, the Soviet authorities adopted numerous measures, such as implementing a state monopoly on grain sales, strictly prohibiting private trade in grain and related agricultural by-products, cracking down on kulaks [2] who undermined state grain policy by trading on the black market, and organizing urban worker detachments to go to the countryside to requisition grain from the peasantry. However, the problem of famine could not be solved overnight. As the activities of hostile forces at home and abroad against the Soviet power intensified and the Civil War loomed, the struggle surrounding the grain issue became increasingly fierce. At this juncture, Lenin clearly recognized and proposed that the struggle for grain by the Soviet power and the Russian people was, in fact, a struggle for socialism itself. Only by obtaining grain could the urban workers and the Red Army—then under formation—receive necessary supplies, allowing the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the people to continue the cause of consolidating Soviet power and developing socialism. In July of that year, in his report to the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, Lenin pointed out that while the Soviet power had taken a series of measures to solve the grain problem, it was only at this moment that "we are coming into real contact with socialism," and that "we say that only now, when we have taken this path, does socialism cease to be an empty phrase and become a living reality." This assertion proves that Lenin had raised the importance of the grain issue to an unprecedented height, while simultaneously elevating the perception of the realism and difficulty of socialist construction to an unprecedented level.
As mentioned, the measures taken by the Soviet power were often implemented through the promulgation of decrees. In practice, however, hostile forces such as the rural kulaks fought desperately against these decrees and did their utmost to sabotage their implementation. The Soviet power, in turn, organized the people to strike back resolutely. Regarding this situation, Lenin stated in his speech at the aforementioned congress: "If a fight is needed, we shall not hesitate to wage that fight with the hammer of decrees. This is a fight truly for socialism—not for a dogma, not for a program, not for a party or a faction, but for living socialism, for the distribution of grain among the hundreds of thousands and millions of starving people in the advanced regions of Russia, to ensure that where there is grain, it can be distributed more rationally." Here, Lenin referred to socialism as "living socialism" for three reasons: first, to explain that socialism moved from books and party programs into the social practice of the people; second, to show that socialism was then intimately linked to the lives and destinies of the Russian people; and third, to show that it was closely connected to the future of the RCP(B) and the Soviet power. Consequently, he proposed that for the sake of living socialism, one must use the decrees issued by the Soviet power to fight hostile forces with a heavy hand. It must be noted that Lenin linked Russia's "living socialism" to the victory of socialism both within Russia and globally. At the time, the Russian Revolution and the cause of the Russian proletariat had already influenced the West. Left-wing figures in Western socialist movements expressed support through manifestos and articles. Thus, Lenin said: "If we follow the path we have chosen and which has been proven correct by events, if we follow this path unswervingly, if we do not let empty words, illusions, deception, and hysterical clamor turn us away from the correct path, then we have every hope of holding out and resolutely promoting the victory of socialism in Russia, thereby promoting the victory of the socialist revolution throughout the world!" His meaning was that persisting in the fight for "living socialism" and the implementation of Soviet grain policy would lead to the victory of socialist construction in Russia, generate a positive influence globally, and accelerate the occurrence and victory of the world revolution. This series of assertions and ideas from Lenin is a testament to and manifestation of his firm communist faith.
II. "Walking One's Own Path" and Adopting Flexible Measures to Develop Production and the Economy
The phrase "walking one's own path" [3] used here is not the "walking one's own path" spoken of by the CPC in the New Era, nor is it an attempt to project the current CPC concept onto Lenin. Rather, these are the exact words Lenin spoke under the circumstances of that time. In April 1918, Lenin wrote in The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government: "Only that class which marches along its own path without hesitation, which does not lose heart and does not fall into despair at the most difficult, arduous, and dangerous moments of transition, can lead the exploited toiling masses. We do not need frenzied outbursts. What we need is the steady march of the iron battalions of the proletariat." Here, the meaning of "walking one's own path" entails: first, demanding that the Russian proletariat not lose heart in the face of danger and difficulty, but maintain the spirit and courage of continuous revolution; second, demanding that they face the current situation squarely, formulating domestic development policies based on reality without becoming "hot-headed" or detached from practice; and third, demanding that, upon fulfilling the first two requirements, they move forward with a firm and steady pace to advance the revolutionary cause in an orderly manner. This interpretation is drawn from the lines of Lenin’s assertion. Interpreting "walking one's own path" from the context of adjacent paragraphs reveals another of Lenin’s insights: facing the calamities of war, the threat of bankruptcy and famine, and a grim international situation, the Russian petty bourgeoisie were prone to fits of rage and political vacillation—at one moment supporting the proletarian revolution, and the next falling into despair. The Russian proletariat could not act this way; they had to "walk their own path," meaning they had to proceed along the proletarian revolutionary path they had already chosen. (Compared to Lenin’s discourse, the CPC's assertions on "walking one's own path" represent a higher-level, new-content formulation in the history of Marxist development—a major development and innovation of Lenin’s thought.)
Connecting The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government with other major works and speeches from this period, we can grasp another of Lenin’s vital ideas: given Russia’s domestic and international situation and its economic and cultural conditions, the RCP(B) and the proletariat could not immediately build socialism according to the original conceptions of Marx and Engels. That is, they could not immediately establish a society without commodity production and currency exchange, without classes and class distinctions, and without a state or state apparatus. They had to "walk their own path," or rather, determine their own developmental measures based on existing Russian conditions.
Regarding the developmental measures advocated by Lenin during this period, his thinking was as follows: adopt flexible measures to develop production and the economy, or more explicitly, utilize the cultural heritage and economic management methods of capitalism to develop production and the economy. The following elaborates on the specific content of Lenin’s ideas on flexible measures.
First, Lenin advocated that Soviet enterprises adopt the slogan used by capitalist enterprises to strengthen production management—“observe the strictest labor discipline”—to improve enterprise management and develop production. At that time, as the revolution had only recently succeeded, an orderly production system had not yet been established. To put it bluntly, management was chaotic; workers with low consciousness might skip work at will, or fail to exert themselves while on the clock, and some even stole enterprise property. In response, Lenin proposed: "Keep regular and honest accounts of money, manage economically, do not loaf, do not steal, observe the strictest labor discipline—it is these very slogans, which were justly mocked by the revolutionary proletariat when the bourgeoisie used them to conceal its rule as an exploiting class, that have now, after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, become the immediate and principal slogans." He pointed out that while these slogans originated in the capitalist enterprises of the old society to intensify the exploitation of workers and secure profits, they had become "immediate and principal" for Soviet Russia in its mission to develop production. That Lenin advocated for the use of slogans once used by capitalists to manage workers demonstrates his immense flexibility in determining measures for production. In principle, Soviet power was won through long heroic struggle to make the masses masters of their own house; for this power to use capitalist slogans to manage workers might seem inappropriate. However, Lenin focused on the reality of the chaotic production environment. He recognized that applying these slogans could strengthen management, raise labor productivity, and heal the wounds of war. As he stated: "The practical realization of these slogans by the toiling masses is the sole condition for the salvation of the country, which has been half-killed by the imperialist war and the imperialist brigands (headed by Kerensky)."
Second, Lenin advocated for the employment of technical specialists and managers from the old society to strengthen production and economic management. Construction requires a large cohort of experts. At that time, the new Soviet regime had not had time to train its own proletarian specialists, but many from the old society remained in Russia. Lenin noted: "It is not surprising that, when the work of socialist organization is placed on the agenda, we must, in order to solve the practical tasks of socialism, enlist the assistance of a large number of bourgeois intellectuals, especially those who were engaged in the practical work of organizing the largest-scale production under capitalism, primarily the organization of syndicates, cartels, and trusts." He further suggested that former "industrial leaders," "directors, and exploiters" should serve as "technical experts," "directors," "staff," and "consultants." The proletariat needed to fully utilize their knowledge and business experience. Furthermore, excellent foreign specialists could be hired if they were willing to serve. Lenin said: "What we need now from the advanced countries is not the help of socialist organizations or the support of workers, but the help of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist intelligentsia there." To recruit these specialists, Lenin proposed the "special method" of offering high salaries. He suggested that if the Soviet power needed 2,000 top experts and had to pay them 50 million or 100 million rubles a year, the expense was justified from the perspective of the national economy’s transition to the most advanced production methods. This willingness to use high salaries—essentially a departure from the Paris Commune principle of paying officials the same as an average worker—demonstrated Lenin’s flexibility. As a great Marxist, Lenin understood revolutionary dialectics; he knew that at critical moments, one must have the flexibility to prioritize development even if it meant a temporary compromise on egalitarian ideals.
Third, Lenin advocated for reaching a compromise with the cooperatives left over from the old society, utilizing their functions to manage the distribution of consumer goods. In old Russia, many industrial enterprises had established cooperatives whose function was to sell daily necessities to the workers of that specific enterprise. Workers purchased consumer goods at their own enterprise's cooperative at prices cheaper than those at general commercial institutions. These cooperatives were established under the organization of enterprise capitalists and were operated by the capitalists themselves or their agents. While some workers in better economic conditions could purchase shares in these cooperatives, viewed as a whole, the cooperatives were social organizations or institutions controlled by and serving the interests of capitalists. After the October Revolution, these cooperatives continued to exist. At that time, the Soviet regime had a crucial task—the distribution of consumer goods to urban residents—which required an organization or institution to undertake the work. Lenin thought that the cooperatives left over from the old society could be utilized for this purpose. However, the cooperatives at that time were still controlled by capitalists and their agents. To make them serve the Soviet regime and the broad masses of the people, it was necessary to negotiate with their leaders and managers and to be adept at making necessary concessions during the negotiation process.
In The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, Lenin proposed: "Capitalism has left us mass organizations which can facilitate the transition to a mass accounting and control of the distribution of products—the consumers' societies. In Russia they are less developed than in the advanced countries, but nevertheless they have over 10 million members." This meant that the Soviet regime could utilize and exert the function of cooperatives. During this period, the Soviet regime promulgated the "Decree on Consumer Cooperative Organizations." This decree was formulated after representatives from three parties—the Supreme Council of the National Economy of the Soviet state, the cooperatives, and food organizations—reached an agreement through long negotiations. Regarding this, Lenin pointed out: "This decree is an agreement with the bourgeois cooperatives and the workers' cooperatives which still adhere to the bourgeois point of view. It is an agreement or compromise because, firstly, the representatives of these institutions not only took part in the discussion of the decree, but actually had the right to vote, for some of the clauses of the decree were deleted because these organizations strongly opposed them." He gave examples: the Soviet regime abandoned the clause regarding free entry into the cooperatives for all workers, abandoned the clause regarding all residents in a single district joining the same cooperative, and modified the clause regarding the total exclusion of all members of the bourgeoisie from the cooperative management boards, changing it to a prohibition on "owners" of private capitalist enterprises joining said boards. It was precisely because the Soviet regime made many concessions that it achieved its goal of utilizing cooperatives to work for the state power.
It should be noted that after Soviet Russia entered the Civil War, the grain problem—including the rational distribution of grain to residents—became a more severe task facing the Soviet regime. Lenin continued to advocate for the use of cooperatives. However, some within the Party opposed Lenin’s proposal and the utilization of cooperatives. In a speech at a relevant meeting, Lenin pointed out: "We must make use of the existing apparatus, because we cannot build socialism without using the heritage of capitalism. We must make use of all the cultural treasures created by capitalism against us. The difficulty of socialism is that it must be built with materials created by others; but this is the only way socialism can be built. We all know this in theory, and after this year we have seen from practice that socialism can be built only by using the materials created by capitalism against us; we should use all of this to build and consolidate socialism." Lenin’s thought and practice regarding the utilization of cooperatives reflect his extreme flexibility in measures for developing production and the economy. Theoretically and in principle, the process of building socialism should involve the continuous elimination of the remnants of capitalism to promote the growth of socialism. However, Lenin proceeded from the specific circumstances and conditions of the time rather than from theory and principle, flexibly choosing developmental measures.
Fourth, Lenin advocated for drawing lessons from the American Taylor System [4] to improve labor productivity in Soviet Russia. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the American engineer Frederick Taylor created a new system of labor management. Its basic content consisted of, first, using the labor output of a physically strong and skillful worker within a certain timeframe as a benchmark, requiring or forcing all workers to reach that level; and second, studying the movements of laborers during the labor process to affirm necessary movements and identify and negate unnecessary ones, so that all workers performed only necessary movements and were not permitted to perform unnecessary ones. This is the so-called "Taylor System." At the time, many capitalist enterprises in the United States and Europe implemented this system. Clearly, such a system meant, first, the intensification of capitalist exploitation of workers, and second, the damage and destruction of workers' physical and mental health. Regarding this, Lenin evaluated it as follows: "The largest capitalism created in the sphere of labor organization such systems, which, under the conditions of exploitation of the masses of the population, are the most cruel forms of enslavement of the laborers by the minority of the propertied class, of squeezing out of the laborers extra labor, physical strength, blood, sweat, and nerves; but this system is at the same time the latest achievement in the scientific organization of production. The Socialist Soviet Republic should learn this system and, for the purpose of implementing our accounting and control of production as well as for increasing labor productivity, it must also transform this system." It can be seen that he denounced this management system as the cruelest form of squeezing the physical strength, blood, sweat, and nerves of the laborers, but simultaneously affirmed it as the latest achievement in the scientific organization of production. He required the Soviet Republic to learn this management system to facilitate the "accounting and control" measures then being implemented in Soviet Russia, while also requiring the Soviet regime to transform the system.
What were the principles for this transformation? Lenin clearly stated his opinion. He said: "The task facing the Socialist Soviet Republic is, in short, that we must implement throughout the country the Taylor System and the American scientific methods of increasing labor productivity, combining this system with shorter working hours, with the utilization of new methods of production and labor organization, and without the slightest damage to the labor power of the working population." His idea was that while learning from and referencing the Taylor System, working hours must be shortened, and there must be no harm to the workers' bodies or labor power during the labor process. He also proposed the vision that every adult worker could engage in physical labor for six hours a day and state administration for four hours. In short, Lenin’s advocacy for learning from the American Taylor System also demonstrates his high degree of flexibility in determining measures for production and economic development. Since the Taylor System clearly carried the characteristics of intensifying exploitation and destroying workers' physical and mental health, it was diametrically opposed to the liberation of the working class. In principle, the Soviet state should not have referenced or learned from it. But Lenin handled this problem flexibly; for instance, while advocating learning from it, he also proposed it must be transformed so that it could serve to improve labor productivity in Soviet Russia.
Fifth, Lenin advocated that Soviet Russia learn from and reference German state capitalism. At that time, Soviet Russia was a country where small peasants accounted for the vast majority of the population and small-scale production predominated in the national economic system. Under such conditions, it could not transition directly to a socialist society; it had to find an "intermediate link" between itself and socialism. State capitalism was precisely this "intermediate link." In his works of the period, Lenin proposed: "State capitalism would be a step forward compared with the current state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If state capitalism could be established in our country within about six months, it would be a great victory and the most reliable guarantee that within a year socialism will be finally consolidated in our country and become invincible." His attitude and viewpoint were to rapidly and actively implement state capitalist measures in Soviet Russia.
The measures for implementing state capitalism in Soviet Russia at that time were, first, to establish links between private capitalist enterprises and the Soviet state power—for example, the state would supply raw materials to enterprises and purchase their products, or the state power would send personnel to participate in the production management of capitalist enterprises. Second, through the work of state power, some smaller enterprises were consolidated into larger-scale enterprises, with state power sending personnel to participate in their management. However, state-capitalist enterprises remained capitalist enterprises; their means of production and products were still possessed by capitalists. In other words, the private-ownership nature of these enterprises and the nature of their exploitation of workers had not changed. Because of this, some "Left-wing" ideologues within the Party opposed Lenin’s ideas on implementing state capitalism, considering it a "Right-wing Bolshevik tendency" and a betrayal of socialism. Their proposition was the immediate elimination of capitalist private property and the establishment of socialist public ownership. Furthermore, they extracted certain sentences from Marx’s works to prove their propositions were correct. In response to this, Lenin said: "What has happened to these people? How can they seize upon fragments of books and forget reality? Reality tells us that state capitalism for us would be a step forward. If we could achieve state capitalism in Russia in a short time, that would be a victory."
In Lenin’s thought, the issue of state capitalism in a proletarian state was something Marx and Engels had not experienced and had left no discourse for study or reference; the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Soviet Russian proletariat could only advance through their own exploration. It was precisely in the process of exploration that Lenin proposed Soviet Russia must learn from the state capitalism of the Germans. In the process of German capitalist development, especially during the First World War, state capitalist measures were successfully implemented. Its characteristics were: first, the establishment of massive industrial enterprises; second, the establishment by state power of organizations for planned economic management, or rather, the existence of departments in the government for planned economic management; and third, the use of modern science and technology for production. Lenin believed that Soviet Russian enterprises did not yet possess these characteristics or advantages, but that they must learn and acquire them. Proceeding from this, he proposed that Soviet Russia must learn from German state capitalism. In his article " 'Left-Wing' Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality," he said: "To make the matter even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have 'the last word' in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organization, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism." This was an elaboration on the characteristics of German state capitalism. He further stated: "If the revolution in Germany is still slow in 'giving birth,' our task is to learn the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it, even more than Peter [5]." Here, the meaning is that Peter the Great used despotic means to force Russians to learn and emulate Western capitalist production and culture, proving the greatness of Peter’s determination. Now, the Soviet Russian proletariat and its party should have even firmer determination and confidence to emulate German state capitalist measures domestically.
Sixth, Lenin advocated that Communists learn management experience from the organizers of trusts. As previously mentioned, Lenin argued for employing technical specialists and managers who had transitioned from the old society, allowing them to play a role in economic work. In connection with this, he proposed that Communists must learn the skills of management from the organizers of trusts. It goes without saying that the Communists of that time had come out of the revolutionary struggle. They possessed experience in propagandizing and organizing the masses, preparing and launching the revolution, and establishing the new political power, but they lacked the ability to organize and lead economic work. In response to this situation, Lenin proposed that to improve this state of affairs, Communists must learn from the organizers of trusts. In his "Original Draft of the Article 'The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,'" he wrote: "Learning socialism means, to a large extent, learning from the leaders of the trusts; learning socialism means learning from the greatest organizers of capitalism." Why must this be so? He argued that socialism is based on and takes capitalism as its starting point, and is a society characterized by large-scale machine production. Since those who organize trusts have experience in organizing large-scale machine production, one must learn from them. Regarding this, Lenin also said: even if a person has poor character, "so long as he has organized a trust, so long as he, as a merchant, has managed the production and distribution for millions upon millions, so long as he has experience—we must learn from him. If we do not learn these things from them, we shall not get socialism, and the revolution will remain at the stage it has already reached." These ideas and practices of Lenin also reflect the flexibility of his policy [N1] in developing production and the economy. Theoretically speaking, Communists are the vanguard fighters of the proletariat and the leaders of all undertakings in the Soviet state. However, one must view this role of Communists dialectically. They are not omnipotent or perfect beings. For them, in matters where they have no experience or which they do not understand, they must learn from those with expertise, and they must continue to learn. Lenin viewed the problem in exactly this way, which vividly reflected the flexibility of his policy on this issue.
In summary, in the practice of shifting the focus of Soviet Russia’s work in the spring of 1918—that is, elevating the development of production and the economy to a position of primary importance—Lenin advocated for the use of flexible measures and methods. He advocated that Soviet Russian enterprises employ the slogan of capitalist enterprises for strengthening production management—"be observing of the strictest labor discipline"—to reinforce corporate management and develop production; he advocated for employing technical specialists and managers from the old society to strengthen the management of production and the economy in Soviet Russia; he advocated for compromising with the cooperatives left over from the old society, utilizing their role to handle the distribution of consumer goods; he advocated for drawing on the American Taylor System [N2] to increase the labor productivity of Soviet Russia; he advocated that Soviet Russia learn from and draw on German state capitalism; and he advocated that Communists learn management experience from the organizers of trusts. These aspects constitute a complete and systematic ideological system of measures and methods for developing production and the economy. At that time, his proposal to "follow our own path" [N3] regarding the content of developing production and the economy was embodied in this ideological system.
III. Commentary on Lenin's Thought
In the spring of 1918, in works such as The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government and "Left-Wing" Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality, as well as in speeches at relevant meetings, Lenin both expressed his unswerving communist faith and emphasized "following our own path"—that is, developing Soviet Russia's production and economy through flexible measures. This profoundly reflects the spirit of unifying the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of strategy and measures.
The aforementioned ideas and practices of Lenin carried forward the fine tradition in the history of Marxist development of unifying the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of strategy and measures, enriching and developing the ideas and spirit of Marx and Engels. From the perspective of the history of Marxist development, the unification of firmness in principles and faith with flexibility in strategy and measures is a fine tradition for the advancement of theory and practice. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels proposed that Communists could summarize their theory in a single phrase: the abolition of private property! They also proposed that if the proletariat must organize as a class, must make itself the ruling class through revolution, and in its capacity as the ruling class must use force to abolish the capitalist relations of production, then in abolishing these relations of production, it also abolishes the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and classes generally, and thereby abolishes its own supremacy as a class. At this point, an "association of free individuals"—that is, a communist society—will be born. These assertions pointed out the goal of the proletarian struggle and emphasized that the proletarians of the whole world should struggle toward this beautiful objective. At the same time, Marx and Engels proposed the immediate tasks of the proletarian struggle, namely, that the first step in the workers' revolution is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy, and to develop the productive forces as quickly as possible. When discussing the current tasks of the proletarian struggle, Marx and Engels also pointed out that Communists should support and unite with non-proletarian political movements to advance together. For example, in Switzerland, they were to support the "Radicals" composed of radical bourgeois; in Poland, they were to support the revolutionary party leading the national liberation movement; in Germany, as long as the bourgeoisie took revolutionary action, the Communists were to join them in opposing the absolute monarchy.
Facts have fully proven that Marx and Engels unified the long-term goal of the proletariat realizing communism with their current struggles, particularly with their current struggles to support non-proletarian political movements; or, in other words, they unified the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of struggle strategy. Lenin's ideas and practices in the spring of 1918, on the one hand, remained firm in communist faith, requiring the Soviet Russian proletariat to do its best in its work to promote the development of the world socialist movement; on the other hand, he required the Soviet Russian proletariat to strive to manage domestic affairs well and proposed a series of measures—namely, measures for developing Soviet Russia's production and economy by utilizing the management methods of capitalist enterprises. Clearly, Lenin carried forward the tradition of Marx and Engels in unifying the long-term goal of the proletariat realizing communism with their current struggles, especially their struggles in supporting non-proletarian political movements, or the tradition of unifying firmness of principles and faith with flexibility of struggle strategy. Because the era Lenin lived in was different, and the conditions and content of practice were different, Lenin's ideas and practices enriched and developed the ideas and spirit of Marx and Engels. For example, Marx and Engels primarily expounded the spirit of unifying long-term goals with current struggles, or the spirit of unifying firmness in principles and faith with flexibility in struggle strategy, through theoretical research. Lenin, however, stood on the ground of the practice of Soviet Russian production and construction, exploring the path of construction while simultaneously expounding the spirit of unifying firmness in principles and faith with flexibility in strategy and measures. The latter's expression of things and problems is more direct, more concrete, and has greater ideological depth, reflecting an enrichment and development of the thought and spirit of Marx and Engels.
The aforementioned ideas and practices of Lenin hold revelatory significance for the practice of contemporary Chinese Communists. In leading Reform and Opening-up and the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics, contemporary Chinese Communists have consistently adhered to the unification of firmness in principles and faith with flexibility in strategy and measures. In the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping proposed that China must build both a socialist material civilization and a socialist spiritual civilization; in building a socialist spiritual civilization, the most fundamental thing is to ensure that the broad masses of people have communist ideals, morality, culture, and discipline. He said: "The highest ideal of us Communists is to realize communism, and at different historical stages, we have programs of struggle that represent the interests of the broadest masses of people at those stages. This is why we are able to unite and mobilize the broadest possible masses of the people in what is called 'ten thousand hearts beating as one.'" This assertion by Deng Xiaoping precisely points out that the Communist Party of China had already combined or unified the highest ideal—the communist ideal—with the specific measures the Party took in different periods to seek benefits for the people. Subsequent Party Central Committees have adhered to this thought and practice in the process of advancing Reform and Opening-up.
Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, led by the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core, has even more vividly displayed the characteristic of unifying firmness in principles and faith with flexibility in strategy and measures. Xi Jinping has pointed out that ideals and faith are the "calcium" of the Communists' spirit; if Communists lack ideals and faith, they will suffer from a "calcium deficiency" in their spirit, leading to "rickets," which in turn leads to political, economic, moral, and lifestyle errors, and even serious mistakes. At the same time, Xi Jinping has proposed that the Party must adhere to the people-centered philosophy of development, taking whether the people support, approve of, are happy with, or agree with something as the basis for formulating policies, following the will of the people, respecting the voice of the people, paying attention to the conditions of the people, and dedicating itself to the people's livelihoods. From the perspective of practice, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core led the decisive battle against poverty, comprehensively building a moderately prosperous society on the land of China and historically resolving the problem of absolute poverty. These facts prove that the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core attaches great importance to and has fully practiced the idea and spirit of unifying firmness in principles and faith with flexibility in strategy and measures. As cited at the beginning of this article, Xi Jinping pointed out in an important speech delivered in January 2022 at the opening ceremony of a study session for provincial and ministerial-level leading cadres on studying and implementing the spirit of the sixth plenary session of the 19th CPC Central Committee: Our Party leads the great cause of modernization in a large country and must be adept at strategic thinking, viewing and considering problems from a strategic perspective. A correct strategy needs correct tactics to be implemented. "Strategy and tactics exist in a relationship of dialectical unity," and we must "combine the firmness of strategy with the flexibility of tactics." Here, his statement that strategy and tactics are in a relationship of dialectical unity and should be combined is equivalent in meaning to unifying the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of strategy and measures. These discourses by Xi Jinping are clear and classic expositions on this issue.
In summary, contemporary Chinese Communists, especially those in the New Era, are in a direct line of succession [N4] from Lenin's thought and spirit regarding the issue of unifying firmness in principles and faith with flexibility in strategy and measures. Naturally, based on the current domestic and international situation and tasks, New Era Chinese Communists have enriched, developed, and innovated upon Lenin's thought and spirit from a higher vantage point and with more practical content.
(About the Author: Yu Min is the Vice Dean, Professor, and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Public Administration, Nanjing Normal University)
Network Editor: Tong Xin Source: Marxism Studies (Makesizhuyi Yanjiu), Issue 3, 2023