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 principal officials at the provincial and ministerial levels, focusing on implementing the guiding principles of the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee. He pointed out: “We are a big Party, leading a big country, and engaged in a great cause. We must be adept at strategic thinking and good at viewing and considering problems from a strategic perspective. Correct strategies require correct tactics for implementation. Tactics serve the strategy under its guidance. Strategy and tactics stand 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 world socialist revolution and construction. What this article refers to as the "spring of 1918" indicates the period from the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between Soviet Russia and Germany in March of that year to the eve of the outbreak of the Civil War in July. During this timeframe, the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Soviet state power endeavored to utilize a rare "breathing space" of peace to shift the focus of Party and state work toward developing production and economic construction. In other words, during this period, the RCP(B) and the Soviet state power made an important attempt to shift the focus of their work. Examining Lenin’s thought during this period, one component is his unwavering faith in communism, and the second 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 could only be truly established once built on a global scale—or rather, only the victory of world socialism could bring such an ideal society to fruition. Lenin was deeply versed in this basic principle of Marxism. He did not regard the establishment of Soviet power in Russia alone, or Soviet Russia’s ability to explore paths for socialist construction, as the final goal of the proletarian revolution. Instead, he hoped the revolution would continue to advance until it achieved victory across Europe and throughout the entire world. During this period, he had already put forward the following important viewpoints. From these points, one can see that his faith in communism remained unwavering.
First, the achievements secured by the Soviet Russian proletariat were achievements for the world socialist movement, and these achievements had to be extended to all countries. After the victory of the October Revolution, the RCP(B) and the Soviet state power led the people in decisively pushing the cause forward. For instance, 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—wherein workers' organizations supervised the production and distribution processes and calculated relevant accounts—to restrict the activities of enterprise owners. All of these reflected the achievements the proletariat had secured in its struggle. However, the greatest achievement at that time was the establishment of Soviet power. This power was first established in major cities such as Petrograd and Moscow, then subsequently in every city across the country, and six months later in all rural areas of Soviet Russia. Soviet power was a tool for the masses to be masters of their own house and to advance the cause; it was 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 in many ways crude and incomplete; everyone who observes the work of the Soviets closely knows this very well. But what is important, what is of historical value, what represents a step forward in the development of world socialism, is the fact that a new type of state has been established.” He meant that the Soviet state power was a “new type of state,” and its establishment signified a major 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 Party’s cause and a banner for propagating the theory and practice of the RCP(B) to the proletarians of the whole world. It needed to focus on clarifying the issue of Soviet power. As he said: “We must concretely show the European workers what we have set about doing, how we have set about it, and how it is to be understood.” “We have a new type of state in the form of Soviet power; we must strive to describe its tasks and structure, to explain why this... new type of democracy, whose living soul is the transfer of power to the laborers and the abolition of the organs of exploitation and suppression.” He meant that through the RCP(B) Program, workers in other European countries must be told that Soviet power is a regime where the laboring people are masters of their own house, and that it is a new type of democratic system. Clearly, Lenin’s intention was to use the achievements of the Russian people to propagandize 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 the draft of the Party Program he personally authored, Lenin wrote: “Utilizing in every way the torch of the world socialist revolution lit in Russia to prevent the imperialist bourgeois states from interfering in Russia’s internal affairs or uniting for open struggle and war against the Socialist Soviet Republic, and to carry the revolution into the more advanced countries and into all countries.” In this assertion, he emphasized first that the Russian Revolution and its achievements were a torch for the world socialist revolution, and second, that the sparks of revolution must be spread to all advanced capitalist countries to promote revolution elsewhere and 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, by signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany, Soviet Russia withdrew from the imperialist war and gained a breathing space of peace. The RCP(B) and the Soviet state power decided to shift the focus of work toward managing the state and developing production. Looking at the situation then, only by using the breathing space to develop production and the economy could Soviet Russia heal the wounds of years of war, rapidly enhance the country’s comprehensive national strength—particularly its national defense—and prevent or oppose imperialist wars of aggression against Soviet Russia. In his important work The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, written at the time, 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 to ensure this practice unfolded smoothly. It must be noted that in Lenin’s thinking, shifting the focus and developing production and the economy was the “link” the Party and state power had to grasp with all their might. By seizing this “link” and completing the current tasks, it would be possible for the revolution to “pass to the next link”—namely, the link of socialist revolution across all of Europe and the world. He pointed out: the international situation is very grave and difficult; revolutions in other European countries did not break out following the Russian Revolution; the Soviet Russian proletariat is fighting a lonely battle and must therefore proceed with caution. Domestically, production and social order must be rationalized, and production and the economy developed. “Such is the specific feature of the current stage of the socialist revolution. Such is the link in the chain of historical events which we must at present grasp with all our might in order to successfully solve the current tasks until we pass to the next link—the next link which shines with a particularly inviting brilliance, the brilliance of the victory of the international proletarian revolution.” It is evident that Lenin hoped the revolution would transition 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 revolution abroad. He noted: “It is equally clear that the extent of the significant assistance we can give to the socialist revolution in Western Europe, which has been delayed for various reasons, depends entirely on how well we solve the organizational tasks facing us.” This meant that if the Soviet Russian proletariat could effectively organize the tasks of developing production and the economy and achieve significant results, it would have the capacity to support revolutions in Western countries, thereby benefiting the victory of world socialism. The aforementioned assertions and ideas also reflect Lenin’s unwavering faith in communism.
Third, a “new giant” of Western revolution was growing and accumulating revolutionary strength. As mentioned before, Soviet Russia gained a breathing space of peace by signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. However, when the Soviet delegation negotiated the treaty with the German delegation, the latter proposed incredibly harsh conditions: for instance, Soviet territories already occupied by the German army were to be ceded to Germany, and Soviet Russia was to pay a massive war indemnity. Accepting these conditions meant suffering both a great loss of interests and a spiritual humiliation. Yet, starting from the objective of gaining time to consolidate Soviet power, Lenin advocated for accepting the German conditions and signing the treaty. Regarding this fact, he pointed out that the Russian Revolution was “retreating” [2]; the purpose of the “retreat” was to wait for conditions to ripen to launch a larger offensive against the enemy. It must be noted that while Lenin acknowledged the Russian Revolution was in “retreat,” he simultaneously saw that revolutionary forces in Western countries were growing. He hoped for the outbreak of proletarian revolutions in the West so that the Russian revolution and the Western revolutions could jointly assault the rule of the monopoly bourgeoisie in Western states. In March 1918, in his speech at the Fourth (Extraordinary) All-Russia Congress of Soviets, he pointed out: “The imperialists are insatiable and will certainly burst their bellies, and inside their bellies a new giant is growing; this giant is not growing as fast as we expected, but he is growing, and he will certainly come to our aid. When we see him beginning his first assault, we shall be able to say: the period of retreat has ended, the era of the 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 surely grow strong and, together with the Russian proletariat, launch an assault on the enemy. At that 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 Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, announcing that state power belonged to the workers, soldiers, and peasants, and it would promote the march toward the victory of socialism for the proletariat and all laboring people. At this time, various cities in Soviet Russia held activities to explain the basic contents and great significance of the Soviet Constitution. On July 26, when explaining the spirit of the Constitution at a mass meeting 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 would be greatly inspired by its contents. He said: “In Western Europe, the mood of indignation is growing! Our task is: to overcome all obstacles on the path forward, no matter how serious they may be; to hold on to Soviet power until the working class of all countries rises and raises high the great banner of the world socialist republic!” The meaning of this assertion was also that the revolutionary passion of the Western proletariat was rising and its strength increasing; the Soviet Russian proletariat needed to overcome difficulties and continue the struggle, preparing to strive for the victory of world socialism alongside the Western proletariat. These assertions and ideas of Lenin’s further prove that he possessed a steadfast faith in communism.
Fourth, the Soviet Russian proletariat had to fight heroically for "living socialism" to ensure the victory of socialism in Soviet Russia and throughout the world. When the Soviet power was established, all of Russia was riddled with wounds. Even more grave was the fact that famine severely threatened the new regime and the masses. By May and June 1918, the famine intensified, and the starving people struggled on the line between life and death. To escape the threat of famine, the Soviet power adopted many measures, such as implementing a state monopoly on grain trade, absolutely prohibiting private trade in grain and related agricultural byproducts; striking against kulaks [3] who undermined state grain policy and traded grain on the black market; and organizing urban worker grain-requisitioning detachments to go to the countryside to purchase grain from peasants. 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 time, Lenin clearly recognized and proposed that the struggle of the Soviet power and the Soviet Russian people for grain was, in fact, a struggle for socialism. Because only by obtaining grain—ensuring that urban workers and the Red Army under construction could receive necessary supplies—could the cause of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the people in consolidating Soviet power and developing socialism continue. In July of the same year, in his report to the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, Lenin pointed out that the series of measures currently taken by the Soviet power to solve the grain problem meant that only now "are we really approaching socialism," and "we say: only now, when we have taken this path, has socialism ceased to be a phrase and become a living reality." This judgment is sufficient to prove that Lenin, at that time, firstly elevated the importance of the grain issue to an unprecedented height, and secondly elevated the reality and difficulty of socialist construction to an unprecedented height. 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 these decrees desperately and did their utmost to sabotage their implementation. The Soviet power, in turn, organized the people to strike resolutely against the enemies' sabotage. In his speech at the aforementioned meeting, Lenin addressed this situation, saying: "If a fight is needed, we shall not hesitate to wage this fight with the most drastic decrees. This is a fight truly for socialism—not for a dogma, not for a program, not for a party or a sect, but for living socialism, for the distribution of grain among the hundreds of thousands and millions of hungry people in the advanced regions of Russia, to ensure that once grain is available, it can be distributed more rationally." Here, Lenin referred to socialism as "living socialism" to illustrate: first, that socialism had moved from books and the Party program into the social practice of the people; second, that socialism was then intimately linked to the lives and fates of the Soviet Russian people; and third, that socialism was closely tied to the future and destiny of the RCP(B) and the Soviet power. From this, he proposed that for "living socialism," it was necessary to utilize the decrees promulgated by the Soviet power to fight hostile forces drastically. It should be noted that Lenin at that time linked "living socialism" in Soviet Russia with the victory of socialism in Russia and its victory worldwide. At that time, the Russian Revolution and the cause of the Soviet Russian proletariat had already exerted an influence in the West. Left-wing figures in the Western socialist movement expressed their support for the Soviet Russian proletarian cause 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 firmly and unswervingly, if we do not allow phrases, illusions, deceptions, and hysterical outcries to move us from the correct path, then we have every hope of holding on and resolutely promoting the victory of socialism in Russia, and thereby promoting the victory of the socialist revolution throughout the world!" His meaning was that persisting in the fight for "living socialism" and for the implementation of the Soviet power's grain policy would lead to the victory of socialist construction in Soviet Russia, create a positive influence in the world, and promote the occurrence and victory of the world revolution. This series of judgments and ideas from Lenin was the proof and embodiment of his firm communist faith.
II. "Following One's Own Path" and Adopting Flexible Measures to Develop Production and the Economy
The "following one's own path" mentioned here is not the "following one's own path" spoken of by the Communist Party of China in the New Era, nor is it an attempt to project the CPC's contemporary idea onto Lenin. Rather, these were words Lenin actually spoke under the circumstances of that time. In April 1918, in The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, Lenin wrote: "Only that class which follows its own path without hesitation, and which does not lose heart and does not become despondent at the most difficult, arduous, and dangerous transition points, can lead the exploited and laboring masses. We do not need frenzied enthusiasm. What we need is the steady step of the iron battalions of the proletariat." Here, the meaning of "following one's own path" is: first, a requirement that the Soviet Russian proletariat not lose heart in the face of danger and difficulty, but maintain the spirit and courage of continuous revolution; second, a requirement that the Soviet Russian proletariat face the current situation squarely and formulate domestic development policies based on reality, avoiding feverishness and ideas divorced from reality; third, a requirement that based on the first two, the Soviet Russian proletariat move forward with a firm and steady step to advance the revolutionary cause in an orderly manner. This is the thought decoded from between the lines of Lenin’s judgment. Interpreting "following one's own path" in the context of the paragraphs surrounding this judgment reveals Lenin's thought: the Russian petty bourgeoisie, faced with the calamities brought by war, the threat of bankruptcy and famine, and the grim international situation, was driven to a state of frenzy and vacillated in its political position, sometimes supporting the proletarian revolution and sometimes erupting in despair. The Soviet Russian proletariat must never be like this; they must "follow their own path," which means continuing along the proletarian revolutionary path they had chosen long ago. (Compared with Lenin's words and thoughts, the CPC's judgments on "following one's own path" represent a higher-level, new-content judgment belonging to the current stage of the history of Marxist development; they are a major development and innovation of Lenin's thought.)
By interpreting Lenin's judgment of "following one's own path" in connection with The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government and other important works and speeches from this period, we can grasp the following important thought: given the international and domestic situation of Soviet Russia and its domestic 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 and state apparatus. They had to "follow their own path," or rather, determine their development measures according to the prevailing conditions in Soviet Russia.
Judging from the development measures championed by Lenin during this period, his thought was to adopt flexible measures to develop production and the economy—specifically, to utilize the cultural heritage of capitalism and economic management methods. The following clarifies the specific contents of Lenin's ideas on flexible measures.
First, Lenin advocated that Soviet Russian enterprises use the slogan of capitalist enterprises for strengthening production management—"observe the strictest labor discipline"—to strengthen enterprise management and develop production. At that time, because the revolution had been won only recently, an orderly production sequence within enterprises had not yet been established. To put it more bluntly, management was chaotic; workers with poor self-discipline could skip work at will or not exert effort when present, and some even stole enterprise property. In response, Lenin proposed: "Keep regular and honest accounts of money, manage economically, do not be lazy, do not steal, observe the strictest labor discipline—it is these very slogans, which were justly derided 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 urgent and principal slogans." He pointed out that this slogan belonged to capitalist enterprises in the old society and was proposed by capitalists, earning the mockery and rejection of workers. Obviously, it implied the capitalists' strict management of the workers' labor process, meaning an intensification of exploitation to obtain more profit. At the same time, however, he pointed out that in Soviet Russia, when the task of developing production and the economy became paramount, this slogan became the "urgent and principal slogan." Lenin’s advocacy for using a capitalist management slogan in Soviet enterprises reflects his immense flexibility in determining production measures. In principle, Soviet power was a regime won through the long, heroic struggle of the proletariat—a regime where the masses were the masters of the house [4]. For this regime to use capitalist slogans to manage workers was somewhat inappropriate. However, Lenin focused on the reality of enterprise production at the time, namely the state of management chaos. He recognized that applying the slogan could strengthen management, increase labor productivity, develop production and the economy, and heal the wounds of war. This is what he meant by: "The practical realization of these slogans by the laboring masses is the sole condition for saving the country, which has been half-killed by the imperialist war and the imperialist brigands (headed by Kerensky)."
Second, Lenin advocated employing scientific and technical experts and managers from the old society to strengthen Soviet production and economic management. Engaging in production and economic construction requires a large number of experts and managers. In the Soviet Russia of that time, the new regime had not had time to train its own proletarian experts, while a large number of experts from the old society were living in the country. The new regime could employ them and put their roles to use. Lenin noted: "It is not surprising that, when the task of organizing socialism is placed on the agenda, we must, for the sake of solving 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 production on the largest capitalist scale—first and foremost in the organization of syndicates, cartels, and trusts." He also said that former "industrial leaders," "chiefs," and "exploiters" should serve as "technical experts," "directors," "staff," and "consultants." The proletariat should fully utilize their knowledge and management experience. Excellent foreign experts could also be hired if they were willing to serve Soviet Russia. Lenin said: "What we need now from the advanced countries is not help in socialist organization and support from the workers, but the help of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist intelligentsia there." To achieve the goal of employing these experts, "special methods" were needed; in Lenin's mind, this meant implementing a high-salary system for them. He once said that if the Soviet power needed 2,000 top experts in various fields and had to pay each 50 million or 100 million rubles annually, this expense would be justified and necessary from the perspective of the interests of the national economy and the transition from obsolete production methods to the most modern ones. Lenin’s idea of using a high-salary system to employ experts from the old society and from abroad reflects his high degree of flexibility. At that time, Lenin and the RCP(B) were striving to build the Soviet state according to the principles of the Paris Commune. One of the famous principles of the Paris Commune was that state officials should receive salaries no higher than those of an average worker. Lenin’s own salary at the time was equal to that of ordinary staff in the Party Central Committee organs and ordinary workers. In his mind, adhering to this was vital for maintaining the precious experience of the international communist movement and the essence of Marxism. However, as a great Marxist, Lenin was well-versed in revolutionary dialectics and understood that extreme flexibility was required at critical times and on critical issues. His advocacy for a high-salary system for a specific group proves his flexibility in development measures.
Third, Lenin advocated for compromising with the cooperatives [5] left over from the old society, leveraging their role to facilitate the distribution of consumer goods. In Old Russia, many industrial enterprises had established cooperatives. Their function was to sell daily necessities to the workers of said enterprise. Workers purchasing consumer goods from their own enterprise’s cooperative found prices cheaper than in general social commercial institutions. These cooperatives were organized under the direction of enterprise capitalists and managed either by the capitalists themselves or their agents. While some workers in better economic standing could purchase shares in these cooperatives, viewed as a whole, they were social organizations or institutions controlled by and serving the interests of the capitalists. After the October Revolution, these cooperatives continued to exist. At that time, the Soviet regime faced a critical task: the distribution of consumer goods to urban residents, which required an organization or institution to undertake the work. Lenin thought of using the cooperatives inherited from the old society 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 a mass organization of the population—the consumers' cooperative societies—which is ready-made for the transition to the widest possible accounting and control of the distribution of products. In Russia, this organization is not so well developed as in the advanced countries, but it has more than ten million members." This meant that the Soviet regime could utilize and develop the role of the 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 the 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 organizations not only took part in the discussion of the decree but actually obtained the right to vote, and some clauses of the decree were deleted because of the resolute opposition of these organizations." He cited examples, noting that the Soviet regime dropped the clause regarding free membership for all workers, dropped the clause regarding the participation of all residents of a district in a single cooperative, and modified the clause regarding the total exclusion of all members of the bourgeoisie from the cooperative boards, changing it instead to a ban on "owners" of private capitalist enterprises joining the boards. Precisely because the Soviet regime made many concessions, it achieved its objective of utilizing cooperatives to work for the state power. It must be noted that as Soviet Russia entered the Civil War, the food problem—including the rational distribution of food 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 utilizing the legacy of capitalism. We must utilize all the cultural treasures that capitalism has created against us. The difficulty of socialism lies in the fact that it must be built from materials created by others; but this is the only way socialism can be built. We understand this in theory, and after this year, we have seen it even more clearly in practice: only by utilizing the materials created by capitalism against us can we build socialism; we should utilize all of this to build and consolidate socialism." Lenin's thoughts and practice regarding the utilization of cooperatives reflect his immense 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 development measures.
Fourth, Lenin advocated for drawing on the American Taylor System [6] to increase 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 two points: first, using the labor output of a physically strong and dexterous worker within a certain timeframe as a benchmark, requiring or forcing all workers to reach that level; second, studying the movements of laborers during the work process, affirming necessary movements while identifying and negating unnecessary ones, so that all workers performed only necessary movements and were not allowed to perform unnecessary ones. This was 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 the workers' physical and mental health. Regarding this, Lenin’s evaluation was as follows: "The largest-scale capitalism has created labor-organization systems which, under the conditions of the exploitation of the mass of the population, are the cruelest forms of enslaving the laborers by a handful of the propertied class and squeezing out of them extra labor, physical strength, blood, and nerves. At the same time, however, these systems represent the latest achievements in the scientific organization of production. The Socialist Soviet Republic should learn this system and, for the sake of implementing our accounting and control of production as well as increasing labor productivity, it must also transform this system." It is evident that while he denounced this management system as the cruelest form of squeezing the physical strength, blood, and nerves of laborers, he simultaneously affirmed it as the latest achievement in the scientific organization of production. He required the Soviet Republic to learn this management system to promote the "accounting and control" measures then being implemented in Soviet Russia, while also requiring the Soviet regime to subject the system to a degree of transformation. What were the principles for this transformation? Lenin clearly stated his opinion: "The task that the Socialist Soviet Republic faces is, briefly, that we should implement the Taylor System and the scientific methods of increasing labor productivity used in America throughout the country, combining this system with shortened labor hours, and with the use of new methods of production and labor organization, without doing the slightest harm to the labor power of the working population." His idea was that when learning from and drawing on the Taylor System, the workers' labor hours must be shortened, and the labor process must absolutely not harm the workers' bodies or labor power. He even proposed a vision where every adult worker could engage in manual labor for six hours a day and state administration work for four hours. In short, Lenin’s advocacy for drawing on the American Taylor System also illustrates his high degree of flexibility in determining measures for development. Since the Taylor System clearly bore the characteristics of intensifying exploitation and destroying workers' health, it was diametrically opposed to the liberation of the working class. In principle, the Soviet state should not have drawn on or learned from it. But Lenin handled this problem flexibly; he championed learning from it while proposing that it must be transformed so that it could serve the improvement of labor productivity in Soviet Russia.
Fifth, Lenin advocated that Soviet Russia learn from and draw on German state capitalism. At that time, Soviet Russia was a country where small peasants constituted the vast majority of the national population and small-scale production dominated the national economic system. Under such conditions, it could not transition directly to a socialist society; it had to find a "middle link" between itself and socialism. State capitalism was precisely this "middle link." In his works of that 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 in about six months, it would be a great victory and would be the surest guarantee that within a year socialism will be finally consolidated and become invincible in our country." His attitude and viewpoint were to rapidly and actively implement state capitalist measures in Soviet Russia. The measures for implementing state capitalism 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 an enterprise and purchase its finished products, or the state power would dispatch personnel to capitalist enterprises to participate in production management. Second, through the work of the state power, small-scale enterprises were consolidated into larger ones, with the state power dispatching personnel to participate in their management. However, state capitalist enterprises remained capitalist enterprises; their means of production and products were still owned by capitalists. That is to say, the nature of private ownership and the exploitation of workers in these enterprises had not changed. Because of this, some "Left-wing" [7] thinkers within the Party opposed Lenin’s ideas on implementing state capitalism, considering it a "Right-wing Bolshevik tendency" that betrayed socialism. Their proposal was to immediately eliminate capitalist private ownership and establish socialist public ownership. Furthermore, they extracted certain sentences from Marx’s works to prove their assertions were correct. In response, Lenin said: "What has happened to these people? How can they grasp fragmented words and phrases from books and forget reality? Reality tells us that state capitalism for us is a step forward. If we can achieve state capitalism in Russia in a short period, that would be a victory." In Lenin's thought, the issue of state capitalism in a proletarian state was something that Marx and Engels had not experienced and had not left behind any discourses for study or reference; the RCP(B) [8] and the Russian proletariat could only move forward 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 of economic planning and management organizations by the state power, or the existence of departments in the government for economic planning; 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 they absolutely had to 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 exposition of 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 so than Peter." [9] The meaning here was that Peter the Great had used tyrannical means to force Russians to learn and emulate Western capitalist production and culture, proving the magnitude of Peter's determination. Now, the 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 advocated for employing technical experts and managers from the old society, allowing them to play a role in economic work. In connection with this, he proposed that Communists must learn management skills from trust organizers. It goes without saying that the Communists at that time had emerged from 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 condition, 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 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; it is a society characterized by large-scale machine production. The organizers of trusts possess experience in organizing large-scale machine production, so it is necessary to learn from them. In this regard, Lenin also stated: even if a person is of ill character, "as long as he has organized a trust, as long as he, as a merchant, has managed the production and distribution for millions upon millions, as long as he has experience, we should learn from him." He warned: "If we do not learn these things from them, we will not achieve socialism, and the revolution will stagnate at the stage it has already reached." These thoughts and practices of Lenin also reflect the flexibility of his principles in developing production and the economy. Theoretically speaking, Communists are the vanguard fighters of the proletariat and the leaders in the development of all undertakings in the Soviet state. However, one must view this role of Communists dialectically. They are not omnipotent, perfect beings. For them, things they have not experienced or do not understand must be learned from those who are experts, and this requires continuous learning. Lenin viewed the issue in exactly this way, which vividly reflected the flexibility of his policy on this matter.
In summary, during the practice of shifting the focus of work in Soviet Russia in the spring of 1918—namely, 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 enterprises adopt the slogan used by capitalist enterprises to strengthen production management—"observe the strictest labor discipline"—to reinforce enterprise management and develop production; he advocated for the employment of technical experts and managers from the old society to strengthen Soviet production and economic management; he advocated for compromise with the cooperatives left over from the old society to utilize their role in distributing consumer goods; he advocated for drawing lessons from the American Taylor System to improve Soviet labor productivity; 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 constituted his complete and systematic ideological system of measures and methods for developing production and the economy. At that time, his call to "walk one's own path" [10] in terms of developing production and the economy was embodied in this very 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 unwavering communist faith and emphasized "walking one's own path"—that is, developing Soviet production and economy through flexible measures. This profoundly reflected the spirit of unifying the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of tactics and measures.
Lenin's thoughts and practices mentioned above carried forward the fine tradition in the history of Marxist development of unifying the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of tactics 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 firm principles and faith with flexible tactics and measures is a fine tradition for the advancement of theory and practice. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels proposed that Communists could sum up their theory in a single sentence: the abolition of private property! They also proposed that if the proletariat must necessarily unite as a class and make itself the ruling class through revolution, using its position as the ruling class to forcibly sweep away the capitalist relations of production, then by sweeping away these relations of production, it would also sweep away the conditions for class antagonism and the existence of classes, thereby abolishing its own supremacy as a class. At this point, an "association of free individuals"—namely, a communist society—would be born. The aforementioned assertions pointed out the goal of the proletarian struggle and emphasized that the proletarians of the whole world should struggle toward this beautiful goal. At the same time, Marx and Engels proposed the tasks of the proletariat's immediate struggle: 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 increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. When discussing the current tasks of the proletarian struggle, Marx and Engels also pointed out that Communists must support and unite with non-proletarian political movements to move forward together. For instance, in Switzerland, they supported the "Radicals" composed of radical bourgeoisie; in Poland, they supported the revolutionary party leading the national liberation movement; in Germany, whenever the bourgeoisie acted in a revolutionary manner, Communists would join them in opposing the absolute monarchy.
Facts have fully proven that Marx and Engels unified the long-term goal of the proletariat achieving communism with their current struggle—particularly their current struggle to support non-proletarian political movements. In other words, they unified the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of struggle tactics. Lenin’s thoughts and practices in the spring of 1918, on the one hand, remained firm in communist faith, requiring the Soviet proletariat to do its utmost to perform its work well and promote the development of the world socialist movement; on the other hand, he required the Soviet proletariat to manage its domestic affairs well and proposed a series of measures—namely, using measures from capitalist enterprise management—to develop Soviet production and economy. Clearly, Lenin carried forward the tradition of Marx and Engels in unifying the long-term goal of the proletariat achieving communism with their current struggle, especially the struggle to support non-proletarian political movements; or rather, the tradition of unifying firm principles and faith with flexible struggle tactics. Because the era in which Lenin lived was different, and the conditions and content of his practice were different, Lenin’s thoughts and practices enriched and developed the ideas and spirit of Marx and Engels. For example, Marx and Engels primarily elaborated through theoretical research the spirit of unifying long-term goals with the current struggle, or the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of tactics. Lenin, however, based himself on the practice of Soviet production and construction, exploring the path of construction while simultaneously elaborating the spirit of unifying the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of tactics and measures. The latter's expression of matters and problems was more direct, more concrete, and possessed greater theoretical depth, reflecting an enrichment and development of the ideas and spirit of Marx and Engels.
The aforementioned thoughts and practices of Lenin hold revelatory significance for the practice of contemporary Chinese Communists. In the process of leading reform and opening up and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, contemporary Chinese Communists have consistently maintained the unification of firm principles and faith with flexible tactics 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 the broad masses of people have communist ideals, morality, culture, and discipline. He said: "The highest ideal of us Communists is to realize communism. At different historical stages, we have programs of struggle that represent the interests of the broadest masses of the people at that stage. That is why we can unite and mobilize the broadest masses of the people in what is called 'ten thousand hearts beating as one.'" This assertion by Deng Xiaoping was precisely intended to point out that the Communist Party of China (CPC) had already combined or unified its highest ideal—the communist ideal—with the specific measures the Party takes to seek benefits for the people in different periods. Subsequent Party leaderships adhered to such thoughts and practices in the process of advancing reform and opening up.
Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, 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 demonstrated the characteristics of unifying the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of tactics and measures. Xi Jinping has pointed out that ideals and faith are the "calcium" [11] of a Communist's spirit; if a Communist lacks ideals and faith, they will suffer from a "calcium deficiency" in their spirit, leading to "rickets" [12] and resulting in political, economic, moral, and lifestyle errors—even serious ones. At the same time, Xi Jinping proposed that the Party must adhere to a people-centered philosophy of development, using whether the people support, approve of, are satisfied with, or are happy with a policy as the basis for its formulation, following the hearts of the people, respecting their will, paying attention to their sentiments, and dedicating efforts to their livelihoods. In terms 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 in all respects 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 fully practices the thought and spirit of unifying the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of tactics and measures. As quoted at the beginning of this article, Xi Jinping pointed out in an important speech delivered in January 2022 at the opening ceremony of a thematic seminar for leading officials at the provincial and ministerial levels: "Our Party leads a great modernization undertaking in a major country and must be adept at strategic thinking and good at viewing and thinking about problems from a strategic perspective. Correct strategies require correct tactics for implementation. Strategy and tactics are 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 a relationship of dialectical unity and must be combined is equivalent in meaning to unifying the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of tactics and measures. This discourse by Xi Jinping is a clear and classic exposition on this issue.
In summary, contemporary Chinese Communists, especially those in the New Era, are in a direct line of descent from Lenin’s thought and spirit on the issue of unifying the firmness of principles and faith with the flexibility of tactics and measures. Of course, proceeding from the current international and domestic situations and tasks, New Era Chinese Communists have enriched, developed, and innovated upon Lenin’s thought and spirit from a higher vantage point and with greater practical content.
(About the Author: Yu Min is the Vice Dean, Professor, and Doctoral Supervisor of the School of Public Administration at Nanjing Normal University.)
[Source: Marxism Studies (《马克思主义研究》), Issue 3, 2023]