Xu Wenwen: Lenin's Critique of Russian Populism and Its Contemporary Implications
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was in an era of awakening and the arousal of independent thinking. New changes in the economic sphere and sharp class contradictions were reflected in the ideological sphere, manifesting as a Russian intellectual world "immersed in the intense and concentrated atmosphere of the spiritual and cultural renaissance of the early twentieth century" [1]. On one hand, there was a powerful movement of materialism and an ever-rising workers' movement; on the other hand, there was an intellectual world dominated by Russian Populism [2], whose "non-capitalist development" path, petty-bourgeois stance, and subjective sociological methods were undermining the revolutionary struggle. Against this backdrop, Lenin proceeded from material practice to launch a critique of Russian Populism—this "sham socialism." This was certainly not a general ideological struggle; the critique itself, by breaking down and then building up, and by doing both simultaneously, emphasized "establishment" as the foundation. Its purpose was to expound a "scientific ideology" and establish Marxism as the only scientific revolutionary theory. In this respect, it aligns precisely with the New Era’s commitment to "upholding the unity of constructiveness and criticality, transmitting the mainstream ideology, and directly confronting various erroneous viewpoints and trends of thought," demonstrating significant contemporary value.
I. Ideological Disputes During the Period of Social Transformation Urgently Required Lenin’s Assessment of Russian Populism
"Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." A lack of guidance from scientific ideas was precisely the theoretical "crisis" facing the spontaneous Russian workers' movement at the end of the 19th century. Lenin realized that to awaken the workers' consciousness for revolutionary struggle, it was "necessary to achieve solid ideological unity, eliminating differences of opinion and ideological confusion." This required a scientific assessment of the social trends of thought dominated by Russian Populism.
First, the dilemma of cultural choice during Russia's period of social transformation required theoretical discernment and guidance. As Russia was drawn into the capitalist system, unprecedented economic growth trends exacerbated the intensification of social contradictions, the rupture between old and new forces, and the loss of national cultural identity. A group of intellectuals with different worldviews launched various explorations of Russia's developmental path amidst the cultural confrontation and integration of the national versus the foreign and the traditional versus the modern. Russian Populism was the representative of Russian exceptionalism [3], placing its hopes on finding a unique path of peasant-commune [4] socialism within Russia’s traditional "peasant economy." Bourgeois liberalism, representing the emerging bourgeoisie and the landed nobility, emphasized the consistency of Russia's historical development path with that of Western Europe while hoping to preserve the status quo of landlord landownership; that is, they envisioned a constitutional monarchy as the future political ideal through top-down reforms. "Legal Marxists" [5] emphasized the decisive role of the economy in social life, attempting to lead Russia onto the path of capitalist development through peaceful reform. Russian Marxism had principled differences with democratism and liberalism, arguing that the commune itself could not become the source of social innovation, while calling on the working class to achieve liberation through revolutionary means. In fact, among the disputes between various social trends, Russian Populism held the primary "discourse power." Its vulgar insights into the development of Russian capitalism profoundly shackled the ideological consciousness of Russian intellectuals and enticed the working class to abandon the revolutionary struggle. Especially in the 1890s, the Russian Populists used the journals they controlled to openly provoke polemics, extensively citing Marx’s words to distort Marxism, "even claiming that spreading Marxism to Russia, which was developing along a unique path, was an insult to Marx," effectively becoming the "most vicious enemy of the Social Democrats." The spread of Marxism in Russia was obstructed; how should Russia set out on the socialist path? The Russian intellectual world was shrouded in the oscillation, fragmentation, and blending of cultural choices during the transition period, urgently needing to discern the optimal theory consistent with Russian reality. At this point, the critique of Russian Populism became an unavoidable and critical issue for Lenin and other Russian Marxists.
Second, the evolution of Russian Populism necessitated that "any conscious worker should pay close attention to the evolution of this ideology." Tracing back to the 1840s, due to his skepticism regarding the debate between Slavophiles and Westernizers, Herzen [6], who was from a noble background, "viewed communal land ownership and the peasants' idea of 'land rights' as a 'socialist'" political ideal, sparking a quiet nihilist movement. It was precisely the ambiguity of the founders of Russian Populism regarding the view of history and political ideals that made this thought the "origin of theories of traditional superiority or 'latecomer catching up and surpassing,'" thereby leading Russian modernization onto a path that delusionaly sought to directly transcend industrial capitalism through agrarian socialism. During the period of Revolutionary Populism, Russian Populists first established "Land and Liberty" [7], later forming "Black Repartition" [8] and the "People’s Will" [9], "treating the people as 'revolutionary material'" and launching large-scale "Going to the People" [10] movements and terrorist activities. Although this helped stimulate the struggle of the worker masses, it led Russian social thought toward radicalism. Consequently, the efforts of Russian Populism to intentionally rouse the peasantry in the 1870s achieved very little in substance. It is most appropriate that Lenin defined the progressive and revolutionary elements within the Revolutionary Populists as "Enlighteners" and historical "heritage." Thus, the stage of Liberal Populism posed an even greater social danger. Because by this time they had departed from the original intention of believing in "people's revolution" and sought a path of reform and compromise reliant on the Tsar. This inevitably led Russian Populism, even when capitalist development was already established, to remain immersed in a unique path of modernizing transformation that transcended universality, fantasizing about preventing the "miserable aspects" of the capitalist system. These ideas reached the limit of Left Populism by the period of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, continuing to reinforce views such as Russian exceptionalism and the revolutionary potential of the peasantry. It should be noted that throughout more than half a century of evolution, Russian Populism not only formed a complex intellectual system but also saw its theoretical viewpoints flood the ranks of workers and peasants. Therefore, without a profound analysis of this trend, it would be impossible to realize the "close integration of Marxism with the practice of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement."
Third, the deficiencies in the critique of Russian Populism by "Legal Marxism" and early Russian Marxists led by Plekhanov [11] urgently needed to be fundamentally and thoroughly cleared away. At the end of the 19th century, in the struggle against the Populists, "Legal Marxists" such as Struve and Baranovsky were fellow travelers of the Russian proletarian movement. Standing on a position of objectivism, they cited a large number of facts and data to demonstrate the developmental process of Russia's economic system, arguing that the development of capitalism in Russia was a "necessary result of the material process," forcefully refuting the "old 'people's' forms of life" of Russian Populists. However, "Legal Marxism" went to extremes to beautify the infinite possibility and permanence of capitalist economic progress, thereby erasing class contradictions and revolutionary struggle, demonstrating a misunderstanding of historical materialism. Meanwhile, the first early Russian Marxists to use Marxism as a theoretical weapon to deal a heavy blow to the Populists were represented by Plekhanov. In works such as Socialism and the Political Struggle, Our Differences, and On the Question of the Individual's Role in History, Plekhanov criticized the economic theories and the idealist conception of history of Russian Populism, exposing the utopian nature of its revolutionary program and tactics. It can be said that the merits of Plekhanov’s critique "are very great." However, Plekhanov's theory did not achieve a close integration with Russia's specific national conditions; for example, in his economic view, he exaggerated the degree of development of Russian capitalist economic relations; in his revolutionary view, he saw the proletariat and the peasantry as two opposing political forces. Precisely because of these theoretical limitations, they were unable to complete the task of crushing Russian Populism ideologically. In order to sound the strongest note of the working-class struggle and to create a purely "quiet" revolutionary environment for the Russian democratic revolutionary movement, Lenin had to shoulder the historical task of theoretical struggle and ideological critique, launching a comprehensive and thorough critique of Russian Populism.
II. Resolving Ideological Misunderstandings: Lenin’s Systematic Critique of Russian Populism
Russian Populism, supported by Orthodox faith, was a romantic social trend of thought, yet it overstepped the bounds of thought and culture themselves to become an important socio-political school. In exploring "that which is specifically Russian," it pronounced a "death sentence" on Russian capitalist development on the path of social development, proposing a "non-capitalist" view of social development; regarding social ideals and revolutionary drivers, it preached the "theory of achieving socialism." In essence, this was an idealist conception of history completely opposed to the materialist conception of history. By exporting political views, economic theories, and values that reflected its ideology, Russian Populism embodied its nihilistic cultural essence and reflected a mistaken guidance regarding the direction of Russia's development. Lenin opposed abstract and utopian intellectual perceptions and subsequently launched a critique based on the reality of Russia's development and revolutionary practice.
First, Lenin criticized the "non-capitalist" developmental path of Russian Populism.
Regarding the development of capitalism in Russia, Russian Populists considered it merely an "accidental phenomenon." To this end, they proposed the "idle talk of the possibility of the 'fatherland taking another path.'" Did Russia "have to" or "not have to" pass through the "school" of capitalism? Lenin "examined all phenomena from the specific environment and development." Initially, through V. E. Postnikov’s book Peasant Farming in South Russia, he mastered statistical materials on the development of the Russian peasant economy after the Emancipation Reform. After a comparative analysis of various types of peasants' property status, scale of operation, nature, methods, and systems, Lenin discovered that the "diversity" and the "huge disparity" in prosperity in the peasant economy could not be explained by Postnikov's "reduction in the size of allotments and scale of operation." When the expansion of the scale of operation and development of commercial interests among upper-tier households and middle-tier households relied on a large amount of hired labor or even the bankruptcy of lower-tier households, in fact, "this is no longer just a disparity, this is direct exploitation," which was undoubtedly a qualitative change. Second, Lenin saw that "peasant differentiation" and the infiltration of commodity production into agriculture caused the separation of the laborer from the means of production in terms of ownership relations; the growth of production consumption constantly expanded the capitalist domestic market. The Russian Populists used the "lack of a domestic market" to propagate the fallacy that capitalist development was a policy "defect." The reason lay in the fact that from Adam Smith to Sismondi and then to the Russian Populists, all consumption was reduced to individual consumption, and "the doctrine naturally arose that capitalists cannot realize surplus value." Similarly, in the analysis of industrial capitalism, the reason why Russian Populists used large-scale machine industrial production as the standard to judge the nature of "people's industry" was mainly that this "easiest way of understanding" focused only on the highest stage of capitalism, ignoring that the development of things is a unified process of multiple stages, and thus failing to see the nature of the underdeveloped stage of capitalism. The fact was that the economic environment in which Russia was situated "possessed all the contradictions inherent in any commodity economy and any capitalism," and the approach of Russian Populists in defending a "non-capitalist" path of development and delusionaly trying to prevent the "wheels of history" from advancing was absurd.
Of course, Lenin also proposed a dialectical and historical view of capitalism. In The Development of Capitalism in Russia, he stated: "Finally, we must summarize the question of what the literature calls the 'mission' of capitalism." The development of capitalism brings about highly developed productive forces and the socialization of production, but this also promotes the intensification of its inherent contradictions. Therefore, the progressive role and historical transience of capitalism exist dialectically. The realization of Russian socialism "can neither leap over nor abolish by decree the natural phases of development." Lenin used Marx’s "iron necessity" to illustrate that capitalism would inevitably be replaced by a higher social form—socialism. In this sense, utilizing capitalism and developing socialism are consistent.
Second, Lenin criticized the petty-bourgeois roots of Russian Populism.
Russian Populism [12] harbored "illusory expectations of 'simultaneously' annihilating the new capitalist exploiters" by preserving the rural commune; reflected in the ideological and cultural sphere, this manifested as an indulgence in the nihilistic carcass of moral evaluation. They despised traditional university education and ignored the relationship between the intelligentsia and the people, particularly the "communal sentiment" of their class consciousness. Early enlighteners like Herzen and Chernyshevsky [13] were already tainted by the intuitive yet irrational abstract philosophical foundations of Kant, Hegel, and Fichte. Lenin argued that reactionaries always speak metaphysically about the role of culture and are "muddled non-party elements." If the study of facts is not placed on a scientific basis, and subjective factors are blindly advocated, the intelligentsia will inevitably lose its political direction. Lenin took Engelhardt’s "Letters from the Countryside," published in Notes of the Fatherland (Otechestvennye Zapiski), as an example to analyze this piece of Populist literature. The work did not labor to whitewash the "commune" ideal; on the contrary, it exposed the startling individualism among small peasants. Here, "'progress' and 'culture' are undoubtedly linked to 'private property'"; real material forces shattered romantic illusions. The utopian shell of Russian Populism could no longer conceal its democratic core, which meticulously sought to discern the condition of the peasantry, to the extent that it exhibited the contradictions within the duality of the petty-bourgeois ideological system.
Third, Lenin criticized the "subjective sociology" method of Russian Populism. Divergences in ideological views are reflected in philosophical methodology: whether one proceeds from objective economic facts or from subjective desires. Nikolay Mikhaylovsky’s subjective sociology "starts from a certain utopia" and takes "human nature" as its starting point. The result is a denial of the objective laws of social development and the a priori fabrication of a theory of Russia's socio-historical development. From this, Russian Populists slandered the Marxist doctrine regarding the laws of social development as "relying on the 'indisputability' of the dialectical process"—that is, a fallacy derived entirely from Hegel’s purely speculative "syllogism." In the first part of What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats, Lenin exposed how Mikhaylovsky and others distorted the truth by knowing only one side of the matter—a method not uncommon in the history of Marxism. A prime example is when Bernstein, the Second International opportunist, claimed while "revising" Marxism that "giving socialism a purely materialistic justification is neither possible nor necessary." As early as 1873, in the "Afterword" to the first volume of Capital, Marx refuted bourgeois critics who cried "Hegelian sophistry" because they could not distinguish between the method of presentation and the method of research. Similarly, in Anti-Dühring, Engels refuted Dühring’s distortion that Marx tied the future to the "negation of the negation"; Engels argued this was merely the viewpoint of a midwife assisting a birth from the womb of the past—Dühring's claim was a complete reversal of black and white. Lenin developed the views of Marx and Engels, further explaining that the materialist dialectic is by no means a "worn-out gold coin." "Being unable to offer any substantial rebuttal to the doctrine, these gentlemen desperately seize upon Marx’s manner of expression and attack the origin of the theory, hoping thereby to shake its foundations." The vile polemical methods of Russian Populism were simply a plagiarism of the worn-out fabrications used by bourgeois "critics."
III. Getting to the Root: The Spiritual Essence of Lenin's Critique of Russian Populism Lenin's critique of Russian Populism was a question of whether Russia would uphold and develop Marxism. To prove the scientific nature of Marxism, Lenin examined ideological criticism within the context of the entire process of socio-historical development. He grasped the "material relations" of social existence, which not only revealed the material basis of modern Russian economic relations but also demonstrated the internal consistency between the transformation of the economic structure and the establishment and development of proletarian ideology in Russia. This fundamentally grasped the inherent laws of Russian social development and pointed out the path to proletarian liberation.
First, Lenin used the Marxist dialectical perspective to reveal the essential attributes of Russian Populism. Looking at its primary ideological views and its evolution, no matter how complex its internal factions were, the general characteristic of all Russian Populist sects was to expose the barbarity of capitalism from the standpoint of communal socialism. To a certain extent, this reflected the democratic demands of Russian society. However, this trend’s preservation of small producers failed to activate the historical initiative of the people. Regarding how to evaluate Russian Populism, in works such as Two Utopias and On Narodnism, Lenin explicitly used terms like "utopia," eclecticism, and "peasant democratism" to express its actual content and social significance. That is, in terms of class nature, "Populism is the ideology (system of ideas) of the Russian peasant democrats." The conservative and reactionary sectarian notions of Russian Populism ignored all revolutionary action. With the development of the Russian revolutionary movement and the crystallization of the forms of class struggle, "this illusion of being above the class struggle, this illusion of opposing the class struggle, loses all practical significance and any theoretical basis." Regarding the occasional emergence and recurring prevalence of this type of utopian socialism in the history of Marxism, Engels once criticized it as a contradiction between economic facts and moral sentiments. As Lenin analyzed its historical role: "As a socialist utopia it is false, but as a manifestation of the specific, historically limited democratic struggle of the peasant masses, it is correct." Therefore, the evaluation of "critical-utopian socialism and communism" by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto applies equally to Russian Populism.
Second, he "specifically studied all forms of economic antagonism in Russia, their connection and consistent development" from the perspective of "material social relations." As mentioned previously, by the end of the 19th century, Russia objectively possessed the basic characteristics of capitalist economic development. At that time, Russian Populism still insisted on understanding Russian economic reality starting from "human nature." Lenin realized that a period of change cannot be judged based on subjective consciousness; instead, the "main criterion for the development of society as a whole" must be sought in the development of productive forces. Does this mean Marxism views economic factors as the sole factor in the development of human social history? Or is Marxism the mechanical economic determinism preached by Mikhaylovsky? Lenin countered that the view distorting Marxism into "economic materialism" and then accusing Marx of "merely calling his worldview materialism when explaining it" is untenable. In fact, Marx "did not limit himself to 'economic theory' in the usual sense; although he explained the composition and development of a social formation entirely through relations of production, he also investigated, at every turn, the superstructure corresponding to these relations of production, giving blood and flesh to the skeleton," thereby forming a unified organic whole and ensuring that Russia developed in accordance with the laws of the succession of social formations.
Third, he proposed that "historical necessity" does not exclude "free will." Russian Populists believed historical materialism was fatalism and that there was an inherent conflict between historical necessity and individual roles. Lenin retorted that Marxism never examines the role of the individual in isolation, and historical necessity by no means obscures the role of individual thought and action, because all history is composed of the individual actions of activists. When individual activities represent the direction of social progress and merge into the struggle of the masses, they can constitute the resultant force of countless individual wills, pushing history forward. The so-called "historical necessity" of Russian Populism was merely an idea that treated historical activists as "puppets" caught in a historical drama—a "blurring" of the individual's role in historical activity. Additionally, Lenin realized the need to correctly handle the relationship between historical figures and the common masses, expressed in Russian Populist terminology as the "intelligentsia and the people." The materialist conception of history confirms the status of the masses as the subjects of history while simultaneously affirming the role of historical figures, because the activity of the masses in creating history can only better advance history when organized and led by leaders. In The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement, Lenin summarized the revolutionary significance of leaders: "No class in history has ever achieved supremacy without putting forward its own political leaders and prominent representatives capable of organizing and leading the movement." Compared to the Russian Populist view that "the rabble cross a certain mysterious and terrible threshold the moment the leader takes the first step," Lenin reduced the activities of "living individuals" to class activities governed by the laws of the material world, thereby correctly "defining the method of reducing individual factors to social roots."
Fourth, one must be a leader of scientific thought within the class struggle between the "proletariat and the bourgeoisie." The "humanity and love for the people" of Russian Populism seemed to use "non-class status" to explain the omnipotence of the intelligentsia; however, their petty-bourgeois democratic style could not erase the "real social forces" and class positions. Lenin believed that beneath the veil of things, class character is the fundamental feature of ideology. Humanity has no "third" ideological concept above classes; wherever class is "hidden by political history, legal features, and traditional theoretical prejudices, it must be exposed." Because at any time, "any belittling of or departure from socialist ideology means the strengthening of bourgeois ideology," and the connection between Russian Populism and capitalism made it the ultimate reaction. Lenin proposed the proposition of "scientific ideology" and the issue of the proletarian party’s leadership in the democratic revolution, advising conscious workers to "declare war" on all Narodniks. "If the task of socialists is to be the ideological leaders of the proletariat," they must prevent the distortion of Marxism by dogmatism and sectarianism through political, ideological, and organizational leadership, so as to prevent the leadership of the revolution from being handed to the bourgeoisie. Indeed, Lenin applied ideology as both a critical and a constructive concept in his critique of erroneous trends of thought, thereby endowing it with the connotation of class struggle—this is also where Lenin differed from the theorists of the Second International. In this "primary" struggle, Lenin acted as the forger of the pure steel of the Marxist worldview, laying the ideological foundation for the proletariat to seize victory in the Russian Revolution and to master ideological leadership during the period of socialist construction.
IV. Practical Insights from Lenin's Critique of Russian Populism If "discovering the new world through the critique of the old world" is the significant meaning of the creation and development of Marxism, then the significance of Lenin's critique of Russian Populism is by no means a simple matter of ideological understanding or academic viewpoints, but an important question of political principle. Lenin integrated the spiritual essence of criticizing erroneous trends of thought into his life-long construction of ideology. His approach of "taking construction as the foundation, while simultaneously constructing and breaking down" explained the proletarian worldview through criticism and polemics, directly embodying the characteristic of Marxism developing through struggle. Xi Jinping has stated: "Adhering to positive publicity as the mainstay by no means means giving up the struggle in public opinion." This requires the Communist Party of China, under the conditions of the New Era, to still inherit Lenin's basic position, viewpoints, and methods in criticizing Russian Populism. It must adhere to the scientific attitude of Marxism in responding to the challenges of various social trends of thought and continuously demonstrate the powerful theoretical might of Marxism.
First, dare to "draw the sword" against erroneous trends of thought and draw a clear line between Marxism and anti-Marxism. Truth exists in comparison with error and develops in struggle against it. The course of Lenin's critique of Russian Populism not only refuted erroneous views but, more importantly, allowed the truth to become clearer through debate. Of course, erroneous trends of thought often disguise themselves as Marxism and exist in various forms—whether it is the rash assertion that Marxism is "obsolete" or a dogmatic understanding of Marxism, they are all essentially anti-Marxist. To maintain the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological sphere in the New Era, we must guide the people to consciously arm their minds with scientific thought and allow the weapon of criticism to play a more important role in social development. Only in this way can we hold the ideological defense line, clear away the interference of various erroneous trends of thought, and fundamentally steady the ideological helm.
Second, enhance theoretical confidence and persist in using Marxism to observe, interpret, and lead China’s social development.
To exert the guiding role of theory over practice, one must emphasize the study and application of theory. Following the guidance of Marxism, Lenin pointed out the correct direction for a Russia that was wandering at a socialist crossroads. Similarly, the Chinese people, having undergone a process of running into walls, awakening, practicing, and achieving breakthroughs, have successfully charted a path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Lenin's experience demonstrates that on this path, "one must remain steadfast and unswerving; there must not be the slightest wavering at any time or under any circumstances." Objectively, new requirements brought about by the shift in the principal contradiction [18] in Chinese society and the development of information technology, as well as the contests and conflicts on the global ideological battlefield, continuously bring new challenges to the task of building cohesion around socialist ideology. The scientific nature and powerful vitality of Marxism lie in its consistent unity of conformity to laws and conformity to purpose. Facing "altered realities" and a "developing era," it remains necessary to locate the essence and laws of the development of things within the historical materialist perspective as we march toward the Second Centenary Goal [19].
Third, we must base ourselves on national conditions and continuously promote the development of Marxism through contemporary Chinese practice. Faced with new economic fluctuations in Russia and a developing revolutionary situation, Lenin did not rigidly adhere to the basic principles of Marxism. Instead, he launched an investigation into Russia’s actual conditions. This not only transcended the utopianism of Russian Populism but also realized the Russianization of Marxism. This was because Lenin had realized that "it is not enough that thought should seek to realize itself; reality must itself strive toward thought." Within the strategic context of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the world’s profound changes unseen in a century [20], the more we seek to successfully carry out the great social revolution of upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics, the more we must achieve the integration of the theoretical and practical nature of Marxism. Naturally, this is also a process of strengthening the ability of Marxism to lead social trends during practice. Given the profound transformations in contemporary China in fields such as production development and technological innovation, every step forward must adhere to a problem-oriented approach, using practice to verify truth. By resolving contradictions and cracking difficult problems through practice, we can avoid being misled by erroneous ideological trends and make original Chinese contributions to the innovative development of Marxism.
Fourth, we must uphold the Party's leadership and discourse power over ideological work. Every ideology is an expression of the class will of a specific class; socialist ideology is the collective embodiment of the ideals, beliefs, values, and moral concepts of the proletarian party. When Lenin criticized the Russian Populists’ attacks on scientific socialism, he affirmed that in a class society, there is no such thing as a non-class ideology. The foundation and prerequisite for the working class to defend Marxism is the seizure of ideological leadership, which "is the political influence of the working class (and its representatives) over the rest of the population." In the New Era, whether viewed from the importance of ideological work, the perspective of enhancing cultural influence and communication capacity, or the viewpoint of consolidating management rights over ideological work, the reinforcement of the mainstream ideology cannot "deviate from the direction guided by the Party’s political construction." Simultaneously, we must use more forceful measures to strengthen the management of ideological fronts [21] and personnel, enhance the construction of the Party's discourse and management capabilities, improve the working mechanism for guiding public opinion, implement the system of the Party managing propaganda and the media, and strengthen political and leadership responsibility for ideological work.