Liu Jun and Sun Cuiping: Three Major Misinterpretations and Correct Understandings of Lenin's New Economic Policy
"What is socialism and how to build it" is a major theoretical and practical task faced by the proletariat and its party after seizing power. In early 1921, Lenin led the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to terminate the policy of War Communism [1] and begin implementing the New Economic Policy (NEP) to gradually transition toward socialism. The NEP holds milestone significance in the history of socialist development, providing important lessons for subsequent socialist construction and reform. Deng Xiaoping pointed out: "As for what socialism actually is, the Soviet Union did it for many years and did not get it completely clear. Perhaps Lenin’s thinking was better, in that he implemented the New Economic Policy." Since its implementation, the NEP has received high levels of attention from all quarters, but various misinterpretations have also existed, the most representative being the "Temporality Thesis," the "Retreat Thesis," and the "Preparation for Offensive Thesis." These misinterpretations, each with its own emphasis yet interwoven with one another, have caused a certain degree of harm to people's correct understanding and grasp of the scientific connotations and major significance of the NEP. Clarifying these misinterpretations, restoring the original appearance of the NEP, and scientifically grasping the ideological essence of the NEP have important theoretical value and practical significance.
I. On the "Temporality Thesis" of the New Economic Policy
The "Temporality Thesis" holds that the NEP was a "temporary" tactic adopted to deal with the political and economic crises of the time. When the NEP was first introduced, some individuals within the Bolshevik Party held this view. For example, Preobrazhensky, then Chairman of the Financial Committee of the Council of People's Commissars, believed that the NEP was merely a temporary phenomenon; as soon as the fire of world revolution was ignited, all commodity trade and currency would have to be abolished. The "Temporality Thesis" is widely circulated and highly influential. The Reference Book for Teachers of Russian History (1900–1945), published by the Russian Education Publishing House in 2009, adopted this view. The editors of the book argued: "One should try to explain the judgment that the New Economic Policy was for the Bolsheviks not only 'forced' but also 'temporary,' intended to escape the acute political and socio-economic crisis of late 1920 to early 1921. In essence, it was a question of how to hold onto political power." A History of Russia, edited by American scholars Nicholas Riasanovsky and Mark Steinberg, also contends: "The NEP was a compromise, a temporary retreat on the Russian road to socialism, in order to give the country a breathing spell and a chance for recovery."
The "Temporality Thesis" uses the duration of the NEP's implementation as its basis for argument, but when Lenin spoke of the NEP, he emphasized: "We are carrying out this policy in earnest and for a long time (certainly, as we have already correctly pointed out, not forever)." In other words, from the perspective of macro-historical development, the NEP could not exist forever; it would inevitably exit the stage of history after completing its mission of transitioning to socialism. In this sense, the NEP does indeed possess temporality, but within the transition period, the NEP possesses the characteristic of long-term duration. At the 10th All-Russian Conference of the RCP(B), Lenin gave high affirmation to Osinsky's formulation that the NEP was "in earnest and for a long time," and exhorted the whole Party that it "needs to be firmly remembered, well remembered." Lenin believed that from socialism to communism requires undergoing "a long and complex transition." As a policy for the transition period, the NEP "must be implemented for a long time over several years." Regarding the specific duration of the NEP's implementation, Lenin held a reserved attitude, emphasizing: "I do not want to predict exactly how long it will be in my view, but I think he spoke somewhat pessimistically. We would be thankful if we could estimate the situation 5–10 years out; usually, we cannot even estimate the situation for 5 weeks." It is not difficult to see that compared to theoretically predicting the development of future society, Lenin was more inclined toward solving practical problems. Implementing the NEP over the long term was a response to realistic development and, moreover, the necessary path for the Soviet state to increase its productive forces. In November 1922, in his last public speech, Lenin again emphasized the long-term nature of the NEP. He pointed out: "The NEP remains the primary, urgent, and all-encompassing slogan of the present."
The NEP was not only an expedient measure to resolve a crisis but also a major exploration of socialism. The major crisis brought about by the policy of War Communism made Lenin realize that new policies must be adopted to overcome the political-economic crisis. The original and most direct purpose of the NEP was indeed to save the Soviet regime which was in crisis. However, as practice gradually advanced, Lenin's thinking on the NEP gradually deepened and expanded. He clearly stated that the NEP was not an "expedient measure," but rather that "we have estimated the balance of class forces and noted how the proletariat should act in order to lead the peasantry in removing all obstacles and advancing toward communism." In human history, no institutional design can be flawless; even the communist system envisioned by Marx and Engels needs to undergo historical processes of optimization, reform, and development. Compared to the provisionality of the War Communism policy, the NEP was a historical exploration based on the long-term development of socialism, aimed at achieving the transition to socialism. Soviet practice had proven that the method of direct implementation of socialism was not feasible. The NEP was an innovation Lenin made on the basis of inheriting Marx’s thoughts on the transition to socialism, combined with the specific Soviet reality; it opened a realistic path for backward countries to transition to socialism. In summary, the NEP was not a "temporary" expedient, but a long-term institutional exploration and systematic construction of socialist development.
II. On the "Retreat Thesis" of the New Economic Policy
The "Retreat Thesis" holds that the NEP was a "retreat" and a "degeneration" toward capitalism, indicating that Lenin had "returned to Marx's original proposition that socialism can only be the successor to mature capitalism." Its core view is that Russia must "make up the lesson" of the capitalist stage of development. This assertion runs contrary to Lenin's original intention and purpose in proposing the NEP and ignores the diversity of paths for socialist development.
The "Smenovekhovstvo" (Changing Landmarks) [2] group was a typical representative of the "Retreat Thesis," its main body consisting of Russian intellectuals living in exile abroad. They argued that the NEP "is not a tactic, but an evolution, an internal degeneration; they will certainly move toward a normal bourgeois state, and we should support them. History leads to the same destination by different routes." Ustryalov, a representative figure of this group, believed that the Soviet regime, by implementing the NEP, had "set foot on the path toward a normal bourgeois regime." Lenin pointed out that the views of the "Changing Landmarks" group reflected the perspectives of various bourgeois intellectuals and some Soviet officials involved in new economic work. Indeed, there were also some within the Soviet state who, while recognizing the necessity of implementing the NEP, held a negative attitude toward its specific practices; for example, Preobrazhensky believed that "state capitalism is capitalism." Furthermore, some people in the Party with ultra-left stances even believed that the NEP was a surrender to the bourgeoisie and a "retreat," with some even leaving the Party out of opposition to the NEP.
The "Retreat Thesis" has had a significant influence in academic circles. Leszek Kołakowski, a representative of the "Retreat Thesis," proposed that the NEP confirmed the conclusion that "the capitalist stage of development cannot be bypassed." He believed that the War Communism policy implemented at the beginning of the Soviet regime was a Jacobin-style policy of terror that brought only temporary success and was bound to be unsustainable in the long run, saying: "Like the Jacobins, he found himself on the edge of a precipice, though at the last moment he was still able to retreat." Some "Retreat" proponents also divided the scope of the retreat based on the implementation of the NEP; for example, E. B. Genkina believed that there was no retreat in the political sphere or the sphere of large-scale industry, and that "the retreat only involved the commercial aspects in the sphere of circulation and the aspects of permitting private capitalist commerce."
On one hand, the "Retreat Thesis" distorts the original intention of the "retreat." Returning to the historical era in which Lenin lived, one can find that the "retreat" of the NEP was for the sake of unity with practice. Lenin once pointed out: "The New Economic Policy is a retreat; we went a bit further than we could control." Previous policies had not only failed to allow Russia to transition directly to socialism but had instead caused serious political and economic crises. In a situation where small-scale production predominated in Russia, it was necessary to adopt the NEP to transition to socialism through intermediate links and by means of a roundabout transition or indirect methods. However, this was not a retreat to capitalism. Lenin once pointed out: "Prudently and gradually grasp them, or say, make it possible to implement state regulation of them only within the scope of making them active." Under the premise of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the NEP utilized state capitalism to develop productive forces and the economy; this was not a "degeneration" toward capitalism, but on the contrary, it was conducive to the eventual realization of socialism.
On the other hand, the "Retreat Thesis" claims that the NEP was a "degeneration," which in fact denies the Soviet exploration of the path of socialist development. After the victory of the Russian October Revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat had already been established. The "Retreat Thesis" equates the necessary "retreat" in the developmental stage of the proletariat with surrender to capitalism, and equates state capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat with capitalism in the general sense; this is a conclusion reached by ignoring the premise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It must be pointed out that state capitalism under Soviet leadership, as a special means of transitioning to socialism, had the ultimate goal of achieving socialism rather than capitalism. Lenin emphasized that Soviet Russia's state capitalism was different from capitalist state capitalism. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, state capitalism "is capitalism that we are able to limit and whose scope we are able to stipulate. This state capitalism is linked with the state, and the state is the workers, the advanced part of the workers, the vanguard—it is us." In essence, the NEP reflected the diversity of paths for socialist development. Although Soviet Russia utilized certain means of state capitalism—such as concessions, leasing, cooperatives, and commission agencies—it only changed the methods of economic construction and did not change the nature of the state. The "retreat" of the NEP had a far-reaching goal: to move toward socialism and eventually achieve communism.
III. On the "Preparation for Offensive Thesis" of the New Economic Policy
The "preparation for an offensive" theory integrates certain perspectives from both the "transient theory" and the "retreat theory," positing that the New Economic Policy (NEP) was a preparation for an "offensive" based on the tactical foundation of a "temporary retreat." In the early days of the NEP’s implementation, some within the Party viewed it merely as a breathing space before a renewed assault, advocating that once conditions changed, the policy of attacking capitalism should be resumed. Zinoviev [3] argued: "The NEP is a retreat similar to Brest[-]Litovsk, a retreat similar to the one after June 1917. When the proletarian revolution matures in other countries and the Western proletariat grants us aid, we shall resume the offensive. For the time being, all we have is a 'breathing space.'"
A year after the NEP began, Lenin raised the slogan of "stopping the retreat." The interpretation of this idea caused significant internal friction within the Soviets. Among these, the debate between Stalin and Bukharin in the late 1920s was the most representative. Bukharin pointed out: "In the past, we believed we could eliminate market relations in one fell swoop. But actual conditions have shown that we must move toward socialism precisely through market relations"; "The existence of market relations is—to a certain extent—the decisive factor of the NEP. This is the important criterion for determining the essence of the NEP." Bukharin believed that, based on historical conditions at the time, the Soviet Union’s road to achieving socialism remained very long; the NEP was not only far from obsolete but, on the contrary, was of great significance and had to be sustained for a long duration.
Stalin, however, argued that Bukharin only noticed one aspect of the NEP—the utilization of the market—while ignoring the other: namely, that "the NEP is the allowance of private trade within certain limits and a certain scope, provided the state ensures its regulatory role over the market. This is the second aspect of the NEP," and this second aspect "is more important for us." Stalin pointed out that the essence of the NEP was to amass strength through a "temporary retreat" in order to launch a new offensive against capitalism. "The NEP is a policy whereby the Party permits a struggle between socialist and capitalist elements, expecting the socialist elements to triumph over the capitalist ones. In fact, the NEP only begins with a retreat, but it intends to redeploy forces during the retreat and launch an offensive." In Stalin's view, the NEP could no longer adapt to the developmental requirements of socialism, and he therefore emphasized the need to launch an "offensive" against "capitalism."
The "preparation for an offensive" theory overlooks the long-term nature of the NEP and the "circuitous" [4] nature of entering socialism. To clarify the misreadings of the "preparation for an offensive" theory, one must return to Lenin's expositions on the idea of "retreat," and especially his idea of "stopping the retreat."
First, Lenin’s proposal to "stop the retreat" meant that concessions to the capitalist economy would not go any further, rather than stopping the implementation of the NEP itself. One year into the NEP, Lenin noted: "We have been retreating for a year. We should now declare on behalf of the Party: Enough! The purpose of the retreat has been achieved." In other words, "stopping the retreat" lay in the fact that the objectives of the retreat had been met and the retreat had reached its limit. Looking at the practice of the time, the NEP had already begun to form a specific operational model and had explored a circuitous path of transition; no further concessions would be made to capitalism. Lenin clearly stated: "The words 'stopping the retreat' must by no means be understood as: We already believe our foundation (of the New Economy) has been laid and we can move forward with peace of mind. No, the foundation has not yet been laid. We cannot yet look to the future with peace of mind." In short, "stopping the retreat" was by no means equivalent to stopping the implementation of the NEP. "Stopping the retreat is not only not changing the New Economic Policy, but also involves riding the steed of the NEP into socialism."
Second, facing the risks brought by the NEP, what was needed after "stopping the retreat" was a "redeployment of forces" rather than a rash "offensive." The implementation of the NEP allowed the capitalist-natured economy to recover to a certain extent, causing Soviet Russia to face dual political and economic risks. Economically, in the process of utilizing capitalism, because the proletariat was unfamiliar with economic management, there was a danger of being exploited by the bourgeoisie. Politically, with the rapid growth of capitalist economic components, capitalists would inevitably seek political status; added to the influence of bureaucratism, this could easily breed "unhealthy winds" among Party and state personnel.
Faced with these issues, Lenin advocated starting from the Party’s own construction, strengthening state intervention, and training managerial talent. He pointed out that the key at present "does not lie in politics, that is, not in changing the guidelines," but "lies in personnel, in the selection of talent," which was the core content of "redeploying forces." After Lenin declared the "stop of the retreat" at the 11th Congress of the RCP(B), the next goal he proposed was the redeployment of forces. It must be emphasized that "stopping the retreat" is not equal to an "offensive." Lenin advocated utilizing the capitalist economy to develop socialism; during the construction of the proletarian state, one should "not attempt to prohibit or block the development of capitalism, but strive to channel this development into the tracks of state capitalism."
Shortly after the victory of the October Revolution, Lenin analyzed the economic components of Soviet Russia and pointed out that the main contradiction in society did not lie in the antagonism between state capitalism and socialism, "but rather the petty bourgeoisie and private capitalism joined together, struggling against both state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie resists any state intervention, accounting, and supervision, whether it be state capitalist or state socialist." The purpose of the NEP allowing the existence of capitalism was to utilize capitalism to improve social productive forces and accumulate material strength for moving toward socialism and ultimately realizing communism. The proletariat should not organize an "offensive" against capitalism through political means but should use the competition between capitalist and socialist elements to improve social productive forces and lay a solid economic base for socialism.
Undeniably, Lenin did indeed mention the word "offensive," but the slogan of "offensive" he proposed was merely a tactic to soothe radicals within the Party. Lenin once noted that certain "revolutionaries accustomed to the offensive," when faced with the retreat of the NEP, "would most inappropriately cry like children." After the NEP was proposed, some in the Party held an oppositional stance or viewed it only as a temporary tactic to deal with the crisis. To maintain Party unity to the greatest extent, Lenin proposed "stopping the retreat" and preparing for an offensive. However, Lenin never gave a specific timeframe for the "offensive"; instead, he pointed out: "Where and how we should now regroup, adapt, and reorganize so as to begin a most tenacious forward offensive after the retreat, we do not yet know." Lenin believed that rather than focusing on this uncertain future issue, it was better to focus more on the concrete conditions of the present—this also reflected from a different angle that Lenin did not place the focus of his work on the "offensive."
IV. Methodological Principles for Correctly Understanding the NEP
The various misreadings of the NEP have different emphases yet are intertwined. To clarify these misreadings, one must return to the historical background in which Lenin implemented the NEP. Lenin's understanding and exposition of the NEP underwent a process from simple to complex, starting from the initial single policy of the tax in kind [5] to gradually being enriched and developed into a complete system encompassing a series of economic and political policies. Genkina pointed out that Lenin’s various discourses on the NEP at different times and on different occasions were aimed at specific aspects of the NEP and did not form a complete definition. This scattered and diverse expression makes it easy for people to produce misreadings that "notice only one point and ignore the rest." However, Lenin's scattered discourses on the NEP "taken together, created a complete and unified doctrine on the economic policy of the proletarian state during the transition period from capitalism to socialism." To correctly grasp the NEP, one must return to Lenin's era, recognize its essence from Lenin's systematic discourses on the NEP, and adhere to the following methodological principles.
(i) Correctly grasping the dialectical unity of the universality and particularity of historical development
The Marxist materialist conception of history reveals the universal laws of human historical development. This universality resides within particularity and is expressed through particularity. In criticizing the views of Sukhanov [6] and others, Lenin pointed out: "The general laws of world-historical development, so far from excluding special stages of development that exhibit peculiarities in either the form or the sequence of development, on the contrary, presuppose them. Thus Russia can and must exhibit certain peculiarities which, while following the general line of world development, distinguish the Russian revolution from preceding revolutions in Western European countries, and which will produce certain local innovations when the movement spreads to Eastern countries."
How to build socialism after the proletariat seizes power is a major issue in the history of socialist development. Marx and Engels proposed some principled conceptions on this issue, such as eliminating commodity production and the state unifiedly formulating plans and arranging economic production. These conceptions were based on the premise of highly developed social productive forces. The basic principles of Marxism have universal guiding significance, but this guidance needs to be combined with the specific conditions of each country and each historical stage. After the victory of the October Revolution, Russia was still an economically and culturally backward country, far from the premise of highly developed productive forces envisioned by Marx and Engels. Based on this, Lenin emphasized: "The era where socialist programs were debated according to books has passed," and "today we can only talk about socialism based on experience." The specific conditions Russia faced when the NEP was implemented were "unprecedented in history," "never explored in any theory or works," and "not a single book has written about state capitalism under a communist system. Even Marx did not think to write a single word on this issue."
The particularity of the NEP lay in allowing capitalism to exist and play a role within a certain extent and scope under the premise of ensuring basic socialist principles; the implementation of the NEP was a new exploration based on actual conditions. Lenin pointed out: "We are now using the 'New Economic Policy' to correct many of our errors; we are learning how to further construct the socialist edifice in a small-peasant country without making these errors." The implementation and advancement of the NEP were the product of Lenin combining the universal laws revealed by Marxism with the specific conditions of Russia.
Building socialism cannot be confined to the conceptions of socialism held by classical Marxist writers; one must adhere to liberating the mind, seeking truth from facts, and upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground. The Report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC pointed out: "We adhere to Marxism as our guide in order to use its scientific worldview and methodology to solve China’s problems, not to memorize and repeat its specific conclusions and phrases, and even less to treat Marxism as an immutable dogma." Therefore, we must be adept at combining the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific reality and with the fine traditional Chinese culture.
(ii) Correctly grasping the dialectical unity of retreat and offensive in the socialist movement
The development of human history often manifests as a spiral ascent and wave-like progress. The cause of proletarian liberation is the greatest cause of humanity and is bound to be full of difficulties and obstacles. Lenin frequently quoted a saying by Chernyshevsky [7]—"Historical activity is not the pavement of the Nevsky Prospekt"—and believed that the road to socialism would not be a broad, straight highway, but would frequently require "traversing the narrowest, most difficult, most tortuous, and most dangerous mountain paths." Lenin clearly pointed out at the 10th Congress of the RCP(B): "One thing we understand in our hearts: the resolutions of the 9th Congress assumed our movement would proceed in a straight line, but in fact, as is common in the history of revolutions, the movement proceeds in zigzags." In the process of socialist development, it is impossible to have only offensives without retreats; under specific conditions, the retreat itself is a form of progress.
The dialectics of retreat and advance are profoundly embodied in Lenin’s thought on the New Economic Policy. On one hand, the NEP was a "strategic retreat"; it did not mean surrendering one's positions to capitalism. Lenin explained this "strategic retreat" as follows: "The task of moving to the New Economic Policy was set because, after the experiment of direct socialist construction—conducted under conditions of unprecedented difficulty, civil war, and the forms of cruel struggle forced upon us by the bourgeoisie—it became clear by the spring of 1921 that we could not proceed with direct socialist construction. Instead, in many economic spheres, we had to retreat toward state capitalism; not by means of a frontal assault, but through an extremely arduous, difficult, and unpleasant long-term siege accompanied by a series of retreats. To begin solving the economic problem—that is, to ensure the transition of the economy to a socialist foundation—this is what had to be done." On the other hand, a temporary retreat is intended to preserve strength and accumulate power in preparation for a new and greater offensive, laying the foundation for the ultimate transition to socialism. Its essence is to retreat in order to advance, or "taking a step back to take two steps forward." As Lenin put it: "We are now retreating, going back as it were; but we are doing so in order to retreat a few steps first, and then take a run-up and leap forward more powerfully."
In the history of socialist development, many errors committed by proletarian parties have stemmed from treating the replacement of capitalism by socialism as a linear evolution, overlooking the arduous and tortuous nature of revolution, and failing to correctly handle the relations between offensive and retreat, or between linear evolution and roundabout transition. Deng Xiaoping once profoundly noted: "We are all revolutionaries, and revolutionaries are most prone to the 'acute disease' [8]," adding that "in the past, China committed the error of being too impatient." The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC pointed out that in the New Era, "building a modern socialist country in all respects is a great and arduous undertaking; the future is bright, but the road is long and the task is heavy." We must "strengthen our awareness of potential dangers, adhere to bottom-line thinking [9], be prepared for danger in times of peace, plan ahead, and be ready to withstand major tests involving high winds, turbulent waters, or even terrifying storm-tossed waves."
(3) Correctly Grasping the Dialectical Unity of Utilizing Capitalism and Transcending Capitalism
The ultimate goal of socialism is to abolish capitalism and realize communism. Marx pointed out: "No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society." To abolish capitalism and build socialism, one must be adept at learning from and utilizing the strengths of capitalism. As Mao Zedong said: "We can abolish capitalism while still practicing capitalism [10]." During the period of Wartime Communism, Soviet Russia attempted a direct transition to socialism through public ownership, but this ultimately failed. The NEP allowed and encouraged the development of the small private sector and the capitalist economy, with the aim of using capitalism to achieve a roundabout transition toward socialism. At that time, five economic sectors existed in Soviet Russia: the patriarchal economy, small commodity production, private capitalism, state capitalism, and socialism. Under the coexistence of multiple economic sectors, an ownership structure containing various economic components emerged. To improve the level of development of the productive forces, Lenin advocated utilizing capitalism to serve socialist construction. To this end, Lenin opposed the abstract opposition of capitalism and socialism, emphasizing a dialectical and historical perspective. He pointed out: "Compared to socialism, capitalism is an evil. But compared to medievalism, small production, and the bureaucracy caused by the fragmentation of small producers, capitalism is a blessing." Compared to small production, capitalist production possesses greater superiority, "therefore, we should utilize capitalism (especially by directing it into the tracks of state capitalism) as an intermediate link between small production and socialism, and as a means, a path, a method, and a mode of increasing the productive forces."
At the beginning of the NEP, many people both within and outside the Party questioned whether measures such as restoring markets and free trade in commodities would lead to a capitalist restoration or undermine socialism. Lenin was soberly aware of such dangers; he likened the implementation of the NEP to a contest between Communists and capitalists that was more dangerous than an armed revolutionary struggle. He noted: "The whole problem is: who will outstrip whom? If the capitalists organize first, they will drive out the Communists, and then there will be nothing more to talk about." During the implementation of the NEP, if Communists could not master the capitalist elements, they risked being consumed by capitalism. However, Communists could not abandon the use of capitalist strengths to develop socialism simply because such risks existed. To the skeptics, Lenin replied clearly: "Theoretically speaking, is it possible to restore freedom of trade and freedom of capitalism for the small peasantry to a certain extent without thereby undermining the foundations of proletarian state power? Can it be done? Yes, it can, for it is a question of degree." How does one master the "degree"? Lenin pointed out that the key lay in ensuring that capitalist elements did not endanger the proletarian regime: "A proletarian state can, without changing its essence, permit freedom of trade and the development of capitalism." At the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, Lenin pointed out that the essence of the NEP primarily consisted of: (α) the state holding the land; (β) the state holding all commanding heights in the sphere of means of production (transport, etc.); (γ) freedom of trade in the sphere of small production; and (δ) state capitalism in the sense of attracting private capital (concessions and mixed companies). In addition to emphasizing free trade and state capitalism, Lenin stressed that the prerequisite for the NEP was the state’s control over land and all "commanding heights" of the means of production. These two points were bottom lines from which the NEP would never retreat, fundamentally guaranteeing the socialist nature of the system. In his final public speech, Lenin emphasized: "We must move toward socialism, but not as if it were a holy icon painted in solemn colors." Only if Communists master skills and abilities superior to those of the capitalists can the masses perceive through comparison that socialism is "better than the old system." "In this way, the Russia of the NEP will become Socialist Russia."
In the history of socialist development, Lenin’s NEP was the first exploration into breaking through a monolithic system of public ownership to develop productive forces under a socialist system. These ideas offer important lessons for China's socialist construction and reform. On one hand, during the reform process, we must adhere to basic socialist principles and the path of development, maintain the dominance of public ownership, and always ensure the correct direction of socialist reform. On the other hand, China's socialist construction and reform require the utilization of market relations and the development of a multi-ownership economy. In the early days of the socialist system, Mao Zedong pointed out: "We must mobilize all positive factors, both at home and abroad, to serve the cause of socialism." During the period of Reform and Opening-up, Deng Xiaoping emphasized actively learning from the advanced production technologies and productive forces of Western capitalism: "On the basis of self-reliance, we also need to open to the outside world and absorb foreign capital and technology to help us develop." As socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered the New Era, China remains in the primary stage of socialism and still needs to correctly handle the dialectical relationship between utilizing and transcending capitalism. Xi Jinping has pointed out: "For a considerably long period of time, socialism in its primary stage must engage in long-term cooperation and struggle with more developed capitalism, and must seriously learn from and draw upon the beneficial achievements of civilization created by capitalism." On this basis, "through continuous reform and innovation, we must make socialism with Chinese characteristics more efficient than the capitalist system in liberating and developing social productive forces, liberating and enhancing social vitality, and promoting all-around human development. It must be more capable of stimulating the enthusiasm, initiative, and creativity of all people, providing more favorable conditions for social development, winning comparative advantages in competition, and fully demonstrating the superiority of the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics."
(The authors' affiliation: School of Marxism, Peking University) Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Contemporary World and Socialism, Issue 3, 2023