Wang Zhongru: Lenin's View on the Essence of Socialism: Economic and Political Perspectives
Lenin was the founder of the world's first socialist state. Compared to Marx and Engels, Lenin possessed rich practical experience in leading socialist construction. On the question of the essence of socialism, Lenin upheld the fundamental perspectives of Marx and Engels. Through contrasting it with the essence of capitalism and through his arduous explorations in socialist construction, he arrived at conclusions that possess both high theoretical value and profound practical significance, providing precious theoretical resources for later generations to deeply understand and practice the essence of socialism.
I. Concern for the Problem of Human Development
While Marx and Engels devoted a vast amount of writing to the issues of human liberation and development, Lenin’s direct discourse in this area was not extensive. His earliest discussion appears in the 1902 "Draft Programme of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party": "To achieve the real liberation of the working class, a social revolution is necessary—prepared by the entire development of capitalism—that is, the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, their transformation into public property, and the organization of the socialist production of products by society as a whole to replace capitalist commodity production, so as to ensure full well-being and the free, all-around development of all members of society." These ideas, with slight stylistic adjustments, were incorporated into the Party Constitutions of 1903, 1917, and 1919. The complete formulation in the "Programme of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)" promulgated in 1919 states: "The social revolution of the proletariat replaces private property in the means of production and circulation with public ownership, and organizes the social production process according to a plan to ensure the well-being and all-around development of all members of society; it will abolish the division of society into classes, thereby liberating all oppressed humanity, for it will abolish all forms of exploitation of one part of society by another." The 1919 Party Programme was the final one issued before Lenin’s death.
In 1902, the Russian Revolution was still in its infancy. By 1919, the October Revolution [1] had been victorious for two years. Despite fundamental changes in the overall situation, the core ideas of the 1919 Programme and the 1902 Draft Programme remained highly consistent, with only minor differences in phrasing: the 1902 draft's "full well-being and the free, all-around development of all members of society" became "the well-being and all-around development of all members of society" in the 1919 version, with the qualifiers "full" and "free" removed. From this, we can see that "public ownership of the means of production and circulation" is a means, while "the well-being and all-around development of all members of society" is the objective of socialism and the fundamental manifestation of its essence. Beyond the Party Programme, Lenin did not speak excessively on the liberation and development of the individual. However, he made a major theoretical contribution to this issue by providing a clear definition of class. Class is a core concept of Marxism. Marxism holds that in societies since the disintegration of primitive society, humans exist first and foremost as members of a class. To discuss humanity and its values in the abstract while ignoring social individuals and groups with different occupations and socio-economic statuses cannot solve any problems regarding human beings. The basic relationship between classes is one of ruling and being ruled, of exploiting and being exploited, regardless of whether the individual class member is conscious of it. Human liberation and development must be realized through class liberation. Therefore, aside from a few passages envisioning the state of human existence in a future society—such as the "association of free individuals" discussed in the Communist Manifesto and Capital—Marx and Engels more frequently used the concept of class to elucidate their doctrine. They even used the concept of "the people" only when necessary; they believed that the people are divided into classes and that the various classes constituting the people hold different positions in the revolution. To speak vaguely of "the people" would only blur class boundaries and thus cause trouble for the liberation of the proletariat. Nevertheless, Marx and Engels never provided a definitive definition of class. This task was completed by Lenin. "Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labor of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy." [2] The "abolition of classes" is the "ultimate aim" of socialism. To a certain extent, the connotation of "abolishing classes" is highly consistent with "the well-being and all-around development of all members of society"; both are revelations and expressions of the essence of socialism.
Many scholars have noted that Lenin did not discuss the liberation and development of the individual at great length. Some scholars argue that "philosophical definitions such as 'man' and 'human essence' seem to be logical missing links in the construction of Lenin’s philosophical theory." As for the reason: "This is likely the consequence of a closed theoretical loop caused by those economic-determinist theorists since the Second International [3] who used positivism to conduct brainwashing," and "perhaps" it is also "one of the historical reasons why the entire subsequent tradition of Marxist philosophical interpretation ignored the human problem." This insight has some merit, but it is by no means the whole story. Lenin once severely criticized the "capitalist era" in which "the working masses suffer constant exploitation and cannot develop their diverse human talents." He also placed his hopes in the broad laboring masses being able, after the victory of the revolution, to "overcome the selfishness, fragmentation, deep-seated vices, and weakness caused by private ownership," to exert their "full initiative and vitality," to "genuinely learn to build socialism from their own practical experience," and to "establish a free union of free workers." More importantly, theory originates from practice. From the perspective of revolutionary practice, the fact that Lenin did not discuss human issues as extensively as Marx and Engels—especially during the early period of their theoretical activities—has a greater and more direct relationship with the environment and the issues of the era in which he lived. The theoretical problem of human liberation and development had already been satisfactorily resolved by Marx and Engels. The key lay in how to implement and realize it under different conditions. In particular, at a time when capitalism had entered the stage of imperialism, when imperialist powers were instigating a world war to carve up the globe, and when the working-class movement in developed capitalist countries had fallen into a low ebb—with the working class becoming largely "bourgeoisified" and working-class parties becoming reformist—the liberation of the Russian proletariat and peasantry, and the national liberation of the vast colonies and semi-colonies, became the primary concerns for Lenin. Under these circumstances, Lenin’s main tasks were to deeply analyze and accurately grasp the essence of capitalism (especially imperialism) in the new stage of revolution, to fully utilize the new situation of revolution and war to educate, organize, and lead the proletariat toward success, and, after the victory of the revolution, to creatively practice the fundamental principles of socialism based on the specific level of development and realistic conditions, manifesting the essence of socialism in various fields.
Engels once pointed out that things should be studied from their "historical or logical process of formation." Lenin also emphasized that Marx "generally did not give definitions," and that one must understand "the essence of the matter" through "experience" rather than through existing "legal definitions." When discussing the essence of the capitalist mode of production, Lenin noted that one should "view the essence of the capitalist mode of production in contrast to other previous production modes in history." This judgment undoubtedly also applies to Lenin’s understanding of the essence of socialism. Without understanding Lenin’s grasp of the essence of capitalism, it is difficult to understand his view on the essence of socialism.
II. Understanding the Essence of Capitalism
A scientific understanding of the historical evolution, spiritual essence, basic characteristics, and development trends of capitalism is the fundamental prerequisite for the smooth advancement of the proletarian revolution. Discourse on the essence of capitalism runs through Lenin’s works from his early to late periods; though not strictly systematic, the basic spirit remains consistent throughout.
In February 1919, in the "Draft Programme of the RCP(B)" written for the Eighth Party Congress, Lenin proposed: "The proletarian revolution has begun in Russia and is developing rapidly everywhere. To understand this revolution, it is necessary to understand the essence of capitalism and the inevitability of its development toward the dictatorship of the proletariat." Regarding the essence of capitalism, Lenin explained: "The essence, i.e., the basic nature of capitalism and bourgeois society," was "explained in the following formulation used by our old Marxist Party Programme." The "old Marxist Programme" Lenin referred to was the one adopted by the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903. Next, Lenin quoted eight paragraphs totaling over 1,200 words of "the following formulation." These theoretical statements regarding the general laws and development trends of capitalism became an official part of the "Programme of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)" at the Eighth Congress. The first paragraph states: "The main characteristic of this society is commodity production based on capitalist relations of production, under which the most important and a large part of the means of production and means of circulation of commodities belong to a small class of persons, while the vast majority of the population consists of proletarians and semi-proletarians, who, by their economic position, are compelled permanently or periodically to sell their labor-power, i.e., to hire themselves out to the capitalists and by their labor create the incomes of the upper classes of society." A length of over 1,200 words makes it difficult to explain the essence of capitalism rationally and concisely. Lenin also recognized this defect, noting that "this first draft is still imperfect in many respects, especially in phrasing, so that in some places explanatory formulations have been used instead of programmatic ones," yet this defect was not corrected in the officially adopted Programme. Nevertheless, the first and most important paragraph of the "explanatory formulations" quoted above provides us with a valuable clue for understanding Lenin's view of the essence of capitalism.
First, we see that Lenin identifies "commodity production based on capitalist relations of production" as the "primary characteristic" of capitalist society. In his 1893 work On the So-called Market Question, Lenin defined commodity production and capitalism respectively: "By commodity production is meant an organization of social economy in which goods are produced by separate, isolated producers, each specialising in the making of some one product, so that to satisfy the needs of society it is necessary to buy and sell products (which, therefore, become commodities) in the market. By capitalism is meant that stage of development of commodity production at which not only the articles of human labour, but human labour-power itself becomes a commodity." From this exposition, we can draw three conclusions: first, commodity production encompasses different historical stages, of which capitalist production is one; second, producers manufacture goods to satisfy social (others') needs, and thus the products of labor become commodities through market exchange; third, the conversion of the producer’s labor power into a commodity is the unique hallmark of commodity production under capitalist conditions. Lenin further outlined the "various stages of the transformation of natural economy into capitalist economy" and its historical process, using the example of "the gradual changes occurring in a communal economic system composed of six producers." In 1894, in the article The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve's Book, Lenin further refined these views: "According to Marx's doctrine, the essential features of capitalism are two: (1) Commodity production is the general form of production. Products take the form of commodities in the most diverse social production organisms, but only in capitalist production is this form of the product of labor general, and not exceptional, isolated, or accidental. (2) Not only the product of labor takes the form of a commodity, but labor itself—that is, human labor power—also takes the form of a commodity." In this discourse, besides emphasizing labor power becoming a commodity, Lenin also stressed that "commodity production is the general form of production."
Lenin undoubtedly understood capitalism based on the human history available up to his era. By treating the generalization of commodity production and the commodification of labor power as the essential characteristics of capitalism, he highlighted the fundamental difference between capitalism and pre-capitalist societies regarding production goals and economic operation—namely, the difference between a natural economy producing for one's own needs and a commodity economy producing for profit. However, this excluded the possibility of a future society adopting commodity production, including the commodification of labor power. In fact, this possibility was already implicit in his discussion of the "various stages of the transformation of natural economy into capitalist economy": if commodity production is not equivalent to capitalist production and predates it, why could it not exist in the socio-economic formations following capitalism? There is an obvious logical loophole here.
Taking "commodity production" as the primary characteristic of capitalism was a common understanding among Marxists of Lenin’s time, including Lenin himself, and it aligned with Marx and Engels’ theoretical prediction that commodity production would not exist in the future society. The reason for such an understanding lies in what we today recognize—from our current vantage point—as a significant limitation in Marxist common sense: the belief that dominant commodity production inevitably leads to an anarchy of production, which is unique to capitalism; and that under the conditions of large-scale production, social demand for products is finite at least in terms of quantity, thereby creating an objective requirement for planned and proportional production. Precisely because of this, Lenin emphasized: "It is only in this respect—the proportionality, systematic nature, and planned nature of production—that Marx equates the small-peasant economy with the economy of 'associated producers'... The difference between capitalism and these two socio-economic systems lies in the anarchy of production."
However, in the formulation "commodity production based on capitalist relations of production," while "commodity production" is the subject, the more important content is its qualifier—the "basis" of "capitalist relations of production." As stated in the Program of the Eighth Congress of the RCP(b) [4]: "Under capitalist relations of production, the most important and largest part of the means of production and the means of commodity circulation belong to a small class of persons, while the vast majority of the population consists of proletarians and semi-proletarians, who, by their economic position, are forced to sell their labor power continuously or periodically, i.e., to hire themselves out as wage-workers to the capitalists and create by their labor the incomes of the upper classes of society." This passage grasps the essence of capitalist relations of production: a small bourgeoisie owns the means of production, while the proletarians and semi-proletarians, who constitute the bulk of the population, own no means of production and must live by selling their labor power to create surplus value for the bourgeoisie. Understanding the economic essence of the capitalist system from the dimension of relations of production—particularly the ownership of the means of production—is more accurate and scientific than understanding it from the dimension of commodity production as an economic operating mechanism. Commodity production, theoretically and historically, is not unique to capitalist society, even if it only achieved its general form within it; thus, it is not suitable as the primary characteristic or essential feature of capitalism. The practice of human production since the time of Marx, Engels, and Lenin—especially the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics—has fully demonstrated this point.
For Marx and Engels, socialist society has no politics and would be victorious almost simultaneously in advanced capitalist countries. Therefore, their discourses on the essence of socialism were mainly centered on human liberation and development, unfolding from the dimensions of material production, exchange, distribution, and consumption. Their discourse on capitalism likewise focused on how capitalist production fragments and distorts human liberation and development. In Lenin’s era, the revolution first achieved victory in a single country, Russia, facing encirclement and strangulation by capitalism. At the same time, in the view of the proletarian revolutionary leaders of Lenin’s generation, the Russian Revolution was merely a spark for the world revolution, and they bore the sacred mission of acting as the vanguard of that world revolution. Without the final victory of the world revolution, there would be no socialism in Russia alone. Under these circumstances, it became necessary to understand the essence of capitalism and socialism across multiple levels, including the economic and political.
Lenin himself analyzed the "class essence of Russian liberals" from both economic and political orientations: "from an economic point of view," this essence is manifested in "the economic privileges of the bourgeoisie," namely "the possession of capital" and the "profits" it brings; "from a political point of view," it is manifested in "the political privileges cherished by the bourgeoisie." In Lenin’s works, the concept of "economic essence" appears many times. In his 1916 work The Nascent Trend of 'Imperialist Economism', Lenin argued that "the replacement of free competition by monopoly" is the "economic essence of imperialism." In 1917, in Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme, he corrected this view: "It is the combination of these two contradictory 'principles'—competition and monopoly—that is the essence of imperialism." Regarding politics, Lenin also used the concept of "political essence," though not regarding social systems but in reference to the "petty bourgeoisie." The following passage from The State and Revolution, written shortly before the October Revolution, fully reflects Lenin’s view on the political essence of capitalism: "The forms of bourgeois states are extremely varied, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." Of course, what fundamentally determines the fate of capitalism is still its economic essence: "The substitution of the democratic-republican form of management for the monarchical form does not in the least affect the economic essence of the capitalist system of exploitation; on the contrary, it merely changes the way the struggle is waged to protect the sacred and inviolable capitalist profit, which can be maintained just as successfully under a democratic republic as under an autocratic monarchy."
Based on the above understanding, our sorting, extraction, and summarization of Lenin’s discourse on the essence of socialism will also unfold from these two orientations—economic and political—or rather, we will understand Lenin’s view on the essence of socialism through these two dimensions.
III. The Economic Essence of Socialism
As the founder of the world's first socialist state, during the process of turning socialism from theory into practice and facing vastly different realistic conditions, Lenin inevitably encountered a tension between theoretical understanding and practical requirements while enriching and developing socialist theory. This tension led to a more complex situation regarding the understanding of the essence of socialism. In his works, both "socialism in theory" and "socialism in practice" exist.
The so-called "socialism in theory" is a question of "ought" (Sollen). "So long as workers and peasants remain, socialism has not been achieved." "Socialism will arrive only when classes no longer exist and all the tools of production belong to the working people." Whether this "ought" possessed realistic rationality and feasibility was unknown in the environment Lenin inhabited. Thus, when discussing distribution, he pointed out: "A direct transition to pure socialist forms and pure socialist distribution is beyond our strength." Undoubtedly, this "pure socialist form" is a theoretical construct—a logical abstraction by Marx and Engels based on the reality of advanced European capitalism. Lenin also referred to this "pure socialism" as "complete socialism": "Socialism means the abolition of classes, and as long as there are workers and peasants, there are different classes, and therefore there can be no complete socialism."
The so-called "socialism in practice" is a question of "is" (Sein)—that is, a socialism limited by Russia's realistic conditions and possessing practical feasibility. Lenin spoke quite clearly on this point: "Socialism is no longer a matter of the distant future, or an abstract picture, or an icon. With regard to icons, we still hold our old negative view. We have dragged socialism into everyday life, and here we must find our way." It was based on this socialism in "everyday life" that Lenin concluded: "Given social ownership of the means of production, given the class victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, the system of civilized co-operators is the system of socialism."
Lenin’s direct leadership over the practice of socialist construction lasted for only a very brief period. His understanding of socialism was influenced by the dual forces of theory and practice. On the economic front, this was manifested in the following points:
First, large-scale industry is the foundation of socialism. "Large-scale machine industry... is the only possible economic basis for socialism." "There is only one real and only basis for developing resources and building a socialist society, and that is large-scale industry. If there are no large capitalist factories and no highly developed large-scale industry, there can be no talk of socialism at all." This understanding is sound. A socialism not based on large-scale industry is not the scientific socialism advocated by Marx and Engels, which was to be built upon the foundation of full capitalist development.
Second, public ownership of the means of production. Generally speaking, there is no problem with this understanding. The key lies in the specific form of public ownership and its proportion within the overall ownership structure. For example, must public ownership be 100% to count as socialism, or is 50% or some other specific quantitative standard sufficient? More importantly, the concrete forms through which public ownership is realized require exploration through practice.
Third, the regulation of production and distribution through state planning. The "system of state production and state distribution" is an "economic system of production and distribution different from the previous one," and "our task now" is "accountability, supervision, increasing labor productivity, and strengthening discipline." From the perspective of state-led production and distribution, "exchanging the products of large-scale industry ('socialized' industry) for the products of the peasants—that is the economic substance of socialism, the foundation of socialism." This criterion is related to the aforementioned understanding of capitalism. Since capitalism implements commodity production and exchange, leading to anarchy, socialism—as its replacement—must abolish commodity production and exchange. In its place, some social mechanism must be established (where the state exists, it plays the role of formulating production plans and presiding over product distribution). Thus, "accountability and supervision are the substance of socialism." It is precisely in this sense that the concept of "the essence of the socialist system" appears for the only time in Lenin’s works: "I repeat, socialism is no longer a dogma, and perhaps no longer even a program. ... Today, the principle of socialism is the rational and equitable distribution of grain. ... The war has brought us such great disaster that we are now experiencing the essence of the entire socialist system in the problem of grain."
In expounding upon the state’s planned regulation of production and distribution under socialist conditions, Lenin used the term "commodity exchange" [5], yet the "commodity exchange" he referred to had nothing to do with markets, trade, or commerce. According to Lenin’s understanding, "For centuries, freedom of trade and freedom of exchange have been hallowed by millions as the golden rule of economics, becoming a deeply rooted habit for billions. This freedom, like other 'freedoms' proclaimed and implemented by the bourgeoisie—such as 'freedom of labor' (which should be read as: the freedom to starve to death)—is an absolute lie, used to mask capitalist deception, violence, and exploitation." Under conditions where the proletariat holds state power, "What is the content of the concept of commodity exchange? ... It presupposes, on a national scale, the exchange of industrial products for agricultural products in a more or less socialist manner, and the restoration of large-scale industry—the sole foundation of the socialist structure—through this commodity exchange. ... The result was that commodity exchange failed. By failure, I mean it turned into the buying and selling of commodities. ... Commodity exchange achieved nothing at all; the private market proved stronger than us, and ordinary buying, selling, and trade replaced commodity exchange."
This "commodity exchange," which excludes commerce and markets, is carried out by relying on the rigorous planning of state organization. The reason "commodities" remain "commodities" is that the products produced by laborers are not primarily for their own use, but are used by other laborers through exchange. It is just that exchange in this context is conducted not through the market, but through the state. In other words, the "commodities" Lenin spoke of had already lost the original meaning of commodities exchanged through a market. In this new context, advanced science and technology are the conditions for state-led commodity production and exchange or planning. Therefore, Lenin emphasized, "Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest achievements of modern science, and without a planned state organization which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution."
Lenin’s emphasis on organization and organizational discipline had both a vivid practical basis and solid theoretical support. "Organization is undoubtedly the main weapon of the working class. If the laboring masses, oppressed by capitalists and scattered like sand, cannot produce a class capable of learning to do organizational work and personally constructing this large-scale industry, urban life, and the entire socialist culture and civilization, then the advanced detachment of laborers cannot destroy capitalism, nor can it actually set about organizing a new socialist society." In economic construction, organizational discipline means the planned nature of production and distribution. Lenin believed that as capitalism entered the stage of imperialism, monopoly and state intervention themselves signaled the strengthening of organizational and planned character: "The tendency toward the creation of a single world economy, regulated by the proletariat of all nations as a whole according to a common plan, which has already revealed itself quite clearly under capitalism, is bound to be further developed and fully consummated under socialism." The reality of the Russian economy—dominated by individual peasants and small commodity production, alongside the disorder caused by war—required immense organizational effort to change. "To let the anarchy of the small proprietor continue is the greatest and most serious danger; it will undoubtedly ruin us. ... Once the working class has learned how to defend state order against the anarchy of the small proprietor, and once it has learned how to organize large-scale production on a national scale based on the principles of state capitalism... the consolidation of socialism will be guaranteed." Specifically at the policy level, this meant the great significance of "agricultural communes, labor artels [6], and all organizations aimed at transforming the small individual peasant economy into a public, collective, or artel economy, and all organizations aimed at gradually facilitating this transition," because "if the original, impoverished peasant economy remains unchanged, there can be no talk of firmly establishing a socialist society."
In this regard, the "premise of socialism" is "social labor performed under the strictest accountability, supervision, and inspection by the organized vanguard of the laborers, i.e., their advanced section," in order to uproot the "remnants and habits left to us by capitalist society, such as fragmented labor, distrust of the public economy, and various old habits of small proprietors." Communism, meanwhile, means "unpaid labor organized on a large scale to satisfy national needs," labor that is "voluntary labor, labor without a quota, labor performed without expectation of reward or conditions for reward, labor performed according to the habit of working for the common good, and according to the conscious requirement (which has become a habit) to work for the common good—labor that is a need of a healthy body." Based on this understanding, Lenin believed that even if socialist society had not yet been reached, the surplus appropriation system [7] implemented during the period of "War Communism"—which was later abolished due to peasant opposition—was a "socialist method" rather than a "capitalist method." Contrary to the idea that "domestic and international markets, developing spontaneously in breadth and depth, are the basic organizing force of capitalist society established in a state of anarchy," the "execution of our procurement and distribution plans according to state prices" meant that "we have set out on the path to socialism." From this, it can be concluded that in Lenin’s cognition, the economic essence of socialism is to organize labor and distribute the fruits of labor through the state (society) rather than through the market, thereby eliminating the anarchy of production. This is manifested at the operational level through the social ownership of the means of production and the regulation of social production and distribution by plan.
IV. The Political Essence of Socialism
The "socialism" in "the political essence of socialism" refers to socialism in practice, rather than the socialism in the theory of Marx and Engels accepted by Lenin, in which politics and the state have already withered away. It was precisely according to the latter that Lenin believed the New Economic Policy (NEP) was a transition toward socialism, and that Russia under the NEP was not yet a socialist Russia. Socialism in practice is socialism in "everyday life." In "everyday life," the state has not yet withered away and politics still plays a major role; thus, there exists the issue of understanding socialism or the political essence of socialism from a political perspective.
In discussing the political essence of socialism, let us first look at Lenin’s exposition on the political essence of capitalism—that is, the essence of the bourgeois state. Lenin pointed out, "To decide once every few years which members of the ruling class is to misrepresent and oppress the people in parliament—this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism." Contrary to the political essence of capitalism, "the transition from capitalism to communism is bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat." Reality is far more complex than theory. In real life, after a series of economic and social transformations, communists ended the transition period and established a socialist system, yet classes and the state still exist. In this situation, according to Lenin’s understanding of the essence of the bourgeois state, the dictatorship of the proletariat is both the essence of the state during the transition period and the political essence of a socialist society in which the state and classes still exist.
The dictatorship of the proletariat signifies state power held by the proletariat. "Corresponding to the period of transition from bourgeois society to socialist society is a special type of state (which is a special system of organized violence against a certain class), namely, the dictatorship of the proletariat." Lenin emphasized, "Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. ... [This is necessary] not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from 'classless society,' from communism. Only those who understand this have grasped the essence of Marx’s theory of the state." This regime rules with an "iron hand": "No great revolution, and especially no socialist revolution, even if there were no external war, is conceivable without internal war, i.e., civil war, which involves even greater destruction than external war, ... involving thousands and millions of cases of wavering and desertion... and a state of extreme indefiniteness, instability, and chaos. ... To eliminate this phenomenon requires time and an iron hand." Because of this, Lenin warned, "It would be extremely stupid and the most absurd utopianism to believe that the transition from capitalism to socialism is possible without compulsion and without dictatorship. ... For this country [Russia], developing so rapidly through such abrupt turns, and under conditions of terrible economic ruin caused by a disastrous war, there simply could be no other way out." It was in this sense that the famous theoretical summary of the dictatorship as "iron rule" was formulated.
The dictatorship of the proletariat means that one class—the proletariat—holds political power. Lenin first used the concept of dictatorship in the sense of sole rule, the power of one class, or the leadership and governance of one party in 1906. In the Preface to the Russian Translation of K. Kautsky’s Pamphlet: The Driving Forces and Prospects of the Russian Revolution, Lenin pointed out, "The Russian revolution is not a socialist revolution, for it cannot lead to the sole rule or dictatorship of the proletariat. ... Under the objective conditions of the current revolution, which class is the ally of the proletariat? It is the peasantry." Since it was a democratic revolution, the victory achieved by the proletariat leading its allies was "not the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, but the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry." The joint dictatorship of workers and peasants meant that the peasant class shared power with the working class, even if it was under the leadership of the working class. The October Revolution was a socialist revolution. The regime it established was a proletarian regime. "If we translate this Latin, scientific, socio-historical term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' into simpler language, it means: only a definite class, namely, the urban and the industrial workers in general, is able to lead the whole mass of the laboring and exploited people in the struggle to throw off the yoke of capital, in the process of this throwing off, in the struggle to maintain and consolidate the victory, in the work of creating the new, socialist social system and in the entire struggle for the complete abolition of classes." Thus, "the dictatorship of the proletariat is the power of one class, which takes into its hands the entire new state apparatus, overcomes the bourgeoisie, and neutralizes the entire petty bourgeoisie—that is, the peasantry, the small urban dwellers, and the intelligentsia."
The dictatorship of the proletariat implies the political leadership of the proletariat over society. In 1919, in his "Theses for a Pamphlet on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat," Lenin pointed out that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is the leadership of the working masses (and society as a whole) by the proletariat." Lenin further interpreted the meaning of "leadership": "Dictatorship means leadership, the uniting of those scattered, disorganized working masses into a single whole against the capitalists, so as to defeat the capitalists and ensure that the bloody carnage, which has cost ten million lives and maimed twenty million, is not repeated. To defeat this force, backed by powerful armies and modern civilization, the unity of all laborers and a single, iron will are required." The task of uniting the scattered laboring masses can only rely on persuasion, the setting of typical examples [8], and the guarantee of rational material interests. In this sense, "the dictatorship of the proletariat is the leadership of the proletariat over politics." After the proletariat seizes state power, "politics" no longer primarily manifests as violence. "Our main politics must now be: the economic construction of the state, to harvest more grain, to mine more coal, to solve the problem of more appropriately utilizing this grain and coal, to eliminate famine—this is our politics."
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the political essence of socialism. However, this political essence must be manifested through concrete forms. Lenin once pointed out: "The political forms of the advanced imperialist countries, such as America, Britain, France, and Germany, are more diverse, although they are essentially the same. ...All nations will arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, but all will do so in not exactly the same way; each will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life." That is to say, the dictatorship of the proletariat has specific realized forms or "modalities." Among various forms, Lenin once considered that the Soviets, characterized by the direct participation of the people, most fully embodied the essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets truly inherited the spirit of the Paris Commune. "The real essence of the Commune is not where the bourgeoisie usually look for it, but in the fact that it created a special type of state. Such a state has already been born in Russia—it is the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies!" In view of this, Lenin regarded the Soviets as the true highest form of democracy. Yet, Lenin never regarded the Soviets as the sole form of the dictatorship of the proletariat that all countries must emulate. At the same time, Lenin also believed that because the people's cultural level was insufficient, they could not yet shoulder the task of direct participation in management, and thus the advanced layer of the proletariat or the vanguard—the Communist Party—had to "act on behalf of the people" [9]. This is also a difficult problem for socialism in its transition from theory to practice, especially in countries where economy and culture are relatively backward.
Conclusion
Engels pointed out: "Our views on the characteristics of the future non-capitalist society as distinct from modern society are exact conclusions drawn from historical facts and development processes; they have no theoretical or practical value unless elucidated in connection with these facts and processes." Historical facts are the most reliable and fundamental basis for understanding socialism and its essence. Socialism is constantly changing, and the degree of realization of the socialist essence at different stages of development also differs in both quality and quantity. Man's subjective understanding of the socialist essence is perpetually in a state of continuous deepening. On the basis of upholding the fundamental principles of Marx and Engels regarding human liberation, Lenin, grounded in the practice and experience of the Russian Revolution and in contrast to the essence of capitalism, revealed the socialist essence from the two dimensions of economics and politics. In his view, the essence of socialism is the welfare and well-rounded development of all members of society. Manifested economically—or rather, the economic essence of socialism—is the organization of production and distribution in a manner different from capitalism. Manifested politically—or rather, the political essence of socialism—is the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, the proletariat seizing state power through its vanguard and implementing political leadership over the entire society. Lenin's explorations and achievements have made important contributions to the scientific understanding of the socialist essence for later generations. Fully drawing on Lenin's exploratory achievements and continuously improving the degree and quality of the realization of the socialist essence is an inherent requirement [10] for contemporary Chinese Communists in leading the people to comprehensively advance the construction of a great modern socialist power and the historical process of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. How the Communist Party of China understands the question of the socialist essence is another topic requiring specialized discussion.
(About the Author: Wang Zhongru is Deputy Director and Professor of the Department of Scientific Socialism at the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China (National Academy of Governance).)
Online Editor: Tongxin Source: Scientific Socialism, 2023, No. 4