Zhu Lixia and Jin Doudou: An Analysis of Lenin’s Thought on Party Leadership in "The Tax in Kind"
General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized in the report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC): We have comprehensively strengthened Party leadership, making it clear that the leadership of the CPC is the most essential characteristic of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the greatest advantage of the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics; the CPC is the highest force for political leadership. [1] This represents a profound examination of the Party’s leadership work in the context of the New Era by Chinese communists with Comrade Xi Jinping at the core. Party leadership refers to the guiding and leading role played by a Marxist political party in the cause of the proletarian revolution. In the process of human social development, any practical activity aimed at transforming the objective world and any organized social activity requires a leading core. In 1917, the world’s first socialist state—Soviet Russia—was established under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party with Lenin as its leader. After the October Revolution, hostile forces both at home and abroad were unwilling to accept defeat and attempted to unite to strangle the nascent Soviet power in its cradle. Consequently, "War Communism" was implemented in 1921. However, as the war ended, contradictions that had previously remained hidden gradually came to light; fuel and food crises followed in succession, and revolts centered on the peasantry erupted one after another. Therefore, after listening to various opinions and analyzing the political, economic, and cultural situation of Soviet Russia, Lenin authored The Tax in Kind. Its vital significance lay in explaining the essence of the "New Economic Policy" to the people of Soviet Russia and strengthening the leadership of the Soviet regime. Chinese scholars maintain that Lenin's The Tax in Kind possesses rich theoretical value; among them, Yu Liangzao believes that Lenin’s idea that improving the people's lives should begin with the peasantry provides a useful reference for contemporary China's economic reform and social development. [2] In the New Era, researching and analyzing Lenin’s The Tax in Kind and studying how Soviet Russia—in order to consolidate its nascent regime—eased the relationship between the governing party and the workers and peasants and improved the level of Party leadership through the implementation of the "New Economic Policy" is beneficial for the CPC to study and learn from within the historical context of the world undergoing changes unseen in a century, thereby further strengthening the work of Party leadership.
I. Lenin’s Reflections on Improving Party Leadership Capacity in Backward Soviet Russia
After the victory of the October Revolution, international imperialist powers carried out armed interventions against Soviet Russia to strangle the first socialist state in its cradle, while domestic White Guardists colluded with imperialists to stage armed rebellions. In 1918, to defend and consolidate the fruits of the October Revolution and to maximize the mobilization of the then-limited industrial resources and agricultural products, the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (RCP(B)) and the Soviet government led by Lenin implemented the policy of "War Communism." The core of this policy was the "surplus appropriation system" [3], which involved requisitioning all surplus grain and a portion of basic rations from the peasants. The government paid a fixed amount of currency, and all private grain trade was prohibited. In practice, this was indistinguishable from requisitioning without compensation; to a certain extent, it guaranteed the needs of the war and prevented the collapse of the Bolshevik regime. However, as the war ended, contradictions that had been hidden gradually became exposed.
In early 1921, Soviet Russia faced serious fuel and food crises. At that time, the supply of fuel and raw materials was extremely difficult, factories ceased production, and workers in some factories began to grow restless, holding strikes and demanding improvements in their standard of living. Peasants hid large amounts of cultivated area and total grain output; coupled with the frantic incitement of hostile forces, peasant-centered revolts broke out one after another in places like Siberia and Ukraine. Participants in these uprisings included not only middle peasants but also a significant number of kulaks (rich peasants). In areas where revolts did not occur, large numbers of peasants wrote letters of complaint and petition to various levels of Soviet power or grain agencies, many of which were sent directly to Lenin's hands.
Confronted with the massive contrast between theory and reality, Lenin gradually realized that the economic status of the masses led to instability in their beliefs, making them prone to drifting toward capitalism at critical moments. He recognized the important role of workers and peasants in maintaining social stability, consolidating the regime, and strengthening Party leadership. He realized that only by upholding the leadership of the Communist Party and adhering to communist convictions could the entire exploited laboring mass be led together toward socialism. After listening to diverse opinions and conducting a comprehensive analysis of the political, economic, and cultural situation in Soviet Russia, he pointed out the urgency and importance of abolishing "War Communism." On February 8, 1921, he drafted the Preliminary Draft of Theses on the Peasants, proposing a resolution to replace the "surplus appropriation system" with a "tax in kind," thereby transitioning from "War Communism" to the "New Economic Policy."
Lenin stimulated the peasants' productive enthusiasm through measures such as reducing the grain tax amount to allow peasants to "recover and rest" [4] and expanding the freedom of peasants to put their surplus grain into local economic circulation after paying the tax. However, "Left" Communists launched fierce attacks on and distortions of Lenin’s "New Economic Policy." Starting from superficial phenomena, they argued that this was taking the capitalist road and denied the necessity of a transitional stage. Furthermore, domestic Party members and cadres were full of doubts regarding the New Economic Policy. To unify the thinking of the entire Party and improve the Party’s leadership capacity, Lenin wrote and published The Tax in Kind to explain the basis and significance of implementing the New Economic Policy to the broad masses of Party members, cadres, and the people.
II. The Core Essentials of the Thought on Party Leadership in Lenin’s The Tax in Kind
In The Tax in Kind, Lenin expounded a series of new views and ideas regarding the thought on Party leadership: namely, replacing the "surplus appropriation system" with the "tax in kind" to strengthen the Party’s centralized and unified leadership; utilizing capitalism to develop socialism and perfecting the Party’s self-construction; and opposing bureaucratism to strengthen the Party’s organizational leadership capacity. He explained the essence and significance of the "New Economic Policy" to the broad masses of Party members, cadres, and the people, stimulated the peasants' productive enthusiasm, maintained the Party’s political, ideological, and organizational unity, and improved the Party’s leadership ability.
(1) Replacing the "surplus appropriation system" with the "tax in kind" to strengthen the Party’s centralized and unified leadership
Lenin profoundly recognized that only a party based on iron discipline could lead the masses to revolutionary victory. He sought to strengthen the Party’s centralized and unified leadership, constantly groping for the way forward in revolutionary practice. In 1921, Soviet Russia found the path for a country dominated by a small-peasant economy to transition toward the socialist economic stage, proposing the replacement of the "surplus appropriation system" with the "tax in kind." Lenin pointed out: "The tax in kind is one of the forms of transition from that peculiar 'War Communism,' which was forced upon us by extreme want, ruin and war, to a regular socialist exchange of products." [3] This satisfied the economic demands of workers and peasants, convincing them that the governing party was a party willing to seek their welfare. This eased the contradictions between the governing party and the workers and peasants and achieved the unity of the whole Party, which to a certain extent enhanced the Party’s centralized and unified leadership.
By relying on the "surplus appropriation system," Soviet Russia guaranteed the basic supply of grain for the front lines. However, in the actual implementation process, due to narrow local fragmentation and a lack of effective management in some areas, the use of simplistic and crude methods brought a heavy burden to the peasants. This intensified the contradictions between the governing party and the worker-peasant classes, provoking strong resistance. In some regions, due to the scarcity of fuel and raw materials, many factories were forced to stop production, leading to worker unrest and strikes. In other areas, peasants became unwilling to grow grain or grew as little as possible; in some places, uncooperative actions such as deliberately reducing cultivated land appeared, causing a sharp contraction in agriculture.
In Soviet Russia, where peasants constituted the majority of the population, certain measures had to be taken to improve peasant productive enthusiasm to increase grain supplies for workers on the front lines. In the classical works of Marx and Engels, the ideal way to realize communism was to exchange grain for the industrial products necessary for the peasants. However, for a Soviet Russia that had just ended a war, it was essentially impossible to restore large-scale socialist production in the short term. Therefore, the best way to transition to socialism was through the implementation of a "tax in kind": collecting grain from peasants as a tax, after which the peasants could dispose of the remaining surplus grain themselves, eventually exchanging that surplus for industrial products once industrial production was restored. The amount of the "tax in kind" was significantly lower than the grain collected under the "surplus appropriation system." The government also allowed peasants to conditionally rent land and use hired labor, which lightened the peasants' burden and thereby eased the contradiction between the government and the peasantry.
In 1921, the "tax in kind" replaced the "surplus appropriation system." Lenin emphasized that the essence of the "tax in kind" was to find a point of convergence between the socialist economy and the small-peasant economy. It was a tax levied on agriculture and possessed the nature of an agricultural tax. Under the social background of the time, the "tax in kind" was an economic policy easily accepted by the peasants; it was a stimulus, motive, and dynamic that encouraged small peasants to engage in management. To a certain extent, it reduced the economic burden on workers and peasants, thereby improving their living conditions, consolidating the worker-peasant alliance and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and solidifying the status of the Soviet regime as the governing party. It realized intra-Party unity, ensured that the cause of the Party and the people advanced in the right direction, and strengthened the Party's centralized and unified leadership.
(2) Utilizing capitalism to develop socialism and perfecting the Party’s self-construction
"Party building is the Party’s 'internal strength' (neigong), while Party leadership is the Party’s external expressive power." [4] In revolutionary practice, Lenin gradually realized that for the proletariat to strive for its own liberation, complete the great mission of building a socialist society, and realize the lofty goal of communism, it must uphold the leadership of the Marxist party and constantly perfect the Party’s self-construction to improve its leadership capacity. As Soviet Russia had then just finished the baptism of war, "it now needs an economic breathing space." [5] Consequently, it did not possess the realistic conditions to "leap over the Caudine Forks" [5]—that is, the stage of direct transition to socialism. Based on the Marxist materialist conception of history, Lenin emphasized that the Party should start from the current state of imperialist development and the specific national conditions of Soviet Russia to strengthen the style of Party leadership, adjust the content of Party work, continuously complete the Party’s self-construction, and inspect the effects of Party work to find the method of transition to socialism in theory and practice.
In The Tax in Kind, Lenin proposed: "We must utilize capitalism (particularly by directing it into the channels of state capitalism) as the intermediary link between small production and socialism, as a means, a path, and a method of increasing the productive forces." [6] He believed in utilizing state capitalism as an intermediary link for the social development of Soviet Russia to transition to socialism—that is, bringing capitalism into the orbit of state capitalism and then bringing state capitalism into socialism. In plain terms, this means using capitalism to develop socialism. Although state capitalism is backward compared to socialism, it was progressive compared to the petty-bourgeois economy of Soviet Russia; Lenin thus emphasized utilizing state capitalism as the intermediary link in the transition from small production to socialism.
However, the Soviet government’s actions were questioned by the "Left," who believed this was a retreat back to a capitalist state. They did not understand that the transition to state capitalism was a step forward; therefore, they wantonly promoted the negation of the leader and the role of the Party. Lenin believed that implementing the "tax in kind" might lead to the revival of the petty bourgeoisie and capitalism, but one could not prohibit the development of capitalism for this reason. "The emergence and development of the capitalist economy has a history of several hundred years and has formed much experience beneficial to improving labor productivity." [7] In fact, through several hundred years of development, capitalist society overcame the defects of feudal society, experienced glory, and accumulated valuable experience. The development of socialism cannot involve a total negation of capitalism.
The state capitalism Lenin spoke of was a capitalism that the proletarian state restricted and for which it defined a scope of activity. On one hand, as a product of concentrated socialized large-scale production, state capitalism’s forms of production and circulation were supervised by the state, which was conducive to the economic development of Soviet Russia and improved the masses' sense of identification with the Party’s leadership. On the other hand, state capitalism was also a mode of investment and management where production and circulation aimed at obtaining profit; it utilized the payment of a larger "value" to capitalists at the cost of certain sacrifices, and therefore, it had to be restricted.
Lenin creatively answered the question of how to build socialism in Soviet Russia, a country where the small-peasantry constituted the vast majority of the population. On this basis, the Soviet government transformed its style of work and utilized state capitalism to rectify the organization of large-scale national production. This aligned with the characteristics of the production and daily life of the worker and peasant classes at the time, activated the circulation between industry and agriculture, and maintained the purity of the Party, marking historical progress rather than retreat. This allowed the worker and peasant classes to clearly recognize the nature of the Soviet regime and support it more deeply from within, which to a certain extent elevated the level of the Party's leadership in Soviet Russia, refined the Party’s self-construction, and consolidated its leading position.
(3) Opposing bureaucratism and strengthening the Party’s organizational leadership
In Lenin’s view, the Party organization "has inexhaustible reserves" [15] because it possesses a unique organizational leadership in organizing mass work, capable of mobilizing the masses to participate; it is the product of balancing the contradictions between the environment, the organization, and the individual. However, the essence of the emergence of bureaucratism in Soviet Russia lay in the remnants of feudal ideology. Its characteristics included leaders being detached from reality, acting superior, and being indifferent to the hardships of the masses—it was an irresponsible form of organizational leadership that, to some extent, damaged the image of the Party and state organs. After the October Revolution, Soviet Russia established new proletarian state organs characterized by being streamlined and efficient. However, because Soviet Russia was deeply influenced by the historical traditions of Tsarist Russia, bureaucratic problems continually surfaced within the new state organs, weakening the Party’s organizational leadership.
At the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Lenin pointed out: "Bureaucracy in our state system has become such a sore that it is mentioned in our Party program; and this is because it is connected with these petty-bourgeois elements and their scattered nature." [16] During the Civil War, due to the needs of social development, state organs absorbed a large number of specialists and administrative personnel from the old apparatus. This directly led to an increase in staff levels while simultaneously introducing the bad habits and styles of the old institutions, resulting in bloated and cumbersome organs where graft and corruption flourished. Meanwhile, many opportunists took the opportunity to infiltrate the ranks of the Communist Party, leading to a revival of bureaucratism within the Party itself. Many Party members and cadres fell into formalism, distancing themselves from the grassroots and practical reality, performing superficial work rather than substantive tasks, holding endless meetings, and engaging in empty talk of "isms" that remained on the surface and failed to penetrate the grassroots. This posed a serious threat to the development of commodity circulation and severely hindered the implementation of various Party and state tasks.
In Soviet Russia at that time, small-scale producers—primarily peasants—were characterized by fragmentation and lack of cohesion, serving as the social roots for the emergence of bureaucratism. Lenin noted: "Our Party program states that the struggle against bureaucratism is a particularly long-term task. The more scattered the peasantry, the more inevitable bureaucratism becomes at the center." [17] Small producers represented by the peasantry had relatively low cultural levels. To link the opposition to bureaucratism with the development of circulation between industry and agriculture, it was necessary to strengthen the Party's leadership and continuously improve its organizational leadership to stabilize the relationship between the state and the peasantry and consolidate the nascent regime.
At the same time, Lenin emphasized the need to combat bureaucratism under the Party's leadership and strengthen its organizational leadership. "We will do everything possible to promote workers from below to eliminate bureaucratism." [18] On one hand, it was necessary to improve the organs organizationally by selecting young and energetic Party members and cadres to join the organization, thereby increasing the strength of communism. On the other hand, personnel in state organs had to seek truth from facts, conducting deep-level investigations at the grassroots to accumulate practical experience. To stimulate the exchange of industrial and agricultural products, local areas needed to fully exercise their initiative and enhance the Party’s capacity for mass organization.
III. Insights from the Thought on Party Leadership in Lenin’s The Tax in Kind for Strengthening the Leadership of the CPC in the New Era
Lenin's completion of The Tax in Kind explained to the masses the significance of the "New Economic Policy" centered on the "tax in kind," enriching and developing Marxism theoretically. It still holds important reference significance for the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics. In terms of content, while The Tax in Kind is macroscopically an interpretation of the "New Economic Policy," it essentially expounds on how a country composed primarily of small peasants can strengthen the Party's leadership. The interpretation of the "New Economic Policy" mentions that a vital condition for the stability of a governing party is the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the peasantry. Regarding the significance of the Communist Party strengthening its leadership, Lenin expressed his views from multiple perspectives and dimensions, which holds important theoretical, practical, and contemporary significance for strengthening the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in the New Era.
First, maintain the fundamental interests of the masses. One reason for the failure of "War Communism" was the failure to account for the interests of the peasantry, leading to increased hardship and subsequent social instability and serious revolts. Following the "New Economic Policy," the "surplus appropriation system" [8] was replaced by the "tax in kind." After paying the tax, peasants had the right to dispose of their grain independently, solving their basic food and clothing needs and ensuring their fundamental interests. It was under these conditions that the relationship between the governing party and the worker and peasant classes was eased, thereby consolidating the nascent Soviet regime. Therefore, in the construction of socialist modernization with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, Party members and cadres must earnestly focus on the interests of the people and thoroughly implement the spirit of the 20th CPC National Congress. On one hand, they must persist in bottom-line thinking, resolving the worries of the people and serving as their close confidants. On the other hand, they must maintain a correct attitude toward the masses, working with full enthusiasm for their benefit and always placing the people in the highest position in their hearts.
Second, uphold the Party’s leadership over all work. General Secretary Xi Jinping has emphasized: "We are a large Party, leading a large country, and engaged in a great cause; we must be adept at strategic thinking and at viewing and considering problems from a strategic perspective." [19] The political ecosystems of Chinese and foreign political parties are vastly different, reflected in differences in national political structures and processes. However, it must be clearly recognized that the CPC is the leading party and governing party at both the central and local levels. In The Tax in Kind, Lenin repeatedly mentioned that circulation must be resolutely developed by all means, and one should not fear capitalism [20]. The economic development of Soviet Russia proved that Lenin’s line of thinking was correct. China’s reform and opening up is also an example of utilizing capitalism to develop socialism; since then, China has carved out a path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, becoming the world’s second-largest economy. China has created a miracle of rapid economic development rarely seen in the world, all of which is inseparable from the Party’s leadership over all work. In the New Era, China has proposed the Rural Revitalization Strategy; simultaneously, we must learn from the advanced experience of Western countries in tightly integrating agriculture with technology. In this learning process, we must persist in the Party's leadership over all work.
Finally, resolutely oppose bureaucratism and improve the construction of Party conduct and clean government. In the process of promoting rural construction in the Soviet Union, Lenin actively explored ways to solve the emerging bureaucratic problems by allowing peasants to participate personally in grassroots work and encouraging them through policy to fully exercise their right of supervision. Currently, in some rural areas, there are Party members and cadres who perform tasks only for sudden inspections and focus on superficial "image projects" to meet their own performance indicators, engaging in fraud and deceiving those above while hiding the truth from those below, which seriously damages the legitimate rights and interests of the peasantry. Therefore, based on specific conditions, fraudulent performance should be removed from the evaluation system, while indicators affecting actual performance should be incorporated. New technologies such as the Internet, 5G, cloud computing, and big data should be used for real-time supervision to enhance the scientific and authentic nature of evaluations. Furthermore, it is necessary to unify collective thinking, drive the Party's line, principles, and policies to a deeper level, and perform well in the ideological guidance and education of Party members, cadres, and the masses to consolidate a common ideological foundation.
In summary, more than a century has passed since the publication of The Tax in Kind. While the era and environment in which China finds itself today are vastly different from those of Soviet Russia at that time, the thoughts on Party leadership in The Tax in Kind have not become obsolete. They not only provided theoretical guidance for the economic construction of Soviet Russia, strengthening the Party’s leadership and consolidating the nascent Soviet regime, but also served as one of the important theoretical sources for China’s economic system reform. In the New Era, studying and drawing upon the contents regarding Party leadership in Lenin’s The Tax in Kind is conducive to fully demonstrating the leadership advantages of the CPC and the institutional advantages of socialism with Chinese characteristics, realizing the grand goal of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. It holds significant importance for the CPC in strengthening the Party's leadership.
(This article is a staged result of the 2023 Hubei Provincial Party Building Research Project, Project No. 2023X32)
Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Journal of Chinese Leadership Science, Issue 5, 2023