Fang Guangshun and Du Chunqiu: Lenin's Critique of "Freedom of Criticism" and Its Enlightenment
"Freedom of criticism" was a slogan proposed by Eduard Bernstein under the pretext of new characteristics in capitalist development, using bourgeois perspectives to critique, negate, and "revise" Marxism. Influenced by this, a so-called "new trend of criticism" emerged within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) [1]. Flying the banner of "freedom of criticism," this trend attacked and negated Marxism, leading to ideological confusion and political wavering within the Party. Under these dire circumstances, analyzing the essence of "freedom of criticism," educating and guiding the proletariat and the masses to recognize its dangers, and winning all advanced fighters over to the Marxist position were the theoretical prerequisites and ideological foundations for achieving political freedom for all people. To thoroughly and heroically defend the truth and promote the revolutionary fighting spirit of the working class, Lenin wrote What Is to Be Done? and several other works to critique and refute "freedom of criticism" while providing a scientific exposition of Marxism.
I. The Origins of "Freedom of Criticism" and Its Variants in Russia
The late 19th and early 20th centuries marked an era of a great turning point for capitalism. Drastic changes in social living conditions and deep-seated shifts in class relations were reflected in the ideological sphere as "profound disintegration, confusion, all kinds of wavering, in a word, a most serious internal crisis of the Marxist movement." During this historical period filled with new changes, Marxism underwent the severest test since its birth. First, the science and technology widely applied across capitalist nations fully demonstrated their role as "levers of history." As technology was applied to production processes and transformed into actual productive capacity, the economy—particularly heavy and chemical industries—developed rapidly. The scale of enterprise production expanded continuously, and the rapid concentration of production and capital naturally led to the emergence of monopolies. This expanded the capacity of capitalist relations of production relative to their original basis, breaking through the narrow limits where contradictions between the productive forces and relations of production occurred frequently during the period of free competition. Capitalist development took on a temporary appearance of peaceful prosperity.
Second, the new characteristics appearing in capitalism were reflected in class relations through changes in bourgeois ruling policies. To divide the ranks of workers and paralyze their revolutionary will, the bourgeoisie either used a small portion of the surplus value gained through violent plunder to cultivate a "labor aristocracy," or limitedly expanded democracy within the institutional framework, allowing the proletariat to obtain certain interests through "legal" means. Consequently, the questions of whether the conclusion drawn by Marx and Engels regarding the inevitable collapse of capitalism held true, and whether the goals, tactics, and key principles of the proletarian revolution were correct, were raised with extreme urgency. Around these issues, a massive polemic inevitably broke out among theorists in the latter period of the Second International. Between 1896 and 1898, Eduard Bernstein published a series of articles in the journal Die Neue Zeit ("The New Era") under the general title "Problems of Socialism," becoming the "vanguard" in "revising" Marxism. In October 1900, the Second International held its Fifth Congress in Paris. Regarding the "Millerand case" (the entry of the French Socialist Alexandre Millerand into the cabinet), opinions diverged between those who strongly opposed it on principle and demanded sanctions, those who defended it covertly, and those who gave it full support. This signified that the pattern of internal fragmentation within the Second International had become clear, and revisionism had gained the upper hand. In September 1901, at the Lübeck Congress of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Bernstein openly demanded "freedom of criticism" regarding Marxism, setting off an international craze for "revising" Marxism.
Under the influence of the rampant revisionism in the Second International, a new "criticism" faction emerged in Russia: "Legal Marxism" [2]. Along with the ebbs and flows of the Russian revolutionary struggle, this "criticism" faction evolved internally, eventually manifesting as social-chauvinism—representing bourgeois influence over the proletariat and the "revision" and "distortion" of Marxism. The first period, during the early days of the Russian Social Democratic Party, saw "Legal Marxism" and Economism [3] become opportunistic twin brothers; on one hand, they slighted and ignored revolutionary theory, while on the other, they abandoned Marxism under the banner of "freedom of criticism." The second period, the stormy revolutionary test of 1903–1908, saw the strengthening, deepening, and testing of the Bolsheviks' thoroughly revolutionary tactics. Conversely, it also caused "all the dregs under the great current to rise again," exposing the tactics and open actions of Menshevism. Objectively, this was equivalent to making the proletariat dependent on the liberal bourgeoisie and excluding Marxist guidance from the Russian socialist movement; they became the direct successors of "Economism" not only ideologically but also organizationally. The third period, the counter-revolutionary period of 1908–1914, saw Menshevism stir up an erroneous trend of abandoning the struggle for another revolution and giving up underground organizational activities. This gave rise to Liquidationism [4], putting opportunistic tactics and the question of revolution on the agenda in a brand-new form. The fourth period, during World War I (1914–1915), saw the main group of Liquidators whitewash the reactionary and aggressive nature of the war, deceive the working masses, and turn toward social-chauvinism. It is evident that although the forms and causes of struggle varied across periods, there was not only an ideological link but also a direct historical succession among the main representative schools of "freedom of criticism." Therefore, Lenin’s attacks on the main schools at each stage constituted a general campaign against "freedom of criticism."
Focusing on analyzing the essence and dangers of "freedom of criticism," Lenin provided a thorough explanation of its nature in terms of principles, characteristics, content, and purpose. Lenin pointed out that in terms of principle, "freedom of criticism" manifested as the "internal hypocrisy of the position"—that is, "the freedom for various open and disguised bourgeois thinkers to criticize Marxism." In its characteristics, it used the shell of "opposing dogma" to disguise the "freedom to discard any complete and deliberate theory." In its purpose, it attempted to "turn Marxism into an empty sermon" and dissolve its guiding role in the labor movement. In its content, it involved directly transplanting bourgeois publications into socialist ones, fully exposing its "indifference and incompetence toward the development of theoretical thought." On this basis, Lenin pointed out with razor-sharp insight that the theoretical critique of "freedom of criticism" was essentially serving and justifying political demands. Its aim was to turn the labor movement into the "tail" of the liberals and transform the revolutionary workers' party into a reformist party, openly or covertly "using bourgeois viewpoints to criticize all fundamental ideas of Marxism." Therefore, it was urgent to complete the theoretical work of distinguishing truth from falsehood and tracing issues to their source to purge "freedom of criticism" from the Party. Marxism is the guiding ideology and banner of the working-class struggle, the foundation of all activities in the working class's fight for liberation. The new "trend of criticism" distorted and attacked Marxism, creating numerous obstacles to the fusion of socialism with the labor movement. This led the labor movement not only to appear "fragmented" but also to lose its "political significance," further encouraging disagreements within the Party on major theoretical, programmatic, and tactical issues, seriously jeopardizing the healthy development of the revolutionary cause. Standing at a new historical height, Lenin insisted on organically unifying value positions with dialectical thinking. He scientifically expounded the fundamental principles consistently upheld by Marxism: its internal attributes of systemic completeness and structural rigor, its practical function concerning social change and material life, and its vivid characteristics of being situated within historical processes while remaining creative. This drew a clear line between Marxism and "freedom of criticism," achieved the innovative development of Marxism under new era conditions, and guided the Russian labor movement onto the revolutionary path against Czarism and capitalism, opening a new era in human history.
II. Critiquing the Hypocrisy of "Freedom of Criticism" through the Marxist View of the People
The divergence between the new "trend of criticism" and the Bolsheviks on major theoretical, organizational, and tactical issues stemmed from a divergence in fundamental political positions. They advertised themselves as "standing on the position of the proletarian class struggle for political and economic liberation," yet their rhetoric was filled with justifications for capitalism. For instance, "Legal Marxism" went to great lengths to "whitewash" capitalism, crudely and openly preaching that "we are uncivilized and should learn from capitalism," praising capitalism for its "infinite possibilities." Meanwhile, at a critical juncture when the "breathing space" for revolution had ended, Menshevism paralyzed the initiative of the masses in the actual movement and erased the role of human subjective factors and active struggle in the process of historical development, becoming a serious obstacle to raising the consciousness of the people. Even more damagingly, the "critics" were content to "settle for a modicum of comfort" under the capitalist system, advocating for "educating the workers' party to become a group of individuals representing highly-paid workers who are detached from the masses." Lenin pointed out that they were "petty-bourgeois democrats singing quasi-socialist high notes." He profoundly critiqued their bourgeois "Party-mindedness" (党性, dǎngxìng) and vividly interpreted the Marxist view of the people through the process of maintaining a firm stance on the people, clarifying value principles, and stimulating value creation.
First, standing on the side of the people means defending their interests unswervingly. Firmly adhering to the position of the most exploited and oppressed proletariat and never forgetting their most fundamental interests does not hinder the correct understanding of the objective process of human social development. Rather, it is the necessary condition for the most profound and correct understanding of reality and for exposing the class essence of erroneous ideological trends. It was precisely based on the value principle of maximizing the protection of the interests of the workers and peasants that Lenin conducted a profound Marxist analysis of the slogan "freedom of criticism," pointing out that it was a conceptual reflection of bourgeois political, economic, and cultural demands. He said one must not be deceived by the outward "fine dress" or pleased by "pleasant-sounding names," but must look through the surface to the essence and through words to actions. As a slogan during the anti-feudal period, "freedom" had great historical significance. However, after the bourgeoisie attained dominance, they launched the most predatory wars under the banner of industrial freedom and plundered laborers under the banner of the freedom of labor. This was especially true when advanced public opinion began to turn toward Marxism and the conscious labor movement began to sprout; various bourgeois factions gathered under the hypocritical banner of "freedom" to attack Marxism. Thus, the new "trend of criticism" was not meant to defend the interests of the people, but to defend their own interests—ultimately, the interests of the bourgeoisie. In response to this view that discarded the interests of the people, Lenin believed that only by having the courage to stand on the side of the broad proletariat—which reveals the objective laws of capitalist contradictions and class struggle—and by recognizing the antagonistic nature of modern society, could political freedom and democratic systems be won. "The entire new era of Russia was won and sustained precisely by the enthusiasm of the people."
Second, fully temper and develop the initiative of the masses. In contrast to the supporters of "freedom of criticism" who paralyzed the revolutionary will of the masses, Lenin fought heroically for real people—that is, for the workers and peasants who suffered under the dual oppression of a dark reality. He emphasized mobilizing social forces capable of struggle and concerned with its outcome, focusing on mobilizing and tempering the masses to teach them "self-knowledge and self-consciousness," [5] allowing them to grow irresistibly strong. Lenin pointed out: "The thing that distinguishes Marxism from all other socialist theories is that it remarkably combines a completely scientific sobriety in the analysis of the objective state of affairs and the objective process of evolution with the most determined recognition of the revolutionary energy, revolutionary creative genius, and revolutionary initiative of the masses (and, of course, of individuals, groups, organizations, and parties that are able to find and establish contact with these classes)." Therefore, Lenin attached great importance to promoting the maturation of the subjective conditions for revolution; the proletarian revolutionary and construction activities he led were carried out on the basis of mobilizing the broad masses of the people. First, he skillfully employed methods and tactics of struggle to expand the scope of the collective actions of the masses. Lenin noted that, unlike Western Europe where political freedom was sufficient, Russia could not rely on consolidated, continuously developing trade unions to conduct the struggle. It was necessary to constantly raise the consciousness of the masses through the flexible use of methods of struggle, such that the mass movement could become "ever more profound and ever more resolute." Second, at the most decisive revolutionary moments, he regarded the strength of the working people as the "deepest source of triumph for the revolution," pushing the revolutionary process forward without missing any opportunity. Through a comprehensive analysis of the domestic situation, Lenin profoundly recognized the dangers of compromising with the capitalists. He saw that the deceptive rhetoric issued by the "coalition government" had permeated the army, peasantry, and workers, and that "discontent, indignation, and resentment are growing." Thus, given the maturation of objective and subjective conditions, relying on a revolutionary high tide of the people became inevitable. Third, he advanced socialist construction by harnessing the enthusiasm, proactiveness, and heroism of the masses. Lenin believed that organizing and relying on the proletariat and the working people was always a necessary condition for maintaining Soviet power and organizing the construction of a new society. On the eve of the October Revolution, facing arguments questioning the Bolsheviks' ability to maintain power, Lenin retorted sharply: "Every class-conscious worker, every active and honest peasant, and every exploited laborer will certainly put forth every effort to solve this momentous historical problem in practice." After the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out in no uncertain terms that "revolutionary reform" [6] could only be achieved by attracting more strata of the people to participate in social construction and stimulating their long-dormant proactiveness.
Third, the root of the Party's strength and invincibility is its skill in maintaining and strengthening firm ties with the masses of workers and peasants. Enhancing the strength of the Party is the fundamental guarantee for achieving all victories. Where, then, does the Party's strength come from? Lenin pointed out that going deep into the masses, understanding their moods, knowing everything about them, being skilled at approaching them, and winning their absolute trust and support is the "source of invincibility" for the Party, the Soviets, and indeed the entire world communist movement. Lenin believed that the reason the Mensheviks wavered—perpetually and fruitlessly attempting to pour new wine into the old skins of the former state bureaucracy—was that they feared the masses and feared the exercise of their creativity and initiative. Consequently, they could not support them wholeheartedly in all respects or establish close ties with them. Therefore, Lenin provided a profound explanation of the dangers of being divorced from the masses and the importance of maintaining ties with them from both positive and negative perspectives. First, maintaining Party-mass ties is an important channel for supplementing the Party's own experience. It was precisely according to this principle that Lenin sought the path for the socialist transformation of Russia's economic system. This is because even if the necessity of transforming the private ownership of the means of production had been precisely elucidated by scientific theory from the perspective of the laws of historical development, there were no ready-made answers for the specific methods and pace of that transformation; only the experience of millions of workers constitutes the "decisive indication." Therefore, it is essential to maintain extremely close ties with the working class, the peasantry, and the laboring intellectuals. Second, maintaining close ties with the broad masses of workers and peasants is the basic condition for guiding the masses "along the path of a conscious class policy." Through scientific analysis of the political situation and accurate estimation of the balance of class forces, Lenin recognized that only the proletariat and the peasantry were the forces capable of achieving "complete victory over Tsarism." However, the working people do not spontaneously become aware of their own interests and situation; this requires the Party organization to merge with the entirety of the laboring and exploited classes and to "carefully and objectively check at every turn and at every place whether ties with the masses are being maintained, and whether they are close." In this way, under a unified will, the spontaneous revolutionary torrent of millions of people can be brought under the influence of the Party, ensuring the smooth progress of the proletarian struggle for socialism. Third, he resolutely fought against Party members, styles of work, and behaviors that were divorced from the masses. After the implementation of the New Economic Policy, Lenin repeatedly emphasized that the practice of being divorced from the masses seriously corrodes the stability and consolidation of Soviet organizations and severely affects the exercise of mass proactiveness. To this end, the Bolshevik Party re-registered its members more than once in order to purge those "who had wormed their way into the Party," allowing only conscious individuals truly loyal to communism to remain.
III. Critiquing the "Freedom of Criticism" for Dismembering Marxism Using the Holistic View of Marxism
The new "trend of criticism," influenced by the stale bourgeois worldview, attempted to undermine the integrity and thoroughness of Marxism, intending to supplement and guide the Russian socialist movement with revisionist thoughts. They "prostrated themselves before bourgeois science," abandoned a complete and clear Marxist worldview, and "subjected the theoretical foundations and fundamental principles of Marxism to distortions from diametrically opposite directions," thereby leading to the dismemberment of the Marxist system. Most typically, "Legal Marxism" [7] strove to expel philosophy from the Marxist system, supplementing it with the Kantianism they held as a golden rule. After the failure of the 1905 Revolution, the politically passive and decadent Menshevism continued to launch aggressive attacks on Marxist philosophy. Meanwhile, under the influence of a stale worldview, an erroneous perception arose that "Marxism is incomplete"—for instance, the claim that Marx's doctrine was "one-sided." Facing the wanton dismemberment by the new "critical" faction, Lenin focused on how to grasp Marxist thoughts and viewpoints in their entirety, educating the broad ranks of revolutionaries to establish a scientific worldview and repelling revisionist attacks on theoretical integrity.
First, Marxism provides people with a complete and brand-new worldview.
Lenin pointed out that in order to break free from the limitations of old philosophies, Marx and Engels "paid special attention to finishing the higher stories of the building of materialist philosophy," making it a truly consistent, complete, and rigorous worldview. However, as "new strata of the laboring masses were drawn into the movement," the broad masses of workers were easily influenced by the bourgeois worldview. This led to entirely different viewpoints within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party on important issues such as Party building, the nature of political agitation, and organizational tasks. "Freedom of criticism" was precisely the direct product of the bourgeois worldview and its influence; it prevented the Party from achieving unity of thought, planning, and action. Therefore, to ensure the labor movement advanced along a healthy track, Lenin paid special attention to maintaining and consolidating the integrity and purity of the Marxist worldview. He explicitly stated that the proletariat must effect the most thorough rupture with traditional capitalist ideas and forge a strict, complete worldview that does not compromise or reconcile with bourgeois "science." In the face of the intrusion and restoration of bourgeois ideology, one must avoid being unprincipled or failing to distinguish right from wrong; one must struggle resolutely against it. When faced with the "scientific" achievements of the bourgeoisie, one must never "abandon one's own complete and definite worldview" but rather pay attention to them, utilize them, and critically absorb and transform them—being skilled at identifying rational components while eliminating reactionary tendencies.
Second, Marxism is a rigorous scientific system "cast from a single block of steel."
Lenin always adhered to the guidance of a scientific worldview, sharply refuting acts that split or distorted Marxism. He viewed Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism as "a single block of steel," resolutely defending the integrity and unity of the Marxist theoretical system. Closely focusing on the historical mission and total emancipation of the proletariat, Lenin explained that Marxism is an organically linked whole. He profoundly discussed the internal connections between the three component parts of Marxism, pointing out that dialectical materialism and historical materialism showed the proletariat the way out of the "spiritual slavery in which it has been submerged until now." Previous thinkers, in order to base their own interests on the exploitation of social members outside their own class, often went to the opposite side of history, subjecting the broad masses of laboring people to long-term spiritual slavery. The creation of dialectical materialism and historical materialism provided a "path toward a comprehensive and exhaustive study" for revealing the laws of the evolution of socio-economic formations, helping to restore the true face of history and allowing the laboring class to more deeply understand real history. Marxist political economy, meanwhile, explained the true position of the proletariat within the entire capitalist system. After a deep dissection of the internal structure of capitalist economic relations, the hidden relations of exploitation were fully exposed, revealing the secret of how laborers are exploited by capital and leading to the scientific conclusion that the proletariat is the material force driving social development. The various parts constituting the Marxist theoretical whole do not exist in isolation from one another; rather, they reflect the whole through their mutual integration, presenting a logical rigor, completeness, and consistency. Lenin noted that due to shifts in the themes of the times, the focus of research differed across stages, and people highlighted different aspects of Marxism in different historical periods. "In Germany, before 1848, the formation of Marxist philosophy was particularly prominent; in 1848, it was Marxist political thought; in the 1850s and 1860s, it was Marx's economic doctrine." But this did not mean neglecting one for the other; rather, they always remained within a holistic framework, constituting a unified whole on a new basis.
Third, Marxism is a doctrine rich in content and free from one-sidedness.
Lenin pointed out that Marxism, based on a synthesis of the latest scientific achievements, depicted a scientific picture of the whole external world, including a thorough materialism encompassing social life, the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of development, and rich theories regarding class struggle and world revolution. However, "it is now said everywhere that these doctrines are incomplete." To address this, Lenin demonstrated that Marxism is a theoretically rich ideology through a systematic review of its intellectual history. He reviewed and summarized the history of Marxism’s struggles against various erroneous trends and reactionary forces since its founding: in the first fifty years of the struggle, Marx and Engels successively engaged in polemics and settlements with all relatively complete and fundamentally hostile theories—such as the Young Hegelians, Proudhonism, Bakuninism, and Dühringism—achieving absolute victory in every respect and completing a holistic construction in philosophy, economics, and the socialist movement, proving that Marxism is a rich whole. In the second fifty years of the struggle, the doctrine hostile to Marxism was a "fairly integral" revisionism. Its "revision" of Marxism covered philosophy, crisis and collapse theories, value theory, political theory, and many other aspects, which conversely proved that Marxism is a rich whole. For such an ideologically complete and structurally rigorous system as Marxism, how should its specific principles be applied scientifically and accurately? Lenin’s answer was that one must consider the connections between different theoretical viewpoints and between theory and reality, and also link specific principles to others within the context of historical and spatial transformations. Only in this way can the entirety of Marxist viewpoints be accurately understood.
IV. Critiquing the Theoretical Empty Talk of "Freedom of Criticism" with the Marxist View of Practice
The new "trend of criticism," in its observation, research, analysis, and reflection on all theoretical and practical issues—such as investigating political situations, judging Marxism, and formulating tactics—divorced itself from Russian reality and the actual conditions of specific historical periods, promoting various stale and hollow fallacies. Lenin pointed out that these critics first lacked the consciousness to correctly understand the development of the objective political situation, "always tying their own hands with pre-conceived plans or methods of political struggle." Nor did they understand how to test theory in practice; instead, they arrived at the conclusion that Marxism was "outdated" and were rendered impotent by skepticism. Furthermore, they failed to understand how to realize theory in practice, discarding the revolutionary nature of Marxism and subjectively downgrading the primary task of the mass workers' movement—the overthrow of autocracy—to the "task of striving for immediate political demands." Lenin criticized the "Critics" of vulgar Marxism for never contemplating Marx's dictum that the criticism of weapons must replace the weapon of criticism. This essence of ideological subjective idealism, coupled with political reactionism, not only "turned the ideas of the most steadfast and active advanced revolutionary class into the ideas of the most backward strata of this class" but, more importantly, dissolved the practical character of Marxism. Lenin profoundly criticized this fatal error, which "corrodes the entire living spirit of Marxism," expounded upon the priority and decisiveness of practice and its leveraging role in changing the world, and comprehensively demonstrated the practical orientation of Marxism.
First, relying on facts is the fundamental ideological method of Marxism. When discussing plans and methods of struggle, the "Critics" started from their own desires and interest requirements, lacking a rigorous analysis of facts. For instance, after the "June 3rd" Coup [8], Liquidationism [9] held that Russia's democratic revolution was already complete, thus advocating for the abandonment of the Party program in exchange for legal status; this easily reduced the socialist movement to mere "phrase-mongering." Regarding "hollow" or "approximate" assertions that lacked factual basis and were willfully abused, Lenin particularly emphasized the importance of facts. Lenin pointed out that facts are not only the "most stubborn things," as Engels said, but are "absolutely incontrovertible evidence." In Capital, the first thing Marx analyzed was the exchange of commodities—an economic fact encountered billions of times in commodity society; this extremely simple fact was precisely the key to unlocking the mysteries of capital. Lenin’s new understanding of modern society, his analysis of changes in class relations, and his formulation of policies during key periods were also based on facts as a reliable foundation. He grasped the most basic and common new facts appearing at the beginning of the 20th century, made numerous scientific judgments, and truly practiced "building one's theory on the basis of firm and reliable facts." Furthermore, Lenin possessed a thorough and profound grasp of facts, emphasizing that one must start from the totality of facts—that is, their interconnection—to make them a true foundation. This is because every individual case exists within a specific historical environment; focusing on concrete time and space is Marx's requirement and method. Only by grasping all aspects of facts, their mutual interdependence and mediation, and mastering the entirety of facts related to the problem under study can one establish an accurate, indisputable, and uniquely solid foundation. If individual facts are extracted or certain facts are arbitrarily selected to replace the objective connections and interdependence of all historical phenomena with subjective fabrications, "then they can only be a kind of child's play." Targeting Bernstein and his followers who sought to use "new material on economic development" to assert that trusts made the fundamental elimination of crises possible, Lenin profoundly noted that merely making "superficial generalizations from one-sidedly extracted facts without looking at them in connection with the entire capitalist system" was done to justify base deeds.
Second, Marxism is a theory verified through practice; "it confirms that this reflection (within the limits shown to us by practice) is objective, absolute, and eternal truth." Lenin possessed an extremely clear-headed understanding and scientific-rational analysis of the setbacks experienced by Marxism in its developmental process. First, based on the basic principles and great legacy of the General Rules of the International Workingmen’s Association written by Marx, and considering both global and Russian experience, he concluded that the integration of socialism with the workers' movement must traverse a long and arduous path, noting that "it is not particularly strange that various hesitations and doubts appear in this process." Second, between bourgeois ideology and socialist ideology, the former emerged earlier and possesses means and tools of dissemination far more perfected than the latter. Its ideological representatives do everything possible to cultivate decadent sentiments and subject workers to long-term ideological enslavement and deception, causing differences of opinion on key issues—a situation that is also not uncommon. The crux of the matter was that, with slogans like "against orthodoxy" and "freedom of criticism" in vogue, many believed Marx’s teachings were "outdated." In response, Lenin insisted on a strictly scientific attitude for judgment and analysis, regarding practice as the yardstick for verifying whether cognition possesses objectivity, thereby purging the malignant influence of looking at problems apart from the standard of practice. Lenin believed the answer to this question could not be drawn directly from subjective wishes and prejudices, but must be sought in the study of the material forms and developmental landscape of modern society. The development of social life in the economic and political spheres, along with the struggle of the masses to change reality, convincingly proved "the correctness of the Marxist viewpoint." Simultaneously, Lenin explored the "dialectical path of cognizing objective reality" in depth, pointing out that due to many limitations, regarding certain individual issues, Marxism must also be supplemented through the repeated cycles of practice and cognition, thereby achieving the continuous approximation of thought toward the object.
Third, "only the theory of revolutionary Marxism can become the banner of the working-class movement," and its ultimate value is realized through revolutionary practical activities. Lenin’s understanding of Marxism did not remain at the level of textual interpretation but focused on a practical reading aimed at transforming existing society. Regarding the relationship between Marxism and the external world, it is not self-contemplation; it faces reality and the plight of the proletariat, acting as a theory of incessant struggle for the liberation of the entire oppressed class. However, Lenin pointed out that in the Russian workers' movement from 1895 to 1913, the "Critics" all tended toward reformism and the idea of class collaboration, a trend that reached its peak after the outbreak of World War I. In other words, whether it was Bernsteinism—which proclaimed, "The goal, whatever it may be, is nothing to me; the movement is everything"—or the Economists who advocated narrowing political agitation, or their successors who practiced abandoning the Party program and revolutionary traditions in exchange for legal status, all were wandering on a non-revolutionary track. To free the masses from the influence of such ideas and to struggle for an independent workers' movement in Russia, Lenin criticized the kind of rhetoric promoted by the "Critics" that excluded revolutionary practice. The point is not merely to explain the world, but to change it through revolutionary practical activity; "without revolutionary action, all promises and all beautiful prospects are merely castles in the air." Lenin pointed out that to carry out the revolutionary struggle to transform social relations and abolish the social system that forces the poor to sell themselves to the rich—thereby reaching the "ultimate goal" of the movement—one cannot rely on "fabricating various plans for social transformation," nor can one be limited to striving for economic reforms. Members of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party must lead the working class in persevering in their revolutionary tasks to the end to realize this theory. Based on this understanding, and on the observation of practice and analysis of the development of the Russian Revolution, Lenin actively guided the class consciousness of the working class from spontaneity to self-awareness, proposed the scientific foresight that the Russian socialist revolution might triumph first, and formulated tactics for action-for-itself imbued with materialist dialectics, thereby opening a new era for the Russian and even the world revolution.
V. Criticizing the "Simple Plagiarism" of "Freedom of Criticism" with the Marxist View of Development
The new "trend of criticism" did not make the effort to understand the scientific meaning of the teachings of Marx and Engels, yet it aimed the spearhead of "criticism" directly at Marxism, clamoring for a struggle against "dogmatism, scholasticism," and "Party ossification." However, it neither advanced science nor taught the proletariat any new methods of struggle. Therefore, Lenin profoundly pointed out that "freedom of criticism" was not the replacement of one theory by another; it not only failed to manifest as any criticism but manifested as a complete lack of independent insight, merely judging current reality with isolated principles and treating Marx's theory as a historico-philosophical formula that must be strictly followed. Whether it was the "Economism" that "simply understood" or "simply plagiarized" the resolutions of other countries, or Menshevism [10] which excluded the proletariat from revolutionary hegemony [11] at a critical historical juncture, or Liquidationism which failed to understand flexible tactics—none of them kept pace with the changes of the times, the progress of science, or the call of the proletarian revolution. They used an extremely one-sided and abnormal attitude to obsess over a particular statement, become deeply addicted to a particular judgment, or blindly hold fast to a particular conclusion, clearly proving their "intellectual poverty" and "simple-mindedness." In response, Lenin used dialectical thinking to excise erroneous and untimely ideological concepts, demonstrating that Marxism reveals infinite vitality and thorough persuasiveness through its close connection and internal coupling with the developmental process of human history, the world cultural system, and proletarian revolutionary practice, thus pointing the direction for how Marxists should develop Marxism.
First, Marxist theory is linked to a certain stage of historical development and must evolve along with the historical process. First, the "natural history process" of human society dictates that modern materialism will inevitably continue to advance. Lenin viewed human society as a living organism in a state of continuous development, believing this process to be absolute and unconditional in its essence; he therefore held that "all milestones" of ever-developing human science "possess a temporary, relative, and approximate character." Based on this understanding, Lenin pointed out that only by "pushing this science forward in all aspects" can one avoid "falling behind actual life." The science Lenin refers to here is not an ideological system masquerading as ultimate truth, but a generalized science characterized by historicity and process; social development will not end, and thus the development of theory is naturally infinite. Clearly, the logical progression of theory is closely linked to the objective process of historical development; to whatever degree history develops, theory must follow. Lenin’s creation of the "theory of victory in one country," the theory of the new meaning, nature, and characteristics of imperialism, and the theory of the meaning and nature of war and peace, were major theoretical developments of essential significance completed in response to the requirements of historical development. Second, the particularity manifested by world history in individual stages of development requires theory to realize its own development based on the specific historical environment. Lenin believed that within the general trend of historical development, every country possesses "specific characteristics that distinguish it from others." Therefore, one cannot harshly demand that Marx answer every specific question on the road to socialism; theory must grasp reality and concrete historical characteristics to be elucidated and elaborated—this is both Marx's ideological method and an absolute requirement of Marxism.
Second, Marxism is a scientific theoretical form aligned with the status and mission of the proletariat; it must be continuously enriched and developed within the struggle of the proletariat for its own liberation. First, viewed from the entire course of the labor movement, the lowly economic status of the proletariat will "irresistibly drive it" [12] to strive for its ultimate liberation. As the theoretical weapon for the proletariat to seek human liberation, Marxism must inevitably develop alongside the movement for proletarian liberation. Lenin believed that Marx's doctrine revealed the world-historical role of the proletariat and served as the theory and program for the labor movements of all countries; regarding this movement, one must look "not only from the point of view of the past, but also from the point of view of the future." That is to say, one must use an extremely broad perspective to examine the "dynamic" labor movement, remaining ready at all times to perfect and mature one's revolutionary theory by distilling new experiences. This is both a necessity for serving the proletariat in completing its cause of self-liberation and, more importantly, a necessity for responding to the real-world problems in the revolutionary process to adapt to the continuous advancement of the revolutionary movement. Lenin pointed out that Marx himself appeared in the labor movement in the posture of a "practical advisor," thereby "raising the entire movement to a higher stage."
Second, viewed from the staged nature of epochal evolution, Marxism develops according to the evolution of the proletarian liberation struggle within its respective era. Basing himself on the realities of world politics and economics and global integrated issues, Lenin linked the general international situation of different eras with the tasks of revolutionaries. Using "conspicuous historical events" as points of demarcation, he argued that the era following the First World War possessed qualitative differences in its main objective content and developmental trends compared to the previous historical period. This directly determined that the labor movements of the two eras would have distinct characteristics in both form and content, which required that theoretical predictions, hypotheses, policies, and strategies must develop and change in tandem with the development and change of concrete practical problems. Specifically, the period from the Paris Commune to the eve of the First World War was an era in which the new class was slowly gathering strength and contradictions between the great powers were gradually deepening but had not yet reached a peak; it was therefore a peaceful era characterized by "stagnation" and "snail-paced development." Lenin pointed out: "Marx highly valued the use of legal means of struggle in periods of political stagnation and the dominance of bourgeois legality." In his later years, Engels also emphasized many times the need to use "new weapons," including universal suffrage and parliamentarianism, to conduct peaceful and legal struggle. Regarding the era following the outbreak of the First World War, however, Lenin pointed out that its social and class content had become entirely different: it was the "era of imperialism, an era of upheavals for imperialism and upheavals caused by imperialism," which was inaugurating a new epoch of social revolution. Therefore, proceeding from this general foundation, it was the non-negotiable responsibility of Social Democrats to support and advance all revolutionary actions and to theoretically occupy and consolidate their positions. During this period, Lenin continued to formulate the Bolshevik Party's theory and tactics on the questions of war and revolution, continued to point out the course of revolution and the path of international association, and further developed the doctrine regarding the issues of imperialism and socialist revolution.
Third, Marxism is an open system that engages in mutual collision and exchange with other ideological systems; it never refuses to absorb all advanced thoughts and theories that emerge in the course of human development. Lenin believed that the histories of philosophy and social science have shown that the emergence of Marxism was inseparable from objective historical conditions, and likewise inseparable from certain ideological and theoretical conditions. First, Marxism emerged from the main highway of the development of world civilization; it is the inheritance and continuation of the crystallization of human wisdom and science. Lenin pointed out that Marx and Engels not only absorbed the scientific achievements of their great predecessors but also, under the new conditions of changing times, resolved the major theoretical problems which those predecessors had raised but failed to solve, thus representing the "latest achievements in science." Second, Marxism "has never claimed to explain everything"; rather, following the development of cultural integration, it supplements and perfects its own theory. Lenin believed that the exchange of culture and ideas is predicated upon changes in material life, and the development of capitalism facilitated the "development and increasing frequency of various intercourses between people." Therefore, after the founding of scientific socialism, as global connectivity continued to strengthen, it became necessary to combine the cultural background of the entire era and continuously conduct critical examinations of contemporary theoretical achievements.
VI. Insights from Lenin’s Critique of "Freedom of Criticism"
Lenin's critique of "freedom of criticism" is a dialectical unity of criticality and constructiveness. It not only smashed the conspiracy of "freedom of criticism" with a firm, revolutionary, and thorough theory—winning the defensive counter-attack on the ideological and political front—but also multi-dimensionally constructed a Russian socialist ideology. This fully reflects the Marxist spirit of seeking truth from facts, continuous innovation, and independence; it also reflects the brand-new contributions and theoretical creations made by true Marxists under new historical conditions. Xi Jinping has pointed out: "To throw a society into chaos or to overturn a regime, one often begins by opening a breach in the field of ideology and by confusing people’s thinking." [13] This requires that, under the new situation, we must firmly grasp the scientific worldview and methodology employed by Lenin in his critique of "freedom of criticism," persist in simultaneously "establishing the new and breaking the old" [13], return to the source to clear the stream, better unify thinking, consolidate the soul and gather strength, and march with resounding strides toward national rejuvenation on the path of Chinese-path modernization.
First, at all times, we must attach high importance to anti-Marxist trends of thought that banner themselves as Marxism. Lenin once summarized that Marxism becomes more vital through its various battles. This causes its enemies to often disguise themselves as Marxists, making it difficult for the masses to distinguish the true from the false or the good from the evil. In the process of China’s social development, there likewise exist theoretical schools and undercurrents of social thought packaged as Marxism which "attempt to make our Party change its banner and its name." This requires us to be particularly sharp-eyed and clear-headed, to hold fast to the "key battlefield" of ideology, and to be vigilant against and prevent various hostile ideologies from disturbing people’s minds through disguise. We must persist in guiding the masses with thorough theory and conducting struggle with correct theory. Only in this way can we achieve total victory in the struggle within the field of ideology and public opinion.
Second, we must hold fast to the people's standpoint to form theories that are loved, recognized, and mastered by the people. The activities of the masses constitute the foundation of all social life; only by holding fast to the people's standpoint can theory be most persuasive and effective, and can it maximize its role as a "material force." The "people-centered nature" is the distinctive character of Lenin's thought and theory: he persisted in acting for the masses, believing in the masses, and relying on the masses, thereby fully mobilizing the revolutionary potential hidden deep within the Russian people and sweeping away the roadblocks preventing all people from striving for political freedom. On the new journey, only by persisting in the supremacy of the people and by utilizing ideological theories that fully express the voices and aspirations of the people can we maximize the cohesion of people’s hearts and strength, continuously opening new horizons for the development of our cause.
Third, we must firmly establish a "complete and clear worldview" and resolutely struggle against behaviors that corrode the healthy organism of Marxism. Possessing a worldview that refuses any compromise with reactionary forces, Lenin, when understanding Marxism, first viewed it as a rigorous monolith and an indivisible whole. Basing himself on this, he more profoundly understood the nature, characteristics, and functions of each constituent part, effectively resisting the "fashionable" revisions of bourgeois "science." Today, fabricating a conflict between classical authors, or disparaging scientific theory as mere humanism or alienation theory, are common tactics used by hostile thoughts to dismember Marxism. In response, we must fully utilize the role of the worldview as the "master switch" and "main sluice gate" [14] of thought to maintain the integrity and unity of Marxism.
Fourth, we must persist in seeking truth from facts and penetrate theory into the practical activities of transforming the objective world. Practice is of fundamental and decisive significance to theory. Lenin persisted in using a scientific view of practice to analyze Russian reality, grasping the most decisive facts from a tangle of complex matters; he also persisted in using revolutionary theory as a guide for action, allowing the great power of scientific theory to be fully manifested in revolutionary practice. Under the new historical conditions, we must still use a scientific view of practice to master historical laws, plan the development of our cause, and respond to risks and challenges, ensuring that scientific theory plays a massive role in the practice of comprehensively building a modern socialist country.
Fifth, we must deeply discern the trends of epochal development and human progress, continuously opening the path for the advancement of Marxism. Compared with the pedantic fallacies of opportunists who use unchanging theoretical frameworks to prescribe the development of world history, Lenin did not remain stationary on existing theories. Instead, he made major developments to Marxism with new and significant discourse, ideas, and conclusions. Today, the complexity of the problems we face and the arduousness of solving them have increased to an unprecedented degree; the task of advancing theoretical innovation has not become lighter but heavier. This requires us to both grasp the characteristics and laws of epochal change and absorb the latest valuable intellectual achievements created by humanity, timely absorbing new experiences and forming new creations to better lead the development of the times.