Wang Jinfen and Du Qianwen: Lenin's Critique of Liberal Populism on the Issue of Russia's Development Path and Its Enlightenment
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the rapid development of European capitalism exerted a powerful impact on Russia—a country that was economically and culturally backward and heavily burdened by Tsarist feudal autocracy, yet already swept up in the tide of capitalist development. The question of "whither Russia" became the focal point of fierce debate within Russian intellectual circles. At this time, the liberal Narodniks [1]—represented by Mikhailovsky, Vorontsov, Yuzhakov, and Danielson—abandoned the political platform of the Old Narodniks of the 1860s and 70s, which had "aimed to mobilize the peasantry for a socialist revolution against the foundations of modern society." Instead, they clamorously advocated a reformist path "aimed at patching up and 'improving' the condition of the peasantry while preserving the foundations of modern society." Ignoring the reality of Russian capitalist development and changes in the class structure, the liberal Narodniks spread arguments such as the so-called "impossibility of capitalism" and the "destructiveness of capitalism" in Russia. They argued that Russia should bypass capitalism and transition to socialism by perfecting the rural commune [2]. They viewed the idealized peasantry as "strong and powerful"—the principal force for social development in Russia—while regarding the intelligentsia as the "vanguard" in the political struggle.
Although they called themselves "Friends of the People," they were in fact peddling reformist policies that represented petit-bourgeois interests, naively fantasizing about relying on the government to adopt mild reform measures to "protect the economically weak." Lenin believed that the propositions of the liberal Narodniks constituted "a reactionary and harmful theory, for it confuses social thought and encourages stagnation and all sorts of Asiatic phenomena." Consequently, standing at the height of epochal development, Lenin launched a profound critique of the erroneous ideas of the liberal Narodniks and proposed a series of important concepts and viewpoints regarding the path of Russian social development. Under new historical conditions, studying Lenin’s critique of the Russian liberal Narodniks possesses significant practical guiding value.
I. Critiquing the liberal Narodniks' "theory of a non-capitalist path" and elucidating the necessity and progressive role of capitalism in Russian social development
In the debate over "whither Russia" that consumed Russian intellectual circles at the end of the 19th century, the liberal Narodniks were, on the one hand, deeply pained by Russia’s backwardness, but at the same time disillusioned by the disasters capitalism had inflicted upon humanity. Thus, they fantasized about skipping capitalism altogether and transitioning directly to socialism by relying on the Russian commune, which remained rooted in the small-peasant mode of production. Therefore, the core of the dispute between Lenin and the liberal Narodniks was actually the question of how to view the historical role, future, and destiny of capitalism in Russian social development.
Starting from a petit-bourgeois standpoint, the liberal Narodniks exaggerated the "heritage" of early democrats like Herzen and Chernyshevsky—who argued that the Russian commune, with its communal land ownership and collectivist spirit, was a positive factor for achieving socialism. They spoke volubly about the superiority of the Russian commune over Western European capitalism, spread the "impossibility of capitalism" and "destructiveness of capitalism" tropes, refused to acknowledge the historical progressiveness of capitalism, and advocated for transitioning to a socialist society through the reform of rural communes. Taken together, all this amounted to "advocating another path for Russia's development, namely, the non-capitalist path." Based on an in-depth investigation of the actual evolution of socio-economic relations in Russia, Lenin conducted a profound critique of the liberal Narodniks' "non-capitalist path."
First, he critiqued the liberal Narodniks' "theory of the impossibility of capitalism" and elucidated the practical necessity of Russian capitalist development. The defeat in the Crimean War in 1856 made the Russian ruling bloc realize the backwardness of their national industry, leading the "government to set about fostering the Russian capitalist class," hoping thereby to promote industrial development. Based on this, the liberal Narodniks argued that Russian capitalism was a product dominated by the policies of the Tsarist regime and had no future for development in Russia. For example, in the book The Fate of Capitalism in Russia, Vorontsov pointed out that in the West, capitalism "is a process of development, whereas in our country it is an implantation, an imitation"; he claimed that "Russia lacks the most elementary conditions for the development of capitalist production." Yuzhakov also believed that Russia lacked the capital, workers, and experienced proprietors necessary for capitalist production, and thus Russian capitalism had no possibility of development. In response to these views, Lenin started from the fact that Russian economy and society were already built upon the division of labor and a commodity economy, and that the capitalist process had already spread from large cities to all parts of the country. He pointed out that by denying capitalism from a petit-bourgeois standpoint, the liberal Narodniks "abandoned any historical realism," emphasizing that the development of capitalism in Russia was "not only possible" but "inevitable."
Regarding the liberal Narodnik argument that capitalism had no roots in Russia because of the lack of a domestic market, Lenin pointed out on one hand that their view—that the ruin of small production leads to decreasing consumption power and a shrinking domestic market—was merely a wholesale copy of Sismondi's [3] romanticist view that "the ruin of small production proves the shrinking of the domestic market." They failed entirely to understand Marx’s important thesis that the social division of labor is the key to establishing a capitalist domestic market. On the other hand, Lenin explicitly noted that the gradual ruin of the peasantry and the continuous accumulation of capital "did not diminish but increased the total national production and expanded the domestic market." This is because as the means of production became increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, the peasants and small producers who lost their means of production became propertyless laborers; to obtain the means of subsistence, they not only had to sell their labor power to capitalists but also had to purchase commodities to meet their daily needs.
Addressing Danielson’s argument that "foreign markets are the way out of the difficulty of realizing surplus value," and that Russian capitalism sought foreign markets only because it lacked a domestic market for its products, Lenin stated bluntly that this view was merely an excuse to gloss over the facts of Russian capitalist development. In reality, they "understood neither the realization of products in capitalist society (i.e., the theory of the domestic market) nor the role of foreign markets." Here, Lenin clarified two points: first, the realization of products consists of each part of the product, according to its value and material form, finding another part of the product to replace it via the market; second, the existence of foreign markets is to satisfy capitalism's need to rely on external markets to ensure commodity circulation. On this basis, Lenin pointed out with penetrating insight that the liberal Narodniks' purpose in preaching the impossibility of capitalism was merely to cover up the fact that the capitalist mode of production already held a dominant position in Russian industry and agriculture. They sought to maintain a "commodity economy without capitalism—wanting a capitalism of the petty bourgeoisie who barely eke out a living under the protection of benevolent landlords and liberal administrators, without expropriation and without exploitation." This was a utopian and reactionary erroneous trend of thought. Lenin explicitly noted that the liberal Narodniks' propositions reflected the "illusory hope" of millions of petit-bourgeois laborers suffering under feudal exploitation "to abolish the new capitalist exploiters 'along with' the old." However, "this democracy as a socialist utopia is false"; "it is reactionary because it exerts every effort to preserve its own petit-bourgeois status, striving to obstruct and reverse the country’s development toward capitalism."
Second, he critiqued the liberal Narodniks' "theory of the destructiveness of capitalism" and emphasized utilizing the progressive role of capitalism to promote Russian social development. Using the disasters capitalism brought to humanity—such as oppression, unemployment, and economic crises—as a pretext, the liberal Narodniks loudly proclaimed that in Russia, capitalism "has become a mode of exploiting the people's labor for the private interests of a handful of people who not only play no progressive historical role but, on the contrary, hinder the normal development of industry." They "strove to prove that capitalism is an extremely bad thing." In response, Lenin rebuked the liberal Narodniks for "indulging in fantasies and being unwilling to study and clarify reality, which inevitably results in denying the significance and power of capitalism." He emphasized that the progressive role of capitalism "lies in its destruction of the old, narrow conditions of life that made the producer dull-witted and prevented him from taking his destiny into his own hands," bringing about "the improvement of social labor productivity and the socialization of labor," thereby creating the solid material foundation and class forces for achieving socialism. He explicitly pointed out that the reason the liberal Narodniks' "non-capitalist path" was utopian was that it failed to recognize that "only the development of capitalism and the proletariat can create the material conditions and social forces for the realization of socialism."
By this point, through his powerful critique of the liberal Narodniks' dissemination of the "impossibility" and "destructiveness" of capitalism, Lenin profoundly elucidated the necessity and progressiveness of capitalist development in Russia. He emphasized that the various deep contradictions inherent in capitalism "by no means exclude the possibility of capitalism, nor do they exclude its progressiveness compared to previous socio-economic systems." He further demonstrated his clear stance on how a culturally and economically backward Russia should treat capitalism on its path toward modern civilization: namely, to move toward socialism by utilizing the progressive role of capitalism. "The first demand that should be realized is to promote the development of capitalism and to clear away the feudal remnants for the sake of capitalism."
II. Critiquing the liberal Narodniks' exaggeration of the role of the peasantry and intelligentsia, and emphasizing that the proletariat and its advanced representatives are the leading force of Russian social development
After the Russian Serfdom Reform of 1861 [4], with the development of Russian capitalism, the Russian peasantry gradually polarized into the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The proletariat stepped onto the stage of history as a new political force and began to spontaneously carry out struggles against feudal forces and capitalists. According to statistics, 546 strike movements broke out between 1895 and 1898; however, due to a lack of organized leadership and scientific theoretical guidance, these spontaneous movements were quickly suppressed by reactionary forces. Lenin emphasized that Russian socialists must become the leaders of the workers' movement and guide spontaneous movement into conscious movement—that is, "to assist in the development and organization of the Russian workers' movement, transforming it from its current state of scattered protests, 'grumbling,' and strikes lacking a guiding ideology into an organized struggle of the entire Russian working class."
The liberal Narodniks did not agree with Lenin's view. Ignoring the historical status of the proletariat, they viewed the Russian working class merely as "people who spread revolutionary ideas among the peasantry," loudly proclaiming the "theory of the peasantry as the subject" and the "theory of leadership by the intelligentsia." They believed that "in Russia, the peasantry is the most numerous social group; the peasantry is strong and powerful not only because of its numbers but because its social ideals are relatively clear," and that "the intelligentsia is non-class and naturally cannot play an independent role in the social revolutionary struggle, but it can become the vanguard in the political struggle, the struggle for freedom of thought and speech." Clearly, these statements—identifying an idealized peasantry as the primary force for social progress and advocating the intelligentsia as the leading force of the Russian political struggle—essentially constituted a fundamental denial of the proletariat's leadership over Russian social development.
To elucidate the necessity and inevitability of the proletarian party seizing revolutionary leadership, Lenin specifically analyzed the class characteristics of the peasantry, the intelligentsia, and the proletariat.
First, the peasantry possesses a dual nature. On the one hand, after the Russian Serfdom Reform, the vast existence of feudal remnants and underdeveloped capitalism caused the peasantry to suffer dual oppression from both, plunging them into unprecedented poverty; they thus possessed a profound revolutionary character. On the other hand, as small producers, the peasantry essentially possessed a tendency to become proprietors. As Lenin said: "The tendency of the peasant lies by no means in the 'commune' system, nor in 'people’s production,' but in the most ordinary petit-bourgeois system characteristic of all capitalist societies." That is to say, the petit-bourgeois nature of the peasantry created an antagonism within it between the proletarian tendency and the proprietor tendency, determining its inevitable vacillation in the revolutionary movement. It would necessarily sway between the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie and the revolutionary proletariat, and therefore could not become the leading or principal force of the Russian revolution.
Second, the intelligentsia degenerated into "servants of the bourgeoisie." The long-standing "policy of obscurantism" [5] pursued by the Tsarist government meant that as late as the mid-19th century, 92% of the Russian population remained illiterate. However, the small number of intellectuals did not constitute the "vanguard" of the revolution; rather, they were members and dependents of a bureaucratic stratum representing bourgeois interests. Regarding this point, as Lenin stated: "The advanced, liberal, 'democratic' intelligentsia of Russia is a bourgeois intelligentsia," and "[if] they do not attach themselves to a class, they are a cipher." Furthermore, it was precisely this dependency that led to the intellectuals "having no strength at all." Based on this, Lenin explicitly pointed out that the Narodniks' view of the "omnipotence of the intelligentsia" was a "fallacy," while Struve’s [6] view regarding the intellectuals’ "lack of strength" was "entirely correct." Without doubt, Lenin was emphasizing here that as a stratum dependent on the bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia was destined—due to its own "lack of strength"—not to become the leading force of the Russian revolution.
Third, the proletariat is the advanced fighter and leading force of the revolutionary movement. The Russian working class not only suffered the same exploitation as all Russian laboring masses but also faced ruthless dispossession by a "large-scale, socialized, and concentrated" capitalist mode of production that manifested in a naked form. This allowed them to recognize that it was the bourgeois-dominated mode of production that was exploiting and oppressing them, and that they must wage an unambiguous and thorough struggle against the bourgeoisie. Lenin noted in this regard: "The position the factory worker occupies in the general system of capitalism makes him the sole fighter for the emancipation of the working class..." In other words, only the most revolutionary Russian working class—this "sole fighter"—could shoulder the heavy responsibility of leading the Russian revolution. In the preface to the second edition of The Development of Capitalism in Russia, written in 1907, Lenin stated clearly: "The leading role of the proletariat has been fully revealed. It has also been revealed that the strength of the proletariat in the historical movement is immeasurably greater than its share in the total population." Based on this, he issued severe criticism of those who believed a bourgeois revolution could only be led by the bourgeoisie, regarding such people as "incurable pedants" who vulgarized Marxism. "Of such people," Lenin likely thought, "Marx would probably repeat the words of Heine he once quoted: 'I sowed dragons' teeth and harvested fleas.'"
Through his analysis of the class characteristics of the peasantry, the intelligentsia, and the proletariat, Lenin powerfully refuted the Liberal Narodniks’ "peasant-subject theory" and "intellectual-leadership theory," profoundly elucidating that only the proletariat and its advanced representative—the proletarian party—could be the leading force in the Russian revolution. Moreover, in his critique of Narodnism, he elaborated on how the proletarian party should exercise its leadership, emphasizing that the task of the Russian Social-Democrats was to be the ideological leaders of the proletariat, organizing and leading them in actual struggle. To this end, ideological guidance must be combined with organizational action—namely, performing "research, propaganda, and organization." He argued that "one cannot be an ideological leader without performing the above-mentioned theoretical work, and one cannot be an ideological leader without conducting this work according to the needs of the cause, without disseminating the results of this theory among the workers and helping them to organize." Here, Lenin emphasized that the proletarian party must exercise its ideological leadership over the working class by mastering scientific theory, guiding them to organize for a political struggle aimed at communism.
III. Critiquing the Hypocritical "People-Orientedness" of the Liberal Narodniks and Emphasizing that the Choice of Russia's Social Development Path Must Start from Realizing the Interests of the Masses and Relying on Them.
At the end of the 19th century, Russian cities where large-scale industry was concentrated were modernizing rapidly, but the vast countryside maintained its original backward appearance. Peasants in particular suffered not only from the oppression of brutal remnants of serfdom but also from the savage dispossession of the nascent capitalist mode of production. How were the oppressed and dispossessed Russian people to achieve liberation? The Liberal Narodniks, who appeared under the banner of professing socialism, called themselves "Friends of the People" [7] and posed as spokespersons for the masses. Yet they promoted reformist policies and doctrines representing petty-bourgeois interests and regarded the masses as an ignorant "mob" (群氓), chanting refrains about how great men "influence and drive the mob through the generations." This was diametrically opposed to the Marxist standpoint of the people and fundamentally violated the social development law that the masses create history; it can only be described as hypocritical and sanctimonious.
To unmask the hypocrisy of the Liberal Narodniks as false "Friends of the People," Lenin profoundly analyzed their reformist claims that they "wished to represent the interests of the laborers" while "in fact, they always stood on the viewpoint of the small producer." The Liberal Narodniks believed the disasters suffered by the peasantry—lack of land, excessive taxation, and total lack of rights—were caused by "defects" in state policy. Consequently, in the magazine Russkoye Bogatstvo (Russian Wealth), they vigorously advocated for a so-called "Program for the Revival of the People's Economy," featuring resettlement and tenancy adjustments, low-interest loans, technical improvements, and labor artels. In fact, one need only look at Russia's existing, actual forms of economic organization to see that the cause of the laborers' oppression and exploitation lay not in policy "defects" but in the relations of production themselves. Anyone with even a slight understanding of the condition of the Russian laboring masses would realize that only a small portion of the petty bourgeoisie had the capacity to take out loans for purchasing production tools or making technical improvements; the vast majority of poor peasants had no "surplus savings" to improve their labor conditions. Accordingly, Lenin commented that the "Program for the Revival of the People's Economy" trumpeted by the Liberal Narodniks was merely "standing entirely on the soil of modern society (that is, on the soil of the capitalist system, though they do not realize it), wishing to patch up and gloss over this society." Meanwhile, "any reforms based on the modern system are of no avail" and "cannot change anything in essence," for they "do not touch the main, fundamental fact that the mass of the population has been dispossessed and continues to be dispossessed, lacking even the money to feed themselves, let alone to conduct normal business." Based on this, Lenin reminded socialists not to "blindly believe the flowery words about 'the interests of the people,' but to look a little deeper, and then they will see before them genuine petty-bourgeois ideologists who dream of using various naive progressive measures to improve, maintain, and restore their own (they say 'the people's') economy, and who absolutely cannot understand that on the basis of existing relations of production, all these progressive measures will only deepen the proletarianization of the masses."
In contrast to the Liberal Narodniks’ false attitude toward the people, Lenin emphasized that Russian Marxists must adhere to the "interests of the laborers as the criterion." In his view, to truly change the tragic fate of the people, one must reject the reformist path advocated by the Liberal Narodniks and choose the "broad road of open political struggle," because "what the Russian people need is not help from an unrestricted government and its officials, but liberation from its oppression." Based on this, Lenin emphasized that the mission of the Russian Social-Democrats "lies in overthrowing the bourgeois system, expropriating the expropriators, and abolishing the social system based on the oppression of the laborers." As the "sole fighter for the liberation of the workers," the Russian working class was the "sole and natural representative of all the exploited laboring masses of Russia."
The Liberal Narodniks disparaged the laboring masses as an ignorant "mob" and believed that Russia would face disaster if it did not develop according to a path selected by intellectuals, elites, and heroic figures. Against this historical idealist view, Lenin reaffirmed the basic historical-materialist viewpoint: "Historical activity is the activity of the masses, and with the deepening of historical activity, there will be an expansion of the masses." He severely criticized their "narrow, self-important intellectualism, or even one might say, bureaucratic thinking," which always viewed the laboring people "as material that should obey the command to follow this or that path, and never viewed the various classes of the population as independent historical actors on a given path." On this basis, Lenin demanded that Russian Social-Democrats strive to develop the "conditions for the independent and conscious activity of these creators of history." Undoubtedly, Lenin was emphasizing here that Russia's "activities aimed at socialism" could only succeed by striving to attract the participation of the broad laboring masses and giving full play to their initiative and creativity as the subject force.
IV. Insights from Lenin’s Critique of the Liberal Narodniks on the Problem of Russia’s Social Development Path
Lenin’s critique of the Liberal Narodniks’ erroneous views on Russia’s development path, along with the series of theoretical propositions he advanced during that critique, played an extremely important guiding role in Russia’s move toward modern civilization. Although over a century has passed since Lenin’s critique of the Liberal Narodniks, revisiting his reflections on how an economically and culturally backward Russia could move toward socialist modern civilization still holds significant practical guiding value.
(1) We must be adept at learning from and drawing upon the beneficial fruits of civilization created by capitalism.
In response to the Liberal Narodniks’ denial of the fact of Russian capitalist development and its historically progressive role—and their advocacy of bypassing capitalism to enter socialist society directly—Lenin criticized this as a "erroneous" and "socialist utopia" attempting to build socialism on the economic foundation of small-scale production. He emphasized that capitalism possessed historical progressiveness compared to all previous social-economic formations, particularly in its significant advantages for promoting socialized large-scale production. He argued that one must be adept at using capitalism to promote the development of Russian society. After the victory of the October Revolution, Lenin further emphasized that Soviet Russia "should link its own existence with capitalist relations" and be willing to absorb all the good things from capitalist countries. He proposed the formula for socialist construction: "Soviet power + Prussian railway order + American technology and trust organization + American national education, etc., etc. ++ = the sum = socialism." Although China's socialist modernization construction has reached unprecedented breadth and depth compared to Lenin’s era, it faces the same questions of how to treat capitalism and how to handle the relationship between socialism and capitalism. Especially in the current global context where the two social systems of socialism and capitalism coexist, "for socialism to win advantages compared to capitalism, it must boldly absorb and draw upon all the fruits of civilization created by human society, and absorb and draw upon all advanced methods of operation and management from all countries in the world today—including developed capitalist countries—that reflect the laws of modern socialized production." Xi Jinping has emphasized: "For a considerably long period, socialism in its primary stage must still coexist in long-term cooperation and struggle with more developed capitalism, and must seriously learn from and draw upon the beneficial fruits of civilization created by capitalism."
Of course, while affirming the progressiveness of capitalism, Lenin also profoundly revealed the inherent and insurmountable contradictions of capitalism. This inspires us, in the process of promoting Chinese-path modernization, to break the myth that "modernization = Westernization." We must maintain a clear awareness of the disasters, destruction, and problems brought to human social development by Western capital-centered modernization—such as the rampant growth of materialism, external expansion and plunder, the hijacking of politics by capital, polarization between rich and poor, and ecological degradation. We must always keep in mind that "Chinese-path modernization is socialist modernization, and not any other kind of modernization."
(2) We must unswervingly uphold and strengthen the leadership of the Communist Party of China.
In response to the Liberal Populists' loud proclamations of the "theory of peasant subjectivity" and the "theory of intellectual leadership," Lenin analyzed the class characteristics of the peasantry, the intelligentsia, and the working class. He revealed the necessity of the proletarian party seizing revolutionary leadership, emphasizing that the proletarian party must strive to become the ideological and organizational leader of the workers' movement, guiding them to organize and engage in political struggle aimed at communism. These expositions profoundly reveal that upholding the leadership of the proletarian party is the fundamental guarantee for the success of the socialist cause. The trajectory of the world socialist movement has clearly demonstrated this. It can be said that without the strong leadership of a new type of proletarian party like the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) established by Lenin, there would have been no establishment or consolidation of Soviet power in Russia. A crucial reason why this socialist regime, which had once achieved great success, later fell apart was that during the Gorbachev period, there was a one-sided pursuit of ideological and political pluralism. This allowed various phenomena that denied or distorted the leadership of the CPSU to go unchecked, leading to the utter destruction of the authority of the CPSU Central Committee and a serious loss of the Party's leadership capacity, rendering Party leadership mere empty talk. This means that upholding the strong and powerful leadership of the proletarian party is a major principle that cannot be compromised or shaken.
The developmental history of the Communist Party of China also fully demonstrates that Party leadership is the fundamental guarantee and inherent advantage for the Chinese people to achieve the transition from standing up to becoming prosperous and then becoming strong. Currently, the world is undergoing changes unseen in a century at an accelerated pace, and China is in a critical period for advancing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts through Chinese-path modernization. The major challenges and tests faced on the road ahead are of a rarity seldom seen in history or the world, requiring the Party's strong and powerful leadership more than ever. To this end, Xi Jinping has explicitly pointed out: "The Party's leadership is the 'stabilizing anchor' [8] for the continuous development of the undertakings of the Party and the state." He further noted, "Only by unswervingly upholding the leadership of the Party can Chinese-path modernization have a bright future and prosper; otherwise, Chinese-path modernization will veer off course, lose its soul, and even commit subversive errors." However, for a period of time, there existed within the Party varying degrees of blurred understanding and weak action regarding the persistence of Party leadership, as well as many problems where the implementation of Party leadership was weakened, hollowed out, or marginalized. This requires that on the new historical journey, we must take the unswerving persistence of Party leadership as the fundamental principle of the political life of the Party and the state. We must continuously enhance the Party's capacity for political leadership, ideological guidance, mass organization, and social mobilization, ensuring that the Communist Party of China remains the core of leadership for socialism with Chinese characteristics.
(3) We must always represent the interests of the people and rely closely on the masses
In response to the Liberal Populists' hypocritical mask of styling themselves as "friends of the people" while actually representing petty-bourgeois interests and belittling the historical role of the masses, Lenin emphasized that when choosing a developmental path, Russia must take the fundamental interests of the people as the starting point and must rely on the masses as the supporting force. This fully embodied Lenin's adherence to the "people-centered nature" (人民性), which is the fundamental political attribute of a Marxist party. The world socialist movement has also fully shown that whether Communists can consistently struggle for the interests of the people and rely closely on them directly determines the rise or fall of the proletarian party's cause. It can be said that the main reason Lenin was able to lead the RCP(B) to win power was that the political slogans he proposed—"Peace, Land, and Bread"—represented the interests and aspirations of the people and received a warm response and sincere support from the broad masses.
However, this very Party, established under Lenin’s leadership and once followed and supported by the broad masses, collapsed after 74 years in power. Fundamentally, this was because in its later period, the CPSU gradually degenerated into a privileged bureaucratic clique detached from the masses, losing the trust and support of the people. In explaining the need to grasp the New Development Philosophy from the perspective of the Party’s fundamental purpose, Xi Jinping explicitly pointed out that an important reason for the failure of the Soviet Union—the world's first socialist state that once achieved brilliant successes—was that "the CPSU became detached from the people and turned into a privileged bureaucratic clique that only maintained its own interests. Even for a country that has achieved modernization, if the ruling party turns its back on the people, the fruits of modernization will be undermined." This profound summary not only identifies the cause of the CPSU's ultimate failure but also expresses the clear stance of Chinese Communists to always safeguard the interests of the people.
The history of the CPC's struggle also fully demonstrates that the fundamental reason the Party's cause has continuously grown is that it has always represented the interests of the people, relied closely on them, and stood with them through thick and thin [9], thereby winning their sincere support and devoted following. At the ceremony marking the centenary of the CPC, Xi Jinping emphasized, "the state is the people, and the people are the state" [10]. He stated, "The Communist Party of China has always represented the fundamental interests of the broadest possible majority of the people" and "it has never represented the interests of any interest group, any power group, or any privileged class." Standing at a new historical starting point, the whole Party must consistently adhere to the people-centered development philosophy and always remember that "Chinese-path modernization is the undertaking of hundreds of millions of people themselves, and the people are the subjects of Chinese-path modernization." We must rely closely on the people, vigorously develop whole-process people's democracy, listen to the public's will, pool their wisdom, and gather the majestic strength to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.