{"id":6302,"date":"2026-03-14T13:54:49","date_gmt":"2026-03-14T13:54:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/?p=6302"},"modified":"2026-03-14T13:55:44","modified_gmt":"2026-03-14T13:55:44","slug":"lenins-critique-of-erroneous-ideologies-on-the-question-of-russias-development-path","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/?p=6302&lang=en","title":{"rendered":"Lenin’s Critique of Erroneous Ideologies on the Question of Russia’s Development Path"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Lenin’s Critique of Erroneous Ideologies on the Question of Russia’s Development Path<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

From: Theoretical Horizons, Issue 11, 2023<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wang Jinfen is a researcher at the Research Center for Marxist Theory and Regional Practice at Guangxi Normal University and a professor at the School of Marxism at Guangxi Normal University<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the late 19th to the early 20th century, the question of “Where is Russia headed?” became a subject of intense debate in Russian intellectual circles. The essence of this debate was whether economically and culturally backward Russia should choose capitalism or socialism as its path of development, and how to view and handle the relationship between the two. Around this question, before the October Revolution, Russia saw the emergence of Narodnik populism advocating a “non-capitalist path” and “legal Marxism” praising the “eternity” of capitalism. After the October Revolution, figures like Plekhanov, Kautsky, and Sukhanov questioned, attacked, and denigrated Lenin’s leadership of the October Revolution, the establishment of Soviet power, and socialist construction, advocating “historical disaster,” “premature birth,” and “economic determinism,” as well as “petty-bourgeois reformism” and “petty-bourgeois revolutionaryism” regarding the New Economic Policy. These erroneous ideologies severely undermined the rationality and legitimacy of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) leading the people in revolution, seizing power, and carrying out socialist construction, causing immense ideological confusion for Russian society. To dispel the ideological fog surrounding Russia’s socialist development, Lenin profoundly criticized these erroneous ideologies. Under the new historical conditions, revisiting Lenin’s critique of erroneous ideologies on Russia’s path of development and the ideas he expounded in that critique are of great practical significance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, Lenin criticizes the Marodnik populist “non-capitalist path,” emphasizing that backward Russia must move towards socialism by leveraging the progressive role of capitalism and eliminating feudal remnants.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000In the second half of the 19th century, with the rapid development of capitalism in Europe and the spread of Marxism in Russia, a debate on “where is Russia headed” took place in the Russian intellectual circles. In the debate, a relatively influential school of thought emerged, represented by Herzen, Chernyshevsky, and Danielson, namely the Populists. This school was deeply saddened by Russia’s backwardness, but the disasters caused to mankind by capitalism disappointed them. Therefore, they fantasized about transitioning directly to socialism without going through capitalism and relying on the Russian village communes, which still relied on the small-scale peasant production mode. For example, Herzen pointed out: “What we call Russian socialism is a kind of socialism that comes from the land and the life of the peasants, from each peasant actually owning a piece of land, from the redistribution of land, from the village communes owning land and managing the village communes.” Chernyshevsky also regarded the Russian peasant communes as a “means of transitioning to a new stage of development” that was “above the class antagonism of Western European capitalist society.” Danielson and others believed that Russia did not have “the most basic conditions for developing capitalist production.”  All of this can be summarized as \u201cadvocating another path for Russian development, namely the non-capitalist path\u201d. Lenin considered this \u201ca reactionary and harmful theory because it confuses social thought, fosters stagnation and various Asian-style things, and therefore advocated that a resolute ideological struggle must be waged against it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000On the one hand, Lenin criticized populism’s “non-capitalist road” as a “mistaken” and “socialist utopia” representing the interests of Russian small producers. According to Marxist theory of social formations, the driving force behind the succession of human societies is the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, and the ultimate determining factor is the level of development of productive forces. That is, the handmill gave rise to feudal society, the steam engine to capitalist large-scale industrial society, and socialism, as a social formation superior to capitalism, necessarily presupposes highly developed productive forces. However, the populists advocated a direct transition to socialism through village communes dominated by small-scale production. This can be considered a reactionary trend that violates the laws of social development; its starting point is not the liberation of the working class pursued by socialism, but rather the protection of the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. On this point, Lenin\u2019s critique of Herzen, a representative of populism, was spot on: \u201cHerzen regarded the liberation of peasants along with the land, the village land ownership system and the peasants\u2019 \u2018land rights\u2019 as \u2018socialism\u2019… It has no socialist flavor at all. It is like the various forms of \u2018socialism in 1848\u2019 in Western Europe, a kind of sentimental words and good wishes that express the revolutionary nature of the Russian bourgeois peasant democrats.\u201d[6] Here, \u201csocialism in 1848\u201d refers to the petty-bourgeois socialism that Marx and Engels fiercely criticized in the Communist Manifesto. It refers to the petty bourgeoisie in Western Europe in the 1840s. Because they were saddened by the deteriorating status and interests of their own in modern bourgeois society, they always criticized capitalism from the perspective and scale of the petty bourgeoisie and fantasized about returning to the small-scale production mode and pastoral relationship of the past. Marx and Engels regarded it as \u201creactionary and utopian\u201d socialism because they \u201cattempted to force modern means of production and exchange back into the old ownership relations that they had broken through and would inevitably break through.\u201d According to Lenin, Russian populism regarded Russian village communes as the cornerstone of the transition to socialism, which was exactly the same as the petty-bourgeois socialism in Western Europe in 1848. Regarding the essence of populism, Lenin clearly pointed out: “Its content is to represent the interests and views of Russian small producers, that is, the petty bourgeoisie. … One face looks to the past, wanting to consolidate its small economy … The other face looks to the future, hating the capitalism that bankrupted it.”[8] Regarding the reactionary nature of populism, Lenin analyzed: “It is reactionary because it tries its best to preserve its petty-bourgeois status and tries to prevent and reverse the development of the country toward capitalism.”[9] Regarding the utopian nature of populism, Lenin commented: Populism’s propositions reflect the illusory hope of millions of petty-bourgeois laborers who have been deeply exploited by feudalism to “eliminate the new capitalist exploiters along with them,” but “this democracy as a socialist utopia is wrong.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000On the other hand, Lenin forcefully criticized the \u201cartificialism of capitalism\u201d and \u201cdestruction of capitalism\u201d spread by populism, and profoundly elucidated the objective inevitability and historical progressiveness of the development of Russian capitalism. First, in response to the \u201cartificialism\u201d of Russian capitalism by the liberal populists, namely the absurd statements that \u201ccapitalism is a development process in the West, but in our country it is transplantation and imitation\u201d and \u201cRussia does not have the minimum conditions for developing capitalist production\u201d[11], Lenin wrote down irrefutable facts to prove that Russian capitalism, as an inevitable result of the development of commodity production, has become a dominant mode of production in both rural and urban areas, thus powerfully demonstrating that \u201cthe development of capitalism is not only possible, but also inevitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, in response to the “capitalist destruction theory” advocated by populists, which holds that capitalism in Russia “has become a way of exploiting the labor of the people for the private interests of a small group of people who not only do not play any progressive historical role, but on the contrary hinder the normal development of industry”[13], Lenin criticized it as “lacking the ability to explain capitalism, indulging in utopianism and unwilling to study and understand reality, and as a result, inevitably denying the meaning and power of capitalism”[14], and emphasized that “the progressive role of capitalism lies in its destruction of the old narrow living conditions that make producers dull and unable to control their own destiny. Lenin specifically used a comparative approach to explain this: “As long as one considers the inevitable consequences of the patriarchal agriculture of the astonishing dispersion of small producers, one can be certain of the progressiveness of capitalism, because it has thoroughly destroyed the old economic forms and ways of life and their long-standing stagnation and conservatism, destroyed the settled state of the peasants trapped in the medieval barriers, and created new social classes that strive to unite and participate actively in the whole economic (and not just economic) life of the state and the world as needed.”[16] Here, Lenin profoundly explains that the progressiveness of capitalism lies in its fundamental change of the economic and lifestyle methods that led to Russia’s long-term stagnation, backwardness, and conservatism, which not only greatly promoted the rapid development of productive forces, but also created a new class with a high degree of historical initiative, namely the proletariat. In analyzing why Chernyshevsky was a utopian socialist, Lenin clearly pointed out that his limitation lay in his failure to recognize that “only the development of capitalism and the proletariat can create the material conditions and social forces for the realization of socialism”[17]. Thus, he profoundly pointed out that the great development of productive forces brought about by capitalism and the growing strength of the proletariat are the indispensable material conditions and social forces for the realization of socialism. Without highly developed productive forces and without the maturity of the proletariat as the class force for realizing social change, attempting to realize socialism on the basis of village communities is destined to be a utopian political fantasy. Thus, through his powerful critique of the populist theories of “capitalist artificiality” and “capitalist destruction,” Lenin not only profoundly elucidated the inevitability and progressiveness of the development of capitalism in Russia, believing that the inherent contradictions of capitalism “do not exclude the possibility of capitalism, nor do they exclude its progressiveness compared with previous socio-economic systems”[18], but also inherently contained his correct answer on how Russia, with its backward economy and culture, should deal with capitalism on the road to modern civilization, namely: “The first requirement that should be achieved is to promote the development of capitalism and to eliminate the feudal remnants of capitalism.”[19]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, Lenin criticized “legal Marxism” that promoted the “eternity” of capitalism and emphasized the historical temporality of Russian capitalism.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000In the debate over “Where is Russia headed?”, a school of thought emerged in Russian intellectual circles that was diametrically opposed to populism, represented by Struve, and extremely praised capitalism. This school frequently used Marxist theories to argue for the inevitability, superiority, and permanence of capitalism in newspapers and magazines that were legal at the time\u2014that is, those permitted by the Tsarist government. Lenin therefore called it “legal Marxism.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000Because “legal Marxism” also strongly opposed the populist “non-capitalist road” proposition, Lenin took a positive attitude towards “legitimate Marxism” in the struggle against populism, praising Struve’s view that the capitalist commodity economy was “not only a negative but also a positive and enormous cultural force” as “completely correct” [20]. However, the two had fundamental differences in their understanding of the prospects for capitalist development. Specifically, Lenin criticized the populist “non-capitalist road” because he believed that relying on village communes to establish socialism was a pipe dream, and advocated that Russia should move towards socialism by giving full play to the progressive role of capitalism and eliminating feudal remnants. “Legal Marxism” turned the criticism of the populists into a praise of the capitalist system. They only described the “historical inevitability” and “rationality” of the development of capitalism in Russia, avoiding the profound contradictions of the existence of capitalism in Russia and the disasters it caused, denying the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, believing that capitalism could last forever, and advocating that Russia take the path of capitalist development. Rosa Luxemburg once pointed out that Russian \u201clegal Marxists\u201d had gone too far in their victory over their opponents, the \u201cpopulists.\u201d She argued that the original debate between the two was about \u201cwhether capitalism could develop in general and especially in Russia,\u201d while \u201clegal Marxists\u201d proved that \u201ccapitalism could exist forever\u201d in theory while demonstrating the possibility of capitalism developing in Russia.[21]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000When Lenin affirmed the historical progressiveness of Russian capitalism, he stressed that we must not forget its inherent profound social contradictions.[22] Lenin\u2019s critique of \u201clegal Marxism\u201d unfolded through a profound exposure of the \u201cinherent profound social contradictions\u201d and their harms of Russian capitalism. For example, in response to the \u201clegal Marxists\u201d\u2019s strong advocacy that capitalism had not caused the impoverishment of the masses and that the income gap between the propertied and the proletariat was not widening but narrowing, Lenin analyzed that this was an attempt to fool and deceive the working masses by beautifying capitalism. Although the workers\u2019 income had increased to some extent compared to the past, the increase in the necessary costs of labor power paid by the workers far exceeded the increase in workers\u2019 wages. \u201cThe wealth of capitalist society is growing at an unbelievable speed, while at the same time the working masses are becoming increasingly impoverished.\u201d[23] In response to the \u201clegitimate Marxists\u201d\u2019s claim that Marx\u2019s theory of capitalist economic crises was outdated and that the contradictions of capitalist classes were weakening and easing, Lenin satirized those who spread such claims as \u201cpeople with shortsightedness\u201d because \u201cthe forms, order and circumstances of the various crises have changed, but the crises are still an inevitable part of the capitalist system.\u201d[24] and so on. There are many more such revelations. Lenin\u2019s critique of the various praises of capitalism by \u201clegal Marxism\u201d aimed to show that although capitalism is progressive, it is not a perfect ideal social system. No matter how \u201clegitimate Marxists\u201d glorify capitalism, they cannot conceal its profound contradictions and the disasters it causes. Moreover, due to the existence of the remnants of serfdom in Russia, the inherent contradictions of capitalism in Russia are more profound, complex and acute than in Western European countries, resulting in \u201ccapital not only failing to eliminate the oppression, exploitation and poverty suffered by the masses, but also creating these disasters in new forms and reviving the old disasters on a \u2018modern\u2019 basis\u201d[25]. In short, it is the \u201cprofound and comprehensive social contradictions\u201d of Russian capitalism that determine \u201cthe historical temporality of this economic system\u201d[26]. \u201cLegal Marxism\u201d hoped that capitalism can last forever, which is destined to be a kind of illusory utopia. Lenin pointed out that “the various contradictions of capitalism prove its historical temporality and explain the conditions and reasons for its disintegration and transformation into a higher form.”[27] This means that for backward Russia to move towards modern civilization, it must see both the progressiveness of capitalism and its historical temporality. In short, it must make full use of capitalism while also transcending it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, Lenin criticized Plekhanov and others’ “historical disaster theory,” “premature birth theory,” and “economic determinism theory” that negated the October Revolution, emphasizing that backward Russia could seize power first and then carry out socialist construction.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000After the victory of the October Revolution, theorists of the Second International and the Mensheviks, such as Plekhanov, Kautsky, and Sukhanov, used the lack of objective prerequisites for building socialism in backward Russia as their argument to question, attack, and denigrate the October Revolution led by Lenin, the Soviet regime established, and the socialist construction carried out. Plekhanov believed that “Russian history has not yet ground out the flour needed to bake the white pie of socialism” [28] and pointed out that the October Revolution and the socialism it established were “the path of the greatest historical disaster” [29]. Kautsky attacked the socialist state established by the October Revolution as being like a “premature baby” and believed that “babies born in this way usually do not survive”. Sukhanov proposed that “Russian productive forces have not yet developed to the point where socialism can be implemented” [31] and so on. These statements can be summarized as “premature birth theory,” “historical disaster theory,” and “economic determinism theory.” Their purpose is to deny the legitimacy and rationality of Lenin’s leadership of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in carrying out the revolution, establishing Soviet power, and developing socialism. If left unchecked, they will seriously shake the political identification of the masses with the Party and the Soviet power, as well as the common ideological foundation for the Party to lead the people in unity and struggle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000Lenin criticized Plekhanov, Kautsky, Sukhanov and others for their lack of understanding of Marxist revolutionary dialectics. Although Lenin also believed that Russia’s economy and culture were very backward, he stressed that “if we say that since we acknowledge that our economic ‘strength’ and political strength are not commensurate, we ‘therefore’ should not seize power, then we have made an incurable mistake.”[32] Lenin pointed out that the reason why this view was wrong was that it mechanically understood the Marxist view that productive forces are the decisive factor in social development, and only isolated the level of development of Russia as the sole criterion for judging whether a socialist revolution and socialist construction could be carried out, without examining the particularity, inevitability and necessity of the October Revolution in Russia from the perspective of international situation and historical conditions. Lenin criticized: \u201cThey all call themselves Marxists, but their understanding of Marxism is so outdated that it is beyond comprehension. They do not understand anything about the decisive thing in Marxism, namely the revolutionary dialectic of Marxism.\u201d[33] The \u201crevolutionary dialectic\u201d in Lenin\u2019s words refers to the choice of the path of revolution and development. It is not possible to completely adhere to a certain inherent ideology and a unified path, but to combine it with the actual situation of the country and to be good at making choices according to the changes in the situation. Regarding this point, Lenin had clearly pointed out before the October Revolution: “All nations will inevitably move towards socialism, but the ways in which they do not all move will be exactly the same.”[34] In his final work, “On Our Revolution,” Lenin further clarified: “The general laws of the development of world history do not exclude the particularity of individual stages of development in terms of form or sequence, but rather presuppose this.”[35] Specifically, in Russia, although the economic conditions before the October Revolution had not yet reached the level of realizing socialism, Russia at this time was intensified and exacerbated by the dark autocratic rule of the Tsar and the inaction of the bourgeois provisional government, as well as by the domestic crisis exacerbated by Russia’s defeat in the First World War. Various contradictions were further intensified and exacerbated, resulting in a surging revolutionary force of workers and peasants and a revolutionary situation that was about to erupt. Lenin believed that the Bolsheviks seized the favorable opportunity of the revolution, decisively launched the revolution and established the Soviet regime, which not only did not violate the laws of human social development, but also reflected the dialectic of Marxist revolution and the proactive spirit of the Bolsheviks in leading the people to create history. Lenin countered by asking, “Under the pressure of a hopeless situation, could they not rise up and fight to at least gain some opportunity to secure for themselves the not-so-extraordinary conditions for the further development of civilization?” [36]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000It is necessary to point out that Lenin did not deny the view put forward by Plekhanov and others that Russia lacked the objective prerequisites for building socialism; rather, he explicitly acknowledged that this view was indisputable. Furthermore, the difference between Lenin and Plekhanov and others did not lie in whether economically and culturally backward Russia possessed the necessary civilizational prerequisites for socialism, but rather in whether such a Russia could carry out a socialist revolution and build socialism. On this issue, Plekhanov and others dogmatically understood and adhered to Marxist historical materialism, arguing that backward Russia lacked the economic conditions required for socialism, and therefore emphasized that a bourgeois revolution should be carried out first in Russia, followed by the development of capitalism to create the objective conditions necessary for socialism, before launching a socialist revolution and establishing a socialist state. Lenin argued that the proletariat and its party should take the initiative of history, seize power by taking advantage of favorable revolutionary conditions and opportunities, and then strive to create the conditions of civilization that meet the requirements of socialism. He said, \u201cSince the establishment of socialism requires a certain level of culture\u2026 why can\u2019t we first use revolutionary means to achieve the prerequisite of reaching this certain level, and then catch up with the people of other countries on the basis of the workers\u2019 and peasants\u2019 regime and the Soviet system?\u201d.  Thus, it can be seen that the significance of the October Revolution lies in the fact that the Bolsheviks led by Lenin, under a specific historical background, adhered to the organic combination of Marxist historical materialism and the initiative of history, and opened up a path for backward Russia that was different from the Western modernization, namely, to realize the basic social system change through revolution, and then strive to create the modern civilization required for socialism and finally establish socialism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourth, Lenin criticized “petty-bourgeois reformism” and “petty-bourgeois revolutionaryism” on the New Economic Policy, emphasizing the need to utilize capitalism and ensure the socialist development direction of Russia under the New Economic Policy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000In March 1921, in order to overcome the serious economic difficulties faced by the Soviet regime and the resulting crisis of political identity of the workers and peasants with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (Bolsheviks), Lenin led the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (Bolsheviks) to make a decisive decision to implement the New Economic Policy, including replacing the grain requisition system with a grain tax, implementing the lease system and concession system, and allowing the existence of monetary and commodity relations. However, a fierce debate arose around this policy. The debate mainly manifested in two completely different voices: one was the “road sign conversion faction” who believed in capitalism and advocated that the New Economic Policy would lead Russia to capitalism, calling on members to actively participate in various tasks of Soviet Russia to promote this transformation. They believed that the New Economic Policy was not a strategy for building socialism, “but an evolution, an internal transformation, and they would inevitably move towards a normal bourgeois state”. Ustrialov, a representative of the \u201cPlanetary Turning\u201d faction, stated explicitly: \u201cI support the Soviet regime in Russia because it has embarked on the path toward a normal bourgeois regime.\u201d[39] The magazine \u201cPlanetary Turning\u201d even published an article arguing that the socialist nature of Russia had changed under the influence of the New Economic Policy, namely that Russia was \u201crolling into the quagmire of the normal bourgeoisie.\u201d[40] Lenin was keenly aware that the political intention of the \u201cPlanetary Turning\u201d faction was to promote Russia\u2019s path of capitalist development through peaceful means, and therefore called it \u201cpetty-bourgeois reformism.\u201d In stark contrast to the jubilation of the \u201cPlanetary Turning\u201d faction, there was a worried questioning and even fierce opposition to the New Economic Policy. Based on traditional socialist concepts and simple socialist feelings, they could not understand why the New Economic Policy allowed the development of capitalism, saying that \u201ccapitalism is a scourge, and socialism is happiness.\u201d[41] Lenin called this trend of thought \u201cpetty-bourgeois revolutionaryism.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000The “petty-bourgeois reformism” and “petty-bourgeois revolutionism” that emerged surrounding the New Economic Policy (NEP) addressed a major theoretical and practical question that the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) under Lenin’s leadership had to confront: Where would the NEP lead Russia? To socialism or capitalism? The crux of the matter was how an economically and culturally backward country should deal with capitalism after choosing the path of socialist development. How could the Communist Party guarantee the socialist direction while allowing capitalist development?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000Faced with the dual challenges of “petty-bourgeois reformism” and “petty-bourgeois revolutionism,” Lenin soberly recognized that it was necessary to dispel the ideological fog surrounding the New Economic Policy in order to ensure that Russia under the New Economic Policy developed in the right direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000On the one hand, Lenin criticized the \u201cpetty-bourgeois revolutionaries\u201d who questioned and opposed the New Economic Policy as unrealistic \u201crevolutionary rhetoric\u201d and stressed that Russia, with its backward economy, must use capitalism to build socialism. Regarding the statement that best represents the mindset of petty-bourgeois revolutionaries, \u201ccapitalism is a scourge, socialism is happiness,\u201d Lenin believed that this was not based on the basic national condition that Russia was mainly a small-scale peasant economy, but rather that capitalism and socialism were taken out from the sum of all existing social and economic structures in Russia and abstractly opposed. Lenin frankly stated that if it was just an abstract comparison, capitalism was undoubtedly a scourge compared to socialism, but if we consider that Russia still had a large amount of scattered and backward small-scale peasant production, then capitalism was not only not a scourge but also happiness. If the Communists tried to block the development of capitalism, they would be extremely foolish and \u201cinevitably fail\u201d Based on this, Lenin stressed that it was necessary to regard state capitalism \u201cas an intermediate link between small-scale production and socialism, as a means, path, method and way to improve productive forces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000On the other hand, in response to the \u201clandmark change faction\u201d advocating that the New Economic Policy would lead Russia to capitalism, which was \u201cpetty-bourgeois reformism,\u201d Lenin stressed that Communists must be vigilant against the danger of capitalist restoration. In the political report of the 11th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Lenin called the \u201clandmark change faction\u201d who advocated that the New Economic Policy was an \u201cevolution\u201d \u201cclass enemy\u201d and believed that they spoke the \u201cclass truth.\u201d He pointed out that \u201cthe landmark change faction reflects the sentiments of thousands upon thousands of all kinds of bourgeoisie or Soviet staff who participate in our New Economic Policy work. This is a major real danger\u201d[44]. In August 1922, the \u201cResolution on Anti-Soviet Parties\u201d adopted by the 12th National Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) pointed out that \u201cthe tendency of bourgeois restoration is also very strong among the landmark change faction.\u201d[45] This also shows that Lenin did not ignore the \u201cpetty-bourgeois revolutionaries\u2019\u201d concern that the New Economic Policy might lead Russia to the capitalist road, but rather attached great importance to it and repeatedly stressed that \u201ccapitalist restoration must be prevented and the path of communism must be guaranteed\u201d[46].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u3000\u3000Lenin’s greatness lies in not being frightened by the growth of capitalist factors brought about by the New Economic Policy and the danger of capitalist restoration that might arise from it, but rather showing a fighting spirit of knowingly going into danger. In response to the view of the “road sign conversion faction” that the New Economic Policy was “not a strategy but an evolution”, Lenin asked rhetorically: “Is it the Thermidorian Reaction? If we look at it with a clear head, perhaps it is? Will it happen? We’ll see. Don’t brag on the battlefield!”[47] Here, Lenin has already likened the contradiction between the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (Bolsheviks) and the bourgeoisie brought about by the New Economic Policy to a contest concerning the future and destiny of socialism. The key is how to win this contest and “how to ensure that state capitalism will be transformed into socialism in the near future”.[48] He said, \u201cWe should force the bourgeoisie to work for us with their own hands, rather than allowing responsible Communists to occupy leadership positions and wear official titles, while following the bourgeoisie. The whole essence of the problem lies here.\u201d[49] Lenin undoubtedly emphasized here that if Communists lack leadership ability and are not as good as the bourgeoisie in doing economic work, they will be led by the nose, and the future of socialism will become a mirage. Based on such a clear understanding, Lenin further emphasized in his last public speech, \u201cWe must move towards socialism, but not as a sacred icon painted with solemn colors\u201d[50], but we must strive to make the masses feel that \u201cthis is better than the old system\u201d and \u201cwe must be good at overcoming all the negative aspects of the new economic policy\u201d[51]. This shows that socialism is the unwavering pursuit of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) led by Lenin and the fundamental purpose of the new economic policy. However, the new economic policy may bring the danger of capitalist restoration. The most fundamental way for Communists to ensure that the country does not change color under the condition of allowing capitalist development is to effectively utilize and control capital and achieve socialist construction results that satisfy the people. Only in this way can the masses firmly follow the Communist Party on the socialist road through comparison, thus ensuring that “the Russia of the New Economic Policy will become a socialist Russia”[52].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lenin’s Critique of Erroneous Ideologies on the Question of Russia’s Development Path From: Theoretical Horizons, Issue 11, 2023 Wang Jinfen is a researcher at the Research Center for Marxist Theory and Regional Practice at Guangxi Normal University and a professor at the School of Marxism at Guangxi Normal University From the late 19th to the early […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,30,98,32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6302","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-english-en","category-socialism-en","category-sosyalist-ulkeler-en","category-world-en"],"blocksy_meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6302","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6302"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6302\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6303,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6302\/revisions\/6303"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}