October Revolution is the great release of populism under the slogan of Marxism.

we often say now that the October Revolution is the practice of Marxism in Russia and Marxism is the all-round inheritance and development of Marxism. In fact, Marxism was far away from the hometown of advanced Europe. In its successful March to backward countries, it was first transformed by Russia with very different cultural background, and Marxism was replaced by Leninism. Before the term “Leninism” appeared, how did people from various positions view this issue at that time? For ideological reasons, we equate power with truth, turn the scientific spirit in line with the long-term interests of mankind into political utilitarianism, or artificially create a closed religious theology. Our understanding of Leninism has always been in the atmosphere of “political correctness”.

the older generation of Marxists led by Plekhanov believed that Lenin was a betrayal of Marxism. “If the Russians agree with Lenin’s proposition in 1917, it can only prove that it was a failure to publicize Marxism in Russia in the past 30 years.” Milukov said that compared with the European proletarian revolution, the movement led by Lenin and Trotsky is more like Pugachev. Chernoff believes that Leninism is closer to Tkachev than to Marx in terms of practical sources. Tkachev once asserted that “the revolution to take place in Russia will never be carried out in the Western way, so Marxism cannot be applied. The non development of capitalism is the favorable condition for the socialist revolution. Russia will not become a bourgeois constitutional state if it goes down the road of Populism”. In fact, Lenin himself also called the October Revolution “peasant revolution, peasant great democracy”. Bergayev believed that the victory of the Russian revolution made Marxism, which had no Russian characteristics, obtain a style almost close to populism and Slavism. The source of Russia’s complete shift to the East lies in Lenin. “Populism entered Leninism in a different form”. Situ Luwei, the drafter of the declaration of the Russian Communist Party, said that on the surface, it is Marxism that struggles with populism. In fact, it is invincible and invincible populism that attracts and assimilates Marxism. At most, the difference between populists and Marxists is in the sense of political program and sociology, This difference has no difference in the sense of cultural philosophy. Morally, Russian Marxism adheres to the tendency of populist utilitarianism, “they have always maintained the spiritual temperament of populism for decades”. Gramsci, the founder of the Italian Communist Party, believes that the “Bolshevik Revolution” led by Lenin is a revolution that denies some views in Marx’s capital “.

,

,

and

we can answer these comments with anti Leninist slander. However, we should see that the above figures have different positions, but their common point is that they all believe that between Marxism and populism, Leninism is closer to the latter. Objectively speaking, this evaluation has its profound social background, It is by no means easy to refute it. The most common reply from Chinese theorists is that Russian Marxism broke away from populism after it was born, and joined hands with liberalism to fiercely criticize populism.

this is indeed a fact. The early Russian Social Democratic Party was extremely disgusted with and completely separated from the five characteristics of populism (1. Russian particularity. 2. People’s autocracy in politics. 3. Village socialism in economy. 4. Means serve the purpose. 5. Underworld style elite party). First of all, he openly declared himself to be a westernizer and a Western faction in the cultural debate, claiming to be “Western socialism”. Plekhanov’s famous saying is that “special theory” is a synonym for stagnation and reactionary. Russia’s progressive forces are concentrated under the banner of Western Europe. We are friends of liberalism and enemies of populism.

second, populists pursue elite leadership. In Tkachev’s words, “revolution” is to impose the will of a few people on the hooligans who are used to living in the dark. Chernychevsky said that after the success of the revolution, “if the people need a Czar, they can create a czar”. The Social Democratic Party retorted that political freedom and political democracy are the touchstone of true and false Marxism. Populists distort individual independent values and stifle individual spiritual freedom as much as czars.

,

,

and

third, populists believe that as long as the revolution eliminates “individualism”, the “socialist” instinct originally hidden in farmers will be revealed and integrated, which will naturally lead to a collective economy driven by unified will. Plekhanov believes that this is the emperor King’s national socialism and patriarchal socialism. Public ownership under personal attachment is the basis of an all-round autocratic state. Marx’s collective is a free man consortium, and individuals are not submerged in the collective. Populist collectivism is a collective that suppresses and strangles individuals, Exercise dictatorship over individuals on behalf of the collective personality. To develop independent farms and follow the market economy, land can only be distributed among the middle peasants, and must not be distributed to poor peasants or lazy peasants who cannot become farmers.

fourth, the populist behavior is to “achieve good through ‘evil’. In order to achieve the goal, all means are unscrupulous and everything can be ignored for the ultimate goal. Negative is positive,” good can be obtained by resisting evil with evil “, otherwise the prince will never be able to fight villains. The Russian Social Democratic Party firmly condemns this “Nechayev style” work style. Plekhanov believes that we must break away from the habit of gangs, have the right purpose and use fair and aboveboard means.

fifth, take the public opinion party as an example in party affairs activities. The party leader is the absolute authority that will never be betrayed. The elite party should be highly concentrated, strictly observe discipline and limit intra party disputes. This is the core of the debate between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks on Party building. Influenced by the second international, Mensheviks believe that the German Social Democratic Party has set an example for us, such as Democratic Party building, separation of politics and religion, allowing intra-party debate and factionalism. Under the influence of his brother ulyanov, Lenin denounced the populist theory in both words and in writing, but at the same time he criticized the peopleThe populist organization model has a special preference. It believes that the party must adhere to an organization that is centralized, secret, disciplined and restricts debate. His explanation is that the stronger the party organization composed of real revolutionaries, the less instability and wavering the party will be. “The Communist Party can perform its duties only if it… Implements an iron discipline similar to military discipline within the party.” What we need is a political party that “turns Russia upside down.” the Social Democratic Party of Western Europe is not suitable for Russia’s task of preparing to seize power, so Russia needs a new revolutionary Marxist party “. Lenin praised the public opinion party as “an excellent organization that we should all be regarded as models”. Lenin’s practice was regarded by Trotsky and Luxembourg, who are also the leftists of the socialist democratic party, as engaging in “serfdom” and “martial law”. It is this way of party affairs and code of conduct that foreshadowed the transition from Bolshevik to populism. It can be said that except for this last point, Russian Marxists criticized the programmatic things of the populists one by one.

at the special historical moment caused by the stolepin reform in 1917, the Bolsheviks reversed their sublation of populism, from friends of liberalism and enemies of populism to friends of populism and enemies of liberalism, from criticizing “people’s autocracy” to proletarian dictatorship, from promoting political freedom to trampling on political freedom, It holds that “democracy hinders the establishment of the Communist world outlook, and it is easier to realize the dictatorship of the proletariat in autocratic countries with lack of civil rights and freedom habits than in Western democratic countries.” From opposing land nationalization and village communization to “putting village communes first”. Lenin’s Russian capitalist development in 1899 and 1908: from “great harm to farmers by village communities” to “great harm to farmers by dissolving village communities”; From 6 freedoms to 4 prohibitions; From opposing Russia’s special theory to seizing the tide of “Russia’s national special theory” with populism, and finally squeezing the original master out of the historical stage, the three major divisions of populism from 1917 to 1918 united with the left-wing social revolutionary party to crack down on the social revolutionary party, and united with the highest program leader and the village Communist Party to suppress the left-wing social revolutionary party, taking its fundamentalism The faction with strong patriarchal nature is a faction that combats liberalism and social democracy. Until all the social revolutionary parties were put in prison, and until major changes had taken place in a series of issues such as feudalism, farmers, capitalism and parliamentarism. (the land program promulgated during the October Revolution was all the work of the social revolutionary party.) The reason why

,

,

and

appear in this situation is that the stolepin reform has changed the interest pattern of Russia and made great changes in the political factions of Russia. Due to the unfairness and predatory of stolepin’s reform and the guarantee to develop to the path of power capitalism at the expense of the interests of the majority of farmers, it strongly triggered the people’s anti reform sentiment, so the Russian anti system movement shifted from the intellectuals to the lower class people. What do you think of this spontaneous “populist” movement? Plekhanov believes that this is a rare historical moment. Farmers want to reverse the wheel of history, but in view of its revolutionary significance of anti tyranny, that is, the farmers’ anti reform village community revival movement is a revolutionary factor to overthrow the Czar, so we should adopt a tolerant attitude and not oppose it. Lenin said no! What is economically reactionary may be correct in history. We not only have no objection, but also stand at the forefront of this movement to lead it. In terms of seizing power, first of all, we should change our attitude towards the populists, but we should still reprimand them. This is necessary for competing for leadership. In the past, we said their program was not good. Now we want to say that they are Betrayers of their own program. In other words, in the past, we criticized them from the standpoint of social democracy, Now we should criticize them from the standpoint of “super Populism”. Plekhanov objected that if there was a populist appreciation for the movement, the consequences of the revolution completed in the “name of the people” would be: 1. A political freak, an emperor autocracy reformed on the basis of communism; 2. After the revolution, the land owned by the commune would be three times more than it is now, which would become an obstacle to the development of a higher social form, Although it seems easier from the perspective of historical negation and negation, the absence in the middle and the “beyond the historical stage” will make up lessons sooner or later. 3. After the revolution, we return to the natural economy, but at the same time, the west can not affect us, and the traditional color of Russia will be stronger.

in this process, Leninism developed from populism in party affairs to populism in ideology, from negating populism to affirming hyperpopulism, thus completely divorced from the track of the Social Democratic Party. Plekhanov said that we have no differences with the old Lenin. The difference with the new Lenin is that he overturned what he respected in the past and approved what he opposed in the past. Zinoviev said that we saw a strange masquerade ball. The people’s autocracy and national socialism of the social revolutionary party accused by the proletarian revolutionary party are what he is vigorously advocating, that is, the differences between the two leftists of the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party (the second international and the Communist International), The “Communist Party”, which we have always regarded as a new era, has a lot of populist content.

the origin of Russian Populism

classic populism is represented by Russian Populism, which is the way for us to understand populism. To understand Russian Populism, we must first understand Russia’s traditional countryside.

rural Russia is a commune world (in Russian, Mir village community is the same word as the world), and farmers are members of Mir commune. Mir implements the continuous environmental protection system of “taxation is not for households, and the poor households owe subsidies to the rich households”, It has the autonomous function of “small community” such as Village Council election and village community trial, and even houses must be built together. What makes us Chinese unimaginable is that the obligations of mill members to the village community exceed their obligations to the state. The community has arranged a position that can not be competed or changed for everyone, that is, meThe unity of the function of “restraint protection” commonly referred to by scholars has formed a “Russian collectivist tradition”, which not only opposes nationalism but also suppresses individualism. The tradition of

,

,

and

has a great impact on Russian social culture, which has formed a deep historical accumulation: first, the village community’s average consciousness, the tradition of neglecting and restraining business, and the national concept of “not conspiring with privatization”, and the village community concept of “all the land belongs to the Czar, as long as it does not belong to the landlord” have a more direct feeling of “good czar”. Russians often treat businessmen with contempt, believing that it is just “the livelihood of greedy Jews”. There is a general hatred of wealth and anti Western tradition in national identity. They believe that the rich are villains, wealth is something that corrodes the human soul, and yearn for a poor and plain social model from the bottom of their heart.

secondly, in the national character, the village community life makes the Russians pay attention to the harmony of neighborhood relations, which makes the Russians become an emotional nation. Therefore, Russians are extroverted, romantic and irrational. Therefore, modern Russia has brilliant stars in the history of literature, but few great philosophers. In dealing with affairs, it is more than romantic, easy to buzz and achieve in one move, lack of rational thinking, compromise spirit and lasting endurance, and always strive to solve problems in a fast way, so it is easy to lead to mass hysteria.

thirdly, the abstract people’s worship, suffering experience, bottom consciousness and land worship caused by the collective concept of the village community go hand in hand with the “love” of abstract people and the “hate” of specific people. In the spiritual commonness, independent individuals are inharmonious atoms, and the majority of “love” and “hate” individuals can be naturally transformed, This leads to the contempt for western democracy and freedom from the perspective of patriarchy. A famous saying of the populist school is: “the concept of freedom is only related to the collective, and the individual has no freedom to the collective. For the individual, freedom is the obedience to the collective, and the greatest freedom can be obtained only by dissolving the individual into the collective.”

,

,

and

. In addition, the unique national appeal and powerful country appeal created under the attack of the eastern and Western civilizations determine that its “national identity” is more prominent and has a strong messianic complex. In short, in the village community, equality and exploitation, “democracy” and autocracy, rights and obligations have achieved wonderful coordination, while reflecting the Slavic tradition, so it is deeply rooted in Russia.

in the first half of the 19th century, with the deepening of the crisis of serfdom, the revolutionary democracy against serfdom spread among civilian intellectuals. Herzen, Chernychevsky and others advocated that farmers should be liberated together with land and embark on a non capitalist path through their own special farmers’ village The peasant socialism theory of non western development model is very popular. The top-down serfdom reform in 1861, because the way of reform was extremely unfair, the nobles seized part of the village land in the form of land cutting, and the farmers still had to pay ransom for the other half of the land. In this sense, the serfdom reform was not so much the freedom of serfs as the freedom of landlords, After the reform, the landlord economy quickly moved forward to the capitalist economy. Its development direction is to catch up with the modernization of Europe, but it is characterized by sacrificing the interests of Russian farmers. Farmers are not only still in a position of powerlessness, but also the original warm world has been broken, and the differentiation between the rich and the poor has increased rapidly, In their disappointment, farmers set off a struggle to resist reform and fight for land and freedom.

corresponding to the radicalization of social emotions, the civilian intellectual community launched a “populist” movement. They actively acted as the spokesman for the interests of farmers, opposed this inhuman reform, and demanded the restoration of the original tradition of “restraining the strong and supporting the weak” and social equality. In their view, the development of capitalism in Russia is not a historical necessity, but an accidental phenomenon. It is disharmony, a scourge, a muddy water that regresses and corrodes the human soul. The “average” and “democracy” in Russian tradition are extremely valuable wealth. The “socialism” cultivated on the soil of village collectivism is a natural barrier against westernization, liberalization and capitalism and a bridge to the ideal kingdom. They “believe in the special way of Russian life, the village community system of Russian life, and thus the possibility of peasant socialist revolution”. They believed that the main force to realize socialism was not the working class, but the peasants who were “Communists according to instinct and tradition”, so the peasants were the driving force of the Russian Revolution. They also said that history is created by heroes, and the progress of the whole mankind is that “all sentient beings” blindly follow “those elites who can think critically”.

populist “village community socialism” reflects the simple desire of Russian farmers to oppose serfdom and czar autocracy and strive for land and equality. In Engels’s words, it is politically correct. In order to realize their revolutionary ideals, they did not hesitate to shed blood and wrote a magnificent chapter, However, their proposition is wrong in the form of economics. They do not understand the objective law of historical development and attempt to “reverse the wheel of history” and the idea that “they would rather let farmers continue to stay in the conservative patriarchal life than clear the way for capitalism in the countryside” is stupid and will be abandoned by the times.

throughout the history of Russia, populism can be divided into theory, ideological trend, movement and system. The four aspects are independent and connected, and there are five types: Revolutionary populism, liberal populism, police populism, social revolutionary party and new populism.

,

,

and

populist studies have some “blind spots” in our current party history textbooks. Previous populist studies were based on the concepts of “revolutionary populists” and “liberal populists”. It is said that the populists in the 1970s were revolutionary democracy, while the populists in the 1980s and 1990s gradually “turned to the position of liberalism”, It became a degenerate “liberal populist”, which marked the decline of the Populist Movement. So because of the introduction in general history textbooks, peopleKuuning and tkachov are no strangers and have heard of Danielson and Vorontsov. In fact, the reality is far from so simple, that is, in terms of personnel composition, it has been extended to the 1930s. Behind the

,

,

,

and “two-stage theory”, the most prominent is the “police Populism”, which is characterized by its “police nature”, that is, the autocratic tendency in politics. Under the banner of “people’s” and “socialist”, it opposes the principles of political freedom, parliamentary democracy and civil rights in democratic politics. They claim that constitutional politics is only the tool of the rich, and democracy under the condition of inequality between the rich and the poor is hypocritical. Freedom and democracy in the West are abstract and indisputable. They are a corrupt game of politicians and have no universal value at all. Western party politics is “harmful to the interests of the people themselves”, and people’s ownership is just the emperor’s new clothes, It is far less just than a superior master to “curb the strong and support the weak” and “make decisions for the people”. Therefore, socialists can even think that for the people, in the middle of the two evils, the autocratic czar is better than the constitutional czar after all, because it can make those “greedy private people” afraid. The rich are elected, and it is very unfair for the rich to be in charge. The ruling organ of Russia is not elected. Everything is managed by the autocratic czar. The Czar is higher than everyone, both the poor and the rich. Therefore, he is very fair to everyone.

,

,

,

it is often the defenders of so-called orthodox theories who put forward this theory. They regard “people’s autocracy” as an ideal model. In their view, the specimen of the Jacobin dictatorship in France should be widely popularized. Those who do not obey this dictatorship will follow the principle of prosperity for those who obey me and death for those who oppose me, “Whoever does not stand with us is against us. Whoever opposes us is our enemy, and the enemy should be eliminated by all means.”

after the October Revolution, the Soviet Union’s criticism of populism has always been very high-profile, but when viewed in detail, it only criticized their transformation to liberalism under the banner of combating populism, until the main figures of Neo populism were physically eliminated in the case of the “working peasant party” in 1930, Although the activities named after “Populism” no longer exist in Russia, the values of populism itself, especially police populism, have been unprecedentedly strengthened under the institutional framework. There are many misunderstandings and wrong conclusions in previous studies, such as the “two-stage theory” and the positioning of some representative figures. While taking over their thoughts, they criticized them for betraying their own program, and even included the non party people’s exploration of socialism under the Soviet regime under the charge of “Populism”, giving people an illusion, as if the Soviet Union had worked hard to criticize the populists, But in fact, it is under the banner of Leninism to carry forward the negative side of populism.

revolutionary Populism

revolutionary populism, also known as “active Populism”. The result of the serfdom reform in 1861 greatly disappointed the Russian intellectuals who had expected the Czar, and they changed from “advocates of interest coordination” to “active actors”. Their enthusiasm for violent revolution increased day by day, replacing improvement with revolutionary subversion. The formula of “violent change” was widely accepted by the populists at that time, So far, populism has expanded from a theoretical trend of thought to a movement and has become an important role in the Russian political stage. Historians generally divide the revolutionary populist movement into three stages based on ten years: the group stage, the “folk go” movement and the terrorist activity stage of the “public opinion party”. (this is what ordinary textbooks will mention)

the late 1960s was the period of group activities. Populist groups were spread all over universities. They were influenced by Bakunin, krupaotkin, Lavrov and other theories that “intellectuals owe the people and cannot pay off their debts” and “rural areas are the battlefield”, By the 1970s, the movement was expressed in the form of “going to the people”. Thousands of revolutionary youth and some nobles went to the people to instigate farmers’ rebellion. At least 37 provinces in the country were involved in this movement. This can be said to be the first comprehensive test of populist theory. Populists believe that there is a “Communist instinct” among farmers, and they can quickly achieve the goal of “social revolution” in three or two years. However, this cavity of blood soon hit a wall in front of farmers. The insurmountable gap between intellectuals and farmers made farmers instinctively reject the behavior of these “insane people”. Farmers are still believers of the “good czar”. More than 1000 “propagandists” were arrested in 1874 alone. Ironically, many populists were arrested by local farmers. From 1873 to 1879, 2500 people were tried for the case of “social revolutionary propaganda”. Under the attack of the Czar and the peasants, the “go to the people” movement failed. After the failure of the

,

,

and

movement, the populists first realized that various groups must be united, so they established a secret populist group – “land and freedom society” in 1876. The biggest feature of the organization is that it has laid the rudiment of the well-known organizational principle of “centralism”: secret, concentration, mutual supervision, obedience of the minority to the majority and strict discipline (before that, Nechayev also proposed to cover the whole country with small revolutionary branches with extreme autocracy and iron discipline, but failed to put it into practice). Ya de Mikhailov, one of the leaders of the famous “land and freedom society” and later the “public opinion party”, said that it was from this time that secret activities became a “complete science”, which is particularly applicable to the struggle against autocracy. The “land and freedom society” lost its enthusiasm to mobilize the masses in the countryside, so it placed all its hope on the desperate struggle between a few “revolutionaries” and the government, and took personal terrorist activities as the main means of struggle. From the late 1970s to the early 1980s, there were many assassinations of Czars and reactionary bureaucrats.

in 1879, the “land and freedom society” was divided into two independent organizations: “public opinion party” and “black land equal division”. The popular opinion party was the main organization of revolutionary populism in the 1980s, which regarded terrorist means as the most important meansAn important form of struggle. The second paragraph of Article 5 of the party platform specifically discusses the necessity of “sabotage and terrorist activities”. It clearly points out that to realize any change, we can’t do without “the results of the independent revolution and the results obtained with the help of conspiracy”. Another major “contribution” of it is to develop the “Underworld” organization principle of land and liberals, and encourage the fight against “evil” in any way. In their view, the future “good” is achieved through the current “evil”. In 1884, the popular opinion party ceased its activities and the traditionally considered revolutionary populist movement ended. The differentiation of revolutionary populists in

,

,

and

transformed some populists from purposes and means to two completely different directions and became completely opposite factions, which was later Marxism and “police Populism”. In 1882, the “black land equal division” was divided into some groups. After several years of exploration, Plekhanov, aksherirod, chasulich and others turned to Marxism. Their struggle methods are still “revolutionary”, However, the purpose of the revolution is no longer the populist “people’s autocracy” against political freedom and the “village community socialism” against market economy.

,

,

,

in the same year, the “public opinion party” completely failed under the severe suppression of the Czar, and most of the surviving backbone elements fled abroad. After a period of reflection, the most fanatical and staunch revolutionaries among them, such as jikhomirov and karamallov, found that in fact, the most reactionary part of the Czar government was as keen as them to carry forward the spirit of “village collectivism”, resist the plague of Western individualism and restore the special tradition of the Slavic nation. Since the revolution is hopeless, why not turn to the authorities and publish “why am I no longer a revolutionary?” Theoretical confessional works. After returning home, these people plunged into the camp of royalism, changed from revolutionary saint to traditional guardian, and soon completed the transformation from “Jacobin Populism” to “Bonaparte Populism”. In this sense, they are no longer revolutionaries, but still adhere to the traditional values of populism.

on revolutionary populism, the three main representatives generally mentioned are tkachov, Bakunin and Lavrov. The actual theoretical demands of the three people were very different. The later differentiation made their followers embark on a completely different path, but at that time, they were consistent in adhering to the revolution, believing in the possibility of farmers’ socialist revolution and believing in the village community system.

literary critic tkachov was mainly influenced by three people in his life: Nechayev at home, Chernychevsky and bronki abroad. Tkachev is a fanatical Russian brownist. He is full of fear and anxiety about the development of domestic capitalism. He believes that reform must be carried out immediately and without delay. Any delay is a crime. If we do not carry out the revolution now, the development of capitalism will delay the revolution and may never succeed. Revolutionaries do not prepare for the revolution, but do it. He gave full play to Nechayev’s “people’s punishment Association” and “fighting evil with evil”. It is generally believed that the program and struggle mode of the “public opinion party” came from tkachov to a large extent, and Bolshevik was a firm advocate of the discipline of the public opinion party. Lenin was deeply influenced by his brother Alexander ulyanov, a daring member of the public opinion party, who concentrated and We appreciate the organizational model of secrecy, discipline and limited debate, and clearly point out that the “public opinion party” is “an excellent organization that we should all be regarded as a model”.

“insurgent” Bakunin coincided with Tkachev on the point of immediate revolution, advocating that “loving destruction is loving construction”, and people are born to rebel. When someone asks, if he successfully realizes his plan and creates everything he wants to create, what will he do in the future? Bakunin replied, “then I will immediately start destroying everything I have created again.”. However, on the fate of the riot, the two people have differences in principle. Bakunin focuses on farmers, while Tkachev focuses on “a few conspirators”.

a mild aristocratic mathematics professor with humanitarian tendency is regarded as the “right wing” of revolutionary populism in the 1970s. Traditionally, he is called “propaganda school” and “preparation school”. In fact, on the issue of opposing the autocratic system, he not only advocated direct political action, but also did not oppose the use of “terrorist means” when necessary. He joined the “public opinion party” in 1882 and believed that it was the only revolutionary party in Russia that could cultivate social forces. He participated in the first international and the Paris Commune, knew Marx and Engels and was deeply influenced by them. He was the revolutionary closest to Marxism among the early populists in Russia. Many of his discussions played a vital role in Plekhanov’s departure from populism to Marxism. His role in the Russian revolution is calm and rational, which is rare among populists. He believes that we cannot “promote history” through artificial revolution. Even if we can win, the debts of history will always be compensated. He opposed the conspiracy strategy of “to achieve the goal, all processes can be ignored” which was popular among revolutionaries at that time, and also opposed Tkachev’s famous saying “we consider how many people should be left”. He thinks “Violence is necessary in the social revolution. However, it should be minimized as far as possible. If all the material forces of society are transferred to the winning political party, and its party members account for the vast majority of the residents, and the enemies of the new system only have ideological and spiritual power, then the coercive measures taken against the hostile elements can also be minimized. No No matter what the new violent regime is based on, we do not want to replace the old violent regime with the new violent regime “.

the highest stage of the development of revolutionary populists – the social revolutionary party

after the failure of the public opinion party in the 1980s and 1990s, a new round of populist organizations appeared in Russia. Most of them were named after “social revolution”, because at that time, “social revolution” and “positive action” were almost the sameSemantic words. The regrouping process of these “former public opinion party members” first produced a series of local groups, the most famous of which is the “agricultural socialist alliance” organized by Chernov and sletov. Based on this group, a national social revolutionary party was established overseas in 1902. In December 1905, the social revolutionary party held its first Congress, adopted the party platform and constitution, and stated its position that Russia is a country of farmers. As a political party of farmers, its purpose is to overthrow the autocratic system, establish a Democratic Republic, turn land into social property of the whole people and give it to farmers for average use. The

,

,

,

social revolutionary party did not inherit the highly centralized “Underworld” organizational model of the “public opinion party”. Due to its accession to the second international and the influence of the Western European Social Democratic Party, they adopted “organizational nihilism and inner-party democracy, without rigid and clear organizational boundaries and mandatory disciplinary constraints”. The color of “federalism” in this organization leads to loose vertical ties and diversity within the organization. After storepin’s reform, it is more specifically divided into the middle school represented by Chernoff, the “Labor School” with liberal tendency and the “highest program school” with radical color of anarchism. In this regard, Chernoff concluded that the social revolutionary party and the Bolsheviks jointly “divided” the heritage of the populists, the Bolsheviks received the “organizational principle” of iron discipline, and the social revolutionary party inherited the means of “terrorism” to carry out assassination. In the two and a half years of the revolution from 1905 to 1907 alone, the social revolutionary party carried out more than 200 terrorist activities, so that during this period, the members of the party accounted for the majority of the political prisoners and exiles in tsarist Russia.

“social revolutionary party” is making unremitting efforts to strive for “land and freedom” with “uncompromising revolutionary position” just like its name. Unlike the “liberal Populism”, “legitimate Populism” and even the “police Populism” combined with the Czar, its revolution has not declined, and if the “revolution” is understood as a radical stance of resistance, Under the new condition that stolepin’s anti village community reform aroused the “village community revival movement” in the society, the social revolutionary party, which has always had the image of village community defender, became the most typical “revolutionary” at that time.

among the three revolutions, the social revolutionary party played a great role. After the February Revolution, the social revolutionary party supported and participated in the interim government. Klensky successively served as the Minister of justice, the Minister of the Navy and army and the Prime Minister of the interim government, and Chernoff served as the Minister of agriculture. At this time, the influence of the social revolutionary party exceeded that of all other political parties (including the Bolsheviks), with up to one million members. It was the largest political party in Russia at that time, and controlled the engineers to represent the Soviet and peasant Soviets and the local new regime. During the October Revolution, together with the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, they established the Petrograd Revolutionary Military Committee. Seven people participated in the Committee and two entered the core Bureau. At the same time, they were also the leaders of many local uprisings.

,

,

,

before World War I, there were no differences of principle among the factions within the social revolutionary party. They mainly worked in the State Duma and rural organizations. After the outbreak of World War I, some members of the social revolutionary party disagreed with the protectionist position of the Party Central Committee, resulting in internal differences. In December 1917, the left social revolutionary party split and established an independent political party to establish an alliance with the Bolsheviks. However, the cooperation between the two was short-lived. First, there was “the sharpest and most violent conflict” on the Brest peace treaty. The left social revolutionary party withdrew from the people’s Committee at the fourth extraordinary Congress of the Soviet Union to discuss the peace treaty in 1918. Then, it completely broke with the Bolshevik government’s grain monopoly policy of disagreeing with the Bolshevik government’s implementation of the “grain monopoly law”. After the “sanxianxiang incident”, the left-wing social revolutionary party split under the complete blockade of the Bolsheviks. Its left wing formed the village community Communist Party and the populist Communist Party, continued to cooperate with the Bolsheviks, and others turned to underground activities. In 1923, the Social Revolutionary Party announced its dissolution and Chernoff and others went into exile abroad (they were still running magazines to explore the socialist model. Chernoff wrote a series of valuable monographs, but after all, it was only “afterwards”. Due to the blocking and exclusion, we only saw these profound conclusions after the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe).

,

,

,

social revolutionary party still maintains the struggle and revolution of “revolutionary Populism” in the form of struggle, but as a theory, it has changed greatly with the orthodox form of revolutionary populism. This is because the populist orthodox theory has a “time phobia” of fear that “time is unfavorable to the Russian Revolution”. With the passage of time, the development of capitalism made Russia leap to the fifth place in the world at the beginning of the 20th century and become a medium capitalist country. There are fewer believers in the theory of “Russian special road” to bypass capitalism, The populist community has been seriously disintegrated. What should we do? When Russia has embarked on capitalism, does “village community socialism” still have a foothold? After summarizing the theory and practice of revolutionary populism and liberal populism, the theorists of the social revolutionary party formed their own action program and theory, which is a major revision of the orthodox theory of populism.

first, replace “commune principle” with “labor principle”. As we said earlier, the traditional populists’ respect for farmers has a strong color of holism. They respect farmers’ communes, the farmers’ society in the “commune world”, rather than farmers’ individuals. They are hostile to the “individualistic” requirements of specific farmers. Therefore, in the two virtues of farmers, namely “labor” and “collectivism”, Traditional populists value the latter more than the former. They have always put the “commune principle” above the “labor principle”. The social revolutionary party believes that the victory of labor over exploitation is the primary stage of the socialist revolution.

second, it puts forward the difference between the minimum program and the maximum program, and makes it clear that the revolution can be divided into two steps. The first step should be to realize the “ultimate goal” of “people – labor principle”At this stage, it is not “collectivism” that defeats “individualism”, but “labor principle” that defeats the principle of exploitation. Specifically, it is to eliminate the landlord economy and transfer the land from the landlord to the working people. As for the form in which the working people occupy and use the land, it is no longer the most important thing. This is not socialism at this time. After decades of “individualism” development period, until “voluntary cooperation has become an advanced form of collectivization”, the “highest program of the second step” can be realized. At this time, “they can gradually enter socialism through the essential attraction of collectivist society.” In this way, the social revolutionary party turned the one-time “social revolution” theory of the old populism into two revolutions guided by the minimum program and the maximum program respectively: the first revolution knocked down the landlords, the second revolution knocked down the capitalists, the first time it could use the individual working farmers as the driving force, and the second revolution required them to become members of the “commune”, In this way, the big problem of “individual farmers” changing from the object of revolution to the driving force of revolution is solved.

during this period, the most important contribution of the social revolutionary party was the proposal of the theory of “land socialization”. They believe that the existing private ownership of land in Russia should be transformed into “socialization” by relying on the village life tradition and labor concept of Russian farmers and according to the custom that “the land is Ownerless and whoever works has the right to use”. The advantage of “land socialization” is that it adopts the principle of decentralization and harmonious coexistence of individual rights, which can avoid the centralized monopoly and bureaucracy of “nationalization”. Its operational steps are: first, turn the land into the property of the whole people that can not be bought and sold, and then entrust the land to the village community established in a democratic way and the regional alliance formed by the same principle. These institutions distribute the land equally among the farmers according to the principle of “equality and labor”, and then through the labor cooperation organization, The first mock exam is to bring farmers to intensive unification. The design of

,

,

and

was in line with the tradition of Russian equalitarianism and adapted to the social sentiment against stolepin’s unfair reform of destroying the village community at that time. As we all know, the land program implemented in the October Revolution was not Lenin’s proposition of “nationalization of land” in the April outline, but solved the land problem “in the manner prescribed by the social revolutionary party”. In Lenin’s words, this land program “was completely copied according to the power of attorney of the social revolutionary party”. (the biggest difference between socialization and nationalization is to resist the monopoly from the state, but this model has undergone qualitative changes when the Communist Party is sure to control the whole society).

third, the social revolutionary party not only revised the populist tradition on the issues of village communities and farmers’ land, but also made “populism Europeanized” on other issues accordingly. It has changed the Slavism tendency and hostility to the “western society” that the traditional populists often emphasized the uniqueness of Russia in the past, and gradually moved closer to Marxism. First, recognize the historic creative work of capitalism and create proletarian forces that can change society. Secondly, they have abandoned the outright populist view that they oppose political freedom and think it is only a tool of the bourgeoisie, and listed political freedom as the core of the political part of its “minimum program”, indicating that the party wants to fight for political freedom. They have realized that, “If we do not put political requirements first, we will not realize land socialization, eight hour working system and other economic requirements in the minimum program until the political requirements are realized”. In the early days of

,

,

and

, Lenin believed that the social revolutionaries who recognized the progress of capitalism, were enthusiastic about political freedom and fought for the development of the “minimum program” of capitalism were closer to liberalism than the old populists who blindly hated capitalism, were enthusiastic about anti freedom “people’s dictatorship” and fought for the restoration of the “commune world”. However, what Lenin saw from these “liberal” changes was not the degeneration of populists, but called it “progress”, called it the recognition of Marxism, and clearly pointed out that these new populists who revised the tradition were “revolutionary intellectuals” and “the extreme left wing of Russian bourgeois democracy”. Moreover, Lenin later pointed out that the centrists represented by Chernov in the social revolutionary party are most inclined to “follow Marxism”, tend to “transition from group habits to political parties”, and tend to “be based on the principles of the Social Democratic Party”. He even believed that “it is only a matter of time for this sect to change to the Social Democratic Party”. These “self corrections” of the social revolutionary party reflect their “desire to learn from the Social Democratic Party” and progress with the times.

in short, the social revolutionary party is a revision model of populism in the early 20th century, which was influenced by the trends of cultural westernization, political democratization and economic marketization, especially by the “village crisis” in stolepin’s reform. Due to the increasing influence of Europeanization on populist intellectuals, its traditional color has been gradually weakened, Due to the victory of the temporary theoretical alliance of Marxism and liberalism in the debate on populism, populism adhering to the revolutionary position is increasingly close to liberal democracy or social democracy. In other words, the “revival” and self “correction” of revolutionary populists are the most prominent phenomena in the repositioning of political parties and ideological trends under the new situation. It shows two characteristics: one is that the social influence and activity ability of populists have been greatly improved, and the revolution has been significantly enhanced compared with the end of the 19th century. Second, the liberalism of populism goes hand in hand with its revolutionization and social democratization. Therefore, it can be said that the “social revolutionary party” marks the highest stage of the revolutionary Populist Movement.

populism after the October Revolution — “New Populism”

the New Populism after the October Revolution consists of two parts. One part is the “practical populists” who have turned to liberal theory. They come from some populists who gave up “ism” and turned to work after the failure of revolutionary populism in the 1980s and 1990s, which is advocated by apolamov“Little thing theory “. This theory holds that since we can’t do anything in the political field, the positive action goal of the “social revolution” can’t be achieved at the moment. It’s better to retreat and seek the second place. Instead of being hard pressed by the Czar government, we should engage in some practical work and help farmers from a “small point of view”. They built a bridge between the government and farmers not by revolutionary means, but by participating in the activities of local autonomous bureaus, cared about farmers’ suffering and solved farmers’ actual life problems, such as providing loans to farmers, organizing the sale of agricultural products, improving farmers’ knowledge and agricultural technology, and improving farmers’ medical conditions, Take the road of independent development.

the other part is a scholar member of the social revolutionary party. After the victory of the October Revolution, they broke away from their original organization and served the Soviet government, but their concept and value identity did not change accordingly. They believed that the significance of the October Revolution was only to save the rural communes from the stolepin tyranny and create conditions for the realization of “village commune socialism”. After the revolution, in order to curb the spontaneous forces in the countryside, Before the conditions for collectivization were ripe, the Soviet regime adopted the policy of “putting the village community first”, which was also supported by the populists. Therefore, after the revolution, populist thought was once quite active and had an impact on the masses, academia and even party and government institutions. At that time, populist propaganda was also legal.

,

,

,

the populist group composed of these two forces on the premise of supporting the Soviet regime is the so-called “new populist group”. The biggest difference from the previous populist factions is that the “new populist” after the October Revolution is no longer an independent political faction or independent organizational activities. Politically, it is completely attached to the Soviet government. It is only an ideological and academic school. The social background of the emergence of

,

,

and

new populists is that after the October Revolution, Russia is not only still a peasant, but also because of the first World War, civil war and famine, a large number of workers returned to the countryside. At the best time before the war, the number of domestic workers employed in large industries in Russia was no more than 3 million. By the end of the civil war, only 1 / 3 of the workers were still employed. Most of these people have nothing to do because of the insufficient operation of factories and become poor people receiving relief funds. Only farmers remain intact as a social class, and the proportion of farmers has increased greatly due to the return of workers to the countryside. In addition, the revolution not only eliminated the landlords, hit the rich peasants and turned the countryside into agriculture, but also reactionary to the stolepin reform, and the peasants returned to the ancient village community. During the period of wartime communism, the relationship between commodity and currency was artificially restrained, and the use of currency was extremely reduced to 1 / 70 of that before the war. Russia retreated from the Prussian road and did not embark on the American Road, but returned to the natural economy of 350000 villages and communities. Although the Bolsheviks were not satisfied with the village community in theory, in order to curb the spontaneous forces in the countryside at that time, they always implemented the policy of “opposing independent farming” in an attempt to turn the whole country into a redistributive land commune on a Russian scale. On the one hand, the victory of the October Revolution is the victory of the proletariat and socialism, on the other hand, it also marks the revival of the Russian spirit confronting western capitalism. This political and economic atmosphere is conducive to the activity of populism. However, this situation did not last for several years. In 1929, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of agriculture, where non party economists were more concentrated, began to clean up. In 1930, in the climax of the “great transformation” from the new economic policy to the Stalin Model and the overall collectivization movement, the Soviet Union announced the cracking of a “counter revolutionary underground party” – the “working peasants party”, The main representatives of the new populists were among them, and 15 scholars were sentenced to death without a public trial. So far, the ideological school called “Populism” disappeared in Russia. However, the political and economic propositions of the populists have been further carried forward in the Stalin Model (the “dictatorship of the proletariat” in the name of the “people”, “a single economic system driven by unified will”, leader worship, iron discipline and a party with only one mind. Chavez once said: “populism is socialism”.)

,

,

and

, the “new populist” scholars of the “former social revolutionary party”, have great differences, and their opinions are also diverse. The most typical are about these types:

,

,

and

. I. organization production school. This faction has the largest number of new populists, and its representative is Chayanov, the most famous agricultural economist in the period of new economic policy. Chayanov believes that village farmers are the hope of underdeveloped society such as Russia and the main driving force of social development and progress. Any desirable development plan can not go against their interests, otherwise the peasant revolution will smash such plans, that is to say, in a country like Russia, no matter revolution or construction, they can neither break away from farmers nor transform farmers. The most striking theoretical innovation in Chayanov’s theory is the “micro theory” and “macro theory” in the operation of farmers’ economy.

the so-called “micro theory” refers to the economic operation law of a single farmer, that is, the economic logic of labor and resource distribution in farmers’ families. Chayanov believes that there is no labor market in the peasant economy and he does not know the concept of average profit rate. Due to the seasonality of agricultural production, the capital owned by farmers is considerable useless time. From this “useless time”, another law of farmers’ economy has emerged, that is, the trend of unlimited labor intensity. Under the pressure of livelihood, farmers’ families will invest more and more labor force in the same unit area, resulting in the decline of labor efficiency, that is, the so-called “diminishing marginal return”. This trend was very obvious in Russian agriculture before the revolution. On the one hand, “useless time” and “diminishing marginal benefits” are used to prove that the poverty of small farmers is determined by this internal law of economy (the implication is that capitalism or colonization should not be blamed) On the other hand, it shows that the peasant economy has a strong adaptability. Under the condition of continuous labor intensity, there is no surplus labor force for small peasant families, and it is difficult for capitalist farms to crowd out these small farmers with their productivity advantages “, which in turn finds the basis for the” theory of stability of small peasant economy “. Chayanov opposed the argument that the small-scale peasant economy could not stand the wind and rain, he believed that non capitalist small farmers would evolve according to their own economic logic and develop into an “ideal” peasant economy that was neither capitalist nor socialist. In the

,

,

,

Chayanov’s theory, his “macro theory” has the greatest influence, and its core is the theory of “periodic change” of farmers’ population structure. He believes that there is no class differentiation in village communities after the revolution, and the difference between the rich and the poor is caused by the “periodic fluctuation of population structure”, that is, the change of the number of labor force and the proportion of supporting population in the family leads to a cycle of family poverty and wealth, wealth and poverty.

Chayanov also believes that the small-scale peasant economy cannot be consolidated under private ownership. Only by developing cooperatives on the basis of village communities and using the tradition of village communities to develop cooperation among small-scale farmers, can agricultural production be concentrated. Everyone knows that collective farming in Russia comes not from collective farms and state farms, but from the tradition of village communities. However, the improvement and improvement of this process cannot be completed by the farmers themselves, because the farmers are backward and are “dark and foolish masses”, which must be preached and indoctrinated by scientists. These scientists should not only help farmers improve production technically, but also organize farmers to carry out social reform. Therefore, the “organization production school” is named.

II. Kantradyev’s market theory and rural transformation theory. Kantradyev is a student of dugang baranovsky, a famous representative of “legal Marxism”. He was once an assistant minister of food in the interim government after the February Revolution. After the October Revolution, he was imprisoned twice and later joined the people’s Committee of finance, participated in the decision-making of a series of major financial and economic issues, and drafted the agricultural part of the first five-year plan. The Market Research Institute led by him concentrated a group of non party economists who were the most talented at that time and played an important role in the period of new economic policy.

kantradyev is mainly engaged in microeconomic research. His most famous conclusion is “long wave theory”. After analyzing a large number of statistical data of major capitalist countries, he concluded that there are periodic fluctuations with an average period of 54 years in the developed commodity economy, and the rise and fall of economic development is closely related to its operation stage. He believed that the Soviet economy could not be free from the constraints of the international economic situation. In the long wave of decline, the development of the Soviet Union could not be fast. Therefore, he opposed the unrealistic “high speed”. The theory made him so well-known in the West that he formed a school to study his theory. The fact that the boom was short and the crisis was frequent during the later two world wars, especially the fact of the “Great Depression” for several consecutive years since 1929, seemed to prove his language and greatly enhance the attraction of the “long wave theory”.

,

,

,

however, he was not well-known in China at that time because of the “long wave theory”. As a “new populist”, kantradyev, like ordinary populists, regarded “non capitalist” and “labor type” farmers as the cornerstone of Soviet agriculture, but different from Chayanov’s “production organization school”, Kantradyev emphasized the disadvantages of village community land agriculture at that time and was very pessimistic about its development potential. He did not deny rural differentiation like Chayanov. In his opinion, a certain degree of differentiation in the market economy was better than the patriarchal average. He should support the “strong farmers” to stand out. He asked the Soviet government to relax the restrictions on independent farmers, He even believed that the improvement of agricultural efficiency after stolepin reform was the credit of “independent farm”. In the 15 year long-term plan formulated for the State Planning Commission, he proposed that “independent farmers have an advantage over village communities” at the end of the third five-year plan of the Soviet Union, and that such “efficient working farmers” should not be less than 35 million by 1941. It can be seen that there is a great difference between his traditional view of “focusing on the development of rural society” and that of Kantian populism.

,

,

,

it is kantradyev’s specialty to study the market dynamics and laws by statistical methods. He is enthusiastic about using this method to provide market information to farmers in China. The “market problem” issued by the “Market Research Institute” under his leadership is known as the “farmers index”. This magazine collects the cost, price Statistical information on changes in market supply and demand is published regularly, which is of great significance to guide individual farmers to adapt to market demand and invigorate the economy under the new economic policy. However, with the advent of the “great transformation”, the practice of guiding farmers’ production by the market naturally conflicts with the highly centralized planning system of Stalin’s model, and the Market Research Institute was dissolved in 1928.

III. yurovsky’s “commodity socialist economic theory”. Yurovsky is the closest one of the three ideological schools to populism and Marxism. He is classified as “New Populism” only because he was a member of the social revolutionary party like the above two before the October Revolution. Different from Chayanov and kantradyev in professional background, he is a monetary and financial scientist rather than an agricultural economist, and unlike most non party economists who are committed to applied economics, he has made unique achievements in the basic theoretical issues of socialist economy, which are usually discussed only within the party. After the October Revolution, yurovsky separated from the social revolutionary party and actively worked for the Soviet government. During the new economic policy period, he was a member of the Ministry of Finance and the presidium of the State Planning Commission. He was one of the main designers of the new monetary and financial system after the revolution. He attached importance to the law of value under the market economy and advocated the coordination between national planning and market mechanism. Among these “new populists”, he was most deeply influenced by Marxism. Yurovsky was the first person to clearly put forward that the socialist economy is a commodity economy and the law of value still plays a regulatory role under the socialist economic system. The new economic policy of

,

,

and

is characterized by allowing the development of market economy, but due to this change, it was initially used as a forced “retreat”However, it is obviously passive. At that time, the Soviet Union had no time to straighten out the monetary and financial system, and the market monetary relationship was very chaotic. Therefore, from 1922 to 1924, the Soviet Union carried out many monetary system reforms and established a new monetary system. Yurovsky was the designer of this series of reforms. Through the reforms, he saw that the normal commodity currency relationship was of decisive significance to the success or failure of the Soviet economy. He believed that the “commodity currency law” was working even under the conditions of wartime communism, not to mention in the new economic policy, Therefore, the famous formula of “public ownership + commodity exchange = Soviet economy” is put forward.

he said that the socialist economy itself is a “special form of commodity monetary economy”, and the process of building socialism is the process of perfecting the “socialist market economy” (which we didn’t put forward until 1982). The capitalist commodity economy is not the last commodity economy in history, In the socialist economy, “the market as the standard and regulator” is retained, while the law of value “as the basic factor in the economy” is still working. The plan can affect the market, but can not replace the market. The Soviet monopoly, like all monopolies, must be restricted by the economic law. These theories, which are now the consensus of socialist economic circles, were of pioneering significance 56 years ago.

,

,

and

in fact, these “new populists” explored the development path of socialism in the 1920s. They all took “development, humanity and reducing detours” as their tenet on the premise of recognizing the Soviet regime. Unfortunately, this valuable exploration paid a blood price.