Originally published at: 列宁是如何成为无产阶级领袖的？——撕去“左圈”分子自诩“革命”的画皮 – 曙光
How Did Lenin Become the Leader of the Proletariat? — Tear Off the "Left Circle" Members' Self-Glorification of "Revolution"
Editorial Department of the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Proletariat
Editorial Board of League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Proletariat
Revolutionary mentor of the proletariat worldwide — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
The name Lenin is known to everyone in China. As early as the beginning of the last century, when the Chinese people were still oppressed by imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism, it was the October Revolution led by the Bolshevik Party under Lenin's leadership that "opened up broad possibilities and realistic paths for the liberation cause of the world's people... established a new revolutionary front against world imperialism, from Western proletarians through the Russian Revolution to oppressed nations in the East"[1], pointing the only correct path to liberation for the Chinese people fighting against oppression and exploitation—following Marxism-Leninism. Under the leadership of Chairman Mao and the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese people indeed turned around and established their new China where they are the masters of their own country. Since then, Lenin has become one of the most beloved and most respected revolutionary leaders in the hearts of the oppressed people across China.
However, "The victory of Marxism in theory forces its enemies to disguise themselves as Marxists; this is the dialectic of history."[2] After seeing that Marxism had defeated all non-revolutionary doctrines and became the weapon guiding all oppressed peoples and nations in their struggles, some opportunists and personal ambitionists tried every means to infiltrate the powerful revolutionary forces and the party, attempting to usurp power and use revolutionary strength for personal gain. Therefore, they inevitably disguise themselves as revolutionaries, especially as "students and heirs" of the revered revolutionary mentors, exploiting the trust of the masses in these mentors to deceive them. Throughout history, whether it was Trotsky, who claimed to be Lenin's close comrade and forged Lenin's "political will" to viciously attack Stalin, or Wang Ming, who claimed to be "100% Bolshevik" and attacked Chairman Mao as "narrow empiricism" and "rich peasant line," all have caused damage to the vigorous revolutionary movement.
Today, as the three major contradictions of imperialism deepen and the revolutionary tide of "independent nation-states, national liberation, and people's revolution" is about to sweep the globe again, similar situations have re-emerged in China. The internal contradictions within Chinese society, deep and complex, are intensifying as imperialist decay worsens. More and more bankrupt petty-bourgeoisie have lost their original outlets and become increasingly dissatisfied with the dark society. Some among them, driven by personal liberation and opportunistic revolutionary ambitions, have infiltrated the proletarian socialist revolutionary movement without transforming their erroneous worldview, forming the past "left turn" wave and the ongoing "Left Circle." Most of these "Left Circle" members, like their opportunist predecessors, do not truly revolutionize but claim to be revolutionaries. They have only superficially read some Marxist books, and without abandoning their old parasitic lifestyles and detachment from the masses, foolishly consider themselves "brilliant geniuses" and arrogantly believe "what proletarian thought? Isn't it just that old set?"[3]. They casually quote a few famous sayings from Lenin's "What Is To Be Done?" to justify their petty political schemes, then engage in mutual slander, and unite to attack and smear the organizations adhering to the correct Marxist-Leninist line, imagining themselves as Lenin's successors and the leaders of the masses, becoming the next "trendsetters" in the communist movement.
However, their schemes are impossible to realize. This is because, although they try to crudely imitate Lenin and other proletarian revolutionary mentors, using Lenin's respected name to deceive for personal gain, their behavior bears no resemblance to Lenin's—Lenin always deeply engaged with the masses, while they are detached; Lenin studied diligently, they are lazy and unlearned; Lenin was selfless and dedicated, they are selfish and self-interested. Although the influence of opportunists in the Chinese "Left Circle" is currently limited, exposing their false masks and revealing their true nature is very helpful and necessary to help the masses recognize these political frauds, to help revolutionary intellectuals reflect on similar errors in themselves, analyze the class and practical roots of their mistakes, and correct them by learning Lenin's style.
Deepening with the Masses or Detaching from Them
"In all our practical work, correct leadership must come from the masses and return to the masses."[4] Lenin was able to become the revolutionary mentor of the proletariat and lead the October Revolution to victory precisely because he regarded himself as a servant of the people, and all his revolutionary activities were for the vital interests of the working masses, thus gaining the support and backing of the people, the only driving force of social development. Therefore, Lenin was always in close contact with the workers, understanding their conditions and hardships, and drawing on their opinions to formulate the policies of the Bolshevik Party. This approach ran through Lenin's entire revolutionary career.
In 1895, Lenin, under the leadership, established the Society for the Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class. Since then, the Russian workers' movement has combined with Marxism.
Since 1894, Lenin has been active with workers' groups outside the Neva Gate in Petrograd, first as a "student of the masses," then as a "teacher of the masses." When communicating with workers, Lenin always first humbly understands their working conditions and daily life, then combines this information with Marxist works like "Capital" to teach the workers. For example, after workers describe a whole day of life, Lenin points out that their long working hours and labor intensity come entirely from the capitalist system, and further proposes to change these harsh conditions. Moreover, after a large spontaneous strike at the Shemenny Kirov Factory, Lenin quickly collected the demands of the striking workers and drafted a "Letter to the Striking Workers." Although the strike had ended by the time it was printed, Lenin's leaflet was "welcomed and caused discussion," and was read aloud in the factory. Since then, workers trusted Lenin more because they knew he stood with them and fought for their liberation. Once, to help workers at the Torontown Factory, Lenin asked Krupskaya to disguise herself as a female worker and visit different workshops to understand the factory details, finally revealing the factory owner's tactic of raising wages for spinning workers while lowering wages for weaving workers, and exposing this in a leaflet after the strike began. Furthermore, after summarizing the workers' voices, Lenin called on the workers to demand higher wages and clearer fines from the factory owners, ultimately gaining the support of the workers and guiding the strike to victory. After the revolution, Lenin, as the chairman of the People's Commissariat, still took time to communicate with workers and peasants to understand their most urgent wishes. When the workers and peasants expressed doubts and pains, he would carefully consider each word, identify the main contradictions, and help the petitioners formulate next steps, giving the masses renewed direction and courage to fight against difficulties. It can be seen that Lenin's greatness lies in his constant deep engagement with the masses, learning from them, and leading them to fight resolutely and win, rather than looking down on the masses or considering himself superior.
Meanwhile, what was the fate of other self-proclaimed revolutionaries in Russia who did not follow the mass line? Plekhanov, who once contributed to the Russian workers' movement, always showed disbelief when receiving reports of workers' struggles. He refused to acknowledge the intensity and influence of spontaneous worker movements, believing that the liberation movement was a "gift" from intellectuals like him, and did not bother to understand the workers' situation. Plekhanov even insulted workers with contempt when they held different views: "When your father and mother were crawling under the table, I..."—a typical aristocratic attitude. Because Plekhanov did not go deep into the masses, he was quickly left behind by the developing Russian workers' movement and ultimately became an opportunist.
And the contemporary Chinese "Left Circle" opportunists, who also see themselves as liberators of workers, not only lack the theoretical level of Plekhanov but also do even more detached from the masses. Just visiting any "Left Circle" website reveals their attitude towards workers—aloof and patronizing. Almost every "Left Circle" member's "integration practice"[5] is filled with hollow "political indoctrination." They do not inquire about the real difficulties in workers' lives, nor do they investigate workers' demands, nor do they care whether workers understand Marxist terms—they just ask, "Have you read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Chairman Mao's books?" If yes, they add as friends on social media, send pamphlets with incomprehensible content, and say "Let's have a meal and discuss." If no, they say the worker is "temporarily not enlightened" and "will develop later." Moreover, they completely ignore what their so-called "political indoctrination" actually involves—only boasting about how many workers they have "developed," without any record of actual exchanges or workers' voices. They even slander workers who are familiar with economic struggles from practical class and labor battles as "not considering fishing as legitimate" or "unable to fish," and instead claim to have "taught" or "pushed" workers to slack off, turning spontaneous worker resistance into their own achievement—shameless! Some even openly declare before entering factories that they are there to "experience" exploitation and oppression, then shamelessly say they will "educate workers" through their "factory walkouts," placing themselves above the workers, not asking how experienced workers fight for wages against capitalists, but online discussing legal violations in factories, then fleeing with 70% of wages after failing to use petty legal tricks, thinking they "gained a lot." Isn't this totally different from Lenin investigating workers' conditions and fighting for their demands?
On May 1, 1920, Lenin participated in "Saturday Volunteer Labor" as an ordinary worker.
Lenin, while closely standing with the working class, never became arrogant because of his important position in the party. Instead, he always cared about the lives of the masses—"willing to be a humble servant"[6]. Lenin ate very little himself, with just a few fried eggs, a slice of ham, and a small pot of beer for lunch, but he was extremely concerned about workers' diets, often asking if more ham and bread could be added to their tables to help them escape hunger. When comrades around him were exhausted from revolutionary work, Lenin would ask for them to take a break to recover. He always remembered every comrade who contributed to the revolution, and when they faced difficulties—such as cramped housing or no place for relatives—he would give the most sincere help, but he never made any personal demands on the People's Committee—despite living a frugal life himself. He hated those who despised the masses. When an official wrote "busy with affairs, trivial matters, no time to handle" in a report, Lenin ordered: "This official should bear criminal responsibility."
In contrast, most "Left Circle" members see Marxism merely as a tool for personal fame, money, or women, filled with selfish interests, looking down on the working masses in factories, resisting sharing meals, housing, or labor with workers. They are like petty-bourgeois intellectuals in the works of Japanese proletarian writer Dazai Osamu, unwilling to suffer for the revolution, unwilling to truly become part of the working people, only wanting to "be worshipped like Lenin," to become "big figures in the proletarian movement," and "working desperately"[7]. Little do they know that Lenin's greatness lies precisely in his view of himself as "an ordinary person," someone no different from the masses, not a big figure. In short, Lenin became the mentor of the proletariat because he was willing to abandon personal interests and truly stand with the people. Modern Chinese "Left Circle" members can only truly advance on the revolutionary path by abandoning their selfishness, closely integrating with the masses, destroying their "petty-bourgeois intellectual kingdom," and "resolutely progressing toward Marxism" [8]. The illusion of "singing old tunes into a new society" is fundamentally impossible.
Studying Seriously or Being Unlearned and Lazy
Lenin once famously said "Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement"[9], emphasizing the importance of studying revolutionary theory. So, how did Lenin treat theoretical study? His serious attitude towards learning can be glimpsed from his student days before becoming a Marxist. From the age of nine, Lenin was the top student in his class, with excellent grades, often full marks in all subjects. His outstanding academic record was not because he was a "genius" or immersed in bourgeois education, but because he held an extremely diligent and serious attitude towards learning. Anyone who knew young Lenin would remember his most prominent trait: whatever he did, he always finished thoroughly and precisely. When it came to studying, he was even more rigorous and conscientious. In class, Lenin took his textbooks and notebooks seriously; his books were always neatly arranged, and his pencils were always sharpened. He listened carefully during lessons, and when he returned home, he had more time to rest and read other books. Studying and reading thus became a hobby of Lenin's.
>坚持着这样的学习态度，在马克思主义刚刚在俄国开始传播的时候，想要改变俄国人民生活情况的列宁就如饥似渴地学习马克思主义理论。那时是十九世纪九十年代，俄国的马克思主义小组才刚刚开始组织，而当时的革命者主要是学习已经翻译成俄文的《资本论》第一卷的内容。至于马克思、恩格斯的其他著作，还难以找到俄文版本。可是，想要用马克思主义武装自己的列宁早已克服万难，学习不同外语进而努力阅读了各种马克思和恩格斯的著作。因此，当列宁于1893年到达彼得堡展开进一步的革命活动之时，他已对马克思、恩格斯的理论了然于心。而列宁在领导十月革命走向胜利之后，也没有放松对自己的要求，依旧热爱读书。1920年，俄共（布）莫斯科组织重新登记党员时，在一个登记表中要求党员回答五十四个问题，其中一个是：“读过马克思、恩格斯、列宁、考茨基和普列汉诺夫的什么著作？”，列宁在填表时，在马克思、恩格斯、考茨基、普列汉诺夫的名字下各划了一道线，然后写道：“几乎全部读过（凡名字下面划了线的作者的著作）”。这里所说的“几乎全部读过”，就是说已经发表的、找得到的列宁都已经读过了。而由于当时还有一些马克思、恩格斯的手稿和信件还未发表或未找到，因此列宁谦逊地加上了“几乎”。列宁对待理论学习的这种态度，正是布尔什维克对党员理论水平的严格要求的体现。相比之下，当代中国的“左圈”分子们却满足于“嘴尖皮厚腹中空”的现状，为自己的不学无术百般辩护。他们虽然常常以“天才理论家”自居，但往往连马克思主义最基本的一些原理都不明白，甚至没有读完过几本社会主义时期为了普及马克思主义而编写的入门哲学、政治经济学和历史教材。他们只是在谈到一些具体问题的时候慌不择路地去经典著作里寻章摘句，借导师的话给自己装点门面，用一些马克思主义的词句来装点自己的庸俗观点，完全不去深入思考，结果就只能令人发笑——他们高喊自己“读懂了”列宁关于帝国主义的论断，“明白了”什么是垄断资本，却还是能说出什么“中国资产阶级内部有垄断资本和中小资本的‘两条路线斗争’，前者反美后者亲美”、“美国特朗普代表‘民族’资本而民主党代表垄断资本”的胡话，丝毫不看中修当今已经成为了与美帝国主义分庭抗礼的第二大帝国主义国家，同美帝的关系是出于本国垄断资产阶级利益的既斗争又勾结的事实，也不看特朗普根本就不是什么民族资本的代表而实际上是美国国内不同于民主党的另一派垄断资产阶级的代言人；他们宣称自己“理解了”列宁提出的帝国主义阶段资本主义政治经济发展不平衡规律，却不认为现在集合了帝国主义所有矛盾且以工农联盟为基础的革命力量最强大的中国可以变为帝国主义的薄弱环节，而反倒认为现代的中国是难以撼动的“现代帝国主义的工业⼼脏”，完全暴露了他们怯于向中修做坚决的斗争的思想。中国“左圈”分子的这些胡诌刚好体现出了他们自己的不学无术和幼稚可笑，而他们如此不学无术的根源也就在于他们并不想真的革命，也就并不需要真的学习理论并以此来指导革命的实践——只要看起来比较能够“吓唬人”，能够给自己带来名誉地位，那就够了。同时，列宁还在他的任何工作中都极力追求条理和精确，特别是对于写作。早在列宁的少年时期，列宁就不同于他那些到交作文时才“开夜车”赶稿的同学，而是按照一定的计划和提纲写作文。当教员出了题目后，列宁马上就拟好提纲，再拿几张空白的纸，把它对叠成两折。他在纸的左半面上起草，按着拟好的提纲发挥。而纸的右面，就空在那里，直到最后几天，他才在那上面记入补充、修改、解释，以及他想要引证的参考书，纸的右侧就这样渐渐布满了注解。到快交作文的时候，列宁又重新拿几张白纸用铅笔打草稿，同时翻阅起他第一次起草时所引证和标注出的那些书籍。这些书，是他早已从图书馆借来的，按次序排列好，还在需要参考的篇页里放进了书签。最后，他就只剩下拿出本子来，用钢笔干干净净地抄一遍，而不会再涂抹了。这样良好的写作习惯也一直跟随着列宁。到了开始革命活动后，列宁为了在理论上和形形色色的反动分子论战，更加重视写作。1895年，列宁被判处十四个月的监禁，但为了彻底驳倒民粹派关于俄国不能发展资本主义的谬论，列宁就想方设法为自己创设撰写文章以反击民粹派的条件——他到监狱寄出的第一封信，就是要求把他用于写作的参考书籍立刻寄给他。同时，在监狱写作期间为了躲避狱警，列宁还机智地用牛奶做墨水，用面包做墨水瓶，把内容写在旧书的字行中间，这样除非用火烤，就不会被人看出来了，而一旦狱警快要靠近的时候，列宁就把“墨水瓶”直接吃掉。列宁出狱后曾幽默地向别人说：“有一次，我倒霉极了，一天竟吃了六个‘墨水瓶’。”终于，在阅读和批判地应用了583种书籍之后，列宁尽一切可能搜集和整理了必须的材料，在流放地完成了《俄国资本主义的发展》这部巨著，粉碎了民粹派的观点，使得马克思主义在俄国取得了新的胜利，推动了俄国革命运动向前发展。
列宁之所以会对学习和写作等各种工作都有如此严肃、认真、刻苦的态度，是因为他绝非为了个人而学，而是出于革命实践的需要。即使在工作空前紧张的时候，列宁仍不放松学习和理论的研究，克鲁普斯卡娅回忆说，在革命最困难的转变关头，列宁常常反复阅读马克思、恩格斯的著作，她有时到列宁的办公室去，看到周围的人都很不安，而列宁却在沉入马克思的著作，这不是为了使神经安静，而是为了“请教”马克思，以便从他那里找到工人运动最迫切问题的回答。早在1902年，为了反驳经济派，在建党问题上阐明马克思主义的革命原则，列宁就撰写了《怎么办？》一文，他在文中指出，“历史现在向我们提出的当前任务，是比其他任何一个国家的无产阶级的一切当前任务都更要革命的任务。实现这个任务，即摧毁这个不仅是欧洲的同时也是（我们现在可以这样说）亚洲的反动势力的最强大的堡垒，就会使俄国无产阶级成为国际革命无产阶级的先锋队。”很快，新生的布尔什维克党和俄国人民迎来了一个盛大的节日——1905年革命。同年6、7月，列宁写成了《社会民主党在民主革命中的两种策略》一书。在这部著作里，他号召工人群众去和专制制度进行最坚决的、毫不调和的斗争，与孟什维克那一心同自由资产阶级进行妥协的策略形成了鲜明对比。他告诉人们，只有布尔什维克的道路才是俄国人民走向解放的道路。最终，正是因为列宁充分研究了1905年革命的形势，带领布尔什维克在1905年革命中发挥了重大作用，才使得即使1905年革命最后失败了，也引起了“亚洲的觉醒”，让被帝国主义侵略的亚洲各国人民看到了民主革命的曙光，并激发了席卷亚洲的资产阶级民主革命运动。而在1917年十月革命爆发前夕，为了能够发动这场震撼世界的革命，列宁更是研究了大量马克思和恩格斯的著作，研究了1848年欧洲革命和1871年巴黎公社革命的历史经验，并结合俄国革命运动在1905年革命失败后的发展，写出了《国家与革命》这篇光辉著作。总而言之，列宁他向来将马克思主义作为行动的指南，而非空洞的教条，时刻注意将理论和实践结合，为革命活动而学习理论。
相反，现代中国的“左圈”分子玩弄马克思主义的词句，完全只是为了个人谋取名利。同时，他们学习理论的方式也是和革命实践完全脱离的。他们一心想着自比伟大的革命导师，便打着“重走导师路”的旗号，卖弄各种他们自己和别人都看不懂的唯心主义哲学和谬论，实际上是照着资产阶级那一套“懂得学问多那就更高级”的学阀逻辑四处招摇撞骗。例如就有人声称“不先学习《国富论》就读不懂《资本论》”、“不看黑格尔就学不会辩证法”、“不先弄懂唯心主义就搞不明白辩证唯物主义”。“左圈”分子们完全不看马克思主义是人类认识史的唯物的、辩证的综合，本来就已经在批判继承的基础上涵盖了过去一切学说里正确和进步的部分，也批判了历史上各种学说的谬误。他们上述可笑的言论，就如同有人说现在学医学要先学中世纪的“放血疗法”，现在学天文学要先学教会的“地心说”一样。同时，因为“左圈”分子们只顾卖弄无用的学识且忙着争名夺利，所以他们对待写作也是极端随意，且写作的内容也空洞无味，某些人只顾着对自己的论敌作出“快速反击”，用AI作出一篇又一篇狗屁不通的文章的事情就是明证。从为何学习到如何学习再到如何写作和理论与实践结合，在所有这些问题上，当代中国“左圈”分子的做法都是列宁做法的最好反面教员。
过去，为了让布尔什维克党的全体党员用马克思主义武装自己，解决俄国革命中涌现出来的各种实际问题，列宁做出了“第一是学习，第二是学习，第三还是学习”的号召，并得到了全体俄国革命者的响应。而今天的“左圈”分子对待理论学习的轻视态度，就恰好证明了他们根本不是列宁那样的革命者，而不过是玩弄马克思主义词句的投机者。“左圈”分子虽然嘴上高喊着革命的词句，但他们对真正的马克思主义理论是一窍不通的。列宁向来将思想斗争、理论斗争看得非常重要，强调“没有思想上的统一，组织上的统一是没有意义的”。在俄国社会民主工党第二次代表大会上，列宁更是强调“凡承认党纲、在物质上支持党并亲自参加党的一个组织的人，可以作为党员”，这也是区分布尔什维克和孟什维克的一大标准。而“左圈”分子筛选“革命同志”的方式却是各种问答、黑话，只要口头上支持某些主张，甚至对山头表示忠诚就可以加入。对于这些嘴上高喊“大联合”的机会主义分子，恐怕连他们的机会主义前辈马尔托夫见了，也要评价一句“猖狂！”
总而言之，“左圈”分子不过是将马克思主义当作自己扬名立万、排斥异己的工具，他们空喊各种脱离实际的理论，奉行的是实用主义而非马克思主义。马克思主义的科学性和革命性是统一的，只有站在无产阶级和广大人民的立场上，才会接受和学习马克思主义。而“左圈”分子顽固地站在小资产阶级右翼甚至资产阶级的立场上，根本不愿意改变其寄生、反动的实践，所以他们根本上是反马克思主义、“打着红旗反红旗”的机会主义者。例如，他们中的许多人迫于革命形势，从马克思主义者那里剽窃来了关于性别压迫和妇女解放的观点，在口头上宣称支持妇女解放，反对色情文艺、反对手淫，但实际上心里还是想着要压迫女性以获得自己的快感。所以一旦他们偶然翻到了恩格斯在妇女解放上一些需要仔细理解的观点，如“卖淫……败坏着全体男子的品格。”，便毫不掩饰的用他们自己的反动世界观歪曲导师的发言给自己的资产阶级恋爱和色情观点辩护，在上面大做文章。然而，当这些小丑将自己“呕心沥血”的“巨著”摆出来时，他们屁股上的男权纹章就可笑地露了出来——他们将社会上男性对女性的压迫一笔勾销，反而叫嚣是“网络公妻制”败坏了全体男性的道德！他们嘴上喊的是妇女解放，实际施行的却是儒教圣贤论。当你要指出他们是在法西斯男权和自己手淫的利益辩护时，他们还要猖狂反驳：“看黄片哪有阶级性？手淫除了压迫妇女，还有可能是纯粹发泄！”胡言乱语之余，这些“左圈”分子还不忘自我吹嘘：看来是戳中某些人的利益了！可是，事情本身却是很明白的：“……恋爱观作为世界观的一部分，一定是和一个人的政治思想联系在一起的。一个人不可能在政治上反对资本主义，同时又在生活上支持资本主义……资产阶级恋爱观是资产阶级个人主义思想在恋爱观上的表现，它的核心就是损人利己、唯利是图的资产阶级思想，为了满足自己的低俗欲望，摧毁女性的独立人格和尊严，无限制地去侵犯和占有女性，将女性当作物品随意玩弄。”“左圈”分子们在妇女解放问题上的反动观点可恨嘴脸，充分表明了他们之所以不学无术，不是因为别的，而正是因为马克思主义在社会问题的每一个方面所提出来的理论都触犯到了他们的现实利益。因此，当代中国的“左圈”分子们若要改变自己不学无术的状态，真正对他们表面上趋之若鹜的社会革命作出有益贡献，那么他们必须清算自己过去在旧社会里所得到的各种肮脏的利益，改变自己的立场。只有这样，“左圈”分子们才能变为革命者，才能真正做到马克思主义的“学识渊博”，才能像鲁迅说的那样“又因为从旧垒中来，情形看得较为分明，反戈一击”，真正做列宁的学生，为埋葬中修的反动政权贡献出自己的力量。
无私奉献还是个人享受
在列宁身边的同志曾回忆说列宁常常提到“革命不是为了个人享受”。作为无产阶级的革命领袖，列宁有着大公无私、一心为人民的高尚品质，一贯坚持个人生活让位于革命利益的原则，从未颠倒过革命与个人娱乐的关系。这从列宁对待下棋的态度里就可以看出来。列宁和他的哥哥从小就酷爱下棋，而在流放期间，列宁同别人无所不谈，连棋术也不例外。他时常布好棋局就考虑起来，有时甚至入迷到了在梦中喊道“要是他的马跳到这儿，我的塔就放到那儿。”的地步。但在列宁因为被反动政府迫害而出国侨居又回到俄国后，由于他对无产阶级革命事业的满腔热诚，面对着日益发展的革命形势，他便认为“棋太迷人妨碍工作”，从此之后即使在休息时间，他也都不愿意下棋了。
列宁也从不抱怨革命环境和条件的艰苦。1917年7月7日，临时政府下令逮捕列宁，于是布尔什维克党中央决定把列宁转移到安全的地方去。经易容以后，列宁在尼·亚·叶梅利扬诺夫同志的护送下到达了俄芬边境的拉兹里夫车站并渡过了拉兹里夫湖，藏匿在了一个用树枝、干草搭起来的草棚里——这里面，就连“床”也是用草铺成的。在草棚之中，列宁坚定地为革命工作着。他在草棚旁的灌木丛里打扫出一片空地，放上两个树墩——一个当桌子，一个作椅子——列宁把这儿叫做“绿色办公室”。为了躲避密探的搜捕，列宁白天还要打扮成农夫的模样和掩护他的叶梅利扬诺夫同志一家去割草。有一次，一个农民对叶梅里雅诺夫同志说：“你雇的那个芬兰人干活干得挺不错，这两天我身体不好，让他帮我干两天？”叶梅里雅诺夫同志连忙回答说：“不行啊！这些天他太累了，别让他去啦！”可见，即使是在流亡的岁月中，列宁依然展现了娴熟的劳动技能和他从不脱离劳动的革命本色。而正是在这种艰苦的环境中，列宁完成了马克思主义的不朽著作《国家与革命》。
即使是在新政权建立后，列宁的物质生活还是相当简朴，他也绝不利用自己的职权搞特殊，处处注意做到“限制资产阶级法权，限制等级制”。十月革命胜利后的俄国，正处在外国武装干涉和白匪叛乱的艰苦时期，身为人民委员会主席的列宁日日夜夜为革命事业操劳，但生活却非常朴素。他与劳动人民同甘苦、共命运，一样吃着黑面包，甚至连黄油也用不上。当人民委员会总务处处长布鲁耶维奇为了列宁的身体健康，擅自把列宁的薪金从每月五百卢布提高到八百卢布后，列宁十分愤怒，认为这是“公然违法行为”——违反了巴黎公社原则，即最高领导人薪资不能超过熟练工人的工资的原则。于是，列宁给了布鲁也维奇严重警告处分，并给他写了这样一张便条：“鉴于您不执行我的坚决要求，即向我说明为什么从一九一八年三月一日起把我的薪金由每月五百卢布提高到八百卢布，鉴于您擅自根据委员会秘书尼古拉·彼得罗维奇·哥尔布诺夫的同意就提高我的薪金的公然违法行为，直接破坏人民委员会一九一七年十一月二十三日的法令，我宣布给您以严重警告的处分。”
同时，在革命刚刚取得初步胜利后的困难时期，列宁经常穿一件他已经穿了很久的单薄旧外套，上面缝着好几处补丁，袖口都破了。对此，同志和工人们都关心列宁，想让列宁换上厚点的新外套，但列宁想着广大人民还有很多连外套都没有，拒绝了这个请求。在1921年帝国主义的干涉失败、反革命白匪的叛乱也被消灭后，苏俄人民的生活水平逐渐好起来了，但列宁还是穿着同样的旧外套，只是多打了几个补丁，袖口也磨的更光了。有一个同志实在忍心不过，抓着列宁的破外套说：“报告人民委员会主席列宁同志，请你马上把它脱下来，不然的话，你会冻坏的！”列宁抓住这位同志的手说：“是的，我们胜利了，可是我们还要建设……你是不是以为革命胜利了，我们就该穿的漂亮一些？同志，我们一切为了苏维埃人民的幸福，衣服穿的破烂一点又有什么关系呢？要知道，我们革命不是为了个人享受！”我们知道，资产阶级法权、特别是分配方面的资产阶级法权，在社会主义时期是长期存在的。但是，对资产阶级法权限制还是不限制，对个人的奢侈享受是反对还是不反对，是检验真假马克思主义的试金石，体现了两个阶级、两条路线的尖锐斗争，列宁正是这样以身作则地破除资产阶级法权思想，努力限制资产阶级法权的。
对于“What is the purpose of the revolution? "Lenin has already answered this question with his above simple style and selfless dedication. But what are the so-called “Lenin students” doing today? The “left circle” members’ answer is: “Fake revolution, real coffee drinking.” Born from bankrupt petty bourgeoisie, the “left circle” members often joined the revolutionary ranks because they saw their status in capitalist society was insecure and had experienced some oppression. While seeking personal liberation, they opportunistically exploit revolution, trying to avoid exploitation while “getting promoted and gaining titles.” Therefore, under the guise of revolution, they want to enjoy a comfortable life of “coffee drinking.” Once the revolutionary movement reaches their heads, demanding they give up personal interests, abandon various low-level pleasures, and restrict their accustomed luxury enjoyment, the “left circle” members will start to complain bitterly. Is game playing the spiritual opium crafted by the bourgeoisie? They say “I don’t necessarily think so,” then turn around and wave the banner of “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” to “critically appreciate” various video games, writing endless nostalgic reviews; intellectuals who claim to follow the path of combining with the masses? When they arrive at factory gates, their knees start trembling, and they shake their heads: “Eight hours of work, how can I be a professional revolutionary? The lesson of Comrade Hongliu’s ‘sudden death from overwork’ is vivid in my mind. I think it’s more in line with revolutionary interests to be a ‘full-time revolutionary intellectual’.” The revolutionaries all attend social universities, and do not parasitize? They are calculating that “if I want to do ‘comfortable work,’ I probably need a degree,” while continuing to keep a backdoor for opportunistic pursuits, and not forgetting the old family ties that are always ready to sell women for money, raise children to prevent old age, and exchange glances, fearing that poor relationship management with parents will cause them to lose the “permanent harbor” they rely on.