Changes

{{BSZ}} Vladimir Ilyich [[Lenin ]] died on January 21 1924, 80 years ago—does the embarrassed [[silence ]] over his [[name ]] mean that he died twice, that his legacy is also [[dead]]? His insensitivity toward personal freedoms is effectively foreign to our [[liberal]]-tolerant sensibility – who, today, would not [[experience ]] a shudder apropos his dismissive remarks against the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionaries’ critique of the Bolshevik [[power ]] in 1922?

“Indeed, the sermons which…the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries preach express their [[true ]] [[nature]]: ‘The [[revolution ]] has gone too far. What you are saying now we have been saying all the [[time]], permit us to say it again.’ But we say in reply: ‘Permit us to put you before a firing squad for saying that. Either you refrain from expressing your views, or, if you insist on expressing your [[political ]] views publicly in the [[present ]] circumstances, when our [[position ]] is far more difficult than it was when the white guards were directly attacking us, then you will have only yourselves to blame if we treat you as the worst and most pernicious white guard elements.’”

This dismissive attitude towards the “liberal” [[notion ]] of [[freedom ]] accounts for Lenin’s bad reputation among [[liberals]]. Their [[case ]] largely rests upon their [[rejection ]] of the standard [[Marxist]]-Leninist opposition of “formal” and “actual” freedom, but as even ;eftist liberals like Claude [[Lefort ]] emphasize again and again, freedom is in its very notion “formal“[[formal]],” so that “actual freedom” equals the [[lack ]] of freedom. Lenin is best remembered for his famous retort “Freedom - yes, but for <em>whom</em>? To do <em>what</em>?” For him, in the above-quoted case of the Mensheviks, their “freedom” to criticize the Bolshevik [[government ]] effectively amounted to the “freedom” to undermine the workers’ and peasants’ government on behalf of the counterrevolution.<br><br> But today, after the terrifying experience of the Really Existing [[Socialism]], is it not more than obvious where the fault of this reasoning resides? First, it reduces a historical constellation to a closed, fully contextualized [[situation]] in which the “objective” consequences of one’s [[acts]] are fully determined (“independent of your intentions, what you are doing now objectively serves…”). Second, the position of [[enunciation]] of such statements usurps the [[right]] to decide what your acts “objectively mean,” so that their [[apparent]] “objectivism” is the [[form]] of its opposite, a thorough <i>subjectivism</i>: I decide what your acts objectively mean, since I define the context of a situation (say, if I conceive of my power as the immediate equivalent/expression of the power of the [[working]] [[class]], then everyone who opposes me is “objectively” an [[enemy]] of the [[working class]]).<br><br>

But todayIs this, after the terrifying experience of the Really Existing Socialismhowever, is it not more than obvious where the fault of this reasoning resides[[whole]] story? First, it reduces a historical constellation to a closed, fully contextualized situation How does freedom effectively function in which liberal democracies? Although Clinton’s presidency epitomized the “objective” consequences [[Third]] Way of one’s acts are fully determined today’s (“independent of your intentions, what you are doing now objectively serves…”ex-). Second, the position of enunciation of such statements usurps the right [[Left]] succumbing to decide what your acts “objectively mean,” so that their apparent “objectivism” is the form of its oppositeRightist [[ideological]] [[blackmail]], his healthcare reform program would nonetheless have amounted to a thorough kind of <i>subjectivismact</i>: I decide what your acts objectively mean, at least in today’s [[conditions]], since I define it would have been based on the rejection of the context hegemonic notions of the [[need]] to curtail Big [[State]] expenditure and administration—in a situation (way, it aimed to “do the [[impossible]].” No wonder then that it failed. Its failure—perhaps the only significant, although [[negative]], [[event]] of Clinton’s presidency—bore [[witness]] to the [[material]] force of the ideological notion of “free [[choice]].” That is to say, if I conceive although the large majority of my power the so-called “ordinary people” were not properly acquainted with the reform program, the medical lobby (twice as strong as the immediate equivalent/expression of infamous [[defense]] lobby!) succeeded in imposing on the [[public]] the fundamental [[idea]] that, with [[universal]] healthcare, the power free choice (in matters concerning [[medicine]]) will be somehow threatened—against this purely fictional reference to “free choice”, all enumeration of the working class“hard facts” (in Canada, then everyone who opposes me healthcare is “objectively” an enemy of the working classless expensive and more effective, with no less free choice, etc.)proved ineffective.<br><br>

Is this, however, We are here at the very nerve center of the liberal [[ideology]]: the whole story? How does [[insistence]] on freedom effectively function of choice—so urgent today in liberal democracies? Although Clinton’s presidency epitomized the Third Way era of today’s (ex-) Left succumbing what sociologists like Ulrich Beck call “risk society”—even as the ruling ideology endeavors to sell us the Rightist ideological blackmail, his healthcare reform program would nonetheless very insecurity caused by the [[dismantling]] of the [[Welfare]] State as the opportunity for new freedoms. Do you have amounted to [[change]] jobs every year, relying on short-term contracts instead of a kind of <i>act</i>, at least in today’s conditions, since long-term [[stable]] appointment? Why not see it would have been based on as the rejection of liberation from the hegemonic notions constraints of a fixed job, as the need [[chance]] to curtail Big State expenditure reinvent yourself again and administration—in a wayagain, it aimed to “do become aware of and realize hidden potentials of your [[personality]]? Can you no longer rely on the impossible.” No wonder then standard health insurance and retirement plan, so that you have to opt for additional coverage for which you have to pay? Why not perceive it failed. Its failure—perhaps as an additional opportunity to choose: either better [[life]] now or long-term security? And if this predicament causes you [[anxiety]], the only significant, although negative[[postmodern]] or “second modernity” ideologist will immediately accuse you of [[being]] unable to assume [[full]] freedom, event of Clinton’s presidency—bore witness to indulging in the material force “escape from freedom,” of the ideological notion of “free choiceimmature sticking to old stable forms.” That Even better, when this situation is to say, although inscribed into the large majority ideology of the so-called “ordinary people” were not properly acquainted [[subject]] as the [[psychological]] [[individual]] pregnant with the reform program[[natural]] abilities and tendencies, the medical lobby (twice as strong one automatically interprets all these changes as the infamous defense lobby!) succeeded in imposing on the public the fundamental idea that, with universal healthcareresults of their personality, not as the free choice (in matters concerning medicine) will be somehow threatened—against this purely fictional reference to “free choice”, all enumeration result of “hard facts” (in Canada, healthcare is less expensive and more effective, with no less free choice, etc.) proved ineffectivebeing thrown around by [[market]] forces.<br><br>

We are here at Phenomena like these make it all the more necessary today to <i>reassert</i> the very nerve center opposition of “formal” and “actual” freedom in a new, more precise, [[sense]]. Let us take the situation in the liberal ideologyEastern European countries around 1990, when the Really Existing Socialism was falling apart: the insistence on freedom all of a sudden, [[people]] were thrown into a situation of “freedom of choice—so urgent today in political choice”—however, were they <i>really</i> at any point asked the era fundamental question of what sociologists like Ulrich Beck call “risk society”—even as kind of new [[order]] they actually wanted? People were first told that they are entering the ruling ideology endeavors to sell us the very insecurity caused by promised land of political freedom; then, soon afterwards, they were informed that this freedom involves wild privatization, the dismantling of the Welfare State as the opportunity for new freedoms[[social]] security, etc.etc. Do you They still have the freedom to choose, so if they [[want]], they can step out; but, no, our heroic Eastern Europeans didn’t want to change jobs every yeardisappoint their Western tutors, relying on short-term contracts instead of a long-term stable appointment? Why not see it as the liberation from they stoically persisted in the constraints of a fixed jobchoice they never made, convincing themselves that they should behave as mature [[subjects]] who are aware that freedom has its price. And here one should risk to reintroduce the chance to reinvent yourself again and again, to become aware Leninist opposition of “formal” and realize hidden potentials “actual” freedom: the [[moment]] of your personality? Can you no longer rely on [[truth]] in Lenin’s acerbic retort to his Menshevik critics is that the standard health insurance and retirement plan, so that you have to opt for additional coverage for truly free choice is a choice in which you have to pay? Why I do not perceive it as an additional opportunity to merely choose: either better life now between two or longmore options within a pre-term security? And if given set of coordinates, but I choose to change this predicament causes you anxiety, the postmodern or “second modernity” ideologist will immediately accuse you set of being unable to assume full freedom, coordinates itself. The catch of indulging in the “escape “transition” from freedom,” of the immature sticking Really Existing Socialism to [[capitalism]] was that people never had the chance to old stable forms. Even betterchoose the <i>ad quem</i> of this transition—all of a sudden, when this they were (almost literally) “thrown” into a new situation is inscribed into the ideology of the subject as the psychological individual pregnant in which they were presented with natural abilities and tendencies, one automatically interprets all these changes as the results a new set of their personalitygiven choices (pure [[liberalism]], not as the result of being thrown around by market forcesnationalist conservatism).<br><br>

Phenomena like these make it all the more necessary today to <i>reassert</i> the opposition of This is what Lenin’s obsessive tirades against “formal” and “actual” freedom in a neware [[about]], more preciseand therein resides their “[[rational]] kernel” worth saving today: when he underlines that there is no “pure” [[democracy]], sense. Let us take the situation that we should always ask whom does a freedom under consideration serve and where is its [[role]] in the Eastern European countries around 1990class [[struggle]], when his point is precisely to maintain the Really Existing Socialism was falling apart: all possibility of a sudden, people were thrown into a situation of “freedom of political choice”—however, were they the <i>reallytrue</i> at any point asked the fundamental question of radical choice. This is what kind of new order they actually wanted? People were first told that they are entering the promised land of political [[distinction]] between “formal” and “actual” freedom; then, soon afterwards, they were informed that this ultimately amounts to: “formal” freedom involves wild privatization, is the dismantling freedom of choice within the social security, etc.etc. They still have the freedom to choose, so if they want, they can step out; but, no, our heroic Eastern Europeans didn’t want to disappoint their Western tutors, they stoically persisted in coordinates of the choice they never madeexisting power relations, convincing themselves that they should behave as mature subjects who are aware that freedom has its price. And here one should risk to reintroduce the Leninist opposition of “formal” and while “actual” freedom: designates the moment site of truth in an [[intervention]] which undermines these very coordinates. In short, Lenin’s acerbic retort to his Menshevik critics is that the truly free choice point is a choice in which I do not merely choose between two or more options within a pre-given set to [[limit]] freedom of coordinateschoice, but I choose to change this set of coordinates itself. The catch of maintain the “transition” from fundamental Choice—when Lenin asks about the Really Existing Socialism to capitalism was that people never had role of a freedom within the chance [[class struggle]], what he is asking is precisely: “Does this freedom contribute to choose or constrain the <i>ad quem</i> of this transition—all of a sudden, they were (almost literally) “thrown” into a new situation in which they were presented with a new set of given choices (pure liberalism, nationalist conservatism).fundamental revolutionary Choice?”<br><br>

This The most popular TV show of [[recent]] years in [[France]], with a viewer rating two [[times]] higher than that of the [[notorious]] “Big Brother” [[reality]] soaps, was “C’est mon choix” (“It is my choice”), a talk-show whose guest is what Lenin’s obsessive tirades against “formal” freedom are abouteach time an ordinary (or, exceptionally, and therein resides their “rational kernel” worth saving todaywell-known) person who made a peculiar choice which determined his or her entire life-style: when he underlines that there is no “pure” democracyone of [[them]] decided never to wear underwear, that we should always ask whom does [[another]] tries all the time to find a freedom under consideration serve more appropriate [[sexual]] partner for his [[father]] and where [[mother]]. Extravagance is its role in allowed, solicited even, but <i>with the [[explicit]] [[exclusion]] of the choices which may disturb the class strugglepublic</i> (say, his point a person whose choice is precisely to maintain be and act as a racist, is a <i>priori</i> excluded). Can one imagine a better predicament of what the possibility “freedom of choice” effectively amounts to in our liberal societies? We can go on making our small choices, “reinventing ourselves” thoroughly, on the condition that these choices do not seriously disturb the social and ideological [[balance]]. With [[regard]] to the “C’est mon [[choix]],” the truly radical [[thing]] would have been to focus precisely on the “disturbing” choices: to invite as guests people like dedicated racists, i.e. people whose choice (whose [[difference]]) <i>truedoes</i> radical choicemake a difference. This , also, is what the distinction between “formal” [[reason]] why, today, “democracy” is more and “actual” freedom ultimately amounts more a [[false]] issue, a notion so discredited by its predominant use that, perhaps, one should take the risk of abandoning it to: “formal” freedom is the freedom of choice within enemy. Where, how, by whom are the coordinates of key decisions concerning [[global]] social issues made? Are they made in the existing power relationspublic [[space]], while “actual” freedom designates through the site engaged [[participation]] of an intervention which undermines these very coordinates. In shortthe majority? If the answer is yes, Lenin’s point it is not to limit freedom of choice, but to maintain secondary importance if the fundamental Choice—when Lenin asks about the role of state has a freedom within one-party [[system]]. If the class struggleanswer is no, what he it is asking is precisely: “Does this of secondary importance if we have parliamentary democracy and freedom contribute to or constrain the fundamental revolutionary Choice?”of individual choices.<br><br>

The most popular TV show Apropos of the disintegration of recent years in FranceState Socialism two decades ago, with a viewer rating two times higher than one should not forget that of , at approximately the notorious “Big Brother” reality soapssame time, the Western Social Democratic welfare state ideology was “C’est mon choix” (“It is my choice”)also dealt a crucial blow, that it also ceased to function as the [[imaginary]] [[goal]] able to arouse a talk-show whose guest collective passionate following. The notion that “the time of the welfare state has past” is each time an ordinary (or, exceptionally, well-known) person who made today a peculiar choice which determined his or her entire life-style: one piece of them decided never commonly accepted wisdom. What these two defeated [[ideologies]] shared is the notion that humanity as a collective subject has the capacity to wear underwearsomehow limit impersonal and anonymous socio-historic [[development]], another tries all the time to find steer it in a more appropriate sexual partner for his father and motherdesired direction. Extravagance Today, such a notion is allowed, solicited even, but <i>with quickly dismissed as “ideological” and/or “totalitarian”: the explicit exclusion social [[process]] is again perceived as dominated by an anonymous Fate beyond social [[control]]. The rise of the choices which may disturb the public</i> (say, a person whose choice global capitalism is presented to be and act us as such a racistFate, against which one cannot fight—one either adapts oneself to it or one falls out of step with [[history]] and is a <i>priori</i> excluded)crushed. Can The only thing one imagine can do is to make global capitalism as [[human]] as possible, to fight for “global capitalism with a better predicament of human face” (this is what the “freedom of choice” effectively amounts to in our liberal societies? We can go on making our small choices, “reinventing ourselves” thoroughlyultimately, on the condition that these choices do not seriously disturb the social and ideological balance. With regard to the “C’est mon choix[[Third Way]] is—or,” the truly radical thing would have been to focus precisely on the “disturbing” choices: to invite as guests people like dedicated racistsrather, i.e. people whose choice (whose difference) <i>doeswas</i> make a difference. This, also, is the reason why, today, “democracy” is more and more a false issue, a notion so discredited by its predominant use that, perhaps, one should take the risk of abandoning it to the enemy. Where, how, by whom are the key decisions concerning global social issues made? Are they made in the public space, through the engaged participation of the majority? If the answer is yes, it is of secondary importance if the state has a one-party system. If the answer is no, it is of secondary importance if we have parliamentary democracy and freedom of individual choices—about).<br><br>

Apropos Our basic political choice in the United States—Democrat or Republican—cannot but remind us of our predicament when we want artificial sweetener in an American cafeteria: the disintegration all-present alternative of State Socialism two decades agoEqual and Sweet&amp;Lo, one should not forget thatof blue and red small bags, at approximately where almost each person has his/her preferences (avoid the same timered ones, they contain cancerous substances, the Western Social Democratic welfare state ideology was also dealt a crucial blowor vice-versa), that it also ceased and this ridiculous sticking to function as one’s choice merely accentuates the utter meaninglessness of the alternative. And does the same not go for the imaginary goal able to arouse soda drinks: Coke or Pepsi? It is a collective passionate following. The notion well-known fact that “the time of the welfare state has past” “Close the door” button in most elevators is today a piece of commonly accepted wisdom. What these two defeated ideologies shared is totally disfunctional placebo, placed there just to give the individuals the notion impression that humanity as a collective subject has they are somehow participating, contributing to the speed of the capacity to somehow limit impersonal and anonymous socioelevator journey -historic developmentwhen we push this button, to steer it the door closes in a desired direction. Today, such a notion is quickly dismissed exactly the same time as “ideological” and/or “totalitarian”: when we just pressed the floor button without “speeding up” the social process is again perceived as dominated by an anonymous Fate beyond social controlpressing also the “Close the door” button. The rise This extreme case of global capitalism fake participation is presented to us as such a Fate, against which one cannot fight—one either adapts oneself to it or one falls out an appropriate [[metaphor]] of step with history and is crushed. The only thing one can do is to make global capitalism as human as possible, to fight for “global capitalism with a human face” (this is what, ultimately, the Third Way is—or, rather, <i>was</i>—about)participation of individuals in our “postmodern” political process.<br><br>

Our basic political choice in the United States—Democrat or Republican—cannot but remind us of our predicament when This is why we want artificial sweetener in tend to avoid Lenin today: not because he was an American cafeteria: the all-present alternative “enemy of Equal and Sweet&amp;Lofreedom, ” but because he reminds us of blue and red small bags, where almost each person has his/her preferences (avoid the red ones, they contain cancerous substances, or vice-versa), and this ridiculous sticking to one’s choice merely accentuates the utter meaninglessness fatal limitation of the alternative. And does the same our freedoms; not go for the soda drinks: Coke or Pepsi? It is a well-known fact that the “Close the door” button in most elevators is a totally disfunctional placebobecause he offers us no choice, placed there just to give the individuals the impression but because he reminds us that they are somehow participating, contributing to the speed our “[[society]] of the elevator journey - when we push this button, the door closes in exactly the same time as when we just pressed the floor button without “speeding up” the process by pressing also the “Close the door” button. This extreme case of fake participation is an appropriate metaphor of the participation of individuals in our “postmodern” political processchoices” precludes any true choice.<br><br>

==Source==* [[What Is To Be Done (With Lenin)?]] ''[[In These Times]]''. January 21, 2004. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/135/>