Changes

TodayThere are two features which distinguish his [[intervention]]. First, even one cannot emphasize enough the self-proclaimed post-Marxist radicals endorse the gap between ethics and politics, relegating politics fact of Lenin's [[externality]] with [[regard]] to the domain Marx: he was not a member of doxa, of pragmatic considerations and compromises which always and by definition fall short Marx's "inner circle" of the unconditional ethical demand. The notion of a politics which would not have been initiated, he never met either Marx or Engels; moreover, he came from a series of mere pragmatic interventions, but land at the politics Eastern borders of Truth, is dismissed as "totalitarianEuropean [[civilization]]." The breaking out (This externality is part of the standard Western racist argument against Lenin: he introduced into [[Marxism]] the Russian-Asiatic "despotic [[principle]]"; in one remove further, Russians themselves disown him, pointing towards his Tatar origins.) It is only possible to retrieve the [[theory]]'s original impulse from this deadlock[[external]] [[position]], in exactly the reassertion of a politics of Truth todaysame way St [[Paul]], should take who formulated the form basic tenets of a return to Lenin. Why Lenin[[Christianity]], why was not simply Marx? Is the proper return not the return to origins proper? Todaypart of [[Christ]]'s inner circle, and [[Lacan]] accomplished his "returning return to Marx[[Freud]]" is already using as a leverage a minor academic fashiontotally distinct [[theoretical]] [[tradition]]. Which Marx do we get (Freud was aware of this [[necessity]], which is why he put his trust in these returns? On the one hand[[Jung]] as a non-Jew, the Cultural Studies Marx, the Marx an outsider - to break out of the postmodern sophists[[Jewish]] initiatic [[community]]. His [[choice]] was bad, of the Messianic promisebecause Jungian theory functioned in itself as initiatic Wisdom; on the other handit was Lacan who succeeded where Jung failed.) So, in the Marx who foretold same way [[St Paul]] and Lacan reinscribe the dynamic of todayoriginal teaching into a different context (St Paul reinterprets Christ's globalization and is crucifixion as such evoked even on Wall Street. What these both Marxes have in common is the denial of politics properhis triumph; Lacan reads Freud through the reference to [[mirror]]-[[stage]] [[Saussure]]), Lenin enables us to avoid these two pitfallsviolently displaces Marx, tears his theory out of its original context, planting it in [[another]] historical [[moment]], and thus effectively universalizes it.

There are two features which distinguish his Second, it is only through such a violent [[displacement]] that the "original" theory can be put to [[work]], fulfilling its potential of [[political]] intervention. First, one cannot emphasize enough It is significant that the fact of work in which Lenin's externality with regard to Marx: he unique [[voice]] was not a member of Marxfor the first [[time]] clearly heard is What Is To Be Done? - the [[text]] which exhibits Lenin's "inner circle" of unconditional will to intervene into the initiated[[situation]], he never met either Marx or Engels; moreover, he came from a land at not in the Eastern borders pragmatic [[sense]] of "European civilization." (This externality is part of adjusting the standard Western racist argument against Lenin: he introduced into Marxism theory to the Russian-Asiatic realistic claims through necessary compromises,"despotic principle"; but, on the contrary, in one remove furtherthe sense of dispelling all opportunistic compromises, Russians themselves disown him, pointing towards his Tatar origins.) It of adopting the unequivocal radical position from which it is only possible to retrieve the theory's original impulse from this external position, intervene in exactly the same such a way St Paul, who formulated that our intervention changes the basic tenets coordinates of Christianity, was not part of Christthe situation. The contrast is here clear with regard to today's inner circle[[Third]] Way "postpolitics, and Lacan accomplished his "return which emphasizes the [[need]] to Freud" using as a leverage a totally distinct theoretical tradition. (Freud was aware of this necessity, which is why he put his trust in Jung as a non-Jew, an outsider - leave behind old [[ideological]] divisions and to break out of the Jewish initiatic community. His choice was badconfront new issues, because Jungian theory functioned in itself as initiatic Wisdom; it was Lacan who succeeded where Jung failed.) So, in armed with the same way St Paul necessary expert [[knowledge]] and Lacan reinscribe the original teaching free deliberation that takes into a different context (St Paul reinterprets Christaccount [[concrete]] [[people]]'s crucifixion as his triumph; Lacan reads Freud through the mirror-stage Saussure), Lenin violently displaces Marx, tears his theory out of its original context, planting it in another historical moment, [[needs]] and thus effectively universalizes it[[demands]].

SecondAs such, it Lenin's politics is the [[true]] counterpoint not only through such to the [[Third Way]] pragmatic opportunism, but also to the marginalist [[Leftist]] attitude of what Lacan called le [[narcissisme]] de la [[chose]] perdue. What a true Leninist and a violent displacement political [[conservative]] have in common is the fact that the they reject what one could call [[liberal]] Leftist "originalirresponsibility" theory can be put to work(advocating grand projects of [[solidarity]], [[freedom]], fulfilling its potential of political interventionetc. It is significant that , yet ducking out when one has to pay the work price for it in which Lenin's unique voice was for the first time clearly heard guise of concrete and often "cruel" political measures): like an authentic conservative, a true Leninist is What Is To Be Done? - now afraid to [[pass]] to [[The Act|the text which exhibits Lenin's unconditional will act]], to intervene into assume all the situationconsequences, unpleasant as they may be, not in the pragmatic sense of "adjusting realizing his political [[project]]. Rudyard Kipling (whom [[Brecht]] admired) despised British [[liberals]] who advocated freedom and justice, while silently counting on the theory Conservatives to do the realistic claims through necessary compromises,dirty work for [[them]]; the same can be said for the liberal Leftist's (or "democratic Socialist's" but, on ) [[relationship]] towards Leninist Communists: liberal Leftists reject the contrary[[Social]] Democratic "compromise, in the sense of dispelling all opportunistic compromises" they [[want]] a true [[revolution]], of adopting yet they shirk the unequivocal radical position from which actual price to be paid for it is only possible and thus prefer to intervene in such a way that our intervention changes adopt the coordinates attitude of the situationa [[Beautiful Soul]] and to keep their hands clean. The In contrast is here clear with regard to todaythis [[false]] radical Leftist's Third Way "postpoliticsposition (who want true [[democracy]] for the people," which emphasizes but without the need [[secret]] police to leave behind old ideological divisions and to confront new issuesfight counterrevolution, without their academic privileges [[being]] threatened), a Leninist, like a Conservative, armed with is authentic in the necessary expert knowledge sense of fully assuming the consequences of his choice, i.e. of being fully aware of what it actually means to take [[power]] and free deliberation that takes into account concrete people's needs and demandsto exert it.

As such, The return to Lenin's politics is the true counterpoint endeavor to retrieve the unique moment when a [[thought]] already transposes itself into a collective organization, but does not only to yet fix itself into an Institution (the established [[Church]], the IPA, the Stalinist Party-[[State]]). It aims neither at nostalgically reenacting the "[[good]] old revolutionary [[times]]," nor at the Third Way opportunistic-pragmatic opportunismadjustment of the old program to "new [[conditions]], " but also to at [[repeating]], in the [[present]] [[world]]-wide conditions, the Leninist gesture of initiating a political project that would undermine the [[totality]] of the [[global]] liberal-[[capitalist]] world [[order]], and, furthermore, a project that would unabashedly assert itself as acting on behalf of truth, as intervening in the present global situation from the marginalist Leftist attitude standpoint of what Lacan called le narcissisme de la chose perdueits [[repressed]] truth. What a true Leninist Christianity did with regard to the Roman [[Empire]], this global "multiculturalist" polity, we should do with regard to today's Empire.<ref>See [[Michael Hardt]] and [[Antonio Negri]], Empire, Cambridge: Harvard [[University]] Press 2000.</ref> How, then, do things stand with freedom? In a political conservative have polemic against the Menshevik's critics of the Bolshevik power in common is 1920, Lenin answered the fact that they reject what [[claim]] of one could call liberal Leftist of the critics - "So, gentlemen Bolsheviks, since, before the Revolution and your seizure of power, you pleaded for democracy and freedom, be so kind as to permit us now to publish a critique of your measures!"irresponsibility- with the acerbic: " (advocating grand projects of solidarityOf course, gentlemen, you have all the freedomto publish this critique - but, then, etc.gentlemen, yet ducking out when one has be so kind as to allow us to pay line you up the price wall and shoot you!" This Leninist freedom of choice - not "[[Life]] or [[money]]!" but "Life or critique!" -, combined with Lenin's dismissive attitude towards the "liberal" notion of freedom, accounts for it in his bad reputation among liberals. Their [[case]] largely rests upon their [[rejection]] of the guise standard Marxist-Leninist opposition of concrete "[[formal]]" and often "cruelactual" political measures)freedom: as even Leftist liberals like an authentic conservativeClaude [[Lefort]] emphasize again and again, freedom is in its very notion "formal," so that "actual freedom" equals the [[lack]] of freedom.<ref>See [[Claude Lefort]], Democracy and Political Theory, a true Leninist Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press 1988.</ref> That is now afraid to pass say, with regard to freedom, Lenin is best remembered for his famous retort "Freedom - yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT?" - for him, in the above-quoted case of the actMensheviks, their "freedom" to assume all criticize the Bolshevik [[government]] effectively amounted to "freedom" to undermine the consequences, unpleasant as they may be, [[workers]]' and peasants' government on behalf of realizing his political projectthe counterrevolution... Rudyard Kipling (whom Brecht admired) despised British liberals who advocated freedom and justiceIs today, while silently counting on after the Conservatives to do terrifying [[experience]] of the necessary dirty work for them; Really Existing [[Socialism]], not more than obvious in what the same can be said for fault of this reasoning resides? First, it reduces a historical constellation to a closed, fully contextualized, situation in which the liberal Leftist"[[objective]]" consequences of one's [[acts]] are fully determined (or "democratic Socialist'sindependently of your intentions, what you are doing now objectively serves...") relationship towards Leninist Communists: liberal Leftists reject ; secondly, the position of [[enunciation]] of such statements usurp the Social Democratic [[right]] to decide what yours acts "compromiseobjectively mean," they want so that their [[apparent]] "objectivism" (the focus on "objective [[meaning]]") is the form of [[appearance]] of its opposite, the thorough subjectivism: I decide what your acts objectively mean, since I define the context of a true revolutionsituation (say, yet they shirk if I conceive of my power as the immediate equivalent/expression of the power of the [[working]] [[class]], than everyone who opposes me is "objectively" an [[enemy]] of the [[working class]]). Against this [[full]] contextualization, one should emphasize that freedom is "actual price to be paid for it " precisely and thus prefer only as the capacity to adopt "transcend" the attitude coordinates of a Beautiful Soul and given situation, to keep their hands clean. In contrast to this false radical Leftist"posit the presuppositions" of one's position [[activity]] (who want true democracy for the peopleas [[Hegel]] would have put it), but without i.e. to redefine the secret police to fight counterrevolutionvery situation within which one is [[active]]. Furthermore, without their academic privileges being threatened)as many a critic pointed out, a Leninistthe very term "Really Existing Socialism, like a Conservative" although it was coined in order to assert Socialism's success, is authentic in the sense itself a proof of fully assuming the consequences of his choiceSocialism's utter failure, i.e. of being fully aware the failure of what it actually means the attempt to take power and to exert legitimize Socialist regimes - the term "Really Existing Socialism" popped up at the historical moment when the only legitimizing [[reason]] for Socialism was a mere fact that it[[exists]]...

The return to Lenin is Is this, however, the endeavor to retrieve the unique moment when a thought already transposes itself into a collective organization, but [[whole]] story? How does not yet fix itself into an Institution (freedom effectively function in liberal democracies themselves? Although [[Clinton]]'s presidency epitomizes the established Church, Third Way of the IPA, the Stalinist Partytoday's (ex-State). It aims neither at nostalgically reenacting [[Left]] succumbing to the "good old revolutionary timesRightist ideological [[blackmail]]," nor at the opportunistic-pragmatic adjustment of the old his healthcare reform program would nonetheless amount to "new conditionsa kind of act," but at repeating, least in the present world-wide today's conditions, since it would have been based on the Leninist gesture rejection of initiating a political project that would undermine the totality hegemonic notions of the global liberalneed to curtail Big State expenditure and administration -capitalist world orderin a way, and, furthermore, a project that it would unabashedly assert itself as acting on behalf of truth, as intervening in "do the present global situation from the standpoint of its repressed truth[[impossible]]. What Christianity did with regard to the Roman Empire, this global "multiculturalist" polityNo wonder, we should do with regard to today's Empire.1 Howthan, then, do things stand with freedom? In a polemic against the Menshevik's critics of the Bolshevik power in 1920, Lenin answered the claim of one of the critics that it failed: its failure - "So, gentlemen Bolsheviks, since, before perhaps the Revolution and your seizure of poweronly significant, you pleaded for democracy and freedomalthough [[negative]], be so kind as to permit us now to publish a critique [[event]] of your measures!" Clinton's presidency - with the acerbic: "Of course, gentlemen, you have all the freedom to publish this critique - but, then, gentlemen, be so kind as bears [[witness]] to allow us to line you up the wall and shoot you!" This Leninist freedom [[material]] force of choice - not "Life or money!" but "Life or critique!" -, combined with Lenin's dismissive attitude towards the "liberal" ideological notion of freedom, accounts for his bad reputation among liberals"free choice. Their case largely rests upon their rejection of the standard Marxist-Leninist opposition of "formal" and "actual" freedom: as even Leftist liberals like Claude Lefort emphasize again and again, freedom is in its very notion "formal," so that "actual freedom" equals the lack of freedom. 2 That is to say, with regard to freedom, Lenin is best remembered for his famous retort "Freedom - yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT?" - for him, in although the above-quoted case large majority of the Mensheviks, their "freedom" to criticize the Bolshevik government effectively amounted to so-called "freedomordinary people" to undermine the workers' and peasants' government on behalf of the counterrevolution... Is today, after the terrifying experience of the Really Existing Socialism, were not more than obvious in what properly acquainted with the fault of this reasoning resides? Firstreform program, it reduces a historical constellation to a closed, fully contextualized, situation in which the "objective" consequences of one's acts are fully determined medical lobby ("independently of your intentions, what you are doing now objectively serves..."twice as strong as the infamous [[defense]] lobby!); secondly, succeeded in imposing on the position of enunciation of such statements usurp [[public]] the right to decide what yours acts "objectively mean," so fundamental [[idea]] that their apparent "objectivism" (the focus on "objective meaning") is the form of appearance of its opposite, with the thorough subjectivism: I decide what your acts objectively mean[[universal]] healthcare, since I define the context of a situation free choice (say, if I conceive of my power as the immediate equivalent/expression of the power of the working class, than everyone who opposes me is "objectively" an enemy of the working classin matters concerning [[medicine]]). Against will be somehow threatened - against this full contextualization, one should emphasize that freedom is "actual" precisely and only as the capacity purely fictional reference to "transcendfree choice" the coordinates , all enumeration of a given situation, to "posit the presuppositionshard facts" of one's activity (as Hegel would have put it)in Canada, i.e. to redefine the very situation within which one healthcare is active. Furthermoreless expensive and more effective, as many a critic pointed outwith no less free choice, the very term "Really Existing Socialism," although it was coined in order to assert Socialism's success, is in itself a proof of Socialism's utter failure, i.e. of the failure of the attempt to legitimize Socialist regimes - the term "Really Existing Socialism" popped up at the historical moment when the only legitimizing reason for Socialism was a mere fact that it exists.etc.) proved ineffective.

Is this, however, We are here at the very nerve center of the liberal [[ideology]]: the whole story? How does freedom effectively function of choice, grounded in liberal democracies themselves? Although Clinton's presidency epitomizes the Third Way notion of the today'"[[psychological]]" [[subject]] endowed which propensities s (ex-)Left succumbing /he strives to realize. And this especially holds today, in the Rightist ideological blackmailera of what sociologists like Ulrich Beck call "risk [[society]], his healthcare reform program would nonetheless amount "<ref>See Ulrich Beck, [[Risk Society]]: Towards a New [[Modernity]], [[London]]: Sage 1992.</ref> when the ruling ideology endeavors to a kind sell us the very insecurity caused by the [[dismantling]] of actthe [[Welfare]] State as the opportunity for new freedoms: you have to [[change]] job every year, at least in today's conditions, since relying on short-term contracts instead of a 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 would "do to become aware of and realize hidden potentials of your [[personality]]? You can no longer rely on the impossible." No wonder, thanstandard health insurance and retirement plan, so that you have to opt for additional coverage for which you have to pay? Why not perceive it failedas an additional opportunity to choose: its failure either better life now or long- perhaps term security? And if this predicament causes you [[anxiety]], the only significant, although negative, event postmodern or "second modernity" ideologist will immediately accuse you of Clinton's presidency - bears witness being unable to the material force assume full freedom, of the ideological notion of "free choice.escape from freedom," That is of the immature sticking to sayold stable forms... Even better, although when this is inscribed into the large majority ideology of [[The Subject|the subject]] as the so-called "ordinary people" were not properly acquainted psychological [[individual]] pregnant with the reform program[[natural]] abilities and tendencies, the medical lobby (twice then I as strong if were automatically [[interpret]] all these changes as the infamous defense lobby!) succeeded in imposing on the public the fundamental idea thatresults of my personality, with not as the universal healthcare, result of me being thrown around by the free choice (in matters concerning medicine) will be somehow threatened - against this purely fictional reference to "free choice", all enumeration of "hard facts" (in Canada, healthcare is less expensive and more effective, with no less free choice, etc.) proved ineffective[[market]] forces.

We are here at Phenomena like these make it all the more necessary today to REASSERT the very nerve center opposition of the liberal ideology: the "formal" and "actual" freedom of choicein a new, more precise, sense. What we need today, grounded in the notion era of the liberal [[hegemony]], is a "psychologicalLeninist" subject endowed which propensities traite de la servitude liberale, a new version of la Boetie's/he strives to realizeTraite de la servitude volontaire that would fully justify the apparent oxymoron "liberal [[totalitarianism]]. And " In experimental [[psychology]], Jean-Leon Beauvois did the first step in this especially holds todaydirection, in with his precise exploration of the era paradoxes of what sociologists like Ulrich Beck call "risk society," 3 when conferring on the subject the ruling ideology endeavors freedom to sell us choose.<ref>See Jean-Leon Beauvois, Traite de la servitude liberale. [[Analyse]] de la soumission, [[Paris]]: Dunod 1994.</ref> Repeated experiments established the very insecurity caused by following [[paradox]]: if, AFTER getting from two groups of volunteers the dismantling of agreement to participate in an experiment, one informs them that the Welfare State as experiment will involve something unpleasant, against their ethics even, and if, at this point, one reminds the opportunity for new freedoms: you first group that they have the free choice to change job every yearsay no, and one says to the other group [[nothing]], in BOTH groups, relying on short-term contracts instead the SAME (very high) percentage will agree to continue their [[participation]] in the experiment. What this means is that conferring the formal freedom of a long-term stable appointment? Why choice does not see make any [[difference]]: those given the freedom will do the same [[thing]] as those (implicitly) denied it as . This, however, does not mean that the liberation from reminder/bestowal of the constraints freedom of a fixed job, as choice does not make any difference: those given the chance freedom to reinvent yourself again and again, choice will not only tend to become aware of and realize hidden potentials of your personality? You can no longer rely choose the same as those denied it; on the standard health insurance and retirement plantop of it, they will tend to "rationalize" their "free" decision to continue to participate in the experiment - unable to endure the so -called cognitive dissonance (their [[awareness]] that you have they FREELY acted against their interests, propensities, tastes or norms), they will tend to change their opinion [[about]] the act they were asked to opt for additional coverage for which you have accomplish. Let us say that an individual is first asked to pay? Why not perceive it as participate in an additional opportunity experiment that concerns changing the eating habits in order to fight against famine; then, after agreeing to choose: either better life now or long-term security? And if this predicament causes you anxietydo it, at the postmodern or "second modernity" ideologist first [[encounter]] in the laboratory, he will immediately accuse you of being unable be asked to assume full freedomswallow a [[living]] worm, of with the "escape from freedom[[explicit]] reminder that, if he finds this act repulsive, he can," of course, say no, since he has the immature sticking full freedom to old stable formschoose... Even betterIn most cases, he will do it, when this is inscribed into the ideology and then rationalize it by way of the subject saying to himself something like: "What I am asked to do IS disgusting, but I am not a coward, I should display some courage and self-[[control]], otherwise scientists will perceive me as a weak person who pulls out at the psychological individual pregnant with natural abilities first minor obstacle! Furthermore, a worm does have a lot of proteins and tendencies, then it could effectively be used to feed the poor - who am I as if were automatically interpret all these changes as the results to hinder such an important experiment because of my personalitypetty sensitivity? And, finally, maybe my disgust of worms is just a prejudice, maybe a worm is not as the result so bad - and would tasting it not be a new and daring experience? What if it will enable me to discover an unexpected, slightly [[perverse]], [[dimension]] of myself that I was hitherto unaware of me being thrown around by the market forces.?"

Phenomena like these make it all the more necessary today Beauvois enumerates [[three]] modes of what brings people to REASSERT accomplish such an act which runs against their perceived propensities and/or interests: authoritarian (the opposition of pure command "formal" and "actualYou should do it because I say so, without questioning it!" freedom in a new, more precise, sense. What we need today, in sustained by the reward if the era of subject does it and the liberal hegemony[[punishment]] if he does not do it), totalitarian (the reference to some higher [[Cause]] or common Good which is a "Leninist" traite de la servitude liberale, a new version of la Boetielarger than the subject's Traite de la servitude volontaire that would fully justify the apparent oxymoron perceived interest: "liberal totalitarianism.You should do it because, even if it is unpleasant, it serves our [[Nation]], Party, Humanity!" In experimental psychology), Jean-Leon Beauvois did and liberal (the first step in this direction, with his precise exploration of the paradoxes of conferring on reference to the subject the freedom to choose. 4 Repeated experiments established the following paradox's inner [[nature]] itself: if"What is asked of [[You May|you may]] appear repulsive, AFTER getting from two groups of volunteers the agreement but look deep into yourself and you will discover that it's in your true nature to participate in an experimentdo it, one informs them that the experiment you will involve something unpleasantfind it attractive, against their ethics evenyou will become aware of new, and ifunexpected, at dimensions of your personality!"). At this point, one reminds Beauvois should be corrected: a direct [[authoritarianism]] is practically inexistent - even the first group that they have most oppressive [[regime]] publicly legitimizes its reign with the free choice reference to say nosome Higher Good, and one says to the other group nothingfact that, in BOTH groupsultimately, the SAME (very high) percentage will agree "you have to continue their participation in obey because I say so" reverberates only as its [[obscene]] [[supplement]] discernible between the experimentlines. What this means It is that conferring rather the formal freedom specificity of choice does not make any difference: those given the freedom will do standard authoritarianism to refer to some higher Good ("whatever your inclinations are, you have to follow my order for the sake of the same thing as those (implicitlyhigher Good!") denied it. This, howeverwhile totalitarianism, like [[liberalism]], does not mean that interpellates the reminder/bestowal subject on behalf of the freedom of choice does not make any difference: those given the freedom to choice will not only tend HIS OWN good ("what may appear to choose the same you as those denied it; on an external pressure, is really the top expression of your objective interests, of what you REALLY WANT without being aware of it, they will tend to !"rationalize). The difference between the two resides elsewhere: " their totalitarianism"free" decision to continue to participate in imposes on the experiment subject his/her own good, even if it is against his/her will - unable [[recall]] King Charles' (in)famous [[statement]]: "If any shall be so foolishly unnatural as to endure the so-called cognitive dissonance (oppose their king, their awareness that they FREELY acted against country and their interestsown good, propensitieswe will make them happy, tastes or norms), they will tend to change by God's blessing - even against their opinion about the act they were asked to accomplishwills. Let us say that an individual is first asked "(Charles I to participate in an experiment that concerns changing the eating habits in order to fight against famine; thenEarl of Essex, after agreeing to do it, at the first 6 August 1644) Here we already encounter in have the laboratory, he will be asked to swallow later Jacobin theme of [[happiness]] as a living wormpolitical factor, with as well as the explicit reminder that, if he finds this act repulsive, he can, Saint-Justian idea of course, say no, since he has the full freedom forcing people to choosebe happy.. In most cases. Liberalism tries to avoid (or, he will do itrather, and then rationalize it cover up) this paradox by way of saying clinging to himself something like: "What I am asked the end to do IS disgusting, but I am not a coward, I should display some courage and self-control, otherwise scientists will perceive me as a weak person who pulls out at the first minor obstacle! Furthermore, a worm does have a lot [[fiction]] of proteins and it could effectively be used to feed the poor subject's immediate free self- who am [[perception]] ("I don't claim to hinder such an important experiment because of my petty sensitivity? And, finally, maybe my disgust of worms is [[know]] better than you what you want - just a prejudice, maybe a worm is not so bad - look deep into yourself and would tasting it not be a new and daring experience? What if it will enable me to discover an unexpected, slightly perverse, dimension of myself that I was hitherto unaware of?decide freely what you want!").

The reason for this fault in Beauvois enumerates three modes 's line of what brings people argumentation is that he fails to accomplish such an act which runs against their perceived propensities and/or interests: authoritarian recognize how the abyssal tautological [[authority]] (the pure command "You should do it It is so because I say so, without questioning it!", sustained by of the reward if the subject [[Master]]) does it and not work only because of the sanctions (punishment if he does not do /reward) it), totalitarian (the reference to some higher Cause implicitly or common Good which explicitly evokes. That is larger than the subject's perceived interest: "You should do it becauseto say, even if it is unpleasantwhat, it serves our Nationeffectively, Partymakes a subject freely choose what is imposed on him against his interests and/or propensities? Here, Humanity!the empirical inquiry into "pathological"), and liberal (in the reference to Kantian sense of the subject's inner nature itselfterm) motivations is not sufficient: "What is asked the enunciation of an [[injunction]] that imposes on its addressee a [[symbolic]] engagement/commitment evinces an inherent force of you may appear repulsiveits own, but look deep so that what seduces us into yourself and you will discover obeying it is the very feature that it's in your true nature may appear to do it, you will find it attractive, you will become aware be an obstacle - the [[absence]] of new, unexpected, dimensions of your personality!a ")why. At this point" Here, Beauvois should Lacan can be correctedof some [[help]]: a direct authoritarianism is practically inexistent the [[Lacanian]] "Master- even [[Signifier]]" designates precisely this hypnotic force of [[the most oppressive regime publicly legitimizes symbolic]] injunction which relies only on its reign with the reference to some Higher Good, and the fact own act of enunciation - it is here that, ultimately, we encounter "you have to obey because I say sosymbolic efficiency" reverberates only as at its obscene supplement discernible between the linespurest. It is rather The three ways of legitimizing the specificity exercise of the standard authoritarianism to refer to some higher Good authority ("whatever your inclinations areauthoritarian, you have to follow my order for the sake of the higher Good!"), while totalitarianism, like liberalism, interpellates the subject on behalf of HIS OWN good ("what may appear to you as an external pressuretotalitarian, is really the expression of your objective interests, of what you REALLY WANT without being aware of it!"). The difference between the two resides elsewhere: "totalitarianismliberal" imposes on ) are nothing but the subject his/her own good, even if it is against his/her will - recall King Charles' (in)famous statement: "If any shall be so foolishly unnatural as three ways to oppose their king, their country and their own good, we will make them happycover up, by God's blessing - even against their wills."(Charles I to blind us for the Earl [[seductive]] power of Essex, 6 August 1644) Here we already encounter have the later Jacobin theme abyss of happiness as this empty call. In a political factorway, as well as liberalism is here even the Saint-Justian idea worst of forcing people to be happy... Liberalism tries to avoid (orthe three, rather, cover up) this paradox by way of clinging to since it NATURALIZES the end to the fiction of reasons for obedience into the subject's immediate [[internal]] psychological [[structure]]. So the paradox is that "liberal" [[subjects]] are in a way those least free self-: they change the very opinion/perception (of themselves, accepting what was IMPOSED on them as originating in their "nature"I don't claim to know better than you what you want - just look deep into yourself and decide freely what you want!")they are even no longer AWARE of their subordination.

The reason for this fault Let us take the situation in Beauvois's line the Eastern European countries around 1990, when the Really Existing Socialism was falling apart: all of a sudden, people were thrown into a situation of argumentation is that he fails to recognize how the abyssal tautological authority ("It is so because I say so!freedom of political choice" - however, were they REALLY at any point asked the fundamental question of what kind of knew order they actually wanted? Is it not that they found themselves in the exact situation of the subject-[[victim]] of a Beauvois experiment? They were first told that they are entering the Master) does not work only because promised land of political freedom; then, soon afterwards, they were informed that this freedom involves wild privatization, the dismantling of the sanctions (punishment/reward) it implicitly or explicitly evokes[[social security]], etc.etc. That is - they still have the freedom to saychoose, so if they want, whatthey can step out; but, effectivelyno, makes a subject freely choose what is imposed on him against his interests and/or propensities? Hereour heroic Eastern Europeans didn't want to disappoint their Western tutors, the empirical inquiry into "pathological" (they stoically persisted in the Kantian sense of the term) motivations choice they never made, convincing themselves that they should behave as mature subjects who are aware that freedom has its price... This is not sufficient: why the enunciation notion of an injunction that imposes on the psychological subject endowed with natural propensities, who has to realize its addressee a symbolic engagement/commitment evinces an inherent force of true Self and its ownpotentials, and who is, consequently, ultimately [[responsible]] for his failure or success, so that what seduces us into obeying it is the very feature that may appear key ingredient of the liberal freedom. And here one should risk to be an obstacle - reintroduce the absence Leninist opposition of a "why.formal" Here, Lacan can be of some help: the Lacanian and "Master-Signifieractual" designates freedom: in an act of actual freedom, one dares precisely to BREAK this hypnotic force seductive power of [[The Symbolic|the symbolic injunction ]] efficiency. Therein resides the moment of truth of Lenin's acerbic retort to his Menshevik critics: the truly free choice is a choice in which relies only on its own act I do not merely choose between two or more options WITHIN a pre-given set of coordinates, but I choose to change this set of enunciation - it is here that we encounter "symbolic efficiency" at its purestcoordinates itself. The three ways catch of legitimizing the exercise of authority ("authoritarian,transition" "totalitarian," "liberal") are nothing but from the three ways Really Existing Socialism to cover up, [[capitalism]] was that people never had the chance to blind us for choose the seductive power ad quem of, the abyss this transition - all of this empty call. In a waysudden, they were (almost literally) "thrown" into a new situation in which they were presented with a new set of given choices (pure liberalism is here even the worst of the three, since it NATURALIZES the reasons for obedience into the subject's internal psychological structurenationalist conservatism...). So the paradox What this means is that the "liberalactual freedom" subjects are as the act of consciously changing this set occurs only when, in a way those least free: they change the very opinion/perception situation of themselvesa [[forced]] choice, accepting what was IMPOSED on them as originating in their one ACTS AS IF THE CHOICE IS NOT FORCED and "naturechooses the impossible." - they are even no longer AWARE of their subordination.

Let us take the situation in the Eastern European countries around 1990, when Did something homologous to the Really Existing Socialism was falling apart: all of a sudden, people were thrown into a situation invention of the "freedom of political choice" - however, were they REALLY at any point asked the fundamental question of what kind of knew order they actually wanted? Is it liberal psychological individual not that they found themselves take [[place]] in the exact situation of [[Soviet Union]] in the subjectlate 20s and early 30s? The Russian avant-victim garde art of a Beauvois experiment? They were first told that they are entering the promised land of political freedom; thenearly 20s (futurism, soon afterwards, they were informed that this freedom involves wild privatizationconstructivism) not only zealously endorsed industrialization, it even endeavored to reinvent a new industrial man - no longer the dismantling old man of the social securitysentimental passions and roots in traditions, etc.etc. - they still have but 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 new man who gladly accepts his [[role]] as a bolt or screw in the choice they never madegigantic coordinated industrial [[Machine]]. As such, convincing themselves that they should behave as mature subjects who are aware that freedom has it was subversive in its pricevery "ultra-orthodoxy," i.e.. This is why in its over-[[identification]] with the notion core of the psychological subject endowed with natural propensities[[official]] ideology: the [[image]] of man that we get in Eisenstein, who has to realize its true Self and its potentialsMeyerhold, and who isconstructivist paintings, consequentlyetc., ultimately responsible for emphasizes the beauty of his failure or success/her mechanical movements, is his/her thorough depsychologization. What was perceived in the West as the key ingredient ultimate [[nightmare]] of liberal individualism, as the liberal freedom. And here one should risk ideological counterpoint to reintroduce the Leninist opposition of "formalTaylorization," and "actual" freedom: in an act of actual freedom, one dares precisely to BREAK this seductive power of the symbolic efficiency. Therein resides Fordist ribbon-work, was in [[Russia]] hailed as the moment [[utopian]] prospect of truth of Lenin's acerbic retort liberation: recall how Meyerhold violently asserted the "behaviorist" approach to his Menshevik critics: acting - no longer emphatic familiarization with the person the truly free choice actor is a choice in which I do not merely choose between two or more options WITHIN a pre-given set of coordinatesplaying, but I choose to change this set of coordinates itself. The catch of the "transition" from ruthless [[bodily]] [[training]] aimed at the cold bodily [[discipline]], at the Really Existing Socialism to capitalism was that people never had ability of the chance actor to choose perform the ad quem series of mechanized movements...<ref>See Chapters 2 and 3 of this transition Susan Buck- all of a suddenMorss, Dreamworld and Catastrophe, they were Cambridge (almost literallyMa) : MIT Press 2000.</ref> THIS is what was unbearable to AND IN the official Stalinist ideology, so that the Stalinist "thrownsocialist realism" into effectively WAS an attempt to reassert a new situation in which they were presented "Socialism with a new set of given choices (pure liberalism[[human]] face, nationalist conservatism" i.e..). What this means is that to reinscribe the "actual freedom" as [[process]] of industrialization into the act constraints of consciously changing this set occurs only when, the traditional psychological individual: in the situation of a forced choiceSocialist Realist [[texts]], one ACTS AS IF THE CHOICE IS NOT FORCED paintings and "chooses [[films]], individuals are no longer rendered as parts of the impossibleglobal Machine, but as warm passionate persons."

Did something homologous to The obvious reproach that imposes itself here is, of course: is the invention basic characteristic of the liberal psychological individual today's "postmodern" subject not take place in the Soviet Union in the late 20s and early 30s? The Russian avant-garde art exact opposite of the early 20s (futurismfree subject who experienced himself as ultimately responsible for his fate, constructivism) not only zealously endorsed industrialization, it even endeavored to reinvent namely the subject who grounds the authority of his [[speech]] on his status of a new industrial man - no longer the old man victim of sentimental passions and roots in traditions, but the new man who gladly accepts circumstances beyond his role control. Every contact with another human being is experienced as a bolt or screw in potential [[threat]] - if the gigantic coordinated industrial Machine. As suchother smokes, if he casts a covetous glance at me, it was subversive in its very "ultra-orthodoxyhe already hurts me); this [[logic]] of [[victimization]] is today universalized," i.e. in its over-identification with reaching well beyond the core standard cases of [[sexual]] or racist harassment - recall the official ideology: the image growing financial industry of man that we get in Eisensteinpaying damage claims, Meyerhold, constructivist paintings, etc., emphasizes from the beauty of his/her mechanical movements, his/her thorough depsychologization. What was perceived tobacco industry deal in the West as USA and the ultimate nightmare financial claims of liberal individualism, as the ideological counterpoint to [[holocaust]] victims and forced laborers in the "Taylorization[[Nazi]] [[Germany]]," up to the Fordist ribbon-work, was in Russia hailed as idea that the utopian prospect of liberation: recall how Meyerhold violently asserted USA should pay the "behaviorist" approach to acting African- no longer emphatic familiarization with the person the actor is playing, but the ruthless bodily training aimed at the cold bodily discipline, at the ability Americans hundreds of billions of dollars for all they were deprived of the actor due to perform the series of mechanized movementstheir [[past]] slavery... 5 THIS is what was unbearable to AND IN This notion of the official Stalinist ideology, so that subject as an irresponsible victim involves the Stalinist "socialist realism" effectively WAS an attempt to reassert a "Socialism extreme [[Narcissistic]] perspective from which every encounter with the Other appears as a human facepotential threat to the subject's precarious [[imaginary]] [[balance]]; as such," i.e. to reinscribe it is not the process of industrialization into opposite, but, rather, the constraints inherent supplement of the traditional psychological individualliberal free subject: in today's predominant form of individuality, the Socialist Realist texts, paintings and films, individuals are no longer rendered as parts self-centered assertion of the global Machine, but psychological subject paradoxically overlaps with the perception of oneself as warm passionate personsa victim of circumstances.

The obvious reproach that imposes itself case of Muslims as an ethnic, not merely [[religious]], group in Bosnia is exemplary here is, of course: is during the basic characteristic entire [[history]] of today's "postmodern" subject not [[Yugoslavia]], Bosnia was the exact opposite place of potential tension and dispute, the free subject who experienced himself as ultimately responsible locale in which the [[struggle]] between Serbs and Croats for his fate, namely the subject who grounds dominant role was fought. The problem was that the largest group in Bosnia were neither the Orthodox Serbs nor the authority of his speech on his status [[Catholic]] Croats, but Muslims whose ethnic origins were always disputed - are they Serbs or Croats. (This role of Bosnia even left a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Every contact with another human being trace in idiom: in all ex-Yugoslav nations, the expression "So Bosnia is experienced as a potential quiet!" was used in order to [[signal]] that any threat - if the other smokes, if he casts of a covetous glance at me, he already hurts me[[conflict]] was successfully defused.); In order to forestall this logic focus of victimization is today universalizedpotential (and actual) conflicts, reaching well beyond the standard cases of sexual or racist harassment - recall ruling [[Communist]] imposed in the growing financial industry of paying damage claims60s a miraculously simple invention: they proclaimed Muslims an autochthonous ETHNIC community, not just a religious group, from so that Muslims were able to avoid the tobacco industry deal pressure to [[identify]] themselves either as Serbs or as Croats. What was so in the USA and the financial claims beginning a pragmatic political artifice, gradually caught on, Muslims effectively started to perceive themselves as a nation, systematically manufacturing their tradition, etc. However, even today, there remains an element of a reflected choice in their [[identity]]: during the holocaust victims and forced laborers post-Yugoslav war in the Nazi GermanyBosnia, up one was ultimately forced to CHOOSE his/her [[ethnic identity]] - when a militia stopped a person, asking him/her threateningly "Are you a Serb or a Muslim?", the idea that question did not refer to the USA should pay the African-Americans hundreds of billions of dollars for all they were deprived of due to their past slaveryinherited ethnic belonging, i.e.. This notion there was always in it an echo of "Which side did you choose?" (say, the subject as movie director Emir Kusturica, coming from an irresponsible victim involves ethnically mixed Muslim-Serb [[family]], has chosen the Serb identity). Perhaps, the extreme Narcissistic perspective from which every encounter with properly [[Frustrating|FRUSTRATING]] dimension of this choice is best rendered by the Other appears as situation of having to choose a potential threat product in on-line shopping, where one has to make the subject's precarious imaginary balance; as such, almost endless series of choices: if you want it is not the oppositewith X, butpress A, ratherif not, the inherent supplement of the liberal free subject: press B... The paradox is that what is thoroughly excluded in today's predominant form of individualitythese post-traditional "reflexive societies, " in which we are all the self-centered assertion of the psychological subject paradoxically overlaps time bombarded with the perception of oneself urge to choose, in which even such "natural" features as sexual orientation and ethnic identification are experienced as a victim matter of circumstanceschoice, is the basic, authentic, choice itself.

The case of Muslims as an ethnic, not merely religious, group in Bosnia is exemplary here: during the entire history of Yugoslavia, Bosnia was the place of potential tension and dispute, the locale in which the struggle between Serbs and Croats for the dominant role was fought. The problem was that the largest group in Bosnia were neither the Orthodox Serbs nor the Catholic Croats, but Muslims whose ethnic origins were always disputed - are they Serbs or Croats. (This role of Bosnia even left a trace in idiom: in all ex-Yugoslav nations, the expression "So Bosnia is quiet!" was used in order to signal that any threat of a conflict was successfully defused.) In order to forestall this focus of potential (and actual) conflicts, the ruling Communist imposed in the 60s a miraculously simple invention: they proclaimed Muslims an autochthonous ETHNIC community, not just a religious group, so that Muslims were able to avoid the pressure to identify themselves either as Serbs or as Croats. What was so in the beginning a pragmatic political artifice, gradually caught on, Muslims effectively started to perceive themselves as a nation, systematically manufacturing their tradition, etc. However, even today, there remains an element of a reflected choice in their identity: during the post-Yugoslav war in Bosnia, one was ultimately forced to CHOOSE his==References==<references/her ethnic identity - when a militia stopped a person, asking him/her threateningly "Are you a Serb or a Muslim?", the question did not refer to the inherited ethnic belonging, i.e. there was always in it an echo of "Which side did you choose?" (say, the movie director Emir Kusturica, coming from an ethnically mixed Muslim-Serb family, has chosen the Serb identity). Perhaps, the properly FRUSTRATING dimension of this choice is best rendered by the situation of having to choose a product in on-line shopping, where one has to make the almost endless series of choices: if you want it with X, press A, if not, press B... The paradox is that what is thoroughly excluded in these post-traditional "reflexive societies," in which we are all the time bombarded with the urge to choose, in which even such "natural" features as sexual orientation and ethnic identification are experienced as a matter of choice, is the basic, authentic, choice itself.>

1. See Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge[[Category: Harvard University Press 2000. 2. See Claude Lefort, Democracy and Political Theory, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press 1988. 3. See Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage 1992. 4. See Jean-Leon Beauvois, Traite de la servitude liberale. Analyse de la soumission, Paris: Dunod 1994. 5. See Chapters 2 and 3 of Susan Buck-Morss, Dreamworld and Catastrophe, Cambridge (Ma): MIT Press 2000. Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:ZizekSlavoj Žižek]]