Changes

There are two features Today, even the [[self]]-proclaimed post-[[Marxist]] radicals endorse the gap between [[ethics]] and [[politics]], relegating politics to the [[domain]] of doxa, of pragmatic considerations and compromises which distinguish his interventionalways and by definition fall short of the unconditional [[ethical]] [[demand]]. First, one cannot emphasize enough the fact The [[notion]] of Lenin's externality with regard to Marx: he was a politics which would not have been a member series of Marx's "inner circle" of the initiated, he never met either Marx or Engels; moreovermere pragmatic interventions, he came from a land at but the Eastern borders politics of [[Truth]], is dismissed as "European civilizationtotalitarian." (This externality is part The breaking out 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 external positiondeadlock, in exactly the same way St Paulreassertion of a politics of Truth today, who formulated should take the basic tenets [[form]] of Christianitya [[return]] to [[Lenin]]. Why Lenin, was why not part of Christ's inner circlesimply [[Marx]]? Is the proper return not the return to origins proper? Today, and Lacan accomplished his "return returning to FreudMarx" using as a leverage is already a totally distinct theoretical traditionminor academic fashion. (Freud was aware of this necessityWhich Marx do we get in these returns? On the one hand, which is why he put his trust in Jung as a non-Jewthe [[Cultural]] Studies Marx, an outsider - to break out the Marx of the Jewish initiatic community. His choice was bad[[postmodern]] sophists, because Jungian theory functioned in itself as initiatic Wisdomof the Messianic promise; it was Lacan who succeeded where Jung failed.) Soon the [[other]] hand, in the same way St Paul and Lacan reinscribe Marx who foretold the original teaching into a different context (St Paul reinterprets Christ[[dynamic]] of today's crucifixion [[globalization]] and is as his triumphsuch evoked even on Wall Street. What these both Marxes have in common is the [[denial]] of politics proper; Lacan reads Freud through the mirror-stage Saussure), reference to Lenin violently displaces Marx, tears his theory out of its original context, planting it in another historical moment, and thus effectively universalizes itenables us to avoid these two pitfalls.

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

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

The return to As such, Lenin 's politics is the endeavor [[true]] counterpoint not only to retrieve the unique moment when a thought already transposes itself into a collective organization[[Third Way]] pragmatic opportunism, but does not 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 opportunistic-pragmatic adjustment of the old program also to "new conditions," but at repeating, in the present world-wide conditions, the Leninist gesture marginalist [[Leftist]] attitude of initiating what Lacan called le [[narcissisme]] de la [[chose]] perdue. What a political project that would undermine the totality of the global liberal-capitalist world order, true Leninist and, furthermore, a project that would unabashedly assert itself as acting on behalf of truth, as intervening political [[conservative]] have in common is the present global situation from the standpoint fact that they reject what one could call [[liberal]] Leftist "irresponsibility" (advocating grand projects of its repressed truth. What Christianity did with regard to the Roman Empire[[solidarity]], this global "multiculturalist" polity[[freedom]], we should do with regard to today's Empireetc.1 How, then, do things stand with freedom? In a polemic against yet ducking out when one has to pay the Menshevik's critics of the Bolshevik power price for it in 1920, Lenin answered the claim guise of one of the critics - concrete and often "cruel"Sopolitical measures): like an authentic conservative, gentlemen Bolsheviks, since, before the Revolution and your seizure of power, you pleaded for democracy and freedom, be so kind as a true Leninist is now afraid to permit us now [[pass]] to publish a critique of your measures!" - with [[The Act|the acerbic: "Of courseact]], gentlemen, you have to assume all the freedom to publish this critique - but, then, gentlemenconsequences, unpleasant as they may be so kind as to allow us to line you up the 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 realizing his bad reputation among political [[project]]. Rudyard Kipling (whom [[Brecht]] admired) despised British [[liberals. Their case largely rests upon their rejection of the standard Marxist-Leninist opposition of "formal" and "actual" ]] who advocated freedom: as even Leftist liberals like Claude Lefort emphasize again and againjustice, freedom is in its very notion "formal," so that "actual freedom" equals while silently counting on the lack of freedom. 2 That is to say, with regard Conservatives to freedom, Lenin is best remembered for his famous retort "Freedom - yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT?" - the necessary dirty work for him, in [[them]]; the above-quoted case of same can be said for the Mensheviks, their "freedom" to criticize the Bolshevik government effectively amounted to "freedom" to undermine the workersliberal Leftist' and peasants' government on behalf of the counterrevolution... Is today, after the terrifying experience of the Really Existing Socialism, not more than obvious in what the fault of this reasoning resides? First, it reduces a historical constellation to a closed, fully contextualized, situation in which the s (or "objective" consequences of onedemocratic Socialist's acts are fully determined ("independently of your intentions, what you are doing now objectively serves..."); secondly, [[relationship]] towards Leninist Communists: liberal Leftists reject the position of enunciation of such statements usurp the right to decide what yours acts [[Social]] Democratic "objectively meancompromise," 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 they [[want]] a situation (saytrue [[revolution]], if I conceive of my power as the immediate equivalent/expression of the power of yet they shirk 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" precisely price to be paid for it and only as the capacity thus prefer to "transcend" adopt the coordinates attitude of a given situation, [[Beautiful Soul]] and to keep their hands clean. In contrast to "posit the presuppositions" of onethis [[false]] radical Leftist's activity position (as Hegel would have put it)who want true [[democracy]] for the people, i.e. but without the [[secret]] police to redefine the very situation within which one is active. Furthermorefight counterrevolution, without their academic privileges [[being]] threatened), as many a critic pointed outLeninist, the very term "Really Existing Socialism," although it was coined in order to assert Socialism's successlike a Conservative, is authentic in itself a proof the sense of fully assuming the consequences of Socialism's utter failurehis choice, i.e. of the failure being fully aware of the attempt what it actually means to take [[power]] and 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 exert it exists...

Is thisThe return to Lenin is the endeavor to retrieve the unique moment when a [[thought]] already transposes itself into a collective organization, howeverbut does not yet fix itself into an Institution (the established [[Church]], the whole story? How does freedom effectively function in liberal democracies themselves? Although Clinton's presidency epitomizes IPA, the Stalinist Party-[[State]]). It aims neither at nostalgically reenacting the "[[good]] old revolutionary [[times]]," nor at the Third Way opportunistic-pragmatic adjustment of the today's (ex-)Left succumbing old program to "new [[conditions]]," but at [[repeating]], in the Rightist ideological blackmail[[present]] [[world]]-wide conditions, his healthcare reform program the Leninist gesture of initiating a political project that would nonetheless amount to undermine the [[totality]] of the [[global]] liberal-[[capitalist]] world [[order]], and, furthermore, a kind project that would unabashedly assert itself as acting on behalf of acttruth, at least as intervening in the present global situation from the standpoint of its [[repressed]] truth. What Christianity did with regard to the Roman [[Empire]], this global "multiculturalist" polity, we should do with regard to today's conditionsEmpire.1 How, then, since it would have been based on do things stand with freedom? In a polemic against the rejection Menshevik's critics of the hegemonic notions Bolshevik power in 1920, Lenin answered the [[claim]] of one of the critics - "So, gentlemen Bolsheviks, since, before the need Revolution and your seizure of power, you pleaded for democracy and freedom, be so kind as to curtail Big State expenditure and administration - in permit us now to publish a way, it would critique of your measures!"do - with the impossible.acerbic: " No wonderOf course, thangentlemen, that it failed: its failure you have all the freedom to publish this critique - perhaps the only significantbut, then, although negativegentlemen, event be so kind as to allow us to line you up the wall and shoot you!" This Leninist freedom of Clintonchoice - not "[[Life]] or [[money]]!" but "Life or critique!" -, combined with Lenin's presidency - bears witness to dismissive attitude towards the material force "liberal" notion of freedom, accounts for his bad reputation among liberals. Their [[case]] largely rests upon their [[rejection]] of the ideological 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 "free choicefreedom." 2 That is to say, although with regard to freedom, Lenin is best remembered for his famous retort "Freedom - yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT?" - for him, in the large majority above-quoted case of the so-called Mensheviks, their "freedom" to criticize the Bolshevik [[government]] effectively amounted to "ordinary peoplefreedom" were to undermine the [[workers]]' and peasants' government on behalf of the counterrevolution... Is today, after the terrifying [[experience]] of the Really Existing [[Socialism]], not properly acquainted with more than obvious in what the reform programfault of this reasoning resides? First, it reduces a historical constellation to a closed, fully contextualized, situation in which the medical lobby "[[objective]]" consequences of one's [[acts]] are fully determined (twice as strong as the infamous defense lobby!"independently of your intentions, what you are doing now objectively serves...") succeeded in imposing on ; secondly, the public position of [[enunciation]] of such statements usurp the fundamental idea [[right]] to decide what yours acts "objectively mean," so thattheir [[apparent]] "objectivism" (the focus on "objective [[meaning]]") is the form of [[appearance]] of its opposite, with the universal healthcarethorough subjectivism: I decide what your acts objectively mean, since I define the free choice context of a situation (in matters concerning medicinesay, 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]]) will be somehow threatened - against . Against this purely fictional reference [[full]] contextualization, one should emphasize that freedom is "actual" precisely and only as the capacity to "free choicetranscend"the coordinates of a given situation, all enumeration to "posit the presuppositions" of one's [[activity]] (as [[Hegel]] would have put it), i.e. to redefine the very situation within which one is [[active]]. Furthermore, as many a critic pointed out, the very term "hard factsReally Existing Socialism," (although it was coined in Canadaorder to assert Socialism's success, healthcare is less expensive and more effectivein itself a proof of Socialism's utter failure, with no less free choice, etci.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]]..) proved ineffective.

We are here at the very nerve center of the liberal ideology: Is this, however, the [[whole]] story? How does freedom of choice, grounded effectively function in liberal democracies themselves? Although [[Clinton]]'s presidency epitomizes the notion Third Way of the "psychological" subject endowed which propensities today's/he strives (ex-)[[Left]] succumbing to realize. And this especially holds today, in the era of what sociologists like Ulrich Beck call "risk societyRightist ideological [[blackmail]]," 3 when the ruling ideology endeavors his healthcare reform program would nonetheless amount to sell us the very insecurity caused by the dismantling a kind of the Welfare State as the opportunity for new freedoms: you act, at least in today's conditions, since it would have to change job every year, relying been based on short-term contracts instead the rejection of a long-term stable appointment? Why not see it as the liberation from the constraints hegemonic notions of a fixed job, as the chance need to reinvent yourself again curtail Big State expenditure and againadministration - in a way, to become aware of and realize hidden potentials of your personality? You can no longer rely on it would "do the standard health insurance and retirement plan[[impossible]]." No wonder, than, so that you have to opt for additional coverage for which you have to pay? Why not perceive it as an additional opportunity to choosefailed: either better life now or longits failure -term security? And if this predicament causes you anxietyperhaps the only significant, although [[negative]], [[event]] of Clinton's presidency - bears [[witness]] to the [[material]] force of the postmodern or ideological notion of "second modernityfree choice." ideologist will immediately accuse you of being unable That is to assume full freedomsay, although the large majority of the so-called "escape from freedom,ordinary people" of were not properly acquainted with the immature sticking to old stable forms... Even betterreform program, when this is inscribed into the ideology of medical lobby (twice as strong as the infamous [[defense]] lobby!) succeeded in imposing on the subject as [[public]] the psychological individual pregnant fundamental [[idea]] that, with natural abilities and tendenciesthe [[universal]] healthcare, the free choice (in matters concerning [[medicine]]) will be somehow threatened - against this purely fictional reference to "free choice", then I as if were automatically interpret all these changes as the results enumeration of my personality"hard facts" (in Canada, healthcare is less expensive and more effective, not as the result of me being thrown around by the market forceswith no less free choice, etc.) proved ineffective.

Phenomena like these make it all We are here at the very nerve center of the more necessary today to REASSERT liberal [[ideology]]: the opposition freedom of "formal" and "actual" freedom in a new, more precise, sense. What we need todaychoice, grounded in the era notion of the liberal hegemony, is a "Leninist[[psychological]]" traite de la servitude liberale, a new version of la Boetie'[[subject]] endowed which propensities s Traite de la servitude volontaire that would fully justify the apparent oxymoron "liberal totalitarianism/he strives to realize." In experimental psychologyAnd this especially holds today, Jean-Leon Beauvois did the first step in this direction, with his precise exploration of the paradoxes era of conferring on what sociologists like Ulrich Beck call "risk [[society]]," 3 when the subject ruling ideology endeavors to sell us the freedom to choose. 4 Repeated experiments established very insecurity caused by the following paradox: if, AFTER getting from two groups [[dismantling]] of volunteers the agreement to participate in an experiment, one informs them that [[Welfare]] State as the experiment will involve something unpleasant, against their ethics even, and if, at this point, one reminds the first group that they opportunity for new freedoms: you have the free choice to say no[[change]] job every year, and one says to the other group nothing, in BOTH groups, the SAME (very high) percentage will agree to continue their participation in the experiment. What this means is that conferring the formal freedom relying on short-term contracts instead of choice does a long-term [[stable]] appointment? Why not make any difference: those given the freedom will do the same thing see it as those (implicitly) denied it. This, however, does not mean that the reminder/bestowal of liberation from the freedom constraints of choice does not make any difference: those given a fixed job, as the freedom [[chance]] to choice will not only tend reinvent yourself again and again, to choose the same as those denied it; become aware of and realize hidden potentials of your [[personality]]? You can no longer rely on the top of itstandard health insurance and retirement plan, 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 they FREELY acted against their interests, propensities, tastes or norms), they will tend you have to change their opinion about the act they were asked opt for additional coverage for which you have to accomplish. Let us say that pay? Why not perceive it as an individual is first asked additional opportunity to participate in an experiment that concerns changing the eating habits in order to fight against famine; then, after agreeing to do itchoose: either better life now or long-term security? And if this predicament causes you [[anxiety]], at the first encounter in the laboratory, he postmodern or "second [[modernity]]" ideologist will be asked immediately accuse you of being unable to swallow a living wormassume full freedom, with of the explicit reminder that, if he finds this act repulsive, he can"escape from freedom, " of course, say no, since he has the full freedom immature sticking to chooseold stable forms... In most casesEven better, he will do itwhen this is inscribed into the ideology of [[The Subject|the subject]] as the psychological [[individual]] pregnant with [[natural]] abilities and tendencies, and then rationalize it by way of 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 first minor obstacle! Furthermore, a worm does have a lot of proteins and it could effectively be used to feed if were automatically [[interpret]] all these changes as the poor - who am I to hinder such an important experiment because results of my petty sensitivity? Andpersonality, finally, maybe my disgust not as the result of worms is just a prejudice, maybe a worm is not 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?"being thrown around by the [[market]] forces.

Beauvois enumerates three modes Phenomena like these make it all the more necessary today to REASSERT the opposition of what brings people to accomplish such an act which runs against their perceived propensities "formal" and/or interests: authoritarian (the pure command "You should do it because I say soactual" freedom in a new, more precise, without questioning it!"sense. What we need today, sustained by in the reward if era of the subject does it and the punishment if he does not do it)liberal [[hegemony]], totalitarian (the reference to some higher Cause or common Good which is larger than the subjecta "Leninist" traite de la servitude liberale, a new version of la Boetie's perceived interest: Traite de la servitude volontaire that would fully justify the apparent oxymoron "liberal [[totalitarianism]]."You should do it becauseIn experimental [[psychology]], even if it is unpleasantJean-Leon Beauvois did the first step in this direction, it serves our Nation, Party, Humanity!"), and liberal (with his precise exploration of the paradoxes of conferring on the subject the reference freedom to choose. 4 Repeated experiments established the subject's inner nature itselffollowing [[paradox]]: "What is asked if, AFTER getting from two groups of you may appear repulsivevolunteers the agreement to participate in an experiment, but look deep into yourself and you will discover one informs them that it's in your true nature to do it, you the experiment will find it attractiveinvolve something unpleasant, you will become aware of newagainst their ethics even, unexpectedand if, dimensions of your personality!"). At at this point, Beauvois should be corrected: a direct authoritarianism is practically inexistent - even one reminds the most oppressive regime publicly legitimizes its reign with first group that they have the reference free choice to some Higher Goodsay no, and one says to the fact thatother group [[nothing]], ultimatelyin BOTH groups, "you have the SAME (very high) percentage will agree to obey because I say so" reverberates only as its obscene supplement discernible between continue their [[participation]] in the linesexperiment. It What this means is rather that conferring the specificity formal freedom of choice does not make any [[difference]]: those given the standard authoritarianism to refer to some higher Good freedom will do the same [[thing]] as those ("whatever your inclinations areimplicitly) denied it. This, however, you have to follow my order for does not mean that the sake reminder/bestowal of the higher Good!"), while totalitarianism, like liberalism, interpellates freedom of choice does not make any difference: those given the subject on behalf of HIS OWN good ("what may appear freedom to choice will not only tend to you choose the same as an external pressure, is really those denied it; on the expression top of your objective interestsit, of what you REALLY WANT without being aware of it!they will tend to "rationalize"). The difference between the two resides elsewhere: their "totalitarianismfree" imposes on decision to continue to participate in the experiment - unable to endure the subject his/her own good, even if it is against his/her will so- recall King Charles' called cognitive dissonance (in)famous statement: "If any shall be so foolishly unnatural as to oppose their king[[awareness]] that they FREELY acted against their interests, propensities, their country and their own goodtastes or norms), we they will make them happy, by God's blessing - even against tend to change their willsopinion [[about]] the act they were asked to accomplish."(Charles I Let us say that an individual is first asked to participate in an experiment that concerns changing the Earl of Essexeating habits in order to fight against famine; then, after agreeing to do it, 6 August 1644) Here we already at the first [[encounter have ]] in the later Jacobin theme of happiness as laboratory, he will be asked to swallow a political factor[[living]] worm, as well as with the Saint-Justian idea [[explicit]] reminder that, if he finds this act repulsive, he can, of forcing people course, say no, since he has the full freedom to be happychoose... Liberalism tries to avoid (orIn most cases, ratherhe will do it, cover up) this paradox and then rationalize it by way of clinging saying to the end 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 fiction first minor obstacle! Furthermore, a worm does have a lot of proteins and it could effectively be used to feed the subject's immediate free selfpoor -perception ("who am I don't claim to know better than you what you want hinder such an important experiment because of my petty sensitivity? And, finally, maybe my disgust of worms is just a prejudice, maybe a worm is not so bad - just look deep into yourself and decide freely what you want!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?").

The reason for this fault in Beauvois's line enumerates [[three]] modes of argumentation is that he fails what brings people to recognize how accomplish such an act which runs against their perceived propensities and/or interests: authoritarian (the abyssal tautological authority (pure command "It is so You should do it because I say so, without questioning it!" of , sustained by the reward if the Master) subject does not work only because of it and the sanctions ([[punishment/reward]] if he does not do it) it implicitly , totalitarian (the reference to some higher [[Cause]] or explicitly evokes. That common Good which is to saylarger than the subject's perceived interest: "You should do it because, whateven if it is unpleasant, effectivelyit serves our [[Nation]], makes a subject freely choose what is imposed on him against his interests and/or propensities? HereParty, the empirical inquiry into "pathologicalHumanity!" ), and liberal (in the Kantian sense of reference to the term) motivations subject's inner [[nature]] itself: "What is not sufficient: the enunciation asked of an injunction that imposes on its addressee a symbolic engagement/commitment evinces an inherent force of its own[[You May|you may]] appear repulsive, so but look deep into yourself and you will discover that what seduces us into obeying it is the very feature that may appear 's in your true nature to be an obstacle - the absence do it, you will find it attractive, you will become aware of new, unexpected, dimensions of a your personality!"why)." HereAt this point, Lacan can Beauvois should be of some helpcorrected: the Lacanian "Mastera direct [[authoritarianism]] is practically inexistent -Signifier" designates precisely this hypnotic force of even the symbolic injunction which relies only on most oppressive [[regime]] publicly legitimizes its own act of enunciation - it is here reign with the reference to some Higher Good, and the fact that we encounter , ultimately, "symbolic efficiencyyou have to obey because I say so" at reverberates only as its purest[[obscene]] [[supplement]] discernible between the lines. The three ways It is rather the specificity of legitimizing the exercise of authority standard authoritarianism to refer to some higher Good ("authoritarianwhatever your inclinations are,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 ("totalitarianwhat may appear to you as an external pressure, 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: "liberaltotalitarianism"imposes on the subject his/her own good, even if it is against his/her will - [[recall]] King Charles' (in) are nothing but the three ways famous [[statement]]: "If any shall be so foolishly unnatural as to cover upoppose their king, their country and their own good, we will make them happy, by God's blessing - even against their wills."(Charles I to blind us for the seductive power Earl ofEssex, 6 August 1644) Here we already encounter have the abyss later Jacobin theme of this empty call. In [[happiness]] as a waypolitical factor, liberalism is here even as well as the worst Saint-Justian idea of forcing people to be happy... Liberalism tries to avoid (or, rather, cover up) this paradox by way of clinging to the three, since it NATURALIZES end to the reasons for obedience into [[fiction]] of the subject's internal psychological structure. So the paradox is that "liberal" subjects are in a way those least immediate free: they change the very opinion/self-[[perception of themselves, accepting ]] ("I don't claim to [[know]] better than you what you want - just look deep into yourself and decide freely what was IMPOSED on them as originating in their you want!"nature" - they are even no longer AWARE of their subordination).

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

Did something homologous to Let us take the situation in 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 the invention "freedom of political choice" - however, were they REALLY at any point asked the liberal psychological individual fundamental question of what kind of knew order they actually wanted? Is it not take place that they found themselves in the Soviet Union in exact situation of the late 20s and early 30s? The Russian avantsubject-garde art [[victim]] of a Beauvois experiment? They were first told that they are entering the early 20s (futurismpromised land of political freedom; then, soon afterwards, they were informed that this freedom involves wild privatization, constructivism) not only zealously endorsed industrializationthe dismantling of the [[social security]], it even endeavored to reinvent a new industrial man etc.etc. - no longer they still have the old man of sentimental passions and roots in traditionsfreedom to choose, so if they want, they can step out; but the new man who gladly accepts his role as a bolt or screw , no, our heroic Eastern Europeans didn't want to disappoint their Western tutors, they stoically persisted in the gigantic coordinated industrial Machine. As suchchoice they never made, it was subversive in convincing themselves that they should behave as mature subjects who are aware that freedom has its very "ultra-orthodoxy," iprice..e. in its over-identification with This is why the core notion of the official ideology: the image of man that we get in Eisensteinpsychological subject endowed with natural propensities, Meyerholdwho has to realize its true Self and its potentials, constructivist paintingsand who is, etc.consequently, emphasizes the beauty of ultimately [[responsible]] for his/her mechanical movementsfailure or success, his/her thorough depsychologization. What was perceived in is the West as key ingredient of the ultimate nightmare of liberal individualism, as the ideological counterpoint freedom. And here one should risk to reintroduce the Leninist opposition of "formal" and "actual"Taylorizationfreedom: in an act of actual freedom," one dares precisely to BREAK this seductive power of [[The Symbolic|the Fordist ribbon-work, was in Russia hailed as symbolic]] efficiency. Therein resides the utopian prospect moment of liberationtruth of Lenin's acerbic retort to his Menshevik critics: recall how Meyerhold violently asserted the "behaviorist" approach to acting truly free choice is a choice in which I do not merely choose between two or more options WITHIN a pre- no longer emphatic familiarization with the person the actor is playinggiven set of coordinates, but I choose to change this set of coordinates itself. The catch of the ruthless bodily training aimed at "transition" from the cold bodily discipline, at the ability of Really Existing Socialism to [[capitalism]] was that people never had the actor chance to perform choose the series ad quem of this transition - all of mechanized movements... 5 THIS is what was unbearable to AND IN the official Stalinist ideologya sudden, so that the Stalinist they were (almost literally) "socialist realismthrown" effectively WAS an attempt to reassert into a "Socialism new situation in which they were presented with a human facenew set of given choices (pure liberalism," inationalist conservatism...e). to reinscribe What this means is that the process of industrialization into "actual freedom" as the constraints act of the traditional psychological individual: consciously changing this set occurs only when, in the Socialist Realist textssituation of a [[forced]] choice, paintings one ACTS AS IF THE CHOICE IS NOT FORCED and films, individuals are no longer rendered as parts of "chooses the global Machine, but as warm passionate personsimpossible."

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

The case obvious reproach that imposes itself here is, of Muslims as an ethnic, not merely religious, group in Bosnia course: is exemplary here: during the entire history basic characteristic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia was today's "postmodern" subject not the place exact opposite of potential tension and dispute, the locale in which the struggle between Serbs and Croats free subject who experienced himself as ultimately responsible for his fate, namely the dominant role was fought. The problem was that subject who grounds 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 Croatsauthority of his [[speech]] on his status of a victim of circumstances beyond his control. (This role of Bosnia even left Every contact with another human being is experienced as a trace in idiom: in all expotential [[threat]] -Yugoslav nationsif the other smokes, the expression "So Bosnia is quiet!" was used in order to signal that any threat of if he casts a conflict was successfully defused.covetous glance at me, he already hurts me) In order to forestall ; this focus [[logic]] of potential (and actual) conflicts[[victimization]] is today universalized, reaching well beyond the ruling Communist imposed in standard cases of [[sexual]] or racist harassment - recall the 60s a miraculously simple invention: they proclaimed Muslims an autochthonous ETHNIC communitygrowing financial industry of paying damage claims, not just a religious group, so that Muslims were able to avoid from the pressure to identify themselves either as Serbs or as Croats. What was so tobacco industry deal 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 USA and the financial claims of a reflected choice the [[holocaust]] victims and forced laborers in their identity: during the post-Yugoslav war in Bosnia[[Nazi]] [[Germany]], one was ultimately forced up to CHOOSE his/her ethnic identity the idea that the USA should pay the African- when a militia stopped a person, asking him/her threateningly "Are you a Serb or a Muslim?", the question did not refer Americans hundreds of billions of dollars for all they were deprived of due to the inherited ethnic belonging, itheir [[past]] slavery..e. there was always in it an echo This notion of "Which side did you choose?" (say, the movie director Emir Kusturica, coming from subject as an ethnically mixed Muslim-Serb family, has chosen irresponsible victim involves the Serb identity). Perhaps, extreme [[Narcissistic]] perspective from which every encounter with the properly FRUSTRATING dimension of this choice is best rendered by the situation of having to choose Other appears as a product in on-line shopping, where one has potential threat to make the almost endless series of choices: if you want subject's precarious [[imaginary]] [[balance]]; as such, it with Xis not the opposite, press Abut, if notrather, press B... The paradox is that what is thoroughly excluded the inherent supplement of the liberal free subject: in these posttoday's predominant form of individuality, the self-traditional "reflexive societies," in which we are all centered assertion of the time bombarded psychological subject paradoxically overlaps with the urge to choose, in which even such "natural" features as sexual orientation and ethnic identification are experienced perception of oneself as a matter victim of choice, is the basic, authentic, choice itselfcircumstances.

1The 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. See Michael Hardt ) In order to forestall this focus of potential (and Antonio Negriactual) 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, Empireeven today, Cambridgethere remains an element of a reflected choice in their [[identity]]: Harvard University Press 2000during the post-Yugoslav war in Bosnia, 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 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|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.

21. See Claude Lefort[[Michael Hardt]] and [[Antonio Negri]], Democracy and Political TheoryEmpire, MinneapolisCambridge: Minnesota Harvard [[University ]] Press 19882000.

32. See Ulrich Beck[[Claude Lefort]], Risk Society: Towards a New ModernityDemocracy and Political Theory, LondonMinneapolis: Sage 1992Minnesota 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.

* [[Can Lenin Tell Us about Freedom Today?]] ''[[Lacan.com]]''. 2004. <http://www.lacan.com/freedom.htm>