Seize the day: Lenin's legacySlavoj Zizek.London Review of Books, Vol. 24 No. 14, 25 July 2002. {{BSZ}}
The [[left]] is undergoing a shattering [[experience]]: the progressive movement is [[being]] compelled to reinvent its [[whole]] [[project]]. What tends to be forgotten, however, is that a similar experience gave [[birth]] to [[Leninism]]. Consider [[Lenin]]'s shock when, in the autumn of 1914, every European [[social]] democratic party except the Serbs' followed the 'patriotic line'. How difficult it must have been, at a [[time]] when military [[conflict]] had cut the European continent in half, not to take sides. [[Think]] how many supposedly independent-minded intellectuals, [[Freud]] included, succumbed, if only briefly, to the nationalist temptation.
Tuesday July 23In 1914, 2002an entire [[world]] disappeared, taking with it not only the bourgeois [[faith]] in [[progress]], but the socialist movement that accompanied it. Lenin (the Lenin of What Is to Be Done?) felt the ground fall away from beneath his feet — there was, in his desperate reaction, no [[sense]] of [[satisfaction]], no [[desire]] to say "I told you so." At the same time, the catastrophe made possible the key Leninist [[Event]]: the overcoming of the evolutionary [[historicism]] of the Second International. The kernel of the Leninist 'utopia' — the radical imperative to smash the bourgeois [[state]] and invent a new communal social [[form]] without a standing [[army]], police force or [[bureaucracy]], in which all could take part in the administration of social matters — arises directly from the ashes of 1914. It wasn't a [[theoretical]] project for some distant [[future]]: in October 1917, Lenin claimed that "we can at once set in motion a state [[apparatus]] consisting of 10 if not 20 million [[people]]." What we should recognise is the '[[madness]]' (in the Kierkegaardian sense) of this utopia — in this context, [[Stalinism]] stands for a [[return]] to 'common sense'. The explosive potential of The State and [[Revolution]] can't be overestimated: in its pages, as Neil Harding wrote in Leninism (1996), "the [[vocabulary]] and grammar of the Western [[tradition]] of [[politics]] was abruptly dispensed with."
The left is undergoing a shattering experience: the progressive movement is being compelled to reinvent its whole project. What tends to followed can be forgotten, however, is that a similar experience gave birth to Leninism. Consider Lenin's shock whencalled, in borrowing the autumn title of 1914, every European social democratic party except the Serbs[[Althusser]]' followed the 'patriotic line'. How difficult it must have beens [[text]] on [[Machiavelli]], at la solitude de Lenine: a time when military conflict had cut he stood alone, struggling against the European continent current in half, not to take sideshis own party. Think how many supposedly independent-minded intellectualsWhen, Freud includedin his April Theses of 1917, succumbedLenin [[identified]] the Augenblick, if only brieflythe unique [[chance]] for a revolution, the initial response on the part of a large majority of his party colleagues was either stupor or contempt. No prominent Bolshevik [[leader]] supported his call to revolution, and the nationalist temptationeditorial board of Pravda took the extraordinary step of dissociating themselves and the Party from Lenin's proposals. Bogdanov characterised the April Theses as "the delirium of a madman"; Nadezhda Krupskaya concluded: "I am afraid it looks as if Lenin has gone crazy."
In 1914, an entire world disappeared, taking with it not only the bourgeois faith in progress, but the socialist movement that accompanied it. Indispensable though Lenin (the Lenin of What Is to Be Done?) felt the ground fall away from beneath his feet — there 's personal [[intervention]] was, in his desperate reaction, no sense of satisfaction, no desire to say "I told you so." At the same time, the catastrophe made possible the key Leninist Event: the overcoming story of the evolutionary historicism of October Revolution should not be turned into the Second International. The kernel [[myth]] of the Leninist 'utopia' — the radical imperative to smash the bourgeois state and invent a new communal social form without a standing armylone [[genius]]. Lenin succeeded because his appeal, police force or bureaucracywhile bypassing the party [[nomenklatura]], in which all could take part in was [[understood]] at the administration level of social matters — arises directly from the ashes of 1914. It wasn't a theoretical project for some distant futurerevolutionary micropolitics: in October 1917, Lenin claimed that "we can at once local committees were set in motion a state apparatus consisting of 10 if not 20 million people." What we should recognise is the up throughout [[Russia]]'madness' (in s big cities, determined to ignore the Kierkegaardian sense) [[authority]] of this utopia — in this context, Stalinism stands for a return to the 'common senselegitimate'. The explosive potential of The State [[government]] and Revolution can't be overestimated: in its pages, as Neil Harding wrote in Leninism (1996), "the vocabulary and grammar of the Western tradition of politics was abruptly dispensed withto take things into their own hands."
What followed can be calledIn the spring of 1917, borrowing Lenin was fully aware of the title [[paradox]] of Althusser's text on Machiavelli, la solitude de Leninethe [[situation]]: a time when he stood alonenow that the February Revolution had toppled the tsarist [[regime]], struggling against Russia was the current most democratic country in his own party. When[[Europe]], in his April Theses with an unprecedented degree of 1917mass mobilisation, and [[freedom]] of organisation and of the press — and yet this freedom made everything ambiguous. If there is a common thread running through everything Lenin identified wrote between the AugenblickFebruary and October Revolutions, it is his [[insistence]] on the unique chance for a revolutiongap that separates the [[political]] [[struggle]] from its definable goals: immediate peace, the initial response on the part redistribution of a large majority land and, of his party colleagues was either stupor or contempt. No prominent Bolshevik leader supported his call to revolutioncourse, and the editorial board giving over of Pravda took "all [[power]] to the soviets", that is, the extraordinary step [[dismantling]] of dissociating themselves existing state apparatuses and their replacement with new commune-like forms of social management. This is the gap between revolution in the Party from Lenin's proposals. Bogdanov characterised sense of the April Theses as "[[imaginary]] explosion of freedom at the delirium [[sublime]] [[moment]] of a madman[[universal]] [[solidarity]] when "; Nadezhda Krupskaya concluded: everything seems possible,"I am afraid it looks as and the hard [[work]] of social reconstruction which must be performed if Lenin has gone crazythis explosion is to leave any traces in the [[social edifice]]."
Indispensable though This gap — which recalls the interval between 1789 and 1793 in the [[French]] Revolution — is the [[space]] of Lenin's personal unique intervention was. The fundamental lesson of revolutionary [[materialism]] is that revolution must strike twice. It is not that the first moment has the form of a revolution, with the story of substance having to be filled in later, but rather the opposite: the first revolution retains the old mindset, the October Revolution should not [[belief]] that freedom and justice can be turned into achieved if we simply use the myth of a lone genius. Lenin succeeded because his appealalready-existing state apparatus and its democratic mechanisms, while bypassing that the '[[good]]' party nomenklatura, was understood at might win a free election and implement the level socialist transformation 'legally'. (The clearest expression of revolutionary micropolitics: local committees were set up throughout Russiathis [[illusion]] is Karl Kautsky's big cities[[thesis]], determined to ignore formulated in the 1920s, that the authority [[logical]] form of the 'legitimate' government first [[stage]] leading from [[capitalism]] to [[socialism]] would be a parliamentary coalition of bourgeois and proletarian parties.) Those who oscillate, and are afraid to take things into their own handsthe second step of overcoming the old forms, are those who (in Robespierre's [[words]]) [[want]] a "[[revolution without revolution]]".
In the spring his writings of 1917, Lenin was fully aware saves his most acerbic irony for those who engage in a vain [[search]] for some kind of [[guarantee]] for the paradox revolution, either in the guise of a reified [[notion]] of social [[necessity]] ("it's too early for the situation: now that the February Revolution had toppled the tsarist regimesocialist revolution, Russia was the most democratic country in Europe[[working]] [[class]] isn't yet mature"), with an unprecedented degree or of mass mobilisationa [[normative]], and freedom of organisation and democratic legitimacy ("the majority of the press — and yet this freedom made everything ambiguouspopulation isn't on our side, so the revolution would not really be democratic"). If there It is a common thread running through everything Lenin wrote between as if the February and October Revolutions, it is his insistence on revolutionary [[agent]] requires the gap that separates permission of some [[representative]] of the political struggle from its definable goals: immediate peace[[Other]] before he risks seizing state power. For Lenin, as for [[Lacan]], the redistribution revolution 'ne s'autorise que d'elle-même'. The wariness of land andtaking power prematurely, the search for a guarantee, is an expression of course, [[fear]] before the giving over abyss. This is what Lenin repeatedly denounces as "opportunism": an inherently [[false]] [[position]] which hides fear behind a protective [[screen]] of "all power supposedly [[objective]] facts, laws or norms. The first step in combatting it is to the sovietsannounce clearly: "What, then, that isto be done? We must aussprechen was ist, the dismantling of existing 'state apparatuses and their replacement with new commune-like forms of social management. This is the gap between revolution in the sense of the imaginary explosion of freedom at the sublime moment of universal solidarity when "everything seems possiblefacts'," and admit the hard work of social reconstruction which must be performed if this explosion [[truth]] that there is to leave any traces a tendency, or an opinion, in the social edificeour central committee . . ."
This gap — which recalls What happened when Lenin became more [[conscious]] of the interval limitations of Bolshevik power? Here a contrast should be drawn between 1789 Lenin and 1793 in [[Stalin]]. In Lenin's very last writings, long after he renounced the French utopia of State and Revolution — is , there are the space contours of Lenina modest 'realistic's unique interventionproject for the Bolsheviks. The fundamental lesson Given the [[economic]] underdevelopment and [[cultural]] backwardness of revolutionary materialism is that revolution must strike twicethe Russian masses, there was, he realised, no way for Russia to "[[pass]] directly to socialism". It is not All that Soviet power could do was to combine the first moment has moderate politics of "state capitalism" with the form cultural education of the peasant masses. Facts and [[figures]] revealed "what a revolution, with vast amount of urgent spadework we still have to do to reach the substance having to be filled standard of an ordinary west European civilised country . . . We must bear in later, but rather [[mind]] the semi-Asiatic [[ignorance]] from which we have not yet extricated ourselves." Lenin repeatedly warns against the oppositedirect "implantation of [[communism]]": "Under no circumstances should we immediately introduce strictly [[communist]] [[ideas]] into the first revolution retains countryside. As long as the countryside [[lacks]] the old mindset[[material]] basis for communism, the belief that freedom and justice can it will be achieved if we simply use the already-existing state apparatus and its democratic mechanismsharmful, in fact, that the 'good' party might win a free election and implement the socialist transformation 'legally'. (The clearest expression of this illusion is Karl Kautsky's thesisI should say, formulated in the 1920sfatal, that the logical form of the first stage leading from capitalism for communism to socialism do so." His recurrent motif is: "The most harmful [[thing]] here would be a parliamentary coalition of bourgeois and proletarian partieshaste.) Those who oscillate" Against this insistence on "cultural revolution", and are afraid to take Stalin opted for the second step anti-Leninist notion of overcoming the old forms, are those who ("building socialism in Robespierre's words) want a "revolution without revolutionone country".
In his writings This doesn't mean, however, that Lenin silently adopted the Menshevik criticism of 1917Bolshevik [[utopianism]], Lenin saves his most acerbic irony for those who engage in that revolution must follow a vain search for some kind of guarantee for preordained course, and can occur only when the revolutionnecessary material [[conditions]] are in [[place]]. Lenin realises, either [[writing]] in the guise of a reified notion of social necessity ("it's too early 1920s, that the main task for the socialist revolution, Bolsheviks is to meet the working class isn't yet mature"), or responsibilities of a normative, democratic legitimacy progressive bourgeois regime ("the majority universal provision of the population isn't education and so on our side). However, so the revolution would not really be democratic"). It is as if fact that the revolutionary agent requires the permission of some representative of [[development]] is proletarian revolutionary power changes the Other before he risks seizing state power. For Lenin, situation fundamentally: there is a chance that these measures will be implemented in such a way as for Lacan, to throw off their bourgeois [[ideological]] framework — education will serve the revolution 'ne s'autorise que d'elle-même'. The wariness of taking power prematurelypeople, the search rather than being a mask for a guarantee, is an expression of fear before the abyss. This is what Lenin repeatedly denounces as "opportunism": an inherently false position which hides fear behind a protective screen promotion of supposedly objective facts, laws or normsbourgeois class interests. The first step in combatting it properly [[dialectical]] paradox is that the very hopelessness of the Russian situation (the backwardness that compels the proletarian power to announce clearlyengage in the bourgeois civilising [[process]]) can be turned into an advantage: "Whatif the [[complete]] hopelessness of the situation, thenby stimulating the efforts of the [[workers]] and peasants tenfold, is offered us the opportunity to be done? We must aussprechen was ist, 'state create the facts', admit the truth fundamental requisites of civilisation in a different way from that there is a tendency, or an opinion, in our central committee . . .of west European countries?"
What happened when Lenin became more conscious of the limitations of Bolshevik power? Here a contrast should be drawn between Lenin and Stalin. In Lenin's very last writingsWe have, then, long after he renounced the utopia two incompatible models of State and Revolution, there are the contours of a modest 'realistic' project revolution: to wait for the Bolsheviks. Given the economic underdevelopment and cultural backwardness moment of the Russian massesfinal crisis, there was, he realised, no way for Russia to when revolution will explode "pass directly to socialismat its own proper time". All that Soviet power could do was according to combine the moderate politics necessity of historical evolution; or to assert that revolution has no "state capitalismproper time" with , that the cultural education of the peasant masses. Facts opportunity for it is something that emerges and figures revealed "what a vast amount of urgent spadework we still have has to do to reach the standard of an ordinary west European civilised country . . . We must bear in mind the semi-Asiatic ignorance from which we have not yet extricated ourselvesbe seized." Lenin repeatedly warns against insists that the direct "implantation extraordinary set of communism": "Under no circumstances should we immediately introduce strictly communist ideas into the countryside. As long as the countryside lacks the material basis for communism, it will be harmful, like those in Russia in fact1917, can provide a way to undermine the norm itself. I should saywould argue that this belief is more persuasive today than ever. We live in an era when the state and its apparatuses, fatalincluding its political agents, for communism are less and less able to do soarticulate key issues." His recurrent motif The illusion that the pressing problems facing Russia in 1917 (peace, land distribution etc) could have been solved through parliamentary means is: "The most harmful thing here would in effect the same as today's illusion that the ecological [[threat]] can be haste." Against this insistence on "cultural revolution", Stalin opted avoided by applying [[market]] [[logic]] (making polluters pay for the anti-Leninist notion of "building socialism in one country"damage they [[cause]]).
This doesn't meanHow, howeverthen, that Lenin silently adopted does Hélène Carrère d'Encausse's new study stand in the Menshevik criticism light of Bolshevik utopianismall this? Her basic approach is that, that revolution must follow a preordained coursenow communism is over, and can occur only when the necessary material conditions are in placeit is time for an objective assessment of Lenin's contribution. Lenin realisesWithin these co-ordinates, writing in the early 1920s, book tries to give Lenin his due. Carrère d'Encausse makes it clear that the main task for Stalinist state apparatus grew out of the NEP compromise. If the Bolsheviks is state was to meet step back and make room for the responsibilities of a progressive bourgeois regime (the universal provision of education market, [[private property]] and so on). However, the fact that the agent of development is proletarian revolutionary power changes the situation fundamentally: there is a chance that these measures will be implemented in such a way as it had to throw off their bourgeois ideological framework — education will serve the people, rather than being achieve a mask for the promotion tighter [[control]] of bourgeois class interests. The properly dialectical paradox is [[society]] so that the very hopelessness gains of the Russian situation (revolution would not be endangered by the backwardness that compels the proletarian power emerging new classes. A [[capitalist]] economic infrastructure was to engage in the bourgeois civilising process) can be turned into an advantage: "What if the complete hopelessness of the situation, counterbalanced by stimulating the efforts of the workers a socialist political and peasants tenfold, offered us the opportunity to create the fundamental requisites of civilisation in a different way from that of west European countries?"ideological superstructure.
We haveCarrère d'Encausse also foregrounds how, thenin the struggle to succeed Lenin, two incompatible models of Trotsky, Bukharin and the revolution: to wait rest had [[nothing]] but contempt for the moment of the final crisisStalin's new administrative [[role]] as general secretary, when revolution will explode "at its own proper time" according dismissing him as a mere manager: they failed to appreciate the necessity of historical evolution; or to assert that revolution has no "proper time", power that went with the opportunity for it is something that emerges and has to be seizedpost. Lenin insists that the extraordinary set of circumstancesWhen, like those in Russia in 19171922, can provide a way Lenin submitted to undermine Pravda the norm itself. I would argue that this belief is more persuasive today than ever. We live in an era when the state and its apparatusesarticle Better Fewer, but Better, which was directed against Stalin's [[authoritarianism]], including its political agentsBukharin, are less and less able to articulate key issues. The illusion that the pressing problems facing Russia editor-in 1917 (peace-chief, land distribution etc) could have been solved through parliamentary means is in effect saw no [[reason]] to publish it; one member of the same as today's illusion Politburo suggested that they print a single copy of the ecological threat can be avoided by applying market logic (making polluters pay for paper containing the damage they cause)text, and give it to Lenin.
HowOn the national question, then, does Hélène Carrère d'Encausse's new study stand writes that Lenin unconditionally opposed the [[nationalism]] of large countries and endorsed the [[right]] to [[sovereignty]] of small nations, independently of who was in control of [[them]]. For Russia itself, he advocated a policy that would favour the light oppressed small nations — "a sort of all affirmative [[action]] before the fact". Today, this? Her basic approach stance is more resonant than ever. It is no surprise that, now communism anti-Americanism in Europe is over, it is time for an objective assessment of Leninmost clearly discernible in the 'big's contributionnations. Within these co-ordinates, the book tries to give Lenin his due. Carrère d'Encausse makes it clear The complaint is often made that globalisation threatens the Stalinist state apparatus grew out sovereignty of [[nation]] states; but it is not the NEP compromise. If small states so much as the state was to step back and make room for second-rank (ex-)world powers — countries like the marketUK, private property [[Germany]] and so on[[France]] — which fear that, it had to achieve a tighter control of society so that once fully immersed in the gains of the revolution would not newly emerging [[global]] [[empire]], they will be endangered by reduced to the emerging new classessame level as, say, [[Austria]], Belgium or even Luxembourg. A capitalist economic infrastructure was The hostility to be counterbalanced Americanisation in France, expressed by both leftists and [[right-wing]] nationalists, is ultimately a socialist political and ideological superstructure[[refusal]] to accept the fact that France is losing its hegemonic role in Europe.
Carrère d'Encausse also foregrounds how, in The levelling of larger and smaller nation-states should be counted among the struggle to succeed Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin and beneficial effects of globalisation: the rest had nothing but contempt shown in the west for Stalin's new administrative role as general secretary, dismissing him as a mere manager: they failed to appreciate the power that went with the post-communist eastern European states betrays a wounded [[narcissism]]. WhenInterestingly, the same logic was at work in 1922, Lenin submitted to Pravda the article Better Fewerformer [[Yugoslavia]]: not only Serbs, but Bettermost of the western powers, which was directed against Stalin's authoritarianism, Bukharin[[thought]] Serbia alone had enough substance to form a state on its own. Throughout the 1990s, even the editor-in-chief, saw no reason to publish it; one member radical democratic critics of [[Milosevic]] who rejected Serb nationalism acted on the Politburo suggested presupposition that they print only Serbia, after overthrowing Milosevic, could become a single copy thriving [[democracy]]; the other ex-Yugoslav nations were too provincial to do so. This brings to mind Engels's dismissal of the paper containing the text, and give it to Leninsmall [[Balkan]] nations as reactionary relics.
On the national questionLenin's [[personality]], Carrère d'Encausse writes that Lenin unconditionally opposed rehashes all the nationalism of large countries old arguments [[about]] his ruthless [[cruelty]] and endorsed indifference towards mass [[suffering]], but discussing the right to sovereignty fate of small nationsthe Worker's Opposition in 1921, independently she does note that "this was [[another]] example of who was in control Lenin's [[singular]] method, consisting of them. For Russia itselfeliminating not his opponents but their ideas, he advocated a policy that would favour allowing the losers to remain in the oppressed small nations — governing bodies."It's hard to imagine a sort of affirmative action before the fact"stronger contrast to Stalinist policies. Today, this stance is more resonant than ever. It is no surprise that anti-Americanism in Europe is most clearly discernible in the Lenin'bigs detractors like to evoke his reaction to Beethoven' nations. The complaint is often made that globalisation threatens the sovereignty of nation states; but it is not the small states so much as the second-rank (ex-)world powers s Appassionata — countries like the UKhe started to cry, Germany and France then claimed that a revolutionary cannot afford such sentimentality — which fear that, once fully immersed in the newly emerging global empire, they will be reduced to the same level asproof of his excessive powers of [[self]]-control. However, say, Austria, Belgium or even Luxembourg. The hostility might this anecdote not simply bear [[witness]] to Americanisation in Francean extreme sensitivity, expressed by both leftists and right-wing nationalists, is ultimately a refusal Lenin's [[knowledge]] that it needed to accept be kept in check for the sake of the fact that France is losing its hegemonic role in Europe.political struggle?
The levelling of larger and smaller nation-states should be counted among In their very triviality, the beneficial effects details of globalisation: the contempt shown Bolsheviks' daily lives in 1917 and the west following years make it obvious how different they were from the Stalinist nomenklatura. Leaving his flat for the post-communist eastern European states betrays Smolny Institute, on the evening of 24 October 1917, Lenin took a wounded narcissism. Interestingly, tram and asked the same logic conductress if there was at work any fighting going on in the former Yugoslavia: not city centre that day. In the years immediately after the October Revolution, he mostly travelled around in a car with only Serbshis [[driver]] and bodyguard Gil for protection; they were shot at, but most of stopped by the police and arrested (the western powerspolicemen did not recognise Lenin). Once, thought Serbia alone had enough substance after a visit to form a state on its own. Throughout [[school]] in the suburbs, bandits posing as police stole the 1990scar, even and Lenin and Gil had to walk to the radical democratic critics of Milosevic who rejected Serb nationalism acted on nearest police station to report the presupposition that only Serbiatheft. On 30 August 1918, after overthrowing Milosevic, could become Lenin was shot while talking to workers [[outside]] a thriving democracy; factory he had just visited. Gil drove him to the other ex-Yugoslav nations Kremlin, where there were too provincial no doctors; Nadezhda Krupskaya suggested that someone should run out to do so. This brings to mind Engelsthe nearest grocer's dismissal of the small Balkan nations as reactionary relicsshop for a lemon.
On As to Lenin's personalityhistorical [[achievement]], Carrère d'Encausse rehashes all the old arguments about rightly emphasises that his genius lay in his ruthless cruelty and indifference towards mass suffering, but discussing ability to move beyond the fate typical [[narrative]] of the Worker's Opposition revolution, in 1921which a brief, she does note that "this was another example ecstatic explosion of [[utopian]] [[energy]] is followed by a sobering morning after. Lenin's singular method, consisting of eliminating not his opponents but their ideas, allowing possessed the losers strength to remain in prolong the governing bodiesutopian moment." It's hard to imagine a stronger contrast to Stalinist policies. Lenin's detractors like to evoke Nowhere in his reaction to Beethoven's Appassionata — he started to cry, then claimed that a revolutionary cannot afford such sentimentality — as proof work is there any trace of his excessive powers what Lacan called the "narcissism of self-control. Howeverthe lost cause", displayed by those who cannot wait for the revolution to fail so that they might this anecdote not simply bear witness to an extreme sensitivity, admire and bemoan it. This is what made Lenin's knowledge that it needed to be kept in check for the sake politician of the 20th century — the century of the [[passion]] of the political struggle?[[real]].
In their very trivialityAs [[Alain]] [[Badiou]] has said, whereas the details of the Bolsheviks19th century was characterised by utopian or '[[scientific]]' daily lives projects and ideals which were to be fulfilled in 1917 the future, the 20th aimed at delivering [[the thing]] itself, at realising the longed-for New [[Order]]. The ultimate and defining experience of the following years make it obvious how different they were 20th century was the direct experience of the real as distinct from everyday social [[reality]] — the real, in its extreme [[violence]], is the Stalinist nomenklaturaprice to be paid for peeling off the deceiving layers of reality. Leaving his flat for Recalling the trenches of the Smolny Institutefirst world war, on Ernst Jünger celebrated face-to-face combat as the authentic [[intersubjective]] [[encounter]]: authenticity resides in the evening act of 24 October 1917violent [[transgression]], Lenin took a tram and asked whether in the form of an encounter with the [[Lacanian]] real — the thing [[Antigone]] confronts when she violates the conductress if there was any fighting going on in order of the city centre that day— or of Bataillean [[excess]]. In the years immediately after [[domain]] of [[sexuality]], the October Revolution[[icon]] of this passion of the real is Oshima's Ai No Corrida, he mostly travelled around in a car with only his driver and bodyguard Gil for protection; they were shot at, stopped by which the police couple's [[love]] is radicalised into mutual [[torture]] and arrested (eventually [[death]] — a clear echo of [[Bataille]]'s Story of the policemen did not recognise Lenin)Eye. Once, after Another example would be the hardcore websites that allow you to observe the [[inside]] of a vagina from the vantage point of a tiny camera at the tip of a visit penetrating dildo. When one gets too close to a school in the suburbsdesired [[object]], bandits posing as police stole [[erotic]] [[fascination]] turns into disgust at the real of the carbare flesh. [[Walking]] to his theatre in July 1956, and Lenin and Gil had to walk to [[Brecht]] passed a column of Soviet tanks rolling towards the nearest police station Stalinallee to report crush the theftworkers' rebellion. On 30 August 1918He waved at them and later that day wrote in his diary that, Lenin at that moment, he was shot while talking for the [[first time]] in his [[life]] tempted to workers outside a factory he had just visitedjoin the Communist party — an exemplary [[case]] of [[the passion of the real]]. Gil drove him to It wasn't that Brecht supported the Kremlinmilitary action, where there were no doctors; Nadezhda Krupskaya suggested but that someone should run out to he perceived and endorsed the nearest grocer's shop for violence as a lemon[[sign]] of authenticity.
As According to Lenin's historical achievementBadiou, Carrère d'Encausse rightly emphasises that his genius lay in his ability to move beyond the typical narrative underlying premise of the revolutionour post-political era, in which a briefthe administration of social affairs is replacing politics proper, ecstatic explosion of utopian energy is followed by a sobering morning after. Lenin possessed the strength , to prolong put it bluntly, that the utopian moment20th century did not take place. Nowhere What took place in his work is there any trace of what Lacan called those tormented years was a monstrous futile passion, a [[contingent]] deviation, the "narcissism ultimate results (and truth) of which were the lost cause", displayed by those who cannot wait for [[Gulag]] and the revolution [[Holocaust]]. The conclusion to fail so be drawn is that they might admire and bemoan itattempts to [[change]] society for the Good result merely in radical [[Evil]], the only Absolute admitted today. This The way to lead our lives is what made Lenin therefore along the path of pragmatic compromise, cynical wisdom, [[awareness]] of our limitations, [[resistance]] to the politician temptation of the Absolute. Against this attitude, fidelity to Lenin's legacy compels us to insist that the 20th century was not just a contingent aberration, but an explosion of emancipatory potential. The [[true]] difficulty — and the century task of the passion of the realauthentic [[theory]] — is to link together this explosion and its [[tragic]] outcome.
As Alain Badiou has saidIn her attempt to normalise Lenin, whereas the 19th century was characterised by utopian or 'scientific' projects and ideals which were to reduce him to one historical [[figure]] among many to be fulfilled in the futuredispassionately assessed, the 20th aimed at delivering the thing itselfCarrère d'Encausse misses Lenin's real breakthrough, at realising the longed-for New Order. The ultimate and defining experience of the 20th century was the direct experience Event of the real as distinct from everyday social reality — the realLenin, in its extreme violencewhich cannot be reduced to, is the price to be paid or accounted for peeling off the deceiving layers , in [[terms]] of realitytragic historical circumstances — it takes place in another [[dimension]]. Recalling the trenches of the first world war, Ernst Jünger celebrated face-Carrère d'Encausse's failure to-face combat as the authentic intersubjective encounter: authenticity resides appreciate this is most evident in the act her [[treatment]] of violent transgressionThe State and Revolution, whether in where she rehashes the form boring argument about Lenin's oscillation between support for revolutionary [[spontaneity]] and [[recognition]] of an encounter with the Lacanian real — [[need]] for the thing Antigone confronts when she violates the order controlling influence of the city — or of Bataillean excessparty [[elite]]. In She makes it clear that the domain Bolsheviks' Decree of sexualityPeace, issued immediately after the icon of this passion of October Revolution, inaugurated a new politics that bypassed the real is Oshima's Ai No Corridastate: it was addressed not to other states, in which but directly to the couple's love is radicalised into mutual torture and eventually death — people, to society as a clear echo of Bataille's Story of the Eyewhole. Another example would be the hardcore websites What she fails to recognise is that allow you to observe at the inside core of a vagina from The State and Revolution is the vantage point same [[vision]], of a tiny camera at the tip of a penetrating dildosocietal self-organisation that bypasses state mechanisms. When one gets too close to the desired object, erotic fascination turns This puts into disgust at perspective the real of the bare flesh. Walking to alleged [[contradiction]] between Lenin's elitism (his theatre in July 1956, Brecht passed a column of Soviet tanks rolling towards the Stalinallee belief that enlightened professionals should import class [[consciousness]] to crush the workers' rebellion. He waved at them [[working class]]) and later that day wrote the "undisguised call for spontaneity" in his diary thatThe State and Revolution. Not unlike [[Adorno]], at who argued that momentspontaneous [[enjoyment]] is the most difficult thing to achieve in modern society, he Lenin was for the first time fully aware that true spontaneity is very rare: in his life tempted order to join the Communist party — an exemplary case achieve it, one must get rid of false, imposed ideological spontaneity. His position was, therefore: within the passion realm of the real. It wasn't that Brecht supported the military actionstate, but that he perceived and endorsed the violence as a sign of authenticityBolshevik dictatorship; outside it, popular 'spontaneity'.
According to BadiouOn 7 November 1920, on the underlying premise [[third]] anniversary of our postthe October Revolution, a re-political eraenactment of the Storming of the Winter Palace was performed in Petrograd. Tens of thousands of workers, in which soldiers, students and artists had worked round the administration of social affairs is replacing politics properclock, [[living]] on kasha (tasteless porridge), istea and frozen apples, to put it bluntlyprepare the performance, that which took place just where the 20th century did not take placeoriginal event had occurred. What took place in those tormented years Their work was a monstrous futile passioncoordinated by army officers, as well as avant-garde artists, musicians and directors, a contingent deviationfrom Malevich to Meyerhold. Although this was theatre and not 'reality', the ultimate results (soldiers and truth) sailors who took part played themselves. Many of which them had not only participated in 1917, but were , at the Gulag and time of the Holocaust. The conclusion to be drawn is that attempts to change society for performance, fighting in the Good result merely civil war — Petrograd was under siege in radical Evil, the only Absolute admitted today1920 and suffering from severe food shortages. A contemporary commented: "The way to lead our lives is therefore along future historian will record how, throughout one of the path bloodiest and most brutal revolutions, all of pragmatic compromise, cynical wisdom, awareness Russia was acting"; the Formalist theoretician Viktor Shklovsky noted that "some kind of our limitations, resistance to elemental process is taking place where the temptation living fabric of life is being transformed into the Absolutetheatrical. Against this attitude, fidelity to Lenin" Such performances — particularly in comparison with Stalin's legacy compels us to insist celebratory Mayday parades — are evidence that the 20th century October Revolution was not just a contingent aberrationsimple coup d'état carried out by a small group of Bolsheviks, but an explosion of event that unleashed a tremendous emancipatory potential. The true difficulty — and the task of authentic theory — is to link together this explosion and its tragic outcome.
In her attempt to normalise Lenin, to reduce him to one historical figure among many to be dispassionately assessed, Carrère d'Encausse misses Other elements of Lenin's real breakthrough, retain their force today: his critique of "Leftism as the Event [[Child]] [[Illness]] of Lenin, which cannot be reduced toCommunism", or accounted forexample, in terms of tragic historical circumstances — it takes place in another dimension. Carrère d'Encausse's failure to appreciate this is most evident in her treatment of The State and Revolution, where she rehashes the boring argument about Lenin's oscillation between support for revolutionary spontaneity and recognition of the need for the controlling influence of the party elitehis stance against [[economism]]. She makes it clear He was aware that the Bolsheviks' Decree political "extremism" or "excessive radicalism" should always be understood as evidence of Peace, issued immediately after the October Revolutionan ideologico-political [[displacement]], inaugurated a new politics that bypassed indicating the state: limitations on what it was addressed not possible actually to other states, but directly achieve. The Jacobins' recourse to the people[[Terror]] was a [[hysterical]] [[acting out]], evidence of their inability to society as a wholedisturb the fundamentals of the economic order (private property etc). What she fails Today's 'excesses' of [[political correctness]] similarly reveal an inability to recognise is that at overcome the core actual causes of The State [[racism]] and Revolution is sexism. Perhaps the same vision, of a societal self-organisation that bypasses state mechanisms. This puts into perspective time has come to question the alleged contradiction between Lenin's elitism (his belief held by many modern leftists that enlightened professionals should import class consciousness to political [[totalitarianism]] somehow results from the working class) predominance of material production and the "undisguised call for spontaneity" in The State [[technology]] over [[human]] relations and Revolution[[culture]]. Not unlike Adorno, who argued What if the exact opposite is the case? What if political 'terror' signals precisely that spontaneous enjoyment is the most difficult thing sphere of material production has been subordinated to achieve in modern societypolitics? Perhaps, Lenin was fully aware that true spontaneity is very rare: in order to achieve itfact, one must get rid of falseall political 'terror', imposed ideological spontaneity. His position wasfrom the Jacobins to the [[Maoist]] [[Cultural Revolution]], therefore: within presupposes the realm displacement of production onto the state, a Bolshevik dictatorship; outside it, popular 'spontaneity'terrain of political battle.
On 7 November 1920Lenin's opposition to economism is crucial today, given the [[divided]] views held on the third anniversary economic matters in (what remains of ) radical circles: on the October Revolutionone hand, a re-enactment of politicians have abandoned the Storming of [[economy]] as the Winter Palace was performed in Petrograd. Tens site of thousands of workers, soldiers, students struggle and artists had worked round intervention; on the clockother, living on kasha (tasteless porridge)economists, tea and frozen apples, to prepare fascinated by the performancefunctioning of today's [[global economy]], which took place just where the original event had occurredpreclude any possibility of political intervention. Their work was coordinated by army officers, as well as avant-garde artists, musicians and directors, from Malevich We seem to Meyerhold. Although this was theatre and not 'realityneed Lenin's insights more than ever: yes, the soldiers and sailors who took part played themselves. Many economy is the key domain — the battle will be decided there; one has to break the spell of them had not only participated in 1917, global capitalism — but werethe intervention should be properly political, at the time of the performancenot economic. Today, fighting in the civil war when everyone is anti-capitalist — Petrograd was under siege even in 1920 and suffering Hollywood, where several conspiracy movies (from severe food shortages. A contemporary commented: "The future historian will record how, throughout one [[Enemy]] of the bloodiest and most brutal revolutions, all of Russia was acting"; State to The Insider) have recently been produced in which the Formalist theoretician Viktor Shklovsky noted that "some kind of elemental process enemy is taking place where the living fabric big corporation and its ruthless pursuit of life is being transformed into the theatrical." Such performances — particularly in comparison with Stalin's celebratory Mayday parades profit — are evidence that the October Revolution was not a simple coup d'état carried out by a small group of Bolsheviks, but an event that unleashed a tremendous emancipatory potentiallabel has lost its subversive sting.
Other elements of Lenin's breakthrough retain their force today: his critique of "Leftism as In the Child Illness of Communism"end, for examplethe universal appeal to freedom and democracy, and his stance against economism. He was aware the belief that political "extremism" or "excessive radicalism" should always they will save us from the abuses of capitalism, will have to be understood as evidence of an ideologico-political displacementchallenged. [[Liberal]] democracy, in truth, indicating is the limitations on what it was possible actually to achievepolitical arrangement under which [[capital]] thrives best. The JacobinsThis is Lenin' recourse s ultimate lesson: it is only by throwing off our attachment to the Terror was a hysterical acting outliberal democracy, evidence of their inability to disturb the fundamentals of the economic order (which cannot survive without private property etc), that we can become effectively anti-capitalist. TodayThe disintegration of communism in 1990 confirmed the 's 'excessesvulgar' [[Marxist]] thesis that the economic base of political correctness similarly reveal an inability to overcome democracy is the actual causes private ownership of racism and sexism. Perhaps the time has come to question the belief held by many modern leftists that political totalitarianism somehow results from the predominance means of material production and technology over human relations and culture— that is, capitalism with its attendant class distinctions. What if The first urge after the exact opposite is the case? What if introduction of political 'terror' signals precisely that democracy was privatisation, the sphere of material production has been subordinated frantic effort to politics? Perhapsfind — at any price, in factwhatever way — new owners for the property that had been nationalised when the communists took power: former apparatchiks, mafiosi, whoever, all political just to get a 'terrorbase'for democracy. But all this is taking place too late — at exactly the moment when, from in the Jacobins first world post-industrial societies, private ownership has started to the Maoist Cultural Revolution, presupposes the displacement of production onto the terrain of political battlelose its central regulating role.
Lenin's opposition to economism is crucial todayJohn Berger recently wrote about a French advert for an internet broker called Selftrade. Under an [[image]] of a solid gold hammer and sickle studded with diamonds, given the divided views held on economic matters in (what remains of) radical circlescaption reads: on "And if the one handstock market profited everybody?" The strategy is obvious: today, politicians have abandoned the economy as stock market fulfils the site egalitarian communist agenda — everybody can participate in it. Berger proposes a comparison: "Imagine a communications campaign today using an image of struggle a swastika cast in solid gold and intervention; on the other, economistsembedded with diamonds! It would, fascinated by the functioning of today's global economycourse, preclude any possibility of political interventionnot work. We seem to need Lenin's insights more than ever: yesWhy? The swastika addressed potential victors, not the economy is defeated. It invoked domination not justice." In contrast, the key domain — hammer and sickle invokes the battle will hope that "[[history]] would eventually be decided there; one has on the side of those struggling for fraternal justice". At the very moment this hope is proclaimed [[dead]] according to break the spell hegemonic [[ideology]] of global capitalism — but the intervention should be properly political"end of [[ideologies]]", not economic. Today, when everyone a paradigmatic post-industrial enterprise (is antithere anything more post-capitalist — even industrial than dealing in Hollywood, where several conspiracy movies (from Enemy of stocks on the State internet?) mobilises it once more. The hope continues to The Insider) have recently been produced in which the enemy is the big corporation and its ruthless pursuit of profit — the label has lost its subversive stinghaunt us.
In ==Source==* [[Seize the end, the universal appeal to freedom and democracy, the belief that they will save us from the abuses of capitalism, will have to be challenged. Liberal democracy, in truth, is the political arrangement under which capital thrives best. This is Day: Lenin's ultimate lesson: it is only by throwing off our attachment to liberal democracy, which cannot survive without private property, that we can become effectively anti-capitalistLegacy]]. The disintegration ''[[London]] Review of communism in 1990 confirmed the Books'vulgar' Marxist thesis that the economic base of political democracy is the private ownership of the means of production — that is. Vol. 24 No. 14, capitalism with its attendant class distinctions25 July 2002. <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n14/zize01_. The first urge after the introduction of political democracy was privatisation, the frantic effort to find — at any price, in whatever way — new owners for the property that had been nationalised when the communists took powerhtml> <http: former apparatchiks, mafiosi, whoever, just to get a 'base' for democracy//egs. But all this is taking place too late — at exactly edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-seize-the moment when, in the first world post-industrial societies, private ownership has started to lose its central regulating roleday-lenins-legacy.html>.
John Berger recently wrote about a French advert for an internet broker called Selftrade. Under an image of a solid gold hammer and sickle studded with diamonds, the caption reads: "And if the stock market profited everybody?" The strategy is obvious: today, the stock market fulfils the egalitarian communist agenda — everybody can participate in it. Berger proposes a comparison: "Imagine a communications campaign today using an image of a swastika cast in solid gold and embedded with diamonds! It would, of course, not work. Why? The swastika addressed potential victors, not the defeated. It invoked domination not justice." In contrast, the hammer and sickle invokes the hope that "history would eventually be on the side of those struggling for fraternal justice". At the very moment this hope is proclaimed dead according to the hegemonic ideology of the "end of ideologies", a paradigmatic post-industrial enterprise (is there anything more post-industrial than dealing in stocks on the internet?) mobilises it once more. The hope continues to haunt us.
From: London Review of Books, Vol. 24 No. 14, 25 July 2002.Available: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n14/zize01_.html==See Also==* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]]* [[]] [[Category:]][[Category:]][[Category:]][[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:]][[Category:]] [[Category:ZizekSlavoj Žižek]]
[[Category:Works]]
[[Category:Essays]]
