Changes

In 1914, an entire world disappeared, taking with it not only The [[left]] is undergoing a shattering [[experience]]: the bourgeois faith in progress, but the socialist progressive movement that accompanied itis [[being]] compelled to reinvent its [[whole]] [[project]]. Lenin (the Lenin of What Is tends to Be Done?) felt the ground fall away from beneath his feet — there wasbe forgotten, in his desperate reactionhowever, no sense of satisfaction, no desire is that a similar experience gave [[birth]] to say "I told you so[[Leninism]]." At the same timeConsider [[Lenin]]'s shock when, in the catastrophe made possible the key Leninist Event: the overcoming autumn of 1914, every European [[social]] democratic party except the evolutionary historicism of Serbs' followed the Second International. The kernel of the Leninist 'utopiapatriotic line' — 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 1917How difficult it must have been, 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 [[time]] when military [[conflict]] had cut the 'madness' (in the Kierkegaardian sense) of this utopia — European continent in this contexthalf, Stalinism stands for a return not to 'common sense'take sides. The explosive potential of The State and Revolution can't be overestimated: in its pages[[Think]] how many supposedly independent-minded intellectuals, [[Freud]] included, succumbed, as Neil Harding wrote in Leninism (1996)if only briefly, "the vocabulary and grammar of to the Western tradition of politics was abruptly dispensed withnationalist temptation."

What followed can be calledIn 1914, an entire [[world]] disappeared, taking with it not only the bourgeois [[faith]] in [[progress]], borrowing but the title socialist movement that accompanied it. Lenin (the Lenin of Althusser's text on Machiavelli, la solitude de Lenine: a time when he stood alone, struggling against What Is to Be Done?) felt the current in ground fall away from beneath his own party. Whenfeet — there was, in his April Theses desperate reaction, no [[sense]] of 1917[[satisfaction]], Lenin identified no [[desire]] to say "I told you so." At the Augenblicksame time, the unique chance for a revolution, catastrophe made possible the initial response on key Leninist [[Event]]: the part overcoming of a large majority the evolutionary [[historicism]] of his party colleagues was either stupor or contemptthe Second International. No prominent Bolshevik leader supported his call The kernel of the Leninist 'utopia' — the radical imperative to revolutionsmash the bourgeois [[state]] and invent a new communal social [[form]] without a standing [[army]], and police force or [[bureaucracy]], in which all could take part in the editorial board administration of Pravda took social matters — arises directly from the extraordinary step ashes of dissociating themselves and the Party from 1914. It wasn't a [[theoretical]] project for some distant [[future]]: in October 1917, Lenin's proposalsclaimed that "we can at once set in motion a state [[apparatus]] consisting of 10 if not 20 million [[people]]. Bogdanov characterised " What we should recognise is the April Theses as "'[[madness]]' (in the delirium Kierkegaardian sense) of this utopia — in this context, [[Stalinism]] stands for a madman"; Nadezhda Krupskaya concluded[[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), "I am afraid it looks as if Lenin has gone crazythe [[vocabulary]] and grammar of the Western [[tradition]] of [[politics]] was abruptly dispensed with."

Indispensable though LeninWhat followed can be called, borrowing the title of [[Althusser]]'s personal intervention was[[text]] on [[Machiavelli]], la solitude de Lenine: a time when he stood alone, struggling against the story current in his own party. When, in his April Theses of 1917, Lenin [[identified]] the October Revolution should not be turned into Augenblick, the unique [[chance]] for a revolution, the initial response on the myth part of a lone geniuslarge majority of his party colleagues was either stupor or contempt. Lenin succeeded because No prominent Bolshevik [[leader]] supported his appealcall to revolution, while bypassing and the party nomenklatura, was understood at editorial board of Pravda took the level extraordinary step of revolutionary micropolitics: local committees were set up throughout Russiadissociating themselves and the Party from Lenin's big cities, determined to ignore proposals. Bogdanov characterised the April Theses as "the authority delirium of the 'legitimate' government and to take things into their own handsa madman"; Nadezhda Krupskaya concluded: "I am afraid it looks as if Lenin has gone crazy."

In the spring of 1917, Indispensable though Lenin 's personal [[intervention]] was fully aware of , the paradox story of the situation: now that the February October Revolution had toppled should not be turned into the tsarist regime, Russia was the most democratic country in Europe, with an unprecedented degree [[myth]] of mass mobilisation, and freedom of organisation and of the press — and yet this freedom made everything ambiguousa lone [[genius]]. If there is a common thread running through everything Lenin wrote between the February and October Revolutionssucceeded because his appeal, it is his insistence on while bypassing the gap that separates the political struggle from its definable goals: immediate peaceparty [[nomenklatura]], was [[understood]] at the redistribution level of land and, of courserevolutionary micropolitics: local committees were set up throughout [[Russia]]'s big cities, the giving over of "all power determined to ignore the soviets", that is, the dismantling [[authority]] 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 possible," 'legitimate' [[government]] and the hard work of social reconstruction which must be performed if this explosion is to leave any traces in the social edificetake things into their own hands.

This gap — which recalls the interval between 1789 and 1793 in the French Revolution — is In the space spring of 1917, Lenin's unique intervention. The fundamental lesson was fully aware of the [[paradox]] of revolutionary materialism is that revolution must strike twice. It is not the [[situation]]: now that the first moment has February Revolution had toppled the form of a revolutiontsarist [[regime]], with Russia was the substance having to be filled most democratic country in later[[Europe]], with an unprecedented degree of mass mobilisation, but rather and [[freedom]] of organisation and of the opposite: press — and yet this freedom made everything ambiguous. If there is a common thread running through everything Lenin wrote between the first revolution retains the old mindsetFebruary and October Revolutions, it is his [[insistence]] on the belief gap that freedom and justice can be achieved if we simply use separates the already-existing state apparatus and [[political]] [[struggle]] from its democratic mechanismsdefinable goals: immediate peace, that the 'good' party might win a free election redistribution of land and implement , of course, the socialist transformation 'legally'. (The clearest expression giving over of this illusion "all [[power]] to the soviets", that is Karl Kautsky's thesis, formulated 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 1920s, that sense of the logical form [[imaginary]] explosion of freedom at the first stage leading from capitalism to socialism would be a parliamentary coalition [[sublime]] [[moment]] of bourgeois and proletarian parties.) Those who oscillate[[universal]] [[solidarity]] when "everything seems possible, " and are afraid to take the second step hard [[work]] of overcoming social reconstruction which must be performed if this explosion is to leave any traces in the old forms, are those who (in Robespierre's words) want a "revolution without revolution"[[social edifice]].

In his writings This gap — which recalls the interval between 1789 and 1793 in the [[French]] Revolution — is the [[space]] of 1917, Lenin saves his most acerbic irony for those who engage in a vain search for some kind 's unique intervention. The fundamental lesson of guarantee for revolutionary [[materialism]] is that revolution must strike twice. It is not that the revolution, either in first moment has the guise form of a reified notion of social necessity ("it's too early for the socialist revolution, with the working class isn't yet mature")substance having to be filled in later, or of a normative, democratic legitimacy ("but rather the opposite: the majority of first revolution retains the population isn't on our sideold mindset, so the revolution would not really [[belief]] that freedom and justice can be democratic"). It is as achieved if we simply use the revolutionary agent requires the permission of some representative of the Other before he risks seizing already-existing state power. For Lenin, as for Lacanapparatus and its democratic mechanisms, that the revolution 'ne s[[good]]'autorise que dparty might win a free election and implement the socialist transformation 'elle-mêmelegally'. (The wariness clearest expression of taking power prematurelythis [[illusion]] is Karl Kautsky's [[thesis]], formulated in the search for a guarantee1920s, is an expression that the [[logical]] form of fear before the abyss. This is what Lenin repeatedly denounces as "opportunism": an inherently false position which hides fear behind first [[stage]] leading from [[capitalism]] to [[socialism]] would be a protective screen parliamentary coalition of supposedly objective facts, laws or normsbourgeois and proletarian parties. The first step in combatting it is to announce clearly: "What, then) Those who oscillate, is and are afraid to be done? We must aussprechen was ist, 'state take the facts', admit second step of overcoming the truth that there is a tendency, or an opinionold forms, are those who (in our central committee . . Robespierre's [[words]]) [[want]] a "[[revolution without revolution]]"."

What happened when In his writings of 1917, Lenin became more conscious saves his most acerbic irony for those who engage in a vain [[search]] for some kind of [[guarantee]] for the limitations revolution, either in the guise of Bolshevik power? Here a contrast should be drawn between Lenin and Stalin. In Leninreified [[notion]] of social [[necessity]] ("it's very last writingstoo early for the socialist revolution, long after he renounced the utopia [[working]] [[class]] isn't yet mature"), or of State and Revolutiona [[normative]], there are democratic legitimacy ("the contours majority of a modest the population isn'realistic' project for t on our side, so the Bolsheviksrevolution would not really be democratic"). Given It is as if the revolutionary [[agent]] requires the economic underdevelopment and cultural backwardness permission of some [[representative]] of the Russian masses, there was, [[Other]] before he realisedrisks seizing state power. For Lenin, no way as for Russia to "pass directly to socialism"[[Lacan]], the revolution 'ne s'autorise que d'elle-même'. All that Soviet The wariness of taking power could do was to combine prematurely, the moderate politics of "state capitalism" with the cultural education search for a guarantee, is an expression of [[fear]] before the peasant massesabyss. Facts and figures revealed This is what Lenin repeatedly denounces as "opportunism"what : an inherently [[false]] [[position]] which hides fear behind a vast amount protective [[screen]] of urgent spadework we still have to do to reach the standard of an ordinary west European civilised country supposedly [[objective]] facts, laws or norms. . . We must bear The first step in mind the semi-Asiatic ignorance from which we have not yet extricated ourselves." Lenin repeatedly warns against the direct "implantation of communism"combatting it is to announce clearly: "Under no circumstances should we immediately introduce strictly communist ideas into the countryside. As long as the countryside lacks the material basis for communismWhat, then, it will is to be harmfuldone? We must aussprechen was ist, in fact'state the facts', I should sayadmit the [[truth]] that there is a tendency, fatalor an opinion, for communism to do soin our central committee . ." His recurrent motif is: "The most harmful thing here would be haste." Against this insistence on "cultural revolution", Stalin opted for the anti-Leninist notion of "building socialism in one country".

This doesn't mean, however, that What happened when Lenin silently adopted became more [[conscious]] of the Menshevik criticism limitations of Bolshevik utopianism, that revolution must follow power? Here a preordained course, contrast should be drawn between Lenin and can occur only when the necessary material conditions are in place[[Stalin]]. In Lenin realises's very last writings, writing in long after he renounced the early 1920sutopia of State and Revolution, that there are the main task contours of a modest 'realistic' project for the Bolsheviks is to meet . Given the responsibilities [[economic]] underdevelopment and [[cultural]] backwardness of a progressive bourgeois regime (the universal provision of education and so on)Russian masses, there was, he realised, no way for Russia to "[[pass]] directly to socialism". However, the fact All that Soviet power could do was to combine the agent moderate politics of development is proletarian revolutionary power changes "state capitalism" with the situation fundamentally: there is a chance that these measures will be implemented in such a way as to throw off their bourgeois ideological framework — cultural education will serve of the people, rather than being peasant masses. Facts and [[figures]] revealed "what a mask for vast amount of urgent spadework we still have to do to reach the promotion standard of bourgeois class interestsan ordinary west European civilised country . The properly dialectical paradox is that the very hopelessness of the Russian situation (the backwardness that compels the proletarian power to engage . . We must bear in [[mind]] the bourgeois civilising process) can be turned into an advantage: semi-Asiatic [[ignorance]] from which we have not yet extricated ourselves."What if Lenin repeatedly warns against the complete hopelessness direct "implantation of [[communism]]": "Under no circumstances should we immediately introduce strictly [[communist]] [[ideas]] into the situation, by stimulating countryside. As long as the efforts of countryside [[lacks]] the workers and peasants tenfold[[material]] basis for communism, it will be harmful, in fact, I should say, fatal, offered us the opportunity for communism to create do so." His recurrent motif is: "The most harmful [[thing]] here would be haste." Against this insistence on "cultural revolution", Stalin opted for the fundamental requisites anti-Leninist notion of civilisation "building socialism in a different way from that of west European countries?one country".

We haveThis doesn't mean, thenhowever, two incompatible models that Lenin silently adopted the Menshevik criticism of the Bolshevik [[utopianism]], that revolution: to wait for must follow a preordained course, and can occur only when the moment of the final crisisnecessary material [[conditions]] are in [[place]]. Lenin realises, when revolution will explode "at its own proper time" according to [[writing]] in the necessity of historical evolution; or to assert that revolution has no "proper time"early 1920s, that the opportunity main task for it the Bolsheviks is something that emerges to meet the responsibilities of a progressive bourgeois regime (the universal provision of education and has to be seizedso on). Lenin insists However, the fact that the extraordinary set agent of circumstances, like those [[development]] is proletarian revolutionary power changes the situation fundamentally: there is a chance that these measures will be implemented in Russia in 1917, can provide such a way as to undermine throw off their bourgeois [[ideological]] framework — education will serve the norm itself. I would argue that this belief is more persuasive today people, rather than ever. We live in an era when being a mask for the state and its apparatuses, including its political agents, are less and less able to articulate key issuespromotion of bourgeois class interests. The illusion properly [[dialectical]] paradox is that the pressing problems facing Russia in 1917 very hopelessness of the Russian situation (peace, land distribution etc) could have been solved through parliamentary means is in effect the same as today's illusion backwardness that compels the proletarian power to engage in the ecological threat bourgeois civilising [[process]]) can be avoided turned into an advantage: "What if the [[complete]] hopelessness of the situation, by applying market logic (making polluters pay for stimulating the efforts of the [[workers]] and peasants tenfold, offered us the opportunity to create the damage they cause).fundamental requisites of civilisation in a different way from that of west European countries?"

HowWe have, then, does Hélène Carrère d'Encausse's new study stand in two incompatible models of the revolution: to wait for the light moment of all this? Her basic approach is thatthe final crisis, now communism is over, it is when revolution will explode "at its own proper time for an objective assessment " according to the necessity of Lenin's contribution. Within these co-ordinateshistorical evolution; or to assert that revolution has no "proper time", that the book tries opportunity for it is something that emerges and has to give be seized. Lenin his due. Carrère d'Encausse makes it clear insists that the Stalinist state apparatus grew out extraordinary set of circumstances, like those in Russia in 1917, can provide a way to undermine the NEP compromisenorm itself. If I would argue that this belief is more persuasive today than ever. We live in an era when the state was to step back and make room for the marketits apparatuses, including its political agents, private property are less and so on, it had less able to achieve a tighter control of society so articulate key issues. The illusion that the gains of pressing problems facing Russia in 1917 (peace, land distribution etc) could have been solved through parliamentary means is in effect the same as today's illusion that the revolution would not ecological [[threat]] can be endangered avoided by applying [[market]] [[logic]] (making polluters pay for the emerging new classes. A capitalist economic infrastructure was to be counterbalanced by a socialist political and ideological superstructuredamage they [[cause]]).

How, then, does Hélène Carrère d'Encausse also foregrounds how, 's new study stand in the struggle to succeed Leninlight of all this? Her basic approach is that, Trotskynow communism is over, Bukharin and the rest had nothing but contempt it is time for Stalinan objective assessment of Lenin's new administrative role as general secretarycontribution. Within these co-ordinates, dismissing him as a mere manager: they failed the book tries to appreciate give Lenin his due. Carrère d'Encausse makes it clear that the power that went with Stalinist state apparatus grew out of the postNEP compromise. When, in 1922, Lenin submitted If the state was to Pravda step back and make room for the article Better Fewermarket, but Better[[private property]] and so on, which was directed against Stalin's authoritarianism, Bukharin, the editor-in-chief, saw no reason it had to publish it; one member achieve a tighter [[control]] of [[society]] so that the Politburo suggested that they print a single copy gains of the paper containing revolution would not be endangered by the text, emerging new classes. A [[capitalist]] economic infrastructure was to be counterbalanced by a socialist political and give it to Leninideological superstructure.

On the national question, Carrère d'Encausse writes that Lenin unconditionally opposed also foregrounds how, in the nationalism of large countries and endorsed the right struggle to sovereignty of small nationssucceed Lenin, independently of who was in control of them. For Russia itselfTrotsky, he advocated a policy that would favour Bukharin and the oppressed small nations — "rest had [[nothing]] but contempt for Stalin's new administrative [[role]] as general secretary, dismissing him as a sort of affirmative action before mere manager: they failed to appreciate the fact". Today, this stance is more resonant than ever. It is no surprise power that anti-Americanism in Europe is most clearly discernible in went with the 'big' nationspost. 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 — countries like the UKWhen, Germany and France — which fear that, once fully immersed in the newly emerging global empire1922, they will be reduced Lenin submitted to Pravda the same level asarticle Better Fewer, but Better, saywhich was directed against Stalin's [[authoritarianism]], AustriaBukharin, Belgium or even Luxembourg. The hostility to Americanisation the editor-in France, expressed by both leftists and right-wing nationalistschief, is ultimately a refusal saw no [[reason]] to accept publish it; one member of the fact Politburo suggested that France is losing its hegemonic role in Europethey print a single copy of the paper containing the text, and give it to Lenin.

The levelling On the national question, Carrère d'Encausse writes that Lenin unconditionally opposed the [[nationalism]] of larger large countries and smaller nation-states should be counted among endorsed the beneficial effects [[right]] to [[sovereignty]] of globalisation: the contempt shown small nations, independently of who was in control of [[them]]. For Russia itself, he advocated a policy that would favour the west for oppressed small nations — "a sort of affirmative [[action]] before the post-communist eastern European states betrays a wounded narcissismfact". InterestinglyToday, this stance is more resonant than ever. It is no surprise that anti-Americanism in Europe is most clearly discernible in the same logic was at work in 'big' nations. The complaint is often made that globalisation threatens the former Yugoslavia: sovereignty of [[nation]] states; but it is not only Serbsthe small states so much as the second-rank (ex-)world powers — countries like the UK, but most of [[Germany]] and [[France]] — which fear that, once fully immersed in the western powersnewly emerging [[global]] [[empire]], thought Serbia alone had enough substance they will be reduced to form a state on its own. Throughout the 1990ssame level as, say, [[Austria]], Belgium or even the radical democratic critics of Milosevic who rejected Serb nationalism acted on the presupposition that only SerbiaLuxembourg. The hostility to Americanisation in France, after overthrowing Milosevicexpressed by both leftists and [[right-wing]] nationalists, could become is ultimately a thriving democracy; the other ex-Yugoslav nations were too provincial [[refusal]] to do so. This brings to mind Engels's dismissal of accept the small Balkan nations as reactionary relicsfact that France is losing its hegemonic role in Europe.

On Lenin's personality, Carrère d'Encausse rehashes all the old arguments about his ruthless cruelty The levelling of larger and indifference towards mass suffering, but discussing smaller nation-states should be counted among the fate beneficial effects of globalisation: the Worker's Opposition contempt shown in 1921the west for the post-communist eastern European states betrays a wounded [[narcissism]]. Interestingly, she does note that "this the same logic was another example of Lenin's singular methodat work in the former [[Yugoslavia]]: not only Serbs, consisting but most of eliminating not his opponents but their ideasthe western powers, allowing the losers to remain in the governing bodies." It's hard [[thought]] Serbia alone had enough substance to imagine form a stronger contrast to Stalinist policiesstate on its own. Lenin's detractors like to evoke his reaction to Beethoven's Appassionata — he started to cryThroughout the 1990s, then claimed even the radical democratic critics of [[Milosevic]] who rejected Serb nationalism acted on the presupposition that only Serbia, after overthrowing Milosevic, could become a revolutionary cannot afford such sentimentality — as proof of his excessive powers of selfthriving [[democracy]]; the other ex-controlYugoslav nations were too provincial to do so. However, might this anecdote not simply bear witness This brings to an extreme sensitivity, and Leninmind Engels's knowledge that it needed to be kept in check for the sake dismissal of the political struggle?small [[Balkan]] nations as reactionary relics.

In their very trivialityOn Lenin's [[personality]], the details of the BolsheviksCarrère d' daily lives in 1917 and the following years make it obvious how different they were from Encausse rehashes all the Stalinist nomenklatura. Leaving old arguments [[about]] his flat for the Smolny Instituteruthless [[cruelty]] and indifference towards mass [[suffering]], on but discussing the evening fate of 24 October 1917, Lenin took a tram and asked the conductress if there was any fighting going on Worker's Opposition in the city centre 1921, she does note that day. In the years immediately after the October Revolution"this was [[another]] example of Lenin's [[singular]] method, he mostly travelled around in a car with only consisting of eliminating not his driver and bodyguard Gil for protection; they were shot atopponents but their ideas, stopped by allowing the police and arrested (losers to remain in the policemen did not recognise Lenin)governing bodies. Once, after " It's hard to imagine a visit stronger contrast to a school in the suburbs, bandits posing as police stole the car, and Stalinist policies. Lenin and Gil had 's detractors like to walk evoke his reaction to the nearest police station Beethoven's Appassionata — he started to report the theft. On 30 August 1918cry, Lenin was shot while talking to workers outside then claimed that a factory he had just visitedrevolutionary cannot afford such sentimentality — as proof of his excessive powers of [[self]]-control. Gil drove him However, might this anecdote not simply bear [[witness]] to the Kremlinan extreme sensitivity, where there were no doctors; Nadezhda Krupskaya suggested and Lenin's [[knowledge]] that someone should run out it needed to be kept in check for the sake of the nearest grocer's shop for a lemon.political struggle?

As to Lenin's historical achievementIn their very triviality, Carrère dthe details of the Bolsheviks'Encausse rightly emphasises that his genius lay daily lives in 1917 and the following years make it obvious how different they were from the Stalinist nomenklatura. Leaving his ability to move beyond flat for the Smolny Institute, on the typical narrative evening of 24 October 1917, Lenin took a tram and asked the conductress if there was any fighting going on in the revolutioncity centre that day. In the years immediately after the October Revolution, he mostly travelled around in which a briefcar with only his [[driver]] and bodyguard Gil for protection; they were shot at, ecstatic explosion of utopian energy is followed stopped by a sobering morning after. Lenin possessed the strength to prolong police and arrested (the utopian momentpolicemen did not recognise Lenin). Nowhere Once, after a visit to a [[school]] in his work is there any trace of what Lacan called the "narcissism of suburbs, bandits posing as police stole the lost cause"car, displayed by those who cannot wait for and Lenin and Gil had to walk to the revolution nearest police station to fail so that they might admire and bemoan itreport the theft. This is what made On 30 August 1918, Lenin was shot while talking to workers [[outside]] a factory he had just visited. Gil drove him to the politician of Kremlin, where there were no doctors; Nadezhda Krupskaya suggested that someone should run out to the 20th century — the century of the passion of the realnearest grocer's shop for a lemon.

As Alain Badiou has saidto Lenin's historical [[achievement]], whereas the 19th century was characterised by utopian or Carrère d'scientific' projects and ideals which were Encausse rightly emphasises that his genius lay in his ability to be fulfilled in the future, the 20th aimed at delivering the thing itself, at realising the longed-for New Order. The ultimate and defining experience of move beyond the 20th century was the direct experience typical [[narrative]] of the real as distinct from everyday social reality — the realrevolution, in its extreme violencewhich a brief, ecstatic explosion of [[utopian]] [[energy]] is the price to be paid for peeling off the deceiving layers of realityfollowed by a sobering morning after. Recalling Lenin possessed the trenches of the first world war, Ernst Jünger celebrated face-strength to-face combat as prolong the authentic intersubjective encounter: authenticity resides in the act of violent transgression, whether in the form of an encounter with the Lacanian real — the thing Antigone confronts when she violates the order of the city — or of Bataillean excessutopian moment. In the domain of sexuality, the icon of this passion of the real is Oshima's Ai No Corrida, Nowhere in which the couple's love his work is radicalised into mutual torture and eventually death — a clear echo of Bataille's Story there any trace of what Lacan called the Eye. Another example would be the hardcore websites that allow you to observe the inside "narcissism of a vagina from the vantage point of a tiny camera at the tip of a penetrating dildo. When one gets too close to the desired objectlost cause", erotic fascination turns into disgust at displayed by those who cannot wait for the real of the bare flesh. Walking revolution to his theatre in July 1956, Brecht passed a column of Soviet tanks rolling towards the Stalinallee to crush the workers' rebellionfail so that they might admire and bemoan it. He waved at them and later that day wrote in his diary that, at that moment, he was for This is what made Lenin the first time in his life tempted to join politician of the Communist party 20th century — an exemplary case the century of the [[passion ]] of the [[real. It wasn't that Brecht supported the military action, but that he perceived and endorsed the violence as a sign of authenticity]].

According As [[Alain]] [[Badiou]] has said, whereas the 19th century was characterised by utopian or '[[scientific]]' projects and ideals which were to Badioube fulfilled in the future, the 20th aimed at delivering [[the thing]] itself, at realising the underlying premise longed-for New [[Order]]. The ultimate and defining experience of our post-political era, in which the administration 20th century was the direct experience of the real as distinct from everyday social affairs is replacing politics proper[[reality]] — the real, in its extreme [[violence]], isthe price to be paid for peeling off the deceiving layers of reality. Recalling the trenches of the first world war, Ernst Jünger celebrated face-to put it bluntly-face combat as the authentic [[intersubjective]] [[encounter]]: authenticity resides in the act of violent [[transgression]], that whether in the form of an encounter with the [[Lacanian]] real — the thing [[Antigone]] confronts when she violates the order of the 20th century did not take placecity — or of Bataillean [[excess]]. What took place in those tormented years was a monstrous futile passion, a contingent deviationIn the [[domain]] of [[sexuality]], the ultimate results (and truth) [[icon]] of this passion of the real is Oshima's Ai No Corrida, in which were the Gulag couple's [[love]] is radicalised into mutual [[torture]] and eventually [[death]] — a clear echo of [[Bataille]]'s Story of the HolocaustEye. The conclusion to Another example would be drawn is the hardcore websites that attempts allow you to change society for observe the [[inside]] of a vagina from the Good result merely in radical Evil, vantage point of a tiny camera at the only Absolute admitted todaytip of a penetrating dildo. The way When one gets too close to lead our lives is therefore along the path desired [[object]], [[erotic]] [[fascination]] turns into disgust at the real of pragmatic compromisethe bare flesh. [[Walking]] to his theatre in July 1956, cynical wisdom[[Brecht]] passed a column of Soviet tanks rolling towards the Stalinallee to crush the workers' rebellion. He waved at them and later that day wrote in his diary that, awareness of our limitationsat that moment, resistance he was for the [[first time]] in his [[life]] tempted to join the Communist party — an exemplary [[case]] of [[the temptation passion of the Absolutereal]]. Against this attitude, fidelity to LeninIt wasn's legacy compels us to insist t that Brecht supported the 20th century was not just a contingent aberrationmilitary action, but an explosion of emancipatory potential. The true difficulty — that he perceived and endorsed the task violence as a [[sign]] of authentic theory — is to link together this explosion and its tragic outcomeauthenticity.

In her attempt According to normalise Lenin, to reduce him to one historical figure among many to be dispassionately assessed, Carrère d'Encausse misses Lenin's real breakthroughBadiou, the Event underlying premise of Leninour post-political era, in which cannot be reduced tothe administration of social affairs is replacing politics proper, or accounted foris, in terms of tragic historical circumstances — to put it takes bluntly, that the 20th century did not take place in another dimension. Carrère d'Encausse's failure to appreciate this is most evident What took place in her treatment of The State and Revolutionthose tormented years was a monstrous futile passion, a [[contingent]] deviation, where she rehashes the boring argument about Lenin's oscillation between support for revolutionary spontaneity ultimate results (and recognition truth) of which were the [[Gulag]] and the need [[Holocaust]]. The conclusion to be drawn is that attempts to [[change]] society for the controlling influence of Good result merely in radical [[Evil]], the party eliteonly Absolute admitted today. She makes it clear that The way to lead our lives is therefore along the Bolsheviks' Decree path of Peacepragmatic compromise, issued immediately after the October Revolutioncynical wisdom, inaugurated a new politics that bypassed the state: it was addressed not to other states, but directly to the people[[awareness]] of our limitations, [[resistance]] to society as a whole. What she fails to recognise is that at the core temptation of The State and Revolution is the same visionAbsolute. Against this attitude, of a societal self-organisation that bypasses state mechanisms. This puts into perspective the alleged contradiction between fidelity to Lenin's elitism (his belief that enlightened professionals should import class consciousness legacy compels us to the working class) and the "undisguised call for spontaneity" in The State and Revolution. Not unlike Adorno, who argued insist that spontaneous enjoyment is the most difficult thing to achieve in modern society, Lenin 20th century was fully aware that true spontaneity is very rare: in order to achieve itnot just a contingent aberration, one must get rid but an explosion of false, imposed ideological spontaneityemancipatory potential. His position was, therefore: within The [[true]] difficulty — and the realm task of the state, a Bolshevik dictatorship; outside it, popular 'spontaneity'authentic [[theory]] — is to link together this explosion and its [[tragic]] outcome.

On 7 November 1920In her attempt to normalise Lenin, to reduce him to one historical [[figure]] among many to be dispassionately assessed, Carrère d'Encausse misses Lenin's real breakthrough, on the third anniversary Event of the October RevolutionLenin, which cannot be reduced to, or accounted for, a re-enactment in [[terms]] of the Storming of the Winter Palace was performed tragic historical circumstances — it takes place in Petrogradanother [[dimension]]. Tens Carrère d'Encausse's failure to appreciate this is most evident in her [[treatment]] of thousands of workersThe State and Revolution, soldiers, students where she rehashes the boring argument about Lenin's oscillation between support for revolutionary [[spontaneity]] and artists had worked round [[recognition]] of the clock, living on kasha (tasteless porridge), tea and frozen apples, to prepare [[need]] for the performance, which took place just where controlling influence of the original event had occurredparty [[elite]]. Their work was coordinated by army officersShe makes it clear that the Bolsheviks' Decree of Peace, as well as avant-garde artistsissued immediately after the October Revolution, musicians and directors, from Malevich to Meyerhold. Although this inaugurated a new politics that bypassed the state: it was theatre and addressed not 'reality'to other states, but directly to the soldiers and sailors who took part played themselvespeople, to society as a whole. Many of them had not only participated in 1917, but were, What she fails to recognise is that at the time core of The State and Revolution is the performancesame [[vision]], fighting in of a societal self-organisation that bypasses state mechanisms. This puts into perspective the alleged [[contradiction]] between Lenin's elitism (his belief that enlightened professionals should import class [[consciousness]] to the [[working class]]) and the civil war — Petrograd was under siege "undisguised call for spontaneity" in 1920 The State and suffering from severe food shortagesRevolution. A contemporary commented: "The future historian will record howNot unlike [[Adorno]], throughout one of who argued that spontaneous [[enjoyment]] is the bloodiest and most brutal revolutionsdifficult thing to achieve in modern society, all of Russia Lenin was acting"; the Formalist theoretician Viktor Shklovsky noted fully aware that "some kind of elemental process true spontaneity is taking place where the living fabric very rare: in order to achieve it, one must get rid of life is being transformed into the theatricalfalse, imposed ideological spontaneity." Such performances — particularly in comparison with Stalin's celebratory Mayday parades — are evidence that His position was, therefore: within the October Revolution was not a simple coup d'état carried out by a small group realm of Bolsheviksthe state, but an event that unleashed a tremendous emancipatory potentialBolshevik dictatorship; outside it, popular 'spontaneity'.

Other elements On 7 November 1920, on the [[third]] anniversary of the October Revolution, a re-enactment of Lenin's breakthrough retain their force today: his critique the Storming of "Leftism as the Child Illness Winter Palace was performed in Petrograd. Tens of Communism"thousands of workers, soldiers, students and artists had worked round the clock, for example[[living]] on kasha (tasteless porridge), tea and his stance against economismfrozen apples, to prepare the performance, which took place just where the original event had occurred. He Their work was aware that political "extremism" or "excessive radicalism" should always be understood coordinated by army officers, as well as evidence of an ideologicoavant-political displacementgarde artists, indicating the limitations on what it was possible actually musicians and directors, from Malevich to achieveMeyerhold. The Jacobins' recourse to the Terror Although this was a hysterical acting out, evidence of their inability to disturb the fundamentals of the economic order (private property etc). Todaytheatre and not 's reality'excesses' of political correctness similarly reveal an inability to overcome , the actual causes of racism soldiers and sexismsailors who took part played themselves. Perhaps Many of them had not only participated in 1917, but were, at the time has come to question of the belief held by many modern leftists that political totalitarianism somehow results from performance, fighting in the predominance of material production civil war — Petrograd was under siege in 1920 and technology over human relations and culturesuffering from severe food shortages. What if A contemporary commented: "The future historian will record how, throughout one of the exact opposite is bloodiest and most brutal revolutions, all of Russia was acting"; the case? What if political 'terror' signals precisely Formalist theoretician Viktor Shklovsky noted that "some kind of elemental process is taking place where the sphere living fabric of material production has been subordinated to politics? Perhaps, life is being transformed into the theatrical." Such performances — particularly in fact, all political comparison with Stalin'terror', from s celebratory Mayday parades — are evidence that the Jacobins to the Maoist Cultural October Revolutionwas not a simple coup d'état carried out by a small group of Bolsheviks, presupposes the displacement of production onto the terrain of political battlebut an event that unleashed a tremendous emancipatory potential.

Other elements of Lenin's opposition to economism is crucial breakthrough retain their force today, given : his critique of "Leftism as the divided views held on economic matters in (what remains [[Child]] [[Illness]] of) radical circles: on the one handCommunism", for example, politicians have abandoned the economy and his stance against [[economism]]. He was aware that political "extremism" or "excessive radicalism" should always be understood as evidence of an ideologico-political [[displacement]], indicating the site of struggle and intervention; limitations on what it was possible actually to achieve. The Jacobins' recourse to the other[[Terror]] was a [[hysterical]] [[acting out]], economists, fascinated by evidence of their inability to disturb the functioning fundamentals of todaythe economic order (private property etc). Today's global economy, preclude any possibility 'excesses' of [[political intervention. We seem correctness]] similarly reveal an inability to need Lenin's insights more than ever: yes, overcome the economy is the key domain — actual causes of [[racism]] and sexism. Perhaps the battle will be decided there; one time has come to break question the spell belief held by many modern leftists that political [[totalitarianism]] somehow results from the predominance of global capitalism — but material production and [[technology]] over [[human]] relations and [[culture]]. What if the intervention should be properly exact opposite is the case? What if political'terror' signals precisely that the sphere of material production has been subordinated to politics? Perhaps, not economic. Todayin fact, when everyone is anti-capitalist — even in Hollywoodall political 'terror', where several conspiracy movies (from Enemy of the State Jacobins to The Insider) have recently been produced in which the enemy is [[Maoist]] [[Cultural Revolution]], presupposes the big corporation and its ruthless pursuit displacement of profit — production onto the label has lost its subversive stingterrain of political battle.

In Lenin's opposition to economism is crucial today, given the end, [[divided]] views held on economic matters in (what remains of) radical circles: on the universal appeal to freedom and democracyone hand, politicians have abandoned the belief that they will save us from [[economy]] as the abuses site of capitalismstruggle and intervention; on the other, will have to be challenged. Liberal democracyeconomists, in truthfascinated by the functioning of today's [[global economy]], is the preclude any possibility of political arrangement under which capital thrives bestintervention. This is We seem to need Lenin's ultimate lessoninsights more than ever: it is only by throwing off our attachment to liberal democracy, which cannot survive without private propertyyes, that we can become effectively anti-capitalist. The disintegration of communism in 1990 confirmed the 'vulgar' Marxist thesis that economy is the economic base of political democracy is key domain — the private ownership of battle will be decided there; one has to break the means spell of production global capitalism — that isbut the intervention should be properly political, capitalism with its attendant class distinctionsnot economic. The first urge after the introduction of political democracy was privatisationToday, the frantic effort to find when everyone is anti-capitalist — at any priceeven in Hollywood, in whatever way — new owners for where several conspiracy movies (from [[Enemy]] of the property that had State to The Insider) have recently been nationalised when produced in which the communists took power: former apparatchiks, mafiosi, whoever, just to get a 'base' for democracy. But all this enemy is taking place too late the big corporation and its ruthless pursuit of profit — at exactly the moment when, in the first world post-industrial societies, private ownership label has started to lose lost its central regulating rolesubversive sting.

In 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 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-capitalist. The disintegration of communism in 1990 confirmed the 'vulgar' [[Marxist]] thesis that the economic base of political democracy is the private ownership of the means of production — that is, capitalism with its attendant class distinctions. 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 power: former apparatchiks, mafiosi, whoever, just to get a 'base' for democracy. But all this is taking place too late — at exactly the moment when, in the first world post-industrial societies, private ownership has started to lose its central regulating role. 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.

* [[Seize the Day: Lenin's Legacy]]. ''[[London ]] Review of Books''. Vol. 24 No. 14, 25 July 2002. <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n14/zize01_.html> <http://egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-seize-the-day-lenins-legacy.html>.