Changes

When the Party Commits Suicide<br><span class="boldtext">Slavoj Zizek.<br><cite>The Human Rights Project, 1999. </cite></span></h2></td></tr>

<!--Article Body Text--><td colspan="2" width="580"><p><br>Finally, in the deluge of the conservative-liberal "Black Books" on Stalinist "totalitarianism," a work which not only meets the highest standards of historical research, but also enables us to grasp the unique social dynamics that culminated in the great purges of the 30s: J. Arch Getty's and Oleg V. Naumov's The Road to Terror.^{<a href="#1">1 </a>}&nbsp; Based on the archives of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party which were only recently made available to historians, this book is an extraordinary achievement already at the level of narrative presentation: historical documents (the minutes of the CC sessions, party decrees, private and official letters) are introduced and accompanied by a substantial commentary which displays a theoretical stringency rarely met in historians (suffice it to mention references to Foucault, Bourdieu, and modern linguistics in order to explain the functioning of the ritual of self-accusation in the show trials). Furthermore, the picture that emerges of this period from the late 20ies — the failure of the collectivization of agriculture — to the late 30ies — the sudden stop of the "irrational" terror — is much more complex than the image of Stalin ruthlessly realizing his demoniac project of total domination: the great purges are put in their context, rendered visible as the result of the way the top nomenklatura (mis)perceived their situation. In the eyes of Stalin and his immediate entourage, the Bolshevik rule was unstable, out of control, permanently threatened by the centrifugal forces — far more than the gratuitous sadistic display of power, the Stalinist terror was an implicit admission of the inability to run a country through the "normal" chains of administrative command. In order to properly measure the impact of The Road to Terror, one should start with the paradox of the revolutionary sacrifice.</p>

<p><em>The Communist Sacrifice</em></p>

<p>Once we enter the Stalinist universe of the ridiculous sublime, the ultimate form of sacrifice is no longer the tragic fate of the fighter dedicated to the Cause, but a much more radical self-sacrifice. Let me elucidate it apropos of the Khmer Rouge rule in Cambodia, when there were no public trials, no ritualized public self-accusations comparable to Stalinist show trials: people simply disappeared in the night, they were dragged away, and nobody dared to speak or ask about it.^{<a href="#2 ">2</a>}&nbsp; The […] paradox of the power edifice in which the public structure and its obscene hidden double overlap: instead of the usual public-symbolic power structure sustained by the obscene invisible network of apparatuses, we have the public power structure which directly treats ITSELF as an anonymous, secret, hidden body. As such, the Khmer Rouge regime was a kind of political equivalent to the famous publicity description of the Linda Fiorentino utterly evil femme fatale character from John Dahl's neo-noir The Last Seduction: "Most people have a dark side… she had nothing else." In the same way, while most of the political regimes have a dark side of obscene secret rituals and apparatuses, the Khmer Rouge regime had nothing else… This is probably "totalitarianism" at its unsurpassed purest — how did this take place?</p>

<p>The key act of the Stalinist Communist Party is the official consecration of its History (no wonder that THE Stalinist book was the infamous History of VKP(b)) — only at this point, the Party symbolically starts to exist. However, the Communist Party of Cambodia had to remain "illegal" as long as the key problem of its history was not solved: WHEN did its founding congress take place? In 1951, the CP of Cambodia was established as part of the Vietnam-dominated Indochinese CP; in 1960, the "autonomous" Cambodian CP was formed. How to make a choice here? Till the mid 70ies, the Khmer Rouge, although already fiercely autonomous and nationalist, still needed the support of Vietnam; so their official historian Keo Meas made an almost Freudian compromise-solution, proclaiming as the official birthdate of the Party September 30 1951 — the YEAR of the founding of the Cambodian wing of the Indochinese CP and the DAY of the 1960 congress of the autonomous Cambodian CP. (History, of course, is here treated as a pure domain of meaning without regard for facts: the chosen date reflected the present political balance, not historical accuracy.) In 1976, however, the Khmer Rouge Cambodia was strong enough to break from the Vietnam tutelage — what better way to signal this than to CHANGE THE DATE of the party foundation, i.e. to rewrite history and to acknowledge as the true date the date of the constitution of the autonomous Cambodian CP, September 30 1960?</p>

<p>However, it is now that the true Stalinist deadlock emerges: how, then, to explain the embarrassing fact that, till now, the CP publicly cited another date as its grounding moment? To publicly acknowledge that the previous date was a pragmatic, politically opportune manoeuvre was, of course, unthinkable — so, logically, the only solution was to discover a plot. No wonder, than, that Keo Meas was arrested and tortured to confess (in an act of supreme irony, his confession was dated September 30 1976) that he proposed the compromise date in order to disguise the existence of an underground, parallel Cambodian Communist party controlled by Vietnam and destined to subvert from within the true, authentic, PC of Cambodia… Is this not a perfect example of the properly paranoiac redoubling — the Party has to remain underground, a secret organization, and can only appear publicly when it rejects/externalizes this underground existence in its uncanny double, in ANOTHER parallel secret Party? Now we can also understand the logic of the highest Communist sacrifice: by confessing to his treason, Keo Meas enabled the Party to propose a consistent history of its origins, taking upon himself the guilt for the past opportunistic compromises. These compromises were NECESSARY at that time: so […] the sign of correct orientation; in this sense, it was possible to speak of "healthy symptoms," as in the following criticism of Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony by the arch-Stalinist composer Isaac Dunayevsky: "The brilliant mastery of the Fifth Symphony […] does not preclude the fact that it does not by any means display all the healthy symptoms for the development of Soviet Symphonic Music."^{<a href="#3">3 </a>}&nbsp; Why, then, use the term "symptom"? Because, precisely, one can never be sure if a positive feature really is what is pretends to be: what if someone just feigns to faithfully follow the party line in order to conceal his true counterrevolutionary attitude? A similar paradox is discernible already in the Christian superego dialectic of Law and its transgression (sin): this dialectic does not reside only in the fact that Law itself cites its own transgression, that it generates the desire for its own violation; our obedience to the Law itself is not "natural," spontaneous, but always-already mediated by the (repression of the) desire to transgress the Law. When we obey the Law, we do it as part of a desperate strategy to fight against our desire to transgress it, so the more rigorously we OBEY the Law, the more we bear witness to the fact that, deep in ourselves, we fell the pressure of the desire to indulge in sin. Superego feeling of guilt is therefore right: the more we obey the Law, the more we are guilty, because this obedience effectively IS a defense against our sinful desire, and, in Christianity, the desire (intention) to sin equals act itself — if you just covet your neighbor's wife, you already commit adultery. This Christian superego attitude is perhaps best rendered by T. S. Eliot's line from his Murder in the Cathedral, "the highest form of treason: to do the right thing for the wrong reason" — even when you do the right thing, you do it in order to counteract, and thus conceal, the basic vileness of your true nature… ^{<a href="#4">4</a>}</p>

<p>Perhaps, a reference to Nicolas Malebranche allows us to throw some further light on this procedure. In the standard version of modernity, ethical experience is constrained to the domain of "subjective values" as opposed to "objective facts". While endorsing this modern line of separation between "subjective" and "objective," between "values" and "facts," Malebranche transposed it WITHIN the very ethical domain, as the split between "subjective" Virtue and "objective" Grace — I can be "subjectively" virtuous, but this in no way guarantees my "objective" salvation in the eyes of God; the distribution of Grace which decides my salvation depends on totally "objective" laws, strictly comparable to the laws of material Nature. Do we not encounter another version of this same objectivization in the Stalinist show trial: I can be subjectively honest, but if I am not touched by the Grace of the insight into the necessity of Communism, all my ethical integrity will make me no more than an honest small-bourgeois humanitarian opposed to the Communist Cause, and, in spite of my subjective honesty, I'll remain forever "objectively guilty"? These paradoxes cannot be dismissed as the simple machinations of the "totalitarian" power — they harbor a genuine tragic dimension overlooked by the standard liberal diatribes against "totalitarianism." &nbsp;</p>

<p><em>Stalin-Abraham against Bukharin-Isaac</em></p>

<p>How, then, is this horrifying position subjectivized? As Jacques Lacan indicated, the lack of the tragedy proper in the modern condition renders this condition even more horrifying: the fact is that, in spite of all the horrors of gulag and holocaust, from capitalism onwards there are no longer tragedies proper — the victims in concentration camps or the victims of the Stalinist show trials were not in a properly tragic predicament, their situation was not without comic or at least ridiculous aspects, and for that reason all the more horrifying — there is a horror so deep that it can no longer be "sublimated" into tragic dignity, and is for that reason approachable only through an eerie imitation/doubling of the parody itself. We have perhaps THE exemplary case of this obscene comicality of the horror beyond tragedy in the Stalinist discourse. The Kafkaesque quality of the eerie laughter that erupted among the public during Bukharin's last speech in front of the Central Committee on 23 February 1937 hinges on the radical discord between the speaker's utter seriousness (he is talking about his possible suicide, and why he will not commit it, since it could hurt the Party, but will rather go on with the hunger strike till his death) and the reaction of the Central Committee members:</p>

<p>"Bukharin: I won't shoot myself because then people will say that I killed myself so as to harm the party. But if I die, as it were, from an illness, then what will you lose by it? (Laughter.) &nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;Voices: Blackmailer! &nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;Voroshilov: You scoundrel! Keep your trap shut! How vile! How dare you speak like that!</p>

<p>&nbsp;Bukharin: But you must understand — it's very hard for me to go on living. &nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;Stalin: And it's easy for us?! &nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;Voroshilov: Did you hear that: 'I won't shoot myself, but I will die"?!</p>

<p>&nbsp;Bukharin: It's easy for you to talk about me. What will you lose, after all? Look, if I am a saboteur, a son of a bitch, then why spare me? I make no claims to anything. I am just describing what's on my mind, what I am going through. If this in any way entails any political damage, however minute, then, no question about it, I'll do whatever you say. (Laughter.) Why are you laughing? There is absolutely nothing funny about any of this…"^{<a href="#5">5</a>}</p>

<p>Do we not have here, enacted in real life, the uncanny logic of Josef K.'s first interrogation in The Trial? -</p>

<p>"'Well, then,' said the Examining Magistrate, turning over the leaves and addressing K. with an air of authority, 'you are a house-painter?' 'No,' said K., 'I'm the junior manager of a large Bank.' This answer evoked such a hearty outburst of laughter from the Right party that K. had to laugh too. People doubled up with their hands on their knees and shook as if in spasms of coughing."^{<a href="#6">6</a>}</p>

<p>The discord that provokes laughter is here radical: from the Stalinist point of view, suicide was deprived of any subjective authenticity, it was simply instrumentalized, reduced to one of the "most cunning" forms of the counterrevolutionary plot — Molotov put it clearly on 4 December 1936: "Tomsky's suicide was a plot, a premeditated act. Tomsky had arranged, not with one person but with several people, to commit suicide and therefore to strike a blow once again at the Central Committee."^{<a href="#7 ">7</a>}&nbsp; And Stalin repeated it later at the same Central Committee plenum: "Here you see one of the ultimate and most cunning and easiest means by which one can spit at and deceive &nbsp; the party one last time before dying, before leaving the world. That, Comrade Bukharin, is the underlying reason for these last suicides."^{<a href="#8 ">8</a>}&nbsp; This utter denial of subjectivity is rendered explicit from Stalin's following Kafkaesque reply to Bukharin:</p>

<p>"Stalin: We believed in you, we decorated you with the Order of Lenin, we moved you up the ladder and we were mistaken. Isn't it true, Comrade Bukharin?</p>

<p>Bukharin: It's true, it's true, I have said the same myself.</p>

<p>Stalin: [apparently paraphrasing and mocking Bukharin] You can go ahead and shoot me, if you like. That's your business. But I don't want my honor to be besmirched. And what testimony does he give today? That's what happens, Comrade Bukharin.</p>

<p>Bukharin: But I cannot admit, either today or tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, anything which I am not guilty of. (Noise in the room.)</p>

<p>Stalin: I'm not saying anything personal about you [informal ty]."^{<a href="#9">9</a>}</p>

<p>In such a universe, of course, there is no place for even the most formal and empty right of subjectivity, on which Bukharin continues to insist:</p>

<p>"Bukharin: &nbsp; […] I confessed that from 1930 to 1932 I committed many political sins. I have come to understand this. But with the same forcefulness with which I confess my real guilt, with that same forcefulness I deny the guilt which is thrust upon me, and I shall deny it forever. And not because it has only personal significance, but because I believe that no one should under any circumstances take upon himself anything superfluous, especially when the party doesn't need it, when the country doesn't need it, when I don't need it. (Noise in the room, laughter)</p>

<p>[…]</p>

<p>The whole tragedy of my situation lies in this, that this Piatakov and others like him so poisoned the atmosphere, such an atmosphere arose that no one believes human feelings — not emotions, not the impulses of the heart, not tears. (Laughter.) Many manifestations of human feeling, which had earlier represented a form of proof — and there was nothing shameful in this — have today lost their validity and force.</p>

<p>&nbsp;Kaganovich: You practiced too much duplicity!</p>

<p>&nbsp;Bukharin: Comrades, let me say the following concerning what happened-</p>

<p>&nbsp;Khlopliankin: It's time to throw you in prison!</p> <p>&nbsp;Bukharin: What?</p>

Bukharin<p>&nbsp;Khlopliankin: What?You should have been thrown in prison a long time ago!</p>

Khlopliankin<p>&nbsp;Bukharin: You should have been thrown Well, go on, throw me in prison . So you think the fact that you are yelling: 'Throw him in prison!' will make me talk differently? No, it won't."^{<a long time ago!href="#10">10</a>}</p>

<p>The Central Committee was concerned neither with the objective truth-value nor with the subjective sincerity of Bukharin's proclamations of innocence; it was only interested in what kind of "signal" his reluctance to confess is sending to the Party and the public: Wella "signal" that, go onultimately, throw me in prisonthe entire "Trotskyist-Zinovievist trial" is a ritualistic farce. So you think the fact that you are yelling: 'Throw him in prison!' will make me talk differently? NoBy refusing to confess, it won't."10Bukharin and Rykov</p>

The Central Committee was concerned neither with the objective truth<p>"give their signals to their like-value nor with the subjective sincerity of Bukharinminded friends, namely: Work in greater secrecy. If you are caught, don't confess. That's proclamations of innocence; it was their policy. Not only interested have they cast doubt on the investigation in what kind of "signal" his reluctance to confess is sending to the Party and the public: a "signal" that, ultimatelypursuing their defense. In defending themselves, they have also necessarily cast doubt on the entire "Trotskyist-Zinovievist trial" is .^{<a ritualistic farce. By refusing to confess, Bukharin and Rykovhref="#11">11</a>}</p>

<p>Nonetheless, Bukharin heroically stuck to his subjectivity to the end — in his letter to Stalin from 10 December 1937, while making it clear that he will obey the ritual IN PUBLIC ("give their signals In order to their like-minded friendsavoid any misunderstandings, namely: Work in greater secrecy. If I will say to you are caughtfrom the outset that, don't confess. That's their policy. Not only have they cast doubt on as far as the investigation in pursuing their defense. In defending themselvesworld at large (society) is concerned, they […] I have also necessarily cast doubt on the Trotskyist-Zinovievist trialno intention of recanting anything I've written down (confessed)".11^{<a href="#12">12</a>}), he still desperately addressed Stalin as a person, professing his innocence:</p>

Nonetheless<p>"Oh, Bukharin heroically stuck to his subjectivity to the end — in his letter to Stalin from 10 December 1937Lord, while making if only there were some device which would have made it clear that he will obey the ritual IN PUBLIC ("In order possible for you to avoid any misunderstandings, see my soul flayed and ripped open! If only you could see how I will say am attached to you from the outset that, as far as the world at large (society) is concerned, body and soul […] I have no intention of recanting anything I. Well, so much for 'psychology've written down (confessed)"— forgive me.12), he still desperately addressed Stalin as a person, professing No angel will appear now to snatch Abraham's sword from his innocence:hand. My fatal destiny shall be fulfilled.</p>

"Oh<p>&nbsp;[…] My conscience is clear before you now, Lord, if only there were some device which would have made it possible Koba. I ask you one final time for you to see my soul flayed and ripped open! If your forgiveness (only you could see how in your heart, not otherwise). For that reason I am attached to embrace you, body in my mind. Farewell and soul […]. Well, so much for 'psychology' — forgive meremember kindly your wretched N. No angel will appear now to snatch Abraham's sword from his hand. My fatal destiny shall be fulfilledBukharin."^{<a href="#13">13</a>}</p>

[…] My conscience <p>What causes Bukharin such trauma is clear before you now, Koba. I ask you one final time for your forgiveness (only in your heartnot the ritual of his public humiliation and punishment, not otherwise). For but the possibility that reason I embrace you in my mind. Farewell and remember kindly your wretched N. Stalin may really believe the charges against Bukharin."13:</p>

What causes Bukharin such trauma <p>"There is not something great and bold about the ritual political idea of his public humiliation a general purge. […] I know all too well that great plans, great ideas, and punishmentgreat interests take precedence over everything, but and I know that it would be petty for me to place the question of my own person on a par with the possibility universal-historical resting, first and foremost, on your shoulders. But it is here that Stalin may really believe the charges against Bukharin:I feel my deepest agony and find myself facing my chief, agonizing paradox.</p>

"There is something great and bold about the political idea of a general purge. <p>&nbsp;[…] If I know all too well were absolutely sure that great plansyour thoughts ran precisely along this path, great ideasthen I would feel so much more at peace with myself. Well, and great interests take precedence so what! If it must be, then so be it! But believe me, my heart boils over everything, and when I know think that it would be petty for me to place the question you might believe that I am guilty of my own person on a par with the universal-historical resting, first these crimes and foremost, on that in your shouldersheart of hearts you yourself think that I am really guilty of all these horrors. But it is here In that I feel my deepest agony and find myself facing my chiefcase, agonizing paradox.what would it mean?"^{<a href="#14">14</a>}</p>

[…] If I <p>One should be very attentive to what these lines mean. Within the standard logic of guilt and responsibility, Stalin could have been pardoned if he were absolutely sure that your thoughts ran precisely along this pathreally to believe in Bukharin's guilt, then I while his accusing of Bukharin in the case of being aware of his innocence would feel so much more at peace with myselfhave been an unpardonable ethical sin. WellBukharin inverts this relationship: if Stalin accuses Bukharin of monstrous crimes while fully aware that this accusations are false, so what! If it must behe is behaving as a proper Bolshevik, then so be it! But believe me, my heart boils over when I think that you might believe that I am guilty placing the needs of these crimes and that in your heart the Party higher than the needs of hearts you yourself think the individual, which is for Bukharin totally acceptable. What is, on the contrary, fully unbearable to him is the possibility that I am Stalin really guilty of all these horrorsbelieved in Bukharin's guilt. In that case, what would it mean?"14&nbsp;</p>

The <p>Bukharin thus still clings to the logic of confession deployed by Foucault — as if the Stalinist jouissancedemand of a confession effectively aimed at the accused's deep self-examination that would unearth the most intimate secret in the hearts of hearts. More precisely, Bukharin's fatal mistake was to think that he can in a way have his cake and eat it: to the very end, while professing utter devotion to the party and to Stalin personally, he was not ready to renounce the minimum of subjective autonomy. He was ready to plead guilty IN PUBLIC if the party needs his confession, but he wanted there, in the inner circle, between his comrades, to be made clear that he was not really guilty, but just conceded to play the necessary role in the public ritual. This, precisely, the party could not give him: the ritual loses its performative power the moment it is explicitly designated as a mere ritual. No wonder that, when Bukharin and other accused insisted on their innocence, the Central Committee perceived this as an inadmissible tormenting of the Party by the accused: it is not the accused who is tormented by the Party, it is the Party leadership that is tormented by those who refuse to confess their crimes — and some members of the Central Committee even praised Stalin's "angelic patience" which allowed the accused to go on tormenting the Party for years, instead of fully acknowledging that they are scum, vipers to be exterminated:</p>

Bukharin thus still clings <p>"Mezhlauk: I ought to the logic of confession deployed by Foucault — as if the Stalinist demand of a confession effectively aimed at the accused's deep self-examination tell you that would unearth the most intimate secret in the hearts of hearts. More precisely, Bukharin's fatal mistake was to think that he can in a way have his cake and eat it: to the very end, while professing utter devotion to the party and to Stalin personally, he was we are not ready to renounce the minimum of subjective autonomytormenting you. He was ready to plead guilty IN PUBLIC if On the party needs his confession, but he wanted therecontrary, you are tormenting us in the inner circlebasest, between his comrades, to be made clear that he was not really guilty, but just conceded to play the necessary role in the public ritual. This, precisely, the party could not give him: the ritual loses its performative power the moment it is explicitly designated as a mere ritualmost impermissible way. No wonder that, when Bukharin and other accused insisted on their innocence, the Central Committee perceived this as an inadmissible tormenting of the Party by the accused: it is not the accused who is tormented by the Party, it is the Party leadership that is tormented by those who refuse to confess their crimes — and some members of the Central Committee even praised Stalin's "angelic patience" which allowed the accused to go on tormenting the Party for years, instead of fully acknowledging that they are scum, vipers to be exterminated:</p>

"Mezhlauk<p>Voices: I ought to tell you that we are not tormenting you. On the contrary, you are tormenting us in the basest, most impermissible way.That's right! That's right!</p> <p>[…]</p>

Voices<p>Mezhlauk: You have been tormenting the party over many, many years, and it is only thanks to the angelic patience of Comrade Stalin that we have not torn you politically to pieces for your vile, terroristic work. […] Pitiful cowards, base cowards. There is no place for you either on the Central Committee or in the party. The only place for you is […]the party one last time before dying, before leaving the world. That, Comrade Bukharin, is the underlying reason for these last suicides."^{<a href="#15">15</a>} This utter denial of subjectivity is rendered explicit from Stalin's right! That's right!following Kafkaesque reply to Bukharin:</p>

<p>"Stalin: We believed in you, we decorated you with the Order of Lenin, we moved you up the ladder and we were mistaken. Isn't it true? […]"</p>

Mezhlauk: You have been tormenting <p>[…] subjective autonomy from which one's guilt can be discussed at the party over manylevel of facts, many yearsi.e. in the position which openly proclaims the gap between reality and ritual of confession. For the Central Committee, and it the ultimate form of treason is only thanks this very sticking to the angelic patience minimum of Comrade Stalin that we have not torn personal autonomy. Bukharin's message to the Central Committee was: "I am ready to give you politically to pieces for your vileeverything BUT THAT (the empty form of my personal autonomy)!" — and, terroristic work. […] Pitiful cowardsof course, base cowards. There is no place for you either on it was precisely THAT that the Central Committee or in wanted from him more than anything else… What is interesting here is how subjective authenticity and the examination of objective facts are not opposed but put together, as the two sides of the same treacherous behaviour, both opposed to the partyParty ritual. The only place And the ultimate proof that such disregard for you the facts had a certain paradoxical ethical dignity is […]that we find it also in the opposite, "positive" case — say, of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg who — although they WERE guilty of spying, as recent declassified documents demonstrate — heroically insisted on their innocence up to the party one last time before dyingdeath chamber, while fully aware that a confession would have spared their lives. They were in a way "sincerely lying": although factually guilty, before leaving they were not guilty in a "deeper" sense — precisely in the sense in which the worldaccused in the Stalinist trials was guilty even if factually innocent. That— So, Comrade Bukharinto put things in a proper perspective: ultimately, is the underlying reason for these last suicides."15 This utter denial reproach of subjectivity is rendered explicit from Stalin's following Kafkaesque reply the Central Committee members to Bukharinwas that he was not ruthless enough, that he retained traces of human weakness, of "soft-heartedness":</p>

<p>"StalinVoroshilov: We believed Bukharin is a sincere and honest man, but I fear for Bukharin no less than for Tomsky and Rykov. Why do I fear for Bukharin? Because he is a soft-hearted person. Whether this is good or bad I do not know, but in our present situation this soft-heartedness is not needed. It is a poor assistant and adviser in youmatters of policy because it, we decorated you with this soft-heartedness, may undermine not only the Order of Lenin, we moved you up soft-hearted person himself but also the ladder and we were mistakenparty's cause. Bukharin is a very soft-hearted person. Isn't it true? […]"^{<a href="#16">16</a>}</p>

[…] subjective autonomy from <p>In Kantian terms, this "soft-heartedness" (in which it is easy to recognize a distant echo of Lenin's reaction against listening to Beethoven's Appasionata: onemust not listen to such music too much, because it makes you soft, and all of a sudden you want to cuddle your enemies instead of mercilessly destroying them…) is, of course, the remainder of the "pathological" sentimentality that blurs the subject's guilt can be discussed pure ethical stance. And here, at this key point, it is crucial to resist the level "humanist" temptation of opposing to this Stalinist ruthless self-instrumentalization any kind of facts"Bukharinian" natural goodness, of the tender understanding of and compassion with common human frailty, i.e. as if the problem with the Stalinist Communists resided in their ruthless, self-erasing, dedication to the position Communist cause, which openly proclaims the gap between reality turned them into monstrous ethical automata and made them forget common human feelings and ritual of confessionsympathies. For On the Central Committeecontrary, the problem with the Stalinist Communists was that they were NOT "pure" enough, and got caught in the ultimate form perverse economy of treason duty: "I know this is heavy and can be painful, but what can I do, this very sticking is my duty…" The standard motto of ethical rigor is "There is no excuse for not accomplishing one's duty!"; although Kant's "Du kannst, denn du sollst! (You can, because you must!)" seems to the minimum offer a new version of personal autonomy. Bukharinthis motto, he implicitly complements it with its much more uncanny inversion: "There is no excuse for accomplishing one's message duty!"^{<a href="#17">17</a>}&nbsp; The reference to duty as the Central Committee wasexcuse to do our duty should be rejected as hypocritical; suffice it to recall the proverbial example of a severe sadistic teacher who subjects his pupils to merciless discipline and torture. Of course, his excuse to himself (and to others) is: "I am ready myself find it hard to give you everything BUT THAT (exert such pressure on the empty form of poor kids, but what can I do — it's my personal autonomy)duty!" — The more pertinent example of it is precisely that of a Stalinist Communist who loves mankind, but nonetheless performs horrible purges andexecutions; his heart is breaking while he is doing it, of coursebut he cannot help it, it was precisely THAT that 's his Duty towards the Central Committee wanted from him more than anything else… Progress of Humanity… What is interesting we encounter here is how subjective authenticity and the examination properly perverse attitude of adopting the position of the pure instrument of objective facts are the big Other's Will: it's not my responsibility, it's not opposed but put togetherme who is effectively doing it, as I am merely an instrument of the two sides higher Historical Necessity… The obscene jouissance of this situation is generated by the same treacherous behaviour, both opposed fact that I conceive of myself as exculpated for what I am doing: isn't it nice to be able to inflict pain on others with the Party ritual. And the ultimate proof full awareness that such disregard I'm not responsible for it, that I merely fulfill the facts had a certain paradoxical ethical dignity Other's Will… this is that we find it also in what Kantian ethics prohibits. This position of the sadist pervert provides the answer to the question: How can the opposite, subject be guilty when he merely realizes an "positiveobjective" case — say, of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg who — although they WERE guilty of spyingexternally imposed necessity? By subjectively assuming this "objective necessity, as recent declassified documents demonstrate — heroically insisted " i.e. by finding enjoyment in what is imposed on their innocence up to the death chamber, while fully aware that a confession would have spared their liveshim. They were in ^{<a way href="sincerely lying#18": although factually guilty>18</a>} So, at its most radical, they were not guilty in a Kantian ethics is NOT "deepersadist," sense — but precisely in what prohibits assuming the position of a Sadean executioner. What, then, does this tell us about the sense respective status of coldness in which the accused Kant and in the Stalinist trials was guilty even if factually innocent. — SoSade? The conclusion to be drawn is not that Sade sticks to cruel coldness, while Kant somehow has to put things in a proper perspective: ultimatelyallow for human compassion, but quite the reproach of opposite: it is only the Central Committee members to Bukharin was Kantian subject that he was is effectively thoroughly cold (apathetic), while the sadist is not ruthless "cold" enough, that he retained traces his "apathy" is a fake, a lure concealing the all too passionate engagement on behalf of human weaknessthe Other's jouissance. And, of "softcourse, the same goes for the passage from Lenin to Stalin: the revolutionary political counterpoint to Lacan's Kant avec Sade is undoubtedly Lenin avec Stalin, i.e. it is only with Stalin that the Leninist revolutionary subject turns into the perverse object-heartedness":instrument of the big Other's jouissance.&nbsp;</p>

In Kantian terms, <p>Let us make this "soft-heartedness" (in which it is easy to recognize a distant echo point clear apropos of LeninLukacs's reaction against listening to Beethoven's Appasionata: one must not listen to such music too muchHistory and Class Consciousness, because it makes you soft, and all of a sudden you want THE attempt to cuddle your enemies instead of mercilessly destroying them…) is, of course, deploy the remainder philosophical stance of the "pathological" sentimentality that blurs the subject's pure ethical stanceLeninist revolutionary practice. And here, at this key point, it is crucial to resist Can Lukacs really be dismissed as the "humanist" temptation advocate of opposing to this Stalinist ruthless selfsuch a pseudo-instrumentalization any kind Hegelian assertion of "Bukharinian" natural goodness, proletariat as the absolute Subject-Object of History? Let us focus on the tender understanding concrete political background of History and compassion with common human frailtyClass Consciousness, in which Lukacs still speaks as if the problem with the Stalinist Communists resided a fully engaged revolutionary. To put it in their ruthlesssomewhat rough and simplified terms, self-erasingthe choice, dedication to for the Communist cause, which turned them into monstrous ethical automata and made them forget common human feelings and sympathies. On revolutionary forces in the contraryRussia of 1917, in the problem with difficult situation in which the Stalinist Communists bourgeoisie was that they were NOT "pure" enough, and got caught in the perverse economy of duty: "I know this is heavy and can be painful, but what can I do, this is my duty…" The standard motto of ethical rigor is "There is no excuse for not accomplishing one's duty!"; although Kant's "Du kannst, denn du sollst! (You can, because you must!)" seems able to offer a new version of this motto, he implicitly complements it with its much more uncanny inversion: "There is no excuse for accomplishing one's duty!"17 The reference bring to duty as the excuse to do our duty should be rejected as hypocritical; suffice it to recall end the proverbial example of a severe sadistic teacher who subjects his pupils to merciless discipline and torture. Of coursedemocratic revolution, his excuse to himself (and to others) iswas the following one: "I myself find it hard to exert such pressure &nbsp;- on the poor kidsone hand, but what can I do — it's my duty!" The more pertinent example of it is precisely the Menshevik stance was that of a Stalinist Communist who loves mankind, but nonetheless performs horrible purges and executions; his heart is breaking while he is doing it, but he cannot help it, it's his Duty towards the Progress of Humanity… What we encounter here is obedience to the properly perverse attitude logic of adopting the position "objective stages of development": first democratic revolution, then proletarian revolution. In the pure instrument whirlpool of the big Other's Will: it's not my responsibility1917, it's not me who is effectively doing it, I am merely an instrument instead of capitalizing from the higher Historical Necessity… The obscene jouissance gradual disintegration of this situation is generated by State apparatuses and building upon the fact that I conceive of myself as exculpated for what I am doing: isn't it nice to be able to inflict pain on others with widespread popular discontent and resistance against the full awareness that I'm not responsible for itProvisional Government, that I merely fulfill all radical parties should resist the Other's Will… this is what Kantian ethics prohibits. This position of temptation to push the sadist pervert provides the answer moment too far and rather join forces with democratic bourgeois elements in order to first achieve the question: How can democratic revolution, waiting patiently for the subject be guilty when he merely realizes an "objectivemature", externally imposed necessity? By subjectively assuming revolutionary situation. From this "objective necessitypoint," i.e. by finding enjoyment a socialist takeover in what is imposed on him.18 So1917, at its most radical, Kantian ethics is NOT when the situation was not yet "sadistripe," but precisely what prohibits assuming would trigger a regression to primitive terror… (Although this fear of the position catastrophic terrorist consequences of a Sadean executioner. What, then, does this tell us about "premature" uprising may seem to augur the respective status shadow of coldness in Kant and in Sade? The conclusion to be drawn is not that Sade sticks to cruel coldnessStalinism, while Kant somehow has to allow for human compassion, but quite the opposite: it is only the Kantian subject that is ideology of Stalinism effectively thoroughly cold (apathetic), while the sadist is not marks a RETURN to this "coldobjectivist" enough, his logic of the necessary stages of development.^{<a href="apathy#19" is >19</a fake>})&nbsp; &nbsp;- on the other hand, the Leninist stance was to take a lure concealing leap, throwing oneself into the all too passionate engagement on behalf paradox of the Other's jouissance. Andsituation, of courseseizing the opportunity and INTERVENING, even if the same goes for situation was "premature," with a wager that this very "premature" intervention will radically change the passage from Lenin to Stalin: "objective" relationship of forces itself, within which the revolutionary political counterpoint to Lacan's Kant avec Sade is undoubtedly Lenin avec Stalininitial situation appeared as "premature, " i.e. that it is only with Stalin that will undermine the Leninist revolutionary subject turns into very standard the perverse object-instrument of reference to which told us that the big Other's jouissancesituation was "premature. "</p>

<p>Here, one must be careful not to miss the point: it is not that, in contrast to Mensheviks and skeptics among the Bolsheviks themselves, Lenin versus Stalinthought that the complex situation of 1917, i.e. the growing dissatisfaction of the broad masses with the irresolute politics of the Provisional Government, offered a unique chance of "jumping over" one phase (the democratic bourgeois revolution), of "condensing" the two necessary consecutive stages (democratic bourgeois revolution and proletarian revolution) into one. Such a notion still accepts the fundamental underlying objectivist "reified" logic of the "necessary stages of development," it merely allows for the different rhythm of its course in different concrete circumstances (i.e. in some countries, the second stage can immediately follow the first one). In contrast to this, Lenin's point is much stronger: ultimately, there is no objective logic of the "necessary stages of development," since "complications" arising from the intricate texture of concrete situations and/or from the unanticipated results of "subjective" interventions always derail the straight course of things. As Lenin was keen in observing, the fact of colonialism and of the over-exploited masses in Asia, Africa and Latin America radically affects and "displaces" the "straight" class struggle in the developed capitalist countries — to speak about "class struggle" without taking into account colonialism is an empty abstraction which, translated into practical politics, can only result in condoning the "civilizing" role of colonialism and thus, by subordinating the anti-colonialist struggle of the Asian masses to the "true" class struggle in developed Western states, de facto accepting that bourgeoisie defines the terms of the class struggle… (Again, one can discern here the unexpected closeness to the Althusserian "overdetermination": there is no ultimate rule so that, with a reference to it, one can measure "exceptions" — in actual history, there are in a way only exceptions.) One is tempted to resort here to Lacanian terms: what is at stake in this alternative is the (in)existence of the "big Other": Mensheviks relied on the all-embracing foundation of the positive logic of historical development, while Bolsheviks (Lenin, at least) were aware that "the big Other doesn't exist" — a political intervention proper does not occur within the coordinates of some underlying global matrix, since what it achieves is precisely the "reshuffling" of this very global matrix.</p>

Let us make this point clear <p>This, then, is the reason why Lukacs had such admiration for Lenin: his Lenin was the one who, apropos of Lukacs' History the split in the Russian Social Democracy into Bolsheviks and Class ConsciousnessMensheviks, THE attempt to deploy when the philosophical stance two factions fought about a precise formulation of the Leninist revolutionary practice. Can Lukacs really who can be dismissed a party member as defined in the advocate of such a pseudo-Hegelian assertion of proletariat as party program, wrote: "Sometimes, the absolute Subject-Object fate of History? Let us focus on the concrete political background of History and Class Consciousness, entire working class movement for long years to come can be decided by a word or two in which Lukacs still speaks as a fully engaged revolutionarythe party program. To put it in somewhat rough and simplified terms" Or the Lenin who, when he saw the choice, chance for the revolutionary forces takeover in the Russia of late 1917, in said: "History will never forgive us if we miss this opportunity!" At a more general level, the difficult situation in which history of capitalism is a long history of how the bourgeoisie predominant ideologico-political framework was not able to bring accommodate (and to soften the end subversive edge of) the democratic revolutionmovements and demands that seemed to threaten its very survival. Say, was the following one: - on the one handfor a long time, sexual libertarians thought that monogamic sexual repression is necessary for the Menshevik stance was survival of capitalism — now we know that capitalism can not only tolerate, but even actively incite and exploit forms of the obedience to the logic of the "objective stages of developmentperverse": first democratic revolutionsexuality, then proletarian revolutionnot to mention promiscuous indulgence in sexual pleasures. In However, the whirlpool of 1917, instead of capitalizing conclusion to be drawn from it is NOT that capitalism has the gradual disintegration of State apparatuses endless ability to integrate and building upon thus cut off the widespread popular discontent and resistance against subversive edge of all particular demands — the Provisional Governmentquestion of timing, all radical parties should resist the temptation to push of "seizing the moment too far and rather join forces with democratic bourgeois elements ," is crucial here. A certain particular demand possesses, in order to first achieve the democratic revolutiona certain moment, waiting patiently for the "mature" revolutionary situation. From this pointglobal detonating power, it functions as a socialist takeover metaphoric stand-in 1917for the global revolution: if we unconditionally insist on it, when the situation was not yet "ripesystem will explode; if, however, we wait too long," would trigger a regression to primitive terror… (Although the metaphoric short-circuit between this fear of particular demand and the catastrophic terrorist consequences of a "premature" uprising may seem to augur global overthrow is dissolved, and the shadow of StalinismSystem can, with sneering hypocritical satisfaction, make the ideology gesture of Stalinism effectively marks a RETURN to "You wanted this ? Here you have it!"objectivist" logic , without anything really radical happening. The art of what Lukacs called Augenblick (the necessary stages of development.19) - on the other handmoment when, briefly, the Leninist stance was there is an opening for an ACT to take intervene into a leap, throwing oneself into situation) is the paradox art of seizing the situationright moment, seizing of aggravating the conflict BEFORE the opportunity System can accommodate itself to our demand. So we have here a Lukacs who is much more "Gramscian" and INTERVENINGconjecturalist/contingentian than it is usually assumed — the Lukacsean Augenblick is unexpectedly close to what, even if today, Alain Badiou endeavours to formulate as the Event: an intervention that cannot be accounted for in the situation was terms of its pre-existing "premature,objective conditions." with ^{<a wager that this very href="premature#20" intervention will radically change >20</a>}&nbsp; The crux of Lukacs's argumentation is to reject the reduction of the act to its "historical circumstances": there are no neutral "objectiveconditions" relationship of forces itself, within which the initial situation appeared as "premature," i.e. that it will undermine the very standard the reference to which told us that the situation was "premature(in Hegelese) all presuppositions are already minimally posited."</p>

Here, one must be careful not to miss <p><em>When the point: it is not that, in contrast to Mensheviks and skeptics among the Bolsheviks themselves, Lenin thought that the complex situation of 1917, i.e. the growing dissatisfaction of the broad masses with the irresolute politics of the Provisional Government, offered a unique chance of "jumping over" one phase (the democratic bourgeois revolution), of "condensing" the two necessary consecutive stages (democratic bourgeois revolution and proletarian revolution) into one. Such a notion still accepts the fundamental underlying objectivist "reified" logic of the "necessary stages of development," it merely allows for the different rhythm of its course in different concrete circumstances (i.e. in some countries, the second stage can immediately follow the first one). In contrast to this, Lenin's point is much stronger: ultimately, there is no objective logic of the "necessary stages of development," since "complications" arising from the intricate texture of concrete situations andDiscourse Implodes</em></or from the unanticipated results of "subjective" interventions always derail the straight course of things. As Lenin was keen in observing, the fact of colonialism and of the over-exploited masses in Asia, Africa and Latin America radically affects and "displaces" the "straight" class struggle in the developed capitalist countries — to speak about "class struggle" without taking into account colonialism is an empty abstraction which, translated into practical politics, can only result in condoning the "civilizing" role of colonialism and thus, by subordinating the anti-colonialist struggle of the Asian masses to the "true" class struggle in developed Western states, de facto accepting that bourgeoisie defines the terms of the class struggle… (Again, one can discern here the unexpected closeness to the Althusserian "overdetermination": there is no ultimate rule so that, with a reference to it, one can measure "exceptions" — in actual history, there are in a way only exceptions.) One is tempted to resort here to Lacanian terms: what is at stake in this alternative is the (in)existence of the "big Other": Mensheviks relied on the all-embracing foundation of the positive logic of historical development, while Bolsheviks (Lenin, at least) were aware that "the big Other doesn't exist" — a political intervention proper does not occur within the coordinates of some underlying global matrix, since what it achieves is precisely the "reshuffling" of this very global matrix.p>

This, then, is <p>The key to the reason why Lukacs had such admiration for Leninsocial dynamics of Stalinism resides in its exception: his Lenin was in the one whounique moment when, apropos of the split in the Russian Social Democracy into Bolsheviks and Menshevikssecond half of 1937, when the two factions fought about for a precise formulation couple of who can be months, its ritualistic discourse broke down. That is to say, till 1937, purges and trials followed a party member as defined in pattern with clear rules, solidifying the party programnomenklatura, wrote: "Sometimescementing its unity, providing an account of the fate causes of the entire working class movement for long years to come can be decided by a word or two failures in the party programguise of ritualized scapegoating (there is famine, chaos in industry, etc." Or , because of the Lenin whoTrotskyte saboteurs…). However, when he saw with the chance for highest point of the revolutionary takeover terror in the late 1917Fall of 1937, saidthe implicit discursive rules were broken by Stalin himself: "History will never forgive us if we miss this opportunity!" At a more general levelin an all-against-all orgy of destruction, the history nomenklatura, inclusive of capitalism is its highest strata, started to devour and destroy itself — a long history process aptly designated as the "Self-Destruction of how the predominant ideologico-political framework was able to accommodate Bolsheviks" (and "The Storm of 1937: The Party Commits Suicide," as one of the subtitles of The Road to soften Terror reads) — this period, "that of the 'blind terror,' marks the subversive edge temporary eclipse of) the movements and demands that seemed to threaten its very survivaldiscursive strategy. Say, for a long time, sexual libertarians thought that monogamic sexual repression It is necessary for as if the survival Stalinists, prisoners of capitalism — now we know their fears and iron discipline, had decided that capitalism can they could not only tolerate, but even actively incite and exploit forms of rule any longer by rhetorical means."^{<a href="perverse#21" sexuality>21</a>}&nbsp; For this reason, not to mention promiscuous indulgence the texts on mass shooting in sexual pleasures. However, this period were no longer the conclusion usual normative/prescriptive ritualized incantations aimed to be drawn from it is NOT that capitalism has discipline the endless ability to integrate broad public of rank-and-file party members and thus cut off of the population at large. Even the subversive edge empty symbols of all particular demands — the question enemies ("Trotskytes") which, in each previous stage of timingthe terror, were filled with new content, were now largely dropped — what remained was just the fluctuating targeting of new and new arbitrary groups: different "seizing the momentsuspicious" nationalities (Germans, Poles, Estonians…), stamp collectors with foreign contacts," is crucial here. A certain particular demand possessesSoviet citizens studying esperanto, in a certain momentup to Mongolian lamas, all this just to help the global detonating power, it functions executioners to meet the quotas of liquidations that each district had to fulfill (these quotas were decided by the Politburo in Moscow as a metaphoric stand-kind of mock production targets in for the global revolution: if we unconditionally insist on itcentral planning — say, after a discussion, the system will explode; ifweekly quota for Far East was elevated from 1, however500 to 2, we wait too long000, the metaphoric short-circuit between this particular demand and the global overthrow is dissolvedquota for Ukraine dropped from 3, and the System can500 to 3, with sneering hypocritical satisfaction, make the gesture of "You wanted this? 000). Here you have it!", without anything really radical happening. The art of what Lukacs called Augenblick (even the moment when, briefly, there is an opening for an ACT paranoiac reference to anti-Soviet conspiracy was instrumentalized with regard to intervene into a situation) is meeting the art of seizing quotas for liquidations — first there was the right momentformal, a priori, act of aggravating determining quotas, and the conflict BEFORE ensuing fluctuating categorizations of the System can accommodate itself to our demand. So we have here a Lukacs who is much more "Gramscian" and conjecturalist/contingentian than it is usually assumed — the Lukacsean Augenblick is unexpectedly close to whatenemies (English spies, todayTrotskytes, Alain Badiou endeavours saboteurs…) were ultimately reduced to formulate as the Event: an intervention a procedure that cannot be accounted for in allowed the terms of its pre-existing "objective conditions."20 The crux of Lukacs's argumentation is executioners to reject the reduction of the act identify individuals to its "historical circumstances"be arrested and shot: there are no neutral "objective conditions", i.e. (in Hegelese) all presuppositions are already minimally posited.&nbsp;</p>

When <p>"This was not a targeting of enemies, but blind rage and panic. It reflected not control of events but a recognition that the Discourse Implodesregime lacked regularized control mechanisms. It was not policy but the failure of policy. It was a sign of failure to rule with anything but force."^{<a href="#22">22</a>}</p>

The key to the social dynamics of Stalinism resides <p>So, in its exception: in the this unique moment whenpoint, we pass from language as discourse, as social link, in to language as pure instrument. And what should be emphasized again and again, against the second half standard liberal demonizing vision of 1937, for Stalin as a perverse Master systematically pursuing a couple diabolical plan of monthsmass murder, its ritualistic discourse broke down. That is to say, till 1937, purges that this utmost brutal violent exercise of power as the power over life and trials followed a pattern death coincided with clear rules— or, solidifying rather, was the nomenklaturaexpression of, cementing its unity, providing an account of the causes mode of the failures in the guise existence of ritualized scapegoating (there is famine— its exact opposite, chaos in industry, etc., because of the Trotskyte saboteurs…)total incapacity to govern the country through "normal" authority and executive measures. However, with the highest point of In the Stalinist terror in the Fall of 1937, the implicit discursive rules were broken by Stalin himself: Politburo acted in an all-against-all orgy of destructionpanic, trying desperately to master and regulate the nomenklaturaevents, inclusive of its highest strata, started to devour and destroy itself — a process aptly designated as get the "Self-Destruction situation under control. This implicit acknowledgment of impotence is also the Bolsheviks" ("The Storm hidden truth of 1937: The Party Commits Suicide," as one the divinization of the subtitles of The Road Stalinist Leader into a supreme Genius who can give advice on almost any topic, from how to repair a tractor to how to Terror reads) — raise flowers: what this period, "that of the Leader'blind terror,' marks the temporary eclipse of the discursive strategy. It s intervention into everyday life means is as if the Stalinists, prisoners of their fears and iron discipline, had decided that they could things do not rule any longer by rhetorical means."21 For this reason, the texts on mass shooting in this period were no longer the usual normative/prescriptive ritualized incantations aimed to discipline the broad public of rank-and-file party members and of the population function at large. Even the empty symbols utmost everyday level — what kind of the enemies ("Trotskytes") whichcountry is this, in each previous stage of which the terror, were filled with new content, were now largely dropped — what remained was just the fluctuating targeting of new and new arbitrary groups: different "suspicious" nationalities (Germans, Poles, Estonians…), stamp collectors with foreign contacts, Soviet citizens studying esperanto, up supreme Leader himself has to Mongolian lamas, all this just dispense advice about how to help the executioners to meet the quotas repair tractors? It is here that we should recall Stalin's above-quoted condemnation of liquidations that each district had to fulfill (these quotas were decided by the Politburo in Moscow accused individual's) suicide as a kind of mock production targets in central planning — say, after a discussion, plot to deal the weekly quota for Far East was elevated from 1,500 last blow to 2,000, and the quota for Ukraine dropped from 3Party: perhaps,500 to 3,000). Here, even we should read the paranoiac reference to anti-Soviet conspiracy was instrumentalized with regard to meeting suicide of the quotas for liquidations — first there was Party itself in late 1937 in the formalopposite way, not as a priori"signal, " but as an authentic act of determining quotas, and the ensuing fluctuating categorizations of the enemies (English spiescollective subject, Trotskytes, saboteurs…) were ultimately reduced to a procedure that allowed the executioners to identify individuals to be arrested and shot: beyond any instrumentality.</p>

<p>&nbsp;In his analysis of the paranoia of the German judge Schreber, Freud reminds us that what we usually consider as madness (the paranoiac scenario of the conspiracy against the subject) is effectively already an attempt at recovery: after the complete psychotic breakdown, the paranoiac construct is an attempt of the subject to reestablish a kind of order in his universe, a frame of reference enabling him to acquire a "cognitive mapping."^{<a href="#23"This >23</a>}&nbsp; Along the same lines, one is tempted to claim that, when, in late 1937, the Stalinist paranoiac discourse reached its apogee and set in motion its own dissolution as a social link, the 1938 arrest and liquidation of Yezhov himself, Stalin's main executioner in 1937, was effectively the attempt at recovery, at stabilizing the uncontrolled fury of self-destruction that broke out in 1937: the purge of Yezhov was not a targeting kind of enemiesmeta-purge, but blind rage and panic. It reflected not control the purge to end all purges (he was accused precisely of killing thousands of innocent Bolsheviks on behalf of foreign powers — the irony of events but a recognition it being that the regime lacked regularized control mechanisms. It accusation was not policy but literally true: he did organize the killing of the failure thousands of policyinnocent Bolsheviks…). It However, the crucial point is that, although we are here reaching the limits of the Social, the level at which the social-symbolic link itself is approaching its self-destructive dissolution, this excess itself was nonetheless generated by a precise dynamic of the social struggle, by a sign series of shifting alignments and realignments between the very top of failure to rule with anything but force."22the regime (Stalin and his narrow circle), the upper nomenklatura and the rank-and-file Party members:</p>

So, <p>"Thus in this unique point, we pass from language as discourse, as social link, to language as pure instrument. And what should be emphasized again 1933 and again, against the standard liberal demonizing vision of 1935 Stalin as a perverse Master systematically pursuing a diabolical plan of mass murder, is that this utmost brutal violent exercise of power as and the power over life and death coincided Politburo united with — or, rather, was all levels of the expression ofnomenklatura elite to screen, the mode of existence of — its exact oppositeor purge, the total incapacity a helpless rank and file. The regional leaders then used those purges to govern the country through "normal" authority consolidate their machines and executive measuresexpel 'inconvenient' people. In the Stalinist terrorThis, in turn, the Politburo acted brought about another alignment in panic1936, trying desperately to master in which Stalin and regulate the eventsMoscow nomenklatura sided with the rank and file, to get who complained of repression by the situation under controlregional elites. This implicit acknowledgment of impotence is also In 1937 Stalin openly mobilized the hidden truth of 'party masses' against the divinization of the Stalinist Leader into a supreme Genius who can give advice on almost any topic, from how to repair nomenklatura as a tractor to how to raise flowers: what whole; this Leader's intervention into everyday life means is that things do not function at the utmost everyday level — what kind of country is this, provided an important strand in which the supreme Leader himself has to dispense advice about how to repair tractors? It is here that we should recall StalinGreat Terror's above-quoted condemnation destruction of (the accused individual's) suicide as a plot to deal elite. But in 1938 the last blow to Politburo changed alignments and reinforced the Party: perhaps, we should read authority of the suicide regional nomenklatura as part of an attempt to restore order in the Party itself in late 1937 in party during the opposite way, not as terror."^{<a href="signal,#24" but as an authentic act of the collective subject, beyond any instrumentality.>24</a>}</p>

In his analysis <p>The situation thus exploded when Stalin made a risky move of directly appealing to the paranoia of the German judge Schreberlower rank-and-file members themselves, Freud reminds us that what we usually consider as madness (soliciting them to articulate their complaint against the paranoiac scenario arbitrary rule of the conspiracy against local Party bosses (a move similar to the subjectMao's Great Cultural Revolution) is effectively already an attempt — their fury at recovery: after the complete psychotic breakdownregime, unable to express itself directly, exploded all the paranoiac construct is an attempt of more viciously against the subject to reestablish a kind of order in his universe, a frame of reference enabling him to acquire a "cognitive mappingpersonalized substitute targets."23 Along Since the upper nomenklatura at the same lines, one is tempted to claim that, when, time retained its executive power also in late 1937the purges themselves, the Stalinist paranoiac discourse reached its apogee and this set in motion its own dissolution as a social link, the 1938 arrest and liquidation of Yezhov himself, Stalin's main executioner self-destructive vicious cycle in 1937, which virtually everyone was effectively the attempt at recoverythreatened (of 82 district Party secretaries, at stabilizing the uncontrolled fury 79 were shot). Another aspect of self-destruction that broke out in 1937: the purge of Yezhov spiralling vicious cycle was a kind the very fluctuations of meta-purge, the purge directives from the top as to end all purges (he was accused precisely of killing thousands of innocent Bolsheviks on behalf of foreign powers — the irony thoroughness of it being that the accusation was literally truepurges: he did organize the killing of top demanded harsh measures, while at the thousands of innocent Bolsheviks…). Howeversame time warning against excesses, so the crucial point is thatexecutors were put in an untenable position — ultimately, although we are here reaching the limits of the Socialwhatever they did was wrong. If they did not arrest enough traitors and discover enough conspiracies, the level at which the social-symbolic link itself is approaching its self-destructive dissolutionthey were considered lenient and supporting counterrevolution; so, under this excess itself was nonetheless generated by a precise dynamic of pressure, in order to meet the social strugglequota, by a series of shifting alignments as it were, they had to fabricate evidence and realignments between invent plots — thereby exposing themselves to the very top criticism that they are themselves saboteurs, destroying thousands of honest Communists on behalf of the regime (foreign powers… Stalin and his narrow circle)'s strategy of addressing directly the party masses, the upper nomenklatura and the rankco-and-file Party membersopting their antibureucratic attitudes, was thus very risky:</p>

<p>"Thus in 1933 and 1935 Stalin and the Politburo united with all levels of the nomenklatura This not only threatened to open elite politics to screen, or purgepublic scrutiny but also risked discrediting the entire Bolshevik regime, of which Stalin himself was a helpless rank and file. The regional leaders then used those purges to consolidate their machines and expel 'inconvenient' peoplepart. This[…] Finally, in turn, brought about another alignment in 19361937, in which Stalin and broke all the Moscow nomenklatura sided with rules of the rank and filegame — indeed, who complained of repression by destroyed the regional elites. In 1937 Stalin openly mobilized the 'party masses' against the nomenklatura as game completely — and unleashed a whole; this provided an important strand in the Great Terror's destruction terror of the elite. But in 1938 the Politburo changed alignments and reinforced the authority of the regional nomenklatura as part of an attempt to restore order in the party during the terrorall against all."24^{<a href="#25">25</a>}</p>

<p>The shifting situation thus exploded that aroused from this "breaking of all rules" was not without its horrifyingly-comic moments: when Stalin made a risky move , in the Spring of directly appealing to the lower rank-and-file members themselves1937, soliciting them Dmitri Shostakovich was ordered to articulate their complaint against appear in the arbitrary rule headquarters of the local Party bosses (NKVD, he was received by Zanchevsky, an investigator who, after a move similar friendly introductory chat, started to the Maoinquire into Shostakovich's Great Cultural Revolutioncontacts with the (already arrested) — their fury Marshal Tukhachevsky: "It cannot be that you were at his home and that you did not talk about politics. For instance, the regime, unable plot to assassinate Comrade Stalin?" After Shostakovich continued to express itself directlydeny any conversation about politics, exploded all the more viciously against the personalized substitute targets. Since the upper nomenklatura at the same time retained its executive power also in the purges themselvesZanchevsky told him: "All right, this set in motion a self-destructive vicious cycle in which virtually everyone was threatened (of 82 district Party secretariestoday is Saturday, 79 were shot)and you can go now. But I only give you until Monday. By that day you will without fail remember everything. Another aspect You must recall every detail of the spiralling vicious cycle was discussion regarding the very fluctuations plot against Stalin of the directives from the top as to the thoroughness of the purges: the top demanded harsh measures, while at the same time warning against excesses, so the executors which you were put in an untenable position — ultimately, whatever they did was wronga witness. If they did not arrest enough traitors " Shostakovich spent a nightmarish weekend at home and discover enough conspiracies, they were considered lenient and supporting counterrevolution; so, under this pressure, in order then returned to meet the quotaNKVD headquarters on Monday morning, as it wereready to be arrested. However, they had to fabricate evidence when he announced his name at the entrance and invent plots — thereby exposing themselves said that he came to the criticism see Zanchevsky, he was informed that they are themselves saboteurs, destroying thousands of honest Communists on behalf of the foreign powers… Stalin"Zanchevsky isn's strategy of addressing directly the party masses, co-opting their antibureucratic attitudest coming in today" — during this weekend, Zanchevsky himself was thus very risky:arrested as a spy.^{<a href="#26">26</a>}</p>

"This not only threatened to open elite politics to public scrutiny but also risked discrediting the entire Bolshevik regime, <p><em>The Radical Ambiguity of which Stalin himself was a part. […] Finally, in 1937, Stalin broke all the rules of the game — indeed, destroyed the game completely — and unleashed a terror of all against all."25Stalinism</em></p>

The shifting situation that aroused from this "breaking <p>In the notion of social antagonism, INTRAsocial differences (the topic of all rules" was not without concrete social analysis) overlap with the difference between the Social as such and its horrifyinglyOther. This overlapping becomes palpable in the highpoint of Stalinism, where the enemy is explicitly designated as non-comic momentshuman, as the excrement of humanity: when, in the Spring struggle of 1937, Dmitri Shostakovich was ordered to appear in the headquarters Stalinist Party against the enemy becomes the struggle of humanity itself against the NKVDnon-human excrement. At a different level, he was received by Zanchevskythe same goes for the Nazi anti-Semitism, an investigator whowhich is why Jews are also denied the basic humanity. And, after a friendly introductory chatagain, started to inquire this radical level of confrontation should not seduce us into Shostakovich's contacts abandoning the concrete social analysis of the holocaust. The problem with the (already arrested) Marshal Tukhachevsky: "It cannot be that you were at his home and that you did not talk about politics. For instanceacademic holocaust-industry is precisely the elevation of the holocaust into the metaphysical diabolical Evil, the plot to assassinate Comrade Stalin?" After Shostakovich continued to deny any conversation about politicsirrational, Zanchevsky told him: "All rightapolitical, today is Saturdayincomprehensible, and you can go now. But I approachable only give you until Mondaythrough respectful silence. By that day you will without fail remember everything. You must recall every detail of Holocaust is the discussion regarding ultimate traumatic point where the plot against Stalin objectifying historical knowledge breaks down, where it has to acknowledge its worthlessness in front of which you were a single witness." Shostakovich spent a nightmarish weekend , and, simultaneously, the point at home and then returned which witnesses themselves had to the NKVD headquarters on Monday morningconcede that words fail them, ready that what they can share is ultimately only their silence as such. Holocaust is referred to be arrested. Howeveras a mystery, when he announced his name at the entrance heart of darkness of our civilization; its enigma in advance negates all (explanatory) answers, defying knowledge and said that he came to see Zanchevskydescription, noncommunicable, he was informed that "Zanchevsky isn't coming in today" lying outside historicization — during this weekendit cannot be explained, visualized, represented, transmitted, since it marks the Void, the black hole, the end, the implosion, Zanchevsky himself was arrested as a spyof the (narrative) universe.26Accordingly, any attempt to locate it in its context, to politicize it, equals the anti-Semitic negation of its uniqueness… Here is one of the standard version of this exemption of the holocaust:</p>

The Radical Ambiguity <p>"A great Hassidic Master, the Rabbi of StalinismKotsk, used to say, 'There are truths which can be communicated by the word; there are deeper truths than can be transmitted only by silence; and, on another level, are those which cannot be expressed, not even by silence.'</p>

In the notion of social antagonism, INTRAsocial differences (the topic of concrete social analysis) overlap with the difference between the Social as such and its Other. This overlapping becomes palpable in the highpoint of Stalinism, where the enemy is explicitly designated as non-human, as the excrement of humanity: the struggle of the Stalinist Party against the enemy becomes the struggle of humanity itself against the non-human excrement. At a different level, the same goes for the Nazi anti-Semitism, which is why Jews are also denied the basic humanity. <p>&nbsp;Andyet, again, this radical level of confrontation should not seduce us into abandoning the concrete social analysis of the holocaust. The problem with the academic holocaust-industry is precisely the elevation of the holocaust into the metaphysical diabolical Evil, irrational, apolitical, incomprehensible, approachable only through respectful silence. Holocaust is the ultimate traumatic point where the objectifying historical knowledge breaks down, where it has to acknowledge its worthlessness in front of a single witness, and, simultaneously, the point at which witnesses themselves had to concede that words fail them, that what they can share is ultimately only their silence as such. Holocaust is referred to as a mystery, the heart of darkness of our civilization; its enigma in advance negates all (explanatory) answers, defying knowledge and description, noncommunicable, lying outside historicization — it cannot must be explained, visualized, represented, transmitted, since it marks the Void, the black hole, the end, the implosion, of the (narrative) universecommunicated. Accordingly, any attempt to locate it in its context, to politicize it, equals the anti-Semitic negation of its uniqueness… Here is one of the standard version of this exemption of the holocaust:</p>

"A great Hassidic Master, <p>&nbsp;Here is the dilemma that confronts anyone who plunges into the Rabbi of Kotsk, used to say, 'There are truths which concentration camp universe: How can be communicated one recount when — by the word; there are deeper truths than can be transmitted only by silence; scale and, on another level, are those which cannot be expressed, not even by silence.'weight of its horror — the event defies language?"^{<a href="#27">27</a>}</p>

And yet<p>Are this not the terms that designate the Lacanian encounter of the Real? However, they must this very depoliticization of the holocaust, its elevation into the properly sublime Evil, the untouchable Exception out of reach of the "normal" political discourse, can also be communicateda political act of utter cynical manipulation, a political intervention aiming at legitimizing a certain kind of hierarchical political relations. First, it is part of the postmodern strategy of depoliticization and/or victimization. Second, it disqualifies forms of the Third World violence for which Western states are (co)responsible as minor in comparison with the Absolute Evil of the holocaust. Third, it serves to cast a shadow on every radical political project, i.e.to reinforce the Denkverbot against the radical political imagination: "Are you aware that what you propose ultimately leads to the holocaust?"</p>

Here <p>Precisely as Marxists, we should then have no fear in acknowledging that the purges under Stalinism were in a way more "irrational" than the Fascist violence: paradoxically, this very excess is an unmistakable sign that, in contrast to Fascism, Stalinism was the dilemma that confronts anyone who plunges into case of a perverted authentic revolution. In Fascism, even in Nazi Germany, it was possible to survive, to maintain the concentration camp universe: How can appearance of a "normal" everyday life, if one did not involve oneself in any oppositional political activity (and, of course, if one recount when — by were not of Jewish origins…), while in the scale Stalinism of the late 30ies, nobody was safe, everyone could be unexpectedly denounced, arrested and weight shot as a traitor. In other words, the "irrationality" of Nazism was "condensed" in anti-Semitism, in its horror — belief in the Jewish plot, while the event defies language?Stalinist "irrationality"27pervaded the entire social body. For that reason, Nazi police investigators were still looking for proofs and traces of actual activity against the regime, while Stalinist investigators were engaged in clear and unambiguous fabrications (invented plots and sabotages, etc.).</p>

Are <p>However, this very violence inflicted by the Communist Power on its own members bears witness to the radical self-contradiction of the regime, i.e. to the fact that, at the origins of the regime, there was an "authentic" revolutionary project — incessant purges were necessary not only to erase the terms that designate traces of the Lacanian encounter regime's own origins, but also as a kind of "return of the Real? Howeverrepressed, " a reminder of the radical negativity at the heart of the regime. The Stalinist purges of high Party echelons relied on this very depoliticization fundamental betrayal: the accused were effectively guilty insofar as they, as the members of the new nomenklatura, betrayed the Revolution. The Stalinist terror is thus not simply the betrayal of the holocaustRevolution, i.e. the attempt to erase the traces of the authentic revolutionary past; it rather bears witness to a kind of "imp of perversity" which compels the post-revolutionary new order to (re)inscribe its elevation into betrayal of the Revolution within itself, to "reflect" it or "remark" it in the guise of arbitrary arrests and killings&nbsp; which threatened all members of the nomenklatura — as in psychoanalysis, the Stalinist confession of guilt conceals the properly sublime Eviltrue guilt. (As is well known, Stalin wisely recruited into the untouchable Exception NKVD people of lower social origins who were thus able to act out their hatred of the nomenklatura by arresting and torturing high apparatchiks.) This inherent tension between the stability of reach the rule of the new nomenklatura and the perverted "normalreturn of the repressed" political discoursein the guise of the repeated purges of the ranks of the nomenklatura is at the very heart of the Stalinist phenomenon: purges are the very form in which the betrayed revolutionary heritage survives and haunts the regime. The dream of Gennadi Zyuganov, can also be a political act the Communist presidential candidate in 1996 (things would have turned out OK in the Soviet Union if only Stalin had lived at least 5 years longer and accomplished his final project of utter cynical manipulationhaving done with cosmopolitanism and bringing about the reconciliation between the Russian state and the Orthodox Church — in other words, if only Stalin had realized his anti-Semitic purge…), a political intervention aiming aims precisely at the point of pacification at legitimizing a certain kind which the revolutionary regime would finally get rid of its inherent tension and stabilize itself — the paradox, of hierarchical political relations. Firstcourse, it is part that in order to reach this stability, Stalin's last purge, the planned "mother of all purges" which was to take place in the postmodern strategy Summer of depoliticization 1953 and/or victimizationwas prevented by his death, would have to succeed. SecondHere, it disqualifies forms then, perhaps, the classic Trotsky's analysis of the Third World violence for which Western states are Stalinist "Thermidor" is not fully adequate: the actual Thermidor happened only after Stalin's death (coor, rather, even after Khruschev's fall)responsible as minor in comparison , with the Absolute Evil Brezhnev years of "stagnation," when nomenklatura finally stabilized itself into a "new class." Stalinism proper is rather the enigmatic "vanishing mediator" between the holocaustauthentic Leninist revolutionary outburst and its Thermidor. ThirdOn the other hand, Trotsky was right in his prediction from the 30ies that the Soviet regime can end only in two ways: either a worker's revolt against it serves to cast a shadow on every radical , or the nomenklatura will no longer be satisfied with political projectpower, i.ebut will convert itself into capitalists who directly own the means of production. And, as The Road to Terror claims in its last paragraph, with a direct reference to reinforce Trotsky,^{<a href="#28">28</a>}&nbsp; this second solution is what effectively happened: the new private owners of the means of production in ex-Socialist countries, especially in the Soviet Union, are in their large majority the members of the ex-nomenklatura, so one can say that the Denkverbot against main event of the radical political imagination: disintegration of "really existing Socialism"Are you aware was the transformation of nomenklatura into a class of private owners. However, the ultimate irony of it is that the two opposite outcomes predicted by Trotsky seem combined in a strange way: what you propose ultimately leads enabled the nomenklatura to become the direct owner of the means of production was the resistance to its political rule whose key component, at least in some cases (Solidarity in Poland), was the holocaust?"workers' revolt against the nomenklatura.</p>

However<p>As Alain Badiou pointed out, this very violence inflicted by the Communist Power on in spite of its own members bears witness to horrors and failures, the radical self-contradiction of "really existing Socialism" was the regime, i.e. to the fact only political force that— for some decades, at the origins of the regime, there was least — seemed to pose an "authentic" revolutionary project — incessant purges were necessary not only effective threat to erase the traces global rule of the regime's own originscapitalism, but also as a kind of "return of the repressedreally scaring its representatives," a reminder of the radical negativity at the heart of the regimedriving them into paranoiac reaction. The Stalinist purges of high Party echelons relied on this fundamental betrayal: the accused were effectively guilty insofar as theySince, today, as capitalism defines and structures the members totality of the new nomenklaturahuman civilization, betrayed the Revolution. The Stalinist terror every "Communist" territory was and is thus not simply the betrayal of the Revolution— again, i.e. the attempt to erase the traces in spite of the authentic revolutionary past; it rather bears witness to its horrors and failures — a kind of "imp of perversity" which compels the post-revolutionary new order to (re)inscribe its betrayal of the Revolution within itselfliberated territory, to "reflect" as Fred Jameson put it or "remark" it in the guise of arbitrary arrests and killings which threatened all members of the nomenklatura — as in psychoanalysis, the Stalinist confession apropos of guilt conceals the true guiltCuba. (As What we are dealing with here is well known, Stalin wisely recruited into the NKVD people of lower social origins who were thus able to act out their hatred old structural notion of the nomenklatura by arresting and torturing high apparatchiks.) This inherent tension gap between the stability of the rule of the new nomenklatura Space and the perverted "return of the repressed" positive content that fills it in the guise of the repeated purges of the ranks of the nomenklatura is at the very heart of the Stalinist phenomenon: purges are although, as to their positive content, the very form in which the betrayed revolutionary heritage survives Communist regimes were mostly a dismal failure, generating terror and haunts misery, they at the regime. The dream of Gennadi Zyuganovsame time opened up a certain space, the Communist presidential candidate in 1996 (things would have turned out OK in the Soviet Union if only Stalin had lived at least 5 years longer and accomplished his final project space of having done with cosmopolitanism and bringing about the reconciliation between the Russian state and the Orthodox Church — in utopian expectations which, among other wordsthings, if only Stalin had realized his anti-Semitic purge…), aims precisely at enabled us to measure the point failure of pacification at which the revolutionary regime would finally get rid of its inherent tension and stabilize really existing Socialism itself — . What the paradox, of course, anti-Communist dissidents as a rule tend to overlook is that in order to reach this stability, Stalin's last purge, the planned "mother of all purges" very space from which was to take place in they themselves criticized and denounced the Summer of 1953 everyday terror and misery was prevented opened and sustained by his deaththe Communist breakthrough, would have by its attempt to succeed. Here, then, perhaps, escape the classic Trotsky's analysis logic of the Stalinist "Thermidor" is not fully adequate: the actual Thermidor happened only after Stalin's death (orCapital. In short, rather, even after Khruschev's fall), with when dissidents like Havel denounced the Brezhnev years existing Communist regime on behalf of "stagnationauthentic human solidarity," when nomenklatura finally stabilized itself into a "new class." Stalinism proper is rather the enigmatic "vanishing mediator" between the authentic Leninist revolutionary outburst and its Thermidor. On the other handthey (unknowingly, Trotsky was right in his prediction from for the 30ies that the Soviet regime can end only in two ways: either a worker's revolt against most part of it, or ) spoke from the nomenklatura will no longer be satisfied with political power, but will convert place opened up by Communism itself into capitalists who directly own the means of production. And, as The Road — which is why they tend to Terror claims in its last paragraph, with a direct reference to Trotsky,28 this second solution is what effectively happened: the new private owners of the means of production in ex-Socialist countries, especially in the Soviet Union, are in their large majority the members of the ex-nomenklatura, be so one can say that the main event of disappointed when the disintegration of "really existing Socialismcapitalism" was does not meet the transformation high expectations of nomenklatura into a class of private ownerstheir anti-Communist struggle. HoweverPerhaps, the ultimate irony of it is that the two opposite outcomes predicted by Trotsky seem combined in a strange way: what enabled the nomenklatura to become the direct owner of the means of production was the resistance to its political rule whose key componentVaclav Klaus, at least in some cases (Solidarity in Poland)Havel's pragmatic double, was the workers' revolt against the nomenklatura.right when he dismissed Havel as a "socialist"…</p>

As Alain Badiou pointed out<p>&nbsp;It is easy to claim, in spite of its horrors and failuresa quick pseudo-Marxist way, the "really existing Socialism" was the only political force that — for some decades, at least — seemed to pose an effective threat to such scenes were simply the global rule ideological legitimization of capitalism, really scaring its representatives, driving them into paranoiac reactionthe most brutal terror. SinceHowever, todayno matter how manipulative this scene is, capitalism defines and structures no matter how contradicted it was by the totality arbitrary harshness of the human civilization, every "Communist" territory was and is — again, in spite of its horrors and failures — a kind of actual "liberated territoryrevolutionary justice," as Fred Jameson put it apropos of Cuba. What we are dealing nonetheless provided the spectators with here new ethical standards by which reality is to be measured — the old structural notion shocking outcome of this exercise of the gap between revolutionary justice, the Space unexpected resignification of "severity" into severity towards social circumstances and the positive content that fills it in: althoughgenerosity towards people, as to their positive content, the Communist regimes were mostly cannot but produce a dismal failuresublime effect. In short, generating terror and misery, they at what we have here is an exemplary case of what Lacan called the same time opened up a certain space"quilting point [point de capiton], the space " of utopian expectations which, among other things, enabled us to measure an intervention that changes the failure coordinates of the really existing Socialism itself. What the anti-Communist dissidents as a rule tend to overlook is that the very space from which they themselves criticized and denounced the everyday terror and misery was opened and sustained by the Communist breakthrough, by its attempt to escape the logic field of meaning: instead of the Capital. In shortpleading for generous tolerance against severe justice, when dissidents like Havel denounced the existing Communist regime on behalf of authentic human solidarity, they (unknowingly, for old Bolshevik redefines the most part meaning of it) spoke from the place opened up by Communism itself — which is why they tend to be so disappointed when the "really existing capitalismsevere justice" does not meet the high expectations itself in terms of their anti-Communist struggleexcessive forgiveness and generosity. PerhapsEven if this is a deceiving appearance, Vaclav Klaus, Havel's pragmatic double, was right when he dismissed Havel as there is in a "socialist"…sense more truth in this appearance than in the harsh social reality that generated it.</p> <p><u>Footnotes</u></p>

The difficult task is thus to confront the radical ambiguity of the Stalinist ideology which, even at its most <p><a name="totalitarian,1" still exudes an emancipatory potential></a>1. J. Arch Getty and Oleg V. From my youth, I remember the memorable scene from a Soviet film about the civil war in 1919, in which Bolsheviks organize the public trial of a mother with a young diseased son, who is discovered Naumov The Road to be the spy for the counter-revolutionary White forcesTerror. At the very beginning of the trial, an old Bolshevik strokes his long white mustache Stalin and says: "The sentence must be severe, but just!" The revolutionary court (the collective Self-Destruction of the Bolshevik fighters) establishes that the cause of her enemy activity was her difficult social circumstances; the sentence is therefore that she be fully integrated into the socialist collectiveBolsheviks, taught to write and read and to acquire a proper education, while her son is to be given proper medical care. While the surprised mother bursts out crying, unable to understand the court's benevolence1932-39, the old Bolshevik again strokes his mustaches New Haven and nods in consentLondon: "Yes, this is a severe, but just sentence!"Yale University Press 1999.<br><br>

It is easy to claim, in <a quick pseudo-Marxist way, that such scenes were simply the ideological legitimization of the most brutal terror. However, no matter how manipulative this scene is, no matter how contradicted it was by the arbitrary harshness of the actual "revolutionary justice," it nonetheless provided the spectators with new ethical standards by which reality is to be measured — the shocking outcome of this exercise of the revolutionary justice, the unexpected resignification of name="severity2" into severity towards social circumstances and generosity towards people, cannot but produce ></a sublime effect>2. In shortFor the historical data, what we have rely here is an exemplary case of what Lacan called on the "quilting point [point de capiton]otherwise standard Western liberal journalist report by Elizabeth Becker," of an intervention that changes When the coordinates of War Was Over. Cambodia and the very field of meaningKhmer Rouge Revolution, New York: instead of pleading for generous tolerance against severe justice, the old Bolshevik redefines the meaning of "severe justice" itself in terms of excessive forgiveness and generosity. Even if this is a deceiving appearance, there is in a sense more truth in this appearance than in the harsh social reality that generated itPublic Affairs 1998.<br><br>

1<a name="4"></a>4. J. Arch Getty This logic was nicely formulated by Ayn Rand apropos of the anti-trust laws: everything a capitalist does becomes a crime — if his prices are higher than the others' prices, he exploits his monopolistic position; if they are lower, he practices unfair competition; if they are the same, it's collusion and Oleg V. Naumov The Road conspiracy to undermine true competition… And is this not similar to Terror. Stalin and the Self-Destruction time of the Bolshevikspatient's arrival in psychoanalysis? If the patient is late, 1932-39it's a hysterical provocation; if he is early, it's an obsessional compulsion; if he arrives exactly on time, New Haven and London: Yale University Press 1999it is a perverse ritual.<br><br>

2<a name="5"></a>5. For the historical dataThe Road to Terror, we rely here on the otherwise standard Western liberal journalist report by Elizabeth Beckerp. 370. The same uncanny laughter also appeared at other places: "Bukharin: Whatever they are testifying against me is not true. (Laughter, When noise in the War Was Overroom.) Why are you laughing? There is nothing funny in all this."(Op.cit. Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge Revolution, New York: Public Affairs 1998p.394)<br><br>

3<a name="6"></a>6. Quoted from Elizabeth WilsonFranz Kafka, Shostakovich. A Life RememberedThe Trial, PrincetonHarmondsworth: Princeton University Press 1995Penguin Books 1985, p. 13448.<br><br>

4. This logic was nicely formulated by Ayn Rand apropos of the anti-trust laws: everything <a capitalist does becomes name="7"></a crime — if his prices are higher than the others' prices, he exploits his monopolistic position; if they are lower, he practices unfair competition; if they are the same, it's collusion and conspiracy to undermine true competition… And is this not similar >7. The Road to the time of the patient's arrival in psychoanalysis? If the patient is lateTerror, it's a hysterical provocationp. 315-6.&nbsp; if he is early, it's an obsessional compulsion; if he arrives exactly on time, it is a perverse ritual.<br><br>

5. The Road to Terror, p. 370. The same uncanny laughter also appeared at other places: <a name="8"Bukharin: Whatever they are testifying against me is not true></a>8. (Laughter, noise in the room.) Why are you laughing? There is nothing funny in all this."(Op.cit., p. 394)322.<br><br>

6<a name="9"></a>9. Op.cit. Franz Kafka, The Trial, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1985, p. 48321.<br><br>

7<a name="10"></a>10. Op.cit. The Road to Terror, p. 315-6399. <br><br>

8<a name="11"></a>11. Op.cit., p. 322404-405.<br><br>

9<a name="12"></a>12. Op.cit., p. 321556.<br><br>

10<a name="13"></a>13. Op.cit., p. 399558-60.<br><br>

11<a name="14"></a>14. Op.cit., p. 404-405558.<br><br>

12<a name="15"></a>15. Op.cit., p. 556387-8.<br><br>

13<a name="16"></a>16. Op.cit., p. 558-60100.<br><br>

14. Op.cit<a name="17"></a>17.For a more detailed account of this key feature of Kant's ethics, see Chapter II of Slavoj Zizek, The Indivisible Remainder, p. 558London: Verso 1996.<br><br>

15. Op.cit<a name="18"></a>18.See Alenka Zupancic, The Ethics of the Real, p. 387-8London: Verso Books 1999.<br><br>

16. Op.cit<a name="19"></a>19.Let us also not forget that, in the weeks before October Revolution, when the debate was raging between Bolsheviks, Stalin did take side against Lenin's proposal for an immediate Bolshevik takeover, arguing, along the Menshevik lines, that the situation is not yet "ripe," and that, instead of such dangerous "adventurism, p. 100" one should endorse a broad coalition of all anti-Tsarist forces.<br><br>

17<a name="20"></a>20. For a more detailed account of this key feature of KantSee Alain Badiou, L'etre et l's ethics, see Chapter II of Slavoj Zizek, The Indivisible Remainderevenement, LondonParis: Verso 1996Editions du Seuil 1988.<br><br>

18<a name="21"></a>21. See Alenka Zupancic, The Ethics of the RealRoad to Terror, London: Verso Books 1999p. 480.<br><br>

19. Let us also not forget that, in the weeks before October Revolution, when the debate was raging between Bolsheviks, Stalin did take side against Lenin's proposal for an immediate Bolshevik takeover, arguing, along the Menshevik lines, that the situation is not yet "ripe,<a name=" and that, instead of such dangerous 22"adventurism></a>22. Op.cit.," one should endorse a broad coalition of all anti-Tsarist forcesp. 481.<br><br>

20<a name="23"></a>23. See Alain BadiouSigmund Freud, L'etre et l'evenement"Psychoanalytic Notes on an Autobiographical Account of a Case of Paranoia, Paris" in The Pelican Freud Library, Harmondsworth: Editions du Seuil 1988Penguin Books&nbsp; 1979, p. 211.<br><br>

21<a name="24"></a>24. The Road to Terror, p. 48014.<br><br>

22<a name="25"></a>25. Op.cit., p. 481Ibid.<br><br>

23<a name="26"></a>26. See Sigmund FreudElizabeth Wilson, "Psychoanalytic Notes on an Autobiographical Account of a Case of Paranoia," in The Pelican Freud Library, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1979Shostakovich. A Life Remembered, p. 211124-5.<br><br>

24<a name="27"></a>27. The Road to Terror"Foreword by Elie Wiesel," in Annette Insdorf, Indelible Shadows. Film and the Holocaust, Cambridge (Ma): Cambridge University Press 1989, p. 14xi.&nbsp;<br><br>

25<a name="28"></a>28. IbidThe Road to Terror, p.586.</p>

27. "Foreword by Elie Wiesel," in Annette Insdorf, Indelible Shadows. Film and the Holocaust, Cambridge (Ma): Cambridge University Press 1989, p. xi.  28. The Road to Terror, p. 586. From: The Human Rights Project, 1999.Available: http://www.bardegs.edu/hrpfaculty/zizekessay2zizek/zizek-when-the-party-commits-suicide.htm.   [[Category:Zizek]][[Category:Works]][[Category:Essays]]html