''Repeating Lenin'' by Slavoj Zizek

[Deicide]

A very interesting (and relevant) article.

For full - http://marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm


The first public reaction to the idea of reactualizing Lenin is, of course, an outburst of sarcastic laughter: Marx is OK, even on Wall Street, there are people who love him today — Marx the poet of commodities, who provided perfect descriptions of the capitalist dynamics, Marx of the Cultural Studies, who portrayed the alienation and reification of our daily lives -, but Lenin, no, you can’t be serious! The working class movement, revolutionary Party, and similar zombie-concepts? Doesn’t Lenin stand precisely for the FAILURE to put Marxism into practice, for the big catastrophe which left its mark on the entire XXth century world politics, for the Real Socialist experiment which culminated in an economically inefficient dictatorship?

So, in the contemporary academic politics, the idea to deal with Lenin is accompanied by two qualifications: yes, why not, we live in a liberal democracy, there is freedom of thought... however, one should treat Lenin in an “objective critical and scientific way,” not in an attitude of nostalgic idolatry, and, furthermore, from the perspective firmly rooted in the democratic political order, within the horizon of human rights — therein resides the lesson painfully learned through the experience of the XXth century totalitarianisms.

What are we to say to this? Again, the problem resides in the implicit qualifications which can be easily discerned by the “concrete analysis of the concrete situation,” as Lenin himself would have put it. “Fidelity to the democratic consensus” means the acceptance of the present liberal-parliamentary consensus, which precludes any serious questioning of how this liberal-democratic order is complicit in the phenomena it officially condemns, and, of course, any serious attempt to imagine a society whose socio-political order would be different. In short, it means: say and write whatever you want — on condition that what you do, does not effectively question or disturb the predominant political consensus. So everything is allowed, solicited even, as a critical topic: the prospects of a global ecological catastrophe, violations of human rights, sexism, homophobia, antifeminism, the growing violence not only in the far-away countries, but also in our megalopolises, the gap between the First and the Third World, between the rich and the poor, the shattering impact of the digitalization of our daily lives... there is nothing easier today than to get international, state or corporate funds for a multidisciplinary research into how to fight the new forms of ethnic, religious or sexist violence.

The problem is that all this occurs against the background of a fundamental Denkverbot, the prohibition to think. Today’s liberal-democratic hegemony is sustained by a kind of unwritten Denkverbot similar to the infamous Berufsverbot in Germany of the late 60s — the moment one shows a minimal sign of engaging in political projects that aim to seriously challenge the existing order, the answer is immediately: “Benevolent as it is, this will necessarily end in a new Gulag!” The ideological function of the constant reference to the holocaust, gulag and the more recent Third World catastrophes is thus to serve as the support of this Denkverbot by constantly reminding us how things may have been much worse: “Just look around and see for yourself what will happen if we follow your radical notions!” And it is exactly the same thing that the demand for “scientific objectivity” means: the moment one seriously questions the existing liberal consensus, one is accused of abandoning scientific objectivity for the outdated ideological positions. This is the point on which one cannot and should not concede: today, the actual freedom of thought means the freedom to question the predominant liberal-democratic “post-ideological” consensus — or it means nothing.

[Grenzer]

Personally I don't get the fascination with Lenin. He wasn't a particularly great leader, a man who was an arrogant jackass, and as a theorist, he was sub-par in many respects. There are far better Marxists worth obsessing about than him. Seems like Zizek isn't free of this adolescent phase.. can't say I'm surprised.

It does have to be admitted, however, that Lenin does look like a badass.

[Искра]

What is so interesting and great about Žižek appart from him being funny and giving and wank and sex advices in his interviews?

[Deicide]

What is so interesting and great about Žižek appart from him being funny and giving and wank and sex advices in his interviews?

You want to know what I (subjectively) find interesting about Zizek? If that's so, I'll concede, once you answer the redundant, frivolous questions I'm about to bombard you with. What's so great and interesting about that lady in your avatar? Why have you chosen her as your avatar? Furthermore, why would you like to know what's so interesting and great about Zizek?

[Grenzer]

You want to know what I (subjectively) find interesting about Zizek? If that's so, I'll concede, once you answer the redundant, frivolous questions I'm about to bombard you with. What's so great and interesting about that lady in your avatar? Why have you chosen her as your avatar? Furthermore, why would you like to know what's so interesting and great about Zizek?

Pretty sure it's a North Korean woman.

[Deicide]

Pretty sure it's a North Korean woman.

I know. My post wasn't serious. It was a purposefully silly response.

[Ocean Seal]

Personally I don't get the fascination with Lenin. He wasn't a particularly great leader, a man who was an arrogant jackass, and as a theorist, he was sub-par in many respects. There are far better Marxists worth obsessing about than him. Seems like Zizek isn't free of this adolescent phase.. can't say I'm surprised.

It does have to be admitted, however, that Lenin does look like a badass.
http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/internet-memes-we-got-a-badass-over-here.jpg

Just lead the first and only proletarian revolution, stood as an inspiration to revolutionaries all over the world, had the invaluable experience of sustaining a revolution. I suppose that his writing was not as pretty as that of some obscure academic leftist, but maybe there are more important things.

[Agathor]

Just lead the first and only proletarian revolution, stood as an inspiration to revolutionaries all over the world, had the invaluable experience of sustaining a revolution. I suppose that his writing was not as pretty as that of some obscure academic leftist, but maybe there are more important things.
The October Coup was a popular revolution only in the minds of perfect fantasists. It was planned and carried out by a tiny number of people within the Bolshevik party. When the Bolsheviks held elections after the so-called revolution they lost, as they were then and had been for a long time the third most popular socialist party in Russia.

Anyway, on Zizek. He's an admitted troll. He keeps a picture of Stalin in his lounge just to shock visitors and writes articles claiming that Hitler wasn't violent enough. Every now and then Zizek says something sober and interesting, but these comments are the exception. Until they become the rule I don't see why we should take the loon seriously.

[Psy]

The October Coup was a popular revolution only in the minds of perfect fantasists. It was planned and carried out by a tiny number of people within the Bolshevik party. When the Bolsheviks held elections after the so-called revolution they lost, as they were then and had been for a long time the third most popular socialist party in Russia.

The problem with this view point is that the Bolsheviks won the civil-war, we have the view of the October Revolution being popular as when it came to the civil-war Russians left the Bolsheviks in power at their weakest point.

[Threetune]

Do try and concentrate. This thread is about what Zizek said, allegedly.

This could be an interesting polemical exchange about the relevance of Lenin if the lazy ignorant anti-communist, anti-Leninists would try a little harder to grapple with the issues Zizek is talking about here:

“…Again, the problem resides in the implicit qualifications which can be easily discerned by the “concrete analysis of the concrete situation,” as Lenin himself would have put it. “Fidelity to the democratic consensus” means the acceptance of the present liberal-parliamentary consensus, which precludes any serious questioning of how this liberal-democratic order is complicit in the phenomena it officially condemns, and, of course, any serious attempt to imagine a society whose socio-political order would be different.”

“…This is the point on which one cannot and should not concede: today, the actual freedom of thought means the freedom to question the predominant liberal-democratic “post-ideological” consensus — or it means nothing.” Zizek


Zizek is sensibly going to the very best place to look for real revolutionary theoretical understanding. Anti-communism of every kind will stop at nothing to divert the world’s masses, especially young workers, and middle class youth from reading learning about and debating Lenin’s massive unmatched contribution to successful proletarian dictatorship.

[Rafiq]

The October Coup was a popular revolution only in the minds of perfect fantasists. It was planned and carried out by a tiny number of people within the Bolshevik party. When the Bolsheviks held elections after the so-called revolution they lost, as they were then and had been for a long time the third most popular socialist party in Russia.

Anyway, on Zizek. He's an admitted troll. He keeps a picture of Stalin in his lounge just to shock visitors and writes articles claiming that Hitler wasn't violent enough. Every now and then Zizek says something sober and interesting, but these comments are the exception. Until they become the rule I don't see why we should take the loon seriously.

Listen you Liberal fuckhead, just because you don't understand Zizek doesn't mean he's not to be taken seriously.

When he said Hitler was not "violent" enough, he said he was speaking in LACANIAN terms in a LACANIAN book, i.e., hitler was not RADICAL enough, when faced with capitalism, nationalism, etc.

And the part about the Bolshevik revolution being a coup... You're head's in your ass, Chomskyan bastard. It wasn't a coup at all. It had the support of the majoroty of the proletarian class.

[Rafiq]

Aren't you the stupid shit who said Mao killed 60 million people and cited black book statistics to back it up?

[NewLeft]

And the part about the Bolshevik revolution being a coup... You're head's in your ass, Chomskyan bastard. It wasn't a coup at all. It had the support of the majoroty of the proletarian class.

I saw that coming.. :laugh:

The bolsheviks did not have the majority of the proletariat, they had the majority of the peasants.

[Threetune]

I saw that coming.. :laugh:

The bolsheviks did not have the majority of the proletariat, they had the majority of the peasants.

You are the representative of the idiot democrats that Zizek is questioning. Answer him you ignorant smart ass. And pay attention to the original post.

[Threetune]

Only a cringing capitalist influenced twat of the first holy order of num-scull reactionaries would not understand that Lenin was the absolute best of the best revolutionaries.

As fighting proletarian revolutionaries read what you like and follow any twat you like.

When you can’t get a position. Read Lenin!

This is what every reactionary on the planet will tell you not to do, one way or another.

[Agathor]

Listen you Liberal fuckhead, just because you don't understand Zizek doesn't mean he's not to be taken seriously.

When he said Hitler was not "violent" enough, he said he was speaking in LACANIAN terms in a LACANIAN book, i.e., hitler was not RADICAL enough, when faced with capitalism, nationalism, etc.

And the part about the Bolshevik revolution being a coup... You're head's in your ass, Chomskyan bastard. It wasn't a coup at all. It had the support of the majoroty of the proletarian class.

The whole point was he was using an obscure definition of violence to make a statement which, while arguably true, had no empirical or analytical value. It was pure provocation.

And I have never cited the black book. In the Mao thread I cited a dozen historians and then you had a tantrum and threw your toys out of the pram, in similar fashion as you are doing now.

It's 'your' by the way. I'm just trying to help.

[Ostrinski]

The bolsheviks did not have the majority of the proletariat, they had the majority of the peasants.Bullshit, actually. There were more than twice as many workers in the Bolshevik party than peasants.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I have a hard time taking anything that tool says seriously after his ridiculous position on the 2011 London riots. Zizek is just a silly troll who delights in contradictions like saying how much of a disaster Leninism was during his "First as Tragedy, then as Farce" lecture, but then going on to praise the "emancipatory potential" of Stalinism and Mao's Cultural Revolution. Just can't take that slovenly hobo seriously.

[NewLeft]

Bullshit, actually. There were more than twice as many workers in the Bolshevik party than peasants.
I have been misled then, do you have source for this, by chance?

[Threetune]

As I said above, anti-communism and anti-Leninism is ignorant and reactionary.
Get used to it.

[DaringMehring]

Zizek talks and writes in a highly specialized language that is not accessible to working people at all. I guess that is his Lacanian Little Object A Schubertian post-non-modernist way of challenging us to rethink our assumptions of the proletariat as the revolutionary class?

Or... he is an entrenched academic who makes his bread and butter off impressing college students with his verbal gymnastics.

At least he likes Lenin.

Also, he seriously looks like he's high on coke when he's talking, pretty often. A lot of the tell-tale signs are there.

[Ostrinski]

I have been misled then, do you have source for this, by chance?wikipedia.org

[Ostrinski]

I like Zizek, and I will say it in a court of law.

[GoddessCleoLover]

While I agree that in 1917 Lenin was a great revolutionary leader, I see no evidence that he was greater than Rosa Luxemburg, for example. I truly believe that Rosa would have led to the Great OctoberSocialist Revolution to victory as did Lenin. OTOH come the end of the civil war in 1921 IMO she would have realized the need for internal party democracy and would not have allowed the party to have become a dictatorial entity as it did in the Union. Conversely, IMO had Lenin been a German he would have met the same sad as did Rosa and Karl Liebknecht. It comes down to material conditions, the reactionaries in Russia were divided following Kornilov's move against Kerensky. OTOH the German military remained united against the German Spartacisits even if Lenin and Trotsky had been leading the German revolutionaries they would not have prevailed against the steel fist of the German military.

[Ostrinski]

While I agree that in 1017 Lenin was a great revolutionary leader, I see no evidence that he was greater than Rosa Luxemburg, for example. I truly believe that Rosa would have led to the Great OctoberSocialist Revolution to victory as did Lenin. OTOH come the end of the civil war in 1921 IMO she would have realized the need for internal party democracy and would not have allowed the party to have become a dictatorial entity as it did in the Union. Conversely, IMO had Lenin been a German he would have met the same sad as did Rosa and Karl Liebknecht. It comes down to material conditions, the reactionaries in Russia were divided following Kornilov's move against Kerensky. OTOH the German military remained united against the German Spartacisits even if Lenin and Trotsky had been leading the German revolutionaries they would not have prevailed against the steel fist of the German military.Red October would have happened with or without Lenin, the Spartacist uprising would have happened with or without Luxemburg or Liebknecht.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The Spartacist uprising would have failed even if Lenin and Trotsky had been its leadership rather than Luxemburg and Liebknecht, and the October Revolution was ripe to occur because of material conditions.

[Ostrinski]

I wasn't comparing their leadership skills, I was saying that both events were pretty much gonna happen anyway, regardless of leadership.

[Agathor]

As I said above, anti-communism and anti-Leninism is ignorant and reactionary.
Get used to it.

Neat. I didn't know Dave Spart has a Revleft account.

[NewLeft]

wikipedia.org

The same figures for the Bolshevik party as a whole in 1921 are 28.7% peasants, 41% workers and 30.8% white collar and others

You're right, my mistake.

Though wasn't the party more concerned with the peasants than the proletariat? I get why industrial..


Lenin organized a preemptive strike; in 1920, finding himself in a position of the leader of the party of the working class with no working class (most of it being killed in the civil war), he went on organizing a state, i.e. he fully accepted the paradox of the party organizing-creating its base, its working class.

Is Zizek admitting that the Bolsheviks weren't the proletariat party?

[l'Enfermé]

I wasn't comparing their leadership skills, I was saying that both events were pretty much gonna happen anyway, regardless of leadership.
The October Revolution definitely wouldn't have happened without Lenin's calls for insurrection. Nearly the entire leadership of the Bolsheviks was opposed to it. It took a lot for Lenin to bring the majority of the party to his side, and even then you still had Zinoviev and Kamenev running around with their stupid shit.

[the last donut of the night]

Also, he seriously looks like he's high on coke when he's talking, pretty often. A lot of the tell-tale signs are there.

these are the types of things we don't say when we actually wanna discuss something in an adult-like manner

[GoddessCleoLover]

The over-arching point is that material conditions are outcome-determinative. IMO has Rosa Luxemburg been in Lenin's place she would have also called for insurrection. Conversely, the willingness of the German military to shed the blood of the proletariat would have defeated any German uprising, even one led with Lenin's organizational abilities and call for insurrection, and the military abilities of Trotsky and many others,

[Rafiq]

The whole point was he was using an obscure definition of violence to make a statement which, while arguably true, had no empirical or analytical value. It was pure provocation.


The book wasn't meant for the common person to read. It was a Lacanian-style written book. In psychoanalysis, words like Violence have a different meaning. If you don't understand that, well, that's not his fucking problem.


And I have never cited the black book. In the Mao thread I cited a dozen historians and then you had a tantrum and threw your toys out of the pram, in similar fashion as you are doing now.


Which had no real legitimacy. There was never a population drop that large in China. Even the Bourgeois-demographics understand this.


It's 'your' by the way. I'm just trying to help.


You can tell your opponent is desperate when he resorts to finding grammatical errors in your posts.

[Rafiq]

The bolsheviks did not have the majority of the proletariat, they had the majority of the peasants.

Yes, they did have the majority of the proletariat on their side. More so than the peasantry at that.

[Rafiq]

Zizek talks and writes in a highly specialized language that is not accessible to working people at all. I guess that is his Lacanian Little Object A Schubertian post-non-modernist way of challenging us to rethink our assumptions of the proletariat as the revolutionary class?

Or... he is an entrenched academic who makes his bread and butter off impressing college students with his verbal gymnastics.

At least he likes Lenin.

Also, he seriously looks like he's high on coke when he's talking, pretty often. A lot of the tell-tale signs are there.

Zizek doesn't present himself as some "Leader of the revolution" like Lenin used to write. He's an academic, not a revolutionary in practice. His words are specialized, so what?

[Rooster]

The October Revolution definitely wouldn't have happened without Lenin's calls for insurrection. Nearly the entire leadership of the Bolsheviks was opposed to it. It took a lot for Lenin to bring the majority of the party to his side, and even then you still had Zinoviev and Kamenev running around with their stupid shit.

I'm sure that a revolution would have happened in any event regardless of who was in charge or what party claimed to be in charge. The Bolsheviks just wanted to be the ones that were at the front and did not want to be sidelined, unlike the previous event when they were caught off their guard.

[The Idler]

Only a cringing capitalist influenced twat of the first holy order of num-scull reactionaries would not understand that Lenin was the absolute best of the best revolutionaries.

As fighting proletarian revolutionaries read what you like and follow any twat you like.

When you can’t get a position. Read Lenin!

This is what every reactionary on the planet will tell you not to do, one way or another.Is this a parody?

[Agathor]

The book wasn't meant for the common person to read. It was a Lacanian-style written book. In psychoanalysis, words like Violence have a different meaning. If you don't understand that, well, that's not his fucking problem.

You can tell your opponent is desperate when he resorts to finding grammatical errors in your posts.

What does it tell you when your opponent addresses all of the claims one by one using quotes before he starts picking at grammar, you thick ****?

(I am using 'thick ****' in the Lacanian sense)

[Psy]

I'm sure that a revolution would have happened in any event regardless of who was in charge or what party claimed to be in charge. The Bolsheviks just wanted to be the ones that were at the front and did not want to be sidelined, unlike the previous event when they were caught off their guard.
I'm not so sure, we seen a similar situation in Japan in the 1920's yet the complete lack of a competent vanguard led to the communist movement being jailed and forced to cooperate with the Japanese military in creating propaganda against the British, French, Dutch and Americans imperialism.

I think without the Bolsheviks what happened to the Japanese left would have happened to the Russian left, the reactionary army would have just thrown all the lefts in jail and beat them till they sang the praises of Russian capitalism.

[Rafiq]

What does it tell you when your opponent addresses all of the claims one by one using quotes before he starts picking at grammar, you thick ****?

(I am using 'thick ****' in the Lacanian sense)

It means I am responding to the essence of your post, while you are responding to one grammatical error negeleting the rest.

Wow, you're a dumb ass. Read Lacan before you judge him.

[MarxSchmarx]

Zizek talks and writes in a highly specialized language that is not accessible to working people at all. I guess that is his Lacanian Little Object A Schubertian post-non-modernist way of challenging us to rethink our assumptions of the proletariat as the revolutionary class?

Or... he is an entrenched academic who makes his bread and butter off impressing college students with his verbal gymnastics.



Hmm... well I think you are being too kind here actually.

I can't say too much more about the rest of Zizek's work, never been terribly inspired to read it for precisely it's obfuscatory approach that you mention. As a working person I have better things to do.

But this little passage at the start of this thread is a joke that belies his claims to be merely an entrenched academic sophist, though he is that as well.

Calling it basically pretentious neo-Hegelian drivel is frankly an understatement. "Denkverbot" is why lenin is rejected by the reading public? What a shallow critique. Historians have documented quite copiously how Lenin's myopic "best intentions" and his limited political role in the early years of the revolution led to the systematic betrayal of whatever meritorious elements of the Bolshevik revolution that was Stalinism. Sure, one could disagree with the prevailing historiographical perspective that Lenin harbored deeply authoritarian and ultimately inept ideas about what to do, but then show it using historical evidence. Not appeals to wall street types who reject Lenin because it's not the "in" thing to do, supposedly in contrast to "cultural marxism", whatever that means. At least try to engage with the serious critiques of leninism that have been around for, I don't know, the last 90 years, instead idiotic strawmen swipes.

That's just pathetic, and even more so coming from an established bourgeois bloviator with a comfortable life like Zizek.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

While I agree that in 1917 Lenin was a great revolutionary leader, I see no evidence that he was greater than Rosa Luxemburg, for example. I truly believe that Rosa would have led to the Great OctoberSocialist Revolution to victory as did Lenin. OTOH come the end of the civil war in 1921 IMO she would have realized the need for internal party democracy and would not have allowed the party to have become a dictatorial entity as it did in the Union. Conversely, IMO had Lenin been a German he would have met the same sad as did Rosa and Karl Liebknecht. It comes down to material conditions, the reactionaries in Russia were divided following Kornilov's move against Kerensky. OTOH the German military remained united against the German Spartacisits even if Lenin and Trotsky had been leading the German revolutionaries they would not have prevailed against the steel fist of the German military.

No doubt about it, Rosa was a great revolutionary. However, Lenin's early clarity on the question of the party -- that was the critical difference. Had the RSDLP not split in two, had their been one party in 1917, I think that the revolution might not have happened -- as it was, it was a close call. In Germany, had there been an earlier split, and a hardened independent Bolshevik party 5 years earlier than the Spartacus uprising, I think the proletariat would have had a pretty good shot at taking power. It is, of course, speculation. Trotsky's book, "The Lessons of October," speaks well to the contingencies of revolution - a must read for all revolutionaries.