ISSN 1751- 8229

Volume Two, Number Two

The only hope of the revolution is the row!"
The limits of #i$e%&s 'eninism
()ul *ello++ - ,th)b)s) -niversity
The first reaction, according to Slavoj iek, to the idea of taking a new look at Lenin is sarcastic
laughter ... Doesnt Lenin stand precisel for the failure to put !ar"is# into practice, for the $ig
catastrophe which left its #ark on the whole twentieth%centur world politics, for the &eal Socialist
e"peri#ent which cul#inated in an econo#icall inefficent dictatorship'( !ost $elieve that in
$uilding a )ew Left we have to leave the Leninist legac $ehind( *iek +,,+$- ./. iek 0 #ost
centrall in his Revolution At The Gates *iek- +,,+/ 0 is part of a new generation of scholars who
reject $oth the 1old 2ar version of Lenin as a devil( and the Stalinist version of Lenin as a god.(
This is a necessar and worthwhile project 0 and, given the long shadow of the 1old 2ar era, not
an eas one. The fact that a theorist of ieks pro#inence takes Lenin seriousl is i#portant in
itself. The writings of Lenin which iek introduces to a new generation are re#arka$le. 3ne earl
reviewer said that iek4s effort( in this revival of Lenin studies, de#ands praise. 5is courage to
stand against $oth the prevailing post#odernis# and li$eral #ulticulturalis#, his taking a stand on
the side of radical action against i#potent talk is to $e co##ended( *6ret7 +,,+- unpaginated/.
This article 0 after a review of the particular Lenin offered us $ iek 0 will suggest three was in
which this praise needs to $e te#pered. 8t will challenge ieks interpretation of the relationship
1
$etween Lenin and de#ocrac, Lenin and violence, and Lenin and Stalin. 8t will conclude with a
suggestion that iek has focused on one aspect of Lenin in 9:9; that while i#pressive, is not
terri$l relevant to todas new left. There is however another Lenin in 9:9;, une"a#ined $ iek,
that #a $e #ore prosaic( $ut #ight $e so#ewhat #ore useful for the +9
st
centur.
Theory )n! (r)tie in 1917
iek sas that it is crucial to e#phasi7e the relevance of <high theor for the #ost concrete
political struggle today( *iek +,,+$- =/ and argues that Lenins theoretical writings in the 9:9; era
were crucial to the successful 3cto$er &evolution. 5e praises the high theor( of Lenin as $eing
re#arka$l readable ... there is no need for long e"planator notes( displaing an al#ost classical
clarit in tracing the contours of the struggle in which the participate( *iek +,,+$- ;/. 2hat iek
offers us is a re#arka$le selection of Lenins writings, co#posed fro# the overthrow of the Tsar
and the creation of the provisional govern#ent in earl 9:9;, to the overthrow of the provisional
govern#ent and the installation of a workers council $ased state in late 9:9;.
These writings are well worth close stud. The ver first lines reveal the clarit of Lenins
insights into the politics of his da. 8n the i##ediate after#ath of the overthrow of the Tsar, Lenin
writes- The first revolution engendered $ the i#perialist world war has $roken out. The first
revolution $ut certainl not the last( *iek +,,+$- 9>/. This was to prove true $oth inside and
outside &ussia. 8nside &ussia, there was to $e a second revolution that esta$lished a state $ased
on workers councils *soviets/. 3utside &ussia, revolutions were to sweep through ?astern and
1entral ?urope, #ost nota$l in 6er#an, where the @aiser was overthrown.
iek also reprints what ca#e to $e known as Lenins April Theses,( in which he $roke
fro# the esta$lished orthodo" of his own part *the Bolsheviks/. 8n theor largel shaped over the
ears $ Lenin hi#self, the Bolsheviks had concluded that &ussia after the overthrow of the Tsar
was in for a prolonged period of $ourgeois rule. 8n the April Theses,( Lenin co#es over co#pletel
to the ideas of Leon Trotsk, who had seen a decade earlier that in &ussia, the de#ocratic
revolution would necessaril take the for# of a workers revolution, raising the $anner of socialis#.
8n what would see# like heres to !ar"ists trained in the #echanical for#ulae of the Second
*Socialist/ 8nternational 0 what iek calls evolutionar historicis#( 0 Lenin writes that the first
stage of the revolution was not $ourgeois out of historic inevita$ilit *as #ost !ar"ists thought/, $ut
$ecause of the insufficient class%consciousness and organi7ation of the proletariat.( There #ust
soon $e a second stage, which #ust place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest
sections of the peasants( *iek +,,+$- >;/.
This idea was like a thunder$olt inside the &ussian socialist #ove#ent. Cntil now, the idea
that a poor countr such as &ussia, with a large peasant population, could proceed directl to a
2
workers revolution, was the propert of a ver s#all #inorit, $est represented $ Trotsk. Lenin
had the courage to a$andon his old theories, co#e over to the su$stance of Trotsks position
*without, however, ever for#all saing so/, laing the ground for Trotsk and his followers *the
8nter%District 1o##ittee 0 in &ussian, Mezhrayontsi or Mezhrayonka/ fusing with Lenins Bolsheviks
in the su##er of 9:9;.
9
Dro# that point on, until the rise of Stalin, the &ussian &evolution was pre%
e#inentl identified with Lenin and Trotsk as an insepara$le tea#.
iek concludes his reprints with a section of Lenins works written in the i##ediate run%up
to the insurrection that overthrew the provisional govern#ent. 5ere, Lenin is #aking ever effort to
persuade so#e of his #ore conservative co%thinkers, that there is a place in !ar"is# for the art( of
insurrection. Being a !ar"ist, he argues, doesnt #ean waiting for the laws of histor to work
the#selves out, $ut to stud those laws to deter#ine how $est to activel intervene into their
working out( in order to further the interests of the working class and the oppressed. At certain
#o#ents, that intervention can take the for# of preparing an insurrection, so#ething #ost !ar"ists
considered the preserve of the unscientific anarchists. Lenin disagreed. 5e said first, that in certain
circu#stances it was possible for socialists to organi7e an insurrection, $ut it #ust rel not on
conspirac and not upon a part, $ut upon the advanced class ... 8nsurrection #ust rel upon a
revolutionary upsurge of the people. ... 8nsurrection #ust rel upon that turning-point in the histor
of the growing revolution when the activit of the advanced ranks of the people is at its height(
*iek +,,+$- 99;/. But Lenin went further. B 3cto$er 9:9;, he was writing that not onl was
insurrection possi$le, it was also necessary. 8t is clear that all power #ust pass to the Soviets( $ut
in practice the transfer of power to the Soviets now #eans ar#ed uprising ... To repudiate ar#ed
uprising now would #ean to repudiate the ke slogan of Bolshevis# *All Eower to the Soviets/(
*iek +,,+$- 9=+/.
These are re#arka$le writings fro# a ke figure active during one of the critical turning
points of the twentieth centur, a #o#ent when o$jective forces *war and econo#ic crisis/ had
engendered #ass #ove#ents of #illions, creating conditions where the deter#ined actions of an
organi7ed #inorit *the Bolshevik part/ could change the course of histor. !aking these readings
availa$le to a new generation is e"tre#el worthwhile. This worthwhile project is, unfortunatel,
seriousl flawed $ a Fuite #istaken *and at ti#es Fuite confusing/ analsis of these ideas.
.emor)y )n! the st)te
To $egin with, we are presented with a ver one%sided insurrectionar( Lenin, who has no
use for the struggle for refor#s. iek asserts that Lenins State and Revolution *Lenin- 9:G,/ a ke
te"t of the 9:9; revolution, is arguing that in so far as we still dwell within the doain of the State,
we are legiti#atel entitled to e"ercise full violent terror, since, within this do#ain, ever de#ocrac
3
is a fake ... since the State is an instru#ent of oppression, it is not worth tring to i#prove its
apparatuses, the protection of the legal order, elections, laws guaranteeing personal freedo# ... 0
all this $eco#es irrelevant( *iek +,,+$- 9:+/. Eerhaps this is iek $ending the stick( to #ake a
point. ?lsewhere, he shows a #ore nuanced understanding of Lenins attitude towards for#al
de#ocrac. 2hen Lenin underlines that there is no <pure de#ocrac, that we should alwas ask
who# does a freedo# under consideration serve and where is its role in the class struggle, his
point is precisel to #aintain the possi$ilit of the true radical choice. ... when Lenin asks a$out the
role of a freedo# within the class struggle, what he is asking is precisel- <Does this freedo#
contri$ute to or constrain the funda#ental revolutionar 1hoice'( *iek +,,=- unpaginated/. But if
that #ore nuanced position is iek4s, then it is incu#$ent on hi# to include it in his long analsis of
Lenins writings. 8ts a$sence seriousl distorts the argu#ent.
iek4s o$ject is to rescue State and Revolution fro# socialists who focus on the te"t as
envisioning the prospect of a$olishing the State, of the $road #asses directl taking the
ad#inistration of pu$lic affairs into their own hands( *iek +,,+$- 9:+/. iek is undou$tedl right
in one thing 0 #ost do not read the pa#phlet and co#e awa seeing its ke lesson as an argu#ent
that we are entitled to e"ercise full violent terror.( !ost do in fact focus on its e#ancipator vision
of a world without state oppression. But this, according to iek, is #isleading. 2e have to
understand, he is saing, that even in this li$ertarian( vision, there is e#$edded a politics of
violence, that is a thread linking the 9:9; Lenin with the Haco$in%elitist Lenin of !hat "s to #e
$one%( *iek +,,+$- 9:+/. But iek4s gloss is wrong, and the conclusions a$out the place for the
struggle for de#ocrac #ight $e ieks, $ut the are not Lenins.
Dirst of all 0 what does it #ean to sa we live within the do#ain of the State( *the word
state( $eing for unknown reasons introduced with a capital letter/' The state is a contradictor
co#ponent of the superstructure of #odern societ 0 part ad#inistrative, and part repressive. 8t
arises out of the contradictions and co#ple"it of developing class societ, $ut $eco#es a power
standing above societ and <alienating itself ore and ore fro# it in the words of Lenin and
!ar"s co%thinker, Drederick ?ngels *Lenin 9:G,- .:./. The people who in an #eaningful sense
live within the do#ain of the state( are the upper level $ureaucrats and the privileged classes
whose interests the serve. 3rdinar people dont live in the do#ain of the state( unless in the
#ost general sense that we all live in societies that have states 0 and that is such a level of
a$straction as to $e #eaningless.
Second, would Lenin reall agree with the political conclusions iek su##ari7es 0 that
ever de#ocrac is a fake( and thus it is not worth tring to i#prove( de#ocratic rights' 2ith a
phrase, he has dis#issed out of hand the struggles of literall #illions of the worlds oppressed.
Dro# one standpoint, the histor of the last half of the +,th centur was a histor of #ass
#ove#ents for the e"tension of this fake( de#ocrac. 2hat was the 1ivil &ights #ove#ent in the
4
Cnited States, $ut a #ass assertion of the right of African A#ericans to e"ercise their franchise'
This great rising of the oppressed laid the foundation for all the ke social #ove#ents of the 9:I,s
and 9:;,s. 2hat was the ten%#illion strong Eolish trade union SolidarnoJK, $ut a #onu#ental
effort to win de#ocrac against repressive Stalinist state capitalis#' This enor#ous de#ocratic
#ove#ent at the $eginning of the 9:G,s laid the $asis for the under#ining of Stalinist
totalitarianis# at the end of that decade. 2hat was the great #ove#ent against apartheid in South
Africa, $ut a #illions%strong re$ellion against lack of de#ocrac, and an assertion of the right of the
Black #ajorit to enter into the official real# of politics' 2hat were the #ove#ents for
independence in 8ndia, the 1hinese revolution, the anti%colonial uprisings in Africa, $ut #ove#ents
$ the oppressed #ajorit to assert their de#ocratic right to sovereignt' 3f course iek 0 as a
person of the left 0 would have supported the struggles of the workers and poor of !ississippi,
6dansk and Soweto. 5owever, his careless gloss on Lenin 0 that it is not worth tring( to i#prove
the protection of the legal order, elections, laws guaranteeing personal freedo#s...( 0 leads in the
opposite direction, to a political position of indifference towards these #ass struggles for
de#ocratic refor#.
This is not Leninis# as Lenin would have recogni7ed it. !ost of Lenins adult political life
was organi7ed around the struggle for the e"tension of de#ocrac, what iek clai#s the Lenin of
9:9; would have seen as a struggle not worth tring(. Lenin of course knew the li#itations of
conte#porar de#ocrac. 8t was Lenin who in 9:9: said, the #ost de#ocratic $ourgeois repu$lic
is no #ore than a #achine for the suppression of the working class $ the $ourgeoisie, for the
suppression of the working people $ a handful of capitalists( *Lenin 9:G;- 9>9/. But Lenin, and all
thinkers, has to $e put into conte"t. This 9:9: state#ent on de#ocrac was written at the high
point of the spread of the &ussian and ?uropean workers council #ove#ent, which showed in life
the possi$ilit of an alternative to $ourgeois de#ocrac, the #uch #ore de#ocratic workers
de#ocrac $ased on direct de#ocrac at the workplace. 5is 9:9; State and Revolution 0 where he
develops at length the theor of a workers council $ased de#ocrac 0 was written after three
ears of $ar$arous world war, and in the conte"t of a fierce reaction against the De$ruar, 9:9;
revolution, a reaction with parlia#entar socialists at its head.
Take Lenin in a different conte"t 0 at the #id%point of what would co#e to $e known as the
9:,> &evolution. 8n Hul 9:,>, the first wave of strikes had su$sided, and the second wave *that
would lead to the esta$lish#ent of histors first workers councils/ had not et $egun. 8n this inter%
regnu#, unli#ited terror reigned in the streets( *Trotsk 9:;9- G./ according to Trotsk, along with
&osa Lu"e#$urg, the 9:,> revolutions great historian. 8n this conte"t, Lenin wrote- The full
develop#ent of the productive forces in #odern $ourgeois societ, a $road, free, and open class
struggle, and the political education, training, and ralling of the #asses of the proletariat are
inconceiva$le without political freedo#. Therefore it has alwas $een the ai# of the class%
5
conscious proletariat to wage a deter#ined struggle for co#plete political freedo# and the
de#ocratic revolution( *Lenin 9:;;d- >99/. There is nothing uniFue a$out this Fuote. This
orientation towards advocating de#ocratic refor# was central to his political theor and practice
while organi7ing against the autocrac.
8t is outside the scope of this article, $ut in the conte"t of a discussion of Lenin and
de#ocrac, one particular de#ocratic de#and distinguished Lenin and his part fro# all others of
his ti#e 0 his and their insistence on the right of oppressed nations to self%deter#ination. 8t was
here that Lenin parted co#pan with &osa Lu"e#$urg, who had #an strengths as a political
theorist and activist, $ut 0 $ecause she feared that its independence #ove#ent would not $e led
$ Socialists 0 did not support the right of Eoland to self%deter#ination *Dunaevskaa 9::9, Davis
9:;I/. Lenins insistence on this de#ocratic right divided hi# fro# the refor#ists of the Second
8nternational *who consistentl lined up with this or that i#perialist power/ and later fro# his
successor, Hoseph Stalin, whose counter%revolution against the &ussian workers state in #an
was $egan with an attack on the right of s#all nations 0 including his own ho#eland of 6eorgia 0
to e"ercise their right to self%deter#ination *Lewin 9:;., Lenin and Trotsk 9:;>/. The contrast
couldnt $e greater- Lenin the revolutionar de#ocrat, who on his death$ed saw the i#portance of
the de#ocratic de#and of national self%deter#inationL Stalin the counter%revolutionar autocrat
whose consolidation of power involved the $rutal suppression of the oppressed nationalities.
Lars T. Lihs introduction to the ideas of Lenin highlights clearl the de#ocratic content to
the lifes work of Lenin and his socialist current. 3verthrowing the autocrac 0 in other words,
achieving political freedo# 0 is vital not onl for &ussia $ut for the workers who can then set out on
the direct road of open political struggle. <3pen should $e understood as #eaning <without the
censorship and repression that keeps us fro# $ringing insight and organi7ation to the workers in
the #ost effective wa possi$le( *Lih +,,I- 99;/.
?lsewhere, iek has written clearl on not treating with disdain the for#al de#ocrac
availa$le under capitalis#. 8n +,,> in &ew 'eft Review he argued that for#al de#ocrac( can
fro# one standpoint $e seen as a necessar $ut illusor e"pression of a concrete social realit of
e"ploitation and class do#ination. But it can also $e read in the #ore su$versive sense of a tension
in which the <appearance of (galibert( is not a <#ere appearance $ut contains an efficac of its
own, which allows it to set in #otion the rearticulation of actual socio%econo#ic relations $ wa of
their progressive <politici7ation. 2h shouldnt wo#en also $e allowed to vote' 2h shouldnt
workplace conditions $e a #atter of pu$lic concern as well'( *iek +,,>a- 9.,/. But this nuanced
understanding of the dual nature of de#ocratic refor#s under capitalis#, is co#pletel a$sent in
his presentation of the 9:9; Lenin.
6
/e!emptive Violene0
ieks deconte"tuali7ed and therefore overl a$stract outline of what he calls Lenins
theor of the state, leads to an ultraleft( dis#issal of the struggle for de#ocrac. Cltraleft is a ter#
descri$ing political theor and practice that sounds ver left%wing( *we are #uch #ore radical than
those fighting for de#ocrac/ $ut in practice is highl conservative *we stand on the sidelines with
ar#s folded while #illions put their lives on the line for de#ocratic refor#/.
+
But this is onl part of
the pro$le#. 5is ultraleftis# is tangled up with a grotesFue fascination with violence.
These two aspects of his theor 0 ultraleftis# and a fascination with violence 0 are linked.
ieks ultraleftis# reveals itself in his utter conte#pt for a long list of political activities. M(decins
sans fronti)res, 6reenpeace, fe#inist and anti%racist ca#paigns( are e"a#ples of what he calls
interpassivit- of doing things not in order to achieve so#ething, $ut to prevent so#ething fro#
reall happening, reall changing. All this frenetic hu#anitarian, Eoliticall 1orrect, etc. activit fits
the for#ula of <Lets go on changing so#ething all the ti#e so that, glo$all, things will re#ain the
sa#eM( *iek +,,+$- 9;,/. 5is conte#pt for these activities is #atched $ his conte#pt for one of
the hottest topics in todas <radical A#erican acade#ia- postcolonial studies( *iek +,,+$- 9;9/.
5e calls this acade#ic radicalis# an e#pt gesture which o$liges no one to do anthing definite(
*iek +,,+$- 9;+/.
And the solution' 0 reading iek, the inescapa$le conclusion is that, for hi#, what this
e#pt gesture( lacks is violence. This is #ade clear in one of the strangest parts of his analsis of
Lenin, his long critiFue of the 9::: 5ollwood fil#, *ight +lub *Dincher 9:::/. Lead character ?d
)orton together with new friend Tler *Brad Eitt/ set up the secret organi7ation, Dight 1lu$. This is
where eFuall unhapp #en can e"perience so#e Nreal #asculine e#otionN % pain. ... OTlerP turns
the Nslaves in white collarsN at Dight 1lu$ into a guerrilla fighting force who wear a $lackshirt
unifor#. The #ake e"plosives for Eroject !ahe# % to take on $ig $usiness and the wealth(.
3ne socialist reviewer said the fil# left a nast taste in # #outh ... 8 was treated to over
two hours of a nast, cnical fil# whose violence was the least offensive part( *Shooter 9:::-
unpaginated/. But iek is not offended in the least. 5e takes the fil#, and uses it to develop a
the#e he calls rede#ptive violence.( 5e calls the founding of Dight 1lu$ a #uch #ore radical
e"ercise( than love for ones neigh$our( *iek +,,+$- +>,/. iek esta$lishes this with i#pressive
phraseolog. A scene which involves self%$eating( is designed to reach out and re%esta$lish the
connection with the real 3ther 0 to suspend the funda#ental a$straction and coldness of capitalist
su$jectivit, $est e"e#plified $ the figure of the lone #onadic individual who, alone in front of the
E1 screen, co##unicates with the entire world ... the ver violence of the fight signals the a$olition
of this distance( *iek +,,+$- +>9%+/.
7
The individual alone in front of the E1 screen( #a $e iek, $ut it is not the #odern
proletariat in either the office or the factor. iek would $enefit fro# so#e class analsis. OTPhe
fil#4s starting point is the #isera$le lives #an ordinar people have. But the ever#an character
and the fil#4s narrator, plaed $ ?d )orton, is not our average worker. 5e is e#ploed $ a
leading car co#pan to see how far the can get awa with unsafe vehicles $efore the have to
recall the product( *Shooter 9:::- unpaginated/. )orton is a #e#$er of the Erofessional !iddle
1lass 0 what we used to call the pett%$ourgeoisie 0 a section of societ that is prone to e"tre#e
individualis#. &adical( versions of this individualis# can end up with a fi"ation on individual
violence. Acts of individual violence are often seen as the onl wa to resist capitalist societ,
$ecause the class standpoint of the pett $ourgeoisie is divorced fro# the da%to%da collective
work and struggles of the #ass of the oppressed, and therefore distant fro# the great potential
power of working%class collective action.
The classic theoretical e"pression of this is the chaotic thinker 6eorges Sorel. There were
left%wing revolutionar sndicalists at the $eginning of the last centur who saw Sorels philosophic
justification of the role of violence *$est e"pressed in his Reflections on ,iolence- as part of their
ideological ar#our in the fight against capitalis#. 8n 9:,>, Sorel declared flatl that <revolutionar
sndicalis# is the practical reali7ation of what is trul essential in !ar"is#. Dor hi#, it was an
e"pression of !ar"is# <superior to an and all theoretical for#ulations, $ecause it e"pressed the
class struggle in a conscious, #ilitant and direct fashion( *Eortis 9:G,- I=/.
But we now have #ore than a centur of e"perience since that was written. The so$ering
truth is that Sorels fascination with action and violence 0 unrooted in anthing rese#$ling a political
econo# let alone class politics 0 was #ost useful not to the left, $ut to the far right. The 8talian
fascist Benito !ussolini said- 8 owe #ost to 6eorges Sorel. This #aster of sndicalis# $ his
rough theories of revolutionar tactics has contri$uted #ost to for# the discipline, energ and
power of the fascist cohorts( *Shils 9:;9- +=/. 8n fact the fil# iek cele$rates has so#e clear
references to fascis#. 3ne reviewer characteri7es the fil#s violence as anti%capitalist fascist
terror( *Harvis 9:::, unpaginated/. Another points out that, as well as wearing $lack shirt unifor#s,
the e"plosives #ade $ the fil#s heroes( are #ade fro# a concoction #ade fro# hu#an fat.
These are not unwitting references to )a7is#. The are part of a fil# whose conclusion is that a
$rutal ar# is the force to $ring down the present sste#( *Shooter 9:::- unpaginated/. iek is
aware of this, citing favoura$l an analsis of *ight +lub which argues that the organi7ation
founded $ the two ke protagonists ends up transfor#ing into a fascist organi7ation with a new
na#e- Eroject !ahe#( Diken and Laustsen +,,9- +/. But this acknowledge#ent of the reactionar
#essage e#$edded in the fil# is added on as an after%thought. iek cele$rates the fil# as a
response to capitalist alienation 0 ignoring that this response, as well as proto%fascist, is deepl
#isognist. 2ere a generation of #en raised $ wo#en. 8# wondering if another wo#an is reall
8
the answer we need( sas Tler at one point. And the fat used in the #aking of their soap' 8t
co#es fro# a liposuction clinic, allowing for the following line- 8t was $eautiful. 2e were selling rich
wo#en their fat asses $ack to the#( *Dincher, 9:::/.
!ar" talked a$out the working class $eco#ing the su$ject of histor. Dor iek however,
su$jectivit is individuali7ed in a wa that is characteristic of thinkers who do not root their thinking
in class analsis. The first lesson of *ight +lub( he writes is that we cannot go directly fro#
capitalist to revolutionar su$jectivit- the a$straction, the foreclosure of others, the $lindness to the
others suffering and pain, has first to $e $roken in a gesture of taking the risk and reaching directl
out to the suffering other 0 a gesture which, since it shatters the ver kernel of our identit, cannot
fail to appear e"tre#el violent( *iek +,,+$- +>+/. But working class su$jectivit 0 understood as
the develop#ent of class consciousness 0 is not an individual gesture of risk taking and violence. 8t
is a product of collective work and collective struggle, so#ething co#pletel a$sent in ieks
analsis.
This picture of ieks fascination with violence, helps illu#inate his ver particular reading
of State and Revolution, e"a#ined earlier. The ke for hi# is not the e#ancipator vision of the
withering awa of the state. The ke is the fact that ever de#ocrac is a fake( and thus we are
legiti#atel entitled to e"ercise full violent terror.( Qiolence, for iek, is an end in itself. 8t was not
for Lenin. Lenins generation of socialists was Fuite aware of the so#eti#es violent nature of the
struggle for change. The were, after all, operating inside a repressive Tsarist autocrac. Si$eria
and prison were the al#ost inevita$le reward for $eco#ing a political activist. Lenin 0 like !alcol#
R in the 9:I,s 0 was a defender of the right of the #ass #ove#ent to resist the violent attacks of
the state, including the right of the oppressed to use violence in return. But $oth Lenin and !alcol#
R knew that this was not an end in itself. The ke was developing the capacities of the #ass of the
working class as a whole. Tactics had to $e chosen that were calculated to $ring a$out the direct
participation of the #asses and which guaranteed that participation( *Lenin 9:;;c- 9:./. Dor those
activists who cele$rated violence as an end in itself, Lenin had ver strong words. .!/ithout the
working people all $o#$s are powerless, patentl powerless ... an appeal to resort to such terrorist
acts as the organi7ation of atte#pts on the lives of #inisters $ individuals and groups that are not
known to one another #eans, not onl thereby $reaking off work a#ong the #asses, $ut also
introducing downright disorgani7ation into that work.( Acts of terroris# $ individuals can create a
short%lived sensation( $ut that is followed Fuickl $ apath and passive waiting for the ne"t bout0
*Lenin 9:;;c- 9G: and 9:9/.
8n a certain sense, it is unfair to Lenins opponents to use the# in such a wa to critiFue
ieks positions. Lenin was pole#ici7ing against the Socialist &evolutionaries, a group on the left
focused on the revolutionar potential of the peasantr. Lenin #ight have profoundl disagreed with
their tactics, $ut he dealt with the# seriousl and at length $ecause the were engaged in political
9
work on a #ass scale. 8n the tu#ultuous epoch of revolution in 9:9;, a $ig section of the Socialist
&evolutionaries would join with Lenins Bolsheviks in the new part of the revolution. ieks
cele$ration of violence, $ contrast, is not rooted in #ass work of an sort. 8t is totall and utterl
individualistic.
ieks cele$ration of the violent individual reflects a profound pessi#is# in the political
#ass. This is characteristic of all such individualistic cele$rations of violence 0 so#ething that
Lenin argued #ade the#, in spite of their left%wing rhetoric, ver si#ilar to those whose hori7ons
are li#ited to the parlia#entar struggle for refor#s. The British socialist 6areth Henkins
su##ari7es Lenins point succinctl. Both the terrorist and the parlia#entar refor#ist evaded the
central role of how workers the#selves would change societ ... 3ne tendenc su$stituted terror for
#ass work, the other refor# for revolution. ... neither looks to working class self%activit as the lever
for revolutionar change( *Henkins +,,I- I;/.
iek is using his role as an intellectual in the #ost irresponsi$le of fashions. Dor hi# these
are just words, to shock and i#press an acade#ic audience. But there are activists in the world
tring to find theories and practices that will help the# deal with the oppression and e"ploitation
that are the $itter dail realit for #illions. Should an of the# read iek and take hi# at his word 0
one shudders at the political conclusions that could $e drawn. Dorget a$out de#ocrac, forget
a$out the struggle for refor#s, understand our right to e"tre#e terror(, and look for the
revolutionar gesture of violence to confront The 3ther( 0 the onl wa to develop our
revolutionar su$jectivit. 8f these conclusions werent so potentiall dangerous, the would $e
laugha$le.
The 1bvious 2)rb)rism of St)linism
The ver thin laer of those who still think and feel and have not so far $een strangled, shot,
starved or fro7en, is depressed, oppressed, and 0 silent( *Hoffe 9:;G- +++/. These were the gri#
words of &ussian socialist !aria Hoffe, e#erging fro# al#ost ., ears in the gulag 0 Stalins
sste# of Si$erian concentration ca#ps 0 an e"perience she called 3ne Long )ight(. The anti%
Stalinist left can no longer $e silenced. But in $reaking the silence i#posed $ +,
th
centur
totalitarianis# 0 Stalins included 0 it does not help to, again, ro#antici7e one of histors saddest
chapters, the long night of Hoseph Stalin. Cnfortunatel, this is e"actl what iek does in what is
the #ost distur$ing section of his analsis of Lenin, so#ething he titles, The 8nner 6reatness of
Stalinis#.(
iek knows ver well the horrors of Stalinis#. &eall ?"isting Socialis# was $ar$aris#(
*iek +,,+$- 9:+/ he Fuite accuratel o$serves. 8 a# fro# the ?ast, 8 know what shit it was. 8
have no nostalgia for Stalinis#( *&as#ussen +,,=- unpaginated/. But this reads like an add%on( to
10
his $asic orientation, si#ilar to his giving a nod to the fact that *ight +lub 0 a fil# he idoli7es 0 does
have a few( fascist overtones. 5is $asic position in the Afterword to Revolution at the Gates is ver
#uch pro%Stalin. 2e should( he argues stop the ridiculous ga#e of opposing the Stalinist terror to
the <authentic Leninist legac $etraed $ Stalinis#- <Leninis# is a thoroughl Stalinist notion(
*iek +,,+$- 9:./. This is the oldest intellectual e"ercise of the +,
th
centur, one practiced $ $oth
left and right. Stalin is rooted in Lenin. Therefore if ou choose Lenin, ou get Stalin. The onl
difference is one of attitude. The right sas Stalin was horri$le 0 that #eans Lenin was horri$le
too.( The left sas 3.@., Stalin was horri$le, $ut he had to $e, he was up against i#perialis# 0 he
is just an e"tre#e Lenin.( But if, to get Lenin, the left has to also apologi7e for Stalinist $ar$aris#,
then it would $e $etter to forget a$out Lenin.
The great traged of the +,
th
centur was that in countr after countr, large sections of the
workers #ove#ent 0 often the #ost #ilitant and organi7ed 0 defined their left politics with
reference to Stalin. The accepted, in other words, that to take on $oard Lenin, the had to take on
$oard Stalin as well. Those worker #ilitants often did wonderful work in spite of $eing influenced $
Stalinis#. But Stalinis# inside &ussia and ?astern ?urope 0 which is the su$ject of ieks analsis
0 was the ideolog of totalitarian states. 8n &ussias case, it was also the ideolog of the counter%
revolution that crushed the re#nants of workers de#ocrac under an iron $oot. !an o$servers at
the ti#e knew this ver well. Stalins terror cul#inated in the show trials and #ass e"ecutions of
9:.I%9:.G. 3n !arch >th 9:.G in an article in 1opolo d2"talia !ussolini ... asked whether <in view
of the catastrophe of Lenins sste#, Stalin could secretl have $eco#e a fascist, and stated that
in an case <Stalin is doing a nota$le service to fascis# $ #owing down in large ar#fuls his
ene#ies who had $een reduced to i#potence( *1ited in Souvarine 9:.:- I.=/. 8n the words of
Anton Antonov%3vseenko the 9:.,s, do#inated $ fascis# and Stalinis#, represented the
histor of the counter%revolution ... an entire historical epoch during which the vilest and $loodiest
kind of evildoing flourished upon the earth( *Antonov%3vseenko 9:G9- =,/.
iek, sas that we still lack a satisfactor theor of Stalinis#( citing the inadeFuacies of
Dran7 )eu#ann, 5er$ert !arcuse and the 5a$er#asian school *iek +,,>$- unpaginated/. But in
this list, there is a strange a$sence 0 the entiret of the #ain $od of !ar"ist anti%Stalinis#,
represented $ followers of Leon Trotsk. This is not accidental. iek has little understanding of
the tradition he calls Trotskite(. 5e argues, for instance, that ou can onl accept the authentic
act( of revolution, if ou endorse the act full in all its conseFuences( including the possi$ilit of
the 2orse.( 5is #eaning is clear 0 to e#$race 3cto$er 9:9;, ou have to also accept
responsi$ilit for Stalinis# in the 9:.,s. 5e has nothing $ut conte#pt for the nostalgia of
Trotskite *sic/ and other radical Leftists for the earl das of the &evolution, with workers councils
popping up <spontaneousl everwhere, against the Ther#idor, that is, the later ossification of the
&evolution into a new hierarchical state structure( *iek 9:::- .;;/. But this theoretical
11
perspective cannot e"plain wh the leading figure of anti%Stalinis# $eca#e Leon Trotsk 0 along
with Lenin the pre%e#inent leader of the 3cto$er &evolution. 2ho e#$raced the revolutionar act
#ore full than Leon Trotsk 0 president of the Eetrograd Soviet in 9:,> and again in 9:9;,
organi7er of the insurrection in 3cto$er 9:9;, organi7er of the &ed Ar# in the desperate
prosecution of the 1ivil 2ar' This e#$race of the revolutionar act did not reFuire a su$seFuent
e#$race of Stalinis#. 8n fact, to hold onto this revolutionar act, de#anded the e#$racing of
resistance to Stalinis#, what Antonov%3vseenko accuratel la$eled counter%revolution.(
The British Trotksist Ale" 1allinicos also calls &ussian Stalinis# a counter%revolution, and
identifies four inter%related aspects. Dirst was the euphe#isticall na#ed forced collectivi7ation( of
agriculture, in realit the launching of a civil war against s#all peasant holdings $ the state
resulting in #illions of deaths, relocations and i#prison#ents. Driving the regi#e to this pri#itive
accu#ulation( was the second aspect of the counter%revolution, the need to su$ordinate all efforts
to industriali7ation, to allow the Soviet Cnion to catch up with the advanced west. And
collectivi7ation allowed the regi#e drasticall to increase grain e"ports and there$ to finance
i#ports of plant and eFuip#ent fro# the 2est.( 6rowing war fears with the west fuelled the drive
for rapid industrialisation. Lenin in 9:9: argued 2e are living not #erel in a state, $ut in a syste
of states, and it is inconceiva$le for the Soviet &epu$lic to live alongside of the i#perialist states for
an length of ti#e. 3ne or other #ust triu#ph in the end.( Dor Lenin and Trotsk, the conclusion
was to win the other states to workers revolution through the 1o##unist 8nternational, founded in
9:9:. Dor Stalin the conclusion was, industriali7e and $eco#e a 6reat Eower. But this reFuired the
third aspect of the counter%revolution 0 sste#atic coercion. To achieve industriali7ation, there was
feverish ur$ani7ation *driving peasants to the cities/ and a #assive increase in e"ploitation. &eal
wages in 9:.+ were at #ost >, per cent of their 9:+G level.( There was resistance to these attacks
$ workers in the cities, just as peasants in the countrside resisted the e"propriation of their land.
This capacit to resist had to $e crushed in order for the counter%revolution to succeed, and thus
an inside the cities with a #e#or of the politics of workers resistance had to $e repressed. The
coercion, then, was directed first and fore#ost at for#er and current activists in the Bolshevik
Eart, the part that, for #ore than a generation, had $een the leading e"ponent of workers
opposition to e"ploitation. This coercion cul#inated in the 6reat Terror of 9:.I%.G where several
hundred thousand people perished. 3n the $acks of these three aspects, then, the fourth ca#e into
pla, the upward #o$ilit of a new generation of non%3ld Bolshevik( rulers. The Terror wiped out
the generation of Bolsheviks who had $een shaped $ the underground struggle against Tsaris#
and led the 3cto$er &evolution itself.( Their shoes were filled $ a new generation organi7ed not
around world revolution, $ut around national industrial and #ilitar growth, a new $ureaucratic
ruling class *1allinicos 9::+- +:%.>/. That is, in outline, an understanding of Stalinis# that has
stood the test of ti#e. 8t confronts head%on the o$vious $ar$aris# of Stalinis#, and insists that 0
12
Stalins clai#s to the contrar 0 this $ar$aris# has nothing to do with an left project, it has nothing
to do with Lenin. That is wh Trotsk 0 Lenins closest colla$orator fro# 9:9; until Lenins death 0
said there was $etween Bolshevis# and Stalinis# not si#pl a $lood line $ut a whole river of
$lood.(
This kind of analsis 0 rooted in political econo# and concrete historical stud 0 does not
e"ist for iek. 5is analsis wanders in a garden of culture, $iograph and co##ent and is
freFuentl #ore favoura$le to Stalin than Lenin. At one level, he sas, Lenins atte#pt to lead a
revolution in 9:9; was a utopia( a kind of #adness,( and if anthing, Stalinis# stands for a return
to the realistic <co##on sense( *iek +,,+$- >/. Two pro#inent !ar"ist anti%Stalinist *and
Trotskist/ theorists identif 9:+G, the first five%ear plan and the $eginning of forced
industriali7ation as a watershed in the transition fro# a workers state to counter%revolution and
state capitalis# *1liff 9:;=, Dunaevskaa 9:=IS=;/. iek Fuotes approvingl an analsis that
sees that sa#e ear and that sa#e event the ear as not a kind of <Ther#idor $ut, rather, the
conseFuent radicali7ation of the 3cto$er &evolution( *iek +,,+$- .9;/. This radicali7ation( led to
the death of #illions of peasants, and the destruction of virtuall the entiret of the 9:9;%era
Bolshevik part. 5e also co#$ines his fascination with violence with an analsis of Stalins rule. 5e
praises the reign of institutional terror( in the Stalin regi#e as parallel to so#e kinds of treat#ent in
pschoanalsis. O2Phat, in politics, is self%destructive terror is of a totall different order in the
pschoanaltic co##unit 0 here, the Stalin figure is a <good one( *iek +,,+$- .9I/. 2ith a
phrase 0 and a $ad analog 0 he sweeps awa the pain and suffering of the #illions who suffered
under that terror.
The annoing thing a$out ieks analsis of Stalinis# is that its not reall an analsis at all,
$ut a series of co##ents. The centrepiece of the section is a long discussion of the plawright,
Bertolt Brechts attitude towards the Stalinist states of ?astern ?urope. Apparentl, when &ussian
tanks #oved into Berlin in 9:>. to crush a workers uprising, Brecht cele$rated. Apparentl he was
te#pted for the first ti#e in his life to join the 1o##unist Eart 0 is this not an outstanding case of
what Alain Badiou has called la passion du r(el which defines the twentieth centur' 8t was not that
Brecht tolerated the cruelt of the struggle in the hope that it would $ring a prosperous future- the
harshness of the violence as such was perceived and endorsed as a sign of authenticit( *iek
+,,+$- 9:=/. Does iek endorse this passion for the real(' Does he agree that violent repression
fro# the &ussian occupiers gives this intervention a sign of authenticit( as so#ething we should
endorse' iek doesnt sa. 5is analsis wanders along, #aking this or that rando# o$servation 0
$ut leaving open the conclusion that Brecht was right. !ostl he see#s enthralled $ violence and
the use of force as ends in the#selves.
The o$vious re$uttal to Brecht would $e his conte#porar 6eorge LukTcs. Like Brecht,
LukTcs acco##odated hi#self to the Stalinist regi#es in ?astern ?urope. Cnlike Brecht, LukTcs
13
welco#ed the anti%Stalinist uprisings of the 9:>,s, supporting 8#re )ags dissident govern#ent in
9:>I. But so#ehow, for iek, this #ade LukTcs the ultiate Stalinist. 8n contrast to LukTcs,
Brecht was un$eara$le to the Stalinist cultural esta$lish#ent $ecause of his ver <over%orthodo"
... 8f the oung LukTcs of 3istory and +lass +onsciousness was the philosopher of Lenins
historical #o#ent, after the 9:.,s he turned into the ideal Stalinist philosopher who, for that ver
reason, in contrast to Brecht, #issed the true greatness of Stalinis#( *iek +,,+$- 9:I%;/.
Surel there are alternatives to this confusing argu#ent. Eerhaps we should judge Brecht
on his plas, and not on his overt political stances. 5e was after%all, a plawright. Eerhaps $oth
Brecht and LukTcs were wrong to su$#it for so long to the Stalinist regi#es in which the worked.
But perhaps the had little choice. Eerhaps the were individuals caught up in huge historical forces
that neither the, nor an other individual could control, and lived with it as $est the could. Eerhaps
it would $e $est to tr 0 as Trotsk and his heirs have done 0 to understand those forces through
political econo# and the e"a#ination of histor, and not through the #o#entar acts and gestures
0 no #atter how violent( 0 of this or that individual. But there is none of this in iek. 5e has
offered us a series of disconnected o$servations on politics, culture and $iograph, given it a
provocative pro%Stalinist title, and left his own position open%ended, with no sense of his own
responsi$ilit as an intellectual to help clarif #atters for a new generation.
Andrew &o$inson and Si#on Tor#e have helped in the archaeolog necessar to an
understanding of ieks attitude towards $oth Lenin and Stalin. The have dug through all of his
ke writings with a view to putting together a consistent picture of his views on this su$ject. An
who wish to pursue this task in detail, should read their paper. The point out his reverence for the
departed Stalinist ?astern ?uropean regi#es as li$erated 7ones(. 5e doesnt see Stalin as the
negation of !ar"is#, $ut as $eing the realiser of !ar"is#, however <perverted its realisation.(
Their conclusion is harsh, and accurate.
ieks Lenin, therefore, is not the <Lenin of the left, $ut the <Lenin of the right.
Hust as conservative critics are interested in <Lenin insofar as he gave us
Stalin, orthodo" 1o##unis#, the 1old 2ar and the gulag, so iek is
interested in a <Lenin of the !aster, the Act, the carving of the field and the
6ood Terror. ieks Lenin is also the <Lenin that Stalin $uilt- the <cult of Lenin
Stalin used to legiti#ate his own agenda of the o#nipotence of the Leader,
widespread terror and power as an in%itself ... 8n short, it is a Leninis# for
Stalinists *&o$inson And Tor#e, +,,.- unpaginated/.
8t is al#ost a generation since the collapse of the ?uropean Stalinist state sste#s. Todas new
left has co#e out fro# the shadows of the Stalinist 3ne Long )ight.( 5owever, this generation,
like all $efore it, is reaching $ack to pick up the threads of anti%capitalist struggle fro# the past.
!an have rediscovered !ar". So#e are starting to rediscover Lenin. But a casual reading of
14
ieks confusing analsis #ight lead so#e to tr and rediscover Stalin. 8t is the responsi$ilit of the
older generation to confront head%on the pro$le#s of the past, and in part this #eans honestl
confronting the horror that was Stalinis# 0 a horror that sullied the na#e of the left for three
generations. Uet iek talks a$out Stalinis#s 8nner 6reatness.( The ver fact that iek can
without editorial co##ent pu$lish such a headline in a $ook pu$lished $ Qerso, one of the worlds
leading left%wing pu$lishers, is a sign of the fact that Stalinis# re#ains an unresolved issue for
todas left.
3onlusion" The other 'enin of 1917
3ne of the $est sste#atic analses of the political thought of Qladi#ir Lenin, is that written
$ !arcel Lie$#an #ore than ., ears ago. 8n 'eninis 4nder 'enin, Lie$#an insists that conte"t
is everthing. 8t is i#portant not to separate the doctrine fro# the historical setting in which it arose
and developed. An analsis of Leninis# #ust $e a history of Leninis# in its living evolution, and no
histor of Leninis# can $e separated fro# the histor of the &ussian revolution( *Lie$#an, 9:;>-
+9/.(
.
B contrast, ieks treat#ent of Lenin is co#pletel deconte"tuali7ed, as if histor and
econo#ics did not #atter. And when he does $riefl provide a conte"t, he gets it co#pletel wrong.
The Lenin he is reviving is the Lenin that is least relevant to conte#porar conditions.
ieks Leninis#( e#erges $ wa of an 8ntroduction and long Afterword to a series of
articles written $ Lenin that are widel accessi$le on the internet. The point, then, is to highlight
this Lenin, and to e"plain wh this Lenin 0 the Lenin $etween the De$ruar &evolution of 9:9;, and
the second revolution in 3cto$er 0 is the #ost relevant to todas new left. This is the Lenin of the
decisive act, the Lenin who could see the possi$ilit of a socialist revolution when the rest of the
part leadership could not, the Lenin who $roke fro# his own theor of the $ourgeois character of
the revolution to insist on the possi$ilit of a workers revolution, the Lenin who stood alone,
struggling against the current in his own part( a Lenin who, against all his peers, said that the
#o#ent had arrived for the uniFue chance for a revolution( *iek +,,+$- >/.
This is the Lenin( sas iek, fro# who# we still have so#ething to learn. The greatness
of Lenin was that in this catastrophic situation, he wasn2t afraid to succeed ... 8n 9:9;, instead of
waiting until the ti#e was ripe, Lenin organi7ed a pre%e#ptive strike( *iek +,,+$- I/. 2e have
so#ething to learn fro# this $ecause our conte"t is si#ilar. 5e sas todas Left is undergoing the
shattering e"perience of the end of an entire epoch ... an e"perience which co#pels it to reinvent
the ver $asic co%ordinates of its project.( 5e argues that it was an e"actl ho#ologous e"perience
that gave $irth to Leninis#,( the shock of $etraal when the #ajor socialist parties supported 2orld
2ar in August, 9:9= *iek +,,+$- ./.
15
Let us think this through. The conte"t of Lenin was, as iek argues, 2orld 2ar. But what
iek does not deal with is that the issue was not si#pl the ideological crisis of the socialist
project, as the socialist leaders lined up to support their ruling classes. The issue was the war itself
and what it did to ordinar peoples lives. The #ajor powers of ?urope sent their oung #en to the
trenches $ the #illions for four long ears. And for four long ears, the ca#e $ack $ the #illions
dead, $ the tens of #illions #angled and wounded, leading to the radicali7ation of hundreds of
#illions. B the end of the war, three old e#pires la in ruins 0 the 3tto#an, Austro%5ungarian and
&ussian. The state sste# of ?urope was close to cru#$ling. The @aiser in 6er#an was chased
fro# his throne. The Tsar in &ussia was swept awa. And then, in a #agnificent awakening, #ass
de#ocrac e#erged fro# &ussia to 5ungar to 6er#an 0 #ass workers councils developing as
the oppressed #asses strained ever sinew to tr and recreate a new societ fro# the ashes of the
old. *6luckstein 9:G>/. That is the conte"t of the Lenin of 9:9; 0 an era that Lenin called one of
wars and revolutions.
)ow step $ack for a #o#ent. 2e are told that we are living through an e"actl
ho#ologous e"perience.( 5o#ologous is a ter# that co#es fro# science. 8t refers to- A pair of
chro#oso#es containing the sa#e linear gene seFuences( *)ational 8nstitute of Standards and
Technolog n.d./, so this is a ver strong co#parison, not a weak one. 2e are to $elieve that our
epoch is one eFuivalent to Lenins epoch of 9:9= 2orld 2ar and 9:9; #illions%strong workers
revolutions, the end of e#pires, the collapse of trants, the spreading of workers councils. 8n that
circu#stance, we need a Lenin, so#eone prepared to act, so#eone prepared to challenge old
orthodo"ies, who isnt afraid to succeed.( 8t is a wonderful fantas. That does not stop it $eing just
that 0 a fantas.
The ?uropean state sste# toda is not collapsing. That state sste# is defined $ the
?uropean Cnion, which adds new nations ever decade. The Cnited States e#pire #ight $e in
decline, $ut it is in no danger of the disintegration e"perienced $ the 3tto#an. There are wars 0
#an horri$le $ar$aric wars 0 $ut since 2orld 2ar 88, the have not $een wars $etween the #ajor
i#perialist powers, $ut predator wars of the 6lo$al )orth against the countries of the 6lo$al
South. And unfortunatel, we are not in an era of the #ass e"pansion of workers councils. 8n fact,
in #an countries of the 6lo$al )orth, unioni7ation levels are slowl declining and strike levels are
at historic lows.
There are e"ceptions to this picture. 3ne e#pire in recent #e#or has disappeared 0 the
&ussian e#pire. 8n the tur#oil around its collapse, there was perhaps, roo# for the kind of
catastrophis# i#plied $ iek. But that #o#ent has passed, and even the &ussian state has
reconsolidated. 2e do not have workers councils. There is an e#ergence of so#e e"citing for#s
of self%governance in Latin A#erica, particularl in Qene7uela, $ut these are e"ceptions to the
16
general picture, not the nor#. 3ur world toda is not ho#ologous( to the &ussia of 9:9=, nor the
&ussia of 9:9;.
There is another Lenin fro# 9:9; 0 one that does not figure into Revolution At The Gates.
The tu#ultuous ear of 9:9; was not in its entiret, a ear where revolutionar $reakthrough
see#ed i##inent. B !a, the De$ruar wave was receding, the forces of reaction were gathering,
and the great radicali7ation that was to lead to the 3cto$er uprising was not et visi$le. 8n that
conte"t, Lenins perspectives were ver #odest.
O3Pur task is patientl to e"plain to the workers and peasants that everthing 0
the end of the war, land for the peasants, and real struggle against the
capitalists, not in words, $ut in deeds 0 will $e secured onl when the whole
people co#es to reali7e ... that onl full power for the workers and peasants,
onl the power of the Soviets of 2orkers, Eeasants and Soldiers Deputies
can help to start a resolute struggle for peace, for land and for socialis#. Uou
cannot disregard the people. 3nl drea#ers and plotters $elieved that a
#inorit could i#pose their will on a #ajorit. That was what the Drench
revolutionar BlanFui thought, and he was wrong. 2hen the #ajorit of the
people refuse, $ecause the do not et understand, to take power into their
own hands, the #inorit, however revolutionar and clever, cannot i#pose their
desire on the #ajorit of the people. Dro# this flow our actions. 2e Bolsheviks
#ust patientl and perseveringl e"plain our views to the workers and
peasants. ?ach of us #ust forget our old view of our work, each, without
waiting for the arrival of an agitator, a propagandist, a #ore knowledgea$le
co#rade who will e"plain everthing 0 each of us #ust $eco#e all in one-
agitator, propagandist and Eart organi7er *Lenin 9:;;$- =.9/.
This is not as e"citing as the Lenin of the decisive act, the Lenin who isnt afraid to succeed,( the
Lenin of the revolutionar gesture. But it #ight just $e a #ore useful Lenin for conte#porar
realities, than the Lenin offered us $ iek. The conte"t of an isolated left is ver different fro# a
left poised for a revolutionar $reakthrough. But iek is not looking for historical conte"t. 5e is
looking for the decisive act, the gesture against The 3ther,( the violent confrontation with
nor#alit. So he sei7es on an aspect of the Lenin of 9:9; to highlight the individual of the decisive
act, prepared to violentl confront a sste# rotten ripe for overthrow. But is it reall true that todas
lefts $ig weakness is the a$sence of an individual who isnt afraid to succeed,( who is willing to
#ake the decisive gesture'
Let us tr on so#ething #ore #odest. Let us tr on the idea of a left that roots itself in the
struggles that do e"ist for refor# 0 against war, for $etter housing, for Ealestinian rights, in defence
of the Qene7uelan &evolution, for wo#ens rights. Let us suggest that in that process we tr to $uild
organi7ations where there is considera$le roo# for de$ate, discussion, and e"peri#entation. Let us
suggest that we tr not to create a super#an capa$le of the decisive act, $ut rather #odest
organi7ations capa$le of de#ocratic decision%#aking and collective solidarit, ones that tr
17
patientl to e"plain( the socialist project to the working people with who# the work in these
struggles. Uou wont find anthing of iek in such a project. But ou #ight just find a $it of Lenin.
That Lenin is a Lenin who, in the tradition of @arl !ar", saw his socialis# as $eing
i#possi$le without radical de#ocrac. This de#ocrac leads to two insepara$le political
conclusions- that socialis# itself #ust $e structured around the deep de#ocrac of the soviets
*workers councils/L and that this is i#possi$le without a politics rooted in the self%activit of the
working class( *Henkins, +,,I- I>/. Dor iek, the hope of revolution is to $e found in a gesture of
individual violence directed at The 3ther(. Better we stick with Lenin, for who# the onl <hope of
the revolution is the <crowd( *Lenin 9:;;c- 9G=/.
18
/eferenes
Antonov%3vseenko, A. *9:G9/ The Tie of Stalin, )ew Uork, 5arper V &ow.
1allinicos, A. *9::+/ Revenge of 3istory, Eennslvania- Eenn State Cniversit Eress.
1liff, T. *9:;=/ State +apitalis in Russia, London- Eluto Eress. Availa$le at
http-SSwww.#ar"ists.orgSarchiveScliffSworksS9:>>SstatecapSinde".ht#. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Davis, 5.B. *9:;I/ The &ight of )ational Self%Deter#ination in !ar"ist Theor 0 Lu"e#$urg vs.
Lenin,( in Davis, 5.B. ed., The &ational 5uestion6 Selected !ritings by Rosa 'u7eburg, )ew
Uork- !onthl &eview Eress- :%=G.
Diken D. and Laustsen, 1.B. *+,,9/ ?njo our fightM 0 <Dight 1lu$ as a s#pto# of the )etwork
Societ,( unpu$lished #anuscript. Availa$le at http-SSwww.lancs.ac.ukSfassSsociologSpapersSdiken%
laustsen%enjo%our%fight.pdf. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Dunaevskaa, &. *9:=IS=;/ The )ature of the &ussian ?cono#,( The &ew "nternational,
Dece#$er 9:=ISHanuar 9:=;. Availa$le at
http-SSwww.#ar"ists.orgSarchiveSdunaevskaaSworksS9:=ISstatecap.ht#. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Dunaevskaa, &. *9::9/ Dro# the <)ational Wuestion and 8#perialis# to the Dialectics of
&evolutionL the &elationship of Spontaneit and 1onsciousness to 3rgani7ation in the Disputes
with Lenin,( in Dunaevskaa, &. !oen2s 'iberation, and Mar72s 1hilosophy of Revolution,
Second ?dition, 1hicago- Cniversit of 8llinois Eress- >9%II.
Dincher, D., directors *9:::/ *ight +lub, Los Angeles, +,th 1entur Do" 5o#e ?ntertain#ent.
6luckstein, D. *9:G>/ The !estern Soviets6 !orkers2 +ouncils ,ersus 1arliaent 898:-89;<,
London- Book#arks.
6ret7, !. *+,,+/ &eview- <&evolution at the 6ates,( #ad Sub=ects. Availa$le at
http-SS$ad.eserver.orgSreviewsS+,,+S+,,+%9+%+.%,9..IE!.ht#l. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Harvis, 1. *9:::/ Dight 1lu$ is )eo%)a7i 5and$ook,( #oundless !ebzine. Availa$le at
http-SSwww.$oundless.orgS+,,,Sdepart#entsSatplaSa,,,,9:,.ht#l. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Henkins, 6. *+,,I/ !ar"is# and terroris#,( in "nternational Socialis 99,- I9%G=. Availa$le at
http-SSwww.isj.org.ukSinde".php='idX9G+VissueX99,. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Hoffe, !. *9:;G/ >ne 'ong &ight, London- )ew Eark Eu$lications.
Lewin, !. *9:;./ 'enin2s 'ast Struggle, London- Eluto Eress- =.%I>.
Lenin, Q.8. *9:;;a/ 'eft-!ing0 +ounis ? An "nfantile $isorder in Lenin, +ollected !orks
,olue @8, !oscow- Erogress Eu$lishers- 9;%99;. Availa$le at
http-SSwww.#ar"ists.orgSarchiveSleninSworksS9:+,SlwcS. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Lenin, Q.8. *9:;;$/ &eport on the &esults of the Seventh *April/ All%&ussia 1onference of the
&.S.D.L.E.*B./ At a !eeting of the Eetrograd 3rganisation,( in Lenin, +ollected !orks, ,olue A8,
!oscow- Erogress Eu$lishers. Availa$le at
http-SSwww.#ar"ists.orgSarchiveSleninSworksS9:9;S#aS,G.ht#. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Lenin, Q.8. *9:;;c/ &evolutionar Adventuris#,( in Lenin, +ollected !orks, ,olue B, !oscow-
Erogress Eu$lishers. Availa$le at http-SSwww.#ar"ists.orgSarchiveSleninSworksS9:,+SsepS,9.ht#.
Accessed April +, +,,G.
Lenin, Q.8. *9:;;d/, The De#ocratic Tasks of the &evolutionar Eroletariat,( in Lenin, Q.8.
+ollected !orks, ,olue C, !oscow- Erogress Eu$lishers. Availa$le at
http-SSwww.#ar"ists.orgSarchiveSleninSworksS9:,>SjunS9;$.ht#. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Lenin, Q.8. *9:G,/ The State and Revolution in Lenin, +ollected !orks, ,olue ;:, !oscow-
Erogress Eu$lishers. Availa$le at http-SSwww.#ar"ists.orgSarchiveSleninSworksS9:9;SstaterevS.
Accessed April +, +,,G
Lenin, Q.8. *9:G;/ Theses and &eport on Bourgeois De#ocrac and the Dictatorship of the
Eroletariat,( in Hohn &iddell, ed., The +ounist "nternational in 'enin2s Tie6 *ounding the
+ounist "nternational ? 1roceedings and $ocuents of the *irst +ongress6 March 8989, )ew
Uork- Eathfinder. Availa$le at http-SSwww.#ar"ists.orgSarchiveSleninSworksS9:9:S#arSco#intern.ht#.
Accessed April +, +,,G.
Lenin, Q.8. and Trotsk, L. *9:;>/ 'enin2s *ight Against Stalinis, )ew Uork- Eathfinder Eress.
Lih, L. T. *+,,I/ 'enin Rediscovered6 !hat "s to #e $one% in +onte7t, Boston, Brill.
!elancon, !. *9:GG/ 2ho 2rote 2hat and 2hen'- Erocla#ations of the De$ruar &evolution in
Eetrograd, +. De$ruar 0 9 !arch 9:9;,( Soviet Studies, =, .- =;:%>,,
)ational 8nstitute of Standards and Technolog *n.d./ 6lossar of 1o##onl Csed Ter#s.(
Availa$le at http-SSwww.cstl.nist.govS$iotechSstr$aseSglossar.ht#. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Eortis, L. *9:G,/ Georges Sorel, London- Eluto Eress.
&as#ussen, ?.D. *+,,=/ Li$eration 5urts- An 8nterview with Slavoj iek, Dlectronic #ook Review.
Availa$le at http-SSwww.electronic$ookreview.co#SthreadSendconstructionSdesu$li#ation. Accessed
April +, +,,G.
&o$inson A. and Tor#e, S. *+,,./ 2hat is )ot to $e DoneM ?verthing ou wanted to know a$out
Lenin, and *sadl/ werent afraid to ask iek,( unpu$lished #anuscript. Availa$le at
http-SSho#epage.ntlworld.co#Ssi#on.tor#eSarticlesSYi7eklenin.pdf. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Shils, ?.A. *9:;9/ 6eorges Sorel- 8ntroduction to the A#erican ?dition,( in Sorel, Reflections >n
,iolence, )ew Uork- 1ollier Books.
Shooter 5. *9:::/ &ight wing ja$,( Socialist !orker online 9I;=. Availa$le at
http-SSwww.socialistworker.co.ukSart.php'idX9;=G. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Souvarine, B. *9:.:/ A +ritical Survey of #olshevis, trans. 1.L.&. Ha#es, )ew Uork, Alliance
Book 1orporation.
Trotsk, L. *9:;9/ 89<:, )ew Uork- &ando# 5ouse. Availa$le at
http-SSwww.#ar"ists.orgSarchiveStrotskS9:,;S9:,>Sch,;.ht#. Accessed April +, +,,G.
Trotsk, L. *9:;G/ Stalinis# and Bolshevis#- 1oncerning the 5istorical and Theoretical &oots of
the Dourth 8nternational,( in Trotsk, !ritings of 'eon Trotsky .89@B-@E/, )ew Uork- Eathfinder
2
Eress. Availa$le at http-SSwww.#ar"ists.orgSarchiveStrotskS9:.;S,GSstalinis#.ht#. Accessed April +,
+,,G.
iek, S. *9:::/ The Ticklish Sub=ect, London, Qerso.
iek, S. *+,,+a/ A Elea for Leninist 8ntolerance,( +ritical "nFuiry +G +- >=+%>II. Availa$le at
http-SSwww.jstor.orgSsta$leS9.==+G9.
iek, S. *+,,+$/ Revolution At The Gates6 A Selection of !ritings fro *ebruary to >ctober 898E,
)ew Uork- Qerso.
iek, S. *+,,=/ 2hat 8s To Be Done *2ith Lenin/'( "n These Ties, +G I. Availa$le at
http-SSwww.intheseti#es.co#SarticleS9.>SwhatZisZtoZ$eZdoneZwithZleninS. Accessed April +, +,,G.
iek, S. *+,,>a/ Against 5u#an &ights,( &ew 'eft Review .=- 99>%9.9.
iek, S. *+,,>$/ The Two Totalitarianis#s,( 'ondon Review of #ooks !arch 9;. Availa$le at
http-SSwww.lr$.co.ukSv+;Sn,IS7i7e,9Z.ht#l.
4n!notes"
3
1
The stor of the !e7hraontsiS!e7hraonka has et to $e written, lost in the enor#it of the
events that were to engulf the &ussian people after 9:9;. Dor a sense of their role in preparing
those events, see !elancon *9:GG/.
2
The #odern position on ultraleftis# was first developed $ Lenin in G'eft-!ing0 +ounis ?
An "nfantile $isorder *Lenin 9:;;a/.
3
The ideas in this section are developed in considera$l #ore detail in Author, Leninis# 0 8ts )ot
2hat Uou Think,( forthco#ing in ;8
st
+entury Anti-"perialis6 Mar7is B, ;<<C.