What do you think?
Rate this book
لنین ۲۰۱۷: یادآوری، تکرار و حلوفصل
این مجلد مجموعهجستارها، یادداشتها و نامههایی است به انتخاب ژیژک و مقدمۀ او از دو سال آخر زندگی فعال لنین و تلاش او در غلبه بر مشکلاتی که دولت شوروی در پایان جنگ داخلی با آنها مواجه بود: مبارزه برای یافتن راههایی جدید برای سازماندهی زندگی روزمره در دولت نوپا؛ مشکلات وفادار ماندن به بینش کمونیستی و درعینحال اجتناب از دو تلة فرصتطلبی غیراصولی و سازشناپذیری جزمی؛ نیاز به ترکیب انضباط نظامی با دموکراسی پرولتری؛ تهدید شوونیسم روسی و…
ژیژک پیش از ورود به نوشتهها در مقدمۀ روشنگرش بر کتاب، انقلاب اکتبر و مسائل بعد از آن را با سه مفهوم روانکاوی فرویدی، یادآوری و تکرار و حلوفصل، بررسی و خواننده را در خواندن این متون به رویکری خاص مجهز میکند.
ژیژک پیش از ورود به نوشتهها در مقدمۀ روشنگرش بر کتاب، انقلاب اکتبر و مسائل بعد از آن را با سه مفهوم روانکاوی فرویدی، یادآوری و تکرار و حلوفصل، بررسی و خواننده را در خواندن این متون به رویکری خاص مجهز میکند.
296 pages, Paperback
First published September 7, 2017
65 people are currently reading
603 people want to read
About the author
Vladimir Lenin
2,744 books1,858 followersVladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Vladimir Lenin, was a Russian revolutionary, leader of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks), statesman and political theorist. After the October Revolution he served as the first and founding head of government of Soviet Russia from 1917 until his death in 1924 and of the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1924.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
November 24, 2017
“Lenin 2017” is bizarre—which isn’t to say it’s not good, but that it’s nothing like what I assumed, nor (maybe) even what it claims to be. The title led me to assume that it would be about the October Revolution. My guess is that the title and cover were possibly the work of the publisher, hoping to cash in on the centenary market. The text has nothing to do with 1917; it deals with the practical concerns of Lenin following not only the Russian Revolution but the Civil War. It’s more: “What happens the day after?”
The first third of the book is an introduction (80 pages) which is exactly what I’d expect from Zizek. That is, it’s rambling, full of fascinating insight, and seems to be a standard introduction, yet leaves one (well, me at least) utterly confused as to what conclusions Zizek believes that a reading of the selections from Lenin (which constitute the bulk of the book) should lead a person to reach.
He complains that Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin centered on personality and lacked any systematic analysis. He touts the adage that acknowledging “founding crimes” tends to undermine the system (hence is typically avoided). He states that Lenin had a tendency to subjectively decide who was objectively against the Party. In short, Zizek seems to be saying that the seeds of Stalinism can be found in Lenin.
The texts, however, argue (I feel) against this. The letters, speeches, and personal communications of Lenin (seriously—the book is worth reading for this unique collection of writings alone) illustrate a leader who is doing an excellent job of segueing from the work of revolution and war to the more humdrum work of running a state, particularly educating the people and improving the economy. And of course, there’s plenty of Lenin being pro-Trotsky and anti-Stalin.
Zizek’s afterword is 95% figures from the French Revolution as allegory/metaphor for Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, and 5% a spot-on definition of Stalinism.
Ignoring Zizek’s tangents, his basic conclusion is that yes, there were “fierce leader who will see to it you are crushed if you mess with the Revolution” qualities to Lenin, but that he was intelligent, reflective, and more than willing to admit mistakes because he was passionately dedicated to seeing communism in Russia succeed—admitting mistakes (not a Stalin trait) was crucial because it allowed the Party to learn from them. So no, Lenin was no sort of pre-Stalin.
I give this book four stars because I enjoy reading Zizek. As a coherent piece of reading, though, it is a bit of a mess. If you like reading Zizek, you probably won’t mind the lack of coherent structure or clear premise. In that sense, the book is a complete mess. While the introduction is a good read, it in no way makes clear what the hell the point of the book is, nor why particular writings were chosen. The afterword seems completely disconnected from the introduction. It’s a mind-opening read, but seems rushed and hacked together—like Zizek’s editor surrendered, and the publisher said whatever, people will buy Zizek and not complain because he’s so popular.
Except that here I am, complaining, and giving four stars instead of five. Honestly, would it kill Zizek to revert to third-grade writing mode and give us a paragraph beginning, “This book is about… Some people believe ABC… Through Lenin’s writings, I will seek to prove that XYZ is actually true…”? Thesis statements are useful. I like reading Zizek because he’s such a brilliant thinker that he makes me a better thinker. But here, I was wasting my brain power on figuring out the point of the book, instead of focusing on the content. Bad form, Zizek.
The first third of the book is an introduction (80 pages) which is exactly what I’d expect from Zizek. That is, it’s rambling, full of fascinating insight, and seems to be a standard introduction, yet leaves one (well, me at least) utterly confused as to what conclusions Zizek believes that a reading of the selections from Lenin (which constitute the bulk of the book) should lead a person to reach.
He complains that Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin centered on personality and lacked any systematic analysis. He touts the adage that acknowledging “founding crimes” tends to undermine the system (hence is typically avoided). He states that Lenin had a tendency to subjectively decide who was objectively against the Party. In short, Zizek seems to be saying that the seeds of Stalinism can be found in Lenin.
The texts, however, argue (I feel) against this. The letters, speeches, and personal communications of Lenin (seriously—the book is worth reading for this unique collection of writings alone) illustrate a leader who is doing an excellent job of segueing from the work of revolution and war to the more humdrum work of running a state, particularly educating the people and improving the economy. And of course, there’s plenty of Lenin being pro-Trotsky and anti-Stalin.
Zizek’s afterword is 95% figures from the French Revolution as allegory/metaphor for Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, and 5% a spot-on definition of Stalinism.
Ignoring Zizek’s tangents, his basic conclusion is that yes, there were “fierce leader who will see to it you are crushed if you mess with the Revolution” qualities to Lenin, but that he was intelligent, reflective, and more than willing to admit mistakes because he was passionately dedicated to seeing communism in Russia succeed—admitting mistakes (not a Stalin trait) was crucial because it allowed the Party to learn from them. So no, Lenin was no sort of pre-Stalin.
I give this book four stars because I enjoy reading Zizek. As a coherent piece of reading, though, it is a bit of a mess. If you like reading Zizek, you probably won’t mind the lack of coherent structure or clear premise. In that sense, the book is a complete mess. While the introduction is a good read, it in no way makes clear what the hell the point of the book is, nor why particular writings were chosen. The afterword seems completely disconnected from the introduction. It’s a mind-opening read, but seems rushed and hacked together—like Zizek’s editor surrendered, and the publisher said whatever, people will buy Zizek and not complain because he’s so popular.
Except that here I am, complaining, and giving four stars instead of five. Honestly, would it kill Zizek to revert to third-grade writing mode and give us a paragraph beginning, “This book is about… Some people believe ABC… Through Lenin’s writings, I will seek to prove that XYZ is actually true…”? Thesis statements are useful. I like reading Zizek because he’s such a brilliant thinker that he makes me a better thinker. But here, I was wasting my brain power on figuring out the point of the book, instead of focusing on the content. Bad form, Zizek.
April 23, 2022
This book is a collection of Lenin's writing from the last two years of his life.
Slavoj Zizek argues these were the two years where Lenin showed his true greatness. Russia had somehow survived its civil war and was trying to find its way in the world. Lenin was in charge of this journey but he had no real idea where he or the country was heading. He admitted mistakes had been made but the revolution had to keep going and Lenin made sure this happened, although it might have been pure luck that it lasted as long as it did.
There's also a discussion about Stalinism and how that 'worked' as a movement where people and events were air-brushed from history if they contradicted the word of Stalin. They disappeared and forgotten as though they'd never existed.
Slavoj Zizek argues these were the two years where Lenin showed his true greatness. Russia had somehow survived its civil war and was trying to find its way in the world. Lenin was in charge of this journey but he had no real idea where he or the country was heading. He admitted mistakes had been made but the revolution had to keep going and Lenin made sure this happened, although it might have been pure luck that it lasted as long as it did.
There's also a discussion about Stalinism and how that 'worked' as a movement where people and events were air-brushed from history if they contradicted the word of Stalin. They disappeared and forgotten as though they'd never existed.
March 21, 2021
Nicht, dass Zizek immer ganz klar wäre. Man hat manchmal das Gefühl, auch Geschriebenes kann ein bisschen "So dahin genuschelt" und ein bisschen sprunghaft sein, eben so, wie man es von dem Autor gewohnt ist. Das mag in diesem Falle auch daran liegen, dass der Gegenstand nicht gerade von vorneherein sympathisch daher kommt. Lenin! Da hat fast nur noch Stalin einen schlechteren Leumund. Und Zizek leugnet das auch gar nicht. Ihm gilt eine Haltung für feige oder - bestenfalls - theoretisch schwach, die meint, man könnte hinter Stalin zurück gehen und im Leninismus so etwas wie das jungfräuliche Gesicht der Revolution erblicken. Unmissverständlich stellt Zizek klar, dass Stalins Aufkommen eine Konsequenz der Fehler Lenins war. Gleichzeitig analysiert er aber zutreffend Lenins Stärke der Selbstkorrektur, der unbedingten Hingabe an die Analyse dessen, was ist, seine Fähigkeit, Theorie wie Taktik einer jeweils neuen Lage anzupassen. Umgekehrt könnte man sagen, war Stalin ein Meister darin, die jeweiligen Lagen der Theorie anzupassen. (Erst mit Beginn des Zweiten Weltkrieges musste er diesen Voluntarismus aufgeben!)
Aber zurück zu Zizeks Beschäftigung mit Lenin. Reduziert man das Ganze auf seinen Kern, dann wird schnell klar, dass der Slowene bisher nirgends so radikal war wie hier! Statt Lenin für den Terror zu entschuldigen, oder das bekannte Lied von der fehlenden Demokratie (Luxemburg!) zu singen, bestätigt Zizek, dass Terror notwendig zur Setzung der Bedingungen sein kann, von denen aus allein (!) Neues beginnt. Im Angesicht der Zurückgebliebenheit der bäuerlichen Massen und der Tatsache, dass die klassenbewussten Proletarier als treue Soldaten der Revolution in den Bürgerkriegen zumeist ihr Leben gelassen hatten, sieht Zizek quasi durch Lenins Augen auf eine Revolution, der die soziale Trägerschicht abhanden gekommen war: Eine proletarische Revolution, die nicht mehr durch und für das Proletariat handeln konnte, war nur noch eine politische Hülse ohne eigenen sozialen Inhalt. Deshalb ging der alte Fuchs im Kreml einen Schritt zurück und zielte mit der NÖP auf den Wiederaufbau quasi marktwirtschaftlicher Grundlagen für eine politische Entwicklung, die proletarische Inhalte (Brechung des Bildungsprivilegs, soziale Gleichheit usw.) denen vermitteln sollte (und konnte), die dadurch an die Stelle der nicht vorhandenen Klasse treten sollten. Sozusagen ohne Umweg direkt von der Universität an die Schalthebel der ökonomischen Macht! Allerdings bestand hier die Gefahr erneuter "Verbürgerlichung" (durch NÖP- Gewinnler), weshalb Terror zur Niederhaltung restaurativer Kräfte unumgänglich schien. Soweit, so Lenin. Zu spät erkannte der kranke alte Mann, dass Stalin in einem Punkt weiter gesehen hatte: Wenn es schon kein Proletariat mehr gab, konnte es auch keine "Diktatur des Proletariats" geben. An die Stelle der möglichen Diktatur einer Klasse, die eine Massenbewegung (wie in der Pariser Commune) hätte sein können, trat in Sowjetrussland die "Diktatur des Staatsapparates" und zu den neuen sozialen "Trägern" dessen, was von der Revolution noch übrig blieb, wurden die "Apparatschiks" mit dem Habitus von Proletariern, aber dem Denken opportunistischer Kleinbürger. Die hatte Stalin in der Hand, denn sie fraßen sein Brot, waren alles durch und nichts ohne ihn.
Soweit die Geschichte. Was aber sagt Zizek zur theoretischen Leistung resp. Fehlleistung Lenins mit Blick auf unsere Gegenwart? Erstaunlicherweise legt der Text das Versagen westlicher Demokratien bei der Lösung anstehender Menschheitsfragen nahe und denkt deswegen erneut über das Prinzip der "Kaderpartei", also das der Elitendiktatur nach. Das ist radikal mutig und spricht aus, was ich seit einiger Zeit immer nur heimlich zu denken gewagt habe, denn mit großer Sicherheit ist 2050 die Welt klimatechnisch, ressourcenseitig und vielleicht auch kriegerisch (USA-China-Russland) so weit am Ende, dass sie sich davon nicht wieder wird erholen können. Das sehen heute schmale Eliten (zu denen sicher nicht! die Grünen gehören) ganz klar. Aber die werden so bald nicht zu Mehrheiten werden und auch zum "Marsch durch die Institutionen" wird keine Zeit bleiben. Darf man, so die alles entscheidende Frage Zizeks, im Namen des Überlebens der Menschheit die Diktatur einer Minderheit befürworten? Können Minderheiten sozusagen "demokratisch" im Recht sein, ohne dass sie demokratisch an die Macht gekommen sind? Seine Beispiele sind so einfach wie schlagend: Zizek erinnert an de Gaulle, der als General einer versprengten Truppe in Frankreichs Kolonien die Kapitulation seines Landes (ohne irgendeine Legitimation) ablehnte und vollkommen jenseits eines möglichen Mehrheitswillens der Franzosen zum Widerstand aufrief und endlich unter den "Siegern" in Potsdam saß. Ebenso kann niemand behaupten, dass die deutschen Antifaschisten zu irgendeinem Zeitpunkt eine demokratische oder auch nur stille Legitimation durch eine Mehrheit des deutschen Volkes gehabt hätten, und doch hatten sie die "historische Wahrheit" auf ihrer Seite. Was also, wenn auch heute die einzige Möglichkeit zur Rettung der Welt darin bestünde, sich von der bürgerlichen (!) Demokratie abzuwenden und stattdessen auf eine Art "volonté generale" (Rousseau) zu setzen und zu akzeptieren, dass die Selbst- Legitimierung einer bewussten Minderheit historisch so notwendig sein könnte, wie Lenins Umsturz zur Beendigung des Krieges in Russland notwendig war? Würde man sich diesem Gedanken annähern, wäre klar, dass die Frage nach dem Terror sich von selbst erledigte. Im Falle eines solchen Falles würde es heißen: Wir oder sie! Und wer dann zögert, endet wie die Communarden von Paris oder die Führer der Bayrischen Räterepublik. Die anderen nämlich, die uns die Diskussion über Demokratie und Humanismus aufzwingen, haben selbst nie gezögert (und werden nie zögern), gefährliche Revolutionäre an die Wand zu stellen. Vielleicht liegt es ja auch in deren Interesse, dass wir uns mit Lenin nicht mehr beschäftigen und seine Fragen nicht mehr stellen (sollen)? Ob Zizeks Antworten die letzten und in allem in sich schlüssig sind, mag man bezweifeln, da er z.B. die Frage danach, wie man die erneute Verselbstständigung des Terrors um des Terrors willen verhindert, nicht klar beantwortet, aber die Frage in aller Schärfe und ohne Vorurteile erneut gestellt zu haben, ist unbestreitbar ein und also sein Verdienst. Wir werden nicht umhin kommen, hier anzusetzen und weiter zu denken. Ob dabei die im Anhang (50% des Buches) versammelten Schriften Lenins hilfreich sind, mag dahin gestellt bleiben. Sicher ist es verdienstvoll, mit einer solchen Auswahl eine Generation anzusprechen, die nie etwas von Lenin gelesen hat. Angesichts der zettelbestückten Werkausgabe (LW) in meinem Bücherregal war das für mich unnötig, weshalb ich das Buch nur im ersten Teil mit Gewinn gelesen und durchdacht habe. Wer Lenin freilich nicht kennt und einsteigen will, bekommt hier die dogmatisch- undogmatische Seite des marxistischen Dialektikers und des gleichzeitig gewandten Tagespolitikers vorgeführt. Im Ganzen also ein wichtiges und daher empfehlenswertes Buch!
Aber zurück zu Zizeks Beschäftigung mit Lenin. Reduziert man das Ganze auf seinen Kern, dann wird schnell klar, dass der Slowene bisher nirgends so radikal war wie hier! Statt Lenin für den Terror zu entschuldigen, oder das bekannte Lied von der fehlenden Demokratie (Luxemburg!) zu singen, bestätigt Zizek, dass Terror notwendig zur Setzung der Bedingungen sein kann, von denen aus allein (!) Neues beginnt. Im Angesicht der Zurückgebliebenheit der bäuerlichen Massen und der Tatsache, dass die klassenbewussten Proletarier als treue Soldaten der Revolution in den Bürgerkriegen zumeist ihr Leben gelassen hatten, sieht Zizek quasi durch Lenins Augen auf eine Revolution, der die soziale Trägerschicht abhanden gekommen war: Eine proletarische Revolution, die nicht mehr durch und für das Proletariat handeln konnte, war nur noch eine politische Hülse ohne eigenen sozialen Inhalt. Deshalb ging der alte Fuchs im Kreml einen Schritt zurück und zielte mit der NÖP auf den Wiederaufbau quasi marktwirtschaftlicher Grundlagen für eine politische Entwicklung, die proletarische Inhalte (Brechung des Bildungsprivilegs, soziale Gleichheit usw.) denen vermitteln sollte (und konnte), die dadurch an die Stelle der nicht vorhandenen Klasse treten sollten. Sozusagen ohne Umweg direkt von der Universität an die Schalthebel der ökonomischen Macht! Allerdings bestand hier die Gefahr erneuter "Verbürgerlichung" (durch NÖP- Gewinnler), weshalb Terror zur Niederhaltung restaurativer Kräfte unumgänglich schien. Soweit, so Lenin. Zu spät erkannte der kranke alte Mann, dass Stalin in einem Punkt weiter gesehen hatte: Wenn es schon kein Proletariat mehr gab, konnte es auch keine "Diktatur des Proletariats" geben. An die Stelle der möglichen Diktatur einer Klasse, die eine Massenbewegung (wie in der Pariser Commune) hätte sein können, trat in Sowjetrussland die "Diktatur des Staatsapparates" und zu den neuen sozialen "Trägern" dessen, was von der Revolution noch übrig blieb, wurden die "Apparatschiks" mit dem Habitus von Proletariern, aber dem Denken opportunistischer Kleinbürger. Die hatte Stalin in der Hand, denn sie fraßen sein Brot, waren alles durch und nichts ohne ihn.
Soweit die Geschichte. Was aber sagt Zizek zur theoretischen Leistung resp. Fehlleistung Lenins mit Blick auf unsere Gegenwart? Erstaunlicherweise legt der Text das Versagen westlicher Demokratien bei der Lösung anstehender Menschheitsfragen nahe und denkt deswegen erneut über das Prinzip der "Kaderpartei", also das der Elitendiktatur nach. Das ist radikal mutig und spricht aus, was ich seit einiger Zeit immer nur heimlich zu denken gewagt habe, denn mit großer Sicherheit ist 2050 die Welt klimatechnisch, ressourcenseitig und vielleicht auch kriegerisch (USA-China-Russland) so weit am Ende, dass sie sich davon nicht wieder wird erholen können. Das sehen heute schmale Eliten (zu denen sicher nicht! die Grünen gehören) ganz klar. Aber die werden so bald nicht zu Mehrheiten werden und auch zum "Marsch durch die Institutionen" wird keine Zeit bleiben. Darf man, so die alles entscheidende Frage Zizeks, im Namen des Überlebens der Menschheit die Diktatur einer Minderheit befürworten? Können Minderheiten sozusagen "demokratisch" im Recht sein, ohne dass sie demokratisch an die Macht gekommen sind? Seine Beispiele sind so einfach wie schlagend: Zizek erinnert an de Gaulle, der als General einer versprengten Truppe in Frankreichs Kolonien die Kapitulation seines Landes (ohne irgendeine Legitimation) ablehnte und vollkommen jenseits eines möglichen Mehrheitswillens der Franzosen zum Widerstand aufrief und endlich unter den "Siegern" in Potsdam saß. Ebenso kann niemand behaupten, dass die deutschen Antifaschisten zu irgendeinem Zeitpunkt eine demokratische oder auch nur stille Legitimation durch eine Mehrheit des deutschen Volkes gehabt hätten, und doch hatten sie die "historische Wahrheit" auf ihrer Seite. Was also, wenn auch heute die einzige Möglichkeit zur Rettung der Welt darin bestünde, sich von der bürgerlichen (!) Demokratie abzuwenden und stattdessen auf eine Art "volonté generale" (Rousseau) zu setzen und zu akzeptieren, dass die Selbst- Legitimierung einer bewussten Minderheit historisch so notwendig sein könnte, wie Lenins Umsturz zur Beendigung des Krieges in Russland notwendig war? Würde man sich diesem Gedanken annähern, wäre klar, dass die Frage nach dem Terror sich von selbst erledigte. Im Falle eines solchen Falles würde es heißen: Wir oder sie! Und wer dann zögert, endet wie die Communarden von Paris oder die Führer der Bayrischen Räterepublik. Die anderen nämlich, die uns die Diskussion über Demokratie und Humanismus aufzwingen, haben selbst nie gezögert (und werden nie zögern), gefährliche Revolutionäre an die Wand zu stellen. Vielleicht liegt es ja auch in deren Interesse, dass wir uns mit Lenin nicht mehr beschäftigen und seine Fragen nicht mehr stellen (sollen)? Ob Zizeks Antworten die letzten und in allem in sich schlüssig sind, mag man bezweifeln, da er z.B. die Frage danach, wie man die erneute Verselbstständigung des Terrors um des Terrors willen verhindert, nicht klar beantwortet, aber die Frage in aller Schärfe und ohne Vorurteile erneut gestellt zu haben, ist unbestreitbar ein und also sein Verdienst. Wir werden nicht umhin kommen, hier anzusetzen und weiter zu denken. Ob dabei die im Anhang (50% des Buches) versammelten Schriften Lenins hilfreich sind, mag dahin gestellt bleiben. Sicher ist es verdienstvoll, mit einer solchen Auswahl eine Generation anzusprechen, die nie etwas von Lenin gelesen hat. Angesichts der zettelbestückten Werkausgabe (LW) in meinem Bücherregal war das für mich unnötig, weshalb ich das Buch nur im ersten Teil mit Gewinn gelesen und durchdacht habe. Wer Lenin freilich nicht kennt und einsteigen will, bekommt hier die dogmatisch- undogmatische Seite des marxistischen Dialektikers und des gleichzeitig gewandten Tagespolitikers vorgeführt. Im Ganzen also ein wichtiges und daher empfehlenswertes Buch!
January 14, 2018
2017 "celebrou" em triplicado,os momentos mais importantes da história do pensamento comunista: 150 anos de publicação do capital ( karl Marx), 100 anos da revolução de outubro e 50 anos da comuna de Xangai. Em suma, a tríade sequencial entre os alicerces teóricos ( Marx) ,a primeira debacle do estado burguês pela nova ordem social e económica ( união soviética) e (na versão comunista chinesa) o radicalismo da visão utópica da imposição directa do poder popular ao estado.
Peguei neste livro quase de forma imperativa. Para dar lastro e profundidade à leveza com que identifico as minhas costelas de esquerda.
Seguir o pensamento ousado e irreverente de zyzek é uma experiência alucinante e,sempre, desafiante. Visão precisa,pensamento afiado e horizontes amplos. Dita em mim uma inveja permanente pela amplitude da mente e o desassombro das ideias.
Estruturalmente o livro ,algo anárquico,divide se em três partes. Uma FABULOSA introdução, extensa e inteligente de zyzek,que,mais que rever historicamente a importância do grande líder soviético,estabelece de imediato as pontes que o presentificam - ideológica e conceptualmente . O título do livro está,ao contrário do que fui lendo, plenamente justificado.
O terço médio do livro consiste numa seleção de textos de Lenine. Discurso directo e despido. Dos últimos dois anos da sua vida. Imperdível e esclarecedor.
O terço final- posfácio- pretende fazer o arco final , de carácter mais filosófico e psicológico,do impacto de Lenine ( mas também estaline, trotsky, Robespierre..) em todos os dias.
Enriquecedor, inteligente, desafiante.
Dei lhe muito tempo. Mas foi tempo muito bem empregue,para quem tenha algum interesse nos assuntos.
Peguei neste livro quase de forma imperativa. Para dar lastro e profundidade à leveza com que identifico as minhas costelas de esquerda.
Seguir o pensamento ousado e irreverente de zyzek é uma experiência alucinante e,sempre, desafiante. Visão precisa,pensamento afiado e horizontes amplos. Dita em mim uma inveja permanente pela amplitude da mente e o desassombro das ideias.
Estruturalmente o livro ,algo anárquico,divide se em três partes. Uma FABULOSA introdução, extensa e inteligente de zyzek,que,mais que rever historicamente a importância do grande líder soviético,estabelece de imediato as pontes que o presentificam - ideológica e conceptualmente . O título do livro está,ao contrário do que fui lendo, plenamente justificado.
O terço médio do livro consiste numa seleção de textos de Lenine. Discurso directo e despido. Dos últimos dois anos da sua vida. Imperdível e esclarecedor.
O terço final- posfácio- pretende fazer o arco final , de carácter mais filosófico e psicológico,do impacto de Lenine ( mas também estaline, trotsky, Robespierre..) em todos os dias.
Enriquecedor, inteligente, desafiante.
Dei lhe muito tempo. Mas foi tempo muito bem empregue,para quem tenha algum interesse nos assuntos.
October 4, 2017
What is very good about this book is the presentation of such important texts from the last years of Lenin's life, working through really intractable problems of Soviet Russia, isolated and weakened after intervention and civil war. Zizek shows that he really understands Lenin's thoroughly principled insistence that the "waving of little red flags" could not resolve such problems, only a slow and patient inculcation of bourgeois culture and bourgeois management under Soviet political control. Lenin's image of mountaineers having to retrace their steps, a much more dangerous and difficult task than an ascent is particularly beautiful and apt. The references to and citations from Robespierre and the quotations from Badiou are apt and very helpful. Whether Milner and Lacan are equally good guides is a matter for legitimate discussion.
October 20, 2018
This book is essentially about recasting the tragic elements of Lenin's last years as a means for hope in our own futures. Only by learning the lessons Lenin was in his twilight days can achieving what he hoped to ever be possible. A decent amount of the essays, speeches, and letters collected here felt like fluff, but it still remains clear why Zizek selected them. Watching Lenin flail to try and justify the capitalist elements of the New Economic Policy is perhaps his most humanizing moment. As for Zizek's foreword and afterword, he has moments of clarity and brilliance amidst plenty of slightly indiscernible rambling (who would've guessed?!), but there are some paragraphs and lines in here that are just pure gold. The book as a whole shows one of recent history's most important figures on a tightrope walk between sheer hypocrisy and necessary compromise and reinvention, and that alone makes it a worthy read.
January 17, 2021
Uma excelente oportunidade de a esquerda analisar o impasse em que se encontra actualmente
October 23, 2017
Lenin tarafına 5, Žižek tarafına 3 yıldız.
November 20, 2023
کتاب تا شروع نامه ها کتاب جالبی است، و بازخوانی خوبی از آثار لنین است، نظر لنین درباره آزادی چه بود، در مقابل اوکراین چه نظراتی داشت، چرا انسان هیپنوتیزم نظام سرمایه داری و لیبرال میشود، آزادی برای که و چه طبقه ای است در نظام لیبرال و در لیبرالیسم با پایه قرار دادن طبیعت و اینکه رقابت سودجویی و... جزو طبیعی فرد است به قول لکان هیپنوتیزم جهان مدرن سرمایه داری میشود، لنین در جایی میگوید ما باید همیشه در حال انقلاب باشید و هر چقدر شکست بخوریم باید گام بعدی را بلند تر برداریم تا به هدف برسیم و در این راه بارها و بارها شکست خواهیم خورد، ولی در انتها باز هم میگویم ژیژک گاو نه من شیر ده است که در انتها باز لغزش های در مفصل بندی تئوریک آن میبینیم،در بخش دوم و نامه ها نامه های لنین به تروتسکی شاید جالب ترینش باشد
"نیرویی ذاتی از خود نشان می دهد، به طوری که آنچه ما را به اطاعت از آن اغوا میکند، همان ویژگی ای است که ممکن است مانع به نظر برسد غیاب دلیل برای «چرا» در اینجا لکان می تواند کمک کننده باشد «دال» اعظم لکانی دقیقاً همین نیروی هیپنوتیزم کننده دستور نمادین را مشخص میکند که فقط بر عمل اظهار خود متکی است؛ در اینجا است که با نابترین حالت «کارایی نمادین روبرو میشویم سه راه مشروعیت بخشیدن به اعمال اقتدار «اقتدارگرا» «تمامیت خواه»، «لیبرال» به سادگی سه راه برای سرپوش گذاشتن بر قدرت اغواگر و مغاک این ندای تهی و نابینا کردن ما در برابر آن است. به نوعی لیبرالیسم در میان این سه نوع حتی بدترینشان است، زیرا دلایل اطاعت را طبیعی ساخته و آنها را وارد ساختار روان شناختی درونی سوژه میکند بنابراین، پارادوکس این است که سوژه های لیبرال» به نوعی کمترین آزادی را دارند: آنها با تغییر عقیده یا تصورشان از خویشتن، با پذیرش آنچه بر آنها تحمیل می شود به عنوان آنچه از «طبیعت» آنها نشأت گرفته است دیگرحتی از انقیاد و تابعیت خودآگاه نیستند."
"نیرویی ذاتی از خود نشان می دهد، به طوری که آنچه ما را به اطاعت از آن اغوا میکند، همان ویژگی ای است که ممکن است مانع به نظر برسد غیاب دلیل برای «چرا» در اینجا لکان می تواند کمک کننده باشد «دال» اعظم لکانی دقیقاً همین نیروی هیپنوتیزم کننده دستور نمادین را مشخص میکند که فقط بر عمل اظهار خود متکی است؛ در اینجا است که با نابترین حالت «کارایی نمادین روبرو میشویم سه راه مشروعیت بخشیدن به اعمال اقتدار «اقتدارگرا» «تمامیت خواه»، «لیبرال» به سادگی سه راه برای سرپوش گذاشتن بر قدرت اغواگر و مغاک این ندای تهی و نابینا کردن ما در برابر آن است. به نوعی لیبرالیسم در میان این سه نوع حتی بدترینشان است، زیرا دلایل اطاعت را طبیعی ساخته و آنها را وارد ساختار روان شناختی درونی سوژه میکند بنابراین، پارادوکس این است که سوژه های لیبرال» به نوعی کمترین آزادی را دارند: آنها با تغییر عقیده یا تصورشان از خویشتن، با پذیرش آنچه بر آنها تحمیل می شود به عنوان آنچه از «طبیعت» آنها نشأت گرفته است دیگرحتی از انقیاد و تابعیت خودآگاه نیستند."
March 9, 2025
Zizek's foreword and afterword come to a total of NINETY PLUS pages of this 180-page book, so roughly half, and the intro is long, rambling and unfocused. The afterword on the other hand is short, concise and easy to follow, and I found it very interesting. All of which says nothing about the main body of the book, a collection of essays, speeches and letters from the last few years of Lenin's life. These were also interesting, and gave me a better understanding of his thoughts and direction in the early 1920s.
April 11, 2019
Unlike Lenin's "State and Revolution", this collection of essays, speeches and letters gives us a more self-critical picture of Lenin. His larger than life persona is contrasted by the simple humanist wish of a man wanting to help the repressed.
In "Lenin 2017", Žižek specifically tries to tie in Lenin's thoughts with the modern global socio-economic situation. The book serves as a valuable first-hand account and comment on the early years of the USSR, and can give readers interesting facts and insights about the challenges it faced. The book's most noteworthy aspect is probably the way it portrays Lenin. He is not the immortal revolutionary here, but a mortal human who acknowledges his mistakes.
I have a few qualms about the book though. First, I'm not quite sure what Žižek's concrete role was in the making of the book, as, as the book progresses, his explanations and interpretations show up less and less. His introduction to the book is absolutely brilliant, connecting Lenin's ideas and writings with both contemporary issues and ideology as a whole, helping to navigate the reader on his or her way through the book.
In addition, the choice of the selected works is a bit odd at times. My greatest complaint is that only one, giant text (meant to be a speech on one of the Communist Congresses) takes up nearly as much space as all the texts combined. While some texts fit perfectly into the main narrative of the book, others stand out as peculiar and even unconnected with the book's general theme. The only explanation for this that I could think of was that this it serves to give Lenin more character and make him look more human.
All in all, I really recommend this book to anyone interested in orthodox Marxism, the USSR's history and Lenin. I would also like to underline the contrast between this book and "State and Revolution" and recommend that readers of the latter should also read the former in order to completely grasp the evolution of Lenin's political philosophy. For Žižek fans, I would recommend that they skip this title, as it offers little original thought (much of what he wrote about here I already heard on some of his lectures).
In "Lenin 2017", Žižek specifically tries to tie in Lenin's thoughts with the modern global socio-economic situation. The book serves as a valuable first-hand account and comment on the early years of the USSR, and can give readers interesting facts and insights about the challenges it faced. The book's most noteworthy aspect is probably the way it portrays Lenin. He is not the immortal revolutionary here, but a mortal human who acknowledges his mistakes.
I have a few qualms about the book though. First, I'm not quite sure what Žižek's concrete role was in the making of the book, as, as the book progresses, his explanations and interpretations show up less and less. His introduction to the book is absolutely brilliant, connecting Lenin's ideas and writings with both contemporary issues and ideology as a whole, helping to navigate the reader on his or her way through the book.
In addition, the choice of the selected works is a bit odd at times. My greatest complaint is that only one, giant text (meant to be a speech on one of the Communist Congresses) takes up nearly as much space as all the texts combined. While some texts fit perfectly into the main narrative of the book, others stand out as peculiar and even unconnected with the book's general theme. The only explanation for this that I could think of was that this it serves to give Lenin more character and make him look more human.
All in all, I really recommend this book to anyone interested in orthodox Marxism, the USSR's history and Lenin. I would also like to underline the contrast between this book and "State and Revolution" and recommend that readers of the latter should also read the former in order to completely grasp the evolution of Lenin's political philosophy. For Žižek fans, I would recommend that they skip this title, as it offers little original thought (much of what he wrote about here I already heard on some of his lectures).
October 24, 2017
Poor Lenin, surrounded by devilishly clumsy and inept people, wallowing in post-revolutionary Oblomovism, for which he knew they'd get a good trashing . All the while the merchants were laughing at them, and saying : 'Formerly they were Persuaders-in-Chief, now we have Talkers-in-Chief.'
Meanwhile conservative merchants proved to be the most revolutionary, creatively destructing while forming companies and building the future, paving the way for a post-capitalist world. (Lenin struggled with how to deal with the surviving and uneducated workers, nowadays they tend to self-destruct)
Meanwhile conservative merchants proved to be the most revolutionary, creatively destructing while forming companies and building the future, paving the way for a post-capitalist world. (Lenin struggled with how to deal with the surviving and uneducated workers, nowadays they tend to self-destruct)
October 30, 2017
A mixed bag but tipped to three because the writing is good. It’s frequently hard to follow the argument for why these texts were chosen. The intro and afterword are typically Zizek-Ian in that they are brilliant, recursive and rambling. The most annoying factor is possibly the title, since one might expect some kind of 1917 to 2017 interplay. Actually that book exists already as Revolution at the Gates, and I’d recommend most people start with that instead. And since the writings are actually NEP and on, maybe save reading these for that centenary 2021-23...
December 13, 2019
Kitabın konsepti geleneksel Leninist materyalden çok farklı. Bu yüzden kesinlikle okunması gerektiğini düşünüyorum. Zizek'in dili biraz ağır ve karmaşıktır. Okurken epey kafa yorar. Ancak anlattığı şeylerin de özü, içeriği son derece karmaşık olduğundan buna anlayış gösterebiliyorum.
Kitapta Lenin'in mektupları ve Zizek'in yorumları yer alıyor. İlk bölüm sadece genel anlamda otoriteye bireyin kendisini kaptırması ve genel Zizekçi ideoloji eleştirisi. Bireyin ideolojisine paralel olarak yaptığı eylemleri meşrulaştırması. Başka bir bölümde aklımda kalan Bolşeviklerin geldiği noktada suçun tamamını Stalin'in üzerine yıkmamak. Neler eksik yapıldı, nerelerde hatalar yapıldı bunlar üzerine kolaycı yaklaşımlarla kestirip atmamak ve ince eleyip sık dokumak gerektiği işleniyor gibi.
Özellikle son bölümlerde Lenin'in kongre raporu üzerine yaptığı konuşma metni mutlaka okunmalı. Komünistler için önemli dersler ve kritik bir özeleştiri mahiyetinde.
Kitapta Lenin'in mektupları ve Zizek'in yorumları yer alıyor. İlk bölüm sadece genel anlamda otoriteye bireyin kendisini kaptırması ve genel Zizekçi ideoloji eleştirisi. Bireyin ideolojisine paralel olarak yaptığı eylemleri meşrulaştırması. Başka bir bölümde aklımda kalan Bolşeviklerin geldiği noktada suçun tamamını Stalin'in üzerine yıkmamak. Neler eksik yapıldı, nerelerde hatalar yapıldı bunlar üzerine kolaycı yaklaşımlarla kestirip atmamak ve ince eleyip sık dokumak gerektiği işleniyor gibi.
Özellikle son bölümlerde Lenin'in kongre raporu üzerine yaptığı konuşma metni mutlaka okunmalı. Komünistler için önemli dersler ve kritik bir özeleştiri mahiyetinde.
September 22, 2022
Zizek analysiert hier den politischen Werdegang Lenins, welche nach seinem Tod zur Herrschaft Stalins kulminierte. Er fragt sich wie der “gute” Marxismus-Leninismus, zum “bösen” Stalinismus mutieren konnte und zieht hier Philosoph:innen von der Französischen Revolution bis Lacan und schließlich zur Neuzeit zu Rate. Er zeigt so eine andere Seite des Leninismus, welche selbst viele Linke kaum kennen werden, und in einer Dichte, welche mich einige Passagen mehrmals hat lesen lassen.
War mir zu hoch. Realtalk ich bin einfach nicht auf der Höhe mit Zizek philosophische Debatten anzustimmen. Neueinsteigern/Philosophielaien würde ich das nicht empfehlen, auch wenn ich doch einiges mitnehmen konnte. Fortgeschrittene Interessierte können hier eine neue Perspektive auf das Thema erhalten.
War mir zu hoch. Realtalk ich bin einfach nicht auf der Höhe mit Zizek philosophische Debatten anzustimmen. Neueinsteigern/Philosophielaien würde ich das nicht empfehlen, auch wenn ich doch einiges mitnehmen konnte. Fortgeschrittene Interessierte können hier eine neue Perspektive auf das Thema erhalten.
February 19, 2023
En este libro se explora la relación entre la utopía leninista y el "derecho a narrar" multiculturalista posmoderno. El autor argumenta que la conciencia de clase adecuada debe ser conquistada a través de un arduo trabajo y que la violencia es un ingrediente necesario en cualquier acción política revolucionaria. También discute cómo la abstracción en nuestras relaciones ha llevado a la aparición de fenómenos como los reality shows. Pone en boca de Walter Benjamin sobre una necesidad de intervención revolucionaria presente repite/redime los intentos fallidos del pasado. El libro destaca la necesidad de problematizar la referencia manifiesta a la "libertad y la democracia" en el movimiento antiglobalización y aplicar la lógica deconstructiva del complemento al anticapitalismo radical.
June 19, 2018
This book (may be just "Introduction") was not the fastidious philosophy of history I thought it would be. Instead it was more inane Zizek ontology and a brief continuation of Zizek's Robispierre characterization. "Lenin 1617" I would've understood more since Zizek appears to be apologizing that Lenin wasn't more de Groot. Meaning I got the impression that it was the velocity the October revolution that was beyond Lenin's control. The unfortunate thing is that you then can't the build a state based on reason. Human nature was not yet fully grasped Lenin tried to complain. Therefore its derivative, I suppose the natural law could not be sanctioned by the revolution but today things are different. In 2017 we have human nature by tail coats and therefore it is only a matter of time before the workers are united by the state.
July 4, 2018
“During the French Revolution itself, it is easy to recognise the moments in which the most rational and the most courageous among the revolutionaries despaired. Most of them were competent and cultured, but no historical precedent in history, no scientific discovery, and no philosophical argument could help them. The same can be said about Lenin. Whoever has read his works cannot but admire his intelligence, his encyclopedic culture and his ability to invent new political concepts. Nonetheless, his own writings show a growing uncertainty about the situation that he himself had created. ”
Jean-Claude Milner
Jean-Claude Milner
June 24, 2020
If anyone want to learn about Lenin politics and want to know about his unorthodox way to tackle the issue and how he speculated the issues, what was his views about the several of the issues Russian after Revolution was facing. Then this book is a great source for you, he was a person who very intellectually and calmly articulated most of the solutions regarding his country. That even till now people are using those tactics in most of the countries to control the severe problems.
Within the book, Zizek has also mentioned Lenin's letters, which he wrote at a time when he came up after a great cold war.
Read it and enjoy the Zizek style of write-ups.
Within the book, Zizek has also mentioned Lenin's letters, which he wrote at a time when he came up after a great cold war.
Read it and enjoy the Zizek style of write-ups.
Read
October 5, 2023uhhh the first 80 pages are zizek talking about like how lenin picked his opponents and by that metric missed the impending doom of rising beauracracy which is like, fine but an 80 page intro is crazy. a good collection of lenin's final writings, which shows his desire to hold the ussr together in its desires for building socialism against all odds, in defiance of western imperialism. cool and good for an understanding of the end years of the good soviet era.
April 8, 2018
Uma reflexão do papel de Lenine na História,papel esse que se confunde com a revolução bolchevique. Reflexões do autor sobre o papel da ideologia no desenvolvimento da politica do Partido Comunista Russo e do governo da URSS. Uma reflexão do papel da revolução socialista como saída para a barbárie capitalista.
June 30, 2020
The introduction and afterword by Zizek was good at pointing towards potentially revolutionary outlooks in today's predicament. The published letters by Lenin, which make up most of the book, was pretty specific and gave me little information of their importance; although I got an insight on Lenins contradictory relation between semi-orthodox Marxism and anti-beraucratic pragmatism.
February 21, 2024
Interesting look into the struggles of the USSR between 1921-23. Zizek's writing style is quite abstract and can be hard to understand, though his critical evaluation of Lenin and Stalin is nonetheless very interesting. Lenin's writing is easier to understand, especially because Zizek has also added notes to explain certain historical events (Notes may have been more useful on Zizek's own text 😭)
November 4, 2017
Beyond the introduction, the rest of this book is freely available at MIA archive. So the book could just be rated based on its introduction. Unfortunately, the introduction is an incoherent and inconsistent text filled with sloppy arguments.
March 4, 2020
Yet another hagiography on a saint in the Church of Marx.
January 15, 2022
Les Questions du L. Très édifiant sur plusieurs aspects de la R, la dictature du P, la question de la V.
June 30, 2023
A leitura é interessante, atenção, mas enquanto livro não faz muito sentido, é só um ensaio e um posfácio do Zizek a ensanduichar uma coletânea de escritos de Lenine
January 14, 2024
The content was interesting; I enjoy political theory. But I frequently found myself battling sleep while reading.
I would reread this after reading more on the Russian (and French) revolutions.
I would reread this after reading more on the Russian (and French) revolutions.
November 10, 2025
Baaaaaaaa nu pot sa cred ca l am văzut pe kafka și pe marx în aceasi propozitie ești nebun
January 18, 2019
Positivized the political void opened by the 2016 USA presidential election.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews