(Sun) Remember Lenin

The theory of violence / V.I. Lenin. - M.: Algorithm, 2007. - 256 p.

In memory of the memory, for a year has become an integral component of today's ideology, and the ideology of international. We are forced to remember the Holocaust, they try to teach to remember the Holodomor, to remember without evidence, to remember without reason and reason, unfolding their sincerity and truth, turning themselves to non -reflective, non -analytical. This desire is rationalized by the argument announcing this act with an atoning sacrifice on the altar that this will never happen again. We are made obligated by this memory, motivating this by fear, the fear of the return of this, with irrational horror of the reproach of the "human rights and freedoms" or another, more suitable in meaning, but essentially empty liberal maximum.

And at the same time, they are trying to force us to forget the October Revolution, forget the USSR, forget communism. We need to remember 1937, but it is impossible - 1917. The new world order is ready to erase from the face of history the myths of the “bloody Bolsheviks” created by him, if only they would forget about them at all, if only they would treat them with impersonal, if only their images could contain any meaning desired postmodernist consensus.

Understanding such duality, such selectivity - beyond the boundaries of purely rational analysis, but not mind at all. The keys to the irrational are given through rational reflection on it, over the nature of fear, laid down in the foundation of this memory policy.

Thus, exploring the Freudian achievements in psychoanalysis, the lacan discovered the dual nature of fear: fear-wishes and fear-spray. What is unpleasant for us, what really scares us, we try to forget, not to remember, supplants into the depths of the unconscious, real, true fear plunges us into such horror that every moment of meeting with him, the look at him is dangerous for us. The expectation, a secret desire that we do not find rational justifications behave, and therefore “afraid”, the slightest attempt to drown him returns him, the desire dictates his orders and retains himself, causing this apparent fear to act only by the force of action, which will cause many times exceeding, concentrated opposition.

What lies behind this desire to forget the revolution and remember a violation of human rights? But we will not rush with conclusions, haste has erroneousness with its wrong side. What contradiction falls on us first, which turns out to be untied, conflict with an analysis of fear? Most likely, this is the ambiguity that is in understanding the memory of the Holocaust and how it should be understood. As soon as we are really afraid of repeating the horrors of fascism, a clash face to face with him, even if we ourselves do not want to, we must try to forget it, displace, remove not only from memory, but from history, however, the rationalization of the memory policy puts this system upside down. Let us leave the reasons for such production, we will only fix this internal inconsistency.

But whatever the reasons for the ambiguity addressed to the individual events of the past, the most absurd in these conditions is that the memory policy addressed by October and the revolution works completely according to the instincts of pure fear-spraying. Cross, forget, dissolve, erase - unconsciously wash the story from what really scares, which causes horror, horror from its fragility, non -kissing, doom to defeat.

In such an environment, Lenin’s publication is a breakthrough. It is not so important that the “theory of violence” is not the best selected and far from all the theory of violence actually excerpts from various works. To rehabilitate, remove the cover from radical, non -argumented attacks based on dubious "overfigure by Marxism -Leninism" - this is what such publications are called to. To face the thought of Lenin, and not of the various theorists of those times, from the standpoint from the Black -Hundred absolutism to the bourgeois "democracy", which has a very weak connection with the direct power of the people. To see that true clarity and sincerity, invisible threads permeating its texts, work based not on the false consciousnesses of that era, but on bright rationality - this is what we are called up by this (I hope, not the last) book presenting the work of Lenin.

But we would not have any rights to Lenin and in memory of October if we had not seen that these works were actualized in the present. I will not tempt the reader with my understanding, the articles and texts of Lenin are clear enough to extrapolate them to the realities of modern Russia to see them without embellishment and without any clues. The intensity of Lenin's engagement is high, but it does not cover itself with its transparency, that clarity of thought that removes the cover of understanding of reality, exposes the true, non -symphologized nature of the latter.

We are not enough for this intelligibility, this understanding, we do not have people synonymous to Lenin, in the existing reality, his place is occupied by the figure of silence. But empty space is far from equal to the lost space, this emptiness obliges us, but also puts strict frames. The place of today's Lenin cannot take Lenin of the past. Those positions are unique, we are unable to copy them, you cannot once again lead to life that October, you can only create a new one. We can not trust a pure repetition, we need to rethink this experience, the revolution is a throw forward, it cannot simply re -pronounce the already well -known.

However, the past, although it is impossible to repeat, but it is necessary to master, it is necessary to remember. In recent years, we have almost forgotten Lenin and the revolution. We need to restore this memory, regain it and to ourselves. Reading Lenin's texts is a path to memory, a path through memory. Recall Lenin is to take a small and, in essence, simple step on the path of the necessary formation, but it is vital to make a great leap for history, for the story that, as Altyuser said unequivocally, was created by Marx and which Lenin was able to realize. And if this story turned out to be dangerous for some, from this it is not yet worth making hasty conclusions that no one needs it.