The 21st Century Still Needs Lenin

As an outstanding proletarian revolutionary leader, Marxist politician and theorist, Lenin led the October Revolution in Russia to victory, established the first socialist state in human history, and turned socialism from theory into reality. The victory of the October Revolution profoundly changed the historical destiny of Russia and influenced the direction of world history. Lenin’s theoretical innovations to Marxism deeply shaped twentieth-century socialist practice, but his thought exhibited multiple tensions in cross-contextual transmission—early Western Marxists, while affirming Lenin’s methodology for critiquing capitalism and his political theory, also criticized Lenin’s interpretation of Marxist philosophy. The ideological antagonism of the Cold War period branded Lenin’s thought with the label of “totalitarianism.”

作为杰出的无产阶级革命领袖、马克思主义政治家和理论家，列宁领导俄国十月革命取得胜利，建立人类历史上第一个社会主义国家，使社会主义从理论变为现实。十月革命的胜利深刻改变了俄国历史命运，影响了世界历史走向。列宁对马克思主义的理论创新深刻影响了20世纪社会主义实践，但其思想在跨语境传播中呈现出多重张力——早期西方马克思主义者在肯定列宁批判资本主义的方法论与政治理论的同时也批判了列宁对马克思主义哲学的阐释。冷战时期的意识形态对立使列宁的思想被打上了“极权主义”的标签。

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of the twentieth century, the bipolar structure collapsed, and along with the development of capitalist-dominated economic globalization, the liberal paradigm once held sway, and the “end of history” thesis [n1] was rampant. A group of contemporary Western Marxists—contemporary Western radical left-wing thinkers—when exploring revolutionary paths and breaking the capitalist ruling pattern under new historical conditions, underwent a fundamental shift in their attitude toward Lenin. They unequivocally raised slogans such as “repeat Lenin,” “restate Lenin,” and “Lenin reloaded,” emphasizing the significance of Lenin’s thought for the world today, and set off a theoretical upsurge of rereading Lenin and studying Lenin, attempting to “revive” Lenin’s thought in the twenty-first century. Slavoj Žižek is undoubtedly the most eye-catching among these thinkers.

随着20世纪末苏联解体，两极格局瓦解，伴随着资本主义主导的经济全球化发展，自由主义范式一度占据主导地位，“历史终结论”甚嚣尘上。一群当代西方马克思主义者——当代西方激进左翼思想家们在新的历史背景下探寻革命道路、打破资本主义统治格局时，对列宁的态度发生了根本转变。他们旗帜鲜明地喊出“重复列宁”“重述列宁”“列宁重装上阵”等口号，强调列宁思想对当今世界的重要意义，掀起了重读列宁、研究列宁的理论热潮，试图在21世纪“复活”列宁的思想，齐泽克无疑是这些思想家中最引人瞩目的。

I. The Misread and Stigmatized Lenin: Manifestations, Causes, and Consequences

一、被误读和污名化的列宁：表现、原因及其后果

If the Lenin criticized by Western Marxists was Lenin as philosopher, then some Western thinkers, whose aim was to defend the capitalist liberal-democratic system, turned the barrel of their critique against Lenin as politician and revolutionary. They not only denied the historical significance of the victory of the October Revolution but also attributed the shortcomings of the Stalinist model and the catastrophe of the Soviet Union’s dissolution to Lenin. As Hannah Arendt pointed out: “In recent years, the view that there is a close connection between Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, and that Marx is regarded as the father of totalitarian rule, has become popular.” [n2] Lenin was seen as an important driving force steering Marxism toward totalitarianism; the October Revolution became the “original sin” of the Soviet Union’s dissolution, and Lenin’s outstanding historical contributions in pioneering the socialist cause were completely erased. “Thus what remains of Lenin is only the tragic experience and lessons of twentieth-century totalitarianism.” Consequently, the misread and even stigmatized Lenin became synonymous with totalitarianism, always appearing as a negative image to be criticized in contemporary Western political theory.

如果说西方马克思主义者批判的列宁是作为哲学家的列宁，那么以捍卫资本主义自由民主制度为目的的部分西方思想家们则把批判的枪口指向作为政治家、革命家的列宁，他们不仅否认十月革命胜利的历史意义，还将斯大林模式的弊端以及苏联解体的灾难归咎于列宁。正如汉娜·阿伦特所指出的：“在最近几年中，认为马克思、列宁、斯大林之间有着紧密联系而把马克思看作极权主义统治之父的观点流行起来。”列宁被视为将马克思主义导向极权主义的重要推手，十月革命成了苏联解体的“原罪”，列宁开创社会主义事业的卓越历史功勋完全被抹除。“因此列宁身上留下的只是20世纪极权主义的悲惨经历和教训。”于是，被误读甚至被污名化的列宁成了极权主义的代名词，总是以被批判的负面形象出现于当代西方政治理论。

Why did Lenin as politician and revolutionary receive such unfair treatment in the contemporary West? In Žižek’s view, the main reason is that Lenin’s sharp critique of capitalist freedom struck directly at the fatal weakness of the liberal-democratic system, enough to shake the foundation of its legitimacy, and therefore inevitably provoked fierce attacks from thinkers who uphold this system. Lenin conducted profound critiques of various forms of capitalist freedom at different times, mercilessly exposing the hypocritical essence of capitalist freedom. In response to the “freedom of criticism” advocated by the then “New Critics,” Lenin pointed out: “Freedom is a great word, but it was under the banner of industrial freedom that the most predatory wars were waged, and under the banner of freedom of labor that the workers were plundered. The use of the term ‘freedom of criticism’ today likewise contains this inherent hypocrisy.” [n3] When criticizing G. Myasnikov’s [n4] advocacy of so-called “freedom of the press,” Lenin again dissected the essence of capitalist freedom, stating: “Throughout the world, wherever there are capitalists, so-called freedom of the press means the freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy up writers, the freedom to buy, bribe, and fabricate ‘public opinion’ in the service of the bourgeoisie.” [n5] In Lenin’s view, the freedom proclaimed by capitalism essentially replaces “substantive freedom” with “formal freedom”; its purpose is not to satisfy and protect people’s rights and interests, but to safeguard its own interests and rule through plunder and exploitation.

为何作为政治家、革命家的列宁在当代西方会受到如此不公正的对待呢？在齐泽克看来，最主要的原因在于列宁对资本主义自由的尖锐批判直击自由民主体制的致命软肋，足以撼动这一制度的合法性基础，因此必然会引起拥护这一制度的思想家们的猛烈攻击。列宁在不同时期对各种形式的资本主义自由进行了深刻批判，毫不留情地揭露了资本主义自由的虚伪本质。面对当时的“新批评派”所主张的“批评自由”，列宁指出：“自由是个伟大的字眼，但正是在工业自由的旗帜下进行过最具有掠夺性的战争，在劳动自由的旗帜下掠夺过劳动者。现在使用‘批评自由’一词，同样也包含着这种内在的虚伪性。”在批判加·米雅斯尼科夫争取所谓的“出版自由”时，列宁再次剖析了资本主义自由的实质，他指出：“在全世界，凡是有资本家的地方，所谓出版自由，就是收买报纸、收买作家的自由，就是买通、收买和炮制‘舆论’帮助资产阶级的自由。”在列宁看来，资本主义所宣称的自由本质上是用“形式自由”取代“实质自由”，其目的不在于满足和保障人们的权益，而在于通过掠夺和剥削来维护自身的利益和统治。

After the upheavals in Eastern Europe, the former socialist countries of Eastern Europe, due to multiple factors such as internal economic stagnation, political turmoil, and Western “peaceful evolution,” [n6] ended their original socialist systems through various means. But did the people of these countries truly possess the so-called real freedom proclaimed by the Western world? Žižek believes that what they possess is not real freedom: “Real freedom of choice consists in the fact that I do not choose between two or more options under given conditions, but can choose to change those given conditions. The problem with the transition from real socialism to capitalism is precisely that the people never had the opportunity to choose the goal of this transition.” [n7] Žižek argues that real freedom does not lie in how rich the form and content of the options provided are, but in whether the subject has the freedom to make a choice. The right to choose and the scope of choice granted to people in capitalist countries are both framed, and they are also driven by circumstances to make choices. This kind of choice is essentially a forced choice within unequal power relations; he calls people in this situation “free slaves.” Žižek believes there are three ways to legitimize power: autocracy, totalitarianism, and liberalism, among which the subject of liberalism is, to some extent, the least free, because “they have changed their view or perception of themselves, accepted what is imposed on them as stemming from their ‘nature,’ and they are no longer even aware of their subordinate position.”

东欧剧变后，原东欧社会主义国家由于内部经济停滞、政治动荡与西方“和平演变”等多重因素的影响，通过多重方式结束了原有的社会主义体制，但是这些国家的人民真的拥有了西方世界所宣称的所谓真实自由吗？齐泽克认为，他们拥有的不是真实的自由，“真实的自由选择在于，我不是在给定条件下的两个或更多的选项中选择，而是能选择改变这种给定的条件。从现实社会主义到资本主义的转变的问题正在于人民从来没有机会去选择这个转变的目标。”齐泽克认为，真实的自由不在于提供的选项形式和内容有多么丰富，而在于主体是否具有作出选择的自由，资本主义国家的人们被赋予的选择权和选择的范围都是被框定的，同时也是被形势推动着去作出选择，这种选择实质上是一种处于不平等权力关系中的被迫选择，他称这种处境中的人们为“自由的奴隶”。齐泽克认为存在三种使权力合法化的方式，即专制、极权和自由主义，其中自由主义的主体在某种程度上是最不自由的，因为“他们改变了自己对自己的看法或认知，接受了强加给他们的源于其‘天性’的东西，他们甚至不再意识到自己的从属地位”。

Using the theoretical tools of Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalysis, Žižek reveals the inner mechanism of capitalist freedom and points out that Lenin’s critique of liberalism can dismantle the operation of this inner mechanism; only on this basis can people obtain real freedom. From the perspective of Lacanian psychoanalysis, he argues that liberalism embodies the hypnotic power of the symbolic command of the “master signifier,” relying solely on its own enunciation, where the subject encounters the purest “symbolic efficacy.” This symbolic efficacy drives people to stubbornly persist in choices they have never truly made, persuading themselves to behave like mature subjects, aware that freedom comes at a cost. To some extent, the essence of liberalism under psychoanalysis is a hidden internal self-discipline caused by external symbolic efficacy, so subtle that even the subject itself finds it hard to detect. Therefore, although mainstream public opinion in the Soviet Union at the time favored defending the Soviet Union and preserving it, the collapse of the CPSU [n8] and the dissolution of the Soviet Union occurred almost overnight. In Žižek’s view, Lenin’s distinction and critique of formal freedom versus actual freedom can dissolve the pure symbolic efficacy of liberalism, tearing off the fig leaf of capitalist ideology. Only on this basis can people pursue actual freedom, explore “impossible” choices within the existing framework, and generate the desire to change the existing irrational system and revolutionary action. “This means that, as an act of consciously changing this set of coordinates, it occurs, and only occurs, in situations where people are forced to choose, where the choice people display is not coerced, and they ‘choose the impossible.’” And this is precisely what the thinkers who uphold liberal democracy fear; hence they do everything possible to tie Lenin to totalitarianism, thereby excluding Lenin from the scope of Western political theory and practice.

齐泽克借助雅克·拉康精神分析的理论工具揭示了资本主义自由的内在机制，并指出列宁对自由主义的批判可以瓦解这一内在机制的运作，只有在此基础上人们才能获得真实的自由。他从拉康精神分析学的视角出发，认为自由主义体现的是一种“主人能指”（master signifier）的符号命令的催眠力量，只依赖于自身的发声（enunciation），主体在这里遭遇的是最纯粹的“符号效力”（symbolic efficacy）。这种符号效力驱使人们委曲求全地坚持他们从未真正作出的选择，说服自己表现得像一个成熟的主体，意识到自由是有代价的。某种程度上，精神分析之下的自由主义的实质是由外部符号效力导致的隐蔽的内在自我规训，甚至连主体自身都难以察觉。因此，尽管当时苏联主流民意赞同保卫苏联和保留苏联，苏共倒台和苏联解体却几乎在一夜之间分别发生。在齐泽克看来，列宁对形式自由与实际自由的区分及批判可以消解自由主义的纯粹符号效力，撕破资本主义意识形态的遮羞布。在此基础上，人们才有可能去追寻实际自由，探索在现有框架之下的“不可能性”选择，产生改变现有不合理制度的渴望和革命行动。“这意味着作为有意识地改变这组坐标的行动，发生在且只发生在，人们被迫选择的情境下，人们表现的选择不是被强迫的，并‘选择不可能’的时刻。”而这正是拥护自由民主的思想家们所忌惮的，因而他们才会竭尽所能将列宁与极权主义进行捆绑，进而将列宁排除在西方政治理论和实践的范围之外。

The misreading and stigmatization of Lenin concern not only Lenin’s personal image and thought, but also invite doubt about, or even outright denial of, the possibility and legitimacy of Marxism and socialism in Eastern societies. As Walter Benjamin warned in his *Theses on the Philosophy of History*: “The past carries with it a temporal index by which it is referred to redemption. There is a secret agreement between past generations and the present one. Our coming was expected on earth. Like every generation that preceded us, we have been endowed with a weak Messianic power, a power to which the past has a claim. That claim cannot be settled cheaply. Historical materialists are aware of that.” [9]9 Walter Benjamin, “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” Thesis VI. The Chinese text quotes a slightly different version of Benjamin’s well-known passage about the “secret agreement” between past and present generations; the translation here follows the standard English version of the thesis. A century after Lenin’s death, capitalism has established a hegemonic order worldwide and continuously renews its forms of existence, yet the Western world’s critique and misreading of Lenin himself and his thought have never ceased. Slavoj Žižek believes that the neglect and forgetting of Lenin have led the contemporary Western Left to gradually abandon radical class struggle and the revolutionary line, instead shifting its focus to cultural critique, consumer critique, feminism, and ecological issues that do not touch upon changes in the social system. Revolutionary discourse has retreated within Western Marxism; some Western Marxists have degenerated into armchair intellectuals in academic research institutions, replacing the critique of weapons with the weapons of critique, content with interpreting the world while completely abandoning the demand to change it. In Žižek’s view, the neglect of Lenin reveals the true stance and contradictory position of some left-wing thinkers: “This silence is the only method for them to maintain their secret identification with Western liberal democracy while not discarding the public mask of ‘radical’ left-wing critique.” On the one hand, they are unwilling to openly acknowledge their identification with the Western liberal democratic system and the existing order, because this would strip away the “radical” halo that hangs over them, turning them into the very people of a one-dimensional society they criticize—people who have already lost their critical edge. On the other hand, showing too much sympathy for Leninism and Soviet socialism would force them to violate their concealed true stance—the abandonment of alternative paths and submission to the Western liberal democratic system.

对列宁的误读和污名化不仅仅关涉列宁的个人形象和思想，也会招致对马克思主义和社会主义在东方社会的可能性与合法性的质疑甚至否定。正如瓦尔特·本雅明在《历史哲学论纲》中给出的提醒：“过去已向我们反复证明，要是敌人获胜，即使死者也会失去安全。而这个要做胜利者的敌人从来不愿善罢甘休。”列宁逝世一个世纪后的今天，资本主义在全世界建立起统治格局并不断更新存在形态，但是西方世界对列宁本人及其思想的批判和误读却不曾停止。齐泽克认为，对列宁的忽视和遗忘导致当代西方左翼逐渐放弃激进的阶级斗争和革命路线，转而将重心转向不触及社会制度变革的文化批判、消费批判、女权主义和生态问题等。革命话语在西方马克思主义那里隐退，一部分西方马克思主义者沦为学术研究机构中的书斋知识分子，用批判的武器取代武器的批判，满足于解释世界而彻底放弃改变世界的诉求。在齐泽克看来，对列宁的忽视体现了部分左翼思想家的真正立场和矛盾处境，“这种缄默是他们既保持对西方民主自由的秘密认同又不丢掉‘激进’左翼批判的公开面具的唯一方法”。一方面，他们不愿意公开承认对西方自由民主体系和现存秩序的认同，因为这将会夺去笼罩在他们头上的“激进”光环，使他们成为自己所批判的已然失去批判性的单向度社会之人；另一方面，如果对列宁主义和苏联社会主义表现出太多同情，则又会迫使他们违背其隐秘的真正立场——对替代性道路的放弃和对西方自由民主体系的臣服。

From this perspective, the forgetting, misreading, and stigmatization of Lenin ultimately serve capitalism. By portraying Lenin as a symbol of totalitarianism and excluding him from political discourse, they curb the revolutionary potential of Leninism to change the liberal democratic system, thereby completely eliminating people’s desire for an alternative path to capitalism, creating the illusion that the capitalist system is unchangeable and will last forever.

由此看来，对列宁的遗忘、误读和污名化最终服务于资本主义，即通过将列宁塑造为极权主义象征而将其从政治话语中排除出去，从而遏制列宁主义所具有的改变自由民主体制的革命潜能，进而彻底消除人们对代替资本主义的另一条道路的渴望，形成资本主义制度不可改变并将永世长存的假象。

It is precisely because Žižek has perceived the essence of this phenomenon and its potentially negative impact on the socialist movement in the 21st century that he repeatedly emphasizes in his various works the significance of Lenin for today’s world, reminding people not to forget Lenin, not to allow the misreading and stigmatization of Lenin to go unchecked, but to “repeat Lenin” under the conditions of a new era, to let Lenin “reload.”

齐泽克正是洞察到了这一现象的本质及其对21世纪社会主义运动可能造成的消极影响，因而在不同的著作里反复强调列宁之于当今世界的重要意义，提醒人们不要遗忘列宁，不要放任对列宁的误读和污名化，而要在新的时代背景下“重复列宁”，让列宁“重装上阵”。

II. Žižek’s Defense and Vindication of Leninism

二、齐泽克对列宁主义的辩护和正名

Faced with the capitalist ideological misreading and stigmatization of Lenin, Žižek has long spared no effort in using different theoretical resources to reinterpret Lenin’s thought, reaffirm Lenin’s historical achievements, defend and vindicate Leninism, and highlight the contemporary significance of Lenin’s ideas. Many of his works take Lenin as their theme, such as *Repeating Lenin* (2001), *Revolution at the Gates* (2002), *Lenin Reloaded: Toward a Politics of Truth* (2007), and *Lenin 2017: Remembering, Repeating and Working Through* (2017), which commemorates the centenary of the October Revolution. In these works, Žižek republishes Lenin’s texts while also writing substantial prefaces and afterwords for them, attempting through this form to bring Lenin and his thought back into people’s field of vision. He hopes that by reinterpreting Leninism, he can reactivate radical left-wing political discourse and explore the possibility of socialist revolution in the 21st century.

面对资本主义意识形态对列宁的误读和污名化，齐泽克长期以来不遗余力地借助不同的理论资源重新阐释列宁思想，重申列宁的历史功绩，为列宁主义辩护和正名，彰显列宁思想的当代意义。他的许多著作都是以列宁为主题，如《重复列宁》（Repeating Lenin，2001）、《一触即发的革命》（Revolution at the Gates，2002）、《列宁重装上阵：走向真理的政治》（Lenin Reloaded: Toward a Politics of Truth，2007）和纪念十月革命100周年的《列宁2017：回忆、重复与修通》（Lenin 2017: Remembering, Repeating and Working Through，2017）等。在这些著作中，齐泽克将列宁相关的文稿重新出版的同时也为之撰写了内容丰富的前言与后记，试图通过这种形式将列宁及其思想重新带入人们的视野。他希望通过对列宁主义的重新解读来激活左翼激进政治话语，探索21世纪社会主义革命的可能性。

(1) Leninism Does Not Necessarily Lead to Stalinism; the Emancipatory Significance of the October Revolution Cannot Be Erased

（一）列宁主义并不必然导向斯大林主义，十月革命的解放意义不容抹杀

In response to the erroneous views that attribute the rise of Stalinism to Lenin and that blame the original sin of the Soviet Union’s collapse on the October Revolution, Žižek has provided theoretical rebuttals respectively. Responding to these two views forces us to consider the following question: Why did the path of liberation opened by Lenin’s October Revolution lead to Stalinism and ultimately to the disintegration of the Soviet Union? Reflecting on this question leads us to ask further: Is there a necessary connection between the rise of Stalinism and Lenin? Must Lenin bear responsibility for the rise of Stalinism and its consequences? Žižek gives a negative answer to this, because he sees through the theoretical intention of deeply binding Lenin with Stalin in order to negate Leninism and the historical significance of the October Revolution.

针对将斯大林主义的兴起归咎于列宁，以及将苏联解体的原罪归咎于十月革命的错误观点，齐泽克分别给予了理论上的回应。对以上两种观点的回应迫使我们不得不去思考如下问题：列宁领导的十月革命开启的解放之路为何会走向斯大林主义进而最终导致苏联解体？针对这一问题的思考引导我们进一步追问：斯大林主义的兴起与列宁是否有必然联系？列宁是否需要为斯大林主义的兴起及其造成的后果负责？齐泽克对此作出了否定回答，因为他看穿了通过把列宁与斯大林深度捆绑，进而否定列宁主义、否定十月革命的历史性意义的理论意图。

Žižek believes that there is no necessary connection between Lenin and Stalinism; the two represent completely different and incompatible theoretical systems and practical lines. Žižek introduces the so-called “eternal left-wing question”—if Lenin had not died of illness and had prevented Stalin from coming to power, what would have been different? Nothing would have been different; the Soviet Union would still have gone toward autocracy, totalitarianism, and destruction. This is the clear answer given by those who blame the original sin of the Soviet Union’s collapse on the October Revolution. Žižek argues that the answer to this question is not as clear as it appears on the surface and requires further analysis and sorting. He gives his own answer to this question: “Although it is clear how Stalinism emerged from the initial conditions of the October Revolution and its immediate aftermath, one should not exclude in advance the possibility that, if Lenin had remained healthy and removed Stalin, something different might have emerged.” In Žižek’s view, Lenin’s advocated more pragmatic economic policies and more inclusive nationality policies were clearly at odds with Stalin’s theory of “socialism in one country”; “they implied a vision of the state and society completely incompatible with Stalin.” Even in the last moments of his life, Lenin remained concerned about the fate of the Soviet Union, leaving a “political testament”—in the articles and letters he dictated while ill, he analyzed the problems existing in the Party and the state, sharply criticized Stalin’s personal rude conduct, expressed deep concern about the possible split within the Party after Stalin took power, and suggested removing Stalin from the post of General Secretary. However, historical development did not go as Lenin had hoped. After Lenin’s death, Stalin took control of military and political power, leading the Soviet Union down a path completely different from what Lenin had envisioned.

齐泽克认为，列宁和斯大林主义不存在必然联系，两者代表的是完全不同、不能兼容的理论体系和实践路线。齐泽克引入所谓的“永恒的左翼问题”——如果列宁没有病逝并且阻止了斯大林的上台会发生什么？没有什么不同，苏联依然会走向专制、极权和毁灭，这是那些将苏联解体的原罪归咎于十月革命的人们给出的明确回答。齐泽克认为这个问题的答案并没有表面上看起来那么清晰，需要进行进一步分析与梳理。他对这一问题给出了自己的回答：“尽管斯大林主义是如何从十月革命及其直接后果的初期条件中产生的是清楚的，但人们不应该事先排除这样一种可能性：如果列宁保持健康并罢黜了斯大林，那么可能会出现一些不同的东西。”在齐泽克看来，列宁主张的更加务实的经济政策和更加包容的民族政策与斯大林主张的“一国社会主义”理论存在明显分歧，“它们暗示了与斯大林完全不兼容的国家和社会愿景”。列宁即使在生命的最后时刻依然关注苏联的命运，留下了“政治遗嘱”——他在患病期间口述的文章和信件中，分析了党和国家存在的问题，严厉批评了斯大林个人的粗暴品行，表达了对斯大林掌权后可能导致的党内分裂的深深忧虑，并建议将斯大林调离总书记职位。然而历史的发展未能如列宁所愿，列宁病逝后，斯大林执掌军政大权，带领苏联走向了一条与列宁设想中完全不同的道路。

How should the October Revolution be evaluated? This concerns not only how to evaluate Lenin’s historical contribution to the development of Marxism, but also the question of the proletarian revolutionary path in backward Eastern societies. Faced with the misreading and distortion of the October Revolution by neoliberal thinkers, Žižek, in the 21st century where revolutionary discourse has retreated, repeatedly reaffirms the historical significance of the October Revolution. In his view, the significance of the October Revolution is in no way inferior to that of the French Revolution; however, the former’s significance has been buried in the dust of history with the collapse of the Soviet Union. To respond to the misreading and distortion of the October Revolution and to highlight its groundbreaking emancipatory significance, Žižek believes that left-wing thinkers’ discussion of the October Revolution should also emulate Hegel—elucidating the important significance of the French Revolution from a philosophical height.

如何评价十月革命？这不仅关涉如何评价列宁对发展马克思主义的历史贡献，也关涉落后的东方社会的无产阶级革命道路问题。面对新自由主义思想家对十月革命的误读和曲解，齐泽克在革命话语隐退的21世纪不断重申十月革命的历史意义。在他看来，十月革命的重要意义丝毫不亚于法国大革命，然而前者的重要意义随着苏联的解体被湮没在历史尘埃中。为了回应对十月革命的误读和曲解，彰显其开创性的解放意义，齐泽克认为左翼思想家对十月革命的探讨也应该效仿黑格尔——从哲学高度阐发法国大革命具有的重要意义。

Hegel believed that the French Revolution was the product of philosophy as “world wisdom,” the vivid expression in the secular world of pure essence and the sole truth. In Hegel’s view, the French Revolution not only changed the historical trajectory of France, tolling the death knell of its chaotic and backward old system, but also brought the brilliant dawn of a new epoch in human history. Therefore, he did not stint in his praise of the French Revolution: “Since the sun stood in the firmament and the planets circled around it, men had never seen that man places himself on his head, on his ‘thought,’ and builds reality according to thought… But up to now, man had only come to recognize this principle, knowing that ‘thought’ should rule spiritual reality. Hence it was a glorious dawn. All thinking beings shared in the jubilation of this epoch. A sublime emotion stirred the hearts of men at that time; a spiritual enthusiasm thrilled the whole world, as if the reconciliation of the divine and the ‘world’ had now been accomplished for the first time.” [10]10 G.W.F. Hegel, *The Philosophy of History*, trans. J. Sibree (New York: Dover Publications, 1956), p. 447. The translation has been slightly adjusted to match the Chinese text’s rendering. In Hegel’s view, a revolution truly capable of advancing the historical process possesses not only the destructive power to demolish old things, but more importantly, the creative power to produce new things. If it merely uses violent means to achieve regime change and replacement, without essentially forming new institutions and systems, then there can be no historical development. He believed that the French Revolution was fundamentally different from previous revolutions: while destroying the old system of France, it allowed sublime emotions and spiritual enthusiasm to thrill the entire world, driving the reconciliation of God and the human world toward reality, and thus humanity welcomed a spiritual dawn of world-historical significance.

黑格尔认为，法国大革命是作为“世界智慧”的哲学的产物，是纯粹的本质而且是唯一的真理在世俗世界的生动表现。在黑格尔看来，法国大革命不仅改变了法国的历史走向，敲响了法国当时混乱、落后的旧制度丧钟，也带来了人类历史新纪元的璀璨曙光。因此，他毫不吝惜对法国大革命的赞美：“自从太阳站在天空，星辰围绕着它，大家从来没有看见，人类把自己放在他的头脑、放在他的‘思想’上面，而且依照思想，建筑现实……但是直到现在，人类才进而认识到这个原则，知道‘思想’应该统治精神的现实。所以这是一个光辉灿烂的黎明，一切有思想的存在，都分享到了这个新纪元的欢欣。一种性质崇高的情绪激动着当时的人心；一种精神的热诚震撼着整个的世界，仿佛神圣的东西和‘世界’的调和现在首次完成了。”在黑格尔看来，真正能够推动历史进程的革命不仅具有摧毁旧事物的破坏性力量，更重要的是还具有产生新事物的创造性力量。如果只是用暴力手段实现政权更迭和替代，而本质上并没有形成新的制度和体系，那么就无历史发展可言。他认为，法国大革命与以往的革命具有本质区别，它在摧毁法国旧制度的同时，让崇高的情绪和精神的热诚震撼着整个世界，推动神与人类世界走向现实和解，人类由此迎来具有世界历史意义的精神黎明。

Žižek believes that, just as Hegel evaluated the French Revolution, the evaluation of the October Revolution should also be elevated to the level of all humanity and world history. Žižek agrees with Alain Badiou’s assessment of the October Revolution, viewing it as a precedent in human history where exploited and impoverished people successfully resisted oppression. After the revolution’s success, people established new standards and created a new social order: “A new world was created and miraculously survived for decades, despite unimaginable economic and military pressure and isolation. This was truly a ‘glorious dawn of the spirit,’ in which all thinking beings shared the joy of this era.” The success of the October Revolution gave hope to people living under exploitation and oppression, inspiring them to unite and rely on their own strength to overturn the unreasonable and unjust old world order, and on this basis to create an unprecedented new world according to their will. In this sense, the October Revolution belongs to the category of “Event” in Žižek’s philosophy of the event. For Žižek, an event refers to “something new that occurs in an unexpected way, whose appearance disrupts any existing stable structure.” The October Revolution wrote a new chapter in the socialist cause, leaving a significant mark on the evolution of human civilization. “The October Revolution was undoubtedly a true political event in human history. It not only interrupted the naturalized historical process of capitalism but also opened up a new model of social development beyond capitalism—socialism.”

齐泽克认为，正如黑格尔评价法国大革命那样，对于十月革命的评价也应该上升到全人类和世界历史的高度。齐泽克赞同阿兰·巴迪欧对十月革命的评价，认为这是人类历史上被剥削的穷困人民成功反抗压迫的先例，革命成功之后人们制定新的标准、创造了新的社会秩序，“一个新世界被创造出来，并在数十年间神奇地存活下来，尽管受到了难以想象的经济和军事压力以及孤立。这实际上是‘辉煌的心灵黎明’，所有有思想的生物都分享了这个时代的欢愉”。十月革命的成功让身处剥削压迫中的人们看到了希望，鼓舞他们团结起来依靠自身力量颠覆不合理、不公正的旧世界秩序，在此基础上按照他们的意愿创造出一个前所未有的新世界。从这个意义上来说，十月革命属于齐泽克事件哲学意义上的“事件”。在齐泽克那里，所谓事件指“某种以出人意料的方式发生的新东西，它的出现会破坏任何既有的稳定结构”。十月革命书写了社会主义事业的崭新篇章，在人类文明演进过程中留下浓墨重彩的一笔。“十月革命无疑是人类历史上一次真正的政治事件，它不仅阻断了资本主义自然化的历史进程，而且开辟了资本主义之外的新的社会发展模式——社会主义。”

(II) Lenin Opened the Path of Proletarian Revolution in a Desperate Historical Situation

（二）列宁在绝望的历史情境中开辟了无产阶级革命道路

How to carry out a proletarian revolution in a backward Eastern society? Marx and Engels left little theory that could be directly used to guide reality in this regard. In their original conception, the most advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe were most likely to first experience a proletarian revolution, because these countries possessed the necessary condition for revolution—a large contingent of proletarian workers. Marx and Engels placed great hope in this revolutionary subject, believing that only they could lead the proletarian revolution, pushing the revolutionary wave to other parts of the world, including Eastern societies, thereby opening up a new world history. The reason for this is that Marx’s analysis of the historical fate of capitalism was based on advanced capitalist countries such as Britain and France in Western Europe. Therefore, Marx opposed turning “my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general path of development prescribed by fate to all nations, whatever the historical circumstances in which they find themselves,” and believed that in the process where “the Russians are seeking for their fatherland a path of development different from that which Western Europe has taken and is still taking,” his theory derived from the study of Western European capitalist countries had no direct reference value, and blindly copying and applying his theory would only plunge Russia into developmental difficulties. He pointed out: “If Russia wants to become a capitalist nation after the example of the West European countries… once it falls into the embrace of the capitalist system, it will suffer the same iron laws that rule other mortal nations.” [11]11 Karl Marx, “Letter to the Editorial Board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski*” (November 1877), in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 24 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989), pp. 199-200. In short, Marx believed that Russia had social and historical conditions completely different from those of Western European capitalist countries, and it must start from its own special national conditions to find a revolutionary path to socialism and communism suitable for itself, different from that of Western European capitalist countries. This historical task fell upon the Russian proletarian theorists and revolutionaries represented by Lenin.

如何在落后的东方社会开展无产阶级革命？马克思、恩格斯在这方面都没有留下太多可以用来指导现实的理论。在他们最初的设想中，西欧先进的资本主义国家最有可能先爆发无产阶级革命，因为这些国家具备革命的必要条件——庞大的无产阶级工人队伍。马克思、恩格斯对于这一革命主体寄予厚望，认为只有他们才能领导无产阶级革命，将革命浪潮推向包括东方社会在内的世界其他地区，从而开辟出新的世界历史。之所以如此，是因为马克思对资本主义历史命运的分析立足于英国、法国等西欧先进资本主义国家。因此，马克思反对把他“关于西欧资本主义起源的历史概述彻底变成一般发展道路的历史哲学理论，一切民族，不管它们所处的历史环境如何，都注定要走这条道路”，并认为在“俄国人为他们的祖国寻找一条不同于西欧已经走过而且正在走着的发展道路”的过程中，自己基于西欧资本主义国家的研究而得出的理论不具有直接的参考意义，盲目照搬和应用他的理论只会让俄国陷入发展的困境。他指出：“假如俄国想要遵照西欧各国的先例成为一个资本主义国家……而它一旦倒进资本主义制度的怀抱，它就会和尘世间的其他民族一样地受那些铁面无情的规律的支配。”简而言之，马克思认为俄国有着与西欧资本主义国家截然不同的社会历史条件，它必须从自身特殊国情出发寻找到适合自身的、不同于西欧资本主义国家的通往社会主义和共产主义的革命道路。这一历史重任落到了以列宁为代表的俄国无产阶级理论家和革命家身上。

Internally, Russia’s special social and historical conditions imposed a more arduous revolutionary mission on Lenin; externally, the international situation facing Russia plunged the cause of proletarian revolution into a historical dead end. The First World War, essentially an unjust war launched by advanced capitalist countries that had reached the stage of imperialism to compete for international markets and divert domestic political crises, was beautified by the bourgeois governments of various countries as a just war to defend national freedom and national culture and liberate oppressed peoples. Almost all social democratic parties in Europe (except the Russian Bolsheviks and the Serbian Social Democratic Party) failed to recognize the true nature of this war and instead chose the so-called “patriotic line,” i.e., voting in support of their own bourgeois government’s war bills. In this special period, patriotic fervor based on nationalism overwhelmed the revolutionary vision of the proletariat. As Žižek put it: “In an era when a military conflict divided the European continent in two, how difficult it was to refuse to take sides, to refuse one’s own country’s ‘patriotic fervor’! How many great thinkers (including Freud) succumbed to the temptation of nationalism, even if only for a few weeks!” The intense patriotic fervor ignited by the war swept across almost all of Europe. The life-and-death struggle of nations and states brought the two sides that had been in fierce class confrontation to shake hands and unite against external enemies, and the cause of proletarian revolution was forgotten by people. The German Social Democratic Party, which took the lead in supporting its own bourgeois government, “completely betrayed the internationalist stance and principles of the proletariat, turned to great-power chauvinism, and colluded with its own imperialist bourgeois government. This marked the ideological and political bankruptcy of the first socialist party, the German Social Democratic Party.” [12]12 This refers to the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), the oldest socialist party in Europe, which voted in favor of war credits in the Reichstag in August 1914, abandoning its pre-war anti-war stance. As the social democratic parties of the major European countries turned to support their own bourgeois governments, the Second International existed in name only. The global disaster brought by this war plunged the cause of proletarian revolution at that time into an unprecedented dead end. “The shock of 1914 was a catastrophe, a catastrophe in which an entire world disappeared: not only the idyllic bourgeois faith in progress, but also the accompanying socialist movement.”

从内部来看，俄国特殊的社会历史条件赋予列宁更为艰巨的革命使命；从外部来看，俄国所面临的国际局势使无产阶级革命事业一度陷入历史绝境之中。第一次世界大战这场本质上是发展到了帝国主义阶段的先进资本主义国家为了争夺国际市场、转移国内政治危机而发动的不义之战，却被各国资产阶级政府美化为保卫国家自由和民族文化、解放被压迫人民的正义之战。欧洲几乎所有国家的社会民主党（除了俄国布尔什维克和塞尔维亚社会民主党）都未能认清这场战争的实质，纷纷选择了所谓的“爱国路线”，即投票支持本国资产阶级政府的战争法案。在这个特殊时期，基于民族主义的爱国热情压倒了无产阶级的革命愿景，如齐泽克所言：“在一个军事冲突将欧洲大陆一分为二的时代，拒绝站队的观念，拒绝本国的‘爱国热情’是多么困难！多少伟大的思想家（包括弗洛伊德）屈服于民族主义的诱惑，哪怕只有几个星期！”由战争激发的强烈爱国热情几乎席卷了整个欧洲，民族和国家的生死存亡使曾经处于激烈阶级对抗的双方握手言和，一致对外，无产阶级革命事业被人们抛诸脑后。带头支持本国资产阶级政府的德国社会民主党“完全背弃了无产阶级国际主义立场和原则，转向大国沙文主义，与本国帝国主义资产阶级政府同流合污。这标志着第一个社会主义政党德国社会民主党在思想上政治上的破产”。随着欧洲主要国家的社会民主党转向支持本国资产阶级政府，第二国际名存实亡，这场战争带来的世界灾难使当时的无产阶级革命事业陷入前所未有的绝境之中。“1914年的冲击是一场灾难，是一场整个世界都消失了的灾难：不仅是对进步的布尔乔亚田园牧歌般的信仰，还有伴随着的社会主义运动。”

One can imagine how desperate the proletarian theorists and revolutionaries of that historical situation must have felt. Yet Lenin did not sink into despair; instead, he actively took action to unite the forces of the proletarian revolution and defend the cause of the proletarian revolution. On the one hand, Lenin exposed the true nature of this imperialist war to the broad masses of Russia through multiple channels, clarified the position and immediate tasks of the Russian Social Democratic Party, and put forward the view that “the more the class-conscious proletariat must, without delay, take upon itself the responsibility of upholding its class solidarity, defending its internationalism, and adhering to its socialist convictions against the rampant chauvinism of the ‘patriotic’ bourgeois cliques of all countries” [13]13 V. I. Lenin, “The Tasks of the Revolutionary Social-Democracy in the European War,” *Lenin Collected Works*, Vol. 21 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 16.; on the other hand, he delved into Hegel’s *Science of Logic*, seeking a theoretical way out of the impasse through the study of dialectics. Žižek argues: “This catastrophe opened the way to break with the historical evolutionism of the Second International—and Lenin was the only one who opened this way, the only one capable of articulating the truth of this catastrophe.”

可以想象，置身于当时历史情境中的无产阶级理论家和革命家们有多么绝望。然而，列宁并没有陷入绝望，而是积极采取行动团结无产阶级革命力量、捍卫无产阶级革命事业。一方面，列宁通过多种途径向俄国广大群众揭露这场帝国主义战争的本质，阐明俄国社会民主党的立场和阶段性任务，提出“觉悟的无产阶级就愈是要刻不容缓地负起责任，维护自己的阶级团结，捍卫自己的国际主义，坚持自己的社会主义信念，反对各国‘爱国主义的’资产阶级集团的猖獗的沙文主义”；另一方面，他钻研黑格尔《逻辑学》，试图通过对辩证法的研究来为破解困局寻找理论上的出路。齐泽克认为：“这场灾难，为打破第二国际的历史进化主义开辟了道路——而列宁是唯一开辟这一道路的人，是唯一能够阐明这场灾难的真理的人。”

Through his analysis of the Russian rural commune, Marx elaborated on the possibility that Russia’s unique historical conditions could, with the aid of revolutionary force, transform its backward developmental disadvantages into an advantage for a leap in social formation. He held: “If revolution comes at the opportune moment, if it concentrates all its forces to ensure the free development of the rural commune, then the rural commune will soon become an element of Russia’s social regeneration, an element superior to those countries still enslaved under the capitalist system.” This unique analytical perspective embodies the profundity and subtlety of Marxist dialectics. Žižek argues that when the shock of the First World War plunged the proletarian revolution of the time into an unprecedented historical impasse, Lenin, through his grasp of dialectics, reopened a new path for the proletarian revolution from within that impasse. In Žižek’s view, “Lenin insisted that ‘the complete hopelessness of the situation’ provided ‘the opportunity to create the basic requirements of civilization in a way different from that of Western European countries.’ What he proposes here is an effective theory of ‘alternative history’: under the ‘premature’ domination of future forces, the same ‘necessary’ historical process (the process of modern civilization) can be re-enacted in a different way.” The hopeless historical situation enabled Lenin to see that Russia could enter socialism in a way different from the capitalist countries of Western Europe. “Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement.” In the end, Lenin led the October Revolution to victory, turning Marx’s theoretical conception of Russia’s entry into socialism into reality.

马克思通过对俄国农村公社的分析，阐述了俄国独特的历史条件可以借助革命的力量将自身落后的发展劣势转变为社会形态跃迁优势的可能性。他认为：“如果革命在适当的时刻发生，如果它能把自己的一切力量集中起来以保证农村公社的自由发展，那么，农村公社就会很快地变为俄国社会新生的因素，变为优于其他还处在资本主义制度奴役下的国家的因素。”这一独特的分析视角体现了马克思主义辩证法的深邃和奥妙。齐泽克认为，在第一次世界大战造成的冲击使当时的无产阶级革命陷入前所未有的历史绝境时，列宁通过对辩证法的领悟在绝境中重新开辟出无产阶级革命新道路。在齐泽克看来，“列宁坚持认为‘情势的完全绝望性’提供了‘以不同于西欧国家的方式创造文明的基本要求’的机会。他在这里提出的是一个有效的‘另类历史’理论：在未来力量的‘过早’支配下，相同的‘必要’的历史进程（现代文明的进程）可以以不同的方式重新进行。”绝望的历史情境使列宁洞见了俄国可以采取不同于西欧资本主义国家的方式进入社会主义。“没有革命的理论，就不会有革命的运动。”最终，列宁领导十月革命取得胜利，将马克思关于俄国进入社会主义的理论构想变成了现实。

III. The 21st Century Still Needs Lenin

三、21世纪依然需要列宁

In the 21st century, when the capitalist social formation is constantly renewing and evolving while gradually establishing a global system of domination, and socialism is emerging from its low ebb to show vitality and promise, is it still necessary to pay attention to Lenin and study Lenin? More and more Western thinkers and theorists are giving an affirmative answer to this question. Alex Callinicos argues that Lenin’s theory and practice reveal the essence of political action and are of great significance for analyzing contemporary capitalism from a strategic perspective, as well as for the political mobilization and organization of the proletariat. Antonio Negri holds that in the new “Empire” era, where immaterial labor has become the dominant mode of capitalist production, Lenin’s political thought is crucial for the formation of the contemporary revolutionary subject of the proletariat—the biopolitical subject. Some Western scholars also suggest that Lenin, as a politician, philosopher, and revolutionary, symbolizes resistance to injustice and oppression and the pursuit of a fair and just world; he is himself like a time machine, traversing time and space in different guises to the present. Lenin not only lived in the past but also belongs to the future. At the beginning of his book *Lenin Reloaded: Toward a Politics of Truth*, Žižek gives a clear affirmative answer to this question: “In an era when no one seriously considers possible alternatives to capitalism, the name of Lenin has an urgent necessity for us today.” In his view, Lenin’s theoretical thought is indispensable for breaking the illusion of capitalist domination and exploring alternatives to capitalism; the 21st century still needs Lenin, and to some extent, it can even be said that Lenin is our contemporary.

在资本主义社会形态不断更新演进并逐渐建立起全球统治格局、社会主义走出低潮展现生机与活力的21世纪，是否还有必要关注列宁、研究列宁？对于这个问题，越来越多的西方思想家和理论家给出了肯定的回答。亚历克斯·卡利尼科斯认为，列宁的理论和实践揭示了政治行动的本质，对于从战略层面分析当代资本主义、无产阶级的政治动员和组织等具有重要意义。安东尼奥·奈格里认为，在非物质劳动生产成为资本主义主要生产方式的新“帝国”时代，列宁的政治思想对于当代的无产阶级革命主体——生命政治主体（biopotitical subject）的形成至关重要。还有西方学者提出，作为政治家、哲学家和革命家的列宁象征着对不公和压迫的反抗以及对公平正义世界的追求，他本身如同一部时间机器，以不同的形象穿越时空来到当下。列宁不仅活在过去，也属于未来。齐泽克在《列宁重装上阵：迈向真理的政治》一书的开篇就对这一问题给出了明确的肯定回答：“在一个不再有人会认真思考可能的资本主义替代方案的时代，列宁的名字对现在的我们有紧迫的必要性。”在他看来，列宁的思想理论对于打破资本主义统治幻象，探索替代资本主义道路不可或缺，21世纪依然需要列宁，某种程度上甚至可以说，列宁是我们的同时代人。

Žižek argues that the 21st century bears a certain resemblance to Lenin’s era, in that both are periods of turbulent transformation and change, where the possibility of revolution exists at any moment. In the early 20th century of Lenin’s time, capitalism had developed to the stage of imperialism, triggering a world war over colonies and world markets. On the basis of the February Revolution in Russia, which overthrew the feudal rule of the tsar, Lenin led the October Revolution to successfully overthrow the bourgeois provisional government and establish the world’s first socialist state led by the proletariat. Similarly, in the 21st century today, capitalism is constantly evolving, giving rise to new forms such as digital capitalism, platform capitalism, surveillance capitalism, and emotional capitalism. While promoting the development of productive forces, these forms have also caused a variety of far-reaching crises, such as intensified regional conflicts, the looming ecological crisis, the rise of populism, and the omnipresence of digital surveillance and manipulation. These phenomena have awakened people from the illusion of the “end of history,” prompting them to re-question the nature and fate of capitalism, and the term “capitalism” has returned to political and academic discourse. In practice, both the left and the right have begun to take action; spontaneous mass protests and political chaos in Western countries have emerged one after another, such as the 2008 “Occupy Wall Street” movement in the United States and the 2021 “Capitol Hill riot.” All signs indicate: “We are witnessing the end of what Badiou, in *The Rebirth of History*, calls the ‘interval times’ (retrieval times), when revolutionary energy lay dormant—the lava river flowing invisibly underground… The old world is still trying to maintain itself, but it is increasingly clear that, for good or ill, the post-political consciousness and political apathy of the post-Cold War era have come to an end.” In our terms, the current era is undergoing changes unseen in a century. In Žižek’s view, the crises and disasters caused by contemporary capitalism also create conditions for the left to reopen a revolutionary path; the left must clarify its own task—“repeat Lenin.” What does “repeating Lenin” mean? Žižek argues that “repeating Lenin” does not mean returning to Lenin; rather, it means we must accept the fact that “Lenin is dead,” and that the specific theories and programs Lenin proposed based on the historical context of his time are no longer fully applicable to the present—that is, we must distinguish between Lenin’s actual actions and the theoretical potential contained in Lenin’s thought. He points out: “There is more in Lenin than Lenin himself. Repeating Lenin is not repeating what Lenin did, but repeating what he did not do, repeating the opportunities he missed.” In short, “repeating Lenin” means learning from and paying tribute to Lenin’s courage and wisdom in opening up a revolutionary path in desperate circumstances, making the impossible possible.

齐泽克认为，21世纪与列宁所处的时代具有一定程度的相似性，即都处于动荡不安的变革转换阶段，随时存在爆发革命的可能性。列宁所处的20世纪初期，资本主义已经发展到帝国主义阶段，为了争夺殖民地和世界市场引发了世界大战。列宁在俄国二月革命推翻沙俄封建统治的基础上，领导十月革命成功推翻了资产阶级的临时政府，建立了世界上第一个无产阶级领导的社会主义国家。同样，在21世纪的今天，资本主义不断演化，出现了数字资本主义、平台资本主义、监控资本主义、情感资本主义等新的存在形态，在推动生产力发展的同时也造成了多种影响深远的危机，如地区冲突加剧、生态危机迫近、民粹主义兴起、数字监控和操控无孔不入等，使人们从“历史终结”的假象中醒悟过来，开始重新追问资本主义的本质及其命运，“资本主义”一词重新回归政治和学术视野。在实践方面，不论是左翼还是右翼都开始采取行动，西方国家群众自发的反抗运动和政治乱象层出不穷、此起彼伏，如美国2008年的“占领华尔街运动”和2021年的“国会山骚乱”等。种种迹象表明：“我们正在见证巴迪欧在《历史的重生》里所说的‘间隔时代（retrieval times）’的终结，在间隔时代革命能量处于休眠状态——熔岩河在看不见的地下流动……旧世界依然在尽力维持自身，但是愈发清晰的是，不论好坏，后冷战时代的后政治意识和政治冷漠已经终结。”用我们的话来说，当前时代正处于百年未有之大变局。在齐泽克看来，当代资本主义造成的危机与灾难也为左翼重新开辟革命道路创造了条件，左翼必须明确自身的任务——“重复列宁”。何为“重复列宁”？齐泽克认为，“重复列宁”不意味着回到列宁，而是意味着我们必须接受“列宁已死”的事实，同时列宁基于当时历史背景提出的具体理论和方案已经不完全适用于当下，即必须区分列宁的实际行动与列宁思想中蕴含的理论潜能。他指出：“列宁身上的东西比列宁本人更多。重复列宁并不是重复列宁做过的事情，而是重复他没有做到的事情，重复他错失的机会。”简而言之，“重复列宁”就是学习和致敬列宁在绝境中开辟革命道路的勇气和智慧，让不可能成为可能。

In Žižek’s view, only Lenin’s thought can restore the radical political character of Marxism in contemporary Western society, thereby unleashing the revolutionary power of Marxism to change an irrational status quo. He argues that Marxism in contemporary capitalist society has been co-opted and tamed, falling into rigidity and dogmatism, “becoming merely an object of academic study and official political discourse, while losing its revolutionary and practical attributes.” The important reason for this situation is that the tradition of proletarian revolution inherited and developed by Lenin has been labeled as violent and totalitarian, and thus completely excluded from the agenda of liberal democratic politics. All the left can do is to engage in limited critique and resistance within the fields and issues permitted by the capitalist system and procedures, such as ecological crises, feminism, the gap between rich and poor, and the fragmentation of daily life. “In short, it means you can say and do whatever you like, as long as your actions do not constitute a challenge or questioning of the mainstream political ideology. Therefore, anything that can serve as a theme for critique is tacitly permitted or even encouraged.”

在齐泽克看来，只有列宁的思想才能恢复当代西方社会中马克思主义的激进政治属性，进而发挥马克思主义所具有的改变不合理现状的革命力量。他认为，当代资本主义社会中的马克思主义已经被收买和驯服，陷入了僵化和教条，“仅仅成了学术研究对象和官方政治话语，而失去了革命和实践属性”。造成这种局面的重要原因在于由列宁所继承和发展的无产阶级革命传统被打上了暴力、极权的标签，从而被完全排除在自由民主政治议程之外。左翼能做的就是在资本主义制度和程序所许可的领域和议题内进行有限的批判和反抗，如生态危机、女权主义、贫富差距和日常生活碎片化等。“简而言之就是说，你可以在你的行为并不构成对主流政治意识形态质疑或挑战的前提下随便说随便做。因此，任何可以作为批判主题的东西都被默许甚至鼓励。”

At the same time, when people try to go beyond the given scope and issues to reflect on and question the capitalist system and further seek alternative solutions, the situation becomes different. “As soon as someone attempts to make a political plan that challenges the existing order, they immediately get the response: ‘For goodness’ sake, this will be a new Gulag Archipelago!’” Defenders of liberal democracy will denounce this as an “untimely” ideological stance, violating so-called scientific objectivity. In short, in Žižek’s view, this is an unspoken but universally known fundamental “thought control,” whose purpose is to curb any thought and action that might threaten and shake the legitimacy of capitalist rule, thereby maintaining the capitalist ruling order. Even though they know that the existing liberal democratic system has many ills that are too deep-seated to remedy, “the conventional liberal rogue can gain hypocritical satisfaction from maintaining the existing order: they know there is corruption, exploitation, etc., but they accuse any attempt to change the status quo of being ethically dangerous, unacceptable, and a revival of the specter of totalitarianism.” Will Marxists in current Western society turn a blind eye to this self-deceiving trick? In Žižek’s view, the various forms of Marxism that have emerged today, such as cultural Marxism and post-Marxism, because they are built on the foundation of postmodern political thought and have abandoned the line of proletarian revolutionary action, share a common feature: they deny political rationality. In a word, current post-Marxism has already abandoned the core of Marxist political liberation, dispersing and losing itself in the minutiae of social fields such as culture, gender, and identity, making it difficult to touch the existing capitalist ruling order as a whole. Hence, Žižek constantly calls for attention to Lenin and his thought, to “reinstall Lenin” under the conditions of a new era, and to rediscover the momentum for revolution. He points out: “Lenin here represents a convincing freedom to suspend the existing stale ideological coordinates, and a weakening of the thought control in our lives. This simply means being allowed to start thinking and acting again.” For Žižek, Lenin is no longer an outdated symbol and image accompanying the failure of the 20th-century socialist movement; he embodies the posture of “reinventing revolution” in the 21st century.

与此同时，当人们试图越出给定范围和议题去反思和质疑资本主义制度并进一步寻求替代性方案时，情况就变得不一样了。“一旦有人尝试作出某种挑战现存秩序的政治性规划立刻就会得到回应：‘行行好吧，这将会是一个新的古拉格群岛！’”自由民主的捍卫者会斥责这是一种“不合时宜”的意识形态立场，违背了所谓的科学客观性。简而言之，在齐泽克看来，这是一种未曾言明但人所共知的根本性“思想控制”，其目的在于遏制任何可能威胁和撼动资本主义统治合法性的思想和行动，从而维护资本主义统治秩序，尽管他们知道现存自由民主制度存在诸多弊病，积重难返，然而“墨守成规的自由无赖可以在维护现有秩序时获得虚伪的满足：他们知道存在腐败、剥削等等，但是他们指责改变现状的企图具有伦理上的危险，是不可接受的，是极权主义幽灵的复活”。当前西方社会中的马克思主义者会对这种自欺欺人的把戏熟视无睹吗？在齐泽克看来，当前出现的诸如文化马克思主义、后马克思主义等形形色色的马克思主义，由于建立在后现代政治思想基础之上，放弃了无产阶级革命行动路线，因而具有一个共同点，即否认政治合理性。一言以蔽之，当前的后马克思主义已然放弃了马克思主义政治解放这一核心，分散和迷失在文化、性别、身份等社会领域的细枝末节，难以从整体上触动现存资本主义统治秩序。因而，齐泽克不断呼吁要重视列宁及其思想，在新的时代背景下“重装列宁”，重新寻找革命的动能。他指出：“列宁在这里代表了一种令人信服的自由，可以悬置现有的陈旧意识形态坐标，以及对我们生活中的思想控制的减弱。这仅仅意味着被允许开始思考和再次行动。”对齐泽克而言，列宁不再是一个伴随着20世纪社会主义运动失败的陈旧符号和形象，他体现的是在21世纪重新“发明革命”的姿态。

In summary, the misreading and stigmatization of Lenin are products of the operation of capitalist ideology, whose purpose is to curb the revolutionary potential inherent in Leninism, thereby maintaining the capitalist ruling order. Western radical leftist thinkers represented by Žižek attempt to defend and rehabilitate Lenin by theoretically severing the necessary connection between Leninism and Stalinism, reaffirming the historical significance of the October Revolution, and highlighting Lenin’s outstanding historical contribution in opening up the path of proletarian revolution in a historical impasse, thereby issuing the call of the times: “The 21st century still needs Lenin.”

综上，列宁被误读和污名化是资本主义意识形态运作的产物，其目的在于遏制列宁主义所具有的革命潜能，从而维护资本主义统治秩序。以齐泽克为代表的西方激进左翼思想家们试图通过从理论上切断列宁主义与斯大林主义之间的必然联系、重申十月革命的历史意义、突出列宁在历史绝境中开辟无产阶级革命道路的卓越历史贡献来为列宁辩护和正名，发出“21世纪依然需要列宁”的时代呼声。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

How to scientifically evaluate Lenin’s historical status and his intellectual legacy, and to critically inherit and innovate under the conditions of the New Era, is an important topic that needs in-depth exploration for the development of 21st-century world Marxism. Leninism, to some extent, represents the Eastern societal version of Marxism. For Western Marxism, Lenin has always been a theoretical reference point in its various stages of development, hovering like a specter over the intellectual firmament of Western Marxists. In the early developmental stage of Western Marxism, the critique of Lenin’s dialectics, based on material ontology and the theory of reflection, was the theoretical theme, aimed at restoring the subjective dimension of the dialectic to awaken the class consciousness of the proletariat in Western society. However, in the 21st century today, Western radical leftists, as the contemporary inheritors of Western Marxism, have once again turned their attention to Lenin, which to some extent reflects the predicament faced by the Western left.

如何科学评价列宁的历史地位及其思想遗产，并在新时代条件下批判性继承与创新，是发展21世纪世界马克思主义需要深入探讨的重要课题。列宁主义在某种程度上代表的是马克思主义的东方社会版本，对于西方马克思主义而言，列宁一直是其各个发展阶段的理论参照，如幽灵般徘徊在西方马克思主义者的思想穹顶。在西方马克思主义的早期发展阶段，对于列宁建立在物质本体论和反映论基础上的辩证法的批判是理论主题，借以恢复辩证法的主体维度来唤醒西方社会无产阶级的阶级意识。然而，21世纪的今天，作为西方马克思主义的当代传承人的西方激进左翼再次将关注的目光转向列宁，这在某种程度上折射出西方左翼面临的困境。

Along with the improvement in material living conditions and the rise in social welfare levels, the living situation of the proletariat in capitalist society has greatly improved, their tolerance for the existing irrational system has increased, class contradictions have gradually eased, even evolving into a “class truce” and “class peace,” and the willingness and motivation to change the status quo through revolutionary action have fallen to a historical low. Although various spontaneous mass resistance movements in Western society have risen one after another, most have been fleeting, failing to form a sustained and profound influence. Žižek once came to the scene of the Occupy Wall Street movement wearing a T-shirt with Marx’s portrait and delivered an impassioned speech, calling on those involved not to turn the protest into a moral critique at the level of theory and discourse, but to transform their anger into positive action, thereby promoting political change and pursuing the possibility of another kind of life. However, as Žižek unfortunately predicted, the people involved later returned to their daily lives, failing to bring about positive political change. Through media packaging and propaganda, similar movements have instead become a manifestation of the so-called full freedom people enjoy under the capitalist system, used to beautify and maintain the existing system. For the Western left itself, its situation is equally worrying. Surrounded and attacked by capitalist ideology, many on the Western left have abandoned the political demand for radical change, turning instead to compromise with or even support for the current irrational system. For example, critical theory, once the most theoretically incisive, has been harmlessly transplanted into the field of cultural studies.

伴随着物质生活状况的好转和社会福利水平的提升，资本主义社会中无产阶级的生存处境大有改善，对现存不合理体制的容忍度提高，阶级矛盾逐步缓和，甚至逐渐演变为“阶级休战”与“阶级和平”，通过革命行动改变现状的意愿和动机降至历史低点。虽然西方社会中各种群众性自发反抗运动此起彼伏，但大部分都是昙花一现，未能形成持续深刻的影响力。齐泽克曾身穿印有马克思头像的T恤来到“占领华尔街运动”现场并发表了慷慨激昂的演讲，呼吁参与运动的人们不要把抗议变成理论和话语层面的道德批判，而应该将愤怒转化为积极行动，进而推动政治变革，去追寻另一种生活的可能性。然而，齐泽克不幸言中，参与运动的人们之后重新回归日常生活，未能带来积极的政治变革。类似的这些运动经过媒体的包装和宣传，反而成为资本主义体制下人们享有所谓的充分自由的体现，用来美化和维护现存体制。对于西方左翼自身而言，其处境同样堪忧。在资本主义意识形态的包围和攻击之下，不少西方左翼纷纷放弃了激进变革的政治诉求，转向对当前不合理制度的妥协甚至拥护，如曾经最具理论锋芒的批判理论也被无害化地移植到文化研究领域中。

The Western left, trapped in this predicament, pins its hopes on Leninism, attempting to resist the offensive of capitalist ideology through the defense, rehabilitation, and reinterpretation of Lenin and his thought, and to open up a new path for proletarian revolution under new historical conditions. Whether this will help improve the current predicament of the Western left and create a new situation for the Western socialist movement remains to be seen.

置身于困境中的西方左翼寄希望于列宁主义，试图通过对列宁及其思想的辩护、正名和重释来抵御资本主义意识形态的攻势，在新的历史背景下开辟无产阶级革命新道路。这是否有助于改善西方左翼当前困境，开创西方社会主义运动新局面，还有待于观察。

For the Western left, summoning Lenin’s thought to the scene in order to ignite revolutionary momentum is a forced choice born of their predicament. In fact, there is a more realistic and effective option: to pay attention to and recognize that socialism with Chinese characteristics, which inherits and develops Leninism, is leading and opening up a new situation in the development of world socialism; to expand their vision from Western society to the whole of human society; and to examine and grasp the future and destiny of 21st-century socialism from a broader perspective of world history. The theoretical biases inherent in the Western left themselves, together with the fact that Chinese Marxist theorists have yet to acquire an international discursive power in Marxist theoretical research commensurate with the practical achievements of socialism with Chinese characteristics, have led the Western left to neglect or even develop mistaken perceptions of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The October Revolution led by Lenin brought Marxism to 20th-century China and fundamentally altered the historical trajectory of modern China. It was precisely through critical study and borrowing from Soviet Marxism, whose main content was Leninism, that Chinese Marxists found the correct path for integrating Marxism with China’s national conditions. To a certain extent, the continuation of Marxism in China and the achievements of socialism with Chinese characteristics irrefutably prove the possibility and enormous advantages of the localization of Marxism in Eastern societies that Lenin initiated. If the Western left continues to ignore this fact, they will be unable to accurately and comprehensively grasp the development trend of world socialism in the 21st century, and their strategy of trying to activate the momentum of proletarian class struggle by “repeating Lenin” will degenerate into empty slogans and postures for lack of a solid foundation in social reality.

对于西方左翼来说，通过召唤列宁思想到场来激发革命动能是他们处于困境中的被迫选择，其实还有更为现实和有效的选择，即关注并且认识到继承和发展了列宁主义的中国特色社会主义正在引领和开创世界社会主义发展新局面，将视野从西方社会扩展至全人类社会，从更宽广的世界历史视野来审视和把握21世纪社会主义的前途命运。西方左翼自身存在的理论偏见，以及中国的马克思主义理论工作者还未能掌握与中国特色社会主义实践成就相匹配的马克思主义理论研究的国际话语权，使得西方左翼对中国特色社会主义忽视甚至产生错误认知。列宁领导的十月革命为20世纪的中国带来了马克思主义，彻底改变了近代中国的历史走向。中国的马克思主义者正是通过对以列宁主义为主要内容的苏联马克思主义的批判性学习和借鉴，才找到了马克思主义与中国国情相结合的正确道路。某种程度上来说，马克思主义在中国的延续以及中国特色社会主义取得的成就无可争辩地证明了列宁所开启的马克思主义在东方社会进行本土化的可能性及巨大优势。如果西方左翼继续忽视这一事实，那么他们就不可能准确全面把握21世纪世界社会主义的发展趋势，那么他们试图通过“重复列宁”来激活无产阶级革命动能的策略就会因为缺乏坚实的社会现实基础而沦为空洞的口号和姿态。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗