Stalin: Paradox of Power
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2015-03-31 · 1:36:09 · 13,906 words
with Stephen Kotkin, Vakhtang Gomelauri (audience member), Paul Holdengräber, Closing Speaker (Host/Staff)
communism-socialismhistoryideologyfascism-populismgeopolitics-warcinema-art-culturephilosophy-general
Žižek interviews historian Stephen Kotkin at the New York Public Library about Kotkin's biography of Stalin (Volume 1, covering up to 1928). The conversation focuses on the structural versus contingent determinants of Stalinism, the relationship between communist ideology and political practice, counterfactual questions about alternatives to Stalin, and differences between Stalinist and Nazi totalitarianism. Žižek uses the event to advance his own theses: that politics shapes personality (not vice versa), that the 1920s Soviet avant-garde period was not the liberal paradise it is romanticized as, and that Stalinist terror retained a perverted Enlightenment logic absent from Nazism.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 10
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Žižek's pejorative label for the tendency to explain political horror through private vices or psychological traumas, which he contrasts with the correct approach of focusing on structural politics.
The Frankfurt School thesis that 20th-century horrors are not archaic remnants but products of modernity's own antagonisms; Žižek notes this insight applies more clearly to Stalinism than to fascism, yet Frankfurt School theory largely ignores Stalinism.
Invoked by Kotkin (with Žižek's assent) to describe the Bolshevik goal, not to reform capitalism but to transcend/sublate it entirely.
Kotkin's formulation (endorsed by Žižek) for Stalin's achievement: constructing a personal power structure inside the already existing single-party Bolshevik dictatorship.
as “perverted remainder of Enlightenment”
Žižek's term for the logic peculiar to Stalinism whereby even the lowest prisoner is hailed as a subject participating in universal reason, the forced confessions and birthday telegrams to Stalin enact this perverse inclusion, distinguishing it from the wholly different universe of Nazism.
Žižek's term for the uncritical glorification of the Soviet avant-garde decade (formalists, futurists, cultural experimenters) as a lost liberal paradise, which he argues occludes the ominous tendencies already present.
as “gnostic bolshevism”
Žižek's label for the strain of 1920s Soviet thought (endorsed by Trotsky) that aimed to biologically engineer a new, hyper-rational man, a millenarian project more ominous than mere political Stalinism.
as “new man”
The 1920s Soviet project, endorsed by Trotsky in Žižek's citation, of constructing a biologically new, more rational human being; Žižek presents it as a disturbing dimension of early Bolshevism predating Stalinist realism.
as “socialist realism”
The cultural policy Stalin introduced replacing avant-garde experimentation; Žižek notes that many people were actually relieved by it because they wanted literature depicting normal human suffering rather than formalist experiments.
as “tragic”
Žižek insists on using 'tragic' for the Bolshevik experience, a genuine explosion of emancipatory hope that went terribly wrong, distinguishing it from simple evil, and noting that dissident communists claimed Stalin 'betrayed' communism whereas no Nazi claimed Hitler 'betrayed authentic Nazism'.
Stories he reaches for 4
Žižek cites Anne Applebaum's Gulag book: once a year on Stalin's birthday, all prisoners collectively signed a birthday telegram to Stalin, a practice unimaginable in the Nazi universe, illustrating the perverted Enlightenment logic of Stalinism.
“you cannot imagine nazis collecting all the jews in auschwitz to send a telegram to hitler”
Žižek cites physicist Stephen Weinberg's remark that without religion, good people do good things and bad people do bad things, you need religion to make good people do horrible things, and applies it to communist ideology as the mechanism of Stalinist atrocity.
“without religion, some good people would be doing good things and bad people bad things. you need something like religion to make good people do horrible things. that's the true problem.”
Žižek argues the Oscar-winning GDR film is too soft on the Stasi regime because it premises surveillance on a private vice (a minister coveting a man's wife), whereas the point is that in the GDR, total surveillance was the norm regardless of any private motive.
“the movie is too soft on the regime. the point is to be brutal and tasteless that in a country like GDR, even if no minister wants to fuck your wife, you would have been under total observation”
Žižek describes Stalin's characteristic rhetorical device of posing a question and then answering it himself ('What are, comrades, the problems of the economy today? Comrades, the problems...'), and invites Kotkin to perform this as a closing move.
“what are comrades, the problems of economy today? comrades, the problems of economy today are...”
Works invoked 9
Žižek criticizes the film as too soft on the GDR regime because it psychologizes repression through a private motive (a minister's lust), missing the structural universality of Stasi surveillance.
Kolyma Tales book
Žižek recommends Shalamov's tales as vastly superior to Solzhenitsyn for conveying the raw Gulag reality without moralizing.
Žižek cites Platonov's novel as capturing the nihilistic dimension of Bolshevism before Stalinism; used to argue for demystifying the 1920s.
Gulag: A History book
Žižek cites Applebaum's book as source for the Gulag birthday telegram anecdote, using it to illustrate Stalinism's perverted Enlightenment logic.
The Road to Terror book
Žižek recommends the Naumov/Getty book on the Stalinist purges as the best treatment he knows of the terror, asking Kotkin for his assessment.
Doctor Zhivago book
Žižek says it is 'not such a great novel,' rating it below Sholokhov's Quiet Flows the Don, though he respects Pasternak as a poet.
Žižek 'almost hates' Solzhenitsyn for his verbosity and deep moralizing; prefers Shalamov and Platonov for getting at the true horror.
Žižek argues it is a better novel than Doctor Zhivago, despite Sholokhov being the 'official' Soviet writer.
Žižek praises it as 'the type of book we who are all fascinated by Stalin were waiting for' and uses it as the basis for the entire conversation.
People invoked 19
Mikhail Sholokhov positive
Žižek cites Sholokhov, the official Soviet writer, as an example of someone who nonetheless had a 'minimum of honor,' having protested to Stalin against Gulag horrors in the early 1930s; Žižek rates Quiet Flows the Don as a better novel than Doctor Zhivago.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Žižek credits Lenin with genuine internationalism and sincere opposition to Great Russian nationalism, and with supporting unconditional national self-determination (against Rosa Luxemburg's conditionalism); also views the Bolshevik project as tragically doomed despite Lenin's relative flexibility.
Žižek uses Bukharin as a case study of the show trial logic, forced public confession, which he argues could not exist in the Nazi universe.
Marina Tsvetaeva positive
Žižek ranks Tsvetaeva alongside Mandelstam as infinitely superior to Akhmatova.
Osip Mandelstam positive
Žižek calls Mandelstam 'my hero' and rates him infinitely superior to Akhmatova.
Stephen Kotkin positive
Žižek is the interviewer and repeatedly praises Kotkin's book as the Stalin biography 'we were waiting for,' endorses Kotkin's thesis that politics shapes character, and agrees with his comparative analysis of Stalinism and Nazism.
Isaiah Berlin negative
An audience member raises Berlin's value-pluralism thesis about totalitarianism; Žižek deflects the question (implicitly leaving Kotkin to handle it), and Kotkin calls it 'too simple.'
Varlam Shalamov positive
Žižek rates Shalamov's Kolyma Tales as vastly superior to Solzhenitsyn for conveying the raw Gulag experience without moralizing verbosity.
Vasily Grossman positive
Žižek expresses 'almost infinite respectful feeling' for Grossman but finds him ultimately too humanistically kind to capture the truly demonic side of Stalinism.
Andrei Platonov positive
Žižek regards Platonov, citing The Foundation Pit and his short stories, as perhaps the greatest Soviet Russian author of the 20th century, who already saw the nihilistic dimension of Bolshevism before Stalinism.
Žižek mocks Trotsky's arrogant failure to recognize Stalin outmaneuvering him, calling it 'sheer stupidity'; also notes Trotsky endorsed the gnostic Bolshevik project of biologically engineering a new man.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn negative
Žižek criticizes Solzhenitsyn as too verbose and excessively moralizing, saying he 'almost hates' him for this, and finds him inadequate for grasping the truly demonic side of Stalinism.
Yanis Varoufakis positive
Žižek calls Varoufakis his friend and uses him to illustrate how Syriza's demands, treated as radical in Europe, are merely moderate social democracy by older standards.
Žižek respects Pasternak as a wonderful poet but regards Doctor Zhivago as not a great novel, rating it below Sholokhov's Quiet Flows the Don.
Stéphen Weinberger positive
Žižek cites Weinberg's aphorism that religion is needed to make good people do horrible things, applying it to communist ideology as the mechanism of Stalinist atrocity; he adds he has 'great respect for Christianity' but finds an element of truth in Weinberg.
Rosa Luxemburg negative
Žižek contrasts Lenin favorably with Luxemburg's position on national self-determination: Luxemburg conditionally granted independence only if the 'right guys' were in power, whereas Lenin granted it unconditionally.
Jürgen Habermas negative
Žižek uses Habermas as the prime example of the Frankfurt School's blind spot: if Habermas were your only source, you could read all his texts and never learn of Soviet/Stalinist terror, only fascism.
Anna Akhmatova negative
Žižek calls Akhmatova 'an endless pretentious bitch' who has a complex of speaking as 'mother of all Russia', a position he violently rejects.
Joseph Stalin positive
Central subject of the discussion; Žižek treats him as a case study for the structural production of political evil, insisting personality alone cannot explain the terror and that the political logic of Bolshevism is the key variable.
What it argues
structure vs. contingency in Stalinist terrorpolitics shapes personality, not the reverseStalinism as perverted Enlightenment vs. Nazism as different ideological universecounterfactual history of the Bolshevik regimedemystifying the golden-age myth of 1920s Soviet culturecommunist ideology as genuinely believed, not cynical manipulationtragedy of revolutionary idealism collapsing into dictatorship
Dialectical moves 5
“The horror of Stalinism is precisely NOT that evil men did evil things, but that basically good, decent people were made to do horrible things — that is the true ethical tragedy.”
Žižek inverts the moral intuition that evil regimes require evil actors, arguing the real problem is the mechanism by which sincere believers commit atrocities, which ideology (like religion) makes possible.
“Far from being a liberal interlude, the 1920s were in some ways even more ominous than Stalinism in their ideological potential.”
Žižek reverses the standard dissident narrative that romanticizes the Soviet 1920s as a lost utopia, arguing the millenarian and anti-humanist tendencies of the period were more frightening, not less.
“The true difference between Stalinism and Nazism is not one of degree but of universe: Stalinist terror is the perverted remainder of Enlightenment; Nazism is a wholly different ideological universe where such inclusion is meaningless.”
Žižek reframes the totalitarianism comparison by showing Stalinism retains (perversely) the Enlightenment logic of universal rational subjecthood, while Nazism simply excludes the other as non-human, making forced confession nonsensical.
“Those communists who are still in power today appear as the most efficient managers of global capitalism — more efficient than democracies.”
Žižek inverts the expected opposition between communism and capitalism, showing Communist Party states (China, Vietnam) as the vanguard of capitalist efficiency, which reveals that capitalism may no longer need liberal democracy.
“It's not that demonic personality explains the political horror; it's the political process that creates the personality.”
Žižek's structural inversion of the biographical approach: political structures produce characters, not the other way around.
Claims 15
asserts
The correct approach to understanding Stalin is to focus on how politics and the exercise of power shaped his personality, not to look for prior private traumas or vices that 'explain' the horror.methodology of Stalin biography / explaining political evil
asserts
The Frankfurt School, despite its anti-Stalinism, almost entirely lacks a consistent theory of Stalinism, which is an enigma given that Stalinism is a cleaner example of the dialectic of enlightenment than fascism.Frankfurt School and Stalinism
rejects
The film 'The Lives of Others' is too soft on the GDR regime because it implies you need a private motive (a minister wanting your wife) to be subjected to total surveillance — the point is that the apparatus operated on everyone.cinematic critiques of totalitarianism that psychologize political repression
asserts
The Bolshevik project was at a deeper level doomed from the beginning — it is unlikely that any alternative leadership (Trotsky, Bukharin) would have produced a fundamentally different outcome.counterfactual alternatives to Stalinism within the Bolshevik framework
asserts
Lenin was sincere in his internationalism and hatred of Great Russian nationalism, and genuinely supported the right of small nations (Poland, Baltic states) to full self-determination without conditions.Lenin and the national question
rejects
The 1920s Soviet avant-garde period must be demystified and not idealized as a lost liberal paradise — ominous tendencies (gnostic bolshevism, the new-man project, anti-sex ideology) were already present and in some ways more frightening than what came after.romanticization of the 1920s Soviet avant-garde
asserts
Stalinist terror retained a perverted Enlightenment logic — even the lowest prisoner was hailed as a rational subject (forced to confess, made to sign telegrams to Stalin) — which is fundamentally different from the Nazi ideological universe where such inclusion was meaningless.structural difference between Stalinism and Nazism
asserts
The public show trials and forced confessions of the Stalinist purges are impossible to imagine in Nazi Germany because within the Nazi universe it would be meaningless to have a Jewish leader publicly confess to a plot against Germany.difference between Stalinist and Nazi political logic
asserts
Global capitalism is approaching a stage where it no longer needs liberal democracy, and the most efficient managers of global capitalism today may be Communist parties (China, Vietnam).capitalism and democracy
asserts
What passes today for radical leftism (Syriza's demands in Greece) would have been considered extremely moderate social democracy forty or fifty years ago — a sign of how far the political horizon has shifted rightward.the contemporary political spectrum and social democracy
asserts
Varlam Shalamov's Kolyma Tales are vastly superior to Solzhenitsyn as fiction about the Gulag because Solzhenitsyn is too verbose and moralizing, while Shalamov gives the raw experience without softening.literature of the Gulag
asserts
Andrei Platonov is the greatest Soviet Russian author of the 20th century — he already saw the nihilistic dimension of the project before Stalinism fully arrived.Soviet Russian literature
asserts
Osip Mandelstam and Marina Tsvetaeva are infinitely superior to Anna Akhmatova as poets — Akhmatova is marred by a pretentious self-presentation as the 'mother of all Russia.'Russian modernist poetry
asserts
Without religion, good people do good things and bad people do bad things; you need something like religion to make good people do horrible things — and this is the true ethical tragedy of Stalinist true believers.religion, ideology, and moral complicity in atrocity
asserts
The communists were genuine true believers — the revelation of the Soviet archives is not that they were cynical manipulators privately but that they really did speak behind closed doors the same way they spoke in public propaganda.sincerity of Bolshevik ideology
Quotes 10
“without religion, some good people would be doing good things and bad people bad things. you need something like religion to make good people do horrible things. that's the true problem.”Slavoj Žižek · ideology as mechanism for making sincere people commit atrocities
“the movie is too soft on the regime. the point is to be brutal and tasteless that in a country like GDR, even if no minister wants to fuck your wife, you would have been under total observation”Slavoj Žižek · critique of psychologizing political repression
“that's for me the true ethical tragedy. when you make a basically good, decent guy do horrible things. and for this you need as you said, to focus on politics.”Slavoj Žižek · the structural vs. individual explanation of political evil
“in what sad times do we live that what 50 years ago was an extremely moderate social democracy now you have to be radical left if you said the times.”Slavoj Žižek · rightward shift of political horizon
“that's the perverted remainder of enlightenment. in stalinism, you can be the lowest trash vermin shit, but at the same time, part of you participates in universal reason”Slavoj Žižek · Stalinism as perverted Enlightenment — universal inclusion even for the condemned
“you cannot imagine nazis collecting all the jews in auschwitz to send a telegram to hitler. you know what i think i give you that.”Slavoj Žižek · structural difference between Stalinist and Nazi ideological universes
“global capitalism is approaching a stage where maybe it less and less needs democracy. if it needs it, it's more and more a kind of an empty, purely ritualized democracy.”Slavoj Žižek · capitalism decoupling from liberal democracy
“many dissidents who claim stalin betrayed communism. i don't think you have many nazis who claimed hitler betrayed authentic nazism or whatever. it's a different logic.”Slavoj Žižek · difference between Stalinist and Nazi ideological structures
“i think i'm more of a pessimist and i'm the radical leftist here. i think in a way the whole project bolshevik was at a deeper level doomed from the beginning.”Slavoj Žižek · pessimistic assessment of Bolshevik project
“osip mandelstam and marina kvetaeva are infinitely superior to anna ahmatova, who is an endless pretentious bitch. she has this complex. i am a mother of all russia.”Slavoj Žižek · blunt literary ranking and critique of Akhmatova's pretension
Transcript 216 turns
Stephen Kotkin
i think there are a lot of people out there, but i can't see anyone, which is fortunate. i get stage fright. i have to thank Jean Strouse again for the year at the Cullman Center. there are many. pages of this book. that would not be in there had it not been for the new york public library's collection. and i'm very grateful. in fact, we were just on a tour of some of the holdings upstairs. despite working here for 30 years, the curator upstairs, Thomas Lannon, was showing me things i hadn't ever seen before. the riches here are beyond belief. i thank Paul Holdengräber, of course. he told me he let slip many months ago that there was a really big event here. Slavoj Žižek was going to be at the library. and i said, gee, it's going to sell out. can you get me in? and paul kept his word. i am in. i was asked to say a few words before we started the conversation, and so i think i'll do that. um... this guy who was very guilty. on his deathbed. with his wife there. wanted to tell her. that he had cheated on her. he. the guilt was so great that he just blurted it out. he said, you know, i don't know how to tell you this, but. well, i told you i was late at work. and she said, the why do you think i poisoned you? mm. you know how many middle-aged men go out for milk and never come back? not enough. not enough. do we have time for questions? and. good.
i think there are a lot of people out there, but i can't see anyone, which is fortunate. i get stage fright. i have to thank Jean Strouse again for the year at the Cullman Center. there are many. pages of this book. that would not be in there had it not been for the new york public library's collection. and i'm very grateful. in fact, we were just on a tour of some of the holdings upstairs. despite working here for 30 years, the curator upstairs, Thomas Lannon, was showing me things i hadn't ever seen before. the riches here are beyond belief. i thank Paul Holdengräber, of course. he told me he let slip many months ago that there was a really big event here. Slavoj Žižek was going to be at the library. and i said, gee, it's going to sell out. can you get me in? and paul kept his word. i am in. i was asked to say a few words before we started the conversation, and so i think i'll do that. um... this guy who was very guilty. on his deathbed. with his wife there. wanted to tell her. that he had cheated on her. he. the guilt was so great that he just blurted it out. he said, you know, i don't know how to tell you this, but. well, i told you i was late at work. and she said, the why do you think i poisoned you? mm. you know how many middle-aged men go out for milk and never come back? not enough. not enough. do we have time for questions? and. good.
Slavoj Žižek
yes, is your wife here? when you talked, like, when you told the milk story of my family. yes, yes.
yes, is your wife here? when you talked, like, when you told the milk story of my family. yes, yes.
Stephen Kotkin
thank you. yes, she is here. or as joan rivers liked to say, you know, a man can... do what he wants and have as many affairs, but if a woman makes 19 or 20 mistakes, she's a tramp. it's very unfair. very unfair. anyway, yes, i wrote this book. and i have to thank Scott Moyers of penguin press because i wrote a book that was almost a book and because of scott it became an actual book.
thank you. yes, she is here. or as joan rivers liked to say, you know, a man can... do what he wants and have as many affairs, but if a woman makes 19 or 20 mistakes, she's a tramp. it's very unfair. very unfair. anyway, yes, i wrote this book. and i have to thank Scott Moyers of penguin press because i wrote a book that was almost a book and because of scott it became an actual book.
Slavoj Žižek
and i'm extremely grateful.
and i'm extremely grateful.
Stephen Kotkin
for. ideal editor. so maybe a couple of words about what i tried to do and then the questions. so it's kind of silly to write yet another book about stalin. don't we already know the story? don't we already have as many stalin books as we need? after all, i understand from tony marks that there are limits to the storage under bryan park. and some of us should cease and desist. and so there are three ways i think that i try to do something different. and whether i succeeded or not, we'll find out. one way was to widen the lens a little bit, to open up to the full sweep of history, russian history and global history. so this is not a book about stalin in history. this is actually a book about history or about russian power in the world. and then stalin's power in russia. so for example, there's a full chapter on world war i. but stalin didn't do anything in world war i. but without world war i, he could have never gotten anywhere near the seat of power. and so i believe. maybe i'm mistaken, but i believe that the wider view the big sweep of history. enables us to understand him better. the second thing i did was to put the politics. at the center of the story. so instead of a weird demonic personality. that formed maybe in childhood or some other way and that then had an influence on politics. i demonstrate, i hope, that the politics is what formed stalin's personality. and it was the experience of building a personal dictatorship and exercising power that made him the kind of person he became. and therefore, there's a lot of stuff about him at party congresses, about him behind the scenes, about him preparing for speeches, about the intrigues he's engaged in. and the ways in which, as i say, this shaped him as a person. and i think the third thing that i did. at least that i tried to do. was to be very comprehensive and scrupulous in the sources. meaning take nothing for granted and go back and read everything, including the avalanche of new materials that have come out in the last 15 years. so there are three000 or four, thousand ed notes in volume one to the primary source original materials of stallman's personal archive. kgb archive, military archive, foreign policy archive, et ca. many people are working on these materials. i'm not alone, obviously, in doing this, but i try to synthesize. all the new stuff that's come out. and be very comprehensive, as i said. the the sort of russian power in the world story. the politics at the center of stalin's life, creating the person he became. and then the deep immersion. and the primary source materials. i think those are some of the this distinguishing characteristics of the book. so i could talk further about what i think is in the book, but i think at this point maybe. my friend, sloy jek might... launched the conversation.
for. ideal editor. so maybe a couple of words about what i tried to do and then the questions. so it's kind of silly to write yet another book about stalin. don't we already know the story? don't we already have as many stalin books as we need? after all, i understand from tony marks that there are limits to the storage under bryan park. and some of us should cease and desist. and so there are three ways i think that i try to do something different. and whether i succeeded or not, we'll find out. one way was to widen the lens a little bit, to open up to the full sweep of history, russian history and global history. so this is not a book about stalin in history. this is actually a book about history or about russian power in the world. and then stalin's power in russia. so for example, there's a full chapter on world war i. but stalin didn't do anything in world war i. but without world war i, he could have never gotten anywhere near the seat of power. and so i believe. maybe i'm mistaken, but i believe that the wider view the big sweep of history. enables us to understand him better. the second thing i did was to put the politics. at the center of the story. so instead of a weird demonic personality. that formed maybe in childhood or some other way and that then had an influence on politics. i demonstrate, i hope, that the politics is what formed stalin's personality. and it was the experience of building a personal dictatorship and exercising power that made him the kind of person he became. and therefore, there's a lot of stuff about him at party congresses, about him behind the scenes, about him preparing for speeches, about the intrigues he's engaged in. and the ways in which, as i say, this shaped him as a person. and i think the third thing that i did. at least that i tried to do. was to be very comprehensive and scrupulous in the sources. meaning take nothing for granted and go back and read everything, including the avalanche of new materials that have come out in the last 15 years. so there are three000 or four, thousand ed notes in volume one to the primary source original materials of stallman's personal archive. kgb archive, military archive, foreign policy archive, et ca. many people are working on these materials. i'm not alone, obviously, in doing this, but i try to synthesize. all the new stuff that's come out. and be very comprehensive, as i said. the the sort of russian power in the world story. the politics at the center of stalin's life, creating the person he became. and then the deep immersion. and the primary source materials. i think those are some of the this distinguishing characteristics of the book. so i could talk further about what i think is in the book, but i think at this point maybe. my friend, sloy jek might... launched the conversation.
Slavoj Žižek
thanks very much. first. thanks to all the organizers, paul and others. second point, i'm really honored to be here with you because that's the type of book i think we who are all fascinated by stalin were waiting for. first i would like to begin, if i may improvise a little bit with the feature you mentioned at the end how yes, we should avoid this, i will now use a horrible marxist term to this bourgeois liberal way of looking for a private secret, some vice, whatever, which explains the political horror. you adopt the right road. and even those, that's for me the tragedy. and i'm saying this as still a radical leftist. even for example, in films, films which appear to be ruthlessly critical of communism. are in a way because of this approach too soft in some way. let me repeat you an old story that i like to use. i hope all of you saw, it got oscar as the best foreign movie, you remember some 10 years ago or when leben der anderen, life of others. yes. the guy is fanatically, because he comes from some east prussian nobility, the director, so he wanted, this is his revenge against german democratic republic. but you remember what's the story? a well-known east german playwright. he a beautiful wife, some obscure minister. wants to but wants to have his wife, so he puts all the stasi apparatus on him and so on. but and then you have the main hero, some half personally honest stasi agent who i said, but wait a minute, the movie is too soft on the regime. the point is to be brutal and tasteless that in a country like gdr, even if no minister wants to fuck your wife, you would have been under total observation and so on and so on. you know, as if... to have this secret police investigation to be its object, there has to be some private vice. and i think this is way too soft. in the sense that, you know what stephen weinberg, the quantum cosmologist said? i don't totally agree with it, i have a great respect for christianity, but there is an element of truth in it. when he wrote somewhere that without religion, some good good people would be doing good things and bad people bad things. you need something like religion to make good people do horrible things. that's the true problem. the true problem is easy to explain when you have an evil guy, blah, blah. for example, when i read and i wonder what will you say in your next volume, those campaigns for collectivization, late 20s, early 30s. there were many, let's call them naively, honest, sincere communists who went there and they were trained to disregard bourgeois comp. that's for me the true ethical tragedy. when you make a basically good, decent guy do horrible things. and for this you need as you said, to focus on politics. as you beautifully said, politics focuses characters. it's not this pseudo-psychoanalytic approach where let's look for some personal trauma to explain it. the second thing. because of which i really enjoyed your book i noticed how in the tradition of western marxism, although of course they are anti-stalinist, but it always shocked me to what extent, look at all of frankfurt school up to habermas. any consistent theory of stalinism is totally missing. but why? this was for me an enigma. look, let's make a mental experiment. you probably know jürgen habermas. imagine your only source of information about post-world war ii germany would have been the text written by habermas. reading all his texts, i doubt if you were ever learned the devil to germany. but you learn a lot of fascism and so on. you know what's the basic insight of frankfurt school? dialectic of enlightenment, which means the horrors of the 20th century are not simply some archaic remainder, but are the product of the immanent antagonisms of modernity. but here stalinism is much clearer example than than fascism. and so why it is missing? so i think stalinism still, for me, remains an enigma. so now let me go to a part of the book which i really enjoyed. i will not ask you about too many details because i'm an idiot. you know much more, so i would only display my stupidity. there are other ways to do it. what i really like, and here i would like to challenge you if you can elaborate things a bit bit. more. in the conclusion, last pages of the book, you address this obvious big question. was the so-called stalinist system a deeper, i hate this terminology, orthodox marxist historical necessity with stalin but if not stalin then there would have been another guy or what le? and if to what extent? it was something, the stalin system, we know, dependent on the contingent fact that stalin was the one who took over. on the one hand i hope you would agree we cannot put everything on stalin because if nothing else there must have been a certain... structure of power so that it was possible for a guy like stalin to take over in the first place. uh but then i always distr this simplistic view shared by some trotskyists and others that this is the dream at its purest. if only lenin were to survive three, four years more, made the pact with trotsky or totally different. maybe, but i so i basically... agree with you a lot but depends on the contingency of stalin's personality. you described this wonderfully, but nonetheless, where would you have set the limit? i'm asking you what we philosophers call counterfactual question. you know, like... was it, i think i'm more of a pessimist and i'm the radical leftist here. i think in a way the whole project bolshevik was at a deeper level doomed from the beginning. i don't think there was a possibility of something. maybe it would have been a little bit better with lenin, at least in the last years. he was very resigned. you know, he even said, forget about constructing socialism. we should just bring a little bit of western civilization to russia and so on. so if i can ask you later some other questions so that i don't like too much, how would you... be more precise.
thanks very much. first. thanks to all the organizers, paul and others. second point, i'm really honored to be here with you because that's the type of book i think we who are all fascinated by stalin were waiting for. first i would like to begin, if i may improvise a little bit with the feature you mentioned at the end how yes, we should avoid this, i will now use a horrible marxist term to this bourgeois liberal way of looking for a private secret, some vice, whatever, which explains the political horror. you adopt the right road. and even those, that's for me the tragedy. and i'm saying this as still a radical leftist. even for example, in films, films which appear to be ruthlessly critical of communism. are in a way because of this approach too soft in some way. let me repeat you an old story that i like to use. i hope all of you saw, it got oscar as the best foreign movie, you remember some 10 years ago or when leben der anderen, life of others. yes. the guy is fanatically, because he comes from some east prussian nobility, the director, so he wanted, this is his revenge against german democratic republic. but you remember what's the story? a well-known east german playwright. he a beautiful wife, some obscure minister. wants to but wants to have his wife, so he puts all the stasi apparatus on him and so on. but and then you have the main hero, some half personally honest stasi agent who i said, but wait a minute, the movie is too soft on the regime. the point is to be brutal and tasteless that in a country like gdr, even if no minister wants to fuck your wife, you would have been under total observation and so on and so on. you know, as if... to have this secret police investigation to be its object, there has to be some private vice. and i think this is way too soft. in the sense that, you know what stephen weinberg, the quantum cosmologist said? i don't totally agree with it, i have a great respect for christianity, but there is an element of truth in it. when he wrote somewhere that without religion, some good good people would be doing good things and bad people bad things. you need something like religion to make good people do horrible things. that's the true problem. the true problem is easy to explain when you have an evil guy, blah, blah. for example, when i read and i wonder what will you say in your next volume, those campaigns for collectivization, late 20s, early 30s. there were many, let's call them naively, honest, sincere communists who went there and they were trained to disregard bourgeois comp. that's for me the true ethical tragedy. when you make a basically good, decent guy do horrible things. and for this you need as you said, to focus on politics. as you beautifully said, politics focuses characters. it's not this pseudo-psychoanalytic approach where let's look for some personal trauma to explain it. the second thing. because of which i really enjoyed your book i noticed how in the tradition of western marxism, although of course they are anti-stalinist, but it always shocked me to what extent, look at all of frankfurt school up to habermas. any consistent theory of stalinism is totally missing. but why? this was for me an enigma. look, let's make a mental experiment. you probably know jürgen habermas. imagine your only source of information about post-world war ii germany would have been the text written by habermas. reading all his texts, i doubt if you were ever learned the devil to germany. but you learn a lot of fascism and so on. you know what's the basic insight of frankfurt school? dialectic of enlightenment, which means the horrors of the 20th century are not simply some archaic remainder, but are the product of the immanent antagonisms of modernity. but here stalinism is much clearer example than than fascism. and so why it is missing? so i think stalinism still, for me, remains an enigma. so now let me go to a part of the book which i really enjoyed. i will not ask you about too many details because i'm an idiot. you know much more, so i would only display my stupidity. there are other ways to do it. what i really like, and here i would like to challenge you if you can elaborate things a bit bit. more. in the conclusion, last pages of the book, you address this obvious big question. was the so-called stalinist system a deeper, i hate this terminology, orthodox marxist historical necessity with stalin but if not stalin then there would have been another guy or what le? and if to what extent? it was something, the stalin system, we know, dependent on the contingent fact that stalin was the one who took over. on the one hand i hope you would agree we cannot put everything on stalin because if nothing else there must have been a certain... structure of power so that it was possible for a guy like stalin to take over in the first place. uh but then i always distr this simplistic view shared by some trotskyists and others that this is the dream at its purest. if only lenin were to survive three, four years more, made the pact with trotsky or totally different. maybe, but i so i basically... agree with you a lot but depends on the contingency of stalin's personality. you described this wonderfully, but nonetheless, where would you have set the limit? i'm asking you what we philosophers call counterfactual question. you know, like... was it, i think i'm more of a pessimist and i'm the radical leftist here. i think in a way the whole project bolshevik was at a deeper level doomed from the beginning. i don't think there was a possibility of something. maybe it would have been a little bit better with lenin, at least in the last years. he was very resigned. you know, he even said, forget about constructing socialism. we should just bring a little bit of western civilization to russia and so on. so if i can ask you later some other questions so that i don't like too much, how would you... be more precise.
Stephen Kotkin
this one. yes to this one. maybe i could answer this one. i don't know if i can, but i'm going to try.
this one. yes to this one. maybe i could answer this one. i don't know if i can, but i'm going to try.
Slavoj Žižek
and central committee which speaks through me will tell you. you succeeded or not. yeah.
and central committee which speaks through me will tell you. you succeeded or not. yeah.
Stephen Kotkin
brings back memories of writing the book. so this is a book about ideas. the revelation of the communist archives. the secret of the communist archives is that behind closed doors, they spoke the same way. to each other. but nobody else was listening as they spoke in their public propaganda. they spoke about class warfare, kulaks, rich peasants, finance capital, bourgeois revolution, socialist revolution. privately, that's how they spoke. it turns out the secret archives have shown. that the communists behind closed doors were communist. that's the big revelation. and that turns out to matter. because if your system is based on the federalist papers, or your system is based upon marx and lenin, you're going to get different outcomes. not exclusively based upon those things because many factors are at play here. state-to-state relations, geopolitics, the international system. so stalin had the idea. that small countries that had used to have been part of the russian empire were not sovereign. they didn't decide their own foreign policy. they were playthings or instruments for the great powers. poland was independent as a result of the dissolution of the tsarist empire. finland was independent, estonia, latvia, lithuania.
brings back memories of writing the book. so this is a book about ideas. the revelation of the communist archives. the secret of the communist archives is that behind closed doors, they spoke the same way. to each other. but nobody else was listening as they spoke in their public propaganda. they spoke about class warfare, kulaks, rich peasants, finance capital, bourgeois revolution, socialist revolution. privately, that's how they spoke. it turns out the secret archives have shown. that the communists behind closed doors were communist. that's the big revelation. and that turns out to matter. because if your system is based on the federalist papers, or your system is based upon marx and lenin, you're going to get different outcomes. not exclusively based upon those things because many factors are at play here. state-to-state relations, geopolitics, the international system. so stalin had the idea. that small countries that had used to have been part of the russian empire were not sovereign. they didn't decide their own foreign policy. they were playthings or instruments for the great powers. poland was independent as a result of the dissolution of the tsarist empire. finland was independent, estonia, latvia, lithuania.
Slavoj Žižek
the way
the way
Stephen Kotkin
but their independence was not real. because they would be used by the british or later by the nazi germans. to invade the soviet union, to overthrow the soviet system. so what they call the limitrofa. or the near abroad. or the borderlands. were independent countries on the map, but not in stalin's mind. and so therefore, he sought. to prevent those countries from becoming playthings in the hands of the western powers. so he tried to do coups. in those countries, to overturn those systems because that was his way of guaranteeing soviet security. this is the 1920s already. now, if you noticed, president putin regarding crimea. and ukraine. said that ukraine is not a real country. and the ukrainian army is the foreign legion of nato. this is the vocabulary out of the 1920s military intelligence files that were on stalin's desk and that he marked with his blue or red pencil. so that's a big factor. and we can't explain the stalin phenomenon. we can't explain russia today without the geopolitics. and then of course, there was the fact that they were communists, which means that they were not trying to ameliorate the market, ameliorate capitalism. fix it on the edges, redistribute a little bit of income from the upper to the lower. they were not social democrats who accepted capitalism, private property and the markets. they were communists. they were there to destroy, eradicate, and as hegel said, transcend capitalism. it was aufhebung, transcendence of capitalism. and they believe this. it's clear. from the internal documents that yes, stalin was concerned about power. yes, his personal power was critically important. but not alone. he was a true believer. like lenin and like the rest of them. now, the path wasn't always straight. to the eradication of capitalism. they had to make concessions along the way. but there was no top bolshevik. ever. in the 1920s, who comes out and says markets are good, private property is good. capitalism should endure in our system. they fight about how to eradicate it and when to eradicate it. but not about the principle of it. this is very, very important because we sometimes confuse the communists with the social democrats who in germany, for example, who came to accept evolution instead of revolution and came to accept the market and private property. they continue to want to ameliorate the conditions that capitalism caused. but they accepted eventually what we would know as the swedish social democratic model or the european social democratic model. this was not lenin and this was not stalin. they were playing for keeps, and that mattered. but the final point to answer your question, after you take into account the geopolitics, and after you take into account the communist ideas, which were real for them, you're still left with the fact that how did he do this? how did he manage to enslave 100 million peasants, collectivize agriculture? how did he manage to eradicate markets and private property? the others in the regime didn't think he could do it. and they thought it would be a catastrophe if he tried. and it was a catastrophe. they were correct. the critics of stalin before he launched collectivization, which is where volume one ends, predicted disaster and their predictions came true. in fact, it was worse than their predictions. but the thing about stalin that differentiated him from the others. what made stalin different? was that he did it. he went all the way to the end. famine. five to seven million dead from starvation, 40 million at least. starved but survived. cannibalism. the regime itself was destabilized, his personal dictatorship was destabilized. he kept going until collectivization was 100%, until capitalism had been eradicated in the countryside. and so this is unusual. i don't think there was another person inside the regime. sharing stalin's views on foreign policy. sharing stalin's views on communism, i don't think somebody else could have done this. and so in a way, stalin was... it's never necessary. to kill tens of millions of people. it's never necessary. that's a criminal act. and progress doesn't come from murder, especially on the scale that stalin engaged in. but from the communist point of view. there was no other way. to eliminate capitalism, markets, and private property in the countryside. you see, because voluntary collectivization. as of 1928, the year stalin made his decision. was 1% of the arable land. it was only the peasants who couldn't farm at all. who joined the collectives. and they were 16 households, 17 households. on average. 1% of the arable land. there was no voluntary collectivization. there was only coercive collectivization. but if you believe that capitalism is imperialist war, if you believe that capitalism is wage slavery, if you believe that capitalism is injustice and alienation and all the things that they believed in. you try to. overcome, transcend alon of the capitalism. it turned out that the answer was worse than the phenomenon that they were critiquing. stalinism was worse than the capitalist exploitation. but nonetheless, he was able to pull this off. and that's very unusual. that's his contribution. his contribution was the willpower. inside this system. to enact. this full scale stateization, elimination of markets and private property, which didn't happen in very many places and nobody thought it was going to happen here and stalin. unfortunately saw it through. so in that sense, his contribution is colossal. he couldn't have done it without the communist party. he couldn't have done it without the ideology. he couldn't have done it without the state of siege, so-called capitalist encirclement. he couldn't have done it without millions of young people. who wanted to participate in the building of a new world. many factors played into his ability to do this. but i don't think anybody else in the regime. could have managed to go all the way, the way he did.
but their independence was not real. because they would be used by the british or later by the nazi germans. to invade the soviet union, to overthrow the soviet system. so what they call the limitrofa. or the near abroad. or the borderlands. were independent countries on the map, but not in stalin's mind. and so therefore, he sought. to prevent those countries from becoming playthings in the hands of the western powers. so he tried to do coups. in those countries, to overturn those systems because that was his way of guaranteeing soviet security. this is the 1920s already. now, if you noticed, president putin regarding crimea. and ukraine. said that ukraine is not a real country. and the ukrainian army is the foreign legion of nato. this is the vocabulary out of the 1920s military intelligence files that were on stalin's desk and that he marked with his blue or red pencil. so that's a big factor. and we can't explain the stalin phenomenon. we can't explain russia today without the geopolitics. and then of course, there was the fact that they were communists, which means that they were not trying to ameliorate the market, ameliorate capitalism. fix it on the edges, redistribute a little bit of income from the upper to the lower. they were not social democrats who accepted capitalism, private property and the markets. they were communists. they were there to destroy, eradicate, and as hegel said, transcend capitalism. it was aufhebung, transcendence of capitalism. and they believe this. it's clear. from the internal documents that yes, stalin was concerned about power. yes, his personal power was critically important. but not alone. he was a true believer. like lenin and like the rest of them. now, the path wasn't always straight. to the eradication of capitalism. they had to make concessions along the way. but there was no top bolshevik. ever. in the 1920s, who comes out and says markets are good, private property is good. capitalism should endure in our system. they fight about how to eradicate it and when to eradicate it. but not about the principle of it. this is very, very important because we sometimes confuse the communists with the social democrats who in germany, for example, who came to accept evolution instead of revolution and came to accept the market and private property. they continue to want to ameliorate the conditions that capitalism caused. but they accepted eventually what we would know as the swedish social democratic model or the european social democratic model. this was not lenin and this was not stalin. they were playing for keeps, and that mattered. but the final point to answer your question, after you take into account the geopolitics, and after you take into account the communist ideas, which were real for them, you're still left with the fact that how did he do this? how did he manage to enslave 100 million peasants, collectivize agriculture? how did he manage to eradicate markets and private property? the others in the regime didn't think he could do it. and they thought it would be a catastrophe if he tried. and it was a catastrophe. they were correct. the critics of stalin before he launched collectivization, which is where volume one ends, predicted disaster and their predictions came true. in fact, it was worse than their predictions. but the thing about stalin that differentiated him from the others. what made stalin different? was that he did it. he went all the way to the end. famine. five to seven million dead from starvation, 40 million at least. starved but survived. cannibalism. the regime itself was destabilized, his personal dictatorship was destabilized. he kept going until collectivization was 100%, until capitalism had been eradicated in the countryside. and so this is unusual. i don't think there was another person inside the regime. sharing stalin's views on foreign policy. sharing stalin's views on communism, i don't think somebody else could have done this. and so in a way, stalin was... it's never necessary. to kill tens of millions of people. it's never necessary. that's a criminal act. and progress doesn't come from murder, especially on the scale that stalin engaged in. but from the communist point of view. there was no other way. to eliminate capitalism, markets, and private property in the countryside. you see, because voluntary collectivization. as of 1928, the year stalin made his decision. was 1% of the arable land. it was only the peasants who couldn't farm at all. who joined the collectives. and they were 16 households, 17 households. on average. 1% of the arable land. there was no voluntary collectivization. there was only coercive collectivization. but if you believe that capitalism is imperialist war, if you believe that capitalism is wage slavery, if you believe that capitalism is injustice and alienation and all the things that they believed in. you try to. overcome, transcend alon of the capitalism. it turned out that the answer was worse than the phenomenon that they were critiquing. stalinism was worse than the capitalist exploitation. but nonetheless, he was able to pull this off. and that's very unusual. that's his contribution. his contribution was the willpower. inside this system. to enact. this full scale stateization, elimination of markets and private property, which didn't happen in very many places and nobody thought it was going to happen here and stalin. unfortunately saw it through. so in that sense, his contribution is colossal. he couldn't have done it without the communist party. he couldn't have done it without the ideology. he couldn't have done it without the state of siege, so-called capitalist encirclement. he couldn't have done it without millions of young people. who wanted to participate in the building of a new world. many factors played into his ability to do this. but i don't think anybody else in the regime. could have managed to go all the way, the way he did.
Slavoj Žižek
can i do a counter question? now, i basically see what you want to say, but i'm a little bit perplexed in what sense? the way you describe it now, is's just dead. we had this background of communist ideology shared by all and stalin was just going to the end. in will and so on.
can i do a counter question? now, i basically see what you want to say, but i'm a little bit perplexed in what sense? the way you describe it now, is's just dead. we had this background of communist ideology shared by all and stalin was just going to the end. in will and so on.
Stephen Kotkin
yes.
yes.
Slavoj Žižek
so, okay, let's... play this counterfactual game without stalin or let's say in 24 stalin has a car accident or whatever. what do you think would have happened? just the same system maybe a little bit more moderate not even that because sorry just this another thing that i admire in your book when you describe all those factional struggles trotsky is, i'm sorry if there are some trotsky here to offend you, it's the sheer stupidity of trotsky. how, you know, how do you call it? the ground beneath him was cut, stalin taking over, and trotsky just arrogantly waiting for the. he really believed in himself. he thought, let that small stupid georgian bureaucrat do his job with one big speech. i'm the hero of civil war. so again, what would have happened without stalin? i know it's a stupid question, but it has to a certain weight, i think. i don't think it's a stupid question at all. i think it's exactly the right question. okay, so what's your right answer?
so, okay, let's... play this counterfactual game without stalin or let's say in 24 stalin has a car accident or whatever. what do you think would have happened? just the same system maybe a little bit more moderate not even that because sorry just this another thing that i admire in your book when you describe all those factional struggles trotsky is, i'm sorry if there are some trotsky here to offend you, it's the sheer stupidity of trotsky. how, you know, how do you call it? the ground beneath him was cut, stalin taking over, and trotsky just arrogantly waiting for the. he really believed in himself. he thought, let that small stupid georgian bureaucrat do his job with one big speech. i'm the hero of civil war. so again, what would have happened without stalin? i know it's a stupid question, but it has to a certain weight, i think. i don't think it's a stupid question at all. i think it's exactly the right question. okay, so what's your right answer?
Stephen Kotkin
.
.
Slavoj Žižek
i mean,.
i mean,.
Stephen Kotkin
sorry.
sorry.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Stephen Kotkin
yes, not to put me on the spot, but i appreciate that.
yes, not to put me on the spot, but i appreciate that.
Slavoj Žižek
i mean, let's say buharin, kamenev, zinoviev take over in 25. okay, they were on opposite sides. i know all. yeah, so...
i mean, let's say buharin, kamenev, zinoviev take over in 25. okay, they were on opposite sides. i know all. yeah, so...
Stephen Kotkin
trotsky is a very talented individual. he's a great speaker and he is an extraordinary, dynamic, charismatic personality. however, this was not a job a speaking job.
trotsky is a very talented individual. he's a great speaker and he is an extraordinary, dynamic, charismatic personality. however, this was not a job a speaking job.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Stephen Kotkin
this was a job for different talent, which was behind the scenes intrigue, backstabbing, coalition building, gaining others to your side. reducing your enemies by dividing them, many talents that he proved not to have in the struggle with stalin. i'll also say that stalin was a better leninist than trotsky. what do you mean define leninism here? so stalin had flexibility.
this was a job for different talent, which was behind the scenes intrigue, backstabbing, coalition building, gaining others to your side. reducing your enemies by dividing them, many talents that he proved not to have in the struggle with stalin. i'll also say that stalin was a better leninist than trotsky. what do you mean define leninism here? so stalin had flexibility.
Slavoj Žižek
i hang.
i hang.
Stephen Kotkin
lenin was very extreme in his principles. he would not compromise his principles except when he needed to compromise his principles to realize his principles. he was the ultimate pragmatist, flexible in pursuit of the goals that he would never yield on. trotsky lacked that type of pragmatism and flexibility. stalin learned it from lenin. he was lenin's pupil, not just in self-styling, but actual in fact. moreover, trotsky constantly tried to make himself lenin's equal or even lenin's better. and so... lenin was the... father of the revolution, everybody saw lenin as on a different plane. but troky would write pamphlets after 1917, after the seizure of power. recalling how he had corrected lenin when they had had arguments. and stalin would write pamphlets instead. about how he was lenin's pupil, lenin's heir, and would faithfully execute everything that lenin had taught him and taught us all. and this positioning as lenin's pupil as opposed to lenin's equal or lenin's better. and this ability to retreat, tactically retreat, or go sideways when the frontal path was closed. stalin learned, as i said, this kind of tactics from lenin, and therefore, in a way, stalin was a better leninist than trotsky was. but what would have happened had stalin died, or had there been no stalin? the regime, as it was in the 1920s, was a single-party dictatorship. industry was owned by the state. and in the countryside where the vast majority of people lived. and where the wealth was, the size of the harvest was the main factor in gdp, was a private capitalist system, more or less.
lenin was very extreme in his principles. he would not compromise his principles except when he needed to compromise his principles to realize his principles. he was the ultimate pragmatist, flexible in pursuit of the goals that he would never yield on. trotsky lacked that type of pragmatism and flexibility. stalin learned it from lenin. he was lenin's pupil, not just in self-styling, but actual in fact. moreover, trotsky constantly tried to make himself lenin's equal or even lenin's better. and so... lenin was the... father of the revolution, everybody saw lenin as on a different plane. but troky would write pamphlets after 1917, after the seizure of power. recalling how he had corrected lenin when they had had arguments. and stalin would write pamphlets instead. about how he was lenin's pupil, lenin's heir, and would faithfully execute everything that lenin had taught him and taught us all. and this positioning as lenin's pupil as opposed to lenin's equal or lenin's better. and this ability to retreat, tactically retreat, or go sideways when the frontal path was closed. stalin learned, as i said, this kind of tactics from lenin, and therefore, in a way, stalin was a better leninist than trotsky was. but what would have happened had stalin died, or had there been no stalin? the regime, as it was in the 1920s, was a single-party dictatorship. industry was owned by the state. and in the countryside where the vast majority of people lived. and where the wealth was, the size of the harvest was the main factor in gdp, was a private capitalist system, more or less.
Slavoj Žižek
at least after nep,.
at least after nep,.
Stephen Kotkin
quasi-market, so-called new economic policy from the early 1920s through the late 1920s. there was no new economic policy in industry. it was state-owned, so-called commanding heights. only about 10% of gdp that was manufacturing was artisanal. production and there was no political. new economic policy, because there was a single-party dictatorship and censorship. but there was a quasi-market in the countryside where, as i said, more than 80% of the people lived and where the wealth was produced. and so there were actually two revolutions. the urban bolshevik communist single-party dictatorship with censorship based upon a vision of an industrial future, and the peasant revolution, which was separate, independent. and too strong. for the bolsheviks, too strong for the communists, that's why they conceded the new economic policy. and all throughout the 20s, they were. wing their hands. rightanging their heads against the wall, what are we going to do about this? capitalist-like peasant revolution in the countryside. are we going to confront it or not? and if we're going to confront it, how is that even possible? because we have almost no communists in the countryside. the countryside was out of their control. the red flags, the red banners. the slogans, they disappeared. right after you left the big cities, they vanished. and so this problem of the regime's fate, the revolution's fate in the 1920s was clear to them all. now, stalin built a personal dictatorship within the dictatorship. this was an act of unbelievable skill that the book devotes a great deal of attention to. now stalin was no genius. he made many mistakes. he had no understanding of fascism, for example, which was a big thing to get. wrong. so we don't want to make him out to be better than he was. he was very blinkered. but when it came to building communist, building a personal dictatorship inside the communist dictatorship, he was very good at that. and that's what he did. so he had... the authority to make decisions that others couldn't participate in even, let alone make. and so he was controlling the situation with his personal dictatorship, but he didn't have control over the country. that's very important.
quasi-market, so-called new economic policy from the early 1920s through the late 1920s. there was no new economic policy in industry. it was state-owned, so-called commanding heights. only about 10% of gdp that was manufacturing was artisanal. production and there was no political. new economic policy, because there was a single-party dictatorship and censorship. but there was a quasi-market in the countryside where, as i said, more than 80% of the people lived and where the wealth was produced. and so there were actually two revolutions. the urban bolshevik communist single-party dictatorship with censorship based upon a vision of an industrial future, and the peasant revolution, which was separate, independent. and too strong. for the bolsheviks, too strong for the communists, that's why they conceded the new economic policy. and all throughout the 20s, they were. wing their hands. rightanging their heads against the wall, what are we going to do about this? capitalist-like peasant revolution in the countryside. are we going to confront it or not? and if we're going to confront it, how is that even possible? because we have almost no communists in the countryside. the countryside was out of their control. the red flags, the red banners. the slogans, they disappeared. right after you left the big cities, they vanished. and so this problem of the regime's fate, the revolution's fate in the 1920s was clear to them all. now, stalin built a personal dictatorship within the dictatorship. this was an act of unbelievable skill that the book devotes a great deal of attention to. now stalin was no genius. he made many mistakes. he had no understanding of fascism, for example, which was a big thing to get. wrong. so we don't want to make him out to be better than he was. he was very blinkered. but when it came to building communist, building a personal dictatorship inside the communist dictatorship, he was very good at that. and that's what he did. so he had... the authority to make decisions that others couldn't participate in even, let alone make. and so he was controlling the situation with his personal dictatorship, but he didn't have control over the country. that's very important.
Slavoj Žižek
through the 20s, throughout the 20. correct.
through the 20s, throughout the 20. correct.
Stephen Kotkin
and so you can imagine without him, who's talented enough to keep the dictatorship together? and you look
and so you can imagine without him, who's talented enough to keep the dictatorship together? and you look
Slavoj Žižek
do you see any potential
do you see any potential
Stephen Kotkin
side of the bolshevik regime and you don't see such talented. people at the top. now, of course, some people come out of nowhere. all? all of a sudden. they are, i don't know. in the senate for a day or two and then they're president. that happens. so it could be that somebody else could have come up from somewhere in the regime. that we underestimate now because they didn't have that opportunity. but if you look at the actual goings on in the regime at the time, you would be pessimistic. about a figure with that skill level on the inside of the regime. moreover, the regime couldn't manage the quasi-market. it kept ruining its own new economic policy, such that the peasants didn't deliver the grain anymore. and because the
side of the bolshevik regime and you don't see such talented. people at the top. now, of course, some people come out of nowhere. all? all of a sudden. they are, i don't know. in the senate for a day or two and then they're president. that happens. so it could be that somebody else could have come up from somewhere in the regime. that we underestimate now because they didn't have that opportunity. but if you look at the actual goings on in the regime at the time, you would be pessimistic. about a figure with that skill level on the inside of the regime. moreover, the regime couldn't manage the quasi-market. it kept ruining its own new economic policy, such that the peasants didn't deliver the grain anymore. and because the
Slavoj Žižek
crisis of when 28?
crisis of when 28?
Stephen Kotkin
already 26, 27, 28.
already 26, 27, 28.
Slavoj Žižek
it wasn't working anymore. and they lost nerves. they tried violent.
it wasn't working anymore. and they lost nerves. they tried violent.
Stephen Kotkin
communist regime in a capitalist world. a capitalist-dominated world and with a capitalist-like countryside. was a minor regime and it was in trouble. and it looks to me like, of course, we never know, but it looks to me like the regime would have collapsed. it looks to me like they would have softened. the one-party dictatorship.
communist regime in a capitalist world. a capitalist-dominated world and with a capitalist-like countryside. was a minor regime and it was in trouble. and it looks to me like, of course, we never know, but it looks to me like the regime would have collapsed. it looks to me like they would have softened. the one-party dictatorship.
Slavoj Žižek
they would have to. they would be forced.
they would have to. they would be forced.
Stephen Kotkin
they would not have been able to hold it together. and we would have ended up with either a new crisis that spawned violence and another kind may be a military dictatorship, a right-wing dictatorship, or a different version of the left. or we would have had themselves conceding and evolving. towards a recognition that the capitalist-like countryside was here to stay. and we would have a mixed economy, and therefore we would have a mixed polity also. now, the interesting comparison here is contemporary china.
they would not have been able to hold it together. and we would have ended up with either a new crisis that spawned violence and another kind may be a military dictatorship, a right-wing dictatorship, or a different version of the left. or we would have had themselves conceding and evolving. towards a recognition that the capitalist-like countryside was here to stay. and we would have a mixed economy, and therefore we would have a mixed polity also. now, the interesting comparison here is contemporary china.
Slavoj Žižek
i wanted to say, could buharin have been chineseeng, sorry, russian denengiaop pink?
i wanted to say, could buharin have been chineseeng, sorry, russian denengiaop pink?
Stephen Kotkin
Deng Xiaoping conceded the market in the. economy but of course held the communist monopoly which is retained to this day. and so this lesson. of retaining central control somehow. but giving up the ideology in the economy. is an example that the chinese have now taught us. whether this was possible in the 1920s condition. is unclear. the international situation is a factor here. the ability to get loans and international banks or other forms of financing to participate in. the world economy was under threat because they had repudiated the tsarist loans. the infrastructure was quite poor. there are many factors here, including that there was no Deng Xiaoping. in the 1920s regime. which is no minor factor.
Deng Xiaoping conceded the market in the. economy but of course held the communist monopoly which is retained to this day. and so this lesson. of retaining central control somehow. but giving up the ideology in the economy. is an example that the chinese have now taught us. whether this was possible in the 1920s condition. is unclear. the international situation is a factor here. the ability to get loans and international banks or other forms of financing to participate in. the world economy was under threat because they had repudiated the tsarist loans. the infrastructure was quite poor. there are many factors here, including that there was no Deng Xiaoping. in the 1920s regime. which is no minor factor.
Slavoj Žižek
so you think buharin was not strong.
so you think buharin was not strong.
Stephen Kotkin
so nikolai buharin, unfortunately, was not a significant politician and didn't have the skill set necessary to be a leader. alexei rov who
so nikolai buharin, unfortunately, was not a significant politician and didn't have the skill set necessary to be a leader. alexei rov who
Slavoj Žižek
was the number two person.
was the number two person.
Stephen Kotkin
and the regime. he had lenin's position. remember, lenin was the head of the government. uh the... effectively the prime minister. and roff inherited that position after lennon died in january 1924. he was a very powerful, effective manager. and a smart politician. and stalin relied on him to run the economy all throughout the 20s and rkov was not removed. even though buharin was removed, stalin still had to rely on rikov. rikov chaired the politburo meetings because the head of the government, by tradition from lenin, chaired the politburo meetings. stalin was the head of the party but not the head of the government. like rov was. so ricov was the number two person in the regime, and he's the most significant person after stalin. and so i looked very closely. at roff in his bar, re-examining. the original materials aren rov. and he's an impressive figure. but he's also a communist. we have the impression because ryov opposed stalin's forced collectivization. that maybe he was a little bit pro-market or pro-quasi-market. it turns out that ricov had no special love for the peasants and no special love for capitalism, private property in the markets. his argument was that it would be catastrophic if we tried to overturn it.
and the regime. he had lenin's position. remember, lenin was the head of the government. uh the... effectively the prime minister. and roff inherited that position after lennon died in january 1924. he was a very powerful, effective manager. and a smart politician. and stalin relied on him to run the economy all throughout the 20s and rkov was not removed. even though buharin was removed, stalin still had to rely on rikov. rikov chaired the politburo meetings because the head of the government, by tradition from lenin, chaired the politburo meetings. stalin was the head of the party but not the head of the government. like rov was. so ricov was the number two person in the regime, and he's the most significant person after stalin. and so i looked very closely. at roff in his bar, re-examining. the original materials aren rov. and he's an impressive figure. but he's also a communist. we have the impression because ryov opposed stalin's forced collectivization. that maybe he was a little bit pro-market or pro-quasi-market. it turns out that ricov had no special love for the peasants and no special love for capitalism, private property in the markets. his argument was that it would be catastrophic if we tried to overturn it.
Slavoj Žižek
mm-hmm
mm-hmm
Stephen Kotkin
and so we can't do that at this time. but at some point we will have to. go after the markets, go after private property, and get to socialism. socialism being a stage to communism, right? feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism. socialism is not the end point, it's the...
and so we can't do that at this time. but at some point we will have to. go after the markets, go after private property, and get to socialism. socialism being a stage to communism, right? feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism. socialism is not the end point, it's the...
Slavoj Žižek
mm
mm
Stephen Kotkin
intermediate stage. and so unfortunately, rikoff was not a person. like dong xia ping. who? accepted. the permanent existence. of markets and private property. the guy who came closest, and he's a semi-hero in the book. was named gch brill. diamond, brill and he his name is sokolnikov. remember nobody has their real names this is a russian
intermediate stage. and so unfortunately, rikoff was not a person. like dong xia ping. who? accepted. the permanent existence. of markets and private property. the guy who came closest, and he's a semi-hero in the book. was named gch brill. diamond, brill and he his name is sokolnikov. remember nobody has their real names this is a russian
Slavoj Žižek
travel
travel
Stephen Kotkin
st stalin's name was drugashvili. and sokolnikov, who was the finance minister, came the closest to accepting the market as a permanent institution. almost on the edge of social democracy and in fact sakolnikov came at a party congress and asked stalin to resign his post as general secretary.
st stalin's name was drugashvili. and sokolnikov, who was the finance minister, came the closest to accepting the market as a permanent institution. almost on the edge of social democracy and in fact sakolnikov came at a party congress and asked stalin to resign his post as general secretary.
Slavoj Žižek
when.
when.
Stephen Kotkin
in 1925.
in 1925.
Slavoj Žižek
which
which
Stephen Kotkin
december 1925. it was a bold, very courageous speech. it was a speech on principle that no person should have this much power. and that there should be democracy inside the party, not democracy for multip-parties, but democracy inside the party.
december 1925. it was a bold, very courageous speech. it was a speech on principle that no person should have this much power. and that there should be democracy inside the party, not democracy for multip-parties, but democracy inside the party.
Slavoj Žižek
ap. that was a step at least. so when did that of
ap. that was a step at least. so when did that of
Stephen Kotkin
was removed.
was removed.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Stephen Kotkin
stalin removed him reluctantly.
stalin removed him reluctantly.
Slavoj Žižek
immediately.
immediately.
Stephen Kotkin
january 1926.
january 1926.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah
yeah
Stephen Kotkin
finance commissar, but he kept them in the central committee.
finance commissar, but he kept them in the central committee.
Slavoj Žižek
ah
ah
Stephen Kotkin
that's how important sokolnikov invented the currency. he's the one that made the new economic policy function. relying on... uh. bankers and economists left over from the tsarist regime, but smart enough to take their advice. anyway, so there were some figures, bukhan wouldn't be one of them, but rkov and sokolnikov.
that's how important sokolnikov invented the currency. he's the one that made the new economic policy function. relying on... uh. bankers and economists left over from the tsarist regime, but smart enough to take their advice. anyway, so there were some figures, bukhan wouldn't be one of them, but rkov and sokolnikov.
Slavoj Žižek
yes.
yes.
Stephen Kotkin
the ones that i singled out in towards the end through the book and then especially towards
the ones that i singled out in towards the end through the book and then especially towards
Slavoj Žižek
the.
the.
Stephen Kotkin
valon had died. so one could imagine people like that avoiding collapse. by reluctantly, grudgingly coming around to accepting the market the way dong shoping reluctantly, grudgingly came around to accepting the market in the late 70s and early 80s. but there's little evidence that they were prepared to do that in the 20s.
valon had died. so one could imagine people like that avoiding collapse. by reluctantly, grudgingly coming around to accepting the market the way dong shoping reluctantly, grudgingly came around to accepting the market in the late 70s and early 80s. but there's little evidence that they were prepared to do that in the 20s.
Slavoj Žižek
and even did they have a strong enough base? by base i mean not in people who cares about that, but within nomenclatura, bureaucracy.
and even did they have a strong enough base? by base i mean not in people who cares about that, but within nomenclatura, bureaucracy.
Stephen Kotkin
if stalin had died, rov would have been strong enough to take power. yes, there's no question. but unfortunately, stalin didn't die.
if stalin had died, rov would have been strong enough to take power. yes, there's no question. but unfortunately, stalin didn't die.
Slavoj Žižek
uh okay, can i go on? i have so many provocative questions. first, one thesis where i totally agree with you. it's extremely important what you said at the beginning. i think that, you know, you always think they speak jargon. no, fuck it. you go in the back privately, it's exactly the same language. it's totally wrong, this vision. they were dirty manipulators that something. no, it's the same. it reminds me of... there is, no no, another, i forgot which one, sorry, a spikly movie where you have people, you know how, in the 20s, even white performers painted their faces black. like al johnson and so on. and what happens there is that you have performers painted their faces black. after the end of the performance, they go to their room and wipe the color off and you see the same black face. it's not. i like this. this is crucial. but let me go on. nonetheless, i have other things to ask you. okay. what you said about social democracy and so on, i think just a general remark. i'm sorry, it's out of order, but i cannot resist making it. what is social democracy? how times are changing. today in greece we have syriza, which is in european media de as almost. sorry?
uh okay, can i go on? i have so many provocative questions. first, one thesis where i totally agree with you. it's extremely important what you said at the beginning. i think that, you know, you always think they speak jargon. no, fuck it. you go in the back privately, it's exactly the same language. it's totally wrong, this vision. they were dirty manipulators that something. no, it's the same. it reminds me of... there is, no no, another, i forgot which one, sorry, a spikly movie where you have people, you know how, in the 20s, even white performers painted their faces black. like al johnson and so on. and what happens there is that you have performers painted their faces black. after the end of the performance, they go to their room and wipe the color off and you see the same black face. it's not. i like this. this is crucial. but let me go on. nonetheless, i have other things to ask you. okay. what you said about social democracy and so on, i think just a general remark. i'm sorry, it's out of order, but i cannot resist making it. what is social democracy? how times are changing. today in greece we have syriza, which is in european media de as almost. sorry?
Stephen Kotkin
nothing.
nothing.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah leftist lunatics, but if you look closely, i know him, he's my friend at Varoufakis, what he demands from europe, it's something that 40, 50 years ago would not have been even extreme but extremely moderate social democracy. in what sad times do we live that what 50 years 40 ago was an extremely moderate social democracy now you have to be radical left if you said the times. but that's another point. now i go to a little bit defense, not really of bolshevism. i just want to provoke you. when you said communism, nations and so on. but whatever you say about lenin, that's my impression you can correct me at one point he was sincere in his hatred of big russian nationalism. he even had, i think lenin a debate with rosa luxembenberg where i simplified the debate, but you can correct me. if i remember correctly, it went on like this. lenin claimed all these small nations, precisely the ones you mentioned, from poland to baltic states, they should be given a real choice if they want to go their own way, full independence, they get it. now, rodla lachenburg tried to play a little bit communist trick. she said, no, no, let's specify it. only if the right guys are in power there, no? and plin heroically said, no, whoever is in power there,. and he did this, lenin. second thing with ukraine.
yeah leftist lunatics, but if you look closely, i know him, he's my friend at Varoufakis, what he demands from europe, it's something that 40, 50 years ago would not have been even extreme but extremely moderate social democracy. in what sad times do we live that what 50 years 40 ago was an extremely moderate social democracy now you have to be radical left if you said the times. but that's another point. now i go to a little bit defense, not really of bolshevism. i just want to provoke you. when you said communism, nations and so on. but whatever you say about lenin, that's my impression you can correct me at one point he was sincere in his hatred of big russian nationalism. he even had, i think lenin a debate with rosa luxembenberg where i simplified the debate, but you can correct me. if i remember correctly, it went on like this. lenin claimed all these small nations, precisely the ones you mentioned, from poland to baltic states, they should be given a real choice if they want to go their own way, full independence, they get it. now, rodla lachenburg tried to play a little bit communist trick. she said, no, no, let's specify it. only if the right guys are in power there, no? and plin heroically said, no, whoever is in power there,. and he did this, lenin. second thing with ukraine.
Stephen Kotkin
huh
huh
Slavoj Žižek
now i will say something horrible, but from what i know it's true. you can correct me again if i'm wrong. isn't it that under terroristist regime, ukraine was not recognized as a nation and so on. there was the golden era of ukraine, golden era not for freedom, but in the simple sense of establishing their autonomous, you know, like culture, lexicons, how do you call them, the grammarary and so on, it was the 20s. it was the 20s, so stalin's counteroup against ukrainians. it was basically taking away from them not what they always possessed, even in tist regime, but what they gained in the 20s. so don't you think that at least at this point the original bolsheviks were half sincere? because as you know better than me, even lenin, his first conflict with some guy from georgia gruzia was precisely how far to go in allowing... don't you think that there at least lenin was serious?
now i will say something horrible, but from what i know it's true. you can correct me again if i'm wrong. isn't it that under terroristist regime, ukraine was not recognized as a nation and so on. there was the golden era of ukraine, golden era not for freedom, but in the simple sense of establishing their autonomous, you know, like culture, lexicons, how do you call them, the grammarary and so on, it was the 20s. it was the 20s, so stalin's counteroup against ukrainians. it was basically taking away from them not what they always possessed, even in tist regime, but what they gained in the 20s. so don't you think that at least at this point the original bolsheviks were half sincere? because as you know better than me, even lenin, his first conflict with some guy from georgia gruzia was precisely how far to go in allowing... don't you think that there at least lenin was serious?
Stephen Kotkin
okay, so did i.
okay, so did i.
Slavoj Žižek
okay too much heat.
okay too much heat.
Stephen Kotkin
lenin was very serious. he played for keeps. he was for real.
lenin was very serious. he played for keeps. he was for real.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Stephen Kotkin
lenin was a very large personality. what do you mean by this?.
lenin was a very large personality. what do you mean by this?.
Slavoj Žižek
m
m
Stephen Kotkin
i don't think we would have had october seizure of power, bolshevik coup without lenin. and i don't think we would have had stalin without lenin either. unfortunately.
i don't think we would have had october seizure of power, bolshevik coup without lenin. and i don't think we would have had stalin without lenin either. unfortunately.
Slavoj Žižek
to agree.
to agree.
Stephen Kotkin
let. by.
let. by.
Slavoj Žižek
major figure.
major figure.
Stephen Kotkin
so, you know, on the nationality question, so the revolution happens in eurasia. it happens in the former russian empire. and so this, of course, is a tremendously difficult proposition. what to do about this? you have a revolution based upon a class principle. the proletariat is the universal class. but then you have all these nations, and the proletariat speaks all these languages. so what are you going to do? it turns out that lennon didn't really know much about these questions. lenin was not an expert on nationalities nor on. russia. lenin didn't travel much. he never was in georgia. he didn't go through ukraine. lenin knew zurich. very well. the dada café was a few doors down the street. from lenin's residence in zurich. he knew finland a tiny bit. and of course, he knew... long yes, he knew central russia a little, where he was born, and he knew kazan, where he failed to complete his law degree. but lenin was not a person of russian eurasia the way stalin was.
so, you know, on the nationality question, so the revolution happens in eurasia. it happens in the former russian empire. and so this, of course, is a tremendously difficult proposition. what to do about this? you have a revolution based upon a class principle. the proletariat is the universal class. but then you have all these nations, and the proletariat speaks all these languages. so what are you going to do? it turns out that lennon didn't really know much about these questions. lenin was not an expert on nationalities nor on. russia. lenin didn't travel much. he never was in georgia. he didn't go through ukraine. lenin knew zurich. very well. the dada café was a few doors down the street. from lenin's residence in zurich. he knew finland a tiny bit. and of course, he knew... long yes, he knew central russia a little, where he was born, and he knew kazan, where he failed to complete his law degree. but lenin was not a person of russian eurasia the way stalin was.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah
yeah
Stephen Kotkin
stalin had significantly deeper knowledge. about russia, eurasia. because he was from the periphery of the empire. and he traveled much more widely through the empire than lenin ever did. stalin was an exile. in russia. lenin was an exile in europe. and many people hold this against stalin, that he didn't know europe, that he was... not as smart as lenin, that he was ignorant. but actually it turned out to be an advantage when they were having a revolution in r and eurasia. it was one of the things i hope the book shows. that that was an advantage for stalin in the power struggle. now this is a very complicated story of how they got the union of soviet socialist republics, what lenin's ideas were, what stalin's ideas were. whether they differed or not on these questions. these have been very fraught in the literature. and they certainly wanted to bring a better linen, a more flexible linen on this. you compared him to rosa luxberg and she was certainly. in complete denial. of the importance of nation in complete denial. luxembourgism was the extreme on the left. and lenin was much more flexible. willing to allow, once again, tactical retreats, willing to allow a certain amount of concession to nationalism in pursuit of the larger goal, which of course is world revolution. stalin was a little bit more practical than lenin, and they had a fight. stalin wanted to form a single state. he wanted to fold. what happened was when the russian empire collapsed in world war i, revolution and civil war, these new states or statelets formed. ukraine. bielorussia, finland, poland, estonia, latvia, lithuania, they had not existed in the tsarist empire. they had been only provinces in the tsarist empire. there was no ukraine in the tsarist empire. but the circumstances of the dissolution because of world war i and the revolution produced these states on the map. they were not stable, they were fragile, but they existed. andalin's idea was to fold them all back into russia. and create a unitary state. they would have autonomy, as he called it, in many policies. but they would be part of soviet russia. part of russia once again. lenin initially agreed. to this view. and then lennon changed his mind. and demanded. that instead of folding into russia they would be joined in a union of republics and russia and ukraine. and belelorussia and the caucasus would be equal members. of the union. and stalin said, that's unfair. what about the tatars? tatarstan is inside russia already. how come they don't have the same status as ukraine, which would become a union republic? equal to russia in the union of soviet socialists. and they fought, but lenin was lenin. and so stalin conceded lenin's point, and he formed, lenin was sick already, stalin formed the ussr. he did it. and it was lenin's version of how to deal with revolution in russia eurasia. well, what happens? 1991 comes along. the soviet union dissolves, and it dissolves into these leninist constituent republics. the parts that were folded into russia? are still in russia. and so this is one of the reasons that stalin is in good standing these days. compared to lenin. because lenin was much more responsible than stalin. for the possibility. that the soviet union could be dissolved into its constituent members because it was made up of constituent members. as the final analyst of the kgb. nikolai leonov said, the kgb obviously ended formally in 1991 when the soviet union was dissolved. he said the soviet union was like a chocolate bar, like one of those hershey bars, which has the creases in it. and you see the little blocks and they're all tied together, but you see where the creases are and you break it off and you give some to this person.
stalin had significantly deeper knowledge. about russia, eurasia. because he was from the periphery of the empire. and he traveled much more widely through the empire than lenin ever did. stalin was an exile. in russia. lenin was an exile in europe. and many people hold this against stalin, that he didn't know europe, that he was... not as smart as lenin, that he was ignorant. but actually it turned out to be an advantage when they were having a revolution in r and eurasia. it was one of the things i hope the book shows. that that was an advantage for stalin in the power struggle. now this is a very complicated story of how they got the union of soviet socialist republics, what lenin's ideas were, what stalin's ideas were. whether they differed or not on these questions. these have been very fraught in the literature. and they certainly wanted to bring a better linen, a more flexible linen on this. you compared him to rosa luxberg and she was certainly. in complete denial. of the importance of nation in complete denial. luxembourgism was the extreme on the left. and lenin was much more flexible. willing to allow, once again, tactical retreats, willing to allow a certain amount of concession to nationalism in pursuit of the larger goal, which of course is world revolution. stalin was a little bit more practical than lenin, and they had a fight. stalin wanted to form a single state. he wanted to fold. what happened was when the russian empire collapsed in world war i, revolution and civil war, these new states or statelets formed. ukraine. bielorussia, finland, poland, estonia, latvia, lithuania, they had not existed in the tsarist empire. they had been only provinces in the tsarist empire. there was no ukraine in the tsarist empire. but the circumstances of the dissolution because of world war i and the revolution produced these states on the map. they were not stable, they were fragile, but they existed. andalin's idea was to fold them all back into russia. and create a unitary state. they would have autonomy, as he called it, in many policies. but they would be part of soviet russia. part of russia once again. lenin initially agreed. to this view. and then lennon changed his mind. and demanded. that instead of folding into russia they would be joined in a union of republics and russia and ukraine. and belelorussia and the caucasus would be equal members. of the union. and stalin said, that's unfair. what about the tatars? tatarstan is inside russia already. how come they don't have the same status as ukraine, which would become a union republic? equal to russia in the union of soviet socialists. and they fought, but lenin was lenin. and so stalin conceded lenin's point, and he formed, lenin was sick already, stalin formed the ussr. he did it. and it was lenin's version of how to deal with revolution in russia eurasia. well, what happens? 1991 comes along. the soviet union dissolves, and it dissolves into these leninist constituent republics. the parts that were folded into russia? are still in russia. and so this is one of the reasons that stalin is in good standing these days. compared to lenin. because lenin was much more responsible than stalin. for the possibility. that the soviet union could be dissolved into its constituent members because it was made up of constituent members. as the final analyst of the kgb. nikolai leonov said, the kgb obviously ended formally in 1991 when the soviet union was dissolved. he said the soviet union was like a chocolate bar, like one of those hershey bars, which has the creases in it. and you see the little blocks and they're all tied together, but you see where the creases are and you break it off and you give some to this person.
Slavoj Žižek
the kgb analyst used
the kgb analyst used
Stephen Kotkin
yes. this. this was his metaphor.
yes. this. this was his metaphor.
Slavoj Žižek
hibar, not just chocolate.
hibar, not just chocolate.
Stephen Kotkin
actually, just chocolate.
actually, just chocolate.
Slavoj Žižek
that's not.
that's not.
Stephen Kotkin
too nice to be
too nice to be
Slavoj Žižek
sorry.
sorry.
Stephen Kotkin
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Stephen Kotkin
.
.
Slavoj Žižek
sorry.
sorry.
Stephen Kotkin
you really don't like to disappoint. but you know, facts are very stubborn. sometimes the stories could get better if you were a novelist at the coleman center as a poster story. but anyway, so these pieces got broken off and kazakhstan got a piece of the chocolate bar and ukraine got a piece of the chocolate bar and you ended up with these union republics being the successor states to the ussr. whereas tatarstan, as we said, was still, and many others like tatarstan were inside. russia and remain inside russia. so in the end, the answer to your question is, you know? lenin had tactical flexibility on the national question. but not a difference in principle. and his form and stalin's form were different, and stalin had to concede or felt he had to concede to lenin's form. if you examine the others, zenova was a complete ninkepooop on this question. a complete idiot. i question.
you really don't like to disappoint. but you know, facts are very stubborn. sometimes the stories could get better if you were a novelist at the coleman center as a poster story. but anyway, so these pieces got broken off and kazakhstan got a piece of the chocolate bar and ukraine got a piece of the chocolate bar and you ended up with these union republics being the successor states to the ussr. whereas tatarstan, as we said, was still, and many others like tatarstan were inside. russia and remain inside russia. so in the end, the answer to your question is, you know? lenin had tactical flexibility on the national question. but not a difference in principle. and his form and stalin's form were different, and stalin had to concede or felt he had to concede to lenin's form. if you examine the others, zenova was a complete ninkepooop on this question. a complete idiot. i question.
Slavoj Žižek
sorry.
sorry.
Stephen Kotkin
kv followed stalin, but then when lenin came out with his view, kv stalin. so, you know, lennon... he was for real on communist revolution. and that meant that if you had to concede something to the ethnic to the nationalities, to the ethnicities now. because later you could overcome that some way, you should do it. now let's remember it was lenin. in 1990, 1921920. who forced the invasion of poland to try to bring poland back into the fold, to try to retake poland, reconquer poland with the red army. and stalin said, you know, i'm not sure we can do this. it may not work. and it failed. and poland defeated the red army and remained an independent state, unfortunately up to the hitler-stalin pact. aug august 1939, september 1939, hitler invaded one side style and the other. until that point, poland had won its independence. and stalin was the skeptic. he believed nationalism was for real. it was stalin in the 1920s who got up at the 10th party congress in 1921 and said, ukraine is a real nation.
kv followed stalin, but then when lenin came out with his view, kv stalin. so, you know, lennon... he was for real on communist revolution. and that meant that if you had to concede something to the ethnic to the nationalities, to the ethnicities now. because later you could overcome that some way, you should do it. now let's remember it was lenin. in 1990, 1921920. who forced the invasion of poland to try to bring poland back into the fold, to try to retake poland, reconquer poland with the red army. and stalin said, you know, i'm not sure we can do this. it may not work. and it failed. and poland defeated the red army and remained an independent state, unfortunately up to the hitler-stalin pact. aug august 1939, september 1939, hitler invaded one side style and the other. until that point, poland had won its independence. and stalin was the skeptic. he believed nationalism was for real. it was stalin in the 1920s who got up at the 10th party congress in 1921 and said, ukraine is a real nation.
Slavoj Žižek
oh.
oh.
Stephen Kotkin
it was stalin who said that. one of the chapters in the book. you know, so history is crazy that way. it turned out that lenin's tactical flexibility was a little bit too flexible. for those who are ruling russia today.
it was stalin who said that. one of the chapters in the book. you know, so history is crazy that way. it turned out that lenin's tactical flexibility was a little bit too flexible. for those who are ruling russia today.
Slavoj Žižek
but okay, let me provoke you with another friendly, aggressive. but nonetheless, you know, poles like to emphasize this. yes, red army wanted to crush. 0 but wait a minute, poles themselves are not so innocent here. remember that a year before, polish army occupied practically all of ukraine. what were they doing there?
but okay, let me provoke you with another friendly, aggressive. but nonetheless, you know, poles like to emphasize this. yes, red army wanted to crush. 0 but wait a minute, poles themselves are not so innocent here. remember that a year before, polish army occupied practically all of ukraine. what were they doing there?
Stephen Kotkin
they were occupying ukraine like.
they were occupying ukraine like.
Slavoj Žižek
that's what you know. so it's not just innocent poland oh and then you know.
that's what you know. so it's not just innocent poland oh and then you know.
Stephen Kotkin
intowar poland was a nasty regime. a very nasty machine.
intowar poland was a nasty regime. a very nasty machine.
Slavoj Žižek
thank.
thank.
Stephen Kotkin
extremely.
extremely.
Slavoj Žižek
bring out of you yeah.
bring out of you yeah.
Stephen Kotkin
polish history portrays often portrays poland solely as a victim. poland was victimized, but they were also perpetrators. there's no question. i wouldn't put them on the same plane necessarily with stalin in this regard. but i would not want to have lived under the piudski regime in inter-war poland. absolutely not. that was not a friendly, nice regime. and, you know, but in the long sweep of things, right? you have a problem. here you have a book that ends in 1928. the decision to collectivize agriculture. and it makes sense. the guy is not psychopathic in his tendencies and behavior yet. they're arguing about ideas. he's exercising a lot of power, etc. but it... you can feel like you understand this person. is a human being in there. and there are all sorts of complicated questions that would been complicated for anybody who was ruling russia at the time. the foreign policy would not have been simple for any kind of regime. and the peasant countryside stuff would have been difficult even if you accepted the markets because there were many peculiar aspects to the russian countryside even under a market economy. but then you see, i get into volume 2. which covers the period 1929 to 1941. and it's much harder. you see, because he crashed the plane. he. the plane was flying fine. there were no mechanical difficulties. all the people on the plane were loyal. and he drove it into the alps, just like happened the other day, and he smashed it. and how do you explain that? how do you explain that stalin, who has so much power already, so much power. he's already collectivized agriculture. he's eradicated capitalism. he declares socialism is built in its foundations in 1936.
polish history portrays often portrays poland solely as a victim. poland was victimized, but they were also perpetrators. there's no question. i wouldn't put them on the same plane necessarily with stalin in this regard. but i would not want to have lived under the piudski regime in inter-war poland. absolutely not. that was not a friendly, nice regime. and, you know, but in the long sweep of things, right? you have a problem. here you have a book that ends in 1928. the decision to collectivize agriculture. and it makes sense. the guy is not psychopathic in his tendencies and behavior yet. they're arguing about ideas. he's exercising a lot of power, etc. but it... you can feel like you understand this person. is a human being in there. and there are all sorts of complicated questions that would been complicated for anybody who was ruling russia at the time. the foreign policy would not have been simple for any kind of regime. and the peasant countryside stuff would have been difficult even if you accepted the markets because there were many peculiar aspects to the russian countryside even under a market economy. but then you see, i get into volume 2. which covers the period 1929 to 1941. and it's much harder. you see, because he crashed the plane. he. the plane was flying fine. there were no mechanical difficulties. all the people on the plane were loyal. and he drove it into the alps, just like happened the other day, and he smashed it. and how do you explain that? how do you explain that stalin, who has so much power already, so much power. he's already collectivized agriculture. he's eradicated capitalism. he declares socialism is built in its foundations in 1936.
Slavoj Žižek
you you mean great perjury.
you you mean great perjury.
Stephen Kotkin
and. and.
and. and.
Slavoj Žižek
it concerned the party itself.
it concerned the party itself.
Stephen Kotkin
and then everybody starts to be murdered.
and then everybody starts to be murdered.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah
yeah
Stephen Kotkin
mm. all people who are loyal. his closest friends and advisors, people who are the heads of all the factories, the heads of all the collective farms, his diplomats, his foreign intelligence officers, his red army officer corps. 150 out of 180. division commanders. are executed as spies for foreign countries. none of these guys had done anything. they commanded 12,000, 15,000, 20,000 troops. they didn't cross the border with their troops. and betray the country. by fleeing. they didn't march on the capitol to try to do a coup. they were loyal. and he murdered them. and he murdered not just a few. i know. he murdered. big numbers. and so... you know, we're talking about the 1920s and it makes so much sense to me. and then i'm thinking, you know, he crashed the plane. and where did that come from? where did that? demonic where did those demons inside him, those snakes in his head, where did that come from?
mm. all people who are loyal. his closest friends and advisors, people who are the heads of all the factories, the heads of all the collective farms, his diplomats, his foreign intelligence officers, his red army officer corps. 150 out of 180. division commanders. are executed as spies for foreign countries. none of these guys had done anything. they commanded 12,000, 15,000, 20,000 troops. they didn't cross the border with their troops. and betray the country. by fleeing. they didn't march on the capitol to try to do a coup. they were loyal. and he murdered them. and he murdered not just a few. i know. he murdered. big numbers. and so... you know, we're talking about the 1920s and it makes so much sense to me. and then i'm thinking, you know, he crashed the plane. and where did that come from? where did that? demonic where did those demons inside him, those snakes in his head, where did that come from?
Slavoj Žižek
now i will give you a Varoufakis, up yours, you know in what sense. i agree with you, but here you should also stick to your wonderful principle, it's politics. don't bring me in a too simple way personality now in. i think this is still in a crazy way that i don't understand, but my gut feeling, it's the horror of 1930, it's still a political process. it's not simply then demonic personality entered and so on.
now i will give you a Varoufakis, up yours, you know in what sense. i agree with you, but here you should also stick to your wonderful principle, it's politics. don't bring me in a too simple way personality now in. i think this is still in a crazy way that i don't understand, but my gut feeling, it's the horror of 1930, it's still a political process. it's not simply then demonic personality entered and so on.
Stephen Kotkin
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
so
so
Stephen Kotkin
hit hitler doesn't murder his officer corps. when hitler wants to remove the highest level. officers in the wehrmacht. he retires them. and he retires them with honors. and he does it in 1938, the year stalin is cutting through like a scythe through his officer corps. and hitler doesn't murder his diplomats. and he doesn't murder his foreign intelligence agents. and he doesn't murder the gauleiter or the provincial nazi officials. and he doesn't murder the factory bosses. there's the night of the long knives in 1934.
hit hitler doesn't murder his officer corps. when hitler wants to remove the highest level. officers in the wehrmacht. he retires them. and he retires them with honors. and he does it in 1938, the year stalin is cutting through like a scythe through his officer corps. and hitler doesn't murder his diplomats. and he doesn't murder his foreign intelligence agents. and he doesn't murder the gauleiter or the provincial nazi officials. and he doesn't murder the factory bosses. there's the night of the long knives in 1934.
Slavoj Žižek
but at the beginning, he just wanted to
but at the beginning, he just wanted to
Stephen Kotkin
fewer than 100 people.
fewer than 100 people.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Stephen Kotkin
are killed in the night of the long knives. there are execution lists that stahlenstein that have thousands of names on them. with his signature, recognized signature on them for a single night. and so... this becomes a more difficult proposition. how you get from the stalin who is managing to build a personal dictatorship. to the stalin who's going to crash the plane. onto the side of the mountain. when it's fully function.
are killed in the night of the long knives. there are execution lists that stahlenstein that have thousands of names on them. with his signature, recognized signature on them for a single night. and so... this becomes a more difficult proposition. how you get from the stalin who is managing to build a personal dictatorship. to the stalin who's going to crash the plane. onto the side of the mountain. when it's fully function.
Slavoj Žižek
do you know the book? i like it? i want now from you as the one who knows to tell me, am i right or not? Naumov, the Road to Terror.
do you know the book? i like it? i want now from you as the one who knows to tell me, am i right or not? Naumov, the Road to Terror.
Stephen Kotkin
yes, of course we know that.
yes, of course we know that.
Slavoj Žižek
have its weaknesses or what's your opinion of that?
have its weaknesses or what's your opinion of that?
Stephen Kotkin
yeah,
yeah,
Slavoj Žižek
because maybe i'm wrong, but for me it's the best book that i know of them.
because maybe i'm wrong, but for me it's the best book that i know of them.
Stephen Kotkin
that people are trying to explain the terror as a rational response to conditions that were there that stalin was trying to overcome. so there was resistance to his directives on the part of local officials, and therefore they all were killed. and so i haven't seen a dictatorship in which there wasn't resistance.
that people are trying to explain the terror as a rational response to conditions that were there that stalin was trying to overcome. so there was resistance to his directives on the part of local officials, and therefore they all were killed. and so i haven't seen a dictatorship in which there wasn't resistance.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Stephen Kotkin
aumvention. ignoring of decrees from the center. all dictatorships are like that. but not all dictatorships murder their loyal elites. so i'm not sure the geti naomov book really explains what we've got here.. now having said that, i do agree with you. that there's something about having that kind of power. having life or death power over 200 million people, because that's what stalin has by the 1930s. very few people have ever had power like that before or since. just a tiny handful. and that, of course, is going to affect his person, his personality. but still. he's murdering them and receiving reports. that he's unhinged the economy. there were 138 days in 1937 and 38 where he gets no foreign intelligence reports. he's been getting several every day for years, and they have his pencil marks on them. 138 days blind, no foreign intelligence. he had the best foreign intelligence network the world has ever seen. and after 138 days, he doesn't stop murdering them. this is really perplexing, i got to tell you. it's not easy to figure this out.
aumvention. ignoring of decrees from the center. all dictatorships are like that. but not all dictatorships murder their loyal elites. so i'm not sure the geti naomov book really explains what we've got here.. now having said that, i do agree with you. that there's something about having that kind of power. having life or death power over 200 million people, because that's what stalin has by the 1930s. very few people have ever had power like that before or since. just a tiny handful. and that, of course, is going to affect his person, his personality. but still. he's murdering them and receiving reports. that he's unhinged the economy. there were 138 days in 1937 and 38 where he gets no foreign intelligence reports. he's been getting several every day for years, and they have his pencil marks on them. 138 days blind, no foreign intelligence. he had the best foreign intelligence network the world has ever seen. and after 138 days, he doesn't stop murdering them. this is really perplexing, i got to tell you. it's not easy to figure this out.
Slavoj Žižek
tot totally agree
tot totally agree
Stephen Kotkin
and where this comes from and how this is possible. you know, this is the problem in the stalin. biographies in the stalin literature. once you get to this point, then you have to find the answer somewhere before. and so you begin to look for things he did when he was younger.
and where this comes from and how this is possible. you know, this is the problem in the stalin. biographies in the stalin literature. once you get to this point, then you have to find the answer somewhere before. and so you begin to look for things he did when he was younger.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Stephen Kotkin
and blow them up. and connect them. to this later behavior. aha. when he put the cat in the microwave, i knew i knew right then. that he was going to murder us all. right? aha, and so we have this retrospective finding of these behaviors which weren't considered that crazy, abnormal, demented, or psychopathic. at the time. i very close. in following what people said, not 30, 40, 50 years later, but at the time. and so, you know, not to go too far with this. but in um and. in analyzing evil. in trying to describe evil and in humanizing evil because evil is much worse when it's humanized. of course then you can really understand it. historians need explanation. shakespeare can have yago. and nobody's there on the dais saying, geez, you know, shakespeare, how did he get evil? what was it? he's just evil. evil is just evil. that's it. and this is how yago behaves. and nobody's asking him questions. can you please explain this? can you relate this to his relationship with his mother? or, know did a teacher humiliate yago in school? or, you know, what was it? but in history, people are expecting explanation for this type of behavior. and if the explanation en rooted in politics, it could be. but i got to tell you, it didn't happen in other cases when dictatorial politics were similar. so i don't know how much we can exclude the demonic personality from the explanation, although... we'll see. i mean, volume two, i'm still putting the final touches on this.
and blow them up. and connect them. to this later behavior. aha. when he put the cat in the microwave, i knew i knew right then. that he was going to murder us all. right? aha, and so we have this retrospective finding of these behaviors which weren't considered that crazy, abnormal, demented, or psychopathic. at the time. i very close. in following what people said, not 30, 40, 50 years later, but at the time. and so, you know, not to go too far with this. but in um and. in analyzing evil. in trying to describe evil and in humanizing evil because evil is much worse when it's humanized. of course then you can really understand it. historians need explanation. shakespeare can have yago. and nobody's there on the dais saying, geez, you know, shakespeare, how did he get evil? what was it? he's just evil. evil is just evil. that's it. and this is how yago behaves. and nobody's asking him questions. can you please explain this? can you relate this to his relationship with his mother? or, know did a teacher humiliate yago in school? or, you know, what was it? but in history, people are expecting explanation for this type of behavior. and if the explanation en rooted in politics, it could be. but i got to tell you, it didn't happen in other cases when dictatorial politics were similar. so i don't know how much we can exclude the demonic personality from the explanation, although... we'll see. i mean, volume two, i'm still putting the final touches on this.
Slavoj Žižek
you got it how my friend stephen did. he began with the book and open, perplexed. basically his answer was, you want the answer to the mystery of book one by volume two, no? that was basically, sorry, that was evil. i wanted to tell you a much more serious.
you got it how my friend stephen did. he began with the book and open, perplexed. basically his answer was, you want the answer to the mystery of book one by volume two, no? that was basically, sorry, that was evil. i wanted to tell you a much more serious.
Stephen Kotkin
you know, i thought i was being subtle.
you know, i thought i was being subtle.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah. but i wasn't. cl.
yeah. but i wasn't. cl.
Stephen Kotkin
i
i
Slavoj Žižek
more serious, i liked very much what you said about comparing stalinism, fascism. and i say this again as a radical leftist. it always, when people just throw them together into the same category of totalitarianism. i agree, there are good reasons for it, but the whole functioning of the system was different. let's take the most extreme example of stalinism. the pur. why this compulsion to have people, victims, accused, publicly admit, confess their, you know, buharin and so on, confess their sins? you cannot imagine the same thing in nazi germany. it would have been meaningless within the nazi universe to organize a big trial against the jews where the jewish leader would confess to their plot. against germany it's not part of their universe another thing which touched.
more serious, i liked very much what you said about comparing stalinism, fascism. and i say this again as a radical leftist. it always, when people just throw them together into the same category of totalitarianism. i agree, there are good reasons for it, but the whole functioning of the system was different. let's take the most extreme example of stalinism. the pur. why this compulsion to have people, victims, accused, publicly admit, confess their, you know, buharin and so on, confess their sins? you cannot imagine the same thing in nazi germany. it would have been meaningless within the nazi universe to organize a big trial against the jews where the jewish leader would confess to their plot. against germany it's not part of their universe another thing which touched.
Stephen Kotkin
what would be the comparison would be the himmler. and hydric. and gering. confessing to being soviet spies. in public and then being executed for that that would be the equivalent. but again as you said.
what would be the comparison would be the himmler. and hydric. and gering. confessing to being soviet spies. in public and then being executed for that that would be the equivalent. but again as you said.
Slavoj Žižek
it't happen.
it't happen.
Stephen Kotkin
it imagine.
it imagine.
Slavoj Žižek
another thing, i read in n applebaum's gulak book that even in the darkest terror period up to early 50s when stalin was still alive. she writes about this, i hope it's true, i don't have any other to check it up, that once a year on stalin's birthday, all the prisoners were collected and had to sign collectively a telegram, gulag prisoners to stalin. you cannot imagine nazis collecting all the jews in auschwitz to send a telegram to hitler. you know what i think i give you that. now my explanation. you.
another thing, i read in n applebaum's gulak book that even in the darkest terror period up to early 50s when stalin was still alive. she writes about this, i hope it's true, i don't have any other to check it up, that once a year on stalin's birthday, all the prisoners were collected and had to sign collectively a telegram, gulag prisoners to stalin. you cannot imagine nazis collecting all the jews in auschwitz to send a telegram to hitler. you know what i think i give you that. now my explanation. you.
Stephen Kotkin
that.
that.
Slavoj Žižek
one. that's the perverted remainder of enlightenment. in stalinism, you can be the lowest trash vermin shit, but at the same time, part of you participates in universal reason and of course it's all staged. i know that.
one. that's the perverted remainder of enlightenment. in stalinism, you can be the lowest trash vermin shit, but at the same time, part of you participates in universal reason and of course it's all staged. i know that.
Stephen Kotkin
anyway.
anyway.
Slavoj Žižek
but you know, the universe of stalinism is still a crazy universe of, again, universal enlightenment where even the lowest trotskite trash can be forced to participate in this universal truth region. nazism is a different universe. but now, the last question, then maybe we should admit the fact, which i will never admit deep in myself, that we are not alone. that there are adult people here. now what i wanted to ask you is
but you know, the universe of stalinism is still a crazy universe of, again, universal enlightenment where even the lowest trotskite trash can be forced to participate in this universal truth region. nazism is a different universe. but now, the last question, then maybe we should admit the fact, which i will never admit deep in myself, that we are not alone. that there are adult people here. now what i wanted to ask you is
Stephen Kotkin
do you also?
do you also?
Slavoj Žižek
agree agree with me. de. and the game! i am sympathizing still radical left but that to understand really stalinism one has to demystify, stop with this, especially in cultural circles, it's popular, this idolatry of the 20s. gold era, formalists, futurists, relative freedom, everything. it's not as simple as that. especially, you know, some very strange things were going on. we... in their ideological potentials maybe in a way even more ominous than stalinism. i've written about this in my books, you know, the so-called... i cannot call it otherwise gnostic bolshevism. there was a strong movement, trotsky even subscribed to it. i have quotes where he says, the next big task of soviet power is to construct a new man. and he meant it quite literally, biologically. a new man who would be much more rational ultimately. there was a very strong school in the 20s which even said claimed sex. it's a bourgeois invention, basically. you know, so what i'm saying is that 20s is a period to be rediscovered. we have to stop with this simple idolatry. only in this way we can understand, strange as this may sound, maybe you will agree, the even relative popularity, relative, because of his manipulation of, you know, when stalin introduced socialist realism.
agree agree with me. de. and the game! i am sympathizing still radical left but that to understand really stalinism one has to demystify, stop with this, especially in cultural circles, it's popular, this idolatry of the 20s. gold era, formalists, futurists, relative freedom, everything. it's not as simple as that. especially, you know, some very strange things were going on. we... in their ideological potentials maybe in a way even more ominous than stalinism. i've written about this in my books, you know, the so-called... i cannot call it otherwise gnostic bolshevism. there was a strong movement, trotsky even subscribed to it. i have quotes where he says, the next big task of soviet power is to construct a new man. and he meant it quite literally, biologically. a new man who would be much more rational ultimately. there was a very strong school in the 20s which even said claimed sex. it's a bourgeois invention, basically. you know, so what i'm saying is that 20s is a period to be rediscovered. we have to stop with this simple idolatry. only in this way we can understand, strange as this may sound, maybe you will agree, the even relative popularity, relative, because of his manipulation of, you know, when stalin introduced socialist realism.
Stephen Kotkin
h.
h.
Slavoj Žižek
people were glad, finally we will get literature with normal suffering, crying people. enough of those stupid formalist experiments and so on and so on. so i think, would you agree, a new look is needed upon these glorified twenties
people were glad, finally we will get literature with normal suffering, crying people. enough of those stupid formalist experiments and so on and so on. so i think, would you agree, a new look is needed upon these glorified twenties
Stephen Kotkin
you know, um... there was a revolution and it was real. the revolution was widespread, mass participatory. it was the biggest revolution in world history to date. the chinese revolution would happen later, obviously.
you know, um... there was a revolution and it was real. the revolution was widespread, mass participatory. it was the biggest revolution in world history to date. the chinese revolution would happen later, obviously.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, yeah.
yeah, yeah.
Stephen Kotkin
and the belief, the hopes, the utopia. the building of a new world. the idea that the injustice and czarist oppression was severe. the czarist regime was unjust. the revolution was because of very good reasons. and thank god they overthrew. the czarist regime. the revolution was fantastic and it spawned a tremendous amount of dynamism and energy and craziness. unfortunately, what happens in a revolution is the brilliant ideas don't take over. what takes over are the institutions. the shards of the old regime become the building blocks of the new regime. protest movements massing in the streets. forming communes. chiliastic songs, right? this doesn't get you a parliament, an independent judiciary, an impartial civil service, a free and open media space. these have to be built. institutions have to be built. and instead of building free and open institutions during the 1920s, they build this dictatorship. and it's on purpose. it's not an accident. it's not something circumstances caused. it was something that lennon wanted. and it was something that lenin and stalin and the rest of them were able to implant. now, you can argue that they were doing it because they were trying to create a new world. they were trying to overcome the injustices of the old world, and that's correct. that was their motivation. they were not cynics. they were not just out for personal power. they were not just killing people for the sake of killing people and some type of sadistic orgy. this was a revolution to bring about a new world. the institutions to bring about the new world were in conflict with the goals.
and the belief, the hopes, the utopia. the building of a new world. the idea that the injustice and czarist oppression was severe. the czarist regime was unjust. the revolution was because of very good reasons. and thank god they overthrew. the czarist regime. the revolution was fantastic and it spawned a tremendous amount of dynamism and energy and craziness. unfortunately, what happens in a revolution is the brilliant ideas don't take over. what takes over are the institutions. the shards of the old regime become the building blocks of the new regime. protest movements massing in the streets. forming communes. chiliastic songs, right? this doesn't get you a parliament, an independent judiciary, an impartial civil service, a free and open media space. these have to be built. institutions have to be built. and instead of building free and open institutions during the 1920s, they build this dictatorship. and it's on purpose. it's not an accident. it's not something circumstances caused. it was something that lennon wanted. and it was something that lenin and stalin and the rest of them were able to implant. now, you can argue that they were doing it because they were trying to create a new world. they were trying to overcome the injustices of the old world, and that's correct. that was their motivation. they were not cynics. they were not just out for personal power. they were not just killing people for the sake of killing people and some type of sadistic orgy. this was a revolution to bring about a new world. the institutions to bring about the new world were in conflict with the goals.
Slavoj Žižek
hmm
hmm
Stephen Kotkin
the methods and the core ideas of the reigning communists could never bring the freedom, the abundance, and the happiness that the revolution had been about. so this is a very tragic story. and the 1920s are very tragic. and russian history, unfortunately, is a tragic story. time and again. you know, they try to build something which is better. and unfortunately, you know haven't made it yet. but the attempts. were sincere. although misguided in my view. now, so when you talk about the 1920s, the reason the 1920s look like a great period of pluralism and relative freedom is because the 1930s came after that.
the methods and the core ideas of the reigning communists could never bring the freedom, the abundance, and the happiness that the revolution had been about. so this is a very tragic story. and the 1920s are very tragic. and russian history, unfortunately, is a tragic story. time and again. you know, they try to build something which is better. and unfortunately, you know haven't made it yet. but the attempts. were sincere. although misguided in my view. now, so when you talk about the 1920s, the reason the 1920s look like a great period of pluralism and relative freedom is because the 1930s came after that.
Slavoj Žižek
okay
okay
Stephen Kotkin
and if you were alive in the 20s, you weren't alive in the 30s. and so the 20s was a kind of golden era.
and if you were alive in the 20s, you weren't alive in the 30s. and so the 20s was a kind of golden era.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Stephen Kotkin
so i understand that psychologically. but your point... your point about the 1920s being some open, free society that was going somewhere nice, that's obviously not true. you're absolutely correct that that was not the case.
so i understand that psychologically. but your point... your point about the 1920s being some open, free society that was going somewhere nice, that's obviously not true. you're absolutely correct that that was not the case.
Slavoj Žižek
place.
place.
Stephen Kotkin
you know, on the gulag question, we could talk a long time about this, the forced labor camps or so-called gulag. um... it's very interesting because not only did they write the letters to stalin on his birthday, actually most of them didn't write the letters because somebody was there writing it for them. in communist style. but they had new year's eve masquerade and they would have dancers and they would have theater directors and half the bolshoi troupe. was there in the gula. dancing for the fat-fingered, thick-necked gulag commandant and his wife who were in some arctic circle but had assembled the talent and the photographer who took pictures of the evening and then sent it, whether it was the new year's eve masquerade ball or it was the may day parade or the revolution parade, there were gulag photo albums by the hundreds of these events where the cultural intelligenceia was in the gulag, but there were no orchestras.
you know, on the gulag question, we could talk a long time about this, the forced labor camps or so-called gulag. um... it's very interesting because not only did they write the letters to stalin on his birthday, actually most of them didn't write the letters because somebody was there writing it for them. in communist style. but they had new year's eve masquerade and they would have dancers and they would have theater directors and half the bolshoi troupe. was there in the gula. dancing for the fat-fingered, thick-necked gulag commandant and his wife who were in some arctic circle but had assembled the talent and the photographer who took pictures of the evening and then sent it, whether it was the new year's eve masquerade ball or it was the may day parade or the revolution parade, there were gulag photo albums by the hundreds of these events where the cultural intelligenceia was in the gulag, but there were no orchestras.
Slavoj Žižek
a little different from auschwitz, where they had orchestra.
a little different from auschwitz, where they had orchestra.
Stephen Kotkin
you could go to any nazi camp and you could get an orchestra that would put to shame anything we've got here in new york. but you couldn't do that in a gulag. because stalin loved music too much. and he didn't allow the musicians, especially the vocalists, to be arrested. instead, he wanted them to perform for him. and so these are the kind, i mean, the personality actually begins to have a stamp on history that is just so large. and you go to the gulag archive. which is in a gigantic corbusier building. in moscow. you go on the secret floor, the formerly secret floor, you go to the back. where they have the folios and the quartos because the stuff is too big to put. a regular shelf and it's gulag photo albums.
you could go to any nazi camp and you could get an orchestra that would put to shame anything we've got here in new york. but you couldn't do that in a gulag. because stalin loved music too much. and he didn't allow the musicians, especially the vocalists, to be arrested. instead, he wanted them to perform for him. and so these are the kind, i mean, the personality actually begins to have a stamp on history that is just so large. and you go to the gulag archive. which is in a gigantic corbusier building. in moscow. you go on the secret floor, the formerly secret floor, you go to the back. where they have the folios and the quartos because the stuff is too big to put. a regular shelf and it's gulag photo albums.
Audience Member (Questioner)
you know.
you know.
Stephen Kotkin
var kuta, new year's eve, 1949. prima ballerina. etc. and that's what the camps look like. if you've got your cultural elite in a labor camp, the revolution didn't work out, right? the chiliastic, build a new world, 1917 revolution, something has gone amiss, right? if this is where you've ended up. maybe. some of these people weren't that talented. maybe their talent was overrated. maybe some of the people who served the regime, their talent was underrated. i agree with you on that. some of the socialist realist paintings are well done. they are. some of the orchestral music that's produced is better than the music that was produced in the 1920s or before. and you could go on. some of the architecture is stirring, effective. you know, so we have to be careful about wonderful culture, evil culture. the dichotomy that you've got going on. but in the overall trajectory, it's deeply tragic, fundamentally tragic.
var kuta, new year's eve, 1949. prima ballerina. etc. and that's what the camps look like. if you've got your cultural elite in a labor camp, the revolution didn't work out, right? the chiliastic, build a new world, 1917 revolution, something has gone amiss, right? if this is where you've ended up. maybe. some of these people weren't that talented. maybe their talent was overrated. maybe some of the people who served the regime, their talent was underrated. i agree with you on that. some of the socialist realist paintings are well done. they are. some of the orchestral music that's produced is better than the music that was produced in the 1920s or before. and you could go on. some of the architecture is stirring, effective. you know, so we have to be careful about wonderful culture, evil culture. the dichotomy that you've got going on. but in the overall trajectory, it's deeply tragic, fundamentally tragic.
Slavoj Žižek
and i like the term tragic here in the sense that, sorry, here now my last remainders of communism will come out. i would like to insist on the term tragic. as you beautifully said, it was, whatever you say, revolution against tism, a tremendous explosion of hope, and it went terribly wrong. this is why, this is another difference between nazism and stalinism. many dissidents who claim stalin betrayed communism. i don't think you have many nazis who claimed hitler betrayed authentic nazism or whatever. it's a different logic. but to conclude, before i hope we give work to them, i want to play the last stalinist trick on you and what? you know, one of the stylistic characteristics of stalin's writings, you must know it better than me, is that. he likes to ask a question and then answer it himself. like, what are comrades, the problems of economy today? comrades, the problems of economy today are... so to give you the last chance, is there a question that... modeling upon the greatest genius of humanity is telling that you would like to ask yourself and then answer. do you have a question like that? are you ready to live up to comrade stalin? quite seriously, what this means in more normal terms is, do you feel that we missed any crucial point that has to be made?
and i like the term tragic here in the sense that, sorry, here now my last remainders of communism will come out. i would like to insist on the term tragic. as you beautifully said, it was, whatever you say, revolution against tism, a tremendous explosion of hope, and it went terribly wrong. this is why, this is another difference between nazism and stalinism. many dissidents who claim stalin betrayed communism. i don't think you have many nazis who claimed hitler betrayed authentic nazism or whatever. it's a different logic. but to conclude, before i hope we give work to them, i want to play the last stalinist trick on you and what? you know, one of the stylistic characteristics of stalin's writings, you must know it better than me, is that. he likes to ask a question and then answer it himself. like, what are comrades, the problems of economy today? comrades, the problems of economy today are... so to give you the last chance, is there a question that... modeling upon the greatest genius of humanity is telling that you would like to ask yourself and then answer. do you have a question like that? are you ready to live up to comrade stalin? quite seriously, what this means in more normal terms is, do you feel that we missed any crucial point that has to be made?
Stephen Kotkin
you know, the question i'd like to ask myself is, how did i get on this stage?
you know, the question i'd like to ask myself is, how did i get on this stage?
Slavoj Žižek
how do to get out here. you i was a decent, normal kid. i was on the stage. very simple, nominate me minister of the interior, youura in gulak next day. it not.
how do to get out here. you i was a decent, normal kid. i was on the stage. very simple, nominate me minister of the interior, youura in gulak next day. it not.
Stephen Kotkin
i grew up a regular, lower middle class, working class household. and, you know, i should have had that kind of life. you know, i came home.
i grew up a regular, lower middle class, working class household. and, you know, i should have had that kind of life. you know, i came home.
Slavoj Žižek
but you have that kind of you are a professor writing books. you have that kind of life, don't you?
but you have that kind of you are a professor writing books. you have that kind of life, don't you?
Stephen Kotkin
yeah, you know, i'm not sure it's the same kind of life.
yeah, you know, i'm not sure it's the same kind of life.
Slavoj Žižek
this doubt is part of lower middle class. what's
this doubt is part of lower middle class. what's
Stephen Kotkin
think about
think about
Slavoj Žižek
that.
that.
Stephen Kotkin
i came home, it was like first or second grade, and i told my mom that there was this play and i had a part. play? it was a school play. first or second grade. who knows what it was? and i told my mom, and she was just, oh, you're going to be in a play at school. and she's like just melting with emotion about this. and... then it dawns on her to ask, like, what's the part i'm going to play? and i said, i'm the jewish husband. and she says, damn it, i was hoping you were going to get a speaking part.
i came home, it was like first or second grade, and i told my mom that there was this play and i had a part. play? it was a school play. first or second grade. who knows what it was? and i told my mom, and she was just, oh, you're going to be in a play at school. and she's like just melting with emotion about this. and... then it dawns on her to ask, like, what's the part i'm going to play? and i said, i'm the jewish husband. and she says, damn it, i was hoping you were going to get a speaking part.
Slavoj Žižek
so as a reaction. right now big fat books too. what am i doing here?.
so as a reaction. right now big fat books too. what am i doing here?.
Stephen Kotkin
i fell out of the station wagon on the ride to school and bonked my head and now somehow i'm writing three volumes on stalin. not to be a psychoanalyst. but do we go to audience questions at this point? what's the protocol? is there someone from the leadership? .
i fell out of the station wagon on the ride to school and bonked my head and now somehow i'm writing three volumes on stalin. not to be a psychoanalyst. but do we go to audience questions at this point? what's the protocol? is there someone from the leadership? .
Slavoj Žižek
uh
uh
Stephen Kotkin
paul, i think...
paul, i think...
Slavoj Žižek
here you will come up and ask a question which will be about 40 seconds long and which has to be good. so please come up. this is bourgeois in stalinist times, you know how you did it. yeah, you distribute the questions in advance among the we'll hear some of those too, i hope.
here you will come up and ask a question which will be about 40 seconds long and which has to be good. so please come up. this is bourgeois in stalinist times, you know how you did it. yeah, you distribute the questions in advance among the we'll hear some of those too, i hope.
Audience Member (Questioner)
yes, sir. Mr. Kotkin, you said you tried to write more about history, not just focus on stalin alone. so my question is in this vein. a few days ago i read a cred by Isaiah Berlin, who in this creed he tried to explain how he understands tragedy the 20th century of all those totalitarian regimes. and i wonder if you agree with his explanation. he says that it usually starts as somebody has an idea how to bring paradise onto earth. then they start building it and it always fails. and the cause is that people's ideals are mutually in conflict. so what do you think about his criteria to finish? thank you. you want to try that one?
yes, sir. Mr. Kotkin, you said you tried to write more about history, not just focus on stalin alone. so my question is in this vein. a few days ago i read a cred by Isaiah Berlin, who in this creed he tried to explain how he understands tragedy the 20th century of all those totalitarian regimes. and i wonder if you agree with his explanation. he says that it usually starts as somebody has an idea how to bring paradise onto earth. then they start building it and it always fails. and the cause is that people's ideals are mutually in conflict. so what do you think about his criteria to finish? thank you. you want to try that one?
Slavoj Žižek
is was addressed at you. don't try to.
is was addressed at you. don't try to.
Stephen Kotkin
come on, that's right up your alley, Isaiah Berlin. sorry?
come on, that's right up your alley, Isaiah Berlin. sorry?
Slavoj Žižek
no
no
Stephen Kotkin
you know,... uh there is something about the 20th century and these regimes that we hope we don't see again and that there is... a large number of phenomena that come together to produce them. but you know, it's too simple. you see? you have a world war i. and world war i destroys the old order. moreover, the generals send millions to their deaths. knowing that they may be going to get another couple of inches, move the trench a little bit farther over. and this sacrifice of the flower of europe. for a little bit of movement. you know, one trench over to the next trench. this is a lesson for lenin. lenin says, you know? if the old regimes, if the generals are going to kill people for no good reason, at least we can sacrifice people to build a better world than the world that they have. and so you can't just pin it on. bad people. you can't just pin it on ideas even, lennon, you have a conjuncture. you have a conjuncture which is produced by world war i, a historical conjunctionuncture. and this historical conjuncture makes possible use of violence on a mass scale in everyday politics. and it produces lenin, it produces mussolini, it produces hitler, and it produces world war ii. and so you've got to talk about the origins of world war i. and what world war i does to civilization and political systems, and then add in some of the things that isaiah berlin is talking about, and then you're kind of off to the races. you know, lennon was... a hard man. very hard man. but i got to tell you, lenin was a product of imperial russia. lenin's hard line. his deep hard line against freedom. was the way he thought you had a battle. the fact that there was no freedom, no politics in imperial russia. so imperial russia has a lot to say for producing a guy like lenin, just as world war i has a lot to say for producing these terrible regimes. and these terrible tragedies. so in that sense, the wider history, the context is something that's laid out in my book and where i try to get to the larger explanation that you're asking for.
you know,... uh there is something about the 20th century and these regimes that we hope we don't see again and that there is... a large number of phenomena that come together to produce them. but you know, it's too simple. you see? you have a world war i. and world war i destroys the old order. moreover, the generals send millions to their deaths. knowing that they may be going to get another couple of inches, move the trench a little bit farther over. and this sacrifice of the flower of europe. for a little bit of movement. you know, one trench over to the next trench. this is a lesson for lenin. lenin says, you know? if the old regimes, if the generals are going to kill people for no good reason, at least we can sacrifice people to build a better world than the world that they have. and so you can't just pin it on. bad people. you can't just pin it on ideas even, lennon, you have a conjuncture. you have a conjuncture which is produced by world war i, a historical conjunctionuncture. and this historical conjuncture makes possible use of violence on a mass scale in everyday politics. and it produces lenin, it produces mussolini, it produces hitler, and it produces world war ii. and so you've got to talk about the origins of world war i. and what world war i does to civilization and political systems, and then add in some of the things that isaiah berlin is talking about, and then you're kind of off to the races. you know, lennon was... a hard man. very hard man. but i got to tell you, lenin was a product of imperial russia. lenin's hard line. his deep hard line against freedom. was the way he thought you had a battle. the fact that there was no freedom, no politics in imperial russia. so imperial russia has a lot to say for producing a guy like lenin, just as world war i has a lot to say for producing these terrible regimes. and these terrible tragedies. so in that sense, the wider history, the context is something that's laid out in my book and where i try to get to the larger explanation that you're asking for.
Audience Member (Questioner)
thank you
thank you
Audience Member (Questioner)
are there any good, worthwhile, or illuminating fictional depictions of the soviet system? and if not, why are there so few?
are there any good, worthwhile, or illuminating fictional depictions of the soviet system? and if not, why are there so few?
Slavoj Žižek
okay, now i will make a provocation and i wonder if you would agree. i always like, you know, i don't like westerns from the 50s which get psychological, you don't know who is a good. i like westerns where you know who is good guy, who is bad guy. so i'll give you two names to provoke you also. solhen nitlin versus varlam shalamov. i almost hate solgen nitlin for this verbosity, deep moralizing. if you want to get the raw taste of what gulak is rit varlam sham of tales. i think it's endlessly superior to this endless moralizing of solhenikin and so on. so again, do varlam shalamov if you want to get a d. route the d. potentially, to use your terms, demonic side of the 20s, r, the one who is and is now more and more recognized amongst my russian friends, d, the greatest soviet russian author of the 20th century, andrei platonov, his foundation piece and so on. there you have, he saw the nihilism already before stalinism, he saw where there is some terrifying nihilistic dimension in it. so i would say these are two of my favorite names in fiction, pure fiction. andrei platonov, especially his great novels, but also his short stories. there are some wonderful movies even made on them now, and varlam shalamov.
okay, now i will make a provocation and i wonder if you would agree. i always like, you know, i don't like westerns from the 50s which get psychological, you don't know who is a good. i like westerns where you know who is good guy, who is bad guy. so i'll give you two names to provoke you also. solhen nitlin versus varlam shalamov. i almost hate solgen nitlin for this verbosity, deep moralizing. if you want to get the raw taste of what gulak is rit varlam sham of tales. i think it's endlessly superior to this endless moralizing of solhenikin and so on. so again, do varlam shalamov if you want to get a d. route the d. potentially, to use your terms, demonic side of the 20s, r, the one who is and is now more and more recognized amongst my russian friends, d, the greatest soviet russian author of the 20th century, andrei platonov, his foundation piece and so on. there you have, he saw the nihilism already before stalinism, he saw where there is some terrifying nihilistic dimension in it. so i would say these are two of my favorite names in fiction, pure fiction. andrei platonov, especially his great novels, but also his short stories. there are some wonderful movies even made on them now, and varlam shalamov.
Stephen Kotkin
yeah
yeah
Slavoj Žižek
i appreciate, i like him deeply, but i'm sorry to tell you this, it will disappoint you. for me, he is way too soft humanist. in his very approach, it's something missing to grasp what you call the truly demoniac side of stalinism. you cannot do it. he was too kind, the man. i will even say this in a way. this is not a criticism, you know, you must have like like... platonov, a certain almost madness in yourself to get it. although again, i have a great almost infinite respectful feeling for vili grossman, but the other more interesting point would have been so here i would agree with you, it's not simply black and white image. take someone like solakhov. yes, the official soviet guy, but you know that he nonetheless, in the early 30s, he protested to stalin against the horrors. he was almost, you know, you have even almost official big writers who nonetheless had the minimum of honor. so let me end with another provocation. let's face it, quietly flows the dawn. it's a better novel than dr. givago. dr. givago is for me not such a great novel. i mean, pastenak is a wonderful, great poet, whatever you want. you know, one should have the courage to distinguish even among great dissident figures. like this is my personal taste, you will probably violently disagree. but for me, osip malderstam and marina kvetaeva are infinitely superior to anna ahmatova, who is an endless pretentious bitch. she has this complex. i am a mother of all russia. i speak for all russia. fuck you. mandelstam is my hero. but that's my opinion. you're allowed temporarily. we are the two of us we are in the 20s. i'm not yet full-st.
i appreciate, i like him deeply, but i'm sorry to tell you this, it will disappoint you. for me, he is way too soft humanist. in his very approach, it's something missing to grasp what you call the truly demoniac side of stalinism. you cannot do it. he was too kind, the man. i will even say this in a way. this is not a criticism, you know, you must have like like... platonov, a certain almost madness in yourself to get it. although again, i have a great almost infinite respectful feeling for vili grossman, but the other more interesting point would have been so here i would agree with you, it's not simply black and white image. take someone like solakhov. yes, the official soviet guy, but you know that he nonetheless, in the early 30s, he protested to stalin against the horrors. he was almost, you know, you have even almost official big writers who nonetheless had the minimum of honor. so let me end with another provocation. let's face it, quietly flows the dawn. it's a better novel than dr. givago. dr. givago is for me not such a great novel. i mean, pastenak is a wonderful, great poet, whatever you want. you know, one should have the courage to distinguish even among great dissident figures. like this is my personal taste, you will probably violently disagree. but for me, osip malderstam and marina kvetaeva are infinitely superior to anna ahmatova, who is an endless pretentious bitch. she has this complex. i am a mother of all russia. i speak for all russia. fuck you. mandelstam is my hero. but that's my opinion. you're allowed temporarily. we are the two of us we are in the 20s. i'm not yet full-st.
Stephen Kotkin
you sorry? i think we'll let your judgment stand. i think we'll leave it at that.
you sorry? i think we'll let your judgment stand. i think we'll leave it at that.
Slavoj Žižek
does this mean like learning on nationality for the time being strategic retreat or? yes.
does this mean like learning on nationality for the time being strategic retreat or? yes.
Vakhtang Gomelauri (audience member)
hi, i'm actually georgian. probably the only georgian in this space.
hi, i'm actually georgian. probably the only georgian in this space.
Slavoj Žižek
are you also i met a giorgio frank who told me i'm a distant relative, unfortunately not of.
are you also i met a giorgio frank who told me i'm a distant relative, unfortunately not of.
Vakhtang Gomelauri (audience member)
but of berja. you have no connection with that? well, my name is Vakhtang Gomelauri. my grandfather was executed in 1937, so my connection to the events. but i'm myself not much on the right from luxembourg. so okay, my question is, you know, it was very historicist discussion and to kind of bring it to a little bit of structuralist points. you elaborate a lot on stalinism being related to the kind of a perverted discourse. and in this way, and especially when you expand on his ret of negation of negation and real and void, cut,
but of berja. you have no connection with that? well, my name is Vakhtang Gomelauri. my grandfather was executed in 1937, so my connection to the events. but i'm myself not much on the right from luxembourg. so okay, my question is, you know, it was very historicist discussion and to kind of bring it to a little bit of structuralist points. you elaborate a lot on stalinism being related to the kind of a perverted discourse. and in this way, and especially when you expand on his ret of negation of negation and real and void, cut,
Slavoj Žižek
you are talking to me now. yeah yeah, yeah because i mean we had those history is beautiful.
you are talking to me now. yeah yeah, yeah because i mean we had those history is beautiful.
Vakhtang Gomelauri (audience member)
it, it's very funny to talk about history, but you know, to bring it, because stalinism is maybe not dead, right? like they say fascism is not dead, maybe stalinism is also not dead. so how do you see, like with this denial of the real, denial of the cut and the void, do you see stalinism kind of living on in this post-structuralist vitalist delusion?
it, it's very funny to talk about history, but you know, to bring it, because stalinism is maybe not dead, right? like they say fascism is not dead, maybe stalinism is also not dead. so how do you see, like with this denial of the real, denial of the cut and the void, do you see stalinism kind of living on in this post-structuralist vitalist delusion?
Slavoj Žižek
ps that we live in.. there is a great irony at work in the fact that maybe fukuyama has won, liberal democracy, but isn't the irony that those communists who are still in power, but who are not like just lunatics like north korea and so on. and incidentally, north koreans don't even call them now commun. people didn't notice it. a couple of years ago, north korea changed their constitution. no mention of communism, so just a patriotic military. but what i want to say is that those communists who are still in power as communists, china, vietnam and so on, are more and appearing as the most efficient managers of global capitalism. you know. sometimes more efficient than in democracies and that's what really worries me but that's a topic not for today that again as i always repeat it the problem is that for me, global capitalism is approaching a stage where maybe it less and less needs democracy. if it needs it, it's more and more a kind of an empty, purely ritualized democracy. so that's all i can say now, not to go into it.
ps that we live in.. there is a great irony at work in the fact that maybe fukuyama has won, liberal democracy, but isn't the irony that those communists who are still in power, but who are not like just lunatics like north korea and so on. and incidentally, north koreans don't even call them now commun. people didn't notice it. a couple of years ago, north korea changed their constitution. no mention of communism, so just a patriotic military. but what i want to say is that those communists who are still in power as communists, china, vietnam and so on, are more and appearing as the most efficient managers of global capitalism. you know. sometimes more efficient than in democracies and that's what really worries me but that's a topic not for today that again as i always repeat it the problem is that for me, global capitalism is approaching a stage where maybe it less and less needs democracy. if it needs it, it's more and more a kind of an empty, purely ritualized democracy. so that's all i can say now, not to go into it.
Stephen Kotkin
paul, can we take one more question and i can do some of the slides? i can talk about some of the slides if there's interest in talking about the slides or no.
paul, can we take one more question and i can do some of the slides? i can talk about some of the slides if there's interest in talking about the slides or no.
Slavoj Žižek
is there any sex in the slides? .
is there any sex in the slides? .
Stephen Kotkin
no sex. you can provide that.
no sex. you can provide that.
Audience Member (Questioner)
the question will be brief. you know that stalin gets extremely popularity in the period of soviet and post-soviet tyranny. and now, for example, he gathers such a whole that you personally, i think, wouldn't be able to create without him. so does it mean that very soon after the end of putin's tyranny, the soft tyranny, we'll get the new wave of reopening 20s, as you call it, and the interest to lenin, like maybe russia with human face. i would love to see it, but i doubt.
the question will be brief. you know that stalin gets extremely popularity in the period of soviet and post-soviet tyranny. and now, for example, he gathers such a whole that you personally, i think, wouldn't be able to create without him. so does it mean that very soon after the end of putin's tyranny, the soft tyranny, we'll get the new wave of reopening 20s, as you call it, and the interest to lenin, like maybe russia with human face. i would love to see it, but i doubt.
Slavoj Žižek
but but i agree with you, sorry, just, wasn't there a mega opinion poll, all academics in russia, a couple of years ago, the greatest personality of all russian history, and i think stalin ended third, but not with a great distance after the first was alexander nevsky, i think. but nowhere inside was lenin, you know, which makes me a rather good point.
but but i agree with you, sorry, just, wasn't there a mega opinion poll, all academics in russia, a couple of years ago, the greatest personality of all russian history, and i think stalin ended third, but not with a great distance after the first was alexander nevsky, i think. but nowhere inside was lenin, you know, which makes me a rather good point.
Stephen Kotkin
you look very much like Dmitry Bykov, the famous russian writer.
you look very much like Dmitry Bykov, the famous russian writer.
Audience Member (Questioner)
thank you very much. yes, i'm a great fan of lenin and i hate stalin. that's normal. thank you.
thank you very much. yes, i'm a great fan of lenin and i hate stalin. that's normal. thank you.
Stephen Kotkin
okay. paul, could we have the slides and i could go through them if that would be okay briefly? this is almost, can you go a little bit faster so we can get to the start? i don't know. i won't do much, but. let's see. you can comment also because i think we can see them. all right, that one, unretouched photograph, 1927. the russo-japanese war, that's unfortunately the russian navy going down. that's the guy who caused the war in some ways, but also got them out of it. Sergei Witte, the first prime minister of russia. that's the first parliament meeting. these are all from the glass plate negatives. that's nicholas ii on the throne. this guy saved the russian regime in 1906, the interior minister, Pyotr Durnovo. that's the lein in the white jacket directly behind nicholas ii. he's the great prime minister. that's his dacha. he's about to be assassinated, unfortunately. that's european royalty. that's queen, right? oh, i was.
okay. paul, could we have the slides and i could go through them if that would be okay briefly? this is almost, can you go a little bit faster so we can get to the start? i don't know. i won't do much, but. let's see. you can comment also because i think we can see them. all right, that one, unretouched photograph, 1927. the russo-japanese war, that's unfortunately the russian navy going down. that's the guy who caused the war in some ways, but also got them out of it. Sergei Witte, the first prime minister of russia. that's the first parliament meeting. these are all from the glass plate negatives. that's nicholas ii on the throne. this guy saved the russian regime in 1906, the interior minister, Pyotr Durnovo. that's the lein in the white jacket directly behind nicholas ii. he's the great prime minister. that's his dacha. he's about to be assassinated, unfortunately. that's european royalty. that's queen, right? oh, i was.
Slavoj Žižek
elizabeth.
elizabeth.
Stephen Kotkin
yeah, that's the zareich who the hemiliac. they don't let him down because if he bumps into a tree, he'll die of... that's stalin's father. that's stalin's mother. the other georgians in the room? that's stalin's birth hovel. before baria built a gigantic monument over. that's the guy who paid for stalin's education. he owned the tavern and was the head wrestler in town. that's the first photograph of stalin. center, middle. he's about 10, 12 years old. that you see the attitude.
yeah, that's the zareich who the hemiliac. they don't let him down because if he bumps into a tree, he'll die of... that's stalin's father. that's stalin's mother. the other georgians in the room? that's stalin's birth hovel. before baria built a gigantic monument over. that's the guy who paid for stalin's education. he owned the tavern and was the head wrestler in town. that's the first photograph of stalin. center, middle. he's about 10, 12 years old. that you see the attitude.
Slavoj Žižek
thank you.
thank you.
Stephen Kotkin
yeah, that's stalin in the seminary, second from the left on the top, beardless. that's the seminary building, neoclassical. that's where stalin studied to be a priest. that's the guy who taught stalin marxism, Lado Ketskhoveli, fellow georgian. he died young. that's stalin's only job. the observatory, he was a weather man. he came out, took the weather and went back in. that's stalin's prison cell, his first major prison cell. unfortunately, they let him out. that's his first wife who died of disease, and that's stalin in the corner there. that's from the georgian police archive. this is stalin from the tsarist police archive, 1910. this is sarajevo. there's the archduke. he's about to turn, and he's about to be shot in the head. and this is the guy who's about to shoot him. princeip, gavrilo princeip, started world war i, helped bring stalin to power. that's stalin siberian. three years in siberia during world war i, eight houses, 67 people on the arctic circle. that's him in the back with the hat on in siberia. this is the supreme commander of the russian army who was the right-wing hope in 1917. that's alexander kerensky. he blew it big time. that guy we've referred to often, he played for keeps. you can see that. that's kynka, the ballerina. this was bolshevik headquarters. they evicted her and ruined the furniture. that's the outside of kachynka's mansion across from the winter palace. this is where the revolution came from. this is the only photograph of the seizure of power. that's lenin at the podium saying that we've seized power. that's martov, the head of the mensheviks. he had left the hall at this time already, unfortunately. that's the first bolshevik government. there's lenin and there's stalin with his hand on his face against the wall. spiridonova, she had the bolsheviks in july 1918 and let them go. she could have murdered them all. this is from stalin's personal photo album. that's his wife nadia, one year before he married her. this is troky, all in leather, the civil war hero. rare photograph that was preserved of trotsky. this is sokolnikov, the finance minister that i was referring to in the book. that's lazar kaganovich. this is the guy who took over mongolia, ungern sternberg, and made it the first soviet satellite. that's the civil war. this shows you that the revolution was for real, those bayonets. this is the famine 1921 to 23 in sarizin, which is going to be named stalingrad a few years later. stalin and lenin, famous picture only never published because stalin was looking too much like napoleon. and so they suppressed that photo. this is him in 1923. that's lennon. you can see the dementia. late in life, that's his doctor and his nurse. this is lenin's funeral. you can see stalin in the hat, january 1924. this is the death mask, lenin's death mask. it ended up in stalin's office. that's all you needed to know about the succession struggle. this is stalin's first book about lenin, the famous book on leninism. you can see the iconography of the 20s. that's stalin's office. old square number four, the whole right-hand side. that's the commissariat of foreign affairs. which stalin control, that's trotsky's office. that's the commissariat to the military, the war commissariat in the navy right here, the old alexander military school. that's the original secret police building before it was refurbished. that's stalin's inner secretariat, the people who ran his dictatorship. it looks like a berkeley commune. that's the military guys in stalin. you can see him right here. his left elbow doesn't move. that's Felix Dzerzhinsky, the head of the secret police. he was dying of tuberculosis for many years. you can see that's his funeral. this is alexei ryikkov, the guy i was talking about, the number two person in the regime. that's menzhinsky, one of stalin's agents in the secret police, painted his fingernails red. yagoda, another secret policeman. these are all stalin's minions inside the regime now. artuzov, the guy who hated. you goordan install and use their animosity against them. this is the guy who faked the first major fake trial. this is zovieev have a caricature, how he's playing with the kulak and the nepman. it is kirov, stalin replaced zinoviev with kirov, his closest friend, who's then... this is the three musketeers, mikayan, stalin and norona kza. and the caucas is on holiday, retouched. this is stalin's apartment. 17th century boyar residence, the only 17th century residence in the kremlin. that's where his wife shot himself. that's stalin's dacha, the zubbal. that's stalin's son, vassili, and his son's friend, artion. that's stalin's wife, second wife, nadia, and that's little svetlana. that's yakov, stalin's son from his first wife. that's the woman who ran stalin's household, karolina thiel, and that's svetlana's nanny, bukova. that's Marshal Piłsudski on a visit to romania. that's Chiang Kai-shek. he betrayed stalin and got the better of him in the 1920s, but stalin stuck with him. that's the red army on bicycles. stalin had no tanks. in 1927, that's stalin. you can see the charisma. standing out in the crowd. this is the military attaches, all the enemies of the soviet union. they're lined up on the may day parade. this is stalin in siberia when he goes to collectivize agriculture. announces that's how he got to the meeting. he got to the meeting in this. he's going to collectivize 100 million peasants. that's the fabricated shakti trial, 1928, that's the announcement of the verdict and the foreign journalists about how these wreckers destroyed industry, and that's the kulak. the leather versus the best sandals. that's bukhan caricature of stalin. so anyway, those are the photos. are we?
yeah, that's stalin in the seminary, second from the left on the top, beardless. that's the seminary building, neoclassical. that's where stalin studied to be a priest. that's the guy who taught stalin marxism, Lado Ketskhoveli, fellow georgian. he died young. that's stalin's only job. the observatory, he was a weather man. he came out, took the weather and went back in. that's stalin's prison cell, his first major prison cell. unfortunately, they let him out. that's his first wife who died of disease, and that's stalin in the corner there. that's from the georgian police archive. this is stalin from the tsarist police archive, 1910. this is sarajevo. there's the archduke. he's about to turn, and he's about to be shot in the head. and this is the guy who's about to shoot him. princeip, gavrilo princeip, started world war i, helped bring stalin to power. that's stalin siberian. three years in siberia during world war i, eight houses, 67 people on the arctic circle. that's him in the back with the hat on in siberia. this is the supreme commander of the russian army who was the right-wing hope in 1917. that's alexander kerensky. he blew it big time. that guy we've referred to often, he played for keeps. you can see that. that's kynka, the ballerina. this was bolshevik headquarters. they evicted her and ruined the furniture. that's the outside of kachynka's mansion across from the winter palace. this is where the revolution came from. this is the only photograph of the seizure of power. that's lenin at the podium saying that we've seized power. that's martov, the head of the mensheviks. he had left the hall at this time already, unfortunately. that's the first bolshevik government. there's lenin and there's stalin with his hand on his face against the wall. spiridonova, she had the bolsheviks in july 1918 and let them go. she could have murdered them all. this is from stalin's personal photo album. that's his wife nadia, one year before he married her. this is troky, all in leather, the civil war hero. rare photograph that was preserved of trotsky. this is sokolnikov, the finance minister that i was referring to in the book. that's lazar kaganovich. this is the guy who took over mongolia, ungern sternberg, and made it the first soviet satellite. that's the civil war. this shows you that the revolution was for real, those bayonets. this is the famine 1921 to 23 in sarizin, which is going to be named stalingrad a few years later. stalin and lenin, famous picture only never published because stalin was looking too much like napoleon. and so they suppressed that photo. this is him in 1923. that's lennon. you can see the dementia. late in life, that's his doctor and his nurse. this is lenin's funeral. you can see stalin in the hat, january 1924. this is the death mask, lenin's death mask. it ended up in stalin's office. that's all you needed to know about the succession struggle. this is stalin's first book about lenin, the famous book on leninism. you can see the iconography of the 20s. that's stalin's office. old square number four, the whole right-hand side. that's the commissariat of foreign affairs. which stalin control, that's trotsky's office. that's the commissariat to the military, the war commissariat in the navy right here, the old alexander military school. that's the original secret police building before it was refurbished. that's stalin's inner secretariat, the people who ran his dictatorship. it looks like a berkeley commune. that's the military guys in stalin. you can see him right here. his left elbow doesn't move. that's Felix Dzerzhinsky, the head of the secret police. he was dying of tuberculosis for many years. you can see that's his funeral. this is alexei ryikkov, the guy i was talking about, the number two person in the regime. that's menzhinsky, one of stalin's agents in the secret police, painted his fingernails red. yagoda, another secret policeman. these are all stalin's minions inside the regime now. artuzov, the guy who hated. you goordan install and use their animosity against them. this is the guy who faked the first major fake trial. this is zovieev have a caricature, how he's playing with the kulak and the nepman. it is kirov, stalin replaced zinoviev with kirov, his closest friend, who's then... this is the three musketeers, mikayan, stalin and norona kza. and the caucas is on holiday, retouched. this is stalin's apartment. 17th century boyar residence, the only 17th century residence in the kremlin. that's where his wife shot himself. that's stalin's dacha, the zubbal. that's stalin's son, vassili, and his son's friend, artion. that's stalin's wife, second wife, nadia, and that's little svetlana. that's yakov, stalin's son from his first wife. that's the woman who ran stalin's household, karolina thiel, and that's svetlana's nanny, bukova. that's Marshal Piłsudski on a visit to romania. that's Chiang Kai-shek. he betrayed stalin and got the better of him in the 1920s, but stalin stuck with him. that's the red army on bicycles. stalin had no tanks. in 1927, that's stalin. you can see the charisma. standing out in the crowd. this is the military attaches, all the enemies of the soviet union. they're lined up on the may day parade. this is stalin in siberia when he goes to collectivize agriculture. announces that's how he got to the meeting. he got to the meeting in this. he's going to collectivize 100 million peasants. that's the fabricated shakti trial, 1928, that's the announcement of the verdict and the foreign journalists about how these wreckers destroyed industry, and that's the kulak. the leather versus the best sandals. that's bukhan caricature of stalin. so anyway, those are the photos. are we?
Paul Holdengräber
i think that just about wraps it up. thank you very much.
i think that just about wraps it up. thank you very much.
Closing Speaker (Host/Staff)
thank you. it was nice i hope i wasn.
thank you. it was nice i hope i wasn.