Luo Zixuan and Guo Lishuang: Lenin is Still Needed in the 21st Century
As an outstanding proletarian revolutionary leader, Marxist statesman, and theorist, Lenin led the Russian October Revolution to victory and established the first socialist state in human history, transforming socialism from theory into reality. The victory of the October Revolution profoundly changed the historical destiny of Russia and influenced the trajectory of world history. Lenin's theoretical innovations in Marxism deeply impacted 20th-century socialist practice, yet his thought has exhibited multiple tensions during its cross-contextual dissemination—early Western Marxists, while affirming Lenin’s methodology and political theory for critiquing capitalism, also criticized his interpretation of Marxist philosophy. The ideological opposition of the Cold War era caused Lenin’s thought to be labeled as "totalitarianism."
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the bipolar pattern at the end of the 20th century, accompanied by the development of capitalism-led economic globalization, the liberal paradigm dominated for a time, and the "End of History" [1] thesis caused a great clamor. A group of contemporary Western Marxists—radical left-wing thinkers—underwent a fundamental shift in their attitude toward Lenin as they sought a revolutionary path to break the pattern of capitalist rule within a new historical context. They clearly raised slogans such as "Repeating Lenin," "Retelling Lenin," and "Lenin Reloaded," emphasizing the significance of Leninist thought for the world today. This ignited a theoretical upsurge in re-reading and researching Lenin, attempting to "resurrect" Lenin’s thought in the 21st century. Slavoj Žižek is undoubtedly the most prominent among these thinkers.
I. The Misread and Stigmatized Lenin: Manifestations, Causes, and Consequences
If it can be said that the Lenin criticized by Western Marxists was Lenin as a philosopher, then certain Western thinkers aiming to defend the capitalist system of liberal democracy directed their critical fire at Lenin as a statesman and revolutionary. They not only deny the historical significance of the October Revolution’s victory but also blame Lenin for the flaws of the Stalinist model and the disaster of the Soviet collapse. As Hannah Arendt pointed out: "In recent years, the view has become popular that there is a tight connection between Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, regarding Marx as the father of totalitarian rule." Lenin is viewed as a major force leading Marxism toward totalitarianism; the October Revolution has become the "original sin" of the Soviet collapse, and Lenin’s eminent historical merit in pioneering the socialist cause has been completely erased. "Consequently, all that remains of Lenin are the tragic experiences and lessons of 20th-century totalitarianism." Thus, a misread or even stigmatized Lenin has become a synonym for totalitarianism, appearing in contemporary Western political theory as a negative image to be criticized.
Why has Lenin, as a statesman and revolutionary, received such unfair treatment in the contemporary West? In Žižek’s view, the primary reason is that Lenin’s sharp critique of capitalist freedom strikes directly at the fatal weakness of the liberal democratic system, sufficient to shake the foundations of its legitimacy. Therefore, it inevitably invites fierce attacks from thinkers who uphold this system. Lenin profoundly critiqued various forms of capitalist freedom during different periods, relentlessly exposing the hypocritical essence of capitalist liberty. Confronting the "freedom of criticism" advocated by the "New Critics" of his time, Lenin pointed out: "Freedom is a grand word, but it was under the banner of free industry that the most predatory wars were waged, and under the banner of free labor that the working people were robbed. The modern use of the term 'freedom of criticism' contains the same inherent hypocrisy." [2] When critiquing Gavril Myasnikov's pursuit of so-called "freedom of the press," Lenin again analyzed the essence of capitalist freedom, noting: "Throughout the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake 'public opinion' for the benefit of the bourgeoisie." [3] In Lenin's view, the freedom proclaimed by capitalism essentially replaces "substantive freedom" with "formal freedom," the purpose of which is not to satisfy or protect the rights of the people, but to maintain its own interests and rule through plunder and exploitation.
After the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe [4], the former Eastern European socialist countries ended their original socialist systems through multiple means due to the impact of internal economic stagnation, political turmoil, and Western "peaceful evolution" [5]. But did the people of these countries truly gain the so-called real freedom proclaimed by the Western world? Žižek believes they do not possess true freedom: "The real free choice is not a choice between two or more options within a given set of conditions, but the ability to choose to change those given conditions. The problem with the transition from 'actually existing socialism' to capitalism is precisely that the people never had the chance to choose the goal of this transition." Žižek argues that true freedom lies not in the richness of the forms or content of the options provided, but in whether the subject possesses the freedom to make the choice. People in capitalist countries are given a range and power of choice that is framed, and they are simultaneously pushed by circumstances to make their choices. This selection is essentially a forced choice within unequal power relations; he calls people in this situation "slaves of freedom." Žižek posits three ways of legitimizing power: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and liberalism. Among these, the liberal subject is in some sense the least free because "they have changed their perception or cognition of themselves, accepting what is imposed on them as originating from their 'nature,' and they are no longer even aware of their subordinate status."
Utilizing the theoretical tools of Jacques Lacan's psychoanalysis, Žižek reveals the internal mechanism of capitalist freedom and points out that Lenin’s critique of liberalism can dismantle the operation of this mechanism, as only on this basis can people obtain true freedom. Starting from a Lacanian perspective, he argues that liberalism embodies the hypnotic power of a "master signifier’s" symbolic mandate, relying solely on its own enunciation; here, the subject encounters the purest "symbolic efficacy." This symbolic efficacy drives people to compromise and persist in choices they never truly made, persuading themselves to act like a mature subject who realizes that freedom comes with a price. To some extent, the essence of liberalism under psychoanalysis is a hidden internal self-discipline caused by external symbolic efficacy, which even the subject itself finds difficult to detect. Thus, although mainstream Soviet public opinion at the time favored defending and retaining the USSR, the fall of the CPSU and the collapse of the Soviet Union happened almost overnight. In Žižek's view, Lenin’s distinction between and critique of formal and substantive freedom can dissolve the pure symbolic efficacy of liberalism and tear away the fig leaf of capitalist ideology. Only on this basis is it possible for people to pursue actual freedom, explore "impossible" choices within the existing framework, and generate the desire and revolutionary action to change the current irrational system. "This means that the act of consciously changing this set of coordinates occurs, and occurs only, in a situation where people are forced to choose, where the choice people manifest is not coerced, and they 'choose the impossible.'" This is precisely what thinkers who uphold liberal democracy dread; hence, they do everything in their power to bind Lenin to totalitarianism, thereby excluding him from the sphere of Western political theory and practice.
The misreading and stigmatization of Lenin concern more than just his personal image and thought; they also invite skepticism or even denial regarding the possibility and legitimacy of Marxism and socialism in Eastern societies. As Walter Benjamin warned in his "Theses on the Philosophy of History": "It has been repeatedly proven that if the enemy wins, not even the dead will be safe. And this enemy, who is to be the victor, has never ceased to be victorious." A century after Lenin’s death, capitalism has established a dominant pattern worldwide and continues to update its forms of existence, yet the critique and misreading of Lenin and his thought by the Western world have never ceased. Žižek believes that the neglect and forgetting of Lenin have led the contemporary Western Left to gradually abandon radical class struggle and the revolutionary line, turning instead toward cultural criticism, consumption critique, feminism, and ecological issues that do not touch upon social systemic transformation. Revolutionary discourse has receded among Western Marxists; some have been reduced to "armchair intellectuals" in academic institutions, replacing the "criticism of weapons" with the "weapon of criticism," satisfied with interpreting the world while completely abandoning the demand to change it. In Žižek's view, the neglect of Lenin reflects the true stance and contradictory situation of some left-wing thinkers: "This silence is the only way for them to maintain a secret identification with Western democratic freedom without losing their public mask of 'radical' left-wing critique." On one hand, they are unwilling to publicly admit their identification with the Western liberal democratic system and the existing order, as this would strip away the "radical" halo above them and turn them into the "one-dimensional" [6] social beings they critique who have lost their critical edge. On the other hand, showing too much sympathy for Leninism and Soviet socialism would force them to contradict their hidden true stance—the abandonment of alternative paths and submission to the Western liberal democratic system.
Viewed this way, the forgetting, misreading, and stigmatization of Lenin ultimately serve capitalism. By shaping Lenin into a symbol of totalitarianism to exclude him from political discourse, the revolutionary potential of Leninism to change the liberal democratic system is contained. This effectively eliminates people’s desire for an alternative path to capitalism, creating the illusion that the capitalist system is unchangeable and will last forever.
It is precisely because Žižek perceived the essence of this phenomenon and its potential negative impact on the 21st-century socialist movement that he repeatedly emphasizes the importance of Lenin to the world today in his various works, reminding people not to forget Lenin, not to allow his misreading and stigmatization to continue, but to "repeat Lenin" and have Lenin "reloaded" in the context of the New Era.
II. Žižek’s Defense and Reclamation of Leninism
In the face of the capitalist ideology's misreading and stigmatization of Lenin, Žižek has long spared no effort in using various theoretical resources to re-interpret Leninist thought, reaffirm Lenin’s historical achievements, and defend and reclaim Leninism to highlight the contemporary significance of Lenin’s ideas. Many of his works focus on Lenin, such as Repeating Lenin (2001), Revolution at the Gates (2002), Lenin Reloaded: Toward a Politics of Truth (2007), and Lenin 2017: Remembering, Repeating and Working Through (2017), which commemorated the centenary of the October Revolution. In these works, while republishing Lenin’s relevant manuscripts, Žižek also wrote extensive forewords and afterwords, attempting to bring Lenin and his thought back into public view through this format. He hopes to activate radical left-wing political discourse and explore the possibilities of socialist revolution in the 21st century through a re-interpretation of Leninism.
(1) Leninism does not necessarily lead to Stalinism; the emancipatory significance of the October Revolution cannot be erased
Regarding the erroneous views that blame the rise of Stalinism on Lenin and attribute the "original sin" of the Soviet collapse to the October Revolution, Žižek has provided theoretical responses to both. Responding to these two perspectives forces us to consider the following questions: Why did the path of liberation opened by the October Revolution led by Lenin move toward Stalinism and ultimately lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union? Thinking about this question leads us to ask further: Is there an inevitable link between the rise of Stalinism and Lenin? Should Lenin be held responsible for the rise of Stalinism and its consequences? Žižek answers in the negative, as he sees through the theoretical intent of negating Leninism and the historical significance of the October Revolution by deeply binding Lenin to Stalin.
Žižek argues that there is no necessary link between Lenin and Stalinism; rather, the two represent completely different and incompatible theoretical systems and practical lines of action. Žižek introduces the so-called "eternal leftist question"—what would have happened if Lenin had not died of illness and had prevented Stalin’s rise to power? For those who attribute the "original sin" of the Soviet collapse to the October Revolution, the answer is clear: nothing would have been different, and the Soviet Union would still have drifted toward autocracy, totalitarianism, and destruction. Žižek contends that the answer to this question is not as self-evident as it appears and requires further analysis and clarification. He offers his own response: "While it is clear how Stalinism emerged from the initial conditions of the October Revolution and its immediate aftermath, one should not rule out in advance the possibility that something different might have emerged had Lenin remained healthy and ousted Stalin." In Žižek's view, the more pragmatic economic policies and more inclusive ethnic policies advocated by Lenin stood in sharp divergence from Stalin’s theory of "Socialism in One Country" [7]. "They suggested an vision of state and society entirely incompatible with Stalin’s." Even in his final moments, Lenin remained concerned about the fate of the Soviet Union, leaving behind a "Political Testament"—the articles and letters he dictated during his illness. In these, he analyzed the problems facing the Party and the state, severely criticized Stalin’s personal "rudeness," expressed deep anxiety over the potential Party split that might result from Stalin holding power, and suggested removing Stalin from the post of General Secretary. However, history did not unfold according to Lenin’s wishes. After his death, Stalin took command of military and political power, leading the Soviet Union down a path entirely different from the one Lenin had envisioned.
How should the October Revolution be evaluated? This concerns not only the assessment of Lenin’s historical contribution to the development of Marxism but also the question of the path of proletarian revolution in backward Eastern societies. Faced with the misreadings and distortions of the October Revolution by neoliberal thinkers, Žižek has continually reaffirmed its historical significance in the 21st century, an era where revolutionary discourse has receded. In his view, the significance of the October Revolution is no less than that of the French Revolution; however, the former’s importance was buried in the dust of history following the collapse of the Soviet Union. To counter these misreadings and highlight its pioneering emancipatory significance, Žižek believes that leftist thinkers’ explorations of the October Revolution should emulate Hegel—elucidating the significance of the French Revolution from a philosophical height.
Hegel believed that the French Revolution was a product of philosophy as "world-wisdom," a vivid manifestation of pure essence and the sole truth in the secular world. In Hegel's view, the French Revolution not only changed the course of French history and sounded the death knell for the chaotic and backward Ancien Régime, but also brought about the radiant dawn of a new era in human history. Consequently, he was unstinting in his praise for the French Revolution: "Never since the sun had stood in the firmament and the planets revolved around him had it been perceived that man's existence centres in his head, i.e., in Thought, inspired by which he builds up the world of reality... not until now had man advanced to the recognition of the principle that Thought ought to govern spiritual reality. This was accordingly a glorious mental dawn. All thinking beings shared in the jubilation of this epoch. A lofty emotion intervened at that time, an enthusiasm of spirit thrilled through the world, as if the reconciliation between the Divine and the Secular was now first accomplished." According to Hegel, a revolution truly capable of advancing the historical process possesses not only the destructive power to vanish the old, but more importantly, the creative power to generate the new. If violence is merely used to achieve a change or replacement of regimes without fundamentally forming a new system and structure, then there is no historical development to speak of. He believed the French Revolution was essentially different from previous revolutions; while destroying the old French system, it allowed "lofty emotion" and "enthusiasm of spirit" to thrill the world, pushing the Divine and the human world toward a practical reconciliation, whereby humanity welcomed a spiritual dawn of world-historical significance.
Žižek maintains that, just as Hegel evaluated the French Revolution, the assessment of the October Revolution should also be raised to the height of all humanity and world history. Žižek agrees with Alain Badiou's assessment of the October Revolution, viewing it as a precedent in human history where the exploited and impoverished successfully resisted oppression. After the success of the revolution, people set new standards and created a new social order: "a new world was created and miraculously survived for some decades, despite unimaginable economic and military pressure and isolation. This was indeed a 'glorious mental dawn,' and all thinking beings shared in the jubilation of this epoch." The success of the October Revolution gave hope to those living under exploitation and oppression, inspiring them to unite and rely on their own strength to overturn the irrational and unjust old world order, and on that basis, create an unprecedented new world according to their own will. In this sense, the October Revolution belongs to what Žižek’s philosophy of the event terms an "Event." For Žižek, an event refers to "something new that happens in an unexpected way, the appearance of which disrupts any existing stable structure." The October Revolution wrote a brand-new chapter in the cause of socialism, leaving a profound mark on the evolution of human civilization. "The October Revolution was undoubtedly a true political event in human history; it not only interrupted the historical process of the 'naturalization' of capitalism, but also opened up a new model of social development beyond capitalism—socialism."
(II) Lenin Opened a Path for Proletarian Revolution within a Desperate Historical Context
How is a proletarian revolution to be carried out in a backward Eastern society? Neither Marx nor Engels left much theory that could be used to guide such a reality. In their original conception, the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe were the most likely to see the first outbreaks of proletarian revolution because these countries possessed the necessary condition—a massive body of proletarian workers. Marx and Engels placed great hopes in this revolutionary subject [8], believing that only they could lead the proletarian revolution and push the revolutionary wave to other parts of the world, including Eastern societies, thereby opening a new world history. This was because Marx's analysis of the historical fate of capitalism was based on advanced Western European capitalist countries such as Britain and France. Therefore, Marx opposed "metamorphosing my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche générale imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself." He believed that in the process by which "Russians were seeking a path of development for their country different from that which Western Europe has followed and is still following," the theories he derived from studying Western European capitalist countries did not have direct reference value. Blindly copying and applying his theories would only land Russia in a developmental predicament. He noted: "If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries... once she has fallen into the arms of the capitalist system, she will adore its numbing laws like other profane peoples." In short, Marx believed that Russia had socio-historical conditions vastly different from those of Western European capitalist countries; it had to proceed from its own specific national conditions to find a path to socialism and communism suitable for itself. This historical burden fell upon the Russian proletarian theorists and revolutionaries represented by Lenin.
From an internal perspective, Russia's unique socio-historical conditions endowed Lenin with an even more arduous revolutionary mission; from an external perspective, the international situation Russia faced once pushed the cause of proletarian revolution into a historical dead end. World War I—a war that was essentially an unjust conflict launched by advanced capitalist countries that had reached the stage of imperialism in order to seize international markets and divert domestic political crises—was nonetheless portrayed by various bourgeois governments as a righteous war to defend national freedom and culture and to liberate oppressed peoples. Almost all Social Democratic parties in Europe (with the exception of the Russian Bolsheviks and the Serbian Social Democrats) failed to recognize the essence of this war, choosing instead the so-called "patriotic line"—voting in favor of their respective bourgeois governments’ war credits. During this exceptional period, patriotic fervor based on nationalism overwhelmed the revolutionary vision of the proletariat. As Žižek remarked: "In an era when military conflict divided the European continent in two, how difficult it was to reject the idea of taking sides, to reject one's own 'patriotic fervor'! How many great thinkers (including Freud) succumbed to the temptation of nationalism, if only for a few weeks!" The intense patriotic enthusiasm triggered by the war swept through almost all of Europe; the life-and-death stakes of nations and states caused parties previously in fierce class antagonism to shake hands and unite against external foes, while the cause of proletarian revolution was cast aside. The Social Democratic Party of Germany, taking the lead in supporting its own bourgeois government, "completely betrayed the positions and principles of proletarian internationalism, turned toward Great-Power Chauvinism [9], and threw in its lot with its own imperialist bourgeois government. This marked the ideological and political bankruptcy of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the first socialist party." As the Social Democratic parties of major European countries shifted to support their own bourgeois governments, the Second International existed in name only. The global catastrophe brought by this war plunged the proletarian revolutionary cause of the time into an unprecedented impasse. "The shock of 1914 was a catastrophe, a catastrophe in which an entire world disappeared: not only the idyllic belief in a progressive bourgeoisie, but also the socialist movement that accompanied it."
One can imagine the despair felt by proletarian theorists and revolutionaries situated in that historical context. However, Lenin did not sink into despair but took active measures to unite revolutionary proletarian forces and defend the cause of proletarian revolution. On one hand, Lenin used various channels to expose the essence of this imperialist war to the broad Russian masses, clarifying the position and phased tasks of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, asserting: "the more urgent it is for the class-conscious proletariat to fulfill its duty, to protect its class unity, its internationalism, and its socialist convictions against the rampant chauvinism of the 'patriotic' bourgeois cliques in all countries." On the other hand, he immersed himself in Hegel’s Science of Logic, attempting to find a theoretical way out of the predicament through the study of dialectics. Žižek argues: "This catastrophe opened the way for breaking with the historical evolutionism of the Second International—and Lenin was the only one who opened this path, the only one capable of articulating the truth of this catastrophe."
Through his analysis of the Russian village commune [10], Marx elucidated the possibility that Russia’s unique historical conditions could, through the power of revolution, transform its backward developmental disadvantage into an advantage for a leap in social formation. He believed: "If the revolution takes place at an opportune moment, if it concentrates all its forces to ensure the free transformation of the rural commune, the latter will soon develop as an element of regeneration in Russian society and an element of superiority over the countries enslaved by the capitalist system." This unique analytical perspective embodies the depth and subtlety of Marxist dialectics. Žižek contends that when the shock of World War I plunged the proletarian revolution of the day into an unprecedented historical dead end, Lenin reopened a new path for proletarian revolution through his grasp of dialectics. In Žižek's view, "Lenin insisted that the 'complete hopelessness of the situation' provided the opportunity to 'create the basic requirements of civilization in a way different from that of the West European countries.' What he proposes here is an effective theory of 'alternative history': under the 'premature' dominance of future forces, the same 'necessary' historical process (the process of modern civilization) can be reenacted in a different way." The desperate historical context allowed Lenin to perceive that Russia could take a path to socialism different from that of Western European capitalist countries. "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." Ultimately, Lenin led the October Revolution to victory, turning Marx’s theoretical conception of Russia's entry into socialism into reality.
III. The 21st Century Still Needs Lenin
In the 21st century—as the capitalist social formation updates and evolves, gradually establishing a global hegemony, and as socialism emerges from its low ebb to manifest new vitality—is it still necessary to pay attention to and study Lenin? To this question, an increasing number of Western thinkers and theorists have provided an affirmative answer. Alex Callinicos argues that Lenin's theory and practice revealed the essence of political action, which remains of great significance for analyzing contemporary capitalism, proletarian political mobilization, and organization at a strategic level. Antonio Negri contends that in the era of the new "Empire," where immaterial labor production has become the primary mode of capitalist production, Lenin's political thought is crucial for the formation of the contemporary subject of proletarian revolution—the biopolitical subject. Other Western scholars suggest that as a statesman, philosopher, and revolutionary, Lenin symbolizes resistance against injustice and oppression as well as the pursuit of a fair and just world; he is himself like a time machine, traversing time and space to arrive in the present in various guises. Lenin not only lives in the past but also belongs to the future. Slavoj Žižek provides a clear affirmative answer to this question in the opening of his book Lenin 2017: Reloaded: "In an era when no one any longer seriously considers possible alternatives to capitalism, the name of Lenin has an urgent necessity for us today." In his view, Lenin’s ideological theory is indispensable for shattering the illusions of capitalist rule and exploring paths to replace capitalism. The 21st century still needs Lenin; to some extent, one could even say Lenin is our contemporary.
Žižek believes that the 21st century shares a degree of similarity with the era in which Lenin lived—both are in a stage of turbulent transformation where the possibility of revolution breaking out exists at any moment. In the early 20th century, when Lenin lived, capitalism had developed into the stage of imperialism, leading to World War I as powers vied for colonies and world markets. Building on the foundation of the Russian February Revolution that overthrew Tsarist feudal rule, Lenin led the October Revolution to successfully overthrow the bourgeois Provisional Government and established the world’s first socialist state led by the proletariat. Similarly, today in the 21st century, capitalism continues to evolve, giving rise to new forms such as digital capitalism, platform capitalism, surveillance capitalism, and affective capitalism. While promoting the development of productive forces, these forms have also caused various far-reaching crises, such as intensified regional conflicts, the looming ecological crisis, the rise of populism, and pervasive digital surveillance and manipulation. These have awakened people from the illusion of the "End of History," leading them to re-examine the essence and fate of capitalism; the term "capitalism" has returned to the political and academic lexicon. In terms of practice, both the Left and the Right have begun to take action; spontaneous mass resistance movements and political chaos in Western countries have emerged one after another in succession, such as the "Occupy Wall Street" movement in the United States in 2008 and the "Capitol Riot" in 2021. Various signs indicate that: "We are witnessing the end of what Badiou called in The Rebirth of History the 'intervallic period,' a time when revolutionary energy was dormant—the river of lava flowing invisibly underground... The old world is still trying to maintain itself, but it is increasingly clear that, for better or worse, the post-political consciousness and political apathy of the post-Cold War era have ended." In our own terms, the current era is situated in Great Changes Unseen in a Century [11]. In Žižek's view, the crises and disasters caused by contemporary capitalism have also created conditions for the Left to reopen a revolutionary path. The Left must clarify its own task: "repeating Lenin." What does "repeating Lenin" mean? Žižek argues that "repeating Lenin" does not mean returning to Lenin, but rather that we must accept the fact that "Lenin is dead" and that the specific theories and programs Lenin proposed based on the historical context of his time are no longer fully applicable today. That is, we must distinguish between Lenin’s actual actions and the theoretical potential contained within his thought. He points out: "There is more in Lenin than Lenin himself. Repeating Lenin is not repeating what Lenin did, but repeating what he failed to do, the opportunities he missed." In short, "repeating Lenin" means learning from and paying tribute to Lenin’s courage and wisdom in carving out a revolutionary path in a desperate situation, making the impossible possible.
In Žižek's view, only Lenin's thought can restore the radical political attributes of Marxism in contemporary Western society, thereby exerting the revolutionary power that Marxism possesses to change the irrational status quo. He believes that Marxism in contemporary capitalist society has been co-opted and tamed, falling into rigidity and dogma, "becoming merely an object of academic research and official political discourse, losing its revolutionary and practical attributes." A major reason for this situation is that the tradition of proletarian revolution inherited and developed by Lenin has been labeled as violent and totalitarian, thus being completely excluded from the liberal-democratic political agenda. All the Left can do is engage in limited criticism and resistance within the fields and issues permitted by capitalist systems and procedures, such as the ecological crisis, feminism, the wealth gap, and the fragmentation of daily life. "In short, it means you can say and do whatever you like, provided it does not constitute a challenge or threat to the dominant political ideology. Consequently, anything that can serve as a subject of critique is tacitly permitted or even encouraged."
At the same time, when people attempt to step outside the given scope and issues to reflect upon and question the capitalist system and further seek alternative solutions, the situation changes. "As soon as someone tries to make a political project that challenges the existing order, the response is immediate: 'For God's sake, this will be a new Gulag Archipelago!'" Defenders of liberal democracy will denounce this as an "anachronistic" ideological position that violates so-called scientific objectivity. In short, in Žižek's view, this is an unspoken but well-known fundamental "thought control," the purpose of which is to suppress any thoughts and actions that might threaten or shake the legitimacy of capitalist rule, thereby maintaining the capitalist order. Although they know the existing liberal-democratic system has many ailments that are deep-seated and difficult to change, "the conformist liberal scoundrel can find hypocritical satisfaction in maintaining the existing order: they know there is corruption, exploitation, and so on, but they denounce the attempt to change the status quo as ethically dangerous, unacceptable, and a resurrection of the specter of totalitarianism." Will Marxists in current Western society remain oblivious to this game of self-deception? In Žižek's view, the various forms of Marxism appearing today—such as Cultural Marxism and Post-Marxism—are built on foundations of postmodern political thought and have abandoned the line of proletarian revolutionary action. Consequently, they share a common point: the denial of political rationality. In a word, current Post-Marxism has already abandoned the core of Marxist political liberation, becoming scattered and lost in the minutiae of social fields like culture, gender, and identity, making it difficult to touch the existing capitalist ruling order as a whole. Therefore, Žižek continually calls for a focus on Lenin and his thought, to "reload Lenin" under the new era's background and rediscover revolutionary momentum. He points out: "Lenin here stands for a compelling freedom, the suspension of the existing stale ideological coordinates, and a weakening of the thought control over our lives. This simply means being allowed to start thinking and acting again." For Žižek, Lenin is no longer an obsolete symbol and image associated with the failure of the 20th-century socialist movement; he embodies the posture of "reinventing revolution" in the 21st century.
In summary, the misreading and stigmatization of Lenin is a product of the operation of capitalist ideology, intended to suppress the revolutionary potential inherent in Leninism and thereby maintain capitalist rule. Western radical leftist thinkers, represented by Žižek, attempt to defend and rehabilitate Lenin by theoretically severing the necessary link between Leninism and Stalinism, reaffirming the historical significance of the October Revolution, and highlighting Lenin’s outstanding historical contribution in carving out a path for proletarian revolution in a desperate historical situation. They issue the contemporary call that "the 21st century still needs Lenin."
IV. Conclusion
How to scientifically evaluate Lenin's historical status and his ideological legacy, and how to critically inherit and innovate upon them under the conditions of the New Era, is an important topic that needs in-depth exploration for the development of 21st-century world Marxism. To some extent, Leninism represents an Eastern-society version of Marxism. For Western Marxism, Lenin has always been a theoretical reference point at various stages of its development, haunting the intellectual canopy of Western Marxists like a specter. In the early developmental stages of Western Marxism, the critique of Lenin’s dialectics—which was built on the foundations of materialist ontology and reflection theory [12]—was a theoretical theme used to restore the subjective dimension of the dialectic and awaken the class consciousness of the proletariat in Western society. However, today in the 21st century, the radical Western Left—as the contemporary successors of Western Marxism—has once again turned its focus toward Lenin. This reflects, to some degree, the predicament faced by the Western Left.
Along with the improvement of material living conditions and the rise in social welfare levels, the survival situation of the proletariat in capitalist societies has greatly improved. Tolerance for the existing irrational system has increased, and class contradictions have gradually eased, even evolving into "class truce" and "class peace." The will and motivation to change the status quo through revolutionary action have dropped to historical lows. Although various spontaneous mass resistance movements in Western society occur one after another, most are ephemeral and fail to form a sustained and profound influence. Žižek once arrived at the "Occupy Wall Street" protest site wearing a T-shirt with Marx's image and delivered a spirited speech, calling on participants not to turn the protest into moral critique at the level of theory and discourse, but rather to transform anger into active action to push for political change and seek the possibility of another way of life. However, as Žižek unfortunately predicted, the participants later returned to their daily lives without bringing about positive political change. Such movements, after being packaged and publicized by the media, instead become a manifestation of the so-called "full freedom" people enjoy under the capitalist system, serving to beautify and maintain the existing order. For the Western Left itself, the situation is equally worrying. Under the siege and assault of capitalist ideology, many on the Western Left have abandoned demands for radical political change and turned toward compromising with or even supporting the current irrational system. For example, Critical Theory, which once possessed the sharpest theoretical edge, has been neutralized and transplanted into the field of cultural studies.
The Western Left, situated in this predicament, places its hopes in Leninism. They attempt to resist the offensive of capitalist ideology by defending, rehabilitating, and reinterpreting Lenin and his thought, seeking to carve out a new path for proletarian revolution under the new historical background. Whether this will help improve the current predicament of the Western Left and initiate a new phase for the Western socialist movement remains to be seen.
For the Western Left, summoning the presence of Leninist thought to galvanize revolutionary momentum is a choice forced upon them by their current predicament. In reality, there is a more practical and effective alternative: namely, to focus on and recognize that socialism with Chinese characteristics—having inherited and developed Leninism—is leading and opening a new situation for the development of world socialism. This requires expanding one's vision from Western society to all of human society, and examining as well as grasping the future destiny of 21st-century socialism from a broader perspective of world history. Due to the theoretical prejudices inherent in the Western Left, and the fact that Chinese Marxist theoretical workers have not yet secured an international discourse power [13] in Marxist theoretical research that matches the practical achievements of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the Western Left continues to ignore or even form erroneous perceptions of the Chinese path. The October Revolution led by Lenin brought Marxism to 20th-century China, fundamentally altering the historical trajectory of modern China. It was precisely through the critical study of and borrowing from Soviet Marxism—with Leninism as its primary content—that Chinese Marxists found the correct path for integrating Marxism with China's national conditions. To a certain extent, the continuation of Marxism in China and the achievements of socialism with Chinese characteristics indisputably prove the possibility and immense advantages of the Indigenization [14] of Marxism in Eastern societies, a process initiated by Lenin. If the Western Left continues to ignore this fact, it will be impossible for them to accurately and comprehensively grasp the developmental trends of 21st-century world socialism. Consequently, their strategy of attempting to activate proletarian revolutionary momentum through "repeating Lenin" will degenerate into empty slogans and gestures, lacking a solid basis in social reality.