VLADIMIR TlSMANEANU
409
the country on the path leading to the goal. And he himself lived a wor–
thy and happy life."
As a political doctrine (or perhaps a political faith) Leninism was a
synthesis of radical Jacobinism, or Blanquism (elitism, minority, predes–
tined vanguard); Russian "Nechaevism"; and the authoritarian-volun–
tarist component of Marxism. Is this all over? Far from it: the Leninist
(Bolshevik)
forma mentis
is rooted in a political culture suspicious of
open dialogue and democratic procedures, and hostile to spontaneous
developments from below. Spontaneity
(stikhiinost')
has always been
the Leninists' nemesis. Its counterpart was the cult of
partiinost',
the
unbound acceptance of the party line. Remember Antonio Gramsci's
reflections on Russia's "gelatinous" civil society and the omnipotence of
the bureaucratic state? Wasn't Lenin himself, by the end of his life, ter–
rified by the resurgence of the time-honored traditions of rudeness, vio–
lence, brutality, and hypocrisy that he had lambasted and against which
the revolution was presumably directed?
Now, for the East European intellectuals there is always a problem:
What Russian tradition do we refer to? The Decembrist or the czarist–
autocratic one? The liberal humanists who opposed the pogroms and
the blood libel or the Black Hundreds? Vladimir Korolenko or Kon–
stantin Pobedonostsev? The Bolshevik apocalyptic scenario or the Men–
shevik evolutionary socialism? The terrorist rejection of status quo, the
intelligentsia's perpetual self-flagellation and outrage, or the dissident
vision of a liberated polis? And even within the dissident culture, there
has always been a tension between the liberals and the nationalists,
between the supporters of Andrei Sakharov and those of Igor Shafare–
vich. All these questions remain as troubling now as they were one hun–
dred years ago. Once again Russia is confronted with the eternal
questions, "What is to be done?" and "Who is to be blamed?" And, in
different versions, whether they admit it or not, all participants in the
debate are haunted by Lenin's inescapable presence.
Lenin was the most influential Russian political personality of the
twentieth century, and for East Europeans Lenin's influence resulted in
a complete transformation of their worlds. It would be easy to simply
say that Leninism succumbed in the events of
1989-91,
but the truth is
that residual Bolshevism continues to be a major component of the
hybrid transitional culture of post-Soviet Russia (and East-Central
Europe). The major theme of the Richard Pipes !Martin Malia explicit
or implicit controversy is thus important for our interpretation not only
of Russian modern history, but also for the discussion of the nature and
future of left-wing, socialist politics in the twenty-first century. Was it
