I’ve often wondered if Dostoevsky had lived to see the Bolshevik Revolution, whether he would have seen through Lenin's philosophical bullshit. I don’t know Dostoevsky well enough to answer that question definitively, but it’s been on my mind since I was introduced to his work in junior high.
In nearly every piece he wrote, Dostoevsky consistently exposed the spiritual and moral dangers of idolizing a single individual, such as a tsar, as well as the societal consequences of placing blind faith in one leader or ideology. For instance, in The Brothers Karamazov, he presents the famous "Grand Inquisitor" parable, a profound warning about humanity's tendency to surrender freedom for the illusion of comfort, certainty, and authoritarian control.
Despite Dostoevsky’s insights, many brilliant Russian writers and poets—and the intelligentsia at large—failed to recognize the dangers of the cult of Lenin and the catastrophic period of history that followed. Figures like Vladimir Mayakovsky, Maxim Gorky, Andrei Bely, and Alexander Blok all expressed a desire to break free from the authoritarianism of the tsarist past and move into a revolutionary future for Russia. So, when the revolution came in 1917, they admired and supported the bolsheviks, unable to see that the cult of Lenin would surpass tsarist authoritarianism in its brutality. Gorky, in particular, was so busy kissing Soviet ass that Stalin renamed one of Russia’s largest cities, Nizhny Novgorod, to “Gorky” in his honor in 1932. (Gorbachev renamed it back to Nizhny Novgorod in 1990.)
The one notable exception was Sergei Yesenin. Initially supportive of the revolution, he quickly saw through Lenin's malevolence. Tragically, Yesenin died under mysterious circumstances in 1925 at the age of 30. (He probably "accidentally" fell out of a window, as has become the most common cause of death in Russia.)
The enduring tragedy of Russia—perhaps even genetic—is that Russians have never seen themselves as individuals. There is always someone who is supposed to guide them, help them, provide them with comfort. And even though that comfort has never materialized, generation after generation continues to believe that salvation lies in the iron fist of one person.
What's interesting about Doestevesky and his work (one of the reasons I felt compelled to write this) was that he often felt the intelligentsia had a patronizing bend to them (thinking they could fully lead the serfs). This kind of mentality makes one more likely to become totalitarian. So I would imagine he'd have been more immune to them.
This is exactly the line of thought. I’m trying to think through in architectural design and in the ways architecture is a microcosm for greater society! You’re motivating me to publish my draft on glass houses —the actual not the metaphorical kind
I love your book rec series, but you have outdone yourself with this one. Never have we needed a deep study in human ethics, and never was there a better guide!!!
I’ve often wondered if Dostoevsky had lived to see the Bolshevik Revolution, whether he would have seen through Lenin's philosophical bullshit. I don’t know Dostoevsky well enough to answer that question definitively, but it’s been on my mind since I was introduced to his work in junior high.
In nearly every piece he wrote, Dostoevsky consistently exposed the spiritual and moral dangers of idolizing a single individual, such as a tsar, as well as the societal consequences of placing blind faith in one leader or ideology. For instance, in The Brothers Karamazov, he presents the famous "Grand Inquisitor" parable, a profound warning about humanity's tendency to surrender freedom for the illusion of comfort, certainty, and authoritarian control.
Despite Dostoevsky’s insights, many brilliant Russian writers and poets—and the intelligentsia at large—failed to recognize the dangers of the cult of Lenin and the catastrophic period of history that followed. Figures like Vladimir Mayakovsky, Maxim Gorky, Andrei Bely, and Alexander Blok all expressed a desire to break free from the authoritarianism of the tsarist past and move into a revolutionary future for Russia. So, when the revolution came in 1917, they admired and supported the bolsheviks, unable to see that the cult of Lenin would surpass tsarist authoritarianism in its brutality. Gorky, in particular, was so busy kissing Soviet ass that Stalin renamed one of Russia’s largest cities, Nizhny Novgorod, to “Gorky” in his honor in 1932. (Gorbachev renamed it back to Nizhny Novgorod in 1990.)
The one notable exception was Sergei Yesenin. Initially supportive of the revolution, he quickly saw through Lenin's malevolence. Tragically, Yesenin died under mysterious circumstances in 1925 at the age of 30. (He probably "accidentally" fell out of a window, as has become the most common cause of death in Russia.)
The enduring tragedy of Russia—perhaps even genetic—is that Russians have never seen themselves as individuals. There is always someone who is supposed to guide them, help them, provide them with comfort. And even though that comfort has never materialized, generation after generation continues to believe that salvation lies in the iron fist of one person.
What's interesting about Doestevesky and his work (one of the reasons I felt compelled to write this) was that he often felt the intelligentsia had a patronizing bend to them (thinking they could fully lead the serfs). This kind of mentality makes one more likely to become totalitarian. So I would imagine he'd have been more immune to them.
But then again, zeitgeist blinds all men
🤯
SUPER interesting
This is exactly the line of thought. I’m trying to think through in architectural design and in the ways architecture is a microcosm for greater society! You’re motivating me to publish my draft on glass houses —the actual not the metaphorical kind
shoot me a text when that's ready
The problem with this approach is it reduces people to pieces in your mental model. Humans are no longer humans, but instead-
Gods to be emulated.
Tools to be used.
Trash to be ignored, “fixed,” or discarded.
Question: Is it goods to be emulated or gods to be emulated? I may have missed the context here.
Gods. The point is about idolization and then vulnerability to tyranny
I love your book rec series, but you have outdone yourself with this one. Never have we needed a deep study in human ethics, and never was there a better guide!!!
This is incredibly kind. Thank you
Dostoevsky was a talented writer. He also displayed serious Russian chauvinism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyCypK6yOl0
Amongst many other flaws