Dostoyevsky was a true genius and master of psychology. I remember marveling at his descriptions of human nature when reading Crime and Punishment as a teen, but this is beyond!
How can you have a moral code if you don't have something ...someone bigger than you? You can't. We need God ...he does not need us; He choices us out of straight up unconditional love. Then He waits on us to choice Him as well. Just my thoughts :)
I was born and raised in the Soviet Union, where I participated in the underground human-rights movement.
Looking back, I am often struck by how the disparate threads of my life converge in ways that feel almost Bulgakovian—as if what once appeared accidental was, in fact, part of a deeper design.
My encounter with Demons (Бесы—though I have always preferred The Possessed) did not come through official channels. In Soviet schools, Dostoevsky was permitted in carefully measured doses—Crime and Punishment assigned, dissected, contained. But Demons existed in a more ambiguous realm: not formally banned, yet effectively suppressed—confined to collected works editions, never allowed to circulate freely as a standalone book.
I came to it indirectly, through my growing fascination with Mikhail Bulgakov after reading The Master and Margarita. That path led me to a semi-underground lecture by a brilliant philologist—his name, regrettably, lost to time—who in addition to Bulgakov’s also specialized in the literature of the Russian Silver Age. We spoke among other topics of Vyacheslav Ivanov, whose “Tower” stood not far from my school, the Smol’nyj district already heavy with cultural memories. And from there, almost inevitably, the conversation turned to The Possessed.
The book itself had to be obtained the way certain truths always were in the USSR: indirectly. I borrowed a volume from a friend. Reading it was not simply an intellectual experience. It became one of the decisive moments in my rethinking of the October coup d’état, and, ultimately, in my rejection of the Soviet Revolution doctrine.
On the other hand, I was also familiar with the term “luxury believes” that you have coined. It is very powerful concept and it deserves all the attention it can get these day and age. My other hero Greg Gutfeld uses it a lot.
I was not aware of your interest in The Possessed, and discovering it was a pleasure.
I would like to hope The Possessed might find its way into wider reading in American colleges and universities—but given the prevailing intellectual climate, that seems unlikely. All the more reason, then, that it must become popular reading outside the classroom.
Dostoyevsky was a true genius and master of psychology. I remember marveling at his descriptions of human nature when reading Crime and Punishment as a teen, but this is beyond!
Thank you for your excellent analysis!
Cant wait for Part 3 :D
Thanks for this- I finally subscribed because of this. Looking forward to Part 3! Appreciate this and all your work.
How can you have a moral code if you don't have something ...someone bigger than you? You can't. We need God ...he does not need us; He choices us out of straight up unconditional love. Then He waits on us to choice Him as well. Just my thoughts :)
I was born and raised in the Soviet Union, where I participated in the underground human-rights movement.
Looking back, I am often struck by how the disparate threads of my life converge in ways that feel almost Bulgakovian—as if what once appeared accidental was, in fact, part of a deeper design.
My encounter with Demons (Бесы—though I have always preferred The Possessed) did not come through official channels. In Soviet schools, Dostoevsky was permitted in carefully measured doses—Crime and Punishment assigned, dissected, contained. But Demons existed in a more ambiguous realm: not formally banned, yet effectively suppressed—confined to collected works editions, never allowed to circulate freely as a standalone book.
I came to it indirectly, through my growing fascination with Mikhail Bulgakov after reading The Master and Margarita. That path led me to a semi-underground lecture by a brilliant philologist—his name, regrettably, lost to time—who in addition to Bulgakov’s also specialized in the literature of the Russian Silver Age. We spoke among other topics of Vyacheslav Ivanov, whose “Tower” stood not far from my school, the Smol’nyj district already heavy with cultural memories. And from there, almost inevitably, the conversation turned to The Possessed.
The book itself had to be obtained the way certain truths always were in the USSR: indirectly. I borrowed a volume from a friend. Reading it was not simply an intellectual experience. It became one of the decisive moments in my rethinking of the October coup d’état, and, ultimately, in my rejection of the Soviet Revolution doctrine.
On the other hand, I was also familiar with the term “luxury believes” that you have coined. It is very powerful concept and it deserves all the attention it can get these day and age. My other hero Greg Gutfeld uses it a lot.
I was not aware of your interest in The Possessed, and discovering it was a pleasure.
I would like to hope The Possessed might find its way into wider reading in American colleges and universities—but given the prevailing intellectual climate, that seems unlikely. All the more reason, then, that it must become popular reading outside the classroom.
Thank you for bringing it once again into view.
Rob - this is phenomenal work. Thank you!!
You don't suppose he gave Lenin any ideas?
Thank you Rob, I love your insights.
One thing that stands out reading this is how little the content of the ideas seems to matter compared to how they function socially.
Dostoevsky isn’t just describing radicalism.
He’s describing what happens when ideas become signals.
Signals for:
status
belonging
moral positioning
coordination
Once ideas start operating like that, they stop being tools for understanding and start becoming tools for alignment.
And alignment doesn’t require truth.
It requires participation.
That’s where characters like Pyotr become interesting.
He doesn’t need people to think.
He needs them to synchronize.
Titles, shared guilt, rumor — these aren’t ideological tools, they’re binding mechanisms.
Even Stavrogin sits in a strange position here.
He sees through the system, but has nothing stable underneath it.
So he doesn’t attach — he destabilizes.
Which raises a slightly different question to the one we usually ask:
It’s not just what do people believe?
It’s:
👉 what are beliefs doing for them inside the system they’re in?
Because once beliefs become identity and identity becomes coordination,
you don’t get debate…
you get structure.
And structure, left unchecked, tends to harden — whether it starts as liberal optimism or radical intent.
Ideas are meant to be explored.
When they become too serious to examine, they begin to close.
Identity forms around them — that’s the lock.
And once locked, ideas don’t move.
They become ideology.
Excellent analysis, as I was reading “plus ça change” kept popping into my mind. Kinda depressing really.
WBE as Stavrogin