Christian Socialism?

[underworld men]

I will continue to say that yes, Dostoevsky was against socialism, but it was the version of socialism that was rife at that time and age, which was not the version of socialism that I adhere to.

The writings, as well as the life that he lead, contained a lot of the same aspects of socialism that I adhere to.

Historical texts can be quoted till the cows come home saying he was against socialism.  I don't care.  I know that many of his writings and characters retain a lot of the same socialist characteristics that I have.

Raskalnikov, Prince Myshkin, The Underground Man, all three of those characters represent the dialog that is representative in most people that are striving to break down the barriers that exist in society.  That, to me, is socialist thought.

Again, in MY honest opinion.

Then why did Dostoevsky no come out and state he was a believer of "real" socialism? Why did he not label his ideas and politics "socialist" instead of like he did "orthodox christian".

Why is it that nothing you state sounds like anything different then the die hard new class who clung to socialism while people where being enslaved and murderer and starved to death for the beautiful idea of "socialism"? People stripped of their freedoms and dignity in the name of socialism. 10 s of millions of people. These things happened and yet this was no "real" socialism. No and yet if people listened to the orthodox socialists reformers like Khruschevs and Mao and supported getting the real deal and would just be patient and give it all sometime, it just kept getting worse.

You make no sense and you are unable to even yourself post comments, sources or quotes to back up your "opinion".

[underworld men]

I think I might understand what earth is saying; Dostoevsky did not believe in socialism per se, but he was a rigid nationalist, and Russia is known to be always different than the rest of the world, and some of its policies throughout history might have been a bit socialism leaning.

Sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth; if I'm wrong correct me but if indeed I am wrong, then I also don't see what you're saying earth, and I can't quite agree with the idea that Dostoevsky was for socialism (even your definition of it).

What I'm saying is that socialism has a "public definition" which is not necessarily the ONLY defintion.  Many socialists believe in the abolishment of state, but the "public defintion" that underground men states is, of course, the only one in his mind.

There was a definition of socialism at the time in Russia, and I believe that Dostoevsky was against THAT definition.  His actions, however, were very socialist (though not the defined socialism at the time, nor the public definition as used by underground men), as artists usually are.

No what it appears that you are saying is that you can make statements about someone that attaches to them something the they VENOMOUSLY opposed and you do not have to provide facts or sources nor do you have to clarify (or for that matter even define) the label you have put on them (Dostoevsky).

No instead you attack people call them names and then keep repeating that you have no need to ante up any proof for your opinion but can just keep calling people arrogant or an ___ retard for calling you on it and then posting facts and sources to back their opinion. No, I did not know Dostoevsky but have posted sources that did. No I am not saying that any idea is exclusive and can not contain elements of other ideas. What I am saying is that Dostoevsky would take great offense by the sources and information I have provided at you calling him a socialist.

And for that matter many socialists have taken great offense in Dostoevsky. hehe Dostoevsky in Russia was considered pornographic or at least demons was.

[underworld men]

For the record Dostoevsky was a monarchist who believed in a strong duma/parliament. He did not believe in equality/egalitarian/socialism such a thing lends that there would no longer be masters and servants no longer leaders all would be "equal".

And again.....from Dostoevsky.

there will always be masters and servants but they must learn to love one another like brothers.

the brothers karamozov.

Yes earth you should read the Brothers Karamozov it too is very anti socialist. It is where Dostoevsky tells the world that as orthodox christians we are to take care and be responsible for each other.

[earth]

IN MY OPINION Dostoevsky was very socialist in his ideals.

I don't know how much slower I could say that for you to comprehend.

IN

MY

OPINION

You may be right, you may be wrong.  All I know is:

IN

MY

OPINION

[earth]

can anyone else back me up here?

Does everyone understand the concept of "IN MY OPINION"?

Or is it just me?

[underworld men]

can anyone else back me up here?

Does everyone understand the concept of "IN MY OPINION"?

Or is it just me?

Back you up on what? That you have yet to post quotes from Dostoevsky showing him to be a socialist you have yet to post links/ sources to back up what you say.
You also have yet to read the brothers karamozov and demons. No you just post insults and keep repeating over and over again in your (unsupported with facts) opinion. Without facts how can it be honest.

[earth]

can anyone else back me up here?

Does everyone understand the concept of "IN MY OPINION"?

Or is it just me?

Back you up on what? That you have yet to post quotes from Dostoevsky showing him to be a socialist you have yet to post links/ sources to back up what you say.
You also have yet to read the brothers karamozov and demons. No you just post insults and keep repeating over and over again in your (unsupported with facts) opinion. Without facts how can it be honest.

I brought up 3 examples earlier on no?

Myskin:  very christlike in his actions, cared for other people.

Raskalnikov:  felt the strain on life that poor people felt

Underground Man:  bucked against the system much the same way your traditional anarchists do.

On top of that I've mentioned that the things concerning Fourier were:

"Dostoevsky never had revolutionary aspirations - that is, he never wanted to overthrow, in bloody fashion, the existing government. Fourier's ideas were not a threat to Russia's political structure; rather, they inspired a revolution of the mind and spirit. This sort of revolution interested Dostoevsky very much.

Dostoevsky wanted to form a different kind of circle - one whose concern was art, not politics. He asked his friend Speshnev to help him create the new circle. The two men had in common a belief in the power of language. Dostoevsky wanted to use that power to inspire utopia, not revolution."

again:

IN MY OPINION those are all examples of a socialist mindless.  

I know you disagree but I can only go by my experiences.  I know what I have read and I know what I have taken from his characters.

[earth]

can anyone else back me up here?

Does everyone understand the concept of "IN MY OPINION"?

Or is it just me?

Back you up on what? That you have yet to post quotes from Dostoevsky showing him to be a socialist you have yet to post links/ sources to back up what you say.
You also have yet to read the brothers karamozov and demons. No you just post insults and keep repeating over and over again in your (unsupported with facts) opinion. Without facts how can it be honest.

Do you even read for the sake of art or do you have to over-analyze ever last word?

[underworld men]

can anyone else back me up here?

Does everyone understand the concept of "IN MY OPINION"?

Or is it just me?

Back you up on what? That you have yet to post quotes from Dostoevsky showing him to be a socialist you have yet to post links/ sources to back up what you say.
You also have yet to read the brothers karamozov and demons. No you just post insults and keep repeating over and over again in your (unsupported with facts) opinion. Without facts how can it be honest.

I brought up 3 examples earlier on no?

Myskin:  very christlike in his actions, cared for other people.

Raskalnikov:  felt the strain on life that poor people felt

Underground Man:  bucked against the system much the same way your traditional anarchists do.

On top of that I've mentioned that the things concerning Fourier were:

"Dostoevsky never had revolutionary aspirations - that is, he never wanted to overthrow, in bloody fashion, the existing government. Fourier's ideas were not a threat to Russia's political structure; rather, they inspired a revolution of the mind and spirit. This sort of revolution interested Dostoevsky very much.

Dostoevsky wanted to form a different kind of circle - one whose concern was art, not politics. He asked his friend Speshnev to help him create the new circle. The two men had in common a belief in the power of language. Dostoevsky wanted to use that power to inspire utopia, not revolution."

again:

IN MY OPINION those are all examples of a socialist mindless.  

I know you disagree but I can only go by my experiences.  I know what I have read and I know what I have taken from his characters.

Sources and quotes. Post a link to the quote you gave so that it can be read in context because it contridicts testimony after testimony to the contray. And that is only one quote with no link and it does state that Dostevsky was a socialist. Real simple and again repost your definition of socialism for clarification.

I bet I'll get another dodge or how I don't know the difference between quotes and sources or and you stating your opinion based on your opinion.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/josef-stalin/

[underworld men]

can anyone else back me up here?

Does everyone understand the concept of "IN MY OPINION"?

Or is it just me?

Back you up on what? That you have yet to post quotes from Dostoevsky showing him to be a socialist you have yet to post links/ sources to back up what you say.
You also have yet to read the brothers karamozov and demons. No you just post insults and keep repeating over and over again in your (unsupported with facts) opinion. Without facts how can it be honest.

Do you even read for the sake of art or do you have to over-analyze ever last word?

Do you ever read about people and their complete works before labeling them something they fought against in their published works? Their fought against almost entire lives. No?

Are you as knowledgeable about Dostoevsky to make such a blanket statement about him that his treaching brotherly love and fellowship means that he is a socialism. No. When by all intents and purposes you are doing nothing but showing you are not knowledgable enough to make those statements.

The teachings that Dostoevsky expressed are older then your socialism and they are Orthodox christian and you are just another slander from the left who sees the power in his message and want it to be your message. That would be OK if he himself was not very very outspoken on what he expressed as being orthodox and all the while being against the various interpritations of christianity (roman catholism, protestantism) as well as his message through out his works being anti secular anti athiest anti socialist anti liberal.

You have by your own admission not even read all of his major works. You seem to take the idea that art gives you licenses and when called on you showed the true nature of your socialism. Yes intolerants and the need for absolute ABSOLUTE dedication without question. (yes the mods removed you asking me if I was an f'n retard, lucky for you).

You posted hateful comments on the other board I linked here. Comments that would have definitely been condemned and taken very offensively by Dostoevsky. Dodge and sidestep some more it is clear you can not answer a direct question.

You seem to also suffer from blind selective reasoning. You stated that facts can be quoted til the cows come home and that not only matters but your feelings and opinion don't have to be based on such things. No it by art that you try and justify
your speculative label of Dostoevsky.

[underworld men]

can anyone else back me up here?

Does everyone understand the concept of "IN MY OPINION"?

Or is it just me?

Back you up on what? That you have yet to post quotes from Dostoevsky showing him to be a socialist you have yet to post links/ sources to back up what you say.
You also have yet to read the brothers karamozov and demons. No you just post insults and keep repeating over and over again in your (unsupported with facts) opinion. Without facts how can it be honest.

I brought up 3 examples earlier on no?

Myskin:  very christlike in his actions, cared for other people.

Raskalnikov:  felt the strain on life that poor people felt

Underground Man:  bucked against the system much the same way your traditional anarchists do.

On top of that I've mentioned that the things concerning Fourier were:

"Dostoevsky never had revolutionary aspirations - that is, he never wanted to overthrow, in bloody fashion, the existing government. Fourier's ideas were not a threat to Russia's political structure; rather, they inspired a revolution of the mind and spirit. This sort of revolution interested Dostoevsky very much.

Dostoevsky wanted to form a different kind of circle - one whose concern was art, not politics. He asked his friend Speshnev to help him create the new circle. The two men had in common a belief in the power of language. Dostoevsky wanted to use that power to inspire utopia, not revolution."

again:

IN MY OPINION those are all examples of a socialist mindless.  

I know you disagree but I can only go by my experiences.  I know what I have read and I know what I have taken from his characters.

Since you not be counted to clarify I will note how even in the article you quote it states that Dostoevsky was not a socialist..

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~karamazo/bio03.html

Dostoevsky wanted to use that power to inspire utopia, not revolution. Speshnev, on the other hand, wanted to use language to spread "socialism, atheism, and terrorism - everything good in the world." Though he disagreed with Speshnev's ideas about the use of language, Dostoevsky shared with Speshnev the belief that freedom in language was essential to Russia's future. Accordingly, Dostoevsky agreed to establish, with Speshnev, an underground press. This relationship with Speshnev would prove to be Dostoevsky's undoing

Please note this paragraph is the one right after the ones you quoted. That was rather deceptive of you to leave it out.. Look how it changed your use of it to be exactly the opposite of what you tried to use it meaning for note the word socialism it the paragraph and article.

[axon]

I'm sorry Koehler, and everyone else, but I've decided to close this thread do to various reasons. I feel that the topic has been exhausted and now it is an argument between two people that should be done in private instead of in front of everyone.

If anyone feels like they "just must" respond to this closing, please do not make a thread about it, but private message me; if there are justifiable reasons for reopening the thread, I will do so.

-axon

P.S. most learning is done by listening and not by talking. Everyone can talk, but it takes skill to listen, comprehend, and understand or at the very least take the "other" side into account. There is no point in saying the same thing over and over again without even trying to see the argument from the other side.

Let's have fun here! I hope all of you enjoy coming here, I know I do - so let's keep this a pleasant environment, and keep the unnecessary hostilities off the keyboard I love being in and reading intelligent heated arguments - it's great if both sides have something to say and can support their claims with solid facts, and if they can't, are authentic enough to say that their ideas are pure speculation.

But above all, lets respect each other in whatever we do.