Secure A Copy Winter Notes On Summer Impressions Composed By Fyodor Dostoevsky Made Available In Text

know that show on PBS, Rick Steves' Europe Imagine that it was hosted not by the affable, slightly boring Steves, but by the grumpiest, most beetlebrowed Russian you can fathom, and that rather than seeking out the famous citadels, cathedrals, and monuments of Europe, our host instead scurries straight for the most destitute neighborhoods of London and Paris and spends his time listening to the area's gambling addicts and child prostitutes.
Also, having decided to judge Europe by its lowest common denominators i, e. said gamblers and prostitutes, our host finds Europe to be a loathsome place, not at all what it's cracked up to be.
Got that in your head That's basically Winter Notes on Summer Impressions, Make no Parisiancatacombentombed bones about it: this is a Russian nationalist screed serving as a direct response to what Dostoevsky saw as European infiltration into his beloved homeland by means of German rationalism and other philosophies popular in thes.
It's a book very much of its time and place, which is why it's not widely read today, but I think it should be, because it's turned out to be highly relevant to the good ol' USA circa.


As the election season has progressed or devolved, one of the most common refrains heard from the Democrats goes something like this: “Every major European country has a universal health care system that works why dont we Finland has by far the most successful educational program in the world, and yet we persistently fail to emulate it.
If a policy is proven to work, then thats that, and a refusal to adopt the policy out of nationalism is really mere stubbornness disguised as patriotism, pettiness as pride.
And so I would politely inquire of my friends on the other side of the aisle” and so on.
The equally adamant rejoinder from the right is: “I dont want to live in Europe or Canada, or Mexico.
I want to live in America! Let us make our own mistakes, if mistakes they be, If I may quote the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky” The fundamental question herethe necessity or unnecessity of a nations politics arising naturally from a preexisting national sentimenthas been argued since time immemorial, nowhere more passionately than in the pages of Dostoevsky.
During the turbulents, the man watched with horror and revulsion as his country committed what he considered cultural prostitution, with Western Europe in the role of pimp.
Although he had longed to go to Europe from childhood, having very Dostoevskian “delirious ravings” about the continent in his sleep as a boy, when he finally arrives at the age of forty, he discovers he has already seen much of what is offered.
He neednt have left his homeland by, French literature, German philosophy, and English customs had long since become those of the Russian intelligentsia.
The fashion of the time, consisting of “silk stockings and wigs,” and “little swords” perhaps of the same variety as the sabre the Underground Mans offending officer rattled so impudently, was a hodgepodge of European tastes.
The upandcoming political views of the day were no less so, and taken about as seriously by their adoptees as their fashion.
At one point in Winter Notes our intrepid traveller grumbles, “Our entire ultraprogressive party fervently stands up for foreign suspenders.
” The problem with donning these ideological suspenders, Dostoevsky believes, is that they are not held in any esteem, granted any real value, that only those beliefs and literature and fashion and customs which come from the native soil of those who believe in and practice them can be said to hold genuine value to the soul.
In short, “A culture is cultivated over the centuries and developed over the centuries, A nationality is not easily altered it is not easy to abandon the habits of centuries, ingrained in the flesh and blood.
” So what does this mean for the United States What ideas have been ingrained in our flesh and blood, how do they compare to those of the Europe Dostoevsky visited, and what do they say about us

In modern political terms, Dostoevskys cultural determinism is a very conservative idea, considered almost backwards.
It seems to fly in the face of the “melting pot” mentality that has been “ingrained in our flesh and blood” since the immigration waves of the earlyth century, and it is the diametric opposite of multiculturalismif nationalities are, in fact, almost genetic, then throwing a bunch of them onto the same plot of land and telling them to work things out amongst themselves is a recipe not for democracy, but violent sectarianism.
It also offers a bleak prognosis for our nations ability to reverse this inevitable division, as the multicultural ideal itself, being “developed over centuries”, is “not easily altered.
” Dostoevsky renders just such a judgment on France in Winter Notes, That nation, in perpetual recoil from what Dostoevsky terms “all those little pranks”that is, the French Revolutionwas at the time attempting to instate a socialist brotherhood of men, a secular Kingdom of Heaven.
The rub, for Dostoevsky, is that this attempt is by definition a selfconscious one, and so doomed to failure by its very nature.
As soon as one sees the benefits of brotherhoodwhich Dostoevsky never doubts are very realone desires brotherhood not for the good of mankind but for ones selfinterest such is mans nature.
As soon as this selfinterest is understood by the individual, it becomes impossible to devote oneself for any other reason, including the good of others.
Just ask the narrator of Notes From Underground: “Rationally speaking, one drop of your own fat must be dearer to you than a hundred thousand of your fellowcreatures, and this conclusion is the final solution of all socalled virtues and duties and all prejudices and fancies.
” Meaning, then, that all conscious strivings toward brotherhood, toward “the cessation of world history”, are doomed in their very design, but not necessarily all unconscious ones:

"After all, it is like trying not to think of a polar bear.
Try to pose for yourself this task: not to think of a polar bear, and you will see that the cursed thing will come to mind every minute.
So how is the realization of Utopia to be done There is no way it can be done, but rather it must happen of itself it must be present in ones nature, unconsciously a part of the nature of the whole race, in a word: in order for there to be a principle of brother love there must be love.
It is necessary to be drawn by ones very instincts into brotherhood, community, and harmony, to be drawn in spite of all the nations ageold sufferings, in spite of ageold slavery, in spite of foreignersin a word, the need for a brotherly community must be in the nature of man he must be born with it, or he must have been in the habit from time immemorial.
"

The French people, in trying not to think of the selfinterested benefits of socialism, end up thinking about them continuously.
“In other words,” Dostoevsky quips, “socialism is quite possible, but only in places other than France, ”

It isnt too difficult to imagine how this logic can be applied to America today, To posit a pipe bomb: the American ideal has always been, more or less, the brotherhood Dostoevsky describes in Winter Notes, that is, a community of men who find “the highest happiness” in making sacrifices for their fellow men, but only of their own volition.
The reason this ideal has been so obviously unrealized in our history is because the further back one moves in history, the narrower the definition of just who is fully human becomes, and so the narrower the circle of “brothers” eligible for membership in the brotherhood of men.
Furthermore, when even one person is rendered ineligible for membership on the basis of his race, or her sex, it becomes impossible for the “accepted” members to genuinely sacrifice themselves for the good of man, even if they want to, because the benefits they receive from their social superiority over the given subhumans of the time renders their “sacrifice” moot it becomes an easy, riskfree thing to do, and in consequence an affectation, a symbolic act done to keep up appearances.
Look no further than the case of slavery and its abolitionist opposition, an example contemporary to Dostoevsky, briefly referenced in Winter Notes.
Ins America, to proclaim oneself an abolitionist was to commit social suicide among the respectable North abolitionism was a fringe movement, the domain of fanatic obsessives like William Lloyd Garrison and the Transcendentalists, and terrorists like John Brown.
By the end of the Civil War it was, of course, the Unions universal view, In siding with Lincolns after his Proclamation, the landed gentry of the North pretended they were “martyring” their reputation and, so they thought or claimed to think, were “risking their lives” for the just cause of abolition.
They did nothing of the sort, of course, instead sending the common soldier to his death with a hearty salute, and following the status quo to a tee the whole way throughbut when the status quo changes, as it did during the war, it is profitable to pretend that it has not and that the adopters of the new status quo are in fact rebels against it it flatters the ego.
But we shouldnt waste too much breath proving the existence of sanctimony in American discourse, The point is that it is impossible for the privilegedor, if you prefer, unpersecutedsegment of society, be they the fashionable abolitionist or you and me, to make the sort of sacrifice Dostoevskys notion of brotherhood demands in a society marred by inequality.
Fortunately, the general trend of American history is toward inclusivity makes the possibility of such a brotherhood grow brighter.


But say we arrive at total political equalitya scenario hard to imagine without the totalitarian social controls of Kurt Vonneguts “Harrison Bergeron”, or of Ingsoc, but let us suppose.
In such a case brotherhood will still be impossible for America the culprit this time is capitalism,

Dostoevskys scathing critique of capitalism, framed in Winter Notes by his visit to London, is remarkable in part because it does not seek to promote any other economic system, is instead predicated on the assumption that all economic systems are futile by nature of their artificiality.
Our Russian Virgil, guiding us through the gaslit streets of Hell, where at night “everyone rushes as fast as he can to drink until he loses consciousness”, is struck during the day by the calm and obscene assuredness in the rightness of their activities with which Londoners bustle about.
Never do they question the profit motive, even when the inevitable failure of the majority of the population to produce a profit drives them to misery never would it occur to them to question it:

"In the presence of such enormity, in the presence of such gigantic pride in the sovereign spirit, in the presence of the triumphant finality of that spirits creations, even the hungry soul often comes to a standstill, grows humble, bows down, seeks salvation in gin and depravity, and begins to believe that everything is as it should be.
Fact weighs heavy the masses grow numb and wander about like zombies or if skepticism arises, dismally and with a curse they seek salvation in something like Mormonism.
"

This will not be the last time Dostoevsky expresses concern over the selfproclaimed reliability of all rationalist forms of thought, including free market economics.
Because the objective righteousness of what Dostoevsky labels, in his chapter title, "Baal" an umbrella name for numerous Pagan gods can, even if questioned, never be found wanting, the most an Englishman can hope for is the false hope delivered by false religions as Dostoevsky considered Mormonism to be which simply do not comment

on the driving force behind English society, which overlook the matter and drown the congregations intuitive doubts about this force in a deluge of myth and superstition.
Such, anyway, is his highest hope by day, By night it is the aforementioned blackout drinking, For the women of London, however, Baal must be served most especially by night: “At night prostitutes crowd several streets in this quarter by the thousands.
In Haymarket I noticed mothers who were bringing their young daughters into the business, Little girls around twelve years of age take you by the hand and ask you to go with them.
”

This sort of depravity, into which London was driven by its poverty, is utterly alien to modern America.
In solely physical terms, we have come closer to the fulfillment of the Crystal Palace Dostoevsky patrons in London than any other nation: we are a prosperous, consumer culture, and we like to flaunt it.
However, for Dostoevsky physical prosperity can be as morally disastrous as physical povertyif not more so, Crimes that are unforgivable in Dostoevsky are usually the result of decadence: the dandyish Verkhovensky and the dashing rogue Stavrogin in Demons, Raskolnikovs murders in Crime and Punishment.
Crimes committed out of a biological drive, such as hunger or lust, are comprehensible, forgivable, and only human, Criminals who act in the name of an idealincluding that of the capitalist Baal, which is alive and well in America todayact inhumanly, and little sympathy from Dostoevsky.
Better for your soul, in short, to be starving on the streets of London, and even selling your childs body to make ends meet, than to live idly in a world where such things happen, doing nothing to prevent them, when it is within your means to do so.
This is why Pyotr Stepanovich in Demons and Ivan Karamazov in the Brothers are guilty in the eyes of God, even though they kill by proxy active, passionate injustices are preferable to emotionally detached ones of the sort which are encouraged by the capitalist systems of England and America, which incentivize the exploitation of others whom we bear no personal vendettas against.


As a nation, we remain both politically and economically unprepared to embrace Dostoevskys brotherhood by means of our own consciousness, and to make matters more difficult, the importation of foreign consciousness is futile at best, disastrous at worst.
So what now How do we manage to sway the instincts of our society in a more brotherly direction In a phrase, What Is to Be Done We know that culture is “ingrained in the flesh and blood”, and this is so because, according to Dostoevsky, “the soul is not a tabula rasa, a piece of wax from which the universal man may be molded.
” If the soul is not a tabula rasa, then exactly what part of it is predetermined There may be the biological component, to be sure, the urge for selfpreservation that we now universally agree is present in mans mind at birth, but that can hardly be all, in Dostoevskys view.
It cannot be all because Dostoevsky has already declared the socialist brotherhood is a possibility “in places other than France”by which Dostoevsky really means, in Russia.
There is no Darwinian urge to sacrifice oneself for the sake of ones fellow man at no point has there been a widespread belief in such an urge, never less so than in Dostoevskys day, when, as the Underground Man puts it, “one must smile and take it” when scientists say “you are descended from an ape” and that “one drop of your own fat must be dearer to you,” etc.
, etc. In order for brotherhood to be possible, there must be something innate in the soul which counteracts “the selfish gene”, and that thing has its origins in the actions, good or evil, of ones cultural ancestors.
The good news is that means we ourselves have influence over the “cultural DNA” of our descendants, and that our individual actions will have a ripple effect beyond their solitary circumstance.
Dostoevsky conceives of a sort of moral collective unconscious, a racial memory, decades before Jung, All ideology being useless, it is the only tool we have to improve our society, and our only hope for brotherhood, in America as everywhere.

.