Mfw doestoeskij spends an entire chapter ridiculing communists and radical egalitatianists depicting them as retards...

I'm sure you see a SJW prototype and a Jewish conspiracy in everything. Sorry, but I don't think you're ready for literature.

>implying that's not what happened
perhaps you should refresh yourself on the text.

>>mfw "doestoeskij"

Why the fuck do people think this is an acceptable way to spell Dostoevsky

>not dostojewski

I know you're joking, but I'd rather even have this desu, Russian e corresponds to je and ий sounds the same as i to any non slav.

yes, atheism leads to liberalism and similar life-denying meme ideologies

>So you didn't understand the book?

What are you even trying to say? Dostoevsky was also a journalist. His political views were well-known. He was a reactionary Slavophile who supported the Tsar and distrusted the radical and progressive movements of his day. Are you suggesting that Dostoevsky doesn't devote a huge portion of his work to satirizing these viewpoints?

This.
>I'm sure you see a SJW prototype and a Jewish conspiracy in everything
kek

>inb4 Céline.

>look how this hugely significant work of literature vaguely agrees with my oversimplified parroted internet opinions

people who post on /pol/ should just be banned to be honest

>1 chapter
>vaguely
>>>/leftpol/

>I refuse to accept that a great writer didn't like progressivism, so I'll claim he was deep and misunderstood
great intellectual discussion guys

You're deliberately missing the point mate

Yes, and I'm sure that you think Dostoyevsky would be a raging Republican if he were an American living today. He'd demand billions of dollars for Israel, and kick the poor off of food stamps, all the while championing war mongering policies. I can see it now, Dostoyevsky would run a large corporation, he would give himself a huge pay raise and lay off the poor during recessions, and then he would say, "pfft, you're only poor because you choose to be poor, you filthy cuckhold!"

When Homer BTFOed feminists by making Hector call Diomedes a woman for runing away.

Yeah, dumbshit, because he was a far-right reactionary monarchist, not an American-style Republican. This post perfectly encapsulates how myopic, politically/historically illiterate, and intellectually incurious the average Veeky Forums poster is. They're stuck in the Bush-era and refuse to acknowledge the existence of any beliefs that aren't fuck and suck liberalism or some kind of Ronald Reagan mystery cult.

Also, lol at calling everyone "/pol/" and then going, "Oh, yeah, Dostoevsky would against wars for Israel." Yeah, lol, I wonder why.

BTW, please, please read "A Writer's Diary".

>food stamps
more like hot cheetos, cigs, malt liquor, and other ghetto treat-stamps

Dostoyevsky would be ok with all of those things.

All you did was name a bunch of other shit that /pol/ hates.

19th century Russia was an absolutist feudal society where only a small portion of the population had a decent life (a very good one), while the rest were literal poorfags barely more than starving slaves. is that the society a non-equalitarian today crave?

>Are you suggesting that Dostoevsky doesn't devote a huge portion of his work to satirizing these viewpoints?
Usually when someone satires or criticizes a movement, they demonize them fully and without remorse. But Doestoevsky didn't do this for Lebezyatnikov, instead portraying him as kind but naive and easily manipulated, a caricature of progressives in general, he was never portrayed as a "cuck" to my knowledge. His message in the book is, I think I could be wrong i've recently realized i'm not that smart, that belief in something, anything, is needed in order to function in society. And that when someone (Rasky) spins off the wheels of civilization and denounces meaning for life, he inevitably ends up like Sydragolov unless he chooses to return to humanity. You can see traditionalism in it, but to me it speaks more of how faith powers civilization.

>you will always be a polack instead of a superior russian

>these marxists are totally different from THESE marxists
ok buddy

lebeziatnikov literally advocates for an open relationship with raskolnikov sister's fiancee, saying that he should not interfere were she to find herself a lover, and says that he himself would find a lover for his own hypotetical wife so that she would "respect" him. if that is not the literal definition of cuckholdry i don t know what is

You are thinking about the wrong character, the wrong scene or you are just wrong. Lebezyatnikov is a minor character pretty much only used to satirize the progressives.

This is a quote by lebezyatnikov when he is talking to luzhin about Sonya. They are talking about her being a prostitute and lebezyatnikov being interested in her.

>"Not at all, not at all! How coarsely, how stupidly—excuse me saying so—you misunderstand the word development! Good heavens, how… crude you still are! We are striving for the freedom of women and you have only one idea in your head…. Setting aside the general question of chastity and feminine modesty as useless in themselves and indeed prejudices, I fully accept her chastity with me, because that’s for her to decide. Of course if she were to tell me herself that she wanted me, I should think myself very lucky, because I like the girl very much; but as it is, no one has ever treated her more courteously than I, with more respect for her dignity… I wait in hopes, that’s all!”

>I fully accept her chastity with me
>with me

Also

>When the deception is open, as in a free marriage, then it does not exist, it’s unthinkable. Your wife will only prove how she respects you by considering you incapable of opposing her happiness and avenging yourself on her for her new husband. Damn it all! I sometimes dream if I were to be married, pfoo! I mean if I were to marry, legally or not, it’s just the same, I should present my wife with a lover if she had not found one for herself. ‘My dear,’ I should say, ‘I love you, but even more than that I desire you to respect me. See!’ Am I not right?”

>Andrey Semyonovitch really was rather stupid; he attached himself to the cause of progress and “our younger generation” from enthusiasm. He was one of the numerous and varied legion of dullards, of half-animate abortions, conceited, half-educated coxcombs, who attach themselves to the idea most in fashion only to vulgarise it and who caricature every cause they serve, however sincerely.

Ad hominem m7

>both believe in magic

What a faggy image

Looks like a lot of people should go back and re-read this book

read the book again user

>I'm sure you see a SJW prototype and a Jewish conspiracy in everything.

>supported the tsar
>did hard time in Siberia for conspiring against the tsar
Huh

>he thinks his pre and post exile beliefs are the same

I don't agree with the other user that Dostoevsky was a tsarist though

He was against Republican gov't but also involved in anti-serf and supposedly anti-autocrat activity. I think my point is that he can't be shoe-horned into the politics of our day.

Do not apply your western political thinking to our country REEEE. You keep making the same God damn mistake for like what? 400 years now!?! Progressives and Communists were always regarded as trash and traitors in our society so nothing new here.

Wut

He's saying that most Westerners are incapable of understanding the Russian mentality.

wtf I hate the Greeks now

Well I think that's bullshit

I'm sure that you do.

If people are capable of understanding ancient Greek and Roman mentality even though they don't exist anymore, I'm sure people can understand recent Russian mentality.
I'm not saying that most westerners, including here, do understand. But to say it's impossible is ridiculous.

I think that you overestimate your peers, user.(Assuming that you're American) Do you truly believe that even a moderate portion of Americans understand Roman, or Greek culture? When's the last time you had a conversation about Homer, Plato, or the works of Cicero outside of lit? We are talking about a very small minority here who find meaning in these works. Perhaps it was wrong for me to say "incapable of understanding", I should have said unwilling to understand. And why should they be bothered, when there are innumerable distractions at their disposal?