Mises seems to come down pretty hard on Russia in his book Liberalism. Basically saying they have never came up with an original idea and that most of their ideas came from Europe. Which I can somewhat agree with, but then he mentions Dostoevsky and Tolstoy with Lenin as people whose ideas lead to totalitarianism. Does anybody know specifically what his disagreements with Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are? He doesn’t really go into any detail about his specific disagreement with them.
Tolstoy was an anarchist but hated capitalism. He comes down pretty hard on the free market in Anna Karenina. As for Dostoevsky, he had some pretty strong anti-semitic sentiments, so that might be part of the reason.
I think Tolstoy came down harder on the bureaucrats in Anna Karenina than the market. Oblonsky is a useless idiot that is always lobbying for a more “important position”. There doesn’t seem to be much sympathy for the proletariat either. Konstantin Levin’s brother, who is involved with the worker’s union, is not portrayed in a good light either. There is definitely a bias in favor of an agrarian society though. Good point on Dostoevsky, he did show alot of negativity toward Jews in his writings. I still think it is a little harsh lumping them together with Lenin.
Mises was perhaps subscribing to a wider sentiment among German and English speaking thinkers who saw Russian writers and thinkers as heavily influenced by “barbarous” and “totalitarian” Asian influences or Byzantine-style bigotry. Charles Oman often said “Mongolian” influences gave Russian Bolshevism its “particulalrly odious character” while Friedrich Nietschze had an extremely low opinion of Russian novelists. By contrast French culture cheerfully embraced Russian thinkers and artists even before the exodus caused by the October Revolution. The reason? I can only speculate.
Interestingly, Nietzsche seemed to have a high opinion of the Russian people, however:
“The sole conquering power in the grand style is Russia (without this will to conquer states are castrated. To this end overflowing strength is to be directed outward!) As a consequence it will force Europe to unite itself.” Source.
in light of the russian revolution, and the particular ethnic flavour of many of the communist regimes, dostoesvkij’s fears don’t seem out of place, or the product of a feverish mind.
Newson,
This forum is to be a welcoming place for people of all ethnic backgrounds. Endorsements of anti-semitism are not conducive to that. You, Player, and Bert have been clouding this forum with a spirit that is foreign to the cosmopolitan social philosophy of the Misesian tradition. It stops now.
Were you posting the comments from me and MagnumPI to show what kinds of comments are allowed, or examples of what is not allowed? I wasn’t endorsing anti-semitism in any way, if that’s what it sounded like. I was merely commenting on the content of some of Dostoevsky’s writing.
What revolution? There was no “revolution”, it was an invasion, all the leaders of the “revolution” were foreign, their financing, weapons, planning. When the “revolution” ended the new Russian government had less than 10% of Russians on it!
Russia didn’t give political asylum to Marx, it was England, as England helped the German Trotsky escape detention on Canada, freed him and helped him in his murdering rampage.
I’m tired of the ignorance of the Anglo-arrogance. Russia colonized all the way even to Alaska and would have been the biggest power had they not launched a coup’d etat against it (murdering a third of it’s population, and stopping all the on-going industrialization and liberalization as home-ownership of the land was being recognized for all peasants, the Bolsheviks recognized that had they waited a bit more, their excuse of a peasant revolution would have been laugh at)
Yes Brian, I know that. I was only quoting you and MagnumPI to establish the context of Newson’s post.
Okay, cool. Just making sure 
i took mises’ comments to be a critique of tolstoy’s christian utopianism, hence my post. it is not clear why mises held d. in low esteem, but i’d imagined it to be the religious aspect.
naturally, i’m responsible only for my words. player and bert are not my ciphers. i reject the charge of endorsing anti-semitism, and it seems to me that d. didn’t deserve such an epithet either.
I don’t think there was a particularly sophisticated point of contention he had with them. It was just that he had an anti-Russian chauvinist streak. That is clearly apparent from reading the aforementioned Russia chapter of Liberalism. Also recall that he was an Austrian patriot an had earlier participated in WWI as an artillery officer on the Eastern Front.
Incidentally I read this quote from Nietzsche in a theological paper from Nigg, if i remember correctly.
This forum is to be a welcoming place for people of all ethnic backgrounds. Endorsements of anti-semitism are not conducive to that. You, Player, and Bert have been clouding this forum with a spirit that is foreign to the cosmopolitan social philosophy of the Misesian tradition. It stops now.
Why am I thrown into this?
Interestingly, Nietzsche seemed to have a high opinion of the Russian people, however:
And I think that Mises tended to show a somewhat negative view to Nietzsche. I also seem to remember Mises contrasting Tolstoy and Dostoevsky with the debauched Russian nobility in one of his books, though I am drawing a blank as to which book and where the reference was made.
Either way, there are far worse things than being a slavophile, I find many aspects of Russian culture awesome, just listen to Stravinsky:
it’s interesting to read cantor on tolstoy and dostoevsky in the literature and the economics of liberty. mises’ criticism must have been directed at their personal ideologies, and not their literary works.
Friedrich Nietschze had an extremely low opinion of Russian novelists
Certainly not of Dostoevsky, whom he called “the greatest psychologist” or something to that affect, but yes it is a bit typical to see the Anglos and Germans be a bit dissmisive of Eastern cultures for whatever reason. My off the cuff guess is a bit of hometown pride and wars, mixed with limited access to culture in comparison to today.
Mises was no intellectual chauvinist. Throughout his writings he repeatedly spoke of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon and the French traditions over the German tradition with regard to understanding the social philosophy of liberalism. The understanding in the Russian tradition simply was even more deficient.
Now that you mention it, I always found Mises’ infatuation with the French strange. France might not strike one as having had a strongly liberal stance even back than, due partly to its insane political system. Sure, French economists where great but France itself being a paragon of liberalism? But who knows, perhaps it was really such back than.