Crime and Punishment

I picked up Crime and Punishment sometime last week. To give a little back story, I've never read it, which is unfortunate, really. I picked it up on a whim: Borders at our mall was going out of business, and so had books on super-sale. The wife told me to pick up some classics on the way home (dumb on her part really…I am somewhat of a bibliophile, and to be give the vague command to "pick up some classics" was like giving me a blank check…). So in the midst of the said shopping spree, I checked out the back of a paperback edition of Crime and Punishment. I was intrigued by the description, and even more intrigued by the brief biography of Dostoevsky contained in the opening page. I bought it.

At first, it was slow, and I found it easy to put down and get distracted. But as the story progressed, and we actually met more characters, I found myself borderline obsessed with the story. There were several aspects that sucked me in. The first was the supposed motive for the murder, and the differentiation between "everyman" and the "superman". What sucked me in the most, however, was the cat and mouse game between the inspector and Raskolnikov. It was so masterfully done that I really couldn't tell if the inspector really knew that Raskolonikov was guilty and was trying to draw him out, or if the inspector was genuinely clueless. Further, the differing aspects of Raskolnikov's character (his genuine heartfelt generosity, his internal dialogues about his personal charity) sucked me in—although I can't say that I genuinely liked him as a person. In addition, the depth of characters line Sonia, Katerina Ivonovna, Pyotr Petrovich provided further stimulus. As the climax drew near, Dostoesky artfully maintains a shroud over the conclusion, leading one to wonder about how the conflict will be resolved, but at the same time, leaving open every possibility. In fact, when the resolution does come, it's not a surprise, but it certainly isn't a forgone conclusion.

Some different themes interested me in the work, and I'll comment on them separately:

1. The idea of love in the story
   
2. The true hero of the tale
   
3. The concept of the "superman" and the "right to crime"
   
4. Raskolnikov's motive and today's Occupy Movement (and associated incidents)

Socialism vs Fascism, Part II

From what I've said previously, it makes total sense for liberals in America to assign the greatest slur they can think of (fascists/Nazis) to conservatives, while conservatives assign the greatest slur they can think of to liberals (Communists/socialists).  The problem is, at least with the liberals' use of fascism and Nazism, they fail to look deeper at both fascism (which they abhor) and socialism (which they wish to emulate).


Socialism, it is widely thought, was the brain-child of the theories of Robert Owen.  Owen (1771-1858) used his extraordinary skill in managing and overseeing to create a successful textile mill at New Lanarck. He was able to put several of his progressive ideas into practice at New Lanarck, and these successes gave him the opportunity to put his more radical, socialist theories into practice, most notably at New Harmony in Indiana.  Owen's socialism reduced the population into small "societies" of about 500-3000 people, and removed private property and private ownership: all that mattered was the success of the "society".  All people shared everything, and each would receive according to their need.  Everyone would exist in relative equality in these self-contained societies, which would be overseen by a capable, qualified and adept overseer.  Groups of societies would be linked together, and those groups would be linked together, until every society was part of a globally integrated, non-competitive socialist utopia.  In classical socialism, the goal is the economic survival/success of each individual, not competitive "collective".  Due to the non-competitive nature, the idea of nationalism, or pride in one's collective, or heritage, or individuality is supposed to be non-existent.  Any sort of differentiation between individuals would create a competitive atmosphere, which would undermine the socialist utopia.  Thus, true socialists are afraid of nationalism, or "American exceptionalism", so much so that the would label anyone who demonstrates any sort of pride in their country as "fascists" thought to invoke the totalitarian regime of Hitler.


Fascism is first seen in Mussolini's Italy.  Mussolini's fascism was centered around his authority as a dictator, and the uber-nationalism that accompanied Italy's militarism.  For Mussolini's Italy, everything revolved around the good of the State.  So important was the State's influence on everyday life, that a common joke was that while everything was going to hell-in-a-handbasket, at least the (state-run) trains ran on time.  Over time, he dramatically increased state control over the private sector, eventually settling on a system called corporatism, which melded a centralized economic plan with privately run businesses.  Mussolini was the first, but not the last.  Adolf Hitler adopted the fascist idea with his National Socialists is Germany.  For the Nazi party, the good of the state was the goal, and while Mussolini never really went full socialist, Hitler did.  However, we don't really hear about Hitler's love-affair with socialism.  Instead we are faced with his great nationalism, his Thousand Year Reich, and the "Fatherland". 

The fact is, that all fascists used socialism as their economic policy to some extent.  The goal of the fascist is the success of the state...thus, socialism, with its goal of economic "success" of the society is a good match. Fascists will, because of their insistence on the importance of the state over the importance of the individual, adopt socialist policies. For this reason, it is rather ironic that American liberals (who want state control of the economy, and who believe in the importance of the state over the importance of the individual) call American conservatives (who are proud of the United States and believe in the importance of the individual over the importance of the state) "fascists".

Dracula, revisited

I was just breezing through Creative Minority Report and I came across the phrase "he gave vampires souls".  It brought me back to an issue I have with Stoker's work and how he dealt with vampires and souls.

When vampire-Lucy was waylay-ed by Professor Van Helsing and his partners, Van Helsing imparts on Arthur the importance of what need to happen: by slaying the vampire-Lucy, Lucy's soul is free to enter into Heaven.  This gives a rather interesting perspective on the soul, salvation, damnation, and the link between the soul and body.

Catholic teaching on the soul and the body is such that both are intrinsically linked: the body is THE vessel for the soul, and during the resurrection, the soul will be reunited with the body (not a different one, but a glorified old one).  When the body dies, the soul is freed from this "mortal coil" and will be separated from it.

This means, in relation to vampire-myth, that when the body dies (and before it becomes a vampire) the soul is released and thus the soul is not trapped by the vampire's actions.  So then, it would appear that vampire-Lucy wouldn't really have been Lucy at all, but a demon using Lucy's body, or something to that effect, and Lucy's soul would have entered Heaven already.  But that isn't what Stoker presents.


Stoker actually presents two DIFFERENT perspectives in his work.  Lucy's soul is in jeopardy, as if it is trapped in the body while the body continues its evil, God-forsaken actions of feeding off others.  Killing the body will release Lucy's soul to enter into heaven.  The fate of Lucy's soul (whether it will be damned or saved) is unrelated to the actions of the vampire, it appears.

HOWEVER, both Lucy and Dracula know who they are.  Lucy recognizes her beloved, and with evil depravity presents herself in a lustful manner to seduce him in order to prey upon his blood and win him over to her (and possibly be his master, as Dracula is hers).  Likewise, Dracula is fully aware of his existence, who he is, what his purpose is, and what his plan is.  He recounts his history, what he's done, etc.

The two perspectives are mutually exclusive.  Lucy's soul cannot be trapped against its will by vampire-Lucy AND vampire-Lucy know who she is and act accordingly (although in an utterly depraved manner).  Either the vampire is Lucy or it is not.

On 'Coriolanus' and American Politics

To summarize a rather long situation, I was tricked into reading Shakespeare's Coriolanus.  It was an interesting and enjoyable read.  The story surrounds a rather decorated and successful general for the Roman Republic, who is eventually banished, and seeks to exact revenge on the spiteful populace of Rome.

The main theme, from what I could gather, is anger, or more specifically, anger management.  If the title character could control his anger in public, he wouldn't have been in the situations he was in.  Mother always said, think before you speak.  However, this is not what caught my eye as I read the play.

What I thought was most compelling was the subtle manipulations that went on that ended up inciting Coriolanus to anger.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but the manipulations present in Shakespeare's 17th century play are eerily similar to the manipulations that are occurring presently within the American political landscape, particularly with the Democratic Party.

The plebians' opinion on the Senate in general and Caius Marcius in specific are essentially the result of careful seeds planted and nursed by their supposed voices in the Senate: Junius Brutus and Sicinius Velutus.  Their seeds include class-envy and class warfare, inciting the crowds to jealous outrage against the wealthy Senators and their motives.  Had not Rome been threatened by an attack by their enemies the Volscians, it is highly likely a violent outburst would have occurred, quietly encouraged by the supposed "voice of the people".  Such actions only increase the influence and authority of the two tribunes.

Within the American political landscape, we see the same thing taking place with the Democratic party. The first connection between the tribunes and the Democratic party has to do with identification.  For a while now, perhaps over four decades, Democrats have branded themselves as the "voice of the poor", while calling their main opponents, Republicans, advocates for the rich.  As such, like Junius and Sicinius, they play on class envy and class warfare.  Consider how often we've heard the meme "make the rich pay their fair share".  Prominent Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz gave repeated public support to the Occupy Wall Street movement, which, among other things, advocated and carried out violence against the "rich", much like Junius and Sicinius prompted and supported in Coriolanus.  Further, there is the undeniable hatred that Junius and Sicinius have for Caius Marcius, who put his life on the line for Rome more that once, and begrudgingly accepted the consulship against his better judgement.  Even after Marcius had won the support of the people, the two tribunes managed to trick them into thinking that he had humiliated them, and used them for his own gain.  While not a perfect fit, we witnessed a similar thing with former President George W. Bush.  All one needs to do is look at the way Democrats and the media (remember, well over 75% of journalists consider themselves liberal) treated President Bush--"Bushitler" comes to mind.  Further, Junius and Sicinius attempted to use their manipulations to gain influence; it cannot be less obvious that certain policies (like expanding food-stamps and unemployment benefits, or not enforcing immigration laws) only serve to create support for the Democratic Party among certain demographics.

There is another angle that presents itself, when we analyze it further.  In Act II, Scene I, Menenius Agrippa (a Senator who "hath always loved the people"), confronts Sicinius and Junius, essentially calling them hypocrites, for they are quick to criticize Caius Marcius for faults they all too willingly exhibit themselves (like pride).  This is similar to the Democratic attacks on President Bush for his war in Iraq while failing to attach President Obama (who engaged US military forces illegally in Libya--he did not notify or explain his actions until much after the fact--and 'unilaterally' engaged in military operations in new venues, all while continuing wars he said he'd end), or Democratic attacks on Dick Cheney for "crony capitalism" on creating a energy policy that supposedly benefits his oil buddies, while being mum on President Obama for giving "stimulus" monies to "green energy" companies which happened to have wealthy Obama supporters at the helm.

Junius and Sicinius manipulated public opinion and most certainly put themselves in a more advantageous position.  However, their manipulations, while certainly bringing out the downfall of their enemy, Caius Marcius, also almost completely destroyed Rome.  They lied to the people they supposedly stood for, for personal gain, despite the ruin it almost caused.  The modern Democratic Party, which is engaging in the same thing, should take heed.  Sure, Shakespeare's play is a work of fiction, but like all of the Bard's works, Coriolanus still exhibits a deeper knowledge of the human condition: often, we will engage in behaviors that can or will ultimately lead to the suffering of many for our own selfish ends.