I just finished reading Peter Kropotkin’s autobiography, Memoirs of a Revolutionist, and I highly recommend it, especially to those of you with an interest in Russian history. In case you’re wondering who the hell this Kropotkin fellow might be: He was born in 1842 into a noble Russian family – he was literally Prince Kropotkin – and in his youth he was favored by the Tsar. He is known for renouncing his title and becoming an anarchist-socialist. That’s obviously the ultra-condensed version of his life story. His autobiography – four hundred and sixty some pages – is impressively well written and quite witty.
The first half of the book provides an incredibly detailed glimpse into the life of educated Russian royalty in the mid-to-late 1800s, and the book personalizes the general conflicts endemic of the time, usually symbolized by Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons, in a way that Turgenev’s work simply didn’t do for me. I have to say that I do somewhat wonder about the honesty of the work – Kropotkin writes of his youthful views of the harshness of serfdom and the plight of the masses in such as way that it seems to be the product of age and experience. I find it hard to believe that a 19th century Russian prince under the age of ten had such strong egalitarian leanings. But perhaps that’s just me.
I must admit that I found the first half of the book (Kropotkin’s childhood, youth at a military academy, and military service in Siberia) to be more interesting than the second half, which traces Kropotkin’s personal evolution into an anarchist-socialist agitator. This is probably because I don’t really agree with any of his political principles. Don’t get me wrong – I’m an absolutely horrible capitalist, and I’ve chosen (essentially) to turn my back on the capitalistic, so-called “American Dream” but that is a personal solution, which probably serves only to benefit me alone. Kropotkin’s belief in free-socialism, where the masses work together in harmony for the good of the whole without any regulating state body seems naïve. While I do not believe that capitalism is the solution to the woes of society, I believe that it is a natural state: society, if given free reign, will evolve into a capitalist system simply because humans are, by nature, greedy, selfish creatures, and capitalism rewards these traits.
Wow, that was quite a digression. As I was saying, the second half of the book was not as interesting as I do not share Kropotkin’s beliefs; however, that is not to say that I was disinterested in the second half. I found the descriptions of the Russian prison conditions (including the cells of the Peter and Paul Fortress, which I myself have entered, although only as a tourist) fascinating. I also quite agree with Kropotkin’s analysis near the end of the book of the uselessness of prison systems in general when it comes to reforming criminals or preventing crime. A pity he didn’t provide a solution!
One thing, though, that did strike me: Kropotkin renounces his title and his wealth to serve the cause of the masses as an anarchist. Yet, had Kropotkin not been born a prince, he would not have received the lessons (both the life-lessons and the educational-lessons) which led him to follow this path. Additionally, despite his renunciation of his royal lineage, his life was (indirectly) saved as a result of who he was. (While in an overcrowded prison, Kropotkin grew gravely ill. His sister, who was still in favor at the Tsar’s court, petitioned to have him moved to a hospital-prison, where he recovered from his illness, and from whence he escaped.) I wish that during the course of his autobiography, Kropotkin had addressed this dichotomy, this need to rely on his “former self” as he lived the life of an anarchist, but sadly, he did not.
Nonetheless, the book was fascinating, and I recommend it.
Moving on... I would like to mention that I finished Walden about a week ago. I must admit that the first part of the book (Economy through Solitude) was more interesting and more meaningful to me than the second. (What’s with me and the first halves of books these days?) In the first half of Walden, Thoreau outlines his rationale behind his relocation to Walden Pond, and I found it not dissimilar from my life plan. Henry David and I could definitely have had a long talk about economics. Unfortunately, the bulk of the second half of the book (excluding the concluding chapter) focused on life in the woods. I grew up in the woods. I know about this already. Descriptions of birds and fish and the sounds of nature... well, that just isn’t anything new to me. So, the second half was kind of a disappointment.... but everyone should at least read the beginning. He's got some intelligent things to say.
The first half of the book provides an incredibly detailed glimpse into the life of educated Russian royalty in the mid-to-late 1800s, and the book personalizes the general conflicts endemic of the time, usually symbolized by Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons, in a way that Turgenev’s work simply didn’t do for me. I have to say that I do somewhat wonder about the honesty of the work – Kropotkin writes of his youthful views of the harshness of serfdom and the plight of the masses in such as way that it seems to be the product of age and experience. I find it hard to believe that a 19th century Russian prince under the age of ten had such strong egalitarian leanings. But perhaps that’s just me.
I must admit that I found the first half of the book (Kropotkin’s childhood, youth at a military academy, and military service in Siberia) to be more interesting than the second half, which traces Kropotkin’s personal evolution into an anarchist-socialist agitator. This is probably because I don’t really agree with any of his political principles. Don’t get me wrong – I’m an absolutely horrible capitalist, and I’ve chosen (essentially) to turn my back on the capitalistic, so-called “American Dream” but that is a personal solution, which probably serves only to benefit me alone. Kropotkin’s belief in free-socialism, where the masses work together in harmony for the good of the whole without any regulating state body seems naïve. While I do not believe that capitalism is the solution to the woes of society, I believe that it is a natural state: society, if given free reign, will evolve into a capitalist system simply because humans are, by nature, greedy, selfish creatures, and capitalism rewards these traits.
Wow, that was quite a digression. As I was saying, the second half of the book was not as interesting as I do not share Kropotkin’s beliefs; however, that is not to say that I was disinterested in the second half. I found the descriptions of the Russian prison conditions (including the cells of the Peter and Paul Fortress, which I myself have entered, although only as a tourist) fascinating. I also quite agree with Kropotkin’s analysis near the end of the book of the uselessness of prison systems in general when it comes to reforming criminals or preventing crime. A pity he didn’t provide a solution!
One thing, though, that did strike me: Kropotkin renounces his title and his wealth to serve the cause of the masses as an anarchist. Yet, had Kropotkin not been born a prince, he would not have received the lessons (both the life-lessons and the educational-lessons) which led him to follow this path. Additionally, despite his renunciation of his royal lineage, his life was (indirectly) saved as a result of who he was. (While in an overcrowded prison, Kropotkin grew gravely ill. His sister, who was still in favor at the Tsar’s court, petitioned to have him moved to a hospital-prison, where he recovered from his illness, and from whence he escaped.) I wish that during the course of his autobiography, Kropotkin had addressed this dichotomy, this need to rely on his “former self” as he lived the life of an anarchist, but sadly, he did not.
Nonetheless, the book was fascinating, and I recommend it.
Moving on... I would like to mention that I finished Walden about a week ago. I must admit that the first part of the book (Economy through Solitude) was more interesting and more meaningful to me than the second. (What’s with me and the first halves of books these days?) In the first half of Walden, Thoreau outlines his rationale behind his relocation to Walden Pond, and I found it not dissimilar from my life plan. Henry David and I could definitely have had a long talk about economics. Unfortunately, the bulk of the second half of the book (excluding the concluding chapter) focused on life in the woods. I grew up in the woods. I know about this already. Descriptions of birds and fish and the sounds of nature... well, that just isn’t anything new to me. So, the second half was kind of a disappointment.... but everyone should at least read the beginning. He's got some intelligent things to say.
4 comments:
If you enjoyed Kropotkin's memoirs, I think you will enjoy Herzen's memoirs even more. Especially the earlier part of his memoirs, where he describes his years in Russia (before he left it forever.) Like Kropotkin, he was of priviledged background and was very precocious in his rebellious idealism (not too unusual among well-to-do 19th Century Russians, actually.) But then there are also plenty of differences between Herzen and Kropotkin. Herzen (1812-1870) was on an earlier generation, and with respect to human nature he was more of a realist than Kropotkin. In addition, Herzen was a better writer. In any event, there is a sad irony in the fact that despite all the injustices of Tsarist regime, Herzen, Kropotkin and other 19th and early 20th Century Russian "dissident" intellectuals were treated with kids gloves when compared to how the Bolshevik regime under Lenin and Stalin dealt with their dissidents.
Kolya
Thanks for the tip. I noticed that throughout Kropotkin's memoirs, he frequently mentioned Herzen, although I must admit that I know *very* little about him. I have, however, added his memoirs to my list of books that I will read at some point.... (What I can read right now is kind of limited to the books my coworkers own, as books in English are hard to come by over here and when I read it Russian it is more work than pleasure, alas...)
Thanks for the reply, Jane. I know how that is, "too many books, so little time."
Herzen's autobiography is quite long, but, as I wrote above, I found the earlier parts of it more interesting. In English you can read them as a separate book titled, "Childhood, Youth and Exile". Here is an Amazon link (just in case):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0192815059/qid=1143035439/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/104-9245155-3876764?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
I hope the link was not truncated.
Enjoy the coming spring!
Thanks for the link! I will definitely purchase it when I get the chance.
Post a Comment