Essay Questions

Provide a psychoanalytic interpretation of Kropotkin’s admiration of Alexander II.

Kropotkin recalls, “At the beginning of my service I felt a great admiration for Alexander II., the liberator of the serfs... One day, at the beginning of January, 1862, I saw him leave the procession and rapidly walk alone toward the halls where parts of all the regiments of the St. Petersburg garrison were aligned for a parade…I knew that my court duties ended as soon as the Emperor appeared in his capacity of military commander of the troops, and that I had to follow him to this spot, but no further. However, on looking round, I saw that he was quite alone. The two aides-de-camp had disappeared, and there was with him not a single man of his suite. “I will not leave him alone!” I said to myself, and followed him.” Under Lacanian psychoanalysis, Alexander II is Kropotkin’s objet petit a for a revolutionary. Although Kropotkin is not a serf, he adores Alexander II for his input in liberating the serfs. Alexander II is Kropotkin’s unequivocal role model. Kropotkin affirms his willingness to safeguard his idol from any jeopardy due to the robust admiration which he has for him.

How does Kropotkin appeal to Logos when expounding the implication of the Revolution of Poland?

Kropotkin writes, “The disastrous consequences for Poland of this revolution are known; they belong to the domain of history…Official lists, also published in Russia, give 18,672 men and women exiled to Siberia from Poland, of whom 10,407 were sent to East Siberia. I remember that the governor general of East Siberia mentioned to me the same number, about 11,000 persons, sent to hard labor or exile in his domains. I saw them there, and witnessed their sufferings. Altogether, something like 60,000 or 70,000 persons, if not more, were torn out of Poland and transported to different provinces of Russia, to the Urals, to Caucasus, and to Siberia.” The quantitative scrutiny of the individuals who were undesirably impacted by the revolution portrays the deadly nature of insurrections. Although the figures are approximations, they illustrate the magnitude of deaths and displacement which are ascribed to the insurgences. Moreover, the figures accentuate the catastrophic nature of the mutiny.

How does Kropotkin employ postmodernism to elucidate the depth of despotism?

Kropotkin expounds, “Everywhere in Europe, at the beginning of this century, there was a great deal of domestic despotism,—the writings of Thackeray and Dickens bear ample testimony to it; but nowhere else had that tyranny attained such a luxurious development as in Russia.” Alluding to ‘ Thackeray and Dickens’ is deliberate intertextuality which is expedient in matching the extent of despotism in Europe to the Russian despotism. The association surmises the Russian despotism is extreme for it is characterized by “All Russian life, in the family, in the relations between commander and subordinate, military chief and soldier, employer and employee, bore the stamp of it. Quite a world of customs and manners of thinking, of prejudices and moral cowardice, of habits bred by a lazy existence, had grown up. Even the best men of the time paid a large tribute to these products of the serfdom period.”