Here we go again!

Here we go again!

...

...

I'm drawing a distinction between the government as an entity and the sycophants that formed soviet high society.

Those people formed the government and dictated the ideology that they tried to force others to live up to while simultaneously failing to live up to those very same ideals.

...

do you not understand the actions of individuals within their society and the government they form as being distinct? the behaviors of the characters in the novel aren't relevant to government action or ideology, which is why I think it's worth thinking of them differently

...

The beliefs of the individuals shaped the government, these weren't just rich people, these were the people that controlled the way people thought and lived, formed the government under which they were citizens of. They are entirely the same thing in the Soviet Union as they are here. If a senator is pushing a bill that would outlaw homosexual marriage, and is then caught in a scandal involving having gay sex with prostitutes and soliciting underage boys for sex, does this not exactly color and nullify what he was promoting in the government?

The difference is that at no point does bulgakov critique the ideals themselves, unless you see in his caricature of the elite an implicit criticism of the ideals they supported and failed to live up to. His critique is of their misbehavior and hypocrisy, not their utopia - in a way, much of the book could've been written by a devoted Stalinist who was disgusted with the way his own view for Russia was betrayed by the human failings of card carrying party members. That's why I think it's essential to make the distinction.

As to your example, that ironically isn't hypocritical in my mind since extra-marital sodomy and gay marriage aren't really the same thing.

...

The actions of the individuals involved in the government is entirely tied up with their role in the government. A bill to outlaw methamphetamine is not distinct from the person who is promoting that bill. If it so happens that the person who is promoting the bill is a tweaker then that reflects negatively on the government itself. When you allow individuals who do not follow the ideals of the very government they form to continue running the government there is a problem that needs to be pointed out. There is a disconnect.

And Bulgakov exactly critiques the ideals themselves. He explains the ideology of the government while showing the way the individuals who make up the government actually behave.

...

Is pointing out that a man fails to live up to his ideals a criticism of his ideology, or of him?

There is not a distinction between the actions of the people who make up the government and the government itself. Hell, Trump won large support solely from the "I'm a government outsider" campaign. There is no separating what the government does with what the politicians do.

Pointing out that the entirety of the people who promote the ideology fail to live up to it and yet still promote it to the point where others who are not part of the apparatus failure causes them to be punished is a critique of the system itself.

Ok.

I don't agree but I understand your position and think it's tenable.

...

Hell, in Heart of a Dog Bulgakov writes about a dog that undergoes surgery to make it into a human type creature. It still fully retains its dog like nature, running around, living decadently, eating anything it wants, drinking whatever it wants, fucking whenever, stealing, etc. And because of all this behavior the dog manages to rise through Soviet society to become a well respected party member capable of dictating certain policies in its territory.

...

My context for bulgakov is exclusive to master and margarita.

I've read a couple of his books. But you can glean that he was critical of the Soviet government through The Master and Margarita alone.

I don't disagree, I just didn't think it was primary in master and margarita, but that seems to be predicated on an understanding of man and institution that we differ on.

You also have to understand and remember that in the Soviet Union there was no individual. Soviet policy dictated that the individual was of wholly no importance what-so-ever in the Communist utopia they tried to create, all that mattered was the party.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...