Dostoevsky and socialism

[Canerican]

Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick.  He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element.

This quote come from Notes from Underground. I know it means more than socialism, but I believe this is a scathing criticim to socialism. Can anyone find anything else on this topic from Dostoevsky?

[poor knight]

Well, The Demons is pretty much a novel devoted to FD's contempt for the Socialist movement. Not that he is against "social justice," mind you, but more so the characters of his generation who couldn't figure out whether they were actually socialists or just anarchists.

[Canerican]

Do you believe that socialism and anarchism are nearly the same?

I personally think not. However socialism must lead to anarchism.

Just look at the French riots. I consider France to be very socialist. When you give the people all they could ask for at the expense of rich... and the poor are leeching off the rich, the tensions will be strong. Eventually the people want the government to be dissolved, leading to anarchism. Then when anarchism inevitably takes hold, someone will step up from the common masses, and reintroduce socialism.

It is a vicious circle.

[poor knight]

Very good analogy.

[Bobok]

Socialism isn't practicable. But socialists ideas do not lead to anarchism. Every state which have called itself "socialists" became a sort of a totalist regime.

Isn't it in Dostojewskijs case much more "nihilism"?

[Suvorov]

Being an individualist anarchist, I hold that none of Dostoevsky's characters can be termed 'anarchists' simply because those who do want to destroy the existing state merely want to replace it with another one.

Raskolnikov may want to go beyond good and evil but only so that he can be the person who tells the masses what their morality should be.

Stavrogin comes quite close to Stirner's anarchistic egoism but he shows no particular desire to do away with the state at any point.  Pyotr Verkhovensky wants simply to sieze power for his own ends. Although both characters are said to be based on elements of the infamous revolutionary Nechaev, Nechaev cannot really be called an anarchist: he was disowned by virtually all of the classic anarchist thinkers of his time, including his own mentor Bakunin who later regretted having anything to do with him.

Ivan Karamazov perhaps comes closest to anarchist thinking with his "Without God, all things are permitted" logic. But this is still far from accurate when describing the complex and subtle position of the anarchist.

Those above stating anarchism is an extension of socialism are just plain wrong. Anarchism has its own ideology and its own place in the political spectrum. It is a complex and subtle philosophy which draws influences from aspects of both socialism and liberalism. Anarchism is not just libertarian socialism: it is far more and far richer in ideas.

[SFG75]

In The Brothers Karamazov, the young boy Kolya identifies himself as a socialist.  He is very forward with his views and lectures Alexey, who puts him off with a serence smile and wave of the hand that seems to indicate that not every youthful whim is deserving of a response or serious consideration. 

[Rimbaud]

Dostoyevsky was very critical of Socialism. He simply didn't believe it could be tenable, not could it ever sustain itself in the admist of human suffering and will to power - those tendencies which want and produce individuality and personality. Ostensibly it is the 'I vs Collective' but it branches of into other anthropological and theological areas : One, it deals with man's relationship to suffering. If man cannot bare suffering, he will want to erase his suffering and identity. Kierkegaard said ' the torment of despair is that the despair cannot terminate consciousness. This is why it is very sinister, in my opinion, that the rise of legal medication for depression and medical disorders have rapidly risen while we enter a socialist age. It is also one of the reasons literature itself is ridiculed and dying. Because man doesn't want introspection anymore. 'Why would an ant need or want introspection?' And secondly, the social controllers can only fit man into their system where suffering and will to power is eradicated and Dostoyevsky and Nietzche saw this very early on and were very worried about it, as am I, and is one of the reasons for the general debasement of values and discipline in modern society, not to mention, the neurological, and subtle biological and chemical conditioning. - As one would control an ant hill.

Dostoyevsky, even in the darkly humourous 'Notes of the underground' is imploringly arguing about man's volition and self will. Man has a right to build, but he must be allowed to destroy it. He must be able to say 2+2 is 4 is a fine number, but just as fine is 2+2 is 5! He must be able to live for a reason more than bread alone. A reason more than his instinctual needs being satisfied. Not forgetting, this is also an argument out of and which leads to Freud's dichotomy between the pleasure and reality principle.

If we end 'alienation and suffering' and become communist, or socialist, the consequences are for all to see. We also degrade our individuality, and freedom.

Edit : I would also extend this critique to liberalism, and liberal values, which have the most corrosive affects upon personality and society under ' Tolerance, equality, and promiscuity.' Which alwas invetiably end in either authoritarianism from the right or left. I also think they are weak ideas and critiques in general, and are edifices that arise from pity.

[Mogwai]

Dostoyevsky was very critical of Socialism. He simply didn't believe it could be tenable, not could it ever sustain itself in the admist of human suffering and will to power - those tendencies which want and produce individuality and personality. Ostensibly it is the 'I vs Collective' but it branches of into other anthropological and theological areas : One, it deals with man's relationship to suffering. If man cannot bare suffering, he will want to erase his suffering and identity. Kierkegaard said ' the torment of despair is that the despair cannot terminate consciousness. This is why it is very sinister, in my opinion, that the rise of legal medication for depression and medical disorders have rapidly risen while we enter a socialist age. It is also one of the reasons literature itself is ridiculed and dying. Because man doesn't want introspection anymore. 'Why would an ant need or want introspection?' And secondly, the social controllers can only fit man into their system where suffering and will to power is eradicated and Dostoyevsky and Nietzche saw this very early on and were very worried about it, as am I, and is one of the reasons for the general debasement of values and discipline in modern society, not to mention, the neurological, and subtle biological and chemical conditioning. - As one would control an ant hill.

Dostoyevsky, even in the darkly humourous 'Notes of the underground' is imploringly arguing about man's volition and self will. Man has a right to build, but he must be allowed to destroy it. He must be able to say 2+2 is 4 is a fine number, but just as fine is 2+2 is 5! He must be able to live for a reason more than bread alone. A reason more than his instinctual needs being satisfied. Not forgetting, this is also an argument out of and which leads to Freud's dichotomy between the pleasure and reality principle.

If we end 'alienation and suffering' and become communist, or socialist, the consequences are for all to see. We also degrade our individuality, and freedom.

Edit : I would also extend this critique to liberalism, and liberal values, which have the most corrosive affects upon personality and society under ' Tolerance, equality, and promiscuity.' Which alwas invetiably end in either authoritarianism from the right or left. I also think they are weak ideas and critiques in general, and are edifices that arise from pity.

Excellent post, Rimbaud.  It's also important to note that liberalism and socialism forces people, even against their will, to be "charitable" (through the government taking money and providing for those more in need).  However, this isn't "charity" - in fact, it destroys man's ability to be charitable to his fellow man because someone else is demanding his money and then moving it elsewhere against his will.  Charity was never meant to be carried out by the State, but rather by the Church and individuals out of the goodness of their hearts.

[Rimbaud]

[/quote]
Excellent post, Rimbaud.  It's also important to note that liberalism and socialism forces people, even against their will, to be "charitable" (through the government taking money and providing for those more in need).  However, this isn't "charity" - in fact, it destroys man's ability to be charitable to his fellow man because someone else is demanding his money and then moving it elsewhere against his will.  Charity was never meant to be carried out by the State, but rather by the Church and individuals out of the goodness of their hearts.
[/quote]

Right  , such is the corollary of Compulsion compared to Volition.

[DavidIvanovich]

Well, The Demons is pretty much a novel devoted to FD's contempt for the Socialist movement. Not that he is against "social justice," mind you, but more so the characters of his generation who couldn't figure out whether they were actually socialists or just anarchists.

The Demons (aka The Devils) is properly a scathing attack on misunderstood Western nihilism. In the late nineteenth century communism, socialism & nihilism inter alia were often confused or misunderstood. In many ways they still are.

As for socialism it can mean different things depending on cultural perspective. After WW2 the government in my country decided to eradicate poverty & implement the ‘welfare state’ a term coined by Archbishop Temple in 1941. It was an incredibly bold & ambitious plan & had many detractors. William Beveridge proposed a system of national insurance which should be extended to all citizens “from the cradle to the grave”. This was eventually implemented by the Attlee ministries in 1948. It was the first in the world. It was dubbed ‘The New Jerusalem’ inspired by the famous line ‘Till we have built Jerusalem in England’s green & pleasant land’ in the introduction to Blake’s ‘From Milton’.

Marx termed his famous manifesto 'Communist' because of the confusion between the terms socialism & communism.

To me, anyway, 'socialism' means a National Health Service rather than goose stepping moujiks.

It's all a matter of a subjective ontological construction.