Dostoevsky + Socialism

[earth]

I'm curious what some peoples takes are on this.  I'm just finishing up my date at work (it's 615am.  I'm knackered) but I will put together my thoughts and post them.

I will say to start that of the Dostoevsky books I have read he has strong thoughts on very socialistic ideals.  I don't know how much has to do with Russia being a quasi-socialist state then but it does come through in the writing.

[Golyadkin]

What does "knackered" mean?

[Alyosha]

Dostoevsky was undeniably a socialist before Siberia, but he changed greatly. He struggles greatly with this idea in the later part of his life.

[Ivan]

He doesn't just struggle, he defies socialism.  This is most obvious in Notes From Underground and can be seen in the outcome of Crime and Punishment.  Socialism is an idea that Dostoevsky often satirizes...

[Alyosha]

Fyodor obviously sympathizes with socialism. In his time the Tsarist government was undefendable. If you want to know his political goals, read the "Writer's Diary", even though it contains many flaws not present in his fiction.

[kol]

What does "knackered" mean?

I wanna know too, ' knackered '..


Dostoevsky and Socialism? hmm, I didn't find it in his books

Oh, maybe <The Folk>?  [/color]

[psuedo_zosima]

I was a socialist .. until I read The Brothers

     

"In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from earth but to set up Heaven on earth. Alyosha would have found it strange and impossible to go on living as before. It is written: “Give all that thou hast to the poor and follow Me, if thou wouldst be perfect.”
-Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brother Karamozov


I made me mad.. cause he was right.  

[earth]

What does "knackered" mean?

knackered means tired.  Sorry, I thought british colloquialisms like that would be more commonly understood

[earth]

He doesn't just struggle, he defies socialism.  This is most obvious in Notes From Underground and can be seen in the outcome of Crime and Punishment.  Socialism is an idea that Dostoevsky often satirizes...

I don't know.  I  guess my vision of socialism is much different.  I found that Crime + Punishment retained a lot of socialism, as does The Idiot, it's just hidden.

The main characters in both are ideally socialist, at least in certain actions.  Crime + Punishment you have Raskolnikov who would give away all his worldly possessions and felt a stronger kinship to his fellow man than I think any of us has experienced (argueable).  The same thing can be said for Prince Myshkin in The Idiot.  Then you have such symbolic imagery such as when the money is thrown into the fire in The Idiot.

I can't say that I, myself, felt that Dostoevsky was against socialism.  I haven't really researched his economic views.  It was, however, quite evident to me that he was a man that had deep seeded concerns on humanity, equality + class struggles.  To me those are strong issues that are usually prevalent in socialism.

[Lev]

It was, however, quite evident to me that he was a man that had deep seeded concerns on humanity, equality + class struggles.  To me those are strong issues that are usually prevalent in socialism.

Well, who doesn't want a social utopia? I know little about his politics, but I think it's safe to say that he found that socialism was not the answer. I think he knew that there is a spiritual/moral dimension to man -- that man can't live on bread alone. All of these political visions are so fixed on "bread" that they are blind to the obvious. It's very healthy to keep in mind that human beings have moral problems that need to go into the equation. It's not merely that power corrupts us. It's us corrupting anywhere we have choice or freedom. Just because everyone has a loaf of bread in his hands (even if it's more than he can eat) does not mean everyone will be satisfied anyway. It comes down to something inside the individual (and I'm not referring to his stomach!) not what is material. Maybe an old argument, but a very firm one .