Fyodor Dostoevsky may have passed away on 9 February 1881, but his influence remains strong in the 2020s. Sales of his classic works surged by 123% between 2021 and 2022, and in 2024, the Penguin Classics edition of White Nights was the fourth most sold work of literature in translation in the UK, boosted by traction on TikTok and Instagram.
Dostoevsky’s resurgence is unsurprising, given that his insights into the human psyche and the workings of society are timeless. While themes of isolation and existential angst resonate, particularly with Gen Z, the Russian author’s political theories – rooted in his personal ideological shift – also strike a chord with modern readers.
Ideological transformation
Dostoevsky’s ideological transformation began after his experience of mock execution and subsequent exile to Siberia in 1849. Prior to this, he had been involved with the liberal/socialist Petrashevsky Circle. The mock execution, where he faced a firing squad before receiving a last-minute reprieve, profoundly altered his worldview. His subsequent four years in a Siberian prison camp shaped his shift in two key ways:
- His close contact with criminals led him to reject the socialist notion that human evil was simply the result of bad social conditions. He saw firsthand that human nature was more complex and irrational than socialist theory suggested.
- He experienced a religious reawakening, returning to Russian Orthodox Christianity. The Bible became his only reading material in prison, and this spiritual revival led him to view socialism’s materialist philosophy as fundamentally flawed.
After prison, Dostoevsky emerged as a religious conservative who believed Russia’s spiritual tradition offered better answers to human suffering than Western rationalist philosophies like socialism. This transformation profoundly influenced his major works, particularly Notes from the Underground and Crime and Punishment, which explicitly challenge socialist and utilitarian ideas.
The dangers of radical ideologies
Dostoevsky became deeply wary of radical ideologies, particularly those that sought social change through revolutionary means. His experiences in prison, along with his broader philosophical outlook, led him to believe that ideologies based on sweeping political theories could have unforeseen consequences. In his ‘pamphlet novel’ Demons (also known as The Possessed), he explores the destructive power of radical thought through characters who subscribe to extreme political beliefs.
Dostoevsky saw socialism, as conveyed in The Possessed, as divisive. He foresaw a society split into two groups: ‘planners’, who would ultimately enjoy unbridled liberty, and ‘the herd’, individuals who would give up their individuality in the name of collectivism. The novel portrays the chaos that ensues when such ideologies are acted upon without regard for the complexities of human nature. Dostoevsky believed extreme ideologies were dangerously simplistic and disconnected from the truth – pravda – of human experience. His characters, driven by the belief in the possibility of a perfect society, spiral into violence and moral corruption, illustrating his conviction that social revolutions driven by abstract ideals often lead to greater suffering rather than progress.
The materialistic and secular nature of socialism
Central to Dostoevsky’s critique of socialism was its materialistic and secular nature, which, in his view, was reductive. It disregarded the spiritual dimensions of human existence. For Dostoevsky, the material world alone was insufficient to explain the complexities of human experience. Attempts to organise society based solely on material progress were ultimately doomed to fail.
In exchange for economic equality, the individual would lose their freedom, becoming infantilised and reduced to a sub-human level. In his later works, particularly The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky contrasts the materialism of revolutionary thought with the Christian idea of redemption. He believed that humanity – burdened by original sin – could experience true joy only through the struggle to accept the truth of their condition. This struggle involves reconciling the dichotomy between the flesh (who we are) and the spirit (who we want to be). True societal reform, according to Dostoevsky, could not occur through external (economic) changes alone; it required a transformation of the individual soul. A materialistic approach to social justice would only exacerbate humanity’s existential struggles, creating a hollow and ultimately unsatisfactory existence, even if it achieved outward material equality.
Scepticism of utopian Ideals
Dostoevsky’s scepticism of socialism ultimately stemmed from his profound distrust of utopian ideals – the belief that it was possible to create a perfect society. In his view, utopian ambition was akin to a secular religion, a bid to build heaven on earth: ‘building the Tower of Babel without God.’ In short, he perceived socialism as a hubristic attempt to perfect humanity through rational planning, destined to result in tyranny. This idea is exemplified in The Brothers Karamazov, where the dynamic between Ivan and Alyosha illustrates the tension between reason and faith – two forces in conflict throughout the novel.
Dostoevsky saw utopian ideals as dangerously naïve and disconnected from the reality of human sin and imperfection. In novels such as Notes from Underground and The Idiot, he engages with characters who embody these idealistic aspirations, only to show that the pursuit of perfection – when disconnected from the messy realities of human nature – often leads to disillusionment and despair. Dostoevsky was acutely aware that human beings are flawed, and he believed that attempts to construct a perfect society could only lead to the oppression of the very individuals they aimed to liberate. This was particularly evident in his portrayal of intellectuals and revolutionaries who, in their zeal to reshape the world, failed to recognise the importance of personal responsibility and inner moral struggle. For Dostoevsky, the quest for a utopia was not only unrealistic but, in the end, perilous – leading to tyranny in the name of a false ideal.
Dostoevsky today
Dostoevsky’s critiques of socialism, radical ideologies, and utopian ambitions are not merely relics of nineteenth-century Russian thought. In a world grappling with the complexities of political ideologies, social justice, and the nature of human suffering, Dostoevsky’s insights remain strikingly relevant. His warning against the dangers of abstract ideologies that disregard human imperfection resonates with modern critiques of both far-left and far-right political movements. Furthermore, his scepticism of materialism and utopianism serves as a cautionary tale for contemporary society, urging us to remain mindful of the costs of pursuing ideological perfection at the expense of individual freedom and moral responsibility. As we navigate the challenges of the twenty-first century, Dostoevsky’s exploration of the interplay between reason, faith, and human nature offers lessons for anyone seeking to understand the complexities of political and social change.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
