Some of author Rob Henderson's notes from his reading of Dostoyevsky's 'Devils' in 1872, written FIFTY YEARS before the Bolshevik Revolution.
"Dostoevsky places much of the blame for the town’s impending catastrophe on this attitude.
Yulia’s position is spelled out clearly in her own words. She says: “What I think is that one mustn’t despise our younger generation either. They cry out that they’re communists, but what I say is that we must appreciate them and mustn’t be hard on them.”
𝐀 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐦. 𝐘𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐚 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. Yulia’s solution to the frustration of the younger generation is to host gatherings and literary readings where everyone feels welcome and heard.
Of course, Yulia has completely misread the situation. The radicals in Devils are not trying to join respectable society. They are trying to destroy it. They are not looking for a seat at Yulia’s table. They are planning to burn the table down.
👉🏼𝐘𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐫𝐚 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐮𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐥: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥-𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐲𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧-𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐞𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭’𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐨𝐚𝐥. 𝐇𝐞𝐫 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦. 𝐈𝐧 𝐃𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐞𝐯𝐬𝐤𝐲’𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦.👈🏼
Yulia makes one more revealing comment in this section. She says: “I read everything now–the papers, communism, the natural sciences–I get everything because, after all, one must know where one’s living and with whom one has to do.”
𝐁𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝, 𝐢𝐧 𝐘𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐚’𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬), 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐮𝐩 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡, 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞.
According to Pyotr, socialists are driven by three things:
-𝐅𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧
Pyotr says people crave recognition. They want titles, ranks, and visible signs that they are important. So he invents positions within the group. The titles are mostly meaningless, but that is not the point. The point is that they flatter people’s egos and make them feel validated.
Pyotr argues that 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 👉🏼𝐈𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭.👈🏼
Stavrogin then offers his own suggestion. He says the most effective way to bind a group together would be through shared participation in a killing. If everyone had blood on their hands, no one could leave. Shared guilt would hold them together more reliably than ideology.
There is a broader argument running underneath all of this.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐬. 𝐈𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐯𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐲𝐨𝐭𝐫. 👉🏼𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐦𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡.👈🏼
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐮𝐦 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲, 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐧𝐢𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.
The most famous line in the novel belongs to Shigalov, a social theorist and member of Pyotr’s radical cell: “I am perplexed by my own data and my conclusion is a direct contradiction of the original idea with which I start. Starting from unlimited freedom, I arrive at unlimited despotism.”
𝐈𝐟 𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦. 𝐀 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐮𝐩 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞.
𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐯’𝐬 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬.
👉🏼Remarkably prescient. When actual communist societies emerged in the twentieth century, millions of people were reduced to livestock or piles of corpses.👈🏼
Lyamshin, another member of the radical commune, says “For my part…if I didn’t know what to do with nine-tenths of mankind, I’d take them and blow them up into the air instead of putting them in paradise. I’d only leave a handful of educated people, who would live happily ever afterwards on scientific principles.”
Shigalov’s theory includes another disturbing feature. In the society he imagines, 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬.
This detail anticipates the logic of actual communist police states. Systems built on informers, surveillance, and mutual suspicion appeared across communist regimes in the twentieth century. A world of constant suspicion, where anyone might secretly be informing on anyone else.
What makes this especially remarkable is that when Dostoevsky was writing, nothing quite like this yet existed. He was observing patterns inside small radical circles and projecting where those patterns might eventually lead if they were allowed to expand into a full political system.
👉🏼𝐃𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐞𝐯𝐬𝐤𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝.👈🏼
The scale of mass killing under twentieth century communist regimes did not yet exist in the nineteenth century. Governments at the time did not possess the same administrative power or technological capacity. The ideology had not yet been fully translated into political practice.
For a novel set in nineteenth century Russia, the social dynamics feel remarkably contemporary. The language is old-fashioned. But very little about the interactions requires translation for a modern reader. The types of characters, the self-deceptions, the manipulation of ideas for social advantage: all of it is immediately recognizable.
Dostoevsky was writing about socialist movements and the destructive logic of radical ideology. 𝐅𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐲 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐬, 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐥𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐤𝐬.
No one else had this foresight. It is hard to think of, for instance, a German novelist who saw and accurately depicted the rise of Nazism coming half a century in advance the way Dostoevsky foresaw the trajectory of Russian radicalism.
👉🏼𝐇𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐨.👈🏼"
