Dostoyevsky vs Socialism.

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.