Dostoevsky and Capitalism: Baal and the Return to the Soil

Fyodor Dostoevsky, whose critique of capitalism shaped the Počvennichestvo movement

European Travels: Dostoevsky and the Critique of Capitalism as Baal

Dostoevsky developed his critique of capitalism during his first journey to Europe in 1862. He later published his impressions under the title Winter Notes on Summer Impressions (Frank, 2017, pp. 17, 402). After observing capitalist centers such as London and Paris, the writer portrayed Western civilization as a system that dazzled on the outside but was morally corrupt within (Frank, 2017, pp. 17, 402).

For Dostoevsky, Western capitalism, particularly as embodied by the Crystal Palace exhibition in London, represented the triumph of “Baal,” an ancient deity associated with sensuality and wealth. In his view, this system encouraged people to worship material possessions, sensual pleasure, and individual self-interest (Frank, 2017, pp. 17, 402, 408). Furthermore, he argued that the Western conception of freedom was an illusion available only to those who possessed money. Meanwhile, individualism divided people and undermined social solidarity (Frank, 2017, pp. 17, 402).

The Transformation of the Radicals and Narodnichestvo

By the 1870s, Russian radicalism had undergone a significant shift in its philosophical orientation. Prominent radical thinkers such as N. K. Mikhailovsky and Pyotr Lavrov began rejecting the Western model of capitalist and industrialized “progress” after recognizing that it impoverished the lower classes and the peasantry (Frank, 2017, pp. 17, 714).

Influenced in part by Marx’s analyses of the dispossession of the peasantry, this new radical movement, known as Narodnichestvo (Populism), turned toward the traditional way of life and moral values of the Russian peasantry (Frank, 2017, pp. 17, 714). The radicals’ renewed interest in the peasant class brought them closer to Dostoevsky, whose outlook had long been shaped by his faith in the Russian people and their religious traditions (Frank, 2017, pp. 17, 714). Indeed, Dostoevsky’s novel The Adolescent was published in the radically inclined journal Otechestvennye Zapiski, reflecting this emerging intellectual convergence (Frank, 2017, pp. 17, 738).

The Ideal of Počvennichestvo

Dostoevsky promoted the Počvennichestvo movement, or “Return to the Soil,” in the journals Vremya and Epokha, which he published with his brothers. The movement sought to bridge the profound divide between Westernized Russian intellectuals and the Russian people, particularly the peasantry. This divide had widened since the reforms of Peter the Great. Therefore, Počvennichestvo envisioned a religious and social synthesis capable of reconciling these estranged groups (Frank, 2017, p. 311). (For a general overview of the movement, see the Pochvennichestvo entry on Wikipedia.)

The fundamental principles of the Počvennichestvo movement can be summarized as follows:

The Integration of Intellectuals and the People: The Western-educated intelligentsia needed to overcome its alienation and reconnect with its roots in Russian soil and the values of the peasantry (Frank, 2017, p. 17).
An Orthodox Christian Foundation: The uncorrupted Orthodox faith, which Dostoevsky regarded as central to the moral and social life of the Russian people, served as the spiritual foundation of national unity (Frank, 2017, p. 17).
The Rejection of Divisive Individualism: Against Western individualism, which prioritized self-interest and rested on class antagonisms, the movement advocated an organic form of social harmony grounded in love and brotherhood (Frank, 2017, p. 17).
A Universal Human Mission: Počvennichestvo rested on the belief that Russian culture and its understanding of Christianity possessed the potential to offer universal principles of peace and reconciliation in response to the crises of Western civilization (Frank, 2017, pp. 17–18).

Dostoevsky on Capitalism: Why His Critique Still Resonates

For Dostoevsky, capitalism was not merely an economic system. Rather, his critique offered a moral and spiritual diagnosis of modern life. He feared that a society built on money and self-interest would leave people isolated and empty. In addition, he believed that freedom without solidarity would serve only the wealthy. These concerns echo in many later debates about consumerism, inequality, and alienation. Of course, his answer was rooted in Orthodox faith and Russian national identity, and readers may not share it. Still, his questions remain relevant: what holds a community together, and what is lost when everything becomes a commodity? To see how his personal history shaped these convictions, read Dostoevsky’s Father: The Roots of Guilt.