Russian Literary Dystopias: Prescient Visions of Soviet Failure

The October Revolution and Its Turbulent Origins

In hindsight, it should hardly be surprising that the October Revolution, which gave the Bolsheviks power in Russia and eventually produced what would be called the Soviet Union, did not create the perfect society that its more idealistic progenitors envisioned. This revolution and the new form of national government it established were not truly the results of a movement born of the masses. Russia was in a time of great turmoil, with several different powerful factions vying to fill the vacuum left by the toppling of the tsarist government in February of 1917. Though many of these factions were effectively silenced for the bulk of the twentieth century, their strong and influential presence at the start of the new government had a definite effect on the prospects for achieving true equality — and even the sought-for utopia that socialism seemed to promise.

The ongoing war in Europe had already worn through many Russians' patience by 1917, and this, coupled with mounting internal issues — most prominently the increasing disparity between classes and widespread winter starvation for many in the face of luxury for the few — led to the overthrow of the 300-year-old Romanov dynasty. This did not settle Russia's problems, however; in fact, they arguably became more extreme in the immediate aftermath. Though there had been ample agreement that change was needed, there had been very little agreement concerning what shape that change ought to take (Lynch 2005).

The war, for instance, was not ended by the tsarist overthrow, and this led to increased problems for the provisional government that was quasi-firmly established in July of 1917. Army desertion in the face of political weakness became rampant in the Russian forces, causing friction between the governmental and militaristic powers of the day (Lynch 2005). Weapons that deserting soldiers took home with them proved highly effective at forcing wealthy landowners to "redistribute" their holdings and wealth, bringing Russia violently and suddenly out of the quasi-feudalism that had persisted in the country for centuries. When the Bolsheviks wrested control of the government in October 1917, it was not a happy, settled, or unified people that they took control of — but take control they did, and in a very direct and pervasive manner (Lynch 2005).

Cement: Irreconcilable Differences and Failed Ideals

Difference — of goals, priorities, values, and simply of opinion — is the primary reason that utopias cannot be achieved. This is clearly demonstrated in Fyodor Gladkov's 1925 novel Cement. Without imagining any extraordinary circumstances, Gladkov is able to show how simple differences lead to degradations of perceived quality of life, happiness, and contentment, and how these feelings eventually lead to overt action. This can be seen in Dasha's brief internal struggle as she decides to effectively destroy her husband in pursuit of the new way (Gladkov 1925, pp. 314). Their desires cannot coexist, which leads to the destruction of at least one of them.

Envy: Individuality Crushed by the Soviet Machine

In a somewhat more imaginative work, Yury Olesha explores more extreme actions and motives for rebellion against the new regime. His 1927 novel Envy is at once a critique of the lack of individuality and emotion in Soviet Russia and a lamentation for the failures of the human spirit in the face of the vast Communist machine. Again, it is expressly and simply difference that drives the primary conflict in this novel and produces the ultimate failure of the hoped-for utopia, at least in the minds and lives of some. Kavalerov, the novel's protagonist, at one point muses: "If I were a child…how many poetical, magical fabrications would flow out of my childish imagination…I'm a grown up now, and now I grasp only the general outline" (Olesha 1927, pp. 341). This can be read as a comment on the Soviet practice of making all minds alike — where individual imaginations are quashed beneath shared and generalized ideals.

Conclusion: Why Utopia Remains Unachievable

The most successful utopias — or the least dystopic dystopias, perhaps — depicted in the works described above are those that exert the most overt and extreme control over society. It is only through the true and complete eradication of difference that a totalitarian regime could actually produce a utopia (according to a very narrow definition of the term). Yet this eradication could never truly be complete, and it is for this reason that such governments ultimately fail.