I am sure I was not the only person here who chuckled at the last bit from this article:
> While there, he completed three volumes of The Red Wheel, and prepared his famous commencement address, given at Harvard in 1978. In it, he excoriated the West, and, in particular, America, for its godlessness, materialism, and weakness of spirit. One hopes that after his time in Cavendish, Solzhenitsyn would have changed that assessment.
In fact, Solzhenitsyn’s attacks on the West remained firm over the following decades. Also, by the end of his life, he had essentially adopted a view by which Russia needed a strong hand, basically dictatorship. The difference between this strong hand and Soviet-era Communism, is that the latter was "godless" but the former would be "spiritual".
This is an aspect of Solzhenitsyn’s character that still remains little known in the West. Yet the West should be aware that many of the Soviet dissidents whom it supported during the Soviet era completely flip-flopped their social and political positions in the 1990s. Some became outright nostalgic for the Soviet regime, others like Solzhenitsyn were desirous of a strong state just so long as it wasn’t Marxist-Leninist. One feels that some of the dissidents who died in the 1990s were lucky that they did so before they could tarnish their own legacies.
In fact, Solzhenitsyn's views can be described as Chernosotenstvo (Black Hundred) - a form of ultra-nationalism and xenophobia similar to that practiced by members of KKK. I never understood his appeal to people who thought of themselves as liberals and humanists.
The way I understand it, is that the Cold War was actually a War, although we forget about it, but the propaganda arms of the governments did not allow anyone to be a human being, you must be either a heroic figure or a villain. Maybe it is human nature to idealize, and in conflict to hyper-idealize.
The thing we also don't hear about, is his book "Two hundred years together", which IIRC was never even translated because it was so anti-semitic.
Minor correction - "Two Hundred Years Together" was never (edit: officially) translated into English; but was translated into French and German at the least.
I have come across a PDF that purports to be an English translation though I haven't had the time to read it yet. Nor is my Russian or French good enough to determine if it's legitimate, however it seems to be.
There is no attribution on the translation, either.
The literature stands on its own, aside from whatever personal political evolution occurred in his later years. In the 90s, it certainly appeared as though Russia was getting set up for exploitation by the west under Yeltsin. A nationalist move in ideology within that context is rational.
> A nationalist move in ideology within that context is rational.
It is one thing to be a little nationalist. It is another thing to suddenly start calling for the reintroduction of censorship and mass incarceration of dissidents, when you had built your entire career as a writer and thinker on attacking those very things.
It's possible I'm unaware of how far to the right he went. I've held a soft spot for Solzhenitsyn from his earlier literature. The KKK reference struck me as a slime and I felt compelled to reply. I'm willing to stand corrected, where is he calling for the incarceration of dissidents?
A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich was published in the 60s, Gulag Archipelago in 1973, aside from the writing standing on its own it's a little bit weak to try to knock it down based on later issues.
I correct that because my English 201 prof made it a point to indicate that the title was deliberate. This day was simply one of the many days that Ivan Denisovich had to find a way to survive, over and over again.
I would say yes. Most Russians want to see Russia succeed. For historical reasons a strongman or strongwoman have been necessary to keep the country together.
Many/most Russians would make that bargain, those that would not, have left. Some of those who left would still have Russia ruled by a semi-dictator than see it fall apart at the hands of a caring but ineffective leader.
Of course the real alternative would be a strong government with rule of law where the personal proclivities of the guy in charge doesn't dictate the entire character of the state. It can be easier to survive a weak leader when you're not a one-person autocracy.
The collapse of the Soviet Union is normal if you think of Russia as the world's last empire. For one reason or another, all the other empires have decided that it's more profitable for them to dominate by trading instead of conquering. Russia, on the other hand, can't do that so it still clings to the old ways of controlling its territories and neighbors.
As soon as they give that policy up, the empire will resume its disintegration. Most Russians believe it's a bad thing, hence their acquiescence of the neo-fascist regime that's gradually establishing itself in the country.
The problem is that "a strong government with rule of law" wasn't a realistic alternative; it might be desirable but even looking back there doesn't seem that there was a reliable way for Russia to get there even if certain groups chose to do so; the balance of power between various major influences who have goals incompatible with this scenario just wouldn't let it come true.
I expect you are right, that Russia was not in a fit state after the fall of Communism to create such a state. But it is too bad, considering that several smaller ex-Soviet states were able to, one way and another, form functioning governments that aren't one-man states. Heck, even one-party states seem to do a bit better- they occasionally change leadership, implement reforms, and even implement some sort of simulacrum of politics, even if it's all internal party jostling.
Cavendish is a veritable metropolis compared to some of the villages in that area (Amsden, Downers Corner, Ascutney). If you're ever in the area, be sure to check out the Brewfest Brewing Corp. in Ludlow for an incredible selection of local VT beer.
Maybe it's because you can make it from mostly local ingredients and requires some skill to ensure it's made well. They also tend to exhibit an area's "soil characteristics imparted into flavor". It's more plebeian than snobbish wine so it exudes, in American vernacular, heartlandness.
I find this article a reminder to me: there are people from Russia, China, <insert country>; who don't agree with all of the politics, policies, actions of their country's government (just like I don't agree with all of politics/policies/actions of my government).
Its a reminder to focus on individuals and ideas and how we treat them and avoid defaulting to guilt by ostensible association.
I've seen too many people fall into absolutism recently. Too many people disagree with someone on a single point and then discount everything they say based on that disagreement. If you are only handing out an "A" or an "F" when grading someone's arguments/opinions you are not thinking critically enough.
his best and most important work is the Gulag Archipelago[0] and everyone should read it. Its an eye opener that shows how life under communism really is.
The general scholarly and scientific consensus is that the work is not rigorous, objective, or scientific. If you challenge this take it up with the scholars.
Funny how literature suddenly needs to be "rigorous, objective, scientific" when it criticizes communism, even though it's a first hand account written by a political prisoner.
Who's believing propaganda? I'm getting my info from several sources before I make up my mind, you apparently get yours from hearsay that says what you already want to belive. Am I missing something here?
I am sure I was not the only person here who chuckled at the last bit from this article:
> While there, he completed three volumes of The Red Wheel, and prepared his famous commencement address, given at Harvard in 1978. In it, he excoriated the West, and, in particular, America, for its godlessness, materialism, and weakness of spirit. One hopes that after his time in Cavendish, Solzhenitsyn would have changed that assessment.
In fact, Solzhenitsyn’s attacks on the West remained firm over the following decades. Also, by the end of his life, he had essentially adopted a view by which Russia needed a strong hand, basically dictatorship. The difference between this strong hand and Soviet-era Communism, is that the latter was "godless" but the former would be "spiritual".
This is an aspect of Solzhenitsyn’s character that still remains little known in the West. Yet the West should be aware that many of the Soviet dissidents whom it supported during the Soviet era completely flip-flopped their social and political positions in the 1990s. Some became outright nostalgic for the Soviet regime, others like Solzhenitsyn were desirous of a strong state just so long as it wasn’t Marxist-Leninist. One feels that some of the dissidents who died in the 1990s were lucky that they did so before they could tarnish their own legacies.
In fact, Solzhenitsyn's views can be described as Chernosotenstvo (Black Hundred) - a form of ultra-nationalism and xenophobia similar to that practiced by members of KKK. I never understood his appeal to people who thought of themselves as liberals and humanists.
The way I understand it, is that the Cold War was actually a War, although we forget about it, but the propaganda arms of the governments did not allow anyone to be a human being, you must be either a heroic figure or a villain. Maybe it is human nature to idealize, and in conflict to hyper-idealize.
The thing we also don't hear about, is his book "Two hundred years together", which IIRC was never even translated because it was so anti-semitic.
Minor correction - "Two Hundred Years Together" was never (edit: officially) translated into English; but was translated into French and German at the least.
I have come across a PDF that purports to be an English translation though I haven't had the time to read it yet. Nor is my Russian or French good enough to determine if it's legitimate, however it seems to be.
There is no attribution on the translation, either.
The literature stands on its own, aside from whatever personal political evolution occurred in his later years. In the 90s, it certainly appeared as though Russia was getting set up for exploitation by the west under Yeltsin. A nationalist move in ideology within that context is rational.
> A nationalist move in ideology within that context is rational.
It is one thing to be a little nationalist. It is another thing to suddenly start calling for the reintroduction of censorship and mass incarceration of dissidents, when you had built your entire career as a writer and thinker on attacking those very things.
It's possible I'm unaware of how far to the right he went. I've held a soft spot for Solzhenitsyn from his earlier literature. The KKK reference struck me as a slime and I felt compelled to reply. I'm willing to stand corrected, where is he calling for the incarceration of dissidents?
A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich was published in the 60s, Gulag Archipelago in 1973, aside from the writing standing on its own it's a little bit weak to try to knock it down based on later issues.
One Day
I correct that because my English 201 prof made it a point to indicate that the title was deliberate. This day was simply one of the many days that Ivan Denisovich had to find a way to survive, over and over again.
Thought experiment. Would S. be supportive of Russia and Putin in 2018?
I would say yes. Most Russians want to see Russia succeed. For historical reasons a strongman or strongwoman have been necessary to keep the country together.
Many/most Russians would make that bargain, those that would not, have left. Some of those who left would still have Russia ruled by a semi-dictator than see it fall apart at the hands of a caring but ineffective leader.
Of course the real alternative would be a strong government with rule of law where the personal proclivities of the guy in charge doesn't dictate the entire character of the state. It can be easier to survive a weak leader when you're not a one-person autocracy.
The collapse of the Soviet Union is normal if you think of Russia as the world's last empire. For one reason or another, all the other empires have decided that it's more profitable for them to dominate by trading instead of conquering. Russia, on the other hand, can't do that so it still clings to the old ways of controlling its territories and neighbors.
As soon as they give that policy up, the empire will resume its disintegration. Most Russians believe it's a bad thing, hence their acquiescence of the neo-fascist regime that's gradually establishing itself in the country.
Yes,"the wild 90s" vs Putin's Russia ("stability") is often brought up by people for AND against Putin.
WRT to Putin's popularity, Kasparov said ~"if there's one restaurant in town, is it popular?"
The problem is that "a strong government with rule of law" wasn't a realistic alternative; it might be desirable but even looking back there doesn't seem that there was a reliable way for Russia to get there even if certain groups chose to do so; the balance of power between various major influences who have goals incompatible with this scenario just wouldn't let it come true.
I expect you are right, that Russia was not in a fit state after the fall of Communism to create such a state. But it is too bad, considering that several smaller ex-Soviet states were able to, one way and another, form functioning governments that aren't one-man states. Heck, even one-party states seem to do a bit better- they occasionally change leadership, implement reforms, and even implement some sort of simulacrum of politics, even if it's all internal party jostling.
>Many/most Russians would make that bargain
At the very least I think we can say that many HAVE made that bargain. They know.
Cavendish is a veritable metropolis compared to some of the villages in that area (Amsden, Downers Corner, Ascutney). If you're ever in the area, be sure to check out the Brewfest Brewing Corp. in Ludlow for an incredible selection of local VT beer.
It's weird that whenever talking about a remote place with nothing to do, people always recommend a brewery as the highlight.
Maybe it's because you can make it from mostly local ingredients and requires some skill to ensure it's made well. They also tend to exhibit an area's "soil characteristics imparted into flavor". It's more plebeian than snobbish wine so it exudes, in American vernacular, heartlandness.
Why do you hate beer?
;)
Breweries are God's/Cosmos' gift to us mortal, fallible, sinful men.
Should also check out Singleton's in Proctorsville. Guns, booze, Carhartts, smoked meat ... it's a classic.
Stemwinder & Homestyle Hostel are good dinner/drinks spots in Ludlow.
A talk by his son, given at the Brattleboro library a few years back.
"Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: Writing the Red Wheel in Vermont" https://youtu.be/coSJeHcdmgs
I find this article a reminder to me: there are people from Russia, China, <insert country>; who don't agree with all of the politics, policies, actions of their country's government (just like I don't agree with all of politics/policies/actions of my government).
Its a reminder to focus on individuals and ideas and how we treat them and avoid defaulting to guilt by ostensible association.
I've seen too many people fall into absolutism recently. Too many people disagree with someone on a single point and then discount everything they say based on that disagreement. If you are only handing out an "A" or an "F" when grading someone's arguments/opinions you are not thinking critically enough.
his best and most important work is the Gulag Archipelago[0] and everyone should read it. Its an eye opener that shows how life under communism really is.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago
While a powerful literary work, TGA is not a work of objective history.
I always found it more powerful, to truly understand the conditions, of someone who went through that - first hand.
Do you feel he embellished, or why would you state that?
Because that is one of the talking points of the Russian propaganda. Oh it is a fantastic novel, great novel but all fantasy.
It is the best at describing what USSR really was, lots of useful fools/tools in the West always had problem with it.
The general scholarly and scientific consensus is that the work is not rigorous, objective, or scientific. If you challenge this take it up with the scholars.
Funny how literature suddenly needs to be "rigorous, objective, scientific" when it criticizes communism, even though it's a first hand account written by a political prisoner.
Keep believing that propaganda.
Who's believing propaganda? I'm getting my info from several sources before I make up my mind, you apparently get yours from hearsay that says what you already want to belive. Am I missing something here?
how sad is it that I was happy to see neh still operational after all the trump budget cuts?