Solzhenitsyn on Russia today.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Solzhenitsyn on Russia today.
I don't have all the knowledge to properly comment on the article but I did read it all and there were some interesting points made. I'll be interested to see what others' takes are on this.
Solzhenitsyn on Russia today.
from the article
"If we could all take a sober look at our history, then we would no longer see this nostalgic attitude to the Soviet past that predominates now among the less affected part of our society. Nor would the Eastern European countries and former USSR republics feel the need to see in historical Russia the source of their misfortunes."
"One should not ascribe the evil deeds of individual leaders or political regimes to an innate fault of the Russian people and their country. One should not attribute this to the 'sick psychology' of the Russians, as is often done in the West. All these regimes in Russia could only survive by imposing a bloody terror. We should clearly understand that only the voluntary and conscientious acceptance by a people of its guilt can ensure the healing of a nation. Unremitting reproaches from outside, on the other hand, are counterproductive."
Swop the nations around and that could apply to the west as well.
The cold war has perhaps ended the danger is old attitudes still prevail amongst western leaderships-confrontation and grandstanding rather than talking.
"If we could all take a sober look at our history, then we would no longer see this nostalgic attitude to the Soviet past that predominates now among the less affected part of our society. Nor would the Eastern European countries and former USSR republics feel the need to see in historical Russia the source of their misfortunes."
"One should not ascribe the evil deeds of individual leaders or political regimes to an innate fault of the Russian people and their country. One should not attribute this to the 'sick psychology' of the Russians, as is often done in the West. All these regimes in Russia could only survive by imposing a bloody terror. We should clearly understand that only the voluntary and conscientious acceptance by a people of its guilt can ensure the healing of a nation. Unremitting reproaches from outside, on the other hand, are counterproductive."
Swop the nations around and that could apply to the west as well.
The cold war has perhaps ended the danger is old attitudes still prevail amongst western leaderships-confrontation and grandstanding rather than talking.
Solzhenitsyn on Russia today.
I read The Gulag Archipelago in the 8th grade. Its worth a reread. Thanks for posting this.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Solzhenitsyn on Russia today.
Scrat;673719 wrote: I agree GMC.
Putin recently said the west needs to get rid of its old minds or something to that effect. He was exactly right.
I disagree with this statement. The Soviet government did not rule by terrorizing people, that is too harsh a term for the strict control (by necessity) of things they did. People like to omit facts such as the end of the war for Russia was not until 1949, that the domestic industries needed for a high standard of living of the populace was all but nonexistant at the time of Stalins death. After WWII huge amounts of land were deserts, the farming industry was crippled, millions of homes were destroyed and whole cities simply didn't exist anymore. Millions of refugees wandered about with nowhere to go. European Russia was all but devastated.
Yes the Tartars were uprooted from the Crimea and forcibly moved to the steppes of central asia, yes some Cossacks went too but then they did help the Nazis did they not, as with certain Estonians? Troublemakers were the last thing they needed at the time.
I once read in a magazine about a theoretical nuclear war between the US and USSR. The US government had a plan for the aftermath of such an event, basically the country would be turned into a huge concentration camp.
I believe that Gaspadeen S holds a grudge in a manner not fully justified. Russia did not need troublemakers when it took the effort it did to turn what was left of the country back into a civilization. Perhaps he fails to see the effort it took and what was accomplished all while countering the hostility of the west in the cold war. I also believe that he was a tool of the west and a self interested one at that, still I do hold him in high esteem.
Being stuck in a concentration camp and fed on grass would make anybody hold a grudge. Curious you thinkhe is being unreasonable.
Methinks you are looking at this through rose tinted spectacles-yes the Cossacks fought with the Russians so did the ukrainians like the estonians and latvians poles, czechs, Hungarians they all wanted to be independent and saw themselves as free peoples. The finns fought the Russians as well and were lucky to remain independent-let's face it no one else helped them did they? Not even one of the most powerful nations in europe-sweden. Perhaps you think they would be better off being part of the soviet union as well. Russia was an empire that took nations in to it's fold that didn't want to be there. Stalin was an appalling dictator however you want to look at him. Now they have a chance they are getting as far away from the days of the russian empire as fast as they can. If you want to kid yourself he didn't rule by terror so be it but reality is never what you would like it to be.
As to whether the terror was necessary-that is a whole different question.
Personally I think the west and in particular the US is in danger of starting another cold war simply because they can't let go of the past. Russia has been a bogeyman for so long they almost can't believe things might change.
Putin recently said the west needs to get rid of its old minds or something to that effect. He was exactly right.
I disagree with this statement. The Soviet government did not rule by terrorizing people, that is too harsh a term for the strict control (by necessity) of things they did. People like to omit facts such as the end of the war for Russia was not until 1949, that the domestic industries needed for a high standard of living of the populace was all but nonexistant at the time of Stalins death. After WWII huge amounts of land were deserts, the farming industry was crippled, millions of homes were destroyed and whole cities simply didn't exist anymore. Millions of refugees wandered about with nowhere to go. European Russia was all but devastated.
Yes the Tartars were uprooted from the Crimea and forcibly moved to the steppes of central asia, yes some Cossacks went too but then they did help the Nazis did they not, as with certain Estonians? Troublemakers were the last thing they needed at the time.
I once read in a magazine about a theoretical nuclear war between the US and USSR. The US government had a plan for the aftermath of such an event, basically the country would be turned into a huge concentration camp.
I believe that Gaspadeen S holds a grudge in a manner not fully justified. Russia did not need troublemakers when it took the effort it did to turn what was left of the country back into a civilization. Perhaps he fails to see the effort it took and what was accomplished all while countering the hostility of the west in the cold war. I also believe that he was a tool of the west and a self interested one at that, still I do hold him in high esteem.
Being stuck in a concentration camp and fed on grass would make anybody hold a grudge. Curious you thinkhe is being unreasonable.
Methinks you are looking at this through rose tinted spectacles-yes the Cossacks fought with the Russians so did the ukrainians like the estonians and latvians poles, czechs, Hungarians they all wanted to be independent and saw themselves as free peoples. The finns fought the Russians as well and were lucky to remain independent-let's face it no one else helped them did they? Not even one of the most powerful nations in europe-sweden. Perhaps you think they would be better off being part of the soviet union as well. Russia was an empire that took nations in to it's fold that didn't want to be there. Stalin was an appalling dictator however you want to look at him. Now they have a chance they are getting as far away from the days of the russian empire as fast as they can. If you want to kid yourself he didn't rule by terror so be it but reality is never what you would like it to be.
As to whether the terror was necessary-that is a whole different question.
Personally I think the west and in particular the US is in danger of starting another cold war simply because they can't let go of the past. Russia has been a bogeyman for so long they almost can't believe things might change.
Solzhenitsyn on Russia today.
posted by scrat
He got more to eat than grass. Sometimes there is a price to pay for rocking the boat and one should be judicious when one chooses to rock it.
Remember that the next time you feel like exercising your right to free speech and someone accuses you of being unpatriotic. If people hadn't been prepared tp pay the price of rocking the boat then liberal democracy would never have come to the fore the way it has and the assumption that everyone has the right to say what they like about the government would never have happened..
I think that for the sake of the historic record, the best tool we will ever have to learn from, WE NEED TO BE OBJECTIVE WHEN WE WRITE IT DOWN. No emotion, no pandering to victimology. We may one day need a good reference about the USSR, ABOUT STALIN AND WHAT HE DID THAT WORKED AND WHAT DID NOT.
What worked from whose point of view? Do you want to live in a free country where dissent and discussion is the norm or live safe with an authoritarian gov.? Like many who advocate-or seem to-a strong state you never seem to think you might be on the wrong side of it. Russia went from a peasant society to an industrialised one in the space of fifty years. Germany, france , Britain took a lot longer and the path was not exactly a smooth bloodless one.
Terror takes many forms. Tyranny takes many forms. It eminates from power, which depending on how it is used can do great good or great evil.
The history of any people is about who exercised the power and how ordinary people learned to curb it and put in place structures to control power.That is what any political system does-it controls power and those who would exercise it. Tyranny happens when the curbs on power fail or are neglected. It takes many forms and often times will sneak up on people.
Personally I do not believe it is terrible to terrorize the terrorizers.
What the end justifies the means? That old chestnut
The communist system worked well in many ways and kept many diverse people from each others throats during very hard times. The whole human race may need to know what and how it was done.
08-09-2007 10:48 AM
Russia was not a communist state. That's one of the reasons it was such a disappointment to so many on the left. Stalin took over the communist revolution and turned it in to something peculiarly obscene. Lenin on his deathbed realised his mistake and tried to warn the party, stalin got in first before they could stop him and created his own peculiarly Russian model.
Communism originated in western european (as did socialism, fascism and liberal democracy etc) apart from being a utopian vision that was doomed from the start the irony is that communist revolutions took place in two countries where it was least likely to find fertile ground-at least in theory. Revolutionary socialism did not work ESPECIALLY in those countries with an educated industrialised work force. They saw all too clearly that all that would happen is you would replace one set of masters with another. We hardly need to take lessons from Russia-or America come to that, on how to carry out social change or run a democratic society. All the best ideas come from us anyway.
If you are so impressed by Stalin maybe you should back to the origins of socialism and see where he went wrong.
Ever had a look at the history of the chinese communist party? their model is arguably the more successful of the two
He got more to eat than grass. Sometimes there is a price to pay for rocking the boat and one should be judicious when one chooses to rock it.
Remember that the next time you feel like exercising your right to free speech and someone accuses you of being unpatriotic. If people hadn't been prepared tp pay the price of rocking the boat then liberal democracy would never have come to the fore the way it has and the assumption that everyone has the right to say what they like about the government would never have happened..
I think that for the sake of the historic record, the best tool we will ever have to learn from, WE NEED TO BE OBJECTIVE WHEN WE WRITE IT DOWN. No emotion, no pandering to victimology. We may one day need a good reference about the USSR, ABOUT STALIN AND WHAT HE DID THAT WORKED AND WHAT DID NOT.
What worked from whose point of view? Do you want to live in a free country where dissent and discussion is the norm or live safe with an authoritarian gov.? Like many who advocate-or seem to-a strong state you never seem to think you might be on the wrong side of it. Russia went from a peasant society to an industrialised one in the space of fifty years. Germany, france , Britain took a lot longer and the path was not exactly a smooth bloodless one.
Terror takes many forms. Tyranny takes many forms. It eminates from power, which depending on how it is used can do great good or great evil.
The history of any people is about who exercised the power and how ordinary people learned to curb it and put in place structures to control power.That is what any political system does-it controls power and those who would exercise it. Tyranny happens when the curbs on power fail or are neglected. It takes many forms and often times will sneak up on people.
Personally I do not believe it is terrible to terrorize the terrorizers.
What the end justifies the means? That old chestnut
The communist system worked well in many ways and kept many diverse people from each others throats during very hard times. The whole human race may need to know what and how it was done.
08-09-2007 10:48 AM
Russia was not a communist state. That's one of the reasons it was such a disappointment to so many on the left. Stalin took over the communist revolution and turned it in to something peculiarly obscene. Lenin on his deathbed realised his mistake and tried to warn the party, stalin got in first before they could stop him and created his own peculiarly Russian model.
Communism originated in western european (as did socialism, fascism and liberal democracy etc) apart from being a utopian vision that was doomed from the start the irony is that communist revolutions took place in two countries where it was least likely to find fertile ground-at least in theory. Revolutionary socialism did not work ESPECIALLY in those countries with an educated industrialised work force. They saw all too clearly that all that would happen is you would replace one set of masters with another. We hardly need to take lessons from Russia-or America come to that, on how to carry out social change or run a democratic society. All the best ideas come from us anyway.
If you are so impressed by Stalin maybe you should back to the origins of socialism and see where he went wrong.
Ever had a look at the history of the chinese communist party? their model is arguably the more successful of the two
Solzhenitsyn on Russia today.
almostfamous;680299 wrote: Ok, I've decided I'm not knowledgeable about the stuff you guys are going in depth about but I do find him to be a very interesting person and just ordered 2 of his books. 
It gets more interesting when you look at what was happening in the US at about the same time. Being a liberal (in the full sense of the word believing in individual liberty, free speech etc.) was dangerous in both countries.
It gets more interesting when you look at what was happening in the US at about the same time. Being a liberal (in the full sense of the word believing in individual liberty, free speech etc.) was dangerous in both countries.
Solzhenitsyn on Russia today.
posted by scrat
GMC. I think that you use a broader term for tyranny than I do and look at it in a different way. I read about the ethnic cleansing of the SW indian tribes of America in the first half of the 18th century. The Cherokee the Chickasaws and the Crrek tribes. That was tyranny and borderline genocide, the states involved simply did not want the indian nations within their borders, the US government made no effort to stop this process. No one cared to stop this ethnic cleansing of the areas involved. No one in government tried. No one cared or tried to find a solution, all that mattered was "move them out".
The destruction of the Amerindian cultures was an act of tyranny and hatred and inhumanity.
Worse in a way as religion was used to give the whole thing a moral justification rather than political doctrine.
But i thought this thread was about stalin. Did stalin use terror as a political tool? Quite clearly he did. Was he a tyrant who's personality made him crueller than necessity dictated
from the axfiord english dictionary
tyrant
• noun 1 a cruel and oppressive ruler. 2 a person exercising power or control in a cruel and arbitrary way. 3 (especially in ancient Greece) a ruler who seized absolute power without legal right.
I would say yes. He eliminated any potential enemy to take over the communist party. Have a look at what lenin had to say about him-just before he died he tried to warn the party as he had realised the mistake he had made in promoting him. He wasn't a good man doing what was necessaryhe was clearly a vindictive murdering **** as well. Was the terror he imposed for the greater good or not, personally i think the only ones who can make hat judgement call are the Russians themselves.
Would/is Putin be a tyrant for restoring peace and order and trying to maintain it? What would the area be like without the Russian army not there? Perpetual war? Oil companies with private armies walking over the landscape Igush insurgents killing and murdering along with everyone else.
Not unless he declares himself president for life and kills all his political opponents. On the other hand from the point of view of the other nationalities are the Russians trying to hold on to power? Is Russian hegemony trying to have a last fling?
posted by scrat earlier
The communist system worked well in many ways and kept many diverse people from each others throats during very hard times. The whole human race may need to know what and how it was done.
That could also be said about the Roman and the British empires. I trust you don't think imperialism is a valid modern political system. (could argue it's still around of course )
Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.
* Winston Churchill[1
Actually I'm sure he pinched it from someone.
you might find this of interest.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html
Joseph Stalin never gave up killing people. It was always necessary in the kind of regime he ran. He killed until he died. He killed methodically, almost as if to say: nothing personal, merely inevitable. Or was that all? "Stalin's . . . spite," wrote Lenin, ". . . is a most evil factor in politics." Said Trotsky: "He is a kind of opportunist with a bomb." In the outer world, in those days, many intellectuals excused Stalin's methodical slaughter as a necessary first step toward a Communist paradise on earth.
." Said Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, who met Stalin at the Teheran conference: "Most of us, before we met him, thought he was a bandit leader who had pushed himself to the top of his government. That impression was wrong. We knew at once that we were dealing with a highly intelligent man . . ." Said Churchill: "Stalin left upon me an impression of deep, cool wisdom and absence of illusions," added that he had "a very captivating manner when he chooses . . ." Said Roosevelt: "Altogether, quite impressive, I'd say."
GMC. I think that you use a broader term for tyranny than I do and look at it in a different way. I read about the ethnic cleansing of the SW indian tribes of America in the first half of the 18th century. The Cherokee the Chickasaws and the Crrek tribes. That was tyranny and borderline genocide, the states involved simply did not want the indian nations within their borders, the US government made no effort to stop this process. No one cared to stop this ethnic cleansing of the areas involved. No one in government tried. No one cared or tried to find a solution, all that mattered was "move them out".
The destruction of the Amerindian cultures was an act of tyranny and hatred and inhumanity.
Worse in a way as religion was used to give the whole thing a moral justification rather than political doctrine.
But i thought this thread was about stalin. Did stalin use terror as a political tool? Quite clearly he did. Was he a tyrant who's personality made him crueller than necessity dictated
from the axfiord english dictionary
tyrant
• noun 1 a cruel and oppressive ruler. 2 a person exercising power or control in a cruel and arbitrary way. 3 (especially in ancient Greece) a ruler who seized absolute power without legal right.
I would say yes. He eliminated any potential enemy to take over the communist party. Have a look at what lenin had to say about him-just before he died he tried to warn the party as he had realised the mistake he had made in promoting him. He wasn't a good man doing what was necessaryhe was clearly a vindictive murdering **** as well. Was the terror he imposed for the greater good or not, personally i think the only ones who can make hat judgement call are the Russians themselves.
Would/is Putin be a tyrant for restoring peace and order and trying to maintain it? What would the area be like without the Russian army not there? Perpetual war? Oil companies with private armies walking over the landscape Igush insurgents killing and murdering along with everyone else.
Not unless he declares himself president for life and kills all his political opponents. On the other hand from the point of view of the other nationalities are the Russians trying to hold on to power? Is Russian hegemony trying to have a last fling?
posted by scrat earlier
The communist system worked well in many ways and kept many diverse people from each others throats during very hard times. The whole human race may need to know what and how it was done.
That could also be said about the Roman and the British empires. I trust you don't think imperialism is a valid modern political system. (could argue it's still around of course )
Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.
* Winston Churchill[1
Actually I'm sure he pinched it from someone.
you might find this of interest.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html
Joseph Stalin never gave up killing people. It was always necessary in the kind of regime he ran. He killed until he died. He killed methodically, almost as if to say: nothing personal, merely inevitable. Or was that all? "Stalin's . . . spite," wrote Lenin, ". . . is a most evil factor in politics." Said Trotsky: "He is a kind of opportunist with a bomb." In the outer world, in those days, many intellectuals excused Stalin's methodical slaughter as a necessary first step toward a Communist paradise on earth.
." Said Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, who met Stalin at the Teheran conference: "Most of us, before we met him, thought he was a bandit leader who had pushed himself to the top of his government. That impression was wrong. We knew at once that we were dealing with a highly intelligent man . . ." Said Churchill: "Stalin left upon me an impression of deep, cool wisdom and absence of illusions," added that he had "a very captivating manner when he chooses . . ." Said Roosevelt: "Altogether, quite impressive, I'd say."