Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Alexander Solzhenitsyn dies

Alexander Solzhenitsyn Not One To Give Admiration For

His criticism of the gulags has to be accepted,(even if over exagerated), and was accepted by Krushcev, having, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich published in the Soviet Union & on the National Curriculum of Education in Russia. You cannot take away from the fact that he was a capable & emotive writer

However, post war he became more & more anti Socialist, pan Slav, pro Tsarist, gradually degenerating towards his death towards being Anti-Semite, Islamophobic/racist, mysogenistic, Social Conservative(if not crypto-fascist), Reactionary Historical Revisionist, blaming the excesses of Stalinism on the Bolsherviks because of the infuence of its Jewish members and Jewish people in Russain Society as a whole. With great admiration for Putin and the invasion of Chechnya.

His attitudes towards Western Secularism & Vietnam War express where his politics are coming from, going back to the 1970's

[edit] The West
Delivering the commencement address at Harvard in 1978, he called the country spiritually weak and mired in vulgar materialism. Americans, he said, speaking in Russian through a translator, suffered from a "decline in courage" and a "lack of manliness." Few were willing to die for their ideals, he said. He condemned both the United States government and American society for its “hasty” capitulation in Vietnam. He criticized the country’s music as intolerable and attacked its unfettered press, accusing it of violations of privacy. He said that the West erred in measuring other civilizations by its own model. While faulting Soviet society for denying fair legal treatment of people, he also faulted the West for being too legalistic: "A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities."[23]

Shortly after his death, professor Richard Pipes wrote of him: "Solzhenitsyn blamed the evils of Soviet communism on the West. He rightly stressed the European origins of Marxism, but he never asked himself why Marxism in other European countries led not to the gulag but to the welfare state. He reacted with white fury to any suggestion that the roots of Leninism and Stalinism could be found in Russia’s past. His knowledge of Russian history was very superficial and laced with a romantic sentimentalism. While accusing the West of imperialism, he seemed quite unaware of the extraordinary expansion of his own country into regions inhabited by non-Russians. He also denied that Imperial Russia practiced censorship or condemned political prisoners to hard labor, which, of course, was absurd."[24] While alive, Solzhenitsyn accused Pipes, who is of Jewish Polish descent, of advancing "the Polish version of Russian history".

Vietnam war
Main article: Vietnam war
In his commencement address at Harvard University in 1978 (A World Split Apart), Solzhenitsyn alleged that many in the U.S. did not understand the Vietnam War. He rhetorically asks if the American antiwar proponents now realize the effects their actions had on Vietnam: "But members of the U.S. antiwar movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there?"[30]

Wikipedia

During his time in the West, Solzhenitsyn made a few controversial public statements: notably, he characterized Daniel Ellsberg as a traitor.

HARDLY SOMEONE TO HAVE ADMIRATION FOR!!!!!!:rolleyes::cool::hmm:
 
I don't get people on this site. how can you read Solzenitsyn and still be communists, or sympathic to communists or at the very least, be not-very-hard-on-communists-ists?

Communists like any political spectrum has good and bad.
What I mean by that is there are evil capitalist like huge corporate companies ala Tesco and there are individual people selling a product for a niche market say for instance a local organic store that are as much about making profit accept less than Tesco.

The issue have is that governments use terms to describe they power when in fact its just empty slogans. Communism at the heart of it is about making a classless society where everyone is equal and life is nice and peachy. Capitalism first goes through phase to become socialist and when its reached then the transition to communism can be made...

One the biggest mistakes by Marx and Engels was not covering human rights in the liberal sense of everyones right to be free to move around, express themselvs, say what they want etc. Instead collective rights took shape where the whole country works together, if one guy does not play with the game , he can face harsh punishment like Gulags. The one party system is based on this essentially, why do we need so many parties when we are all working collectively together for a better world.

Of course with this they is a vacuum to exploit liberal human rights. I would love to see communism reformed where it brings it up to date with democratic human rights we so cherish today.

My side tracking is over, but its something that annoys me.
 
An old joke, frequently told in ex-Stalinist totalitarian regimes, goes:

"What's the difference between Capitalism and Socialism?

In Capitalism we see exploitation of Man by Man, whereas in Socialism it's the other way round!":rolleyes:

Socialism as a movement has many strands...

But ex "surreal Socialist" countries certainly weren't "communist" in the sense in which Marx writes about it! Most of us were able to see through the rhetoric of the regime, unless one was full of hatred and rather uneducated and couldn't think at all, like, say, most Americans etc.:rolleyes::D

Marx's very own position [as opposed to the one he also had to include when commissioned to write a Manifesto], if one reads closely, is the one to start from an individual as a subject, not as an object. Any objectifying [exploitation/domination] and we are not talking of real Freedom and real Communism, as he envisaged it. And "general interest" that does not include the individual one is not a "general interest" at all! It's particularistic interest dressed up as a general interest... Moreover, he never was prescriptive!

Besides, there are many, many disputes who did what [or didn't, rather], how responsible and/or guilty which "stream" was, Bolsheviks or Mensheviks etc. But "communists" as such do not exist, I'm afraid, as there's nothing that unites them all in any obligatory sense...

One more thing: if someone presents himself as a concert pianist, then sits at a piano and can't do anything properly - do you take his word seriously or do you object that he is misrepresenting himself? I mean, most "communists" in power had no idea about Hegel, Marx or anything of the sort. The only or the predominant thing they were interested was power and all that it entails...:hmm:
 
Oh, yes: Solzhenitsyn does give account of many a decent human being, who happened to be communists, too... Many stood up to the party elites... What do we do with those?
 
Cancer Ward and First Circle are fine novels in the grand Russian tradition of Dostoevsky, Turgenev and Tolstoy, engaging with the great political and moral issues of the day through the interaction of characters from all sides of the debate. In his fiction, he seems to understand the Russian people, but in his non-ficition, he raged against their complicity with the system.
I had this book on my bookshelf for nearly 20 years and tried reading it loads of times but could never get beyond the first few pages.
In 1999, after 5 years of living alone in rural France I was starting to lose my mind with the isolation.
But I started reading Cancer Ward one day and it suddenly made perfect sense to me.
I've never read anything like that before or since but that book really helped me understand the bigger picture during a very difficult time.
RIP Alexander.
 
One more thing: if someone presents himself as a concert pianist, then sits at a piano and can't do anything properly - do you take his word seriously or do you object that he is misrepresenting himself? :hmm:

If a con-man fiddled you out of your life savings, would you trust him again?

Would you judge him by his words, which are cheap, or by your knowledge of his previous actions?:confused:
 
If a con-man fiddled you out of your life savings, would you trust him again?

Would you judge him by his words, which are cheap, or by your knowledge of his previous actions?:confused:

Again your trying to paint all communist as evil by looking at soviet union and other communist countries...
 
Che Guevera is used to promote, glamourise Communism, a bit of Freedom Fighter chic, that's my problem with him. I wouldn't want to live in Soviet Cuba, nothing excites me about Cuba except for the weather. Plus there the double-standard on this site, there wouldn't be allowed some one calling him/her self DotNazi (although i know that doesn't work), or cliche Mengele.

Of course Dotcommunism is actually nicked from Elblen Moglen, Columbia law professor who advocates the abolition of intellectual property rights.

but carry on.
 
His criticism of the gulags has to be accepted,(even if over exagerated), and was accepted by Krushcev, having, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich published in the Soviet Union & on the National Curriculum of Education in Russia. You cannot take away from the fact that he was a capable & emotive writer
However, post war he became more & more anti Socialist, pan Slav, pro Tsarist, gradually degenerating towards his death towards being Anti-Semite, Islamophobic/racist, mysogenistic, Social Conservative(if not crypto-fascist), Reactionary Historical Revisionist, blaming the excesses of Stalinism on the Bolsherviks because of the infuence of its Jewish members and Jewish people in Russain Society as a whole. With great admiration for Putin and the invasion of Chechnya.

His attitudes towards Western Secularism & Vietnam War express where his politics are coming from, going back to the 1970's

[edit] The West
Delivering the commencement address at Harvard in 1978, he called the country spiritually weak and mired in vulgar materialism. Americans, he said, speaking in Russian through a translator, suffered from a "decline in courage" and a "lack of manliness." Few were willing to die for their ideals, he said. He condemned both the United States government and American society for its “hasty” capitulation in Vietnam. He criticized the country’s music as intolerable and attacked its unfettered press, accusing it of violations of privacy. He said that the West erred in measuring other civilizations by its own model. While faulting Soviet society for denying fair legal treatment of people, he also faulted the West for being too legalistic: "A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities."[23]

Shortly after his death, professor Richard Pipes wrote of him: "Solzhenitsyn blamed the evils of Soviet communism on the West. He rightly stressed the European origins of Marxism, but he never asked himself why Marxism in other European countries led not to the gulag but to the welfare state. He reacted with white fury to any suggestion that the roots of Leninism and Stalinism could be found in Russia’s past. His knowledge of Russian history was very superficial and laced with a romantic sentimentalism. While accusing the West of imperialism, he seemed quite unaware of the extraordinary expansion of his own country into regions inhabited by non-Russians. He also denied that Imperial Russia practiced censorship or condemned political prisoners to hard labor, which, of course, was absurd."[24] While alive, Solzhenitsyn accused Pipes, who is of Jewish Polish descent, of advancing "the Polish version of Russian history".

Vietnam war
Main article: Vietnam war
In his commencement address at Harvard University in 1978 (A World Split Apart), Solzhenitsyn alleged that many in the U.S. did not understand the Vietnam War. He rhetorically asks if the American antiwar proponents now realize the effects their actions had on Vietnam: "But members of the U.S. antiwar movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there?"[30]

Wikipedia

During his time in the West, Solzhenitsyn made a few controversial public statements: notably, he characterized Daniel Ellsberg as a traitor.

HARDLY SOMEONE TO HAVE ADMIRATION FOR!!!!!!:rolleyes::cool::hmm:

I have admiration for him simply for his skill as a novelist, I don't care what he said or didn't say later in life, just as I don't care Celine was an anti-semite and Hamsun collaborated with the Nazis.
 
Is Nixon ( the president not the poster) comparable to Pol Pot or what's going on in North Korea? perhaps you should call yourself Pol Pot just to even things up.:D

Well he party to the death of millions in SE Asia, attempted to use military force to prevent India intervening in Bangladesh as the West Pakistan Army slaughtered over a million civilians and presided over the violent overthrow of a democratically elected Government in Chile and the wider Operation Condor.

He was also more than happy to cosy up to Mao and his succesors would support Pol Pot against the Vietnamese.
 
:hmm:Can you see the point I am making?:confused: To start with...:cool:

I can, but can see how me and most of the populations don't get too excited by Communist talk of how they are going to build us Paradise if we giv them all of our freedom and unquestioning support? it not going to happen.
 
I can, but can see how me and most of the populations don't get too excited by Communist talk of how they are going to build us Paradise if we giv them all of our freedom and unquestioning support? it not going to happen.


It does worry me that the majority of the population that do vote, choose the same type of government then complain bitterly that its not working ....
 
I can, but can see how me and most of the populations don't get too excited by Communist talk of how they are going to build us Paradise if we giv them all of our freedom and unquestioning support? it not going to happen.

And who asked for that?:eek::confused:

Have you seen the previous, longer post?:hmm:
 
Is Nixon ( the president not the poster) comparable to Pol Pot or what's going on in North Korea? perhaps you should call yourself Pol Pot just to even things up.:D

I would have thought Pol Pot was infuenced more by the more eccentric concepts and utopian plans of Jean-Jacques Rousseau;Western European Bourgiousie Enlightenment more than than Marx or Lenin.
 
Pol Pot was a member of the French Communist Party, Nigel. Likely he took their ideas as his starting point, not Jean-Jacques Rousseau and not what you call 'Western European Bourgeois Enlightenment'.
 
Rouseau v's Marx

THE PHILOMATHS

!"......Jean Jacques Rousseau enuciated your socialistic theory two centuries ago. A return to the soil, forsooth! Reversion! Our biology , teaches us the absurdity of it. It has been truly said that a little learing is a dangerous thing, and you have exemplified it tonight with your madcap theories. Fallcay upon fallacy! I was never so nauseated in my life with overplus of fallacy. That for your immature generalisation and childish reasoning!"

@"......As for you, you have replied to nothing that i have said. You have really made a few excited and dogmatic assertions about my mental calibre. That may serve you in your business, but you can't talk to me like that. I am not a working man, cap in hand, asking for you to increase my wages or to protect me from the machine at which I work. You cannot be dogmatic with truth when you deal with me. Save that for your wage slaves. They will not dare reply to you., because you hold their bread and butter, their lives in yours hands."

@@"......as for this return to Nature that you say that you learned at college before I was born, permit me to point out that on the face of it you cannot have learned anything since. Socialism has no more to do with the state of Nature than has differential calculus with a bible class."

@@@"......go to your meekest little assistant instructor of sociology and ask him what is the difference between Rouseau's theory of the return to nature and the theory of socialism: ask your greatest orthordox bourgeois political economist and sociologist; question through the pages of every textbook written on the subject and stored on the shelves of your subsidised libraries and from one and all the answer will be there is nothing congruous between the return to nature and socialism.....Nature & Socialism Are Diametrically Opposed To Each Other!"

J.L.
 
Was going to plough through Rouseau, but got stuck reading Confessions.
Noble savage!:rolleyes: should give a hint.:D
 
No hypocrisy here!

;)
Wouldn't these be allowed? A mod may be able to clarify, but I don't see anything in the faqs against either of these names.

Just to test this I've tried joining this forum over a period of time using various names like "A. Racist", "Ku klux Klan", "Nazi John" " BNP Bill" etc., all were turned down pretty immediately usually within two hours, but to fair, I don't think they would allow you use the name of a notorious genocidal Communist Mass-murderer either.;):D
 
;)
Wouldn't these be allowed? A mod may be able to clarify, but I don't see anything in the faqs against either of these names.

Just to test this I've tried joining this forum over a period of time using various names like "A. Racist", "Ku klux Klan", "Nazi John" " BNP Bill" etc., all were turned down pretty immediately usually within two hours, but to fair, I don't think they would allow you use the name of a notorious genocidal Communist Mass-murderer either.;):D
 
Just to test this I've tried joining this forum over a period of time using various names like "A. Racist", "Ku klux Klan", "Nazi John" " BNP Bill" etc., all were turned down pretty immediately usually within two hours, but to fair, I don't think they would allow you use the name of a notorious genocidal Communist Mass-murderer either.
Give an honest mass murderer a break and they kick it back in your face!

Still, you're now banned again. Well done, warren!
 
Back
Top Bottom