6 ms·

Review: Between Two Millstones: Sketches of Exile by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

81 points by 80mph 7y ago

tomlockwood 7y ago
Reading a bit more about this guy he seems to have some interesting views. He points to Atheism as a key reason for the death of 60 million people under the Soviets, and states that America capitulated too early in the Vietnam war.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  Regardless, I am surprised how in some aspects he was spot on. Seems to me he escaped 1984, only to find himself in a Brave New World.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 7y ago
  >He points to Atheism as a key reason for the death of 60 million people under the Soviets Not very far off. In their fervor, the soviets replaced a millennia old in their parts known quantity religion, with an atheist cult of "communism", the all-known "party", and the "new man". That strand of militant atheism operated the same way, and worse, than actual religion. One could e.g. murder people and let go of compassion, as that was a "christian" thing. What supposedly mattered were the end results (the building of communism). Heck, they even made mummies and pilgrimages of their supreme leaders... Dostoyevsky had already said pretty much the same (e.g. in the Possessed, and in Crime and Punishment), regarding the new revolutionary fervor in Russia and where Russia was headed, 100 years before Solzenyntsin.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    > Dostoyevsky had already said pretty much the same Wasn't Dostoyevsky also religious?
    - coldtea 7y ago
      Yes. His point wasn't that religion is bad. His point was that the kind of revolutionary mania emerging in Russia was bad, and a kind of atheist substitute of religion (which, in its fervor and conviction lacks its controls and subtlety).
      - tomlockwood 7y ago
        I suppose though it'd be very in character for a religious commentator to see religions as having controls and subtlety that atheism doesn't.
  - MrBuddyCasino 7y ago
    Thats also the position of Yuval Noah Harari. I found the comparison of Political commissar to a Chaplain especially apt.
- patty-cakes 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn Capitulating too early is a somewhat obtuse observation, without offering authentic insight. Put another way, of course such a capitulation is too early, since it seldom isn't premature for any instance in which it's not already too late. The U.S. was wealthy enough to keep going, and could have forced victory if any sort of victory at all costs would have been acceptable. Suppose, this author sees it another way: perhaps non-pyrrhic in its sacrifices, perhaps less barbaric. It seems his view takes the total reverse of such sentiments. Really, the thrust of the commencement speech seems to imply that he viewed Americans as not prepared to lay down their lives for the war's cause. He seems to miss the point: Viet Nam wasn't even the kind of fight the people in charge were interested in winning. They just needed a free fire zone and guinea pigs for some science experiments and alcohol induce navel gazing about limited war in the nuclear age. Philosophical as he seems to be, Solzhenitsyn also glosses over what he really means by: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." He doesn't clarify precisely why this might imperil perhaps 60 million souls. Was it simple minded orthodox superstition? Left unstated, we have no way of know if he harbored a fear of divine consequences and an afterlife. This is laughable though. If he were to let on that it were a deeply held belief in fairy tales, it might be dispelled open handed. Because we know that superstition can be used to embolden suicide attacks just as easily as it can rationalize meekness. More likely, it was the outward observance of a fearfulness, culturally instilled in prior generations, and that a lack of consideration for others leads to bold impetuousness and hubris. Anyone can see this without leaning on the crutch of "godlessness" but still he saw fit to beat the dead horse of spirituality. How else can we interpret this? Either he saw religions promises as suitably manipulative to create fear among simpleton peasants, or he preferred the easy comfort of deferring his own agency to an almighty consequence instead of permitting the chance that perhaps atheism doesn't preclude the capacity to rationalize against libertine abandon. A conscientiousness that died with the old values, since dispelled by the new social norms that fast emerging technological shifts had produced.
- wallace_f 7y ago
  Religion can be useful as a knowledge-set of distilled, inherited cultural lessons and values. Afaik he said to not abandon it entirely. He thought we had a sort of new religion in each world, materialism in the west.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    I think though that the interpretation of religious tenets and the character of decrees by religious authorities change over time. Evangelists in America claim God told them they ought to buy private jets. As a result I don't think Materialism is incompatible with religion. I don't think Materialism is atheistic or religious in character.
- varjag 7y ago
  He was also an early supporter of Putin and very much a Russian imperialist in policy views.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
amingilani 7y ago
Error code 16 This request was blocked by the security rules Does anyone have an alt link? Edit: here it is: https://outline.com/NbS3kF https://outline.com/NbS3kF
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  neither link works for me
supergirl 7y ago
is this how assange will be remembered too?
- Ygg2 7y ago
  Of course not. He'll die in jail, awaiting The Process. As a warning to other journalists.
nabla9 7y ago
Heh. >He decided not to settle farther north because he thought Canadians were too nice and lacked spirit.
r-andrey 7y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20190509004035/https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-most-dangerous-man-in-the-world/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190509004035/https://www.clare...
wallace_f 7y ago
>Solzhenitsyn reminded people that having the right to do something does not make it right. What troubled him most was that elites trivialized the civilizational struggle between freedom and tyranny. >Under despotism, Solzhenitsyn could readily spot an informant or a self-seeking careerist. In the West, where almost everyone seemed forthright and earnest, he put his faith in people who let him down or took advantage of his inexperience. Wow this actually hits close to home. I've certainly been a more naive type, and sadly fallen for the same kind of thing even growing up here. There are some good people, but I think we're falling apart without enough of them and it is hard to talk about this.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  In a society built on lies, truth is a powerful thing, and vice versa. So I wouldn't say too few good people, just that they aren't in position to do anything.
squeezingswirls 7y ago
Do yourself a favor and read 'Warning to the West'. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/219822.Warning_to_the_West https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/219822.Warning_to_the_We...
cousin_it 7y ago
Growing up in Russia, Solzhenitsyn was one of my childhood heroes and still is. But I value him mostly as a reporter. The Gulag Archipelago was a success of reporting. I'm less excited about his work as a writer (in the moralistic Russian tradition which was always boring to me) or as a teacher (why did he try to teach the West from a position of inexperience?)
CharlesDodgson 7y ago
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is one of my all time favourite books, it is as meaningful with words as the best works of Chekhov and shows the power of the human spirit.

81 points by 80mph 7y ago

Reading a bit more about this guy he seems to have some interesting views. He points to Atheism as a key reason for the death of 60 million people under the Soviets, and states that America capitulated too early in the Vietnam war.

Ygg2 7y ago
Regardless, I am surprised how in some aspects he was spot on. Seems to me he escaped 1984, only to find himself in a Brave New World.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 7y ago
>He points to Atheism as a key reason for the death of 60 million people under the Soviets Not very far off. In their fervor, the soviets replaced a millennia old in their parts known quantity religion, with an atheist cult of "communism", the all-known "party", and the "new man". That strand of militant atheism operated the same way, and worse, than actual religion. One could e.g. murder people and let go of compassion, as that was a "christian" thing. What supposedly mattered were the end results (the building of communism). Heck, they even made mummies and pilgrimages of their supreme leaders... Dostoyevsky had already said pretty much the same (e.g. in the Possessed, and in Crime and Punishment), regarding the new revolutionary fervor in Russia and where Russia was headed, 100 years before Solzenyntsin.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  > Dostoyevsky had already said pretty much the same Wasn't Dostoyevsky also religious?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Yes. His point wasn't that religion is bad. His point was that the kind of revolutionary mania emerging in Russia was bad, and a kind of atheist substitute of religion (which, in its fervor and conviction lacks its controls and subtlety).
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      I suppose though it'd be very in character for a religious commentator to see religions as having controls and subtlety that atheism doesn't.
- MrBuddyCasino 7y ago
  Thats also the position of Yuval Noah Harari. I found the comparison of Political commissar to a Chaplain especially apt.
patty-cakes 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn Capitulating too early is a somewhat obtuse observation, without offering authentic insight. Put another way, of course such a capitulation is too early, since it seldom isn't premature for any instance in which it's not already too late. The U.S. was wealthy enough to keep going, and could have forced victory if any sort of victory at all costs would have been acceptable. Suppose, this author sees it another way: perhaps non-pyrrhic in its sacrifices, perhaps less barbaric. It seems his view takes the total reverse of such sentiments. Really, the thrust of the commencement speech seems to imply that he viewed Americans as not prepared to lay down their lives for the war's cause. He seems to miss the point: Viet Nam wasn't even the kind of fight the people in charge were interested in winning. They just needed a free fire zone and guinea pigs for some science experiments and alcohol induce navel gazing about limited war in the nuclear age. Philosophical as he seems to be, Solzhenitsyn also glosses over what he really means by: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." He doesn't clarify precisely why this might imperil perhaps 60 million souls. Was it simple minded orthodox superstition? Left unstated, we have no way of know if he harbored a fear of divine consequences and an afterlife. This is laughable though. If he were to let on that it were a deeply held belief in fairy tales, it might be dispelled open handed. Because we know that superstition can be used to embolden suicide attacks just as easily as it can rationalize meekness. More likely, it was the outward observance of a fearfulness, culturally instilled in prior generations, and that a lack of consideration for others leads to bold impetuousness and hubris. Anyone can see this without leaning on the crutch of "godlessness" but still he saw fit to beat the dead horse of spirituality. How else can we interpret this? Either he saw religions promises as suitably manipulative to create fear among simpleton peasants, or he preferred the easy comfort of deferring his own agency to an almighty consequence instead of permitting the chance that perhaps atheism doesn't preclude the capacity to rationalize against libertine abandon. A conscientiousness that died with the old values, since dispelled by the new social norms that fast emerging technological shifts had produced.
wallace_f 7y ago
Religion can be useful as a knowledge-set of distilled, inherited cultural lessons and values. Afaik he said to not abandon it entirely. He thought we had a sort of new religion in each world, materialism in the west.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  I think though that the interpretation of religious tenets and the character of decrees by religious authorities change over time. Evangelists in America claim God told them they ought to buy private jets. As a result I don't think Materialism is incompatible with religion. I don't think Materialism is atheistic or religious in character.
varjag 7y ago
He was also an early supporter of Putin and very much a Russian imperialist in policy views.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

amingilani 7y ago

Error code 16 This request was blocked by the security rules Does anyone have an alt link? Edit: here it is: https://outline.com/NbS3kF https://outline.com/NbS3kF

DoctorOetker 7y ago
neither link works for me

supergirl 7y ago

is this how assange will be remembered too?

Ygg2 7y ago
Of course not. He'll die in jail, awaiting The Process. As a warning to other journalists.

nabla9 7y ago

Heh. >He decided not to settle farther north because he thought Canadians were too nice and lacked spirit.

r-andrey 7y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20190509004035/https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-most-dangerous-man-in-the-world/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190509004035/https://www.clare...

wallace_f 7y ago

>Solzhenitsyn reminded people that having the right to do something does not make it right. What troubled him most was that elites trivialized the civilizational struggle between freedom and tyranny. >Under despotism, Solzhenitsyn could readily spot an informant or a self-seeking careerist. In the West, where almost everyone seemed forthright and earnest, he put his faith in people who let him down or took advantage of his inexperience. Wow this actually hits close to home. I've certainly been a more naive type, and sadly fallen for the same kind of thing even growing up here. There are some good people, but I think we're falling apart without enough of them and it is hard to talk about this.

Ygg2 7y ago
In a society built on lies, truth is a powerful thing, and vice versa. So I wouldn't say too few good people, just that they aren't in position to do anything.

squeezingswirls 7y ago

Do yourself a favor and read 'Warning to the West'. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/219822.Warning_to_the_West https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/219822.Warning_to_the_We...

cousin_it 7y ago

Growing up in Russia, Solzhenitsyn was one of my childhood heroes and still is. But I value him mostly as a reporter. The Gulag Archipelago was a success of reporting. I'm less excited about his work as a writer (in the moralistic Russian tradition which was always boring to me) or as a teacher (why did he try to teach the West from a position of inexperience?)

CharlesDodgson 7y ago

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is one of my all time favourite books, it is as meaningful with words as the best works of Chekhov and shows the power of the human spirit.