4 ms·

I don't think anything good about it. Apart from the standard anti-Semitic polemic, which innovates nothing, he insulted a number of people whom he had no right

I don't think anything good about it. Apart from the standard anti-Semitic polemic, which innovates nothing, he insulted a number of people whom he had no right to insult, and reinvented a number of episodes of his own biography in a self-serving and mendacious way. If you wish to look into it, you can start here: http://www.vestnik.com/issues/2003/0723/win/badash.htm http://www.vestnik.com/issues/2003/0723/win/badash.htm

ultrastable 5y ago
exactly. their deification of Solzhenitsyn is a good example of the moral bankruptcy of many Cold War anticommunists - in the end he was just another reactionary who saw the USSR as the latest example of sinister Jewish interference w/ the rightful course of Russian history
- kome 5y ago
  i have no idea why people are down-voting you, you speak the truth. the cold war era was often driven by "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of logic.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Nowhere so strong as in the US: supporting genocides across the planet because they were "bulwarks against communism" is very strange indeed.
- yaakov34 5y ago
  Now you are taking this in a strange direction - it's true that there is a stream of anti-Communism or anti-Sovietism which comes from an angle of Russian nationalism, or imperialism, or chauvinism, or whatever you want to call it, but it was not a particularly large or significant stream at the time when Solzhenitsyn created his main works. One of the justified criticisms of Solzhenitsyn's later works is that he retroactively rewrites his motivations and even actions in order to place himself within that stream (he started out as a fairly orthodox believer in the Soviet ways, of which you can find traces in his early works, but not in his late works), and he also insults many of his friends and allies at the time, who did not follow him in this more imperialist direction.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    Btw Soviet Russia was imperial.
  - ultrastable 5y ago
    tbh when I mentioned the figure of the reactionary who blames history on Jews I wasn't thinking of something specifically anti-Soviet or even Russian - European or Western would have been a better way of putting it, Hitler being the cliché example
- xyzelement 5y ago
  Sorry I down voted you by accident. Meant to up vote.
- slibhb 5y ago
  The idea that Solzhenitsyn is a reactionary doesn't hold up when you read his books. The First Circle is a deep exploration of so many things. Friendship, Stalinism, Marx, Marxist Dialectic, Christianity, Catholicism, Jews, and so on. No one comes out of it clean and Solzhenitsyn doesn't think he has the answers. Two things the book is sure of are: suffering is real and being does not determine consciousness (contrary to Marx's dictum). I believe the attempt to frame Solzhenitsyn as a reactionary and antisemite is wrong. It stems from him saying things you're not supposed to say about Jews being overrepresented in the early Soviet prison system (an empirical question) and failing to condemn Putin as much as the West would like. Solzhenitsyn was highly critical of Gorbachev for seeming to put his reputation with the West ahead of his country. It's clear Solzhenitsyn wanted to avoid that. Also, regarding his alleged antisemitism, The First Circle contains a narrative about Stalin turning against the Jews highly placed in the Soviet prison system. Solzhenitsyn's view here is nuanced. I haven't read 200 Years Together but I highly doubt it's slavering antisemitism. And 99% of the people claiming it is haven't read it either.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    He both-sides Russian pogroms, too. His insight is that it was bad for Russians to exterminate the Jews, but it is also bad for Jews to control everything and not work like good Russians. You can't let this sort of framing pass for argument, because it can be placed around everything. This is where he got his history lessons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Dikiy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Dikiy
    - slibhb 5y ago
      The fact that you're using "both-sides" as a verb makes it hard to take you seriously. That is a neologism that exists to prevent people from thinking. As if there are always two sides and one of them is always absolutely right. I highly doubt Solzhenitsyn was an antisemite based on what I've read of him (there are plenty of Jewish characters). I could be wrong (I haven't read everything) but I strongly suspect that this is one more example of unhinged culture warriors connecting dots based on their preconceived ideas of what is and isn't acceptable to say and think.
- dextralt 5y ago
  I agree with you, fellow white person. We must denounce those who insult G-d chosen tribe.
kingsuper20 5y ago
>I don't think anything good about it. I've never seen a physical copy in English. Did you download it from somewhere before reading it?
- Supermancho 5y ago
  You can read it in English here, I believe: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40871113?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/40871113?seq=1
- yaakov34 5y ago
  I read it online, in Russian. Well, in the late-Solzhenitsyn version of Russian, which diverged considerably from the standard language. I don't know if there is an English translation of it. I saw on a few occasions that people expressed the intention to translate it, generally as part of some anti-Semitic agenda, but I don't think that anybody got past a few chapters, since there is nothing particularly new or interesting in it, even (and especially) for anti-Semites, and rendering Solzhenitsyn's unusual diction and neologisms in another language is difficult.

ultrastable 5y ago

exactly. their deification of Solzhenitsyn is a good example of the moral bankruptcy of many Cold War anticommunists - in the end he was just another reactionary who saw the USSR as the latest example of sinister Jewish interference w/ the rightful course of Russian history

kome 5y ago
i have no idea why people are down-voting you, you speak the truth. the cold war era was often driven by "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of logic.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Nowhere so strong as in the US: supporting genocides across the planet because they were "bulwarks against communism" is very strange indeed.
yaakov34 5y ago
Now you are taking this in a strange direction - it's true that there is a stream of anti-Communism or anti-Sovietism which comes from an angle of Russian nationalism, or imperialism, or chauvinism, or whatever you want to call it, but it was not a particularly large or significant stream at the time when Solzhenitsyn created his main works. One of the justified criticisms of Solzhenitsyn's later works is that he retroactively rewrites his motivations and even actions in order to place himself within that stream (he started out as a fairly orthodox believer in the Soviet ways, of which you can find traces in his early works, but not in his late works), and he also insults many of his friends and allies at the time, who did not follow him in this more imperialist direction.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  Btw Soviet Russia was imperial.
- ultrastable 5y ago
  tbh when I mentioned the figure of the reactionary who blames history on Jews I wasn't thinking of something specifically anti-Soviet or even Russian - European or Western would have been a better way of putting it, Hitler being the cliché example
xyzelement 5y ago
Sorry I down voted you by accident. Meant to up vote.
slibhb 5y ago
The idea that Solzhenitsyn is a reactionary doesn't hold up when you read his books. The First Circle is a deep exploration of so many things. Friendship, Stalinism, Marx, Marxist Dialectic, Christianity, Catholicism, Jews, and so on. No one comes out of it clean and Solzhenitsyn doesn't think he has the answers. Two things the book is sure of are: suffering is real and being does not determine consciousness (contrary to Marx's dictum). I believe the attempt to frame Solzhenitsyn as a reactionary and antisemite is wrong. It stems from him saying things you're not supposed to say about Jews being overrepresented in the early Soviet prison system (an empirical question) and failing to condemn Putin as much as the West would like. Solzhenitsyn was highly critical of Gorbachev for seeming to put his reputation with the West ahead of his country. It's clear Solzhenitsyn wanted to avoid that. Also, regarding his alleged antisemitism, The First Circle contains a narrative about Stalin turning against the Jews highly placed in the Soviet prison system. Solzhenitsyn's view here is nuanced. I haven't read 200 Years Together but I highly doubt it's slavering antisemitism. And 99% of the people claiming it is haven't read it either.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  He both-sides Russian pogroms, too. His insight is that it was bad for Russians to exterminate the Jews, but it is also bad for Jews to control everything and not work like good Russians. You can't let this sort of framing pass for argument, because it can be placed around everything. This is where he got his history lessons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Dikiy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Dikiy
  - slibhb 5y ago
    The fact that you're using "both-sides" as a verb makes it hard to take you seriously. That is a neologism that exists to prevent people from thinking. As if there are always two sides and one of them is always absolutely right. I highly doubt Solzhenitsyn was an antisemite based on what I've read of him (there are plenty of Jewish characters). I could be wrong (I haven't read everything) but I strongly suspect that this is one more example of unhinged culture warriors connecting dots based on their preconceived ideas of what is and isn't acceptable to say and think.
dextralt 5y ago
I agree with you, fellow white person. We must denounce those who insult G-d chosen tribe.

kingsuper20 5y ago

>I don't think anything good about it. I've never seen a physical copy in English. Did you download it from somewhere before reading it?

Supermancho 5y ago
You can read it in English here, I believe: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40871113?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/40871113?seq=1
yaakov34 5y ago
I read it online, in Russian. Well, in the late-Solzhenitsyn version of Russian, which diverged considerably from the standard language. I don't know if there is an English translation of it. I saw on a few occasions that people expressed the intention to translate it, generally as part of some anti-Semitic agenda, but I don't think that anybody got past a few chapters, since there is nothing particularly new or interesting in it, even (and especially) for anti-Semites, and rendering Solzhenitsyn's unusual diction and neologisms in another language is difficult.