Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Tiny Village in Vermont Was the Perfect Spot to Hide Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

neh.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: A Tiny Village in Vermont Was the Perfect Spot to Hide Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

#21

Post by geoka9 »

roywiggins wrote: post #19
mc32 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: A Tiny Village in Vermont Was the Perfect Spot to Hide Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

#22

Post by nasredin »

geoka9 wrote: post #21
roywiggins wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

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?"

Re: A Tiny Village in Vermont Was the Perfect Spot to Hide Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

#23

Post by pg_bot »

andyidsinga wrote: post #18

I find this article a reminder to me: there are people from Russia, China, ; 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.

Re: A Tiny Village in Vermont Was the Perfect Spot to Hide Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

#24

Post by PeterisP »

roywiggins wrote: post #19
mc32 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

Re: A Tiny Village in Vermont Was the Perfect Spot to Hide Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

#25

Post by roywiggins »

PeterisP wrote: post #24
roywiggins wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

Re: A Tiny Village in Vermont Was the Perfect Spot to Hide Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

#26

Post by bryanrasmussen »

pragmar wrote: post #5
geoka9 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 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.

Re: A Tiny Village in Vermont Was the Perfect Spot to Hide Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

#28

Post by andrepd »

ryanx435 wrote: post #27

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.

Re: A Tiny Village in Vermont Was the Perfect Spot to Hide Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

#30

Post by ramblerman »

andrepd wrote: post #28
ryanx435 wrote: post #27

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?

Post reply on HN