Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anti-marxist-semite is still anti-semite in my book.
[flagged]
Lmao then why not just say you don't like criminals, murderers, and Marxists. The focus on their Jewishness is suspect at the very least...
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself
51–60 of 99 posts
Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
When a public figure you used to support disappoints you in some substantial way, it's best to change your views rather than paint yourself in the corner by rationalizing their abhorrence. All humans are fallible. There have been some regrettable Nobel Peace Prizes out there, and Amnesty International had to call off some of their awards.
>When a public figure you used to support disappoints you in some substantial way, it's best to change your views Why? Just because an author disappoints you, doesn't mean you need to try to undo your enjoyment of a book they wrote.
Solzhenitsyn in particular is a political writer/figure who largely overshadows in the West other Soviet dissidents. His (put mildly) ethnocentrism discredits the overall message and makes him unsuitable champion of their case.
Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hardly think there was a unified Western view at the time (perhaps amongst governments but not individuals). George Orwell fought in Spain against Franco's troops in an anarchist unit (POUM) and he hated Stalinism as strongly as anyone. His Homage to Catalonia is a superb account of his time in Spain (and just how chaotic things were politically): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia
Sure, I meant across decision makers. Realpolitik (the rest is propaganda). Before and in the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, when the great Orwell fought, the left in Spain was extremely atomized: there were the anarchist (very active in the beginning), the socialists, the communists (actually a minority initially), and many splinter groups (like POUM). But, just like an equally varied right swiftly unified unde…
"fought some of the other leftists as fiercely as it fought the right."
Wasn't that the Soviet influence though - they regarded anarchists/Trotskyists as a far bigger threat than Franco.
Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an old trick of antisemites. If you lurk antisemite pages or speak with antisemites, you'll find that a common talking point is the importance of Jews in the birth of communism (and the supposed link between Jews and communism in general), and likewise the importance of Jews in contemporary finance and politics. If you were to listen to such talking points, you'd argue that they were not actual anti-semites, but…
Interesting that one cannot critique Jews without being called an anti-Semite.
The problem is deeper than that. All discussion is absurd on both sides and nobody knows or understands the history that led to things getting this way. Particular peeves of mine are 'the Jews killed Jesus' and the 'usury' thing.
There is no evidence for the 'Jews killed Jesus' meme that has been doing the rounds for almost two millennia. Yet it persists like an extremely bad penny.
The 'usury' thing - Jewish bankers controlling everything is usually told by people who have no idea of how kings in Europe used to extort money from Jewish people, not allowing them to have land and basically making sure they did horrible jobs, like tax-collecting, which was not popular with peasant types in Middle Ages Europe. Then they would evict them taking their cash off them.
Another one that irks me is how people criticise Jewish people for being successful in various trades, for instance in the UK a huge amount of fashion retail is a Jewish thing. Other minorities get criticised for not being in business, e.g. in America the black people working for the white man and not setting up their own black business networks.
Despite all of the war-crime grade problems of what is going on in Israel and prevalent attitudes on all sides I really do like working with Jewish people, locally and from Israel. I have been astounded at the code written by some of the geniuses I have had to work with from Israel, yet at the same time felt happy with myself that I have not been indoctrinated in the way they have been when it comes to Palestine. Sometimes it is good to know that someone smarter than yourself does not know everything.
Trade and working together is the way to greater understanding. A lack of education about our collective history as well as our gone-wrong capitalism and the militarism that enforces our gone-wrong capitalism has to be seen as the true enemy. In a fair world of genuine free market internationalism we can move on from the lies and suspicions that have held mankind back.
Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> genocide denial Please don't use powerful words at the wrong place, you are depleting them of their meaning. A genocide has an actual definition according to the international law, and the Gulag system does not tick any of the boxes. The Gulag system was a very harsh penal colony system (although on a far larger scale that what was done before), in continuation of the ones already existing during the tsarist times…
So what's the term for over 1.5 million Poles deported to the interior of the USSR?
Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's a writer, not an historian. Thus his non-fiction works do not have to be read like history books, more like journalistic opinion pieces. In that sense, the factual errors on this book are mostly irrelevant, and the work is still very interesting and insightful.
Are there factual errors in it? I haven't seen any actual valid criticism of the factual content of the book, just "its antisemitic ban it don't let anyone read it!".
I assume that most books must contain some false sentences. They are certainly worrying in a serious scholarly work, but not in the case of "Two Hundred Years Together", which is an informal essay that nobody is expected to use as the ultimate reference on historical facts.
Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I meant across decision makers. Realpolitik (the rest is propaganda). Before and in the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, when the great Orwell fought, the left in Spain was extremely atomized: there were the anarchist (very active in the beginning), the socialists, the communists (actually a minority initially), and many splinter groups (like POUM). But, just like an equally varied right swiftly unified unde…
"fought some of the other leftists as fiercely as it fought the right." Wasn't that the Soviet influence though - they regarded anarchists/Trotskyists as a far bigger threat than Franco.
Yes, that was one factor for sure. But it was actually really complicated, quite mind boggling in fact. The thing is that, in spite of Stalin being pretty much the only effective external support the Spanish republic had, the communists inside Spain were pretty much a marginal group when the war started, and had to resort to all kinds of intrigues to get support from both the population and the, still, official government, and also to had get rid of rival groups, like the ones you mentioned.
Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
>When a public figure you used to support disappoints you in some substantial way, it's best to change your views Why? Just because an author disappoints you, doesn't mean you need to try to undo your enjoyment of a book they wrote.
Solzhenitsyn in particular is a political writer/figure who largely overshadows in the West other Soviet dissidents. His (put mildly) ethnocentrism discredits the overall message and makes him unsuitable champion of their case.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. He isn't a champion of whatever, and nobody is trying to make him one. He's a dead author, that's it. This isn't a religious movement or something, it is people liking a book. People liked a book, then you said they aren't allowed to like it because you used one of the progressive thought terminating cliches.
Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there factual errors in it? I haven't seen any actual valid criticism of the factual content of the book, just "its antisemitic ban it don't let anyone read it!".
I assume that most books must contain some false sentences. They are certainly worrying in a serious scholarly work, but not in the case of "Two Hundred Years Together", which is an informal essay that nobody is expected to use as the ultimate reference on historical facts.
I don't understand. You assume the book is wrong but that doesn't matter because it isn't serious? It is serious, and I am not aware of anything incorrect in it. The criticism is not its accuracy, it is that it says things you're not allowed to say.
Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting that one cannot critique Jews without being called an anti-Semite.
The problem is deeper than that. All discussion is absurd on both sides and nobody knows or understands the history that led to things getting this way. Particular peeves of mine are 'the Jews killed Jesus' and the 'usury' thing. There is no evidence for the 'Jews killed Jesus' meme that has been doing the rounds for almost two millennia. Yet it persists like an extremely bad penny. The 'usury' thing - Jewish bankers…
> There is no evidence for the 'Jews killed Jesus' meme that has been doing the rounds for almost two millennia.
Err, it's in the Bible? I mean if you believe Jesus existed and that the New Testament is an accurate recollection of his life, then Jesus (who was himself Jewish) was indeed killed at the request of the Jewish authorities at the time (not that it justifies modern antisemitism in any way obviously).
But yeah, weird that you'd mention that specifically! There are a lot more absurd memes circulating about Jews (elders of zion, etc.) than the "Jews killed Jesus" meme, which did actually happen (if you believe in the veracity of the New Testament).