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

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself

the-tls.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself

#91

Post by badpun »

ethelward wrote: post #19
doombolt wrote: post #7

Earlier 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…

> The Gulag system was a very harsh penal colony system

This is incorrect - the purpose of a penal colony system is to host criminals, while most people who were imprisoned in Gulag were innocent. It looks like the real purpose of the system was to convert innocent Soviet citizens' bodies into energy needed for physical labor. People captured in the system got worked to the bone and were on starvation-level food rations. In the process of physical work, their bodies burned their tissues as fuel (in lieu of insufficient external calories being provided in food), which lead to death of malnutrition and starvation within a couple of years. Millions of people were used this way to complete great industrial projects at minimal costs. This is not a penal system, this is Auschwitz.

Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself

#92

Post by nec4b »

andrepd wrote: post #88
nec4b wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know who he disappointed, but he didn't disappoint me. His analysis of murderous regime is spot on, and there is no discussion about that. There are only character assassinations and name callings for totally unrelated things from his opponents. First discreditation, then disqualification and lastly liquidation.

What about the killings and other atrocities committed by Putin's oligarchy? What about the suppression of dissent? What do you think of that, I'm genuinely curious. This is not an attempt to derail, it's that how can "his analysis of murderous regimes be spot on" if he supports Putin?

Well maybe he is imperfect. He did some things in his life right and some wrong. Aren't you like that? If you make a mistake today, does that invalidate all your previous work? And please have some perspective. Putin's Russia is not a place where I would want to live today, but compared to the Soviet union, I would take Putin's Russia in a heartbeat.

Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself

#93

Post by scottlocklin »

andrepd wrote: post #87
scottlocklin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point being? Point and sputter isn't much of an argument, even with great goblins like the ones you mention above. Franco by any sane measure, was a much lesser goblin. As was his next door neighbor Salazar. For their times, and particularly considering their situations, they were fairly reasonable leaders. Which is probably why they were integrated into NATO.

Which is probably why they were integrated into NATO. They were integrated into NATO for the same reason that Fulgêncio Batista was propped up by the US, or the Iranian Shah, or the guy that overthrew Jacobo Arbenz. That reason is: the US benefited economically and militarily from that situation, and any other considerations (moral, ethical, the well-being of the people, whether it was democratic) simply did not ente…

I simply can argue morality when discussing this, actually, and just did. Again, point and sputter isn't an argument, and your argument will appear absurd in a few decades, as "point and sputter" at Napoleon was among Victorian gentlemen in the UK.

I didn't say anything about democracy, and confounding this word with the word "morality" is pretty ... questionable. That was one of the points that Solzhenitsyn made very well; go read his speech to Harvard.

The US picked Franco as an Ally, yes, because it served US interests. The US also allied with a lot of unsavory spanish speaking dictators in latin america; mostly for the same reason -they saw generalissimo types as a lesser evil to communist revolutionaries. All things considered, it was a reasonable thing to do. Communist body counts were considerably higher than all of these put together.

Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself

#94

Post by scottlocklin »

andrepd wrote: post #81
scottlocklin wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't actually a fascist regime (the Falangists were brought under political control by Franco); it was a standard issue military dictatorship, encompassing many right wing tendencies. Including things most English speakers would consider bonkers, like Carlism, which was a movement to install ... some other guy (from a slightly different branch of the Bourbon family) on the Spanish throne. Carlism was arguably mo…

It wasn't actually a fascist regime It is as much not a fascist regime as Hitler's wasn't, in that you can argue academically that there are better terms to describe it than "fascist". Nonetheless, you can clearly identify a set of characteristics that Franco's Spain has in common with fascist ideology, therefore you can call it fascist (among other terms that some argue are more descriptive). Franco also wasn't and…

Unless you consider 'fascism' to be "stuff adrepd don't like," Franco's system of government was not fascist. The Falange, a movement eventually coopted into Francoism, was the local fascist contingent, and they weren't super popular. As I stated above, giving a mini lesson on Spanish mid 20th century history; reading a book will serve you better than point and sputter. Please go read a book and keep your point and sputter to yourself.

Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself

#95

Post by matt4077 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #85
matt4077 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an anti-semitic rewriting of history. The first Politburo was: Lenin (his mother's father was jewish. Judaism is transmitted maternally, so neither of Lenin's parents were jewish, and neither was he) Trotsky: jewish Stalin: Not jewish. Launched Anti-semitic campaign around '50 Lev Kamelev: Jewish father, orthodox mother -> not jewish (see above) Nikolay Krestinsky Not jewish So that's 1/5, or 20%, and you're…

"Judaism is transmitted maternally, so neither of Lenin's parents were jewish, and neither was he" Wait, Judaism is transmitted? Like a disease?

Sorry, non-native speaker. What’s better? “Inherited”?

Edit: “passed down” is most common, but “transmitted” isn’t totally unheard of. Transmission also touches many concepts other than diseases, such as messages, traditions, DNA, Torrents, or torque.

In this light, your interpretations seems somewhat bad-faithy and I retract that “sorry”.

Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself

#96

Post by gandhium »

ethelward wrote: post #19
doombolt wrote: post #7

Earlier 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…

> with mortality rates under 10%

More than 10%, and much more in some places or during some periods.

Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself

#97

Post by agsdfgsd »

enriquto wrote: post #64
agsdfgsd wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is certainly inaccurate (thus, false) in some concrete numbers. Most famously, it says that in the first Soviet government almost all of the ministers were jewish people; in fact it was less than a half of them who were jewish. I am not saying that the book is not serious. It gives a valuable personal perspective of important historical facts. But it should not be used as a source of factual data.

>Most famously, it says that in the first Soviet government almost all of the ministers were jewish people; in fact it was less than a half of them who were jewish.

I think you are confusing him with Putin, who actually said that. He said the cheka was mostly jewish. Which is correct.

Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself

#98

Post by frereubu »

99052882514569 wrote: post #70
frereubu wrote: post #2

Reading The Gulag Archipelago at university changed my life. I'd been reading Dostoyevsky for a bit, which I was enjoying, but The Gulag Archipelago was the book that opened my eyes to the idea that literature could have fierce moral purpose. I also loved the fact it was dripping with deadpan sarcasm and irony. A wonderful response for the powerless to take given the Kafkaesque situations that people found themselves…

If you found the Gulag Archipelago insightful (the word 'enjoyed' seems wrong in this context), I highly recommend The Kolyma Tales[1] by Varlam Shalamov. Shalamov spent 17 years in 'hard labour' camps, in total. His work is more like a historical novel, akin to "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich", but more raw and visceral. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kolyma_Tales

Thanks, I'll take a look.

Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as he saw himself

#99

Post by frereubu »

burger_moon wrote: post #73
frereubu wrote: post #2

Reading The Gulag Archipelago at university changed my life. I'd been reading Dostoyevsky for a bit, which I was enjoying, but The Gulag Archipelago was the book that opened my eyes to the idea that literature could have fierce moral purpose. I also loved the fact it was dripping with deadpan sarcasm and irony. A wonderful response for the powerless to take given the Kafkaesque situations that people found themselves…

I've tried several times to read different Dostoyevsky stories but just can't follow them. It's written in too 'complicated' sentences I guess. It doesn't read like modern sentence structure I guess is how I would describe it. I'm just not smart enough to follow along without spending a lot of time rereading sentences trying to understand what is being said. It's like trying to read Shakespeare for me. I wish there w…

It took me a long time to wrap my head around literature like this. I read nothing but simple sci-fi and fantasy as a teenager, and it wasn't until I got to university that I tried reading "literature". The first one was The Brothers Karamazov, which I picked up off my dad's shelf. I struggled for 150+ pages, until something clicked - I think I'd tuned into the way Dostoyevsky (or, more accurately, the translator) wrote or something like that. Not everyone has to enjoy this stuff - it's not worth beating yourself up if you don't like it - but I'd encourage you to stick with it for quite a while because, at least in my case, the rewards are more than worth it once you've tuned in. Having said that, I tried to read The Brothers Karamazov again recently and found it terribly histrionic, so there are definitely some books that click more at different times in life.
Post reply on HN