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

A World Split Apart (1978)

solzhenitsyncenter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: A World Split Apart (1978)

#11

Post by failuser »

AlbertCory wrote: post #10
globalnode wrote: post #2

Wierd old school read... he seems pro war? I was enjoying his observations of east vs west philosophy until he lamented the withdrawal from Vietnam. Oh well.

You win today's prize for Adolescent Shallowness. "he seems pro war" > But should I be asked, instead, whether I would propose the West, such as it is today, as a model to my country, I would frankly have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through deep suffering, people in our country have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that…

What do you mean people were not allowed to have material things? Joining the party and becoming a part of nomenklatura so you can get western stuff and a Volga was a dream of Soviet citizens. Getting anything, often even food in USSR required a personal connection (blat).

Re: A World Split Apart (1978)

#12

Post by soufron »

motohagiography wrote: post #7

A more straighforward variation on these ideas is in his address in accepting the Templeton Prize: https://www.templetonprize.org/laureate-sub/solzhenitsyn-acc... Solzhenitsyn is almost unheard of by anyone under the age of 40 because the history of the cold war was recorded through an anti-capitalist lens. I'd venture most of what you know about it reduces to McCarthyism, heroic labor movements, some US support for…

He's also mistaking the balance of forces here. He's believing that being calm and peaceful would mean that the West is lacking willpower. But nothing could be less true. Maintaining the welfare state requires a lot of willpower. And we know today that capitalism is not for the weaks. But he does not get it.

Re: A World Split Apart (1978)

#13

Post by pdonis »

ttyprintk wrote: post #5
soufron wrote: post #3

Behind the acidity of the text, it's not really agressive. He's adopting a radically critical posture that is a bit missing from the Occidental perspective. Radical critics do exist in the Occident. But they don't focus on the same issues, and especially not on the moral issues. They tend to focus on the systemic organization of the occidental society, explaining how systemic changes could change its course for the b…

In hindsight, his least-extendable point is about Christianity. Today, it’s the political right that embraces materialism (he assumes left) and the left that understands the biblical sacrifice. 44 Presidents before Trump grew up in our system and we have some idea what a religious experience could do to any of them. We have no idea how Trump would react to religion. The left has a major movement to sacrifice their po…

> Today, it’s the political right that embraces materialism (he assumes left) and the left that understands the biblical sacrifice.

I agree with you about today's right, but disagree strongly about the left. The left is, if anything, even more materialistic than the right. The belief that providing enough material goods will fix all problems is behind the left's disastrous push to have governments provide everything to everyone: welfare, health care, open borders, etc.

Re: A World Split Apart (1978)

#14

Post by AlbertCory »

failuser wrote: post #11
AlbertCory wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You win today's prize for Adolescent Shallowness. "he seems pro war" > But should I be asked, instead, whether I would propose the West, such as it is today, as a model to my country, I would frankly have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through deep suffering, people in our country have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that…

What do you mean people were not allowed to have material things? Joining the party and becoming a part of nomenklatura so you can get western stuff and a Volga was a dream of Soviet citizens. Getting anything, often even food in USSR required a personal connection (blat).

You're right; I should have said, "not allowed unless you have the connections."

Of course, as I understand it, if your background was too bourgeois, then your application for Party membership was rejected.

Re: A World Split Apart (1978)

#15

Post by slibhb »

I'm a fan of Solzhenitsyn as a writer. The First Circle justly won him the Nobel. But this speech has not aged well.

> For one thousand years Russia belonged to such a category, although Western thinking systematically committed the mistake of denying its special character and therefore never understood it

The idea that Russia is a separate civilization with a great destiny is a cause of Russia's imperialism in Eastern Europe. That was true under the tsars, in the USSR, and it's true today.

Moreover, Solzhenitsyn's harping on the spiritual decay of the West brings to mind a modern post-liberal blogger. Solzhenitsyn was a contrarian, and this led to significant heroism, but it also prevented him from recognizing liberalism as a goal for Russia. And today, Putin's weird mix of far right larping, belief in Russia's special destiny, and throwback chauvinism could plausibly claim late-Solzhenitsyn as its progenitor.

Re: A World Split Apart (1978)

#16

Post by ttyprintk »

pdonis wrote: post #13
ttyprintk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In hindsight, his least-extendable point is about Christianity. Today, it’s the political right that embraces materialism (he assumes left) and the left that understands the biblical sacrifice. 44 Presidents before Trump grew up in our system and we have some idea what a religious experience could do to any of them. We have no idea how Trump would react to religion. The left has a major movement to sacrifice their po…

> Today, it’s the political right that embraces materialism (he assumes left) and the left that understands the biblical sacrifice. I agree with you about today's right, but disagree strongly about the left. The left is, if anything, even more materialistic than the right. The belief that providing enough material goods will fix all problems is behind the left's disastrous push to have governments provide everything…

I’m sure I’ll give away my age on this.

Boomers were raised by the first consumer generation in America: the theory of consumerism to escape a permanent Great Depression. It went unquestioned that the value proposition for physical possessions might be so high that it verges on patriotic. Boomers are by far the biggest spenders.

But the important young people today are overseas. This is a statement about numbers and it’s a statement about young people in USA prioritizing sustainability. The value proposition to young Americans is reasonable for health care and nutrition/food stamps, and perhaps unreasonable for cable TV and corporate bailouts.

The original Green New Deal, the 2006 package of single-payer health care, job guarantees, free college paid by a carbon tax; that’s hard for me to call materialistic. Huge spending to offset the next generation’s collapsing consumerism.

Re: A World Split Apart (1978)

#17

Post by pdonis »

ttyprintk wrote: post #16
pdonis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Today, it’s the political right that embraces materialism (he assumes left) and the left that understands the biblical sacrifice. I agree with you about today's right, but disagree strongly about the left. The left is, if anything, even more materialistic than the right. The belief that providing enough material goods will fix all problems is behind the left's disastrous push to have governments provide everything…

I’m sure I’ll give away my age on this. Boomers were raised by the first consumer generation in America: the theory of consumerism to escape a permanent Great Depression. It went unquestioned that the value proposition for physical possessions might be so high that it verges on patriotic. Boomers are by far the biggest spenders. But the important young people today are overseas. This is a statement about numbers and…

> The original Green New Deal, the 2006 package of single-payer health care, job guarantees, free college paid by a carbon tax; that’s hard for me to call materialistic.

Sure it's materialistic. By "health care" is meant care of one's physical health; it doesn't provide you with friendship or community. (Indeed, the left has been systematically destroying all private sources of friendship and community, leaving only government work and leftist political activism as "approved" ways to get your social needs met.) Jobs are so you can buy stuff. College is so you can get a higher paying job so you can buy more stuff. To the extent this is to "offset collapsing consumerism", it's by giving people ways to continue consuming.

Re: A World Split Apart (1978)

#18

Post by ttyprintk »

pdonis wrote: post #17
ttyprintk wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure I’ll give away my age on this. Boomers were raised by the first consumer generation in America: the theory of consumerism to escape a permanent Great Depression. It went unquestioned that the value proposition for physical possessions might be so high that it verges on patriotic. Boomers are by far the biggest spenders. But the important young people today are overseas. This is a statement about numbers and…

> The original Green New Deal, the 2006 package of single-payer health care, job guarantees, free college paid by a carbon tax; that’s hard for me to call materialistic. Sure it's materialistic. By "health care" is meant care of one's physical health; it doesn't provide you with friendship or community. (Indeed, the left has been systematically destroying all private sources of friendship and community, leaving only…

If materialism is increasing in Western society, then it’s because people increasingly value affluence as a measure of social standing. I think we agree on that. I think what you’re saying is: conspicuously paying more money for health insurance, or paying for more people, is a signal about affluence. What I’m saying is: only the rich don’t need health insurance. Only the rich don’t need college. Paying for those with a carbon tax reinforces Wikipedia’s definition (that environmentalism is directly opposed to materialism).

Re: A World Split Apart (1978)

#19

Post by pdonis »

ttyprintk wrote: post #18
pdonis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The original Green New Deal, the 2006 package of single-payer health care, job guarantees, free college paid by a carbon tax; that’s hard for me to call materialistic. Sure it's materialistic. By "health care" is meant care of one's physical health; it doesn't provide you with friendship or community. (Indeed, the left has been systematically destroying all private sources of friendship and community, leaving only…

If materialism is increasing in Western society, then it’s because people increasingly value affluence as a measure of social standing. I think we agree on that. I think what you’re saying is: conspicuously paying more money for health insurance, or paying for more people, is a signal about affluence. What I’m saying is: only the rich don’t need health insurance. Only the rich don’t need college. Paying for those wit…

> think what you’re saying is: conspicuously paying more money for health insurance, or paying for more people, is a signal about affluence.

No, I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that having the government provide health insurance, and welfare, food stamps, college, etc., etc., all the things leftists say governments should provide, is only providing material benefits. You were arguing that these leftist policies are evidence that leftism is not materialistic; I was refuting that argument. It has nothing to do with affluence; even if leftists' wildest dreams came true and all the rich people's wealth was redistributed to the poor, so everyone had an equal amount of wealth, all that would still only be providing material benefits.

Post reply on HN