Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Resquiat in Pacem

[Bud Struggle]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4454809.ece

He was the conscience of a nation whose writings exposed the horrors of the Communist Gulag and galvanised Russian opposition to the tyranny of the Soviet Union.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s long struggle for his beloved Russia ended last night at his home in Moscow, 14 years after he had returned in triumph from exile imposed by the Soviet regime that he had helped to bring down. His son Stepan said that the Nobel laureate had suffered heart failure, aged 89.

The former dissident had been in failing health for some years. He lived long enough to be fêted by a Kremlin that had once condemned him to slave labour. The former Russian president, Vladimir Putin, once a KGB officer, travelled to Solzhenitsyn’s home to present him with the State Prize for humanitarian achievement last year, thanking him for “all your work for the good of Russia”.

Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970 after writing in harrowing detail about the system of Soviet labour camps in works such as One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and The Gulag Archipelago.

A project to publish Solzhenitsyn’s complete works in his homeland for the first time was begun in 2006. The author hinted at the time that he did not expect to live to see the 30-volume project completed in 2010.

The literary celebration would have been unthinkable in 1974, when Solzhenitsyn was expelled from the Soviet Union and stripped of his citizenship soon after the first part of The Gulag Archipelago appeared in the West. The three-volume work, which took a decade to complete, forced many Western sympathisers to revise their views of the Soviet regime.

Solzhenitsyn spent eight years in labour camps for criticising Stalin in letters to a schoolfriend in 1945 after serving in the army throughout the Second World War. On his release in 1953, he was sent into internal exile in Kazakhstan, where he developed cancer. His experiences formed the basis of the novelsThe First Circleand Cancer Ward. An edited version of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich was published in the Soviet Union in 1962 during the cultural thaw under Nikita Khrushchev.

The censors rejected other manuscripts, however, as the KGB placed Solzhenitsyn under increasing scrutiny for “antiSoviet” activity. His Nobel Prize for Literature was denounced as an act of political hostility, but he continued to smuggle work out to the West while underground samizdat copies circulated in Russia.

The cellist Mstislav Rostropovich protested against Solzhenitsyn’s persecution and sheltered the writer in the early 1970s. His support attracted official harassment that forced Rostropovich to flee to Paris in 1974. Solzhenitsyn moved to Germany and Switzerland after his expulsion before settling in the US in 1976. Mikhail Gorbachev restored his citizenship in 1990 and he returned to Russia in 1994, where he professed himself shocked at the impoverished condition of the people.

He was strongly critical of the new Russian society that emerged from Communism, attacking corruption and calling for a return to traditional patriotism. He was noticeably warmer about Mr Putin, however, saying that he had taken steps to “save Russia’s statehood”. In a video message recorded in response to his award from Mr Putin, Solzhenitsyn said that he hoped his work would help Russia to avoid “destructive breakdowns” in future.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One less anti-Semite to deal with... :thumbup1:

[RedAnarchist]

I couldn't care less to be honest. One less anti-Communist idiot who didn't even know what Communism actually was. He was an anti-Semite and a nationalist.

[Killfacer]

excellent author, it would seem people here are more aware of the accuracy of his books than people in russia.

[forward]

I read his book one day in the life of ivan denisovich. i really liked it and it gave me insight on what the gulags were actually like. cant even believe you dont care, redanarchist, sure hell he knew what communism is, afterall he lived under it. he got sent to the gulag for insulting stalin. that is how oppressive it was. didn't know he was antisemetic tho. ????

[Bud Struggle]

I read his book one day in the life of ivan denisovich. i really liked it and it gave me insight on what the gulags were actually like. cant even believe you dont care, redanarchist, sure hell he knew what communism is, afterall he lived under it. he got sent to the gulag for insulting stalin. that is how oppressive it was. didn't know he was antisemetic tho. ????

He was anti-semit a bit. He was anti-Communist a lot.

He exposed the problems with Marxist-Communist society and how it failed in real life. Marxism in real life sucks-and Solzhenitsyn explained EXACTLY what Marx in real life means to people.

The Faith Based Marxists on RevLeft would rather quote their theories and mouth their standard rhetoric.

If you show them real life they come at you with their "BUT READ THIS".

Time to reinvent Communism in the Non-Marxist mold.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Solzhenitsyn was a Tsarist, a radical traditionalist. He hated Western democracy and liberalism as much as he hated communism. He literally wanted a return to the "good old days" of monarchy, feudalism, and a peasant society.

The only reason the West embraced him was because he was anti-communist, and, even more importantly, he was a Russian isolationist. He wanted Russia to cut itself off from the rest of the world - which, during the Cold War, sounded to the West like a brilliant idea.

[Bud Struggle]

Solzhenitsyn was a Tsarist, a radical traditionalist. He hated Western democracy and liberalism as much as he hated communism. He literally wanted a return to the "good old days" of monarchy, feudalism, and a peasant society.

The only reason the West embraced him was because he was anti-communist, and, even more importantly, he was a Russian isolationist. He wanted Russia to cut itself off from the rest of the world - which, during the Cold War, sounded to the West like a brilliant idea.

While Solzhenitsyn had his pecadellos, he was brilliant in catching the essence of the horror of being a dissenter in Soviet society.

No question that he had his problems--but in the things he accurately portrayed, he was a genius.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Question #1: How do you know he "accurately portrayed" whatever he was supposed to have accurately portrayed?

Observation: Given that his political and moral views can only be described as evil, even by Western liberal standards, I must say that Solzhenitsyn deserved the treatment he got in the Soviet Union.

Question #2: If the protagonist of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag stories happened to be evil, wouldn't that change the way you interpret everything in those stories?

Solzhenitsyn wasn't a fascist, but he was just as bad. So, for the sake of the argument, imagine all that nasty Gulag stuff was happening to a fascist. All of a sudden it's not so bad any more, is it?

[forward]

he got sent to the gulags for insulting stalin

[pusher robot]

Observation: Given that his political and moral views can only be described as evil, even by Western liberal standards, I must say that Solzhenitsyn deserved the treatment he got in the Soviet Union.

Hmmm. Given that you believe that a person's views - that is, his thoughts, expressed to others - are sufficient justification to abuse him, imprison him, possibly kill him, and that this can only be described as evil, even by pinko commie standards, I must say that you deserve far worse treatment than you get.

[Demogorgon]

I have little sympathy for the man. Despite what he went through, he was still perfectly happy to advocate similar measures to his own political enemies.

Okay, he described what went on in the gulags, and that has value, but generally I prefer my accounts of what happened there from people it is possible to sympathise with.

For the record, I do not think that what was done to him was right. He was a horrible excuse for a human being, but human nonetheless and deserving of being treated with the dignity that that should bring about. But again, try as I might, I have no sympathy for him.

[forward]

he was horrible because he was anticommunist? he did nothing to warrant being sent to the gulags. must i explain the reason he got send there again? it was because he critisize stalin. that was all. please, you have not lived in soviet russia, you do not know what it was like. i respect him for dissent in the corrupt regime that was the USSR.

[Bud Struggle]

Question #1: How do you know he "accurately portrayed" whatever he was supposed to have accurately portrayed?

Observation: Given that his political and moral views can only be described as evil, even by Western liberal standards, I must say that Solzhenitsyn deserved the treatment he got in the Soviet Union. Fair enough I don't actually "know" that everything he was was accurate--much in the way I don't "know" the Diary of Ane Frank" is accurate. But there have been scant refutations of hes writing in the post Soviet Russia. Good enough for me. As a matter of fact--even the outlandish claims of the book--that 1/4 the population of Leningrad was shipped to Gulags was prooved subsequestly to be true.


Question #2: If the protagonist of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag stories happened to be evil, wouldn't that change the way you interpret everything in those stories?

Solzhenitsyn wasn't a fascist, but he was just as bad. So, for the sake of the argument, imagine all that nasty Gulag stuff was happening to a fascist. All of a sudden it's not so bad any more, is it?

You my friend should know better than anyone that there can be no Evil without a Good, without a Supreme good--there is only naughty and nice.

But it's a point of the book to say the prisioner was a zek--a POLITICAL PRISONER. He opposed the Soviet Union and that was his crime--he actually may not have been in opposition to the Soviet Union, but that was never a real point as long as he was believed to be a opponent of the regime. He just made a comment about Stalin.

As to all this happening to a Fascist--and for argument's sake a real one: Hermann Goring (not one of those 16 yo idiots who don't have a clue.) That's exactly what shouldn't happen to him. See, that's the point of a "morality"--it's not eye for eye. It's justice. Goring should be punished, he should be incarcerated, he should maybe sweat a bit, but he shouldn't be tortured--that would make US as bad as him.

The point of justice isn't to cause suffering. It's to REMOVE a cause of suffering from the world.

That's what makes us civilized and the Nazis and the Soviets--not so much.

[danyboy27]

never read anything made by him, but now i think i will. its not like if he was a rich dude that flee his country and whine about all day long, he endured, he survived, he told what he lived trought.

soviet union wasnt perfect, had his flaws, he pointed those out, he was jailed and punished for that.

a lot of people here are happy of his death, but its by the lack of criticism of those kind of people that the soviet union failed to progress.

if the governement had realized that a society need free speech to earlier, perhaps the soviet union would exist again.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

He was anti-semit a bit. He was anti-Communist a lot.

He exposed the problems with Marxist-Communist society and how it failed in real life. Marxism in real life sucks-and Solzhenitsyn explained EXACTLY what Marx in real life means to people.



The EZLN illustrates you and Mister Tzar apologist are wrong.

"But MY ideology says Marxism is the scourge of the Earth...."

[Baconator]

Since he was an anti-Semite....

(Side note: anti-Semite is a particularly nasty term to throw around and comes loaded with implications, most of them not even based on fact. Sort of like Godwin's law with 'Nazis.')

...but perhaps he noticed the strange correlation between Jewish culture and Communism and why so many Jewish intellectuals ( as a result of Jewish childhood mythology and conditioning) were easily drawn to communism. However, I highly doubt he could make the correlation since he was a nationalist ( same sickness as communism or religion). He probably used the same collectivist justifications for his nationalist positions as communist do for theirs or religious Jews do for theirs. The irony..

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hmmm. Given that you believe that a person's views - that is, his thoughts, expressed to others - are sufficient justification to abuse him, imprison him, possibly kill him...
Yes and no.

Yes, I do believe that a person's views - that is, his thoughts expressed to others - can, in certain cases, be evil enough to justify abusing, imprisoning, or possibly killing this person. I would have no problem with torturing and killing Hitler, for example, way back in 1919, after he developed his Nazi views but before he actually did anything about them. I believe that people like Ayn Rand, or Hayek, or Nozick, or Margaret Thatcher deserve(ed) nothing but death.

But no, I do not believe the state, or the community, or any other collective institution should be in the business of punishing such people - or any people - for their views. This is because every time you make it illegal for people to hold a certain opinion, you get witch hunts (or their modern equivalent, Stalinist purges). It's impossible to "prove" what people think, therefore people's thoughts can never be the object of a fair trial. Moreover, when you make it illegal to hold certain views, the people holding those views don't go away - they just learn to lie and pretend to agree with you, which makes them more dangerous, because they can infiltrate into the highest levels of your government (e.g. Deng Xiaoping). Better to encourage your enemies to speak freely so that you know who they are.

In other words, yes, some people deserve the Gulag, but no, I don't think we should give them what they deserve, because it's bad policy. I will always defend free speech, not because I like it, but because it is a very, very necessary evil.

[Plagueround]

The point of justice isn't to cause suffering. It's to REMOVE a cause of suffering from the world.

That's what makes us civilized and the Nazis and the Soviets--not so much.

Seriously?

Ok, I'm going to go into "Mr. Rodgers like kids show mode" to respond to this one:

Hi kids! I'm an American Indian. If you haven't met me or anyone like me before, that's ok because the United States government killed most of us and we're hard to find these days. While the U.S. was busy killing most of us and rounding the rest up into tiny portions of the lands we once lived in, they also brutally forced several South American and Middle Eastern countries into submission for various reasons, from fear of communism to securing the banana market. I love bananas, don't you?
As I understand, a few years back they also dropped two atomic weapons on cities full of civilians. The ones that didn't die instantly suffered a long time from radiation poisoning. Oopsie!
Now, you might say to yourself "Plagueround, those aren't examples of unfair inprisonment! You're just being silly!"
Well kids, even though most of those events did include a lot of imprisonment, rape, torture, and death, just recently America got a little embarassed when some not so nice pictures and evidence of secret and not so secret prisons where they mercilessly torture people who may or may not have links to Islamic terror organizations they helped build. And you know what kids, that was just a few things I thought of just now. With a little research and determination, you too can find so many more atrocities to explore! America sure is swell.

[danyboy27]

the soviet union ahd the us did exactly the same thing, at differents moments of history.
the only difference between the soviet union ahd america was that the soviet union did al his nasty shit when the technology of information was rising.

back in the 18s you can wipe out an entiere people without having nobody on your back, beccause its gonna be forgotten and nobody gonna tell jack shit about it.

to me, one bad dosnt excuse the other, but all those event happened long time ago, and blaming the russian or the american will not bring the indian of the soviet dissent to live again.

[Trystan]

His argument against communism was one giant strawman.

He blamed Lenin and Trotsky for the gulag while idolizing police-state tsarism. What idiocy. And the west see him as an angelic democrat . . . balls.

[communard resolution]

I read his "One Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich" and found it to be an intensely tedious read. To get to the end of it was a struggle comparable to actually being imprisoned in a gulag for a day, so maybe that's where Solzhenitsyn's literary 'genius' lay.

As for his antisemitism, I cannot pass judgment because my knowledge of his works is limited. I do know, however, that he was an outspoken supporter of Franco's fascist regime and as such an embarrassment even to the most fervently anticommunist elements in the West, not to mention his neverfading vision of reinstating Tsarism in Russia post WW2.

I wouldn't want anyone to be thrown in the gulag for committing thought crimes, but given Solzhenitsyn's far-right views I can easily see how he found himself in there.

Maybe you could point me to another book of his that could convince me of his literary genius?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ He wasn't much of a "literary genius" when he wrote his Letter to the Soviet Leaders, that's for sure.

[Pogue]

Was he actualy an anti-semite? I didn't like his analysis of Communism/Marxism being inherently totalitarian/violent, but I didn't think he was scum. He thought against the Nazi's in WW2, was he actualy genuinely racist?

[Publius]

Solzhenitsyn wasn't a fascist, but he was just as bad. So, for the sake of the argument, imagine all that nasty Gulag stuff was happening to a fascist. All of a sudden it's not so bad any more, is it?

Yes.

Yes it is.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If we took his logical fallacy to its end, Russian prisons in the '90s were reportedly worse than gulags after WW2...

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Hmmm. Given that you believe that a person's views - that is, his thoughts, expressed to others - are sufficient justification to abuse him, imprison him, possibly kill him, and that this can only be described as evil, even by pinko commie standards, I must say that you deserve far worse treatment than you get.
Far worse treatment like what pusher? I can only assume you mean imprisonment or some other form of abuse - based on his beliefs! It's like an endless cycle of hypocrisy in this thread isn't it?

[Spartacist]

Rot you bastard, rot.

[danyboy27]

Rot you bastard, rot.

you know, that beccause of people like you that i dont trust maxism anymore.
no wonder communism is loosing support with such views.

[RHIZOMES]

Glad he's dead. Should've happened 60 years earlier.

[Plagueround]

you know, that beccause of people like you that i dont trust maxism anymore.
no wonder communism is loosing support with such views.

While I don't really agree with the rude and childish outbursts against Solzhenitsyn, it would be a piss poor reason to abandon an ideology.

[Lynx]

This is not productive. Is it therapeutic?

I'm reminded of Orwell's 3(?) minutes of hate and a certain Mr. Goldstein...

Who's next? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Posner ?

[danyboy27]

While I don't really agree with the rude and childish outbursts against Solzhenitsyn, it would be a piss poor reason to abandon an ideology.

i didnt abandonned my ideology for that, i abandonned my ideology beccause when i realised that being a communist was to obey to all those dogma, and to fallow the mythics instructions of some old folk that developed tehory 100 year ago, i realized that communism wasnt for me.

and each time that i see such harsh, narrominded, cruel judgement, it remember me how right i was to change my way.

you know, after tomk made his post, i expected that, i expected a global trolling attack against the whole news. its was predictible, since there is so much people here that secretly love stalin,or at least support what he did back then.

this was an old man, he had an opinion against communism, and you attacked him for that. shotload of people here in the IO been banned beccause of the terrible intelorance of your folks.

that why i am not a communist anymore.

[Bud Struggle]

i didnt abandonned my ideology for that, i abandonned my ideology beccause when i realised that being a communist was to obey to all those dogma, and to fallow the mythics instructions of some old folk that developed tehory 100 year ago, i realized that communism wasnt for me.

and each time that i see such harsh, narrominded, cruel judgement, it remember me how right i was to change my way.

you know, after tomk made his post, i expected that, i expected a global trolling attack against the whole news. its was predictible, since there is so much people here that secretly love stalin,or at least support what he did back then.

this was an old man, he had an opinion against communism, and you attacked him for that. shotload of people here in the IO been banned beccause of the terrible intelorance of your folks.

that why i am not a communist anymore.

We Capitalists are all loving and kind, my child--we will take you in. :D

Seriously, there are three kinds of people here--just like in any other forum on the web. The good interesting people that debate fairly and honestly--give and take good points--maybe a jab in fun now and then, but interesting and informative people.

Then there's the "gotta win every argument and if you disagree with him you are a f-ing moron." Some good points to what they say--but they make it clear that they are brilliant and you are a fool at least once in every paragraph.

Then there are the: people that go for the one liners of shock. If the quality of posters in the first category outweights the other two--then a forum is a fairly good place to post. If not it's time to move on.

No need to change your political beliefs for some a-holes. There are a lot of well meaning and really good people on this forum.

[danyboy27]

i didnt changed my belief for them, but they remember me every time why i changed.

[Plagueround]

i didnt abandonned my ideology for that, i abandonned my ideology beccause when i realised that being a communist was to obey to all those dogma, and to fallow the mythics instructions of some old folk that developed tehory 100 year ago, i realized that communism wasnt for me.

Revleft is not the end all be all of socialist or communist theory, practice, or organization. Neither was Marx.


and each time that i see such harsh, narrominded, cruel judgement, it remember me how right i was to change my way.It's irritating I agree, but it's not exclusive to leftist thought. Go check out any other forum on the internet.


you know, after tomk made his post, i expected that, i expected a global trolling attack against the whole news. its was predictible, since there is so much people here that secretly love stalin,or at least support what he did back then.It was rather predictable, and when I saw it in the news I secretly wondered to myself if there was a thread here yet. :laugh:
I wouldn't say the majority of people here love Stalin, secretly or otherwise. A few people here do, others seem to want to look past just automatically hating the man based on "America good, USSR bad" rhetoric. (I'm not a huge fan myself, but I have my reasons).


this was an old man, he had an opinion against communism, and you attacked him for that. shotload of people here in the IO been banned beccause of the terrible intelorance of your folks.I didn't attack him, I posted a cute rebuttal against Tom's assertion that America isn't brutal like it's neighbors. As far as the banning, the only people I've seen get banned are the ones that cannot contribute to debate. The OI isn't a ban, it's an attempt to focus discussion so every forum here isn't like the OI. Think of it like this: You can be as vile, hateful, and racist as you want. If you walk into someone's home and act in this manner, they have the right to restrict you from entering their home.


that why i am not a communist anymore.Farewell then comrade. I'd recommend reconciling your belief based on personal choice and not others...there are nasty people from every walk of life...that's life. Might I ask what you believe now?



This is not productive. Is it therapeutic?

I'm reminded of Orwell's 3(?) minutes of hate and a certain Mr. Goldstein...


Also, this. 100%.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

you know, that beccause of people like you that i dont trust maxism anymore.
no wonder communism is loosing support with such views.

Maxim has its own ideology? Sonuva*****es!

Communist sentiment is rekindling in most of the world. I think you're stuck in the '80s.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Can someone tell me why should anyone feel sorry for the death of an anti-semite, an anti-communist, a pro-vietnam war writer that spent more time criticizing soviet "attrocities" in WW2 Germany than the Nazi regime itself! Solzhenitsyn was not a proponent of democracy he was a Czarist Russia nostalgic.

I urge you to read "Two Hundred Years Together", a book that confirms Solzhenitsyn's anti-Semitic views as well as his ideas of Russian supremacy to other nations.

The only reason, Solzhenitsyn is so glorified by the west is because he was an opponent of communism.

[communard resolution]

I urge you to read "Two Hundred Years Together", a book that confirms Solzhenitsyn's anti-Semitic views as well as his ideas of Russian supremacy to other nations.

Have you read it? I haven't. Wiki says that in that book he proposes both Christians and Jews should face up to "their people's" involvement in Bolshevism and that he ultimately favours a reconciliation between Christians and Jews. So apparently he's anticommunist but not antisemitic. Can you confirm this? What does he really say in that book?

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Have you read it? I haven't. Wiki says that in that book he proposes both Christians and Jews should face up to "their people's" involvement in Bolshevism and that he ultimately favours a reconciliation between Christians and Jews. So apparently he's anticommunist but not antisemitic. Can you confirm this? What does he really say in that book?

Yes I have, the book is basicly a major history of the Jews in Russia. What he writes is an anti-Jewish tract that masquerades as an honest accounting of the historic relationship between Russian Jews and Russians - as if Jews aren't Russians. He writes, "the population of Russia, as a whole, regarded the new terror as a Jewish terror."

In defending the book he said : "I appeal to both sides--the Russians and the Jews--for patient mutual understanding and admission of their own share of sin." This comment seems suspicious in itself, given that, for most of their history in Russia, Jews were victims of systematic oppression and violence. To talk about mutual guilt is a bit like asking blacks to accept their share of blame for Jim Crow.

In that book as well as in the The Gulag Archipelago and August 1914 antisemitism makes itself clear. The Gulag Archipelago dwells on the camp guards with Jewish names while August 1914 exaggerates Jewish influences in Russian history.

In general Solzhenitsyn adopts the conspiracy theories of the Nazis that jews are to blame for communism and capitalism and tries to establish a connection between the leaders of the october revolution and jewish ancestry

[Bud Struggle]

i didnt changed my belief for them, but they remember me every time why i changed.

On the other hand--as nasty as many people seem to be around here, you can look at a neo-Nazi forum like New Saxon and see that wacko hate monger people that post there--are really pretty nice and pretty friendly.

http://newsaxon.org/forum/

I kind of wonder who in the end will wind the hearts and minds of the proletariat.

[edit] oh, and there's lots of females on New Saxon--unlike the RevLeft Almost all boys club.

[danyboy27]

yea the way those nazi are posting extremely racist stuff quietly is pretty scary.
i think they are a lot more dangerous than the people here, who talk a lot and do do shit.

nazi suck ass, always hated them.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

On the other hand--as nasty as many people seem to be around here, you can look at a neo-Nazi forum like New Saxon and see that wacko hate monger people that post there--are really pretty nice and pretty friendly.

http://newsaxon.org/forum/

I kind of wonder who in the end will wind the hearts and minds of the proletariat.

[edit] oh, and there's lots of females on New Saxon--unlike the RevLeft Almost all boys club.
Actually there are quite a few females on RevLeft, they just don't post in OI.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

On the other hand--as nasty as many people seem to be around here, you can look at a neo-Nazi forum like New Saxon and see that wacko hate monger people that post there--are really pretty nice and pretty friendly.

//newsaxon. org/forum/

I kind of wonder who in the end will wind the hearts and minds of the proletariat.

[edit] oh, and there's lots of females on New Saxon--unlike the RevLeft Almost all boys club.

Can someone break that link? We don't need trackback from fash. And can someone warn tom for complimenting human fecal matter?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Can someone break that link? We don't need trackback from fash. And can someone warn tom for complimenting human fecal matter?
They can't trace any traffic back to us because of a feature installed on the site.

That was a very childish and trollish comment from TomK though, kind of like "you're even less cool than the Nazis".

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

They can't trace any traffic back to us because of a feature installed on the site.

That was a very childish and trollish comment from TomK though, kind of like "you're even less cool than the Nazis".

Ah. Just my instincts kicking in.

And yes he did imply that nazis were nicer people than us. Which is horrid, since they advocate genocide, and we just want to take over some factories.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Pretzel man sold out his mates to the guards for some smokes, and you guys are calling him a genius and wonderful person. Truly compassionate. :rolleyes: Better attach some magnets to my corpse when I die; the spinning shouldn't go to waste.


He went well beyond what they could tolerate. For example, he called for direct intervention by the United States in the USSR -- of a sort that could very well lead to war and, far short of that, is likely to harm the Russian dissidents themselves. Also, he denounced American weakness in abandoning the struggle to subdue the Vietnamese resistance, publicly opposed democratic reforms in Spain, supported a journal that called for censorship in the United States, and so on. Nonetheless, the press never ceased marveling at what an absolute moral giant this man was. In our petty lives, we can barely imagine such heights of moral grandeur.http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/08/solzhenitsyn-and-right.html

Tolstoy, he ain't.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

On the other hand--as nasty as many people seem to be around here, you can look at a neo-Nazi forum like New Saxon and see that wacko hate monger people that post there--are really pretty nice and pretty friendly.

http://newsaxon.org/forum/

I kind of wonder who in the end will wind the hearts and minds of the proletariat.

[edit] oh, and there's lots of females on New Saxon--unlike the RevLeft Almost all boys club.

Excuse us for getting infuriated by people who apologize for a despicable man with blood on his own hands. Anything anti-communist is taken as good by contemporary society, regardless if this counterweight committed genocide, banned democracy, or sold out his friends for some cigarettes. I guess he was all for Russians - until his nicotine habit kicked in?

This is the same shit that was passed off when Pinochet died. The thousands of deaths and destruction of democracy were treated as "necessary positives." The very fact you resorted to complimenting fascist white supremacists makes me all the more disgusted. I'm sure Hitler was nice to his tea buddies, too.

If there is a hell, he should have a nice plot of fire right next to Stalin. And maybe someone can spoon feed him some good Russian literature.

[Bright Banana Beard]

This is a shame, TomK. :mellow:

[Buster Flynn]

Dear comrades of all stripes,

To all those of us crying over the 'gulag' legacy-- and particular shame on those of us who are citizens of the USA, the biggest jailer on the planet while as its 'citizens' we feed it with much taxes and little protest every year-- please consider the explosive growth of far-right, neo-nazi, bonehead-type violence in Russia these days. The violence, naturally, started against 'immigrants' from the central Asian republics, and the 30 or so intrepid homosexuals insisting on their right to march in Moscow. Do you really think people who kill immigrants to keep their precious 'race' pure should not be locked up? Nay, some go so far as to defend poor, persecuted Solzhenitsyn, a nazi collaborator and Jew-hater who may have gone to jail in the 1940s or '50s, but died in 2008, world-famous and widely celebrated by our class enemies? Excuse me, but then why the eff are you even here? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

Moreover, do you really think such a movement came out of nothing and nowhere? Or are those in the New-Russian nazi movement the type of population that used to go to 'gulags,' but under the wonders of neoliberal capitalism are now free to run riot and kill innocent people for daring to express, you know, some difference in public? And some of you are still yelling about Stalin doing something like that, what, 50-some years ago? 70? w-t-f, over?

With all due respect, comrades-- it's head out of hindside time. Big time. Cuz you and I both know who they go after, after they're done with the 'immigrants' and the homosexuals. Solzhenitsyn should be seen as the sharp edge of the social-lobotomist's tool that he is. And his beatification should be resisted accordingly.

Thanks for bothering to read my opinion on the question :D I hope it could add something to the discussion, whether you're inclined to agree with it or not.

[communard resolution]

Moreover, do you really think such a movement came out of nothing and nowhere? Or are those in the New-Russian nazi movement the type of population that used to go to 'gulags,' but under the wonders of neoliberal capitalism are now free to run riot and kill innocent people for daring to express, you know, some difference in public?

That's what I was wondering too. Difficult question:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/antisemitism-and-neo-t86059/index.html

[Bud Struggle]

Ah. Just my instincts kicking in.

And yes he did imply that nazis were nicer people than us. Which is horrid, since they advocate genocide, and we just want to take over some factories.

If you read what I was saying--you could see that I was
BEING SARCASTIC.

What I was saying is that they have a pleasent sales technique--not that they have anything useful to say--but in the battle for the hearts and minds of the world, I do think the Fascists are doing quite well.

You in Britain, Joe? Tell me who has the greater presence Communists or Nazis?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

If you read what I was saying--you could see that I was
BEING SARCASTIC.

What I was saying is that they have a pleasent sales technique--not that they have anything useful to say--but in the battle for the hearts and minds of the world, I do think the Fascists are doing quite well.

You in Britain, Joe? Tell me who has the greater presence Communists or Nazis?
You in Ireland Tom? Fascists are non-existent as a political force here. Socialists are quite a strong force.

[Bud Struggle]

Excuse us for getting infuriated by people who apologize for a despicable man with blood on his own hands. Anything anti-communist is taken as good by contemporary society, regardless if this counterweight committed genocide, banned democracy, or sold out his friends for some cigarettes. I guess he was all for Russians - until his nicotine habit kicked in?

This is the same shit that was passed off when Pinochet died. The thousands of deaths and destruction of democracy were treated as "necessary positives." The very fact you resorted to complimenting fascist white supremacists makes me all the more disgusted. I'm sure Hitler was nice to his tea buddies, too.

If there is a hell, he should have a nice plot of fire right next to Stalin. And maybe someone can spoon feed him some good Russian literature.

LOOK! My issue here is that in a lot of ways tyou Commies have a really brilliant and (neo)workable plan for the betterment of humanity. But you are a bunch of doctrinare cummeogeons that really seem to care less about humanity than if your side in the Communist battle wins. All your talk of "you MORON! didn't you read about the XYZ int he foonote of page 342 in the third book of Das Kapital!" is killing you. Really and truly. You have a great plan with lousy people to execute it.

The Nazis preach hate and murder and evil. They also trade recipies and bake cookies and are pretty damn forgiving to those of similar but not IDENTICAL mind. They have a sucky philosophy, but seem to be a lot nicer and kinder. More friendly and sweeter to the average guy that wonders in to their website. They are looking for believers--Most of you RevLefters are looking for power.

If only we could get Communist ideals with the Nazi posters--that would be a winner!!! :D :D

[Bud Struggle]

You in Ireland Tom? Fascists are non-existent as a political force here. Socialists are quite a strong force.

I own property in Ireland--Capitalism is the main force there.

By far.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I own property in Ireland--Capitalism is the main force there.

By far.
Dodging the issue. No one is claiming that capitalism isn't the main force there. But you're saying that Nazis are more popular than socialists. Not the case in Ireland. Not at all.

And I think my living here my entire life beats your property in the credibility stakes.

[Bud Struggle]

Dodging the issue. No one is claiming that capitalism isn't the main force there. But you're saying that Nazis are more popular than socialists. Not the case in Ireland. Not at all.

And I think my living here my entire life beats your property in the credibility stakes.

Of course. Ireland is a sweet little country that's been involved in other matters other than world politics for lo' these many years.

But look at the rest of Europe. They had some butt head in Serbia doing ETHNIC CLENSING for heaven's sake just a couple of years ago. He murdered THOUSANDS. Ten years ago right down the road form you. Look at Germany. And England. Look at Russia!

There's no Nazi's in the US, no Communists either.

I just find it all pretty interesting.

[Plagueround]

LOOK! My issue here is that in a lot of ways tyou Commies have a really brilliant and (neo)workable plan for the betterment of humanity. But you are a bunch of doctrinare cummeogeons that really seem to care less about humanity than if your side in the Communist battle wins. All your talk of "you MORON! didn't you read about the XYZ int he foonote of page 342 in the third book of Das Kapital!" is killing you. Really and truly. You have a great plan with lousy people to execute it.

The Nazis preach hate and murder and evil. They also trade recipies and bake cookies and are pretty damn forgiving to those of similar but not IDENTICAL mind. They have a sucky philosophy, but seem to be a lot nicer and kinder. More friendly and sweeter to the average guy that wonders in to their website. They are looking for believers--Most of you RevLefters are looking for power.

If only we could get Communist ideals with the Nazi posters--that would be a winner!!! :D :D

The man has a point.



There's no Nazi's in the US.


You've never been to Idaho I take it? ;)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

LOOK! My issue here is that in a lot of ways tyou Commies have a really brilliant and (neo)workable plan for the betterment of humanity. But you are a bunch of doctrinare cummeogeons that really seem to care less about humanity than if your side in the Communist battle wins. All your talk of "you MORON! didn't you read about the XYZ int he foonote of page 342 in the third book of Das Kapital!" is killing you. Really and truly. You have a great plan with lousy people to execute it.

The Nazis preach hate and murder and evil. They also trade recipies and bake cookies and are pretty damn forgiving to those of similar but not IDENTICAL mind. They have a sucky philosophy, but seem to be a lot nicer and kinder. More friendly and sweeter to the average guy that wonders in to their website. They are looking for believers--Most of you RevLefters are looking for power.

If only we could get Communist ideals with the Nazi posters--that would be a winner!!! :D :D

About half of the users here aren't even Marxist, so getting one's ear pricked about not interpreting Marx only comes up when one tries to quote him in a reportedly false light. I'm personally against restrictions, but many ideology-based forums do the exact same thing. FreeRepublic (Republican) and DemocraticUnderground (Democrats) are, respectfully, the biggest communities for either side, and they ban opposing opinions - from everywhere.

Sometimes the restriction process goes about unfairly, but 99% of the people who end up here are genuinely antagonistic towards the post-capitalist movement in some fashion or another: either they're capitalists, pre-capitalists, racists, sexists, homophobic, transphobic, and/or they support dramatically unintelligent moves like using the death penalty against drug users.

I've frequented Stormfront before and I can't say the atmosphere is much better there than it is here. Where the women there are nice and fit in their place and talk about the wonderful national socialist backing parties that will go on, the women here are more individualistic. There's is an ideology based around hate, or in their minds difference. Fascism has no real set of qualifiers. It's pretty easy to get along when you're not concerned with trampling over people's rights, or when your movement is established and differences wouldn't do you in (conservatives, liberals). Libertarians suffer from the same in-fighting. Every convention they hold is a bitter contest between the anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, and 'constitutionalists.' From there you have disagreements over Rothbardian or Friedmonian capitalism; Von Mises or his pupil? Abortion or no? Intellectual property or no? There's an especially hilarious scenario that played out a few years ago where Von Mises called a group of libertarians "socialists" and stormed out (like a kid, according to Friedman) because they disagreed with the system he envisioned.

Outside of the political forums I've found discussions pretty tempered. The biggest problems I see are 1.) those who just fall into the rebellious stage where it's cool to hate on the rich and envision utopia and 2.) the disregard some have for a transition that will take into account the needs of the most people. For example, I've been interested in looking at how geoism and socialism could merge, with the eventual goal being socialism taking over. Since Henry George didn't invoke class differences beyond landlord and landless (although he was pro-labor), it takes time to even convince others that geoism can be progressive.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Outside of the political forums I've found discussions pretty tempered. The biggest problems I see are 1.) those who just fall into the rebellious stage where it's cool to hate on the rich and envision utopia and 2.) the disregard some have for a transition that will take into account the needs of the most people. For example, I've been interested in looking at how geoism and socialism could merge, with the eventual goal being socialism taking over. Since Henry George didn't invoke class differences beyond landlord and landless (although he was pro-labor), it takes time to even convince others that geoism can be progressive.


Needs of most people? How do georgists fall into this category? There's like what? 80 of them in the US? The agorists, geolibs, etc. are a web based group of white, middle aged men. We don't need to pay attention to them.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Needs of most people? How do georgists fall into this category? There's like what? 80 of them in the US? The agorists, geolibs, etc. are a web based group of white, middle aged men. We don't need to pay attention to them.

You realize the statement "white, middle aged men" has racist undertones, right?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

You realize the statement "white, middle aged men" has racist undertones, right?

I'm pointing out that they are a very small group of people, from a very homogeneous demographic. Nor do they have a history of mass movements or mass bases. Thus they're not representative of "most people."