Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie
"Socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death."
Not a bad quote! Mr. S certainly went through a lot of suffering and was a grand voice against communism but he was also an anti-semite and a Russian nationalist who opposed the ambitions to freedom of the other soviet republics. Like all of us, he was not perfect and on balance was a force for good and a provocative voice who made us think outside our own little box. RIP
|
Camaraderie damns with faint praise.
That the man could have been anti-semitic, unlikely given the pool in which he swam, would be no more unlikely than the anti-semitism of a Roosevelt, Churchill, or the vast majority of western thought throughout the majority of the twentieth century. It was then, and is now, exceedingly important as to which side of Manhassett Bay one grew up on isn't it? I'm afraid that the likes of Sharansky and thers might have a bone to pick with notions of Solzhynitsen's anti-jewry.
Apparently the dichotomy of one-world order versus nationalism escapes our reader as well. The World split speech still resonates precisely because of the prominence of the one-worlders, the EU, and the UN which only, in the end, are thwarted by nationalist, if not patriotic, forces. Solzhynitsen's Russian nationalism was to be quite expected. Denied his whole life a nation-state to call home, I'm hardly surprised.
Compared with his writings and resistance I'd say these were mere trifles, if even that. The editors of the National Review seem to agree:
The Editors on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on National Review Online
The Cato Institute takes similar NPR ideas to task:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/...zhenitsyn-rip/
Norman Podhoretz, editor-at-large for Commentary magazine, and a man who knows a bit about anti-semitism, sees no sign of it other than in ther fevered imaginations of Russian historians:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/vi...rticle_id=6952
Likewise from Commentary, Jeri Laber explains his intense nationalism.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/vi...rticle_id=5365
That he was not a classic liberal democrat cannot be denied but then, we see how Russian attempts at liberal democracy are working out, don't we? He may have been prescient in this regard as well; Russia may be better governed authoritatively, at least as she now stands. That his vision for Russia or even some of his thoughts on liberal democracy rankle the modern sensibility cannot detract from the fact that before Reagan, before Thatcher, and before Pope John Paul there was Solzhenitsyn and he told "truth to power" in ways unimaginable to those commonly associated with the phrase. We forget to our cost that he lived in an era wherein appeasement and diplomacy were the watchwords of a good part of the world regarding matters Soviet. Much of western thought consisted of, "I've seen the future, and it works", regarding Soviet communism. Solzhenitsyn made sure that that lie would die the death it deserved. That he possessed human foibles and weaknesses cannot, and should not, be cited as detractions of the singular service he performed for mankind.