This book consists of a long essay Solzhenitsyn wrote in 1980 for <i>Foreign Affairs</i> magazine, some reaction letters from readers (mostly university professors) and Solzhenitsyn's rebuttal to the letters. I liked the format because it shows both sides of the issue and you get the back-and-forth of a debate.
The essay addresses an important question, especially for those who think real Communism hasn't been tried yet because it's always been adulterated by the local history and traditions of the countries where it was implemented. Did the mass murders, oppressive policies, and other negative features of the Soviet government have their roots in some evil tendency from Russia's tsarist past which re-emerged under Stalin, or does the evil reside in Communism itself? Solzhenitsyn argues the latter position, pointing out the intellectual roots of Bolshevism and misconceptions about both 19th century Russia, often presented as worse than it really was, and Lenin's government, often presented as the antithesis to Stalin, when Stalin was just continuing the same policies.
The letter-writers cite, among other things, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, and some of the features of Nicholas II's reign as providing precedent for oppression, and Solzhenitsyn shows why their arguments are implausible or based on a mistaken interpretation of historical facts.
Very interesting reading for those interested in the Cold War and for those who are puzzled about how an economic system with an awful track record every place it's been tried still attracts supporters.
The essay addresses an important question, especially for those who think real Communism hasn't been tried yet because it's always been adulterated by the local history and traditions of the countries where it was implemented. Did the mass murders, oppressive policies, and other negative features of the Soviet government have their roots in some evil tendency from Russia's tsarist past which re-emerged under Stalin, or does the evil reside in Communism itself? Solzhenitsyn argues the latter position, pointing out the intellectual roots of Bolshevism and misconceptions about both 19th century Russia, often presented as worse than it really was, and Lenin's government, often presented as the antithesis to Stalin, when Stalin was just continuing the same policies.
The letter-writers cite, among other things, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, and some of the features of Nicholas II's reign as providing precedent for oppression, and Solzhenitsyn shows why their arguments are implausible or based on a mistaken interpretation of historical facts.
Very interesting reading for those interested in the Cold War and for those who are puzzled about how an economic system with an awful track record every place it's been tried still attracts supporters.
No comments:
Post a Comment