Re: Alexis de Tocqueville, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Mahan (whatif?)

[ Home ][ Home ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]

Re: Alexis de Tocqueville, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Mahan

Posted on: Tue, 23 May 2006 23:23:08 +0000 (UTC)

"You simply don't understand situation. By the time he wrote
Archipelago, his chance to end up in GULAG was minuscule comparing to
the chance
to end in jail for reading this book. He was too famous, Breznev was
not Stalin and international situation was quite different: relations
with
the West mattered and putting a big fish like him, Maximov or Galitz in
jail was not a very smart thing to do."

Had they thrown him in the locker and stopped him from publishing, One
Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovic, his status wouldn't have done him
alot of good. Nikita may have been feeling liberal, but something that
bad might have got him into trouble. This qualifies as risk. Don't
forget, he didn't close down the Archapelago.

"In the terms of fighting for democracy, Sakharov's contribution was
much greater."

This seems off topic to this argument in general. I'm not discusing
Sakharov, whether or not his contributions are more important then
Solzehenitsyn's. This point is up for debate, and because I'm not
familiar with what Sakharov did (other then the obvious stuff), I won't
discus it here. If someone else wants to take this point up, be my
guest.

"Can you specify, what exactly he _did_ to change system?"

Subtle changes, may not be seen, but are just as real. The damage this
book did to Soviet P.R. was critical to the regime, especially in the
field of espionage.

"Good fight usuallyumes that you have a good purpose. Monarchy in
Russia would not qualify."

How could you have a monarchy, seems the obvious reply. All the of the
Tsar's family are dead, and their is no key noble how could have held
the throne.

"or worse, suspending moral judgements
on a cause that you serve. "

It just seems wrong the extreme left, the guys who are suppose to be
defending a free society, backing leftists like Castro and Chavez. This
is a tangent, but it really pisses me off.

"Good fight usuallyumes that you have a good purpose. Monarchy in
Russia would not qualify."

We can rehash this argument over and over again. I say democrat- I have
my evidence (which I believe to be right), you say Monarchist (which
you believe to be right). Clearly, we've managed to rehash this enough
times. I would prefer to move to the Mahan timeline, or the Tocqueville
one.

[ Home ][ Home ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]