A World Split Apart – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1978)

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.

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 better.

In a way, he's insisting on the individual and he's striking some right chords.

But at the same time, as many critics of the occident, he refuses to ask himself for the reasons of its success...

It's one think to criticize it and explain what does not work.

But then, why does it work as a whole?

What's the catch?

Sounds to me a lot like Nietzsche’s prediction of the impact of the “death of God”.

Solzhenitsyn primarily focuses in this speech, it seems to me, on there being a growing lack of subordination to a higher spiritual purpose in the West, similar to that in the East, both having predictable consequences in terms of the collapse and eventual destruction of those societies. (Materialism and “anthropocentricity” take over and life loses its meaning.)

The superficial shape of the collapse in the East (under Communism) is different to that of the West, but according to him both suffer from the same underlying disease.

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.

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 death squads and dictators in central and south america, atrocities by US solders in vietnam, some student uprisings in france, and maybe some cartoon images of what factcat capitalists represent.

In the few short decades since the fall of the berlin wall, most western institutions are now headed by people who see themselves first as activists playing a role while dissolving national systems of oppression in service of global coordination. Usually in subordination to supra-national coordinating bodies like the EU, WEF, UN, World Bank, and other central committees designed to limit sovereignty and "freedom." There are reasons to believe there are some constructive possibilities in them, but without understanding what the people behind them are motivated by and intend, you can be relied upon to do nothing.

It's said that history is written by the victors, but in fact it's just the writing of history that is the measure of victory, where what people believe about themselves is the artifact of the stories and narratives they receive. e.g. "hearts and minds." It is the literal means of production of the idea of self. Are you the creation of a being whose intent is for you to thrive in harmony with others who appreciate and share that gift, and use its revealed will to produce offspring of your own toward whom you have similar intent, or are you an undifferentiated clump of cells actuated by need and a struggle over finite resources? The strategies of each are different, and persuading people that they are the latter lets you enslave them. Bladerunner 2049 deals with this theme pretty well. Beings raised without souls do what they are told for the pleasure of ones who are more aware.

If a word you use to describe this dissonant view is "problematic," I'd look hard at my memories and beliefs to find which ones were the effects of specific physical experiences and which ones were arrived at through ideas I had received, and how much of my ontology was just the iterated logic of a few received ideas. (Happy Sunday!)

Solzhenisyn's appeals to spiritual values seem quaint, but maybe they're useful for younger people trying to piece together what happened just before the narrative bubble they inhabit took hold in the west. When it clicks that separating your idea of self from a relationship to the divine dilutes your humanity and reduces you to the level of an animal, the motives of the people doing it should become absolutely clear. Good luck.