rchapman
patreon
The Gulag Archipelago - Book Review
🕑 Added 2020-12-11 23:04:42 +0000 UTCHey all, I made a satirical video review of Gulag Archipelago a while ago for my Youtube channel that I ended up deleting once I decided to commit to a more somber, straightforward approach to the channel. I wrote a serious review at the time because I had thoughts that didn't fit in a satire format that I wanted to share, so I thought I'd share them here. So here's my serious review:
The Gulag Archipelago works on two levels: as a polemic against the atrocities the Soviet Union committed against their own people, and as a study of how society can turn mad. I’m particularly drawn to the conceptual nature of the latter point. Solzhenitsyn believed that every human being is capable of evil under the right circumstances (his thesis: ’The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being’). Therefore, all societies are capable of evil, and are incapable of eliminating the potential for evil, since no one wants to remove (or is even able to remove) a piece of their own heart.
Solzhenitsyn thought the Soviet Union went so wrong because it set up an inverse relationship between reward and moral character: incentivizing evil and disincentivizing good. Stalin and his Party trained people to submissively go along with the atrocities they were committing. If you kept your head down and your mouth shut, there was a good chance you’d be left alone. If you leaned into moral courage and resisted in some way, you’d be punished with torture, hard labor, and in many cases execution. The party officials willing to commit the worst atrocities were rewarded handsomely and enjoyed immense power over prisoners and the rest of society.
Solzhenitsyn also thought Marxism itself had much to do with it, since Marxism is a philosophy that wraps itself in moral righteousness. He thought that Stalin truly believed that he was doing good, and that set the stage for political horror. If someone is utterly convinced that they’re ultimately on the side of good, they might be especially willing to commit what they see as temporary atrocities to reach long term utopian goals.
I felt an urge throughout to apply these ideas to American society. On one hand the comparison feels absurd. But the basic comparison does work, or at least I think it must work on some level. In some ways immoral behavior is certainly incentivized in fields like business, finance, perhaps media and politics (i.e. the fields that bring you power), but I’m not sure about moral behavior being disincentivized. Maybe that’s our saving grace. A society can function with immoral behavior, but a society can’t function if moral behavior can’t rise to counter, or even overcome it.
As to the second point, I think the moral blindness that comes along with feelings of righteousness could be applied to our foreign policy decisions, but I think it’s even more salient at lower levels - the dynamics within movements and the dynamics within our own minds. It makes me think of the heroic figures of our past who have taught us that we shouldn't temporarily sacrifice our principles for higher goals. Doing that comes at the cost of moral authority, and that’s when the whole thing starts going sideways, impeding the progress of movements and blemishing the character of those involved.
Back to the book. The Gulag Archipelago isn’t for the faint hearted and will likely make you feel more alive having read it. Is that a recommendation? I suppose so. I, and probably most people aware of the book, held off reading it for a long time because of its length. If you’re on the fence about reading it, I’d say (some will cringe at this) you could read certain chapters and still come away with the gist of what’s on offer. Those chapters are: Arrest, The History Of Our Sewage Disposal System, The Interrogation, The Bluecaps, First Cell First Love, Women In Camp, The Kids, Why Did We Stand For It?, and The Law Today. Obviously reading the entire book will give you a more thorough picture of what he was trying to say. So make of that what you will.
- Ryan
Comments
Anthony Cassens
I read all 3 volumes - almost 2,000 pages - which was rather daring since I'm 82 years old and hesitate to even buy green bananas. I also recommend Anne Applebaum's "Gulag - A History". She has travelled to Russia and is fluent in the language. She had access to files that Solzhenitsyn did not. For better or worse I'll not be around to see the end game in America. In many respects current events remind me of a 2006 movie, "Idiocracy". Tony Cassens
Anthony Barrios
Reading my previous post I realize I was so naive in those days, back in early June. ... I have a question for you. This is the first time as an educated adult that im looking at any of this not as part of a class but just for life. I always analyze things conservatively and try to gather only the deductive conclusions. But, I did NOT know it was going to be so easy to see culpability from the beginning to the end. That is, the way Marx structured things, a HUGE inner meltdown was inevitable. In fact, I would have pictured Russia at the top of the globe with almost no more ppl there. It was a little odd the proletariat believed it, but if it was simply a thing that was “offered” rather than bargained for, then it’s not so weird. Anyway, imagining the moment Lenin was contacted that the citizens finally “rose up”, and demanded the state take the wealth of the BG’s and redistribute it as per their new philosophy, that was the moment Lenin realized he was soon to be the richest man in history, discreetly. Maybe he was the world’s first trillionaire. The prolatariot would have experienced an interesting sense of enlightenment and liberation for a day or so. Sometimes, while millions of ppl dying of starvation by the millions in consecutive years while Lenin. At some point, the Boug, after having been relieved of their wealth, they were told they were going to a collective which turned out to be a 30 mile ride to the deep forest where they would be left with no food, water or tools. Eventually, millions died every year of famine while they still confiscated land and money. I haven't talked much to ppl about this bc it is far too harsh for the avg person to swallow and I will be accused of being a conspiracy theorist within minutes. So, am I in the ballpark to say that this was basically the biggest crime in the history of man, right? If so, WHY aren’t ppl referring to it as “Criminal Method” or something more revealing? Btw, adding what you say regarding the origin of CRT from Traditional theory to Critical Theory + Marxism to Critical Theory +Marxism + racial frame works well. By that I mean, ppl read it, and left a like. I put a lot of silly stuff in between the dark places. I noticed you aren't scared off by dark stuff. In fact, you express it in such an even-toned way that it doesn't sound as bad. That you do that thing where you suggest ppl check their awareness and be kind to ppl is an excellent outro. It is just like how a good meditation session should end. Btw, I have an explanation of why SYSTEMIC RACISM is a fallacious concept and what purpose it serves here. Peterson and Dr. Azar were wrestling with it. It is too obscure for anyone to ever have heard of, but you will be familiar with the use of the fallacy, itself, in normal language, without ever having heard anyone criticize it. That is not a comment about you. You were humble about it but your logic is actually quite good. That is a comment about how obscure this concept is. "Bertrand Russell's Theory of Definite Descriptions" I’ll try to send it later tonight. I promise you will not have heard anyone successfully take it apart. Anthony
