Solzhenitsyn es el autor del famoso libro Archipielago Gulag (aún no lo he leído) y relata la historia de cientos de muertos y desaparecidos en los tan temidos campos de concentración rusos.  El conversatorio será el día de hoy 27 de agosto de 6pm a 8pm en el Centro Cultural de la Universidad Francisco Marroquín (Plaza de la Libertad, salón CS-101) en la 6a. calle final, zona 10.

¡No se lo pierdan!

"For a country to have a great writer is like having a second government. That is why no regime has ever loved great writers, only minor ones."

"El que un país tenga un gran escritor es similar a la existencia de otro gobierno (democrático).  Esa es la razón por la que ningún regimen (totalitario, dictatorial) ha tenido grandes escritores, sólo ha tenido escritores mediocres."

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Join us now to Defeat the Runner Initiative.

<!--

Take Action

Ask CAHU to Withdraw Support

The California Association of Healthcare Underwriters, a health care lobbying group, is one of the first and largest organizational supporters of the Runner Initiative. We've asked them to withdraw their support because it will actually take money away from health care. Send them a message and ask them to leave Runner behind!

Email CAHU

-->

Latest News

An entire book or thesis could be written on this subject and probably has somewhere.   We'll explore a few distinctions.  Under the Commies there was only one party as a matter of law.  Only those who were members of the Communist Party could even run for any office.  Originally, the idea was that there could be some diversity of opionion about how to achieve the Communist ideal and comrades could compete against each other.  That quickly went by the boards.  The Communist learned that a true democratic process can be rather messy and unpredictable.  The Politboro put the kabosh on that idea.   The Government was monolithic by law and design.   To participate in Government you were a Commie or you were out--period.  You could rise based on merit, intelligence and education.  But that was for the few and if you and your family weren't part of the Party your chances of advancement were virtually nil.  And your rise was controlled by the State.   What you became, where you lived, where you worked were all under the dominance of the State.  Remember only a tiny percent of the population was allowed to go to college.   Assume you were bright and got a college degree, then you were assigned where you would work and the type of work you would do.  You were expected to fill the needs of the State and to do so happily.   To request different work was considered disloyal and suspect.  To travel you needed a permit.  I mean travel inside the USSR.  Travel beyond the borders was restricted to diplomats and very few others.   If you were assigned to a job in Kiev and were leaving the University in Moscow you better take that direct route.  If you were caught going off on a little lark of the heart you could wind up in the Gulag.    Your job, your housing, your education, your travel and even free time were controlled by the State.   There was no freedom of religion.  It was banned and the churches were turned into museums or other public buildings.  Privacy was non existent.  If you wanted privacy that in and of itself was suspect.   Read Solzhenitzyn, read the biography of Stalin's daughter,  read anything by people who actually lived there.   If you or your group were deemed adverse to the Government's agenda you would be killed.  Read what happened in the Ukraine in the early '30's--the starving of the farmers who didn't like having to obey central government control.  Everything was controlled from Moscow.  Stalin killed more people than Hitler.  Stalin slaughtered more Poles than Hitler, check  the Katyn forect massacre as an example. (That was where thousands of Polish officers were executed because it was believed by the Commies that must have belonged to the wrong class or they wouldn't have been officers in the first place)   You belonged to the State.  Your loyalty was only for it or else.   Family was not first, the State.   Read the early John Le Carre novels, like The Spy Who Came In From The Cold. 

There was a structure to the Government.  But please read some good histories of that era and analyses of the USSR government structure.  There was an Assembly but it was eye wash.  The real power was with the Politboro which was a governing committee if you will.  Over it was Stalin or Lenin or the leader of the day all the way down to Gorbachev.   The local offices were filled from Moscow or at the direction of Moscow.   Different viewpoints were not tolerated and thus the central control mechanism.   Unions of course were prohibited.  After all it was a workers' paradise.  The Govenment took care of everything and  everyone was treated fairly and equally they maintained.   "Activists" and such were not allowed anymore than a preacher.  Yes, everyone had a roof over their head, they had free medical care, a free education and food on the table. 

The Arts--only as approved by the State.  An arthor could get in trouble merely submitting a book for publication that was found suspect by the authorities as not adhering to the Party line.   Movies, plays and any other entertainment likewise had to be given the seal of approval by the Government.  Merely possessing books, movies, paintings or poems from non USSR sources was a crime against the people.  Communism didn't exactly engender creativity but fostered conformity to the level of a religious tenet.

Of course there was caviar and Bering Sea lobster but who do you think was entitled to have those luxuries?  Likewise who got the other good food stuffs and the dachas in the countryside or on the shores of the Black Sea--yes, the Party big wigs and no one else.   The conformity and the lack of respect for the common man and lack of trust in the people lead to the eventual downfall of the Commies as much as anything else in one man's opinion.

Tomorrow we'll explore the ruffians of the Nazi elite.

My Grandpa Survived Siberia's GULAG 15 Years

By Laura J.

My granddad on my mother’s side was an amazing storyteller. He had a lot of interesting live stories that we heard with great interest. He had tremendous memory on names; he could remember them over the time of 30-40 years. Grandpa had a good sense of humor; it was always interesting to spend time with him. My granddaddy was the kindest man that I had ever seen. And what is more he didn’t try to expose this kindness openly, he just did good things quietly and silently.

My grandmamma was a very charismatic person. She was not of those who talk a lot, but when she began to talk every one else automatically, unwittingly lapsed into silence. She never reproached, never humiliated anybody, but raised the significance of people. Sometimes I think that she knew everything that I felt, thought about, like she could read my mind. Never did she make me feel myself miserable, unhappy. On the contrary, she cheered me up, inspired me to be better without words, one look from her was enough to feel it. My grandparents were totally unconflictive people. There was a true deep love between them. And they shared this love with us.  My grandpa outlived my grandma only on 48 days, he couldn’t live without her. They showed us a great example of love that lasted nearly 50 years.

Also I have grandpa from father’s side. He was legendary man. He studied at MGU and was an excellent student giving a huge hope. Unfortunately I have never seen him. He died 3 years before my birth, at the age of 83. He had a severe fate. At the dawn of his age he was sent to exile in to the most horrible gulag in Siberia, where he survived 15 years. My father told me that at that tormented place every one respected my granddad, because of his justice, erudition, wide reading and strength of will. Every day people next to him died, but he told to himself not to give up, repeating again and again: ‘”I will survive”. 

My Grandpa was sent to gulag as a nationalist (racist).  Well actually he was studying Moscow University, and once when he came to his native town in Kazakhstan he saw famine and poverty. After coming back to Moscow he went to Kremlin several times, in order to talk over this problem with Stalin. But there it was interpreted like nationalism, although my Grandfather was talking about Ukrainian people too (they had the same situation as Kazakhstan had). It was in 1937, the time of Stalin’s repressions, when every one who had any slightest kind of threat to the government was sent to exile.  My granddad in spite of everything survived. After that he taught a higher mathematics at university, and students called him “friend of people”, because he always stood up for ordinary people. On one of his classes he was given a letter where he read: “unguilty”. Tears welled up in his eyes. He was waiting for these words for many years being 15 agonizing years in gulag. All the time up to his death my grandfather was walking with papers on which he was solving difficult math problems.

I wish I knew him.

I had my eye on Gulag ever since it was published some years ago, so when I found a paperback copy some time last year, I had to buy it. Since then it had been eyeing me on my TBR-shelf, and I really wanted to pick it up, but somehow couldn't. Do you have that as well, having books on your TBR-pile that you are very much looking forward to reading, but somehow can't start yet, as if the time is not right? I very much felt like that with this book. Until two weeks ago. But then I couldn't put it down and tried to sneak in a few pages whenever I could.

Gulag: A History is exactly that: a history of the Gulag, the system of forced labor camps in the Soviet Union, from 1917 till the early nineties when the last few remaining camps were closed. It is actually the first comprehensive history of the Gulag ever written. Anne Applebaum did lots of research in archives in Russia and elsewhere, interviews with survivors and former camp guards and camp administrators and uses lots of quotes from the many, many memoirs that have been published about life in the Gulag-camps. She focuses mostly on the camps in Siberia and northern Russia, which is indeed where most of the forced labor camps were, though there were large complexes in Kazakhstan as well.

The largest part of the book is dedicated to the Stalinist era, when the camps reached their top, both in amount of camps and inhabitants and in "perfecting" its organisation. Gulag is divided into three parts. The first chronologically narrates the development of the Gulag-system from its beginning in 1917 until 1939. The second part describes life in the camps: each chapter has a theme, for example arrest and arrival in the camps; work; guards; the division between political prisoners and criminal prisoners; women and children; escape and rebellion; dying in the camps etc. I found especially the second part about life in the camps haunting, despite knowing what to expect. This is not the first book I have read about the Gulag, most notably I read Varlam Shalamov's Kolyma Tales a few years ago, which is another book that hits you straight in the face with its darkness, cruelty and rawness.

The third part is again told in chronological order from the start of the Second World War till the break-up of the Soviet Union. She points out how the post-war inhabitants of the camps were different from the pre-war ones and how this changed the rules in the camps, how the relationship between the political and the criminal prisoners changed because of this and how this eventually led to rebellion in the camps. Applebaum pays special attention to the many foreigners who inhabited the Gulag-camps from the Second World War on, the Baltic people, Poles, but also some of the Americans who ended up in the Gulag. Actually, I recently read a review of a newly published book especially about the Americans in the Gulag-camps, The Forsaken: From the Great Depression to the Gulags by Tim Tzouliadis.

Why do I keep reading these books about the Soviet Union, about Stalinism? Apart from having had a deep interest in Eastern-Europe for years (I ended up with an MA in Russian Studies) and in history and human rights, I don't know. I think the closest I can get to an answer is that in my experience, so much of peoples' mindset in the current independent countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union, so much of their way of thinking about themselves, society, the state, their role in it etc. has its roots in that era. Of course, things have changed since then, people don't think the way they did back then, people don't live in the fear of those times anymore, that is all gone. But the way some people long back to the Soviet era, because there was work, health care etc was free (note how they only remember the good things!); the way they think that protesting is useless because nothing will change anyway; the way they keep their own house spotlessly clean, but don't give a sh** about what happens outside their doorstep; I think that somehow all these attitudes (and these are just a few examples) go back to "those days" and to the Soviet period in general.

One of my pet peeves about living in Armenia, is exactly that: that people don't really care about what goes on beyond their own doorstep and that they are complaining about anything and everything, but don't seem to understand that it is possible to change things starting with yourself. If one person starts putting the trash in the trashcan, for example, instead of throwing it on the street or leaving it behind at the picnic site, that is something. I am a firm believer that one person can make a change and that small changes are worth a lot, that that is where the big changes start. Am I an idealist? Yes, probably. But a pragmatic one who has her feet planted firmly on the earth and doesn't keep her head in the clouds.

These two paragraphs are way too short to deal with this topic, and yes, I realize I am generalizing a lot, and that things aren't nearly as simple as what I just wrote down. But I think these are topics for an entire different post or series of posts.

Back You can read the Introduction of Gulag: A History here.

The name of Mollie Steimer, we trust will be recalled, if only very dimly, by some of the workers into whose hands this article may fall.

Mollie Steimer came as a child to the United States from Russia. When she was quite a young girl her rebellious spirit brought her into the real class struggle just at the time when the revolution in Russia broke out; and as a consequence of her activity with a number of other young workers who dared to denounce the action of the United States government in sending American soldiers to Siberia, she was brought before a United States court. Defiantly she stood up for her ideas. For this she had to spend two years in an American prison, after which she was deported to Russia.

But almost as soon as she stepped foot on her native soil, where a self-styled government of the workers ruled supreme, she found herself again in difficulty. She found the prisons of Bolshevik Russia filled just like those she had left behind. No, not with Grand Dukes and Czarist generals, but with working-men and women. They had dared to do in Russia what she had done in the United States - they had criticised the government - or were at least suspected of dissatisfaction.

For protesting against this, and for endeavouring to alleviate a little bit the suffering of these prisoners and of their families, she was thrown again into prison and finally deported from the land of her birth.

The capitalist government of the United States and the Communist government of Russia proved alike - that there is no real difference between one government and another no matter upon what pretensions it is founded. The Anarchists have all along contended that in the event of a Socialist state materialising it would prove not one iota less despotic than a capitalist one - nay, that by the nature of its position and its programme it was bound to prove even more ruthless in its suppression of all who dared to be dissatisfied or to demand real freedom from economic or political slavery. The “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” in Russia has only borne out that prediction.

How far the working masses of Russia are from that real freedom can be judged from Mollie Steimer’s letter, following:

Among other things it has been stated in the American press that I was very happy to leave Russia, and that I preferred exile in Germany to freedom in Russia. This statement attributed to me, is a deliberate lie!

It is true that the hypocrisy, intolerance, and the treachery of the Bolsheviks arouse in me a, feeling of indignation and revolt, but, as an Anarchist, I have no admiration nor defence for any government of any land, and the statement that I prefer exile in Germany rather than freedom in Russia is ridiculous and false.

I made it very clear to the press correspondent with whom I spoke that in spite of all the difficulties with which I had to put up with in Russia, I was deeply grieved when I was forced to leave that country. This was not true when I left America. Although I have my entire family, good comrades and many dear friends in the U.S.A. Yet, when I was deported from there by the capitalist government, my heart was light. It was not so in the case of Russia. Never have I felt so depressed as since I have been sentenced to exile from Russia. My love for Russia and its people is too deep for me to rejoice that I am an exile, especially at a time when they are undergoing extreme suffering and most severe persecution. On the contrary, I would prefer to be there, and together with the workers and peasants, search for a way to loosen the chains of Bolshevik tyranny.

I regard the Bolshevik government as the worst foe of Russia. Its system of espionage is perhaps worse than anywhere else in the world. Espionage overshadows all thought, all creative effort and action. Despite tales to the contrary told by foreign observers who have spent a few weeks or months on Russian soil under Bolshevik guides, and despite the statements of those who receive money from the Bolsheviks for their services, there is NO freedom of opinion in Russia. No one is permitted to express an opinion unless it be in favour of the ruling class. Should a worker dare say anything at a meeting of his factory or Union which is not favourable to the Communists, he is sure to land in prison or be booked by the agents of the G.P.U. (the new name for the Tcheka) as a counter-revolutionist. Thousands of workers, students, men and women of high intellectual attainments, as well as undeveloped but intelligent peasants, are languishing today in Soviet prisons. The world is told they are counter-revolutionists and bandits. Though they are the most idealistic and revolutionary flower of Russia, they are charged with all sorts of false charges before the world, while their persecutors, the “Communists” who exploit and terrorise the people, call themselves revolutionaries and the saviours of the oppressed. Behind revolutionary phraseology they hide deeds which no capitalist government on earth would be allowed to commit without a protest arising from the whole world.

Let me give a few examples of how the proletariat is treated by the co-called revolutionists:

On March 5, 1923, the Central Government Clothing Factory in Petrograd reduced the wages of its employees 30 per cent, without giving notice or making any explanation to any of them. When the salaries were handed out, each of the workers was under the impression that it was a clerical mistake, and went for an explanation to the office, with the result that 1,200 employees went simultaneously to ask why so much of their Pay was missing. To this the factory director replied that the people ought to be satisfied with what they get and ought to thank them (the directors and the government) for supplying them with work at all. Amazed at such an answer and boiling with indignation, they decided not to resume work until they got a satisfactory explanation. Union representatives were thereupon called, but those officials refused to come until the workers went back to their machines. The factory manager told them also that if they dared to strike, all of them would be considered counter-revolutionists and dealt with accordingly. Immediately the workers called a meeting. While they were discussing their grievances, the union representatives entered. But instead of sympathising with the workers, one of these “defenders of labour” pounded on the table with his fist and called in a thundering voice: “I order you back to work.”

Naturally, such behaviour only aroused all present to the highest pitch of excitement. The order was bitterly resented and the meeting continued. An old workingman got up and related the conditions under which he and his family were forced to live, and asked how on earth he could keep from starvation with the miserable wages he received. The description of his own life being the very mirror of the life they all led, resulted in the most pitiful scene. Everybody suddenly burst into tears. Young and old, men and women, all were crying, and several in the audience fainted.

A few hours after this came several chiefs representing the G.P.U., the Union and together with the head director of the Petrograd Clothing factories, announced that the wages would be reduced only 18 per cent instead of 30 per cent. The workers, thereupon decided to resume work and quietude prevailed in the factory. But at the end of the next week 120 workers, who were considered to be more outspoken and determined than the others, were discharged from the factory, thrown out of the Union, and put on the blacklist; that is, on their passports were written: “Citizen … discharged from the Central Government Clothing Factory for mutiny against the Workers and Peasants Government, with the purpose of taking over the factory.”

Thus, because these proletarians of the “Communist” state protested against a reduction in their wages, they were thrown out of the Union, and consequently they can no longer obtain work. What is still worse, they are registered by the G.P.U., as counter-revolutionists!

Now, let us take the case of Skorokhad factory. In June, 1923, the Leather Makers Union and the Communist Committee of the Skorokhad factory decided, without consulting the workers, that a club house of the district should be repaired at the expense of the Skorokhad workers (about 3,000 in number). Each of the various departments were told that it must work eight hours overtime to cover the expense of the club, and that “the other departments have already agreed to do so.” All departments without knowing about each other, indignantly refused on the following grounds; 1. That the club is not a workers’, but a Communist club, only Communist lectures are delivered there, and no other are permitted. 2. That even if they would agree in principle to working on behalf of the club, they resented the action of the Union officials and the “Communist” Committee, in having decided for them, as if they were so many cattle to do the work.

The workers demanded a meeting of the entire factory. This the Union and shop committee (which usually consists of Communists or Communist sympathisers) refused to grant. On that day no one remained working overtime. The next day, when this refusal was repeated, the doors of the factory were locked, and the customary passes that permit the workers to leave the factory were not given out. About half the workers then returned to work - the other half stood waiting until the two hours were up and the gates opened. Each evening of that week the same thing was repeated. The doors were locked and the passed not issued. Yet it was only under the threat of being discharged that the rest of the workers submitted. As usual, a week later, those workers of the various departments who did not act like cattle, but who showed character and spirit were discharged.

In the same month - June, 1923, - the workers of the Putilov factory and shipyard went out on strike, demanding an increase in their salaries and the discontinuance of the practice of deducting high taxation from their weekly pay. Out of the small wages that the workers receive in Russia, the Government orders - without consulting the workers, of course, - a certain amount be deducted for various purposes, such as the Red Army invalids, the Red Army and the Red Aeroplane Fleet, “Cultural” work, union dues and other countless things; because of these deductions, the workers, at times, get no more than half of their wages.

After a three days’ strike of the Putilov workers, the wages were increased. But their second demand was declined, and the employees nevertheless returned to work. However, as a result of this strike, about 400 workers were discharged and 100 arrested. The most tragic part of all this is that the Union and Shop Committees, of course under the Communist management, participated in these discharges and arrests, in co-operation with the factory administration and the Government Political Department, for there is a law in Soviet Russia that no workers can be discharged without the consent of the Union and Shop Committee. But the Government solves this problem by placing their own agents as officials in the Unions and Shop Committees.

It happened that I was kept in the same prison where those 100 Putilov workingmen were detained. When asked why they were imprisoned, I received the answer: “They charge us with counter-revolution. God knows what they meant by it.”

The above mentioned facts concern only Petrograd; but there are thousands of similar cases all over present day Russia, and yet the Bolsheviks are continually publishing stories about the glorious conditions and the free - living in the shadow of the G.P.U., cannot tell the truth to the world. Should he try it, or should he even try defending his own rights within Russia, he will find himself listed as a counter-revolutionist or a bandit, liable to arrest at any moment.

No, I am NOT happy to be out of Russia.

I would rather be there helping the workers combat the tyrannical deeds of the hypocritical Communists.

Mollie Steimer

Berlin, November 1923.

Freedom, January 1924.

Reprinted in Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review, #4 (1978.)

Abstract [from libcom]: In March 1939, Republican soldiers who had been training as aviation pilots were stranded in the USSR along with the sailors of several vessels from the Spanish merchant navy. They were prevented from leaving and in 1941 were arrested and sent to Novosibirsk Transit Prison. Also detained were several civilians who had been working with children evacuated from the Civil War. In 1942 the three groups were brought together in an agricultural labour camp in Kazakhstan, where eight Spaniards fathered children with Austrian prisoners. They remained there until 1948 when, partly due to a vigorous solidarity campaign fought by exiled Spanish anarchists on their behalf, they were transferred to a camp near Odessa. 18 prisoners signed documents accepting Soviet citizenship and were released to work in the region around the Black Sea. The rest remained in the Gulag system until 1954 or 1956. Towards the end of their imprisonment they were held with Spanish fascists who had been captured during WWII while fighting in the Blue Division. In addition to those Spanish anti-fascists who went missing or died in the first years of detention, out of 66 anti-fascists known to have been in Kazakhstan on the 1st January 1943, 11 died in Soviet camps. That the majority survived can be attributed in part to the togetherness and solidarity they maintained in captivity, evident in their work stoppages and hunger strikes.

Full article at http://www.libcom.org/library/the-tragedy-karaganda

The WALTHER REPORT

By Tony Walther

I got a gift certificate for Barnes and Noble for my birthday, and a book I intend to buy and read is "The Strongest Tribe," by Bing West. I don’t know much about it. I just heard something on TV on it and scanned something on the web.

But I think is says, among other things, that despite the bungling of the Bush administration, we have done better in Iraq than you or I might think.

I think I heard the author say that you can’t just say you support the troops but not the war because you sent them there. Well there’s more to it than all that. But I have written myself that it is wrong that we send troops and then argue over whether we should be fighting a war. And I am not pro war.

Anyway, I want to read that book.

Just read a blog from one of the TV pundits who says John McCain proved he can go head to head with Obama by his performance at Saddleback over the weekend.

I wrote something about that in my just previous blog.

Now some bloggers are asserting that that little Christian cross written in the dirt story McCain told about the North Vietnam prison camp sounds like a passage out of the late Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s "Gulag Archipelago." Ah, war stories.

Maybe it was true or perhaps Mr. McCain is doing a Reagan and mixing stories out of other people’s scripts with his own. But no one can deny that McCain does have an impressive military record that shows spirit and bravery and love of country.

There’s not anything Obama can do to match that specifically, but he can try to show he is right on the issues, and being a war hero in and of itself does not make one fit to be president, but I guess it worked for Eisenhower, but I don’t think McCain is Eisenhower.

Here’s another one I heard (and I don’t know if it is in connection with the Bing West thing or not). We have gone to such great lengths to bring democracy to folks who didn’t ask for hit (Iraq) and appear powerless to help an existing democracy who would like to be allied with us (Georgia).

I have some things to do, including a lot of reading, so I may not write another blog for several days.

Thanks!

John McCain's 'Cross in the dirt' story similar to Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn from his times in the Soviet Gulags

by rickrocket Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:32:42 AM PDT -- So, it is very interesting that Mr. Solzhenitsyn and Mr. McCain had the same Christian guard/prisoner experience. Or maybe it is all just a made up story. Somehow I doubt that Alexander Solzhenitsyn heard John McCain's story and copied it.

Daily Kos, Cross in the Dirt, Solzhenitsyn, John McCain, POW, Gulag,

John McCain's '07 Christmas message and the 'Cross in the dirt story'

Javed Anand’s ideologically driven diatribe against SIMI

Of course! It is a question of law

By Ghulam Muhammed

It is one thing to be factually correct. It’s altogether another thing to be ideologically driven. Javed Anand’s diatribe titled: ‘Suspect SIMI? Of course’ -- published by The Indian Express, on Saturday, August 16, 2008 seeks life beyond law.

At that level, what is a difference between a religiously driven SIMI and a Leftist fighting a war in the name of Karl Marx, denigrating everything that goes under the umbrella of religion, the supposed ‘opium of the masses’.

If religion is the opium of the masses, anti-religious Marxism too is a heady brew that saps the intellectual faculties of even the most sensible people.

The key sentence that gives out Javed Anand’s subterranean insecurity goes like this: “But is it merely a question of law?”

Of course! It is a question of law.

India as a nation is a legal construct. It is based on law. If you have to find life beyond law, you are on a very shaky territory.

In fact, Javed Anand’s frustration over his gross inability to interpret the law of land by sanctifying the terms ‘secularism and democracy’, in the mould of Marxist logic, while neatly bypassing and ignoring the constitutional fundamental rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech in drawing up a charge-sheet against SIMI, is so apparent, that it is surprising, he is so unaware that his slip is showing.

Secularism in Indian context does not stand for the denial of religion. India is not a replica of the erstwhile Soviet Russia, where the communist dictators had destroyed and/or closed down all churches and mosques. For over seventy years, people of faith had to undergo endless pogroms, purges, banishments, not to mention the ghastly gulag existence. India’s secularism has to be defined by its deeply ingrained religious ethos.

Javed Anand is ready to accommodate Mulayam Singh and Lalu Prasad, for their support of SIMI, when he writes that ‘Mulayam Singh and Lalu Prasad’s welcoming of the lifting of the ban on SIMI can be explained away in terms of vote bank politics. Why should he begrudge if mainstream Muslims too have welcomed lifting of the ban on SIMI. Are Muslims not entitled to be part of vote bank politics, just because they are Muslims?

Banning of SIMI, was a motivated political exercise, by the Hindutva extremists/opportunist of the ilk of the then Home Minister, L. K. Advani and the then Maharashtra State home minister, Chhagan Bhujbal, an old Shiv Sena protagonist. It was a grand conspiracy to consolidate Hindu vote bank, around demonizing of Muslims, by choosing a suitable candidate to focus on and by implication demonise the entire 150 million Muslims of India. Evidently, this too would be generously treated by Javed Anand, as merely vote bank politics!

Of course, there were hotheads in SIMI, as there are in every grouping, including the Marxists and the Hindutvadis. But the law cannot be so applied that it cannot stand judicial scrutiny. If on presentation of facts, the court is not convinced that SIMI is guilty as charged, why should Muslims not rejoice in being liberated from the conspiracy of the Hindu extremists?

The real problem for Javed Anand stems from his pretentious posturing of becoming the voice of the Muslims. His frustration at witnessing crowds of 20,000 to 200,000 gathering at public meetings called by religious figures is quite understandable. He fails to understand the real pain of the Muslims. Given proper interaction, even a maverick like Mamta Bannerjee could gather a mind-boggling crowd of 400,000 Muslims in the heart of a cosmopolitan city like Kolkata. But you cannot strip the Muslim of his religious identity and hope to achieve leadership of a neutered crowd.

The very fact, that Indian Express has published Javed Anand’s article denouncing SIMI, is proof enough that he is sleeping with the enemy. Let him write a similar diatribe against RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal and get it published in Indian Express, or Times of India, or even in the new avatar of ‘The Hindu’, if he is rooting for non-discriminatory justice. That will show him the limits of his journalistic prowess, if any. His ability to get published by a mainstream English broadsheet on Muslim-bashing shows how far he is treated by the media, as not with the mainstream Muslims. The mainstream media is merely using his mixed Muslim name (Javed Akhtar + Anand) to carry on their commercial commitment to demonizing of Muslims. Muslims would rather be vicitmised than become beholden to dubious benefactors with ulterior motives.  

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com

Così anche Solzenicyn è morto. Forse il più grande tra gli scrittori che animarono una stagione di sofferenza e dissenso, di repressione e speranza; una speranza che non si era spenta sotto la repressione, una repressione che fu spenta dalla speranza. La stagione del samizdat (Lett."edito in proprio"), quando una rete sotteranea di persone libere copiava a mano, con antiche macchine da scrivere, in rari casi ciclostilando ogni genere di documento e libro tra quelli che il regime sovietico proibiva. Una rete clandestina di persone libere, assetate di vero.

Quel dissenso non era senza conseguenze personali: se eri contro il regime della libertà, se non approvavi il comunismo non potevi che essere pazzo. E quindi finivi in manicomio, o esiliato in terre lontane e inospitali, nella migliore delle ipotesi.
Tra quelle opere copiate con carta carbone e fatte circolare clandestinamente c'erano anche quelle di Solzenicyn, e quando arrivarono in occidente colpirono come un martello un'opinione pubblica indifferente o negatrice. Kruscev utilizzò Solzenicyn per attaccare Stalin, ma la frattura da lui stesso provocata inghiottì anche il Presidente dell'URSS. L'esilio, l'esilio dall'amata terra per cui non aveva neanche voluto ritirare il Nobel fu infine il modo in cui l'Unione sovietica, che moriva e non lo sapeva, scelse per liberarsi dello scrittore. Il corpo malato che espelle la parte sana nell'illusione di salvarsi.

Sono storie di quaranta, cinquant'anni fa e sembra passata un'era. Più nessuno ha il coraggio di negare quella che fu la realtà. E quasi più nessuno ricorda com'erano quegli anni, in cui la menzogna era quotidiana, conclamata. Solzenicyn, più di molti altri, è stato tra quelli che l'hanno svelata. Ma essa non è morta, vive in terre differenti; e quanti Solzenicyn oggi che nessuno legge, a cui nessuno vuole credere?

Berlicche socio di SamizdatOnLine

UN MONDO IN FRANTUMI -  Aleksandr Solženicyn
(testo integrale del discorso di Harvard)

De ieri suntem mai singuri şi mai săraci. A plecat dintre noi, până la ziua învierii, cel care a avut îndrăzneala de a fi o voce profetică într-o lume occidentală a cărei conştiinţe era adormită de eficienta maşină de propagandă condusă de KGB şi susţinută de celelalte servicii secrete comuniste.

Alexandr Soljeniţin s-a născut la 11 decembrie 1918, la Kislovodsk în Caucaz, în plină teroare bolşevică, ca fiu al unei văduve modeste. A studiat matematica şi filosofia, acceptând la început, fără nici un fel de îndoieli, ideologia comunistă promovată în şcoli de regimul sovietic. În timpul Celui de Al Doilea Război Mondial a fost comandantul unei unităţi de artilerie şi a fost decorat de două ori.

La sfârşitul războiului, o scrisoare în care critica felul în care Stalin a condus războiul a fost interceptată de NKVD şi aceasta a dus la condamnarea lui la opt ani de lagăr de muncă şi la exil intern pe viaţă. Experienţele teribile prin care a trecut în universul concentraţionar sovietic şi în exilul intern in Kazahstan aveau să-i schimbe definitiv convingerile cu privire la comunism. Ele aveau să inspire, după eliberarea din lagăr, multe dintre scrierile lui, între care O zi din viaţa lui Ivan Denisovici (singura carte a lui Soljeniţin publicată integral în propria ţară în perioada sovietică, în anul 1962, cu aprobarea expresă a lui Hruşciov), Arhipelagul Gulag (publicat pentru prima dată în Occident în 1971) şi Pavilionul canceroşilor sunt cele mai cunoscute. Aceasta a fost şi perioada în care scriitorul s-a apropiat din nou de credinţa creştină, în forma ei ortodoxă.

A fost un prozator şi dramaturg remarcabil, primind în 1970 premiul Nobel pentru literatură. Scriitorul însă a refuzat să meargă la Stocholm pentru a primi premiul, de teamă că ni i se va mai permite să revină în ţară. După moartea lui Hruşciov, scurta perioadă de relaxare poststalinistă a luat sfârşit şi Soljeniţin a intrat în vizorul KGB-ului, agenţii acestuia făcându-i nenumărate percheziţii şi confiscându-i o serie de scrieri, între care şi o parte din prima versiune a Arhipelagului Gulag, ceea ce l-a descumpănit la început, dar apoi l-a îndârjit şi l-a făcut să reia cu şi mai mare sârg munca la aceasta capodoperă a literaturii concentraţionare. În această perioadă dificilă, Soljeniţin a fost adăpostit de celebrul violoncelist Mstislav Rostropovici, care a şi fost exilat mai apoi din această pricină.

Soljeniţin şi Böll

În 1974 Soljeniţin a fost expulzat din ţară, fiind dus cu forţa la Frankfurt, după ce i s-a retras cetăţenia sovietică. În Germania a fost găzduit de scriitorul Heinrich Böll, cu care era prieten. După o scurtă vizită în Elveţia, scriitorul a acceptat invitaţia de a se stabili în Statele Unite, locuind cea mai mare parte a acestei perioade cvasiizolare în statul Vermont. A fost începutul unei perioade de două decenii de exil, în care Soljeniţin a fost în permanenţă un neadaptat, fiind rupt de sursa lui vitală de inspiraţie, care era spaţiul rusesc.

Deşi a trăit mai degrabă retras, vocea activistului politic Alexandr Soljeniţin s-a făcut auzită în repetate rânduri, contrabalansând adeseori cu succes agresiva propagandă dusă în Occident de serviciile sovietică de informaţii, ca şi criticile formulate la adresa lui de mediile de stânga din Vest. În general, Soljeniţin s-a arătat dezamăgit nu numai de lipsa de sensibilitate a societăţii occidentale faţă de suferinţele celor care trăiau sub cizma de fier a comunismului, ci şi de ceea ce a considerat a fi uscăciunea spirituală a societăţii apusene.

Ca şi Richard Wurmbrand, care a plecat în Vest cam în aceeaşi perioadă, Soljeniţin a încercat să conştientizeze democraţiile cu privire la natura demonică a ideologiei comuniste, pretins umanistă, care făcuseră deja nenumărate victime şi produsese enorme suferinţe în ţările controlate de sovietici.

Soljeniţin şi Gorbaciov

În 1990, Gorbaciov i-a redat lui Soljeniţin cetăţenia sovietică, ceea ce, odată cu prăbuşirea definitivă a Uniunii Sovietice - la care scriitorul a contribuit în bună măsură prin opera lui, l-a făcut să revină definitiv în ţară, în 1994. Avea 75 de ani. A fost primit cu entuziasm la aeroport de peste 2000 de admiratori. În primul său discurs, scriitorul a adus omagiul său zecilor de milioane de victime ale terorii comuniste, afirmând că nu trebuie să uităm nici victimele, dar nici călăii.

Acasă fiind, a fost la fel de neplăcut impresionat de ceea ce devenise Rusia după căderea comunismului şi, atât prin scrierile, cît şi prin apariţiile sale în media, a criticat aspru atât excesele noii oligarhii ruseşti, cât şi nostalgia după comunismul de tip sovietic care prevala în jurul lui.

Soljeniţin şi Putin

În acelaşi timp, Soljeniţin a fost un vajnic promotor al spiritului pravoslavnic rusesc, în linia tradiţiei panslaviste şi un apărător al eforturilor lui Putin de a readuce Rusia, cu orice preţ, la gloria dinaintea perioadei sovietice (vezi AICI un interesant interviu oferit de scriitor revistei Der Spiegel). Acest lucru a derutat şi dezamăgit pe mulţi dintre admiratorii săi. Soljeniţin a fost însă întotdeauna un personaj derutant şi controversat, aşa cum stă bine oricărui profet.

În ziua în care a trecut la cele veşnice, autorul aducea corecturi unei ediţii a operelor lui complete. La 3 august 2008 Alexandr Soljeniţin, care avea 89 de ani, ne-a părăsit, pentru o vreme, căci, cu siguranţă că ne vom vedea cu el în slavă. Desigur, dacă va fi să ajungem şi noi acolo.

Hitler diseño una limpieza étnica además de creer que podía conquistar Europa.

Estados Unidos lanzó una bomba atómica que mató indiscriminadamente a más de doscientasmil personas.

Si los medicamentos del SIDA fueran de libre distribución la incidencia de la enfermedad sería significativamente menor.

Karadzic, represión política o étnica.

El calentamiento global ya no debería ser discutible ( o es o no es).

Estas son implicaciones de decisiones humanas en la propia humanidad. Alguna puede ser ¿discutible? Ninguna de ellas dependió de una única persona. Y no se paran o resuelven. Y no siempre son los malos los que hacen daño a los buenos. Cuál es el misterio que permite que estas situaciones se den, incluso en nuestros días.

Los honestos y la riqueza

¿Es bueno que nos tengan controlados?

Quién le pondrá límite a la ingeniería genética

This is a very sad book, the story of thousands of Americans who, during the Depression, lured by sham Soviet propaganda and pro-Soviet falsehoods spread by the likes of George Bernard Shaw and the corrupt New York Times Moscow correspondent, Walter Duranty, migrated to the USSR in search of jobs and a role in the "building of socialism." Most of these expatriates, not intellectuals but simple working men, were quickly disenchanted and wanted to return home, only to find that Moscow considered them Soviet citizens and barred them from leaving. Ignored by the American government, many of them ended in the gulag. In Tim Tzouliadis's "The Forsaken," their dismal story is told with great skill and indignation usually missing from Western accounts of communist Russia.

The Superfluous Man, in a post mourning the great Solzhenitsyn's death, also helps supply some of the indignation "missing from Western accounts":

His death should be an occasion for self-reflection and shame in the West. Faced with the most monstrous evil in human history, how did the leftist intellectual establishment respond? They strained every nerve to deny or conceal the horrifying truth, and when that ceased to be practical, to minimize the evil, or excuse it, or just discourage people from thinking about it.

And they succeeded. I vividly remember giving a class presentation of research paper on the crimes of Stalin in college, and not one fellow student had ever heard about it before. Quite a few of them knew about how many people Pinochet killed, but neither their teachers nor the mainstream media had ever seen fit to tell them what I told them. Mine certainly didn't; I had to learn it on my own.

Sadly, I expect Solzhenitsyn to be forgotten. The forces of amnesia are still at work. There are few Stalinists today, but there are plenty of intellectuals and opinion-shapers who would just as soon not have people think about the Left's historical record. It is they who dominate the dissemination of information, and there is little reason to think they won't win. The tens of millions of victims will go on being ignored.

I wonder if contemporary socialists will jump ship for Cuba in our impending depression; they'd probably be reluctant to leave America's comforts, for all that they praise socialism abroad. Besides, as it is usually the "working men" and not the intellectuals who wind up shafted by policy tinkerers, we probably don't have to worry about losing luminaries such as, say, Paul Krugman. The heck with Solzhenistyn—what would we do without Krugman?

I'll try to take a sarcasm break in the next post, but I can make no promises. Rest in peace, Mr. Solzhenistyn.

«C'è una parola che si usa molto oggi: "anticomunismo". È una parola molto stupida e mal composta perché dà l'impressione che il comunismo sia qualche cosa di primitivo, di basico, di fondamentale. E così, prendendolo come punto di partenza, anticomunismo è definito in relazione a comunismo. Per questo affermo che la parola è stata mal scelta e fu composta da gente che non conosceva l'etimologia: il concetto primario, eterno, è Umanità. Ed il comunismo è anti-Umanità. Chi dice "anti-comunismo", in realtà sta dicendo anti-anti-Umanità. Un costrutto molto misero. Sarebbe come dire: ciò che è contro il comunismo è a favore dell'Umanità. Non accettare, rifiutare questa ideologia comunista, inumana, è semplicemente essere un essere umano. Non è essere membro di un partito.»

(Aleksandr Isaevič Solženicyn)

Sulla Stampa di ieri (5 Agosto 08) fa capolino un attento editoriale di Barbara Spinelli dal titolo Il profeta nel purgatorio del Gulag. Si parla dell'opera di Aleksandr Solzenicyn, scrittore e storico russo mancato nei giorni scorsi. Fu tra i primi a denunciare le barbarie del regime staliniano e fu, ovviamente, profeta inascoltato. Anzi, di più: fu proprio emarginato, nonostante il Nobel per la Letteratura ricevuto nel 1970. In Europa, Italia compresa, le sue opere furono boicottate. Nenache messe all'indice, perché nemmeno venivano pubblicate o diffuse. O sarebbe potuto venire qualche dubbio sulla grande ideologia comunista che, si sa, in Italia ha sempre avuto uno spessore culturale non indifferente. Ci son volute le ultime elezioni di quest'anno per vedere l'assenza in Parlamento di "Comunisti" che ancora si vantano di tale nome e delle insegne di falce e martello. Mi domando se sia “umano” (nel senso della citazione sopra riportata) il perorare una politica basata su tutto questo.

Personalmente paragono le insegne comuniste, in tutto e per tutto, alle insegne che portarono a morire milioni di persone innocenti nei campi di concentramento nazisti. Le une erano nere, le altre rosse: ma il minimo comun denominatore resta lo stesso: un totalitarismo che nulla ha da spartire con le parole democrazia, libertà, giustizia.

Andrea Macco 

Di seguito alcuni stralci dell'editoriale di Barbara Spinelli. Per leggere l'articolo completo cliccare qui.

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn has died.

Tovarisch Solzhenitsyn is def one of my favorite writers. Classic books such as The Gulag Archipelago, One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich, The First Circle, Cancer Ward etc, set the standard for writing in an historical context. His last book: "Two Hundred Years Together" about the Russians and Jews being forced together in 1772 and their history 'til now remains unpublished in English. Despite being a best seller in Russia, Germany and France. Unsuprising as all of the major bookhouses in the English speaking world are run by "those who cannot be critisized". And Solzhenitsyn had much more to say. He was a Warrior/Philosopher in the truest sense. The Warrior part of this equation comes from having served as an Artillery Captain in the Red Army in WW2 (Until arrested by the NKVD for refering to Stalin in a bad light in a letter). He became in time the closest thing to a national philosopher for Russia. He was the outer manifestation of Russia's soul.

He attacked the moral bankruptcy of both the Soviet Union and the West. He despised so-called western culture (ie: Rock Music, The Media etc etc...) He condemned America for moral vacuity and weakness. How America measured other societies in comparison to itself. He also refered to "the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness." in the world today. Even more to the point "we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility".

Solzhenitsyn also concluded that Marxism by it's very nature is violent. There was nothing special in the Russian model that made it so violent. The "Russian" Revolution was not so much Russian as Internationalist. The Semetic composition of the Nomenclatura of the Revolution shows this. He rejected the notion that the barbarity of the Soviet system was ignited by Stalin. It was Lenin, Trotsky etc, who founded the Cheka (to become the OGPU, NKVD, MVD and finally the KGB), destroyed the economy, founded the Gulag and executed hundreds of thousands of innocent souls. Communism will wear the face of nationalism to deceive peoples. When in actual fact Communism will wipe out national cultures and oppress peoples. Much like Social Democratic Globalism today.

He did however find hope with Vladamir Putin and the rebirth of Russian culture. Let us hope that Russia continues in this vein and becomes a symbol of hope to a world crushed under the wheels of the G8.

Rest in peace Tavarisch Solzhenitsyn.

Căsuţa mea se afla chiar la marginea de răsărit a aşezării. Dincolo de portiţă se afla arîkul, şi stepa, şi, în fiecare dimineaţă, răsăritul. Doar un pic să fi adiat vînticelul din stepă, şi plămînii nu ţi se mai saturau respirând. în amurg şi noaptea, fie că era lună sau întuneric beznă, mă plimbam în lung şi în lat şi respiram ca un smintit. Mai aproape de o sută de metri nu se afla nici o locuinţă pe lângă mine, nici la stânga, nici la dreapta, nici în spate.

Mă împăcasem pe deplin cu gîndul că voi trăi aici, mă rog, chiar dacă nu „pentru totdeauna", în orice caz vreo douăzeci de ani (nu credeam că eliberarea generală va veni mai devreme, şi am greşit doar cu puţin). Parcă nici n-aş fi vrut să merg undeva anume (deşi inima îmi încremenea înaintea hărţii Rusiei Centrale). Lumea întreagă o receptam ca şi când nu se află în exterior şi nu mă ademenea, o simţeam ca trăită toată înlăuntrul meu şi nu-mi mai rămînea decît s-o descriu. Eram plin până sus.

Kutuzov, prietenul lui Radişcev, îi scria acestuia în surghiun: „îmi pare râu, prietene, să ţi-o spun, dar... situaţia ta îşi are avantajele ei. Separat de ceilalţi oameni, despărţit cu gîndul de toate obiectele care ne orbesc, ai posibilitatea să călătoreşti foarte bine în... tine însuţi; poţi să te priveşti cu sînge rece, şi, prin urmare, vei judeca cu mai puţină părtinire lucrurile pe care înainte le priveai prin vălul ambiţiei şi al deşertăciunilor lumeşti. Poate că multe îţi vor apărea într-o cu totul altă lumină".

Întocmai. Şi fiindcă preţuiam acest punct de vedere purificat, preţuiam pe deplin conştient exilul meu. Iar el se mişca, devenea din ce în ce mai agitat. Comenduirea devenise pur şi simplu blîndă şi se mai redusese. Pentru evadare se prevedeau doar cinci ani, dar nici aceia nu se mai dădeau. Una, două, trei naţiuni au încetat să se mai prezinte la viză, apoi au primit dreptul să plece, înfrigurarea bucuriei şi speranţei tulbura liniştea exilului nostru.

----------------------------------------

Fragment din Arhipelagul Gulag, Ed. Univers, Bucureşti, 1997, vol. III, pp. 329-330.