I was interested to see a link to this article, an interview with Solzhenitsyn, posted elsewhere today.
Although I disagree with some of what he has to say, especially concerning the MP, I found it interesting that he had made some of the points I tried to raise above.
Perhaps you will find his perspective thought provoking, as did I.
"We should clearly understand that only the voluntary and conscientious acceptance by a people of its guilt can ensure the healing of a nation. Unremitting reproaches from outside, on the other hand, are counterproductive."
--Solzhenitsyn
Code: Select all
I read the [i]Spiegel [/i]article with interest, and the point about foreigners refraining from criticizing Russia seems legitimate. On the other hand, as a person--a "spiritual Russian" if you will-- who has made personal, difficult sacrifices to support the ROCOR for many years, I find myself asking, "Has the leadership of the Russian Federation and the Moscow Patriarchate truly 'accepted the guilt' of the Soviet era vis-a-vis the Church? For example, why is the MP now trying to glorify Metropolitan Sergius, and why are people within the MP-ROCOR not discussing Patriarch Alexey II's (and other MP hierarch's) well-documented collaboration with the Soviet authorities during his career as a priest and hierarch? Does this not seem like a white wash job--sweeping an acknowledgement of these sins under the rug--rather than true 'acceptance of guilt,' as described by Solzhenitsyn? To truly repent, one must honestly acknowledge one's sins. Has this really happened in the MP-ROCOR?
Pravoslavnik,
Lets face it....the west does not want a strong Russia, it sees Russia as a natural enenmy no matter what type of regieme exists there. The pro-western, pro-market and democracy Yeltsein brought the country to the point of collapse. While I think it is the duty of Orthodox Christians to oppose the national bholsveikism of Putin and the MP that doesnt make the west a friend. Infact it has done everything it can to cripple Russia and her people. I agree with you though about the need for repentence. With repentence will come an Orthodox Tsar- how would the salons of new york and paris react to such a man?
Theophan.
Pravoslavnik wrote:I find myself asking, "Has the leadership of the Russian Federation and the Moscow Patriarchate truly 'accepted the guilt' of the Soviet era vis-a-vis the Church?
I don't think so.
Yet, this is what makes Solzhenitsyn's views so interesting. It seems as if he is functioning almost as an apologist for the last remaining intact remnant of the government which persecuted him.
He wants to support Putin so much that he justifies his KGB rank by noting that he wasn't a camp commander or an "investigative" officer.
Maybe this apologist compromise thinking is the true legacy of years of Soviet rule.
If that is true, then it would suggest that we can see Soviet fingerprints all over the ROCOR-MP merger.
It is sad that Solzhenitsyn can't.
Yes, and I take little comfort from Solzhenitsyn's accurate observation that George H.W. Bush, like Vladimir Putin, was active in American counter-intelligence as the former director of the CIA. Two wrongs hardly make a right.
Theophan,
Code: Select all
Why do you believe that the West has not tried to help Russia after the fall of the Soviet regime under Gorbachev? The International Monetary Fund pumped billions of dollars into Russia during the Yeltsin administration--money which was, unfortunately, embezzled by Russian governmental officials on a grand scale. The West would benefit greatly from Russian stability and economic prosperity through a huge expansion of the global economy--300 million educated workers and consumers. Russia was floundering not because of the West, but because of internal chaos, crime, and unfamiliarity with free market economies. From the standpoint of stability, Putin has probably been a necessary evil for Russia. But where will this all lead in the future--to a stable free society and friend of the free world, or to a fascist dictatorship that is paranoid about "outsiders"?How would the west benefit by a strong Russia which included strong protections against being economically raped or controlled by western corporations?
The west does not benefit from such a Russia, as a strong country is capable of making demands on others and influencing the world stage, which is currently a platform merely for American hegemony.
If I read what you are saying correctly, you are saying that America benefits from a Russia which can be exploited by multinational corporations. Of course it does. The frustration seems to be that the exploitation which is currently allowed is insufficient to satisfy American greed.
How exactly does the west benefit from a militarily strong Russia? How does the west benefit from a militarily strong Russia, which because of history, culture, and access to different sources of information might hold different opinions as to what ought to be done in the world, and is prepared to back those up with at least a credible threat of military intervention, much like America does?
Your argument loses me. I think you are defining a "strong Russia" as a Russia with free markets subject to exploitation, and also as a Russia which is weak militarily. Do you believe, as most Americans do, that feral capitalism is to be worshipped like a religion worships a god? And thus that Russians, once subjected to it, would always agree with the West and never challenge it because, after all, it's all about money?
To touch on what GOCTheophan said, I think that a Russia ruled by an Orthodox Czar, who had ideals other than money, would be America's worst nightmare.
That having been said, I prefer democracy for myself, but then again, I was born American and have been raised with all the influences that entails.
I actually, as a child, had the discussion about how one could be truly American and at the same time support the concept of monarchy elsewhere. I came to my own conclusion.
Pravoslavnik wrote:Why do you believe that the West has not tried to help Russia after the fall of the Soviet regime under Gorbachev? The International Monetary Fund pumped billions of dollars into Russia during the Yeltsin administration--money which was, unfortunately, embezzled by Russian governmental officials on a grand scale. The West would benefit greatly from Russian stability and economic prosperity through a huge expansion of the global economy--300 million educated workers and consumers. Russia was floundering not because of the West, but because of internal chaos, crime, and unfamiliarity with free market economies. From the standpoint of stability, Putin has probably been a necessary evil for Russia. But where will this all lead in the future--to a stable free society and friend of the free world, or to a fascist dictatorship that is paranoid about "outsiders"?
The IMF and the World Bank are based on usury which God is quite clear about- as were the wise men of antiquity. They have brought starvation and much other evils to a lot of this world. The wealth of the "free world" is based on greed and sadly exploitation of the poor of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Why do you think so many Russians are nostalgic for the good old days of the USSR? Yes of course they are wrong to be from a Christian persecptive but I think from a fallen human one it is very understandable. They had food on their tables and secuirity. Capitalism brought a whole host of evils to Russia such as pornography, prositution, drugs and occultism. It has allowed a small minority of "ex"-Communists to get hugely rich.
Theophan.