Why was Solzhenitsyn unfriendly to China?

A few years ago, The Rise of Great Powers was very popular in China. It talked about the origin of Russian rise, that is, Peter the Great decided to learn from Europe. Peter the Great, with Petersburg, which is closer to Europe, as his capital, personally visited Europe in disguise, introduced European culture, and forced Russian nobles to cut off their savage beards and shave them as civilized as Europe. Soxhlet's view is completely opposite to the rise of China's great powers. He thinks Peter the Great's "Westernization" is also wrong. So, did Sog Park Jung Su return to Russia before Peter the Great? Not exactly. The Russian Orthodox Church before Peter the Great was still "westernized" in Soxhlet's view. Indeed, the Orthodox Church came from Eastern Rome, from the source, from the Roman Empire, and also belonged to "Westernization". All this is Soxhlet's opposition. But what was the Russian tradition before the Orthodox Church? Was it the descendants of Genghis Khan who established the Golden Tent khanate? Not exactly. Therefore, Solzhenitsyn drew his bow and returned to Russian tradition. Despite this conclusion, it still confuses many scholars in essence. Some scholars in China have pointed out that Thorne's Russian tradition is a religious tradition before the centralization of the Russian church, that is, "looking back against autocracy." After the formation of Russian church centralization, this tradition was called "separatism". I think this root-seeking research is really in-depth, just a little too in-depth, but it seems too complicated to find the answer.

Solzhenitsyn did have a vision. He clearly saw that the development course, essence and performance of western modern civilization in the past hundreds of years, whether left-wing socialism or right-wing capitalism, could not solve the fundamental problems of mankind. At this point, Solzhenitsyn is more like a historian than a writer. Many contemporary first-class historians have seen this problem and come to the same conclusion. Such as Toynbee and Stavri Anoos. However, western culture can't do it. What can? The difference between Soxhlet and Tang and Sri Lanka is that Western historians such as Tang and Sri Lanka all think that the way out lies in the traditional culture of China, but Soxhlet is unwilling to accept this conclusion. Therefore, he can only wander in the history of Russia. In fact, the Red Wheel, which Thorne devoted all his life to, quoted a passage from another Russian scholar, herzen, at the beginning, which already expressed his mentality: "Only an axe can save us, nothing else, only an axe … Russia is calling for an axe". Therefore, Solzhenitsyn's left and right factions opposed to "Westernization" lingered in the Russian tradition and could not find a foothold. He quoted this passage in the most eye-catching position of the Red Wheel, indicating that he just returned to the position of a nationalist, which is also the reason why he and Putin can get together.

However, nationalism can hardly become the same value in the world, and it can only have historical significance. It is difficult for the harmony of all mankind to rely on nationalism, and Solzhenitsyn knows this very well. So we can understand why Soxhlet is so unfriendly to China. Solzhenitsyn once said that China was a militarist, that China had expansionist ambitions and tried to occupy the whole of Siberia, that he would foresee a terrible war with China and that he would not give up an inch of land to China, and so on. Li Ao once criticized Soxhlet as "second-rate", but Li Ao's criticism missed the point in my opinion. Park Jung Su criticizes all western cultures, but he can't find any resources that can replace western culture in his own Russian culture. Throughout the world, Toynbee, Stavri Anoos and others are quite insightful. They think that only China traditional culture can save the world. Sog Park Jung Su just didn't want to admit it. I think Solzhenitsyn's unkindness to China is largely due to nationalist jealousy. He wants to return to Russian tradition, but there is really not much "non-Western" in Russian tradition. Excluding the "Westernization" in Russian tradition, Solzhenitsyn can hardly find anything of value, even if there is, it is essentially equivalent to the primary imitation version of China tradition.

I say that Solzhenitsyn's opening words are of special significance to China because, in our view, Russia is also a part of "Westernization", but Soxhlet denied it. Second, domestic scholars Jin Yan and Qin Hui pointed out in the long preface of The Red Wheel that Soxhlet and China's "Neo-Confucianism" have the same effect. This statement is not unreasonable. However, Neo-Confucianism and Sun faced similar difficulties. Soxhlet can't find a foothold in Russian tradition, because Russia's own cultural tradition has little left after removing the "westernization" content. For China, on the contrary, it is not too little, but too rich in tradition. Neo-Confucianism suggested that China should return to tradition. The question is: where to return? Was it the first 30 years or the Chiang Kai-shek era? Or the era of Beiyang government? Or a prosperous time? Or Zheng He's Seven voyages to the West? Or the vast territory of Kublai Khan? Or the political and economic prosperity of the literati in the Song Dynasty? Or the weather in the Han and Tang Dynasties? Or Qin Shihuang? Or three emperors and five emperors? What needs to be emphasized is that the return to tradition should be understood as a traditional idea, not a traditional form, just like affirming the value of Qin Shihuang, there is no need to use seal script. So China seems to have too many choices, while Sog Park Jung Su has few choices to return to Russian tradition. So Soxhlet's final nationalist choice is only an emotion, not a reason. Soxhlet's criticism of "Westernization" is valuable, but criticism cannot be equated with construction. Sog Park Jung Su eventually became a nationalist because he had no culture, and he could not find a foothold in culture because he became a nationalist.

Solzhenitsyn's masterpiece The Red Wheel, from 19 14 World War I to 1945 Soviet Union's victory in the Great Patriotic War, contains the most important historical period in modern Russian history, and thus embodies Thorne's most important ideological achievements. This way of thinking of Solzhenitsyn determines that he is not only a writer, but also a thinker. As for whether Solzhenitsyn's thought can finally become the truth that belongs to all mankind, it can only be that different people have different opinions. For China people at present, reading Solzhenitsyn's Red Wheel may help us to think more deeply. Let's see why this "eternal dissident", this "stubborn, lonely and militant" fighter, this "social conscience" with "predictive power" and strong religious morality is "full of controversy".