Rebuilding Russia: Reflections and Tentative Proposals

by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Rebuilding Reflections and Tentative Proposals

Genres: Russia, History, Nonfiction, Political Science, Politics

80 pages, Paperback

First published October 17, 1990

About the author

also known as
Alexander Solzenitsyn (English, alternate)
Αλεξάντρ Σολζενίτσιν (Greek)

Works, including One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962) and The Gulag Archipelago (1973-1975), of Soviet writer and dissident Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970, exposed the brutality of the labor camp system.

This known Russian novelist, dramatist, and historian best helped to make the world aware of the forced Gulag.

Exiled in 1974, he returned to Russia in 1994. Solzhenitsyn fathered of Ignat Solzhenitsyn, a conductor and pianist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksan...

Reviews

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was on my mind that this book might be dated when I decided to read it. But as I read it I realized that what it presents is a "mirrored precipice". When Solzhenitsyn wrote this in 1990 Russia was trying to extricate itself from the wreckage of the Soviet Union; it was moving upwards. As I write this review the Trump Administration will return to office in 2025. With what the former president has said about dampening, if not outright dismantling the Constitution, one has to wonder if the US is now heading down a slope toward a precipice; a mirrored reflection of trajectories with the Russia of 1991.

Much of what Solzhenitsyn has written is so sage and prescient that he could have virtually borrowed headlines from today's US-based newspapers. Here are some extremely prophetic observations. "Party rivalry distorts the national will." Here is another: "The top echelons of political parties are inevitably transformed into an oligarchy." If that is not enough, try this one: "This election, however, should not become an occasion for wasting the energies of the nation on a vehement and slanted campaign lasting weeks or months where the paramount goal is smearing one's opponent." My favorite is this one, "An individual will have views, while a party offers an ideology."

Throughout the book Solzhenitsyn emphasizes the need to "rebuild Russia from the bottom up", focusing on the establishment of Zemstvos at the local, regional, state, and national level, inculcating in individuals the need for self-restraint. He references many Russian intellectuals and political figures for their observations on power and politics, but the suggestion offered by the Russian stateman Pyotr Stolypin (1862-1911) that may hold the key for dragging US politics from the quagmire it currently finds itself is this: he suggested that the country institute a tw0-three year academy for those aspiring to top government positions. That is that all new politicians must have the proper education and training before assuming a position in the Duma (or the US Congress).

Shades from the past cast long shadows upon the future and Solzhenitsyn, adroitly if inadvertently, shows us that the US may be headed for an ominous and dark future.

[Julian · Rating 2 out of 5]

This 1990 essay is divided into two main parts (I'm not referring to the internal divisions but by how I would personally divide them): an overall survey of Russia's problems with some suggestions for solutions, and a detailed recommendation for reform of the electoral system. I cannot speak on the latter, which is totally beyond me, so I will focus on the first part.

This is a curiously naive and lightly fascistic work that calls for the "purification" of Russia on account of its spiritual rot, and offers some recommended remedies that I found consistently myopic. Solzhenitsyn consistently treats Russia like a world unto itself, isolated from outside forces (bar a few occasional references to things like the influx of western fashion and television), and as a result his ideas for structural reform remain unconvincing.

For some examples, Solzhenitsyn is highly critical of Russia's involvement in the Great Patriotic War and cites the vast numbers of the dead as evidence. Yes, Russia suffered heavy losses--but what would have become of Russia had they not fought that war? Solzhenitsyn calls for making Georgia and the baltics (not Ukraine or Belarus, though) all independent, yet he describes this as though the process and results of such independence would remain within the scope of Russia's power. He never considers, say, how the west might involve itself in these new "independent" states (this is what makes the essay particularly unconvincing in 2026). The failures of communism are never contextualised in relation to the interference of the west, and no consideration is given to how capitalism might suffer similar or worse ailments. Solzhenitsyn is consistently blinkered in his analysis of Russia and Russian society.

Next I must criticise the woolly focus on spirituality. For Solzhenitsyn, "The strength or weakness of a society depends more on the level of its spiritual life than on its level of industrialization." And similarly, paraphrasing Reagan, that "the true sources of human values [...] are found only in family and faith," not in democracy. I agree broadly with some of Solzhenitsyn's critiques of democracy, but the details are very indefinite. There is no plan for a spiritual reformation, nor reasoning as to why it should so drastically benefit society. The Elizabethan settlement, for example, instituted practical reforms (e.g., compulsory church attendance), and it did so in order to combat Catholicism, which was the means by which Italy and Spain sought political control over England. Solzhenitsyn doesn't even mention the church. He treats spiritualism as a free-floating impulse.

I could similarly criticise the vague complaints about how women need to stop having jobs and get back in the home, which isn't even contextualised within some broader structure of family values. It's just a cloudy sense of unease about women being in the workplace and not raising their children. (I'll ignore the lack of engagement with the historical social reality of parenting.)

The essay is also so incredibly critical of the Russian twentieth century that it reads at times like western propaganda. E.g., "There is no escaping the fact tht our country has cruelly forfeited the entire twentieth century: all our much-trumpeted achievements have turned out to be illusory." Given that Russia (alongside China) is now the only country with the power to militarily challenge the United States, this seems bizarre.

Solzhenitsyn had one interesting point about the "right" to not be advertised to, especially in an age of political oligarchism and campaign strategy: "How can we protect the right of our ears to silence, and the right of our eyes to inner vision?" But now that we know propaganda, not spirituality, is the most effective way to unite a populace, this too seems naive.

I rate this two stars because it was interesting to read a 1990 perspective on Russia's issues, but there's little of practical application here.

[Zuberino · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book by the old man. He wrote this in 1990 just as the USSR was about to blow up into bits, and he was about to return home from his long American exile. Book is pretty full of sage, unrealistic advice (in retrospect) on how to manage the terrible transition after 70 years of tyranny. Some of the central questions he asked back then on the fate of the nation/empire have just as much relevance today - if not even more so.

On the blessed question of Ukraine though, Solzhy reveals his true colours. He can’t give it up, just like that! He is happy to let go of all the Baltics, the Caucasus and the Stans. But Ukraine he wants to grapple to Russia’s loving bosom with hoops of steel. Little daylight between him and Vladimir Vladimirovich on this issue at least.

Anyhow, none of this anguished, hopeful questioning mattered in the end. Russia was destined to fuck it up, and that's exactly what it did. The 2nd half is full of such earnest optimism that you almost pity the fool, knowing the 25-year tyranny that is coming round the corner (it's still not over). And in page 68, Solzhy worried over the fire sale of state assets to crooks and gangsters who would bend the economy and the state to their own needs.. how true that scenario turned out to be.

[Javier Trost · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would highly recommend this book to ALL American schoolchildren. Not all of his suggestions will be accepted, but it still provides a blueprint for how America can improve. It was fascinating that this book was written in 1990 for Russia, and it is more relevant now in 2025 to the United States of America than perhaps at any time in our nation's history. Please note that the author says this is a starting point and something to consider. Not all of his ideas would be accepted. The overall message is that sometimes, a country needs to get back on track. That is the message I can wholeheartedly get on board with. Please read it for yourself. If you disagree, it would provide an excellent opportunity for political discussion.

[Chris Rousell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Given the title and intent of the book, it's not going to be that gripping unless you've got an interest in modern Russian politics. That said, Solzhenitsyn, the fine mind he was, poses some excellent critiques of modern day politics that bear consideration.

[Boolarong Press · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lacking in cohesion. Too piecemeal with not enough research into democracies that “work”.

[Ronan Doyle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not sure "tentative proposal" quite matches the peculiar, insistent prescriptiveness of Solzhenitsyn here: this is a curiously comprehensive plan for post-Soviet governance and one that seems at times laughably rigid. Where the book's most interesting is in psychological insight, being a kind of lens on the impact of the USSR's fall and the years leading into it. The contention, offered as though objective truth, that Ukraine is inarguably a part of Russia that should stay is, shall we say, interesting in the current context.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solzhenitsyn wrote this book toward the end of the Soviet state in an attempt to help the post-Soviet Russia begin again. He focuses primarily on types of government and voting and has some helpful insights on the strengths and weaknesses of democracy. It is a good, short read, worthy of attention for those interested in such ideas.

[Louis Picone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting historic artifact - written a year before the fall of the Soviet Union to prepare for a democratic government. It was an easy read & fascinating to read an insiders view of the challenges they foresaw