Double standards
Why we can laugh at Stalinism but not Nazism - why, indeed, do so many wear faux–Socialist Realism T-shirts as symbols of ironic humour, while wearing a swastika in any form could easily get you beaten up or at least ostracized from any kind of polite company?
I've often wondered about this stragen double standard. This is not an argument for wearing more swatiskas, but a question about why we tolerate celebration of Stalnist and Maoist design when both were even more murderous than National Socialism. (via kottke.org)
Strange, isn't it? Maybe because we dind't fight a war against communism that consumed hundreds of thousands of our young men in just a few years. Instead we fought a slow simmering battle that killed maybe a few hundred of our spies and special forces over decades (The Vietnam and Korean wars are always treated seperately) even though the tyrants were killing millions of their own during that time.
So the answer is that some will tolerate or even glorify leftist monsters (Guevara included) because the rest of us don't find it within ourselves to be that outraged over other people's suffering if we werent't affected too much.
I suppose I was in a generous mood and said "double standards" instead of "hypocrisy", which is what it really is. Unfortunately, if you follow that logic (which I agree with) it leads to a belief that the Free World should be engaged in an long-term war to end internal repression across the world, toppling one dictator after another. While the Left champions endless world-wide revolution, they can't seem to stomach THAT conclusion.
(Those guys had the Bomb, so that tempers the hypocrisy, which we should consider that when thinking of Iran and N.Korea, by the way.)
Isn't part of it b/c of the continued use of Nazi symbology in racist and/or nationalist movements? And also the differing ends of the Stalinist socialism and nazism, as the article states.
In fact, I'd argue that folks adopting either set of symbols are expressing support for the respective movements' theoretical ideal/utopian ends (racial purity for the one, economic and social equality for the other), and conveniently and naively ignoring the means.
People wear swastikas to express racist hatred. People wear Che/Mao/Soviet gear to express leftist ideals, rather than to support brutal totalitarianism.
Todd..
Interesting Post near and dear to me..
I wonder if Andy Warhol spent any time contemplating the inconsistency of this issue??
Oppression (from extreme left or right) always inspires revolution, and rightfully so. Some would even label that response a form of terrorism- as would have the Tories some few years back...
I think very few people who adopt the Che/Mao/Soviet stylings are supporting any ideology except consumerism, however innocently/ignorantly/naively. The original article, however, was referring to something more authentic than a $5 Che t-shrt picked up on Canal St. For instance, look how Leni Reifenstahl was excoriated and compare that to how the 20s Soviet schools of photography are lionized as trailblazers, when in fact they were simultaneously propagandists.
PS: I have been away in Finland for a couple days and have had zero time to publish comments. My apologies.
I can't answer your question, but you're right about the antipathy toward swastikas, even non-Nazi ones. Before the Nazis co-opted this symbol, it was a common motif in Central Asian art. I recently bought a 19th century Caucasian rug and my husband flipped out because the design included teeny swastikas (going the opposite direction of the Nazi symbol, though) in the background pattern. I've also seen swastika-pattern antique quilts selling for vastly less than they'd be worth with a different symbol. The swastika used to be a symbol of life before the Nazis literally turned it backwards and made it a symbol of mass murder.