Fascist fashion vs. Communist chic.
February 26, 2002 9:52 AM Subscribe
Fascist fashion vs. Communist chic. Why is one okay, the other not?
Here's one example of a reaction to mere clothes (divorced from context)
Does anyone recall the name of the fashion critic (i think it was for a european fashion magazine) who was forced to resign after he included Nazi SS uniforms as among the greatest fashion achievements of the 20th century?
Was his mistake to believe that aesthetics could be divorced from political reality? Can horror be beautiful? Under what circumstances?
posted by vacapinta at 10:17 AM on February 26, 2002
Does anyone recall the name of the fashion critic (i think it was for a european fashion magazine) who was forced to resign after he included Nazi SS uniforms as among the greatest fashion achievements of the 20th century?
Was his mistake to believe that aesthetics could be divorced from political reality? Can horror be beautiful? Under what circumstances?
posted by vacapinta at 10:17 AM on February 26, 2002
Because most people are not intimately familiar with facism and communism, and believe that Stalin was a benevolent ally in WW2 who promised bread for all and equality, only to be ignored in favor of coca cola and vietnam, and fascism was hitler and the gang and is too edgy since he murdered way more people than, for example Stalin. The truth of this situation is one of the many things which must be dumbed down to the level of blatant inaccuracy for any culture forced *by* an event to *recognize* the implications, rather, forced by it for it.
This ignorance is especially common in the retards who run and support the fashion industry, which really is a seasonal demonstration of everything elitist and trivial about the world payed for by people desperately clinging to the belief that fashion is some sort of reflection of some part of society. Their view of society is bullshit since for the most part they unknowingly sit on top of. Bad analogy - people in fashion industry/understanding of the world :: children flying over Mt. Everest/perception and awe of height.
Besides, it's all been downhill ever since Prada stopped doing ads without people's faces so what do you expect.
And no I can't back this up with any evidence...I'd like to, but let's face it: Occam's razor makes pretty short work of this thread topic.
posted by Settle at 10:18 AM on February 26, 2002
This ignorance is especially common in the retards who run and support the fashion industry, which really is a seasonal demonstration of everything elitist and trivial about the world payed for by people desperately clinging to the belief that fashion is some sort of reflection of some part of society. Their view of society is bullshit since for the most part they unknowingly sit on top of. Bad analogy - people in fashion industry/understanding of the world :: children flying over Mt. Everest/perception and awe of height.
Besides, it's all been downhill ever since Prada stopped doing ads without people's faces so what do you expect.
And no I can't back this up with any evidence...I'd like to, but let's face it: Occam's razor makes pretty short work of this thread topic.
posted by Settle at 10:18 AM on February 26, 2002
This ignorance is especially common in the retards who run and support the fashion industry, which really is a seasonal demonstration of everything elitist and trivial about the world payed for by people desperately clinging to the belief that fashion is some sort of reflection of some part of society.
And so it is. You've stated that it's a reflection of their ignorance of history.
Settle, I think you're a fashion designer afraid of having your work discussed. I have no evidence for this, but...
posted by Ty Webb at 10:33 AM on February 26, 2002
And so it is. You've stated that it's a reflection of their ignorance of history.
Settle, I think you're a fashion designer afraid of having your work discussed. I have no evidence for this, but...
posted by Ty Webb at 10:33 AM on February 26, 2002
Vacapinta: They can be divorced, but I don't think most people can do it, and frankly, Nazis are not the best place to start with the idea.
But let's face it, the bad guys always have the coolest stuff. It's a tradition that has held through to Hollywood. Has anybody seen the model of Germania, Hitler's dream city? It has some gorgeous, if ostentatious, architecture.
posted by Su at 10:41 AM on February 26, 2002
But let's face it, the bad guys always have the coolest stuff. It's a tradition that has held through to Hollywood. Has anybody seen the model of Germania, Hitler's dream city? It has some gorgeous, if ostentatious, architecture.
posted by Su at 10:41 AM on February 26, 2002
But let's face it, the bad guys always have the coolest stuff
This made me laugh. I think because it reminded me of the classic Evil Overlord list.
posted by vacapinta at 10:56 AM on February 26, 2002
This made me laugh. I think because it reminded me of the classic Evil Overlord list.
posted by vacapinta at 10:56 AM on February 26, 2002
This ignorance is especially common in the retards who run and support the fashion industry,
Glad you are showing the same compassion for mentally handicapped people as you did when you made a reference to Danny Pearl's "big gay jacket." Nice!
posted by adampsyche at 10:59 AM on February 26, 2002
Glad you are showing the same compassion for mentally handicapped people as you did when you made a reference to Danny Pearl's "big gay jacket." Nice!
posted by adampsyche at 10:59 AM on February 26, 2002
Seems top me that this article another example of some writer for the conservative mag trying to make a mountain out of molehill (yes: cliche) and by the end of the article, fashion trumps all...show the babes nude and all will be non-provacative.
posted by Postroad at 11:07 AM on February 26, 2002
posted by Postroad at 11:07 AM on February 26, 2002
For some reason, I'm reminded of one of my favorite PJ O'Rourke quotes:
I have often been called a Nazi, and, although it is unfair, I don't let it bother me. I don't let it bother me for one simple reason. No one has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal.posted by aaron at 11:24 AM on February 26, 2002
Good call, Aaron. I remember that quote now.
posted by adampsyche at 11:28 AM on February 26, 2002
posted by adampsyche at 11:28 AM on February 26, 2002
Just for the record, his jacket was NOT simply gray. It had pink and blue in it.
And the reason I am not compassionate here is because what I value most in my own life is sincerity. Sincere compassionate sentiment doesn't really interface with TCP/IP, let alone perl or php. Now, that is no excuse for me being a sick asshole, but I'd like to think I'm half redeemed in your mind, Adampsyche.
Furthermore I am from Boston, and when we say retarded we forget the meaning of the word and simply assume the speaker means...retaahded.
posted by Settle at 11:34 AM on February 26, 2002
And the reason I am not compassionate here is because what I value most in my own life is sincerity. Sincere compassionate sentiment doesn't really interface with TCP/IP, let alone perl or php. Now, that is no excuse for me being a sick asshole, but I'd like to think I'm half redeemed in your mind, Adampsyche.
Furthermore I am from Boston, and when we say retarded we forget the meaning of the word and simply assume the speaker means...retaahded.
posted by Settle at 11:34 AM on February 26, 2002
Just for the record, his jacket was NOT simply gray. It had pink and blue in it.
And the reason I am not compassionate here is because what I value most in my own life is sincerity. Sincere compassionate sentiment doesn't really interface with TCP/IP, let alone perl or php. Now, that is no excuse for me being a sick asshole, but I'd like to think I'm half redeemed in your mind, Adampsyche.
Furthermore I am from Boston, and when we say retarded we forget the meaning of the word and simply assume the speaker means...retaahded.
posted by Settle at 11:36 AM on February 26, 2002
And the reason I am not compassionate here is because what I value most in my own life is sincerity. Sincere compassionate sentiment doesn't really interface with TCP/IP, let alone perl or php. Now, that is no excuse for me being a sick asshole, but I'd like to think I'm half redeemed in your mind, Adampsyche.
Furthermore I am from Boston, and when we say retarded we forget the meaning of the word and simply assume the speaker means...retaahded.
posted by Settle at 11:36 AM on February 26, 2002
No one has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal.
Which one? And what do you mean by "liberal" anyhow? That could mean, from a historical standpoint, that no one has ever had a fantasy of being sexually ravished by any one of at least 98 percent of American citizens. Or it could mean that no one has had sexual fantasies involving JFK. Or that Debra Winger never wanted to do Bob Kerry, etc. (How's about Bill Clinton, who many "conservatives" - or neo-liberals - trashed as at least a socialist in a moderate neo-liberal's clothing? Even Monica didn't dream about him?). I don't think women, or men for that matter, have fantasies of being ravished by Newt, Tom Delay, Trent Lott or Jean Kirkpatrick, etc., etc. either. (Francois Mitterand, on the other hand, was said by some to have had something of a thing for Maggie Thatcher.)
P.J. is such a hack.
posted by raysmj at 11:56 AM on February 26, 2002
Which one? And what do you mean by "liberal" anyhow? That could mean, from a historical standpoint, that no one has ever had a fantasy of being sexually ravished by any one of at least 98 percent of American citizens. Or it could mean that no one has had sexual fantasies involving JFK. Or that Debra Winger never wanted to do Bob Kerry, etc. (How's about Bill Clinton, who many "conservatives" - or neo-liberals - trashed as at least a socialist in a moderate neo-liberal's clothing? Even Monica didn't dream about him?). I don't think women, or men for that matter, have fantasies of being ravished by Newt, Tom Delay, Trent Lott or Jean Kirkpatrick, etc., etc. either. (Francois Mitterand, on the other hand, was said by some to have had something of a thing for Maggie Thatcher.)
P.J. is such a hack.
posted by raysmj at 11:56 AM on February 26, 2002
I completely agree. But he is a funny hack.
I gotta admit. Conservative girls can be kinda sexy. Remember MTV's Kennedy?
posted by adampsyche at 12:09 PM on February 26, 2002
I gotta admit. Conservative girls can be kinda sexy. Remember MTV's Kennedy?
posted by adampsyche at 12:09 PM on February 26, 2002
Remember MTV's Kennedy?
Yes, I do, adampsyche and along with Alison Stewart she was my favorite MTV eyecandy but that's a story for another day..
Why is one okay, the other not?
Well,while Communism was an (admittedly fatally flawed) economic philosophy that fell into the hands of some very bad men, Fascism had conquest and genocide on it's mind from the very outset, in fact it's the basis of the whole thing, as far as I can see.
Wehrmacht chants and folk songs, all overlaid with Led Zeppelin..
This I don't get either.Unless they're trying to make that tired heavy metal/fascism analogy, which always seemed like a dunderheaded suggestion to me.
As to the fashion thing, I imagine that anyone who would wear any kind of Stalin or Hitler based clothing is either a pathetic fashion victim or doing it strictly for shock value..
posted by jonmc at 1:01 PM on February 26, 2002
Yes, I do, adampsyche and along with Alison Stewart she was my favorite MTV eyecandy but that's a story for another day..
Why is one okay, the other not?
Well,while Communism was an (admittedly fatally flawed) economic philosophy that fell into the hands of some very bad men, Fascism had conquest and genocide on it's mind from the very outset, in fact it's the basis of the whole thing, as far as I can see.
Wehrmacht chants and folk songs, all overlaid with Led Zeppelin..
This I don't get either.Unless they're trying to make that tired heavy metal/fascism analogy, which always seemed like a dunderheaded suggestion to me.
As to the fashion thing, I imagine that anyone who would wear any kind of Stalin or Hitler based clothing is either a pathetic fashion victim or doing it strictly for shock value..
posted by jonmc at 1:01 PM on February 26, 2002
Well,while Communism was an (admittedly fatally flawed) economic philosophy that fell into the hands of some very bad men, Fascism had conquest and genocide on it's mind from the very outset, in fact it's the basis of the whole thing, as far as I can see.
I understand and agree with the distinction, but I have a problem with the disrespect shown to the victims, just as I would with "slavery chic", or with the flying of the confederate flag, for that matter.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:19 PM on February 26, 2002
I understand and agree with the distinction, but I have a problem with the disrespect shown to the victims, just as I would with "slavery chic", or with the flying of the confederate flag, for that matter.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:19 PM on February 26, 2002
Why is one okay, the other not?
Because even if the actions of the Soviet Union were as bad as those of Nazi Germany, communism is not intrinsically evil whereas fascism is. And the hammer and sickle is seen as a symbol of communism in general as much as of the Soviet Union in particular.
It shouldn't be necessary to say any more, but the tone of this thread suggests that most people agree with the article for some reason. So let me make the point more graphically. Students of political philosophy (like me) study Marx. He's wrong about lots of things, but he has a defensible and intellectually respectable position, which people go to some trouble to refute. Mein Kampf is not on the syllabus because it is a load of racist nonsense with no value whatsoever.
To suggest that there's something offensive about wearing communist symbols is no different from saying that it's offensive to wear Christian symbols. Certainly Marxism makes as much sense as Christianity, is responsible for no more evil historically, and is just as well-intentioned. So many people have suffered because of communism? True enough, but what ideology is that not true of?
posted by Gaz at 2:24 PM on February 26, 2002
Because even if the actions of the Soviet Union were as bad as those of Nazi Germany, communism is not intrinsically evil whereas fascism is. And the hammer and sickle is seen as a symbol of communism in general as much as of the Soviet Union in particular.
It shouldn't be necessary to say any more, but the tone of this thread suggests that most people agree with the article for some reason. So let me make the point more graphically. Students of political philosophy (like me) study Marx. He's wrong about lots of things, but he has a defensible and intellectually respectable position, which people go to some trouble to refute. Mein Kampf is not on the syllabus because it is a load of racist nonsense with no value whatsoever.
To suggest that there's something offensive about wearing communist symbols is no different from saying that it's offensive to wear Christian symbols. Certainly Marxism makes as much sense as Christianity, is responsible for no more evil historically, and is just as well-intentioned. So many people have suffered because of communism? True enough, but what ideology is that not true of?
posted by Gaz at 2:24 PM on February 26, 2002
Gaz - I think Communist chic is a misnomer.
Bolshevik chic, or Soviet chic, would be much more accurate.
The real difference between fascist and Soviet motifs in clothing is that many Russians, and Westerners too, are still nostalgic for the Soviet past, whereas we have successfully turned Nazi imagery into symbols of evil and abnormality.
Hell, my grandpa (a communist since the 30's) took YEARS after Krushchev's speech to accept that there was anything wrong with Stalin, and even now harbours the same kind of apologist thoughts ("he didn't really know, it was all Beria's fault, he had no alternative") that Irving-style revisionists use of Hitler.
Among other things, the history of the Bolsheviks is the history of murder, famine, persecution and genocide. I don't think the author overstates the case. But we aren't trained to feel the same gut revulsion for the uniforms of our former allies the Red Army as we are for the SS.
You can argue about why - expediency during WWII, the reluctance of Western Marxists to accept the trust about how Communist regimes were really working our in practise, the fact that there was never a Nuremberg trial for Stalin and his henchmen. I don't know.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:48 PM on February 26, 2002
Bolshevik chic, or Soviet chic, would be much more accurate.
The real difference between fascist and Soviet motifs in clothing is that many Russians, and Westerners too, are still nostalgic for the Soviet past, whereas we have successfully turned Nazi imagery into symbols of evil and abnormality.
Hell, my grandpa (a communist since the 30's) took YEARS after Krushchev's speech to accept that there was anything wrong with Stalin, and even now harbours the same kind of apologist thoughts ("he didn't really know, it was all Beria's fault, he had no alternative") that Irving-style revisionists use of Hitler.
Among other things, the history of the Bolsheviks is the history of murder, famine, persecution and genocide. I don't think the author overstates the case. But we aren't trained to feel the same gut revulsion for the uniforms of our former allies the Red Army as we are for the SS.
You can argue about why - expediency during WWII, the reluctance of Western Marxists to accept the trust about how Communist regimes were really working our in practise, the fact that there was never a Nuremberg trial for Stalin and his henchmen. I don't know.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:48 PM on February 26, 2002
To suggest that there's something offensive about wearing communist symbols is no different from saying that it's offensive to wear Christian symbols.
You had me up until that completely lame comparison. I don't know of any recent examples of a Christian government overseeing the starvation and execution of 20 million people. The history of Christianity is long and broad enough for it not to be defined by it's most violent perversions, as communism is and will be.
And the hammer and sickle is seen as a symbol of communism in general as much as of the Soviet Union in particular.
Why should we make allowances for peoples' ignorance? I have no problem with Marx on a t-shirt, but the hammer and sickle represent a particular regime at a particular time in history, and to sport it on a hat or pair of jeans is just heinously disrespectful of the victims.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:50 PM on February 26, 2002
You had me up until that completely lame comparison. I don't know of any recent examples of a Christian government overseeing the starvation and execution of 20 million people. The history of Christianity is long and broad enough for it not to be defined by it's most violent perversions, as communism is and will be.
And the hammer and sickle is seen as a symbol of communism in general as much as of the Soviet Union in particular.
Why should we make allowances for peoples' ignorance? I have no problem with Marx on a t-shirt, but the hammer and sickle represent a particular regime at a particular time in history, and to sport it on a hat or pair of jeans is just heinously disrespectful of the victims.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:50 PM on February 26, 2002
Ray, man, slow down, relax. PJ's a known conservative who was writing a book of humor. And I was posting it for the line about the Nazi, not the one about the liberal; I thought it made rather clear, in a funny way, what this fascist fashion thing is really all about: It's kind of "forbidden," so it's kind of a turn on to some, thus the fashionistas are jumping all over it to look cool and hopefully sell some stuff.
Anyway, I've always interpreted PJ's "kind of liberal" in that sentence as being dressed up as a real granola stereotype: Birkinstocks, unshaven, wearing hemp clothing, etc. Though that's purely how the image appeared in my mind; he really didn't say one way or the other. If you're interested, the quote is from the end of the introduction to Give War a Chance: Eyewitness Accounts of Mankind's Struggle Against Tyranny, Injustice and Alcohol-Free Beer. The intro is entirely about why he hates liberals, so if that one half-paragraph pissed you off, you probably should be warned that it's about the nicest thing he says about them in the whole chapter. Oh, wait, he does say what kind of liberal he's talking about, now that I reread the whole thing:
posted by aaron at 3:08 PM on February 26, 2002
Anyway, I've always interpreted PJ's "kind of liberal" in that sentence as being dressed up as a real granola stereotype: Birkinstocks, unshaven, wearing hemp clothing, etc. Though that's purely how the image appeared in my mind; he really didn't say one way or the other. If you're interested, the quote is from the end of the introduction to Give War a Chance: Eyewitness Accounts of Mankind's Struggle Against Tyranny, Injustice and Alcohol-Free Beer. The intro is entirely about why he hates liberals, so if that one half-paragraph pissed you off, you probably should be warned that it's about the nicest thing he says about them in the whole chapter. Oh, wait, he does say what kind of liberal he's talking about, now that I reread the whole thing:
"Liberal" is, of course, one of those fine English words, like lady, gay and welfare, which has been spoiled by special pleading. When I say liberals I certainly don't mean openhanded individuals or tolerant persons or even Big Government Democrats. I mean people who are excited that one percent of the profits of Ben & Jerry's ice cream goes to promote world peace.So, well, there ya go. It deals with the period from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the end of the Gulf War, so it's somewhat dated at this point, but it is a hilarious book.
posted by aaron at 3:08 PM on February 26, 2002
Sorry Ty, but Gaz has a point there. The hammer and sickle do not "represent a particular regime at a particular time in history", any more than the Christian cross represents the Spanish Inquisition.
If you wanted offensive reuse, lovely heroic portraits of Stalin would probably count.
Thinking about this, some of the most disgusting parts of the Soviet state apparatus, such as the KGB, don't have distinctive clothing or other paraphernalia that we would know in the West, unlike the Nazi regime's instantly recognizable SS/SA/Gestapo regalia. Perhaps that's another reason why exhibitions like the one described go unchallenged.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:12 PM on February 26, 2002
If you wanted offensive reuse, lovely heroic portraits of Stalin would probably count.
Thinking about this, some of the most disgusting parts of the Soviet state apparatus, such as the KGB, don't have distinctive clothing or other paraphernalia that we would know in the West, unlike the Nazi regime's instantly recognizable SS/SA/Gestapo regalia. Perhaps that's another reason why exhibitions like the one described go unchallenged.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:12 PM on February 26, 2002
Ty Webb: I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of the relative merits of Marxism and Christianity, because that seems like a thread hijack. I still think it's basically a fair comparison, but point taken. Still, I don't see why everyone should define communism in terms of its most vile perversions: you may do, but others don't. And some people really are offended by Christian symbols. I think I could say more, but I'll restrain myself.
Why should we make allowances for peoples' ignorance? I have no problem with Marx on a t-shirt, but the hammer and sickle represent a particular regime at a particular time in history, and to sport it on a hat or pair of jeans is just heinously disrespectful of the victims.
Well, it's true that the flag was invented by the Soviet Union (the first communist state). But the red flag was a socialist symbol long before, the hammer is meant to symbolise the workers and the sickle the peasants. These are meant to be universal communist symbols. And the fact is that flags with these elements have been used all over the world to support communism in general, not the USSR in particular. So I'm not sure who's being ignorant...
I don't want you all to think that I'm a communist. I'm not. Really. But you have to let people show their support for ideologies that aren't intrinsically outrageous. And yes, I know it's all about fashion anyway.
posted by Gaz at 3:31 PM on February 26, 2002
Why should we make allowances for peoples' ignorance? I have no problem with Marx on a t-shirt, but the hammer and sickle represent a particular regime at a particular time in history, and to sport it on a hat or pair of jeans is just heinously disrespectful of the victims.
Well, it's true that the flag was invented by the Soviet Union (the first communist state). But the red flag was a socialist symbol long before, the hammer is meant to symbolise the workers and the sickle the peasants. These are meant to be universal communist symbols. And the fact is that flags with these elements have been used all over the world to support communism in general, not the USSR in particular. So I'm not sure who's being ignorant...
I don't want you all to think that I'm a communist. I'm not. Really. But you have to let people show their support for ideologies that aren't intrinsically outrageous. And yes, I know it's all about fashion anyway.
posted by Gaz at 3:31 PM on February 26, 2002
Well,while Communism was an (admittedly fatally flawed) economic philosophy that fell into the hands of some very bad men, Fascism had conquest and genocide on it's mind from the very outset, in fact it's the basis of the whole thing, as far as I can see.
I really enjoy how easily the conquest and genocide aspect of communism are passed over in this statement! How can you ignore that it was a stated goal of communism to kill (or otherwise dethrone) the rich and convert the entire world to their system from the very outset? How can you also ignore that direct revolution and murder of members of that target group was their method of gaining power? I guess the fact that the first direct military action in WWII was the invasion of Poland which was a two-front war for the Poles against fascists in the west and communists in the east who had already agreed as to how the country was to be divided is of no consequence either? We also seem to forget the some tens of millions who perished in Stalin's purges of the Ukraine and other slavic countries before the war even got started. Convenient also.
Frankly, I think Fascism is a great, and admittedly fatally flawed, social philosophy that fell into the hands of some very bad men. For that matter, one could say the same about most forms of government. The fact that due to prejudices and misconceptions created by media subversion and war time proganda communism and fascism aren't viewed as two sides of the same coin is disappointing and disconcerting. To claim that Hitler and his subordinates were somehow more villianous than Stalin and his underlings, or for that matter Tojo and the Japanese warlords, is assinine - and a clear invitation for it to happen again.
posted by RevGreg at 3:33 PM on February 26, 2002
I really enjoy how easily the conquest and genocide aspect of communism are passed over in this statement! How can you ignore that it was a stated goal of communism to kill (or otherwise dethrone) the rich and convert the entire world to their system from the very outset? How can you also ignore that direct revolution and murder of members of that target group was their method of gaining power? I guess the fact that the first direct military action in WWII was the invasion of Poland which was a two-front war for the Poles against fascists in the west and communists in the east who had already agreed as to how the country was to be divided is of no consequence either? We also seem to forget the some tens of millions who perished in Stalin's purges of the Ukraine and other slavic countries before the war even got started. Convenient also.
Frankly, I think Fascism is a great, and admittedly fatally flawed, social philosophy that fell into the hands of some very bad men. For that matter, one could say the same about most forms of government. The fact that due to prejudices and misconceptions created by media subversion and war time proganda communism and fascism aren't viewed as two sides of the same coin is disappointing and disconcerting. To claim that Hitler and his subordinates were somehow more villianous than Stalin and his underlings, or for that matter Tojo and the Japanese warlords, is assinine - and a clear invitation for it to happen again.
posted by RevGreg at 3:33 PM on February 26, 2002
The hammer and sickle do not "represent a particular regime at a particular time in history", any more than the Christian cross represents the Spanish Inquisition.
The hammer and sickle was used by both Chinese and Soviet communists. The symbol represents a very specific form of totalitarian government, is still offensive to people who suffered under its banner. The analogy of the Christian cross is ignorant in the extreme.
posted by Ty Webb at 3:34 PM on February 26, 2002
The hammer and sickle was used by both Chinese and Soviet communists. The symbol represents a very specific form of totalitarian government, is still offensive to people who suffered under its banner. The analogy of the Christian cross is ignorant in the extreme.
posted by Ty Webb at 3:34 PM on February 26, 2002
But the red flag was a socialist symbol long before, the hammer is meant to symbolise the workers and the sickle the peasants.
>slaps forehead< you don't say! but the same reasoning is used to justify flying the confederate flag. i>These are meant to be universal communist symbols.
I understand this, but unfortunately tens of millions of people were starved, deported, diappeared, and executed underneath this symbol. It shouldn't be hard to understand why it might put some people off.
posted by Ty Webb at 3:42 PM on February 26, 2002
>slaps forehead< you don't say! but the same reasoning is used to justify flying the confederate flag. i>These are meant to be universal communist symbols.
I understand this, but unfortunately tens of millions of people were starved, deported, diappeared, and executed underneath this symbol. It shouldn't be hard to understand why it might put some people off.
posted by Ty Webb at 3:42 PM on February 26, 2002
RevGreg: How can you ignore that it was a stated goal of communism to kill (or otherwise dethrone) the rich and convert the entire world to their system from the very outset? How can you also ignore that direct revolution and murder of members of that target group was their method of gaining power?
Well, why shouldn't people want to convert the world to their system? Isn't it too obvious that capitalism and communism are identical in this regard? It's just false that Marx advocated the murder of the rich - he wanted to dethrone them certainly, but most people accept that tyrants should be dethroned (it's a moot point whether the rich are tyrants). The question of whether violence should ever be used to achieve political ends is very difficult, and caused much argument within the communist movement. Most people now realise that violent revolutions tend to put violent and disreputable people in power (see Animal Farm), and it's a great pity that Marx didn't see that. On the other hand there must be circumstances in which violent resistance to oppression is justified. The fact that these questions are difficult to answer is precisely why communist thought is still interesting and not obviously evil.
posted by Gaz at 3:56 PM on February 26, 2002
Well, why shouldn't people want to convert the world to their system? Isn't it too obvious that capitalism and communism are identical in this regard? It's just false that Marx advocated the murder of the rich - he wanted to dethrone them certainly, but most people accept that tyrants should be dethroned (it's a moot point whether the rich are tyrants). The question of whether violence should ever be used to achieve political ends is very difficult, and caused much argument within the communist movement. Most people now realise that violent revolutions tend to put violent and disreputable people in power (see Animal Farm), and it's a great pity that Marx didn't see that. On the other hand there must be circumstances in which violent resistance to oppression is justified. The fact that these questions are difficult to answer is precisely why communist thought is still interesting and not obviously evil.
posted by Gaz at 3:56 PM on February 26, 2002
Gaz, thanks for explaining my point better than I could. :)
posted by jonmc at 5:39 PM on February 26, 2002
posted by jonmc at 5:39 PM on February 26, 2002
Ty Webb: You say that the hammer and sickle is unacceptable because it is offensive to those who suffered under it. And you also say that comparing it to the crucifix is offensive. But for some people that is also a symbol of oppression; if you don't believe me read this or this. Not that I think people shouldn't wear crucifixes; but then I think that they should be allowed to wear the hammer and sickle too. Sensitivity is a two-way street.
posted by Gaz at 6:15 PM on February 26, 2002
posted by Gaz at 6:15 PM on February 26, 2002
Well, why shouldn't people want to convert the world to their system? Isn't it too obvious that capitalism and communism are identical in this regard?
Which completely sidesteps the point and is a moot statement since EVERY system has that goal in mind (or will be very short lived.) The problem is that for some odd reason, even though communism and fascism sought the same goals using the same means, one is considered an absolute evil and the other seemingly beyond reproach. It seems that fascism is treated as the product of Absolute Evil© and communism, well, it's merely a failed social experiment.
Bullshit!
Because even if the actions of the Soviet Union were as bad as those of Nazi Germany, communism is not intrinsically evil whereas fascism is.
Oh, do tell. Fascism is intrinsically evil. It's interesting that we are expected to judge communism by the writings of those who formulated it's basic tenets and not by it's results, yet fascism is to be judged by it's results and not by it's basic tenets. Hint: Adolf Hitler and Mussolini are NOT acceptable reading for the basic tenets of fascism! They represent basic fascist ideology about as accurately as observing Stalin and Kruschev.
Frankly, ANY system which has so few checks and balances that it allows it's leaders to undertake massive genocidal actions so shortly after acquiring power should be considered intrinsically evil. Hitler had a good teacher in Stalin, who showed the world how to murder large ethnic groups and get away with it. Hitler merely made the mistake of picking the wrong alliances. Such as the one with Stalin who was playing both ends against the middle anyway. That seems intrinsically evil to me. Of course, I'd be ignoring the fact that Hitler was attempting the same thing.
I'll agree that the leaders were evil but both ideologies were merely flawed. They were flawed in that a relatively small group of people was trusted with an enormous amount of power and there was no way of controlling what they did with that power. The old saw "absolute power corrupts absolutely" may be a bit worn but it seems to be working just fine in this case...
To absolve one or the other merely because we agree with their vision of the future is absurd. I would loath the future as proposed by Karl Marx and I admire the social structure that fascism was attempting to construct - yet both were flawed from the start and fostered the horrors that occured under them. To absolve one and curse the other still strikes me as folly.
posted by RevGreg at 6:41 PM on February 26, 2002
Which completely sidesteps the point and is a moot statement since EVERY system has that goal in mind (or will be very short lived.) The problem is that for some odd reason, even though communism and fascism sought the same goals using the same means, one is considered an absolute evil and the other seemingly beyond reproach. It seems that fascism is treated as the product of Absolute Evil© and communism, well, it's merely a failed social experiment.
Bullshit!
Because even if the actions of the Soviet Union were as bad as those of Nazi Germany, communism is not intrinsically evil whereas fascism is.
Oh, do tell. Fascism is intrinsically evil. It's interesting that we are expected to judge communism by the writings of those who formulated it's basic tenets and not by it's results, yet fascism is to be judged by it's results and not by it's basic tenets. Hint: Adolf Hitler and Mussolini are NOT acceptable reading for the basic tenets of fascism! They represent basic fascist ideology about as accurately as observing Stalin and Kruschev.
Frankly, ANY system which has so few checks and balances that it allows it's leaders to undertake massive genocidal actions so shortly after acquiring power should be considered intrinsically evil. Hitler had a good teacher in Stalin, who showed the world how to murder large ethnic groups and get away with it. Hitler merely made the mistake of picking the wrong alliances. Such as the one with Stalin who was playing both ends against the middle anyway. That seems intrinsically evil to me. Of course, I'd be ignoring the fact that Hitler was attempting the same thing.
I'll agree that the leaders were evil but both ideologies were merely flawed. They were flawed in that a relatively small group of people was trusted with an enormous amount of power and there was no way of controlling what they did with that power. The old saw "absolute power corrupts absolutely" may be a bit worn but it seems to be working just fine in this case...
To absolve one or the other merely because we agree with their vision of the future is absurd. I would loath the future as proposed by Karl Marx and I admire the social structure that fascism was attempting to construct - yet both were flawed from the start and fostered the horrors that occured under them. To absolve one and curse the other still strikes me as folly.
posted by RevGreg at 6:41 PM on February 26, 2002
And you also say that comparing it to the crucifix is offensive. But for some people that is also a symbol of oppression;
Some view the Star of David as oppression, others view white skin as oppression, some view the British flag as oppression, yet others feel that the AK-47 is the symbol of oppression - how long do we wish to carry this out? The police car as a symbol of oppression? The fist as a symbol of oppression? The penis is a symbol of oppression to some but I'm not about to cut mine off!
Sensitivity is a two-way street.
Yes, the offendee has the task of making sure that the offender MEANT to cause offense. If not, then bugger off!
posted by RevGreg at 6:52 PM on February 26, 2002
Some view the Star of David as oppression, others view white skin as oppression, some view the British flag as oppression, yet others feel that the AK-47 is the symbol of oppression - how long do we wish to carry this out? The police car as a symbol of oppression? The fist as a symbol of oppression? The penis is a symbol of oppression to some but I'm not about to cut mine off!
Sensitivity is a two-way street.
Yes, the offendee has the task of making sure that the offender MEANT to cause offense. If not, then bugger off!
posted by RevGreg at 6:52 PM on February 26, 2002
For the record, RevGreg, I am probably the furthest thing from a Marxist as possible, as a cursory glance at many of my previous posts would tell you. I hav had the aquaintance of several people who've lived under communist regimes and my grandparents grew up in Mussolini's Italy. I despise totalitarianism of any sort, left or right.
However, Gaz is correct that a knowledge of Marxism is important for a thinking person of any political stripe, simply because the issues Marx brought up-distribution of wealth, access to means of production, etc-are important factors in any economic system.
By "fatally flawed" I meant that large-scale applied Marxism was doomed to failure for reasons relating to human nature too complex to go into here-and because it was too easy for evil bastards like Stalin and Mao to use it as a tool of oppression and genocide.
Although I do not do so, it is possible to embrace Marxist ideas without being pro-genocide and oppression. Nobody here would belittle the suffering of people under a totalitarian state of any sort, least of all me.
This comment, I believe makes me the first MeFite in history to have defended both Marxism and capitalism.
posted by jonmc at 7:18 PM on February 26, 2002
However, Gaz is correct that a knowledge of Marxism is important for a thinking person of any political stripe, simply because the issues Marx brought up-distribution of wealth, access to means of production, etc-are important factors in any economic system.
By "fatally flawed" I meant that large-scale applied Marxism was doomed to failure for reasons relating to human nature too complex to go into here-and because it was too easy for evil bastards like Stalin and Mao to use it as a tool of oppression and genocide.
Although I do not do so, it is possible to embrace Marxist ideas without being pro-genocide and oppression. Nobody here would belittle the suffering of people under a totalitarian state of any sort, least of all me.
This comment, I believe makes me the first MeFite in history to have defended both Marxism and capitalism.
posted by jonmc at 7:18 PM on February 26, 2002
Hint: Adolf Hitler and Mussolini are NOT acceptable reading for the basic tenets of fascism! They represent basic fascist ideology about as accurately as observing Stalin and Kruschev.
Forgive my ignorance, but who are the great fascist philsophers? As far as I was aware, fascism was founded in 1919 by Mussolini. Of course you can trace the roots back to right-Hegelianism and people like Stirner, Wagner and Nietzsche, but none of them proposes a political system recognisable as fascism (and if you do count that as fascism, then I have no problem with Nietzscheans etc, but it seems a bizarre definition). The most famous fascist intellectual that I'm aware of is D'Annunzio, but he was more of a poet than a philosopher. Heidegger was in some ways a fascist, but he came after Hitler. Maybe it's just the narrowmindedness and left-wing bias of academia, but you have to admit that Marxism is still considered to be of intellectual value whereas fascism isn't; fascists just aren't credited with any philosophical insights. Maybe you think that should be different, but the point I've been making all along is that the acceptability of communist symbols as opposed to fascist ones stems from the greater intellectual acceptability of Marxist thought. It's nothing to do with ignorance about the gulags or misplaced affection for Stalin.
posted by Gaz at 7:22 PM on February 26, 2002
Forgive my ignorance, but who are the great fascist philsophers? As far as I was aware, fascism was founded in 1919 by Mussolini. Of course you can trace the roots back to right-Hegelianism and people like Stirner, Wagner and Nietzsche, but none of them proposes a political system recognisable as fascism (and if you do count that as fascism, then I have no problem with Nietzscheans etc, but it seems a bizarre definition). The most famous fascist intellectual that I'm aware of is D'Annunzio, but he was more of a poet than a philosopher. Heidegger was in some ways a fascist, but he came after Hitler. Maybe it's just the narrowmindedness and left-wing bias of academia, but you have to admit that Marxism is still considered to be of intellectual value whereas fascism isn't; fascists just aren't credited with any philosophical insights. Maybe you think that should be different, but the point I've been making all along is that the acceptability of communist symbols as opposed to fascist ones stems from the greater intellectual acceptability of Marxist thought. It's nothing to do with ignorance about the gulags or misplaced affection for Stalin.
posted by Gaz at 7:22 PM on February 26, 2002
Rev Greg: Some view the Star of David as oppression, others view white skin as oppression, some view the British flag as oppression, yet others feel that the AK-47 is the symbol of oppression - how long do we wish to carry this out? The police car as a symbol of oppression? The fist as a symbol of oppression? The penis is a symbol of oppression to some but I'm not about to cut mine off!
Okay, now I have no idea where you stand as far as the original issue is concerned. It seems that you don't care about giving offense so long as none was intended. So I guess you think that both the swastika and the hammer & sickle are acceptable symbols to wear.
Suppose I asked a communist wearing the hammer & sickle what she wanted. I imagine she'd say that she wanted a society run to the principle 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. She would not be supporting gulags or liquidation of the bourgeousie.
What about the fascist wearing the swastika? As a matter of fact, I think that most people who would wear a swastika are racist and anti-semitic etc, and would support that kind of state. But let's be charitable and suppose that some more moderate kind of fascism is proposed. I guess it goes something like this: strong government with a strong and charismatic leader to inspire the people, and a state that has glory as its supreme value. But even that isn't a morally respectable principle, because it deliberately emphasizes aesthetic rather than moral value, and encourages the sacrifice of the weak to serve glory.
So it appears that the demands of the communist may well be sympathetic, but those of the fascist are clearly outrageous. Is it now clear what I meant when I said that fascism was inherently evil, and that displaying symbols supporting it is indefensible?
posted by Gaz at 7:47 PM on February 26, 2002
Okay, now I have no idea where you stand as far as the original issue is concerned. It seems that you don't care about giving offense so long as none was intended. So I guess you think that both the swastika and the hammer & sickle are acceptable symbols to wear.
Suppose I asked a communist wearing the hammer & sickle what she wanted. I imagine she'd say that she wanted a society run to the principle 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. She would not be supporting gulags or liquidation of the bourgeousie.
What about the fascist wearing the swastika? As a matter of fact, I think that most people who would wear a swastika are racist and anti-semitic etc, and would support that kind of state. But let's be charitable and suppose that some more moderate kind of fascism is proposed. I guess it goes something like this: strong government with a strong and charismatic leader to inspire the people, and a state that has glory as its supreme value. But even that isn't a morally respectable principle, because it deliberately emphasizes aesthetic rather than moral value, and encourages the sacrifice of the weak to serve glory.
So it appears that the demands of the communist may well be sympathetic, but those of the fascist are clearly outrageous. Is it now clear what I meant when I said that fascism was inherently evil, and that displaying symbols supporting it is indefensible?
posted by Gaz at 7:47 PM on February 26, 2002
You guys are looking at the political spectrum wrong. Don't look at it in terms of left or right, but in terms of government control.
In that respect, Fascism and Communism are almost equal. I would also say that communism is inherently unjust, where the focus is the coercion of people to give up their property for the common good. What does this mean? Communism places the immense power of the state in the hands of the few, and they get to take from everyone, murdering all who oppose them. Fascism, on the other hand, places the immense power of the state in the hands of the few, and they get to take from everyone, murdering all who oppose them. In both systems 'evil people' are in power. But remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If an ideology leads to rampand oppression and death (Cuba, China, Soviet Union) does that not tell us something about the value of the ideology? I suggest you abandon your pollyanish ideas about communism, and you can start by reading One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn was put in a labor camp for 10 years just for criticizing Stalin in a letter. Solzenhitsyn estimates that over 100 million have been killed by marxist states. Sure, Stalin was bad, but it was the communist system which allowed him to commit so much evil. Or how about the Khmer Rouge, Cambodian communists? They killed anyone wearing eye glasses, and then simplified their system and began killing anyone who was literate, in the name of communism. The death toll in Cambodia alone topped 1 million people, murdered by the state. 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is an idea which denies the basic selfishness of human nature, and this false utopian ideal is the worst possible excuse for the most brutal regimes ever created on the face of the earth.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:35 AM on February 27, 2002
In that respect, Fascism and Communism are almost equal. I would also say that communism is inherently unjust, where the focus is the coercion of people to give up their property for the common good. What does this mean? Communism places the immense power of the state in the hands of the few, and they get to take from everyone, murdering all who oppose them. Fascism, on the other hand, places the immense power of the state in the hands of the few, and they get to take from everyone, murdering all who oppose them. In both systems 'evil people' are in power. But remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If an ideology leads to rampand oppression and death (Cuba, China, Soviet Union) does that not tell us something about the value of the ideology? I suggest you abandon your pollyanish ideas about communism, and you can start by reading One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn was put in a labor camp for 10 years just for criticizing Stalin in a letter. Solzenhitsyn estimates that over 100 million have been killed by marxist states. Sure, Stalin was bad, but it was the communist system which allowed him to commit so much evil. Or how about the Khmer Rouge, Cambodian communists? They killed anyone wearing eye glasses, and then simplified their system and began killing anyone who was literate, in the name of communism. The death toll in Cambodia alone topped 1 million people, murdered by the state. 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is an idea which denies the basic selfishness of human nature, and this false utopian ideal is the worst possible excuse for the most brutal regimes ever created on the face of the earth.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:35 AM on February 27, 2002
Welcome to the fray Gaz. It's a pleasure to read what you have to say.
posted by crasspastor at 1:42 AM on February 27, 2002
posted by crasspastor at 1:42 AM on February 27, 2002
So it appears that the demands of the communist may well be sympathetic, but those of the fascist are clearly outrageous.
And, I suppose, that you feel that 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' isn't an outrageous demand? I think it's absurd and an affront to the diginity of the individual. The ONLY way to acheive such a state is through totalitarian methods which will inevitably lead to gulags and the liquidation of the bourgeousie - there is no way around it. I saw some vitrolic comments the other day about how individuals under the Nazis HAD to have known what was going on and should have done something about it - yet someone who supports a communist state which has committed the very same crimes is an innocent? Please.
But even that isn't a morally respectable principle, because it deliberately emphasizes aesthetic rather than moral value, and encourages the sacrifice of the weak to serve glory.
So, what you are saying is that you completely misunderstand fascism. In actual practice, communism and fascism are almost identical in nature. Their goals are the same, their economic structure is nearly identical and they both place a heavy emphasis on manufactured aesthetic over actual quantifiable social gains. Staged rallies, beautiful showpiece cities for tourists and displays of military and governmental power have been the hallmark of EVERY fascist and communist government. Why? Both systems by their very nature most be totalitarian in structure and it is why they develop into the monstrosities they become. They both SUCK as governments in practice, as has been proven time and again. One can pick and choose a few good ideas and arguments from each side but, in the end, either BOTH are offensive or BOTH aren't offensive.
You guys are looking at the political spectrum wrong. Don't look at it in terms of left or right, but in terms of government control.
I'm right with you insomnyuk, thanks for the great post.
posted by RevGreg at 3:58 PM on February 27, 2002
And, I suppose, that you feel that 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' isn't an outrageous demand? I think it's absurd and an affront to the diginity of the individual. The ONLY way to acheive such a state is through totalitarian methods which will inevitably lead to gulags and the liquidation of the bourgeousie - there is no way around it. I saw some vitrolic comments the other day about how individuals under the Nazis HAD to have known what was going on and should have done something about it - yet someone who supports a communist state which has committed the very same crimes is an innocent? Please.
But even that isn't a morally respectable principle, because it deliberately emphasizes aesthetic rather than moral value, and encourages the sacrifice of the weak to serve glory.
So, what you are saying is that you completely misunderstand fascism. In actual practice, communism and fascism are almost identical in nature. Their goals are the same, their economic structure is nearly identical and they both place a heavy emphasis on manufactured aesthetic over actual quantifiable social gains. Staged rallies, beautiful showpiece cities for tourists and displays of military and governmental power have been the hallmark of EVERY fascist and communist government. Why? Both systems by their very nature most be totalitarian in structure and it is why they develop into the monstrosities they become. They both SUCK as governments in practice, as has been proven time and again. One can pick and choose a few good ideas and arguments from each side but, in the end, either BOTH are offensive or BOTH aren't offensive.
You guys are looking at the political spectrum wrong. Don't look at it in terms of left or right, but in terms of government control.
I'm right with you insomnyuk, thanks for the great post.
posted by RevGreg at 3:58 PM on February 27, 2002
« Older Muslim states hate us because their culture is... | SF area woman wants to be aeorobics instructor Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
possibly, as 'the fashion world' staggers around looking for 'inspiration' any source is considered.
i know i would rather wear a 'che' t-shirt than an 'eichmann'.
it's one of the signs the end of the world is near - people 'know' more about fashion than their political history.
posted by asok at 10:07 AM on February 26, 2002