Communism... Cute? In style?

[Nightshade]

-- article --

The Boston Globe
Communist chic

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | April 30, 2006

IN JANUARY 2005, Britain's Prince Harry attended a birthday party dressed as a Nazi. When the London Sun published a picture of the prince in his German desert uniform and swastika armband, it triggered widespread outrage and disgust. In scathing editorials, Harry was condemned as an ignorant and insensitive clod; months later, he was still apologizing for his tasteless costume. ''It was a very stupid thing to do,\" he said in September. ''I've learnt my lesson.\"

For a more recent example of totalitarian fashion, consider Tim Vincent, the New York correspondent for NBC's entertainment newsmagazine, ''Access Hollywood.\" Twice in the last few weeks, Vincent has introduced stories about upcoming movies while sporting an open jacket over a bright red T-shirt -- on which, clearly outlined in gold, was a large red star and a hammer-and-sickle: the international emblems of totalitarian communism.

And what was the public reaction to seeing those icons of cruelty and death turned into the latest yuppie style? Was there a furor? Moral outrage? Blistering editorials?

None of the above.

Enter ''hammer and sickle\" into a shopping search engine, and up pop dozens of products adorned with the Marxist brand -- T-shirts and ski caps, bracelet charms and keychains, posters of Lenin and ''Soviet Kremlin Stainless Steel Flasks.\"

The glamorization of communism is widespread. On West 4th Street in Manhattan, the popular KGB Bar is known for its literary readings and Soviet propaganda posters. In Los Angeles, the La La Ling boutique sells baby clothing emblazoned with the face of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro's notorious henchman. At the House of Mao, a popular eatery in Singapore, waiters in Chinese army uniforms serve Long March Chicken, and a giant picture of Mao Zedong dominates one wall.

What can explain such ''communist chic?\" How can people who wouldn't dream of drinking in a pub called Gestapo cheerfully hang out at the KGB Bar? If the swastika is an undisputed symbol of unspeakable evil, can the hammer-and-sickle and other emblems of communism be anything less?

Between 1933 and 1945, Adolf Hitler's Nazis slaughtered some 21 million people, but the communist nightmare has lasted far longer and its death toll is far, far higher. Since 1917, communist regimes have sent more than 100 million victims to their graves -- and in places like North Korea, the deaths continue to this day. The historian R.J. Rummel, an expert on genocide and government mass murder, estimates that the Soviet Union alone annihilated nearly 62 million people: ''Old and young, healthy and sick, men and women, even infants and the infirm, were killed in cold blood. They were not combatants in civil war or rebellions; they were not criminals. Indeed, nearly all were guilty of . . . nothing.\"

Yet communism rarely evokes the instinctive loathing that Nazism does. Prince Harry's swastika was way over the line, but Tim Vincent's hammer-and-sickle was kitschy and cool. Why?

Several reasons suggest themselves.

One is that in the war to defeat Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union fought with the Allies. World War II eventually gave way to the long-drawn Cold War, but America's alliance with Moscow left in many minds the belief that when it counted most, the communists were on our side.

Moreover, the Nazis didn't camouflage their hatefulness. Their rhetoric made only too clear that they loathed Jews and other ''subhumans\" and believed an Aryan master race was destined to rule all others. By contrast, communist movements typically masked their ruthlessness with appealing talk of peace, equality, and an end to exploitation. Partly as a result, the myth persists to this day that communism is really a noble system that has never been properly implemented.

Third, the excesses of Joseph McCarthy hurt honest anticommunism. In the backlash to McCarthyism, many journalists and intellectuals came to dismiss any strong stand against the communists as ''Red baiting,\" and conscientious liberals found it increasingly difficult to take a vocal anti-Soviet stand.

But perhaps the strongest explanation is the simplest: visibility. Ever since the end of World War II, when photographers entered the death camps and recorded what they found, the world has had indelible images of the Nazi crimes. But no army ever liberated the Soviet Gulag or halted the Maoist massacres. If there are photos or films of those atrocities, few of us have ever seen them. The victims of communism have tended to be invisible -- and suffering that isn't seen is suffering most people don't think about.

''Communist chic?\" The blood of 100 million victims cries out from the ground. To wear the symbols of their killers is no fashion statement, but the ultimate in bad taste.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

-- article --

[Top Gun]

No one spoke up about Tim Vincent because the only people who watch Access Hollywood don't even know what that symbol means. Lots of good points in there, though.

[Shadowfury333]

Slightly off topic, but the funniest thing that I find about communism is that in an attempt to correct some of its flaws, namely those concerning people getting what they didn't earn, I came up with capitalism, although without (title) inheritance and with public schools and hospitals.

[Jeff250]

Yeah I'd date a commie.

[Bet51987]

Lets pretend you were an alien from outer space looking for a home on earth and knew nothing about communism or capitalism.

You beam up an encyclopedia from earth and read what each one was about.

Capitalism... An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Communism... A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

You would most likely steer your ship and land in a communist country.

Bettina

[Kilarin]

You would most likely steer your ship and land in a communist country.

I've got a friend who is a genius, works for JPL now. He once told me:

Communisim assumes that man is good and selfless and wants to help his neighbor. It builds a system around that. It is a complete and utter failure.

Capitolisim assumes that man is a greedy, lazy bum who won't do anything unless its for his own benefit and couldn't give a care about his neighbor. It builds a system based upon that. It is a raving success.

It doesn't say much about mankind, but it does tell us which system to support.

[Nightshade]

Communism and capitalism are systems of economics and in an academic and ideal world, communism would offer more to mankind as a whole than the greed and disproportion of capitalism- but that isn't the issue being discussed here.

In many senses what passes for \"communism\" in our world are systems of tyranny and murder in the name of the state. Why are symbols of genocide and murder under the communist banner any different than those of the nazi banner?

[Shadowfury333]

The thing about communism is that it goes against human nature, unlike capitalism. Since the people are naturally unwilling to share, let alone be forced to, the government needs to instate draconian measures to eliminate the possibility of rebellion by the discontented masses.

Personally I think that a good system of government would be one that is more socialist for the lower-income earners and more capitalistic for the high-income earners. This may seem to be a system to keep the poor poor and the rich rich, but there would also be 2 methods by which one could reduce one's taxes in return for less use of the social safety net. 1. getting a better job that puts you in a higher tax bracket, esp. starting a company. 2. Fill out a form to allow you to pay less taxes in return for fewer free services, which may lead to #1.

[Kilarin]

\"It was through the Declaration of Independence that we Americans acknowledged the eternal inequality of man. For by it we abolished a cut-and-dried aristocracy. We had seen little men artificially held up in high places, and great men artificially held down in low places, and our own justice-loving hearts abhorred this violence to human nature. Therefore, we decreed that every man should thenceforth have equal liberty to find his own level. By this very decree we acknowledged and gave freedom to true aristocracy, saying, 'Let the best man win, whoever he is.' Let the best man win! That is America's word. That is true democracy. And true democracy and true aristocracy are one and the same thing. If anybody cannot see this, so much the worse for his eyesight.\"

--Owen Wister in \"The Virginian,\" New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1911.

[Duper]

communizim and democracy are both utopian ideals. Human nature will not allow them to work as intended. (as previously stated).

America is not a democracy. We employ democratic practices with some of the constraints of a republic. Any government requires that people act honestly and for the good of the whole. Our present condition in government shows that even the best systems can decay.

[Kilarin]

communizim and democracy are both utopian ideals.

Communism and Democracy are not opposites. Communism is an economic system, and Democracy is a system of government. Theoretically you could have a democratic communism. (its never worked out in practice though)

But you are correct that BOTH systems are self destructive, communism destroys itself very quickly, capitalism takes longer, and with a few legal controls to keep greed in check, can take a LOT longer to self destruct.

[Beowulf]

The late 1800s was the birth of American industry. It's when tycoons such as Carnegie, Rockafeller, J.P. Morgan made their fortunes. But it also was a period of some of the worst and most blatent economic and political corruption in American history. Do you know why? This is a period of time when the government backed off American industry. It passed fewer regulation laws, passed high protective tariffs, and for the most part these huge corporations had free range as to what they could do.

The point is, capitalism can easily be easily corrupted, and without some government intervention, the rich will get richer and the poor will starve. It was true in the 1890s, it was true in the Reagan administration, it's true now.

Whereas communism results in leaders becoming corrupt and paranoid and workers becoming lazy and unmotivated.

Bottom line? Humans suck and we'd all be better off looking up at the grass rather than down at it.

[Flabby Chick]

Whereas communism results in leaders becoming corrupt and paranoid and workers becoming lazy and unmotivated.

This is so true. I'm probably the only one here who has lived within a florishing communistic society so i know what i'm talking about.

My view? Communism is too ideal for humans. We're not ready for it.

[Duper]

communizim and democracy are both utopian ideals.

Communism and Democracy are not opposites.

I know. I wasn't implying they were. I was mearly stating that they are BOTH idealistic forms of "government".

I put them together simply because for 50 years now, they have been put together as good verses evil. When actually, it's not the system but the people holding the reigns of those sytems.

[Palzon]

The thing about communism is that it goes against human nature, unlike capitalism. Since the people are naturally unwilling to share...

This is not true actually. The Eskimos are an example of a society where everything is shared. If one eats, they all eat.

Also, capitalism is a better success than communism has been, but it is hardly a raving success.

[fliptw]

A planned economy is only as a good as its planners. Soviet planners focused too much on beating the west, and not enough domestically, that in additon to the glaring lack of considering for the motivation of producers is what made communism fail(and considering that the ulitmate goal of communism is to make everyone producers, its a pretty ironic oversite).

The hammer and sickle is good piece of graphic design, which is why its still around with that one Che Gurerra design, and why both will still be around after their original meanings are forgotten.

[DCrazy]

Why did the 20s through the 40s have such great graphic design, and why were they almost always the work of totalitarian governments? The whole Swastika theme, the hammer and sickle, Lenin's statue... all the angles and clean-cut silkscreening was way ahead of its time. Look at the cover of a Franz Ferdinand album and you'll see that we long for this quality of graphic design again.