Jim Henley dissents from the oft-heard libertarian complaint about hipster appropriation of Soviet iconography, which typically comes in the form of the observation that nobody would dream of trying this with Nazi imagery. I think it’s worth stressing that it’s not communism that’s exceptional here, but Naziism: Its resistance to our tendency to turn everything into kitsch seems unique.
I think Jim’s right that the unique reaction to the Nazi case has to do with a special horror at the intentions of that regime: Soviet communism, one might say, turned out to be massively murderous, while the extermination of an entire group of people was a core goal of Nazi ideology. It’s also probably relevant that the U.S. is now home to large numbers of people who either survived the Holocaust or whose parents did, and that the Soviet Union survived for long enough that it’s not exclusively a symbol of mass murder. But I suspect there’s an additional factor: We may not feel sufficiently confident in our ability to tame or detourn the Nazi aesthetic as we do its Soviet counterpart, precisely because Naziism was in some ways an essentially aesthetic movement—at its core a style as much as an ideology. Flip through your mental photo book for “Nazi” and, along with the horrors of the camps, you probably see a Nuremberg rally: Thousands lined up, eyes wild, mouths wide with a feral “sieg heil,” arms raised in salute, each bearing a swastika armband matching the massive banners on stage. We see Naziism, far more than communism, as not just a hideous ideology, but a kind of mass madness, a viral unleashing of the id. Think of Ionesco’s Rhinoceros, in which the town’s people transform, one at a time, into beasts, seduced by the grunting “music” of the herd. Where Soviet iconography merely symbolizes its grotesque regime, Nazi iconography seems like a carrier of the plague it represents.
Addendum: Commenter Nick has an even better explanation—one I feel a little dumb for not having mentioned in the original post. Yes, yes, there are halfwits out there earnestly rocking Che T-shirts, but Soviet imagery is basically only used ironically in contemporary America. We don’t have dangerous domestic groups of neo-Soviets. There are, however, existing racist groups with swastika fetishes, leaving the meaning of any attempt at appropriation potentially ambiguous.
26 responses so far ↓
1 Nick // Jun 8, 2007 at 4:19 pm
It may also be of note that Nazi symbology keeps being resurrected by white supremacists. When something is currently being brandished by someone who would like to kill all the Jews, it’s a little harder to be ironic about it.
2 michael farris // Jun 8, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Springtime for Hitler?
3 Julian Sanchez // Jun 8, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Well, sort of… that works because in the context of a whole play or film, you can make it crystal clear that what’s going on is parody. You can’t as easily do that with a bar theme or a T-shirt… and indeed, part of the point of that sort of ironic aesthetic is that it’s more subtle than that–the knowing wink rather than the mallet–so that people can take pleasure in “getting it.”
4 Ricky // Jun 8, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I think both you and Nick have got it on why Nazi imagery is unacceptable for use in pop culture. I think one has to also consider the relative aesthetics. Nazi imagery is dominated by red/black, which has somewhat of a harsh, hard, and cold connotation. Red/black tend to be used for “evil” color motifs in pop culture, and I wonder how much Nazi imagery has to do with that.
Compare that with the Soviet iconography, dominated by the red/yellow combination. It’s quite festive and happy. Hell, switch out the star for an “M” and you have a ready made bizzaro world McDonald’s ad campaign.
5 FinFangFoom // Jun 8, 2007 at 7:50 pm
I think the major distinction between the two is that everyone knows what the Nazis did. There was no big reveal to the worst crimes of the Soviet Union, since most of the really bad ones happened more than thirty years before the regime collapsed. A million Robert Conquest books about famines and the GULag won’t make Communism as vividly evil as the juxtaposition of images of death camps and Nuremberg rallies do Nazism.
Also, the relationship between the US and communist states has been much more ambivalent. Vietnam and the Rosenbergs and McCarthy reflect more badly on us than anything we did to the Germans. There have always been people supporting communism here. I assume everyone who went to college in that last 35 years had at least one professor who was openly sympathetic towards communism.
As to survivors of the death camps living in the US, my guess is that ultimately has much less effect than the fact that so many people’s grandfathers fought in the Second World War.
6 Mona // Jun 8, 2007 at 10:26 pm
and the Rosenbergs…reflect more badly on us
Julius was guilty. Ethel, at least complicit. I oppose the death penalty, but certainly Julius was engaged in running a wholesale espionage ring.
7 Kevin B. O'Reilly // Jun 8, 2007 at 11:43 pm
No, Communism and Nazism aren’t the same — aesthetically, philosophically, etc. But I just can’t help feeling a little sick to my stomach when I see somebody wearing some Commie paraphernalia. I don’t know whether it’s ironic. I frankly don’t give a shit.
And just to set this straight — communism was (and is) inherently evil, rooted in envy and hatred of individual choice. None of that “Oh, but it was well intended” bullshit, OK? Is it as obviously and inherently evil as Nazism? No, no it isn’t. But that doesn’t mean I’ve to be happy about Soviet-chic.
8 shecky // Jun 9, 2007 at 2:48 am
I can’t help if I like what I like. My immediate recollections tell me that Soviet iconography tends to appeal to me either because of good modernist design or wonderfully craptacular design. Either way, I can find something aesthetically pleasing or amusing.
My immediate recollection of Nazi iconography veers more into a retro European vein, which to me tends to just look old fashioned.
I’m certainly not a art historian, however, and am sure examples could be brought up to contradict my generalizations.
9 Not a Libertarian // Jun 9, 2007 at 10:21 am
And just to set this straight — communism was (and is) inherently evil, rooted in envy and hatred of individual choice.
You could go on like this forever. Communism is inherently evil?
Well maybe. But how about free market capitalism? Don’t “libertarians” have to feel some responsiblity for the genocide in Ireland in 1848 when millions of people died because of a libertarian’s (Lord Russel) ideology about not wanting to interfere with the free market?
Are you going to condemn Union Jacks?
About about King Leopold in the Congo? Are we going to condemn Pith Helmts, Banana Republic and the “Save Darfur” movement (which comes directly from the kind of Christian do gooder cover for imperialism we had back in the 1880s).
Genocide isn’t the exception in history. It’s the constant.
But the reason there’s not much in the way of “Nazi chic” is not because people have avoided it but because, unlike Soviet chic, it’s a key part of western culture. It doesn’t stand out like Soviet chic does.
Ever look at the typical Ralph Lauren ad? What are they but ripoffs of Nazi chic? How about the band “Kiss”. Ever get a look at the way they visualize the last two letters in their name?
So in the end, Communism is dead. So “we” can appropriate their iconography. But white supremacy and imperialism (of which Nazism is just the highest form)?
Alive and well.
10 Daze // Jun 9, 2007 at 11:46 am
“Soviet imagery is basically only used ironically in contemporary America. We don’t have dangerous domestic groups of neo-Soviets.”
This is not quite true. There are still little marxist groups using red stars and hammer & sickle logos unironically. It’s just easier for most of us to consider them pathetic and harmless, in a way we can’t with little nazi groups using swastikas unironically.
11 FinFangFoom // Jun 9, 2007 at 1:26 pm
“Ever look at the typical Ralph Lauren ad? What are they but ripoffs of Nazi chic?”
What?
“About about King Leopold in the Congo? Are we going to condemn Pith Helmts, Banana Republic and the “Save Darfur” movement (which comes directly from the kind of Christian do gooder cover for imperialism we had back in the 1880s).”
Hrh?
12 Nicholas Weininger // Jun 9, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Yeah, I think part of the difference in perceived badness between neo-Soviets and neo-Nazis is the difference between indirect and immediate threats of violence. I see neo-Soviets around all the time; I live in the sort of San Francisco neighborhood where people hand out copies of the Socialist Worker on street corners and wear Che T-shirts quite unironically.
I detest them (not least because they do so much to discredit causes I agree with, such as opposition to the Iraq war) and it would be horrifically awful if they or their ideological compatriots ever got into national power. Hell, the sort of people they help elect to local office (Chris Daly comes to mind) *are* pretty awful and do a lot to perpetuate the city’s problems.
But I don’t worry when I pass by them that one of them might decide to beat me up because I look like a capitalist pig. Which is not something I could say as a person of Jewish ancestry walking past a bunch of Aryan Brotherhood skinheads. It’s one thing to convey support for mass murder of people you don’t like in a far-off place, and quite another to convey willingness to beat up people you don’t like in the street right now.
13 Not a Libertarian // Jun 9, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I detest them (not least because they do so much to discredit causes I agree with, such as opposition to the Iraq war) and it would be horrifically awful if they or their ideological compatriots ever got into national power.
The Democratic Hacks at the Daily Kos are running this same bullshit line against Ron Paul. He *discredits* opposition to the war in Iraq.
This is a completely bogus arguments. Communist ties don’t discredit opposition to the war in Iraq. Opposition to the war in Iraq by Communists (when no Democrats will speak up about it) gives credability to Communists.
I’d rather have the guy in the Che shirt who opposes dumping nukes on Iran than the “moderate” who wants to leave “all options on the table”.
And I feel the same way about the Libertarian movement. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about anything Ron Paul said in the 1980s. What I care about is that he opposes the war in Iraq.
14 Not a Libertarian // Jun 9, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I think the major distinction between the two is that everyone knows what the Nazis did. There was no big reveal to the worst crimes of the Soviet Union, since most of the really bad ones happened more than thirty years before the regime collapsed. A million Robert Conquest books about famines and the GULag won’t make Communism as vividly evil as the juxtaposition of images of death camps and Nuremberg rallies do Nazism.
It also has to do with the fact that the Nazi holocaust is used to justify support for the state of Israel.
Soviet Chic wasn’t a big deal before the end of the Cold War unless it was a conscious statement of rebellion.
Now that the Cold War is over, you can use it as an ironic fashion state.
But any reference to the Nazis, even in jest, is likely to get you the hostility of the guardians of Brand Holocaust, as Keith Olbermann found out the hard way.
http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm
15 Not a Libertarian // Jun 9, 2007 at 4:21 pm
“Ever look at the typical Ralph Lauren ad? What are they but ripoffs of Nazi chic?”
What?
You need to study “Triumph of the Will” and Nazi aesthetics in general and note how much the fashion and advertising industry has made use of them.
Your confusion is confusing (unless it’s a passive aggressive expression of hostility). A lot of this shit in the fashion industry isn’t even hiding it’s Nazi origins. It’s winking at you, letting you in on the joke.
16 Matt // Jun 9, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Ralph Lauren is Jewish.
17 The Run Amok // Jun 9, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Hey Julian,
Interesting post. I was thinking about it while watching the Soviet propaganda film Jane Galt post earlier. Part of my thoughts:
“Instead of celebrating power outright, the Soviet film patronizes with fraternity. Riefenstahl’s films and Speer’s buildings overwhelm. They don’t seek outside approval, but submission. To a non-contemporary individual who prizes liberty, the Nazi zeitgeist is more explicitly ominous.”
The rest here
http://therunamok.wordpress.com/2007/06/09/uncle-joe-in-berlin/
Note: this in no way implies that the Soviet Union wasn’t an evil totalitarian state like the Nazis. Just regarding aesthetics.
18 Jacob T. Levy // Jun 10, 2007 at 12:12 am
er… free-market responsibility for the potato famine? corn laws, anyone?
19 Not a Libertarian // Jun 10, 2007 at 2:36 am
Ralph Lauren is Jewish.
Posted by: Matt at June 9, 2007 9:14 PM
And? That means he can’t rip off the Nazi aesthetic and use it as part of his ads?
Ralph Lauren has had ad campaigns that directly echo some of the homoerotic, aryan chic of Triumph of the Will.
Once again, if you want to see the Nazi/Fascist aeshetic alive and well, just go to the fashion/ad industry.
20 Sam McManus, totally a Libertarian // Jun 11, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I think Soviet aesthetics are just easier to take at face value. How many times have you heard “Well, it’s a good idea, but it doesn’t work in practice” in regards to communism? Nazism doesn’t have the same sort of appeal to outsiders because it was pretty prusso-centric and brutal on its face; the Soviet “ideal” of total comraderie still has its fans because the evils of such a doctrine are hidden. In other words, the evils of communism weren’t the point of communism, whereas with Nazism the stated goal (if not at first) was militarism and aggression.
21 Brian Moore // Jun 12, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I think part of it is that Nazis and Soviets had (or would have) different opinions about those kitschy items of today that bear their imagery. I have a crappy Mao watch because I thought it would be hilarious to think of how angry he would be at his image being reduced to a mere trinket. (The minutes hand is Mao’s arm, raised in eternally rotating salute — when the battery works)
It’s certainly true that part of it is that some people wear Nazi regalia non-ironically, whereas I don’t think anyone (even Communists) are particularly serious about Soviet symbols. But I’m sure this isn’t a very settling response to say, a Hungarian, seeing a hammer and sickle, who emigrated here right before the tanks rolled in and killed his family, just as it wouldn’t be for a holocaust survivor to see an “ironic” swastika.
I know if I could get memorabilia with the symbols of ancient tyrants (for whom the statute of limitations on outrage has passed) I would. I bet I could sell some sweet William the Conqueror gear. Maybe Hammurabi t-shirts.
22 tredinertok // Jul 10, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Hello
Very interesting information! Thanks!
G’night
23 AltaGid // Aug 8, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Hello! Help solve the problem.
Very often try to enter the forum, but says that the password is not correct.
Regrettably use of remembering. Give like to be?
Thank you!
24 Thanos6 // Aug 21, 2007 at 11:09 am
There’s also the fact that the Nazis were 100% evil right up until the end (I’m not counting, say, the very brief reign of Karl Donitz). On the other hand, the Soviets, for the last decade or so, had Gorbachev, who’s always struck me as a fundamentally decent man trying to remove the corruption of the system but who was removed before he could finish.
25 Plainyelasida // Oct 29, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I was exactly looking for something like that. Are you kidding me about my ideas sales I have a nice fresh joke for you people) What is the last thing a “Tickle Me Elmo” doll gets at the factory? Two test tickles.
26 Nikitn // May 22, 2009 at 7:37 am
Retards, Communism, or Soviet Union WAS NO MORE EVIL THEN US and capitalism. Saying otherwise proves that you are just another pathetic result of the US education system.
Clava CCCR!