Soviet Swastika. Real or otherwise?

[theyounghistorian77]

This is a response to a Post, made by Ad Initium on my thread, refuting some of the claims that Hitler was a leftist. One of the pieces brought up, by the webpage that i am critiquing as evidence that Hitler was leftist is this image below.

Now i've already made a comment, pointing out that whilst this image may Look very convincing. Only to the foolish it does anyway. Read what it says around the Swastika. The Red Army was formed Feb. 23, 1918. The date on the picture is smudged, but it's probably 1918. The text in Russian details the description of the patch and who it is designed for: Red Army soldiers and commanding officers of the Kalmyk troops. The Kalmyks are a small pastoral ethnic group in southern Russia, with their own autonomous region west of the Caspian Sea. They are of Mongolian origin and they are Buddhists. I believe that paticular swastika, which is a common Buddhist symbol is just that, It's Buddhist, and has nothing to do with socialism per-se. In the text, the swastika is called "LYUNGTN" or some such native Kalmyk word in Cyrillic (the text is blurry and those may be characters specific to the Kalmyk language).

So anyway, even if genuine, what i've wrote above still argues against the website anyway, But Ad Initium has made a further analysis

Perhaps the image will disappear at some time . As soon as the poster realizes how CRAP it is. But I uploaded it to imageshack for safety as such we have a backup... and Ive have ZOOMED in to the most interresting area in BIG WHITE CIRCLES.

Suppose all that text has some validity in reality ... (hard) ... How come the image, the poster of this message is using, is totally crap and fake? ALL NORMAL PERSONS with a little bit of sence and understanding of photo's and manipulation of images, can clearly see this is fake !!! Just look at THE FOLD in the right side of this paper. Explain to me please why THE FOLD in this socalled AUTHENTIC piece of paper ... does NOT extend to the red inked communistic mark.

I will tell you !!! ... Someone put a FAKE image over a USSR document with the intend to fool us.

He's accused the image of being Fake, (photoshopped?) And that has got me thinking, Is the image real or Fake? Im not an expert on photo manipulation but im prepared to accept it's genuine at the moment. Am i being led astray by that?

 

[Unwardil]

Even if it wasn't fake, which it very likely is, how does the existence of right wing fascists in russia give credence to the idea that Hitler was a leftist?

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Even if it wasn't fake, which it very likely is, how does the existence of right wing fascists in russia give credence to the idea that Hitler was a leftist?

The critique is an unfinished product. But even so, you should read the parts where i discuss Right and left.

But to answer your question, Presumably you are talking about fascists today. How modern fascists think today is no determiner for how Hitler was in the 30's-40's.

The place, that one takes on the political spectrum is determined by the position that one takes on the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of property and wealth in general. It is a political economy position. That is the general academic position, and it has nothing to do with government interference or control and has not changed. There is no such concept as there being a 'modern left' that is different in conception to a 'non-modern or past Left.

There is in this sense only one Left and Right, and it is determined by the political economy position I stated, and that determiner has not changed, which is why it is a useful measure in history and political economy. It is separate from 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and as long as it is used correctly in the academic manner it is always consistent. Then you have the problem in that you are mixing the economic and social sphere in your categorization of conservative and liberal. Taken as its most basic; a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social and economic structure and the power of the existing elites. Throughout history the strategies to do this can take various forms in different places and times. In the past, it has sometimes taken the form more gov't involvement in the private sector to secure the position of those elites either through and aristocracy or the fascist parties.

The modern inception of maintaining the elites (i.e., conservative) is to push the idea of the 'free-market' and total laissez faire which shifts money and power upward and gives more power to the large trusts. So modern conservatives are acting in a consistently conservative manner. A liberal or, to liberalize is one who wishes to remove restrains, but it, like 'conservative' it must be delineated as to whether this involves the social or economic sphere. This is because one can be fiscally conservative but socially liberal,, as is the case for what are called conservative Democrats, and to varying degrees the present day Libertarians. (Although many Libertarians are so far to the Right economically they are beyond being fiscally conservative, they are reactionary ultra-right. Neoliberals on steroids) In the modern usage, a fiscal liberal is, not one who wishes to, remove restrains on the economy, but one who wishes to remove economic restraints put upon the lower classes by the economy using social programs and regulation to do so.
-
So in this way, while the particular ideas and policies pushed by those called Liberal or Conservative may shift, the exact concept behind those terms do not.

When it is said that modern conservatives are the "classical liberals" this is, not really the case either. First of all, in the social sphere, it is the present day liberals that carry on the mantle of the Classical Liberals in political freedoms with positive policies on civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation and fostering free speech through organizations such as the ACLU for example. Additionally, the Classic Liberal economists were not "free-market' as is it is interpreted by the modern libertarian crowd or even most Republicans. Not even Adam, Smith himself preached the type of fanatical type of 'free-market' that is put forth by the modern liberation crowd.

"Adam Smith was not a dogmatic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. A careful exposition of his work will demonstrate that there were many functions which the government could fulfil in capitalist-organized society. In many (although not quite all) ways, Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was, close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat" Spencer Pack "Capitalism as a Moral System, Adam Smith's critique of the Free Market Economy" p1

The Classical Liberals in the economic sphere refers really to the ones who wished to dismantle the mercantilist trading system and the privilege of the aristocracy, issues which; neither is relevant to contemporary society. That was the extent of their idea of "free-market" not the modern usage, of lowering the taxes on the wealthy and totally unregulated markets and trade.

Admittedly the contemporary conservatives do try to claim that they acting from the same concepts, but more properly the modern conservatives are Neoliberal, or, if they include a social aspect Neoconservative, but both push Neoliberal economic policies like 'free-trade' and 'privatization' which is the way to keep the existing social structure and elite status quo; in other words, a conservative policy.

One should know that a person's place on the left/right political spectrum is not decided by a 'checklist' of organizations and ideas supported by that person. It may be blurred by their stances on things like personal freedom, social policy, et cetera and the connections between them. That's where the complexities lie. Even then, it is a poor way to attempt to understand one's full political ideology, as even people on the same side of it can hold ideologies that are almost completely incompatible with each other. Consider two left-wing ideologies, say, communism and social democracy, for example: Communism is anti-capitalist and calls for a complete overthrow of the capitalist system, thus making it far left. social democracy on the other hand calls for the capitalist system to be reformed via a mixed economy and progressive policies. Thus making it centre left. Communist economic policies are incompatible with social democracy, as communists want to change the entire system and not just make it more tolerable or equal within the confines of the current system.

if the economy is mixed with a heavier emphasis towards the private sector, than it is centre right, if the economy is completely privatised, than it is far-right. That is the best way i have at looking at politics. Older models, ie the "1789 model" as i call it, i find are flawed. This describes the flaws best.

"There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook" - Political compass.org

Which is why i use economics (ie where you stand on who owns the means of production) as a determiner for left and right. as explained earlier. Capitalism on one side, Communist economics (not necessarily the system seen in the soviet union) on the other. So how do i solve the problem of Stalin vs Ghandi? Through another axis, the Libertarian/authoritarian scale. Under ray's idea of politics, There is no difference between an anarchist (far-left libertarian) and a communist (far-left authoritarian) I would like to point out that a more clinical definition of Conservativism is that - In general terms, is a political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society. (oxford concise dictionary of politics) and does not necessarily say that one has to be libertarian, Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian conservative, as are the islamic conservatives in the middle east. so any assertion that conservativism is automaticly about liberty, can be rubbished. It depends on what you are conserving to begin with, in reality.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I only gamble on sure things :arrow: and I'm willing to wager thats photoshopped :!:

 

[theyounghistorian77]

I only gamble on sure things :arrow: and I'm willing to wager thats photoshopped :!:

you gambling that Fake wins the poll? Or you actualy think it's fake?

 

[JustBusiness17]

I only gamble on sure things :arrow: and I'm willing to wager thats photoshopped :!:

you gambling that Fake wins the poll? Or you actualy think it's fake?

It wouldn't be a sure thing if human error was involved
\

 

[DepricatedZero]

There's no shading on the red.

It looks like it was alpha blended from a solid image, so the texture of the book is still there but none of the shading.


Also, it would be as faded as the rest of the page. It's clearly shopped. Probably not even shopped, probably just gimped.

 

[JustBusiness17]

There's no shading on the red.

It looks like it was alpha blended from a solid image, so the texture of the book is still there but none of the shading.


Also, it would be as faded as the rest of the page. It's clearly shopped. Probably not even shopped, probably just gimped.

That was my first tip-off. Its too crisp and vibrant for something that was supposedly printed in 1918. I don't see how the black from the image could be so dark while the text above it is all but washed out...

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

It is a very common misconception that the swastika is a nazi symbol, it isn't. It may not very familiar to americans because they don't have a Heraldic history, specialy in background of a medieval christian country. The symbol is a religious in nature, it has been adopted by many cults but perhaps the most popular of them as a christian symbol of a enhanced cross. But it has been adopted on several other ocasion, most of them related to the ocult, suprsticions and good luck charms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

Wow it is aparently older than the earth (i.e. more than 6k yo), so I guess it is really the work of the devil

 

[JustBusiness17]

It is a very common misconception that the swastika is a nazi symbol, it isn't. It may not very familiar to americans because they don't have a Heraldic history, specialy in background of a medieval christian country. The symbol is a religious in nature, it has been adopted by many cults but perhaps the most popular of them as a christian symbol of a enhanced cross. But it has been adopted on several other ocasion, most of them related to the ocult, suprsticions and good luck charms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

Wow it is aparently older than the earth (i.e. more than 6k yo), so I guess it is really the work of the devil

This post seems like a non-sequitur... Are you saying any of that has anything to do with the validity of the image?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

What I am saying is, either the picture is real or not what you are doing is to try and associate hitler with swastika and Russia with "leftism". And what does that prove?

 

[JustBusiness17]

What I am saying is, either the picture is real or not what you are doing is to try and associate hitler with swastika and Russia with "leftism". And what does that prove?

Gotcha... I can sleep easy now

 

[RichardMNixon]

It looks to me like the fold does extend into the red. As for other claims to it being fake, I'm no expert so I can't really say.

 

[DepricatedZero]

It looks to me like the fold does extend into the red. As for other claims to it being fake, I'm no expert so I can't really say.

That's easy to do with an alpha blend. This is the transparency effect, as it were. When done right it lets the background bleed through the image like above. Heres an example: my css spray.

This is the spray itself, the actual image file that gets loaded. Looks fairly solid.

However, when applied to a brick wall, you can see heavier details through the image.

 

[JustBusiness17]

It looks to me like the fold does extend into the red. As for other claims to it being fake, I'm no expert so I can't really say.

That's easy to do with an alpha blend. This is the transparency effect, as it were. When done right it lets the background bleed through the image like above. Heres an example: my css spray.

This is the spray itself, the actual image file that gets loaded. Looks fairly solid.


However, when applied to a brick wall, you can see heavier details through the image.
[img]http://www.watchmythreat.com/pix/7dcss.jpg

That's one of the coolest in game sprays that I've ever seen!

@ RMN - As DZ just demonstrated, image editing is pretty advanced these days. The fold itself could be enitrely fake just to throw people off. I'm not inclined to beleive that based on some of the more elaborate shading near the top, but it's completely doable.

You don't really need to be an expert to notice a bad photoshop. This one is just happens to be like watching an early 2000s sci-fi where the CGI is good but still blatently obvious.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

What I am saying is, either the picture is real or not what you are doing is to try and associate hitler with swastika and Russia with "leftism". And what does that prove?

you talking to me there?

Regardless, the Symbol itself proves nothing except that it appears on right wing blogs etc. I've already demonstrated what the text around it says.

The text in Russian appears to detail the description of the patch and who it is designed for: Red Army soldiers and commanding officers of the Kalmyk troops. The Kalmyks are a small pastoral ethnic group in southern Russia, with their own autonomous region west of the Caspian Sea. They are of Mongolian origin and they are Buddhists. I believe that paticular swastika, which is a common Buddhist symbol is just that, It's Buddhist, and has nothing to do with socialism per-se. In the text, the swastika is called "LYUNGTN" or some such native Kalmyk word in Cyrillic (the text is blurry and those may be characters specific to the Kalmyk language).

But this info does nothing to demonstrate the actual validity of the image which Ad Initium claims is a false image.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

What I am saying is, either the picture is real or not what you are doing is to try and associate hitler with swastika and Russia with "leftism". And what does that prove?

you talking to me there?

Regardless, the Symbol itself proves nothing except that it appears on right wing blogs etc. I've already demonstrated what the text around it says.

I am not pointing any fingers, even because this points against both sides.
1. Because forcing relation on the basis of secondary themes is a logical falacy (i.e. to acuse hitler for being leftist just because he used a symbol that was also used by a leftist, or whatever that means) instead of directly analysing what it is by the actitudes and actions of what was actualy done.
2. Because it also a logical falacy to bring an example of point number when the person never based its conclusion on that.
3. Categorizing political views in clusters like leftist, centrist, or whatever realy says nothing on what those political views are, they are simply to broad and comits a falacy by association. Ex. "Oh he is a leftist, so he is againts the legalization of marijauna",no itisn't, there are many people that are generaly classified leftist that sit on both side of the fence, and that is true for every political topic you can possibly think of. To me those tags are absolutly meaningless.
4. So what if hitler was "leftist"? (I am not saying that he is) Does that mean that he did everything that he did as a natural progression of being leftist? Does that make "leftism" wrong?
5. Even if only for the sake of just knowing the opinions of Hitler, that picture being truth or not makes absolutly no difference to the historical context that swastikas are not exclusive to Nazis and to think so is to commit the falacy on number 1. And it sadens me because either this picture is forged or not makes absolutly no difference what so ever to the point either one is trying to transmit and I am aparently the only one able to look at it and see that.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

I am not pointing any fingers

good

even because this points against both sides.

:arrow: so you're critiquing me as well as ray too?

1. Because forcing relation on the basis of secondary themes is a logical falacy (i.e. to acuse hitler for being leftist just because he used a symbol that was also used by a leftist, or whatever that means) instead of directly analysing what it is by the actitudes and actions of what was actualy done.

Had you checked, you would have found out Im arguing against the motion that the swastika seen above has anything to do Hitler's position on the political compass. even If genuine, the swastika in question would appear to be a buddhist one, as the writing seems to be in the Kalmyk language. Put it simply. The swastika above has nothing to do with socialism per-se. Im not accusing Hitler of being a leftist based on this imagery, But you're right about the second part. That's how we should analyse Hitler.

2. Because it also a logical falacy to bring an example of point number when the person never based its conclusion on that.

what im doing here is asking a simple question if people think the above image has been manipulated. It's one leg of his argument, and one leg i try to debunk.

3. Categorizing political views in clusters like leftist, centrist, or whatever realy says nothing on what those political views are, they are simply to broad and comits a falacy by association. Ex. "Oh he is a leftist, so he is againts the legalization of marijauna",no itisn't, there are many people that are generaly classified leftist that sit on both side of the fence, and that is true for every political topic you can possibly think of. To me those tags are absolutly meaningless.

which is why the political economy is the best determiner for left/right. Read above, Things like your stance on legalization of marijauna is covered by an authoritarian/libertarian scale. Not economics. Economics is the one that matters most. If you have a better determiner, Please share it with me

is it that easy to confuse social views with economic ones?

4. So what if hitler was "leftist"? (I am not saying that he is) Does that mean that he did everything that he did as a natural progression of being leftist? Does that make "leftism" wrong?

Hitler being on one side of the political spectrum does not make that side wrong. those who say it is are commiting a Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.

5. Even if only for the sake of just knowing the opinions of Hitler, that picture being truth or not makes absolutly no difference to the historical context that swastikas are not exclusive to Nazis and to think so is to commit the falacy on number 1. And it sadens me because either this picture is forged or not makes absolutly no difference what so ever to the point either one is trying to transmit and I am aparently the only one able to look at it and see that.

quite right, But remember, im not arguing that swastikas are exclusive to the Nazis , i do not think that they are, see my response to point 1 as well.

either this picture is forged or not makes absolutly no difference what so ever to the point either one is trying to transmit and I am aparently the only one able to look at it and see that

You are not the only one But i do not know if i have been clear enough here for others to get that idea of me.

 

[Lallapalalable]

hrm. After some deep, careful thought (about 23 seconds), I have to put my leaning towards fakery. I too am no expert on photo doctoring, but I think the red is a little too vibrant to be part of that document. The page is faded and stained, yet the image looks as if it were just printed. If it is indeed fake, it is a very good job.

Whoever brought up the fold is a little speshul. I do see the fold being incorporated into the image, and even the shading is consistent in value and location. So, I dont see that as any evidence either way.

 

[AndromedasWake]

From a purely ocular analysis this looks shopped to me. The colours are too well defined and consistent, and some of the colour edges look embossed.

Of course, I could be wrong.