Flying the Soviet flag is a red flag
Senior Opinion Editor Sam Hudson argues Solidarity College’s decision to fly the flags of authoritarian states, such as the Soviet Union’s, betrays a worrying moral callousness
I recently had the deep misfortune of attempting to visit “Solidarity College” (may it rest in peace) – I say “attempting” because I never actually made it in through the doors of the newly renamed “Angela Davis Building.” Rather, I was stopped by a disgruntled group of revolutionaries due to my affiliation with Varsity. I had planned to write a Features piece on Cambridge protests past and present, comparing “Solidarity College” to the Garden House riots of 1970 – but alas, their “no journos” policy scuppered my plan, and also prevented them from living up to their promise of an “inclusive and welcoming space”.
But perhaps their disdain for the free press was unsurprising. After all, throughout the “Angela Davis Building,” they proudly displayed the Cuban, Soviet and Vietnamese flags, an illustrious collection reminiscent of your average tankie’s Twitter bio.
“It is clear that in some people’s minds the Cold War never died”
It seems bizarre that even today, over thirty years after the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, many on the left continue to rally around flags representing these failed, authoritarian regimes that share very few of the values the modern left has. Yet as the Soviet flag fluttered limply in the “Solidarity College” stairwell, it is clear that in some people’s minds the Cold War never died. They dream of the great and glorious global fight between the Left and the Right, and they yearn for the day when there was a concrete alternative to our capitalist quagmire.
Like the occupiers, I find many problems with our world today – not least our current economic system. A system which has bred enormous chasms in wealth and power, leaving most ordinary people teetering on the edge or falling into the void. But the solution is certainly not to be found in the decrepit, “socialist” system of yore: a system which built an even larger and more violent chasm of power between the state and its subjects.
The very same Cuban flag that the occupiers flew as a symbol of “liberation” was emblazoned on the uniforms of the police who three years ago brutally suppressed a protest by Congolese medical students over unpaid stipends. It is the same flag which flew on the Cuban “lifeboats” in 1994 which intentionally created a whirlpool to drown 37 asylum seekers fleeing Cuba in an event described as an “extrajudicial execution” by Amnesty International. And as shocking as these events are, they are only the tip of a bloody iceberg which these flags have motivated.
Vietnam, too, has very literally contributed to Cuba’s bloodshed, buying the blood extracted from Cuban political prisoners prior to their execution. And, of course, Vietnam has an iceberg of its own, currently engaging in the same repression their Cuban counterparts do.
“The occupiers’ decision to fly the Soviet flag was especially despicable given the current situation in Ukraine”
These are all, however, small fry compared to the Soviet Union, one of the greatest proprietors of human misery of the twentieth century. A country which is responsible for the Gulag, the imperialist subjugation of Eastern Europe and educating Ayn Rand.
The occupiers’ decision to fly the Soviet flag was especially despicable given the current situation in Ukraine. One of the USSR’s greatest crimes was the Holodomor, a genocidal famine which killed three and a half million Ukrainians. And this was only the very worst of the Soviet transgressions against the Ukrainian people, with suppression of the Ukrainian language with Russification policies being a mainstay of Soviet politics.
Yet our band of revolutionaries seems indifferent to this misery. Even as the logical conclusion of the same imperialist and authoritarian politics plays out in Ukrainian cities clear for all to see, the flag still hangs in all its crimson glory. At best, these flags are a crass joke, much like the Soviet flag which formerly hung at King’s bar. But at worst, they are an outright endorsement of the politics these nations represent. Given my rather humourless reception, I don’t think my hosts were particularly well acquainted with the concept of a “joke”.
Some may point out that the British flag has also presided over many atrocities and they would be right. However, unlike the Soviet flag, the British flag is a national symbol that is not directly tied to any particular ideology. Conversely, the hammer and sickle remains the symbol of the USSR’s highly authoritarian and reactionary brand of socialism – but not of the Russian nation itself.
“The occupiers seem blind to their cognitive dissonance”
The occupiers cannot plead ignorance. They knew that flying the Soviet flag was, at the very least, a red flag. Why else would they issue demands to the journalists who were lucky enough to enter to “not use or disseminate any of the photos taken inside the space”?
The fact that, despite clearly knowing it would alienate many from their cause, the occupiers continued to fly the flag anyway points to more sinister, dogmatic motivations. But Solidarity College, rather than a cause, is a symptom of an overarching belief that has plagued the Left for the last thirty years. A continued belief that, despite their violence and authoritarianism, these states can be associated with the “Left” because of their mere words, aesthetics, and an inherent opposition to the United States.
I find it surprising that the occupiers have bought into this belief. They, like me, are part of a new post-Soviet generation of leftists that place much greater emphasis on individual liberties and human rights. Yet the occupiers seem blind to their cognitive dissonance; had they attempted the same protest in the Soviet Union, I am certain they would be facing far greater consequences than a few stern words from the Pro-Vice-Chancellor.
The occupiers’ embarrassing role-play is not only actively detrimental to their political success, as the occupiers themselves seem to tacitly recognise, but also morally callous. This is not a simple case of political symbolism whose politics we may disagree with, but symbols whose main legacy is the unambiguous terror they presided over.
- Film & TV / Ludwig’s fictionalised Cambridge: a confusing choice8 December 2024
- Music / A love letter to Fontaines D.C.’s Romance, the best album of 202410 December 2024
- Features / The case of the neglectful college parent3 December 2024
- News / Uni faces calls to apologise over imprisonment of thousands of women9 December 2024
- Arts / Small Things Like These: difficult questions, no easy answers4 December 2024