It originated in the Soviet Union, it’s associated with Communism because of the Soviet Union. It’s only a symbol of Communism within the context of the USSR, if you believe the model of the USSR to be fascist then you believe the Hammer and Sickle to be symbolic of fascism.
Alternatively, you can dissapprove of the model of the USSR while recognizing it as Socialist and not fascist.
It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.
Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.
It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.
“Surfism?” Sounds rad 🏄
In all seriousness, the Tsarist Regime was overthrown in 1917, while the Hammer and Sickle was first proposed in 1918, and adopted officially by the Bolsheviks and the USSR as it formed out of the Russian Civil War. It has since become a symbol of Marxism through association with the USSR, not despite it. The H&S was symbiolized for the USSR, not necessarily Marxism itself.
Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.
The DPRK did not invent the concept of Democracy, nor have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).
If you can find a significant number of groups brandishing the Hammer and Sickle but denouncing the USSR in totality, then please, be my guest.
The DPRK did not invent the concept of >Democracy,
Whats that got to do with anything? Are you attempting to claim the USSR invented socialism? I sure hope not.
or have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).
Yeah, you’ve got yourself mixed up with the symbolism here. I understand why you don’t want to venture away from it but we are going to have too.
Its a perfectly good comparison for showing why simply declaring a country to be something is, at best, problematic. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but I’m sure you made it well enough for whatever argument it would actually fit in.
Let’s make it real simple, is the peoples democratic republic of Korea a democracy?
Whats that got to do with anything? Are you attempting to claim the USSR invented socialism? I sure hope not.
Not my point. My point is that the specific symbol of the H&S was created by those that formed the USSR as a symbol of the USSR. Orgs adopting it are identifying themselves as Marxist-Leninist, the state ideology of the USSR.
Yeah, you’ve got yourself mixed up with the symbolism here. I understand why you don’t want to venture away from it but we are going to have too.
Its a perfectly good comparison for showing why simply declaring a country to be something is, at best, problematic. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but I’m sure you made it well enough for whatever argument it would actually fit in.
The Hammer and Sickle did not predate the Soviet System. It was not some vaguely Socialist symbol, but one created by and for the USSR. The Hammer and Sickle is not a declaration that the USSR is Socialist, the Hammer and Sickle itself is a declaration of the USSR itself.
The point I am driving home here is that various anti-USSR Socialist orgs exist, and use symbols like The Fist and Rose or the Anarchist symbols of the Black Cat or Circle A. Deliberately choosing to use the Hammer and Sickle identifies Marxism-Leninism and support for the general ideology of the USSR, because alternative symbols exist and are used by non-Marxist Socialists.
Let’s make it real simple, is the peoples democratic republic of Korea a democracy?
It doesn’t matter, I understand that your point is that what States label themselves as doesn’t determine what they are. I agree with you on that concept, the Nazis for example were fascists, not Socialists in any capacity. However, the Hammer and Sickle was not some generalized symbol for Marxism adopted by the USSR as well as other Socialist groups, it was created by and for the USSR, so it never had a period where it could be disassociated with the USSR.
Put another way, if someone adopted the Stars and Stripes as a symbol of freedom, you would not be able to untie that from support for the system of the United States.
The simple fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Marxists globally do support the general idealized system of the USSR, at the very least, ie Soviet Democracy, Central Planning, Democratic Centralism, and so forth, which is why they take on the mantle of the USSR through the Hammer and Sickle, even if they decide to denounce actions taken by the Soviets, or believe it to have failed to actualize its ideals.
Again, I get why you want to stay on the symbol but its a very minor point here. The nazis weren’t Hindus, yet they used the swastika.
Thats great and all but the conversation is about how the USSR was a fascist country which it was. Them declaring to mot be fascist doesn’t change that, neither does their choice of symbolism or trim.
Again, I get why you want to stay on the symbol but its a very minor point here. The nazis weren’t Hindus, yet they used the swastika.
The Nazis did not create the Swastika, they adopted the Swastika. The Bolsheviks created the Hammer & Sickle. The Swastika has centuries of usage outside the context of the Nazis, the Hammer & Sickle has never existed without the context of its creation by the Bolsheviks.
Thats great and all but the conversation is about how the USSR was a fascist country which it was. Them declaring to mot be fascist doesn’t change that, neither does their choice of symbolism or trim.
The USSR was not fascist, they were Marxist-Leninist. Measuring the USSR against the 14 points listed by Umberto Eco in Ur-Fascism, the USSR only fulfills 2 or 3 points (points 4 and 13, possible 9), while the Nazis covered all 14, as did fascist Italy, Israel currently fulfills no less than 9 of these points, while the US fulfills 13 of them (with respect to the GOP and its relative influence). Something can be “bad” without being fascist, fascism is not a buzzword, but a reaction to declining Capitalism as a form of Class-Collaborationism between the Bourgeoisie and Petite Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat, to “turn the clock back” to when Capitalism was not as decayed. The USSR fulfilled none of those, it was State Socialist along Marxist-Leninist lines.
Even still, this conversation is about symbols, and the stances of those who adopt them. There are no groups that adopt the Hammer & Sickle without intending on calling back to Marxism-Leninism. The Hammer and Sickle was founded as a symbol of the USSR, it was not a pre-existing symbol the USSR latched onto. There are no contexts the Hammer and Sickle exists in that are not intended on drawing those associations.
This was never a conversation about symbols. You’ve attempted to force it to be one but its about how the USSR aas a facsist state, having a cult of tradition (the glorious worker), irrationalism, disagreement being treason, a fear of intruders, is derived from social frustration, deprives people of an identity outside of “comrade”, humiliated by the wealth of the west, a permanent war and struggle that required ever more production, elitism - as all senior positions were awarded due to nepotism and being part of the inner circle, everyone is told that they’re a hero work of the glorious peoples revolution etc., mass incarcerations of LGBT people under stalin, selective populism and endless newspeak. So, having met 13 of the 14 from your own link, they’re clearly fascists, even if you don’t like it.
As if you posted a link that proved yourself wrong, then declared yourself to be correct due to it and then presumed to tell me what my own comment was about and what my own conversation about my own damn comment is about.
Its the symbol of communism, as opposed to the USSR alone.
This is what I replied to. This is just about symbols, and you referred to the Hammer & Sickle as a “symbol of Communism,” not the “USSR alone.” While partially true, you had previously called the USSR fascist, which means the symbol would be a symbol of fascism, which is why I pointed out your discrepancy.
This was never a conversation about symbols. You’ve attempted to force it to be one but its about how the USSR aas a facsist state, having a cult of tradition (the glorious worker), irrationalism, disagreement being treason, a fear of intruders, is derived from social frustration, deprives people of an identity outside of “comrade”, humiliated by the wealth of the west, a permanent war and struggle that required ever more production, elitism - as all senior positions were awarded due to nepotism and being part of the inner circle, everyone is told that they’re a hero work of the glorious peoples revolution etc., mass incarcerations of LGBT people under stalin, selective populism and endless newspeak. So, having met 13 of the 14 from your own link, they are clear fascist, even if you don’t like it.
1.The USSR did not have a Cult of Tradition. The CoT refers to blocking development of understanding, which was the opposite of what the USSR tried to do, with Dialectical Materialism driving their science. This was a forward looking country, not one that focused on occultism and other forms of syncretism. “The Glorious Worker” is not what the Cult of Tradition means, you obviously only read the headline and made something up.
There was not an attack on science, the opposite happened. The sciences were venerated, Atheism was the state religion and the USSR was the other active participant in the Space Race. Again, this is a point where you read a line and just put it without doing analysis.
Disagreement was Treason, this we agree with. You are correct here, as I already said this one was correct.
There was not a cultivated racial fear of others. Other classes were certainly oppressed, and there were racially motivated deportations, but that does not mean they intentionally fostered fear of foreigners in the public like they do in the US. We can claim this point as correct though, based on the State’s actions alone, if you want, but it does not fulfill Eco’s point.
The USSR did not appeal to a frustrated middle class! It appealed to the lower class! You intentionally obscured that Eco is specifically talking about the Petite Bourgeoisie, ie small business owners that formed the backbone of fascist movements, and replaced it with the proletariat! This, in no way, was represented in the USSR.
No, the USSR did not “deprive people of identity outside of comrade,” lmao. Comrade was a friendly term, if you can point to how it was intentionally to remove individual expression, be my guest.
The USSR never portrayed their enemies as weak, they always portrayed themselves as strong underdogs and their enemies as strong as well. You can add this point too, if you want though, as the USSR did have enemies for its entire existence. So far that’s 3 points.
The USSR never existed on the idea of a “forever war,” the Bolsheviks took power during World War I campaigning on pulling Russia out of the war. Instead, war found its way to the USSR, usually. You can keep this point though, for most of the USSR’s existence it was at war. 4 points.
Do you have any proof that it was all nepotism? That seems like a baseless claim to tack on the idea that it was elitst. There was no contempt for the weak, they had universal free healthcare and education.
There was no Cult of Death in the USSR, death wasn’t venerated. The USSR had a large Healthcare sector and valued life, the “Hero education” was more referring to the likes of Nazi Germany.
Machismo is not simply homophobia. The USSR was the first major country to decriminalize homophobia twice, because even after Stalin other countries still had not caught up to Lenin’s USSR in terms of LGBT rights. Machismo is also about how partiarchial society is, and again in that regard the USSR was progressive, with sexism being actively acted against, and glorification of women serving in the army. It was not as progressive as modern western nations today, but in its historical context it was the most progressive.
Selective Populism was one of the points I said you could argue, so we can keep it. 5 points total so far.
Newspeak. No, lol, what are you talking about?
Under actual scrutiny, only 5 points apply, even as a stretch, it’s clear that you’re less interested in actual analysis and more interested in calling it fascist.
As if you posted a link that proved you wrong, then declared yourself to be correct due to it and then presumed to tell me what my own comment was about and what my own conversation about my own damn comment is about.
Again, can you even hear yourself?
Do you hear yourself? I literally quoted you talking about the symbol, then you intentionally lie about Ur-Fascism (point 5 is especially historically inaccurate, unless you think, somehow, the Proletariat is a “middle class?”). This is Newspeak, lol
It originated in the Soviet Union, it’s associated with Communism because of the Soviet Union. It’s only a symbol of Communism within the context of the USSR, if you believe the model of the USSR to be fascist then you believe the Hammer and Sickle to be symbolic of fascism.
Alternatively, you can dissapprove of the model of the USSR while recognizing it as Socialist and not fascist.
It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.
Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.
“Surfism?” Sounds rad 🏄
In all seriousness, the Tsarist Regime was overthrown in 1917, while the Hammer and Sickle was first proposed in 1918, and adopted officially by the Bolsheviks and the USSR as it formed out of the Russian Civil War. It has since become a symbol of Marxism through association with the USSR, not despite it. The H&S was symbiolized for the USSR, not necessarily Marxism itself.
The DPRK did not invent the concept of Democracy, nor have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).
If you can find a significant number of groups brandishing the Hammer and Sickle but denouncing the USSR in totality, then please, be my guest.
*Serfism
Cool story, still a poor argument.
The DPRK did not invent the concept of >Democracy,
Whats that got to do with anything? Are you attempting to claim the USSR invented socialism? I sure hope not.
Yeah, you’ve got yourself mixed up with the symbolism here. I understand why you don’t want to venture away from it but we are going to have too.
Its a perfectly good comparison for showing why simply declaring a country to be something is, at best, problematic. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but I’m sure you made it well enough for whatever argument it would actually fit in.
Let’s make it real simple, is the peoples democratic republic of Korea a democracy?
Not my point. My point is that the specific symbol of the H&S was created by those that formed the USSR as a symbol of the USSR. Orgs adopting it are identifying themselves as Marxist-Leninist, the state ideology of the USSR.
The Hammer and Sickle did not predate the Soviet System. It was not some vaguely Socialist symbol, but one created by and for the USSR. The Hammer and Sickle is not a declaration that the USSR is Socialist, the Hammer and Sickle itself is a declaration of the USSR itself.
The point I am driving home here is that various anti-USSR Socialist orgs exist, and use symbols like The Fist and Rose or the Anarchist symbols of the Black Cat or Circle A. Deliberately choosing to use the Hammer and Sickle identifies Marxism-Leninism and support for the general ideology of the USSR, because alternative symbols exist and are used by non-Marxist Socialists.
It doesn’t matter, I understand that your point is that what States label themselves as doesn’t determine what they are. I agree with you on that concept, the Nazis for example were fascists, not Socialists in any capacity. However, the Hammer and Sickle was not some generalized symbol for Marxism adopted by the USSR as well as other Socialist groups, it was created by and for the USSR, so it never had a period where it could be disassociated with the USSR.
Put another way, if someone adopted the Stars and Stripes as a symbol of freedom, you would not be able to untie that from support for the system of the United States.
The simple fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Marxists globally do support the general idealized system of the USSR, at the very least, ie Soviet Democracy, Central Planning, Democratic Centralism, and so forth, which is why they take on the mantle of the USSR through the Hammer and Sickle, even if they decide to denounce actions taken by the Soviets, or believe it to have failed to actualize its ideals.
Again, I get why you want to stay on the symbol but its a very minor point here. The nazis weren’t Hindus, yet they used the swastika.
Thats great and all but the conversation is about how the USSR was a fascist country which it was. Them declaring to mot be fascist doesn’t change that, neither does their choice of symbolism or trim.
The Nazis did not create the Swastika, they adopted the Swastika. The Bolsheviks created the Hammer & Sickle. The Swastika has centuries of usage outside the context of the Nazis, the Hammer & Sickle has never existed without the context of its creation by the Bolsheviks.
The USSR was not fascist, they were Marxist-Leninist. Measuring the USSR against the 14 points listed by Umberto Eco in Ur-Fascism, the USSR only fulfills 2 or 3 points (points 4 and 13, possible 9), while the Nazis covered all 14, as did fascist Italy, Israel currently fulfills no less than 9 of these points, while the US fulfills 13 of them (with respect to the GOP and its relative influence). Something can be “bad” without being fascist, fascism is not a buzzword, but a reaction to declining Capitalism as a form of Class-Collaborationism between the Bourgeoisie and Petite Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat, to “turn the clock back” to when Capitalism was not as decayed. The USSR fulfilled none of those, it was State Socialist along Marxist-Leninist lines.
Even still, this conversation is about symbols, and the stances of those who adopt them. There are no groups that adopt the Hammer & Sickle without intending on calling back to Marxism-Leninism. The Hammer and Sickle was founded as a symbol of the USSR, it was not a pre-existing symbol the USSR latched onto. There are no contexts the Hammer and Sickle exists in that are not intended on drawing those associations.
This was never a conversation about symbols. You’ve attempted to force it to be one but its about how the USSR aas a facsist state, having a cult of tradition (the glorious worker), irrationalism, disagreement being treason, a fear of intruders, is derived from social frustration, deprives people of an identity outside of “comrade”, humiliated by the wealth of the west, a permanent war and struggle that required ever more production, elitism - as all senior positions were awarded due to nepotism and being part of the inner circle, everyone is told that they’re a hero work of the glorious peoples revolution etc., mass incarcerations of LGBT people under stalin, selective populism and endless newspeak. So, having met 13 of the 14 from your own link, they’re clearly fascists, even if you don’t like it.
As if you posted a link that proved yourself wrong, then declared yourself to be correct due to it and then presumed to tell me what my own comment was about and what my own conversation about my own damn comment is about.
Again, can you even hear yourself?
This is what I replied to. This is just about symbols, and you referred to the Hammer & Sickle as a “symbol of Communism,” not the “USSR alone.” While partially true, you had previously called the USSR fascist, which means the symbol would be a symbol of fascism, which is why I pointed out your discrepancy.
1.The USSR did not have a Cult of Tradition. The CoT refers to blocking development of understanding, which was the opposite of what the USSR tried to do, with Dialectical Materialism driving their science. This was a forward looking country, not one that focused on occultism and other forms of syncretism. “The Glorious Worker” is not what the Cult of Tradition means, you obviously only read the headline and made something up.
There was not an attack on science, the opposite happened. The sciences were venerated, Atheism was the state religion and the USSR was the other active participant in the Space Race. Again, this is a point where you read a line and just put it without doing analysis.
Disagreement was Treason, this we agree with. You are correct here, as I already said this one was correct.
There was not a cultivated racial fear of others. Other classes were certainly oppressed, and there were racially motivated deportations, but that does not mean they intentionally fostered fear of foreigners in the public like they do in the US. We can claim this point as correct though, based on the State’s actions alone, if you want, but it does not fulfill Eco’s point.
The USSR did not appeal to a frustrated middle class! It appealed to the lower class! You intentionally obscured that Eco is specifically talking about the Petite Bourgeoisie, ie small business owners that formed the backbone of fascist movements, and replaced it with the proletariat! This, in no way, was represented in the USSR.
No, the USSR did not “deprive people of identity outside of comrade,” lmao. Comrade was a friendly term, if you can point to how it was intentionally to remove individual expression, be my guest.
The USSR never portrayed their enemies as weak, they always portrayed themselves as strong underdogs and their enemies as strong as well. You can add this point too, if you want though, as the USSR did have enemies for its entire existence. So far that’s 3 points.
The USSR never existed on the idea of a “forever war,” the Bolsheviks took power during World War I campaigning on pulling Russia out of the war. Instead, war found its way to the USSR, usually. You can keep this point though, for most of the USSR’s existence it was at war. 4 points.
Do you have any proof that it was all nepotism? That seems like a baseless claim to tack on the idea that it was elitst. There was no contempt for the weak, they had universal free healthcare and education.
There was no Cult of Death in the USSR, death wasn’t venerated. The USSR had a large Healthcare sector and valued life, the “Hero education” was more referring to the likes of Nazi Germany.
Machismo is not simply homophobia. The USSR was the first major country to decriminalize homophobia twice, because even after Stalin other countries still had not caught up to Lenin’s USSR in terms of LGBT rights. Machismo is also about how partiarchial society is, and again in that regard the USSR was progressive, with sexism being actively acted against, and glorification of women serving in the army. It was not as progressive as modern western nations today, but in its historical context it was the most progressive.
Selective Populism was one of the points I said you could argue, so we can keep it. 5 points total so far.
Newspeak. No, lol, what are you talking about?
Under actual scrutiny, only 5 points apply, even as a stretch, it’s clear that you’re less interested in actual analysis and more interested in calling it fascist.
Do you hear yourself? I literally quoted you talking about the symbol, then you intentionally lie about Ur-Fascism (point 5 is especially historically inaccurate, unless you think, somehow, the Proletariat is a “middle class?”). This is Newspeak, lol