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
Well, its good to check the subject of the conversations you’re joining in with, instead of just declaring them to be something they’re not.
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
1)They literally sent academics to the gulag, simply for being academics: blocking the development of understanding. “The truth had already been spelled out” by Marx. Wrong on all accounts.
again, they sent academics to the gulags simply for thinking differently. You don’t have to like it but its still true.
the USSR was one of the most antisemitic places ever. The Jews were made the scapegoatover and over again. Again, you don’t have to like it but they were facsists with red trim.
Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class
It doesn’t mean it has to be the middle class.
you had no identity outside of your work and very little else, in the exact way the nazis did. You just don’t like it and that’s not the same thing.
well, that’s because you’ve made up what #7 is. Here’s what it actually involves:
Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside.
So the capitalists outside and “every jew has the potential to be a spy”
the forever war was against capitalism whether you like it or not.
I see, proof for me and wild baseless, declarations for you. Nice one!
dying for the glorious motherland was the highest honour. Sending others to their death was a soviet forte. Their highest honour was to literally become a hero of the soviet union. You can’t reconcile that nonsense with order #227
those were examples, not exclusionary and the idea that the soviet union was less patriarchal than the west is a joke I can’t even begin to take seriously.
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.
I’m on about the newspeak they used. Specifically the use of excessively simplified and at the same time incomprehensible language or means of communication. Why, what are you on about?
So, clearly, 13 out of 14, you just don’t like it. I had to prove you wrong line by line, as you clearly didn’t even read your own link.
As if you posted a link to an anarchist site, claiming it agreed with you saying the USSR wasn’t facsist. Honestly, the lack of self awareness there is hilarious. Its only topped by you joining in on a conversation between other people and then declaring the conversation to have been about what you want to talk about and not what was already being talked about. You top it off by, again, pretending that the link you clearly didn’t read, from an ideology that could never agree with you on this matter, HAD to be the middle class and not just the “most typical” as their own words say.
For the third time, can you even hear yourself? I can’t take you seriously after that.
The USSR was facsist. Youre just going to have to deal with 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
Well, its good to check the subject of the conversations you’re joining in with, instead of just declaring them to be something they’re not.
1)They literally sent academics to the gulag, simply for being academics: blocking the development of understanding. “The truth had already been spelled out” by Marx. Wrong on all accounts.
again, they sent academics to the gulags simply for thinking differently. You don’t have to like it but its still true.
the USSR was one of the most antisemitic places ever. The Jews were made the scapegoatover and over again. Again, you don’t have to like it but they were facsists with red trim.
It doesn’t mean it has to be the middle class.
you had no identity outside of your work and very little else, in the exact way the nazis did. You just don’t like it and that’s not the same thing.
well, that’s because you’ve made up what #7 is. Here’s what it actually involves:
So the capitalists outside and “every jew has the potential to be a spy”
the forever war was against capitalism whether you like it or not.
I see, proof for me and wild baseless, declarations for you. Nice one!
dying for the glorious motherland was the highest honour. Sending others to their death was a soviet forte. Their highest honour was to literally become a hero of the soviet union. You can’t reconcile that nonsense with order #227
those were examples, not exclusionary and the idea that the soviet union was less patriarchal than the west is a joke I can’t even begin to take seriously.
I’m on about the newspeak they used. Specifically the use of excessively simplified and at the same time incomprehensible language or means of communication. Why, what are you on about?
So, clearly, 13 out of 14, you just don’t like it. I had to prove you wrong line by line, as you clearly didn’t even read your own link.
As if you posted a link to an anarchist site, claiming it agreed with you saying the USSR wasn’t facsist. Honestly, the lack of self awareness there is hilarious. Its only topped by you joining in on a conversation between other people and then declaring the conversation to have been about what you want to talk about and not what was already being talked about. You top it off by, again, pretending that the link you clearly didn’t read, from an ideology that could never agree with you on this matter, HAD to be the middle class and not just the “most typical” as their own words say.
For the third time, can you even hear yourself? I can’t take you seriously after that.
The USSR was facsist. Youre just going to have to deal with that.