American cult of personality

[fa2991]

Is so prevalent, yet so rarely discussed.

Say what you will about the USSR - they never carved Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin's faces on a fucking mountain.

[AK]

Dude, after the revolution can you American commies blow that shitty pile of rocks up?

[Adi Shankara]

Say what you will about the USSR - they never carved Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin's faces on a fucking mountain.

wow. really good quote there.

[Dimentio]

Dude, after the revolution can you American commies blow that shitty pile of rocks up?

That would be stupid as fuck. The more a radical change you want to institute, the more you really have to support it by at least established symbology.

[AK]

That would be stupid as fuck. The more a radical change you want to institute, the more you really have to support it by at least established symbology.
...no I am not getting you.

[Dimentio]

...no I am not getting you.

It is possible to destroy 200 years of cultural heritage and public buildings, but that would only serve to alienate people. Social change, even for the better, is generally a traumatic process. The goal should be to create as little trauma as possible and create the broadest possible foundation for support. You won't get support by tarnishing statues or burning American flags.

The best strategy would on the contrary be to wrap it all into American flags and into the American national mythos.

[AK]

It is possible to destroy 200 years of cultural heritage and public buildings, but that would only serve to alienate people. Social change, even for the better, is generally a traumatic process. The goal should be to create as little trauma as possible and create the broadest possible foundation for support. You won't get support by tarnishing statues or burning American flags.

The best strategy would on the contrary be to wrap it all into American flags and into the American national mythos.
Either you're being sarcastic, I'm still not getting you or you're bat-shit insane.

[RedRise]

I think what Alpha Kappa means is that if, when a new government system took over, it went around destroying all the cultural and state icons you grew up with you would feel shocked like you were suddenly living in a different country. And since a lot of people aren't fond of change, they're going to rebut against this. What we really want to change has nothing to do with America's icons because that would be like trying to change its history and there's no point to that. So why bother fighting the general opinion to blow up monuments when you could be fighting to change so much more? Maybe when the people are really pleased with the change the revolution has brought they will decide of their own accord to get rid of the monuments or whatever but that's not what's important now.

[Dimentio]

Either you're being sarcastic, I'm still not getting you or you're bat-shit insane.

You're not getting me.

If we are going to change the traditional structure of society and transform the entire economic base, it will be a tremendous social change which will change the lives of all people. During such a process, people tend to cling to their symbols (christmas, 4th of july, thanksgiving, things which are familiar). People should have the right to the safety of the familiar, and it is possible that the revolutionary leadership could make the process easier by legitimising themselves through the familiar.

Like, if a communist party is winning power in the USA, the general secretary should put a wreath of flowers before Lincoln's statue each year, spare a turkey each thanksgiving, send a christmas greeting to the American people each christmas and hold rousing patriotic speeches each 4th of July. Such scenes will be familiar and serve to legitimise the new order.

Leaders who try to change all the foundations of society at once and transform culture completely cannot succeed if not society has undergone centuries of upheaval and chaos.

Examples: Nero, Robespierre, Mao.

[Dimentio]

I think what Alpha Kappa means is that if, when a new government system took over, it went around destroying all the cultural and state icons you grew up with you would feel shocked like you were suddenly living in a different country. And since a lot of people aren't fond of change, they're going to rebut against this. What we really want to change has nothing to do with America's icons because that would be like trying to change its history and there's no point to that. So why bother fighting the general opinion to blow up monuments when you could be fighting to change so much more? Maybe when the people are really pleased with the change the revolution has brought they will decide of their own accord to get rid of the monuments or whatever but that's not what's important now.

Exactly.

[AK]

You're not getting me.

If we are going to change the traditional structure of society and transform the entire economic base, it will be a tremendous social change which will change the lives of all people. During such a process, people tend to cling to their symbols (christmas, 4th of july, thanksgiving, things which are familiar). People should have the right to the safety of the familiar, and it is possible that the revolutionary leadership could make the process easier by legitimising themselves through the familiar.

Like, if a communist party is winning power in the USA, the general secretary should put a wreath of flowers before Lincoln's statue each year, spare a turkey each thanksgiving, send a christmas greeting to the American people each christmas and hold rousing patriotic speeches each 4th of July. Such scenes will be familiar and serve to legitimise the new order.

Leaders who try to change all the foundations of society at once and transform culture completely cannot succeed if not society has undergone centuries of upheaval and chaos.

Examples: Nero, Robespierre, Mao.
Patriotism? Bourgeois-worship? I see what you mean but no. I figure if you have to try and legitimise a new order to others in your society, the new order is not working to the ultimate advantage of everyone in the society (and society is probably not run by all members of it).

[Angry Young Man]

Dude, after the revolution can you American commies blow that shitty pile of rocks up?

Yes, and we'll rewrite the history books so that Abraham Lincoln liked to burn kittens at the stake. Boob.

They are important figures in history. Washington and Jefferson lived during the birth of capitalism and Lincoln during the growth. Capitalism ends when it ceases to be progressive (or so it should have been) which could easily be agreed was some time between 1914 and 1929

[AK]

Yes, and we'll rewrite the history books so that Abraham Lincoln liked to burn kittens at the stake. Boob.


You can't take humour very well.
Calling me a boob doesn't insult me in the fucking least.

[Angry Young Man]

1. Being funny usually works
2. I can't call you a c*nt

[Dimentio]

Patriotism? Bourgeois-worship? I see what you mean but no. I figure if you have to try and legitimise a new order to others in your society, the new order is not working to the ultimate advantage of everyone in the society (and society is probably not run by all members of it).

It never is, but even most American workers tend to like Thanksgiving, Christmas and 4th of July. Those who are reactionaries would often use attacks against traditions as a way of mobilising support (just see the turmoil caused by calling it "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas".

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You have to remember that in Dimentio's revolution one set of bosses would just be substituted for another. So, in order to achieve that change, he proposes that the main pillars of present day society be preserved.

In reality, genuine revolutions are fundamental breaks with all the old crap. The French Revolution didn't maintain the "hundreds of years of history" of absolutism, feudalism, etc., it destroyed them. The Paris Commune didn't "wrap itself in the tricolor," it raised the red flag.


Mount Rushmore is controversial among Native Americans because the United States seized the area from the Lakota tribe after the Great Sioux War of 1876–77. The Treaty of Fort Laramie from 1868 had previously granted the Black Hills to the Lakota in perpetuity. Members of the American Indian Movement led an occupation of the monument in 1971, naming it "Mount Crazy Horse". Among the participants were young activists, grandparents, children and Lakota holy man John Fire Lame Deer, who planted a prayer staff atop the mountain. Lame Deer said the staff formed a symbolic shroud over the presidents' faces "which shall remain dirty until the treaties concerning the Black Hills are fulfilled."

In 2004, the first Native American superintendent of the park was appointed. Gerard Baker has stated that he will open up more "avenues of interpretation", and that the four presidents are "only one avenue and only one focus."

The Crazy Horse Memorial is being constructed elsewhere in the Black Hills to commemorate a famous Native American leader and as a response to Mount Rushmore. It is intended to be larger than Mount Rushmore and has the support of Lakota chiefs; the Crazy Horse Memorial Foundation has rejected offers of federal funds. However, this memorial is likewise the subject of controversy, even within the Native American community.

The Monument also provokes controversy because some allege that underlying it is the theme of racial superiority legitimized by the idea of Manifest Destiny. The mountains were carved with Borglum's choice of four presidents active during the time of the acquisition of Indian land. Gutzon Borglum himself excites controversy because he was an active member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Yeah, let's really focus on preserving that. :thumbup1:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/102nd_issue/Juche_Tower.jpg

http://dckaleidoscope.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/monument-completed.jpg

http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/chairman-mao-mausoleum-beijing-chn013.jpg

http://photos.nondot.org/2002-04-20-Washington-DC/2002-04-21/normal/059%20-%20Lincoln%20Memorial%20Front.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/12/4-arch-4-a.jpg

http://www.a-taste-of-france.com/images/arc-de-triomphe.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/PomnikStalina-Praga1.jpg

http://tcmdaily.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/mt-rushmore.jpg


http://images.travelpod.com/users/nickgibson/asiapac06-07.1160029320.kim_il_sung_monument.jpg

http://www.forgottendelights.com/images/WashingtonBroad.jpg


Is so prevalent, yet so rarely discussed.

Say what you will about the USSR - they never carved Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin's faces on a fucking mountain.

I've heard supporters of the USSR, DPRK, etc., raise this argument a number of times actually.

I think that all countries work to create a national history. It's a part of the whole package.

But workers have no country.

[mykittyhasaboner]

If we are going to change the traditional structure of society and transform the entire economic base, it will be a tremendous social change which will change the lives of all people. During such a process, people tend to cling to their symbols (christmas, 4th of july, thanksgiving, things which are familiar). People should have the right to the safety of the familiar, and it is possible that the revolutionary leadership could make the process easier by legitimising themselves through the familiar.

"Safety of the familiar" sounds like you want people to cling to the ideals of bourgeois society.


Like, if a communist party is winning power in the USA, the general secretary should put a wreath of flowers before Lincoln's statue each year, spare a turkey each thanksgiving, send a christmas greeting to the American people each christmas and hold rousing patriotic speeches each 4th of July. Such scenes will be familiar and serve to legitimise the new order.

The "new order" you speak of wouldn't be very new in that case. By doing all of that shit you'd be preserving the kind of cultural 'mythos' responsible for killing and trampling over all the real nations that inhabited the Americas before the US ever created it's own "nation", a "nation" pretty much founded on the subjugation of other nations for economic exploitation, namely the Native's who were indentured, forced off their land, or simply killed and enslaved African Americans.



Leaders who try to change all the foundations of society at once and transform culture completely cannot succeed if not society has undergone centuries of upheaval and chaos.

Examples: Nero, Robespierre, Mao.Scared of a little upheaval and chaos? :lol:

We're talking about revolution.


It never is, but even most American workers tend to like Thanksgiving, Christmas and 4th of July. Those who are reactionaries would often use attacks against traditions as a way of mobilising support (just see the turmoil caused by calling it "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas".I really think your blowing this out of proportion. So what if we stop publicly announcing holidays like that? People can still celebrate them if they want, just don't expect all of society, after getting rid of all the old crap, to go along with it.

[samofshs]

Dude, after the revolution can you American commies blow that shitty pile of rocks up?
i'll dress up like a nazi and go up there with some dynamite. then i'll leave a note with copy/pasted hate speech from stormfront and you can blame it all on the nazis :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Dimentio]

"Safety of the familiar" sounds like you want people to cling to the ideals of bourgeois society.



The "new order" you speak of wouldn't be very new in that case. By doing all of that shit you'd be preserving the kind of cultural 'mythos' responsible for killing and trampling over all the real nations that inhabited the Americas before the US ever created it's own "nation", a "nation" pretty much founded on the subjugation of other nations for economic exploitation, namely the Native's who were indentured, forced off their land, or simply killed and enslaved African Americans.

Scared of a little upheaval and chaos? :lol:

We're talking about revolution.

I really think your blowing this out of proportion. So what if we stop publicly announcing holidays like that? People can still celebrate them if they want, just don't expect all of society, after getting rid of all the old crap, to go along with it.

I don't.

In fact, I loathe a lot of those old customs (though the silliest one I know is "Donald Duck on Christmas" in Sweden). But they have a very real meaning for the people upholding them. When intense changes are occurring in the economy or in society in general, people get a bit scared and tend to cling on to their old ways. A revolutionary leadership which want to transform the economic base of a society could increase their support by wrapping it all in the familiar.

Like, if I was Lenin, I would not have demolished any churches or mosques. I would just have replaced the leadership of the major congregations, and said some platitudes the style that "Jesus/Mohammed wanted socialism, blah blah blah..."

All attempts to destroy the established customs and values in one go have failed and backfired. The greatest cultural change ever imposed from above - the christianisation of the Roman Empire - took two hundred years between Constantine and Justinian.

As a note, almost all older nations are forged upon the ruins of previous nations. It is very likely for example that the Swedes established themselves in Sweden 2500 years ago by killing off and enslaving the indigenous population.

At this moment, I'll understand the reasons for marxist-leninists to take an almost intrinsically Anti-American position, but it all will be different when you yourself are America.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I've heard supporters of the USSR, DPRK, etc., raise this argument a number of times actually.

I think that all countries work to create a national history. It's a part of the whole package.

But workers have no country.

It depends on how you define 'country'. Sure, all nations work to create a national history, but for example the USSR was not one nation, rather it was several. It would be more accurate to call the history of the USSR international history, imho.

So I think it's hard to compare patriotism or nationalism in the US to the USSR, or other oppressed nations (Cuba, Korea, etc).

[mykittyhasaboner]

I don't.

Well I can't see what else it could possibly mean. Bourgeois society is what is 'familiar' to people.



In fact, I loathe a lot of those old customs (though the silliest one I know is "Donald Duck on Christmas" in Sweden). But they have a very real meaning for the people upholding them. When intense changes are occurring in the economy or in society in general, people get a bit scared and tend to cling on to their old ways. A revolutionary leadership which want to transform the economic base of a society could increase their support by wrapping it all in the familiar.

"Let's abolish the capitalist state, for God and Country".

Not a very good slogan is it?


Like, if I was Lenin, I would not have demolished any churches or mosques.
This may have been unnecessary, or it could have made space for better stuff. I can't really touch on this.



I would just have replaced the leadership of the major congregations, and said some platitudes the style that "Jesus/Mohammed wanted socialism, blah blah blah..."

So you would have people thinking in idealistic platitudes, rather than wanting to introduce materialism and rational thought?


All attempts to destroy the established customs and values in one go have failed and backfired.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "one go".


The greatest cultural change ever imposed from above - the christianisation of the Roman Empire - took two hundred years between Constantine and Justinian.

That's true, but it has little to do with what would happen in the US during a proletarian revolution. Changes "from above" are just that. I don't think anyone wants to abolish cultural or national traditions "from above".

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I agree that Mt. Rushmore is a vulgar, tacky, jingoistic eyesore and probably should be dynamited. As others have said though, "patriotic" fetishism goes with the package of a bourgeois nation-state.

As anti-American as I am, I think much of the the "national symbolism" isn't necessarily bad.The American Revolution and Civil War were important egalitarian revolutions. Before May Day (which began in the US), the 4th of July was celebrated as a worker's holiday in the US. The US ruling class has hijacked democratic symbolism, fetishized it, and used it to support jingoism and imperialism.

As much as I hate to say this, its more effective countering an ideology (like US "patriotism") from within the ideology itself. I learned this arguing w/Christian fundies. Its possible to argue people out of this by drawing out the logical fallacies, but one has to know the bible fairly well to do this.

True, Jefferson was an imperialist who never freed his slaves, Washington encouraged massacres of Natives, Teddy Roosevelt was a bloodthirsty imperialist. The American bourgeois republic was established out of a liberatory impulse. Obviously today the context has changed. Americans are brought up only to think within the earlier framework. How can this be expanded and built upon?

[Dimentio]

Even less I do think that the people as a whole would like to abolish them.

Look at Russia today. About 70-80% are religious.

In Sweden, where we had a state church until 1998, about 20-30% are religious. The reason for that is that the Swedish church in general has been completely transformed by generations of social democratic ideas, which also have held a lot of influence in pre-school, school and the workplaces of most people.

If you attack the beliefs of people, they will strengthen those beliefs. The cause for the rise of christianity was the persecutions during the pagan Roman Emperors.

If you instead co-opt those institutions, you will be able to transform them in a way which would benefit your cause, whatever your cause might be.

[Dimentio]

It depends on how you define 'country'. Sure, all nations work to create a national history, but for example the USSR was not one nation, rather it was several. It would be more accurate to call the history of the USSR international history, imho.

So I think it's hard to compare patriotism or nationalism in the US to the USSR, or other oppressed nations (Cuba, Korea, etc).

In the USSR, there was probably some state patriotism around. In some regions (western Ukraine, the Baltic states) there was always a latent state-hostile local nationalism. In Central Asia and the Caucasus, there was instead ethno-nationalism which wasn't necessarily anti-soviet but more directed against the people in the neighbouring village.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I propose setting all religious institutions on fire with burning Christmas trees.

[Sam_b]

Dude, after the revolution can you American commies blow that shitty pile of rocks up?

Are we going to destroy things of historical significance because we don't agree with them?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Are we going to destroy things of historical significance because we don't agree with them?

Rushmore is hardly of histrical significance, since it only exists for tourists.

[Sam_b]

since it only exists for tourists

and?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

and?

Ok then, what is its value, historically?

[Sam_b]

Ok then, what is its value, historically?

Seeing that historical value is at most usually objective, things mean different things to different people.

I think the fact its had numerous depictions in popular culture, as well as much controversy, makes it something with historical value to future generations in the society we would wish to see. Destoying it to make some sort of 'statement' really smacks of token gestures.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I don't know, Considering it was designed by a member of the KKK, carved into a mountiain that the US stole and depicts people who contributed to the destruction of the Native American civilization, I don't know if we'll want it around.

[Sam_b]

I don't know, Considering it was designed by a member of the KKK, carved into a mountiain that the US stole and depicts people who contributed to the destruction of the Native American civilization, I don't know if we'll want it around.


So I take it that you would be all for, say, bulldozing Auschwitz?

[Invincible Summer]

Are we going to destroy things of historical significance because we don't agree with them?

Although I'm tempted to say "Yeah, deface that piece of shit" I think that so long as the "battle of ideas" (in addition to the actual class war) is won, then we don't really have to worry too much about "reactionary sculptures" or anything like that. It'll be up to the revolutionaries at that time.

[AK]

So I take it that you would be all for, say, bulldozing Auschwitz?
Auschwitz wasn't designed so that tourists could fap to it.

[Sam_b]

Auschwitz wasn't designed so that tourists could fap to it.

Whether tourists go or not is irrelevant.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Whether tourists go or not is irrelevant.

I like how you competly ignored his point.

Rushmore: the defacement of a mountain so tourist go there
Auschwitz: The remains of a death camp.

No diffrence there!

[Jazzratt]

Yeah. I know what you mean, genocide's pretty bad but those fucking tourists really get on my nerves.

[Sam_b]

Rushmore: the defacement of a mountain so tourist go there
Auschwitz: The remains of a death camp.

Both which have historical significance. It's not 'ignoring the point' that certain locations and facets are graded under capitalism by tourist money and that this should have nothing to do with the value of the item itself.

[Raúl Duke]

I think it's up to the people post-revolution to decide what will happen. I'm guessing they'll leave the faces alone, it seems like a waste of time to blow them up when there's bigger targets.

Like demolishing the white house and the New York Stock Exchange during or post-revolution.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Both which have historical significance. It's not 'ignoring the point' that certain locations and facets are graded under capitalism by tourist money and that this should have nothing to do with the value of the item itself.

I like how you invoked godwin's law as fast as you could, and still pretend that this is all about tourist dollars.

[Rusty Shackleford]

It is possible to destroy 200 years of cultural heritage and public buildings, but that would only serve to alienate people. Social change, even for the better, is generally a traumatic process. The goal should be to create as little trauma as possible and create the broadest possible foundation for support. You won't get support by tarnishing statues or burning American flags.

The best strategy would on the contrary be to wrap it all into American flags and into the American national mythos.


Theres a reason why in Civ IV you can only build Mt. Rushmore after researching fascism.

[samofshs]

Theres a reason why in Civ IV you can only build Mt. Rushmore after researching fascism.
i find this decision by the game-makers dreadfully true and slightly humerus. http://www.eatliver.com/img/2009/3993.jpg

[Sam_b]

I like how you invoked godwin's law as fast as you could, and still pretend that this is all about tourist dollars

Are you being deliberately dense?

Not that you're ever capable of making a logical argument anyway. Most of them won't fit into one line!

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Are you being deliberately dense?

Not that you're ever capable of making a logical argument anyway. Most of them won't fit into one line!

likewise.

[Sam_b]

Great comeback, champ.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Great comeback, champ.

What's to debate? you wont accept anything other than your position.

[Sam_b]

This is ridiculous as you're not making any argument apart that tourism apparently is a factor in what you think is or isn't signiicant. Your argument is one line.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

This is ridiculous as you're not making any argument apart that tourism apparently is a factor in what you think is or isn't signiicant. Your argument is one line.

You seem to lack basic comprehension skills, I clearly stated that Mt Rushmore is not significant because it was built purely to atract tourists, and therefore has little historical value as it is neither comemortative, religous or deorative, but just a tourist trap, it has all the historical significance of butlins.