The Hammer & Sickle

[Snitza]

First, a general inquiry: was the hammer & sickle symbol used in any movement before the bolsheviks took power?

In any event, that's secondary to the real meat of this post. How many other people have noticed that the hammer and sickle as a symbol for the communist movement(hell, look in the top left corner of Revleft, even) is overtly Leninist, and therefore not representitive of the entire communist movement?

Consider the obvious: a hammer crossed with a sickle, the former representing the industrial working class(the real proletariat), while the latter representing a pre-advanced-capitalist class of peasants. This is clearly an indication that the hammer and sickle is much more accurately a symbol to be used in Maoist/Leninist revolutions of peasants and minority industrial workers.

Of course, a real communist symbol would lack the sickle entirely, representing the advanced working class of an advanced capitalist society, the only viable "force" that would be propel a viable communist movement.

Thoughts?

[Clarksist]

First, a general inquiry: was the hammer & sickle symbol used in any movement before the bolsheviks took power?


I think, but am in no way positive.


How many other people have noticed that the hammer and sickle as a symbol for the communist movement(hell, look in the top left corner of Revleft, even) is overtly Leninist, and therefore not representitive of the entire communist movement?


It isn't Leninist, Lenin did nothing to free the peasants OR the proletariat. :lol:


Of course, a real communist symbol would lack the sickle entirely, representing the advanced working class of an advanced capitalist society, the only viable "force" that would be propel a viable communist movement.


What? The proletarians are the only viable force?

Since when? I always though thtat it was a mixture of the working class, as the proletarian numbers are not what they used to be.

[KC]

I thought the proletariat included peasants?

[anomaly]

So did I. I thought the proletariat was simply the 'lower classes'. So why would you exclude the peasantry when they make up a majority of the population in many poorer nations throughout the world? In these poorer nations, there is a chance for communist revolution, and if there is to be communist revolution, it will be led by the peasantry! Excluding the peasantry does not seem to be a good move at all. And personally I respect the peasantry.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:40 AM
So did I. I thought the proletariat was simply the 'lower classes'. So why would you exclude the peasantry when they make up a majority of the population in many poorer nations throughout the world? In these poorer nations, there is a chance for communist revolution, and if there is to be communist revolution, it will be led by the peasantry! Excluding the peasantry does not seem to be a good move at all. And personally I respect the peasantry.
I agree. Really, excluding the peasantry from the Proletariat? No way. As was stated, if their was a Revolution in some poorer nations, they would be leaded by the Peasants! You HAVE to have respect for these people and what they must endure.

[Clarksist]

I thought the proletariat was simply the 'lower classes'. So why would you exclude the peasantry when they make up a majority of the population in many poorer nations throughout the world?


Sort of, kind of, not really.

From "The Principles of Communism" by Friedrich Engels:

"The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century."

"The serf possesses and uses an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he gives up a part of his product or part of the services of his labor."

In this, Engels seems to say that peasants are serfs. To put it simply, a peasant owns the means of production. The peasant class still owns its farm land. While it must give to the bourgeoisie a cut of its profit, it still owns the means of production.

So they sort of are the same, as capitalism fucks them both over. But they also have some arbitrary differences. The both have the right to revolt. And revolt they both must in order for success.

[D_Bokk]

The Proletariat is the class that sells their labor, not a product. While a Peasant can own a farm and through his/her own labor, they're able to produce and sell their own products. Even so, I like to include everyone who isn't a Bourgeois or an Anti-Communist in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[viva le revolution]

The peasantry part of the proletariat? Well i must assume that you all live in the first-world then because the peasnant who 'own land' are the landlords. The peasants are the people who till the land for present or absentee landlords. they do not own the land. Except for a minority who own just enough for subsistence, but they are largely excluded because they do not have the proper motivation for revolution. Any modern revolution WILL have to have both peasant and proletarian support, due to the fact that most of the third world is made up of agrarian based societies.





clarksist:
It isn't Leninist, Lenin did nothing to free the peasants OR the proletariat.

O-kay. cough* history*cough.

[Snitza]

What? The proletarians are the only viable force?

Since when? I always though thtat it was a mixture of the working class, as the proletarian numbers are not what they used to be.

Do you not agree that the one revolutionary class in society is the proletariat? Of course, while I agree that the peasantry can be revolutionary(Nepal, Kuomintang-ruled China), what I'm pointing out is that the only revolutionary class capable of leading society directly towards communism is the proletariat(exactly as Marx theorized).

An advanced capitalist nation's peasantry is non-existant. Remember, Marx said that the proletariat didn't always exist, but rather came into existance with the birth of modern, industrialized capitalism. So to say that "anyone who does tough work" should be incuded in the most revolutionary class of proletariat is, to me, a mistake.

Or, the first time a Leninist-Maoist revolution actually does lead to some form of communism, then they will have proven their un-Marxist ideas to be better, and I'll agree entirely that the hammer & sickle should indeed be the communist "symbol".

[Snitza]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 2 2005, 09:45 AM
Any modern revolution WILL have to have both peasant and proletarian support, due to the fact that most of the third world is made up of agrarian based societies.


Let me clarify:

Any real, proletarian revolution(taking place, of course, in an advanced, modernized capitalist society) will be of modern proletarians, not medieval-esque illiterate hut-dwellers in Asia, Africa or Latin America. The revolutions that you speak of do indeed involve both industrial workers and rural peasants(more so the latter) because they are indeed agrarian societies. And, like I said, the first time an agrarian society makes it way to some form of communism, I'll revoke all of my statements excluding the peasantry from a viable revolutionary force.

But, as it is, all they're good for(these peasant revolutions) are for industrializing and paving the way for capitalism.


O-kay. cough* history*cough.
Russia's working class in 1917 was almost entirely a peasantry; there was not a real proletariat for Lenin to "free". As for the peasantry? I wouldn't say they were "freed", though the peasant class did shrink over the years as Stalin introduced his plans of rapid industrialization.

So where we are now in Russia is obviously the uber-capitalist country, with hardly any governmental interference with business, giving way to sex-slavery, massive open drug trade, extortion and other capitalist dreams come true.

[Clarksist]

O-kay. cough* history*cough.


Yeah... well, seeing as Lenin set up a dictorial top-down bureaucracy, I don't see how he "freed" anyone but him and his closest loyal followers.

[Le People]

I believe the hammer and sickle was created in 1922 in the heat of the civil war. The hammer represents the workers, the sickle , the peasent , and the red is a symbol of the blood spilt in the struggle.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 11:46 AM

What? The proletarians are the only viable force?

Since when? I always though thtat it was a mixture of the working class, as the proletarian numbers are not what they used to be.

Do you not agree that the one revolutionary class in society is the proletariat? Of course, while I agree that the peasantry can be revolutionary(Nepal, Kuomintang-ruled China), what I'm pointing out is that the only revolutionary class capable of leading society directly towards communism is the proletariat(exactly as Marx theorized).

An advanced capitalist nation's peasantry is non-existant. Remember, Marx said that the proletariat didn't always exist, but rather came into existance with the birth of modern, industrialized capitalism. So to say that "anyone who does tough work" should be incuded in the most revolutionary class of proletariat is, to me, a mistake.

Or, the first time a Leninist-Maoist revolution actually does lead to some form of communism, then they will have proven their un-Marxist ideas to be better, and I'll agree entirely that the hammer & sickle should indeed be the communist "symbol".
So what is really at the forefront here is your strict adherence to orthodox Marxism, that only he was right, that only this 'true' proletariat of advanced nations may lead the way to communism. I personally disagree with this, and I made a point of saying that if the people of the global south fight a communist revolution, it will be lead by mostly peasants. Of course, neither one has occured yet, but I think the latter has a much greater chance of happening (this, however, is contrary to what Marx said).

[Clarksist]

Of course, while I agree that the peasantry can be revolutionary(Nepal, Kuomintang-ruled China), what I'm pointing out is that the only revolutionary class capable of leading society directly towards communism is the proletariat(exactly as Marx theorized).


Why? What about local store owners? Farmers? They are being fucked over by the capitalism regime, and they should be able to lead the revolution egalitarian-style with the proletariat.


Remember, Marx said that the proletariat didn't always exist, but rather came into existance with the birth of modern, industrialized capitalism.


He isn't right in that statement.

Pre-advanced capitalism still has people selling their labor as their only source of income.


Or, the first time a Leninist-Maoist revolution actually does lead to some form of communism, then they will have proven their un-Marxist ideas to be better, and I'll agree entirely that the hammer & sickle should indeed be the communist "symbol".


You don't have to be a Maoist to believe that peasants are part of the "workers".

The peasants are marginalized and profiteered to, and their well-being is in peril just as much as the exploited proletariat. We should be joining all workers together. Not tearing them apart based on century old definition.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Quick thoughts:

What we have too look at is the changing character of the "peasantry".

In the first world, the "peasantry" have been almost completely disolved into either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. That is, those working within the agribusiness complex are undeniably modern industrial workers, and those above them, freed from work and content to watch armies that operate the machinery of modern agriculture, are undeniably bourgeois.

In the third world, however, patterns of uneven development have also reshaped the class nature of more traditional peasantry. Some remain in feudal servitude in the interests of global capitalism. Their retarded development grows out of imperialism, and the anti-imperialist struggle of this peasentry is necessarily revolutionary. Another segment who own their own land remain continually petit-bourgeois - inclined to swing either direction - but global capitalism constantly seeks to crush this segment, and force them into debt slavery, or worse. The reaction, of course, varies - the petit bourgeois are, as always, the base of fascism or backers of revolution as dictated by the leadership of the working class and other factors.

[Snitza]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 06:28 AM

Of course, while I agree that the peasantry can be revolutionary(Nepal, Kuomintang-ruled China), what I'm pointing out is that the only revolutionary class capable of leading society directly towards communism is the proletariat(exactly as Marx theorized).


Why? What about local store owners? Farmers? They are being fucked over by the capitalism regime, and they should be able to lead the revolution egalitarian-style with the proletariat.
Farmers in advanced capitalist nations like the United States don't really "own" much of anything. In fact, I think that individual, family-owned farms are no longer existant to any degree anymore. Everything is owned by farming corporations(my uncle works for one such corporation in California). Because, like I said, on a long enough timeline capitalism diminishes the peasantry to a state of non-existance.

In regards to petite-borgeouis owners of mom 'n pop style shops, I would have no problem with them joining revolting workers and militants. However, there is never going to be a petite-bourgeois "revolution" led by the owners of small corner stores.

The petite-borgeoisie is not a revolutionary class in and of itself. Only the proletariat is capable of holding this label. I'm not dismissing the possibility of people from outside the proletariat joining in revolution.

[Le People]

In the debate of who's going to lead the revolution, it's going to be the educated proletairat and the intellisgia of every class.(mostly middle worker)

[praxis1966]

The petite-borgeoisie is not a revolutionary class in and of itself.

No one is arguing whether or not the petit bourgeoisie is revolutionary or not. What is being debated is whether or not the so-called peasantry can be revolutionary. In other words, are they by definition proletarian?

Clearly, if one were to consult Marx the answer would be no since they own their own means of production. However, Marx's arguments are erroneous. In his analysis of serfdom he misses one key element: that in the case of serfs, the local nobility still retains ownership of the land, and the peasant is allowed to rent it so that he might produce food of his own, the currency with which he pays said rent just happens to be a percentage of his harvest.

Furthermore, peasantry in this day in age (as has previously been suggested) no longer exists, especially in the first and second world. The hands which actually do the tilling of fields and bailing of hay are now wage slaves, just as the urban industrial workers are. The only difference in condition is geography.

I will concede that in the third world, where subsistance farming is decidedly more widespread than other places, this may not be the case. However, the peasantry in such places is still overwhelmingly impoverished and exploited. It just so happens that their exploitation is systemic. In other words, it is the direct result of capitalism itself, where consumers dictate what they will and won't pay for the goods the peasantry sells. The fact remains that the peasantry of the third world is still dehumanized and set upon by the upper echelons of their respective societies. Therefore, they are just as capable of becoming revolutionary as any other industry.

Consequently, the definition of the proletariat needs to be expanded to include all of the working poor, not just inner city production workers. To exclude agribusiness workers and the peasantry simply in order to remain orthodox to Marx is folly, nevermind latently elitist.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I don't see the problem, even with orthodow Marxist explanations, as it has been said the serf has slid into unexistance.

Whilst the serf may still exist in third world countries, this is not where revolution on a grand scale is likely to come from, it will be the proletariat in the industrialised countries out there doing it. Whether or not the serfs revolt is almost irrelevant when the powers have already fallen.

[MoscowFarewell]

Its a symbol that represents the labor unions and should be taken as such.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:20 AM
I don't see the problem, even with orthodow Marxist explanations, as it has been said the serf has slid into unexistance.

Whilst the serf may still exist in third world countries, this is not where revolution on a grand scale is likely to come from, it will be the proletariat in the industrialised countries out there doing it. Whether or not the serfs revolt is almost irrelevant when the powers have already fallen.
The porblem with your analysis is that you obviously are an orthodox Marxist! You adhere to what Marx said, that only in 'advanced' nations will the revolution take place. Those peasants in the third world 'don't mean anything'. I tend to disagree with you and Marx as well. There is little revolutionary will in the 1st world, and there is much revolutionary will in the third world. Even if you feel they in the third world are 'not ready' for communism, it is doubtful that they will not have a revolution. Why can't these revolutions produce communism? There is no 'law' against this. If, when the people revolutionize, the people wish to have communism, they will have communism. And there are undoubtedly growing Marxist numbers in the global south, so the likelihood that revolutions will produce communism increases. The only obstacle is defense against imperialists, and I think liberal sympathy will prevent military action from happening (the Zapatistas didn't get attacked by the Mexican Army when they revolted, and this was because, simply, it would have looked bad for the Army to attack such a poorly armed group!). This chance for communisat revolution in the third world is why the 'hammer and sickle' should indeed include the sickle, as the peasants would surely lead a revolution in the third world.

[Hegemonicretribution]

On the contrary, I am certainley not an orthodox Marxist, but in this respect I agree with him. Whilst There may be more movement in thethird world, if it gets out of hand the first world will be ready to keep it in check.

In my oppinion it isn't until things happen in the first world, that things can take place to the full extent in the third world. Like I said once the main powers have fallen, the role of the serf is irrelevant.

[Paradox]

the Zapatistas didn't get attacked by the Mexican Army when they revolted, and this was because, simply, it would have looked bad for the Army to attack such a poorly armed group!

I see the Zapatista model, that being the Good Government Juntas and autonomous councils, as a very promising model for government under Communism. As I said in another thread, these bodies are made up by the people of the villages and constantly rotate so that no "regulars" hold on to control. Entire villages govern themselves. The people themselves make the decisions. However, it still is not Communism. There is still money, and there is still poverty. But they are fighting.


Even if you feel they in the third world are 'not ready' for communism, it is doubtful that they will not have a revolution.

No one's saying they won't have revolutions. Look around... there's plenty of them! However, they will not produce Communism. They will develop capitalism, creating a large Proletariat, and then a true Communist revolution can occur, once class consciousness is high.


If, when the people revolutionize, the people wish to have communism, they will have communism.

No they won't.


The only obstacle is defense against imperialists

And for the imperialists to be defeated you must have revolutions in imperialist nations. Otherwise they will crush movements in the Third World, like how the US portrays Venezuela as a "negative influence." Venezuela is a model in my opinion, for the development of Third World nations, so that they can industrialize and raise class consciousness. More Venezuelas would be a positive development.

[anomaly]

Will the Western powers even care about small scale communism, though? And public appearance is quite important for Western Powers. If one attacked a small commune, how would that look? Awfully bad. This communism of which I speak is not the advanced model you orthodox (or 'relatively' orthodox) think, rather, it is a more primitive one. Peasant lead communes certainly could advance materially if more communes popped up. Such a primitive commune would prove materially better than than capitalism for the peasants, so it is worth looking into. But, Paradox, I am impressed with your amazing foresight!!

[saint max]

Gettin in tha game late...

On the original points about the hammer and sickle/prol and preasant.
Marx did not consider the peasantry prol. prol meant worker-producer, and that pretty much only (besides the larger definitions that have already been given.) In regaurds to 'who' may be the (only) revolutionary class in society, Marx has been consistantly and historically wrong. In fact there has been nothing that has 100% lead to a mass of any group or class of people being ordained (as it were) with revolutionary will. Instead history is both some-what predictable of any constructed oppressed person and always suprising with it's grandious and short orgasms. (68, post-68...fuckin a)

Modern Leftism is still chewing, if not spewing corpses. From Marx to k. rouge... Honestly, do we really desire more modernization/industrialization? I fail to see how the social dem lefties in the global south are really the 'best model.' I mean why should the fairly anarchic egalitarian peoples of West Paupa, for instance, who reject civilization as a whole, go through a workers paradise? They're pretty happy not working.

Perhaps I'm the only person horrified by yalls slavery to a dead man (or a few?) I hope not.

freedom is a game for everyone, and it ain't totalized by material conditions.

cheers,
-max

good reading: The Lumpen Ideology by: E. Cleaver

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:34 AM
Will the Western powers even care about small scale communism, though? And public appearance is quite important for Western Powers. If one attacked a small commune, how would that look? Awfully bad. This communism of which I speak is not the advanced model you orthodox (or 'relatively' orthodox) think, rather, it is a more primitive one. Peasant lead communes certainly could advance materially if more communes popped up. Such a primitive commune would prove materially better than than capitalism for the peasants, so it is worth looking into. But, Paradox, I am impressed with your amazing foresight!!
I agree that there is nothing wrong with revolutions, and they will happen in poorer countries. However I do believe western countries would take an interest. Resurgence of communism? Certain countries not getting involved? Whether troops are sent in, embargos placed, or just open disliking of, there are certain coutries that would get involved.

As for communes, I love them :). I think that this is a good way for people to progree no matter what kind of society they currently live in.

[anomaly]

The Western powers may get involved, although I think it is doubtful. We see the outrage over Western powers invading a nation (Iraq), imagine that outrage if a huge power invaded a very small commune. If they do decide to invade, I must question their sincerity to the task. Once soldiers begin being wiped away by the small yet determined people's militias, will the imperialist power still believe the mission to be so important? And when other nations rally to the cause of this small commune, what will the western powers then do? I think Cuba nad Venezuela will certainly approve of the small commune (again, if it's on the map at all) and may provide aid. Will the imperialist power decide to invade these nations? If they do, they've a real war on their hands, a war that many a nation simply doesn't have the strength for right now (or for the foreseeable future) with events in the Middle East. As one can see, it will be a rather large gamble for the imperialists to decide to destroy the commune.

Also, I must say that saint max makes some good points.

[(A)PBDS]

I like korea's symbol, (juche is stalinist bullshit all the same), the hammers and a pen, to represent the white collar workers as well (they get fucked over just as much). what do you think?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think: communes (the type that was mentioned, not ala Paris Commune) are worthless escapist bourgeois liberal love-fests that will never change anything.

But about the hammer & the sickle: it was the symbol of the RSFSR (originally appearing on the coat of arms) from 1917 onwards, and subsequently was adopted by many others. I am almost possitive it was designed by Leon Trotsky.

[anomaly]

Bourgeois-liberal love fests?! Surely this is not the quote of a communist! But alas, it is the quote of one, a self described communist! You should be ashamed of yourself, orthodox one.

Why should you be against communes? Why are you against a place for revolutionaries to gather, a place for the peasantry to practice its form of communism, a place of absolute freedom? The Paris Commune did not achieve communism, despite its name. The communes I mention do achieve communism, albeit not in your desired, orthodox manner.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You really have such little grasp of communist theory that I can't be bothered responding to your posts anymore.

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm) Frederick Engels

[OleMarxco]

Such a post has an arrogant attitude only pointing to an article to solve your argumentical problem's only reveal your weakness, not other's theoretical weakness, whatever Engel's and Marx say's :D

[angus_mor]

[QUOTE] Lazar August 2, 06:06 AM I thought proletariat included peasants?

well, actually, the proletariat is the exploited class of the bourgeoisie, the factory workers (hammer), while the larger part of the working class of russia was in fact peasants (sickle)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 07:51 PM
Such a post has an arrogant attitude only pointing to an article to solve your argumentical problem's only reveal your weakness, not other's theoretical weakness, whatever Engel's and Marx say's :D
I don't understand any of your posts.

The point is, this guy just argues things from out of know where.

He asserts in anothe thread that the peasants can create an agrarian society in a third world country and it will be communist.

When I pointed out that this is fundamentally reactionary and Khmer Rouge-ist, he asks who the Khmer Rouge was... How can you assert things when you're not basing them in fact. "The sky is red." (But look up, you can see it's blue) "I said it's red!"

It would be like me claiming to be a nazi and saying "Blacks can join our party."

It's so out of touch with actual fact that I'm at a loss for words.

I tried to point this guy to some basic works of commuist theory and he calls me a "dogmatist."

I don't know what else to say. How can you debate with someone that creates their own meanings for communism and ignores the theories that it's based on?