Results 1 to 20 of 34
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?
I think, but am in no way positive.
It isn't Leninist, Lenin did nothing to free the peasants OR the proletariat.
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.
He who was previously the money-owner now strides out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his worker. The one smirks self-importantly and is intent on business; the other is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought his own hide to market and now has nothing else to expect but - a good tanning. - Karl Marx, Capital Volume I
I thought the proletariat included peasants?
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.
"The only church that illuminates is a burning church"--Buenaventura Durruti
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.
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.
He who was previously the money-owner now strides out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his worker. The one smirks self-importantly and is intent on business; the other is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought his own hide to market and now has nothing else to expect but - a good tanning. - Karl Marx, Capital Volume I
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.
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.
Advocate of Marxism-Leninism as embodied by Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru, Chandershekhar Azad, Jatin Das, Hassan Nasir, Major Ishaq, Sajjad Zaheer, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, who gave their lives for Communism in the subcontinent.
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".
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.
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.
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.
He who was previously the money-owner now strides out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his worker. The one smirks self-importantly and is intent on business; the other is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought his own hide to market and now has nothing else to expect but - a good tanning. - Karl Marx, Capital Volume I
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.
War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength[COLOR=red]
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).
"The only church that illuminates is a burning church"--Buenaventura Durruti
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.
He isn't right in that statement.
Pre-advanced capitalism still has people selling their labor as their only source of income.
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.
He who was previously the money-owner now strides out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his worker. The one smirks self-importantly and is intent on business; the other is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought his own hide to market and now has nothing else to expect but - a good tanning. - Karl Marx, Capital Volume I
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.
The life we have conferred upon these objects confronts us as something hostile and alien.
Formerly Virgin Molotov Cocktail (11/10/2004 - 21/08/2013)
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.
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)
War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength[COLOR=red]
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.
O, why should wrath be mute, and fury dumb?
I am no baby, I, that with base prayers
I should repent the evils I have done:
Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did
Would I perform, if I might have my will;
If one good deed in all my life I did,
I do repent it from my very soul.
Act V, Scene III; Titus Andronicus--W. Shakespeare
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.
Its a symbol that represents the labor unions and should be taken as such.
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10
"A heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes."
-Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it is time to pause and reflect."
-Mark Twain
