- Politics and Social Issues»
- Politics & Political Science
the HAMMER & SICKLE emblem : What does it signify ?
Whose fertile brain was behind the idea of representing communism and the communist movement with the hammer and sickle emblem is not known. Nevertheless, it's known to have been used for the first time during 1917's Bolshevik uprising miscalled the October Revolution, the way I see it, and has been in use since then. It is believed to symbolise the unity of the proletariat and the peasantry and be in harmony with Lenin's thesis that in underdeveloped capitalist countries, the peasantry led by the proletariat will accomplish the communist revolution. The way I see it, this thesis adds up to just a load of rank rubbish because the peasantry are a reactionary class*. The reactionary cannot take part in the organisation of a revolution, let alone the communist revolution, just because they're reactionary.
Viewed from the communistic viewpoint, the hammer cannot represent the revolutionary proletariat ( i.e. the proletariat in a fully-developed capitalist order** ). Both the hammer and the sickle represent far far backward technology compared with the advanced state-of-the-art technology of the developed capitalist era. They symbolise far underdeveloped productive forces in relation to those that correspond with the fully-developed capitalism. The hammer makes us visualise a blacksmith or a carpenter and the sickle a peasant or a landless rural worker that scrapes a living from doing agricultural jobs. They all were poor guys used to working hard and leading a hand-to-mouth existence. All of them entered the capitalist era from the feudal era and grew fewer and fewer with the advancement of capitalism. They are either extinct outright or on the brink of extinction, just as hackney-cab cabbies are, in all advanced civilisations of today. By historical materialism, transition to communism presupposes the the development of capitalism to the highest degree***. Historical materialism outright disapproves of any premature bid meant to make a switchover to communism from capitalism as long as the latter keeps on growing. Thus, by historical materialism, the hammer and sickle represents classes that must be non-existent before the time for the supersession of capitalism by communism is ripe, the way I view it. It's quite obvious now that the hammer and sickle can't deserve to be the representative emblem of communism or the communist movement.
Were those that chose the hammer and sickle as the emblem of communism and the communist movement sensible people ? Did they that chose the hammer and sickle for the emblem of communism and the communist movement have the knowledge of the ABC of communism, I wonder.
It ought to be clear as day now to all the sensible that the hammer and sickle emblem happens to be, to my way of thinking, an incontestable proof of the fact that Lenin, Stalin, Mao as well as their followers of the past, because they found nothing wrong with this emblem, were NOT, NOR are any of their present-day followers, communist.
Neither Lenin nor Stalin nor Mao understood historical materialism, the foundation theory of the theory of communism. What they did in the name of the communist revolution and communism were nothing less that sheer travesties, to my way of thinking. The so-called ' October Revolution ' was truly a peasant coup. The Russian peasantry most of whom turned landless labourers rallied, after they had been promised by Lenin that they'd be given back, by dispossessing the kulaks of Russia, the possession of their land they had to part with under the wartime distress, behind Bolsheviks to organise a successful coup aimed at helping Lenin and co. seize power from the ruling Mensheviks. This clearly shows that the October uprising of 1917 was NOT aimed at communism.
* ' ... Of all the classes, that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie to-day, the proletariat is a really revolutionary class. The other classes perish and disappear in the face of Modern Industry, the proletariat is its special and essential product. ... The lower middle classes, the small manufacturers, the shopkeepers, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle-class ... they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. ' ( See KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume I, PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW; CHAPTER XXXII; p 715. )
** Marx and Engels viewed the proletariat in general as a revolutionary class. This view of mine is corroborated by this observation : ' the proletariat is a really revolutionary class ' , which occurs in the CAPITAL I. ( See the preceding reference. ) Nevertheless, I think it is precisely the proletariat that belong to the fully-developed capitalism that happen to be a truly revolutionary class. The proletariat that happen to be the product of underdeveloped or developing capitalism can't be revolutionary, according to the historical materialism, the way I see it.
*** The historical materialism says, ' In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, ... , namely relations of production ... The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. ... At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production ... From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. ... No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. ... ' ( See the PREFACE to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy by Marx. )
Thus, by historical materialism, time for the communist revolution aimed at the supersession of the capitalist relations of production ( ' the existing relations of production ' ) by the communist relations of production ( ' new superior relations of production ' ) will be ripe only when all the social productive forces have developed to the highest possible degree, i.e. when their development has reached ' a certain stage ' that happens to be the extreme upper limit it is able to reach under capitalism. The productive forces aren't allowed to grow beyond this limit by the capitalist relations of production which then, instead of facilitating ' the development of the productive forces ', ' turn into their fetters ' to prevent their further growth. But the productive forces must grow, and they happen to be stronger enough to cast off ' their fetters '. The mission of casting off the capitalist relations of production ( the ' fetters ' ) is to be accomplished through the communist revolution.