22 May 2005, 23:42
How important is iconography in a movement that argues to not fetishize on icons?
23 May 2005, 00:26
The answer to this question, is the same as the answer to this one:
How dumb is a question that answers itself in it's own formulation?
23 May 2005, 11:50
Symbols like the hammer and sickleare the same as ideology, something for people to attach to and something that detracts from people's intellect and ability to think independently. The romanticisation of the idea of communism and of 'the glory of the revolution' or other such nonsense is directly attached to the worship of symbols, and is inherently counter-productive.
23 May 2005, 12:00
It still doesn't make any sense.
Its not a communist movement if its soviet revisionism.
23 May 2005, 16:18
Your talking about iconography as though this were the Eastern Orthodox worship of symbols. That's hardly it. The Hammer and Sickle were symbols, used to associate a complicated philosophy to an easily recognizable symbol. Worship is ridiculous. You might try and discuss cult of personality, but that wouldn't get very far either. You are over-exagerating a non-problem.
24 May 2005, 18:32
The bolsheviks were appealing greatly to the workers, and the hammer and sickle were symbolic of that.
02 Jul 2006, 06:39
What exactly are you getting at, if anything? You seem to already have the answer you want in your head, but are looking for someone to validate it by correctly guessing what it is!
The Hammer and Sickle symbol has been used for many decades as an honorific symbol of workers the world over. It was a natural choice for the Communist movement to adopt it as an official symbol. That being said, it's JUST A SYMBOL- it's not a religious icon, it's not a deity unto itself.
We don't have time for word games- there's work to be done!