62°
UMass Boston's independent, student-run newspaper

The Mass Media

The Mass Media

The Mass Media

The Hammer & Sickle Is Just As Bad As The Swastika

The issue I find with the Hammer and Sickle is the intentions I perceive behind this symbol. Disclaimer: I do not intend to paint everyone who identifies as a “democratic socialist,” “socialist,” or “communist,” as one static ideology. Clearly, there are differences within any political movement or party, and the perceived intentions I hold are my opinion alone, and are based on historical movements associated with socialism and communism.
For the purpose of brevity and unnecessary redundancy, henceforth, I will be referring to those who use and identify with the Hammer and Sickle as “Marxists.” Although there is a distinction between socialists and communists—a distinction that would warrant an entirely other article—I believe that the intentions of both, in the majority of cases, are identical. Once again, I do not intend to paint everyone who uses these identities as evil, but hope to uncover and expose the many evils committed by socialists in the past.
Marxism is an ideology rooted in selfishness. Those who have must, and will, be forced to give to those who do not have. Marxism presents two social classes that are in constant war with each other, these being the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The proletariat, according to the father of Marxism, Karl Marx, was the working class. The bourgeoisie on the other hand are the wealthy landowners, who own the “means of production.” According to Karl Marx, the working class must rise up and overthrow their bourgeois masters and implement a Marxist society where income is the same, regardless of occupation, because this is “fair.” The surgeon makes an equivalent income to a low-level employee with very basic skills. Karl Marx famously said in The Communist Manifesto: “Workers of the world, unite!” and “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”
Regardless of the outcome of a Marxist revolution, the method by which the proletariat would need to obtain political and economic control was irrelevant to Marx. According to Marx, the ends justify the means, thereby allowing violence as a method to gain political control. In Marxist revolutions across Europe and around the world, violence was often used to gain and maintain control. Marx presented two options, either the rich class give up their wealth and property and accept the new rule of law, or the property and wealth they obtain (in most cases), through hard work and constant economic transactions, would be forcefully confiscated from them. This force often came with the threat of violence.
Marxists argue that we have an inherent responsibility to help our fellow man. Regardless of personal conviction, Marxists argue that you should be forced to help your fellow man. Many times, Marxist revolutions would result in property confiscation at gunpoint. As opposed to the Nazis, who hated a race of people, Marxists hated a class of people: the wealthy class. In the current economic market, wages have never been higher, working conditions have never been better, and benefits have never been more substantial. This is all thanks to inter-company competition.