Comments on 'Communist emblems on coins'

[<k>]

Parent topic: Communist emblems on coins

The concept of communism existed long before Karl Marx, but in the real world his theories were the first to prove influential. Though Russia also had communists known as Socialist Revolutionaries, who thought that revolution would be led by the peasantry, it was the Bolsheviks who ultimately carried through their own revolution in 1917, after the initial Menshevik seizure of power. Lenin's translation of Marxist theory into practice in the Soviet Union came to be known as Marxism-Leninism, though there are many who believe that Marx himself would have regarded the Marxist-Leninist system as a perversion of his philosophy.

Lenin died in 1924, and it was Stalin who developed the political and economic system that was later adopted in other Communist countries. He incorporated some of Trotsky's ideas, despite expelling him from the Soviet Union and later having him killed. In the 1930s Stalin initiated the Great Terror, in an attempt to cow his opponents (real and imagined) and use the slave labour of his Gulag prisoners to help establish his industrial revolution. He once said that he would prefer people to follow him out of fear rather than conviction, because convictions can change! He was also allegedly responsible for the maxim that "one death is a tragedy; a million deaths are a statistic". Accordingly, he ruled his people with the mentality of a merciless and murderous Mafia godfather, and millions died, whether through famine or in the Gulag.

Fascism and Nazism were partly a reaction to the threat of the Soviet Union, but Stalin defeated his foes and, with the confidence he developed in victory, he took the opportunity to impose his system on most of East and Central Europe – though the Yugoslavian and Albanian Communists came to power largely without his help and before the end of the Second World War.

After Stalin's death, Khrushchev denounced him and attempted a relative relaxation of Soviet society. Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko oversaw a period of stagnation, until Gorbachev eventually blew the system apart, as the consequences of his reforms escalated out of his control. Communist states still exist, especially in Asia, but they vary in the extent to which they retain the features of a classic Communist state.

[<k>]

According to the British political scientist Archie Brown, there were historically six defining characteristics of Communist states:

1] The monopoly of power of the Communist party.

This was variously described as "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or "the leading role of the Communist Party". In practice it meant a one-party dictatorship.

2] Democratic centralism.

In theory, Communist party members were allowed to discuss issues freely until the leadership had taken a position on them. After that, all members were expected to support the policy without dissent. This discipline helped communists into power, but it also led to a rigidly hierarchical, over-bureaucratic system, in which debate was severely restricted.

3] Non-capitalist ownership of the means of production.

In practice a small amount of private enterprise was tolerated in some states, particularly in agriculture, which in Poland and Yugoslavia remained largely in private hands.

4] A command economy.

In contrast to a market economy, where consumer demand helps to determine supply, the Communist government decided what should be produced and how it should be priced.

5] The declared aim of building communism.

Communists believed that they lived in a socialist system, but they were working towards the time, in some distant future, when the state would wither away and all would live in a condition of pure communism.

6] The existence of, and sense of belonging to, an international movement.

In practice, this often, but not always, meant regarding the Soviet Union as first among equals, and paying at least lip service to Marxist-Leninist principles. Communists felt as a result that they had international and supranational responsibilities and should act accordingly.

Most political scientists maintain that such a system has never existed in Africa, though there were what the Soviets recognised as "states of a socialist orientation", whose governments aspired to communism. In the Americas, only Cuba has ever qualified as a Communist state, whilst there have been several in Asia, where a few still exist. I will attempt to illustrate the emblems of all states of a communistic nature, including those of Africa and one or two hybrid post-Soviet states.

[<k>]

Curiously, Poland never adopted a communistic emblem. Before the Second World War it sported a crowned eagle, even though it was a republic. After the war, the Communists simply dropped the crown from the eagle.

Likewise, Cuba has never used a communistic emblem. It has kept its traditional arms through the Communist regime.

[chrisild]

Czechoslovakia, 50 koruna, 1975. During its Communist period, Czechoslovakia simply added a star to its traditional heraldic lion.

Interestlingly, in the first years of the post-WW2 republic, the "old" lion stayed in use. The country basically had a communist regime but still used the CoA with the crowned Czech lion and the Slovak double cross. In 1960 the country got a new constitution and a new name (CSSR) - and the crown on the head was replaced by a star above the head. Also, a new emblem for Slovakia was created, with Mount Krivan and a flame.

Christian

[chrisild]

Guess that in Cuba the fact that the Phrygian Cap at the top also had a star was "sufficiently revolutionary".   As for Poland, I find it somewhat peculiar that, even in the first republic, the eagle had a crown. But as it was there in the pre-communist years, I guess it was pretty much normal that it came back afterwards.

By the way, I think that Poland and the GDR were the only "Eastern Bloc" countries that did not use a star in the CoA. No idea why ...

Christian

[<k>]

Yes, interesting to compare and contrast. A star can mean other things apart from communism, of course, and at first I didn't know whether to include the Somali and Malagasy Republics, which have or have had stars on their coins.

According to the book I am reading, apparently the Soviets used to joke that Stalin invented "Socialism in one country", whereas Ceaucescu of Romania (whom the book calls "sultanistic") invented "Socialism in one family" - a reference to his corruption and nepotism.

[<k>]

When Yugoslavia became the Socialist Federal Republic in 1963, it changed the 5 torches in its emblem to 6.

Prior to that, the Bosnians were regarded as a religion and not a nation, so they weren't given a torch.

[Figleaf]

Austria and Chile still missing.

Maybe some analysis of the symbols would have been useful. The communist dogma is international (globe), but not all communist countries accepted Russian leadership. Marx thought his theory could apply only to developed countries (hammer - industry), but Lenin needed to add agriculture-based economies (sickle - agriculture). The reaction of some countries was to add a cogwheel (mechanised industry). Others put their traditional national symbol central, (stressing "independence") or their circumstances (many flames making one Yugoslav fire) etc. etc.

Peter

[<k>]

Austria and Chile still missing.

The Marxist politician Salvador Allende was president of  Chile in the early 1970s.

However, his government was soon overthrown by the military, and he left no mark on the coins.

The symbolism of the post-Second World War Austrian eagle, with its hammer, sickle and broken chains, is curious and interesting.

It is surely influenced by Marxism-Leninism, yet it is open to interpretation,.

Many Austrians would claim it is not directly - or in any way - Communist.

That is why I omitted it.

[<k>]

Maybe some analysis of the symbols would have been useful.

Well, you gave some, so better to have said: "will be useful". Thousands of books have been written about communism, so I can't possibly say all there is to be said, hence this topic for the comments of the members. I thought I would have been stating the obvious to mention the symbolism of the hammer and sickle, but that begs the question, obvious to whom? You and I are older and lived through the Cold War era and even visited some Communist countries, but for anybody under 30 or 20, it may not be so obvious. So, fire away with your comments, analysis, thoughts and experiences. 

[<k>]

5] The declared aim of building communism.

Communists believed that they lived in a socialist system, but they were working towards the time, in some distant future, when the state would wither away and all would live in a condition of pure communism.

Curious to think that the proposed (or impossibly Utopian) end-point of Communism would be no different from that of anarchism. Yet anarchists despised the totalitarian repression of the Communist state, and in practice were at the opposite end of the political spectrum when it came to their attitude to state power. In the Spanish civil war, the Communists and Anarchists were thrown together on the Republican side, and it is interesting to read of how they got along - or more usually did not. The Stalinists, with their ruthless and rigid discipline, ran rings around the Anarchists, and even (or predictably) ended up killing and torturing many of them.

Another anomaly is the Marxist belief in 'scientific socialism', which they thought to be in opposition to the raw emotionalism of fascism. There is of course nothing scientific about predicting that a classless society will emerge in the far distant future, because there is/was no evidence on which to base such a belief. And certainly it was no more scientific than a horoscope. 'On Thursday you will be arrested at midnight, charged with "bourgeois apathy", taken to the Lubykanka and tortured and beaten up by NKVD officers, before being transported to the Siberian Gulag, where you will die of cold, hunger and the effects of hard labour.'

[chrisild]

The Marxist politician Salvador Allende was president of  Chile in the early 1970s, but his government was soon overthrown by the military, and he left no mark on the coins.

Hmm. Salvador Allende never considered himself to be Marxist, but there were some in his government alliance. Did not keep those in and outside Chile who wanted a regime change from enforcing it ...

The symbolism of the post-Second World War Austrian eagle, with its hammer, sickle and broken chains, is curious and interesting. It is surely influenced by Marxist-Leninism, yet it is open to interpretation, and many Austrians would claim it is not directly - or in any way - Communist. That is why I omitted it.

Go back a few more years. In Austria, a new CoA was introduced in 1919 - the eagle (one head now) with the mural crown instead of a monarch's crown, and the hammer and the sickle. The mural crown represents the middle class (in German: Bürger - if I used "Bourgeoisie", that would have a negative connotation which the symbol did and does not have), the hammer is for industrial workers, and the sickle is for peasants. Note that the latter two are not intertwined, as they usually are as Communist symbols - the eagle as the central figure "holds" or combines all three groups.

The Austrofascist regime did away with all that; in 1934 that eagle was replaced by a double-headed eagle again (not crowned this time, but the heads had halos). The three attributes of the Republic had to go. Between 1938 and 1945, when Austria was part of the Deutsches Reich, it used the nazi eagle of course - and after WW2 the eagle of the First Republic was introduced again, but the chains were added. I don't really see much communism here.

Christian

[Figleaf]

Curious to think that the proposed (or impossibly Utopian) end-point of Communism would be no different from that of anarchism. Yet anarchists despised the totalitarian repression of the Communist state, and in practice were at the opposite end of the political spectrum when it came to their attitude to state power.

As they say in France, les extrêmes se touchent. The extremist right and left are much closer together than either of them think. Compare the position of the American extreme right with those of Lenin: the state is no good and will/should wither away, the people's army/militia will do away with the old order, which is an international political cabal, members of which hold all power and plot to use war for their own advancement. It is OK, even desirable to kill those who are in the way of our thought or even just to shake things up a bit. The family is the basic building bloc of society. Of course, there are differences also...

Another anomaly is the Marxist belief in 'scientific socialism', which they thought to be in opposition to the raw emotionalism of fascism. There is of course nothing scientific about predicting that a classless society will emerge in the far distant future, because there is/was no evidence on which to base such a belief. And certainly it was no more scientific than a horoscope. 'On Thursday you will be arrested at midnight, charged with "bourgeois apathy", taken to the Lubykanka and tortured and beaten up by NKVD officers, before being transported to the Siberian Gulag, where you will die of cold, hunger and the effects of hard labour.'

Marx reasoning was based on Hegelian dialectic: history was a series of cycles, based on a thesis (Marx: capitalism), calling for an antithesis (Marx: socialism) that would give birth to a new order: the synthesis (Marx: communism). Hegel was a university professor, therefore a scientist. Marx' only addition was to say that communism was "the end of history", just like the American right has embraced the theory that "pax Americana" is the end of history. Hegel did not claim that he knew what would be the end of history, or even that there would be one.

Marx' idea of class struggle was that the owners of capital would be eliminated as go-between and ownership of the means of production would be given to the workers in order to achieve an international brotherhood, that would obviate the need for a government. Here you see where Marx thought only industrialised countries could achieve communism. In his time, only industry used means of production in a significant way. Banks merely financed them, without adding value. In Marx' view, machines did not produce, people did (remember guns don't kill, people do?). Therefore, capitalists should not be rewarded for owning capital goods, but punished for not giving them to the workers, the only ones who added value.

While Marxist theory contains a number of lethal errors, it is a closed system: as long as you believe in its central tenets, the rest of the theory is logical and consistent. Marxism is easier to defend in discussions than capitalism, because of its scientific basis. The basic discussion on communism normally amounts to "it doesn't work in practice" versus "the theory works, but evil people subverted the system in its execution".

Peter

[villa66]

...just like the American right has embraced the theory that "pax Americana" is the end of history....

Outdated academic chatter, unserious even in its time. The American right knows all too well that the Pax Americana--such as it has been--is always a most uncertain construct, for complicated reasons like our European friends, or for simpler reasons, like Chinese aircraft carriers.

v.

[<k>]

Marx reasoning was based on Hegelian dialectic. Hegel was a university professor, therefore a scientist.

Marxism is easier to defend in discussions than capitalism, because of its scientific basis. The basic discussion on communism normally amounts to "it doesn't work in practice" versus "the theory works, but evil people subverted the system in its execution".

Hegel was at best a social scientist, a philosopher who presented serious theories that dealt in generalities with an element of truth. However, that is not the same as true science, which deals in factual particulars, e.g. 2 + 2 = 4, and uranium will degrade into lead after so many thousand years. So I cannot accept that communism has any scientific basis, especially as it draws false conclusions. Hegel was right to say that any system will throw up opponents, who will in turn throw up new systems. A true synthesis never evolves, so the Marxists are plain wrong.