Why do communists always destroy the history of their country, even when they've already rose to power?

Why do communists always destroy the history of their country, even when they've already rose to power?

Other urls found in this thread:

neociceroniantimes.wordpress.com/2017/09/15/american-iconoclasm/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because destruction sells.
Especially when its on sale with envy and jealousy mixed in with jewish paranoid schizophrenia about the apocalypse.

You have spent 30 minutes today on re-captcha alone. Thank you for your voluntary free labor.

You must erase all evidence of better times.

I doubt that's their intention. Communists tend to be well-meaning extremists.

With China specifically, new dynasties tend to want to cast the previous dynasty in a negative light or memory hole it if they can.

even if you are true

capitalism seeks to destroy the culture too

how many young people dresses... trendy... nowadays around the world?

the majority -africa

I bet you think jews are your friends too

Why?

Because they don't want to be reminded that they can't build anything.

Is like playing legos with a spoiled child. He'll get mad if you build an impressive spaceship and will want to destroy it instead of learning or admiring it.

consider the following

the ccp has all the reasons to cast an evil shadow specially when their were a democracy to crush the desire of it
their democracy facilitated and allowed the "century of humilliation"... look it up

100% this.
When food starts running out. And when the nation is run like a prison. They don't want people to remember that their was a better system of doing things.

What he said And also because it's symbolical violence. Just killing your enemy is not enough, you have to spit on his grave and rape the corpse.

>Communists tend to be well-meaning extremists
Holy shit you're naive

Because Communism is Jewish, and it's a repetition of smashing the idols and tearing down the high places.

ouroboros

Communism takes the mantra "function before form" and applies it to every facet of society and life. Highly embellished government buildings, art, cultural institutions and rituals are all systems borne from bourgeois oppression, which include emperors, kings, popes, and capitalists, and that the emancipation of every individual (not family mind you) from these oppressive elements in society is the highest aim.

The most base, material need of every human will be meet in the most economically efficient manner, with little regard for how the product looks like (individual preferences vs. collective generalizations).

>communists
>well meaning

so the UK and germany are communist. i never knew that. this is very educational . im glad i cal to Sup Forums today

Jokes on you, I bought a pass.

Come on user, at least show the symbol if you're going to brag about it.

Easier to claim that you have the mandate of heaven if the previous dynasty is viewed as corrupt and impotent, and bad in general. Consider also that the past few dynastic cycles have alternated between Han and foreign rulers: Song (Han), Yuan (Mongol), Ming (Han), Qing (Manchu), CCP (Han). It's natural for the native dynasties to characterize their predecessor as anti-Chinese interlopers, and for the foreign dynasties to characterize their predecessor as weak and ineffective. It's all about maximizing legitimacy for the current sovereign.

yeah, it's totally weird beard

>If you want to know what iconoclasm is all about, you have to be willing to accept that the fundamental reason for it does not stem from things like religious fanaticism, economic impulses, or even from the expression of exoteric political philosophies. Instead, the root cause of iconoclasm is power – the desire to get it, to keep it, and to exert it over one’s ideological enemies. Iconoclasm is a way of demonstrating and reinforcing power over opponents, to force them to accept that you can destroy what they value and erase that upon which they base their identity or their claims to authority.

>Iconoclasm is an expression of the power to replace one culture and way of life with another. This is accomplished by the destruction of the outward symbols of the victim culture by the aggressor culture, demonstrating their powerlessness to maintain their own values and identity, and consequently the rightness of their replacement with the aggressor culture’s own icons and symbols. The process does not always have to involve things like statues – simply perverting the teaching of history and replacing it with inventive and fanciful nonsense, such as is happening today with “black history” and the like, will achieve the same essential goal.

>Historically, this has always been the case whenever one culture has sought to erase another rather than merely being content to rule over it.

>The iconoclastic power impulse is what drove Muslims to destroy or “repurpose” everything they touched during Islam’s expansion. It drove the destruction in 1193 of the Buddhist university at Nalanda. It likewise proved the impulse for the demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2001. The same may be said for the destruction of the ancient temple to Bel and the Tetrapylon, both in Palmyra in Syria. It is why the Hagia Sophia was turned into a mosque for most of its post-Byzantine history, and why other churches were turned into horse stables or latrines.

>Despite what many may think, the ideological motive behind these iconoclasms was not a purely or genuinely religious abhorrence of idolatry. Indeed, Islam itself is surprisingly willing to tolerate remnants of idolatry within its own system, such as the veneration of the black stone in the Kaabah in Mecca (a direct holdover from pre-Islamic litholatry in which meteorites were believed by the ancients to be sent from the gods) or the semi-worship of various “saints” in certain sects. The difference is that these remnants were Arab in derivation, and therefore acceptable in the sociopolitical system of Islam which handed down as the religion developed into its present form by around 900 AD. Islam is, after all, a form of Arabic cultural imperialism as much as it is a religion.

>Why destroy a temple in Palmyra devoted to a deity which nobody has worshiped for 1600 years? Because Western archaeologists, antiquarians, and historians valued it as a piece of world history. Hence, it could form a nexus through which ISIS could proclaim its superiority over and eventual conquest of the West.

>Iconoclasm is a common historical means of displacing adversarial cultures, as well as seeking to establish power during a struggle for supremacy. This has often been the case with iconoclasm that has occurred within a Christian context.

>For example, the controversies over iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire during the 8th-9th centuries can be seen in this light as representing an ongoing power struggle between elite factions in the Empire who represented the less wealthy non-Greek portions of the the East (where iconoclasm flourished) and the wealthier, more entrenched Greeks in Constantinople and the Balkans, where iconodulism was strong. It is not surprising, in this light, that the two strongest imperial proponents of iconoclasm, Leo III and Leo V, were from Isauria and Armenia, respectively.

neociceroniantimes.wordpress.com/2017/09/15/american-iconoclasm/

it's funny the isis are destroying the country are are controllings history

Sounds very... Orwell?

To prevent revolution. You have no past or future except the communist party. Same reason they become atheistic.

Year Zero. It's a psychological weapon. Erase the past to trap the population in a perpetual present.

Everything can be corrupted and nothing is ever correct.

Because once people realize they've been sold a bill of goods, you don't want them to have something else to turn to.

Because they are paid to do so.

Here, in Albany, they didn't: Hoxha closed our country and built 700k bunkers.

Oh, the Italian flag is because my Italian SIM card.

>Communists tend to be well-meaning extremists.

...

Communism is based purely in ideas and principal, not in reality. Therefore it is important to be able to control information in a communist system.

In order to implement a system ehich creates a reality rather than acts according to it, the people you are leading have to think exactly as you want them to. If the outcome you want is 5 but you only have 2 and 2, then you wipe out any sort of idea that 2+2=4. Then when you explain to people that 2+2=5 hoe could they argue? There is no evidence of 4 and if they question 2+2 = 5 they will be sent to the camp

Communism seeks to create a reality not react to one

For a couple of reasons, at the extreme end of the far-left there is this idea that carrying on traditions that no longer serve a human purpose are a further degradation. Carrying a corpse in the mouth is how it has been described by a few writers, and I think it has some merit. For all the talk of tradition on the far-right, I don't think they have caught onto this.
Another reason is the total destruction of elites and the need for there to be a total break from the old society in the revolution. For me, this is the much more dangerous part and something I disagree with in my soul. But I also get its pragmatic value since it is difficult to have a romantic understanding of revolution without a total break. In many ways it is the opposite of the populist understanding which states that a return of the primordial laws of a society must be reinstated.
I suppose that in some way I see the only successful revolution as a reversal of the current left/right opposition. The Left would have to control the revolution and mythology of societal destruction, but then also willingly hand over that society to the right-wing which has a better understanding of order and direction. Some truce would have to be made beforehand against violence within non-establishment forces, and some pre-industrial level of organisation.
(I am well aware of the impossible absurdity of such a truce. The perspective is intended to make another point concerning the chasm between left/right which is caused by other forces.)

>well-meaning extremists
You're retarded if you think this.

The easiest way to make people accept a massive decrease in living standards is to destroy all evidence that things were better before hand.

>Communists tend to be well-meaning extremists
Socialists CAN BE well meaning, but communists ALWAYS seek to destroy everything and unleash a tyrannical dictatorship of the "proletariot" until communism somehow happens