Please source your claims about Mjolnir as a symbol of the struggling proletariat and Thor as their protector.

Far from it, Mjolnir ⚠️ ↗ was forged by trickery, deceit and the exploitation of workers Sindri and Brokkr.

Its popularity extended throughout a culture famous for pioneering property ownership laws. According to the Danelaw ⚠️ ↗ most disputes can be settled through a fixed fee. Even murder is pardonable through Weregild ⚠️ ↗. The differing values of landowners, servants and slaves tells you about the Viking class consciousness.

Mjolnir was a symbol frequently used as an invocation of power by the defacto ruling classes at a Thing ⚠️ ↗. The Thing was a meeting available to all free men; but which didn't support the proposition that all men were free. Slaves and outcasts were ineligible to be present or represented at a Thing.

The taxation and exploitation of farmers by landowners and the monopoly of land ownership by early settlers to a region fueled the Viking explorations. Why pay taxes in Scandinavia when you can levy them and exploit latecomers if you're a pioneer?

While the root words are similar between Mjolnir, Mallet, Mill and the Russian "Molot," I can find no link whatsoever between the Thor cult and those Religion suppressing Leninists who adopted the Hammer & Sickle ⚠️ ↗ as their symbol. The Hammer symbolizes the industry where the Sickle symbolizes agriculture.

Of course one of the ironies of creating a revolutionary society built upon the technology of the moment is the way that future revolutionaries hoping to model themselves after the Russian Revolution would attempt to reduce their cultures to the level of sophistication available in 1914; and one which seriously lagged behind Western Europe where serfdom didn't cripple innovation. In SE Asia improvement was linked almost solely to agrarian land reform. This led to ruinous attempts to destroy infrastructure and "return" urban workers and "intellectual capital" to the land in the name of Communism.

While it may seem cool to link all ones heroes together, it isn't always historically sound to take them out of context. I'm sure that one could even force an argument that King Arthur was a Laissez-Faire Capitalist hero and supporter of Free-Market Economies. But that wouldn't make it so.

Dante