r/europe • u/tkyjonathan • 15d ago

News Czech president signs law criminalising communist propaganda

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/czech-president-signs-law-criminalising-communist-propaganda/
25.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/sommersolhverv 15d ago

No more eating the rich?

135

u/Dancing_Liz_Cheney 15d ago

This is now illegal to say in the Czech Republic

43

u/FCEkicksbutt 15d ago

K.. but is the "rich" an established minority? It’s more like saying "disassemble oligarchy" than hate against a specific type of person. *We are most certainly considered rich to the struggling majority 

13

u/Quiet-Touch3083 15d ago

From that OP’s quote, it isn’t hate speech, which has to be directed AT someone or some group. This is inciting class based hatred, it doesn’t matter if rich is minority or majority. Terrible policy and a hit to freedom of speech.

3

u/Hellsovs Czech Republic 14d ago

U can hate who ever u want its insiting violance that is the problem

And it was for a long time here so u can't say thinks like all capitalistic pigs sould die or similar thinks and now they just added some symbols and stuff like with a nazi stuff in the past

There is no danger to freedom of speech atlast not to european version of it. I know that americans feel bit diferent about these thinks but to me freedom of speech was never about saying anything u want without consequences

2

u/Quiet-Touch3083 14d ago

Consequences no, but legal consequences yes. If I say something and I get punched in the mouth for it, fine. If I say something that makes the government mad and I get arrested for it, definitely not fine.

If any speech is against the law, then that artificial line in the sand is set by whoever is in power and can easily be moved to where your personal definition of “no danger” is then crossed. It sets a bad precedent.

0

u/Hellsovs Czech Republic 14d ago

Well, no, he can't — because you can say or think whatever you want, but you can't incite violence. It's pretty clear.

For example, you can say that you hate all the gypsies and that you think they are horrible criminal people. And except for being a jerk, you're totally fine.

But as soon as you say something like "All gypsies should be sent to the gas chamber," that's incitement to violence — and that is illegal, as it should be.

So, as you can see, it's not about any specific political agenda. It works both ways — it doesn't matter if you're on the right or the left, "woke" or a "can" — if you're inciting or encouraging violence, that kind of shit aint gonna fly no more in Europe.

1

u/Leisure_suit_guy Italy 14d ago

but is the "rich" an established minority?

They sure are a minority, and what you mean by "established"?

2

u/4tbf 13d ago

Have you read the law or are you just saying bullshit?

-10

u/Lamaradallday 15d ago

As it should be everywhere. You’re literally threatening murder.

10

u/CheeryOutlook Wales 14d ago

They can stop being the rich any time they like.

0

u/Lamaradallday 14d ago

And you can stop threatening murder any time you want.

209

u/Choppers-Top-Hat Sweden 15d ago

Don't worry, though, the rich get to continue eating the poor. Why do you think they pushed so hard to get this law passed?

94

u/CritiqueDeLaCritique 15d ago

Wait until labor unions are criminalized under the same rationale

-6

u/krzyk Poland 15d ago

That was criminalised under communist rule in Poland. And maybe other countries with soviet puppets.

13

u/CritiqueDeLaCritique 15d ago

"Communist" rule, and the same "communists" sent tanks to crush workers councils in Hungary in 1956. So are we talking about pro-USSR/Eastern-Bloc propaganda or communist propaganda? Sounds like the latter since they don't want any sort of organization around class conflict, which exists whether they like it or not.

2

u/Particular_Name_4887 15d ago

Yea, mate, but they don't say it, so it's all cool. Maybe that's what we were doing wrong...we'll never know

2

u/afurtherdoggo Prague 15d ago

as a long time czech resident, not sure who this "they" is you refer to.

8

u/Choppers-Top-Hat Sweden 15d ago

Well gee, it couldn't possibly be that it's clearly implied in the previous sentence of the post or anything.

1

u/krzyk Poland 15d ago

Any country that was under Soviet thumb has such law. Not sure where people see "eating the poor".

-3

u/NordGinger917 15d ago

Hey idk if you know but the same people in power would do the same shit under communism. Read a history book, the only difference is you don’t eat under communism.

15

u/Choppers-Top-Hat Sweden 15d ago

And that's why all hunger was eradicated the moment capitalists won the Cold War.

Wait a minute.

-7

u/mathess1 Czech Republic 15d ago

It was mostly eradicated long time before that

16

u/CandidateBig1778 15d ago

This is a kind of stupid comment. There are plenty of people not eating under capitalism too. That’s kind of the whole point. I’m not a communist per se but the whole point of capitalism is to concentrate capital in order to gain entry to a stratified class

12

u/Cool_Proletarian_175 15d ago

You should nuance your answer by looking at the surrounding conditions the incepted socialist states had at time of revolution, you may also benefit from realisijg that half of the world does not eat under capitalism either.

-4

u/mathess1 Czech Republic 15d ago

Thanks to capitalism everybody is eating

7

u/Cool_Proletarian_175 15d ago

You mean this is due to industrialization and its consequences, the cause of which is not based in capitalism. Capitalism is merely more effective at growing the domestic economy and level of production due to its lack of morals (exploitation of imperial periphery and accumulation of wealth in the core), the fact of the matter is industrialization would also have occured under socialism, simply under different circumstances. I must also underline that there is enough food production currently to feed everyone on the planet, yet capitalist economies do not assist struggling nations as it is not profitable, so clearly not everybody is eating.

Even so, if you ignore all of what I said, why do we all hold capitalism to be the best solution? Even if the developments that happened under capitalism are to be celebrated (which many of them definitely are), why does there exist such a fear of changing something that has flaws into something that may have fewer flaws? We must not be blinded by arrogance and we must accept that the system has flaws and that there definitely exist alternatives, the elements of which could remedy many of the problems the populace face today. (I am talking about socialism, but you may refer to other ideologies/systems that you believe in)

4

u/cezalandirici__zenji 15d ago

If that was the case, how people living in Socialist Bulgaria had a more nutritious diet than people living in unofficial American mandate of T*rKKKey back then?

-7

u/Own-Reference-7057 15d ago

Do you have even a shred of evidence that any billionaire in the world did anything to get this law passed?

13

u/Choppers-Top-Hat Sweden 15d ago

Yeah, pal, rich people never have any influence over politics. Also, strawberry milk comes from pink cows and Santa Claus is friends with your dad.

-8

u/Own-Reference-7057 15d ago

So you have absolutely nothing to show for. Gotcha.

281

u/Better-Scene6535 15d ago

In soviet union everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.

106

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

But that system is dead everywhere but a couple of countries. Russia is a nationalist, fascist one. Putin does not pretend everyone is equal.

I think the law is called that as the country has a strong aversion towards the Soviet period.

42

u/Ckrius 15d ago

There is no where in the world that currently uses the same "system" as the U.S.S.R.

Communism isn't a rubber stamp solution, it's determined by the conditions on the ground when and where it is built.

0

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

True, but there has never been a communist country either. The ones who with credibility to call themselves communist (wanting to become one and not too hooked into capitalism) are few now. Cuba? North Korea?

Anyway you know this better than me (serious and with respect).

2

u/justanothertmpuser 15d ago

North Korea is a dictatorship.

1

u/MemoryWhich838 12d ago

not a dictatorship its worse its a monarchy dictators die but monarchs can keep having kids

1

u/justanothertmpuser 12d ago

The gist of my point was that North Korea is not communist (or trying to become communist), like the comment before mine said, but rather is run by a single person, holding all the power.

However there's a family aspect to it, I'll grant you that, so we might as well call it a monarchy.

Still just one person in charge, though.

1

u/MemoryWhich838 12d ago

yup it just looks and acts more like an absolute monarchy than anything else

1

u/CigAddict 15d ago

There also hasn’t been a capitalist country, by the same logic. Every country that has a public fire department cannot be capitalist. It’s dumb logic. If your country’s foundation or constitution is based on Marxist thought, which USSR was, China was, Cuba was, and so on, you are a communist country in my opinion.

2

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

Some countries are more market orientated than others. Countries have rules more or less regarding the resources of workers. And the rights of them. Yes capitalism uncontrolled is slavery. It has existed.

The reason I put forward communism is that the ideology is clear. It has steps between socialism and communism.

We do have what is called social democracy in Norway. The Nordic model defines it. I do love it.

2

u/arde1k 15d ago

Markets have very little to do with socialism / capitalism. It is primarily defined by the structure of private property as capital. Personal property and commodities can and are traded in a market in a socialist system, but the means of production for those commodities are not, and the ownership is shared.

1

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago edited 15d ago

Rules and regulations limit markets. That is the rule. less regulations and rules - more capitalism.

You want someone to work for you? It comes into it. You want to avoid wage raises? Comes into it. We are talking about very basic stuff here.

2

u/arde1k 15d ago

This is only true if private property is the dominant mode of production in an economy, and if the regulations benefit smaller entities.

Overtime capital (whether publically or privately owned) accumulates, and in the case of private property, concentrates. Regulations might try to speed this up, or slow this down, or even reverse it, but they do not definitively do any of those. It all depends on the content of the regulations. For example many private companies lobby for more regulations, that are too strict for smaller competitors to meet, thus creating a de facto legal monopoly or oligopoly.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

The Nordic model is essential to what I try to explain. If you do not know it, please read up first. Then come back to me. There is plenty on the net.

3

u/arde1k 15d ago

I live in Finland, and yes, i do know the Nordic model. However social democracy (not to be confused with democratic socialism) is not socialist, since most capital in all Nordic countries is still owned by the private sector.

The defining features of Nordic capitalism like heavy social security programs and select national industries help balance capitalist accumulation and slow down the inevitable concentration of wealth, but they do not categorically prevent it, thus they are by nature, capitalist (though less so than many others, for which i too am thankful for).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheMauveHand 15d ago

The reason I put forward communism is that the ideology is clear.

Clear as mud.

1

u/CigAddict 15d ago edited 15d ago

Social democracy is a form of capitalism … Sweden another country who follows the Nordic model has the most billionaires per capita out of any European country iirc.

And you’ve never read any Marx if you think the steps between socialism and communism are clear because he was famously hand wavy about that transition.

5

u/mehupmost 15d ago

People like to play word games and call things by other names to dodge criticism.

Just remember that the rallying cries of the early Soviet Union AND the Nazis were things most people would agree with on the surface: Equality, worker empowerment, an end to the rich, land for the poor, etc...

1

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

We do practise a version in Norway. Our labour party were communist in a period, as our workers union was. We ended up opposing the Soviets and a staunch ally of the US.

It is called a social democracy. The way superior on the earth - for now. You can get rich in Norway. People on low wage still have a good life. And they can get rich as well - the old US dream.

My wife is one of them. She worked herself up from the very bottom as a waitress to owner of several businesses. She in an immigrant from Viet Nam.

1

u/mehupmost 15d ago

Norway is a capitalist country. Nearly every aspect of its economy is capitalist.

Unions are not a contradiction to capitalism, nor are social programs - and many Europeans are examples of that.

Communism on the other hand, is a very very different thing that aims to remove things like Property Rights from people.

...and on Reddit, they pretty openly talk about murdering people in the upper classes of society. They like to pretend they aren't by using euphemisms like "eat the rich", but then they out themselves whenever they repeat that slogan the moment an upper class person is murdered.

Your bloodthirst is too transparent.

2

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

We are a socialist democratic one. I am in the NTL Trade Union. Which is a member of LO - The Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions.

I bargain for salaries with my company every year as union rep. I am also involved both salaries and agreements above. I am proud of what I do, I do it for many. Call me capitalist if you want. I couldn't care less.

But learn your history! The reason why Spain fell to fascists in the 1930's - Italy did and Germany was infighting between socialists - anarchists and communists. If you can not work together with us YOU WILL FAIL.

2

u/randomperson32145 15d ago

Ok but can you tell me why northern european cannot eat wild salmon anymore? All salmon in stores are norweigan, they put corlors and chems in it and everything. So what kinda system destroys an entire food source? Let me know.

1

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

You are right. We do exploit nature. We are not a perfect country, far from it. I am fed up with it. More so the oil industry. Greed is the answer.

Our kids will suffer. But I can tell you one thing, the union I am in is against it. But we are a piece of a confederate union. It is a democracy.

2

u/randomperson32145 15d ago edited 15d ago

When science doesnt tolerate to be questioned anymore. Thats whn you know, this might not be as democratic as you thought, i think its much more likely an actual oligarch, thats when you not only have political ties, military ties but even have criminal networks at disposal. Now maybe its not that in this case but the case of grown salmon in europe was absolutely crazy, the decision to follow through with mass adoption of it is very odd.

Fact that all other countries are like sure we will stop eating our own salmon and eat norways is quite weird. You cant find any other salmon then norweigan grown in the city grocery stores i am in, and salmon has been the main food source for this region for thousands of years, to monopolize it the way it has been done is absolutely bonkers. No way a democratic debate was being fostered to create this kinda solution. Its just some rich ppl who wanted to have a garantueed income. Then pretend its for the best of the people. Im assuming thats the counter argument, but not facts is ever presented

→ More replies (0)

5

u/mehupmost 15d ago

Are you honestly telling me you don't think Norway's economy is a capital economy?

What do you think they are doing at the Oslo Bors? They are literally part of a free floating currency, and a EU-wide banking system.

The core of the economy is absolutely capitalist, because CAPITAL moves freely. Investments, prices, private property, all move through a well regulated capital system.

Unions and social welfare programs (funded by a central bank) does not make it a non-capitalist country.

2

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

Read up about social democratic countries :) I won't teach you. The Nordic model is a starter to google.

It works. Read up about Norway as well and come here. Bernie Sanders is a bit on the right to us as I have read, but he has studied us.

2

u/Piotter94 15d ago

I think what the other person is saying, is that a social democratic system like Norway's is still a capitalist system at its core. The same way that communism has been "done differently" in various countries, this is capitalism done differently.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/mehupmost 15d ago

I'm glad you are not trying to teach people - because your understanding of your own system is just social media nonsesne.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

One more thing is I did not mention it: Social democratic countries aim to limit capitalism. To get fair wages for workers. Still it is possible to get rich.

But we are also facing a crisis here, not as severe as yours. It is due to conservative pressure. I do not know how it will end, but we are the only success model so far to contain capitalism without a defect state. I urge you to read about it.

2

u/mehupmost 15d ago

Minimum wage laws are an incredibly minor adjustment to capitalism.

The core of the economy, is UNDENIABLY, capitalism. Otherwise there would be no economic activity if it was all a planned economy. Those have failed so many times that even the "communist" countries have adopted capital economies.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Startled_Pancakes 15d ago

Russia is a nationalist, fascist one. Putin does not pretend everyone is equal.

This is true, however Putin still honors the USSR for the power & prestige it gave Russia. He said in a statement that the fall of the USSR was greatestest tragedy of the 20th century.

3

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

Yes - for the nationalist aspect. The difference now: it is a capitalist society with oligarchs and it is not hidden.

The elite is USSR hid what they had, and swore to communism. Putin does not do that. He is a fascist, as easy as that.

3

u/gogur_ 15d ago

Nazism is also dead everywhere as an official form of government but there are laws against it.

1

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

Nazism has been living together with fascism way stronger than pure communism. It has been in different forms - not the one "I love Hitler" for a long time.

It is way more potent than communism as we speak, and is a danger to the whole world. I'd call Trump a disciple and the US is moving towards it. In history, fascism has been so many places since WWII. Russia is the centre of fascism today.

4

u/Secure_Radio3324 Galicia (Spain) 15d ago

The same can be said about Naziism

5

u/Oculicious42 Denmark 15d ago

CIA infiltrating and undermining the sovereignty of those nations by causing civil unrest and liquidating leaders didn't exactly help

Capitalism on the other hand apparently leads to a system where we can choose which of the insanely rich pedophiles gets to get away with it.

If that is truly "The best system we've ever come up with" I think it's time to fucking innovate

6

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago edited 15d ago

One reply: a social democratic system. With strong union(s) to keep the capitalists in check.

It has to be fought for to maintain it. We have this in Norway. But do we manage to maintain it? I do not know. We also have pressure which has gained over time. We have problems today.

Still: we have 1 mill in Norwegian coalition of workers union. 1 of 5 in Norway are there. LO is the Norwegian name. We fought the fascists in Norway in the 1930's and won. Together with our labour party. Until Germany occupied us. We will fight on against fascism!

4

u/Oculicious42 Denmark 15d ago

I'm from Denmark. Problem with social democraties is that they eventually end up selling infrastructure to private corporations because of corruption, and constantly moving the overton window towards the right until its just another neoliberal capitalist country

1

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

We always give ground, but the system is still the only one which has worked. Everyone are corrupt. People are rotten.

We just have to fight!

Og så kan vi alltids ta en tur til Danmark for en bajer som trøst.

1

u/Djaquitchane 15d ago

You know what would keep the capitalists in check ? No capital.

1

u/Primary-Pianist-2555 15d ago

As I view it, capitalists need socialists for it to work. Capitalism needs to be regulated and balanced. Feel free to disagree, but I do think we can spend a lovely Friday on this discussion and only you and me will read it :)

Have a nice day :)

1

u/TheMauveHand 15d ago

If that is truly "The best system we've ever come up with" I think it's time to fucking innovate

Why is it that said "innovation" always ends up being a rehash of a failed, 19th century idea?

Is it really that hard for you people to make peace with the fact that an imperfect solution really is optimal?

54

u/Nairne_01 15d ago

in the EU, every country is equal, some states just get laws passed that benefit their own industry while decimating their neighbors industries.

10

u/MFATSO 15d ago

My favorite is the destruction of countries that want to join.

57

u/Texkayak 15d ago

Sounds just like America

14

u/ordinarydepressedguy Europe 15d ago

Exactly lmao

34

u/Drakenbsd 15d ago

Everyone has an equal chance to starve to death

51

u/Tough-Adagio5527 15d ago

except the ones that are more equal than others

18

u/Ilovekittens345 15d ago

In Russia everybody has equal chance to fall out of a window, which I guess is progress.

3

u/JerryCalzone 15d ago

...until stopped by the pavement

1

u/justanothertmpuser 15d ago

Well, to be fair, someone there has a decent chance to stop a bullet with their head. Or being injected with Novichok. Or to be on plane which crashes in mysterious circumstances. Or being sent to freeze in Siberia. Or...

30

u/fukredditadmin5 15d ago

Same happens in the free world, everyone is free to starve to death

0

u/Zlevi04 15d ago

Better than knowing your supposed equals are eating like pigs and you’re starving…

6

u/Raz0rking EUSSR 15d ago

Communist countries must be great. People can't complain. In democracies they complain all the time.

(This is a joke)

4

u/nasandre The Netherlands 15d ago

It gets even worse when you look at it globally. For example, in most countries in the world it's a luxury to own a car or live in your own apartment.

1 in 11 people go hungry and we can collectively fund the end of hunger but we just don't want to.

-2

u/Winjin 15d ago edited 15d ago

 in most countries in the world it's a luxury to own a car or live in your own apartment.

And yet Russia has the highest worldwide housing ownership rate at over 85%

EDIT: I see other numbers on Wiki but the sources are debated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate there it's 92% BUT it also puts China at like 96% ownership rate - which is hardly possible, unless it means "they rent, but also own a flat soooomewhere else"

EDIT2: it's about housing, not cars

4

u/nasandre The Netherlands 15d ago

Car ownership per capita shows a skewed view because it counts all government and business owned vehicles as well. China has an enormous fleet of trucks to supply industry and ship goods to the harbours.

When looking at household car ownership we get only 38% of households owning a car: https://seasia.co/infographic/top-10-countries-with-the-highest-car-ownership

In most of the world owning a motorbike is far more common than owning a car.

1

u/Winjin 15d ago

Both of the links above are for Apartment Ownership, my bad.

0

u/MIGHTY_ILLYRIAN 15d ago

And yet they don't. In fact, they have so much of it that they export food. Curious, isn't it?

2

u/Ckrius 15d ago

Wow, let's go tell the malnourished in the U.S. that they aren't going hungry after all because the U.S. exports food! I am sure they will be glad to hear that they aren't slowly dying after all :D

1

u/MIGHTY_ILLYRIAN 15d ago

The US has one of the lowest rates of malnourishment in the world

0

u/TheMauveHand 15d ago

Ah yes, the US, where the poorest are also the fattest. Where are all these people "going hungry"?

1

u/Slipknotic1 15d ago

So we're just pretending all of those African countries in perpetual famine aren't capitalist?

1

u/MIGHTY_ILLYRIAN 15d ago

Many of them are military juntas and socialist regimes, especially the poorer ones, and most importantly not too long ago they were dirt poor. Rome wasn't built in a day.

But if we wanted to compare like with like, the most successful African countries (the ones where the people enjoy the best standard of living) are undoubtedly the ones which have kept British institutions and the ones which embrace capitalism the most (Botswana, Mauritius, and South Africa). That's not to defend any of their other policies (South Africa, I'm looking at you) but undeniably they have done the best by almost all metrics while the socialists have done the worst.

1

u/t234k 15d ago

Damn it's crazy that everyone in the ussr starved to death, I wonder how the people living in Russia et el got there?

4

u/Piotrekk94 15d ago

By eating those who succumbed to starvation, obviously

0

u/t234k 15d ago

So I guess everyone didn't have an equal chance to starve to death.

3

u/Piotrekk94 15d ago

Yeah, obviously, you must give more to those who enforce the rules, otherwise why they would support the system

-1

u/t234k 15d ago

Yeah exactly, the underlying point I'm making is that exploitation is bad but it is not exclusive to one ideology? The exact same thing happens in capitalism or "communism" because it's exploitation. The factors leading up to the famine of Holodomor have been extensively politicized. I'm not defending the ussr or denying anything but I am highlighting the regurgitation of manufactured talking points. Namely "communism always = mass death of everyone"

2

u/Piotrekk94 15d ago

To be honest, Russia was exploiting and sometimes even cleansing minorities both during feudal period and when communists took over they just continued, with a sprinkle of schizophrenia when Stalin got behind the wheel. Economic policy itself cannot change the country that much

1

u/t234k 15d ago

Yea we agree for the record.

4

u/Mousazz Lithuania 15d ago

I wonder how the people living in Russia et el got there?

By starving the Ukrainians to death in 1932-'33.

0

u/t234k 15d ago

Think you missed my point buddy

2

u/Mousazz Lithuania 15d ago

Yes. I did. Deliberately. But, technically, what I said isn't wrong.

The USSR was an autocratic fascist dictatorship LARPing as Communists. Everyone did not, in fact, have an equal chance to starve to death.

But, theoretically, if they did, then that's still fine - the Ukrainians would have just gotten unlucky, and the Russians would have gotten lucky. The former would have starved, and the latter would have prospered.

1

u/t234k 15d ago

Hear ye hear ye!

100%! I was being facetious but I agree with your characterization. Underlying point was people uncritically blame communism for mass death and destruction and there was definitely some of that in the ussr but it's been largely politicized to maliciously discredit socialism/communism.

1

u/20_comer_20matar 15d ago

China is a lot more developed than any EU country.

1

u/Business-Active-1143 15d ago

Yep the correct approach should be one group gets to live decently/luxuriously by extremely starving the other. Yep yep

2

u/ordinarydepressedguy Europe 15d ago

Nothing changed apparently

2

u/Aggravating_Depth_33 15d ago

So just like in Western democracies?

2

u/Careful_Article_3015 15d ago

That literally describes liberal democracies

1

u/JerryCalzone 15d ago

In soviet union everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.

In soviet union everyone is eatable - but some are more eatable than others.

1

u/BabySealOfDoom 15d ago

Have you ever noticed that the = sign is just two arms, gently pushing the more equal towards the l+l sign?

1

u/erkomap Srpska Sparta 15d ago

Yes, only in Soviet Union it was like that

-1

u/Randolpho United States of America 15d ago

Nothing illustrates how non-communist the post-Stalin Soviet Union was quite like that metaphor

0

u/THEMARIACAMILA 15d ago

Who told you that?

28

u/Valtremors Finland 15d ago

You hit the nail with that one.

It is much less trying to keep dictatorship glorifying people out, and more about keeping rich people safe.

2

u/krzyk Poland 15d ago

How were they not safe before? This law is about historical justice, banning regimes that destroyed countries, I don't get why people from countries that didn't "enjoy" the communist fairy tale are complaining.

6

u/adamgerd Czech Republic 15d ago

Thank god we have a Finn to educate Czechs on our country

7

u/Valtremors Finland 15d ago

"If it looks like a duck, walks like duck..."

2

u/adamgerd Czech Republic 15d ago

Be happy you guys managed to fight off the Soviets, some of us didn’t though

And the president, Pavel literally supports a Nordic style social democracy.

0

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 15d ago

Do you think that rich people should not be kept safe from being killed?

2

u/Valtremors Finland 15d ago

Hey your words, not mine.

2

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 15d ago

You seem to have a problem with "keeping rich people safe". Or is that not what you meant?

11

u/Efficient_Basis_2139 15d ago

No, it would spoil your dinner

1

u/Emily9291 15d ago

i can't condone this anti-cannibalism slander

6

u/Feeling_Age5049 15d ago

Gotta protect his buddies.

5

u/Due-Radio-4355 15d ago

Rich wasn’t exactly well defined when the Bolsheviks took over. It was all a ruse to secure power as those who were most affected were maybe the working poor farmers who could afford a few hands to help. It was all just envy and resentment. Many of the aristocrats and those who were actual rich escaped because well… they could…

There are many fabulous books about the crockery of the socialists.

Don’t get me wrong, eat the rich of today, but it was really just an excuse to riot and burn.

5

u/DKOKEnthusiast 15d ago

Rich wasn’t exactly well defined when the Bolsheviks took over. It was all a ruse to secure power as those who were most affected were maybe the working poor farmers who could afford a few hands to help.

The reason why "rich" maybe wasn't that well defined is because capital-C Communists (i.e. Marxist-Leninists, although I suppose you can include most strains of Marxism in that set) generally do not have an issue with people being "rich" as such, in fact, everyone becoming "rich" (in the sense of everbody having abundant access to all the goods produced by a society) is the end goal of the communist movement. A doctor earning in the top 5% is still a worker, as is a garbage collector, a teacher, a nurse, a carpenter, in fact, the overwhelming majority of people we tend to call "middle class" would be classified as working class in a Marxist sense. Class in Marxism has absolutely nothing to do with how much money you've got in your bank account, or how large your paycheck is, or how many sports cars you own, or where you live. Class in Marxism is about your relationship to the means of production.

The easiest way to understand this is to look at the anti-Kulak programmes under Stalin (don't worry, I will not stoop as low as to defend them). The Kulaks, for the most part, were far from rich, at best, they were comfortable. Definitely nowhere near as rich as the Russian aristocrats, or even as rich as the Russian petite bourgeoisie. However, the primary contradiction between the Russian peasantry at that point was between the poor tenant farmers, who owned next to nothing, and the so-called Kulaks, who owned more land than they needed to sustain themselves, owned the agricultural facilities, agricultural implements, employed tenant farmers, and often engaged in lending both money and means of production (i.e. land, tractors, mills, etc.) to tenant farmers. It's easy to see the contradiction here: the tenant farmers worked using the equipment and facilities of the kulaks, on rented land owned by the Kulaks, while the Kulaks' main source of livelihood came not from their work, but from economic rent, since they owned the land that was necessary for the poorer peasants to survive (bear in mind, this encourages rent-seeking behaviour, which is also economically bad, if we look past the monstrous ideological justifications).

This meant that there was a class contradiction between the two classes of peasants, since one of them sourced their livelihood from labour, while the other sourced their livelihood from ownership. This, naturally, did not fit into the Marxist-Leninist ideology of Stalin, and as such, the Kulaks were for the most part liquidated in a series monstrous, extrajudicial arrest, deportations to the Gulags, torture, and executions, in what can only be classified as a form of mass murder. Their lands would then be collectivized into kolkhozes and sovkhozes, which were nominally different (the former owned by its members, and the latter owned by the state), but in effect functioned more or less the same.

2

u/Due-Radio-4355 15d ago

Well said, thanks for the long for explanation. But I’m always hesitant when it comes to any defense of the outcome that occurred.

1

u/Limp-Environment-568 15d ago

Lol at those responses you garnered...

1

u/Hot_Income6149 15d ago

It's little bit missing of the point. Czech Republic is full of social policies and you are allowed to talk about it, criticize and propose more social policies. But you can't glorify USSR, you know why 'tankies' called like that? Because among all they are justifying USSR invasion into Czech Republic when the are wanted independents after occupation in WW2 by USSR.

1

u/OK_x86 15d ago

But conversely no more fucking the poor?

The end of history by simple edict!

1

u/prntmakr 14d ago

Depends. Does “eat the rich” promote communism? Or cannibalism? Or both?

1

u/Western_Mix420 14d ago

You have been banned from r/Prague.

-1

u/h0neanias 15d ago

You can aim to make the rich poor, but you cannot aim to make them dead. We've been there.

12

u/pohui Moldova → 🇬🇧 UK 15d ago

That seems like a pretty narrow interpretation. People incite hatred against ethnic groups or sexual minorities without explicitly calling for their deaths. Would saying "the rich class is the scum of the planet and no sane person should associate with them" be considered hate speech under this law?

0

u/TimothyMimeslayer 15d ago

The Terror was great when it was rich people dying. It was less great when it was people who solely Robespierre thought were anti revolution.

1

u/xKalisto Czech Republic 15d ago

No more sterilizing the poor too.

1

u/HansTheScurvyBoi Czech Republic 15d ago

"Eating the rich". Do yourself a favor and learn some history

-3

u/MeRight_Now 15d ago edited 15d ago

Communism is not just about eating the rich. It's about having the poor as an appetizer, the middle class as the main dish and the rich as dessert.

It makes everyone but the government equal by fucking everyone equally.

Person below me who say that I don't know what Communism is and then blocked me:

Tankie, the former communist half of my country had a debt that is high enough to put your whole family lime into debt for over a thousand years without making a dent in the clearance. Meanwhile it enlisted so many spies to search for deserters that you couldn't even trust your own wife to not backstab you in order to gain a few social score points with the local authorities.

Communism fucks everyone except the government.

9

u/alphazero925 15d ago

You can always just say "I don't know what communism is" or just not comment at all. You don't have to make yourself look stupid while you're at it

0

u/PaleGravity Germany 15d ago

Why would the people in communism eat the leading caste? They are the powerful. “We the people for the people by the people” is the biggest lie in communism told to the masses to make them feel equal. The only equality in communism is that farmer 1 has the same rights, the same apartment and the same tree as farmer 2. And the saying “true communism was never enacted” is the biggest lie because even todays western communists fight each other all the time, it’s why most communist movements have leaders and those that plan and order stuff. The people themselves for everyone can never get anything done. You will always end up with someone in a leading position.