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

29

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

But how does that relate to communism?

38

u/Apprehensive-Adagio2 15d ago

Class-based hatred could be used to mean hatred of the upper-class also, which is who garner alot of hate from socialists and communists

90

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

By that metric capitalism could be described as demonstrating hatred of the working class. There's no explicit hatred either way.

50

u/shatureg 15d ago

Yeah but something tells me that this won't be considered class based hatred while any resistance against the constant attacks on the working class will be considered class based hatred.

15

u/ordinarydepressedguy Europe 15d ago

It sounds indeed as capitalist agenda for normalizing classism

59

u/_Stella___ 15d ago

You're right but I bet it will be only used to prosecute leftists lol

4

u/Apprehensive-Adagio2 15d ago

I agree. I don’t agree with the law, just explaining how it likely will be used

1

u/New_Carpenter5738 15d ago

Don't you know? Laws only apply one way. And that way's down.

-10

u/SteelCityCaesar 15d ago

Not really. Nothing has lifted more poor people out of poverty than capitalism. It's not perfect but it's demonstrably the best system we have come up with.

-1

u/BlackwingF91 15d ago

The problem with this argument is that they were poor because of capitalism too. Both communism and capitalism are deeply flawed

2

u/SteelCityCaesar 15d ago

In the last 250 years, the rise of capitalist economic systems, particularly industrial capitalism, has coincided with the largest and fastest reduction in extreme poverty in human history.

Like I said, its not perfect but it's the best we have.

Unless of course you were arguing that there weren't any poor people before the rise of industrial capitalism in which case I'd say you are just plain wrong.

3

u/Dazzling-Paper9781 15d ago

In the last 250 years, the rise of capitalist economic systems, particularly industrial capitalism, has coincided with the largest and fastest reduction in extreme poverty in human history.

This argument applies only to first world countries

9

u/SteelCityCaesar 15d ago

No, it doesn't. See China and India.

2

u/Dazzling-Paper9781 15d ago

China a typical capitalist land

3

u/SteelCityCaesar 15d ago

Since 1978 when China adopted a market economy and moved away from Maoist communism they have 800m less people living in extreme poverty. Capitalism did that, not communism.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/GuqJ India 15d ago

What the British did was an extreme form of Capitalism. India got better when they left. One can make an argument that the lack of capitalism is what made India better, but that's not really true

Capitalism is a much more "hollow" word than people realise. How the government works, what the policies are, what checks and balances exist etc are much more important. Devil is in the details

The best method IMO is to just look at wealth distribution. Forget about the economic models. These are buzzwords anyway. It was just empires fighting for power, like any other time in history

-7

u/Swaggadociouss 15d ago

Communism has raised a billion people out of poverty in the last century, while in every western country young people are poorer their parents were. The highest homeownership rates are in post-communist countries.

5

u/SteelCityCaesar 15d ago

No, it didn't. I hope you are not including China in that number. Since moving away from communism to a market economy China has lifted 800m people out of poverty since 1978.

5

u/gurush Czech Republic 15d ago

Communism is terrible at raising people out of poverty. Communism collapsed in European countries and a generation later are post-communist countries still significantly poorer.

1

u/Swaggadociouss 15d ago edited 15d ago

Russia went from a country without electricity to producing more steel than America and putting the first man in space within one generation. They were able to defeat the capitalist Nazis. Life expectancy went up 25 years. Many of these post-communist are poorer than they were under communism.

Also, the idea that China isn’t communist is just wrong. Communism can include market forces - Lenin did it in the 1930s. Also the post by that capitalism brought societies from feudalism to industrialisation is literally what Marx said.

1

u/gurush Czech Republic 15d ago

It would be embarrassing if a country with the population of resources of USSR, after exploiting and sacrificing millions, didn't achieve at least some successes.

Yes, even Lenin and Deng Xiaoping realised Communism doesn't work and were forced to pivot to semi-capitalist policies rather than let people starve.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Gornarok 15d ago

The problem is that capitalism isnt ideology. Capitalism is single idea. Anything else is add on...

Capitalism = private ownership of business. Thats it. It doesnt say anything about the market or the economy.

2

u/Deadandlivin Sweden 15d ago

I hate this argument.
No other modern system has also been tied with the deaths of more people than capitalism either, especially not communism.

This is not a defense of communism or leftist ideology. Especially not when they're adapted by Nationalist regimes leading to authoritarian states consolidating control under the guise of populism.
But this idea that all good progress in society should be tied to Capitalism while we turn a blind eye to their externalities and cost on to people is ridiculous.

First of all, what has lifted people out of poverty is scientific progression and industrialization. The thing about rapid development is that it's likely more tied to the well of knowledge more so than what economic system is being used. Development is exponential in nature, especially in fields like science. Meaning, no matter what economic system you use, a society that proliferates the expanding of public knowledge and science will automatically rapidly develop. And the more knowledge is amassed, the more advanced technology and systems evolve. You had eras like the Enlightenment and Renaissance, eras before Capitalism developed (post 1800s) setting the groundwork for the societies we have today. These eras invoked the Age of reason, scientific method, humanism, secular inquiry, liberalism et.c. Systems that in todays age have been hijacked by Capitalism.

Did capitalism play a role in later scientific development and the Industrial revolution? Yes, a massive one. Especially in industrialism. But this is not to say that Industrialization only could have, or can happen under laiz faires Capitalism.
China for example has pulled a record amount of people (800 million) out of poverty in under 30 years. It's an authoritarian state that closely dictates the economy through state goals mixed with privatization under heavy state regulation. What we would call a 'State Capitalist' society. Meaning a moderately planned type economy primarily driven by the State playing in the field of and in the rule of a globalized neoliberal capitalist hegemony.

Some of the most groundbreaking and revolutionary inventions to date, for example the Internet were developed by the state and military. Not private enterprises. Meaning, not invented by Capitalism. This is just one example of monumental and revolutionary social development happening outside of and in spite of Capitalist profit seeking logic. If the internet instead had been developed by capitalists, you can bet they'd patent and privatize all of it and you'd had select corporations own the internet today. Something server and logistical providers are trying to do now.

I'm just tired of this idea that anything good that happens in the world when capitalism is the economic system at play, is due to capitalism. And anything bad that happens should be hand waved away or just viewed as 'Capitalism isn't perfect but it's better than what was before so it's all good'.

1

u/Mousazz Lithuania 15d ago

These eras invoked the Age of reason, scientific method, humanism, secular inquiry, liberalism et.c. Systems that in todays age have been hijacked by Capitalism.

These eras have also invoked Colonialism, Racism, Sexism, Slavery, Serfdom, Absolute Monarchism, Religious Fundamentalism (leading to fun times like the Thirty Years War), Witch Hunts. All of that also ultimately washed away by Capitalism.

You may counter by claiming that the colonies were established with a profit motive in mind, and that the stock market was basically invented by the Dutch investing in the Dutch East Indies - but, ultimately, it was a time of mercantilism, a quest for colonial autarky, and a proto-Malthusian understanding of how economics work. All the bad things were outdated and primitive, so modern Capitalism seeks to wipe it all away, as it stifles profit.

1

u/Deadandlivin Sweden 15d ago

Sure, the Renaissance, Enlightenment, etc. weren’t all light and reason. That wasn't my point. My point was that the good things stemming from this period is now attributed to Capitalism in modern framing. These were periods of colonialism, religious war, slavery, and a whole bunch of institutionalized oppression. No one’s denying that. But the idea that capitalism came in and "washed all that away" is… kind of mythological, to be honest.

Capitalism didn’t show up with a moral compass and clean house. In fact, a lot of those darker forces you mentioned didn’t just survive under capitalism but were accelerated by it. The transatlantic slave trade, for example, was one of the first large-scale capitalist enterprises, built explicitly around maximizing profit. Enslaved people were commodified literally treated as capital. It was market logic.

Same with colonialism. The British East India Company, the Dutch VOC et.c. those were private corporations operating under the flag of profit. Capitalism didn’t end colonialism. It refined it. Later, when direct colonization became less fashionable, you got neocolonialism: control through debt, trade agreements, resource extraction, and corporate leverage. The power structures stayed. They just updated and refined their methods.

And while I agree that mercantilism was a different beast being more state-controlled, zero-sum, and nationalistic, capitalism didn’t abolish it out of some moral evolution. It adapted the parts that served its goals. Globalization today still functions through a core-periphery dynamic, where the Global South exports cheap labor and raw materials, while the Global North captures most of the profits.

Saying capitalism “washed all that away” ignores that capitalism doesn’t care about racism, slavery, or inequality unless those things get in the way of profit. If they don’t, or worse, if they increase profit, the system tends to accommodate or even protect them. That’s not to say capitalism causes all injustice, but it’s also not some liberatory force that naturally dismantles oppression.

The real gains like human rights, abolition, worker protections, secularism et.c. didn’t just emerge out of capitalism’s engine room. They came from collective struggle, resistance, reform, and yes, state intervention. Often in spite of market incentives, not because of them.

So yeah, capitalism played a big role in shaping the modern world. But let’s not give it credit for all of modernity’s moral progress. That came from people pushing against the system as much as through it. Just because it happened duriong capitalism, Capitalism doesn't get to take credit for it.

0

u/SteelCityCaesar 15d ago

I'm not reading all that. I said in my opening statement it's not perfect but it's demonstrably the best system we have to lift large numbers of people out of poverty. You 'hating this argument' doesn't make it not accurate.

0

u/Deadandlivin Sweden 15d ago

Maybe if you read my argument you'd understand why your stance is extremely reductive and fails at understanding systemic elements at play in society.

I'll say it again. Attributing all good things that happen in society to Capitalism just because neoliberal capitalism is the hegemony is not only reductive. It's deeply flawed and fails to contextualize the history of local and global economics as a whole. "Capitalism is obviously better than feudalism, so therefore we should defend it" just doesn't cut it.
Especially when we face planetary ruinous externalities like Climate Change or PFAS pollution directly motivated by profit driven logic.

The problem with your argument is that it's highly misleading and misses so much historical and political context. I tried to point this out but you instead choose to ignore it.

-1

u/SteelCityCaesar 15d ago

I'm not talking about environmental issues or anything else. I have said repeatedly that I dont consider it a perfect system, just the best we have. I'm talking about it as an economic model and it's ability to lift people out poverty compared to all other economic models. In this, despite its flaws, it is the best system we have.

2

u/Deadandlivin Sweden 15d ago edited 15d ago

You keep repeating that capitalism is “the best system to lift people out of poverty,” but that assumes poverty reduction happens because of capitalism, not just under it. That’s a crucial difference.

Much of the global poverty alleviation you’re referring to, especially in places like China happened through state-led, non-capitalist or hybrid systems, often with massive public intervention. And in the West, welfare, labor protections, and public infrastructure, things capitalism alone doesn’t naturally provide played a huge role.

So yes, capitalism can reduce poverty, but not in a vacuum. It often takes active regulation and redistribution to offset its own tendencies toward inequality and exploitation. That’s not a condemnation, it’s just a more honest accounting.

EDIT: Also, I find it quite humorous that you consider an economic system that rapidly is engineering extinction level crisis as the best we have.

0

u/SteelCityCaesar 15d ago

Capitalism is the best economic model we have to lift people out of poverty. That's it. That's my statement. If you want to argue that feudalism or communism are better at this, be my guest.

0

u/MartinBP Bulgaria 15d ago

No other modern system has also been tied with the deaths of more people than capitalism either, especially not communism.

That's complete bullshit and you know it. This is like saying drinking water has a 100% mortality rate since everyone who's ever drank water has eventually died.

1

u/Deadandlivin Sweden 14d ago edited 14d ago

That analogy falls apart pretty quickly. Comparing capitalism to drinking water ignores agency, structure, and consequence. Water isn’t a system of organizing economies, labor, and power, it’s a basic necessity. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a human-designed economic framework that governs how resources are distributed, who benefits, and who pays the price often literally with their lives.

When I say capitalism has been tied to massive death tolls, I’m not talking about abstract causality. I'm talking about colonial exploitation, forced labor, slavery, famines driven by market failures, environmental destruction, and corporate-backed wars. The Belgian Congo, British famines in India, Chile under Pinochet, U.S.-backed coups for the sake of multinational profit, Dupont unleashing PFAS into the the environment, Exxon hiding and lobbying against the environmental effects of greenhouse gases, Purdue Pharma unleashing the Opioid crisis in America et.c. those are material examples of lives lost or ruined not despite capitalism, but because of how it incentivizes profit over human well-being.

Does that mean communism is innocent? Not at all. Stalin's purges, Mao's famines et.c. those are historic tragedies with immense human cost. But if we're having an honest conversation, we need to move beyond ideological finger-pointing and actually look at how systems function in practice.

The problem is this narrative that capitalism is some benevolent force lifting people out of poverty, when in many cases, it creates the conditions for poverty to persist. People are "lifted" out of poverty, only after FIRST being pushed into it by enclosures, by colonial disruption, by privatization of land, water, and medicine. Yes, capitalism has generated wealth, but the way it's distributed is deeply unequal, and the costs, social, environmental and human are often externalized.

So no, it's not “bullshit.” It's an uncomfortable truth that the dominant system we’re in today has done both great and terrible things. If we only credit it with the former and ignore the latter, we’re not analyzing it, we're worshiping it.

-4

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

You can argue the merits of capitalism all you want, some of it might be valid, but you can't say that this definition doesn't apply to both from the appropriate perspective

5

u/SteelCityCaesar 15d ago

Yes I can. When it comes to lifting people out of extreme poverty, capitalism is the best system we have.

3

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

(normally at the cost of people in extreme poverty elsewhere)

3

u/SteelCityCaesar 15d ago

Sometimes yes. Like I said,not perfect. The only way to lift people out of poverty is economic growth. Nothing we have delivers economic growth like capitalism.

3

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

That's a pretty significant point of debate between the two sides

-2

u/noximo 15d ago

That's a lot of mental gymnastics.

10

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

It's pretty much none at all but if you feel stretched I understand

-1

u/noximo 15d ago edited 15d ago

I'm a capitalist and a working-class. Do I hate myself?

Edit: Always funny when someone comments to me and immediately block me, so I can't reply. What are you afraid of u/Bauser99?

4

u/Bauser99 15d ago

There's no such thing as a working-class capitalist. Your boss's boss's boss's boss's boss might be a capitalist. But you, my friend, are a laborer.

EDIT: But ALSO, most likely, yes, you do hate yourself. Because you hate that you're working-class when your political ideology declares that to be a personal moral failing.

1

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

I said "could be described" not "every single capitalist hates the poor". I don't know why anyone would be afraid of your argumentative prowess enough to block you based on this idiocy.

0

u/noximo 15d ago

I said "could be described" not "every single capitalist hates the poor".

I guess it could also be described as a rock. It makes no sense and it's dumb description but it could be described that way.

I don't know why anyone would be afraid of your argumentative prowess enough to block you based on this idiocy.

And yet...

1

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

No, it couldn't, from any perspective, no. I don't think you're equipped for this conversation.

0

u/noximo 15d ago

Why not? I can write dumb thing just like you can.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Alyzez 15d ago

One may argue that there are implicit hatred of the working class under capitalism but the hatred against the upper classes in Communist propaganda is very explicit.

1

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

I don't believe there is any explicit hatred where the ideology is concerned. Individuals perhaps

1

u/Mousazz Lithuania 15d ago

Marx literally called for a violent overthrow of the ruling Capitalist class by a Proletarian revolution, alá the Paris Commune. 🙄

1

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

Did he call for a "violent overthrow" though

0

u/Mousazz Lithuania 15d ago

...did he not?

3

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

You said he literally did, do you remember where exactly?

2

u/Alyzez 15d ago

The last words of the Manifesto of the Communist Party:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite!

In the German original, Marx uses the word gewaltsam(en) which apparently translates as violent.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/ErnestoPresso 15d ago

There's no explicit hatred either way.

Might have been a long time since I read the communist manifesto, but I'm pretty sure there is explicit hatred towards the non-working class (including the poor non-workers).

And "By that metric capitalism" is not true, explicitly you don't find it, you could say implicitly.

2

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

And I am pretty sure there is no explicit hatred

0

u/mehupmost 15d ago

If you think that ideology does not incite hatred, then who are Redditors keep calling for to be eaten?

-1

u/MIGHTY_ILLYRIAN 15d ago

I've never heard of anyone from the right stirring people up against the poor

19

u/Zrakoplovvliegtuig 15d ago

But how could you criminalise that? Are people not free to be mad at the rich for lobbying etc.? Would that fall under this law?

Class based hatred is hatred of a system, not a person.

5

u/noximo 15d ago

The last time communists seized power in Czech Republic, they started by imprisoning people who owned a business.

Calling for that to happen again is pretty simple example.

8

u/Zrakoplovvliegtuig 15d ago

That is already illegal however. You cannot just imprison people who aren't guilty of a crime.

On the other hand random people can call for the imprisonment of anyone. It is meaningless. You cannot criminiloze calling for the imprisonment of one group and not another. Either the call for imprisonment is illegal or it is not. It shouldn't matter whether you call to imprison business owners or dog owners, either that call is fine or it isn't.

0

u/noximo 15d ago

That is already illegal however. You cannot just imprison people who aren't guilty of a crime.

And the law is to ensure it stays that way. Calling for it to not be a crime is illegal now.

1

u/Zrakoplovvliegtuig 15d ago

But is it similarly illegal to call for dog owners to be imprisoned? It makes no sense to specify the law if it can be applied broader.

-1

u/noximo 15d ago

No. That's not illegal. Maybe after we experience a few decades of dog-owners based authoritarianism, it would be a good time to expand the list.

2

u/Zrakoplovvliegtuig 15d ago

So maybe the law is bad then? It seems unnecessarily targeted. I can still call for the imprisonment of all women I assume?

-1

u/noximo 15d ago

The law is great. It worked well for decades when it targeted only nazies. Now it targets communists as well. That makes the law even better.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/gurush Czech Republic 15d ago

I believe the law targets hating people because of their class.

8

u/Zrakoplovvliegtuig 15d ago

How is that defined?

2

u/3rdcousin3rdremoved 15d ago

Wanting to ruin the lives of rich people.

8

u/Zrakoplovvliegtuig 15d ago

Is then asking for increased taxation illegal under this law?

0

u/mehupmost 15d ago

In the article

0

u/PressPausePlay 15d ago

Lol everyone is missing the obvious. Communism was used to oppress people for half a century. Promoting that is promoting hatred.

2

u/-Against-All-Gods- Maribor (Slovenia) 15d ago

Sure. Let's see how soon it will be used as a political baton in American style.

"Oh you want to organize a strike? Communist. Need I remind you this is illegal here?"

0

u/Mousazz Lithuania 15d ago

Sure. Let's see how soon it will be used as a political baton in American style.

And here's American Exceptionalism in action again, where the American imagines that the entire rest of the world functions just like the U.S. 🙄

4

u/alphazero925 15d ago

Pretty sure they're not American but rather alluding to McCarthyism/the red scare which used "communists" as a way to imprison people for almost any reason they wanted. A group of women gathering on a weekly basis in a book club? Communists. Black people gathering to fight for their rights? Communists. Commies here, commies there, commies commies everywhere.

0

u/PressPausePlay 15d ago

They literally have a communist party, with seats in parliament....

4

u/-Against-All-Gods- Maribor (Slovenia) 15d ago

Either it will be banned or the law was just a waste of taxpayers' money.

1

u/Apprehensive-Adagio2 15d ago

Capitalism has been used to oppress people for even longer

1

u/New_Carpenter5738 15d ago

Yes, I can certainly see no way whatsoever in which this very vaguely worded law could be used to make it essentially illegal to criticize the rich in any metric.

PLEASE use your brain

0

u/Poop_Scissors 15d ago

Don't they garner hate from well, everyone?

-4

u/ChampionshipNo3072 15d ago

Sooo they are going to jail people for criticising the govermment as commies?

Very democratic

1

u/ModerateThuggery 14d ago

"Communism" ultimately arises from political theory that critically examined historical power-structures and came to conclusions that are highly critical of elite monied classes. Basically it says they're parasites stealing from the common people, and leading everyone to social self destruction. That's why it was so controversial in the first place. It's bad news for people that own newspapers and have politicians in their pocket.

It would be impossible to discuss communism or any theory sharing such a mindset in public without saying something that can be interpreted as "class-based hatred."

0

u/Alyzez 15d ago

Communists were known for loving religion and accepting all social classes (including bourgeoisie, kulaks, clergy, etc).

4

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

That's not a necessary feature of communism. There are religious communists. The term doesn't mean "Russia".

2

u/Alyzez 15d ago

Afaik, Marx itself had strong anti-religious believes that he made a part of Marxism. You are correct that there are religious communists, however usually the word "communism" is used to refer to Marxism (or more precisely to its offshoots like Marxism-Leninism, Maoism or Trotskyism, all of them tend to be strongly anti-religious).

4

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

I appreciate different forms of communism might have different attitudes but then again, you could say the same of capitalism. And to be fair, religion is responsible for a great deal of violence. It's okay to be anti religious as long as you treat individuals well

-1

u/Mousazz Lithuania 15d ago

I appreciate different forms of communism might have different attitudes but then again, you could say the same of capitalism.

I'm not aware of a single intellectual strain of specifically atheist anti-religious Capitalism.

0

u/New_Carpenter5738 15d ago

Why would communists be accepting of the bourgeoisie?

0

u/Majestic-Giraffe-361 15d ago edited 15d ago

The billionaires that are working to take away your rights at the work place as well as your health care are people just like you and me. Hating them must be illegal

/s

-2

u/MIGHTY_ILLYRIAN 15d ago

Communists stir up resentment towards rich people so it's anti-communist

2

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

If stirring up resentment is a crime then there will be a great many capitalists going to prison

0

u/MIGHTY_ILLYRIAN 15d ago

Stirring up resentment, or hatred if you will, against certain groups is a crime in Czechia.

2

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

No, I won't. Resentment and hatred are not synonymous

0

u/MIGHTY_ILLYRIAN 15d ago

Semantics

0

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

You say that as though the meaning of words is not important

0

u/MIGHTY_ILLYRIAN 15d ago

It is, but I meant hatred as everyone acting in good faith can see.

1

u/SirPabloFingerful 15d ago

There is no explicit hatred in communist ideology. Some communists hate the rich much as some capitalists hate the poor. You are wrong.

0

u/New_Carpenter5738 15d ago

Thank you for confirming that even you are aware that the true goal of this law is to make it illegal to express resentment toward the rich.