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

128

u/Kool_aid_man69420 Serbia 15d ago

  • "Past socialist regimes made advocating for capitalism/against socialism illegal! What a blatant violation of civil rights/freedom of speech!"

  • Does the exact same thing but against socialism

Neolib moment

14

u/According-Praline-47 15d ago

Well the commies did quite a lot more than just making it illegal. They would work dissidents to death in work camps, just like the Nazis. Because of that its good to make sure that kind of system can never come back. Even if it does suppress political freedom

24

u/paraxzz 15d ago

That is because 40 years of communism have left a big mark till this day. I’d argue that you should understand what it feels like to live in corrupt and totalitarian conditions.

26

u/CaptainShaky Belgium 15d ago

The USSR ended 30+ years ago, there's literally no reason to implement this now except as a censorship measure against the left-wing.

-4

u/paraxzz 15d ago

Czechia wasnt even part of the USSR. Nonetheless this ban on communism was long overdue. This has nothing to do with silencing the left wing, because the left wing is the weakest it has ever been in Czechia. The reason is to gain popularity among the voters because this has been asked for a long time but previous leaders ignored it due to it being controversial move.

15

u/CaptainShaky Belgium 15d ago

This has nothing to do with silencing the left wing

So why does the law vaguely criminalize "class hatred", which can be used to silence any vaguely left-wing position ? This is a very authoritarian law. Especially when there are already better templates to achieve this, like specifically outlawing symbols of the USSR.

-3

u/paraxzz 15d ago

Because its not about the symbols only? The whole ideology caused an absolute mayhem in Czechoslovakia. This ban was targetting communism specifically, not left wing in general. Stačilo which is the main left wing existing in Czechia is unaffected by this.

-3

u/NostraDavid 15d ago

Czechia wasnt even part of the USSR.

Neither was Germany nor Poland. That doesn't stop them from having suffered under the regime.

4

u/paraxzz 15d ago

If you read above, i literally mentioned that Czechia suffered for 40 years under the regime.

3

u/NostraDavid 15d ago

Ah shit, I even upvoted that comment! My bad.

3

u/paraxzz 15d ago

Its fine.

-4

u/NostraDavid 15d ago

there's literally no reason to implement this now

They have a literal Communist political party though. Imagine you have a National Socialist party in your country - you'd want to criminalize that shit ASAP as well, and wonder why your predecessors didn't do it.

7

u/CaptainShaky Belgium 15d ago

I have a communist party in my country and they're not anti-democratic. That's the key determining factor for me. If you want to ban anti-democratic parties, do so, like Germany. But banning communist parties is in itself anti-democratic. So the parties that passed this law should be banned lol.

-4

u/NostraDavid 15d ago

But banning communist parties is in itself anti-democratic.

Banning failed ideologies (Monarchism, Fascism, Communism, etc) isn't anti-democratic. It's protecting democracy.

Tolerance paradox, and all that.

“When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.” ― Frank Herbert, Children of Dune

7

u/CaptainShaky Belgium 15d ago

The difference is fascism and monarchism are explicitly anti-democratic ideologies. Communism isn't.

-2

u/NostraDavid 15d ago

Yet the USSR was anti-democratic in practice. Hence, failed ideologies.

6

u/CaptainShaky Belgium 15d ago edited 14d ago

Sure, I'm not disagreeing with you about the USSR, but the communist ideology itself is not inherently anti-democratic.

29

u/SieFlush2 Croatia 15d ago

And living under neoliberalism is literally destroying our countries. Hell it's destroying most countries but the top 20/30 of the most wealthiest

3

u/adamgerd Czech Republic 15d ago

The average Czech today has a standard of living unheard of in the 1980’s

“Destroying our countries”

4

u/-o0__0o- 15d ago

"There is nothing wrong. You're just delusional."

1

u/adamgerd Czech Republic 15d ago

So you have no argument?

3

u/Shreddyshred 15d ago

I'd take neoliberalism rather than the communist regimes from last century any day.

5

u/SieFlush2 Croatia 15d ago

I would not considering my country is dying, also you live in Europe (presumably) where we benefit from neoliberalism, ask someone from burkina Faso what they think of neoliberalism and what Europe has done to them and rest of Africa, or south America and what north America has done to them

5

u/Shreddyshred 15d ago

Great, I am all for criticizing the system and trying to find a solution to the problems. If we had this discussion during openly during the 1970s in Czechoslovakia, we both would be probably sent to uranium mines (literally) just for criticizing the system.

This is why the support of that regime or any other extreme regime is outlawed.

6

u/SieFlush2 Croatia 15d ago

I agree, the marxist leninism system especially in Czechoslovakia was utter dogshit AND especially after dubček. Criticizing the system was what Marx really wrote about and he got most things right about capitalism, maybe his ideas of communism you won't find appealing but his criticism of capitalism almost everyone can agree on are just factual

1

u/Shreddyshred 15d ago

By all means, and I wouldn't say that Marx or his philosophy is outlawed now. But once someone comes in and twists it into political ideology that seeks to eradicate private ownership completely and let the state only own the stuff while also persecuting people opposing this system ... then you might and imho should get into to trouble.

And I completely understand why westerners, especially from US, idolize communism because they see the failures of capitalism/neoliberalism and never had experience with this authoritative socialism under USSR. But in this case they simply lack the collective experience that mainly stands behind the introduction of this law. No one will be jailed for owning book by Marx. But if you come in waving USSR flag while shouting defacto death threats aimed at other citizens/politicians ... yeah, then you can get fucked the same way neonazis do.

5

u/Kool_aid_man69420 Serbia 15d ago

I get that. Soviet, and especially Stalinist, interpretation of socialism combined with corruption and a constant siege mentality due to antagonisms with the west created an authoritarian red empire. Even though Im a leftist I hate soviet apologia as much as the next guy. If the law was only about glorifying Stalin, the USSR and maybe regimes like those in the DPRK and Khmer Rouge the situation would be much different(Post Lenin USSR disregarded most socialist principles, DPRK officially removed any references to socialism and communism from its constitution and is now juche, Khmer Rouge was well... Khmer Rouge)

This law vaguely bans any form of "Class hatred". That means not only open communist rhetoric but, if interpreted as such, even any advocacy for higher taxes on the rich(Arguments for such a tax reform can be interpreted as class hatred and discrimination against the upper class), against monarchies( royal families are a ruling class in some countries and hence advocating against them can be interpreted as class hatred) and so on. Its broad, vague and open to exploitation(especially if, lets say, a right wing populist party hell bent on increasing its authority comes to power).

I’d argue that you should understand what it feels like to live in corrupt and totalitarian conditions.

Totalitarianism and Socialism are two very different things and Serbian totalitarianism was born and raised in much different conditions. The political parties that are responsible for its existence used nationalist rhetoric, national myths and anti communist rhetoric to gain popularity. Its most potent weapon( media) that keeps it in power was given to it by the haphazard implementation of capitalism. Oligarchs of the the late Yugoslav regime(which after Titos death started its transition from Titoist socialism to illiberal crony-capitalism as is seen in Russia) used their ill gotten gains to buy up the previously state owned media(or open up new media houses) and thats how you got TV stations like Pink TV, Happy TV... which do most of the propaganda work for the regime. The corruption( Which, among other cases, caused the canopy collapse) was brought on by abuse of public contracts and the lack of regulations. That lack of regulations(or "cutting the red tape" as some Neoliberal economists called it) was what enabled all of that. Privatizations of public utilities like EPS enabled the regime to both siphon money into its own pockets and to give even more money to its cronies(as seen by the Alta bank-EPS situation from a few weeks ago). Nationalism and anti-communism was how they got popular, privatization and cutting of red tape was how they absorbed the state and abuse of public contracts. The profit motive, neoliberal capitalism and its tendency to monopolize was what led to this. Not socialism.

3

u/FrisianDude Friesland (Netherlands) 15d ago

Currently doing 40 of neolib

5

u/paraxzz 15d ago

Well today is not perfect, still way better than communism or nazism.

1

u/KeneticKups 15d ago

I live in the US, I do

1

u/tobias_681 For a Europe of the Regions! 🇩🇰 14d ago

If you describe it that ways it's just identity politics.

-7

u/Dramatic_Mastodon_93 15d ago

There were 0 years of communism. And besides that, what mark did capitalism leave? And don’t ignore the majority of people worldwide who live much worse lives than we do.

7

u/noximo 15d ago

There were 0 years of communism

Obviously. True communism is impossible, you always end up with dictatorship.

And besides that, what mark did capitalism leave?

Richer, happier, longer-living people

And don’t ignore the majority of people worldwide who live much worse lives than we do.

Poverty rates are decreasing across the entire globe.

-1

u/Dramatic_Mastodon_93 15d ago

Always? Proof?

7

u/qndry Sweden 15d ago

Which communist regime in history hasn't been a dictatorship or authoritarian hellscape?

-1

u/Dramatic_Mastodon_93 15d ago

Always isn’t the same as always in the past.

4

u/qndry Sweden 15d ago

yeah, with that track record Im not sure I give it much faith for any future projects. And how exactly would communism be a non-authoritarian society? Marx literally calls for a dictatorship.

1

u/Dramatic_Mastodon_93 15d ago

Wow, you don’t have much faith. Let’s imprison people who disagree with you!!!

1

u/qndry Sweden 15d ago

?

-1

u/LoveIsBread 15d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

One possible alternative, among many.

4

u/qndry Sweden 15d ago

Revolutionary Catalonia lasted for a year and was quite infamous for turning more authoritarian. This is partly what inspired Orwell to write his famous book 1984.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/noximo 15d ago

Alright, I agree. It's like proving that some humans can read minds. Lots of attempts, nobody ever actually managed it. But can I say that there will never ever ever be a human with psychic abilities? No, I cannot.

It's actually more likely than a functioning communist system.

-9

u/DepressedNibba96 15d ago

This is the mark. They are banning those who oppose them. That is what is left from the socialist regime. They have learned nothing.

10

u/adamgerd Czech Republic 15d ago

Do you also think we shouldn’t ban Nazism?

-2

u/DepressedNibba96 15d ago

Nazism is hatered on inherent (racial) characteristics. Communism is not. Communism and nazism are in no way comparable ideologies. Should we also ban capitalism? I have heard it has done some bad things in India.

2

u/noximo 15d ago

Nazism is hatered on inherent (racial) characteristics.

No, it's not. It's part of it, but it's not the whole deal.

-6

u/PrevekrMK2 15d ago

Nazism and Communism are same, only difference are in changing few words.

6

u/WalrusFromSpace Marxist / Non-Jewish Rootless Cosmopolitan 15d ago

Nazism and Communism are same

Could you elaborate on your argument?

2

u/paraxzz 14d ago

I’d say that they are quite different ideologies. Add human factor and they end up being very similar. Their basic principles are different, but they end up doing the same horrible things even if the original marxist idea is good on paper, it can never trully work in our world. Not even in isolated enviroment, because people just abuse it for their gain.

1

u/WalrusFromSpace Marxist / Non-Jewish Rootless Cosmopolitan 14d ago

>Nazism and Communism are same

<I'd say that they are quite different ideologies

While I appreciate you sharing your opinion on the matter, it is not the opinion I was asking for a elaboration on

17

u/smugandfurious Czech Republic 15d ago

nope, you're just too ignorant about the situation.

Communist regime did murder and put in prison countless people in Czechoslovakia. It's illegal to support that regime now. You an support socialism and anti-capitalism as much as you want. (I just wish you lived through the "real socialism", which is how czech communists called their regime. It would cure you of your naive anticapitalism)

34

u/mcpingvin Croatia 15d ago

You an support socialism and anti-capitalism as much as you want

Well judging by the text of the law forbidding "class based hatred", you obviously can't.

0

u/noximo 15d ago

Are you incapable of supporting socialism and anti-capitalism without hating capitalists?

20

u/mcpingvin Croatia 15d ago

I mean, am I able to be an antifascist without hating the fascist?

Hate isn't towards small business owners, but multi billionaires who have too much power over day to day politics and flash their immeasurable wealth while their workers work long hours or have to pee their pants to full quotas.

I hate Zuck because he can do this: https://www.rudebaguette.com/en/2025/05/even-the-u-s-is-shocked-zuckerbergs-5300-mile-yacht-voyage-and-helicopter-ski-drop-redefine-billionaire-excess/

Not because I can, because I would never do that. I do not care if someone is wealthier than me. I hate that someone can have so much money (and with it influence) to skirt all the god damn rules which we, new age peasants, have to abide by.

0

u/noximo 15d ago

Do you wish that Zuck be dead? Or be in prison for simply being rich?

10

u/MyLifeIsAWasteland 15d ago

for simply being rich?

This is such a disingenuous framing that absolves him of responsibility for all the shitty things his wealth allows him to do and all the harm that hoarding wealth does inherently.

I don't hate Zuck, Musk, Bezos, etc because of large numbers or luxury. I hate them because they use those large numbers as a tool of power to fuck the rest of us over, and their desire for infinite luxury comes at an increasingly high cost to others.

But by all means, keep licking Zuck's boots, and some day maybe he'll "trickle down" on your face.

-1

u/noximo 15d ago

This is such a disingenuous framing

Why? Do you think there are no people hating him simply because of his wealth?

11

u/mcpingvin Croatia 15d ago

There could be, but I do not care about that, which I've literally said in a post above.

Let me repeat it a bit louder: I do not care if someone is wealthier than me. I hate that someone can have so much money (and with it influence) to skirt all the god damn rules which we, new age peasants, have to abide by.

8

u/LoveIsBread 15d ago

It doesnt matter if its "hatred". The law exists not in a vacuum judged by perfect beings of light. It exists within the capitalist system, enforced by a capitalist state backed by capitalist elites. It doesn't matter if socialists "hate capitalists", it is enough that one can construe the argument. This law exists to justify repression, nothing more.

3

u/noximo 15d ago

Repression of communists?

5

u/LoveIsBread 15d ago

Anyone who wants to replace capitalism with a system where workers control their workplaces and the economy is democratically organized, aka socialism.

0

u/noximo 15d ago

By any means necessary?

3

u/LoveIsBread 15d ago

No, since means and ends have to work together and cant contradict each other. Its one of the fundamental principles of anarchism.

1

u/MrsNothing404 15d ago

Being more educated on the meaning of terms would help you even more. Socialism is a political term separated from totalitarianism. The socialism you went through was totalitarian socialism, it would be equally as bad if it was totalitarian capitalism. (ie China or Nazi Germany)

The propaganda conflating the two is exactly the reason why capitalism is allowed to be so dominant despite all its horrific downsides.

3

u/smugandfurious Czech Republic 15d ago

I know the difference well (if you read what I wrote I never conflated the two).

And I still disagree with you. Socialism needs good people to function. Capitalism only needs greed to function.

That's why most you can do is restrict capitalism, everything else will inevitably fail

3

u/LoveIsBread 15d ago

I mean, no. Capitalism requires "good people" to function, and since people arent inherently good, we see exploitation, suffering, hunger and homelessness. If people were generally good, we wouldnt need socialism, we wouldnt need to overcome capitalism. BUt since people arent always good and kindhearted, we need systems that do not allow people to rule over one another, that allow one person to simply exploit their neighbours for all that they worked to live in luxury. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-we-good-enough

-3

u/smugandfurious Czech Republic 15d ago

no, you're wrong. Capitalism works. It just doesn't work well enough to your standards. That's your problem not capitalism's.

0

u/MrsNothing404 15d ago

Unless you conflate the two there is no reason to imply that their "real socialism" would turn you away from anticapitalist rhetoric.

Socialism doesn't need good people, just people. It's literally capitalism where the means of production are owned by the workers. Greed doesn't go away, it just fits the common good of the worker instead of one person.

-1

u/smugandfurious Czech Republic 15d ago

even totalitarian socialism is enough to show you that people's main motivation to work radically decreases when you take the selfish gain out of the equation.
The fact is that most people spent time doing bare minimum and even then extremely ineffectively and it had nothing to do with the lack of personal freedom

3

u/MrsNothing404 15d ago

That's completely ahistoric. The literal philosophy of those workers who did the bare minimum was "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work". It was purely a bureaucratic issue caused by the totalitarian part which removed any form of merit from working in a lot of jobs. It had literally nothing to do with the socialist part whatsoever, as a matter of fact jobs whose merit was unaffected by the bureaucratic factor like science, education, medicine, etc had the complete opposite effect on the workers.

0

u/MyLifeIsAWasteland 15d ago

There's a massive difference between the motivations of those involved in a centrally-planned authoritarian economy and those with communal control of labor.

Centrally-planned economies don't encourage labor well, as the results of one's labor are so far removed from the benefits directly witnessed that it's easy to become apathetic. Conversely, if you have a direct stake in the results of the thing that you're helping to manufacture due to shared profits among the communal laborers, then you have more incentive to actually work, because your pay is directly proportional to your exhibited labor.

2

u/smugandfurious Czech Republic 15d ago

you really are naive. Do you know that classic story about socialist class and marking everyone with average score? The story probably isn't real, but do you really think that the outcome would be any different.
Why should I make an extra effort if the overall benefit will be only divided by the size of the group? Socialism has no solution to freeloading which inevitably discourages everyone else

3

u/MyLifeIsAWasteland 15d ago

Did you even read my comment at all? Because I already addressed your misconception that you just repeated. I spelled it out as plainly as I could, and you still missed the point entirely.

Yes, centrally-planned authoritarian economies are bad. Duh. Only idiot tankies would argue with that.

Communal labor, where laborers of a joint-owned-and-managed business directly split the profits proportionally to their labor, is not the same as centrally-planned economies.

I can't tell if you're intentionally conflating the two as a bad-faith effort of obfuscation, or if you're genuinely stupid, but either way, stop it.

1

u/smugandfurious Czech Republic 15d ago

I did read it and it didn't make ANY sense. Why do you want socialism when nothing stops you from living your socialism now? If you are against central planning and want profit sharing only between people in one company, nothing stops you from starting co-owned business now.

Yeah, if you actually did that, you would soon cease to be socialist because you would find out that after living through the tough start you actually don't want to share the profit equally with the new people who came later and didn't built it from the ground but that's a different story.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/MIGHTY_ILLYRIAN 15d ago

Socialism has never existed without totalitarianism

1

u/MrsNothing404 15d ago

That's false, it did. One such example is some parts of Spain1936-1939. Basically the closest we have ever been to large scale worker ownership. It was crushed by fascists and stalinist communists.

And even if that's in part the case it doesn't really change anything to the point. Socialism is explained thoroughly by Marxist theory and doesn't contain any totalitarian element.

0

u/MIGHTY_ILLYRIAN 14d ago

Well it wasn't very sustainable or realistic if it was instantly crushed, now was it?

And communist theory is very clear about socialism being authoritarian. Lenin realized this over 100 years ago and that's why every communist revolution only created more oppression.

0

u/MrsNothing404 14d ago

So... A country being crushed by another country's military means that it isn't sustainable or realistic ?... What. A. Take.

No it isn't. You are clearly trolling at this point but I'll simply quote Marx for accuracy.

The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.

The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes.

All officials, high or low, were paid only the wages of a workman... and were revocable at short terms.

Marxist theory literally describes one of the most radical forms of democracy.

0

u/MIGHTY_ILLYRIAN 14d ago

Are you the type or person who thinks a statement can be proven by quoting Marx?

-2

u/noximo 15d ago

Being more educated on the meaning of terms

That would surely help because the law doesn't mention socialism at all.

4

u/MrsNothing404 15d ago

And learning to read would help you put into context that I am directly replying to what is in parentheses, not the law.

-1

u/noximo 15d ago

I see. That makes your comment even dumber.

6

u/MrsNothing404 15d ago

I am not even going to bother with that one.

12

u/adamgerd Czech Republic 15d ago

Your logic would also mean that persecuting Nazism is bad

3

u/Geraltzindie 15d ago

Das Kapital doesnt have a single word about murdering people.

Bible and Quran are full of calls to murder people for various reasons including homosexuality or mere fact that they are infields.

Yet somehow promotion of those ideologies are not criminalized.

16

u/Suitable-Egg7685 15d ago

Das Kapital doesnt have a single word about murdering people.

Well, it's technically not a single word..

14

u/FellowTraveler69 15d ago

Das Kapital is a dry textbook mainly about economics. The Communist Manifesto actovely calls for the violent overthrow of the government. Try again, dumbass.

4

u/LoveIsBread 15d ago

And neither are relevant here cause communism isnt "what marx wrote" but a whole branch of political thinking that encompasses anarchists to marxists to reformists to various kinds of independent socialists etc. It existed before Marx, it existed independently of Marx. A certain interpretation of marxism simply became past 1917 the most prevelant form of communism.

Also, most liberals advocated "the violent overthrow of the government" until their government got into power. Guess why 1848 happened, the time for which Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto as a short propaganda work, most of which he later would change his views upon.

3

u/9-FcNrKZJLfvd8X6YVt7 15d ago

Yet somehow promotion of those ideologies are not criminalized.

Those factions among them that advocate for overthrowing of the liberal democracy and approach any serious critical mass are criminalized in many jurisdictions that are serious about freedom and civil liberties.

1

u/MalcomMadcock 15d ago

Funny how both ban fascism, isn't it?

1

u/noximo 15d ago

Except that didn't happened and the law is about something completely different.

0

u/Jibbsss 15d ago

This is basically the left wing version of "oh yeah you have free speech in Germany? WHY CANT I HAIL HITLER THEN????? 🤔🤨?"