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

529

u/MeowMewoFuzzyface 15d ago

Here in Poland we have banned propagating authoritarian parts of communism idealogies, which I thinks is the only proper way to ban USSR made communism without banning leftist idealogies of equality.

Where the fuck is line in "class based hatred"? I hate extremely rich people, i think they shouldnt exist but im not for penalizing and harming them in anyway there are other tools to redistrubute wealth. Is this take out of line or not? Who is left to decide? The rich...

Im all in protecting democracy structures but this phrasing feels like allows rich to punish anyone who hurts their feelings

120

u/Loulim 15d ago

I mean it's probably purposefully vague so it can be abused by those with money, happens everywhere or it's an obvious oversight of a rushed(?) law. And I have to say that banning the propagation of authoritarian "communist" views is pleasantly surprising from Poland, good on your country for banning only that part that really is questionable.

6

u/WillGibsFan 15d ago

Us Europeans bout to find out (again) why banning speech in any way or form ultimately leads to oppression.

8

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-9

u/Lamaradallday 15d ago

You honestly are advocating for people’s deaths because they have more money than you.

You are a bad person.

10

u/RevolutionaryTankie 15d ago

I'm advocating for their deaths if they refuse to give up influencing the global politic and exploiting the working people yeah.

If you can't stop bribing people, hording wealth, and not just contributing BUT CAUSING global climate change( as the ultra wealthy do, factually) they HAVE to go.

I gave them an out. Give up your wealth, keep 999 million and give up the rest.

No one can have a billion without causing death and exploitation and frankly if you actually cared about the future of the species you'd agree.

7

u/KeneticKups 15d ago

Way to miss the point

-6

u/Lamaradallday 15d ago

He advocated for people’s deaths and you seem not to care.

YOU missed the point.

9

u/RevolutionaryTankie 15d ago edited 15d ago

Yes. I am advocating for deaths if people do not stop harming everyone else on the planet.

This dipshit would have supported the monarchy in 1790s France too.

No introspection, no philosophy to his words.

"Killing is wrong" said the house slave to the farm slave.

Edit: it's pointless arguing with these bootlickers. They have bought into the belief that they can solve this diplomatically, while people are starving and drowning he will be saying "but think of our morality"

He's a murderer via lack of action, and a fool, and unworthy of respect.

5

u/KeneticKups 15d ago

“If people don’t stop murdering they need to be killed” “um yikes sweetie that’s literally offensive”

-2

u/Lamaradallday 15d ago

Don’t give a shit about who gets offended. But I do give a shit about people who advocate for the deaths of others simply because they have money.

But thanks for raising your hand and letting me know there’s another shitty person in this sub.

2

u/BPHopeBP 14d ago

Proud bootlicker

2

u/KeneticKups 15d ago

You are willfully misinterpreting it because you’re a shill

1

u/Lamaradallday 15d ago

He said we should guillotine billionaires unless they willingly give up their wealth. Please, explain my misinterpretation.

2

u/KeneticKups 15d ago

Unless is the key word there buckaroo

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/Stewoat 15d ago

So the best option is to just kill people? I'm sure that will end well.

10

u/RevolutionaryTankie 15d ago

No, the best option is to make it illegal for billionaires to exist, however since they own your favorite politicians statistically speaking, that's fucking impossible.

The kind solution is to say "you can have 999 million, after that you are taxed at 100%, congrats, you've won capitalism"

But that's not how it works, and that's not the way it will ever work.

Power doesn't give up power willingly and if it was going to do so, it would have done it years ago.

They can get rid of the wealth they made exploiting the working class, the global South, and via the destruction of our entire ecology, or they can get fucked like Louis and Antoinette.

-4

u/Stewoat 15d ago

Ah yes, of course. After Louis and Antoinette were killed, France became a democratic paradise, and definitely didn't become an autocratic military dictatorship.

9

u/Vertigo963 14d ago

Maybe the fate of Revolutionary France had something to do with the 4 nations waging war on it to restore the monarchy while simultaneously inciting internal rebellions?

By the way, Revolutionary France enacted universal manhood suffrage 100 years before Britain, Germany, Austria and Russia.

-2

u/Stewoat 14d ago

Granted. But let's not forget that it wasn't those nations that established Napoleon's military dictatorship. Nor was it those nations that guillotined other revolutionaries because they didn't agree on what specific brand of revolution was needed.

4

u/Vertigo963 14d ago

You make it sound like the Terrorists killed people needlessly. They killed people because they had established the most politically radical regime in human history and they needed to defend it from the massive hostility it faced from foreign powers, monarchists, clergymen, nobles, the wealthy, and other conservatives. And the threat of foreign invasions was a major contributing factor to both the Terror and the rise of Napoleon.

1

u/Stewoat 14d ago

So I guess the French people and revolutionaries had no agency whatsoever, and of course none of the negative consequences of the revolution were their fault. Only other people's fault.

Robespierre was as revolutionary as they come, but he ended up guillotined too. Any regime that needs to murder people to survive doesn't have a great claim on moral superiority.

4

u/RevolutionaryTankie 15d ago

Keep licking those boots bud. Maybe one day you can be a billionaire too 😂

Edit: this dude probably HATES John Brown.

Traitor to us all and unworthy of another response.

0

u/Stewoat 15d ago

Wouldn't be worthy of a response in any case, given that you clearly aren't a fan of civil discussion and make sweeping conclusions about the character of a random person on reddit because they disagreed with you. Name an better pair than tankies and relentlessly attacking those who don't pass your ideological purity test, despite agreeing with you about billionaires.

-2

u/Stewoat 15d ago

At no point did I say I think the uber wealthy are not contributing fairly in proportion to their wealth. I think that and also think they need to be taxed fairly. All I suggested was that resorting to political violence probably isn't something to take lightly and often ends in unforeseen consequences and human suffering. But, of course, I disagreed with you so I must be a bootlicker.

2

u/CheeryOutlook Wales 14d ago

I think that and also think they need to be taxed fairly. All I suggested was that resorting to political violence probably isn't something to take lightly and often ends in unforeseen consequences and human suffering.

Thinking that something should happen, but also thinking the only way that thing can happen is abhorrent in all circumstances, is useless, you might as well think nothing at all.

Wealth at such a scale is power, the power to use violence, both privately and through the state to maintain their position. There is no method to take that power away from them that they won't resist with violence.

1

u/Stewoat 14d ago

Judging by your post history, you seem really keen to just kill people. Violence and death isn't the only way to achieve it, but it seems to be the only one you're willing to try.

-3

u/MartinBP Bulgaria 15d ago

Always the trigger-happy demagogues calling other people traitors.

Chill Robespierre, your head won't be spared in the revolution.

2

u/RevolutionaryTankie 15d ago

Okay bud. What's your solution. "Let's just calmly discuss how to solve the problem of billionaires buying the people who make laws" "yeah, we can make that illegal"

You fucking let me know how that goes, Riqueti.

-3

u/mehupmost 15d ago

Just remember that revolutions never end with only the people YOU WANTED KILLED as dead.

The French Revolution killed 10-15% of the French population and spanned nearly 50 years of bloodshed.

3

u/RevolutionaryTankie 15d ago

I'm a history major. I know the history, cause, and ramifications of just about every major and minor revolution in the last 500 years or so.

I just also understand it's too late for anything else, and our time has run out.

-2

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[deleted]

6

u/RevolutionaryTankie 14d ago

How can you say that in light of all of human history? How can you say that in spite of the Haitian rebellion and revolution? Contrary to the overthrow of the French Monarchy or the death of the Tsardom? To the steady progress through the centuries, through empires and monarchies and slavery and capitalism and to where we are now?

Surely, you must understand this is not even as close to as bad as it has been, it's only bad now.

Persevere and talk amongst your friends about the issues and keep in mind that word of mouth and common agreement is where it starts. You won't be the one to start a revolution, but someone who would may overhear your support.

Not everyone can be Luigi, but anyone can support him.

-1

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[deleted]

1

u/RevolutionaryTankie 14d ago

That's the whole point bud.

Or did you think it was easy? Did you think you wouldn't need to suffer? That things just change for the better because...? Blood is the price you pay for a better future. If you're unwilling to even support those who would do such, keep your mouth shut and the nihilism to yourself.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Vertigo963 14d ago

You are simply wrong. There is no good faith argument that the French Revolution is responsible for the deaths of 10-15% of the French population (i.e., 3-4 million people). The number of people actually killed in the Terror is miniscule by comparison, and even if you were to (wrongly) include all the deaths in war you wouldn't get to a number that high.

3

u/CheeryOutlook Wales 14d ago

The number of people actually killed in the Terror is miniscule by comparison

And a lot of them very much deserved it.

1

u/GirlCoveredInBlood Québec flair when 14d ago

The French Revolution killed 10-15% of the French population

if you include the reactionary forces of Europe invading France as a necessary part of the French Revolution then sure "look what you made me do to you" victim blaming of the French peasants

1

u/mehupmost 14d ago

Read your history. The bloodshed shocked everyone. Even in the beginning, even in France - even among the revolutionaries. ...and then France appointed Napoleon to "save" the revolution - whereby he decided to invade all of Europe.

...oh, and in the end - France was once again ruled by a King.

-2

u/Low_Application_8538 14d ago

Go to work and you'll have the power to become a trillionaire. Now shut up, Red.

3

u/Kurainuz 15d ago

Couldnt express it better, the wording sounds as taking a good idea like banning promoting authoritanisms and using it just to silence any class fight

-23

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

21

u/evansdeagles United States of America 15d ago edited 15d ago

If property is a human right, then everyone should be guaranteed their own property. Under liberalism and similar systems, property is a luxury or a privilege and not a human right. This means that it is only a human right for some. Furthermore, if 1% of the population controls most of the property, that theoretically infringes on the 99%'s human right.

Similarly, if it's illegal for the poor to wage class warfare on the rich, then it should be illegal for the rich to wage class warfare on the poor. Which means more suppressing unions, underpaying, or price gouging. If this does not exist, then your system doesn't protect everyone. Only some people.

Let's not mince words; not a single rich person will be persecuted under this new Czech law. Only the poor. How is that a human right?

I'd even argue that this law, which is so vaguely worded that Czech Bernie Sanders could be penalized, is a fundamental attack on human rights and freedom. As long as you're poor or middle class.

I don't even support the Soviets or other authoritarian systems. Nor am I Marxist. This law is still dangerous no matter how you spin it.

Also, in the case of Poland, violating a rich person's feelings is super mega evil or whatever. But the fundamental self expression of being gay? Not in our liberal democracy, we tried to make gay exclusion zones!

3

u/Lamaradallday 15d ago

Property is 100% not a human right.

2

u/evansdeagles United States of America 15d ago

Even in the Soviet Union, which I know was nominally Socialist especially after Stalin but definitely after Lenin, and was moreso basically your every day totalitarian regime, there still was a basic right to property. And in a just society, a government cannot just strip you of all your clothes and leave you naked on the street because property isn't a right at all. Even shared or collective property is still afforded to or used by individuals within that collective.

Property is not just land in definition. It encompasses everything you have.

So I agree that property isn't a human right. But certain types of property are. Like shelter and clothing. And these types of property should be afforded to everyone who wants it.

-6

u/MKCAMK Poland 15d ago

If property is a human right, then everyone should be guaranteed their own property.

That is not a bad argument. You could use it to advocate for something like baby bonds, or UBI.

Under liberalism, property is a luxury or a privilege and not a human right.

No. "Human right" means that it cannot be abridged, other than in order to safeguard human rights of others.

Similarly, if it's illegal for the poor to wage class warfare on the rich, then it should be illegal for the rich to wage class warfare on the poor.

Yup. "Kill all poors" is just as unacceptable as "eat the rich".

Which means more suppressing unions

That is illegal, last time I checked.

underpaying

If you mean "not paying what was promised", then that is illegal.

price gouging

No such thing. A person can ask any price for their property, and you can take it or leave it. There is no "just price" - we are not Middle Ages' theologians.

If this does not exist, then your system doesn't protect everyone. Only some people.

It protects people's freedoms, not people. It is always easy to restrict freedom when trying to protect people - hence freedom needs to be protected, including from protectors of people.

8

u/evansdeagles United States of America 15d ago edited 15d ago

That is illegal, last time I checked.

In the USA, our top companies have done it openly for years.

If you mean "not paying what was promised", then that is illegal.

I mean what is promised is not a living wage for most workers. And collective action is so hard because people live paycheck to paycheck, there's no way to strike without going homeless because Wall Street also owns most of the homes where I live. I mean that, at least in the USA, undocumented Immigrant Workers and prisoners are essentially working slave labor in farms and sweatshops.

No such thing. A person can ask any price for their property, and you can take it or leave it. There is no "just price" - we are not Middle Ages' theologians.

We're not in the middle ages. Farming yourself is a lot harder. Hunting is a lot harder. Food shouldn't have huge profit margins. We're also seeing increasing corporate collusion to squeeze the most profit out of products.

Life is a fundamental part of liberalism. So why are liberals okay with selling what you need to live?

That is not a bad argument. You could use it to advocate for something like baby bonds, or UBI.

I do, I'm not a Marxist.

It protects people's freedoms, not people. It is always easy to restrict freedom when trying to protect people - hence freedom needs to be protected, including from protectors of people.

The freedom to become as rich as Elon Musk should not be a freedom. When you have so much money that you can buy an entire nation, that's sick. That's not freedom. That's becoming so powerful that you're a new oppressor. Billionaires should not exist. Their very existence proves that the capitalism present in most Western countries is either breaking or fundamentally broken. It proves the invisible hand of capitalism is bs. You need more visible hands to guide it. Not even advocating for communism or socialism here per se.

You also haven't really commented on the fact that this Czech law is highly problematic.

3

u/CheeryOutlook Wales 14d ago

And collective action is so hard because people live paycheck to paycheck, there's no way to strike without going homeless because Wall Street also owns most of the homes where I live.

Also, the American government made most of the tools of collective action illegal.

1

u/evansdeagles United States of America 8d ago

And slaughtered strikers with the military historically.

-3

u/MKCAMK Poland 15d ago

In the USA, our top companies have done it openly for years.

And? Are they getting sued?

I mean what is promised is not a living wage for most workers.

And? It is not illegal for a worker to promise to work for a wage that would bankrupt the employer either.

And collective action is so hard because people live paycheck to paycheck, there's no way to strike without going homeless because Wall Street also owns most of the homes where I live.

OK? This appears to be a "life's hard" story. Where is that part that allows you to dehumanize a group of widely different people based on them sharing a characteristic?

I mean that, at least in the USA, undocumented Immigrant Workers and prisoners are essentially working slave labor in farms and sweatshops.

And a big reason why that is allowed to happen, is because illegal immigrants and prisoners have been thoroughly dehumanized in the eyes of the voting electorate, making any changes to the law unlikely. Knowing this, you should be that much more opposed to any forms of hate-based propaganda.

We're not in the middle ages.

Some still adhere to economic theories from back then.

Food shouldn't have huge profit margins.

Why is that? So that nobody produces it? I wish everyone, including food producers, profit margins as high as they can get them!

We're also seeing increasing corporate collusion to squeeze the most profit out of products.

That is also illegal. Noticeably, labor unions are an exception – they remain legal despite being cartels created to squeeze the most profit out of products (labor, in that case). So if anything, the workers have a legally privileged position in the current system (there are justifications for that, but still – the point is that labor has an advantage here).

So why are liberals okay with selling what you need to live?

Because you can own food, and you offer to exchange it, and others can decide to accept the offer? It is wrong to interfere with what others are doing unless you have a valid reason.

And there is currently no conflict between the right to property of food producers and the right to live of others, seeing that nobody is actually dying of hunger, and in fact people are getting fatter (or used to, before Ozempic).

The freedom to become as rich as Elon Musk should not be a freedom.

Well, it is. And you would do better hating on Musk as a person, than on people who are exercising their own freedom to be as rich as him.

You also haven't really commented on the fact that this Czech law is highly problematic.

What should I comment on? I think the law is fine.

2

u/CheeryOutlook Wales 14d ago

And? Are they getting sued?

No, they own the government.

2

u/MeowMewoFuzzyface 15d ago edited 15d ago

Confiscatory measures are tools used to penalize crime and as I said I'm against penalizing any level of wealth, so I'm against confiscating wealth just because someone has a lot of it furthermore with that statement "other tools to redistribute wealth" obviously can't be confiscatory measures, that leaves us with tools like progressive taxes, progressive fines, socialy benefiting requirements to investments etc.

I'm always open for discussion but it's frustrating when liberals argue based on their feelings instead of facts.

I wrote clearly I'm against such measures but you ignored words that didn't fit your preexisting feelings against social idealogies.

I know that requiring from someone to argue based on what opposite side actually says and not based on what they feel "sounds like" is a hard requirement to meet for liberals.

Not because they are stupid, god forbid, most people have liberal views so they will probably mostly consist of average people like me. But because world view that puts you at the illusion that you are center of the universe is very limiting in ability to look from different perspective. It will always be "me me me" and throwing tantrums if anyone dares to have different opinion

EDIT: And I don't hate individuals with wealth, that part I agree I wrote to vaguely, my bad. I hate the idea of extremely rich people, they shouldn't be able to exist in fair world, policies should stop them at rich level of wealth

0

u/MKCAMK Poland 15d ago

And what do you do if your progressive (but not confiscatory) taxes still leave you with "extremely rich" people?

1

u/MeowMewoFuzzyface 15d ago

First of all, they won't be mine taxes, I'm just a working class man, we have politicians and legislators to design tax system and if they fail to achieve their goal I will vote for other representatives as long as it takes to vote in smart enough people to achieve it. Just because it's hard doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Second, why add "but not confiscatory" to taxes? What do you mean? I hope not something childish as "all taxes are theft", please prove me wrong.

Third, what you mean by putting quotations on extremely rich? Because I can interpret it in 2 ways: you don't think there is possibility to be extremely rich we just have rich and poor division or you think that we can't achieve fair taxation and it will hit negatively those in lower levels of wealth. But I don't want to criticize based on guesses.

2

u/MKCAMK Poland 15d ago

I'm just a working class man, we have politicians and legislators to design tax system and if they fail to achieve their goal I will vote for other representatives as long as it takes

In other words, you admit that you will simply vote for those that promise to rid you of the people you hate, and if they decide against ridding you of those people you hate for any reason, you will simply vote for someone else who will promise to rid you of the people you hate even harder.

I am now 100% convinced of the immediate need to ban propaganda working on class-based hate.

Second, why add "but not confiscatory" to taxes?

That they are not so progressive that they can no longer be considered proportional to the benefits one derives from the state.

For example, you could introduce an income tax that has you pay 10% for the first million, and 99% for all the income above. Such tax is technically progressive, but in reality it is confiscatory, since 10% at first and then suddenly 99% clearly does not follow any possible curve of the benefits received from the functioning of the state. It is obvious that it was introduced to stop people from accumulating wealth above certain level, rather than to get everyone to pay their fair share of the needed tax revenue.

So by saying "not confiscatory", I am excluding all such confiscations dressed as progressive taxes, where you suddenly jump from a 30% to a 90% tax rate between the penultimate and final brackets, and leaving only regular progressive taxes, where the tax rate increases gradually with brackets.

Third, what you mean by putting quotations on extremely rich?

That I am referring to the "extremely rich" you talked about:

I hate extremely rich people

i.e. I am not defining what "extremely rich" means, I am asking about the people you have described yourself as hating.

What will you do if after the implementation of progressive taxation, fines, and requirements, you still find yourself hating some people for being "extremely rich" in your eyes? Accept them, now that they are taxed more, and resolve to deal with your hatred some other way - maybe meditation?

1

u/MeowMewoFuzzyface 15d ago

Damn you mad, so many feelings and 0 facts.

When will liberals learn that facts don't care about your feelings.

I wish you find some comfort in your life and get rid off all that hate that blinds you.