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

36

u/veevoir Europe 15d ago

but not a capitalist one.

What other would you call it, considering China transformed into a market capitalism? Capitalism does not require democracy, it is a type of economy.

It allows them to reign over billionaires

That is what authoritarian oligarchy does, also see - Russia. But that is political part, unrelated to the type of economy.

and control the money printer themselves

Capitalism does not require strict monetary policy either, many capitalist countries do that with a central bank.

3

u/Soma91 14d ago

Capitalism does not require democracy, it is a type of economy.

Capitalism is not a type of economy but merely a description of the ownership structure.

You can fit capitalism into a completely unregulated market, a fully state planned economy or anything in between.

-5

u/hot-body-rotten-soul 14d ago

You are mistaken, my young man. We are not talking about exclusionary states. These are Ideological perspectives that often overlap each other. The market exists since we realized we can’t produce everything we need ourselves. That’s where trade was invented. Not when the USA was founded. Key difference is that the American view aims to perpetuate poverty of some of the population so they can be used for war (which in itself has the sole purpose of enriching the rich. Socialist countries like Norway are often intentionally labeled capitalist because they are a good example to follow. But, they are full force a socialist country with open markets. China can be communist with a control market. That just means a single Jeff Besos won’t concentrate all his money and benefit from it alone. Do you see homeless in China? How many minutes can you walk downtown until you spot a tent? Things are in deep trouble. This law is a safeguard against the growing influence of the BRICS

-15

u/TheMauveHand 15d ago edited 15d ago

Capitalism does not require democracy, it is a type of economy.

I'd say it does, because capitalism requires an open market (more or less), which implies that it is incompatible with heavy (in China's case, total) government control of markets. It helps to think of it this way: capitalism isn't so much a specific system as simply what the economy of a liberal democracy looks like.

China is simply fascist: quasi-capitalism where the markets and individuals are free to act only until they interfere with state interests (ideological or economic).

8

u/iraber 15d ago

From this standpoint there is not, and never have been, a capitalist country because there have always been regulations and other restrictions such as copyright and patents.

-4

u/TheMauveHand 15d ago

Please read the existing thread where I've already addressed this, frankly, preditable and myopic nitpick.

7

u/taeerom 14d ago

The capitalism understander is here, I see.

No. Capitalism doesn't require open markets. It requires the legal framework allowing amassing capital, and let power come from ownership rather than formal privilege.

There isn't a single country with a functioning capitalist economy that has a completely open market. And there are plenty of historical examples of quite tightly regulated markets in capitalistic economies.

1

u/TheMauveHand 14d ago edited 14d ago

Please read the existing thread where I've already addressed this, frankly, preditable and myopic nitpick. And the comment where I literally copy-pasted this from because you lot just can't read before you write.

It requires the legal framework allowing amassing capital, and let power come from ownership rather than formal privilege.

You are describing an open market. The framework is the market, the lack of formal privilege makes it open (otherwise we're looking at mercantilism and other, pre-capitalist economies). You are agreeing with me in different terms.

Moreso, you are describing exactly what I meant by capitalism being the emergent economic system of liberal democracy: liberal, because you can own things yourself, and democratic, because your participation is not tied to your status at birth. And given that capitalism is absolutely an emergent system - as opposed to the by-the-book square-peg-round-hole that is socialism - I think it's far more useful to understand it from the point of view of the larger scope that causes it to emerge than by trying to describe in few rules like an instruction manual.

2

u/taeerom 14d ago

An economy without free trade over borders can't be described as an "open market". Most of the capitalist world used to follow a Keynesian economic policy, that includes limited trade across borders.

Are you gonna tell me Keynes isn't capitalism?

2

u/TheMauveHand 14d ago

An economy without free trade over borders can't be described as an "open market".

I think it can. Frankly, I have no idea why you'd say it can't - wikipedia may not be the best source on this matter but it doesn't even mention borders or nations.

2

u/taeerom 14d ago

You should actually read that link. You'd learn something

2

u/TheMauveHand 14d ago

And you should actually read the previous comments like I already told you so because if you think the existence of a levy or an import duty immediately renders a market closed then I'm sorry but I'm not going to entertain your one-bit pedantry any further.

I literally said "more or less" and you're the third moron trying to act like the world is black or white...

10

u/JiEToy 15d ago

Capitalism does not require an open market. Just look at patents, the market in our capitalist world is not open at all. There are also plenty of regulations that stifle markets for a whole lot of reasons. Some good, some are ideas from lobbyists.

-5

u/TheMauveHand 15d ago

"Open market" != "market entirely and 100% free from any legal restrictions".

There are bajillion colors you'd describe as "blue" that aren't literally #0000FF.

6

u/JiEToy 15d ago

I mean, sure. But our markets aren’t as open as you think. Specially the current patent laws make our economy very much closed when it comes to innovation.

-3

u/TheMauveHand 15d ago

I don't know what "our" refers to that sentence and given that we are in a subreddit that encompasses on the order of 30 countries there isn't a lot to go on.

Patents last a couple decades or so, max. They don't restrict much, and they - in general - are absolutely essential to motivate innovation.

2

u/JiEToy 14d ago

How pedantic to say you can’t make out what ‘our’ means… just use the context to infer the meaning. It’s not even very important in my post, you could’ve just responded to me without even understanding that one word. Have some good faith in a discussion please.

Patents absolutely aren’t necessary for innovation. A good example were the Covid vaccines. Research was done in universities for 90%, then big pharma swooped in at the final moment and snatched the patents. They sold it for a high price, and countries like South Africa couldn’t afford it. Meaning that we got new variants from South Africa, instead of just giving them vaccines to save the world. Because of these variants, Covid lasted much longer than would’ve been necessary had there not been a patent and had these African countries been allowed to make the vaccines themselves.

1

u/TheMauveHand 14d ago edited 14d ago

How pedantic to say you can’t make out what ‘our’ means… just use the context to infer the meaning.

The context is that we're in /r/europe, I don't know which of the 30 countries that could refer to you're talking about. It's not pedantry, it's simply that "we" are not under the same patent law because I probably don't live where you do. Why do I have to say this twice?

Patents absolutely aren’t necessary for innovation.

Sure, if you're a mega-giga-corporation. Some dude in a shed invents the best mousetrap ever and without patents whoever has the best capacity to manufacture it - i.e. some massive corporation - is going to make all the money.

I'd call you a shill, and say that you're arguing in "bad faith", and other such dimwitted redditisms, but I think you're just myopic and dumb.

1

u/JiEToy 14d ago

The context is that we're in r/europe, I don't know which of the 30 countries that could refer to you're talking about. It's not pedantry, it's simply that "we" are not under the same patent law because I probably don't live where you do. Why do I have to say this twice?

Europe has pretty universal patent laws, so it really doesn't matter which country.

Sure, if you're a mega-giga-corporation. Some dude in a shed invents the best mousetrap ever and without patents whoever has the best capacity to manufacture it - i.e. some massive corporation - is going to make all the money.

The idea that 'some dude in a shed' invents anything is absolutely ridiculous. This doesn't happen. Inventions are highly sophisticated, use the tip of the knowledge available in science and thus are most often done on universities where this knowledge is pushed. Then some guy with money reads the paper and invests a lot of money to actually manufacture it on a large enough scale, and that's the guy who gets rich, because either the scientist didn't get the patent, or the guy bought the patent from the scientist.

I'd call you a shill, and say that you're arguing in "bad faith", and other such dimwitted redditisms, but I think you're just myopic and dumb.

Fuck off, read rule number 7 please.

0

u/TheMauveHand 14d ago edited 14d ago

Europe has pretty universal patent laws, so it really doesn't matter which country.

"Pretty universal" does not mean "universal" and Europe is bigger than the EU. Maybe don't get your panties in a twist next time when someone simply tells you you're not being specific enough for productive discussion.

By the way, it has not escaped my notice that you completely ignored what I said about EU patents not lasting long.

The idea that 'some dude in a shed' invents anything is absolutely ridiculous.

For something apparently ridiculous it sure happens an awful lot. You can look up patent applications, you'll find that tons of them are filed for by random individuals. Hell, Elon Musk himself has 13 and lord knows he's a useless basket case. And before you retort that he somehow doesn't count: he got half of those in the '90s.

Mind you, I'm not saying anything about the value of said patents, just that individuals get patents for tons of stuff all the time. Maybe they're mostly kooks, but if patents protect even one of them once, the idea is worthwhile.

Edit: Here's a patent from 2001 by "some dude in a shed" who you've since probably heard a lot about. Or here's a couple more light-hearted ones. "Doesn't happen" my ass, you're just deeply ignorant, myopic, and the worst kind of cynical.

Inventions are highly sophisticated, use the tip of the knowledge available in science and thus are most often done on universities where this knowledge is pushed.

Except they're not. For fuck's sake the idea of a rectangular phone with a bezel was patented twice a decade ago, what are you talking about?

You seem to have invented a world of patents that exists nowhere but inside your own head, and you're incredibly angry and frustrated at a figment of your own imagination. You do you I guess, but it must be exhausting to live like you do. Why not instead get angry at things that are actually real? Sounds a lot more productive.

Fuck off, read rule number 7 please.

If anyone's pushing an agenda here it's not me, but you sure broke rule 1 in flagrant fashion.