Czech President Petr Pavel on Thursday signed an amendment to the country’s criminal code that criminalises the promotion of communist ideology, placing it on the same footing as Nazi propaganda.
The revised legislation introduces prison sentences of up to five years for anyone who “establishes, supports or promotes Nazi, communist, or other movements which demonstrably aim to suppress human rights and freedoms or incite racial, ethnic, national, religious or class-based hatred.”
The change follows calls from Czech historical institutions, including the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, to correct what they viewed as a legal imbalance.
[…]
It’s fascinating that in a world where to far right is surging everywhere, having captured the only superpower, with the richest man in the world throwing sieg heils on live primetime television, where we are entering an era of new concentration camps, these kinds of liberals find it useful to do stupid shit like this. Do they not see that if/when the fascists capture their presidency they will use exactly these laws to turn the screws on everyone to the left of the far right?
Honest question: how did you deduce that “kinds of liberals” did this? What sort of party does the Czech president belong to?
edit: I forgot that there will be much confusion about the US-American definition of “liberal”, which sucks, because it applies to anything left of fascism. Fwiw, liberalism has a specific definition most which also many Republicans subscribe to. Fuck the US political system. Thanks for whoever tried to clarify below, but the discourse is a mess.
He was widely lauded as a pro-western anti-populist liberal when he was elected. His political positions as re generally aligned with liberal parties across Europe.
As an European - which liberal parties? Did you mean libertarian?
I mean liberal. Pavel was supported by parties like ODS, TOP09, KDU, which are economically liberal parties. More generally, European liberalism is represented by groupings such as ALDE, or Renew. But European technocratic liberalism is strong in both the centre left and centre right parties all over Europe.
Thanks for clarifying, have a pointless internet point.
I’m sorry but class-based hatred is kinda my thing. I think it’s honestly fair to be against the people actively destroying society and the planet.
They almost make it sound like “class” is some sort of immutable thing you’re born into like ethnicity or skin color. When really it just means “rich people”. And if you’re rich beyond a certain threshold, it’s pretty much a given that you decided to walk all over poorer people to get there. Hate justified.
up to five years for anyone who “establishes, supports or promotes Nazi, communist, or other movements which demonstrably aim to suppress human rights and freedoms or incite racial, ethnic, national, religious or class-based hatred.”
I’m uncomfortable with this. Wouldn’t
up to five years for anyone who “establishes, supports or promotes movements which demonstrably aim to suppress human rights and freedoms or incite racial, ethnic, national, religious or class-based hatred.”
have been better?
While all that undoubtedly holds true for fascism, it does not do so for communism per se - just the authoritarian version of it which was developed in Russia in the past 100 years.
I know little about the political landscape in CZ, but isn’t the regime currently rightwing-populist? And maybe the communist party is Kreml-backed?
Unfortunately neither that nor the “legal imbalance” is explained in the article.
While all that undoubtedly holds true for fascism, it does not do so for communism per se
Why does it always hold true for fascism? If communism can be done without the bad stuff, so should fascism.
Fuck no, fuck fascism.
The only good fascist is a dead one!
Are you serious right now?
Yes. E.g. with the minimal definition of a corporate state, fascism can respect human rights and doesn’t have to “incite racial, ethnic, national, religious or class-based hatred.”
If communism can be done without the bad stuff, so should fascism.
“The bad stuff” is the very definition of fascism:
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe. Fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
“racial, ethnic, national, religious or class-based hatred” is pretty much built-in. No, it doesn’t actually say “hatred” in that text but if you don’t see the implication I can’t help you.
Hypothetical:
What about a fascist state that has a dictatorial leader and centralized autocracy that has the sole aim to move its people (and anybody else) to a ecological sustainable state. Perhaps the hypothetical fascist leader in this scenario has seen that the necessary steps to avoid climate based collapse (and so the end of modern society) can never be applied in a democracy and uses his (or her) dictatorial powers to form the world in this way? Militarism, furcible suppression of opposition and so on would be very handy in such a hypothetical “ecofascist” society.
Still bad? Even if it “saves humanity”?
I see what you’re getting at, but not every dictatorship is necessarily fascistic. If it wants to save all of humanity it cannot be purely fascistic because Othering is a substantial part of fascism. And that’s where your hypothetical falls apart. Also the militarism, which - together with othering - leads to expansionism by war, which cannot be good for our ecosphere.
I have played with the thought of global totalitarianism to save the planet from climate catastrophe myself. It might be our only chance, but it is extremely unlikely to happen before the climax of the catastrophe, and afterwards as well tbh.
If that’s what you’re going for, just call it something else. You won’t be doing your ideas any favors by calling them fascistic.
You won’t be doing your ideas any favors by calling them fascistic
The opposition will. Would it be easier to argue that the organisation is not fascist or that fascism isn’t inherently bad?
@Hotznplotzn I can totally understand the point of view of left-leaning people - in a world where fascism literally rose back from the ashes and is threatening the whole free world from the inside, a law like this seems just… odd?!?
However, keep in mind the fact that here in Eastern Europe communism caught a totalitarian shape, with regimes in Soviet puppet states systematically breaking human rights and suppressing political opposition. Protests were not allowed, freedom of expression was not guaranteed, and the political elite of the former regime was systematically destroyed.
Even after the Iron Curtain fell, former members of the communist apparatus managed to maintain power, one way or another, and sometimes even their Moscow links. The only way we truly managed to beat them were at the polls, and even there, barely, aided by the big cities and the diaspora in the West.
Here in Romania for example, FSN, and later PSD, successfully managed to take over the entire territorial network of the former communist party. So it was an easy win for them for over 30 years.
If such a law was passed in my country, I don’t think it would have any effect on the unions, as they do not use any communist insignia or whatnot. I think it is rather a way of bonding a permanent rapture with the past, by not allowing bad faith actors to make an apology of totalitarianism.
/my 2c
The thing is, that communism itself isn’t necessarily authoritarian (if we want to be exact communism would mean a complete ebolishment of the state and until this happens we have a somewhat “authoritarian” socialist era). It can be as free as every western country, but it can also be authoritarian. The main principles that are promoted when promoting communism are not authoritarian. Its the idea, that people should own their workplaces and have more freedom, which is quite the opposite.
The thing is, that communism itself isn’t necessarily authoritarian
I’ve heard this multiple times. In reality, communism became an enabler for authoritarian regimes. And especially in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union, it became as authoritarian as it could be.
Maybe the law could have been written in a way to allow “forms of communism that are not authoritarian” or something along the lines, but you don’t know how it could have ended up in practice. Maybe it would just provide some loopholes, maybe it could lead to the wrong people being prosecuted etc.
And people have been in contact for too long with the authoritarian form of communism to be able to figure any other form. For them, is the same as saying, “y’know, there are also some good fascists out there. Some kind racists, some great neo-Nazis etc”.
I guess that’s the same everywhere. There was a similar situation in Germany and Austria after World War II as former Nazi supporters made formidable careers in the public administration. From that point of view I feel somehow it is right to place all these authoritarian ideologies on equal footing. So I’d agree that it could prevent bad faith actors to make an apology for their crimes.
But my view is only that of an observer, I am among the lucky ones who never had to live under an autocratic regime. The Czech president and his generation certainly .know more on that.
Sounds like Czechia needs another Red army intervention.
And it sounds like you need a curb stomping tankie
a) The Red Army hasn’t existed for almost 80 years now.
b) If you like ruskys so much let them intervene in your ass for all I care, but leave us out of that.
Even more evidence in support of another intervention.
So you are heading to the next Russian draft office to join Putin’s army, right?
