Both should be banned, or neither should be banned
peter-m80 · 11h ago
Because an ideology to empower workers is the same as a fascist and racist regime... Yeah
somedude895 · 9h ago
Both are totalitarian ideologies which always have and continue to require the persecution of dissidents.
general1726 · 1h ago
Empowering them by working them to death in uranium mines without PPE. Yes that was an actual form of punishment in Czechoslovakia in 1950s right after communist putsch.
ETH_start · 7h ago
It's authoritarianism in the name of egalitarian ideals.
xigoi · 10h ago
Please read something about the history of communism in Czechia.
baal80spam · 10h ago
Or anywhere, for that matter.
spwa4 · 9h ago
Communism just turns an entire country into a single company that is the police as well and therefore that company doesn't even have a choice: it must use violence against its workers, just for public order. And, by definition, a lot of people can do better for themselves under communism and must be prevented from doing so ... That's the source of one criticism of communism: that communism effectively replaces money with violence. And what always goes wrong is that some psychopath realizes that a single central decision point that enforces it's decisions through violence ... yummy. People in Eastern Germany lived this, involuntarily: difference between fascism and communism ... there is no practical difference. Central undemocratic all-encompassing decision making enforced through violence is oppression, and of course, you cannot have democratic socialism. In theory it's obvious, and in practice, Israel tried that and they voted to end socialism as soon as it was realistic, even though a LOT of institutions in Israel are still communist, they are far less capitalist than China is.
CrackerNews · 2h ago
The state exists in the first place because it has a monopoly on violence. Doesn't matter whether it is democratic republic, fascist, or Marxist-Leninist. For MLs, violence is wielded on behalf of a state capitalism that constitutes itself of local governments based on local workplaces.
Money historically is a substitute for a form of violence through blood debts. The USSR believed money could be replaced with restricted labor vouchers to get rid of profit incentives and better direct economic flow more efficiently. However, this central planning approach failed to integrate itself in the rapidly growing pace of global trade, leading the Soviet bloc to be outpaced by the first world.
The example of democratic socialism or Israel has a nuance because state capitalism by nature cannot extract profits and surplus value as well as private enterprises, but they must exist alongside them and compete instead of existing in a wholly separate economy like the Soviet bloc did.
dlachausse · 2h ago
> Because an ideology to empower workers is the same as a fascist and racist regime
Communism has never achieved that, and given the numerous examples of its horrific failures over the 20th century, it is not reasonable to expect that it ever will.
I implore everyone to study the history of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Communism is at least as evil as fascism.
rixed · 7h ago
> 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.”
Why is it necessary to name some vague adversary? Why is it not enough to punish the promotion of authoritarianism and all forms of hatred?
antonymoose · 7h ago
Is that what the “or other movements” clause does?
In any case, I don’t see the harm in naming and shaming the historical worst of the worst?
CrackerNews · 2h ago
Banning the promotion of authoriarisnism and all forms of hatred is vague and could blowback onto the original writers of this legislation.
rgavuliak · 7h ago
Because Czechia has lived through communism so its propaganda is aimed at a concrete period in history, same with nazism.
Also - law needs to be concrete enough to be enforceable.
lostmsu · 11h ago
The way I read it is this law criminalizes discussing prohibition of ownership of production tools.
southernplaces7 · 12h ago
Oh the irony of this.... I detest communism and the sheer idiocy of so many of its tenets, as well as the particularly dogmatic (and fortunately archaic) rigidity of those who vomit them out. But no, you don't weaken an insidious ideology by banning its ideas.
krapp · 7h ago
How do you weaken an insidious ideology?
Letting insidious ideologies flourish and debating them in the marketplace of ideas doesn't work.
So how do you do it?
rightbyte · 4h ago
My feeling is that it in fact does work.
Most ideological death marches I have witnessed in my party have also been accompanied by lack of debate due to unilateral threats of de juro or de facto expulsion by some sort of manufactured consent that seems to come from nowhere.
dinfinity · 17m ago
Exactly. Broken ideologies and populism break down very fast in the face of proper debate, but that debate needs to be had and broadcasted very very loudly and broadly; Otherwise it is drowned out by the unchallenged propaganda.
CrackerNews · 2h ago
Political ideologies are similar to business ideologies. They are motivation to go change the equilibrium of political economy. "Insidious ideologies flourish" because there are people who think they will benefit from them and want to join the momentum. The "marketplace of ideas" is a debate between rivals competing for political power.
Solutions however won't be wholly accepted by the ruling class favored by the current ideologies since these "insidious ideologies" oppose their position and power and "mandate of heaven". The ruling class can risk subverting themselves or surrendering power.
southernplaces7 · 4h ago
>Letting insidious ideologies flourish and debating them in the marketplace of ideas doesn't work.
Aside from defending free expression as a matter of principal, yes it actually does work over time.
Except during a brief, half-baked spell of McCarthyist schizophrenia in the 50s, the United States, during the whole course of its massive cold war with the USSR, never saw fit to ban support for communism, the publication of communist literature, open talk in support of communism, or even the existence of an actual communist party inside its borders (thanks 1st amendment). Despite this, said ideology simply having to compete in the marketplace of ideas and practical reality, slowly turned into more of a running joke than any real threat in any meaningful sense to U.S society.
Bear in mind the obvious too: once you create the legal right to legally repress insidious ideas, it's a very small leap for successive administrations to also start banning "insidious" ideas, meaning anything they happen to not like out of some self-serving convenience. In the west, there has been, since 2016 in particular, an intermittent fever of force-fed fears about the so-called dangers of misinformation, one promoted by media and politicians both, only for that very same idea to be used by one robust list of real authoritarians specifically to crush disagreement with their particular variants of nonsense, mendacity and propaganda.
CrackerNews · 2h ago
US intelligence can and has infiltrated those groups and subverted them, and they can become intelligence assets themselves.
baal80spam · 10h ago
Communists killed more people than the Nazis did so it makes sense.
ted_bunny · 5h ago
This trope is a great timesaver that immediately identifies someone as confidently ignorant and not worth engaging.
benterix · 4h ago
The "what killed most people" in general is meaningless as you can manipulate it in a way to support any statement.
And yet, there is some truth in ascribing a lot of violent deaths to communist circumstances, at least in the last two centuries. The fact that, as opposed to Nazism, in Communism killing others was never a direct aim, in practice human life somehow lost much of its value and people were dying in various ways, both individually in prisons etc., as well as en masse like in Holodomor.
dlachausse · 2h ago
Can we at least agree that Communism and Nazism are both deeply flawed ideologies that result in mass suffering, death, and destruction?
Arguing which is worse is like arguing whether you’d rather have chlamydia or syphilis.
Also for the record, censorship is not the answer to fighting against destructive ideologies. Quite the opposite, education, is the answer.
krapp · 7h ago
I mean, if we're going by body count alone then religion easily outpaces communism and Nazism.
ngcazz · 13h ago
First they came for the communists.
alephnerd · 12h ago
First the ŠtB came for Masaryk...
(And Fascists+Nazis are banned as well in Czechia today, so the precedent exists)
ashoeafoot · 12h ago
First the fascists and the communists came to do common conquest, so first they came for the weaker nations ..
There was a whole akward year where all the comintern was ordered to praise and love hitler. True love to the idea is when you share poland over a dinner date.
lostmsu · 11h ago
> common conquest
As opposed to the British Empire and, essentially, everyone else who could?
jesterson · 11h ago
You must have forgotten whp have eventually conquered Hitler. Hint: it is not "allied forces", which are keen to claim so more and more in recent years.
somedude895 · 9h ago
The Soviets would have gone under without lend-lease from capitalist US. They've paid much more in blood for which they deserve all the respect in the world, but defeating the Nazis was a joint effort. It's really strange how some revisionists in the West want so desperately to minimise their own part in defeating evil.
jesterson · 3h ago
> The Soviets would have gone under without lend-lease from capitalist US
That story has been heard many times. The reality is - we would never know that, so we can speculate as much as we would like.
dlachausse · 2h ago
It was a joint effort. Most serious World War II historians acknowledge that there were many important efforts among all of the Allies and the underground resistance in occupied nations. The siege of Stalingrad was crucial to the downfall of the Third Reich, but so was Normandy, the North Africa campaign, and the invasion of Italy.
Opening up a second front pushed the Wehrmacht too thin, ensuring Allied victory. It is entirely possible that the Soviets would have ultimately defeated Hitler, but the actions by the Western Allies hastened Nazi Germany’s demise.
Money historically is a substitute for a form of violence through blood debts. The USSR believed money could be replaced with restricted labor vouchers to get rid of profit incentives and better direct economic flow more efficiently. However, this central planning approach failed to integrate itself in the rapidly growing pace of global trade, leading the Soviet bloc to be outpaced by the first world.
The example of democratic socialism or Israel has a nuance because state capitalism by nature cannot extract profits and surplus value as well as private enterprises, but they must exist alongside them and compete instead of existing in a wholly separate economy like the Soviet bloc did.
Communism has never achieved that, and given the numerous examples of its horrific failures over the 20th century, it is not reasonable to expect that it ever will.
I implore everyone to study the history of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Communism is at least as evil as fascism.
Why is it necessary to name some vague adversary? Why is it not enough to punish the promotion of authoritarianism and all forms of hatred?
In any case, I don’t see the harm in naming and shaming the historical worst of the worst?
Also - law needs to be concrete enough to be enforceable.
Letting insidious ideologies flourish and debating them in the marketplace of ideas doesn't work.
So how do you do it?
Most ideological death marches I have witnessed in my party have also been accompanied by lack of debate due to unilateral threats of de juro or de facto expulsion by some sort of manufactured consent that seems to come from nowhere.
Solutions however won't be wholly accepted by the ruling class favored by the current ideologies since these "insidious ideologies" oppose their position and power and "mandate of heaven". The ruling class can risk subverting themselves or surrendering power.
Aside from defending free expression as a matter of principal, yes it actually does work over time.
Except during a brief, half-baked spell of McCarthyist schizophrenia in the 50s, the United States, during the whole course of its massive cold war with the USSR, never saw fit to ban support for communism, the publication of communist literature, open talk in support of communism, or even the existence of an actual communist party inside its borders (thanks 1st amendment). Despite this, said ideology simply having to compete in the marketplace of ideas and practical reality, slowly turned into more of a running joke than any real threat in any meaningful sense to U.S society.
Bear in mind the obvious too: once you create the legal right to legally repress insidious ideas, it's a very small leap for successive administrations to also start banning "insidious" ideas, meaning anything they happen to not like out of some self-serving convenience. In the west, there has been, since 2016 in particular, an intermittent fever of force-fed fears about the so-called dangers of misinformation, one promoted by media and politicians both, only for that very same idea to be used by one robust list of real authoritarians specifically to crush disagreement with their particular variants of nonsense, mendacity and propaganda.
And yet, there is some truth in ascribing a lot of violent deaths to communist circumstances, at least in the last two centuries. The fact that, as opposed to Nazism, in Communism killing others was never a direct aim, in practice human life somehow lost much of its value and people were dying in various ways, both individually in prisons etc., as well as en masse like in Holodomor.
Arguing which is worse is like arguing whether you’d rather have chlamydia or syphilis.
Also for the record, censorship is not the answer to fighting against destructive ideologies. Quite the opposite, education, is the answer.
(And Fascists+Nazis are banned as well in Czechia today, so the precedent exists)
There was a whole akward year where all the comintern was ordered to praise and love hitler. True love to the idea is when you share poland over a dinner date.
As opposed to the British Empire and, essentially, everyone else who could?
That story has been heard many times. The reality is - we would never know that, so we can speculate as much as we would like.
Opening up a second front pushed the Wehrmacht too thin, ensuring Allied victory. It is entirely possible that the Soviets would have ultimately defeated Hitler, but the actions by the Western Allies hastened Nazi Germany’s demise.