Czech president signs law criminalising communist propaganda(euractiv.com)
euractiv.com
Czech president signs law criminalising communist propaganda
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/czech-president-signs-law-criminalising-communist-propaganda/
53 comments
The way I read it is this law criminalizes discussing prohibition of ownership of production tools.
No. it pretty specifically prohibits the establishment, support or promotion of particular movements. It does not mention discussion, or even discussion of specific ideas that happen to be part of a prohibited movements ideology. You can say 'ownership of production tools should be prohibited', but you can't say 'and that is why Communism is great'. You probably shouldn't rate Das Kapital more than 3 stars, just to be sure.
The idea of my comment was that Communism is (as in the definition) a prohibition of ownership of production tools and nothing else. Every other bit of baggage it is associated with these days is as orthogonal to it as color is orthogonal to height.
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.
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?
Letting insidious ideologies flourish and debating them in the marketplace of ideas doesn't work.
So how do you do it?
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
>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.
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.
US intelligence can and has infiltrated those groups and subverted them, and they can become intelligence assets themselves.
>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.
More people in the US take communism and socialism seriously as an ideology than ever did during the Cold War.
I also doubt that communism as an ideology was ever a "threat" in any meaningful sense. Actual communist states, sure, but collectivist ideology can be found everywhere in American culture, from social welfare programs to unions and progressive activism. The current frontrunner for mayor of New York is a self-described socialist.
And it didn't work with the Nazis - we debated and denounced that for nearly a century and white supremacist ideology is still popular. Antivax has become not just mainstream but integrated into American policy. Conspiracy theories, racial realism, UFOs, antisemitism, all of it debated and criticized ad nauseum and ad infinitum and none of it has gone away.
>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.
Fair, but I really don't see how letting disinformation and hate run rampant and answering it only with polite debate and criticism when the authoritarians control the means of communication and discourse is much better. Part of combating harmful ideas (after recognizing that such a thing exists and truth has value) has to be attempting to limit the rate at which such ideas propagate, and for that mere debate simply isn't enough.
Maybe the state isn't the solution but free speech alone also isn't.
More people in the US take communism and socialism seriously as an ideology than ever did during the Cold War.
I also doubt that communism as an ideology was ever a "threat" in any meaningful sense. Actual communist states, sure, but collectivist ideology can be found everywhere in American culture, from social welfare programs to unions and progressive activism. The current frontrunner for mayor of New York is a self-described socialist.
And it didn't work with the Nazis - we debated and denounced that for nearly a century and white supremacist ideology is still popular. Antivax has become not just mainstream but integrated into American policy. Conspiracy theories, racial realism, UFOs, antisemitism, all of it debated and criticized ad nauseum and ad infinitum and none of it has gone away.
>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.
Fair, but I really don't see how letting disinformation and hate run rampant and answering it only with polite debate and criticism when the authoritarians control the means of communication and discourse is much better. Part of combating harmful ideas (after recognizing that such a thing exists and truth has value) has to be attempting to limit the rate at which such ideas propagate, and for that mere debate simply isn't enough.
Maybe the state isn't the solution but free speech alone also isn't.
> 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?
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?
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?
In any case, I don’t see the harm in naming and shaming the historical worst of the worst?
Banning the promotion of authoriarisnism and all forms of hatred is vague and could blowback onto the original writers of this legislation.
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.
Also - law needs to be concrete enough to be enforceable.
Communists killed more people than the Nazis did so it makes sense.
This trope is a great timesaver that immediately identifies someone as confidently ignorant and not worth engaging.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I mean, if we're going by body count alone then religion easily outpaces communism and Nazism.
I doubt it. Even if you sum up all Jihads, Crusades, some honor killing bullshit then it would probably still be less than both commies and nazis. Earth not so long ago was a pretty empty place. I guess more people died from plagues than religion itself.
We're not comparing the sum total of all possible means by which humans can die, we're comparing ideologies committing willful murder, and more abstractly, theism versus atheism.
Religion has been killing people for thousands of years, whereas Nazism and Communism haven't even existed for centuries.
There is no rational calculus by which one can justify banning Nazi and Communist ideology because of their death tolls and extremism and not also ban the practice of every major religion.
Religion has been killing people for thousands of years, whereas Nazism and Communism haven't even existed for centuries.
There is no rational calculus by which one can justify banning Nazi and Communist ideology because of their death tolls and extremism and not also ban the practice of every major religion.
First they came for the communists.
First the ŠtB came for Masaryk...
(And Fascists+Nazis are banned as well in Czechia today, so the precedent exists)
(And Fascists+Nazis are banned as well in Czechia today, so the precedent exists)
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.
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.
> common conquest
As opposed to the British Empire and, essentially, everyone else who could?
As opposed to the British Empire and, essentially, everyone else who could?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Again it's a pure speculation. If I give you $100 and you conquer a villain while losing all your family while I will spend the time in restaurant. Can I say I actually conquered the villain? Sure, if I want to think i did. Thats how "allied forces" behave.
The history is being rewritten all the times and "serious historians" are nothing but grifters on the runway.
The history is being rewritten all the times and "serious historians" are nothing but grifters on the runway.
Earlier you wrote, <<You must have forgotten whp have eventually conquered Hitler. Hint: it is not "allied forces">>.
Well which is it: the Soviets conquered Hitler or we would never know who conquered Hitler?
Well which is it: the Soviets conquered Hitler or we would never know who conquered Hitler?