Banning the KSČM? Their shoulders are red from slapping!

From patting our shoulders on how we can protect that democracy, we will have shoulders ore. There will be no difference between those who want to ban communists and between communists themselves. Both sides have the same practices: forbidding people to think through violence.


Another proposal for a ban on the KSČM is being born in the highest political circles. After the stormy speech of the communist Grebeníček against the law on anti-communist resistance (when the law likened it to the legalization of terrorism), the topic gained strength.

Most of the ministers of the current government are said to be in favor of banning the KSČM. Should we really ban them?

We will recommend wind, rain heads, I think

For a long time, the famous "communists would become extinct" was taken as the main argument against the KSČM ban. But lo and behold, they're not dying. They are still elected by over 10% of voters. However, is this a reason for banning the KSČM?

Isn't it that over 10% of people still vote for the KSČM rather just as an example of who also lives among us? That (more or less) people who adore this dubious ideology live among us? Isn't that more an example of the thinking of a part of our society?

Disable the KSČMbecause he announces some thoughts and because someone chooses them for them, it's the same as forbidding (repeal by law) autumn, as a prevention against the flu. We order wind, rain, it used to be said. We command the heads, I think, they say today.

By banning the KSČM, we will do nothing with the group of voters who make up the current electorate of more than 10%. She will continue to vote for the Communists, only in other coats. The communist man is not directly who he chooses, but what his values ​​are. We did not get rid of the communists after 1989 by all voting for other parties. No matter who they elected, many people remained (and remain) communists. It does not matter whether he elects the ODS, the Greens or the KSČM.

After all, the fact that many of us want to ban communists is proof that many of us are still communists. The regime of the Socialist Establishment Democracy is said to need to be protected. By banning a party, an ideology, we will not achieve anything. Democracy is not the guarantor of anything - it is a majority vote and as such can hardly be the guarantor of the "protection" of any minority (= individual) rights. Where the rights of the individual worthy of protection are defined by the majority or the strongest group, there is no such thing as "natural protection of freedom."

If, over time, we ban all parties that "threaten democracy" from the Workers' Party, we will soon reach religious extremists (KDU-ČSL) and terrorists (the Greens) through the KSČM, and the only parties that will be able to compete freely will be two central parties, which will differ from each other basically only in name (ODS and CSSD). Then there will be nothing easier than for those who are a "threat to democracy" to join the two parties and start committing atrocities in the shadow of indifference.

You do not forbid people's thoughts. On the contrary. If trying to do something like this is a normal part of our political life, we will make it a "normal" phenomenon. Then we make extremists (communists and others) ordinary citizens and politicians. However, not by approaching us and stop defending some "extreme" and "offensive" views, but by approaching them. From slapping our shoulders on how we can protect that democracy, we will have red shoulders. There will be no difference between those who want to ban communists and between communists themselves. Both sides have the same practices: forbidding people to think through violence.

Let them talk

Competition is the key to efficiency. This is true everywhere, even in the "market of political ideas and thoughts". Let's note the conditions under which the Communist Party came to power in our country. It was in the elections - but we can hardly call these elections "standard" and "free". The whole constellation before the war of important political parties was banned. Political competition was strictly limited to a very small number of parties. Little competition - the Communist Party won. The situation was similar in Germany at the time of Hitler's accession.

Let the Communists really speak. Let's leave them in their communist party. If we silence them, we won't actually know what they want. And then? Then many of us can say that they weren't so bad after all, and something from their time can be reintroduced - if, Like them, we forbid thoughts.

Lobotomy or shoot straight?

Imagine that there was not a single communist on earth. What would happen? Well, the KSČM probably would not exist, like many other, often "big" parties today.

Imagine that only communists lived on earth. What would happen? Well, there would probably be a KSČM. There might be a KSČM 2… and so on.

Political parties do not exist and do not act on their own. People are acting. The party consists of its members, voters, officials, supporters. An exactly indefinable and indefinable group of people. If we ban the party (KSČM), it will have the same effect as if we banned autumn by law to prevent flu and colds. The flu and colds would still be here, we would just call it "summer flu" or "winter flu". If we banned the flu, we would call it "summer weird" or "winter weird". But we would still be sick. Like in the fall, like when we have the flu.

In other words, by banning a party, we ban the virtual entity. As if we were disabling the "window" label - the windows would still be here. It wouldn't disappear. People would like them, so she would still be here. The laws would do nothing about it.

If we want to ban any thoughts, we have to reach people. But how to do it? Imagine banning the ODS. Will her constituents disappear? Its officials, members, sponsors? No, they just start working elsewhere. Nothing changes, everything goes on. Will we ban public activities for all those who sympathize with the ODS? Will we do ideological tests before entering the polling station or before making a public statement on a political topic to ban the spread of ODS ideas? Are we going to do a lobotomy on all these people and change their minds? Or will we shoot them straight away in case of failure, in case of failure? And what is the difference between us and the communists?


  1. To all the discussants - I would like to know how old you are, if you know so well what it was 23 years ago - it must be more than 38. Yet you are so erudite - that communists would be beaten out of conviction and not of experience?

  2. Gentlemen, you are forgetting the lessons of history. Democratic social democracy helped Hitler through parliamentary power. She didn't stop him even when he started liquidating the communists. Then came the Social Democrats. Today, the right is trying to liquidate the legal parliamentary party - the KSČM. You can also come after her. You will have to choose.

  3. to Kaktusak: The first so-called Victorious February was non-violent, but under threat of violence. Armed party gangs in the streets of cities ready to fight, like a robbery without a single shot, cannot be considered nonviolent. Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mao and others have violence not only as a historically factual part of their political struggle (except Marx), but in their political considerations they count on violence and even praise it…
    Mr. Strnad: the KSČM is a different party, but it was formed purely from the KSČ and therefore its members probably did not completely change their views by the transition from the Czechoslovak Communist Party to the Czech. Otherwise, what I wrote above applies - communism will achieve nothing without violence, and in history, communists ALWAYS, when they could, usurped power and abolished free elections. How could the working class seize power when there are a handful of workers? What, then, would communism mean if a revolution were denied, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the means of production would be left in the hands of the capitalists, and free elections would remain, which both Marx and Lenin did not recognize? Wherever the communists ruled, there was an end to the free expression of opinion, movement, political activity. The number of victims directly killed in connection with communist ideology is millions. Unfortunately, history speaks for itself. If you are talking about a program or a party statement, I would like to remind you that the Communists in our country and elsewhere in the world have not announced what they will do after taking power moci. or did they proclaim in 1946 the executions and imprisonment of political opponents, violent collectivization, theft of property, party purges and full dependence on orders from the USSR?

  4. A note on Kruton.
    Apparently, sir, you're confusing two sides. In terms of historical development, the first was the KS Czechoslovakia. It has expired, it has not existed for 20 years.
    Now there is the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia - and it is not the same!
    I do not take your opinions. I can only know - how are you, where are you - come to this: "… If a group of people is planning a criminal act = this is how the violent revolution of the proletariat could be understood, then"… etc. I emphasize - no one and nowhere throughout the existence of the KSČM in no program, performance or elsewhere - he could not meet with the KSČM defending: the dictatorship of the proletariat and the forcible takeover of power by revolutionary struggle !!! This is completely out of the question. This is simply not possible in connection with the KSČM! So why are you pushing something that doesn't really exist for the KSČM ???

  5. I only partially agree with the statement about the attempt to corrupt the KSČM by Jiří DOLEJŠ and Čeńek MILOTA. They both flew stupidly to provocateurs. However, unlike the current corruption scandals of the right-wing parties, this was only an intention = the factual nature of the crime was not fulfilled. Therefore, I continue to argue that the KSČM is the only uncorrupt political party in the Chamber of Deputies.

  6. Prior to Hitler's rise, there was no restriction or small competition between parties and ideas. However, Hitler came to power only with the support of the "democratic" right.
    Today's regime stole all property from the communists right after the privatization coup. Everything had to be built from scratch, from donations, membership dues and election rewards.
    The Communists do not plan any criminal action, and the revolution does not have to be violent, as the example of our Victorious February proves.
    The allegations of non-corruption of the KSČM were significantly violated by Messrs. Dolejš et al.

  7. You can't forbid the way you think, you're right. However, it is possible to outlaw a certain way of acting. It does not make sense to ban autumn or a human group, but the KSČM's ban is to cut off this group of people from a specific historical organization that has unfairly acquired considerable property, which makes it much easier for this group to act. The liquidation of the Communist Party (M) is not the same case as the ban on Vandas' DS (although it seems so at first glance). Banning any ideology is meaningless. The ban on extreme (communist) parties is problematic because the biggest problem is the definition of extremism. A ban on extreme behavior by individuals is necessary (if we are to talk about the meaningfulness of any state at all). Confiscation of the structure of a specific Communist Party would be justified for historical reasons (as well as a parallel with the historical NSDAP). Establishing a line between the continuous transition between a violent ideology, the promotion of that ideology, and the violence of that ideology is at the heart of the problem, and the debate revolves around it…

  8. You confuse two different things, namely the right to an opinion and the right to enforce any act. Communists may still have their views, but the law could prohibit their political presentation and promotion (as with other views and movements) and the application of their ideas in practice. If a group of people is planning a criminal act (this is how the violent revolution of the proletariat could be simply understood), then the state should probably not just watch and wait for it to turn out. Moreover, the Communists themselves reject the liberal parliamentary democratic competition of the parties as a bourgeois democratic formalism and do not recognize its mechanisms and processes, and therefore will not miss them. Basically, it would not be a moral problem either, because it would only be the exclusion of the competitor from the competition, because he does not recognize the rules of the game, and because he does not recognize the competition itself, and that is common sense.

  9. Your article is interesting in its content, but too long. The essence of the KSČM JUDr Vojtěch Filip put it rightly when he said in the Chamber of Deputies: LAW IS THE WILL OF CLASS GOVERNMENTS (= RULING POLITICAL PARTIES) INCREASED BY LAW… existence of the KSČM. What makes the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia exceptional - it is the only uncorrupt party in the Chamber - it is the only truly left-wing party - it is a consistently opposition party - it is a consistently democratic party - and it is a parliamentary party. To bring above the Communist Party the ortel of political death = the fascist method of political terror! The crisis of Czech capitalism irresistibly results in the fascination of the whole society. These 4 parliamentary parties should then expand their names by the adjective FAŠISTICKÁ. Members of the Communist Party will certainly not change the name of the Communist Party. What will happen when the KSČM will not? The big game on pseudoDEMKRACII will end.ANI ONE OF THE PARTIES TO DATE WILL NOT GET A SINGLE VOTE FROM KSČM VOTERS! Free elections will end! Voters who have been prevented from
    no KSČM will vote, they will rightly consider all other elections to be invalid and will boycott the election result. Hatred among citizens will increase dramatically. And worst of all (because the KSČM would die out anyway or become a non-parliamentary party) - every communist becomes a fearless fighter for the holy faith - something like once Christians thrown to lions. One thing I don't know: does this capitalist society long for crimes overflowing with political prisoners ???

  10. If 10% voted for the NSČM (Nazi), there would be no reason not to ban it. Rather, maybe the other way around. Democracy has already passed through the 20th century and it is not the naive girl who allows everything to the masters.

  11. Until I get tired, I repeat 🙂 the recommendation to study the newly published book:

    It is about the history of social (democratic, national, etc.) parties. Somehow, the supporters of democracy are somehow hiding it. I guess he knows why. The worst is that they originated in Austria-Hungary and thus in our country, and deservedly, this immorality returned to us with interest, and to this day we bear the consequences of our great-grandfathers, who want to abolish the monarchy, faith, property, "inequality" of people,

Comments are off.