Czechs Criminalize Communist Propaganda, U.S. Kids Swoon Over Socialism.
Posted by Ed Folsom, September 10, 2025.
The inspiration for this post comes from three sources:
- A news item about a new law in the Czech Republic that explicitly places Communism on the level of Naziism, calling for a prison sentence 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.”
- News of a recent poll showing that 62% of Americans between ages 18 and 29 hold a “favorable view” of socialism and 34% hold a “favorable view” of communism.
- A recently resurfaced video clip of New York City mayoral candidate, Democrat Party nominee, and Democratic Socialist, Zohran Mamdani, discussing the importance to the Democratic Socialists of America of pursuing the issues they “firmly believe in,” such as “the end goal of seizing the means of production” (See here, beginning after 9:30).
A lot of the kids don’t know what socialism is, but Zohran Mamdani does.
The Czechs Criminalize Communist Propaganda.
The Czech Republic, like many if not all countries in Europe, already outlaws the promotion of Naziism. But its new law acknowledges the odious nature of communism and places it on the same plane as Naziism. As reported here, Kamil Nedvedicky, a deputy director at the Czech Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes (USTR) explained: “The aim of this draft was to eliminate an obviously unfair distinction between two criminal totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century.”
If you’re going to outlaw the promotion of Naziism, there isn’t a single good reason not to outlaw the promotion of communism right along with it. One of the great political advantages the left enjoys is using Nazis and “fascists” as the great-evil foil for their own communist/socialist opposite-of-Nazi, good-guy propaganda.
And yet, communism’s death toll from political executions, forced labor, and starvation/collectivization campaigns is in the tens of millions; by some calculations as much as 100 million. Another popular variation on the left’s good versus evil propaganda is: “We are love. They are hate.” But as a matter of fact, these people just might “love” you to literal death if you fall into a category they love to hate. In fact, as I write this, the political assassination of Charlie Kirk is just hours old.
Criminalizing disfavored speech is bad policy; certainly not the American way, given our first amendment and its primacy in our Constitution’s bill of rights. But, for countries that already ban the promotion of Naziism, it makes perfect sense for those that suffered under the National Socialist German Workers Party and then for another 45 or more years under communist rule to call communism out for what it is – an evil totalitarian ideology on the moral plane of Naziism.
Poland and Lithuania also have laws that make it a crime to publicly display or promote communist or Nazi symbols or ideas. Both countries know Naziism and communism all too well. In August of 1939, Poland and Lithuania, along with Latvia and Estonia, were divided up, without their consent, by secret agreement under the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact between the Soviet Communists and the German National Socialists. The Czechs, the Poles, and the Lithuanians know too much to have any communist good v. fascist evil, or communist love v. fascist hate illusions.
The Recent Polling Showing High Favorability Ratings for Socialism and Communism Among America’s Young.
Regarding the high favorability rating for socialism and communism among America’s young, the Cato Institute reports:
“A recent survey by the Cato Institute and YouGov paints a troubling picture: 62 percent of Americans aged 18–29 say they hold a ‘favorable view’ of socialism, and 34 percent say the same of communism. This is shocking given that communism is responsible for 100 million deaths worldwide and is rooted in socialism, the same philosophy that spawned both Mussolini’s fascism and Hitler’s National Socialism. To favor socialism is to flirt with tyranny.”
The thing is, a lot of the kids who say they hold a favorable view of socialism and communism don’t know much about either one. In fact, even some older people who lived through the Cold War swear that socialism doesn’t involve public ownership of the means of production – “That’s communism!” they will tell you. To them, socialism is just social welfare programs that raise people up and give them dignity – all the good stuff that the noble downtrodden deserve as human rights. When it comes to the authoritarian stuff, all the bad stuff involved in taking your things away to give to other people, that’s not socialism — it might be communism, but more likely it’s fascist capitalism, because if it’s bad it has to be capitalist and fascist.
Aren’t the Scandinavian Social Welfare States Socialist?
In this all-too-popular imaginary formulation, people often confuse European social welfare states, such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland with socialist economies. But Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland are not now and have never been socialist countries. They have never nationalized the means of production. Here’s what Google’s Gemini AI tool says regarding whether Sweden, Finland, Denmark or Norway ever “nationalized the means of production:”
Sweden:
“No. Sweden did not nationalize the means of production, and it is not a socialist country. It operates as a mixed-market economy that combines competitive capitalism with a robust welfare state. The vast majority of its enterprises are privately owned and market-oriented.”
Finland:
“No, Finland did not nationalize the means of production, and it is not a socialist state. It is a capitalist, market-based economy, though it does have a large public sector and a strong social safety net that are characteristic of the Nordic model.”
Denmark:
“No, Denmark did not nationalize the means of production. It is a market economy with a strong and comprehensive social welfare system, a combination known as the ‘Nordic model’.”
Norway:
“Norway has not fully nationalized the means of production, but operates a highly developed mixed economy with significant state ownership and control in strategic sectors. This unique model, sometimes called the “Hydro model,” balances market principles with a strong social safety net and government oversight.”
In essence, Norway’s system is not an example of full nationalization or socialism, which entails complete worker or state ownership of the means of production. Instead, it is a form of state capitalism within a mixed economy, where the government uses its considerable ownership to ensure stable, long-term economic development and national welfare.”
Note the repeated references to socialism in these responses, as something that necessarily involves public ownership of the means of production.
If Socialism Just Means Social Welfare Statism, Were the German National Socialists and the Italian Fascists Socialists Too?
Adolph Hitler considered himself socialist, even though he was an entirely anti-Marxist anti-communist. In fact, the term “Nazi” is just a derisive name given by others to Hitler’s political party, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. But an actual socialist might tell you that one of the chief reasons the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was not really socialist is that it left ownership of the means of production in private hands. National Socialists did not seize the means of production and place them under public ownership.
The other reasons National Socialists were not really socialist, an actual socialist might tell you, have to do with which groups were favored and which were disfavored, versus those groups that are favored and those that are disfavored under the socialism/communism scheme. When you cut through the clutter of all the talk about inclusion versus exclusion, the communists and other socialists have their own favored and disfavored groups, classes and categories, and a rich history of killing the disfavored ones.
But the National Socialists were statist, collectivist, anti-individualist, and focused on the greater good of the Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community” of Germans. They ran a centrally-planned economy. They carefully controlled what was produced and how. Although ownership of the means of production remained in private hands, the National Socialist German state seized those means when private ownership was insufficiently subordinate to the greater good.
Benito Mussolini’s Italian fascists had a similar political philosophy to the German National Socialists, but with less focus on race. Mussolini was, by the way, an avowed socialist before he created Italian fascism.
Italian fascism, like National Socialism and socialism under communism, was also statist, collectivist, and anti-individualist, with a carefully controlled, centrally planned economy. But, like Hitler, Mussolini also left property in private hands, because he believed that socialism and Marxism robbed people of the necessary incentive to produce greatness.
Where Mussolini emphasized the Italian people serving the Italian state, which in turn would serve the Italian people through its greatness, Hitler emphasized that the German state was to serve the German Volksgemeinschaft. Just as the communists saw themselves creating socialism by molding a new type of person with a new consciousness (a human product later derisively referred to as Homo Sovieticus), the National Socialists also believed they were molding new, more perfect people. The Italian Fascists saw themselves perfecting a new kind of state, with a new kind of person to serve it. Each believed that its statist, collectivist, anti-individualist central planning would bring about the ideal society.
But only socialism was socialism. Only socialism seized the means of production for public ownership, which leaves the people who now believe that socialism does not require public ownership of the means of production holding that belief, too, in common with German National Socialists.
How Socialism Has Always Looked in Actual Practice.
Let’s look at a list of countries that, at one time or another, explicitly declared themselves socialist. All were governed exclusively by a communist party that declared itself to be creating or presiding over socialism:
- Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
- Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
- Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic
- Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic
- Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic
- Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic
- Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic
- Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic
- Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic
- Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic
- Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic
- Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic
- Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic
- Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic
- Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic
- People’s Socialist Republic of Albania
- Czechoslovak Socialist Republic
- Socialist Republic of Romania
- Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
- Socialist Republic of Vietnam
And here is a list of countries that either did not or does not include the designation “Socialist” in its name but either was ruled or still is ruled exclusively by a communist party declaring itself to preside over socialism:
- German Democratic Republic (East Germany)
- People’s Republic of Bulgaria
- Polish People’s Republic
- Hungarian People’s Republic
- People’s Republic of China
- Lao People’s Democratic Republic
- Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)
- Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (1978-1990)
- Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia under Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979)
- Mongolian People’s Republic (1924-1990)
- People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen (1967-1990)
- Republic of Cuba
- Angola (under rule of the Marxist Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola 1975–1991)
- People’s Republic of Benin (1975-1990)
- People’s Republic of the Congo (1968-1991)
- Ethiopia (1974-1991)
- Mozambique (under rule of The Marxist-Leninist Front for the Liberation of Mozambique 1975–1990)
- Somali Democratic Republic (1969-1977)
With that, can you name a single country that ever included “Socialist” in its name that did not nationalize the means of production? Can you name a single country whose government declared itself to preside over socialism that did not nationalize the means of production? Can you name a single country that has either included “Socialist” in its name or whose government has declared itself to preside over socialism that has not been ruled by either an expressly communist or Marxist party?
Zohran Mamdani and his important, though presently unpopular, Democratic Socialist end-goal of seizing the means of production.
Communists and other serious socialists are acutely aware of the historical association of their movements with tyranny, totalitarianism, death, destruction, and abject human misery. They have pulled a neat trick by portraying themselves as good versus evil and love versus hate, using their great 20th century totalitarian rivals – the German National Socialists, and fascists – as their foil. But that isn’t enough. There’s still a chance that, even with Nazis and fascists as their foil, people might associate today’s communists and socialist with the atrocities of their namesakes. It would be better for them politically to completely disassociate themselves in the public’s mind from the communists and other socialists who created all that misery, every time and everywhere they ever seized control.
So, today’s socialists tell the public they have nothing to do with the socialist or communist totalitarians of the past. If you think socialism is too authoritarian or totalitarian, they would have you believe you’re not thinking of real socialism. They want you to forget all the examples above. They want you to believe that real socialism is the kind that has never actually existed yet — but it will be great when it does.
If you like lots of social welfare benefits and believe that social welfare benefits are human rights, then the socialists want you to believe that socialism will just be a bunch of social welfare benefits for you and for those you think are noble and deserving, to be paid-for exclusively and in full by greedy billionaires. Only behind the scenes, where the actual socialists let it all hang out among their own kind, is it safe for them to talk openly, like Zohran Mamdani did, about their end goal of seizing the means of production. To regular American normies, that kind of talk might smack too much of collectivization, the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, or of the executions of “kulaks,” “wreckers,” “social parasites,” “mad dogs of capitalism,” “landlords,” “rich peasants,” “counter-revolutionaries,” “bad elements,” “rightists,” and “capitalist-roaders,” among others who were loved right to literal death by the “we are love, they are hate” of socialism.
In the U.S., democratic socialism in power might look something like it did in Nicaragua under the rule of the democratic socialist Sandinistas, complete with political killings of the disfavored .
That wouldn’t necessarily involve nationalization of the means of production or rule by a communist party. But it would almost certainly involve a funky version of “democracy,” that has little or nothing to do with elections, much like “democracy” in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or in the Eastern European “People’s Democracies” of old. But, then again, if it’s up to the Democratic Socialist and Democratic Party nominee for mayor of New York City, the end goal is definitely to seize the means of production. If you don’t believe it, just listen to him explain it one more time. (See here, beginning after 9:30).
