I saw this earlier today and thought it might be of interest, considering that other German court decisions are currently being discussed on Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44912085
Note: the headline is somewhat misleading. The first line of the article reads
> A court in Hamburg, Germany, has stated in the details of a ruling concerning a Karl Marx reading group that Marx’s teachings may be contrary to the “free democratic basic order.”
The knee jerk anti communism is your propaganda showing. Marxist historical materialism is a mainstream mode of analysis. Nothing inherently leftwing or revolutionary about it.
The title is extremely clickbaity, to the point of being a lie.
Actual news: A group was in risk of being considered left wing extremist, which could jeopardize their non profit status. The court ruled in their favor actually.
It just so happens that the wording of the court’s justification of the ruling irked some people - quickly paraphrasing, “Marx teachings might be contrary to democracy but this people aren’t acting on those teachings so their reading isn’t reason to consider them extremists”.
Some groups are worried that this wording about marx sets a precedent, being unclear if there is actual legal concerns.
The Basic Law’s expansive language, and the functional interpretive approach applied by the German Constitutional Court, means that judges could do a lot to overrule the legislature if they chose to do so. Generally, they have not done so.
But, for example, the German Constitutional Court declared legalized abortion to be a violation of the Basic Law’s right to life (though it permitted circumstantial exceptions to whether punitive measures were required for such violations): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Constitutional_Court_ab....
I would suggest the Germans decline to take a page from the Americans here and not read the Basic Law for all it could be read to mean.
Last time Germany had a problem with Marx, it started a world war and killed a lot of people.
Considering the current rise of fascist/neo-nazi parties like AfD in Germany, I am not surprised that they are trying to suppress socialist literature.
If a man who has been dead for over 142 years is a threat to "the principles of the free democratic basic order", they couldn't have been worth that much to begin with. And it is a lie. Germany is not a free country. Germany is a broken vassal state. Any ideology would be superior to that of being America's whipping-boy.
Oddly when activating reader mode in the browser it contained text from a different article (apparently one that follows the linked article in truncated form). Can't recall the last time I've seen that happen.
Court rules Marx is incompatible with the ‘free democratic basic order’
Yet, this seems exactly the opposite of what some socialists claim, which is that that socialism is a path to true free democracy.
It can be hard to be sure what is argued for by "classical", "modern", or "real" socialists or Marxists, from a classical, western, libertarian, conservative, or progressive perspective.
To try to understand the socialist perspective, from [0]:
"""Socialist revolution would be the means by which to create real, radical democracy. The Communist League, led by Marx and Engels, declared as their goal:
“a democratic State wherein each party would be able by word or in writing to win a majority over to its ideas…. We are not among those communists who are out to destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the world into one huge barrack or into a gigantic workhouse. . . . We have no desire to exchange freedom for equality. We are convinced … that in no social order will personal freedom be so assured as in a society based upon communal ownership.” (16)
Workers would control the economy directly, via councils, election of their own managers. We would gain direct control of the national and multinational corporations, at the point of production. We would expropriate the billionaires, so, as unlikely as it will be to corrupt our truly democratic system, they would no longer have the wealth to even attempt to corrupt it. No, we would not make their lives miserable—as they are trying to make ours now. But they would have to work like anybody else. And they could no longer effect their current sociopathic, “transhuman” schemes against the rest of us.
For we would live in a society that would fulfill our needs, and enable us to enjoy unimaginable freedoms in a truly democratic community: not make a few sociopaths rich, or give them the obscene levels of destructive power over the rest of us they enjoy today."""
Meanwhile, a conflicting perspective from [1] appears to be that:
- "Sooner or later socialism destroys everything in hits path: law, morality, family, prosperity, productivity, education incentive, and finally life itself. The problem with socialism is it creates the conditions for a Stalin or a Hitler to come to power"
- "Communism is the final phase and goal of socialism, simply described as big government... using force to take things from one person and give them to someone else."
Which correlates with the perspecives online that :
- "Fascism is exclusive to the Roman Empire, and socialism is the collectivism they push for more easily manageable slaves - like they've already done to the Chinese and are currently in the process of rolling out for the rest of the world."
and that
- "The four steps of the Cloward-Piven Strategy: 1. Overload and Break the Welfare System 2. Have Chaos Ensue 3. Take Control in the Chaos 4. Implement Socialism and Communism through Government Force"
Thus, seems clear that there is some explaining to be done. Anyone able to neatly resolve or explain the (apparently) starkly different outlooks on socialism?
It is also possible that some people believe that "true socialism" is not described by any of the above. If so, any links or insights along those lines would be welcome, too.
This article and some of the comments suffers from a misunderstanding about the German court system. The court did not rule anything unconstitutional - it only declared it as such in its ruling about the specific case. The decision can be appealed and does not set precedent the way it works in common law systems like in the US. Only the constitutional court could rule Marxism unconstitutional and it hasn't done so in the past and is unlikely to do so in the future.
The argument is also extremely dodgy, at least the way it is being presented here. The court seemingly argues that whether or not Marxism necessarily requires a violent overthrow of the government is irrelevant because the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be an undemocratic rule to the exclusion of a demographic group (presumably capitalists) but this is paper thin.
Communism would abolish "capitalists" as a concept, not as a demographic group. It's more like the abolition of chattel slavery - it simply stopped providing a legal mechanism to be a slave owner, it didn't "discriminate against slave owners" because that was no longer a thing you could meaningfully be (or at least not more than "human trafficker").
The German constitution does not actually establish capitalism as integral to the "liberal democratic order". It's true that it includes protections of "private property" but it also contains a hierarchy of interests that allows for private property to be socialized for the benefit of the public and ultimately yields to "human dignity" above all else. It does not give special protections to capital and certainly not exceeding those offered to humans (regardless of citizenship or residence by the way - this is why German "sex tourism" abroad is still subject to concerns in Germany like the age of consent, and consent in general).
It's also worth mentioning that the constitutional court has previously ruled that some aspects of the constitution including special protections can be informed by changing cultural attitudes. Specifically this was used to argue in favor of same-sex relationships being included in protections of "family" - a change that certain conservatives also saw as a breakdown of the "public order".
> The court points out that the meaning of this concept “inevitably excludes other population groups from the political decision-making process and the indirect exercise of state power,” stating, in other words, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is “undemocratic.”
There are plenty of reasons to argue that Marx might not be compatible with the principles of a capitalist/bourgeois state - he e.g. argued in his works on the Paris Commune that they should have gone further in smashing elements of the state.
But this is a wildly ahistorical, though not atypical, reading, and shows the judge might want to attend a reading grous, given that Marx also used the term "dictatorship of the bourgeoise" about capitalist electoral democracies.
This use doesn't make any sense if one reads the term the way the judge did.
Courts in Germany have a history of rulings that feel overreaching and anachronistic. This one is no exception.
I'd love to see these judges clearly define what the "free democratic basic order" means without paradox, and then explain which part of Marx's work violates it. The Grundgesetz is based on three main principles: human dignity, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. Which of these does Marx's theory actually attack?
Marx's writings are huge, complex, and usually analytical. They look at how economies work, not how to abolish democracy. A big part is the philosophical debates of materialism vs. idealism, which aren certainly not a threat to the constitutional order.
By painting the whole of Marx's thought as incompatible, the court shows not only ignorance and arrogance but also chips away at a core pillar of the very order it claims to defend: free speech. Saying that some knowledges are forbidden is like censorship of the dark ages, not something a modern democracy that's confident in its values would do.
Actually, the main point of the court ruling is not Marx himself, but the court's interpretation that the theories the plaintiff was discussing could lead to the "violent overthrow of the state and economy". That would indeed be a valid reason for declaring any such organisation unconstitutional and thus illegal.
The validity of the interpretation itself, on the other hand, is questionable - as the newspaper highlights, other courts do have a different point of view on this topic, so it is by no means a mainstream opinion.
22 comments
[ 488 ms ] story [ 367 ms ] threadNote: the headline is somewhat misleading. The first line of the article reads
> A court in Hamburg, Germany, has stated in the details of a ruling concerning a Karl Marx reading group that Marx’s teachings may be contrary to the “free democratic basic order.”
(emphasis mine)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism
For the gamers, the Victoria series by Paradox uses historical materialism as its gameplay.
Actual news: A group was in risk of being considered left wing extremist, which could jeopardize their non profit status. The court ruled in their favor actually.
It just so happens that the wording of the court’s justification of the ruling irked some people - quickly paraphrasing, “Marx teachings might be contrary to democracy but this people aren’t acting on those teachings so their reading isn’t reason to consider them extremists”.
Some groups are worried that this wording about marx sets a precedent, being unclear if there is actual legal concerns.
But, for example, the German Constitutional Court declared legalized abortion to be a violation of the Basic Law’s right to life (though it permitted circumstantial exceptions to whether punitive measures were required for such violations): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Constitutional_Court_ab....
I would suggest the Germans decline to take a page from the Americans here and not read the Basic Law for all it could be read to mean.
Considering the current rise of fascist/neo-nazi parties like AfD in Germany, I am not surprised that they are trying to suppress socialist literature.
edit: As someone else has pointed out title is a bit click baity
It can be hard to be sure what is argued for by "classical", "modern", or "real" socialists or Marxists, from a classical, western, libertarian, conservative, or progressive perspective.
To try to understand the socialist perspective, from [0]:
"""Socialist revolution would be the means by which to create real, radical democracy. The Communist League, led by Marx and Engels, declared as their goal:
“a democratic State wherein each party would be able by word or in writing to win a majority over to its ideas…. We are not among those communists who are out to destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the world into one huge barrack or into a gigantic workhouse. . . . We have no desire to exchange freedom for equality. We are convinced … that in no social order will personal freedom be so assured as in a society based upon communal ownership.” (16)
Workers would control the economy directly, via councils, election of their own managers. We would gain direct control of the national and multinational corporations, at the point of production. We would expropriate the billionaires, so, as unlikely as it will be to corrupt our truly democratic system, they would no longer have the wealth to even attempt to corrupt it. No, we would not make their lives miserable—as they are trying to make ours now. But they would have to work like anybody else. And they could no longer effect their current sociopathic, “transhuman” schemes against the rest of us.
For we would live in a society that would fulfill our needs, and enable us to enjoy unimaginable freedoms in a truly democratic community: not make a few sociopaths rich, or give them the obscene levels of destructive power over the rest of us they enjoy today."""
Meanwhile, a conflicting perspective from [1] appears to be that:
- "Sooner or later socialism destroys everything in hits path: law, morality, family, prosperity, productivity, education incentive, and finally life itself. The problem with socialism is it creates the conditions for a Stalin or a Hitler to come to power" - "Communism is the final phase and goal of socialism, simply described as big government... using force to take things from one person and give them to someone else."
Which correlates with the perspecives online that :
- "Fascism is exclusive to the Roman Empire, and socialism is the collectivism they push for more easily manageable slaves - like they've already done to the Chinese and are currently in the process of rolling out for the rest of the world."
and that
- "The four steps of the Cloward-Piven Strategy: 1. Overload and Break the Welfare System 2. Have Chaos Ensue 3. Take Control in the Chaos 4. Implement Socialism and Communism through Government Force"
Thus, seems clear that there is some explaining to be done. Anyone able to neatly resolve or explain the (apparently) starkly different outlooks on socialism?
It is also possible that some people believe that "true socialism" is not described by any of the above. If so, any links or insights along those lines would be welcome, too.
[0] https://redfireonline.com/2022/05/08/socialism-the-only-real... [1] Documentary video, "Grinding America Down"
The argument is also extremely dodgy, at least the way it is being presented here. The court seemingly argues that whether or not Marxism necessarily requires a violent overthrow of the government is irrelevant because the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be an undemocratic rule to the exclusion of a demographic group (presumably capitalists) but this is paper thin.
Communism would abolish "capitalists" as a concept, not as a demographic group. It's more like the abolition of chattel slavery - it simply stopped providing a legal mechanism to be a slave owner, it didn't "discriminate against slave owners" because that was no longer a thing you could meaningfully be (or at least not more than "human trafficker").
The German constitution does not actually establish capitalism as integral to the "liberal democratic order". It's true that it includes protections of "private property" but it also contains a hierarchy of interests that allows for private property to be socialized for the benefit of the public and ultimately yields to "human dignity" above all else. It does not give special protections to capital and certainly not exceeding those offered to humans (regardless of citizenship or residence by the way - this is why German "sex tourism" abroad is still subject to concerns in Germany like the age of consent, and consent in general).
It's also worth mentioning that the constitutional court has previously ruled that some aspects of the constitution including special protections can be informed by changing cultural attitudes. Specifically this was used to argue in favor of same-sex relationships being included in protections of "family" - a change that certain conservatives also saw as a breakdown of the "public order".
There are plenty of reasons to argue that Marx might not be compatible with the principles of a capitalist/bourgeois state - he e.g. argued in his works on the Paris Commune that they should have gone further in smashing elements of the state.
But this is a wildly ahistorical, though not atypical, reading, and shows the judge might want to attend a reading grous, given that Marx also used the term "dictatorship of the bourgeoise" about capitalist electoral democracies.
This use doesn't make any sense if one reads the term the way the judge did.
I'd love to see these judges clearly define what the "free democratic basic order" means without paradox, and then explain which part of Marx's work violates it. The Grundgesetz is based on three main principles: human dignity, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. Which of these does Marx's theory actually attack?
Marx's writings are huge, complex, and usually analytical. They look at how economies work, not how to abolish democracy. A big part is the philosophical debates of materialism vs. idealism, which aren certainly not a threat to the constitutional order.
By painting the whole of Marx's thought as incompatible, the court shows not only ignorance and arrogance but also chips away at a core pillar of the very order it claims to defend: free speech. Saying that some knowledges are forbidden is like censorship of the dark ages, not something a modern democracy that's confident in its values would do.
The validity of the interpretation itself, on the other hand, is questionable - as the newspaper highlights, other courts do have a different point of view on this topic, so it is by no means a mainstream opinion.