4 ms·

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 jeopardiz

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.

lawlessone 1y ago
Thanks for clearing it up.
- croes 1y ago
  They are wrong. The court said > The plaintiff's activities, which are centered on the theories of Karl Marx, are in principle contrary to the free democratic basic order.
maverwa 1y ago
That sounds like the most reasonable judgement coming out of a Hamburg court I’ve heard of yet (selection bias applies, of course)
yk 1y ago
The phrasing the court uses is precisely the one used in the German constitution to allow restricting basic rights for political reasons. Though the court uses "probably against the constitution" in German and Germany's law is not as directly case law as in the US, the court ruling is still saying that being a Marxist "probably" warrants suspension of the constitution and only in the specific instance of a long running reading group who are otherwise harmless basic rights may be granted.
croes 1y ago
No, it isn’t. The court said: >The plaintiff's activities centered on the theories of Karl Marx are fundamentally at odds with the free democratic basic order. For example, because of his talk of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which excludes other groups, which is undemocratic. The only reason the case was dismissed is because the group was insignificant enough and not “actively combative”.
- hnbad 1y ago
  The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is mostly Marx doing what we would now call "being an edge lord". It's supposed to be a contradiction of the "dictatorship of capital" or rule by the owning class. But it's all edge and no point because the central argument is an abolition of the legal concept of capital, literally abolishing the thing that would allow capitalists to continue to exist a distinct group the proletariat could "rule over". The thing that is unconstitutional isn't the "dictatorship of the proletariat" by abolition of capital, it's the oppressive authoritarian rule that has in the past and present been justified with appeals to that kind of language, especially in Marxist-Leninist schools of thought. This is relevant because the likely frame of reference for the court here is the German Democratic Republic, the former vassal state of the Soviet Union. But even they opposed a close reading of Marxism which they argued was "utopianist", instead justifying the supposed inevitability of their totalitarian rule as "real existing socialism" rather than communism. Marx did not argue for a ruling bureaucrat class to replace the capital owning class. It's easy to see how that kind of thought would be at odds with the constitution but even most "left wing extremist" groups in Germany are ideologically opposed to it, Marxist or otherwise.
  - vidarh 1y ago
    That would also be a reasonable grounds for the judge to decide that it didn't really matter whether or not Marx writing itself was a problem, as long as the group wasn't engaging in any such activity.

lawlessone 1y ago

Thanks for clearing it up.

croes 1y ago
They are wrong. The court said > The plaintiff's activities, which are centered on the theories of Karl Marx, are in principle contrary to the free democratic basic order.

maverwa 1y ago

That sounds like the most reasonable judgement coming out of a Hamburg court I’ve heard of yet (selection bias applies, of course)

yk 1y ago

The phrasing the court uses is precisely the one used in the German constitution to allow restricting basic rights for political reasons. Though the court uses "probably against the constitution" in German and Germany's law is not as directly case law as in the US, the court ruling is still saying that being a Marxist "probably" warrants suspension of the constitution and only in the specific instance of a long running reading group who are otherwise harmless basic rights may be granted.

croes 1y ago

No, it isn’t. The court said: >The plaintiff's activities centered on the theories of Karl Marx are fundamentally at odds with the free democratic basic order. For example, because of his talk of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which excludes other groups, which is undemocratic. The only reason the case was dismissed is because the group was insignificant enough and not “actively combative”.

hnbad 1y ago
The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is mostly Marx doing what we would now call "being an edge lord". It's supposed to be a contradiction of the "dictatorship of capital" or rule by the owning class. But it's all edge and no point because the central argument is an abolition of the legal concept of capital, literally abolishing the thing that would allow capitalists to continue to exist a distinct group the proletariat could "rule over". The thing that is unconstitutional isn't the "dictatorship of the proletariat" by abolition of capital, it's the oppressive authoritarian rule that has in the past and present been justified with appeals to that kind of language, especially in Marxist-Leninist schools of thought. This is relevant because the likely frame of reference for the court here is the German Democratic Republic, the former vassal state of the Soviet Union. But even they opposed a close reading of Marxism which they argued was "utopianist", instead justifying the supposed inevitability of their totalitarian rule as "real existing socialism" rather than communism. Marx did not argue for a ruling bureaucrat class to replace the capital owning class. It's easy to see how that kind of thought would be at odds with the constitution but even most "left wing extremist" groups in Germany are ideologically opposed to it, Marxist or otherwise.
- vidarh 1y ago
  That would also be a reasonable grounds for the judge to decide that it didn't really matter whether or not Marx writing itself was a problem, as long as the group wasn't engaging in any such activity.