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 wha

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.