By: Dr Matevž Tomšič
It is a widely spread belief, created by the designers of the dominant public discourse, that politics should not deal with the past (that it should be “left to historians”). These same people often accuse those on the right side of the political spectrum of “falsifying history” for their particularistic purposes. But this is a reversal of facts. In reality, this is done by the left, especially those who consider themselves the “proud successors of the Communist League”. They still swear by the interpretation of events during and after World War II as created by the regime’s historiography from the times of the communist regime. Much of their stories could, based on factual (in)credibility, be easily categorised as “fake news”.
A new attempt at historical-ideological manipulation is the proposal to amend the Penal Code prepared by the largest ruling party, according to which glorification of certain totalitarian ideologies would be sanctioned. But not all! Glorifying Nazism and Fascism would be prohibited, but not Communism. Furthermore, public display of symbols of organisations allegedly in service of the first two would be prohibited. It is completely absurd that they include the Yugoslav Army in the homeland (colloquially known as Slovenian Chetniks, or as their wartime opponents labelled them, the “Blue Guard”). This was the first organisation on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, established by the instructions of the royal government (in exile) with the aim of resisting the occupiers – at a time when Nazis and Communists were still allies based on the Hitler-Stalin pact.
Advocates of prosecuting Nazism and Fascism on one hand and allowing Communism on the other claim that an equation cannot be drawn between them. That the first two are inherently bad, while the third is not. That the first two are hostile, violent, and oppressive, while the idea of Communism is fundamentally positive, advocating for equality and the liberation of oppressed parts of society. They argue that only later was it abused in practice.
A NEW ATTEMPT AT HISTORICAL-IDEOLOGICAL MANIPULATION IS THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE PENAL CODE PREPARED BY THE LARGEST RULING PARTY, ACCORDING TO WHICH GLORIFICATION OF CERTAIN TOTALITARIAN IDEOLOGIES WOULD BE SANCTIONED. BUT NOT ALL! GLORIFYING NAZISM AND FASCISM WOULD BE PROHIBITED, BUT NOT COMMUNISM.
But that is not the case. It is true that Communism portrayed itself as acting in the interests of the people. Specifically, in the interest of the working class. But this was also true for fascism, which emphasised the good of the Italian nation, and Nazism, which emphasised the good of the Aryan race. Indeed, Communism was more universal. And its rhetoric sounded more benign, but just like Fascism and Nazism, it presupposed a fight against enemies or – to be more explicit – their destruction. It was not about individuals, but about entire social groups considered “class enemies”. The goals set by the bearers of Communist ideology could not be realised otherwise than through violence. The “classless society” could not be introduced without seizing property (then euphemisms such as nationalisation and collectivisation were used), political-ideological uniformity, and terror against those who resisted it all. No, the introduction of forced equality among people is not a noble idea, as those who still sympathise with Communism try to portray it. It has nothing in common with freedom, democracy, or human rights.
Ideas about selectively prosecuting the glorification of anti-democratic ideologies are in direct contradiction with the resolution “European Conscience and Totalitarianism”, adopted by the European Parliament in 2009. It clearly highlights and condemns Communism as well. Advocates of the mentioned amendment to the Penal Code pretend that this resolution condemns the communist regime, not the communist ideology. As if the ideology was not an integral part of the regime. It represented its legitimising foundation. Therefore, the crimes of communist rulers were not deviations but expressions of ideological logic.