By: Ivan Šokić
Fascism, freedom, voluntary, mandatory. We live in a time when words have lost all meaning due to such extensive and frivolous use. The word fascist thus ranges from someone who marched with Benito Mussolini in Rome in 1922 and advocated for women’s suffrage, minimum wage, nationalisation of private property and high progressive taxation, to individuals who love pineapple on their pizza.
If anyone else finds the above more characteristic of the Socialists, congratulations to Mussolini, fascism was the ultimate form of socialism. Now you know why the term “left fascism” is absolute idiocy. When you say, “left fascism”, you accept as a real lie that fascism is a priori a right-wing ideology. The more you delve into history, the more such incitements you will find. Just as Victorian Protestants sometimes darkened the Middle Ages and spread lies about witch-hunts, virgin belts, the evil Inquisition, and the flat Earth until it was labelled the “Dark Middle Ages”, so did the Communists tirelessly change the definition of fascism until it became all that a socialist opposes. And it must be admitted – the redefinition of fascism was successful. This is, after all, also confirmed by individuals who like to brag about “left fascism”.
Furthermore, there are ideas in society about which country is free, which is authoritarian or totalitarian. When you hear France, you think this is a free country. There, human rights are respected. When you hear Russia, you think the opposite. There is no freedom, human rights are trampled there. Ingrained in social perception is the unreflective thinking that countries that belong to the West are free, and in countries that do not fall under this definition, people suffer. For this reason, it is interesting to take Russian President Vladimir Putin from December 2021 and French President Emmanuel Macron from January 2022. Both presidents talk about the same topic, but their approach is radically opposed and reveals more than one would think about where freedom is and where tyranny is.
On December 23rd, 2021, the Russian news agency TASS reported that, in Putin’s opinion, people who do not want to be vaccinated against covid-19 should not be persecuted in Russia. “It is not about any political will; it is about every action being followed by a reaction. As soon as you start putting pressure, there will always be a way around it,” Putin said, adding that opponents of vaccination “should be respected regardless of their views and patiently explained the key to some measures.” At the same time, Putin believes that holders of forged vaccination certificates should be prosecuted.
The unvaccinated are a minority
Macron, on the other hand, said in an interview with Le Parisien on January 4th, 2022, that his goal is to make life as difficult as possible for the unvaccinated to get vaccinated. “I do not want to anger the French. But as for the unvaccinated, I really want to make them angry. And we will continue to do so to the end. That is our strategy.” Macron went on to say that the unvaccinated are a minority that will be pressured and restricted by his administration at every turn, their activities, their social life as much as possible. All with the intention of giving in to pressure and getting vaccinated.
This brings us to the question, what is voluntary and what is mandatory? When it comes to medical-ethical aspects, the key document is the Nuremberg Code, which was created as part of the Nuremberg trials in 1947, where prominent members of the National Socialists were tried in a military court for crimes against humanity. More specifically, the Nuremberg Code encompasses a set of research ethical principles on human experiments. For our needs on the difference between voluntary and mandatory, point 1 will suffice: The voluntary consent of the subject is essential. This means that the person involved must have the legal capacity to consent; s/he must be able to express his/her will freely without interference or any elements of force, fraud, deception, coercion, or any other disguised form of pressure; and must have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the elements of the matter in which s/he is involved to be able to make an understandable and enlightened decision…
How can a country that is guilty of crimes against humanity under the Nuremberg Code be free? Is that not fascism, then? How can such a country hold the presidency of the EU Council? Is the EU fascist?
Ivan Šokić is a philosopher and regular contributor to the Nova24tv.si portal and a columnist for Demokracija.