On the Old Becoming New Again

On the Old Becoming New Again
©2020  Ross Williams

A number of years ago, there was a misfit gaggle of disgruntleds calling themselves Occupy Wall Street who had a whole lot of spare time and nothing to fill it with.  They descended upon city streets the nation over and − in an apparent attempt to fill their souls with metaphoric substance − filled the streets with snack food wrappers while bitching about the companies which made those snack foods.  At some point, one of their lot issued a rambling set of demands.

There is, today, another misfit gaggle of disgruntleds calling themselves antifa who similarly have a whole bunch of spare time and nothing to fill it with.  They, similarly, descend upon America’s city streets from time to time with nail-studded two-by-fours and ski masks and − in apparent attempt to fill their own souls for what is otherwise lacking − beat up the first old man they can find.  One of their pseudo-political lot recently issued his own rambling set of demands, prefacing it with a screedish polemic infused with logical inconsistency, factual error and laughable contradiction.  The inspiration for this manifesto is that antifa has been designated as a domestic terrorist organization due in no small part to its involvement with certain social goings-on that are dominating today’s news.  The writer found this designation upsetting.

In fact, that was his first whine: antifa can’t be a terrorist organization because “’Antifa’ isn’t an organization. There’s no membership, no meetings, no dues, no rules, no leaders, no structure. It is, literally, an idea and nothing more.”  So there.  I guess.

The manifesto’s prologue continued to explain − incorrectly − that antifa is a brand spanking new concept, a “neologism” in the author’s I’m a college kid double majoring in English Lit and PoliSci terminology.  He might have been better served to take a few classes on the history of the 20^th century, for he’d have learned that antifa [the term itself is a communist-style portmanteau of “anti” and “fascist” which literary form was used extensively by Orwell in his “1984”] has been around for nearly a century.  There’s nothing neologist about it.  It was created as a communist response to the rise of fascism in Germany, because the communists were upset that the fascists took the initiative in the interregnum and the communists hadn’t.  antifa is historically predicated upon socialist outrage at not being able to impose their own version of fascistic control.

…which will become readily apparent as the demands of the non-organizational organization are listed.  Not to foreshadow, or anything.

Indeed, the modern antifa uses as its symbol, its flag, its central, collective identifying mark, the encircled double flag, made unique so as to be completely different by having the flags pointing the opposite direction.  Nobody will ever be the wiser.  Because organizations-that-aren’t absolutely need to have a banner to collect under and by which to recognize one’s fellows whose only quality is − “literally” − “an idea”…

The pique of prologue ended, the erstwhile Engels hits his topic sentence:

Thus:

“AntiFa supports and defends the right of all people to live free from oppressive abuse of power, whether that power is unjustly derived from wealth, status as an employer, or political popularity.

As far as this goes, I [the libertarian] am immediately intrigued.  I might have said this.  In fact, in so many words [and typically many many many more words], I have.  Over and over and over and over and over and over again.  But I’ve come to realize that almost everyone − including several who call themselves libertarians − don’t really mean what they say when they say things like this.  Their sentiments rely on heavily constrained notions of what “oppression” and “abuse of power” entail.

The phrase “oppressive abuse of power” is redundant.  In order to have abuse of power, the power allowed to be exercised must be defined and the action taken must be outside of that definition.  All oppression is from abuse of power; all abuse of power is oppressive. 

In recent circumstances, though, many [in some quarters, most] people view oppression as mere “inconvenience” if the exercise of undefined power has a really good reason behind it [where “really good reason” is entirely subjectively determinable].  And, well, if you wish to advertise yourself as an authoritarian hypocrite, I’m fine describing you that way.

At any rate, several paragraphs of pontificatory polemic later, we finally arrive at the non-organizational organization’s demands.  In order.

Universal single payer health care, without regard for citizenship status

In other words, the government confiscates the healthcare system, from top to bottom, and parcels it out as it sees fit.  Ignoring for the moment that in every instance of this happening elsewhere [and it exists almost universally in every nation in the world] it ends up becoming a two-tiered healthcare system where medical attention is divvied up based upon political preferment [and where political preferment is wholly dependent upon how much money the government has in its preference of some over others], we have the undeniable reality that most of the “without regard for citizenship status” people who would be domestically served by such policy have come from nations which have such a wondrous policy themselves, and in which [these people typically claim] they could not get served because service is reserved for those with political preferment.

Additionally, such a policy here would be outside the definition of political power, thus constituting an abuse of same and become − by definition − oppressive. 

To the degree that such a system here would be materially different from those nominally identical systems elsewhere, it would be entirely derived of the wealth our nation has, which has been pre-labeled categorically unjust.

And, finally, it would be built upon political popularity.

So, sorry, princess, no can do.  You made the bed, you gotta lie in it.

Universal basic income WITH a federal job guarantee, under which the federal government becomes the “employer of last resort.” Involuntary unemployment is a function of profiteering by fascist capitalist oligarchs who are willing to sacrifice the lives of others for their own enrichment. It must end

Forgetting for a moment the matter of where the money for such “basic income” would come from, UBI effectively precludes a minimum wage.  If I am a ‘fascist capitalist oligarch’ in an economic system with UBI, I am paying my employees nothing, or next-to, and allowing them to live off UBI.  I’ll only get richer.  But hey, I’ll employ a whole passel of otherwise unemployables at zero wages.  Their choice to not take me up on it is entirely voluntary on their part.  Don’t like it? go work for the government.

Keep in mind, though, that forgoing the opportunity to work for me at my wages, you’ll be adding to the number of those working for the government.  Laws of economics being what they are, and since you’re already being paid by the government, your chances of being paid more by the government just because you work for them is virtually nil.  This is the historical standard of all such governments having zero-unemployment baselines: slave labor.

I seriously doubt this is what was intended, and points again to a lack of historical knowledge.

Additionally, it would violate the “abuse of power” thing as the government has no defined authority to compel any part of this.  And oppressive government compulsion is what it would take.

The abolition of “right to work laws” which do exactly the opposite of ensuring anyone’s right to work

“Right to work” laws simply allow for the voluntary decertification of unions when its membership determines that the union is seeking its own self-service at the expense [and from the wages] of its members, as well as an employer’s right to hire whom he wants at whatever wage the employer and employee agree is fair.  Such laws tend, over time, to increase the numbers of those employed, and thus would dispute, in practice, the assertion of their opposing ends.

The right of union employees to decertify − or simply leave − their union is a right guaranteed by the denunciation of power imbalances based upon wealth [unions are extremely wealthy] and political popularity [compulsory unionism is extremely politically popular, particularly among a certain population].  To prohibit decertification or depopulating unions would require a power the government wasn’t defined to have, and thus be an oppressive abuse.

Additionally, since the purposes of unionism has been to secure wages − which are no longer an issue due to UBI − and benefits − which are almost entirely moot with the adoption of universal healthcare − the purpose behind opposing Right To Work is rendered effectively void.

Publicly funded higher education

For what purpose?  Everyone is getting UBI now.  Everyone has a job now. 

True, they aren’t really being paid for the job they do since there was no whine about minimum wage, and the fallback is a job for the government being paid what the government will have the means to pay … which will quickly become zero over UBI.  If anyone now wants a job where an actual skill is involved and which a ‘fascist capitalist oligarch’ would pay in excess of UBI, he should do that on his own since he will [presumptively] transfer the knowledge obtained into greater remunerative capacity. …which is otherwise known as becoming a ‘fascist capitalist oligarch’.

They can damwell pay their own way.  No?

Robust and effective social welfare programs to include child care, education, employment training and counseling, parenting skills training, and life skills training including fiscal education

Such social welfare, as such, is now absolutely obsolete.  Any decent ‘fascist capitalist oligarch’ worth his salt would open up a day care facility [et al] in every one-stoplight town, paying zero wages.  In the absence of a ‘fascist capitalist oligarch’ doing so, we’re back to the government doing it with slave labor.

In any event, it’s no longer necessary.

A requirement that functional proficiency in media, political, and economic literacy be demonstrated to graduate high school

[N.B. I seriously tried not to laugh out loud at this; I was unsuccessful]

“Functional proficiency” in these areas would preclude every single of the other childish demands being made, most in having “functional” economic literacy. 

2+2 continues to not equal 22.

The creation of a publicly funded non-partisan media source to serve as the primary source of government information, to be overseen and managed day to day by a coalition of well-known communicators, political scientists, and other experts in propaganda to strip ALL bias from official information before it is broadcast

State media.  Cool.  That always works well.

A “non-partisan” media would − by definition − be obliged to quibble about UBI and where the money for it would come from; universal healthcare and where the money for it would come from, as well as be required to point out the failures of it to provide universal care in the face of politically preferred care; the oppressive shortcomings of imposing compulsory unionism; the vapidity of “free” college education and its source of funding; …

In short, a “non-partisan” source for government information would deny the validity of the other demands; upholding the other demands would deny a non-partisan source of information.

You can’t have both, buckwheat.

Federal charges of treason filed against anyone willfully and knowingly attempting to minimize public perception of the impact and risks of the coronavirus

A state media “strip[ped] of ALL bias” makes this impossible.

Managing “public perception” is the very basis of the propaganda you claim to be combating … which we effectively have already, particularly on this specific subject.  “Well-known communicators, political scientists and other experts” have deplatformed and cancel-culted nearly everyone violating the newly-minted GroupThink upon Shanghai Shivers, and imposed policies that violate the defined powers to that effect, thus becoming oppression based on wealth and political popularity.

Reform of whistleblower laws to ensure they have teeth, and particularly to ensure that a whistleblower, acting in good faith, is not identified to the public, ever

A whistleblower, acting in good faith, who cannot blow a whistle on the GroupThink over Hong Kong Fluey without risking federal treason charges cannot be a whistleblower, and this law would have no “teeth”.  A whistleblower, acting in good faith, who can blow a whistle on the GroupThink over Hubei Heaves without risking treason charges invalidates the treasonousness of quibbling the Wu Flu narrative.

If the definition of “good faith” is determined by whether or not a statement or action supports or contravenes the political establishment, then the political establishment is imposing “oppressive abuse of power … unjustly derived of … political popularity.”

By definition.

Yikes.

I had a dog about twenty years ago that, in the hours before taking a road trip with me, caught and ate [whole] a mole.  Two hours into the road trip she barfed it all over the front passenger seat.  The semi-digested mole was more cohesive than this jeremiad.  It also looked and smelled better.  I certainly hope this isn’t antifa’s brain trust.  I suspect, though, that I’m going to be desperately disappointed in that hope.

There is little here but a self-pitying justification for imposing a list of arbitrary oppressions by authoritarian means, in exactly the way fascists would themselves do it, while concurrently claiming to be against what they would declaratively do.

Yet “Antifa” means “Anti-Fascism.” The only position that opposes that is fascism.

What better way to sum up a caricature of political deep-thought than with a cartoon: