January 1, 2018 – Fort Russ News – Paul Antonopoulos – Translated from Nova Resistencia.
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil – Everyone knows the liberal cliché represented by the phrase “There is no free lunch” popularized by the liberal writer Milton Friedman. With the ‘boom’ of social networks and with the consequent mass derailment generated by the reduction of the political debate to memes, phrases of effect and the like, the phrase began to be repeated nauseatingly, as a true mantra, by rightists, anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, liberals, and all the favorite whores of the bankers and oligarchs.
The truth, however, is that such a liberal cliché is nothing but a faulty reasoning, the fruit of an argumentative fallacy. More precisely, a discourse that simultaneously touches on the so-called Fallacy of False Analogy and the so-called Fallacy of the Scarecrow.
In the first place, it is a truism, a truism, that every good and service, produced and generated socially, will assume a cost – whether in terms of input or in terms of manpower. Liberals speak as if they have discovered the wheel, as if they were possessed of a knowledge neglected by all, as true enlightened, but do nothing but try to transmute an evident truth into an argument in favor of their anti-civilizing theses.
In this sense, given the triviality of the fact that every good and service presupposes a cost, the great question is: to whom are liberals addressing? Socialists in general have always known the costs of civilization; have always known that production implies the articulation of a series of technical elements on a large scale, and it is precisely to allow the greatest number of people to have access to such elements, so as to be able to produce for themselves and for society, which is about the socialism.
Civilization has costs. Living civilizationally presupposes costs, work, sweat, sacrifice. Any reasonable person knows this, and it is not in opposition to such an affirmation that the defense of the Public, the public service and the welfare state is established: such things are defended and promoted in the name of civilization, which endures beyond the existence of individualities and, therefore, it is more important than them.
So the liberal cliché consists only of a hollow discourse, addressed to no one: a scarecrow meme, to be more exact.
And secondly, as surely as the fact that civilization presupposes costs, is the fact that the function of the state is not the same as that of a private enterprise. A state public service is not analogous to a restaurant that provides free kettles: while the ultimate purpose of the company is profit above all, the purpose of the state is not to generate profit, but to socialize / collectivize certain goods and services necessary for the maintenance of society – which, under any scheme of production, is the basis for the very existence of the State. And unless we live enclosed in bubbles (which is at bottom the desire of the liberals), maintaining society is, at the very least, a matter of self-survival.
From which follows a politically sound truth: certain services must be free, and access to certain goods must be socially guaranteed. Guaranteed services and goods may vary, but they will certainly gravitate around such areas as health, education, housing, etc. The costs of such goods and services will be borne by society itself, AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. If the means used to finance them are not at present fair, this does not in any way lay down public services and goods (and gratuitous ones), but against the means: we socialists are the first to affirm the necessity of a change radical in the media, that is, in the structures that modulate the general physiognomy of society, leads to a reality in which Society and State are an organic, feedbacked totality.
In this way, it is not very difficult to demystify the pseudo-enlightened liberal maxim: the Public is not without cost (who said it was?). It clearly has costs, but its cost is collectively borne, just as its fruits germinate collectively.
This is civilization.