suppose for the sake of argument we stipulated that zero sum was, indeed, a bona fide loser. that he was lazy, that he made no effort to learn marketable skills, that he maintained an unhealthy diet and as a result, suffered health problems. does this mean that he isn’t warranted in objecting to western capitalism on purely rational grounds? that is to ask, despite the fact that due to what choices he has made in life - and experienced ‘ground-zero’ of the lower class struggle because of it - must he have not been a loser, first, to have the privilege of objecting?
now i, for one, would never call the dude a ‘spoiled brat’, because i wouldn’t know enough about his life to have an informed opinion about such matters. but neither would i need to know enough about his life to permit him to have his objections, because they stand on their own merits… irrespective of whether or not he, as an individual, is a loser by his own making.
and i like to point this little gem out too. everyone, excepting a full blown retard, is capable of being a productive asset to society in some way, provided they are developed properly. but in the case of them not be developed, who and what exactly is to blame? more to the point; how does a system which doesn’t interfere with such character development, have the audacity to complain about an underdeveloped character when one happens? and even more to the point; how does the system have the nerve to complain when that underdeveloped character disregards that system’s laws and rules and becomes criminal, dissident and/or subversive merely to survive?
“capitalist society deserves its crime” - lenin
moral of the story: either the state involves itself in the development of its citizens completely, or it forfeits its right to call ‘ethical foul!’ when a citizen becomes subversive.
this is a matter of both strength and competence of the state, which hitherto has been only a comical caricature of such.
there is no ‘state’ in any real sense in western capitalistic societies. two states, rather; bourgeois and proletarian, and they are in direct opposition. there are ‘laws’, of course, but these exist only coercively and are forced on to those who do not benefit from its property laws in the same way the capitalist does, when the lower classes’ become subversive as a consequence of lacking access to property (housing, healthcare, training, job security, etc.). all these structures of the state proceed from property laws.
any conservative right-winger today who so much as opens his mouth even half way to complain about the state of the lower classes, in this country, is the very embodiment of the deepest contradiction ever produced at the very heart of the philosophy of the civil contract. what you see today is not a ‘state’, much less an equal obligation of all citizens to follow the law.
(i gotchu, zero sum. imma hold it down for you, son. just stand back and let me work)