Victimhood and statism: the diagnosis running through the debate

Victimhood as diagnosis: the thesis running through the debate

Why do so many political discussions end up judging the psychology of the person next door? A thesis is circulating in the debate that attributes four shared traits —not taking responsibility for one's own mistakes, amorality, parasitism and permanent negativity— to two very different groups: Marxists and women. The proposal, formulated with percentages as resounding as they are questionable, has peine a debate on statism, victimhood and personal responsibility.

The thesis of shared victimhood

The starting point attributed those four traits to "99%" of both groups. After objections, the author himself lowered them to "the vast majority" or 80%, in homage to Pareto. Envy as a central driver and the permanent need to create conflict were later added to the list, with mention of Ayn Rand as an example of that first trait.

The response was not long in coming: the diagnosis is criticized as a generalization without evidence, formulated from the personal experience of the author. "You don't know any woman," summarizes one of the replies. Another voice turns the argument around and maintains that the same traits describe the right: the businessman who asks for a bailout after externalizing costs, the commissions attributed to PP leaders, or the Vox voter who demands order and justifies everything if his side does it. Another intervention transfers the portrait to US politics and applies it to Donald Trump, with his break with Elon Musk as an illustration.

From statism to the nanny state: the generational hypothesis

The analysis shifts to more concrete ground. One current holds that the problem is the continuous growth of the welfare state: each generation internalizes it as a baseline and demands more, until universal basic income stops seeming like a utopia. Against that, it is recalled that the state began building roads and railways when technology allowed it, and that today many 70-year-old citizens undergo laser cataract surgery, something unthinkable 150 years ago. The counterargument: cause and effect are inverted, and the citizen has been delegating for decades to "someone to take charge."

Why is everything blamed on the state?

Because the state has been taking on more and more services and responsibilities, and because the electoral payoff lies in amplifying problems, not solving them. Hence the diagnosis of the "model of denial of adulthood": those who grew up knowing that no one was going to save them become adults; those who expect a substitute for dad, don't. The example cited about the ideological divide: Franco nationalized mines, telecommunications, aviation and railways.

With these ingredients, the discussion about who is a victim and who is responsible continues in the thread.