Comments by "Chompy the Beast" (@chompythebeast) on "ReligionForBreakfast"
channel.
-
116
-
68
-
42
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@mansour9790 I don't want my food or my art from someone who refuses to participate in its growing or production and yet insists they get to be the richest one in the room regardless. "Owners" are nothing but middle-men at the top: A drain upon the system which adds nothing and which actually enriches the system only by being removed.
There should be neither incentive to own, nor indeed the option to do so, for "ownership" of the means of wealth is inherently theft. And yes, benefiting today from the genocide committed in the past by your country is an individual sin that we have simply collectivized and excused: Privilege is real, and those who simply take advantage of it rather than seeking to destroy the system that provided it are indeed guilty. In the end, we are all made victims and victimizers by global capitalism: That is why genuinely seeking its replacement is the only means available to wash away the sin of being forced to participate in it.
The systems of today are not the systems of a few hundred years ago, and they will not be the systems of the future, either. Expand your mind to what isn't, but which could be. That is the message of Jesus: He did not come to make excuses for the ruling classes as you do now, but to promise a better, a different tomorrow
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@brutusthebear9050 I'm not sure I understand your point about my making light of the "actually its a Republic" line being touted so often these days, because it's all over the zeitgeist right now, specifically coming from people who say it in order to argue for the erosion of any form of genuine 'representation'. It is said all too often, not by people trying to open their fellow citizens' eyes, but to actively excuse anti-democratic policies which are legitimately against the will of the people.
Bourgeois Republicanism is a liberal form of government, after all, and since the days of the American Revolution (and indeed well before), it has always been inherently classist in nature: A government by the bourgeoisie, for the bourgeoisie. Has there been any liberal republic born in the last two centuries which was anything else? The very same structure but dominated by workers or in a classless society would no longer even qualify as a liberal republic at all, but would be, quite intrinsically, anti-liberal in nature.
Democracy means many things in different contexts, of course, but we must remain focused not on hollow idealism, but upon material conditions. To my mind, in sheerly political (and not idealistic) terms, only the Tyranny of the Proletariat, as opposed to the present Tyranny of the Bourgeoisie, offers any promise of a genuine "rule of the people" in a manner separate from sheer "mob rule", itself a dusty concern for slave-owning Plato and his Philosopher Kings more than it is for the working class.
At any rate, the reason I left that reply is because this very thread is full of people talking about how, sure, the USA was founded for wealthy landowners, but how that's totally changed now, and American government is definitely not for the same class these days. That is, of course, demonstrably untrue. The same rules of class apply, and they will continue to dominate and hold back the will of the working class majority as long as class is allowed to exist at all. None of which is to say that the working class is politically infallible simply by virtue of their numbers, but rather by virtue of the scientific and once again demonstrable merits of a classless society
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2