Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dele_ted wrote

Let's leave the dictator thing alone, there's many definitions for 'dictator', one of them being 'a person with unlimited governmental power', which is what a president is supposed to be. Remember there's a difference between dictatorship and a dictator. Doesn't matter much what we call him, let's call him a ruler from now on to avoid digressing.

It makes sense that the richest people would have a big stake in choosing who runs the country

You've misunderstood something. The fact that somebody can be richer than another, and hold more freedom than another being who was born equal to him, is deeply corrupt.

They have the most to lose if our complex society / economy is damaged by someone unequipped to manage it

What makes you think that these people have more right, or are somehow better at managing the lives of others, on their behalf, simply because they hold more capital? There's nothing justifying their rule, the only reason why they have risen to power is because they were able to set aside ethics and exploit the earth, the working class or the animals.

I had no idea this site was for anarchists, I thought it was for all leftists

Do your research then, it's very obvious.

The position of anarchism as far as I know is to destroy the system entirely

That's not anarchism, I've explicitly said this many times now. Here's two good introductions to anarchism if you want to understand it:

Accidental Anarchist, a pretty good and short documentary that explains the basics of anarchism with a very relevant real-world example.

The Secret is To Get Started, a written introduction with some of the classic questions that newcomers have. If you have more questions, just shoot me a PM or comment here, I'll gladly clarify.

8