Shandy

-2

Shandy wrote

We the people elect our dictators.

If they were dictators they wouldn't be limited to 4 year terms. They're literally not dictators as long as term limits and open elections exist.

If all the people are dictators because the minority has less say than the majority, then you're basically calling democracy a dictatorship... That's obviously not logical. A dictatorship is when 1 person decides everything and no one else can complain or they get killed.

Those in power are not elected, they elect themselves. They are the banksters and the billionaires, they are the leaders of the weapons industry and the heads of corporations.

It makes sense that the richest people would have a big stake in choosing who runs the country because they have the most to lose if someone is elected who doesn't know what he's doing. They have the most to lose if our complex society / economy is damaged by someone unequipped to manage it.

I get the feeling you haven't even tried to understand what anarchism is.

I had no idea this site was for anarchists, I thought it was for all leftists. I didn't ask this question on the anarchist board so I don't know why everyone is telling me I need to understand the anarchist position. The position of anarchism as far as I know is to destroy the system entirely, and as I've said, that's a dreadful idea.

0

Shandy wrote (edited )

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

One more question, are liberals really more complicit than you guys? Don't you guys buy the same clothes made by sweatshops and eat the same food made by cutting down the rainforests? But you're not complicit just because you label yourself an anarchist?

-6

Shandy wrote (edited )

I think that's kind of a bad analogy because no one is enslaved here, we have the freedom to move about freely, to practice whatever religion we want, to work for whichever employer we want, and so on. I would of course have advocated for abolition of slavery just like I advocate for abolition for unjust police brutality today.

But that's just one broken aspect of a giant system that mostly functions well. We can be against one bad thing in the system without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

-8

Shandy wrote

Because I'm a reasonable and logical person who knows getting rid of it would just result in utter chaos. We can't destroy our wonderful and thriving civilization just so you get to live as some kind of holier than thou political activist. We need hierarchies for certain things, I mean, even nature has natural hierarchies... Food chains... It's unavoidable. If we don't elect leaders, we'll have no direction, no one to guide us forward (or backwards, in president Trump's case). But at least its a direction, anything is better than just not trying at all.

-3

Shandy wrote

Oh, come on! Are we really going to pretend that America has a dictatorship? We the people elect our leaders, for better or worse.

And yes it blows that the majority vote for an awful candidate like president Trump, but that's democracy in action. It's the best system we have.

-4

Shandy wrote (edited )

That's just silly. Of course change can't come all at once, it needs to be a gradual progression to make our revolution. In the real world, you can't just destroy the whole system and hope that the things that we count on to survive will still be functioning the next day.

We have an advanced civilized society here, and sure there are bad things about it like police brutality but also good things like when the police protect us for legit murderers. If you just get rid of the whole system overnight, a lot of people will get hurt. It has to be a gradual thing or it'll be chaos.

It's not a reasonable position to think that voting for progressive leaders won't lead to change. Since it's literally the only method we have within the confines of our system.

You're talking about throwing out the constitution and hundreds of years of law and progress and that's just idiotic. It would only end up hurting the little man to be so reckless. Our civilization and our safety has to be safeguarded first and foremost. Then and only then can we think about affecting change (through legitimate channels).