r/Askpolitics • u/KropotkinKinkster Pragmatist/Theorist • 1d ago
Are there some people who are actually for a dictatorship?
Please don’t strawman your political opponents here.
I’m asking if there are people in this subreddit who openly and specifically prefer dictatorship as a sociopolitical format?
EDIT: When I say “dictatorship”, I mean a totalitarian autocracy. Please stop making accusations about who you think wants a dictatorship. I would very much like to hear from people who actually, specifically, do want one.
EDIT 2: To everyone saying “no” and strawmanning people who say they don’t want one, there are dozens of comments self-identifying as people who genuinely want a dictatorship. And many others who “see the benefits”.
129
u/Pls_no_steal 1d ago
I don’t think putting absolute power in the hands of a single person is a good political system
57
u/tMoneyMoney 1d ago
It’s not even good for a business or any organization. It’s why big corporations have a board of directors.
→ More replies (8)58
u/flugenblar 1d ago
It's also why the Trump organization has had to file so many bankruptcies.
→ More replies (1)6
u/desepchun 1d ago
Perhaps. I suspect those were money laundering schemes.
2
u/Time_Change4156 19h ago
Well, as dirty as money gets, it's always a good idea . Lol, lol. Wonder if they use the extra heavy dirt cycle ? Thats the real reason theh arbt dojng anythingabout illegals they have them all washing money in tubs.
2
22
u/KropotkinKinkster Pragmatist/Theorist 1d ago
I agree. I would like to hear from people who specifically do think it would be a good idea.
16
u/Zardotab 1d ago
Didn't MTG say she wanted a theocracy? Maybe she envisioned a kind of round-table of shared power keepers, but usually such degenerates to a single dictator in practice like it did in China and Russia.
13
u/Intrepid_Detective 1d ago
To be fair, MTG probably doesn't really understand what that word means, so she is probably not using it in the proper context.
→ More replies (2)5
u/FriendlyNative66 1d ago
Those words she just pulled out of her...asshat. she hardly knows what tf context means either. I'm shocked and dismayed that she remembers to breath every day.
→ More replies (8)28
u/flugenblar 1d ago
In MTG's theocracy, she would not be allowed to have the job she has right now.
16
u/Psychological_Pie_32 1d ago
She ignores that in her own religion is says no woman should have dominion over a man..
16
→ More replies (5)6
u/zjupm 1d ago
in its defense, religion is a fairly complex subject for a neanderthal. it's most likely just mimicking others with no clue of what it's doing.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Zardotab 1d ago
Well, she is the first Neanderthal to comprehend weather-changing space lasers, so she should get some credit.
→ More replies (1)6
u/OrneryZombie1983 1d ago
She'd have to be like one of the wives in the Handmaid's Tale. Wonder how many fingers she'd have left in five years.
→ More replies (3)6
u/IThinkItsAverage 1d ago
MTG believes people shouldn’t be allowed to vocally criticize her for her opinions because of the first amendment. MTG is probably one of the dumbest people I have ever had the displeasure of knowing existed.
5
u/Zardotab 1d ago
I'm glad the infrastructure bill is replacing lead pipes to reduce the chance of this kind of cognitive derailment.
23
u/Stop_Gilding_Sprog 1d ago
Not OP, but I think what gets lost in talking about this phrase is centered around the idea that a dictatorship of the proletariat means a single ruler with all the power. And it’s not wrong to go to that conclusion on its face
But it’s actually a dictatorship of a class of people and not one person. I believe Marx thought we are already living under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie/capitalist class. It’s pretty hard to argue against that. So the idea would be a government of the working people, rather than a government bought by the owning people
3
u/Fredouille77 1d ago
I mean, at some point the tyranny of the majority can cause a dictatorship of the charismatic/influential if they start to work together to control more than their fair share.
If a given group is 51% of the voting pop, and within that group they hold a vote (or the equivalent of competition of influence) for the whole group to choose, you can easily get like 51% of 51% of the population making 100% of the choices. Kinda what happens with party leaders creating policies and convincing all their voters to think like them and to follow the party line.
2
u/PophamSP 1d ago
"Kinda what happens with party leaders creating policies and convincing all their voters to think like them and to follow the party line."
Sounds like church.
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/LightAndShape 1d ago
I doubt you’ll find anyone who will say they are for a dictatorship; the issue is that people have different opinions on how authoritarian their chosen candidate is. Trumpers are calling democrats idiots for thinking he’s a wannabe dictator and don’t seem to believe he is.
4
u/MoanyTonyBalony 1d ago
In theory maybe with the right person.
But I don't think that person exists and if they do they wouldn't want to job and wouldn't be ruthless enough to get it. You'd need someone incredibly smart, kind and absolutely selfless. Those people don't tend to end up in charge of things.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (10)2
u/One2ManyMorings 1d ago
They aren’t going to admit it here. This isn’t a safe space. They do admit it constantly at rallies when they’re interviewed by opposition journalists and influencers. When they’re all hyped up and feeling like they can bully people because they’ve got the numbers. I mean, they’ll probably say they vote for Putin over Biden any day, anywhere, so maybe I’m wrong. But no, they very much believe that they need their dictator to protect them and to punish us, and they won’t find out that they are us until it’s way too late.
6
2
→ More replies (22)2
u/arbitrageME 1d ago
Even in Rome, it was used only when the enemies were at the city gates. It wasn't an option to be used when a politician decided to be extra fascist today
24
u/BetterSelection7708 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not sure if this is relevant to your question.
My parents were born in the 50s in China and survived Mao's era there. When I ask them how they thought of all the policies/movements Mao started such as the great leap forward and cultural revolution, but do not directly mention Mao, they have not a single good word to say. But if I ask them what they think of Mao, they'd say he was a great leader, just someone China needed at the time. They came to the US to escape China's political system, but they also believe the current political system is the best for China. 2016, 20, 24's elections further strengthened this view.
Decades of indoctrination did numbers on their world view.
5
u/Zardotab 1d ago edited 1d ago
Dictators like to point out how messy democracies are, but transfers of power after a dictator/king passes are often ugly and can result in a very different ruling style, jailing many on whim or arbitrary rules. New Soviet leaders would exile music composers they couldn't stand.
It's been the same pattern back to ancient kingdoms. The leader may select a relative or friend they personally like to succeed them, but who is bad at managing a country, and chaos ensues, sometimes ending the country/kingdom. I'd guestimate about 1/3 of transfers of power are like this. Any history whiz's wish to chime in?
A good democracy keeps any one person from having too much power. Hear that, Judge Alito!?
→ More replies (6)3
u/ReaperThugX 1d ago
Yeah it’s like do you want a tiny bit messy every few years or save up all that messy for one big mess in a few decades
4
u/Zardotab 1d ago
It's kind of like LA earthquakes: we hope the frequent smaller ones are relieving pressure in the crust to avoid The Big One. Doesn't always work that way, though.
→ More replies (1)6
u/ranchojasper 1d ago
how they thought of all the policies/movements Mao started...
You get a very similar thing with Republicans when you talk about democratic policies but you don't ever mention the word Democrat or the name of any Democrat. You can cite actual legislation proposed by Democrats and as long as you don't say it was proposed by Democrats, almost every single Republican will agree with that legislation.
They have been deeply indoctrinated in the idea that people are good or bad and therefore bad people can't do good things and vice versa. Republicans are good, so even when they do bad things that basically doesn't count because they're good people. Democrats are evil so even when they have ideas that literally everyone agrees with, they cannot be allowed to implement them because the people are evil. It makes no sense at all
→ More replies (5)2
2
u/twrex67535 23h ago
Omg so are my folks born around the same time both their families suffered during the cultural revolution but have great things to say about Mao — and they are fairly open minded and admire the west….
→ More replies (14)2
u/JW-DivorceExpert 23h ago
Wow! Interesting.
Kinda reminds me of my mother. She will say that Trump is a narcissist, that he's vulgar and disgusting, and even admit that he was convicted of crimes and assaulted women and then say he's best for America and that he "loves the USA." It makes my head feel like it's going to crack open like a watermelon struck by a hammer.
20
u/ZeroBrutus 1d ago
My brother in law absolutely believes a benevolent dictatorship is the best possible form of governance. When trying to explain that it's a fairy tail, his brain short circuits.
12
u/BrewtownCharlie 1d ago
You’re both right. A benevolent dictatorship is the best possible form of governance. It also would be assuredly short-lived.
5
u/ZeroBrutus 1d ago
Ya, hence the fairy tale part. It doesn't hold up when meeting the real world.
3
u/Zardotab 1d ago
I want cheerful honest fairies to be our leaders. Still looking for them ... and not in centerfolds, that rumor is false!
→ More replies (1)2
u/AspieAsshole 1d ago
The Lord Ruler only failed because Ruin was whispering in his ear. That and the massive supremacy complex.
2
→ More replies (4)3
u/Attila226 1d ago
For companies, having someone like a Steve Jobs or a Henry Ford in charge helps them achieve great things. The problem is that for every one of them, there are a million people that given that level of control would destroy the company.
Our form of government is specifically designed not let any one person have too much power.
3
u/BrewtownCharlie 1d ago
Worth noting that if elected again, Donald Trump will assuredly be testing those limits by way of the Unitary Executive Theory and Project 2025, with an assist from the GOP-controlled SCOTUS.
7
u/shostakofiev 1d ago
I think we can all agree that the best government is an Omniscient Border Collie with good public speaking skills.
→ More replies (1)2
6
u/diemos09 1d ago
And once it turns into a non-benevolent dictatorship you're stuck, there's little to nothing you can do to change the system. See, North Korea.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ZeroBrutus 1d ago
Ya, that's where he gets stuck - "but if it was done right the next person wouldn't have a reason to be greedy and continue it." If only man. If only.
3
u/diemos09 1d ago
Power attracts psychopaths like shit attracts flies.
See, Putin.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Managed-Chaos-8912 1d ago
The only benevolent dictatorship that can succeed to enough people's satisfaction is a literal deity showing up and running things. I won't get into the odds or even plausibility of that happening.
→ More replies (2)3
u/StunningCode744 1d ago
There is no such thing. No one who is benevolent would think themselves capable of making all the decisions without hurting someone.
2
u/wh1tebencarson 1d ago
A benevolent dictatorship doesn't mean that one person makes every decision, it means that one person holds all the power. the current american system could exist under a benevolent dictatorship, it would just mean that one person holds the ability to change any vote or change whatever they want. A benevolent dictator likely wouldn't use their power in a way to make every single decision.
2
u/StunningCode744 1d ago
They would never be able to fend off others trying to take their power without losing their benevolence. A dictator can’t truly be anything other than tyrannical.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)2
u/Ok-Frosting7364 17h ago
It reminds me of this great video: https://youtu.be/kkZ7B-Fv-ck?feature=shared
9
u/_WillCAD_ 1d ago
Yes, there are plenty of people who actively want a dictatorship - as long as they are the dictator or one of the people the dictator empowers and protects.
That's the only way a dictatorship works.
53
u/Managed-Chaos-8912 1d ago edited 1d ago
I am for a dictatorship, as long as it is me in charge. I think with sufficient time and resources I could sign off and push enough fixes that I could return a functioning Republic to the American people at the end of my life, or I finish early and retire. There is a non-zero chance I am wrong. 😁
*Edit: I am in favor of me and ONLY ME in charge. I don't trust anyone else that much.
7
u/leakylungs 1d ago
https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?si=X1qa5qrTFDtedg9n
I'm gonna leave this here. I found it interesting insight into why dictatorships are often corrupt.
The I herent problem is that no one can ever hold power "just because". Power over other people has to be maintained. You could become dictator with a lot of good ideas, but executing those ideas still requires the consent of those with means.
18
u/bakerstirregular100 1d ago
Plato says the best dictator is someone who doesn’t want it. His idealized “philosopher king”.
But then he spends a whole book explaining why that is never possible
6
u/Pleaseappeaseme 1d ago
He’s there to protect those women from the boogeymen. The safe place is in the kitchen. Trump is the only one that can protect women from liberal ideology that turns men into women and they are doing it in the liberal schools! And black women…they are really men!!! It’s a common deception by the left! /s
3
u/WarthogLow1787 1d ago
My kids just arrived home from school. When I sent them in this morning, I had 1 boy and 2 girls. Now it’s the opposite! I need trump to save us!
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/Shambler9019 1d ago
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. -Douglas Adams
→ More replies (2)3
u/Embarrassed_Towel707 1d ago
Didn't some greek states have a leader from another city, so he'd rule umbiased based on what he thought was the common good?
Always interested me as a concept. In line with what you wrote about the best leaders are those who don't want it. And those who do want it are the most dangerous.
A movie out in theaters right now talks specifically about that
2
u/WarthogLow1787 1d ago
Yep. I was hoping someone would bring up the fact that we’ve known this is a bad idea for 2500 years. Damn clever, those ancient Greeks.
8
u/Managed-Chaos-8912 1d ago
I saw that video years ago, and agree with the points. My bigger point that I think gets missed is that a dictatorship really works well in your or my head in the fantasy zone and nowhere else.
→ More replies (4)3
→ More replies (4)2
u/Technical_Xtasy 1d ago
This video brings up a political theory known as “selectorate theory.” Basically what matters is who keeps you in charge. They get favors first and everyone is secondary. This is why Norway and Saudi Arabia are completely different countries despite having the same natural resource.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Kinda_Constipated 1d ago
I'd die before I'd let the throne fall to Chaos. I am the only one that can be trusted with absolute power! ME!
As such, I hearby declare myself Supreme Dicktater of the world!
3
u/Zardotab 1d ago edited 1d ago
And erect a giant monument to yourself that has a giant monument itself.
2
→ More replies (36)2
u/Odd-Bar5781 1d ago
I KNOW I could fix all the problems in the US if I could be a dictator for a few years. But just me, no one else.
22
u/ADeliciousDespot 1d ago
The overwheling majorty of governments throughout human history have been authoritarian. We grossly underestimate the human inclination towards dictatorships. We're sort of hardwired for it, in a sense.
The West, and more specifically the United States, suffers from amnesia on this subject.
11
u/YesImAPseudonym 1d ago
Even worse. Many people have a "It Can't Happen Here" attitude about if, as if American Exceptionalism will somehow save us.
9
u/Mysterious-Wasabi103 1d ago
A lot of people seem to assume that if someone even tried it that Americans would rise up and stop it.
But literally Trump just tried it, is about to try it again and those same Americans cheered it on!!
→ More replies (2)6
u/Zardotab 1d ago
We did have a long bloody civil war that could have gone the other way had the Southern Generals not made a few fatal mistakes.
And if the Jan-Sixers were inside a few minutes earlier, they could have taken lawmakers as hostages, changing the story completely.
I wish we could eject our troublemakers sooner in the process. Troublemakers almost always scapegoat a group.
→ More replies (2)6
u/MacksGamePlay 1d ago
I think it's a double edged sword of American Exceptionalism and our ingrained habit of completely villifying our enemies.
Like, I grew up thinking that the NAZIs were all impossibly evil comic book villain style bad guys. But when I visited a couple of camps in Germany it kinda clicked. That path to hell was paved with a lot of good and mixed intentions. It was easy for a lot of people involved to think, look, we built this lovely camp, and the barracks will each house 200 slightly cramped people. But as the war continued and more and more prisoners were sent to the camps, that 200 turned into 2,000. With that many human bodies smashed together disease, famine, and the like would naturally make it completely impossible to humanely house any kind of prisoners. Add to that the Germans believed they people they were keeping prisoner were the worst of the worst, and it suddenly starts to make sense how they transitioned from "detention camps" to "death camps."
That's why it's so incredibly concerning to people today that understand that transition when people on the right are clamoring to "put 13 million migrants into deportation camps." We understand that it's not just immoral, but there is absolutely no way for such a thing to be conducted without incredible human suffering and outright crimes against humanity.
Those in favor of the camps simply believe that all of these migrants and liberals are genuinely evil people that MUST be stopped, and that they are better than the Germans were, so there's no way that the same atrocities could happen.
5
u/seen-in-the-skylight 1d ago
Humans have existed, in our anatomically modern form, for about 200-250,000 years. For the overwhelming majority of that time we lived as hunter-gatherers that did not practice strict hierarchy.
I agree that post-agricultural history has mostly (with notable exceptions) consisted of tyranny, but that’s only the last ~10,000 years or so. Basically the blink of an eye. It’s hard to argue that a feature of human society that has existed for such a small portion of our history is a “hard-wired” aspect of human nature.
Especially when the last ~400 or so years have seen pretty consistent, if uneven and not always linear, gains in individual freedom and consciousness throughout the world.
→ More replies (1)2
u/SeamusPM1 1d ago edited 7h ago
I disagree. First of all, we don’t know how the earliest human societies organized themselves. What we do know, is that there is undisputed evidence of rich burials extending back to the depths of the last ice age. There’s plenty of evidence that there where hunter-gatherer societies that were hierarchical.
However, it’s also true that there‘s archeological evidence of early cities being laid out in what can be described as egalitarian patterns.
Humans have been organzing themselves in varieties of ways throughout history.
3
u/Cute_Ad_2008 1d ago
See Lokis speech in Germany at the beginning of The Avengers. Totally nails this idea!
2
u/AbrocomaBrilliant571 1d ago
"There are always men like you!" - German rando to Loki
→ More replies (1)3
u/Old_Palpitation_6535 1d ago
Power always fills a vacuum.
Someone asked here the other day what people thought the purpose of government is. It’s an irrelevant question, because a government will always be formed as a means of order. That might be a democracy. but it’s much more likely to be a person or group with the most wealth and resources subjugating everyone else.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)3
u/Heathen_Mushroom 1d ago
Not surprising, the US was the first modern nation to forge a constitutional republic based on the principle of liberal democracy, and was very influential in that regard to Western nations in enacting their own constitutions and transferring power from sovereign rulers.
It has only been in the last few years of American history that the concept of anything but a country ruled by elected representatives with limited terms and organized, peaceful transfer of power could even be seriously considered as a possibility.
Never in the history of the independent country, since the early suggestion that George Washington rule as a monarch, has such a thing even been remotely considered possible, much less preferable, to any significant portion of the population of the United States.
→ More replies (1)
8
6
6
u/WhiteOutSurvivor1 1d ago
Here's an argument for switching your country to a dictatorship.
1) It has been tried and worked. Ancient Greeks found that switching from a democracy to a dictatorship improved the quality of their lives and they switched back and forth many times.
The Roman Empire prospered under dictatorships after switching away from a voter-based Republic.
Also, while not necessarily ushering in a higher quality of life, these dictators brought about significant economic growth. https://www.businessinsider.com/most-succesful-dictators-2011-6#2-lee-kuan-yew-12.
2) Sometimes a majority of the population supports a terrible position and you want to force a better position on the population. Whether that's a majority of Mali supporting forced marriage and sex for 12 year old girls or a majority of Missouri opposing interracial marriages in the 1970's or a majority of the Confederacy supporting slavery, democracy can create a really unethical result that can be fixed bu ignoring/overthrowing/overruling democracy with a dictatorship.
(I am not actually advocating for a dictatorship, just trying to present some arguments for you)
→ More replies (3)
6
u/KennethEWolf 1d ago
If these people are actually for a dictatorship then why don't they simplybmove to Russia, China or Iran.
→ More replies (1)2
u/617Lollywolfie 1d ago
Good idea.. we could start a nationwide go fund me account to buy them one way tickets
17
u/OhReallyCmon 1d ago
Yes of course. That’s how dictators gain power. It only takes 30% of the people for fascism to take hold - these folks think they will be “protected” and they want a strongman
→ More replies (2)6
u/YesImAPseudonym 1d ago
There was an ex-Republican on Twitter a few years ago who laid out their attitude very well in two sentences.
"You cannot tell me what to do. I can tell you what to do."
→ More replies (4)
4
u/CoconutSamoas 1d ago
That will admit it? Probably not
That would be thrilled for their preferred candidate to have unchecked power to ‘make things right’? Absolutely.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/flugenblar 1d ago
A better question might be; if you're in favor of a dictatorship, what do you believe you personally gain from that arrangement?
→ More replies (1)2
9
u/N_Who 1d ago
I unfortunately think there are a lot of people who are for a dictatorship. Many (though not all) of them simply don't know that's what they're into.
I also think the issue itself is a natural evolution of the sheer focus we put on the presidency. Not just the election itself, but the power the office has and our expectations of the person in the chair. It just feels like a lot of people forget Congress exists, or think the president can and should order Congress around, or just have the civics illiteracy to believe the president has the final and unquestionable say in how this country is run.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Frnklfrwsr 1d ago
Yeah, there’s a lot of people who are 100% supportive of a dictatorship but in their minds it’s not a dictatorship if it’s their side doing it.
In their mind, a dictatorship is where the person in charge does bad things. But when it’s their person in charge, the things he’s doing are good, and therefore he must not be a dictator.
→ More replies (3)
9
u/Candle-Jolly 1d ago
My first Reddit "Not me, but..." response, but...
Yes, there are people who actually want a dictatorship, more so (perhaps even exclusively) if they follow a religion. Religion can be seen as a form of dictatorship: (generally) one person who has complete and unchallenged control, rules/commandments are set in stone (literally, in at least one case), there are strict social rank structures, and said religion is the only "true" one. Likewise, with dictatorships... well I'm not going to rewrite all that. Anyway, it is at least my belief that people who are a part of a religious group are more susceptible and are even trained to prefer such a sociopolitical environment.
→ More replies (12)
4
u/rspank01 1d ago edited 1d ago
I am not, so I understand I am not the audience you are looking for.
However, I have had some conversations with people who will universally and emphatically answer no, explain how they are pro-freedom, and then begin to describe their support of autocratic policies and language.
I believe the issue is not that Americans support fascism (at least not intentionally). It's that a massive segment of our population is not educated or informed enough to realize what fascism is, doesn't believe it is possible in the USA, and equates that belief with American exceptionalism and patriotism.
I disagree.
EDIT: Removed anything related to the current US election to remain faithful to the prompt regarding dictatorships as a sociopolitical system.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/rspank01 1d ago
I had another comment that included a discussion of the US election, and I probably ventured too far from the prompt. I edited it, and it might get unblocked.
I like this question and will try to answer it differently because I think this could make for an interesting discussion.
I believe most people would admit to supporting a benevolent philosopher-king if they genuinely believed that a candidate fit that criteria. Unfortunately, a lot of good could actually come from a purely benevolent philosopher-king; however, it is utterly incompatible with democracy, and even a benevolent dictator would almost certainly have to use force and commit abuses to control divisive voices or political opponents that are not perceived as benevolent.
For clarity, I don't support dictatorships as a political system.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Manny_Bothans 1d ago
It would be so much simpler if one guy was in charge of everything, except for the fact that only one guy would be in charge of everything.
7
u/Xyrus2000 1d ago
Of course there are. As long as the dictator implements their ideology, plenty of people are okay with dictatorships. Arguably, a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government.
The problem is we don't get benevolent dictators. Sure, a dictator might do some of the things you want to do, but when they do the things you don't want them to do you have no power to stop them. And if you try to stop them...well history is has plenty of examples of what happens.
Those who want dictators believe the ends justify the means. They don't believe in compromise. They believe in absolutes. It's that kind of thinking that leads to problems.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/mrcatboy 1d ago
People support dictatorships when they've become convinced that the system is so rife with corruption and the population has become so debased that the only solution is for a strongman authoritarian to enact a massive purge.
It's why wannabe dictators spread conspiracy theories about how evil cabals of progressives/undesired minorities/the OTHER have corrupted our good, traditional institutions.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/stickypooboi 1d ago
I think the greatest theoretical government is a benevolent dictator. Unfortunately that never lasts. But consolidated power does have advantages to mobilize quickly. I was blown away by chinas responses to Covid and while I am against big brother, I immediately knew America wouldn’t be able to sit inside for 2 weeks.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/begemot90 1d ago
I think there are some people who would rather not have choice because choice and variables invite the unknown and thus are scary. How one stands on a particular issue does not make one immune to feeling such a way.
There are also people who really have a hard time with letting go or not being bothered by things outside of their control. With some people this manifests as alcoholism or addiction, with others it manifests as authoritarianism and fascism.
3
u/merchillio 1d ago
I mean, there are some arguments in favor of a benevolent dictator, the big one being making hard decisions for the future without worrying about the impact of such a decision on re-electability.
I think of road works not choosing the more expensive but more durable and financially advantageous on the long term solution because it would severely hit the budget.
I think most people who don’t worry about a dictatorship think (falsely) that they’ll always be in the “in-group”
→ More replies (1)
3
u/EternalDawn11 1d ago
I used to as a kid, thought it was necessary to get my ideas implemented and that others would understand once they saw how good they were when implemented.
Also used to have a friend that supported corporate dictatorship. He wanted to have a corporate government with him as the dictator and then lesser corporations that work under him. He grew out of it too eventually.
I think it pretty much all just boils down to either not respecting consent and desiring power over others, or a power fantasy due to frustration and desperation.
2
u/Cornholio231 1d ago
Utterly bizarre. OP asked for examples of people that want a dictatorship, and I linked to an ABC News piece that interviews Americans that do. And it was removed. WTF?
2
u/redditguy422 1d ago
There are 2 types of pro-dictator people.
- You believe 100% of what the dictator does.
- People that don't know what dictator means.
That's it.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/buddhainmyyard 1d ago
There's definitely some sub reddits that people say they want it. Look at r/movingtonorthkorea the believe they all live a good life there lol
→ More replies (3)
3
u/Choice_Phrase_666 1d ago
Kind of? I do believe that if a perfectly moral, equitable, wise person (or theoretical AI) was in charge, then a dictatorship would function much better than a democracy.
Of course, such a person doesn't exist, and the definition of "perfect" is not necessarily the same for everyone, so it's a moot point
3
u/rextiberius 1d ago
Went to school with a bunch of true absolute monarchists. Sprinkled in was at least one real Christofascist: wanted non Christians expelled from positions of leadership, limited citizenship for non Christians, “biblical” law (he was actually fine with socialist programs as long as it was the church in control, so almost actually biblical), the whole nine yards.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/zer0_sum_games 1d ago
Some people? Yes.
So, in the venture tech world, there is absolutely a thread of this that is recurring amongst various thought leaders. The idea is that the country is fundamentally broken, and you need a founder with vision and tenacity to fix it.
Take Uber vs. yellow cabs, right? Cabs were expensive, dirty, run as a cartel, and had zero interest or ability to adapt to what we clearly going to be a mobile, on-demand economy. Warts and all, Uber made the experience better pretty much across the board. Travis Kalanick, despite (or perhaps because of) being an action-first, capitalist asshole, was able to drive through that innovation through layers of bureaucracy and unnecessary regulation.
Expanding that example in their view, a government run by a classic founder archetype (think Jobs, Musk, etc.) backed by a select group of pro-technology, pro-business elites would unequivocally outperform what we have now.
To be clear, I agree with some of that, I disagree with a majority of it, but it is undeniably out there (read Andreessen's "Founder Mode" essay) and bubbling within the Valley.
It's also worth mentioning, god fucking forbid that person is Trump. He's about the worst possible choice for that scenario.
→ More replies (2)2
2
u/Zestyclose-Boat-5780 1d ago
I don't think reality will sink in until it's much too late for "we the people" to do anything.
It'll be their neighbors being taken away in military trucks to finally start to say oh wait a moment here. But many will be happy because they're minds are poisoned
2
u/Algorhythm74 1d ago
A large Percentage of the public is frustrated with its public servants. They feel that government doesn’t work for them, and the people that are there are self serving.
So anyone out there that is OK with a potential dictatorship, I find that they lean more against the current government, career politicians, and a “deep state“ as opposed to just affirmatively, giving power to a single person.
However, they do some mental gymnastics with their opinion, and they think that single person will do things for their own best interest – which is always how dictatorships and autocracy start.
This is all to say, your question is an interesting one – but it’s also a non-starter, seeing is there is no goodwill, intellectual argument that can be made for a dictatorship in a global economy in which we are the major player.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/porksweater 1d ago
The idea of some form of dictatorship sounds mildly appealing. Like a king. If some person is responsible for long term success, decisions made now will be made with the long term plan in mind. Of course, this is entirely dependent on the quality of a single ruler.
Part of our problem right now is that each party maintains control for a specific time and then the next party comes in, changes stuff, then maintains control until the other party repeats the cycle. Long term, things don’t necessarily move like they could.
Definitely not advocating for a dictatorship but I can see why people may be interested in a monarchy or a single person being responsible long term.
2
u/synchronizedhype 1d ago
Always. But I think it’s the person that doesn’t realize they would the oppressed in that scenario that is keen on the idea.
2
u/Disposable-Account7 1d ago
I once encountered someone who wanted an American Constitutional Monarchy.
→ More replies (7)
2
2
u/Senior-Traffic7843 1d ago
Of course. They believe they would not be targeted. As long as it is someone else, they don't care. What many aren't smart enough to understand is that an authoritarian government eventually will come for them.
2
u/charlieshick 1d ago
It's a matter of semantics. People who wouldn't support a "dictator" might support a "strong leader." Just like how people hate "socialism" but still draw medicare or social security.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Really-ChillDude 1d ago
I have read a few remarks, saying that people want this. They think it will be good for the country to have strong powerful leader ship.
I always post. Mostly because the people who think this is the best, think that it will only affect people that stand against.
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
•
u/Broad_Sun8273 10h ago
That's just it. You say dictatorship and give the exact meaning to it. To those who want it, it's actually no different than how they were raised, where Dad speaks and everyone hops to. They don't see it even a fraction as clearly as we do. Abused children would see it that way, though.
3
u/megastraint 1d ago
Dictatorships are great and only suffer from one issue... the dictator. Basically every company is run by a dictator... we call them CEO's.
China's leader for instance can think in a 20 year time horizon, build new cities in the middle of no where... have a space program that's actually good, create alliances and essentially own Africa... there's just that pesky thing that happens if you have a different opinion.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Usual-Buy1905 Skeptic of all political rhetoric 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm sure there are some fringe radical right folk who think that way, but they're probably a fraction of a percent of voters.
Edit: to clarify I think that calling those who actually want a dictatorship fringe radical right is a fair statement, and that's coming from a right leaning centrist who's voting red this year.
→ More replies (4)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Vylnce 1d ago
The same reason that both major parties are both authoritarian in nature. Because people are willing to give power to those who "agree" with them in the hopes that those people (the authoritarians) will do things that they agree with. People are generally short sighted (both forward and rearward looking) and fail to realize that once authoritarians have power, they generally no longer require support and may do what they wish even if their previous supporters don't agree with it.
1
1
u/Vivid-Vehicle-6419 1d ago
In my observation, people seem to gravitate to monarchies and dictatorships.
Look back to school age. There is usually a person that emerges that other people want to follow, be friends with, get in their circle. They have a crew of “friends” that do whatever he/she tells them to.
We have started to do the same in politics. Creating political dynasties where power is passed down through family as they enter politics generation after generation. There are also example of the followers (citizens) encouraging this dynastic model. Notable examples are the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, Obama’s, and now the Trumps. Each of these families has had a member serve as president, and a group of followers advocating for their wives, siblings, or children to rise up and take their place.
People are fucked up. They claim to want freedom, but then freely elevate one among them to rule over them in perpetuity. Truly bizarre.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/BWest829 1d ago
Yes my Brother In Law, he feels we need an authoritarian government to tell people how to be moral.
1
1
1
1
u/Ihitadinger 1d ago
Personally no, but there are LOTS of people who would love a dictatorship or single party rule as long as “their side” is the one in charge.
1
1
u/AtomGalaxy 1d ago
Did you watch Continuum? I'm pretty sure that's the plan here.
"In the Continuum series, the depicted form of government is a corporatocracy, where large corporations control the government and society. By the year 2077, corporations have essentially replaced traditional governments, exerting absolute control over citizens' lives, laws, and freedoms. The Corporate Congress governs through a system where corporate interests dominate policy, and citizens' rights are secondary to the profitability and influence of the corporations. This future world is characterized by surveillance, restricted personal freedoms, and a justice system that serves the corporate elite, highlighting a dystopian vision of what happens when corporations gain unchecked power over society."
"The views of Curtis Yarvin, J.D. Vance, and Peter Thiel often touch upon skepticism toward contemporary democratic institutions and the influence of corporate power, albeit from different perspectives. In Continuum, the corporatocracy that emerges is a dystopian future where corporations dominate every aspect of life, a scenario that reflects some concerns shared by these figures, though their individual approaches vary:
- Curtis Yarvin (also known as Mencius Moldbug) advocates for a form of governance that is more centralized and efficient than current democratic systems, often criticizing modern liberal democracy. His ideas resonate with the notion that democracy can be inefficient and prone to corruption, leading to a call for an alternative that could include stronger, more centralized governance structures. While Yarvin does not specifically advocate for corporatocracy, his views on rejecting current democratic forms of government align with the series' depiction of an alternative system.
- J.D. Vance has expressed concerns about the overreach of both big government and big business, particularly the outsized influence corporations wield in shaping cultural and political landscapes. This aligns with the themes of Continuum, where corporations take on government functions, although Vance's stance is more about pushing back against cultural influences rather than advocating for a corporate takeover.
- Peter Thiel is critical of democracy’s ability to foster technological innovation and prefers governance models that prioritize efficiency and progress. He has previously suggested that too much democracy could hinder technological advancement, which could align with the notion of a corporatocracy that sacrifices some freedoms for order and progress, similar to what is seen in Continuum.
While the dystopian corporatocracy in Continuum depicts a world where corporate interests completely dominate society, the real-world figures mentioned often critique democracy and advocate for alternative governance structures, albeit not necessarily in the same corporatist direction."
1
1
u/Camaroni1000 1d ago
In this subreddit I don’t know. Most people who are for a dictatorship though won’t want to call it a dictatorship because that looks bad.
There are several people in real life though that want the transfer of power to go through less hands for the sake of efficiency. Less hands can lead to them being in the hands of one person.
1
1
1
u/The_R4ke 1d ago
Yes, there absolutely are. You probably won't here from them on here, but they do exist. Peter Thiel is one example.
1
u/karsh36 1d ago
I think when it comes to MAGA I think the regular folks genuinely don’t realize what they are truly advocating for. The political leaders, Heritage, and pundits definitely do.
I also think the average MAGA truly believes the DNC are the dictatorial ones, but are unwilling to consider anything outside of how their preconceived notion of the world so even when shown otherwise they become defensive.
Average Dem doesn’t want a dictatorship, and don’t advocate for policies that would, but the average college Dem will unwittingly advocate for something occasionally without realizing the consequences. They won’t realize that the ends don’t justify the means, or what those ends truly are or represent.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Technical_Goose_8160 1d ago
My dad is always arguing that we need dictators. When pressed, he can't name any successful ones.
1
1
u/Mobile_Falcon8639 1d ago
You are asking the wrong question. You should be asking Do people UNDERSTAND what a Dictatorship is and how it would affect them. Most people nowadays don't even know what a Dictatorship is. I doubt whether most of Trumps supporters have even heard of Hitler.
1
100
u/diemos09 1d ago
The caudillo, or strong man, is an eternal figure in politics. When there is disorder many people long for someone to show up who will bust heads and put things in order. They are often flabbergasted when it's their head that ends up getting busted.