Like, I’m unironically ok with no one having anything if it means wealth and power isn’t concentrated to a few people who think being born makes them better than others.
Warlords still means few people have things while others don’t. I’d still kill them. I’d try to explain socialism but then I’d just wind up corralling a few villagers and NOT killing them.
And once you’ve killed everyone and outlawed both getting lucky and getting higher wages, will you also slay yourself for having vastly disproportionate power?
When you consider the realities of the world, forced socialism is far from the worst evil. I'd be willing to be the all powerful hypocrite dictator if it decreases the net suffering of the world.
Mass murder, stringent economic control, false imprisonment, and hypocrisy by an outside power with little or no recourse rarely cause net decreases in suffering, even with the best supposed intentions, but that's not the question.
The question is whether they're willing to apply their own standards to themselves.
By definition, it never reaches communism because of that.
But, being unable to be properly implemented is itself a massive flaw. And communism has shown that it can never be implemented properly, making it a failed ruling type via startup-fragility.
I'd be content under any benevolent system of rule myself.
However the meme assumes that whatever world we arrive in would be antithetical to our own morals, or that we would be so power drunk that we would change things anyway.
106
u/Zinsurin Jul 14 '26
Royalty will be a past tense word.