If it is global imperialism & the spoils are equally distributed, would that be good?

We need to reopen the schools

Imperialism = "extension or imposition of power, authority or influence." The extreme extent of which could be considered global, 1 state (no more others to impose), & can choose to (not defying definitions) equally distribute all needs to everyone with the power they wield.

Imposition of power over whom?

bsky.app/profile/gues...

I think I just clarified above.

What does that even mean

NerdJpeg nailed it bsky.app/profile/nerd...

Except, imposing on 194 countries is Imperialism, but 195 is not any longer, because you've run out of countries to have power, authority & influence over. The means didn't change. The 1 step worse isn't less. It is a contradiction.

I just want to hear how they believe the system they've described would work

You won’t get that because they’ve never thought about it for longer than it took to reply to my skeet

Imagine an immoral entity gradually controlling the world. Then they have the power to implement any policy without challenge. This includes controlling the means of production to be democratically managed to share resources to meet human needs, where power & production are communally controlled.

that is not how imperialism functions

Imperialism etymology = "supreme administrative authority."

i know what imperialism means and you are trying to use the roots of the word to change what it means

I don't comprehend what it means except for the dictionary definition. It means expansion of power over others. How would you layer on more meaning? www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/i...

damn expansion over others sure does require an uneven distribution of power doesnt it?

Yes. But my first comment was saying that if there was a single power controlling the globe & can choose to wield power as they wish, they can, in fact, create Socialism, maybe Communism. So, criticizing people OK with redistributing all to everyone as an ends should be actually supported. No?

what obligation or reason would a single uniform imperialist power have to hand over power to the people

I don’t mean to start a fight, but that is my very criticism of Socialist States. I was originally asking about the statement about being OK with a regime if the ends are matching the goals. Since means are an issue no one can adopt, the ends can still be applauded, right?

socialist states do not typically come about through imperialism. there is a reason “dictatorship of the proletariat” is a known phrase

this should not be so difficult for you. imperialist powers should not be trusted, due to being imperialist

Trust matters. But if a power is providing for all their people already, you’d trust (but verify) they’d continue.

you can’t equally distribute the spoils of imperialism around the whole world then it’s not imperialism it’s just production and exchange

Imperialism is about extraction and concentration of wealth. It requires unevenness. Otherwise that’s not what’s happening

unity-struggle-unity.org/encyclopedia...