• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s way worse than that. Any dictator (monarchs included) has to balance interests to keep their head. They literally can’t distribute wealth more freely without their top general taking over.

    • Muetzenman@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      No king rules alone. So yes, a dictator has to keep his key positions happy. Money spent on useless citizens is money not spent for your ruling infrastructur. And uneducated hungry citizens make bad revolutuonarys.

      • moormaan@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like this answer - succinct and to the point, but the last sentence is vague because “bad revolutionary” could mean “incompetent revolutionary” or “evil revolutionary” (am I missing a third meaning?). I’m assuming you didn’t mean evil, but even so, an “incompetent” revolutionary could have issues with the execution of the revolution (eg. lack of courage) or with the desired outcome (eg. rallying behind a populist cause blindly). Would you care to clarify?

        • Metype @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I believe they were paraphrasing part of a CGP Grey video, and if so, then “bad revolutionary” would mean a revolutionary not fit to revolt. Either by hunger, general weakness, or incompetence.