>Not at all. By definition, power grabbing is the opposite of equality of outcome.
Within this totalitarian framework, the power would be given to the state, acting on behalf of all the people. c.f. Stalinist/Maoist mode
Within this totalitarian framework, the power would be given to the state, acting on behalf of all the people. c.f. Stalinist/Maoist mode
It is also, of course, all done in the name of the people.
Everything is always done in the name of ‘the people’ if it helps sell the lie. Always has been that way.
Most of the feuding they do is not with each other, but with their subjects. Capital owners usually act in unison when it comes to their class interests, it's the rest of us that are busy being divided by culture wars and the gaffe of the week.
No one who was under their sphere of influence would classify Stalin or Mao as tinpot. They killed nearly 100 million of their own people between the two of them.
Khmer Rouge being a third example.
I’ll take squabbling (but still competing) landlords over ‘great leaps forward’ or holodomor any day of the week.
They don't even attempt to solve the problem. The decentralisation of power isn't even being considered.
As studied, and as the logic would follow the elite simply transfer from system to system as performance disparities persist through the generations because of genetics. Through revolutions under different systems tracked family lines out performed others regardless of system. A look at "communist" china. Persistence through Revolutions http://www.bristol.ac.uk/efm/media/workingpapers/working_pap...
That's pretty much by definition.