>>4611930>The expression "not necessarily" implies that while it's often true, it does not always have to be true.You said that in disagreement to my claim that empires are evil, which means you think the contrary. Since you yourself said this means "most but not all" to you, then you largely agree empires are better than republics, yes?
>It doesn't. I don't really know how you come to these conclusions.Actually, it does. I came to these conclusions by comparing the Empire phase and the Soviet phase of your nation, and as far as progress and quality of life goes, the Soviet has beaten literally every other country on the Earth in regards to these two criteria.
>I don't like when works of fiction use the cliche of "evil empire" and "good republic".But empires are evil BECAUSE they invade and loot territory, just like the Galactic Empire does in Star Wars. The Rebel Forces in the same universe want liberation for everyone from the tyranny.
>the totalitarianism memeDo you use that to describe the Dictatorship of the Proletariat? You yourself already knows it acts like the US's congress with representatives that you vote for and whatnot, except it's not bought out by corporations in this scene. It's all in your history books, after all.
>Japan made incredible progress as an empireYeah, by invading China and Southeast Asian islands for resources and slave labor, and so did the British Empire with India and Iran and the rest of the oil-rich Arab nations they controlled or were allied with.
>how good is the government to its peopleOh it's simple, the republic of the Soviet Union wins in that regard. Here's pic-related as proof.
