If a prominent leader came into control of the most influential countries, offering global stabilization and easy lifestyle, as well as wealth for everybody of every nationality, would you support him, or not?

Go on then would this be Stalin per chance or some other dictator..
In theory, pure communism is an excellent idea, but some need to be more equal that others, and the system breaks down, Comrade..

Since there can not be "wealth" for everyone, it is not possible, since to have wealth, others have to be poor, so there is a difference. Like happiness, no one would know it, unless there is pain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

it is not possible, since to have wealth, others have to be poor.

---

Not necessarily true - economics is not always a "zero sum game." Thanks to Adam Smith and the invisible hand of free enterprise whenever two people reach a bargain for exchange of goods or services both profit. For example I think it's clear that the median standard of living in virtually all countries that practice some form of free enterprise has risen substantially over the past 50 years. Such is not always the case in those countries that do not - think North Korea for example. I'm not suggesting that there is no poverty - just that standards of living improve over time.

To the OP - the concept of a single leader coming into "control" of all the most influential countries implies subjugation, most likely through war - so on that basis I would say no. And the word "control" implies an absence of free enterprise, free expression, and limitations of choice - and in my opinion this would inevitably lead to the doom of such a society (much as it did in the Soviet Union, for example) . So again, my answer is no.