CAR the problem that I have with theories of equal distribution at any level is that it is not natural.

If you look at natural life it is random and it is far from equal. Where creatures exist in the food chain is where they exist and in nature there could and will never be equality. Thus we see an adaptation of creatures to exist and they naturally mutate over millions of years to thrive in their niche rather then make all niches equal.

Theories of equality for all workers rubs me wrong because the ruling class still exists. There can never be a society where everyone is equal, where all living conditions are the same. It is simple impossible. So to me theories such as his are not just pollyanish (if there is such a word) but entirely rubbish.

Now if you are espousing creating societies that try to emulate nature then that is something I can embrace. Sadly though numbers (and this is where the pragmatic side of me takes over) indicate that it will be challenging if not impossible to do because of finite problems and the matter that we simply have to many people in the world.

Again, don’t know the answers… however I know in my heart a Marxist society is simply a smoothing out of the working class but that evil ruling class still exists. Don’t try to say for a minute that it doesnt. I believe shooting for improving what we have over embracing a nonexistent utopia is a better path. I just am struggling to figure out the improving what we have part. Being hypocritical and complaing about the evil corporate empire while thoroughly immersed in their products and way of life seems….. odd to me.