1) Yes. But a random distribution benefits the population in a non-discriminating pattern, instead of re-encorcing the rule of the richer.<p>2) Why, is there a problem with that? First of, all communism is not necessarily stalinist communism the kind that prevailed in the 20th century. In fact such &quot;communal&quot; ideas go millenia before even Marx.<p>Second, a society with renewable power, advanced automation, and they kind of resources we have, or will soon have, will inevitably need some form of &quot;communism&quot;. Most sci-fi depictions of society, even Star Trek at times, are quite near that.<p>&gt;<i>I guess the difference between our moral axioms is clear. I prefer the US model - high inequality but everyone is rich. You seem to prefer the India model - dire poverty but virtually everyone is equally poor.</i><p>Actually India follows more or less the US model -- they just are behind, as a developing country. There are super rich, a middle class (increasing) and super poor.<p>I prefer the model of the US in the 50s and 60s. Less super-rich, everybody can make a living, less super poor, much decreased inequality. And I don&#x27;t mind having &quot;socialist&quot; niceties like cheap education (like college tuition used to be), municipal fiber and wifi, and such.<p>Large parts of the US are like backwaters when it comes to health, quality of life, public transport, internet acccess speeds and such things compared to some Western European countries.