The more unequal societies tend to be less socially coherent and less interested in pushing universal whatever. So it's probably a chicken-egg problem, and the

The more unequal societies tend to be less socially coherent and less interested in pushing universal whatever. So it's probably a chicken-egg problem, and the standard way to address a problem like that is to fix both ends at once, little by little. If the rich are the primary actors against social and economic progress ("universal whatever") and are powerful enough to prevent it, what makes you think we have any chance at stripping them of their wealth? It's akin to attacking the enemy's main castle in order to weaken their small fort. Why not just attack the small fort? If you win against the main castle, then your theory that the small fort was too strong must have been false. In many cases (not all, it's probably not the case of Y combinator kind of people), the wealthiest got where they are by abusing the poor. If that's true, why don't we just target those abusers?