>Also it's a bit ironic to decry both materialism and wealth inequality at the same time. I guess if you're concerned about the wealthy's souls or something. Y

>Also it's a bit ironic to decry both materialism and wealth inequality at the same time. I guess if you're concerned about the wealthy's souls or something. You could probably do it along the lines of a Vimes' boots argument. "People who are poor can't afford essential services, medical support, etc., so their lives slowly degrade while they fill the void with empty consumerism. If there were equality, they would have been sufficiently well-off to directly deal with the problems of their lives." That argument opposes materialism because it argues that consumerist materialism obscures real problems, and it is also in favor of equality as something that would improve people's lives.