is this reading of the zimbabwe example better?

Question

zimbabwe failed not because of egalitarianism & justice, but lack of - the zimbabwe thing was merely a transfer from one small group to another small group - not an increase of justice or equality

and naturally the inexperienced [and more interested in spending up large with their new booty] could not do as well as the experienced & settled plunderers

but if the land had been divided fairly, the agric. production would have increased and the violence would have decreased

compare japan, reformed by general macarthur, going from defeated and firebombed nation to top nation in 50 years - or scandinavian countries, egalitarian and low violence [and highest capital formation - it makes sense that saving is going to be highest [and moneylending cheapest] where everyone can save]

zimbabwe is more like the middle east, extreme wealth/poverty, and naturally therefore extreme conflict/social unrest costs [50% of GNP]

Answer 1

Nope you've blown it entirely. Its as simple as farming itself. If you farm you have to have seeds to plant and land to plant them on. But it takes time between planting a crop and growing and harvesting. So you need some assurance that once you've put all the effort into raising a crop that you'll get to harvest it. But if you live in an egalitarian society the crop will get dvided equally between the the guy that supplied the seeds, tilled the soil and nurtured the crop to harvest and the free loading dead beats that did nothing but sit around waiting for their share.

Which might work OK for the first year. But then when its time to plant the next year where will the seeds come from when the entire crop was divided up and consumed. And why should the farmer stay and work land that isn't his for a crop to feed deadbeats.

It will end as all attempts to divide wealth based on anything other than who earned it. In the spread of ruin and slaughter.
Zimbabwe is a classical example of what going down the path of "social justice" and socialism can do for all of us. Spread misery and starvation.

Answer 2

There's always going to be problems when a more industrial people begin to develop land near, or in the land of less experienced(in terms of mechanics, agriculture, etc..).
People who have been doing something a certain way for years, now suddenly shown a much more efficient way will feel degraded.
THe ethical question is... do we allow these people to live the way they are living, or force upon them the more revolutionary ideas?
Maybe one day we'll regret the turn away from traditional methods of living, but for now, I think the industrial people will always take over the others.