Q.There is a view that absolute economic equality is neither possible nor desirable. It is argued that the most a society can do is to try and reduce the gaps between the richest and poorest members of society. Do you agree?

Political theory generally accepts that no society has ever achieved, or perhaps should even aim for, perfectly equal wealth or income.

Absolute equality of wealth or income has probably never existed in any real society. Most democracies pursue equal opportunity rather than equal outcome, on the belief that this at least gives talented and hardworking people from any background a real chance to improve their position. Under genuinely fair equal-opportunity conditions, some inequality between individuals is not automatically unjust — it may reflect real, legitimate differences in effort, choice and talent, which is essentially the liberal argument that open competition rewards people fairly.

However, agreeing that perfect equality is neither realistic nor strictly necessary is very different from saying that inequality can simply be left alone. A particular kind of inequality is genuinely dangerous: inequality that becomes entrenched, staying fixed across generations so that the same classes remain rich and powerful while others remain poor. This kind of gap breeds resentment and, over time, can even lead to violence — and because wealth buys political power, an entrenched gap tends to protect and reproduce itself, making the society harder to reform.

This is exactly why the practical goal worth agreeing on is the one the question itself proposes: not chasing an impossible perfect equality, but continuously working to reduce the gap between richest and poorest — through genuine equal opportunity, a real minimum wage, and guaranteed access to healthcare, nutrition and education, so that people can actually compete on fair terms rather than starting from wildly different positions.