You're making a realllyyy strong claim here, and also an unclear one. Redistribution hasn't worked... worked to achieve what end goal? I would be interested to hear what you think wealth redistribution has failed to do, and also to hear one or even two examples of societies that do not redistribute wealth in any meaningful way (I have trouble imagining how that could ever be the case, to be honest).

I think that redistributing wealth is essential to having a functional society (where I define functioning as being moderately stable and in some meaningful way reducing the suffering of those who live within it).

Redistributing wealth is literally what powers civilization :)

And, if you do it right over the long time you create more wealth, more specialization, more complexity...

Now if you overdo it that is really bad... but I look at inequality right now and wonder if I should start up a guillotine shop.

If your premise is true, then the most redistributive governments would be the most civilized.

20th century communism would not provide a lot of evidence in favor of that theory.

> the most redistributive governments would be the most civilized.

They (the mixed economies of the West and, even within that set, those with the most redistribution and strongest social safety nets) are.

> 20th century communism would not provide a lot of evidence in favor of that theory.

20th Century Communist regimes (Leninism and it's descendants) wasn't redistributive on an ongoing basis, it was simply a one-time transfer of effective power over the entire economy from one narrow elite to another, hence why non-Leninist Marxists often referred to it as “state capitalism”.

No, I did not say how much, it is like anything, not too little, not too much.

Communism is way way too much, and ignores fundamental aspects of humanity.