Politically, I find his ideas naive. The 'organization' needed to make sure that 'riches' are fairly 'distributed' have always and everywhere become bureaucracies that themselves became ruling classes. All that had changed was the murder, imprisonment and torture, and the replacement of 'rule of law' by arbitrary power arising from the need to 'protect' the redistributive project from 'counter-revolutionaries' (a fancy way of saying killing anyone who objects to the new rulers' power and privilege - starting, of course, with those revolutionary idealists who still believe in 'redistribution'). And this is even before considering the justice of collectively 'appropriating' (stealing) the property or 'riches' in the first place.
But before completely dismissing him as a 'blinkard fool', it is worth thinking about the role that ideals play in our thinking. It is arguable that a genuine attempt to live out the ideals of the Sermon on the Mount would actually cause chaos, rather than universal enlightenment. (This at least was the plot theme of a Peter Sellers movie from 1963 called Heaven's Above!, in which he plays a naive vicar who tries to do exactly that). Nevertheless, we still read these words and are moved by them. There is really little to seriously disagree with in the ideals of free movement, universal peace, freedom of speech and everyone having enough to eat; it's just we've all become so much wiser about how dreadfully it can all go wrong when we try to implement the ideals in an unrealistic fashion.
