What is the evidence that Pareto-distributed wealth causes more social instability? And why social stability is a good thing? Social structures are constantly evolving; some instability is required for that.
I define "social stability" as a state in which people within a specific society don't kill each other in large numbers over questions of resource distribution. At least based on that view, it's obvious why this is a good thing. Except if you own a spaceship or an island far away so you can leave if things get too hot - then maybe you find the goal of maintaining social stability unnecessary.
The French Revolution does not belong in the same sentence as the crashes of 1929 or 2008. Economic crashes under modern industrialist-capitalism have been much less negative than crashes under other systems.
It is true that class warfare in any direction leads to social instability and discontentment. Everyone should feel that the basic resources they need to survive are attainable. I think that most successful societies, have, for the most part, had that covered.
The 2008 crash was pathetic compared to 1929, it wasn't even called a depression. There was higher unemployment and people pushed out of home ownership, but it's not like anything significant changed as a result and the economy is doing well again.
1929 is likewise pathetic compared to the french revolution. There was no large government structure or leadership change as a result.
Wasn't one of the key causes of the disintegration of the USSR the simple fact that people were using position and influence to have more than others? The further up the chain one was, they had better access to food, a better car, better medical care.
The Soviet system may have paid lip service to communist and socialist ideals, but it seems as if there was a strong capitalist element in there: people who felt they worked hard believed they were entitled to more than others, and (ab)used their positions to make this happen.
