> The problem of distribution cannot be changed to end hunger & starvation
unless we change the relations of production in such a way that _class society
will disappear_. It is the relations of production that determine the range of
distributional outcomes.
These two statements contradict one another. If relations of production deterine the range of distributional outcomes, then it is possible to modify the relations of production such that the range of distributional outcomes includes adequate distribution to end hunger and starvation. However, in the first part, you claim that the relations of production must be changed in such a way that a class society will disappear for adequate distribution. In other words, in your first comment, it would be a mistake to say that there is an essential link between relations of production and distribution, rather, there is a link between class relations and distribution. Class relations limit distribution, not relations of production. So, if relations of production can be arranged to abolish class relations, then relations of production are not essentially tied to class. If this is the case, then the relations of production could be modified for purposes of distribution without the abolishment of class. If this is not the case, then relations of production are essentially linked to class which would make the abolition of class impossible.
So which is it? Can relations of production be modified to end world hunger without the elimination of class? - or is class itself a necessary determinate of relations of production and therefore a necessary limit to distribution? In either case the argument, as you present it, is a problem: either relations of production and distribution are unrelated (which is difficult to swallow!) or relations of production and class are essentially related (which would make the abolition of class impossible without eliminating relations of production, which seems equally difficult to swallow).
ken