I'm not even sure if he would argue that this is a bad thing?
I 100% think a society with a stratified lower caste could be more stable than one where everyone has equal resources - but I don't think that makes it better.
It's a bad thing if people feel entitled to things they cannot possibly have, of course. It's not even necessarily about how resources are actually distributed, it's just pointing out that we aren't supposed to be selling people a false bill of goods. Of course people can strive to be upwardly mobile and perhaps fail in these ambitions, but it should be a very clear, voluntary choice.
My argument does not preclude stratification as a concept - every competitive system has stratification by nature.
My point is that you cannot stratify people into two separate classes and then perpetually move one of those classes down into total barbarism and call it a better move than rewriting your existing inefficient system.
I'm not a believer in the idiotic communist ideology, and did not even mention equal resources in my post. Communism can burn, save for all of the people forced to live crippled lives under it. But you cannot have communism for 99.999% of people and true competitiveness for the leftover if you want a stable system. Specifically if you want a stable system.
Comparison without the means of acquisition will cause revolution.