There's a more general observation I would make here, and it encompasses political ideologies of all sorts. That's the belief that one can know what the ideal society looks like.

Such a statement might sound confusing coming from someone such as myself that makes relatively strong pronouncements about thing I think are good and things I think are bad. So one might ask why one wouldn't simply formulate a vision of a world that contains only things that I would consider good, and exclude things that are bad. But epistemically, I think this is actually impossible to do. Rather, I think of morality as a function that can only be understood in relation to inputs of that function, and the consequences of actions. But like integer factorization, I don't believe the inverse of the operation is generalizable.

Therefore, I'd argue that all such formulations of an ideal world are hopelessly utopian.

This might actually be my biggest objection to the kind of thinking we are currently interrogating here.