If you have, say, a bucket with ten apples and a bucket with five, you can't get to an equality between them by adding or subtracting the same amounts from each.

This is an extremely reductive analogy for a vastly complex system, you get that, right? So let's play with your analogy for a minute.

Once upon a time there was a farmer. That farmer's small orchard produced 16 apples a day. He used these apples to give to his two workers, who were farmhands on his farm.

The two farmhands, Bob and Jim, needed seven apples a day in order to be happy and healthy. However, the farmer gave ten of the apples to Bob, and only six of the apples to Jim.

For a long time, Bob was getting ten apples a day and Jim was getting six apples a day. Bob was not only surviving, he was thriving. He had so many apples that he's drying the leftovers and putting them in storage. Jim was malnourished and struggling. Jim begged for more apples, but the farmer said that there were only so many give out at the end of the day, and he had no more to give than what he had already given.

The farmer didn't know why he distributed apples this way, but his grandfather's grandfather did it this way. So he started to think it was time for a change.

There were two ways that he could make this change.

Solution 1:

The farmer and Jim decide together that Bob has too many apples, and starts giving Bob six apples a day, and giving Jim ten apples a day. In order to survive, Bob will now need to start tapping into his surplus, of which there is not an infinite amount. Bob complains to the farmer that this is the case. Jim laughs at Bob and says "but you have many apples and for so long I have had none and have gone hungry. It is not for you to complain".

But should Bob be worried? The farmer has not said for how long this new distribution of apples will take place, and Jim in his anger at this inequality is not motivated to make sure that Bob starts getting a fair share of apples when their surplus runs out. Jim is angry at Bob, believing that Bob put him in this situation and has been benefitting from it his whole life.

Except Bob didn't put him in this situation. Even the farmer didn't put him in this situation. And while Bob wasn't complaining about how he profited from this, he certainly wasn't demanding it.

What has happened here is a shift in the balance of power. Jim is now more powerful than Bob, and power when taken is not easily relinquished.

Solution 2:

The farmer and Jim approach Bob and they say "Bob, for long and long, since my grandfather's grandfather and before, we have given your family ten apples a day, and Jim's family six apples a day. Jim has starved. Each of you does the same amount of work and has earned your merits. We will begin giving you each eight apples a day."

Jim needs seven apples to live happily, and with this amount he will be able to begin storing surplus. Bob will not be able to store as many apples, but he will be able to store apples.

At first, this still seems to benefit Bob more than Jim. Bob has a huge supply of surplus apples already, and Jim only has what meager savings he has begun. If there is a disaster, Jim will deplete his surplus and go hungry while Bob will continue to thrive off of his surplus.

The problem here is, if there are any disasters in the immediate future, Jim will not have saved enough apples yet to account for those disasters. But Jim has been going hungry for his whole life, and disasters made that worse already. This system isn't equal for Jim...yet. But if there is a disaster, the farmer and Jim can ask for some of Bob's surplus - a surplus he would lose very quickly anyway if they had implemented Solution 1.

So then, how is this system better, if it's not fair for Jim yet? For one, Jim is now eating healthy, with the exception of disasters that affect both Jim and Bob. For another, Bob has no reason to complain about the amount of apples he's getting, and he would be cruel and greedy to do so. In the long term, Bob will deplete some of his surplus (he's gotten used to the extra apple every now and again) and eventually have the same (or less) stores as Jim.

But most importantly, this system can sustain itself forever. Bob and Jim's children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be born into and live a life where they were never anything but equal to one another. Bob, Jim, and the farmer have found a solution that mostly satisfies their immediate needs, but more importantly one that overwhelmingly satisfies their future needs and that no one has any reason to oppose without being cruel and greedy.

The end

Now, even this wall of text is so very reductive for the poor analogy that was offered, because hey, society is complex! But it's at least a somewhat functional allegory.