If social equilibrium had been/were feasible

[Vladv1]

"No artificial plan of society — no pious incantations however sincere and well intentioned; can ever prevent the pot that is of iron from smashing and sinking, the pot that is of clay — and why should it? If social equilibrium had been feasible, it would have been established ages and ages ago. It never has been established — and it never shall."
Ragnar Redbeard "Might Is Right".

What would change if we changed the bolded to "if social equilibrium were feasible"? By the way, do you find the punctuation dubious?

 

[emsr2d2]

If the writer is suggesting that social equilibrium is absolutely not feasible, then your version with "were feasible" is better.

The punctuation in the open sentence is a disaster! Here's how I would punctuate it:

No artificial plan of society, no pious incantations (however sincere and well intentioned) can ever prevent the pot of iron from smashing and sinking, and why should it?

You'll notice I've omitted "the pot that is of clay". That's because I don't understand why it's there or what it refers to. It seems to have no place in that statement. The punctuation that absolutely has no place there is the semi-colon.

 

[Skrej]

You'll notice I've omitted "the pot that is of clay". That's because I don't understand why it's there or what it refers to. It seems to have no place in that statement. The punctuation that absolutely has no place there is the semi-colon.

The author is using an example of an iron pot hitting a clay pot. Since iron is stronger (and denser) than clay, it cannot help destroying the clay pot. Hence the author's argument against social equilibrium. One can't have equality by default when one has superior and inferior things.

Of course, the solution is to prevent them from banging together in the first place, but maybe that's the argument - you can't have 'separate but equal' when the nature of the stronger is to destroy the weaker. It will eventually do what it's destined to do.

Pretty sure that's been the core argument for several self-purported superior races, despot regimes, power-hungry juntas, ethnic cleansings, racist ideologies, and general anti-goodwill throughout mankind's history.

The sentence structure and punctuation follows the general intent of the book - to stir controversy and get people riled up.

Besides, didn't King Arthur and Camelot teach us (in song) that it's "not might is right, but might for right?"