moral economy...the aim of sarvodaya movement..

In the scott-popkin controversy, James Scott talks about establishment of a moral economy where a subsistence ethic prevails to guarantee subsistence as a 'moral claim' or as a 'social right' to which every member is entitled. no matter how much this kind of economy may be desierable, will the society ever agree to it especially when it is at the giving end? I would like to talk about this in refrence with the Bhoodan movement that took place in the 1950s. Vinoba bhave appealed for gift of land from the rich so that it could be distributed to the landless. once the movement caught momentum a number of people donated land out of guilt, altruism etc. but to a large extent also due of peer pressure because if a person from their own community with lesser means contributed, the society looked down on them if they didn't. so a huge quantity of land, to the tune of four million acres was collected but less than one third could be distributed. the reason being that it was of such poor quality that cultivation on it was impossible or extremly expensive.
so in a way the rich donated land and got the praise, accolades for it but ultimatly the movement failed to produce the changes in society that it wanted. so everyone talks about the necessity of collective action for upliftment of society but are the privileged really ready to share their power, resources? And without these will any collective action be of any use?