What Will Become Of The Rich?

[PoliticalNightmare]

I was just wondering, assuming that a people's revolution was to take place successfully, what would become of private owned property owned by wealthy individuals? Obviously their lifestyles would change but how would they adapt to such a change? Also to move them out of their properties would extreme measures be required? The way Robert Mugabe dealt with wealthy white land owners comes to mind.

Cheers.

[The Red Next Door]

The property would be own by the people, and I doubt the rich will adapt to the changes, some will maybe. Sadly, yes extreme measures will have to be taken to take the property from them, because they are not going to be so willing to give it up. they love their materialist lifestyle so much, they do not give a damn about human kind and are willing to cap someone for it. Hopefully some would be nice to give it up, but you know. that just Utopian thinking.

Also there will be a counter revolution by those who want their precious things back.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Their property that's seen as being fit to be reappropriated most likely would be (think office space, factories, parcels of land, etc.) As far as what their reactions would be...I figure that the reactions would be mixed. Some would join the revolutionaries and become "class traitors", others would simply be passive, and still others would fight it. Personally, I think that revolutionaries would have a lot bigger problems on their plate than evicting rich people from their mansions.

And hopefully any future revolution will look absolutely nothing like Mugabe's regime, LOL.

[leftace53]

Knock some sense into them - with a bat.

But hopefully, once the workers seize the means of production, the rich will have no source to gain new income. Their current resources will be taken and distributed to everyone. They will learn to work instead of sitting on their fat asses, and will have to adapt to contributing to society.

[28350]

The property would be own by the people, and I doubt the rich will adapt to the changes, some will maybe. Sadly, yes extreme measures will have to be taken to take the property from them, because they are not going to be so willing to give it up. they love their materialist lifestyle so much, they do not give a damn about human kind and are willing to cap someone for it. Hopefully some would be nice to give it up, but you know. that just Utopian thinking.

sorry pal, but a revolution is not a dinner party. Its a total blood bath. that is necessary.

Expropriation of the rich would be two-fold:
The re-appropriation and then elimination of capital, and
Popular seizure of their personal wealth (items of value) as in the GPCR.

There is no need to kill everyone who is not "on our side."
There's not much they can do if their money is impotent.

And this so-called "materialistic lifestyle" and their love of it is not an intrinsic thing, but a result of privilege.

And it really should not be a total bloodbath. That would be ridiculous. It will be violent, messy, and complicated. But not a bloodbath.

[The Red Next Door]

Expropriation of the rich would be two-fold:
The re-appropriation and then elimination of capital, and
Popular seizure of their personal wealth (items of value) as in the GPCR.

There is no need to kill everyone who is not "on our side."
There's not much they can do if their money is impotent.

And this so-called "materialistic lifestyle" and their love of it is not an intrinsic thing, but a result of privilege.

And it really should not be a total bloodbath. That would be ridiculous. It will be violent, messy, and complicated. But not a bloodbath.

If they pick up arms against us, yeah. and violent messy and complicated sound like a description of a bloodbath to me.

[28350]

If they pick up arms against us, yeah. and violent messy and complicated sound like a description of a bloodbath to me.

Class-wise, we have (by far) more people on our side. It's not like there are two evenly-sized camps on both sides.

And when I hear bloodbath, I think of WWI, or maybe Cambodia.
Is that what we should expect?

[fa2991]

I always respond to the question "What will happen to rich people?" with the same answer I give when someone asks me "But under communism, who would be the janitors or toilet uncloggers or septic tank pumpers?" :D

[this is an invasion]

What would happen to the rich people, you ask? They shall serve a purpose...


http://s.petco.com/Assets/product_images/0/052742496504C.jpg

[The Red Next Door]

Class-wise, we have (by far) more people on our side. It's not like there are two evenly-sized camps on both sides.

And when I hear bloodbath, I think of WWI, or maybe Cambodia.
Is that what we should expect?

nah, more like Russia 1917

[fa2991]

nah, more like Russia 1917

Well, it'd probably be worse than that. That was more of a coup than a full scale revolution.

[NecroCommie]

They will either succumb under the rule of the working class or perish. I don't see why any other scenario should take place. Why should we worry about the welfare of a diminishing and ridiculosuly small minority?

[28350]

nah, more like Russia 1917

...Yeah, not too many people died in the October Revolution.

[Qayin]

Well, it'd probably be worse than that. That was more of a coup than a full scale revolution.
:laugh:

[RedRise]

They will either succumb under the rule of the working class or perish.

This is probably the most likely thing although we shouldn't be to eager to have them 'perish'. Remembering that a lot of them were born into it and such. It will take them time to learn to pull their own weight as a member of society and some might never get it but they are people (at least most of them) so they should be given a chance if they're not completely resisting.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

This is probably the most likely thing although we shouldn't be to eager to have them 'perish'. Remembering that a lot of them were born into it and such. It will take them time to learn to pull their own weight as a member of society and some might never get it but they are people (at least most of them) so they should be given a chance if they're not completely resisting.


The fact that for many of the rich it is what they were born into, they need to be given tolerance and at least a chance to change. The only thing though, is that, that change will definitely not be easy... but if the chance is still offered, then I see a lot less suffering and blood shed. :)

[PoliticalNightmare]

Also,how would the working class respond to the class who once manipulated them so? Would they receive hostility from their new neighbours?

[AK]

nah, more like Russia 1917
That's your great idea of a revolution? Oh god, we're fucked.

[ZeroNowhere]

Probably it could be voted on. I'd be against killing them, though otherwise generally not greatly concerned.

[RadioRaheem84]

I still find it amazing when people ask questions like this. It seems like the ruling class has really dominated culture to where they get us to really think about them and their well being. It's not like I am asking for them to be killed (unless they fight back), but just to have them stripped of their economic and political power for the benefit of all.

You know I once debated a friend of mine who barely has two nickels to run together, and the entire debate broke down to him admitting that he wants to give the rich as much they want so they can give him a job to live his life, etc. He didn't mind being under their thumb as long as he could still work to get the money to do what he wants.


I asked him another question; if the people of a certain town wanted land reform and wanted the government to expropriate a massive amount of land not being used by the local oligarch to create collective farms, would you support them?

He gave me a terse response; no. I asked why and he told that it's the man's land and no one has a right to take it away. I retorted, "what if the people are starving and there is all this unused land that could be used for making food".

He look angered and said no, that wouldn't be right. To him the will of the people wanting this particular policy measure was "undemocratic" but not touching the oligarch's land and respecting his individual wish over the masses was "democratic" and in the spirit of "liberty".

[scarletghoul]

That's your great idea of a revolution? Oh god, we're fucked.
Wow, are you seriously saying the Russian Revolution was not at all great, even at first ??? Ultra-leftism has reached new heights..

[The Red Next Door]

That's your great idea of a revolution? Oh god, we're fucked.

What your idea of a revolution, happy flowers.

[PoliticalNightmare]

What your idea of a revolution, happy flowers.

His point is that the october revolution did not result in (true) socialism.

[The Red Next Door]

AK, I am not really sure, what a revolution here would be like, i would like for a peaceful one but we both know that not going to happen.

[AK]

Wow, are you seriously saying the Russian Revolution was not at all great, even at first ??? Ultra-leftism has reached new heights..
I was responding to:

nah, more like Russia 1917
...on the topic of bloodbath revolutions:

Class-wise, we have (by far) more people on our side. It's not like there are two evenly-sized camps on both sides.

And when I hear bloodbath, I think of WWI, or maybe Cambodia.
Is that what we should expect?

Now don't get me started on the differences between the revolution and ensuing civil war. The bourgeoisie had been removed from its position of ruling class and it immediately waged a war against the bolsheviks - so I still consider the civil war part of the revolutionary struggle.