help me argue against inheritance

[turquino]

I need help arguing against inheritance. To me, it seems patently unjust for some individuals to get huge inheritances from their dead rich relatives. I don't think dead bodies should have any of their demands fulfilled, and the wealth should fall into the hands of the state/community.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You have to first justify why their wealth shouldn't exist. It would be frivelous to argue against inheritance otherwise - unless you think your personal possessions shouldn't go to your kin?

[turquino]

You have to first justify why their wealth shouldn't exist. It would be frivelous to argue against inheritance otherwise - unless you think your personal possessions shouldn't go to your kin?
No i don't think personal possessions should go to kin. Not even under socialism.

[Sendo]

ditto. Fighting against inheritance is a lost cause. The most you could get is concessions that rich kids don't need to inherit all that welath and we should share it and be nice to our stupid inferior brothers and sisters...a pity party, bourgeois, semi-left liberal argument.

[Sendo]

What? No family heirlooms? What about a stick I found in the woods that I carved into a cool sculpture? I can't give that to my kids? It's not a means of production, it has no material value, it was gotten by my own labor, and is a nigh nothing cost to the commons.

you can't say no inheritance at all. Especially not when arguing with non-leftists. The last thing we need is to prop up the stereotypes of complete confiscation of regular people's personal items and mandated silver jumpsuits.

You did say nothing to kin...what about kith. Can I give stuff to my chums and buddies and have them then give it my kids whom I hope they'll befriend?

[turquino]

What? No family heirlooms? What about a stick I found in the woods that I carved into a cool sculpture? I can't give that to my kids? It's not a means of production, it has no material value, it was gotten by my own labor, and is a nigh nothing cost to the commons.

you can't say no inheritance at all. Especially not when arguing with non-leftists. The last thing we need is to prop up the stereotypes of complete confiscation of regular people's personal items and mandated silver jumpsuits.

You did say nothing to kin...what about kith. Can I give stuff to my chums and buddies and have them then give it my kids whom I hope they'll befriend?
In a commune system i can't see any reason why one should inherit by birthright wealth they didn't produce. Sentimental items could be an exception, but cars, homes, that stuff is something else.

I don't know about giving stuff to kith, that's what i need help with. If you had an especially hard-worker who earned a greater product, but who chose to pass on his accumulated wealth to friends and family, wouldn't this be a base for a new ruling class?

[JimmyJazz]

You have to first justify why their wealth shouldn't exist. It would be frivelous to argue against inheritance otherwise - unless you think your personal possessions shouldn't go to your kin?

I agree with this - let kids inherit whatever their parents had, but don't let their parents own any more than an even share of any means of production. In other words, socialism solves the inheritance problem.

[chegitz guevara]

No inheritance of wealth or real property, only personal items.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, are we talking about under capitalism or socialism? Under capitalism, Marxists oppose inheritance, seeing as it helps preserve the theft of the proletariat's labor by the capitalists. However, we do recognize that under capitalism inheritance cannot be abolished. A reformist demand that Marxists can support is a higher tax on inheritance.

Under socialism, seeing as there will be no personal property, only some private possessions, there's nothing to inherit. Nor do I think the structure of the family (or rather lack of a family) will be one that allows inheritance.

In any case, it's clear that arguing against inheritance, one must first argue against capitalism.

[apathy maybe]

I need help arguing against inheritance. To me, it seems patently unjust for some individuals to get huge inheritances from their dead rich relatives. I don't think dead bodies should have any of their demands fulfilled, and the wealth should fall into the hands of the state/community.

Well, there you go. You've said it: the dead don't have rights.

I started a thread way back when on this same topic:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/inheritance-t34696/index.html?t=34696

Other arguments include:
Unrestricted inheritance in a capitalist society will lead to inherited class rule. Just because you were the child of a rich fucker, you too can be a rich fucker.
Using the notion of "those who work shall be rewarded" (meritocracy is big with some capitalists), how hard was it for the Walton (of Walmart) children to climb out of their mother's vagina? (To steal a notion from redstar2000.)

[AnthArmo]

or you can merely be selective, let some things, like personal property, clothing and whatnot, to be inherited. But Business and The means of Production go into Public ownership when one dies :cool:.

A higher tax on inherited wealth sounds good to me.