Simple. Through a revolution. Its the only way.
And this should be in the Learning section
Results 1 to 20 of 67
How would Communism persaude the rich to give up their wealth?
I have a question about Communism
How would Communism get Rich people to give up their wealth what does the Communist Manifesto or any other Marxist writtings say about this subject ?
Simple. Through a revolution. Its the only way.
And this should be in the Learning section
"America is ready for another revolution" - Sarah Palin
The shortest answer is...it all gets taken the hell away from them.
Although some of them might give it up willingly to avoid the hassle of having to deal with angry revolutionaries.
Class is defined in terms of ownership of the means of production. The first post shows that the extent of absentee ownership in modern capitalism hasn't been noted. The capitalists don't physically possess the means of production. In general, the capitalists don't walk into the industries that they own, and even under capitalism they don't have the legal right to walk into them. They only possess stock certificates. There is no need for them to be willing to give up anything. The revolution will mean that capitalists will look into their mailboxes with the expectation of receiving their dividend checks and their tickets to stockholder conventions, but those documents won't appear in their mailboxes. With that fact, the absentee owners will be deposed from power.
In every industry, in a synchronized action, the workers' organization will take administrative control. The workers' power lies in the fact that they already physically occupy and operate all parts of the industries. All the workers have to do, to enact a revolution, is make the decision to operate those industries under new management.
Of course, a political mandate to authorize this action by the workers will also be necessary. It would be mass suicide for the workers to say that they are now the owners of the industries, if the police and the army say that the capitalists are still the owners. Society's democratic processes have to be used to officially declare the transfer of ownership.
As mikelepore pointed out, most capitalists never go anywhere near the means of production (factories, etc.) that they own as their private property. And even if they did, they can only be in one place at one time.
We will take their property, and, in most cases, they won't even find out about it until some time later.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
- Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian archbishop
"Definition of a conservative: a person who believes that nothing should be done for the first time." - mikelepore
For the most part all you would have to do is abolish stock ownership and land ownership as Mile said. The problem is that most major comanies are actually owned primarily by the Proletariat already. It is the mamagers of the company that make all of the money.
In China, if you were a landlord, the Peasants Association would come to your house and beat you until you revealed where your gold and silks were hidden (it was often buried). Pretty fucking awesome. Dirty landlords should have just gave it up the first time they were asked.
www.raimd.wordpress.com
www.monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com
But a lot of them didn't have any gold or silks and were just a bit better off than the Peasants that were attacking them.
Yeh mate, real sob story, the landowners of China, my heart goes out, as ever, to the rich and their woes.
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
WTF are you talking about?
"America is ready for another revolution" - Sarah Palin
It dont matter ye fools. Ye need to understand that the way we treat the Bourgeoisie is all the same for the peopel by the people. That money up there belongs not to teh few but to the mass ye understand through revolution comes peace but only through struggle can we see the future. To answer yer question its easy to say as already responded simply Revolution wait for "The fourth stage of capitalism" Then strike at the heart of the fascists!
Guns. Lots of guns.
Either that or we take the more sensible route of engineering the economy so it makes no sense to claim individual ownership of productive property. This would mean scrapping the price (i.e market) system in favour of systems like energy accounting (as proposed by techoncrats) or other alternatives to poisons like markets.
This topic has been moved to OI learning and the title has been edited.
Sciences & Environment rocks my bedroom.
[FONT=Arial]Say what you mean and say it mean...[/FONT]
"Frankly if we have a revolution and you stop me eating meat, I'm going to eat you."- The inimitable Skinz.
Be careful, lest the time comes where we have to weigh you against a duck.
Almost all of the large companies on the NYSE are owned by hundreds of thousand of small investors--some owning stock individually but most through mutual funds. Many of the funds are owned by pension funds from companies and from unions.
Not to say that there aren't some large investors out there, but they almost always are minority owners percentage wise. And the people that actually RUN the companies really (percentage wise again) have almost no stake in the company whatsoever.
Bullshit.
Most of the proletariat doesn't own any stocks at all.
You falsly categorize these small investors as the proletariat. I suppose these are multi millionaires which you think "small" only in comparison to the multi-billionaires? But the working class people own almost none of the businesses.
I don't know anyone that owns a single stock in any company, moreover, anyone that actually has a say in the business.
"America is ready for another revolution" - Sarah Palin
For communists, the answer is simple: tell them you'll shoot them if they dont. I thought the question kind of answered itself, but I thought I'd just put it out there.
Discuss.
A say not so much, but stock? The Proletariat own plenty, Brother Drace. And that's another story. Know anyone with a pension? Know anyone in a union? Know anyone over 35 that's been in a job for a while? Know anyone who has a college fund for their kids, or a retirement 401K? Know anone saving money in a bank?
They all own stock. Those are the facts. It's not billionaires that own Exxon, it's pension funds and mutual funds. Take that away from them---hmmm, maybe the Proletariat is more in the hands of the Bourgeoise than you figured.
If a money market, or retirement fund owns 60% but one guy owns 20% and another guy owns 20%, the major company is NOT owned by the proletariet, look at the statistics on ownership, also its not ownership perse, its control that matters.
Also those pension funds are a great way the Capitalists have to keep the proletariet leeshed.
by killing them
"How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and Bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kids gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in the filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you'll govern innocently?"-Jean-Paul Sartre
At gunpoint
Right. BUT it's going to be pretty darned hard to take the few shares of stock away from those Proletarians. They will fight you harder than the real Bourgeois.
Pretty smooth isn't it? You pretty much see the problem though--that's why there are so precious few older people posting here on RevLeft--once someone is given one share of stock--they are pretty much doomed to side with the Bourgeoise.
