How would Communism persaude the rich to give up their wealth?

**Antiks72** · 23rd December 2009, 04:48

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.

Well, pensions have mostly gone away here in America in favor of a 401k. I don't really consider it keeping the proletariat leashed so much as I consider it a loan for the rich to gamble with. The more money they have to play with, the more they exponentially benefit.

**#FF0000** · 30th December 2009, 01:03

Originally Posted by ponyfang

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!

Hate to backpedal here but what the fuck are you talking about

**Calmwinds** · 30th December 2009, 01:56

Holy shit, maybe before you start shooting all of them you lunatics you might want to convince them first that this is for the greater good of society. A lot of them did work hard to acquire that sort of money, and they don't think that the accumulation of that money harms or exploits anyone else. Most of them truly are convinced and are not some evil capitalist exploiting workers left and right.

**#FF0000** · 30th December 2009, 03:07

Originally Posted by Calmwinds

Holy shit, maybe before you start shooting all of them you lunatics you might want to convince them first that this is for the greater good of society. A lot of them did work hard to acquire that sort of money, and they don't think that the accumulation of that money harms or exploits anyone else. Most of them truly are convinced and are not some evil capitalist exploiting workers left and right.

1) Most people saying we'll kill every bougie outright is mostly joking. Mostly. Sometimes.
2) I really don't think these people care all that much about the greater good of society if it means getting rid of their status and wealth.
3) None of them worked as hard as their workers did for that money.

But if you're talking about, uh, revolution in general, then you're being incredibly naive in thinking that the bourgeoisie won't fight against the working class taking their property with incredible violence.

**danyboy27** · 30th December 2009, 04:47

i dont think confrontation is needed when you are a total majority against a verry insignificant minority.

once its made clear that you have the bigger stick, then you can softly discuss with your opponents about how things will be run in the future.

i cant really say if there will be violence or not, but i think once the power structure will be removed those who are still attached to the way things have been done back then will have no choice but to change.

They can keep their house(one) and what in it, we take the mean of production.
if they want more goodies (bud struggle come in mind in that exemple)
they can apply to any administrative job they desire. IF they do have skill and the worker want them in, no prob.

If you got a hard time finding a job, we wont starve you to death, we wont ask you to pay a rent, we will even help you to have a job so the whole society will benefit from it, beccause that how we do it!

Petty hatred dosnt have its place in a free society. You might have screwed up a lot of people in the past, but if you can contribute to society once the power structure will be removed, fine!

**Dr Mindbender** · 31st December 2009, 22:02

Originally Posted by tradeunionsupporter

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 ?

There is no need for them to relinquish their wealth, only their means of production.

Once the workers own the factories, the offices, the armed forces, legal and political institutions, we can go about setting up an abundancy society where the wealth in terms of their money becomes irrelevant.

**Calmwinds** · 4th January 2010, 01:10

Originally Posted by Loveschach

1) Most people saying we'll kill every bougie outright is mostly joking. Mostly. Sometimes.
2) I really don't think these people care all that much about the greater good of society if it means getting rid of their status and wealth.
3) None of them worked as hard as their workers did for that money.

But if you're talking about, uh, revolution in general, then you're being incredibly naive in thinking that the bourgeoisie won't fight against the working class taking their property with incredible violence.

No, I did not mean it in a revolution. Number 1 answered my concerns pretty much.

**RGacky3** · 6th January 2010, 12:53

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.

THeres no need to take those away, the point is to democratize the economy, the proletarians are giong to GET more.

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.

Not really, most poor people still rely on wages for income, I think if given the choice, most poor people would prefer democracy to tyrrany.

**FSL** · 6th January 2010, 21:52

Originally Posted by Bud Struggle

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.

If this wasn't a joke, I'll lose all faith in mankind and end up a Polpotist.

**TheCuriousCommunist** · 15th January 2010, 21:16

Force the pigs.

**Che a chara** · 19th February 2010, 16:38

From James Connolly's 'Socialism made easy':

CONFISCATION

WOULD YOU CONFISCATE THE PROPERTY OF THE CAPITALIST CLASS AND ROB MEN OF THAT WHICH THEY HAVE, PERHAPS, WORKED A WHOLE LIFETIME TO ACCUMULATE?

Yes, sir, and certainly not.
We would certainly confiscate the property of the capitalist class, but we do not propose to rob anyone. On the contrary, we propose to establish honesty once and forever as the basis of our social relations. This Socialist movement is indeed worthy to be entitled The Great Anti-Theft Movement of the Twentieth Century.

You see, confiscation is one great certainty of the future for every business man outside of the trust. It lies with him to say if it will be confiscation by the Trust in the interest of the Trust, or confiscation by Socialism in the interest of All.

If he resolves to continue to support the capitalist order of society he will surely have his property confiscated. After having, as you say, 'worked for a whole lifetime to accumulate' a fortune, to establish a business on what he imagined would be a sound foundation, on some fine day the Trust will enter into competition with him, will invade his market, use their enormous capital to undersell him at ruinous prices, take his customers from him, ruin his business, and finally drive him into bankruptcy, and perhaps to end his days as a pauper.

That is capitalist confiscation! It is going on all around us, and every time the business man who is not a Trust Magnate votes for capitalism, he is working to prepare that fate for himself.

On the other hand, if he works for Socialism it also will confiscate his property. But it will only do so in order to acquire the industrial equipment necessary to establish a system of society in which the whole human race will be secured against the fear of want for all time, a System in which all men and women will be joint heirs and owners of all the intellectual and material conquests made possible by associated effort.

Socialism will confiscate the property of the capitalist and in return will secure the individual against poverty and oppres- sion; it, in return for so confiscating, will assure to all men and women a free, happy and unanxious human life. And that is more than capitalism can assure anyone today.

So you see the average capitalist has to choose between two kinds of confiscation. One or the other he must certainly endure. Confiscation by the Trust and consequently bankruptcy, poverty and perhaps pauperism in his old age, or
Confiscation by Socialism and consequently security, plenty and a Care-Free Life to him and his to the remotest generation.
Which will it be?

BUT IT IS THEIR PROPERTY. WHY SHOULD SOCIALISTS CONFISCATE IT?

Their property, eh? Let us see: Here is a cutting from the New York World giving a synopsis of the Annual Report of the Coats Thread Company of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, for 1907. Now, let us examine it, and bear in mind that this company is the basis of the Thread Trust, with branches in Paisley, Scotland, and on the continent of Europe.

Also bear in mind that it is not a 'horrible example', but simply a normal type of a normally conducted industry, and therefore what applies to it will apply in a greater or less degree to all others.

This report gives the dividend for the year at 20 per cent per annum. Twenty per cent dividend means 20 cents on the dollar profit. Now, what is a profit?

According to Socialists, profit only exists when all other items of production are paid for. The workers by their labor must create enough wealth to pay for certain items before profit appears. They must pay for the cost of raw material, the wear and tear of machinery, buildings, etc. (the depreciation of capital), the wages of superintendence, their own wages, and a certain amount to be left aside as a reserve fund to meet all possible contingencies. After, and only after, all these items have been paid for by their labor, all that is left is profit.

With this company the profit amounted to 20 cents on every dollar invested.

What does this mean? It means that in the course of five years - five times 20 cents equals one dollar - the workers in the industry had created enough profit to buy the whole industry from its present owners. It means that after paying all the expenses of the factory, including their own wages, they created enough profit to buy the whole building, from the roof to the basement, all the offices and agencies, and everything in the shape of capital. All this in five years.

And after they had so bought it from the capitalists it still belonged to the capitalists.

It means that if a capitalist had invested $1,000 in that industry, in the course of five years he would draw out a thousand dollars, and still have a thousand dollars lying there untouched; in the course of ten years, he would draw two thousand dollars, in fifteen years he would draw three thousand dollars. And still his first thousand dollars would be as virgin as ever.

You understand that this has been going on ever since the capitalist system came into being; all the capital in the world has been paid for by the working class over and over again, and we are still creating it, and recreating it. And the oftener we buy it the less it belongs to us.
The capital of the master class is not their property; it is the unpaid labor of the working class - 'the hire of the laborer kept back by fraud'.

http://www.marxist.net/ireland/connolly/socialism/

**Che a chara** · 19th February 2010, 16:42

I don't think the type of aggression used in previous revolutions would be necessary in the developed world (i.e. walk up to the owner and shoot him and take his property). By force maybe (if it comes to that), by that i mean the taking of private property against his will and having an already made system for it's distribution amongst the masses.

An educated and non-confrontational approach should be supported. But of course there is no doubt that there will be a counter-revolution and for this, all means necessary comes to mind.

**Che a chara** · 19th February 2010, 16:52

Originally Posted by Dr Mindbender

There is no need for them to relinquish their wealth, only their means of production.

Is that true though ? not being ignorant or anything, but would the really rich not be forced to distribute their money ? Is it not likely?

You make a good point here:

Originally Posted by Dr Mindbender

Once the workers own the factories, the offices, the armed forces, legal and political institutions, we can go about setting up an abundancy society where the wealth in terms of their money becomes irrelevant.

I think that would be one way of persuading the ruling class to part with their private property; if their money stays in their pocket.

***Jimmie Higgins*** · 19th February 2010, 18:39

I hope some of the answers here were people "taking the piss" of the original question. Going around with guns, beating people up? WTF. Putting aside the problems this would cause, this would just be a crazily inefficient way for workers to run society and would not help workers run society.

The first answer in this thread is the best: revolution. We can not convince those in power to give up power (this has never happened in history) so we will have a revolution.

First, the wealth we need is not gold and silk in some landloards hidey-hole; workers must take over the means of production. Our labor runs society, but by keeping the tools in private hands and using state repression to leave laborers with little option but to seek wage-employment, the bourgeois controls all the wealth we create. This situation would be upended by a working class revolution - taking over the means of production means that we can all control the result of our collective efforts.

Once the ability to produce wealth is appropriated by the working class itself by taking over the means of production we will give the capitalists the same treatment in our society as the bourgeois gives us - follow our laws and rules of society or get locked up. It will be their choice, accept democratic rule of society and the economy or you can not participate in society or enjoy the benefits of the wealth we produce.

**Comrade Anarchist** · 6th April 2010, 04:23