What Happens to Rich People Under Socialism?

Check out our most recent First Thought episode:

What Happens to Rich People Under Socialism? – Second Thought

It's a common misconception that socialists want to...ahem...*bonk* the rich. So what do we really want to do? Come learn about how socialist societies treat those with wealth and power!

New video every other Friday!

Follow and Support Second Thought!
CashApp: $JTChapman

Watch More Second Thought:

About Second Thought:
Second Thought is a channel devoted to education and analysis of current events from a Leftist perspective. Welcome!

[CarloEPean]

People always wonder what will happen to the rich under socialism. No one seems concerned with what happens to the poor under capitalism.

[erikkennedy]

"Nothing happens to wealthy people except they become less wealthy."
Wealthy person- "Nope, that's a fate worse than death."

[josue.ortega]

They'd go from absurdly, cartoonishly rich to just rich. But that's a hellish nightmare for them.

[yaboibobby]

I rarely get pushback when I say that the wealthy deserve healthcare, housing, education, personal identity, and freedom; the only time people disagree with me is when I say that the poor deserve the same

[modestproposal]

Thing is, the oligarchs aren't going to give up their power without a vicious, underhand, and bloody fight against anyone trying to bring about change.

[shybard]

Imagine only owning two mansions and one yacht.
The horror.

[SeanLumly]

It should be noted that even the rich benefit HUGELY from more equal societies, as the world around them becomes significantly better (eg. lower crime, happier people, cleaner communities, etc). The reduction of desperation should be a PRIORITY for all.

Only narcissists (or those under their spell) would argue otherwise.

[nemiloszorka]

Talking about rich and poor, when I was a kid, growing up in socialist Yugoslavia, my parents were working in a bank. Back then, there were laws that prohibited that the difference in income between highest paid person in a company, and a lowest income person was not to be more than 4:1. So, if a cleaning lady (let's say) makes 1.000 USD per month, a CEO can make no more than 4.000 USD. On the other hand, 1.000 USD was quite enough to make a living: pay the rent, bills, purchase food, clothing, and even leave some small amount on the side (my parents were getting 1.500 USD each month, and we went to the seaside each summer, and sometimes spend winters in some mountain lodge or something like that). Now this difference of 3.000 USD/month was enough that you could purchase a two bedroom flat each 2 years (around 60-70.000 USD per unit). So, if you are a CEO of a big company for 20 years (let us ignore 15 years of work to get to that position), you would be able to own 10 two bedroom flats by the time that you retire. And the cleaning lady could, maybe, purchase 1 flat. Now, of course, you were not allowed to own that much property, but it gives you an image to understand what were the "theoretical" differences in Socialist Yugoslavia.
I have to mention that Yugoslav socialism was nothing like USSR, or Chinese socialism, since in this model companies were owned by the workers working there, and not the state. They were actually shareholders of a company, and the company had freedom to decide what to produce, where to sell it, to determine the price etc. Of course, government did intervene, but there was much more economic freedom than in USSR.
The point of this is that even under socialist rule you can still make much more than some other participant in economy, but not billions times more. Yugoslav government was setting a limit on how much you can be rich. Some other democracies today regulate that with progressive tax. And in the end, is it really so important to own 3, or 5, or 10 billions more money than some poor sod working at you plant? Owning 10 times more is really high enough.

[AmbasingKam-dryu]

When people think they are fighting for their country, but they actually doing all that for the rich and greedy politician😭

[poenpotzu]

What I fear is that in times of turmoil and revolution; the ruling class will do many horrible things to prevent it. Such as mobilized assault, unjust imprisonment, and more. These kind of acts may inspire more drastic measures and make people more willing to be violent. But overall I agree the key virtue and ideals socialism is that everyone gets their fair share and due.

[cluelessmango]

I mean, "nothing will happen" is kind of incorrect because if rich people were held financially responsible for their mistakes they would very quickly become very very poor people...

[shigshug]

Would be great to see an episode about adult children living with parents because wages are preventing them from renting a decent apartment.

[ashmarten]

As some bloke once said: “The very concept of "revolutionary violence" is somewhat falsely cast, since most of the violence comes from those who attempt to prevent reform, not from those struggling for reform. By focusing on the violent rebellions of the downtrodden, we overlook the much greater repressive force and violence utilized by the ruling oligarchs to maintain the status quo, including armed attacks against peaceful demonstrations, mass arrests, torture, destruction of opposition organizations, suppression of dissident publications, death squad assassinations, the extermination of whole villages, and the like.”

[JohnBham]

No guillotines? No mass trials? No gulag? Where's the fun in that?

[choops]

When I went to Cuba earlier this year, I went on a tour through a neighborhood full of mansions. My tour guide said this is where rich people used to live under the former dictatorship. I asked what happened to them after the revolution? Were they thrown out of their homes? I was told of course not. Everyone kept their homes. If they left the country, their servants were given the home.

[mtaus]

the problem is we are to affraid what would happen to rich people under socialism, that what is happening now with poor people in capitalism. There arethousands of people die each day of hunger and curable diseases just so that a few people can be filthy rich.

[rickb]

The bottom line is that Frederick Douglass was exactly right when he told us that "power concedes nothing without a demand".
Violence is the sole prerogative of power, and the powerful will always resort to it when threatened with the real or perceived loss of power. It doesn't matter which brand of power is in charge because power is all that matters to the powerful.

[johannageisel]

Oh, they'll receive the most imhumane treatment!
They will be limited to a two bedroom apartment, have to work a normal job and will even have to take public transport! It'll be atrocious!

[Kamrat]

I agree that bonking billionaires is not the solution, but I also think it's important to understand that bonking billionaires is going to be an inevitable part of socialist revolution. Most of the time, they are not going to let go of their ownership and power voluntarily, and there are imperialist states who are more than willing to fund their fight to retain power. It's all well and good to reintegrate them into society whenever possible, but that's not going to be the case most of the time.

[Guilherme-nvwq]

Fico muito feliz de ver um Youtuber tão expressivo falando honestamente sobre socialismo.