In many cases it will be possible to dispose of them through perfectly democratic elections resulting in a government that enforces confiscatory taxation of excessive wealth.
In other cases, where democracy has been sufficiently undermined that the ballot box cannot be trusted - the USA springs immediately to mind - a series of general strikes can serve to force the powers that be to hold honest elections.
Where a general strike has been made impossible by violent repression - think Pinochet's Chile or South Africa during Apartheid - one can agitate for various kinds and degrees of international pressure to be applied by countries in which the above methods still work.
When a country proves unresponsive to international pressure - or when there is no such international pressure to be found - one can take direct action in reasonable proportion to the kind and degree of repression faced, from civil disobedience through sabotage, through armed resistance to arrest to actual violent uprising in the most extreme cases.
To give a practical example, the liberation movement in British India employed many of the above tactics. There were strikes, and smuggling activity, to deprive the colonial overlords of revenues. Attempts were made to gather support from the international community. There was civil disobedience. There were attacks on British military targets by militant liberation groups.
All of these activities contributed - with different degrees of impact - to the liberation of India from British colonial rule. And given the nature of the repression faced and the weak support from the international community, I certainly don't fault the insurrectionists who attacked legitimate military targets.
Attacking civilians is, in my view, out of bounds, although there are borderline cases, such as paramilitary groups (think Israeli settlers on the West Bank, armed gangs of skinheads in Croatia during the dissolution of Yugoslavia, etc.) where it is unclear whether they are civilian or military targets.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
to dispose of them
lol
Actually, I think that all these measures help to control or reduce the power of the money or military "elite". Communism requires that the elite become integral part of society, without their privileges.
I wouldn't want to miss my freedoms to the extent as is required in a communist society (I think of positive examples like Christians choosing communitarian life; I know examples, not only Amish people). This doesn't mean that I'm egotistical and selfish to the bone. It only means that I like to choose when I want to be selfish and when I want to be generous (which appears selfish, too, I guess). I approve of social democracy where there is a balance of sacrifice for and benefit from the common good and we still have freedom to pursue our own happiness.
I don't count myself to above elites but do not buy into Marx's writings, have read some of them. His ideals are simply not fit for human nature, as is. Sorry, the right wing has nailed this and uses this fact for their own ends. I don't condemn all his ideas but we are selfish, the world is run by money and corruption, ... and no matter how peaceful Marx's ideas were, we - are - not.
"We", that's not all of us, but if there are 97 % selfless, citizens, there would still be a rest of 3 % rebellious, selfish, greedy, violent people left who could spoil the whole enterprise. But, I doubt that there would ever be only 3 %.
True. But then again, I'm not a communist :-P
OTOH, in a reasonably democratic society, depriving "the elite" of its disproportionate wealth would also deprive it of most of its privilege - certainly of most of its ability to distort the political process - and force it to live as an integral part of society. That's why I'm in favour of banning billionaires.
