you know he donates his money to charity too, right? I'd think you would support people willingly giving up their unneeded resources to benefit those less successful than themselves
or is that too much free market capitalism for you
You act as though Microsoft doesn't benefit fron sweatshop labor, as if the mere existence of his outrageous amount of excess wealth does not actively contribute to the destruction of the middle class. It doesn't matter how often he donates to charity, he is still the epitome of disproportionately gaining from the labor of others.
But when you come to redistribution of resources, most people won't willingly give up their money or property, meaning you'll have to use force to seize property, which again will require some sort if governmental/military body.
There will be no forced seizure of property under communism, unless you are referring to the transformation of private property (property owned for the purpose of profit) to public property during the transition to socialism. There is no specifically agreed upon method of doing this, but the general idea is that all the needs of an individual will be met so long as enough people contribute to the system that ensures this same prosperity to everyone.
As far as incentives go, the right to pursue whatever you wish while your needs are met in full is a pretty good bargain. Motivating people to contribute won't be an issue.
and what prevents the unions from becoming the elites?
How would you become an elite in a society where the number of people who do not wish to starve not only outnumber you, but have access to the same resources as you? Willpower?
