Do you like old films about the revolution? It shows how people with burning eyes urge to punish the bourgeoisie, taking all their property from them and transferring it to the poor. This process is called the foreign word "expropriation". What this is, it is clear from the plot: factories and plants - to the workers, land - to the peasants, and so on. But is it really that simple? Let's figure it out.
The meaning of the word "expropriation"
What it is becomes clear as soon as you read a few lines in the explanatory dictionary. It quite simply describes the meaning of the term. Expropriation (synonym - seizure) is a process of forced alienation of property. Moreover, it can take place in different directions, have completely opposite meanings. It all depends on how the roles are distributed: who is the victim and who is the attacker. The same revolutionary films feature class struggles. There, the oppressed brought order to the country. There was a process of redistribution of the means of production, in fact - a change of ownership. Since legally this could be equated (and indeed it was, from the point of view of the bourgeoisie) to robbery, we had to urgently come up with a beautiful justification for such “lawlessness”. So the concept of expropriation arose. What this means is a complete change in the social system, those who have studied history are most likely clear.
A little bit about the history of the term
I must say that the expropriation did not arise at the time of Marx. The first person to officially use this method of redistributing "resources" is called the notorious Robin Hood. Remember, he took money from the rich and distributed it among the hungry? Why not expropriation? What this means for the development of society, it became clear much later. And the matter is not even in material wealth, but in the social effect of the replacement of concepts. That is, before Robin Hood, such actions were considered ordinary robbery. It was accepted that his goal was one - personal enrichment. But, having given this event a different semantic and social orientation, our "hero" literally made a revolution in the minds. Now ordinary robbery with a good purpose becomes not a sin, but a good deed.
What may be the expropriation
The fact is that you can seize property in different ways. Not all of them are as simple as Robin Hood. It is believed that expropriation may be gratuitous and refundable. The first is called confiscation. It is possible even according to modern laws. It is produced when people need protection. For example, martial law is the basis for confiscation of property necessary for defense activities. The second option is requisition. In this case, they pay for property. That is, the owner does not completely lose property, but receives compensation. If property is taken in favor of the state, then we are talking about nationalization. That is, in this case, lands and enterprises become the property of the people, they are called upon to work for the benefit of each member of society. Although “nationalization” and “expropriation” are very similar concepts, they have significant semantic differences regarding the organizer and executor of the process. The first is the unambiguous transfer of property to the company, the second is a simple seizure, without indicating the future owner.
Expropriation of expropriators
If it is clear what the term itself means, then we can go further. When they start talking about the redistribution of the means of production, we have to build an ideological basis for the process itself. That is, it explains why you need to take the property and transfer it to another owner. If you argue from the point of view of the capitalist, then nothing can be explained. For him, expropriation is a robbery, no matter which side you look at. There is another logic. How did the expropriated create his accumulations? He believes in honest work. The working class supports it. The discrepancies are only in exactly who worked. So, according to the logic of the expropriators, the means of production should be taken from the one who unreasonably appropriates the additional product, that is, from the capitalist. And give it to the one who creates the last - to the working people. It turns out that the capitalist himself plundered, as he did not create material wealth. This is the meaning of the “expropriation of expropriators”: to take away from someone who himself profited dishonestly.
Is the process possible in modern society
When you look at a question from the point of view of history, it seems that a repetition of it now cannot take place. However, it is not. Recent history has already acquired precedents for such actions of states. They became the Cypriot story with banks. The fact is that in the local institutions it was beneficial to store funds in the form of a purely symbolic tax. That was until recently. When Cyprus was overcome by a terrible crisis, the government acted according to all the rules of Marx. Part of the funds was simply withdrawn from deposits. At the same time, the authorities did not worry about the explanations. What for? People, you have been using our very loyal policy for many years, you probably hide these funds from taxes ... so share it! Here is the logic that demonstrates the expropriation of expropriators in the modern world. Financiers make disappointing conclusions: there are no safe places on the planet.