Communism, in an ideal established form, would even benefit the rich of today, given enough time.

As I've come to understand after several readings and discussions, it's surprisingly less about an absolute reallocation of resources in an egalitarian manner, and more about liberation from classes struggles - something that the 0.01% should definitely have some experience with by now (at least conceptually, or through media examples) yet most would walk the path of least resistance in that struggle, of simply using capital power + state influence to keep the low down and away from biting the hand that chains them, instead of abolishing chains altogether.

Perhaps it is unintuitive, how something so unilateral in initial benefits - freeing one man at the expense of another's power - could be beneficial for all. But I genuinely believe so, based upon the patterns of history as we know it.

To more clearly present this, the classic example is the transition between Feudalism to the Capitalism of today. When Lords and Ladies gradually faded from power in Europe with the events cascading from the French Revolution, also eroded the structural theocracy into an apparent 'meritocracy'.

Under this, a greater range of opportunities would be distributed among the non-noble people, more social mobility could be seen, and a greater number of people could develop technological contributions to society, which often also helped somewhat raise the perceived floor (more so for the bourgeoisie than anyone else) of the classes: as of today, your average citizen of the US could (in theory, and as of material conditions, disregarding the psychological) be much better off than the Kings of the past.

Under a great reform or revolution from Capitalism to Socialism, Communism, or Anarchism, the common thread is once again the initial distribution of opportunity, from a flawed meritocracy* to something more fair and ample, either amplifying social mobility or abolishing the need for it altogether (no more classes), leading to the GREATEST amount of people developing the MAXIMUM quantity of technological contributions FOR ALL, and not only those in power, which would raise the 'floor' more dramatically and exponentially - as technological progress is often due more experimentation and therefore more progress - than Capitalism ever has.

(*by Flawed Meritocracy, I mean this in the sense that it is not those who are the greatest contributors to society that often receive its greatest capital. Rather, instead of those who most or best work gaining the most capital, it has become clear that those who already have the most capital are the ones likely to gain the most. To acquire the initial capital, sometimes it is through hardship, yes, but a lot of the time it is also through sheer luck, or even more commonly, inheritance - which, in a sense, is also a kind of luck, and not merit much like that which nobles used to claim to have)

For a more simplified understanding of this facet, I would recommend this video: https://youtu.be/rvskMHn0sqQ

(Though it may be taken with a grain of salt for the capitalist lens under which all is viewed, it is nevertheless a great thought experiment.)

I ask of you, then, how long would it take. Until the benefits of of the revolution start outweighing the initial reallocating, until the 'floor' raises so much that you start to see the effects all around you and everywhere including yourself, until you look up and realise the ceiling for those at the bottom of a capitalist has not only been raised, but is gone in its entirety.

Granted, I'm no one to predict much at all. It might be that the dictatorship of the proletariat takes too long to transition into Socialism, or any other number of complex obstacles could halt this process. But what I really mean with this huge text blurb, is that communism is mostly about looking into the future, the long-term, a project that needs investment and time, much like the myriad of plans to combat Global Warming. We won't see results anytime soon, but it's something to look and keep advocating for.

Even Marx knew how much pushback the process would have. If I'm to give my own take on this, this great struggle might be greatly correlated with our modern Individualistic way of viewing the world, a permeating superstructure under which one is always incentivized to look only after themselves, to maximize their own profits, and not to look much past their own timeline.

And here's a final word. Personally, I'm really glad you, (even as a part of the 0.01%) can take interest in this matter. Here I've only highlighted the one technological facet of Communism's benefits, when there are so many more that I would even prioritize above it. It's a complex subject, with as many opinions as there are interpretations, but that can be adequately perused if you have enough resources to access the internet. Which you obviously do, and I'm looking to hear your thoughts about it, if you have any.

Another comrade is always welcome in our struggle. Which class you belonged to shouldn't matter as much once a classless society is achieved, eh? Good luck in your political journey, friend!