The odds of someone becoming a millionaire who is born poor are quite rare. If you're born into poverty, odds are that at best you'll just be another member of the working class, selling your labor power (your life) to a capitalist.
Not as rare as you make it seem. Today, there are about 23 million households that we can call Millionaires. Why, working, investing, 401Ks. I changed jobs about 4 years ago. With 401K, profit sharing, my 401K with this organization is almost 100K, and that's not including what I rolled over from my previous employer. I will retire, in decent hands. And not because I was exploited, but I was paid based on my experience and the value I provide to my employer. I don't know about you, but I have never worked for a poor person/entity. My wife and I's best friends are DINKs. In ability to have children. They are in their mid-40s. Millionaires. Why, worked hard, saved and invested. They didn't start a business, but have used their skills to leverage solid careers who have rewarded them.
Bezos, Musk, and practically all of them, were either born into wealth or into an upper-middle class family, that provided them with plenty of resources, even a large "donation" or "family grant" as much as $300K. Trump and his children are in another category, they get millions to start businesses. All of this is irrelevant. Capitalism is a system comprised of two socioeconomic classes, namely, owner-capitalists/exploiters (A.K.A. "Masters" according to Adam Smith, the father of capitalism), and exploited workers.
Bezos was and is a very smart and educated man. He took a $300,000 dollar investment from his parents. Bezos was adopted by his immigrant father who educated himself and became an engineer for Exxon. My guess is that Bezos' father, was able to invest and amass wealth, which he then gifted as an investment into Amazon. But Bezos really came from humble roots, but was smart and was able to leverage his intelligence and has reshaped the global marketplace. Yet, here we are vilifying a man or trying to explain away his personal success as a "gift". What we really should be doing, is modeling his feats and success instead of criticizing his wealth, which he earned and earned justly. And I'm sure that he has paid handsomely many of the people who have worked for him and his helping those people amass wealth.
The working class produces everything and doesn't need capitalists. Capitalists are a parasite class, living off of other people's hard labor. The working class (94% of the population), could easily take ownership of the mines, factories..etc (the means of production), and manage it through their government, under their authority.
Parasite is a bit of hyperbole. I've never worked for a poor person or entity.
The capitalists need the working class more so than the working class needs capitalists. Who do you think purchases the products and services that capitalists sell? The working class. They purchase everything with their wages. There's no reason why the government can't become the employer and take all of those profits and deposit it in the public treasury.
So much trust in gov't to do the right thing and or have the public's interest as their #1 priority.
Now due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, we're going to have to adopt a non-profit, marketless, more democratic system of mass production, that is centrally planned, under the authority of the working class. Capitalism is going to collapse due to a lack of wage labor.
AI is going to change things, that's for certain, but I won't jump to this laborless idea just yet. It seems to be the new argument communists are tying their goats too.
The capitalist exploiters or "masters". The parasites pay the salaries and benefits of their employees/exploitees, and then those employees, take that money and purchase the products and services sold by the capitalists. Under capitalism, there's a symbiotic relationship between the working class and the capitalists, however, the working class is superior to the capitalist owner-class. Even Abraham Lincoln understood this:
The labor class or those who actually do the work, are the true producers, not the capitalist leeches who exploit them. Like I mentioned earlier, the working class are at least 94% of the population and they could easily make their democratic government their employer, nationalizing all of the major centers of economic power. They could place all of the mines, resources, factories, robots, artificial intelligence, supercomputers..etc, in the hands of the public (publicly owned), and tell the parasite capitalists to go EF themselves.
And there are plenty of "Capitalist" that share their wealth. In some regards, the gov't should be working for us. And there are many, many privately held businesses today that are extremely successful that started with the idea of one person. Your argument is to throw the baby out with the bath water. You focus on one narrative, lump every business owner into that pile, and illogically run with your arguments.
Private property would be rendered illegal, and only personal property would be permitted. Private property is all property that is used to exploit other human beings for a profit. Personal property, is all property that is for personal use, like your house, car, computer/s, phone/s, toothbrush, AR15 collection..etc. Democratic communism is the natural, inevitable successor of capitalism, just as capitalism was the successor of feudalism and chattel slavery.
Communism is an idea that has not once shown to work anywhere, why, corruption and the inability for personal freedom, ingenuity, and success.
I’ll have some ranch dressing with your word salad. 
