Same thing that happened in every other country where a revolution resulted in public confiscation of private land and private means of production (it was never good).
You can find millions of people who think it was good! Just try to read opinions on anti-"laissez faire" sites. 
Or I can read opinions of people who lived in USSR, or now live in Cuba, Venezuela, China, Iran, and North Korea. Well, maybe not North Korea.
As capital owner can be the state, workers' union, community etc who will manage production and fairly redistribute profit among workers, not pay dividends to private shareholders.
But the private shareholders were the ones who put the money together to get the company those workers are working in started in the first place. And the only reason they gave the money to form the company, and thus give those workers jobs, was because they were promised returns or dividends from that company.
Does fair distribution mean much higher amounts go to the people at the top who are running the system, and much smaller to the lowest workers who are just watching the machines, or cleaning the floors, or pressing a button all day?
Who is it that decides what is fair, what is not, who contributed, and who did not?
It probably will be workers' unions.How do the workers in the union know what level of skill is required to run the company and how much that person should earn? And what if their "fair" wages end up with them not being able to hire anyone to manage the company?