If your country were to become communist...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Hmmm, that doesn't sound like a society of this sort would remain communist for long. A one time redistribution and then leaving people alone would just allow those people to turn into filthy capitalists as they begin to buy, sell, and trade property on their own.

Ok, lets say everyone has a house, a car and a summer cottage in this communist society. We all own them. Since we own them we are free to sell them, rent them out, fix them up, or do whatever we want with them, right? Do you see how that could lead to amassed capital?

Your retort may be that since everyone has a house, car, and summer cottage why would they buy mine? Ah well that assumes perfect equality, and even hardcore Communists must admit that perfect equality is impossible due to limited resources. Lets say this is the United Socialist States of America, USSA, and lets say the best spot to have a summer cottage is Lake Tahoe and Key West. Out of the 300 million people in the country, how many of these good Communists will get a summer cottage on Lake Tahoe or Key West? Very few. So some will be stuck with a summer cottage in New Jersey, or Mississippi, or heck, Kansas.

So that creates inequality, and thus a motive to buy/sell/rent/renovate/advance. So the guy with a summer cottage in Key West decides he isn't all that much for vacationing anyhow, so he decides to rent it out by the week to those poor schmucks who were stuck with cottages in New Jersey and Kansas, and eventually gets quite a good amount of money. Buys homes from others, fixes them up, rents them out, etc etc.

Capitalism is reborn.

So private property is incompatable with true communism. Unless you mean the person "owns" their house, but if they decide to sell it or rent it the transaction has a 90% tax put on it. Well... sure. Even then someone would find a way no doubt. Or if you mean they "own" it but can't buy, sell, rent, or renovate it, well....uh-huh.

Well, I don´t think that this would be a big problem. Ownership in the communist society is a perk, rather than a god given right. You could rent out your summer cottage, but you wouldn´t have anywhere to invest the money since you´re only allowed to own one cottage, car and house at a time. You could buy other stuff with it, like a bigger TV or CD player for your car. Because they are not investments as such.

There will alway be people who try to bend the rules, but as long as the majority is satisfied with things in general this won´t be a great problem. Remember that my communist society is dependent on the will of the people. If there is a communist revolution it´s because an overwhelming majority wants a new society, not because some intellectual avantgarde decides that they know what´s best for every one. Thus the position on private property and acquisition of capital will change fundamentally.

[DaShi]

Until the next generation.

[Skanky Burns]

Both democracy and capitalism are built on competition. The country that competes well in attracting workers with key skills reaps the taxation benefits of those workers, both through personal income tax of the people in question but also through company tax of their employers.

If the government fails to provide an economy where skills are rewarded, then they deserve to miss out on the skills they have given to the population, particularly since they have a distinct advantage over other countries. People are more likely to find a job where they are than in another country.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Lancer

So, guys, travel restrictions? You don't let them move out of the country, how about travel abroad? Can they take a vacation to a democracy? You know many won't come back...

Lancer, you (and everyone else) seem to assume that a communist society can´t be a democratic one? I don´t think that many commie posters here wants a Soviet style dictatorship...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by DaShi
Until the next generation.

Hopefully, by the next generation every other country is also communist

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
If the government fails to provide an economy where skills are rewarded, then they deserve to miss out on the skills they have given to the population, particularly since they have a distinct advantage over other countries. People are more likely to find a job where they are than in another country.

So, you think it's OK for, say, Morocco to lose its whole intellectual elite because a worker's wage in neighbouring Spain is much hihger than a doctor's wage in Morocco?

[Skanky Burns]

The wage rates of doctors in Morocco will balance out compared to those of Spain due to supply and demand. To say they would lose their "whole intellectual elite" is a strawman as each skilled worker that leaves drives up wages for those that remain, as well as driving down wages in the country they are migrating to. The marginal cost of leaving will continue to increase.

If the number of doctors Morocco needs is too low to make training native Moroccans cost-effective, Morocco can specialise education in some other field, take advantage of some other country's economy of scale and import doctors themselves.

In short, I see no problem in allowing market forces to redistribute (human) resources to where they are most cost-effective.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
The wage rates of doctors in Morocco will balance out compared to those of Spain due to supply and demand. To say they would lose their "whole intellectual elite" is a strawman as each skilled worker that leaves drives up wages for those that remain, as well as driving down wages in the country they are migrating to. The marginal cost of leaving will continue to increase.

For how long will it last? How much money will the Moroccan people continue to lose in order to train doctors that won't stay at home? Which foreigner will want to exercise in Morocco, considering that very few people can afford the prices a doctor could easily charge in a western country?
It's not only a matter of supply and demand, it's a matter of affording things. No foreigner in their right mind would immigrate in Morocco for economic reasons, because there's no money there. Morocco competes with countries (such as Spain) which are completely out of its league.
Yet, Morocco has the domestic ability to train doctors, teachers etc. Why makes it all right that these domestic forces (which are costly to build up, but importing is much, much more expansive) leave the country without even reimbursing the cost of their education?

If the number of doctors Morocco needs is too low to make training native Moroccans cost-effective

It's not that they don't need doctors (quite the contrary), it's that they can't afford to pay them more. Spain can afford to pay more money for an expandable construction worker.

[Skanky Burns]

An integral part of the definition of "demand" is the ability to back up your want with purchasing power. In other words, demand means affording things. Further, no country has "no money". They can afford a certain amount of doctors per number of population through taxation. Obviously this number will be much lower than a country with a strong economy - such that there will be fewer doctors per person than in Spain. That a country with a weak economy has a lower standard of living should come as a shock to no-one though.

And yes, Spain can afford to pay more at the margain to gain an additional doctor, however there comes a point when the cost of an additional doctor outweighs the additional benefit that doctor brings. Morocco, with its weaker economy, can afford less doctors. With less doctors, the marginal benefit of an additional doctor is much greater than that of Spain. While they can't afford as many doctors as Spain, there is a point where the doctor's pay at market rates equals the benefit Morocco receives from the doctors it does hire.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
An integral part of the definition of "demand" is the ability to back up your want with purchasing power.

So if you can't afford doctors or food, too bad for you. You have no claims on the people you put through school or whose farms you subsidized. I love who supporters of capitalism like to have it both ways. You can take what you want from the state, but it's such a major imposition if the state wants something back.

[Lancer]

Pekka, Master Zen, I agree that the utopian ideal is far from the end result once the politboro, or whoever, ends up in charge.

DrZ, how can a democratic country not be capitalist? Capitalism IS freedom...

Spif, France is not a communist country. The government hasn't confiscated and redistibuted all property from rightful owners to their cronies...erm, I mean 'the people' yet, have they?

[Skanky Burns]

As opposed to communists, who want everyone to give the state everything.

I don't believe I advocated allowing people to starve.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lancer
Capitalism IS freedom...

That depends on how much money you have.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
I don't believe I advocated allowing people to starve.

Not in those words, but it's the implication from your asserting that if Morocco can't afford to pay the doctors what they would get in Spain, tough luck for Morocco.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lancer
DrZ, how can a democratic country not be capitalist? Capitalism IS freedom.

The Paris Commune was democratic and communist.

The early USSR was democatic and communist.

Nicaragua was democratic and communist.