By eradicating cheap labour, would nations be segregated in an Communist society?

[AK]

For the most part, nations and cultures live in their original countries, goverened by their respective nation-states. In a global communist society (where cheap labour would presumably not exist due to relatively equal and fair wages and conditions), would nations be once again segregated into distinct geographical regions as their would be less of an incentive for foreign workers to work in another (previously "first world") country (referring to the land, not the state).

[Winter]

For the most part, nations and cultures live in their original countries, goverened by their respective nation-states. In a global communist society (where cheap labour would presumably not exist due to relatively equal and fair wages and conditions).

In a global communist society there would be no wages at all.

A communist society is free from currency, class, and government.


would nations be once again segregated into distinct geographical regions as their would be less of an incentive for foreign workers to work in another (previously "first world") country (referring to the land, not the state).

If nations do continue to exist they would be by name only. The worker has no country, the world is his home.

[AK]

In a global communist society there would be no wages at all.

A communist society is free from currency, class, and government.

The original definition is a stateless, classless society. The abolishment of the monetary system would be a change that may or may not come during communism itself. But true, the contemporary defintion includes moneylessness.


If nations do continue to exist they would be by name only. The worker has no country, the world is his home.
A nation is a distinct group of people who share a common history, culture, language or ethnic origin. Sure, sometimes the history is nothing to be proud of, but we can't destroy languages or culture. If we do this, I'd say we're genocidal. An alternative to segregation (and certainly an alternative to genocide) would be to integrate all cultures, this certainly seems preferable and ethical, but there are many obstacles in the way.

[bcbm]

i think in a world where people could freely travel and live anywhere they like that a good number of people would take advantage of that. i don't think there'd be much worry of segregation.

[AK]

i think in a world where people could freely travel and live anywhere they like that a good number of people would take advantage of that. i don't think there'd be much worry of segregation.
sure, people might want to live in exotic locations, but if the living conditions are the same everywhere then people would tend to stay where they feel like they are at home, where they have been for their lives up until that point; generally within the confines of the traditional territory of a nation.

[bcbm]

living conditions being the same everywhere doesn't mean living everywhere is the same. there would still be vast differences between, say, rural idaho and algiers. i think the ability to live anywhere would encourage people to get out and actually do it, and form interesting new cultural developments.

[AK]

living conditions being the same everywhere doesn't mean living everywhere is the same. there would still be vast differences between, say, rural idaho and algiers. i think the ability to live anywhere would encourage people to get out and actually do it, and form interesting new cultural developments.
and come to think of it, ive just wondered how many people want to live somewhere but cant, simply because it is beyond their means.

[manic expression]

No, nations would not be segregated in a post-revolutionary society. Increased integration and exchange between nations and cultures is something that should be encouraged, and is actually one of our most important goals. As an example of cultural enrichment, the Cuban government has strongly supported the growth of hip hop in Cuba (setting up a Ministry of Hip Hop) not only because it is a unique and rich artform, but also because it speaks to the history of the Afro-Cuban people. In other countries, including the country of hip hop's birthplace, there are plenty of obstacles against the spread and enjoyment of the art, but in socialism these have already been knocked down by the victories of the working class; the same goes for a lot of other cultural connections (ballet, etc.).

It's true that capitalism provides different incentives for such exchanges, but they also come with a lot of strife, disunity, conflict and tragedy. What revolution should do is enhance cultural and national exchange while providing solidarity for all peoples. Emigration/immigration will no longer be down to survival and necessity but instead to desire and friendship. Paul Robeson, as a Black man, said that the Soviet Union was the only place where he felt he could walk in "full human dignity", and he proudly educated his son in Moscow. That's what we should be trying to do, and that's exactly why I believe in the future of humanity.