High paid jobs after the revolution

[We will rise again]

I'm new to this so please don't insult my ignorance.

Ok, if after the communist revolution money is still in circulation, wages will be much more equal right?

So this is my question:
Sure, people still want to become doctors and scientists, but if they get paid more in capitalist countries, what stops them all from fleeing the country!?.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The idea is that ultimately, under communism it will be "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Money and wage slavery won't exist and the idea of some jobs paying more and being more prestigious than others won't be meaningful. People will be drawn to work which is socially useful and the work that people do will be well rounded and creative. There won't be a division between "brain workers" who make huge salaries and the majority of people who perform mindless rote production work.Human creativity and iniative will be unleashed and everyone will be a creative designer or artist.

That's the basic idea, anyway. There will undoubtebly be a long transistion period in which elements of capitalism will survive and possibly even be used by a working class run society. There could be some sort of labor market and people doing important work would be rewarded. Doctors would be paid very well. On the other hand so would teachers, nurses, social workers, educational "paraprofessionals". Agricultural specialists might be paid well and people working in any reconstruction necessary after a socialist revolution-building demolition, construction , trades, engineers and architects,etc.Depending on the situation, jobs whatever security forces that exist might be paid well.

People who might not be paid well could be lawyers, dentists, plumbers, anyone in the financial sector. Many jobs in FIRE-finance/real estate/insurance, would not exist under any form of socialism.There would not a class of well paid professional politicians.

EDIT: I didn't read the OP's entire question before I posred.

Large numbers of "professional" people probably will want to flee a country after a socialist revolution. A revolution would occur though in a situation of almost total social collapse, it would be painfully obvious that capitalism isn't working for anyone, even the educated "professional classes". Many people with talents and skills would welcome both the ability to have any job whatsoever and a chance to use their skills to help society.

[Robespierre Richard]

Other countries? :confused:

[ArrowLance]

Money and wage slavery won't exist and the idea of some jobs [...] being more prestigious than others won't be meaningful. People will be drawn to work which is socially useful and the work that people do will be well rounded and creative.

I don't believe at all that the prestige of certain jobs will be diminished. In fact I would hope the prestige of most jobs would increase. I feel that capitalism has done much towards the removal of prestige associated with jobs and instead replaced it with prestige associated with money. It is natural to look up to those who do the most amazing things and that in no way diminishes the respect that should be given to all persons. It will still be meaningful and no doubt a driving force in the job economy.

[The Man]

You just have a misunderstanding of what Communism really is. When I first got into Communism. I thought exactly as you thought.

In Communism there are no countries. In Communism there is no Money/Currency.

[ArrowLance]

You just have a misunderstanding of what Communism really is. When I first got into Communism. I thought exactly as you thought.

In Communism there are no countries. In Communism there is no Money/Currency.

It is important to discuss the incomplete revolution though, to say that Communism can only be used to describe the final product can be seen as strictly true but it does nothing more than attempt to dodge contemporary connotations of the term.


To the OP:

Money may well exist and we can see the effects of other countries in the international job market on communist projects in history. Most notable is the situation of divided Berlin and the Berlin Wall. Not to say that the DDR is the model of revolution but it paints clearly that in a world in which the revolution is not complete labourers, specifically intellectual labourers, may prefer and seek better compensated positions in other countries. What stops them from fleeing is dependent on the decisions of the particular 'communist experiment.' It is possible they will not be stoped at all, but hopefully the desire will be diminished by a better social atmosphere and other compensations in lieu of a high monetary compensation.

And yes, wages should be more equal, but it may be necessary to use wages as an incentive in the job economy to combat foreign competition in an international job market.

[jake williams]

I'm new to this so please don't insult my ignorance.

Ok, if after the communist revolution money is still in circulation, wages will be much more equal right?

So this is my question:
Sure, people still want to become doctors and scientists, but if they get paid more in capitalist countries, what stops them all from fleeing the country!?.
You're addressing a real and complex question to which there isn't a simple answer. It's particularly difficult to answer in general as a hypothetical - the socialist revolutions we've already seen have occured in exceptionally diverse circumstances, and those in the future will do so even more.

Some preliminary thoughts though. First, most people like living at home. It's not generally normal for people to get excited about jumping on a plane, learning another language, buying a new house with what money can be smuggled out, etc. It's definitely easier for the educated petty bourgeoisie, but it's still not automatic that every doctor and scientist wants to leave the place they and their family grew up, especially in cases where socialist revolutions are relatively peaceful and reestablish functioning societies fairly quickly.

Next, it's pretty normal to actually care about other people. There are plenty of doctors doing it solely for the money, and they're shitty doctors. But many, maybe most, actually want to help people, and in fact this can be a motivating factor for a lot of healthcare professionals in supporting more just social arrangements.

Skill flight is a big problem in South Africa, which didn't have a socialist revolution, but for which the achievement of bourgeois democracy actually achieved relative peace for most of the country. In contexts where revolutions are exceptionally violent, the problem you're referring to is a more difficult one.

Ultimately though, it has to be recognized as a generational issue, as the process of revolution and achievement of communism in general does. The expansion of education to the working class and the abolition of petty bourgeois relations in, for example, healthcare, is the ultimate solution for the problem of skill flight. But it's not an easy one.

[MarxSchmarx]

You're addressing a real and complex question to which there isn't a simple answer. It's particularly difficult to answer in general as a hypothetical - the socialist revolutions we've already seen have occured in exceptionally diverse circumstances, and those in the future will do so even more.

Some preliminary thoughts though. First, most people like living at home. It's not generally normal for people to get excited about jumping on a plane, learning another language, buying a new house with what money can be smuggled out, etc. It's definitely easier for the educated petty bourgeoisie, but it's still not automatic that every doctor and scientist wants to leave the place they and their family grew up, especially in cases where socialist revolutions are relatively peaceful and reestablish functioning societies fairly quickly.

Next, it's pretty normal to actually care about other people. There are plenty of doctors doing it solely for the money, and they're shitty doctors. But many, maybe most, actually want to help people, and in fact this can be a motivating factor for a lot of healthcare professionals in supporting more just social arrangements.

Skill flight is a big problem in South Africa, which didn't have a socialist revolution, but for which the achievement of bourgeois democracy actually achieved relative peace for most of the country. In contexts where revolutions are exceptionally violent, the problem you're referring to is a more difficult one.

Ultimately though, it has to be recognized as a generational issue, as the process of revolution and achievement of communism in general does. The expansion of education to the working class and the abolition of petty bourgeois relations in, for example, healthcare, is the ultimate solution for the problem of skill flight. But it's not an easy one.

I actually am not so sure it is so complex. Although I agree with you wholeheartedly that people, in general, are altruistic and want to stay in their cultural homes, I think there is a real question about whether renumeration would be sufficiently higher in capitalist states to warrant a "jumping of the ship". For example, an embryonic socialist society would be doomed to failure unless it delivered a very high standard of living for the mass of people. For someone to defect to the capitalist state, that state would have to provide such an outlandish improvement in the skilled worker's livelihood to make it even rational for them to leave. But I don't see a capitalist country offering even someone like a heart surgeon a castle. Already the overwhelming majority of heart surgeons and scientists that live in countries with even moderately high living standards remain there - for example, few Japanese heart surgeons who take mass transit to work and live in a small condo in Tokyo say leave for somewhere like Panama where they could live in probably much, much larger houses and have servants and chauffeurs all.

I think the reason you saw a brain drain of sorts in places like the DDR was that, let's face it, life was pretty sorry for most occupational groups compared to workers in the welfare states of western Europe for a whole host of reasons.

For certain underdeveloped countries, however, where certain groups are used to having massive social inequality, this is a plausible problem. South Africa is a good example, as is to a lesser extent Venezuela where talented physicians could conceivably move to places like Chile. However, I think that socialism that commits to improving the standard of living (which includes easy access to luxury goods by the mass of people in addition to the necessities of life) by leaps and bounds would quickly stem this tide.

Indeed, it basically comes down to this excellent quote by Leon Trotsky:


It is the task of your communist statesmen to make the system deliver the concrete goods that the average man desires: his food, cigars, amusements, his freedom to choose his own neckties, his own house and his own automobile. It will be easy to give him these comforts in Soviet America.

[DaComm]

You just have a misunderstanding of what Communism really is. When I first got into Communism. I thought exactly as you thought.

In Communism there are no countries. In Communism there is no Money/Currency.

Not all socialists advocate this though. The labor card is palatable to many of us- I personally have doubts that Karl Marx actually advocated this “free stuff” system given the sarcastic nature of how he presented it...in only one of his works...which was never meant for publication.

To respond to the OP, if we assume that a monetary system (not currency of course, as this is the circulated type we see in Capitalism), is used in our society, we most certainly would have a lower gap between those who earn the least/most in society, yet keep in mind no one advocates identical wages. This would of course be caused by the lack of Capitalists who achieve ridiculously high profits from not laboring. A palatable socialist monetary system would be the labor card; after a day’s work your occupation/hours worked are logged in a computer and after a week’s time you receive your paycheck which rewards you for effort, which you may then use to consume. This is not transferred between consumer and producer, and no competition revolves around it (obviously). I would be drawn to this immediately, but in the case one found they were considering leaving for a Capitalist country; they would immediately be turned back by a poor environmental status, no regard for workplace safety, crisis, war, and things of the like.

[Dimmu]

I personally see a lot of problems if we allow the monetary system to stay in place. It is the money that corrupt the people, money force people to go out and steal from others etc.

Modern monetary system is a major obstacle to equality and i believe that it needs to be abolished.

[Kamos]

I personally see a lot of problems if we allow the monetary system to stay in place. It is the money that corrupt the people, money force people to go out and steal from others etc.

Modern monetary system is a major obstacle to equality and i believe that it needs to be abolished.

Pretty much this. If not all wages are equal in the communist system, nothing is solved, there will still be inequality and class divisions. If they are, then what need is there for wages? The only difference would be dictated by how much you work, nothing else would matter.

To answer the original question, of course many will attempt to flee the country. But those are the ones who do not want communism, who are perfectly happy with living off the working class. The revolution builds on the working class, not the elite (though their support is welcome). Once the whole world lives under communism, they will have to adapt, having nowhere else to go to.

[DaComm]

I personally see a lot of problems if we allow the monetary system to stay in place. It is the money that corrupt the people, money force people to go out and steal from others etc.

Modern monetary system is a major obstacle to equality and i believe that it needs to be abolished.

Currency corrupts, is what you mean, as a system based on the competition of a circulated currency forces people to act violently upon others and their surroundings. Labor cards allow you to receive in proportion to what you have done for your society and so is a fair system of remuneration. Besides, having everything "free" would promote wastefulness of things like electricity/water and would lead to free-loaders. Earnings in a labor card society would have less gaps due to the absence of remuneration for property and so there is much more equality than capitalist societies.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Some people do not believe in the transitory stage between Capitalism and communism (the classless, non-hierarchical, no money society). I, however, do, so i'll try to answer your question.

There are probably going to be several mini-stages in the transitory stage (call it Socialism), roughly:

Working class take political power, set up their own political/economic councils and other institutions.
Expropriate bourgeois capital and ameliorate any attempts at counter-revolution via military war and economic pressure.

In this first transitory stage, the aim is to establish the working class as the collective embodiment of economic and political hegemony. Money will probably still exist in its current form, though there will likely be changes to the banking system - the expropriation of capital for redistributive purposes, the ending of the fractional reserve system and the cancelling of speculation, the expropriation of profit for social uses and so on. There will, in this monetary phase of Socialism, obviously be more of an emphasis on redistribution of economic wealth as economic and political power will rest with the working class, those who were formerly exploited under Capitalism. As such, there will not be such a problem with doctors and such earning perhaps 5x or 10x what the lowest earning unskilled workers earn. It will, unfortunately, still be a market-driven phenomenon, but it can be thought of as the least bad temporary solution.

The most important point is that this (effectively a social democratic-style regulated market for wages) should be a wholly transitory phenomenon - temporary-, and should be abandoned as soon as the tasks of expropriation, workers' democracy and defeat of the counter-revolution have been achieved.

When these tasks have been achieved, things like labour credits, bartering and internal gift economies can be integrated into the move towards a wholly classless, non-monetarised economy.

In short, reciprocal altruism, in economic terms, can only really rise institutionally as the bourgeoisie is defeated as an economic power. You also have to factor in that any sort of gift economy will not really work on a country-by-country basis. It would need, if not world revolution, then at least revolution in a region or trading bloc large enough to be pretty much wholly self-sufficient.

[We will rise again]

El Granma, the problem is counter-revolutionary forces will persist until world revolution, and even then, there will still be counter-revolutionaries. Defeating international Capitalism seems an intangible goal that takes too long to complete for full effect.

As such, we will persist in the Socialism stage for too long, either until we Communists become self sufficient (this requires revolution across the world, because some goods can only be aquired from certain areas, and Capitalists might cut commerce as to destroy our economy), or until we are large enough to become a military threat to ALL Capitalist superpowers. All this increases danger of reverting back to Capitalism before we have time to finish transition.

How do we fix this?

[jake williams]

I think the reason you saw a brain drain of sorts in places like the DDR was that, let's face it, life was pretty sorry for most occupational groups compared to workers in the welfare states of western Europe for a whole host of reasons.

For certain underdeveloped countries, however, where certain groups are used to having massive social inequality, this is a plausible problem.
Right, which is why I tried to make clear that it depends a lot on the particular circumstances of a given country. In some places it would be a very marginal issue.

[The Idler]

There will be no stages, transitional or otherwise. Socialism will be a moneyless, wageless society otherwise the society better described as a variation of capitalism.

[Robespierre Richard]

So a Stalinist, a Trotskyist, and and Anarchist are at the bar and We Will Rise Again asks them: "Will there be high-paid jobs after the revolution?"

Stalinist: "High-paid?"

Trotskyist: "Jobs?"

Anarchist: "After the revolution?"

[We will rise again]

There will be no stages, transitional or otherwise. Socialism will be a moneyless, wageless society otherwise the society better described as a variation of capitalism.

Then how come the USSR, even under Stalin, failed to become moneyless? And that was Socialism.

[Dimmu]

Then how come the USSR, even under Stalin, failed to become moneyless? And that was Socialism.

No it was not. USSR was your typical state-capitalist country where the state owned everything. Thats not socialism.

And i agree with the Idler, if a revolution happens and we will try to achieve communism by going through different stages then it wont work.

[TC]

A communist revolution, which is to say a revolution by communists towards communism does not result in end-of-history classless stateless communism, it results in state-backed socialism that works towards communism.

It was obvious from the original posters question that this was what he/she had in mind.



So this is my question:
Sure, people still want to become doctors and scientists, but if they get paid more in capitalist countries, what stops them all from fleeing the country!?

In capitalist economies - money flows across boarders freely. With no respect for private property no similar necessity exists in socialist economies.

Anyone who leaves permanently will not be allowed to take any of "their" possessions with them and they'll lose their citizenship and not be allowed to come back. This is a sufficient disincentive to keep most from leaving after a socialist society has invested tremendously in their education.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No it was not. USSR was your typical state-capitalist country where the state owned everything. Thats not socialism.

And i agree with the Idler, if a revolution happens and we will try to achieve communism by going through different stages then it wont work.

What do you do if there is a revolutionary wave in which your country succumbs to workers' revolution, but other countries do not?

You can't abandon money because it's almost impossible to become self-sufficient over night, and thus no trade = unimaginable disaster.

Do you then just abandon working class power because conditions don't allow your particular brand of Socialism to be enacted?

[The Idler]

A majority of millions of workers eager for socialism would ensure any power temporarily abandoned wouldn't be abandoned for long.

[robbo203]

What do you do if there is a revolutionary wave in which your country succumbs to workers' revolution, but other countries do not?

You can't abandon money because it's almost impossible to become self-sufficient over night, and thus no trade = unimaginable disaster.

Do you then just abandon working class power because conditions don't allow your particular brand of Socialism to be enacted?


I would imagine that if one part of the world was ready for socialism/communism, everywhere else would not be far off. Ideas, after all, do not respect boundaries and, in any case, the global socialist/communist movement itself, as it grows in strength, will most likely work to proactively minimise spatial unevenesses or imbalances.

Technically and insofar as the revolution has to happen somewhere first (with other parts of the world most likely following in short order and in domino fashion), this initial socialist/communist part would probably relate to residual capitalist areas on the basis of some form of (moneyless) balanced reciprocity and as more and more parts of the world got rid of capitalism, this would rapidly evolve into a system of generalised reciprocity which is really what a moneyless wageless stateless society of socialism/communism is all about in the first place

[DaComm]

There will be no stages, transitional or otherwise. Socialism will be a moneyless, wageless society otherwise the society better described as a variation of capitalism.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Capitalism is distinguished by private ownership and wage labor going hand-in-hand with labor exploitation. A society with an economy directed and owned collectively by the workforce has no exploitation. According to you, 1936 Catalonia's Anarchist economy could best be described as capitalistic given its labor card system? Do you seriously contend that you will immediately find yourself with a superabundance of goods and services in a socialist society? Point being, for a very long time, perhaps long past our lives we would still be sans superabundance- to assume otherwise is naive and unrealistic.

[MarxSchmarx]

A communist revolution, which is to say a revolution by communists towards communism does not result in end-of-history classless stateless communism, it results in state-backed socialism that works towards communism.

It was obvious from the original posters question that this was what he/she had in mind.



So this is my question:
Sure, people still want to become doctors and scientists, but if they get paid more in capitalist countries, what stops them all from fleeing the country!? In capitalist economies - money flows across boarders freely. With no respect for private property no similar necessity exists in socialist economies.

Anyone who leaves permanently will not be allowed to take any of "their" possessions with them and they'll lose their citizenship and not be allowed to come back. This is a sufficient disincentive to keep most from leaving after a socialist society has invested tremendously in their education.

Well, I must confess that I wonder why there is a need to institute such measures to begin with.

After all, under capitalism, few highly skilled workers who have a good life for them and their children from one society see the need to move to another society where they have a somewhat slightly better life. True, some do, but the overwhelming majority do not.

I don't see why the situation under socialism would be much different. I suspect, for example, that if America were to "become socialist" but say Colombia or even France not, as long as the transitional American government provided enough of luxuries there would be little incentive for a talented American doctor or scientist to migrate to France. Sure some will leave for the promise of marginally better riches, but again, under capitalism there is little evidence that unless they are mind-blowing, such incentives are insufficient to force people who already have their basic comforts to give up their livelihoods.

And I think the history of the post-cold war world has shown is that few societies have found it profitable to offer such ridiculous awards for defection that it is a cause for concern on a massive scale. For example, China currently sets up highly regarded western European scientists who are forcibly retired with truly luxurious conditions if they would only relocate to a Chinese university, but most of these scientists appear to elect to remain in western Europe. I don't see any reason why this trend shouldn't continue

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's a shame that educational training income has yet to be discussed in this thread as related to tackling high-paid jobs.

[Ocean Seal]

Sure, people still want to become doctors and scientists, but if they get paid more in capitalist countries, what stops them all from fleeing the country!?.
Ah an excellent question indeed. The thing is that in socialist countries (Cuba etc. etc.) there tends to be a high investment in education and have excellent universities. Cuba uses approximately 18% of its budget on education. Therefore per capita they will be producing more professionals. In order to pay for this you could state that for every year that they get educated in the country they have to stay in the country afterwards (1:1 ratio). However, I strongly doubt that this will be necessary as most doctors and scientists do stay within socialist countries. For example, Cuba has 1 doctor for every 190 people whereas the United States has 1 for every 370. The doctor argument always seems to please the capitalists but when you look at it in practice it doesn't actually happen. A doctor in a socialist country is getting good pay, free healthcare, freedom from an oppressive capitalist structure, freedom from joblessness, good housing, and a country that cares.

If a doctor did leave the country it would be more for ideological reasons than for anything else really.

[MarxSchmarx]

It's a shame that educational training income has yet to be discussed in this thread as related to tackling high-paid jobs.

While this is a valid point, esp. with regards to the ubiquitous "if doctor's invest so much in education they should be remunerated accordingly" argument, I think a big part of the issue boils down to what exactly constitutes the policies of a society trying to move away from capitalism. Perhaps it is the case that some posters, including myself, still see such changes as education training income as still part of a predominantly capitalist economy.

After all, I suspect that all capitalists societies have a vested interests in providing incentives such as these to ensure a steady supply of qualified personnell in their areas of need? Thus the suggested policies appear as a necessary, but certainly not sufficient basis for discussing training/compensation in a post-capitalist economy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The education training income, from the capitalist perspective, is indeed supposed to reduce the price of labour for the professions involved. Doctor shortages can't be "solved" by privatization drives and what not (just look at the US).

I'll wait for someone to scream "It's Transitional, Damn It!" at what I just wrote and at your response. ;)

[robbo203]

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Capitalism is distinguished by private ownership and wage labor going hand-in-hand with labor exploitation. A society with an economy directed and owned collectively by the workforce has no exploitation. According to you, 1936 Catalonia's Anarchist economy could best be described as capitalistic given its labor card system? Do you seriously contend that you will immediately find yourself with a superabundance of goods and services in a socialist society? Point being, for a very long time, perhaps long past our lives we would still be sans superabundance- to assume otherwise is naive and unrealistic.

It depends doesnt it? I dont use the expression "superabundance" since it is potentially miselading but even today, right now, we have the technological capacity and the productive potential to easily satisfy all our basic needs. Do you realise just how monumentally wasteful capitalism is? I was reading the other day that in China alone there are an astonishing 64 million empty apartments (http://www.grist.org/cities/2011-03-31-chinas-ghost-cities-and-the-biggest-property-bubble-of-all). Most of the work we do today is absolutely useless and only serves to oil the wheels of commerce etc. In socialism we will be able to produce far more with far less.


Saying there will be no transition stage between capitalism and socialism/communism is technically correct since you cannot have something in between a class based society and a classless society. However within the latter is is possible to envisage some form of transitional arrangement with, say, the selective ratioming of some goods. Peronally though i would steer well clear of the idea of labour vouchers which is probably the least useful system of rationing for a post capitalist economy