Migration

It comes from living in a bubble.

the only problem we have, are people thinking they are entitled to shit they arent entitled to

just because someone has 20 houses, and someone is homeless, it doesnt mean that there is some sort of injustice going on, there is no law of physics that says all people must have equal amount of houses, there really isnt

the only problem we have are modern day leftist inquisition with their a priori guilt, going around and molesting people who have more, as if they have a divine mandate to enforce some sort of esoteric justice or i dont even know what the fuck anymore

all i know is that the proto fascist sentiment we have going on around us is a direct result of this, and that i too will be most likely end up joining up to protect myself from the leftist inquisition, even tho i am nowhere near enough rich, i just want to be left alone, unmolested by this invisible social justice inquisition nagging us normal working people to death
cult of inequality is much worse than any capitalism here in the west

No scarcity isn't natural, in nature we have enough shit for everyone and technology has scaled this abundance up. Y'all right wingers just take the people's shit. The only "solution" lefties have for scarcity is sending your sorry asses to the gulag.

As long as you don't complain when we put you in the dirt thats fine.

Then it's good that you've abandoned the "scarcity" argument. At least we now know that it's because you want to own 20 houses at the expense of the rest. It's a good thing we will hang you when the time comes.

nigga what

If more people want to live somewhere, build higher buildings. Good real estate belongs to everyone.

Leftists view people as nothing more than faceless economic units to be transferred to and fro. They drank the capitalist production at all costs cool aid the hardest. As long as everyone has three hots and a cot and a 300 square foot commie block to call their own they genuinely believe people will stop considering trannies freaks or screeching imams calling to prayer five times a day on the loudspeakers good comrades or will feel as close to 80 Autism Level giga niggas as they do to their mothers. This why open borders will work everyone just needs three rations a day and an apartment to call their own then all societal antagonisms will disappear. Peak autism.

aight, hear me out for half a second here:
what if a person with 20 houses worked 20 times harder than a person with 1 house?

that's all im saying
yeah, yeah, i know, i know
but
for the sake of argument
what if a person with 20 houses, worked 20 times harder than a person with 1 house
just indulge me
what if?

To paraphrase Kropotkin: when there is in abundance, take as you wish, and when there is scarcity, ration resources.

In the case of scarcity, I think you'ill find that there will be unanimity when you suggest that, rather than a hierarchised distribution of resources, that has no ground but an arbitrary divide based on class (as happens under capitalism), that scarce resources should be distributed equally, based on the need of the person. For example, if food had to be rationed in a leftist society, then some would be kept for the elders and children?

There is no system of hierarchy that hides behind this system, simply one that bases itself on human interaction. If you look at people past some arbitrary divide (gender, wealth, class) then you realise that all have values, empathy, and so on. But hierarchy in general kind of distorts these values, to the point where some think that the people are so selfish, greedy, and self-concentred that they obviously need an hierarchised system to "keep them in place". What's keeping people from acting the way they want if, instead, these hierarchies are abolished?

I laid out some anarcho-communist theory here (even though not very advanced) but I hope it answers your point. I think other leftists would be able to answer it as well more in detail if needed.

Yes, what if, indeed. Of course, we know that isn't the case. In fact, the person with no house may work harder than one who owns 100 houses. Of course, even if that were the case, you simply would not be allowed to own property in absence under socialism. That is what we mean to abolish private property. If you don't use it, you lose it.

In a non-capitalist system there are less incentives to migrate than in a capitalist one.

People in the middle-ages could not migrate because the economy was entirely local, there was no point in migrating unless you were an invading force, a traveling merchant or feeling the Mongol invasions.

In socialism there would be no international capital distributing wealth to the richest, leading workers or migrants to travel to richer and more developed parts of capitalist production and service centers. With regards to your concerns OP, you assume that Socialism can only come out of global enlightened central planning, but I beleive such changes would come about more organically. For example, for a first world country abandoning Capitalism for a more effective system, this would give incentives to abandon the Capitalist economy as well rather than move there. And I am not talking about faux Scandinavian social democracy here, that thrives on parasitism like all other capitalist economies.

No one here said open borders unconditionally work, the point is not the elimination of borders, but in halting people being used as mere economic units, as you said. There would be no Muslim problem had Europe not needed all that cheap labor for pensions and economic growth.

Yeah its trivial to discuss abundance, and leftism works in case of abundance but so does everything else.. this rationing you mentioned, that's interesting to me, because capitalism does just that, it rations things based on a currency.
We dont need plans for best case scenarios, in case of a best case scenario, things are good lol. In case of scarcity, we need crystal clear guide lines or else utter chaos ensues, the strong starts eating the weak, there are no rules or civilized anything, might is right and that's all there is to it.

And how do you know that this isnt the case? You really have no physical proof you can take to court of law, all you have is whatabaoutism, excuses, theories, etc.
No proof, no justice, no order, no security, none of those, you just go around accusing the rich, some of who actually did work harder, and all you get is them emigrating out of there with all their shit, leaving the place brain drained and full of resentful entitled losers that arent even doing any work in the first place.
Bravo.

There are other, better, ways to deal with population related issues than closed borders, which would—I should add—fail to address the social roots of population problems.

"Reduce women to mere reproductive factories, and population rates will explode. Conversely, provide people with decent lives, education, a sense of creative meaning in life, and above all free women from their roles as mere bearers of children—and population growth begins to stabilize and population rates even reverse their direction."- Murray Bookchin

Well, do you know of anyone that has 20 houses without exploiting others' labor? No? That's be cause they don't exist.

No, that would be you. You have no examples of anyone owning 20 houses simply because they worked very hard.
The rich won't be allowed to leave and all their wealth will be confiscated anyway. They themselves will be hanged.
Indeed.

friend, if you cant compete with these people in the job market, why the fuck do you think you can compete with them in the digging tunnels to escape market?

yeah, nah, not really

there is no law of reality or physics or science or whatever that says one person cant work harder than someone else, or that equality of outcome is moral or whatever
yes, some people really can work 20 times harder than some other people

Why do you care about them? Who gave you the right that you can tell other people how they should feel about themselves? I you have particularly bad experiences towards than I am sorry for you, but that doesn't mean that all of them are like that.

Could you just fucking stop jerking off to cuckold porn? I think everyone has the right to hold fetishes if they don't hurt anyone with it, but now I am going ask you to stop it. It's very dangerous to build political viewpoints around them.

This coming from a guy that thinks that shit like ethnicity, sexual orentation and the country you were born in are things that we should build our lives around because somewhy they directly effect and define most of our personality traits.
Instead of this, proper leftists believe that human beings have immense potential in themselves, only the systems we created and helped to maintain with our passivity towards them hold us back.
So yes, we are all the same and equal, but this means that we can become anything if we choose to struggle for it.

This is why we need the LVT

for>>1714944

Regarding this argument, well, that's exactly what I argued against in the post.. You consider that chaos would ensue were there no rules. But that ignores that people can organise with nothing but an idea, and that they manage to create things that can surpass any hierarchy.

For the invidual - getting to your point of capitalism 'rationing' on currency - wouldn't it be more fulfilling if, instead of having to work 40-60 hours per week, he could instead persue what he desires to do?

This is the main flaw in your line of reasoning - you assume that, under capitalism, each gets compensated fairly based on work he puts in, and based on that work he gets his currency which "rations" how he lives. If he works a lot, or does what is considered "harder" work, then he will get more currency and live better than others. People who don't work live in misery or die instead.

It is flawed because it ignores all the underlying problems in work under capitalism. How do you define what is work? How do you judge what "percentage" of work one person has invested today instead of another, in any way except arbitrary? Is doing something in your free time - making woodwork in your garage, for example - work and should be compensated as such? How can you define an arbitrary cutoff point for time of work, if each person is different and has different ability? Should each person deserve a different fate based on their judged ability to work?

Another point is that, under capitalism, we live under abundance; going to my earlier comment about food, there is enough for everyone, but because of artificial scarticity, many are not able to *afford* eating. If eating is a fundamental need of humanity, then why is basic food sold in the first place?

Work under capitalism, and most jobs, only give you enough to survive. The "rationning" created by currency has a nice side effect - it allows for the rich to control the lower classes. If I work 40 hours a week, shouldn't I be making enough to live - and not survive? This is the main distinction here. People aren't assured survival under capitalism - they have to work for it, and at hours that take all of your week. Most have enough to survive, but not to live - where we have the material conditions to have everyone able to survive.

Ultimately, if work is defined under a capitalist lens, then only what is considered "productive" is work. Working in a factory is productive; studying hard is productive. Playing an instrument, making an amateur theatre band, playing sports, drawing, etc; are considered not productive.

But what if these are done on a professional level? Making music at a professional level is productive, but it also becomes work. Because of the work argument developped earlier, capitalism has often a tendency to corrupt even the purest passion - once it is done for survival, and not for enjoying it. Everything you pursue is fine, as long as it could turn a profit later.

Considering this, judging people by their ability to work is misguided at best, and destructive at worst. What if, instead of working to survive, you had your survival already guantreed (food, shelter), and could take all the hours of your week to pursue what you wanted to do, instead of being forced into "working" for survival?

I'm stopping my argument here because I'm running out of time - but I hope this answers the line of thought you've developped in the thread.

Well yeah they could not migrate, today this is much easier though. I don't fear that socialism wouldn't improve people's life in the third world, to a point where less poeple would feel the need to leave. I just think open borders would even in a socialist world incentivize many people even in well developed countries to leave for places that can offer them more. An economic system can't change that there are better and worse places for farming/certain industries and for living in general Only so many people can live in a city, on a coastline, etc. If people form all over the world compete for living and working you better have some form of enlightened central planning in order to avoid chaos. I would personally love to see a sytem to frutition that assignes more valuable land to those that are willing to work more for it, but I unfortunately can't see that being realized even in a socialist world, especially after an unorganized spontanious revolution. The people living there now would probably rather start a civil war than lose their muh privileges to newcomers.

Why were those fucking houses built if not for people to live in them?
But okay, let's say someone works 20 times harder then most people (I doubt this but whatever). Are you telling me that our hardworking person only gets up and go to work so he can keep having those sweet 20 houses? Or a shiny car? Tasty food for every meal? Are these the things that give him meaning? I don't think so.

doesnt matter what you think
if you start violating the rights of others, its just a matter of time before someone violates your rights as well
oh and by the way i met quite a few of insanely hard working doctors and engineers who absolutely despise their work, and who told me they are in it just because of:
sport cars, cocaine, expensive vacations and retreats, etc
so yeah, there's plenty of people who make our society great, and their whole motive is a golden toilet

and that's the thing with "evil unfair capitalism": its not very evil or very unfair
most of the fortune 500 companies are tech startups, shit like apple and windows, that billions of people willingly pay for, every day
most of these "evil rich" arent some old fat financiers, but people who went curing diseases just so they could live the good life