On Communism, free movement, and the question of "What if everyone wants to move to the same place?"

On another thread, one user seemed to believe that a contradiction, or limitation, of communist economical thinking, is that even if we were to presume a "post scarcity" (anarcho)communist (I use communist to mean ancom) society were to manifest, even if it were unopposed and worldwide, it would not be able to cope with the simple case of a massive immigration toward desireable areas brought on through the abolition of borders, and decommodification of housing.

If you can move anywhere you like, and don't have borders to control immigration, everyone will move to one place and they wont be able to support them!

The following post was my response. Perhaps it's a good response, or perhaps it needs work, but I felt like it's the first time I've put any theory I've read into some practice.

Well that's handled at the community level, no? Not at a "national" level, at least in a communistic society.

Say we had "world anarchist-communism", which is the context in which we are discussing the role of borders. In this society, if you wish to move to once place or another you'd be free to do so, with no restrictions of race, creed, or intelligence.

So, you say, "What if too many people move to one specific place of high demand?", this is easily answerable when we realise that the community which would receive such demand would indeed also have the political power to deal with such demand:

They would would mandate more houses to be built in haste, perhaps they would make housing available in a nearby community under the premise that they can move in when space is available, or they just say "I'm sorry, but right now there is no such way you can move in".

Communism of scarcity, such as with land, will act the same way that capitalism alludes to doing. Under capitalist society, if there's demand to live somewhere, the price will increase for properties, even those which are built to meet demand, to the point where no one can buy a home despite there being many that are vacant -- Or worse, homes which are bought from oligarchs and businessmen who seek to use these properties as a way to store their wealth, not to use for even their own benefit!

This is even more disruptive to society and workers than a communistic system of housing facing the same high demand. Only in a communistic system, you would be certain that everyone living in those homes would be using them, as you would otherwise understand that homes are as such not the property of an individual if they are not using it and simply seize the home for the person who needs it. Under capitalism, we have no guarantee that the owner of any property is owning it for their own use, or for means of financial exploitation, whether it be through accumulating capital and/or assets, or through using the home to exploit another person through landlordship.

So, not only would a communist society be better at dealing with high demand for housing at a local level, but it would also still be more beneficial for a worker who would not be able to get a house where they wished:

A capitalist society generally operates in cities through commuters - That is, workers who do not live near their workplace for whatever reason, and must thus rely on other modes of transport to participate in their labour. This is problematic to the worker, who must expend their hard-earned wages on travelling to and from work before they can spend it on other necessities. To the worker, the ability to travel is as important to them as food or water - Without the money to afford travel, they cannot work, and thus cannot feed, or sustain themselves and "their" assets which continue to accrue debt regardless of their ability to pay.

A communist society? We would expect that the access to travel would be provided to those who need it, as well as being publicly-owned. Under this premise, a worker who must commute to their job would be free to access public transport as is necessary -- The ability to move amongst the land becomes another inalienable human right.

Communism, as you may have seen discussed already, would also generally tend towards being "fully automated" (as per the meme) as wage-labour would be abolished, thus placing no restriction on the rate at which we automate our society. This automation, of course, is fast being introduced into the automotive sector, and thus the ability to travel would no longer be necessitated by the labour of another worker to help you reach your destination. With time, we will live in a world where the daily commute will partake no direct human labour. Under this pretense, communistic, free-for-those-who-need-it transport would be not only logical, but necessary in order to take advantage of the technology and further benefit the economy, which under a communist system would thus benefit the communities themselves rather than a capitalist or state institution first and foremost.

Therefore, even workers or people in general who must commute on a regular basis would be put under less of the stresses which they'd otherwise face under a capitalist society, which in turn would mean that a communist society would likely see less demand to live directly in, say, a big city; people would see less drawbacks to living a greater distance from the destination of their commute, and would thus be more free to live away from large urban centres.

Once you rid yourself of the notion that any or every capitalist institution or social construct must therefore be natural and necessary to the society in which we wish to create, and thus cannot not exist, then you rid yourself of the very acid that corrodes your visionary thinking.