"i'll answer in reverse order. of course it's not happening because [...] are often the ones supporting socialist policies are strongly opposed to nationalism."
The reason it's not happening has very little to do with whether or not they want "real" equality or not (whatever that means, as I already stated, "true" or "real" equality is unachievable anyway, you're beating a dead horse and I'm beating it with you). I think you still have this idea that you need to want "true equality" in order to want equality at all.
It's not happening because doing anything on a global scale is a huge endeavor that requires the cooperation of many countries (and for a global government you would require the entire cooperation of all of them). Even assuming a majority of people wanted that, it would be incredibly hard to put in place at the global level, again, even at the national level it's hard to put in place, and that's with the help of sharing the same language and culture (and currency). As long as humanity is divided as it is you can't redistribute resources on a global scale system, that's just not gonna happen. Which is why people focus their attention on where it's realistic, that is, either at the national level or at the state level when applicable, it's not because they limit their notion of equality to some people, it's because they're limited by what they can do in the current situation, which is mainly due to an individualistic mindset.
A redistribution system is not simply one country spending loads of resources to give them to another, that's just humanitarian aid.
If you put in place a global redistribution system, then the load wouldn't be only taken by UK alone, it would be shared by all countries (Zambia would also have to contribute), and the goal would only be to allow poorer countries to reach decent levels of living (as in, not die of hunger, not die of easily preventable diseases, etc), afterwards, it's up to them to improve their situation further with their own economy. Now we could discuss how much we should help at this point, and my answer would be a gradual one: first solve the biggest and obvious problems, such as hunger, and then we'll talk about the others.
You're vastly overestimating the amount of money required to simply ensure that a country can have a decent quality of life.
Ending world hunger for example requires something like 150 billions per year, simply among the top10 countries you have more than 15,000 billions per year in budget, and that's only the top10 countries, if it was spread throughout 200+ countries it would be an extremely modest amount for each country to pay.
And I agree, as soon as you start putting arbitrary limitations to who you would consider helping for basic needs, such as "only my fellow citizens" for example, then nothing prevents you from putting these limits elsewhere afterwards such as "only my region" or "only my county" or "only my family". That's the problem of putting arbitrary limits on who deserves basic resources to basic human needs: once you put an arbitrary limit then everyone can put theirs as well, and everything is fine as long as you're not on the other side of that limit. So if that's the way you feel, there's not much I can do other than wish you and people you care about to never be on the other side of other people's limits when you're in a bad situation.
As to whether it's a valid point or not depends on which side of this limit you're on.
"defining fairness is the tough part. redistribution can't be possibly fair by definition because [...] boundaries since you want to end up with a system that works. "
Wait, if you're in favor of equality of opportunity, then shouldn't you be in favor of some kind of redistribution? If you're not, how do you plan to establish equality of opportunity?
I don't see how that's unfair to spread resources so that everyone has access to the same basic opportunities, such as, for example, living. It's not like "I have a toy, so I have to share it with you so that you can have fun too" it's more like a "I have more than enough food, you need food to survive, I have to share some with you so that you don't die" kind of thing. Also, it's not taken so much as it's given, taken would imply the use of force and constraint.
Would you say that it's unfair for you to give away some of your food so that the rest of your family can eat? If you wouldn't say that it's unfair, then the principle of redistribution is not something you consider unfair by definition, it's more the group that you have to give to that you consider to be unfair, isn't it?
I'm all fine for an ethical and philosophical discussion: I do indeed consider everyone to be innately equal on a basic level based purely on what exists: we are all human beings with all the same basic needs, we all share a common space and resources, therefore trying to put an arbitrary limit on which humans will be excluded from meeting their basic needs is not morally justified, especially when there's more than enough resources to meet these basic needs.
If we go further than basic needs (health, food, shelter), then it can become more complicated, but we would first need to agree on that basis before we can move on.
I should also mention that I base my morality on well-being (maybe you do too, it's just that I've discussed with some people who don't, and if you don't, we would first need to discuss which basis for morality is justified).
"family can't be secondary to money [...] educational skills, number of kids in the family etc..."
Oh I totally agree that the root of inequality is in what family you end up in, but I thought you were saying that capitalism was concerned with family structure, so I didn't really understand where you were going with that given that family structure is just the mold into which capitalism sets into, but can work perfectly well (and would actually work better) without family structure, but I guess I misunderstood what you meant.
I don't think we disagree on much on this paragraph, I just thought you were arguing that it's something that socialism doesn't consider, which I didn't see how given that birth inequality is one of the initial assessment of socialism.
"notice that i hadn't mentioned socialists explicitly in my 2nd paragraph [...] the need to help economic migrants. "
Well not being an advocate for open borders (because you don't simply open borders, if the goal is to unite two countries, or the world, you have to first have a common language, then a common culture, then a common identity, we're not even at the first step) or a feminist (I think I'm more of an egalitarian), I don't feel like I need to limit myself to the financial issues, although I think they don't either, from the kind of views I've seen from them, they seem to mainly argue from an ethical standpoint first.
In fact the only open borders advocates who I saw only focus on financial issues are the capitalist ones, because their only concern about borders seems to be the cost that it implies on trade and flexibility for their workforce, etc...
Either way, I try to meet people where they're at, so if they only have financial talking points, I suppose I'm fine limiting myself to that, if that's not what you want to focus on, we can surely talk from another standpoint.
"i think the cs example is simply bad. [...] it doesn't make a lot of sense asking which game was more fairer, 1.6 or csgo."
Again, the analogy didn't have the goal to represent a view accurately. The goal was to explore why in some competitive environment fairness was something valued by capitalists, and not in others. My hypothesis was the lack of personal cost to apply this fairness in games, you haven't replied to that, should I conclude that you agree with that hypothesis?
I also tried to imagine how it would turn out for capitalists on both sides of the scale if there WAS a personal cost to these regulations in games, you haven't touched on how you think it would turn out, I assume you don't disagree with my proposition?
You're arguing that it's much easier to determine that regulations are needed in a game like CS, but that's not the case in a capitalist mindset. What justifies the money ceiling for example? So what if a team gets so ahead that they never need to eco? They won more rounds: they get more money, from a capitalist point of view it's perfectly deserved, it's the limitation which is undeserved.
What justifies the money loss bonus? I won and the opponent can potentially win even more than I did? Nonsense, I won, I should win more, because I accomplished something, they didn't.
How do you justify a guaranteed lost round income? They didn't achieve anything, how come do they get something for not achieving anything?
The pattern is this: the capitalist view is based on an individual goal, which is individual merit, its goal is to reach true individual merit (or simple individual merit for moderate capitalists).
A game is not based on that because if it was it would need very little regulations, instead it's based on something that transcends the individual: the common goal of the players taking part, which is to have fun. The only reason it's easy to argue for regulations in a game is because all players share this same basic goal, which means you need to make sure that situations don't get too skewed against some players. Even if they don't have the exact same conception of fun, they have very basic things on which they agree on which tend towards this basic goal of having fun (for example equal opportunity to win). That's how you justify regulation in a game: so that a majority of people can enjoy it, and not to tend towards true merit, because tending towards true merit in a zero sum game means that you just let things follow their course and whatever happens is fair because it happens.
The question now is whether or not there's a common goal among human beings. I think there is (at least) a basic common goal: decent living standards, and as a result I think regulations should be put in place to reach at least this basic common goal.
Again after this goal is reached, we can discuss about how it extends (or not) to other goals depending on their degree of commonality and feasibility.
You're arguing that balance doesn't necessarily mean fairness, do you have an example where balance wasn't motivated by fairness?
Or maybe you meant that the fact that you try to balance something doesn't necessarily mean that you succeed in achieving fairness, in which case I obviously agree, but the fact is that you're at least trying to, in what sense does capitalism tries to balance anything?
"the things you've mentioned in your analogy are: loss bonus, money ceiling, equal starting income, guaranteed lost round income. what would happen if you removed some or all of those features? basically it would turn into a 1 round game. the team who wins the first round gets so much ahead it dominated the rest of the game. that's a shitty design but is it unfair? not necessarily. given they had equal opportunities and one side always dominates after winning the first round it's seems quite fair to me."
Really? Without equal starting income they had equal opportunities on round 1? So a team starts with 2000 and one starts with 200, and they had equal opportunities? That's...odd, although not that surprising if you're a capitalist.
" i think this trend is more pronounced in dota2. [...] when valve ended up nerfing the comeback mechanic."
Sure, I'm sure balance is something that varies a lot from a game to the next, and evaluating what's fair or not is not easy, especially when you go beyond the minimum starting conditions and equality of treatment from the rules, which is why I like focusing on the minimum starting conditions (because I don't think we disagree that we should be equal in front of the law? Or maybe we do), this is where you usually find the common goal on which you can try to build fairness.
"i think a better analogy for unfairness would be to compare f2p and p2w games."
I don't think so, but maybe you can change my mind, how would you present this analogy?