identical apartments
Under Communism, we were forced by the government to live in Poor People Houses. It was illegal to tip your landlords. If you updated your wallpaper, the local Commissar would murder your first-born child and eat your dog.
Incredible.
Careful, If the communists are asian, white liberals will fully believe they’re open dog/cat eaters because they already believe that. Joe himself prob believes that asian people eat babies until they come on down to Californ-i-a and get nice big ol fake titties
They don’t even have to be communists, per say. Just being Asian and unaligned is enough. Or Haitian, for that matter.
Ever heard of those folks they found in the wild parts of Russia in the late 70s who never even realized the Second World War happened?
Fucking life goals there
IDK
They wore clothes woven from homegrown hemp, used birch bark for shoes, and routinely faced near-starvation (the mother, Akulina, starved to death during a crop failure in 1961).
I’ll take my chances. Plus those clothes and shoes sound durable and cheap.
Nobody’s stopping you, or Darwin
Flip side to the dudes in the Pacific who were still hunkered down
Honestly, the “commie blocks” are really good idea and should be built more often in areas with high homelessness and housing issues. Why should US taxes go to blowing up elementary schools/other people’s homes when it can go towards building homes and helping others in need?
why
The capitalist military industrial complex
Ooh fair enough lol
We have those, they’re called projects.
The government of the PRC is planning to build 200,000 new public housing appartments in hongkong, tyranny i tells ya
But at what cost???
why won’t something think of the
childreninvestors!!!???Time for the CIA to activate the student riots one more time
To be fair, being good enough isn’t the only reason for something to be in current use.
For real. It’s like living in a very old NYC apartment building and being like “It’s still standing, truly a testament to the politics of the robber barrons who built it!”
What do you actually know about soviet housing? I’ve done significant academic research on the topic. It’s not just a simple “they built a certain type of building”. The reason they all look so similar is that their construction method was pre-fab concrete panels. It was a revolutionary technology at the time, and allowed them to solve their housing crisis. They were called “Khrushchyovka” after whom you can guess. He made it his mission to solve the Soviet Housing crisis when he took over and was largely successful.
You have to keep in mind the historical context. The people moving into these buildings were coming from a pre-industrial society where they commonly had so electricity, dirt floors, and no insulation. These were a significant upgrade from the pre-USSR constructions. They started construction in the 1940s, and really took off in the 50s.
I think the main takeaways from them shouldn’t be “We should build these exact things”. and I don’t think that’s what people who support them are advocating for. I think what they are trying to point out is that if you standardize production, and use economies of scale, it is entirely possible to build tons of housing quickly and cheaply. And considering the way housing prices look these days I’d expect that to be an idea anyone can get behind.
If you are interested here is an article about how modern China is using similar practices: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10695
Lol I wouldn’t brag on the blocs comrade, there are many problems with them.
It’s true, this is a much better solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tent_cities_in_the_United_States
One has nothing to do with the other? I thought we were talking about blocs.
I mean, either you have a state that actually spend the resources to house people, or you get that.
the Faircloth Limit as an amendment to the Housing Act of 1937, which limited funding for the construction or operation of all units to the total number of units as of October 1, 1999 and repealed a rule that required one for one replacement of demolished housing units.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_United_States
Nah this is praise lesser evils time
despite all their issues, they are preferable to homelessness
Absolutely
People like you are being willfully stupid, imo. Why wouldn’t you, “comrade”, “brag on the blocs”? What’s not to brag about effectively working at solving homelessness in the 50s? That you think it looks ugly? You ever been to America buddy?
Yeah no shit. Literally everything has ups and downs. The USSR just got through a world war against a power that was trying to genocide and colonise their land. Entire cities were destroyed. Millions were made homeless. Commie blocks were a good thing and yet they’re shat on. Like what else were they meant to do?
How so?
Maybe I’m just bitter about the boatload of money I paid for repairs only for the fucking elevator to work only 3 months of the year. I was on floor 13. I remember similar complaints from others.
Vast majority of commie blocs don’t stand up today. Those who still do are incredibly riddled with issues.
They were cheaply built designed to keep the workforce next to the factories and nothing else. Living in them is miserable.
The “commie blocs” you see today for the vast majority were built after communism ended.
Vast majority of commie blocs don’t stand up today. Those who still do are incredibly riddled with issues.
So it’s an issue from the absence of communism.
They were cheaply built designed to keep the workforce next to the factories and nothing else. Living in them is miserable.
As opposed to living out in the street? In tent cities?
So it’s an issue from the absence of communism
Uh, no? These were shit during communism too. There was basically no maintenance or planning, the materials used were garbage.
As opposed to living out in the street? In tent cities?
As opposed to a properly built housing a factory worker could afford.
Like I get it y’all really love stacking humans in oversized rabbit hutches but the commie blocks were terrible, stop using them as an example.
As opposed to a properly built housing a factory worker could afford.
You know what? I agree. It’s actually really evil of the soviets that they did not build a Versailles for every single factory worker! It’s not like they couldn’t! Evil Stalin decided to just house people in bad houses because he’s evil, it’s really too bad they didn’t have a genius like you there to say “hey guys, how about we build nice houses instead?” You could’ve made it all so much better.
ah yes
Shitty run down unmaintained building that is rotting from the inside and the outside
Versaille castles
The only two options when it comes to building housing
Nonono I agree with you, why did they decide to construct pre-rundown buildings? Such fools!
As opposed to a properly built housing a factory worker could afford.
If you just ignore the historical context sure.
The hardest part about getting anything done in America is that every decision has to be approved by people who aren’t going to use the solution anyway.
School funding is decided by people who either don’t have school-aged children or who send their kids to private schools. Social Security laws – which only change to affect future generations of retirees, not current and soon-to retirees – are decided by retirees.
And so, the ability to put up large apartment complexes (and let’s make them nicer and include proper green space and all that) is decided by people who won’t live there and who aren’t going to walk, bike, or drive to the place where we would build the goddamn housing in the first place.
That’s the part that riles me up the most: the number of people who will vote to stop someone else from getting something they need, because the voter doesn’t agree with the choice or the outcome. Like, if we could affordably build houses for everyone, Karen P Asshat would vote yes. But ugly apartments? With all the apartment people living there? She votes no.
I’ve been in politics 35 years now and i have no answer for how to fix that. America is a nation of cockblockers, fundamentally.
Unless it’s a data center, those seem to he pretty streamlined at getting approved and built.
These apartments had working plumbing, something most of the people moving into them at the time had never had before. It was a huge step up to most people, regardless of how ugly the buildings look.
Why does it suggest liberals are scared of this? Aren’t they okay with Projects for affordable housing? So liberals aren’t communists? Then, why are the red hat clowns so grumpy?
Removed by mod
We have a very simple purity test, don’t support genocide or wars on the global south and we have no issue with you. If you can’t agree on that much then there’s no reason why we should accommodate you.
I don’t either but I’m not going to aid fascists by out casting moderates. You can do that and reap what you sow.
Okay, so a person says
We have a very simple purity test, don’t support genocide or wars on the global south and we have no issue with you.
and then, in the course of responding to them, you write,
I’m not going to aid fascists by out casting moderates. You can do that and reap what you sow.
What moderates are being outcast by the proposed purity test? Is supporting half of the genocide moderate enough to be included? Is supporting half of the proxy wars moderate enough to be included? Which people, holding pro-genocide attitudes, do you think we should be trying to include, to beat the fascists?
Removed by mod
In order; Palestine(genocide commited by your countries), Ukraine(Not a genocide, false myth by Banderite fascists), Uyghurs(Not a genocide, false myth by Zenz, a German who has never put one foot in Xinjiang), Darfur(Genocide backed by NATO and friends)
You do support the right of liberals to be moderate over my right to be alive and my country to not be invaded, based on your own words. You also don’t even know how to spell Uyghur, nor anything else on the matter.
This makes no sense from anything I wrote. Absolutely no sense. And I don’t proof read my spelling, that I apologize on.
“Moderate” genocide.
Nothing moderate about the democrats. They’re fascists buddy.
Removed by mod
To call genocidal police-state xenophobes fascists? No, not really.
Removed by mod
The fascists and the ‘moderates’ will bridge the gap. Think of the German SDP working with the Freikorps. They come from the same money.
If people are okay with, say, me and my family being genocided just because of where we were born, why should I care whether they identify as moderate or whatever else? Again, don’t agree with genocide and wars on our countries and you’re welcome. It’s not that much to ask lmao.
Liberals are conservatives, they are capitalist authoritarians, you understand that right?
Liberals are center right to center left depending on the degree. Liberals are not conservatives. You are confusing left and right, which is more defined. Liberals are not routinely labeled as authoritarian. Authoritarianism can happen in any political direction but routinely not associated which current western liberalism.
Wrong, liberalism is fundamentally a right wing ideology. Full stop. https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/the-dialectics-of-domination
It is not. Not is the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States
The term varies by location. Left and right is usually more standardized. Also liberals by any definition are usually not regarded as authoritarian. Full stop.
are usually not regarded as authoritarian
Despite two of the primary liberal countries, the US and UK, genociding entire continents.
The liberal political system of bourgeios “democracy” is a much more effective system at genocide than even fascist governments.
Biden deported more than Trump 1, beat the shit out of protesters, committed a genocide and massively expanded the police state. Somehow this is not “authoritarian”.
He also expanded the ICE concentration camps that Obama first put up that Trump has been using.
keep malding fash
Why does it suggest liberals are scared of this?
Because OP wants to straw-man for clout.
Aren’t they okay with Projects for affordable housing?
Yes, an overwhelming majority of liberals are in favor of that.
So liberals aren’t communists?
No. Also I’m not sure why you’re asking this question.
Then, why are the red hat clowns so grumpy?
I’m also not sure why you’re asking this, but:
Red hats will get grumpy about virtually anything because it helps motivate their perpetually angry and afraid base; one of the defining segments of the deeply conservative mindset is that potent mix of fear and anger.
you described radlibs very well
If most liberals are “radlibs,” then it’s just “liberals.”
Removed by mod
Ehh, liberals are fine with mandating affordable housing be built that ends up not being all that affordable. What they tend to balk at is the idea of the government doing anything that depresses the value of homes, which includes building more housing than what is absolutely needed or charging below market value for rent.
Ussr can do good thing. Can also do bad thing.
Problem with bad things, like bad arguments, lack thought or think about self. Also call self reflection.
Ask self, apartments good, yes. Ask self, stalin good, on whole probably not. Ask self, authoritarianism good, on whole no is bad. Ask self, shit posting on lemmy good, depends.
The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.
What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today.
Ask yourself is guzzling western propaganda uncritically good, on the whole no is bad.
The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.
I honestly think we should have a bot where anytime someone says the word authoritarian it just spits this out at them.
Seriously, I find there are just a handful of tropes libs regurgitate like trained parrots. You really can just have a templated response to them.
Why are you writing like that? I looked at your profile; you’ve shown in other places you can write a coherent sentence. So is this some kind of affectation? What are you trying to convey by pretending to be illiterate?
Ask self, authoritarianism good, on whole no is bad. Ask self, shit posting on lemmy good, depends.
name a non-authoritarian country
What would the absence of ‘authoritarianism’ be called?
The Soviet onion was horrible, but those are the few quite good things.
Stalin ate all the onions with a comically large spoon, except for one. Sadly the last onion wasn’t very good.
The Soviet Onion…
That explains the famine
What would you say the difference is between soviet and western onions?
The Soviet one is when no iPhone or something
soviet onion is RED
Soviet onions belong to us all, western onions only to a few, obviously
Well, if you want to talk about some Soviet vegetables, we can.
deleted by creator
I’m just here for the comments…
But how are landlords supposed to extort a living if there’s plentiful government built housing? Did you monsters even think about your local landleech? They might have to go get jobs if we build thousands of identical apartments all over the country and made them available for 2-3% of average incomes.
I always tip my landlord. After all he’s doing a good job fixing the leaks and molding. (Okay he hasn’t done it in decades but he said “I will so stop asking and I am increasing rent by 3 times!” so he’s still going to do it!)
wouldn’t liberals approve of this?
No, homelessness is for them a low, low price for having capitalism.
homelessness is not a price to pay. It is a tool because it incentivises people to subject themselves to wage labour
Yes it is, but liberals don’t think of it like that. For them the homelessness is the outcome of personal choices meaning that even those that genuinly pity the homeless people will still consider them as victims of their own vices instead of the system that engineered the entire problem as part of the class war they probably hear about but refuse to consider.
They also probably heard and maybe even believe that the socialist states got rid of the problem, but again, never think it’s because under socialism homelessness is not a class domination enforcement tool but a logistic problem. For them it’s because the homeless were forced (again, libs think a lot of the homelessness is voluntary) to live in barrack, psychiatric hospital, prison, gulag etc. etc. A price for having freedoms especially that a lib will never think they will have to pay that price someday, right? They are not gamblers/drunks/junkies etc, right?
Housing people is also a taboo topic because of how libs approach to concept of welfare in general, if the lib struggle to pay the rent and has no hope of ever buying their own home, how in the hell can anyone from “undeserving self-inflicted” pariah group just recive one?
Like they overwhelmingly approve of universal health care but only the “socialist” candidates seem to make part of their platform?
Famously Communist Vancouver, Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_special
Yeah, I figuredy sarcasm was obvious here given what this thread is about, but I forgot about the terminally online Lemmy users who always choose the interpretation they can get the most mad about.
I think you forgot lemmy is full of people who would write what you write in full seriousness.
