this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2021
0 points (NaN% liked)
Socialism
5151 readers
1 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Once you learn a bit of history you'll know that USSR was completely devastated after the war, and nobody came to help rebuilding it as US did with Europe. So, producing a lot of cheap housing seems like a reasonable solution for ensuring people weren't living on the streets.
And obviously accidents only happen under communism.
not to mention that a lot of the cheap housing the USSR built post-war was well maintained until the fall (with a few exceptions), and it's not really until after the fall that a lot of those apartment structures started to fall apart or show their age. But of course, no one talks about that. Instead, it's "this is how these buildings have always been" with no nuance, nor material reasoning.
It contradicts this thread's title.
Also, there was no communism in USSR. Not sure what are you talking about. The money was still there, the state was there, too. I do remember, however, tons of repression towards everyone who've been saying anything against the party. Starting from the 1920-s, in fact.
Not sure how that contradicts anything given that housing had to be built quickly out of necessity. Please do enlighten us all what your solution would've been.
Also, there was plenty of communism in USSR given that all the means of production were publicly owned and work was directed towards common benefit. Meanwhile, repressing capitalist provacateurs like you was literally the point of having the party. That's the dictatorship of the proletariat working as intended.
Let's start with the basics. This thread's title claim "for USSR goods, quality > quantity". Then you say "plenty of cheap housing". "Plenty of cheap" means "quantity over quality". Hence, you contradict yourself.
I guess not having a monetary system and an oppressive government are not parts of communism for you. Got you.
I'm more into anracho-communism, thank you. After anarchists and radical socialists were driven out of the country, or sent to labour camps, or just being killed by the 1930-s (if you want "proofs", I have the notes from archives right next to me), I tend to be sceptical towards people praising the USSR system w/o mentioning how many lives it costs (and how big of a negative impact it still is in modern Russia).
You're intentionally making a disingenuous argument here. Producing quality goods is the goal, but in some situations quantity becomes more important. The fact that USSR produced mass housing when it was necessary doesn't contradict anything.
Having the means of production under public control and ensuring that everyone has their needs met are in fact pats of communism for me. Nobody said USSR was perfect, but it sure as hell was better than actual alternatives we see in the real world. Anarchists love to compare USSR to some Platonic ideal of society as opposed to societies we have.
A really strange claim to make given that quality of life in USSR was far better than in any former USSR republic today. The only negative impact was the dissolution of USSR.
Meanwhile, anarchists have consistently failed to create any sort of society of their own in over a century. All anarchists do is complain how other types of socialism aren't good enough without providing any workable alternatives.
You do realize I live in modern Russia and I have [alive] relatives who lived in USSR, right?.. So it's strange to read something like "once you learn a bit of history". That's the whole point I disagree with your initial statement about quality vs. quantity. Because I know some.
The whole point was to make stuff "good enough". Not top-notch or something, just "good enough". And it didn't work all the time, of course. I mean even planes were crashing all the time (wiki).
Repairing culture is a good thing, don't get me wrong. I like how they sent the schematics for the TV or a radio set you bought. I got this culture myself from my grandparents. Except for when you need to repair everything all the time: sanitary ware, electronics, automobiles, houses – everything. In a 3-room apartment, we had a huge closet full of repairing tools and small materials. And we weren't nearly as close to handymen or something. The granddad was a lawyer (ex-military-prosecutor). The other granddad was a factory director (or something like that) – he had a room and a garage for those tools and materials.
Do you know what's missing in the article, why people bought a single car at most? Well, one of the reasons is pretty simple: you could become an enemy of the state if you are too rich [publicly]. And I don't say it's good or bad. It's just missing, yet it's an important point.
You do realize I grew up in USSR personally and lived through the collapse. Just because you live somewhere doesn't mean you're historically literate either. Plenty of Americans don't know shit about their own history either.
Do you know what's missing in your comment the fact that USSR had excellent public transit, and thanks to actual planning you didn't even need to use it a lot of the time. My neighborhood had everything you needed within walking distance. Schools, hospitals, stores, and parks were all within walking distance. And when you did need to go somewhere, public transit was excellent. You never even thought about it. You just go to a station and something will come within minutes.
How's that has anything to do with "quality vs. quantity of goods"?
That was in reference to your claim about people buying at most one car. Cars were not a necessity there.