this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2021
0 points (NaN% liked)
Socialism
5110 readers
33 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
Have you ever lived in khrushchyovkas? "Good ol' " door handles weren't working in every place I've been. You had this trouble of setting the right temperature when you are taking a shower – it's always either too hot or too cold. Mold and cockroaches. Had to fix holes in windows frames every winter.
I'm sorry to disappoint you but it wasn't that great as you might think.
Should I mention how Chernobyl went?
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.
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.