• Praise Idleness
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1738 months ago

    A communist nation that can really provide all that is as realistic as capitalistic utopia.

    • @SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      978 months ago

      Not a tankie, but the USSR had mostly solved this problem, despite all its other issues. There did exist some homelessness, but nowhere near the extent of current USA.

      • pelya
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        618 months ago

        Sure, you could get a piece of land in Siberian tundra at any time, I would not call that housing.

        Moving to a city was way more complicated than in capitalist US. You could not simply buy an apartment. You had to be allocated an apartment by the government. And you needed connections for that. Or bribes. Ideally both. If you think your local rabid Republicans do not care for little wage slave men, you never experienced USSR, it was like that but 100x worse.

          • pelya
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            118 months ago

            Yup. And networking would inevitably involve vodka. All major decisions would eventually involve vodka in USSR.

            • GrayoxOP
              link
              fedilink
              118 months ago

              One of Stalin’s failures almost any tankie won’t deny.

              • @AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Vodka had been linked to the Russian economy under multiple Czars. I’m not sure that Stalin could have separated the two even if he had wanted to. Admittedly it doesn’t appear that he wanted to.

                I’m pretty sure that the USSR was screwed the moment that Lenin returned from exile in Germany, or when Wilson was elected. Take your pick.

                The Menchaviks would have been a better government.

                • GrayoxOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  28 months ago

                  I just find it ironic that Stalin was everything that the party worried about Trotsky becoming.

                • @OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  The mechaviks literally wanted to continue ww1 and have a psuedo democracy where the bourgeoisie were literally guaranteed a majority of seats, wtf are you talking about?

                  • @AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    18 months ago

                    I wasn’t aware of that. I was under the impression they were less extreme than the Bolsheviks, and didn’t want to execute everyone that wasn’t a hard core Bolshevik

      • @Mercival@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        48 months ago

        Well, I’m from a post-USSR country and a substantial part of this was the criminalization of homelessness. Can’t have homeless people, if you lock them up (be it in a prison or asylum).

        Then again, just about anyone, who did not conform to the party’s message got locked up. Getting your place bugged at the slightest hint you might be up to something disagreeable and all that good stuff. The secret police could disappear and or beat you up without any real justification.

        I hate late-stage capitalism as much as you, but coming from a country that’s been through this, I am extremely reluctant to give the rotten and frankly repugnant USSR regime any credit.

        • probablyaCat
          link
          fedilink
          188 months ago

          Woohoo both systems suck. You can actually believe that just because one system is bad, what is considered the opposite is also bad. Marx was not some omniscient doctor manhattan. He had some ideas. Some were good critiques on capitalist culture. Others were fantasy that do not function in the real world.

          • GrayoxOP
            link
            fedilink
            208 months ago

            Notice how the folks arguing in favor of Communism have sources and receipts, while the folks arguing against it have done nothing but regurgitated Capitalist propaganda. Also note folks who are opposed to Communism and Marx’s philosophy are always forced to admit that it only works on paper, because his logic is irrefutable if you address it with a modicum of intellectual honesty…

            • Praise Idleness
              link
              fedilink
              English
              58 months ago

              No one is going to deny that making perpetual motion device is good. How are you going to do that?

              Do you have source and receipts for real life communism solving housing problem? Not being better than capitalism. Solving. Being better than capitalism is kinda low bar you know. There are plenty of other things that real life capitalism does better than real life communism, hence communism failure. No one is going to show up with receipts and sources because obvious.

              You show us tents as a capitalist solution. That’s not a capitalist solution. That’s the problem itself. You’re misleading.

              because his logic is irrefutable if you address it with a modicum of intellectual honesty…

              Can you at least try to sound less douche about things?

              • GrayoxOP
                link
                fedilink
                128 months ago

                The joke is that Capitalism DOES NOT have a solution to homelessness because there is zero profit motive to solve it. And facts dont care about your feelngs, you cant refute Marx’s philosophy while being intellectual honest. Capitalist Economists study Das Kapital because Marx was so fucking spot on.

                • @WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  68 months ago

                  No need to refute Marx, reality has already proven time and time again that communism doesn’t work in practice.

                  Btw your argument only applies to “pure” capitalism, without any government interference. Homelessness is not really an issue in many European countries.

                  • GrayoxOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    78 months ago

                    You mean the reality where every 1st world nation on the planet did everything in their power to keep Communism from working. Bahahaha

                • Praise Idleness
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  68 months ago

                  Yes, that’s why there is no pure capitalist country anywhere.

                  you cant refute Marx’s philosophy while being intellectual honest.

                  Why are you keep doing this? I said I don’t disagree with Marx. It’d be nice if communism can happen. Facts don’t care about your feelings either and all the shitty attemps of communism failed due to human being shitty. If you have to kill off people to keep the ideology, only to fail after about few decades, it has some reality problems.

                  And again, I cannot stress this enough, can you please stop sounding like a 16 year old kid who just read few paragraphs of Marx going iamverysmart about it?

                  • @cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    38 months ago

                    The existence of state run social services and regulations does not mean a country is not fully capitalist if you’re using Marx’s understanding of what capitalism is. Additionally I think there is a misconception that communism depends on altruistic behavior. It really doesn’t.

      • SloganLessons
        link
        fedilink
        728 months ago

        This is a trick question, the real answer is that there weren’t real communist countries

      • Praise Idleness
        link
        fedilink
        English
        258 months ago

        I mean even in the case of USSR they had to wait for more than a decade to actually get a livable apartment, not to mention severe lack of infrastructure…

        But of course, better than people just kicked out to the streets. But then again, less is not none. The housing situation definitely didn’t do USSR’s overall economic status any favor.

        People at least had somewhere to go

        that’s just moving the goal post, isn’t it?

      • Dr. Moose
        link
        fedilink
        English
        118 months ago

        Soviet Union? It was uncommon for a family of 6 to live in a small apartment. You can even see it in old soviet movies where apartments would be separated by curtains (common comedy trope).

      • probablyaCat
        link
        fedilink
        118 months ago

        I’m sure there were extra houses after all those people that starved to death.

        • GrayoxOP
          link
          fedilink
          138 months ago

          In Communist countries people starve to death because of famine, in Capitalist countries people also strave to death because of famine while still starving to death after famines are over because they cant afford groceries.

    • GrayoxOP
      link
      fedilink
      158 months ago

      Yeah that’s called late stage Communism, which we have never achieved as humanity. Late stage Capitalism is currently pushing more and more folks into dangerous housing situations like the bottom right quadrant of this meme. Capitalism and Utopia are oxymorons while Communism and Utopia are synonymous.

      • Praise Idleness
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Communism and your concept of utopia are synonymous. Communism and utopia are not synonymous.

        • GrayoxOP
          link
          fedilink
          11
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Call me old fashion but no one living on the streets and having their basic needs met sounds pretty utopian to me.

          • @GrapesOfAss@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            8
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Ah yes because there was no one living on the streets, yes because a propaganda told me that it must be true.

            I guess killing literal millions of your own citizens is better than being homeless, huh?

          • xerazal
            link
            fedilink
            English
            68 months ago

            There were still people that lived in the streets in the USSR. Also, the housing the USSR provided wasn’t really that… great… I watch a Russian YouTuber (NFKRZ) who has talked about Soviet architecture in not just Russia, but other former USSR countries and shows that yes it’s good they were built, they weren’t very well built.

            The USSR had many problems, and bureaucracy was a big problem. I never understood why tankies love the USSR so much when the USSR didn’t truly get rid of class. Those in the government lived like kings compared to the common man, who yes lived better than they had before but still not that well due to the bloated and mismanagement of the government.

            Idk, the fact that they even had a centralized government like that seems like… the opposite of communism to me.

            • @cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              5
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              I think what people don’t fully understand is that Marxism is meant to be scientific. That means that there will likely be many imperfect and failed attempts at building a socialist society before one comes along that is stable enough to outlast outside interference from capitalist states.

              As such, most people I know who like the USSR are also it’s biggest critiques. Unfortunately, there is so much misinformation about the USSR that most discussions about it online are just about delineating truth from propaganda.

      • probablyaCat
        link
        fedilink
        148 months ago

        Yeah those soviets sure got rid of the homeless problem. Can’t be homeless when you were intentionally starved to death.

        • xor
          link
          fedilink
          English
          88 months ago

          The USSR and communism are separate things