Communism's one true success is housing

[IngsocSimp]

Here in the west we see that housing is used to exploit people and empty their wallets. Gen Z cannot afford rent. Nobody can afford a home. The result is that we're all left living with our parents or joining the niggers and crackheads in tent cities. No effort is made to build cheap, bare-minimum housing that Gen-Z can afford. All options are luxury condos and nothing else. We fight poor people and call it fighting poverty.

Both the USSR and the PRC (China for those who don't know) invested enormous amounts of money in building cheap, plentiful, utilitarian housing for the masses. Today China still endlessly builds cheap apartments that allow their people to actually be housed and live affordably. And of course over here, as expected, the greedy kikes in academia and media bitch that this somehow isn't EcOnOmIcAl and they whine that Chinese apartments are small or not "luxurious" or whatever. These idiots can only think in terms of how to make money off of people and not in terms of actually meeting people's needs. This will be our country's downfall: greed. Everything in the west is now an investment. Greed is a virtue to the west and it's the only "virtue," we have. We don't solve problems, we just find ways to get rich off of them. This is why China is prospering despite every prediction that it wouldn't. China is building a nation, while the US/EU are building a cash cow.

Communism's still a fucked up system in virtually every other respect but at least they understand the concept of using a tool for its intended purpose. A house is meant to house people. A car is meant to transport people (China actually makes affordable low-grade EVs). These things do not exist to line a rich old boomer's pockets.

In the west luxury is forced and everything is used to make money rather than meet your needs.

 

[JewApologist]

What solution do you propose for the west without resorting to communism?
Juche?
Fascism?
Strasserism?
Integralism?
National Bolshevism?

 

[IngsocSimp]

What solution do you propose for the west without resorting to communism?
Juche?
Fascism?
Strasserism?
Integralism?
National Bolshevism?

Fascism.

 

[decafincel]

The one issue with this is China's population is not growing and they have a thriving urban transport system. Chinese real estate is actually very complicated, but that aside we could do it here but having the government involved in housing probably is a bad idea.

 

[IngsocSimp]

The one issue with this is China's population is not growing and they have a thriving urban transport system. Chinese real estate is actually very complicated, but that aside we could do it here but having the government involved in housing probably is a bad idea.

Regulations should be made limiting the cost of rent and renters who are destructive and cost landlords money should be given very harsh punishments so liability is no longer an issue.

 

[supersoldier]

Communism attracts those who never worked a day in their life

work harder for Mr. Goldstein to afford rent

 

[Emba]

work harder for Mr. Goldstein to afford rent

Ok

 

[IngsocSimp]

work harder for Mr. Goldstein to afford rent

Jew York

 

[NiggerSlayer]

Fascism.

Based

 

[NiggerSlayer]

Here in the west we see that housing is used to exploit people and empty their wallets. Gen Z cannot afford rent. Nobody can afford a home. The result is that we're all left living with our parents or joining the niggers and crackheads in tent cities. No effort is made to build cheap, bare-minimum housing that Gen-Z can afford. All options are luxury condos and nothing else. We fight poor people and call it fighting poverty.

Both the USSR and the PRC (China for those who don't know) invested enormous amounts of money in building cheap, plentiful, utilitarian housing for the masses. Today China still endlessly builds cheap apartments that allow their people to actually be housed and live affordably. And of course over here, as expected, the greedy kikes in academia and media bitch that this somehow isn't EcOnOmIcAl and they whine that Chinese apartments are small or not "luxurious" or whatever. These idiots can only think in terms of how to make money off of people and not in terms of actually meeting people's needs. This will be our country's downfall: greed. Everything in the west is now an investment. Greed is a virtue to the west and it's the only "virtue," we have. We don't solve problems, we just find ways to get rich off of them. This is why China is prospering despite every prediction that it wouldn't. China is building a nation, while the US/EU are building a cash cow.

Communism's still a fucked up system in virtually every other respect but at least they understand the concept of using a tool for its intended purpose. A house is meant to house people. A car is meant to transport people (China actually makes affordable low-grade EVs). These things do not exist to line a rich old boomer's pockets.

In the west luxury is forced and everything is used to make money rather than meet your needs.

If i had to guess why this is, i would guess its probably because most people in the ussr (idk enough about china to make an educated statement on it) literally wouldnt have been able to afford a medium sized house or larger. Not "cant afford" as in "its expensive" but as in LITERALLY cant afford it. And the state probably knew that a homeless man isnt going to go work for the state in a coal mine or a dangerous factory if he's homeless. After all, the state is the reason hes homeless, he probably doesnt want to go risk in life to make the state richer. TLDR i feel like they did it out of necessity, out of greediness, and not at all because they cared about human rights or anything.

But im no expert on the ussr or anything, im just spitballing here. Regardless, I agree small and affordable apartments and houses would be a nice option to have nowadays for those who cant afford anything else

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

If i had to guess why this is, i would guess its probably because most people in the ussr (idk enough about china to make an educated statement on it) literally wouldnt have been able to afford a medium sized house or larger. Not "cant afford" as in "its expensive" but as in LITERALLY cant afford it. And the state probably knew that a homeless man isnt going to go work for the state in a coal mine or a dangerous factory if he's homeless. After all, the state is the reason hes homeless, he probably doesnt want to go risk in life to make the state richer. TLDR i feel like they did it out of necessity, out of greediness, and not at all because they cared about human rights or anything.

But im no expert on the ussr or anything, im just spitballing here. Regardless, I agree small and affordable apartments and houses would be a nice option to have nowadays for those who cant afford anything else

Keep in mind that until the 1960s, most of the population of the USSR lived in villages, because of the collective farm system, when you couldn't leave your village for the city, because you didn't even have a passport in your hands. And it was the abolition of collective farms by Khrushchev and the opportunity for a huge number of rural people to move to the city that made the housing system in the USSR known.
Accordingly, for most of the rural population, a small Khrushchev-type apartment was a paradise, since there was heating in the form of gas, water, sewerage and other benefits of civilization. That is, the inhabitants of the USSR did not have the opportunity to compare, since they had nothing before.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

If i had to guess why this is, i would guess its probably because most people in the ussr (idk enough about china to make an educated statement on it) literally wouldnt have been able to afford a medium sized house or larger. Not "cant afford" as in "its expensive" but as in LITERALLY cant afford it. And the state probably knew that a homeless man isnt going to go work for the state in a coal mine or a dangerous factory if he's homeless. After all, the state is the reason hes homeless, he probably doesnt want to go risk in life to make the state richer. TLDR i feel like they did it out of necessity, out of greediness, and not at all because they cared about human rights or anything.

But im no expert on the ussr or anything, im just spitballing here. Regardless, I agree small and affordable apartments and houses would be a nice option to have nowadays for those who cant afford anything else

The same thing happened in China, but later in the early 1980s. The process was the same when a huge part of the rural population from former peasants poured into the cities and, accordingly, they needed cheap low-quality housing.

 

[NiggerSlayer]

Keep in mind that until the 1960s, most of the population of the USSR lived in villages, because of the collective farm system, when you couldn't leave your village for the city, because you didn't even have a passport in your hands. And it was the abolition of collective farms by Khrushchev and the opportunity for a huge number of rural people to move to the city that made the housing system in the USSR known.
Accordingly, for most of the rural population, a small Khrushchev-type apartment was a paradise, since there was heating in the form of gas, water, sewerage and other benefits of civilization. That is, the inhabitants of the USSR did not have the opportunity to compare, since they had nothing before.

Interesting. That definitely sheds a lot of light on it that i wasnt aware of

Honestly as an Americancel i didnt even realize most of the ussr population didnt have electricity or running water up until the 1960s, i guess i just assumed most of their population lived in cities similar to how my own country was at the time

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Interesting. That definitely sheds a lot of light on it that i wasnt aware of

Honestly as an Americancel i didnt even realize most of the ussr population didnt have electricity or running water up until the 1960s, i guess i just assumed most of their population lived in cities similar to how my own country was at the time

In fact, most of the population of the USSR for the first time saw housing with the benefits of civilization in the form of running water, sewerage, electricity, heating in apartments that began to be massively built under Khrushchev in the 1960s. Before that, most of them lived in villages where the toilet was on the street, they went to the well for water, and the housing was heated with a stove and firewood.

 

[NiggerSlayer]

The same thing happened in China, but later in the early 1980s. The process was the same when a huge part of the rural population from former peasants poured into the cities and, accordingly, they needed cheap low-quality housing.

Also interesting, i didnt know about this either. You've taught me a couple of new things today

 

[IngsocSimp]

If i had to guess why this is, i would guess its probably because most people in the ussr (idk enough about china to make an educated statement on it) literally wouldnt have been able to afford a medium sized house or larger. Not "cant afford" as in "its expensive" but as in LITERALLY cant afford it. And the state probably knew that a homeless man isnt going to go work for the state in a coal mine or a dangerous factory if he's homeless. After all, the state is the reason hes homeless, he probably doesnt want to go risk in life to make the state richer. TLDR i feel like they did it out of necessity, out of greediness, and not at all because they cared about human rights or anything.

But im no expert on the ussr or anything, im just spitballing here. Regardless, I agree small and affordable apartments and houses would be a nice option to have nowadays for those who cant afford anything else

As with anything of this nature the motivation of leadership was greed first and foremost. You can't have submissive workers if you don't meet their basic needs. But at least the USSR, on this issue, actually did meet their basic needs. And I wouldn't necessarily say that people couldn't afford it. It's just that they afforded it through their work rather than their money. Housing was an agreement provided in exchange for being a contributing member of society, as was many other things. Just as we agree to pay rent with money in the US, you paid for state-provided amenities with your work in the USSR.

The US won't meet our needs and even though it's collapsing from homelessness, crime, staffing shortages, and a whole host of other problems, it does absolutely nothing about it. There's no incentive to keep the country stable. Americans don't really think about what's good for America and what will make it strong. They just think about how they can get rich from it. The system isn't designed to try and keep itself alive. As long as the CEOs can hide away on a remote island when shit hits the fan, that will be enough for them.

I could see this being implemented within the framework of a free market and ideally that's how this issue will be solved, but we'll have to fix a lot of other issues in society to turn this into a viable solution.

 

[Lonelyus]

work harder for Mr. Goldstein to afford rent

The Jewnited states be like, "Just live in a cardboard box bruh"

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

As with anything of this nature the motivation of leadership was greed first and foremost. You can't have submissive workers if you don't meet their basic needs. But at least the USSR, on this issue, actually did meet their basic needs. The US won't meet ours and even though it's collapsing from homelessness, crime, staffing shortages, and a whole host of other problems, it does absolutely nothing about it. There's no incentive to keep the country stable. Americans don't really think about what's good for America and what will make it strong. They just think about how they can get rich from it. The system isn't designed to try and keep itself alive. As long as the CEOs can hide away on a remote island when shit hits the fan, that will be enough for them.

I could see this being implemented within the framework of a free market and ideally that's how this issue will be solved, but we'll have to fix a lot of other issues in society to turn this into a viable solution.

The problem is not capitalism itself, but neoliberalism. The United States, until the arrival of Reagan, was a paradise on earth, because capitalism there was manageable and corporations were subject to huge income taxes.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

As with anything of this nature the motivation of leadership was greed first and foremost. You can't have submissive workers if you don't meet their basic needs. But at least the USSR, on this issue, actually did meet their basic needs. And I wouldn't necessarily say that people couldn't afford it. It's just that they afforded it through their work rather than their money. Housing was an agreement provided in exchange for being a contributing member of society, as was many other things. Just as we agree to pay rent with money in the US, you paid for state-provided amenities with your work in the USSR.

The US won't meet our needs and even though it's collapsing from homelessness, crime, staffing shortages, and a whole host of other problems, it does absolutely nothing about it. There's no incentive to keep the country stable. Americans don't really think about what's good for America and what will make it strong. They just think about how they can get rich from it. The system isn't designed to try and keep itself alive. As long as the CEOs can hide away on a remote island when shit hits the fan, that will be enough for them.

I could see this being implemented within the framework of a free market and ideally that's how this issue will be solved, but we'll have to fix a lot of other issues in society to turn this into a viable solution.

If Keynesianism and government regulation of the economy were still used in the United States, this would not have happened. Previously, it was normal to regulate the economy and was not perceived as something left-wing, since there were many living people who remembered the great Depression. Even Richard Nixon, as president and a Republican, used such a technique as price freezing.

 

[IngsocSimp]

The problem is not capitalism itself, but neoliberalism. The United States, until the arrival of Reagan, was a paradise on earth, because capitalism there was manageable and corporations were subject to huge income taxes.

That is true. Really our system is in the worst of both worlds because our government protects exploitative companies and powerful figures and makes everything easy for them but still over regulates smaller businesses thus preventing organic economic growth.

 

[IngsocSimp]

If Keynesianism and government regulation of the economy were still used in the United States, this would not have happened. Previously, it was normal to regulate the economy and was not perceived as something left-wing, since there were many living people who remembered the great Depression. Even Richard Nixon, as president and a Republican, used such a technique as price freezing.

Yup. But at this point I think the US has passed the point of no return. I think it's best to look forward to the day this country dies so we can start anew.

 

[NiggerSlayer]

Americans don't really think about what's good for America and what will make it strong. They just think about how they can get rich from it.

Completely true. I absolutely hate the rampant hyper-individualism that has been created in this country. This is why I admire fascism so much. Alone you can do so little, but together a country can achieve so much. Im not saying sell your soul to the state obviously, but having a little bit of compassion for your neighbor/countrymen would be nice. In 1930s Germany youd help out a stranger because you loved the German people. In modern America you see a stranger and say "what can you do for me? How can i use you to make a personal gain?". Obviously not everyone thinks like this, but id go as far as to say the majority of people do, at least in the cities. Its not so bad in rural areas, theres a lot of great people there. But in the cities its awful.

The colonies and settlements America was built on wouldve never flourished if it wasnt for everyone working together. But somewhere in the 20th century everything changed, and its no longer about "us", its about "me"

 

[IngsocSimp]

The colonies and settlements America was built on wouldve never flourished if it wasnt for everyone working together. But somewhere in the 20th century everything changed, and its no longer about "us", its about "me"

The red scare. Caring about other people and contributing to the collective wellbeing was now for the evil commies.

Of course, there is an issue with people who take advantage of other's generosity. It's why trying to be benevolent in the modern US is a waste of time. Lazy junkies and niggers will waste any help you give them. And that's where the SS comes in. They purge the undesirables and the leaches.

 

[NiggerSlayer]

The red scare. Caring about other people and contributing to the collective wellbeing was now for the evil commies.

Yeah, to be honest every time i talk about this im always afraid people are going to think I'm a commie. Which obviously im not, nor am i sympathetic to it whatsoever. I guess that kinda further demonstrates my point though, helping people is seen as an evil commie trait instead of being seen as basic human decency

Of course, there is an issue with people who take advantage of other's generosity. It's why trying to be benevolent in the modern US is a waste of time. Lazy junkies and niggers will waste any help you give them.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Completely true. I absolutely hate the rampant hyper-individualism that has been created in this country. This is why I admire fascism so much. Alone you can do so little, but together a country can achieve so much. Im not saying sell your soul to the state obviously, but having a little bit of compassion for your neighbor/countrymen would be nice. In 1930s Germany youd help out a stranger because you loved the German people. In modern America you see a stranger and say "what can you do for me? How can i use you to make a personal gain?". Obviously not everyone thinks like this, but id go as far as to say the majority of people do, at least in the cities. Its not so bad in rural areas, theres a lot of great people there. But in the cities its awful.

The colonies and settlements America was built on wouldve never flourished if it wasnt for everyone working together. But somewhere in the 20th century everything changed, and its no longer about "us", its about "me"

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and her philosophy of individualism and selfishness are deeply ingrained in the minds of Americans. Although even in other countries, Ayn Rand's books are popular, as she morally removes the responsibility from rich people to share money or help others.

 

[yebamoth]

Yea I envy boomers who got their apartments in big cities for free from the state during soviet era. Now they are renting it for huge profit.

 

[decafincel]

Regulations should be made limiting the cost of rent and renters who are destructive and cost landlords money should be given very harsh punishments so liability is no longer an issue.

That is a good idea. This would help with ethnics who take advantage of the system.

 

[clocked]

work harder for Mr. Goldstein to afford rent

I hate living here