• SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      118
      ·
      1 year 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        62
        ·
        1 year 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

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

              • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year 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.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year 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?

                • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

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

      • Mercival@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • RangerJosie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        At least they tried. Our homelessness is an intentional feature of our capitalist system. A constant threat and extant punishment for those among us who aren’t fortunate enough to be born with a silver stick up our ass.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year 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).

        • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year 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.

    • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year 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.

        • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

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

          • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            They don’t call you old fashioned for that, they call you tankie. It’s because they’re mad that you don’t buy the bullshit they push. Look at all the claims they make about the USSR here while providing no evidence or context for the situations they claim people were living in.

            They compare apples to oranges when it’s communism they are criticizing and stick their fingers in their ears while screaming when it comes to criticizing crapitalism.

          • GrapesOfAss@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year 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
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year 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@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

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