you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 88 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    They were more extreme than the bolseviks but less extreme than the monarchists, they were just on the side of capitalists so were painted with a nicer brush by capitalist historians

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments