identical apartments
Under Communism, we were forced by the government to live in Poor People Houses. It was illegal to tip your landlords. If you updated your wallpaper, the local Commissar would murder your first-born child and eat your dog.
Incredible.
Ever heard of those folks they found in the wild parts of Russia in the late 70s who never even realized the Second World War happened?
Fucking life goals there
IDK
They wore clothes woven from homegrown hemp, used birch bark for shoes, and routinely faced near-starvation (the mother, Akulina, starved to death during a crop failure in 1961).
To be fair, being good enough isn't the only reason for something to be in current use.
Lol I wouldn't brag on the blocs comrade, there are many problems with them.
How so?
Those damned Soviets haven't done any maintenance on them since 1991
Maybe I'm just bitter about the boatload of money I paid for repairs only for the fucking elevator to work only 3 months of the year. I was on floor 13. I remember similar complaints from others.
It's true, this is a much better solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tent_cities_in_the_United_States
One has nothing to do with the other? I thought we were talking about blocs.
The OP is about how liberals react to public housing built in the USSR: with horror
Meanwhile their own political/economic system does not even attempt to supply all those in need with housing, and leaves its citizens to rot in tent camps or with even less shelter, exposing clear double standards and hypocrisy
What are you playing dumb?
I mean, either you have a state that actually spend the resources to house people, or you get that.
Ussr can do good thing. Can also do bad thing.
Problem with bad things, like bad arguments, lack thought or think about self. Also call self reflection.
Ask self, apartments good, yes. Ask self, stalin good, on whole probably not. Ask self, authoritarianism good, on whole no is bad. Ask self, shit posting on lemmy good, depends.
This reads like this was written by a toddler.
The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.
What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today.
Ask yourself is guzzling western propaganda uncritically good, on the whole no is bad.
Every government is authoritarian, so the logical solution would be to abolish government altogether.
Signed, An anarchist
Abolishing the government with a hostile world order that seeks to overthrow you is equally moronic as it is suicidal.
How's that working out for y'all?
Ask self, authoritarianism good, on whole no is bad. Ask self, shit posting on lemmy good, depends.
name a non-authoritarian country
What would the absence of 'authoritarianism' be called?