4 ms·

In my parents' case, it was România before '89. Thankfully they were lucky to be able to buy their flat in the early 90s, but those of us that rent today aren't

by lucian1900 6y ago

In my parents' case, it was România before '89. Thankfully they were lucky to be able to buy their flat in the early 90s, but those of us that rent today aren't so lucky. Rents consist of the majority of one's income, like in all liberal countries. The remaining socialist countries are China, Vietnam, Cuba, the DPRK and Laos. Venezuela and Bolivia are struggling towards it as well. All of them have varying but significant levels of public housing, in some cases limited by conditions imposed on these countries in exchange for being allowed to trade with the rest of the world.

maratc 6y ago
The "privatization" in the '90s was a one-off where failed socialist states just passed the bulk of state-owned flats to its inhabitants for a symbolic sum, on their way to becoming capitalist states. There wasn't any "market" to speak of, so no market prices. This can hardly be seen as an example-setting experiment, as socialism only works when there is something or somebody to pay up the costs. In the case of the USSR, it was its oil and gas exports. In the case of Romania, it was the USSR for the most part.
- lucian1900 6y ago
  It is true that the flats were sold for symbolic sums. This was done by the counter-revolutionary government after '89 both to prevent revolts from people used to cheap housing and in the hope of engendering individualism through ownership. Of course the destruction of socialism in '89 isn't a good example, most of us would still prefer it over capitalism. And it's not true that the socialist countries were somewhat subsidised by some external force, although it is a common myth spread by neoliberals (most famously Thatcher). Workers create all value through labour and are paid only a fraction of that to survive on. The rest (surplus) is either appropriated by capitalists or pooled together by the workers or a worker's state to fund collective efforts. An economy that doesn't seek profit is inherently much more efficient, all else being equal. The USSR did in fact support many socialist countries, out of the surplus of the labour of soviet workers. România actually paid reparations to the USSR for years for having invaded it during WW2. It's also worth keeping in mind that all socialist revolutions so far have been in poor under-industrialised countries that improved drastically under socialism, so comparisons to their industrialised colonisers aren't exactly honest.
  - maratc 6y ago
    > the destruction of socialism in '89 isn't a good example, most of us would still prefer it over capitalism As the example of pre-wall GDR shows, socialism can only exist with GULAG's for the suppression of the unconvinced. I seriously doubt about most of "us" preferring socialism over capitalism, unless you take a very specific (unknown to me) definition of "us". It would most certainly not apply to HN's readers. > The rest (surplus) is either appropriated by capitalists or pooled together by the workers or a worker's state to fund collective efforts This reminds me of Marxism and its problem: while it's fine in theory, it hasn't been proved yet to effectively work in practice (and that is not for lack of trying). > all socialist revolutions so far have been in poor under-industrialised countries that improved drastically under socialism Other "poor under-industrialised countries" that did not have revolutions have nevertheless improved drastically under capitalism.
    - lucian1900 6y ago
      There have been numerous surveys in various Eastern European countries, even today a majority of people would prefer the political systems before '89. The GDR was under constant attack from capitalist countries, I don't think it's that unusual for a country to track and imprison foreign spies and local collaborators and fascists. The current capitalist countries imprison lots of people for political reasons too. The Marxist labour theory of value has been proven statistically in several ways, it's not disputed even by right-wing economists. Central planning also is used by capitalists to avoid the inefficiencies of markets. The major missing thing is that we live and work under the dictatorship of capitalists, with little to no democratic control for the workers. No poor under-industrialised country has yet to achieve prosperity under capitalism. Yet the improvements with socialism are quite clear in the past (https://mobile.twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1136693839526223872 https://mobile.twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1136693839526223...) and nowadays with China, Vietnam and Cuba.

maratc 6y ago

The "privatization" in the '90s was a one-off where failed socialist states just passed the bulk of state-owned flats to its inhabitants for a symbolic sum, on their way to becoming capitalist states. There wasn't any "market" to speak of, so no market prices. This can hardly be seen as an example-setting experiment, as socialism only works when there is something or somebody to pay up the costs. In the case of the USSR, it was its oil and gas exports. In the case of Romania, it was the USSR for the most part.

lucian1900 6y ago
It is true that the flats were sold for symbolic sums. This was done by the counter-revolutionary government after '89 both to prevent revolts from people used to cheap housing and in the hope of engendering individualism through ownership. Of course the destruction of socialism in '89 isn't a good example, most of us would still prefer it over capitalism. And it's not true that the socialist countries were somewhat subsidised by some external force, although it is a common myth spread by neoliberals (most famously Thatcher). Workers create all value through labour and are paid only a fraction of that to survive on. The rest (surplus) is either appropriated by capitalists or pooled together by the workers or a worker's state to fund collective efforts. An economy that doesn't seek profit is inherently much more efficient, all else being equal. The USSR did in fact support many socialist countries, out of the surplus of the labour of soviet workers. România actually paid reparations to the USSR for years for having invaded it during WW2. It's also worth keeping in mind that all socialist revolutions so far have been in poor under-industrialised countries that improved drastically under socialism, so comparisons to their industrialised colonisers aren't exactly honest.
- maratc 6y ago
  > the destruction of socialism in '89 isn't a good example, most of us would still prefer it over capitalism As the example of pre-wall GDR shows, socialism can only exist with GULAG's for the suppression of the unconvinced. I seriously doubt about most of "us" preferring socialism over capitalism, unless you take a very specific (unknown to me) definition of "us". It would most certainly not apply to HN's readers. > The rest (surplus) is either appropriated by capitalists or pooled together by the workers or a worker's state to fund collective efforts This reminds me of Marxism and its problem: while it's fine in theory, it hasn't been proved yet to effectively work in practice (and that is not for lack of trying). > all socialist revolutions so far have been in poor under-industrialised countries that improved drastically under socialism Other "poor under-industrialised countries" that did not have revolutions have nevertheless improved drastically under capitalism.
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    There have been numerous surveys in various Eastern European countries, even today a majority of people would prefer the political systems before '89. The GDR was under constant attack from capitalist countries, I don't think it's that unusual for a country to track and imprison foreign spies and local collaborators and fascists. The current capitalist countries imprison lots of people for political reasons too. The Marxist labour theory of value has been proven statistically in several ways, it's not disputed even by right-wing economists. Central planning also is used by capitalists to avoid the inefficiencies of markets. The major missing thing is that we live and work under the dictatorship of capitalists, with little to no democratic control for the workers. No poor under-industrialised country has yet to achieve prosperity under capitalism. Yet the improvements with socialism are quite clear in the past (https://mobile.twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1136693839526223872 https://mobile.twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1136693839526223...) and nowadays with China, Vietnam and Cuba.