3 ms·

You have described very well the limits of social democracy, indeed. Ceding any ground to markets and capital ends up eroding any gains won by the working class

by lucian1900 6y ago

You have described very well the limits of social democracy, indeed. Ceding any ground to markets and capital ends up eroding any gains won by the working class. Similar happened after capitalism was restored in Eastern Europe. Even though housing was built and maintained just fine for many decades, very little was built or maintained after 89 since there was no profit in it.

emteycz 6y ago
This is absolutely false. I have lived in many of these communist buildings, and the reality here is that these buildings are built so extremely badly and without any consideration of the surrounding that nothing can be done. The communists used toxic materials, didn't care about maintenance and simply built a wall where a maintenance shaft should've been, didn't care about safety, didn't care about families sharing master bedroom walls, etc etc. Thus these buildings are waiting for end-of-life to be torn down. That's typical of communist 'efficiency' - loud boasting of unbelievable achievement while shit's all fucked up. Every building that reasonably could be repaired is beautifully reworked today, because construction is expensive and working with what is already there is almost always cheaper, if at all possible. However profit is not really the main argument as these buildings are typically owned by the inhabitants nowadays, and they should have the choice of what to do with their own property, don't you think? The thing that shocks me most about my childhood photos is how the city looked absolutely horribly terrible - every building was mid-destruction, no paint anywhere, valuable historical buildings with falling walls and destroyed windows, etc; even the damn child nursery had paper boxes in few windows instead of glass! I'm very happy that I didn't notice it much back then and when I was teen most buildings got at least painted over. Growing up in the environment of my younger childhood must've been extremely depressing.
- fogihujy 6y ago
  My original point was just that; public housing is not something you just do with a one-time investment, and it requires a serious long-term commitment to keep it viable. I agree that many of the previous projects failed to commit to keeping those buildings in shape and I also doubt that any modern democracy would ever commit to such endeavours in the future; nobody wants to make very expensive, very long-term promises like that.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    You said that "very little was built or maintained after 1989". The exact opposite is true - before 1989 there was a moderate amount of newly constructed incredibly dangerous and toxic buildings violating every urbanistic rule and past plans that were a major downgrade from pre-war comfort (keep in mind that these buildings were built in 1970's, 30 years after the war); and there was absolutely zero maintenance, any repairs that got done were carried out secretly by the inhabitants with stolen material because you couldn't even buy it, and if you could you wouldn't because you'd be accused of the terrible crime of conducting business. After 1989 the economy was in a bad shape - understandable after 40 years of destruction, but once it stabilized (within a decade, a truly incredible achievement of free markets!) there has been a huge explosion of real estate development, and it's still not finished - I can see from my window right now 5 buildings being repaired and 3 buildings being constructed. But there isn't any propaganda about it, so people further away from my street have no idea, whereas the communists ordinarily used faked/false photos to show off their incredible achievement.
    - fogihujy 6y ago
      No, that was the guy responding to my post. :)
      - emteycz 6y ago
        I'm sorry then! Didn't check that.
    - lucian1900 6y ago
      The Romanian economy was in a bad shape in the 80s mostly because we were forced to pay back IMF loans early, while under trade sanctions. The loans were taken to build up production in order to export goods, but we weren’t allowed to export much beyond food. It’s a common tactic used against socialist countries. The economy recovered eventually because the strangling eased, after one last massive robbery through the devaluation of our currency. Eventually the building of housing resumed as well, but so much of it is of extremely poor quality. Many friends that bought new builds complained they are of poorer quality than the flats they grew up in. Only in the past few years has it become possible to reliably find good quality new builds, but few can afford them. And even now, the vast majority of housing stock is still from before 89.
- lucian1900 6y ago
  It does vary, there’s some bad ones in România too. Still, most were pretty good. To this day they form the vast majority of housing stock.

emteycz 6y ago

This is absolutely false. I have lived in many of these communist buildings, and the reality here is that these buildings are built so extremely badly and without any consideration of the surrounding that nothing can be done. The communists used toxic materials, didn't care about maintenance and simply built a wall where a maintenance shaft should've been, didn't care about safety, didn't care about families sharing master bedroom walls, etc etc. Thus these buildings are waiting for end-of-life to be torn down. That's typical of communist 'efficiency' - loud boasting of unbelievable achievement while shit's all fucked up. Every building that reasonably could be repaired is beautifully reworked today, because construction is expensive and working with what is already there is almost always cheaper, if at all possible. However profit is not really the main argument as these buildings are typically owned by the inhabitants nowadays, and they should have the choice of what to do with their own property, don't you think? The thing that shocks me most about my childhood photos is how the city looked absolutely horribly terrible - every building was mid-destruction, no paint anywhere, valuable historical buildings with falling walls and destroyed windows, etc; even the damn child nursery had paper boxes in few windows instead of glass! I'm very happy that I didn't notice it much back then and when I was teen most buildings got at least painted over. Growing up in the environment of my younger childhood must've been extremely depressing.

fogihujy 6y ago
My original point was just that; public housing is not something you just do with a one-time investment, and it requires a serious long-term commitment to keep it viable. I agree that many of the previous projects failed to commit to keeping those buildings in shape and I also doubt that any modern democracy would ever commit to such endeavours in the future; nobody wants to make very expensive, very long-term promises like that.
- emteycz 6y ago
  You said that "very little was built or maintained after 1989". The exact opposite is true - before 1989 there was a moderate amount of newly constructed incredibly dangerous and toxic buildings violating every urbanistic rule and past plans that were a major downgrade from pre-war comfort (keep in mind that these buildings were built in 1970's, 30 years after the war); and there was absolutely zero maintenance, any repairs that got done were carried out secretly by the inhabitants with stolen material because you couldn't even buy it, and if you could you wouldn't because you'd be accused of the terrible crime of conducting business. After 1989 the economy was in a bad shape - understandable after 40 years of destruction, but once it stabilized (within a decade, a truly incredible achievement of free markets!) there has been a huge explosion of real estate development, and it's still not finished - I can see from my window right now 5 buildings being repaired and 3 buildings being constructed. But there isn't any propaganda about it, so people further away from my street have no idea, whereas the communists ordinarily used faked/false photos to show off their incredible achievement.
  - fogihujy 6y ago
    No, that was the guy responding to my post. :)
    - emteycz 6y ago
      I'm sorry then! Didn't check that.
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    The Romanian economy was in a bad shape in the 80s mostly because we were forced to pay back IMF loans early, while under trade sanctions. The loans were taken to build up production in order to export goods, but we weren’t allowed to export much beyond food. It’s a common tactic used against socialist countries. The economy recovered eventually because the strangling eased, after one last massive robbery through the devaluation of our currency. Eventually the building of housing resumed as well, but so much of it is of extremely poor quality. Many friends that bought new builds complained they are of poorer quality than the flats they grew up in. Only in the past few years has it become possible to reliably find good quality new builds, but few can afford them. And even now, the vast majority of housing stock is still from before 89.
lucian1900 6y ago
It does vary, there’s some bad ones in România too. Still, most were pretty good. To this day they form the vast majority of housing stock.