7 ms·

Yeah, that's generally seen as one of the major problems with Marxism.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
The other was, working as little as possible, because you got paid the same, no matter what. Source: lived in a socialist country
- medo-bear 4y ago
  also owned own home https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Will someone please think of the landlords?
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      Back in socialist time, the government was the landlord for a huge percentage of that... they literally took peoples private houses away after WW2, and rented them out to people. Only after the split of yugoslavia, they sold the taxpayer paid and built apartments to then-current renters for peanuts.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        I know it's probably just a username, but you don't happen to be the real Ajs Nigrutin, do you?
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        No lol :D i just needed a throwaway to argue about something "back then", and guess what was on the radio :)
      - medo-bear 4y ago
        sure it was a landlord that had no right to kick you out
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        So.. basically the same as any other landlord in EU now? You signed a contract, and while it lasted, if you paid, they couldn't throw you out for the duration of the contract.
        medo-bear 4y ago
        vastly different. you pay off your apartment as you work. the apartment is owned by the state corporation you work for. the corporation has very little power to let you go. its more like a very favourable home loan
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        > you pay off your apartment as you work You do, if you buy the apartment and get a loan/mortgage. If you're renting from the government, you're just renting... you didn't become an owner of the apartment here, until the end of socialism, a new capitalist government, and politicians not wanting to deal with the upkeep of those buildings. Before 1991, you were renting as you are renting now in any other (capitalist) country (although with proper rules and protections.. so like in eg. austria, germany, etc). You didn't get to keep it.
        medo-bear 4y ago
        you keep repeating yourself without providing any sources. here is a quote from scholarly article on the topic that counters what you are saying. Pay attention to the final sentence Yugoslavia’s blue-collar workers were less likely to receive a socially owned flat than white-collar and skilled workers who were systemically favoured in the allocation process (Živković 1968; Bobić and Vujović 1985; Petrović 2004; Le Normand 2012; Archer 2016). Housing allocation thus forged novel social inequalities, a phenomenon observed by scholars in other state-socialist contexts (Szelenyi 1983; Bodnár and Böröcz 1998; Kulu 2003; Pelikánová 2012; Fehérváry 2013, 74–75; Gentile and Sjöberg 2013; Harris 2013, 112; Dalakoglou 2017, 137). In contrast to capitalist societies where wealthier strata were more likely to own their own home, in socialist states like Yugoslavia white-collar employees and managers were significantly less likely to own property than poorer workers, instead enjoying the more prestigious use of a socially owned flat. This was arguably more advantageous than property ownership as socially owned flats ‘ … were acquired without incurring personal costs, while in terms of their use, inheritance and even trading there were practically no differences between the holders of tenancy rights to state/socially owned housing and private owners’ (Petrović 2004, 270). - Archer, Roy: The moral economy of home construction in late socialist Yugoslavia https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02757206.2017.1340279 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02757206.2017.1... so, in terms of use, inheritance, and trading rights it was legally equivalent to owning a house. this is not surprising since yugoslavia had a radically different legal structure about property rights. this is also why people living in those flats could buy it for peanuts when the system collapsed. it certainly wasn't the case that the new government was feeling super generous tldr. social housing in yugoslavia was government owned in a very weak sense of the word
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    In my country (slovenia, former yugoslavia) owning homes destroyed the housing market in the long run... The government owned a huge percentage of homes and rented them out to people who needed them, and moved them around too (if they got a kid, they got a larger apartment). Then after the breakup, the government didn't want to deal with that, and sold all those apartments to renters living there for peanuts.. so 'everybody' got a home, and in the meantime stopped the communist-style buildings. .. then nimbyism, and yeah.. same as everywhere. Now the "boomers" have apartments and young people can't buy them, because we don't build stuff anymore. When a boomer dies, their kids inherit and lease it out, because selling it is pointless due to ever rising prices (again, nobody builds anything anymore... nimbyism and all that) If the government kept the apartments, when a boomer died, someone else would get to rent it at the government-non-profit-rate, but nope... whole country paid for building those apartments, some people got lucky to keep them, and the others could fuck off. Also, building a private house back then was easier.. you could basically build, and then deal with all the pesky stuff, such as permits and legalization... now, you can't build a dog house without building/construction inspectors there. On one hand, we now have improper owner-build buildings in inapropriate places... on the other hand, atleast those people got a house, which is impossible now. Also, building a house isn't even so expensive here... especially if you do a lot of stuff alone... but just the project/permit costs are higher than the bricks and concrete, and buying a piece of land where you're actually permitted to build is impossible... but we do have literal fields in the prime locations of our capital - https://goo.gl/maps/YeoJMMGN2QhtZDLs8 https://goo.gl/maps/YeoJMMGN2QhtZDLs8 (just rotate the view around to see what's next to that) tldr: in socialist time, everybody was renting from the government, in capitalist time, those apartments were sold for peanuts to renters (and the rest of the taxpayers, who didn't get apartments, got fucked)
    - medo-bear 4y ago
      boomers is a largely american concept. i doubt eastern european people of same generation can be called boomers: having lived in a completely different system. anyway you seem to say that owning houses resulted in a problem of not owning houses? seems to me a more simple explanation would be that slovenia became a capitalist society, and for-profit housing doesnt quite accomodate as many people as the socialist one. this is a problem that is faced in every capitalist country atm and you seem to be misrepresenting what happened in former yugoslavia. basically it was not the government that gave you housing, but the state-owned corporation you worked for. and it wasnt for-rent, but to pay off as you work. which is WHY so many people were able to buy it for peanuts when the system collapsed. also to say it was the government is to grossly overestimate the centrality of the socialist yugoslav government. they simply were not that powerful
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    Housing and public transport are among the success stories of the Soviet Union. At least until the early 1970s, after that there was a lot of stagnation and decline.

The other was, working as little as possible, because you got paid the same, no matter what. Source: lived in a socialist country

medo-bear 4y ago
also owned own home https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Will someone please think of the landlords?
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    Back in socialist time, the government was the landlord for a huge percentage of that... they literally took peoples private houses away after WW2, and rented them out to people. Only after the split of yugoslavia, they sold the taxpayer paid and built apartments to then-current renters for peanuts.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      I know it's probably just a username, but you don't happen to be the real Ajs Nigrutin, do you?
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        No lol :D i just needed a throwaway to argue about something "back then", and guess what was on the radio :)
    - medo-bear 4y ago
      sure it was a landlord that had no right to kick you out
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        So.. basically the same as any other landlord in EU now? You signed a contract, and while it lasted, if you paid, they couldn't throw you out for the duration of the contract.
        medo-bear 4y ago
        vastly different. you pay off your apartment as you work. the apartment is owned by the state corporation you work for. the corporation has very little power to let you go. its more like a very favourable home loan
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        > you pay off your apartment as you work You do, if you buy the apartment and get a loan/mortgage. If you're renting from the government, you're just renting... you didn't become an owner of the apartment here, until the end of socialism, a new capitalist government, and politicians not wanting to deal with the upkeep of those buildings. Before 1991, you were renting as you are renting now in any other (capitalist) country (although with proper rules and protections.. so like in eg. austria, germany, etc). You didn't get to keep it.
        medo-bear 4y ago
        you keep repeating yourself without providing any sources. here is a quote from scholarly article on the topic that counters what you are saying. Pay attention to the final sentence Yugoslavia’s blue-collar workers were less likely to receive a socially owned flat than white-collar and skilled workers who were systemically favoured in the allocation process (Živković 1968; Bobić and Vujović 1985; Petrović 2004; Le Normand 2012; Archer 2016). Housing allocation thus forged novel social inequalities, a phenomenon observed by scholars in other state-socialist contexts (Szelenyi 1983; Bodnár and Böröcz 1998; Kulu 2003; Pelikánová 2012; Fehérváry 2013, 74–75; Gentile and Sjöberg 2013; Harris 2013, 112; Dalakoglou 2017, 137). In contrast to capitalist societies where wealthier strata were more likely to own their own home, in socialist states like Yugoslavia white-collar employees and managers were significantly less likely to own property than poorer workers, instead enjoying the more prestigious use of a socially owned flat. This was arguably more advantageous than property ownership as socially owned flats ‘ … were acquired without incurring personal costs, while in terms of their use, inheritance and even trading there were practically no differences between the holders of tenancy rights to state/socially owned housing and private owners’ (Petrović 2004, 270). - Archer, Roy: The moral economy of home construction in late socialist Yugoslavia https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02757206.2017.1340279 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02757206.2017.1... so, in terms of use, inheritance, and trading rights it was legally equivalent to owning a house. this is not surprising since yugoslavia had a radically different legal structure about property rights. this is also why people living in those flats could buy it for peanuts when the system collapsed. it certainly wasn't the case that the new government was feeling super generous tldr. social housing in yugoslavia was government owned in a very weak sense of the word
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  In my country (slovenia, former yugoslavia) owning homes destroyed the housing market in the long run... The government owned a huge percentage of homes and rented them out to people who needed them, and moved them around too (if they got a kid, they got a larger apartment). Then after the breakup, the government didn't want to deal with that, and sold all those apartments to renters living there for peanuts.. so 'everybody' got a home, and in the meantime stopped the communist-style buildings. .. then nimbyism, and yeah.. same as everywhere. Now the "boomers" have apartments and young people can't buy them, because we don't build stuff anymore. When a boomer dies, their kids inherit and lease it out, because selling it is pointless due to ever rising prices (again, nobody builds anything anymore... nimbyism and all that) If the government kept the apartments, when a boomer died, someone else would get to rent it at the government-non-profit-rate, but nope... whole country paid for building those apartments, some people got lucky to keep them, and the others could fuck off. Also, building a private house back then was easier.. you could basically build, and then deal with all the pesky stuff, such as permits and legalization... now, you can't build a dog house without building/construction inspectors there. On one hand, we now have improper owner-build buildings in inapropriate places... on the other hand, atleast those people got a house, which is impossible now. Also, building a house isn't even so expensive here... especially if you do a lot of stuff alone... but just the project/permit costs are higher than the bricks and concrete, and buying a piece of land where you're actually permitted to build is impossible... but we do have literal fields in the prime locations of our capital - https://goo.gl/maps/YeoJMMGN2QhtZDLs8 https://goo.gl/maps/YeoJMMGN2QhtZDLs8 (just rotate the view around to see what's next to that) tldr: in socialist time, everybody was renting from the government, in capitalist time, those apartments were sold for peanuts to renters (and the rest of the taxpayers, who didn't get apartments, got fucked)
  - medo-bear 4y ago
    boomers is a largely american concept. i doubt eastern european people of same generation can be called boomers: having lived in a completely different system. anyway you seem to say that owning houses resulted in a problem of not owning houses? seems to me a more simple explanation would be that slovenia became a capitalist society, and for-profit housing doesnt quite accomodate as many people as the socialist one. this is a problem that is faced in every capitalist country atm and you seem to be misrepresenting what happened in former yugoslavia. basically it was not the government that gave you housing, but the state-owned corporation you worked for. and it wasnt for-rent, but to pay off as you work. which is WHY so many people were able to buy it for peanuts when the system collapsed. also to say it was the government is to grossly overestimate the centrality of the socialist yugoslav government. they simply were not that powerful
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wongarsu 4y ago
  Housing and public transport are among the success stories of the Soviet Union. At least until the early 1970s, after that there was a lot of stagnation and decline.