3 ms·

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 t

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
- weberer 4y ago
  You don't get kicked out. You get purged.

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
weberer 4y ago
You don't get kicked out. You get purged.