4 ms·

To be honest, the opposite is also bad. Communist Poland had no landlords, all housing was built either by the state or by the people who wanted to live there,

To be honest, the opposite is also bad. Communist Poland had no landlords, all housing was built either by the state or by the people who wanted to live there, and apartments were basically impossible to get. If private parties have no incentives or possibilities to build, you're left with government housing, and governments are prone to overpaying and underdelivering. The only way to ensure a right to food and shelter is by ensuring that there's enough food and shelter to be had in the first place, something which we've seen socialist systems struggle with. The only way is to build, build, build, and when the population density demands it, build tall and build small. Apartment complexes with 5-20 floors are a far better and far cheaper idea than sprawling suburbs.

AstralStorm 3y ago
Sorry, but housing shortages were common actually due to lack of supply as thousands of people were moving from rural areas to the cities. It was not caused by lack of will to build houses, but lack of construction capacity. Over time, the problem lessened and ultimately by late 70s it was almost unheard of to find a homeless person in a city. Even people with serious problems like alcoholism were housed almost always. Unfortunately this resulted in lots of gray cheap blocks of flats. Looks drab. Over time also got improved. Homeless people are around again and number is on the rise, shortage is around again. Very expensive "apartments" that are tinier and worse made than communist housing are sold for barely attainable sums now. They just look better on the outside.
lookatitsauce 3y ago
If you look at home ownership data across Europe, the highest home ownership is in Eastern Europe, now... one can argue that culture has something to do with it but the numbers don't lie. I don't care what you call it capital/commune but if people can't afford homes, I don't think they care. The story doesn't matter if the effects are there. https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-ra...
jq-r 3y ago
As a counterexample, in socialist Yugoslavia, everyone and their dog got housing. Public companies made tons of it, towns and large part of cities were built during 60ties to 80ties. It was very easy to become the owner of a unit and most if not all became just that. It really wasn't a problem and people instead of worrying about housing thought about their hobbies, everyone on the coast bought/made boats, and people on the continent built summer houses on the coast. Come nineties, oughts and today and the huge majority of housing units made are for tourism and speculation and are just empty most of the year. Landlords appeared too, some of those accumulating wealth from renting/Airbnb'ing their previously built summer houses, a lot came from money laundering/extraction. Housing itself has very little if any taxation so it became a wealth store and its just a big circle of socially bad incentives. Usually when there is a big political arrest it would turn our that the person had like 20 houses/flats/boutique hotels. Nothing usually comes out of it, but thats a different problem. In the last 20 years the young people got totally screwed by lack of housing and many people emigrated unable to afford even to rent a flat and have some leftover money. Or to put it in the scale, more people emigrated than at any point in the last 150 years. People don't emigrate if they're fine with what they have. And politicians care even less because people who emigrated won't vote in the elections. And did I mention that most of them are landlords too? My point is, a political system be it "communism" (quoting you), "socialism", "democracy" or whatever has very little with how they deal with the problem. The reality is usually much more complex than applying easy labels.

AstralStorm 3y ago

Sorry, but housing shortages were common actually due to lack of supply as thousands of people were moving from rural areas to the cities. It was not caused by lack of will to build houses, but lack of construction capacity. Over time, the problem lessened and ultimately by late 70s it was almost unheard of to find a homeless person in a city. Even people with serious problems like alcoholism were housed almost always. Unfortunately this resulted in lots of gray cheap blocks of flats. Looks drab. Over time also got improved. Homeless people are around again and number is on the rise, shortage is around again. Very expensive "apartments" that are tinier and worse made than communist housing are sold for barely attainable sums now. They just look better on the outside.

lookatitsauce 3y ago

If you look at home ownership data across Europe, the highest home ownership is in Eastern Europe, now... one can argue that culture has something to do with it but the numbers don't lie. I don't care what you call it capital/commune but if people can't afford homes, I don't think they care. The story doesn't matter if the effects are there. https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-ra...

jq-r 3y ago

As a counterexample, in socialist Yugoslavia, everyone and their dog got housing. Public companies made tons of it, towns and large part of cities were built during 60ties to 80ties. It was very easy to become the owner of a unit and most if not all became just that. It really wasn't a problem and people instead of worrying about housing thought about their hobbies, everyone on the coast bought/made boats, and people on the continent built summer houses on the coast. Come nineties, oughts and today and the huge majority of housing units made are for tourism and speculation and are just empty most of the year. Landlords appeared too, some of those accumulating wealth from renting/Airbnb'ing their previously built summer houses, a lot came from money laundering/extraction. Housing itself has very little if any taxation so it became a wealth store and its just a big circle of socially bad incentives. Usually when there is a big political arrest it would turn our that the person had like 20 houses/flats/boutique hotels. Nothing usually comes out of it, but thats a different problem. In the last 20 years the young people got totally screwed by lack of housing and many people emigrated unable to afford even to rent a flat and have some leftover money. Or to put it in the scale, more people emigrated than at any point in the last 150 years. People don't emigrate if they're fine with what they have. And politicians care even less because people who emigrated won't vote in the elections. And did I mention that most of them are landlords too? My point is, a political system be it "communism" (quoting you), "socialism", "democracy" or whatever has very little with how they deal with the problem. The reality is usually much more complex than applying easy labels.