• Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah that’s called late stage Communism, which we have never achieved as humanity. Late stage Capitalism is currently pushing more and more folks into dangerous housing situations like the bottom right quadrant of this meme. Capitalism and Utopia are oxymorons while Communism and Utopia are synonymous.

      • probablyaCat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah those soviets sure got rid of the homeless problem. Can’t be homeless when you were intentionally starved to death.

        • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Call me old fashion but no one living on the streets and having their basic needs met sounds pretty utopian to me.

          • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They don’t call you old fashioned for that, they call you tankie. It’s because they’re mad that you don’t buy the bullshit they push. Look at all the claims they make about the USSR here while providing no evidence or context for the situations they claim people were living in.

            They compare apples to oranges when it’s communism they are criticizing and stick their fingers in their ears while screaming when it comes to criticizing crapitalism.

          • xerazal@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            There were still people that lived in the streets in the USSR. Also, the housing the USSR provided wasn’t really that… great… I watch a Russian YouTuber (NFKRZ) who has talked about Soviet architecture in not just Russia, but other former USSR countries and shows that yes it’s good they were built, they weren’t very well built.

            The USSR had many problems, and bureaucracy was a big problem. I never understood why tankies love the USSR so much when the USSR didn’t truly get rid of class. Those in the government lived like kings compared to the common man, who yes lived better than they had before but still not that well due to the bloated and mismanagement of the government.

            Idk, the fact that they even had a centralized government like that seems like… the opposite of communism to me.

            • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I think what people don’t fully understand is that Marxism is meant to be scientific. That means that there will likely be many imperfect and failed attempts at building a socialist society before one comes along that is stable enough to outlast outside interference from capitalist states.

              As such, most people I know who like the USSR are also it’s biggest critiques. Unfortunately, there is so much misinformation about the USSR that most discussions about it online are just about delineating truth from propaganda.

          • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s the final refuge for tankies. That and the old “social democracy only works by exploiting the global south” canard.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              “social democracy only works by exploiting the global south” canard.

              Yeah, I could see finding this unconvincing if you haven’t read theory, history, or were just cool with benefiting from imperialism

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Soviet Union? It was uncommon for a family of 6 to live in a small apartment. You can even see it in old soviet movies where apartments would be separated by curtains (common comedy trope).

      • Praise Idleness@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean even in the case of USSR they had to wait for more than a decade to actually get a livable apartment, not to mention severe lack of infrastructure…

        But of course, better than people just kicked out to the streets. But then again, less is not none. The housing situation definitely didn’t do USSR’s overall economic status any favor.

        People at least had somewhere to go

        that’s just moving the goal post, isn’t it?

        • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In Communist countries people starve to death because of famine, in Capitalist countries people also strave to death because of famine while still starving to death after famines are over because they cant afford groceries.

    • SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not a tankie, but the USSR had mostly solved this problem, despite all its other issues. There did exist some homelessness, but nowhere near the extent of current USA.

      • pelya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, you could get a piece of land in Siberian tundra at any time, I would not call that housing.

        Moving to a city was way more complicated than in capitalist US. You could not simply buy an apartment. You had to be allocated an apartment by the government. And you needed connections for that. Or bribes. Ideally both. If you think your local rabid Republicans do not care for little wage slave men, you never experienced USSR, it was like that but 100x worse.

      • Mercival@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, I’m from a post-USSR country and a substantial part of this was the criminalization of homelessness. Can’t have homeless people, if you lock them up (be it in a prison or asylum).

        Then again, just about anyone, who did not conform to the party’s message got locked up. Getting your place bugged at the slightest hint you might be up to something disagreeable and all that good stuff. The secret police could disappear and or beat you up without any real justification.

        I hate late-stage capitalism as much as you, but coming from a country that’s been through this, I am extremely reluctant to give the rotten and frankly repugnant USSR regime any credit.

    • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks, i pride myself on making innovative memes that point out the glaring hypocrisies of Capitalism in new and inventive meme formats. Thankfully the glaring hypocrisies of Capitalism have been around for decades giving me plenty of material for OC. /s

    • interolivary@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No duh, they were built to be very affordable so you wouldn’t have as many homeless people. It’s incredible that you thought that answer was somehow insightful

      • Hovenko@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        They were built to be affordable for working class and had nothing to do with homelesness… Communists/socialists did not acknowledge existence of homelessness because it would mean party admitting of making a mistake or system being flawed.

        • interolivary@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Affordable and available housing has everything to do with homelessness though, it’s one of the best ways to actually keep people from becoming homeless in the first place. If more people can afford a place to live, less people will be homeless. Won’t fix all of it but a huge chunk anyhow

          I have no idea if or how much old Eastern Bloc countries lied about the number of homeless. I wouldn’t be surprised at all, but I haven’t seen any studies or statistics about this so I can’t assume they were all lying or that the situation was universally worse than in Western countries.

          • Hovenko@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But that was no goal of communist party at all. It is only your justification for this meme and proving your point about current capitalism.

    • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They were built for the Prolitariat, which homeless folks are quite literally a part of.

      • EfreetSK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        So if one person picks 1000 apples per day and the second picks 2 apples, then they split apples 501 to each. Good luck convincing the first person that this is good for them

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And for both situations I would need ask at least one of them “Why do you need so many apples? Why not give some of them to those who need them instead of accumulating them?”

          Think about it, you’re already living the situation you presented but the person picking two apples is in a managerial position and gets to keep the thousand apples you picked in exchange for the two apples they picked.

        • Chigüir@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, is a bad deal.

          But that’s not the point, the point of this approach is that like in cooperatives, there are minimum productivity goals and many roles to play, and so on. Obviously like you point out, no one is that stupid.

          Now, consider the needs of people who are old or need help. Like helping your old man, I’m sure you don’t mind getting more apples. I wouldn’t. Like you, I would get angry if I’m the only useful one hahaha, but that what productivity and organization is for. No one lives in a bubble.

          Now… What you said, I’ve seen it happen in capitalism. Not in small businesses, normally the owner is in the store too. I mean when we talk about the big bucks like a better example. They expect you to handle of those apples, and ain’t offering you a comfy home neither.

        • enkers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          So Instead, one person picks 1000 apples, gives them all to the property owner, and then receives enough money to buy 50 apples, yet you’d prefer that over having to split the 1000 apples evenly.

        • radroot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          In your example, I’m assuming the first person is a worker and the second person is the boss. That’s usually how it goes

        • darq@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except we aren’t talking about two people, are we? We’re talking about entire populations of people.

          And when people have their needs met, they are more able to be productive. And they are more likely to believe in the good of the system that supports them, as they can see the tangible results of that system in their daily life. They can see how their contribution to the system benefits them. Making them more likely to be happy to contribute.

          Will some percentage of people under-contribute because of laziness? Sure. But who cares? That percentage is small. And we have the technology to compensate many times over now.

          Why the hell do we make society more miserable for everyone, forcing everyone to live under the threat of poverty if they don’t work, just to force this small percentage to work against their will? Not to mention completely screw over anyone who cannot work for reasons beyond their control, because we subject them to this insane level of scrutiny because we’re paranoid that they might just be lazy.

          We can choose a cooperative system, or the antagonistic one we currently have, where we are all at each others’ throats because of suspicion that someone might be getting something that they “don’t deserve”.

  • Pharmacokinetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    People tend to argue that commie blocks look depressing and dystopian but you can actually make very pretty neighborhoods with them.

    This is where I live. It’s called Oyak Sitesi in Turkey/Antalya and it’s a beautiful place with an actual community. Very affordable too. We just did a stability test and they were also very durable to earthquakes.

    Just because you’re making blocks doesnt also mean that they have to be 20 stories tall either. Here is my old house.

    • Madlaine@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The important parts are paint and maintenance.

      Give a commie block a fresh coat of paint every decade or so and they can look good (though I just don’t like flat roofs. But that’s personal taste.)

      But while a somewhat run down european style house can still have some charme for longer (guess I’m biased here) a run down commie block in gray and with cracks in the facade will quickly start to look depressing.

      And as they are often chosen for cost reasons inside capitalistic environments, they are often neglected.

      So, the problem is not commie blocks, but how they are maintained. And as often we tend to search for the extreme examples if we (dis)like something.

  • Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why is this shit always communist vs capitalist, like we’ve only got 2 answers avaliable. You fuckers never set foot in a communist country and worship this shit

    Fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens? Don’t really think showing a picture of some buildings is enough to prove that they actually solved any issues. They may have solved those issues for some who were lucky enough to get an apartment, but don’t be a hexbear and pretend they housed everyone.

    And no, I don’t want a response with a link about hurr duer capitalism bad, yeah I know, but I live in capitalism so I already know that.

    • TheOneAndOnly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s simple… If you convince the communists that the capitalists are trying to destroy them, (and vice versa), they fight each other, distracting them from the real enemy: the 1% with enough money to directly influence the folk that make the rules that keep them in the 1% club. We’re fighting culture wars so we won’t fight class wars, my friend.

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        … capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

        This is like the one fight that isn’t part of the culture war.

      • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The 1% are the Capitalist and they are trying to defeat the Communists and surpress/continue to exploit the Prolitariat with every tool at their vast disposal. The folks in the comments defending Capitalism are all members of the Prolitariat brainwashed into thinking they are down on their luck Millionaires.

        • TheOneAndOnly@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Look… It’s all tribalism, in the end. We can argue semantics, but doing so it’s exactly their point. It keeps us busy with pedantry, while they continue to enjoy their wealth from on high. I am not educated enough to debate the pros and cons of each group, but I am intelligent enough to smell an attempt to distract me from the point. To know there’s some sleight of hand fuckery happening right in front of my face.

          • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes you are intelligent, and so close to getting it, the cultural warfare bullshit is all a distraction to keep you from noticing the class warfare being waged against the working class by the 1% who continues to rob value from us to horde weath far beyond our comprehension. I cant recommend Marx’s writings enough, there is so much slight of hand fuxkery going on and it SHOULD rightfully piss you off!

            • TheOneAndOnly@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Help me understand how I’m close in what I’m saying, my friend. It feels like we’re saying exactly the same thing.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back? It’s certainly not right wing.

            If you think the world is fucked because of the greed of the 1%, and you want those people to pay for their crimes through class war, you’re communist.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back?

              That sounds like a free market to me. When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.

              When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market. The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.

    • Unaware7013@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens?

      Bruh, centuries of capitalist exploitation of its citizens and treating them like a disposable commodity would like to have a word on the whole ‘citizens killed by their own country’ topic.

      How many thousands or millions of citizens die yearly because they can’t afford to live in this fucked up system?

      • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        None? People don’t starve to death in western countries. And where they do the issue is lack of infrastructure. A communist government couldn’t conjure the resources needed to build that out of thin air either.

        • Unaware7013@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          None? People don’t starve to death in western countries. And where they do the issue is lack of infrastructure.

          “This thing doesn’t happen, and when it does, it’s not the fault of capitalism itself” is a monumentally stupid argument. Especially when talking about the homeless population, which absolutely does have people that starve.

          A communist government couldn’t conjure the resources needed to build that out of thin air either.

          And the capitalist economy chose not to build it because it wasn’t profitable, or after it was built, it was too expensive to be used.

          • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I said it doesn’t happen in the west, not that it doesn’t happen anywhere. Please learn to read.

          • Smk@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Where is your great communist country ?? Oh wait, it’s not there. It doesn’t exist and it never will. Capitalism works. Not perfect but it works. Your idealized version of communism is great but so is my idealized version of capitalism where everyone has a shot at the American dream!

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m still confused and alarmed that the only alternative brought up is communism, not socialism. So far as I know, the core difference is transfer of power - one is peaceful, one is violent.

      So in communism, your home might be six feet underground because “It is necessary to achieve the revolution, comrade.” Absolutely zero chance of a leader that wants the best for their people, apparently.

      • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Real socialism leads to communism. I want to call what I am advocating for as cultural marxism, but unfortunately that term has antisemitic connotations, while also perfectly encapsulating the gradual shift in the publics perception of Marxist ideology I am advocating for with memes such as this. I am not advocating for a violent revolution, but I wont deny the fact that when the powers that be make a peaceful revolution impossible, a violent revolution is inevitable.

      • Cowbee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s incorrect.

        Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. There sre many, many forms, such as Anarcho-Syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism, Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Left Communism, and more.

        Communism is a more specific form of Socialism, by which you have achieved a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. Many Communist ideologies are transitional towards Communism, such as the USSR’s Marxism-Leninism or China’s Dengism and Maoism.

        Whether by reform or Revolution, the form doesn’t change.

    • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is not “one or the another” situation, communism is the next qualitative stage in development of society. It solves the primary contradiction that we experience in capitalism, that is socialized production being privatized by individuals, aka capitalists.

      You can’t just declare communism by signing a document, because it is a process of development in which small quantitative changes in production (socialism) lead to a qualitative change (communism), thus to achieve the communism stage you have to achieve a certain level of development.

      This is why China is considered a communist country by marxists-leninist even though qualitatively it is a capitalist country. They are actively working to develop communism, this can be clearly seen throughout their rhetoric (i.e. “The Governance of China”) and their material results.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem with China being that it’s authoritarian, not that it’s capitalist or communist. There’s no choice other than the Communist Party, so when the party is wildly corrupt, you have no recourse at all short of revolution. And we all know what China does to counter-revolutionaries.

        • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          And that is a problem to whom? Every single state is authoritarian, the question is whose interests are they protecting.

          China is clearly a dictatorship of the proletariat and they use authority to protect the interests of the proletariat. Yes, sometimes their policy is wrong and does harm but ultimately they work to improve their policies, governing is a learning experience after all.

          • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s a problem because people don’t feel like stakeholders when they don’t have a say and can’t participate in their system of governance. This in turn means that they aren’t incentivized to willingly participate and have to be forced or indoctrinated, both of which are violations of human rights.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Remind me, how many capitalist countries have killed millions of their own citizens?

      Germany, pre-communist China, Japan, Armenia, pre-USSR Russia, Pakistan…

      Edit: if apparently this isn’t the point, why so passionately call out the communist killcount?

      • Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        See, this is what the fuck I’m talking about.

        You’re so dense. I’m not advocating or simping got capitalism here. That’s what I’m trying to communicate, but you’re too fucking dense to even see that when I lay it out.

        Both are bad. Just because I say these turds who worship an imaginary and propagandized version of communism are dorks doesn’t mean I’m arguing in favor of capitalism. For fucks sake learn to read

        • TheOneAndOnly@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You are 100% correct in your assertion, my anti Mario sex toy friend, and I love your passion. I worry that the minute you call someone’s intelligence into question, they’ll take a defensive posture and stop thinking critically. Critical thinking is what we need more than anything else in this world right now. That’s what’s in short supply. It’s why the news is constantly being flooded with new things, and why there are so few media outlets that don’t have a slant. If I can get you outraged at team blue, or team red, or team US, or team THEM, your anger overrides your reason and you stop thinking about who benefits from the distraction provided by us arguing over whatever this new bullshit thing is we’re arguing over. Hopefully that last statement makes sense.

    • mycorrhiza they/them@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens

      Most of these articles cite the Black Book of Communism, which goes to absurd lengths to inflate the death toll of Communism, for example counting all the millions of nazi and soviet soldiers killed on the eastern front as victims of communism, counting the entire death toll of the Vietnam war, and even counting declining birth rates as deaths due to communism.

      Noam Chomsky used the same methodology to argue that, according to Black Book logic, capitalism in India alone, from 1947–1979, could be blamed for more deaths than communism worldwide from 1917–1979.

      https://web.archive.org/web/20160921084037/http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm

  • uis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is not communist solution, this is half-socialism humant colony solution.

    Real communist solutions look like this:

  • xor@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    in columbia they use flamethrowers on the homeless that live in the sewers…

  • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    NK making fake buildings like the top image for the illusion of a wealthy nation when the 99% of their nation live in the below image.

    • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Meanwhile the US builds house and sells them to corporations who have no interest in letting someone live there.

      Your only source on the DPRK is Radio Free Asia. Go push a train by hand you clown.

        • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Start here

          If you want recent coverage from everyday people, you can find social media posts from Chinese tourists. You can always Look at the state media. You already know they’ll be bias in their own favor, but that doesn’t mean everything they publish is fake. Look for other sources for confirmation. Most of it will be boring reports, which is less likely to be exaggerated.

  • essell@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not in the UK. Our government is looking to ban the tents next. That’ll fix the homeless issue 😕

  • Rubezahl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Well, I hate mmunism as much as the next Eastern European but this is absolutely true. Commie blocks rule.