Commie housing

How will public housing be done under socialism? will they be better then cappy and commie blocs? As well better urban planing.

Pic related cappy bloc conditions.
God bless god bless god bless god bless god bless

Other urls found in this thread:

If there is housing avalible, everyone gets a place to call home.

I've always wondered about how housing would be distributed in a socialist society. As of right now there is a large disparity between the quality of houses right now from small apartments to mansions. It seems silly to put houses to waste and give people the lowest common denominator (this is how most right-wing autists view socialism…) Right the wealthy get to live in the luxurious houses on the water, while the rest of us live in copy & paste houses or apartments. I think, obviously, housing should be community driven with interaction between neighborhood & city councils to improve housing and expand it in a productive way. But as for who should get to live in the big nice houses, I don't know… Perhaps lottery or people who receive community honors.

These buildings actually had their practical purpose.2/3 of Eastern Europe was completely obliterated after WW2 and housing was scarce. Commie blocks came in handy housing people in a bulk over a short period of time.

Another reason was industrialization and urbanization. After WW2 rural population started flocking to cities all around eastern block, looking for work in newly built industrial zones. Again these masses needed to be housed quickly and efficiently.

East Bloc urban planning is one of necessity and purpose. Not a single commie bloc was built without a purpose.

I hate them as much as the next guy, but they are homes that are already built, and it seems stupid to expend resources to get rid of a decent home someone could live in, only to have to expend ever more to construct a new one.

they contaminate so much more than normal cities, that it's actually more enviromentally friendly to bulldoze them


and if planned well they can be pretty cozy.

Not only that, but because they were so uniform in design it was easy to create one model and produce it multiple times, which saved costs and allowed for more funds towards other programs.
Personally I really like commie blocks. They have their aesthetic, have a functional purpose, and form these neat, large open squares where there could be local parks or decorations and the like. The problem is though, that many times they are underfunded and don't get repaired, but they still remain pretty comfy.

Yes, commieblocks were never built as single units but rather as a part of an entire neighborhood. If you live in a commieblock it likely means you're gonna have a school or a park right next to your window like in the pic rel.

They're extremely durable and tough, even when not repaired too often. If maintained properly they become everlasting.

Terraced commieblocks with inbuilt agricultural production and carbon sequestration

I think Metabolism is a neat style for housing, especially if it’s in post-scarcity communism, where giant cranes can take the pods off the central structure and place them onto another central structure. Pods can even come down for cleaning and repairs. Metabolism was even influenced by Marxist theories, among many sources of inspiration!

Metabolism gives off too much of an "insect nest" vibe, and it doesn't look quite nearly as comfy or sturdy as commieblocks. What need is there for transporting them, and why are they easier to repair than commieblocks? It seems more of a hassle to transport them back and forth rather than just getting them repaired in their place.

No, and commie blocks were a more appropriate choice for their time in particular, when there was a focus on cheap, durable housing that could be built quickly. The structures they replaced were quaint, pretty comfy as well, although in a different way and were certainly not as durable, land area-efficient, or as cheap.

Commie blocks are a good thing, cheap and everyone gets a house. If you want people living in mansions and middleclass homes you can go enjoy your capitalism and forget about all the homeless people

i have to disagree, first off they replaced ruines. secondly they replaced old worker housings which were terrible. commie blocs without space inbetween, right next to smoking industrial chimneys and toilets shared by several families.
and they lived there basically for free. honestly i don't even know why they'd still have rent. people made about 600 Mark, paying 50 for rent.

600 mark was just the pension even, not regular income

late GDR documentary on the Plattenbau

IMO big mansions should be repurposed as schools, recreation facilities, or re-education camps for the former bourgeoisie

More importantly, what're we going to do with the millions of American and American-style suburban homes built after the end of the Second World War?

It's not simply a matter of not building them anymore; then current owners will just cling to their extant properties. In the long run however, I highly doubt a socialist state would allow single families to occupy so much space on land that would be better suited to either public parks or farming.

Single-family housing is stupid regardless of its mere association with capitalism. Atomizing the population instead of housing them communally fucking sucks. Take the general structure of the commie block and add in generous helpings of shared community space like in a nice college dorm. Like, every floor should have something communal. Balconies could be used for gardening and shared with neighbors.

I picture a tower with big terraces around the outside acting as balconies/patios and with layers of soil used for growing plants that need it. Instead of roads we could have subways connecting everything below ground and use the ground space for parks and cop production. Honestly this shit is going to make me go mess around in minecraft again to see how it looks.

do not put any service in maintaining the infrastructure while building new residential areas as we used to, with doctors, shops, sport and cultural places and all the good stuff in walking distance and free public transportation to the workplace with huge parks, garden and hobby farming areas. all available for free.
pretty much like collectivisation. anyone refusing to join will have to put up with not receiving any benefits. most people will be happy to have free housing and a great community rather than a house build on debt.

What's the plan for repurposing the land though? People aren't going to just suddenly up and move. It'll be a trickle at best. Probably take a generation for most to leave and even then you still have some people who refuse to move because muh family bullshit. Do you demolish and rebuild over time or do you wait until it's almost empty and then bulldoze? It'd be thorny as hell to deal with, mostly because of people's reticence to move their home.

Socialism really should emphasize a change to a more nomadic mindset, where people think of the world as their home. Changing residence should be as easy as possible so labor can move where it wants.

this is exactly what people like kevin d. williamson at national review are preaching, except in service of capitalism
humans need community and stability and IMO a nomadic lifestyle doesn't get you any of those

The suburbs were literally a PSYOP designed to make more Americans identify with the petite bourgeoisie.

It all comes down to land use and construction.

In a "perfect" society where housing is well managed, all property is zoned for mixed-use by default and nearly all structures (detached or not) have to be designed around 2-5 stories. This allows for maximum utility by society, as each structure can be quickly repurposed from single family housing to apartments and offices or an industrial space if need be. This creates a flexible and dynamic structure, which creates a flexible and dynamic community. This avoids the massive urban sprawl America has, where the bourgeoisie gate themselves into segregated communities while everyone else is shoved into a restricted number of apartment buildings. At the same time it avoids the commieblock nightmare most of Eastern Europe and Asia contends with. One other concern is to mandate everything adhere to a grid-based network where all streets are through streets, as opposed to bourgeois suburbs that only have a few through expressways.

Thankfully this is a relatively easy "fix" - mandating this is reverse-compatible with existing capitalist systems. Already the US allows homeowners to "rent" their properties out via Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. While imperfect, it allows excess property to be quickly utilized for the benefit of the broader community. Some cities incentivize it by adding a vacant bedroom tax to houses with less residents than it can fully accommodate. Only problem is that S13 tenants are often not good members of the community, but that is another problem that individual communities are best equipped to deal with.

The basic idea of suburbs goes back to Puritans wanting to build a literal communist utopia, which was done by requiring all families to have their own house and farm arraigned in a half-urban half-rural manner. Our modern notion of suburbs comes from that, with railroads financing suburban construction around their train lines until the 1940s. This was fine.

Where things got fucked was the automobile which allowed people to live far away from each other to the point of isolation. Developers and planners satiated this desire, by creating suburban communities with few through streets and no sidewalks, destroying any hope for a local community to develop. The end result of this was NIMBYism, as the only thing disparate neighbors could agree on was keeping XYZ out of their suburbs. Likewise people were no longer unified by things like shared transit vehicles or stations, but instead by the handful of brand serviced to them through their car (sports radio, mcdonalds, walmart, etc).

It's a vicious cycle and is only stopping because millenials have no money due to student debts.

the parent generation might be clingy but the kids will want to be in the cultural centers.
over time you can cease to even deliver basic needs, like electricity, sewage, trash collection, fire department… or it just might take a little longer for these areas to be reached and maintained due to rising costs. there'd be plenty of incentive.

What is with this ☭TANKIE☭-aesetic worshiping shit. The commieblocks in eastern europe were a result of their situation where they had a very large housing deficit, and needed to build adequate housing quickly. America and actually most of the west has a surplus of housing where are plenty of homes are sitting empty. We don't need mass housing like the soviets did.
knows whats up.

Rewilding if there is no agricultural or industrial need. Demolish empty houses, don't allow plots to be resold, pay homeowners who want to move out a lump sum (depending on how transitional your power still is).

< we'll we be force-fed apples or oranges?
Let's suggest we will not be force-fed.

How do you want it to be distributed?

Libraries, orphanages, schools, hospitals …

Everyone will get suites in hotels.

Those pictures aren’t of Commie Blocks. That’s public housing in Manhattan, NYC.


Would Socialism speed up, or slow down Urbanization.

I would say that the housing should be managed by those living in them rather than by an agency or, in the case of our society, private organizations receiving public funds.

No, that is how a socialist system always turn out.

wow it is almost like socialism/communism really sucks…. go figure

Spotted the reactionary

I'd expect to see local communes where nearly all services, and workplaces, are integrated in a neighborhood of a few hundred people. This was how it worked in Maoist China.

There were also some intriguing architectural experiments in 20s Russia. Machu Picchu-style skyscrapers with gardens on the terraces for example.

BTW in Russia mansions got turned over for mass housing, you can put hundreds in a mansion, kinda like when anarchists squat huge buildings.

Marx talks about eliminating the difference between city and country, which I think means population dispersal, the creation of zones halfway between urban and rural. Today I'd expect this to be eco-socialist with a lot of self-build, local electricity generation, collective self-reliance, and decentralisation of industry (again Maoism is the closest precedent, and maybe anarchist visions such as bolo'bolo).

Ward Churchill had an interesting plan for the US West in his "indigenous anarchism" article. Back in the days before idpol became so corrupt, it wasn't taboo to come up with actual proposals.

links please

I don't see how this is socialist. Isn't the end goal to not have to move everywhere just to have a job?

That's *why* I'm a communist in the first place. I hate moving for jobs and having to always be uprooted. This "nomadic" lifestyle sucks ass. I just want to have a place called home that I can afford.

Every time threads like this show up on leftypol it ruins my idealist vision of what life in a communist society would be like, and just reminds me that I’d be stuck living in a shitty Soviet style cramped concrete apartment complex under state socialism. I’d personally rather live homeless in the woods, then be subjected to that shit.


what else is it good for? you could make it a nature reserve, sure. but farmland closer to cities is better than distant farmland as it reduces wasteful shipping costs.

Lmao no I'd rather stay in capitalism if that's the case

The US might not need extra food, but with the desertification of Africa, other people will.

Wow, it gets even more dystopian by the minute. Will we have to ship these people the food out of the kindness of our hearts, or will we just ship them here so the US can become even more of an overcrowded urban hellscape?

I can't wait to get rid of capitalism, the future is so bright!

It is capitalism that created the environmental degradation that makes these measures necessary. Btw, if you're frightened of farming or nigger immigrants, wait until you see all the unproven geoengineering schemes that will be tried.

Spoken like a true commissar. Always making excuses for shitting on someone else.

Speaking of state capitalism… Realistically you'd need ☭TANKIE☭ levels of statism to enact drastic levels of social engineering like this; most people aren't going to uproot themselves and LITERALLY bulldoze their own communities just because some committee says it'd be mean not to.

Well mostly I'm afraid of getting shoved in a box in a city somewhere to benefit someone I've never met, that I have nothing in common with. As it stands I'm in a comfy house in the suburbs, my own backyard I can use whenever I want, no noisy neighbors stomping around.

Leave it to Holla Forums to make "workers of the world, unite!" sound like a spook.

At least you can boast about beating stalin's death count.



False equivalency much?

What the fuck? He didn't even make an equivalency you illiterate knuckle dragging ding dong.

Did you read the whole tread?

…yyyyyyyyyes, and he's speaking literally, without using analogies or metaphors, directly about the subject of the thread: housing

You don't have to destroy all the suburbs, just a lot of it. You can renovate the rest too. The fact is, it's a horribly inefficient and wasteful way to organize cities, and it must be done away with.
Note, standalone housing can be done WAY more efficiently than it is in America. Putting the streets onto a grid system again and replacing the front/back yards with gardens or more housing would go a long way. Japanese-style standalone housing is not ideal, but it is more sustainable.

What’s wrong? If you think there’s something wrong with nu-housing brought to you by the best, and brightest minds socialism can produce, then you’re probably just a homophobe afraid of real progress.

I thought the whole point of communism was to serve human ends, not treat us like widgets to be stuffed in shelves in service of some numerical god we hold above all else (eg capital, efficiency metrics)

Nevermind good sir, I humbly apologize for my error.


I’m not, I’m a fucking agrarian.

Agriculture exportation is a good excuse to keep America Rural. I’m advocating for the opposite of Urbanism.

How does it serve human ends to waste hours in your day on a commute? How does it serve humans to have to drive everywhere rather than doing something healthy like biking or walking and taking a train? How does it serve human ends to have a shitload of pollution and global warming? How does it serve human ends to be distant and anonymous from all your neighbors? How does it serve our ends to have suburbs taking up space that COULD be used for nice and spacious condos and apartments? You are a fucking idiot mate.

Fuck your McMansion, idiot.

This is just the other side of the same coin of porky housing. The rich get disgusting McMansions and the poor get crammed into slums and bunkbeds. Both have to be replaced with dignified and sustainable housing.

Single people without special needs will likely be placed in dorm like housing under socialism if they don't want to live with their families. There's nothing wrong with just having a room and a bed.

They will be called NEETshacks.

Of course single people should live in smaller housing. But no fucking bunkbeds. Give us poor bastards some privacy. Studio apartments are perfectly fine to have under communism. Barring that, at least bed/bath units with a shared living room and kitchen, and some fucking noise insulation so we don't have to hear our flatmates banging.

You fucking retards would end up burning fossil fuels by the fucking CRUISE LINER, in failed relocation efforts. Farming consumes an insane amount of petroleum product, and the best solution you goofy Mother fuckers can come up with is to create more of it, by bulldozing entire cities down, to put up glorified concrete apartment complexes, next to empty fields, that used to be part of said city. You want to destroy the surplus of housing to fulfill some ☭TANKIE☭ masterbation fantasy, and for that, you’re a moron, and you’re entire system would collapse. But I guess it “wasn’t real socialism that time XD”.

What the fuck are you smoking? Stalinists are the best at forced relocation. Unironically.

Holy fucking GENIUS, LET'S JUST sToP FARm,iNG?!?!?!

fucking kill yourself you retard

Today, the average Russian apartment is 624 square feet, and has 3.1 residents, with most of the construction dating back to the soviet era. That's not so far off from the conditions for the vast majority of people in the coastal cities of the USA today. From experience, I can say that four people can live in 1000 square feet with a great deal of comfort, and a guest or two can be accommodated on top of that if you are willing to adhere to a rigid schedule for access to the bathroom. Three people in 624 square feet is manageable, so long so everyone maintains some level of hygiene and they don't all just sit around inside all day. I have friends who lived like that after college.

Meat farming is hilariously inefficient and consumes water and emits greenhouse gases, though. So we will have to go vegan, until synthetic meat research reaches completion, anyway.

Have you never stayed over with family? Never lived in a college dormitory? It's really not that bad.

I never said anything about meat. Yes, we'll have to cut back on that, primarily cattle. Burgers are burgeois anyway.

Murdering capitalists is very eco-friendly. No, I am not joking.

Housing in coastal cities is the minority, not the majority. Nice try at a false equivalency though, moron. Nice try at attempting to suggest we copy the most dog shit model for the majority of America because some asshole in NYC will pay half a mill, to live in a tiny apartment, stacked on top of 50 other apartments ;^)

Steaks are bourgeois moreso than burgers
Burgers are known for being cheap for a reason and certain cuts of steak are known for being expensive for a reason
The "American"/capitalist dream is to start your own successful business and be able to eat filet mignon for dinner every day, not eat burgers ever day

People are already being forced to concentrate themselves in and near cities by the market, so I doubt any sort of urbanization initiative will be necessary. Even in towns a few dozen miles away from New York City, a lot of the construction in the last few years has been mid and high rise buildings near the train station rather than the single family homes more traditionally associated with the suburbs. The small town is dead, the suburbs are starting to become the next casualty (inland California has more than a few empty housing developments), and the US government has yet to send around commissars to promote urbanization.

This isn't 1905, with plaster walls and concrete between floors you won't hear them at all.

“I know the new state-socialist housing model destroyed the vast majority of our city, including our family home, b-b-but they promised the housing blocks will be built any year now! If not maybe we can apply to be relocated to a farm, r-right?”


In 2010, 123.3 million people, or 39 percent of the nation’s population lived in counties directly on the shoreline.

That's a plurality and that's JUST people living directly on coastline. You are a fucking idiot Burger, go back to >>>Holla Forums.

I've lived in apartments, I've lived in college dorms, I've lived in townhouses. I can say unequivocally that I would do anything in my power to prevent having to go back to living like that.

Yeah? And I'm not, and I'd like it to stay that way.

The Feds aren't going to come knocking on my door any time soon using eminent domain to bulldoze my house just because they feel it's inefficient.

Sasuga, ☭TANKIE☭s.

OK you fucking Kulak, so go live in the countryside if you like it so much. We don't want your booj ass near us either.

sasuga liberals

Who could be behind this post?

wow, socialism sounds like a fucking paradise
Well maybe because people like having their own fucking spaces mate, did you ever think of that?


People also enjoy having a habitable biosphere. Did you ever think of `that`?

Jesus christ Holla Forums

Suburrbs are extremely wasteful and are unsustainable.

Okay, what are the other options? You really think that the immense resources consumed by suburban living really can't be better applied to the service of humanity in any other way? Without so much industrial product dedicated to automobiles and the consumption of a ridiculous amount of fuel and electricity for transportation, heating, and cooling, and massive investment in a network of roads requiring regular expansion, suburban living becomes totally untenable. So many people could be freed up to do something else, reducing work per person and giving everyone a bounty of leisure, if people just lived in a somewhat less wasteful way.

In socialism money won’t exist.

Shot nah, but you should be sent to a reeducation camp for a month or so so that you won't keep regurgitating all this nonsense. If you think it's necessary for you to keep ruining the planet with you shitty SUV and McMansion, you are a Kulak.

I feel like the ☭TANKIE☭ ideas espoused in threads like these, were the reason the United States was scared so shitless, it was willing to use literal doomsday weapons just to keep you sick motherfuckers at bay from the rest of human civilization.

Hey farmland is good. Farming is an occupation that leaves people able to do anything else they want during the winter. It also helps keep people fit and is all around a good occupation to do.

The USA literally invented suburbs to instill a petty booj mindset in its proles, you are living evidence that they succeeded.

Yeah? Plenty of people desire their own single family house with a yard.

Commuting is necessary only because of capitalism which drives people to live in urban hellscapes, people can choose to live outside of city centers where space is abundant, you know

it's ok to have opinions
it's not ok to destroy huge swaths of communities because you don't like suburbs

wew, what's it like to be an orwellian parody of a human being


There's literally nothing wrong with forced education. Nearly every civilized country on earth has forced education for young people. We should have it for criminals, traitors, and lunatics like you as well.


I do not have high hopes for the future, especially of mass-urban society. I honestly envision a future of 'barbarism' where we will be squatting random buildings and just trying to survive.

To be sure I think of 'housing' as meaning place to sleep. I believe in free use of space, anyone should be able to sleep anywhere. If someone is concerned about commie blocks, go the fuck outside and use your place as a flophouse. What's the issue for me is the use of space. I would set up a tent just about anywhere suitable.

Big houses should be used to house more people as or have their use decided upon by the people who live in the area. The imagination is the limit. For me, hand in hand with free use of space and communal housing comes communal living in all its aspects which we can combine and experiment with. For the people who balk at our ideas I say "If we're scared of one another/
Must be scared of our self"

From "Appel"
"The communist question is about the elaboration of our relationship to the world, to beings, to ourselves. It is about the elaboration of the play between different worlds, about the communication between them. Not about the unification of world space, but about the institution of the sensible, that is to say the plurality of worlds…So communism starts from the experience of sharing. And first, from the sharing of our needs.Needs are not what capitalist rule has accustomed us to. To need is never about needing things without at the same time needing worlds. Each of our needs links us, beyond all shame, to everything that feels it. The need is just the name of the relationship through which a certain sensible being gives meaning to such or such element of his world. That is why those who have no worlds – metropolitan subjectivities for instance – have nothing but whims."

Annon, farming is required in order to live, and the world population is growing. You might want to live extremely wasteful, but I want to have three-five kids.

What, other than the fact that, instead of changing your social system to fit more with people, you put a gun up against someone's head and instead try to change THEM?

Dialectics bitch

I have little patience. kys.

Socialism does this, changing the social system to fit more with people requires punishing the minority who want to wreck it.

Yep, it'll be fun to hear you squeal when the revolution comes.

I don't have to imagine it, because I've already been there, and it was hell.

The material condition of my reality is I like having my own walls (inb4 you call me booj, personal property faggots) and being able to bring my friends over on fridays in a non communal space.

Burgers ere brought to America by prols from the German city of Hamberg who were chased out of Germany because they feared political persecution for participating in socialist uprisings of 1848. Burgers if anything is a socialist food.

Well civilization is usually made up of people who aren't herded into high rises, that's a very recent phenonmenon and it brings along all sorts of problems
What does that have to do with living space?

Burgers are literally named after the burg, which is what bourgeois comes from.

None of what you wrote necessitates single family home.

Those would be feudal aristocrats.

Well civilization is usually made up of people who aren't herded into suburbs, that's a very recent phenonmenon and it brings along all sorts of problems

No, not really. Small towns/Villages are still around. Yes there expernicing a bit of population loss, but it isn’t that much, and it can be solved if they just had some more kids. However, yes Suburbia is dieing.

Well I like having bonfires, and neighbors tend to complain when you start one in your living room

Well actually there's plenty of examples of families having their own homes. Only very rarely do entire communities live in a single domicile


Your one special snowflake hobby is weak justification for how society organizes living spaces.

Also they're not really my walls if my neighbor decides he likes to blast salsa at 3am every thursday

the suburb literally did not exist until post WWII.

You'll still have a yard, it'll be the people's yard and you can start a bonfire on it, as long as you clean up your shit, I, the NKVD thug won't bother you. By the way, your personal preferences mean jack shit in the face of poverty, exploitation, and unsustainable resource extraction. Suck my dick.

We said that most of former Suburbia would be turned into farmland. Because milenials are moving to the cities by the time revolution comes most houses in Suburbia will be vacent. If you want a house you can live in a rural area.

Are socialist apartments going to be the modern equivalent of the moral panic over the "community of women?"

Wow, you sure convinced me! Truly if I just give up everything about what I like and what I enjoy doing, and conform to a lifestyle I abhor, I'll live in paradise!

Thank you communism! You've opened my eyes! I'm ready to crush the oppressor that wants to destroy my way of life by sucking me dry over arcane metrics of efficiency!

Only for suburb shits.

Eat your vegetables, bitch

Wew laddio no fucking thanks I already said I've lived in apartment complexes and dorms, communal spaces are hellscapes of rubbernecking busybodies.

This. Me and my family have been moving around our entire lives, because my dad kept having to move across the midwest to work every 1-2 years. It wasn't until I turned 16 that they finally settled in, but by then I was nearing the end of living with my parents. I never really had a lot of irl friends since I wouldn't know any long enough. Everything just sucked. I wish I stayed in the town when I was 13, nice and comfy.

Yeah, under capitalism they suck, when we've wiped society of retarded social barriers everyone will actually have free time and meaningful relationships.

1. Proper construction makes this irrelevant. 2. If you're unwilling to participate in democratic decision making with your neighbor, why would you want to participate in democratic society.

Hobby idpol, the worst idpol.


But I thought houses were ebul inefficiency? Won't some glorious revolutionary architect create a beautiful gray brutalist housing complex to save space for a few more ears of corn to grow?

Doesn’t change the fact that it’s a prol food.

this but unironically fam

If that's my bed, where am I going to smash my gf?

The agricultural industry will continue to exist, so will rural communities, except now they'll be able to afford their equipment and farm sustainable now that the profit motive is gone.

Only if it’s suburban houses. Rural houses, aren’t inefficient because it’s the only way to house people in rural areas, and we need rural areas to exist for purposes of agriculture and mining.

How about you eat your vegetables, you fucking toddler, they're good for you

Is this unironically, actually a joke board? Am I being ebin troled right now?

Well, corpses produce less greenhouse gases.

You mean your state issued gf? At the state brothel of course.

You will have sex in communal spaces. Privacy is a booj illusion sold to you by porky.

Your identity and political stance is determined by your hobby preference. Maybe mental illness is a better descriptor.

Indigenous people have been fucking in their teepees and Hogans forever, frankly if you can't fuck your state issued gf in public, you don't love her and one of you needs to be reassigned.

Conceivably you could still build a high rise in a rural community.

It seems unreasonable and stupid, but you're talking about soulless ☭TANKIE☭ efficiency-seeking robots that might as well be capitalists

They have no economic basis. Agriculture is mechanized enough that it can no longer support a town (unless they want to be subsistence farmers), and manufacturing is becoming increasingly automated and what hasn't been sent overseas is concentrated in second and third tier cities. If the birthrate in small towns went up, all that could happen is that either most of the children would leave after high school, as they have been doing, or the towns unemployment would spike and the area would slowly become a slum.

What I would like you to understand that there is difference only in content and not the form between civilization, its offshoot public education, and 'forced' re-education. It is always a matter of force and coercion. Civilization must always civilize others who do not know the glorious ways of sewers, books, Culture, etc. I am so you understand my other views.

Yeah the actual material conditions that I have to live with on a day to day basis sounds like the exact fucking opposite of idpol to me friendo

lots of right wing communists in Holla Forums I guess

privacy is a spook lad


No ☭TANKIE☭s, we aren't going to bulldoze millions of peoples perfectly comfortable homes just so we can ship the worlds entire population into farming communes or colossal megacities. All we need to do is get rid of sub standard housing and expropriate the properties and lands of the bourgeoisie, building socialism is about improving peoples quality of life and this can and most likely will include giving people more spacious homes and more material comforts, not forcing everyone to live ascetically and collectively. Stop scaring people away with your autism.

Oh shoosh.


Glorious state capitalist republic has already found old german war camps in western poland! They are already being repurposed into reeducation camps as we speak!

That would be a wast of resorce. Tell me how in McFarmtown population 200 you’l have enough people to build a highrise for. Also rural areas aren’t incresing in population. There is no need for additional housing. Also suburban homes last like fifty years on advrege before needing repares. Rural homes last over 200.

The problem is that the most sustainable form of agriculture is the most labor depending form of it. We could have sustainable agriculture if we gutted all fracking jobs in rural areas and replaced it with with sustainable agriculture. But that isn’t profitable in capitalism. Even if we used unstable, highly mechanized forms of agriculture, we would need at least some people in rural areas to farm, and other to provide nessicary serves, like electricity and education. Also rural areas are nessocary for most mining operations.

Cities should do away with the need for cars, theyre expensive, inefficient, made to break down and lose value. Yes, a massive urban restructuring is needed so fuck off with your shit

Building anything that's tall enough to need a steel frame in a rural area is only slightly less silly and inefficient than forcing expressways though major cities.

No, you fucking four. Next you'll tell me it's a bad idea to ban usage of cars in cities instead of public transport.

Suburbia in the US was created to benefit car companies, not people. Urban sprawl needs to be recognized as another shitty leftover that makes people's lives worse and kills class consciousness, along with racism.

LMAO at all the petty bouj suburb-loving children who are being exposed ITT.

alright hold the fucking phone there bucko
is supposed to be inefficient? I was under the impression that traffic is like blood, you need major "arteries" to get in and out or it's a congested mess 24/7

Pearl clutchers never went away, they just changed shape

Sounds liberal af, m9

Environmentalists ain't got shit on ☭TANKIE☭s.

Why waste good infrastructure, they even come with showers to wash the lice from all the NEETs.

Just ban cars within cities.


>>>Holla Forums

200 beds? Easy enough! Can fit on maybe two, three floors tops! That's 49 evil inefficient baby penguin suffocating housing units eliminated! Another win for environmental efficiency, brought to you by socialist freedom!

Not everywhere on the planet is burgerstan when you have to drive for half an hour to get to the nearest supermarket or bar or whatever, I live in the suburbs in the UK and I have pretty much all the things I need less than a ten minute walk away and the nearest major city half an hour on the train away. (I don't own a car) Stop acting like anything that isnt a farm or a city centre looks like Los Angeles, a decent sized house, some privacy and quiet and a little parcel of green land attatched to it is something most proles want but can't afford and they shouldn't have to give it up.

We're not talking about "standalone" houses that are crammed together like in Britain. We are specifically talking about American petty booj PSYOP houses.

I dont live in burgerstan asswipe, I live in PR and the urban sprawl is fucking horrible, some municipalities are just glorified suburbs. Congrats on living on somewhere that dosent require a car to go 20kms to work faggot


But user, those houses are wildly inefficient! Think of all the space you could save if you turned the back porch into a communal shower!

They are. And "small cities" need to be turned into arcologies.

Silly? Maybe. Inefficient? I challenge you to prove it. I used to work in a tool and die factory that was surrounded by steel and concrete warehouses in the middle of nowhere.

what is happening to leftypol

Pic related is the best way to organize society in order to reduce alienation and efficiency, and maximize community.

No, because British Suburbs aren’t five hundred miles away from some non-procesed food.

That’s because labor is cheeper in rural areas. Not because it’s more efficient.

You might as well argue for collaborating with the bourgeoisie.

thats wrong, eliminate the city alltogether if you dont want alienation

I like how you assume that people are still going to live in atomized housing instead of communalized housing, you really are petty-bourgeois! No house is going to be the property of one "prole"!

see that's what I thought, fuck the entire reason cities exist as they do today is because of profit motives driving people to live in cramped boxes, if it weren't for capitalism there would be no need to centralize all production

all these tanks seem to want to prove otherwise however


WITHOUT sprinkling re-education magic pixie dust


Shut up, Pol Pot.

As much as I’d like to have a purely agrarian society, the reality is there is to many people on Earth for it be that way. But once humans start colonizing other planes, said planets should be banned from the construction of suburbs or cities.

There's literally nothing wrong with this

That will never happen and if it did, all you would do is condemn outlying planets to be imperial subjects of earth.

Guys I got a great idea. Let’s put cities in cliffsides. this will maximize space for farmland/natural parks. While at the same time give every person who lives in a city a beautiful view.

It wouldn’t be imperial status of Earth. It’s have the same status as modern day countries here.

forgot pic related

We wouldn’t be bulldozing cites. We’d be bulldozing Suburbia. Adding a bit to the cites, and turning the rest into farm villages.



fugg I deleted a post by accident


You were indulging traditionalism like a dumbass, anyway.

If your community is a village It won’t be bulldozed. If you’re community is fie hundred miles away from where you work and twenty miles away from food then you’ll be incentivized to move.

Hey I can dismiss important stuff too
See? Hey hows about we level Lenins mausoleum while we're at it? Or is that different?(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

But I won't need to be incentivized. The lack of capitalist incentivization to work in the city will already save us all on transportation costs, simply because I will be able to work locally.

???that looks nice though. It looks nice because I have a fucking brain and can tell it's efficient and communal.

If you're against efficiency, you're an enemy of the working class.

The more, and more this thread continues, the more, and more images like this start to make sense.


Stop false-flagging.

Lenin wanted to be buried next to his wife, btw.

No, actually, being an enemy of the working class means you're a capitalist trying to extract surplus labor. You seem t o be confused.

Holla Forums was taken over by retarded ☭TANKIE☭ wannabe-commissars, that doesn't mean socialism isn't the future

You will have to pay labor vouchers for your car and gassoline. Suburbia will be deincentivised in favor of villages and cities.

It’s a historical monument. Bulldozing that would be like bulldozing the Eiffel tower.

But I won't need all that gasoline because I won't be driving 40 miles round trip every day into the hell on earth that is the city. I won't need to maintain my car nearly as much, because I'll only take it long-distance on trips of leisure when the mood strikes me. I can work locally, as I've already said.

Furthermore, as long as we're still in a state capitalist society that uses totally-not-capital that is labor vouchers, the cost of living is usually higher, not lower, in the city.

They aren't exchanged, the center of capital is exchange, you're dumb

"Muh history! Muh culture!" as one ☭TANKIE☭ put it.

Go ahead and build a massive state arm to prevent proxy currencies from being invented to allow trade instead of just building a moneyless society like marx intended

This is for all you ☭TANKIE☭ fuckheads. Here I have two images, it’s of Turlock, a city in California’s Central Valley, a major agricultural spot, it’s a very common type of city in the Central Valley, and it’s a city I love. It has a population of just over 70,000, and is 92 miles from the capitol. (That’s 1 1/2 hour drive using the interstate). I have labeled the industry, housing, and roads/highways for you. Please enlighten me as to how this model of a city is “unsustainable”, and should have the majority of its housing for the prols bulldozed. Also to all you claiming suburbs encourages, or necessitate the use of cars, It’s only a 4 to 5 mile fucking bike ride to get from one end of the city to the next, you don’t even need public transportation for a model like this, it doesn’t consume “a fuck load” of fossil fuels to have a city like this. So go ahead fuckheads, convince me that this model can’t work under communism…

Tfw, I feel bad for all those peasants who’re going to have there land taxes/rent jacked up because some LA fags decide it’s a good idea to build a suburb in the middle of there fields.

Those houses are on some of the most fertile land in the US.

Why would you build industry there under socialism?

Point is, the majority of the Central Valley is still perfectly fine farmland. This model isn’t incompatible with communism, and we still get to enjoy the environment of living in a suburb. It’s literally a win-win. This model could be adopted all over the country, and it would be fine. Commie blocks are a thing of the past, and this should be the new model.

Waste of farmland and fuel.
Pure idealism. People won't ride their bike because it sucks. The suburb sucks. It's designed for cars, period.

Yep it actually does. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears going "nah nah nah."

but it's NOT ENJOYABLE, it's scientifically proven to be bad for people's mental AND physical health in every way. we don't give a fuck about your sociopathic needs for isolation from everyone.

Still you’re building on land that was traditionally farmland. In order to build these types of developments you have to force peasants out of there family farms. And you raise up the rent way higher for all the peasants around you. Forcing them out of there homes to. Suburban developments require kicking peasants out of there homes. Urban developments don’t. There is no way around that fact.

Weasel words. By who?

why not? Remember, market forces pulls industry together. It is the dollar that is to blame for urbanization.


Well if you've read it surely you can provide the scientific studies it cites.

The less resources and labor you need to expend, the less work there is to do, the more leisure time for everyone. Suburbcuckery work like cleaning the gutters and shoveling enormous amounts of snow won't go away after the last of the bourgeoisie capitulates, construction can't be automated for the foreseeable future, and even if all cars start running on electricity produced via solar power they still constitute an enormous investment of material.

So why not just keep the suburbs and move the work from the city to the suburbs (you know, with socialism, because the MoP are freely available to everyone, so you can do that now), thus eliminating commuting, killing the problem in the first place without literally bulldozing entire communities?

Alright, so what sort of work will you be doing?

I'm a tradesman and I enjoy my work immensely, so probably that.

However, if it'll keep me out of the city, honestly I'd spend my time doing anything that needs doing.

Because the maintenance of the suburbs requires much more basic human labor than the maintenance of an urban area. This is inescapable.

Do you want to be a farmer?

Ah, it's a good thing we'd live in a post scarcity Marxist society, so we can invest resources into whatever we please! Thank God we wouldn't be bound by despotic, detached state capitalists sending policy down from mt olypmus, preventing us from achieving our goals because some dim bureaucrat said it was a waste!




meant for

Don't hold your breath. If it takes more than a few decades after a hypothetical revolution to achieve post scarcity, any suburbs that still exist will require considerable reinvestment and decisions will need to be made.


youre not talking to a vanguardist

Climate change denialists get exterminated.

Do you see the achievement of the technological basis for post-scarcity as the necessary precondition for a revolution?

By the time communists have to seriously worry about housing issues so much of the surface of the Earth will be uninhabitable anyway that our hands will be forced, I guess.

lol you're literally petty booj and you love suburbs, what a surprise

All of the Earth will be rendered a nuclear wasteland before communists ever have the chance to claw into power even in one country, nevermind all of them, or even do something to save everyone, so no worries, humanity is a self-correcting problem.

So in conclusion folks

If you thought living in a dilapidated apartment complex in a shitty crime filled neighborhood besides a polluted highway was bad, wait until you live under true socialism!

Well, there will be less crime under socialism for a start.

6/10. Bait harder, faggot


Get that weak shit outta here, Holla Forums.

guys, are there futuristic venus project styles of architecture too? i want the socialist future to look really futuristic

Won’t exist in socialism, because there will be no incentive to do crime.

Won’t exist under socialism because socialists actually care about the environment.

The expansion of suburbs require kicking peasants out of there home. This is why suburbs suck.

You realize people don’t need an incentive to rape, murder, and abuse other people right?

You realize that the vast majority of crime isn't lurid rubbish like you see on TV, right?

Stems from mental illness treatable by socialized medicine.
See above.
Socialist economics by themselves won't solve abusive relationships. However, if you're talking about organized crime and protection rackets (AKA, the Mafia), they essentially evaporated in the Soviet Union, and only came back with a vengeance once it collapsed.

People are simply products of the material conditions they were born into. Frankly, I don't think you've ever stopped to consider why crime exists, and the proven methods to reduce or even eliminate it.

Also this.

Most people already live in appartments, it's not a big deal. But I'm on the 5-story mixed use side of the debate as I dislike both commieblocks and suburban hell.