Liberals are conservatives, they are capitalist authoritarians, you understand that right?

Liberals are center right to center left depending on the degree. Liberals are not conservatives. You are confusing left and right, which is more defined. Liberals are not routinely labeled as authoritarian. Authoritarianism can happen in any political direction but routinely not associated which current western liberalism.

Oh and on the other hand, British mass social housing for working class emerged because of King George's WW1 realization that better fed and kept humans give more durable cannon fodder, after comparing British and German soldiers. At crown's command, no socialism required.

Okay, so a person says

We have a very simple purity test, don't support genocide or wars on the global south and we have no issue with you.

and then, in the course of responding to them, you write,

I'm not going to aid fascists by out casting moderates. You can do that and reap what you sow.

What moderates are being outcast by the proposed purity test? Is supporting half of the genocide moderate enough to be included? Is supporting half of the proxy wars moderate enough to be included? Which people, holding pro-genocide attitudes, do you think we should be trying to include, to beat the fascists?

The whole >90% of territory never saw a foot of German soldier was not where most of the destroyed urban housing stock stood. The war destroyed over 1,700 towns and 70,000 villages, which was roughly half the urban housing stock in the most populated and industrial regions, and left about 25 million people homeless.

Many houses were built by workers in their spare time after work, on a land granted by the state and using construction materials provided by the factory or plant they worked at, but that was a supplement to state reconstruction, not proof that war ruin was secondary.

The barracks aging is precisely what created the need for khrushchevkas in late 50s and early 60s onwards. Then brezhnevki with some improvements over bare minimal comfort of previous gen, and eventually from 70s onwards to the end of soviets the massive prefab took hold. There were countless experimental projects at different times and in different configurations, from 3 storey alpha builds of Khrushchevkas to Kyiv’s Podil 4 blocks project of late 80s, but all of it was a response to the war-created housing deficit, not a response to industrialization alone as you falsely claim.

Aggressive industrialization wasn’t the fundamental explanation for the scale and duration of the postwar housing construction program. Wartime destruction was the main driver.

It really helps to actually learn about the subjects before you start braying about them.

Even if it’s a meme, and it rips the piss out of liberals or whatever, such mistakes make them easy target and work only in echo chambers

That would require liberals to read so they know what you just said. Quite rare.

Wrong, liberalism is fundamentally a right wing ideology. Full stop. https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/the-dialectics-of-domination

I'm not American, I'm British. Towns and cities all across Europe are filled with "5 over 1s" and similar, and it's fine, and works well. Just because the US can't not fuck it up, doesn't mean it doesn't work for everyone else.

Solving homelessness isn’t aesthetically pleasing enough? I know a certain GERMAN political party that agrees with your sentiment…

Lemmy.ml user try not to accuse another user of being a Nazi for literally no credible reason challenge: impossible.

We're a discussion about architecture and urban planning, my dude. Commie blocs solved the homelessness relatively quickly and relatively cheaply. Great. Fantastic. That doesn't they were best and most ideal solution possible at the time, and it certainly doesn't mean they're the best and most ideal solution now.

Now, as it stands, I don't think commie blocks are that bad, I just felt like pointing out that your arguments seemed somewhat unserious, but in case you're curious, here are the things I think are non-ideal about commie blocks:

• People tend to prefer "human scale" architecture in places that are supposed to be comfortable and large clusters of high rise buildings tend to make people feel small.
• They require steel and concrete to build, which is a concern in terms of carbon footprint, whereas 5 over 1s and similarly sized buildings can get away with using wooden frame construction.
• High rises cost more per occupant to maintain than a similarly constructed mid rise, as a general rule.
• The need for access to lighting, etc. means that the buildings must be spaced a fair distance apart, so the effective footprint still ends up being similar to a wider-based mid rise bulding. And while this does allow for green space, it's green space that has to be kept low (so as not to interfere with the lower floors) and needs constant maintenance, so it tends to be fairly bland.
• The physical separation between the blocks and the reliance on public transport to reach facilities tends to promote social isolation in a similar way to suburbs.
• High rises mean that the vast majority of the occupants must either rely of lifts (and there are never enough working lifts) or be able-bodied and fit.

If you're asking me what I'd prefer instead, I'm thinking something like Eixample.

If people are okay with, say, me and my family being genocided just because of where we were born, why should I care whether they identify as moderate or whatever else? Again, don't agree with genocide and wars on our countries and you're welcome. It's not that much to ask lmao.

No, homelessness is for them a low, low price for having capitalism.

It is not. Not is the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

The term varies by location. Left and right is usually more standardized. Also liberals by any definition are usually not regarded as authoritarian. Full stop.

homelessness is not a price to pay. It is a tool because it incentivises people to subject themselves to wage labour

You do support the right of liberals to be moderate over my right to be alive and my country to not be invaded, based on your own words. You also don't even know how to spell Uyghur, nor anything else on the matter.

This makes no sense from anything I wrote. Absolutely no sense. And I don't proof read my spelling, that I apologize on.

In order; Palestine(genocide commited by your countries), Ukraine(Not a genocide, false myth by Banderite fascists), Uyghurs(Not a genocide, false myth by Zenz, a German who has never put one foot in Xinjiang), Darfur(Genocide backed by NATO and friends)

If those kids could read.jpg?

are usually not regarded as authoritarian

Despite two of the primary liberal countries, the US and UK, genociding entire continents.

The liberal political system of bourgeios "democracy" is a much more effective system at genocide than even fascist governments.

This is completely incorrect.

why

The capitalist military industrial complex

Just because the US can’t not fuck it up, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for everyone else.

That isn’t even close to what I said :( My point is what you’re describing is based on commie blocks and have had more time to develop. But yes as you pointed out, the US can’t not fuck it up, you are totally correct there, and there are some in America that are better than mine (still expensive junk mini-malls, but more fun to hang out in)

Like, this urban planning was ahead of its time, and you are right about the infrastructure and the lighting, the mid/high rises, but the purpose of communist blocks was quickly built, free housing after the war. If they were built like prisons, those prisons are humanely built. lol. Socialist model of urban planning was ahead of its time.

If you’ve never been to America, you wouldn’t understand what I mean by walking around one of these!

It's so incredibly clear when someone talks about soviet housing without setting a foor in one. You can say a lot about those, but saying the word quality about them will be actually a crime. For example, mine had a hole between the panels big enough, you could put your hand out and grab loose concrete from the wall. It was 4th floor. My mom had to work 15 years without changing jobs to be able to get one.

They can, they just dont. certainly not something that might make them understand the conditions inside the Soviet Union.

Well, if you want to talk about some Soviet vegetables, we can.

The fascists and the ‘moderates’ will bridge the gap. Think of the German SDP working with the Freikorps. They come from the same money.

They don't even have to be communists, per say. Just being Asian and unaligned is enough. Or Haitian, for that matter.

The exact context in which the word “quality” was used, since you seem to have glossed over it was:

they were made with enough quality that they are still used today

No one said that these are high quality homes. They said that the caliber of build was strong enough to still be inhabitable 80ish years later.

This keeps coming up in different threads - I hope you'll receive the following as useful, and not combative. I occasionally get to feeling grumpy and dunky but this isn't a long subtle road toward that.

You have a somewhat unique and actually beautiful opportunity here ("here" meaning Lemmy in general, and this specific thread) - one that is hard to find elsewhere, at any rate.

There are well-educated people (obvs not everyone) with very different learned and lived POVs from yours, here. And there is an asymmetry that you're either missing or denying. These folks who you think you might need to educate about western / US flavored liberalism? They have heard what you're saying, considered those ideas in a broader context than you have, and rejected those interpretations. It isn't some missed knowledge you're sharing like you imagine, or some correction you're making to someone else's limited understanding.

You're missing this, and I really want you to not, for your benefit first, but for all of us - it truly is you, in this case, who has much to learn and little to teach.

Don't shut that personal growth out by being defensive, it doesn't lead anywhere. It leads to intellectual death, the ending of internal development, a death sadder than the final one. There's much to learn and you have a truly golden opportunity to do so, here.

Start with just asking yourself "what if I'm wrong? I'm probably not, that's the most likely outcome, but what if? What brain doors open when I try to find out?"

[Edit: to put a finer point on this attempt, I can remember enough of how I used to be "you", hence the unremarked assumptions about you I made throughout. If being "correct" matters, it simply can't be done with only the info you're allowing in at the moment. Best wishes.]

Yeah, I figuredy sarcasm was obvious here given what this thread is about, but I forgot about the terminally online Lemmy users who always choose the interpretation they can get the most mad about.

Believe you me, they are used today not by choice. You need to stretch the definition of inhabitable significantly to include 80 years old mass construction buildings in it. Unless those Theseus shipped over the decades, but even then. Buildings from ancient Rome still standing today, it's really not that big of a bragging rights to have some of the homes be technically upright after 80 years.
Ironically, the only buildings from post-war era that survived in my hometown are only those that were built by Germans as part of the reparations. Make of that what you will.

No one said they were being used by choice. The very reason behind their original purpose was precisely because people didn’t have anywhere else to live, not because they thought people would genuinely choose to live there over a normal home.

Yes it is, but liberals don't think of it like that. For them the homelessness is the outcome of personal choices meaning that even those that genuinly pity the homeless people will still consider them as victims of their own vices instead of the system that engineered the entire problem as part of the class war they probably hear about but refuse to consider.

They also probably heard and maybe even believe that the socialist states got rid of the problem, but again, never think it's because under socialism homelessness is not a class domination enforcement tool but a logistic problem. For them it's because the homeless were forced (again, libs think a lot of the homelessness is voluntary) to live in barrack, psychiatric hospital, prison, gulag etc. etc. A price for having freedoms especially that a lib will never think they will have to pay that price someday, right? They are not gamblers/drunks/junkies etc, right?

Housing people is also a taboo topic because of how libs approach to concept of welfare in general, if the lib struggle to pay the rent and has no hope of ever buying their own home, how in the hell can anyone from "undeserving self-inflicted" pariah group just recive one?

The hardest part about getting anything done in America is that every decision has to be approved by people who aren't going to use the solution anyway.

School funding is decided by people who either don't have school-aged children or who send their kids to private schools.
Social Security laws -- which only change to affect future generations of retirees, not current and soon-to retirees -- are decided by retirees.

And so, the ability to put up large apartment complexes (and let's make them nicer and include proper green space and all that) is decided by people who won't live there and who aren't going to walk, bike, or drive to the place where we would build the goddamn housing in the first place.

That's the part that riles me up the most: the number of people who will vote to stop someone else from getting something they need, because the voter doesn't agree with the choice or the outcome. Like, if we could affordably build houses for everyone, Karen P Asshat would vote yes. But ugly apartments? With all the apartment people living there? She votes no.

I've been in politics 35 years now and i have no answer for how to fix that. America is a nation of cockblockers, fundamentally.

"Moderate" genocide.

The whole premise of the meme is that we should be in awe how amazing commyblocks are, and how greatly they survive even to this days.
The reality, that nobody disagrees with, is that post-war USSR very quickly built a bunch of cheap housing that was planned to be gradually replaced by a more nicely built ones, and a lot of them weren't. This isn't controversial, and not worth the meme. So the meme stretches this to mean something else.

Yeah the ones chosen for their similarity to the Moscow cityscape to be sprayed with radioactive cadmium to test the effects of nuclear fallout!

https://proteanmag.com/2022/11/28/pruitt-igoe-a-black-community-under-the-atomic-cloud/

Time for the CIA to activate the student riots one more time

IDK about "open" spots, but many boring/ugly buildings actually get murals painted on them officially.

OP is a russian citizen

I think they're Canadian, or live there at least.

The premise of the meme is that the problem of affordable housing could be very easily solved if the western world was willing to acknowledge that sometimes socialists have good ideas.

This would not necessarily solve the problem of affordable quality housing, but it would be a very effective step in the right direction.

First of all, no, it isn't. Like, textually isn't.
Second, situation in post-war USSR is vastly different from the modern western countries. The problem isn't lack of housing, it's using housing as commodities. If you can create a system that can build millions of shitty crumbling concrete gravestones, you'd better use fraction of this system's power to make laws that prevent commodification of housing, so it becomes affordable, and this will be the better outcome. And that's also one of those good socialist ideas actually.
But again, we're not talking about the original point anymore.

I remember yougthos sending a reply with an image russian passport (I think russian but not sure as I dont read any language tgat uses the cyrrillic script, it could have some other place that also uses the cyrillic script) at one point

Unless it's a data center, those seem to he pretty streamlined at getting approved and built.

These apartments had working plumbing, something most of the people moving into them at the time had never had before. It was a huge step up to most people, regardless of how ugly the buildings look.

First of all, no, it isn't. Like, textually isn't.

Then explain the “Liberals” part of the meme.

The problem isn't lack of housing, it's using housing as commodities. If you can create a system that can build millions of shitty crumbling concrete gravestones, you'd better use fraction of this system's power to make laws that prevent commodification of housing, so it becomes affordable, and this will be the better outcome.

I agree

Straw Man : Annihilated

You picked one of the best parts about the USSR that 90% of liberals would agree was a good thing.

The liberals being banned here is proof of otherwise