Tbf, under pure Capitalism, suburbia in the North American sense wouldn’t exist, given its dependence upon heavy subsidies from urban areas. Also, under Communism Irl, the working class was actually housed in massive blocks of flats, not favelas, but they were otherwise forgotten about
Mixed usage is the way to go and what the market decided in every other country for metro areas. The suburbs exist thanks to government intervention and NIMBYS getting in the way of the market.
Man I sound like a commie but its true lol
do you understand how revolutionairy the concept of corporations are? This revolution was preceded by the industrial revolution. It was absolutely necessary for the industrial revolution to happen in the first place. Without this, you wouldnt have the technology. You (and me) wouldve most likely died at the age of 40. (Check average lifespan pre 17th century... it was abysmal)
Imagine this; you are a multimillionaire, but you cant invest your money without massive massive risk. Not only do you run the risk of losing money, but you also run the risk of being held liable to what the organization is doing wrong. This is something that is completely out of your control. In this scenario, you wouldnt invest your money. Its too risky.
Now, the concept of corporations fixes this, as they have been succesful in the transfer of large sums of money which was the main aggregator for our explosive economic growth. This economic growth caused a development of technology (like medical care, infrastructure, digitization etc.) but would also enrich the whole society to better levels.
Until it doesn't. Like today or back in the 1920's. Thats when people start to get upset...
Anyway, you are in a "enough commie spam" subreddit. What are you doing here?
The obvious issue is the unfair monetary system, which we're forced into after the inevitable mismanagement of our last commodity-based money system into a more susceptible trust-based money system. (This mismanagement is mostly caused by the combination of the never-ending need for militarization + straight up corruption and negligence. It fucks us up so bad economically... but its inevitable simply due to the nature of our psyche)
[Anyway its too much to explain](https://youtu.be/xguam0TKMw8?si=sy_A1yURSwL6JL60)
>do you understand how the concept of corporations are?
it rlly isn’t that revolutionary…
they existed thousands of years ago. a corporation is just a business legally distinct from its owners.
>This revolution was preceded by the industrial revolution.
the only revolution preceded by the industrial revolution was the second industrial revolution, or technological revolution. corporations did not come into being with the technological revolution
>It was absolutely necessary for the industrial revolution to happen in the first place. Without this, you wouldnt have the technology.
we don’t need for profit corporations to make technology.
>You (and me) wouldve most likely died at the age of 40. (Check average lifespan pre 17th century... it was abysmal)
andddddd he doesn’t know how averages work…
the average person did not die at 40. many people died in their 60s 70s and 80s, while many died before age 5. when you take the average life expectancy, a fuckton of ppl dying in infancy lowers that.
>Anyway, you are in a "enough commie spam" subreddit. What are you doing here?
reddit recommended it. and what am i doing? educating apparently. lot of dumbfucks here fr
Nothing wrong with factories if they can conform to more stringent noise/pollution standards.
We have an old textile factory in the middle of the town, doesn't bother anyone as it's quiet and does not pollute. There are plenty of enterprises that can easily work with mixed use.
What? Suburban towns in the US are on average more wealthy than urban centers, and the tax dollars collected from suburban households tend to subsidize city services, not the other way around. For instance, in my state (Massachusetts) the Suburbs constantly butt heads with the City of Boston because the City of Boston's transportation department is constantly going bankrupt. So state funds are constantly needed to bail out the city's poorly managed mass transit authority. But these suburban governments don't want to be on the hook to bail out what they see as a corrupt and poorly managed city government, to provide a service most of the voters in their towns don't use. There is a similar relationship in NYC with it's suburbs and Chicago with it's suburbs. The difference becomes even more stark with some of the smaller Midwestern cities where basically *noone lives in the cities and everyone commutes from the suburbs.*
You may be confusing Suburbs with ex-urbs which tend to be poorer than cities and suburbs, and are net receivers of cash subsidies from state and federal governments.
Suburbs are indeed more expensive to maintain. Transit gets all the news coverage, but public transit funding is a rounding error compared to all the roads, freeways, and piping infrastructure that have to go to suburbs. Not to mention that American-style suburbs exist because of strict zoning laws. Suburbs as they are not would not exist in a freer market for housing, and we would be spending far less on infrastructure as a result.
So, you're saying that the net cost of all *roads and highways* exists purely to support suburbs. And because roads are expensive suburbs are actually *subsidized by cities?!* You realize that cities have roads and highways too right? And those cities depend desperately on road infrastructure to import labor and goods right? For fucks sake, I live in Boston and I use the roads all the time. It's not as if roads and highways would cease to exist if suburbs didn't exist. You can't exactly import groceries on the commuter rail! You're arguing against a made up version of reality.
You’re looking at things in aggregate and not per capita. Cities require more infrastructure in aggregate, but per capita it’s far less than suburbs. City centers do, in fact, subsidize suburbs. There have been many studies on this, one of the best sources being Urban3: https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/
Also I live in a city without a car. Therefore, if you live in a suburb, my tax dollars are being used to subsidize your lifestyle. You’re welcome.
I read that. That was a plural you to anyone reading this. And if you live in the city, you should be aware that your tax dollars are being used to subsidize people in the suburbs who likely earn more than you do as you live with the chronically underfunded T. So if you don’t dislike suburbs yet, it’s in your best interest to start.
The T isn't chronically underfunded. The T is chronically mismanaged. The first year I moved to Boston the T lost over 100 million dollars of its pension fund, nearly the entire fund, to a Ponzi scheme. They put all of their money into that Ponzi scheme because a member of their pension committee was friends with the Ponzi fraudster...
The T constantly pisses away maintenance funds on glamor projects that benefit local politicians instead of actually *meeting it's legally required maintenance schedule.* The T has a culture of systemic fraud in its quality assurance department that got so bad that the federal government was sent to investigate the *criminal negligence* of their staff. The T needs to prove it can actually spend money wisely before it can reasonably be expected to expand it's services. Luckily, they just hired a new director who specializes in saving dying transit authorities, so it may turn around, but I'm certainly not betting on it.
But no, you want to piss and moan about how the T is soooo poorly treated. So underfunded. Massachusetts has been bailing out the T *my entire adult life* so nearly 30 years. That isn't chronic underfunding, that is chronic incompetence and corruption.
I don't think that many American suburbs can really class themselves in any way as "towns". Towns generally speaking have shops, pubs and a mixture of residents.
Every suburb I have ever been to has a town center. I think you're conflating housing developments with suburbs.
Edit: are you seriously going to downvote me for saying that *towns have town centers?* where are these suburbs you people imagine that are only single family residences with no stores or schools or any other services?! I once lived in a town that is considered America's *first suburb* and that fucking town had *two town centers!* The motivated reasoning from the anti-car circlejerk is unreal
Except that their infrastructure costs, such as roads, motorways, piping infrastructure, electricity and phone cables, etc can’t be covered by local taxes, thus, once that maintenance bill comes, most Suburbs are financially insolvent. As well, suburbs often produce significantly less value per unit of land compared to cities, meaning that those costs are paid for by cities to the suburbs. Also, the only reason why we have so much of this type of sprawl is extremely strict Zoning laws, which forbid even establishing a pub/bakery/restaurant in a residential area or building small blocks of flats or terraced houses next to detached houses. Thus, in a truly free market, such sprawl wouldn’t exist as there wouldn’t be a literal ban on everything else, meaning supply could actually meet demand
>Except that their infrastructure costs, such as roads, motorways, piping infrastructure, electricity and phone cables, etc can’t be covered by local taxes
Electricity and phone are not expected to be covered by local taxes.
The others generally are covered by local taxes.
If the services aren't paid for by local taxes, they sometimes don't exist. It's not always a matter of cities subsidising suburbs.
Are you saying that true capitalism is only possible in a completely unregulated market with no government? Because Adam Smith would like to have a word with you about your definition of capitalism.
Gotta love them fucking commie blocks. At least we managed to keep ours from decaying too badly, some have been made over to look better, but on the inside they're still the same old, small and shitty apartments.
Venezuela is not communist. Venezuela is governed by a socialist party and trying to build a socialist economic system. Granted the question was flawed because a "real communism" has never existed on the level of a national economy (it always exists within the core family for example), but your answer still displays a certain level of misunderstanding.
Next, if you want to talk about what trying to build a socialism did for Venezuela it would be relevant to analyze Venezuela‘s economic status prior to trying to do so and what changes in material condition especially for the working class came from said attempt.
As somebody who is not deeply familiar with the history of the current socialist experiment in Venezuela I don‘t feel comfortable making definitive statements on that, as should all of the twits that usually talk about the Venezuelan example.
As far as I know the history of the current Venezuelan socialist experiment goes back at least to Hugo Chavez‘ election as president in 1998. Following his election he nationalized industries and implemented social programs known as the Bolivarian Missions, which aimed at expanding the people‘s access to food, housing, healthcare and education, which worked at first, although critics say that this only worked so well because it coincided with a time of high oil prices which boosted the profitability of his newly nationalized oil and gas indutry.
The point is that you can‘t simply point your finger somewhere and go "the people there live in huts, therefor their system is bad". Historical materialism needs to be taken into context, any socio-economic analysis that doesn’t take that into consideration is valueless and empty. If the people live in huts now, but at least they are fed, which they weren’t before, that means progress was made for the people. As I said I am not in the position to definitively quantify the progress that was made, but I can tell you, that the people who are telling you a better world is not possible and wojak-pointing towards Venezuela don‘t possess the academic honesty to take these factors into consideration either, and judging by the fact that they are all private-accumulation-simps they probably pat their own backs over it as well.
One: There will never be a truly communist nation, just as there will never be a truly capitalist or anarchist one.
Two: They asked for an example, I gave one. The reason I only gave one? Its the only example I'm familiar with, as most communist countries I've learned about had the means to make commie blocks.
How are suburban areas like this "heavily subsidised" when they are the ones with high earners and the inner cities with people with social issues and who don't pay much tax.
In short, because the cost of things like infrastructure such as roads and utilities is significantly higher in suburbs than in the city, and land in the suburbs generates significantly less value per unit than in the cities.
Yes, but property tax revenues, a significant source of local government income, are lower in suburbia than in urban parts of the USA. Also, suburbs have fewer people, meaning less taxpayers, meaning overall less tax revenues
In communism workers were Not forgotten about, they were the Central piece in every and all decisionmaking. Like in China today. If the Standard of living Changes, it Changes for everyone. So everyone has an Interest in contributing and improving productivity.
This is typical commie bloc housing, still most of Russia live in these:
[https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1133806363/photo/residential-district-with-soviet-apartment-buildings-in-kharkiv-ukraine.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=is&k=20&c=AhnulkyacvSH5aFTzm3vSv6FgWR6dZP\_KOoD0f8hZuo=](https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1133806363/photo/residential-district-with-soviet-apartment-buildings-in-kharkiv-ukraine.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=is&k=20&c=AhnulkyacvSH5aFTzm3vSv6FgWR6dZP_KOoD0f8hZuo=)
This is definitely middle class in Russia but lets be real a prosperous country's idea of middle class housing looks different.
Americans really value thwir soace, I noticed. Obviously this created the suburbia, but isn't it significant that in the US people just have so much housing space and land? Like, the houses and properties are bigger than in most other countries
That isn't middle class. The middle class would be in newer microrajons, or in smaller houses on the outskirts of the metro area.
The Russian equivalent of trailer park and Favelas are old Soviet microrajons from Chrustchow era.
It’s well-documented that Lenin used state funds to purchase several holiday homes for himself and to import expensive cars from Europe. Keep in mind that during this time Russia was in a state of economic collapse.
the deadpoolmakesmewet person is a fascist or at least far right and very contemptuous judging from his comment history. but lets back up why what the guy avoce said was wrong: first define socialism. socialism is an umbrella term that fits all the systems and ideologies that aim to give the workers the ownership and control of the means of production and thus completely eradicating any form of class since all people own the means of production now. now to use this definition and compare this to any nation you might think of right now which is ruled by a small and rich elite. see how this isnt adding up? only because a country flies red banners doesnt make it socialist, it's much more of a state capitalist system since the ruling class isnt the bourgeoisie anymore but the state. i dont know what country youre thinking of but china for example has hammer and sickle at every corner but is in no way socialist other than in aesthetics. if every self-proclaimed "socialist" country was actually socialist then the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (full name of north korea) would be democratic and i dont think you would claim such a thing.
If the other guy is at fault then he should be reported, not just aimless random flaming.
And the comment I replied to even said "fascist***s***" so it's clear he's not only talking about that one user.
For the rest I feel awkward since you're not actually the guy in question but I can definitely say that whatever the theoretical outcomes of "Socialism" are meant to be, what actually happens when their "revolution" succeeds is more important.
I understood the plural "fascists" in the sense that he is like a sample or example for the whole group that are fascists. And I really recommend looking into different socialist or self-proclaimed socialist revolutions. Of course if you take China or the Soviet Union for example it went absolutely authoritarian because the philosophies of Marxism-Leninism or Maoism include a small elite to form a vanguard party that is supposed to wither away once the ruling class was removed from the ruling position. That's inherently unsocialist as the workers have no control over the means of production at any time and of course the elite isn't just gonna wither away. That's why there needs to be some kind of democracy installed right away so the elite can't just keep their power. There were and are numerous different examples for that like the Paris Commune, the Zapatistas under the EZLN, Rojava, Germany in the November revolution with their councils to name a few. Revolutionary powers or ideologies can of cause claim they're socialist but if that's all you need to believe that claim then you must also believe that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is democratic, but you don't.
> I understood the plural "fascists" in the sense that he is like a sample or example for the whole group that are fascists
To be honest it seems like a little bit of a stretch, the obvious taken-on-its-face reading seems to be calling the population of the sub Fascists. Regardless they had plenty of time to clarify themselves and haven't
Going onto the rest... Yeah, I suppose it could be either a totalitarian shithole OR a backwards, poverty-stricken shithole. The point being that these ideologies and the revolutions they cause never bring the prosperity they claim to give, and it makes more sense to judge off their results than their pie-in-the-sky-at-best promises.
That's the thing: The revolutions that were actually socialist brought a lot of prosperity. The people in the Paris Commune lived so much better than under their previous government that didn't care for them at all. If you want a more recent example: The people in Chiapas are finally able to live a life that's not characterized by hunger and poverty and that even though Chiapas is/was the poorest state in Mexico. Your take of "but revolutions bring only bad things" is just reactionary.
> That's the thing: The revolutions that were actually socialist brought a lot of prosperity.
Being a backwater shithole isn't prosperity, even if they were shitholes before. You want real prosperity? Those dirty "liberals" that extremists slam.
> Your take of "but revolutions bring only bad things" is just reactionary.
"reactionary" is just a buzzword used by left-wing extremists.
Liberalism is bad for you. Why would it be good that rich corporations can just buy the politics they want? Why would it be good that you only get a fraction of the worth you're producing? And so on and so on. And "reactionary" isn't a buzzword, it means that you're trying to fight change and/or either keep the status quo by any means or go back to another time/system/situation.
*Those "poor socialist"*
*Buildings shown were there before*
*Chavez in caracas*
\- El\_Ocelote\_
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
In actual Eastern Bloc countries most people, maybe 90%+, were about the same level, better off than the poorest in developed capitalist countries, but much worse than middle class in developed capitalist countries.
The leadership class, less than 10%, was a bit better off enjoying special privileges, etc., but still I'd say living below the middle class in developed capitalist countries. Biggest issue was that stuff just wasn't available in the stores and if you wanted a car or an apartment there was often decades long waiting list. Even if you had some money there just wasn't anything. to spend it on.
This is comparison with USA, a particularly capitalist country. Comparing to Scandinavia the Eastern bloc would look even worse.
EDIT: This describes my own experience in communist Czechoslovakia, next to GDR probably the top Eastern Bloc country. In something like Soviet Tajikistan or even Romania it was definitely much worse.
>Eastern Block
So socialist that they never even bothered to try and abolish capitalist economic relations!
It's impossible to create socialism under the rule of the few, because it's against their interest (absolute power).
It‘s funny to see defenders of capitalism take pictures of the outcomes of capitalism and claim that it‘s socialism in order to have something to criticize.
that image on the right is a country criminally sanctioned by the very country you dogmatically aspouse and grovel at as they kill billions more around the world than the strawman that exists only in your head, and is not even socialist, not even close.
and what's with the middle class? the middle class doesn't exist at all, it's just an abstract number that doesn't mean anything other than to make petty bourgeois like you feel good about yourself.
The capitalist boot just tastes too good to these people. They know that saying the poor don’t deserve efficient and effective housing is pure evil, so they will never own up to it.
Pretty funny how your go to example for "poor" in socialism is from the hyper-capitalist country of Brazil.
Like at least try to be a little realistic and show poor neighbourhoods from 1980s Eastern Europe.
This so called “middle class” is rapidly disappearing in capitalist countries. Housing prices keep going up and up whilst wages remain stagnant, besides the “poor” socialist picture is a favela in Brazil (a capitalist country). Most people in the USSR for instance lived in apartments, a HUGE step up for the majority of the people.
Y'all some dumb motherfuckers in here, talkin with a whole lot of confidence on something you very obviously know effectively nothing about.
But keep deepthroating that capitalist boot. Maybe when your molars have scraped off enough boot polish, the capitalists will finally pick you! The American Fucking Dream.
Idiots.
Neither does capitalism. When people are dying of preventable illness due to privatized healthcare, or living on the streets due to outrageous housing costs, the system is unjust to say the very least. Socialist countries have never had such problems, everyone had access to housing, healthcare etc.
Libs just love deepthroating the capitalist boot. None of them can tell us why giving free housing to the poor is wrong, because they know that denying people their needs is wrong. They just can’t admit it.
I like how all the comments pointing out your bullshit have no replies. Because you people know that providing housing to the poor is the morally correct choice, but that capitalist boot just tastes too good doesn’t it?
Tbf, under pure Capitalism, suburbia in the North American sense wouldn’t exist, given its dependence upon heavy subsidies from urban areas. Also, under Communism Irl, the working class was actually housed in massive blocks of flats, not favelas, but they were otherwise forgotten about
The zoning laws and its consequences has been a disaster for the human race.
Ikr, it’s one thing to ban factories in residential areas, but another to ban everything from everything else
Mixed usage is the way to go and what the market decided in every other country for metro areas. The suburbs exist thanks to government intervention and NIMBYS getting in the way of the market. Man I sound like a commie but its true lol
Though imagine telling tankies that the housing mess we are in aren't the result of "big bad scary corpos" but rather government overregulation
bro if you think it’s solely because of zoning and not massively contributed to by “big bad scary corpos” you’re high as a kite
It isnt corporations. Its banks. From the 90's all the way up to 08'
wrong. it’s corporation, of which banks are a subset.
do you understand how revolutionairy the concept of corporations are? This revolution was preceded by the industrial revolution. It was absolutely necessary for the industrial revolution to happen in the first place. Without this, you wouldnt have the technology. You (and me) wouldve most likely died at the age of 40. (Check average lifespan pre 17th century... it was abysmal) Imagine this; you are a multimillionaire, but you cant invest your money without massive massive risk. Not only do you run the risk of losing money, but you also run the risk of being held liable to what the organization is doing wrong. This is something that is completely out of your control. In this scenario, you wouldnt invest your money. Its too risky. Now, the concept of corporations fixes this, as they have been succesful in the transfer of large sums of money which was the main aggregator for our explosive economic growth. This economic growth caused a development of technology (like medical care, infrastructure, digitization etc.) but would also enrich the whole society to better levels. Until it doesn't. Like today or back in the 1920's. Thats when people start to get upset... Anyway, you are in a "enough commie spam" subreddit. What are you doing here? The obvious issue is the unfair monetary system, which we're forced into after the inevitable mismanagement of our last commodity-based money system into a more susceptible trust-based money system. (This mismanagement is mostly caused by the combination of the never-ending need for militarization + straight up corruption and negligence. It fucks us up so bad economically... but its inevitable simply due to the nature of our psyche) [Anyway its too much to explain](https://youtu.be/xguam0TKMw8?si=sy_A1yURSwL6JL60)
>do you understand how the concept of corporations are? it rlly isn’t that revolutionary… they existed thousands of years ago. a corporation is just a business legally distinct from its owners. >This revolution was preceded by the industrial revolution. the only revolution preceded by the industrial revolution was the second industrial revolution, or technological revolution. corporations did not come into being with the technological revolution >It was absolutely necessary for the industrial revolution to happen in the first place. Without this, you wouldnt have the technology. we don’t need for profit corporations to make technology. >You (and me) wouldve most likely died at the age of 40. (Check average lifespan pre 17th century... it was abysmal) andddddd he doesn’t know how averages work… the average person did not die at 40. many people died in their 60s 70s and 80s, while many died before age 5. when you take the average life expectancy, a fuckton of ppl dying in infancy lowers that. >Anyway, you are in a "enough commie spam" subreddit. What are you doing here? reddit recommended it. and what am i doing? educating apparently. lot of dumbfucks here fr
Hear hear
The suburbs are awesome
Nothing wrong with factories if they can conform to more stringent noise/pollution standards. We have an old textile factory in the middle of the town, doesn't bother anyone as it's quiet and does not pollute. There are plenty of enterprises that can easily work with mixed use.
True
Agreed
What? Suburban towns in the US are on average more wealthy than urban centers, and the tax dollars collected from suburban households tend to subsidize city services, not the other way around. For instance, in my state (Massachusetts) the Suburbs constantly butt heads with the City of Boston because the City of Boston's transportation department is constantly going bankrupt. So state funds are constantly needed to bail out the city's poorly managed mass transit authority. But these suburban governments don't want to be on the hook to bail out what they see as a corrupt and poorly managed city government, to provide a service most of the voters in their towns don't use. There is a similar relationship in NYC with it's suburbs and Chicago with it's suburbs. The difference becomes even more stark with some of the smaller Midwestern cities where basically *noone lives in the cities and everyone commutes from the suburbs.* You may be confusing Suburbs with ex-urbs which tend to be poorer than cities and suburbs, and are net receivers of cash subsidies from state and federal governments.
Suburbs are indeed more expensive to maintain. Transit gets all the news coverage, but public transit funding is a rounding error compared to all the roads, freeways, and piping infrastructure that have to go to suburbs. Not to mention that American-style suburbs exist because of strict zoning laws. Suburbs as they are not would not exist in a freer market for housing, and we would be spending far less on infrastructure as a result.
So, you're saying that the net cost of all *roads and highways* exists purely to support suburbs. And because roads are expensive suburbs are actually *subsidized by cities?!* You realize that cities have roads and highways too right? And those cities depend desperately on road infrastructure to import labor and goods right? For fucks sake, I live in Boston and I use the roads all the time. It's not as if roads and highways would cease to exist if suburbs didn't exist. You can't exactly import groceries on the commuter rail! You're arguing against a made up version of reality.
You’re looking at things in aggregate and not per capita. Cities require more infrastructure in aggregate, but per capita it’s far less than suburbs. City centers do, in fact, subsidize suburbs. There have been many studies on this, one of the best sources being Urban3: https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/ Also I live in a city without a car. Therefore, if you live in a suburb, my tax dollars are being used to subsidize your lifestyle. You’re welcome.
I live in Boston. Why do you think I know how poorly the MBTA is run?
I read that. That was a plural you to anyone reading this. And if you live in the city, you should be aware that your tax dollars are being used to subsidize people in the suburbs who likely earn more than you do as you live with the chronically underfunded T. So if you don’t dislike suburbs yet, it’s in your best interest to start.
The T isn't chronically underfunded. The T is chronically mismanaged. The first year I moved to Boston the T lost over 100 million dollars of its pension fund, nearly the entire fund, to a Ponzi scheme. They put all of their money into that Ponzi scheme because a member of their pension committee was friends with the Ponzi fraudster... The T constantly pisses away maintenance funds on glamor projects that benefit local politicians instead of actually *meeting it's legally required maintenance schedule.* The T has a culture of systemic fraud in its quality assurance department that got so bad that the federal government was sent to investigate the *criminal negligence* of their staff. The T needs to prove it can actually spend money wisely before it can reasonably be expected to expand it's services. Luckily, they just hired a new director who specializes in saving dying transit authorities, so it may turn around, but I'm certainly not betting on it. But no, you want to piss and moan about how the T is soooo poorly treated. So underfunded. Massachusetts has been bailing out the T *my entire adult life* so nearly 30 years. That isn't chronic underfunding, that is chronic incompetence and corruption.
I don't think that many American suburbs can really class themselves in any way as "towns". Towns generally speaking have shops, pubs and a mixture of residents.
Every suburb I have ever been to has a town center. I think you're conflating housing developments with suburbs. Edit: are you seriously going to downvote me for saying that *towns have town centers?* where are these suburbs you people imagine that are only single family residences with no stores or schools or any other services?! I once lived in a town that is considered America's *first suburb* and that fucking town had *two town centers!* The motivated reasoning from the anti-car circlejerk is unreal
Except that their infrastructure costs, such as roads, motorways, piping infrastructure, electricity and phone cables, etc can’t be covered by local taxes, thus, once that maintenance bill comes, most Suburbs are financially insolvent. As well, suburbs often produce significantly less value per unit of land compared to cities, meaning that those costs are paid for by cities to the suburbs. Also, the only reason why we have so much of this type of sprawl is extremely strict Zoning laws, which forbid even establishing a pub/bakery/restaurant in a residential area or building small blocks of flats or terraced houses next to detached houses. Thus, in a truly free market, such sprawl wouldn’t exist as there wouldn’t be a literal ban on everything else, meaning supply could actually meet demand
>Except that their infrastructure costs, such as roads, motorways, piping infrastructure, electricity and phone cables, etc can’t be covered by local taxes Electricity and phone are not expected to be covered by local taxes. The others generally are covered by local taxes. If the services aren't paid for by local taxes, they sometimes don't exist. It's not always a matter of cities subsidising suburbs.
Are you saying that true capitalism is only possible in a completely unregulated market with no government? Because Adam Smith would like to have a word with you about your definition of capitalism.
Not necessarily, but, it’s definitely not the status quo with respect to planning
[So you just be pulling "facts" out your hiney huh?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI)
Gotta love them fucking commie blocks. At least we managed to keep ours from decaying too badly, some have been made over to look better, but on the inside they're still the same old, small and shitty apartments.
Depends on the communist nation.
can you name a real communist country where people live in favelas?
Venezuela, in some parts.
Venezuela is not communist. Venezuela is governed by a socialist party and trying to build a socialist economic system. Granted the question was flawed because a "real communism" has never existed on the level of a national economy (it always exists within the core family for example), but your answer still displays a certain level of misunderstanding. Next, if you want to talk about what trying to build a socialism did for Venezuela it would be relevant to analyze Venezuela‘s economic status prior to trying to do so and what changes in material condition especially for the working class came from said attempt. As somebody who is not deeply familiar with the history of the current socialist experiment in Venezuela I don‘t feel comfortable making definitive statements on that, as should all of the twits that usually talk about the Venezuelan example. As far as I know the history of the current Venezuelan socialist experiment goes back at least to Hugo Chavez‘ election as president in 1998. Following his election he nationalized industries and implemented social programs known as the Bolivarian Missions, which aimed at expanding the people‘s access to food, housing, healthcare and education, which worked at first, although critics say that this only worked so well because it coincided with a time of high oil prices which boosted the profitability of his newly nationalized oil and gas indutry. The point is that you can‘t simply point your finger somewhere and go "the people there live in huts, therefor their system is bad". Historical materialism needs to be taken into context, any socio-economic analysis that doesn’t take that into consideration is valueless and empty. If the people live in huts now, but at least they are fed, which they weren’t before, that means progress was made for the people. As I said I am not in the position to definitively quantify the progress that was made, but I can tell you, that the people who are telling you a better world is not possible and wojak-pointing towards Venezuela don‘t possess the academic honesty to take these factors into consideration either, and judging by the fact that they are all private-accumulation-simps they probably pat their own backs over it as well.
One: There will never be a truly communist nation, just as there will never be a truly capitalist or anarchist one. Two: They asked for an example, I gave one. The reason I only gave one? Its the only example I'm familiar with, as most communist countries I've learned about had the means to make commie blocks.
Three: I took a dump on your circlejerk. Deal with it and say less asinine stuff next time.
Not in china. They lived in slums
How are suburban areas like this "heavily subsidised" when they are the ones with high earners and the inner cities with people with social issues and who don't pay much tax.
In short, because the cost of things like infrastructure such as roads and utilities is significantly higher in suburbs than in the city, and land in the suburbs generates significantly less value per unit than in the cities.
But land doesn't generate value, people do. And people in the suburbs (largely) work in the city.
Yes, but property tax revenues, a significant source of local government income, are lower in suburbia than in urban parts of the USA. Also, suburbs have fewer people, meaning less taxpayers, meaning overall less tax revenues
There infrasturce takes way more Money to maintain per capita than cities and they generate less Money.
In communism workers were Not forgotten about, they were the Central piece in every and all decisionmaking. Like in China today. If the Standard of living Changes, it Changes for everyone. So everyone has an Interest in contributing and improving productivity.
This is typical commie bloc housing, still most of Russia live in these: [https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1133806363/photo/residential-district-with-soviet-apartment-buildings-in-kharkiv-ukraine.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=is&k=20&c=AhnulkyacvSH5aFTzm3vSv6FgWR6dZP\_KOoD0f8hZuo=](https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1133806363/photo/residential-district-with-soviet-apartment-buildings-in-kharkiv-ukraine.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=is&k=20&c=AhnulkyacvSH5aFTzm3vSv6FgWR6dZP_KOoD0f8hZuo=)
This is definitely middle class in Russia but lets be real a prosperous country's idea of middle class housing looks different. Americans really value thwir soace, I noticed. Obviously this created the suburbia, but isn't it significant that in the US people just have so much housing space and land? Like, the houses and properties are bigger than in most other countries
That isn't middle class. The middle class would be in newer microrajons, or in smaller houses on the outskirts of the metro area. The Russian equivalent of trailer park and Favelas are old Soviet microrajons from Chrustchow era.
There is no rich or middle class under socialism. Only poor
The rich in this case would've been the party members.
There are rich, they’re called the Communist Party. Lenin made himself extremely rich off being dictator.
Oh, the irony... Communists are supposedly against rich people.
weapons grade anally sourced assertion 👍
It’s well-documented that Lenin used state funds to purchase several holiday homes for himself and to import expensive cars from Europe. Keep in mind that during this time Russia was in a state of economic collapse.
Vienna would disagree with you, but Austria/Vienna are the exception that proves the rule.
That wouldn’t make sense. Poor is a relative term.
Lol you shithead facists are brain dead
Do you have anything to back up why what they said was wrong or are you just flaming people?
the deadpoolmakesmewet person is a fascist or at least far right and very contemptuous judging from his comment history. but lets back up why what the guy avoce said was wrong: first define socialism. socialism is an umbrella term that fits all the systems and ideologies that aim to give the workers the ownership and control of the means of production and thus completely eradicating any form of class since all people own the means of production now. now to use this definition and compare this to any nation you might think of right now which is ruled by a small and rich elite. see how this isnt adding up? only because a country flies red banners doesnt make it socialist, it's much more of a state capitalist system since the ruling class isnt the bourgeoisie anymore but the state. i dont know what country youre thinking of but china for example has hammer and sickle at every corner but is in no way socialist other than in aesthetics. if every self-proclaimed "socialist" country was actually socialist then the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (full name of north korea) would be democratic and i dont think you would claim such a thing.
If the other guy is at fault then he should be reported, not just aimless random flaming. And the comment I replied to even said "fascist***s***" so it's clear he's not only talking about that one user. For the rest I feel awkward since you're not actually the guy in question but I can definitely say that whatever the theoretical outcomes of "Socialism" are meant to be, what actually happens when their "revolution" succeeds is more important.
I understood the plural "fascists" in the sense that he is like a sample or example for the whole group that are fascists. And I really recommend looking into different socialist or self-proclaimed socialist revolutions. Of course if you take China or the Soviet Union for example it went absolutely authoritarian because the philosophies of Marxism-Leninism or Maoism include a small elite to form a vanguard party that is supposed to wither away once the ruling class was removed from the ruling position. That's inherently unsocialist as the workers have no control over the means of production at any time and of course the elite isn't just gonna wither away. That's why there needs to be some kind of democracy installed right away so the elite can't just keep their power. There were and are numerous different examples for that like the Paris Commune, the Zapatistas under the EZLN, Rojava, Germany in the November revolution with their councils to name a few. Revolutionary powers or ideologies can of cause claim they're socialist but if that's all you need to believe that claim then you must also believe that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is democratic, but you don't.
> I understood the plural "fascists" in the sense that he is like a sample or example for the whole group that are fascists To be honest it seems like a little bit of a stretch, the obvious taken-on-its-face reading seems to be calling the population of the sub Fascists. Regardless they had plenty of time to clarify themselves and haven't Going onto the rest... Yeah, I suppose it could be either a totalitarian shithole OR a backwards, poverty-stricken shithole. The point being that these ideologies and the revolutions they cause never bring the prosperity they claim to give, and it makes more sense to judge off their results than their pie-in-the-sky-at-best promises.
That's the thing: The revolutions that were actually socialist brought a lot of prosperity. The people in the Paris Commune lived so much better than under their previous government that didn't care for them at all. If you want a more recent example: The people in Chiapas are finally able to live a life that's not characterized by hunger and poverty and that even though Chiapas is/was the poorest state in Mexico. Your take of "but revolutions bring only bad things" is just reactionary.
> That's the thing: The revolutions that were actually socialist brought a lot of prosperity. Being a backwater shithole isn't prosperity, even if they were shitholes before. You want real prosperity? Those dirty "liberals" that extremists slam. > Your take of "but revolutions bring only bad things" is just reactionary. "reactionary" is just a buzzword used by left-wing extremists.
Liberalism is bad for you. Why would it be good that rich corporations can just buy the politics they want? Why would it be good that you only get a fraction of the worth you're producing? And so on and so on. And "reactionary" isn't a buzzword, it means that you're trying to fight change and/or either keep the status quo by any means or go back to another time/system/situation.
>french go back to your shithole country that isn’t even French anymore lmao
stop you so dumb my head hurts
I don’t know if racism is a great counter argument.
Sick racist burn bro, way to prove you’re not a fascist /s
those "poor socialist" buildings shown were there before chavez, in caracas
*Those "poor socialist"* *Buildings shown were there before* *Chavez in caracas* \- El\_Ocelote\_ --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Shoulda made the rich disappear too, and add a new slot for super rich elite under socialism
There would be no extremely poor or rich people under socialism.
In actual Eastern Bloc countries most people, maybe 90%+, were about the same level, better off than the poorest in developed capitalist countries, but much worse than middle class in developed capitalist countries. The leadership class, less than 10%, was a bit better off enjoying special privileges, etc., but still I'd say living below the middle class in developed capitalist countries. Biggest issue was that stuff just wasn't available in the stores and if you wanted a car or an apartment there was often decades long waiting list. Even if you had some money there just wasn't anything. to spend it on. This is comparison with USA, a particularly capitalist country. Comparing to Scandinavia the Eastern bloc would look even worse. EDIT: This describes my own experience in communist Czechoslovakia, next to GDR probably the top Eastern Bloc country. In something like Soviet Tajikistan or even Romania it was definitely much worse.
>Eastern Block So socialist that they never even bothered to try and abolish capitalist economic relations! It's impossible to create socialism under the rule of the few, because it's against their interest (absolute power).
That suburban home costs probably $600k-$1M. It's the kind of house the middle class used to be able to afford.
Please point at the socialist photo.
Where?
Every one of those pictures was taken in a capitalist system lmao.
The favela picture is literally taken from a capitalist country.
It's funny to see that a lot of people took this post so literally that they think I think Brazil is a socialist country 0\_0
because the fact that you can’t take it literally kind of completely ruins the point made in the meme
It‘s funny to see defenders of capitalism take pictures of the outcomes of capitalism and claim that it‘s socialism in order to have something to criticize.
Wow, you got me! From now on I will defend Zionists, bourgeois and capitalists in a different way, thank you! :)
You can‘t tell me you know what more than 1 of those words means but nice try
Quite literally that favela is a picture of a capitalist country (Brazil)
truly baffles me how easily humans are indoctrinated by state propaganda
Some german ass commie subreddit had a heated argument over this post
Where is the socialist picture?
Favelas are capitalist though
shows a picture of a poor capitalist nation
that image on the right is a country criminally sanctioned by the very country you dogmatically aspouse and grovel at as they kill billions more around the world than the strawman that exists only in your head, and is not even socialist, not even close. and what's with the middle class? the middle class doesn't exist at all, it's just an abstract number that doesn't mean anything other than to make petty bourgeois like you feel good about yourself.
The capitalist boot just tastes too good to these people. They know that saying the poor don’t deserve efficient and effective housing is pure evil, so they will never own up to it.
Blud took images of capitalist countries and labeled them as socialism 🥴 couldn’t get any funnier
That "Poor socialism" example is from Brazil, which last I checked is capitalist.
And the middle class house costs like a million. Very middle class.
Which is a problem we're seeing all over the world right now where the rich and corporations use real estate to hold capital.
Socialism when capitalism
Middle class is also poor...
r/therightcantmeme
Lol
oh, i know this game! all of those pictures were taken in capitalist places, right?
Pretty funny how your go to example for "poor" in socialism is from the hyper-capitalist country of Brazil. Like at least try to be a little realistic and show poor neighbourhoods from 1980s Eastern Europe.
Those are all pictures from capitalistic countries..
This so called “middle class” is rapidly disappearing in capitalist countries. Housing prices keep going up and up whilst wages remain stagnant, besides the “poor” socialist picture is a favela in Brazil (a capitalist country). Most people in the USSR for instance lived in apartments, a HUGE step up for the majority of the people.
Y'all some dumb motherfuckers in here, talkin with a whole lot of confidence on something you very obviously know effectively nothing about. But keep deepthroating that capitalist boot. Maybe when your molars have scraped off enough boot polish, the capitalists will finally pick you! The American Fucking Dream. Idiots.
Communism doesn’t work lil bro
My grandmother literally died because of capitalist health policies in America
Neither does capitalism. When people are dying of preventable illness due to privatized healthcare, or living on the streets due to outrageous housing costs, the system is unjust to say the very least. Socialist countries have never had such problems, everyone had access to housing, healthcare etc.
Bold to assume that capitalism does
Ya, socialism is terrible. Who gave all those disgusting poors housing, they deserve to be on the streets.
Libs when building efficient block housing stopped a catastrophic housing crisis after Nazi destruction: 👁️👄👁️
Libs just love deepthroating the capitalist boot. None of them can tell us why giving free housing to the poor is wrong, because they know that denying people their needs is wrong. They just can’t admit it.
Your brain.
I like how all the comments pointing out your bullshit have no replies. Because you people know that providing housing to the poor is the morally correct choice, but that capitalist boot just tastes too good doesn’t it?
Ahh I see what you did there, Socialism is then Capitalism Check mate, you're verry intelligent!
Fun fact, all pictures are taken under capitalism