Why couldnt the socialists provide decent housing?

[CatsAttack]

i know socialism in a signle country is not possible, but couldnt they atleast have been able to provide quality housing for all working people? what are the economic reasons for the lack of universial quality housing?

[connoros]

What suggests to you that housing was poor in, say, the U.S.S.R.? I'm not saying it was or it wasn't; I'd just like to know where you're coming from.

[CatsAttack]

What suggests to you that housing was poor in, say, the U.S.S.R.? I'm not saying it was or it wasn't; I'd just like to know where you're coming from.

Housing was a huge problem in the SU. Even in Moscow, people lived 2 or 3 families in a single tiny unit.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Could you perhaps refrain from making so many threads with the same essential content, CatsAttack?

And what makes you think it that the housing situation was bad? From the mid-1950's the situation was reasonable and was improving rapidly in the SSSR and similar efforts were made in most of the eastern bloc, though the extent of new housing provision varied. Quality of new housing built was constantly improving with new type block designs incorporating new features and thicker more superior wall designs, etc; and though there was a large unsatisfied housing demand in the major cities - partly because flats were allocated for free or very cheaply - new construction remained extremely high in the SSSR all the way into 1991, and existing plans at this time entailed the replacement of old housing stock (particularly 1950's stock blocks without lifts) gradually over the coming 30 years with new higher-quality types and larger sizes (by the 1970's most flat sizes were 30-40 square metres for single person flats and 49-100 square metre for family flats).

[connoros]

Housing was a huge problem in the SU. Even in Moscow, people lived 2 or 3 families in a single tiny unit.

Do you think you could cite something for me? My impression has always been that housing in the Union, while not luxurious for most people, was still decent.

[CatsAttack]

Do you think you could cite something for me? My impression has always been that housing in the Union, while not luxurious for most people, was still decent.

I can only cite my own personal experience living in 1980's Moscow. The housing was terrible, you were forced to live with complete strangers and share everything, the kitchen, the toilet, etc. You just got a tiny room in a tiny apartment. The quality was terrible, I have seen better housing in many 'third world' countries. The design itself was truly moronic, with toilets built right next to the kitchen in most units, and hearing people 'do their business' while trying to eat breakfast or dinner was a daily occurrence. This was all luxurious though, compared to life in the smaller cities in the SU.

And I'm talking about apartments in Moscow, by far the best place to live in the SU. And I'm talking about apartments located in prime locations, downtown. As you went farther from the center, the worse it got.

[connoros]

I can only cite my own personal experience living in 1980's Moscow.

Are you sure your experience was the norm? I have no trouble accepting that you lived in a shitty apartment, but is your experience in the late Eighties really typical of Marxist-Leninist socialism?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Sounds like some of the places I lived in as a student.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I can only cite my own personal experience living in 1980's Moscow. The housing was terrible, you were forced to live with complete strangers and share everything, the kitchen, the toilet, etc. You just got a tiny room in a tiny apartment. The quality was terrible, I have seen better housing in many 'third world' countries. The design itself was truly moronic, with toilets built right next to the kitchen in most units, and hearing people 'do their business' while trying to eat breakfast or dinner was a daily occurrence. This was all luxurious though, compared to life in the smaller cities in the SU.

And I'm talking about apartments in Moscow, by far the best place to live in the SU. And I'm talking about apartments located in prime locations, downtown. As you went farther from the center, the worse it got.

Quite the opposite, the city centre was quite run-down compared to many of the newer districts and old housing was in areas poorly maintained. I don't think you ever lived in Moscow, but that aside, if it was a dormitory type flat...

[CatsAttack]

Quite the opposite, the city centre was quite run-down compared to many of the newer districts and old housing was in areas poorly maintained. I don't think you ever lived in Moscow, but that aside, if it was a dormitory type flat...

A dormitory type flat? Is that what it sounds like I'm describing in my post? Not a communal apartment, which was the most widespread form of housing in the SU, but a 'dormitory type flat'? Have you ever even heard of a communal apartment? Do you know it was the most common form of housing the SU? You are presenting yourself as an expert here and brushing aside my posts based on what exactly?

You man not think I lived in Moscow, but I know you don't know a single thing about housing the SU. So your post is both childish and offensive.

[connoros]

You man not think I lived in Moscow, but I know you don't know a single thing about housing the SU. So your post is both childish and offensive.


From the mid-1950's the situation was reasonable and was improving rapidly in the SSSR and similar efforts were made in most of the eastern bloc, though the extent of new housing provision varied. Quality of new housing built was constantly improving with new type block designs incorporating new features and thicker more superior wall designs, etc; and though there was a large unsatisfied housing demand in the major cities - partly because flats were allocated for free or very cheaply - new construction remained extremely high in the SSSR all the way into 1991, and existing plans at this time entailed the replacement of old housing stock (particularly 1950's stock blocks without lifts) gradually over the coming 30 years with new higher-quality types and larger sizes (by the 1970's most flat sizes were 30-40 square metres for single person flats and 49-100 square metre for family flats).

Seems like Takayuki knows at least a few things about it. At least this user is giving us specific information, rather than anecdotal vagaries.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

A dormitory type flat? Is that what it sounds like I'm describing in my post? Not a communal apartment, which was the most widespread form of housing in the SU, but a 'dormitory type flat'?

You man not think I lived in Moscow, but I know you don't know a single thing about housing the SU. So your post is both childish and offensive.

Communal apartments were exceedingly rare outside of those areas turned into such between the two world wars - i.e. they were dominant in the older city centres. They did however fall out of favour during the Stalin era, and by the 1950's no new such were built with the exception of temporary housing (dormitory type flats, often working like extended stay hotels).

Seriously, stop being such an obnoxious troll.

[ComradeOm]

This is the Learning Forum. I'd suggest that people who don't know what they're talking about remain quiet


And what makes you think it that the housing situation was bad? From the mid-1950's the situation was reasonable...The context being that the 1950s (ie from Khrushchev) the situation was recovering from the absolutely abominable state of affairs under Stalin. For example, in 1946 only 6% of houses in Ivanovo had running water and a mere 4% had sewerage facilities. This in an established city, and major manufacturing centre, that had not been touched by the war. (Flitzer, Standard of Living vs Quality of Life)

Elsewhere the situation was equally dire with more and more people being crammed into the same accommodation. By 1936 conditions in Moscow were that 6% of families had more than one room, 40% lived in one room, 23% occupied part of a room, 5% lived in kitchens and corridors and 25% lived on dormitories. (Nove, Economic History of the USSR.) It did not improve in the next decade

So when someone asks how a supposedly socialist country was unable to provide even basic accommodation for its citizens, I'm not inclined to write them off as a troll

And to actually deal with that question, on a superficial level at least, the answer is simple: investment. The Stalinist state did not invest in housing; the post-Stalin state did. Investment in housing stock (as indeed all consumer industries) was chronically insufficient during the industrialisation drive, something that was finally addressed during the Khrushchev shift away from a coercive economy. To stick with housing, the amount of urban hosing provided by the state alone more than doubled between 1955 and 1959 (Nove), all part of the relaxation of Stalinist constraints

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This is the Learning Forum. I'd suggest that people who don't know what they're talking about remain quiet

The context being that the 1950s (ie from Khrushchev) the situation was recovering from the absolutely abominable state of affairs under Stalin. For example, in 1946 only 6% of houses in Ivanovo had running water and a mere 4% had sewerage facilities. This in an established city, and major manufacturing centre, that had not been touched by the war. (Flitzer, Standard of Living vs Quality of Life)

Elsewhere the situation was equally dire with more and more people being crammed into the same accommodation. By 1936 conditions in Moscow were that 6% of families had more than one room, 40% lived in one room, 23% occupied part of a room, 5% lived in kitchens and corridors and 25% lived on dormitories. (Nove, Economic History of the USSR.) It did not improve in the next decade

So when someone asks how a supposedly socialist country was unable to provide even basic accommodation for its citizens, I'm not inclined to write them off as a troll

And to actually deal with that question, on a superficial level at least, the answer is simple: investment. The Stalinist state did not invest in housing; the post-Stalin state did. Investment in housing stock (as indeed all consumer industries) was chronically insufficient during the industrialisation drive, something that was finally addressed during the Khrushchev shift away from a coercive economy. To stick with housing, the amount of urban hosing provided by the state alone more than doubled between 1955 and 1959 (Nove), all part of the relaxation of Stalinist constraints

That isn't what makes him a troll, and as I mentioned the near total lack of investment in new housing during the Stalin era, so I'm not sure what the fuck you're on about.

[ComradeOm]

I'm sorry, I clearly missed that post in which someone elaborated on the dire state of housing under 'socialism in one country'. How silly of me to have construed your glossing over of that entire period for a scathing analysis of its shortcomings

But there are some particular points that I didn't bother with above that need addressing to dispel any rosy notions that anyone has about even post-Stalin housing


...and existing plans at this time entailed the replacement of old housing stock (particularly 1950's stock blocks without lifts) gradually over the coming 30 years with new higher-quality types and larger sizes...Can you name one year in which the targets for housing stock were actually met? Soviet plans always called for ambitious targets in improving housing (which was constantly a political issue) and they always fell short as investment was diverted elsewhere. Where was the capital going to come from for a renewal of the entire post-war housing stock when existing investment was inadequate for replacing all the pre-war stock?

By 1989 investment in housing was only slightly greater than it had been in 1975 (and significantly down on the 1960s peak). Yet the age and condition of the stock had deteriorated as Khrushchev-era housing came to the end of its planned life cycle. The state was therefore spending more money maintaining buildings and less actually building new ones. Ironically, a good chunk of the late 1980s increase in housing stock came from the relaxation of constraints on the private sector - a sign of the very collapse that was to come


...(by the 1970's most flat sizes were 30-40 square metres for single person flats and 49-100 square metre for family flats)Hmmm? According to The Former Soviet Union in Transition, less than 2% of families and 15% of singles in apartments had more than 20 square metres of living space, in 1989. Obviously this would be even less when just considering urban areas alone

(To contrast, the average size of a house in the UK today is 76m2 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/10012254/Average-one-bedroom-new-build-no-bigger-than-an-underground-train-carriage.html). Only 4% of those Soviet families in private houses in 1989 had more than 20m2 of living space)

And as to the quality of this construction, even today more than a quarter of Russian accommodation lacks access to running water or sewage. A figure that has been coming down in recent years


Communal apartments were exceedingly rare outside of those areas turned into such between the two world wars - i.e. they were dominant in the older city centresAnd as such communal apartments still housed some 15% of Soviet households in 1989. (The Former Soviet Union in Transition.) Post-war investment did not succeed in replacing these dwellings and there's no cause to simply blithely dismiss them

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'm sorry, I clearly missed that post in which someone elaborated on the dire state of housing under 'socialism in one country'. How silly of me to have construed your glossing over of that entire period for a scathing analysis of its shortcomings


Hurrhurr, I know you like to be a contrarian arsehole and all that all the time, you're bloody unbearable even when you are right.


Can you name one year in which the targets for housing stock were actually met? I didn't say they were met. They weren't. There was an effort, and although unsatisfactory, the actual production was overall on the level of new construction in many western countries; this doesn't mean that this is a good situation whatsoever. There were also tremendous differences in production depending on the regions, and this was a serious problem too, and it is very visible from the fact that older housing stock makes up the majority of housing in many cities.


Ironically, a good chunk of the late 1980s increase in housing stock came from the relaxation of constraints on the private sector - a sign of the very collapse that was to comeI agree, particularly in the large cities, allowing the housing coöperatives to build their own was important in increasing the production towards the end, and I agree with your analysis. Brezhnev-era construction plans were furthermore done to compensate (i.e. to improve popularity of the government) for the growing economic inertness, nevertheless...


Hmmm? According to The Former Soviet Union in Transition, less than 2% of families and 15% of singles in apartments had more than 20 square metres of living space, in 1989. Obviously this would be even less when just considering urban areas aloneI was referring to sizes of newly built flats, not average sizes.


And as such communal apartments still housed some 15% of Soviet households in 1989. (The Former Soviet Union in Transition.) Post-war investment did not succeed in replacing these dwellings and there's no cause to simply blithely dismiss them I was referring to new constructions. And I agree that they did not succeed in replacing them, and there was really no effort to do so in many regards even.

Neither of these point is why the OP is a troll, however.

[Ace High]

Why do people have to get so offended when someone is making an argument. Seriously, some of you are calling CatsAttack a troll just because they are challenging your argument? Or calling people an asshole for making a rebuttal? Some of you are being quite childish here.

As for the argument itself, the Soviet Union Was incredibly mismanaged by Stalin. He ruined literally everything that the Bolsheviks created and that doomed the USSR from the beginning. We have to look past just ideology here and offer some criticisms. The way I see it, it is infuriating that what could have been the greatest workers free zone in the world instead ended up becoming a stagnant dystopia run by essentially the military.

[RadioRaheem84]

The dude is a troll because he will create a thread like, "why didn't the marxists cure world hunger"? And then when people answer him he gets all brazen and says that they don't know shit because he lived in the USSR.

[connoros]

Why do people have to get so offended when someone is making an argument. Seriously, some of you are calling CatsAttack a troll just because they are challenging your argument? Or calling people an asshole for making a rebuttal? Some of you are being quite childish here.

Pay more careful attention to CatsAttack's post, and you'll get why the word "troll" has come up so often.


As for the argument itself, the Soviet Union Was incredibly mismanaged by Stalin. He ruined literally everything that the Bolsheviks created and that doomed the USSR from the beginning. We have to look past just ideology here and offer some criticisms. The way I see it, it is infuriating that what could have been the greatest workers free zone in the world instead ended up becoming a stagnant dystopia run by essentially the military.

So this all happened because of the personal or theoretical failings of an individual?

[Ace High]

Pay more careful attention to CatsAttack's post, and you'll get why the word "troll" has come up so often.



So this all happened because of the personal or theoretical failings of an individual?

Well I am new, so you got me there, I don't exactly know CatsAttack, but from this particular post, it didn't seem to be troll-esque but hey, you've been here longer.

And well, yes, an individual who we shouldn't be praising as one of us. Who is going to take us seriously, praising Stalin? We will only be ridiculed and not to mention the targets of some bad "in soviet Russia" jokes.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

To somewhat stay on topic. I recently found a book on this subject: Manufacturing a Socialist Modernity (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0822944049/?tag=newbooinhis-20). Which is about Czech "socialist" architecture.
I got interested in the book by this podcast (http://newbooksinhistory.com/2012/05/31/kimberly-zarecor-manufacturing-a-socialist-modernity-housing-in-czechoslovakia-1945-1960-pittsburgh-up-2011/). So if it interests anyone, be sure to check it out.

However my question was, has anyone read the book and know if it is worth a read?
In the podcast she seems to suggest that they did have quite decent housing especially after the Stalin-era, but that decency was traded in for efficiency when the economy stagnated, not having a lobby instead having an extra room and having smaller rooms etc.