>>2131273>consider me redpilledGlad to help
>Grey, repetitive, spartan.most of that were the pre-fab apartment buildings tha were made in the 60s. It was a response to the lack of housing caused by the Tsar not giving a fuck about the people + WW1 and WW2 essentially destroying millions of houses, factories etc. By the early 80s many people were moving to better facilities, and even the apartments weren't any worse than a typical 60s/70s apartment in Britain.
>an outlier like SerbiaYugoslavia was considered not as well off as, say, East Germany or the USSR in terms of materials, plus NATO fuckery as you said.
Things look run-down because after the USSR fell the government, which had maintained these buildings stopped doing that because privatization, and since most people lost a ton of money in that time, nobody had the cash to pay for upkeep.
>confused as to what the true truth of the matter is hereTo give you a very basic run-down:
Socialism is the more beneficial system for anyone who works, even the petty bourgeoisie. The past implementations like the USSR are not without problems but its more individual issues rather than issues inherent to socialism.
Socialism takes the slower but long-term approach to advancing society, while capitalism rushes to over-produce everything at once for the short-term and in doing so dooms humanity in the long-term through imperialism-based hyper-inflation. A lot of the massive consumer items that we see are only available because we exploit some 3rd world shit-hole and make it into a worse shit-hole. If we attempted an ethical production of all products we'd have an economic collapse because the deficit would eclipse the profit.
If you're interested in this I suggest the book Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti. It covers both the theory, and explains issues and successes in historical context.
https://b-ok.xyz/ireader/981420 