that and the fact that the majority of Soviet citizens had both an apartment and a dacha; the apartment provided by the state/union/workplace and the dacha being family property

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 25 points 1 month ago

It flashed in my head whenever the press stressed how Putin had a “dacha” but it was a palace!

…never elaborating that it stands out because dachas were extremely common among the citizenry that lived in the industrialized cities

[–] ConcreteHalloween@hexbear.net 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even in Cuba you are legally allowed to own a vacation home but they do put limits on how much real estate a single family can own.

[–] getoffthatchronic@lemdro.id 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

What happened to Soviet and Cuban property law prior to workers en masse gaining the ability to buy a vacation home for their family? Do you think that the US land system can just be loosened up to allow poors into it? That goes contrary to its pricing through scarcity...

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Do you think that the US land system can just be loosened up to allow poors into it? That goes contrary to its pricing through scarcity...

Practically speaking, the vast majority of Americans are housed already. They simply don't own those dwellings. It would be easy (and completely uncontroversial, at least among proletarians) to expropriate those dwellings and turn them over to their residents. Regarding unhoused people, it's a well-established fact that they are massively outnumbered by empty dwellings being held as speculative real-estate assets, which should also be expropriated. I don't really see what advantage there is in expropriating personal residences in use by their owners that would further the goal of American land reform.