Thread: Western Propaganda aka клюква lol

Originally Posted by Anixx

They could

- rent a flat from the state in a multi-storey building (this right could not be revoked by the state and the payment was virtually non-existent, the right would be inherited by those who live in the flat)
- have a private house (officially, "personal" because there was no private property, only "personal property", but for you it's the same as "private"). The house would be inherited by the relatives even if they do not live there.
- being a member of a house-building cooperative (condominium?) with a share, corresponding to a flat in a multi-storey building (with the right to sell the share, that is the flat). Upon leaving the cooperative the share would be paid in money. The share would be inherited by the relatives and the cooperative members would vote if to accept a new member. If refused the share would be paid in money.
- have a country estate "dacha" in addition to their urban flat. The dacha was private while the area at which it was built usually was state property (the state gave it into indeterminate-term usage). Although if one did not build a dacha in the given place in time, the place could be taken by the state. Dacha had no street address so one only could have dacha in addition to their main residence.

That said, one could not have a flat in a multi-storey city building in private while could easily buy a separate house in a town or a village or a flat in a 2-4 flat small houses (where available). One also could buy a share in a cooperative with the right to use a flat in a multi-storey house built by that cooperative.

One COULD NOT

- buy an office
- buy a shop
- buy a plant
- buy an oil refinery
- buy a newspaper (although it was probably possible to institute a non-commercial society over certain interest such as homebrew or radio-constructing and issue papers or bulletins from the name of the society).

One could not do probably the most important thing that applies to real estate anytime anywhere - one could not buy a piece of land so that it would be their property (personal, private, call it whatever). That is, there was no such thing as private ownership of land, all the land belonged to the state, and there was no law that could protect you if they decided to "get a piece of their land back" (the one your house was built on)

Originally Posted by Eric C.

One could not do probably the most important thing that applies to real estate anytime anywhere - one could not buy a piece of land so that it would be their property (personal, private, call it whatever).

I do not think the majority of people in Western Europe are landowners. Possibly in the US many people have houses with small piece of land attached to it, but not large land masses.

That is, there was no such thing as private ownership of land, all the land belonged to the state, and there was no law that could protect you if they decided to "get a piece of their land back" (the one your house was built on)

You are wrong. A private owner can take your land at will but the state could not. There WERE laws about it. The land only could be taken if you did not use the land and had not built anything on it for a number of years. Or if the land is necessary for say, federal road or pipeline, but in that case you would be given compensation like in any country. The land was given for free and for indefinite term. Nobody could take it without compensation if you had a private house built on it.

Anyway I think the "land question" is quite irrelevant in an urbanized society where the landowners are only a tiny percent.