this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
186 points (98.4% liked)
GenZedong
4242 readers
79 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I didn’t say it was impossible, it’s not like if you use concrete it’s going to instantly vaporize and explode.
However it will require significantly more upkeep and repair, and will become dilapidated quickly without proper maintenance.
Just look what happened to all the khrushchevki after the Union fell. Many stop receiving support and fell apart quickly.
Also I don’t know what you mean by the reason not holding water. It’s not the end all be all, but it’s simply science. Concrete expands and contracts to much in the face of water and temperature to make a viable long term building material without constant upkeep.
Except Khrushchevki were never designed to be long-term solution. They were a stopgap measure and have in fact outlived their projected service time by decades
I agree, but that doesn’t dent the fact the millions still live in them to this day.
Does that support ComradeSalad's point? I.e. because if they were meant to last longer, they'd have been built differently?
Yes and no. They would have been built different, but not from wood. Don't have to go far for examples either: here's a house that was built to last in Stalin period. ComradeSalad does raise valid points regarding temperature jumps and the need for upkeep - but the latter is an issue with the economic mode, not the materials.
Besides, it's the XXI century. Surely we can build things with materials a tiny bit more advanced than basic concrete