'The shame of housing disaster of capitalist's UK, and the proud housing success of socialist People's Korea' ( An article from the quarterly magazine 'The Revolutionary Thought' issue 4, of the Internationalist Revolutionary Communist Party )
Housing, the need for space for personal living is one of the most basic and fundamental human needs. In the housing system that is in capitalist countries, for example in the UK housing is one of the areas of operation of capitalist competition.
In the past decades, the UK state, and above all local councils, built apartments. Immediately after World War II, entire cities were built, 30 of which were built from scratch. This was done only to make apartments available. And what is important, these were not just any flats - flats erected in the first period after the war were built with the assumption that they were to be desired by an ordinary citizen. So, they had a higher standard than those that were available on the market at the time. But all of this effort was wasted, back in the days when the neo - liberal gang of Margaret Thatcher, did not only destroy the weak but existing social relations in the housing sector, but also disrupted and remodelled council housing sector in functioning for ordinary citizens as more hostile and shut for their issues and needs, for development.
The first building in London that was built as a communal rental building is in the East End. It was built for workers. Today, flats in it cost so much that if the British prime minister came to the bank with his earnings, he would not get a loan for even two rooms of that flat ... Except that this building was built much earlier. In 1901. This example illustrates well what catastrophic effects is of liberal politics on the housing sector. All promises of liberal politician class of bourgeois ruling classes have a short - term character of 'electoral sausage' - so it is just empty promises. In the long run, the market and this will lead to horrendous price hikes and it will stifle investment and deprive the poorest of the poor of any chance of housing.
Follow to 50s and 60s, almost anyone who needed one could apply for an apartment. Even in the 1970s people complained that the waiting time for public housing was long, as much as two ( ! ) years. Today the waiting time in the UK is at least 20 years, but unfortunately there are also places where it is known that you will never get social housing.
In 1979, when Margaret Thatcher began her rule, she decided to 'give away' council flats. In principle, everyone could get a flat in which they lived for a fraction of the value ( a similar solution existed in Poland a few years ago ). The whole operation was carried out perfectly in terms of Public Relations. For example, it was said that anyone could become a landlord. And in England, being a landlord in the bourgeois terminology is almost like nobility.
Even in this decision, political considerations were paramount. They wanted to weaken support for the Labour Party. When someone in Britain became the owner of their own house with a garden, they automatically moved to the middle class. And when you are middle class, you do not vote for a working class party. Attacking everything that was an element of community life - trade unions, municipal housing, even local governments, whose competencies were limited. And one of the tools was the distribution of flats for ownership.
However, almost half of the flats bought by the owners were quickly resold at a profit to investors who bought several dozen flats at attractive prices. And then, the problem began.
Not best, but still well - functioning system has been destroyed. Successive generations must pay for Thatcher's handouts. The combination of privatization and the abandonment of public housing has led to a situation where the state had to do something to save those who had no place to live .
So, it introduced rent subsidies. That it would solve the problem of housing shortage, but it did not happen, it only caused the prices and wages of landlords to increase.
With the privatization of the real estate market, rent subsidies were introduced - for those who cannot afford a flat, the state will pay the difference. Admittedly, there are some limitations, e.g. the rental price cannot be significantly above the average for this place, because then the state will not pay extra. After 2008, a ban on co - financing was also introduced when there are more rooms in the apartment than people occupy it. There are age limits that exclude young singles from the system. But in most cases, there are surcharges. Currently, the housing allowance is received by about 20 - 25 percent and still continues to shrink. through ever - increasing budget cuts in spending and deliberately complicating and hindering the application, for these credits by making the requirements more difficult and bureaucratic the application process.
But because of these subsidies, prices are constantly rising. And at a pace that state aid cannot keep up with. The effects can be seen in the statistics. While in the 1960s, the average household spent about 20% of its income on housing maintenance today it is already 40 percent or more. This causes less money to go to other sectors of the economy than real estate. It is estimated that after deducting the contribution to the change in housing prices, the British economy would grow by only approx. 0.2 per cent. annually.
In addition, in 1988, a law was introduced that in practice completely deregulated the rental sector. The principle was introduced that the landlord has the right to increase the rent or terminate the contract, guided only by his own whim. The only limitation is the requirement of two months' notice. Social housing provided stability. These properties were rented for life, and often even with the right to inherit the lease by children. Today, it is very difficult for tenants to feel safe. The changes began in 1979, when a new housing model appeared.
Although it sounds paradoxical, in the UK it is not valuable to build flats or houses. More can be earned in a situation where the supply is practically non - existent. And communal construction came to a standstill.
A decade ago, the British government introduced the 'Help to Buy' program - and it was nothing more than a down payment for people who want to buy their first apartment. Sounds familiar? As a result, there are no more flats, but the prices of those that would have been delivered anyway, immediately become higher.
It is a general rule that such mechanisms do not change the situation on the market, because they do not affect the supply. In London, in 2002, you had to pay five average annual salaries for an average - sized apartment, and in 2022, it was already fourteen. What is more, in Great Britain, the largest banks do not grant, for example, housing loans to people who receive any benefits.
Today, even a British professor cannot afford to buy a flat.
It used to be estimated that the income from four or six years of work should be enough to buy a flat, and it was. Currently, in London, Winchester or Oxford, housing already costs an average of 16 years of income from work and that is the average income for the area. This makes it virtually impossible to buy real estate. The problem is increasingly affecting people with fixed incomes - even professors at the University College of London or Richmond University have a problem with it.
However, the increase in real estate prices is accompanied by a deterioration in construction standards. In a new building in the UK, it can be difficult for two people to pass each other on the stairs. The area is falling - the apartments are miniature, but they are also crowded and overcrowded.
The standard is that singles who cannot afford to buy anything of their own nest in apartments intended for families. 50 percent over the course of a decade. the number of twenty - year - olds who do not have their own place has increased. In the 1980s, the average age of a buyer of a new apartment was 26 years old, now it is 32 years old. University graduates who start work often cannot even afford to rent an apartment, so it is common for parents to subsidize housing expenses.
In the British urban space, local councils look in vain for larger projects of building new premises for municipal purposes. Mostly, the already available resource is used - increasingly destructive and degrading. An example is the project widely popularized in the local press and considered a success by the local council of liberal idiots for the design of the old and part damaged building of the former police station in Taunton Somerset. The police were moved to the local council building, due to the poor technical condition of the building, dampness, mould and mildew and destruction. Now, the council under pressure of thousands of citizens awaiting on council housing list decided try to adapt former police station to housing needs instead of invest to a new project. Of course, easier is just sold urban areas from taking into construction activity for the city and its citizens.
In the housing policy of local councils in the UK distorted by liberal idiots, the overriding goal of urban space is not to benefit and meet human needs, but to generate immediate income, profit. Thus, all provisions and opinions contained in local documents, stating that the basic duties of local authorities include providing housing to all residents, are treated as an ornament of the document and a text without any coverage in reality, the real goal is the so - called: 'normalization' of relations between local government and development companies in a commercial way, i.e. 'negotiating' local government officials with those business representatives who have to offer as much money as possible for the purchase of municipal land. Cases of corruption are not rare here. Thus, local government authorities become de facto political representatives of business. Simultaneously with the sale of premises, the process of mass sale of municipal land is underway.
The desire to commercialize every area of life is one of the pillars of capitalism. It is no different in the housing sector.
As a result of well - paid bribes, local authorities generously transfer all land and real estate to private operators, private business. In line with Margaret Thatcher's maxim that 'there is no such thing as society', no one thinks about the social costs of such measures. It is similar with the housing sector, which is treated like any other commodity, a resource that should not be included in the additional costs of the local council budget or, if necessary, should be as small as possible and limited, like the local budget, to a minimum of expenses for general social purposes, but plus bonuses and maintenance costs for civil servants. All in line with the anti - social ideas of liberal idiocy.
Completely opposite to the priorities and goals of the state, or rather the lack of it in relation to the housing needs of the society, as is the case in the socialist system, the liberal economy, or rather their sector of private parasites, who have mastered the housing sector and which occurs, among others, in UK. Data on the housing sector and the needs of the public in the UK in relation to the provision of housing that are published in the press are tragic and alarming. The ideas of liberal free - market idiots at the helm of power, as usual, are aimed at protecting their interests and profit for them, not for the benefit of the average citizen. These ideas are designed to pump public money into the private pockets of the financial elite. In this case, the money from the budget is to go to private banks, developers and idlers who live in luxury from the mere fact of having apartments for rent. Of course, ordinary people will be most affected, because big business - including real estate developers, housing trade brokers and speculators - is quite successful in evading taxes. For the class of parasites - landlords and private businessmen investing in the UK housing market, it is more profitable to hold vacant, empty luxury flats than to allow price reductions, which would inevitably be caused by that is speculatively turned from owner to owner with interest and profit. Buying flats ''for investment' is a pathological behavior, which results in an increase in housing prices and exclusion of more and more people from any possibility of 'living on their own'. People who cannot afford loans today often pay more for renting an apartment than the loan instalment. A roof over your head is the basis for a dignified life and as a society we should guarantee it to every family, regardless of the interests of parasitic elites!
Housing should be considered a right of every citizen, not a tool for multiplying profit. In a socialist economy, there is no place for idlers who live in abundance from other people's work and effort. Just as workplaces will be taken from the capitalists in one way or another and handed over to the workers, so will any 'owner' of large numbers of apartments be simply expropriated. For private owners of apartments renting for huge rents, as reality shows, quality and ensuring good conditions for landlords are not important, only profit for the smallest financial outlay counts.
The reality of catastrophic lack of not only flats, but also their technical condition show UK press. Mostly in the local and low - circulation, and therefore closer to the truth about the living conditions of the British society, there are articles about the catastrophic living conditions of the British society. As example one of article of local press of the Bristol City increase in supply. These apartments are built not to serve people, but as an investment of capital .
Revealed: renters living in mouldy art deco flats
handed steep rent hike by millionaire London landlords'
An article about the problems of the residents and the ignorance of the owners
[ source: 'The Bristol Cable'. Issue No 34 - summer 2023
The article is full of complaints from residents and examples of building destruction and poor technical condition that threatens the health of people living there, and also shows the ignorance and disregard of owners who make fortunes from renting in such conditions. As we read in this article, the residents of the exclusive Queen's Court in Clifton building in Bristol have to accept the terrible conditions in which they live with huge rents and have no influence to change it. They are afraid to even speak and do anything in their defense so as not to be evicted.
'’There always been mould and damp in our flat - it's never been sorted’, Stuart continues. He's had to do without key appliances for months, and had water pouring down his walls during stormy weather... ... ’We thought we were the only flat had [mould and damp]’, Stuart says. ’But people are in far worse situations than we are’'
Unfortunately, despite the fact that they experience nuisance as a result of living in disastrous conditions, there is still a deeply ingrained idea in the minds of these people that in a free and liberal real estate rental market companies should provide them with good housing conditions: 'If they are going to be charging market value, they should provide market value' Unfortunately, this is only a wish. In addition, not to be fulfilled at all. Because the capitalist owners of this building are not interested in incurring expenses for necessary repairs and maintaining good technical condition for the residents. They are only interested in profit. Filling their bank accounts with rent money without disturbance - it is their attitude.
City Estates was advised by contractors to waterproof the roof first. This advice was ignored to save money, the sources say, causing flooding into flats below.' '’The main issue has been lack of response’, Oliver says.’ There was a lot of rain in the new year, it started leaking here’, he adds, pointing to the stairwell. ’There was a massive puddle, we have a bunch of cracks and mould in our living room’. I ask when it was sorted out. ’It hasn't been’, he replies with a chuckle. ’It stopped raining’
Residents who pay high rents and live in unhealthy conditions. In conditions that do not care at all, owners who are responsible for ensuring good housing conditions in the quoted example from Bristol tried to fight for their rights. However, they quickly died down. The capitalist system in the housing sector does not work for the benefit of the inhabitants but for the benefit of capital owners.
'’A lot of people accepted [the rise] straightway out of fear of being kicked out of their flats’.' Oliver says. '’Many people I spoke to feared revenge evictions if they pushed too hard against the lack of maintenance, and felt pressured to accept rent increases they didn't want'’ Sad story indeed.A sad example of many in the UK
. Now let's see how the country, where the socialist system is at a high level of development, manages to cover the housing needs of the society. A country where human needs come first - the socialist Korea of Juche, so Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
In the DPRK capital of Pyongyang, huge projects have been undertaken in the past and present to build thousands of apartments. On construction sites, apart from employees for whom it is a matter of honour to have flats available for everyone as soon as possible, there are also soldiers from Korean People's Army. 'The respected Comrade Kim Jong Un, attended the inauguration ceremony of the first - stage 10 000 flats ...' ' ... Officials of the construction headquarters for 50 000 flats in Pyongyang city, commanding officers of the Korean People's Army, who took part in the housing construction, officials of the Party and power organs in the city and military -civilian builders congratulated working people, who moved into the modern houses given by the Party and the state free of charge.' [ source: Korean Central News Agency ]
Also in rural areas, housing construction managed with careful care and supplied with funds from the central budget of socialist planned economy, is flourishing and developing on a large scale. As example, in July this year, another part of planned houses has been handed over for settlement in the rural area ( villages of Phungjon - ri in Chonnae County, Sunhak - ri in Kosong County, Hyon - ri in Sepho County and Jiam - ri in Phyonggang County ). All of the new and modern houses of various and peculiar styles were built to provide convenience of the residents free of any charges as part of Juche based pro - social politics of the socialist state of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
' ... The Workers’ Party of Korea and the DPRK Government vigorously pushed ahead with the project of building 50 000 flats in Pyongyang in 2022 even under the harshest situation. A modern street with 10 000 flats was set up in the Songsin and Songhwa area as part of the project. The Eighth Congress of the WPK held in January 2021 had designated the building of 50 000 flats in Pyongyang as one of the important tasks to be accomplished during the five - year plan period. The groundbreaking ceremony for the building of 10 000 flats in the Songsin and Songhwa area as part of the project to build 50 000 flats in Pyongyang was held in March 2021 ...' ' ... Construction of 10 000 flats in the Hwasong area was promoted at its last stage in 2022. It was a reflection of the steadfast will of the WPK not to suspend for a moment to do something it has aspired to do even in the face of trials and difficulties. The year 2022 witnessed ushering in of a new era of rural rejuvenation in the country...' ' ... Building houses has also been promoted vigorously in the Komdok area in the northern part of the country. In this area, a large - scale mineral producer, a biggest - ever mountain gorge town, with 25 000 houses and neighbourhood - serving amenities, will be built in five years, beginning from the year 2021, with 5 000 houses each year...' [ source: '2022 DPRK Raising Its Profile' ]
New public buildings for society,
in Songhwa and Hwasong Streets,
and the Pothong Riverside Terraced Residential District of Pyongyang,
capitol city of the DPRK
[ source: Korean Central News Agency
New houses free of charge for DPRK citizens, of the rural area of the Kangwon Province [ source: Korean Central News Agency ]
How the socialist government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea looks after and cares about housing needs, providing housing for every Korean family is shown in one of the many articles by the communist party - the Workers' Party of Korea - central press organ - 'Rodong Sinmun' Rodong Sinmun on Popular Character of WPK's Policies Seen through Housing Construction Pyongyang, August 2nd 2023 ( Korean Central News Agency ) ' ... in an article says that the Workers' Party of Korea ( WPK ) set at its 8th Congress it as the core of its construction policy to make the DPRK the first country which solved the housing problem in the world, and has launched a series of gigantic projects for its realization. People move into new houses in different parts of the country. This is the outcome of the people - first principle peculiar to the WPK, which gives top priority to the interests and convenience of the people, deeming them absolute in working out and implementing all policies, the article says, and goes on: It is only the WPK which makes sure that all dwelling houses are built as intended and demanded by people, respecting the people as Heaven. Today our Party is pushing ahead with the rural construction. Thanks to it which has taken best care of the people in the face of severer difficulties and made selfless, devoted efforts for the good of them, regarding all hardships as pleasure, the people enjoy more benefits under socialism and their great cheers of hurrah for the Workers' Party and socialism resound throughout the country. As it encourages people to cherish new dreams and ideals, work hard to realize them, acquire such enterprising work style as to discover, create and innovate more new things, our Party’s construction policy has become a popular policy run through with warm love for the people, which thoroughly embodies the people - first principle. It is the steadfast will of the WPK to radically improve the living environment of the people across the country in 20 to 30 years and thus turn the country into an ideal socialist country admired by the world and a socialist paradise where the people enjoy the highest civilization in comfort and harmony' [ source: 'Rodong Simmun', Korean Central News Agency ]
A comparison of the effectiveness and level of ensuring the housing needs of the capitalist society in the UK in relation to the socialist system of planned economy in the DPRK, where the housing sector is permanently included in the areas of investment activity of the state, shows the difference as huge as the pride of such a pro - social policy in the state, where man and his needs are in the first place in DPRK, in relation to the enormity of the decline and continuation of the pathetic and anti - human activity of imagined the so - called 'invisible hand of the market' which, according to liberal fabulists, was supposed to solve all the needs of society. And as a result, deepens misery and creates chaos, and reinforces social inequality in the exploitation of the poorest classes. who cannot obtain housing due to their low social status and income. The number of homeless people on all city streets in the UK is growing. i.e. those whose cost of rent and rent exceeded the possibility of income.
They are often young people in their prime who are able to work. But the cost of living is so high that working just does not pay off anymore. In the field of housing policy, the UK and the DPRK are not even comparable. There is just no housing policy or exist loose and contradictory, not coordinated housing policy - created to make profit not for housing needs for society in the UK.
Actually. What is there to compare? Lack of flats and those that are used for exploitation for the profit of the owners in very bad condition, compared to thousands of comfortable and newly built, beautiful flats given free of charge to the working class in the socialist DPRK system?
(This article was originally published in ' The Revolutionary Thought ' the journal of the Internationalist Revolutionary Communist Party and is reproduced by their kind permission)
