I'd also like to note on the side that this kind of criticism directly led into the 'homosexuality is bourgeoisie decadence' thing because it fundamentally relies on the same logic, so let's try to not go down that road again? We already know what the potential consequences are, and they're really not worth being 'allowed' to bully dudes who wanna dress like a capitalist from a soviet propaganda poster or something.
Obviously not, but both arguments rely on the same stupid aesthetic judgements. If aesthetic judgements are prevalent and accepted it makes 'homosexuality is bourgeoisie decadence' style-things that much easier for people to accept. I don't know what form that would take in the modern era, but no matter what it wouldn't be good. Better to mercilessly snuff out arguments that rely on aesthetic judgements in the first place to avoid the risk.
Idk about OP but if his brain works like mine, the uneasiness comes from the fact that they cost a lot of money that theoretically could go to housing homeless people or something.
It takes a bit of reprogramming to realize that there is nothing about socialist countries that makes nice things impossible, and that we are actually capable of having nice things AND housing the homeless. At least that's my belief.
I'd also like to note on the side that this kind of criticism directly led into the 'homosexuality is bourgeoisie decadence' thing because it fundamentally relies on the same logic, so let's try to not go down that road again? We already know what the potential consequences are, and they're really not worth being 'allowed' to bully dudes who wanna dress like a capitalist from a soviet propaganda poster or something.
While I get this point, and I do think the skyscraper argument is dumb, its not nearly as bad as the homosexuality is bourgeoisie decadence thing
Obviously not, but both arguments rely on the same stupid aesthetic judgements. If aesthetic judgements are prevalent and accepted it makes 'homosexuality is bourgeoisie decadence' style-things that much easier for people to accept. I don't know what form that would take in the modern era, but no matter what it wouldn't be good. Better to mercilessly snuff out arguments that rely on aesthetic judgements in the first place to avoid the risk.
I agree. Aesthetics is all subjective and weaponization of it is usually stupid.
Idk about OP but if his brain works like mine, the uneasiness comes from the fact that they cost a lot of money that theoretically could go to housing homeless people or something.
It takes a bit of reprogramming to realize that there is nothing about socialist countries that makes nice things impossible, and that we are actually capable of having nice things AND housing the homeless. At least that's my belief.
Also look at this cool ass early Soviet shit
It’s absolutely possible to have skyscrapers and to also house the homeless.