That's not true. The goal was to have your needs met with in one neighborhood, it's very similar to the 15 min city even if people weren't restricted that was their goal to keep people in one area.
There was no goal to keep people in one area at all. How that worked - financing was either from a government, for districts with weared housing, either from a factory to build a district for workers families to attract workforce and have it closer. Obviously in most cases only one member of family worked on that factory, in the case of government renovation that was not a case at all. So, around half of such district had a job in another part of town. In large towns only tiny amount of district inhabitants had a job in that district. Public transport was cheap as dirt or even free, so there was no problems in having job in other parts of town.
And of course limit the ability to be self sufficient at all / unable to live off the land. 1917-1930:
If you are not aware, rare Soviet family didn't have a vacation house (dacha) with a piece of land. That kind of rest for urban inhabitants, with growing own food was even propagandized. Also it was possible to rent (for a very symbolic price) a piece of farmland and grow your own potatoes or whatever for food. Such recreation was encouraged by authorities.
According to plan, a local resident could have spent his whole life in this neighbourhood without feeling any need for something outside of it: this place had shops, nurseries, schools, an institute with dormitories, factory, and even a crematory.
Never heard about such plans. Yes, there was groceries, shops, kindergardens and schools in every district, but that was not to limit inhabitants, but to make their life more comfortable, to not force them to waste much time on everyday things. There was never any restrictions on choosing a school with better teachers in other district or visiting pub on another end of town. They build subway lines between districts in large towns and there always was enough public transport and roads between districts. Also, at larger scale, tourism, vacation travels, tours, cultural education by visiting different places of USSR was higly propagandized officially. Communist Party thougth that all this stuff is highly useful for better efficiency of workers and pushed narrative that Soviet citizen should visit every amasing corner of USSR. They literally encouraged people to travel. Enterprises people work on even give out vouchers for different voyages and cruises for free. And we don't even need any ID to travel, even on planes. Only in mid-70s Aeroflot began to ask for ID for plane tickets and boarding, and not by its will, but by demand of fucking ICAO for the planes tha could theoretically reach abroad. Short local routes with small planes still didn't ask for ID until USSR fall, I traveled from Kherson to Simferopol around 1987 on plane without any documents at all - just got to small field airport, bought a ticket in a booth, take a seat in airplane nearby and that's all. Just like on a bus.
I lived trough it, and I spend all my childhood exactly in such khruschevka district. Nobody, never thought, told, even rumored about any restrictions you find today in 15-minute city agenda. I just know that USSR districts was complete opposite to what is now pushed as 15-minutes cities, and even opposite to modern urban architecture as whole. Having a kindergarden and grocery nearby does not mean you was somehow limited only to that grocery and kindergarden. It was just fucking logical and convenient to have a grocery and kindergarden nearby, and that's all.
I perfectly understand the desire to somehow scare normies about 15-minute cities idea. But why use blatant lies about USSR to do that? All they know about USSR/Russia they know only from the lying mouths of USSR/Russia worst enemies. Why continue with that lying? White lies are lies too.
Really, I don't understand many western approaches to the problem of informing normies about inconvinient truths. F.e. in that case you (or whatever person that choose that approach) obviously afraid that normies will be bought with grocery and kindergarden nearby, and all that "green" bullshit. So, you are trying to somehow show that grocery and kindergarden nearby is bad. To show that it is bad you choose a lie that in awful USSR they already had groceries and kindergardens nearby. Why not to try use USSR approach as an example of much better alternative, with groceries and kindergarden nearby, with real green environment, cheap and affordable and without any restrictions? Normies like groceries and kindergardens nearby, and green parks too. And especialy they like affordable housing. They hardly will protest against 15-minute cities if you tell them that groceries and kindergarden nearby is bad. They will not see any profit in that.
To defeat the idea of 15-minute cities in the heads of normies, you have to show them a better alternative. Propose something better and show that they are tricked. And then they probably could protest and demand alternative. Show them that they could have a nice, really green district with tons of trees around, with groceries, kindergardens, schools, and all that with affordable housing, like USSR did, instead of that western urban idiocy with buildings on each other glued together along the narrow street withour single tree with enormous household prices that need hard restrictions of movement to become "green" and higher taxes and total surveillance to get grocery and kindergarden nearby. They just need to demand extermination of any land market speculation, laws about minimum land area around multiapartment building that could not be developed for other buildings and green light for pre-fabricated architecture. Not so impossible demands, and some developers with manufacturing capacity useful for pre-fabrication even could lobby them for profit. Normies see that they can get what they need without anal probes on the borders of district, anti-15-minute cities movement get support from business.
Normies don't need more scare, they need answers and solutions. While you deny to provide them and offer only scare, you will lose again and again.
So this entire article here is a lie? Hmmm. I find that hard to believe. No one is against convenience almost everywhere in the USA you have all your needs met with in 15 or 20 min even in rural America.
https://www.rbth.com/history/333374-propiska-in-soviet-union
"In 1974, the Soviet government finally decided to give out passports to all categories of its citizens – this process, however, began in 1976 and was completed only at the beginning of the 1980s. But even with passports, Soviet people were restricted to their certain place of residence. Let’s see how the propiska worked."
"Naturally, immediately after the Bolsheviks took power, they banned the Tsarist passport system – but introduced the ‘employment record books’ – to control the population and seek out those who didn’t work. In 1925, the notion of propiska was first introduced into Soviet reality: the IDs the Soviet citizens had were stamped with their permanent place of residence. In 1932, the passport system was fully re-introduced, with propiska being an important feature that allowed a citizen to access government services, including medical help, at their place of residence. As we mentioned before, almost all Soviet peasants had no passports back in the 1930s. Up until the 1980s, the villagers had to ask for a special permit to leave their village and go study or work in the city."
Awful lot of information regarding restrictions and the propiska system..... like tons of info to be found. Maybe you were ignorant to what was happening around you as a kid. Idk.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union
This have nothing to do with reality. Again. Where did you get all that bullshit?
"Propiska" was kind of household ownership certificate in your ID named "passport". It meant that you have a right to live in that household and have access to local services. Some government services, like car registration, f,e. was available only at place of your living. Most public services, like medicine, education or whatever was available everywhere, regardless of that stamp in passport. In rare special cases "propiska" could limit movement only to so-called "closed" towns where top secret military factories resided. Only those who had households in such towns (and so proper "propiska" stamp in passport) was allowed to came in. Inhabitants of such towns was free to travel anywhere and in no way was restricted to leave the town. How that rare case could be used to make a conclusion about global restrictive nature of "propiska" is out of my imagination.
USSR internal passport had nothing to do with limits on movement. It was just ID and was rarely needed in everyday life. If you moved you had to get a new "propiska" stamp. It was not that government permit you to move, it was like you inform government about your new household. Really, people hate that thing, because it was time consuming, with all that lines and gathering papers with stamps in different offices, but something tell me that people hate governement services all around the world for exactly same reason, regardless of country, political system and so on.
Rural inhabitants without passports just don't needed them. There was no any need for any "permit" for anybody to travel or move anywhere since mid-30s when Jewish Bolsheviks was exterminated by Stalin. One of my grandfathers was a worker at a state farm, deep in rural area, he had no passport or any documents at all except secondary education certificate and birth certificate. Once he decided to continue his education in university in Moscow, he just laid off from farm, get train to Moscow, passed exams and become a student. He got a passport only few years later, just in case, not because it was necessary for something.
Funny, AFAIK, in USA you need SSN and/or driver license to do most things with government and even private banks and other services, and have to, say, register your car in the state you permanently live, you can't permanently live in NY and drive a car with Texas plates. How is it different from USSR internal passport system? SSN is named SSN and not a "passport" and that somehow makes SSN acceptible and soviet passport awful?
Really, I think humans don't need all that ID shit and should nor be forced to have one, nor limited to have only one, it is needed only by state, so it is a purely state problem, not a problem of individual and state could GTFO and resolve its own problem by itself.
But regarding some extraordinary evilness of Soviet passport in comparison to USA SSN, European passports/IDs and other similar stuff around the world, it is complete bullshit. It is the same thing, just named "passport" in USSR.
Yeah Idk. I mean there is soo much on the Soviet passport. What comes up if you search? I could share hundreds of articles like this. https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/8464?lang=en
But yeah the ss is kind of bs. You are supposed to get a new ID if you move but lots of people don't. You could get a ticket for the wrong plates but it would take a long time and they would have to notice you aren't just traveling. Eventually though you have to get a registration for your car so yeah it gets updated. The difference would be if these articles are correct and the amount of restrictions along w it. Part of me agrees all ID is bs but why do we have it and agree to it? The bad eggs of society...right? The people who have hit and runs, criminals, murderers, scammers ect to ID them . I've come to this conclusion until humanity can learn to control themselves and be decent to each other we will be forever enslaved.
If man can't rule himself he will be ruled.
Yeah Idk. I mean there is soo much on the Soviet passport. What comes up if you search?
Why should I search anything about Soviet passport? I had one and lived noticeable part of my life with it.
What makes that soviet passport so different from any other ID used in other countries for exactly same things? Is it its form of a small book, or its naming? Why USA driver license demanded even to buy a beer in a grocery is OK, but somehow Soviet passport that was used mostly same way is suddenly something awful? We didn't have many cars in USSR, so driver license was not a thing everybody had. Interesting, if a USA citizen do not have driver license, how he could buy a bottle of beer or whiskey? What ID would he show to the cashier to prove he is adult enough to buy it? Or driver license is mandatory for every American? Or he will be denied?
What Dutch International Institute of Social History could know about USSR at all? And for some reason I'm shure that this Kessler guy never even visited USSR. He began to lie from the first sentences. Soviet passport never was "restrictive" and there was no any "urban residence permit". And for completely unknown reason (it is sarcasm, meanwhile), I never heard that somebody from the West named German Anmeldung as "urban residence permit". Where could I find an articles about horrors of "urban residence permit" in modern Germany? Again, we didn't even need to show any ID to buy a ticket and travel around all country even by planes. Soviet people even don't need any ID to open a bank account - it named "bearer account". Tell me please, in what country could I open an anonymous bank account without any ID today?
As for all that ID thing - criminals have no problems with fake IDs, so IDs are shurely for identifying and surveling over normal people.
There was no goal to keep people in one area at all. How that worked - financing was either from a government, for districts with weared housing, either from a factory to build a district for workers families to attract workforce and have it closer. Obviously in most cases only one member of family worked on that factory, in the case of government renovation that was not a case at all. So, around half of such district had a job in another part of town. In large towns only tiny amount of district inhabitants had a job in that district. Public transport was cheap as dirt or even free, so there was no problems in having job in other parts of town.
If you are not aware, rare Soviet family didn't have a vacation house (dacha) with a piece of land. That kind of rest for urban inhabitants, with growing own food was even propagandized. Also it was possible to rent (for a very symbolic price) a piece of farmland and grow your own potatoes or whatever for food. Such recreation was encouraged by authorities.
Never heard about such plans. Yes, there was groceries, shops, kindergardens and schools in every district, but that was not to limit inhabitants, but to make their life more comfortable, to not force them to waste much time on everyday things. There was never any restrictions on choosing a school with better teachers in other district or visiting pub on another end of town. They build subway lines between districts in large towns and there always was enough public transport and roads between districts. Also, at larger scale, tourism, vacation travels, tours, cultural education by visiting different places of USSR was higly propagandized officially. Communist Party thougth that all this stuff is highly useful for better efficiency of workers and pushed narrative that Soviet citizen should visit every amasing corner of USSR. They literally encouraged people to travel. Enterprises people work on even give out vouchers for different voyages and cruises for free. And we don't even need any ID to travel, even on planes. Only in mid-70s Aeroflot began to ask for ID for plane tickets and boarding, and not by its will, but by demand of fucking ICAO for the planes tha could theoretically reach abroad. Short local routes with small planes still didn't ask for ID until USSR fall, I traveled from Kherson to Simferopol around 1987 on plane without any documents at all - just got to small field airport, bought a ticket in a booth, take a seat in airplane nearby and that's all. Just like on a bus.
I lived trough it, and I spend all my childhood exactly in such khruschevka district. Nobody, never thought, told, even rumored about any restrictions you find today in 15-minute city agenda. I just know that USSR districts was complete opposite to what is now pushed as 15-minutes cities, and even opposite to modern urban architecture as whole. Having a kindergarden and grocery nearby does not mean you was somehow limited only to that grocery and kindergarden. It was just fucking logical and convenient to have a grocery and kindergarden nearby, and that's all.
I perfectly understand the desire to somehow scare normies about 15-minute cities idea. But why use blatant lies about USSR to do that? All they know about USSR/Russia they know only from the lying mouths of USSR/Russia worst enemies. Why continue with that lying? White lies are lies too.
Really, I don't understand many western approaches to the problem of informing normies about inconvinient truths. F.e. in that case you (or whatever person that choose that approach) obviously afraid that normies will be bought with grocery and kindergarden nearby, and all that "green" bullshit. So, you are trying to somehow show that grocery and kindergarden nearby is bad. To show that it is bad you choose a lie that in awful USSR they already had groceries and kindergardens nearby. Why not to try use USSR approach as an example of much better alternative, with groceries and kindergarden nearby, with real green environment, cheap and affordable and without any restrictions? Normies like groceries and kindergardens nearby, and green parks too. And especialy they like affordable housing. They hardly will protest against 15-minute cities if you tell them that groceries and kindergarden nearby is bad. They will not see any profit in that.
To defeat the idea of 15-minute cities in the heads of normies, you have to show them a better alternative. Propose something better and show that they are tricked. And then they probably could protest and demand alternative. Show them that they could have a nice, really green district with tons of trees around, with groceries, kindergardens, schools, and all that with affordable housing, like USSR did, instead of that western urban idiocy with buildings on each other glued together along the narrow street withour single tree with enormous household prices that need hard restrictions of movement to become "green" and higher taxes and total surveillance to get grocery and kindergarden nearby. They just need to demand extermination of any land market speculation, laws about minimum land area around multiapartment building that could not be developed for other buildings and green light for pre-fabricated architecture. Not so impossible demands, and some developers with manufacturing capacity useful for pre-fabrication even could lobby them for profit. Normies see that they can get what they need without anal probes on the borders of district, anti-15-minute cities movement get support from business.
Normies don't need more scare, they need answers and solutions. While you deny to provide them and offer only scare, you will lose again and again.
So this entire article here is a lie? Hmmm. I find that hard to believe. No one is against convenience almost everywhere in the USA you have all your needs met with in 15 or 20 min even in rural America. https://www.rbth.com/history/333374-propiska-in-soviet-union
"In 1974, the Soviet government finally decided to give out passports to all categories of its citizens – this process, however, began in 1976 and was completed only at the beginning of the 1980s. But even with passports, Soviet people were restricted to their certain place of residence. Let’s see how the propiska worked."
"Naturally, immediately after the Bolsheviks took power, they banned the Tsarist passport system – but introduced the ‘employment record books’ – to control the population and seek out those who didn’t work. In 1925, the notion of propiska was first introduced into Soviet reality: the IDs the Soviet citizens had were stamped with their permanent place of residence. In 1932, the passport system was fully re-introduced, with propiska being an important feature that allowed a citizen to access government services, including medical help, at their place of residence. As we mentioned before, almost all Soviet peasants had no passports back in the 1930s. Up until the 1980s, the villagers had to ask for a special permit to leave their village and go study or work in the city."
Awful lot of information regarding restrictions and the propiska system..... like tons of info to be found. Maybe you were ignorant to what was happening around you as a kid. Idk.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union
This have nothing to do with reality. Again. Where did you get all that bullshit?
"Propiska" was kind of household ownership certificate in your ID named "passport". It meant that you have a right to live in that household and have access to local services. Some government services, like car registration, f,e. was available only at place of your living. Most public services, like medicine, education or whatever was available everywhere, regardless of that stamp in passport. In rare special cases "propiska" could limit movement only to so-called "closed" towns where top secret military factories resided. Only those who had households in such towns (and so proper "propiska" stamp in passport) was allowed to came in. Inhabitants of such towns was free to travel anywhere and in no way was restricted to leave the town. How that rare case could be used to make a conclusion about global restrictive nature of "propiska" is out of my imagination.
USSR internal passport had nothing to do with limits on movement. It was just ID and was rarely needed in everyday life. If you moved you had to get a new "propiska" stamp. It was not that government permit you to move, it was like you inform government about your new household. Really, people hate that thing, because it was time consuming, with all that lines and gathering papers with stamps in different offices, but something tell me that people hate governement services all around the world for exactly same reason, regardless of country, political system and so on.
Rural inhabitants without passports just don't needed them. There was no any need for any "permit" for anybody to travel or move anywhere since mid-30s when Jewish Bolsheviks was exterminated by Stalin. One of my grandfathers was a worker at a state farm, deep in rural area, he had no passport or any documents at all except secondary education certificate and birth certificate. Once he decided to continue his education in university in Moscow, he just laid off from farm, get train to Moscow, passed exams and become a student. He got a passport only few years later, just in case, not because it was necessary for something.
Funny, AFAIK, in USA you need SSN and/or driver license to do most things with government and even private banks and other services, and have to, say, register your car in the state you permanently live, you can't permanently live in NY and drive a car with Texas plates. How is it different from USSR internal passport system? SSN is named SSN and not a "passport" and that somehow makes SSN acceptible and soviet passport awful?
Really, I think humans don't need all that ID shit and should nor be forced to have one, nor limited to have only one, it is needed only by state, so it is a purely state problem, not a problem of individual and state could GTFO and resolve its own problem by itself.
But regarding some extraordinary evilness of Soviet passport in comparison to USA SSN, European passports/IDs and other similar stuff around the world, it is complete bullshit. It is the same thing, just named "passport" in USSR.
Yeah Idk. I mean there is soo much on the Soviet passport. What comes up if you search? I could share hundreds of articles like this. https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/8464?lang=en But yeah the ss is kind of bs. You are supposed to get a new ID if you move but lots of people don't. You could get a ticket for the wrong plates but it would take a long time and they would have to notice you aren't just traveling. Eventually though you have to get a registration for your car so yeah it gets updated. The difference would be if these articles are correct and the amount of restrictions along w it. Part of me agrees all ID is bs but why do we have it and agree to it? The bad eggs of society...right? The people who have hit and runs, criminals, murderers, scammers ect to ID them . I've come to this conclusion until humanity can learn to control themselves and be decent to each other we will be forever enslaved. If man can't rule himself he will be ruled.
Why should I search anything about Soviet passport? I had one and lived noticeable part of my life with it.
What makes that soviet passport so different from any other ID used in other countries for exactly same things? Is it its form of a small book, or its naming? Why USA driver license demanded even to buy a beer in a grocery is OK, but somehow Soviet passport that was used mostly same way is suddenly something awful? We didn't have many cars in USSR, so driver license was not a thing everybody had. Interesting, if a USA citizen do not have driver license, how he could buy a bottle of beer or whiskey? What ID would he show to the cashier to prove he is adult enough to buy it? Or driver license is mandatory for every American? Or he will be denied?
What Dutch International Institute of Social History could know about USSR at all? And for some reason I'm shure that this Kessler guy never even visited USSR. He began to lie from the first sentences. Soviet passport never was "restrictive" and there was no any "urban residence permit". And for completely unknown reason (it is sarcasm, meanwhile), I never heard that somebody from the West named German Anmeldung as "urban residence permit". Where could I find an articles about horrors of "urban residence permit" in modern Germany? Again, we didn't even need to show any ID to buy a ticket and travel around all country even by planes. Soviet people even don't need any ID to open a bank account - it named "bearer account". Tell me please, in what country could I open an anonymous bank account without any ID today?
As for all that ID thing - criminals have no problems with fake IDs, so IDs are shurely for identifying and surveling over normal people.