Military Review

Twenty-first century ghetto. How a city turns into a space of alienation and violence

34
The modern city is increasingly becoming the object of careful analysis by scientists, politicians, public figures. The reason for this is the numerous negative trends that accompany urbanization and turn modern cities into the focus of serious social problems that are increasingly acquiring a political dimension. The modern city is not only an economic, administrative, cultural center. It is also the ghetto of “residential areas” with their inherent social apathy and alienation, enclaves of ethnic migrants, quarters of slums with a degenerating population. Many contemporary problems, including not only street crime and drug addiction, but also inter-ethnic conflicts, the spread of extremist ideas, and terrorism, are being formed or are becoming widespread in the urban environment. The benefit of the modern city creates excellent conditions for this. It is not by chance that numerous philosophers and sociologists have long been exploring the influence of the urban environment and urban life on human social behavior.


At the heart of the problems of modern cities lies the capitalist approach to the organization of urban life. The capitalist approach in this case should be understood not as a market economy as such, but as the perception of the city only through the prism of material gain. British researcher David Harvey, who is considered one of the most respected scientists analyzing the city from the standpoint of neo-Marxism, is convinced that the pace of urban development in the modern world is set by transnational and national corporations. For a corporation, a city is a means of profit; therefore, capitalists are guided by three major principles - increasing profits, increasing the availability of consumption infrastructure, and increasing the efficiency of a city as a commercial and industrial facility. But these principles completely ignore the issues of social and socio-cultural development of modern cities. In particular, corporations absolutely do not pay attention to the state of the environment in large cities, nor to transport problems, nor to the emergence of migrant enclaves that change not only the appearance, but also the internal cultural nature of cities. As a result, the suitability of cities for a comfortable person’s living is reduced.

Twenty-first century ghetto. How a city turns into a space of alienation and violence


Another well-known scientist, Manuel Castells, emphasizes that in the modern world the city turns into a space for the reproduction of labor resources. This entails the overpopulation of cities and the growth of social exclusion. The ecological situation is worsening, but for companies involved in building urban areas, these problems are completely irrelevant. Entire massifs of modern ghettos are being formed, where housing is relatively cheap, therefore, they are rapidly populated by the most disadvantaged categories - migrants, low-income youth, and marginalized people. Urban space, thus, also turns into a commodity. Housing on the outskirts, near industrial facilities and railways is cheaper than housing in the center. Having a "piece" of urban space in the center of a large city is already a great achievement. Apartment owners in the center of Moscow are real millionaires. The cost of their housing is enough for a comfortable life until the end of days in any provincial city of Russia.

At the same time, the pursuit of extracting profits from urban space is killing the ecological and cultural environment of cities. What is one "dot building", disfiguring the architectural appearance and laying bombs of fast and slow action in the form of parking problems, traffic jams, communication overload, overcrowding of schools, kindergartens and clinics. Especially when you consider that in modern Russia, the construction of a residential complex is not always accompanied by the creation of a full-fledged infrastructure for its inhabitants. Often, new tenants literally “sit on their heads” to the old inhabitants of the districts, because they overload schools, kindergartens, clinics, and their cars create traffic jams on the first free streets.

The French philosopher Jean Baudrillard paid attention not accidentally to the processes of “marketization” of modern cities with the subsequent transformation of the spaces around the shopping centers into “lifeless deserts”. Creating objects of increased attraction of people, first of all - large shopping centers, hypermarkets, entertainment centers, highways - contributes to the destruction of the integrity of the city, as people are concentrated in the most attractive places for consumption. On the other hand, in modern conditions, not all objects of residential and commercial infrastructure built by our developers are in demand. In every major modern city there are many new empty buildings. On the entire twenty-storey house can be occupied several apartments. Many people cannot afford housing in such houses, as well as offices or retail space.



Once the car was designed to improve the comfort of life of the average person, increasing the speed and possibilities of movement. Today megacities are in traffic jams. Many people, having their own cars, prefer to travel by subway, as it is much faster. Some change to bicycles and motorcycles, which have great potential for maneuver. It turns out that the main advantage of the car - speed - in the conditions of urban traffic jams was minimized. Sometimes it’s faster to walk to the desired point than to drive.

Another major feature of the modern city that is directly related to the problems of national security is the destruction of social ties and the atomization of the urban environment. In the traditional city, each person was in his place, there was a developed system of social connections. Visitors from other places gradually became involved in the rhythm of city life, “dissolved” in the urban environment, adopting the way of life and value systems of citizens. In this way, multinational communities of Odesa, Rostov, and Baku residents were formed, for which their “nationality” became their affiliation to a particular city.



In the modern large city, the existing systems of social relations were destroyed, the “urban identity” of residents gradually weakened, as the number of newcomers became comparable, and even significantly exceeded the old-time population of cities. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman sees in a modern large city "alien space" that do not know each other and are not interesting to each other. Even communicating with each other, they remain “alien”, social exclusion is growing. Few people even know all the neighbors in the entrance. This is understandable - the tenants are constantly changing, since the mobility of the population in the modern metropolis is very high. Migrants from other countries arriving in the city no longer seek to integrate into the urban environment, but create closed enclaves that are suspicious of the old-time population, and the latter also perceive migrants with fear or hostility.

By the way, oddly enough, it is the migrant enclaves and slum areas in modern metropolitan areas that reproduce the traditional model of social organization of citizens. Both migrants and “slum people” are in close contact in their social environment, which increases their cohesion and organization. For the “normal” citizen, which today means the average atomized average man is an individualist, such “communities” look like something alien, incomprehensible and dangerous. And this, too, has its share of truth - after all, migrants and residents of socially depressed areas act as a medium of heightened danger. Among them is a higher level of social negativism, crime, various forms of deviant behavior are common. But the atomized man in the street is potentially dangerous. “Loneliness in the crowd,” as Russian philosopher and cultural scientist Boris Markov calls it, testifies to the “disease of society”. Atomization is beneficial for the authorities and corporations, including because self-organized groups of citizens are a source of potential political danger, they are political actors that cannot be ignored, and which constitute a serious force. In the major cities of the West, Russia, atomization prevails and only enclaves of migrants and social outsiders represent an exception to the general trend of the urban environment.



Sociologists speak of “local spaces” in modern megacities, which are understood as migrant enclaves and social ghettos. In these spaces, people are forced to communicate more with each other, but this does not mean that the existence of such “local spaces” has positive consequences for the city. On the contrary, “local spaces” are most often characterized by an increased level of aggression towards the surrounding urban environment and other citizens. This aggression is implicated in social and cultural factors. The social factor is the disorder, poor living conditions, poverty and destitution, unemployment prevailing in modern ghettos. It is difficult for their inhabitants to get a good education, to get a prestigious job, to change the quality of life - there are neither means nor cultural and social capital for such serious improvements in their own being. The very environment of social ghettos contributes to the cultivation of all sorts of vices - drug addiction, alcoholism, prostitution, gambling and so on. On the other hand, ghetto dwellers trying to “escape” from this vicious circle often become militants of radical organizations or criminal groups.



The cultural factor is the serious mental, value and behavioral differences that exist between the inhabitants of the “local spaces” and the surrounding citizens. These differences are based either on different ethnic and religious affiliations, or on a specific way of life. In order to be “mentally alien”, it is not necessary to belong to the Somali diaspora in Oslo or the Moroccan in Paris. One can also be a representative of the “social bottom” of the indigenous nationality, brought up in the subculture of the criminal and semi-criminal environment. Nihilism, a tendency to wrongdoing and crimes, aggression against more affluent and “successful” citizens, falling out of social reality, a greater susceptibility to extremist ideas - all these characteristics are in one degree or another characteristic of many residents of modern social ghettos. Residents of the ghetto feel hatred for a prosperous environment, which is often attempted to be clothed in religious and political attires - as a rejection of “infidels”, “bourgeoisie”, “exploiters” (despite the fact that many “exploiter haters” do not work, ).

The EU leadership, which actually stimulates uncontrolled migration, is least concerned about the real interests of European citizens. Moreover, the paradigm of multiculturalism and tolerance prevailing in the European Union only aggravates the existing cultural differences between migrants and the local population. Instead of contributing to the speedy integration, mastering the norms of behavior in the host society, all conditions are created for the conservation of their own traditions and customs, which in a culturally alien environment become demonstrative. And already migrants - inhabitants of enclaves and modern ghettos - accuse the host society of racism, classifying as racist any requirements to comply with generally accepted norms and rules of conduct.

The second, third generation of migrants are the children of those who came from different countries at different times. They already feel the country that has adopted their parents or grandfathers as their homeland. In fact, the way it is. Here they were born, their relatives were buried here, here passed the childhood and youth years. But does this mean that migrants of the second and third generations perceive the civil identity of the host society? The brothers Kouachi also grew up in France, which did not prevent them from becoming terrorists and killing their fellow citizens. Najim Laashraoui, who was accused of the terrorist attacks in Brussels, also grew up in Belgium. Potential extremists and terrorists are united by life in conditions of social exclusion in migrant ghettos, where the majority of inhabitants prefer not to work, but to exist for social benefits, simultaneously engaging in semi-criminal and criminal activities.



It turns out that the “new homeland” for migrants is not Germany or France as a whole, but only their specific enclave, the city ghetto, where childhood and youth pass and life values ​​and attitudes are assimilated. The more socially problematic this ghetto, the more aggressive the social environment in it, and the more likely it is that its inhabitant will accept criminal or extremist values. It is not by chance that even the police enter reluctantly to many suburbs of the same Brussels, as a rule, under the cover of special forces. That is, these enclaves have already turned into territories that exist by their own rules and actually dropped out of the common social space. These are “small Algerians”, “small Somalia”, “small Senegalese” on French, Belgian, and German territory. The appearance of the enclaves increasingly resembles not European, but African or Middle Eastern cities. This is how the European urban space is transformed, accepting a new social reality and facing risks that, without a fundamental change in the very foundations of the social and political life of Western societies, cannot be overcome.
Author:
Photos used:
http://www.stylehiclub.com/, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/, http://www.dailystormer.com/, http://www.thesun.co.uk/,
34 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 25 May 2016 06: 33
    +5
    Nice analysis. It is a pity that officials of the Ministry of Labor and Social. the defense and the Ministry of Internal Affairs will not see this article, where our problems are in the mirror. Yes, and they are engaged in these matters today only statistics without affecting any of the processes mentioned in the article.
  2. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 25 May 2016 06: 48
    +2
    This transforms the European urban space, taking on a new social reality and facing risks that, without a fundamental change in the very foundations of the social and political life of Western societies, cannot be overcome ..

    Article "+".
  3. _umka_
    _umka_ 25 May 2016 06: 56
    0
    It seems maidanutyh increase.
  4. Darth Revan
    Darth Revan 25 May 2016 07: 41
    +4
    The photographs show typical European faces laughing
  5. Alf
    Alf 25 May 2016 07: 42
    +5
    The article once again confirmed the main and only principle of capitalism as a form of political structure of society - profit above all else. Maybe those who are so advocating for capitalism will still look around and think? These guardians live in our cities in you. "Traffic jams, it is not possible to drive through, there is dirt and debris all around, a constant rise in prices for services with their constant deterioration, we have come in large numbers here" - usually you only hear from such people. Guys, you yourself want this, why be surprised? Remember the cleanliness, order and comfort of Soviet cities. Green areas, parks, wide driveways, thoughtful transport, intelligent planning of shops, kindergartens, hospitals. Everyone in the houses knew each other. Now what? I bought an apartment in a new house, put on a noose for 20 years, walk around happy - "how come, new housing", you swear that there is nowhere to put the car. This is what you wanted, why are you surprised?
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 25 May 2016 18: 54
      +3
      Quote: Alf
      Remember the cleanliness, order and comfort of Soviet cities. Green areas, parks, wide thoroughfares, thoughtful transport, reasonable planning of shops, kindergartens, hospitals.

      And communal apartments, khrushchev, dormitories of limiters. Did people live in them by their choice? Did they not want a separate apartment in a new building or a "Stalinist" building?
      What about a registration system? Without a residence permit, it’s not like in Moscow or Leningrad, in any regional center, you can’t get a job, nor children to school, nothing. And for the sake of limited registration and dormitories in the hostel, or even beds, they did not go to the most pleasant, prestigious, and paid jobs, and not only for years - for decades they waited in line to change the limit registration for a permanent one.
      Quote: Alf
      Traffic jams, it’s not possible to drive ... you swear that there’s nowhere to put the car.
      So people didn't have cars. In my house there were 4 cars on two entrances - GAZ-24, GAZ-21, "kopeck", and our "troika". And also "Ural" with an official sidecar at the traffic cop on the first floor. There was enough space for everyone to get up, but when everyone arrived, it was a little cramped to maneuver. And now I suppose there is a car to the apartment, some and more than one, and where they park there, I can not imagine. Perhaps the flower gardens are worn out.
      Even though there were few cars, it happened that the roads shut up during rush hours. And now, as one of those few friends who stayed in St. Petersburg who I’m in touch with, saying that going around the roundabout is several times faster than directly.
      Quote: M. Bulgakov, "The Master and Margarita"
      People are like people ... The housing issue only ruined them
      Said in the 1930s, relevant now, and not only in Russia.
      1. Alf
        Alf 25 May 2016 19: 51
        0
        Quote: Nagan
        And communal apartments, khrushchoby, dormitory limiters. In them, did people of their choice live?

        And what has changed since then? Communal have disappeared? Khrushchev? Dorms?
        Quote: Nagan
        What about a registration system? Without a residence permit, it’s not like in Moscow or Leningrad, in any regional center, you can’t get a job, nor children to school,

        Now the registration system is called "registration". What changed ?
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 25 May 2016 20: 45
          0
          Quote: Alf
          Now the registration system is called "registration". What changed ?

          Well, you know better on the spot than I did.
          It just seemed to me that in our time money solves these issues. And I do not mean a bribe. Buy a living space wherever you want and how much money is enough, and register for it.
          Just don’t say that even then it was decided by money. The question was too painful, too many looked at how the housing line is moving, and the prosecutor's office, the OBHSS, and the party control had to respond, even to anonymous denunciations. And if the facts in the denunciation were confirmed ... I do not need to explain, I think.
          And don't talk about cooperatives. The queue was not much less than for urban housing, and again, without the blessing of the "triangle" and compliance with a bunch of conditions (should have been recognized as "needy"), they did not even enter the queue.
      2. gladcu2
        gladcu2 25 May 2016 20: 35
        0
        Revolver

        And that communal workers did not receive separate apartments? During my social childhood, the parents of all my friends received new apartments of the Czech project. And I had a lot of friends.

        But this is not important.

        Under the USSR there was an ideology of equality. You could get exactly as much as the state allowed, because that state took the responsibility of caring for you. And the state had the right to limit you in requests. Since it had duties. And the right is dictated by your responsibilities. Or am I wrong?

        You are Nagan, a wise man, but sometimes you are mistaken.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 25 May 2016 20: 54
          0
          Quote: gladcu2
          During my social childhood, the parents of all my friends received new apartments of the Czech project. And I had a lot of friends.

          And one friend of mine remained in the communal apartment until he left in 1989, now he has his own 3-bedroom house in the suburbs of Chicago. And the other one lived in the Khrushchik with his mother, until he got on his feet as the owner of a small business, and already in the 2000s he finally bought a kopeck piece in St. Petersburg (but in a not very prestigious place, to put it mildly). So maybe we lived in different USSR? what
  6. nivander
    nivander 25 May 2016 07: 55
    +5
    I don’t want to be the new Kassandra, but for 20 years instead of London and Paris we will beat Londonabad and El-Paris
    1. Volzhanin
      Volzhanin 25 May 2016 09: 35
      0
      Looking forward to this show in Geyrop!
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The Little Humpbacked Horse
      The Little Humpbacked Horse 25 May 2016 10: 38
      +3
      Quote: nivasander
      I don’t want to be the new Kassandra, but for 20 years instead of London and Paris we will beat Londonabad and El-Paris


      We would have to solve our problems, and not worry about Europeans

      At the Russian Championship in freestyle wrestling, the representative of the Republic of Chechnya, after losing, hit his opponent. And their delegation, in large numbers, began to threaten everyone, while demonstrating firearms.

      https://rutube.ru/video/da1c46da44520c60adce30e4e71df6fd/
  7. Zomanus
    Zomanus 25 May 2016 08: 12
    +3
    The question is in the feed base.
    While the feed base can provide the current number of mouths,
    migration will continue.
    But here the level of security begins to play a role,
    the lower the level, the lower the quality of living.
    1. Alf
      Alf 25 May 2016 08: 29
      +3
      Quote: Zomanus
      While the feed base can provide the current number of mouths,
      migration will continue.
      But here the level of security begins to play a role,
      the lower the level, the lower the quality of living.

      True, but with a decrease in the quality of life and, accordingly, the level of feeding, blacks may decide that it is time to change the feeding system to the opposite. And this will mean a seizure of power in Europe, especially since today's Europeans are not trained to fight for their own.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 25 May 2016 14: 20
        0
        Quote: Alf
        And this will mean a seizure of power in Europe, especially since today's Europeans are not trained to fight for their own.

        Residents of megacities is quite possible, but the rural province does not agree. On the contrary, the traditional values ​​of old Europe are strong.
        1. Alf
          Alf 25 May 2016 19: 53
          0
          Quote: wanderer_032
          On the contrary, the traditional values ​​of old Europe are strong.

          Uh, no. The traditional values ​​of old Europe consist of individualism.
  8. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 25 May 2016 08: 34
    +3
    "Devastation in the head," and the city? It's just that in a city, all the moral ugliness and squalor of a capitalist, libertalian society is most contrastingly visible. Moreover, by means of an illiterate, pissed off, easily controlled and possessing clip thinking, “plebs” can be kept in fear and, if necessary, destroyed dissenting and thinking people. The usual crowd-elite society is sliding towards oligarchic fascism or Trotskyism with its labor armies and Pol Potami.
    The whole world order needs to be changed, not holes to cover up. Change of WORLDWIDE.
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 25 May 2016 20: 44
      0
      Fotoceva62

      You're right. But you mentioned the word morale.

      Just imagine the road. Everyone moves according to the rules of the road. This is the law. Morality and law are synonyms.
      Imagine someone hiding along the sidewalk or roadside, or eating in the middle in two lanes at once. This is a violation of the law, a violation of morality. This creates chaos.

      Why are immigrants who cannot be assimilated? The answer is obvious. Chaos. Divide and rule.

      Want a life example?

      What kind of mutual understanding among motorists on your roads, such is your morality in reality. And morality is the foundation of the state.
  9. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 25 May 2016 09: 07
    +4
    I would like to ask: "So what? What's next?" Everyone has long understood what the author of the article wrote, but what are the methods of correcting the situation? These methods exist, but it is not customary to talk about them because these are "radical" methods and so "no way". But if "so" - "no way", then how "can"? What is the point-by-point program to remedy the situation in cities? Or is no one going to fix it at all, because everyone is happy with everything anyway? I think that the last answer is the most correct - no one is going to "fix" anything in Europe, as well as in the United States, there is a clear tendency, namely: cities are gradually being "farmed out" by the marginalized, migrants, the declassified element and the lumpen. All "normal" people move to closed guarded settlements of business or comfort class, located near or far from cities and connected with toll roads (so that less "rogue" went along them). That is, there is now a reverse process - normal people are moving from cities to suburban "ghettos" for more or less safe and comfortable living. And the city ... and that the city, they are gradually destined for the fate in the form of the same "Detroit".
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 25 May 2016 14: 28
      0
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      but what are the remedies?


      Methods ...

  10. Divandek
    Divandek 25 May 2016 10: 17
    -3
    You need to understand that the city is not a coincidence. This is a planned action of forces destroying the humanity of our planet. And it’s pointless to talk about rectifying the situation. Only after Russia casts off the American yoke will it be possible to raise the question of the city.
    1. Glaaki
      Glaaki 25 May 2016 10: 20
      0
      [sarcasm] Right. All back to the village, to the dugouts, to the caves. Closer to nature. [/ Sarcasm]
    2. Alf
      Alf 25 May 2016 16: 03
      0
      Quote: Divandec
      You need to understand that the city is not a coincidence. This is a planned action of forces destroying the humanity of our planet.

      Where do you live? In the city ? And what prevents you from throwing off the "yoke of the city" and moving to the countryside?
  11. kit_bellew
    kit_bellew 25 May 2016 12: 05
    +3
    Classics of Marxism: the rich get richer, the poor are poor. The apologists for capitalism, as correctly stated above, no longer live in cities, but live in privileged villages under the protection of private armies. The urban population is now a bunch of economic slaves, and it doesn’t matter if you get fifty a month or five hundred.
  12. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 25 May 2016 14: 08
    0
    Migrants arriving in the city from other countries no longer seek to integrate into the urban environment, but create closed enclaves that are suspicious of the old-time population, and the latter also perceives migrants with fear or hostility.

    It is noteworthy that migrants practically do not go to live in the countryside and do not build their national villages and villages there. Do not organize farms, etc. Those. they initially travel in order to exist within cities, while they are ready to take on even the most unskilled and low-paying work.

    The fact that the indigenous population treats them this way has its own understandable reasons:



    And these are the right reasons, based on the current international situation.
  13. code54
    code54 25 May 2016 15: 04
    +1
    Not a frail armchair at the homeless (refugee) in England !!!
  14. matross
    matross 25 May 2016 16: 51
    0
    Europe has already killed itself, the denouement will come quickly and like an avalanche. Let them thank the United States. Britts in a low start to flee from chaos. Some white Europeans will rush to them, most to us. There is no need to pity them, but they will have to be accepted, this is to our advantage. The main thing is to strengthen the western borders at the beginning of the nix along the border of the USSR. And without any "common to all mankind" jumps, and even we will be sprinkled with this muddy slurry.
    1. Alf
      Alf 25 May 2016 19: 59
      0
      Than
      Quote: matRoss
      it is in our favor.
      ?
      Support, yes, accept, no. Support with weapons, advisers, money. Go, fight for your Europe. And if you don’t want to, then, sorry, we don’t need you. It is unlikely that in this situation you will fight for Russia. There is already experience. Those who scribbled from Ukraine and told us, you owe us.
      1. matross
        matross 25 May 2016 23: 49
        0
        Europeans are quickly assimilating and Russifying - refer to history if in doubt, how many of them served Russia faithfully. Ethnically and culturally, they are closest to us, no matter what they say. Support weapons, etc.? Yes, why? They are not allies to us. Russia does not need Europe, it is hostile, Russia needs population. A strong and large Russia will be easier to burn out the black infection in the west of the continent.
        1. Alf
          Alf 26 May 2016 21: 46
          +1
          Quote: matRoss
          how many of them served Russia faithfully.

          Of those who, for 300 years, starting with Peter the Great, came to Russia and were ASSIMILATED here, for some reason only Germans come to my mind, but I don’t remember the Franks and, especially, the Britons.
          Quote: matRoss
          Support weapons, etc.? Yes, why? They are not allies to us.

          True, they are not allies. Until 1989, Ahmad Shah Masoud was also not an ally, and even more so, but in the 90s he became like that. Sometimes it’s much more profitable to give weapons to them so that they fight and serve as a buffer on the border. And you need to feed these in such a way that they can be crushed at any time.
          1. PHANTOM-AS
            PHANTOM-AS 26 May 2016 21: 53
            0
            Quote: Alf
            for some reason only Germans come to my mind

            Well, yes, people have long remembered Bironovschina.
  15. Mijas
    Mijas 26 May 2016 10: 07
    +1
    Quote: gladcu2
    Revolver

    And that communal workers did not receive separate apartments? During my social childhood, the parents of all my friends received new apartments of the Czech project. And I had a lot of friends.

    But this is not important.

    Under the USSR there was an ideology of equality. You could get exactly as much as the state allowed, because that state took the responsibility of caring for you. And the state had the right to limit you in requests. Since it had duties. And the right is dictated by your responsibilities. Or am I wrong?

    You are Nagan, a wise man, but sometimes you are mistaken.

    I will support you. And Nagan himself said "in our time money solves these issues. And I do not mean a bribe. Buy a living space where you want and how much money is enough, and register on it." Those. I, as a working person, an average Russian, and even then do not fall into the category of "buy a living space where you want and how much money is enough." Well, normal workers in the country cannot just take and buy an apartment without getting into debt or a mortgage. Which is very dangerous. But my parents, living in a village in an area equated to the northern one (on the BAM), were absolutely sure that they would receive their subsidy in their hands and leave to live in more decent conditions for retirement. And everyone lived and hoped that way. But perestroika began.
    In Soviet times, there was at least some kind of equality ..
  16. KyrisAlive
    KyrisAlive 28 May 2016 22: 45
    +1
    The paradox of our time: In large cities there is work, but there is no way to buy housing. In small towns and villages, you can buy housing, but there is no work (or decent pay).