Hacker News Reader

Comment by abraxas | Hacker News Reader

This article is just one example of the things that the commies got correct. As flawed and abusive as the system was it did produce remarkable efficiencies in a few areas.

Stores that did not produce unnecessary waste were standard practice. Growing up in communist Poland I remember having to bring to the store empty milk glass bottles to swap them for filed ones. They even tried to implement that with preserve jars though that was short lived.

Another thing they got right was urban planning. Communist built residential areas had all amenities within walking distance. I was in not a particularly well regarded area yet I was within 500m of the grocery store, my school, soccer field, cinema, library, church, computer club, three bus stops and one tram stop.

Another thing they got right was public transit. By having cars and fuel expensive people were more likely to use it which means it was inexpensive and frequent if crowded at times.

I look at the new development in Warsaw in the last 30 years and just shake my head at how much they’ve managed to screw up since the central planning was done away with.

View on HN

I 100% agree especially with the urban planning thing. As an American, I'm tired with the fact that I need a damn car for everything. Not only that, but the type of car and age can also be an indicator of wealth or status. So now I have to be conscious of a stupid means of transportation because it has an affect on my status. Also repairs are like 500% more than they are for a bike, which is so simple you could teach a 5 year old to fix.

Also Americans just love to tell you how much they love having a yard and doing yard work. I learned a few years ago that lawns used to be something only aristocrats could afford because it showed your wealth that you could afford to not have land for the use of food production. Now you get fined if your neighbor rats you out to the local government for letting it get to high.

I honestly think the government needs to stop with the homeownership BS. It's a stupid farce that low income types should not have. They can't afford to maintain it timewise and are being preyed upon by lenders who lead them to believe that property equity has value. The purpose of equity is to decrease your liability. People here treat it as a forced savings account and refinance the MOMENT they are strapped for cash.

Landlords come across more predatory to me. Take up all the land and make people send their money into a black hole their whole lives instead of getting to own.

Agreed. I know some family friend land lords who not only do this but prefer cash rent payments so as to avoid(in this case, illegally) taxation.

Sucking the air out of a community and then putting nothing back into it. It's really shameful.

A case for why landlords can be good for community:

They landlords paid for the house they rent out. So they either literally built it, adding a new house to a community, or they bought it from someone who built it (or from someone who bought from someone who built it etc.) - the transaction of buying/selling compensates someone for the effort of building the house in the first place. If there were no landlords, the houses would be bought only by people who intend to live in them (let's ignore speculators for a moment), which would make the market less liquid, discouraging people from buying new houses and hence adding to the community.

Not to mention the obvious fact that, without landlords, there would be no houses for rent, which would decrease worker mobility and hence make the community worse off economically.

And I'll ask the allegedly stupid question. Why is a less liquid market in illiquid good is bad? (Other than not being as easy to make money in.)

It’s bad because if you want to buy or sell something, for “genuine” reason, an illiquid market may mean you are unable to do so.

>" If there were no landlords, the houses would be bought only by people who intend to live in them"

That would be a good thing. Housing would be cheaper, because people wouldn't be priced out of the market by rent seekers with large capital.

Housing should not be an investment object, it should be for living in.

Most western countries have a large surplus of housing, but a lot of people can't afford to live there. The landlords and speculators would rather have houses stand empty than reduce their profits. All the while, there are homeless people on the streets. Letting perfectly good housing stand empty solely for the sake of profits is morally reprehensible.

Then why not just add a tax for vacant houses and get the best of both? Landlords with access to capital increasing supply, and less speculation on empty houses.

(In Australia) removing negative gearing, mandatory parking minimums and foreign investment would go a long way too! Though I hear Prop 13 and strange taxation in San Fran is one of the issues.

Adding a vacant house tax would be one way of discouraging that rent-seeking behavior. Or in more general terms, a land value tax would be nearly ideal.

The root problem is that landlordism is exploitative. We don't need landlords to increase the supply of housing, that can be done much better through housing cooperatives and publicly funded housing, where the element of greed is minimized. Landlords are rent seekers, extracting excessive profits from a basic human need.

And there really isn't a need for increasing the housing supply in any western country that I know of. The issue is not one of supply, the issue is that a lot of the people who work in the cities are priced out of being able to live in those cities. That is not a problem you can solve by simply increasing supply, because landlords obviously want the best return on their investments, so they build expensive housing, which attracts only those with enough wealth to buy in at that price level.

As a result, when left to their own devices, landlords will not build housing that is inexpensive to live in (small apartments without parking and so on), unless they are forced to do so though regulations.

there isn't enough land to not build at least multi-story appartments.

Appartment coops might be the way forward, but "I, by myself, own the piece of land under my feet" will naturally generate the same problems as landlords do in big cities.

At the very least shared ownership should become more common

I wish there were decent coops in the city near me. I looked into three, and they were all places that you couldn't pay me to live; one was nearly condemned the year after I looked into it. The other had hallways with only 1 out of 3 lights actually working, and smelled of urine and ramen.

It's a neat idea, but I'm guessing there is a certain culture that makes apartment coops work, and that definitely doesn't exist near me.

Owning isn't free either. Instead of paying your landlord rent, you pay rent to the city (property taxes), the bank (mortgage), repairmen, and to opportunity cost (these x00,000$ would yield interest/dividends if invested and not tied up in your house)

In some places, it's also much cheaper to rent that own after factoring all this in.

I would like to see those mythical places one day.

Yeah in the sticks or areas nobody wants to live in.

Joking aside, Midwest tends to be cheaper. Chicagoland area is far cheaper than SF or NYC and yet has a lot of good paying jobs.

In Manhattan, it is generally MUCH cheaper to rent than buy (at least in the short to mid term. $3000 in rent would get you the same as a $5k/mo mortgage.

Any place with an overheated real estate market.

Toronto is one, you could rent a condo worth 600-700k for 2k a month when the mortgage alone before local taxes etc would be over 3k.

The opportunity cost of the capital is really important.

However, many jurisdiction give tax advantage to owner occupied property.

Eg you have to pay all kinds of taxes on the return from a million dollars in the stock market, compared to the housing services you consume from your own million dollar house.

(That's in most countries. In eg Singapore we don't have capital gains tax. So it's a bit more even.)

Renting is cheaper in many places if you factor everything, unless you (a) know you are not going to move for >n years, with n often in the range 5..10, and (b) are betting on real estate appreciation.

Granted, (a) and (b) are true for many people, especially as they get older - but all factored, renting is often superior.

There are other options than suburban-style home ownership and exploitative landlords. Co-housing, co-op housing, and nonprofit-run housing are all ways people are tackling this problem. I'd love to see more of that.

And personally, "getting to own" is not something that makes sense to me. For me it would be "having to own". I would never want to pay an absurd amount of money (including huge commissions and one-time costs) so that I was tied down in one spot. Let alone wanting to become an unpaid amateur maintenance guy (and unpaid amateur general contractor when it gets harder). It makes as much sense to me as owning a farm so I can get food. I'd rather pay for housing as a service and leave it to experts to manage.

Of course, that does leave me at a bit of a financial advantage, because in the US we subsidize home purchases (with a larger subsidy for more expensive homes!). But then I'm also not vulnerable to things like the surprise $40k cost for foundation repairs some nearby friends of mine got hit with, so I can live with it.

Landlords wouldn't be as predatory if land wasn't overvalued. Remember when the homestead act existed? How do you compete against free land that you can do whatever you want to and live at any kind of lifestyle without having to worry about zoning laws? Nobody to tell you that you can't live in a trailer or a shipping container because your neighbor wants their value of their land to be higher.

The US government has fostered a culture of entitled NIMBY assholes and wont stop until it collapses.

Also, lawn maintenance was labor intensive and you needed a dedicated staff to keep it trim and watered.

Just like with any other thing, middle class tends to emulate the aristocrats once it becomes cheap enough, and end up rationalizing their choice.

See also, the higher education experience.

Yes absolutely! The funniest part to me is you cannot convince them that this is what it is! It's just a total waste of time that could be used elsewhere in a more productive hobby.

Nope! We all tend the largest private garden that is the urban landscape of Uncle Sam!

Alas, Warsaw, the capital of Poland, now has more cars per capita than New York. A car is very much a symbol of status in Poland now, and that's in part thanks to American movies. American hype in Poland is still very strong. You have to endure car talk at work, if you're commuting by bike you're the odd one.

I know the story of railroads in America. In Poland, once communism was officially over, they realized rail transport generates big monetary losses. So, over the course of several governments, they insidiously extinguished rail and bus transport. They did it in such a way that it appears citizens don't want it. For example they made the train arrive in a city at 08:10 am instead of 07:55 - a big deal for school kids. Or they broke stopovers - one train would arrive at 11:30 and another would leave at 11:40, so you could catch it. But they made it 11:30 and 11:35 or even 11:30, so you're likely to miss the other train. To give you an idea, the number of passengers transported per year fell 4 times since 1989. There are books popping up describing the process and how most people in villages feel forced to own a car.

I was pleasantly surprised when I visited Warsaw last year after having last lived there 10 years ago.

The "new" subway line was built by tearing the surface up and digging from the top. The way it was rebuilt is much nicer: you now have wide sidewalks, bike paths, and a few trees. It's still very ugly imo and incredibly car-centric + polluted, but it's not as bad as it used to be.

That said, Poland took a 180 turn after communism... There are ads everywhere for credit cards and unsecured credit, hundreds of banks operate there, people love to spend money and be showy about it, large chains opening left and right... While people are still working under poor conditions (health insurance, job stability, pay, pension)

> Alas, Warsaw, the capital of Poland, now has more cars per capita than New York. A car is very much a symbol of status in Poland now

This is sadly true, but I believe we are starting to see it change. Slowly. It is a sign of immaturity: as a country matures, people notice that cars aren't all they are cracked up to be, and start switching to bikes, walking and public transportation.

As a US citizen in a partially rural state, this is not the case. Even as a return university student, I still feel like a loser with a 2001 truck when I see kids 6 years my younger with mustangs or 2016 SUV's.

I'd love to increase my prestige in a way by buying something better but fiscally I cannot do it. My degree is more valuable in the long term that I'm not jeopardizing it.

Cars were status symbols under communism as well. The GAZ Chaika was limited to the party. Even without the internal hypocrisy of the party the initial scarcity and social artifacts would ensure long before marketers got involved to promote the mythologies.

I'm a bit out of the subject, but are you telling that in the US you're not free to grow vegetation on your yard however you like ?

Most cities will enforce fines/issue warnings if you don't mow your lawn and the wild grass on it gets taller than a couple inches.

I don't know if this is done to curb the spreading of ticks (and Lyme disease) in urban areas or to avoid "lowering your neighbour's properties value", but it's terrible for bio-diversity... Insects have it already pretty hard in cities and on top of that they've got nothing to eat in the tiny patch of grasses people call "gardens."

Ticks spread when there are host mammals, nearly regardless of vegetation height.

I'm with you on the dead ecosystem thing. Besides the vegetable patch, my garden is deliberately a happy self-regulated mess of grass and wild strawberries, trees and bushes, planted flowers and all sorts of plants and mushrooms. I only remove the thorns, and walk though with a scythe twice a year (one tough enough to cut the smaller saplings). It's quite rewarding to watch the birds, small mammals and amphibians that thrive there, and a delight for my young daughter. It is quite a surprise to hear that I'd have trouble doing that in the land of the free. Thank you for the insight !

It really depends on the area. The "US" is quite diverse in many ways. As another commenter mentioned, cities are more likely to have problems with that than the suburbs.

It'll vary heavily by state and local law. In most cases they expect you to groom or otherwise manage your outdoor space, but no one will protest if you put several raised beds full of veggies or flowers. Plenty of folks in New Mexico or Arazona who only have cacti and stones in front of their place, etc.

Some cities ban it, or you're an idiot for doing so because of the runoff water that soaks up the soil can include chemicals that people dump in the street such as oil from a car rinsed off on a driveway, round up still being used, paints, litter, construction waste runoff, etc.

9/10 you'll be fine, but knowing that, is it honestly worth doing?

Cars are one thing, but the communist urban planning was something more than just that. Since you had a government build everything, it was built with citizens in mind, not maximalisation of the property value.

Right now, modern buildings happen when a developer buys a piece of land, and tries to squeeze the maximum amount of apartments on that space. In 1980s, the government built a whole neighborhood of 30-80k people from scratch, and the priority was quality of life for people inside.

(Obviously, the times were rough back then, the old buildings are not as good in quality, but the thing most people agree with is that urban-planning was way better)

When you think about it, capitalist societies were better at forcing people to spend money. Kill the streetcars (trolleys) so everyone has to purchase a car. Sure you earned more, but you also had to spend more, thus driving the economy. That’s why they were really capitalist and consumerist economies. Just look at the Bay Area salaries and cost of living there nowadays. Once Poland became a car manufacturer (low cost labor for European brands), it sounds like the same thing happened there.

Now living (in the US) where you can walk almost anywhere is a status symbol itself! I lived in downtown Palo Alto for three years, and I loved the fact that I mostly used my car for road trips and groceries. (I filled my trunk at cheaper grocery stores instead of walking to Whole Foods.)

Home ownership is important in a world where you don't want everyone always strapped down by debt as barely more than a chattel slave. It is the increase of the rentier class of capatalism that is largely to blame for adding millions to the homeless population while millions of homes go uninhabited. Of course I understand in some specific markets this generally doesn't apply (the SV centric nature of HN tends to make this sentiment seem more prevalent than in most of middle America). The small percentage in taxes you would then pay in repairs and taxes per year vastly outweigh paying on a mortgage for the rest of life until you die, and narrowly focusing on people who abuse equity as a line of credit doesn't negate those facts. That same rentier class repacking mortgages in financial derivatives many times over is how we got 07/08, and nothing much has changed other than a slight deleveraging from ~30 to ~11 and the bailouts being automatic next time via Dodd-Frank.

Of course the largest part the problem is that people are trained to think debt is such a good thing. I can't tell you many lawyers I know who make 500k/yr are way in the net negative, while my country/redneck friends are far in the net positive. Their homes and vehicles may not be brand new or as nice, but they own them and have a financial and other type of freedom the rich-but-a-debt-slave can only dream of. Of course they have the means to get themselves out of that position, but they don't think like that for the most part.

tldr - Ownership (on more than just homes) is still very important if you don't want bankers to own the world.

ps: Also, this is one of the reasons why the move more towards a remote-first workforce seems very promising to me. Buy a forever home as young as possible and never have to sell it unless you want to move, as opposed to always having to sell for every new job you take.

I agree urban planning in communism was better than wild capitalism chaos that replaced it in Poland in 1989.

But I think you overstate how good it was because you look from the perspective of Warsaw (even if it's not the best part of Warsaw).

It wasn't the norm to even have a computer club in your city during communism, never mind within 500m from where you live :)

Also communism in Poland wasn't concerned with ecology at all, when it was cheaper people did no waste (my grand-grandmother asked us to give her all the metalized wrapping from chocolate and sweets because she made christmass tree decorations from them for one example).

But for example energy consumption was wild and unchecked - there was no thermal insulation to speak of. Public buildings and private homes were all burning coal with abandon. In 1989 coal consumption dropped by like 30% year to year, half of it from heavy industry becomming unprofitable, but half of it from people all over Poland investing into thermal insulation as coal wasn't subsidized anymore. And now Poland produces much more stuff than in 80s (export grew like 20 times) and uses less power to do it :)

My parents used half the coal yearly in 90s compared to 80s. Air quality was much worse during communism, too, because of that.

Also it was common to have trash thrown on the streets in 80s. In 90s it became passe.

Also - on the subject of DIY - it was immensely important and everybody realized it - simply because there was nothing in shops. You wanted to have something cool you had to do it yourself. My uncle made a small tractor by himself in his workshop, and he haven't even finished high school and was a regular farmer in countryside near Lublin. He bought used engine from some crashed car and did everything else by himself. And it wasn't unusual - if you were a farmer you had to have a well-supplied workshop because buying anything was hard and unpredictable.

There were "technology and workshop" lessons in primary school for 3 years, and everybody learnt how to do simple electric stuff, how to work with metal and wood, etc.

I never once saw anyone throw trash on the street in the eighties. I have no idea why you would say that. If anything there were regular city cleanup initiatives mandated by schools. Warsaw was gray and dilapidated but it was definitely not filled with trash.

I also harbor no illusions how hard life was back then. I remember queues that lasted for hours just to get a decent piece of meat for dinner or some candy for the kids for Christmas. But with the passage of time and the experience of having lived in four different countries I can notice what the vision was and what they got right and what they got wrong.

Well I lived in countryside near Lublin and trash was everywhere. In 90s it became much cleaner.

The countryside was always backwards. That said, I have family near Ryki and it was poor there but definitely not trash filled. Just poor and in a state of disrepair but that's different from being filled with trash.

I remember those times in neighboring Slovakia, many people in villages had literally 0 regard to ecology, unless it benefited them. Some people regularly threw garbage straight into rivers and streams, so they became clogged with plastic crap. Good luck eating a fish from there. Also industrial garbage was rarely properly disposed of, it was just laid to rot/dissolve out there. Nobody had any clue about long term consequences.

Industrial pollution was pretty horrible too - watching snow going gray nearby any factory or coal plant (back then we used to have proper winters with tons of snow). Or when wind blew in bad direction from huge smelters in Katowitz in Poland, that created quite a few ecological catastrophes and highly acidic rains in our national parks.

The USSR and associated countries basically tried to speedrun the industrial revolution and capitalism, to get to socialism and the (utopian) communist society where the state withers away because it is no longer needed.

All the untold misery that Western Europe went through over a couple of centuries happened in a couple of decades instead. They tried to force the process and progress.

In the end, political pressure from outside and corruption from inside brought it down.

That's true, also water was super cheap so if you had a garden you would leave the hose pouring water under trees for hours or days.

Today, courses like that are very popular in Finnish schools. Every Finnish school has a serious workshop. Not only that, but when the school is over, plain citizens can come and use the workshop as they need.

Until very recently it was standard to just not have a water meter at all. My grandma used to have an actual swimming pool in her garden(built all by herself, of course), and during the summer she would just refill it every few days, it was cheaper than buying some chlorine tablets since water was "free". Just trying to guess the dimensions of that pool now, that must have easily been 30 cubic metres of water, every few days.

My neighbor made moonshine in his barn. For cooling he just put a garden hose from his house to the barn and let the water flow for a day or two constantly. The water cooled the distillery and just spilled into the garden behind the barn and down the hill.

Yeah, as a Pole I always cringe at such communism glorifying comments. What the hell is a computer club? And weren't we burning all kinds of shit? The only reason people didn't have cars was because they had no fucking money. This has nothing to do with smart central planning. And reuse of glass bottles etc was because people actually knew how to plant, harvest, and cook their own food.

There is a difference between communism glorifying and saying what it got right.

I doubt any Pole who remembers communism and is on HN now would want it back. But the public transit, even in communism, was better than it is in modern day USA. So was urban planning.

>was better than it is in modern-day USA

Why not compare it to Western Europe? North America had a different evolutionary path. The prosperity that emerged post-WW2 enabled vast swaths of the population to own a car (leading to a cultural obsession with the car). That same population also wanted homeownership which lead to the creation of suburbs and their vast stretches of single-family homes (I don't think people realize how attractive this lifestyle was when compared to what came before it, or compared to what you had back home if you immigrated). Those kinds of things coupled with relatively young cities, lead to investment in roadways over public transit.

Those were not options under communism, and for much of Western Europe (though for somewhat different reasons). Eastern European populations had limited access to the car, road infrastructure was decrepit and the government was spending minimally on maintenance, and housing development was largely limited to ugly concrete, uninsulted high-rises with tiny apartments (which you had to wait for years to be allocated).

Not to mention that the US is completely different geographically. It is way too vast with too long distances between inhabited cities, most of which are small. Flying is much more feasible on a national level.

To me this kind of thinking sounds like saying the trains and Autobahn were better in the Third Reich, which is true, but completely ignoring the cost of that one benefit (built for war, paid by war and human right violations) as if it were isolated from the remaining clusterfuck of decisions of that time.

So that's why I call it "glorification". It's naive beyond belief and quite frankly it pisses Poles (who were victims of both Nazism AND communism) off when Westerners go "Oh, but it wasn't all bad..", and in the extreme form commonly heard as "That wasn't real socialism, real socialism gets other parts right, too.." (which is really hip and cool in western academia). The communists, Nazis, dictatorships, monarchies, etc. couldn't have had the "good" things without the "absolutely horrible" things.

One can't observe these things in isolation. And we have remainders of that still in the present. Many successful German companies like BMW are only so big and successful now because of e.g. Jewish slaves and theft. Westerners should be more proud of their countries and political form, and less jealous of quickly built airports in North Korea by dying workers and eco-friendliness of starving people.

> But I think you overstate how good it was because you look from the perspective of Warsaw (even if it's not the best part of Warsaw).

Well, it is not a Warsaw perspective but most probably any city perspective (versus rural areas).

E.g. I grew up in a 50 thousand people city and lived on a new neighborhood with blocks of flats and the edge of the city.

I had: - small grocery store (10m away, it was next to my block of flats) - supermarket (150m away) - bus stop (150m away) - it was next to supermarket - pharmacy (130m away) - hairdresser (50m away) - nursery (600m away) - kindergarten (350m away) - primary school (650m away) - high school (1.5km away) - church (600m away) - they didn't plan that for sure :), not sure if westerners are aware but communist were against any religion - and a lot of green space between block of flats that was used as a playground or soccer fields by kids

And now the negatives: - nursery was overcrowded, my younger sister couldn't get in - supermarket/grocery didn't have a lot of stuff, e.g. coffee was sold 1 bag per person, when they got it finally. Meet was sold for cards ("na kartki") - each person was given a certain amount of cards per month to buy certain things that were in high demand (like meat, I don't remember what else, maybe sugar, butter).

Basically you had two currencies: ordinary money and the cards.

Source: grew up in the 80ties there

It's funny, I grew up in a 100k people city (Olsztyn), and the distances are virtually the same!

When I moved to Warsaw's Ursynów to study, the numbers are the same as well. Seriously :D

It was actually part of government-mandated standards when selecting architectural plans for new neighbourhoods - they had rates for expected amounts of children of various age to size nursery, kindergarten, schools of all levels, etc., had to calculate in healthcare locations, kid playgrounds, minimal distances between buildings, availability of shops, etc.

All of that was of course for greenfield neighbourhoods, though some work went into maintaining such standards in brownfield locations as well.

> not sure if westerners are aware but communist were against any religion

They were trying to fight it for a while, but catholicism in Poland was too strong so they formed a kind of cease fire. That's why they even let people build churches, do mass celebrations, pilgrimages etc.

And a lot of priests were secret informators of the security (communists searched for any material for blackmail and if they found something they forced them to become informators - common blackmail material was pedophilia and homosexualism (treated so because of social stigma) ).

I can confirm that from former Yugoslavia perspective. Same as you have described, also much less waste produced from food beeing "eye pleasing" (quadruple plastic wraps,...). The neibourhoods were also planned in a way you have described and it is still functioning great, unfortunatelly the large shopping malls slowly destroyed smaller neibourhood cloath shops. The public transit was also functioning great but outside the cities it was obliterated by "the need" that everyone needs to have 2 cars and tractor for his garden (beeing sarcastic here).

Also a few other things were well designed like top management only allowed to have max 5x salery of lowest salery in company, forcing managers to not only work for their salery but for all employees.

Another nice one was common accounting service that was state sponsored, basically free, but was taking care about saleries always beeing paid, contracts beeing payed, taxes,... practically preventing any malversations on expense of others. This was the first public service that was destroyed once we switched the system as it was preventing wild privatizations of public property and all sort of white collar frauds.

And I need to mention public schools and health system.

And just one more thing, we didnt have 50 types of soap, creams, ... in each store. Rather 5. Too much choice is worse than little choice.

>forcing managers to not only work for their salery but for all employee

In my experience it was rather forcing managers to steal and take bribes. During communism there was even saying "Who doesn't steal, robs oneself and one's own family". I don't have statistics at hand, but I'm pretty sure that remains of that approach is still felt now, 30 years after and in post-communist countries there is much higher corruption than in western Europe.

Sure, that was the mentality, if you get paid for not doing anything, basically slacking, and there is no apparent owner of things you steal, than this is the result. And if you belong to right party you also know that there will be no consequences. And promoting based on party position instead based on capabilities doesnt help eithdr. But the 5x limit wasnt the reason for it.

One thing I’m missing from that period is how close people were together. Yes, partially because there was not much else to do. The neighbor would just walk in to chat or borrow salt, sometimes not even knock at the door, that’s fine. On your name day anyone could show up without an invitation to the party. We, kids, played all day long outside, and you’d have 10-20 close colleagues/friends. Uncountable, captivating games, invented from things like bottle caps, ropes, knifes. You talked and interacted with other human beings all the time. On a day with no school the first thing after breakfast was to go out, and see what everyone else was up to...

Nowadays in Poland fenced neighborhoods are very popular. Houses with a gate, an intercom and a fence. Beaches are also fenced and claimed with folding screens.

Correct me if I'm wrong but fenced neighbourhoods don't necessarily bring people closer together. I have friends living in those and they know nothing about their neighbours.

My point exactly. In my neighborhood these fenced homes are often at the cost of public walkways, built from public taxes. I used them to go to school. Public spaces in general are bought out. What used to be a soccer field is now a gym, parking lot and a bowling alley. A popular marketplace is closed. Lots of land is sold to developers.

I think it's because Poles have developed an extreme allergy to anything public and common.

Looking at what was once a football pitch with regular 11 vs 11 games now you see void space, hardly recognizable as a football pitch, with nature slowly taking over, grass growing tall. Occasionally someone will take their dog out there for a run. But the pitch long forgot what it feels like to have kids run over and scream.

One thing I won't be able to provide to my kids easily is the huge community of +-same age kids nearby them. I grew up in one of those communism-planned tall concrete buildings, and within our building (I think 4 different entrances) there was maybe 50 kids of my age, +-2 years. There were another 20 buildings like that within 1km. Due to time of raising the building, most families had 1-3 kids of same age.

Many went to same school as me (200m far, walked there alone from 2nd day) so we kind of knew everybody. All the crazy games, adventures... my parents just sent me out, I came back in 3-5 hours, and they had no idea or control over what I did. I went to distant forests, metal scrapyards, climbed on roofs of buildings that had ladders (including our school), played tons of made up games. I considered this a normal childhood, nothing special.

Now I don't think it would be possible anymore, too much changed. In system, people, mindset.

> Growing up in communist Poland I remember having to bring to the store empty milk glass bottles to swap them for filed ones.

We were similar in Australia and I thought most of the first world (original definition). The milkman used to come by everyday drop off the fresh milk and pick up the empty bottles, the milkman was probably only necessary because of the awful urban planning though. Supermarkets and fresh produce stores also had huge piles of old cardboard boxes to carry stuff home in, when you came back you'd throw the old ones in there, now there's more cardboard and plastic packaging on everything but almost none of it is in a reusable format.

They were reusing bottles not because they were so conscious of the environment but because the country was dirt poor and could not afford producing enough new bottles. And believe me, Warsaw's buses and trams are much more comfortable and less overcrowded than they used to be ever before.

I am a middle aged Varsovian. I know exactly how they used to function and how they function today. It's a mixed bag. The transit vehicles are more comfortable but less frequent on many routes and often get bogged down in car traffic which used to never happen in the eighties.

... because most people could not afford cars back then, could they?

And you think it's bad I guess...

But people don't need cars, they mostly need a way to commute, possibly for cheap

Would you say that the policies that San Francisco is implementing now, banning cars from the city centre, are a consequence of the city being dirty poor?

Aside from poverty it indicates something about the government - that they didn't value the time of their workers and took it for granted. Essentially the same economic flaw as slavery which is rather telling.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that car based commute is inherently quicker than public transit based commute. Especially in the aggregate.

Requiring car ownership to survive is not valuing the time of your workers.

The full cost of owning a car (Purchase price, insurance, maintenance, gas, replacement of tires, filters, storage, parking) in the US is ~2 years of post-tax wages for the average person, every 15 years. That's 4,000 hours at work, or ~266 hours/year.

That is a gross disregard of the value of human time - all because we can't figure out how to properly plan our communities. You drive to work, where you spend the first hour of your day, and much of the second hour, working to pay for the car that drove you to work. It's madness.

I grew up under this commie system in a rural Polish village in the 1970's.

While my American peers had TV, cars, and supermarkets, I had no running water, no sewer service, intermittent electricity, and no fancy technology like refrigerators. We farmed wheat, beets, potatoes for sale, and raised animals for our own use. Without running water, you're using a well, which is terrible in the winter, particularly if it's cold, the same goes for going to the bathroom in outhouses. Sitting on a cold wooden seat in -20C is really awful. When we did get water from the well, we had to boil it for a while to kill the germs, so having water to drink was a production. When it came time to take a bath, you'd boil well water to warm it up, and make a warm bath. Everyone used the same water since it took so long. Kids washed first, then women, then men.

yes, we certainly produced zero waste. All the crops were canned and stored in the pantry, all the meat was cured and stored to dry, and whatever was perishable was canned, pickled or preserved in some way (remember, no fridge).

It's a freaking hard way to live. When we fled to the US eventually, it was like coming to a different world, life was simply so much better that it's hard to compare.

So, when I see stories like this, I really hope that zero-waste doesn't happen for the reasons of poverty. It's positively awful for the people living it. It's also very dirty. People who are poor have no extra funds to get rid of unsalvageable waste other than to bury or burn it, and the number of tires, old boots, or chemicals that got burned in the stove was ridiculous. Living in a cold country, with coal and wood being the most plentiful heat sources also made for some lousy air, and I grew up in the Podlasie Voivodeship, which was cleaner than most because it was completely unindustrialized.

Whatever the communists got right was by accident.

That must have been in some completely rural area, as cities were alright for amenities. Commie blocks never were super pretty, but they did have electricity, heating, hot water without a boiler. Shops still poorly stocked though.

The new fangled communist blocks did, but older developments were often left without this, even at the fall of communism. I live in the capital of my country, and 30 years ago a lot of the old town - places that are now the most expensive places to live - were at the time some of the poorest.

Even in the small towns all of these existed (at least in the 80s) and it seemed safe. But still, it didn’t compare to Western Europe's standard of living at all.

Can confirm, when in 1985 we moved to our house in a small (~10k) town, the street it was on didn't even have a water supply to each house, instead everyone had to use a public drawing point in the middle of that street. We had to lay down the piping to our house by ourselves and at our own cost.

Don't make a mistake of generalizing on communist countries, there were huge differences in a life style between them, especially in rural areas.

Far from everybody lived in commie blocks. And commie blocks varied widely from what you think as commie block in a major city to a weird things with missing and/or ad-hoc utilities in rural parts.

And commie regimes tried to stop people from moving to cities to have enough workforce to work in terribly inefficient farms. So rural parts made up much much bigger part of population.

It was 8km outside of Białystok, which was a city of 300,000.

Yes, people in the cities did have those things, but compared to the country, you had much more difficulty getting food products. Since we produced those items, we simply made sure the inspectors didn't know about the food we kept for ourselves. The national ration cards were irrelevant to us. It was a pretty terrible time in Poland under communism, even though it did have some positive aspects, overall, it was terribly dehumanizing, at least from my perspective.

Oh boy, this brought some interesting memories. I was moving between a small town (where we had all amenities) and a nearby village (with no running water etc., just as you describe) roughly at the same time. But maybe because I was a kid, I don't remember these things as terrible. With one exception: washing dishes. It was terrible, the fat didn't want to go away, it was taking ages. Also, we were using potties. The content of the potties was used as manure for the plants in the garden (it was very big, so it was never enough).

Since the well was very close to the house, we never had the idea to bathe in the same water. But it took a long time to prepare the bath by mixing the cold and boiling water in the ight proportions, and then carefully washing the soap from the body with water from a separate container. Man, I can't imagine spending that much time on these things now...

Modern Japanese use bath water in a very similar way. Kids first, then parents, then grandparents. The Japanese are very frugal with water. In a toilet you may see a sink placed right on top of toilet tank, so the water you use to wash your hands is used right away to flush the toilet.

That's another issue entirely and has nothing to do with communism

> It’s almost 2020, and 2 million Americans still don’t have running water, according to new report

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/its-almost-2020-and-...

>Stores that did not produce unnecessary waste were standard practice.

It's such a strange thing to say when this wasn't really done by conscious choice. There were shortages of everything, and though it wasn't 'abject poverty', the society as a whole was poor. You couldn't afford to be wasteful.

>Another thing they got right was urban planning.

The gray concrete jungle and complete disregard for maintaining existing infrastructure is a great example of urban planning?

Anyway, you're giving them too much credit. Like you said further down, people didn't have cars and gas was expensive - that by itself will make cities that are walkable and traversable by public transit. Western Europe also had walkable cities and great public transit and didn't need the Soviet-system to create it.

China had an amazing glass yoghurt bottle system until about 15 years ago. Foil caps were the only waste. Now it's all plastic. On the plus side, most people walk/cycle/e-bike to wet markets due to density, which means less horrible carparks, road noise and air pollution and ore walkable cities. It also encourages frequent visits which increases exercise, discourages over-purchasing and waste due to ingredient expiry, and creates a social element of banter to purchasing. Being cash free (most people pay by mobile phone) is undoubtedly improving things in terms of food safety. (Cash is super dirty!)

Quite positively, in Australia it's now frowned upon to use plastic bags and most people bring reusable bags to the supermarket. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop producers bagging a lot of produce in horrible plastic nets or bags before it even reaches the supermarket. Others, such as mushrooms producers, simply box their product and consumers are provided paper bags in which to pack their selection. I wonder why they don't just paper bag the whole fresh produce area, it'd surely be a huge step forward.

Glass milk bottles worked even better - my parents were putting cleaned old bottles by the door and around 5-6 am they were swapped for full ones. You left one empty bottle you got one full, if you left two you had two milks “refilled”.

I grew up in Sri Lanka, where we had British influence until 1948.

Almost every single household has a pantry section dedicated for plastic bags. Its rare to get them from stores because they were wrapped in paper (to a cone, and poured things like sugar and other stuff), and then wrapped. Plastic bags were to be bought (not free as opposed to today), and the cost alone kept many people from reusing.

Beverages almost always came in glass bottles, and a deposit had to be left to get one unless the shop owner knows you in the village. It's similar to the pfand system, except the glass bottles were cleaned and aluminium cans were even unheard-of.

> Communist built residential areas had all amenities within walking distance. I was in not a particularly well regarded area yet I was within 500m of the grocery store, my school, soccer field, cinema, library, church, computer club, three bus stops and one tram stop.

That's fairly standard in much of Europe, former communist or not.

EDIT: Though the tram thing is interesting. The general pattern in the west was to replace them with buses and rip up the tracks, then start laying new tracks in the 90s. Whereas Eastern Europe largely kept them. I'm not sure how much of this was the communist system being better at long-term planning, and how much was the communist system being stubborn and happening to choose the right path as a result of this.

At least in Dublin, where I live, the replacement of tram lines with buses in the 20s actually made sense from a short-term perspective. Buses had lower fixed costs, and there weren't many private cars, so traffic wasn't the issue for them that it is now. Trams had higher capacity per line, but that was less of an issue with lower populations and a lower requirement for mobility. We had about 20 tram lines at peak; for most of the 20th century we had zero. We now have two, with more planned. If we'd kept the old lines, we'd be saving a lot of money around now...

I can attest to that. Especially the newer parts of Ursynów show how within 20 or so years we went from low-quality, but well-arranged blocks through better quality, but somewhat tightly-packed ones only to end up with ridiculously densely packed, not made-to-last "real-estate products".

And the so-called "Miasteczko Wilanów" is the epitome of what's wrong with modern housing in Poland. Not to mention the fact that it was built on wetlands, so the foundations settled badly, which is already causing issues.

Interesting. It sounds like communism is a better system for planning and building infrastructure while capitalism is a better system for using and living within infrastructure.

Yeah I came to the same conclusion.

It's partially because communist economies aren't based off of currency but of labor. Forcing people to perform labor is a lot harder than forcing them to pay a 10% tax. So instead of having lotteries making people build many things over time, it was easier to enforce a "tax" on everyone at once for construction projects, essentially a system of corvée labor. The Chinese have done it for thousands of years, even with a complex currency system. Although the people exploited for it often get heavily abused, if not killed, the future generations hugely benefit.

Taxes are exchanges of labour just like any other; while it's true you aren't forced to work to pay taxes, even in modern societies you aren't provided with an allowance if you're not searching for a job (but you are if you have a disability).

Nevertheless, these "communist" economies were absolutely based off currency; the workers earned wages in money, which they could then accumulate or spend. The ruble was just as "money" as the U.S. dollar was. An economy based on labour (whatever that means) would likely not use money, but labour vouchers instead, which are non-trasnferrable and therefore cannot function as money-capital.

Depends on the period. I only remember the 80s in Poland, and money were almost useless. If you wanted to buy a car or a flat in big city - you signed onto a waiting list, paid part of the money, and waited for 5-20 years. No amount of money could speed that up.

If you bought a car, drove home, and sold it immediately - you would earn more than 100% on that transaction. But nobody did that, because everybody had money and only about half of the families had cars.

Each year you had the right to by 2 pairs of "winter shoes" shoes per person. You bought them no matter if it was the correct size of style, because you later bartered them for the stuff you need. Same with other "rare" stuff like coats or exotic fruits. Most people in Poland seen oranges and bananas once a year on christmas.

Lowest level manual workers earned half or 1/3rd of what a chairman of a big state company would earn. But the low level manual worker knew nobody important, so he waited for 20 years to buy a shitty socialist car, while the state company chairman got a western-made car after a few weeks of waiting.

It wasn't because of the price - it was because he knew people and could give them favors.

I have asthma, during communism my parents got the modern drugs for it mailed every few months from the family in Canada, because no amount of money could buy them in Poland in 80s. They only had outdated drugs for asthma that had awful side effects.

Fiat 126p (which was outdated in 70s in Italy) was produced in Poland till 2000. It took 26 seconds to accelerate to 100 km/h, and in case you had an accident in it going over 50 km/h everybody inside died. It was awful, awful car. But it was what was available, so people took it.

My parents build a house in 80s, and money weren't an issue. They took 30 years mortgage and paid it all off in 1991 thanks to my father going for 4 months to Austria to work on a farm. But the availaibility of materials in 80s was the real bottleneck. We had roof made from asbestos (it was called "eternit"), and while people knew it wasn't the best thing to use - nobody cared because that was what you could get. People stockpiled it on their backyards in case they will want to build a house for their children.

So yeah - the important currency wasn't the money, it was favors and coupons allowing you to buy stuff for your money.

I remember being a guest in a polish family on Christmas 1989.

We brought oranges from Italy for the trip. We didn't think it was going to be a great gift for them. They hadn't managed to get oranges that year.

It was literally another world for us 18 years old naive kids from a western country.

A love story with Poland started that day, which brought me to endless travels around the country and learning the language.

I never needed to stay in a Hotel. Always at friends.

Most welcoming people on earth.

If I had unlimited time I'd love to learn Polish. It just sounds like the pretties slavic language in my opinion. Russian is like spanish, whereas Polish is like French to me.

This was the exact concept I was sort of getting at. Although you have a personal experience and went into more detail, the end result is somewhat the same. Ultimately you could earn money, simply because it was worthless. Whats the point in money if there is no supply? So relationships and labor were what you needed to survive. The government for damned sure was aware of this and they realized taxing you your money was just as worthless as well. So they taxed your labor effort instead.

It's not factually correct to say that communist currency was "as good as US dollar" and you could freely "accumulate or spend" it.

Due to shortages many basic products were rationed and you simply couldn't buy them with cash. Having more money didn't make a difference unless you had the right rationing stamps (or connections to a high-ranking party official). This lead to a whole secondary market of people trading stamps with each other (e.g. cigarette stamps for meat stamps). When it comes to accumulation, periods of hyper-inflation and lack of investment opportunities made this much harder. Moreover, currency exchange rate was controlled by the government, which led to illegal underground currency trading.

This is based on experiences from Poland, but I'm sure many other communist countries had similar issues.

All of that may be true, but it doesn't detract from the fact that money is money, that workers are waged, and you could accumulate, even if it was extremely hard. It is currently very hard to accumulate money for large sections of the global population, but that doesn't mean that what they are trying to accumulate is money. The Polish state, like any other, traded on an international level with money. Stamps are more interesting, but they share the features of a currency: a general equivalent (albeit restricted in this case), accumulative, and transferable.

The fundamental character of money stayed the same, even if there were restrictions on it, as did the capitalist character of money paid through predominant wage labour. The state still collected taxes (perhaps at a different stage in the production process, though) in money. China also has currency controls, but the renmbini is just as much currency as the US dollar is.

Just as a crime exists in a country (albeit with practical restrictions, i.e. you get thrown in prison), money has existed in every modern country, even the so-called "socialist" ones, with some other restrictions.

Money accumulation was easy. Spending money was the hard part. You had to know right people to get access to black markets or to know who to bribe to get stuff out the back door.

I'm not sure you know how money worked in communist countries.

The character wasn't the same, because money was not enough to buy you things. You needed special coupons to buy things, and coupons were distributed by the government using various systems.

So you could have enough savings to buy a new car/fuel/washing mashine or even meat, but unless you had a coupon the money gave you nothing.

For that reason for example used cars were sold for above their original price. You could buy a car for an amount, drive it for a few years, and sell it for a higher price than originally - but you wouldn't be able to buy a new one unless you had a coupon for a new one.

The same with fuel or meat. You could have a ton of savings, but unless you have a coupon, you wouldn't be able to buy meat or fuel to that car.

The coupons were distributed by the government through government companies.

Money is only as valuable as the people deem it to be. If everybody has a problem spending it and they willfully create secondary markets simply because there isn't even a reasonable amount of demand, it means the money is worthless and that your labor alone has FAR more value. Digging a ditch for someone for a day for a pair of shoes may not be ideal, but working in a factory that pays you in a currency that allows you to get on a waiting list of 6 months to buy shoes is even more less than ideal.

I think I maybe was a bit too vague. I am aware that they aren't 100% labor or currency oriented both ways. I think what I was saying was it was more prominent. What I was getting at was these "labor vouchers" are essentially worthless if there isn't a supply for you to use it. So labor isn't exactly just what the state needs, but what you need. So instead of working for a wage, you work for yourself making something you'll need.

It's not about communism but the centralized absolute power. When government is the one and only player in the game, it makes all the calls and can fully control all the aspects and plan every detail of peoples lives, construction, organization of life. It's a good thing for urbanism and infrastructure planning, and not so good thing for pretty much everything else.

This. You can have good urban planning anywhere, if you agree on laws and enforce them.

The reason why urban planning is worse in Poland than it used to be is because there was no focus on zoning laws and planning was neglected for many years. Mind you, this is not accidental in any way: there was (and is) a concerted effort to prevent new zoning laws, or at least delay them as much as possible.

That doesn't sound like as particularly "communist".

That's more like 101 urban planning in Europe in the beginning of XXth century.

France context, I still remember in 1993 bringing back glass bottles of milk, or coca-cola to the grocery.

I still today am in walking/biking distance of all that.

"Another thing they got right was urban planning. Communist built residential areas had all amenities within walking distance."

Interestingly, what I noticed if you look at current high rise developments in Asia (China, Malaysia, Singapoure), they design something similiar (albeit commercial). The ground floors of the 20+ building will be a 2-3 floors of commercial space, hosting a shopping mall, cinema, gym and a bunch of other places. You can go down and do your grocery shopping in pyjamas.

If that could include mandatory social places (school, kindergarden), you'd end up with similar zones like what you are describing.

The city of Vienna built such mini cities in the 1970ies. The buildings even have a swimming pool on the roof for the tenants. Tenant satisfaction is still very high. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wohnpark_Alterlaa

But now you have a 24 hour alcohol shop within 200 meters.

Hear hear. As much as I love the transformation (also living in Warsaw, also remember how difficult it used to be), all your points are spot on.

Sorry but they did not get right much else. People (not all obviously) were glad to see them go their merry way.

> Growing up in communist Poland I remember having to bring to the store empty milk glass bottles to swap them for filed ones

It was common practice in Italy bas well, until the 80s. [Including schools everywhere and inexpensive public transport]

It changed when economy of scale kicked in, I blame our politicians that let companies implement the "American way"

Well, speaking of Italy, that was in the cities, I am old enough (while not being that old) to still remember in the late 70's/early '80's (we had a house in a relatively small country village and as kids we went there with grandmother from June to September) that in the late afternoon the milkman (actually milkwoman) made her round with a donkey carrying two or three huge (probably some 30 or 40 liters each) large aluminium containers/canisters, similar to this:

https://i0.wp.com/www.ilvecchiotarlo.it/bidone_latte.JPG

and we (we intended as the kids) were sent downstairs with either a glass bottle or often with just a pot, and get either a liter or half a liter of milk.

The milkwoman would have "graduated pans" and get from the large container the asked amount of milk and give it to us, noting it down in a small notebook, and every week or maybe two produced a bill (actually that page of the notebook) to get paid.

Oh, the memories!

Speaking of Italy, my family comes from central Italy, in the country, 100kms from Rome, I was born in Rome, but spent a lot of time there.

My mom's sister still lives in a tiny village of about 15 hundreds inhabitants.

My grandmother was a farmer, my grandfather a tailor, they used to have all kinds of animals in their farm, from cows (they had two, they made milk that they sold to the local milk consortium), they had pigs, sheeps, chickens, rabbits, pigeons, everything one imagine in a small family farm.

I used to drink fresh milk and eat tomatoes straight from the plant, we slaughtered our pigs every year near the epiphany and we hate "polenta e spuntature" on the "scifa" (a large plate of wood) together (like these fine gentlemen in the picture http://i.imgur.com/zcYK800.png), we made, and still make, our own wine and olive oil.

It wasn't much different from what Americans imagine in their tv shows and movies Soviet villages with babushka in the 50s, but it was the 70s in Italy and we already had cars and trucks (the milk tank truck was very much like this one already https://www.autocarri.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/20190506...) and, of course, there was the occasional donkey cart, but it was already more folklore than the norm.

> This article is just one example of the things that the commies got correct

Minor observation from someone who lived under communism and still remembers it: the commies got nothing correct, except for the idea that extreme wealth inequality is a problem. And that idea is not specific to communism.

Most things that people think "commies got correct" were an accidental side-effect of shortages or other issues. And as for urban planning, this is not specific to communism. The fact that it is in bad shape today in Poland is a result of mismanagement, lobbying and bribes.

Communism is a terrible idea. I repeat this often, because I see this idea re-appear in an idealized form, often propagated by younger people who do not fully understand it.

I often wonder if what people refer to as communism, wasn't just a corrupted implementation of it, pretty much the same as we currently see under socialist and democratic governments.

I've got no experience under such regime, but I can't say I've lived under a socialist and/or democratic regime either.

In theory, maybe all of them could work great, but we would never find that reflected in practice due to our human nature.

This tends to get a lot of people angry but every nominal historical communist government and its leaders were essentially fascists wearing the trappings of communism as a skin. All attempts to force it under a violent revolutions under such ideologies will essentially end the same way and it is madness to assume "this time" will be different.

Voluntary cooperatives can actually work (by no means guaranteed) but scaling up tends to be the issue.

> I often wonder if what people refer to as communism, wasn't just a corrupted implementation of it

History tends to repeat itself. Your words are almost exactly the same as those used by communist leaders in Poland during periods of social unrest (they referred to "a period of mistakes and distortions").

I am scared of the resurgence of idealized communism, here on HN and elsewhere (see how my comment above has been downvoted). People build their own ideas of what communism is, failing to grasp that it has a fundamental problem with incentives and can never work. It's been tried many times, and it failed every time, with the exact same issues.

If you want to fight wealth inequality, great, more power to you. But that's not communism. The central tenet of communism is common (social) ownership, which is exactly what removes incentives and what has been shown to fail every time.

From what I can see, the understanding of communism online is pretty shallow, with most people focusing on the "let's have a revolution and take away from the rich people" part, with a minor addition of "things communism got right".

Not really, communists didn't get that right. That was not something they intentionally planned or wanted, this was an accidentally positive byproduct of a "shortage economy".

The economy wasn't producing sufficient amount of consumer's goods, so it did not produce consumer wastes as well. And if it produced something, it was primitive, communists simply couldn't produce plastic bottles because they didn't have technology to do that, not because they cared so much about environment.

The economy was producing goods like tanks, mines, bombs, guns, etc. and was doing this in a very ineffectively way, which harmed environment a lot, just in a different way, no plastic bottles, but rivers polluted by industrial wastes, air polluted through coal-based electricity production without worrying about proper filtering, etc.

Same with urban planning. They had to do urban planning the way they did as people simply didn't have cars. BTW some districts like Warsaw's Ursynow does not have sufficient number of shops, schools etc. anyway - buildings are randomly scattered and quite distant from each other, but, again, it wasn't done to make that place nicer to live, to give people more space, but to make it impossible to build barricades between buildings. Commies knew how they were loved by people.

Right now in Warsaw there is no urban planning at all, but that's totally different story (with huge piles of money, incompetence and corruption in the background).

Why do you automatically assume they got everything right?

It's pretty well accepted that better food packaging greatly reduces food waste (spoilage, damage, etc), and producing food is much more environmentally costly than packaging it.

They did not get everything right. But a few things worked better than in the west. Namely the stuff I mentioned, reuse and recycling, urban planning and public transit. The centralization of the market was a disaster however.

Not always packaged or wasted without packaging for those reasons. Consumers want perfection.

A lot of plastic wraps on vegetables exist because consumers find that more hygienic, where they just used to wash the stuff before.

Also vegetables are often wasted when shapes are misfit or size is off, too large or too small. Sometimes these are still processed in e.g. salads, other times they are left to rot in the field (e.g. small potatoes).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com