Civics in Socialism

a mandated sports culture centered predominantly around playing sports instead of watching sports

Engineering this sort of common experience for an entire society would do wonders for the social fabric. It would be like having military conscription without the all nationalism.

holy shit fuck you

Cities must be abolished. They are human life moulded to the service of capital. Communism means abolishing the city, the urban and rural divide transcended, post-civilisation.

Decentralize is so vague. What you mean is a city having multiple city centres right? If you mean reducing urban density that's just 19th century utopianism which has become completely undesirable now. High-density cities with appartments, green and light rail will have a smaller carbon footprint per person than MacSuburbia.

Sad!

pick one

Attached: Friedrich_Engels_old.jpg (924x1200, 248.94K)

pick one

burger detected
your cities will be razed in the great socialist apocalypse

Attached: kimshowsoff.png (810x538, 380.61K)

at last I truly see the power of the immortal science of anarcho-jucheist-primitivism destroying """leftists""" with facts and logic

Its called marxism and you should read anti-duhring you pseudo-leftist faggot. Communism is post-civilisation.

t.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (451x429, 319.51K)

yep, this is the hard-hitting arguments i expect from non-marxist fags

Attached: kIywE78g.jpg (728x910, 41.85K)

I too think we should kill 6.9 billion people so we can all live in small rural communes and live for only 40 years, sewing our own clothes, and building new floating homes once the planet melts because we never actively removed carbon dioxide.

Damns thats a sick design

Stop derailing thread or shut the fuck up, liberal. Proper urban planning is preferable to utopian return to feudal-like villages

fuck off you bourgeois faggot. You're the only one shilling liberal notions of human living. Read marx or shut the fuck up.(USER WAS SENT PICKING POTATOES FOR THIS POST)

what’s wrong with what he said faggot?

Cities are much more productive than rural areas. The ecological cost of sustaining decentralized villages would be enormous with our current population.

So the solution to urbanization is creation of new cities then? brilliant.

Attached: 4a46b3e4cb8fe3a5feb1f3a57993e58d98e72ae7.jpg (620x350, 46.88K)

recipe for garbage
there is 0 reason to force sports on everybody more than learning history, practicing arts, learning a language, or a billion other things
plus most people who like sports are just retards, that's a fact

the abolition of the contradiction between city and country, you fags have stalin's balls so deep down your throat that you literally forget one of the most important aims of socialism

This, suburbia, exurbs, and villages should all be converted to forests to suck up greenhouse emissions

See:

got any proof? i can make baseless assertions too you bourgeois shill.

destroying the countryside and moving everyone to the city solves the contradiction between city and countryside duh

Taking everyone out of cities and putting them in your precocious villages will require even more land than we are currently using now. Your solution could work only if a huge chunk of the world's population were purged. Most people live in cities now and cities are filled with empty rooms and tons of space that can be repurposed.

Suburbs are the real problem.

In this picture a wide area of Florida where it's acquifers cannot be recharged.

Attached: medium.jpg (600x480, 134.88K)

Obviously urban sprawl must be destroyed as well, but the empty countryside land has to be turned to forest if we have any hope of repairing any of the damage we've done to the environment

I like this
Also would be good to get people comfortable with high skill labor being a hobby under communism by having competitions in other fields like science.

proof?, as far as i know the current population density of los angeles if expanded to the whole world in a continous city would mean such a city would be the size of california, so the "land problem" is a fabrication, and as far as pollution, one of the central ideas of the concept is to make living areas expansive enough to be integrated into nature, avoiding such a thing

The problem with integrating our living spaces with nature is that some of nature is fairly hostile to human life. What do we do about forest fires, for example? Are we to let them sweep through our forested communities every few years?

well forest fires happen because of the accumulation of dead plant matter at the bottom of the forest, in a forested community i imagine this wouldn't be a problem, or at least no where near in the same scale, and what remains of the problem would just be controlled by community efforts of prevention and such, all rest of such problems of nature's hostility to man would then be dealt in a similar manner, the country side already kinda does this now, so i don't see the problem

Empirically proven. People living at the same standard of living in cities use up less resources than those in lower density areas (for the same standard of living). Communism does not obviate economics of scale and density.

I'm euro. American cities with their low density and car focus are a cancer that have to be redesigned from scratch.

It's gone now thanks to crapitalism.

This guy gets it. Economies of scale and density favor communism.

More communal living spaces, to begin with. The elaborate homes we all have would be phased out. You'd have a small bedroom apartment integrated in a complex with lots of shared facilities. Food would be prepared in a common kitchen. There would be gyms, home theaters, play rooms for kids, pools, gaming rooms, workshops, art studios… whatever you need.

This solves a lot of problems. People get more luxuries while expending less resources. There would be less loneliness among the disabled and elderly. We would need less social workers to take care of them. Children would be well-socialized, even in one-parent households. Young adults would have a sense of community and identity. Bad behavioral patterns would be broken more quickly. It's just way better than what we're doing right now.

The suburb itself is not the problem, the way many are designed, however, certainly is. My idea is to build Neo-Urbanist planned suburban communities with community centers, parks, libraries etc. Large shopping centers with big-box stores in between the cities will be razed to the ground as they will no longer be needed in the future where the vast majority of goods will be able to be ordered on the internet or manufactured in the home. Nature will reclaim the asphalt plains of yesteryear. Large cities will still be a thing of course, but I just hate the idea of literally everyone cramming into ultra-high density housing. There's something about it that irks me, it seems too claustrophobic. People ought to have big yards and open spaces.

no, it’s recipe for social cohesion, a concept you have likely never considered before

The suburbs need to be demolished and the contradiction between urban and rural needs to be resolved.

The suburbs are the synthesis of the rural and urban thesis and antithesis.

Wrong, this is: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement

Also, if you wanna read about new civic planning: John McDonnell has been pushing for en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust

not any more than anything else.
you can't force social cohesion.