Comrades! Let us cast our gaze upon the scandalous state of housing in the Russian lands—a mirror reflecting the inherent cruelty of the capitalist machine. We are presented with figures from the so-called 'experts' at Cian, and what do we find? A grotesque disparity that can only be the work of rapacious rent-seekers!

Behold Sochi! In this coastal haunt, the gap between the luxury of the few and the misery of the many has reached a fever pitch. For a single room, the rent varies by a staggering 5.4 times. While the wretched toiler scrapes together 24,900 roubles for a mere shelter, the idle bourgeoisie lounges in apartments commanding 134,000 roubles! For two-room dwellings, the exploitation is no less severe, with prices leaping from 36,600 to a preposterous 171,300 roubles. Is this not the very definition of class warfare waged through the medium of the lease?

Moscow and St. Petersburg, those great citadels of capital, follow closely in this race to the bottom. In the capital, the disparity reaches 5.3 times for larger flats, with the elite paying 274,700 roubles while the workers struggle with 51,700. In St. Petersburg, the gap for two-room flats stands at 5.6 times. Truly, the financial capital has cast a long, suffocating shadow over the cities!

Across the wider landscape, the pattern remains bleak. In the most expensive decile of listings, rents are 2.7 to 3.3 times higher than in the lowest. Even in provinces like Nizhny Novgorod and Vladivostok, the grip of the landlord is felt. Only in the furthest reaches—Orenburg or Kemerovo—is the market more 'uniform,' though this is merely because the poverty there is more evenly distributed.

But mark this well, Comrades: the analysts tell us that this 'heterogeneity' is decreasing. Do not be deceived by this phrasing! In truth, it means the burden upon the poorest is growing faster than that of the wealthy. Over three years, the cost of the cheapest hovels has risen by 50 percent, while the luxury villas rose by only 35 percent. The monopolies have already squeezed the top of the market dry; now, they turn their ravenous appetites toward the crumbs left to the proletariat!

They dare to call Sochi 'attractive for living.' Attractive for whom? For the financier? For the monopolist? Certainly not for the worker, who finds himself exiled to the periphery, crushed under the weight of an ever-increasing rent-burden. The exploitation continues, and the gap widens, until the day the toiling masses reclaim the roof over their heads!