It always was an architectural movement influenced by political motivations: reaction to nostalgic architecture of the 40s and low cost social housing influenced by socialist principles. It was pretty much imposed in uk by the government after the war and created a series of terrible housing estates in which crime proliferated (because they are impossible to police). Brutalist aesthetic became a thing long after, as an acquired taste.
Also tbh when people think of brutalist aesthetics they usually think of the same few grand building (like the Barbican Centre in London) that costed a lot of money, are constantly maintained to this day and are kind of an one-off. The day to day reality of brutalism, unfortunately, are huge blocks of high density houses in terrible maintenance conditions (reinforced concretes dissolves easily and leaves leaks and rusty rebar exposed) that cannot be replaced anymore.
I don't disagree, but i don't like how you make out socialism as the villain, sounds like you grew up with a lot of cold war propaganda. The absence of socialism means violence and war. If the states had a working social system, crime rates would be much lower.
Personally I like to blame humanism for everything, that is, the delusion that humans are somehow better than what we really are.
I don't disagree that some degree of social policy is needed for a country to be healthy. Brutalism, though, was the blind application of the socialist principles to architecture, which generated more misery than what it tried to prevent.
Please don't use socialism as a word for "thing I don't like".
I am so tired of this. No, I am not siding with socialists. I despise them, but I don't make the mistake of blaming bad things like me stubbing my toe on "socialism" just because I don't like a group of people.
Brutalism isn't socialism. I hope you will remember that.
Most brutalists might have been into socialism but definitely not most socialists are into brutalism. So blaming socialists for the failures of brutalism is logically wrong.
