Car production under communism

[Lanky Wanker]

I'm just curious as to how different car production (or vehicles in general) would be in a communist society. For example, would all the big names like Ferrari and Bentley die out? I assume the number of cars produced would drop due to more efficient methods of transportation and general concern for the environment, but what sort of changes would we expect to see? Also, are all these expensive luxury/super cars really that much harder to produce than good, solid lower priced cars that serve their purpose well? How would someone justify wanting a Lamborghini over a basic little runaround like a Golf (besides being a Nazi machine) or be able to obtain one if it was such a big expense to society? We know that most people who own expensive cars do so because it makes them feel powerful purely because they can say "my car costs $500billiongazillion!", but I just wanted to hear people's views on the subject.

[Le Rouge]

The car production will be mostly made of Lada cars.

[artanis17]

I hate cars

[Bostana]

I hate cars

Amish are we?

[Prometeo liberado]

The car production will be mostly made of Lada cars.

I had never heard of this Lada 'til I went to Cuba! What a ride!

[artanis17]

Not against technology. I like spacecrafts though yet there aren't much out there. But I like cycling.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

My mother had a Lada in the early 1980's. She said it was the most reliable car she ever had.

Car ownership should be penalised and discouraged. I do not think that a flat extra charge on petrol is a good way to go, however ( a common method proposed by those liberal types concerned therewith; then again, these are the same filth that brought us revolting rubbish like "New Urbanism", because it would obviously affect people in areas of poor communications unfairly. Roads are an inefficient and eventually slow way of offering transport services.

Should one want race cars, they could always go to some public race courses and take out their speed desires there, in a safer and controlled environment, so I imagine there might still be some purpose to higher-speed cars, even if those would not be allowed on public roadways.

[Lanky Wanker]

Am I the only one who had to Google this Lada company?

[Bostana]

Am I the only one who had to Google this Lada company?

Lada was pretty famous in the 70's and 80's

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Am I the only one who had to Google this Lada company?

Yes.

Though there's also the term AvtoVAZ. It was a Soviet automobile manufacturer and the brand name used for foreign markets was Lada. Now no one else will need to google it in this thread.

[Pretty Flaco]

uh can i say bugatti?

[Psy]

Amish are we?

The car is the peak of bourgeois consumption, it requires huge amounts of labor and finite resources for little utility. Leningrad streetcars still ran even when the Nazis had Leningrad surrounded as they used little energy to run and tracks were easier and faster to repair then roads.

Under communism why we move people by inefficient road vehicles rather then efficient rail vehicles?

[Bostana]

But let's focus on the Subject here:
How does Communist car manufacturing differ from Capitalist Car manufacturing.

Communism:
No lay offs
Better Parts
Runs Longer
Does not Breakdown in the middle of a Snowstorm.

Capitalist:
Lay off a quarter million people every year
Cheaper Parts
Runs shorter
Breakdown when you're driving in front of a Semi.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Ideologically, I subscribe to the notion that full Communism will require two lengthy transitional periods, the first toward socialism and then a second transition to Communism. During the period of the transition towards socialism I would heavily tax automobiles and gasoline in order subsidize mass transportation. Hopefully, this would result in the construction of such excellent mass transportation systems that workers would begin to voluntarily forego private automobiles, which are an expensive and inefficient mode of transportation.

[CommunityBeliever]

I assume the number of cars produced would drop due to more efficient methods of transportation and general concern for the environment, but what sort of changes would we expect to see?

After the war with capitalism, we will have to rebuild a lot of cities. This time these cities can be built to make transportation easier.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Ideologically, I subscribe to the notion that full Communism will require two lengthy transitional periods, the first toward socialism and then a second transition to Communism. During the period of the transition towards socialism I would heavily tax automobiles and gasoline in order subsidize mass transportation. Hopefully, this would result in the construction of such excellent mass transportation systems that workers would begin to voluntarily forego private automobiles, which are an expensive and inefficient mode of transportation.

And of course get rid of all those horrendous car-dependent sprawling single-family housing areas that blight cities around the planet like cancerous growths. Those were a major contributor that facilitated the rise of the automobile and leading into the vicious cycle we have today, where sprawl encourages car dependency and car dependency make capitalist developers prefer sprawl (even New Urbanism is a form of sprawl, just marketed towards "environmentally conscious" groups of the wealthier social segments). Extensive remodelling and reconstruction of urban areas would be of major importance to the restructuring of post-capitalist society.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree with Takayuki's point, and IMO the construction of a first class urban mass transportation system in the USA would be a good first step in revolutionizing housing patterns and revitalizing urban America.

[Krano]

Lada haters my grandpa had a Soviet lada untill like 2005 :)

[gorillafuck]

Car ownership should be penalised and discouraged.then what the hell would you do with the amount of cars already in the world?

[Leonid Brozhnev]

While I was in Bulgaria I saw plenty of new Merc's, BMW's and Fords broken down at the side of the road, but never any Lada's or Trabant's despite there being a lot of them about. Amusing to think those are often dubbed as the 'worst cars of all time' by western media.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

then what the hell would you do with the amount of cars already in the world?

It wouldn't be much of a challenge to melt down and make useful many of them, would it? Not to mention it wouldn't happen overnight, and they do not tend to last so very long, so there'd be a natural turnover of cars being scrapped.

[gorillafuck]

It wouldn't be much of a challenge to melt down and make useful many of them, would it? Not to mention it wouldn't happen overnight, and they do not tend to last so very long, so there'd be a natural turnover of cars being scrapped.banning people from all driving is going to piss them off.

[Blanquist]

Are you guys serious? You are against car ownership? This is insane.

Your idea is incredibly backward and no one would go along with it.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Personally, I'm not against car ownership... I've ran through about 13 cars in my 7 year driving career (never crashed any, they were all sheds except my last few). That said, I would use public transport 100% of the time if it was free and not full of loud douchebags at the back throwing things about. Curbing car ownership isn't going to get much support though, not initially anyway.
You have to remember that many people still live in rural areas... the reason I even started driving was because I lived in a forest and there were zero public transport links between my house and my places of work/education.

[Psy]

Are you guys serious? You are against car ownership? This is insane.

Your idea is incredibly backward and no one would go along with it.

Private car ownership is unsustainable, current consumption rate for private motorizing gives Earth only a few more decades before all industrial production will collapse and even feeding people would become highly problematic as we get thrown in a post-industrial world due to the lack of resources to fuel industry. Getting rid of private car ownership would drastically cut global consumption of petroleum products down to manageable levels.

[Rafiq]

Cars in big cities should be banned.

I know a guy from South Korea. Not a lot of people own cars.

In places like the U.S., in most parts, cars are essential.

[Prometeo liberado]

The car is the peak of bourgeois consumption, it requires huge amounts of labor and finite resources for little utility. Leningrad streetcars still ran even when the Nazis had Leningrad surrounded as they used little energy to run and tracks were easier and faster to repair then roads.

Under communism why we move people by inefficient road vehicles rather then efficient rail vehicles?
I have always been of the opinion that cars keep a society individualized. Mass transit kinda of forces people to see that others are in the same boat. Everyone is the same on the subway.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

banning people from all driving is going to piss them off.

That was said? I simply said it should be discouraged and penalised. Same will go for local aeroplane travel. Even so, it wouldn't happen immediately. It wouldn't be some sort of sudden ban. It would be a gradual process, and areas without adequate alternative transportation means ought to be spared any penalties till such a time as alternatives have been expanded and provided. The shift would be easier for goods since an integrated transport system would avoid the distortions seen today that favours road haulage and allow something the likes of early-50's British Transport Commissions integrated inter-modal transport.

[CommunityBeliever]

Personally, I don't own a car, so I cycle around to local areas and use mass transit to go to distant places. I think that this strategy could be used by most people, especially if our cities were better designed. As I mentioned before, we should redesign our cities in socialism to accommodate a new transportation paradigm.

We know that we are going to run out of oil, which is the basis of car transportation, so our current practices cannot last. The vehicles used in the mass transit can always be nuclear powered like nuclear submarines, but the smaller vehicles like cars are essentially dependent upon our dwindling oil supply, since we could never use nuclear reactors in a vehicles that violently crash into one another. Besides, who likes driving a vehicle that always needs to get refuelled after a short period time?

[Lanky Wanker]

Personally, I don't own a car, so I cycle around to local areas and use mass transit to go to distant places. I think that this strategy could be used by most people, especially if our cities were better designed. As I mentioned before, we should redesign our cities in socialism to accommodate a new transportation paradigm.


This makes me think of a Futurama type city where there are glass tubes running all over the place for people to cycle through on solar powered segways or something like that.



We know that we are going to run out of oil, which is the basis of car transportation, so our current practices cannot last. The vehicles used in the mass transit can always be nuclear powered like nuclear submarines, but the smaller vehicles like cars are essentially dependent upon our dwindling oil supply, since we could never use nuclear reactors in a vehicles that violently crash into one another. Besides, who likes driving a vehicle that always needs to get refuelled after a short period time?

Hemp? Could be used as a transition from oil to bike riding.

[workersadvocate]

We can do better then cars made for 1-4 people. 10 people go to dinner together, all arriving in 10 separate cars. Cultural individualism, and resulting individual anti-social alienation and attitudes, such as this must be challenged and minimized.

How would we go about redesigning and rebuilding a more socialized and social world for all humanity? On top of the environmental and economic problems with continuing indicidual atomized car culture, I am concerned about the social aspect of this problem such that even if they cost only 5 dollars a piece to make, ran on stored solar energy with no pollution, I'd still not encourage this form of transport as the norm.
Cars have been made to symbolize one's social status and value.
Cars create the illusion of being in one's own little world, like a little king.
Car traffic...thousands of deaths and injuries every year, because car drivers get into individualist "don't care about anyone else" competitive mode, and this sort of "drive" is socially encouraged as if it makes one stronger, sexier, whatever. Actually, what it really does is make everyone else want to blast them with a rocket or at least play that they lose control of that speeding bullet they think is their royal asshole toy until it flips off road and is swallowed in flames taking the drunk little prince driver with it. If one endangers the public with a heavy missile on wheels, shouldn't there be some serious consequences and shouldn't we do all possible to discourage that kind of behavior on the part of the rest of society? Perhaps it would be much safer for all involved if people didn't flirt eith the possibility of being perceived as a threat endangering the public with their individual vehicles, or making oneself get the reputation of an anti-social anti-proletarian elitist by glorifying oneself through car ownership?

I want individual car ownership to become very "uncool", just as I want to happen with other "higher social status" indicators. Let the people who indulge in it feel the stares of contempt and rejection of their "otherness". If there really is a human nature, why should we reframe so it actually works for us for a change? Keeps the non-prole elements on the defensive with nowhere to hide, so their only choice is conform to the will of the proletariat during transition to communism or face proletarian power and social hegemony wrathfully exerted up them ( in our transitionsal world, they're the strangers, weirdos, crazies, criminals and losers). They wanted "reverse discrimination"...so let us give it to them! Let them sweat when working people catch them in the act of drivong while bourgeois!

[CommunityBeliever]

Hemp? Could be used as a transition from oil to bike riding.

Biofuels, including hemp, are not a very good idea they have a very low EROEI. Nuclear energy is the best fuel available for our transportation vessels because fissile nuclear material such as Uranium-235 is far lighter then oil or biofuels, which allows the vessel to operate independent of elements of the external environment such as the sun or refueling stations.

However, nuclear power doesn't really work that well in small vehicles such as cars because of the risk of nuclear complications from crashes and accidents, so I can't think of any good power source for cars. This means there are very practical reasons that we should reduce our dependence on cars, furthermore I generally agree with the point that comrade workersadvocate and others mentioned that cars have a negative social aspect.


If one endangers the public with a heavy missile on wheels, shouldn't there be some serious consequences and shouldn't we do all possible to discourage that kind of behavior on the part of the rest of societyThanks to DARPA, which funded driverless car projects and organised the DARPA grand challenge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge), we may soon have widely available driverless cars. This will eliminate the problem of accidental car crashes.

However, this raises another issue: malicious hackers may use our widely available cars as heavy missiles against citizens. In order to deal with this we should make sure the computers in cars are well guarded so that hacking them will be a serious effort and we should keep better track of our cars so that if anyone does use one as a missile then we will be able to catch them and bring them to justice.

[Soseloshvili]

Hold up, people. The question was about car PRODUCTION.

How would they be produced under Communism? Interesting question. I would say infrequently, and when they are produced, custom tailored to what they're being produced for.

I'm going to agree with a lot of others posters here and say that cars are totally not cool. In my lifetime, I've owned a car for a total of 6 months (while living in the country) but outside of that, I've been a cyclist / bus rider for life. Reinvigorating urban life and reversing the suburban trend under Communism would reinvigorate bicycle use / walking / inventive public transit solutions.

However, a lot of people live in places where cars are sort of necessary. Those who would make their living in traditional (non-urban) agriculture would likely need a car to travel to urban centres. Also, we do need a lot of vehicles for agriculture, such as combines. There's plenty of examples.

So, I'm going to say that since the focus wouldn't be on profit, car production would mean:

1) customized, specific vehicles as opposed to a generic model
2) focus on quality, not on mass production
3) MUCH MUCH less production that right now

[Homo Songun]

Fuck driving. I'm taking my fusion powered jet pack!

[Winkers Fons]

I enjoy riding around in big, inefficient, American macho-mobiles and you should all have to accommodate my desires...


I would say that they should be distributed on an as-needed basis but I can see that kind of system becoming a bureaucratic mess. However, I can't think of many other suitable alternatives to our current for-profit system.

[Psy]

However, a lot of people live in places where cars are sort of necessary. Those who would make their living in traditional (non-urban) agriculture would likely need a car to travel to urban centres. Also, we do need a lot of vehicles for agriculture, such as combines. There's plenty of examples.

Yet electric radial lines of the early 19th century linked farmers to cities fairly well.



So, I'm going to say that since the focus wouldn't be on profit, car production would mean:

1) customized, specific vehicles as opposed to a generic model


I think there would be generalization, road vehicles would be engineered as primary fleet vehicles to be attached to means of production. Private car sales would come from surplus, i.e if you were looking for a 4-door family car odds are it would be engineered to be a taxi cab and it is just demand for taxi cabs are less then the stockpile of new taxi cabs.

[piet11111]

I like my car and wont give it up but i would not object to having an electric engine installed (would miss the engine noise though) for the environment.

Also wouldn't miss driving 5km to 1 liter of diesel on road conditions :crying:

[Q]

Banning cars is fucking stupid. American suburbs are build with the car in mind. How will these people move around?

That said, mass transit can be massively expanded.

[workersadvocate]

Banning cars is fucking stupid. American suburbs are build with the car in mind. How will these people move around?

That said, mass transit can be massively expanded.

Maybe there won't be suburbs (or any kind if special class enclaves) anymore.
Tomorrow's cities will need fundamental redesign and rebuilding, considering that society now would serve the interests of the working class majority.

[hatzel]

Banning cars is fucking stupid. American suburbs are build with the car in mind. How will these people move around?

I vaguely remember Illich writing something like "only the car can solve the social problems the car has caused." I'm on my phone so can't look for the exact quote. But this is the perfect example of this phenomenon.

[workersadvocate]

I vaguely remember Illich writing something like "only the car can solve the social problems the car has caused." I'm on my phone so can't look for the exact quote. But this is the perfect example of this phenomenon.

I doubt that long-dead revolutionaries in far different circumstances will be much able to guide our way much in this question in the 21st century.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Was he referring to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin or Ivan Illich?

[hatzel]

Ivan Illich, of course. You know, the guy who wrote about technology and counterproductivity and the like and is generally referred to as 'Illich' rather than, say, 'Lenin.'

[GoddessCleoLover]

Thought so, but posted in response to Workersadvocate.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

"only the car can solve the social problems the car has caused."
Yup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

[danyboy27]

Lada car and pickup truck where verry reliable but looked like shit and where not the most comfortable vehicule around.

i will quote a long time user on this one:
Ferrari for all!

seriously tho, all this speculation about the future is rather unproductive and keep us away from the real issues.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

seriously tho, all this speculation about the future is rather unproductive and keep us away from the real issues.

Entertainment and recruiting teenagers to dead tendencies is 99% of what this forum does.

[workersadvocate]

Ivan Illich, of course. You know, the guy who wrote about technology and counterproductivity and the like and is generally referred to as 'Illich' rather than, say, 'Lenin.'

My mistake. Sorry, just used to leftists quoting their favorite old long-dead heroes to justify anything and everything like it was eternal inerrant universal scripture.
So-and-so said this...is not enough, not today.

Many will think that seeking to get rid of private cars as the main means of transport is crazy in the United States, because of the way it is now set up and the long tradition of car culture and living in the burbs and so on. Comrades, don't you think we will have ti fundamentally change even these aspects of the "American way of life" in order to successfully transition to a classless stateless communist society? It will be our world, a world for working people run by working people, and we won't leave a single stone unturned or a single element of the foundation of the old order left without transforming it in our collective interests. When I say maybe there will not be any burbs, I'm bot necessarily meaning that all are permanently crammed into what are now the centers of metro areas, but perhaps instead there will be many centers within a megametropolis that swallows up some of the burbs and redesigns/rebuilds them into integrated communities that are no longer "rich" or "middle class" or "poor" neighborhoods or ethnically defined neighborhoods, and there are no more cut-off exclusive enclave communities for anyone nor any "no-go" zones nor areas where people live and work and school thay are unreachable at any time by public mass transit. We must take the advantage of separate and unreachable space away from our enemies in places like America.
It's not a waste of time to consider this. In fact, developing a clearer more specific vision of how we'd seek to change society in our own working class interests can inspire, educate and prepare our class to accomplish its tasks. Not everything comes down to bread and butter economics.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Yeah, I think people will simply not want to work the hours required to buy a car. The length of the work day will be democratically decided and probably shorter or, at some work places, left up to the worker.

I for one would way rather have the 1000 oz or so of greens the money could buy instead.

[GoddessCleoLover]

This is an excellent issue in which to demonstrate that socialism can really save the world by replacing an automobile culture that is depleting petroleum resources and replace it with a new Golden age of mass transportation.

[Ocean Seal]

I don't think that anyone would own a car if we actually had decent and free public transportation. That's about it really.

[Q]

Maybe there won't be suburbs (or any kind if special class enclaves) anymore.
Tomorrow's cities will need fundamental redesign and rebuilding, considering that society now would serve the interests of the working class majority.

As they're going to just vaporize overnight, right?

Look, I'm very much in favor of stuff like integrated city systems (http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/technology/city-systems), but this will obviously take quite a bit of time to get build. Like many other things in the socialist transition, the need for cars need to "wither away". Outright banning is foolish.

[piet11111]

I don't think that anyone would own a car if we actually had decent and free public transportation. That's about it really.

I like my car because i can take it anywhere i want to go.
I can not drive a bus over muddy forest trails or on the beach and control where it goes or how fast thats a pleasure that only a car can give me.

I like how i can fix it up and make it better with new parts (its currently a rust bucket) and how i can use it to help people (moving cargo and pulling them out when they are stuck on the beach)

My car is my private property and i would not give it up for the sake of cold efficiency or because of eco-maniacs anyone is entitled to luxurious indulgences and to me that is my car.

A truly communist society is about satisfying human wants and needs completely and if anyone denies me my car they can fuck off.

[CommunityBeliever]

Look, I'm very much in favor of stuff like integrated city systems (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/technology/city-systems), but this will obviously take quite a bit of time to get build.Indeed, that integrated city system looks like a good idea. As I mentioned before, after the destruction of the war with capitalism we will have room to build cities like this. This city has its own local transportation city system and in order to transport between large cities you can travel in a large nuclear powered train.


A truly communist society is about satisfying human wants and needs completely and if anyone denies me my car they can fuck off. We won't completely eliminate cars, we will just reduce the need for them. If you do intend to use a car, what fuel will you use once our oil supply is depleted?

[hatzel]

Okay okay so I've done my research. From Energy and Equity (https://clevercycles.com/energy_and_equity/) (which, incidentally, has a lot to say on this subject and should certainly be read by all):


Beyond a certain speed, motorized vehicles create remoteness which they alone can shrink. They create distances for all and shrink them for only a few. A new dirt road through the wilderness brings the city within view, but not within reach, of most Brazilian subsistence farmers. The new expressway expands Chicago, but it sucks those who are well-wheeled away from a downtown that decays into a ghetto.
This was the quote I was looking for...

[Psy]

As they're going to just vaporize overnight, right?

Look, I'm very much in favor of stuff like integrated city systems (http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/technology/city-systems), but this will obviously take quite a bit of time to get build. Like many other things in the socialist transition, the need for cars need to "wither away". Outright banning is foolish.

You underestimate the productive forces of modern industrial society, even the USSR was able to build whole new cities within a year so a USA with a much larger industrial base should be able to build new cities in half the time.

[Le Rouge]

Hey guys! China will soon add another 600 million cars on the roads.

Fuck gazoline cars.

[Marvin the Marxian]

One aspect of socialism that no one's touched on yet in this thread is the complete abolition of so-called intellectual property. Apparently there are many patents out there for more fuel-efficient engines and more powerful electric motors and batteries that companies have bought the rights to just keep them under wraps. This kind of artificial scarcity is entirely a product of the bourgeoisie and I think it would be eradicated by the advent of socialism if not beforehand.

Fossil fuels IMO wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem with more widespread electric vehicles and more use of cleaner sources of energy. I think there would probably be fewer car bodystyles in socialism, because there'd be no more market competition. There could be more diversity with paintjobs and such, as well as homemade modifications (within safety regulations of course).

[piet11111]

We won't completely eliminate cars, we will just reduce the need for them. If you do intend to use a car, what fuel will you use once our oil supply is depleted?

I would want to convert it to electric anyway looking at fuel prices right now yikes.

But even then its possible to use bio-diesel there is even a fungus that can use wood pulp to make ethanol.
Electric on the otherhand is really useful for off-road because of its massive instantaneous torque only downsides are the limited range increased weight and battery lifespan but hopefully those will be massively improved upon to be more competitive with combustion engines.
Also reduced noise would be nice even though the diesel engine makes a lovely sound.

[Q]

You underestimate the productive forces of modern industrial society, even the USSR was able to build whole new cities within a year so a USA with a much larger industrial base should be able to build new cities in half the time.

Yes, I don't think it would take decades or anything. Although I don't think it would only take half a year either to build large integrated cities, capable of housing millions.

But would you agree that outright banning is foolish, which was the point I was making?

[Psy]

I would want to convert it to electric anyway looking at fuel prices right now yikes.

But even then its possible to use bio-diesel there is even a fungus that can use wood pulp to make ethanol.

You underestimate the massive consumption levels of petroleum products roads vehicles consume not just for fuel but for rubber, plastics and even roads.



Electric on the otherhand is really useful for off-road because of its massive instantaneous torque only downsides are the limited range increased weight and battery lifespan but hopefully those will be massively improved upon to be more competitive with combustion engines.
Also reduced noise would be nice even though the diesel engine makes a lovely sound.
Tracked vehicles are the kings of off-road due to low ground pressure.

BDdMTMDTAck



Yes, I don't think it would take decades or anything. Although I don't think it would only take half a year either to build large integrated cities, capable of housing millions.

In peak of USSR productivity in the early 1960's they were building new small cities in about a year thanks to armies of construction workers and heavy machinery (and a focus on construction speed over construction quality). China now builds even faster and to a higher quality thanks to having even more productive forces and better production processes.

E76uJi744Do

Hdpf-MQM9vY



But would you agree that outright banning is foolish, which was the point I was making?
I'd rather have the plastics for stuff like electronics then have petroleum burned up paving roads for vehicles that burn more petroleum.

[workersadvocate]

Q, you keep talking about BANNING cars.

Do you suppose America will really have a peaceful revolution?
If not, that will basically settle the car question for the most part, as well as whether most people stay in the burbs or not.

[Q]

Q, you keep talking about BANNING cars.

Do you suppose America will really have a peaceful revolution?
If not, that will basically settle the car question for the most part, as well as whether most people stay in the burbs or not.

The term "banning" was introduced by Zeekloid in post #22 and implied even earlier. I did not introduce it.

I have no idea how you link the banning of cars to the fact of having a peaceful revolution or not. So I cannot answer your question.

The transportation (not just car) question will be settled post-revolution as a policy question by the working class.

[Psy]

The transportation (not just car) question will be settled post-revolution as a policy question by the working class.
It would still be a issue during the revolution, you'd have an issue just preventing logistics bogged down by people clogging up roads trying to drive across the border to escape capitalism.

[daft punk]

Cars would have to be got rid of under socialism, no question. A few people would need them. In fact there's nowt wrong with keeping an old car going, as long as it's only used once in a while. We cant have a socialist world where everyone has a new car every few years and drives it every day, not remotely, the planet couldn't handle it. We basically need to get rid, and get a much better system of public transport, in the cities anyway. People in the countryside might have cars. Even if cars were on green fuel and lasted decades, you still have the problem of congestion. Besides, green fuel for cars is a tricky one. Green trams are better, faster...stronger:)

[Lanky Wanker]

I don't think that anyone would own a car if we actually had decent and free public transportation. That's about it really.

This makes me wonder why so many people drive into big cities where they work in the morning. I see people in their suits and ties sitting through 3 hours of traffic trying to get into London when they probably work no more than 5 minutes from a tube station which could've gotten them there in half the time.


We cant have a socialist world where everyone has a new car every few years and drives it every day, not remotely, the planet couldn't handle it.

True, but would you not agree that our "buy, sell, buy new one" culture is mostly the result of capitalism?

[piet11111]

You underestimate the massive consumption levels of petroleum products roads vehicles consume not just for fuel but for rubber, plastics and even roads.

There are non petroleum based fuels available and even then its not just combustion engines that can power vehicles.

And before synthetic rubber really took off in the 1930's they did just fine with natural rubber and assuming the amount of personal vehicles will be drastically reduced i would think that natural rubber will be a viable alternative to synthetics.

Plastics can be recycled and we have enough of that shit laying around to last us decades but i much prefer my car made out of metal thank you very much.
And roads will be required anyway for transportation and emergency services so maintaining those is going to happen anyway.

I live in a semi-rural area and without vehicles i would not be able to get anywhere so i completely disagree that personal vehicles need to be gotten rid of.

[Psy]

There are non petroleum based fuels available and even then its not just combustion engines that can power vehicles.

Which lacks the EROI of petroleum based fuels. Then you have the fact catenary is the most efficient method of powering vehicles as now you have the energy source and its fuel not being moved, and scaled up for economy of scale.



And before synthetic rubber really took off in the 1930's they did just fine with natural rubber and assuming the amount of personal vehicles will be drastically reduced i would think that natural rubber will be a viable alternative to synthetics.

There are problems witch scaling natural rubbers to replace synthetic rubber as it is currently being used.



Plastics can be recycled and we have enough of that shit laying around to last us decades but i much prefer my car made out of metal thank you very much.
And roads will be required anyway for transportation and emergency services so maintaining those is going to happen anyway.

Fire fighting trains exist, given rail traffics are controlled through dispatchers it means the path for emergency trains can be cleared.

http://en.rian.ru/images/16009/26/160092617.jpg




I live in a semi-rural area and without vehicles i would not be able to get anywhere so i completely disagree that personal vehicles need to be gotten rid of.
And radial railways stretched into wilderness back in the late 19th century, also the USSR ran narrow gauge railways into rural settlements that had no paved road connecting them to the rest of the USSR, as GOSPLAN studies showed railways were more cost effective then paved rural roads.

[CommunityBeliever]

There are non petroleum based fuels available and even then its not just combustion engines that can power vehicles.

Fissile nuclear materials such as Uranium-235 can act as a non-petroleum based fuel for trains, submarines, airplanes, spacecraft, etc. However, nuclear power is too risky for use in personal vehicles. I believe this is a solid argument for preferring mass transit over personal vehicles.

Nonetheless, what non petroleum based fuels do you have in mind for use in personal vehicles? Biofuels could work but their EROEI is too low and they require arable land, which is a significant disadvantage. I don't see any good alternatives to use after our supply of oil is depleted, so in the future there will still be some cars but their use will be significantly diminished.


I live in a semi-rural area and without vehicles i would not be able to get anywhere so i completely disagree that personal vehicles need to be gotten rid of. What makes you think that in a socialist society your community would be anything like it currently is? In a socialist society there will be vehicles of mass transit to take you anywhere.

[Igor]

What makes you think that in a socialist society your community would be anything like it currently is? In a socialist society there will be vehicles of mass transit to take you anywhere.

No, there won't be, because it'd be stupid. There is no point in having mass transit to take you anywhere. I live in a country with a very low population density. Distances can be pretty big and there really might not even be other people traveling to my bumfuck nowhere choice of destination. Mass transit is great when you're going from a population centre to another, but when we're traveling deeper to rural areas for whatever reasons, it'd be a waste of resources. The car is simply the best and the least wasteful method of transportation outside areas with even somewhat dense population.

[piet11111]

Which lacks the EROI of petroleum based fuels. Then you have the fact catenary is the most efficient method of powering vehicles as now you have the energy source and its fuel not being moved, and scaled up for economy of scale.

Electric hydrogen LPG even steam bio-diesel



There are problems witch scaling natural rubbers to replace synthetic rubber as it is currently being used.

Not if you get your way and get rid of almost all personal vehicles.



Fire fighting trains exist, given rail traffics are controlled through dispatchers it means the path for emergency trains can be cleared.

Are you seriously suggesting to build railroads everywhere so that such a train can reach every home ?
Water does not reach very far and you will need ladder cars to be able to evacuate buildings and to fight fires from up high.
Such trains can not and will not replace actual firetrucks.



And radial railways stretched into wilderness back in the late 19th century, also the USSR ran narrow gauge railways into rural settlements that had no paved road connecting them to the rest of the USSR, as GOSPLAN studies showed railways were more cost effective then paved rural roads.

Your plan would require massive amounts of resources to replace something we already have today.
Now if we where talking about something like the trans siberia express then yeah railroads would absolutely be the way to go but to connect villages together that are only a few miles apart by building railroads plus the facility's to power and maintain the trains would just be madness especially where i live namely on a small island with a few thousand people.


Fissile nuclear materials such as Uranium-235 can act as a non-petroleum based fuel for trains, submarines, airplanes, spacecraft, etc. However, nuclear power is too risky for use in personal vehicles. I believe this is a solid argument for preferring mass transit over personal vehicles.

Nuclear power can be used to create hydrogen to power vehicles or to generate the power required to recharge electric vehicles.


Nonetheless, what non petroleum based fuels do you have in mind for use in personal vehicles? Biofuels could work but their EROEI is too low and they require arable land, which is a significant disadvantage. I don't see any good alternatives to use after our supply of oil is depleted, so in the future there will still be some cars but their use will be significantly diminished.

Hydrogen electric alcohol LPG and biofuels like woodpulp that with a fungus can be made to create fuel.



What makes you think that in a socialist society your community would be anything like it currently is? In a socialist society there will be vehicles of mass transit to take you anywhere.

I live on an island with a few thousand people.

[Psy]

Electric hydrogen LPG even steam bio-diesel

When you factor in total production process their EROI is low, compared to trains and road vehicles with external electric sources i.e electric trams and trolley buses this only means vehicles collecting the electricity from a external wire/rail has a higher power to weight ratio.



Not if you get your way and get rid of almost all personal vehicles.

And as you said that is my point.



Are you seriously suggesting to build railroads everywhere so that such a train can reach every home ?

There is no reason why you couldn't run fire trains down streetcar tracks if you made the gauge the same, or alternatively building fire fighting streetcars to better negotiate streetcar lines.



Water does not reach very far and you will need ladder cars to be able to evacuate buildings and to fight fires from up high.
Such trains can not and will not replace actual firetrucks.

Well then there is fire fighting tracked vehicles

http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/Demonstration-in-Bronnitsy/i-kSJLcD5/0/640x427/Bronnitsy067-640x427.jpg

Able to go off-road plus since it based off the USSR MT-LB troop transport it has a NBC system meaning (since it was meant to carry the Red Army through the nuclear apocalypse) it can protect fire fighters from radiation along with biological and chemical threats, making it more useful for industrial fires. These tracked fire fighting vehicles don't need paved roads.

Ladder trucks, they too exist in tracked form

http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/Military-Technical-Museum/military-technical-museum/1128601365_kTzGC-L.jpg




Your plan would require massive amounts of resources to replace something we already have today.

Yet the US road network is a money pit, the US Department of Transportation has stated it would require 2 trillion dollars just to maintain the US road network at its current level of service.

So it a question if we invest tons of resources in rebuilding the US road network or abandon it for a more efficient transportation network.




Now if we where talking about something like the trans siberia express then yeah railroads would absolutely be the way to go but to connect villages together that are only a few miles apart by building railroads plus the facility's to power and maintain the trains would just be madness especially where i live namely on a small island with a few thousand people.

The USSR used narrow gauge railways to link villages to main lines. The advantage the USSR found with narrow gauge railways is it cost much less to maintain then paved roads. Also rolling stock is cheaper to maintain, most of the USSR narrow gauge rolling stock was built in the 1950's and they are still in service today, and still dirt cheap to operate.



I live on an island with a few thousand people.
And the USSR provided mass transit to communities with only a few hundred people.

[GoddessCleoLover]

There will be a role for the automobile under Communism in rural areas etcetera, but the renovation of mass transit, at least in the USA, ought to take priority in order to prevent further depletion of petroleum resources.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2362544#post2362544)
"We cant have a socialist world where everyone has a new car every few years and drives it every day, not remotely, the planet couldn't handle it. "


True, but would you not agree that our "buy, sell, buy new one" culture is mostly the result of capitalism?

Yeah I would. But its the fuel burning and congestion as well as the car production. Global warming is our biggest problem.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Taken together, the global warming and petroleum depletion problems will necessitate a prioritization of mass transit over the automobile. Frankly, given the serious nature of the problem and the cold reality that revolution seems not to be just around the corner, the decline of the automobile might occur on the watch of bourgeois society.

[Soseloshvili]

Yet electric radial lines of the early 19th century linked farmers to cities fairly well.

That still leaves my example of a combine. Et cetera, et cetera.


I think there would be generalization, road vehicles would be engineered as primary fleet vehicles to be attached to means of production. Private car sales would come from surplus, i.e if you were looking for a 4-door family car odds are it would be engineered to be a taxi cab and it is just demand for taxi cabs are less then the stockpile of new taxi cabs.

You don't understand Communism.

[Psy]

You don't understand Communism.
Why would automotive engineer care about private owners when their job is to provide means of production to workers? Of course a worker state would care much more about what workers think of a vehicle then what consumers thing of it, and this would be reflected in its production plans for automobiles . If workers say, they want a rugged vehicle, easy to maintain and durable enough for work site why would automotive engineers working in a worker run automotive plant create vehicles that goes against what workers want, and create vehicles delicate, hard to maintain and they can't use in work sites?

[Lynx]

There is currently no alternative to automotive transport in rural areas. The best that could be done is to carpool.

[Soseloshvili]

Why would automotive engineer care about private owners when their job is to provide means of production to workers? Of course a worker state would care much more about what workers think of a vehicle then what consumers thing of it, and this would be reflected in its production plans for automobiles . If workers say, they want a rugged vehicle, easy to maintain and durable enough for work site why would automotive engineers working in a worker run automotive plant create vehicles that goes against what workers want, and create vehicles delicate, hard to maintain and they can't use in work sites?

Okay, firstly, Communism does not mean a worker's state. What you are referring to is Socialism. You will find that Lenin interpreted Communism to mean the phase after successful Socialism, the "whithering away" of the state (which, remember, in Marxist terms, is a class dictatorship, not necessarily a government). I suggest you revisit The State and Revolution Chapter 5 http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

If you are not a Leninist, then, feel free to correct me there.

My issue was not with the word "private", per se, but your use of the words "sales" and "buy". You seem to associate Communism with some sort of regulated market economy. Communism eradicates the conditions which require an economy to exist.

[Psy]

My issue was not with the word "private", per se, but your use of the words "sales" and "buy". You seem to associate Communism with some sort of regulated market economy. Communism eradicates the conditions which require an economy to exist.
Ahh, well I was referring to the period before the abolishment of money as a tool to ration products of society.

[MajorGeneralPineapple]

As some others have already said, under Communism, car production would be infrequent. There really wouldn't be much use for cars if a reliable, mass public transit system was in place. If there was a particular need that only a car could satisfy, that would represent the "infrequent" production. But those would only be very isolated cases.

I personally hate the fact that I have to drive. There is no reliable public transit system where I live. Cars are wasteful money sinks.

[Firebrand]

I'll be honest, I will miss fast cars very much. I love the feeling of going really fast, acceleration, cornering everything. I think that during the transition period fast cars will no longer be made, i imagine shopping cars will be for those people who live in inaccessible areas, but fast cars probably wont be.
Once the transition is complete maybe fast cars will make a comeback. There will always be people who love driving for its own sake, but during the transition we will have to prioritise.
However I think as the road to communism progresses shopping cars will slowly but surely become mostly a thing of the past, since public transport can usually take on its practical functions.
However I would like to make a few points against those eco-junkies who think that cars are evil and that everyone should use trains and bicycles
1. lots of people live in isolated rural areas where is is far more energy efficient to use a car, than set up a whole public transport network for the benefit of around a hundred people.

2. While public transport is useful if you are fully mobile, if you have trouble walking you have a problem. Public transport almost never takes you where you want to go. It takes you to within walking distance of where you want to go if you're lucky. If even standing causes you pain then a ten minute walk after getting the train is far from ideal. and thats even before we get to the issue of having to stand on public transport.

3. lets look at transport networks. Specifically the london underground, hae you ever tried getting the tube during rush hour. There's been a couple of times when i've been scared of getting crushed. It's all very well saying you'll increase capacity but how? Run more trains? The lines are pretty full already. Make more lines? well thatll help but there's only so much space under london and digging new tunnels is a major infrastucture project.

4. Bicycles, this is one of my pet hates. It's all very well people gooing round saying cycling is good for your health and the environment and acting all smug. They fail to take into acount the fact that a) you can't put your shopping on a bicyle, b) you can't take anyone else with you on a bicycle, got a baby, stay at home you can't cycle carrying one of those, and i'd hate to try and cycle while pregnant. c) bicycles certainly aren't weatherproof, if you live in england the rain is a serious consideration (that applies to waiting at bus stops as well come to think of it) and d) not everyone can ride a bicycle, I certainly can't. Not well enough to ride on the roads anyway, if i tried i would either die or hit someone.

[Lanky Wanker]

I'll be honest, I will miss fast cars very much. I love the feeling of going really fast, acceleration, cornering everything. I think that during the transition period fast cars will no longer be made, i imagine shopping cars will be for those people who live in inaccessible areas, but fast cars probably wont be.

Well I was thinking, most people who buy race/sport/supercars never actually drive them fast due to speed limits, and wouldn't do so even if they had the chance. For people such as yourself, however, I don't see what would be wrong with keeping fast cars for race tracks to use in hourly slots or whatever. There are people who jizz at the site of cars under the hood and wouldn't easily let go of their passion for racing, so why not let them spend their free time working there and looking after everything? The only problem is when we're out of fuel, although that would be much less of a problem than it is currently.

[Marvin the Marxian]

Why would automotive engineer care about private owners when their job is to provide means of production to workers? Of course a worker state would care much more about what workers think of a vehicle then what consumers thing of it, and this would be reflected in its production plans for automobiles . If workers say, they want a rugged vehicle, easy to maintain and durable enough for work site why would automotive engineers working in a worker run automotive plant create vehicles that goes against what workers want, and create vehicles delicate, hard to maintain and they can't use in work sites?

Workers are also consumers, comrade.

[Psy]

Workers are also consumers, comrade.
Yet how they view a vehicle changes depending on context. In a motor pool it is machinery, mechanics hate facades that do nothing but waste their time. Operators want vehicles they can beat up and not have to worry about it.

Basically workers want vehicles that are work horses, that will do the work expected of them and not be a nuisance. Yet when you walk into a car dealer none of this factors in, as the same qualities that workers want end up being a unprofitable vehicle as it means vehicles with few extras and long service life.

[Firebrand]

Basically workers want vehicles that are work horses, that will do the work expected of them and not be a nuisance. Yet when you walk into a car dealer none of this factors in, as the same qualities that workers want end up being a unprofitable vehicle as it means vehicles with few extras and long service life.

I'm not sure what workers you've been talking to, but I know plenty who view properly fast cars as the works of art that they are. Just because the only people who can afford fast cars are the rich doesn't mean that ordinary people don't want them.

I'd also like to add that while track days are a lot of fun its not the same as driving on the roads. Especially down those narrow country lanes. Tracks are just a bit too safe and controlled.

[Psy]

I'm not sure what workers you've been talking to, but I know plenty who view properly fast cars as the works of art that they are. Just because the only people who can afford fast cars are the rich doesn't mean that ordinary people don't want them.

Fast cars can't do work, you put any trailer on a sports car and you destroy their weak transmissions plus they are total crap off-road.

[Marvin the Marxian]

Yet how they view a vehicle changes depending on context. In a motor pool it is machinery, mechanics hate facades that do nothing but waste their time. Operators want vehicles they can beat up and not have to worry about it.

Are workers necessarily going to use vehicles from their workplaces' motor pools to go to and from work? What if a workplace doesn't even have a motor pool?

My point though was you were contrasting workers vs. consumers, as if no one can be both. But actually people are both all the time. Most people both produce and consume.


Basically workers want vehicles that are work horses, that will do the work expected of them and not be a nuisance. Yet when you walk into a car dealer none of this factors in, as the same qualities that workers want end up being a unprofitable vehicle as it means vehicles with few extras and long service life.

Yes, people want reliable vehicles. They also want safe vehicles. They also want fast vehicles. They also want comfortable vehicles. Maximizing any of these categories necessarily diminishes one or more of the others. This kind of trade-off situation would still exist under socialism.

[Marvin the Marxian]

Fast cars can't do work, you put any trailer on a sports car and you destroy their weak transmissions plus they are total crap off-road.

Comrade, are you really saying that only cars that can do work would/should be produced under socialism?

[Lolumad273]

There should be a community reserve, somewhere in a city, where people can rent cars for the weekend or something. Say you want to go camping? Rent a car for the weekend. That way not everyone needs a wasteful car, but people who enjoy cars can still use them. I for one love ATVing, but I wouldn't mind renting one if it wasn't beat to shit.

[Le Rouge]

Hey! I have an idea. Why not only make rally cars in a communist society. Would be totally badass imo.

Image spoiler
http://www.auto-power-girl.com/photo-gallery/subaru-impreza-sti-wrc-2006/2006-subaru-impreza-sti-wrc-1.jpghttp://www.racingmodels.com/ekmps/shops/arendonk1/images/ford-focus-rs-wrc-latvala-anttila-1st-rally-sweden-2008-1-43-8036-p.jpg

[Psy]

Comrade, are you really saying that only cars that can do work would/should be produced under socialism?
That when car designers sit down to design new cars they primary goal is make a machine that moves things around, before a car gets the green light to be mass produced its prototype will be put through its paces in selected motors pools.

For example motorcycle would be first tested out with motorcycle couriers and before a motorcycle would be deemed good enough for general consumption it would have to live up to the exceptions of workers in the line of work. This allows for limited production runs to get feedback without having dealing with scarcity as a motor pool would just be selected to switch to the new model for feedback.


Are workers necessarily going to use vehicles from their workplaces' motor pools to go to and from work? What if a workplace doesn't even have a motor pool?

Then one would go a motor pool near them.



Yes, people want reliable vehicles. They also want safe vehicles. They also want fast vehicles. They also want comfortable vehicles. Maximizing any of these categories necessarily diminishes one or more of the others. This kind of trade-off situation would still exist under socialism.
You have vehicles that can even climb a curb because of stupid skirts lowering the ground clearance that are just there to make the vehicle "cool".

[GoddessCleoLover]

I would hope that one of the very first achievements of a Socialist Revolution would be a massive construction of mass transportation projects. The Moscow Metro was a shining achievement of the Russian Revolution, and given the relative wealth of the USA, we ought to be able to build at least twenty similar projects.

[Marvin the Marxian]

That when car designers sit down to design new cars they primary goal is make a machine that moves things around, before a car gets the green light to be mass produced its prototype will be put through its paces in selected motors pools.

For example motorcycle would be first tested out with motorcycle couriers and before a motorcycle would be deemed good enough for general consumption it would have to live up to the exceptions of workers in the line of work. This allows for limited production runs to get feedback without having dealing with scarcity as a motor pool would just be selected to switch to the new model for feedback.

Not all things are the same, comrade. Most cars are simply used to move up to a certain number of people around. That is, they're personal conveyances and nothing more. I don't understand what's wrong with this.

Why couldn't one type of motorcycle be made for motorcycle couriers and another type of motorcycle be made for people who just enjoy riding motorcycles?


Then one would go a motor pool near them.

So you don't want cars to be personal property under socialism?


You have vehicles that can even climb a curb because of stupid skirts lowering the ground clearance that are just there to make the vehicle "cool".

I figure you mean "can't" instead of "can" in the above. But I still don't understand your point. Must all cars be able to climb curbs under socialism?

[Psy]

Not all things are the same, comrade. Most cars are simply used to move up to a certain number of people around. That is, they're personal conveyances and nothing more. I don't understand what's wrong with this.

Why couldn't one type of motorcycle be made for motorcycle couriers and another type of motorcycle be made for people who just enjoy riding motorcycles?

Why wouldn't motorcycle couriers be a good gauge in what is a good motorcycle? Most of the first motorcycle clubs in the USA got started with troops falling in love with US Army motorcycles.



So you don't want cars to be personal property under socialism?

No, I want cars to be engineered as means of production and if private motorists want them fine.



I figure you mean "can't" instead of "can" in the above. But I still don't understand your point. Must all cars be able to climb curbs under socialism?
You are lowing their ground clearance for no good reason, it also means if the vehicle curb hops by accident it gets damage due to horrible design.

[Aloysius]

Everyone will drive Yugos.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Consumer demand will obviously play a role and I doubt that worker/consumers will want Yugos. However, the role played by consumer demand will be circumscribed by other factors, i.e. depletion of petroleum reserves and damage to the environment caused by the "automobile culture". If we are to avoid ecological collapse we must re-orient ourselves (in the USA in particular) away from the automobile and towards mass transportation. Socialist production, based upon utilitarian considerations rather than the anarchy of the market, could part a part of the solution of this dilemma. IMO we are in the post "peak oil" era and a failure to resolve the issue of petroleum depletion could lead to barbarism unless socialism triumphs first.

[Firebrand]

No, I want cars to be engineered as means of production and if private motorists want them fine. .

I thought that communism was meant to improve everyones living standards. That surely means something different to everything being geared towards production. Surely society should be set up so that people can enjoy themselves, for a lot of people that includes fast cars, if cars are all designed to be utilitarian workhorses I can't see how that would make anyone happy. Even the people who use them for work would probably want something that has a certain amount of grin factor.

[Firebrand]

Fast cars can't do work, you put any trailer on a sports car and you destroy their weak transmissions plus they are total crap off-road.

I'm not denying that fast cars are a luxury item. I just thought that the whole purpose of the revolution was to improve the matierial conditions of workers. i.e. make sure everyone has the necessities and a fair amount of luxury.

Plus fast cars can be good off road. It just depends on which fast car we're talking about. Rally cars are pretty fast.

[SHORAS]

Some years ago while working as a car salesman my dad brought home a Lada Niva (VAZ-2121) which I thought was a funky looking 4x4. However the old regular Lada's looked horrible. But hey, we should be concerned with use over style.


Surprised the Sandwich Artist didn't mention this old chestnut...


Situationist Theses on Traffic

A mistake made by all the city planners is to consider the private automobile (and its by-products, such as the motorcycle) as essentially a means of transportation. In reality, it is the most notable material symbol of the notion of happiness that developed capitalism tends to spread throughout the society. The automobile is at the heart of this general propaganda, both as supreme good of an alienated life and as essential product of the capitalist market: It is generally being said this year that American economic prosperity is soon going to depend on the success of the slogan “Two cars per family.”


2

Commuting time, as Le Corbusier rightly noted, is a surplus labor which correspondingly reduces the amount of “free” time.


3

We must replace travel as an adjunct to work with travel as a pleasure.


4

To want to redesign architecture to accord with the needs of the present massive and parasitical existence of private automobiles reflects the most unrealistic misapprehension of where the real problems lie. Instead, architecture must be transformed to accord with the whole development of the society, criticizing all the transitory values linked to obsolete forms of social relationships (in the first rank of which is the family).


5

Even if, during a transitional period, we temporarily accept a rigid division between work zones and residence zones, we must at least envisage a third sphere: that of life itself (the sphere of freedom and leisure — the essence of life). Unitary urbanism acknowledges no boundaries; it aims to form an integrated human milieu in which separations such as work/leisure or public/private will finally be dissolved. But before this is possible, the minimum action of unitary urbanism is to extend the terrain of play to all desirable constructions. This terrain will be at the level of complexity of an old city.


6

It is not a matter of opposing the automobile as an evil in itself. It is its extreme concentration in the cities that has led to the negation of its function. Urbanism should certainly not ignore the automobile, but even less should it accept it as a central theme. It should reckon on gradually phasing it out. In any case, we can envision the banning of auto traffic from the central areas of certain new complexes, as well as from a few old cities.


7

Those who believe that the automobile is eternal are not thinking, even from a strictly technological standpoint, of other future forms of transportation. For example, certain models of one-man helicopters currently being tested by the US Army will probably have spread to the general public within twenty years.


8

The breaking up of the dialectic of the human milieu in favor of automobiles (the projected freeways in Paris will entail the demolition of thousands of houses and apartments although the housing crisis is continually worsening) masks its irrationality under pseudopractical justifications. But it is practically necessary only in the context of a specific social set-up. Those who believe that the particulars of the problem are permanent want in fact to believe in the permanence of the present society.


9

Revolutionary urbanists will not limit their concern to the circulation of things, or to the circulation of human beings trapped in a world of things. They will try to break these topological chains, paving the way with their experiments for a human journey through authentic life.


GUY DEBORD
1959

http://bopsecrets.org/SI/3.traffic.htm

[Psy]

I thought that communism was meant to improve everyones living standards. That surely means something different to everything being geared towards production. Surely society should be set up so that people can enjoy themselves, for a lot of people that includes fast cars, if cars are all designed to be utilitarian workhorses I can't see how that would make anyone happy. Even the people who use them for work would probably want something that has a certain amount of grin factor.
The problem is cars consume far more resources then any society can sustain, even in roads it is mathematically impossible to build enough roads to solve traffic congestion due to cars requiring so much land that as you expand capacity you have increased travel times to the point you have created more traffic then the extra capacity.

Thus in communism to avoid scarcity you have to discourage car ownership or out right ban it if need be. I don't know about you but requiring every car to have unsynchronized transmissions so drivers have to double clutch is a better solution then building cars anyone can drive then dealing with scarcity.

[Firebrand]

The problem is cars consume far more resources then any society can sustain, even in roads it is mathematically impossible to build enough roads to solve traffic congestion due to cars requiring so much land that as you expand capacity you have increased travel times to the point you have created more traffic then the extra capacity.

Thus in communism to avoid scarcity you have to discourage car ownership or out right ban it if need be. I don't know about you but requiring every car to have unsynchronized transmissions so drivers have to double clutch is a better solution then building cars anyone can drive then dealing with scarcity.

Well yeah but if you make it easy to manage without cars then the fairly large numbers of people who don't actually like driving will probably stop. And once cars are no longer a status symbol people who have them simply for the status won't bother either.
And since so much less resources would be going into war and overproduction that actually there would be no danger of scarcity.
Plus i doubt people would want to replace their cars as often. I'm not supporting the current rate of turnover, I have no problem with using the same car until it breaks I'd just like that car to be fast and fun.

[Marvin the Marxian]

Why wouldn't motorcycle couriers be a good gauge in what is a good motorcycle? Most of the first motorcycle clubs in the USA got started with troops falling in love with US Army motorcycles.

Motorcycles would be good at gauging what is a good motorcycle - for using in courier work. Correct me if I'm wrong, comrade, but most motorcycles aren't used for that. Why should everyone who isn't a motorcycle courier but who wants a motorcycle be excluded from the motorcycle development process under socialism?


No, I want cars to be engineered as means of production and if private motorists want them fine.

It's not just about you, though, is it? Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but most cars aren't used as means of production. Why should consumer vehicles be excluded under socialism?


You are lowing their ground clearance for no good reason, it also means if the vehicle curb hops by accident it gets damage due to horrible design.

If the car is someone's personal property (which I assume would still exist under socialism), whose business is it but hers if she wants to lower its ground clearance?

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO automobiles ought not to be totally eliminated as a consumer choice, but ought to be taxed in order to expedite the construction of first-class mass transportation systems in the USA in particular. I believe that first-class mass transportation in the USA would lessen consumer demand for automobiles, thus relieving two serious problems, petroleum supply depletion and air pollution.

[piet11111]

You know whats really 100% waste of resources ?

Paper books everything about them is wasteful if you consider they can be replaced with E-books that require no resources to distribute or replicate all that is required is the materials required to make an E-reader but that could hold thousands of books.

And yet i have never heard about anyone wanting to get rid of paper books.

If under a communist society people are forced to give up things out of efficiency concerns then i want no part of it as that would mean we will have to give up tons of stuff.
- meat
- cars
- tobacco
- alcohol
- paper books
- electronic entertainment (everybody have a bare bones pc with internet capability and email everything else is just wasteful heck do you know how much power your videocard consumes !)


I want a better life then i have now without having to work myself to death that is why i am a communist everything else is unacceptable.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Cars ought not to be eliminated in a socialist economy, but in the USA today they are favored over mass transit because we have such poor mass transit systems. We ought to build mass transit systems in the USA that are the equal of Japan and western and northern Europe.

[Psy]

Motorcycles would be good at gauging what is a good motorcycle - for using in courier work. Correct me if I'm wrong, comrade, but most motorcycles aren't used for that. Why should everyone who isn't a motorcycle courier but who wants a motorcycle be excluded from the motorcycle development process under socialism?

From a engineering standpoint you are over engineering motorcycles for the task of just going A to B as you are now engineering them to have far more power to lug cargo thus when stripped down more power to weight ratio.




It's not just about you, though, is it? Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but most cars aren't used as means of production. Why should consumer vehicles be excluded under socialism?

Because the infrastructure require to cater to unscheduled traffic requires more land then exists on Earth if were to eliminated traffic congestion.



If the car is someone's personal property (which I assume would still exist under socialism), whose business is it but hers if she wants to lower its ground clearance?
Because now parking lots have to be engineered for those low ground clearance, you can't just tell motorists to drive climb over snow drifts, it also means if you can't have mass mobilization of vehicles in emergencies like flooding.

[SHORAS]

You know whats really 100% waste of resources ?

Paper books everything about them is wasteful if you consider they can be replaced with E-books that require no resources to distribute or replicate all that is required is the materials required to make an E-reader but that could hold thousands of books.

And yet i have never heard about anyone wanting to get rid of paper books.

If under a communist society people are forced to give up things out of efficiency concerns then i want no part of it as that would mean we will have to give up tons of stuff.
- meat
- cars
- tobacco
- alcohol
- paper books
- electronic entertainment (everybody have a bare bones pc with internet capability and email everything else is just wasteful heck do you know how much power your videocard consumes !)


I want a better life then i have now without having to work myself to death that is why i am a communist everything else is unacceptable.

1. Of course certain things will no longer be produced due to health and ecological reasons among others. A communist society isn't everyone gets a fair share of what presently exists!

2.
A Kindle is probably a good example of something in a future communist society which will be very useful and necessary i.e makes books relatively redundant. Sorry for all the book lovers but due to the amount of paper and poor ickle trees that get used up books should be no more. Also the sharing and technological features of electronics (like the Kindle) should make books in this case even more useful to us all.

As it goes I actually prefer books, but for the sake of communism I can relent.:D
Don't actually own a Kindle either.

Now you've all brought it up I kind of do want a Kindle though. My sister brought one with her when she visited and I said you could read stuff off the net on it, she looked nonplussed. Got Marxists.org on the thing and she was over the moon! :cool: (not at the website, just that she could read books off the net)

I did psyops her though cos later she was asking me about communism :lol:

[Rooster]

The car production will be mostly made of Lada cars.

I totally loved my Lada. It never broke down. I only got rid of it because the exhaust got ruined from a country road.