>All of these are no doubt very interesting reflections on the state of
>late capitalism, but what do they have to do with cars? All of the car
>critics, it seems to me, are not really talking about cars, but about
>their own feelings towards society.
Personally, I think an automobile could be a beautiful piece of machinery from both the aesthetic and the engineering points of view. However, machinery invariably comes with social organization and vice versa, those two are inseparable.
The automobile saved capitalism from its collapse by opening a new highway to surplus absorbtion, Baran & Sweezy argue, but its proliferation thrived on capitalist individualism and commodity fetishism. There is symbiotic relationship btween the two, they are inseparable.
The problem with automobile is not that it has four wheels and a gasoline-powered engine, but because it requires an entire infrastruture - roads and low density settlements - to be a viable means of transportation.
An it is also making the re-engineeirng of that infrastructure possible.
I agree with Jim's anti-luddite sentiments that blaming a machine is useless, we should blame the social organization instead. But there is no such a thing like a 'socially responsible' automobile just as there is no such a thing as a 'socially responsible nuclear weapon.' There is no place for individually owned autos in a socialist society (i.e. one without conspicuous consumption, environmentally friendly, and based on meaningful human interaction).
So the question of strategy in this context is: what is better, attacking machinery that is the power base of the enemy, or attacking the enemy while ignoring his machinery?
Regards
WS