It kinda makes a lot of sense I feel that they’d fit together. You have a form of transportation that is dangerous enough that requiring government licensing is generally agreed to be desirable, meaning that if its the primary option, a government can effectively take away a person’s ability to participate in public life or make a living, and easily justify it on safety grounds. Cars are expensive, so a government can both funnel money to its partners in private industry by promoting them, and subsidize them for the populations it considers “desirable” as a means to seem like it has created abundance and luxury (see how how the VW bug came to be for example). And, a society built around cars is one that tends towards physical separation and isolation between people (because of space inefficient infrastructure and relatively quick travel outside of densely built areas), which promotes distrust of others. Thats not to say that cars are inherently fascist or that most people that promote them do so to benefit that sort of ideology, but that if I was some kind of fascist dictator seeking to control a population, Id probably want to push them into buying and relying on cars.
Wouldn’t fascists, to the definition, want a cohesive nationalistic society and identity? Fascists want a strong nation.
The Nazis promoted cars because nobody really had a car and they were coming out of a depression, they wanted to pump up their manufacturing industry for economic benefit and it was also a good excuse to build manufacturing capability for war. Cars were therefore very nationalistic, owning a car was good for Germany and German jobs.
Pushing for cars in most places does not benefit national industry, and pushes money and jobs offshore.
I feel like cars could only be potentially seen as a fascist tool if one were to ramp up national production of cars and tariff or ban imports of cars from other countries
Seems to me that it’s much easier to create a single cohesive nationalistic identity by destroying every other place where people can find identity. Which often involves groups of people interacting and finding ways to work together.
Bit like how people with few real life social connections are much more likely to fall into parasocial relationships.
Also a bit like the isolation step before the abuse starts.
Wouldn’t it be too late for that today because everyone already has access to cars? I mean more than the “brand” thing (they could probably do fascist sneakers and handbags for example).
It kinda makes a lot of sense I feel that they’d fit together. You have a form of transportation that is dangerous enough that requiring government licensing is generally agreed to be desirable, meaning that if its the primary option, a government can effectively take away a person’s ability to participate in public life or make a living, and easily justify it on safety grounds. Cars are expensive, so a government can both funnel money to its partners in private industry by promoting them, and subsidize them for the populations it considers “desirable” as a means to seem like it has created abundance and luxury (see how how the VW bug came to be for example). And, a society built around cars is one that tends towards physical separation and isolation between people (because of space inefficient infrastructure and relatively quick travel outside of densely built areas), which promotes distrust of others. Thats not to say that cars are inherently fascist or that most people that promote them do so to benefit that sort of ideology, but that if I was some kind of fascist dictator seeking to control a population, Id probably want to push them into buying and relying on cars.
Wouldn’t fascists, to the definition, want a cohesive nationalistic society and identity? Fascists want a strong nation.
The Nazis promoted cars because nobody really had a car and they were coming out of a depression, they wanted to pump up their manufacturing industry for economic benefit and it was also a good excuse to build manufacturing capability for war. Cars were therefore very nationalistic, owning a car was good for Germany and German jobs.
Pushing for cars in most places does not benefit national industry, and pushes money and jobs offshore.
I feel like cars could only be potentially seen as a fascist tool if one were to ramp up national production of cars and tariff or ban imports of cars from other countries
Seems to me that it’s much easier to create a single cohesive nationalistic identity by destroying every other place where people can find identity. Which often involves groups of people interacting and finding ways to work together.
Bit like how people with few real life social connections are much more likely to fall into parasocial relationships.
Also a bit like the isolation step before the abuse starts.
Nice writeup!
Wouldn’t it be too late for that today because everyone already has access to cars? I mean more than the “brand” thing (they could probably do fascist sneakers and handbags for example).
Unless the transition to EVs is capitalised on and ICE cars are quickly phased out