You must log in or register to comment.
Thats a W123 Mercedes-Benz.
A Spectacle for Fools.
I’m just replying here because I want to remember that phrase. That’s probably the best way I have read to describe Musk’s “flying car”.
Yeah, a communist Mercedes Benz W123. Even an AI slop meme would be better than this.
There’s a reason why soviet era technology was infamous for its use of
plywoodstalinium.There’s also a reason why post industrial american technology is infamous for its use of
chinesiumtotally legit made in USA stickers.People are gonna hate this answer but the best products are made in a properly competitive market.
The USSR had state owned OEMS that ultimately relied on deals with foreign manufacturers to jump start their success significantly later than their international counterparts.
The big 3 US OEMs lobbied congress to block foreign imports to protect their inferior product in the home market (multiple times, notably against Japan and recently China).
You can have a competitive market under socialism! The main difference is the profits don’t get hoovered off by a parasitic investor class that don’t actually provide any meaningful labour.
People are gonna hate this answer but the best products are made in a properly competitive market.
Yep, that. Protectionism leads to worse results for everyone except a handful of people who profit in the short term. Long-term, even the companies whose immediate profits are being protected will suffer as they make worse quality products that eventually no one wants to buy. Only the people who are in a position to grab some profits and run get any benefit.
Capitalism, socialism, communism, whatever, doesn’t matter.
Small correction, the left is a capitalist-made vehicle. This fine sample is a communist one. These are still in active use in many places 40+ years after production. Cheap and simple to maintain.
The second step is to muzzle the intelligent
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/movies/articles/explosive-elon-musk-film-hit-003620107.html
“fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other.” - Bertrand Russel
Communism or Capitalism don’t make things better or worse. Corruption makes things worse and regulations and oversight make them better.
Endless stories about garbage made on both sides leads to some greedy fucker rigging the system.
I mean we never had communism in the UK, but we built solid reliable council housing from the 60s to the 80s.
Turns out if the government is going to be on the hook for a bad job, they tend to do it right. No point cheaping out on materials if you’re going to be the one coming back to replace the roof in ten years time when it starts to leak.
Both make things worth. If you’ve got a bit of time on your hands, I can thoroughly recommend James Scott’s book Seeing Like A State. Not many more clear eyed views of the recent history of social structures around.
I will second the recommendation.
I’m confused, there are no 30 year old cars under capitalism?
I get what you’re trying to say, but I don’t think this is a great example to use.
My Honda pilot is 15 years old and it’s just starting to get harder to find parts
My Chevy Volt is 12 years old, and anything that’s not a consumable is quickly becoming unobtanium.
Neither capitalism or communism gives you reliable cars. What helps is good regulation for minimum warranty periods, mandatory maintenance and spare parts availability for 15+ years, interdictions of dark patterns (e.g: end user should be able to replace the headlamps, oil filter and such easily with basic tools). And also, industry standards, ODB2 for diagnostics for instance. And now, Cybersecurity and data privacy is super relevant, you don’t want OEMs or bad actors to be able to disable your car remotely.
I need respectable 90s Japanese cars that are competing to destroy the American automotive industry. But with electronic vehicles.
Comp…etition? Now how might we get world market competition?
Let’s order it on Amazon?
Yes /s
Yeah. Electric vehicles with no computers (beyond microcontrollers for batter chargers and stuff).
There was a period about 15 years ago where you going get a not stupidly expensive electric refit kit for a bunch of cars - someone I know did it with a 90s Rav4 for like $10k. Unfortunately they seem to be stupid expensive now.
Conversions for most cars are pretty lame. Battery placement is rough and mechanical losses from attaching an electric motor to a transmission for an ICE are significant. Conversions are cool but mostly a novelty.
I’d rather see some real bare-bones electrics, like the first Leafs, with the best battery tech we can toss in them.
First person to make the hatchback 90s Honda Civic of EVs is going to print money. I’d fucking do it, but I don’t have the capital required to start it.
Seriously. 200 miles of range for the entry model. Compact, make it a little rowdy, make it cheap, make documentation free and widely available. Let people modify it and break it, make a surplus of replacement parts so they can be put back together. Wait 6 months and then release a performance version.
You would print so much fucking money.
It’s already been made. We just can’t have it here in the US because it would kill our domestic auto makers. Can’t have competition if you’re not competitive, right?
Seems like what Slate is trying to do (probably others yoo). But no idea if it’s vaporware or not.
I lucked the fuck out and got a 12 year old Leaf for 700 bucks (a tree fell on it a little). Only 60 mile range, but it’s JUST enough for the commute.
I wonder if there’s a 10k for 100 mile range, 15k for 200 mile range possibility.
Yeah, for sure. Just gotta find a very large funder…
What’s John DeLorean up to these days?
In Europe we have Renault offering something in this segment with their new Twingo. Barebone simple EV for city driving and daily commute. It’s priced around 13k€ new.
Yeah, the digital dash and stuff is still a pretty huge turn-off. Dunno if it has things like electric door handles and non-mechanical brakes, but those are also disturbing.
Non mechanical brakes? Like fly-by-wire or do you mean something else?
Yeah but none of that happens if the corporations that make the cars are the ones writing the laws that regulate them.
Ah yes, the good old communist Mercedes W123.
That is the peak chassis form, you may not like it, but its true.
It’s peak car, tbh.
This comparison is just head-up-ass silly without statistics.
There are 75+ year-old Ford F-1s running around, with their original engine blocks:
https://classiccars.com/listings/view/2115325/1948-ford-f1-for-sale-in-prescott-arizona-86305
https://classiccars.com/listings/find/all-years/ford/f1
brought to you by capitalism!
Even without that, any old car can be made to work if you throw parts and labor at it. This idea that “communism made a car that ran for 30 years” is completely worthless with a single example. What matters is how many were manufactured and how many of those are still functional at 5, 10, 15, 20+ years. One sample is bad statistics.
Capitalism also produced the world’s most reliable and repairable pickup truck - the Toyota Hilux. If you were going to make a comparison just on lifetime operating hours vs. maintenance cost, Toyota would win globally no problem. If you were going to make a comparison based on operating hours in harsh conditions, Toyota would also win that.
That’s a capitalist car btw. Mercedes from West Germany
you’re making too much sense for some neomarxist kiddie dimwits here.
The Lada Riva. That symbol of communism.
Was just a rebadged Fiat 124.
It was originally a capitalist invention that the commies took credit for.
If you haven’t seen already most if not all of USSR technology was stolen, and I wouldn’t be surprised if tradition continued to Russia
Learning is not stealing… That aside. There were a bunch of FIAT license cars in the socialist states.
Trabants were shit.
https://fee.org/articles/the-worst-car-ever-a-brief-history-of-the-trabant/
It wasn’t that the Trabant had a weak two-stroke engine, though it did. It wasn’t just that the Trabant was made with recycled waste (usually from wool or cotton), though it was. It wasn’t that Trabants topped out at 60 mph and “smoked like an Iraqi oil fire,” as one writer put it.
No, the Trabant’s biggest problem was that it never really improved.
And you had to wait ten years to get one.
In .ml terms that means you got 40 years of enjoyment out of your communist car!
Plus going 0-60 in five minutes gave you more time to bask in awe at all the slate gray brutalist architecture!
It was for sure not just the communists doing grey brutalism!
True, but pointing that out doesn’t really go with the flow of the banter 🤷🏻
Oh no
They were kind of ok when they were launched in 1964. The thing is that east germany totally was not able to keep up with western tech and the politburo even forbid the manufacturer from improving the car. So they were still producing a 1964 car in 1989 with totally outdated tech. And they were not able to produce enough for the demand, leading to decades long waiting times
They were very outdated even in the 1960s. After the German reunification, people were simply abandoning them by the side of the road behause they literally had zero value.
They were pretty modern in some ways. Transverse front engine layout, independent rear suspension, body panels made from recycled materials.
… two stroke engine…
Yes, that is not one of the “some ways” I mentioned…
I love the communist side of the picture - western car, but with bonnet up and no available spares
Rights to repair hurts the bottom line of shareholders, its evil, communistic and socialistic!!!
