What Happened To Car Design? Convertibles to Cocoons, automobile styling 1950s compared to today
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 พ.ค. 2021
- People think of the 1960s as a wild time. And the 1950s are seen today as a time of complacency and conservatism. In many ways those generalizations are true. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL about automobile styling--in fact, it was exactly the opposite!
No other decade in automotive history spanned so large a swing in auto design as the 1950s. Just to show how much styling changed in that decade, take a look at the 1950 model Chevrolet... and the 1960 Chevrolet. That's a 10-year difference and it is obviously... a big one. For comparison, take a look at the 10-year difference in a 2008 and 2018 Chevrolet. Excuse me while I yawn. Hardly any difference at all in those two.
Not only did styles change with increasing FREQUENCY in the 1950s, but the breadth of those changes widened like never before, with styling running a wide range in those years from the mundane to the insane. The single wildest year in all of auto styling came at the end of the '50s, 1959.
As high flying things do, auto design began to come back "down to earth" in the 1960s. "Down to earth is an apt phrase for it since auto design spent the '50s absolutely obsessed with the imagery of...flight. The fins, wings, rockets, and flying V's had been the prevailing theme ever since Cadillac's first use of the tailfin on its 1948 model.
All of this more or less ended in the 1960s, with the biggest change coming--all of a sudden--immediately following that wildest of years, 1959, in the changeover to the 1960 model year. This occurred to me while walking through Deer Park Auto Museum the other day, down in Escondido, California.
There are pretty much all convertibles in this place--wide open cars in which you waved hello to your temporary neighbors out on the open road. And there are lots of great store signs and advertising signs here too. Many in neon. Neon has been friend to the automobile ever since 1924, when the first neon sign in America was installed in Los Angeles-- at a car dealer, selling Packards.
So let's look at that big model change that came in 1960. The big 3 top sellers in 1959 and '60 were the Chevy, Ford, and Plymouth. Check out these '59 models. That's the Ford. But as you can see, the '59 Chevy is already itching to get to 1960 with its lower headlights and slimmer grille. By contrast, the '59 Plymouth--along with the Ford-- both still feature those Elizabeth Taylor eyebrows over the headlights and are looking dated compared to the Chevrolet. But look how far Ford went to catch up in 1960. This '60 model Ford front end didn't just catch up-- it zoomed past Chevy in the styling department. What a difference from the '59.
Back in 1957, Plymouth thought they had the future figured out when they proclaimed in promo materials for their 1957 model, "Suddenly, It's 1960!" But by the time ACTUAL 1960 rolled around, the "forward look" that Plymouth and all the Chrysler products promoted...didn't look so forward anymore.
Things don't turn on a dime, of course. And there are many many style details, exceptions, and downright abberations that are a part of what makes collecting cars so interesting. Here is one of those: Chevrolet, in 1960, having one last fling with the flight-obsessed '50s, with this terrific side rocket.
But the '50s ended that year, 1960, both literally and figuratively... in automotive design. The cars toned down just as everything else was heating up.
We only know from hindsight which of the styling trends you see here would fade and which would survive. The same can be said for auto design in the present day, of course, but the fading of current trends can't come fast enough for me. These trends are all on display at the annual auto shows the car makers put on... to show their new models. At one of these, you can be dazzled and amazed at the gadgetry... but as to the design trends, what you'll see are... cocoon-like cockpits, short windows, darkened glass, and all the rest of it--all designed to foster anonymous--and aggressive--driving. Like the car ads on television for many of today's leading auto brands, the appeal is to all that is sociopathic in today's driving experience.
Few realize what I'm about to say, and fewer still would admit it, but for many people, the only power they still wield in modern life is when they are driving. When they're cloaked in the anonymity of today's cars, this power is sometimes dangerously abused. Today's automakers know all about this power dynamic and cynically exploit it for profit, no matter what the cost to life and limb of the rest of us on the road just trying to enjoy the ride.
Rather than secreting ourselves in our little cocoons, I remember when THIS was the future we were promised. A bubble top--inside of which it was easy to see and be seen. Or even better--no top at all, like the cars here at Deer Park. No, you can have your auto show. I'd rather be in a room like this full of convertibles--all exuberantly different designs, wide open to the world. - บันเทิง
Nice video! Unfortunately styling became the victim of government mandated safety standards. As a kid I remember how excited everyone was when the new models were coming out and all the fanfare the dealerships put on. I consider myself fortunate to have experienced this period of automotive history.
I share your memories of the new models and the big deal made at dealerships. We followed the searchlights in the sky in those weeks in September when the new models appeared, going from dealer to dealer to drink it all in. Government safety and collision standards "victimized" no one. They saved lives and they saved repair expense. The companies simply weren't up to the task of making safer and stylish vehicles. Instead of admitting those shortcomings and trying harder, they spent their efforts making us consumers blame the government and telling us their hands were tied. Instead of admitting reality and getting down to work, they sat around whining while the foreign makers who knew how to actually LISTEN to consumers swamped the big 3 with competition. That's my take on it.
@@collectornet Can't really say I agree with you there. Government mandates and the oil crisis fostered a move toward smaller more economical cars. Europe and Japan already had those because their highway system was not as expansive and the streets in the towns were narrow, so they had been making that kind of car for a very long time. While the U.S. government was setting economy standards (CAFE), they were also demanding weight addition with enormous bumpers (crash standards), which conflicted with the push for economy. Although all cars during those years rusted, the imports generally didn't make it through one year without significant rust. That's why this consumer bought Pontiacs, Fords and Mercurys.
This presents clever observations about the intersection of design and sociology. I really appreciate how well it is scripted and narrated-definitely worth watching. Thank you for creating and sharing such unique and quality content.
Thank you! I very much appreciate you writing and saying that.
Very interesting. I also had this talk with my girlfriend how car design doesn't change much anymore. My 13 audi looks identical to a 22 model.
The 1930s through the 1970s were the best times for cars!!
The recession in the latter 1950's fueled the need for smaller, less expensive car designs to meet the demand of the public's need for affordable transportation.
Excellent Presentation - Great Insight into the Era - I am91 Korean War Vet - I know the Era - Had its goods and bads - I had a 1953 Studebaker Coupe a Design Master Piece - Cars then were FUN ! Everyone looked forward to the next years design. Also had a 1941 Cadillac Convertable Black Red leather seats - Had It In 1964 - My Wife and I and 5 kids did a Lot of FUN DRIVING - I did Industrial Design, Pratt Institute Grad - Life was Much More Exciting then - God bless Us All
A good quality production that is accurate and enjoyable to watch. I am a very big fan of REAL cars like these and have not liked new cars in decades....for many good reasons. Thank you "collectornet" for a great video! Liked and subscribed.
Thank YOU!
I’m 90 and over the years I’ve driven so many and beautiful cars and lusted after so many more
Now, Most cars are just boring. They look the same and drive the same. Worse, Manufactures are pushing SUVs which are, in my opinion, clumsy and too expensive😊
I totally agree with what is said at the end about the sociopathci nature of cars today. Just look at the new trucks that are coming where you can't even see an average sized person over the hood.
You are so right--that's another great example.
Very true! They all look angry or constipated!
Thank you for this video! I feel the same way about modern and older cars. I own a convertible and I would not trade it for any of today's crystal balls.
GREAT VIDEO !Style was always the #1 factor. Then came power. Then Government laws. My folks had a new 1955 Mercury, then a 1959 Pontiac. IN 1972 A pontiac Lemans coupe. My first car was a new1968 Buick GS400 Convertible. Then a 1974 Pontiac Grand Prix. Next came a 1978 Cadillac Seville followed by a 1984 Lincoln Continental Mark Vll. In 1990 a Lincoln Continental Sedan. In 1995, a Mercedes S550 sedan. In 1998 a Mercedes SL 500 Roadster. My last car, a 2019 Mercedes S550 sedan AMG. Now almost every car looks alike. Very bland styling with Safety and mileage as the driving force. Convertables are great when you're young. When you get older, not so much!
Of all the cars I've owned there is only one that I still drive - in my dreams.
A 1963 Catalina, in Coral with a white rag-top.
Couldn't agree with you more about modern cars compared with those of the past. I too remember the new model year excitement. Now we seem to all be driving some derivative of a delivery vehicle. Not only that, even the colors are limited. The last car show I attended was almost exclusively composed of charcoal grey SUVs with black interiors. How boring!
Excellent presentation. The 1960 Ford styling has always been underappreciated for its advancement in styling.
I remember when driving down the road, even at night you could tell what kind of car and in some cases, the year. Cars had class, design and imagination. As a child I used to think that the taillights were rocket motors.
Now cars are ugly, impersonal and downright and should be insulting to the engineers and designers.
The reason for the '57 Plymouths "Suddenly it's 1960" motto was that the '57 Chrysler Corp vehicles were originally supposed to be 1960 models, but because Chrysler Corp sales were lagging, they rushed them three years ahead!
I live in Jacksonville Florida. Believe me, I know TOO WELL, about those who get aggressive while driving. Jacksonville is one of the most dangerous places to drive.
It’s absolutely insane here.
Great video❗️
🚗📻🙂
Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed the video.
I take huge inspiration from cars of history, I’m trying to make them more gorgeous and beautiful again. In fact most of my cars come with some sort of topless roof or the clear glass concept. I like that idea. Hopefully the Lord God willing may I invent these cars and please classic cars again.
The narrator spoke my thoughts exactly. Excellent video and great-looking cars.
Cars will never look that good ever again and I will take that to my grave. I would take a rusted 1949 Ford Coupe project car over a 2022 Ferrari 458 any day. Hell im 18 and I am starting to save up for a 40s/50s car to build and drive for the rest of my life. Already found plenty of candidates ranging from $3800 to $5000. I will never cave in and buy a plastic chinese computer on wheels.
Of the '40s cars I once owned the '48 Oldsmobile was probably the most fun to drive and certainly the largest. It was a 4 door, with 6 inline cylinders and auto-trans. The '48 Ford flatbed was also a lot of fun. V8 engine and floor shift.
As you make your list of possibles keep parts availability in mind. And most of all, good luck.
I’m obsessed with 1950s cars!
Why do some people consider cars a masculine thing!?
When they are literally like furniture/artwork that can move!!
They can transport you from one side of the US to the other.
Much faster than they would have dreamed of in the 1700s!!
This video was. Very good. It reminded me of. When I walk through a parking lot. And look at the cars today. They all look the same. None of them have fins. In reality. None of them have an imagination at all. Now what would happen? If the car dealers today decided to. Remake the models. Of cars. And make them look like. The cause of the 50s? In 60s. Or even the 40s. I think people would go out. And buy them faster than the cars that they got now. Ohh what would I know? I'm 78. A retired hippie. Still living in the past. And believe it or not. I'm enjoying every minute of it.
Great video and exactly how I feel. There's no car passion with the captains of the auto industry, the marketing departments are out of control. They don't talk to customers, just read data. I know, I was in the industry.
They believe that reading the data IS listening to customers, right? In a sense that is true, but as in the case with questionnaires, THEY ask the questions. THEY frame the dialog. And then THEY pretend they have heard us. This "dialog" is supposed to serve the interests of manufacturer and customer alike but it serves no one really, since all it amounts to is the company hearing what it wants to hear. Ultimately, even the company is ill-served by this.
Unmentioned here, but a big part of the story of the abrupt change for 1960, was the introduction of the first American compact cars for that model year. These were the Ford Falcon, Chevrolet Corvair, and Plymouth Valiant. All three were rushed into production when small foreign cars suddenly began to sell very well in 1958. Why? Because so many American cars had become the huge and gaudy things seen here. I love these cars, but at that time a goodly number of Americans turned away from them as being wasteful and overdone. And that's also why the Chrysler Corporation cars which had been the cutting edge of design in 1957 with their tremendous fins were suddenly disliked in 1960, and the fins were abruptly cut off the following year, which resulted in really odd-looking cars that sold poorly.
Thank you for your illuminating contribution to the story here.
Tremendously insightful conclusions about today's cars. Many of the "upper end" brands do indeed seem to support nothing but ass-hole behavior on the roads with little regard to other people's safety. They are bland ovals with "angry" headlights. And though one model is indistinguishable from another, their owners promenade around feeling they are unique, while not actually having the guts to actually be unique. Owning a semi-classic convertible as my daily driver, I prefer to leave 10 minutes early and drive at a leisurely pace, taking the scenic route. Each errand is a holiday and I enjoy the views and fresh air, wave hello to the tractor drives (who all know my car). I drive with the top down, even in Winter (cars have heaters and I do own a sweater and a scarf...). How I pity those poor souls "cocooned" in their temperature-controlled insulated boxes in which a 1° temperature change makes them angry and irritable, and their 20-speed automatic transmissions leave nothing left do do but use their blue-tooth telephones to talk to their disgruntled spouses about who was trying to rip them off today, all while driving 30 mph over the speed limit so that they can "feel something". In truth, we haven't "advanced" at all. We've regressed, but made it malignant with advanced technology. Lovely video. Will explore the channel further. God bless!
i wish everyone was like you
Cars/SUVs all look the same nowadays.
The 1950's saw the most rapid changes in auto body designs more than any other decade. The style changed every 2 or 3 or 4 years. Like the '49 to '52 Chevys, the '53 & '54 Chevy's, the tri-five Chevy's '55 to '57. The '58 Chevrolet was a 1 year style & the '59 was a radically new car lasting til 1960.
The main theme was the rocket & airplane the reason is 1957 was the beginning of the space age with the Russian Sputnik 2. Then the US got into the space race in 1959 which inspired auto designers imaginations on what they thought the public wanted.
That's why 1959 was the big tail fin year with the most outrageous 'out of this world ' looking cars like the '59 Chevrolets.....that says it all. But GM overestimated the public's taste for radical styles. The '59 Chevrolets were controversial & the public didn't like the '59 Chevy's & so they bought the '59 Fords which were more conservative.
They toned down the style for all GM cars for 1960. The cats eyes were gone & replaced by round taillights in the 1960 Chevrolets to increase sales. They lowered the tail fins of the 1960 Cadillacs again to increase sales.
The reason modern cars look the same for 10 years or more is because they've run out of ideas for new designs. Once it's been done it's been done. There's limits to everything.
What they need to do is recycle some of the old classic designs....but it has to be the most attractive designs with the most public appeal. A style that everyone likes like the '55 to '57 Chevrolets everyone likes the tri-five Chevy's. Or maybe the tri-five Olds & Buicks '54 to '56 ?? It can't be the crazy looking finmobiles like the '59 Chevrolets & Cadillacs because not everyone likes tail fins. Or the overloaded chrome mobiles of 1958.
The big 3 car companies are not in the business to create 'classics' all they're interested in is profit & sales.
Great video!, thanks for the memories!
Great video!
Amazing video!
THE CARS ARE PAKED SO CLOSE TOGETHER. HOW DID THE PERSON GET OUT AFTER HE OR SHE PARKED IT. ALSO YOU CANT SEE THE SIDES OR THE INSIDES OF THEM JUST THE FRONT.
Beautiful ❤
Excellent Video
So true… so true.
*Sniff* Wish my Honda Accord had fins on the rear.
Some chicken wire. Some Bondo. You can do it, man!
The style fits electric cars like a glove
Does it HAVE to? I mean, must electric cars wear that glove?
@@collectornet Yes.
Anything but being stuck in 2010s car design
@@bearlogg7974 I don't understand what you're saying.
@@collectornet I just miss cool classy cars man, if i see another plastic bare minimun car roll out ill get a brain hemmerage
@@bearlogg7974 But bearlog, it's for your own good. Or so we're led to believe.
Despite rocket-ship like appearance... Those design weren't revоlutionary but "traditiоnal" in the sense that all their creators had knowledge and understanding of "old-timey" western aesthetics and this, knowingly or unknowingly, influenced their design. There's a lot of continuity between mid-century product design, art deco architecture, art nouveau, 2nd empire... All the way down to Vitruvius and the Greeks. That's why in many countries such cars are called "baroque", even though there aren't any obvious common stylistic elements between them and actual baroque architecture and furniture, уеt they do share a common foundation.
The conflation of 'revolutionary' with 'exiting' design presupposes that the latter must always be the product of a prоgressive mindset - reinforced by the images presented in the beginning.
In reality, the default aesthetic of prоgressivism is utilitarian and intentionally cold. Elements of aesthetics which do not serve a function or even slightly inhibit efficiency in one way or the other are frowned upon. If stylistic elements are even present, they must not be rooted in anything particular - as that, as they say, reinforces barriers instead of removing them - or cannot lead to a _lowest common denominator_ if you will.
So I will conclude that your implicit statement, that exiting designs would emanate strictly from revоlutionary rather than counter-revоlutionary circles, is false.
I would make the bold statement that the opposite is the case. Prоgressive designеrs might be able to succeed in creating a huge short-term fad - but usually, such following cоnservative guidelines will captivate peoples minds (even those of average joe prоgressivеs, hence all the urbanist retro hypes) more permanently. That's true not only for product design, but also, and most notably, fоr architecture and visual art. The exception is, of course, the elephant in the room - popular music especially after the 19th century. Here prоgressives excel. I think the main reason is that this music is a rather feminine endeavour - about relationships and the like, or if you will, about manipulation of people rather than of things - the domain of femininity, just as prgressivism itself, as it is bound to feminine characteristics in both men and women. Another thing to consider is the prevalence of high-functioning autism (and the introversion linked to it) in people with a more traditiоnalist outlook - which would be a handicap in the pop music industry, but a big advantage in visual art, design and engineering.
Further, prοgressives have less problems with incorporating traditional forms, like such taken from folk song or gospel, into their music. Why that is... I have a theory but this comment is long enough...
You dazzle us with words--most of which I've never seen strung together in quite this way. But then your words make me think I don't get around much. To cut to the place where you declare that a statement I implied is false, I must (if only out of habit) object that I made no such implication. Or at least, not that I know of. I struggle to understand what you are saying and try using context to understand the unfamiliar use of familiar words. Still, I can't make sense of your use of "exiting." With anyone else on my intellectual level I might suspect a typo, with "existing" being the intended word. But you're flying well above my altitude and your spelling seems otherwise flawless. So I guess i just don't understand. I get that the cars in this museum are not "revolutionary" designs and that the fins and rocket shapes are just a form of marketing. I don't believe I made any claim for such designs, other than their being fun. What I DO claim is that the openness of the convertibles and the occupants' relationship to, and participation in, the world around them is a far cry from today's cocoon-like automobiles where people are shut off from their environment and disconnect from it physically, emotionally, and spiritually. It's a safe judgment to make that the former is better for mental health (and the environment) than the latter. I share your interest in music, but I only write it and produce it. I don't analyze it. Thank you for your comment. You've added more than a little touch of class to the proceedings here.
@@collectornet
I am sorry, It was a typo, but I'd think the context of my comment makes it clear that "exciting design" is what I meant. Even though I speak English for a long time, I still struggle with spelling and grammar sometimes. I don't consider myself a native speaker as the language passed down from my family to me was dialectal German.
I know that you didn't make that statement explicitly, but you implied it, hence _implicitly_ .
My objection was, to make it short, the association of innovative or just overall "good" design with the prоgressive movement, when the only design school that can historically be traced back to them was utilitarianism/minimalism.
Even the term "revolutionary" is technically wrong as it means "sprung out of the (French) revоlution" but it has become a substitute for "innovative" a long time ago so that's fine.
Anyway, I don't want to be a troll or be annoying, just precise with how we use words and images.
I agree with your overall statements about car designs, and the only American car designs I really like are from the early 60s and earlier. For later models I prefer Eurоpean brands - and of the really modern ones I like almost none. Nice channel by the way. Cheers.
The 50s was America at its peak , after that free love bs in the 60s America fell hard and fast
I'm curious that you would cite "free love bs" as your primary cause of America falling "hard and fast." Can you elaborate for us? I am at a loss as to how an increased social tolerance for sex outside of marriage relates to automobile design and how modern auto styling fosters aggressive driving.
@@collectornet with degeneracy, comes a toleration and love of all things ugly.
Humans were largely built to survive in hunter/gatherer tribes which only a select number of males bred and the rest simply acted as fodder. Since men were largely demoralized and did not have any say so over women and no one knew for a certainty whose children were whose, it made it extremely difficult to persuade men to protect said tribe from outsider hoards which aimed to destroyed them. Men with loyal women and children proven to be theirs are more likely to fight harder then men who have NO VESTED INTEREST in the next generation surviving.
Civilizations were built on law and order. God, men, women, children, animals; in that exact order. It was called the "Patriarchal Bargain", when humans came to an arrangement guaranteeing most men loyal wives and legitimate children as a means of motivation to participate in civilizations' creation and maintenance.
When females and their sympathizers fought to overturn societal order, they did away with all standards females were held up to. That is when you see an emergence of a love of all things ugly. Females were not the only ones freed from upholding the societal standard of beauty and decency. That lack of standard was implemented in all things.
Ex.) Modern anything (art, architecture, art, etc.)
In other words: beauty, character, and divinity got traded in for simplicity, functionality, uniformity.
@@HelenA-vz5wy Those are a lot of judgments you are making, and very subjective. Ugly, degeneracy, fodder, demoralized, hoards, loyal women, fight harder, vested interest, modern art and architecture. Quite a list of judgments. Your phrase "females and their sympathizers" is a real eyebrow-raiser. Your phrase "Civilizations were built on law and order" is simplistic at best. In most early civilizations I dare say both "order" and "law" were of, by, and for the elites, these men who led the patriarchy you describe and in time took on the titles king, emperor, etc. I suppose subjugation IS a form of civilization, but I don't see whatever was "civil" about it, in the sense that it was ever about the common people.
@@collectornet Sir, I am explaining the reality in which you live. You uploaded a video juxtaposing the exterior grandeur of vehicles made in a more socially cohesive, conservative society vs. the plain featured vehicles which are on the roads today. You used the terms "sociopathic" and "aggressive" to compare the trends you see of cars which have been built to suit the insulated, individualistic mindset of modern consumers.
The reason for the changes you so deeply resent are due to societal decay. A breakdown of social cohesion as well as new technological advancements has resulted in modern cars being built to suit the individual person not the society.
@@HelenA-vz5wy You seem to have a lot of things turned around to fit your preconceived notions. One of those things is individualism. The older cars were just as much an expression of individualism as the newest cars, and that is to say: no real individualism at all, just a veneer of it over rank conformity. (Of course the USE of a car is, on the individual/collective scale, highly individualistic compared to something in the realm of the collective such a bus or train.) You put words in my mouth referring to cars having "grandeur." I don't recall saying that but rather attempted to make a point about open cars, convertibles, being more "friendly" and connected to community than closed cars, the newest of which are ever more closed to the point of anonymity ("insulated," as you put it). Maybe another look at the video is in order? I think so, considering you came away the first time with the unfounded belief that there is "deep resentment" expressed. As to your final sentence where you claim modern cars are "built to suit the individual person not the society," I can't disagree, but feel you miss the point. I again note that we are not talking about true individualism here but merely conformity--and it must be said that people are not building their own cars, their cars are built for them, designed for them by commercial interests who exploit the mental state of buyers to the detriment of society at large. This is my main critique and is the general thrust of the video. In this there is hope because change IS possible, once it is identified what these auto makers are up to. This in contrast to the pure negativity and hopelessness of your argument about society.
Now back to the original poster's point, "that free love bs in the 60s America fell hard and fast." I guess you are trying to support that argument with further "evidence" of societal decay. I think you may, like the original poster and so many others today, be living in a bubble of negativity. It is so easy to do. There are so many forces in our culture today who profit immensely from your fear and negativity. From the war industry, law enforcement, weapons makers, cable news networks, religion, the drug industry, and all the way down to advocates for charter schools. All want to see us fearful and depressed. This is hard to see when you are in the middle of it.
Sputnik??
Today's designs? YUK!!!!!!
I have been wondering if car manufacturers have a secret agreement to all make the same boring cars to cut costs and not worry about competition. Cars all look the same. You can't tell a difference in none. So boring. They don't even interest me. Havnt for a long time. I have a 1993 Ford Taurus sho that's like brand new. A 1991 Taurus Lx like new and a 1985 box Chevy pickup...I said I was gonna buy a new one but I never do. I see them as a waste.
As with every other unwelcome change, we have the government-mostly self-serving democrats-to blame, for the decline in automotive styling, with their incessant interference and nonsensical regulations. Life was so much better in the 1950s, and so were car designs.
Thousands of lives have been saved by this "interference." Does that mean nothing to you? As to styling, you seem willing to believe the automakers when they blame the government for why they can't deliver a stylish, safe product. I'm not.
I love the styling of the 50s overall but those insolent Chariots of the late 50s with their ridiculous Skyhigh fins are not as stylish as some of the finest electric cars of today ...styling is not dead, only in the mainstream cars is it uninspired comparatively. Of all companies, Kia has some compelling designs in EVs
5:30 dude that’s so true. Along with all our rights and freedom, all our souls have been taken. We are now soulless, angry, yet docile. We all know that what we face will crush us like roaches. For many, driving is a way they release their anger. But I have sworn to myself that I will only release my anger in music, or towards those who truly deserve it.
The golden age of automobiles
It's conservatism that has created the best things in human history, liberalism ALWAYS leads to poverty, chaos and loss of control...
What are you even talking about? If you want to make declarations about human history we will have to assume you are a student of it, otherwise why would you make random declarations? So, as a student of human history, DEFINE the term "liberalism" as you use it here so we can understand what you are talking about. And kindly explain how anyone, especially a student of human history, can sum it all up in one sentence and expect to be taken seriously.
@collectornet unless we have a 5000 page essay to discuss the topic in depth (which presumably is what you are foolishly expecting), I still think a simple, one line opinion will suffice. Name one good invention or legendary product that was made under socialist rule:
That's quite a bluff! 5000 pages indeed. What I was merely (and "foolishly") expecting was coherence. What I got instead was that you apparently think "liberalism" and "socialism" are the same thing. Oh my. If this stuff truly interests you, I suggest you really do study it because you don't even have a basic understanding of terms. If it doesn't interest you enough to do a proper study of all positions on the matter, from their sources, then you are wasting our time.