TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Ask HN: Why aren't there any cars in Nineteen Eighty-Four?

89 pointsby bookstore-romeoover 2 years ago
In the entirety of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, I haven't noticed a single car or truck in the streets of Oceania. Sure, Winston takes the train once or twice, but no cars? I would have thought the generally envisioned future of the 40's included car-ridden roads. Was this novel even more ahead of its time than I thought?

38 comments

idlewordsover 2 years ago
There&#x27;s a scene with trucks:<p>&quot;A long line of trucks, with wooden-faced guards armed with sub-machine guns standing upright in each corner, was passing slowly down the street. In the trucks little yellow men in shabby greenish uniforms were squatting, jammed close together. Their sad, Mongolian faces gazed out over the sides of the trucks utterly incurious. Occasionally when a truck jolted there was a clank-clank of metal: all the prisoners were wearing leg-irons. Truck-load after truck-load of the sad faces passed.&quot;<p>The reason there are no private cars in Orwell&#x27;s dystopia is the same reason there are none in North Korea, for the same mix of ideological and economic factors.
评论 #34448009 未加载
评论 #34447469 未加载
jtodeover 2 years ago
1948. War just over. The 57 Chevy and the culture it represents, one which I consumed in Hot Wheels form as a 70s kid, did not exist yet. No society, not even America, had put in a thoroughly modern highway system (aside from the Autobahn, maybe, but...), let alone rearranged their entire society&#x27;s topology around individual use of high-fuel-consumption pleasure vehicles. Even here in North America, that was being planned, but not here yet.<p>And Orwell was an Englishman writing in bombed-out, austerity-ridden, digging-itself-out-from-an-apocalypse England. Even today, they don&#x27;t have the car culture that we have here, and I&#x27;ve seen a lot of pictures of horse and carts wending their way around the ruins of post-war London. I&#x27;m sure there were plenty of cars around, driven by dignitaries and princes and whatsorts, but I don&#x27;t think they were used daily to get to work by your typical file clerk, or your typical village farmer, etc.<p>It wouldn&#x27;t even have occurred to him to write about a character&#x27;s relationship with their car, or their even owning a personal car that wasn&#x27;t tied to their profession (milk truck, taxicab, chauffeur), anymore than he would write about their tractor if the characters were agrarians; as much as the industrial revolution was in the distant past, the age of ubiquitous personal technology and obscene consumption had yet to be born.<p>I am reminded of something from way deep in my brain&#x27;s cellar, some sort of quasi-fascist screed by a Futurist artist or writer from the 30s about a marvelous &quot;race-automobile&quot; or something, but it was something completely different from the 50s-diner drive-in-movie car culture that is the background mythology we live with. More of a &quot;let it all burn and bring the future forth!&quot; kind of nihilist thing. I tried to google it but this was literally a class I took in high school in the 80s, sorry.<p>Anyways, 1984 is an incredibly pessimistic novel about the future he saw coming, so any of his characters enjoying the sort of expansive freedom that I have, where I could literally walk out my door right now and be thousands of miles from here in a couple of days with nobody saying boo about it... even if it was a story of a personal struggle against a totalitarian state, it would be a different story than one where he runs the risk of being denounced by name in front of his entire society if he doesn&#x27;t work hard enough at his morning exercise under the state&#x27;s watchful eye. One that it would have been fairly magically prescient on his part to be able to extrapolate from his lived experience.
评论 #34447504 未加载
评论 #34447323 未加载
评论 #34447573 未加载
评论 #34449181 未加载
评论 #34452964 未加载
评论 #34447653 未加载
bwestergardover 2 years ago
When 1984 came out in 1949, the overwhelming majority of British households did not own cars. Likewise for many other western European countries. The U.S. was and is an anomaly.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;uk-42182497" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;uk-42182497</a>
评论 #34447190 未加载
评论 #34447279 未加载
评论 #34447356 未加载
smithclayover 2 years ago
When 1984 was written in the 40s the economics of car ownership were very different.<p>Great post on this: “Why Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car”<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fullstackeconomics.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;why-agatha-christie-could-afford-a-maid-and-a-nanny-but-not-a-car" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fullstackeconomics.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;why-agatha-christie-cou...</a>
评论 #34448042 未加载
评论 #34448104 未加载
karaterobotover 2 years ago
Option 0 (the default hypothesis for any question like this): It didn&#x27;t come up in the plot, and wasn&#x27;t deemed an important background detail, or Orwell just didn&#x27;t think about it.<p>Option 1: In a world of severe rationing, cars are such a luxury item that they&#x27;re rare or nonexistent.<p>Option 2: Personal transportation represents a level of freedom and autonomy that is not supportive of the goals of The Party, where employment and living space are centrally planned anyway. Thus they aren&#x27;t part of the world. Trucks, rail, and so on serve the Party&#x27;s interest, so they do exist.
version_fiveover 2 years ago
There is a passage in 1984, I think in one of the chapters from Goldstein&#x27;s book, that mentions cars, and takes about how a person looking forward to 1984 from early in the century was optimistic and imagined owning a car and maybe an airplane, and how the life even of an inner party member is austere by comparison.<p>He also mentions trucks when Winston was young and had to scrounge for food and would get some grain that fell off a truck driving on bumpy roads.<p>They do talk about tubes and Winston takes the train to the country.<p>So I&#x27;d say the world Orwell imagined didn&#x27;t have many cars<p>(Edit, I see when I was typing, idlewords also remembered another passage about trucks)
hluskaover 2 years ago
I don’t believe anyone alive would definitely know the answer to this question, but I can share some options:<p>1.) George Orwell didn’t think private cars would catch on in any significant way. He did write this in the 1940s so that’s a possibility.<p>2.) He wanted to convey that the government controlled everything, even transportation.<p>3.) The government wants to control attention so they can broadcast propaganda (and expect rapt attention) at will.<p>4.) George Orwell wrote scenes with cars, they were poorly written and didn’t make an edited manuscript.
评论 #34447621 未加载
jollyllamaover 2 years ago
Big Brother saw fit to build you a walkable city, and this is the thanks you give him?
评论 #34448394 未加载
josheover 2 years ago
Here&#x27;s a video of cars on the street in the Soviet Union in 1965. Lots of walkers and few drivers at mid day in a dense area of Moscow.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;8uK5y8YjJTM?t=309" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;8uK5y8YjJTM?t=309</a><p>One from 1952, less of a big overview though.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;J7UGpzhHIYQ?t=303" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;J7UGpzhHIYQ?t=303</a>
elecushover 2 years ago
George left cars out because the metropolis is so developed that cars are unnecessary. Plus, in a mass surveillance state, no cars makes more sense. There are planes that go on raids, right? How do you get things onto planes? He did not mention any wheel barrows explicitly in the book, neither. So chew on that. But cars are specifically a good question because cars use precious fuel that would go to the wars. Plus, cars are a source of independent journeying and thinking, which is not what mini is about. In theory, the top officials of the party should all have cars.
SilverBirchover 2 years ago
From a writing perspective… tackle one thing at a time? From an in universe perspective cars are a very individualistic concept, the type of totalitarian control in 1984 isn’t really compatible with everyone going where they want when they want. From a historical perspective, Britain was incredibly poor in the post war period, rationing went on well into the 50s, from this perspective it’s difficult to picture the average person owning a car- and we were very far off that in the 40s.
deafpolygonover 2 years ago
Well, I can&#x27;t speak for Orwell but in a society like the one depicted in 1984 - having the ability to move physically with a car wouldn&#x27;t have been deemed necessary. If you look at N.Korea or countries like it, for example, no one really owns cars unless it&#x27;s required (in N. Korea&#x27;s case, it is likely prohibited). And who says what is required? The state.<p>In fact, that type of mobility would have been considered a threat to &quot;national security&quot;. Everyone would live near where they work, and the food would be rationed and delivered to where it was needed. Everyone would provide only the necessary things in service to the state.<p>Fun fact, for the majority of the year I don&#x27;t travel further than 5km from where I live. And I don&#x27;t own a car. Yet, I live in a democratic society. I have all the basic necessities within 2km, and everything else can be &quot;delivered&quot;. We&#x27;re only halfway there!<p>For the majority of the world, a car is a luxury and not always necessary. In the US, they built their infrastructure around having a car and thus, a car is necessary.
tjmcover 2 years ago
Given the novel correctly predicted computer generated fiction and music, I don&#x27;t think you could put it down to a lack of foresight.
NoboruWatayaover 2 years ago
Because an individual with a car can drive wherever he or she wants. They are, conceptually at least, a liberating force. They are not consistent with the totalitarianism of Big Brother&#x27;s society.<p>In 1949, a society where everyone has their own car would have been seen as a <i>utopian</i> vision of the future. We see it differently today, of course.
评论 #34453151 未加载
booleandilemmaover 2 years ago
It&#x27;s been a few years since I read the book but weren&#x27;t there shortages of things as commonplace as boots? How are they going to have cars? (And they&#x27;ll need rubber for the wheels, at least)
nostromoover 2 years ago
The car is much too individualistic for 1984. The train is much more on-theme as it&#x27;s very controllable by a central authority.
solumunusover 2 years ago
Because why would the proletariat own cars? I don&#x27;t know why this should be surprising given the context laid out in the book. It has nothing to do with Orwell failing to forecast the popularity of cars. Do folks think 1984 was Orwell&#x27;s literal prediction of the future? Of course not, it&#x27;s a fiction of a possible, imagined future.
iammjmover 2 years ago
I find cars a kind of an extension of human personal freedom, as I have the agency to drive anywhere where I want. I guess trains are more &quot;totalitarian&quot;, as they only drive on set routes and need a lot of people to service. Still, I love trains and use them all the time.
pornelover 2 years ago
The network of streetcars and buses in the US hasn&#x27;t been dismantled yet?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;General_Motors_streetcar_consp...</a>
评论 #34447446 未加载
peepeepoopoo3over 2 years ago
&gt; &quot;With a car, you can go anywhere you want&quot; he said to himself, out loud.
tablespoonover 2 years ago
&gt; In the entirety of George Orwell&#x27;s Nineteen Eighty-Four, I haven&#x27;t noticed a single car or truck in the streets of Oceania. Sure, Winston takes the train once or twice, but no cars? I would have thought the generally envisioned future of the 40&#x27;s included car-ridden roads. Was this novel even more ahead of its time than I thought?<p>I think O&#x27;Brien says every member of the inner party has either a car or a helicopter. It&#x27;s also stated that Oceania has a deliberate policy of discouraging technological advancement, except in the fields of military arms and mind control.<p>The &quot;generally envisioned future[s] of the 40&#x27;s,&quot; were <i>optimistic</i>, 1984 is an extremely pessimistic dystopia. Once down to deliberately engineer grinding poverty for its population.
Waterluvianover 2 years ago
Ask any teenager: cars are freedom.<p>At least that’s my interpretation.
评论 #34447843 未加载
评论 #34447748 未加载
kazinatorover 2 years ago
Wouldn&#x27;t it have been funny&#x2F;spooky if there had been a coded reference to &quot;Pontiac Fiero&quot; in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
yottaloveover 2 years ago
Orwell was an optimist. We carry view screens in our pocket and can be tracked and monitored backwards in time.
easytigerover 2 years ago
Only if you realise the removal of cars == removal of personal agency which is part of the distopia
paulpauperover 2 years ago
Cars in some way signify individual freedom, autonomy. You choose the destination.
评论 #34450229 未加载
josheover 2 years ago
GDP per person in history always blows my mind. In 1949, UK gdp&#x2F;person was $11,000. Lower than Brazil now at $14K. $11K is right where Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bosnia are today.<p>Communist countries like the Soviet Union or Poland were at $3K. The level of Kenya, Syria, and Nepal today. $1K poorer than Bangladesh now which comes in at $4k per person.<p>Just soviet union: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statista.com&#x2F;statistics&#x2F;1073160&#x2F;ussr-gdp-per-capita-1900-1950&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statista.com&#x2F;statistics&#x2F;1073160&#x2F;ussr-gdp-per-cap...</a><p>The rest: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;grapher&#x2F;gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020?time=1923..2018&amp;country=USA~POL~GBR~ETH~BRA~CUB~AUS~NZL~MYS~Western+Europe">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;grapher&#x2F;gdp-per-capita-maddison-2...</a>
tracerbulletxover 2 years ago
There are 4 references to &quot;motor-cars&quot; in the book. In one it says &quot;His exploits had been gradually pushed backwards in time until already they extended into the fabulous world of the forties and the thirties, when the capitalists in their strange cylindrical hats still rode through the streets of London in great gleaming motor-cars or horse carriages with glass sides.&quot; In another it says that the inner party members have a private motor car and sets them in contrast to outer-party members. Both of these references lead me to believe cars are rare and reserved for the elite.
floxyover 2 years ago
How many privately owned cars were there in the Soviet Union? Seems like automobiles are tools of the bourgeoisie, so it seems perfectly inline that a socialist paradise would tightly control them.
评论 #34447261 未加载
评论 #34447072 未加载
评论 #34447187 未加载
评论 #34447408 未加载
jonathankorenover 2 years ago
George Will would tell you because trains are &quot;collectivism&quot;, and cars represent Freedom(tm).<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newsweek.com&#x2F;will-why-liberals-love-trains-68597" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newsweek.com&#x2F;will-why-liberals-love-trains-68597</a>
layer8over 2 years ago
1984 mentions cars:<p><i>As a whole the world is more primitive today than it was fifty years ago. Certain backward areas have advanced, and various devices, always in some way connected with warfare and police espionage, have been developed, but experiment and invention have largely stopped, and the ravages of the atomic war of the nineteen-fifties have never been fully repaired. Nevertheless the dangers inherent in the machine are still there.</i> […] <i>In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared.</i> […] <i>For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.</i><p>[…]<p><i>By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy his large, well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motor-car or helicopter—set him in a different world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we call ‘the proles’.</i><p>[…]<p><i>The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of DOUBLETHINK, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.</i><p>———<p>This implies that only member of the Inner Party have cars, and that inequality is seen as beneficial, and general access to technology as detrimental. This would explain why there are only few cars.<p>There are two more mentions of cars with reference to the past:<p>———<p><i>His</i> [Big Brother&#x27;s] <i>exploits had been gradually pushed backwards in time until already they extended into the fabulous world of the forties and the thirties, when the capitalists in their strange cylindrical hats still rode through the streets of London in great gleaming motor-cars or horse carriages with glass sides.</i><p>[…]<p><i>And at the same time</i> [before the Revolution] <i>there were a very few people, only a few thousands—the capitalists, they were called—who were rich and powerful. They owned everything that there was to own. They lived in great gorgeous houses with thirty servants, they rode about in motor-cars and four-horse carriages, they drank champagne, they wore top hats——’</i>
bananabiscuitover 2 years ago
If Orwell correctly predicted that communists would want to eradicate the personal freedom that comes from car ownership, you think he wouldn’t have beat us over the head with it?
throwanemover 2 years ago
It&#x27;s the world&#x27;s most useless and overrated cautionary tale about the future of Stalinist absurdism Orwell saw in the UK&#x27;s future if Labour stayed in power. The man could write, that I grant you, but beyond a skillful prose style he&#x27;s little of use to offer in general and especially here; <i>Nineteen Eighty-four</i> is not at all ahead of its time, but rather quite a bit behind it.<p>That said, it makes sense a Stalinist regime would permit its ordinary subjects neither the private ownership of property nor the liberty of physical movement embodied in having a car. As in the USSR, the nomenklatura would have limousines and drivers, and everyone else would take the train or walk.
评论 #34455605 未加载
评论 #34448492 未加载
评论 #34448019 未加载
IYashaover 2 years ago
Same as the UN plan to remove private transport from people. Makes them vulnerable and dependent.
评论 #34452947 未加载
perryizgr8over 2 years ago
A car grants immense liberty to the individual. It would be antithetical to have cars in the world of 1984, where the state must control every aspect of your life.
graymattersover 2 years ago
Cars are means and symbols of individual independence and freedom. As such, they wouldn’t be allowed in a 1984 world. Beware those trying to eliminate cars.
评论 #34447586 未加载
raydiatianover 2 years ago
I actually think this is an excellent question. Because of how utterly worthless a question it is.<p>“Why aren’t there any pringles references in Star Wars?”<p>It’s fiction, the author does what they want, and it doesn’t matter beyond supporting the story. It’s not like Orwell was after a “hard world-build”. You get that, right? He was trying to express opinions on the danger of allowing too much power to be centralized with one entity.
评论 #34448420 未加载
olivermarksover 2 years ago
English book, not many cars in UK in 1949, plus Orwell wrote to warn about freedom of movement, speech and just about everything else being in jeopardy.<p>In some ways the last 60 years of freedom of motorized personal travel in the western world have been a brief anomaly. The aggressive elites actions to control everyone and everything by electrification only plus digital centralized controls is greatly helped by people experiencing climate change anxiety urging every faster restriction, ironically highly Orwellian.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.autoweek.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;a2091351&#x2F;under-hood-big-brother-forget-orwells-198420-years-later-its-our-cars-are-giving-us&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.autoweek.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;a2091351&#x2F;under-hood-big-brothe...</a>
评论 #34448418 未加载