Let's do a brief thought exercise. Capitalism was born within a relatively functional society: peasants working to survive, organizing their own needs, while being parasitized by royalty and nobility, yet still free to produce what they deemed necessary and consume part of it. In contrast, today's economic logic dictates what we consume. It's very difficult, especially for city dwellers, to eat anything other than what the (super)markets offer, with products available being determined by what is economically efficient to produce.
A good example is bread. Up until the 1930s, bread was mostly produced by artisans in each region. Before the invention of sliced bread, which could withstand drying, production had to remain local and decentralized since bread needed to be consumed on the same day it was made. Modern grocery store bread is a reflection of the economic system's desire to centralize production.
The same principle applies to transportation. With the invention of the bus, schools were replaced by larger, centralized public schools, turning transportation into a commodity—a new aspect of life subject to supply and demand. Let's examine how the capitalist market structures transportation supply to see what could be done differently.
Consider everything that makes transportation possible in today's society: cars, dealerships, gas stations, bus services, parking lots, highways, railroads, trains, subways, bike paths, and sidewalks. Now imagine that tomorrow morning, the state disappears. What would we do to make transportation functional again? While we announce that transportation is free for all and provide people with the means to get where they need to go, we also need to think about which modes of transport to prioritize. What does it cost for someone to get to work by bike compared to by car? How can we transition to more efficient modes of transport?
The most obvious observation is that the market has created a stratification based on the ability to pay: the wealthier you are, the easier it is to get around. Often, this ease of travel allows access to areas with limited public transport, which are typically cheaper to live in. This stratification means that it's the poorest who are left to walking because they can't afford any other option.
The first step in addressing these inequalities is to establish a minimum standard of transportation for everyone, and then work to expand that minimum. On a local scale, it’s much easier to act through decentralized efforts, whether by supporting community bike repair spaces, celebrating the historic victory of opening the Jacques-Cartier Bridge to winter cyclists, or securing free public transport for seniors. The key challenge is to ensure that no one is left behind, including people with different abilities. For cities, this means offering accessible and free buses and public transportation, along with improved adapted transport services, thereby equalizing access for all to city amenities. This approach disrupts the current public transit system, which is largely structured around accommodating motorists during rush hours.
This exercise in thought is directly applicable to reality: we can take action here and now to "demarketize" transit. The first obvious step is to make public transit free, ensuring a basic level of transportation that doesn't depend on the market.
However, we must not be naive about the interests that stand in the way of such demarketization. The profits of the automotive, oil, and energy industries are directly threatened by any substantial reduction in transportation costs, even by something as simple as creating more space for bicycles. Therefore, the strategy must not only be to increase the minimum transportation options available outside of the market, but also to curb the potential for profit growth in the transport sector. This is why our previous paper was titled Block NorthVolt, and this one is Transport for All. Gas stations, charging stations, car dealerships, and auto manufacturing centers must remain targets of our actions. We don't need to strike hard enough to destroy them; a reduction in profit growth in the automotive sector will eventually shift investment elsewhere. Moreover, cars generate their own demand. More people would use bicycles if roads weren't made dangerous by cars. Cities would be more navigable if they weren't primarily designed for automobiles. We wouldn't need to drive our kids to school if we weren’t afraid they might be run over... by cars.
The advantage of this two-pronged strategy—fighting for alternatives while challenging the status quo—is that it lays the material basis for stronger struggles. The most militant cities are those where it’s possible to live cheaply without needing to work full-time. Let’s strengthen our capacity for political struggle by making our cities more welcoming! Transport for all!