this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
66 points (95.8% liked)

Star Trek

10578 readers
61 users here now

r/startrek: The Next Generation

Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...

Maybe a little slash fic.


New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?


Rules

1 Be constructiveAll posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.


2 Be welcomingIt is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.


3 Be truthfulAll posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.


4 Be niceIf a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.


5 SpoilersUtilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episodes, as well as previews for upcoming episodes. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.


6 Keep on-topicAll submissions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/quarks.


7 MetaQuestions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.


Upcoming Episodes

Date Episode Title
11-07 LD 5x04 "A Farewell to Farms"
11-14 LD 5x05 "Star Base 80?"
11-21 LD 5x06 "Of Gods and Angels"
11-28 LD 5x07 "Fully Dilated"
12-05 LD 5x08 "Upper Decks"

Episode Discussion Archive


In Production

Strange New Worlds (2025)

Section 31 (2025-01-24)

Starfleet Academy (TBA)

In Development

Untitled comedy series


Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.


Allied Discord Server


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In case you don't know, they explicitly use the term socialist to describe the Federation economy in SNW. I was wondering if ppl liked or hated it? I like it personally since it's not a dodge like "new world economy"

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jaccident@startrek.website 31 points 4 months ago (1 children)

As I am not American I grew up with socialism being a positive connotation in day to day culture, so much so it’s wild to me that this needed to be veiled in Trek’s past. Star Trek should be as explicit as possible with this. “Hey, you want Utopia? This is how you earn it!”

[–] jimhensonslostpuppet@startrek.website 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Where are you if I may ask? And I think it may have been a dictate of Gene Roddenberry to not name which economic system won out, which is kind of a copout. But yeah it's refreshing to see it called what it is finally

[–] Jaccident@startrek.website 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

British. Specifically Scottish.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] halm@leminal.space 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Rom was in way before SNW:

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Saw this episode for the first time two days ago and loved everything about it. Especially the inqusition of anti-union Ferengi, that is the FCA, captured the violence of capitalist oppression, both direct and threat thereof, beautifully.

I also liked the subtle points being made, like Odo being against the strike on basis of upholding law and order, even though this should contradict his moral compass in my opinion.

[–] halm@leminal.space 3 points 4 months ago

I dunno, Odo's morals are very much tied to his need to maintain control and appearances. Yes, that aligns perfectly with his shapeshifting ability 🙂

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think so, the federation is often seen and portrayed as close as you can get to a utopia (Since it's practically impossible to achieve a "true" utopia). They still have issues, make mistakes and wrong calls, and even some (albeit greatly reduced) crime.

So having more positive association/references for the term socialist, a term that most general people can have a connection with, cant hurt.

And it just seems accurate, at least with definitions of socialism I've read and studied

[–] Schmoo 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I've noticed a trend in some new American media coming out of more openly positive depictions of socialism/communism. The new HBO The Last Of Us series for example has this scene, and the new Fallout series has a more centrist/neoliberal take but at least calls out how the right uses communist as a "dirty word," though she qualifies the statement by first saying "I'm not a communist."

Yeah, I find it odd because its Hollywood doing these references which isn't exactly a left wing institution.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 15 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It was always socialist. That was blindingly obvious even from the days of TOS. Remember, Star wars universe everyone had just come out of the third world war, practically everything had been destroyed and there was virtually no infrastructure left, people were willing to take pretty much any kind of government going.

Then replicators were invented and once you've got that it's pretty difficult to have anything other than a socialist government or a dictatorship.

[–] jimhensonslostpuppet@startrek.website 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] chahk@beehaw.org 8 points 4 months ago

It's a trap!

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 2 points 4 months ago (8 children)

You know the irony of this interpretation? By canon, replicators are energy to matter conversion devices. Basically a 3D printer using relativity to poof atoms into existence from an energy source.

Replicators are straight-up the most expensive way to make anything. Using that technology to make you a cup of tea is the most inefficient use of any resource put on screen in media history. It's absurd. The notion that instead of heating up water you would go ahead and make the atoms out of energy is so much worse than just filling in a space station's worth of water and carrying it with you into space just to keep Picard's Earl Grey habit going.

It's not the replicator at all that drives the post-scarcity, it's whatever nonsense antimatter generator stuff dilithium is enabling where they get infinite energy forever. Although we know dilithium is a limited resource, since they don't seem to just replicate some when they need it, so... somebody should do the math there and figure out how expensive all those Janeway coffees actually are.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, although I do find that the penal labor in the Federation prisons are a bit concerning for a utopia

Ironically The Orville did that better by saying there are no prisons anymore in the Planetary Union.

[–] halm@leminal.space 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

they explicitly use the term socialist to describe the Federation economy in SNW.

I'm going to need a source and context for this, apparently it flew by me in between all the parallel timeline nonsense required to shoehorn James Kirk into the series. Also, the "Gorn, but Xenomorphs" retcon.

Generally speaking, I was fine with Socialism being a quiet part of Trek economics for 50+ years. I don't do a lot of mental gymnastics aligning the minutiae of a fictional future with contemporary concepts. Science fiction is a reflection of our real world, sure, but I have as little use for connecting the dots between 21st and 23rd economical concepts as I have for schematics for the replicators on Enterprise. A lot can happen in 2-300 years, especially when Trek concepts are metaphors and narrative shortcuts for telling stories about a future that recontextualise our own times.

But I get what you mean, it was always Socialism, wasn't it? Our real world has taken a weird polarised turn that makes Trek's space utopia seem more far fetched than it has for a long time. Even if "the culture wars" sounds like something the franchise might have introduced as a philosophically apt concept back in the '90s...

In that regard I too appreciate that the show's producers put their company scrip where Trek's mouth has been all those years. It seems that some very loud "culture warriors" never grokked that this was a deeply left (or at the very least humanist) leaning show. It's a little late in the day to spell it out for them that, yes — "Trekonomics" are frigging Socialist, but apparently that's the level of media illiteracy we're dealing with here.

So good on SNW for letting its red flag fly. It will probably piss off some people who still can't separate Socialism from whatever garbled idea of "Red scare" indoctrination has been passed down through generations. Whatever, they're pissed off no matter what.

It is ironic to me that this "Socialist" discourse is coming from a franchise(!) so ensconced in capitalist production and economic structures that it is gauged for marketability and profit. That's the big elephant in the room throughout all the "Trek so woke" outrage cycles: We'll never get to a post-scarcity future resembling Star trek by sitting around watching Star trek.

[–] jimhensonslostpuppet@startrek.website 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] halm@leminal.space 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Got it. TBF, most of what comes out of Pella's mouth I interpret as sarcastic quips. She's the SNW version of Jett Reno, after all.

Not that she's wrong, it's just not exactly a franchise-wide decree of mission statement passed down from Alex Kurtzman or the Roddenberry estate...

[–] jimhensonslostpuppet@startrek.website 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

The same episode says private ownership of things like cars no longer exists in the future, so it's clearly a description of the economy. I agree its almost a dismissal though, which is why I prefer The Orville's treatment of the no money post scarcity economy more.

[–] halm@leminal.space 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, but claiming that money is a thing of the show's past is as old as ~~the show itself.~~ The voyage home:

Almost 30 years ago we got this great bit between Picard and Lily in First contact:

— The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century.

— No money? You mean you don't get paid?

— The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.

This, of course, from a man with inherited real estate in La Barre... But there are several anticapitalist barbs in TNG and DS9, too.

[Edited first to add GIF, second because I got my wires crossed re private property and money]

[–] jimhensonslostpuppet@startrek.website 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

None of those quotes say private ownership of cars is gone. Cars aren't the means of production btw, so I don't even agree with SNW here.

[–] halm@leminal.space 1 points 4 months ago

You're right, I wrote one thing but my head was still at the general economy matter! Will edit.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 months ago (4 children)

It's not really socialist. Socialism is an economic model that involves taxing the rich and redistribution of wealth to the working class through welfare programs.

But in ST, there is no economy, no taxes, no rich people, no wealth, no working class. The only thing from that definition that they do have is welfare, but it's a completely different form of it.

ST is a magical post-scarcity utopia. Any economist would tell you that economics is first and foremost the study of how to allocate scarce resources. In a post-scarcity society, the whole concept of economics breaks down. Replicators break everything we know about economics. Everyone can get everything they need and it costs them nothing but electricity (which they conveniently can generate for basically no cost).

[–] jimhensonslostpuppet@startrek.website 18 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I thought socialism was social ownership, not welfare programs that exist under capitalism.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (3 children)

You're right.

There's a bad habit of calling socialists the countries that should be called something like"capitalist but a bit to the left"

[–] halm@leminal.space 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Also countries that probably started out socialist but took a sharp turn into authoritarianism and under-the-hood oligarchy... You know who you are.

[–] jimhensonslostpuppet@startrek.website 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Well I'm not a Marxist Leninist or anything like that, and neither is Star Trek ever promoting anything like that

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 2 points 4 months ago

Hi.

That's called "socialdemocracy" and it's been around for centuries. It's actually older than the marxist concept of socialism, if you're gonna get pedantic about it.

I get that Americans have completely sandblasted off any remaining meaning in the word "socialism", first by having conservatives use it as an insult and then by having weird US lefties get all purity test about it, but most of the world has a pretty clear picture of socialdemocracy, it's not that ambiguous. Most socialdemocrat parties across the planet are called some version of "Socialist Party", "Labour Party" or "Worker's Party". It's a thing.

So no, it's not a bad habit. It's just... what that's called. It does get easy to mix up with the Marxist concept of socialism, which is likely why most marxist parties advocating for a socialist society are called "Communist Party" instead. The bad habit is to not challenge the fundamentally conservative, deliberate confusion between the two that any range of neoliberals and protofascists continue to use to pretend milquetoast socialdemocratic policy is some form of revolutionary action.

Man, US politics are so weird.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Social ownership of what? Resources? Means of production? Neither of those means anything when replicators are a thing.

There are a million different definitions of socialism depending on who you ask. I gave one above but I'm not claiming it's the only one. However it is ultimately an economic model, and it doesn't make sense to apply it in a world where economics is meaningless because the laws of thermodynamics have been broken.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Resources and means of production are both things in the Federation. We see mining operations and manufacturing facilities well into the 24th century.

And with only one unfortunate exception that I can think of, matter replication is treated as a net energy loss - it isn't free.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And with only one unfortunate exception that I can think of, matter replication is treated as a net energy loss - it isn't free.

Well sure, it's energy negative, but they also have basically free energy. We see in Voyager that as soon as they are cut off from that free energy, they regress to a market-based economy by like the third episode of the show. Doesn't seem very socialist to me.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

as they are cut off from that free energy

They were "cut off" because they no longer had access to the supply lines that provided them with fuel. That's not "free energy" at all.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Schmoo 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What you described is just welfare, not socialism. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, meaning there would be no need to re-distribute wealth as it would be fairly distributed from the start.

What you're thinking of is more along the lines of what Scandinavian countries have, which is just capitalism with social democracy and extensive welfare programs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Corgana@startrek.website 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It bugs me that you're being downvoted because you're correct that modern descriptors don't apply.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 months ago

Yeah I'm not out here saying socialism is bad. I consider myself quite left of center. But it's like... they have literal magic. The words we use to describe different ways of allocating resources do not apply to them. They don't have an economy. An economy is a system of logistics and trade for moving scarce things to the people who want those things. Everyone and their dog has a transporter and a replicator. Logistics and resource allocation are irrelevant. Why would anyone trade anything for anything else if they have infinite everything?

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're all true until allocating scarce resources. These days economy is how to make scarce something that isn't in order to profit from it. See copyrights and patents. In our society a replicator would be the property of a company and you would need to pay it to be allowed to use it.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah that's the cynical and IMO more realistic take. I'm mostly just taking the world presented in the show at face value. It's not realistic at all.

But even then, it wouldn't be the replicators that are scarce, it would be the software. Because in theory if someone is charging you to use their replicator, you could just pay to print out the parts for your own replicator, and then replicate yourself ten more replicators. What would prevent this? Proprietary software.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Exactly. In some way the software is a lock that ensure the property of the machine stays to the company that built it.

load more comments
view more: next ›