this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
43 points (86.4% liked)

Star Trek

10610 readers
135 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
11-21 LD 5x06 "Of Gods and Angles"
11-28 LD 5x07 "Fully Dilated"
12-05 LD 5x08 "Upper Decks"
12-12 LD 5x09 "Fissue Quest"
12-19 LD 5x10 "The New Next Generation"

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
 

Hi there, I'm not trying to start a political argument or anything, I'm just curious what people here think about this often repeated claim that the Federation is a socialist or even communist utopia? I know Strange New Worlds did say in dialogue it is socialist but I was wondering if people here think that's accurate? I'm not a communist or a marxist or anything like that, but I've had people who identify as such tell me the Federation basically is communist. So anyway, what's your thoughts?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 65 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

The federation is a post-scarcity socialist utopia. They don't even have money. Every single human being has ensured healthcare, housing, food, and education of their choice guaranteed from birth. Rise among ranks of the few hierarchical power structures is based on merit, performance, experience and training. I can't recall anything specific about the productive sectors that allow this to happen, but since they have access to virtually infinite amounts of energy and everything can be done by machines and matter replicators, there's no motive for hoarding means of production or wealth, so one would assume that most productive endeavors and enterprises are collectivists by default. Same with political institutions as hoarding power doesn't guarantee anything significant beyond what the average person already posses. They also have wide social openness, tolerance and acceptance as the most common sources of intolerance and bigotry (wealth, religion, power, prestige, etc.) have been regulated or removed. So there's no logical point on slaving, discriminating, oppressing or exploiting any particular class of people, some classes of people might not even exists, as there's no concept of poverty, nor race or sexual discrimination in the culture of the federation.

As a result people don't have to work, but most probably choose to involve themselves in some sort of productive activity as a form of hobby. Members of the Starfleet for example, aren't doing so for any particular material incentive. But do it because they think space exploration is neat, or because they seek glory and honor on the Starfleet mission, or because they really really like fusion cores.

They are as socialist as it comes.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Does the term "socialist" make sense in a post scarcity world?

I guess the question is who controls the replicators and other things needed to provide what people need to live? Can it be taken away from them?

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Post-scarcity is a socialist term. It came about from futurist elaborations on Marxist materialist ideology. The reduction of labour to the minimum necessary in a society is one of the tenets of communism in order to reach post-capitalism. Certainly by technology, but also by diverting the products of labour, not for the profit and enrichment of the capitalist class, but for the provision to the needs of all society via free distribution of goods and services to all. According to Marx socialism is a necessary stage to reach communism, but communism doesn't mean the disappearance of socialism.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Hmm, I guess there is post scarcity - everyone works and everyone has what they need, there is no scarcity of resource.

But then there's post-scarcity - everything you need to live is created instantly by replicators so no one even needs to work unless they want to. Maybe that has a different term.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago

It's the same thing. Post-scarcity doesn't mean no scarcity. The point is, though, that people are not compelled to work under risk or threat of death, hunger, poverty, cold, homelessness or illness. If you can't or don't want to work, you are not doomed or socially shunned. Even if you do work, that's no guarantee that you'll not suffer from the occasional hardships of reality like there's not enough chocolate this month due to a drought, or avocados went extinct or whatever, but you won't die of starvation with millions of tons of food hoarded on a warehouse because a capitalist pig decided to rack up the price of rice.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What I don't understand is how some of them are obviously better off than others, like Picard. His family owns a sweeping vineyard and a huge house, and other people are living in trailers in the desert.

[–] Yes@startrek.website 4 points 3 months ago

My head canon for this is that the only way tptb allowed such socialism without sabotaging it was after reserving a looot of rights and property, especially on Earth, for themselves. There was probably some excuse along the lines of 'maintaining and respecting traditions and cultures' that let them keep the bulk of their estates, without having to let the poors (who are welcome to their own vineyards anywhere else) take it over.

Some people are happy living in trailers in the desert. Not everyone wants a big house in a lush environment... And some people just like a bit of misery.

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I'd say they're post-scarcity anarchist. There's no central/communal resource dispersal as needed for socialism, nor the central/communal resource allocation/planning needed for communism.

There's seemingly no authority outside starfleet exerting any power, nor does anyone ever claim a motivation beyond exploration or study (to do something meaningful). The lack of money and unlimited access to replicated resources pending available dilithium also points to a society without exploitative discrepancies.

The humans also never are reported to have any resource hogging, the only tensions/stratification seem to be militarily (and against external parties also diplomatically), meritocratic, and even then the bottleneck seems mostly to be to not fall behind other races.

I don't see neither capitalism, socialism, communism, despotism, theocracy, nor fascism, but many aspects of anarchism. If you've read anything about The Culture, they openly speak about being anarchist, and it's very similar to Star Trek.

[–] aaaa@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

There most certainly is a Federation President. There is definitely government, authority, and laws, with Starfleet appearing to be the law enforcement.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

I agree, this is also a perfectly valid read. Unfortunately Star Trek spends a lot of time with Starfleet and The Federation and almost not at all with Earth to understand the nuances of governance of productivity. But they are still supposed to be several billions of people, it's hard to imagine there's only ad-hoc organization going on to keep something as massive as Starfleet and The Federation going. Even the Vulcans had the High Command. Earth must have something akin to a government structure going on to produce a representative diplomatic corpus. The Federation is supposed to be a Republic after all, and that's not anarchy. Perhaps a system of direct democratic municipalism, but we don't know for sure.

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

But the Federation is a government, so can't be anarchist

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Anarchist doesn't need to mean without government, simply that no one is above another, which is echoed in how the Federation is structured towards the other races.

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I thought it meant no laws and no government

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's one form of it, but there are plenty other schools of thought that overlap quite significantly with the Federation, check out the primer on Wikipedia.

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website 2 points 3 months ago
[–] startrek@hub.hubzilla.de 1 points 3 months ago

@MrSaturn So by whom is this government elected? Are there elections in the Federation?

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's a federation, which means it's a group of government who decided to get some of their rules and organzations in common. Each government in the federation can be different, although there are some implications for the federation to work: they must recognize the borders and laws of the federation, and they must participate in its function.

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Which is inherently anarchist :P

As it seems a common confusion in this thread, I repeat, anarchism doesn't have to be without government or rules, several forms of anarchism are focused on not limiting individuals freedoms and/or not allowing power over eachother (while accepting government and rules not contrary to that). Both of which I believe describe how the Federation works.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I certainly don't know much about anarchism, but different planets in the federation can and do have different kinds societies.

If we consider the vulcan in brace new world for example, their society seems very much aristocratic for example, where influence gives authority and power. I doubt the klingon are anarchists either. And in lower deck, the orions have a monarchy.

The federation is the government of the collection of planets, but each planet still has its own government and culture.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You can look up the definition and see if it applies. I'd argue it isn't a classless society. Especially with all the military ranks and hierarchies. And socialism is kind of a broad term. I'm pretty sure you can apply it to this case without starting a debate.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Classless societies and justified hierarchy aren't mutually exclusive, however. That's the entire point of anarchist strains of political ideology, the only hierarchies that should exist are ones that can be justified for the good of everyone. The hierarchy of Starfleet is justified because it's still syndicalist in nature while requiring a person to ensure the survival of everyone on board.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Is that alright with communism? Strive for a classless society except for when we like to do classes anyways? I mean starfleet is kind of military and I don't know much about that in the context of communism. But there's also the separation between the worker class in a starship and then the officers who manage them and who get depicted in most of the TV series. I'm pretty sure that doesn't align well with communism. I'm not sure how many exceptions there are in a communist utopia. But I'd like to see some strong arguments when doing away with some of the core values of an ideology. And I'm not sure if there is a better way to organize a starship than 20 century military hierarchy style.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Well the show and the universe also have to be looked at separately in that context. The show was made for an American audience, which has a strong cultural belief in "great man" theory. The American audience wouldn't accept a show that doesn't follow high ranking officers being the paragon of bravery. It also had to keep an arm's length away from a specific socialist ideology to avoid being swept into the red scare.

Workplaces will still require management, even in communist and anarchist societies. It's all about who's doing the managing. The show doesn't get very detailed in this aspect of their society afaik, but by all means it seems that the rank and file are valued appropriately with their knowledge and input. Believe it or not, but this aligns quite nicely with most types of American brands of socialism. The show keeps it vague for a few good reasons

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Communist states had/have large militaries so I guess that's not a problem

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"Communist" states also aren't very communist.

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 3 months ago

Read a history book. So far communism is a theoretical concept. Never has been achieved. And all the attempts didn't even get close.

[–] BrightCandle@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

There are capitalist elements. The Picard family still owns a farm and farm house and pass it down generations. There is still some concept of money being used by humans who are pursing payments for rare and stolen goods. Most of what we see around Starfleet is merit driven people working in starfleet out of self interest but the ships appear to be owned by Starfleet and they seem to have some democractic structure. Since most basic needs are met via replicators it seems they are post scarcity and trips to the doctors seem free but is not really socialism in the sense of people owning the means of production, there doesn't seem to be much of anything said about how these ships get built and the implication is its a lot of automation but there seem to be a lot of facilities on Earth with people in them like Starfleet academy and in bars. We have no idea how factories work in this world other than on other planets and people work in them.

I don't think its brilliantly clear, there are a mix of ideologies on display and what makes it hang together is the humans are all behaving well, which isn't very human nature like at all. People don't seem to own what they are working with in all cases but they do in some of the smaller settlements so its a bit of a mix dependent on circumstances.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

what makes it hang together is the humans are all behaving well, which isn't very human nature like at all

That's the entire point, is that humanity has grown beyond its destructive nature. Picard talks about it at length with Q, and it was one of Roddenberry's central visions. That's why the new "gritty" shows bother me so much, because they're a slap in the face to Roddenberry's vision.

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah I agree

[–] Corgana@startrek.website 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Neither, since they are moneyless and post scarcity. We honestly don't have a word for whatever they are.

[–] nublug@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 months ago

Google doesn't, didn't and likely won't implement communism, so calling Google communism is as Marx said...

[–] Corgana@startrek.website 6 points 3 months ago

I did and it didn't say anything about replicators

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's absolutely not a communist anarchy. There's a government, and it controls all those ships, science stations and mining operations. It doesn't look like URSS-ish communist either, as it's clearly democratic.

Besides, there exists some form of capitalism in it. It's just not very intense on the human worlds. And it's clearly socialist, as everybody is included on the society... So, my guess it's social-capitalist just like every advanced society today, just way richer than anything we know.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is there capitalism within the Federation? There's capitalism on Deep Space Nine for sure, but that's an outpost at a merger of cultures and governments. Not sure if we have seen money from any Federation cultures. Individuals might have and use money to buy things in other cultures, but I'm not sure such things take place within the Federation itself.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

People clearly have money to trade with other civilizations, there are human trading transports that clearly care about their cargo, they bet something in poker games, some large projects have "patrons"...

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 months ago

External trade with capitalist cultures doesn't mean the Federation itself has internal capitalism, it's just a necessity for getting things from cultures outside of it. All the poker on the Enterprise was almost certainly just friendly games with chips, not actual gambling. Picard himself says money doesn't exist so it's not like they're getting a salary. And I can't recall the projects and patrons you're referencing, but that could mean someone providing non-monetary support like using their connections or social status to support the project.

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I thought it was widely understood that Star Trek is FALGSC

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website 2 points 3 months ago

Oh, never heard that before

[–] Magister@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Not communist but I would say Communitarianism

[–] startrek@hub.hubzilla.de 1 points 3 months ago

OK, Memory Alpha says the President of the Federation is democratically elected
#^https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets#The_executive_branch

[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The federation tends to let member planets be independent, the federation doesn't come in and be like "we own your planet and we provide for you in return we take everything", so it's definitely leaning socialist.

The main difference is who owns the means of production. In communism, the government does. In socialism, the people do.

Both aim to provide for the population at large and not just benefit to a few rich elites that own everything, but socialism is a bit more robust against tyrannical governments.

[–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The main difference is who owns the means of production. In communism, the government does. In socialism, the people do.

What would we call a hybrid system in which the government is made up of the people and owns the means of production? Direct Democratic Communism?

Edit to add:

A federation (also called a federal state) is an entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing provinces, states, or other regions under a federal government (federalism). In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, is constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision, neither by the component states nor the federal political body without constitutional amendment.

Seems relevant considering "The Federation".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›