this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
74 points (96.2% liked)

Star Trek

10619 readers
32 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
 

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"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jimhensonslostpuppet@startrek.website 19 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 12 points 5 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 5 points 5 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 5 months ago* (last edited 5 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 5 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.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca -1 points 5 months ago

Socialism isn't a binary yes/no thing. It's an economic ideology that can be realized in many different ways

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago (2 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 12 points 5 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 0 points 5 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 8 points 5 months ago (1 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.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that's my point. As soon as they no longer had access to the magical impossible logistics network of virtually free energy, they immediately regressed to capitalism with a side order of martial law.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think what they were doing in the Delta Quadrant would meet many (good) definitions of "capitalism."

And it's difficult to say how "martial law" could be imposed on a command structure that was already militaristic.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca -1 points 5 months ago

They use replicator rations as currency and exchange them for goods and services. In a world that frequently says that society has progressed beyond the need for money. As soon as things become scarce they start using a market again. Thus, the lack of scarcity in the Federation precludes the concept of an economy at all.

And yeah Starfleet ships are always militaristic, but people can choose to leave if that's still an option. I believe this was why RDM left the writing team, but it never seemed right that Janeway just appointed herself dictator when this ship was potentially in for a multi-generation journey. BSG handled that sort of thing much better.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Then explain what the Orion syndicate does for a living. Or how can ferengi pursue profit. Or how captains owned private transport ships and need to take things from one place to the other.

There's always people who want more than they have, and know who's going to provide them that.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Neither the Orion Syndicate nor the Ferengi Alliance are members of the Federation.

[–] Repelle@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

True for most of the franchise, but the ferengi are eventually. Also, I’m not sure if the federation prevents member worlds from continuing to have their own internal economies that could be market based. My guess is that they don’t and the ferengi will continue to use money for a long time.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Because the writers recognized that too many story tropes would be entirely unreasonable in a post scarcity world and so wrote in a bunch of stuff that really makes no sense if you think about it too hard. Like why would someone pay for a drink at Quark's when every residence on DS9 has a replicator? Because the writers wanted DS9 to be a frontier town and a frontier town needs a saloon.

Also to be clear, everything I was saying in my above comments was primarily in relation to the Federation. I recognize there are parts of the galaxy where replicators are not common.

[–] ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Like why would someone pay for a drink at Quark's when every residence on DS9 has a replicator?

Because the scarce resource at Quark's isn't the food or drinks, it's the atmosphere and the experience, i.e things the replicator cannot provide. Quark controls the holodecks too, but even if he didn't the scarce resource would be authentic (not replicated) food and experiences. It's been shown pretty regularly on the shows that some people prefer non-replicated food, non-synthohol drinks, and real people. It doesn't really matter in that context if those are technically indistinguishable from the real thing (but even in canon there is a measureable difference between them and some things the replicators can't do).

I don't really believe there could ever be a post-scarcity world in which we don't create new scarcities to demand.

Hot take: The Expanse (mostly referring to the books here) handled a post-scarcity technocracy much more believably.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

Again, the Ferengi are a bad example since they aren't part of the federation. But my point was simply that this stuff wasn't thought through. Why do the Ferengi exist? Because the writers wanted some capitalists to use as a contrast to the Federation.

I firmly believe that ST's worldbuilding mostly handwaves the questions of economics and scarcity, at least within the Federation. The writers didn't want to come up with good reasons for these things that actually make sense when you think about them.

It's a great franchise, but we shouldn't try to apply real-world economic ideas to it when that was so clearly not at the front of the writers minds when they created it.