this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
51 points (88.1% liked)

Star Trek

10541 readers
16 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
05-23 DSC 5x09 "Lagrange Point"
05-30 DSC 5x10 "Life, Itself"
07-01 PRO S2 Index
10-24 LD 5x01 TBA
10-24 LD 5x02 TBA

Episode Discussion Archive


In Production

Lower Decks (2024-10-24)

Strange New Worlds (2025)

Section 31 (2025)

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 0 points 2 months ago (5 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.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's amazing how people just make things up. I genuinely have no idea where you got these definitions unless it was some hole on Reddit or similar.

What manages the means of production if not a government? Saying "the people" is as hollow as the US talking about "Freedom" and "Democracy". "The people" cannot merely project their will into the aether and have it realized, they need some method of organization. They need to be able to administrate complex systems rather than just hang out in "primitive communism but with high technology somehow". Whatever that system is and whatever you call it, that's a government. In a system of democratic government that administers things, the difference between "the people" owning things and the government -- here an organ that exists only so the people can manage the means of production -- owning them is immaterial.

[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's amazing how people just make things up. I genuinely have no idea where you got these definitions unless it was some hole on Reddit or similar.

I'm not claiming anything I said is facts, just the way I understand it to be/how it had been explained to me quite a while ago. I could absolutely be wrong, if that's the case I'll gladly retract my comment based on new (to me) information. I'm far from qualified to give an authoritative answer on this topic.


The way I understand it is "the government decides to build a factory because the country needs a factory" vs "the people of a region get together and build a factory because they want one". Well, in either case nobody really owns the factory (compared to capitalism), but rather who's in charge of it, who decides who works on what and how it comes to be.

Unfortunately the only examples of communism we've seen are authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union, and currently North Korea and China (sort of). I don't think we have a true socialist community that's not some form of capitalist hybrid, let alone post-scarcity communism or socialism without massive corruption tainting it.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago

I'm not claiming anything I said is facts, just the way I understand it to be/how it had been explained to me quite a while ago. I could absolutely be wrong, if that's the case I'll gladly retract my comment based on new (to me) information. I'm far from qualified to give an authoritative answer on this topic.

I apologize for being coarse, it's a bad habit of mine.

The way I understand it is "the government decides to build a factory because the country needs a factory" vs "the people of a region get together and build a factory because they want one". Well, in either case nobody really owns the factory (compared to capitalism), but rather who's in charge of it, who decides who works on what and how it comes to be.

If the government is democratic, there's very little substantive difference here as-described, because "the government decides X" is an entity with the popular mandate doing it, and if that decision loses it the popular mandate, the people can oppose it. Likewise, if "the people" of a locality decided to build a factory in this hypothetical and a minority opposed it, if the minority cannot sway the majority, they are simply ignored.

The problem comes in when you realize that the goods produced by factories mostly aren't for the use of the local community, they are for a much more expansive group of people. There need to be systems to coordinate production at the full scale of society so that people have some idea of who needs what. It's compounded by the fact that the machines in the factory will themselves probably need to be imported from elsewhere.

Unfortunately the only examples of communism we've seen are authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union, and currently North Korea and China (sort of). I don't think we have a true socialist community that's not some form of capitalist hybrid, let alone post-scarcity communism or socialism without massive corruption tainting it.

Depending on your definitions, you left out Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. In any case, I don't think most people are able to maintain the "real communism has never been tried" stance. Eventually, you either come down on the side that "No, they were real communism and communism is therefore evil" or "I was lied to about at least some of these countries and should give them credit". For an anglophone, societal gravity is very much on the side of the first option, but it's possible to reach the second conclusion if you have a strong enough motivation to dig through information. Cuba is probably the route of least resistance.

[–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 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".

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website -1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Yeah I'm not a communist primarily because I'm against dictatorship and human rights abuse but socialism sounds more interesting

[–] TC_209@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

From a Marxist perspective, all class-based societies are governed by dictatorships:

A dictatorship is the political dominance of one group of people over others. In a class society, a dictatorship usually favors the interest of certain classes over the others.

Right now, we live in the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie

The bourgeoisie is the ruling class in capitalist society; it owns the means of production and has a decisive influence on production. It lives off of surplus value which it obtains by exploiting the labour power of the proletariat.

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm not a Marxist so don't agree

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You literally just don't know what you're talking about

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because I'm not a Marxist? Um ok lol

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well yes, but more broadly because you keep using words without knowing what they mean

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do you mean dictatorship? Most ppl use it in the way I mean, as the vast majority are not Marxists.

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Dictatorship, socialist, communist, liberal, rights, private property

Really pretty much all of the relevant terms here

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago

This particular string of replies was you doing a stupendously poor job of explaining anything or accomplishing anything but looking like a snob. It would be better to say nothing than to be an asshole to someone who has done nothing worse than be a slightly frustrating liberal in their own thread on a non-communist instance.

[–] TC_209@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Given this thread is about whether or not the Federation is a communist or socialist society, Marxist definitions are the most useful, eh? Furthermore, I'd argue that the term Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie very accurately describes American (I'm an American) society, and does so regardless of one's personal beliefs.

[–] MrSaturn@startrek.website 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well there are non Marxist socialist/communist models and systems but I take your point. I was just answering you because you responded to why I'm not a communist, that's all

[–] TC_209@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

Again, perfectly fair. Before I was a communist, I rejected Marxist concepts as well. I've spent over two decades reading and listening to arguments for and against all sort of political, social and economic ideas. I've identified with centrism, liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy and other ideologies. Today, I consider myself to be a Marxist/socialist/communist not because it's just the latest thing I've hit upon, but because it's what's made the most sense to me. When I use Marxist words and ideas, I don't do so because I'm a Marxist; I'm a Marxist because those words and ideas have helped me to make the most sense of the world. And I'm certainly not demanding, or even asking, you do become a Marxist, I'm just asking you to consider what makes the most sense.

mario-thumbs-up

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

If you don't want to start a political argument, that's not the way to do it.