"Communism" in StarTrek?

[Profit]

I stumbled upon this interesting pice of work just now, and I'd love to hear some comments on it:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/...k-Marxism.html

Yes, I have asked myself and the author of the text and the site (also worth a look, if not only for the laughs) if it is a joke, and he claims it is not. I hope to the contrary.

[Sea Tyger]

It's amusing, I'll give you that. While he makes pretty good arguments in some cases, in others, he's imposing political ideals on things that are controlled by limited budgets, the reuse of sets for different settings, and the time constraints of a one-hour science-fiction drama.

I think that, overall, his assessment is a case of reading too much into a television franchise. I certainly don't think the producers gave it that much thought!

[First of Two]

(The following post will necessarily stray dangerously into political territory. Sorry.)

Upon a cursory glance, I'd say the following things:

#1. I really can't expect the owner of a place called stardestroyer to be a Trek fan... as much as a Star Wars fan, and haven't I heard that site's neme before as participant in a series of acrimonious Star Trek vs Star Wars flamefests?

#2. Numerous shaky assumptions are made. Just because something isn't mentioned frequently, or seen, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've never seen an Australian Aborigine on Star Trek -- that doesn't mean there aren't any in Starfleet. For instance, just because the skies of Earth aren't full of flying cars doesn't mean they're illegal. It just means that transporters are used as a far more convenient and less-dangerous rapid-transit system.

#2a. DUH!

#3. That said, Star Trek has the closest thing to viable Communism I've ever seen, in that it takes care of the otherwise fatal flaws in Marxist Communism by giving everyone access to everything, via technological advancement. It will be impossible for Communism to function as envisioned until vast amounts of living space, energy, and replicators are available cheaply to all people.

Or until we become Borg drones, and the capacity to desire more, better, faster, and "cooler" is eradicated from every member of our species.

And if anyone wants to argue the merits of point #3, it should probably be done via PM. Feel free.

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by Profit
I stumbled upon this interesting pice of work just now, and I'd love to hear some comments on it:

The author is a pseudo-intellectual idiot more intent on being "right" and "smarter-than-thou." Although he presents himself as an objective debater, he actually starts with a number of biases and assumptions which he assumes you agree with. As anyone knows, this is a poor way to debate unless all parties in the debate agree to proceed on those terms. The most obvious bias/assumptions are:

1) The author is biased against Star Trek. This becomes obvious if you read any of his other essays on the web site. Try this quote from his essay "My Favorite Trekkie Arguments."

I suspect that much of my distaste for recent Star Trek (and the annoying arguments of its advocacy fans) is related to my abhorrence for pseudoscience.

(Personally, I find this quite stupid because there's just as much pseudo-science in Star Wars. In any case, this bias means the author is actively looking for holes in Star Trek's fabric to support his bias.)

2)The author is biased against Communism as a whole. At one point, he calls the Communist Manifesto "irrational gibberish." -- an obvious bias. If you click on the link within the essay in question, you'll find another essay where he refutes the manifesto point by point. (However, his bias becomes all the more obvious when in that essay he starts spouting the right-wing illusion of how a 100% free-market economy regulates itself. . . which isn't true and never has been. [He's obviously never looked at the Sherman Anti-Trust case and its history very closely. In a 100% free- market economy, big money always dominates and manipulates. That's why we have anti-trust laws.])

Essentially, because parts of Communism are bad, the author assumes all of Communism must be bad. In fact, NO economic system of any kind is 100% good or bad.

3) The author assumes that Communist governments must, in the end, involve totalitarian restriction of individual civil liberties. It is as just as wrong to assume this as it is to assume that all democracies preserve individual civil liberties. In truth, all governments, whether democratic, communist, or other type involve some kind of restriction of civil liberties. (For example, in the US, inciting a riot by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is illegal and is a limitation of Constitutional freedom of speech for the benefit of the common good.)

4) The next mistake is that the author assumes that economic systems and government are the same thing. They are not. It is quite possible to have a totalitarian capitalist state and a wholly democratic socialist or communist state.

5) Another mistake is that the author assumes the Federation is one government and not a United Nations-style alliance of governments, which I believe was Gene Roddenberry's original intent. Therefore, the Federation will have a variety of governments within itself. (Deanna Troi, for example, is a "daughter of The Fifth House, Holder of the Sacred Chalice of Rixx, and heir to the Holy Rings of Betazed" which definitely makes her an aristocrat and possibly an heir to a seat in a possible hereditary theocracy.)

6) The final mistake the author makes is that humanity in the twenty-fourth century is going to be the same as humanity today. Star Trek's message of a positive future is predicated on one thing: Mankind's collective heart has changed. Its wisdom has caught up to its knowledge and technical advancement. Its altruism and compassion has conquered its fear, paranoia, and greed.

In the Star Trek view, the rights of sentient beings survive because everyone recognizes the inherent worth of said beings. The distribution of resources evens out because of replicators -- everyone has enough and thus competition for resources goes away completely. Morover, people would live a spartan lifestyle voluntarily anyway -- They realize that the accumulation of "stuff" isn't the true basis for happiness and thus abandon its pursuit.

Government, if it is corrupt and compassionless, will always cause people to suffer regardless of what kind of government. With the author's illustration of how "bad" Star Trek's future is, he says that mankind, at its base, is inherently evil and has no capacity for change. In short, he's a pessimist.

His pessimism (and his right-wing bias) is evident in this end paragraph from the essay in question:

In real life, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Give people freedom and they'll abuse it. Give the government more power and it will abuse it. I've been accused of cynicism for saying these things, but I have yet to see anyone produce a shred of evidence to prove that this isn't true. The balance between social stability and individual freedom is one that all societies must walk very carefully; you can't simply have both. In my opinion, the only way to produce the Federation's smiley-faced corps of perfectly well-behaved citizens is to push that balance to the left. All the way left.

In the end, Sea Tyger is right: Star Trek is just a TV show; As such, has more in common with mythology than politics. It is a show about the hearts of individual heroes and not governments and economic systems. The point of "The Epic of Gilgamesh" isn't its government but the hearts of Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Looking for its government, one will surely find holes.

Similarly, Star Trek never started with a complete governmental charter, just Gene Roddenberry's idealism and belief that mankind's social consciousness will evolve into something better.

From my viewpoint, after looking at the whole of the essay author's writings, despite his skills as a debater or writer, at his core, he's just a humorless, sanctimonious, fan boy screaming the "Star Trek sucks! Star Wars rules!" litany at the top of his lungs.

[Jem'hadar]

I think that article reveals more about the writer's views of Star Trek & communism than Roddenberry's or the show's portrayal of Federation society. Since most Americans abhor communism (often w/o understanding it fully), it's very easy to label something as promoting communism in order to get Americans to turn against it. If you don't like something, just give it a label no one likes, & then you can increase support for your own position, regardless of the facts. It's a terribly obvious & blunt tactic, but sometimes works. I don't think it will work in this case.

First of all, if Roddenberry & the producers of Star Trek were actually promoting communism through Star Trek, they're going about it in a very capitalist fashion. Both Roddenberry & Paramount have profited from the Star Trek franchise. The lead actors in all the films & series have made $$ doing the show. To a communist, both Roddenberry & Paramount represent the bourgeoisie, something the proletariat are supposed to overthrow. I don't see the execs at Paramount being on the cover of Worker's Daily any time soon.:-)

Having said that, I've always viewed 24th C. Federation society as being more socialist than anything. People's basic needs are taken care of so nobody wants for food, medicine, shelter, etc. Each citizen contribues to society what they can & takes from society what they need. It's a utopian society b/c most Federation citizens aren't greedy, devious, deceitful, bigoted, hateful, envious, or suffer from any of the many human failiings which plague humanity today. Crime is low not b/c the Federation is a police state but just b/c most people in the Federation would never even conceive of committing a crime. Of course, we've seen that there are bad humans in Star Trek, but they seem to be an extremely small minority.

Of course, technology has something to do w/ that. It seems every Federation household has a replicator that can give you almost anything you may want. The big difference is that people have matured to such a level that they don't abuse such a technological wonder & still work b/c they enjoy working.

I think what's more interesting are those alien cultures who have advanced despite having many flaws & failings. Lying, backstabbing, greed, pettiness, and lack of concern for your fellow citizens are not only widespread in Ferengi society, they are actually promoted by the govt. How the Ferengi ever survived this long w/o destroying themselves is truly amazing.

[Balok]

I have always believed that Star Trek's universe is more socialist than the present day United States, and probably more socialist than many European countries commonly described as "socialist democracies".

But there are a number of ways that could occur without oppressing productive people overly much to the benefit of non-productive people. And this author seems to ignore them. For a few examples:

• Better ability to generate energy means cheaper prices.
• Better technology means cleaner ways of doing things.
• Increased levels of personal responsibility means fewer people are *content* to remain wards of the state -- and therefore more people are productive.

A man named Nash received the Nobel prize for proving (essentially) that a system's gain was maximized with a shared victory; that is, participates get some or most of what they want, and the total gain exceeds that when each participant works only to maximize his own gain. Adjusting society to operate this way would require a sea change, since people now work to maximize their own gain (mostly) -- and that's because evolution has selected for that trait. After a few bad wars and social upheavals (like the Bell riots), who's to say the state won't be set for such a sea change.

It's not correct to say that Star Trek is a communist society, since there is clear evidence of personal wealth, and a system of exchange. It's certainly more socialist than what we've seen of the Star Wars universe (which, despite its great age, operates more like a series of loosely associated frontier towns and cities, than like a society.) That's not to slam Star Wars; it's just my view of how things work there. Like a lot of people, I like *both* settings, and many of the stories told in them.

I can see how both sorts of societies could work.

(For what it's worth, I'm a Republican, but not the same sort of Republican as currently runs the United States. [For the benefit of those foreign members: Republicans are the conservative faction here, and Democrats the liberal faction, but that's at best a view from 20,000 feet. While Republicans tend to be more monolithic than Democrats, that's changing.)

EDIT:

This guy's a riot, though. He wants you to think he's "above" partisanship, and yet, I have rarely seen a more fanboyish site. He's clearly in love with the Star Wars universe, which is fine, and clearly feels it's superior to everything else, which as his opinion is also fine. But it's intellectually dishonest of him to act as if he's not a fanboy, when many of the pages scream that he is.

[Highway Hoss]

Originally posted by Jem'hadar
I think that article reveals more about the writer's views of Star Trek & communism than Roddenberry's or the show's portrayal of Federation society. Since most Americans abhor communism (often w/o understanding it fully), it's very easy to label something as promoting communism in order to get Americans to turn against it. If you don't like something, just give it a label no one likes, & then you can increase support for your own position, regardless of the facts. It's a terribly obvious & blunt tactic, but sometimes works. I don't think it will work in this case.

I agree...too often "communist" is simply used as a scaremongering label to justify any number of things...

Originally posted by Jem'hadar
Having said that, I've always viewed 24th C. Federation society as being more socialist than anything. People's basic needs are taken care of so nobody wants for food, medicine, shelter, etc. Each citizen contribues to society what they can & takes from society what they need. It's a utopian society b/c most Federation citizens aren't greedy, devious, deceitful, bigoted, hateful, envious, or suffer from any of the many human failiings which plague humanity today. Crime is low not b/c the Federation is a police state but just b/c most people in the Federation would never even conceive of committing a crime. Of course, we've seen that there are bad humans in Star Trek, but they seem to be an extremely small minority.

The thing that the writer forgets is that he is talking about 24th century humans, not their 20th century ancestors...these people are not interested in money or cool items but improving themselves.

Originally posted by Jem'hadar
Of course, technology has something to do w/ that. It seems every Federation household has a replicator that can give you almost anything you may want. The big difference is that people have matured to such a level that they don't abuse such a technological wonder & still work b/c they enjoy working.

Right..this also explains why we don't see things like cybertechnology or genetic engineering in Federation society..the Federation is more conzigant of the dangers of uncontrolled technologies and thinks more carefully about their impact on society. A good example of a society where such tech is rampant is Adam Warren's Dirty Pair comics, where such tech enables people to alter themselves at will and where such tech can cause all sorts of disruptions; if the Federation ever came across such a society, it would be appalled.

Originally posted by Jem'hadar
I think what's more interesting are those alien cultures who have advanced despite having many flaws & failings. Lying, backstabbing, greed, pettiness, and lack of concern for your fellow citizens are not only widespread in Ferengi society, they are actually promoted by the govt. How the Ferengi ever survived this long w/o destroying themselves is truly amazing.

Keep in mind, however that while the Ferengi do such things, they always act within a certain code of conduct; while they may write a loophole into a contract, they will never actually break a contract outright because they hold a contract to be sacred. Also as Quark pointed out, they have never engaged in the kind of destructive wars humanity has.

Originally posted by Fesarius:
This guy's a riot, though. He wants you to think he's "above" partisanship, and yet, I have rarely seen a more fanboyish site. He's clearly in love with the Star Wars universe, which is fine, and clearly feels it's superior to everything else, which as his opinion is also fine. But it's intellectually dishonest of him to act as if he's not a fanboy, when many of the pages scream that he is.

No kidding; he's a pretentious hypocrite of the worst sort who inflames the STvsSW debate anytime he can. Besdies if you want a really corrupt government look at the
Star Wars universe; a huge galaxy spanning government (the Republic) that is falling apart and is turned into an incredibly corrupt Empire; you have a group of rebels who fight this empire, not to make a new government but to restore the old system that collasped without really thinking about why it rotted out in the first place.

This universe also strikes me as incredibly elitist and stratified. The Republic relies on an elite mystical force (the Jedi) and cloned troopers for its defense rather than the citizens it is supposed to represent; yet when the New Republic is born they immmediately seek to restore they Jedi rather than ask if it is such a good idea. In fact, this universe gives the impression that if you are not a Jedi, you are not a player in the Grand Scheme of Things™. This is in complete contrast to the Star Trek universe where "normal" humans and aliens without any special abilities but skill, guts and courage are the heroes.

[Tobian]

Fascinating argument, and for once I'm pleased to see that everyone here almost unanimously agrees

Ezri makes a tremendous argument, as does jem'Hadar - the whole crux of this argument is based on the demonising of the concept of Comunism, which, sadly, many Americans wholly abhor without actually knowing why. Personally i think that making an uninformed decision, based on propoganda tryly robs anyone of their civil liberties; because in essence, you haven't used your own freedom to go into a debate knowing both sides of the argument.

Actually I find the whole fanboy notion of Starwars Vs Startrek pointless - you can't compare apples with oranges. And actually, when I think about it, especially given the state of the political machine as portrayed in Episodes I and II - The Old Republic is not that dissimilar to the UFP - it's a political body which has a collective responsibility to all it's sovereign nations, with a collective council who debate the issues; Those sovereign nations all have their own individual rights and laws; and The jedi Knights function like Starfleet of Starwars - they are a quasi military organisation who seem to resolve arguments as peacefully as possible, but with deadly force if neccesary. Yes you can argue the entire thing is different if you view it from the end point of IV V and VI - but that is what all of the 'rebels' are striving for - the old republic again - despite its faults!

So if you are a StarWars fan trying to criticise the makeup of the sociopolitical nature of the federation and Starfleet you're going to end up on very unsteady ground as you undermine yourself!

On the one hand yes, more of the economies of those world and most likelly their pilitics are more slanted towards a commerge and dog eat dog, if you don't have any sort of governmental system in place, to protect people and commerce, then on a scale of many planets, it becomes all to easy for those worlds to be devoured - a cosmic scale take-over. (I'm glad that there aren't any colonies for Microsoft to buy up right now, but get ready to see that little windows flag waving on mars! ) Which is why it's bes to keep government and economy seperate.

IMHO, I am never entirelly sure why people can get so anti-utopianist, why they want so much to have those 'hippy peacenick dso-gooders' fail so badly in Startrek. Yeah the klingons and the Romulans are 'cool' - but can anyone honestly say they'd like to live in either of those opressive reigims. Yes i am sure in their heads, when they imagine that they are in the one standing abover their minions, and not one of the people under heel!

To be honest I don't find it that unrealistic that the Federation, or something like it could exist in the future. if you take away the aliens for a moment, and look at humanity alone, then if we keep on expanding and devouring in the way that we are right now, a distopian future would be intennable, because we would have utterly destroyed ourselves in rapidly escalated political and economic tensions! As technology marches on, the gap between the haves and the have nots increases, political devisiveness, demonisation and the skill of the propogandists increases and the entire thing would blow up in our faces - Roll on Utopia please!

[Sea Tyger]

Originally posted by Tobian
Ezri makes a tremendous argument, as does jem'Hadar - the whole crux of this argument is based on the demonising of the concept of Comunism, which, sadly, many Americans wholly abhor without actually knowing why.

I think the issue is that Americans often confuse the Soviet and Cuban totalitarian perversions of communism with Marx's "purer" vision, and I doubt anyone here would claim that either of those "communist" goverments were/are good things.

Also, most people mislabel "Red" China as a communist nation (I think it's technically classified as "socialist," IIRC); as that nation has its own shortcomings (particularly in the human-rights arena), China serves as a further example to Americans that communism is "bad."

In my experience, most nations that call themselves "Communist" or "Marxist" are nothing more than petty totalitarian dictatorships of one form or another, and not representatives of Marx's original vision.

(I want to clarify these remarks as no endorsement of communism in any way. I consider Marx's communism a hopeless, faithless and completely unattainable form of government with today's humanity. There's no opportunity to better yourself if you're forced to give your life to the state, and man withers without hope of improving his {spiritual or physical} condition.)

[Tobian]

Much like myself, I suspect that very few people have actually read the marxist manifesto, to know what they are arguing against. I'm not pro or against it persay, it's just often things are dismissed without being understood, or worst, read.

I also happen to agree that, in the end, the 'Communist' states became sadly, dictatorships, just as bad as the Tsarist russia (ok actually probably worse) But I don't want to open up that debate, as it's distinctly political (winks at the moderators)!

I am fairly certain that, as portrayed on the screen, the UFP wasn't a 'petty totalitarian dictatorship', and was, in fact a utopia. So given that, if people so choose to compare it to Comunist Russia, then I suggest they seriously need to look at their history books!

Yes Startrek portays Earth and the Federation with 'liberal' and 'social' agendas. I'm curious to know why people beleive that's a bad thing! While you can take with a pinch of salt the not quite seen on the screen, IDIC philosphy (infinite diversity in infinite combinations), of the Vulcans and Federation at large; the core concept is that of acceptance of difference. Looking at the world as it is today it is something we are sorelly in need of - acceptance of different beliefs. The Federation has also been seen to have hardline views on such things as the prime directive - matters of interfering with other cultures, which it stresses it doesn't do; sometimes you need to give people the space to sort themselves out.

At the end of the day, nothing, no system, no form of government is going to be perfect, because you either have to submit to the ultimate rule of someone else, or submit to years of pointless arguing in a govermnent. IMHO I think that Startrek portrays a realistic context for that to happen; certainly in the context of the Startrek universe, because if Earth hadn't ironed out all the differences between it' self and the other foundling members of the Federation, I suspect we'd now be part of the Romulan or Klingon Empires!

[Jem'hadar]

Originally posted by Highway Hoss
Keep in mind, however that while the Ferengi do such things, they always act within a certain code of conduct; while they may write a loophole into a contract, they will never actually break a contract outright because they hold a contract to be sacred. Also as Quark pointed out, they have never engaged in the kind of destructive wars humanity has.

Not to go off on a tangent (oh well, I guess I am), it's true that's what Quark once said. But then again, Quark's reputation for honesty isn't too stellar, is it? Never trust a Ferengi, I say.:-)

But even if that's true, I've always thought the Ferengi avoided major wars simply b/c war isn't in their nature. Oh sure, they can be violent when they need to, but usually it's when they are sure their target can't strike back. Most Ferengi, it seems, are cowards when it comes to fighting (there may be profit in instigating wars but not much in actually dying in one). There are exceptions of course, but I think Ferengi haven't had huge internicine wars b/c most of them would have deserted or surrendered b/f the battle.

But it is strange the Klingons never destoyed themselves. Here you have a culture in which violence is the preferred method to resolve practically any dispute. Nearly any perceived insult or slight is justification for a duel. Despite their military record, I would think that an eagerness to duel & fight each other would make for an inefficient military. Napoleon had to threaten imprisonment to stop French officers from dueling b/c it was destroying the cream of his officer corps. How did the Klingons manage to build an empire when their warriors spent as much time fighting each other as they did their enemies?

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

He's also mistaken on at least two points (I only skimmed his article, since I was busy laughing my ass off through most of it). Latinum is not a Federation currency, though he seems to think it is. He also says that we've never heard of any private Federation companies. Unfortunately he's mistaken again. The Dytallix Mining Corporation was mentioned in Conspiracy.

Well, it's pretty funny, but it's value as a serious analysis is about on a par with the half pence piece.

[Tobian]

With Klingons you have their honour. While on the one hand they fight tooth and nail at every moment, on the other they are bound by their traditions. While it is true that the strongest rule, it is also true that they are 'strong' beause of things such as spaceships and powerful weapons - which no half inteligent klingon is going to challenge with a Bat'leth alone! Especially if we take the klingons as portrayed on TNG and beyond, they function much like Japanese martial society - so there is a distinct caste system in place to stop any nair-do-well just jumping in to the Klingon Parliment building, and challenging the chancelor to a duel! I suspect that in some ways that klingons did not invent all of their advanced technology, but rather inherited it from someone (such as in the Lug timeline where they backwards engineered Federation technology) or certainly from the Hurq' - which could help to explain why they didn't go through as self destructive a phase as we have, by developing highly clever ways to kill. That and because almost all of Klingon is united under one government (since centuries past) and has a fairly monocultural attitude towards martial forms of combat, then no Klingon would have used 'cheating' weapons (Such as grenades, claymores etc) in their duels, and stuck to (and still do) bladed weapons. Of course they do use all of their technology, but that's what they use against everyone else! because of course they don't deserve honourable deaths

Ferengi's, are, as has been pointed out, cowards, but basically they are not aversarial. Anyone wo watched 'the magnificent Ferengi' will know why there has never been a major Ferengi war! They have big and powerful ships because every time they cheat someone, there is a risk they could come after them - but like everything else they bought it, so it isn't really demonstrative of any innate adversarialness. The largest threat to Ferengi society is external - they are all to busy quabling ammong themselves over the last ounce of Latinum, rather than actually get in to a fight! Yes, they might have someone killed off, but then they also hire guards too!

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by Tobian
With Klingons you have their honour. . . . they function much like Japanese martial society - so there is a distinct caste system in place to stop any ne'er-do-well just jumping in to the Klingon Parliment building, and challenging the chancelor to a duel!

You can only go so far with the Samurai comparison; In truth, feudal Japan was plagued with civil war after civil war. It wasn't until the Tokugawa shogunate (the last shoganate) that stability came to Japan. And that stability was at the expense of a fascist rule so fierce that it would make Hitler uncomfortable. It wasn't until the mid-1800's, when the Tokugawa shogunate became weak, and Admiral Perry forced trade with Japan at gunpoint, that the samurai class started to disappear.

So, although feudal Japan was an interesting historical time, the society was hardly stable enough to eventually found an intergalactic empire.

[Tobian]

I get your point but then it is Klingons we are talking about and not the Japanese feudal system

From what we have seen in the show, the Klingons are constantly bereft with internal civil wars, power struggles and authoritarian rules - so it's not all that dissimilar, but then just like the Federation, advanced technology can change the face of conflict; Much like the ways that wars are fought now as compared to a few hundred years ago. This change may well have been the catylist for a relative stability. If that was coupled with a unification of the entire klingon people against the Hurq' invaders, then that would explain how they set a precedent for working together against a common foe. Of course it also then made them the scourge of the spacelanes, so it's not all good !