Perhaps this was overlooked:
How this relates to Star Trek can be stated simplistically enough. Some people think economics proves man and society are unimprovable, and imagining otherwise was Roddenberry's worst mistake.
The overwhelming majority of these people offer no arguments or facts, relying on their personal authority as the Voice of God or something. In one sense, all good science fiction is about the present (the bad is about other fiction, I think.) Refusal to discuss what the present really is, also derails discussion of what Star Trek was about.
In practice, political conservatism is (incorrectly) conceived as the natural, God-given point of view. The moral postures of political conservatism underly the critique of Star Trek's future economy and society. That is, they are the motive for conceiving Roddenberry's moneyless society as his worst mistake. Discussion of political conservatism is directly relevant to the topic. And, the discussion of the scientific validity of academic economics which support it, is directly relevant as well.
But it is quite obvious the real problem is not irrelevance, but too much relevance. However, as directed, discussion is now terminated.