Within the Federation, a strong implication has been made that there's no currency system in formal use.
The problem with this interpretation is that we've
seen currency used within the Federation, and we've seen other indirect forms of evidence that it's been used.
I imagine time and energy are kept track of more closely, and certain things are restricted to the degree that they can't be used too capriciously...but I think the fiction is telling us that this is a world where people basically don't HAVE the desires that would seem to quickly make a shambles of such a system in our era.
Some fans criticize this heavily, and I do find it interesting that those people can accept faster-than-light travel more easily than they can accept the idea that people can change.
Well, it's sort of like the difference between Realism and Naturalism. The two often go together in modern drama, but they are different.
Naturalism is when a work of art -- especially theatre, film, or television -- that seeks to accurately re-create the physical work. The set may be made of wood, but you're supposed to be fooled into thinking it's whatever it's representing (the bridge of a submarine, a lobby of the White House, whatever).
Realism, on the other hand, is when a work of art creates or attempts to create characters that are psychologically accurate representations of what real human minds are like.
Obviously there can be varying degrees of both.
Star Trek has varying degrees of Naturalism -- obviously, you're not supposed to think that starships are
real, but it's good if the sets fit enough of our presumptions about what such a thing would look like if it were real for us to suspend our disbelief.
And people can accept varying degrees of Realism, too. Part of what made
The Dark Knight successful is that all of the characters are grounded in Realistic psychologies -- except for the Joker, who is, quite frankly, a completely non-Realistic archetype moreso than a psychologically fleshed-out human mind.
What I think most people can't accept, though, is a show full of Human characters that are psychologically Realistic in every respect except one, and in particular one so fundamental as the desire to have. Especially because, well, we've
seen these characters indicate their desires to
have. We've seen Tom Paris wanting to own a 20th Century TV. We've seen characters wanting to have a career. We've seen characters wanting to have this, or have that. Well, if the world is full of people who want to have, then that demands a monetary system and always will.
And I think that the other thing that people object to is the idea that wanting to have is bad. It's not. It's placing your wanting to have above moral considerations that's bad -- in other words, greed. And, yes, I think there's a difference between acquisitiveness and greed. Greed is what happens when you put acquisitiveness about everything else, above your concern for other people. To not make that differentiation, especially since acquisitiveness has helped drive so many great technological innovations that have improved the quality of life for millions, is fundamentally irrational and unfair, and, of course, and to portray acquisitiveness so selectively is un-Realistic.
As P. Gardner Goldsmith
put it:
This is not to deride the series. I like it. But despite the attempt on the part of the producers to back up facets of the stories with well-researched science, the fact that Gene Roddenberry outlawed money means his creation can be nothing other than fantasy.
The reason is simple. Like Roddenberry, many thinkers have tried to envision a world in which there is no need for money, no market exchange, and no property. And every one of those thinkers, be they followers of John Lennon, Michael Moore, or Karl Marx, has overlooked one key insight: man’s nature does not change.
When people try to fulfill their needs, their varying interests, talents, and skills will prompt each of them to concentrate on what he does best. Such differentiation of labor will allow each to use his capabilities in the most productive way possible. Each person will soon see the benefits of trading some of the fruits of his labor for those of another. The way to maximize one’s labor in a world of differing skills and interests is to enter into market exchange with others, offering what one makes or does well in exchange for what others make or do well. Thus if you are a lumberjack, you can offer wood in exchange for food from the farmer. That way you don’t have to farm and the farmer doesn’t have to cut down trees. Since the two of you are doing what you do best, you are maximizing your work, and there will be more of both products than would exist if you and the farmer had to concentrate on the two forms of labor.
But what if the farmer has already traded for all the wood he needs? In that case, you will have to find a product the farmer does need, approach the producer of that item, and see if that producer needs wood. If he does, you can exchange your wood for the new product, then approach the farmer to finish your original exchange.
This becomes complicated when myriad interests, needs, skills, and products begin to come into play. Therefore, man, in his striving to maximize convenience, gradually evolved a method to facilitate exchange: money.
Money allows all participants to employ a universally recognized medium of exchange. No longer will you have to find a third or fourth or fifth party to trade your lumber to in order to get goods from the farmer. You can use money. You can hold it, spend it, and even lend it for a return sometime in the future. The flexibility of money, with its ability to let disparate persons work in harmony, is (far from Roddenberry’s view) one of the most glorious developments in the history of mankind. Money is the machinery of peace, not of war.
Furthermore, without money, it is impossible for the value of consumer or producer goods to be expressed in a practical way. Prices reflect the countless subjective valuations of sellers and buyers engaging in peaceful exchange. Prices are the result of each participant’s decisions—the essential carriers of information and the indispensable elements of economic calculation. They not only reflect preferences, but also the relative scarcity of goods and resources. Without money, there can be no systematic expression of value or scarcity. Even in Roddenberry’s “Federation,” someone had to buy the “dilithium crystals” for Scotty to use in his famous Engine Room.
Neither is particularly realistic, but both have a place in science fiction, and particularly in Trek, where money is just a non-issue. (God, those FASA RPG adventures were all so money-oriented, what with Starfleet captains making deals with criminals for money and BS like that...nothing could have less to do with Trek, or pull me out of an adventure faster.)
*nods* I don't think anyone has a problem with portraying a future where
greed has been eliminated as an acceptable social value, and I don't think anyone has a problem with the idea of a world where there's no more poverty. It's just that, well, the idea that there's no more money is literally impossible, and, further, a completely unrealistic depiction of human psychology. And I don't think a story that posits that humanity's fundamental nature must change for us to have a better future is particularly optimistic -- ultimately, that's just another way of saying, "You're not good enough and a higher power" (be it God in Christianity or the Vulcans in
Star Trek) "will have to change you before your world can be a better place to live."
