I was speaking to another another person who has watched Trek before and he claimed that the future is Communist. Now, I admit there is no form of economy in the Federation, but does that it Communist? Communism is a philosophy of no hierarchy but of Social bliss, as the call it. I don't think Star Trek is Communist. If anyone read Communist history, they would know that human rights are not important, what is important is that state. The people of the Federation value human rights and diversity. Communists do not. In my opinion, the only group that resembles Communism is the Borg and they are considered a mortal enemy to humanity. What is your opinion? I don't want to create politics being so new but I want to know how all of you feel as someone brought this to my attention.
Is Star Trek Communist?
- Thread starter DeepSpace84
- Start date
While I never really got that vibe from TOS, TNG represents a certain 'utopian communistic ideal' made possible through the miracle of replication.
You also have to keep in mind that TNG did consider individual rights well below the worth of the 'group'. You wouldn't see dissent on the bridge - that would be wrong. We even see episodes where Picard is willing to allow complete genocides in the name of political directives. We also see the Federation allow many of its own citizens to die for the 'greater good' several times.
It's definately a commuinist society, but one portrayed as benign and benevolent on the surface. This is very much keeping with the 'Pro-UN world peace' view presented and embraced by the Hollywood-liberals of the 1990s. It's unrealistic, and it's the main reason that TNG has dated far worse than any other part of the Trek franchise.
You also have to keep in mind that TNG did consider individual rights well below the worth of the 'group'. You wouldn't see dissent on the bridge - that would be wrong. We even see episodes where Picard is willing to allow complete genocides in the name of political directives. We also see the Federation allow many of its own citizens to die for the 'greater good' several times.
It's definately a commuinist society, but one portrayed as benign and benevolent on the surface. This is very much keeping with the 'Pro-UN world peace' view presented and embraced by the Hollywood-liberals of the 1990s. It's unrealistic, and it's the main reason that TNG has dated far worse than any other part of the Trek franchise.
I don't think Star Trek is truly Communist, no. Nor would I call it Leninist or Stalinist or Maoist.
I think it's fair to say that Star Trek is quite a bit more optimistic about the possibility of positive social reform through collective action and social institutions than, say, traditional American conservatism, and that it's more collectivist in its thinking than individualist, but it also values individuality and individual rights, as you well note. And I also think we have to bear in mind that much of Star Trek is vague about the political and economic systems of the Federation -- the most we ever see of the UFP is Starfleet, the Federation's military/exploratory service, which is necessarily going to have a more hierarchical culture than Federation culture at large.
Insofar as we have any real sense of what the Federation is like (and insofar as the Federation is supposed to be good), I would describe Star Trek as being more in the political tradition of Western European Social Democracy or of Scandinavian Socialism than Communism.
The obvious show to discuss is TNG. this element isn't too present in the other shows if at all.
TNG is very liberal, no doubt.
Its hard to say because of the technology. It may somewhat resemble a communist society, but it's really a post scarcity society. There's no limitation of resources, which means there's no need for capitalism, (in theory). It resembles communism, but it's really a type of system that's not possible now because of limited resources.
And I disagree, individual rights were very important in TNG. Remember how Picard Treated Hugh In I, Borg.
TNG is very liberal, no doubt.
Its hard to say because of the technology. It may somewhat resemble a communist society, but it's really a post scarcity society. There's no limitation of resources, which means there's no need for capitalism, (in theory). It resembles communism, but it's really a type of system that's not possible now because of limited resources.
And I disagree, individual rights were very important in TNG. Remember how Picard Treated Hugh In I, Borg.
Is that time of the month again?
24th century law recognizes concepts of intellectual property ownwership and control through the 12th Guarantee. This would not be law if the Federation was truly communist.
Whatever political and economic system the Federation uses is pretty damn sweet. The Ferengi alliance is a joke and I am glad DS9 relagated them to comic relief. Daemon Bok couldn't even prevent a mutiny how does such weakness of organizational design bode for larger structures like interstellar goverments?
Whatever political and economic system the Federation uses is pretty damn sweet. The Ferengi alliance is a joke and I am glad DS9 relagated them to comic relief. Daemon Bok couldn't even prevent a mutiny how does such weakness of organizational design bode for larger structures like interstellar goverments?
And remember Picard's anti-religion screeds. (The Prime Directive applies in all cases, except for religion, then we can fuck the planet up all we want.)
He was allowing for genocide of non-Federation worlds, citing the political needs of the Federation.
And, of course, the worst enemy of all was going to be American Capitalists! Look at both the Ferengi and the 21st century frozen people...
It's definately Communist, in the worst sense, in all it's leanings. The difference is that it had the Hollywood trappings of the 'perfect controlled utopia' where everyone got along, all the time, and did the Right Thing (TM). It was such a rediculous fantasy that, as I said, TNG very much stands out as an accidental 1990s masterpiece of pro-UN propoganda more than science-fiction.
Fortunately this improved as the show went on until DS9 finally wrecked the whole concept. But, sheesh, anyone who wants to point to the champaigne communists don't have to go too far into TNG to find it.
I am not sure what I would say, everyone is still free, they are not told how they are to run their lives in order for there to be equality for all in society, becuase there is no money it is a hard subjec, the differences in our societies is how we are regulated by the goverment and how money is treated and distrubuted differently. In the case of TNG I would say not communistic at all, I agree that the borg are the most communist, because they have equality for all. Although no human in TNG(that i remember) was in poverty, or poor, they were not all equal....I dunno its hard to concieve a world without money.
What episode(s) were those? I can only think of Justice. Exposing false religion has been a staple since TOS. How would Return of the Archons have worked without interfering with the cult of Landru? Did you not enjoy episdoes like Who Watches the Watchers or Devil's Due?
Since Trek is set centuries in the future part of the entertainment value is showing the change in human society. I am certainly glad we are advanced from say Kepler's time when people were still being burned as witches. Is not part of the appeal of Mad Men seeing the blantant sexism and lack of tact relative to our modern norms?
We have enough war and religion in contempory America that I have no desire to see more it in my escapist entertainment.
That statement is paradoxical, since liberalism in the economic sense is the opposite of communism or socialism. (Such a tricky word, it can cause a lot of confusion...) The Federation's economy is definitely not liberal, since there is supposed to be no money and therefore no free market economy. It is described as a kind of socialist utopia.
I would not say communist as there are freedoms that would never be tolerated under a communist regime. But I would say that they have the 'Ideal' soceity that has evolved and struggled for over the centuries. It's a pity that we do not have a society like that at this present time.
What on Earth does the United Nations have to do with this idea that it's idealizing Communism? The U.N. was never a Communist organization; it's always been an IGO that owed no particular loyalty to any of its Member States.
"Liberalism", as used in the United States for the past generation, is actually leftism.
And most of you are missing the point. I didn't say that TNG was Stalinist, but it is certainly communist. Specifically, it's a 'communist utopia' as defined by a lot of psuedo-intellectuals that had a few too many tokes in the 1960s and came to power in Hollywood in the 1970s.
It's very much that 1990s view of a perfect socially engineered ideal, the sort of thing that many 'social elites' wanted (and still want, actually) to turn the United Nations into.
And most of you are missing the point. I didn't say that TNG was Stalinist, but it is certainly communist. Specifically, it's a 'communist utopia' as defined by a lot of psuedo-intellectuals that had a few too many tokes in the 1960s and came to power in Hollywood in the 1970s.
It's very much that 1990s view of a perfect socially engineered ideal, the sort of thing that many 'social elites' wanted (and still want, actually) to turn the United Nations into.
That is a groundless anti-marijuana statement. How do you "toke too much"? In terms of harm marijuana is one of the most beneign substances in existance. Nixon and later conservatives gave us the useless war on drugs. The fact that it is a schedule I drug is a total farce. Today's right is a failure and also very much authoritarian.
Did you see George Will's recent advocacy of decriminalization? William Buckely was also pro-pot.
A word to the wise - keep the thread out of TNZ territory please. Thanks! 
Don't be absurd. "Communist Utopia," such as outlined by Karl Marx, was a system wherein the state itself was dissolved and there was a completely equitable distribution of property -- all social classes and hierarchies cease to exist. It's a purely theoretical concept that has never existed in reality and that bears no resemblance to the Federation as depicted in Star Trek -- one in which the state still exists (and has extended its power across the stars!), in which liberal democracy is practiced, in which there are still private businesses (especially in TOS -- Trek has been very inconsistent in its depiction of whether or not money has ceased to exist in the Federation, Picard's speeches notwithstanding), in which citizens still own private property (Picard family vineyard, Joseph Sisko's restaurant, etc.).
Have you even read the Manifesto?
You need to let go of these paranoid fantasies, man. Even the most ardent internationalists who favor the eventual establishment of a planetary state through the U.N. don't expect it to constitute an ideal society.
Exactly right. This is something I point out every time this subject comes up. You can't compare a post-scarcity civilization to any of the political or economic constructs that we now have. It would be a completely different animal.
Sounds like Vance has an axe to grind. There may be leftist leanings in the depiction of the Federation and Starfleet, but I can also see libertarian and even conservative leanings in some of its stances. The Prime Directive is akin to libertarian ideas of staying out of others' affairs, similar to Ron Paul's avowed opposition to the U.S. intervening abroad. And Starfleet, as an older institution bound by tradition, certainly has conservative leanings. I see the Federation as a post-socialist, post-capitalist society that we as 21st century folks can't classify, the same way a medieval peasant would be unable to picture a society that wasn't governed by the feudal model of divine right of kings. I agree with Ward Fowler and Kirkman1987 -- the Federation is a post-scarcity society, to be sure, due partly to replicator technology. -- RR
Red Ranger, it's not really an axe to grind. As I said, the overwhelming majority of Trek never shows this communist hyper-utopia. It ONLY really exists in the first two seasons of TNG, and that was a direct result of Gene Roddenberry himself. If people WANT to see Star Trek in a 'communist manifesto' light, it's very easy to point to those two years.
Outside of that, I really don't see Trek going far off the typical national mood, or at least the 'safe' zone that Hollywood distills for television. So, a little to the right at times, a little to the left. For me, personally, TOS (with the approach of tackling a problem with three points of view all the time) really struck the best balance overall.
Outside of that, I really don't see Trek going far off the typical national mood, or at least the 'safe' zone that Hollywood distills for television. So, a little to the right at times, a little to the left. For me, personally, TOS (with the approach of tackling a problem with three points of view all the time) really struck the best balance overall.
I see Star Trek as more "Idealist" than political. Of course that doesn't stop those of a liberal persuasion from hijacking it as their own...
But I think that's the appeal of Star Trek -- we all have to one degree or another an idealistic streak (and that regardless of political affiliation, BTW). I think we'd all like to live in a world like Roddenberry's 23rd and beyond centuries...
But I think that's the appeal of Star Trek -- we all have to one degree or another an idealistic streak (and that regardless of political affiliation, BTW). I think we'd all like to live in a world like Roddenberry's 23rd and beyond centuries...
Similar threads
