Is Star Trek Communist?

[The Castellan]

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, because there is no money it is a hard subject, 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.

I'd have to say that I myself would, out of choosing the Federation or our world, I'd chose the Federation, without question. I do see individual rights still maintaned. My only gripe would be the Prime Directive....since letting pre warp civilization be drestoryed or conquered, just to avoid 'social contamination' is like 2001's ( and NASA's ) keep hugh hush on monolith ( or in NASA's case with Brookings, EVERYTHING ) to keep humanity in ignorent bliss is just wrong to me.

Now I can picture a world without money ( I think Pythagorius made a small society like that.), I bet the 3rd world war mentioned in FC was mostly about wealth, I think. And seeing how money can actually hold back advancements...like getting away from the oil trap, actually making and using a cure for cancer and other diseases, etc, all for the name of profit...I can see why money would be shunned upon one day. Though I always been different from most people I know, so it might just be me who feels this way. And seeing as how the Federation was founded by many aliens, not just humans, I can imagine many alien ways of thinking making their way into human thinking....even though some bad apples....like that one admiral dude in Insurrection was a greedy douche', will probably still be around.

I'm curious how humanity in Trek were able to escape the oil and pharmacudical trap, and would like to maybe read a novel telling how we finally told the oil and drug companies what they can go do with themselves.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Is that time of the month again?

That's what I thought too.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I'd have a hard time suggesting that anything like Communism and Capitalism will exist in the future, and I'm not sure whether they existed in a recognizable form in the more distant past either. Capitalism wasn't defined in the modern sense until Adam Smith in the 18th century, and Marx' manifesto didn't exist in any form until the 19th century.

Each system was based around the idea of how best to move about scarce goods, which implies movement of goods is possible and that there isn't an infinite supply of said goods. Break either one of them and you aren't either Communist or Capitalist. If you're a susistance farmer or a hunter gatherer, you can't practice capitalism -- you don't trade anything. But the same is true when you have an infinate supply of some good. In the universe, considering the number of sources of radiant energy out there, energy isn't limited in the least. It's not really tradeable because its available everywhere. It wouldn't be "Communist" to give every citizen access to the energy -- it would be like saying America is Communist because we provide water to homes and don't charge to breathe the air. Not true -- it's simply that the products are so common as to lack value.

Now touching Trek -- Show me a limited supply of a good. The only things I can come up with top of mind are entertainment, non replicated food, and gold pressed latinum. It seems that these items are bought and sold in the more traditionally capitalist way. You BUY a drink at Quarks, or time in the holosuite, or go to a resuarant and BUY real foods. The stuff that seems more Communist seem to be the abundant things -- replicated things, information, etc.

So my vote goes to Capitalist, though probably more like Scandinavia rather than the United States.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

I'd have a hard time suggesting that anything like Communism and Capitalism will exist in the future, and I'm not sure whether they existed in a recognizable form in the more distant past either. Capitalism wasn't defined in the modern sense until Adam Smith in the 18th century, and Marx' manifesto didn't exist in any form until the 19th century.

Each system was based around the idea of how best to move about scarce goods, which implies movement of goods is possible and that there isn't an infinite supply of said goods. Break either one of them and you aren't either Communist or Capitalist. If you're a susistance farmer or a hunter gatherer, you can't practice capitalism -- you don't trade anything. But the same is true when you have an infinate supply of some good. In the universe, considering the number of sources of radiant energy out there, energy isn't limited in the least. It's not really tradeable because its available everywhere. It wouldn't be "Communist" to give every citizen access to the energy -- it would be like saying America is Communist because we provide water to homes and don't charge to breathe the air. Not true -- it's simply that the products are so common as to lack value.

Now touching Trek -- Show me a limited supply of a good. The only things I can come up with top of mind are entertainment, non replicated food, and gold pressed latinum. It seems that these items are bought and sold in the more traditionally capitalist way. You BUY a drink at Quarks, or time in the holosuite, or go to a resuarant and BUY real foods. The stuff that seems more Communist seem to be the abundant things -- replicated things, information, etc.

So my vote goes to Capitalist, though probably more like Scandinavia rather than the United States.

You make some good points, if technology and society in the future are at a level where feeding its several billion inhabitants becomes effortless than communism and capitalism become mute points, if everyone has a roof over their head, and everyone is healthy and educated than todays social problems would be seemingly barbaric and savage by Star Trek's standards.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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...

Who? Liberals like Gene Roddenberry?

 

[Sci]

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...

I don't think it's reasonable to accuse liberals of "hijacking" Star Trek. Star Trek has always reflected the political beliefs of American Liberalism -- from the very beginning, it included ethnic minority characters who were treated (in theory, at least) as equals (which was a distinguishing characteristic of American Liberalism at the time), and reflected Roddenberry's Liberal beliefs in numerous ways, from its insistence that the state does not have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of foreign cultures (a very anti-imperialist stance that, especially in the Vietnam era, would have registered as a very capital-L Liberal belief), its skepticism of organized religion as expressed through numerous allegories where Kirk talks the god-machines into killing themselves, its skepticism of the idea that the Cold War was always a just conflict (Gary Seven thwarting U.S. efforts to weaponize space), its referring to American ideas of capitalism as barbarous in TNG, its embrace of multiculturalism (IDIC), its positive depiction of diplomacy and international cooperation (the Federation clearly draws inspiration both from the U.S. and the U.N., diplomacy is ways depicted as better than war)....

Let's face it: Star Trek has always had an American Liberal political ideology.

 

[CaptainStoner]

Now, let's all sing "We are the World", a one - anda two...

 

[BenRoethig]

Think of it as post limited resources, sort of a post-capitalism. It recognizes the rights to property and freedom to choose your own destiny. Communism gives you neither.

 

[Vance]

Let's face it: Star Trek has always had an American Liberal political ideology.

Like the explicit reference to Jesus...
Like the explicit mocking and pity upon hippies...
Like the explicit reference to Christianity...
Like the explicit reference to the need for 'Balance of Power'...
Like the explicit defense of the Vietnam conflict...
Like the explicit demonization of leftist ideology...
Like the explicit portrayal of racial politics...
Like portraying a military organization in a favorable light...

Nice try. You lose.

 

[Sci]

Let's face it: Star Trek has always had an American Liberal political ideology.

Like the explicit reference to Jesus...
Like the explicit mocking and pity upon hippies...
Like the explicit reference to Christianity...

You have an unrealistic idea of what American Liberalism constitutes if you think that it's incompatible with respect for Jesus or disrespect for the hippie movement. American Liberalism encompasses a lot of different opinions on those topics.

Like the explicit reference to the need for 'Balance of Power'...

A concept that is only opposed in some variants of American Liberalism.

Like the explicit defense of the Vietnam conflict...

A war started by two American Liberals (JFK and LBJ).

Like the explicit demonization of leftist ideology...
Like the explicit portrayal of racial politics...

I have no idea what you mean here.

Like portraying a military organization in a favorable light...

What on Earth makes you think that American Liberalism views the Armed Forces in an unfavorable light?

You have a fundamentally unrealistic, unnuanced understanding of American Liberalism and of the various conflicting branches it contains.

 

[Vance]

Sci, I'm not going to debate this any farther than you here. It's clear that your own personal politics and identity politics is in play here, and that there's nowhere at this point that this can go that won't just be yet another flamewar with you.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I guess you could make the argument for some socialist leanings, but I don't think it was ever a hidden agenda in any of the Trek shows or films.

I swear I've heard/read this argument before.

 

[Zeppster]

Star Trek specifically in the TNG era is a idealistic communism. Not the communism that just never works because it has evil dictators and leaders.

 

[BenRoethig]

Star Trek specifically in the TNG era is a idealistic communism. Not the communism that just never works because it has evil dictators and leaders.

They're a product of the system. Communism requires everyone to be happy and give their all for basically no incentives. There was saying in Russia "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." They had no real reason to do anything beyond the bare minimum. Society can't function that way. You really have only two incentives hope and fear. If you're economic philosophy excludes the hope for a better life, the only way you can maintain order is with a gun.

 

[Zeppster]

Star Trek specifically in the TNG era is a idealistic communism. Not the communism that just never works because it has evil dictators and leaders.

They're a product of the system. Communism requires everyone to be happy and give their all for basically no incentives. There was saying in Russia "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." They had no real reason to do anything beyond the bare minimum. Society can't function that way. You really have only two incentives hope and fear. If you're economic philosophy excludes the hope for a better life, the only way you can maintain order is with a gun.

The Marxist type of communism which is idealistic and will just never happen. Just like true complete run away capitalism doesn't work. America has done a good job the last couple of hundred years of having a balance between the two, probably better than anyone else ever has before. But that may be changing right now.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You have a fundamentally unrealistic, unnuanced understanding of American Liberalism and of the various conflicting branches it contains

He's confusing liberal with far left extremists. ( happens a lot)

 

[PhasersOnStun]

I swear I've heard/read this argument before.

Interestingly, one of the very first threads I ever started when I signed up here was one asking about Federation government, since the movies and TOS don't make it exceptionally clear. As a political junkie who could never really get much sense of the Federation as more than just an odd background institution, I enjoyed reading the takes of far more knowledgeable fellow Trekkies!

But then, I think it is precisely those vagaries that allow Star Trek to be enjoyed by tree-hugging pinko hippies and right-wing neo-nazis alike. Sure, if you dig you can find some "commie-like" elements in some Trek stories, but you can also find some "fascist-like" elements. It's fun (well, fun for me, because I don't get hot under the collar about such things ) to muse about it, but ultimately I don't think that Star Trek, as shown on screen, was designed to espouse any specific model of government, regardless of the political predispositions of any of the cast and crew.

 

[Sci]

Sci, I'm not going to debate this any farther than you here. It's clear that your own personal politics and identity politics is in play here, and that there's nowhere at this point that this can go that won't just be yet another flamewar with you.

If you didn't want a flame war, you should not have implied that American Liberals lack respect for Christianity, Jesus, and the Armed Forces. That's not accurately describing American Liberalism, that's just insulting half the population for no reason.

 

[CaptainStoner]

There are Utopian elements that opens Trek to that criticism, however, it's just too much of a stretch to try and graft a modern sense of "Communism" onto a post-scarcity, largely naturally peaceful society as Trek-era Earth.

It is interesting, however, in the sense that I believe it does boil down to one essential question: whether one believes if humanity is, in its natural state, essentially good and cooperative with itself, or warlike and brutal. Which is something covered and speculated about in Trek a lot. I don't see Trek being ascribed to any radicalism of any modern political spectrum, even with Roddenberry's well known humanism in the mix.
Humanity has both elements, the Utopian desire, and the Barbaric, genocidal conquorer, and the true genius in Trek is in balancing those elements, not having one destroy the other. Which is what we generally have: We come in peace, phasers on stun.
The problem manifesting in this thread is the mistaken notion that a Liberal Democrat in the US = a Communist. And conversely, a Conservative Republican = a Religious Fundamentalist. Neither of these popular distortions are true.