Funny you should say that, I recently introduced my girlfriend to DS9. She is very particular about enunciation in her televisual experiences and was very amused by many of the characters in the show discussing their doodies.
How would a society with no money work?
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
Funny you should say that, I recently introduced my girlfriend to DS9. She is very particular about enunciation in her televisual experiences and was very amused by many of the characters in the show discussing their doodies.
What's her opinion on Avery Brooks' tendency to wildly over-enunciate at random intervals?
People who advocate a no money system sometimes say that those who oppose one simply can't imagine how such a system would work. PicardSpeedo mentioned infrastructure, much of our modern day and historical infrastructure was built to serve the purposes of commerce and commercialism. A good example of this would the transportation network.
Another would be the internet, when the internet was in it's infancy it simply connected a relatively small numbers of sites, and debateably it would have stayed quite small if commerce and commercialism hadn't grab on to it and converted it into what we have today.
With no mass market in existence, where would hundreds of millions of holodecks/suites come from?
IIRC, the guy who invented the solaton wave was looking to make money off of his invention.
Last edited:
I agree with this, and it really stretches credibility to think that everyone on the planet suddenly got a charitable streak and decided to start building everything a super-futuristic society needs just to be nice.
Money is a human invention and isn't technically necessary for compensation. But Star Trek is basically a pseudo-communist future, and communism is the total negation of the need for compensation. I don't believe in communism myself (a totally stateless society) but I do believe that socialism can make money "obsolete". "Money" or currency isn't the logical conclusion of something, it's origins and current usage show otherwise.
Sorry to get all political, but that's my take.
Sorry to get all political, but that's my take.
I don't see enough evidense to support this idea, your mileage may vary.
I'm not sure its fair to call Star Trek a "communist" future. We're not talking about a dystopia here, and (as far as we're aware) the United Earth government doesn't mandate its philosophies on the public against their will (although admittedly, its hard to see from our limited 21st century perspective how their society could possibly function the way it does without that kind of strong-arming going on behind the scenes -- but I disgress 
).
But it certainly has tendencies towards Marxism, without any of the corrupting influences which later became communism as we tend to understand it today.
).But it certainly has tendencies towards Marxism, without any of the corrupting influences which later became communism as we tend to understand it today.
Well I'm getting it from this commie magazine which I read a lot:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/leonard-nimroy-spock-obituary-star-trek/
That and the Picard spiels against money and in favor of working for yourself and humanity, which is exactly what Karl Marx said 150 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
No socialist state has ever claimed to reach communism so we can't talk of "actually existing communism".
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/leonard-nimroy-spock-obituary-star-trek/
That and the Picard spiels against money and in favor of working for yourself and humanity, which is exactly what Karl Marx said 150 years ago.
Well, you're loaded with misconceptions. If anything, "Communism" is utopian, not dystopian. Communism is a totally stateless society where individualism reigns supreme due to total lack of coercion from the state and other actors. I don't think that's possible, but clearly Trek is a pseudo-communist future, which other socialists and communists and others have already said.I'm not sure its fair to call Star Trek a "communist" future. We're not talking about a dystopia here, and (as far as we're aware) the United Earth government doesn't mandate its philosophies on the public against their will (although admittedly, its hard to see from our limited 21st century perspective how their society could possibly function the way it does without that kind of strong-arming going on behind the scenes -- but I disgress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
No socialist state has ever claimed to reach communism so we can't talk of "actually existing communism".
Last edited:
individualism... ? or collectivism?
Well they don't negate one another, you don't have individual rights and freedoms without a collective defending them. But Communism is the total individualization of relations, quite literally it calls for "free association of individuals" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_%28communism_and_anarchism%29 This would be achieved via automation in a socialized framework. Again, Star Trek wrote this (at least the part about people working for themselves and humanity freely without compensation or coercion) without even knowing it :P
Again, don't think it's possible, but strawmanning communism as some totalitarian ideology of the state is just false. Also I don't like playing that game in any case given our current socio-political system is oppressive and extremely violent.
Again, don't think it's possible, but strawmanning communism as some totalitarian ideology of the state is just false. Also I don't like playing that game in any case given our current socio-political system is oppressive and extremely violent.
There is communism as a theory that exists solely in text books, and then there is communism that manifests itself in the actual world.
Which is real, and which the illusion?
In reality communism is just another form of totalitarianism, a method for a relatively small number of people to exercise a large degree of control over a population, without even the pretense of their consent.
The strict textbook form of communism doesn't fit in with what we've seen of the Trek universe. One example of this would be the existence of political states and governing bodies. The exact form of the Federation's governing body isn't all that clear, but it is clear that there is something, and some kind of democracy is in play.
We seen and heard of the Federation's Membership having their own governments. Ardana certainly did and it (imho) is a aristocracy. We hear direct mentions of Vulcan's government, so it does have one (again the form is unclear). In TNG Picard is seen to communicate with Federation Member's indigenous governments in some episodes.
Also, private corporations within the Federation directly own entire planets, in a strict communist system I believe this would be forbidden/impossible.
Robert Picard and Joseph Sisko both would seem to privately own their respective "means of production."
We've heard of people within the Federation being, or becoming, rich. This would suggest the existence of a wealth class.
At what stage does it get beamed out?
As soon as it hits the bowl? After it's flushed? Once it's congealed into a mass of excremental arse cake?
In any event, it would require plumbers (unless it's considered part of Geordi and the engineering departments remit). Once again, this would require that the plumbers do it because "it betters them"
I'd rather "better myself" as a licentious painter who travels numerous worlds, seducing alien women of various attractiveness (that's just me though)
Never having to say your sorry. No wait, that's love isn't it.
Well, no, that statement doesn't make sense. There's communism in theory, and then there's efforts to reach communism (socialism) in practice. You can't say "communism" is this if its never been achieved and doesn't purport to be this. Of course not all socialist experiments went this way and not all even had the goal of communism, but this is just a matter of accuracy of terms. Both "actually existing socialism" in the past and "actually existing capitalism" in the present are totalitarian and oppressive, yet this doesn't negate goals or change definitions, that's just not how language and political theory works.
I'm not a communist anyway. Though the Star Trek universe ironically is more unrealistic given it has FTL travel and universal translators and such but that's okay because it's fiction
I said pseudo-communist for a reason :P Also communism is total democracy.
Anyway, as Peter Frase said:
Star Trek is the most raging pinko fiction in popular culture, and it's why I like it.
There's no money in the Federation though, so I don't see how they can be rich and wealthy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOcKGREiY30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQQYbKT_rMg
No, that's being a parent.
If it's achieved by means of transporters then it by definition doesn't require plumbing, and therefore doesn't require plumbers....
There would have to be some crew members whose job it was to oversee the central reclamation/purification facility, which would likely be not all that unpleasant as long as the system was working properly. Those moments in which it isn't working properly would be the price you pay for all the other great experiences you can get out of serving on a starship.
I would imagine that, if it wasn't beamed directly out of the rectum (or rectum analogue, in the case of some species), that there would be a general collection device containing a dematerialization grid that would periodically sweep the excrement into a transporter buffer, and then relocate it to the "solid matter tank," much in the way that a replicator works.
Yep, and unless they're into self-flagration, I can't see a lot of people lining up to take jobs scraping the insides of a plumbing system designed to carry the excrement of hundreds of species to "better themselves."
This.
I'd better myself by just being a lecherous pervert smoking weed all day, but I don't need a futuristic utopian society for that I guess, except I have to deal with a job and school in this society and economy. Damn :P
At that level of technology you'd just automate crappy jobs like that. Hey, more communism in Trek...
Last edited:
At times throughout history, some were disgusted by the thought of indoor toilets and resisted them but now we take it for granted and accept them without much thought.
She seemed to think of him as one of the actors who could enunciate better than the others in fact.
Whilst I disagree with you on the possible of a money-free society, I agree that this kind of statement is unproductive at best. Unfortunately, it is very easy to slip in such patterns when someone starts to feel that a conversation is feeling more like a personal argument than in intellectual debate. (Also, don't take that as me accusing you of making it that, it's just very easy to feel like that when your personal opinions are being challenged... a continual bane to human communication).
Agreed, except I believe it is possible but not sure whether or not it would be within the time scales of the Star Trek universe (more to do with human disagreement than technology though).
I would think that too. Many tasks today are only performed by people because they are often cheaper to employ in the short term than to invest in the development and production of such things. Also, that it means greater levels of technological unemployment. If money and resources are not such a great issue in this time, then those would not be problems either. However....
...does anyone remember that Rom's first job for the engineering section in the Bajoran Militia was in “Waste Extraction”... this always felt to me like a polite reference to the sewage/plumbing.
Except when there is, which is the majority of the time.
As a Marxist and a socialist, I concede that in a socialist context, automation and productivity gains can and probably would eventually make money and compensation superfluous, I don't see how this would lead to a stateless society where no laws and rules would be necessary and no governing bodies of any kind and we'd all just be associated free individuals. It just seems too pie in the sky for me.
Agreed, we have the capacity now to automate all kinds of shitty jobs and lower the work week and increase wages (tying them to productivity gains for one), etc. So yeah, we don't disagree on much.
Better methods of compensation exist than money, which btw didn't originate due to convenience or efficiency which is a common misconception.
Except not, according to canon:
- When Lily Sloane asked how much the USS Enterprise-E cost to build, Picard tells her "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity." (Star Trek: First Contact)
- When Nog suggests that Jake should bid for a baseball card in an auction, Jake says "I'm Human, I don't have any money." Nog replies "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement." Jake says "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." Nog then replies "What does that mean?" Jake responds "It means we don't need money!" Nog quickly points out, however, that Jake wouldn't be able to bid or borrow. (DS9: "In the Cards")
Of course Star Trek contradicts itself, as any major franchise that has existed for decades has, but the canon clearly states its an economy that doesn't require currency. http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Money
"
Human society has evolved massively since they achieved warp capable flight in 2063 and first contact was made by the Vulcans. They are known to refer to Earth in the 24th Century as "paradise", and enjoy a longer average life span of 120 years. On Earth, war, disease, poverty, and famine have been completely abolished; the basic biological needs of every citizen are met without compensation. Humans therefore no longer strive to acquire wealth, and instead work to better themselves and their society. As such, there is no base form of currency." http://sto.gamepedia.com/Human
Again, basically communism :P
Years ago while driving I saw a crew of men working a broken sewage line, one man was down in a hole with his arms reaching down to fix something. His head was tilted back as far as it would go because the liquid Human waste in the hole was up to his earlobes. I hope he was making a whole lot of money.
If you look at a textbook definition of democracy, it doesn't exactly match what existing in the "real world." Does that mean that there a no countries that can accurately be referred to a democracies? Of course not, there are multiple democracies around the world today.
Has there ever been a country that perfectly matches a textbook description of a communist state? No, never. But the old soviet union was in fact a communist state. Just as democracy comes in slightly different forms and favors, so true with communism, for example marxism is one of the forms of communism.
Communism (the way it manifests itself in the real world) is totalitarianism.
Similar threads
