What is civlian life like in the Federation?

[Sindatur]

See, I never took, "we have no need for money" to mean there wasn't some kind of "Acquisition Economy" A Fifty story Apt. building, is still going to have a Penthouse Suite(s), and that is going to be occupied by an Ambassador or an Artist (etc....), not a dishwasher or Ensign. The best Beach Front Property is going to go to The famous Brain Surgeon or Sports Star, not the "Walmart Greeter"

Everyone will get what they need to survive, but, the "Cream of The Crop" is still going to get the best that others only dream of. An Ambassador, An Admiral, The artist who's all the Rage, or even A Captain or Administrator, will never be given the Apt next to the Lobby and Joe Average in a Service Job will never get the Penthouse Suite.

 

[bbjeg]

^Star Trek Communist.

When I first started watching Trek, I assumed humans eliminated poverty but still traded or used some type of currency (if necessary).

Then came that scene in DS9 and later Picard saying money didn't exist in the 24th. not to mention the replicators.

Isn't it ironic that when they finally do say something about earth's economy, it's so half vague and half weird that it ends up throwing the whole concept into confusion?

There's no money on 24th century earth. But people run businesses.

So now honestly, afterwards I had to assume that when Sisko serves his customers he either 'pretended' to accept money or he just doesn't.

So the scenerio might be like, 'Hi, welcome to our restaurant, here's your menu, here's your seat.

Have you tried our seared scallops that we spent 5 hours painstakingly picking out of the water?

[After eating 3 servings, the customer simply but politely gets up and leaves]

"Ok thank you for eating at Sisko's, please come again."


I mean, it's not a judgement, it's real interesting. But everything is left so vague you can't help but to imagine this scenario.

It could be just like that. Maybe there's a tip jar for holodeck rations and he charges off-worlders in their currency to be used on their planet some day but Sisko just loves cooking and he's sharing his love with his customers.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If I remember correctly, one of Shatner's novels poked fun at the TNG economy. Kirk would ask Spock to explain "one more time" to him why he couldn't just walk into a better San Francisco apartment and claim it as his own, or into a Starfleet shipyard and take a new vessel. Spock would start with something like, "It's quite simple..." and then get interrupted.

 

[BMariner]

Everyone will get what they need to survive, but, the "Cream of The Crop" is still going to get the best that others only dream of. An Ambassador, An Admiral, The artist who's all the Rage, or even A Captain or Administrator, will never be given the Apt next to the Lobby and Joe Average in a Service Job will never get the Penthouse Suite.

So a stratified class system still exists AND an over-arching government Leviathan picking the winners and deciding what we need. Gee, sounds like a freaking awesome future.

 

[sonak]

Deanna in FC said "Poverty, disease, war, they will all be gone within the next fifty years." The combination of Cochrane's warp drive, interstellar exploration, and the arrival of the Vulcans united Humanity.
　
But not a word of a new economic system, or the adoption of a universal lifestyle.

One couldn't eliminate poverty, disease and war without a new economic system.

why not? I'm not saying that it's likely those things would be eliminated(disease certainly isn't gone from Trek's future, nor is war, even if inter-Human war is) but in a post-scarcity, techno-utopian future why would it be necessary to change economic systems to eliminate poverty? You'd just need to be able to get everyone a replicator to have access to the basics.

 

[T'Girl]

If I remember correctly, one of Shatner's novels poked fun at the TNG economy. Kirk would ask Spock to explain "one more time" to him why he couldn't just walk into a better San Francisco apartment and claim it as his own, or into a Starfleet shipyard and take a new vessel. Spock would start with something like, "It's quite simple..." and then get interrupted.

According to writer Ron Moore the writers did ask Roddenberry about it on several occasions. Roddenberry simple couldn't explain it. Moore thought it was because Roddenberry himself could not personally conceive of how it would be structured.

Moore in a interview said: "So none of us could understand what that mean or how that society functioned. It all seemed very vague. None of the writers took it seriously. We all kind of laughed about it and joked about it."

The writers of the show lived in a society with a market economy, this is why (despite Roddenberry's wishes) money and monetary reference keep making their way into the episodes.

It's how for example a Federation member got a major bank. And Quark was able to sell his shuttle in Earth's system for scrap. And how corporations within the Federation were able to own entire planets.

 

[sonak]

If I remember correctly, one of Shatner's novels poked fun at the TNG economy. Kirk would ask Spock to explain "one more time" to him why he couldn't just walk into a better San Francisco apartment and claim it as his own, or into a Starfleet shipyard and take a new vessel. Spock would start with something like, "It's quite simple..." and then get interrupted.

that's a stupid way of "poking fun." Even hard-core socialists respect personal property that's actively being used for something and by someone. That's like saying "in a socialist society I could just take your car from you while you're asleep!" That's a complete straw-man argument that doesn't understand anything about what the criticisms about democracy and capitalism's contradictions are.

 

[BMariner]

that's a stupid way of "poking fun."

I think it's an awesome way of poking fun.

Even hard-core socialists respect personal property that's actively being used for something and by someone.

You just keep telling yourself that.

 

[sonak]

that's a stupid way of "poking fun."

I think it's an awesome way of poking fun.

Even hard-core socialists respect personal property that's actively being used for something and by someone.

You just keep telling yourself that.

I will, because it's the truth, and something that one could find out by researching the subject for about five minutes.


I'm no socialist but I don't support making absurd criticisms of it that play to tired clichés.

 

[PhoenixClass]

why not? I'm not saying that it's likely those things would be eliminated(disease certainly isn't gone from Trek's future, nor is war, even if inter-Human war is) but in a post-scarcity, techno-utopian future why would it be necessary to change economic systems to eliminate poverty? You'd just need to be able to get everyone a replicator to have access to the basics.

A post-scarcity system IS a different system from the one we have now.

Furthermore, the economic systems that are dominant now, namely capitalism, especially of the neo-liberal variety, clearly has not eliminated those things. Indeed, in some ways, it encourages them.

 

[T'Girl]

That's like saying "in a socialist society I could just take your car from you while you're asleep!"

So if I owned let's say a newspaper business, you (hypothetically) the socialist government could not simply nationalize that newspaper, and use it to spread the governments version of the "truth?"

For the "good" of the people of course.

I wouldn't even have to be asleep when you did it..

 

[PhoenixClass]

I think people are not having the same conversation here. Clearly, there are different manifestations of socialism, and not all of them fit into the assumptions that people are making in this thread.

 

[BMariner]

I will, because it's the truth, and something that one could find out by researching the subject for about five minutes.

Graduated with a poli sci major, thank you very much. Obviously you were not a Cypriot with a bank account about a year ago.

Phoenix class is correct in that there are different manifestations of socialism. I would call it different degrees of socialism-- different points along the same spectrum. One can lead to another really, really fast.

T'Girl also has an excellent point. More examples of that under the various degrees of socialism than I could possibly list here.

I think American pop culture, including Trek, is so quick and eager to praise socialistic societies, yet leaves the darker sides of that economic system completely unexplored. You want to brag about your tech socialism? Fine, but give me an episode or two where we delve into its darker sides too. Sci Fi should have no sacred cows.

 

[PhoenixClass]

I will, because it's the truth, and something that one could find out by researching the subject for about five minutes.

Graduated with a poli sci major, thank you very much. Obviously you were not a Cypriot with a bank account about a year ago.

Phoenix class is correct in that there are different manifestations of socialism. I would call it different degrees of socialism-- different points along the same spectrum. One can lead to another really, really fast.

T'Girl also has an excellent point. More examples of that under the various degrees of socialism than I could possibly list here.

I think American pop culture, including Trek, is so quick and eager to praise socialistic societies, yet leaves the darker sides of that economic system completely unexplored. You want to brag about your tech socialism? Fine, but give me an episode or two where we delve into its darker sides too. Sci Fi should have no sacred cows.

The seizure of Cypriot bank deposits had to do with bailing out the country's lenders. It was not based on socialist ideology. Remember, when countries are in bail out situations, the bail out benefits the lenders, ie the banks, not the country. In other words, bailouts benefit the capitalist.

As for one form leading to the other: you're conflating the manifestations/degrees again. Even on a spectrum, there are still distinct differences so you should not imply that "oh, it's a spectrum, so really they are all the same."

Anyway, to try to bring this back to the original question before a moderator forces us to: civilian life in the Federation is the easy life, based on everything we have been shown. There is much we have not been shown, and each viewer can fill those parts in with their own imagination. As shown by this thread, we each bring our own perspective to the show so we fill in the voids differently. We just have to be consistent with what we have been shown.

As for not showing the dark side of socialism: I don't think it's a matter of sacred cows. Indeed, why would they show that, when the society that is envisioned simply does not have the types of disadvantages you are implying? They fixed those types of problems, that's the whole point of the show: That people over came materialistic and superficial differences.

Besides, there is virtually an infinite amount of stories one could tell in Star Trek. The writers simply couldn't show everything about the society. They had to make choices about what stories to tell. Also, in fairness, the economy envisioned by Roddenberry was difficult to figure out. I think it's reasonable for the writers to try to work around it.

 

[sonak]

That's like saying "in a socialist society I could just take your car from you while you're asleep!"

So if I owned let's say a newspaper business, you (hypothetically) the socialist government could not simply nationalize that newspaper, and use it to spread the governments version of the "truth?"

For the "good" of the people of course.

I wouldn't even have to be asleep when you did it..

I will, because it's the truth, and something that one could find out by researching the subject for about five minutes.

Graduated with a poli sci major, thank you very much. Obviously you were not a Cypriot with a bank account about a year ago.

Phoenix class is correct in that there are different manifestations of socialism. I would call it different degrees of socialism-- different points along the same spectrum. One can lead to another really, really fast.

T'Girl also has an excellent point. More examples of that under the various degrees of socialism than I could possibly list here.

I think American pop culture, including Trek, is so quick and eager to praise socialistic societies, yet leaves the darker sides of that economic system completely unexplored. You want to brag about your tech socialism? Fine, but give me an episode or two where we delve into its darker sides too. Sci Fi should have no sacred cows.

A newspaper BUSINESS is nothing like a car. a car is like clothing or a book collection(or an apartment)-it is a non-socialized example of PERSONAL PROPERTY as opposed to socialized production(such as a business.)


To B'Mariner-congrats on the degree, but I wouldn't make the assumption that others you're dealing with don't have either an equivalent or higher level of formal education than you. It's also not a trump card in an argument. Yes there are different degrees of socialism, but the non-straw man form of democratic socialism distinguishes between personal property and other forms and respects the former.

I certainly agree that there are many criticisms of utopian socialism that could have been presented in Trek, but "what's to stop me from taking that guy's apartment when he's gone?" is NOT a serious criticism.


The answer is that it would be THEFT of course, just like it would be in a capitalist society.

 

[Nightdiamond]

As it was noted before, whenever a character briefly discusses money use, and is pressed for more details, that character always back off.

And the fans are left wondering what exactly is going on here.

It does make sense that in a post scarcity society, (where all goods and needs are easily supplied) money is no longer needed, and people will work to build character and to be busy.

But seriously, in the 24th century, do people really work as butlers and maids, deal with difficult people, being talked down to and at the end of the day expect no compensation at all?

Case in point- Mr Homn, that alien character that served as Lwaxana's Troi's butler.

"If you're my mother's valet, then please valet!!"

"Put that down, Homn." "Come along, Homn."

I think most Trek (especially human) characters would be annoyed or offended being talked to that way.

--- if someone asked Picard, Janeway, Sisko, Kira if they wanted a job as a butler, what does anyone think their reaction would be?

I just don't think they would be smiling and eager at the idea.

But if this is a post scarcity society where people chose to work at the jobs they're doing--and the concept of elitism does not exist in human society-- why be offended at the idea.

Lots of unanswered questions.

 

[bbjeg]

That's like saying "in a socialist society I could just take your car from you while you're asleep!"

So if I owned let's say a newspaper business, you (hypothetically) the socialist government could not simply nationalize that newspaper, and use it to spread the governments version of the "truth?"

For the "good" of the people of course.

I wouldn't even have to be asleep when you did it..

People are failing to realize how much easier it is to rebuild an ideal society when the majority of earth's population died after world war 3. The privatized industry could just be obsolete when the needs of the populous out way the want of an individual.

 

[T'Girl]

[People are failing to realize how much easier it is to rebuild an ideal society when the majority of earth's population died after world war 3.

The total dead from the third world war, when all was said and done, was less than seven percent of the Earth's population.

The vast majority of Humanity survived the war and it's aftermath.

 

[Clark Terrell]

People are failing to realize how much easier it is to rebuild an ideal society when the majority of earth's population died after world war 3. The privatized industry could just be obsolete when the needs of the populous out way the want of an individual.

Since when is six hundred million a majority?

The total dead from the third world war, when all was said and done, was less than seven percent of the Earth's population.

The vast majority of Humanity survived the war and it's aftermath.

Correct.

 

[Shik]

[People are failing to realize how much easier it is to rebuild an ideal society when the majority of earth's population died after world war 3.

The total dead from the third world war, when all was said and done, was less than seven percent of the Earth's population.

The vast majority of Humanity survived the war and it's aftermath.

How does one compile dead, though? Were those 37 (or 600) million dead as a direct result? What about later radiation-related deaths? Famine/starvation deaths? Deaths caused by violence due to the collapse of social structures? (Warday is a very good example of tall of this, if anyone cares to read it.)

As far as why people don't take things that not theirs or just sit around & do nothing....it's because they don't think that way. It's a totally different cultural foundation. There's also...look, how many of you have spent large amounts of time idled? I don't mean a couple of weeks or even a month or 2; I'm talking several months or even years. Yeah, it's cool for a little bit...& then you feel adrift, untethered; we NEED things to do, to give us a purpose. Because we have a system that requires us to work for a symbol & then exchange that symbol for food, we fill that need with "a job". But when you no longer have that need, you fill the space with a work that you would much rather be doing, or that you see needs to be done because it's a need for the community. Why would someone be a valet or butler? Well, why would anyone enter "service" in the past? Some people are really good at it.

We fail to see the benefits or the drives of a culture that is so different from our own. It just doesn't parse for us unless you uncouple your mindset from what we have now. As a related example, go trying to explain a tesseract/hypercube to someone. See how far you get.