this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
73 points (96.2% liked)

Star Trek Social Club

10682 readers
293 users here now

r/startrek: The Next Generation

Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...

Maybe a little slash fic.


New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?


Rules

1 Be constructiveAll posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.


2 Be welcomingIt is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.


3 Be truthfulAll posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.


4 Be niceIf a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.


5 SpoilersUtilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episode. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.


6 Keep on-topicAll busmittions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books, etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/Quarks.


7 MetaQuestions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.


Upcoming Episodes

Date Episode Title
11-28 LD 5x07 "Fully Dilated"
12-05 LD 5x08 "Upper Decks"
12-12 LD 5x09 "Fissure Quest"
12-19 LD 5x10 "The New Next Generation"
01-24 Film "Section 31"

Episode Discussion Archive


In Production

Strange New Worlds (TBA)

Section 31 (2025-01-24)

Starfleet Academy (TBA)


In Development

Untitled theatrical film

Untitled comedy series


Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.

Allied Discord Server


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In case you don't know, they explicitly use the term socialist to describe the Federation economy in SNW. I was wondering if ppl liked or hated it? I like it personally since it's not a dodge like "new world economy"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (4 children)

It's not really socialist. Socialism is an economic model that involves taxing the rich and redistribution of wealth to the working class through welfare programs.

But in ST, there is no economy, no taxes, no rich people, no wealth, no working class. The only thing from that definition that they do have is welfare, but it's a completely different form of it.

ST is a magical post-scarcity utopia. Any economist would tell you that economics is first and foremost the study of how to allocate scarce resources. In a post-scarcity society, the whole concept of economics breaks down. Replicators break everything we know about economics. Everyone can get everything they need and it costs them nothing but electricity (which they conveniently can generate for basically no cost).

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I thought socialism was social ownership, not welfare programs that exist under capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (3 children)

You're right.

There's a bad habit of calling socialists the countries that should be called something like"capitalist but a bit to the left"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Also countries that probably started out socialist but took a sharp turn into authoritarianism and under-the-hood oligarchy... You know who you are.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Well I'm not a Marxist Leninist or anything like that, and neither is Star Trek ever promoting anything like that

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Hi.

That's called "socialdemocracy" and it's been around for centuries. It's actually older than the marxist concept of socialism, if you're gonna get pedantic about it.

I get that Americans have completely sandblasted off any remaining meaning in the word "socialism", first by having conservatives use it as an insult and then by having weird US lefties get all purity test about it, but most of the world has a pretty clear picture of socialdemocracy, it's not that ambiguous. Most socialdemocrat parties across the planet are called some version of "Socialist Party", "Labour Party" or "Worker's Party". It's a thing.

So no, it's not a bad habit. It's just... what that's called. It does get easy to mix up with the Marxist concept of socialism, which is likely why most marxist parties advocating for a socialist society are called "Communist Party" instead. The bad habit is to not challenge the fundamentally conservative, deliberate confusion between the two that any range of neoliberals and protofascists continue to use to pretend milquetoast socialdemocratic policy is some form of revolutionary action.

Man, US politics are so weird.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

Socialism isn't a binary yes/no thing. It's an economic ideology that can be realized in many different ways

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Social ownership of what? Resources? Means of production? Neither of those means anything when replicators are a thing.

There are a million different definitions of socialism depending on who you ask. I gave one above but I'm not claiming it's the only one. However it is ultimately an economic model, and it doesn't make sense to apply it in a world where economics is meaningless because the laws of thermodynamics have been broken.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Resources and means of production are both things in the Federation. We see mining operations and manufacturing facilities well into the 24th century.

And with only one unfortunate exception that I can think of, matter replication is treated as a net energy loss - it isn't free.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And with only one unfortunate exception that I can think of, matter replication is treated as a net energy loss - it isn't free.

Well sure, it's energy negative, but they also have basically free energy. We see in Voyager that as soon as they are cut off from that free energy, they regress to a market-based economy by like the third episode of the show. Doesn't seem very socialist to me.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

as they are cut off from that free energy

They were "cut off" because they no longer had access to the supply lines that provided them with fuel. That's not "free energy" at all.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that's my point. As soon as they no longer had access to the magical impossible logistics network of virtually free energy, they immediately regressed to capitalism with a side order of martial law.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't think what they were doing in the Delta Quadrant would meet many (good) definitions of "capitalism."

And it's difficult to say how "martial law" could be imposed on a command structure that was already militaristic.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

They use replicator rations as currency and exchange them for goods and services. In a world that frequently says that society has progressed beyond the need for money. As soon as things become scarce they start using a market again. Thus, the lack of scarcity in the Federation precludes the concept of an economy at all.

And yeah Starfleet ships are always militaristic, but people can choose to leave if that's still an option. I believe this was why RDM left the writing team, but it never seemed right that Janeway just appointed herself dictator when this ship was potentially in for a multi-generation journey. BSG handled that sort of thing much better.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Then explain what the Orion syndicate does for a living. Or how can ferengi pursue profit. Or how captains owned private transport ships and need to take things from one place to the other.

There's always people who want more than they have, and know who's going to provide them that.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Neither the Orion Syndicate nor the Ferengi Alliance are members of the Federation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

True for most of the franchise, but the ferengi are eventually. Also, I’m not sure if the federation prevents member worlds from continuing to have their own internal economies that could be market based. My guess is that they don’t and the ferengi will continue to use money for a long time.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Because the writers recognized that too many story tropes would be entirely unreasonable in a post scarcity world and so wrote in a bunch of stuff that really makes no sense if you think about it too hard. Like why would someone pay for a drink at Quark's when every residence on DS9 has a replicator? Because the writers wanted DS9 to be a frontier town and a frontier town needs a saloon.

Also to be clear, everything I was saying in my above comments was primarily in relation to the Federation. I recognize there are parts of the galaxy where replicators are not common.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Like why would someone pay for a drink at Quark's when every residence on DS9 has a replicator?

Because the scarce resource at Quark's isn't the food or drinks, it's the atmosphere and the experience, i.e things the replicator cannot provide. Quark controls the holodecks too, but even if he didn't the scarce resource would be authentic (not replicated) food and experiences. It's been shown pretty regularly on the shows that some people prefer non-replicated food, non-synthohol drinks, and real people. It doesn't really matter in that context if those are technically indistinguishable from the real thing (but even in canon there is a measureable difference between them and some things the replicators can't do).

I don't really believe there could ever be a post-scarcity world in which we don't create new scarcities to demand.

Hot take: The Expanse (mostly referring to the books here) handled a post-scarcity technocracy much more believably.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Again, the Ferengi are a bad example since they aren't part of the federation. But my point was simply that this stuff wasn't thought through. Why do the Ferengi exist? Because the writers wanted some capitalists to use as a contrast to the Federation.

I firmly believe that ST's worldbuilding mostly handwaves the questions of economics and scarcity, at least within the Federation. The writers didn't want to come up with good reasons for these things that actually make sense when you think about them.

It's a great franchise, but we shouldn't try to apply real-world economic ideas to it when that was so clearly not at the front of the writers minds when they created it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What you described is just welfare, not socialism. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, meaning there would be no need to re-distribute wealth as it would be fairly distributed from the start.

What you're thinking of is more along the lines of what Scandinavian countries have, which is just capitalism with social democracy and extensive welfare programs.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Socialism isn't a binary thing. It is an ideology that can be worked toward with various different degrees and measures.

But also I clarified further down this thread that my intent is not to give a definition of socialism, but rather to say that no definition of socialism makes sense in the context of ST's federation and the magical impossible technology they possess.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It bugs me that you're being downvoted because you're correct that modern descriptors don't apply.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Yeah I'm not out here saying socialism is bad. I consider myself quite left of center. But it's like... they have literal magic. The words we use to describe different ways of allocating resources do not apply to them. They don't have an economy. An economy is a system of logistics and trade for moving scarce things to the people who want those things. Everyone and their dog has a transporter and a replicator. Logistics and resource allocation are irrelevant. Why would anyone trade anything for anything else if they have infinite everything?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You're all true until allocating scarce resources. These days economy is how to make scarce something that isn't in order to profit from it. See copyrights and patents. In our society a replicator would be the property of a company and you would need to pay it to be allowed to use it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah that's the cynical and IMO more realistic take. I'm mostly just taking the world presented in the show at face value. It's not realistic at all.

But even then, it wouldn't be the replicators that are scarce, it would be the software. Because in theory if someone is charging you to use their replicator, you could just pay to print out the parts for your own replicator, and then replicate yourself ten more replicators. What would prevent this? Proprietary software.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Exactly. In some way the software is a lock that ensure the property of the machine stays to the company that built it.