The political economy of Star Trek

[Psy]

I've been think about the political economy of the Federation in Star Trek, now on the surface they go on and on about being beyond money and providing for the needs of the people. Yet there is a little problem with the Federation's foreign policy more specifically the Prime Directive that basically states the Federation won't interfere with civilians its views as inferior with the dividing line being warp capabilities. Meaning the Federation is far from a Marxist body as the Federation is indifferent about inequality beyond its borders.

A good example is in Deep Space 9 where the Bajor was occupied by the Cardassias and did basically nothing, and when the Cardassians withdrew the Federation there was no flood of aid from the Federation to modernize Bajor, the Federation refused to give away any of its production to being equality to the weaker powers.

Anyone else have ideas on the political economy of Star Trek?

[Susurrus]

pzqW0YaN2ho

[Commissar Rykov]

I never took it to mean they don't want equality it was established to allow cultures and societies to evolve on their own without outside interference until they are ready to go into the stars.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

One thing that has always struck a false chord was that empires (like the Klingons) could have developed interstellar ships carrying hundreds of people at greater-than-light speeds. The surplus that would be necessary to produce such technology would almost surely have to be created by a socialist world. Of course, the show was often pretty silly. . . but I do like it.

[Psy]

I never took it to mean they don't want equality it was established to allow cultures and societies to evolve on their own without outside interference until they are ready to go into the stars.
The problem is the material reality of these societies, for example how is Bajor suppose to ever be equal to the Federation without the Federation modernizing Bajor? And what about Cardassia that resorted to brutal imperial to solve their material reality when the Federation could have solved it with slave camps on Bajor while bringing class consciousness to both Bajor and Cardassia.

I mean wouldn't a communist body even one that spans space want to spread its revolutionary ideals to other societies?

[Susurrus]

The problem is the material reality of these societies, for example how is Bajor suppose to ever be equal to the Federation without the Federation modernizing Bajor? And what about Cardassia that resorted to brutal imperial to solve their material reality when the Federation could have solved it with slave camps on Bajor while bringing class consciousness to both Bajor and Cardassia.

I mean wouldn't a communist body even one that spans space want to spread its revolutionary ideals to other societies?

So, what, they should impose revolution?

[Psy]

So, what, they should impose revolution?
Ideally but the Federation didn't even impose modern science and technology on civilization like Bajor, which have came in really handy in the Dominion war if Bajor had the means to be a industrial base for the Federation forces. The Federation just sat back while Bajor tried to rebuild its agricultural industry instead of modernizing their farming production processes so they can move onto the rapid industrialization of their planet.

[Rafiq]

Oh christ

Firstly there's no such thing as a "Marxist structure". Being that Marxism isn't a framework of how society should run.

Secondly the message is quite clear: That this society in which "money" is abolished can only exist "when we are beyond money", i.e. When we are as advanced as the star trek federation, which we are not. Therefore it tells us that the abolition of money, markets, etc. Is unnatainable and "far fetched".

Basically taking the stance that we have to reach a Utopian point of postgreed or posthumannature(which we know will never occur) in order to abolish the present state of things.

Why not ask a more dynamic question: Why is it necessary to be "beyond money"(beyond economic imperfection) in order to abolish money?

A real anticommunist would make a hypothetical fictional, adcanced society 100% communist, because this gives us a vision of how unnattainable it is.

[OHumanista]

I think it's mostly based on highly idealistic social democrat thinking. (which is not really bad in fiction, it's just that it doesn't works IRL)
In any case I don't like overalalising fiction works that aren't specifically focused on politics. But if I am to comment then...
One can't impose a revolution so I disagree with that. But I do think the Federation should have helped even if in a distant way in the particular case of Bajor.

BTW we are nerds:D

[Psy]

Oh christ

Firstly there's no such thing as a "Marxist structure". Being that Marxism isn't a framework of how society should run.

Yet Marxism is a framework to view class thus a Marxist body would be a aware of material conditions of early civilians and could use that to bring equality to these civilians.


I think it's mostly based on highly idealistic social democrat thinking. (which is not really bad in fiction, it's just that it doesn't works IRL)

Yet one where the idealistic democratic body foreign policy is mostly isolationists.



In any case I don't like overalalising fiction works that aren't specifically focused on politics. But if I am to comment then...
One can't impose a revolution so I disagree with that. But I do think the Federation should have helped even if in a distant way in the particular case of Bajor.

The Federation is supposedly sitting on super abundance so it had the means to engage in economic warfare against the ruling class of Bajor till markets drowned from the flood of cheap products from the Federation. It is not so much as imposing a revolution but imposing the material conditions for a revolution onto a society.

[Rafiq]

Yet Marxism is a framework to view class thus a Marxist body would be a aware of material conditions of early civilians and could use that to bring equality to these civilians.


What the hell?

Marxism is an analysis of human history, specifically capitalism, and yes, class.

However there is no endgoal for "equality".

Marxism is not some kind of fucking theory to reach equality. A marxist (like most do/did) can come to the conclusion that the proletariat will dominate society and bring about something more efficient than capitalism, thus a society that has (I hate saying this shit) "more equal distribution" than what was before. But this is just a side effect of a bigger end goal.

Equal distribution is bollocks if what's being distributed evenly is smaller in quantity than what was distributed inequally.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Right. The goal is not equality -- the goal is to have more.

[Psy]

What the hell?

Marxism is an analysis of human history, specifically capitalism, and yes, class.

However there is no endgoal for "equality".

There is, else Marx wouldn't have challenged class relations to production.



Marxism is not some kind of fucking theory to reach equality. A marxist (like most do/did) can come to the conclusion that the proletariat will dominate society and bring about something more efficient than capitalism, thus a society that has (I hate saying this shit) "more equal distribution" than what was before. But this is just a side effect of a bigger end goal.

I'm talking equality in regard to class.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In Star Trek they seem to have side-stepped the class question by creating surplus through technological developments. They have replicators and so the only materials they seem to need are rare ones and energy sources. All consumable items are just created and so labor seems to be voluntary on the show. Hey, why the hell do they have a bar-tender?

In kind of a funny way, if this were somehow possible - to have post-capitalism without working class revolution - maybe we would be stuck with a lot of "much of ages" still like mini-skirt uniforms for women, lack of direct democracy, military hierarchy, etc.

I'd love if some geeky radical wrote an extra-geeky piece of fan fiction depicting Star Trek if there had been a worker's revolution. No hierarchy, no uniforms (no redshirts as murderous alien fodder), ship-wide decision-making, lack of bourgeois ideological concepts and moralism, etc.

[Rafiq]

There is, else Marx wouldn't have challenged class relations to production.


I'm talking equality in regard to class.

1. Are you fucking kidding me? Marx supported the proletariat because he discovered the internal systematic contradictions within capitalism before hand, (Marx never hated capitalism).

It was never about equality. Link me where Marx said his end goal and the end goal of communists was equality. Equality was a possible SIDE EFFECT.

2. That makes no sense.

[x359594]

The first Star Trek series of 1966-1969 was informed by Cold War liberal ideology with Romulus standing in for the Soviet Union and the Klingon standing in for the PRC. The United Federation of Planets was a sort of militarized United Nations under the domination of Earth (read the USA.)

[Psy]

1. Are you fucking kidding me? Marx supported the proletariat because he discovered the internal systematic contradictions within capitalism before hand, (Marx never hated capitalism).

It was never about equality. Link me where Marx said his end goal and the end goal of communists was equality. Equality was a possible SIDE EFFECT.

The Communist Manifesto.



2. That makes no sense.
The capitalist and the workers come to the production process not as equals, the point of Marxism is to remove this inequality in the production process.

[Rafiq]

The Communist Manifesto.

How absurd. No where in the Communist manifesto does it say the end goal of the communists is equality. Communist ideology has nothing to do with "Equality" as an endgoal, other wise it would constitute as Ideological populism, which it is not. Communism is an ideology that represents the interests of the proletariat. IT is not significant because of it's Ideology, it was significant because of the movement it became.

The goals of the communists is to abolish the present state of things. They are not opportunists in the sense that we wish to abolish the present state of things because we want equality, as equality is a possible side effect.

Link please.



The capitalist and the workers come to the production process not as equals, the point of Marxism is to remove this inequality in the production process.

Are you fucking kidding me? You may be an opportunist, but Marxism is not. Marxism is a science, and is an understanding of capitalism. Karl Marx studied capitalism without any political bias and spotted it's inherit systematic contradictions. He didn't say there was anything immoral about inequality in "The production process" (Fucking absurd!).

He opposed captialism for scientific reasons. I mean you are just talking out of your ass now.

Is the point of all the works darwin made to create a new, super human with wings that could fly? No! The point was to understand living organisms, and all other speculation as to what should happen came afterwords.

Marxism is not a solution. It does not have an endgoal or a specific manifesto.

[OHumanista]

The first Star Trek series of 1966-1969 was informed by Cold War liberal ideology with Romulus standing in for the Soviet Union and the Klingon standing in for the PRC. The United Federation of Planets was a sort of militarized United Nations under the domination of Earth (read the USA.)

Indeed though it changed quite a bit since inception.
In the end however it's still contradictory. You see a supposedly equal and bountiful society(characters often remark how the social problems of our century don't make any sense to them) and at the same time it still has a highly bureaucratic government (which you often see when they talk with government) and rigid military hierarchy (as seen on the ship to extent and even more in interactions with superiors from the fleet).

And I agree with Psy's reply to my post. Indeed the Federation is often apathetic. Which is also a contradiction.
But then again we have to remind ourselves this is a highly idealistic fictitous government.

[Quail]

I do like Star Trek. I think it's interesting in the way it tries to depict a positive future society where there is no more discrimination and they don't use currency. There are some pretty good episodes. For example, "The Cloud Minders" (TOS) shows a society where there are two classes of people, the miners/workers on the surface of the planet and the people who live in a city in the clouds who reap all the benefits of the society. There's also an episode of DS9 where Rom unionises Quark's bar and quotes, "Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains."

I think it's pretty unrealistic and there are loads of things wrong with the way the society functions, but I love the show. It's entertaining, if nothing else.

[Psy]

How absurd. No where in the Communist manifesto does it say the end goal of the communists is equality. Communist ideology has nothing to do with "Equality" as an endgoal, other wise it would constitute as Ideological populism, which it is not. Communism is an ideology that represents the interests of the proletariat. IT is not significant because of it's Ideology, it was significant because of the movement it became.

The goals of the communists is to abolish the present state of things. They are not opportunists in the sense that we wish to abolish the present state of things because we want equality, as equality is a possible side effect.

Link please.


Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations. -Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2).





Are you fucking kidding me? You may be an opportunist, but Marxism is not. Marxism is a science, and is an understanding of capitalism. Karl Marx studied capitalism without any political bias and spotted it's inherit systematic contradictions. He didn't say there was anything immoral about inequality in "The production process" (Fucking absurd!).

Yes he did, the alienation of labor, which can only exist if there is inequality in the production process.

[Psy]

And I agree with Psy's reply to my post. Indeed the Federation is often apathetic. Which is also a contradiction.
But then again we have to remind ourselves this is a highly idealistic fictitous government.
The problem is the Prime Directive basically makes apathy official foreign policy of the Federation.

Captain Picard said:
"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules. It is a philosophy, and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."

That basically says the Federation shouldn't put backwards civilians on a fast track to communism because it is immoral, by why? Lets say communist aliens before Marx was even born intervened on Earth and put Earth on a fast track to communism would that be bad? Would it be bad for Earth to have become communist because aliens provided the material conditions for Earth to be communist?

[Commissar Rykov]

The problem is the Prime Directive basically makes apathy official foreign policy of the Federation.

Captain Picard said:
"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules. It is a philosophy, and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."

That basically says the Federation shouldn't put backwards civilians on a fast track to communism because it is immoral, by why? Lets say communist aliens before Marx was even born intervened on Earth and put Earth on a fast track to communism would that be bad? Would it be bad for Earth to have become communist because aliens provided the material conditions for Earth to be communist?
It doesn't say it is immoral in that quote it says that having done so in the past has lead to disastrous results which is quite obvious to see. If you help a barbaric people attempt to industrialize or go into the stars they could use said technological developments in warfare and subjugate other nations on the planet leading to civil war. The whole point of the Prime Directive is to allow societies to evolve naturally and not to drag them through the process in which they might not learn the lessons they need to. Regardless taking a serious look at the "philosophy" of Star Trek is a waste since the whole point of the show was to show that humanity could do something great and united not to develop political theory to be applied to the real world.

[farleft]

I never really understood the deal with the credits system is it a reward system for working?
The thing with Quarks bar is that some (many?) of his drinks are not replicated or is it maybe because of the better/different atmosphere? drunken klingons etc

[Quail]

Ferengi society runs on the basis of profit, so Quark runs his bar to make a profit.

[farleft]

Yeah but I am sure the Federation workers O'Brian and co on DS9 sometimes used credits, how/why etc?

[Quail]

I'm not really sure how the credits work tbh. I thought they might be for when visiting a society that still uses currency. But here (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Federation_credit) is what the Star Trek wiki says about it.

[farleft]

In a theoretical society credits could be used to reward those who choose to work in a moneyless society where everyone's needs are met.

[Psy]

It doesn't say it is immoral in that quote it says that having done so in the past has lead to disastrous results which is quite obvious to see. If you help a barbaric people attempt to industrialize or go into the stars they could use said technological developments in warfare and subjugate other nations on the planet leading to civil war. The whole point of the Prime Directive is to allow societies to evolve naturally and not to drag them through the process in which they might not learn the lessons they need to.
But where is the morality in letting societies evolve naturally? I mean how can even world communism be possible from the logic that technically advanced workers states can't export their revolutions. I mean imagine if Germany had a successful revolution in the 1920's and a powerful revolutionary Germany said it won't help any other revolutions as they have to evolve naturally and workers have to learn how to overthrow capitalism the hard way.



Regardless taking a serious look at the "philosophy" of Star Trek is a waste since the whole point of the show was to show that humanity could do something great and united not to develop political theory to be applied to the real world

Yet Star Trek acts smug in its supposed moral superiority, that characters act like the Prime Directive is the world of God not a foreign policy.

[Quail]

Yet Star Trek acts smug in its supposed moral superiority, that characters act like the Prime Directive is the world of God not a foreign policy.
Sometimes characters do violate the Prime Directive. For example, Tom Paris in "Thirty Days" (VOY) violates the Prime Directive to prevent a society's home, an artificial ball of ocean, from dissipating. Although Janeway comes down pretty hard on him for it.

[Quail]

Also, I don't think that aliens could come down and put people on a fast track to communism. Since it's people who liberate themselves, the aliens would be limited in what they could do. If aliens came down now and gave us wondrous technology, it would end up in the hands of the capitalists and be used in order to better exploit the workers.

[Psy]

Also, I don't think that aliens could come down and put people on a fast track to communism. Since it's people who liberate themselves, the aliens would be limited in what they could do. If aliens came down now and gave us wondrous technology, it would end up in the hands of the capitalists and be used in order to better exploit the workers.
Yet if the aliens flooded Earth markets with commodities so cheap the rate of profit for Earth capitalists was negative (meaning capitalists engaging in production always lose money as alien commodities are always much cheaper then the operations costs of Earth capitalists), communists aliens could grind capital markets into dust through economic warfare. For example if a alien communist state just started feeding Africa with convoys of drop ships that also carried advanced means of production for the workers of Africa to use to liberate themselves from capitalism.

[Quail]

Yet if the aliens flooded Earth markets with commodities so cheap the rate of profit for Earth capitalists was negative (meaning capitalists engaging in production always lose money as alien commodities are always much cheaper then the operations costs of Earth capitalists), communists aliens could grind capital markets into dust through economic warfare. For example if a alien communist state just started feeding Africa with convoys of drop ships that also carried advanced means of production for the workers of Africa to use to liberate themselves from capitalism.
That isn't guaranteed to create a free, equal society. People may still hold, for example, sexist viewpoints (e.g. that abortion is wrong) so that women can't fully participate in society, or other discriminatory opinions that mean some sections of society still can't participate fully. Besides, there needs to be widespread class consciousness in order for people to liberate themselves. Most people in the western world, including a lot of working class people, still believe that capitalism works and don't want to overthrow the system. I think it would be beneficial if the aliens interfered and helped the workers to succeed in a revolution that was already happening, but I don't think that aliens imposing communism on a planet where the people didn't want it would be entirely successful.

[rylasasin]

pzqW0YaN2ho


I love how that video seems to draw all the right-wing free market retardednesss in the comments.

"private enterprise* benefits all who participate in it! (except, you know, the working class who slave away for 40 hours plus a week to make it work, not to mention the 3rd world wage slaves that are replacing them. Free marketers NEVER mention the third world.) "

"We should have minimal government with time tested christian moral values because big government decays oneness and liberty! (like, the "time tested christian values" that say gays should be stoned or at the least osctracised from the rest of society for being attracted to the same sex? The same ones that say women are lesser than men and have been the bane of women's rights for time immemorium? the same ones that justified slavery till its very end? Ehhhh... no thanks. You can keep your "Time Tested Christian Morals" if you don't mind.)

"There is no incentive for creativity without the profit motive!" (Okay, then. Explain why when movies and games are beginning to suck more and more while becoming more profitable and have bigger budgets? If profit motive inspires creativity, explain why most of today's creativity actually lies around places where people post their creations for free like Deviantart or Youtube?) If there can be no creativity without profit motive, explain why major software companies have resorted to either rehashing previous versions of their older products and simply calling it new, or worse have resorted to stealing ideas from opensource software (or in gaming's case, user created mods.) and repackaging them as their own? Yeah, If I didn't know any better bud, I'd have to say you were full of shit.)

"Human Nature is not naturally good" (It's not good because there is no such THING as human nature. There's human conditioning: People are greedy and selfish because people are brought up in a greedy and selfish system that promotes and programs people to BE greedy and selfish. Oh, and by the way, isn't greed supposed to be a sin according to this guy's "Time Tested Christian Morals?" #3 on the list of 7 Deadly Sins and the 10th commandment? So much for those time tested christian morals, eh?)

*= (no star trek pun intended)

[Psy]

That isn't guaranteed to create a free, equal society. People may still hold, for example, sexist viewpoints (e.g. that abortion is wrong) so that women can't fully participate in society, or other discriminatory opinions that mean some sections of society still can't participate fully. Besides, there needs to be widespread class consciousness in order for people to liberate themselves. Most people in the western world, including a lot of working class people, still believe that capitalism works and don't want to overthrow the system. I think it would be beneficial if the aliens interfered and helped the workers to succeed in a revolution that was already happening, but I don't think that aliens imposing communism on a planet where the people didn't want it would be entirely successful.
Yet their believes would chance in the light of a alien communist power strong arming the Earth capitalists into oblivion due to Earth capitalists being so technologically backwards compared to aliens capable to effectively traveling the vast distances between star systems.

[Turinbaar]

The federation made a number of major compromises when it came to relations with its neighbors. The alliance with the Klingon Empire is a clear example in which they did not attempt to spread any socialistic ideas abroad. In fact Warf even helped to restore the monarchy.

Also the alliance with the Romulans was forged not by the careful labor of Dr. Spock to peacefully integrate them with Vulcans but instead by a desperate fight against the Dominion. During that war there were even an attempted genocide against the shape shifters.

Overall Star Trek proves that revolution and negation will continue long into the future.

[Commissar Rykov]

But where is the morality in letting societies evolve naturally? I mean how can even world communism be possible from the logic that technically advanced workers states can't export their revolutions. I mean imagine if Germany had a successful revolution in the 1920's and a powerful revolutionary Germany said it won't help any other revolutions as they have to evolve naturally and workers have to learn how to overthrow capitalism the hard way.


Yet Star Trek acts smug in its supposed moral superiority, that characters act like the Prime Directive is the world of God not a foreign policy.
It isn't as smug as you try to make it out to be there have been plenty of times where the Prime Directive has proven to be far too rigid to be useful. Kirk during one episode I can't remember the name comes across a planet run by Nazis who had escaped Earth sometime in the 21st Century to have their little White Planet to call their own. Kirk basically throws the Prime Directive into the garbage can as he leads subversive groups to overthrow the government much to the Federation's dismay. Picard makes plenty of quips about how the Prime Directive is useful as a gauge in interacting with certain societies but isn't something that should be so rigidly enforced. Hell Picard and Kirk violate it so much yet still advance within Starfleet even though they have openly confronted or disobeyed superiors in ways that would have them drummed out in Modern Military forces.

Picard in Insurrection basically arms and fights a war of liberation much to the horror of Starfleet and Kirk hijacks the Enterprise, springs McCoy from the brig, breaks out of Spacedock, sabotages the USS Excelsior, latter blows up the Enterprise, and steals a Bird of Prey only to go back in time and screw around even more and only gets a demotion to Captain. I am pretty sure if you tried that in any Modern Navy they would be looking for a hole to bury your ass in.

[Quail]

Yet their believes would chance in the light of a alien communist power strong arming the Earth capitalists into oblivion due to Earth capitalists being so technologically backwards compared to aliens capable to effectively traveling the vast distances between star systems.
Would they? I'm not convinced that making capitalists disappear would automatically make the population turn to communism. There would be less incentive to compete without scarcity, but I don't see how it would stop people being discriminated against. In terms of the emancipation of women for example, if people still hold reactionary views about gender equality, nothing would change and there would still be a privileged group. The desire for a truly equal society has to come from within the population, not from some outside force.


It isn't as smug as you try to make it out to be there have been plenty of times where the Prime Directive has proven to be far too rigid to be useful. Kirk during one episode I can't remember the name comes across a planet run by Nazis who had escaped Earth sometime in the 21st Century to have their little White Planet to call their own. Kirk basically throws the Prime Directive into the garbage can as he leads subversive groups to overthrow the government much to the Federation's dismay.
Patterns of Force ;)

[Psy]

Would they? I'm not convinced that making capitalists disappear would automatically make the population turn to communism.

Even when there is a powerful communist force with the intention of integrating Earth into its culture?



There would be less incentive to compete without scarcity, but I don't see how it would stop people being discriminated against. In terms of the emancipation of women for example, if people still hold reactionary views about gender equality, nothing would change and there would still be a privileged group.

Even the communist aliens trains and enlist women into its operations? And if so wouldn't women just migrate to the alien's society thus eventually the issue would have to be addressed due to women simply defecting to the alien colonies (especially if aliens builds their space colonies around Earth orbit since earthlings are too primitive to)?



The desire for a truly equal society has to come from within the population, not from some outside force.

True but that doesn't mean outside force can't help speed things along.



It isn't as smug as you try to make it out to be there have been plenty of times where the Prime Directive has proven to be far too rigid to be useful. Kirk during one episode I can't remember the name comes across a planet run by Nazis who had escaped Earth sometime in the 21st Century to have their little White Planet to call their own. Kirk basically throws the Prime Directive into the garbage can as he leads subversive groups to overthrow the government much to the Federation's dismay. Picard makes plenty of quips about how the Prime Directive is useful as a gauge in interacting with certain societies but isn't something that should be so rigidly enforced. Hell Picard and Kirk violate it so much yet still advance within Starfleet even though they have openly confronted or disobeyed superiors in ways that would have them drummed out in Modern Military forces.

Then you have episodes like pen pals where the argument to not intervene is brought up it could be messing up Gods plans when they save civilizations from extinction. Just look at SF Debris annalists of the Prime Directive

http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/prime-directive-analysis-5638650

[Jimmie Higgins]

This side discussion of the prime directive has got to be the most hilarious and nerdy debate I've ever read on this website. And I mean that not to be insulting. It's totally entertaining.


Communist ideology has nothing to do with "Equality" as an endgoal, other wise it would constitute as Ideological populism, which it is not. Communism is an ideology that represents the interests of the proletariat.Yeah but the interest of the proletariat is to get rid of oppression and slaves/masters so by abolishing the class system, the working class not only frees itself but all of humanity because a ruling working class doesn't need to subjugate another class in order to make (communist) society function. Counter-revolutionaries might need to be suppressed in order to protect worker's power immediately following a revolution, but that's different than the class oppression of capitalism and feudalism and slavery.