The Federation is Fascist!!!!
-
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
- Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away
The Federation is Fascist!!!!
Well, having spent the last several months dead for legal reasons, this sounded like a fun topic to get back into things with:
Film Theory: Why The Star Trek Federation is Fascist
Lets see some drama related to the general topic of these boards eh? Let the games begin!
Film Theory: Why The Star Trek Federation is Fascist
Lets see some drama related to the general topic of these boards eh? Let the games begin!
- 2046
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 2044
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
Considering the next video in the line-up appeared to argue that Luke shouldn't have destroyed the Death Star, I rather doubt these cats have a firm grip on identifying evil.
- 2046
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 2044
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
So I decided to give a little more of a chance than zero. By the time he starts making an argument, over five minutes in to the not-even-15-minute video, he so hideously fails to properly define fascism that whatever else he says is going to be pure crap.
So no, I was right the first time.
So no, I was right the first time.
-
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
- Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
Would you say these cats, *puts on sunglasses* don't have all their dog's barking?2046 wrote:I rather doubt these cats have a firm grip on identifying evil.
I am sorry, I had to, it just came over me all of a sudden.
Yeah, I don't exactly put a great deal of stock in these things, the "just a theories" that make the most sense are usually on topics I am not familiar with, other times I often find glaring oversights or oversimplifications, not a good sign.2046 wrote:So I decided to give a little more of a chance than zero. By the time he starts making an argument, over five minutes in to the not-even-15-minute video, he so hideously fails to properly define fascism that whatever else he says is going to be pure crap.
So no, I was right the first time.
I guess the main factor for me is that I often have trouble seeing the Federation as nothing but sunshine and rainbows, but the video is definitely going for quick and easy evidence for a "mind blown" presentation to get views. I thought I'd drop it here and see what kind of dialogue it would generate. But, seeing as most of the actual facts presented are ones I recognize as old hat from "The Federation is Communist" arguments that have already been around forever, I suppose it isn't something that would generate much interest.
Personally I thought it might be interesting to use the same logic/arguments in a parallel kind of parody presentation to prove the United States is "fascist." I gave the "evidence" a once over and I think I could swing it, but under the circumstances it probably isn't worth the trouble. Oh well.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
People got concerned about the lack of easily identifiable personnal property, but I think there's enough evidence, when you start digging for it, that down at the personnal level, it is totally possible to entirely own anything from a house, a garden, pieces of art, etc.Darth Spock wrote: Yeah, I don't exactly put a great deal of stock in these things, the "just a theories" that make the most sense are usually on topics I am not familiar with, other times I often find glaring oversights or oversimplifications, not a good sign.
I guess the main factor for me is that I often have trouble seeing the Federation as nothing but sunshine and rainbows, but the video is definitely going for quick and easy evidence for a "mind blown" presentation to get views. I thought I'd drop it here and see what kind of dialogue it would generate. But, seeing as most of the actual facts presented are ones I recognize as old hat from "The Federation is Communist" arguments that have already been around forever, I suppose it isn't something that would generate much interest.
It's just that the replicators made the constant fighting over property a thing now occupying a forgotten and distant back seat in 99.9% of applicable cases.
There does not seem to be any kind of centrally minted currency either, so no central bank.
If anything, it's looking a lot like pre-feudal times mixed with super high tech and some kind of supervising kingdom ontop of it, where said kingdom is mainly elected by a few.
Let's be honest, democracy at the scale of planet simply cannot work, so anything beyond that point is simply not believable a single moment.
Therefore, there can be points to argue on the merits of the UFP being too monolithic.
I would personnally be mad at the idea of my planet being run by some interstellar federation having the bad habit of placing aliens in position of power and literally having them operate right there on Earth, adding insult to injury. But I guess I'd be called a "specist" or something similar, right?
How the heck would some Broccolian from planet Zoozoo have any say on the way humans should manage their world?
Well, a trademark of fascism is a very strong bent on the people being subjects of the state, with a considerable concentration of powers. Mussolini's Italy is the prime example of that. The cult of personnality of some father-guru isn't even needed although it helps a lot to attract attention. If I had to say what between "we the people" and the federal government gets the most spotlight and attention, it'd probably point at the later: individuals are progressively molded into a single format under one banner and some liberties have certainly been hit hard during the last fifteen years. Everytime one hears "Americans", I think it really means "The State". For example, "it's an attack against Americans" should be read as "it's an attack against the State" (and you should better agree with the State, ok?).Personally I thought it might be interesting to use the same logic/arguments in a parallel kind of parody presentation to prove the United States is "fascist." I gave the "evidence" a once over and I think I could swing it, but under the circumstances it probably isn't worth the trouble. Oh well.
In fact, you'd probably hear "it's an attack against America". That's the kind of shortcut which can be quickly be employed these days when, for example, back in sept. 2001, it essentially was just one city that got hit, like if in older times, someone had attacked Athens or Rome.
-
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:17 am
- Contact:
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
You know, my alcohol influenced brain interpreted the thread title as 'the Federation is French'.
- 2046
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 2044
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
Dear god, anything but French! ;-)
Fascism is frequently poorly defined by people who do not know history or seek to paint Hitler as being part of some disliked group. The left prefers to claim it is right-wing, a commonly accepted but erroneous view.
From Mussolini to Father Coughlin, and from fascist vs. commie street fights to WW2, the fact is that fascism and communism are so at odds not because they are opposite but because they occupy the same statist anti-capitalist philosophical battlespace. Communism is authoritarian *international* socialism based on a class warfare sales pitch. Fascism is authoritarian *national* socialism based on a populist sales pitch and usually a personality cult and/or rascapegoats, and with the socialism often given a nicer hat by way of corporatism as a significant driver of the statist economic policy.
Neither of these remotely resemble American ideals of laissez-faire economics and personal liberty for all.
The Carlists during the Spanish Civil War knew this to be true. Anti-socialists who foolishly allied themselves with the nationalists, the Carlists were leery of Mussolini's support because they viewed him as a socialist in practice. Indeed, Father Coughlin, America's first Rush Limbaugh, was anti-capitalist and anti-communist, though many of his suggestions were compatible with and adopted by FDR.
Fascism, then, is a sort of halfway house to communism, and reviled by the latter for taking the international brotherhood and using that energy internally. Thus, much as there is no political fight more vicious than intra-party disputes (see: GOP convention), so too did fascists and commies fight for the soul of the left.
With that in mind, and given that the economics of Trek are not scarcity based by the 24th Century, the best you can do is try to claim the Federation is nationalist and authoritarian, but that isn't going to get far.
Fascism is frequently poorly defined by people who do not know history or seek to paint Hitler as being part of some disliked group. The left prefers to claim it is right-wing, a commonly accepted but erroneous view.
From Mussolini to Father Coughlin, and from fascist vs. commie street fights to WW2, the fact is that fascism and communism are so at odds not because they are opposite but because they occupy the same statist anti-capitalist philosophical battlespace. Communism is authoritarian *international* socialism based on a class warfare sales pitch. Fascism is authoritarian *national* socialism based on a populist sales pitch and usually a personality cult and/or rascapegoats, and with the socialism often given a nicer hat by way of corporatism as a significant driver of the statist economic policy.
Neither of these remotely resemble American ideals of laissez-faire economics and personal liberty for all.
The Carlists during the Spanish Civil War knew this to be true. Anti-socialists who foolishly allied themselves with the nationalists, the Carlists were leery of Mussolini's support because they viewed him as a socialist in practice. Indeed, Father Coughlin, America's first Rush Limbaugh, was anti-capitalist and anti-communist, though many of his suggestions were compatible with and adopted by FDR.
Fascism, then, is a sort of halfway house to communism, and reviled by the latter for taking the international brotherhood and using that energy internally. Thus, much as there is no political fight more vicious than intra-party disputes (see: GOP convention), so too did fascists and commies fight for the soul of the left.
With that in mind, and given that the economics of Trek are not scarcity based by the 24th Century, the best you can do is try to claim the Federation is nationalist and authoritarian, but that isn't going to get far.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1657
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
- Location: Sol system, Earth,USA
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
Please forgive any intrusion.2046 wrote:With that in mind, and given that the economics of Trek are not scarcity based by the 24th Century, the best you can do is try to claim the Federation is nationalist and authoritarian, but that isn't going to get far.
While I would concur ideologies such as "Communism" or "Fascism" are a poor fit for a replicator based economy, at best being employed as rough placeholders, I would argue such ideologies are first and for most attempts to organize society, a secular faith as it were, rather than economic thesis.
That their purpose was first and foremost to yoke people to a central authority or collective enterprise rather than distributing scarce resources. And to which their greatest appeal was this sense of belonging. To being part of some greater whole. A return to a tribal closeness Man retrains some vague consciousness of from the distant din of his antiquity.
And I would argue that this need to belong, to make sense of society and bring order to confusion, is as viable in the 24th century as it was in the 20th.
I wouldn't classify the Federation as fascist but I lack your confidence they are " a post-scarcity, liberty-minded society that promotes individualism". Perhaps I am wrong of course, the shadow of my ideal self certainly would like to be, but the Federation seems to have more than a whiff of the collective to them.
They seem to have an idea of what society should be, and if you're not actively contributing to it you are at best tolerated if not looked down upon. Consider the reception financier Ralph Offenhouse got from Picard in the "Neutral Zone" {TNG-01}. Or how almost any Ferengi is treated. In my opinion we see little in the way that the Federation champions individualism but instead promotes a culture which seems as homogenized as one might find on a college campus.
Nor can I help but compare the inaction and abandonment of the inhabitants of Boraal Two in "Homeward" {TNG-07} with Kirk's actions in "The Paradise Syndrome" {TOS-03}
To a certain extent I find myself agreeing with Michael Eddington in "For the Cause" {DS9-04}. With the Federation everyone will be made to care, to belong. It might takes the Klingons a little longer or the Romulans but ultimately everyone must belong.
But that's only my opinion. For whatever little that is worth. I'm likely just forming a conclusion and looking for evidence to justify it.
In any event I look forward to the inevitable thrashing of my argument.
-Respectfully, Sonofccn
- 2046
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 2044
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
Offenhouse was being a dick. That said, Picard's reference to controlling one's destiny as being illusory is indeed troubling. However, there is plenty of counterevidence even from Picard to that, so his meaning should probably be taken as a bit more nuanced in context.
Beyond that, I wouldn't say there is evidence of government-directed conformist pressure. I certainly wouldn't take that view. Indeed, it seems to me that such a thing would require as a goal a certain identity to strive toward, be it nationalist or racial or what-have-you, like Nazis with Aryan whatever. But even that can be taken too far . . . after all, American 20th Century TV could be construed as a conformist pressure pot trying to turn everyone into Ward Cleaver under governmental oversight by the censors, by that logic.
Beyond that, I wouldn't say there is evidence of government-directed conformist pressure. I certainly wouldn't take that view. Indeed, it seems to me that such a thing would require as a goal a certain identity to strive toward, be it nationalist or racial or what-have-you, like Nazis with Aryan whatever. But even that can be taken too far . . . after all, American 20th Century TV could be construed as a conformist pressure pot trying to turn everyone into Ward Cleaver under governmental oversight by the censors, by that logic.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1657
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
- Location: Sol system, Earth,USA
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
@2046
Offenhouse indeed was a dick as well as petty with an over inflated sense of his own worth. But I admit a grudging admiration for his attempt to take control of his life compared to the other two’s more passive acceptance.
More troubling than Picard’s comments about destiny, I would think, are his equating “need for possessions” as part of mankind’s “infancy” it has outgrown in the 24th century. Besides being a touch hypocritical, Picard’s family still owns a vineyard, it makes me twitchy on how the Federation views private property. Do they view it as a cornerstone of civilization or an indulgence citizens are allowed provided they behave?
Now it is true I could be totally mischaracterizing Picard and the Federation. He was stressed and Offenhouse is a grade “A” jerk. I freely admit I could be suffering from preconceived biases or misconceptions. Nor do I want you to think that I’m arguing that the Federation is some Soviet gulag. I would agree from what we see the Federation is a peaceful, prosperous democracy with certain Republic leaning tendencies. But I do think it has a strong conformist streak, which in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, and a strong adherence to a set worldview as opposed to truly championing a more Ayn Rand inspired individuality.
I am open to counter examples but Picard does have a slight tendency to say these rather leftist polemics like in the “Neutral zone” or in “Who Watches the Watcher”, {TNG-03}, were he comes down fairly hard on belief makes you stupid and irrational.
As well in “The Vengeance Factor”, {TNG-03}, his idea to deal with a rag-tag bunch of Somali pirates raiding Federation outposts was to foster them off as a state within a state on the planet they originated from a century previously. Out of a best misguided notion that uncivilized actors will become civilized by osmosis.
As opposed to say offering the Gatherers their own planet to settle, ala Khan in “Space Seed” or the Skrreeans(Sp?) from “Sanctuary” {DS9-02}, which would have preserved the sovereignty of both groups.
I would argue that to Picard, and by extension the Federation, the “liberty” of the people Acamar Three to live free of the violence and cultural backwardness of the Gatherers was less important than an almost tribal view of ethnicity. Picard seemed to take it for granted it was good and proper that all Acamarians be represented under the same government, solely because they were of the same race, regardless of how much their societies had diverged in the preceding century.
As to conformity requiring a goal of identity to work towards, I would argue that the Federation has a central identity in the trek’s “New Man” who isn’t obsessed with material things and strives for social dogoodery. Much like the Culture, there driving impulse seems to be to make everyone like themselves. To have Cardassians sit on the Federation Council, as Eddington said.
-respectfully, sonofccn
Offenhouse indeed was a dick as well as petty with an over inflated sense of his own worth. But I admit a grudging admiration for his attempt to take control of his life compared to the other two’s more passive acceptance.
More troubling than Picard’s comments about destiny, I would think, are his equating “need for possessions” as part of mankind’s “infancy” it has outgrown in the 24th century. Besides being a touch hypocritical, Picard’s family still owns a vineyard, it makes me twitchy on how the Federation views private property. Do they view it as a cornerstone of civilization or an indulgence citizens are allowed provided they behave?
Now it is true I could be totally mischaracterizing Picard and the Federation. He was stressed and Offenhouse is a grade “A” jerk. I freely admit I could be suffering from preconceived biases or misconceptions. Nor do I want you to think that I’m arguing that the Federation is some Soviet gulag. I would agree from what we see the Federation is a peaceful, prosperous democracy with certain Republic leaning tendencies. But I do think it has a strong conformist streak, which in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, and a strong adherence to a set worldview as opposed to truly championing a more Ayn Rand inspired individuality.
I am open to counter examples but Picard does have a slight tendency to say these rather leftist polemics like in the “Neutral zone” or in “Who Watches the Watcher”, {TNG-03}, were he comes down fairly hard on belief makes you stupid and irrational.
As well in “The Vengeance Factor”, {TNG-03}, his idea to deal with a rag-tag bunch of Somali pirates raiding Federation outposts was to foster them off as a state within a state on the planet they originated from a century previously. Out of a best misguided notion that uncivilized actors will become civilized by osmosis.
As opposed to say offering the Gatherers their own planet to settle, ala Khan in “Space Seed” or the Skrreeans(Sp?) from “Sanctuary” {DS9-02}, which would have preserved the sovereignty of both groups.
I would argue that to Picard, and by extension the Federation, the “liberty” of the people Acamar Three to live free of the violence and cultural backwardness of the Gatherers was less important than an almost tribal view of ethnicity. Picard seemed to take it for granted it was good and proper that all Acamarians be represented under the same government, solely because they were of the same race, regardless of how much their societies had diverged in the preceding century.
As to conformity requiring a goal of identity to work towards, I would argue that the Federation has a central identity in the trek’s “New Man” who isn’t obsessed with material things and strives for social dogoodery. Much like the Culture, there driving impulse seems to be to make everyone like themselves. To have Cardassians sit on the Federation Council, as Eddington said.
-respectfully, sonofccn
- 2046
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 2044
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
First they force conformity, then they put ethnic tribalism over personal liberty, and somewhere in the middle they supposedly have a beef with private property altogether. Did I cover the highlights?
This seems like scattergun stuff, just slinging pejoratives against the wall to see what sticks. I do not currently have time to play chase-that-accusation or otherwise engage in such "soft arguments" that are about how people feel about events rather than the events themselves. I see no reason to view Picard's efforts to stop the threat of further fatal Gatherer raids on Federation outposts and shipping lanes via a political solution on Acamar where the issue began as anything nefarious. Between letting them kill and hunting them down was a solution to get them home and treated fairly there, agreed to by all, and that is what he did. Ethnic tribal social justice Gatherer-Lives-Matter collective bargaining sovereignty gobbledygook responses are just . . . uninteresting, sorry.
In any case, the initial fascism claim of the thread is defeated, so all this is outside the scope.
This seems like scattergun stuff, just slinging pejoratives against the wall to see what sticks. I do not currently have time to play chase-that-accusation or otherwise engage in such "soft arguments" that are about how people feel about events rather than the events themselves. I see no reason to view Picard's efforts to stop the threat of further fatal Gatherer raids on Federation outposts and shipping lanes via a political solution on Acamar where the issue began as anything nefarious. Between letting them kill and hunting them down was a solution to get them home and treated fairly there, agreed to by all, and that is what he did. Ethnic tribal social justice Gatherer-Lives-Matter collective bargaining sovereignty gobbledygook responses are just . . . uninteresting, sorry.
In any case, the initial fascism claim of the thread is defeated, so all this is outside the scope.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
Those divisions of left and right may seem totally arbitrary to some degree, but the divide always seems to hinge on defense of nation/race/ethnics on the right and the lack of that on the left (which makes the left internationalist by default), regardless of the validity of the claims.
Honestly, there is nothing wrong with one's sense of belonging to a specific people and wanting to protect that. That is both logical and honourable. Such is the way of Nature. It can only serve to favour love and respect and trying to destroy that, or the feeling of losing that, is what leads to great trouble.
I'd tend to say that because of the pitfalls of its own doctrine, communism can't be applied without fascism. Mind you, would you not resort to a kind of fascism if you knew how insidious and powerful your enemy was and knew that it was present within many of your neighbouring political entities? Would you apply laissez faire at the risk of simply being too weak?
The UFP seems to be a monopoly on the political power and it's unclear how much leeway it leaves to other entities at the lower levels from what I have seen. It seems to be internationalism cranked up to galactic proportions, which is quite concerning if true.
Also, if the UFP can seize one's belongings without any strong legal force to oppose it, we couldn't honestly say that its citizens can enjoy true property as it would be more than a precarious illusion. There would be a good argument to be made that our occidental governments are truly communistic towards the plebe and the smaller businesses: they can seize your house and car very easily and they routinely take our money by force through yearly or monthly renewed taxation without asking once if you agree or having you renew any kind of contract on a regular basis. By any means, that's stealing.
Only Dow Jones / NASDAQ / F500 companies and fiscal safezones enjoy a greater freedom and although they are required to pay tax, they evade all that and the governments are complicit of this fraud to a large degree.
This ranting aside, if it were seen that in the end, when it comes to property, the individual or non-state group would always lose against the UFP, then property within the UFP should be considered illusory.
Up to you to decide if that's an applicable ground for fascism or not. Doubtful, maybe.
Relaxed utopia is what seems to best describe the UFP to the casual watcher of Star Trek. The problem is that although looming as the UFP appears to be, it's also ubiquitous. It seems to be much more than some kind of auxiliary United-Nations-in-Space thing, although to me it appears to be opt-in and proposes advantages and services to those who belong. What matters is the rules inside and what the UFP stands for.
Sending ships to civilizations it deems worthy of getting inside the UFP may look like advertisement which ends with a letter on a desk and a box to tick with a signature. What are the pressures to those who refuse, and for them, what can they do within the UFP?
One could cite the Ferengi, but they are merchants and have laws mostly centered on wealth acquisition, ethics be damned. Above all, they are age old specialists in the trade of a material that the UFP cannot replicate.
Anyways, as I said in another thread, humans will do anything to give a sense to their lives in a finite universe where property is a rule and has meaning. Replicators only push that reality away and build some kind of illusion. People would do anything to own something unique and dear to them. Some would even do that to trade what would be deemed rare –unreplicable– items, from food to art.
In fact, those words from Picard sound like nothing more than Space Communism 101. If you had to limit yourself to the words of this respectable figure, there'd be a strong case of the UFP being communist. After all, there were private ventures within the USSR too to some degree, and that's precisely that "some degree" that the most hardcore fans of Trek dig up to make a case against accusations of communism.
Also, the entire struggle of man is between his need to belong to a group and the inner need to be unique, to cultivate individuality (and today many people do that so stupidly; e.g. the names they give to their kids or the "original" spelling they use for classical names).
Now it is true I could be totally mischaracterizing Picard and the Federation. He was stressed and Offenhouse is a grade “A” jerk. I freely admit I could be suffering from preconceived biases or misconceptions. Nor do I want you to think that I’m arguing that the Federation is some Soviet gulag. I would agree from what we see the Federation is a peaceful, prosperous democracy with certain Republic leaning tendencies. But I do think it has a strong conformist streak, which in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, and a strong adherence to a set worldview as opposed to truly championing a more Ayn Rand inspired individuality.
How much individuality is there to be found when you cannot, or perhaps even more gloomily, don't want to possess anything?
Are you some kind of ant?
Honestly, there is nothing wrong with one's sense of belonging to a specific people and wanting to protect that. That is both logical and honourable. Such is the way of Nature. It can only serve to favour love and respect and trying to destroy that, or the feeling of losing that, is what leads to great trouble.
I'd tend to say that because of the pitfalls of its own doctrine, communism can't be applied without fascism. Mind you, would you not resort to a kind of fascism if you knew how insidious and powerful your enemy was and knew that it was present within many of your neighbouring political entities? Would you apply laissez faire at the risk of simply being too weak?
The UFP seems to be a monopoly on the political power and it's unclear how much leeway it leaves to other entities at the lower levels from what I have seen. It seems to be internationalism cranked up to galactic proportions, which is quite concerning if true.
Also, if the UFP can seize one's belongings without any strong legal force to oppose it, we couldn't honestly say that its citizens can enjoy true property as it would be more than a precarious illusion. There would be a good argument to be made that our occidental governments are truly communistic towards the plebe and the smaller businesses: they can seize your house and car very easily and they routinely take our money by force through yearly or monthly renewed taxation without asking once if you agree or having you renew any kind of contract on a regular basis. By any means, that's stealing.
Only Dow Jones / NASDAQ / F500 companies and fiscal safezones enjoy a greater freedom and although they are required to pay tax, they evade all that and the governments are complicit of this fraud to a large degree.
This ranting aside, if it were seen that in the end, when it comes to property, the individual or non-state group would always lose against the UFP, then property within the UFP should be considered illusory.
Up to you to decide if that's an applicable ground for fascism or not. Doubtful, maybe.
Relaxed utopia is what seems to best describe the UFP to the casual watcher of Star Trek. The problem is that although looming as the UFP appears to be, it's also ubiquitous. It seems to be much more than some kind of auxiliary United-Nations-in-Space thing, although to me it appears to be opt-in and proposes advantages and services to those who belong. What matters is the rules inside and what the UFP stands for.
Sending ships to civilizations it deems worthy of getting inside the UFP may look like advertisement which ends with a letter on a desk and a box to tick with a signature. What are the pressures to those who refuse, and for them, what can they do within the UFP?
One could cite the Ferengi, but they are merchants and have laws mostly centered on wealth acquisition, ethics be damned. Above all, they are age old specialists in the trade of a material that the UFP cannot replicate.
It's probably more subtle. There are various models you can attack yourself to, but they all belong to the modern American culture that is the tenet of what is exported worldwide through globalisation. Consider the quantity of shows and movies exported to other countries and how many, say, Polish movies or shows you get to watch. In fact, for example, even when some European movie turns out to be a success, the American audience is isolated from it and will see a version shaped by the culture. That is, a remake. Unless the identity of the movie is too strong so much that it couldn't be reformated.2046 wrote:Beyond that, I wouldn't say there is evidence of government-directed conformist pressure. I certainly wouldn't take that view. Indeed, it seems to me that such a thing would require as a goal a certain identity to strive toward, be it nationalist or racial or what-have-you, like Nazis with Aryan whatever. But even that can be taken too far . . . after all, American 20th Century TV could be construed as a conformist pressure pot trying to turn everyone into Ward Cleaver under governmental oversight by the censors, by that logic.
It is not only immensely hypocritical but although delusional. The only way you could tone down the claim is to say that by belief, one has to understand belief in something that would and could never be observed nor demonstrated and verified, even if humanity were to reach godhood. In other words, a belief in something that could never be. Now, on the other hand, one could argue that belief in supernatural stuff is nothing but the belief in weird physics which are yet to be explained by science, right?sonofccn wrote: More troubling than Picard’s comments about destiny, I would think, are his equating “need for possessions” as part of mankind’s “infancy” it has outgrown in the 24th century. Besides being a touch hypocritical, Picard’s family still owns a vineyard, it makes me twitchy on how the Federation views private property. Do they view it as a cornerstone of civilization or an indulgence citizens are allowed provided they behave?
Anyways, as I said in another thread, humans will do anything to give a sense to their lives in a finite universe where property is a rule and has meaning. Replicators only push that reality away and build some kind of illusion. People would do anything to own something unique and dear to them. Some would even do that to trade what would be deemed rare –unreplicable– items, from food to art.
In fact, those words from Picard sound like nothing more than Space Communism 101. If you had to limit yourself to the words of this respectable figure, there'd be a strong case of the UFP being communist. After all, there were private ventures within the USSR too to some degree, and that's precisely that "some degree" that the most hardcore fans of Trek dig up to make a case against accusations of communism.
Also, the entire struggle of man is between his need to belong to a group and the inner need to be unique, to cultivate individuality (and today many people do that so stupidly; e.g. the names they give to their kids or the "original" spelling they use for classical names).
Now it is true I could be totally mischaracterizing Picard and the Federation. He was stressed and Offenhouse is a grade “A” jerk. I freely admit I could be suffering from preconceived biases or misconceptions. Nor do I want you to think that I’m arguing that the Federation is some Soviet gulag. I would agree from what we see the Federation is a peaceful, prosperous democracy with certain Republic leaning tendencies. But I do think it has a strong conformist streak, which in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, and a strong adherence to a set worldview as opposed to truly championing a more Ayn Rand inspired individuality.
How much individuality is there to be found when you cannot, or perhaps even more gloomily, don't want to possess anything?
Are you some kind of ant?
Which is totally fruity when you remember all the dialogues he has with Q (see here), notably when he reveals that he BELIEVES that humanity shall become gods!I am open to counter examples but Picard does have a slight tendency to say these rather leftist polemics like in the “Neutral zone” or in “Who Watches the Watcher”, {TNG-03}, were he comes down fairly hard on belief makes you stupid and irrational.
Way to kill diversity. Mind you, he's just replicating what the federation called the USA does, wherein none of the states can really and authentically grow their own cultures. And the same goes on in the other union on the other side of the Atlantic, that other federation called the European Union. I think the effets are even more devastating over there because those nations have a lot of history to erase before one can mould them into one super-entity.I would argue that to Picard, and by extension the Federation, the “liberty” of the people Acamar Three to live free of the violence and cultural backwardness of the Gatherers was less important than an almost tribal view of ethnicity. Picard seemed to take it for granted it was good and proper that all Acamarians be represented under the same government, solely because they were of the same race, regardless of how much their societies had diverged in the preceding century.
Would you have more evidence of that? It's terrifying. It would mean the UFP only exists to grow. Is there any kind of founding charter, even since ENT, that presents the nature and point of existence of the UFP to be to unite all different species?As to conformity requiring a goal of identity to work towards, I would argue that the Federation has a central identity in the trek’s “New Man” who isn’t obsessed with material things and strives for social dogoodery. Much like the Culture, there driving impulse seems to be to make everyone like themselves. To have Cardassians sit on the Federation Council, as Eddington said.
-respectfully, sonofccn
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1657
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
- Location: Sol system, Earth,USA
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
I would argue they favor conformity over the individual not that they "force" it. Yes I belief there has been a case or two at least where the Federation has seemed to favor Ethnic tribalism over personal liberty. And I asked a question on how the Federation valued private property based upon comments Picard made.2046 wrote:First they force conformity, then they put ethnic tribalism over personal liberty, and somewhere in the middle they supposedly have a beef with private property altogether. Did I cover the highlights?
With the prerequisite that this is my opinion and I freely acknowledge I could be wrong or mistaken.
Now if I have offended you or been obnoxious or anything of the sort I apologize. I was not my intention. Our previous discussions, such as they were, were cordial enough and more than anything I sought your take and your input. Even acknowledging that we likely will disagree on the Federation I would enjoy hearing your thoughts and reasoning on the subject.
As for any perceived "scattergun" effect or slinging pejoratives again I apologize but how can I explain why I feel the way I feel about the Federation without addressing the points which make me feel that way? Previously you described the Federation as based upon classical liberalism ala Ted Cruz without all the Jesus while I think the Federation more closely resembles how a college campus circa the 90's thinks society should be run. I freely admit I could be wrong and mistaken but that is my earnest, heartfelt belief for whatever little that is worth.
I don't think I would call Picard's actions nefarious, just leftist. If you'll forgive the pejorative.2046 wrote:I see no reason to view Picard's efforts to stop the threat of further fatal Gatherer raids on Federation outposts and shipping lanes via a political solution on Acamar where the issue began as anything nefarious.
Starting from the top:
1.) Picard seemed reluctant to make value judgments in regards to the Gatherers treating the undesirable behavior, raiding people's outposts, as almost occidental rather than systemic of their way of life. He acted if there was no difference of legitimacy between the peaceful and more Federation like Acamarians and the thuggish Gatherers who argue over who gets your boots when you die.
2.) Picard believes it is the Acamarians' responsibility to come to terms and accommodate with the Gatherers. That they would be a "divided society" until they did. That despite rejecting everything about the Acamarian way of life they still belonged on Acamar Three seemingly because both groups are racially Acamarian.
3.) He never appears to consider the idea that the people of Acamar three may not want a bunch of refugee space pirates or that there are at least legitimate worries to bringing in a large, unvetted number of people opposed to your way of life into your society.
4.) In keeping with his refusal to make a moral judgment in regards to Gatherer culture he sees nothing wrong and in fact slightly champions a distinct Gatherer state on Acamar Three, one with a disproportionate number of council seats if Chorgan has anything to say about it.
The Gatherers, under their leader Chorgan, in other words had little to no desire to assimilate into the broader Acamar culture but remain a distinct and separate state within Acamar Three with a say in the highest levels of government.
A bit like arguing that Syrian refugees not only have a right to come to the US but deserve their own state with maybe extra senators and congressmen.
Conclusion: I find the above in contradiction to a Federation founded upon individual liberty above all else. Picard certainly feels perfectly fine influencing a rather radical change in the internal affairs of Acamar Three, one with lasting repercussions, that indeed rather than individuals with differing wants or needs Picard has a collectivist mindset where Marouk and Chorgan are equally legitimate and interchangeable. And yes I do think there is a form of ethnic tribalism, or whatever the proper term would be for an alien species, in the belief that a refusal or inability to bring the Gatherers home somehow diminishes or subtracts from the Acamarians.
I am sorry you feel that way. I truly am.2046 wrote:Ethnic tribal social justice Gatherer-Lives-Matter collective bargaining sovereignty gobbledygook responses are just . . . uninteresting, sorry.
I suppose if that is how you feel, all I can do is wish you the best and hope we cross paths in better circumstances next time. Cheers!
-Respectfully, Sonofccn
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
LOL, I was thinking that too. :Dsonofccn wrote:I don't think I would call Picard's actions nefarious, just leftist. If you'll forgive the pejorative.2046 wrote:I see no reason to view Picard's efforts to stop the threat of further fatal Gatherer raids on Federation outposts and shipping lanes via a political solution on Acamar where the issue began as anything nefarious.
Starting from the top:
1.) Picard seemed reluctant to make value judgments in regards to the Gatherers treating the undesirable behavior, raiding people's outposts, as almost occidental rather than systemic of their way of life. He acted if there was no difference of legitimacy between the peaceful and more Federation like Acamarians and the thuggish Gatherers who argue over who gets your boots when you die.
2.) Picard believes it is the Acamarians' responsibility to come to terms and accommodate with the Gatherers. That they would be a "divided society" until they did. That despite rejecting everything about the Acamarian way of life they still belonged on Acamar Three seemingly because both groups are racially Acamarian.
3.) He never appears to consider the idea that the people of Acamar three may not want a bunch of refugee space pirates or that there are at least legitimate worries to bringing in a large, unvetted number of people opposed to your way of life into your society.
4.) In keeping with his refusal to make a moral judgment in regards to Gatherer culture he sees nothing wrong and in fact slightly champions a distinct Gatherer state on Acamar Three, one with a disproportionate number of council seats if Chorgan has anything to say about it.
The Gatherers, under their leader Chorgan, in other words had little to no desire to assimilate into the broader Acamar culture but remain a distinct and separate state within Acamar Three with a say in the highest levels of government.
A bit like arguing that Syrian refugees not only have a right to come to the US but deserve their own state with maybe extra senators and congressmen.
Mind you, it's just one case.
I'm not sure to understand the case that well, I haven't read the synopsis, but it seems the application of the UFP's ethics and codes depends a lot on jurisprudence and the way each captain/judge interprets a specific case.Conclusion: I find the above in contradiction to a Federation founded upon individual liberty above all else. Picard certainly feels perfectly fine influencing a rather radical change in the internal affairs of Acamar Three, one with lasting repercussions, that indeed rather than individuals with differing wants or needs Picard has a collectivist mindset where Marouk and Chorgan are equally legitimate and interchangeable. And yes I do think there is a form of ethnic tribalism, or whatever the proper term would be for an alien species, in the belief that a refusal or inability to bring the Gatherers home somehow diminishes or subtracts from the Acamarians.
-Respectfully, Sonofccn
It also reminds me of the Israelo-Palestinian case to some degree, the way a group is geographically forced into a specific greater whole.
The problem with the UFP (and Trek as a whole) is that the notion of nations seems largely supressed. In the case of the Acamarians, does it mean that the Gatherers would not get a sovereign nation of their own but simply a territory of their own and obtain seats in the central government? By the quick descriptions, these are two different groups, with two different cultures. It would follow the pattern of centralization of powers, which is an obsession to some people on this planet who think things will get better that way when all it would lead to is a vast reduction of liberty and fundamental cultural diversity at the country level, because of standardization that always comes with such concentration of powers.
-
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
- Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away
Re: The Federation is Fascist!!!!
Hey, things picked up in here and I missed it! :(
I read over the "Vengeance Factor" episode, and while the Gatherers were wondering in space due to their initial unwillingness to sweep their remaining vendettas under the rug, the episode does try to paint a sympathetic, though undeniably brutish view of them. The Gatherers at least demonstrate no interest in further pursuing any centuries old clan rivalries, but don't trust the home world Acamarians, who in turn had been hunting and imprisoning those Gatherers they caught for years. From the dialog, it sounds like the Gatherers would be getting their own territory on the planet with which they could do what they pleased, along with seats on a central governing body consisting of an undisclosed number of total member seats. I can't really see this as a full on example of promoting "tribal ethnicity" so much as Picard legitimately mediating two fractured groups, both of whom seemed ready to stop fighting and merge but understandably didn't totally trust each other. While it does sound a bit ethnic minded, I think it did make sense for those two groups to step up and iron out the problems closest to home, in keeping with one of Roddenberry's quotes:
As for the growth of the Federation, I don't know about any official mission statement, but the Feds certainly like expansion. Getting Bajor to join was a major consideration, and recruiting a new world was the entire point behind the TNG episode "First Contact." In "Metamorphosis" Kirk said "We're on a thousand planets and spreading out." In the TNG episode "Neutral Zone" the Romulans noted distastefully that there was "expansion of the Federation everywhere."
I wouldn't say that's necessarily bad or nefarious though. It's pretty clear the Federation doesn't conquer worlds, and if they set up colonies on empty planets at a rapid rate, well, there's nothing particularly wrong with that either.
It would appear that member world's do retain a significant amount of autonomy and cultural identity as well, even if it's to their detriment, as the government of Yar's home world of Turkana IV evidently collapsed and simply fell away from the UFP. In the case of the member planet Ardana from TOS "The Cloud Minders" they even seem to have been overly lenient with the requirements for that world's admission into the Federation, seeing the apparent ignorance or top level indifference to the unethical government, which was evidently protected from interference by Starfleet.
On that note, I've been toying with an idea regarding the apparent contradiction as to whether the Federation uses "money." The clear existence of credits, along with the obvious presence and need for trade makes money unavoidable. The idea that they would dispose of currency in favor of some sort of barter system is ridiculous, but the use of money could possibly be optional at certain levels. Looking at the apparent autonomy planets are given within the Federation, along with the specific context of all the quotes that money no longer exists leads me to wonder if perhaps the rejection of currency is more of a human, and even more specifically Terran thing. The whole idea of mankind "bettering" himself and much of the admittedly communist sounding philosophies may be focused around Earth itself, rather than the Federation or even humanity as a whole. In this way Earth's new "hat" so to speak may be that of an intellectual's paradise where technology has significantly reduced the need of menial laborers and where artists, scientists and philosophers can thrive. To address an obvious concern, it could be considered that cultivating fine wine and specializing in Cajun cooking could qualify as art.
While this doesn't initially sound good for those who crave adventure or greater direct control over their surroundings, Starfleet would be an obvious avenue for expanding ones horizons and possibly an expedient source of surplus income in an otherwise expense free environment. There is also the multitude of colony worlds out there too, each apparently free to develop their societies with a significant amount of latitude. While Nimbus III was obviously a crock, the advertisements playing in the background referring to financing through Federation Federal gives some clue to how civilian off world operations may be facilitated.
As for allegations of the Federation being "evil," I was serious about comparing the U.S. under the same criteria as the opening video as a means of dispelling the "evidence" of "fascism." Obviously there is money, but taking a few cherry picked snapshots from reality, it looks like communications must be under governmental control, because NASA was involved in placing (most) of the communication satellites in orbit, and what about the name of the American Broadcasting Company? AHA! Then transportation, the government owns and runs (most of) the road systems and requires registration to use them! And don't forget about eminent domain. Oh my, we're being controlled by government conspiracy!
Really though, I'd say that once society passes a certain scale/developmental level significant amounts centralized power is simply unavoidable. Having significant government involvement in some things is perfectly understandable even. Seeing as how interstellar travel of useful speed in 'Trek requires an antimatter powered warp drive, I imagine there would be significant regulation of such craft at the very least.
The real trick is ensuring that the power isn't abused. I don't really think that the Federation is a corrupt entity with malicious intent, I'm sure it's ideals are indeed everything they were written to be. My personal concern is that all those good and honorable intentions require maintenance, and the TNG era seems to feature a burgeoning decadence where they have lost a lot of their forward momentum. I think that it represents a critical time for the UFP, and if it's members aren't careful, it could deteriorate into an oppressive state full of shiny happy aliens -- or else. It even sounds a bit like an inadvertant case of art immitating life, thinking of the stories of early TNG where the official edict of 'Trek being a perfect place where everyone always gets along made for problems in production.
Then there's Picard's tirade in ST:8 "First Contact." While I realize it was meant to reflect his personal issues, I have long felt it was indicative of something deeper, and unfortunately quite prevalent throughout the Federation. This one line in particular:
Looking at the afore mentioned Boraalans from TNG "Homeward," similarly doomed by the same initial decision made regarding the Dreman's from TNG "Pen Pals," I notice that it's perfectly fine to establish covert surveillance on such primitives, that's for science! But using technology beyond their comprehension to save lives from a natural disaster is just evil. We don't have to know why, the established doctrine has given us our orders, and Nature has selected these primitives should die.
Then we come to Section 31. The group that attempted to commit xenocide in order to destabilize the opposing government which threatened the the Federation. Yep, while those insidious shadow organizations of the unscrupulous Cardassians and Romulans attempted to to wipe out the Founders with a large orbital bombardment, which at least some Federation brass was hopeful would work, it was Starfleet's own shadow organization which came closest to actually succeeding in killing every member of the threatening race. Of course, it was a Federation doctor who ultimately cured the engineered disease, and as a whole the Federation would certainly not approve of such actions, but it indicates to me how the Federation already shows signs of deterioration, and could easily slip into corruption far from the ideals it takes for granted.
That's my take on it anyway.
I read over the "Vengeance Factor" episode, and while the Gatherers were wondering in space due to their initial unwillingness to sweep their remaining vendettas under the rug, the episode does try to paint a sympathetic, though undeniably brutish view of them. The Gatherers at least demonstrate no interest in further pursuing any centuries old clan rivalries, but don't trust the home world Acamarians, who in turn had been hunting and imprisoning those Gatherers they caught for years. From the dialog, it sounds like the Gatherers would be getting their own territory on the planet with which they could do what they pleased, along with seats on a central governing body consisting of an undisclosed number of total member seats. I can't really see this as a full on example of promoting "tribal ethnicity" so much as Picard legitimately mediating two fractured groups, both of whom seemed ready to stop fighting and merge but understandably didn't totally trust each other. While it does sound a bit ethnic minded, I think it did make sense for those two groups to step up and iron out the problems closest to home, in keeping with one of Roddenberry's quotes:
It's wording is a bit flowery for me, but the idea isn't invalid. If the native Acarmarians can't work out the differences of a century of separation, how are they going to work out the incompatibilities of millennia old otherworldly cultures? And especially since they were already halfway there, with both sides having finally given up the old clan wars. Well, with that one exception, heh.Gene Roddenberry wrote:Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there.
As for the growth of the Federation, I don't know about any official mission statement, but the Feds certainly like expansion. Getting Bajor to join was a major consideration, and recruiting a new world was the entire point behind the TNG episode "First Contact." In "Metamorphosis" Kirk said "We're on a thousand planets and spreading out." In the TNG episode "Neutral Zone" the Romulans noted distastefully that there was "expansion of the Federation everywhere."
I wouldn't say that's necessarily bad or nefarious though. It's pretty clear the Federation doesn't conquer worlds, and if they set up colonies on empty planets at a rapid rate, well, there's nothing particularly wrong with that either.
It would appear that member world's do retain a significant amount of autonomy and cultural identity as well, even if it's to their detriment, as the government of Yar's home world of Turkana IV evidently collapsed and simply fell away from the UFP. In the case of the member planet Ardana from TOS "The Cloud Minders" they even seem to have been overly lenient with the requirements for that world's admission into the Federation, seeing the apparent ignorance or top level indifference to the unethical government, which was evidently protected from interference by Starfleet.
On that note, I've been toying with an idea regarding the apparent contradiction as to whether the Federation uses "money." The clear existence of credits, along with the obvious presence and need for trade makes money unavoidable. The idea that they would dispose of currency in favor of some sort of barter system is ridiculous, but the use of money could possibly be optional at certain levels. Looking at the apparent autonomy planets are given within the Federation, along with the specific context of all the quotes that money no longer exists leads me to wonder if perhaps the rejection of currency is more of a human, and even more specifically Terran thing. The whole idea of mankind "bettering" himself and much of the admittedly communist sounding philosophies may be focused around Earth itself, rather than the Federation or even humanity as a whole. In this way Earth's new "hat" so to speak may be that of an intellectual's paradise where technology has significantly reduced the need of menial laborers and where artists, scientists and philosophers can thrive. To address an obvious concern, it could be considered that cultivating fine wine and specializing in Cajun cooking could qualify as art.
While this doesn't initially sound good for those who crave adventure or greater direct control over their surroundings, Starfleet would be an obvious avenue for expanding ones horizons and possibly an expedient source of surplus income in an otherwise expense free environment. There is also the multitude of colony worlds out there too, each apparently free to develop their societies with a significant amount of latitude. While Nimbus III was obviously a crock, the advertisements playing in the background referring to financing through Federation Federal gives some clue to how civilian off world operations may be facilitated.
As for allegations of the Federation being "evil," I was serious about comparing the U.S. under the same criteria as the opening video as a means of dispelling the "evidence" of "fascism." Obviously there is money, but taking a few cherry picked snapshots from reality, it looks like communications must be under governmental control, because NASA was involved in placing (most) of the communication satellites in orbit, and what about the name of the American Broadcasting Company? AHA! Then transportation, the government owns and runs (most of) the road systems and requires registration to use them! And don't forget about eminent domain. Oh my, we're being controlled by government conspiracy!
Really though, I'd say that once society passes a certain scale/developmental level significant amounts centralized power is simply unavoidable. Having significant government involvement in some things is perfectly understandable even. Seeing as how interstellar travel of useful speed in 'Trek requires an antimatter powered warp drive, I imagine there would be significant regulation of such craft at the very least.
The real trick is ensuring that the power isn't abused. I don't really think that the Federation is a corrupt entity with malicious intent, I'm sure it's ideals are indeed everything they were written to be. My personal concern is that all those good and honorable intentions require maintenance, and the TNG era seems to feature a burgeoning decadence where they have lost a lot of their forward momentum. I think that it represents a critical time for the UFP, and if it's members aren't careful, it could deteriorate into an oppressive state full of shiny happy aliens -- or else. It even sounds a bit like an inadvertant case of art immitating life, thinking of the stories of early TNG where the official edict of 'Trek being a perfect place where everyone always gets along made for problems in production.
Then there's Picard's tirade in ST:8 "First Contact." While I realize it was meant to reflect his personal issues, I have long felt it was indicative of something deeper, and unfortunately quite prevalent throughout the Federation. This one line in particular:
That nugget of an "in my century-ism" espoused under stress, moments before totally losing it seems telling. When one's ideals become mantras used to reassure oneself of their own rectitude, that's a bad sign. That kind of blind "but we're the good guys" faith in the infallibility of the Prime Directive and their own moral incorruptibility just makes it easier to find loopholes and make little nudges to accomplish whatever is determined to be "for the best."Picard wrote:In my century we don't succumb to revenge. We have a more evolved sensibility.
Looking at the afore mentioned Boraalans from TNG "Homeward," similarly doomed by the same initial decision made regarding the Dreman's from TNG "Pen Pals," I notice that it's perfectly fine to establish covert surveillance on such primitives, that's for science! But using technology beyond their comprehension to save lives from a natural disaster is just evil. We don't have to know why, the established doctrine has given us our orders, and Nature has selected these primitives should die.
Then we come to Section 31. The group that attempted to commit xenocide in order to destabilize the opposing government which threatened the the Federation. Yep, while those insidious shadow organizations of the unscrupulous Cardassians and Romulans attempted to to wipe out the Founders with a large orbital bombardment, which at least some Federation brass was hopeful would work, it was Starfleet's own shadow organization which came closest to actually succeeding in killing every member of the threatening race. Of course, it was a Federation doctor who ultimately cured the engineered disease, and as a whole the Federation would certainly not approve of such actions, but it indicates to me how the Federation already shows signs of deterioration, and could easily slip into corruption far from the ideals it takes for granted.
That's my take on it anyway.