Starfleet Jedi

I know a lot of it is that its being broadcast in capitalist countries and some people will try to find anything to criticize it but why is the idea of a perfect socialist state so looked down on? I mean, we should be PRAISING it for having the guts to show what a perfect system would look like!

I mean, everyone is happy, religion is nonexistant and money no longer exists as a means to create social inequities by the oligarchical elitists. What would they want? A future where all the money and political power rests with a .1% of the people and the rest are forced to accept their lot by religion, tool of the rich. It would be like the corrupt system we see in SW.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

Religion still exists, but limited to the individual and tolerated. Overall, people seem to be fairly educated and extremely favourable to science, so religions take a backseat (although I remember Picard giving a speech about religion to someone, maybe it was in First Contact, or some episode... considering that I may have seen a grand total of three of them...).

There are still places where money is still used, but globally all needs are satisfied and you seem to be able to go pretty much anywhere anytime you want. You can still have personnal domains (Picard's family had vineyards, right?) or other activities like restaurants (Benjamin Sisko's father).

On the rest, I don't know. It's sure that if you remove the alien attacks and space anomalies, even if the governments seem to be corrupted at certain levels, globally the world is feeling way better than it does now.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Religion still exists, but limited to the individual and tolerated. Overall, people seem to be fairly educated and extremely favourable to science, so religions take a backseat (although I remember Picard giving a speech about religion to someone, maybe it was in First Contact, or some episode... considering that I may have seen a grand total of three of them...).

It should be who watches the watcher (TNG) if I understand which one your refering to. In it Picard seemed to imply that to stop beliving in a God was a natural and highly evolved trait, but frankly I don't think we see enough of the civlian side of the federation to know if that was just his personal opinion or more of a cultural motif.

The Real Aaron A Aaronson wrote:I know a lot of it is that its being broadcast in capitalist countries and some people will try to find anything to criticize it but why is the idea of a perfect socialist state so looked down on? I mean, we should be PRAISING it for having the guts to show what a perfect system would look like!

I guess we don't like it because socialism just doesn't appear to work. It's fundemently flawed and to function would require humanity to be perfect,which we ain't. Now I can agree that the Federation,inside the magic world of SOD, is a very nice place to live with all one's needs taken care of and that while not my first selection to live in I could do a lot worse.

The Real Aaron A Aaronson wrote:I mean, everyone is happy,

Agreed everyone is happy,after all Earth is Paradise. I do enjoy that since most places in the "future" are very bleak and depressing. Always seems to be some war or fight needen to be taken care off.

religion is nonexistant and money no longer exists as a means to create social inequities by the oligarchical elitists.

I wouldn't say lack of religion is a good thing and one doesn't need money to be rulled by oligarchical elitists. The Soviet Union proved that comunistic countries can be quite oppressive.

The Real Aaron A Aaronson wrote:I know a lot of it is that its being broadcast in capitalist countries and some people will try to find anything to criticize it but why is the idea of a perfect socialist state so looked down on?

What is a perfect socialist state, and what makes you think Trek shows one?

I personally view Trek as showing a more of a post-scarcity economic system, such as we get any indication of economics whatsoever.

I mean, everyone is happy, religion is nonexistant and money no longer exists as a means to create social inequities by the oligarchical elitists.

Why do you believe that is the purpose of money? Money is a tool, a means of exchange and value calculation without old-fashioned barter. What would you suggest instead?

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Religion still exists, but limited to the individual and tolerated. Overall, people seem to be fairly educated and extremely favourable to science, so religions take a backseat (although I remember Picard giving a speech about religion to someone, maybe it was in First Contact, or some episode... considering that I may have seen a grand total of three of them...).

Actually, as of the mid-2150's, Earth still apparently had some organized religions since Dr. Phlox mentions in "Cold Front" [ST:ENT, Season 1] having witnessed Mass in St. Peter's Square in Rome, and a ritual in a Tibetan monastery.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:There are still places where money is still used, but globally all needs are satisfied and you seem to be able to go pretty much anywhere anytime you want. You can still have personnal domains (Picard's family had vineyards, right?) or other activities like restaurants (Benjamin Sisko's father).

More specifically, Earth does not use money, but other Federation members still do, such as Vulcan. At least as recently as TOS, even humans made use of the Federation credit as a means of paying for things, and as recently as TNG, even Vash, a human, had to pay for transport from one planet to another as per "Captain's Holiday".

Mr. Oragahn wrote:On the rest, I don't know. It's sure that if you remove the alien attacks and space anomalies, even if the governments seem to be corrupted at certain levels, globally the world is feeling way better than it does now.

We know very little actually about the government of the Federation, though each individual member world does seem to have a fair degree of autonomy in their own internal affairs.
-Mike

The Real Aaron A Aaronson wrote:I know a lot of it is that its being broadcast in capitalist countries and some people will try to find anything to criticize it but why is the idea of a perfect socialist state so looked down on? I mean, we should be PRAISING it for having the guts to show what a perfect system would look like!

I mean, everyone is happy, religion is nonexistant and money no longer exists as a means to create social inequities by the oligarchical elitists. What would they want? A future where all the money and political power rests with a .1% of the people and the rest are forced to accept their lot by religion, tool of the rich. It would be like the corrupt system we see in SW.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

I think the problem is, that most don't know, what socialism or communism is supposed to be like. They think, that it has to be like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but fail to notice, that there was no real socialist or communist nation on this earth in the last 5'000 years.

• • sonofccn wrote:The Soviet Union proved that comunistic countries can be quite oppressive.

    • • The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was socialism in name only and has had nothing to do with communism.

You are doing the same if you think, that a socialist or communist state is defined by absence of money and religion. That's wrong. States can have money and religious liberty and can be socialist or communist states nevertheless.

Who is like God arbour wrote:The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was socialism in name only and has had nothing to do with communism.

The Soviets might have disagreed with you :)
They never the less attempted socialism,striving to create a classless society. The fact that they failed miserably doesn't change the fact they attempted the experiment. Regardless I refrenced the soviet union in regards to Araron A Araronson remark of the evil of money, my point being that in a nation as close to anti-capitalistic and moneyless as your bound to find on earth, opression was a reality and far worse then under any peer captitalistc society. Ergo that man is the source of evil not money, and the absence of it(ie money) wouldn't prevent a ruling elite.

sonofccn wrote:

Who is like God arbour wrote:The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was socialism in name only and has had nothing to do with communism.

The Soviets might have disagreed with you :)

I'd say, that depends, whom you are asking and if they are answering truthfull.

The man-in-the-street wouldn't say, that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was socialist or communist, even if he would have had the political education to know, what exactly both meanings are. (That's not a given. Although the citizen of the Eastern bloc were usually well educated, they were also political indoctrinated.)

Not the proletariat has had the power in the state, but a small squad of leaders or even only one single person (e.g. Stalinism).

But the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a term that refers to a temporary state between the capitalist society and the classless and stateless communist society; during this transition period. Insofar, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has not even reached that transition period.

Then there are the leaders, who are saying all they deem necessary to convince and appease the stupid people. They will try to tell you, that all they have done was necessary for the greater good and to achieve their goal: communism.

But in reality, they have only tried to keep their power. They have not tried to establish communism but to establish their own dictatorship under the pretense to try to establish communism.

They never the less attempted socialism,striving to create a classless society. The fact that they failed miserably doesn't change the fact they attempted the experiment.

I'd say, that it could be possible that they have attempted the experiment in the beginning. But if, then they have aborted that experiment very fast. There is not much, that would prove, that there were real attempts to establisch socialism or communism.
That was only, what they have called it.
The problem now is, that both systems are suffering from that abuse of their name.

Regardless I refrenced the soviet union in regards to Araron A Araronson remark of the evil of money, my point being that in a nation as close to anti-capitalistic and moneyless as your bound to find on earth, opression was a reality and far worse then under any peer captitalistc society. Ergo that man is the source of evil not money, and the absence of it(ie money) wouldn't prevent a ruling elite.

I will not excuse the crimes, which were done in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

But one could argue that the real existing capitalism allows, that each day hundred-thousands of people are dying from malnutrition, deficient water supply, lack of most simplest pharmaceuticals etc. etc. All five seconds, a child under ten years old dies from malnutrition. All 15 seconds a child dies from deficient water supply. All four minutes someone goes blind because lack of vitamin A. The real existing apitalism is only profitable for a small part of the world population while the theoretical communism would try to prevent such suffering.

If such an objection is true, is another question. But the truth is, that capitalism is not the last conclusion of wisdom. Only that we, who are benefiting from it, have troubles to see the negative sides of it.

Who is like God arbour wrote:Then there are the leaders, who are saying all they deem necessary to convince and appease the stupid people. They will try to tell you, that all they have done was necessary for the greater good and to achieve their goal: communism.

But in reality, they have only tried to keep their power. They have not tried to establish communism but to establish their own dictatorship under the pretense to try to establish communism.

It goes without saying the power bloc inside the USSR was first and foremost concerned with keeping thier own power but to say they were not true communists as opposed to understand this is the end result of attempting Comunisim in the real world is foolish. Granted in theroy the dictatorship was supposed to dissolve,making me think whoever thoguht that theroy up needs thier head examined, but the USSR Goverment did force govement ownership of all property and parcled it out to it's people as they needed. That is communision, an ugly far end of the spectrum version but one regardless.

I'd say, that it could be possible that they have attempted the experiment in the beginning. But if, then they have aborted that experiment very fast. There is not much, that would prove, that there were real attempts to establisch socialism or communism.
That was only, what they have called it.
The problem now is, that both systems are suffering from that abuse of their name.

I'd say it was merely a theroy meeting reality. A reality filled with cruel evil men who didn't need much of nudge to perform henious acts.

The systems havn't suffered,unjustly, from the USSR. As long as we are dealing with humans and not say a legion of Data andriods, Socliasm will not work, as evident in the creation in one of the most horride nations-states ever to grace the Earth. It goes against human nature. The transitional dictatorship will not step down, people will not work harder without gains and the entire country will suffer because of it.

But one could argue that the real existing capitalism allows, that each day hundred-thousands of people are dying from malnutrition, deficient water supply, lack of most simplest pharmaceuticals etc. etc. All five seconds, a child under ten years old dies from malnutrition. All 15 seconds a child dies from deficient water supply. All four minutes someone goes blind because lack of vitamin A. The real existing apitalism is only profitable for a small part of the world population while the theoretical communism would try to prevent such suffering.

The keyword in your statement was theoretical. In a perfect universe it might work. We don't live in a perfect universe. We live in this one and can only compare actual capitalism which had brougth prosperity to whever it has been applied,hint many of those poor dieing people tend to live in quasi-socialist states, compared to acutal socialism which general has brought problems.

As it stands today,in reality opposed to theroy, capitalism stands to help the people you mentioned much more then communisium.


However this is way off point of my original claim. That it was humanity not money that caused evil in the world as Araron seemed to suggest. One can also insert religion in place of money if one so wished. I was merely challenging his claim, as it appears you also did( I think), that by removing money and religion mankind would suddenly become saints.

I guess in conclusion I can agree the USSR was not the theoretical version of comunisiom. I just don't see an alternative on this Earth

What this thread makes the mistake of doing is equating the ideals of Socialism with Communism, or as I refer to it, Marxism, which is the ideal that the Federation follows. It is better to say that the ideals of Socialism are all encompassing of everything from Utopianism, which is (ironically) not at all present in the Federation (a better fictional example might be the Culture, but I haven't had a chance to go over too many of the political details of Utopianism yet), to Democratic Socialism as seen in many states in Western Europe (including my own), and even including Marxism. It's a political system that works in some cases and some variants, but is woefully terrible in others. I refer you to China and the Soviet Union for the latter, and just about everything in Western Europe for the former. Except National Socialism, which is in fact something akin to Fascism and is only supported by bad people who should be kicked in the head.

You see, in many ideals of Socialism, the idea is not to get rid of a capitalist economy, not to get rid of religion, not to give the military total control of the government, and not to control peoples' lives. The Federation seems to have all of these in abundance. The idea is to make peoples' lives a little better by introducing a social welfare and social healthcare system whilst also making sure that the capitalist economy isn't allowed to fuck people too far up the arse. See: America and the RIAA.

The Federation, as it stands, is not in any way a 'utopia' I'd want to inhabit. It's really a lot like all of the false utopian societies it exposed. Section 31 and the Federation's society creates a false pretence of something utopian, but it's run with witch-hunts in the background that not even the higher echelons of society know about.

Frankly, there is a lot wrong with the Federation, but it's the fact that rather than merely being Communist or Socialist, it is in fact a Stalinist sort of regime.

Narsil wrote:What this thread makes the mistake of doing is equating the ideals of Socialism with Communism, or as I refer to it, Marxism, which is the ideal that the Federation follows. It is better to say that the ideals of Socialism are all encompassing of everything from Utopianism, which is (ironically) not at all present in the Federation (a better fictional example might be the Culture, but I haven't had a chance to go over too many of the political details of Utopianism yet), to Democratic Socialism as seen in many states in Western Europe (including my own), and even including Marxism. It's a political system that works in some cases and some variants, but is woefully terrible in others. I refer you to China and the Soviet Union for the latter, and just about everything in Western Europe for the former. Except National Socialism, which is in fact something akin to Fascism and is only supported by bad people who should be kicked in the head.

I think that your mistake is, that you seem to equate socialism with social. There are differences. A state or community can be social without being socialistic. Fact is, there are no states in Western Europe who are claiming to be socialistic. They may be social - or at least claim to be social. But they are not socialistic

You see, in many ideals of Socialism, the idea is not to get rid of a capitalist economy, not to get rid of religion, not to give the military total control of the government, and not to control peoples' lives. The Federation seems to have all of these in abundance.

Wrong. While it is correct, that there is a broad array of ideologies and political movements to which socialism refers, the common goal is a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

The idea is to make peoples' lives a little better by introducing a social welfare and social healthcare system whilst also making sure that the capitalist economy isn't allowed to fuck people too far up the arse. See: America and the RIAA.

No, that is not the meaning of socialism.

The Federation, as it stands, is not in any way a 'utopia' I'd want to inhabit. It's really a lot like all of the false utopian societies it exposed. Section 31 and the Federation's society creates a false pretence of something utopian, but it's run with witch-hunts in the background that not even the higher echelons of society know about.

That there is a secret service has neither to do with socialism nor communism.
And what do you mean with » witch-hunts in the background«. And why would these witch-hunts in the background rule out socialism or communism?

Frankly, there is a lot wrong with the Federation, but it's the fact that rather than merely being Communist or Socialist, it is in fact a Stalinist sort of regime.

You should elaborate that statement. I have not get the impression, that the UfP is governed by one single person allone, that has established a personality cult around himself as an absolute dictator. I also dont see the extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission and silence political dissent.

sonofccn, I think we agree. There was never real socialism or communism on this earth. If there were real attempts to establish such systems, they have failed because egoistic humans.

Another question is, if it would be possible to establish such systems at all.

But SoD dictates, that it was possible after the First Contact, if one would define Earth or UfP as socialism or communism at all. I don't think, that what little we know about Earth meets the definition of either.

Whatever economic system they have, it is in my opinion an entirely new system which may merely have some similarities with socialism or communism.

Given how accountable Section 31 is to the rest of the Federation, it would be more appropriate to class it a rogue terrorist group that happens to draw its members from Starfleet's rolls and has managed to survive for the whole of Federation history.

It is worth noting that the Federation appears to:

• Heavily protect individual rights for all sentients, even artificial ones (see the exocomps and Data v. Starfleet).
• Not be an organization with strict control over member states. Think of it as a version of the UN with much bigger teeth for defending against external enemies.

It seems as if Federation citizens - at least, the human ones - commonly have unfettered - in fact, apparently free - access to:

• Food.
• Shelter.
• Transportation.
• Medical care.
• Education.

To the degree that it can be made available (e.g., mass planetary evacuations and major outbreaks can be difficult to deal with).

Earth certainly allows individuals to hold property, but profiteering capitalists seem limited to the fringes of civilized space (e.g., Mudd). In general, we don't see owners of capital profiting from the labor and ideas of others. I suspect Marx would approve of Federation social support, even if the Federation isn't necessarily "properly" communist.

Given that it is trivially easy to leave the Federation individually or as a group (see various wayward colonies), provided you do not pick a planet actively claimed by a hostile alien civilization (e.g., Cardassians, Sheliak) who will annihilate or enslave unwanted humans, it is difficult to believe the Federation qualifies as oppressive.

I see not much in common with Stalinism in the UFP. I notice a distinct lack of planned famines, attempts to forcibly stamp out minority cultures, persecution of all levels of religious leaders, and also a lack of central dictatorial authority invested in a single person. In fact, Federation presidents do not appear to serve very long terms, and must answer to the Federation council - to quote STVI, "the president is not above the law."

Who is like God arbour wrote:I think that your mistake is, that you seem to equate socialism with social. There are differences. A state or community can be social without being socialistic. Fact is, there are no states in Western Europe who are claiming to be socialistic. They may be social - or at least claim to be social. But they are not socialistic

There is no difference between Social and Socialistic in a political context, as evidenced by the ideas of Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism being more or less the same ideology with a different arrangement of the wording. I would also point out that there are several influential Democratic Socialist political parties in Western Europe which, while not in power all of the time, are in fact voted in every now and then. The United Kingdom's Labour Party, prior to (and partially after) the adoption of the New Labour title, for example.

Wrong. While it is correct, that there is a broad array of ideologies and political movements to which socialism refers, the common goal is a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

Though there are many different means to an end, which is a point that you seem to miss. Your ideas of Socialism are obviously based off of the baseline ideology which isn't actually used by most political parties but is instead the original source of the modern ideologies of the same name. It is an undeveloped, sometimes silly idea that isn't very workable, and it is also unfortunately the most commonly cited variant.

No, that is not the meaning of socialism.

Wikipedia is extremely incoherent, open to democratic opinions on what the facts are, can be edited by anyone, and is therefore the single most unreliable website in the world when it comes to establishing the facts. Therefore I'm going to use a textbook.

The common Socialism are defined by John Hoffman and Paul Graham in Introduction to Political Theory (ISBN-13: 978-0-582-47373-7) as the following;

Hoffman and Graham, 2006, page 211 wrote:

1. an optimistic view of human nature - a view that human nature is either changeable or does not constitute a barrier to social regulation or ownership. The notion that humans are too selfish to cooperate and have common interests contradicts socialist doctrine.
2. a stress on cooperation - all socialists hold that people can and should work together so that the market and capitalism need at the very least some adjustment in order to facilitate cooperation. Competition may be seen as an aid to, or wholly incompatible with, cooperation, but the latter is the guiding principle.
3. a positive view of freedom - a notion that the question of freedom must be examined in a social context and therefore in the context of resources of a material kind. The right to read and write, for example, requires the provision of schooling if such a right is to be meaningful.
4. support for equality - socialist define equality in dramatically different ways, but alll, it seems to us, must subscribe to equality in some form or other. This, Crick argues, is 'the basic value in any imaginable or feasible socialist society'.

[EDIT]
Also, earlier in the same book, from the Introduction section of Chapter 9 (Socialism), page 208, emphasis mine, to drive forth the point a bit further as I feel I failed to do so originally;

Is socialism dead? This provocative point was argued by many conservatives, and the former British Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, in particular, after the collapse of the Communist Party states.

The difficulty in deciding whether socialism is dead is that socialism, as feminism, is bedevilled by the problem of variety. Socialism comes in many different shapes and forms. The recent Iraq War saw the British government, which would consider itself socialist, waging armed struggle along with the United States against a regime that would also call itself socialist. Do the diverse kinds of socialism have anything in common?

[/EDIT]

This essentially speaks for itself. Socialism is not one ideology but a bloody lot of ideologies which sometimes have very little to do with each other. You seem to be under the impression that one must follow the very inaccurate and incoherent Wikipedia definition whilst attempting to make a convincing argument.

Furthermore, the most common variant, which is Democratic Socialism (well, ignoring Communism) is defined as exactly what I put there.

That there is a secret service has neither to do with socialism nor communism.
And what do you mean with » witch-hunts in the background«. And why would these witch-hunts in the background rule out socialism or communism?

You should elaborate that statement. I have not get the impression, that the UfP is governed by one single person allone, that has established a personality cult around himself as an absolute dictator. I also dont see the extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission and silence political dissent.

They don't rule out Socialism or Communism. You are misinterpreting what I have said. I pointed out a flaw of the Federation that really had nothing to do with Communism or Socialism as such, but instead the very nasty types of Stalinist regimes that you tend to find. Why? Because the Federation has several features which put it out as being Stalinist.

Firstly, there is military rule of the Federation; civilians (such as Bashir's father) are tried by military courts for non-military related crimes such as genetic engineering and alteration. Secondly, there is no reference, not a single one, to elections or to alternate political viewpoints within the context of the Federation itself. You don't see anyone in the Federation who doesn't toe the party line, and there isn't even the slightest consideration of alternative systems such as Liberalism or Conservatism, thus we can assume that there is either no true democracy (all of the candidates follow the same party line) or there is no democracy full stop. Thirdly, there is a secret police that tracks down anyone seen as a traitor and 'takes care of them'.

This sounds somewhat familiar.

Narsil

1. I have merely linked to wikipedia because I'm too lazy to translate and typewrite my German textbooks. I don't doubt, that wikipedia can be changed and that, what is written in it, could be false. But that does not mean, that it has to be false. And if I link to it, I have checked, that - at least to this time - its entry was correct.
   It's correct, that the definition, wikipedia gives, is for my taste a little too imprecise. But I have come to the conclusion, that it is precise enough for this debate.
   
   Maybe you do like these definitions a little bit more:
   1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
   2. 1. a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
      2. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
   3. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
2. There is a huge difference between Social and Socialistic in a political context. Maybe you shouldn't have disregarded wikipedia at all. If you would have read the pages, to which I have linked, you would understand, where the difference lies. It's the same difference as there is between a welfare state and a socialist state. There are some similarities. But they are not equal.
3. As I have said, there is a broad array of ideologies and political movements to which socialism refers. But you have claimed, that socialism doesn't try »to get rid of a capitalist economy«. And that is utterly wrong because pure socialism and pure capitalism are mutually exclusive. The problem may be, that there is no pure capitalism on earth either - not even in the USA.
   That's why I think, that you are confusing social with socialism. Indeed, a social state or welfare state does not try to get rid of capitalism.
4. The problem with »Introduction to Political Theory« from John Hoffman and Paul Graham is, that they are relating political ideas to political realities. But there was never a real socialism. Therefore they are not relating socialism to the political reality but what was done under the name of socialism and communism. Furthermore, what you have quoted is not a definition. It's - if at all - an incomplete summary of a few characteristics of socialism.
5. It may be, that I have misinterpreted, what you have said. But nevertheless, you are describing a caricature of the UfP.
   • Please provide evidence, that the UfP is under military rule!
   • Please provide evidence, that there are no elections. The fact, that we have not seen one, is no evidence. In most series and movies, which are playing in a democratic nation, there are never elections shown and nobody would conclude, that because in Dallas or in Dynasty or in Coronation Street no elections were shown, the USA or the UK is not democratic. You should simply consider, that in Star Trek, we see little of the civilian life. You know next to nothing of it. You simply can't provide any evidence, that there are no parties or other political discourse. Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence.
   • Please provide evidence, that there is a secret police, which is hunting down everyone, they are considering as a traitor and are taking care of them!