There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Is the Federation "Communist" or Socialist?

Hi there, I’m not trying to start a political argument or anything, I’m just curious what people here think about this often repeated claim that the Federation is a socialist or even communist utopia? I know Strange New Worlds did say in dialogue it is socialist but I was wondering if people here think that’s accurate? I’m not a communist or a marxist or anything like that, but I’ve had people who identify as such tell me the Federation basically is communist. So anyway, what’s your thoughts?

Corgana ,
@Corgana@startrek.website avatar

Neither, since they are moneyless and post scarcity. We honestly don’t have a word for whatever they are.

nublug ,

google communism

Kaboom ,

(to my knowledge) they never actually said who controls the means of production. But so called “true communism” is impossible, even in post scarcity, so we can rule that out.

So it’s either capitalist or socialist, and in post scarcity societies, there’s no real difference.

marcos ,

It’s absolutely not a communist anarchy. There’s a government, and it controls all those ships, science stations and mining operations. It doesn’t look like URSS-ish communist either, as it’s clearly democratic.

Besides, there exists some form of capitalism in it. It’s just not very intense on the human worlds. And it’s clearly socialist, as everybody is included on the society… So, my guess it’s social-capitalist just like every advanced society today, just way richer than anything we know.

ThrowawayPermanente ,

I thought it was widely understood that Star Trek is FALGSC

MrSaturn OP ,
@MrSaturn@startrek.website avatar

What’s that?

ThrowawayPermanente ,

Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism

MrSaturn OP ,
@MrSaturn@startrek.website avatar

Oh, never heard that before

TC_209 , (edited )

Capitalism was eliminated on Earth by the New World Economy, which was likely a Dictatorship of the Proletariat as envisioned by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Roddenberry, etc. The Federation appears to be a classless, moneyless post-DotP society that still has one primary state apparatus (the Federation itself) that oversees many smaller state apparatuses (the Federation’s many member-worlds). You’ll notice a contradiction, though: If a state “is a system by which the ruling class maintains and perpetuates its dominance within the social formation… by subjugating the other class(es) within class society” then how can the Federation be a classless society? I propose two solutions:

  1. Star Trek is fiction and fictional worlds are often incomplete and contradictory. Everything I’ve said about the New World Economy, the Federation, etc. should be taken with a grain of quadrotriticale.
  2. No society has established a DotP, and there are certainly no examples of post-DotP societies. Marxism is a scientific and materialist worldview – it has evolved since the 19th century and it will continue to evolve into the 23rd century and beyond.

EDIT: My answer is “Yes, but it’s Advanced Sci-Fi Communism.”

MrSaturn OP ,
@MrSaturn@startrek.website avatar

Was Roddenberry a Marxist?

TC_209 ,

Most sources on Roddenberry’s political beliefs are people who knew him, and they didn’t open up about those beliefs until after his death. Here’s an article that I’ve skimmed:

According to his last wife, Majel Barrett, he identified as a communist. But we know from the many accounts of his unethical business practices that he was also obsessed with making money. He preached peace and love but was infamously difficult to get along with. And he flew the flag for feminism while being a notorious womanizer.

Gene was a delightful man with great creativity and talent, but he was also a deeply flawed man who often failed to practice what he preached.

Hextubewontallowme , (edited )
@Hextubewontallowme@lemmy.ml avatar

Idk… for good starters, I’d ask ye this

I’d rather ask how it is not capitalist

Is it capitalist and hegemonicDoes this federation have a system of unequal exchange and resource exploitation of one place to another, the core, essentially, with the majority of the federation being an large mass of desperate wage and salary laborers, once self-sufficient peasants, in the resource-rich place of the periphery, under the guise of “investment”? Does this federation love to lend and privatize foreign economies, and cut social spending, a la IMF, in order to dominate the latter’s economy? Does this federation have a policy of CAPITALIST settler-colonialism, based on classical-liberal style property rights and genocide of the indigenous people? If this is all merely in the past of class struggles and national liberation movements, and the federation has fought and abolished such forms of exploitation, yay

To check if its communist, in the more modern form {there is such thing as primitive communism}, however:Does this federation wrecked out any chance of capitalist and liberal restoration, due to past ‘authoritarianism’? Does this federation work without the use of money, any proprietorship, social class, and the force of government, but instead with collective ownership of major assets and modern cooperative values or ‘ideology’ being casually accepted as the norm, instead of as an old-fashioned ideology or academic subject? This is to ensure that Communism is dominant, as to be practically ‘Communist’, in such a federation Does surplus value, from labor, go into the needs of the people, even in its ‘authoritarian’ fetus defensive form, instead of going towards any capitalist profit or landlord’s rent, or any past economic mode of production? Note: Personal property, such as watches and purses, do not count as private property, unless you’re using it to make into an asset, like a steam engine, to run a metro-train system, or a collection of buildings, to take rent upon

MrSaturn OP , (edited )
@MrSaturn@startrek.website avatar

I would say the Federation is basically a liberal utopia so it’s not against being liberal

Max_P ,
@Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me avatar

The federation tends to let member planets be independent, the federation doesn’t come in and be like “we own your planet and we provide for you in return we take everything”, so it’s definitely leaning socialist.

The main difference is who owns the means of production. In communism, the government does. In socialism, the people do.

Both aim to provide for the population at large and not just benefit to a few rich elites that own everything, but socialism is a bit more robust against tyrannical governments.

DPRK_Chopra ,
@DPRK_Chopra@hexbear.net avatar

Sort of… Under Socialism workers control the means of production. That’s it, it can take a lot of forms. Communism, however, is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. There’s no need for a state to own everything anymore, or a need for a state at all, because there’s no class antagonisms any longer, and no need to secure the means of production on behalf of the workers. Communism is more of an aspirational mode of being in that sense, but there are socialist states that worked or are working towards those ends. The “tyranny” you’re referring to is more part of the transitional era where you need to have a strong state that can suppress and liquidate the bourgeoisie in order to keep control of the means of production.

I don’t think we know enough about the economics of the federation to say either way, but it certainly doesn’t appear that there are distinct classes of haves and have nots, making it basically a communist society.

LengAwaits ,

The main difference is who owns the means of production. In communism, the government does. In socialism, the people do.

What would we call a hybrid system in which the government is made up of the people and owns the means of production? Direct Democratic Communism?

Edit to add:

A federation (also called a federal state) is an entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing provinces, states, or other regions under a federal government (federalism). In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, is constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision, neither by the component states nor the federal political body without constitutional amendment.

Seems relevant considering “The Federation”.

MrSaturn OP ,
@MrSaturn@startrek.website avatar

Yeah I’m not a communist primarily because I’m against dictatorship and human rights abuse but socialism sounds more interesting

TC_209 ,

From a Marxist perspective, all class-based societies are governed by dictatorships:

A dictatorship is the political dominance of one group of people over others. In a class society, a dictatorship usually favors the interest of certain classes over the others.

Right now, we live in the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie

The bourgeoisie is the ruling class in capitalist society; it owns the means of production and has a decisive influence on production. It lives off of surplus value which it obtains by exploiting the labour power of the proletariat.

MrSaturn OP ,
@MrSaturn@startrek.website avatar

I’m not a Marxist so don’t agree

Magister ,
@Magister@lemmy.world avatar

Not communist but I would say Communitarianism

hendrik ,

You can look up the definition and see if it applies. I'd argue it isn't a classless society. Especially with all the military ranks and hierarchies. And socialism is kind of a broad term. I'm pretty sure you can apply it to this case without starting a debate.

rockSlayer ,

Classless societies and justified hierarchy aren’t mutually exclusive, however. That’s the entire point of anarchist strains of political ideology, the only hierarchies that should exist are ones that can be justified for the good of everyone. The hierarchy of Starfleet is justified because it’s still syndicalist in nature while requiring a person to ensure the survival of everyone on board.

hendrik , (edited )

Is that alright with communism? Strive for a classless society except for when we like to do classes anyways? I mean starfleet is kind of military and I don't know much about that in the context of communism. But there's also the separation between the worker class in a starship and then the officers who manage them and who get depicted in most of the TV series. I'm pretty sure that doesn't align well with communism. I'm not sure how many exceptions there are in a communist utopia. But I'd like to see some strong arguments when doing away with some of the core values of an ideology. And I'm not sure if there is a better way to organize a starship than 20 century military hierarchy style.

rockSlayer ,

Well the show and the universe also have to be looked at separately in that context. The show was made for an American audience, which has a strong cultural belief in “great man” theory. The American audience wouldn’t accept a show that doesn’t follow high ranking officers being the paragon of bravery. It also had to keep an arm’s length away from a specific socialist ideology to avoid being swept into the red scare.

Workplaces will still require management, even in communist and anarchist societies. It’s all about who’s doing the managing. The show doesn’t get very detailed in this aspect of their society afaik, but by all means it seems that the rank and file are valued appropriately with their knowledge and input. Believe it or not, but this aligns quite nicely with most types of American brands of socialism. The show keeps it vague for a few good reasons

MrSaturn OP ,
@MrSaturn@startrek.website avatar

Communist states had/have large militaries so I guess that’s not a problem

Zorque ,

“Communist” states also aren’t very communist.

MrSaturn OP ,
@MrSaturn@startrek.website avatar

Why not?

dustyData , (edited )

The federation is a post-scarcity socialist utopia. They don’t even have money. Every single human being has ensured healthcare, housing, food, and education of their choice guaranteed from birth. Rise among ranks of the few hierarchical power structures is based on merit, performance, experience and training. I can’t recall anything specific about the productive sectors that allow this to happen, but since they have access to virtually infinite amounts of energy and everything can be done by machines and matter replicators, there’s no motive for hoarding means of production or wealth, so one would assume that most productive endeavors and enterprises are collectivists by default. Same with political institutions as hoarding power doesn’t guarantee anything significant beyond what the average person already posses. They also have wide social openness, tolerance and acceptance as the most common sources of intolerance and bigotry (wealth, religion, power, prestige, etc.) have been regulated or removed. So there’s no logical point on slaving, discriminating, oppressing or exploiting any particular class of people, some classes of people might not even exists, as there’s no concept of poverty, nor race or sexual discrimination in the culture of the federation.

As a result people don’t have to work, but most probably choose to involve themselves in some sort of productive activity as a form of hobby. Members of the Starfleet for example, aren’t doing so for any particular material incentive. But do it because they think space exploration is neat, or because they seek glory and honor on the Starfleet mission, or because they really really like fusion cores.

They are as socialist as it comes.

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

Does the term “socialist” make sense in a post scarcity world?

I guess the question is who controls the replicators and other things needed to provide what people need to live? Can it be taken away from them?

dustyData ,

Post-scarcity is a socialist term. It came about from futurist elaborations on Marxist materialist ideology. The reduction of labour to the minimum necessary in a society is one of the tenets of communism in order to reach post-capitalism. Certainly by technology, but also by diverting the products of labour, not for the profit and enrichment of the capitalist class, but for the provision to the needs of all society via free distribution of goods and services to all. According to Marx socialism is a necessary stage to reach communism, but communism doesn’t mean the disappearance of socialism.

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

Hmm, I guess there is post scarcity - everyone works and everyone has what they need, there is no scarcity of resource.

But then there’s post-scarcity - everything you need to live is created instantly by replicators so no one even needs to work unless they want to. Maybe that has a different term.

dustyData ,

It’s the same thing. Post-scarcity doesn’t mean no scarcity. The point is, though, that people are not compelled to work under risk or threat of death, hunger, poverty, cold, homelessness or illness. If you can’t or don’t want to work, you are not doomed or socially shunned. Even if you do work, that’s no guarantee that you’ll not suffer from the occasional hardships of reality like there’s not enough chocolate this month due to a drought, or avocados went extinct or whatever, but you won’t die of starvation with millions of tons of food hoarded on a warehouse because a capitalist pig decided to rack up the price of rice.

marcos ,

Post-scarcity is a socialist term.

I’m having a hard time convincing myself that the term automatically implies on universal access.

It came about from futurist elaborations on Marxist materialist ideology.

And if it did, it was just a historical accident. It could be much more promptly derived from Keynes than from Marx. Also, Keynes work leads to a working theory for how a post-scarcity economy would work, with or without universal access to it.

dustyData ,

If some people are starving due to artificial (economically induced) scarcity of food. As in, there’s enough food and means to distribute it to feed everyone but we don’t. Then it is not post-scarcity. Post-scarcity is about universal access to resources. Not about the material accumulation of the resource in a spreadsheet. As I said, small and circumstantial scarcity can occur under post-scarcity, it doesn’t mean no-scarcity. But gross artificial scarcity is automatically a disqualification.

Brainsploosh ,

I’d say they’re post-scarcity anarchist. There’s no central/communal resource dispersal as needed for socialism, nor the central/communal resource allocation/planning needed for communism.

There’s seemingly no authority outside starfleet exerting any power, nor does anyone ever claim a motivation beyond exploration or study (to do something meaningful). The lack of money and unlimited access to replicated resources pending available dilithium also points to a society without exploitative discrepancies.

The humans also never are reported to have any resource hogging, the only tensions/stratification seem to be militarily (and against external parties also diplomatically), meritocratic, and even then the bottleneck seems mostly to be to not fall behind other races.

I don’t see neither capitalism, socialism, communism, despotism, theocracy, nor fascism, but many aspects of anarchism. If you’ve read anything about The Culture, they openly speak about being anarchist, and it’s very similar to Star Trek.

aaaa ,

There most certainly is a Federation President. There is definitely government, authority, and laws, with Starfleet appearing to be the law enforcement.

dustyData ,

I agree, this is also a perfectly valid read. Unfortunately Star Trek spends a lot of time with Starfleet and The Federation and almost not at all with Earth to understand the nuances of governance of productivity. But they are still supposed to be several billions of people, it’s hard to imagine there’s only ad-hoc organization going on to keep something as massive as Starfleet and The Federation going. Even the Vulcans had the High Command. Earth must have something akin to a government structure going on to produce a representative diplomatic corpus. The Federation is supposed to be a Republic after all, and that’s not anarchy. Perhaps a system of direct democratic municipalism, but we don’t know for sure.

MrSaturn OP ,
@MrSaturn@startrek.website avatar

But the Federation is a government, so can’t be anarchist

Brainsploosh ,

Anarchist doesn’t need to mean without government, simply that no one is above another, which is echoed in how the Federation is structured towards the other races.

MrSaturn OP ,
@MrSaturn@startrek.website avatar

I thought it meant no laws and no government

Brainsploosh ,

That’s one form of it, but there are plenty other schools of thought that overlap quite significantly with the Federation, check out the primer on Wikipedia.

buckykat ,

Yes, obviously. The Federation is a postscarcity socialist society

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •