The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek by citizen

The article is here:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

Not only is their definition of Communism wrong, but they've also ignored any evidence that runs counter to their supposition that the Federation is communist. For instance, no private property, we know people have their own restaurants, farms and vineyards. No private Starships, there's episodes in TNG and every other series I think that clearly shows private ownership of transportation.

"It is a popular misconception that communism eliminates class distinctions." No it's entirely true that Communism is supposed to be a stepping stone to a classless society, it's also true that at the state level it doesn't work.

The author in one breath says we can't assume certain things, since those things run counter to their argument, and then makes even greater assumptions in the support of their argument. I guess they saw what they wanted to see, and since the author was writing an article on a site that aims to prove why Star Wars would kick Star Trek’s arse...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 18, 2006 1:58 PM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
This means that to create Utopia you must first remake human nature. The Federation seems to have achieved this, as did the World State in Brave New World. For all we can tell, they used the same methods.

Not familiar with the methods used in Brave New World, but My impression of the Star Trek transformation was a combination of the worst world war in human history (civilization collapsed, most nations ceased to exist, about two-thirds of Earth's population corpsified and gross), First Contact (the realization of exactly how little a crap the universe gives about you and anything you believe is worth fighting over), replicators (as already examined), and a society in which virtues are rewarded more than vice (bringing in the "nature/nurture" debate).

It's this last one that is the most interesting to me. One of the important (if not the important) life lessons I've learned from Star Trek is that there are no bad guys. Everyone who commits atrocities does so in the name of (a greater) good. From Hitler, to Dolim, to Dukat, to the Borg, to random gun-wielding psycho, the problem isn't that they're "Evil," it's that they've become convinced that violence/cruelty/whatever is either justified or neccessary to acheive their goals. Let's face it, everything that we see in modern society suggests that this is true. The Federation OTOH, represents a world which selects for benevolence, compassion, and integrity.

As Captain Archer said: "History changed when a handful of very brave people realized that they could make a difference." This alone runs counter to everything society teaches us about strength in numbers, majority rule, and that individuals should live in fear and allow the "professionals" to handle things.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:57 AM

I’m afraid when I try your link , it does not work for me – hence the slightly indirect route I had to provide. Still, it does get you there via one of the most wonderful pages on the net.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The article is here:
http://www.stardestryer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

Not only is their definition of Communism wrong, but they've also ignored any evidence that runs counter to their supposition that the Federation is communist.

...

I guess they saw what they wanted to see, and since the author was writing an article on a site that aims to prove why Star Wars would kick Star Trek’s arse...

I think the guy who wrote it calls himself Darth Wong. (Comment would be superfluous.) The identifying features he provides for communism do seem to work for real-world communist states - fascist states strike me as being slightly less extreme. And a certain amount of private farming etc existed in even the most extreme communist states – otherwise, everyone would have starved to death. But it all existed in the margins against the will, or at best with the grudging acceptance of, the state.

It occurs to me that Socialists/ Communists etc should be keen to have his arguments accepted, as they turn the Federation into by far the most attractive description of such a society on screen…

BTW – you mentioned The Road to Serfdom earlier. You should try to read it sometime. Its very interesting, and (IMHO) well written.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
I’m afraid when I try your link , it does not work for me – hence the slightly indirect route I had to provide. Still, it does get you there via one of the most wonderful pages on the net.

It seems an 'o' went on holiday from the link, which is bizarre given that I copied and pasted it from the address bar...
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

Quote:
The identifying features he provides for communism do seem to work for real-world communist states - fascist states strike me as being slightly less extreme.

They do, but as was pointed out earlier there hasn't been a true communist state. Communism simply doesn't work in the real world with real world people, it can work with small groups, but for the sake of shorter posts I'll not mention why I think that is unless asked.

Quote:
It occurs to me that Socialists/ Communists etc should be keen to have his arguments accepted, as they turn the Federation into by far the most attractive description of such a society on screen…

There's plenty of states that are at least partially socialist and working better for it. Why not accept those? But the communism of Star Trek? I just really don't see it. Most of what we see is state owned star ships, but for a show based around a state owned vessel that's hardly surprising.

Even if everyone rents, well it's kind of like that now on Earth, how many people do you know with private jets and boats? House prices, at least in my country are getting stupid, most people have to rent, maybe the federation is actually a corporate entity? The United Federated Corporation of Planets

.

A thought occurs though about the Militarism of Star Trek. Is it all that militarised? Starfleet is first and foremost a scientific organisation; it's called to war as a last resort. Especially in TNG, where Picard attempted to solve situations diplomatically before subsequently thoughtfully analysing the day’s events and possibly lamenting the fact that someone cut their finger.

In a similar situation Kirk would have jumped in feet first weapons blazing before cracking a joke at Spock’s expense and getting fat.

Quote:
BTW – you mentioned The Road to Serfdom earlier. You should try to read it sometime. Its very interesting, and (IMHO) well written.

I intend to, but there's so much to read, so little time

. Though from earlier comments I still wonder if the Author hasn't confused Fascism with Totalitarianism.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
They do, but as was pointed out earlier there hasn't been a true communist state.

Hmm, I suspect we may be talking slightly at cross-purposes. I would say that a ‘true communist state’ is what you get when people try to truly build communism. If they do not get exactly what they expected, that simply demonstrates why you should be a little careful about believing advertising.

And from that point of view, it is not much of a surprise that of two articles, one thinks the Federation Fascist, and the other thinks it Communist. Because in practice, both systems work pretty similarly. “Heil Stalin”, as postwar East Germans said…

This is why Road to Serfdom came to mind: it is not so much about what governments might want to do, but the limits to what they can do, and what happens if you try to ignore those limits. A country completely controlled by the state must tend to end up like communism or fascism, whatever the identity or motives of the rulers.

In reality, the Federation is not a society at all, just the collective daydreams of its scriptwriters. It was created by Act of Scriptwriter, by simply not writing about anything that might make things difficult for its characters. All the moments when you have to pick between mutually contradictory virtues have been edited out. That's why it's so boring...

And this finally allows me to segue to Firefly, because if you actually tried to build something to look the TNG Federation you would probably, if you were lucky, end up with something like the Alliance.

Quote:

A thought occurs though about the Militarism of Star Trek. Is it all that militarised? Starfleet is first and foremost a scientific organisation; it's called to war as a last resort. Especially in TNG, where Picard attempted to solve situations diplomatically before subsequently thoughtfully analysing the day’s events and possibly lamenting the fact that someone cut their finger.

But then, turning civilian functions over to the military is itself Militarism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Hmm, I suspect we may be talking slightly at cross-purposes. I would say that a ‘true communist state’ is what you get when people try to truly build communism. If they do not get exactly what they expected, that simply demonstrates why you should be a little careful about believing advertising.

No really, Communism is a stepping stone to a stateless classless society, not the Totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union and China. The fact that in the real world it ends up as Totalitarianism just proves that it doesn't work in the real world. It's in good company though; the Capitalism of the US is nothing like the small competing business model that Capitalism is supposed to be. Capitalism is just fortunate enough to fail a little more insidiously than Communism.

Which, incidentally, is why I think the best systems we can currently create would marry Capitalism and Socialism, because both are trying to 'fall over' but each is trying to fall in an opposite direction, each has weaknesses that are opposite to the others so can prop each other up.

Quote:

This is why Road to Serfdom came to mind: it is not so much about what governments might want to do, but the limits to what they can do, and what happens if you try to ignore those limits. A country completely controlled by the state must tend to end up like communism or fascism, whatever the identity or motives of the rulers.

I'd say it's more limits to ideology, since Capitalism can and has turned into dictatorship, despite being an ideal that promotes limited government. If you let business do absolutely anything it wants it becomes the big government, it's not simply a question of limiting government power, it's a case of striking a balance between individualism and collectivism, Socialism, Communism and Capitalism all push towards collectivism, but they do it in different directions. Socialism/Communism attempts to hand power to the state, Capitalism to the corporations.

That is why I think marrying of the divergent ideals is best, they'll be playing tug of war trying to get collectivism thereby keeping us in Individualism.

Okay I'm getting a bit preachy now, sorry.

Quote:
In reality, the Federation is not a society at all, just the collective daydreams of its scriptwriters. It was created by Act of Scriptwriter, by simply not writing about anything that might make things difficult for its characters. All the moments when you have to pick between mutually contradictory virtues have been edited out. That's why it's so boring...

Not sure I agree with that. There are plenty of times where the crew are put into difficult situations. The mutually contradictory virtues are there a lot, having to choose between saving lives and the prime directive seems like fairly contradictory virtues and comes up a lot

Quote:

And this finally allows me to segue to Firefly, because if you actually tried to build something to look the TNG Federation you would probably, if you were lucky, end up with something like the Alliance.

Maybe the Alliance isn't so bad? I certainly don't see it as more oppressive than any modern westernised nation. You may bring up the question of Miranda, but there are numerous skeletons in the closet of modern nations. Off the top of my head the UK invented concentration camps, the UK firebombed Dresden and other cities, the US is the only nation to use nuclear weapons in anger, the US sent anyone of Japanese decent to concentration camps. Most westernised nations flirted with the practice of Eugenics during the early twentieth century.

I could go on; point is we see the Alliance as this evil empire because we only see it through the eyes of criminals. I wonder how people on death row view the United States. We also know that people have similar views against the Federation, the Marquis for instance.

Quote:
But then, turning civilian functions over to the military is itself Militarism.

It's more like removing the military and giving the job of defence to civilians. This is a very Libertarian ideal, and such things are supported right there in the US constitution.

Starfleet is a civilian scientific organisation, and due to the dangers of deep space exploration star ships require defences. Since the federation has no standing military at times of war they have to essentially raise a militia from the civilian ranks.

Seriously take a look at discipline on the Enterprise, if Starfleet is military, their boot camp must be like a Monty Python sketch:

"Right you 'orrible lot! We're going to practice marching up and down! Unless you've got something else you'd rather be doing!"
"Well I'd like to read my book sir."
"You'd like to read your book!"
"Yes sir."
"Alright then, off you go. And the rest of you, I suppose you'd like to go to the Holodeck?"
"Yes Sir."
"Right off you go then."

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:10 AM

CYBERSNARK

Heh. Starfleet Academy: The Best and Brightest.

Thank God we've got the Vulcans to back us up.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2006 7:42 AM

BROWNCOATJIM

I think that reading such lofty and broad ideals into Star Trek, or seeing it as something akin to Fascism, is a bit of a stretch, quite honestly, except in seeing them as a rather naive idealistic socialism.....socialism in its best form on paper, where everything looks all kinds of shiny, yet whose practice is confounded by the fundamentally selfish nature of humanity.

Utopia, like a socialist state where everything is all shiny, is an impossibility. People in general want the right, ability and opportunity to screw things up as much as they can, while at the same time trying to do the right things.

We are selfish by nature, which is why capitalism lasts and thrives, with everyone trying to make as big of a pile for themselves as possible.

Firefly never made any effort to shy away from this, even embraced it in the fact that the security companies employed in the outer moons would not work for Alliance credits, but rather for hard currency.

Was star trek fascist? No, it was not. It was a product of another era, where new things were happening, new threats had emerged, and the furture was uncertain. Are we so different now? Not really, but we have lived with these things long enough now to be able to face up to more of reality than desired fantasy.

WE'RE GONNA CRASH? I DON'T WANNA CRASH!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2006 7:59 AM

BROWNCOATJIM

There will always be opposition to the force of willof the larger group, it is one of the cornerstones of human nature. Understand, I am a child of the punk revolution, Johnny Rotten was much like God in His Heaven to me.

Whether it be the Marquis or the Browncoats, people, for the most part want either one of two things in their life: the majority want a big enough authority source to tell them what to do without having to think too much on their own, or they just want to live out their own lives, for better or worse, on the merits of their own existence, away from the prying eyes or medlesome fingers of society.

I tend to think that the people who fal into the latter, and obviously smaller, group prefer coats colored brown.

WE'RE GONNA CRASH? I DON'T WANNA CRASH!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No really, Communism is a stepping stone to a stateless classless society, not the Totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union and China. The fact that in the real world it ends up as Totalitarianism just proves that it doesn't work in the real world.

Like I said: cross-purposes.

If I understand your position, you would say:

a) Communism was intended to lead to a classless utopia.
b) It actually led to totalitarian despotism.

I agree. You would say that ‘true communism' was a). I would just say that actual communism was (and is) b). I believe that most people judge it by its results, so I feel my definition is less likely to lead to confusion, but there is no point in arguing about definitions.

Quote:

I'd say it's more limits to ideology, since Capitalism can and has turned into dictatorship, despite being an ideal that promotes limited government.

IIRC Hayek was mainly writing about the mechanics of driving the whole society to meet centrally directed goals, however noble.

Business makes no decisions, only individual businesses do that. Collective decision making by businesses, unions etc is technically corporatism. Medieval European cities often worked like that. Terry Pratchett fans might think of Ankh-Morpork. Capitalism was created in 18th centuary England largely by eliminating this.

Quote:

Maybe the Alliance isn't so bad? I certainly don't see it as more oppressive than any modern westernised nation. You may bring up the question of Miranda, but there are numerous skeletons in the closet of modern nations. Off the top of my head the UK invented concentration camps, the UK firebombed Dresden and other cities, the US is the only nation to use nuclear weapons in anger, the US sent anyone of Japanese decent to concentration camps. Most westernised nations flirted with the practice of Eugenics during the early twentieth century.

Eugenics was openly considered, not secretly imposed. The others were all done in order to win wars, all but one were formal acts of war against an openly declared enemy. A system is judged by how it treats its subjects in peacetime, not its enemies when it is fighting for its life.

Miranda demonstrates that the Alliance desires to secretly drug its subjects into compliance with the wishes of the rulers. That would be unforgivable, even if it had worked. Brave New World, here we come. Note that there can be no escape, because the Alliance controls all of civilisation in the ‘verse. The last resistance has already been destroyed.

Quote:

Starfleet is a civilian scientific organisation, and due to the dangers of deep space exploration star ships require defences. Since the federation has no standing military at times of war they have to essentially raise a militia from the civilian ranks.

If they have the guns, they are the military. Being badly disciplined makes them more dangerous (to the Federation), not less.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:34 AM

Quote:
I agree. You would say that ‘true communism' was a). I would just say that actual communism was (and is) b). I believe that most people judge it by its results, so I feel my definition is less likely to lead to confusion, but there is no point in arguing about definitions.

But your definition implies communism works, because it ends at the goal for which it sets out

Which is the last I'll say.

Quote:
Business makes no decisions, only individual businesses do that. Collective decision making by businesses, unions etc is technically corporatism. Medieval European cities often worked like that. Terry Pratchett fans might think of Ankh-Morpork. Capitalism was created in 18th centuary England largely by eliminating this.

There have been Capitalist dictatorships, simple as that. Capitalism aims to allow business to do as it pleases, deregulation and so forth this ends in corporatism. England became a better place to live by introducing, not removing, socialist elements to the society, which was my point.

Quote:
Eugenics was openly considered, not secretly imposed.

I believe the US actually implemented some Eugenics in peace time.

Quote:
The others were all done in order to win wars, all but one were formal acts of war against an openly declared enemy. A system is judged by how it treats its subjects in peacetime, not its enemies when it is fighting for its life.

The Nazi's Holocaust occurred during war time, a war they believed was partially against the international Jew. Why can't we excuse the Nazi's on the same grounds?

Quote:
Miranda demonstrates that the Alliance desires to secretly drug its subjects into compliance with the wishes of the rulers.

It is well known that the CIA secretly drugged American civilians during peace time.

Quote:
Note that there can be no escape, because the Alliance controls all of civilisation in the ‘verse. The last resistance has already been destroyed.

The Yankee's won the civil war?

Quote:
If they have the guns, they are the military. Being badly disciplined makes them more dangerous (to the Federation), not less.

Not at all. They have weapons for defence during scientific missions, Science vessels today occasionally carry arms, and at the very least have a military escort if going into dangerous territory. If there's no Military who does the escorting?

Having guns does not make you the military. In the US and many other places the Police and Civilians carry guns.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2006 1:31 PM

ELOISA

The US, and several other comparable countries, did practice peacetime eugenics between WW1 and WW2 - the sterilisation of people with Down's Syndrome. Nazi Germany, by comparison, killed them.

*continues to read fascinating discussion*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 6:00 AM

As I understand it the Nazi's didn't actually start killing as part of their Eugenics program until after the start of the Second World War. Which leads back to my question, can we excuse something just because it happens in a time of war?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 6:29 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
They have weapons for defence during scientific missions, Science vessels today occasionally carry arms, and at the very least have a military escort if going into dangerous territory. If there's no Military who does the escorting?

Having guns does not make you the military. In the US and many other places the Police and Civilians carry guns.

Sorry, another couple of questions from a non-trekie. Are the "science" ships and military ships one and the same? Is there a separate military or do these science ships serve both purposes?

Also, are there examples of civilians legally possessing arms or is the Federation the only people with weapons?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 6:49 AM

Quote:
Sorry, another couple of questions from a non-trekie. Are the "science" ships and military ships one and the same? Is there a separate military?

Don't call me a trekkie

...

They're a scientific organisation. There is no military, so the closest thing I could say is that at times of war the Federation uses some of Starfleet as a milita.

Quote:
Also, are there examples of civilians legally possessing arms or is the Federation the only people with weapons?

There are examples where weapons are privatly owned. Some weapons are illegal in the Federation though (the really nasty ones).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There have been Capitalist dictatorships, simple as that. Capitalism aims to allow business to do as it pleases, deregulation and so forth this ends in corporatism. England became a better place to live by introducing, not removing, socialist elements to the society, which was my point.

Strictly speaking, a free market allows businesses (and other private entities e.g. people) to do as they please. Deregulation and so forth, as you said.

Corporatism allows businesses (and other collective entities e.g. unions, lobby groups) control over those regulations that are issued. Naturally, they then try to rig the market in their own favour. Deregulation and the creation of a free market therefore tends to require keeping businesses, unions, lobby groups etc as far from the leavers of power as possible. As I understand matters, the City of London, and the firms within it, fought tooth and claw against financial deregulation. Same thing with airlines, telecoms monopolies etc.

If a free market is the hallmark of Capitalism, then a Capitalist state can be democratic, oligarchic, autocratic, or possibly aristocratic. The one thing it is certain not to be is corporatist.

Colonial Hong Kong was a capitalist dictatorship, but the dictator (the Governor) was selected by the British Foreign Office, not Hong Kong capitalists. (I’m sure said capitalists tried to change this, but ultimate power remained in Whitehall.)

Interesting that the most irreconcilable foes of Capitalism are Capitalists. Even more interesting that they claim otherwise.

Quote:

Which leads back to my question, can we excuse something just because it happens in a time of war?

Yes. We do not have to, but we can. During the Battle of Normandy, the Allies probably killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of German teenagers. I do not suppose they were, on average, any more deserving of death than the teenagers of any other country. They surely bore less responsibility for Nazism etc then their parents back in Germany – teenagers in 1944 can not have voted in 1933. This act can be excused only because it was thought likely to help win the war.

Notice that I have not said anything about Alliance behaviour during the war. I suspect that they behaved better than the Independents, simply because they were probably better disciplined.

Quote:

It is well known that the CIA secretly drugged American civilians during peace time.

It is well known that my local hospital has drugged civilians during peace time. Smart remarks aside, IIRC
the CIA was accused of experimenting with sodium pentothal etc for interrogating spies, terrorists etc.

The Alliance, on the other hand, appears to be trying to secretly drug its population into acting as its rulers wish. Welcome to the Brave New World of the Alliance: You have no choice but to enjoy it.

I am sure they have good intentions. I am sure Marx had good intentions, too.

Quote:

Not at all. They [Starfleet] have weapons for defence during scientific missions, Science vessels today occasionally carry arms, and at the very least have a military escort if going into dangerous territory. If there's no Military who does the escorting?

Having guns does not make you the military. In the US and many other places the Police and Civilians carry guns.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Much of the War of 1812 was fought by US and Canadian militia. I imagine many people would have been surprised to learn that the army invading their territory was not a military organisation…

I do not think it matters whether you call Starfleet a Navy, Self Defence Force, Earthforce, Milita or military wing of a scientific research institute. It still controls most of the mobile firepower of the Federation. It is still responsible for the defence of the Federation. There was still at least one episode where a coup was launched by elements within Starfleet, and IIRC it was defeated by loyalist elements within Starfleet. (It was a DS9 episode, which was the only series I saw much of. People who actually saw much of the show, feel free to correct me.) By any useful definition it is or contains the Federations military. There is nothing wrong with the Federation having a military to defend it. There is something suspicious if it was continuing to deny having one even whilst it was fighting for its life against the Dominion. (Was it still doing that? – I had stopped watching by then.)

Incidentally, a coup is a sign that the present rulers are not widely regarded as legitimate by their subjects. Conclude what you will.

Anyone who feels like launching their own coup can get further details from:

Coup d’Etat: A Practical Handbook by Edward Luttwak, Harvard University Press

It is in stock at Amazon. I’ll accept a 1% cut of the proceeds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
If a free market is the hallmark of Capitalism, then a Capitalist state can be democratic, oligarchic, autocratic, or possibly aristocratic. The one thing it is certain not to be is corporatist.

So now we're back on definitions

. Capitalism ends up as corporatism in the real world when left to it's own devices, which is why I said it doesn't work. Like I said Communism doesn't work because it ends up as Totalitarianism. You say that therefore the definition of Communism is Totalitarianism, I say it doesn't work so it ends up as Totalitarianism, the same as I say Capitalism doesn't work so it ends up as Corporatism, but I don't define Capitalism as Corporatism.

Quote:
During the Battle of Normandy, the Allies probably killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of German teenagers. I do not suppose they were, on average, any more deserving of death than the teenagers of any other country.

The German teenagers I assume you are talking about were the Hitler youth, soldiers. I would seriously rethink the argument that puts equivalence between killing soldiers and civilians in war time.

This can be excused because there is a very big difference between killing soldiers on a battlefield, even if they are teenagers, and non-combatants, and I sincerely hope that really you know the difference.

Quote:
Notice that I have not said anything about Alliance behaviour during the war. I suspect that they behaved better than the Independents, simply because they were probably better disciplined.

Both the Independents and the Alliance were standing armies, though the alliance was a single standing army and the Independents were a group of standing armies and possibly militias under a single allied command.

Quote:
It is well known that my local hospital has drugged civilians during peace time.

If your local hospital tests drugs such as LCD and other mind altering substances (which yes includes sodium pentathol(Sodium thiopental)) on civilians without permission I'd say you have some serious problems...

The British RAF gassed the Kurds during peace time, I'm sure I could dig up equally bad things done by all the worlds major players during peace time if I wanted.

Quote:
I do not think it matters whether you call Starfleet a Navy, Self Defence Force, Earthforce, Milita or military wing of a scientific research institute. It still controls most of the mobile firepower of the Federation.

There is a very big and very real difference between a standing military and a militia. If Starfleet acts as nothing more than a militia in a time of war then the militarism of the Federation is totally wrong.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 1:34 PM

Work takes me away, but I’m back...for a while.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Post-scarcity’ could only be achieved by rationing human desires to fit what is actually available. This means that to create Utopia you must first remake human nature. The Federation seems to have achieved this, as did the World State in Brave New World. For all we can tell, they used the same methods.

Or suspend the laws of physics. I imagine that in the real world both are equally improbable. While the fictional Star Trek universe has granted itself latitude with the laws of thermodynamics in order to create its workable Marxist society, they can only do so to the extent that viewers are willing to accept. I doubt that viewers will accept a society in which two masses can occupy the same space, but I could be wrong, perhaps in ST:TNNG they’ll create a society in which not even space is scarce. We’ll all be a lovely society of Bose-Einstein Condensates.

On the subject of whether Starfleet is a military. The idea that Starfleet can be an organization that acts in the principal defense of the ruling political body using military weaponry, uniformed personnel and a chain of command, but somehow is not a “military,” smacks of what Orwell called doublethink, in which two contradictory definitions are simultaneous applied. Orwell believed that such a thing was a property of propaganda employed by totalitarian regimes to pacify a population by confusing the true intent behind a ruling faction’s agenda. It doesn’t matter whether you call Starfleet a military or not, it is what it is: an organization that acts in the defense of the ruling political body using military weaponry, uniformed personnel and a chain of command is a military. So what if it is a scientific organization? Both the US and the British militaries are largely scientific in nature. Modern militaries have not been composed entirely of combat ready troops since the 19th century or early 20th century. The vast majority of the personnel in the US military are support units and defense scientists, not combat ready units.

But this argument is self-defeating because if Starfleet, an organization that acts in the principal defense of the ruling political body using military weaponry, uniformed personnel and a chain of command, is indeed not intended to be a military by the writers, then that alone essentially proves the militarist interpretation of TNG, because essentially what the authors are saying (if this is their intent) is that there is no difference between a military and a non-military organization.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 1:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But this argument is self-defeating because if Starfleet, an organization that acts in the principal defense of the ruling political body using military weaponry, uniformed personnel and a chain of command, is indeed not intended to be a military by the writers, then that alone essentially proves the militarist interpretation of TNG, because essentially what the authors are saying (if this is their intent) is that there is no difference between a military and a non-military organization.

Businesses and civilian ocean going craft have hierarchical command structures, a chain of command. Therefore Microsoft must be a military organization? I'd always suspected...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Businesses and civilian ocean going craft have hierarchical command structures, a chain of command. Therefore Microsoft must be a military organization? I'd always suspected...

And when was the last time Microsoft sent those ocean going crafts into battle with military weaponry?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 2:06 PM

They don't need to, America has a standing military. When was the last time that a peasant acting in a militia was counted as a military?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 2:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
They don't need to,

They don’t.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
When was the last time that a peasant acting in a militia was counted as a military?

Cavalier already gave an example of that. The War of 1812. I don’t know if that was the “last time.” I’m pretty sure there are probably more recent times, but it certainly is a time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 2:22 PM

Quote:
They don’t.

Sweden doesn't have a military because they've not been to war in ages.

Finn:
A militia is an organization that is only a military when fighting. A peasant who works the land for their livelihood but fights in a war is a militiaman.

Starfleet is a science organization that explores as it's 'livelihood' and fights in wars if they come around.

By your definition explorers throughout the ages, who carried weapons for self defence were a standing military.

I have some swords here, so I must be a military as well.

Joe Bloggs who owns a magnum and is prepared to shoot a burglar is also a military then too, huh.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 2:46 PM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Sorry, another couple of questions from a non-trekie. Are the "science" ships and military ships one and the same? Is there a separate military or do these science ships serve both purposes?

Technically, Starfleet is identified as the "science and military arm of the Federation," which is how they can get away with having ships like the Defiant, whose express purpose is to kick prodigious amounts of ass. This tends to confuse a lot of people (in-universe, I mean), who mistake Starfleet's pacifist stance for being "soft" or "weak" (Klingons, I'm looking at you).

It's just that it tries to be more about science and diplomacy than combat. It does both jobs, but when open hostilities are in progress, the military side of it takes over. Then, as soon as the shooting stops, the reconstruction and peacekeepers are right there on site to help you pick up your teeth and politely advise against Doing That again. Convenient.

The novels demonstrate that Starfleet does have specific branches, including the Starfleet Marines (a division of Starfleet Security, specializing in surface operations --basically the spiritual descendents of the MACOs from Enterprise), the Merchant Marines (heard of but never seen), and the extremely awesome Corps of Engineers (the entire SCE is currently overseen by Captain Montgomery Scott). Though we also see that the SCE usually has to be ferried around by line ships --the DaVinci is one of only a handful of ships that's actually "owned" by the SCE.

I've posted in another thread about the exceedingly rare "warrior-scientist" archetype. Starfleet is where most of them hang out, which is likely why I love it so, even with their bias.

Quote:
Also, are there examples of civilians legally possessing arms or is the Federation the only people with weapons?

Well, the Maquis ships were civilian and armed, but we don't know if those were factory-approved equipment or just "liberated" military hardware that was bolted on.

The only civillians we see in combat are non-Federation, but I would assume there's some sort of right to bear arms (again, we just don't see 'em 'cause the show is so Starfleet-centric). Civilian phasers/tricorders are probably a few generations behind Starfleet-issue (as it is in the real world).

Civilian craft have turned up occasionally, but they tend to avoid combat on screen. The novels have had a few armed civilian ships, though none of them can hold a candle to anything military, which is obviously why they avoid combat).

In Generations, Dr. Soran had a disruptor pistol that doesn't resemble any species-specific tech that we've seen (Soran had been with the Klingons for a while, but this didn't look like anything Klingons would make --it was all sleek black and chrome). Whether this means it was El-Aurian military surplus or civilian-made is never really relevant (though I can imagine the UFP outlawing disruptors, since they don't have stun settings).

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 2:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
A militia is an organization that is only a military when fighting.

Microsoft isn’t fighting. Nor do they have any intent to fight anyone. Just because you can identify a chain of command on Microsoft sea going vessels doesn’t make them a military. If you want to believe that Starfleet isn’t a military then who am I to stop you, believe whatever you want, but you’re mincing definitions to get what you want. I’m really not interested in splitting hairs over whether Microsoft represents a military because in some hypothetical since they might arm themselves and go to war someday.

The rest of us, I think, are interested in some sort of substantive argument. What does a military look like? What are the things that define a military? Starfleet looks like a military, and in fact, has been called a military on the show, I believe. Fleet is a military term. Starfleet is run by “officers” who “enlist” and attend an “academy.” Starfleet ships are armed with some pretty heavy weaponry. Starfleet personnel follow a chain of command. Starfleet acts as the principal military defense in times of war. And Starfleet doesn’t disband when the fighting is over. So if you want to call it a militia, then I guess they are militia that never disbands.

Which would seem to be self-defeating, because if Starfleet is a civilian outfit, then it is an extremely ubiquitous one that is armed to the teeth with personnel that follow military protocol and a chain of command and who go to war when the Federation is threatened. If this is what “civilian” life looks like in the TNG universe, then I think we can quite well conclude that the Federation is militaristic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 6:00 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
...And going from this world where the US is 240,000,000 people in a population of 6,300,000,000 to the future worlds of Star Trek and Firefly where 85%+ of all the people we meet are American...

Well certainly not in the original Trek. Spock is half alien, Uhura is from Africa, Montgomery Scott is a Scot, Chekov is Russian. I'm not sure what Sulu's nationality was - Point is, aside from Kirk and McCoy the regular characters were mostly not American.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 25, 2006 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
I'm not sure what Sulu's nationality was . . .

I think there has actually been some debate over that. Originally, I think he was supposed to be Japanese, but at some time later, it was discovered that the name Sulu actually can’t be pronounced in Japanese. Or so I understand. I really don’t know for sure. What I do know is that Sulu is generally thought to be American now. So Sulu must be added to the list of Americans, along with Kirk and McCoy (although I suspect only by accident.)

However, I think your point is a good one, and the original cast of Star Trek was intentionally supposed to be largely international to reflect the notion of a unified and largely peaceful earth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Just because you can identify a chain of command on Microsoft sea going vessels doesn’t make them a military.

Yes that was my point, thank you for (finally) getting it.

Quote:
The rest of us, I think, are interested in some sort of substantive argument.

As long as you exclude yourself, you seem interested in belittling anyone who doesn't agree with you and calling them a fascist, so don't climb up on your high horse and wag your finger at me.

Finally some form of a substantive argument from Finn:

Quote:
What does a military look like? What are the things that define a military? Starfleet looks like a military, and in fact, has been called a military on the show, I believe.

Starfleet, to my knowledge was only referred to as a military in the TOS films, so we can discount that since when it suited your argument you said we should. Unless what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Quote:
Fleet is a military term.

Fleet is not just a military term, a company car is part of the company FLEET. Britain has a fishing FLEET.

Quote:
Starfleet is run by “officers” who “enlist” and attend an “academy.”

Police officers are military? People enlisted into the police who go to police academy are really joining the military?

Quote:
Starfleet personnel follow a chain of command.

We've already agreed that, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's military.

Quote:
Starfleet acts as the principal military defense in times of war.

So were militias of old.

Quote:
And Starfleet doesn’t disband when the fighting is over.

Neither does the TA.

What's Britain's Territorial Army? The TA's members all have main jobs outside of the TA that they spend most of their time doing. They only give their free time to the TA most of the time, and are only employed in a military role in times of crises. They're more like an organised militia than a standing military and Starfleet is more like the TA than the Army.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
If a free market is the hallmark of Capitalism, then a Capitalist state can be democratic, oligarchic, autocratic, or possibly aristocratic. The one thing it is certain not to be is corporatist.
So now we're back on definitions . Capitalism ends up as corporatism in the real world when left to it's own devices, which is why I said it doesn't work. Like I said Communism doesn't work because it ends up as Totalitarianism. You say that therefore the definition of Communism is Totalitarianism, I say it doesn't work so it ends up as Totalitarianism, the same as I say Capitalism doesn't work so it ends up as Corporatism, but I don't define Capitalism as Corporatism.

Corporate entities will naturally try to gain influence over those elements of the government that try to control them. They will succeed to a varying extent, which will depend, in part, on how hard they try. The more closely the government tries to control them, the more incentive there is to try, and the more effort they will put into Regulatory Capture.

In consequence, the more detailed the control over corporations the government seeks, the more likely it is to ‘merge’ with them and create a corporate or – in the original sense – fascist state.

This is why fascist and socialist states were more commonly found in Latin America than in North America, Southern and Eastern Europe than Northern and Western Europe.

If being more capitalist made a state more likely to become fascist, then America, Britain and Canada would have ended up fascist, not Germany, Italy and Argentina.

More generally, it does not make much sense to control people closely in order to make them more free.

Socialists typically stated that their aim was to make people Equal (equality of outcome, not equality before the law). Classical fascists typically stated that their aim was to make people Brothers (of course the current usage of the word is just a generic insult to whichever country you dislike). The Alliance in Firefly apparently wants to make people free of sin –to remake them as morally perfect beings. I gather Robespierre wanted pretty much the same thing. These are all enormously –ludicrously – ambitious goals.

To even attempt to achieve them requires an enormous concentration of power. This led Communists to the creation of the Gulag, fascists to race war, Robespierre to create the Terror and the Alliance to an attempt to drug entire planets into the state of mind its rulers desired.

And none of them achieved their stated aim.

The Federation, when examined closely, appears variously communist, fascist or unbelievable, because Star Treks writers chose to believe that a “world without sin” really could be created by no more than a few platitudes spoken by Captain Picard at weekly intervals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:22 AM

MONTANABROWNCOAT

"In Fascism people provide for the state, in Socialism it's supposed to be the other way around, the state providing for the people. Things like state provided Healthcare and education are socialist"

But here's the thing with that--those are provided by the government, who then decides what they will teach you, and ultimately, how they will teach it. Forgive me, I haven't read down the rest of the posts, as this is quite an intriguing discussion, so if I am repeating something already said, I apologize.
I think w/the Firefly verse, it seems to me to be implied that the Alliane is Socialist, considering the school River went to. However, there seems to be some contradiction from the tv series, as it seemed that she went there by choice of the parents.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:23 AM

MONTANABROWNCOAT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Montanabrowncoat:
I think w/the Firefly verse, it seems to me to be implied that the Alliane is Socialist, considering the school River went to.

Joss said quite openly that he never intended to imply whether the Alliance was Socialist Capitalist or etc.

Evidence points to the Academy being run by Blue Sun, both on screen and from stuff Joss has said and had to cut from the film. Not to mention River's original pursuers were guys running around in Blue gloves...

Allowing Blue Sun, a big corporation, to run the Academy, as well as other contracts government and otherwise is hardly Socialist.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Allowing Blue Sun, a big corporation, to run the Academy, as well as other contracts government and otherwise is hardly Socialist.

Oh, I don't know... Blue Sun could be owned by the goverment, for all we know. Socialist countries typically contain many nationalised industries.

Or someone could be maintaining plausible deniability.

Weren't the Blue Hands refered to as 'Independent Contractors' by the man who sent the Operative on his merry way?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Oh, I don't know... Blue Sun could be owned by the goverment, for all we know. Socialist countries typically contain many nationalised industries.

Blue Sun could run the government.

Quote:
Weren't the Blue Hands refered to as 'Independent Contractors' by the man who sent the Operative on his merry way?

How does independent contractors denote government agent. Describing them as independent contractors actually supports my argument.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:21 AM

FIZZIX

Okay, spazzoid mega-quote.

Quote:
citizen wrote:
Tuesday, September 26, 2006 06:33
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Just because you can identify a chain of command on Microsoft sea going vessels doesn’t make them a military.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes that was my point, thank you for (finally) getting it.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of us, I think, are interested in some sort of substantive argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as you exclude yourself, you seem interested in belittling anyone who doesn't agree with you and calling them a fascist, so don't climb up on your high horse and wag your finger at me.

Finally some form of a substantive argument from Finn:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does a military look like? What are the things that define a military? Starfleet looks like a military, and in fact, has been called a military on the show, I believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Starfleet, to my knowledge was only referred to as a military in the TOS films, so we can discount that since when it suited your argument you said we should. Unless what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet is a military term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fleet is not just a military term, a company car is part of the company FLEET. Britain has a fishing FLEET.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starfleet is run by “officers” who “enlist” and attend an “academy.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Police officers are military? People enlisted into the police who go to police academy are really joining the military?

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starfleet personnel follow a chain of command.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We've already agreed that, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's military.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starfleet acts as the principal military defense in times of war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So were militias of old.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Starfleet doesn’t disband when the fighting is over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither does the TA.

What's Britain's Territorial Army? The TA's members all have main jobs outside of the TA that they spend most of their time doing. They only give their free time to the TA most of the time, and are only employed in a military role in times of crises. They're more like an organised militia than a standing military and Starfleet is more like the TA than the Army.

Right.
Let's lay down some ground rules:
* The Federation of Planets: This is a non-militant group. Don't think it's been brought up yet, but it will.
* Starfleet: A military organization. I don't think that a large government with Starfleet around as anything BUT the military will let them have warships.
How about you try this as an experiment. Don't tell your local government, or state, or whatever, and start massing an army. Claim to be defending the government.

/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\
May not be smart, and it may not please you, but you're definitely gonna see what I have to say.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fizzix:
Right.
Let's lay down some ground rules:
* The Federation of Planets: This is a non-militant group. Don't think it's been brought up yet, but it will.
* Starfleet: A military organization. I don't think that a large government with Starfleet around as anything BUT the military will let them have warships.
How about you try this as an experiment. Don't tell your local government, or state, or whatever, and start massing an army. Claim to be defending the government.

Right.
Let's lay down some ground rules:
* You saying it doesn't make it undeniable fact.
* The above is neither an argument nor backing it up.
How about you try this as an experiment. Come up with a coherent argument, then back it up.

I'm getting fed up with people laying down the law or trying to paint me as an Orwellian doublethink fascist for not agreeing. Truth is I haven't made up my mind, but by virtue of everyone else having done so I have to play the other side see.

And frankly "I say it is so, therefore it is so" arguments are ones that I personally do not find particularly compelling.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:03 PM

Citizen, I have a couple of questions to ask.

First; what exactly do you mean by military and civilian?

I think you use “military” to mean an organisation that exists primarily to fight the enemies of its masters.

I think you use “militia” to mean an organisation that can be used fight the enemies of its masters.

According to Random House (via Dictionary.com):

Military [mil-i-ter-ee]

–adjective
1. of, for, or pertaining to the army or armed forces, often as distinguished from the navy: from civilian to military life.

2. of, for, or pertaining to war: military preparedness.

3. of or pertaining to soldiers.

4. befitting, characteristic of, or noting a soldier: a military bearing.

5. following the life of a soldier: a military career.

6. performed by soldiers: military duty.
–noun
7. the military,
a. the military establishment of a nation; the armed forces.
b. military personnel, esp. commissioned officers, taken collectively: the bar, the press, and the military.

militia [mi-lish-uh]
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

It did not give a definition for “citizen soldiers”, but I think that usually means citizens who just joined the military for this particular war e.g most of the soldiers who fought WWII.

By this set of definitions Starfleet is unquestionably a military, as it certainly contains “the military establishment of [the Federation]; the armed forces.”

You could argue that Starfleet has a partly non-military character as it is said to exist primarily for “scientific research”.

First – they can and do fight the navies of the other major powers. That makes them a pretty heavily armed bunch of scientists. If you said you wanted to explore the Amazon basin, and by the way you were bringing an armoured division along for protection, people might doubt you.

Second – there is no doubt that the East India Company was formed to trade peacefully with the Far East. They still managed to find time to conquer a quarter of mankind. You can argue that their army was a militia if you like but really...

In any event, why do you care whether we call Starfleet a military or not?

The original complaint was that we have no evidence that the Federation contains anything at all except Starfleet.

To make this clearer I will compare DS9 to the most similar show, Babylon 5.

Both shows feature a semi-military station commanded by an officer with some political responsibilities. The B5 commander deals with Earthforce superiors, a Senate oversight committee, a dockworkers union (who strike in one episode), a television news channel (ISN), visiting bigwigs from Earthforce Intelligence, PsiCorps etc, and so on. One characters wife worked for a private exploration company, another worked was an independent prospector and so on. An alien ambassador was explicitly surprised to discover the concept of an independent press, and used it to keep tabs on what her superiors back home were not telling her. She had to be warned that a TV interview might be hostile, and that there was nothing the Earth Alliance government could do about it.

On the Federation side of things, the DS9 commander dealt only with Starfleet. If there was an independent media, or a civilian branch of the goverment, we never saw them.

Both societies had severe internal political difficulties. In DS9, the Federation suffered an unsuccessful coup. The EA had a full-scale civil war, ending with a bloodless coup as the rebel fleet reached earth.

This is interesting. A coup tells you a lot about a society, because everyone looks to the institutions and people they regard as authoritative to give a lead.

In the EA civil war, both sides claimed to be acting lawfully to restore the constitution, and to be resisting a treacherous attempt to usurp power by the other side. A Senator, not a soldier launched the coup, but the authority of the Senate was apparently a sufficient power base. The rebels, who had complete military superiority by this point, immediately accepted her, and the Senate’s authority. Everyone agreed that the law and the constitution were the supreme authorities, and at least claimed to serve them.

In the Federation’s case (Paradise Lost, according to google), all politics was confined to Starfleet. The coup failed because an officer was not prepared to kill fellow Starfleet personnel. But she had been prepared to commit treason against the government she theoretically served, which says everything about her scale of values. The plotters justified themselves by arguing that the Federations defence preparations were inadequate.

In the Soviet Union, all power flowed from the Party. In the Federation, it seems, all power flows from Starfleet. Given that, who cares whether it is called a military?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:48 PM

Citizen: You’re whole argument lacks any substance because you are not providing any kind of valid point to support your claim. Instead you are simply defining the issue to suit what you want it to be. You have defined Starfleet not to be a military, because you think, evidently, that if you claim that it is not a military that there will be no argument about whether Star Trek is militarist. You justify such a definition on the claim that any ONE characteristic of a military cannot be used to define something as a military. This is a purely duplicitous and manipulative argument; because Starfleet does not represent only one characteristic of a military, but many and in fact, all in most cases. It’s a pretty pointless argument, because even if I was to accept it, it is self-defeating. As I’ve already pointed out, twice, such a definition essentially requires Star Trek to be militarist.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
It did not give a definition for “citizen soldiers”, but I think that usually means citizens who just joined the military for this particular war e.g most of the soldiers who fought WWII.

A citizen soldier is a soldier that is recruited into the military when war is required. It is not generally considered a characteristic of modern standing militaries, but a draftee might be considered a kind of citizen soldier, and certainly the distinction between a citizen army and a standing army was heavily blurred by the huge number of recruits mustered for World War II. The Romans and the Greeks used citizen armies until around the second century BC, when Gaius Marius enacted what would later be called the Marian Reforms, which created a standing Army. Prior to that, armies were mustered from the pool of citizens, which is where the term comes from. Before anyone seizes on this definition, it should be pointed out that the citizen armies were a product of very militarist cultures. The Romans and Greek citizens were extremely militarist in their civilian life. Young men were expected to begin training for military ventures very young. They were expected to provide their own supplies including weaponry/armor. Both citizen armies and standing armies are militaries; the former is usually representative of much greater degree of cultural militarism then the latter.

It could be that Starfleet represents something similar to this, where young men and women who are citizens of the Federation are expected to enter Starfleet. That kind of thing was used by Heinlein in Starship Troopers, where young men and women had to complete two years of “federal service” in order to become citizens. It’s quite possible, even likely, that Roddenberry would have been influenced by Heinlein.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:57 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

I agree with Finn, Starfleet is definitely a military organization. Flat out it's a Navy. It performs Naval operations, it follows Naval ranking systems, and follows Naval procedures.

Historically, diplomatic missions and exploration were part of the Navy's role. For example, I believe the Beagle was a Navy ship and ships like the Hood]/i] and the Constitution were sent on long cruies to visit foreign ports.

Starfleet's ranking system includes naval ranks from corpsman, chief, ensign, Lt.Junior Grade, all the way to Admiral (all ranks I've heard mentioned on the show).

Isn't the second pilot Spock's Court Martial? Don't characters plan on a career in Starfleet? All these are indications that Starfleet is a military organization.

Also I'd point out that organizations like the police and the state police are referred to as paramilitary because while part of civilian government they follow a military organization.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Citizen: You’re whole argument lacks any substance because you are not providing any kind of valid point to support your claim. Instead you are simply defining the issue to suit what you want it to be. You have defined Starfleet not to be a military, because you think, evidently, that if you claim that it is not a military that there will be no argument about whether Star Trek is militarist. You justify such a definition on the claim that any ONE characteristic of a military cannot be used to define something as a military. This is a purely duplicitous and manipulative argument; because Starfleet does not represent only one characteristic of a military, but many and in fact, all in most cases. It’s a pretty pointless argument, because even if I was to accept it, it is self-defeating. As I’ve already pointed out, twice, such a definition essentially requires Star Trek to be militarist.

At least I'm trying to debate rather than throw around unqualified insults Finn.

I already said I haven't made up my mind, that's why I'm arguing against the opposition, and every time I bring up a point rather than say from the beginning "it's not that it shows military aspects which non military organisations sometimes do, it's that it shows all these aspects" we could move on. No instead you prefer to say I have no argument and I'm engaging in Orwellian DoubleThink. Why not just come out and call me a stupid fascist if that's what you think?

You state that these are military aspects in such away that you imply that any organisation that shows these aspects MUST be a military. Which is why I've been arguing that point, because you are wrong there. You can have a military command structure and not be a military, you can have guns and not be a military. If you had said "it's not that it shows military aspects which non military organisations sometimes do, it's that it shows all these aspects" earlier we could have moved away from whether specific aspects proved it was a military, but it seems you prefer to argue against me rather than for your argument.

I'm trying to make up my mind because when I watched the show I didn't see the big military empire ya'll obviously did, and I wasn't aware that made me stupid or a fascist. So far I'm moving more to the side of Starfleet being more like the TA than the army, or something halfway between standing military and militia. Why because many of the points you and others bring up are complete wrong and not borne out by the show.

I think you can see anything as militaristic if you want to, which you obviously do here, but since your argument hinges on telling me to shut up in not so many words your argument ends up empty. If I so wanted I think I could make a case for Serenity being Mal's attempt to create a guerilla military.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier
Second – there is no doubt that the East India Company was formed to trade peacefully with the Far East. They still managed to find time to conquer a quarter of mankind. You can argue that their army was a militia if you like but really...

The East India Company had a standing army but it wasn't a standing army. So is the East India company The Federation or Starfleet?

Quote:
The B5 commander deals with Earthforce superiors, a Senate oversight committee, a dockworkers union (who strike in one episode), a television news channel (ISN), visiting bigwigs from Earthforce Intelligence, PsiCorps etc, and so on. One characters wife worked for a private exploration company, another worked was an independent prospector and so on. An alien ambassador was explicitly surprised to discover the concept of an independent press, and used it to keep tabs on what her superiors back home were not telling her. She had to be warned that a TV interview might be hostile, and that there was nothing the Earth Alliance government could do about it.

Why is a military commander in direct control over a civilian dock workers union? Isn't that militarism? Why is the commander of a space station, even an important one, important enough to speak directly with the upper echelons of government? PsiCorps and Earthforce Intelligence are both arms of the Military.

And actually we do see independent news agencies in DS9, the commanders own son is a Journalist. It also appears that there is a strong concept of freedom of the press.

Quote:
In the Soviet Union, all power flowed from the Party. In the Federation, it seems, all power flows from Starfleet. Given that, who cares whether it is called a military?

But we've seen civilian authorities, such as the president, give Starfleet orders, so obviously there are stations higher than Starfleet and the above is incorrect?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Why not just come out and call me a stupid fascist if that's what you think?

I don’t generally mince words, if I thought that I would say it. Don’t start with the whining now, okay? This is an interesting discussion and no one wants to listen to people accuse others of distorting their arguments and calling them stupid.

And here’s another shocker for you, no one disagree that any one characteristic of a military identified in something doesn’t necessarily make that something a military. The problem is that it is not only one characteristic, as you routinely imply. I’ve listed many, and so have other people. If you want to believe Starfleet is not a military go right ahead, I don’t think anyone is stopping you, but I don’t think many others will agree with that assessment, not based on the very limited support that you’ve provided. You need to clarify your arguments and provide some substantive reason for people to agree with you or we need to move on to something that can be clarified and discussed.

You could start by answering Cavalier’s questions concerning how you are defining military and civilian. The TA is a military, not a militia. Like the US National Guard/Army Reserves it is a part of the standing military, just not as active. But I’m hard pressed to see Starfleet as even being something like the US Navy Reserves, since reserve forces rarely go on five year missions without the active military.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I'm trying to make up my mind because when I watched the show I didn't see the big military empire ya'll obviously did,

Not everyone has claimed to see a “big military empire”. Most posters have simply argued that as Starfleet possesses every obvious characteristic of a military organisation, including a de facto monopoly on the heaviest weapons within the Federation, we should treat it as a military organisation.

Sweden has a military, but it is not an empire.

I have argued that Starfleet is the only apparent source of power within the Federation. If you did not see that I am not really surprised, as I think it unlikely the shows creators saw it either.

I suspect that they wanted to depict the Federation as a utopian “world without sin”. Such a world is probably impossible, and certainly unimaginable, so what we are shown in practice is the Federations armed forces, and not much else. Everything else just fades off into a featureless mist.

So why do people think that there is something nice inside this mist? Only because we see superficial indications to that effect. TV shows have conventions and markers to tell viewers where things are and who the good guys are. London has a landmark shot of Big Ben or a big red bus, New York has the Statue of Liberty, and these scene setters are always shown, even when the characters go nowhere near them. The bad guys wear helmets or have inhuman looking faces, so you cannot read their expression. The good guys have easily visible expressions, and so on.

Starfleet has all the “nice people” markers. They never wear black, would rather be shot than wear armour, and engage in endless debates about the Prime Directive. Superficially, it looks really nice.

Its only when you try looking into the details of how the Federation actually works that you can see problems.

The only form of organisation we ever see, within the Federation, is Starfleet. DS9 is, supposedly, one of the most important ports in the Alpha Quadrant. The link between the Alpha and Gamma quadrants. So who is using it? Every sizeable ship we see is a Starfleet vessel, or comes from one of the other powers. Apparently, individual Federation citizens are reluctant to trade with the outside world. Or discouraged from doing so.

We are told that a character is a reporter, but no one ever seems to read the paper or watch the news. There is a “President”, but no evidence of elections. In fact, since elections imply disagreement and conflict over who the next leader should be, and officially there is no conflict within the Federation, there is reason to believe that no election ever takes place.

You could argue, I suppose, that as the shows creators intended us to think of the Federation as some form of Utopia, we should think of it that way. But what we have been shown of the Federation, looks more like a centrally planned command economy (money has been abolished, claimed Picard in ST:First Contact), dominated by its military. The fact that the military uniforms are never all-black, and that the federation blockades primitive worlds (the Prime Directive) is supposed to convince us that the Federation really is wonderful.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The TA is a military, not a militia.

Take it up with Cavalier's dictionary:

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
militia [mi-lish-uh]
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

Is exactly what the TA is. But if you want to believe that everyone who ever touches a gun is in the military who am I to dissuade you.

If Starfleet is a military it is completely unlike any military today. The main job of militaries today is defence of their parent nation. Starfleets main job is Scientific and Exploration, Defence of the Federation is a secondary role. I'm finding it hard to see Starfleet as a military, at least as a military as we understand it, since militaries today don't spend most of their time exploring the Amazon or trying to find the cure for cancer.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Not everyone has claimed to see a “big military empire”. Most posters have simply argued that as Starfleet possesses every obvious characteristic of a military organisation, including a de facto monopoly on the heaviest weapons within the Federation, we should treat it as a military organisation.

Sweden has a military, but it is not an empire.

Yeah but the Federation can really be called an empire, though one that gained it's size through diplomacy and voluntary membership rather than conflict. So if it's militaristic and all military then it's got to be a big military empire.

Which begs a further question, how come the Federations let people decide to be members? If they want a planet just take it with that big mobilised militaristic culture of theirs.

Quote:
I have argued that Starfleet is the only apparent source of power within the Federation. If you did not see that I am not really surprised, as I think it unlikely the shows creators saw it either.

Yeah, I don't see it. There's many reasons to see sources of power outside Starfleet.

Quote:
There is a “President”, but no evidence of elections. In fact, since elections imply disagreement and conflict over who the next leader should be, and officially there is no conflict within the Federation, there is reason to believe that no election ever takes place.

Actually elections are mentioned. In DS9 it's mentioned that Bajor would have to elect Federation Council members if it joined the Federation.

I believe elections are discussed in a number of the novels, but by virtue of elections being mentioned in the show I think we can take it as writ that the Federation is a democracy.

Quote:
The only form of organisation we ever see, within the Federation, is Starfleet. DS9 is, supposedly, one of the most important ports in the Alpha Quadrant. The link between the Alpha and Gamma quadrants. So who is using it? Every sizeable ship we see is a Starfleet vessel, or comes from one of the other powers. Apparently, individual Federation citizens are reluctant to trade with the outside world. Or discouraged from doing so.

DS9 is a Bajoran station, not Federation. It's outside of Federation space so it's not THAT surprising that we wouldn't see much in the way of civilian Federation traffic. Also one of the reoccurring side characters was a captain of a trading ship, there are numerous examples of Federation citizen's trading with other powers.

Quote:
We are told that a character is a reporter, but no one ever seems to read the paper or watch the news.

Not true, we don't see news channels, which would be the only way of expressly getting over the idea of an independent news service, because apparently people don't like watching TV and it's disappeared. I imagine it has something to do with holodecks

Quote:
federation blockades primitive worlds (the Prime Directive) is supposed to convince us that the Federation really is wonderful.

When did the Federation ever 'blockade' a primitive world?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The TA is a military, not a militia.

Take it up with Cavalier's dictionary:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
militia [mi-lish-uh]
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
Is exactly what the TA is. But if you want to believe that everyone who ever touches a gun is in the military who am I to dissuade you.

If people in the TA are "enrolled for military service" then whether the TA is a militia or not it is certainly a military organisation. If people in Starfleet meet this definition it is also a military organisation.

Quote:

If Starfleet is a military it is completely unlike any military today. The main job of militaries today is defence of their parent nation. Starfleets main job is Scientific and Exploration, Defence of the Federation is a secondary role.

If this was true when the Federation was fighting for its life, then the Federation are idiots.

Quote:

I'm finding it hard to see Starfleet as a military, at least as a military as we understand it, since militaries today don't spend most of their time exploring the Amazon or trying to find the cure for cancer.

How do you know that most of Starfleets budget goes on science?
IIRC Enterprise-D spent most of its time in diplomatic and transport roles. DS9 was not a research station. Voyager was on a military mission when it got kicked across the galaxy. Starfleet may contain ships with a scientific mission. It certainly contains ships eg the Defiant, with a mainly military mission.

You could just as easily say that the Federation had militarised its scientific research.

As I understand your arguments, if the army took over the police and counterintelligence roles, as well as complete control over the economy, the army would cease to be a military organisation. After all, the defense of the country would no longer be its primary role. And you would deny, on that basis, that the resulting society was militarised.

There must be a mistake here somewhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:26 AM