The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Sunday, June 7, 2026 16:12
VIEWED: 22120
PAGE 1 of 2
Just found this article while looking for something else.
The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek, and the Firefly the Anti Trek:
http://friesian.com/trek.htm
Obviously written by a die hard free market capitalist, but interesting nonetheless.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What a crock of bull.
_______________________________
You do that, and you'd best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why do you say that?
I mean I think the same thing, but why do you?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the author made some strong points. I think Star Trek, like a lot of science fiction, takes its notion of utopian society from 19th century egalitarian ideals espoused by the intelligentsia. Of course the Star Trek universe is assumed to have invented technology that allows it to reorganize useless matter into anything else, via the “replicators,” thereby essentially removing the fundamental principle of Scarcity from the economic equation. I think it says something about the Leftist ideals of Marxism and other egalitarian economics that the only way such economics could be seen as feasible is with the assumption of infinite resources.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You have only to think about what Star Trek technologies would have on ordinary life back on Earth to realise that present day economics just dont work in the Trek `Verse.
Everything in the here and now boils down to supply and demand but, what with Replicators/Fabricators, Holodecks and Transporters, everything you could possibly concieve of needing would be instantly available.
The only possible basis for trade would be in the supply of energy to power the machines and in information. With a luxury trade in `uniques`, Art and Craft work and suchlike.
This guy comes up with the idea that Trek is Fascist, not so long ago somebody else came up with the idea that it was Communist. Truth is, its both and neither.
--------------------------------------------------
Flight Instructor: Son, know what the first rule of flying is?
Me: Don`t crash? 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Funny how he forgets to mention that the Blue Hands were part of an unscrupulous corporate entity.
----
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being" - Carl Jung
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well the replicators weren't introduced until TNG, they weren't a part of TOS or the early films.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Of course the Star Trek universe is assumed to have invented technology that allows it to reorganize useless matter into anything else, via the “replicators,” thereby essentially removing the fundamental principle of Scarcity from the economic equation.
I feel the author shoots himself in the foot a bit with his assertions that imply only free market capitalism can be considered non-fascist, or the only workable system.
Anyway, there have been some parallels drawn between the Alliance and the Federation. Who’s to say what life is really like in the Alliance, and that people on the wrong side of the Federation, the Marquis for instance, don't see the Federation much like Mal sees the Alliance.
We all see the Alliance as some oppressive fascistic entity, but where does this idea come from? A man who hates the Alliance, one has to ask what someone like Osama Bin Laden, a man who hates the west, would have to say about our societies.
We see the Alliance only through the eyes of criminals, how would we see our own free societies if it was only through the eyes of criminals?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How is that funny? I’m not sure it’s relevant. In some form the Blue Sun Corporation appears to be connected to the Alliance, which suggests that the Alliance is a fascist entity. But even if it’s not associated with the Alliance, but an independent enterprise, it still wouldn’t seem to be relevant to the author’s point.
Originally posted by EmpXenu:
Funny how he forgets to mention that the Blue Hands were part of an unscrupulous corporate entity.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That doesn't mean the Alliance is fascist. There's plenty of American corporations with close ties to the US government, but I'd hate to think the flame-mail I'd recieve if I suggested the US was fascist. Likewise 19th century UK wasn't fascist because of the east india company.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
How is that funny? I’m not sure it’s relevant. In some form the Blue Sun Corporation appears to be connected to the Alliance, which suggests that the Alliance is a fascist entity. But even if it’s not associated with the Alliance, but an independent enterprise, it still wouldn’t seem to be relevant to the author’s point.
It calls in to question the authors implication that free market capitalism is the best and only workable social system.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The fascist part of both Firefly and Star Trek is mostly cultural in that they state quite unequivocably that the US will survive and be the dominant force.
For all Firefly's "It's the US and China who are left" pretensions, we pretty much only see Americans. Frankly for someone as globally minded as Joss, this was a real let down. Though Star Trek was much much worse.
Witness the witless title sequence for Enterprise (I'm stealing this from someone else): hey, it's the second man in space! And there's Lindbergh, utter irrelevance to flight history that he is. And pay attention to Robert Goddard; ignore that nasty German von Braun
Blurgh.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How is that fascist?
Originally posted by SimonWho:
The fascist part of both Firefly and Star Trek is mostly cultural in that they state quite unequivocably that the US will survive and be the dominant force.
Not that I agree with your premise that either Star Trek or Firefly presumes the continued existence of the US. In neither case is the US stated or even implied to exist at all, much less hold any kind of dominance. In fact, in both cases, a new government, that is most certainly not the US, is the dominant political force.
Firefly does assume a cultural continuity with the current political state, something Star Trek doesn’t really do. And the cultural continuity does not assume US cultural dominance. Chinese language and culture that is so heavily integrated into implied culture is clearly making the statement that no single culture dominates, and certainly not the US.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The occasional swear word isn't proof of cultural integration. 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.
I get that they're both US TV shows but even Buffy and Angel found room for full time Brits on hand. Whereas Firefly leads us to presume that barely anyone other than the US made it this far.
Just because they don't call the Alliance "The United States", that doesn't mean that it isn't the US under another identity. And given the character of those we've seen in the verse, I'd argue that it is.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good read, but somebody please help me out: I see the word fascism thrown around a lot in here (well, in RWE). So much so and in such circumstances that I began to question if I actually knew what it meant. So, I looked it up:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism&x=0&y=0
Quote:
...a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
or, if you prefer:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fascismF
Quote:
...a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
So, it means what I thought and I still just don't see it. I'm not a "Trekkie", but I like Star Trek and have seen all the movies and a more than a handful of the shows (both old and new) and other than the centralized government, I haven't seen this kind of behavior demonstated.
Is this conduct exhibited by the "Federation" in some episode or movie that I am not aware of? I'm not being a smart ass, I'm asking? The examples offered by the author just don't jive, but I haven't seen everything. Yet, I am admittedly skeptical from what I have seen.
I do, however, know I've seen all of Firefly and I can't even see the Alliance as fascist. They may be the bad guys and I sure as Hell woulda' fought for the Independents (maybe, I might be a coward, hasn't been tested), but fascism in either context seems, at least to me, like a bit of a stretch.
His observations on the whole physics of space travel and the flaws in Firefly were interesting though. I had not considered any of it before. In my defense, I'm not a science kinda' guy... Oh, the Panthers just scored...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fascism is a governmental system that exalts the state over the individual.
Mussolini defined Fascism as a right-wing collectivism, opposed to democracy.
The authors main problem seems to be that the federation doesn't use money, and everyone know only capitalism works...
But their is a certain Star Trek attitude of working for the whole Human race which I suppose could be considered somewhat of a fascist ideal.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think the author is implying something about the message of Star Trek. There is an implied Leftist ideology that has existed in the Star Trek message sense the Next Generation. The idea is that Star Trek seems to embody what is essentially the basic propaganda of Fascist/Marxist politics, an egalitarian utopian society in which no one wants for anything and everyone happily trudges along working, not for their own dreams, but for the good of the State.
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
So, it means what I thought and I still just don't see it. I'm not a "Trekkie", but I like Star Trek and have seen all the movies and a more than a handful of the shows (both old and new) and other than the centralized government, I haven't seen this kind of behavior demonstated.
Is this conduct exhibited by the "Federation" in some episode or movie that I am not aware of? I'm not being a smart ass, I'm asking? The examples offered by the author just don't jive, but I haven't seen everything. Yet, I am admittedly skeptical from what I have seen.
Now the older version of Star Trek didn’t seem to carry this message, even though it did suggest it. Captain Kirk seemed to demonstrate a very individualist nature. In many ways he was a lot like Mal, and that was the intent. He was supposed to be somewhat of a gunslinger in space. And in fact the whole premise of Star Trek was that of a Western in space (Star Trek was originally pitched as “Wagon Train to the Stars.”) It wasn’t until the ST:TNG came out that a very distinct Left-leaning Intellectualist ideology replaced the “Wagon Train.”
The author bases the notion of fascism, specifically, on the implied militarism of TNG, which, once again was the propaganda used by the Nazis. That military service was the righteous way of life even for young children, and essentially the only way of life, sanctioned by the government for most people.
As for whether any of this is actually the message behind Star Trek:TNG is open to debate; and even if it is, it is also debatable whether it is a bad thing. The implied argument in Star Trek seems to be that the Marxist utopian society was realized through technology, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Star Trek presumes that Marxism could work in the absence of certain technology. As I said, earlier Star Trek assumes that Scarcity is no longer the fundamental principle of economics. I personally have always liked the implied militarisms in Star Trek, though that’s a personal choice I’ve made in my own life. In the fictional world of Star Trek, where there seems to be little apart from military and government service to the Federation of Planets, I can see how some might be put off.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Except, Finn, Fascism is Rightist, the only people who say otherwise seem to be those who are right leaning and can't accept that their chosen philosophy is anything but perfect.
Although the implied militarism is about a military star ship, kind of like saying JAG implies America is militarist. The Hunt for Red October is based largely in the American Military, so I guess it's fair to assume that, based on that film, all there is, is the American military.
We've seen life outside of Starfleet, and there's plenty to civilian life, Picard’s family have a vineyard, Jake Sisko is a writer and so on. Is it really that strange that a show based on a military star ship would show a certain amount of militarism?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only reason fascism and the Nazis are perceived as right-wing is because they were seen as being to the right of the Communist in the early part of the 20th c., which isn’t saying much. In reality the Nazis were self-proclaimed socialist themselves and in practice not far from Communists. All property (whether land or capital), including that corporately and privately owned, was under the direct administration of the government. In fact, almost all of the economic policies of the Nazi regime are Left-wing in nature.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And Mussolini said very openly that fascism was right wing. In left wing socialist ideologies the state provides, in fascism people work for the betterment of the state, this isn't the same thing, it's the opposite.
I understand the rights desire to think it's 'sh*t don't stink' but that doesn't mean that it has any basis in reality. Integration of government and corporations is not a thing of the left, it happened with the right wing conservatives of 19th century Britain, nothing leftist about them.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You’ve obviously drawn some very fine lines between supposed “opposites.” Believe what you want.
Originally posted by citizen:
And Mussolini said very openly that fascism was right wing. In left wing socialist ideologies the state provides, in fascism people work for the betterment of the state, this isn't the same thing, it's the opposite.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Drumhead and Insurrection are the first two that come to mind (There are many more) showing how easily we can slip into a facist state of mind when we percieve ourselves as having 'evolved beyond that'.
Good message.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
State to the people -> Socalism
People to the State -> Fascism
Their opposites, not my belief it's right there. The only argument I've heard that is even half way convincing is that big government is leftist. But it isn't, totalitarianism and big government aren't the purview of either side of the political spectrum.
Hitler envied and was full of praise for the American economic (capitalist) system. That's hardly very socialist is it.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
State to the people -> Socalism
People to the State -> Fascism
Their opposites, not my belief it's right there. The only argument I've heard that is even half way convincing is that big government is leftist. But it isn't, totalitarianism and big government aren't the purview of either side of the political spectrum.
Would you say that Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot were facist?
It is not obvious to me that any of them were controlled by their "people".
Quote:
Hitler envied and was full of praise for the American economic (capitalist) system. That's hardly very socialist is it.
<
My understanding was that Hitler regarded the US with some contempt.
Can you provide a source?
If the term "right wing" can include supporters of National Socialism and International Capitalism, it is clearly too broad to be of use for anything except hurling insults at people
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. Would you say General Pinochet was Fascist?
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Would you say that Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot were facist?
Quote:Huh? Where did I say the people control fascism? 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; things like living your life merely to better the state are fascist.
It is not obvious to me that any of them were controlled by their "people".
Quote:In his early years Hitler praised the US, especially the 'race-based' immigration, and subordination of the 'inferior' black race in the US in Mein Kampf. He also praised the US for education and I've seen many arguments that say he based some of the Nazi's economics on that of the US. So Mein Kampf is a good source for Hitler's praise of the United States.
My understanding was that Hitler regarded the US with some contempt.
Can you provide a source?
One of Hitler's major economic policies was to increase consumerism, I also don't see how this is Socialist, seems fairly capitalist to me.
Quote:Firstly we're talking Fascism, of which Nazism is a form. I find it interesting that those who want to prove fascism is left-wing focus on Nazism because they called themselves National Socialists. Hurling Insults? I'm merely saying both sides of the political spectrum have their black marks, it seems it's the right leaning folk who wish to hurl the insults by proving every bad thing in the world ultimately comes down to the left. If "left wing" means "all evil" it seems to be a fairly redundant term.
If the term "right wing" can include supporters of National Socialism and International Capitalism, it is clearly too broad to be of use for anything except hurling insults at people
If "Left wing" can mean everything from Liberal or Socialist Democracy to Communism to Fascism it is clearly too broad to be of use for anything except hurling insults at people
.Big Government Totalitarian states are not the sole purview of the left, no matter how much those on the right would like it to be so
.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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This thread is nothing more then Citizen’s veiled attempt to malign those on this board who lean to the right, economically. What might have been an interesting comparison and contrast of the message of Star Trek vs Firefly is instead nothing short of an exercise in Godwin’s law.
Originally posted by Cavalier:
If the term "right wing" can include supporters of National Socialism and International Capitalism, it is clearly too broad to be of use for anything except hurling insults at people
Most modern right-leaning Americans see things very differently then the Nazis did. Citizen is making the absurd suggestion that if you advocate Right-wing economic practices today you are a Fascist but won’t admit it. The contempt displayed by such an argument is exceeded only by its ignorance. What about the economic practices of the Nazis are in anyway favored by conservative Americans? How many conservative Republicans have broad support for Labor Unions or Welfare/Entitlements? How many conservative Republicans support socialized medicine? Conservative Justices in American voted against the use of Eminent Domain as a tool of corporate economic development. How many conservative Republicans believe that corporations should be directly controlled by the government? Conservative Republicans largely were in favor of getting rid of Social Security and replacing it with investments. The fact is that the majority of Right-Wing Americans share virtually nothing with the economic interests of the Nazis, and to suggest that Right-wing Americans who see the very Left-wing economic practices of the Nazis as unfavorable are somehow trying to hide the smell of their own fascism is absolute drivel.
This discussion does not belong on the General Board. It should be moved down to RWE with the rest of the inflammatory nonsense, unless someone is interested in discussing, without accusing others of Fascisms, the original premise.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
chrisisall wrote:
The Drumhead and Insurrection are the first two that come to mind
Okay, so there are some actual examples. Thanks.
I don't know how right or left the economic policies of the Nazis were (don't care, really), but I fail to see how that's pertinent. A highly regimented economy is only one part of a fascist state, but the definition also says there are other requirements. Looks like there might be one of those denotation/connotation problems here. Those examples may be offered in the shows mentioned above, but I just didn't see any offered by the author.
By the way, from what generation of Star Trek are those episodes? There are just so many offshoots.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think the author is implying something about the message of Star Trek. There is an implied Leftist ideology that has existed in the Star Trek message sense the Next Generation. The idea is that Star Trek seems to embody what is essentially the basic propaganda of Fascist/Marxist politics, an egalitarian utopian society in which no one wants for anything and everyone happily trudges along working, not for their own dreams, but for the good of the State.
Now the older version of Star Trek didn’t seem to carry this message, even though it did suggest it. Captain Kirk seemed to demonstrate a very individualist nature. In many ways he was a lot like Mal, and that was the intent. He was supposed to be somewhat of a gunslinger in space. And in fact the whole premise of Star Trek was that of a Western in space (Star Trek was originally pitched as “Wagon Train to the Stars.”) It wasn’t until the ST:TNG came out that a very distinct Left-leaning Intellectualist ideology replaced the “Wagon Train.”
Finn, I think you have it backward. Or at the very least, you are confusing tone with theme. Do you not realize the Utopian society was the cornerstone of Rodenberry's concept for the Trek verse? It may have been structured like a western, as those were what was popular at the time, but the Utopian element was always there, and strong. The federation was the perfect society. Kirk and co. may have been on a space Wagon train, but they were doing it in service of the utopia, regardless of Kirks individuality.
Roddenberry continued to push the Utopian concept in the first year of TNG. But as his health faltered, and the reins were taken from him, TNG started doing a lot more episodes dealing with the dangers of such a society, like those mentioned above. By the time they got to DS9, the Trek verse was getting pretty far from Utopian.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CHRISISALL!!
Please tell me that you didn't borrow the Zod picture I put in as a link from my original post. (see Just because I'm in the mood to stir the pot, upset the apple cart, and maybe throw the baby out with the bathwater...) If you did it is willfully distorting this thread. Once I discovered I-Mockery's insidious little game (kind admirably ingenious actually), I changed the link in the thread. If you go back and recopy the pic, it should pick up the new link and then you can edit it into you one post here. Sorry for the poinsoned arrow. I have much to read and much to ponder on this thread and can hardly wait to formulate a proper response. But in the meantime I thought I'd try to clear up this little matter.
"Well, here I am."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Drumhead was a NG ep, Insurrection the second to last movie.
I love Roddenberry, but I think his version of 'utopia' was just a little too neat and tidy.
But it is/was hopeful Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, I do realize that, which is why I said that the older version of Star Trek definitely suggested the utopian theme. It was something that existed in the background but was never well defined. The idea was that this was the future and the Federation was a much more “enlightened” place to live. It did not take many sides of what made the Federation so great. In the TNG the notion of a very anti-capitalist system was suggested, with allusions to things like the absence of money and capital/investment instruments that defined the “good guys” which was clearly contrasted with the rotten capitalist Ferangi. There can be no doubt what the message there is.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Finn, I think you have it backward. Or at the very least, you are confusing tone with theme. Do you not realize the Utopian society was the cornerstone of Rodenberry's concept for the Trek verse? It may have been structured like a western, as those were what was popular at the time, but the Utopian element was always there, and strong. The federation was the perfect society. Kirk and co. may have been on a space Wagon train, but they were doing it in service of the utopia, regardless of Kirks individuality.
And yes, you’re also right that as the show progressed, its story began to explore more and more the failings of such a utopia, but that was certainly never the original story of TNG, and I never felt that it did so enough to really provide much balance.
Later shows like DS9 were much different, but these were other shows, not The Next Generation.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought the United Federation of Planets is just a treaty to organize defence, exploration and other things. And the Starfleet is the military arm of the UFP. Which must be military because the universe and its intelligent lifeforms are often dangerous.
But ist the UFP a government of a state? Can it be fascistic? Has not every military organisation some fascistic traits?
I would never accuse the Navy of the USA to have an fascist ideology as long they are answerable to the government of the USA.
The author also question the lack of religions. I think religion is in conflict with reason. Religion would only hinder an utopia.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is a good point, which was also raised by Citizen earlier. If the theme of fascism is based on the implied militarism in a show about a military organization, then it is a pretty thin argument. I can see that.
Originally posted by Mirand:
I thought the United Federation of Planets is just a treaty to organize defence, exploration and other things. And the Starfleet is the military arm of the UFP. Which must be military because the universe and its intelligent lifeforms are often dangerous.
But ist the UFP a government of a state? Can it be fascistic? Has not every military organisation some fascistic traits?
What is there to suggest that the Federation as portrayed in TNG is not a dictatorial entity run by Starfleet? Has there ever been anything in the show to address that? Although I’m not really sure that the writers ever intended anyone to assume that the Federation was anything other then a democratic state.
Quote:This is certainly the secular humanist point of view that is often espoused by American intellectualists, and on that I think the author does have a point. I think the elimination of religion in sf is an arrogant perspective, because it implies that humans can know everything (though clearly that's not the case.) This along with the assumption of no Scarcity is a bit of fantasy that has been interjected into Star Trek in order to force certain themes to emerge.
Originally posted by Mirand:
The author also question the lack of religions. I think religion is in conflict with reason. Religion would only hinder an utopia.
In this manner I think Joss Whedon has it right. The elimination of religions is not realistic, whether one agrees with it or not. It is so unrealistic that it often strains the suspension of belief, similarly with the elimination of Scarcity. These two features are the reason why many otherwise devout science fiction fans think of Star Trek as being too “neat” or too “tidy.” Removing Scarcity and religion creates such an unrealistic scenario that TNG often appears sterile of the human condition.
I also agree with Orson Scott Card, that technically the elimination of religion is impossible. Just because a writer has taken all traces of traditional religious belief out and eliminated traditional notions of god or any other symbol of Man’s limited knowledge of his environment, doesn’t mean you’ve eliminated religious belief. When any notion of traditional religion or some acknowledgement of man’s limited understanding is eliminated it creates a void which the writers fill with their own opinions garnered from their own lack of complete knowledge. And this, I think, is how a lot of these Left-leaning assumptions find there way into science fiction.
As Orson Scott Card states:
Quote:
When a science fiction writers shows humanity evolving beyond the need for religion, the belief system and culture they depict as being "higher" than religion will most likely be precisely their own present religion. The only exceptions are when they are being ironic, and their point is that the "superior" religion is not superior at all. Most of the time, though, "evolving past the need for religion" is a code phrase for "coming to believe what I believe instead of what those other fools believe."
http://www.writing-world.com/sf/card.shtml
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think one of the problems with televised-Trek (as opposed to novelized-Trek) is the American bias.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
This is a good point, which was also raised by Citizen earlier. If the theme of fascism is based on the implied militarism in a show about a military organization, then it is a pretty thin argument. I can see that.
What is there to suggest that the Federation as portrayed in TNG is not a dictatorial entity run by Starfleet? Has there ever been anything in the show to address that? Although I’m not really sure that the writers ever intended anyone to assume that the Federation was anything other then a democratic state.
The United Federation of Planets is, by design, an assemblage of worlds that respects all cultures and viewpoints. While there are basic laws(no slavery, no attempts to conquer/enslave fellow UFP member races, no violating the Prime Directive, etc), most UFP member worlds are basically self-governed however they wish, each with their own religions, political systems, languages, etc.
If you'll forgive my own Canadan bias, it's like the image of the Canadian Mosaic; a multicultural society, where an Indian/Chinese/Thai fusion restaurant can sit right next-door to the local synagogue, and where an Irish descended kid can listen to Russian techno-pop while reading Japanese manga about African-American gang culture.
Trouble is that, on American TV, this starts to look like America, in which everyone is allowed to look, act, and think like Us. Vulcans learn to embrace emotion, Klingons can only show kindness after being around humans, Ferengi become altruistic, androids want to become human, etc. Of course, everybody wants to look/act/think like Us, because We have the best way of doing things.
Naturally, with a largely-human crew (necessitated by makeup and budget), and a human captain (necessitated by Roddenberry's franchise bible), it usually ends up looking like a human-dominated empire, filled with people who must follow human culture, complete with Shakespeare.
I want to hear someone quoting an Andorian poet, or playing Tellarite tribal music, or collecting Ferengi trading cards. . .
-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The only person doing that here Finn is you. How is saying "fascism is right-wing" any less inflammatory than saying "fascism is left-wing". Oh yeah I forgot, the left and all those left leaning are evil, so it's ok for you to blame all the ill's of the world on the left.
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cuhmall
It should be moved down to RWE with the rest of the inflammatory nonsense, unless someone is interested in discussing, without accusing others of Fascisms, the original premise.
If you take me saying "fascism is right wing" as "everyone right-wing is fascist" it betrays your intentions when you say "fascism is left wing" far more than mine. You want to say everyone who thinks differently to you is a Nazi that's your own problem, please don't accuse me of it because I dare to have a different mind to you.
That is your reading, how dare I suggest that the right wing of the political spectrum has skeletons in the closet, we all know evil was invented by the left. If you take me saying fascism is right wing, as saying all those on the right wing are fascist obviously you believe everyone with left wing ideals are totalitarian Communist Fascists.
Thanks for calling me a totalitarian communist fascist then. My position has always been that we need both capitalism and socialism, left and right, not one or the other, my major question is how much of either and the implimentation, I think the fact you find that so insulting speaks volumes about your own position.
Come to think of it you were the first person to say fascism was left wing, and since we've already seen you take that sort of sentence as equivalent to "everyone on the left wing is fascist" perhaps we should have YOUR comments moved to the RWED with the rest of the inflammatory nonsense.
So what I'm saying is if you think perscribing this or that to a political wing is inflammatory, maybe you shouldn't have been the first to do it.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s the impression I get as well. I’m not sure that Fascism was on the minds of any of the Trek writers, and that whatever Fascist comparisons can be made, is probably an unintended consequence of limited scope.
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
The United Federation of Planets is, by design, an assemblage of worlds that respects all cultures and viewpoints. While there are basic laws(no slavery, no attempts to conquer/enslave fellow UFP member races, no violating the Prime Directive, etc), most UFP member worlds are basically self-governed however they wish, each with their own religions, political systems, languages, etc.
The problem with a multiculturalist depiction of the Star Trek universe, however, is the difficulty in relating it to any real audience (not necessarily American.) There is a good deal of multiculturalism assumed in Star Trek already, but telling a story from the point of view of an alien culture without drawing some kind of conclusion about the human condition would likely be, at the very least, confusing and at most impossible. A one hour show is simply not the venue for defining an alien culture; that is something that is better left to the books, since only the very diehard Trekkies are likely to pick up on the meaning in such an abbreviated format. After all, what would Andorian poetry mean to a Human audience?
However, I understand what you’re saying and it goes to the issue of limited scope in which to tell the story. The same problem exists in Firefly. We see the story being told from the point of view of criminals, as defined by conditions of the story. So we assume the Alliance is some evil state. In reality, this isn’t really a necessary interpretation. The Alliance doesn’t have to be thought of as evil in order for the story to work; it just has to be thought of as being at odds with the heroes in the story. (Although the movie sort of throws some monkey wrenches into this; so I’m talking specifically about the episodes.)
Scope can’t account for the somewhat Marxist message in Star Trek, however; that remains difficult to account for. Except that perhaps utopias are necessarily Left-wing? So that maybe the Left-wing message is really a consequence of a utopian vision, and not necessarily an intended result of the writers.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Did we ever see any civilian authority in the Federation?
Sisko in DS9 was made responsible for the accession on Bajor into the Federation, so you would expect him to have dealings with the Federation equivalent of the State Department, Department of the Interior, local civilian authorities etc. IIRC the only civilian authorities he dealt with were those of planets outside the Federation.
Is there any evidence that the UFP consists of anything except its military, its intelligence services, and the Presidency?
It is all rather disturbing.
And of course, the Federation seems to lack an economy of any description.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think the elimination of religion in sf is an arrogant perspective, because it implies that humans can know everything (though clearly that's not the case.) This along with the assumption of no Scarcity is a bit of fantasy that has been interjected into Star Trek in order to force certain themes to emerge.
What is religion? With wider definitions most societies could be called a religion. The interesting part of the bigger religions is their believe in something unexplainable and supernatural. Ok in this fictive universe are “supernatural” being, but they are not the source of any believe on earth (I think ;).
Yes they don’t know everything and they know that they don’t know everything. But is this a reason to believe in unexplainable things without question them? Maybe with the accumulating of knowledge over hundreds of more years many religions lose their basis, shrinking to unimportance.
Another thought: religions could become more private and nobody talks about it.
To the lack of scarcity: This could be the basis of an Utopia but i don’t know how humans develop without scarcity. What would we do without competition, without the need to work or to advance.
At the end the authors of Startrek are just humans. They also don’t know everything and maybe have not the resources to scrutinize every aspect of their fictive society.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, we met President Jaresh-Inyo (and assorted hangers-on) during DS9, and one of the TOS films involved the Federation Council. That's about it for the shows (AFAIK), but we've seen plenty of it in novels (Articles of the Federation, by KRAD).
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Did we ever see any civilian authority in the Federation?
Quote:Actually Sisko was put there only to serve as commander of DS9 (which was technically owned by Bajor and just being "leased out" to Starfleet until Bajor could get their act together). Any influence he had in Bajoran decisions regarding UFP membership were strictly "off the record." His becoming Emmissary was unanticipated by almost everyone concerned --some factions in Starfleet wanted to remove him, but he had Admiral Ross on his side. Then there was the Dominion War and priorities were revised.
Sisko in DS9 was made responsible for the accession on Bajor into the Federation, so you would expect him to have dealings with the Federation equivalent of the State Department, Department of the Interior, local civilian authorities etc.
The only "real" involvement he had on the political side of things was to advise the Bajoran government (as we saw when he told them to reject UFP membership before the Dominion occupation). All the real work would've been between them and the off-camera-people.
The Bajoran provisional government would've been dealing with the UFP bureaucracy. Of course, bureaucracy doesn't make good television (*), so most of that was kept off-camera. You'll note that we never actually saw the provisional government in action either, except when it directly involved the station and its personnel (electing a new First Minister, Church/State issues, etc).
(That said, a Star Trek equivalent of The Daily Show would be all manner of hilarious.)
-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Broadly, religion is belief in any set of principles or reality which is based on faith. Yes maybe we will someday exchange our current set of unknowable concepts for a new set of “scientific” unknowable concepts, whatever that means. Card’s point, however, is that such an argument is mostly likely going to translate into a validation of the author’s own religion, not actually an evolvement beyond religion.
Originally posted by Mirand:
What is religion? With wider definitions most societies could be called a religion. The interesting part of the bigger religions is their believe in something unexplainable and supernatural. Ok in this fictive universe are “supernatural” being, but they are not the source of any believe on earth (I think ;).
Yes they don’t know everything and they know that they don’t know everything. But is this a reason to believe in unexplainable things without question them? Maybe with the accumulating of knowledge over hundreds of more years many religions lose their basis, shrinking to unimportance.
Quote:Exactly. Human life, in fact all life, is based on the procurement of certain scarce resources. It is an intrinsic property of the human condition.
Originally posted by Mirand:
To the lack of scarcity: This could be the basis of an Utopia but i don’t know how humans develop without scarcity. What would we do without competition, without the need to work or to advance.
This is a point the author makes to support his fascist description. The answer seems to be that Starfleet creates that impetus, which once again gets back to the implied militarism and Marxism in the show. People work to advance the cause of Starfleet. What happens if they don’t want to advance the cause of Starfleet? What happens to those people who don’t enlist in Starfleet or some other kind of “Federal Service?” In an economy where Scarcity no longer exists, what is there?
That is a huge blindspot that I’m not aware has ever been adequately addressed in the show.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I'm struck by how quickly the Voyager crew switched to trading replicator rations. Could be that the scarcity in Star Trek has less to do with material goods and more to do with energy (it's not about having money to buy stuff, it's about having energy to replicate stuff). This is why we can't replicate starships; it'd take all the energy on Earth to build one Galaxy-class. It's fully possible that having a replicator in your living room is a Starfleet thing, with civillians making due with public replicator facilities.
We've also seen that replicators aren't perfect, food-wise: Chateau Picard is (well, was 
) a viable business precisely because replicators can't make good wine. I'd guess that cajun food poses similar problems (as evidenced by Sisko's Creole Kitchen). I can't recall if it was a novel or an episode where someone digressed about the sin against nature that is replicated caviar, and the novels also point out that B'ellanna Torres loves mushrooms, but refuses to come within spitting distance of the replicated stuff. Then there's gagh, which simply can't be replicated, 'cause it's alive.
Of course, there've also been diatribes between the replicator-raised "fast food culture" and those who prefer "real" food (Sisko, Picard), so that might be a factor.
We've seen trade in dilithium, both in the original series and in the 24th Century (when it's less vital, but obviously still quite valuable). It can be "recrystalized," which seems to promote its longevity, but still can't make something from nothing.
Then of course, there's latinum, which is impossible to replicate due to its molecular structure. Most of the Alpha quadrant seems to use gold-pressed-latinum (which, Quark explains, is a small amount of latinum embedded within gold) as the main currency, traded in bars, strips, and slips, rather than representative cash/change. Remember how Quark freaked out when he risked his life to gain Morn's fortune, only to find that it was "worthless" gold, with no latinum inside it?
The Federation obviously has some form of e-currency-based economy; we see DS9 personnel thumbing bills and invoices left and right (the thumbprint seems to work as an equivalent to the credit card swipe). The question is what this "money" represents. The Federation is obviously quite wealthy (latinum, dilithium, etc), but how that translates to individual citizens was never really an issue. I'm hoping the post-Unity DS9 novels will present some data, as Bajor's economy gets assimilated into the Federation's.
I'd guess it all comes back to Roddenberry's concept that humanity has "evolved" --people are expected to work because they either enjoy it or feel it's worth doing. Which I guess is fine in theory. Anyone who does want to make a fortune is welcome to head out to the frontier. Those who are too lazy/unmotivated to work. . . Well, I guess we just don't talk about them.
There is, of course, a downside. Remember how the EMH Mark ones were removed from service and put to work in the Federation's dilithium mines (the implication being that this is where androids would have ended up if not for "Measure of a Man," and Data's being recognized as a full citizen)? That's pretty obviously slave labour right there (advocates would point out that holograms aren't "people." I would then happily introduce them to the Doctor and/or Vic Fontaine).
-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First of all, Citizen has it right. Fascism and Communism are polar opposites on the political spectrum. Thats 10th social studies right there. However, one is a political doctrine the other an economic one so they are actually difficult to compare. A democracy is much closer idealogically to communism than capitalism with them both being towards the left of the political spectrum. In calling Star Trek fascist, the author is completely off base.
Militaristic? The ships are supposed to be for science and exploration as well as defense although the uniforms and action-based plots (especially those at the end of DS9's run) have drifted toward militarism and subsequently away from Roddenbury's original vision.
Athiesm? Really? The major monothiestic religions of our planet are minimalized as not to alienate in particular audience and he cries athiesm in the name of Star Trek 5??? No one likes Star Trek 5. The only good part is when Kirk, Spock, and McCoy sing row, row, row your boat. What about the reoccuring religous elements of other cultures? The Klingon religious customs and traditions Worf constantly takes part in. The Fregii worship of the god of the free-market. The vulcan mystism. Chekotay's practice of native american beliefs. I'm not saying I think Star Trek's got it all right in regards to religion, but to call it an Athiestic show is completely off-base.
Also, someone mentioned that all we ever see in Star Trek are Americans. Kirk was an American, yes. But Sulu was from Japan, Chekoff from Russia and Scotty from Dublin. Picard was French, Kim was Chinese, Yosi was South American, and just about everyone else wasn't from the planet.
As for the lack of realism as expressed by Sisco not having to deal with a state department and the lapses in specifics in regards tothe economics of the future, you've got it right. Star Trek isn't realistic. Its far from it. I think Ronald D. Moore said it best, "No one really believes anyone lives on the Star Trek Enterprise." Its just to clean and prim and proper. Thats why people are attracted to his show, BSG, and one reason we love firefly. They harken back to Lucas's idea of the used universe (which disappeared in the prequels and one of many reasons they plain sucked).
Cybershark, I think you've really got it right. Star Trek is a utopian society with a certain lack of economic realism. But realism was never the objective. This FICTION is merely a launching point for tackling larger issues such as the definition of humanity as seen in the character's of Data and The Doctor.
-e
"Storms getting worse."
"We'll pass through it soon enough."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Latinum is a Ferengi currency. As far as I know it never had anything to do with the Federation, even in DS9. And while many of your points are good ones, most of them are not ones that bear out of the The Next Generation alone.
Quote:I think you’re probably right. But Robbenberry’s concept of an evolved humanity lends itself easily to criticism of fascism. There are also some other short comings. Like most Utopian visions, it looks good because most of it is untested. And one can imagine that in a world were Scarcity is essentially eliminated (with a few exceptions) what the human condition might look like, and it wouldn’t necessarily always be pretty.
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
I'd guess it all comes back to Roddenberry's concept that humanity has "evolved" --people are expected to work because they either enjoy it or feel it's worth doing. Which I guess is fine in theory. Anyone who does want to make a fortune is welcome to head out to the frontier. Those who are too lazy/unmotivated to work. . . Well, I guess we just don't talk about them.
The closest example of a condition in which humans live in the absence of Scarcity might be represented by certain extremely rich and powerful individuals. Those people who have never wanted for anything due to their vast wealth and power might be described as being resistant to the influence of Scarcity on a very local level. The Roman Emperors come to mind: men like Nero, Caligula and Commodus were able to procure they infamous reputations because, in part, they essentially got everything they wanted in as much quantity as they could possible use or want. So one of the effects of the lack of Scarcity, that has (as far as I know) never been addressed in the TNG is human weakness in response to such an environment. Where are the spoiled brats who think because they can replicate anything they want, they deserve everything they want? Where are the 1500 pound people who must have a wall removed from their quarters so that they can be wheeled to sick-bay because they sat in front of the replicator day-in and day-in creating Bon-Bons and Snickers?
And in a society where people can be transported instantaneously from one place to another with little more then coordinates and certainly no consent, what kinds of abuses might this foster? Perhaps we don’t see those lazy people or other insubordinates because they are essentially erased.
Of course I'm speculating here; I don’t think that is the intent of the authors. I think the authors intend us to believe that humans will evolve beyond human nature, but that seems extraordinarily optimistic to me, and perhaps a more realistic interpretation is that the Star Trek Utopia, itself, presents problems that could be used to suggest something distinctly dystopic in nature.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by derangedmilk:
Scotty from Dublin.
!
No. Just. . . Just no.
*imagining Scotty's reaction to that*
-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, I thought of that too.
Originally posted by Cybersnark:Quote:
Originally posted by derangedmilk:
Scotty from Dublin.
!
No. Just. . . Just no.
*imagining Scotty's reaction to that*
But I think his point was made so I didn’t say anything. 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry im getting into this a little late, ive been on vacation.
Quote:
State to the people -> Socalism
People to the State -> Fascism
Their opposites, not my belief it's right there.
Thats a false destinction, since in socialism the state and the people are one in the same. A socialist government has just as much potential to become a fascist government as a democracy does. In FA Hayeks "Road to Serfdom" he actually illustrates how fascism is the natural evolution of any socialist government. Socialism requires central government planning to succeed and since a large union of people are incapable of effective central planning the collective government will de-evolve into a comitee government or dictatorship. Which is what happened in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Quote:
Hitler envied and was full of praise for the American economic (capitalist) system. That's hardly very socialist is it.
If thats true, his words didn't back up his actions. Hitler established a government where everything was controlled by central planning. The government controlled all aspects of the economy. There is nothing capitalist about that and actions speak louder than words.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's very little true capitalism in the world full stop. There was very little socialist about the Nazi's, but apparently we can call them socialist because they said they were "Nationalsozialistische". Apparently when it's condemning all the left as the originator of all evil we can take their word for it.
Personally I don't hold that the Nazi's were either left or right, they picked ideals for either in order to gain power, and because power was what Hitler was interested in, not any particular ideology.
The Soviet Union wasn't Socialist, it was Communist. They aren't the same thing.
Lastly we were talking about Fascism NOT Nazism, although Nazism is accepted as a form of Fascism there are some distinct differences. Fascism is right-wing collectivism.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You could also make the argument that it wasn't really Communist either. It was just an oligarchic dictatorship that called itself Communist.
Originally posted by citizen:
The Soviet Union wasn't Socialist, it was Communist. They aren't the same thing.
-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:Quote:You could also make the argument that it wasn't really Communist either. It was just an oligarchic dictatorship that called itself Communist.
Originally posted by citizen:
The Soviet Union wasn't Socialist, it was Communist. They aren't the same thing.
Indeed. There have been as many true communist nations as there have been true democracies, i.e., zero. Neither seems to work on a large scale.
But I guess if you remove the major factors that screw up both those systems--namely, greed and selfishness--maybe something like in Star Trek, a merging of the two, could work.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This thread has officially made me dizzy now.
Off to watch 7 of 9 Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Very true, Communism being a system that attempts to create stateless classless society. The concept I was more answering was that socialism was stateless, which is the ultimate goal of Communism.
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
You could also make the argument that it wasn't really Communist either. It was just an oligarchic dictatorship that called itself Communist.
In a wider question I've never read the road to Serfdom, though it sounds like FA Hayeks may have confused Totalitarianism and Fascism. I'd also note that life improved in 19th century Britain when Socialist elements were employed, which I think is an indication that a balance between Socialism and Capitalism produces a far better society than either one alone.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But Robbenberry’s concept of an evolved humanity lends itself easily to criticism of fascism. There are also some other short comings. Like most Utopian visions, it looks good because most of it is untested.
....
Of course I'm speculating here; I don’t think that is the intent of the authors. I think the authors intend us to believe that humans will evolve beyond human nature, but that seems extraordinarily optimistic to me, and perhaps a more realistic interpretation is that the Star Trek Utopia, itself, presents problems that could be used to suggest something distinctly dystopic in nature.
-- Cicero
True enough.
I think there is a comment from George Orwell to the effect that a true Utopia is literally unimaginable: (Why Socialists don’t believe in Fun - http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/work/essays/fun.html).
In any event, I doubt that a post-scarcity economy is possible, and certain that one does not exist in the Federation. How many people can be served by Quark or Guinan at one time? How many people can simultaneously visit Yellowstone National Park, or the birthplace of Charles Dickens? Even in strictly material terms there is a limit to the much living space is available on DS9 or the Enterprise.
This may seem trivial, but it is no more so than the cost of BMWs and plasma screen TVs in the West today.
‘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.
PS – I just remembered this link: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/ There is an essay there proving that ST:TNG is in fact communist “The Economics of Star Trek”.
I have far too much time on my hands.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
all I have to say is whoever wrote that article has entirely too much free time on his/her hands. This is reminiscent of the time there was such a controversy over Ernie and Bert on Sesame Street possibly representing the "gay" lifestyle...I felt Brian Henson's response was accurate and funny. " Madame, if you have time to worry about the sex lives of felt, you have far bigger problems than I can deal with." The same should be said of anyone who is busily disecting the underlying "nuances" of Star Trek's sociopolitical underpinnnings. Oh come on it's a t.v. show not the guide to life in the future!
I choose to rise instead of fall- U2
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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).
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It seems an 'o' went on holiday from the link, which is bizarre given that I copied and pasted it from the address bar...
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.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html
Quote: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.
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.
Quote: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.
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…
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:I intend to, but there's so much to read, so little time
BTW – you mentioned The Road to Serfdom earlier. You should try to read it sometime. Its very interesting, and (IMHO) well written.
. 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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: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.
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.
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: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
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...
.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.
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.
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:It's more like removing the military and giving t
But then, turning civilian functions over to the military is itself Militarism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But your definition implies communism works, because it ends at the goal for which it sets out
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.
Which is the last I'll say.
Quote: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.
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:I believe the US actually implemented some Eugenics in peace time.
Eugenics was openly considered, not secretly imposed.
Quote: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?
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.
Quote:It is well known that the CIA secretly drugged American civilians during peace time.
Miranda demonstrates that the Alliance desires to secretly drug its subjects into compliance with the wishes of the rulers.
Quote:The Yankee's won the civil war?
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: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?
If they have the guns, they are the military. Being badly disciplined makes them more dangerous (to the Federation), not less.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Don't call me a trekkie
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?
...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:There are examples where weapons are privatly owned. Some weapons are illegal in the Federation though (the really nasty ones).
Also, are there examples of civilians legally possessing arms or is the Federation the only people with weapons?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So now we're back on definitions
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.
. 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: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.
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.
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: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.
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: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...
It is well known that my local hospital has drugged civilians during peace time.
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: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Work takes me away, but I’m back...for a while.
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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...
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And when was the last time Microsoft sent those ocean going crafts into battle with military weaponry?
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...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They don’t.
Originally posted by citizen:
They don't need to,
Quote: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.
Originally posted by citizen:
When was the last time that a peasant acting in a militia was counted as a military?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sweden doesn't have a military because they've not been to war in ages.
They don’t.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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).
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?
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: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.
Also, are there examples of civilians legally possessing arms or is the Federation the only people with weapons?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by citizen:
A militia is an organization that is only a military when fighting.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.)
Originally posted by Veteran:
I'm not sure what Sulu's nationality was . . .
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes that was my point, thank you for (finally) getting it.
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.
Quote: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.
The rest of us, I think, are interested in some sort of substantive argument.
Finally some form of a substantive argument from Finn:
Quote: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.
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.
Quote:Fleet is not just a military term, a company car is part of the company FLEET. Britain has a fishing FLEET.
Fleet is a military term.
Quote:Police officers are military? People enlisted into the police who go to police academy are really joining the military?
Starfleet is run by “officers” who “enlist” and attend an “academy.”
Quote:We've already agreed that, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's military.
Starfleet personnel follow a chain of command.
Quote:So were militias of old.
Starfleet acts as the principal military defense in times of war.
Quote:Neither does the TA.
And Starfleet doesn’t disband when the fighting is over.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:So now we're back on definitions
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Joss said quite openly that he never intended to imply whether the Alliance was Socialist Capitalist or etc.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Blue Sun could run the government.
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.
Quote:How does independent contractors denote government agent. Describing them as independent contractors actually supports my argument.
Weren't the Blue Hands refered to as 'Independent Contractors' by the man who sent the Operative on his merry way?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Right.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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: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.
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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:At least I'm trying to debate rather than throw around unqualified insults Finn.
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.
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: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?
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...
Quote:Why is a military commander in direct control over a civilian dock workers union? Isn't that militarism? Why is
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by citizen:
Why not just come out and call me a stupid fascist if that's what you think?
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The TA is a military, not a militia.
Take it up with Cavalier's dictionary:
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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:Yeah, I don't see it. There's many reasons to see sources of power outside Starfleet.
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.
Quote:Actually elections are mentioned. In DS9 it's mentioned that Bajor would have to elect Federation Council members if it joined the Federation.
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.
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: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.
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.
Quote: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
We are told that a character is a reporter, but no one ever seems to read the paper or watch the news.
.Quote:When did the Federation ever 'blockade' a primitive world?
federation blockades primitive worlds (the Prime Directive) is supposed to convince us that the Federation really is wonderful.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Now you keep moving the goal posts. The TA is a Militia, not a Military, so you say "it's a military organisation" as if it's the same thing. That's just dishonest.
Originally posted by cavalier:
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:I said earlier that it seemed to have more in common with modern militias than modern militaries, in that case making defence a primary concern solely during war time wouldn't make them a military.
If this was true when the Federation was fighting for its life, then the Federation are idiots.
Quote:How do you know it doesn't?
How do you know that most of Starfleets budget goes on science?
Take a look at the characters, most of them actually have a scientific background. It's mentioned ad nauseum that Starfleets primary mission is exploratory and scientific, To seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no one has gone before ring a bell?
Quote:Nearly every episode had references to the Enterprise's research role. It was also a big ship with lots of laboratories.
IIRC Enterprise-D spent most of its time in diplomatic and transport roles.
Quote:I'll say it again, DS9 is not a Federation station. It did however act as a trading station, every shot of it pretty much had a freighter arriving or leaving, a few of the main characters were traders or freighter captains and the like.
DS9 was not a research station.
Quote:And when they got to the other end of the galaxy the crew was excited about what? Exploring or killing new aliens? What did they spend most of their time doing? Every episode in the first couple of seasons of Voyager had them stopping off to explore this or meet that. Maybe they were working out who was ripe for conquest?
Voyager was on a military mission when it got kicked across the galaxy.
Quote:Except it was always maintained that Starfleet was formed for scientific research, and research is what they spend most of their time doing.
You could just as easily say that the Federation had militarised its scientific research.
Quote:I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying the Federation doesn't have a full time army. You're argument seems to be that if we were to disband the military and in times of war used Civilian planes to move police to the combat zone then all of a sudden that means the Police are all in the military even when they're acting as the Police in peace time and that all civilian planes are really military planes no matter where they're going or who they're taking there.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
the idea of the federation would never work realsitically, it would certaintly become corrupt just as any large unopposed regime would. but what difference does it make? fascist or not, star trek is still crap.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Edit: sorry, it made me lag out and double post
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Edit: sorry, it lagged out and make me triple post
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME