You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
26

[–] Tacomelt 1 points 26 points (+27|-1) ago 

It isn't communist, it is more or less technocratic/meritocracy with emphasis on free choice and democracy. Property wasn't abolished, citizens still had their own homes and the government didn't force people to work jobs they did not want to work. DS9 for example the MC's father had a restaurant on Earth. Some of the later movies TNG MC had a vineyard. Captain Kirk had a ranch as well.

Over various series it can be shown that the economy is more resource based than anything else. Internally people take what they want and give back in a more responsible manner, though there are humans that are outside the federation that live an monetary society. The problem most people see it as an utopia because most of the episodes are aboard a military vessel, not civilian life. Even the military aspect is 100% voluntary. Though there was some question about conscripts defending colonies in disputed territories, but it wasn't exactly clear.

In the Star Trek Universe the non producers of society most likely all died off in WW3, Africa for example that relied on foreign aid was most likely wiped out, major US/EU/Asian cities could not support themselves and massive deaths occurred, I read something like a city like New York would die/collapse in 2-3 weeks without any food delivered. The amount of lore was left up to interpretation but one can agree with the major superpowers collapsed, import countries would perish.

There is a lot more lore and information to go over-not going to get into this shit right now. I would say it is definitely socialist, but merit/tech with resources based society as a whole for the federation.

0
3

[–] 8_billion_eaters 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Bing.

0
1

[–] WORF_MOTORBOATS_TROI 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

When trying to analyze Star Trek it's best to remember that it was Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future. Roddenberry was born in 1920 and was a typical born-and-raised-in-L.A. guy who liked to party but was otherwise pretty normal until he ended up going full-hippie in his 30'-40's. He became the kind of L.A. douche who rejected organized religion while calling himself "spiritual" instead, and who rejected politics while calling himself "a humanist" instead. He was greedy and selfish, he was a rampant womanizer, and he used all kinds of drugs throughout his life.

The canon of Star Trek will never delves into the political, sociological, and historical stuff, because Roddenberry never thought about it any deeper than "I think this what I think future society should look like." It is strongly implied that the human society in Star Trek is the culmination of the natural evolution of any civilized society, because they meet so many other races that evolved to have a similar society. They even form a political union with the other races who have evolved civilized societies.

It is fun to speculate whether they killed all the useless people in ww3, or that there must have been a revolutionary communist society that exterminated all counterrevolutionaries, rigidly indoctrinated all people with rightthink and policed free expression of non-accepted ideas that the star trek universe is the utopian product of brutal communist policies that basically altered the gene pool to remove nonconformist tendencies.

Really though it's just a hippie's fantasy world. They won't ever change that because the way it is now allows the modern leftists that control the i.p. to use it star trek as an avenue to create propaganda to push their beliefs regarding whatever contemporary hot-button political issue comes up. Look for them to create more future star trek plotlines that normalize trannies and pedophilia.

Edit: Actually they already kind of had some of those with the characters Dax in DS9 and Kes in Voyager

0
0

[–] hopeso 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

i hope so kek