Gil Hamilton wrote:I have no idea where you get the US being a socialist state in that episode. Aside from not mentioning a means of production at all, what we saw was the opposite of a welfare state solution. People who found themselves in extreme debt or poverty, in addition to the mentally ill, were put in the Sanctuary Districts to exist with minimal government support other than the occasional ration shipment (forget about medical supplies or anything like that) and police to make sure that no one leaves. In addition, it was explicitly mentioned that people who found themselves in extreme debt went their to evade creditors, which isn't exactly what you'd expect from a socialist society with extreme social safety nets. Throwing the poor behind a wall into a lawless zone with no government support and waiting for them to die, while the wealthy have elaborate parties and talk about their stock portfolios and trips to Japan isn't a socialist solution I've ever heard of.
Unless you are operating under the funny definition of socialism that exists with the right-wing that socialism is defined as any government that you happen to not like.
SILENCE YOU SOCIALIST MONSTER! </sarcasm>
Ok enough of that. I kinda skimmed the review so I missed most of the details, so just ignore my statements. I tend to ramble from time to time, like a cranky old man, except I don't have rickets. As far as I can tell, going back and looking at the evidence more clearly, is that the Sanctuary Zones are the result of extreme capitalism, thus giving the proletariat a reason to become a socialist society. So while it isn't directly socialism, it's probably a good stepping stone. Or something.
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Since this is not HPCA News & Politics, I will not argue with you about your jabs at Obama or any other modern day real life politics issues, but the claim that there are no small businesses or something very similar to them is clearly wrong. Sisko's father was a restaurant owner or operator, and even though we don't know if he actually owned the restaurant or just ran for it for the government, his actual job was pretty much identical to a real life restaurant owner with full responsibility about customer satisfaction etc.
I made the jab at Obama just for fun, nothing really serious with that statement. Anyway, the whole question as to whether the restaurant was operating under a socialist or communist system, as both are very different despite being dumped together by right-wing nut-jobs.
Under socialism, such as the way the British operate, workers are paid according to their skill and experience, but also can get more money when they achieve more, which is spread equally across all the workers. Under Communism, such as the Soviet Union, the government runs everything down to the smallest detail. Everything is rationed and divided, with all property owned by 'everyone'.
So if it's socialism, it's certainly understandable that there would be small businesses, but the issue that then arises is that there's supposed to be no money. Without money, the only way to encourage people to work hard would be to give people items in exchange, making it a more elaborate system of barter than anything else. Good, hard workers with lots of experience get more rations, get good housing, and can get items that, even in a society full of replicators, are unique and special. So despite the lack of money, there is still an incentive to succeed.
I know I'm going to get bitched at by someone for pulling a 180, but I have the right to go back and alter my position based on revelations and my own omissions from earlier.