[Barton]The Federation is NOT Communist.

[Connor MacLeod]

Good GOD! That guy was a fuckwad. Oh, well. Good riddance.

I'm pretty sure that was Rvalencia, like Sean's been saying.

[Master of Ossus]

Good GOD! That guy was a fuckwad. Oh, well. Good riddance.

I'm pretty sure that was Rvalencia, like Sean's been saying.

What's the IP on RV?

[Alyeska]

RVal's IP has been confirmed.

[Jon]

So it's settled? The Federation is Communist?

Ah, satisfying.

[Darth Wong]

RVal's IP has been confirmed.

Well, now we can see where he got his reputation as a trolling moron. There's only so many times you can demand that someone answer a point with absolutely zero response before you get fed up.

[Connor MacLeod]

RVal's IP has been confirmed.

Well, now we can see where he got his reputation as a trolling moron. There's only so many times you can demand that someone answer a point with absolutely zero response before you get fed up.

You've clearly never heard of rvalencia before. His technique is well-known and well-reviled at Spacebattles. Wayne and I (and probably a number of the "veteran" SBers on here who would remember him) can tell you some of the stories of dealing with him.

[Darth Wong]

The really sad thing is that he's sent me a bunch of whiny E-mails after being banned, and in those E-mails, he still refuses to address or even acknowledge that quote! Unbelievable; I'm almost tempted to wonder if he's actually a guy who hates Star Trek and wants to make Trekkies look like idiots via association.

[Howedar]

Rval's wall of ignorance may well be stronger than Scooter's: while the latter will usually invent some bullshit reason to ignore a point, the former will pretend a point does not even exist.

That is from personal experience, so nobody jump on my case for peanut gallery comments.

[Connor MacLeod]

The really sad thing is that he's sent me a bunch of whiny E-mails after being banned, and in those E-mails, he still refuses to address or even acknowledge that quote! Unbelievable; I'm almost tempted to wonder if he's actually a guy who hates Star Trek and wants to make Trekkies look like idiots via association.

Nope, as Howedar says, he's got a wall of Ignorance that would make even Scooter balk. He is literally impervious to logic, counterargument, and even insults (which inevitably occur if you debate him - few can fail but to become infuriated by him.)

To my knowledge I think I am the only person to ever rattle him or get him to swear or otherwise be pissed, though it was so long ago I don't even recall how.

[Connor MacLeod]

Rval's wall of ignorance may well be stronger than Scooter's: while the latter will usually invent some bullshit reason to ignore a point, the former will pretend a point does not even exist.

That is from personal experience, so nobody jump on my case for peanut gallery comments.

Well I did mention veteran SBers, and you certainly do qualify.

[Bellator]

He has a sign therefore there's marketing?

not entirely of course. But in Cuba there are many stores without signs because of idealogical reasons (it being considered anti-revolutionary marketing), and you have to go inside to figure out what they are selling. Many seem to ignore this though, but it's clear from anyone who's been there that there are far fewer signs than in other non-communist nations, third world or otherwise.

Still, the Federation seems rather communist (or even militarist, considering the Star Fleet's tentacles have spread to nearly all sectors of life) and can maintain that system thanks to inventions in replication and the like.

However, the scientific community seems to be independent, in part. Leading scientific institutes such as the Daystrom Institute or the Vulcan Science Academy are clearly seperate from Star Fleet. At least not all is owned by the Federal governement.

[Publius]

However, the scientific community seems to be independent, in part. Leading scientific institutes such as the Daystrom Institute or the Vulcan Science Academy are clearly seperate from Star Fleet. At least not all is owned by the Federal governement.

This is fallacious reasoning, sir. Starfleet is not the sole organ of the United Federation Government; given that Starfleet does not control the Dastrom Institute or the Vulcan Science Academy, it does not follow that the United Federation Government does not control them. The Virginia National Guard does not control the Virginia Military Institute, but VMI's Board of Visitors is appointed by the Governor of Virginia, who is also commander in chief of the Virginia National Guard.

Furthermore, as regards Mr. Sisko's restaurant, it bears repeating that Messrs. Marx and Engels specifically stated in their Communist Manifesto:

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Mr. Sisko's modest restaurant hardly qualifies as "modern bourgeois private property" of the kind abolished under Marxism. Under the Marxist-Leninist system, it would be little more than the property of a petty artisan. The fact that it exists is no argument against a Communist system being in place, as Messrs. Marx and Engels disclaimed the need to abolish it under a Communist system.

PUBLIUS

[Bellator]

This is fallacious reasoning

Granted. But is there any evidence that the UFP governement or military controls or severely restrict, say, the Daystrom Institute?

[Darth Wong]

This is fallacious reasoning

Granted. But is there any evidence that the UFP governement or military controls or severely restrict, say, the Daystrom Institute?

You obviously do not understand that when you present a purported proof of something and it is successfully shot down as fallacious reasoning, you can't defend your argument by attempting to nitpick the rebuttal. The degree of UFP control over the Daystrom Institute is somewhere between 0% and 100%, and is also totally irrelevant to Publius' point, which was intended only to show that your evidence did not lead logically to your conclusions.

[Jon]

Could someone explain to me the position and existance in Communism of

A) A Government/Administration and

B) A Government in which President's are voted in and out of, as per the UFP President's own words ['I will serve until the next election'] in the TNG Episode where W. Crusher is involved in that silly training accident near Earth.(I can and will find script reference to this)

[seanrobertson]

This is fallacious reasoning

Granted. But is there any evidence that the UFP governement or military controls or severely restrict, say, the Daystrom Institute?

I can't speak to the extent to which the Daystrom Institute's restricted by anyone. But as Michael just said, it's irrelevant to the point at hand.

Moreover, an appeal to ignorance seems implicit to your inquiry--at least, stated as is. To that end, please keep in mind the maxim, "Lack of proof is not proof."

Specifically, even if we've never heard that the D.I. is controlled by a given body, that lack of information cannot be used to demonstrate that the Federation's scientific community is even partially independent. (It might be to an extent; we simply don't know, and must leave it at that.)

[Darth Wong]

The existence of a Federation Science Council which dictates what can and can't be explored or researched indicates very heavy regulation. Who even needs direct oversight when you can just control the behaviour of any private or public institution with suffocating government regulation?

[Darth Wong]

Could someone explain to me the position and existance in Communism of

A) A Government/Administration and

B) A Government in which President's are voted in and out of, as per the UFP President's own words ['I will serve until the next election'] in the TNG Episode where W. Crusher is involved in that silly training accident near Earth.(I can and will find script reference to this)

Communism is not totalitarian or dictatorial by design. It tends to turn out that way in real-life because people are imperfect and the excessive power centralized in the government's hands will corrupt them, if indeed their intentions were ever honourable in the first place. But there is nothing intrinsically anti-Marxist about democratically elected presidents in a communist state; the "dictatorship of the proletariat" quite obviously implies rule from the bottom, not the top, ie- democracy of some sort.

[Jon]

Ah, as I understood it, there really is no 'state' in communism, as per Marx's four stages of social evolution- with it's presidential election system and such, isn't it closer to a modern democratic-socialist organisation? Isn't a nationalised industry more reflective of this? Where a true communist nation would be reflected by the likes of todays 'Co-Operative' organisations, where the workers and not the government control the company?

Also

you can just control the behaviour of any private or public institution with suffocating government regulation

Wouldn't it be true to point out that all governments regulate what can and cannot be researched, such as the outlawing in the US of Human Cloning research, no federal funding for Stem Cell research and so on?

[Edit: Sorry, the part I used about the fed president referring to elections is from the red squad episode in DS9, my bad]

[Bellator]

The existence of a Federation Science Council which dictates what can and can't be explored or researched indicates very heavy regulation.

This applies to every governement currently on earth. Just look at the stem cell and cloning debates, or the Nuclear Test Ban treaty which severely hinders the. Every governement regulates and restricts the scientific progres, so it's not strange the UFP does the same.


EDIT: on the Daystrom Institute, there might be a strong connection between the DI and SF, considering Offspring (TNG). I forgot about that episode.

[Master of Ossus]

The existence of a Federation Science Council which dictates what can and can't be explored or researched indicates very heavy regulation.

This applies to every governement currently on earth. Just look at the stem cell and cloning debates, or the Nuclear Test Ban treaty which severely hinders the. Every governement regulates and restricts the scientific progres, so it's not strange the UFP does the same.

That's the whole point: the level of control SF exerts on the DI does not represent evidence either way that the UFP is or is not communist. It merely shows that the UFP regulates scientific development.

[Darth Wong]

The existence of a Federation Science Council which dictates what can and can't be explored or researched indicates very heavy regulation.

This applies to every governement currently on earth. Just look at the stem cell and cloning debates, or the Nuclear Test Ban treaty.

I wouldn't hang my hat on that if I were you. The Nuclear Test Ban treaty is on weapons proliferation, not scientific research. All of the scientific research necessary to make nuclear weapons was done decades ago; it's just being kept from people that aren't privileged to have it. And as for the stem cell and cloning debates, that is the influence of religious stupidity: no less poisonous an influence than communism.

[Stofsk]

B) A Government in which President's are voted in and out of, as per the UFP President's own words ['I will serve until the next election'] in the TNG Episode where W. Crusher is involved in that silly training accident near Earth.(I can and will find script reference to this)

Found it. Episode "Homefront".

JARESH-INYO
I never sought this job. I was
content to simply represent my
people on the Federation Council.
When they asked me to submit my
name for election, I almost said
no. Today I wish I had.

He was asked to submit his name for election? By whom? And what does this say about the process? And why is it, in 14 years of TNG, DS9 and even Voyager, that none of the characters mentioned an election where they had to vote for the President of their choice? Seriously, this doesn't prove anything. If B5 can depict an election in the first episode of the series, and it takes up no more than background information for the characters (i.e., it is NOT integral to the episode's plot, though it would be integral for the series plot) then why can't Star Trek do something similar?

I'm of the opinion that they took the term 'election' and title 'President' but meant something else. We've never seen any character participate in the democratic process. So if there was an 'election' it excludes a significant portion of Federation citizens. It's possible, and more than a little likely if you view it in context, that the Federation President is elected by the Federation Council, which is only democratic in the sense a group of people voted him in. Of the Council, we have no idea how representatives gain THAT position. How did Jaresh-Enyo become a rep for his people on the Council?

[Jon]

And why is it, in 14 years of TNG, DS9 and even Voyager, that none of the characters mentioned an election where they had to vote for the President of their choice?

I think it is fair to mirror this with another programme, one that is watched by 12 million people over here, 5 nights a week, routinely- Coronation Street- it is a 'soap' set in the present and has run successfully on prime time TV, for over 35 years. According to an Official trivia book, 'Forty Years of Coronation Street', Daran Little, ISBN 0233998063, no reference has ever been made to any democratic voting, no reference has ever been shown to how people vote a new leader in every four years- but the fact we have a 'Prime Minister' has been mentioned- though a character has never been seen participating in the democratic process, can I assume by Prime Minister they mean something else?

Is it integral to Star Trek's plot that they define how the government works? Maybe for those of us who like to speculate, indeed. But I don't think it is necessary. Still, I agree- with so much reference made to the government, the federation, the president and such then you would expect some attention to be paid to the whole progress- in this case though I think as wong maintains it all comes down to shit writing.

I still maintain though, that a communist 'state'- a contradiction in terms as it is- would not be composed of an entirely 'state' owned/run infrastructure- as the Federation apparently is and would not have the type of government the UFP does, (President, election, council etc- as much as you can assume they mean something else, I can assume they don't?) per se. I could settle on them being a socialist organisation, which is quite different to the 'anarcho-communism' desribed by Marx.

But then the dictionary definition in turn contradicts me.

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

- That could very well be an accurate descritption of the UFP- communism as it is twisted by those in power, as Wong stated. Though referring to that I have italicised, would this allow for member 'states'/planets to have their own government, is there 'local' government in a communist state? And is the emboldened part true of what we have seen?

And finally from the same source:

Note: At different times, and in different countries, various schemes pertaining to socialism in government (such as in the USSR, China and North Korea) and the conditions of domestic life, as well as in the distribution of wealth, have been called communism

So what's going on here? is this what is happening when the UFP is being called a Communist regime?

[Stofsk]

Is it integral to Star Trek's plot that they define how the government works?

Yes.

Seriously, B5 did it in the first episode, and at the time it was mere background information. JMS wrote it into the original plot of course, he wanted us to know that the EA holds elections, that the characters bother to vote, that the President who is elected, Louis Santiago, did so legitimately and so on and so forth. This is important to establish as later events and episodes highlight the EA's troubles and trials.

Think of it this way: in "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost" we meet the UFP President, Jaresh Enyo. Now, this is the first and LAST time we ever see either him, or the President of the UFP. Suppose this character and the UFP's political situation was given greater emphasis by the writers; wouldn't it make sense to show an election of the President, or mention how he was appointed by the Council, or SOMETHING? That way when you get news about home and about policy decisions - say, the declaration of war against the Dominion - they matter more when you have a recurring character make a FDR-esque declaration, rather than have Sisko walk into Ops and tell everyone "Hey gang, I just got off the line with SFC and we're now at war. Worf, let's kick some arse."

Poor writing indeed.

That could very well be an accurate descritption of the UFP- communism as it is twisted by those in power, as Wong stated. Though referring to that I have italicised, would this allow for member 'states'/planets to have their own government, is there 'local' government in a communist state? And is the emboldened part true of what we have seen?

Italicised: We have seen Federation colonies ignored or abandoned if the politics require it. The Maquis colonies were left to hang out to dry by the Federation, as an example. Should not the Maquis colonies have some say as to their fate? In any case, they seemed to govern themselves, and certainly went the route of self-determination when push came to shove.

Emboldened: Dunno. Replicators seem to make standard items available to all. If that is what you meant.