Let's work with this definition (thanks Jon for saving me looking it up in the dictionary). I think it is useful to break down this argument into two parts -- economic and the setup of the UFP government. Please read the whole argument before replying to individual points -- the points themselves are not supposed to be singular rebuttals to the idea of the Federation being communist, but rather are connected arguments.Jon wrote: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.
Government
There is no doubt that the state plans and controls the economy right? Wrong. There is a rational reason why the state doesn't need to control the economy. The "economy" becomes obsolete in Star Trek. This is discussed in the economic part of the argument.
Authoritarian? What do we usually associate with Authoritarian? Well for one thing, we associate lack of rights, lack of appeal, lack of free speech, and so forth. However, we know from Picard that there is a "Seventh Guarantee" in the Federation. There is no reason to infer that the "Seventh Guarantee" is anything like the "Seventh Admendment" from that statement alone. However, given the context that a member of Picard's crew was being tried by an Admiral and not a jury of his peers, and Picard was making the comment regarding said trial, one can infer that the Federation's "Seventh Guarantee" is similar to the "Seventh Admendment." Note that Picard said that the "Seventh Guarantee" is a fundamental right of Federation citizens, not simply a military term for military trials. As well it is easy to bring up examples of freedom of speech -- the Doctor in Voyager publishing his holo-novel for example. Sure, you can find examples of "trial by peers" in communist societies. That is not the point of this example. The point of this example is that there is evidence that a separate document exists that protects the fundamental rights of Federation citizens. What these rights are apparently includes freedom of speech and right of trial by peers. Doesn't sound very authortarian to me.
Single party system? Where do we get canon proof of that? Do we even get canon examples of the inner workings of Federation government? Note that I said Federation government, not Starfleet Command structure. What little we see of the Federation government is in the older TOS movies, which indicates nothing about party structure.
Let us jump to the last part of the definition before engaging in the economic argument. The definition states "claiming to aspire to a higher social order"? The keyword is "claim". The Federation IS aspiring to a higher social order -- the accumulation of knowledge and mastery of mental faculty, which will be discussed in the economic part of my argument.
Economic
Imagine a machine that could make a car. Imagine this machine being accessible to the average joe. Imagine that all you had to do was plug in this machine to the wall, and you could make any car you want. Also imagine that this machine has a sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence so you do not have to literally tell the machine what a car is or how to make it -- an average person with no knowledge of a car could simply direct the machine what he wanted, and the machine could infer the design of the car and create it. Now imagine this machine could make food. In fact, the machine could make almost everything you desired!
In Star Trek, this is the replicator. The lack of a economy does not mean regulation of the economy. In fact, after a few generations, the occupations involving accumulation of wealth would become obsolete, as nobody would require your goods, and everybody would be able to create a good standard of living with a replicator. Of course, there are certain things you cannot replicate -- land for instance, or special unreplicatable materials, or trades and skills. You cannot tell the replicator to build a house for you. But in comes the other part of my argument.
In a society where material goods no longer mattered as much, what would matter? If money were no longer required to purchase most everyday items, what would be the new economic currency? If material wealth did not matter, the next most obvious commodity is mental wealth. Remember in TOS when Kirk and McCoy were worried about that US Airforce pilot integrating into their society? Kirk and McCoy were worried about the pilot's intellectual capacity, that he would be "useless" in their society without retraining. You could make the same argument about someone in the 16th century coming into the 21st century, but the details would not be the person's intellectual capacity, it would be their social and societial ignorance you would be worried about most, not their "level of training".
We see no evidence of a "fedcredit" denomination (correct me if I am wrong) in canon. Sure we see examples of "money", such as McCoy trying to charter a flight. But usually, these examples refer to commodities and services not normally obtainable by a replicator. There is no reason why an average Federation citizen would have need for use of a "fedcredit", except under unusual circumstances. Indeed, Picard himself talks about lack of use of "money", and so does Kirk. So, in a society without some form of currency, how does one accumulate wealth? The only way left is mastery of the mind. Star Trek works on the concept of a knowledge based society.
Final Notes
Sure we can find examples of Star Trek being authoritarian. Sure we can find individual examples of the lack of an economy. However, most of the examples of authoritarian action would be involving Starfleet tribunals and Starfleet, not the average Federation citizen. Just because the Federation lacks an economy in the traditional sense involving money, it does not mean they restrict it. This is explained by the use of replicators. If you want to claim that the Federation restricts the economy, the onus is on you. Replicators make the need for a traditional economy obsolete.
When you say the Federation is communist, you must be clear on what you are communicating. The definition we worked with fits modern day communist regimes, and does not fit the "theoretical" idea of communism as equality for everybody. What people usually think of when they think of communism are Stalin, Kim-Jong-Il, Fidel Castro, and so forth. The "layperson's" definition of communism involves these types of characters, as does the working definition. The dictionary definition does not mesh with the theoretical definition of "equality for all", but rather acknowledges the reality of the working definition. "Single Party", "Authoritarian", "claiming to aspire to a higher social order", and "controlling the economy" are not what we have seen in canon.
If you want to say "Star Trek does not have an economy", you have no argument from me. Star Trek does not have a traditional economy. However, if you want to say "Star Trek regulates the economy and therefore the Federation is communist", I do have a problem with that.
As well, we see no evidence of the fundamental principle of theoretical communism. "Equality" for everybody means every single person has equal material wealth. But when material wealth no longer matters, and the only kind of wealth that matters is mental and creative wealth, obviously there cannot be "equality". There can be "equity", such as the opportunity to go to Starfleet Academy, to become a restauranteer, and so forth if you wish. If you want to prove "equality", you have a steep hill to climb, given that Star Trek does not judge its wealth in the amount of useless trinkets that someone owns, but rather the ability of a person to better himself through his mind. Equity is not equality, and without equality, you do not even have the theoretical version of communism.
Brian
