[Barton]The Federation is NOT Communist.

[brianeyci]

Oh I thought of another objection to my argument... how can I prove that the majority of Federation citizenery are engaged in intellectual tasks? I remember Picard explaining how the Federation worked to Lily, did he mention that Federation citizens strive towards "self-achievement" or "betterment", or was his quotation too general to derive what Federation citizenery actually do?

Yes, I did search for "Star trek first contact script" on google and couldn't get a correct hit... it kept giving me a script which didn't seem remotely like the movie for some reason. A link would be helpful.

Thanks,
Brian

[Jon]

Let us not resort to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, shall we? Communism was invented by Marx, and if something fits all or most of the criteria Marx laid out in the Communist Manifesto, it's communist. It certainly isn't capitalist!

DW is right Jon, you can't say that the Federation is capitalist. DW, in case you misinterpreted me, I am not attempting to say the Federation is capitalist -- that is the main flaw I see in previous arguments by ST against the communist proposal.

Brian

Has anyone actually been reading my posts? I have never once implied or said the Federation is capitalist.

[brianeyci]

When the end-product is a service (for example, house cleaning or prostitution), it's obviously a service industry. But when the end-product is a manufactured item (for example, an engineer provides a service to a company which is building automobiles), it is a manufacturing industry rather than a service industry.

I think you need to step back and look at how a factory works. In the old days, an artisan might have hand-crafted a chair, for example. Today, an automated assembly line can autonomously make that chair, and all you do is feed it raw material. Do you see how this is analogous to the replicator? The labour is not gone, and the need for raw materials has actually increased.

When you see the Federation, you mostly see Earth, which is a mostly service-oriented planet because it's the seat of government. It's like Washington DC; you don't expect to find much heavy industry there. But we know there are entire mining colonies, where everyone works to simply supply raw materials to industry. There are shippers, whose job is to transport raw materials around for eventual use. Automating or miniaturizing a production step does not fundamentally alter the nature of industry; it only allows for increased productivity and tends to shift the demand somewhere else, often towards raw materials. Look at how the industrial age reduced labour requirements for transportation, only to shift them to an enormous demand for manufactured transportation equipment and the raw material known as oil.

Yes. Again I realize that I looked too literally at the "definition" of services/goods, and tried to split up the definition to create an explaination of the Federation's lack of an economy. I realize now that goods require services, and services require goods, and that replicator technology does not eliminate the need for that.

However, I still question whether or not the Federation actually follows the paradigm of Marx's communism. It hinges around whether or not the majority of Federation citizenery are "unemployed" in our sense, and whether or not Federation allows its citizens the free time to pursue intellectual and personal achievement rather than a 9-5 service and good jobs.

And, something concerns me hasn't been addressed yet -- when the layperson thinks of communism, they think of Stalin, Kim-Jong-Il, and Fidel Castro. We are talking about Marxism communism, not the practical realities of communism. Now that I think of it, if Star Trek really is communist following the Marxist ideal (if I understand it properly), it is not so bad -- individuals seem to have freedom to explore their mind when they do not have to pure economic gains.

However, say "Star Trek is Communist" and people automatically think of gulags, Stalin's cleansing, and equality. Perhaps "Star Trek is Marxist" is a better idea, given that the ideal of communism has been twisted by the failings of human beings. Definitions change, and the generally accepted meaning of "communist" is Stalin, Kim-Jong-Il, China, and so forth... not the Marxist ideal.

Brian

[General Zod]

Oh I thought of another objection to my argument... how can I prove that the majority of Federation citizenery are engaged in intellectual tasks? I remember Picard explaining how the Federation worked to Lily, did he mention that Federation citizens strive towards "self-achievement" or "betterment", or was his quotation too general to derive what Federation citizenery actually do?

Yes, I did search for "Star trek first contact script" on google and couldn't get a correct hit... it kept giving me a script which didn't seem remotely like the movie for some reason. A link would be helpful.

Thanks,
Brian

script

[brianeyci]

Has anyone actually been reading my posts? I have never once implied or said the Federation is capitalist.

Sorry Jon didn't mean to misquote you.

[brianeyci]

Another note. Is there a fine line between socialism and communism? I get this from http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/#Nutshell ,

"It is collective because society can control production unlike the economic anarchy of capitalism and because production is for the common good rather than for individual profit."

This sounds a lot like communism to me. I know the line is fine -- however, in this sense, simply having a directed economy does not necessarily classify it as communism.

Unless communism = socialism. However, that would be oversimplification... perhaps it would be useful for some political science buff/major to distinguish socialism and communism? I get this definition of distinction between socialism and communism,

http://www.geocities.com/commiett/difference.html

"The quick 'n' easy way to remember the difference between Socialism and Communism is: Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS," whereas Communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS.""

The needs versus deeds issue is a fine line that we need to explore I think.

Brian

[Patrick Degan]

Another note. Is there a fine line between socialism and communism? I get this from http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/#Nutshell ,

"It is collective because society can control production unlike the economic anarchy of capitalism and because production is for the common good rather than for individual profit."

This sounds a lot like communism to me. I know the line is fine -- however, in this sense, simply having a directed economy does not necessarily classify it as communism.

Unless communism = socialism. However, that would be oversimplification... perhaps it would be useful for some political science buff/major to distinguish socialism and communism? I get this definition of distinction between socialism and communism,

http://www.geocities.com/commiett/difference.html

"The quick 'n' easy way to remember the difference between Socialism and Communism is: Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS," whereas Communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS.""

The needs versus deeds issue is a fine line that we need to explore I think.

Brian

Socialism predated Communism by two decades at the least. At its essence, Socialism means the workers' democratic control of the means of production and has existed in varying forms both in practise and theory for nearly two centuries. Socialism also stresses a democratic as opposed to a revolutionary pathway to change —whereas Marx favoured the latter. Mixed socialist/capitalist systems have more or less been the norm in Western industrial society since the end of World War II and the borderline between the two philosophies in the system has varied from country to country and has shifted with the needs of the times.

[brianeyci]

Socialism predated Communism by two decades at the least. At its essence, Socialism means the workers' democratic control of the means of production and has existed in varying forms both in practise and theory for nearly two centuries. Socialism also stresses a democratic as opposed to a revolutionary pathway to change —whereas Marx favoured the latter. Mixed socialist/capitalist systems have more or less been the norm in Western industrial society since the end of World War II and the borderline between the two philosophies in the system has varied from country to country and has shifted with the needs of the times.

Very good. So the Federation is socialist rather than communist? We have concrete examples of the Federation being a democratic institution, and speculation about the revolutionary process that may have brought the Federation into its current state. So I would tend towards the Federation being defined as socialist according to your explaination Degan. Slight evidence that the Federation is socialist, and no evidence that the Federation achieved this means through revolution? Still not good enough though. For the moment I will settle for the Federation as being Marxist.

<edit> perhaps Marxist is still the wrong word. I want to say Marxism without the violent revolution. For now, socialism then. </edit>

Brian

[Patrick Degan]

Socialism predated Communism by two decades at the least. At its essence, Socialism means the workers' democratic control of the means of production and has existed in varying forms both in practise and theory for nearly two centuries. Socialism also stresses a democratic as opposed to a revolutionary pathway to change —whereas Marx favoured the latter. Mixed socialist/capitalist systems have more or less been the norm in Western industrial society since the end of World War II and the borderline between the two philosophies in the system has varied from country to country and has shifted with the needs of the times.

Very good. So the Federation is socialist rather than communist? We have concrete examples of the Federation being a democratic institution, and speculation about the revolutionary process that may have brought the Federation into its current state. So I would tend towards the Federation being defined as socialist according to your explaination Degan. Slight evidence that the Federation is socialist, and no evidence that the Federation achieved this means through revolution? Still not good enough though. For the moment I will settle for the Federation as being Marxist.

<edit> perhaps Marxist is still the wrong word. I want to say Marxism without the violent revolution. For now, socialism then. </edit>

Brian

Not quite. Socialist systems do not entirely eliminate private concerns. Often, they have parallel state-run industries to private ones and most often nationalise transport, medical, and power services.

By contrast, there is no evidence that the Federation has private industrial concerns. That individuals may own their own small businesses is no proof of capitalism as small, individually-owned and operated businesses managed to exist in the Soviet Union. Nor does a government nominally constituted along democratic forms demonstrate anything: the Soviet Union had a national legislature and supposedly free elections, but the candidates were all Communist and the Supreme Soviet nothing more than a rubber-stamp body for the Politburo.

[brianeyci]

Not quite. Socialist systems do not entirely eliminate private concerns. Often, they have parallel state-run industries to private ones and most often nationalise transport, medical, and power services.

By contrast, there is no evidence that the Federation has private industrial concerns. That individuals may own their own small businesses is no proof of capitalism as small, individually-owned and operated businesses managed to exist in the Soviet Union. Nor does a government nominally constituted along democratic forms demonstrate anything: the Soviet Union had a national legislature and supposedly free elections, but the candidates were all Communist and the Supreme Soviet nothing more than a rubber-stamp body for the Politburo.

Good. However, the vices of the Soviet Union -- centralization and corruption, destabalization through massive overspending on the military, restriction on freedom of speech aka KGB, and so forth, do not seem to be evident in the Federation. Perhaps the key lies in explaining the Federation as a loose coalition rather than an all-encompasing government. We know that planets that join the Federation are allowed to keep domestic laws and govern planets with autonomy (I believe I can find Picard saying this, if you don't believe the above ask and I will try and find the quote, in TNG when Picard explains the Federation to a potential joining planet).

Brian

[General Zod]

Good. However, the vices of the Soviet Union -- centralization and corruption, destabalization through massive overspending on the military, restriction on freedom of speech aka KGB, and so forth, do not seem to be evident in the Federation. Perhaps the key lies in explaining the Federation as a loose coalition rather than an all-encompasing government. We know that planets that join the Federation are allowed to keep domestic laws and govern planets with autonomy (I believe I can find Picard saying this, if you don't believe the above ask and I will try and find the quote, in TNG when Picard explains the Federation to a potential joining planet).

Brian

what does whether or not a government is corrupt or not functional have to do with what kind of a government it is?

[brianeyci]

what does whether or not a government is corrupt or not functional have to do with what kind of a government it is?

Yes, more confusion on my part. Again I am attempting to associate the Soviet Union's non-functioning government and perhaps China's corruption to the definition of communism. Just to be clear, we are talking about the definition of communism as defined by Karl Marx right? So we are not talking about communism aka Stalin, Kim-Jong-Il, etc.

<edit> Whether or not a government is corrupt does not actually have anything to do with what kind of government it is. However, when we allude to the term, "The Federation is Communist", an automatic connection is drawn between the Federation and communist regimes of the current day (at least by me) like China and North Korea. If you want to represent the Federation as a socialist or Marxist state, say so. I think the term communist in our society has over time begun to refer to the negative aspects of communism, such as the Soviet Union's form of communism, rather than some sort of well-thought out revolutionary socialism. Definitions change, and unless you are clear by saying you are talking about Karl Marx's communism, people will draw parallels to today's communist societies and draw wrong conclusions about the Federation. That is my concern.</edit>

Brian

[brianeyci]

... Nor does a government nominally constituted along democratic forms demonstrate anything: the Soviet Union had a national legislature and supposedly free elections, but the candidates were all Communist and the Supreme Soviet nothing more than a rubber-stamp body for the Politburo.

I thought of another example of the Federation government in action -- Star Trek VI. In Star Trek VI, you get to see the President of the Federation interact with the Admiralty of Starfleet. Note that this President is a different President than the one in Star Trek IV, giving at least superficial evidence of a change in government.

Now the interesting part is the dialogue between Cartwright and the President in Star Trek IV. When Cartwright tells the President, "We cannot survive without the Sun", the President replies "I am well aware of that Admiral" or something of that nature. If the President was a political puppet for Starfleet, then he probably would not use that tone of voice.

Now back to Star Trek VI. When Kirk is kidnapped, and the Admiralty comes into the President's office to get approval for the plan to invade Klingon space and rescue Kirk, the President overrides the Admiralty. "This President is not above the law.", or something to that effect. If the President only had ceremonial powers, then why was he dictating the direction of Federation foreign policy?

If the "Politburo" exists in the Federation, it would be those who hold military power -- the Starfleet brass. The President clearly has more than ceremonial significance, and in Star Trek VI dictates the direction of Federation foreign policy for the next century.

Brian

[Batman]

Brian, you ARE aware that examples from the TOS era movies aren't exactly the best way to disprove the TNG era Federation being communist, are you?

EDITed to fix typo
*phaserizes typo*

[brianeyci]

Brian, you ARE aware that examples from the TOS era movies aren't exactly the best way to disprove the TNG era Federation being communist, are you?

EDITed to fix typo
*phaserizes typo*

Well sure, you could treat the two as isolated incidents. However, in the TNG era, do we ever get to see the Federation Council like in the TOS movies, or the Federation President? If you want to assume some sort of radical change in governmental policy and direction, give some reference to it, rather than assuming it happens. What happened between TOS and TNG that would have changed the role of the Federation President? We are not talking oranges and apples here -- it is still the Federation.

Brian

[Darth Wong]

Good. However, the vices of the Soviet Union -- centralization and corruption, destabalization through massive overspending on the military, restriction on freedom of speech aka KGB, and so forth, do not seem to be evident in the Federation.

Or their technology allows them to make it look less severe. The Soviet Union, after all, started in a nation that was already lagging well behind the rest of Europe in terms of technology and living standards. But if you look at the Federation, the terms "Federation" and "Starfleet" are virtually interchangeable. All of the best schools are in Starfleet, not civilian life. All of the top doctors and scientists work for Starfleet. Major events such as planet-scale plagues can be kept secret in the Federation. Starfleet is so powerful that if martial law is declared, a Starfleet Admiral will take direct control of the Federation. The immense influence of Starfleet over the Federation's ostensibly civilian government is actually very reminiscent of Stalinism, Leninism, et al.

[TheDarkling]

All of the best schools are in Starfleet, not civilian life.

Are they?

The only Starfleet school I recall is Starfleet academy.

Starfleet is so powerful that if martial law is declared, a Starfleet Admiral will take direct control of the Federation.

Where is that from?

[Trogdor]

All of the best schools are in Starfleet, not civilian life.

Are they?

The only Starfleet school I recall is Starfleet academy.

But Starfleet Academy was where almost everyone with a good education and a Federation background came from. In fact, the only time I ever recall another big school being so much as mentioned was that one Data taught at in the final TNG episode.

Starfleet is so powerful that if martial law is declared, a Starfleet Admiral will take direct control of the Federation.

Where is that from?[/quote]

Some DS9 ep where an admiral did it to show the Federation's vulernability, I think. Can't remember the name.

[Howedar]

I thought of another example of the Federation government in action -- Star Trek VI. In Star Trek VI, you get to see the President of the Federation interact with the Admiralty of Starfleet. Note that this President is a different President than the one in Star Trek IV, giving at least superficial evidence of a change in government.

Because the USSR had the same leader throughout its history

Now the interesting part is the dialogue between Cartwright and the President in Star Trek IV. When Cartwright tells the President, "We cannot survive without the Sun", the President replies "I am well aware of that Admiral" or something of that nature. If the President was a political puppet for Starfleet, then he probably would not use that tone of voice.

Or maybe he's just pissed off. Or maybe he's an idiot. Did you never use that tone of voice with a parent when you were younger? If you did, were you in a position of authority over them?

Now back to Star Trek VI. When Kirk is kidnapped, and the Admiralty comes into the President's office to get approval for the plan to invade Klingon space and rescue Kirk, the President overrides the Admiralty. "This President is not above the law.", or something to that effect. If the President only had ceremonial powers, then why was he dictating the direction of Federation foreign policy?

He could certainly have supporters in the military that allowed him to mantain some sembalance of control. You know, precisely how the USSR functioned.

If the "Politburo" exists in the Federation, it would be those who hold military power -- the Starfleet brass. The President clearly has more than ceremonial significance, and in Star Trek VI dictates the direction of Federation foreign policy for the next century.

Again, perfectly in line with the Soviet Union.

[seanrobertson]

Starfleet is so powerful that if martial law is declared, a Starfleet Admiral will take direct control of the Federation.

Where is that from?

I'm pretty sure the episode's name is "Paradise Lost."

[TheDarkling]

But Starfleet Academy was where almost everyone with a good education and a Federation background came from. In fact, the only time I ever recall another big school being so much as mentioned was that one Data taught at in the final TNG episode.

This is a prime example of not taking into account the shows viewpoint, the people with a good education we see are in the military and thus went to military school (Starfleet academy).

The school Data taught at was Cambridge University and we also know that Jake was considering going to a school for writers on earth.

We know Vulcan has its own science academy which is separate from Starfleet (and was in fact seen as an alternative to Starfleet by Spock’s father I believe).

Some DS9 ep where an admiral did it to show the Federation's vulernability, I think. Can't remember the name.

Admiral Leyton was going to attempt a coup on Earth, which is a long way from succeeding in a coup, that coup including the entire Federation and the coup being equal to a normal state of martial law.

In fact I would think Paradise Lost is a strong argument against the idea that the military runs the Federation, Sisko is outraged by the idea of a military dictatorship "Overthrowing a legitimately elected President ".

The president finds the idea almost laughable.

This would hardly be the case if the Federation was already run by Starfleet.

[TheDarkling]

I'm pretty sure the episode's name is "Paradise Lost."

Paradise Lost does not show martial law placing control of the entire federation in one Admirals hands.

It shows that martial law could aid a military dictatorships rise to power, something which I don't find particularly surprising.

[Darth Wong]

This is a prime example of not taking into account the shows viewpoint, the people with a good education we see are in the military and thus went to military school (Starfleet academy).

Read the "Mosaic" quotes. It's made clear that there are two tiers of schooling: Starfleet schooling and non-Starfleet schooling.

In fact I would think Paradise Lost is a strong argument against the idea that the military runs the Federation, Sisko is outraged by the idea of a military dictatorship "Overthrowing a legitimately elected President ".

The president finds the idea almost laughable.

Actually, the president stands by and allows it to happen, and there are no protests, no journalists demanding to know what the fuck is going on, nothing.

[TheDarkling]

Read the "Mosaic" quotes. It's made clear that there are two tiers of schooling: Starfleet schooling and non-Starfleet schooling.

Told from Janeways perspective and not matching with what we see in the show.

However the first quote simply points out that specialist schools exist for those wanting to gain fast tracking into the military and they only accept the best and brightest.

We already know Starfleet runs courses of this nature from DS9 (where Nog mentions his chances of getting in the academy are increased if he gets into the Academy Preparatory Program).
So Starfleet academy having specialist feeder schools (which would have essentially an expanded version of the APP) where your chances of getting in are increased due to their focus is perfectly reasonable.

It does not say that anybody who is bright is automatically directed to the academy only that those who go that route must be bright.

The second quote can easily be put down to Janeway being elitist, she considers Indiana University to be one of the best outside of Starfleet which she automatically assumes is better (in which she may very well be right).

Actually, the president stands by and allows it to happen, and there are no protests, no journalists demanding to know what the fuck is going on, nothing.

That is because it never goes down, Sisko prevents it and there is no evidence anybody else finds out about it.

We also only see a few minutes of episode after Sisko defeats the attempt, not swinging by to see the reporters isn't a problem.

[Patrick Degan]

Actually, the president stands by and allows it to happen, and there are no protests, no journalists demanding to know what the fuck is going on, nothing.

That is because it never goes down, Sisko prevents it and there is no evidence anybody else finds out about it.

In the episode, Jaresh Inyo does indeed stand by and allows the military to seize control. He doesn't even issue an executive order empowering Layton or his officers to take authourised action or to formally suspend the constitution during a state of emergency. The fact that Starfleet squads beam down en-masse into Earth cities to enforce martial law pretty much answers the question about what the public knows, since they see it happening before their own eyes.

We also only see a few minutes of episode after Sisko defeats the attempt, not swinging by to see the reporters isn't a problem.

Which explains the lack of journalistic curiosity during the coup attempt... how, exactly?