[Barton]The Federation is NOT Communist.

[TheDarkling]

You were the one who brought ENT into this discussion, which was concerned exclusively on TNG-era trek. You whinge when people call you on it.

I brought it up because we hadn’t seen an election in 6 seasons of TOS and Ent, Wong said Ent wasn't canon and I pointed out it was.
Things continued form them, you got bent out shape and got flustered because you thought I was defaming the almighty TOS.

When we don't see FedNet cover the attempted coup, you claim "Irrelevant!"

We don't see it because we don't see it.
We don't see FedNet coverage of the Dominion war either but we know they reported it.

When we point out state-owned infrastructure, you shoot back that it doesn't prove Communism, as though it's the sum total of the argument. (it isn't) You rebut by throwing in red herrings on British state-owned infrastructure, which as I point out isn't run by the Army. You counter by saying "So what?" Obviously the difference doesn't register to you.

Starfleet isn't just the army though.

When Jake bemoans how the Dominion is censoring him, he claims asks about freedom of the press. In itself this is a naive statement, but you take it to mean that he had freedom of the press before; no proof of that.

He obviously believed he had it which points towards him having it.

Dumbass, real life counselors and psychiatrists try to probe their patient's mind, but only a delusional Trekkie would infer that to automatically mean telepathy.

I apologise, I thought you had a point by stating that the Federation prison system tried to probe his mind. But apparently you were just stating they had him have regular meetings with a shrink.

Those Barbarians.

Only you could provide a quote of something which doesn't state what you say it does, yet have the temerity to call ME wrong.

You are wrong, about a great many things.

You'll notice that Necheyev doesn't say the DMZ covers Maquis worlds. Funny, how I said that the Maquis don't operate in Federation space which was correct when they formed.

Oh dear, more hand holding needed for Stofsk.

SISKO
Where are "we" going?

GUL DUKAT
The Volan Colonies.

SISKO
(a little surprised)
The Demilitarized Zone?

SISKO
Two attack vessels. Just inside the
Demilitarized Zone.

GUL DUKAT
They must be from the Cardassian
colonies in the Demilitarized Zone...
(quiet anger)
Hail them.

Then a Maquis vessel turns up and attacks the Cardassians.

This establishes that both Federation and Cardassian colonies exist in the zone and that Maquis have operated in the federation part of it (just over the border for normal Federation space).

Managed t wrap you mind around yet?

That aside from the fact that you are glossing over acts of terrorism at a Federation run space station, what do you think the Federations response to those should have been?

To ignore it because it isn’t technically their space I suppose?

Incorrect. The Khitomer Accords were in effect at the time,

The Federation was obviously not going to join the Klingons and their response was perfectly predictable.

and Sisko deliberately betrayed his allies to a people who have been his nation's foes for years. Reading you try to defend his action by somehow saying the UFP had no treaty with the Klingons is laughable and absurd.

I have no need to defend Sisko's action (although I probably agree with what was done it wasn't his decision to make) because this started in response to me stating the Federation tries to honour it treaties, Sisiko's unauthorised action has no bearing on that.

You've hit rock bottom.

I can only get lower if there is room in your whole for me.

And the funny thing is you claim that your view is totally objective. Yup. The UFP had no treaty with the Klingons when Sisko betrayed them to Garak and Dukat.

I apologise, they still had a treaty for another couple of hours however what was going to happen was rather obvious.
As for betrayal, the Klingons were launching an unprovoked attack on a democratic Cardassia, standing by the Klingons while they did that would not have been the correct move.

Still nice to see you focused in on one little detail when all else deserted you (now don't forget to snip the evidence about the DMZ showing you to be wrong and again edit out the acts of terror against a Federation run installation).

[Stofsk]

I brought it up because we hadn’t seen an election in 6 seasons of TOS and Ent,

And as I said, it has no bearing on a discussion centred around the TNG-era.

Starfleet isn't just the army though.

Nope. It's just the military.

I apologise, I thought you had a point by stating that the Federation prison system tried to probe his mind. But apparently you were just stating they had him have regular meetings with a shrink.

Those Barbarians.

Obviously, real-life reeducation never uses psychiatrists or psych evaluations or 'seminars', they must rely on telepaths. ST has telepaths who work as counselors, but that isn't the sole way reeducation can take place and I wasn't relying on it.

I have no need to defend Sisko's action (although I probably agree with what was done it wasn't his decision to make) because this started in response to me stating the Federation tries to honour it treaties, Sisiko's unauthorised action has no bearing on that.

Sisko's unauthorised action had tacit approval from SFC, since he didn't receive punishment for doing it. We can infer that to mean the Federation doesn't honour its agreements and treaties, but also that they use underhanded measures in order to affect changes in these treaties.

Still nice to see you focused in on one little detail when all else deserted you (now don't forget to snip the evidence about the DMZ showing you to be wrong and again edit out the acts of terror against a Federation run installation).

Sorry, you pointed out terrorist acts against Federation run installations? I must have missed that...

Oh wait, you mean the Bok Nor? Which was a Cardassian freighter? Oh damn, it had nothing to do with the Federation...

And the Maquis colonies were former Federation colony worlds that were put under Cardassian control. This was the entire purpose of the Maquis's formation. Their war was between the Cardassians and themselves, and the Federation no longer had authority over their worlds.

[TheDarkling]

Your continual and purposeful ignoring of the text speaks volumes. Right there, in the book, it says that the state schools of the day exist to channel the best and brightest to the direction of SFA in San Francisco. Your rebuttal amounts to "Um, yeah, we have schools here that do that, specialise in one field." Except they're ALL specialising towards ONE end.

Which conflict what we see in the show, we can even reconcile it (which is perfectly plausible) or we can ignore one set of evidence and I would go with the TV show over the book (and with the weight of evidence).

Except it isn't obvious he was voted in by the people, dipshit, since no popular election was held in 12 years of both TNG and DS9.

You don't know that.
We know he was elected but not by who.
We know democracy is a plus for a Fed world and we Bajor, a Fed world was democratic and they didn't seem to be concerned about becoming a Federation run colony with no more free elections.

This all points in one direction and all you have against it is that fact that you don't see it explicitly spelled out in 0.22% of time we see.

You haven't written anything worthy of a rebuttal on the subject.

The fact that you skip around teh evidence and arguments would indicate otherwise.

We don't see it, while Bashir wonders what the Setlik III massacre was, which O'Brien had to tell him personally. Wow, an important event that took place during the war and a field Doctor didn't know about it, besides being a genetically enhanced superman.

That would depend on how big an event Setlik III was and whether Bashir paid that much attention to the war.

Because when the writers fuck up and I point it out, it's 'trek bashing'. Riiiiight.

OK then, Trek criticising, does that not offend your delicate little feelings?

The point stands that it was irrelevant.

And Trek writer's don't fuck up.

That is quite the claim and about as valid as the others you have made so far (and just as backed up be evidence when you first put it forth).

In other words, whining about the writers isn't going to score points against me because I don't care and often agree.

Good for them. If it was weightless, it means nothing.

It means what it said.

Your points in this debate have been singularly worthless. Claims that the Federation is Communist are dismissed by a wave of your hand, with the subtext in your words undermining the argument as "Trek bashing." Oh too bad, little fanboy.

I claim the Federation is democratic.
I claim the Federation allows private Enterprise.
I claim the Freedom of the press is not unduly infringed.
I claim that the Federation isn't running brain washing camps and doesn't employ political officers.

That is the extent of my claims on the matter because that is what the evidence shows on the mater, it the assertions to contrary I object to not the claim that the Federation is communist.

Keep claiming that you maintain perfect 100% objectivity, I'm sure everyone believes you.

If you think you conducted yourself well then that is your problem I guess but can’t honestly believe you do.

[TheDarkling]

And as I said, it has no bearing on a discussion centred around the TNG-era.

But B5 does?

Nope. It's just the military.

And beyond.

That has been addressed.

Obviously, real-life reeducation never uses psychiatrists or psych evaluations or 'seminars', they must rely on telepaths. ST has telepaths who work as counselors, but that isn't the sole way reeducation can take place and I wasn't relying on it.

Seminars, devilish indeed.

And it worked so well on Eddington.

I notice you have quietly backed off from your claim that Kassidy was ashamed of her actions, if you can't prove it then have the decency to retract it.

You have nothing to indicate that brain washing goes on and Eddington would indicate it doesn’t.

Sisko's unauthorised action had tacit approval from SFC, since he didn't receive punishment for doing it. We can infer that to mean the Federation doesn't honour its agreements and treaties, but also that they use underhanded measures in order to affect changes in these treaties.

If Sisko reported it.

Sorry, you pointed out terrorist acts against Federation run installations? I must have missed that...

Oh wait, you mean the Bok Nor? Which was a Cardassian freighter? Oh damn, it had nothing to do with the Federation...

It was at a Federation station and the explosive was attached there.

They also kidnapped Gul Dukat from the station, whilst impersonating Starfleet officers.

Honestly, if you think that is acceptable behaviour we just have radically different world views.

I wouldn’t allow terrorists to blow up ships just off my station and I can’t really find much common ground with somebody who would just let that sort of thing go.

And the Maquis colonies were former Federation colony worlds that were put under Cardassian control. This was the entire purpose of the Maquis's formation. Their war was between the Cardassians and themselves, and the Federation no longer had authority over their worlds.

So you can't disprove or refute my evidence so you just paper over it.

The entire DMZ was undergoing its own little war not just the colonies placed under Cardassian control (once the DMZ went up everybody was dragged in).

[TheDarkling]

Darkling, it is quite obvious that NOTHING short of a hammer and sickle on the wall of the Federation Council would convince you that the Federation is in any way communist.

I don't care about the Federation being communist, I see specific claims (dictatorship, brain washing, abolition of private property, banning of private Enterprise, no money) and respond to those, whether they have any bearing on the issue of whether the Federation is communist doesn't bother me.

You can't even define what communism is; every attempt to show how the Federation meets Marx's requirements is rebuffed with either vapid appeals to uncertainty or "no true scotsman" fallacies about communism: very convenient since your definition of communism seems to be "whatever the Federation is NOT" in any given situation.

I don't care whether they are communist, I don't have that reflex action that makes me run for the hills when the word is mentioned like Americans seem to have, if the Federation is communist and they are happy being that when then good for them.

I am not making value judgements just judgements about what does and does not fit the evidence at hand.

[brianeyci]

Darkling, it is quite obvious that NOTHING short of a hammer and sickle on the wall of the Federation Council would convince you that the Federation is in any way communist.

I don't care about the Federation being communist, I see specific claims (dictatorship, brain washing, abolition of private property, banning of private Enterprise, no money) and respond to those, whether they have any bearing on the issue of whether the Federation is communist doesn't bother me.

You can't even define what communism is; every attempt to show how the Federation meets Marx's requirements is rebuffed with either vapid appeals to uncertainty or "no true scotsman" fallacies about communism: very convenient since your definition of communism seems to be "whatever the Federation is NOT" in any given situation.

I don't care whether they are communist, I don't have that reflex action that makes me run for the hills when the word is mentioned like Americans seem to have, if the Federation is communist and they are happy being that when then good for them.

I am not making value judgements just judgements about what does and does not fit the evidence at hand.

Very good Darkling. I realize now that I had some sort of ingrained aprehension about communism, based on me thinking that communism was some sort of swear word like facism. Sort of like how Liberal is a swear word in American politics, communism was a swear word in my vocabulary, until I re-evaluated my presumptions. Idoicy I know, but I freely admit it in hopes others won't make the same mistake. Communism doesn't have to be a swear word.

Anyway before I say anything more, off to read the "Manifesto". Which will probably be done some time before January.

Again, good replies Darkling. You seem pretty objective to me.

Brian

[Mange]

Darkling, it is quite obvious that NOTHING short of a hammer and sickle on the wall of the Federation Council would convince you that the Federation is in any way communist. You can't even define what communism is; every attempt to show how the Federation meets Marx's requirements is rebuffed with either vapid appeals to uncertainty or "no true scotsman" fallacies about communism: very convenient since your definition of communism seems to be "whatever the Federation is NOT" in any given situation.

Mike, as I've explained earlier in this thread, you too have a sketchy view what communism is. This isn't an attack on you, you are very intelligent and you are great in when it comes to physics, but you are less versed in politics. Star Trek has proven times and again that the economy is built on socialistic principles, but the Marxist form of communism isn't the only form of communism and can't be applied on the Federation (although the Federation is communist, not just in a Marxist sense, more on this later)

A Communist society is the end-goal society of the communists. You must distingiuish between the communist society according to Marx (which he never fully envisioned, but that included a total classless society, no state apparatus, a direct democracy) and leninism which is a off-shoot of marxism. According to the definition of the communist society by Marx, the Soviet Union wasn't communist (although of course it was).
This will be expanded in an other post.

[Bellator]

This has no direct impact on this debate (since RL and on-screen are seperated)...but did Roddenberry see the UFP (in TOS or TNG times) as communist?

and as far as Enterprise goes. Until the show explicitly shows that it is a parallel universe, it still takes place in the ST universe as we know it. Or until Paramount decides that it isn't canon. Since neither has yet happened, we have to take it into account when debating issues like this. Nobody likes it, but we can't ignore 3 years of episodes simply because we don't like what it has shown us (and most of us didn't like what it has shown us). It's our problem to figure it out, not B&B's.

[Stark]

Very good Darkling. I realize now that I had some sort of ingrained aprehension about communism, based on me thinking that communism was some sort of swear word like facism. Sort of like how Liberal is a swear word in American politics, communism was a swear word in my vocabulary, until I re-evaluated my presumptions. Idoicy I know, but I freely admit it in hopes others won't make the same mistake. Communism doesn't have to be a swear word.

Respect for admitting your mistakes. Just don't go too far the OTHER way and decide communism is a good thing; its an utterly unworkable utopian piece of shit. And we DO use the word 'communist' pejoratively when we describe the Federation as communist; if you agree with the conjecture, freedom isn't as real in the Federation as you might think.

Anyway before I say anything more, off to read the "Manifesto". Which will probably be done some time before January.

I wouldn't bother. It's like reading the Bible; long, boring, not a lot of sense.

[Stark]

This has no direct impact on this debate (since RL and on-screen are seperated)...but did Roddenberry see the UFP (in TOS or TNG times) as communist?

and as far as Enterprise goes. Until the show explicitly shows that it is a parallel universe, it still takes place in the ST universe as we know it. Or until Paramount decides that it isn't canon. Since neither has yet happened, we have to take it into account when debating issues like this. Nobody likes it, but we can't ignore 3 years of episodes simply because we don't like what it has shown us (and most of us didn't like what it has shown us). It's our problem to figure it out, not B&B's.

Fortunately, if the level of incompatibility is high enough, we will be forced to disregard one source or another. I've never watched ENT (I don't know why anyone would), but the word on the street is that it ain't so good with established continuity. If it can be reconciled, then fine, but if it can't, then all the ST fans are just going to have to accept that.

[TheDarkling]

And we DO use the word 'communist' pejoratively when we describe the Federation as communist;

Which is the crux of the matter, people aren't really saying the Federation corresponds to certain things Marx laid out (although they will pick and chose from Marx in order to advance the theory and then drop certain things of Marx when they aren't shown), what they are attempting to prove is in essence UFP = USSR, i.e. UFP = evil.

That not only doesn't correspond to what we see on the show but is clearly an interpretation that deliberately turns the show on its head and then tries to worm around what we see in order to advance said theory.

[TheDarkling]

Fortunately, if the level of incompatibility is high enough, we will be forced to disregard one source or another. I've never watched ENT (I don't know why anyone would), but the word on the street is that it ain't so good with established continuity. If it can be reconciled, then fine, but if it can't, then all the ST fans are just going to have to accept that.

I wouldn't be so quick to believe the word on the street without seeing evidence first.

[Mange]

You can't even define what communism is; every attempt to show how the Federation meets Marx's requirements is rebuffed with either vapid appeals to uncertainty or "no true scotsman" fallacies about communism

Mike, you must distinguish socialism from communism and different forms of communism. I agree with Darkling that the Federation isn't Communist according to the Marxist view on a communist society, but I do believe the Federation is a communist society. First, before I begin I must make it clear that I'm neither a Socialist nor Marxist of any kind. Marx didn't "invent" socialism, the forerunners of socialism are for example Plato that in the Republic presented one early proposal in which the highest class of society, the Guardians, where to share goods. The early Christian church saw the communal sharing of work and goods to be a certainty, a view that survived to the foundation of the various monastic orders. Later, several utopians, a.o. Sir Thomas More, that during the 16th Century saw the communal ownership as a way to heal greed and other mortal sins. One of the most interesting percursors to Marx is Robert Owen, a British capitalist that advocated a new form of production after having witnessed the workers' situation first hand. The new form of production he introduced in his factory was cooperative production where the profits were shared equally among all the workers (as well as the losses). Owen later moved to the
United States in 1824 where he founded a socialist community based on his ideas. Of course, the experiment was an utter failure.

So, what has this to do with Marx and communism then? I assume that you're familiar with the basic principles of Marxism (the class-struggle, the dialectic view on society, communal ownership of goods, services and production which in itself isn't Marxist etc). Don't forget that the Manifesto is but one of Marx's writings, there is also Das Kapital and various articles such as Theses on Feuerbach which (along with other works) can be found in Selected writings in which Marx expands on his view on the future communist society (I read most of those writings as I studied political science in university, if you suffer from insomnia, they're highly recommended as they are the most boring shit I've ever read).
Marx saw the creation of a Communist society by the means of a revolutionary sequence (I will explain the most important stages, while I only will mention some of the more basic ones).

* Step 1. Economic crisis.

* Step 2. The proletariat (working class) will be immersed. By losing their jobs as a result of economic crisis, the workers will become disgruntled, a development Marx thought was unavoidable in a Capitalist society.

* Step 3. Increased consciousness in the revolutionary proletariat class. The working class will according to Marx, become aware that it's the system is to blame for their situation. Thus, Marx thought, the workers would realize that a revolution would be needed to overthrow the bourgeoisie

* Step 4. Seizure of state power and overthrow of the ruling bourgeoisie.

* Step 5. Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is simply a stage in which the working class takes control of the existing bourgeoisie state apparatus in order to a) stay in power and b) rule in their own interest. Marx saw this stage as a democratic rule by the workers], not over the workers.

* Step 6. Withering away of the state. Here Marx describes socialism as the mode of production "from each according to his ability to each according to his labor". Marx proposed that the wages would be kept during this stage to encourage hard work. During this stage, all classes of society would also be abolished.

* Step 7. The Communist society. A democratic society in which all people takes an active part in government as the communist society wouldn't be built on hiearchies. All forms of production important to the public would be publicly owned. Instead of the earlier "from each according to his ability to each according to his labor" the new slogan would become "from each according to his ability to each according to his need".
Marx envisioned that every individual would fulfill himself, that he/she could do as he/she pleased without being coerced in any way. According to Marx, the total individual freedom would be the result.

There has been off-shoots of Marxism such as Leninism and Stalinism which both saw step 5 as the final stage (although in different ways, Lenin wanted to create Soviets on the local levels while Stalin wanted a highly centralized form of government). Marxism and Stalinism are also communist, but they expanded on Marx and didn't share his view on the forms of the Communist society (Stalin even banned the writings of Marx from being published). There are also forms of modern age socialism that is completly separated from Marxim, such as the Fabian socialism (an English form of socialism founded in the 1890's). According to Fabian socialism, the transition from a capitalist society to a socialist would be by the means of parliament, not revolution. The Labour party in the UK was founded by Fabians and managed when they first came to power in 1924 (?) to nationalize certain industries and services such as the telephone company, the railways, coal and steelworks etc. Today, the Labour with Blair as its leader, has changed its ideology.

So, using Marx definition as you try to do Mike (while you in reality reaches for Stalinism), is the Federation communist? The simple answer is no. We've seen from TNG onwards that the Federation is run by a military dictatorship. That doesn't seem to be the case during the TOS era, even if concerns are expressed in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, that the military have been taken an interest into research that originally wasn't intended for military purposes (in this case the failed Genesis project). Between the 80 or something years that seperates the TOS era from TNG, the military must somehow have taken control of the Federation. Marx thought the communist society to be free from classes and hiarchies and that the people would rule by the means of direct democracy. The economy in TNG is socialist and the monetary system has been abolished, something that again separates TNG from TOS. And, as I wrote in my earlier post, we don't see a dialectic approach to societies outside of the Federation.

Finally my conclusion, the Federation is actually worse than a communist society as envisioned by Marx, it's a Stalinistic communist society. You can't apply Marx to the Federation as it is shown in TNG but Stalinism as the political system of the Federation hinders individual freedom which Marx hailed would become important in the Communist society. As you so correctly pointed out:

Every ship has a "counsellor" who serves the purpose of identifying personnel who are misbehaving

This is a trait shared with the Soviet Union under Stalin where political officers and members of the NKVD supervised the soldiers. Further more, there is no free journalism or research in the Federation. All research has to be approved by the Science Council. That fact alone points, not in the direction of Marxism, but to Stalinism.
Propaganda is a central part of the Federations and Starfleets dealings with other cultures (witnessed in TNG several times, and especially during Picard's discussion with Lily about the economics in the future).

Again, to answer to the title of this thread, no the Federation is simply not a communist society, but it shares more traits with the Stalinistic view on a communist society than it does with Marxism (albeit the Federation is more lenient than the Soviet Union under Stalin). I don't know if Roddenberry was a socialist, but I guess it would have left a sour taste in the mouth of the American audience if the Federation had been an outspoken socialist society, therefore merely the hints which grew stronger and stronger as time passed on.

[brianeyci]

Respect for admitting your mistakes. Just don't go too far the OTHER way and decide communism is a good thing; its an utterly unworkable utopian piece of shit. And we DO use the word 'communist' pejoratively when we describe the Federation as communist; if you agree with the conjecture, freedom isn't as real in the Federation as you might think.

Herein lies the problem. If you are trying to say, like Darkling says, that UFP = communist eg. UFP = evil, there are problems drawing connections.

You can point to Marx's Manifesto, and conclude that several elements in the Manifesto match the UFP's ideals and beliefs. However, just because the Federation matches Marx's ideals of communism, it does not mean that the UFP is the Soviet Union in space. Marx's Manifesto may be shit and shoddy because in RL, applications of his ideals have gone to shit -- however, it does not mean that Star Trek hasn't soved at least some of the problems and created a working society. The fact that the Federation has lasted for so long means that they have solved or lessened the severity of several problems that RL applications of communism have been unable to deal with. Don't get me wrong -- like I said in another thread, I would not want to live in a Federation without an independent judiciary and a benevolent enforced constitution. However, UFP = communist = evil is a premature conclusion.

Consider how loosely the Federation controls its member states. Federation ground troops are pathetically weak, and any attempt by the Federation to impose its ideals on other planets would be foolharty. The Federation may be the government on Earth, but it definitely is not a galactic government of the scope of say the SW Empire. The Federation may have a superior space fleet, but what happens if say Vulcan decides to leave the Federation?

Absolutely jack-shit. Planets can support themsevles -- we support ourselves on a single planet, or theoretically could. The Federation may blockade the planet, but that is about all it can do. A planetary invasion would be disasterous -- Starfleet "troops" are ship's crew, and are not cloned or conscripted soldiers. Technological superority is not enough to subdue a population, if the population sees the invaders as hostile. I read somewhere that based on history, to wage a successful counter-insurgency campaign, conventional forces have to outnumber the insurgents at least ten to one.

If Vulcan, or Betazed, or any planet decided to cede from the Federation, the Federation would be in the end extremely limited in their options. As well, the Federation is not in the habit of forcing their ideals and way of living on other cultures. The Prime Directive is one example. When a planet joins the Federation, the planet is not going to find large numbers of troops landing in its cities, or political enforcement officials finding discontented citizens and throwing them in the gulag. The Federation could not do that even if they wanted to.

As well, the idea that Federation Admirals can simply take control of the Federation by declaring martial law is absurd. The key lies in looking at the values of the officers in the Federation. We have seen that Starfleet officers, are for the most part, conscientious and compassionate. For example, if a Starfleet Admiral gave General Order (forgot number) to raze a certain planet, it would likely be intepreted as an illegal order by most of the archetypes of Starfleet officers we have seen.

Sure a Federation Admiral can cultivate loyalty among those under his command. We know that the Federation aka Starfleet is split up into fleets. An ambitious Admiral could, over time, weed out those not loyal to him, place certain personnel in the right place, and at the right time try and "take over" the Federation. However, what about the other Admirals in other fleets? What would happen if a Federation Admiral tried to become the next Hitler or Palpatine would probably be a Federation civil war.

The crux of my new idea is that the Federation isn't communist because it isn't as all-controlling as we would like to believe. To me, the Federation seems to be a loosely held together group of planets with certain similar ideals that contribute mostly to common goals like defense and economic parity.

Brian

<edit> first paragraph, first sentence doesn't make sense. It should be "If you are trying to say, like Darkling says some are trying to say, that the UPF = communism = evil ... </edit>

[brianeyci]

Every ship has a "counsellor" who serves the purpose of identifying personnel who are misbehaving

This is a trait shared with the Soviet Union under Stalin where political officers and members of the NKVD supervised the soldiers. Further more, there is no free journalism or research in the Federation. All research has to be approved by the Science Council. That fact alone points, not in the direction of Marxism, but to Stalinism.
Propaganda is a central part of the Federations and Starfleets dealings with other cultures (witnessed in TNG several times, and especially during Picard's discussion with Lily about the economics in the future).

Again, to answer to the title of this thread, no the Federation is simply not a communist society, but it shares more traits with the Stalinistic view on a communist society than it does with Marxism (albeit the Federation is more lenient than the Soviet Union under Stalin). I don't know if Roddenberry was a socialist, but I guess it would have left a sour taste in the mouth of the American audience if the Federation had been an outspoken socialist society, therefore merely the hints which grew stronger and stronger as time passed on.

We know that certain ships don't have a "ship's counsellor". "Counselling" does not necessarily mean brainwashing. Darkling has talked about the canon incident where there was a terrorist who was sent to a "re-education camp" aka prison.

We have no other examples of political officers other than a "ship's counsellor." What about the Defiant, where was the political officer looking over Sisko's shoulder? Ezrai? What about Voyager, who was going into a politically sensitive situation with the Marquis? Where was the "political officer" who would have ordered Janeway to follow Federation law and arrest Chakotay and gang? A ship's counsellor is hardly proof of a systemic enforcement of a political ideal.

All research has to approved from the Science Council (reference please), but does that mean no research takes place outside the Science Council? Or does that mean that you need the Science Council's approval for Federation aka Starfleet resources to conduct research? This "approval" could be likened to someone applying for a grant. If you didn't get it at the Science Council, you could go to say, the Vulcan Science Academy. And don't tell me that the Federation Science Council controls the direction of the Vulcan Science Academy. Other than the fact that we see no canon evidence of this, Enterprise (series) has shown the Vulcan to be snobs, and it is highly unlikely that the Vulcans would have given up control of their prized institutions to some off-worlders. As well, see my above long-winded post about Federation control. The Federation couldn't control the research direction of its member states even if it wanted to.

Brian

<edit> second paragraph should have political officer in quotes </edit>

[Publius]

Very good Darkling. I realize now that I had some sort of ingrained aprehension about communism, based on me thinking that communism was some sort of swear word like facism.

Dear sir, you appear to be using a peculiar and simplistic definition of fascism if you can in all seriousness describe it as a swear word in opposition to the now-sanitized communism. One suspects your understanding of fascism is the Orwellian concept of a word with no meaning "except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'"

[TheDarkling]

All research has to approved from the Science Council (reference please), but does that mean no research takes place outside the Science Council?

It is from the episode "Force of Nature", a couple of scientists want the Federation to acknowledge their research, the science council looks at it and concludes they are talking rubbish.

Here are some quotes (which I don' think say what they are alleged to say).

DATA: I agree that is a possibility. Captain, I suggest we ask the Federation Science Council to send a research vessel to this area. A more detailed investigation would resolve many of our questions.

This is used as proof that the Federation science council is the only game in town (I don't think it goes that far).

PICARD: Doctor, if you wanted us to review your research, you could have placed a request through the Science Council.

This is again said to prove that the Science Council is the be all and end all, I think it just shows that the science council is the best method of getting the Federations attention (they are the experts who judge things for the government).

GEORDI: Captain, I've heard this theory before. Their research was evaluated by the Federation Science Council a few years ago. Their claims just didn't hold up.

Apparently this proves that the Federation is closed and allows no independent research (despite the fact that these researchers were independent and had gotten their work reviewed, or the fact that Galen seemed to be independent or Vash or the fountain of youth guy from DS9) but I again disagree.

Judge for yourself however, the expanded quotes (with context although I don't think it changes what is said in this case) are in the canon database on the site.

[TheDarkling]

Oh yes, I forgot to add that during Ent's timeframe Earth has a science council, before the supposed communist takeover so it would seem that the existence of the science council doesn’t point in any direction.

It would also seem that since the science council setup has existed since Ent any claims that the Federation has stagnated since TOS due to this setup are false.

[Mange]

All research has to approved from the Science Council (reference please), but does that mean no research takes place outside the Science Council?

It is from the episode "Force of Nature", a couple of scientists want the Federation to acknowledge their research, the science council looks at it and concludes they are talking rubbish.

Here are some quotes (which I don' think say what they are alleged to say).

DATA: I agree that is a possibility. Captain, I suggest we ask the Federation Science Council to send a research vessel to this area. A more detailed investigation would resolve many of our questions.

This is used as proof that the Federation science council is the only game in town (I don't think it goes that far).

PICARD: Doctor, if you wanted us to review your research, you could have placed a request through the Science Council.

This is again said to prove that the Science Council is the be all and end all, I think it just shows that the science council is the best method of getting the Federations attention (they are the experts who judge things for the government).

GEORDI: Captain, I've heard this theory before. Their research was evaluated by the Federation Science Council a few years ago. Their claims just didn't hold up.

Apparently this proves that the Federation is closed and allows no independent research (despite the fact that these researchers were independent and had gotten their work reviewed, or the fact that Galen seemed to be independent or Vash or the fountain of youth guy from DS9) but I again disagree.

These quotes more strongly points to research being controlled by the Federation. I haven't seen any civilian research vessels or vessels not belonging to Starfleet. Don't mention the USS Raven has some people has done as it wasn't civilian at all, but it belonged to Starfleet. It would be easy to stick some research equipment in the forms of sensors etc. on civilian ships, but why haven't we seen this? Simple, the research is controlled by the Science Council that dispatches ships. Not even the "easter egg" experiment in the TNG episode "Evolution" could do with a science vessel, but Starfleet send its "flagship".

The other quote shows that independent research in the Federation is heavily controlled, as a scientist in an open society would publish his findings in various journals and also try to independently test their theory. The quote heavily points in the direction that since the Science Council came to the conclusion (I suspect by political reasons) that their findings "didn't hold up", the subject wasn't open for further discussion.

Judge for yourself however, the expanded quotes (with context although I don't think it changes what is said in this case) are in the canon database on the site.

I have. The Federation is a totalitarian society that controls all aspects of it, whether it's exploration, science, journalism etc.

[TheDarkling]

These quotes more strongly points to research being controlled by the Federation. I haven't seen any civilian research vessels or vessels not belonging to Starfleet.

The SS Raven didn't belong to Starfleet, nor did the SS Vico both of which were science vessels.

We have this quote from DS9

KIRA
Two. A Federation survey ship...
and a Vulcan science vessel...

Federation survey ship and a Vulcan science vessel.

We have the Vulcan Science Vessel T'Vran from "The Vortex".

The Vulcan science vessel T'Pan from "Business as Usual".

Obviously the Vulcans maintain their own science fleet apart from either Starfleet or the Federation, which would match with them having their own registry system.

Don't mention the USS Raven has some people has done as it wasn't civilian at all, but it belonged to Starfleet.

No it didn't it was either independent or it belonged to the science council (the SS Raven and the SS Vico are both science Vessels and both registered as NAR- #### not NCC -### and both called SS not USS, despite the fact that Magnus Hansen consistently calls it USS the hull is clear on the matter).

It would be easy to stick some research equipment in the forms of sensors etc. on civilian ships, but why haven't we seen this? Simple, the research is controlled by the Science Council that dispatches ships.

The science council does have ships yes, why would that be surprising?
The fact that an independent body has ships outside of Starfleet would point away from the military being the all encompassing body that you make it out to be.
Those ships are flagged as "SS" not "USS" like Starfleet vessels and they have registries starting with NAR not NCC, clearly these are non military vessels, we also have the SS Mariposa which was a civilian colony hip.
The evidence indicates that SS denotes a civilian vessel and the science council may have purchased some of these civilian vessels for their own uses.

Not even the "easter egg" experiment in the TNG episode "Evolution" could do with a science vessel, but Starfleet send its "flagship".

Yet we know such science vessels exist, we have already seen them on two occasions and Data specifically suggests a Science Council Ship be sent in "Force of Nature" not a Starfleet vessel.

The other quote shows that independent research in the Federation is heavily controlled, as a scientist in an open society would publish his findings in various journals and also try to independently test their theory.

She wanted the government to recognise her findings so she took them to the governments science advisors, who looked at the information and found the research lacking.
She obviously continued her research and still with additional work she couldn't really prove it, as Data said it all rested on improvable assumptions.

The quote heavily points in the direction that since the Science Council came to the conclusion (I suspect by political reasons) that their findings "didn't hold up", the subject wasn't open for further discussion.

You have no evidence it was for political reasons, one of the scientist admits himself that they didn't really have a case

RABAL
No. You didn't miss anything.
The problem was time. It would've
taken time to do the proper
research... and Serova wasn't
willing to wait.

Data and Geordi both find her case to be unsupportable, she may have tried to publish her work but was probably derided as a quack, clearly since Geordi had heard of teh theory it wasn't a secret.

I have. The Federation is a totalitarian society that controls all aspects of it, whether it's exploration, science, journalism etc.

A totalitarian society run by civilians who are elected, where Democracy is seen in a positive light and where people believe in freedom of the press.
A society where pushy minor officials don’t fear the military, where the civilian Science Council has high authority than the military (Gambit – the FSC must given permission to access certain historical sites and Riker cannot override them) and so on and so forth.

What you are describing doesn’t fit with what we see especially with the fact that people “want” to join the Federation, why would anybody in a function democracy want to had over their freedom so easily (in a manner distinct from giving you own leaders to much power, in that you actually join a nation where you can see the end result).

If the Federation is a totalitarian dictatorship (putting aside the other evidence against that for the moment) then it is one so benign that people would openly prefer to join it and abandon their democracies and there is a vocal faction that think the government is too weak and wishy washy (including the real Fascistic powers).

[Patrick Degan]

Gee.. the SS Vico and the SS Raven —both built to Federation Starfleet scoutship design and in Federation shipyards, on missions answering to the government's science council.

Oh, and BTW, the Mariposa predated the formation of the Federation.

[TheDarkling]

Gee.. the SS Vico and the SS Raven —both built to Federation Starfleet scoutship design and in Federation shipyards, answering to the government's science council.

But non military, which is the point and you gloss over the Vulcan examples I provided.

Oh, and BTW, the Mariposa predated the formation of the Federation.

Yes I know, I was showing continuity of terminology of civilian vessels pre and post Federation, I could have said SS Botany Bay just as easily.

Both civilian vessels named SS, just as the Vico and Raven.

[Patrick Degan]

Gee.. the SS Vico and the SS Raven —both built to Federation Starfleet scoutship design and in Federation shipyards, answering to the government's science council.

But non military, which is the point and you gloss over the Vulcan examples I provided.

It doesn't matter whether the ships are militarised or not for the missions they're running at the time —they were built by the fucking navy and not by any independent, civilian shipbuilding concern and to military design specs. Get it —the State built the ships, not a private company. No government "gives" its hardware to allegedly private civilian projects without exerting control at some level over that group's activities. The Vulcan examples don't exactly help the case against, either; they do not speak to the status of missions run by the FSC or the fact that military-design vessels are being provided to allegedly "civilian" projects.

Oh, and BTW, the Mariposa predated the formation of the Federation.

Yes I know, I was showing continuity of terminology of civilian vessels pre and post Federation, I could have said SS Botany Bay just as easily.

Yes, and it would have been as inapplicable to any definition applying to the state of Federation society.

Both civilian vessels named SS, just as the Vico and Raven.

Nice little Existential Fallacy you've got there. It simply assumes that definitions and conditions haven't changed between pre-Federation times and the TNG-era present.

[TheDarkling]

It doesn't matter whether the ships are militarised or not for the missions they're running at the time —they were built by the fucking navy and not by any independent, civilian shipbuilding concern and to military design specs.Get it —the State built the ships, not a private company. No government "gives" its hardware to allegedly private civilian projects without exerting control at some level over that group's activities. The Vulcan examples don't exactly help the case against, either; they do not speak to the status of missions run by the FSC or the fact that military-design vessels are being provided to allegedly "civilian" projects.

We have never seen a Raven type ship in Starfleet service (to my knowldge) and the Oberth design is over a century old (if one assumes the Reg Numbers are remotely chronological then it is looking closer to two centuries), I wouldn't be surprised if the Vico was re-commissioned as a civilian vessel after Starfleet retried it.

We also don't know who built these vessels, it could have been a private concern or a Starfleet yard (in fact the registration plaques would have us believe some Starfleet vessels are built at private yards).

The Vulcan ships also speak to the fact that non Federation government science projects happen, somehting which was disputed.

Nice little Existential Fallacy you've got there. It simply assumes that definitions and conditions haven't changed between pre-Federation times and the TNG-era present.

Obviously things have changed however we have civilian vessels pre Fed called SS, we have civilian vessels during TOS called SS (S.S. Columbia, from The Cage, SS Beagle from Bread and Circuses) and we have civilian vessels during TNG called SS, that implies a degree of continuity in ship naming conventions, it isn't iron clad of course but it is the most reasonable conclusion.

[Patrick Degan]

It doesn't matter whether the ships are militarised or not for the missions they're running at the time —they were built by the fucking navy and not by any independent, civilian shipbuilding concern and to military design specs.Get it —the State built the ships, not a private company. No government "gives" its hardware to allegedly private civilian projects without exerting control at some level over that group's activities. The Vulcan examples don't exactly help the case against, either; they do not speak to the status of missions run by the FSC or the fact that military-design vessels are being provided to allegedly "civilian" projects.

We have never seen a Raven type ship in Starfleet service (to my knowldge) and the Oberth design is over a century old (if one assumes the Reg Numbers are remotely chronological then it is looking closer to two centuries), I wouldn't be surprised if the Vico was re-commissioned as a civilian vessel after Starfleet retried it.

Riiiight —because we all know it's common practise for naval vessels to be demitilarised and turned over for civilian use. Nevermind that the Oberth- class is still in Starfleet service and you have no backing for the contention that the Vico was striken from the service beforehand.

And as for the Raven, the ship is outfitted with Starfleet-standard control and computer systems and built along Starfleet engineering patterns. No matter how desperately you try to nitpick the point to death, these two ships are examples of vessels built by the state and not any private contractor.

We also don't know who built these vessels, it could have been a private concern or a Starfleet yard (in fact the registration plaques would have us believe some Starfleet vessels are built at private yards).

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy. Kindly present your evidence for private contractors building ships in the Federation.

(in fact the registration plaques would have us believe some Starfleet vessels are built at private yards).

Hasty Generalisation Fallacy, and a desperate one at that.

The Vulcan ships also speak to the fact that non Federation government science projects happen, somehting which was disputed.

It says no such thing. Given what appears to be a special status for Vulcan in the Federation, all that tells us is that some science projects are under the control of the Vulcan authorities to at least some extent. It does not disprove the existence of a communist UFP in which science is a state-controlled asset.

Nice little Existential Fallacy you've got there. It simply assumes that definitions and conditions haven't changed between pre-Federation times and the TNG-era present.

Obviously things have changed however we have civilian vessels pre Fed called SS, we have civilian vessels during TOS called SS (S.S. Columbia, from The Cage, SS Beagle from Bread and Circuses) and we have civilian vessels during TNG called SS, that implies a degree of continuity in ship naming conventions, it isn't iron clad of course but it is the most reasonable conclusion.

No, that is a Leap of Logic, and one which plainly ignores the fact that things have changed even between the TOS and TNG eras, never mind from any time pre-UFP. The continuation of certain conventions of terminology does not disprove the existence of a communist UFP in which science is a state-controlled asset.