StarDestroyer.Net BBS

General Schatten wrote:Picard's rampant speeches about the ideals and actions of the Federation have to come from somewhere.

That's a good point. What I don't understand is how the Federation is supposed to be democratic; isn't each member world supposed to have a voice in the decisions of the government? How can it be a purely communist government if it works through a democratic process? Or does it not?

This is a trick question, right? Soviet Russia was a democracy on paper, too. So was East Germany. German Democratic Republic I think was the name.

Batman wrote:This is a trick question, right? Soviet Russia was a democracy on paper, too. So was East Germany. German Democratic Republic I think was the name.

True. And no, it wasn't a trick question, doucher. That's why I asked.

I was wondering because the feddies have made this claim on more than a few occasions, but I guess any official from any communist state would have said the same.

Superman wrote:Doesn't communism, by its very nature, depend on some type of government propaganda campaign to suppress outside information? It seems that, historically, this has always been the case, so I would wonder if that's an essential component of a communist state.

At its barest essentials, communism outlaws capital, which means you can't use your money to make more money. The problem is that people will try to do this anyway, so you'll inevitably end up with a thriving black market. After all, you're not just outlawing some kind of deviant behaviour; you're outlawing something that virtually everyone will try to do, if he has the chance. And because it's so pervasive, countless government officials will be caught up in it, because they will look the other way in exchange for bribes.

This is why communism seems to always lead to a massive black market and incredibly widespread government corruption.

Superman wrote:

Batman wrote:This is a trick question, right? Soviet Russia was a democracy on paper, too. So was East Germany. German Democratic Republic I think was the name.

True. And no, it wasn't a trick question, doucher. That's why I asked.

I was wondering because the feddies have made this claim on more than a few occasions, but I guess any official from any communist state would have said the same.

This isn't the first time I've heard people here say that the Federation is democratic, but I myself can't actually remember anyone mentioning this onscreen. Not to say they don't of course, I just don't remember it. I expect the best place to look would be Paradise Lost, maybe I'll dig out my DS9 DVDs and rewatch it at some point.

wjs7744 wrote:This isn't the first time I've heard people here say that the Federation is democratic, but I myself can't actually remember anyone mentioning this onscreen. Not to say they don't of course, I just don't remember it. I expect the best place to look would be Paradise Lost, maybe I'll dig out my DS9 DVDs and rewatch it at some point.

As far as I know, the Federation has a council of representatives from various member worlds and a President.

We've never seen how the council members or the President get their positions. I was always under the impression that the planetary governments appointed their council representatives, and the council chose its President (much as a Parliamentary government chooses its Prime Minister). Is there any evidence of any other method?

Superman wrote:How can it be a purely communist government if it works through a democratic process?

Easily; vote communists in power. Like in India. It's not like that doesn't have precendents. The federation doesn't need to have a one-party state even - you can have a communist government with several parties if all of them are left and promote communism, again, like it happens in the Indian state elections.

Stas Bush wrote:

Superman wrote:How can it be a purely communist government if it works through a democratic process?

Easily; vote communists in power. Like in India. It's not like that doesn't have precendents. The federation doesn't need to have a one-party state even - you can have a communist government with several parties if all of them are left and promote communism, again, like it happens in the Indian state elections.

The Soviet Union, in its early years, had a multiparty system until Stalin crushed that, if memory serves.

Not exactly; the early Bolsheviks was willing to entertain the idea of some Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries (agrarian populist socialists) in a coalition, but discarded this notion for all basic purposes by the end of the Civil War, I believe. (Many radical socialists, naive as they were, believed Lenin and the other Bolsheviks to be sincere about democracy and pluralism, but they discarded it as soon as it became inconvenient).

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Not exactly; the early Bolsheviks was willing to entertain the idea of some Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries (agrarian populist socialists) in a coalition, but discarded this notion for all basic purposes by the end of the Civil War, I believe. (Many radical socialists, naive as they were, believed Lenin and the other Bolsheviks to be sincere about democracy and pluralism, but they discarded it as soon as it became inconvenient).

After the Constituent Assembly was dissolved in 1918. Definitely before Stalin.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:...discarded this notion for all basic purposes by the end of the Civil War, I believe. (Many radical socialists, naive as they were, believed Lenin and the other Bolsheviks to be sincere about democracy and pluralism, but they discarded it as soon as it became inconvenient).

Well, if by "inconvenient" you mean when other parties started actively fighting them in the Civil War, indeed so. Lenin was willing to work with the Eser at first, but the Right Eser openly resented the Soviets (and tried to ban Soviet power, as well as all Soviet reforms - land, peace - in the Assembly) which led to a confrontation. Later the Left Eser confronted the Bolsheviks, and assassinated the German ambassador in a hope thus to prolong the war which the Bolsheviks wanted to end, realizing the threat of a mutiny army at home.

Left Eser Party worked until 1923 - after the Civil War ended - and in 1923 the Party abolished itself, because most of it's members joined the victorious force - the Bolsheviks - anyway, and became uncontrollable by the Party leadership, as well as heavy fracturing in the Left Eser party - two Parties broke off, "Revolutionary Communists" and "People's Communists" (both joined the RKP(b) which didn't quite give it the death knell, but severely cut down it's power.

The Left Eser - even those who were tried and convicted of anti-Soviet mutiny in the 1920s after the Civil War - just went over and worked in the Soviet Government, however, until Stalin - he, in the year 1937, raised their past histories and had many of them repressed or executed, including such notable Left Eser leaders as Kamkov and Spiridonova.

Formally you can have a factionalized one-party state where elections to Soviets or Commitees are replacing multi party system - that was also common in post-revolutionary Russia, people picked candidates more likely to back their preferred wing or bloc of the Communist Party (peasant, left, right, center, etc). Of course, not under Stalin, where the Party was made monolithic.

Patrick Degan wrote:After the Constituent Assembly was dissolved in 1918.

The Constituent Assembly wasn't exactly "dissolved" before it lost legitimacy.

The revolutionary sailors who guarded it just said they're tired and will no longer guard the deputees... well, from the people's anger - since just a few hours earlier, said deputees, without having a quorum and thus losing legitimacy to enact any laws - all parties in favour of Soviet power left it - announced the abolition of the decrees of the II Congress of Soviets - Land Decress, Peace Decree and Soviet power Decree themselves... that didn't go well with the people as you might imagine, since the Soviets not only had real power by then, but were the most popular form of power as well. And since the IInd Congress also included the Land Reform, abolition of Land lords and many other revolutionary popular measures - acting against it was not a wise move.

Next day the VTSIk - a parallel power structure - and unlike the Assembly, a structure that had real power - declared the Assembly disbanded since the Soviet power adherents were not willing to work with it and thus it lost legitimacy.

In the Civil War, a small faction led by the remaining Constituent Assembly Commitee (called KOMUCH) tried to play on the left field by accepting popular Bolshevik measures (land nationalisation, labour rights, etc) yet warring with Bolsheviks. Ironically, they did it half-heartedly since most Bolshevik antagonists were right-wing monarchists and KOMUCH feared antagonizing possible allies too much. This led to workers and rebel peasants being concerned that KOMUCH are in fact counter-revolutionaries and rebelling against them when KOMUCH tried to reverse the land reform and return the land to land-lords (pomeshiks, the long-time enemies and former slave-owners of the peasantry)... KOMUCH sent armed forces to protect the land of the pomeshiks, which was the last straw.

In the black, ironic end, monarchist dictator and warlord Admiral Kolchak took over KOMUCH which lost it's manpower, threw it's members into prison with Bolsheviks and Mensheviks whom the KOMUCH had imprisoned beforehand, and then summarily executed everyone of them since to him all of them were nothing but red anti-tsarist rabble.

-------------------------
As for the Federation, it's my view that they are like a huge corporation with ruling bodies elected democratically, but most of which adhere to socialism. Why is that impossible? Federation has ensured comfortable life for most of it's central worlds - outposts, colonies, et cetera can have spartan conditions but there is certainly no poverty in the Federation. If faraway worlds, mining colonies or ships mutiny for the lack of luxuries, the Federation as we know reserves rights for curfew and war conditions to supress such things. Thus it's reasonable that if it leaned closer and closer to a socialist command economy, most of it's politicians regard this system as natural and vow to support it, no matter where from they are elected.

After all, I highly suspect that this command economy principles are somehow ingrained in the Federation Constitution - this is indeed a rule for socialist states proclaimed as such.

Stas Bush wrote:After all, I highly suspect that this command economy principles are somehow ingrained in the Federation Constitution - this is indeed a rule for socialist states proclaimed as such.

Are you talking about the original constitution, or some kind of amendment, since IIRC the Federation only turned communist between TOS and TNG?

wjs7744 wrote:Are you talking about the original constitution

I'm not really sure it stayed "original". In the USSR for example it was re-drafted numerous times coinciding with reforms of economic and political order. Why the same could not be true of the Federation as it shifted to socialism and later, communism?

And when did TOS happen? The Federation was founded in 2161, but TOS only happened a century later. We know that "money became obsolete" in their "New Age" command economy in the late 22 century, which roughly corresponds to the beginning of the Federation.

If we take the Federation dating from TNG and VOY at face value, the Federation was communist shortly upon it's inception or even at the very moment of it's inception.

Stas Bush wrote:I'm not really sure it stayed "original". In the USSR for example it was re-drafted numerous times coinciding with reforms of economic and political order. Why the same could not be true of the Federation as it shifted to socialism and later, communism?

Well, I don't really know much about how constitutions work, seeing as we don't have one, I might have been referring to a federation charter or something.

Stas Bush wrote:And when did TOS happen? The Federation was founded in 2161, but TOS only happened a century later. We know that "money became obsolete" in their "New Age" command economy in the late 22 century, which roughly corresponds to the beginning of the Federation.

Where does that come from? I don't remember anybody ever saying that the economy changed that early. And considering how old the TNG Federation is, I wouldn't say "only" a century.

Stas Bush wrote:If we take the Federation dating from TNG and VOY at face value, the Federation was communist shortly upon it's inception or even at the very moment of it's inception.

How do you work that out? The Federation was founded in c.22, TOS was during c.23, and IIRC wasn't communist, and TNG was around c.24. I wouldn't call an entire century "shortly upon it's inception".

wjs7744 wrote:I might have been referring to a federation charter or something.

There are both a Charter and a Constitution. Both refer to some individual rights in the Federation, as well as probably rights of member races and planets.

As for "anybody saying":

Voyager, Dark Frontier wrote:JANEWAY: Keep going.
PARIS: Well, er, when the New World Economy took shape in the late twenty second century and money went the way of the dinosaur, Fort Knox was turned into a museum.

That's how I work it out.

Federation founded: 2161.
New World Economy: 2nd half of the 22 century.
TOS: 23 century.
TNG: 24 century.

It's rather possible that TOS monetary exchanges are a leftover vestige: after all, transition to socialism is not momentary, and I believe transition to what looks like more or less complete communism isn't momentary either.

Stas Bush wrote:It's rather possible that TOS monetary exchanges are a leftover vestige: after all, transition to socialism is not momentary, and I believe transition to what looks like more or less complete communism isn't momentary either.

Couldn't we just assume that Paris got his dates mixed up?

Darth Servo wrote:Couldn't we just assume that Paris got his dates mixed up?

Why, really?

ST IV wrote:A man steps to the machine, inserts coins, takes a aper. Kirk frowns.
KIRK
Damn, they're still using money. We're going to need some.

ST IV wrote:GILLIAN
Don't' tell me: they don't have money in the 23rd Century.
KIRK
Well, we don't.

EDIT: Oh, and preceding the question about credits.

Socialist economies all had money. The USSR had the rouble. It was possible for citizens to "buy a boat". However, it did not use money in the way capitalism does - as a form of capital. This is the crucial difference.

Interpersonal interactions might have taken less and less use of money when monetary operations became fully virtualized in the form of credits, and the command economy allocated resources as it saw fit, as well as labelling mandatory values on the Federation credit (since it was mostly used in transaction with aliens, et cetera, to buy items outside the scope of command economy, or account for things which probably still get heavy rationing).

So it's natural that people in TOS are still using credits and yet do not think of them as of money. In the USSR, if you asked a person how much his flat costs, and said something about money, you'd get strange looks.

The same would apply to a great majority of items in the Federation - but certainly not all. You could likewise ask a Soviet how much meat costs and get the price as a reply.

A command economy, if it expands and succeeds at replacing more and more spheres with direct rationing or a free for all, locally, won't just have money magically vanish - monetary transactions will persist for some types of operations, but they will not mean money is the form of capital.

Still, your quotes from ST IV only show that they didn't use hard currency in the 23rd century (no duh, they certainly wouldn't use US dollars in the Federation and even if they did, the Pizza man isn't about to take a $20 dated 2258.)

After all the explanation of the differences between capital and rubles, the fact remains, in TNG era Trek, they out-right denied profit motives and insisted they had grown beyond all that (Picard couldn't understand an investment portfolio, the Ferengi are bad because they want to make money, etc.) while still embracing them it in TOS.

Darth Servo wrote:Still, your quotes from ST IV only show that they didn't use hard currency in the 23rd century

So? If a command economy grew automated, especially as a huge corporation of sorts, it would most likely employ electronic transactions since interstellar and interplanetary distances make them almost mandatory.

Darth Servo wrote:the fact remains, in TNG era Trek, they out-right denied profit motives and insisted they had grown beyond all that (Picard couldn't understand an investment portfolio, the Ferengi are bad because they want to make money, etc.)

Yes, both TNG and DS9 have characters telling that the Federation economy does not function for individual profit, but for the profit, or benefit, of the collective. So? Picard coudln't understand "investment" exactly because the "money" in the Federation is meaningless for the individual, it only has meaning as an accounting tool in the planned economy. Just like in real life. The USSR used money for accounting. Billions of roubles.

Who could understand the word "investment" in the command economy? Well, only economists from Gosplan - usual citizens, as well as military servicemen (like Picard) had no clue as to what the word means. The rouble was used as money and to buy stuff from the shops of the gigantic command economy, but people did not know capitalist terms! Since the money was not used as capital. In 1991, a crash dictionary with the words "action, investor, enterpreneur" was printed to explain to people what those words mean it was incredibly stupid and childish, but it shows how much indifference can a person in a command economy have - he does not do capitalist economic decisions in his daily life, instead having the economic corps of calculators providing his rationing.

Why would a command economy person know about things which he personally doesn't do? All economic management at higher levels is done by the government, and on the lower levels he's provided with resources for the very basic necessities. Naturally he doesn't have any clue on personal finance or anything like that.

Darth Servo wrote:...while still embracing them it in TOS.

Embracing what? Who was a capitalist and made profit in TOS? Who embraced individual profitmaking as a principle?

Darth Servo wrote:...no duh, they certainly wouldn't use US dollars in the Federation

Picard in ST:FC tells money is obsolete much like Kirk wonders at money. Yet note that Federation credits as a digital accounting monetary unit still exists and the Federation still uses it in foreign exchange transactions in the TNG/DS9 eras. Why really would TOS be any different? Are "federation credits" from TNG different from the TOS ones?

Stas Bush wrote:Picard in ST:FC tells money is obsolete much like Kirk wonders at money. Yet note that Federation credits as a digital accounting monetary unit still exists and the Federation still uses it in foreign exchange transactions in the TNG/DS9 eras. Why really would TOS be any different? Are "federation credits" from TNG different from the TOS ones?

Perhaps it was a gradual measure. Instead of jumping into a socialist state, they were eased into it. By Kirk's time, money was used to buy personal items, even relatively big ones like boats, but I don't recall hearing anything of private financial investments. All those mining colonies seem to be owned and operated by the Federation, rather then a 23rd century equivalent of Exxon Mobil.

Is it possible that the heavy cost of early space travel meant that only governments had the necessary resources to create interplanetary industry? I imagine you could encourage private investment as a way of
reducing expenses, but it would be up to government to actually start a new venture.

I imagine that with a setup like that, it would be easy to have the majority of industries be state owned. By the time TNG rolls around, it's so normal to have government owned industry that private investment is a forgotten concept.

Setzer wrote:By Kirk's time, money was used to buy personal items, even relatively big ones like boats, but I don't recall hearing anything of private financial investments

That's the gist of my argument. There is "money" in the Federation - but it is merely a consumption/production accounting tool, not a form of capital. You could even buy some rarer consumption items (a boat or that thing in TOS) - quite like the USSR, you could also buy a boat if you wanted - but you could not use this money as capital - invest and profit.

Stas Bush wrote:Embracing what? Who was a capitalist and made profit in TOS? Who embraced individual profitmaking as a principle?

It has to be remembered that TOS didn't really explore Federation society, since the entire focus of the series was the Enterprise and her crew. However, we do see a major for-profit mining operation on Janus VI ("Devil In The Dark"), dilithium miners on Rigel XII ("Mudd's Women") who are definitely seeking profit enough "to buy queens", and the barkeep/trader on Station K7 definitely knew about profit markup ("The Trouble With Tribbles"). Scant evidence but then, as pointed out, TOS didn't really explore Federation society.

Kirk wasn't exactly bewildered by the concept of money in ST4; he certainly knew they needed some and he had to sell something valuable to get cash for himself and his shipmates. It is likely that things were at a point in which hard cash was an anachronism for Kirk and co. but they still were familiar with economics. To be certain, we never hear Capt. Kirk spewing the sort of dopey bullshit Picard or Troi do habitually about humanity transcending material needs or the Federation being a paradise.

It is evident that by Picard's time, the Federation has tilted pell-mell into a communist-style society. Picard's utter ignorance of banking attests to that ("The Neutral Zone").

Patrick Degan wrote:It has to be remembered that TOS didn't really explore Federation society, since the entire focus of the series was the Enterprise and her crew. However, we do see a major for-profit mining operation on Janus VI ("Devil In The Dark"), dilithium miners on Rigel XII ("Mudd's Women") who are definitely seeking profit enough "to buy queens", and the barkeep/trader on Station K7 definitely knew about profit markup ("The Trouble With Tribbles").

I just reviewed "Mudd's Women" and the miners in that episode were demanding the women in exchange for the crystals after Kirk agreed to pay for them. Hardly the sort of thing one would expect to see in a communist society where the military could just appropriate whatever they need or the government itself can set the prices.

Kirk did stray into miners a lot. Mining operations concern scarce resources and it might very well be that some vestiges of monetary motivation are still in effect (that doesn't deny a command economy: it can also employ higher/lower wages and premiums as stimuli for workers).

Patrick Degan wrote:To be certain, we never hear Capt. Kirk spewing the sort of dopey bullshit Picard or Troi do habitually about humanity transcending material needs

Picard remarked only that monetary transactions are no longer made, and the Federation eliminated hunger and poverty, IIRC. Not that "humanity" transcended it. But the Federation culture is a strong mechanism of conditioning.

Darth Servo wrote:Hardly the sort of thing one would expect to see in a communist society where the military could just appropriate whatever they need or the government itself can set the prices.

The Starfleet not necessarily can just "appropriate" anything; especially if it concerns the scarcer stuff. After all, they were willing to pay to aliens huge sums of Federation credits for a wormhole or something in TNG; and Crusher also traded something in TNG, so it's not like "money" like the Federation uses it is totally alien to TNGers - but the Earth concepts of capital most certainly are.

If some operation is not yet nationalized - which is the likely case, especially in TOS - the UFP would have to pay compensations to it's owners for taking it's produce.

Patrick Degan wrote:...the barkeep/trader on Station K7 definitely knew about profit markup ("The Trouble With Tribbles")

Yeah, but he traded rare and exotic items on a remote space station. Like the Fartsovshiki in the USSR traded exotic foreign stuff onboard long-range oceangoing ships or in seaports.

And yes, the TOS didn't really explore Federation society. But it's certain that many uses of money in a simple economy were obsolete by Kirk's times, if not all; and New World economy indeed couldn't have been just totally communist from the start without some sort of transition: you'd need to enact measures to control transactions between member worlds, etc cetera, replicator pool and so on, while before the Charter Federation members most likely traded with each other.

This is also nothing uncommon - the USSR comprising republics used to trade rather extensively before they were united into a single command economy.

I just see no reason to assume Paris was wrong in dating - Kirk indeed thinks "money" as we use it in the XX century is obsolete, so quite probably our money indeed is gone and Fort Knox turned into a museum. The Federation credit remains a currency for scarcity operations. After all, there's no contradiction here.

Stas Bush wrote:

I just reviewed "Mudd's Women" and the miners in that episode were demanding the women in exchange for the crystals after Kirk agreed to pay for them. Hardly the sort of thing one would expect to see in a communist society where the military could just appropriate whatever they need or the government itself can set the prices.

The Starfleet not necessarily can just "appropriate" anything; especially if it concerns the scarcer stuff. After all, they were willing to pay to aliens huge sums of Federation credits for a wormhole or something in TNG; and Crusher also traded something in TNG, so it's not like "money" like the Federation uses it is totally alien to TNGers - but the Earth concepts of capital most certainly are.

If some operation is not yet nationalized - which is the likely case, especially in TOS - the UFP would have to pay compensations to it's owners for taking it's produce.

Inside vs outside the Federation. Apples and oranges.

And you apparently missed the bit about the miners NEGOTIATING PRICE.