this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
33 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
670 readers
31 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My point was that the Socialist society of Star Trek's Federation was not arrived through class struggle - it imagines a world where the Capitalist class just "allowed" Socialism to happen, instead of manufacturing scarcity to maintain their positions.
I was not claiming that the Federation in Star Trek is not compatible with Marxism/is not a Marxist state; I am claiming that the world of Star Trek does not work according to the Marxist understanding of historical materialism. Instead, it uses the Democratic-Socialist framework - it ignores bourgeois class interests and imagines a world where progress can be made through peaceful Democratic reform.
You're focusing on a period of socialism that Star Trek doesn't depict, and criticizing things that are missing (the historic period of class struggle), not what's there (a post-class society focused on exploration and mutual cooperation with other worlds).
It seems a stretch to say trek is demsoc, or that the transition was a peaceful reformist one. We're given hints that the abolition of classes occurred after a violent nuclear world war which nearly destroys humanity, massive internal upheavals and poverty, and the arrival of vulcans. I agree it'd be nice if that was elaborated upon more, but that's a different show, and certainly not one that would be allowed to be made in the belly of the beast.