this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
71 points (100.0% liked)

Socialism

2850 readers
102 users here now

Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.


Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gormadt@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A welcome dream of the future

I hope we can someday get there

But damn do we have a lot of work to do

[–] Efwis@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless we kill all the greed, which I personally don’t see happening, we will never break the chains and reach this reality.

Another thing I like about Star Trek is the breakdown of religious belief that we are not created equal and everyone is emboldened to someone else to live.

I really hope humanity can reach this pinnacle, but until we quit living for the almighty dollar, we won’t. We are the Ferengi from the show.

[–] Hexorg@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

To be fair even in trek - there’s a world war 3 that’s driven by pure greed before humanity decides it’s enough. And the climax of the greed and that war starts in 2026… so we might be on the course to the utopia … but not before suffering some more.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

I like to look at old science fiction shows/movies and see the blind spots.

In the 1960s, no one objected to Kirk dating women from other planets, but no network would have allowed Kirk to date Sulu.

[–] cyanocobalamin@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

TNG also failed to flesh out the details of how their economy worked.

It is very easy to say "everyone is just happy and behaves well".

[–] LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm willing to believe that for the most part, the world Star Trek inhabits is postscarcity - the widespread replicator technology leads me to believe that with easy access to energy and organic material, everyone can be fed and clothed with a minimum of expenditure, and with access to FTL travel and terraforming tools, land scarcity is no longer an issue either.

The economy is just a tool for the distribution of goods, services and land; it becomes unnecessary if everything necessary to sustain life (and probably quite a few luxuries and leisures) is readily available as it's needed.

[–] AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't remember what series it is, but one of the newer series has a scene where someone is asking why the federation won't give them replicator tech. And the federation dude basically lays out how replicator tech before society is ready leads to oppression not liberation. That humanity only got replicator tech after they already came together and threw off the old ways. Replicator tech didn't lead to socialism for them. Socialism lead to replicator tech.

[–] Zalack@startrek.website 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think this was an Orville episode, wasn't it?

[–] AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lmao yeah it was don't know why I was thinking it was trek.

[–] jherazob@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

Because Orville is Trek

[–] joneskind@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The original TV shows were indeed very progressive, but the movies ruined everything on so many levels.

[–] jherazob@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

I miss being this optimistic

[–] DeForrest_McCoy@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Well Jim...here we ain't.

[–] manxu@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, yeah, sort of. Very, very progressive for the time. But they had a huge blind spot in the military structure, which is as hierarchical and patriarchal as ever. I am not talking about command and control structures, which are potentially effective, but about the idea that a single captain would run a star ship over long periods of time instead of being floated among different crews that get a chance to vote for their leader.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I wouldn't say the patriarchal or hierarchical structure is a blind spot of Star Trek. They were ahead of their time. But if looking back at episodes from 1960s with today's perspective, it does look dated and weak w.r.t representation of women and minorities.

Men are overrepresented in positions of power, especially in earlier series, but Star Trek has female officers, captains and admirals.

Starfleet's structure is military-like and hierarchical however it's not depicted as a perfect structure. Captains or lower-rank officers regularly break orders, often get a pass afterward when their actions are justified.

Also, United Earth has a civil government, so does United Federation of Planets. The series focuses on the defense/exploration branch of the federation, which has a military structure. But it's not representative of the structure of government for the whole federation.

[–] PostmodernPythia@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Rotating leadership in a military-ish context in deep space sounds like the material conditions for the creation of factions and potential mutiny. If getting rid of every hierarchy, even ones you freely volunteer for, is the only way a future counts as positive, there’s no point in writing sci fi. Ordinary citizens in the Federation aren’t in a military hierarchy, and it’s post-scarcity, so people aren’t facing economic coercion to join Starfleet. Not conforming perfectly to your personal idea of utopia isn’t a blind spot, though Trek has many of those, as well.