Jump to content

Is Star Trek an example of communism?


 Share

Recommended Posts

You know, the asteroid belt that separates the small rock-based, inner planets from the gas giants has HUGE quantities of Fe and Ni. It is believed that there was once a planet that suffered a catastrophe and desintegrated.

sounds like stuff for a science fiction novel to me, maybe a side story of the BJ story's?

Frequency of the H-waves?

holzman waves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The love of money is the root of all evil. Thus I reject faiths like capitalism and communism which place the importance of money over all else.

Until we abolish the idea of currency, money is one of the most important things to a country. A fact of life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed;

money keeps people working caus they need to eat and thet costs money

mankind has not evolved enough to wordk for the better of society and themselfes that they do need money to drive them.

To live they need to eat. ]

To eat they need money.

To get money they work thereby helping othere to live.

Whitout money they would sit at home doing nothing cus it is all for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The love of money is the root of all evil. Thus I reject faiths like capitalism and communism which place the importance of money over all else.

In Communism there are no money. People work for the greater good of all people.

Until we abolish the idea of currency, money is one of the most important things to a country. A fact of life.

To a government, not a country. To a tiny elite which you've never seen who forces you to work for less than your work is really worth to gain huge sums themselves.

Sure, there is money in Socialism, but it is handled correctly and democratically.

mankind has not evolved enough to wordk for the better of society and themselfes that they do need money to drive them.

Then how much is needed to evolve? We've had money since the beginning of time. The first texts ever written were about wealth and personal property. How long till we understand what the rich and powerful are doing with our money? How they destroy the very planet we're living on?

To live they need to eat. ]

To eat they need money.

To get money they work thereby helping othere to live.

This is so redicolous. A basic human need as eating is a human right, everybody must have free access to food and clean water to survive. How come that people in Africa work like slaves yet they recieve almost nothing to live for? How come rich corporate private owners can sit and do absolutely nothing for the rest of their lives and still have excess of food and water?

Whitout money they would sit at home doing nothing cus it is all for free.

The human have always a will to do something. We have a will to get a nice family, to see our children grow and live. To have a family means working in order to make them live and eat - to educate them. We've done this long before money was ever invented.

We have the will to make art, to help other people unknown to our families. Why do you go to school? What are you expecting to learn? Do you want to be a doctor? An actor? A scientists, or maybe a teacher? It is this will that people have - to do something.

Do you think that people just walked around like zombies until someone said "hey, I've invented money - now we can get on evolving into societies and have kings and queens"?

It is will to do something that drives our societies. Why do people work? Who makes them work? Will they die if they don't? What if everybody on the whole planet decided to just sit at home and do nothing? Why don't the homeless person on your street die then? He doesn't work. Yet, he lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good point's all of them but you can not ignore the fact that mankind still needs money/currency.

evolving towards not needing money we need to respect one anotner not judging them on believe, social status, etc.

we need to believe that what we do we do to ensure our survival as mankind to do our bit in the whole of society.

(communism?)

still there is so much difference in how we live you pointed that out yourselff by speaking about the people in africa.

I just finished the schoolplay for christmas and one of the powerpoints in between scenes was:

25% of the people use 75% of the worlds goods (that's us)

75 % of the worlds people use 25% of the worlds goods (that's them

A white man uses 9 x as much as a not white man.

If we are going to evolve we have to change that, we heve to share all, without money or the need tpo that can be changed cus people who have money want more and people who d

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good point's all of them but you can not ignore the fact that mankind still needs money/currency.

In a way. Since we have been conditioned to live in a world runned by big business, of course it would be difficult to imagine otherwise.

But Socialism does just that. It directs money in the way it should be directed in. Once people, in a Socialist society, begin to understand more and more, as the technological and scientific progress goes forward, people will begin to realize that they no longer need any money - that they are useless rests of the past.

we need to believe that what we do we do to ensure our survival as mankind to do our bit in the whole of society.

(communism?)

Exactly! All men and women must understand that there is a society, a society that needs them, not that forces them to work for some money to survive for the day. People need to "love" their work, that is, they need to be conscious about what they are doing. Not just being conscious of "if I do this, I'll get my money and then I can catch a beer in the pub".

In the system we are living in today, people are being conditioned to work to get money for it - and forget what their work are doing to the society. As long as they are paid, well, who cares if I invent this superweapon or that super spy sattelite? I get a lot of money, that's all I care for. Right?

still there is so much difference in how we live you pointed that out yourselff by speaking about the people in africa.

Yes, there are differences. But nations can't keep on taking, by force, resources and wealth of other countries. We are conditioned to believe that it's right, that it is right to steal from Africa - because it's all written in the law. The same law FBI and CIA are conditioned to protect and serve, among other agencies all around the world.

The people in Africa is starving just because of this. These rules 20% of the world's population has written, they somehow justify stealing and killing the rest of the 80% of the human race. And they are forced to live by it, without having any power to do anything about it.

And if they do something about it, they'll automatically be labelled as terrorists and criminals. What justice is this?

25% of the people use 75% of the worlds goods (that's us)

Yes, it is around that number.

75 % of the worlds people use 25% of the worlds goods (that's them

25%, if they are lucky, goes to 80% of the total global population. And many of those 25% probably goes to people like bin Laden and other warlords bent on controlling their starving populations.

A white man uses 9 x as much as a not white man.

And for what? We have excess of everything! Even the local homeless Joe can afford what would seem as a luxury to a man or a woman from Africa or Southern Asia.

And as that wouldn't be enough. People were actually brainwashed/tested in secret to buy more in America. You may have heard about the "one-frame-commercial"? They put a single frame in a usual commercial, and in that frame it would be written something like "buy cola" or "buy more popcorn". At a time where our wealth already was in excess, they tried to get us to buy even more.

If we are going to evolve we have to change that, we heve to share all, without money or the need tpo that can be changed cus people who have money want more and people who d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

probelbly not for a very long while...

nice to agree on something is it?

Though for socialism to completely work the whole wordl has to change cus:

when a few countries say "we are going to abolish currency" they steill have to trade whit other currency based country's.

Those country's want money for there goods or a other kind of payment thus corrupting the coutry that abolished currency in the first place.

Either that or the country has to be completly self-sufficient

You said:

" I hope we eventually want to see our children live in this world, and in a world where everyone can live equally and have a common goal, a time where we all share the knowledge of ourselves, without paying enormous sums for it, without having to have special access to everything. Simply put - we have to be human"

yes but: that will probebly happen when we are long dead and it won't heppen to our great-grandchildren either.

Humankind has a long way to go but still: there is hope and when there is hope there is life.

I think what would work is a (positive) chaos theory: something small keeps growing into something bigger, but I already pointed out that one country can't do it on his own,

the whole idea of socialism has to be in people heads to

they must want it too and that's the second problem (well matbe the same as it relates to the moneyproblem)

people have to evolve too

(read my sig)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, sorry to jump in here but I read a few pages of this every now and again as I checked in, so have a rough idea of what we are discussing here. Was browsing through the EBFD board and found this (even they wondered why it was there) and thought of you all !  :D

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/index.php?topic=1529.0 <== The discussion.

I havent read it all but it seems someone discussed this before, just wanted to make sure we knew. I hope this hasnt been pointed out already and I just havent seen. If it has I can always delete this post.... :'(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though for socialism to completely work the whole wordl has to change cus:

Well, I believe that it isn't necessary to have a giant world revolution in a day, but I do believe that if a country implements Socialism, other countries will look at it and then people will start to think. Then again, people need to know what Socialism is.

when a few countries say "we are going to abolish currency" they steill have to trade whit other currency based country's.

Well, there probably will be a way. But by the time Socialism is really tried, I think other countries will also have applied it. Or, we will have a global revolution. But, that is the future. Anything might happen.

Those country's want money for there goods or a other kind of payment thus corrupting the coutry that abolished currency in the first place.

We are thinking to far ahead. I find it very improbable that there will be a time where some countries still have capitalism, while others already have Communism. I do, however, believe that there may be a time where some countries have Socialism, and others capitalism.

Now, don't look at the stalinist countries that we have in the world today. North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and PRC all have currencies. They all trade in a capitalist way. And they all are dictatorships, thus, not Socialists. I believe only Cuba and North Korea have a planned economy, but as I said, their states control the people, thus their states control what the economy is used for.

Either that or the country has to be completly self-sufficient

Well, as far as I know, all countries can provide the basic needs for their people - food, water, housing, education and healthcare. How good can they do this, depends on the location of the country. It may be much easier to live around the equator, because the temperature already provides a confortable climate for humans, houses built there can be built much more simpler because they may not need heating systems or thick walls, etc. On the other hand, a hot climate is also confortable for parasites and viruses.

Where I live, we have to build stronger and thicker houses because it is cold, ideally. Fortunately, parasites and viruses don't find cold places as confortable as around the equator, so we have less deceases here (but we still have them in one way or another).

The thing here is that other countries should help their neighbours, as well as countries all around the world. After all, this is only one planet with only one kind humans. Socialism is about helping each other to make one another better.

yes but: that will probebly happen when we are long dead and it won't heppen to our great-grandchildren either.

Yes, that may be true. It can also happen in our lifetime. We don't know.

The thing is, we have to fight for it. Why do we want to go into space if we know we'll never live to see a man set his foot on another planet in another solar system?

We have to put our believes in front of us. To educate and to inform now, not hope that it will one day just come and everything will be perfect - because it won't. We can't just live as criminals and say that Jesus will come one day and save us, we can't keep saying to ourselves that someone else has to do it - because we are born here and now, and we have a responsibility.

Marx, for example, put his beliefs far ahead of him, he knew that he wouldn't live to see the first true Socialist state. But he still kept on fighting.

Humankind has a long way to go but still: there is hope and when there is hope there is life.

And I believe that humanity will never stop. We will go on until the end of time. There will always be new dreams and hopes inside of us, new ideas and so much knowledge to find out there. Socialism is, for me, a huge step towards it. From Socialism, we will begin to understand the power and the abilities we all have as the human race.

I think what would work is a (positive) chaos theory: something small keeps growing into something bigger, but I already pointed out that one country can't do it on his own,

Of course not. But as one country begin to understand, others will too. This time will probably be a hard one, since the rich and powerful won't let go of their wealth and power. We will all suffer from the ignorance and illusions of other ordinary men and women, into the last, trying to justify the existance of capitalism. We will feel the anger and hate towards humanity from this tiny minority.

they must want it too and that's the second problem (well matbe the same as it relates to the moneyproblem)

And I hope that people will understand one day Socialism is in all people's interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we are? okay maybe we are, but to talk about a thing we must first understand a thing, then again, we are the only peole talking now so, maybe you are right.

still I think we are on the same line here, we seem to agree but we heve some nuance differences here an there, American Cyborg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that this was raised before Erin ! back in 2001. :)

In origonal Star trek they did have damage control teams (to fight fire etc). :O

The replicators maybe the reason wealth was eliminated.

In the Catspaw episode Kirk and co are offered Jewels and gems for there cooperation, Kirks reply is we could produce thousand of these baubles on board ourship.

You guys seem to have wandered off topic, no surprise as that happens in most threads. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, maybe not everything within Star Trek is Communism, I suppose that humans are still at a later Socialist state, mainly after watching Star Trek 6: Undiscovered Country, where the technic (the one that doesn't have any costume and has an Irish accent), said that he bought a boat.

But, essentially, I believe that society is very much Socialist, and that most of Star Trek's human personnel are late Socialists/early Communists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, maybe not everything within Star Trek is Communism, I suppose that humans are still at a later Socialist state, mainly after watching Star Trek 6: Undiscovered Country, where the technic (the one that doesn't have any costume and has an Irish accent), said that he bought a boat.

But, essentially, I believe that society is very much Socialist, and that most of Star Trek's human personnel are late Socialists/early Communists.

Indeed. I think this point has been made several times in this topic, actually. The Federation (including humans, vulcans, etc.) is not a communist system, or at least not a fully communist system, because they have planetary governments.

However, the Federation clearly has a socialist system, and it seems to be slowly evolving towards communism. In the 24th century (the century of The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager), the system of the Federation could be described as "socialism with some communist elements".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a particular point of view, every state, more or less, is socialist...

And what point of view is that, exactly? Not every state is democratic, not every state guarantees a basic standard of living for its citizens, and certainly not every state has a planned economy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now let's take a closer look at the issue discussed in this topic...

As I first explained in a topic long ago, there are 3 fundamental conditions for a socialist system:

1. A planned economy (i.e. public ownership over the means of production)

2. A democratic state (i.e. the state must be the tool of the people)

3. Certain basic standards of living (food, drinking water, housing, healthcare and education) guaranteed freely and equally to all citizens.

Now, we know for certain that the Federation meets conditions #2 and #3. It has been stated numerous times that there is no hunger or poverty in the Federation (condition #3) and that the Federation government is a representative democracy (condition #2).

There is no direct information on condition #1 (since we were never told directly whether the economy of the Federation is planned or market-based), but there is overwhelming evidence that the Federation does indeed have a planned economy. First, we know they no longer use money. That's enough to exclude the possibility of a market economy. Second, we never see any signs of the existence of any private companies. There are no advertisements, no company logos and no mention of any objects being made by a specific company. It can only be concluded that the means of production are state-owned.

Thus, the Federation meets all 3 of the requirements of socialism. It is undoubtedly a socialist system.

But what about communism? It has been said before that the Federation is clearly not a communist system, since it does have a government (whereas communism involves direct democracy, and no government in the normal sense of the word). However, we must bear in mind that holding together an interplanetary alliance without some form of government is practically impossible. A true communist system is limited in size to a single planet - although it would certainly be feasible to unite communist planets into an interplanetary alliance of some sort. The existence of an interplanetary organization to coordinate the activities of this alliance doesn't mean that individual member worlds can't have a planet-wide communist system. So the mere fact that the Federation has an interplanetary government is not enough to make it non-communist. The reason why the Federation is non-communist is because each individual member world has a planet-wide government (as stipulated in the Federation's Constitution), not because the Federation itself has an interplanetary government.

However, although the Federation isn't communist, its socialist system does have some communist elements, such as the absence of money. Also, from what we have seen, life in the Federation does seem to follow the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs": People work for self-improvement and for the benefit of society in general, doing what they do best ("from each according to his ability"), and the existence of replicators makes it possible to really fulfill all their needs ("to each according to his needs").

By the way, in case you're wondering, replicators are not implausible technology. We know that energy can be turned into matter and vice versa (E=mc^2). In fact, we already have the technology to turn matter into energy - that's what a nuclear reactor does. Therefore, in theory, it is entirely possible to construct a device that takes energy and turns it into elementary particles, then uses those particles to build atoms, molecules and large-scale objects. Such a device would be incredibly advanced technology, however, and it would require huge amounts of energy to operate. Nevertheless, it is within the realm of the possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...