The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Sunday, June 7, 2026 16:12
VIEWED: 22000
PAGE 5 of 14
Latinum is a Ferengi currency. As far as I know it never had anything to do with the Federation, even in DS9. And while many of your points are good ones, most of them are not ones that bear out of the The Next Generation alone.
Quote:I think you’re probably right. But Robbenberry’s concept of an evolved humanity lends itself easily to criticism of fascism. There are also some other short comings. Like most Utopian visions, it looks good because most of it is untested. And one can imagine that in a world were Scarcity is essentially eliminated (with a few exceptions) what the human condition might look like, and it wouldn’t necessarily always be pretty.
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
I'd guess it all comes back to Roddenberry's concept that humanity has "evolved" --people are expected to work because they either enjoy it or feel it's worth doing. Which I guess is fine in theory. Anyone who does want to make a fortune is welcome to head out to the frontier. Those who are too lazy/unmotivated to work. . . Well, I guess we just don't talk about them.
The closest example of a condition in which humans live in the absence of Scarcity might be represented by certain extremely rich and powerful individuals. Those people who have never wanted for anything due to their vast wealth and power might be described as being resistant to the influence of Scarcity on a very local level. The Roman Emperors come to mind: men like Nero, Caligula and Commodus were able to procure they infamous reputations because, in part, they essentially got everything they wanted in as much quantity as they could possible use or want. So one of the effects of the lack of Scarcity, that has (as far as I know) never been addressed in the TNG is human weakness in response to such an environment. Where are the spoiled brats who think because they can replicate anything they want, they deserve everything they want? Where are the 1500 pound people who must have a wall removed from their quarters so that they can be wheeled to sick-bay because they sat in front of the replicator day-in and day-in creating Bon-Bons and Snickers?
And in a society where people can be transported instantaneously from one place to another with little more then coordinates and certainly no consent, what kinds of abuses might this foster? Perhaps we don’t see those lazy people or other insubordinates because they are essentially erased.
Of course I'm speculating here; I don’t think that is the intent of the authors. I think the authors intend us to believe that humans will evolve beyond human nature, but that seems extraordinarily optimistic to me, and perhaps a more realistic interpretation is that the Star Trek Utopia, itself, presents problems that could be used to suggest something distinctly dystopic in nature.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by derangedmilk:
Scotty from Dublin.
!
No. Just. . . Just no.
*imagining Scotty's reaction to that*
-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, I thought of that too.
Originally posted by Cybersnark:Quote:
Originally posted by derangedmilk:
Scotty from Dublin.
!
No. Just. . . Just no.
*imagining Scotty's reaction to that*
But I think his point was made so I didn’t say anything. Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry im getting into this a little late, ive been on vacation.
Quote:
State to the people -> Socalism
People to the State -> Fascism
Their opposites, not my belief it's right there.
Thats a false destinction, since in socialism the state and the people are one in the same. A socialist government has just as much potential to become a fascist government as a democracy does. In FA Hayeks "Road to Serfdom" he actually illustrates how fascism is the natural evolution of any socialist government. Socialism requires central government planning to succeed and since a large union of people are incapable of effective central planning the collective government will de-evolve into a comitee government or dictatorship. Which is what happened in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Quote:
Hitler envied and was full of praise for the American economic (capitalist) system. That's hardly very socialist is it.
If thats true, his words didn't back up his actions. Hitler established a government where everything was controlled by central planning. The government controlled all aspects of the economy. There is nothing capitalist about that and actions speak louder than words.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's very little true capitalism in the world full stop. There was very little socialist about the Nazi's, but apparently we can call them socialist because they said they were "Nationalsozialistische". Apparently when it's condemning all the left as the originator of all evil we can take their word for it.
Personally I don't hold that the Nazi's were either left or right, they picked ideals for either in order to gain power, and because power was what Hitler was interested in, not any particular ideology.
The Soviet Union wasn't Socialist, it was Communist. They aren't the same thing.
Lastly we were talking about Fascism NOT Nazism, although Nazism is accepted as a form of Fascism there are some distinct differences. Fascism is right-wing collectivism.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You could also make the argument that it wasn't really Communist either. It was just an oligarchic dictatorship that called itself Communist.
Originally posted by citizen:
The Soviet Union wasn't Socialist, it was Communist. They aren't the same thing.
-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:Quote:You could also make the argument that it wasn't really Communist either. It was just an oligarchic dictatorship that called itself Communist.
Originally posted by citizen:
The Soviet Union wasn't Socialist, it was Communist. They aren't the same thing.
Indeed. There have been as many true communist nations as there have been true democracies, i.e., zero. Neither seems to work on a large scale.
But I guess if you remove the major factors that screw up both those systems--namely, greed and selfishness--maybe something like in Star Trek, a merging of the two, could work.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This thread has officially made me dizzy now.
Off to watch 7 of 9 Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Very true, Communism being a system that attempts to create stateless classless society. The concept I was more answering was that socialism was stateless, which is the ultimate goal of Communism.
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
You could also make the argument that it wasn't really Communist either. It was just an oligarchic dictatorship that called itself Communist.
In a wider question I've never read the road to Serfdom, though it sounds like FA Hayeks may have confused Totalitarianism and Fascism. I'd also note that life improved in 19th century Britain when Socialist elements were employed, which I think is an indication that a balance between Socialism and Capitalism produces a far better society than either one alone.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But Robbenberry’s concept of an evolved humanity lends itself easily to criticism of fascism. There are also some other short comings. Like most Utopian visions, it looks good because most of it is untested.
....
Of course I'm speculating here; I don’t think that is the intent of the authors. I think the authors intend us to believe that humans will evolve beyond human nature, but that seems extraordinarily optimistic to me, and perhaps a more realistic interpretation is that the Star Trek Utopia, itself, presents problems that could be used to suggest something distinctly dystopic in nature.
-- Cicero
True enough.
I think there is a comment from George Orwell to the effect that a true Utopia is literally unimaginable: (Why Socialists don’t believe in Fun - http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/work/essays/fun.html).
In any event, I doubt that a post-scarcity economy is possible, and certain that one does not exist in the Federation. How many people can be served by Quark or Guinan at one time? How many people can simultaneously visit Yellowstone National Park, or the birthplace of Charles Dickens? Even in strictly material terms there is a limit to the much living space is available on DS9 or the Enterprise.
This may seem trivial, but it is no more so than the cost of BMWs and plasma screen TVs in the West today.
‘Post-scarcity’ could only be achieved by rationing human desires to fit what is actually available. This means that to create Utopia you must first remake human nature. The Federation seems to have achieved this, as did the World State in Brave New World. For all we can tell, they used the same methods.
PS – I just remembered this link: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/ There is an essay there proving that ST:TNG is in fact communist “The Economics of Star Trek”.
I have far too much time on my hands.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME