The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek

POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Sunday, June 7, 2026 16:12
VIEWED: 22000
PAGE 7 of 14

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

CAVALIER

Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No really, Communism is a stepping stone to a stateless classless society, not the Totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union and China. The fact that in the real world it ends up as Totalitarianism just proves that it doesn't work in the real world.

Like I said: cross-purposes.

If I understand your position, you would say:

a) Communism was intended to lead to a classless utopia.
b) It actually led to totalitarian despotism.

I agree. You would say that ‘true communism' was a). I would just say that actual communism was (and is) b). I believe that most people judge it by its results, so I feel my definition is less likely to lead to confusion, but there is no point in arguing about definitions.

Quote:

I'd say it's more limits to ideology, since Capitalism can and has turned into dictatorship, despite being an ideal that promotes limited government.

IIRC Hayek was mainly writing about the mechanics of driving the whole society to meet centrally directed goals, however noble.

Business makes no decisions, only individual businesses do that. Collective decision making by businesses, unions etc is technically corporatism. Medieval European cities often worked like that. Terry Pratchett fans might think of Ankh-Morpork. Capitalism was created in 18th centuary England largely by eliminating this.

Quote:

Maybe the Alliance isn't so bad? I certainly don't see it as more oppressive than any modern westernised nation. You may bring up the question of Miranda, but there are numerous skeletons in the closet of modern nations. Off the top of my head the UK invented concentration camps, the UK firebombed Dresden and other cities, the US is the only nation to use nuclear weapons in anger, the US sent anyone of Japanese decent to concentration camps. Most westernised nations flirted with the practice of Eugenics during the early twentieth century.

Eugenics was openly considered, not secretly imposed. The others were all done in order to win wars, all but one were formal acts of war against an openly declared enemy. A system is judged by how it treats its subjects in peacetime, not its enemies when it is fighting for its life.

Miranda demonstrates that the Alliance desires to secretly drug its subjects into compliance with the wishes of the rulers. That would be unforgivable, even if it had worked. Brave New World, here we come. Note that there can be no escape, because the Alliance controls all of civilisation in the ‘verse. The last resistance has already been destroyed.

Quote:

Starfleet is a civilian scientific organisation, and due to the dangers of deep space exploration star ships require defences. Since the federation has no standing military at times of war they have to essentially raise a militia from the civilian ranks.

If they have the guns, they are the military. Being badly disciplined makes them more dangerous (to the Federation), not less.

CITIZEN

Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:34 PM

Quote:
I agree. You would say that ‘true communism' was a). I would just say that actual communism was (and is) b). I believe that most people judge it by its results, so I feel my definition is less likely to lead to confusion, but there is no point in arguing about definitions.

But your definition implies communism works, because it ends at the goal for which it sets out

Which is the last I'll say.

Quote:
Business makes no decisions, only individual businesses do that. Collective decision making by businesses, unions etc is technically corporatism. Medieval European cities often worked like that. Terry Pratchett fans might think of Ankh-Morpork. Capitalism was created in 18th centuary England largely by eliminating this.

There have been Capitalist dictatorships, simple as that. Capitalism aims to allow business to do as it pleases, deregulation and so forth this ends in corporatism. England became a better place to live by introducing, not removing, socialist elements to the society, which was my point.

Quote:
Eugenics was openly considered, not secretly imposed.

I believe the US actually implemented some Eugenics in peace time.

Quote:
The others were all done in order to win wars, all but one were formal acts of war against an openly declared enemy. A system is judged by how it treats its subjects in peacetime, not its enemies when it is fighting for its life.

The Nazi's Holocaust occurred during war time, a war they believed was partially against the international Jew. Why can't we excuse the Nazi's on the same grounds?

Quote:
Miranda demonstrates that the Alliance desires to secretly drug its subjects into compliance with the wishes of the rulers.

It is well known that the CIA secretly drugged American civilians during peace time.

Quote:
Note that there can be no escape, because the Alliance controls all of civilisation in the ‘verse. The last resistance has already been destroyed.

The Yankee's won the civil war?

Quote:
If they have the guns, they are the military. Being badly disciplined makes them more dangerous (to the Federation), not less.

Not at all. They have weapons for defence during scientific missions, Science vessels today occasionally carry arms, and at the very least have a military escort if going into dangerous territory. If there's no Military who does the escorting?

Having guns does not make you the military. In the US and many other places the Police and Civilians carry guns.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

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.

ELOISA

Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:31 PM

The US, and several other comparable countries, did practice peacetime eugenics between WW1 and WW2 - the sterilisation of people with Down's Syndrome. Nazi Germany, by comparison, killed them.

*continues to read fascinating discussion*

CITIZEN

Monday, September 25, 2006 4:00 PM

As I understand it the Nazi's didn't actually start killing as part of their Eugenics program until after the start of the Second World War. Which leads back to my question, can we excuse something just because it happens in a time of war?

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.

FELLOWTRAVELER

Monday, September 25, 2006 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
They have weapons for defence during scientific missions, Science vessels today occasionally carry arms, and at the very least have a military escort if going into dangerous territory. If there's no Military who does the escorting?

Having guns does not make you the military. In the US and many other places the Police and Civilians carry guns.

Sorry, another couple of questions from a non-trekie. Are the "science" ships and military ships one and the same? Is there a separate military or do these science ships serve both purposes?

Also, are there examples of civilians legally possessing arms or is the Federation the only people with weapons?

CITIZEN

Monday, September 25, 2006 4:49 PM

Quote:
Sorry, another couple of questions from a non-trekie. Are the "science" ships and military ships one and the same? Is there a separate military?

Don't call me a trekkie

...

They're a scientific organisation. There is no military, so the closest thing I could say is that at times of war the Federation uses some of Starfleet as a milita.

Quote:
Also, are there examples of civilians legally possessing arms or is the Federation the only people with weapons?

There are examples where weapons are privatly owned. Some weapons are illegal in the Federation though (the really nasty ones).

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.

CAVALIER

Monday, September 25, 2006 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There have been Capitalist dictatorships, simple as that. Capitalism aims to allow business to do as it pleases, deregulation and so forth this ends in corporatism. England became a better place to live by introducing, not removing, socialist elements to the society, which was my point.

Strictly speaking, a free market allows businesses (and other private entities e.g. people) to do as they please. Deregulation and so forth, as you said.

Corporatism allows businesses (and other collective entities e.g. unions, lobby groups) control over those regulations that are issued. Naturally, they then try to rig the market in their own favour. Deregulation and the creation of a free market therefore tends to require keeping businesses, unions, lobby groups etc as far from the leavers of power as possible. As I understand matters, the City of London, and the firms within it, fought tooth and claw against financial deregulation. Same thing with airlines, telecoms monopolies etc.

If a free market is the hallmark of Capitalism, then a Capitalist state can be democratic, oligarchic, autocratic, or possibly aristocratic. The one thing it is certain not to be is corporatist.

Colonial Hong Kong was a capitalist dictatorship, but the dictator (the Governor) was selected by the British Foreign Office, not Hong Kong capitalists. (I’m sure said capitalists tried to change this, but ultimate power remained in Whitehall.)

Interesting that the most irreconcilable foes of Capitalism are Capitalists. Even more interesting that they claim otherwise.

Quote:

Which leads back to my question, can we excuse something just because it happens in a time of war?

Yes. We do not have to, but we can. During the Battle of Normandy, the Allies probably killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of German teenagers. I do not suppose they were, on average, any more deserving of death than the teenagers of any other country. They surely bore less responsibility for Nazism etc then their parents back in Germany – teenagers in 1944 can not have voted in 1933. This act can be excused only because it was thought likely to help win the war.

Notice that I have not said anything about Alliance behaviour during the war. I suspect that they behaved better than the Independents, simply because they were probably better disciplined.

Quote:

It is well known that the CIA secretly drugged American civilians during peace time.

It is well known that my local hospital has drugged civilians during peace time. Smart remarks aside, IIRC
the CIA was accused of experimenting with sodium pentothal etc for interrogating spies, terrorists etc.

The Alliance, on the other hand, appears to be trying to secretly drug its population into acting as its rulers wish. Welcome to the Brave New World of the Alliance: You have no choice but to enjoy it.

I am sure they have good intentions. I am sure Marx had good intentions, too.

Quote:

Not at all. They [Starfleet] have weapons for defence during scientific missions, Science vessels today occasionally carry arms, and at the very least have a military escort if going into dangerous territory. If there's no Military who does the escorting?

Having guns does not make you the military. In the US and many other places the Police and Civilians carry guns.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Much of the War of 1812 was fought by US and Canadian militia. I imagine many people would have been surprised to learn that the army invading their territory was not a military organisation…

I do not think it matters whether you call Starfleet a Navy, Self Defence Force, Earthforce, Milita or military wing of a scientific research institute. It still controls most of the mobile firepower of the Federation. It is still responsible for the defence of the Federation. There was still at least one episode where

CITIZEN

Monday, September 25, 2006 11:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
If a free market is the hallmark of Capitalism, then a Capitalist state can be democratic, oligarchic, autocratic, or possibly aristocratic. The one thing it is certain not to be is corporatist.

So now we're back on definitions

. Capitalism ends up as corporatism in the real world when left to it's own devices, which is why I said it doesn't work. Like I said Communism doesn't work because it ends up as Totalitarianism. You say that therefore the definition of Communism is Totalitarianism, I say it doesn't work so it ends up as Totalitarianism, the same as I say Capitalism doesn't work so it ends up as Corporatism, but I don't define Capitalism as Corporatism.

Quote:
During the Battle of Normandy, the Allies probably killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of German teenagers. I do not suppose they were, on average, any more deserving of death than the teenagers of any other country.

The German teenagers I assume you are talking about were the Hitler youth, soldiers. I would seriously rethink the argument that puts equivalence between killing soldiers and civilians in war time.

This can be excused because there is a very big difference between killing soldiers on a battlefield, even if they are teenagers, and non-combatants, and I sincerely hope that really you know the difference.

Quote:
Notice that I have not said anything about Alliance behaviour during the war. I suspect that they behaved better than the Independents, simply because they were probably better disciplined.

Both the Independents and the Alliance were standing armies, though the alliance was a single standing army and the Independents were a group of standing armies and possibly militias under a single allied command.

Quote:
It is well known that my local hospital has drugged civilians during peace time.

If your local hospital tests drugs such as LCD and other mind altering substances (which yes includes sodium pentathol(Sodium thiopental)) on civilians without permission I'd say you have some serious problems...

The British RAF gassed the Kurds during peace time, I'm sure I could dig up equally bad things done by all the worlds major players during peace time if I wanted.

Quote:
I do not think it matters whether you call Starfleet a Navy, Self Defence Force, Earthforce, Milita or military wing of a scientific research institute. It still controls most of the mobile firepower of the Federation.

There is a very big and very real difference between a standing military and a militia. If Starfleet acts as nothing more than a militia in a time of war then the militarism of the Federation is totally wrong.

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, September 25, 2006 11:34 PM

Work takes me away, but I’m back...for a while.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
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.

Or suspend the laws of physics. I imagine that in the real world both are equally improbable. While the fictional Star Trek universe has granted itself latitude with the laws of thermodynamics in order to create its workable Marxist society, they can only do so to the extent that viewers are willing to accept. I doubt that viewers will accept a society in which two masses can occupy the same space, but I could be wrong, perhaps in ST:TNNG they’ll create a society in which not even space is scarce. We’ll all be a lovely society of Bose-Einstein Condensates.

On the subject of whether Starfleet is a military. The idea that Starfleet can be an organization that acts in the principal defense of the ruling political body using military weaponry, uniformed personnel and a chain of command, but somehow is not a “military,” smacks of what Orwell called doublethink, in which two contradictory definitions are simultaneous applied. Orwell believed that such a thing was a property of propaganda employed by totalitarian regimes to pacify a population by confusing the true intent behind a ruling faction’s agenda. It doesn’t matter whether you call Starfleet a military or not, it is what it is: an organization that acts in the defense of the ruling political body using military weaponry, uniformed personnel and a chain of command is a military. So what if it is a scientific organization? Both the US and the British militaries are largely scientific in nature. Modern militaries have not been composed entirely of combat ready troops since the 19th century or early 20th century. The vast majority of the personnel in the US military are support units and defense scientists, not combat ready units.

But this argument is self-defeating because if Starfleet, an organization that acts in the principal defense of the ruling political body using military weaponry, uniformed personnel and a chain of command, is indeed not intended to be a military by the writers, then that alone essentially proves the militarist interpretation of TNG, because essentially what the authors are saying (if this is their intent) is that there is no difference between a military and a non-military organization.

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

CITIZEN

Monday, September 25, 2006 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But this argument is self-defeating because if Starfleet, an organization that acts in the principal defense of the ruling political body using military weaponry, uniformed personnel and a chain of command, is indeed not intended to be a military by the writers, then that alone essentially proves the militarist interpretation of TNG, because essentially what the authors are saying (if this is their intent) is that there is no difference between a military and a non-military organization.

Businesses and civilian ocean going craft have hierarchical command structures, a chain of command. Therefore Microsoft must be a military organization? I'd always suspected...

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.

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE