The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek

POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Sunday, June 7, 2026 16:12
VIEWED: 22000
PAGE 8 of 14

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
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...

And when was the last time Microsoft sent those ocean going crafts into battle with military weaponry?

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

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:06 AM

They don't need to, America has a standing military. When was the last time that a peasant acting in a militia was counted as a military?

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

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
They don't need to,

They don’t.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
When was the last time that a peasant acting in a militia was counted as a military?

Cavalier already gave an example of that. The War of 1812. I don’t know if that was the “last time.” I’m pretty sure there are probably more recent times, but it certainly is a time.

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

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:22 AM

Quote:
They don’t.

Sweden doesn't have a military because they've not been to war in ages.

Finn:
A militia is an organization that is only a military when fighting. A peasant who works the land for their livelihood but fights in a war is a militiaman.

Starfleet is a science organization that explores as it's 'livelihood' and fights in wars if they come around.

By your definition explorers throughout the ages, who carried weapons for self defence were a standing military.

I have some swords here, so I must be a military as well.

Joe Bloggs who owns a magnum and is prepared to shoot a burglar is also a military then too, huh.

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.

CYBERSNARK

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
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?

Technically, Starfleet is identified as the "science and military arm of the Federation," which is how they can get away with having ships like the Defiant, whose express purpose is to kick prodigious amounts of ass. This tends to confuse a lot of people (in-universe, I mean), who mistake Starfleet's pacifist stance for being "soft" or "weak" (Klingons, I'm looking at you).

It's just that it tries to be more about science and diplomacy than combat. It does both jobs, but when open hostilities are in progress, the military side of it takes over. Then, as soon as the shooting stops, the reconstruction and peacekeepers are right there on site to help you pick up your teeth and politely advise against Doing That again. Convenient.

The novels demonstrate that Starfleet does have specific branches, including the Starfleet Marines (a division of Starfleet Security, specializing in surface operations --basically the spiritual descendents of the MACOs from Enterprise), the Merchant Marines (heard of but never seen), and the extremely awesome Corps of Engineers (the entire SCE is currently overseen by Captain Montgomery Scott). Though we also see that the SCE usually has to be ferried around by line ships --the DaVinci is one of only a handful of ships that's actually "owned" by the SCE.

I've posted in another thread about the exceedingly rare "warrior-scientist" archetype. Starfleet is where most of them hang out, which is likely why I love it so, even with their bias.

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

Well, the Maquis ships were civilian and armed, but we don't know if those were factory-approved equipment or just "liberated" military hardware that was bolted on.

The only civillians we see in combat are non-Federation, but I would assume there's some sort of right to bear arms (again, we just don't see 'em 'cause the show is so Starfleet-centric). Civilian phasers/tricorders are probably a few generations behind Starfleet-issue (as it is in the real world).

Civilian craft have turned up occasionally, but they tend to avoid combat on screen. The novels have had a few armed civilian ships, though none of them can hold a candle to anything military, which is obviously why they avoid combat).

In Generations, Dr. Soran had a disruptor pistol that doesn't resemble any species-specific tech that we've seen (Soran had been with the Klingons for a while, but this didn't look like anything Klingons would make --it was all sleek black and chrome). Whether this means it was El-Aurian military surplus or civilian-made is never really relevant (though I can imagine the UFP outlawing disruptors, since they don't have stun settings).

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
A militia is an organization that is only a military when fighting.

Microsoft isn’t fighting. Nor do they have any intent to fight anyone. Just because you can identify a chain of command on Microsoft sea going vessels doesn’t make them a military. If you want to believe that Starfleet isn’t a military then who am I to stop you, believe whatever you want, but you’re mincing definitions to get what you want. I’m really not interested in splitting hairs over whether Microsoft represents a military because in some hypothetical since they might arm themselves and go to war someday.

The rest of us, I think, are interested in some sort of substantive argument. What does a military look like? What are the things that define a military? Starfleet looks like a military, and in fact, has been called a military on the show, I believe. Fleet is a military term. Starfleet is run by “officers” who “enlist” and attend an “academy.” Starfleet ships are armed with some pretty heavy weaponry. Starfleet personnel follow a chain of command. Starfleet acts as the principal military defense in times of war. And Starfleet doesn’t disband when the fighting is over. So if you want to call it a militia, then I guess they are militia that never disbands.

Which would seem to be self-defeating, because if Starfleet is a civilian outfit, then it is an extremely ubiquitous one that is armed to the teeth with personnel that follow military protocol and a chain of command and who go to war when the Federation is threatened. If this is what “civilian” life looks like in the TNG universe, then I think we can quite well conclude that the Federation is militaristic.

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

VETERAN

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
...And going from this world where the US is 240,000,000 people in a population of 6,300,000,000 to the future worlds of Star Trek and Firefly where 85%+ of all the people we meet are American...

Well certainly not in the original Trek. Spock is half alien, Uhura is from Africa, Montgomery Scott is a Scot, Chekov is Russian. I'm not sure what Sulu's nationality was - Point is, aside from Kirk and McCoy the regular characters were mostly not American.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
I'm not sure what Sulu's nationality was . . .

I think there has actually been some debate over that. Originally, I think he was supposed to be Japanese, but at some time later, it was discovered that the name Sulu actually can’t be pronounced in Japanese. Or so I understand. I really don’t know for sure. What I do know is that Sulu is generally thought to be American now. So Sulu must be added to the list of Americans, along with Kirk and McCoy (although I suspect only by accident.)

However, I think your point is a good one, and the original cast of Star Trek was intentionally supposed to be largely international to reflect the notion of a unified and largely peaceful earth.

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

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Just because you can identify a chain of command on Microsoft sea going vessels doesn’t make them a military.

Yes that was my point, thank you for (finally) getting it.

Quote:
The rest of us, I think, are interested in some sort of substantive argument.

As long as you exclude yourself, you seem interested in belittling anyone who doesn't agree with you and calling them a fascist, so don't climb up on your high horse and wag your finger at me.

Finally some form of a substantive argument from Finn:

Quote:
What does a military look like? What are the things that define a military? Starfleet looks like a military, and in fact, has been called a military on the show, I believe.

Starfleet, to my knowledge was only referred to as a military in the TOS films, so we can discount that since when it suited your argument you said we should. Unless what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Quote:
Fleet is a military term.

Fleet is not just a military term, a company car is part of the company FLEET. Britain has a fishing FLEET.

Quote:
Starfleet is run by “officers” who “enlist” and attend an “academy.”

Police officers are military? People enlisted into the police who go to police academy are really joining the military?

Quote:
Starfleet personnel follow a chain of command.

We've already agreed that, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's military.

Quote:
Starfleet acts as the principal military defense in times of war.

So were militias of old.

Quote:
And Starfleet doesn’t disband when the fighting is over.

Neither does the TA.

What's Britain's Territorial Army? The TA's members all have main jobs outside of the TA that they spend most of their time doing. They only give their free time to the TA most of the time, and are only employed in a military role in times of crises. They're more like an organised militia than a standing military and Starfleet is more like the TA than the Army.

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

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
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.

Corporate entities will naturally try to gain influence over those elements of the government that try to control them. They will succeed to a varying extent, which will depend, in part, on how hard they try. The more closely the government tries to control them, the more incentive there is to try, and the more effort they will put into Regulatory Capture.

In consequence, the more detailed the control over corporations the government seeks, the more likely it is to ‘merge’ with them and create a corporate or – in the original sense – fascist state.

This is why fascist and socialist states were more commonly found in Latin America than in North America, Southern and Eastern Europe than Northern and Western Europe.

If being more capitalist made a state more likely to become fascist, then America, Britain and Canada would have ended up fascist, not Germany, Italy and Argentina.

More generally, it does not make much sense to control people closely in order to make them more free.

Socialists typically stated that their aim was to make people Equal (equality of outcome, not equality before the law). Classical fascists typically stated that their aim was to make people Brothers (of course the current usage of the word is just a generic insult to whichever country you dislike). The Alliance in Firefly apparently wants to make people free of sin –to remake them as morally perfect beings. I gather Robespierre wanted pretty much the same thing. These are all enormously –ludicrously – ambitious goals.

To even attempt to achieve them requires an enormous concentration of power. This led Communists to the creation of the Gulag, fascists to race war, Robespierre to create the Terror and the Alliance to an attempt to drug entire planets into the state of mind its rulers desired.

And none of them achieved their stated aim.

The Federation, when examined closely, appears variously communist, fascist or unbelievable, because Star Treks writers chose to believe that a “world without sin” really could be created by no more than a few platitudes spoken by Captain Picard at weekly intervals.

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE