test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Federation Tax Collectors
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
http://article.nationalreview.com/328603/mamas-dont-let-your-babies-grow-up-to-be-federation-tax-collectors/ilya-somin
The author's humorously ignorant understanding of Marxism and Socialism aside, I find this article to be quite intriguing. No, not in its content but more in the manner in which a conservative mind processes the components of the Star Trek Universe. Things that are harmful and understandable origins - the predominance of Humans in Starfleet being the byproduct of budget limitations - are turned into the basis of interstellar explotiation and oppressive dictatorial regimes. When Star Trek is viewed as entertainment, it is understandable that the Right Wing would have no problem with it. But on a more intellectual level, it seems odd that there hasn't been a knee-jerk, Cold War-era, response to Star Trek's themes. My questions to the community are as follows:
Right Wingers, how do you reconcile your affection for the series and the abundance of concepts which are inherently contradictory to your belief system?
Everyone else, what do you think of the author's conclusions about the Star Trek universe? Is its formulation "unforunate" as the author suggests? Does it indoctrinate? When you play Federation, are you infact taking part in a sterilzed, Left-Wing, "Evil Empire"?
The author's humorously ignorant understanding of Marxism and Socialism aside, I find this article to be quite intriguing. No, not in its content but more in the manner in which a conservative mind processes the components of the Star Trek Universe. Things that are harmful and understandable origins - the predominance of Humans in Starfleet being the byproduct of budget limitations - are turned into the basis of interstellar explotiation and oppressive dictatorial regimes. When Star Trek is viewed as entertainment, it is understandable that the Right Wing would have no problem with it. But on a more intellectual level, it seems odd that there hasn't been a knee-jerk, Cold War-era, response to Star Trek's themes. My questions to the community are as follows:
Right Wingers, how do you reconcile your affection for the series and the abundance of concepts which are inherently contradictory to your belief system?
Everyone else, what do you think of the author's conclusions about the Star Trek universe? Is its formulation "unforunate" as the author suggests? Does it indoctrinate? When you play Federation, are you infact taking part in a sterilzed, Left-Wing, "Evil Empire"?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It is an interesting, but deeply flawed article in a few ways (Including some you mention above, such as the predominance of humans being due to budget limits, etc...). The major flaw is that the article does not consider the impact of the elimination of scarcity. The federation has replicators, highly efficient energy generation, and most likely effectively unlimited space via inexpensive space travel. You have now eliminated almost all the problems a government might have to deal with. Add in Holodecks and the vast majority of Federation citizens live in a Utopian existence. They want for nothing. The adventuresome (and troublesome) component of the population have a combination of Federation service (Starfleet probably being only one example), emigration (settling of new planets), and Holoplay as outlets. The reason why Trek glosses over the potential problems with a 'socialist federalist' society is that most of the problems are ameliorated by the elimination of scarcity.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Cryptic Studios Forum Usage Guidelines ~Dionaea
Dude, calm down. This definitely is NOT the venue for political vehemence.
"But... but... how am I supposed to make money by exploiting the weak and stupid?"
They'd feel right at home on Ferengi Nar (except Ann Coulter, but TRIBBLE that *****).
Nonsense aside, I think you raise an excellent point Daniel. It is curious that for all the examination the author did, he ignored such an obvious element of the Star Trek universe. I also find his discussion of Individual Freedom to be curious. Freedom to what? We know there are Federation businesses. We know Federation citizens are free to speak their mind. I can't seem to find a single freedom we possess today that a Federation citizen would not possess.
While that is is true, that does not change its political relevancy or its popularity. Roddenberry had clear beliefs that were expressed in his work. What they mean and how the are interpreted by audiences is still quite interesting.
I believe it would be wrong to misconstrue the response to Star Trek in purely partisan terms. I know many Republicans who believe what they do because they believe it is necessary, not necessarily because it is right. I suspect many of them would adapt quite easily to life in the Federation.
Still, you bring up an interesting point - one that I've thought about myself quite a bit. The Ferengi, and their individualistic, free market capitalism culture should be quite appealing to Right Wingers. As Quark pointed out, the Ferengi do not have wars and their society is fairly stable. Still, I can't seem to find any Right Winger to defend them; muchless admire them.
Exactly why it shouldn't have been brought here. The OP effectively peed in my Wheaties. Why would anyone bring a link to that insulting, biased piece of political fodder, that was written by someone who obviously has seen a total of one episode, and by seen I mean had it on in the next room by accident while he jacked it to pictures of sarah palin. To these forums, why. To pee in my wheaties, that why. He wants my opinion, hes got it.
And this block of text hits the nail on the head. The key to United Federation of Planets style socialism is the elimination of scarcity. Replicators, cheap and reliable interplanetary travel, terraforming, advanced biological sciences, and energy resources to utilize the aforementioned technologies have made the concept of limited resources obsolete except in the most bizarre of situations.
Economic debate between socialism and capitalism arises because of one reason: resources are limited. Current society is built around that concept. If that concept is changed and resources are made near infinite, then the economic regulations, tax codes, currency systems, and squabbles over resources become meaningless. Poverty is eliminated, everyone's needs are fulfilled, and the so called class struggle becomes a thing of the past.
What is valued now, as Picard once stated in First Contact I believe, is cultural achievements (like art and science) and duty that are driving forces behind the Federation society, rather then monetary wealth and material gain.
I have always seen the Federation as more a defensive confederation then a unified state. There is a common military, law and judicial system, bill of rights, and diplomatic process along that each planet follows their own affairs. The preponderance of humans in Starfleet I think is based on several factors:
1. Budget of the show's creators
2. So many Federation facilities are on Earth, most people are already experienced with the Federation.
3. Characters the viewers can more easily relate to
4. Population perhaps? I have not seen any census data for individual Federation planets, but Vulcan in the latest Star Trek movie, according to Spock, had a population of about 6 billion. Earth has more humans on it now then Vulcan did 250 years in the future. How many humans will there be in 250 years? So if there are more humans then say, Vulcans, of course there would be more humans in Starfleet then there would be Vulcans.
5. Other races may have different concepts of service. For example, Vulcans seem to be more likely to want to join the Vulcan Science Academy then Starfleet.
The article itself is a stupid, inflammatory piece of political drivel written by someone who has little knowledge of Star Trek.
AAAAND: There are mostly humans in starfleet because humans founded starfleet. Other member planets have their own defense (like the vulcans) or they can opt to have starfleet do it for them.
In honesty there is not a single story throughout the Age of Man that can be completely unbiased in every single possible way. Yes people write stories or produce entertainment and due to their own thoughts and imagination create something. You cannot create something with a completely blank mind of any political, religious or ecological views. Granted Star Trek touched base on aa Utopian Society set forth in the future. That was Gene Roddenberry's vision of a sci fi future. Where greed was non existant where everyone lived in peace and harmony. Supplies and resources where endless due to technology. Where the entire existance of the Human Race was transformed into a Galaxy exploring Utopian society. With the possibility of life on other planets and anomalies never before seen or only in speculation were produced in order to fill the Void of a lifeless Universe.
The thing is that well ultimately in the end, through our civilization our hopeful outcome to our planet is to eventually evolve into a Utopian society. Where we can all live on one planet in peace and enjoy life and instead of working just to get by in a Monetary controlled world be instead working to evolve our species and improve our quality of life and understanding of everything known and unknown.
There is no hidden Republican vs Democratic agenda in Star Trek. If anything this is a completely different view in its entirety. Yes a Federation of Planets were formed only due to the fact that there are hostile alien species in the Universe that only purpose is that to conquer. Just as our purpose in todays world is. Their civilization evolved into a different way... instead of keeping the fight on their planet they took it to space to try and become the supreme victor. In which case with todays Government and policies if we had the same technologies as Star Trek we would be the same type as that of Cardassian, Romulan, Klingon, Dominion, or even Borg.
When it boils down to it what kind of entertainment would it be if there were no high tech space battles between differing points of view in a futuristic environment. Wouldn't have had that much success or even content to last as long as this franchise has lasted if there wasn't a single adversary in the story line. So if you really wish to talk politics and try to squeeze out some minute amount of reason out of each and every sentence of this Franchise's story line perhaps you should go elsewhere and start looking into a more realistic and modern day story rather than a Science Fiction story.
Except that it's your own fault for reading it. Therefore you effectively peed in your own Wheaties or presented them to be peed upon.
Now this a man who really likes pee in his Wheaties.
Wow, yeah, that' guy's kinda dumb.
Are we being indoctrinated? I certainly hope so. The more people who actually believe we can someday live in the kind of society that the Federation represents the more likely it is to come to pass. IS it a welfare state? No, welfare implies the state supports you and you don't contribute anything. The majority of the people we've seen in the Federation, both in starfleet and out of it, have contributed to society. They have been scientsts, politicians, beuracrats (and not always in the bad way), diplomats, chefs, journalists, etc. When was the last time you saw an unemployed Federation citizen? On top of that the Federation realizes that artists, poets, writters and their ilk are actually contributing to society.
If anything the Federation's greatest achievement is that people can do what they want, and no one looks down on them for it, and nothing holds them back except themselves. You want to be an architect? If you can learn the material you can be an architect. You don't have to worry about being able to afford architecture school. Want to be an artist? As long as you have some talent you can, and no one will look down on you for it.
What makes the Federation "work" is that after a bunch of stupid wars and just general jackholery, humanity collectively came to its senses and started living like they were actually are the same species. People largely worked for the good of the whole, not necessarily the good of the individual -- although the subtext is that given unlimited resources and the ability to fulfill one's individual destiny, each individual will WANT to work for the good of the whole. If we as humans had that collective attitude, communism -- the idealist "on paper" communism, not the barely-disguised fascist dictatorship that is "capital C" Communism -- would actually be a swell form of government.
Roddenberry and Co.'s point, I think, is that we can do that... but we're not ready for it.
EDIT: Also, there's this:
"Star Treks failure is unfortunate. Along with the Star Wars, it is our most vivid and best known popular culture vision of the future."
If the guy would bother to pay attention to the words "...a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" he'd know that Star Wars isn't a vision of our future. Jackhole.
That said, I find that the majority of the time, people aren't talking about being conservative or right wing. They're talking about the United States version which I find abhorrently stupid. Being a big ol' fan of government centralisation and effective authority does not mean I give the slightest damn about religious values or that I don't rather like universal healthcare and social support. It means I feel that civilisation itself is a wonderous thing that allows us all to live in exceptional comfort and happiness over the alternative to civilisation, which is scratching out a subsistence life of hunting and gathering before dying of dysentry at 30, and anyone who fails to walk the not unreasonable line between having freedom and the social responsibility inherent in exercising those rights, doesn't deserve them.
Ultimately, Star Trek presents a more hopeful and optimistic viewpoint, and I don't feel like I have to make any concessions on my part to accept it for what it is. Basically any story, right or left, will cheerfully wave the wand of authorial fiat to ensure its own preferred result whether it's for actual plot or to actually make a political 'point', and for every ludicrously naive story of utopian humans, I can find a masturbatory story of militaristic right wing carnage. Often with the two overlapping with the undesirable side being destroyed by their own naive foolishness/aggressive warmongering.
The reality will always end up the same, a mushed up shade of gray.
Let's look at it this way. Mankind fears what it doesn't understand, and mankind typically reacts to what it fears with anger, fury and confusion. A person like the writer of that article simply cannot fathom a world like Star Trek. They can't possibly believe that a world where people are free to express their creativity, develop their natural abilities, and put those abilities to work for the betterment of sentient beings, including those different from themselves, could possibly exist.
Or maybe they're terrified because they don't see a place for themselves in such a world. In a Utopian society, who has need for those holding the reigns of power, pulling the strings of the plebians and making the world dance to their tune for fun and profit? In a world like Star Trek, they've lost the one thing they value more than their own lives: power. It's been replaced by the one thing they fear the most: change.
Chaos and change can be destructive forces, true, but they can also be used to mold a better society. Keep the parts that work, toss out the rest, and reshape the world to suit the needs of an ever-growing society. There's no place in such a world for those who would exploit the weak for gain. So naturally, they fear it, reject it and attack it.
...I really need to stop drinking so much caffeine at work. I'm actually starting to make sense!
(in a really bad "Sling Blade" voice) "I like the way you talk."
Uh....no, you're not. The Federation is still a recogniseable government, you can kind of spot by the name. It's a federation. In fact, out of all the governments on Earth....it's most like the United States, except the members have a legal right to leave.
While the Federation has a lot of freedoms and you have a lot more thanks to replication technology and efficient energy generation, it's still not minimally governed to the point that there's no such thing as power there. *LOL* In fact, a lot of the more ruthless aliens they've worked with are more than happy to complain about the amount of rules and regulations the Federation imposes!
The Federation is still very much ordered and controlled, which is why there are those aliens who don't like their perception it's a human controlled government.
Very good point, and I guess that post kinda got away from me a bit in the end... But the power being used in the Federation is being applied for the greater good, despite what the ruthless aliens may think. If anything, the more ruthless species could be compared to the typical modern-day politician: only wanting power to enhance the standing of themselves and those few they care for, while the rest of the world rots.
The Federation is made up of 150 planets all contributing to one overall entity for mutual benefit
I imagine that its setup is similar to the European Union we currently have. (Interestingly, Federal in European terms means Government that is not centralized)All planets agree to a charter where they guarantee rights to all citizens including civil rights, trade rights, protection, freedom of movement, freedom of expression and probably more. As all planets and species have their own culture they are free to govern themselves as they please as long as they adhere to the Federation Charter.
Earth is the capital of the Federation and Starfleet is the main military force. This role was adopted by the humans as they were the newest (and some may say most naive of the space faring speicies) and were also pretty neutral. As talented negotiators and warriors they were able to gain the respect of all species and as they were heavily involved in bringing the Federation into existence it makes perfect sense that they are at it's heart. At no point though is it explained where the Federation's administration takes place. This can be done at local or at a central level or a mix of both.
As with the European System, member states contribute resources into a collective pool and they are used to further common goals. The EU is currently trying to organise a single currency, single foreign policy, single economic policy and a unified military force. The Federation probably has similar system allowing member worlds to contribute what they can without paralysing themselves.
Other roles are filled by other species. The Vulcan Science Academy seems to be the focal point of alot of Federation research. Star Trek: Birth of The Federation had different species performing different research. Andorians focusing on weapons, humans on computing, etc. I am unaware if this is canon or not but it seems that member planets have put aside one-upmanship (sp?) and are focusing on a common purpose.
As someone has already said The Federation is highly advanced. Capable of replicating or obtaining any resource it requires. Populations no longer want for anything and welfare isnt an issue as energy, food, water, housing are infinite. This allows people to focus on bettering themselves and the rest of humanity(pretty sure thats a Picard quote).
With regards to membership in Starfleet, it does seem to show humans are massively involved. But this is in only what we have seen, Star Trek Online has shown that alot of Admirals are alien. T'Nae is Vulcan and Quinn is Trill (either that or he has really bad liver spots). Maybe not all species are interested in flying around in space? Human's have always yearned to learn and explore. Maybe some prefer learning from the comfort of their own home. Maybe there are all Vulcan ships? All Andorian? This has been mentioned before.
Anyway I am rambling...Im not in anyway educated on this topic....just my observation. And I dont lean left or right! Any other input would be greatly appreciated as I'd like to see other interpretations of the Federation.
Ah, but you see, saying something is 'for the greater good' is entirely subjective, and a slippery slope. I may consider a police state to be for the greater good. Do you? When you saw Insurrection, did you think it was ok to hurl a species off their own planet because the greater state of the Federation wanted to plunder the unique resources there?
And while you point out the lack of merit in enhancing personal standing of the self and those you care about....that's the Federation writ large. That is what those ruthless aliens you're quick to denegrate are seeing. You say the greater good.....but you mean the Federation good.
The simplest, purest and most logical definition of evil is 'that which causes the greatest amount of harm to the greatest amount of innocent people'. Good may be subjective, but harm most certainly is not. Murder, theft, oppression, the lack of personal freedoms- all these things are harmful, wouldn't you agree?
Taking your Insurrection example, no, I wouldn't consider that alright. I would also consider it slightly out-of-character for the Federation. But how often do examples like that truly come up? How often do you see senseless murder, theft and oppression being performed by the Federation?
There's a difference between defending yourself and your ideals and imposing them. The Federation seems to lean more on the 'defending' side, at least the majority of the time. As for the ruthless aliens fighting against the 'Federation' good? Can you honestly say the majority of Federation citizens- and the galaxy- would be better off under Klingon rule? How about the Romulans? The Ferengi?
I think the difference is how the Federation applies their version of the greater good. Insurrection was the exception rather than the rule, and was sufficiently against Federation ideals that one of the most respected ships in the fleet essentially went AWOL to stop it. Most of the time, everyone works towards the greater good of the Federation, and will offer to share some of their bounty with non-federation members in times of need, but if someone doesn't want to join the Federation and isn't aggressive towards the Federation, they're quite happy to leave those people alone.
A perfect example is Bajor. During the Dominion war, having Bajor on side as a Federation world would have been a major boon towards defending the Wormhole. But Bajor said they didn't want to join the Federation. So starfleet just accepted their descision and carried on with what they had. (DS9 had, I believe, been given to the Federation by the Bajorans earlier, so it was already a Federation facility, and the bajoran descision didn't affect it)
Typical "progressive" liberal response; insult the person when you cannot produce a logical argument to the idea. (Keep in mind, I am in no way a Neo-Con either. Both ends of the spectrum are busted.)
Because its about Star Trek.
Fair enough, but I didn't post the article to determine whether or not anyone agreed with the author. Rather I wanted to see the unique ways in which people think of Star Trek.
I would disagree with this sentiment, though I think its conclusions are reasonable. Theoretically the removal of scarcity would produce the result you suggest, but there is more to the equation that just the scarcity of resources. Consider the fact that the sum of total of global agricultural output is - today - sufficient to feed every man, woman, and child on the planet Earth. Though we have the capacity and resources to feed everyone, millions still die of starvation every year. Much of the socialist critique of our system is rooted precisely it Capitalism's capacity to hoard resources that abundant. If tomorrow we invented replicators, then the next day they would be patented and used by a handful of corporations for their own aims. Nothing about the invention of replicator technology necessitates the free and universal public use of it. Authors, film makers, and artists have been using symbolism and fantasy to comment on things in an indirect manner since time immemorial. Hell, The Undiscovered Country was about the Soviet Union and its collapse. While its true that some of the reviews of Avatar have been hokey, I don't think its fair to write off the possibility that Avatar has some meaning to it - which is why it is shaking things up so significantly. If we deny the existence of greater meanings in some works of art the ultimately we are denying ourselves a richer and more impressive view of the art we take in.
I want to touch base on this real quick. The word "utopia" seems to come into play alot here. Are the ideals and ways of the Federation REALLY your definition of "perfection"? I only ask because it seems as though that today, any change to our system seems to be described as "Utopian" in its aims.
So far this is the only aspect of Star Trek that seems Socialist to me. Socialism is about the removal of all classes with the exception of the working class. This means building a world where everyone works and the work itself is is self rewarding. Its about emphasizing the contribution we bring to the world rather than emphasizing the generation of goods. The formal organization of the Federation seems very unsocialist in my eyes, but this aspect seems spot on.
For around 99% of the existence of the human species (read: the Paleolithic era) humanity existed in purely democratic, egalitarian cultures where modern conceptions of individualism and ownership were entirely alien. Considering this, the "realities" of the human condition as we see it - war, greed, class division - are a new and bizarre twist in the story of Humanity. I am not sure we are "not ready for it". Surely there is a demand for a world like Star Trek, the question we should ask ourselves are: what are the obstacles to that world and what is holding us back to this one? I think an honest answer to those questions will take us much further than we imagined to be possible.
The division between the Left and the Right is determined by one's belief in Collectivism v. Individualism. The division between Authoritarianism and Libertarianism is determined by one's belief in relative truth/morality v. universal truth/morality. While its true that you may not care about religion or social welfare, this doesn't mean that the fundamental aspects of the flack conservatives receive isn't applicable to you. You have a particular view of what constitutes Civilization, as do your American counterparts. Both of you believe in an allegiance to that civilization and therefore elements which question that allegiance are necessarily your mutual problem to some extent.
I do believe this is key. The fundamental assertion of the Star Trek world is that science, cooperation, and multiculturalism will bring us into a wonderful future. This are conceptions which many people spend their whole lives opposed to. While your point about power is a good one, I think a distinction needs to be made between the ruling class and people like the author. The author is just like you or mean, helpless to the forces that control and shape our world. While he no doubt has a fear of a phantom "Liberal Elite" the fact of the matter is that he considers the basics of our society to be good - Capitalism, Liberal Democracy, Constitutionalism. In a world where these things are not seen as THE reason we progress, what relevancy could a man who has built a life around espousing their superiority have? Conservatives very much fear change, but this man's fear is not rooted in a loss of power but rather orientation. His beliefs will be called into questions, he may have to admit that all along he really has been a roadblock to change. I think all of us might respond in a similar, denialist manner if we faced the same problem.
What is your basis for that conclusion?
But that is the essence of the previous posters point and the movie. If we relocate one group of people and give the blind a chance to see, the sick a chance to be healthy, the dying to live - is that not putting the "needs of the many before the desires of the few" Or conversely, what is the greater harm - denying millions of wartorn people to suffer and die or moving a small community"?
I can say that the show has an obvious point which has been used to construct two dimensional opponents to demonstrate the benevolence and moral superiority of the author's ideal world. How many positives of opposing factions are we shown? I can think of only one or two instances. The scenario is biased in favor of your perspective but I will point out that "we're better than everyone else" doesn't necessarily mean "we're good".
Would the distribution of this boon be a conservative or a socialistic act? Either, both, something to a greater or lesser degree?
Who would be the enemy of such a move? Would it matter what we called him?
I think of Star Trek as the place where people found the suit.
If everybody on the planet had essentially "F*** You Money" along with a sufficiently elevated consciousness as to the effect of their own actions, then it could change the world.
The sadness is that such a suit would probably have to come with an impenetrable shield as well.
Socialistic act.
Governments, bankers, businessmen.....
The weak part of these conclusions is that according the Star Trek time line it wasn't replicators -> world peace. It was world peace -> replicators. Humanity's unity comes with the warp drive, not with the universal availability of goods. The fact that few governments survived the events that preceded Cochraine's warp run and that the economic players that rule our world today were none existent suggests some of the things that need to change before we get anywhere. The Federation was built on the ashes....of everything we know today.