The Federation is not Marxist, communist, or socialist. These economic systems rely on a monetary framework where scarcity dictates value. In the Star Trek universe, scarcity has been eliminated on Earth. There is no energy crisis, no poverty, and no starvation. Transportation is instantaneous, and every individual’s basic needs are met. With no financial struggle, humanity is no longer constrained by the pursuit of wealth. The Federation is not built on enforced equality but on a shared enlightenment. With abundant resources, every person enjoys a high standard of living.
What? No. Marxism notes that scarcity wouldn’t be a thing with increasing industrialization. Indeed, it isn’t; we have plenty of resources to put a roof over everyone’s head and food in their belly. The base of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs can be completely covered, and the rest are not necessarily best fulfilled by mere material possessions. We could have the whole thing done in a year if society simply made the choice.
Now, I don’t think the Federation is Marxist, because we actually know very little about how the economy works at all. There’s contradictory information, it might depend on what time period or planet you’re talking about, and the writers have generally been uninterested in exploring the economy beyond superficial mentions.
When you are in post scarcity and everyone has everything they need and everyone works together ina government for mutual benefit that’s Marxist communism.
No it’s not. (I have to be honest with you. You clearly have no clue what Marxism or communism is and yet you make a declarative statement that holds no water at all; why?)
While the Star Trek universe presents a post-scarcity society where money is largely obsolete and resources are distributed based on need, it diverges significantly from Karl Marx’s vision of communism. Marxist communism is fundamentally rooted in class struggle, revolution, and the eventual withering away of the state. The Star Trek Federation, however, remains highly structured, hierarchical, and governed by an institutionalized bureaucracy, notably Starfleet.
Moreover, technological advancements such as replicators eliminate material scarcity, a condition Marx never accounted for in his theories. Instead of a classless, stateless society emerging from historical struggle, Star Trek depicts a future where economic necessity is bypassed through technology, and individuals contribute based on personal fulfillment rather than class-driven labor dynamics.
a future where economic necessity is bypassed through technology, and individuals contribute based on personal fulfillment rather than class-driven labor dynamics.
Yeah, however not all higher Maslows can be replicated, so obviously a fair bit of (popular or bureaucratic) meritocracy is incorporated into the redistribution and/or accesses to finite resources.
(But the main point is that if individuals have the option to pursue personal fulfilment that is a huge net plus for the society & everyone can get more out of their life & life within that society - imagine only having people in the food industry that fully enjoy the work or the huge selection of artists not pre-smothered by the daily grind for basic human needs.)
As you said, much data is missing, but I assume if I wanted a nicer office or an apparent with a better view I could get to it via contributing something of merit to society (eg a successful career, notable art contributions, maybe some hero stuff, etc).
How come the Picard real estates remained in the family though all those generations, I can’t fully explain. Tho there basically was a revolution (a world war, but same diff) that facilitated initial systematic changes (I assume a much decimated/irrelevant previously-elite class).
Marx never considered replicators much like he never considered sorcery as an option because he worked within the framework of the reality of his time. He was engaging in practical philosophy not fantasy which is why you see the focus on a class struggle as in his time.
The federation has no money and everyone has what they need according to their needs how isn’t that Marx’ ideal? If you could achieve socialism without revolution IRL he would have backed that but in reality you cannot hope for the privileged to give up their power.
I don’t think you should be declaring your assessments of people’s understanding if things given you are factually incorrect in this case and you are not in any way telepathic.
