In case you don’t know, they explicitly use the term socialist to describe the Federation economy in SNW. I was wondering if ppl liked or hated it? I like it personally since it’s not a dodge like “new world economy”

6 points

It’s not really socialist. Socialism is an economic model that involves taxing the rich and redistribution of wealth to the working class through welfare programs.

But in ST, there is no economy, no taxes, no rich people, no wealth, no working class. The only thing from that definition that they do have is welfare, but it’s a completely different form of it.

ST is a magical post-scarcity utopia. Any economist would tell you that economics is first and foremost the study of how to allocate scarce resources. In a post-scarcity society, the whole concept of economics breaks down. Replicators break everything we know about economics. Everyone can get everything they need and it costs them nothing but electricity (which they conveniently can generate for basically no cost).

permalink
report
reply
4 points

You’re all true until allocating scarce resources. These days economy is how to make scarce something that isn’t in order to profit from it. See copyrights and patents. In our society a replicator would be the property of a company and you would need to pay it to be allowed to use it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Yeah that’s the cynical and IMO more realistic take. I’m mostly just taking the world presented in the show at face value. It’s not realistic at all.

But even then, it wouldn’t be the replicators that are scarce, it would be the software. Because in theory if someone is charging you to use their replicator, you could just pay to print out the parts for your own replicator, and then replicate yourself ten more replicators. What would prevent this? Proprietary software.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Exactly. In some way the software is a lock that ensure the property of the machine stays to the company that built it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

I thought socialism was social ownership, not welfare programs that exist under capitalism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Social ownership of what? Resources? Means of production? Neither of those means anything when replicators are a thing.

There are a million different definitions of socialism depending on who you ask. I gave one above but I’m not claiming it’s the only one. However it is ultimately an economic model, and it doesn’t make sense to apply it in a world where economics is meaningless because the laws of thermodynamics have been broken.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Then explain what the Orion syndicate does for a living. Or how can ferengi pursue profit. Or how captains owned private transport ships and need to take things from one place to the other.

There’s always people who want more than they have, and know who’s going to provide them that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Resources and means of production are both things in the Federation. We see mining operations and manufacturing facilities well into the 24th century.

And with only one unfortunate exception that I can think of, matter replication is treated as a net energy loss - it isn’t free.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

You’re right.

There’s a bad habit of calling socialists the countries that should be called something like"capitalist but a bit to the left"

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Socialism isn’t a binary yes/no thing. It’s an economic ideology that can be realized in many different ways

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Also countries that probably started out socialist but took a sharp turn into authoritarianism and under-the-hood oligarchy… You know who you are.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Hi.

That’s called “socialdemocracy” and it’s been around for centuries. It’s actually older than the marxist concept of socialism, if you’re gonna get pedantic about it.

I get that Americans have completely sandblasted off any remaining meaning in the word “socialism”, first by having conservatives use it as an insult and then by having weird US lefties get all purity test about it, but most of the world has a pretty clear picture of socialdemocracy, it’s not that ambiguous. Most socialdemocrat parties across the planet are called some version of “Socialist Party”, “Labour Party” or “Worker’s Party”. It’s a thing.

So no, it’s not a bad habit. It’s just… what that’s called. It does get easy to mix up with the Marxist concept of socialism, which is likely why most marxist parties advocating for a socialist society are called “Communist Party” instead. The bad habit is to not challenge the fundamentally conservative, deliberate confusion between the two that any range of neoliberals and protofascists continue to use to pretend milquetoast socialdemocratic policy is some form of revolutionary action.

Man, US politics are so weird.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

What you described is just welfare, not socialism. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, meaning there would be no need to re-distribute wealth as it would be fairly distributed from the start.

What you’re thinking of is more along the lines of what Scandinavian countries have, which is just capitalism with social democracy and extensive welfare programs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

Socialism isn’t a binary thing. It is an ideology that can be worked toward with various different degrees and measures.

But also I clarified further down this thread that my intent is not to give a definition of socialism, but rather to say that no definition of socialism makes sense in the context of ST’s federation and the magical impossible technology they possess.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It bugs me that you’re being downvoted because you’re correct that modern descriptors don’t apply.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yeah I’m not out here saying socialism is bad. I consider myself quite left of center. But it’s like… they have literal magic. The words we use to describe different ways of allocating resources do not apply to them. They don’t have an economy. An economy is a system of logistics and trade for moving scarce things to the people who want those things. Everyone and their dog has a transporter and a replicator. Logistics and resource allocation are irrelevant. Why would anyone trade anything for anything else if they have infinite everything?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

they explicitly use the term socialist to describe the Federation economy in SNW.

I’m going to need a source and context for this, apparently it flew by me in between all the parallel timeline nonsense required to shoehorn James Kirk into the series. Also, the “Gorn, but Xenomorphs” retcon.

Generally speaking, I was fine with Socialism being a quiet part of Trek economics for 50+ years. I don’t do a lot of mental gymnastics aligning the minutiae of a fictional future with contemporary concepts. Science fiction is a reflection of our real world, sure, but I have as little use for connecting the dots between 21st and 23rd economical concepts as I have for schematics for the replicators on Enterprise. A lot can happen in 2-300 years, especially when Trek concepts are metaphors and narrative shortcuts for telling stories about a future that recontextualise our own times.

But I get what you mean, it was always Socialism, wasn’t it? Our real world has taken a weird polarised turn that makes Trek’s space utopia seem more far fetched than it has for a long time. Even if “the culture wars” sounds like something the franchise might have introduced as a philosophically apt concept back in the '90s…

In that regard I too appreciate that the show’s producers put their company scrip where Trek’s mouth has been all those years. It seems that some very loud “culture warriors” never grokked that this was a deeply left (or at the very least humanist) leaning show. It’s a little late in the day to spell it out for them that, yes — “Trekonomics” are frigging Socialist, but apparently that’s the level of media illiteracy we’re dealing with here.

So good on SNW for letting its red flag fly. It will probably piss off some people who still can’t separate Socialism from whatever garbled idea of “Red scare” indoctrination has been passed down through generations. Whatever, they’re pissed off no matter what.

It is ironic to me that this “Socialist” discourse is coming from a franchise(!) so ensconced in capitalist production and economic structures that it is gauged for marketability and profit. That’s the big elephant in the room throughout all the “Trek so woke” outrage cycles: We’ll never get to a post-scarcity future resembling Star trek by sitting around watching Star trek.

permalink
report
reply
0 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
10 points

Got it. TBF, most of what comes out of Pella’s mouth I interpret as sarcastic quips. She’s the SNW version of Jett Reno, after all.

Not that she’s wrong, it’s just not exactly a franchise-wide decree of mission statement passed down from Alex Kurtzman or the Roddenberry estate…

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The same episode says private ownership of things like cars no longer exists in the future, so it’s clearly a description of the economy. I agree its almost a dismissal though, which is why I prefer The Orville’s treatment of the no money post scarcity economy more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It’s good because most of the American audience is too politically miseducated to recognize it otherwise.

permalink
report
reply
17 points

It was always socialist. That was blindingly obvious even from the days of TOS. Remember, Star wars universe everyone had just come out of the third world war, practically everything had been destroyed and there was virtually no infrastructure left, people were willing to take pretty much any kind of government going.

Then replicators were invented and once you’ve got that it’s pretty difficult to have anything other than a socialist government or a dictatorship.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

You know the irony of this interpretation? By canon, replicators are energy to matter conversion devices. Basically a 3D printer using relativity to poof atoms into existence from an energy source.

Replicators are straight-up the most expensive way to make anything. Using that technology to make you a cup of tea is the most inefficient use of any resource put on screen in media history. It’s absurd. The notion that instead of heating up water you would go ahead and make the atoms out of energy is so much worse than just filling in a space station’s worth of water and carrying it with you into space just to keep Picard’s Earl Grey habit going.

It’s not the replicator at all that drives the post-scarcity, it’s whatever nonsense antimatter generator stuff dilithium is enabling where they get infinite energy forever. Although we know dilithium is a limited resource, since they don’t seem to just replicate some when they need it, so… somebody should do the math there and figure out how expensive all those Janeway coffees actually are.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

My headcanon is that they have feedstocks and are just teleporting atoms around and gluing them together, maybe adding and electron here and there. If anything it’s the most consistent use of their transporters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

But we know that’s not how transporters work. If that was the case you wouldn’t be able to get “accidents” where you end up with two copies of the same guy. The transporter must work like the replicator, not the other way around.

Also, that doesn’t work with some of the stuff they say, like how they don’t replicate anything alive, and so food does taste noticeably different. Plus… you know, no massive farm deck anywhere on the Enterprise and no transwarp to beam that in from a planet, so… we’re going to have to accept this stuff may be just handwavy bulls#!t at some point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Maybe it’s a combination of both the sheer abundance of energy and the ability to create almost everything out of it…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Right but they get all that energy from atom to energy conversion. The starships get that from antimatter reactors but I’m pretty certain that planet-based installations probably just put a bunch of trees and gravel in as base material, convert that to energy and then convert that back into useful atoms.

If you can do matter conversion, then power generation is almost certainly trivially easy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah, I think in canon the curvy bit at the front of the ship (or the nacelles, sometimes) is just gathering dust to then burn into energy. It gets trickier with the transporter, because in theory the dust is going into a matter/antimatter thing, but if the transporter is fueling itself from the body it’s disintegrating… well, where’s the antimatter?

I think in their minds the transporter isn’t doing that, and is instead taking energy to both turn a person into a pattern and then build the pattern back into a person. Seems like a waste, but I guess the raw matter isn’t the real concern here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Star Wars?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It’s a trap!

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

I think so, the federation is often seen and portrayed as close as you can get to a utopia (Since it’s practically impossible to achieve a “true” utopia). They still have issues, make mistakes and wrong calls, and even some (albeit greatly reduced) crime.

So having more positive association/references for the term socialist, a term that most general people can have a connection with, cant hurt.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

And it just seems accurate, at least with definitions of socialism I’ve read and studied

permalink
report
parent
reply

Star Trek

!startrek@startrek.website

Create post

r/startrek: The Next Generation

Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic…

Maybe a little slash fic.


New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?


Rules

1 Be constructive

All posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.


2 Be welcoming

It is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.


3 Be truthful

All posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.


4 Be nice

If a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don’t say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.


5 Spoilers

Utilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episodes, as well as previews for upcoming episodes. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.


6 Keep on-topic

All submissions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/quarks.


7 Meta

Questions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.


Upcoming Episodes

Date Episode Title
11-21 LD 5x06 “Of Gods and Angles”
11-28 LD 5x07 “Fully Dilated”
12-05 LD 5x08 “Upper Decks”
12-12 LD 5x09 “Fissue Quest”
12-19 LD 5x10 “The New Next Generation”

Episode Discussion Archive


In Production

Strange New Worlds (2025)

Section 31 (2025-01-24)

Starfleet Academy (TBA)

In Development

Untitled comedy series


Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.


Allied Discord Server


Community stats

  • 965

    Monthly active users

  • 1.3K

    Posts

  • 12K

    Comments