That‘s kinda cool to think about. Something that‘s considered a human flaw being flipped upsidedown to be a strength under different circumstances. I like that.
@@dandaintac388 That may sound fun, definitely fun for those into role-playing and physical exercise. but, even in the Star Trek future, there are more than likely a ton of people who don't like to use the holodeck can't use it or don't want to use it all the time. these people might still want to watch a story. just like how TV/film didn't kill books in our time. we have seen characters read books (inculding paper ones) and movies are mentioned. heck we've seen them use the holodeck to recreate a cinema just to watch a movie! the holodeck seems to be yet another option to enjoy entertainment. some form of TV likely still exists (the news, weather report) it's just not the main form, most popular form of entertainment anymore.
I havent used my TV for years, but I still think by the time TV becomes entirely obsolete to the point where it wont be commonly sold in electronic stores is around 2040-ish.
They can actually star in their favorite movies on the Holodeck, I'm sure a lot of classic earth movies have been remastered as it were, to the 3d format
Is sitting in front of a computer or on your phone all day really different than watching TV? Video entertainment will exist in one form or another for a very long time.
There's a difference between consumerism and materialism. Materialism is the opposite of spiritualism. Consumerism would be the opposite of minimalism.
The same argument is made against the unconditional basic income: "everybody would just sit down and be lazy". But: while most (~80%) people think their neighbors would become lazy, only ~10% say they'd hit the sofa themselves. Nobody can be lazy forever - eventually you start to do SOMETHING - and maybe it is in the interest of more than your own, being fulfilling because you don't HAVE to do it, but you WANT That act may bring joy to you AND others - which can be considered THE point of life.
Imagine a bunch of friend making what today be Hollywood film and post it on social media and be satisfied with likes. A bunch of aggressive brawlers making their own MMA matches just for fun. People could travel anywhere on the planet or other planets.
I currently make more on unemployment than I do going to work, after gas is factored in. I hate being unemployed because my schedule goes out the window, but I can find plenty of stuff around my own place to keep me busy while I get paid on unemployment. I see no need to work for others when I can work for myself if I have money coming in. Aside from that, maybe only about 10% admit that they'd hit the couch, but considering how many people are currently living off of the governments dime, I'd say that number is in reality quite a bit bigger.
It’s literally why communism makes sense everyone has the instinct to be the best. The “drum major instinct” Martin Luther king described it and there’s a reason a lot of black people are communist as well. Racism is literally that drum major instinct driven by the need to be first. However, we’re intelligent humans and we don’t have to be instinctually driven. We can use our brains to be the best. Especially because we need each other. You can cry and talk bc evolution says understanding people helps you survive. We need to pick a system that incentivizes growth instead of greed. Capitalism causes stagnation. If you are constantly competing how can you collaborate and innovate. Even w green energy oil and other non renewables are still used bc they’re nonrenewable meaning it’s hard to replace them and as we drive through our reserves we not only pollute the earth our lungs but we increase the prices of coal because when everyone wants something that’s running out the prices increase. It only benefits the companies selling and not the consumer. It exploits the average person for profits, it’s literally in the name CAPITALism. We ruin human lives for a construct something we can make. Human lives are not replaceable, they are valuable just like all life it’s unique and must be protected. Renewable energy is untapped in terms of research and what we can do with it, it produces less longer term permanent pollution and it can be stored for longer periods of time. We are very very dumb.
@@codyallison8093 that’s not true ur argument makes zero sense bc if those ppl didn’t have the urge to live and survive and be known they wouldn’t exist now. They would’ve been wiped out if laziness was genetically programmed into them. They lack motivation. I would too in a society that is stagnant and benefits people based off of luck and not need or ability. It’s all superficial.
@@Iambunny-ry2os both of your comments show a fundamental lack of understanding about capitalism, communism, human nature, and reality in general. Nowhere in your ramblings was anything that could be considered a coherent, rational thought. We are all dumber for having read it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your commie soul.
A world where you cannot stroke your ego with a big car/house/bankaccount sounds ideal to me. Let people be proud of who they are, not of what they have. This will be the future.
But Storm Raven, as I keep saying, this was also the recent past. "Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had simply ceased to exist." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia page 104. There isn't any reason we can't have this now!
TheGoodNews01 You forget that some people want to BE the snobb, rich-man aka money-grubber and the 'feared boss'. This will not change unless everyone sees and lives with the truth. "Material things will end." Thus material possession has no meaning! ps. I live without an income for 4,5 years now.=)
I wish you were right. Humans are stupid, stubborn, ignorant, and resistant to change. If we change, it would be at last minute, out of desperation, or out of war. It would take a miracle to reach this state. I mean, WWIII needed to happen in Star Trek for this to occur.
ImperiumTrooper no thanks, i can change myself just fine without any of that bullshit and so can you it seems if you can spot all this, why not give your fellow humans the benefit of doupt, you werent born with that knowledge and had to learn it through your own personal experience, so maybe others are still in the process of learning the value of life themselves :) tl;dr if gandhi/buddha/mother theresa can do it so can anyone else
@Thelondonbadger Socialism does NOT restrict your 'freedom'. Authoritarianism restricts your 'freedom', whether its in the form of communism or fascism. The US has less freedom than many countries that are social democracies and the US has slipped from being a full democracy to into a 'pseudo democracy'. This is mostly due to recent attacks on the free press -- which is an attack on your freedom.
@@joelbrittain6379 neither are good. The answer is a somewhat socialist economic policy but instead of a marxist ideological basis that believes in secularism and equality it should thrive to be more pro hierarchy.
Nothing says 'trivial' like a bevy of carefully dried and prepared spices gathered from around the world macerated into distilled grain spirit blended with another bevy of carefully dried and prepared spices gathered from around the world added to fortified grape wine, shaken together over ice artificially maintained in a non-icy climate at great energy expense, and then topped with the heavily processed fruit of a shrub tree transported to a non-Mediterranean climate from the Mediterranean at great energy and resource expense. In a martini, you drink the labors of thousands.
Also I gather that the taste of food or drinks from a replicator have all the ingredients, but wouldn't have all the personality. You can put things together that are all the right ingredients and how you do it gives the food its personality.
@@remobothic When you put it that way it sounds as if that is the case. Its simply 5-6 ingredients, which you can actually make with substituted ingredients. There is nothing wrong with olives its just you thinking that CO2 is a death gas. Trade is important, get over it.
These are not examples of communism. This is post-scarcity. When you eliminate scarcity (through the progression of technology), you eliminate the need for money or wealth distibution. Anybody can have anything as seen in the scene with the replicator. Communism, capitalism, feudalism etc. are different systems dealing with the distribution of scarce resources. There's no need for any kind of economic system in a post-scarcity world.
Ahh, but is this also "the End of History" as humanity was to be described under true communism, and later Francis Fukuyama (rhetorically) was to say about neoliberalism shortly after the fall of the Soviet Bloc?
"there's no need for any kind of economic system in a post-scarcity world" Trek explains a much more articulated and mature view of economics and it's effect on humanity so to simplify it down to post-scarcity is very misleading. and it is an incorrect assumption to say that capitalism is dealing with distributing scarce resources, capitalism is not an economic system, rather sociological, in which artificial scarcity, in the form of a profit, is introduced into economics in order for the rich to derive value from the working classes.
"When you eliminate scarcity (through the progression of technology), you eliminate the need for money or wealth distribution. " there's no need for money now, it only serves to obscure the distortion of value. as things are sold at a profit, they are seen to have a higher value than their production cost, while in reality their value cannot exceed production cost, however without introducing the social construct of profit, no one would be rich.
Johnnie Torres Even without artificial scarcity created by corporations, there's a lot of real scarcity in the world. We still don't have virtually unlimited access to energy or matter. In fact a lot of important resources are being exponentially depleted, RES are unefficient, nuclear fussion and asteroid mining are in the realm of dreams. We still don't have the labour-replacing technologies in production and everyday life. No system you can put in practice today will solve the problems of the world. Financial and political solutions to problems are very limited in scope, Only science and technology can solve the problems of mankind.
Johnnie Torres The goal is not to make rich people poorer, but to make poor people wealthier. You could've created perfect equality in a medieval, agricultural society, but their standard of living would've been much lower than that of people living in developed countries today. There will be opposition from people in power to post-scarcity, but the real problem is that we aren't technology capable of creating post-scarcity yet.
Economic concepts like Capitalism and Communism don't really have any relevance in post-scarcity societies. Goods possess value only when they are limited in supply. Money is only meaningful when there is perceived value for it to be measured against. The Federation is actually closer to the ideals of the Technocracy movement, which held that the only *real* unit of value was *energy*, not goods or money with purely subjective value.
Goods still have a sort of value in post-scarcity... that being use value, Distribution is still a factor to take into consideration in post-scarcity. For example, we are currently more-or-less post scarcity when it comes to music and movies and art due to nearly effortless digital multiplication. Capitalism, however, restricts this through copyrights and other forms of legal protection. Post-scarcity necessities could still be legally controlled by the state in the interest of individual ownership. The mere fact that the lack of scarcity in production equals a lack of scarcity in distribution means that they have adopted something approximating the communist model where the means of production are held in commons in the society.
Andrew Fullerton Well of course. If a majority of goods become commoditized, then capitalism becomes largely unsustainable under macroeconomic principles. In the real world, a number of industry sectors use practices from price-fixing, the formation of trusts to lobbying the government for subsidies and tax exemptions to protect "crucial" industries from becoming unprofitable. The so-called "free market" is a lie, because at the end of the day business relies on government to provide a legal framework to protect their interests, and even to provide physical infrastructure to enable them to move their goods! Roads, railroads, the interstate highway system, the public switched telephone network and the internet were *all* funded by startup money from the government! All of them, to some extent or another, continue to rely on government support to this day. Remembering that Earth on Star Trek is a post-nuclear war future, it is likely that nearly a century of warfare collapsed the global economy, and in rebuilding they found it easier to centralize resource management since people in many war-torn places no longer even had usable money! By the time reestablishing the free market would have been possible, nobody saw the point anymore because technology and available resources (from space), had commoditized so many goods that trade in most goods simply wasn't profitable and would have had to be government-subsidized anyway.
***** Star Trek had to imagine massive war, but to be honest, I don't think we 'IRL' NEED it. Adoption of post-scarcity systems need not lead to a global war, at least if enough elites can be convinced it is in their benefit to let it happen (this is happening in newer tech-savvy elite generations in USA, but I dunno about elsewhere)
Malcolm Swoboda It's still a long haul. For example, the recent plummet in the price of oil and the way U.S. oil companies are being petty by responding with almost immediate mass-layoffs to goad the government into helping drive the price back up is a demonstration of how the so-called "free market" is a blatant lie and the system is really being run by profit motive, not the real availability or value of goods.
The Federation itself could be considered communistic since it is a stateless organization versus earth, which would represent full socialism best. If money is no longer the driving force for people, then technological acquisition must be. Seems like The Federation has reverted back to bartering, this for that. All this does not mean that people have to do some form of work to earn things. Replicators may have solved hunger and diseases are gone but what about when someone wants a new house?
PC entertainment would still come under the "TV" category, its far to similar for them to distinguish between, VR on the other hand would be in between TV & the holodeck so would be it's own category, if this generation embraces the new VR systems being rolled out then TV & monitor based PC experiences could well disappear in the next few decades, they'd be replaced by powerful headsets for hardcore game & viewing experiences & things like google glass & hololens for casual entertainment.
vr is not going to replace screens, you arent going to whip out your vr headset and calibrate it to check your email. you might have something with glass and hololens but it probably won't ever be a replacement. there are still analog tvs all over the place running through digital converter boxes
@@deewolf1903In the past people usually portrayed the future that everything would become better but nowadays the future is always portrayed that everything will become worse.
Without replicator technology or some other means of annihilating scarcity it’s extremely unlikely. People make a big fuss over it but currency is literally just how we attain resources to survive.
@@femalesupremacistoverlord6800 But when you think on it, you don't really need money to attain resources. Historically, money was advertised as a way to attain ownership of traded goods but it's been twisted into a barrier for basic human needs where food is tossed away and empty houses rot because of it. But money is not an ingredient to bake bread and it is not material for building a house. It's just paper and a promise. We're so mired in the idea of money that it's hard to imagine how life would function without it but I still dream of it.
Names, In order for a member of a society to be poor, it is necessary for that society to have and use a monetary system... the United Federation of Planets has no form of monetary system. Everyone gets their share. Clothing, food, a place to live, healthcare, hell, as far as I can tell, everything is free for everyone. You want a sandwich, walk up to a replicator and say "Ham and cheese sandwich" and boom, you've got a ham and cheese sandwich. You need a new shirt, simply ask the replicator for a new shirt. The United Federation of Planets is a post-scarcity society... there's more than enough of everything that everyone needs, so everyone gets what they need.
Everyone may get what they need but how would someone get what they want? how would someone go about owning something? picards family own a vineyard, siscos dad owns a restaurant, how would someone own a spaceship?
Imagine how the people on Earth would survive if they no longer had the technology. They would either all starve and die or would have to rely on trade. That's what the Borg was all bout -- technology turning against them.
I have to disagree with you about this. The Federation is neither Communist nor Capitalist. They don't have an economy the way that we understand it because replicators allow them to make anything they want or need. Therefore there is no need to accumulate wealth, nor is there a need to redistribute wealth or the means of production.
@@huhuu7093 now there’s “advanced communism?” I’ve never heard of that. Perhaps you can point me to the economist who explains how “advanced communism” works.
@@jeflaw1996 fully developed communism is a moneyless, classless, stateless society. Marx descriped a path throug seizing the means of production from the capitalist class to the working class. Called that intermediate step "lower communism" or later "socialism". Sry for my Bad english. I'm Not a orthodox marxist or anything, but that's what He ment in "das Kapital". So there's probably No Economist describing a post-scarcity society Like in ST. Because you know... No need for that then anymore, right?
@@huhuu7093 assuming that you’re correct about Das Kapital, the Federation still isn’t communist because it isn’t “classless.” There is a clear hierarchy in Star Fleet, from Admiral to Ensign, in the Federation government and even in private organizations. I know Marx was talking about class in terms of wealth, but that narrow definition does not fit with human reality. Every human civilization has had classes and a division of labor/responsibility, and so does Star Trek.
@@jeflaw1996 marx' definition of classes was for the purpose of a critical analyse of capitalism and how whe get past that stage, but one have to read Marx first.
Tom Paris is like the equivalent of someone being really really into shakespeare, or chaucer, or Ming vases. There are still lots of people like this, but it's not a preoccupation of the masses. Nevertheless he still does holonovels not TV.
+Dex Starr " Identity Politics", in their time line during their W.W. 3 up to 80% of their Coastal Cities were destroyed. As of Now in the (Real World ), 60% of the world's population lives on the Coast Line. That is close to 3.5 billion people. South California ( the Greater L.A. Area to the Boarder ) hold 10% of the U.S.A. population. With One 5 Mega Ton warhead launch from a Sub, there goes 30 million people. E.M.P. " the Lights goes Out " in the winter, everyone above the " Dixie Line " will Freeze to Death. Only about 10% of the U.S. or the World's population are Prepaired for the " Shift." Federation Earth Rose due to all of the dead weight being dropped off by the " Great War." sad truth.
With enough technology and power... material needs become so inexpensive that it is pointless charging for them. If you have replicators, transporters, and anti-matter reactors... what is the point in charging for anything? That isn't communism... its the inevitable result in things becoming cheaper and cheaper due to technology.
And from where do you get technology if not from society, that sees value in it and it wants to invest in pro bono from its order, rather than in profit of a few(like in Star Trek)? That is not a basic paradigm of capitalism. And communism sees here from totally other perspective. Things are currently cheaper because of exploitation lol, its not because we invent new things(because ratio between mental and material work is utter absurdity and that is what communism fixes in idea, not in shitty 20. century "realization" which was undertaken in undeveloped countries lol) . Until we see that pattern in our history of a labor, which will never achieve nothing in mental production it will always be just a poor slaver-ship... And yeah too many people believe in techno fix. First you have to establish a righteous society, who will treat everyone equal, so they can develop their mental skill for sciences, arts, etc.(and realize their potential, which is infinitesimal if we contemplate from epistemology of science) then you will have 24, century with technology like we see here, rather than waiting for couple of thousands of year, that slow progress will be achieved lol... ;)
spenky denky This technology comes from science fiction. However, once you assume that replicators, transporters, and anti-matter reactors exist... that money wouldn't be used for mundane purposes is a fairly easy jump. If replicators existed... what are you going to pay someone for inventing someone new? They can press a button on the wall and get almost anything they want. What are you going to buy with money which can't be made by a replicator? Why do most people need fancy cars if they can press a button and appear anywhere on the planet?
***** Actually, replicators do make things from other material, and not out of thin air. Matter is broken down to molecular level & rebuild to other items. Molecular recycling, in other words.
***** I don't know much about 3D printers- other than they can make any shape in plastic, so maybe can knock out some parts of the toy industry, and other areas. (Though, I don't know what variations of plastic they can do)
Life in the 413 It pretty much is communism. They have no currency, it's post-scarcity, all Federation planets are a single unified government, not individual states, etc...
857Evan Nay, +Life in the 413 is right, communism is a stateless society, whereas Star Trek, with its single Federation government, is very much the opposite. Though socialistic principles are displayed in Star Trek, so are contradictory things like Federation imperialism, resettlement of natives, secret state military projects (like section 31), etc. etc.
+Life in the 413 Star Trek represents more of a Recourse Based Economy than anything else. In short, a future when technological advancements provide the necessities of life with very little human labor involved, giving everyone the resources and the freedom to pursue their own individual passions and desires; an economy free from economic uncertainty and unnecessary labor/servitude without the societal stratification and power displacement commonly found in Communism. You should check out The Venus Project. :)
I'd say this comment section and early Star Trek in of itself sums up communists and the idealistic vision they have of themselves. "Our perfect system works, but first we need to eliminate war, poverty, consumerist tendencies, nationalism, identity, religion, individualism, biological differences, general bad thoughts... ... But once we've gotten rid of all that, THEN we can explore the stars, together!" "Incidentally, don't look at at the USSR or every other communist country that's ever existed, they just couldn't apply communism properly, the system was too advanced for simple minds." However, Star Trek got a lot more identitarian and Federation delegates became pretty damn xenophobic in DS9, especially against the Ferengi. I'd say that alone makes DS9 one of the more interesting Star Trek series, simply because it actually shows more of the human condition, conditions I don't think will ever go away. Not unless you basically want to erase negativity itself.
The majority of that what you wrote and the prime reasons for why they exist, for example poverty, could be boiled down to one word - capitalism, the system which a lot of negativity stems from.
capitalism didn't create that world, people did. these things that benefit humans - they're not profitable. so they're almost never developed by private companies. it's just people with passion who eventually get publicly funded/noticed
So what's described as the "one bright spark" of the Syrian revolution? Which nation is the only sustainable country on earth? Which idea turned a backward monarchy that ruled over serfs tied to the land into a super power? Socialism has worked before, and with the tools of modern automaton it will work again.
The thing people fail to understand is that in Star Trek we only see through the eyes of Star Fleet - the very best and brightest of humanity and the other races belonging to a supremely powerful organization with the manpower and technology to cater for the will of everyone within it. The rest of the humanity lives nothing like how Star Fleet members live. They live on small agrarian worlds with far less technological sophistication and in much worse conditions. Tasha Yarr talks about the rape gangs on her home planet... I feel that Firefly is a very good representation of what it's really like to live in the Star Trek universe. Yeah sure, a select and noble few have everything they ever wanted while everyone else works their knuckles to the bone to barely get by. So yeah, I suppose Star Fleet kinda is a communist organization! (I'm a huge Trekkie, no hate)
Brutalis If you are gonna use Tasha Yar as your prime example: Turkana IV (her planet) was thrown in civil war following the break down of the local government. The factions that took over seceded completely from the Federation (Turkana was already a non-aligned system). Shortly after that, the Federation sent rescue ships to evacuate any refugees they could find, and among them was Tasha. Also, the small agrarian worlds with little technological sophistications are usually colonies on their early stages of development or colonies that lost contact with the rest of the Federation, on the frontier of Federation space. They aren't good examples of how the Federation actually works.
Think about how close to this we actually are! When I grew up I never imagined we would have tablet sized computers, like the ones they use in TNG. Now look where we are: Real tablet computers are even sleeker than the Star Trek ones. 3D printing might still be crude, but there is no denying it's an important step towards actual replicators and with the recent success of VR, even Holodecks have become an actual possibility for the future. Heck, we even managed to achieve reliable quantum teleportation, ITER will take us closer to the age of fusion power generation. Imho we are just on schedule for our 24th century Star Trek future ;)
It's also a time to hope that the interest of the powerful few don't hold back this progress. We become technologically closer, but we still have a fair way to go before we reach our Star Trek utopia socially.
Trices Mailwind There have always been powerful people who would rather have a monopoly on certain ideas instead of sharing them with humanity as a whole. But that has become increasingly more difficult for them, because technology allows us to share ideas easier, faster and wider. First Gutenberg's press, now the Internet, the reaction is always the same: They demand censorship because they fool themselves into the believe they could turn back time to a point where they had all the information advantage. That's never gonna happen again, no matter how hard they gonna try, the genie is already out of the bottle.
@@iBloodxHunter Theyre a moneyless society where people go without want ( Need ) and contribute how to what they feel most adept ( ability ). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. A main tenent of marxism.
@@yadisdis4207 multiple instances of currency within the Federation ranging from credits to energy credits to Dilithium. We don't see that as much because it seems like military(Starfleet) has everything paid for them. Also there's signs of a civilian free market and companies(notably shipping companies.) Also Starfleet owns a ton of land(s.)
Star Trek is Socialist, not Communist, it hasn't hit the Communist stage of development, but is along the way there. Star Trek still has nation-states that act as a federation in a planetary state. Star Trek still uses hierarchy instead of direct democracy and while I'm not sure how it works, but Picards family owns a Vinyard (though they could just be the managers of it). It's shown numerous times though that humans do tend to live in Communes whenever they visit human settlements on other planets. Socialism is a transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism, just like Merchantalism was a transitional phase between Feudalism and Capitalism, thus it will have aspects of both systems, while moving towards the latter.
1. Direct democracy is not a requirement of communism. 2. Picard's family are the stewards of the vineyard. They have a unique stake in its operation because it has been in their family for generations(even centuries) and represents the cultural heritage of the Picard family. Under communism, unlike socialism, there is no need to collectivize the land as there is no private ownership. The vineyard is not private property because there is no way to profit from it, formally speaking. However, because the Picard family is actively invested/engaged in the use of the land, it could be considered their personal property, which is a concept that many communists point to as the resulting alternative to private property. 3. The economic progression to which you're pointing is founded in Marx's historical materialism and goes(in simple terms)- Fuedalism->mercantilism->capitalism->socialism->communism->Anarchism. The Terran society in Star Trek is a highly advanced communist society approaching anarchism, a transition that is the source of their highly anti-authoritarian methods of interacting with other cultures. Federation itself is a concept often favored by anarchist as it is non-hegemonic.
Marx did not condone Anarchism as a means of struggle, but did say that the result of communism(the point at which the state has "withered") would be a classless, stateless society. The idea that transitional phases of socioeconomic development should be eliminated in favor of a direct movement toward statelessness came to be associated with another school of socialist thought developed by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon was one of the key founders of mutualism and the first major philosopher to use, and identify with, the word anarchist. He was also one of Marx's greatest rivals which was the primary influence upon the split between Marxism and anarchism. So, no, Marx did not mention anarchism by name(except later to criticize it), but only because it was not yet called anarchism. Peter Kropotkin and many others would try to resolve these differences(eliminating what he saw to be a false dichotomy) in the form of Anarcho-Communism. Thanks for the response!
Victor Moskowitz Picard's vineyard- and the Sisko New Orleans restaurant- could just be seen a full-time hobbies in the Star Trek economy. People today already have smaller types of such hobbies, in gardens & cooking. And since people don't usually try to make a profit from hobbies like that, but because they enjoy it, they can get reasonable resources from the shared economy to balloon their enjoyment to a vineyard or restaurant.
Warren Webber Yeah, I was just trying to explain how this really old vineyard stayed a vineyard without people seeking to use it for something else. Same for the restaurant.
Yes, I like it, because people get just as much entertainment, but at the same time they stay physically fit, and keep their minds sharp. Also deepen their friendships with other people.
Also, the implementation of the theory of Marxism in practice - Communism is not a utopia. Just one of the options for the development of mankind. And one of the most favorable, because the lion's share of GDP does not go with it one percent of the spenders - the rich. This GDP goes to workers(from factory workers to research institutes workers who will no longer be dependent on the whims of the rich), and society is experiencing a qualitative cultural revolution. In this world, the worker has nothing to lose. In turn, he will conquer the whole world. Proletarians of all countries, unite!
as a post scarcity futurist I could go on and on but if I got a replicator and found the holodeck they would have to drag me out nude feet first! lol! incentive to work hell, incentive to ever see reality again hahaha. .
+Curas1 Oh man eating all the dishes they serve at Applebees and other similar restraunts without paying the absurd price. Would be amazing! And the doctors would stop me from dying at 40 from eating that food.
+Nunya Buizness if I could explore cuisine without cost I'd have to see how good or bad all those luxury fine food was. humm maybe Applebees is better.
***** I love their steak 9oz steak and garlic mashed potatoes dish. The steak itself tastes so good that I don't even bother putting steak sauce on it.
Not everyone is like that. There are people who do jobs that don't pay well because they love the job itself. Scientists, teachers, artists, musicians, philosophers, etc. There are many people who pursue their passion regardless of monetary reward.
Oh, Roddenberry's sweet innocence and naivete. That a future of instant gratification (replicators, holodecks) would lead to a nobler, more accomplished human race rather than a lazy, corrupt, and hedonic pack of barbarians is very touching.
That isn't what Roddenberry was depicting. The show constantly talks about how society has to reach a level of social maturity before it's ready for this sort of technology and that it takes a long time to progress to that point. In this episode specifically, we see how corrupt people who lived lives of instant gratification in the 20th century were and the crew is embarrassed and disgusted that humans used to be that way. I don't think that's idealistic. We no longer keep slaves. Spousal abuse and racism have become less acceptable. We also see that, in places with high quality of living and social safety nets, people are a lot less likely to commit crime. We also see that happier workers are more productive. I don't really see the naivete. I think you're just jaded.
6 років тому+21
The replicator usage is always limited by the power output of the warp engine, you can't just say "well they found out how to use replicator so they're communists". They're on a ship and replicator usage is rationed for each crewman. This is why hobby accessories are always very scarce on a starship - they have the lowest priority but require multiple replicator rations. Even Data, who doesn't need to eat, uses his replicator rations very strategically.
That can't be accurate. In the episode where Riker cooks and Worf is the only one who likes what he made, they explicitly talk about how this is unnecessary specifically because they can replicate whatever they want whenever they want.
2 роки тому+3
@@AbandonedVoid They CAN, however this is no different that saying "a running car has air conditioning, so we can stay cool forever". To run that AC (use replicator), energy must be used. Energy coming in their case from warp core. Running lights means less power put into propulsion. Another thing - senior officers are typically permitted more on the ship, so you don't typically hear about them "trading in" replicator rations.
@@taliaeategg2027 Not really, I mean yes on the classless part but cashless has nothing to do with it. There is still money in Communists economic models, what goes away is private property but money can still be used to acquire personal property.
It's a bit strange that they mention there not having been money in Star Trek for quite some time, yet they make a great many references to still using it in ToS.
many things were retconned for tng. for example, the tos klingons look nothing like the klingons in tng onwards, something they actively draw attention to in the episode of DS9 where they go back to an episode of tos
tbh, many things of tos are to be taken with a grain of salt within star-trek lore. Like women not being allowed to captain a starship, or the klingons
If I ever meet Picard (character) on the enterprise I'd say " today I went down to the ships bar, I saw Many humans drink and bet half of them weren't thirsty, they just WANTED a drink"
No offense, Ebony Watts from 8 years ago, but that's a rather shallow argument. The point is not that people just stopped wanting things, but that it's no longer a priority. Self-improvement is valued above material possessions. The only true 'wealth' to gain in the Federation is the wealth of your knowledge and maturity as a person.
I want to live in Star Trek even more now. This philosophy wouldn't work right now because, as we all know, resources are finite while the desire for resources is infinite. So people try to get more and more. This leads to the requirement of people working hard for their resources. However, if you could make resources infinite, then indeed, this philosophy would work perfectly.
We are. It's just that the people in charge are largely in charge, because they generate scarcity. There are more empty houses than homeless people. We make enough food for 12 billion, and throw away 40%. We're already there.
Here's the problem with your line of thought - you're not considering overconsumption as something that can be eliminated. This is one of our biggest issues. We have enough resources to give folk basic needs and even more, but billionaires waste so many resources that it's ridiculous. If we can change our values and implement a society where people would understand the importance of preserving their resources and danger of overconsumption, then something similar to Star Trek can actually be implemented. Unfortunately, rich won't allow this, because they won't be able to flex their useless yachts and private planes.
"This is the 24th Century, material needs no longer exist" The world of Start Trek is not communist; it is post scarcity. Communism is the ideology of the equal distribution of resources. Star Trek's main fiction is that resources are no longer scarce, and therefore, there is no need to distribute anything, equally or otherwise. Anyone can obtain any resources at anytime because resources are limitless. See communism specifically is [in theory] a system of government wherein limited resources are distributed equally, in lieu of those resources being distributed unequally, leading to a class that has enough, or even excess, and a class that does not have enough. This is not applicable to the world of Star Trek because limitless resources make it impossible for anyone to be left wanting. That is not Communism, but rather, a total lack of need for communism, capitalism, socialism, or any other wealth distribution ideology. So before touting that "communism works for them" I would be careful about championing a system of government that has failed in every iteration ever tried, to the deaths of millions, because a fictional universe seemed to work under it as a result of that system of government not even being needed.
"So before touting that "communism works for them" I would be careful about championing a system of government that has failed in every iteration ever tried" That's only because every iteration so far has become corrupted by the few at the top. The so called leaders, of said systems, become 'power mad' and greed ends up right back where it was never intended to belong.
@@buckrodgers1162 And you believe the fact that "every iteration so far has become corrupted by the few at the top," is not indicative of a fundamental problem with that system of government? The United States of America's government was specifically design to avoid exactly that eventuality: it champions a bill of inalienable rights for the people, and sets up multiple branches of government, on Federal, State, and local levels, to serve as checks and balances to each other. The idea was to not give any one group of ideologs enough power to seize control, and serve as dictators. The fact that our government is often in deadlocked opposition is not a problem with our Democratic Republic; it is very much the point: it was designed to work that way so that only the changes we all generally agree on, happen. Regarding Communism, on the other hand, while equal distribution of resources for unequal contribution to society is a major unsolved problem with communist ideology, it is far from the main issue. The main issue with Communism is, in order for it to be enacted effectively (allowing the state to unilaterally determine how to distribute resources), it requires giving too much power to the state: a level of power that has proven to corrupt every man, woman, or group ever granted such power, always resulting in the suffering of the people. And it always will, because greed, particularly for power and wealth, has always plagued mankind. As such, there is no way to grant so much power to a single entity while also ensuring safeguards against misuse of that power, because you just handed the power to control those safeguards to that very state. It would be like allowing criminals to police themselves... they are not going to. Trying it again without addressing this issue is folly. How did Einstein put it? Trying the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, is the definition of insanity.
@@herewegoagain..., To answer your question: No, I don't believe it's indicative of the system. But I do believe it's indicative of the human condition. How better to showcase it, than to look around during this past year. You got celebrities saying "just stay inside" while in their fucking million+ dollar mansions. While others have to deal with the fact that if they don't go to work they become homeless. And all the while the EX-leader is saying "it don't exist" or some other stupidity, while the CDC is in itself throwing out mixed information. And that's just from the US. Humans, no matter how much they say they aren't, are all just 100% self interested. The systems themselves may or may not be flawed, but humans are 100% flawed.
@@buckrodgers1162 "No, I don't believe it's indicative of the system. But I do believe it's indicative of the human condition." ... This is effectively the same thing. The efficacy of a system of government solely hinges on how well if grapples with the human condition, as a government's sole purpose is literally to deal with the human condition. The whole point of a government is to run a society in spite of our natural tendency be selfish, as we have generally learned, in order to survive, we must work together. So if it doesn't do that well, it is flawed as a system. A discussion on the efficacy of communism, or any other system of government, in a society comprised on non-humans, could not be less useful. "Humans, no matter how much they say they aren't, are all just 100% self interested. " ... You are referring to humans in the third person, as though you are not one, which I find extremely strange. "The systems themselves may or may not be flawed, but humans are 100% flawed." ... Again, the separation you are making between a system of government (which you are almost personifying), and humans, makes absolutely no sense. The whole purpose of a government is to deal with humans, particularly our flaws. Therefore, if it doesn't handle our flaws, that system is inherently flawed because that is literally the one thing it is supposed to do.
@@herewegoagain..., 1: The systems as written are not human, they are a set of rules/regulations. Those rules themselves can not corrupt themselves, as they are just words/numbers on a piece of paper. So how are those systems the same thing as a human that is unfit for leadership? 2: Yes I do. And you can find it strange all you want. But when one has been shown, by way of treatment, nothing but actions that all point to point to the conclusion of 'that one is not part of your species'; What else can you expect? 3: Refer to point 1.
The problem is that this is all predicated on an impossible premise: the elimination of scarcity. Even in a society with replicators able to produce anything, you'll still have a scare resource: energy. The energy required to power a replicator (which either generates particles from energy or performs nuclear or subnuclear reactions to transmute existing matter) would be ENORMOUS. That's why this is the most unrealistic element of all in Star Trek.
i can believe that TV didn't last long, but what i can't believe is that people stopped watching movies, videos, video series for entertainment or that the internet would stop existing on which you could watch said videos
The term for this is "post-scarcity." Star Trek is a post-scarcity utopian society, which I find quite uplifting to watch. There are some pretty interesting dystopian takes on a post-scarcity society, too.
Yes however to be post scarcity it can't be capitalist as capitalism requires artificial scarcity. Houses aren't valuable if everyone has one so you must keep them scarce to keep their value etc.
@@masiethespiral Capitalism requires scarcity not artificial scarcity and there will always be scarcity in one form or another. With replicator technology, there are only four major scarcitys: Energy, Land, People and Time. I would list labor, but I believe we'll have androids performing all menial labor long before we figure out how to create replicators.
@@afgor1088 That’s not the same at all. Production may be “efficient” but it’s incredibly unethical; chickens have their beaks chopped off so they don’t peck each other to death out of stress as a result of being cramped together for their short lifespans, the cows and sheep that aren’t slaughtered the “kosher/halal” way only get 30 seconds less of consciousness before they die. It’s hardly comparable to the Star Trek set up where you can use energy reserves to generate food without murder and suffering.
TV? Sure. Videos? Hell no! There are people who _will_ make videos if only for the sake of making a cool or informing video, and people _wil_ watch it. Netflix and UA-cam are growing, TV is (slowly) dying out.
All things considered, the Federation still does use several forms of currency to keep up with interplanetary economies. A few which Spock did mention: Federation credits as we saw in the episode The Trouble with Tribbles; Starfleet requisition chits, and of course, gold-pressed latinum.
Some implications when starfleet personnel use currency is that they use it outside their borders. In the episode you mentioned, starfleet personnel use money only because it's along the borders of the Klingon Empire, as the latter political body uses currency. As for places like Risa, again it's implied it's along federal borders in the Alpha Quadrant. Why else would Ferengi be visiting Risa?!
Except for when they're gambling amongst themselves with replicator rations showing that of course starvation is still a thing because you cannot have enough replicator rations. Basically completely debunks the supposed premise of this video but Communists don't really care about reality they just care about narrative.
This is, more or less, what communism was originaly SUPOSE to be in theory. An unachievable utopia where everyoen works towards a common goal and there is little to no greed or individual ambition. What communism became in practice every single time it has been implelemented in practice on a scale larger than a single commune has little to nothign to do with it aside from rethoric.
LordDarthHarry Hastily implying that is unreasonable and you have to support your argument with facts and historical context. This is why talking about it here is not a good idea as the topic is very big. However, learning about it on two sides is the way to go. As for the 'failure' of communism in Russia, here's a reading about it: www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/lenin-socialism.htm You'll see that Communism in Russia didn't fail bec of the ideology, but of outside interference. I do however agree that, implementing an ideology that the US doesn't want might not be possible as you would get into war with them.
"Improve yourself" can be interpreted as making money to some. In the future if such wealth is no longer necessary to accumulate, then what is the medium of improving one-self in a world where all necessity is provided for without your labor for it? That could be subject to ambiguity and what one values could differ from someone else. Sure, doing research may be considered self-improvement, or perhaps building your own architectural masterpiece may be another. Maybe that is the point then, it is what you define it as. Growing out of infancy doesn't imply a lack of the need to possess things. Clearly Captain Picard needs to possess a starship to conduct his missions. Losing the ship could mean death, even if it is free to replace. So the need to possess actually clearly exists, unless he is as callous to not care about his own existence or that of his crew; then the ship must be treated like property and maintained as such. Post scarcity doesn't mean you cannot possess anything. Also, because of all the political entropy in the universe, it means that a system of government still exists off the presence of unknown and alien threats to its own species that occupy or live within it. The Federation exists because of survival instincts. Without it humans would be divided, scattered and susceptible to extinction if one of those alien races decided to wipe them out. I think there are some paradoxes going on here.
***** Wow, I thought Spock and Kirk were gentiles but im surprised. However James Doohan (Scotty) is a gentile. Although true he wasn't on the bridge, he was in engineering primarily iirc. that was an eye opener.
this is one of the best Star Trek episodes, as it explains Star Trek economy. They should have made part 2, so we can see how they integrated these. The banker probably ended up on Ferengi world. I also like The Most Toys
Unfortunately it's a fantasy within a fantasy because it doesn't go over things like replicator rations or the status of people outside of the military.
Очень характерный диалог между Пикардом и размороженным дельцом из капиталистического прошлого: - ... И что с нами будет дальше? Моих денег и след простыл. Мой офис пропал. Что я буду делать? Как я буду жить? - Это 24-е столетие. Материальная нужда больше не существует. - И в чём вызов? - Вызов, мистер Оффенхауз, в том, чтобы улучшить себя, обогатить себя. Наслаждайтесь!
his other questions are still valid though. WHERE would he live? what determines where he lives, too? would he live in a simple flat or a full 3 story house or a mansion? how does he get to move from the flat to the mansion if he wants to? how does he collect things to put in his home? how does he get furniture, devices, computers, food? are they all just given to him or does he have to give work for it (which then is a form of currency; work for material things). isnt siskos dad a chef? why does he make food for people to eat when he doesnt get paid? how does he get his ingredients? this whole 'money is bad' thing sounds good on the surface, and i see people in the comments suckling on the idea - probably because they think all their issues will be solved if money is removed - but it only brings up more questions and problems, not less, and its a very not-deep concept with a ton of logic holes gaping it open to anyone willing to ask questions.
Take away replicators and their power generation and they would still have the need for material possession, just like us. When Picard says material needs no longer exist, he's lying. They still exist. They're just met by technological means.
Number 1: "I know this is all very confusing to you, so I'll attempt to explain. You are on the Star Ship USS Enterprise" 21st century rich guy: "American?" Number 1: No its a vessel in the United Federation of Planets and earth is a member." Data: "Talk." 21st century southern us guy: "Give me a martini, straight up with 2 olives for the vitamins. I might just get to like this place. Let's see if the braves are on. How do you cut on this T.V?" Number1: "T.V.?" 21st century southern us guy: "Yea, the boob tube." Data: "I believe he means Television Sir. That particular form of entertainment did not last much beyond the year 2040." 21st century southern us guy: "Hmm, well what do you guys do? I mean you don't drink and you ain't got no TV, must be kind of boring, ain't it?" Captain JLP: "That's what all this is about. A lot has changed within the past 300 years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy." Captain JLP: "Here's what I propose you can't stay on the Enterprise; but I've arranged for us to rendezvous with the USS Charleston bound for earth. They will deliver you there." 21st century rich guy: "Then what will happen to us? There's no trace of my money. My office is gone. What will I do? How will I live?" Captain JLP: "This is the 24th century. Material needs no longer exist." 21st century rich guy: "Then what's the challenge?" Captain JLP: "The challenge, Mr. Hoffmanhouse, is to improve yourself, enrich yourself. Enjoy it!"
People forget that in the Star Trek Universe, 800 million people had to die in a nuclear war and then have a "first contract" event to begin to change to were they reached the level they did in Star Trek.
+Shining Armour I can imagine people having certain equine related interests in the Holodeck in future. I've already seen whats being done with VR tech.
I vaguely remember someone asking I think it was Levar Burton what he thought the most unrealistic thing about Star Trek. His reply was the HoloDeck, not because of the technology but that once it was invented EVERYONE would just live in one inside their own personal paradise then the human race dies out. He wouldn't be wrong.
Find the idea of the removal of suffering implausible. It's so inate that people seek it out. The grand adventure dates back to abraham. To leave your fathers tent and seek adventure. Suffer to grow. This is what they should tell former generations. And what we should tell future generations.
Communism isn't meant to be that either. STATES run by Communist PARTIES are what point the gun. Actual Communism was meant to be the end point, and that was the evil. The search for utopia by force. The utopia itself (or whatever - 'better future') isn't a bad ideal to hold, just as you can hope for a better life for your family's children, to reduce their suffering and want.
Whoever posted this video missed perhaps the most important scene of all, where Riker makes a demeaning comment about a housewife. How uppity, how elitist, and the Trekkies, who consider themselves intellectual and worldly wise and tolerant and diverse and all that happy pinko horse dung, never uttered a peep. Too busy worried about wearing their pajamas to jury duty, I suppose.
I'm not sure if "communism" applies to the Federation. It is my understanding that communism is supposed to be a classless and stateless society. Now class and money does seem to be eliminated, but the United Federation of Planets is still a state. Still much better than current reality though.
Examples of communism? The entire premise of how the earth and humanity behave in the Star Trek universe is Communism, but it is the way communism is supposed to work. Everyone working together to be better as a society..
It only works if the needs of a person can be easily met without severe costs. The costs in this case being energy. If you have machines that are capable of generating everything someone could want to possess, then yeah, socialism and communism would work quite easily. If all the high-output energy generators suddenly stopped working, it would very quickly fall apart.
If you had nuclear waste recycled to be reused in a reactor, then you have a socialist or communist society. Otherwise, everyone would just need to have college level education to find alternatives. A socialist/communist society's currency is in knowledge, not merely machinery.
The fact that these guys don't have money might be a bit too idealistic but not problematic. They claim they are not obsessed with material possessions - fine. I'll buy that. My main beef is with their political system (or lack thereof). For a union of self governing states (the very definition of "federation") there is a suspicious absence of a few basic things: There doesn't seem to exit a civilian authority over the military, and if it does, the separation of its powers is at best loose, The only civilian office we ever see is the President, and it is very unclear what his powers are (if any). He either has too many (like also gets to judge/preside over a courtrmarshal counsil hearing for Kirk and gets to pass a lenient sentence in what seems to be an official proceedings) or they are just for show and serve a ceremonial function. Instead the entire Federation seems to be run by a single body - the Starfleet Hight Command. From Earth (how lucky for us). They may call themselves a Federation, but it is a de facto a totalitarian dictatorship. I am so sorry, Piccard.
I agree with your observations an interesting point. Admittedly ST doesn’t cover it very well, but I rather believe it is not a dictatorship and even almost beyond a resource based econonmy with the ability to manipulate carbon to produce most goods.. The star trek universe still has a diplomatic hierarchy, but by not having a desire for "things" and power, the "greed" effect, or absolute power corrupting absolutely, is dumbed down and in an ideological sense pushed out of the mind all together, allowing for greater consciousness, not fear, to rule the mind... In its place a system of trust prevails... You know, that old thing of people actually doing what they say they are going to do, for the good of all not just those concerned or self benefit. The federation is just the political arm of the civil service that deals with outer regional planets and duties there within. ..Additionally I think I watch to much star trek and should get out more! :)
+elbatemano, interesting reply! With the risk of stating the obvious - its pretty clear that Star Trek episodes are really not about the future. The show is for us, by people like us. So it is about us - about people of any age. The space stuff is just a gimmick and as any good myth, shouldn't really be taken literally. So the lack of detail of their system of government - or even a fairy tale magical one (of noble and benign kings) - is not a problem, because just like whatever astronomical inaccurasies the show harbors - it's just not the point. Now, perhaps you are right that if material/rousource driven part of our lives were fulfilled that it would somehow fundamentally reshape out psyche. Maybe. But i am somewhat sceptical that it is sufficient. After all, lust for power, envy, jealosy, posesiveness, etc. thrive in affluent modern societies just as they do in nomadic tribes - just as people largely immune to these "bugs" can too be found in both. These human weknesses, it seems, are seldom rooted in material things and are usually a result of seeking attention and recognition or love that is missing or lost. Often both resulting from (and in turn causing) broken friendships and families, endlessly perpetuating this ancient shit. The resulting psychological disorders and trauma of abuse is not a medical condition, so I doubt that Beverly Crusher could cure them. This is Diana Troy's territory, but mostly she only helps - the afflicted themselves have to do the real work. The transfomation, the drive to overcome these things comes usually with experience, with age, with responsibilities of caring for others, etc. Sometimes it comes when one is at the end of their ropes as an epiphony and often is expressed in the local religious context. It too is natural, part of growing, part of Life and of who we are. So long as our genome remains what it is, and our DNA is not spliced with bees or ants or something, it seems that an occasional flaring up of ambition and ego and obsession with control cannot be ruled out. Basically, it seems to me, that there are a lot of good apples and a few rotten ones and the idea of checks and ballances in government are really there to make sure those of us who are suffering from inlfated egos don't screw everything up for the rest of us. At least not for long or too much. Besides, the system where everyone's "self" is taken out of equation is actually the Borg ... so, perhaps the resisteance is while not futile is misguided? :) Also the beings that would make good rulers of our society are caring, smart, logical and placing the will of mankind above all else, and placing their interests last. In Sci-Fi vernacular they are the robots from Azimov's novels driven by the Three Laws - ancestors of the character of Data. If they (and not, say, the Terminators) are the machines that will "enslave" humanity - who knows, perhaps our future is bright after all :)
Perhaps you're confused. The Federation is run by the "Federation council", which is not Starfleet. For example, the Klingon empire is a member of the Federation with representation equal to Earth, but they have their own distinct military and internal processes for selecting Federation council members. Also, "Yesterday's Enterprise" spells-out, with relative clarity, that the concept of military has changed, and what TNG would have been like if it hadn't. The differences between Starfleet at war and Starfleet at peace is the difference between a science vessel with luxury food items and children; and a military vessel with no civilian presence at all. I'm under the impression that citizens of Earth are not governed very much, if at all. Earth is Communist while the Federation is a much more complex parliamentary body.
You seem confused that the Federation is a military dictatorship, because the shows focus & take place in Starfleet, its diplomatic/military branch. Remember what opening taglines say: "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise..." or DS9 or Voyager. The shows don't equally focus on all the Federation's aspects. If I were to watch the sitcom "Full House," would it be logical to conclude that all of San Francisco is made up of nice, middle-class suburbs? Or make a similar conclusion of "Fresh Prince" & Los Angeles?
this is the communism i want for the world, not north korean, soviet, chinese or cuban, not even my dear yugoslav titoism, this is the communism we need, a star trek communism
The socialist elements of ST are due to the advanced technology, and I have no beef with that. Obviously the rich are still there, but apparently poverty has been eliminated. And they do appear to have all the rights of free men, including armed self defense. I'm a staunch capitalist free market type, and believe one earns their way, but the technology removes much of the struggle, and in this case who can argue it's not a good thing?
Your theory that Star Trek is Communism has been disproved numerous times in the comments below. So I'll just gloat and state that one would be so lucky to live in Post Scarcity Star Trek society instead of the current one.
+Brokis Voekler You made a claim. You should be prepared to back it up with hard data. Or delete your comment if you know it is unsupportable by facts.
This is actually an example of post-scarcity technocracy, its not communism, pieces of both capitalism and socialism can be find within the UFP. from wikipedia "Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry intended to depict the Federation as an ideal, optimistic version of the United Nations.In several following episodes of the original series that were intended as allegories to the then-current Cold War tensions, the Federation took on the role resembling NATO while the Klingons represented the Soviet Union.[1] Roberto Orci, writer of the 2009 Star Trek movie, explained that the utopianism of the series has many times been a thematic foil to ongoing world events, showing that peace is possible in times where there are fears of "perpetual war".[2] The Federation is described as an interstellar federal polity with, as of the year 2373, more than 150 member planets and thousands of colonies spread across some 8,000,000 cubic light years of the Milky Way galaxy; each successive series in the timeline bringing in more races and planets into the Federation. The Federation is described as stressing, at least nominally, the values of universal liberty, equality, justice, peace, and cooperation.[3][page needed][4] The Federation also maintains its own quasi-militaristic and scientific exploratory agency, known as Starfleet (also written as "Star Fleet" in some texts). Starfleet is seen handling many other governmental processes, often with no other agency's influence, such as border defense ("Balance of Terror", "Arena"), diplomatic envoy ("Mirror Mirror"), and has seen extensive use as a defensive military force ("Errand of Mercy", "Doomsday Machine".
I'm a futurist and always have been. With that said, I foresee no future without entertainment like TV. It is great and the best source of entertainment in human history.
@@commenturthegreat2915 TV will be revived through internet services connected to it; I watch different entertainment channels on an internet format that is technically the same as cable television, except it is internet television (in a physical television). I agree with Yautja Prime that TV is a sufficient source for entertainment (it is one of the best inventions in human history regarding entertainment); TV is something I greatly indulge in (besides reading books & exploring nature). I disagree with you that TV is dying (and it is getting replaced by internet services); they are complimenting it. Internet services will contribute to something that will become the new standard in replacing cable television regarding physical television. Basically, there will be internet television (with much of the same popular channels on formats that are really similar to those of cable television; it already exists on my TV [and it is free]). TV is not dying; it is re-forming.
technically, scarcity cannot be eliminated, only mitigated. there is a finite amount of mater and energy in the universe. FTL travel would actually increase scarcity in the long run by allowing more convenient access to materials.
Who knew tens of millions of Russians could've survived if they had replicators? At least they'd have lived long enough to be thrown into a gulag for possessing the means of production.
Even if they did have replicators, the leaders and others in power would consider replicators as a luxury and, even if replicators could be created as easily as the snap of a finger, would attempt to withhold them from the common populace to remain above them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
May I remind you of the DS9 episode "Paradise lost" where a Starfleet Admiral almost took over Earth by taking advantage of his rank. The Federation president was practically helpless to the situation because of the power Starfleet had.
Mr. Offenhouse found his "challenge". In the books he became the Federations first ambassador to the greedy Ferengi! Because he "understood" them!
I'd say it's a fitting career. He's all about commerce and money, the Ferengi are obsessed with commerce and Latinum (money)
That‘s kinda cool to think about. Something that‘s considered a human flaw being flipped upsidedown to be a strength under different circumstances. I like that.
Sounds about right lol
That's awesome!
OY VEY not the greedy Ferengi!
The internet didn't even exist when this episode aired, but they knew _something_ would kill TV!
Actually the internet in the 80s was owned by the defense Department and several universities.
@@lenpey is this episode from the 80s? i thought tng was 90s, but don't care enough to check.
@@minamur It ran from about 1987 to around 1994. I'm thinking this episode may have been aired around 89 or 90.
If the Internet didn't kill TV, the Holodeck would have for sure. Imagine being able to not just WATCH an episode of TV, but BE in one.
@@dandaintac388
That may sound fun, definitely fun for those into role-playing and physical exercise. but, even in the Star Trek future, there are more than likely a ton of people who don't like to use the holodeck can't use it or don't want to use it all the time. these people might still want to watch a story. just like how TV/film didn't kill books in our time. we have seen characters read books (inculding paper ones) and movies are mentioned. heck we've seen them use the holodeck to recreate a cinema just to watch a movie! the holodeck seems to be yet another option to enjoy entertainment. some form of TV likely still exists (the news, weather report) it's just not the main form, most popular form of entertainment anymore.
TV didnt last beyond 2040? Thats kinda believable.
+DarPower1 Actually, that's one prediction that may prove to be true. The internet is even now replacing the TV as the primary form of mass media.
+DarPower1 I'll be surprised if it makes it to 2030.
+DarPower1 I haven't had a TV in years. The internet completely took over for me.
+DarPower1
Internet has already killed television.
I havent used my TV for years, but I still think by the time TV becomes entirely obsolete to the point where it wont be commonly sold in electronic stores is around 2040-ish.
I think they've got the TV thing right. I don't even watch TV anymore now. 2040, it's over.
+Rebel Infidel in star trek enterprise they still watch movies like the exorcist the day the earth stood still but it's all streaming.
They can actually star in their favorite movies on the Holodeck, I'm sure a lot of classic earth movies have been remastered as it were, to the 3d format
Is sitting in front of a computer or on your phone all day really different than watching TV? Video entertainment will exist in one form or another for a very long time.
I grew up in a boring place watching TV for hours every day. I'm 32 now and I haven't owned a TV since I was 24.
ALL HAIL PRESIDENT NETFLIX
If this is communism, count me in
me too
me 4th
There's a difference between consumerism and materialism. Materialism is the opposite of spiritualism. Consumerism would be the opposite of minimalism.
It's part of communism in preach, and none of communism in practice.
Ronin Tails what do you mean
"Why, the challenge is to get into wars and varied difficulties with aliens! It's quite entertaining!"
Reported to the committee of un-american activities.
*The Committee of Un-American Activities for Freedom
You have been reported as well.Jpseudo
Can I get reported, too? ;)
Reported to the committee of un-confederate activities.
What's the penalty? Death? That McCarthy sure was a douchebag.
10/10 would still live in Star Trek Universe
All we need is replicator technology
still? I would have already but communism just makes it that much better
Obviously
You would live in universe filled with war and eldritch horrors?
@@birbeyboop Move to north korea if you love it so much.
The same argument is made against the unconditional basic income: "everybody would just sit down and be lazy". But: while most (~80%) people think their neighbors would become lazy, only ~10% say they'd hit the sofa themselves.
Nobody can be lazy forever - eventually you start to do SOMETHING - and maybe it is in the interest of more than your own, being fulfilling because you don't HAVE to do it, but you WANT
That act may bring joy to you AND others - which can be considered THE point of life.
Imagine a bunch of friend making what today be Hollywood film and post it on social media and be satisfied with likes.
A bunch of aggressive brawlers making their own MMA matches just for fun.
People could travel anywhere on the planet or other planets.
I currently make more on unemployment than I do going to work, after gas is factored in. I hate being unemployed because my schedule goes out the window, but I can find plenty of stuff around my own place to keep me busy while I get paid on unemployment. I see no need to work for others when I can work for myself if I have money coming in.
Aside from that, maybe only about 10% admit that they'd hit the couch, but considering how many people are currently living off of the governments dime, I'd say that number is in reality quite a bit bigger.
It’s literally why communism makes sense everyone has the instinct to be the best. The “drum major instinct” Martin Luther king described it and there’s a reason a lot of black people are communist as well. Racism is literally that drum major instinct driven by the need to be first. However, we’re intelligent humans and we don’t have to be instinctually driven. We can use our brains to be the best. Especially because we need each other. You can cry and talk bc evolution says understanding people helps you survive. We need to pick a system that incentivizes growth instead of greed. Capitalism causes stagnation. If you are constantly competing how can you collaborate and innovate. Even w green energy oil and other non renewables are still used bc they’re nonrenewable meaning it’s hard to replace them and as we drive through our reserves we not only pollute the earth our lungs but we increase the prices of coal because when everyone wants something that’s running out the prices increase. It only benefits the companies selling and not the consumer. It exploits the average person for profits, it’s literally in the name CAPITALism. We ruin human lives for a construct something we can make. Human lives are not replaceable, they are valuable just like all life it’s unique and must be protected. Renewable energy is untapped in terms of research and what we can do with it, it produces less longer term permanent pollution and it can be stored for longer periods of time. We are very very dumb.
@@codyallison8093 that’s not true ur argument makes zero sense bc if those ppl didn’t have the urge to live and survive and be known they wouldn’t exist now. They would’ve been wiped out if laziness was genetically programmed into them. They lack motivation. I would too in a society that is stagnant and benefits people based off of luck and not need or ability. It’s all superficial.
@@Iambunny-ry2os both of your comments show a fundamental lack of understanding about capitalism, communism, human nature, and reality in general. Nowhere in your ramblings was anything that could be considered a coherent, rational thought. We are all dumber for having read it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your commie soul.
A world where you cannot stroke your ego with a big car/house/bankaccount sounds ideal to me.
Let people be proud of who they are, not of what they have.
This will be the future.
But Storm Raven, as I keep saying, this was also the recent past. "Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had simply ceased to exist." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia page 104. There isn't any reason we can't have this now!
TheGoodNews01 You forget that some people want to BE the snobb, rich-man aka money-grubber and the 'feared boss'.
This will not change unless everyone sees and lives with the truth.
"Material things will end."
Thus material possession has no meaning!
ps. I live without an income for 4,5 years now.=)
I wish you were right. Humans are stupid, stubborn, ignorant, and resistant to change. If we change, it would be at last minute, out of desperation, or out of war. It would take a miracle to reach this state. I mean, WWIII needed to happen in Star Trek for this to occur.
ImperiumTrooper I will see it happen. As God is my witness, I am His.
I WILL see it happen!!!
ImperiumTrooper
no thanks, i can change myself just fine without any of that bullshit and so can you it seems if you can spot all this, why not give your fellow humans the benefit of doupt, you werent born with that knowledge and had to learn it through your own personal experience, so maybe others are still in the process of learning the value of life themselves :)
tl;dr if gandhi/buddha/mother theresa can do it so can anyone else
For most ordinary working people, I would say capitalism is not freedom.
capitalism is no more than barter and trade. In star trek the moral basis for accumulating wealth is not there. People work to better themselves.
@Thelondonbadger Socialism does NOT restrict your 'freedom'. Authoritarianism restricts your 'freedom', whether its in the form of communism or fascism. The US has less freedom than many countries that are social democracies and the US has slipped from being a full democracy to into a 'pseudo democracy'. This is mostly due to recent attacks on the free press -- which is an attack on your freedom.
@@joelbrittain6379 neither are good. The answer is a somewhat socialist economic policy but instead of a marxist ideological basis that believes in secularism and equality it should thrive to be more pro hierarchy.
@@joelbrittain6379 ooo should someone tell him America has never been a democracy?
That because you are bad at it.
I love how the replicator exposes how trivial a martini truly is.
Nothing says 'trivial' like a bevy of carefully dried and prepared spices gathered from around the world macerated into distilled grain spirit blended with another bevy of carefully dried and prepared spices gathered from around the world added to fortified grape wine, shaken together over ice artificially maintained in a non-icy climate at great energy expense, and then topped with the heavily processed fruit of a shrub tree transported to a non-Mediterranean climate from the Mediterranean at great energy and resource expense.
In a martini, you drink the labors of thousands.
I think he was revolted by the taste of synthetic alcohol
Also I gather that the taste of food or drinks from a replicator have all the ingredients, but wouldn't have all the personality. You can put things together that are all the right ingredients and how you do it gives the food its personality.
@@remobothic When you put it that way it sounds as if that is the case. Its simply 5-6 ingredients, which you can actually make with substituted ingredients. There is nothing wrong with olives its just you thinking that CO2 is a death gas. Trade is important, get over it.
@@orsonstarbuck Ethanol is ethanol.
TV gone by 2040....That's probably the most accurate prediction. lol :D
True lol, the only reason I still have a tv is to watch netflix on a bigger screen
This is a society that offers every human being the potential to achieve their highest self. It’s a very spiritual offering.
Yes, Communism.
@@eleSDSU, A society without want, hate, class and war.
Sounds better than communism and capitalism.
@@eleSDSU the only place it works is in fiction
@@eleSDSU Maybe if it had billions intentionally starved and death camps on every block.
@@1braincellwhm how many have starved under capitalism? How many have become homeless under capitalism?
When I first saw this I had troubled believeing that there would be no TV in the future. Now I can totally see it happening.
Maybe we will get Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Anarchist Communism too
These are not examples of communism. This is post-scarcity. When you eliminate scarcity (through the progression of technology), you eliminate the need for money or wealth distibution. Anybody can have anything as seen in the scene with the replicator.
Communism, capitalism, feudalism etc. are different systems dealing with the distribution of scarce resources. There's no need for any kind of economic system in a post-scarcity world.
Ahh, but is this also "the End of History" as humanity was to be described under true communism, and later Francis Fukuyama (rhetorically) was to say about neoliberalism shortly after the fall of the Soviet Bloc?
"there's no need for any kind of economic system in a post-scarcity world"
Trek explains a much more articulated and mature view of economics and it's effect on humanity so to simplify it down to post-scarcity is very misleading. and it is an incorrect assumption to say that capitalism is dealing with distributing scarce resources, capitalism is not an economic system, rather sociological, in which artificial scarcity, in the form of a profit, is introduced into economics in order for the rich to derive value from the working classes.
"When you eliminate scarcity (through the progression of technology), you eliminate the need for money or wealth distribution. "
there's no need for money now, it only serves to obscure the distortion of value. as things are sold at a profit, they are seen to have a higher value than their production cost, while in reality their value cannot exceed production cost, however without introducing the social construct of profit, no one would be rich.
Johnnie Torres
Even without artificial scarcity created by corporations, there's a lot of real scarcity in the world. We still don't have virtually unlimited access to energy or matter. In fact a lot of important resources are being exponentially depleted, RES are unefficient, nuclear fussion and asteroid mining are in the realm of dreams. We still don't have the labour-replacing technologies in production and everyday life.
No system you can put in practice today will solve the problems of the world.
Financial and political solutions to problems are very limited in scope, Only science and technology can solve the problems of mankind.
Johnnie Torres
The goal is not to make rich people poorer, but to make poor people wealthier.
You could've created perfect equality in a medieval, agricultural society, but their standard of living would've been much lower than that of people living in developed countries today.
There will be opposition from people in power to post-scarcity, but the real problem is that we aren't technology capable of creating post-scarcity yet.
Economic concepts like Capitalism and Communism don't really have any relevance in post-scarcity societies. Goods possess value only when they are limited in supply. Money is only meaningful when there is perceived value for it to be measured against. The Federation is actually closer to the ideals of the Technocracy movement, which held that the only *real* unit of value was *energy*, not goods or money with purely subjective value.
Goods still have a sort of value in post-scarcity... that being use value, Distribution is still a factor to take into consideration in post-scarcity. For example, we are currently more-or-less post scarcity when it comes to music and movies and art due to nearly effortless digital multiplication. Capitalism, however, restricts this through copyrights and other forms of legal protection. Post-scarcity necessities could still be legally controlled by the state in the interest of individual ownership.
The mere fact that the lack of scarcity in production equals a lack of scarcity in distribution means that they have adopted something approximating the communist model where the means of production are held in commons in the society.
Andrew Fullerton
Well of course. If a majority of goods become commoditized, then capitalism becomes largely unsustainable under macroeconomic principles. In the real world, a number of industry sectors use practices from price-fixing, the formation of trusts to lobbying the government for subsidies and tax exemptions to protect "crucial" industries from becoming unprofitable. The so-called "free market" is a lie, because at the end of the day business relies on government to provide a legal framework to protect their interests, and even to provide physical infrastructure to enable them to move their goods! Roads, railroads, the interstate highway system, the public switched telephone network and the internet were *all* funded by startup money from the government! All of them, to some extent or another, continue to rely on government support to this day.
Remembering that Earth on Star Trek is a post-nuclear war future, it is likely that nearly a century of warfare collapsed the global economy, and in rebuilding they found it easier to centralize resource management since people in many war-torn places no longer even had usable money!
By the time reestablishing the free market would have been possible, nobody saw the point anymore because technology and available resources (from space), had commoditized so many goods that trade in most goods simply wasn't profitable and would have had to be government-subsidized anyway.
*****
Star Trek had to imagine massive war, but to be honest, I don't think we 'IRL' NEED it. Adoption of post-scarcity systems need not lead to a global war, at least if enough elites can be convinced it is in their benefit to let it happen (this is happening in newer tech-savvy elite generations in USA, but I dunno about elsewhere)
Malcolm Swoboda
It's still a long haul. For example, the recent plummet in the price of oil and the way U.S. oil companies are being petty by responding with almost immediate mass-layoffs to goad the government into helping drive the price back up is a demonstration of how the so-called "free market" is a blatant lie and the system is really being run by profit motive, not the real availability or value of goods.
The Federation itself could be considered communistic since it is a stateless organization versus earth, which would represent full socialism best. If money is no longer the driving force for people, then technological acquisition must be. Seems like The Federation has reverted back to bartering, this for that. All this does not mean that people have to do some form of work to earn things. Replicators may have solved hunger and diseases are gone but what about when someone wants a new house?
Wow TV gone by 2040? I guess I'm ahead of the curve :P
b-buh how about pr0n?
***** Internet bruh
Aethgeir
HOW ARE WE SUPOSED TO WATCH PORN WHEN OUR EYES ARE NOT REAL...I mean without TV-screen?
I can't fap to LED lights on the engineer panels.
PC entertainment would still come under the "TV" category, its far to similar for them to distinguish between, VR on the other hand would be in between TV & the holodeck so would be it's own category, if this generation embraces the new VR systems being rolled out then TV & monitor based PC experiences could well disappear in the next few decades, they'd be replaced by powerful headsets for hardcore game & viewing experiences & things like google glass & hololens for casual entertainment.
vr is not going to replace screens, you arent going to whip out your vr headset and calibrate it to check your email. you might have something with glass and hololens but it probably won't ever be a replacement. there are still analog tvs all over the place running through digital converter boxes
This is one of my favorite episodes of TNG and wish we lived in a moneyless society.
@@ChickityChicken The utopian dream was literally at the heart of classic Start Trek and Gene Roddenberry's vision.
@@deewolf1903In the past people usually portrayed the future that everything would become better but nowadays the future is always portrayed that everything will become worse.
Without replicator technology or some other means of annihilating scarcity it’s extremely unlikely. People make a big fuss over it but currency is literally just how we attain resources to survive.
@@femalesupremacistoverlord6800 But when you think on it, you don't really need money to attain resources. Historically, money was advertised as a way to attain ownership of traded goods but it's been twisted into a barrier for basic human needs where food is tossed away and empty houses rot because of it. But money is not an ingredient to bake bread and it is not material for building a house. It's just paper and a promise. We're so mired in the idea of money that it's hard to imagine how life would function without it but I still dream of it.
@@deewolf1903 Put a vagrant in an empty house and watch what happens. Some people can’t take care of things even if they had the resources.
Imagine that, a human future where we abolish the need for money.
the horror.... THE HORROR!
Names,
In order for a member of a society to be poor, it is necessary for that society to have and use a monetary system... the United Federation of Planets has no form of monetary system. Everyone gets their share. Clothing, food, a place to live, healthcare, hell, as far as I can tell, everything is free for everyone. You want a sandwich, walk up to a replicator and say "Ham and cheese sandwich" and boom, you've got a ham and cheese sandwich. You need a new shirt, simply ask the replicator for a new shirt.
The United Federation of Planets is a post-scarcity society... there's more than enough of everything that everyone needs, so everyone gets what they need.
Everyone may get what they need but how would someone get what they want? how would someone go about owning something? picards family own a vineyard, siscos dad owns a restaurant, how would someone own a spaceship?
A need doesn't mean a requirement, it means whatever you "want" enough to take from the collective. At least that's what Marx meant .
Imagine how the people on Earth would survive if they no longer had the technology. They would either all starve and die or would have to rely on trade. That's what the Borg was all bout -- technology turning against them.
Marxist Communism disallows private property but it permits personal property.
Elon Musk meets Star Trek and realizes capitalism died out and loses all meaning in his life.
Then becomes a dilithium mining magnate because you need that to use replicators
I would've loved to see a follow up episode on this.
Too bad they could never expad on TV episodes, what happens after the credits?
@@christopherlee9184 oh but they do, in the books.
I want this future!
I have to disagree with you about this. The Federation is neither Communist nor Capitalist. They don't have an economy the way that we understand it because replicators allow them to make anything they want or need. Therefore there is no need to accumulate wealth, nor is there a need to redistribute wealth or the means of production.
That's perfect for advansed communism. Not need for money, no classes. Means of Produktion controlled by the working class is just socialism.
@@huhuu7093 now there’s “advanced communism?” I’ve never heard of that. Perhaps you can point me to the economist who explains how “advanced communism” works.
@@jeflaw1996 fully developed communism is a moneyless, classless, stateless society. Marx descriped a path throug seizing the means of production from the capitalist class to the working class. Called that intermediate step "lower communism" or later "socialism". Sry for my Bad english. I'm Not a orthodox marxist or anything, but that's what He ment in "das Kapital". So there's probably No Economist describing a post-scarcity society Like in ST. Because you know... No need for that then anymore, right?
@@huhuu7093 assuming that you’re correct about Das Kapital, the Federation still isn’t communist because it isn’t “classless.” There is a clear hierarchy in Star Fleet, from Admiral to Ensign, in the Federation government and even in private organizations. I know Marx was talking about class in terms of wealth, but that narrow definition does not fit with human reality. Every human civilization has had classes and a division of labor/responsibility, and so does Star Trek.
@@jeflaw1996 marx' definition of classes was for the purpose of a critical analyse of capitalism and how whe get past that stage, but one have to read Marx first.
"that particular form of entertainment did not last much beyond the year 2040". Tell that to Phlox and Tom Paris.
Tom Paris is like the equivalent of someone being really really into shakespeare, or chaucer, or Ming vases. There are still lots of people like this, but it's not a preoccupation of the masses. Nevertheless he still does holonovels not TV.
Now, if we can only emulate the United Federation of Planets, life will be, at least, a little better.
+sergeantassassin3 Shut up, commie.
MK Warlock Lol, you confused or something?
+sergeantassassin3 Nah, Identity politics will kill us all before Star Trek becomes a reality
+Dex Starr " Identity Politics", in their time line during their W.W. 3 up to 80% of their Coastal Cities were destroyed. As of Now in the (Real World ), 60% of the world's population lives on the Coast Line. That is close to 3.5 billion people. South California ( the Greater L.A. Area to the Boarder ) hold 10% of the U.S.A. population. With One 5 Mega Ton warhead launch from a Sub, there goes 30 million people.
E.M.P. " the Lights goes Out " in the winter, everyone above the " Dixie Line " will Freeze to Death. Only about 10% of the U.S. or the World's population are Prepaired for the " Shift."
Federation Earth Rose due to all of the dead weight being dropped off by the " Great War." sad truth.
***** It also has the whole "Lacking Money" thing. They're able to do all of this without having to pay anyone with monetary currency.
With enough technology and power... material needs become so inexpensive that it is pointless charging for them. If you have replicators, transporters, and anti-matter reactors... what is the point in charging for anything? That isn't communism... its the inevitable result in things becoming cheaper and cheaper due to technology.
And from where do you get technology if not from society, that sees value in it and it wants to invest in pro bono from its order, rather than in profit of a few(like in Star Trek)? That is not a basic paradigm of capitalism. And communism sees here from totally other perspective. Things are currently cheaper because of exploitation lol, its not because we invent new things(because ratio between mental and material work is utter absurdity and that is what communism fixes in idea, not in shitty 20. century "realization" which was undertaken in undeveloped countries lol) . Until we see that pattern in our history of a labor, which will never achieve nothing in mental production it will always be just a poor slaver-ship... And yeah too many people believe in techno fix. First you have to establish a righteous society, who will treat everyone equal, so they can develop their mental skill for sciences, arts, etc.(and realize their potential, which is infinitesimal if we contemplate from epistemology of science) then you will have 24, century with technology like we see here, rather than waiting for couple of thousands of year, that slow progress will be achieved lol... ;)
spenky denky This technology comes from science fiction. However, once you assume that replicators, transporters, and anti-matter reactors exist... that money wouldn't be used for mundane purposes is a fairly easy jump.
If replicators existed... what are you going to pay someone for inventing someone new? They can press a button on the wall and get almost anything they want. What are you going to buy with money which can't be made by a replicator? Why do most people need fancy cars if they can press a button and appear anywhere on the planet?
***** 3D printers are a good start on the way to replicators.
*****
Actually, replicators do make things from other material, and not out of thin air. Matter is broken down to molecular level & rebuild to other items.
Molecular recycling, in other words.
*****
I don't know much about 3D printers- other than they can make any shape in plastic, so maybe can knock out some parts of the toy industry, and other areas. (Though, I don't know what variations of plastic they can do)
Star Trek didn't feel like Communism. It felt more like a Utopian Socialist Society.
And no Communism and Socialism are not the same.
Life in the 413 It pretty much is communism. They have no currency, it's post-scarcity, all Federation planets are a single unified government, not individual states, etc...
Life in the 413 Communism is the long term utopian result of socialist systems.
857Evan Nay, +Life in the 413 is right, communism is a stateless society, whereas Star Trek, with its single Federation government, is very much the opposite. Though socialistic principles are displayed in Star Trek, so are contradictory things like Federation imperialism, resettlement of natives, secret state military projects (like section 31), etc. etc.
I suppose communist style economics, rather than a communist society.
+Life in the 413 Star Trek represents more of a Recourse Based Economy than anything else. In short, a future when technological advancements provide the necessities of life with very little human labor involved, giving everyone the resources and the freedom to pursue their own individual passions and desires; an economy free from economic uncertainty and unnecessary labor/servitude without the societal stratification and power displacement commonly found in Communism. You should check out The Venus Project. :)
I'd say this comment section and early Star Trek in of itself sums up communists and the idealistic vision they have of themselves.
"Our perfect system works, but first we need to eliminate war, poverty, consumerist tendencies, nationalism, identity, religion, individualism, biological differences, general bad thoughts... ... But once we've gotten rid of all that, THEN we can explore the stars, together!"
"Incidentally, don't look at at the USSR or every other communist country that's ever existed, they just couldn't apply communism properly, the system was too advanced for simple minds."
However, Star Trek got a lot more identitarian and Federation delegates became pretty damn xenophobic in DS9, especially against the Ferengi. I'd say that alone makes DS9 one of the more interesting Star Trek series, simply because it actually shows more of the human condition, conditions I don't think will ever go away. Not unless you basically want to erase negativity itself.
The majority of that what you wrote and the prime reasons for why they exist, for example poverty, could be boiled down to one word - capitalism, the system which a lot of negativity stems from.
capitalism didn't create that world, people did.
these things that benefit humans - they're not profitable. so they're almost never developed by private companies. it's just people with passion who eventually get publicly funded/noticed
So to get communism to work we need to eliminate capitalism? that's pretty obvious.
So what's described as the "one bright spark" of the Syrian revolution? Which nation is the only sustainable country on earth? Which idea turned a backward monarchy that ruled over serfs tied to the land into a super power?
Socialism has worked before, and with the tools of modern automaton it will work again.
+Hellsw0rth Where are you getting the idea that western countries are socialist?
The thing people fail to understand is that in Star Trek we only see through the eyes of Star Fleet - the very best and brightest of humanity and the other races belonging to a supremely powerful organization with the manpower and technology to cater for the will of everyone within it. The rest of the humanity lives nothing like how Star Fleet members live. They live on small agrarian worlds with far less technological sophistication and in much worse conditions. Tasha Yarr talks about the rape gangs on her home planet...
I feel that Firefly is a very good representation of what it's really like to live in the Star Trek universe. Yeah sure, a select and noble few have everything they ever wanted while everyone else works their knuckles to the bone to barely get by. So yeah, I suppose Star Fleet kinda is a communist organization!
(I'm a huge Trekkie, no hate)
Brutalis If you are gonna use Tasha Yar as your prime example: Turkana IV (her planet) was thrown in civil war following the break down of the local government. The factions that took over seceded completely from the Federation (Turkana was already a non-aligned system). Shortly after that, the Federation sent rescue ships to evacuate any refugees they could find, and among them was Tasha.
Also, the small agrarian worlds with little technological sophistications are usually colonies on their early stages of development or colonies that lost contact with the rest of the Federation, on the frontier of Federation space. They aren't good examples of how the Federation actually works.
+
With a title like "Examples of Communism in Star Trek", I was expecting a 10 hour video.
He doesn't even have one.
I was expecting some actual examples of communism.
If this is Communism, sign me up!
Think about how close to this we actually are!
When I grew up I never imagined we would have tablet sized computers, like the ones they use in TNG. Now look where we are: Real tablet computers are even sleeker than the Star Trek ones.
3D printing might still be crude, but there is no denying it's an important step towards actual replicators and with the recent success of VR, even Holodecks have become an actual possibility for the future.
Heck, we even managed to achieve reliable quantum teleportation, ITER will take us closer to the age of fusion power generation. Imho we are just on schedule for our 24th century Star Trek future ;)
It's also a time to hope that the interest of the powerful few don't hold back this progress. We become technologically closer, but we still have a fair way to go before we reach our Star Trek utopia socially.
Trices Mailwind There have always been powerful people who would rather have a monopoly on certain ideas instead of sharing them with humanity as a whole.
But that has become increasingly more difficult for them, because technology allows us to share ideas easier, faster and wider. First Gutenberg's press, now the Internet, the reaction is always the same: They demand censorship because they fool themselves into the believe they could turn back time to a point where they had all the information advantage.
That's never gonna happen again, no matter how hard they gonna try, the genie is already out of the bottle.
4 years later, now we can 3D print food, I guess you were right
So where does the population-decimating nuclear war fall in this continuum?
And yet so far from communism
In Soviet Federation, material needs YOU!
And yet Picard’s family owns a vineyard in France.
There's "evidence" that it's not really a communism at all. That's basically just a meme that people buy.
@@iBloodxHunter Theyre a moneyless society where people go without want ( Need ) and contribute how to what they feel most adept ( ability ). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. A main tenent of marxism.
@@yadisdis4207 multiple instances of currency within the Federation ranging from credits to energy credits to Dilithium. We don't see that as much because it seems like military(Starfleet) has everything paid for them. Also there's signs of a civilian free market and companies(notably shipping companies.) Also Starfleet owns a ton of land(s.)
We have no need for things but has a ready room full of trinkets.
In the Federation everyone can have a frigging vineyard if they want to.
Star Trek is Socialist, not Communist, it hasn't hit the Communist stage of development, but is along the way there.
Star Trek still has nation-states that act as a federation in a planetary state. Star Trek still uses hierarchy instead of direct democracy and while I'm not sure how it works, but Picards family owns a Vinyard (though they could just be the managers of it). It's shown numerous times though that humans do tend to live in Communes whenever they visit human settlements on other planets.
Socialism is a transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism, just like Merchantalism was a transitional phase between Feudalism and Capitalism, thus it will have aspects of both systems, while moving towards the latter.
1. Direct democracy is not a requirement of communism.
2. Picard's family are the stewards of the vineyard. They have a unique stake in its operation because it has been in their family for generations(even centuries) and represents the cultural heritage of the Picard family. Under communism, unlike socialism, there is no need to collectivize the land as there is no private ownership. The vineyard is not private property because there is no way to profit from it, formally speaking. However, because the Picard family is actively invested/engaged in the use of the land, it could be considered their personal property, which is a concept that many communists point to as the resulting alternative to private property.
3. The economic progression to which you're pointing is founded in Marx's historical materialism and goes(in simple terms)- Fuedalism->mercantilism->capitalism->socialism->communism->Anarchism. The Terran society in Star Trek is a highly advanced communist society approaching anarchism, a transition that is the source of their highly anti-authoritarian methods of interacting with other cultures. Federation itself is a concept often favored by anarchist as it is non-hegemonic.
Victor Moskowitz Marx does not mention anarchism.
Marx did not condone Anarchism as a means of struggle, but did say that the result of communism(the point at which the state has "withered") would be a classless, stateless society.
The idea that transitional phases of socioeconomic development should be eliminated in favor of a direct movement toward statelessness came to be associated with another school of socialist thought developed by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
Proudhon was one of the key founders of mutualism and the first major philosopher to use, and identify with, the word anarchist. He was also one of Marx's greatest rivals which was the primary influence upon the split between Marxism and anarchism.
So, no, Marx did not mention anarchism by name(except later to criticize it), but only because it was not yet called anarchism.
Peter Kropotkin and many others would try to resolve these differences(eliminating what he saw to be a false dichotomy) in the form of Anarcho-Communism.
Thanks for the response!
Victor Moskowitz Picard's vineyard- and the Sisko New Orleans restaurant- could just be seen a full-time hobbies in the Star Trek economy. People today already have smaller types of such hobbies, in gardens & cooking. And since people don't usually try to make a profit from hobbies like that, but because they enjoy it, they can get reasonable resources from the shared economy to balloon their enjoyment to a vineyard or restaurant.
Warren Webber Yeah, I was just trying to explain how this really old vineyard stayed a vineyard without people seeking to use it for something else. Same for the restaurant.
"The work of art of the future will be the construction of a passionate life." Raoul Vaneigem - The Revolution of Everyday Life.
Yes, I like it, because people get just as much entertainment, but at the same time they stay physically fit, and keep their minds sharp. Also deepen their friendships with other people.
Also, the implementation of the theory of Marxism in practice - Communism is not a utopia. Just one of the options for the development of mankind. And one of the most favorable, because the lion's share of GDP does not go with it one percent of the spenders - the rich.
This GDP goes to workers(from factory workers to research institutes workers who will no longer be dependent on the whims of the rich), and society is experiencing a qualitative cultural revolution.
In this world, the worker has nothing to lose. In turn, he will conquer the whole world.
Proletarians of all countries, unite!
as a post scarcity futurist I could go on and on but if I got a replicator and found the holodeck they would have to drag me out nude feet first! lol!
incentive to work hell, incentive to ever see reality again hahaha. .
+Curas1 Oh man eating all the dishes they serve at Applebees and other similar restraunts without paying the absurd price. Would be amazing! And the doctors would stop me from dying at 40 from eating that food.
+Nunya Buizness
if I could explore cuisine without cost I'd have to see how good or bad all those luxury fine food was.
humm maybe Applebees is better.
*****
I love their steak 9oz steak and garlic mashed potatoes dish. The steak itself tastes so good that I don't even bother putting steak sauce on it.
Not everyone is like that. There are people who do jobs that don't pay well because they love the job itself. Scientists, teachers, artists, musicians, philosophers, etc. There are many people who pursue their passion regardless of monetary reward.
Oh, Roddenberry's sweet innocence and naivete. That a future of instant gratification (replicators, holodecks) would lead to a nobler, more accomplished human race rather than a lazy, corrupt, and hedonic pack of barbarians is very touching.
@EPloar Div which it’s way it’s a crying shame what CBS has done to it now. Godawful dystopian wank 😔
That isn't what Roddenberry was depicting. The show constantly talks about how society has to reach a level of social maturity before it's ready for this sort of technology and that it takes a long time to progress to that point. In this episode specifically, we see how corrupt people who lived lives of instant gratification in the 20th century were and the crew is embarrassed and disgusted that humans used to be that way.
I don't think that's idealistic. We no longer keep slaves. Spousal abuse and racism have become less acceptable. We also see that, in places with high quality of living and social safety nets, people are a lot less likely to commit crime. We also see that happier workers are more productive. I don't really see the naivete. I think you're just jaded.
The replicator usage is always limited by the power output of the warp engine, you can't just say "well they found out how to use replicator so they're communists". They're on a ship and replicator usage is rationed for each crewman. This is why hobby accessories are always very scarce on a starship - they have the lowest priority but require multiple replicator rations. Even Data, who doesn't need to eat, uses his replicator rations very strategically.
That can't be accurate. In the episode where Riker cooks and Worf is the only one who likes what he made, they explicitly talk about how this is unnecessary specifically because they can replicate whatever they want whenever they want.
@@AbandonedVoid They CAN, however this is no different that saying "a running car has air conditioning, so we can stay cool forever". To run that AC (use replicator), energy must be used. Energy coming in their case from warp core. Running lights means less power put into propulsion.
Another thing - senior officers are typically permitted more on the ship, so you don't typically hear about them "trading in" replicator rations.
The replicator isn't what makes them communist, having a classless cashless society is
@@taliaeategg2027 Not really, I mean yes on the classless part but cashless has nothing to do with it. There is still money in Communists economic models, what goes away is private property but money can still be used to acquire personal property.
@@eleSDSU money only exist during the transitionary period, with the Whitering away of The state money will slowly disaper aswell
It's a bit strange that they mention there not having been money in Star Trek for quite some time, yet they make a great many references to still using it in ToS.
many things were retconned for tng. for example, the tos klingons look nothing like the klingons in tng onwards, something they actively draw attention to in the episode of DS9 where they go back to an episode of tos
tbh, many things of tos are to be taken with a grain of salt within star-trek lore. Like women not being allowed to captain a starship, or the klingons
If I ever meet Picard (character) on the enterprise I'd say " today I went down to the ships bar, I saw Many humans drink and bet half of them weren't thirsty, they just WANTED a drink"
No offense, Ebony Watts from 8 years ago, but that's a rather shallow argument. The point is not that people just stopped wanting things, but that it's no longer a priority. Self-improvement is valued above material possessions. The only true 'wealth' to gain in the Federation is the wealth of your knowledge and maturity as a person.
I want to live in Star Trek even more now.
This philosophy wouldn't work right now because, as we all know, resources are finite while the desire for resources is infinite. So people try to get more and more. This leads to the requirement of people working hard for their resources. However, if you could make resources infinite, then indeed, this philosophy would work perfectly.
@Nob the Knave how did they do that? The Martini machine?
We are. It's just that the people in charge are largely in charge, because they generate scarcity.
There are more empty houses than homeless people.
We make enough food for 12 billion, and throw away 40%.
We're already there.
Here's the problem with your line of thought - you're not considering overconsumption as something that can be eliminated. This is one of our biggest issues. We have enough resources to give folk basic needs and even more, but billionaires waste so many resources that it's ridiculous. If we can change our values and implement a society where people would understand the importance of preserving their resources and danger of overconsumption, then something similar to Star Trek can actually be implemented. Unfortunately, rich won't allow this, because they won't be able to flex their useless yachts and private planes.
Well, the disappearance of television is actually pretty accurate. Netflix, UA-cam, and other video viewing sites are replacing television.
Aren't those just evolution more than disappearance. They have basically the same results.
"This is the 24th Century, material needs no longer exist"
The world of Start Trek is not communist; it is post scarcity. Communism is the ideology of the equal distribution of resources. Star Trek's main fiction is that resources are no longer scarce, and therefore, there is no need to distribute anything, equally or otherwise. Anyone can obtain any resources at anytime because resources are limitless.
See communism specifically is [in theory] a system of government wherein limited resources are distributed equally, in lieu of those resources being distributed unequally, leading to a class that has enough, or even excess, and a class that does not have enough. This is not applicable to the world of Star Trek because limitless resources make it impossible for anyone to be left wanting. That is not Communism, but rather, a total lack of need for communism, capitalism, socialism, or any other wealth distribution ideology.
So before touting that "communism works for them" I would be careful about championing a system of government that has failed in every iteration ever tried, to the deaths of millions, because a fictional universe seemed to work under it as a result of that system of government not even being needed.
"So before touting that "communism works for them" I would be careful about championing a system of government that has failed in every iteration ever tried"
That's only because every iteration so far has become corrupted by the few at the top. The so called leaders, of said systems, become 'power mad' and greed ends up right back where it was never intended to belong.
@@buckrodgers1162 And you believe the fact that "every iteration so far has become corrupted by the few at the top," is not indicative of a fundamental problem with that system of government?
The United States of America's government was specifically design to avoid exactly that eventuality: it champions a bill of inalienable rights for the people, and sets up multiple branches of government, on Federal, State, and local levels, to serve as checks and balances to each other. The idea was to not give any one group of ideologs enough power to seize control, and serve as dictators. The fact that our government is often in deadlocked opposition is not a problem with our Democratic Republic; it is very much the point: it was designed to work that way so that only the changes we all generally agree on, happen.
Regarding Communism, on the other hand, while equal distribution of resources for unequal contribution to society is a major unsolved problem with communist ideology, it is far from the main issue. The main issue with Communism is, in order for it to be enacted effectively (allowing the state to unilaterally determine how to distribute resources), it requires giving too much power to the state: a level of power that has proven to corrupt every man, woman, or group ever granted such power, always resulting in the suffering of the people. And it always will, because greed, particularly for power and wealth, has always plagued mankind. As such, there is no way to grant so much power to a single entity while also ensuring safeguards against misuse of that power, because you just handed the power to control those safeguards to that very state. It would be like allowing criminals to police themselves... they are not going to. Trying it again without addressing this issue is folly.
How did Einstein put it? Trying the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, is the definition of insanity.
@@herewegoagain...,
To answer your question: No, I don't believe it's indicative of the system. But I do believe it's indicative of the human condition. How better to showcase it, than to look around during this past year.
You got celebrities saying "just stay inside" while in their fucking million+ dollar mansions. While others have to deal with the fact that if they don't go to work they become homeless. And all the while the EX-leader is saying "it don't exist" or some other stupidity, while the CDC is in itself throwing out mixed information. And that's just from the US.
Humans, no matter how much they say they aren't, are all just 100% self interested. The systems themselves may or may not be flawed, but humans are 100% flawed.
@@buckrodgers1162 "No, I don't believe it's indicative of the system. But I do believe it's indicative of the human condition." ... This is effectively the same thing. The efficacy of a system of government solely hinges on how well if grapples with the human condition, as a government's sole purpose is literally to deal with the human condition. The whole point of a government is to run a society in spite of our natural tendency be selfish, as we have generally learned, in order to survive, we must work together. So if it doesn't do that well, it is flawed as a system. A discussion on the efficacy of communism, or any other system of government, in a society comprised on non-humans, could not be less useful.
"Humans, no matter how much they say they aren't, are all just 100% self interested. " ... You are referring to humans in the third person, as though you are not one, which I find extremely strange.
"The systems themselves may or may not be flawed, but humans are 100% flawed." ... Again, the separation you are making between a system of government (which you are almost personifying), and humans, makes absolutely no sense. The whole purpose of a government is to deal with humans, particularly our flaws. Therefore, if it doesn't handle our flaws, that system is inherently flawed because that is literally the one thing it is supposed to do.
@@herewegoagain...,
1: The systems as written are not human, they are a set of rules/regulations. Those rules themselves can not corrupt themselves, as they are just words/numbers on a piece of paper. So how are those systems the same thing as a human that is unfit for leadership?
2: Yes I do. And you can find it strange all you want. But when one has been shown, by way of treatment, nothing but actions that all point to point to the conclusion of 'that one is not part of your species'; What else can you expect?
3: Refer to point 1.
The problem is that this is all predicated on an impossible premise: the elimination of scarcity. Even in a society with replicators able to produce anything, you'll still have a scare resource: energy. The energy required to power a replicator (which either generates particles from energy or performs nuclear or subnuclear reactions to transmute existing matter) would be ENORMOUS. That's why this is the most unrealistic element of all in Star Trek.
i can believe that TV didn't last long, but what i can't believe is that people stopped watching movies, videos, video series for entertainment or that the internet would stop existing on which you could watch said videos
The term for this is "post-scarcity."
Star Trek is a post-scarcity utopian society, which I find quite uplifting to watch. There are some pretty interesting dystopian takes on a post-scarcity society, too.
Yes however to be post scarcity it can't be capitalist as capitalism requires artificial scarcity.
Houses aren't valuable if everyone has one so you must keep them scarce to keep their value etc.
@@masiethespiral
Capitalism requires scarcity not artificial scarcity and there will always be scarcity in one form or another. With replicator technology, there are only four major scarcitys: Energy, Land, People and Time.
I would list labor, but I believe we'll have androids performing all menial labor long before we figure out how to create replicators.
Data: I believe what he is looking for commander is the NETFLIX and WiFi passwords.
From each according to his starship with enough firepower to level a planet, to each according to his food replicator.
Things are a lot easier when you can pretty much compile "out of thin air" any physical object, most importantly food.
we can already basically do that. production is so insanely efficient now there's really no need for hunger or want but it still exists... wonder why
@@afgor1088 That’s not the same at all. Production may be “efficient” but it’s incredibly unethical; chickens have their beaks chopped off so they don’t peck each other to death out of stress as a result of being cramped together for their short lifespans, the cows and sheep that aren’t slaughtered the “kosher/halal” way only get 30 seconds less of consciousness before they die. It’s hardly comparable to the Star Trek set up where you can use energy reserves to generate food without murder and suffering.
@@femalesupremacistoverlord6800 don't care, chickens are food
@@afgor1088 Just compare factory farmed meat to small farm raised sometime. Our consumerism is watering down food quality and causing health problems.
@@sithticklefingers7255 have done. Prefer factory food
TV dying by 2040? I can see it.
TV? Sure. Videos? Hell no! There are people who _will_ make videos if only for the sake of making a cool or informing video, and people _wil_ watch it.
Netflix and UA-cam are growing, TV is (slowly) dying out.
By then UA-cam or something similar will be the dominant force of entertainment in the future.
He should have ended that last sentence with: "...to live."
All things considered, the Federation still does use several forms of currency to keep up with interplanetary economies. A few which Spock did mention: Federation credits as we saw in the episode The Trouble with Tribbles; Starfleet requisition chits, and of course, gold-pressed latinum.
Some implications when starfleet personnel use currency is that they use it outside their borders. In the episode you mentioned, starfleet personnel use money only because it's along the borders of the Klingon Empire, as the latter political body uses currency. As for places like Risa, again it's implied it's along federal borders in the Alpha Quadrant. Why else would Ferengi be visiting Risa?!
Except for when they're gambling amongst themselves with replicator rations showing that of course starvation is still a thing because you cannot have enough replicator rations. Basically completely debunks the supposed premise of this video but Communists don't really care about reality they just care about narrative.
I'm sure the people who clean the toilets for free feel that they're 'bettering themselves'.
Ridiculous. They don't need people to clean toilets.
Why would you need someone to clean toilets manually when transporters and replicators exist?
2040 huh.
I guess a star trek prediction came early .
when the worse problem you face is boredom so you go looking for worse ones to deal with.
What does this have to do with communism?
This is, more or less, what communism was originaly SUPOSE to be in theory. An unachievable utopia where everyoen works towards a common goal and there is little to no greed or individual ambition.
What communism became in practice every single time it has been implelemented in practice on a scale larger than a single commune has little to nothign to do with it aside from rethoric.
LordDarthHarry Hastily implying that is unreasonable and you have to support your argument with facts and historical context. This is why talking about it here is not a good idea as the topic is very big.
However, learning about it on two sides is the way to go. As for the 'failure' of communism in Russia, here's a reading about it:
www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/lenin-socialism.htm
You'll see that Communism in Russia didn't fail bec of the ideology, but of outside interference. I do however agree that, implementing an ideology that the US doesn't want might not be possible as you would get into war with them.
I think that you are trying to apply a contemporary context to a future definition.
No more worrying about hunger or medicine? Equal opportunity across the board? Sign me up, O'Brien.
"Improve yourself" can be interpreted as making money to some. In the future if such wealth is no longer necessary to accumulate, then what is the medium of improving one-self in a world where all necessity is provided for without your labor for it? That could be subject to ambiguity and what one values could differ from someone else. Sure, doing research may be considered self-improvement, or perhaps building your own architectural masterpiece may be another. Maybe that is the point then, it is what you define it as.
Growing out of infancy doesn't imply a lack of the need to possess things. Clearly Captain Picard needs to possess a starship to conduct his missions. Losing the ship could mean death, even if it is free to replace. So the need to possess actually clearly exists, unless he is as callous to not care about his own existence or that of his crew; then the ship must be treated like property and maintained as such.
Post scarcity doesn't mean you cannot possess anything. Also, because of all the political entropy in the universe, it means that a system of government still exists off the presence of unknown and alien threats to its own species that occupy or live within it. The Federation exists because of survival instincts. Without it humans would be divided, scattered and susceptible to extinction if one of those alien races decided to wipe them out.
I think there are some paradoxes going on here.
Picard doesn't possess the ship, he is the Captain.
sounds more like present day humans experiencing a world with no materialism
*****
Wow, I thought Spock and Kirk were gentiles but im surprised.
However James Doohan (Scotty) is a gentile. Although true he wasn't on the bridge, he was in engineering primarily iirc.
that was an eye opener.
this is one of the best Star Trek episodes, as it explains Star Trek economy. They should have made part 2, so we can see how they integrated these. The banker probably ended up on Ferengi world. I also like The Most Toys
In the books he will become the ambassador on Ferenginar
Unfortunately it's a fantasy within a fantasy because it doesn't go over things like replicator rations or the status of people outside of the military.
Очень характерный диалог между Пикардом и размороженным дельцом из капиталистического прошлого:
- ... И что с нами будет дальше? Моих денег и след простыл. Мой офис пропал. Что я буду делать? Как я буду жить?
- Это 24-е столетие. Материальная нужда больше не существует.
- И в чём вызов?
- Вызов, мистер Оффенхауз, в том, чтобы улучшить себя, обогатить себя. Наслаждайтесь!
his other questions are still valid though. WHERE would he live? what determines where he lives, too? would he live in a simple flat or a full 3 story house or a mansion? how does he get to move from the flat to the mansion if he wants to? how does he collect things to put in his home? how does he get furniture, devices, computers, food? are they all just given to him or does he have to give work for it (which then is a form of currency; work for material things). isnt siskos dad a chef? why does he make food for people to eat when he doesnt get paid? how does he get his ingredients? this whole 'money is bad' thing sounds good on the surface, and i see people in the comments suckling on the idea - probably because they think all their issues will be solved if money is removed - but it only brings up more questions and problems, not less, and its a very not-deep concept with a ton of logic holes gaping it open to anyone willing to ask questions.
He starts out in a room at the local YMCA and works his way up from there............
Take away replicators and their power generation and they would still have the need for material possession, just like us. When Picard says material needs no longer exist, he's lying. They still exist. They're just met by technological means.
I'd imagine if everyone had a replicator and access to transporters/space travel things would be cool.
Unlimited free clean energy is needed for humanity to move away from its current greed and inequality.
Number 1: "I know this is all very confusing to you, so I'll attempt to explain. You are on the Star Ship USS Enterprise"
21st century rich guy: "American?"
Number 1: No its a vessel in the United Federation of Planets and earth is a member."
Data: "Talk."
21st century southern us guy: "Give me a martini, straight up with 2 olives for the vitamins. I might just get to like this place.
Let's see if the braves are on. How do you cut on this T.V?"
Number1: "T.V.?"
21st century southern us guy: "Yea, the boob tube."
Data: "I believe he means Television Sir. That particular form of entertainment did not last much beyond the year 2040."
21st century southern us guy: "Hmm, well what do you guys do? I mean you don't drink and you ain't got no TV, must be kind of boring, ain't it?"
Captain JLP: "That's what all this is about. A lot has changed within the past 300 years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy."
Captain JLP: "Here's what I propose you can't stay on the Enterprise; but I've arranged for us to rendezvous with the USS Charleston bound for earth. They will deliver you there."
21st century rich guy: "Then what will happen to us? There's no trace of my money. My office is gone. What will I do? How will I live?"
Captain JLP: "This is the 24th century. Material needs no longer exist."
21st century rich guy: "Then what's the challenge?"
Captain JLP: "The challenge, Mr. Hoffmanhouse, is to improve yourself, enrich yourself. Enjoy it!"
You forgot to state that Captain Picard owns a vineyard. They cost money (this is how you determine ownership of something valuable).
@@rayray7527 His brother works the family farm/vineyard, in the family for generations.
People forget that in the Star Trek Universe, 800 million people had to die in a nuclear war and then have a "first contract" event to begin to change to were they reached the level they did in Star Trek.
" if you don't use money then you can't have my money" Nog
Look up 'Fully Automated Luxury Communism' (FALC)
We can achieve that in as little as twenty years with robotics going the way they are now.
Step outside.
Immediate turn to the holodeck, live there for the rest of life-time.
+Shining Armour I can imagine people having certain equine related interests in the Holodeck in future. I've already seen whats being done with VR tech.
Holoaddicts of the galaxy, unite !!!
@Thelondonbadger Hallah-Decku Akbar !! :P
@Thelondonbadger Don't forget, about the torture they do.
I vaguely remember someone asking I think it was Levar Burton what he thought the most unrealistic thing about Star Trek. His reply was the HoloDeck, not because of the technology but that once it was invented EVERYONE would just live in one inside their own personal paradise then the human race dies out.
He wouldn't be wrong.
Successful communism in Star Trek? Maybe. But remember, this is a science fiction series!
Find the idea of the removal of suffering implausible. It's so inate that people seek it out. The grand adventure dates back to abraham. To leave your fathers tent and seek adventure. Suffer to grow. This is what they should tell former generations. And what we should tell future generations.
Socialism not communism, but what they have in Star Trek is a society where there isn't a gun pointed at your head.
Communism isn't meant to be that either. STATES run by Communist PARTIES are what point the gun. Actual Communism was meant to be the end point, and that was the evil. The search for utopia by force. The utopia itself (or whatever - 'better future') isn't a bad ideal to hold, just as you can hope for a better life for your family's children, to reduce their suffering and want.
Seems you're mistaking "a communist *state"* for "a communist *society".*
Whoever posted this video missed perhaps the most important scene of all, where Riker makes a demeaning comment about a housewife.
How uppity, how elitist, and the Trekkies, who consider themselves intellectual and worldly wise and tolerant and diverse and all that happy pinko horse dung, never uttered a peep. Too busy worried about wearing their pajamas to jury duty, I suppose.
I'm not sure if "communism" applies to the Federation. It is my understanding that communism is supposed to be a classless and stateless society. Now class and money does seem to be eliminated, but the United Federation of Planets is still a state. Still much better than current reality though.
"What's the challenge?"
"Hive-mind cyborgs?"
"The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise." - old Romulan proverb.
Who need tv when you have holodeck? ^-^
Examples of communism? The entire premise of how the earth and humanity behave in the Star Trek universe is Communism, but it is the way communism is supposed to work. Everyone working together to be better as a society..
Not really communism. Federation is a social democratic alliance. Communism is a social oligharchy
Wow, brilliant, compelling analysis...
It only works if the needs of a person can be easily met without severe costs. The costs in this case being energy. If you have machines that are capable of generating everything someone could want to possess, then yeah, socialism and communism would work quite easily. If all the high-output energy generators suddenly stopped working, it would very quickly fall apart.
If you had nuclear waste recycled to be reused in a reactor, then you have a socialist or communist society. Otherwise, everyone would just need to have college level education to find alternatives. A socialist/communist society's currency is in knowledge, not merely machinery.
The fact that these guys don't have money might be a bit too idealistic but not problematic. They claim they are not obsessed with material possessions - fine. I'll buy that. My main beef is with their political system (or lack thereof). For a union of self governing states (the very definition of "federation") there is a suspicious absence of a few basic things:
There doesn't seem to exit a civilian authority over the military, and if it does, the separation of its powers is at best loose, The only civilian office we ever see is the President, and it is very unclear what his powers are (if any). He either has too many (like also gets to judge/preside over a courtrmarshal counsil hearing for Kirk and gets to pass a lenient sentence in what seems to be an official proceedings) or they are just for show and serve a ceremonial function. Instead the entire Federation seems to be run by a single body - the Starfleet Hight Command. From Earth (how lucky for us). They may call themselves a Federation, but it is a de facto a totalitarian dictatorship. I am so sorry, Piccard.
All they explain is the military end of the political system, so called 'Star Fleet'. The public sector is not really explained.
I agree with your observations an interesting point. Admittedly ST doesn’t cover it very well, but I rather believe it is not a dictatorship and even almost beyond a resource based econonmy with the ability to manipulate carbon to produce most goods.. The star trek universe still has a diplomatic hierarchy, but by not having a desire for "things" and power, the "greed" effect, or absolute power corrupting absolutely, is dumbed down and in an ideological sense pushed out of the mind all together, allowing for greater consciousness, not fear, to rule the mind... In its place a system of trust prevails... You know, that old thing of people actually doing what they say they are going to do, for the good of all not just those concerned or self benefit. The federation is just the political arm of the civil service that deals with outer regional planets and duties there within.
..Additionally I think I watch to much star trek and should get out more! :)
+elbatemano, interesting reply! With the risk of stating the obvious - its pretty clear that Star Trek episodes are really not about the future. The show is for us, by people like us. So it is about us - about people of any age. The space stuff is just a gimmick and as any good myth, shouldn't really be taken literally. So the lack of detail of their system of government - or even a fairy tale magical one (of noble and benign kings) - is not a problem, because just like whatever astronomical inaccurasies the show harbors - it's just not the point.
Now, perhaps you are right that if material/rousource driven part of our lives were fulfilled that it would somehow fundamentally reshape out psyche. Maybe. But i am somewhat sceptical that it is sufficient. After all, lust for power, envy, jealosy, posesiveness, etc. thrive in affluent modern societies just as they do in nomadic tribes - just as people largely immune to these "bugs" can too be found in both.
These human weknesses, it seems, are seldom rooted in material things and are usually a result of seeking attention and recognition or love that is missing or lost. Often both resulting from (and in turn causing) broken friendships and families, endlessly perpetuating this ancient shit. The resulting psychological disorders and trauma of abuse is not a medical condition, so I doubt that Beverly Crusher could cure them. This is Diana Troy's territory, but mostly she only helps - the afflicted themselves have to do the real work.
The transfomation, the drive to overcome these things comes usually with experience, with age, with responsibilities of caring for others, etc. Sometimes it comes when one is at the end of their ropes as an epiphony and often is expressed in the local religious context. It too is natural, part of growing, part of Life and of who we are. So long as our genome remains what it is, and our DNA is not spliced with bees or ants or something, it seems that an occasional flaring up of ambition and ego and obsession with control cannot be ruled out.
Basically, it seems to me, that there are a lot of good apples and a few rotten ones and the idea of checks and ballances in government are really there to make sure those of us who are suffering from inlfated egos don't screw everything up for the rest of us. At least not for long or too much.
Besides, the system where everyone's "self" is taken out of equation is actually the Borg ... so, perhaps the resisteance is while not futile is misguided? :) Also the beings that would make good rulers of our society are caring, smart, logical and placing the will of mankind above all else, and placing their interests last. In Sci-Fi vernacular they are the robots from Azimov's novels driven by the Three Laws - ancestors of the character of Data.
If they (and not, say, the Terminators) are the machines that will "enslave" humanity - who knows, perhaps our future is bright after all :)
Perhaps you're confused. The Federation is run by the "Federation council", which is not Starfleet. For example, the Klingon empire is a member of the Federation with representation equal to Earth, but they have their own distinct military and internal processes for selecting Federation council members.
Also, "Yesterday's Enterprise" spells-out, with relative clarity, that the concept of military has changed, and what TNG would have been like if it hadn't. The differences between Starfleet at war and Starfleet at peace is the difference between a science vessel with luxury food items and children; and a military vessel with no civilian presence at all.
I'm under the impression that citizens of Earth are not governed very much, if at all. Earth is Communist while the Federation is a much more complex parliamentary body.
You seem confused that the Federation is a military dictatorship, because the shows focus & take place in Starfleet, its diplomatic/military branch. Remember what opening taglines say: "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise..." or DS9 or Voyager. The shows don't equally focus on all the Federation's aspects.
If I were to watch the sitcom "Full House," would it be logical to conclude that all of San Francisco is made up of nice, middle-class suburbs? Or make a similar conclusion of "Fresh Prince" & Los Angeles?
this is the communism i want for the world, not north korean, soviet, chinese or cuban, not even my dear yugoslav titoism, this is the communism we need, a star trek communism
The socialist elements of ST are due to the advanced technology, and I have no beef with that. Obviously the rich are still there, but apparently poverty has been eliminated. And they do appear to have all the rights of free men, including armed self defense.
I'm a staunch capitalist free market type, and believe one earns their way, but the technology removes much of the struggle, and in this case who can argue it's not a good thing?
Doug b. Armed self defence? Even the Americans know that's crazy. Mass shootings will be common.
@@tonywebster8582 nope. Most people are not killers.
No please, dont take my TV away!
Your theory that Star Trek is Communism has been disproved numerous times in the comments below. So I'll just gloat and state that one would be so lucky to live in Post Scarcity Star Trek society instead of the current one.
+Frank Offe The title of this video is sarcasm. Read the entire video description above.
+Frank Offe I cannot possible see how the Federation could be uninfluenced by Marxist thought.
+Brokis Voekler You cannot possibly see it yet you also cannot possibly give examples which support your assertion? Weak tea my friend.
What?... What did you just say? What did I even say about examples.
+Brokis Voekler You made a claim. You should be prepared to back it up with hard data. Or delete your comment if you know it is unsupportable by facts.
I can see traditional TV dying out by 2040. Not a bad prediction.
This is actually an example of post-scarcity technocracy, its not communism, pieces of both capitalism and socialism can be find within the UFP. from wikipedia "Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry intended to depict the Federation as an ideal, optimistic version of the United Nations.In several following episodes of the original series that were intended as allegories to the then-current Cold War tensions, the Federation took on the role resembling NATO while the Klingons represented the Soviet Union.[1] Roberto Orci, writer of the 2009 Star Trek movie, explained that the utopianism of the series has many times been a thematic foil to ongoing world events, showing that peace is possible in times where there are fears of "perpetual war".[2]
The Federation is described as an interstellar federal polity with, as of the year 2373, more than 150 member planets and thousands of colonies spread across some 8,000,000 cubic light years of the Milky Way galaxy; each successive series in the timeline bringing in more races and planets into the Federation. The Federation is described as stressing, at least nominally, the values of universal liberty, equality, justice, peace, and cooperation.[3][page needed][4] The Federation also maintains its own quasi-militaristic and scientific exploratory agency, known as Starfleet (also written as "Star Fleet" in some texts). Starfleet is seen handling many other governmental processes, often with no other agency's influence, such as border defense ("Balance of Terror", "Arena"), diplomatic envoy ("Mirror Mirror"), and has seen extensive use as a defensive military force ("Errand of Mercy", "Doomsday Machine".
I'm a futurist and always have been. With that said, I foresee no future without entertainment like TV. It is great and the best source of entertainment in human history.
TV is already dying and getting replaced with internet services. 2040 may not be that far off.
@@commenturthegreat2915
TV will be revived through internet services connected to it; I watch different entertainment channels on an internet format that is technically the same as cable television, except it is internet television (in a physical television). I agree with Yautja Prime that TV is a sufficient source for entertainment (it is one of the best inventions in human history regarding entertainment); TV is something I greatly indulge in (besides reading books & exploring nature). I disagree with you that TV is dying (and it is getting replaced by internet services); they are complimenting it. Internet services will contribute to something that will become the new standard in replacing cable television regarding physical television. Basically, there will be internet television (with much of the same popular channels on formats that are really similar to those of cable television; it already exists on my TV [and it is free]). TV is not dying; it is re-forming.
Except science has proven that intrinsic motivation outpaces and outperforms extrinsic (money etc) motivation every time.
@Angus Chandler fuck their feelings, i wanna make starfleet early
technically, scarcity cannot be eliminated, only mitigated. there is a finite amount of mater and energy in the universe. FTL travel would actually increase scarcity in the long run by allowing more convenient access to materials.
Who knew tens of millions of Russians could've survived if they had replicators? At least they'd have lived long enough to be thrown into a gulag for possessing the means of production.
Even if they did have replicators, the leaders and others in power would consider replicators as a luxury and, even if replicators could be created as easily as the snap of a finger, would attempt to withhold them from the common populace to remain above them.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
May I remind you of the DS9 episode "Paradise lost" where a Starfleet Admiral almost took over Earth by taking advantage of his rank. The Federation president was practically helpless to the situation because of the power Starfleet had.
Bolsheviks... IN SPACE!!!
This is Norway
Communism you say?
HANS!
GET ZE LUGER!