Is it just me, or is the Earth of the Star Trek universe a communist society? It has been said many times that money is not used, that basic needs are provided to everyone at the same level. In First Contact, Picard himself said that money is no longer the driving force in people’s lives, which is essentially the whole concept to capitalism. Add to that the fact that the whole world is rules by this ‘Starfleet’ entity that seems to control everyone and everything. The only way to have a better ‘living style’, (i.e.: bigger place to live, better food, etc…) is to be a high ranking official in this entity. Seems a little too coincidental to me.
Gee, first time I quote myself:
Gene Roddenberry profited from Star Trek:
http://www.roddenberry.com/creations/bio/groddenberry.bio.html
The accusation in the title of this tread makes no sense.
Roddenberry had the same idea of the ideal society as Marx, Lenin, and Gus Hall did, that’s for sure. But whereas the last two thought you could bring that society about today, Roddenberry didn’t. He thought humans had a lot of growing up to do first. So he wasn’t a Communist the way Paul Robeson was, but he believed that some day mankind would mature enough to stop fighting amongst itself and put its resources into reaching for the stars. I belive that too. (But not anytime bloody soon.)
–Cliffy
I think it’s important to note that the Star Trek universe lacks a fundamental reason for the existence of capitalism, namely scarcity. Capitalism, communism, and other “isms” are about how to distribute scarce resources (and I think history has shown that capitalism does so in the most efficient manner).
In Star Trek, there is no scarcity, at least for the fundamental things like food, housing, clothing, etc.: it can all made via replicator, and it can all be distributed via teleporter. Power to run the replicators and transporters is apparently inextinguishable, at least for all practical purposes, thanks to matter/antimatter systems. And Star Trek assumes that all the physical and human capital needed to put these systems into place have already been expended (e.g., replicators, etc., are already essentially everywhere). In a world where both production and distribution costs are essentially zero – where you can feed, clothe, and dress your family for basically nothing – the rules of the economic game have been fundamentally altered.
Given all that, I think it’s unsurprising that Star Trek economics would differ from Real-World economics. It’s not about humans “growing up” or “maturing enough to stop fighting,” it’s about a fundamental alteration in how goods can be produced and distributed.
…and lacking the capitalistic drive of our time, Picard once says (to paraphrase) that the challenge is to improve oneself, to grow, to develop your talents and be all that you can be. No one can or should hold you back from doing that.
I tend to view the Federation as a socialistic society, in that everyone’s basic needs are met – food, clothing, shelter, education, etc – in return for which everyone is expected (challenged?) to become a contributing member of society. As several posters have noted, this is not communism in the way we conceive it today, in large part because the “drivers” of present-day capitalism and communism are absent in the 24th-century Federation.
To me, Rodenberry’s vision is more utopian than communist. One vision might include the other, but not vice-versa.
In my original draft of my first post I mentioned the lack of scarcity, but I think that’s a blind alley. The replicator didn’t become available until TNG, and yet Trek described the same utopian/commune society not only in TOS but as largely accomplished by the time of the current Enterprise episodes. I really do think it has more to do with a process of maturation. As such, Roddenberry’s vision was IMO very Marxian – there will come a time in human history where we won’t need to squabble over resources, not because they become abundant, but because we become rational about their allocation.
–Cliffy
As indicated by his early TNG episodes, I’ve since came to the conclusion that Roddenberry’s bizarre ideals (complete disrespect for human nature, for one) was matched only by Frank Herbert’s Ramblings in Chapterhouse: Dune.
Personally I don’t think Gene Roddenberry gave all that much thought into how human society of the future was suppose to work. If he did he really didn’t seem to include all that much of it in the series. Although at first glance it seems that it is some sort of socialist utopia they still can’t seem to escape capitalism.
-
In the first episode of TNG B. Crusher has several bolts of cloth transported to the ship and charged to her account.
-
In the move ST: Generations Capt. Kirk mentions to Picard that he sold the house they were standing in years ago.
-
Rikker has credits to spend gambling at casinos.
-
The Picard family owns their own vineyard in France.
So all in all I’d have to say that Star Trek isn’t a commie paradise though maybe it is a socialist paradise. It is better to look at Star Trek as a fairy tale and not expect all that much realism. I’ve always found the most alien creatures in Star Trek, particularly TNG, to be the humans.
Marc
Are you sure about that? I seem to recall Kirk, et al, grabbing their meals from little window stations in TOS. I certainly don’t remember some dude who looks like Mel from “Alice” whipping up burgers for Kirk and Spock. They may not have been called out by name, but I suspect replicators are part of the TOS universe.
Of course, I’m not exactly a Trek-o-phile, so I am more than willing to be corrected on this point if I’m wrong.
Oh, and just some wild-assed speculation to keep my point alive in the event I am wrong: it’s possible that this technology could be present on Earth at the time of TOS, but hasn’t been made compact enough to include on a deep-space starship that may not see Earth for five years. Just my WAG.
I think you have to eliminate the problem of scarcity for the anti-capitalist Trek world to be remotely plausible (not that “plausibility” is particularly important to a show that has warp drives and transporters, I suppose) – after all, every society has to decide how to divvy up the goods. Absent a free market, who makes those choices? Starfleet? How do they prevent the problems of centralized decisionmaking that killed the Soviet Union?
I think one thing we might consider is that the Star Trek series (including Enterprise) spans something on the order of two centuries. It is reasonable to assume that, as technology became more sophisticated and more accessible to the general population, there was a commensurate impact on society, the economy and the way people lived day-to-day.
For instance, in Enterprise transporting technology is in its infancy and is used sparingly. By the time of TOS, the transporter is used routinely but replication technology (which is related to transporter tech) lags behind. In TNG and DS9, replicators for food and material goods are commonplace, at least in deep-space. (On a side note, I seem to remember Keiko, Chief O’Brien’s wife, having difficulty perfecting her recipes for the replicator when she first came to DS9. This suggests that on “home planets”, replicators were used to supplement the production of organic foods to varying degrees, much in the way we used microwave ovens.) In TNG, holodeck technology – also related to transporter and replicator tech – seems to be a brand-new thing, but finds exhaustive use on Voyager just 10 years later.
We don’t get to see much about the actual influences these technological advances had on Earth, but I think it is safe to assume that they brought about certain changes, just as other tech developments would have done.
As for the examples given by MGibson, these are all correct but I think even a society which did not use hard currency for internal transactions would have developed some way to conduct transactions with societies that did.
In other words, the Federation was not a completely money-less society but one which functioned with electronic “credits”, IIRC. Presumably citizens received credits which they could use as they please – like electronic food stamps – to gamble, buy and sell property, bolts of cloth, whatever, but the driving force of society and individual life was not the accumulation of credits/wealth.
You’re wrong. ^;)^ There was a cook on the Enterprise (NCC-1701); in the early episode Charlie X he calls up to the bridge when Charlie turns the ship’s reconstituted freeze-dried Thanksgiving turkeys into real ones.
Good point.
**
You’ve proved my point – they’ve matured. Nobody “makes” those decisions in the sense that we think of them. Stakeholders caucus, debate, and come to an understanding of how best to achieve the greatest good.
–Cliffy
That isn’t possible. Assuming scarcity, some decision must be made as to how resources are allocated. You can caucus, debate, etc. all you want, but at the end of the day decisions must be made. The problem with non-free market economies is that they lack a mechanism to determine where resources are most needed (in a free market, this information is communicated via price). Non-free market economies rely on someone (or some group) to decide where resources are most needed. This usually results in a poor distribution of resources.
In other words, even given that people have achieved some sort of “higher consciousness” in the Trek world that makes them totally altruistic, without a selfish bone in any of their bodies, I don’t think the Trek world works (assuming scarcity) because those decisions are made without the benefit of crucial information.
I realize that this thread is about Star Trek, but I would like to get some specific examples of what you are refering to.
Well, whatever. The “decision” is made by the stakeholders after a thorough understanding of the possible costs and benefits of each option available.
–Cliffy
And again, in Trek-world, all those decisions are made without the benefit of the constant feedback mechanism found in free market systems. No amount of altruism on the part of the decisionmakers will cure that problem.
Plus, this consensus model hardly seems efficient. Assuming Earth isn’t a Borglike collective, adding participants to the decisonmaking process exponentially increases the difficulty of attaining consensus.
And besides, I don’t really see this “consensus model” at work in TOS. Kirk, if you’ll recall, was not exactly a touchy-feely kind of guy. He may have sought the advice of his shipmates from time to time, but no one questioned who was making the actual decisions on the bridge.
Just to clarifly there was,in TOS, a device called a food synthersizer which worked in the same way as a replicator.
Food synthesizers were located in numerous locations throughout Constitution-class starships, including the transporter room. (TOS: “Tomorrow is Yesterday”)
In 2268, while the USS Enterprise was infested with tribbles, it was discovered that they had gotten into the food processors aboard the ship through one of the ship’s air vents. (TOS: “The Trouble with Tribbles”; DS9: “Trials and Tribble-ations”)
One of the reasons Rojan cited for neutralizing non-essential Enterprise personnel during the trip to the Andromeda Galaxy was to conserve the food synthesizer’s resources. (TOS: “By Any Other Name”)
Nurse Chapel offered the surviving children of the Starnes Exploration Party a selection of cards with differing flavors of ice cream to choose from. All they had to do was pick a card and the computer would mix their favorite combination. (TOS: “And the Children Shall Lead”)
Upon taking on a contingent of Klingon officers, lead by Kang, aboard the Enterprise, Captain Kirk ordered Johnson to have the food synthesizers programmed to accommodate their guests. (TOS: “Day of the Dove”)
Yes, but it seems like the food synthesizers were very simple replicators. Those resources you describe indicate that they had to stock them with something, probably raw materials. Replicators seem to only need energy to work, and can manufacture things other than food. Remember, the TOS crew are completely aghast at planet that does seem to use replicator technology to give them whatever they want.
I think that, while scarcity was not completely eliminated, it seems like it was almost of no consequence at a practical level by the time of TOS. I’ve always supposed that my welfare society was in place: anyone could get the bare essentials (as the cost for the government was negligible), but you had to work for more.
And if you can’t trust a site called roddenberry.com to give an unbiased view on Gene Roddenberry, who can you trust?
Keep in mind that the replicaters on DS9 were Cardassian, not the Starfleet/Federation civilian models she was used to using. She also expressed a mixture of amazment/shock/disgust when describing how her mother-in-law would handle real meat :eek: with her bare hands.
And the entire space station was technically sovereign Bajoran territory, not a Federation outpost. Which is why money was still in use, there were restaurants, shops, and a casino. Starfleet personel were seen using all of these facilities which implies that they were payed somehow. Oddly the restaurants (or at least Quark’s) were shown to replicate most of their food using the same replicators available in the Replimat or housing units. IIRC only the Klingon restaurant was explicitly shown to actually prepare food in a kitchen (Klingons seemed to have an aversion to replicated food).
Was the Replimat free or were patrons charged (maybe it was only free for Starfleet personel and others had to pay)? Was there an extra charge for using the replicators in quarters (like room service) or was that included in the rent? Was there even rent? Presumably Starfleet or Bajoran personel wouldn’t just been assinged relief wells at part of their jobs, but what the civilians? Did ships have to pay docking fees or being serviced by station personel?
You can’t replicate living tissue, and most Klingon foods are meant to be eaten still squirming, or at least still warm.