When you are in post scarcity and everyone has everything they need and everyone works together ina government for mutual benefit that’s Marxist communism.
Comment on I liked Star Trek before it got woke. /s
mechoman444@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoIt’s actually not the federation is not Marxist or communist or socialist. These systems mentioned above are reliant on a monetary system that has scarcity. In the Star Trek universe scarcity has been removed from Earth there is no energy crisis everyone is fed transportation is instantaneous there’s nothing holding humanity back anymore there’s no poverty no starvation there’s no need to pursue financial gain anymore.
It’s not necessarily that everyone is equal so much as they are enlightened, there’s enough resource to keep everybody satisfied at a very high standard of living.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
mechoman444@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No it’s not. (I have to be honest with you. You clearly have no clue what Marxism or communism is and yet you make a declarative statement that holds no water at all; why?)
While the Star Trek universe presents a post-scarcity society where money is largely obsolete and resources are distributed based on need, it diverges significantly from Karl Marx’s vision of communism. Marxist communism is fundamentally rooted in class struggle, revolution, and the eventual withering away of the state. The Star Trek Federation, however, remains highly structured, hierarchical, and governed by an institutionalized bureaucracy, notably Starfleet.
Moreover, technological advancements such as replicators eliminate material scarcity, a condition Marx never accounted for in his theories. Instead of a classless, stateless society emerging from historical struggle, Star Trek depicts a future where economic necessity is bypassed through technology, and individuals contribute based on personal fulfillment rather than class-driven labor dynamics.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Marx never considered replicators much like he never considered sorcery as an option because he worked within the framework of the reality of his time. He was engaging in practical philosophy not fantasy which is why you see the focus on a class struggle as in his time.
The federation has no money and everyone has what they need according to their needs how isn’t that Marx’ ideal? If you could achieve socialism without revolution IRL he would have backed that but in reality you cannot hope for the privileged to give up their power.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I literally stated how it’s not Marxist… I’m pretty sure that I even proved it in my statement originally.
Marxist communism envisions a classless, stateless society where the means of production are communally owned. Post-scarcity could theoretically contribute to this, but Marxist thought emphasizes the historical process of class struggle and the eventual dissolution of the state. If a government still exists in your scenario, it may not fully align with Marx’s final stage of communism, which predicts the state “withering away.”
How do you read this and go no it is Marxist I’m right.
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
a future where economic necessity is bypassed through technology, and individuals contribute based on personal fulfillment rather than class-driven labor dynamics.
Yeah, however not all higher Maslows can be replicated, so obviously a fair bit of (popular or bureaucratic) meritocracy is incorporated into the redistribution and/or accesses to finite resources.
(But the main point is that if individuals have the option to pursue personal fulfilment that is a huge net plus for the society & everyone can get more out of their life & life within that society - imagine only having people in the food industry that fully enjoy the work or the huge selection of artists not pre-smothered by the daily grind for basic human needs.)
As you said, much data is missing, but I assume if I wanted a nicer office or an apparent with a better view I could get to it via contributing something of merit to society (eg a successful career, notable art contributions, maybe some hero stuff, etc).
How come the Picard real estates remained in the family though all those generations, I can’t fully explain. Tho there basically was a revolution (a world war, but same diff) that facilitated initial systematic changes (I assume a much decimated/irrelevant previously-elite class).
frezik@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
How come the Picard real estates remained in the family though all those generations, I can’t fully explain.
Doyalist answer: the writers laid out shipboard EPS conduits more thoughtfully than the Federation economy.
frezik@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
What? No. Marxism notes that scarcity wouldn’t be a thing with increasing industrialization. Indeed, it isn’t; we have plenty of resources to put a roof over everyone’s head and food in their belly. The base of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs can be completely covered, and the rest are not necessarily best fulfilled by mere material possessions. We could have the whole thing done in a year if society simply made the choice.
Now, I don’t think the Federation is Marxist, because we actually know very little about how the economy works at all. There’s contradictory information, it might depend on what time period or planet you’re talking about, and the writers have generally been uninterested in exploring the economy beyond superficial mentions.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No. You’re just wrong and in every aspect.
Please refer to my responses further down in this thread.