Is the Federation "Communist" or Socialist?

Submitted ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨MrSaturn@startrek.website⁩ to ⁨startrek@startrek.website⁩

Hi there, I’m not trying to start a political argument or anything, I’m just curious what people here think about this often repeated claim that the Federation is a socialist or even communist utopia? I know Strange New Worlds did say in dialogue it is socialist but I was wondering if people here think that’s accurate? I’m not a communist or a marxist or anything like that, but I’ve had people who identify as such tell me the Federation basically is communist. So anyway, what’s your thoughts?

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

dustyData@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The federation is a post-scarcity socialist utopia. They don’t even have money. Every single human being has ensured healthcare, housing, food, and education of their choice guaranteed from birth. Rise among ranks of the few hierarchical power structures is based on merit, performance, experience and training. I can’t recall anything specific about the productive sectors that allow this to happen, but since they have access to virtually infinite amounts of energy and everything can be done by machines and matter replicators, there’s no motive for hoarding means of production or wealth, so one would assume that most productive endeavors and enterprises are collectivists by default. Same with political institutions as hoarding power doesn’t guarantee anything significant beyond what the average person already posses. They also have wide social openness, tolerance and acceptance as the most common sources of intolerance and bigotry (wealth, religion, power, prestige, etc.) have been regulated or removed. So there’s no logical point on slaving, discriminating, oppressing or exploiting any particular class of people, some classes of people might not even exists, as there’s no concept of poverty, nor race or sexual discrimination in the culture of the federation.

They are as socialist as it comes.

source
- Dave@lemmy.nz ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Does the term “socialist” make sense in a post scarcity world?
  
  I guess the question is who controls the replicators and other things needed to provide what people need to live? Can it be taken away from them?
  
  source
  - dustyData@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Post-scarcity is a socialist term. It came about from futurist elaborations on Marxist materialist ideology. The reduction of labour to the minimum necessary in a society is one of the tenets of communism in order to reach post-capitalism. Certainly by technology, but also by diverting the products of labour, not for the profit and enrichment of the capitalist class, but for the provision to the needs of all society via free distribution of goods and services to all. According to Marx socialism is a necessary stage to reach communism, but communism doesn’t mean the disappearance of socialism.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Brainsploosh@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I’d say they’re post-scarcity anarchist. There’s no central/communal resource dispersal as needed for socialism, nor the central/communal resource allocation/planning needed for communism.
  
  There’s seemingly no authority outside starfleet exerting any power, nor does anyone ever claim a motivation beyond exploration or study (to do something meaningful). The lack of money and unlimited access to replicated resources pending available dilithium also points to a society without exploitative discrepancies.
  
  The humans also never are reported to have any resource hogging, the only tensions/stratification seem to be militarily (and against external parties also diplomatically), meritocratic, and even then the bottleneck seems mostly to be to not fall behind other races.
  
  I don’t see neither capitalism, socialism, communism, despotism, theocracy, nor fascism, but many aspects of anarchism. If you’ve read anything about The Culture, they openly speak about being anarchist, and it’s very similar to Star Trek.
  
  source
  - aaaa@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    There most certainly is a Federation President. There is definitely government, authority, and laws, with Starfleet appearing to be the law enforcement.
    
    source
  - MrSaturn@startrek.website ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    But the Federation is a government, so can’t be anarchist
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - dustyData@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I agree, this is also a perfectly valid read. Unfortunately Star Trek spends a lot of time with Starfleet and The Federation and almost not at all with Earth to understand the nuances of governance of productivity. But they are still supposed to be several billions of people, it’s hard to imagine there’s only ad-hoc organization going on to keep something as massive as Starfleet and The Federation going. Even the Vulcans had the High Command. Earth must have something akin to a government structure going on to produce a representative diplomatic corpus. The Federation is supposed to be a Republic after all, and that’s not anarchy. Perhaps a system of direct democratic municipalism, but we don’t know for sure.
    
    source
  - bouh@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    It’s a federation, which means it’s a group of government who decided to get some of their rules and organzations in common. Each government in the federation can be different, although there are some implications for the federation to work: they must recognize the borders and laws of the federation, and they must participate in its function.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Anticorp@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  What I don’t understand is how some of them are obviously better off than others, like Picard. His family owns a sweeping vineyard and a huge house, and other people are living in trailers in the desert.
  
  source
  - Yes@startrek.website ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    My head canon for this is that the only way tptb allowed such socialism without sabotaging it was after reserving a looot of rights and property, especially on Earth, for themselves. There was probably some excuse along the lines of ‘maintaining and respecting traditions and cultures’ that let them keep the bulk of their estates, without having to let the poors (who are welcome to their own vineyards anywhere else) take it over.
    
    Some people are happy living in trailers in the desert. Not everyone wants a big house in a lush environment… And some people just like a bit of misery.
    
    source
TC_209@hexbear.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Capitalism was eliminated on Earth by the New World Economy, which was likely a Dictatorship of the Proletariat as envisioned by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Roddenberry, etc. The Federation appears to be a classless, moneyless post-DotP society that still has one primary state apparatus (the Federation itself) that oversees many smaller state apparatuses (the Federation’s many member-worlds). You’ll notice a contradiction, though: If a state “is a system by which the ruling class maintains and perpetuates its dominance within the social formation… by subjugating the other class(es) within class society” then how can the Federation be a classless society? I propose two solutions:

Star Trek is fiction and fictional worlds are often incomplete and contradictory. Everything I’ve said about the New World Economy, the Federation, etc. should be taken with a grain of quadrotriticale.

No society has established a DotP, and there are certainly no examples of post-DotP societies. Marxism is a scientific and materialist worldview – it has evolved since the 19th century and it will continue to evolve into the 23rd century and beyond.
source
- MrSaturn@startrek.website ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Was Roddenberry a Marxist?
  
  source
  - TC_209@hexbear.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Most sources on Roddenberry’s political beliefs are people who knew him, and they didn’t open up about those beliefs until after his death. Here’s an article that I’ve skimmed:
    
    According to his last wife, Majel Barrett, he identified as a communist. But we know from the many accounts of his unethical business practices that he was also obsessed with making money. He preached peace and love but was infamously difficult to get along with. And he flew the flag for feminism while being a notorious womanizer.
    
    Gene was delight man with great creativity and talent, but he was also a deeply flawed man who often failed to practice what he preached.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Corgana@startrek.website ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Neither, since they are moneyless and post scarcity. We honestly don’t have a word for whatever they are.

source
- GarbageShoot@hexbear.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  The most textbook definition of communism as a political-economic organization (rather than an ideology) is that of a “stateless, classless, moneyless society.”
  
  source
  - Corgana@startrek.website ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Which does not describe what we see of the Federation so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with this.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- nublug@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  google communism
  
  source
  - 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Google doesn’t, didn’t and likely won’t implement communism, so calling Google communism is as Marx said…
    
    source
  - Corgana@startrek.website ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I did and it didn’t say anything about replicators
    
    source
buckykat@hexbear.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Yes, obviously. The Federation is a postscarcity socialist society

source
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
You can look up the definition and see if it applies. I'd argue it isn't a classless society. Especially with all the military ranks and hierarchies. And socialism is kind of a broad term. I'm pretty sire you can use it in this case.

source
- rockSlayer@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Classless societies and justified hierarchy aren’t mutually exclusive, however. That’s the entire point of anarchist strains of political ideology, the only hierarchies that should exist are ones that can be justified for the good of everyone. The hierarchy of Starfleet is justified because it’s still syndicalist in nature while requiring a person to ensure the survival of everyone on board.
  
  source
  - hendrik@palaver.p3x.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Is that alright with communism? Strive for a classless society except for when we like to do away with that? I mean starfleet is kind of military and I don't know much about that in the context of communism. But there's also the separation between the worker class in a starship and then the officers who manage them and who get depicted in the TV series. I'm pretty sure that doesn't align well with communism. I'm not sure how many exceptions there are in a communist utopia. And if there is a better way to organize a starship than 20 century military hierarchy style.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
BrightCandle@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
There are capitalist elements. The Picard family still owns a farm and farm house and pass it down generations. There is still some concept of money being used by humans who are pursing payments for rare and stolen goods. Most of what we see around Starfleet is merit driven people working in starfleet out of self interest but the ships appear to be owned by Starfleet and they seem to have some democractic structure. Since most basic needs are met via replicators it seems they are post scarcity and trips to the doctors seem free but is not really socialism in the sense of people owning the means of production, there doesn’t seem to be much of anything said about how these ships get built and I the implication is its a lot of automation.

I don’t think its brilliantly clear, there are a mix of ideologies on display and what makes it hang together is the humans are all behaving well, which isn’t very human nature like at all.

source
- Anticorp@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  what makes it hang together is the humans are all behaving well, which isn’t very human nature like at all
  
  That’s the entire point, is that humanity has grown beyond its destructive nature. Picard talks about it at length with Q, and it was one of Roddenberry’s central visions. That’s why the new “gritty” shows bother me so much, because they’re a slap in the face to Roddenberry’s vision.
  
  source
- bloubz@lemmygrad.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Owning your farm is not contradictory to communism, if it’s not exploitative. Money as well
  
  Working democracy would indeed be a good giveaway that this is communism, but do we have hints that it is really democratic?
  
  source
- MrSaturn@startrek.website ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yeah I agree
  
  source
I_CAST_BEAM_OF_BATS_I_CAST_BOLT_OF_BATS@hexbear.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
inhaled very deeply about to talk about activitypub and techrights idealism then noticed this is star trek dot website

source
marcos@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It’s absolutely not a communist anarchy. There’s a government, and it controls all those ships, science stations and mining operations. It doesn’t look like URSS-ish communist either, as it’s clearly democratic.

Besides, there exists some form of capitalism in it. It’s just not very intense on the human worlds. And it’s clearly socialist, as everybody is included on the society… So, my guess it’s social-capitalist just like every advanced society today, just way richer than anything we know.

source
- Zaktor@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Is there capitalism within the Federation? There’s capitalism on Deep Space Nine for sure, but that’s an outpost at a merger of cultures and governments. Not sure if we have seen money from any Federation cultures. Individuals might have and use money to buy things in other cultures, but I’m not sure such things take place within the Federation itself.
  
  source
  - marcos@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    People clearly have money to trade with other civilizations, there are human trading transports that clearly care about their cargo, they bet something in poker games, some large projects have “patrons”…
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- bloubz@lemmygrad.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  And it’s clearly socialist, as everybody is included on the society
  
  Just one give away that you don’t know what socialism and communism is
  
  source
Hextubewontallowme@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Idk… for good starters, I’d ask ye this

I’d rather ask how it is not capitalist:

Is it capitalist
Does this federation have a system of unequal exchange and resource exploitation of one place to another, the core, essentially, with the majority of the federation being an large mass of desperate wage and salary laborers, once self-sufficient peasants, in the resource-rich place of the periphery, under the guise of “investment”? Does this federation love to lend and privatize foreign economies, and cut social spending, a la IMF, in order to dominate the latter’s economy? Does this federation have a policy of CAPITALIST settler-colonialism, based on classical-liberal style property rights and genocide of the indigenous people? If this is all merely in the past of class struggles and national liberation movements, and the federation has fought and abolished such forms of exploitation, yay

To check if its communist, in the more modern form {there is such thing as primitive communism}, however:
Does this federation wrecked out any chance of capitalist and liberal restoration, due to past ‘authoritarianism’? Does this federation work without the use of money, any proprietorship, social class, and the force of government, but instead with collective ownership of major assets and modern cooperative values or ‘ideology’ being casually accepted as the norm, instead of as an old-fashioned ideology or academic subject? This is to ensure that Communism is dominant, as to be practically ‘Communist’, in such a federation Does surplus value, from labor, go into the needs of the people, instead of going towards any capitalist profit or landlord’s rent Note Personal property, such as watches and purses, do not count as private property, unless you’re using it to make into an asset, like a steam engine or a collection of buildings to take rent upon

source
- MrSaturn@startrek.website ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I would say the Federation is basically a liberal utopia so it’s against being liberal
  
  source
  - GarbageShoot@hexbear.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    One needs to be careful with the word “liberal”, because it means very different things in different contexts (in large part due to political parties identifying themselves as “liberal”). In the stricter political-philosophical sense, liberalism is very closely tied with capitalism and the “freedom” to own things as private property (market allowing) and do what you want with it.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Hextubewontallowme@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Huh, do you exactly know exactly the term?
    
    To me, Liberalism is to capitalism, like Christianity was for western feudalism; a ideological framework that the ruling classes of its day uses to justify their existence
    
    Image
    
    source
Kaboom@reddthat.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
(to my knowledge) they never actually said who controls the means of production. But so called “true communism” is impossible, even in post scarcity, so we can rule that out.

So it’s either capitalist or socialist, and in post scarcity societies, there’s no real difference.

source
Magister@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Not communist but I would say Communitarianism

source
ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I thought it was widely understood that Star Trek is FALGSC

source
- MrSaturn@startrek.website ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  What’s that?
  
  source
  - ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The federation tends to let member planets be independent, the federation doesn’t come in and be like “we own your planet and we provide for you in return we take everything”, so it’s definitely leaning socialist.

The main difference is who owns the means of production. In communism, the government does. In socialism, the people do.

Both aim to provide for the population at large and not just benefit to a few rich elites that own everything, but socialism is a bit more robust against tyrannical governments.

source
- GarbageShoot@hexbear.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  It’s amazing how people just make things up. I genuinely have no idea where you got these definitions unless it was some hole on Reddit or similar.
  
  What manages the means of production if not a government? Saying “the people” is as hollow as the US talking about “Freedom” and “Democracy”. “The people” cannot merely project their will into the aether and have it realized, they need some method of organization. They need to be able to administrate complex systems rather than just hang out in “primitive communism but with high technology somehow”. Whatever that system is and whatever you call it, that’s a government. In a system of democratic government that administers things, the difference between “the people” owning things and the government – here an organ that exists only so the people can manage the means of production – owning them is immaterial.
  
  source
  - Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    It’s amazing how people just make things up. I genuinely have no idea where you got these definitions unless it was some hole on Reddit or similar.
    
    I’m not claiming anything I said is facts, just the way I understand it to be/how it had been explained to me quite a while ago. I could absolutely be wrong, if that’s the case I’ll gladly retract my comment based on new (to me) information. I’m far from qualified to give an authoritative answer on this topic.
    
    The way I understand it is “the government decides to build a factory because the country needs a factory” vs “the people of a region get together and build a factory because they want one”. Well, in either case nobody really owns the factory (compared to capitalism), but rather who’s in charge of it, who decides who works on what and how it comes to be.
    
    Unfortunately the only examples of communism we’ve seen are authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union, and currently North Korea and China (sort of). I don’t think we have a true socialist community that’s not some form of capitalist hybrid, let alone post-scarcity communism or socialism without massive corruption tainting it.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- LengAwaits@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  The main difference is who owns the means of production. In communism, the government does. In socialism, the people do.
  
  What would we call a hybrid system in which the government is made up of the people and owns the means of production? Democratic Communism?
  
  source
- MrSaturn@startrek.website ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yeah I’m not a communist primarily because I’m against dictatorship and human rights abuse but socialism sounds more interesting
  
  source
  - TC_209@hexbear.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    From a Marxist perspective, all class-based societies are governed by dictatorships:
    
    A dictatorship is the political dominance of one group of people over others. In a class society, a dictatorship usually favors the interest of certain classes over the others.
    
    Right now, we live in the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie
    
    The bourgeoisie is the ruling class in capitalist society; it owns the means of production and has a decisive influence on production. It lives off of surplus value which it obtains by exploiting the labour power of the proletariat.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - GarbageShoot@hexbear.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    If you don’t want to start a political argument, that’s not the way to do it.
    
    source
- originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  so community-funded instances are mostly socialistic?
  
  source
startrek@hub.hubzilla.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
OK, Memory Alpha says the President of the Federation is democratically elected
#^https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets#The_executive_branch
source