In response to all the "But I hate Discovery for DIFFERENT reasons!" Then this isn't about you. I didn't say everyone who dislikes Discovery is a racist or a sexist. I said that there was a racist and sexist backlash against the show. And there was. Being defensive and claiming I generalized fans is inaccurate because that's not what I said. In response to all the "That's not why ANYONE hates this show!" I literally posted clips of articles in the video. Also, it's not hard to track down the racist and sexist backlash yourself. We all have Google. It happened.
Some people might be touchy because a lot of people who have had these other reasons and have stated them elsewhere have instantly been accused of sexism and racism , I could see that wasn't what you were saying but some people just react first ...
It does make me laugh anytime someone goes all "Stop going all SJW with blah blah blah!"...in regards to Star Trek. Given the first series showed a society where humans of all races, nationalities, and ethnicities peacefully coexisted with aliens in relative harmony...really? The first series had a rather famous episode where William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols had the first interracial kiss on television. And let's not talk about how TNG had the Federation and Klingons in a peaceful harmony. DS9 showed the entire quadrant setting aside differences and learning how to coexist. One can argue that the Dominion War probably would end up bringing about a lasting peace in a generation or so in the Alpha Quadrant. Star Trek is a show about seeing past differences to discover we are all far more alike than different. It's a show about what COULD be if we could set aside our prejudices and live together. It's a future I would give anything for. And anytime I see a bunch of sad trolls waving signs about how homosexuality is a sin or how some race or ethnicity is naturally inferior, it makes me weep because these backwards-thinking people show me we still have so far to go.
I like Discovery, but it doesn't realy FEEL like a Trek series. It might have to do with the unspoken rule that Trek shows are shaped by the times in which they are made. Discovery is definitely influenced by this current age of perpetual war.
Yeah, there is an overreaction about their race and diversity. Star Trek has always had a left-leaning attitude, excluding a few TNG episodes. I will still hold my personal opinion that Michael is a shit character tho, and the Orville feels more like Star Trek than ST:D.
There also seems to be an almost kneejerk positive reaction amongst this faction of the fan base to ANY white man in charge as a way to “save” Discovery. Captain Lorca was seen by many as the saving grace of the series, except of course that he was constantly seen as deferring to Michael Burnham, who was seen as a “Mary Sue” (another code word) who kept having the best ideas, and Lorca was to them being emasculated. The new Picard series is also seen by many as a way to “save the franchise”, that is until it leaked that he might not be anything like Captain Picard of TNG, then you could almost hear the deflation of their expectations. In season two, Captain Pike showed up, and they fell on him. He was suddenly seen as the new savior of the series. I kept hearing (...and still hear...) the drumbeat of how Pike needs his own show, with Spock. Number One, needed to be there too. They loved her, though she barely had any scenes to establish anything about her. One thing for sure, she was no longer an emotionless, non-sexualized Majel Barrett but a buxom space babe played by Rebecca Romijn, who seems to eat hamburgers and wear tight tops. So, they wanted Pike, Spock, and Number One - white, white, and white, boldly going back to 1964. So, I think your analysis is spot-on. Apart from issues of story and writing, which is worthy of many videos, Discovery has another issue that’s baked into the pie. There’s an almost allergic reaction from certain factions of Trek fandom to Michelle Yeoh, but especially to Michael Burnham, a non-Captain who is gifted with amazing abilities and her own series, therefore she gets to come up with many of the ideas on how to save the ship, ideas that by design of the series, don’t always come from the top (a Captain) and from a man (a white dude). With Michael being the main protagonist, sometimes the captain’s ideas are in the way. This blows a giant hole in the authoritarian mindset. In a sense, some of these right-wing fans were letting the retrogressive casting, military rankings, power dynamics, and character choices of late 1964, dictate their preferences in 2019. So, of course they’re rejecting the new show. I think it’s worthy to note, however, that many of these same fans were perfectly fine with Luke Skywalker, a blond and blue farm-boy from Tatooine, probably about 18 (pre-Academy) with no rank whatsoever, saving the galaxy from an entire Galactic Empire. This video is so enlightening.
Great video, one small nitpick: Starfleet personnel having their effects in their quarters isn't really evidence for the existence of private property in the 24th century. When leftists use the term "private property" we don't mean simply the things you own, we refer to the means of production and subsistence. A home or a toothbrush or a photo album are not private property in leftist parlance, we refer to that as "personal property". Private property would be a fleet of tractors, or a factory, or an apartment building. Something that one person could not reasonably use on their own, and the entire community uses and depends on. You could make an argument that Picard's vineyard isn't necessarily private property in the leftist sense wither, but I'd say the new Picard spin-off implies heavily that it is.
I know, but unfortunately, I did not make that clear in the video. On the part where I said "private" property, I mentioned the vineyard, but then said Picard has "personal" items in his quarters. I know the distinction, but since I didn't make it more explicit, this has been a common complaint about the video. My bad.
I think that Roddenberry well understood that Star Fleet was a military force, but with society being built around abundance rather than scarcity, the problematic points of the modern military are sidestepped, because "protecting our interests" no longer means "we need to go out and secure as much as we can for ourselves. Without the constant pressure for needs to be met, the overall goal of seeing what else is out there, could potentially be a real, actual thing that happens.
Starfleet, while hierarchical, is also not mandatory. There's never shown or stated to be a military draft of any kind, and no one is pressured into joining it because economics or anything like that. It is basically a self-enforced hierarchy that people join because they want adventure, they are talented scientists, or they genuinely believe in defending the Federation. The Federation is also complicated because while it is a government unto itself, it is almost closer to the European Union than the United States. It is demonstrated by the show that every planet in the Federation, even Earth, has its own government and institutions. A prime example is Vulcan, which is shown to have its own ambassadors, its own ships and crews, and its own institutions like the Vulcan Science Council. The Federation probably doesn't need anything more than a unicameral legislation and a strong executive authority because for the most part, member planets are left to manage themselves with the Federation dealing with external empires and inter-planetary law.
I'm not even sure if the Federation IS a government: it's always seemed to be more of a UN, a body intended to foster cultural exchange and trade. That would make Star Fleet more like UN Peacekeepers, a body that works for mutual defense in international disputes and humanitarian support but stays out of internal disputes as much as possible.
It seems clear to me that we are entering the age of abundance. This means obscene wealth for a few and grinding poverty for the many (continued capitalism), or prosperity for all with a new system. Stay tuned.
@@TechBearSeattle Our UN needs a lot more investment by our governments but otherwise, that's my take as well. We should be working toward a UN space corp. But not before the climate crisis. We really got to get control of our planet first.
Thank you for saying that liberalism isn't the left in the rest of the world. People in the US really need to understand how much their political spectrum has been pushed to the right. Calling corporate democrat liberals "the left" is like calling Noam Chomsky "the right", its so wrong that it borders on embarrassing.
@@loonamerry1567 The fact is that the outgoing prime minister of the UK Theresa May (a conservative) is to the left of Barak Obama. In the UK where there is a reigning monarch and a financial centre known as the city of London the people of that country still have universal healthcare. Yet, people cry socialism in the US when universal healthcare is mentioned.
@@tdmc123 Well, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The monarch is head of the government, but effectively she is subservient to the constitution, which is that of a parliamentary representative democracy. Also, although Theresa May may (arguably) be to the left of Barack Obama, her party has been trying to dismantle the National Health Service for decades, and has been somewhat successful in doing so. The NHS is a shadow of what it was when I left the UK in 1989.
@@Beery1962 the fact is the UK has an NHS, which they are trying to dismantle. That is a far cry from first responders having to go to Congress for healthcare due to 911. That could NEVER happen in the UK, even under a conservative government.
I'm not even a leftist and still extremely disappointed that they dropped the whole leftist utopia thing. It was the one cool and outstanding thing about Star Trek.
Worth noting that in the original writers bible for TOS, it was stated that they were to stay away from discussions of economy and political systems because the producers didn't want to get into a partisan argument of which side was right and which side was wrong in the 1960s world. The official stance of the show was that some third way came along at some point, and the future is just better, and that was that. When TNG started, this was still mostly in effect, though Roddenberry himself wanted to lean it in a more anti-capitalist direction, though this never fully took hold. This is why, after 50-odd years, there has been so frustratingly little worldbuilding done w/r/t the politics, economics, and even culture of the federation. As opposed to, say, a show like Babylon 5 or Firefly, which reveled in that kind of stuff
An important thing to note is that there are certainly still rewards associated with labour in the universe of Star Trek, they just aren't the same rewards we have now. A citizen of the federation may work for status/prestige, more responsibility or for the betterment of the self and the lives of others. In a sense, a Starfleet officer eager to move up the ranks may be working for increased control over resources, just as someone working for money would today, however that control is obviously far more limited, which limits but does not eliminate the associated issues. Also note the qualifier "citizen of the federation" - money and inequality certainly does exist outside the federation.
In regards to prejudices still existing in the future, the TNG episode I, Borg was all about Picard realizing and overcoming the prejudices he had towards the Borg that were rooted in his traumatic experience. It may be my favourite Trek episode because it delivers on the idea that Picard made to Q in the series opening two-parter in his defense of humanity and overcoming their flaws of the past.
What was especially hilarious to me about the freak out some folks had to Discovery was that, as the show went on, it wasn't even especially political by Trek standards. Yes, it has a diverse cast and a few elements with coded politics, but on the whole Discovery has concerned itself more with sci-fi storytelling and a kind of general humanism than with direct political allegory. Also, for anyone looking to go deeper with post-capitalist/post-scarcity science fiction, check out the writings of Kim Stanley Robinson, Ursula K. LeGuin, and Iain M. Banks (whose Culture novels feature a society that's a kind of Federation-on-Steroids).
@@devendrabutthurt But the Ferengi were the running joke. Even when they got more respect and were more integrated into the whole (reluctantly), their entire culture including finances was not presented to admire.
It must be pointed out: almost every reference to the federation’s or earth’s political system only appeared long after Gene Roddenberry stopped being in charge of the show (or alive). He was adamant that the organization of earth could not be directly referenced, as it’s supposed to be outside the comprehension of a 20th century human being.
Ah. That explains a lot TY! He did a fantastic job because as a teen, that is literally what I thought about the ST future Earth government. Just bits and bobs like representatives to the federation. From hazy memory there was a housing for the meetups on Earth, they had to move it when the reps started getting assassinated in the Undiscovered Country movie.
I still remember when the Discovery cast was announced, someone said with no irony "This sullies Roddenberry's memory with its socialist SJW agenda!" because the lead wasn't a white male human. Aside from the usual "Did you even WATCH Star Trek?" I found it more ironic because...have you looked at DS9's cast? There's exactly one white male human character in the main cast all seven seasons, and he's the only enlisted man in Starfleet, Chief Miles O'Brien. That said, DS9 talked about these aspects of the Federation and Starfleet frequently...but rarely head-on or coming to a real conclusion. It was the show's thing to deconstruct a lot of Trek (Ronald Moore was one of the senior writers after all), but they never really addressed the issues after pointing them out. "Hey, the structure of Starfleet and the Federation are kind of weird, aren't they? Anyway, here's Jeffrey Combs to distract you from thinking too hard about it by being awesome!"
There are so many more instances of money confusion I could have put in, and one came from DS9. Nog: "It's my money, Jake. If you want to buy it, use your own money." Jake: "I'm human! I don't have money." Nog: "It's not my fault your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement." Jake: "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and rest of humanity." Nog: "What does that mean, exactly?" Jake: "It means...it means...we don't need money." Nog: "Then you don't need MINE." I love how they purposefully skirt around explaining exactly how it works.
@@renegadecut9875 The second of the three "Nog's Chain of Deals" episodes and my favorite (though the one with O'Brien being the bewildered viewpoint character dealing with the after-effects of Nog's trades is a close second because of Colm Meaney's performance). It was also probably one of the biggest MST3K Mantra moments of a show that separated itself from the other shows in the franchise by being the deconstructionist Star Trek series. "No, we don't know how this shit works either, stop asking and just go with it." It also works as handwave for traditional capitalist economies existing in a post-scarcity galaxy. "What do people trade if almost everything can be replicated?" "Latinum." "Why can't they repli--" "Shhhhhhhh..." "But--" "SHHHHHHH..." See also, why doesn't Jake just replicate his father the Willie Mays baseball card that's never addressed by the plot.
Every time I see those complaints about Discovery, Miles being the only white human in the main cast of DS9 comes to mind. But people ignorant of the themes and messages of Trek are nothing new. In the DS9 companion book they talk about the amount of letters of complaint they received after the episode Rejoined aired. I think it's a good thing that DS9 didn't try to explain away all the questions regarding the inner workings of the Federation. They might arrive at answers that make it all feel silly. Point out the issues and give the viewer something to mull over and work out an answer for themselves. And no doubt about it, Jeffrey Combs made DS9 even more awesome than it already is!
TheAbstruseOne I believe there’s another episode where Quark states that latinum cant be replicated. Which is why his people use it as currency. It’s basically liquid metal inside a gold bar or gold plated strips. They also think gold is worthless.
@@renegadecut9875 - I've started thinking Roddenberry's post-scarcity future resembles the middle class ideal. No _day-to-day_ money or housing worries, and _'what's an HMO?';_ but you still struggle to get your kid into a good school (Bashir's Parents). _The future is already here - it's just not very evenly distributed. (William Gibson)_
Great video! Just one note about private property in a socialist culture. The things you own are considered "personal property" as opposed to the concept of private property being modes of production that others operate for the benefit of the owner.
I thought he was referring more to the rooms than the things the officers have in them, but in that case it still doesn't make sese to me as I assume they don't actually own or rent their quarters? Same with the farm - the land might still be owned collectively, but sort of been given to him because land is abundant and why not give a person who wants to build a farm on some unoccupied piece of land leave to do so? (I'm not an expert on Trek though, and I'm new to leftism so... might be very mistaken)
@@oftinuvielskin9020 there is disagreement among socialists on how to handle personal property. Most agree that your clothes and home would be yours. Things get simplified in star trek because resources like land are functionally infinite when you can terraform an entire galaxy. Obviously we can't do that, so in the real world we. Have to make compromises.
As far as how right-wingers became attracted to the series, I would also add the role of the J.J. Abrams movies and the conscious "Not Your Father's Star Trek" marketing behind them. J.J. Abrams was very specific in interviews that he found Star Trek to be "too philosophical" and his movies functioned more as straight-forward action movies without any of the social commentary. This meant the Abrams movies lacked the conscious left-wing social commentary typical to Trek, while the amping up of the action scenes gave more prominence to the militaristic aspects of the franchise. And the "Not Your Father's Star Trek" marketing campaign was basically selling the movies as Star Trek purged of its leftist content, and served to cultivate a new, right-wing fandom on that basis.
I'm not into that "have they earned their geekness" thinking so I tend to just believe them when they say they like something and make half hour videos about that topic. It's hard to tell remotely with all the digital goodies in this day and age but they are certainly knowledgeable enough to riff on a theme and reference storylines from all over the Trek shows that fit that theme, so my guess would be hardcore Trek lovers... they must be pretty good at selective perception but nobody is truly internally consistent, I guess. I like some stuff I'm not particularly proud of myself. Maybe it's nostalgia, who knows. I only know that we won't find a simple answer like "they're not real fans like us" because that's just not how the world works
I think it’s cool that some people like Discovery. I’m not one of them but that’s just because I like Trek as an idealistic comfort show. I like seeing the Enterprise, all consummate professionals, warmly interact with each other to solve problems like; first contact issues, wacky ship takeovers, space mysteries, ideological conflicts settled with words and more. Compare that to Discovery and it’s episodes that resolve in… Violence. Very Trek.
It's interesting how you point out how the Federation emphasizes much upon its military and navy. Though Star Trek shows that the Federation has a pretty powerful military force, Star Trek also criticizes the status quo and arrogance of the Federation military mindset. That blond officer you've shown in several clips, for instance, is a set in her ways, traditional-minded military person who pushes for decisions which are either not right or are shortsighted, but she justifies those actions because it's for the best interests of the Federation. She thought that planting the Borg Hugh with a bomb would be enough to destroy the whole Borg collective, even though it would've only destroyed a portion of the Borg. And there is of course that officer who warred on the Cardassians during peacetime for revenge, and Picard had to stop him because that officer's actions was endangering everybody (even though the officer was right about the Cardassians plotting something). And let's not forget Riker's old officer in "Pegasus" who created the device that could help a ship cloak and pass through solid matter. He was so arrogant and such a jerk, that his crew mutinied against him. The guy even thought he could relieve Picard of command,. After he was arrested, he boasted that he had powerful friends in Starfleet who would bail him out of trouble. And there are other examples of officers in the various Star Trek shows arrogantly doing things their way, without consideration for the consequences of the what they were doing. Thinking back on the "Pegasus" episode, it is problematic to learn that the Federation's traditional-minded officers were willing to hush up the questionable conduct of other officers. It's also problematic that the Federation's higher officers wanted to carry out decisions which were questionable and unethical simply because they were commanded to do so by the supreme powers that be, and that those orders should be obeyed absolutely. It's always interesting to see that though the Federation is very progressive in its society and values, its military and navy still insist on traditional mindsets that protect the reputations of vainglorious commanders. Star Trek may emphasize the strength of the Federation's navy and military, but it constantly questions the idea that their officers and military decisions are always right and should never be questioned. Even Kirk, Picard, Riker, Sisko, and Janeway have shown that even the best of officers can make mistakes, and that acting according to the strict letter of the military law isn't always the best thing to do. On another instance, Spock and Data have demonstrated how officers can think outside the conventions of a commander and still be inspiring and effective leaders. I like to think that Star Trek is acting in a similar vein as Horatio Hornblower or the Richard Sharpe books. Each Star Trek series shows officers who care about their crew, who are diplomatic as well as compassionate, who don't see the need to be constantly aggressive or militaristic, and who are willing to try solutions that don't always coincide with the rule. To paraphrase something from Dune: leaders who care more about their workers than with the harvesting of the Spice would inspire much loyalty about their people. That's a lesson that many reactionary and belligerent people need to learn, especially if they ever attain positions of authority.
From an out-of-universe narrative point of view, this can also be explained as the "Other Officer" phenomenon, whereby we know with great certainty that any Starfleet officer who appears on the show from off of the main starship will inevitably be a source of narrative conflict. It's a variation on Chekov's phaser. They're not likely to have a main, recurring character be the villain and get booted out of Starfleet, so they have to write in temporary outsiders to take the hit instead. Beyond that mundane production restriction, we can ask why the writers keep wanting that sort of conflict often enough to have such a long list of Other Officers coming from outside to do dodgy shit, and then yes, part of that can be explained as criticism of militaristic behaviour.
Last week, my supervisor at work said, and I quote, "Star Trek; jeez, the good life at everyone's fingertips anytime, anywhere. Sounds like communism to me". He said this seriously, without a hint of a smile.
I think it goes even further than communism, as it's a full-on post-scarcity utopia where the means of production are practically magic (at least as far as things like replicators go), but yeah, it's WAY closer to communism than capitalism, that's for damn sure. It's definitely moneyless (the only uses for money are in specific circumstances when dealing with other species or fringe parts of space), and the only class dynamic we see at all is military rank, which is not the same thing as economic classes.
What got rid of poverty in the Trekverse were two things: matter replicators that can basically rearrange and resequence atoms to turn anything into anything else, and abundant fusion power to run them with. With material needs now trivial to satisfy for everyone, people become free to do what brought them fulfillment, instead of what they have to do to get ahead in today's rat race.
Ya I just say, "post scarcity" which implies a system beyond capitalist scarcity. But like renegade said, its ambiguous mostly and sometimes conflicting.
We have more than enough to satisfy everyone's basic needs even right now. Technically we are already post scarcity in terms of what production we have, and have been that way for a while. The problem is distribution, keeping people poor and hungry so others can enjoy obscene wealth. Big multiple mansions for one, the sidewalk for many. Enough food for 10.5 billion people as about 4 billion out of the 7.5 billion go hungry... the problem is capitalism, and logistics of distribution and redistribution, but under capitalism and the state, the logistics won't be solved because there is no incentive to, and neo-colonialist relations will be maintained...
@@pranavgoel9978it's all a bit sad really. We as humanity have all of the resources to help and provide for everyone...the only thing stopping those with power and influence from doing anything about it is their greed.
As a liberal and a Trekkie, I still wasn’t a big fan of Discovery, but it wasn’t because it was DIVERSE for Christ’s sakes. I didn’t like the historical revisionism of the canon and the way they fucked up the Klingons, turning them basically into monsters.
I've long wrestled with these ideas of nationalism within Starfleet, and the insidious potential of Section 31. As a leftist I appreciate what The Federation does, but I am still skeptical of the mechanisms that work it. I think that, to it's credit Star Trek does try to teach a sense of skepticism for those in positions of high authority, like in the drumhead episode you mentioned. I loved Deep Space 9 but there are decisions made and actions carried out by Benjamin Sisko that I cannot make myself comfortable with. Picard and Janeway aren't without their transgressions either. I think that any honest leftist who enjoys Star Trek is still ultimately going to have some criticisms for Starfleet and The Federation of Planets. Even though I'm usually not a fan of time travel episodes, I would love to see an episode of Star Trek where a human from the far future is encountered, and asked about the status of Starfleet in their time. The human would tell the crew that The Federation no longer exists. Initially this would discourage the crew, but the future-human would reassure them and explain to them that The Federation was not destroyed, but simply no longer needed for peaceful existence in The Milky Way. It could almost be like the TNG scene with humans from the past, but flipped in perspective. Great video, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on Star Trek.
Now to mention how most of Star Trek has the classical "hard man doing hard things" trope it got from classic scifi with Kirk that reflects on the rest of the series.
One weird element of the Federation is that from what we see, the Federation really doesn't seem to dictate how the component worlds have to act. Like, the Vulcans have their own fleet and their government doesn't seem to be at all democratic. It honestly looks like a borderline military junta from what we see. The Federation Senate is pretty small, but if they don't have much to do with the internal affairs of given planets and mostly deal with big scale interstellar matters, it's maybe not *quite* as weird? It is probably just an oversight and/or a production issue.
I've always felt like Section 31 was a bad story idea. In a lot of ways, its existence undermines the overall themes and morality of the show as a historic whole. There're a lot of problematic things exacerbated by Section 31.
Star Trek will always have a special place in my heart, I grew up watching TOS and TNG. But for a very long time I have considered Star Trek to be an Anglosphere (term that I think is more fair than the usual “white man”) fantasy, a rehash of the adventure novels of the second half of the XIX century: some dudes explore an exotic locations thanks to the technological and political marvels of the British Empire, help the local natives to resolve the ethical dilemma of the week, have some personal insight (most of the time without a real transformation of the characters), and keep exploring in the name of the Queen. Also, as you already said it, the Federation sees itself precisely through the lenses of bourgeoise ideology: civilized, reasonable, respectful, not-that-intrusive, etc. I know over the course of fifty years a lot of story arcs are more complex than this, but the average Star Trek episode seems to me a variation of this premise (I have not seen all episodes or movies, though. Excluding my childhood, I would consider myself more of a casual fan).
This is the first video I've seen of this channel. I don't know how this never came up on my radar until just recently. People in the comments have made enough salient comments that I don't need to repeat, but I will remark that I can see conservatives idealizing the Star Trek universe in that they project what they see as their idealized vision of America in the Federation. Besides the lack of capitalism thing, of course. And while the Federation is a diverse and multi-cultural entity, that never interferes with the narrative that the presumably Earth-led, human-centered Federation is a benevolent, exceptional organization that is a driving force for good in the universe. While I enjoyed me some Star Trek growing up (Picard continues to be one of my favorite television characters), I was always more partial to the Babylon 5 universe. Considering the way the world is now, I think the series holds up extremely well(even if the CGI hasn't). I find it is much more blunt and gritty in how it tackles contemporary issues, and has confronted many things we are still dealing with today: racism, xenophobia, imperialism and its long-term consequences (Centauri vs Narn), refugee crises(Narn after the Centauri lay waste to their planet), reactionary politics and the specter of authoritarianism(Earth Alliance, rise of Nightwatch and President Clark). Globalism vs. unilateralism(League of Non-Aligned Worlds/Interstellar Alliance vs. Earth or Centauri). Among the many themes B5 deals with, one of them towards the end of the series is this: a society built with the best of intentions- even the ones millennia-old and looked up to by others- can fall prey to fear, self-righteousness and political infighting, and risk losing control of the narrative that made them great in the first place.
I just assumed with replicators everyone had everything they needed but out of need to not be bored or better themselves they pursued careers and interests, which is why so many people wanted to start "no tech" colonies or test their mettle in national services like star fleet which created a meta-economy of respect and rank.
I really hate Discovery... not because of the cast or the political stuff, that's just Trek. I hate the almost desperate edgyness and abject stupidity. Mirror Universe used to be slightly campy "EVUL Versions" of the real. Now they are cannibalistic and we have to see them beam people into space. Klingons rape and eat prisoners. And their warp drive is based on fungus.It' also doesn't have the balls to go out and discover new things, just reference stuff from older Trek shows. So, yeah, disappointment for me
@@gimzod76 I wouldn't even mind the idea if it was inbedded in the silly camp that it actually is. This is some Flash Gordon level of silly: "Pile on the mushrooms, Hexagon Boy, I shall hold off the evil space Labrador with my Martian Judo! HAI, FIEND!" (be honest, you would watch that show)
It also has to do with technology advancing to the point that the full potential of resources can be automatically exploited and distributed everywhere it is needed.
Very interesting video and topic! I've recently watched a video of a self proclaimed libertarian where he considers Trek a libertarian utopia and that's why he's angry about "the leftist agenda in discovery". As I understand it libertarians in the US are considered far more right wing than what it means in the rest of the world. So for him Trek has never registered in the leftist zone, or at least that's what he tells himself. He essentially makes the same argument about Starfleet being a hierarchical military organization, although he fails to mention that the Federation is not and that there is a distinction. The next argument he makes is that there is money in Trek in general and private property even on Earth - see Picard's vineyards. I don't get the argument about money since, like you already stated in the video, this only seems to apply for outside trade. However, I would love to know how Earth could support an outside currency that's actually worth anything to outsiders since due to there being no scarcity they could just conjure up fantasy-grade amounts of it, do they only trade non-replicable resources? I always found it odd in universe that there is stuff you can't make with a Replicator, although I understand the narrative purpose. And I do wonder how private inherited property works within their economy. We've seen "customers" waiting in line eagerly at Sisko's on Earth, do they pay for their meal, where are these "real" ingredients even coming from? I can see that from his perspective some of his points make sense although for his world view to work he does have to overlook quite a lot of the (sub-)text and the fact that the creators were always very open about the progressiveness of the franchise. Fun to think about, thank you for the essay!
I've struggled with the question of right wing Star Trek fans for a long time and this video makes a lot of good argument that help shed light on what they might be getting from the show that I missed.
How did Earth's future change for the better in the ST Universe? I believe it's quite simple, general, and direct all at the same time: people changed themselves. Finally, finally, they looked at their societies and the brutal inequities and inequalities they had created (not to mention the wars to which these conditions gave rise) and said "Enough!" For me, that's how it happened, and why it endures.
For me it's one single invention that paved the way to Trek Earth utopia: The Replicator. Without scarcity there is no poverty, currency seems pretty useless, without the need to work X amount of hours you can actually work to better yourself and in turn the rest. People waged wars for millennia without the kind of self-reflection implied by what we see in Trek so this doesn't strike me as that important
@@JackgarPrime And the eugenics war and the mass extermination of those sick with radiation poisoning and mutation that happened after that. Earth's history in star trek was beyond dark.
I am not so sure about Trek being anti-interventionist, at least in relation to the Prime Directive. It only seems to exist when they need to break it to emphasise how dire the situation is. The show seldom shows them declining to intervene on principle, and where it’s an option it’s usually framed as a cowardly one.
As far as your statement about capitalism being "scarcity" based, it reminded me of Star Trek: First Contact. Zefram Cochrane builds a ship with the first warp drive. The Vulcans see it and the alien race decide we are finally advanced enough to be worth contacting. The film does not get into it but this is what ends capitalism in the star trek universe or reality. With warp drive the human race to send mining crews to any asteroid or planet, mine for any mineral that earth needs and return at warp speed. Any natural resource we need is now going to be in unlimited supply for all intents and purposes forever.
I feel like I say this everytime I watch this video, but I freaking love Star Trek for everything that makes it Star Trek. I love critical commentaries about it as well as super passionate love letters about it. That's it, I just wanted to be a fan boy for a minute.
While star fleet engages in military actions it's only ever for self defence and never imperialism, that's why the federation drafted general order one, to prevent star fleet from doing imperalist stuff or taking advantage of underdevolped worlds.
I'm navy vet and like a lot of military scifi books, and Star Trek is in that category for sure. It's just transformed in a way that has elevated it since it's so detached from our reality. And you know it was racists complaining when they were talking crap before the show even came out.
A recurring theme in Trek is that when the bad guys are no longer attacking, they want to get back to Exploring i.e. peaceful interaction and discovery for the greater good / prpgress / helpfulness / the good of the many. Archer says it just before he goes on what he assumes is a suicide mission, the Xindi comment on it (after they try to kil all humans), Picard...well, Picard talks about it all the time, and Spock has The Good of The Many. In short, The Federation IS a peacekeeping armada with a goal that peacekeeping will one day beome unneccessary and render itself obsolete, and get back to good old exploring and cultural exchange. What's the challenge? Picard: "To better oneself." But in the meantime, we won't be inviting the Romulans to the party.
@@devendrabutthurt The fact that a lot of right-wingers claim they enjoy The Orville as an alternative to the "agenda-packed" Discovery to get their old-school Star Trek fix makes me laugh. It's cringey as hell on multiple fronts, from characterizations to dialogue to cinematography. Seth McFarlane *alone* put all the necessary nails in the coffin. But since you mentioned Mike from RLM, are you as annoyed as I am at his fairly aggressive swing to the right over the past couple of years? Don't get me wrong, I never watch RLM for their political views (lol,) but given that Mike is a self-professed Trekkie, his rants about The Last Jedi, Captain Marvel, Discovery, etc. really get under my skin. I guess it's just because he's like a window into the mind of someone getting sucked into the bullshit machine the right has so perfectly tuned.
The Orville is very left wing as well. There is homage to the left wing economic system of the Federation within multiple episodes. The Moclan episodes deal with gender inequality. One issue is the concept of allying with morally questionable parties for military and economic reasons, which is often an issue the left cares more about. Religion is presented as a threat to the rights of sapient beings which is embraced by right wing powers, like it is in real life on the western culture that created the Orville.
This video really brushes over how well meaning but sloppy Star Trek's approach to identity politics can get, but I would go so far as to call it one of the main things audiences on the right can identify with. The franchise is constantly saying that "you should try to get to know and understand people who are different from you," but for brevity if tends to simplify that down to "everyone in a foreign race/religion/culture is (x), and once you understand (x) you understand all of them." All Vulcans are logical. All Klingons are warriors. All Ferengi are greedy. Their inherent traits are unlike humans, but accepting them can lead to peaceful coexistence. They can be separate but equal. Sometimes supporting characters like Nog or Alexander Rozhenko will outright subvert this, but more often than not we see main characters like Spock or Worf who struggle with "their nature" to be a part of Starfleet framed as the exception that proves the rule. That jives with a lot of rhetoric on the right, and forms the basis of a lot of tropes that pop up in other media. And if someone has limited direct exposure to cultures outside their own, but extrapolates their idea of "tolerance" from a literal reading of a fictional universe as a functioning wiki-able model, then that can be a problem. Because with that worldview it sounds a whole lot more reasonable for the president to say that all Mexicans or all Muslims are (x). Again, that's very clearly not the intended reading of Star Trek. But it's consistently where people angry about sci-fi/fantasy on the internet and people angry about "the left" on the internet like to align.
This seems an oversimplification. There are observable trends that could be spotlighted in certain cultures. America in general is more individualistic, than say the culture of Japan or even it’s friendly neighbor Canada. People from different cultures do sometimes have trouble fitting in or adjust themselves to interact with a culture that’s different. There is a Value of logic in Vulcan society. But that doesn’t precede Vulcans being inherently “logical” it merely means Vulcans are brought up with a specific view on how to act and their nature and worldview. The fact that we see many Vulcans expressing more importance on doing things “logically” isn’t in it of itself justification to say “All Vulcans are logical” They’re still privy to illogical biases Hence their treatment of T’pol and others who her type of affliction. Ferengi are shown to be greedy yes-but by the end of DS9 the society is going in a radically anti-capitalist direction with calls to end monopolies, establish safety nets, and generally start protecting the poor. Nog and Rom are not just shown to be some queer anomaly Kardasians were literal fascist in the shows but it’s established what has brought them to this point wasn’t some innate joy of authoritarianism but large sufferings within their society. Romulans on the surface level appeared to just be monolithic bad guys, but we actually see Spock himself help garner a movement within Romulan society that looks to change everything-and he isn’t portrayed as trying something that could never work. The Klingon society is militaristic sure, but some societies do place a greater focus on expansion. Showcasing such does not mean ST is supporting the idea of of it being ok to stereotype. Spock’s natures is never presented as a barrier for succeeding in SF. There conflict with him and other characters in what to do-but typically what he argues for simply does not go against the professed morals. Word if anything struggles more to retain a sense of his Klingon heritage when he’s been adopted into, and lives in, the culture of the federation. He actually adheres to the rules of SF better than a lot of the human characters do.
One point I think missing from this discussion is the glossing over of trek being "not quite perfect" wrt its handling of women and minorities. There's still plenty of bigotry all through the first two generations of the series, so for a reactionary there was always plenty they could point to as proof that trek wasn't "politically correct" or "woke" or whatever synonym for "not being a bigoted piece of shit" they've trotted out this week.
Edit: Are Word Funk episodes no longer happening, or are they just on another channel? These people think Star Trek is being taken away from them? The original series that aired in 1966 had a black woman and an asian man in it, that featured in absolutely most episodes as they took important roles on the ship. Star Trek has always been ahead of it's time one way or another.
Fun fact: even my utopian Anarchist society would have a military. It of course would be a self defense force or part time volunteer militias, but it would still be a military. Starfleet is a military, which is only a bad thing when the military is used as a tool of conquest and subjugation.
Honestly, I've always seen Star Trek's claim that there's "no money" in the future to be just as much specious semantics as the idea that Starfleet "isn't a military". Even if matter replication technology has, in effect, unified the value of most goods, there are still three commodities - energy, space, and time. (Matter and energy technically being interchangeable, but requiring work to transition between those states, one could argue there are really four commodities, but even if so my upcoming point stands). The only change is that, rather than representing a variable exchange on an open market, a "federation credit" represents access to a share of those three/four things. And it is, as you said, quite clear that those things are not, in fact, distributed perfectly equally.
Bicameral legislatures are usually a result of historical compromise. Whether it's between nobility (House of Lords) and commoners (House of Commons) in the British example or between population (House of Representatives) vs. regional independence (Senate) in the federations. There's also the matter of how much state authority is conferred to each level of government. With places like the UK having absolute control vested in the Parliament, versus the US and Canada where states and provinces have strongly defined constitutional powers and jurisdiction.
I've always assumed DS9 crew got a small amount of latinum because they are on Bajor. Bajor isn't a Federation world so they would need it to get by. However, ships on stations not on the frontier don't use money.
After all this wasted time and breath over loudmouths being upset with Star Trek for being thematically exactly what it's been all along, this is a nice change of pace.
Same for Marvel. I was there at the beginning, they have always been highly political, sometimes pulp fiction heavy handed, and nothing disguised. Most of their most powerful characters were female, held back by lack of confidence. All kinds of people, New York after all. And now we have idiots screeching SJWs have "taken over" ? When? Before the first FF story?
I loved this analysis. I think your interpretation of why Star Trek is loved by the right ,and also why some on the left criticize it, is spot on. The only difference I have with you is the idea that the Federation and its President is too powerful. In many countries, The United States and France being immediate examples, the executive, head of state and head of military and intelligence is concentrated into the hands of one person. Plus other societies, Britain comes to mind immediately (yes I know about the House of Lords but its power diminished after Lloyd George's Peoples Budget) have unicameral legislative bodies and are quite representative. Consider these just minor quibbles in an overall excellent video.
It's not true that people in the star trek universe people are not affraid to lose their jobs and do not compete. There is still scarcity, there can only be one captain, for example. Even if you think it's a meritocracy, you must have to compete to get up there
There's a lefty podcast doing reviews of DS9 episodes called Androids and Assets that does a good job pointing out the weird American-style imperialism of the federation in that series
To this day I still can't understand how the economy of Star Trek works If they don't work for money then how are they getting credits? And if money isn't important then why are they paying with these credits? And if certain species still use their own currency because they don't accept Federation credits then how do they deal with them if they don't work for money?
It finally hit me how close Star Trek is to Fourth International Posadism. Though, Star Trek is more realistic in the sense that nuclear war alone doesn't bring along Space Comrades. Progress only happens once humanity persists after enduring outrageous capitalist inequality, a eugenics war, global nuclear war, and at least one drug-fueled post-nuclear authoritarian regime. Come to think of it, Seaquest, which was an environmentalist underwater version of Star Trek, did have Posadist communication with dolphins... hmm
Well I think you hit the nail on the head so here is my little story, many years ago I was a part of a group called the Starfleet Marines for fans who enjoyed Star Trek with a military flavor, it was made up or current and former members of the military or people who supported the military. for over 30 years we always dealt with Star Trek fans who resented us, acting like Starfleet was not set up like a Naval force. This paradox goes all the way back to Gene Roddenberry who was a military veteran who hated it and war. You really shined a light on it as some people watch Star Trek and fixate on what they like and ignore the rest. The left obsessing about diversity as much as the right the military. I guess the people who take in the entire show are also the ones who are not getting upset over what discovery is doing. I cut my teeth on TOS and I know my kind are dying out, that's why I support DSC and anything else that keeps the dream alive.
Are we sure there isn’t a benevolent race on its way to save us from ourselves/oligarchical racist overlords? Cuz that would be fuckin’ sweet right about now.
Maybe something to do with US history. Republicans fought for change in the past under President Lincoln and for freeing slaves etc. In recent years Republicans are associated with conservativism, not change. Left is code for change and right is code for maintaining status quo I think 🤷
The Holodeck is key to not needing possessions, food replicators remove the need for money and the credit system is for care and property at a retirement...
great points, but I think the main reason why star trek appeals to people on the right is the same reason it appeals to most people. It's a fun space adventure. One of my conservative friends loved Avatar when it was released regardless of the environmentalist message because of the action and visuals. Most people just consciously or unconsciously block out political messages they don't agree with in their media.
first time i said "subbed to you channel" in a comment because this topic of future/past governance and policy is/was so encompassing I believe its worth the appreciation. Great Job!
Great video as always, but I'm surprised you didn't bring up replicator technology. I always assumed the implementation of replicator technology throughout the world (presumably solar-powered) is what did away with money, crime and poverty.
One of the better discussions I've seen on TH-cam of the difference between "the Left" and "Liberals." 3:45 In many ways, Liberals and Neoliberals are more alike than different, despite claims by Liberals
It is also worth mentioning replicators may have greatly contributed to the eradication of poverty and greed in the future. If every ones nutritional needs are ensured in the future, it relieves economic stress on individuals and society.
The contradictions in the money existing or not existing is easily explained. Humans, earth, has rejected currency, but civilisations do not have to give up currency to join the Federation. Thus there are many currencies floating around the Federation, even though humans no longer need it.
I’m glad this video offers some explanations for why Star Trek appeals to people from the right-wing, despite the franchise’s leftist overtones. I think that’s an interesting conversation to be had.
In the 1990's I taught at a Navy graduate school, and my students loved the Next Generation with a passion that always surprised me. Being officers, most of them leaned right of center. I think you've explained to me what I was witnessing.
"No one is coming to save us. We have to save ourselves." is the best message any of us can learn. I agree that Star Trek can appeal to both the Right and Left as we tend to ignore those bits that don't comply with our worldview and focus on those that do. It's fascinating when you think about it. As soon as you posed the question: "what would attract the Right to Star Trek" my immediate thought was "the military angle" and that's exactly where you went. Also, I like that you called out "liberals" as still pretty right-leaning. I just call myself progressive for lack of a better term.
Fu#king nailed it. I've enjoyed the series since I was a child (yes I'm older). I found the huge amount of "displeasure" about STDisco bizarre and unwarranted. I would describe myself as a very liberal "progressive" conservative. That ST was always "liberal utopian" seems to be forgotten by many.
I just found this in my recommendations and was curious. I'm glad I watched. I had wondering why all these Star Trek "fans" were so whiney about the current state of the franchise and made me wonder when was the last time any of them actually watched the series and understood that it's always had social and political commentary. That was kind of the point.
you forgot about one very important thing - the Star Trek universe has the very useful Replicator. THIS led to complete change of the economic landscape.
Sort of how like industrialization, and now the information age, could be used to distribute resources as needed, instead of engineering artificial scarcity and maximizing waste.
Cool video, just one thing, we know little of how the Federation government works. With that said it is canon that member worlds are generally self autonomous with the union focusing in areas of defense and scientific advancement.
Great video! But one weakness is that you don't seem to be aware that most leftists make a clear difference between private property (the means of production) and personal property (your clothes, entertainment, nifty stuff etc)
1:33 They were like that in Voyager when the small religious Klingon sect got mad because their saviour or whatever was not only mixed-species, but only one quarter Klingon
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
In response to all the "But I hate Discovery for DIFFERENT reasons!"
Then this isn't about you. I didn't say everyone who dislikes Discovery is a racist or a sexist. I said that there was a racist and sexist backlash against the show. And there was. Being defensive and claiming I generalized fans is inaccurate because that's not what I said.
In response to all the "That's not why ANYONE hates this show!"
I literally posted clips of articles in the video. Also, it's not hard to track down the racist and sexist backlash yourself. We all have Google. It happened.
Some people might be touchy because a lot of people who have had these other reasons and have stated them elsewhere have instantly been accused of sexism and racism , I could see that wasn't what you were saying but some people just react first ...
It does make me laugh anytime someone goes all "Stop going all SJW with blah blah blah!"...in regards to Star Trek. Given the first series showed a society where humans of all races, nationalities, and ethnicities peacefully coexisted with aliens in relative harmony...really? The first series had a rather famous episode where William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols had the first interracial kiss on television.
And let's not talk about how TNG had the Federation and Klingons in a peaceful harmony. DS9 showed the entire quadrant setting aside differences and learning how to coexist. One can argue that the Dominion War probably would end up bringing about a lasting peace in a generation or so in the Alpha Quadrant.
Star Trek is a show about seeing past differences to discover we are all far more alike than different. It's a show about what COULD be if we could set aside our prejudices and live together. It's a future I would give anything for. And anytime I see a bunch of sad trolls waving signs about how homosexuality is a sin or how some race or ethnicity is naturally inferior, it makes me weep because these backwards-thinking people show me we still have so far to go.
I like Discovery, but it doesn't realy FEEL like a Trek series. It might have to do with the unspoken rule that Trek shows are shaped by the times in which they are made. Discovery is definitely influenced by this current age of perpetual war.
Yeah, there is an overreaction about their race and diversity. Star Trek has always had a left-leaning attitude, excluding a few TNG episodes.
I will still hold my personal opinion that Michael is a shit character tho, and the Orville feels more like Star Trek than ST:D.
There also seems to be an almost kneejerk positive reaction amongst this faction of the fan base to ANY white man in charge as a way to “save” Discovery. Captain Lorca was seen by many as the saving grace of the series, except of course that he was constantly seen as deferring to Michael Burnham, who was seen as a “Mary Sue” (another code word) who kept having the best ideas, and Lorca was to them being emasculated.
The new Picard series is also seen by many as a way to “save the franchise”, that is until it leaked that he might not be anything like Captain Picard of TNG, then you could almost hear the deflation of their expectations.
In season two, Captain Pike showed up, and they fell on him. He was suddenly seen as the new savior of the series. I kept hearing (...and still hear...) the drumbeat of how Pike needs his own show, with Spock. Number One, needed to be there too. They loved her, though she barely had any scenes to establish anything about her. One thing for sure, she was no longer an emotionless, non-sexualized Majel Barrett but a buxom space babe played by Rebecca Romijn, who seems to eat hamburgers and wear tight tops. So, they wanted Pike, Spock, and Number One - white, white, and white, boldly going back to 1964.
So, I think your analysis is spot-on. Apart from issues of story and writing, which is worthy of many videos, Discovery has another issue that’s baked into the pie. There’s an almost allergic reaction from certain factions of Trek fandom to Michelle Yeoh, but especially to Michael Burnham, a non-Captain who is gifted with amazing abilities and her own series, therefore she gets to come up with many of the ideas on how to save the ship, ideas that by design of the series, don’t always come from the top (a Captain) and from a man (a white dude). With Michael being the main protagonist, sometimes the captain’s ideas are in the way. This blows a giant hole in the authoritarian mindset.
In a sense, some of these right-wing fans were letting the retrogressive casting, military rankings, power dynamics, and character choices of late 1964, dictate their preferences in 2019. So, of course they’re rejecting the new show.
I think it’s worthy to note, however, that many of these same fans were perfectly fine with Luke Skywalker, a blond and blue farm-boy from Tatooine, probably about 18 (pre-Academy) with no rank whatsoever, saving the galaxy from an entire Galactic Empire.
This video is so enlightening.
Great video, one small nitpick:
Starfleet personnel having their effects in their quarters isn't really evidence for the existence of private property in the 24th century. When leftists use the term "private property" we don't mean simply the things you own, we refer to the means of production and subsistence. A home or a toothbrush or a photo album are not private property in leftist parlance, we refer to that as "personal property". Private property would be a fleet of tractors, or a factory, or an apartment building. Something that one person could not reasonably use on their own, and the entire community uses and depends on.
You could make an argument that Picard's vineyard isn't necessarily private property in the leftist sense wither, but I'd say the new Picard spin-off implies heavily that it is.
I know, but unfortunately, I did not make that clear in the video. On the part where I said "private" property, I mentioned the vineyard, but then said Picard has "personal" items in his quarters. I know the distinction, but since I didn't make it more explicit, this has been a common complaint about the video. My bad.
nice to see two of my favorite leftists helping each other out
I think that Roddenberry well understood that Star Fleet was a military force, but with society being built around abundance rather than scarcity, the problematic points of the modern military are sidestepped, because "protecting our interests" no longer means "we need to go out and secure as much as we can for ourselves. Without the constant pressure for needs to be met, the overall goal of seeing what else is out there, could potentially be a real, actual thing that happens.
Starfleet, while hierarchical, is also not mandatory. There's never shown or stated to be a military draft of any kind, and no one is pressured into joining it because economics or anything like that. It is basically a self-enforced hierarchy that people join because they want adventure, they are talented scientists, or they genuinely believe in defending the Federation.
The Federation is also complicated because while it is a government unto itself, it is almost closer to the European Union than the United States. It is demonstrated by the show that every planet in the Federation, even Earth, has its own government and institutions. A prime example is Vulcan, which is shown to have its own ambassadors, its own ships and crews, and its own institutions like the Vulcan Science Council. The Federation probably doesn't need anything more than a unicameral legislation and a strong executive authority because for the most part, member planets are left to manage themselves with the Federation dealing with external empires and inter-planetary law.
I'm not even sure if the Federation IS a government: it's always seemed to be more of a UN, a body intended to foster cultural exchange and trade. That would make Star Fleet more like UN Peacekeepers, a body that works for mutual defense in international disputes and humanitarian support but stays out of internal disputes as much as possible.
It seems clear to me that we are entering the age of abundance. This means obscene wealth for a few and grinding poverty for the many (continued capitalism), or prosperity for all with a new system. Stay tuned.
@@TechBearSeattle Our UN needs a lot more investment by our governments but otherwise, that's my take as well. We should be working toward a UN space corp. But not before the climate crisis. We really got to get control of our planet first.
@@Adam-ni6nevery well said Adam!
Thank you for saying that liberalism isn't the left in the rest of the world. People in the US really need to understand how much their political spectrum has been pushed to the right.
Calling corporate democrat liberals "the left" is like calling Noam Chomsky "the right", its so wrong that it borders on embarrassing.
I mean Merkel is pretty conservative, her party is central and still a lot of Americans seem to think of her as left??? Idk that's just my impression
@@loonamerry1567 The fact is that the outgoing prime minister of the UK Theresa May (a conservative) is to the left of Barak Obama.
In the UK where there is a reigning monarch and a financial centre known as the city of London the people of that country still have universal healthcare.
Yet, people cry socialism in the US when universal healthcare is mentioned.
@@tdmc123 Well, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The monarch is head of the government, but effectively she is subservient to the constitution, which is that of a parliamentary representative democracy. Also, although Theresa May may (arguably) be to the left of Barack Obama, her party has been trying to dismantle the National Health Service for decades, and has been somewhat successful in doing so. The NHS is a shadow of what it was when I left the UK in 1989.
@@Beery1962 the fact is the UK has an NHS, which they are trying to dismantle.
That is a far cry from first responders having to go to Congress for healthcare due to 911.
That could NEVER happen in the UK, even under a conservative government.
In Australia Liberals ARE the conservatives.
I'm not even a leftist and still extremely disappointed that they dropped the whole leftist utopia thing.
It was the one cool and outstanding thing about Star Trek.
I really hope season 4 is about how to build/rebuild that society. The difficulty and vigilance needed to make that happen and maintain it
They didn't drop it at all.
Worth noting that in the original writers bible for TOS, it was stated that they were to stay away from discussions of economy and political systems because the producers didn't want to get into a partisan argument of which side was right and which side was wrong in the 1960s world. The official stance of the show was that some third way came along at some point, and the future is just better, and that was that. When TNG started, this was still mostly in effect, though Roddenberry himself wanted to lean it in a more anti-capitalist direction, though this never fully took hold.
This is why, after 50-odd years, there has been so frustratingly little worldbuilding done w/r/t the politics, economics, and even culture of the federation. As opposed to, say, a show like Babylon 5 or Firefly, which reveled in that kind of stuff
Roddenberry created the Ferengi to be the capitalist antithesis of the Federation
Funny how decoupling reward from labour is only an existential crisis when the workers do it (socialism) and not when their boss does it (automation).
Indeed. Automation and investment.
Well shit. I’ve never thought about it that way.
Some people seem to think the world is fair. So if you're the boss, it must be because you deserve it.
Doesnt even need to be automation . Just normal employment is reward for someone elses labour.
An important thing to note is that there are certainly still rewards associated with labour in the universe of Star Trek, they just aren't the same rewards we have now.
A citizen of the federation may work for status/prestige, more responsibility or for the betterment of the self and the lives of others. In a sense, a Starfleet officer eager to move up the ranks may be working for increased control over resources, just as someone working for money would today, however that control is obviously far more limited, which limits but does not eliminate the associated issues.
Also note the qualifier "citizen of the federation" - money and inequality certainly does exist outside the federation.
Star Trek is basically John Lennon's Imagine song....with spaceships.
Actually. Star Trek came out first so Imagine is Star Trek without spaceships.
To quote the great Marxist philosopher, Anatoly Cherdenko, "I'm escaping to the ONE place that hasn't been corrupted by Capitalism... SPACE!!!"
ahahahahahaha
*Laughs in Ferengi*
*Posadism wants to know your location*
The
"When one is accustomed to privilege, equality can feel like oppression."
That's a DOPE line!
In regards to prejudices still existing in the future, the TNG episode I, Borg was all about Picard realizing and overcoming the prejudices he had towards the Borg that were rooted in his traumatic experience. It may be my favourite Trek episode because it delivers on the idea that Picard made to Q in the series opening two-parter in his defense of humanity and overcoming their flaws of the past.
I think Picard had more PTSD than prejudice for the Borg
Did I love that one! It's my favourite too!
What was especially hilarious to me about the freak out some folks had to Discovery was that, as the show went on, it wasn't even especially political by Trek standards. Yes, it has a diverse cast and a few elements with coded politics, but on the whole Discovery has concerned itself more with sci-fi storytelling and a kind of general humanism than with direct political allegory. Also, for anyone looking to go deeper with post-capitalist/post-scarcity science fiction, check out the writings of Kim Stanley Robinson, Ursula K. LeGuin, and Iain M. Banks (whose Culture novels feature a society that's a kind of Federation-on-Steroids).
Well said! I love Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed.
I am a big fan of Ursula K. LeGuin.
@@devendrabutthurt But the Ferengi were the running joke. Even when they got more respect and were more integrated into the whole (reluctantly), their entire culture including finances was not presented to admire.
krashkow please read “Trekonomics”. Brilliant book on the Star Trek economic development
And where it was political, it wasn't exactly left. Mentioning Elon Musk as a pioneer historical figure? Yikes.
It must be pointed out: almost every reference to the federation’s or earth’s political system only appeared long after Gene Roddenberry stopped being in charge of the show (or alive). He was adamant that the organization of earth could not be directly referenced, as it’s supposed to be outside the comprehension of a 20th century human being.
Roddenberry was still active for STIV and for the first season of TNG
Ah. That explains a lot TY! He did a fantastic job because as a teen, that is literally what I thought about the ST future Earth government. Just bits and bobs like representatives to the federation.
From hazy memory there was a housing for the meetups on Earth, they had to move it when the reps started getting assassinated in the Undiscovered Country movie.
Which is in and of itself a problematic view to hold... as if these people aren't even human anymore.
“...Because there are NO VULCANS coming to save us.”
...😢
That's exactly how I felt at the end of this video. Like, we can still hope right?
FORREAL
I still remember when the Discovery cast was announced, someone said with no irony "This sullies Roddenberry's memory with its socialist SJW agenda!" because the lead wasn't a white male human. Aside from the usual "Did you even WATCH Star Trek?" I found it more ironic because...have you looked at DS9's cast? There's exactly one white male human character in the main cast all seven seasons, and he's the only enlisted man in Starfleet, Chief Miles O'Brien.
That said, DS9 talked about these aspects of the Federation and Starfleet frequently...but rarely head-on or coming to a real conclusion. It was the show's thing to deconstruct a lot of Trek (Ronald Moore was one of the senior writers after all), but they never really addressed the issues after pointing them out. "Hey, the structure of Starfleet and the Federation are kind of weird, aren't they? Anyway, here's Jeffrey Combs to distract you from thinking too hard about it by being awesome!"
There are so many more instances of money confusion I could have put in, and one came from DS9.
Nog: "It's my money, Jake. If you want to buy it, use your own money."
Jake: "I'm human! I don't have money."
Nog: "It's not my fault your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement."
Jake: "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and rest of humanity."
Nog: "What does that mean, exactly?"
Jake: "It means...it means...we don't need money."
Nog: "Then you don't need MINE."
I love how they purposefully skirt around explaining exactly how it works.
@@renegadecut9875 The second of the three "Nog's Chain of Deals" episodes and my favorite (though the one with O'Brien being the bewildered viewpoint character dealing with the after-effects of Nog's trades is a close second because of Colm Meaney's performance).
It was also probably one of the biggest MST3K Mantra moments of a show that separated itself from the other shows in the franchise by being the deconstructionist Star Trek series. "No, we don't know how this shit works either, stop asking and just go with it."
It also works as handwave for traditional capitalist economies existing in a post-scarcity galaxy. "What do people trade if almost everything can be replicated?" "Latinum." "Why can't they repli--" "Shhhhhhhh..." "But--" "SHHHHHHH..." See also, why doesn't Jake just replicate his father the Willie Mays baseball card that's never addressed by the plot.
Every time I see those complaints about Discovery, Miles being the only white human in the main cast of DS9 comes to mind. But people ignorant of the themes and messages of Trek are nothing new. In the DS9 companion book they talk about the amount of letters of complaint they received after the episode Rejoined aired.
I think it's a good thing that DS9 didn't try to explain away all the questions regarding the inner workings of the Federation. They might arrive at answers that make it all feel silly. Point out the issues and give the viewer something to mull over and work out an answer for themselves.
And no doubt about it, Jeffrey Combs made DS9 even more awesome than it already is!
TheAbstruseOne I believe there’s another episode where Quark states that latinum cant be replicated. Which is why his people use it as currency. It’s basically liquid metal inside a gold bar or gold plated strips. They also think gold is worthless.
@@renegadecut9875 - I've started thinking Roddenberry's post-scarcity future resembles the middle class ideal.
No _day-to-day_ money or housing worries, and _'what's an HMO?';_ but you still struggle to get your kid into a good school (Bashir's Parents).
_The future is already here - it's just not very evenly distributed. (William Gibson)_
Great video! Just one note about private property in a socialist culture. The things you own are considered "personal property" as opposed to the concept of private property being modes of production that others operate for the benefit of the owner.
I thought he was referring more to the rooms than the things the officers have in them, but in that case it still doesn't make sese to me as I assume they don't actually own or rent their quarters?
Same with the farm - the land might still be owned collectively, but sort of been given to him because land is abundant and why not give a person who wants to build a farm on some unoccupied piece of land leave to do so?
(I'm not an expert on Trek though, and I'm new to leftism so... might be very mistaken)
@@oftinuvielskin9020 there is disagreement among socialists on how to handle personal property. Most agree that your clothes and home would be yours. Things get simplified in star trek because resources like land are functionally infinite when you can terraform an entire galaxy. Obviously we can't do that, so in the real world we. Have to make compromises.
As far as how right-wingers became attracted to the series, I would also add the role of the J.J. Abrams movies and the conscious "Not Your Father's Star Trek" marketing behind them. J.J. Abrams was very specific in interviews that he found Star Trek to be "too philosophical" and his movies functioned more as straight-forward action movies without any of the social commentary. This meant the Abrams movies lacked the conscious left-wing social commentary typical to Trek, while the amping up of the action scenes gave more prominence to the militaristic aspects of the franchise. And the "Not Your Father's Star Trek" marketing campaign was basically selling the movies as Star Trek purged of its leftist content, and served to cultivate a new, right-wing fandom on that basis.
Its like right-Wingers being attract to the Matrix which was directed by two leftist trans women .
The people I've seen complaining are long-term trek fans, though
@@brianlav1 Perfect example, actually!
@@bepkororoti8019 Is that actual Trekkies or people who say they're Trekkies?
I'm not into that "have they earned their geekness" thinking so I tend to just believe them when they say they like something and make half hour videos about that topic. It's hard to tell remotely with all the digital goodies in this day and age but they are certainly knowledgeable enough to riff on a theme and reference storylines from all over the Trek shows that fit that theme, so my guess would be hardcore Trek lovers... they must be pretty good at selective perception but nobody is truly internally consistent, I guess. I like some stuff I'm not particularly proud of myself. Maybe it's nostalgia, who knows. I only know that we won't find a simple answer like "they're not real fans like us" because that's just not how the world works
I think it’s cool that some people like Discovery. I’m not one of them but that’s just because I like Trek as an idealistic comfort show.
I like seeing the Enterprise, all consummate professionals, warmly interact with each other to solve problems like; first contact issues, wacky ship takeovers, space mysteries, ideological conflicts settled with words and more.
Compare that to Discovery and it’s episodes that resolve in… Violence. Very Trek.
It's interesting how you point out how the Federation emphasizes much upon its military and navy. Though Star Trek shows that the Federation has a pretty powerful military force, Star Trek also criticizes the status quo and arrogance of the Federation military mindset.
That blond officer you've shown in several clips, for instance, is a set in her ways, traditional-minded military person who pushes for decisions which are either not right or are shortsighted, but she justifies those actions because it's for the best interests of the Federation. She thought that planting the Borg Hugh with a bomb would be enough to destroy the whole Borg collective, even though it would've only destroyed a portion of the Borg.
And there is of course that officer who warred on the Cardassians during peacetime for revenge, and Picard had to stop him because that officer's actions was endangering everybody (even though the officer was right about the Cardassians plotting something). And let's not forget Riker's old officer in "Pegasus" who created the device that could help a ship cloak and pass through solid matter. He was so arrogant and such a jerk, that his crew mutinied against him. The guy even thought he could relieve Picard of command,. After he was arrested, he boasted that he had powerful friends in Starfleet who would bail him out of trouble. And there are other examples of officers in the various Star Trek shows arrogantly doing things their way, without consideration for the consequences of the what they were doing.
Thinking back on the "Pegasus" episode, it is problematic to learn that the Federation's traditional-minded officers were willing to hush up the questionable conduct of other officers. It's also problematic that the Federation's higher officers wanted to carry out decisions which were questionable and unethical simply because they were commanded to do so by the supreme powers that be, and that those orders should be obeyed absolutely. It's always interesting to see that though the Federation is very progressive in its society and values, its military and navy still insist on traditional mindsets that protect the reputations of vainglorious commanders.
Star Trek may emphasize the strength of the Federation's navy and military, but it constantly questions the idea that their officers and military decisions are always right and should never be questioned. Even Kirk, Picard, Riker, Sisko, and Janeway have shown that even the best of officers can make mistakes, and that acting according to the strict letter of the military law isn't always the best thing to do. On another instance, Spock and Data have demonstrated how officers can think outside the conventions of a commander and still be inspiring and effective leaders.
I like to think that Star Trek is acting in a similar vein as Horatio Hornblower or the Richard Sharpe books. Each Star Trek series shows officers who care about their crew, who are diplomatic as well as compassionate, who don't see the need to be constantly aggressive or militaristic, and who are willing to try solutions that don't always coincide with the rule. To paraphrase something from Dune: leaders who care more about their workers than with the harvesting of the Spice would inspire much loyalty about their people. That's a lesson that many reactionary and belligerent people need to learn, especially if they ever attain positions of authority.
Such reactionaries and belligerents are often greedy. And the greedy are always shortsighted.
Iirc one of Gene Rodenberry's main inspiration for Star Trek was indeed the Horatio Hornblower books.
From an out-of-universe narrative point of view, this can also be explained as the "Other Officer" phenomenon, whereby we know with great certainty that any Starfleet officer who appears on the show from off of the main starship will inevitably be a source of narrative conflict. It's a variation on Chekov's phaser. They're not likely to have a main, recurring character be the villain and get booted out of Starfleet, so they have to write in temporary outsiders to take the hit instead.
Beyond that mundane production restriction, we can ask why the writers keep wanting that sort of conflict often enough to have such a long list of Other Officers coming from outside to do dodgy shit, and then yes, part of that can be explained as criticism of militaristic behaviour.
Last week, my supervisor at work said, and I quote, "Star Trek; jeez, the good life at everyone's fingertips anytime, anywhere. Sounds like communism to me". He said this seriously, without a hint of a smile.
Yeah... Sounds awful....
I think it goes even further than communism, as it's a full-on post-scarcity utopia where the means of production are practically magic (at least as far as things like replicators go), but yeah, it's WAY closer to communism than capitalism, that's for damn sure. It's definitely moneyless (the only uses for money are in specific circumstances when dealing with other species or fringe parts of space), and the only class dynamic we see at all is military rank, which is not the same thing as economic classes.
Who would want to live under *that* system, amirite?
@@riccardoolivieri1159 And to have all their needs met and be treated with dignity and respect? Sounds awful!
Your supervisor is a pos.
What got rid of poverty in the Trekverse were two things: matter replicators that can basically rearrange and resequence atoms to turn anything into anything else, and abundant fusion power to run them with. With material needs now trivial to satisfy for everyone, people become free to do what brought them fulfillment, instead of what they have to do to get ahead in today's rat race.
Ya I just say, "post scarcity" which implies a system beyond capitalist scarcity. But like renegade said, its ambiguous mostly and sometimes conflicting.
Already no poverty in TOS before replicators
We have more than enough to satisfy everyone's basic needs even right now. Technically we are already post scarcity in terms of what production we have, and have been that way for a while. The problem is distribution, keeping people poor and hungry so others can enjoy obscene wealth. Big multiple mansions for one, the sidewalk for many. Enough food for 10.5 billion people as about 4 billion out of the 7.5 billion go hungry... the problem is capitalism, and logistics of distribution and redistribution, but under capitalism and the state, the logistics won't be solved because there is no incentive to, and neo-colonialist relations will be maintained...
@@pranavgoel9978it's all a bit sad really. We as humanity have all of the resources to help and provide for everyone...the only thing stopping those with power and influence from doing anything about it is their greed.
Jason Isaacs. What a legend!
As a liberal and a Trekkie, I still wasn’t a big fan of Discovery, but it wasn’t because it was DIVERSE for Christ’s sakes. I didn’t like the historical revisionism of the canon and the way they fucked up the Klingons, turning them basically into monsters.
I've long wrestled with these ideas of nationalism within Starfleet, and the insidious potential of Section 31. As a leftist I appreciate what The Federation does, but I am still skeptical of the mechanisms that work it. I think that, to it's credit Star Trek does try to teach a sense of skepticism for those in positions of high authority, like in the drumhead episode you mentioned.
I loved Deep Space 9 but there are decisions made and actions carried out by Benjamin Sisko that I cannot make myself comfortable with. Picard and Janeway aren't without their transgressions either. I think that any honest leftist who enjoys Star Trek is still ultimately going to have some criticisms for Starfleet and The Federation of Planets.
Even though I'm usually not a fan of time travel episodes, I would love to see an episode of Star Trek where a human from the far future is encountered, and asked about the status of Starfleet in their time. The human would tell the crew that The Federation no longer exists. Initially this would discourage the crew, but the future-human would reassure them and explain to them that The Federation was not destroyed, but simply no longer needed for peaceful existence in The Milky Way. It could almost be like the TNG scene with humans from the past, but flipped in perspective.
Great video, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on Star Trek.
I immediately hated when Section 31 was added to the canon.
Section 31 only came wit Berman long after Gene was dead
Now...where can i find a Commodore VIC-20?!?!?
eBay
Even though I don't like Discovery, "force shoving sjw propaganda" wasn't the first thing that came to mind.
I agree, i was reasonably fond of the characters, but i wasn't particularly fond of some of the styling of the Klingon's.
Now to mention how most of Star Trek has the classical "hard man doing hard things" trope it got from classic scifi with Kirk that reflects on the rest of the series.
One weird element of the Federation is that from what we see, the Federation really doesn't seem to dictate how the component worlds have to act. Like, the Vulcans have their own fleet and their government doesn't seem to be at all democratic. It honestly looks like a borderline military junta from what we see. The Federation Senate is pretty small, but if they don't have much to do with the internal affairs of given planets and mostly deal with big scale interstellar matters, it's maybe not *quite* as weird? It is probably just an oversight and/or a production issue.
I've always felt like Section 31 was a bad story idea. In a lot of ways, its existence undermines the overall themes and morality of the show as a historic whole. There're a lot of problematic things exacerbated by Section 31.
Star Trek will always have a special place in my heart, I grew up watching TOS and TNG. But for a very long time I have considered Star Trek to be an Anglosphere (term that I think is more fair than the usual “white man”) fantasy, a rehash of the adventure novels of the second half of the XIX century: some dudes explore an exotic locations thanks to the technological and political marvels of the British Empire, help the local natives to resolve the ethical dilemma of the week, have some personal insight (most of the time without a real transformation of the characters), and keep exploring in the name of the Queen. Also, as you already said it, the Federation sees itself precisely through the lenses of bourgeoise ideology: civilized, reasonable, respectful, not-that-intrusive, etc.
I know over the course of fifty years a lot of story arcs are more complex than this, but the average Star Trek episode seems to me a variation of this premise (I have not seen all episodes or movies, though. Excluding my childhood, I would consider myself more of a casual fan).
There's a reason "Master and Commander" has been called one of the best Star Trek movies ever made.
This is the first video I've seen of this channel. I don't know how this never came up on my radar until just recently.
People in the comments have made enough salient comments that I don't need to repeat, but I will remark that I can see conservatives idealizing the Star Trek universe in that they project what they see as their idealized vision of America in the Federation. Besides the lack of capitalism thing, of course. And while the Federation is a diverse and multi-cultural entity, that never interferes with the narrative that the presumably Earth-led, human-centered Federation is a benevolent, exceptional organization that is a driving force for good in the universe.
While I enjoyed me some Star Trek growing up (Picard continues to be one of my favorite television characters), I was always more partial to the Babylon 5 universe. Considering the way the world is now, I think the series holds up extremely well(even if the CGI hasn't). I find it is much more blunt and gritty in how it tackles contemporary issues, and has confronted many things we are still dealing with today: racism, xenophobia, imperialism and its long-term consequences (Centauri vs Narn), refugee crises(Narn after the Centauri lay waste to their planet), reactionary politics and the specter of authoritarianism(Earth Alliance, rise of Nightwatch and President Clark). Globalism vs. unilateralism(League of Non-Aligned Worlds/Interstellar Alliance vs. Earth or Centauri).
Among the many themes B5 deals with, one of them towards the end of the series is this: a society built with the best of intentions- even the ones millennia-old and looked up to by others- can fall prey to fear, self-righteousness and political infighting, and risk losing control of the narrative that made them great in the first place.
"The intricacies of economics do not make for exciting television."
Me a Spice and Wolf fan: "Hold up."
Another Spice and Wolf fan here!
I just assumed with replicators everyone had everything they needed but out of need to not be bored or better themselves they pursued careers and interests, which is why so many people wanted to start "no tech" colonies or test their mettle in national services like star fleet which created a meta-economy of respect and rank.
I really hate Discovery... not because of the cast or the political stuff, that's just Trek.
I hate the almost desperate edgyness and abject stupidity. Mirror Universe used to be slightly campy "EVUL Versions" of the real. Now they are cannibalistic and we have to see them beam people into space. Klingons rape and eat prisoners. And their warp drive is based on fungus.It' also doesn't have the balls to go out and discover new things, just reference stuff from older Trek shows.
So, yeah, disappointment for me
" And their warp drive is based on fungus"
That they possibly stole said idea from a steam game doesn't help it either.
@@gimzod76 I wouldn't even mind the idea if it was inbedded in the silly camp that it actually is. This is some Flash Gordon level of silly: "Pile on the mushrooms, Hexagon Boy, I shall hold off the evil space Labrador with my Martian Judo! HAI, FIEND!" (be honest, you would watch that show)
Maybe it's because I love TNG so much but this is one of your best essays. An effective summary of Star Trek's most meaningful logical gaps.
It also has to do with technology advancing to the point that the full potential of resources can be automatically exploited and distributed everywhere it is needed.
Very interesting video and topic! I've recently watched a video of a self proclaimed libertarian where he considers Trek a libertarian utopia and that's why he's angry about "the leftist agenda in discovery". As I understand it libertarians in the US are considered far more right wing than what it means in the rest of the world. So for him Trek has never registered in the leftist zone, or at least that's what he tells himself. He essentially makes the same argument about Starfleet being a hierarchical military organization, although he fails to mention that the Federation is not and that there is a distinction. The next argument he makes is that there is money in Trek in general and private property even on Earth - see Picard's vineyards. I don't get the argument about money since, like you already stated in the video, this only seems to apply for outside trade. However, I would love to know how Earth could support an outside currency that's actually worth anything to outsiders since due to there being no scarcity they could just conjure up fantasy-grade amounts of it, do they only trade non-replicable resources? I always found it odd in universe that there is stuff you can't make with a Replicator, although I understand the narrative purpose. And I do wonder how private inherited property works within their economy. We've seen "customers" waiting in line eagerly at Sisko's on Earth, do they pay for their meal, where are these "real" ingredients even coming from? I can see that from his perspective some of his points make sense although for his world view to work he does have to overlook quite a lot of the (sub-)text and the fact that the creators were always very open about the progressiveness of the franchise. Fun to think about, thank you for the essay!
I've struggled with the question of right wing Star Trek fans for a long time and this video makes a lot of good argument that help shed light on what they might be getting from the show that I missed.
How did Earth's future change for the better in the ST Universe? I believe it's quite simple, general, and direct all at the same time: people changed themselves. Finally, finally, they looked at their societies and the brutal inequities and inequalities they had created (not to mention the wars to which these conditions gave rise) and said "Enough!" For me, that's how it happened, and why it endures.
Unfortunately, they had to go through a third World War to get there. Hopefully we don't need to go through that path to reach the same goal.
World War III and first contact with the Vulcans made humans have a long hard look in the mirror and try to better themselves.
For me it's one single invention that paved the way to Trek Earth utopia: The Replicator. Without scarcity there is no poverty, currency seems pretty useless, without the need to work X amount of hours you can actually work to better yourself and in turn the rest. People waged wars for millennia without the kind of self-reflection implied by what we see in Trek so this doesn't strike me as that important
@@JackgarPrime And the eugenics war and the mass extermination of those sick with radiation poisoning and mutation that happened after that.
Earth's history in star trek was beyond dark.
@@bepkororoti8019the replicator didn’t exist in tos
I am not so sure about Trek being anti-interventionist, at least in relation to the Prime Directive. It only seems to exist when they need to break it to emphasise how dire the situation is.
The show seldom shows them declining to intervene on principle, and where it’s an option it’s usually framed as a cowardly one.
Yassss.... 20 minutes of Leon talking about Star Trek. I promise 5 watches of this video this month will be mine.
I never thought I would get so lucky. Hopefully he does more essays on Star Trek, this was so good!!!!!!
As far as your statement about capitalism being "scarcity" based, it reminded me of Star Trek: First Contact. Zefram Cochrane builds a ship with the first warp drive. The Vulcans see it and the alien race decide we are finally advanced enough to be worth contacting. The film does not get into it but this is what ends capitalism in the star trek universe or reality. With warp drive the human race to send mining crews to any asteroid or planet, mine for any mineral that earth needs and return at warp speed. Any natural resource we need is now going to be in unlimited supply for all intents and purposes forever.
I feel like I say this everytime I watch this video, but I freaking love Star Trek for everything that makes it Star Trek. I love critical commentaries about it as well as super passionate love letters about it. That's it, I just wanted to be a fan boy for a minute.
While star fleet engages in military actions it's only ever for self defence and never imperialism, that's why the federation drafted general order one, to prevent star fleet from doing imperalist stuff or taking advantage of underdevolped worlds.
I'm navy vet and like a lot of military scifi books, and Star Trek is in that category for sure. It's just transformed in a way that has elevated it since it's so detached from our reality.
And you know it was racists complaining when they were talking crap before the show even came out.
A recurring theme in Trek is that when the bad guys are no longer attacking, they want to get back to Exploring i.e. peaceful interaction and discovery for the greater good / prpgress / helpfulness / the good of the many. Archer says it just before he goes on what he assumes is a suicide mission, the Xindi comment on it (after they try to kil all humans), Picard...well, Picard talks about it all the time, and Spock has The Good of The Many. In short, The Federation IS a peacekeeping armada with a goal that peacekeeping will one day beome unneccessary and render itself obsolete, and get back to good old exploring and cultural exchange. What's the challenge? Picard: "To better oneself." But in the meantime, we won't be inviting the Romulans to the party.
The book 'Trekonomics' expands nicely on the economics in Star Trek. You did a great job here touching on it. Excellent video!
I find it funny people that Discovery was SJW and not Orville
That's because the Orville has a white male protagonist, and that's all some people care about.
@@devendrabutthurt The fact that a lot of right-wingers claim they enjoy The Orville as an alternative to the "agenda-packed" Discovery to get their old-school Star Trek fix makes me laugh. It's cringey as hell on multiple fronts, from characterizations to dialogue to cinematography. Seth McFarlane *alone* put all the necessary nails in the coffin.
But since you mentioned Mike from RLM, are you as annoyed as I am at his fairly aggressive swing to the right over the past couple of years? Don't get me wrong, I never watch RLM for their political views (lol,) but given that Mike is a self-professed Trekkie, his rants about The Last Jedi, Captain Marvel, Discovery, etc. really get under my skin. I guess it's just because he's like a window into the mind of someone getting sucked into the bullshit machine the right has so perfectly tuned.
I like both.... they are very different shows, but both good for what they are trying to be
@@shodancat1000 I personally like the show, but it's trash compare to TNG, and even those anti"sjws" knows it.
The Orville is very left wing as well. There is homage to the left wing economic system of the Federation within multiple episodes. The Moclan episodes deal with gender inequality. One issue is the concept of allying with morally questionable parties for military and economic reasons, which is often an issue the left cares more about. Religion is presented as a threat to the rights of sapient beings which is embraced by right wing powers, like it is in real life on the western culture that created the Orville.
This video really brushes over how well meaning but sloppy Star Trek's approach to identity politics can get, but I would go so far as to call it one of the main things audiences on the right can identify with.
The franchise is constantly saying that "you should try to get to know and understand people who are different from you," but for brevity if tends to simplify that down to "everyone in a foreign race/religion/culture is (x), and once you understand (x) you understand all of them." All Vulcans are logical. All Klingons are warriors. All Ferengi are greedy. Their inherent traits are unlike humans, but accepting them can lead to peaceful coexistence. They can be separate but equal. Sometimes supporting characters like Nog or Alexander Rozhenko will outright subvert this, but more often than not we see main characters like Spock or Worf who struggle with "their nature" to be a part of Starfleet framed as the exception that proves the rule.
That jives with a lot of rhetoric on the right, and forms the basis of a lot of tropes that pop up in other media. And if someone has limited direct exposure to cultures outside their own, but extrapolates their idea of "tolerance" from a literal reading of a fictional universe as a functioning wiki-able model, then that can be a problem. Because with that worldview it sounds a whole lot more reasonable for the president to say that all Mexicans or all Muslims are (x).
Again, that's very clearly not the intended reading of Star Trek. But it's consistently where people angry about sci-fi/fantasy on the internet and people angry about "the left" on the internet like to align.
This seems an oversimplification.
There are observable trends that could be spotlighted in certain cultures. America in general is more individualistic, than say the culture of Japan or even it’s friendly neighbor Canada. People from different cultures do sometimes have trouble fitting in or adjust themselves to interact with a culture that’s different. There is a Value of logic in Vulcan society. But that doesn’t precede Vulcans being inherently “logical” it merely means Vulcans are brought up with a specific view on how to act and their nature and worldview. The fact that we see many Vulcans expressing more importance on doing things “logically” isn’t in it of itself justification to say “All Vulcans are logical”
They’re still privy to illogical biases Hence their treatment of T’pol and others who her type of affliction.
Ferengi are shown to be greedy yes-but by the end of DS9 the society is going in a radically anti-capitalist direction with calls to end monopolies, establish safety nets, and generally start protecting the poor. Nog and Rom are not just shown to be some queer anomaly
Kardasians were literal fascist in the shows but it’s established what has brought them to this point wasn’t some innate joy of authoritarianism but large sufferings within their society.
Romulans on the surface level appeared to just be monolithic bad guys, but we actually see Spock himself help garner a movement within Romulan society that looks to change everything-and he isn’t portrayed as trying something that could never work.
The Klingon society is militaristic sure, but some societies do place a greater focus on expansion. Showcasing such does not mean ST is supporting the idea of of it being ok to stereotype.
Spock’s natures is never presented as a barrier for succeeding in SF. There conflict with him and other characters in what to do-but typically what he argues for simply does not go against the professed morals.
Word if anything struggles more to retain a sense of his Klingon heritage when he’s been adopted into, and lives in, the culture of the federation. He actually adheres to the rules of SF better than a lot of the human characters do.
YES! YOU NAILED IT! 💯% you stated everything I've observed from up here in Canada. Nailed every nuance! Well done!
Cheers to a Trek Future!
One point I think missing from this discussion is the glossing over of trek being "not quite perfect" wrt its handling of women and minorities. There's still plenty of bigotry all through the first two generations of the series, so for a reactionary there was always plenty they could point to as proof that trek wasn't "politically correct" or "woke" or whatever synonym for "not being a bigoted piece of shit" they've trotted out this week.
Edit: Are Word Funk episodes no longer happening, or are they just on another channel?
These people think Star Trek is being taken away from them? The original series that aired in 1966 had a black woman and an asian man in it, that featured in absolutely most episodes as they took important roles on the ship. Star Trek has always been ahead of it's time one way or another.
I announced months ago that it's over.
Damn. This episode hit hard in all the right ways.
Nathan Smith i would say it hits even in many left ways as well.
@@ashkuigp hey! not fair! i was going to make that joke 😢💔
I may add that "the Final Frontier" it's not without weight: It is a bit of interstellar Manifest Destiny
Fun fact: even my utopian Anarchist society would have a military. It of course would be a self defense force or part time volunteer militias, but it would still be a military. Starfleet is a military, which is only a bad thing when the military is used as a tool of conquest and subjugation.
Any govt has a military.
Does not make it wrong.
It is how it is used is what makes it wrong.
Honestly, I've always seen Star Trek's claim that there's "no money" in the future to be just as much specious semantics as the idea that Starfleet "isn't a military". Even if matter replication technology has, in effect, unified the value of most goods, there are still three commodities - energy, space, and time. (Matter and energy technically being interchangeable, but requiring work to transition between those states, one could argue there are really four commodities, but even if so my upcoming point stands). The only change is that, rather than representing a variable exchange on an open market, a "federation credit" represents access to a share of those three/four things. And it is, as you said, quite clear that those things are not, in fact, distributed perfectly equally.
I think it's a shame that most pieces of high budget media recently have seemed to feel it has to be dark and gritty.
What's inherently wrong with a unicameral legislative? I mean, most countries have those instead of the honestly archaic and clunky bicameral ones.
Bicameral legislatures are usually a result of historical compromise. Whether it's between nobility (House of Lords) and commoners (House of Commons) in the British example or between population (House of Representatives) vs. regional independence (Senate) in the federations. There's also the matter of how much state authority is conferred to each level of government. With places like the UK having absolute control vested in the Parliament, versus the US and Canada where states and provinces have strongly defined constitutional powers and jurisdiction.
I've always assumed DS9 crew got a small amount of latinum because they are on Bajor. Bajor isn't a Federation world so they would need it to get by. However, ships on stations not on the frontier don't use money.
After all this wasted time and breath over loudmouths being upset with Star Trek for being thematically exactly what it's been all along, this is a nice change of pace.
Same for Marvel. I was there at the beginning, they have always been highly political, sometimes pulp fiction heavy handed, and nothing disguised. Most of their most powerful characters were female, held back by lack of confidence. All kinds of people, New York after all. And now we have idiots screeching SJWs have "taken over" ? When? Before the first FF story?
This is the only thing I like Abt discovery and some other things but #1 reason why I hate discovery is the feeling is like dark and very 21st century
I loved this analysis. I think your interpretation of why Star Trek is loved by the right ,and also why some on the left criticize it, is spot on. The only difference I have with you is the idea that the Federation and its President is too powerful. In many countries, The United States and France being immediate examples, the executive, head of state and head of military and intelligence is concentrated into the hands of one person. Plus other societies, Britain comes to mind immediately (yes I know about the House of Lords but its power diminished after Lloyd George's Peoples Budget) have unicameral legislative bodies and are quite representative. Consider these just minor quibbles in an overall excellent video.
Thanks so much for the Shatner advertisement at the end over the credits.
It's not true that people in the star trek universe people are not affraid to lose their jobs and do not compete. There is still scarcity, there can only be one captain, for example. Even if you think it's a meritocracy, you must have to compete to get up there
There's a lefty podcast doing reviews of DS9 episodes called Androids and Assets that does a good job pointing out the weird American-style imperialism of the federation in that series
To this day I still can't understand how the economy of Star Trek works
If they don't work for money then how are they getting credits? And if money isn't important then why are they paying with these credits? And if certain species still use their own currency because they don't accept Federation credits then how do they deal with them if they don't work for money?
I for one await the Space Comrades to come and Liberate us!
It finally hit me how close Star Trek is to Fourth International Posadism. Though, Star Trek is more realistic in the sense that nuclear war alone doesn't bring along Space Comrades. Progress only happens once humanity persists after enduring outrageous capitalist inequality, a eugenics war, global nuclear war, and at least one drug-fueled post-nuclear authoritarian regime.
Come to think of it, Seaquest, which was an environmentalist underwater version of Star Trek, did have Posadist communication with dolphins... hmm
Ah, a posadist!
Well I think you hit the nail on the head so here is my little story, many years ago I was a part of a group called the Starfleet Marines for fans who enjoyed Star Trek with a military flavor, it was made up or current and former members of the military or people who supported the military. for over 30 years we always dealt with Star Trek fans who resented us, acting like Starfleet was not set up like a Naval force. This paradox goes all the way back to Gene Roddenberry who was a military veteran who hated it and war. You really shined a light on it as some people watch Star Trek and fixate on what they like and ignore the rest. The left obsessing about diversity as much as the right the military. I guess the people who take in the entire show are also the ones who are not getting upset over what discovery is doing. I cut my teeth on TOS and I know my kind are dying out, that's why I support DSC and anything else that keeps the dream alive.
Are we sure there isn’t a benevolent race on its way to save us from ourselves/oligarchical racist overlords? Cuz that would be fuckin’ sweet right about now.
I've always found it very confusing that "liberals" elsewhere is associated with the right, and yet "Republicans" often refers to the left.
Maybe something to do with US history. Republicans fought for change in the past under President Lincoln and for freeing slaves etc. In recent years Republicans are associated with conservativism, not change.
Left is code for change and right is code for maintaining status quo I think 🤷
Brilliant, I loved it! The irony of seeing "captain kirk" in an advert for a "300$ computer of the 1980's!" was not lost on me. 😂👍
I've discovered so many new POV about Star Trek watching our video! Thanks a lot!
The Holodeck is key to not needing possessions, food replicators remove the need for money and the credit system is for care and property at a retirement...
As a leftist, anrchist leaning communist trans queer woman, I love this video.
Rom quoting Marx gives me happiness juice.
Anyone who claims “Star Trek went woke” has clearly never understood the kind of show it is.
great points, but I think the main reason why star trek appeals to people on the right is the same reason it appeals to most people. It's a fun space adventure. One of my conservative friends loved Avatar when it was released regardless of the environmentalist message because of the action and visuals. Most people just consciously or unconsciously block out political messages they don't agree with in their media.
i grew up in a military household. we watched hella star trek.
my family is very leftist, for the record.
first time i said "subbed to you channel" in a comment because this topic of future/past governance and policy is/was so encompassing I believe its worth the appreciation. Great Job!
Great video as always, but I'm surprised you didn't bring up replicator technology. I always assumed the implementation of replicator technology throughout the world (presumably solar-powered) is what did away with money, crime and poverty.
One of the better discussions I've seen on TH-cam of the difference between "the Left" and "Liberals." 3:45 In many ways, Liberals and Neoliberals are more alike than different, despite claims by Liberals
Interesting take on the political / ideological appeal of ST; an aspect of Trek I hadn't really considered. Well done.
It is also worth mentioning replicators may have greatly contributed to the eradication of poverty and greed in the future. If every ones nutritional needs are ensured in the future, it relieves economic stress on individuals and society.
The contradictions in the money existing or not existing is easily explained. Humans, earth, has rejected currency, but civilisations do not have to give up currency to join the Federation. Thus there are many currencies floating around the Federation, even though humans no longer need it.
One of my main issues is they constructed a straw man in discovery, also it is poorly written.
20:13 Willian Shatner....Star Trek's answer to Troy McClure.
I’m glad this video offers some explanations for why Star Trek appeals to people from the right-wing, despite the franchise’s leftist overtones. I think that’s an interesting conversation to be had.
In the 1990's I taught at a Navy graduate school, and my students loved the Next Generation with a passion that always surprised me. Being officers, most of them leaned right of center. I think you've explained to me what I was witnessing.
"When one is accustomed to privilege, equality can feel like oppression"
That's a nice one
Discovery is really good. I wish it was available on a real service like netflix.
outside of the US, it is on netflix, and it's damn good.
"No one is coming to save us. We have to save ourselves." is the best message any of us can learn. I agree that Star Trek can appeal to both the Right and Left as we tend to ignore those bits that don't comply with our worldview and focus on those that do. It's fascinating when you think about it. As soon as you posed the question: "what would attract the Right to Star Trek" my immediate thought was "the military angle" and that's exactly where you went. Also, I like that you called out "liberals" as still pretty right-leaning. I just call myself progressive for lack of a better term.
Fu#king nailed it. I've enjoyed the series since I was a child (yes I'm older). I found the huge amount of "displeasure" about STDisco bizarre and unwarranted. I would describe myself as a very liberal "progressive" conservative. That ST was always "liberal utopian" seems to be forgotten by many.
I just found this in my recommendations and was curious. I'm glad I watched. I had wondering why all these Star Trek "fans" were so whiney about the current state of the franchise and made me wonder when was the last time any of them actually watched the series and understood that it's always had social and political commentary. That was kind of the point.
you forgot about one very important thing - the Star Trek universe has the very useful Replicator. THIS led to complete change of the economic landscape.
Sort of how like industrialization, and now the information age, could be used to distribute resources as needed, instead of engineering artificial scarcity and maximizing waste.
I'm going to power watch this, I still haven't seen it yet, been power watching Game of thrones lately.
Cool video, just one thing, we know little of how the Federation government works. With that said it is canon that member worlds are generally self autonomous with the union focusing in areas of defense and scientific advancement.
Great video! But one weakness is that you don't seem to be aware that most leftists make a clear difference between private property (the means of production) and personal property (your clothes, entertainment, nifty stuff etc)
Pretty sure I did. I called the ownership of the vineyard "private" and Picard's things in his quarters "personal." Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
1:33 They were like that in Voyager when the small religious Klingon sect got mad because their saviour or whatever was not only mixed-species, but only one quarter Klingon
I'd lift up replicators as how they eliminated hunger want and need since replicators can make anything you'd want or need.
Thinking the same.
"What is the economy like?" We all know the economy in star trek is a scarf based economy