What you described with the replicators is how I imagine they work in Ferenginar - they definitely have home replicators, I’m pretty sure they’re in Quark’s house - where part of the reason people even go to Quark’s instead of the Replimat is that he has access to non-open-source replicator patterns. While my headcanon is the Federation replicators, unlike some other ones, generate their patterns dynamically based on your requests rather than loading pre-made patterns. Since they ask for very small customisations on those ones. But Quark has to replicate the ingredients for a cocktail and then mix it by hand.
@@radicalizeme You also go about workers being "over exploited" in a 3rd world. This implies there is an objective value for labor or goods which is not true; the market determines the price. It also turns out that these sorts of factories are more desirable to workers than the alternative of rural living, hence their popularity. Capitalism has the means to make these conditions better, but there is evidently not a market demand for these higher quality working conditions, because end consumers (you and me) choose not to make a demand for goods made in higher quality working conditions. The fault doesn't lie solely with the greed of a class of factory owners, it lies with the overwhelming majority of humans. This fact being true, what puzzles me about socialists and statists is they both believe that they can successfully select the infinitesimal minority of humans from the population who are fantastically altruistic, intelligent and skilled to the point that they would better at deciding what to do for people than the billions of people who are currently deciding what's best for themselves in any particular moment. I.e: Why do you believe the people in government are better at making decisions than anyone else?
@@joeblogs6598The problem is that wealth concentrations *also* distribute decisionmaking power unequally, and left to themselves without taxation or regulation, lead to ever-increasing imbalances of power and inequality, so long as the system avoids a violent revolt it can’t suppress. Wealth can control and manipulate markets to limit consumers’ power and options in ways that ensure imbalances remain in place, and make consumers weak and desperate enough to obey and serve the wealthy, so long as it keeps them from being miserable enough to be willing to risk their lives to change things. Many of us have convinced ourselves that existing wealth distributions are somehow fair, but that rationale, whatever validity it has, dies off after a generation. There is *already* a small group of people deciding what’s best for everyone and how power and wealth should be distributed. We just let existing wealth define who those people are.
@@joeblogs6598 "I.e: Why do you believe the people in government are better at making decisions than anyone else?" We don't. Why do capitalists believe a hoarding parasite class are better at making decisions than workers collectives and opt in People's Assembilies? How much of that is due to hoarding of information for personal power and exploitation rather than so called 'market demand'? In capitalism, the rich seek and gain the power to ignore and suppress market demand. To prevent that a set of rules is needed. Governments are the currently existing structure for making and enforcing rules in a country - which is why they are so corrupted by the ultra-wealthy and consided worth the money to corrupt and lobby.
I'm a big fan of Star Trek, and so frustrated that most of their writers have no conception of the world beyond liberalism capitalism, and are simply not equipped to handle the economics that the Federation would logically require. There are a few bright spots here and there, but the Hollywood system makes sure not to hire people with ideas that are too "radical". The master's tools and the master's house, and so on.
I feel you, friend. Gene Roddenberry may have been a bit of a socialist, and you can sense the revolutionary energy bubbling under the surface of all Trek, but most folks who work on the shows just don’t quite get it.
With replicator tech, there really is no need to display much of an economy. Everyone has their replicator, there probably is an industrial replicator somewhere near you, so there really are no manufacturing jobs left. The only thing that is important in terms of their economy is a steady flow of raw resources, and considering how Replicators also work as recyclers, you don't actually need all that much in that regard either. The majority of stuff probably goes to the ship yards. Bottom line, the economics of the federation are probably very, very simple when compared to ours. Everyone has access to replicators, powerful computers, AI and presumably a form of the internet. You could literally set up in a forest next to a powerline with nothing but your phone and your replicator and spent the next few years building your house from scratch with no need for any outside flow of goods. As long as your replicator works, you quite literally need NOTHING else.
Bit late, but socialism requires public/govt ownership of the means of production. In the very least, this means chateau picard is illegal bootleg blackmarket liquor production on public land as a vineyard is a means of production. I do feel though that economic democracy is practised: corporations are not for profits and have one member, one vote and the employees (akin to civil servants for the corporation) must be members and get a vote. Nonvoting shares could exist as now but be only for investment returns. They could have a mission statement like nonprofits too. Unions (illegal in most practised socialist countries outside the govt unions which always side with the govt which sides with itself since it owns the means of production) would be legal and even encouraged. Consumer associations would be for consumers, producer associations and business associations, as well as environmental organizations would exist too. Just like the govt mediates worker and business disputes sector wide, the govt would mediate all aspects of the business with society with all the above organizations able to strike, lockout, and/or boycott if contract expired and demands not met.
Good vid, only comment I have is at 4:40 They didn't steal the replicator. It was from their shuttle. They went through the wormhole while negotiating with the Barzans for administration rights to the wormhole.
Also yeah, I like to think the Vulcans basically schooled humanity on how to run a society “properly”. Some dialogue in Enterprise claims that humanity did it without Vulcan’s direct help, but they were at least providing theory and feedback if not being much more involved (which I think they were, since they had VERY influential advisors in every branch of Earth government even a century later).
@1m27s - the problem with the Federation is that there aren't enough meetings? The future isn't a boot in your face forever, but a meeting that never adjourns.
There ARE corporations in Star Trek, and Federation ones at that. And people can accumulate large amounts of wealth and resources, if they chose to. 1. TOS' "Mudd's Women" the dilithium miners on Rigel 12. Doing that hard work you say that people don't have to do. 2. In TAS "Mudd's Passion" Motherlode is another mining colony/corporation. 3. TAS' "The Survivor" introduces us to Carter Winston, a wealthy space trader and philanthropist. So rich that he was able on his own to save the entire populations of planets from starvation or other disasters. 4.TNG's "Conspiracy" we learn of Dytallix Mining Company. 5. DS9's "Prodigal Daughter" we learn that Ezri's mother is a wealthy and powerful business leader and owner of the largest pergium mining operations.
Don't they also have a variation classified as "industrial replicators"? How do those compare to what we see the crew of, say, Voyager using? Maybe they're just large and low-resolution ones for making things like hull plates and support beams?
Not necessarily. We know there are things that cannot be replicated, and we also know that there are certain things that are not replicated ready for use as it were. (Otherwise there would be no need for shipyards. Just press a button, instant spaceship) And yes, there are industrial replicators. My guess is, you use your house repli for your daily demands, and if you need a bigger or more capable replicator, you drive to your local manufacturing hub to get a bigger machine.
@@Roxor128 I'd assume that the federation would be a bit like NASA and make things redundant, especially on high quality machines like starships. Thus replicators would likely be decked out to print spare parts for just such an occasion. Of course writers wouldn't set things out like that or perilous high-tension plot lines become hard to create.
"Post scarcity" in Star Trek refers to having matter-energy conversion technology and an energy surplus simultaneously....this is literally explained in TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager. When a civilization attains replication technology, basic subsistence is permanently solved. New challenges arise such as societal organization, cultural relevance, distribution of resources, and attaining new resources that cannot be replicated (there are literally hundreds in universe). This is why there are still private corporations such as the Dytallix Mining Company, Independent Freight Union, and the Private Commerce Authority (headquarted on Earth right next to Starfleet HQ). There are dozens of human colonies that are not in the Federation, we meet a bunch of them in TNG and TOS. During this age, technology itself and rare resources become the currency.
Yeah it's not just about replicators. There's also super efficient energy production and ways to get resources from place to place extremely quickly and easily. Need several tons of something to go from North America to Africa? OK, we'll just beam it there and you'll have it in a few minutes. Distribution systems, high tech building materials, advanced medicine and mental healthcare; there's so much more that goes into it than just replicators. Most people don't even understand how replicators work.
@@zkeletonz001 Replication technology is literally listed in the Federation charter as a defining characteristic of a "warp capable species" that has unified it's society. It's also the standard set forth by the Voth and other higher species throughout the galaxy. So sorry, you're just wrong here.
@@blankspace178 Uh, I was actually agreeing with what you said, so I'm not sure why you think I'm saying something radically different. "New challenges arise such as societal organization, cultural relevance, distribution of resources, and attaining new resources that cannot be replicated (there are literally hundreds in universe)." Replicators are a great resource, but there's a whole lot more that goes into creating the kind of utopian society that exists on earth in the Trek universe. There are plenty of other examples of societies in Trek that have replicator technology, but are nowhere close to the kind of ideal society that exists on earth.
Just wanted to chime in with some thoughts on whether the Federation is socialist or post-scarcity. I think it’s a bit more nuanced than just slapping a label on it.First off, the Federation isn’t a single, unified economic system. It's more like the merchant marines - they govern the space between planets, but individual planets have their own governments and economies. So, Earth might operate differently from, say, another member planet.Federation credits are a thing, but they’re more like tokens than traditional money. These credits are tied to energy - you use them for stuff like replicators and transporters. Everyone gets a basic allotment, kinda like a universal basic income (UBI), but in energy form. This means you can live comfortably without worrying about basic needs, but it’s not like you’re rolling in luxury without doing anything.The best detailed explanation I've found on this comes from the GURPS Prime Directive, a game that really digs into the Federation's workings. Because it's a game, the economy has to make sense and work practically. This makes it a great resource for understanding the ins and outs of how the Federation operates.In terms of governance, the Federation is a lot like the United States. It’s a federal republic, meaning it has a central government (the Federation Council and President) that handles things like defense, interplanetary trade, and diplomacy. Meanwhile, individual planets get to run their own affairs, much like how U.S. states have their own laws and governments.However, this is where it diverges from the U.S. system. While the U.S. has a universal currency (the dollar) that is accepted across all states, Federation planets can have their own unique economic systems and currencies. Federation credits don’t work everywhere and aren’t accepted at all establishments, even within the Federation. They are more of a token system, tied to the energy economy. This system reflects the Federation's unique blend of socialism and post-scarcity economics, where advanced technology like replicators can meet most needs, reducing traditional economic constraints.In summary, the Federation’s system applies mostly to Earth and the space in between planets. Each planet can have its own thing going on economically and politically. Federation credits don’t work everywhere, and they aren’t accepted at all establishments, even within the Federation.
The Federation's members do have sovereignty and do their own thing as witnessed by Vulcan being able to tell Starfleet and the Federation council to go F off and not extradite Kirk and crew. We also know that Vulcan does use money as a Vulcan master charged Captain Janeway more for a meditation lamp that she wanted to buy from him as a gift for Tuvok when he saw her uniform. In DS9 we learn that Federation member Bolia has a bank and so on. Deep Space Nine's "In the Cards" also tells us that it's only Earth and the humans that live there that do without money.
Your analogy of a 3D printer and a replicator is spot on. Very well put. I also liked the way you illustrated that if we had replicators in our current society, some capitalist, (and complicit government) would make it just short of too expensive to use. When I was a kid, I remember we watched films in school showing how the future would be. They portrayed a time when you could watch a television channel that would show all the shopping fashions for the season, (basically QVC). A person could telephone the store - who already had your exact measurements - and a custom fit dress and shoe ensemble would be mailed to your house. But that never happened. We have the technology to do that, but it isn't AS profitable as cranking out standard sizes. So, no. Capitalism doesn't encourage innovation in anything other than profit.
It's the military. Once you're out of the federation you pay for things. In Picard season 1 Chris is hired for transportation. In generations Scotty says he just bought a boat. Seven of Nine is a bounty hunter in Picard.
Socialism and money can coexist. The way most hunter gatherers lived when Europeans got there looked more like socialism than what we have today, and they also had immense trade networks that spanned continents, and even got beads from Pacific America to Eurasia. The way most people lived outside of Europe was pretty similar to how people lived for the previous millenia, and in any case humans follow similar laws of behavior throughout time, and we've been around for 300,000 years on top of the previous like 3 million for homo erectus, so it's likely we've gone through many oscillations in all the ways we can behave. I'd expect the more stable systems to last longer, and the better tuned ones to be near the end of that time span too. In multicellular, and communal organisms a more socialism like system is the most common, and humans are just another species that needs the group to work together and share resources in order to survive.
They totally need to make the ‘evil timeline’ have an economy where replicators need a subscription and fee for each print and a fee for the blueprint of the thing. They could have all the same tech as the good timeline but it would be miserable for everyone…
@@radicalizeme I'm of the libertarian persuasion. Though I find governments evil and frustrating, I don't think a single revolution style event would yield AnCap or somesuch. I think due to the nature of how human genetics, culture, and technology evolves, reaching the most desirable organization of society (whatever it may be) will take an iterative process. It has taken many civilizational cycles to reach the ethics proliferated by the renaissance.
That’s a great video, really enjoying…. The USSR WAS NOT MADE UP OF VOLUNTARY MEMBER STATES (Unless you consider surrendering to an invading army voluntary) if it were half of them wouldn’t have left and joined the EU
Actually the USSR was formed by voluntary member states. Read your fucking history. The bolshevik parties won their respective Civil wars and decided to join together for mutual protection from outside threats. Like seriously, I learned this in a basic university history course, with a professor who was born in the USSR.
it is not just the replicator, it is the matter-antimatter reactors, they have a somewhat eternal power supply that create enormous amounts of energy, this is the reason they are able to create a utopia. Focusing in just the replicator and not all the other technological and philosophical aspects that led to the federation is very misleading, they are not socialist, they are something else. Saying that 3D printers are like replicator is laughable.
Anti matter is a battery, not a power source. Unless you are the klingons, who can actually mine the stuff, however that works, you have to create your own anti-matter before you can fuel your ships with it. It is mentioned in some ancilliary material that they are actually using the energy of stars / fusion in some way to create their anti matter, so the power source that powers the average federation world is probably hydrogen fusion. Regardless, without the replicator, all that power would mostly amount for nothing. Replicators are the ultimate manufacturing tool. If you give me a replicator and enough power, I can set up in the woods, shovel dirt into my replicator and create my own house with the bricks, cables, tables and appliances the replicator puts out. I won't produce any waste either, because replicators double as recyclers. I can design my own everything on my computer, or download some templates from whatever counts as an internet, and then shunt those templates directly into my replicator. If I don't like my car, I can redesign it and print my own parts. If I don't like my furniture, the same thing applies. If I break my plates, my radio, my knife, my anything? Guess what I'll do. Now imagine what an enormous robotic manufacturing complex you would need to replaace THAT on a societal level. The Replicator is a HUGE force multiplier, not to mention the enormous anmount of jobs that are just straight up destroyed by this one machine... Manufacturing? 99 percent gone. Delivery drivers? Not needed anymore, I can make my own stuff at the press of a button. Maintenance? unneeded. Just chuck the thing into the Replicator and get a brand new one. The replicator straight up kills almost all jobs, but it also single handedly replaces them, because it also reduces cost of living down to your electricity bill.
@@Alexander_Kale I didn't say the replicator were not important, I said there were several other factors that allowed the development. In the real world places that have access to cheap and plenty energy resources see a lot of progress. Many scientist have talked that if the nuclear energy development hasn't been stuck since the 1980s due to lack of incentive, fission reactors would already be a thing. I can't even imagine what would happened if we could really harness something like an endless continuous power supply that we can use.
@@Alexander_Kale if anything what you are saying makes me now think that Michael Eddington was right, specially since in the country I live we have the fortune to have available to eat all fresh produce. Nothing better than fresh ingredients.
@@Alexander_Kale On starships they use deuterium and antideuterium for their matter antimatter reactions. A full tank of the stuff will last them for several months of normal operations. They do have a device on board that can turn deuterium into antideuterium if needed.
Way to miss the Picard quote by using only the First Contact movie version and not the version from TNG where he told a group of sick cryofrrozen people they heald, "there is no money in the future, AT LEAST BE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM." Meaning there is money it's just different
Regarding the title, it's both. Being post-scarcity is a requirement to successfully implement any socialist policies. Capitalism exists specifically to address scarcity.
It is possible that they want to preach about it, because of the lack of experience. It is interesting and baffling. To see them boldly go, where nobody wants to be.
Do you know political systems any better than an Average American? Are you a political scientist? How long have you been a political scientist? Do you have enough experience to turn knowledge into wisdom?
I don’t think central planning is a requirement of successful socialism. In fact I think central planning has a lot of fragility that can be disastrous (such as a small group making poor policy decisions, like Castro making everyone farm for a couple of years, and I think Mao did something similar? Just these sweeping policies without much systemic thinking that produced famines). I think a distributed system is better, where everyone (or at least a very broad base) make local decisions. A system that relies on the inborn traits of humans is more effective than anything ‘planned’. So for instance people will naturally distribute their labour and resources to family, friends an neighbours because we all have a capacity for maintaining around 400 relationships. So a society that encourages this instead of discouraging it will be able to distribute resources more efficiently. I also look to the success of the open source model. Yes software is infinitely replicable, but coders write open source for moral (for the greater good) and pride reasons. Again, this exploits human traits. And consumerism also exploits human traits (acquisition of resources, desire for fashionability, addiction), so while it’s awful, it also shows how systems that exploit natural human traits can be extremely successful and resilient.
This reminds me of how in Siberia there was a group of reindeer herders who were unable to fit their production to a hard set schedule forced by the Russians. Also when the Romans forced the Germanic tribes to quit communally farming cattle it led to territorial disputes on the family level that basically ended their previous way of life. I expect that in the future we'll see adaptive approaches come back as people realize local production of food, and a community based approach in general helps with a bunch of stuff, not just with ecological and pest issues but like it's how our minds are designed to behave, and lack of real healthy communities is what's harmed us the most.
To be clear about what "post scarcity" refers to, it's not so much about food, land, housing, water, etc. but rather about energy, it's storage and its use. The demonstrable reason we don't live in in a post scarcity society is because this thriving infrastructure is based on oil and coal, a resource we know to be finite. We simply can't exceed the energy density of coal and fossile fuel. The energy density of batteries is horrible in comparison. This whole "post scarcity" utopist dreamscape is why people get so hyped about things like solid state crystalline batteries charged by fusion powerplants. The issue we have right now is powering our industry while maintaining a liveable planet in the process, and that's going to take a leap. When we can trade using something like energy credits, we can consider ourselves post scarcity. Post scarcity energy supplies are what makes half this sci fi stuff tick. Iron Man's suit, plasma blasters, lightsabers, energy shields, warp drives, they all primarily hinge on being able to pack a stars worth of energy into a package the size of a duracell battery. One battery back the size of a pack of smokes gives you 300 shots. Imagine the energy output expressed in one low power phaser blast. That would keep your phone charged for a year set to stun! When you're talking about costs and resources in this light, it's in more of a base technical expression for energy and the efficiency of its use. A post scarcity society wouldn't have to worry about the cost of launching anything into orbit because the energy required to do so would be inconsequential to the total available reserve. So it's not appropriate to look at our food reserves and industry and use that to declare us post scarcity when California can't keep the lights turned on in their push to go green.
Technology had a reach level, that production potential went vertical. Meaning they produce what every they needed. With the only limitation was energy on hand. Also with post scarcity production costs went to nearly zero. That technology went non-local, meaning just about everyone had access to both a personal replicator and a community industrial one. Fusion had been around at least century, so say the ratio was 1 unit in and say 10,000 units of energy output. They would have all the energy they would need.
Kirk's grandad had a horse. (Star Trek 7). Could he buy two horses and start breeding them? Or would the government have restricted that? "You may have one neutered horse, but you may not accumulate either capital or wealth." Also- the best way to control scarcity is to control the population. When there aren't as many mouths to feed feed, there are more carrots to eat. You can work, or not work, as you see fit. (This is what creates a socialist hell - because no one is incentivised to work. Eventually, the government points a gun at you and says "GET TO WORK!") Sounds... lovely.
Of course it's socialist, because it relies on impossible technology for it to function and it STILL doesn't work. -The Enterprise D, the flagship of the Federation is hijacked or otherwise compromised multiple times by small groups. -No one knows how the holodeck works, or even where the off switch is, and this has led to occupants and even the entire ship to be threatened multiple times. -The Galaxy Class sister ship to the Enterprise, the Yamato, was destroyed by a simple computer virus. The "cure" being a total shutdown and reinstall of the ship's systems. But this very simple and obvious solution didn't occur to the engineering crew. And worse yet, when the ship was in serious danger and personnel had already been killed, the Yamato's captain still didn't attempt an evacuation when one was offered by the Enterprise. Meaning there was no evacuation protocol, or the Captain was too incompetent to implement it. -Poverty was "eliminated on Earth" we are told, but it's clear that there is a LOT of poverty in Federation territory. With failed colonies like Nimbus III and Turkana IV that are not only very poor, but riddled with conflict. Saying there is no poverty on Earth in Star Trek is like saying there is no poverty in a luxury Mansion in Beverly Hills today. -Massive misallocation of resources. In Generations, the only partially crewed Enterprise B is sent to respond to a distress call despite the inexperience of the crew and the untested condition of the ship. Why? Because it's the only ship in the area. The ONLY rescue ship NEAR EARTH, the Federation Capital. That would be like having London or Washington DC being protected by a single security guard on his first day on the job. The "Mars Defense" of Earth is a paltry 3 small drone/ships. But the idea that something based on Mars could protect Earth is laughable since Mars is almost never in alignment with Earth to be "in front" of an enemy. And even if it was, it's space...where there are literally infinite vectors from which to attack a planet, skirting any "Mars Defense" altogether if one wished. -The fire suppression system almost never works. -Replicated food never tastes as good as the authentic counterpart. The only guy who seemed to praise the "best martini he ever had" had just had his taste buds unfrozen after a few centuries. -Disease quarantine protocols are virtually non-existent. -An easily detectable parasite almost took over the entirety of Starfleet high command. -Property rights are meaningless, as entire populated worlds were ceded to the Cardassians in an act of appeasement (like allowing Hitler to take Czechoslovakia). So yeah, the Federation is socialist. The only reason they ever succeed is either by defying the orders of Starfleet (like in Insurrection), or through the sheer incompetence of their enemies.
How is it that people who claim to believe in capitalism do not advocate mandatory accounting in the schools? Adam Smith wrote "read, write and account" multiple times in Wealth of Nations and used the word 'education' Eighty Times.
TOS did make overt references to the expenditure of money. Still, I think the "economy" of Star Trek (in any era) is more reflective of the inconsistent political views of the current writers than they are any thoughtful pursuit of how a future economy would work. And besides - "Federation protection" is a form of currency. You don't have to pay us - just obey. (Just like the Mafia.)
That first episode of TNG where Q teleports them into the 2070s after the nuclear war is so wild. I’m doing a utopian speculative fiction worldbuilding project at the moment inspired by that, where earth is driven to the brink of ecological collapse by capitalism before the people take the reigns, then they have to spend hundreds of years rehabilitating the biosphere before going off to cultivate new habitats in our solar system and beyond. At the moment I’m thinking a lot about interstellar travel because I don’t think FTL is feasible, but maybe people are functionally immortal thanks to medical nanobots that can maintain a body on a molecular level. Since people have learned that we cannot survive without the ecosystems that support us, and it has become culturally ingrained that we are part of that whole, space stations and interstellar spacecraft are colossal self-sustaining habitats that make 400 year journeys between stars not all that different than living on earth. The whole lifespan thing kind of makes the lack of FTL not a problem I think, but being able to live indefinitely would vastly change the human experience. Imagine the sheer amount of information you could learn with infinite time to spend however you want, how many skills you could totally master, how many places you could see and things you could understand in such immense detail. It’s really cool imagining the heights of liberation that could be possible.
Ferengi also have replicators, but still are heavily capitalist society. There is even episode on DS9 talking about that very difference between Ferengi and Federation
If there is money in star trek its most likely energy. The currency of the future is energy. In fact there is a monetary system now in discussion by contemporary economists called the "lectro"
Bit late, but socialism requires public/govt ownership of the means of production. In the very least, this means chateau picard is illegal bootleg blackmarket liquor production on public land as a vineyard is a means of production. I do feel though that economic democracy is practised: corporations are not for profits and have one member, one vote and the employees (akin to civil servants for the corporation) must be members and get a vote. Nonvoting shares could exist as now but be only for investment returns. They could have a mission statement like nonprofits too. Unions (illegal in most practised socialist countries outside the govt unions which always side with the govt which sides with itself since it owns the means of production) would be legal and even encouraged. Consumer associations would be for consumers, producer associations and business associations, as well as environmental organizations would exist too. Just like the govt mediates worker and business disputes sector wide, the govt would mediate all aspects of the business with society with all the above organizations able to strike, lockout, and/or boycott if contract expired and demands not met.
The question is whether Capitalism be rationally justifiable ? the fact of the matter is Capitalism is driven by crude primitive natural animal instincts i.e. being territorial , battle for survival , greed for accumulation of necessities ( fear of hunger ) , ..while a rational society cannot afford to be at the mercy of personal whims and fortuitous actions -reactions therefore a purely rational society cannot help but to be socialist .
The Orville did the whole no money socialist utopia better because it embraced it and tried to explain how it worked, somewhat anyway. Star Trek always seemed embarrassed by it and ran away from it whenever it could.
I would argue that Starfleet is a socio-capitalist society. Where all basic needs(housing/food/medical) are met but things like tailor made suits, Picard's Wine and antiques are still bought and sold.
Is that not the very definition of post-scarcity capitalism? Nobody is struggling for the basic needs (not necessarily that they're provided freely by the government like would be the case in socialism, it could simply be that the means of production for fulfilling those needs is so trivial that it costs next to nothing and therefore makes up a tiny fraction of someone's income) and because the cost of basic needs is so small, people have far more disposable income to spend on hobbies, luxuries, etc. Housing costs are fundamentally influenced by land area, but in a society where travelling to distant planets and setting up a new colony is fairly easy, that isn't much of a problem anymore. With replicators being fairly common, meeting your food and drink needs is easy (and home-cooked food using real ingredients becomes a luxury that people can choose to include in their lives if they want to, since we know from the shows that replicated food is close but not exactly the same). Medical care is a tricky one since it still relies on highly trained medical professionals so it would still have costs associated with it, but with the technology able to take you back to full health within a matter of minutes to days rather than months, the cost isn't so great as people can get straight back to work. I would definitely agree with you that describing the federation as socialist is misguided and there is plenty of evidence of capitalism
Mayweather was born on a commercial cargo carrier. They charged a fee to transport stuff. Maybe at some point the Earth government took control of the company.
Excellent points but I'd like a deeper economic dive by someone who knows economics. How would all of it work? How would power, race, religions and so on play a role?
Money doesn't make sense in Trek. Even in TOS, they had automation. The "Miners" weren't swinging pick-axes, they were probably closer to engineers or geologists. _Where No Man Has Gone Before_ has a "completely automated lithium-cracking facility on the remote planet." Earth could find all the resources it needs in its own solar system. This is before the creation of a Replicator. All they need is near-light travel and advanced 3-D manufacturing. Too much stuff for everyone.
The thing is the ideal Star Trek Future can only exist on paper, it’s wouldn’t work in real life, your replicator still needs resources to function as well as power which means it would still need costs, it would also need information to build what you need. The replicator is just a highly advanced 3D printer and you have to pay for its power and resources for it to function like I’ve said earlier, Star Trek is a future that would only work on paper.
Plus the reason why money was invented was due to unfair trades in the past as well as of you didn’t have what a person wanted when trading well you couldn’t trade and like I said there was also unfair trades in the past as well to which is why money was invented because the trading system was flawed and at times you didn’t have what the other person wanted like I said earlier.
As a Kid I liked Star Trek but as an adult I highly doubt such a future will exist, if it does it would be short lived, such things don’t exactly work on paper like I said earlier in another comment.
You still need to repair a replicator, you’d still need to power it and give it resources and you’d need to up load blueprints, so no it won’t work in such a society.
When you are the conquer of your own. When you are better self than yesterday always. Then only left evolve, rise, advance as individuals contributing for the others ones as your family humanity as whole and extraterrestrial as part of yourself without racism. Then this isn't communist or socialism or Utopia, is something else something evolved, a word that haven't exist yet to the current era...
The Ferengi in TNG didnt make sense because how do you have a race of capitalists? DS9 unsurprisingly added nuance and added the fact that theyre mostly exploited by big capitalist ferengi, making it make much more sense and much more interesting
I think another issue is you are using a fictional world created by many different writers trying to tell interesting and different stories. Hence at one moment money does not exist, yet in another it does. As to the real life likelihood of money evolving out of a society, I find it unlikely as money serves a critical role in holding information about the value of a particular resource. Without a price, deciding whether to use a particular material or it's alternative for a given project becomes much harder.
You also go about workers being "over exploited" in a 3rd world. This implies there is an objective value for labor or goods which is not true; the market determines the price. It also turns out that these sorts of factories are more desirable to workers than the alternative of rural living, hence their popularity. Capitalism has the means to make these conditions better, but there is evidently not a market demand for these higher quality working conditions, because end consumers (you and me) choose not to make a demand for goods made in higher quality working conditions. The fault doesn't lie solely with the greed of a class of factory owners, it lies with the overwhelming majority of humans. This fact being true, what puzzles me about socialists and statists is they both believe that they can successfully select the infinitesimal minority of humans from the population who are fantastically altruistic, intelligent and skilled to the point that they would better at deciding what to do for people than the billions of people who are currently deciding what's best for themselves in any particular moment. I.e: Why do you believe the people in government are better at making decisions than anyone else?
I loved Star Trek, but even I have to admit thaat it's worldbuilding was wildly inconsistant. Sometimes federation people had money, and sometimes they didn't. It all depended on what story was being told at the time. Saying it was a socialist society is a bit of a misnomer, as socialist societies can't keep going indefinately. Eventually they run out of money, and they have to release the capitalists, to generate more.
4:40 This is a blatant example of something that is not capitalism. The government is directly required for the situation you outlined: Taxation can only be performed by a government. You could better charicterize this as fascistic or cronistic. If the government is involved it is not capitalism. There can be elements of capitalism in a country under a government. Just as socialistic countries can be discerned by their degree of freedom.
That is possible, but he'd hardly replicate the stuff (equivalent of serving top notch tv dinners). He has to employ labour somehow and everybody wants to be the owner/master chef, hardly anybody wants to be the potato peeler (not even his own grandson). I think expanded social welfare (including housing but with per square meter of lot size property tax to prevent hoarding of land) and either a ubi for everything else, or community replicator room (think the room worf went for a present that had 7 or so replicator stations) and barter or job needed to get chateau picard wine or siskos crawdads.
The only REAL answer, is that we don't know. There is not enough detail. An alien species could not know all about earth by watching JAG and we can't know all about the 24th century from TNG/DS9/VOY. From what we're TOLD, there is no money, atleast not in the day to day federation life. And most of the money we do see is from fringe worlds (bajor, non federation worlds, etc). How do we explain Picards vineyard of Sisko restaurant? You really cant... maybe it's volunteer? Maybe it's like those old pioneer village we have today were people work like in the "olden days". But if mother truckin Captain Jean Luc Picard says we've moved beyond money, then I believe him!
What references do you have for private ownership of land in Star Trek's universe being a thing of the past? Surely you're not going to say that Picard's family were only allowed private ownership of their vineyard because it had already been owned by them previously? Or Sisko's father's restaurant? Regardless of reasoning, they definitely owned those properties privately. For that matter, being given credits to buy things still equates to a monetary system of some kind. For an example, we don't have a purely capitalist economy now, and it's getting more corrupt by the day as we push away from capitalism. How many times can people keep claiming that something has never been tried before until they realize that it very much has and has failed every time and resulted in 100's of millions of people dead? How long before we realize that the only way to organize corrupt humans is through reward motivations and that taking such systems away results in far worse corruption than what was already innately present?
this rabbit hole goes waaaaayyyyy deeper... go back and really WATCH Star Trek, the Federation has implemented a "death penalty" for some of the most retarded reasons, this is brought up in more than one episode, and their standard "penalty" is basically a "re-education camp", also covered in more than one episode, right out of the communist playbook. Socialism (communism lite) fails because it destroy the means of production. Enter: the replicator, you might actually get a socialist society to work if you dont have to worry about that pesky little problem. a thing to note: in a few episodes of ToS and TNG there were colonists that were not thrilled when the respective Enterprises' arrived "to save the day"; now, why would that be??? so in a nutshell; the United Earth Government as depicted, at the very least, is a post scarcity socialist government, possibly 'worse'. and there are more nuances that could be addressed, none of which paints a flattering picture of the Federation IMO.
Socialism is good at distribution??? Buddy…. How many Chinese died during the cultural revolution due to starvation? Soviet famine of 1989? Long bread lines ? Are you serious?
Neither of those countries were actually socialist. When people say that real communism has never been tried, they’re serious. The issue with socialism and communism is implementation.
I've just seen your video from 2 years ago and this one now and I have to say that I believe you are wrong. Capitalism is the basis for the Federation economy. Devil In The Dark the miners will be embarrassingly rich. This is not the only episode with rich miners. Counting the miners that have died 70 people who could be rich. Mudd's Women the lithium miners are rich enough to buy planets. Also Harry Mudd is an entrepreneur with access to a private interstellar spaceship. Counting Harry and the women 7 people. 77 total. Scotty earned his pay for the week in The Doomsday Machine. Including Kirk 2 people. 80 in total. Chekhov earned his pay for the week in Who Mourns For Adonais. Including McCoy that is 1 more person. 82 total. Cyrano Jones is another entrepreneur with access to a private interstellar spaceship. So is the bartender at space station K7. Add 2 more Federation citizens. Uhura wants to buy, with Federation credits a Tribble. Add 1 more. 85 in total. Spock starts to estimate the amount of money invested in Kirk and Spock in the episode Errand Of Mercy. 86 people. We could safely say that all of the Enterprise crew get paid at this point and by extension all of Starfleet who are getting paid. Dr. McCoy buys Kirk glasses from an antique dealer on Earth. Yet another Federation citizen who earns a paycheck for services provided. Moving into the 24th century. Tuvok buy's a meditation lamp from a Vulcan master. Janeway is with him and says the Vulcan master "doubled the price when he saw their Starfleet uniforms". She is telling this to Chakotay. 4 more Federation citizens getting paid for goods and services. 91. Sisko's father owns a restaurant. The Picard's owns a vineyard. Boimler's family also own a raisin vineyard. Vash, Picard's one night stand, sells artifacts for profit. With the Picard's and the Sisko's we can add 5 more bringing the total to 96. All Federation citizens who earn a paycheck. We can add Boimler which brings us to 97 plus however many are in Boimler's family. And Picard's employees and The Boimler's employees. We are safely into the hundreds at this point. With all of the Starfleet personnel in the 23rd and 24th centuries we are well into the thousands. This without even breaking a sweat. Most egregious of all Picard buys a Horgahn on Risa for Riker. He helps Vash, another entrepreneur who deals in stolen artifacts, secure a weapon from the future. He destroys it in the end so that the baddies from the future can't use it. But he helps secure it first for his capitalist fling. The guy who says there is no money and that we work to improve ourselves is a capitalist. He just doesn't talk about money because it is in bad taste to do so. We can square Picard's words with his actions. There is no money in the 23rd and 24th century in use inside the Federation but there is currency in the form of the Federation credit. People do get paid for goods and services. Consider today's society. People's pay check can be deposited directly into their bank accounts. They can use their debit card to pay for goods and services. The bank can automatically pay your bills as well. How much do we have to think about money now? Project that forward. What will the economy look like in the future? A "moneyless" society where people don't think about money. We can also square the next thing he says about the accumulation of wealth. He's rich, make no mistake about that. And it is in bad taste for the rich to talk about money. So when Lily says you don't get paid he doesn't answer her question. Instead he deflects it by saying we work to better ourselves. What he says about the accumulation of things may be true also. Rampant consumerism may no longer be a driving force in society. You own some things, like Riker's trombone that you really cherish. But, by and large, the Federation citizen has grown up enough to realize that things don't make them happy in the long term. You're basic needs may be met by the Federation but that is pure speculation. Even if that's true there are things that you might need above the basics. A family of four need only a three bedroom apartment. But if you want to host overnight guests good luck getting a four bedroom house from the government. You can be fed by the government on basic rations, but if you want to dine out that's not part of your basic needs. So you have to work to live above your basic needs. An adoption of some Buddhist philosophy has taken place in the future. The accumulation of things is no longer a thing in society. That's your revolution.
True, and for the most part we only see Starfleet. Just like today's military basic needs are "free" for the troops (or taken out of their paycheck before they receive it). For instance, as an Airman, I received free lodging, electricity, water and trash services while staying in the dorms. Eventually, I received basic allowance for food (I think so Uncle Sam could get more tax money from me), which was taken out of my paycheck since there was a chow hall I could use (even if I didn't use it for all meals). Officers, or married enlisted staying on base receive a stipend for housing(again for Uncle Sam's TAX pocketbook) (which coincidently is) exactly what is charged for 'rent'.
Socialism as a concept is not inherently bad, as capitalism as a concept is not inherently good. A healthy socialist system would have 100% of its population willing to share their resources with everyone else. That means the person making $100k is willing to share his income with the person who only makes $20k. But in real life, human beings don't work this way. Instead, there is usually a meritocracy where you get paid more because you can do something better than others, and it might have taken you a long time to get there. Is it selfish of that person not to want to share those resources? Maybe, but as long as they are not stealing that money, it should be their right to do with it as they see fit. (We can get into the people that are, in fact, stealing the money. Most of the stock market, for example, is basically theft. Suffice it for now that this is just crony capitalism). I would disagree that Star Trek is socialist though. Socialism requires the population to be in agreement to share their property/resources, and labor. Star Trek is more akin to an atheist heaven. Nobody has to work, nobody has to make income to survive, and nobody has to share anything, because of the unlimited energy, and ability to replicate everything you want on a whim. When you can simply replicate more replicators, and use them to replicate everything else: food, shelter, clothes, weapons, tools, entertainment, and means of shreckzual release, then you don't have to share anything. Why would I need my neighbor to share his delicious pizza when I can just replicate my own, which my generator that pulls energy from zero point space, or whatever trekno mcguffin. He did not have to give up anything. I simply replicated an exact copy of it, with new energy that he did not have to expend. The neighbor also doesn't have to share his place to live, because I can replicate a huge house identical....or bigger than his. And if he wants, he can replicate an even bigger one, and it doesn't cost me a thing. TNG pretended this was the case, and went "shhh, don't ask any questions!!! How do heisenberg replicators work? very well thank you very much!" Voyager tried to make a case that some jobs required the Federation to make an effort extracting, like the dilithium crystals........and they turned it into holographic rights, in a very superficial, and hamfisted way. DS9 realized the ridiculousness of the premise. Very few people are going to actually go and do something useful to society, when they can choose to instead, live in their holodeck with their mansion in the mountains, drinking spritzers, eating lobster and caviar and effing the hottest supermodels he could replicate. We are seeing some primitive form of this already. How many men don't work now, instead play video games all day? Or they will work the bare minimum to live with their parents and afford to buy a cheap PC to play their game. But back to the topic, whatever Star Trek is, is not socialism by its modern definition.
As I have already said; the issue with a centralized system is the penalty for poor decisions becomes higher, so the quality of the decision makers must be increased. How can you hope to choose the correct people? How can you hope to stop corruption? Surely the best thing to do is allow the greatest number of people to make decisions: Each man for himself. I.e libertarianism.
Assuming that a post-scarcity (Socialist) could exist and flourish it would need - Highly intelligent and educated people who are self motivated and who find satisfaction in a field that contributes to maintaining said society - People who are not lazy and would not tolerate being idle - People belonging to a homogeneous society with enough similarities they would consider all in said society as part of their tribe and thus see a threat or want in that society as a threat or want of a family member Therefore, it is very similar to the false concept of a Democracy which cannot be achieved in a heterogeneous society. Mankind thrives when there are obstacles to overcome; that is, we have to struggles in order to grow as people and as a society. Having everything provided, or even just basic necessities, breeds sloth and complacency.
distinction without a difference. cant have socialism function without post scarcity. the only currency the federation have is ferengi gold pressed latinum and the ferengi are not part of the federation formally.
socialism is actually way better in building the means of production, Ruzssia want from peasant socierty with barely any industry to industrialised country and super power in 20 years.
True! It’s interesting, I’m sure it’s possible to have a socialist revolution in a capitalist country, but it’s mostly happened in semi-feudal states, which I think is counter to Marx’s predictions.
This guy is totally wrong. Socialism has never been good at anything, other than terror and poverty. Also, there will never be a post-scarcity society because LAAND will always be a scarce resource
We have plenty of land, but too much greed, also socialist countries do exist but constantly harrased by the capitalists, I know you will deny any of that but please answer me this, would the opioid crisis happen in a socialist world, would the sackler get away with it, no because they wouldn't get to be as rich and corrupt as they were.
@@atillaboraaydn5163 Yess opioid addiction happens in socialist societies because we have seen it. India, china and Pakistan all had socialist governments and high rates of opioid addiction
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[1/2] เปิดแคมป์หลอนต้อนรับ 2 ตัวพ่อแห่งวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2uPuHYHgwiI/mqdefault.jpg)
What you described with the replicators is how I imagine they work in Ferenginar - they definitely have home replicators, I’m pretty sure they’re in Quark’s house - where part of the reason people even go to Quark’s instead of the Replimat is that he has access to non-open-source replicator patterns.
While my headcanon is the Federation replicators, unlike some other ones, generate their patterns dynamically based on your requests rather than loading pre-made patterns. Since they ask for very small customisations on those ones. But Quark has to replicate the ingredients for a cocktail and then mix it by hand.
Oo yeah that’s a good theory, hadn’t thought of that
@@radicalizeme You also go about workers being "over exploited" in a 3rd world. This implies there is an objective value for labor or goods which is not true; the market determines the price. It also turns out that these sorts of factories are more desirable to workers than the alternative of rural living, hence their popularity.
Capitalism has the means to make these conditions better, but there is evidently not a market demand for these higher quality working conditions, because end consumers (you and me) choose not to make a demand for goods made in higher quality working conditions. The fault doesn't lie solely with the greed of a class of factory owners, it lies with the overwhelming majority of humans.
This fact being true, what puzzles me about socialists and statists is they both believe that they can successfully select the infinitesimal minority of humans from the population who are fantastically altruistic, intelligent and skilled to the point that they would better at deciding what to do for people than the billions of people who are currently deciding what's best for themselves in any particular moment.
I.e: Why do you believe the people in government are better at making decisions than anyone else?
@@joeblogs6598The problem is that wealth concentrations *also* distribute decisionmaking power unequally, and left to themselves without taxation or regulation, lead to ever-increasing imbalances of power and inequality, so long as the system avoids a violent revolt it can’t suppress. Wealth can control and manipulate markets to limit consumers’ power and options in ways that ensure imbalances remain in place, and make consumers weak and desperate enough to obey and serve the wealthy, so long as it keeps them from being miserable enough to be willing to risk their lives to change things. Many of us have convinced ourselves that existing wealth distributions are somehow fair, but that rationale, whatever validity it has, dies off after a generation. There is *already* a small group of people deciding what’s best for everyone and how power and wealth should be distributed. We just let existing wealth define who those people are.
@@joeblogs6598 "I.e: Why do you believe the people in government are better at making decisions than anyone else?"
We don't. Why do capitalists believe a hoarding parasite class are better at making decisions than workers collectives and opt in People's Assembilies? How much of that is due to hoarding of information for personal power and exploitation rather than so called 'market demand'?
In capitalism, the rich seek and gain the power to ignore and suppress market demand. To prevent that a set of rules is needed. Governments are the currently existing structure for making and enforcing rules in a country - which is why they are so corrupted by the ultra-wealthy and consided worth the money to corrupt and lobby.
I'm a big fan of Star Trek, and so frustrated that most of their writers have no conception of the world beyond liberalism capitalism, and are simply not equipped to handle the economics that the Federation would logically require. There are a few bright spots here and there, but the Hollywood system makes sure not to hire people with ideas that are too "radical". The master's tools and the master's house, and so on.
I feel you, friend. Gene Roddenberry may have been a bit of a socialist, and you can sense the revolutionary energy bubbling under the surface of all Trek, but most folks who work on the shows just don’t quite get it.
With replicator tech, there really is no need to display much of an economy. Everyone has their replicator, there probably is an industrial replicator somewhere near you, so there really are no manufacturing jobs left.
The only thing that is important in terms of their economy is a steady flow of raw resources, and considering how Replicators also work as recyclers, you don't actually need all that much in that regard either. The majority of stuff probably goes to the ship yards.
Bottom line, the economics of the federation are probably very, very simple when compared to ours. Everyone has access to replicators, powerful computers, AI and presumably a form of the internet. You could literally set up in a forest next to a powerline with nothing but your phone and your replicator and spent the next few years building your house from scratch with no need for any outside flow of goods. As long as your replicator works, you quite literally need NOTHING else.
Bit late, but socialism requires public/govt ownership of the means of production. In the very least, this means chateau picard is illegal bootleg blackmarket liquor production on public land as a vineyard is a means of production.
I do feel though that economic democracy is practised: corporations are not for profits and have one member, one vote and the employees (akin to civil servants for the corporation) must be members and get a vote. Nonvoting shares could exist as now but be only for investment returns. They could have a mission statement like nonprofits too.
Unions (illegal in most practised socialist countries outside the govt unions which always side with the govt which sides with itself since it owns the means of production) would be legal and even encouraged. Consumer associations would be for consumers, producer associations and business associations, as well as environmental organizations would exist too.
Just like the govt mediates worker and business disputes sector wide, the govt would mediate all aspects of the business with society with all the above organizations able to strike, lockout, and/or boycott if contract expired and demands not met.
Error 404
Disappearance protection
Good vid, only comment I have is at 4:40 They didn't steal the replicator. It was from their shuttle. They went through the wormhole while negotiating with the Barzans for administration rights to the wormhole.
Also yeah, I like to think the Vulcans basically schooled humanity on how to run a society “properly”. Some dialogue in Enterprise claims that humanity did it without Vulcan’s direct help, but they were at least providing theory and feedback if not being much more involved (which I think they were, since they had VERY influential advisors in every branch of Earth government even a century later).
@1m27s - the problem with the Federation is that there aren't enough meetings? The future isn't a boot in your face forever, but a meeting that never adjourns.
There ARE corporations in Star Trek, and Federation ones at that. And people can accumulate large amounts of wealth and resources, if they chose to.
1. TOS' "Mudd's Women" the dilithium miners on Rigel 12. Doing that hard work you say that people don't have to do.
2. In TAS "Mudd's Passion" Motherlode is another mining colony/corporation.
3. TAS' "The Survivor" introduces us to Carter Winston, a wealthy space trader and philanthropist. So rich that he was able on his own to save the entire populations of planets from starvation or other disasters.
4.TNG's "Conspiracy" we learn of Dytallix Mining Company.
5. DS9's "Prodigal Daughter" we learn that Ezri's mother is a wealthy and powerful business leader and owner of the largest pergium mining operations.
If there is no money... It is just a system
It is just a system with money too though.
Replicators can replicate other replicator parts. Just one replicator is required to create thousands of 'em, exponential growth.
Whoa.
Don't they also have a variation classified as "industrial replicators"? How do those compare to what we see the crew of, say, Voyager using? Maybe they're just large and low-resolution ones for making things like hull plates and support beams?
Not necessarily. We know there are things that cannot be replicated, and we also know that there are certain things that are not replicated ready for use as it were. (Otherwise there would be no need for shipyards. Just press a button, instant spaceship)
And yes, there are industrial replicators. My guess is, you use your house repli for your daily demands, and if you need a bigger or more capable replicator, you drive to your local manufacturing hub to get a bigger machine.
@@Roxor128 I'd assume that the federation would be a bit like NASA and make things redundant, especially on high quality machines like starships. Thus replicators would likely be decked out to print spare parts for just such an occasion.
Of course writers wouldn't set things out like that or perilous high-tension plot lines become hard to create.
@@Alexander_Kale Internal volume of the replicator pad is the only limiting factor.
"Post scarcity" in Star Trek refers to having matter-energy conversion technology and an energy surplus simultaneously....this is literally explained in TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager. When a civilization attains replication technology, basic subsistence is permanently solved. New challenges arise such as societal organization, cultural relevance, distribution of resources, and attaining new resources that cannot be replicated (there are literally hundreds in universe). This is why there are still private corporations such as the Dytallix Mining Company, Independent Freight Union, and the Private Commerce Authority (headquarted on Earth right next to Starfleet HQ). There are dozens of human colonies that are not in the Federation, we meet a bunch of them in TNG and TOS. During this age, technology itself and rare resources become the currency.
Yeah it's not just about replicators. There's also super efficient energy production and ways to get resources from place to place extremely quickly and easily. Need several tons of something to go from North America to Africa? OK, we'll just beam it there and you'll have it in a few minutes. Distribution systems, high tech building materials, advanced medicine and mental healthcare; there's so much more that goes into it than just replicators. Most people don't even understand how replicators work.
@@zkeletonz001 Replication technology is literally listed in the Federation charter as a defining characteristic of a "warp capable species" that has unified it's society. It's also the standard set forth by the Voth and other higher species throughout the galaxy. So sorry, you're just wrong here.
@@blankspace178 Uh, I was actually agreeing with what you said, so I'm not sure why you think I'm saying something radically different. "New challenges arise such as societal organization, cultural relevance, distribution of resources, and attaining new resources that cannot be replicated (there are literally hundreds in universe)." Replicators are a great resource, but there's a whole lot more that goes into creating the kind of utopian society that exists on earth in the Trek universe. There are plenty of other examples of societies in Trek that have replicator technology, but are nowhere close to the kind of ideal society that exists on earth.
@@zkeletonz001 Oh my bad, I read that as you saying it wasn't a defining factor....I'M SORRY!!!
Just wanted to chime in with some thoughts on whether the Federation is socialist or post-scarcity. I think it’s a bit more nuanced than just slapping a label on it.First off, the Federation isn’t a single, unified economic system. It's more like the merchant marines - they govern the space between planets, but individual planets have their own governments and economies. So, Earth might operate differently from, say, another member planet.Federation credits are a thing, but they’re more like tokens than traditional money. These credits are tied to energy - you use them for stuff like replicators and transporters. Everyone gets a basic allotment, kinda like a universal basic income (UBI), but in energy form. This means you can live comfortably without worrying about basic needs, but it’s not like you’re rolling in luxury without doing anything.The best detailed explanation I've found on this comes from the GURPS Prime Directive, a game that really digs into the Federation's workings. Because it's a game, the economy has to make sense and work practically. This makes it a great resource for understanding the ins and outs of how the Federation operates.In terms of governance, the Federation is a lot like the United States. It’s a federal republic, meaning it has a central government (the Federation Council and President) that handles things like defense, interplanetary trade, and diplomacy. Meanwhile, individual planets get to run their own affairs, much like how U.S. states have their own laws and governments.However, this is where it diverges from the U.S. system. While the U.S. has a universal currency (the dollar) that is accepted across all states, Federation planets can have their own unique economic systems and currencies. Federation credits don’t work everywhere and aren’t accepted at all establishments, even within the Federation. They are more of a token system, tied to the energy economy. This system reflects the Federation's unique blend of socialism and post-scarcity economics, where advanced technology like replicators can meet most needs, reducing traditional economic constraints.In summary, the Federation’s system applies mostly to Earth and the space in between planets. Each planet can have its own thing going on economically and politically. Federation credits don’t work everywhere, and they aren’t accepted at all establishments, even within the Federation.
See, this makes sense to me
The Federation's members do have sovereignty and do their own thing as witnessed by Vulcan being able to tell Starfleet and the Federation council to go F off and not extradite Kirk and crew. We also know that Vulcan does use money as a Vulcan master charged Captain Janeway more for a meditation lamp that she wanted to buy from him as a gift for Tuvok when he saw her uniform. In DS9 we learn that Federation member Bolia has a bank and so on.
Deep Space Nine's "In the Cards" also tells us that it's only Earth and the humans that live there that do without money.
They didn't really "STEAL" the replicator. They just sorta... "found" one.
Nice channel brother, much love from France ❤️✊🏼
Your analogy of a 3D printer and a replicator is spot on. Very well put.
I also liked the way you illustrated that if we had replicators in our current society, some capitalist, (and complicit government) would make it just short of too expensive to use.
When I was a kid, I remember we watched films in school showing how the future would be. They portrayed a time when you could watch a television channel that would show all the shopping fashions for the season, (basically QVC). A person could telephone the store - who already had your exact measurements - and a custom fit dress and shoe ensemble would be mailed to your house. But that never happened. We have the technology to do that, but it isn't AS profitable as cranking out standard sizes. So, no. Capitalism doesn't encourage innovation in anything other than profit.
I don't think starfleet is the largest employer, it's just what we see the most.
It's the military. Once you're out of the federation you pay for things. In Picard season 1 Chris is hired for transportation. In generations Scotty says he just bought a boat. Seven of Nine is a bounty hunter in Picard.
Socialism and money can coexist. The way most hunter gatherers lived when Europeans got there looked more like socialism than what we have today, and they also had immense trade networks that spanned continents, and even got beads from Pacific America to Eurasia.
The way most people lived outside of Europe was pretty similar to how people lived for the previous millenia, and in any case humans follow similar laws of behavior throughout time, and we've been around for 300,000 years on top of the previous like 3 million for homo erectus, so it's likely we've gone through many oscillations in all the ways we can behave. I'd expect the more stable systems to last longer, and the better tuned ones to be near the end of that time span too. In multicellular, and communal organisms a more socialism like system is the most common, and humans are just another species that needs the group to work together and share resources in order to survive.
They totally need to make the ‘evil timeline’ have an economy where replicators need a subscription and fee for each print and a fee for the blueprint of the thing. They could have all the same tech as the good timeline but it would be miserable for everyone…
I think we could guess, we just probably won't have any way to know if we're correct.
Sure, Revolution is trial and error, but we should do it!
@@radicalizeme I'm of the libertarian persuasion. Though I find governments evil and frustrating, I don't think a single revolution style event would yield AnCap or somesuch. I think due to the nature of how human genetics, culture, and technology evolves, reaching the most desirable organization of society (whatever it may be) will take an iterative process.
It has taken many civilizational cycles to reach the ethics proliferated by the renaissance.
That’s a great video, really enjoying….
The USSR WAS NOT MADE UP OF VOLUNTARY MEMBER STATES
(Unless you consider surrendering to an invading army voluntary)
if it were half of them wouldn’t have left and joined the EU
Where did you cook this one up?
Actually the USSR was formed by voluntary member states. Read your fucking history. The bolshevik parties won their respective Civil wars and decided to join together for mutual protection from outside threats. Like seriously, I learned this in a basic university history course, with a professor who was born in the USSR.
@@seekingabsolution1907
So propaganda
it is not just the replicator, it is the matter-antimatter reactors, they have a somewhat eternal power supply that create enormous amounts of energy, this is the reason they are able to create a utopia. Focusing in just the replicator and not all the other technological and philosophical aspects that led to the federation is very misleading, they are not socialist, they are something else. Saying that 3D printers are like replicator is laughable.
Anti matter is a battery, not a power source. Unless you are the klingons, who can actually mine the stuff, however that works, you have to create your own anti-matter before you can fuel your ships with it.
It is mentioned in some ancilliary material that they are actually using the energy of stars / fusion in some way to create their anti matter, so the power source that powers the average federation world is probably hydrogen fusion.
Regardless, without the replicator, all that power would mostly amount for nothing. Replicators are the ultimate manufacturing tool. If you give me a replicator and enough power, I can set up in the woods, shovel dirt into my replicator and create my own house with the bricks, cables, tables and appliances the replicator puts out. I won't produce any waste either, because replicators double as recyclers.
I can design my own everything on my computer, or download some templates from whatever counts as an internet, and then shunt those templates directly into my replicator. If I don't like my car, I can redesign it and print my own parts.
If I don't like my furniture, the same thing applies. If I break my plates, my radio, my knife, my anything? Guess what I'll do.
Now imagine what an enormous robotic manufacturing complex you would need to replaace THAT on a societal level.
The Replicator is a HUGE force multiplier, not to mention the enormous anmount of jobs that are just straight up destroyed by this one machine... Manufacturing? 99 percent gone. Delivery drivers? Not needed anymore, I can make my own stuff at the press of a button. Maintenance? unneeded. Just chuck the thing into the Replicator and get a brand new one.
The replicator straight up kills almost all jobs, but it also single handedly replaces them, because it also reduces cost of living down to your electricity bill.
@@Alexander_Kale I didn't say the replicator were not important, I said there were several other factors that allowed the development. In the real world places that have access to cheap and plenty energy resources see a lot of progress. Many scientist have talked that if the nuclear energy development hasn't been stuck since the 1980s due to lack of incentive, fission reactors would already be a thing. I can't even imagine what would happened if we could really harness something like an endless continuous power supply that we can use.
@@Alexander_Kale if anything what you are saying makes me now think that Michael Eddington was right, specially since in the country I live we have the fortune to have available to eat all fresh produce. Nothing better than fresh ingredients.
@@Alexander_Kale On starships they use deuterium and antideuterium for their matter antimatter reactions. A full tank of the stuff will last them for several months of normal operations. They do have a device on board that can turn deuterium into antideuterium if needed.
@@RichterX83 Eddington and his allies were idiots.
Way to miss the Picard quote by using only the First Contact movie version and not the version from TNG where he told a group of sick cryofrrozen people they heald, "there is no money in the future, AT LEAST BE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM." Meaning there is money it's just different
Regarding the title, it's both. Being post-scarcity is a requirement to successfully implement any socialist policies. Capitalism exists specifically to address scarcity.
Capitalism exists to exploit and create scarcity
I love when Americans try to preach about thing they know nothing about.
It is possible that they want to preach about it, because of the lack of experience. It is interesting and baffling. To see them boldly go, where nobody wants to be.
Do you know political systems any better than an Average American? Are you a political scientist? How long have you been a political scientist? Do you have enough experience to turn knowledge into wisdom?
I don’t think central planning is a requirement of successful socialism. In fact I think central planning has a lot of fragility that can be disastrous (such as a small group making poor policy decisions, like Castro making everyone farm for a couple of years, and I think Mao did something similar? Just these sweeping policies without much systemic thinking that produced famines). I think a distributed system is better, where everyone (or at least a very broad base) make local decisions. A system that relies on the inborn traits of humans is more effective than anything ‘planned’. So for instance people will naturally distribute their labour and resources to family, friends an neighbours because we all have a capacity for maintaining around 400 relationships. So a society that encourages this instead of discouraging it will be able to distribute resources more efficiently. I also look to the success of the open source model. Yes software is infinitely replicable, but coders write open source for moral (for the greater good) and pride reasons. Again, this exploits human traits.
And consumerism also exploits human traits (acquisition of resources, desire for fashionability, addiction), so while it’s awful, it also shows how systems that exploit natural human traits can be extremely successful and resilient.
This reminds me of how in Siberia there was a group of reindeer herders who were unable to fit their production to a hard set schedule forced by the Russians.
Also when the Romans forced the Germanic tribes to quit communally farming cattle it led to territorial disputes on the family level that basically ended their previous way of life.
I expect that in the future we'll see adaptive approaches come back as people realize local production of food, and a community based approach in general helps with a bunch of stuff, not just with ecological and pest issues but like it's how our minds are designed to behave, and lack of real healthy communities is what's harmed us the most.
To be clear about what "post scarcity" refers to, it's not so much about food, land, housing, water, etc. but rather about energy, it's storage and its use. The demonstrable reason we don't live in in a post scarcity society is because this thriving infrastructure is based on oil and coal, a resource we know to be finite. We simply can't exceed the energy density of coal and fossile fuel. The energy density of batteries is horrible in comparison.
This whole "post scarcity" utopist dreamscape is why people get so hyped about things like solid state crystalline batteries charged by fusion powerplants. The issue we have right now is powering our industry while maintaining a liveable planet in the process, and that's going to take a leap. When we can trade using something like energy credits, we can consider ourselves post scarcity.
Post scarcity energy supplies are what makes half this sci fi stuff tick. Iron Man's suit, plasma blasters, lightsabers, energy shields, warp drives, they all primarily hinge on being able to pack a stars worth of energy into a package the size of a duracell battery. One battery back the size of a pack of smokes gives you 300 shots. Imagine the energy output expressed in one low power phaser blast. That would keep your phone charged for a year set to stun!
When you're talking about costs and resources in this light, it's in more of a base technical expression for energy and the efficiency of its use. A post scarcity society wouldn't have to worry about the cost of launching anything into orbit because the energy required to do so would be inconsequential to the total available reserve.
So it's not appropriate to look at our food reserves and industry and use that to declare us post scarcity when California can't keep the lights turned on in their push to go green.
Technology had a reach level, that production potential went vertical. Meaning they produce what every they needed. With the only limitation was energy on hand. Also with post scarcity production costs went to nearly zero. That technology went non-local, meaning just about everyone had access to both a personal replicator and a community industrial one. Fusion had been around at least century, so say the ratio was 1 unit in and say 10,000 units of energy output. They would have all the energy they would need.
Kirk's grandad had a horse. (Star Trek 7). Could he buy two horses and start breeding them? Or would the government have restricted that? "You may have one neutered horse, but you may not accumulate either capital or wealth."
Also- the best way to control scarcity is to control the population. When there aren't as many mouths to feed feed, there are more carrots to eat.
You can work, or not work, as you see fit. (This is what creates a socialist hell - because no one is incentivised to work. Eventually, the government points a gun at you and says "GET TO WORK!")
Sounds... lovely.
Of course it's socialist, because it relies on impossible technology for it to function and it STILL doesn't work.
-The Enterprise D, the flagship of the Federation is hijacked or otherwise compromised multiple times by small groups.
-No one knows how the holodeck works, or even where the off switch is, and this has led to occupants and even the entire ship to be threatened multiple times.
-The Galaxy Class sister ship to the Enterprise, the Yamato, was destroyed by a simple computer virus. The "cure" being a total shutdown and reinstall of the ship's systems. But this very simple and obvious solution didn't occur to the engineering crew. And worse yet, when the ship was in serious danger and personnel had already been killed, the Yamato's captain still didn't attempt an evacuation when one was offered by the Enterprise. Meaning there was no evacuation protocol, or the Captain was too incompetent to implement it.
-Poverty was "eliminated on Earth" we are told, but it's clear that there is a LOT of poverty in Federation territory. With failed colonies like Nimbus III and Turkana IV that are not only very poor, but riddled with conflict. Saying there is no poverty on Earth in Star Trek is like saying there is no poverty in a luxury Mansion in Beverly Hills today.
-Massive misallocation of resources. In Generations, the only partially crewed Enterprise B is sent to respond to a distress call despite the inexperience of the crew and the untested condition of the ship. Why? Because it's the only ship in the area. The ONLY rescue ship NEAR EARTH, the Federation Capital. That would be like having London or Washington DC being protected by a single security guard on his first day on the job. The "Mars Defense" of Earth is a paltry 3 small drone/ships. But the idea that something based on Mars could protect Earth is laughable since Mars is almost never in alignment with Earth to be "in front" of an enemy. And even if it was, it's space...where there are literally infinite vectors from which to attack a planet, skirting any "Mars Defense" altogether if one wished.
-The fire suppression system almost never works.
-Replicated food never tastes as good as the authentic counterpart. The only guy who seemed to praise the "best martini he ever had" had just had his taste buds unfrozen after a few centuries.
-Disease quarantine protocols are virtually non-existent.
-An easily detectable parasite almost took over the entirety of Starfleet high command.
-Property rights are meaningless, as entire populated worlds were ceded to the Cardassians in an act of appeasement (like allowing Hitler to take Czechoslovakia).
So yeah, the Federation is socialist. The only reason they ever succeed is either by defying the orders of Starfleet (like in Insurrection), or through the sheer incompetence of their enemies.
How is it that people who claim to believe in capitalism do not advocate mandatory accounting in the schools? Adam Smith wrote "read, write and account" multiple times in Wealth of Nations and used the word 'education' Eighty Times.
TOS did make overt references to the expenditure of money.
Still, I think the "economy" of Star Trek (in any era) is more reflective of the inconsistent political views of the current writers than they are any thoughtful pursuit of how a future economy would work.
And besides - "Federation protection" is a form of currency. You don't have to pay us - just obey. (Just like the Mafia.)
That first episode of TNG where Q teleports them into the 2070s after the nuclear war is so wild. I’m doing a utopian speculative fiction worldbuilding project at the moment inspired by that, where earth is driven to the brink of ecological collapse by capitalism before the people take the reigns, then they have to spend hundreds of years rehabilitating the biosphere before going off to cultivate new habitats in our solar system and beyond. At the moment I’m thinking a lot about interstellar travel because I don’t think FTL is feasible, but maybe people are functionally immortal thanks to medical nanobots that can maintain a body on a molecular level. Since people have learned that we cannot survive without the ecosystems that support us, and it has become culturally ingrained that we are part of that whole, space stations and interstellar spacecraft are colossal self-sustaining habitats that make 400 year journeys between stars not all that different than living on earth. The whole lifespan thing kind of makes the lack of FTL not a problem I think, but being able to live indefinitely would vastly change the human experience. Imagine the sheer amount of information you could learn with infinite time to spend however you want, how many skills you could totally master, how many places you could see and things you could understand in such immense detail. It’s really cool imagining the heights of liberation that could be possible.
Ferengi also have replicators, but still are heavily capitalist society. There is even episode on DS9 talking about that very difference between Ferengi and Federation
If there is money in star trek its most likely energy. The currency of the future is energy. In fact there is a monetary system now in discussion by contemporary economists called the "lectro"
Bit late, but socialism requires public/govt ownership of the means of production. In the very least, this means chateau picard is illegal bootleg blackmarket liquor production on public land as a vineyard is a means of production.
I do feel though that economic democracy is practised: corporations are not for profits and have one member, one vote and the employees (akin to civil servants for the corporation) must be members and get a vote. Nonvoting shares could exist as now but be only for investment returns. They could have a mission statement like nonprofits too.
Unions (illegal in most practised socialist countries outside the govt unions which always side with the govt which sides with itself since it owns the means of production) would be legal and even encouraged. Consumer associations would be for consumers, producer associations and business associations, as well as environmental organizations would exist too.
Just like the govt mediates worker and business disputes sector wide, the govt would mediate all aspects of the business with society with all the above organizations able to strike, lockout, and/or boycott if contract expired and demands not met.
Error 404
Disappearance protection
I call it the effect of having freaking replicators...
The question is whether Capitalism be rationally justifiable ? the fact of the matter is Capitalism is driven by crude primitive natural animal instincts i.e. being territorial , battle for survival , greed for accumulation of necessities ( fear of hunger ) , ..while a rational society cannot afford to be at the mercy of personal whims and fortuitous actions -reactions therefore a purely rational society cannot help but to be socialist .
The Orville did the whole no money socialist utopia better because it embraced it and tried to explain how it worked, somewhat anyway. Star Trek always seemed embarrassed by it and ran away from it whenever it could.
I would argue that Starfleet is a socio-capitalist society. Where all basic needs(housing/food/medical) are met but things like tailor made suits, Picard's Wine and antiques are still bought and sold.
Is that not the very definition of post-scarcity capitalism? Nobody is struggling for the basic needs (not necessarily that they're provided freely by the government like would be the case in socialism, it could simply be that the means of production for fulfilling those needs is so trivial that it costs next to nothing and therefore makes up a tiny fraction of someone's income) and because the cost of basic needs is so small, people have far more disposable income to spend on hobbies, luxuries, etc.
Housing costs are fundamentally influenced by land area, but in a society where travelling to distant planets and setting up a new colony is fairly easy, that isn't much of a problem anymore. With replicators being fairly common, meeting your food and drink needs is easy (and home-cooked food using real ingredients becomes a luxury that people can choose to include in their lives if they want to, since we know from the shows that replicated food is close but not exactly the same).
Medical care is a tricky one since it still relies on highly trained medical professionals so it would still have costs associated with it, but with the technology able to take you back to full health within a matter of minutes to days rather than months, the cost isn't so great as people can get straight back to work.
I would definitely agree with you that describing the federation as socialist is misguided and there is plenty of evidence of capitalism
Mayweather was born on a commercial cargo carrier. They charged a fee to transport stuff. Maybe at some point the Earth government took control of the company.
Sisko’s girlfriend in DS9 operated a cargo route as well. I’m not sure it’s clear if she was making money or not, but that’s well past the TNG era.
Excellent points but I'd like a deeper economic dive by someone who knows economics. How would all of it work? How would power, race, religions and so on play a role?
Money doesn't make sense in Trek. Even in TOS, they had automation. The "Miners" weren't swinging pick-axes, they were probably closer to engineers or geologists. _Where No Man Has Gone Before_ has a "completely automated lithium-cracking facility on the remote planet." Earth could find all the resources it needs in its own solar system. This is before the creation of a Replicator. All they need is near-light travel and advanced 3-D manufacturing. Too much stuff for everyone.
The thing is the ideal Star Trek Future can only exist on paper, it’s wouldn’t work in real life, your replicator still needs resources to function as well as power which means it would still need costs, it would also need information to build what you need. The replicator is just a highly advanced 3D printer and you have to pay for its power and resources for it to function like I’ve said earlier, Star Trek is a future that would only work on paper.
Plus the reason why money was invented was due to unfair trades in the past as well as of you didn’t have what a person wanted when trading well you couldn’t trade and like I said there was also unfair trades in the past as well to which is why money was invented because the trading system was flawed and at times you didn’t have what the other person wanted like I said earlier.
Besides this type of future MAY only occur after a post apocalypse perhaps a few centuries after one in other words a society reset.
Any who, post scarcity only works on paper especially with the society we have now.
As a Kid I liked Star Trek but as an adult I highly doubt such a future will exist, if it does it would be short lived, such things don’t exactly work on paper like I said earlier in another comment.
You still need to repair a replicator, you’d still need to power it and give it resources and you’d need to up load blueprints, so no it won’t work in such a society.
Very great video!! Explained super well!
When you are the conquer of your own.
When you are better self than yesterday always.
Then only left evolve, rise, advance as individuals contributing for the others ones as your family humanity as whole and extraterrestrial as part of yourself without racism.
Then this isn't communist or socialism or Utopia, is something else something evolved, a word that haven't exist yet to the current era...
The Ferengi in TNG didnt make sense because how do you have a race of capitalists? DS9 unsurprisingly added nuance and added the fact that theyre mostly exploited by big capitalist ferengi, making it make much more sense and much more interesting
You also need raw materials for those replicators.
I think another issue is you are using a fictional world created by many different writers trying to tell interesting and different stories. Hence at one moment money does not exist, yet in another it does.
As to the real life likelihood of money evolving out of a society, I find it unlikely as money serves a critical role in holding information about the value of a particular resource. Without a price, deciding whether to use a particular material or it's alternative for a given project becomes much harder.
Well engaged!
You also go about workers being "over exploited" in a 3rd world. This implies there is an objective value for labor or goods which is not true; the market determines the price. It also turns out that these sorts of factories are more desirable to workers than the alternative of rural living, hence their popularity.
Capitalism has the means to make these conditions better, but there is evidently not a market demand for these higher quality working conditions, because end consumers (you and me) choose not to make a demand for goods made in higher quality working conditions. The fault doesn't lie solely with the greed of a class of factory owners, it lies with the overwhelming majority of humans.
This fact being true, what puzzles me about socialists and statists is they both believe that they can successfully select the infinitesimal minority of humans from the population who are fantastically altruistic, intelligent and skilled to the point that they would better at deciding what to do for people than the billions of people who are currently deciding what's best for themselves in any particular moment.
I.e: Why do you believe the people in government are better at making decisions than anyone else?
I loved Star Trek, but even I have to admit thaat it's worldbuilding was wildly inconsistant. Sometimes federation people had money, and sometimes they didn't. It all depended on what story was being told at the time. Saying it was a socialist society is a bit of a misnomer, as socialist societies can't keep going indefinately. Eventually they run out of money, and they have to release the capitalists, to generate more.
4:40 This is a blatant example of something that is not capitalism. The government is directly required for the situation you outlined: Taxation can only be performed by a government.
You could better charicterize this as fascistic or cronistic.
If the government is involved it is not capitalism. There can be elements of capitalism in a country under a government. Just as socialistic countries can be discerned by their degree of freedom.
Didn't Sisko's dad give the food away for free & just haves a restaurant because he loves making dinners?
That is possible, but he'd hardly replicate the stuff (equivalent of serving top notch tv dinners).
He has to employ labour somehow and everybody wants to be the owner/master chef, hardly anybody wants to be the potato peeler (not even his own grandson).
I think expanded social welfare (including housing but with per square meter of lot size property tax to prevent hoarding of land) and either a ubi for everything else, or community replicator room (think the room worf went for a present that had 7 or so replicator stations) and barter or job needed to get chateau picard wine or siskos crawdads.
Error 505
Disappearance protection
The only REAL answer, is that we don't know. There is not enough detail. An alien species could not know all about earth by watching JAG and we can't know all about the 24th century from TNG/DS9/VOY. From what we're TOLD, there is no money, atleast not in the day to day federation life. And most of the money we do see is from fringe worlds (bajor, non federation worlds, etc). How do we explain Picards vineyard of Sisko restaurant? You really cant... maybe it's volunteer? Maybe it's like those old pioneer village we have today were people work like in the "olden days". But if mother truckin Captain Jean Luc Picard says we've moved beyond money, then I believe him!
What references do you have for private ownership of land in Star Trek's universe being a thing of the past? Surely you're not going to say that Picard's family were only allowed private ownership of their vineyard because it had already been owned by them previously? Or Sisko's father's restaurant? Regardless of reasoning, they definitely owned those properties privately. For that matter, being given credits to buy things still equates to a monetary system of some kind. For an example, we don't have a purely capitalist economy now, and it's getting more corrupt by the day as we push away from capitalism. How many times can people keep claiming that something has never been tried before until they realize that it very much has and has failed every time and resulted in 100's of millions of people dead? How long before we realize that the only way to organize corrupt humans is through reward motivations and that taking such systems away results in far worse corruption than what was already innately present?
The issue with communism is implementation, that is always where it has failed
No I disagree..it is a post scarcity, and socialism/capitalism matrix just doesn't apply.
this rabbit hole goes waaaaayyyyy deeper...
go back and really WATCH Star Trek, the Federation has implemented a "death penalty" for some of the most retarded reasons, this is brought up in more than one episode, and their standard "penalty" is basically a "re-education camp", also covered in more than one episode, right out of the communist playbook. Socialism (communism lite) fails because it destroy the means of production. Enter: the replicator, you might actually get a socialist society to work if you dont have to worry about that pesky little problem.
a thing to note: in a few episodes of ToS and TNG there were colonists that were not thrilled when the respective Enterprises' arrived "to save the day"; now, why would that be???
so in a nutshell; the United Earth Government as depicted, at the very least, is a post scarcity socialist government, possibly 'worse'.
and there are more nuances that could be addressed, none of which paints a flattering picture of the Federation IMO.
Most people put the post-scarcity after TOS/TAS.
fully automated luxury space communism in not in our reach but we can shure as hell have partially automated necessity earth socialism
Socialism is good at distribution??? Buddy…. How many Chinese died during the cultural revolution due to starvation? Soviet famine of 1989? Long bread lines ? Are you serious?
Neither of those countries were actually socialist. When people say that real communism has never been tried, they’re serious. The issue with socialism and communism is implementation.
Tell me about the thumbnail. Is it from a game? I'm not gonna watch the video, I just wanna know about the thumbnail.
I've just seen your video from 2 years ago and this one now and I have to say that I believe you are wrong. Capitalism is the basis for the Federation economy.
Devil In The Dark the miners will be embarrassingly rich. This is not the only episode with rich miners. Counting the miners that have died 70 people who could be rich.
Mudd's Women the lithium miners are rich enough to buy planets. Also Harry Mudd is an entrepreneur with access to a private interstellar spaceship. Counting Harry and the women 7 people. 77 total.
Scotty earned his pay for the week in The Doomsday Machine. Including Kirk 2 people. 80 in total.
Chekhov earned his pay for the week in Who Mourns For Adonais. Including McCoy that is 1 more person. 82 total.
Cyrano Jones is another entrepreneur with access to a private interstellar spaceship. So is the bartender at space station K7. Add 2 more Federation citizens. Uhura wants to buy, with Federation credits a Tribble. Add 1 more. 85 in total.
Spock starts to estimate the amount of money invested in Kirk and Spock in the episode Errand Of Mercy. 86 people. We could safely say that all of the Enterprise crew get paid at this point and by extension all of Starfleet who are getting paid. Dr. McCoy buys Kirk glasses from an antique dealer on Earth. Yet another Federation citizen who earns a paycheck for services provided.
Moving into the 24th century.
Tuvok buy's a meditation lamp from a Vulcan master. Janeway is with him and says the Vulcan master "doubled the price when he saw their Starfleet uniforms". She is telling this to Chakotay. 4 more Federation citizens getting paid for goods and services. 91.
Sisko's father owns a restaurant. The Picard's owns a vineyard. Boimler's family also own a raisin vineyard. Vash, Picard's one night stand, sells artifacts for profit. With the Picard's and the Sisko's we can add 5 more bringing the total to 96. All Federation citizens who earn a paycheck. We can add Boimler which brings us to 97 plus however many are in Boimler's family. And Picard's employees and The Boimler's employees. We are safely into the hundreds at this point. With all of the Starfleet personnel in the 23rd and 24th centuries we are well into the thousands. This without even breaking a sweat.
Most egregious of all Picard buys a Horgahn on Risa for Riker. He helps Vash, another entrepreneur who deals in stolen artifacts, secure a weapon from the future. He destroys it in the end so that the baddies from the future can't use it. But he helps secure it first for his capitalist fling. The guy who says there is no money and that we work to improve ourselves is a capitalist. He just doesn't talk about money because it is in bad taste to do so.
We can square Picard's words with his actions. There is no money in the 23rd and 24th century in use inside the Federation but there is currency in the form of the Federation credit. People do get paid for goods and services. Consider today's society. People's pay check can be deposited directly into their bank accounts. They can use their debit card to pay for goods and services. The bank can automatically pay your bills as well. How much do we have to think about money now? Project that forward. What will the economy look like in the future? A "moneyless" society where people don't think about money. We can also square the next thing he says about the accumulation of wealth. He's rich, make no mistake about that. And it is in bad taste for the rich to talk about money. So when Lily says you don't get paid he doesn't answer her question. Instead he deflects it by saying we work to better ourselves. What he says about the accumulation of things may be true also. Rampant consumerism may no longer be a driving force in society. You own some things, like Riker's trombone that you really cherish. But, by and large, the Federation citizen has grown up enough to realize that things don't make them happy in the long term. You're basic needs may be met by the Federation but that is pure speculation. Even if that's true there are things that you might need above the basics. A family of four need only a three bedroom apartment. But if you want to host overnight guests good luck getting a four bedroom house from the government. You can be fed by the government on basic rations, but if you want to dine out that's not part of your basic needs. So you have to work to live above your basic needs. An adoption of some Buddhist philosophy has taken place in the future. The accumulation of things is no longer a thing in society. That's your revolution.
True, and for the most part we only see Starfleet. Just like today's military basic needs are "free" for the troops (or taken out of their paycheck before they receive it). For instance, as an Airman, I received free lodging, electricity, water and trash services while staying in the dorms. Eventually, I received basic allowance for food (I think so Uncle Sam could get more tax money from me), which was taken out of my paycheck since there was a chow hall I could use (even if I didn't use it for all meals). Officers, or married enlisted staying on base receive a stipend for housing(again for Uncle Sam's TAX pocketbook) (which coincidently is) exactly what is charged for 'rent'.
You certainly seem to be confusing capitalism with government.
Why not both?
Socialism as a concept is not inherently bad, as capitalism as a concept is not inherently good. A healthy socialist system would have 100% of its population willing to share their resources with everyone else. That means the person making $100k is willing to share his income with the person who only makes $20k. But in real life, human beings don't work this way. Instead, there is usually a meritocracy where you get paid more because you can do something better than others, and it might have taken you a long time to get there. Is it selfish of that person not to want to share those resources? Maybe, but as long as they are not stealing that money, it should be their right to do with it as they see fit. (We can get into the people that are, in fact, stealing the money. Most of the stock market, for example, is basically theft. Suffice it for now that this is just crony capitalism).
I would disagree that Star Trek is socialist though. Socialism requires the population to be in agreement to share their property/resources, and labor. Star Trek is more akin to an atheist heaven. Nobody has to work, nobody has to make income to survive, and nobody has to share anything, because of the unlimited energy, and ability to replicate everything you want on a whim. When you can simply replicate more replicators, and use them to replicate everything else: food, shelter, clothes, weapons, tools, entertainment, and means of shreckzual release, then you don't have to share anything. Why would I need my neighbor to share his delicious pizza when I can just replicate my own, which my generator that pulls energy from zero point space, or whatever trekno mcguffin. He did not have to give up anything. I simply replicated an exact copy of it, with new energy that he did not have to expend.
The neighbor also doesn't have to share his place to live, because I can replicate a huge house identical....or bigger than his. And if he wants, he can replicate an even bigger one, and it doesn't cost me a thing. TNG pretended this was the case, and went "shhh, don't ask any questions!!! How do heisenberg replicators work? very well thank you very much!"
Voyager tried to make a case that some jobs required the Federation to make an effort extracting, like the dilithium crystals........and they turned it into holographic rights, in a very superficial, and hamfisted way. DS9 realized the ridiculousness of the premise. Very few people are going to actually go and do something useful to society, when they can choose to instead, live in their holodeck with their mansion in the mountains, drinking spritzers, eating lobster and caviar and effing the hottest supermodels he could replicate.
We are seeing some primitive form of this already. How many men don't work now, instead play video games all day? Or they will work the bare minimum to live with their parents and afford to buy a cheap PC to play their game. But back to the topic, whatever Star Trek is, is not socialism by its modern definition.
DS9!!
As I have already said; the issue with a centralized system is the penalty for poor decisions becomes higher, so the quality of the decision makers must be increased. How can you hope to choose the correct people? How can you hope to stop corruption?
Surely the best thing to do is allow the greatest number of people to make decisions: Each man for himself. I.e libertarianism.
Assuming that a post-scarcity (Socialist) could exist and flourish it would need
- Highly intelligent and educated people who are self motivated and who find satisfaction in a field that contributes to maintaining said society
- People who are not lazy and would not tolerate being idle
- People belonging to a homogeneous society with enough similarities they would consider all in said society as part of their tribe and thus see a threat or want in that society as a threat or want of a family member
Therefore, it is very similar to the false concept of a Democracy which cannot be achieved in a heterogeneous society.
Mankind thrives when there are obstacles to overcome; that is, we have to struggles in order to grow as people and as a society. Having everything provided, or even just basic necessities, breeds sloth and complacency.
No money… just credits 😂
distinction without a difference. cant have socialism function without post scarcity. the only currency the federation have is ferengi gold pressed latinum and the ferengi are not part of the federation formally.
You clearly didn't watch. Thanks for the comment.
@@radicalizeme i watched up until the part where the video said something completely wrong.
You know star trek is fictional correct?
WHAT NO WAY YOU’RE SO SMART
Thanks Captain Obvious
socialism is actually way better in building the means of production, Ruzssia want from peasant socierty with barely any industry to industrialised country and super power in 20 years.
True! It’s interesting, I’m sure it’s possible to have a socialist revolution in a capitalist country, but it’s mostly happened in semi-feudal states, which I think is counter to Marx’s predictions.
Yeah, and all the Soviets had to do was that one magic trick of looking at people as an expendable, self-replicating fungible resource. 'White coal'.
This guy is totally wrong. Socialism has never been good at anything, other than terror and poverty. Also, there will never be a post-scarcity society because LAAND will always be a scarce resource
We have plenty of land, but too much greed, also socialist countries do exist but constantly harrased by the capitalists, I know you will deny any of that but please answer me this, would the opioid crisis happen in a socialist world, would the sackler get away with it, no because they wouldn't get to be as rich and corrupt as they were.
Your glow is so bright astronauts use you as a landmark
@@atillaboraaydn5163
Yess opioid addiction happens in socialist societies because we have seen it.
India, china and Pakistan all had socialist governments and high rates of opioid addiction
@@genmaicha.lapsang did the drug dealers get to have museum wings named after them, did they have their own university ?
@@atillaboraaydn5163
No they just practice Sharia and marry children.