Fucking Salt Vampire. Scared the shit out of me when I was 8.

Sendraks wrote:
I don't recall anything communist or socialist about Star Trek in the many decades I've been watching it. Its utopian vision of the future is one where the "American Dream" has spread and been accepted by all, so this utterly false utopia where everyone works hard and attains their dreams somehow exists.

I can't quote specifics, because I'm not a big enough Trekkie nerd, but I recall a few episodes of TNG, and some of the feature films, where they talked about not using money any more. I know there's money in DS9, though, so being a post-money society isn't ubiquitous for the franchise.

It does make sense that, after achieving some minimum level of automation, we would need to shift value away from how we've currently defined it and come up with some other way of valuating someone's contribution to society. It's not like everyone will be able to own the robots that do the work, and yet a society where there isn't some level of opportunity for everyone, whether perceived or actual, would not be a stable one.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Sendraks wrote:
I don't recall anything communist or socialist about Star Trek in the many decades I've been watching it. Its utopian vision of the future is one where the "American Dream" has spread and been accepted by all, so this utterly false utopia where everyone works hard and attains their dreams somehow exists.

I can't quote specifics, because I'm not a big enough Trekkie nerd, but I recall a few episodes of TNG, and some of the feature films, where they talked about not using money any more. I know there's money in DS9, though, so being a post-money society isn't ubiquitous for the franchise.

Not having money is not specifically communist though.
And the 'money' in DS9 was Latinum, which is basically space gold and only has value outside Earth, as it's valued as a currency by other races.

And yes, I am a little bit of a ST nerd.

lol as is Ted Cruz

---
edit: We are not going to address the arguments in the linked articles, we are going to make unsupported claims at best based on anecdotal evidence or just plain, in the language of the RS icon, fuckwittery and arse gravy on par with assertions and claims of woo merchants and religious creations.

What a way to celebrate 50.

Ferengi are the only species trying to attempt to break into Fort Knox. Their rules of acquisition are so cool :)

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition

For example:

Latinum lasts longer than lust.

lol

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Not having money is not specifically communist though.

Agreed. But it's difficult to work ownership without money, so either everybody owns everything collectively, or nobody owns anything collectively. If all the property is considered publicly owned, that's probably something Marx would appreciate.

And the 'money' in DS9 was Latinum, which is basically space gold and only has value outside Earth, as it's valued as a currency by other races.

Yeah, I have a difficult time wrapping my head around how Earth, with no money, would trade with societies with money. At some point there would need to be a money-analogous component to the Earth economy, and at that point it's no longer entirely honest to say that there isn't any money. Also, how do the Federation people get the Latinum? Do they get allowances? Do they have to give up their big-boy pants to get their allowance?

And yes, I am a little bit of a ST nerd.

I'm a little bit of one, too. Just not enough of one to make assertions with any pretense of authority. And it appears not enough of one to make tuco happy.

laklak wrote:BBC America...

So is "BBC America" a kind of iPlayer for Americans, or what is it? (Whatever it is, I hope you enjoy it.)

Evolving wrote:

laklak wrote:BBC America...

So is "BBC America" a kind of iPlayer for Americans, or what is it? (Whatever it is, I hope you enjoy it.)

I think BBC stands for Big Black Cucumber or something, right?

Evolving wrote:

laklak wrote:BBC America...

So is "BBC America" a kind of iPlayer for Americans, or what is it? (Whatever it is, I hope you enjoy it.)

Wiki say -

BBC America is a digital cable and satellite television network in the United States which is jointly owned by BBC Worldwide and AMC Networks.[

tuco wrote:lol as is Ted Cruz

---
edit: We are not going to address the arguments in the linked articles, we are going to make unsupported claims at best based on anecdotal evidence or just plain, in the language of the RS icon, fuckwittery and arse gravy on par with assertions and claims of woo merchants and religious creations.

What a way to celebrate 50.

I don't know what you're doing tuco, but I have presented facts from the series.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Not having money is not specifically communist though.

Agreed. But it's difficult to work ownership without money, so either everybody owns everything collectively, or nobody owns anything collectively. If all the property is considered publicly owned, that's probably something Marx would appreciate.

Except a lot if it wasn't.
People still own houses, furniture, land etc.
There were certain things that were public then, that are not now, such as holosuites, education and such.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

And the 'money' in DS9 was Latinum, which is basically space gold and only has value outside Earth, as it's valued as a currency by other races.

Yeah, I have a difficult time wrapping my head around how Earth, with no money, would trade with societies with money.

By selling goods that latinum owning civilisations did not have, one would assume.

ScholasticSpastic wrote: At some point there would need to be a money-analogous component to the Earth economy, and at that point it's no longer entirely honest to say that there isn't any money.

Does there though?
Also, it was often implied, if not outright stated that, due to being a federation of many different species and planets, the Federation was largely autarkic. So Earth would be as well, by extension.

ScholasticSpastic wrote: Also, how do the Federation people get the Latinum?

By trading with people who had it.
How did the first farmers in the first monetary societies get money?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

And yes, I am a little bit of a ST nerd.

I'm a little bit of one, too. Just not enough of one to make assertions with any pretense of authority. And it appears not enough of one to make tuco happy.

I (am trying to) only make assertions backed up by statements/scenes from the series and will happily adjust my views if a bigger ST nerd can demonstrate otherwise.

Sometime last year, one of the more obscure channels on DSTV (SA's satellite TV service) screened the original original series... i.e. the '66 - '69 episodes without the "digital remastering".
I never felt that the CG "spruce up" improved on the '60s model work and matte paintings. The handcrafted Enterprise (wood, plastic and fiberglass) has a certain charm lacking in the CG version, which looks too gray and too "cartoony", IMO.
Similarly, many of the new CG matte paintings are, in my opinion, inferior in composition to the originals done with oil paint on glass.

Here are all the "before and after" shots in one two-and-a-half minute video...

SEE THE MEN WHO HELPED BUILD THE ORIGINAL USS ENTERPRISE

A PHOTO FROM 1964 SHOWS THE ORIGINAL MODEL OF THE STAR TREK SPACESHIP.

POSTED: JANUARY 11, 2016



A photo has recently gone viral showing three of the men responsible for building the original USS Enterprise.
Richard C. Datin, Jr., Mel Keys, Vernon Sion and Volmer Jensen (not pictured) constructed the 11 foot model for Star Trek's original television series in 1964. The photo, taken in December of that year, shows the men proudly posing with it.
...

Full article at:
http://www.metv.com/stories/photo-reveals-who-built-the-original-USS-Enterprise

Mike_L wrote:
I never felt that the CG "spruce up" improved on the '60s model work and matte paintings. The handcrafted Enterprise (wood, plastic and fiberglass) has a certain charm lacking in the CG version, which looks too gray and too "cartoony", IMO.
Similarly, many of the new CG matte paintings are, in my opinion, inferior in composition to the originals done with oil paint on glass.

I agree.

From that "Star Trek is Communist" essay, Star Wars vs Star Trek Essays: The Economics of Star Trek:

A communist state is different; its upper classes are populated largely by politicians, high-ranking military officers, and scientists. It is they who use their status and relative wealth to purchase upper-class lifestyles. Sound familiar? In Star Trek, no one has any prestige or perceived value to society unless he's either a soldier, a researcher, or a politician.

A fair assessment? Or mostly a byproduct of mostly seeing Starfleet?

But Is Star Trek Really Anti-Libertarian? notes Why “Star Trek Into Darkness” Is Smaller Than Life - Bloomberg View by Virginia Postrel. From that Federalist article, quoting VP,

As Virginia Postrel has pointed out, based on a survey of her readers, the actual appeal of Star Trek is that it presents a kind of ideal capitalist workplace.

In Star Trek, the work is meaningful; the colleagues are smart, hard-working, competent and respectful; the leaders are capable and fair; and everyone has an important contribution to make…. Deep friendships develop from teamwork and high-stakes problem-solving. It’s the workplace as we wish it were.

Following up, I noted “the characteristics of this ideal society: a focus on work, competence, intelligence, productivity, and rationality,” which is a projection of “what kind of people we will have to be to reach a super-technological future.” I go on to argue that instead of looking like a socialist economy, it looks more like the ideal community of producers in Atlas Shrugged.

So it's not Communist because it's an ideal workplace. Reminds me of a certain relative who claimed that Star Trek is not science fiction because she likes it.

Not a fair assessment, because I already addressed it. Ideals versus what was called as communist. Nobody read Animal Farm?

Equality and democracy are paramount to communism via Marx. Little there is known about life outside of Starfleet. Respect of various cultures/lifestyles is paramount to Star Trek however. Its not Straship Troopers .. eeeewww bugs!!!!

Capitalist workplace lol Any work place. I am glad I read only one link in detail. Into the Darkness .. get some education please. Communism strives for betterment of humankind through cooperation unlike motivation by greed in capitalism.

Cmon now, this is getting ridiculous. Lacking basic knowledge. This way we wont build better society, better world ;)

---
fucking 7 edits ... sloppy

This sort of question was officially avoided for TOS: - Star_Trek_Writers_Guide.pdf

What is Earth like in STAR TREK'S CENTURY?

For one thing, we'll never take a story back there and therefore don't expect to get into subject s which would create great problems, technical and other wise. The "U.S.S." on our ship designation stands for "United Space Ship" -- indicating (without troublesome specifics) that mankind has found some unity on Earth, perhaps at long last even peace. If you require a statement such as one that Earth cities of the future are splendidly planned with fifty-mile parkland strips around them, fine. But television today simply will not let us get into details of Earth's politics of STAR TREK,'S century; for example, which socio-economic system ultimately worked out best.

Seems to me that there are some things about Star Trek that are not very well thought out. Like contradicting itself about Federation money, with both Federation credits and the claim that the Federation does not use money.

I find the latter bit very implausible, because money is convenient for accounting, a convenient abstraction of value. One does not need to barter, and one does not need to keep track of favors that one owes and favors that one has done. Here is a list of kinds of exchange:

• Barter: A has X and wants Y. B has Y and wants X. A and B then exchange X and Y. This has the problem of needing a "coincidence of wants".
• Gift economy: A gives X to B, and B remembers X's favor and gives Y to A. That can work in small-scale societies, but it has difficulty working in large-scale ones.
• A medium of exchange: money. A exchanges X for M and M for Y, and B exchanges Y for M and M for X. This is a very flexible sort of system, and that's why I'm skeptical about whether a large-scale moneyless society can work.

There are two main types of money:

• Commodity money: something traded at its non-monetary value. Like gold, silver, copper, salt, peppercorns, tea, large stones (such as Rai stones), decorated belts, shells, alcohol, cigarettes, cannabis, candy, cocoa beans, cowries and barley.
• Representative money: something traded at much more than its non-monetary value. Paper money is an obvious one here, and many coins nowadays often qualify. Electronic money is a recent version of it.

There are two main kinds of representative money:

• Commodity-backed money: money that is essentially IOU's for commodities like precious metals. That's what gold-standard enthusiasts want paper money to be.
• Fiat money: money decreed into existence. From Latin "fiat", "let (it) be made". Money can be decreed into existence by central banks, typically by running the banks' paper-money printing presses or some electronic counterpart. Some people consider fiat money unreliable because a government can recklessly print it and cause massive inflation.

There's a broader issue that I wish to note.

Consider "The Neutral Zone", in TNG. In it, three 20th-century people are revived from being frozen for some four centuries. L.Q. "Sonny" Clemonds, a musician, adapts the best after some initial fumbling, even returning to his old substance-abuse habits. Clare Raymond, a housewife, is very distraught at the absence of her family members. Ralph Offenhouse, a financier, wants to check on his assets. He is very sore at the unhelpfulness of the Enterprise's crew and he wants to call his lawyer about his situation. Captain Picard is very snotty and heavy-handed, sad to say: "A lot has changed in the past three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We have grown out of our infancy."

A more helpful response might be "We can help you out with your assets. But all those centuries may make them hard to find. Even if you do find them, you may discover that you won't need them here." Or else "You've been gone a long time, and I'm sure that you've been legally dead all that time. So your heirs likely got it all, and you'd have to track them down."

Excellent find lpetrich, thanks. Must read for me :)