Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is star trek pro-communism?

  1. Jun 29, 2003 #1
    the earth of star trek has no money, people do things for each other. in one of the films they go back to earth and are suprised that people are spending money.

    when kirk is found guilty he is sent down the (salt?) mines.

    any other evidence?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 29, 2003 #2

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !

    Gene Rodenberry wanted to create an optimistic picture of
    the future of all humanity. This is one of the most appealing
    things about Star Trek that originally made it completely different from most other sci-fi stories. An important aspect of that oprtimistic picture was to not just show what can be achieved
    in the future in terms of space exploration, alien contact and
    so on, but also remedy the problems of modern society.
    In the Klingon Empire. :wink:
    NO ! Go home !

    Peace and long life.
     
  4. Jun 30, 2003 #3
    living in an ex-communist country I'd have to say NO.

    this is utopia, not communism :wink:
     
  5. Jul 1, 2003 #4
    could communism not be utopia?
     
  6. Jul 1, 2003 #5

    So they don't use money, but they are suprised people are using money?

    You make 100% no sense whatsoever.
     
  7. Jul 1, 2003 #6
    Think about it! If you had never seen or used something, lets use Yaxitrake as an example, you would be surprised to see me using it wouldn't you?
     
  8. Jul 1, 2003 #7

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, somebody HAS to ask, right ?
    What's a Yaxitrake ?
    (Or it that supposed to have no meaning ? )
     
  9. Jul 1, 2003 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Didn't Marx consider communism to be utopia?
     
  10. Jul 2, 2003 #9
    maybe in his book. But practice always sucks....
    Anyway we used money in communism and people didn't do things for each other more that now. The main difference is freedom of speech, acces to information and more stupid politicians.
     
  11. Jul 2, 2003 #10
    WEll Star Trek has other cool stuff like Warp speed and transporters and why not have perfect communism?
     
  12. Jul 2, 2003 #11
    not even the transporters worked all the time (that happens especially when the away team is in some sort of trouble). and they can't pass warp 10 (or around this number).
    so as I said, practice really sucks sometimes...
     
  13. Jul 2, 2003 #12
    Star trek ssupposedly had a perfect society, not perfect technology, if they had perfect technology then it would make for a very very boring series.
     
  14. Jul 2, 2003 #13
    the only thing that stops communism working is people.

    (can u make 100% no sense, surely its 0% sense, or nonsense, or complete yaxitrake)
     
  15. Jul 2, 2003 #14

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Damn ! I must put this next to my Einstein quotes !
    (You should consider copyrighting that... )
     
  16. Jul 3, 2003 #15
    already done that. You owe me 5$

    so what more evidence that there was no such thing in Star Trek....
    And what is yaxitrake? is it a plane? is it a bird?.....
     
  17. Jul 3, 2003 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    But...
    Yeah. Star Trek is not bound by the parameters of reality.
    But thats a pretty key constraint, isn't it?

    The thing I see in Star Trek is that they have evolved beyond or "outgrown" human nature.
     
  18. Jul 3, 2003 #17

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Strange... I always found nationalist overtones in there. You know, the power of the militaristic starfleet, the people all dressed in uniform, the hypocrisy of the various directives and the insistence it's all about exploring, not conquering, though they seem to do alot of the latter by accident.
     
  19. Nov 26, 2003 #18
    Some thoughts off the top of my head: There has never been a Communist state on Earth. They called it Communism for P.R. reasons; the reasoning used by places like the former Soviet Union goes, "we have to first take total control and *then* decentralize everything". Well, we know that a Camel will pass through the eye of a needle before a human gives up his power. Communism is a decentralized state; much like the internet. The closest the Earth has ever come to Communism is America (or by some accounts, Canada)! The Soviet Union was (slowly) a dictatorship.

    There were many writers, producers, businessmen etc. getting their fingers into the creative process, especially after Roddenberry passed, so indicting it for inconsistencies is a tad over wrought, to my mind.

    I first saw the reference to the Star Trek future not using money in the movie, "Star Trek 4". Then it was mentioned in ST:TNG. Then in the movie, "First Contact" where Picard went into it in terms that were anything but ambiguous.

    In fact, the evolution toward that kind of society is already happening; but (Levarr Burton voice) you don't have to take my word for it! See: www.home-ed-press.com[/url] and [PLAIN]www.anxietyculture.com, [Broken] for example. Some ppl. may not like it and to them I say, don't worry. By the time the world has become a place that rattles your tea cups, you'll be dead!

    Thank you.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  20. Nov 26, 2003 #19
    Communism is expressed in Star Trek by the Borg. The ultimate collective, the perfect antfarm society.

    Resistance is inevitable.
     
  21. Nov 26, 2003 #20

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The Star Trek economic system most closely resembles utopian socialism. Communism is a very specific form of socialism. When economists speak of communism, marxism and utopian socialism they have different, specific things in mind.

    Njorl
     
  22. Nov 26, 2003 #21
    I was there when Star Trek first came on TV in the 60s and there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the Soviets were alive and well in the future. They called themselves: Klingons!

    This may not be apparent to anyone too young to remember the cold war, during which Star Trek came to be, but if you watch the original series with the cold war in mind you can see that it's true. It wasn't till the first Star trek movie that Klingons began to evolve from militaristic totalitarians to have the more tribal warrior ethic they have now.

    To suggest that the original Federation was communistic would have gotten you beaten up or shunned back in the 60s. The Federation was simply a Utopia created from political values held by the Democratic Party. The Next Generation gave it a more non-materialistic slant, but that was belied by the situation on Deep Space Nine where greed and crime often was at the heart of the plots.
     
  23. Nov 26, 2003 #22

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I believe Yaxitrake is the superstrong metal of which starship hulls are constructed. It is composed entirely of Yack; I think it's done in nm-thick layers of Yack fur layed cross-grained and held together with an epoxy resin.
     
  24. Nov 26, 2003 #23
    Roddenberry wrote himself into a corner. There was simply no way to explain anything about this utopia so the movies or shows would clumsily try to avoid the subject.
     
  25. Nov 26, 2003 #24
    The program reminded me of the UN (UN = Federation); having a crew made up from varied nations and planets that had come together for the common good. The Russians were represented by Checkov, which is why, imo, the Klingons represented not so much an individual nation or race, but any and all who would rather quite literally “Cling-on” to the old nationalistic/militaristic ways, rather than join the more progressive Federation.

    Actually, I think the show was about alien booty, and how much of it Captain Kirk could find success with.
     
  26. Nov 27, 2003 #25
    In "The Next Generation" Picard asserts that on earth the problems of want and crime have been solved, without offering any explanation. The implication, to me, was that the solution had been technological, but in fact, he didn't even hint at how these problems may have been solved, so you're right about Roddenberry avoiding the explanation.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook