I mean, the Federation was only founded after a world war decimated the human population. And I also think, looking at our world, that we are more likely to be the mirror dimension anyway.
we are more likely to be the mirror dimension anyway.
We should all do routine checks to make sure we don’t have goatees, excessive eyeliner, or suddenly start wearing sexy clothing.
…i have a goatee oh god
That means there’s a non-evil version of you out there somewhere!
…Imma fuck his mom.
What about your clothing?
Walmart vest. I’m at work faking a shit.
Based
An EVIL shit
Shit, that’s how I dress every day…
I didn’t even put my second layer of eyeliner yet!
Need to fix my smokey eye and trim the goatee.
Just to be clear star trek also had a nuclear war
deleted by creator
We only know that humpback whales go extinct. The rest of the whales could be doing fine in the 23rd century.
Also I believe Star Trek is speculative fiction.
People always forget that Star Trek is post-apocalyptic in addition to being utopian.
And only embraced space communism when they invented (got access to? I’m not a Trekkie) a device that can literally make anything from anything, resulting in a post scarcity society and no need for work.
And time travelers who fought off time traveling space cyborgs to protect them.
deleted by creator
Which is why I’d like fully automated luxury gay space communism. We can’t be trusted to govern ourselves, take me to The Culture now please.
I, Robot did it first.
Man straight up said “robots would make the best leaders because they can be made to be honest, rational, and selfless,” and people just remember the stories about the malfunctions.
The biggest problem would be making sure that the robots are acting in our best interests in a sustainable way and that no bad actors or loopholes make their way in. Though that’s the topic of decades of speculation so I’m hardly bringing anything new up, yeah. And as you’ve said, I robot covered a lot of these things way back in the earlier sci-fi days.
Joining an already-existing galactic civilization also results in a post-scarcity world, especially after the depopulation of the planet, but yes I already confessed I am not a Trekkie.
Regardless, communism, like Star Trek, is a fun fancy that won’t ever happen.
People that are blindly anti-capitalism and pro something else (usually social/communism) tend to justify their feelings by saying that all of human weakness (greed, corruption, laziness) are the fault of capitalism.
People that are blindly pro-capitalism tend to blame all the failures of capitalism on regulation.
Really, all the failures of all our systems seem to be that humans are greedy, selfish creatures. And regulation is the (only?) thing that governs human weaknesses.
MAYBE, if we manage to generate a post-scarcity world, we’ll be able to manage that greed problem. I definitely experience feelings of kindness and generosity with my friends, family, or in times/places where I’m not stressed/rushed/feeling scarcity.
But I don’t know how pathetic, greedy humans ever generate a post scarcity world.
People that are blindly pro-capitalism tend to blame all the failures of capitalism on regulation.
I’m “blindly pro-capitalism” and I blame it on perverse incentives and unaddressed externalities.
Then you’re not blind, my friend 😂
It’s possible I don’t understand the usage of “blindly” here lol
I dream of Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism
Oh, my!
I think the whole lack of sustainable fusion thing may be a slightly larger factor than capitalism.
I recommend the book Trekonomics if you want to challenge this notion. Basically, technologies like sustainable fusion, replicators, etc, are the result of a post-scarcity leave-no-one-behind philosophy, rather than its prerequisites.
I’ll check it out, thanks 🖖
So close it sounds like it’ll be happening in our lifetime.
I think it’s sounded like that for the past 40 years, but I am hopeful.
Sure, like human-level AGI and flying cars.
man i sure wonder why we don’t have that, huh?
Not enough capital
More like political capital
isn’t it interesting how we require capital to do anything? wonder why that is
Because we are stuck in a capitalistic world? Even if something starts without capitalistic intentions, capitalism will consume it.
The internet is an example.
Hell, water is an example.
Removed by mod
It kind of worked out for the Feringi. They ended up buying their warp technology.
except the ferengi are magically able to maintain the more sensible level of capitalism we had back in like 1900 when railroads first got started, and even then they eventually realize that their society actually does kind of suck and just because they haven’t had world wars doesn’t make them some moral paragons.
If anything the ferengi just show that the less capitalist you are the less horrors a society will end up performing.
Maybe when we live in a post singularity society where everything we want can be printed for free.
If by post scarcity you mean Western workers produce seven times more value in goods than they consume over their lifetime, guess what?
Don’t worry though, we still have forty more years of nuclear genocide to meet the deadline.
That’s why we rely on Asian slaves and indentured Mexican servitudes to keep us on the top.
That’s for the love of the game, not a necessity.
Where are all these goods going?
And we produce far less than Asia. So they must be producing like 70 times what they consume.
Well, it’s not like there’s a whole ideology explaining how workers are exploited of the value of their labor to benefit capital, with a proven growth of hoarded wealth and shrinking middle class all while productivity is higher than it’s ever been while somehow the lower classes still have as much trouble making ends meet as ever. More, probably, given the absurd level of homelessness in supposedly developed nations.
But, hey, we’ve got air conditioning now.
You know who had no air conditioning?
Medieval lords.
Unless they had a guy with a fan.
Just show me these figures without rhetoric.
You are full of shit.
What “western” worker produces seven times more value than they consume?
You are full of bullshit. Cite a source or shut the fuck up like the useless propaganda pawn that you are.
What “western” worker produces seven times more value than they consume?
You are full of bullshit. Cite a source or shut the fuck up like the useless propaganda pawn that you are.
Just curious, what do you think that "produced to consumed’ value is at?
Western workers produce seven times more value in goods than they consume over their lifetime
Not that I doubt this, but do you have a source?
A claim based on, iirc, national GDP versus average income by well known commie shill, Jordan B Peterson.
deleted by creator
We already have enough for everyone, if we just toned it down a bit.
We’re closer to most of our work being automated than a profit-driven system will allow.
We don’t need to have reached the technological singularity, we just need to have most of the energy in the universe gathered into a container the size of a microwave so we can get the replicators online. Or we need to find a way to reliably violate thermodynamics.
I also noticed that religion was absent from most of the star trek stories, and usually, if at all, was associated with an underdeveloped culture, and they would most likely be warlike and a threat.
Did you not watch Deep Space 9?
Yep, they pretty clearly stated that humanity had moved beyond religion, money, enslaving animals for meat (Riker’s words), etc.
Whenever they wanted to show this stuff, they had to run into another civilization.
enslaving animals for meat (Riker’s words)
Yet in season one of PIcard he hunts meat he could have easily replicated.
Ugh, really? What were they thinking?
They weren’t. I have heard the later seasons got better but they fucked up so much. My biggest issue was Picard was like…happy and Jokey.
He smiled like…9 times in TNG.
For some reason the first time I saw that episode as a little kid that smiley face scared me.
It was pretty damn freaky!
And at least a couple of those times he was under the influence of something.
Mostly under the influence of Vash’s sweet ass
Stubborn and intractable as well.
Imagine if the Enterprise was constructed by the lowest bidding government contractor.
Also: Why aren’t we at least the Farenghi?
When reporters asked (Alan) Shepard what he thought about as he sat atop the Redstone rocket, waiting for liftoff, he had replied, ‘The fact that every part of this ship was built by the lowest bidder.’
Beautiful quote
No alien species will sell us warp.
Because we haven’t found anyone to buy warp engines from, unfortunately. You know of anyone?
Wasn’t the first human warp drive made by that Cochran guy? What was his first name again… Oh yeah. Johnny. Johnny Cochran.
Well, the consoles tend to explode for no reason (why did they run high voltage plasma directly to the consoles?)
Speaking of explosions, the consoles seem to be filled with rocks.
I’d say both could have been fixed with a slightly higher budget allowance.
Also: Why aren’t we at least the Farenghi?
Well… Arguably we’re closer to them than we are to Star-Trek era humans. Though some of these are what I tend to think of as Conservative values, corporate (and personal) greed knows no social boundaries.
The Ferengi culture was centralized around the concept of greed and earning profit.
Ferengi society and culture was highly misogynistic and patriarchical. As such, laws and cultural norms reflected and deeply institutionalized such misogyny and discrimination.
Appropriately for a materially obsessed species, the Ferengi demonstrated interest in cosmetic enhancements
In Ferengi philosophy, the pursuit of profit at any cost was the guiding principle for all traditional Ferengi.
Greed, deceit, distrust, and opportunism were highly prized values among Ferengi
exploitation was the rule. The formation of labor unions was forbidden
Ferengi who broke the law could be punished with the loss of all property and assets
In accordance with their extreme, crony capitalist mindset, Ferengi historical records on 21st century Earth described Wall Street with reverence.
The importance of business was felt even in Ferengi government, as powerful businessmen could easily become powerful political figures
The Ferengi represent the logical evolution of the current US (and arguably global) focus on capitalism and profit, and certainly represent our likely trajectory if conservative movements the world over have their way.
Edit: Forgot to link my source. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ferengi
I like to think, that Star Trek and Fallout play in the same universe/timeline
To blame capitalism for the lack of a Star Trek future is to fundamentally misunderstand why capitalism is the way it is.
Capitalism isn’t some evil calamity that fell from the sky. Human beings created it. No matter what system you make, we will inevitably corrupt it so long as selfishness and greed are hardwired into our primate brains. Communism, socialism, capitalism, whatever. They all need hard rules to work because humans will turn any system into a way to enrich themselves, and given time, they will even erode the rules to do it.
For every extraordinary bit of technology or otherworldly space entity or reality shattering cosmic event to ever show up in Star Trek, the single most unbelievable thing about it is the notion that the human race could ever, collectively, and permanently forego their selfish instincts. Its a society that only works if the human race changes itself on a fundamental, evolutionary level, and does so in unison. Because as long as any human feels a desire for more than they have, or the desire to protect what they do have, we’ll never achieve that.
humans being inherently selfish and greedy is literally a capitalist lie though, like that’s really really obviously not true if you look at how generous and willing to sacrifice themselves for someone else people are.
People aren’t necessarily selfish, but they are tribal. They’ll go above and beyond for the people they know. Their family, friends, neighbours,…
But this sympathy is rarely extended to people further away. From different towns, countries,…
I believe most people are not purely selfish, but selfish people do seem to do extremely well under capitalism. (Not making any statements on other economic systems though)
right, and this is why it’s so important that we have systems that take in mind how humans work.
Capitalism is horrendous for this reason, it explicitly and directly incentivizes the worst parts of humanity and results in a downward spiral of selfishness and dehumanization.
I wouldn’t say “rarely” the entire liberal political movement is based on treating people we don’t know and will never know with decency.
So what’s the excuse of the Soviet Union and China?
you do realize china is a capitalist dictatorship, and the soviet union was also turned into a dictatorship, right?
Pointing at dictatorships and acting like they’re some amazing gotcha for an ideology they claim to follow is something even elementary grade school kids realize is dumb.
China wasn’t capitalist under Mao.
And yeah that’s kinda my point. You cannot have socialism without a dictatorship. That’s like explicitly in Marx’s writings. The term is dictatorship of the proletariat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat
It’s a fundamental cornerstone of Marxism. A dictatorship with a monopoly on force is necessary to transition from a capitalist society to a communist society by forcibly seizing the means of production and using force to prevent counterrevolution.
The problem is that once you give that dictatorial power to a state, you can’t get it back.
You cannot have socialism without a dictatorship.
You can’t have a socialist society under democracy?
You can’t debate reality with commies because they don’t live in reality.
Sure. Maybe capitalism is just serfdom 2.0. We gotta keep it pushing tho. Maybe in a million years we will finally subvert our baser instincts and push past capitalism. Gotta do it for the kids
So by your logic any system is fine with the proper regulations in place. How about we go back to slavery then? Just make sure theasters are benevolent right?
deleted by creator
This subject always makes me wonder if what happened to the sonic washing machine would happen to the replicator, as soon as someone invents it.
Would Capitalism allow the instrument of it’s eventual demise to exist?
I mean, it does work Just not nearly as well as its proponents claim.
It works really well…. Just only for a handful of people…
Yeah, it has its strengths, but I don’t think it’s good for us long term.
I prefer to think of it as a transitory stage. I don’t know what comes next, but I sure as shit know that this ain’t the peak of human civilization.
If we’re following the star trek timeline we’re fucked. The period from the late 2020s until we made contact with the vulcans in 2063 in the star trek timeline is pretty much just war and oppression.
So we’re on trend then.
hard times (ww2) create strong men (quasi-socialists, social democrats)
strong men create good times (post-war boom, worker’s rights laws and unions)
good times create weak men (baby boomers).
weak men create hard times (60% of americans live paycheck-to-paycheck)
I see it as a stepping stone to the inevitable (socialism). But I would not want socialism now.
Capitalism seems to drive innovation too, which with climate change humanity needs pretty desperately.
I’m giving it 100 years. I think at that point capitalism will have done its job. We’ll all be free of many ailments and the world will be connected. Some resolution for climate change will be in effect, and we can take a breather, start transitioning to UBI and then eventually to full socialism. That will bring better social order and welfare and we’ll be in good shape.
Capitalism seems to drive innovation too, which with climate change humanity needs pretty desperately.
oil companies were suppressing information and reseach on climate change because they were maximizing shareholder value.
Yes, capitalism creates incentives - that’s my point. Thanks for proving my point.
Just because some follow a bad incentive doesn’t mean it isn’t worth the other good incentives produced.
Further, disinformation is its own class of problems we need to solve. You could have a socialist government and still lots of disinformation. So that’s not really unique to capitalism at all.
And the bad incentives are the crux of the problem.
Waxing philosophical about letting the extreme negative happen just because of what might come from that great pile of captured capital will lead to species extinction, not evolution.
I think the effect of capitalism on innovation is overstated, honestly. The SovUnion was quite productive scientifically, for all of its other faults and horrors.
capitalism is literally the reason we might not even get another 100 years with society as we know it, so you might want to factor that into your considerations
I think you’re right. I wonder if it’ll take 100 years though. It would be cool to see it in our lifetime.
At the least we need a revival of social democracy. Reaganite neoliberalism since the 80s has done incredible damage to the West.
Turns out, as in basically everything else in existence, you have to strike a balance and can’t just go YOLO on maxing out 1 economic philosophy, food, workout routine, recreational activity, work task, air conditioner knob direction, component of air, fundamental force, universal constant…
But somehow capitalism is the magic fix for all of society and any considering any sort of nuance/tweaking is far-left communist radicalism despite the fact that nobody actually supports getting rid of all regulations and everyone inherently understands that that would be a disaster.
I’d say it works flawlessly. I mean yes, millions die each year from starvation, preventable diseases or equally preventable wars,… buuut it allows a small group of people a life of luxury and excess putting Louis the 14. to shame.
What i’m trying to say is capitalism is a system which maximizes exploitation of people and environment. You could say it is efficient but not fair. Some people value efficiency over fairness, and in capitalism their voices are amplyfied by their ability to influence the media.
Touche, that is indeed a socialist utopia!
It does work. Way more than any communist or socialist ideals
Well, we’ve never seen actual Marxist communism in practice, and Nordic countries seem to be doing pretty well with a bit of socialsm.
Nordic countries don’t have socialism. They have social democracy which is capitalism with a solid social safety net.
Marxism fails from the start because it’s entirely predicated on the state being a monopoly on violence to enforce societal norms. Marx postulated that after a proletarian revolution, the State would be an instrument of the proletariat, used to forcibly take State ownership of all means of production and shift to a socialist mode of operation, after which the role of the State will diminish until it becomes solely a tool of economic coordination and ceases to exist as a State in the traditional sense.
The problem with that is that it still relies on having people running the State, and you end up with the same kind of people that seek power. Only now you have given them absolute power over the entire means of production too.
And that’s why Bakunin was right from the very beginning.
I don’t see how that’s a fair argument, as we’ve never seen real capitalism in practice.
What planet do you live on?
I think we’re going to have to pick up at least some socialist/communist ideals as time goes on. AI and automation is going to force our hand at some point.
I think we should do so as a people, voluntarily.
Socialism has never truly been realized bc capitalists and tyrants ruin it every time SMH. Late stage capitalism is a terrible system and we should be doing everything we can to prevent them from consolidating power to make what little democracy we have left a full blown dictatorship.
Socialism can never be fully realized because it relies on giving the state total control over the entire means of production, and seizing that control through force.
So you either have democratic elections for the leaders of the State, and the common people are stupid and easily swayed by populism, which opens the door for leaders like Stalin or Mao to take power. Or you remove democracy and have it ruled by committee, which does the same thing.
But once you give the State absolute power, you’re fucked anyway.
Socialism doesn’t rely on any state. The workers who actuallyedo labour in the means of production should own them. Because if “the state” (or rather:some bureaucrat) owns the means of production, you’d have the exact same property structure as in capitalism. More specifidally: state capitalism.
Stop believing that BS that the USSR was actually socialist after the Bolsheviks seized power. That was sirply state propaganda that both the Kremlin and Washington each used for their own narrative.
And there are more ways to have democracy than representative democracy. A decentralized democratic structure of communes with delegates instead of representatives would be way more democratic than any current “democracy” of the western world.
Socialism without a state should be the goal.
Socialism is the common/collective ownership of the means of production.
So, instead of a private unit deciding the rules, the collective decides the rules, yes?
If workers are a part of the collective, how do they decide how they’re managed? There’s a lot of answers, but thinking any of them through tends to show the dishonesty inherent to the ideology.
Maybe there’s a strict system of rules to follow. Who decides on those rules, also the collective, right?
Maybe they can vote for certain rules or actions to take place. Who decides when to vote, what to vote for, or how the vote takes place? I guess the answer is still the collective, it has to be or else it isn’t socialism, right?
That would be crazy if we did that for everything in our society right? Like if we just voted for absolutely everything, nothing would ever get done. At some point for certain things we’ll just have to agree there’s a correct answer we don’t have to think about. There’s certain decisions the elective body doesn’t need to constantly make, so the collective would probably appoint elected officials to make decisions in certain categories of expertise.
So, the collective makes collective decisions about how the collective should operate. The collective is the governing body of everything in the collective. The collective IS the state.
If you dilute the definition of the state so much that it loses all its’ characteristics, then anything can be a state, correct. If anything collective can be a state, then my gardening association is a state. Time to print ourown money and declare our garden sovereign territory. /s
My preferred definition of a state is the institution which pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. Another definition I like is based on David Graeber and David Wengrow, in which a modern state combines power over people through violence (police and military), control of knowledge (bureaucracy) and persuation (people believe in states, therefore they work). Neither of these kinds of states are necessary to have a democratic society which makes decisions from the bottom up, instead of top-down.
You claim that thinking things through leads to “dishonesty inherent in the ideology”. Yst, you fail to bring up any examples. Just because you lack creativity, doesn’t mean you’ve disproven that basic democracy doesn’t work. People wouldn’t vote for “absolutely everything”, but people who are affected by political decisions have a say in those decisions, proportional to how much they’re affected. If I don’t care about something, I won’t vote on it. Easy as that.
And think of what you’re advocating: The “private unit” you’re describing is de facto a dictator. No one voted for my boss. Yet they can make any decision without hearing any of the workers out. It is an opt-out dictatorship, yes. But given how much I need that specific job, opting out could mean that I can’t pay my rent to the appartment-dictator. Opting out of that tenancy dictatorship would mean that I don’t have any shelter and probably get harrassed by cops.
I’m not sure that my ideology is the dishonest one, to be frank.
It’s not that it’s a collective, it’s that it’s a body that governs the collective. What I was describing were acts of governance. Since a state is a governing body, I’d say what I described fits that bill just fine. States having a monopoly on violence is a great observation, but it’s not a necessary part of the definition.
The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.
For the record, I have not advocated for anything here. I can tell you can tell I’m not a socialist and that’s fine, but I’m also not a full on capitalist. I just think it’s silly to suggest that socialism doesn’t rely on any state. The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).
Name one state in history which doesn’t have a monopoly on violence. You can use your less specific definition, if you want. But then arguing with other people will probably get nowhere and/or be very confusing.
And since I don’t know what you mean by state, please tell me what you mean by “governing body”.
The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.
I exclusively mean the workers ownership of the means of production. If there are no workers, because for example it’s a patch of land (that doesn’t require heavy farming), then the community who lives near that land and use it to feed themselves owns it. As soon as someone from the upper levels of some hierarchy latter (be it economic or bureaucratic) owns the means of production, I wouldn’t call it socialism anymore.
The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).
You’re always implying that collective ownership somehow leads to top-down rule rather than bottom-up rule. How does that happen? If the whole society is based on bottom-up democratic decisions, where does it get authoritarian?
I also wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of “actual anarchy”. Private ownership needs some kind of monopoly of violence to actually enforce the private ownership. Also: Where do you think private ownership came from? Do you think it naturally emerged from the first time humanity coordinated itself collectively, back when we were hunters and gatherers?
Also, private ownership of the means of production is actually a dictatorship over those means. Or rather: the workers who work in them. If I can tell everyone what to do, or they’ll have to leave, then that’s an opt-out dictatorship. That’s clearly a hierarchy. How can you call that “actual anarchy”? Especially if people need the job or whatever is produced in that factory/workshop/farm to survive.
For further info, I suggest you to read this. It’s very informative. If you prefer videos, there’s this one.
Yes it 100% does. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the fundamental cornerstone of transitioning from a capitalist society to a communist society in Marxist philosophy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat
It requires a revolution by the proletariat overthrowing the government and implementing a single party state rule with absolute power to forcibly seize the means of production, and firmly wield their monopoly on force to prevent counterrevolution.
There’s no arguing against that when talking about Marxist communism. It’s fundamentally integral to it.
You yourself explained why in reality it doesn’t work that way. Bakunin was proven right by history. The state is a tool for pacifying class tensions with violence. That is Marx’s own definition.
That a single party rule is necessary is fan fiction by Lenin. Even Marx himself disliked the vanguardist tendencies or the people calling themselves “Marxist”.
Communism doesn’t need Marx. A classless, moneyless society according to the paradime “To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability” (i.e.: communism) existed way before Marx, for example in indigenous American tribes. Socialism is described as the workers owning the means of production. If the state owns the MOP, the workers’ property relations mean squat.
Marx additionally was proven wrong in his claim that the peasantry can’t be a revolutionary class with the Catalonian revolution. Who introduced proper socialism without a state-aparatus.
That a single party rule is necessary is fan fiction by Lenin.
It’s straight from Marx himself, not Lenin.
Socialism is described as the workers owning the means of production. If the state owns the MOP, the workers’ property relations mean squat.
And who is going to enforce the worker ownership of the means of production without a State having the final say?
Marx additionally was proven wrong in his claim that the peasantry can’t be a revolutionary class with the Catalonian revolution. Who introduced proper socialism without a state-aparatus.
Revolutionary Catalonia lasted less than 10 months as a socialist state before falling. Idk if you can say they successfully implemented proper socialism when they couldn’t even make it through one year.
It’s straight from Marx himself, not Lenin.
Sure it is. /s
And who is going to enforce the worker ownership of the means of production without a State having the final say?
The workers? Why do you think that majority rule over something needs to be enforced?
Revolutionary Catalonia lasted less than 10 months as a socialist state before falling. Idk if you can say they successfully implemented proper socialism when they couldn’t even make it through one year.
Do you know, why it collapsed? Certainly not because they failed to implement socialism and rather went back to * checks notes * a fascist corporate regime.
Ah the classic, “not real socialism” defense.
To not see this defense brought forward you’d have to prevail on capitalists to not rabidly attack anyone to the left of wolf Blitzer, and so far nobody with that sort of money has been able or willing to show that sort of restraint.
Don’t argue any further, you can’t fix stupid.
