In case you don’t know, they explicitly use the term socialist to describe the Federation economy in SNW. I was wondering if ppl liked or hated it? I like it personally since it’s not a dodge like “new world economy”

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Social ownership of what? Resources? Means of production? Neither of those means anything when replicators are a thing.

      There are a million different definitions of socialism depending on who you ask. I gave one above but I’m not claiming it’s the only one. However it is ultimately an economic model, and it doesn’t make sense to apply it in a world where economics is meaningless because the laws of thermodynamics have been broken.

      • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Resources and means of production are both things in the Federation. We see mining operations and manufacturing facilities well into the 24th century.

        And with only one unfortunate exception that I can think of, matter replication is treated as a net energy loss - it isn’t free.

        • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          And with only one unfortunate exception that I can think of, matter replication is treated as a net energy loss - it isn’t free.

          Well sure, it’s energy negative, but they also have basically free energy. We see in Voyager that as soon as they are cut off from that free energy, they regress to a market-based economy by like the third episode of the show. Doesn’t seem very socialist to me.

          • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            as they are cut off from that free energy

            They were “cut off” because they no longer had access to the supply lines that provided them with fuel. That’s not “free energy” at all.

            • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yeah that’s my point. As soon as they no longer had access to the magical impossible logistics network of virtually free energy, they immediately regressed to capitalism with a side order of martial law.

              • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                I don’t think what they were doing in the Delta Quadrant would meet many (good) definitions of “capitalism.”

                And it’s difficult to say how “martial law” could be imposed on a command structure that was already militaristic.

      • trolololol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Then explain what the Orion syndicate does for a living. Or how can ferengi pursue profit. Or how captains owned private transport ships and need to take things from one place to the other.

        There’s always people who want more than they have, and know who’s going to provide them that.

        • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Neither the Orion Syndicate nor the Ferengi Alliance are members of the Federation.

          • Repple (she/her)@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            True for most of the franchise, but the ferengi are eventually. Also, I’m not sure if the federation prevents member worlds from continuing to have their own internal economies that could be market based. My guess is that they don’t and the ferengi will continue to use money for a long time.

    • trolololol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’re right.

      There’s a bad habit of calling socialists the countries that should be called something like"capitalist but a bit to the left"

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Hi.

        That’s called “socialdemocracy” and it’s been around for centuries. It’s actually older than the marxist concept of socialism, if you’re gonna get pedantic about it.

        I get that Americans have completely sandblasted off any remaining meaning in the word “socialism”, first by having conservatives use it as an insult and then by having weird US lefties get all purity test about it, but most of the world has a pretty clear picture of socialdemocracy, it’s not that ambiguous. Most socialdemocrat parties across the planet are called some version of “Socialist Party”, “Labour Party” or “Worker’s Party”. It’s a thing.

        So no, it’s not a bad habit. It’s just… what that’s called. It does get easy to mix up with the Marxist concept of socialism, which is likely why most marxist parties advocating for a socialist society are called “Communist Party” instead. The bad habit is to not challenge the fundamentally conservative, deliberate confusion between the two that any range of neoliberals and protofascists continue to use to pretend milquetoast socialdemocratic policy is some form of revolutionary action.

        Man, US politics are so weird.

      • Handles@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Also countries that probably started out socialist but took a sharp turn into authoritarianism and under-the-hood oligarchy… You know who you are.