Star Trek is canonically socialist according to Strange New Worlds
Star Trek is canonically socialist according to Strange New Worlds
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/27135964
You're viewing a single thread.
copy/pasted from .ml:
at first, i thought you crossposed this to the star trek instance and i was going to warn you that they’re reactionary and delight in banning leftists. lol
the oniony layers of reactionaryism when it comes to star trek has been sadly fascinating to me: i lol’ed with conservative trekkies were lambasted by liberals for calling trek too woke because its newest iterations embraced lgbt and poc characters/stories and then i was just as stunned as those conservatives when those same liberals likewise ostracized leftists trekkies despite celebrating the leftist basis of star trek, like in the “fully automated gay space communism” meme.
i wish i could understood how you can celebrate a popular leftist series; but reject leftists.
I don't reject Discovery because it embraces LGBT or POC characters. I reject it because it's written like shit, especally the parts about LGBTQ characters.
An example of a show around the same time that handled LGBT issues much better than Discovery: Umbrella Academy.
each iteration of the series had problematic parts...
Discovery only had problematic parts.
Discovery has some of my favorite characters of any series. The broader stories might be weak, but Doug Jones as Saru was amazing.
Saru, Stamets, and Reno were the only parts I liked.
i wish reno had more screen time
She actually vanishes mid-scene at one point.
which episode?
I just double checked. She technically disappears between the episodes An Obol for Charon and Saints of Imperfection, but the scene from Obol she's in is directly continued in Saints with no time skip at all. Basically, if you take the scenes in engineering from those two episodes and watch them in real-time, Reno would simply vanish when cutting from one camera angle to another.
Really? I thought Stamets was the worst character. It like they sat down and said "ok, we need a character that's gay and neurotic" and then stopped writing and didn't flesh him out at all
Stamets grew on me over time. I don't know why. Possibly because he was often the only competent character on the ship. As neurotic as he can be, he's still less neurotic than season 1 Saru and has better decision making ability than Burnham.
he's still less neurotic than season 1 Saru
This is accurate
has better decision making ability than Burnham
This too. This is also accurate for every star trek character except maybe gul ducat.
Discovery has some pretty good, a few extremely annoying and a whole lot of very boring characters who’s name I wouldn’t even remember if you told me.
The worst thing about it though, is that it’s pessimistic, dark and over dramatic.
Cognitive dissonance, that society is ideal but I don't like anyone that would being about that society I just want to snap my fingers and end up in post scarcity utopia.
i rue every day that i'm not a graduate of starfleet academy. lol
I think we all do and I do honestly kinda want one of those academy varsity jackets but I know they're gunna be way way more then I'd ever pay.
i tried to buy one from the star trek experience in las vegas; but i could find one that fit, so i settled for the diploma and a graduation class ring. lol
well they didn't do it through political reformation, they did it through fantasy tech. Socialism is quite easy when you have replicators that can make pretty much anything you could ever desire on the spot.
They did do it through political reformation though. The replicators came ~200 years after getting rid of money.
The show this clip is from is set in a time before they had the replicator tech, even.
EDIT: It's set before they perfected it, at least. They don't refer to it as replicators but DIS and the other new prequel shows have fleshed out some of the precursor tech for the replicator in that time.
Fantasy tech that canonically is tightly controlled by various races with better tech and a capitalist system.
Canonically they can say whatever they want to make the federation/humans paragons.
My point is, if we had essentially an infinite supply of food and other goods, wouldn't you feel more comfortable supporting people who would "bring about" that society? Wouldn't you feel a moral imperative to support such a society? Fantasy tech makes it easy (although perhaps not inevitable).
It's quite the opposite but sure.
I would, capitalists would not and do not which is why capitalism persists today let alone some future.
It’s quite the opposite but sure.
how would it be the opposite?
I would
that's all i'm trying to say really. The common reservations people have with socialism are pretty much nullified with tech like replicators.
capitalists would not and do not which is why capitalism persists today let alone some future.
what capitalists want doesn't matter if enough of the proletariat are in favor of socialism. In a world with replicators that would be the vast majority of people, even ones who were hesitant such as yourself.
Because they're are multiple storylines about unmitigated capitalism being evil with the plot hinging around replicator technology and the fact the galaxy is not post scarcity. The federation is and several species and organizations are but as a whole the galaxy isn't. Humans specifically are almost never painted in the best light especially when it comes to capitalism and pre starfleet society.
That's your opinion and one that is largely hinged on humanity being at it's core altruistic which btw starfleet does not agree with you on.
Yes it does, the people with the money have the most power, this hasn't changed and canonically the same is true in universe again they're major multi series story arks.
even ones who were hesitant such as yourself.
There's that assumption again, pointing out what is is does not imply support thereof but sure, strawman it up if you feel that necessary.
There’s that assumption again, pointing out what is is does not imply support thereof but sure, strawman it up if you feel that necessary.
Look we're gonna have to agree to disagree on everything else, but i take exception to being accused of straw manning you. This is no straw man. you said you do not support socialist politicians NOW, but you would if replicators existed. Please clarify if you misspoke.
You: "that society is ideal but I don’t like anyone that would being about that society I just want to snap my fingers and end up in post scarcity utopia."
Me: "My point is, if we had essentially an infinite supply of food and other goods, wouldn’t you feel more comfortable supporting people who would “bring about” that society? Wouldn’t you feel a moral imperative to support such a society?"
You: "I would"
You get you're in a starfleet sub right, we're 100% talking about storylines. It doesn't change anything either way but still.
That's literally the plot of the movement towards the federation.... Again part of a foundational storyline. If the people who are withholding the replicators don't want you to have them you won't have them given the fact they could create robots and weapons until the end of time and people tend to be much easier to kill and harder to replace than an automaton anyway.
Point to where I said I do not support socialist politicians. I'll wait, I imagine your incredible lack of imagination led you to believe the example of cognitive dissonance in my original comment was my actual opinion...
I would feel more comfortable supporting people who would bring about that society, capitalists would not. Hence your clipping of the comment to fit your narrative that didn't make sense of you read the whole comment.
Ed: for reference:
I would, capitalists would not and do not which is why capitalism persists today let alone some future.
You get you’re in a starfleet sub right, we’re 100% talking about storylines. It doesn’t change anything either way but still.
you get that we can have discussions and make comments that don't directly relate to any storylines, right?
Point to where I said I do not support socialist politicians. I’ll wait, I imagine your incredible lack of imagination led you to believe the example of cognitive dissonance in my original comment was my actual opinion…
So you're saying this isn't your opinion? How am I supposed to know that? This is something you could have clarified in the earlier post where i quoted it.
“that society is ideal but I don’t like anyone that would being about that society"