Its hard to fit the Federation into today's economic models because it is essentially a post-economic society. Something refreshing in a society which feels increasingly like it is just an economy.
that's just communism minus the usual sabotage from capitalist superpowers. if the ferengi were constantly trying to undermine the cooperative benefit of the federation than it would be pretty accurate
I noticed something about the socialist credit pay system is it shows up what you are buying and if they don't think you should have it they can withhold you from haven it. It is very controlling of your life and dictates what you can own. Socialist are a form of Borg that must be resisted if you are a grownup and don't want to be a treated like a minor all your life. Myself believe can run my life better then the government because everything they touch turns to crap. In short and is a fact cash gives you more freedom.
Star Trek claims to be in a post-scarcity era. Economics deals with dealing with scarcity. If we're post-scarcity being post-economic would follow. Reality is that there peoples wants tend to expand as their needs are met so "post-scarcity" societies is not terribly realistic...
Well, since most houses had replicators, and "energy" was free... There's not a lot you can be in need for. The ability to make any kind of food, drink,or alcoholic beverage.. The ability to make clothing, or other items. Its less about a nanny state and more about the simple fact that, with household replicators, you don't NEED money.
Yes, but replicators didn't really exist in Star Trek until TNG era. Both in enterprise and in the original series there were food dispensary areas the people worked in(the chef, whomever put those sandwiches in those cupboards). So how did the people of earth actually end capitalism?
@@sarrenwolfe4613 Prior to replicators we had "protein re-sequencers". and while real food tasted better, it ended one of the key crisis. Next, was power. Space travel gave humans access to tons of resources, including lithium and other key resources that wars were fought over. With food, water, power, and resources covered... With the ability not just to colonize mars and the moon, but to actually commute to the moon, with it taking less then half an hour to get there... and about an hour to get to mars. well most of the problems, the basic needs... vanish.
you could also de-replicate things you don't need and convert it back to energy. So when you travel, you just take only the cloths on ur body. When you get to your destination just replicate what you need. If you grew up in this kind of lifestyle, your morals, the way you think will be very different to today's world.
The credits only ever seemed to get used when they were operating outside the federation, such as in the case of the tribbles, the bolt of cloth, even the wormhole, because of course, while the Federation has moved beyond money, plenty of civilizations (ESPECIALLY the Ferengi) still use currency as a foundation of their economy.
germanvisitor2 by governments that measure numbers in bullshit categories as success? Absolutely that's terrifying. " what race and gender is patient A? Indeed? how many of them have we saved this year?" Ah I see we've already met our quota. We will make patient A comfortable and tell the family there's nothing more we can do for him then. Next!"
Excellent video. The conditions that created United Earth, then the Federation, needed to be pointed out. It is the ultimate example of a "Post-Scarcity" society. This does not mean however, we will eventually look like United Earth, though desirable it may be. Does this mean we need a World War III and a first contact by highly advanced extraterrestrial civilization? I guess the future generations after me will determine that.
it's "mankind". it has been the word to encompass all of humanity, both male and female, or otherwise. everybody knows it, everybody understands it, and everybody uses it when they want to refer to everyone else without distinction. the only ones that are triggered by the use of "mankind" are SJW feminists, who can't understand how a word containing the word "man" can be used to describe not-men, so they go out to state that they want equality and go against the very word that provides the equality they look for. frankly, I can't understand how those women exist in the first place, but, to each their own.
Does make you wonder, the term human, mankind, woman, male, female and so on was done at a time when men dominated this world and women had little to no say it in, now it's unlikely that thoes terms would change but it makes you wonder if it should if we truly want a equal world, but somehow I doubt it would change because it's too ingrained into us now.
I love Star Trek. One of the main reasons I love it is because of the "superior moral code". In the Star Trek universe it never seems from a moral "high horse" or a condescending place, but from a true place of unity amongst all humankind and all species. I envy the apparent utopia that mankind and Earth has achieved in the Star Trek universe. I do believe a higher moral code and sense of unity amongst all of humankind is the only way we can approach that status in real life. I truly believe that we can never reach for greatness as a human race if we are squabbling amongst ourselves over who has the right to food, shelter, and health care. #humanityfirst 😉✊🏾✌🏾
The Federation got prideful and full of itself. It patted itself on the back for creating "paradise" and an "evolved" culture. The Federation's "Golden Era" spoiled its citizens and made them soft. They thought they could handle anything but they nearly got wiped out by the Borg. The "evolved" Federation also sold out its own colonists along the Cardassian border when it ceded those colonies to Cardassia to avoid a war. When those colonists formed the Maquis to protect themselves, the Federation sent in Starfleet to stop them because they were causing problems with the Cardassians.
yeah because capitalism operates on the basic principle that everything is finite and so has value dictated generally by how scarce it is. but when you can simply replicate things, its a form of post scarcity, to really say that the federation is really anywhere on the economic scale i think is a misunderstanding, it is a paradigm that cannot be applied to them
Venom Geek Media 98 Even with enough technology capitalism will still survive even with the capacity to replicate. Articial scarcity or abundance are the escence of capitalism as a all
ShinigamiInuyasha777 which is why many believe that production will be nationalized. When we reach a point where labor is not necessary, mass unemployment would force nationalization. We are already seeing many of the replicator's purposes with 3d printing, cad auto mills, and even some food production. With the near future of ai driven vehicles, fully automated distribution networks, and online stores and financial services, we are very close to removing to human element to production, distribution, retail, and customer service.
"You know, in some ways, you're even worse than the borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people, and they don't even know it." Michael Eddington to Captain Sisko in DS9 episode "For the Cause", Season 4 Episode 22" - Eddington to Sisko in DS9 Thanks to Phillip Aboody for tracking down the exact quote and episode!
I think the description of the Federation was fairly accurate, but as much as I dislike the Federation, I think they are probably closer to the libertarian axis than authoritarian. Yes the military and federal government existed, but they don't seem to have really any control over the citizens. People seem pretty free to pursue whatever interests they want, be it starfleet or farming. And yes there are a few rules in Starfleet, but the organization is quasi-military, so it makes sense for there to be a few regulations and restrictions that probably aren't present in civilian life. Perhaps it really hinges on who controls the replicators. If the people are dependent on government replicators to continue their utopian existence, then maybe there's an argument that they're a benevolent authoritarian government, but if replicators are readily available for private ownership, then I don't see much in the way of an authoritarian federation.
Well being just a little into the authoritarian scale doesn’t mean they are really authoritarian. If you look up where today’s governments like the USA, UK etc are, they are quite a bit further into the authoritarian end of the scale (but on the right), so the federation would be more libertarian than the USA today
Fair enough. The presence of replicators and an allegedly post-scarcity society I think really muddles the issue, so I can see there being arguments for both sides. So while Federation citizens seem pretty free to do what they want, how much of that freedom is dependent on the government's good graces is hard to tell when their internal politics, law enforcement, and secret services are rarely covered in detail.
IDK, I kind of think the Federation is more authoritarian than what the video rated them as. The Federation seems to have quite a bit of rules and regulations, the bulk of which I'm wagering we didn't seen on screen because they didn't show civilian life that much. I mean the video said Federation Citizens had the right to choose, but that's kind of a false choice if all choices is owned by the Federation since they own all industries and jobs. Why was there so few civilian owned ships? I can only think of Seven of Nine's parents having a small shuttle sized ship, the Federation probably owns all the ships and nobody has access to space unless through the Federation. All scientist and engineers seem to work for the Federation too, this maybe is why all their tech never really changes nor improves very fast, they aren't very creative nor innovative because they're stagnant due to all the rules and the monopoly. Heck they even have a Warp Speed limit, I wonder how they police that and punish offenders. Since nobody has any money and everybody works for the Federation I suppose demotion/court martial. If you're independent, I suppose they'll impound (steal) your ship or send you off to rehabilitation (prison). I thinking all the authoritarian control is hidden it's rules and regulations and substitution words like "impound" and "rehabilitation", sort of like how "re-education" is code for "brainwashing".
I don't think the Federation is as overtly sinister as you describe. I think they are more along the lines of a Bread and Circuses empire. Despite the claims that the Federation is post-scarcity, it's pretty clear that not everybody can own their own personal Enterprise (the ship, not a business). Some sort of limitation, be it resources, labor, or something else prevents everyone from being able to order their own starship, just as very few private individuals in our world can afford a private airplane. However, the Federation keeps the populace happy with distractions such as the holodeck and unlimited small-scale replication of food and small luxuries. After all, why worry about politics and galactic affairs when you can eat filet mignon all day, spend the rest in your own virtual paradise, and never have to work a day in your life if you choose not to? By keeping the populace happy, they can stay blissfully ignorant of all the cosmic terrors that threaten humanity on a weekly basis like the Borg, the Q, the Dominion, the actual god Apollo, and that one satellite that almost destroyed Earth because it was pissed it couldn't find any whales to chat to. Without the Federation to provide the bread and circuses, there would be nothing but apocalypse cults.
I don't expect civilians flying around in Galaxy Class starships, but given the population size there should be a lot of privately owned smaller starships and large shuttle size ships roaming around; Like the privately own non-military alien ships they encounter frequently. Even looking at the civilians they seem to have a total lack of personal belongings/tech when they're "off world", let alone any weapons or equipment. You also get people like Data's dad who seemingly builds Data/Lore/B4/etc "off the books", makes you wonder why so. Not to mention his ancestor who worked on the enhanced humans, yeah that's against the law. Maybe a lot of things are against the law too but aren't stated like eugenics. I'm not saying the Federation is sinister, but it's overly restrictive which isn't libertarianism like. The civilians maybe able to play in the holodecks all day, but you'd figure with that power they'd be innovating the crap out of things like how people do on the Internet. They don't even seem to have the creativity to do real risque stuff with the holodeck, everybody's shocked at Barclay just duplicating other people. Everybody's boxed in by the Federation rules and regulations, everybody feels like sheep. That's how it's authoritative. Also it could be just the protagonist officers who are more relaxed with authority, many times we've seen other captains and especial admirals overtly sinister or more strong fisted with authoritarianism.
Great job Ben, I think you pretty much got this exactly right from my point of view. The only thing that I think you could have delved more into is the idea of 'a post-scarcity' society. I honestly believe that we have most of the pieces of technology we require to develop a post scarcity society (on the verge of efficient renewable energy sources, desalination plants, vertical farming, additive automated high precision manufacturing, etc) but we lack the political will to invest fully. I really liked how you said there are two components to the formation of a society like the Federation: technology and morality. I think that the two are intertwined. In terms of morality the human mindset is still set in hunter gatherer / tribal supremacist mode and not in a mode that says if we all pool our resources we can develop something that can give us even more resources than we could ever need. Fear of scarcity still dominates our mindset, and those with the most power in our society seem to be the most afraid to lose what they have and always want more to alleviate that fear, to the point of not recognizing that the way things currently are may be unsustainable long term. Anyway, great video!
For them energy manufacturing is no problem... There has never been an energy crisis. Heck in Star trek the voyage home they could rig solar sails to keep their life support systems running.
Memory alpha has a great explanation of credits. It's more of a centrally planend rations system. Latnium and non-federation currency is for trade outside the federation.
Can Latinum be replicated by Federation technology? Could somebody out on the fringes of society with a power source and a replicator sit there and literally print money? It probably wouldn't effect the Federation, but isn't that a potential way to inflate or devalue currency and destroy rival societies?
I'm sure they could but remember it does cost energy and if they do it could be traced back to them (don't ask me how but it does sound like the start to a DS9 or NG show :0 and most replicators probably have it banned from them doing it like some advanced printers are for currency (seriously look it up stupid as !@#@)
Alex Vogel The reason why compressed Latinum is so popular is exactly because it cannot be replicated. Or more than not being replicable the replicated ones are different from the non-replicated ones.
Memory Alpha has zero explanation of credits. There is a page called "Federation credits", but the mere title isn't backed by a source. There is also zero wording about a "centrally planned rations system". Where do you get that from even?
To better themselves is not collectivism. Collectivism would be to work for others. The Star Trek phrase includes yourself which means it refers to improving your condition. Furthermore, you do not need to have a 'state owns everything' policy when it comes to common goods. For example, the restaurant Sisko's in DS9 is owned by Benjamin's father. Also people own furniture which they can bean in and out of their homes. Also Kirk seems to have different interesting residences over the years, which would not work that way in a state controlled property model, because he acquired them (either by inheritance or by privilege, lets say an admiral can have such quarters when they come available).
Yep... Picard's family owned a vineyard... other crew members owned land. I'd place the Federation below the Auth/Lib line because it seems to focus more on personal liberties as the norm and only falls to Federation liberties when those break down.
Even without money, there will still be people that enjoy creating furniture, or food, or pictures. The post-scarcity nature of the Federation probably frees up many more people to exercise their creative impulses and even without money, fame will still be a sort of currency. Being known across multiple planets as an artist/craftsperson will likely have a serious amount of cache.
If you look at your own references, it looks like credits are only used to trade outside of Earth. Also the Federation != Earth, while on Earth there might be/is no currency present, there might be on other planets. Furthermore, Sisko's transporter credits limit the use of transporters. This limitation might apply to all citizens of Earth or are only a limitations for young Starfleet cadets in order to move their focus away from home and onto their study location. As far as I understand it, there is not some sort of basic income, which only a quick fix for our current system, you can use all resources either directly if you want or have to share limited resources in the same way people had done in the past with common goods. While a basic income only covers you income side, a system portrait like that in Star Trek also addresses the need to be useful and respected. And the latter is as important as an income. Without it people become depressed.
Perhaps its futuristic manorialism. No money because everybody gets a hectare of land. A fifth of this must be dedicated to the residence, the rest can be invested in businesses. For example, you invest direct land in a community fund and the federation conglomerate (think holding company of various different types of companies in all sectors). You now own 0.05% of the community businesses and are entitled to that much of goods and services, and 0.0002% of the federation conglomerate. You can now shop at the federation stores for that share. No money, only land. Businesses want land to build their business.
The main task for raising society to such a level is the moral premise that we, as individuals, should take care to benefit all of humanity, regardless of our own enrichment.
The Star Trek Federation's regime is nowhere in the 2D political spectrum, because it also lends half of it's economical and ethical characteristics from anarchist federations, like the one in Spanish civil war of 1936. But since the better nature of humanity Star Trek portrays rejects dogma as it embraces practicality, they force it to be flexible around different elements of regimes like the one you describe. You can't respond rapidly in some issues without any form central command, so there stands the partial hierarchy.
@@anonamouseanonamouse5443 Chaos AND dictatorship at the same time? You have to choose already, is absolute capitalism ''freedom'' from the tyranny of state, or is absolute control of the market (as in a marxist economy) ''chaos''? And I'm not even a marxist! Neither anarchism is necessarily related to marxism. So no, fortunately for you, we're not all the same.
@@anonamouseanonamouse5443 So does Coca-Cola. The only common colour is red, which indeed symbolises communism, but not exclusively the Soviet one. When combined with black, then it's anarcho-communism, which includes absence of state. Antifascists exist in a very wide political spectrum, it's not like ''Antifa'' is a party or something. And I believe in something like a direct democracy, where people decide about WHAT is going to be, not WHO. So, it's even less of a dictatorship, than our current system... with lots of historical examples and even state-countries in northern Europe are practicing it right now, so not a wonderland either. As for the rest, you can always open a wikipedia page.
I'm all for equality and more accurate terms to describe things, but...peoplekind? We already have good words like humanity(until we encounter other sentient species), people(until we encounter a sentient species that can't be classified as a person). No need to make up words when we don't have to.
Dude, you proved Marx right when you tried to debunk him; a power vacuum occurred and thus allowed the Proletarian Revolution of the Star Trek world after WW3. Think…1917. Opportunist, sure, but still required force, but WITHOUT violence. One does not preclude the other.
I've been watching your channel, and this is the video that got me to subscribe. Thanks for explaining what the Federation is better than I can. It's not a goose-stepping communist society, but it is heavily socialist. Keep making great content!
"It's not a goose-stepping communist society, but it is heavily socialist." 1) Communists never "goose-stepped." The Nazis were capitalists. So, just amazing level of irony there. 2) Star Trek is 100% communist. The MF'ers LTIERALLY do no even use currency. There is no "profit motive" for any humans ANYWHERE. Its all about "reputation is the new currency," and "the point of your life is to better yourself and enrich yourself with experiences." I can't even describe to you a more communist utopia than what ST is.
@@thaddeusstevens7897 *sigh* No no, just no. 1) Nazis extent of private property rights extended only so far as "until the state needed to use it" or in the case of industry, they worked at the behest of the party. Nazis were very much socialist, everything was done for the perpetuation of the German people and power, with it's party and leadership at the fore front. 2) Communism espouses in a stateless, classless, borderless society, which the Federation clearly is not, it has a state, it has a government, it has borders, classes (in fact a very clear and enforced differential between Private citizen and Government official, which is why Section 31 came as such a surprise to most people), the rule of law and it has concept of private property, the right of self determination. In fact not only that but also to accept personal responsibility and responsibility toward the truth. These qualities are very much absent in communist societies where the individual is supplanted to the will of the collective. In fact if you want an example of a perfect communist society in trek, you need to look no further than the Borg. The Federation is at best, a technologically advanced, post scarce Libertarian Utopia through the lens of a Political Idealist. Nothing wrong with idealism but lets set our expectations appropriately.
@@AgentExeider "2) Communism espouses in a stateless, classless, borderless society, which the Federation clearly is not" So you've never once watched an episode of Star Trek...
the more I think about it the more I realize that our economic models dont really work for the UPF as it is a post scarcity society and we have never seen one
@@Vatt-Ghern libertarian is a political model and socialism requires a finite number of resources (post-scarcity through automation might be the end-goal of socialism but by then it becomes something else). Aside from that we would generally define the Star Trek society as a post-scarcity utopia.
Eh, you overshot on the economic axis. We do see independently owned and operated businesses like the restaurant owned by SIsko’s family or the freighter operated by Cassidy Yates. As for the Fleet, the _Akira_ class appears to be an earlier design as the registry of the USS _Thunderchild_ is less than that of the USS _Galaxy_ which was launched in the late 2350s/early 2360s. Only other major gripes I have are about First Contact, the size of the Federation, and Section 31. The Vulcan _didn’t_ give us tech, they acted more like teachers to help us develop our own technology. Size wise the Federation is a bit larger than the 150 planets would suggest. Those are full members, but each of those members has their own colonies and some people set up their own independent colonies within Federation space. Section 31 on the other hand, in the regular timeline we don't actually know how strong they are. Almost all of the information on them comes from unreliable narrators who have a vested interest in making Section 31 seem more powerful. The starship thing was only in the Kelvin timeline in probably the worst Trek movie. Still, overall a good video trying to find the alignment of the Federation given it's hard to pin down a post scarcity society's alignment. And I wouldn't say _Discovery_ is all that murky. In the end it is still the idealism that won out, it's just that it was tried to the breaking point during the Federation-Klingon War. Sort of how it was put to the test during the Dominion War. It just stuck out more because we didn't have a few years of stories to establish a status quo first.
Now that is an interesting question. It appears to operate like a traditional restaurant, however that might just be for rustic charm or authenticity. Sort of like how Tom Paris talked about how during the rare cases where you get mugged on Earth, the criminal returns your stuff to you after a little bit. Or like how we go through painstaking efforts today to recreate Old West, Renaissance, Victorian era, etc period environments.
I think the most reasonable explanation would be that right after Kirk's era the system was changed so that all Starfleet ships capable of independent operation were given an NCC designation instead of just what was traditionally referred to as a starship (which in Kirk's time appears to have been the equivalent of a capital ship). So only a fraction of those in the registry are active ships of classes that would be considered combat capable. `The registries are always going to be confusing. I think they have several ranges of numbers being used at the same time, for different classes.` That's a common theory, but it breaks down when you start analyzing the registry numbers. There's no one range for a given class of starship. But I do know the origin of that theory, it's from back during TOS after Matt Jefferies designed the _Enterprise_ and was trying to work backwards to come up with a meaning for her registry number. One of the ideas what that it meant 1st ship, 17th design, but that idea was abandoned during TOS's run and more nails kept being added to the coffin with each successive series and especially the remastered TOS series.
They absorbed the most useful and/or functional attributes of modern systems. Barring what essentially amounts to space age magic in the form of replicators and overall sci-fi born quality of life, they do a fairly good job. If we could ever supplement those space magics with actual functioning tech/systems itd be pretty cool to see a ruling body similar to the Federation. Ofc... new problems we cant yet foresee are always in the cards.
I know the real reason the federation doesn't have money. After an epic space battle between 2 economist, one was stranded in a paradise cave with his ex girlfriend and son. Defeated, he could only scream the name of his better opponent. KKKEEEEYYNNEEESSSS!!!!
Actually, the answer is: Unknown. The reason is that we always see things from the perspective of people in Starfleet, which is at least in part a military organization. Its like trying to place the US on the political scale by ONLY watching members of the US Army.
I'd argue that there was an overthrow of the social system in Star Trek. It was the 3rd world war. Marx never specifically said you needed an October revolution to introduce communism. So the idea of communism in those circumstances would be huge.
The two real technological hurdles Star Trek fairly conveniently made it over were essentially limitless energy and the ability to convert energy into matter as required. It then placed generally highly moral people in control (something that seems unlikely as the path to absolute power is usually over the bones of others). When everything is abundant everything loses value, and the dedicated pursuit of it meaningless. That left people with time to pursue other things.
What's great about the differences between 'Wars and 'Trek is that 'Wars deals in politics on a deeper level, while 'Trek deals with social and philosophical ideals.
I think the federation and starfleet should be considered seperate politically. starfleet answers to the federation and is a bit authoritarian, but that has almost no bearing on the average citizen under the federation. They are mostly free to do whatever, making their lives much more libertarian.
Clearly the people of that age have matured beyond any measure we could drum up. They proved it can work and provide peace. Although it is fiction, and fiction is a reflection of our humanity.
The transporter credits were something Sisko said he used to beam back over when he was a cadet. I always assumed that it applied to cadets, and cadets only, if you wanted to beam anywhere as a cadet you had to pay. Or maybe only at the academy transporter station. Because military and discipline and whatever. I mean just look at Nog when he comes back to the station. He's like "bedtimes at ten". Look me in the eyes and tell me it is out of character for the academy to go "oh you can only transport so many times per month". Alternatively they might be something used to limit the amount of time people use transporters but I prefer my theory because it is more interesting, saying who gets to use the transporters how much is dumb and because one of the things I love about Trek is a world where we no longer have many in any way. It is said so EXPLICITLY in both TNG, DS9 and I believe Voyager even dates when currency got abolished. Wait was there a money abolishment movement? How EXACTLY did it happen?
Seems like it was probably encouraged, through social programs, given rights and what not, but not 100% necessary for being a member. Particularly for new members, like Bajor who's resources were a bit more limited due to a recent brutal occupation. Even with federation help, was probably going to take a while before their government would really be in a position they could provide for all adequately with out a money fall back in case of logistical and resources limitations and what not. No point excluding them while they're actively working on that stuff.
what i remember from star trek is that there were civilizations that used a kind of money so the feddies quite possibly had access to money for when they interact with those civilizations, but their inner works were as left as you can get, and the key why it works? within their economy they didn't have money,a true utopia for sure
The MOST important distinction that we have to make about the Earth society in Star Trek (and the Federation) is that it is a post-scarcity civilization. So functionally, it can't honestly be compared to any current Earth political system. You would have to make up something new, calling it something like a Techno-Socialist Republic, or something like that. The system only works because of the magic-like technology available.
I think that ultimately disco had the most complex relationship to the star fleet/ federation morals, in that the entire season was about challenging them in a wartime atmosphere especially when they brought in the mirrorverse but ultimately at the end reaffirming their principles.
I have always found that quote by Spock the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", dangerous thinking. The most fragile minority is the individual, who's rights should be respected and not compromised my a majority, and of course as long as that individual is not harming anyone.
This gave me flashbacks back to Harold in fallout 3, how they wanted to take advantage of him thanks to his FEV based mutations to make tree's grow (like the great Deku Tree from windwaker). The biggest problem is that Harold suffers, he can't even do basic human things and he was surrounded by religious zealots that never listened and always treated him like some kind of enigma/test.
Your comment about how this form of communism is only attainable with enough resources is unfounded. We have enough resources to feed, home, and provide healthcare to everyone, yet we aren't doing it.
What about Captain Kirk's line from the original Series ("Scotty, you've earned your pay for the week!")? Does this mean that Starfleet officers get paid?
To be fair, there is a century between TOS and TNG, so things could have changed between the two series, there is more then enough time for big economical and financial reforms.
I would say that on the economic axis they are a little more right than you put them. Picard's brother and Sisko's father _owned_ a vineyard and a restaurant respectively. So privet ownership of businesses does exist, just on smaller scales. P.S. And Cassidy Yates freighter, I forgot about that one.
I think the economic key is the replicator technology. Without that everything else would fall apart. Production is basically free, thus eliminating poverty and making major projects like starships suddenly affordable in the new, higher gear economy. There is still exchange, but it no longer needs to be quantified on the level of individual transactions. The question I have about the federation is how does it treat individuals who want to opt out? The requirement that worlds must have global governments seems pretty authoritarian to me, as it precludes the possibility of dissenting communities. What happens if the citizens of some random city, say decide to get together and make their own starship that represents only their own community and not as part of the Federation or even Earth?
Good job. I'd like to see how the other Star Trek powers fit on your compass including the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Ferengi, and particularly the Borg!
Xavier Lomeli "Educate myself"? I'll remain "uneducated" if it means not being presumptuous and condescending as you are. Look at the legislation (which is 100% equality of outcome as it's all public sector) he's sponsoring/floating before you go trying to lecture anyone about him.
I am very well versed in his policy positions, however since there are so many, and your response rather vague, why don't you give me examples of particular policies and proposals that you disagree with or consider to be socialistic, and if so, why they are bad for the nation.
Xavier Lomeli Let's see. He has never held any position in the private sector nor provided a good or service that people would pay for, and the lion's share of his sponsored legislation is reflective of someone who foolishly and/or arrogantly thinks they can bring market forces to heel while still trying to claim some inane distinction between "socialism" and "democratic socialism" (spoiler: demsoc > socialism > communism as per all of the literature). I'm under no obligation to point out specific examples, because you crypto-commies always spin and deflect to no end and it's therefore pointless. But against my better judgment, there's always his talk about guaranteeing people jobs under government patronage and "free" tertiary education/healthcare. Paid for by whom? Because newsflash: The math is clear on the point that even if you taxed all of those evil millionaires and billionaires down to their last cent, you wouldn't have enough to run the government for an entire fiscal year or even make a dent in the TRILLIONS in unfunded liabilities AS IS, let alone fund all of his ridiculous big government nonsense.
Rod Diaz To counter your argument that he is unqualified to discuss economic matters simply b/c he never held a classical blue collar job until his 40s, he actually did hold various jobs such as working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications after graduating college until his political career lifted off. Secondly, to counter your argument that there is no distinction between social democracy and socialism, well I kindly ask you to compare socially democratic nations with hybridized economic models (balance between capitalism and socialism) such as Norway, Denmark, Australia and Germany (otherwise known as the nations with the highest quality of life and happiness scores) to authoritarian, communist nations such as Venezuela or North Korea (where the state has nationalized all means of production). Furthermore, I am not a communist myself, I describe myself as a hybridist, since I see the benefits of both capitalism and socialism. You do to, you just don't see it. The military for example, alongside with the police and firefighting departments are all socialist programs footed by the taxpayer. Furthermore, by "free" tertiary education/healthcare, Sanders is simply proposing that the United States follow in the footsteps of the aforementioned success stories (Canada, Germany, Sweden, UK, etc) and establish taxpayer-funded American equivalents. Rather than the American taxpayer footing the gargantuan bill for these endless, contrived wars and continuing to feed the parasitic military industrial complex, or rather than the government continuing to provide massive subsidies to tax-evading multinational corporations (the true welfare queens), why not chose someone who will re-prioritize the discretionary budget more towards funding beneficial social programs to provide more Americans with opportunity to lift themselves from poverty. The math is actually on my side, single payer healthcare systems are much more efficient and cost-effective than privatized systems due to how having one payer rather than many individual private insurers cuts down on overhead and drastically reduces the need for advertising. Plus Trump's increase to the military budget alone this year could easily fund free college.
The federation itself probably uses some sort of currency to trade with other societies and gives its member an allotment based on their job. So, if you’re in Star fleet, you have an allotment of credits that the federation will honor if you purchase something while you’re away from federation space. Citizens that are unemployed probably have a minimal allotment or don’t need one because they live in a post scarcity society.
Yeah I'd think there are jobs that make money if you want to (freighter pilot like Cassidy Yates comes to mind) or you could move to a human colony that isn't in the UFP (yes they exist) and work there. But as Picard put it "We no longer concern ourselves with the compiling of material things."
Star Trek's United Federation of Planets is a leftest paradise, and something we should strive towards. Without growing up watching Star Trek played a large role in teaching me to treat all people equally, regardless of race or gender or disability. Think of Geordi La Forge in TNG. He's black and he's _blind_, yet he is the chief engineer, holds respect among the crew, and has deep friendships with people who are not at all like him.
This is why I think the credits are a sort of temporary allotment given to people to spend on other cultures or where energy is limited. An away team would, for example, be given 20 credits of local currency that they could spend depending on the diplomatic nature and stance the federation was portraying. Once the away mission is done, unspent credits go back to the federation for reallocation to other missions. The Federation would have some kind of central bank of member currencies that could be given or traded for Federation Services in societies where currency is King. For instance, if the Ferengi alliance wants Federation assistance on some future date to escort a convoy, they could assure it with a donation to the fund which will end up probably being spent on some other away mission or diplomatic event.
We see the crew members in TNG " shopping " for wedding gifts for Keiko's & O'Brien's wedding. I think they are deliberately vague on money & politics so it can be fluid depending on the situation. Does Sisko's dad own his restaurant? Does he run it to get extra credits? Do the people who dine there pay? Tip? The people who work there ( cooks & waiters ) get paid or extra rations? Kirk & Janeway have a poll apartments in S.F. The list goes on and on.
Here is all you need to know UNSC AND the Federation are New World Order propaganda. These series are one world orders, one world governmenters thus they are not to be trusted. The franchises are cancer and are anti individual and anti freedom. Globalism is meant to be destroyed not to be encouraged or viewed as entertainment.
Star Trek is a great story and one of the reasons it is loved is it shows a positive future survival of our race. The key being that it is a story, fiction, it is not real but only entertainment. It is fun to look at it politically but do not make the mistake of thinking that it is proof that any specific economic or political ideology is correct or incorrect. Doryun's comment is correct that there are big holes in the Star Trek economic system. It is an idealistic system and intended for entertainment not real implementation on our planet.
I know this is nitpicky but I'm not 100% convinced Sisko's transporter credits were a form of currency but are instead just an allotment of back-and-forths to keep cadets on campus. They want the cadets who will soon be on deep-space assignments to get used to being away from home and to get used to being around other SF officers. In terms of their abundance, don't forget they had millions of uninhabited planets, moons, and asteroids to exploit for resources. It wasn't just replicators and anti-matter reactors driving their civilization.
You definitely have my "like". This video is a well considered, well structured, and easily comprehended political analysis to trek lovers, a group who may be the most optimistic people in the world concerning the future of humanity. Their understanding of these issues is vital, especially considering the reactive climate that has been sweeping the world. Serious kudos.
I seriously don’t believe that Star Trek’s Economy is that far left. Probably more like Capitalist China, but still . . . I my first piece & point is Jon Luc Picard’s brother Robert who runs a vineyard & winery. And the there is Benjamin Lafayette Sisko’s father, Joseph Sisko, who runs a restaurant called Sisko's Creole Kitchen. Thus, even though I will not disagree that the most basic necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, & more are provided. Luxuries are earned, not given so freely.
Not exactly, Dwayne Morton. So far, food, clothing, & other ‘essentials’ seemed free. However, in an episode of “Next Generation, The” where Miles O'Brien was getting married, Worf was at a place where it seemed more like a shopping replicator rather than an ‘essential(s)’ replicator.
Yes exactly! Seems in the ST world skill with a replicator means you pretty much get what ever you want. A few things like hand made wine or a special meal made in the old way are nice luxuries but I could see billions of people being very happy with the output of their ST issue replicator. If we only had that luxury ourselves.
But there is a problem with that, Dwayne Morton. Even though daily life’s necessities are met & provided, that doesn’t actually guarantee that the people would actually be motivated to actually earn their lives. IF we relied too heavily on Replicators, then there wouldn’t actually be a need to be part of Star Fleet & such. Even though I’m completely against wars, I cannot deny that it was because competition & conflict that we humans have progressed fast & far. Therefore, there needs to be a balance where we’re not fighting each other because we’re ‘hungry & starving’. But we are still competing to ultimately achieve progress.
"We where not poor people, we where happy with what we had, and content to only take what we needed." Native Americans. Imagine your life not being ruled by the Almighty Dollar? What if people didn't live in fear of poverty and starvation? A world not ruled by Oligarch's and despots? Living your life free from horrible bosses and low wage slavery? How about being driven by positive peer pressure and a drive to excel?
In the TOS season 1 episode "The Court Martial" there is mention of several documents of the past that would be pillars on which the Federation has built it's laws: The Code of Hammurabi The Justinian Code The Magna Carta The Constitution of the United States The Fundamental Declaration of The Martian Colonies The Statues of Alpha III
Thanks for taking my request and doing a video on the Federation guys! I called the economic leanings (the Federation is REALLY into state control of resources, at least within the Federation) but I was a little surprised by the Authoritarian vs Libertarian decision, I expected them to be on the libertarian side, what with their almost unnatural predisposition towards peace and choice, but TBH I feel like the AvL scale is a little more flexible than the economic scale. Overall, good video! Keep it up!
My personal take is that I'd rather not have to rely on the state for everything. I admire and can relate to the high ideals of peace and mutual cooperation, but I have a strong independent streak. The way I see it is if I'm left to myself and I can say grow my own food or raise a few animals, or even live off grid and fend for myself without being forced to take part, that's a good thing.
Why tf would you put it towards authoritarianism? With the argument that they have a military? That is not what defines authoritarianism. The federation follow all the core principles of liberlaism (egalite, liberte, fraternite). Its a democracy, its citizen are completely free, noone is being oppressed etc etc. It should be all the way down to liberalism.
Because there's still a relatively structured and somewhat centralized government. The further down you go, the less structured or centralized things become, with the furthest extreme being an anarchist "state".
+VestedTuber An anarchist utopia is the least authoritarian society possible yes. But a society with basically complete freedom is very close to that. On the spectrum he uses the Federation should be way down on the y-axis.
+MysticHero The Y axis, as I said before, is more than just about political freedoms or civil rights. A government with many rights and freedoms but with high taxes, many departments or layers upon layers of bureaucracy would still be relatively authoritarian compared to a simple direct democracy with just an executive office, even if that direct democracy ends up passing somewhat restrictive legislation. If you actually go to the political compass website, you can see examples of where different world leaders have been placed on the chart as well as an explanation of how the chart works. You might be surprised by quite a few of them.
+VestedUTuber Thats US bipolar thinking. First of all taxes are part of economics. Clearly so. There is a reason that is separated. Furthermore unless those layers of bureaucracy restrict personal freedom it has absolutely nothing to do with authoritarianism. Liberalism (as in its original french revolution meaning) is not equal to anarchism. Anarchism is very far on the liberal scale but a society does not have to be anarchist to have liberty. Liberalism vs Authoritarianism deals with questions of personal freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of expression etc. It deals with whether or not a state restricts these freedoms in any way. What it absolutely has nothing to do with is the amount of state there is. Well its obvious that an authoritarian state will always also be a big state, but a state can be big yet still very liberal. The size of the government does not define the Liberalism vs authoritarianism conflict. Where you are right is that direct democracy vs indirect democracy (or more broadly the distribution of power) is essential to the topic. But if its a tiny nation with a direct democracy and just one small executive office which limits personal freedom it would be far on the authoritarian side of things. YOu are linking me to their explanation but considering you argued with high taxes it seems you should read it yourself. Distinguishing between ecomomical ideas and social ideas is important. You should also consider that the spectrum while far better than the mostly meaningless left vs right 1D line is still a very simplified model. There are hundreds of political questions independent of each other.
+MysticHero I admit mentioning taxes was a mistake. I want to point out a mistake you're making, though. NOWHERE ON THE CHART DOES IT SAY "LIBERALISM". The term used is "LIBERTARIANISM", which is a form of Liberalism that not only advocates personal, social and political freedoms, but also the power of the state itself. Again, while the Federation does protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, it is none the less a powerful, large, and heavily structured state. Should it at some point decide to completely strip its citizens of their rights, it could very easily do so. Thus, it is still slightly authoritarian. If it did not have the power and authority to do so, it would be far further down the scale.
British Ben, love the way you put your case about the Federation... I personally think you should do more hosting of GT... Not that Alan is a bad host, but he likes to wear V-Neck t-shirts & you don't... Plus, you are a ST fan... How about doing this series for not only SW & ST, but B5 & Firefly as well as governments from books?
I just stumbled across this page I find it interesting that it's using a Nolan chart to depict the political spectrum. It was created by David Nolan who is extremely influential on the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian party.
Exactly. The best government would a government that's sole purpose is to enforce private contracts and manage a federal volunteer and privately funded military in a post scarcity world. Maximum freedom, privacy, liberty and maximum standards of living.
Everything but the maximum standards of living is how the Ferengi government works. Ferengi ethics promotes profits through individual greed while Federation ethics promotes self-realization with social prestige and privilege. This means individuals can be and are often encouraged to be exploited with no concept of universal personal rights, while the Federation will maintain standards for.
this is something to look at on the Science and Futurism Channels. I find the Channel "Isaac Arthur" covers many Futurist topics that are very intriguing.
I know that the Federation is clearly a communist society. I saw your videos on comparing Stormtroopers and Red Shirts, in which Allen exposed the communist ideology. Edit: by communist I mean non capitalist and that stuff
50MT Revolutionary I think you're right but its Post-Market really. Whatever markets exist in the 24th century exist for shits and giggles because people are bored.
ColonelHess actually that’s correct because it’s working on moral currency. They’re running it based on the people’s will to better humanity and seek progress. So their currency is that morality. The EU would screw that up 😂
I remember that episode where Jake Sisco got his book published. His ferengi friend asked how much he is getting paid. To which he replied nothing. Couldn't help but to feel how empty and meaningless Jake's book deal was. He was happy for what? The publisher had to sacrifice nothing to put his work out there. They took no risk. They simply read it and said "meh...out it in the database" When there is compensation involved the publisher is basically saying I believe in your work so much I will rise my money to publish you and I have have confidence that your work will return my investment with interest. What Jake got was essentially a pat on the head
Pickle Rick 1. Our constitution doesn't allow referendums 2. I'm German and most people here know that we have a huge economy just because of the EU and the free market. So the big majority is pro-EU (btw the European leaders aren't unelected, but just not DIRECTLY elected)
Fuck romulans....Romulans are slimy....Klingons skull fuck anyone that messes with them....There are no soy boy klingons......You sound like you cry when you watch a movie like a lil bitch.
I have some questions for anyone saying that this sort of economic system would work: 1)Who cleans the toilets to "better themselves"? Who cleans windows on skyscrapers to "better themselves"? Who works as a miner to "better themselves"? Who cleans the streets? Who mops the floors? Who cleans air-con vents? Who kills bugs to "better themselves"? These are still jobs that will need to be done even in a society that basically has instant, free food, clothing and basic equipment. 2)I live in the 24th century on Earth. I don't want to join Star Fleet, but my dream is to explore space in my own ship. Can I have one, since money doesn't exist? There is no possibility of me buying one, so who gets to decide who has what? Realistically not everyone can have a ship, right? I'm not talking about Star Ships here, I'm talking about some kind of Space Yacht - lightly armed, can be operated by a handful of people, one at a push, capable of Warp Speeds. What if everyone on Earth wants their own ship like mine? Can they have one? They all need Dilithium crystals in their warp cores to regulate the reaction of matter/anti-matter and these can't be replicated, only mined, so are they given away or kept under lock and key? Let's face it: even breaking the surface of the economy in the Federation yields massive problems outside of the authority driven Star Fleet and in the private/personal sectors. It's bullshit pulled straight out of a page of the Zeitgeist movement handbook. It could never work on free, ambitious people. The economic idea behind the Federation in Star Trek shatters when you realise that everyone in that world will want to be Star Fleet Captains yet no one will want to clean the streets or paint houses, despite the world needing far more street cleaners and house painters than Star Fleet Captains. The only way around this would be to have a disable work force which is made to do the shitty jobs - slaves. Even robotic slaves are frowned upon in Star Trek as we have seen numerous times, due in part to the fact that they always seem to develop sentience.
Doryun For your first point, robots and advanced technology would eliminate the need for most, if not all traditional "blue collar" jobs. When the series talks about not using robots, it's talking about using sentient AI against it's will. There is no reason why they couldn't use dumb robots to replace the traditional workforce. As for your second point, there is simply not enough information about life outside of star fleet to really tell one way or another about the economics of owning your own ship. The series does reference individual pilots owning small vessels on several occasions though. If exploration is what you want to do for the sake of science, there are references to scientific branches of the federation which have either a loose association with Starfleet, or are completely independent of Starfleet.
However, the OP of the question has a point about private enterprise - we know that it DOES still exist due to the episodes that include folks like Harry Mudd, and Vash. Looked upon as 'lawless' due to their outside the lines thinking, but in reality are simply merchants and smugglers trying to re-institute capitalism in some form. The black market certainly exists so the want/need of luxuries also exists outside of the benevolent Federation. I would look closer at the blurred edges outside of Star Fleet to gain a truer picture of the Federation as a whole. The TOS episode "Journey to Babel" was all about illegal mining, expatriated mining rights and Nationalism of a non-member world being admitted against the wishes of a FOUNDING member world. Sure the Tellarites were portrayed as greedy capitalists, because Roddenberry was a staunch socialist. But he damn sure didn't give away any of his earnings either; so there's that. More to the point, I think the idea that the Federation 'owns' companies is incorrect, more to the point I believe it's closer to strict regulation than direct control. No socialist government has had great success with technological advances other than the Nazi government of Germany and they did so as a Fascist state. The former Soviet State was more of espionage and assimilation than true innovation - even the US and Soviet space programs were just continuations of Nazi rocketry programs. I think Star Trek is awesome, I love the concept of the Federation and Star Fleet as portrayed, but the walk and the talk just don't match up on all fronts. At best one could surmise that Star Fleet is an illusory front for the perceived aims of the Federation and at worst an armed propaganda unit of the UFP.
my headcanon behind Federation credits is that the Federation uses Modern Monitary theory, they spend credits into existance. So when a Fed citizen or Starfleet officer "pays" someone the Federation steps in and hands over Credits.
Its hard to fit the Federation into today's economic models because it is essentially a post-economic society. Something refreshing in a society which feels increasingly like it is just an economy.
Your right, post economic
that's just communism minus the usual sabotage from capitalist superpowers. if the ferengi were constantly trying to undermine the cooperative benefit of the federation than it would be pretty accurate
It's communist
I noticed something about the socialist credit pay system is it shows up what you are buying and if they don't think you should have it they can withhold you from haven it. It is very controlling of your life and dictates what you can own. Socialist are a form of Borg that must be resisted if you are a grownup and don't want to be a treated like a minor all your life. Myself believe can run my life better then the government because everything they touch turns to crap. In short and is a fact cash gives you more freedom.
Star Trek claims to be in a post-scarcity era. Economics deals with dealing with scarcity. If we're post-scarcity being post-economic would follow. Reality is that there peoples wants tend to expand as their needs are met so "post-scarcity" societies is not terribly realistic...
Well, since most houses had replicators, and "energy" was free... There's not a lot you can be in need for. The ability to make any kind of food, drink,or alcoholic beverage.. The ability to make clothing, or other items. Its less about a nanny state and more about the simple fact that, with household replicators, you don't NEED money.
Yes, but replicators didn't really exist in Star Trek until TNG era. Both in enterprise and in the original series there were food dispensary areas the people worked in(the chef, whomever put those sandwiches in those cupboards). So how did the people of earth actually end capitalism?
@@sarrenwolfe4613 Prior to replicators we had "protein re-sequencers". and while real food tasted better, it ended one of the key crisis. Next, was power. Space travel gave humans access to tons of resources, including lithium and other key resources that wars were fought over. With food, water, power, and resources covered... With the ability not just to colonize mars and the moon, but to actually commute to the moon, with it taking less then half an hour to get there... and about an hour to get to mars.
well most of the problems, the basic needs... vanish.
you could also de-replicate things you don't need and convert it back to energy. So when you travel, you just take only the cloths on ur body. When you get to your destination just replicate what you need. If you grew up in this kind of lifestyle, your morals, the way you think will be very different to today's world.
The credits only ever seemed to get used when they were operating outside the federation, such as in the case of the tribbles, the bolt of cloth, even the wormhole, because of course, while the Federation has moved beyond money, plenty of civilizations (ESPECIALLY the Ferengi) still use currency as a foundation of their economy.
"Bernie Sanders on steroids" is the best description I have ever heard.
And the steroids would be free because it came with the healthcare.
I cant think of anything more nightmarish.
Getting taken care of when you are sick is nightmarish?
germanvisitor2 I think the nightmare is the thought of Bernie Sanders on steroids.
germanvisitor2 by governments that measure numbers in bullshit categories as success? Absolutely that's terrifying. " what race and gender is patient A? Indeed? how many of them have we saved this year?" Ah I see we've already met our quota. We will make patient A comfortable and tell the family there's nothing more we can do for him then. Next!"
Excellent video.
The conditions that created United Earth, then the Federation, needed to be pointed out.
It is the ultimate example of a "Post-Scarcity" society.
This does not mean however, we will eventually look like United Earth, though desirable it may be.
Does this mean we need a World War III and a first contact by highly advanced extraterrestrial civilization?
I guess the future generations after me will determine that.
No, It means some gorilla sized thing mauling a man at a peace conference
then we get our true peace
Future generations? Didn't age well.
Maybe those that determine it are the old farts from the cold war that are still starting wars.
Its what makes Star Trek beautiful. Not just entertaining but beautiful.
Lol
We like to say people kind not mankind
Ben: no we don’t
The man in "mankind" is short for human.
How about humankind? That sounds better.
Humanity first.
it's "mankind".
it has been the word to encompass all of humanity, both male and female, or otherwise.
everybody knows it, everybody understands it, and everybody uses it when they want to refer to everyone else without distinction.
the only ones that are triggered by the use of "mankind" are SJW feminists, who can't understand how a word containing the word "man" can be used to describe not-men, so they go out to state that they want equality and go against the very word that provides the equality they look for.
frankly, I can't understand how those women exist in the first place, but, to each their own.
Does make you wonder, the term human, mankind, woman, male, female and so on was done at a time when men dominated this world and women had little to no say it in, now it's unlikely that thoes terms would change but it makes you wonder if it should if we truly want a equal world, but somehow I doubt it would change because it's too ingrained into us now.
I love Star Trek. One of the main reasons I love it is because of the "superior moral code". In the Star Trek universe it never seems from a moral "high horse" or a condescending place, but from a true place of unity amongst all humankind and all species. I envy the apparent utopia that mankind and Earth has achieved in the Star Trek universe. I do believe a higher moral code and sense of unity amongst all of humankind is the only way we can approach that status in real life. I truly believe that we can never reach for greatness as a human race if we are squabbling amongst ourselves over who has the right to food, shelter, and health care. #humanityfirst 😉✊🏾✌🏾
The Federation got prideful and full of itself. It patted itself on the back for creating "paradise" and an "evolved" culture. The Federation's "Golden Era" spoiled its citizens and made them soft. They thought they could handle anything but they nearly got wiped out by the Borg. The "evolved" Federation also sold out its own colonists along the Cardassian border when it ceded those colonies to Cardassia to avoid a war. When those colonists formed the Maquis to protect themselves, the Federation sent in Starfleet to stop them because they were causing problems with the Cardassians.
@@richardlahan7068 There would be no storyline if everything was perfect.
@@AaronPharaoh That's true.
Well now that you've left Star Wars, you've got to do Battlestar Galactica. Double points for the original series.
Grizabeebles yeah, they should do BSG both versions and Capra
The 12 colonies are just Space Romans. They're no more complicated nor less.
yeah because capitalism operates on the basic principle that everything is finite and so has value dictated generally by how scarce it is. but when you can simply replicate things, its a form of post scarcity, to really say that the federation is really anywhere on the economic scale i think is a misunderstanding, it is a paradigm that cannot be applied to them
You do not even need the replicates. The unlimited energy and fully automated production makes classic capitalism pretty much obsolete.
REPLICATORS thats the answer.
Venom Geek Media 98
Even with enough technology capitalism will still survive even with the capacity to replicate. Articial scarcity or abundance are the escence of capitalism as a all
ShinigamiInuyasha777 which is why many believe that production will be nationalized. When we reach a point where labor is not necessary, mass unemployment would force nationalization. We are already seeing many of the replicator's purposes with 3d printing, cad auto mills, and even some food production. With the near future of ai driven vehicles, fully automated distribution networks, and online stores and financial services, we are very close to removing to human element to production, distribution, retail, and customer service.
Dee Gee
And still the things likd food energy medicine and so on are more expensive now than thirty years ago.
Why this happen? Thats a good question
"You know, in some ways, you're even worse than the borg.
At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation.
You're more insidious.
You assimilate people, and they don't even know it." Michael Eddington to Captain Sisko in DS9 episode "For the Cause", Season 4 Episode 22" - Eddington to Sisko in DS9
Thanks to Phillip Aboody for tracking down the exact quote and episode!
More so, because ROOTBEAR.
Gianluca Borg the Borg are not insidious. They aren’t gradual or subtle at all. If they were, they’d be way more successful.
Gianluca Borg have you lost your mind?
It's a quote from DS9
Gianluca Borg must be a really obscure quote , but what makes the federation in any way similar to the Borg?
I think the description of the Federation was fairly accurate, but as much as I dislike the Federation, I think they are probably closer to the libertarian axis than authoritarian.
Yes the military and federal government existed, but they don't seem to have really any control over the citizens. People seem pretty free to pursue whatever interests they want, be it starfleet or farming. And yes there are a few rules in Starfleet, but the organization is quasi-military, so it makes sense for there to be a few regulations and restrictions that probably aren't present in civilian life.
Perhaps it really hinges on who controls the replicators. If the people are dependent on government replicators to continue their utopian existence, then maybe there's an argument that they're a benevolent authoritarian government, but if replicators are readily available for private ownership, then I don't see much in the way of an authoritarian federation.
Well being just a little into the authoritarian scale doesn’t mean they are really authoritarian. If you look up where today’s governments like the USA, UK etc are, they are quite a bit further into the authoritarian end of the scale (but on the right), so the federation would be more libertarian than the USA today
Fair enough. The presence of replicators and an allegedly post-scarcity society I think really muddles the issue, so I can see there being arguments for both sides.
So while Federation citizens seem pretty free to do what they want, how much of that freedom is dependent on the government's good graces is hard to tell when their internal politics, law enforcement, and secret services are rarely covered in detail.
IDK, I kind of think the Federation is more authoritarian than what the video rated them as. The Federation seems to have quite a bit of rules and regulations, the bulk of which I'm wagering we didn't seen on screen because they didn't show civilian life that much. I mean the video said Federation Citizens had the right to choose, but that's kind of a false choice if all choices is owned by the Federation since they own all industries and jobs.
Why was there so few civilian owned ships? I can only think of Seven of Nine's parents having a small shuttle sized ship, the Federation probably owns all the ships and nobody has access to space unless through the Federation. All scientist and engineers seem to work for the Federation too, this maybe is why all their tech never really changes nor improves very fast, they aren't very creative nor innovative because they're stagnant due to all the rules and the monopoly.
Heck they even have a Warp Speed limit, I wonder how they police that and punish offenders. Since nobody has any money and everybody works for the Federation I suppose demotion/court martial. If you're independent, I suppose they'll impound (steal) your ship or send you off to rehabilitation (prison). I thinking all the authoritarian control is hidden it's rules and regulations and substitution words like "impound" and "rehabilitation", sort of like how "re-education" is code for "brainwashing".
I don't think the Federation is as overtly sinister as you describe. I think they are more along the lines of a Bread and Circuses empire. Despite the claims that the Federation is post-scarcity, it's pretty clear that not everybody can own their own personal Enterprise (the ship, not a business). Some sort of limitation, be it resources, labor, or something else prevents everyone from being able to order their own starship, just as very few private individuals in our world can afford a private airplane.
However, the Federation keeps the populace happy with distractions such as the holodeck and unlimited small-scale replication of food and small luxuries. After all, why worry about politics and galactic affairs when you can eat filet mignon all day, spend the rest in your own virtual paradise, and never have to work a day in your life if you choose not to?
By keeping the populace happy, they can stay blissfully ignorant of all the cosmic terrors that threaten humanity on a weekly basis like the Borg, the Q, the Dominion, the actual god Apollo, and that one satellite that almost destroyed Earth because it was pissed it couldn't find any whales to chat to.
Without the Federation to provide the bread and circuses, there would be nothing but apocalypse cults.
I don't expect civilians flying around in Galaxy Class starships, but given the population size there should be a lot of privately owned smaller starships and large shuttle size ships roaming around; Like the privately own non-military alien ships they encounter frequently.
Even looking at the civilians they seem to have a total lack of personal belongings/tech when they're "off world", let alone any weapons or equipment. You also get people like Data's dad who seemingly builds Data/Lore/B4/etc "off the books", makes you wonder why so. Not to mention his ancestor who worked on the enhanced humans, yeah that's against the law. Maybe a lot of things are against the law too but aren't stated like eugenics.
I'm not saying the Federation is sinister, but it's overly restrictive which isn't libertarianism like. The civilians maybe able to play in the holodecks all day, but you'd figure with that power they'd be innovating the crap out of things like how people do on the Internet. They don't even seem to have the creativity to do real risque stuff with the holodeck, everybody's shocked at Barclay just duplicating other people.
Everybody's boxed in by the Federation rules and regulations, everybody feels like sheep. That's how it's authoritative. Also it could be just the protagonist officers who are more relaxed with authority, many times we've seen other captains and especial admirals overtly sinister or more strong fisted with authoritarianism.
Where is the Martian Congressional Republic (The Expanse) on the political compass
definitely authoritarian, probably planned economy. though we mostly see them thru the lens of the military so maybe a bit biased in perspective.
Probably upper center right or upper center left.
Great job Ben, I think you pretty much got this exactly right from my point of view. The only thing that I think you could have delved more into is the idea of 'a post-scarcity' society. I honestly believe that we have most of the pieces of technology we require to develop a post scarcity society (on the verge of efficient renewable energy sources, desalination plants, vertical farming, additive automated high precision manufacturing, etc) but we lack the political will to invest fully. I really liked how you said there are two components to the formation of a society like the Federation: technology and morality. I think that the two are intertwined. In terms of morality the human mindset is still set in hunter gatherer / tribal supremacist mode and not in a mode that says if we all pool our resources we can develop something that can give us even more resources than we could ever need. Fear of scarcity still dominates our mindset, and those with the most power in our society seem to be the most afraid to lose what they have and always want more to alleviate that fear, to the point of not recognizing that the way things currently are may be unsustainable long term. Anyway, great video!
Joshua Moody Well said and fully concur with your assessment.
The one thing that makes the Federation society possible?
Simple really...
A REPLICATOR.
Which need lots of energy...
For them energy manufacturing is no problem... There has never been an energy crisis. Heck in Star trek the voyage home they could rig solar sails to keep their life support systems running.
:-) I was thinking from our (XXI century) point of view :-)
Of course U R right.
Normally I hate politics in my entertainment but you did a good job.
Memory alpha has a great explanation of credits. It's more of a centrally planend rations system.
Latnium and non-federation currency is for trade outside the federation.
Can Latinum be replicated by Federation technology? Could somebody out on the fringes of society with a power source and a replicator sit there and literally print money? It probably wouldn't effect the Federation, but isn't that a potential way to inflate or devalue currency and destroy rival societies?
I'm sure they could but remember it does cost energy and if they do it could be traced back to them (don't ask me how but it does sound like the start to a DS9 or NG show :0 and most replicators probably have it banned from them doing it like some advanced printers are for currency (seriously look it up stupid as !@#@)
Alex Vogel The reason why compressed Latinum is so popular is exactly because it cannot be replicated.
Or more than not being replicable the replicated ones are different from the non-replicated ones.
Memory Alpha has zero explanation of credits. There is a page called "Federation credits", but the mere title isn't backed by a source. There is also zero wording about a "centrally planned rations system". Where do you get that from even?
Central planned rations? Boy, that won't EVER be used against anyone.
To better themselves is not collectivism. Collectivism would be to work for others. The Star Trek phrase includes yourself which means it refers to improving your condition. Furthermore, you do not need to have a 'state owns everything' policy when it comes to common goods. For example, the restaurant Sisko's in DS9 is owned by Benjamin's father. Also people own furniture which they can bean in and out of their homes. Also Kirk seems to have different interesting residences over the years, which would not work that way in a state controlled property model, because he acquired them (either by inheritance or by privilege, lets say an admiral can have such quarters when they come available).
Yep... Picard's family owned a vineyard... other crew members owned land. I'd place the Federation below the Auth/Lib line because it seems to focus more on personal liberties as the norm and only falls to Federation liberties when those break down.
Even without money, there will still be people that enjoy creating furniture, or food, or pictures. The post-scarcity nature of the Federation probably frees up many more people to exercise their creative impulses and even without money, fame will still be a sort of currency.
Being known across multiple planets as an artist/craftsperson will likely have a serious amount of cache.
Get off the soapbox commie and shut up. You aren't fooling anyone. Star Trek is garbage.
If you look at your own references, it looks like credits are only used to trade outside of Earth. Also the Federation != Earth, while on Earth there might be/is no currency present, there might be on other planets. Furthermore, Sisko's transporter credits limit the use of transporters. This limitation might apply to all citizens of Earth or are only a limitations for young Starfleet cadets in order to move their focus away from home and onto their study location. As far as I understand it, there is not some sort of basic income, which only a quick fix for our current system, you can use all resources either directly if you want or have to share limited resources in the same way people had done in the past with common goods.
While a basic income only covers you income side, a system portrait like that in Star Trek also addresses the need to be useful and respected. And the latter is as important as an income. Without it people become depressed.
Perhaps its futuristic manorialism. No money because everybody gets a hectare of land. A fifth of this must be dedicated to the residence, the rest can be invested in businesses. For example, you invest direct land in a community fund and the federation conglomerate (think holding company of various different types of companies in all sectors). You now own 0.05% of the community businesses and are entitled to that much of goods and services, and 0.0002% of the federation conglomerate. You can now shop at the federation stores for that share.
No money, only land. Businesses want land to build their business.
Earth is a post a scarcity time
Earl Grey tea's pretty nice.
The quintessential drink of any sophisticated... Frenchman?
@@justafaniv1097 NO. The French don’t get tea. Only the English.
The main task for raising society to such a level is the moral premise that we, as individuals, should take care to benefit all of humanity, regardless of our own enrichment.
Oh Ben ... LOVED the peoplekind line!
His not wrong tho, Mankind is very sexist!
Do the Sith empire from swtor next
Do you have/had any siblings?
Yes!!!!!!!😀
It would be authoritarian as can be, and economically it would be left. So it would be like the soviet union and have a monarch.
darth donald. lol
The Star Trek Federation's regime is nowhere in the 2D political spectrum, because it also lends half of it's economical and ethical characteristics from anarchist federations, like the one in Spanish civil war of 1936. But since the better nature of humanity Star Trek portrays rejects dogma as it embraces practicality, they force it to be flexible around different elements of regimes like the one you describe. You can't respond rapidly in some issues without any form central command, so there stands the partial hierarchy.
Ha thanks commie! You anarchists are all the same.all you want is chaos and some marxist planned economy dictatorship!
@@anonamouseanonamouse5443 Chaos AND dictatorship at the same time? You have to choose already, is absolute capitalism ''freedom'' from the tyranny of state, or is absolute control of the market (as in a marxist economy) ''chaos''? And I'm not even a marxist! Neither anarchism is necessarily related to marxism. So no, fortunately for you, we're not all the same.
@@itssp9214 if anarchy isn’t related to Marxism, then why does Antifa use the same colours as Marxist dictatorships?
@@itssp9214 oh and tell me, in your anarchist wonderland, is it communist or socialist? If so, then how is it not dictatorship??
@@anonamouseanonamouse5443 So does Coca-Cola. The only common colour is red, which indeed symbolises communism, but not exclusively the Soviet one. When combined with black, then it's anarcho-communism, which includes absence of state. Antifascists exist in a very wide political spectrum, it's not like ''Antifa'' is a party or something. And I believe in something like a direct democracy, where people decide about WHAT is going to be, not WHO. So, it's even less of a dictatorship, than our current system... with lots of historical examples and even state-countries in northern Europe are practicing it right now, so not a wonderland either. As for the rest, you can always open a wikipedia page.
- "we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity"
- "high moral code"
- "merit is valued"
I get very Third Positionist vibe here :)
Nice jab at Justin Trudeau.
Trudeau is an idiot! :p
I'm all for equality and more accurate terms to describe things, but...peoplekind? We already have good words like humanity(until we encounter other sentient species), people(until we encounter a sentient species that can't be classified as a person). No need to make up words when we don't have to.
Also the US has long used economic and other forms of "Persuasion" to blackmail and bully others. So yes that's a dictatorship.
HE'S A CHOIR BOY!
Im pretty sure the whole peoplekind thing was meant to be a joke.
Dude, you proved Marx right when you tried to debunk him; a power vacuum occurred and thus allowed the Proletarian Revolution of the Star Trek world after WW3. Think…1917. Opportunist, sure, but still required force, but WITHOUT violence. One does not preclude the other.
I've been watching your channel, and this is the video that got me to subscribe. Thanks for explaining what the Federation is better than I can. It's not a goose-stepping communist society, but it is heavily socialist. Keep making great content!
Goose Stelling is Nazi's, not Commies.
"It's not a goose-stepping communist society, but it is heavily socialist."
1) Communists never "goose-stepped." The Nazis were capitalists. So, just amazing level of irony there.
2) Star Trek is 100% communist. The MF'ers LTIERALLY do no even use currency. There is no "profit motive" for any humans ANYWHERE. Its all about "reputation is the new currency," and "the point of your life is to better yourself and enrich yourself with experiences." I can't even describe to you a more communist utopia than what ST is.
@@thaddeusstevens7897 *sigh* No no, just no. 1) Nazis extent of private property rights extended only so far as "until the state needed to use it" or in the case of industry, they worked at the behest of the party. Nazis were very much socialist, everything was done for the perpetuation of the German people and power, with it's party and leadership at the fore front. 2) Communism espouses in a stateless, classless, borderless society, which the Federation clearly is not, it has a state, it has a government, it has borders, classes (in fact a very clear and enforced differential between Private citizen and Government official, which is why Section 31 came as such a surprise to most people), the rule of law and it has concept of private property, the right of self determination. In fact not only that but also to accept personal responsibility and responsibility toward the truth. These qualities are very much absent in communist societies where the individual is supplanted to the will of the collective. In fact if you want an example of a perfect communist society in trek, you need to look no further than the Borg.
The Federation is at best, a technologically advanced, post scarce Libertarian Utopia through the lens of a Political Idealist. Nothing wrong with idealism but lets set our expectations appropriately.
@@AgentExeider "2) Communism espouses in a stateless, classless, borderless society, which the Federation clearly is not"
So you've never once watched an episode of Star Trek...
the more I think about it the more I realize that our economic models dont really work for the UPF as it is a post scarcity society and we have never seen one
Correct
Yep.
It's a Post-Scarcity Libertarian Socialist Utopia. There.
@@Vatt-Ghern libertarian is a political model and socialism requires a finite number of resources (post-scarcity through automation might be the end-goal of socialism but by then it becomes something else). Aside from that we would generally define the Star Trek society as a post-scarcity utopia.
@@ThePoshboy1 Yes, post-scarcity.
That is what Communism is supposed to be.
And that is what a Post-Scarcity society would be.
Eh, you overshot on the economic axis. We do see independently owned and operated businesses like the restaurant owned by SIsko’s family or the freighter operated by Cassidy Yates.
As for the Fleet, the _Akira_ class appears to be an earlier design as the registry of the USS _Thunderchild_ is less than that of the USS _Galaxy_ which was launched in the late 2350s/early 2360s.
Only other major gripes I have are about First Contact, the size of the Federation, and Section 31. The Vulcan _didn’t_ give us tech, they acted more like teachers to help us develop our own technology. Size wise the Federation is a bit larger than the 150 planets would suggest. Those are full members, but each of those members has their own colonies and some people set up their own independent colonies within Federation space.
Section 31 on the other hand, in the regular timeline we don't actually know how strong they are. Almost all of the information on them comes from unreliable narrators who have a vested interest in making Section 31 seem more powerful. The starship thing was only in the Kelvin timeline in probably the worst Trek movie.
Still, overall a good video trying to find the alignment of the Federation given it's hard to pin down a post scarcity society's alignment.
And I wouldn't say _Discovery_ is all that murky. In the end it is still the idealism that won out, it's just that it was tried to the breaking point during the Federation-Klingon War. Sort of how it was put to the test during the Dominion War. It just stuck out more because we didn't have a few years of stories to establish a status quo first.
I have to wonder, though, if that restaurant is actually a business as we know it or simply operated as a public recreational space.
Now that is an interesting question. It appears to operate like a traditional restaurant, however that might just be for rustic charm or authenticity. Sort of like how Tom Paris talked about how during the rare cases where you get mugged on Earth, the criminal returns your stuff to you after a little bit.
Or like how we go through painstaking efforts today to recreate Old West, Renaissance, Victorian era, etc period environments.
The registries are always going to be confusing. I think they have several ranges of numbers being used at the same time, for different classes.
I think the most reasonable explanation would be that right after Kirk's era the system was changed so that all Starfleet ships capable of independent operation were given an NCC designation instead of just what was traditionally referred to as a starship (which in Kirk's time appears to have been the equivalent of a capital ship). So only a fraction of those in the registry are active ships of classes that would be considered combat capable.
`The registries are always going to be confusing. I think they have several ranges of numbers being used at the same time, for different classes.`
That's a common theory, but it breaks down when you start analyzing the registry numbers. There's no one range for a given class of starship.
But I do know the origin of that theory, it's from back during TOS after Matt Jefferies designed the _Enterprise_ and was trying to work backwards to come up with a meaning for her registry number.
One of the ideas what that it meant 1st ship, 17th design, but that idea was abandoned during TOS's run and more nails kept being added to the coffin with each successive series and especially the remastered TOS series.
Like the Enterprise symbol becoming the main symbol for the whole federation by ST:NG :0
They absorbed the most useful and/or functional attributes of modern systems. Barring what essentially amounts to space age magic in the form of replicators and overall sci-fi born quality of life, they do a fairly good job.
If we could ever supplement those space magics with actual functioning tech/systems itd be pretty cool to see a ruling body similar to the Federation.
Ofc... new problems we cant yet foresee are always in the cards.
I know the real reason the federation doesn't have money. After an epic space battle between 2 economist, one was stranded in a paradise cave with his ex girlfriend and son. Defeated, he could only scream the name of his better opponent. KKKEEEEYYNNEEESSSS!!!!
Jonathan Schmidt 👍👍
from hell's heart, I stab at thee
Gen Tech doing Star Trek now?! I’m here for it.
I'd pay to see Alex Jones in Star Trek.
lcyw20 Alex Jones: Government make Frogs Gay!
Q: Picard, who the fuck is this shit?
Picard: A crazy man who thinks the Federation make frog gays..
Ferengi
@@eddiemorales2214 Thats an insult to the Ferengi.
@@eddiemorales2214 No that would be more like capitalistic Catholicism
@@johnilarde8440 So give that it was actually prove that a pesticide makes frogs gay...
Actually, the answer is: Unknown.
The reason is that we always see things from the perspective of people in Starfleet, which is at least in part a military organization.
Its like trying to place the US on the political scale by ONLY watching members of the US Army.
I'd argue that there was an overthrow of the social system in Star Trek. It was the 3rd world war. Marx never specifically said you needed an October revolution to introduce communism. So the idea of communism in those circumstances would be huge.
The two real technological hurdles Star Trek fairly conveniently made it over were essentially limitless energy and the ability to convert energy into matter as required. It then placed generally highly moral people in control (something that seems unlikely as the path to absolute power is usually over the bones of others). When everything is abundant everything loses value, and the dedicated pursuit of it meaningless. That left people with time to pursue other things.
Yes! A post scarcity society is likely to change its morals since motivations in a scarcity society (seeking more resources) is gone.
What's great about the differences between 'Wars and 'Trek is that 'Wars deals in politics on a deeper level, while 'Trek deals with social and philosophical ideals.
I think the federation and starfleet should be considered seperate politically. starfleet answers to the federation and is a bit authoritarian, but that has almost no bearing on the average citizen under the federation. They are mostly free to do whatever, making their lives much more libertarian.
Oh excellent point.
+
It's called Libertarian Socialism. Look it up
Clearly the people of that age have matured beyond any measure we could drum up. They proved it can work and provide peace. Although it is fiction, and fiction is a reflection of our humanity.
Long Live The Federation!!!!! In Generation Tech We Trust 😉
1:13 I laughed so hard, my roommates though I was dying
The transporter credits were probably a way to rationing the transporter usage during the earth crisis, martial law and all that.
The transporter credits were something Sisko said he used to beam back over when he was a cadet.
I always assumed that it applied to cadets, and cadets only, if you wanted to beam anywhere as a cadet you had to pay. Or maybe only at the academy transporter station. Because military and discipline and whatever. I mean just look at Nog when he comes back to the station. He's like "bedtimes at ten". Look me in the eyes and tell me it is out of character for the academy to go "oh you can only transport so many times per month".
Alternatively they might be something used to limit the amount of time people use transporters but I prefer my theory because it is more interesting, saying who gets to use the transporters how much is dumb and because one of the things I love about Trek is a world where we no longer have many in any way. It is said so EXPLICITLY in both TNG, DS9 and I believe Voyager even dates when currency got abolished.
Wait was there a money abolishment movement? How EXACTLY did it happen?
You know, I could totally see Picard having tea with Thrawn.
I always felt the whole "no-money" thing was exclusive to Earth alone, and not throughout the entire Federation.
Seems like it was probably encouraged, through social programs, given rights and what not, but not 100% necessary for being a member.
Particularly for new members, like Bajor who's resources were a bit more limited due to a recent brutal occupation. Even with federation help, was probably going to take a while before their government would really be in a position they could provide for all adequately with out a money fall back in case of logistical and resources limitations and what not. No point excluding them while they're actively working on that stuff.
I think Vulcan might be the same. But yeah I don't think a lot of the worlds are rhat way
what i remember from star trek is that there were civilizations that used a kind of money so the feddies quite possibly had access to money for when they interact with those civilizations, but their inner works were as left as you can get, and the key why it works? within their economy they didn't have money,a true utopia for sure
The MOST important distinction that we have to make about the Earth society in Star Trek (and the Federation) is that it is a post-scarcity civilization. So functionally, it can't honestly be compared to any current Earth political system. You would have to make up something new, calling it something like a Techno-Socialist Republic, or something like that. The system only works because of the magic-like technology available.
Correct.
Absolutely love this Video, we need more of these discussions.
I think that ultimately disco had the most complex relationship to the star fleet/ federation morals, in that the entire season was about challenging them in a wartime atmosphere especially when they brought in the mirrorverse but ultimately at the end reaffirming their principles.
I have always found that quote by Spock the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", dangerous thinking. The most fragile minority is the individual, who's rights should be respected and not compromised my a majority, and of course as long as that individual is not harming anyone.
Maybe its the collectivist Vulcan thought. Kirk didn't like it either
This gave me flashbacks back to Harold in fallout 3, how they wanted to take advantage of him thanks to his FEV based mutations to make tree's grow (like the great Deku Tree from windwaker). The biggest problem is that Harold suffers, he can't even do basic human things and he was surrounded by religious zealots that never listened and always treated him like some kind of enigma/test.
I'm a Marxist, Groucho is my fearless leader.
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
I'm more of a Harpo man myself.
I think in Star Trek II, they mentioned that the Federation had approved granting a "fund" to Dr. Carol Marcus's Genesis Project.
Your comment about how this form of communism is only attainable with enough resources is unfounded. We have enough resources to feed, home, and provide healthcare to everyone, yet we aren't doing it.
You know, I am so glad I missed that eugenics war in the late 1990s. That would have really cramped my style. Live long and Prosper,Y'all.
Eugenics wars is today
What about Captain Kirk's line from the original Series ("Scotty, you've earned your pay for the week!")?
Does this mean that Starfleet officers get paid?
To be fair, there is a century between TOS and TNG, so things could have changed between the two series, there is more then enough time for big economical and financial reforms.
@@frankharzer6224 could just be a phrase that is still in use from our times. Like eaves dropping.
I would say that on the economic axis they are a little more right than you put them. Picard's brother and Sisko's father _owned_ a vineyard and a restaurant respectively. So privet ownership of businesses does exist, just on smaller scales.
P.S. And Cassidy Yates freighter, I forgot about that one.
a squadron of thunderbolt starfuries(5 in Babylon 5) vs a squadron of Imperial Tie Fighters(12 in standard squdrons).
I think the economic key is the replicator technology. Without that everything else would fall apart. Production is basically free, thus eliminating poverty and making major projects like starships suddenly affordable in the new, higher gear economy. There is still exchange, but it no longer needs to be quantified on the level of individual transactions.
The question I have about the federation is how does it treat individuals who want to opt out? The requirement that worlds must have global governments seems pretty authoritarian to me, as it precludes the possibility of dissenting communities. What happens if the citizens of some random city, say decide to get together and make their own starship that represents only their own community and not as part of the Federation or even Earth?
“Peoplekind”
That was the prime minister of Canada who said that in all seriousness
Queue JJ Jamison Laugh
"Humankind"! We can worry about "people" as so as we can come to proper grips with "Humanity".
Some people really overthink some things.
Im a a communist. I vote for sendend Troudeu to the moon.
What pandering virtue signaling. He'll be using the Chinese word for it pretty soon.
I hope one day we live in a society like that
Hey! it's discount David Tennant, not the worst person to be a discounted version of.
It's really uncanny once you notice it, he really does share many of the same features.
Does that make you discount Cinema Sins?
oh shit cant unseen now....
Eric, Yes. Yes it does.
Christopher Dockter Ding.
Good job. I'd like to see how the other Star Trek powers fit on your compass including the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Ferengi, and particularly the Borg!
The thumbnail brings to my mind that while replicator tech does not actually exist, Bernie would love to hand shit out as if it does.
Rod Diaz, Bernie is not a communist bro, he believes in equality of opportunity, not outcome. Educate yourself a little.
Xavier Lomeli "Educate myself"? I'll remain "uneducated" if it means not being presumptuous and condescending as you are. Look at the legislation (which is 100% equality of outcome as it's all public sector) he's sponsoring/floating before you go trying to lecture anyone about him.
I am very well versed in his policy positions, however since there are so many, and your response rather vague, why don't you give me examples of particular policies and proposals that you disagree with or consider to be socialistic, and if so, why they are bad for the nation.
Xavier Lomeli Let's see. He has never held any position in the private sector nor provided a good or service that people would pay for, and the lion's share of his sponsored legislation is reflective of someone who foolishly and/or arrogantly thinks they can bring market forces to heel while still trying to claim some inane distinction between "socialism" and "democratic socialism" (spoiler: demsoc > socialism > communism as per all of the literature). I'm under no obligation to point out specific examples, because you crypto-commies always spin and deflect to no end and it's therefore pointless. But against my better judgment, there's always his talk about guaranteeing people jobs under government patronage and "free" tertiary education/healthcare. Paid for by whom? Because newsflash: The math is clear on the point that even if you taxed all of those evil millionaires and billionaires down to their last cent, you wouldn't have enough to run the government for an entire fiscal year or even make a dent in the TRILLIONS in unfunded liabilities AS IS, let alone fund all of his ridiculous big government nonsense.
Rod Diaz To counter your argument that he is unqualified to discuss economic matters simply b/c he never held a classical blue collar job until his 40s, he actually did hold various jobs such as working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications after graduating college until his political career lifted off. Secondly, to counter your argument that there is no distinction between social democracy and socialism, well I kindly ask you to compare socially democratic nations with hybridized economic models (balance between capitalism and socialism) such as Norway, Denmark, Australia and Germany (otherwise known as the nations with the highest quality of life and happiness scores) to authoritarian, communist nations such as Venezuela or North Korea (where the state has nationalized all means of production). Furthermore, I am not a communist myself, I describe myself as a hybridist, since I see the benefits of both capitalism and socialism. You do to, you just don't see it. The military for example, alongside with the police and firefighting departments are all socialist programs footed by the taxpayer. Furthermore, by "free" tertiary education/healthcare, Sanders is simply proposing that the United States follow in the footsteps of the aforementioned success stories (Canada, Germany, Sweden, UK, etc) and establish taxpayer-funded American equivalents. Rather than the American taxpayer footing the gargantuan bill for these endless, contrived wars and continuing to feed the parasitic military industrial complex, or rather than the government continuing to provide massive subsidies to tax-evading multinational corporations (the true welfare queens), why not chose someone who will re-prioritize the discretionary budget more towards funding beneficial social programs to provide more Americans with opportunity to lift themselves from poverty. The math is actually on my side, single payer healthcare systems are much more efficient and cost-effective than privatized systems due to how having one payer rather than many individual private insurers cuts down on overhead and drastically reduces the need for advertising. Plus Trump's increase to the military budget alone this year could easily fund free college.
The federation itself probably uses some sort of currency to trade with other societies and gives its member an allotment based on their job. So, if you’re in Star fleet, you have an allotment of credits that the federation will honor if you purchase something while you’re away from federation space. Citizens that are unemployed probably have a minimal allotment or don’t need one because they live in a post scarcity society.
Yeah I'd think there are jobs that make money if you want to (freighter pilot like Cassidy Yates comes to mind) or you could move to a human colony that isn't in the UFP (yes they exist) and work there.
But as Picard put it "We no longer concern ourselves with the compiling of material things."
That much left on the political scale there is no government
That's why it's a political *_COMPASS,_* not a scale. Government size is on the vertical axis. The horizontal one only refers to economic policy.
Star Trek's United Federation of Planets is a leftest paradise, and something we should strive towards. Without growing up watching Star Trek played a large role in teaching me to treat all people equally, regardless of race or gender or disability. Think of Geordi La Forge in TNG. He's black and he's _blind_, yet he is the chief engineer, holds respect among the crew, and has deep friendships with people who are not at all like him.
Wouldn't the federation had to use money in DS9, as that was a hub for many different groups to come to trade or explore the gamma quadrant.
This is why I think the credits are a sort of temporary allotment given to people to spend on other cultures or where energy is limited. An away team would, for example, be given 20 credits of local currency that they could spend depending on the diplomatic nature and stance the federation was portraying. Once the away mission is done, unspent credits go back to the federation for reallocation to other missions. The Federation would have some kind of central bank of member currencies that could be given or traded for Federation Services in societies where currency is King. For instance, if the Ferengi alliance wants Federation assistance on some future date to escort a convoy, they could assure it with a donation to the fund which will end up probably being spent on some other away mission or diplomatic event.
and it was officially part of Bajor, a non-Federation world
We see the crew members in TNG " shopping " for wedding gifts for Keiko's & O'Brien's wedding.
I think they are deliberately vague on money & politics so it can be fluid depending on the situation.
Does Sisko's dad own his restaurant? Does he run it to get extra credits?
Do the people who dine there pay? Tip? The people who work there ( cooks & waiters ) get paid or extra rations? Kirk & Janeway have a poll apartments in S.F.
The list goes on and on.
Could you make a vid on UNSC from Halo?
UNSC is really just the military jurisdiction so UEG would probably work better
Here is all you need to know UNSC AND the Federation are New World Order propaganda. These series are one world orders, one world governmenters thus they are not to be trusted. The franchises are cancer and are anti individual and anti freedom. Globalism is meant to be destroyed not to be encouraged or viewed as entertainment.
The UNSC political compass
And the Covenant
@@kamenridernephilim If you have seen Star Trek, then you know they have more freedom than what we have now.
Star Trek is a great story and one of the reasons it is loved is it shows a positive future survival of our race. The key being that it is a story, fiction, it is not real but only entertainment. It is fun to look at it politically but do not make the mistake of thinking that it is proof that any specific economic or political ideology is correct or incorrect. Doryun's comment is correct that there are big holes in the Star Trek economic system. It is an idealistic system and intended for entertainment not real implementation on our planet.
I know this is nitpicky but I'm not 100% convinced Sisko's transporter credits were a form of currency but are instead just an allotment of back-and-forths to keep cadets on campus. They want the cadets who will soon be on deep-space assignments to get used to being away from home and to get used to being around other SF officers.
In terms of their abundance, don't forget they had millions of uninhabited planets, moons, and asteroids to exploit for resources. It wasn't just replicators and anti-matter reactors driving their civilization.
You definitely have my "like". This video is a well considered, well structured, and easily comprehended political analysis to trek lovers, a group who may be the most optimistic people in the world concerning the future of humanity. Their understanding of these issues is vital, especially considering the reactive climate that has been sweeping the world. Serious kudos.
I seriously don’t believe that Star Trek’s Economy is that far left. Probably more like Capitalist China, but still . . .
I my first piece & point is Jon Luc Picard’s brother Robert who runs a vineyard & winery. And the there is Benjamin Lafayette Sisko’s father, Joseph Sisko, who runs a restaurant called Sisko's Creole Kitchen.
Thus, even though I will not disagree that the most basic necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, & more are provided. Luxuries are earned, not given so freely.
Anything a replicator can produce is free. Hope we can get there someday.
Not exactly, Dwayne Morton. So far, food, clothing, & other ‘essentials’ seemed free. However, in an episode of “Next Generation, The” where Miles O'Brien was getting married, Worf was at a place where it seemed more like a shopping replicator rather than an ‘essential(s)’ replicator.
Yes exactly! Seems in the ST world skill with a replicator means you pretty much get what ever you want. A few things like hand made wine or a special meal made in the old way are nice luxuries but I could see billions of people being very happy with the output of their ST issue replicator. If we only had that luxury ourselves.
But there is a problem with that, Dwayne Morton. Even though daily life’s necessities are met & provided, that doesn’t actually guarantee that the people would actually be motivated to actually earn their lives.
IF we relied too heavily on Replicators, then there wouldn’t actually be a need to be part of Star Fleet & such.
Even though I’m completely against wars, I cannot deny that it was because competition & conflict that we humans have progressed fast & far.
Therefore, there needs to be a balance where we’re not fighting each other because we’re ‘hungry & starving’. But we are still competing to ultimately achieve progress.
"We where not poor people, we where happy with what we had, and content to only take what we needed." Native Americans. Imagine your life not being ruled by the Almighty Dollar? What if people didn't live in fear of poverty and starvation? A world not ruled by Oligarch's and despots? Living your life free from horrible bosses and low wage slavery? How about being driven by positive peer pressure and a drive to excel?
In the TOS season 1 episode "The Court Martial" there is mention of several documents of the past that would be pillars on which the Federation has built it's laws:
The Code of Hammurabi
The Justinian Code
The Magna Carta
The Constitution of the United States
The Fundamental Declaration of The Martian Colonies
The Statues of Alpha III
Thanks for taking my request and doing a video on the Federation guys! I called the economic leanings (the Federation is REALLY into state control of resources, at least within the Federation) but I was a little surprised by the Authoritarian vs Libertarian decision, I expected them to be on the libertarian side, what with their almost unnatural predisposition towards peace and choice, but TBH I feel like the AvL scale is a little more flexible than the economic scale. Overall, good video! Keep it up!
Keep up the awesome Generation Tech
It's treason then...
Wrong franchise.
You false corpse emperor.
My personal take is that I'd rather not have to rely on the state for everything. I admire and can relate to the high ideals of peace and mutual cooperation, but I have a strong independent streak. The way I see it is if I'm left to myself and I can say grow my own food or raise a few animals, or even live off grid and fend for myself without being forced to take part, that's a good thing.
Patrick stewart ftw
I can't wait to see a political compass comparison with Cardassia and Ferenginar.
Why tf would you put it towards authoritarianism? With the argument that they have a military? That is not what defines authoritarianism. The federation follow all the core principles of liberlaism (egalite, liberte, fraternite). Its a democracy, its citizen are completely free, noone is being oppressed etc etc. It should be all the way down to liberalism.
Because there's still a relatively structured and somewhat centralized government. The further down you go, the less structured or centralized things become, with the furthest extreme being an anarchist "state".
+VestedTuber An anarchist utopia is the least authoritarian society possible yes. But a society with basically complete freedom is very close to that. On the spectrum he uses the Federation should be way down on the y-axis.
+MysticHero
The Y axis, as I said before, is more than just about political freedoms or civil rights. A government with many rights and freedoms but with high taxes, many departments or layers upon layers of bureaucracy would still be relatively authoritarian compared to a simple direct democracy with just an executive office, even if that direct democracy ends up passing somewhat restrictive legislation.
If you actually go to the political compass website, you can see examples of where different world leaders have been placed on the chart as well as an explanation of how the chart works. You might be surprised by quite a few of them.
+VestedUTuber Thats US bipolar thinking. First of all taxes are part of economics. Clearly so. There is a reason that is separated. Furthermore unless those layers of bureaucracy restrict personal freedom it has absolutely nothing to do with authoritarianism.
Liberalism (as in its original french revolution meaning) is not equal to anarchism. Anarchism is very far on the liberal scale but a society does not have to be anarchist to have liberty. Liberalism vs Authoritarianism deals with questions of personal freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of expression etc. It deals with whether or not a state restricts these freedoms in any way. What it absolutely has nothing to do with is the amount of state there is. Well its obvious that an authoritarian state will always also be a big state, but a state can be big yet still very liberal. The size of the government does not define the Liberalism vs authoritarianism conflict. Where you are right is that direct democracy vs indirect democracy (or more broadly the distribution of power) is essential to the topic. But if its a tiny nation with a direct democracy and just one small executive office which limits personal freedom it would be far on the authoritarian side of things.
YOu are linking me to their explanation but considering you argued with high taxes it seems you should read it yourself. Distinguishing between ecomomical ideas and social ideas is important. You should also consider that the spectrum while far better than the mostly meaningless left vs right 1D line is still a very simplified model. There are hundreds of political questions independent of each other.
+MysticHero
I admit mentioning taxes was a mistake. I want to point out a mistake you're making, though. NOWHERE ON THE CHART DOES IT SAY "LIBERALISM". The term used is "LIBERTARIANISM", which is a form of Liberalism that not only advocates personal, social and political freedoms, but also the power of the state itself. Again, while the Federation does protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, it is none the less a powerful, large, and heavily structured state. Should it at some point decide to completely strip its citizens of their rights, it could very easily do so.
Thus, it is still slightly authoritarian. If it did not have the power and authority to do so, it would be far further down the scale.
British Ben, love the way you put your case about the Federation... I personally think you should do more hosting of GT... Not that Alan is a bad host, but he likes to wear V-Neck t-shirts & you don't... Plus, you are a ST fan... How about doing this series for not only SW & ST, but B5 & Firefly as well as governments from books?
“No we don’t!”
I just stumbled across this page
I find it interesting that it's using a Nolan chart to depict the political spectrum. It was created by David Nolan who is extremely influential on the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian party.
Like I’m anti communist and all, but this is like the best gouvernment (obviously you’d have to have almost infinite resources)
Post-Scarcity
Sure, seems fine until your home is given away in a treaty you didn't sign...
Exactly. The best government would a government that's sole purpose is to enforce private contracts and manage a federal volunteer and privately funded military in a post scarcity world. Maximum freedom, privacy, liberty and maximum standards of living.
Everything but the maximum standards of living is how the Ferengi government works. Ferengi ethics promotes profits through individual greed while Federation ethics promotes self-realization with social prestige and privilege. This means individuals can be and are often encouraged to be exploited with no concept of universal personal rights, while the Federation will maintain standards for.
this is something to look at on the Science and Futurism Channels. I find the Channel "Isaac Arthur" covers many Futurist topics that are very intriguing.
The way you explained america was great
I know that the Federation is clearly a communist society. I saw your videos on comparing Stormtroopers and Red Shirts, in which Allen exposed the communist ideology.
Edit: by communist I mean non capitalist and that stuff
I mean, it seems pretty much like a market socialist state.
50MT Revolutionary I think you're right but its Post-Market really. Whatever markets exist in the 24th century exist for shits and giggles because people are bored.
Agreed, I'd imagine.
Might I suggest A Modern Utopia by HG Wells who deals with a lot of these topics.
If the federation was like the EU it would find a way to go bankrupt even in a world without money :P
ColonelHess actually that’s correct because it’s working on moral currency. They’re running it based on the people’s will to better humanity and seek progress. So their currency is that morality. The EU would screw that up 😂
I remember that episode where Jake Sisco got his book published.
His ferengi friend asked how much he is getting paid. To which he replied nothing.
Couldn't help but to feel how empty and meaningless Jake's book deal was. He was happy for what? The publisher had to sacrifice nothing to put his work out there. They took no risk.
They simply read it and said "meh...out it in the database"
When there is compensation involved the publisher is basically saying I believe in your work so much I will rise my money to publish you and I have have confidence that your work will return my investment with interest.
What Jake got was essentially a pat on the head
I think some writers are noted as selling holosuit stories.. so I guess it has to do with how you do it?
Next: Political Compass
*Halo*
> UEG (United Earth Government)
> Covenant
> Ancient Human Society
> Forerunners
*Star Ship Troopers*
> Federation
> Bug 'Society'
*Star Wars*
> New Republic (canon/legends)
> Chiss Ascendency
*Neon Genesis Evangelion*
*Hunger Games*
Your user name is awesome.
Please do the Terran Federation next.
I would like to know more.
Technically Sisko did build a superweapon that destroyed several Maquis worlds... also, did you account for the complete corruption of the admiralty?
They really need to hire investigators for their captains and admirals.
Where's the rebellion ?
Él Streek you could not really do it for the rebellion since it was malita more than a government
It functioned very much like a democracy in exile they had a civilian comander in cief and other such things found in democratic governments
pauric maxwell they had political beliefs tho
Rebels are terrorists. Don't fall for propaganda.
大銀河帝国の皇帝 All Hail The Emperor!!!!
I love the low key shade tossed at Discovery.
Nobody wants to be in the EU, but I'd love to be in the Federation, or better the Republic
Pickle Rick Me and almost everyone I know enjoys to live in the EU so...
LUKFU ! Why won't your government allow you to have an honest referendum to see how popular the undemocratic unelected Eurocrats really are?
What the fuck...? Tbh, i choose the EU over the USA anytime. Health care, bitcheees!
Pickle Rick 1. Our constitution doesn't allow referendums
2. I'm German and most people here know that we have a huge economy just because of the EU and the free market. So the big majority is pro-EU
(btw the European leaders aren't unelected, but just not DIRECTLY elected)
Helo I'm in the UK, we've had free health care since the 50s, and I voted leave alongside another 17 million
I agree.
...all stations...Fire...
The older i get the more i root for the Klingons.
You are probably not that happy then :)! If anything make it at least the romulans :)!
Yup. They keep their own race a priority, respect tradition, and dont take shit from weaker races...based AF
Fuck romulans....Romulans are slimy....Klingons skull fuck anyone that messes with them....There are no soy boy klingons......You sound like you cry when you watch a movie like a lil bitch.
7Earthsky your comment sounds by a hi person :)!
WOW that escalated quicly ;D
I've been reading some of the comments and it's pretty surprising how civil everyone is being.
I have some questions for anyone saying that this sort of economic system would work:
1)Who cleans the toilets to "better themselves"? Who cleans windows on skyscrapers to "better themselves"? Who works as a miner to "better themselves"? Who cleans the streets? Who mops the floors? Who cleans air-con vents? Who kills bugs to "better themselves"? These are still jobs that will need to be done even in a society that basically has instant, free food, clothing and basic equipment.
2)I live in the 24th century on Earth. I don't want to join Star Fleet, but my dream is to explore space in my own ship. Can I have one, since money doesn't exist? There is no possibility of me buying one, so who gets to decide who has what? Realistically not everyone can have a ship, right? I'm not talking about Star Ships here, I'm talking about some kind of Space Yacht - lightly armed, can be operated by a handful of people, one at a push, capable of Warp Speeds. What if everyone on Earth wants their own ship like mine? Can they have one? They all need Dilithium crystals in their warp cores to regulate the reaction of matter/anti-matter and these can't be replicated, only mined, so are they given away or kept under lock and key?
Let's face it: even breaking the surface of the economy in the Federation yields massive problems outside of the authority driven Star Fleet and in the private/personal sectors. It's bullshit pulled straight out of a page of the Zeitgeist movement handbook. It could never work on free, ambitious people. The economic idea behind the Federation in Star Trek shatters when you realise that everyone in that world will want to be Star Fleet Captains yet no one will want to clean the streets or paint houses, despite the world needing far more street cleaners and house painters than Star Fleet Captains.
The only way around this would be to have a disable work force which is made to do the shitty jobs - slaves. Even robotic slaves are frowned upon in Star Trek as we have seen numerous times, due in part to the fact that they always seem to develop sentience.
Doryun
For your first point, robots and advanced technology would eliminate the need for most, if not all traditional "blue collar" jobs. When the series talks about not using robots, it's talking about using sentient AI against it's will. There is no reason why they couldn't use dumb robots to replace the traditional workforce.
As for your second point, there is simply not enough information about life outside of star fleet to really tell one way or another about the economics of owning your own ship. The series does reference individual pilots owning small vessels on several occasions though. If exploration is what you want to do for the sake of science, there are references to scientific branches of the federation which have either a loose association with Starfleet, or are completely independent of Starfleet.
B'elanna Torres does all that, because she's an engineer.
However, the OP of the question has a point about private enterprise - we know that it DOES still exist due to the episodes that include folks like Harry Mudd, and Vash. Looked upon as 'lawless' due to their outside the lines thinking, but in reality are simply merchants and smugglers trying to re-institute capitalism in some form. The black market certainly exists so the want/need of luxuries also exists outside of the benevolent Federation. I would look closer at the blurred edges outside of Star Fleet to gain a truer picture of the Federation as a whole.
The TOS episode "Journey to Babel" was all about illegal mining, expatriated mining rights and Nationalism of a non-member world being admitted against the wishes of a FOUNDING member world. Sure the Tellarites were portrayed as greedy capitalists, because Roddenberry was a staunch socialist. But he damn sure didn't give away any of his earnings either; so there's that. More to the point, I think the idea that the Federation 'owns' companies is incorrect, more to the point I believe it's closer to strict regulation than direct control.
No socialist government has had great success with technological advances other than the Nazi government of Germany and they did so as a Fascist state. The former Soviet State was more of espionage and assimilation than true innovation - even the US and Soviet space programs were just continuations of Nazi rocketry programs.
I think Star Trek is awesome, I love the concept of the Federation and Star Fleet as portrayed, but the walk and the talk just don't match up on all fronts. At best one could surmise that Star Fleet is an illusory front for the perceived aims of the Federation and at worst an armed propaganda unit of the UFP.
my headcanon behind Federation credits is that the Federation uses Modern Monitary theory, they spend credits into existance. So when a Fed citizen or Starfleet officer "pays" someone the Federation steps in and hands over Credits.