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

    • Handles@leminal.spaceEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      Got it. TBF, most of what comes out of Pella’s mouth I interpret as sarcastic quips. She’s the SNW version of Jett Reno, after all.

      Not that she’s wrong, it’s just not exactly a franchise-wide decree of mission statement passed down from Alex Kurtzman or the Roddenberry estate…

      • jimhensonslostpuppet@startrek.websiteOPEnglish
        0·
        5 months ago

        The same episode says private ownership of things like cars no longer exists in the future, so it’s clearly a description of the economy. I agree its almost a dismissal though, which is why I prefer The Orville’s treatment of the no money post scarcity economy more.

        • Handles@leminal.spaceEnglish
          0·
          5 months ago

          Yeah, but claiming that private property is a thing of the show’s past is as old as the show itself. Almost 30 years ago we got this great bit between Picard and Lily in First contact:

          — The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century.

          — No money? You mean you don’t get paid?

          — The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.

          This, of course, from a man with inherited real estate in La Barre… But there are several anticapitalist barbs in TNG and DS9, too.

        • bionicjoey@lemmy.caEnglish
          0·
          5 months ago

          There is definitely still private ownership in Star Trek. Replicator programs and other software are regularly seen as being treated like intellectual property. Schematics as well. You think anyone can just go down to their local print shop and replicate the parts for an Enterprise class ship themselves?

          • MudMan@fedia.io
            0·
            5 months ago

            I’m a bit shocked that nobody has pointed out the obvious:

            The economics of Star Trek are super inconsistent and make no sense because multiple writers had a crack and they each liked and believed different things.

            Sometimes it’s a post-scarcity socialist utopia where money is obsolete. Other times, Picard invites someone out on a date and she answers “you buying?”.

            This is obvious enough that multiple people have tried to fix it, which as always in franchise worldbuilding only makes things less consistent and more complicated. So now some things just can’t be properly replicated. Sometimes it’s because of regulations and laws, other times it’s because of technology limitations. Sometimes the Federation doesn’t use money but they still have it for trade, other times they use money, just for random commodities.

            The middle of the road for Trek seems to be some form of socialdemocracy where you’re provided with anything you need and labor is largely vocational, but out in space there is enough variation over time and different areas that there is still a bit of a pseudo-capitalist economy even in regions where Federation-level post-scarcity tech is still available. Go in any more detail and the whole thing breaks down.

            This goes for other political elements of the series, too. Picard gets super mad at the notion of endorsing religious beliefs in a prewarp society because he finds it barbaric. Meanwhile, Sisko is out there becoming Bajoran Space Jesus and everybody is just cool with that.

            It’s almost like Rick Berman’s, Ronald D. Moore’s and Gene Roddenberry’s political beliefs were different from each other’s, huh?