As I explained in one of my most widely read articles, Star Trek's Federation (or at least Earth) is definitely socialist by the time of the New Generation series, and probably the time of the original series that focused on the Enterprise commanded by Captain Kirk. By "socialist," I mean an economy where all large enterprises are controlled by the government, not merely a market economy where there is regulation or a welfare state. Despite Republican rhetoric to the contrary, Barack Obama is not a socialist; but he would be one if he sought to nationalize all major enterprises and abolish the use of money, as Star Trek's Federation seems to have done.
I'm not so sure on that Obama point. I think the case can be made that he is on the way to nationalizing some major industries. It may be that others will follow. As for his statement that Obama hasn't tried to "abolish the use of money," that's not a prerequisite for socialism. Since when is there no money in socialist or even communist states?
What has always bugged me about Star Trek though is not the portrayal of a socialist economy of the future. It's that Star Trek's vision of the future is a galaxy ruled by a military dictatorship. I understand that the Federation is supposed to be moral and beneficent, but as far as I could ever tell it is an unelected military dictatorship. Was there ever an election portrayed on Star Trek? Is the military hierarchy ever answerable to some civilian authority? I remember episodes with admirals, but I don't remember any presidents.
What's more, no one in the future seems to have a problem with this. Is that the future of humanity? To be ruled without democratic representation, and to like it? Humanity seems to have evolved into sheep.
This question is particularly apparent in the Voyager series. Here the people on the Enterprise are not only the crew, but also their families and other civilians. What happens when the children become adults and don't really like the idea of being ruled by a dictatorial Captain and her fellow officers? They didn't sign up for that.
I haven't seen many episodes of the new Battlestar Galactica, but one that I did catch touched on this theme. The people doing grunt work, I think they were miners, had pretty much had it with the situation. They lived difficult an brutal lives while the officers and elites ran the show, including deciding who did what job. The result was a strike/rebellion. Now that's a future of humanity I can believe in.
Ann says: I grew so sick of TNG after realizing that absolutely everyone got along with absolutely everyone else. The one season which challenged that--when they had the alternate doctor--was the best, in part because it was far more realistic. The nicey-nicey, happy-happy atmosphere was boring and unrealistic, and at times so sicky-sweet, you had to brush your teeth afterwards.
If you want realistic though, you've got to go with Babylon 5. There, they had elections (the wrong guy won, the Alliance fell into dictatorship, and the military had to decide whether to take "all enemies foreign and domestic" seriously.) The show had everything from utterly-blind Jimmy Carter types, to gung-ho war at any cost militarists. They had labor strikes and protest movements, and real and meaningful politics--even budget cuts on the government-run space station. The first season was awful, and the 5th season suffered from early-cancellation threats, but the middle 3 seasons were great.
0 comments:
Post a Comment