4 ms·

I don't think you can relate TNG to communism. Communist society still had/has money, people still go to the store and buy things. They're more concerned with

I don't think you can relate TNG to communism. Communist society still had/has money, people still go to the store and buy things. They're more concerned with who owns the means of production. But TNG (and TOS to some extent) is a total post-scarcity society. Effectively infinite energy from anti-matter reactors combined with energy->matter conversion "replicators" solves scarcity totally. The only limit on what can be created is how complex it is, and how advanced the science and engineering of the reactors and replicators are. Hence TNG society is totally oriented around science and discovery, rather than production, economic growth, and financial gain.

samus 4y ago
There's still remnants of scarcity in TNG. For example, technology and resources that can't be replicated and where trade is relevant still. And the amount of habitable planets suitable for colonization is also always somewhat limited. No clue how the Federation distributes "luxury" goods like naturally grown food or, famously, wine from Picard's family's vineyard.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >And the amount of habitable planets suitable for colonization is also always somewhat limited. This part of ST doesn't really make sense. They're shown as having the tech to build enormous starbases (and with domed artificial habitats like "Running Silent" in the latest SNW episodes), so they don't need planets to colonize: they can just build O'Neil cyilnders.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    Fun to visit, but many/most? wouldn't like to live on one. Eventually you want to go outside for a walk and fresh air.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Living in an O'Neil cylinder is outside. If it's large enough, it should be hard to tell you're even inside one.
      - mixmastamyk 4y ago
        No on both counts. :-D
    - samus 4y ago
      They can be made to have almost any size. Even with a biosphere. Like the rings in Halo. You can walk and enjoy air that is as fresh as in any natural environment. The real disadvantage is that it is more fragile than a planetary environment. Also, civilizations living there would have to produce technicians that can maintain its systems. Planetary civilizations could choose to become low-tech.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > Planetary civilizations could choose to become low-tech. Not unless they want to be wiped out.
int_19h 4y ago
There was never a communist society on Earth, even if you take the propaganda of the countries that are colloquially known as "communist" at face value. The people, and the parties that they formed, called themselves "communist" because they were supposedly building communism. However, not USSR, nor China, nor any other place ever claimed to have succeeded at it. The "who owns the means of production" problem was to be solved by socialism. Which then supposedly enabled the higher productivity and faster development that would lead to the true post-scarcity society - which would be communism. This is especially evident in Soviet sci-fi, which would often poke over that boundary - e.g. Yefremov's description of future communism in "Andromeda Nebula" and "The Hour of the Bull", or Strugatsky's in the Noon Verse series.
- adrian_b 4y ago
  It appears that some people have downvoted this comment. Whoever did that is completely ignorant about the meaning of the words "socialist" and "communist", as used in all the countries where communist parties have detained the power. The comment above is perfectly accurate.

samus 4y ago

There's still remnants of scarcity in TNG. For example, technology and resources that can't be replicated and where trade is relevant still. And the amount of habitable planets suitable for colonization is also always somewhat limited. No clue how the Federation distributes "luxury" goods like naturally grown food or, famously, wine from Picard's family's vineyard.

midoridensha 4y ago
>And the amount of habitable planets suitable for colonization is also always somewhat limited. This part of ST doesn't really make sense. They're shown as having the tech to build enormous starbases (and with domed artificial habitats like "Running Silent" in the latest SNW episodes), so they don't need planets to colonize: they can just build O'Neil cyilnders.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  Fun to visit, but many/most? wouldn't like to live on one. Eventually you want to go outside for a walk and fresh air.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Living in an O'Neil cylinder is outside. If it's large enough, it should be hard to tell you're even inside one.
    - mixmastamyk 4y ago
      No on both counts. :-D
  - samus 4y ago
    They can be made to have almost any size. Even with a biosphere. Like the rings in Halo. You can walk and enjoy air that is as fresh as in any natural environment. The real disadvantage is that it is more fragile than a planetary environment. Also, civilizations living there would have to produce technicians that can maintain its systems. Planetary civilizations could choose to become low-tech.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      > Planetary civilizations could choose to become low-tech. Not unless they want to be wiped out.

int_19h 4y ago

There was never a communist society on Earth, even if you take the propaganda of the countries that are colloquially known as "communist" at face value. The people, and the parties that they formed, called themselves "communist" because they were supposedly building communism. However, not USSR, nor China, nor any other place ever claimed to have succeeded at it. The "who owns the means of production" problem was to be solved by socialism. Which then supposedly enabled the higher productivity and faster development that would lead to the true post-scarcity society - which would be communism. This is especially evident in Soviet sci-fi, which would often poke over that boundary - e.g. Yefremov's description of future communism in "Andromeda Nebula" and "The Hour of the Bull", or Strugatsky's in the Noon Verse series.

adrian_b 4y ago
It appears that some people have downvoted this comment. Whoever did that is completely ignorant about the meaning of the words "socialist" and "communist", as used in all the countries where communist parties have detained the power. The comment above is perfectly accurate.