Although I agree that the Federation should be conceptualized as a socialist state, I can’t help but think that the writers just threw it in there as a hip buzzword to engage Gen Z and make for a great marketing clip, even though they themselves probably think that “socialist” means “government welfare and being against discrimination of minorities”. The writing of the newer Trek series constantly contradicts the idea that the Federation has a moral high ground, let alone is an actually socialist society, or that there is any kind of political, let alone revolutionary ideal in the writing room other than “yass diversity”.
“The writing of the newer Trek series constantly contradicts the idea that the Federation has a moral high ground, let alone is an actually socialist society, or that there is any kind of political, let alone revolutionary ideal in the writing room other than “yass diversity”.”
Yeah I agree. I mean Picard even said that money existed again in the Federation (until I guess they said it didn’t in the third season, very confusing) and PIC/DIS/Lower Decks all say the replicators are crap. Actually DIS even said it is basically forcing Starfleet officers to eat their own recycled shit!
It’s just the utter cynicism with which the writers treat the Star Trek universe and humanity as a whole now.
90s Trek, even DS9, believed thoroughly that a better version of humanity can be possible. They despite that did not sweep issues like racism or sexism under the rug but instead were incredibly progressive and made very political episodes by projecting current humanity’s issues on alien societies (or individual movements within the Federation) and portraying the in-universe humanity as a positive counterexample.
Like the Ferengi, who are espousing a very exaggerated version of capitalist greed, serving as the viewer’s mirror image of today’s humanity, contrasted with the (better) ideals of the Federation. Or the countless metaphors for various ideologies, issues and systems in the show, from Let This Be Your Last Battlefield to Section 31 as an evil CIA equivalent. Even the incredibly healthy father-son relationship between Ben and Jake, or the almost-poly triad between Keiko, Nerys and Miles showcasing how family relations SHOULD go; or the constant trans-shading of Dax. All of these were portraying the Federation as a positive example while commenting on these issues from their lens projected onto alien species.
Modern Trek on the other hand seems hellbent on making the Federation have the exact same issues, culture and opinions that we do today. Ben and Jake would probably hate each other and Ben would be a stand-in for abusive parents while Jake is the oppressed minor with anxiety issues. A valid story to tell, but why is this our protagonists then? Why would transphobia, racism or sexism be an issue in the Federation utopia? Why do we need strong women clapping back at toxic masculinity, if the latter should not exist anymore? Why does the Federation strive for a regime change on Qo’noS as if it was a comically evil CIA? Why is there apparently evil clickbait media conglomerates like the Federation News Network with only thinly veiled differences to real-life CNN? Why in God’s name is Trump supposed to be the ultimate evil causing WWIII? Why is Elon Musk a scientific hero in this “socialist utopia”, or even relevant? Why do we gleefully murder alien races now just because they are “evil”? Why is humanity still swearing and cussing and suffering from very 21-st century coded anxiety issues, wearing the same clothes and using the same slang born from a capitalist society? I am not saying to make no episodes about social issues - by all means, please do! A lot of them! Make them explicit, too! Just make the Federation the good, socialist utopia, because the entire message otherwise becomes “humanity will always be bigoted and exactly like we are today”.
As a progressive non-binary Marxist (lol), I feel like DS9 was a hundred times more progressive and anti-capitalist than any of the new trek shows ever could be, despite them priding themselves on it.
Very well said. I personally prefer TOS-ENT for their more optimistic takes (most of the time) on humanities future than New Trek (I’m not a new Trek hater by any means, I’m just saying what I personally prefer to go back to on re-watches).
I will argue that the Disco bit is more intended to add some subtext that outlines Admiral Vance’s thoughts than just “haha we eat poop.”
I read it as tiredness on Vance’s part-- a sort of signal that yes, in some ways the quality of life under the Emerald Chain is better than the sterile closed environment of the UFP’s remnant. Contrast this with Osyraa’s statement about how she has real apples. He chooses the Federation’s integrity when it comes down to it, but he was genuinely considering throwing the Federation’s legitimacy behind the Chain.
Its a pattern in New Trek. PIC said the replicators make food that tastes like shit, then DIS said they are made from shit! I mean to be fair, even DS9 tried at times to weaken the replicator but it didnt go this far. Writers just tend to hate the concept for some reason.
Yes writers wrote weaknesses in the replicators back then, which was a continuity issue even back then, but they didnt go as far as saying it tastes like shit and is made from literal shit.
I hate about that word that the Federation clearly is not “post scarcity”; or if they are, they’re not “post logistics”, if that makes sense. Federation citizens like in the DMZ constantly suffer from poverty and war.
@Reva@OsakaWilson If there's war, there are refugees. If there are refugees there are wealth discrepancies. If there are wealth discrepancies there will be commerce (under the table or over). If there is commerce there will be money. Seems pretty unavoidable. The Galaxy can be a utopia or it can have war, but it can't have both. Star Trek has war, therefore... :)