Where’s the funny?
the cynical side of me liked it. ofc that may not be your kind of humor
political memes are always forced and unfunny
There isn’t any. Just the typical 14 year olds railing on about the same ten commie phrases as if it was ever funny. Looking forward to more diverse meme communities coming to Lemmy so I can block the communist stupid.
Hehe basing actual society on media representation of the extremes lol
Both scenarios could actually happen at the same time
Actually, now that I think about it, has there even been a piece of media showing a utopia as capitalist? All the genuine utopias I can think of are usually at least socialist leaning. I say genuine cause there’s also a huge number of works about “utopias” where the whole plot is about how the society isn’t actually a utopia.
that’s because a capitalist Utopia is in no way realistic (and acutally self-contradictory). The only future Capitalism offers is a dystopian one (if we even get to have a future, which is not all that likely under current circumstances)
I think the closest we might would be a mixed economy utopia, where capitalism co-exists with things like workers rights and whatnot. Its probably difficult to write a believeable capalist utopia because it requires that the people at the top are all saints.
Although, with the advances in AI, maybe someone could write a story about some megacorp AI meeting everybody’s needs. It might be an interesting writing experiment.
Although, with the advances in AI, maybe someone could write a story about some megacorp AI meeting everybody’s needs. It might be an interesting writing experiment.
You mean like iRobot?
Tbh I haven’t read it. I instead saw the will smith movie that has almost nothing to do with the book.
I was actually talking about the movie! Featuring an AI that comes up with a plan for “meeting everybody’s needs.” ;)
I think the word you’re looking for in reference to a utopia not being a utopia is “dystopia”.
There has to be one, but i think most sci-fi authors are left-leaning so their utopias and dystopias both reflect that.
I think you’re, uh, pretty super wrong about sci-fi authors being leftists. Maybe the modern ones, but historically they’ve been pretty right wing.
You’ve got a point there… Robert Heinlein’s books were so fashy that Verhoeven decided the only way Starship Troopers could be turned into a film was if it was done as satire.
I just want to point out that starfleet actively oppresses certain groups of people (genetically modified races usually), ignores the needs of their border worlds while simultaneously demanding they adhere to federation laws, and their entire legal system is broken. A judge forced Riker to prosecute Data despite the obvious personal connections.
Star Trek is not as much of a socialist utopia as people like to pretend it is. Its definitely a more liberal society, but equality is not a given.
I haven’t watched all of the new trek but I feel like they were slowly turning around the anti GMO stuff with Bashir. They highlighted the absurdity of leaving a child permanently disabled when he could become a doctor instead.
New trek tries to do something similar, at least in Strange New Worlds anyways. Theres a whole courtroom episode regarding a certain member of the enterprise. Its a pretty new episode so I won’t spoil anything for people. Anyways, theres more than 100 years between the two shows and basically nothing has changed.
Bashir got an exception provided his father spend time in prison. I wouldn’t call that a particularly major win, but thats just me.
Its a show though. The reason Riker prosecuted Data was because of the tension created by their friendship. Rikers deliverance in that episode still gives me chills it was so good. Don’t take the episodes as a 1:1 what it would actually be like. Thats why Strange New Worlds had a separate captain but they still chose to create relationship tension there, too. Because its interesting to watch.
I think it depicts a communist future quite well actually. Errors can and always will be made, Administration will always have to be done, it’s just how do we go about those things once we achive a communist society? Proper Star Trek explores those questions and ofc the show in it of itself isn’t flawless either
Mad Max is just a documentary of the Australian outback
Pretty sure Star Trek is actually full on communism given that they’re a classless and moneyless society.
you are correct. though the path to that kind of communism leads through the socialist stage of development
Right, there has to be a transitional state from society the way it is shaped by capitalism to a different kind of society that’s based on communist economic relations. Incidentally, I thought this was an excellent explanation of the relationship between socialist and communist phases of development https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3228-lenin-s-three-theoretical-arguments-about-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat
And ww3 and a post-atomic horror.
tmw you are trying to build up a leftist meme community over at !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com , so you use lemmy’s wacky implementation of crossposts
subtle lol
Ohh! So I rewatched Voyager!
Sevenofnine never wanted to be human… Like she desperately missed the collective for a LOONG time. Janeway forced it on her.
Also! Janeway fucking killed off Tuvick. Dude was begging for his life.
Sorry haha, just wanted to bitch.
The Borg are arguably the most evil force of that universe. What Janeway did is about the only way to convert them back.
Tuvick is a bit more morally ambiguous and a good pick. Either choice would have killed someone, in a sense.
I think a worse one is that time they grew a clone just for their organs. This was Voyager, right? Star Trek do be like that.
That was on Enterprise but yeah that one was hard.
IMHO this situation was not morally ambiguous, like at all. There was a transporter accident. Two crewmen died. That’s that. The fact that a new sentient being came to life as a result is a completely separate matter. That being (Tuvix) as far as anyone should be concerned, was a newborn.
At that point, what you had was a tragic accident of no one’s intention or volition.
The choice was never “save two crewmen” vs “save Tuvix,” because at that point, the two crewman were already dead. And Tuvix was alive and in no danger. There was no moral impetus to do anything. A tragedy happened, it sucks. Move on with life.
So IMHO Janeway absolutely, intentionally, volitionally murdered Tuvix, who was a newborn in no danger. She absolutely resurrected two crewman who were already dead. She did this for her own personal reasons, and acted immorally. QED.
Thank you for coming to my irrationally-important-to-me TED talk.
I just rewatched this episode after reading these comments and I have to say I completely disagree with you.
Firstly, Tuvok and Neelix were not dead in a classical sense. Their bodies and minds were merged together into a third being. If they had legitimately died, they would not have been able to separate Tuvix back into two separate ALIVE people. To suggest that Janeway somehow ressurected two dead men after murdering a third is a bit disingenuous IMO.
Additionally, I think it’s a bit misleading to refer to Tuvix as a completely individual newborn. Right off the bat he introduced himself as both Tuvok and Neelix and expressed that the had retained all of the memories, skills, feelings, and characteristics of the two men. His entire personality was derived from these two men and not something new/unique to him. This is completely different then an actual babies who may inherit traits from their parents but are unique in their own right.
While they did not know if they would be able to separate Tuvix, they were willing to accept their loss and welcome the new guy, however they determined with confidence that they could perform the separation. At that point the moral dilemma becomes: do you let two people die to save one, or do you kill one person to save two?
It’s a take on a classic dilemma which, on paper, feels obvious to answer. The point of the episode is to demonstrate how difficult this ethical dilemma actually is when you have to look a man in the face and tell him his life isn’t more important than the lives of two others.
I think it was also intended to highlight Janeway’s ability to do the right thing even when it is brutally difficult. The episode ends with her walking away, distraught and affected, while maintaining her demeanor. THAT is why she is the captain of the ship.
Hey thanks for the conversation! :)
So this is Star Trek. Being “not dead in a classical sense” applies to everyone who ever steps foot on a transporter. It’s all sci-fi nonsense, so I really don’t think we can apply any aspect of it to questions of ethics. And we don’t have to, actually.
“Newborn” was not the right word. Tuvix was a new person that “began life” at the moment of the transporter accident. Yes, he was the combination of two separate people, but as he demonstrates throughout the episode, he is his own person, and in many ways, better at vital tasks than either of his “ancestors.” He was a unique and valuable sentient life-form deserving of life.
I maintain there was no ethical dilemma. The question was never: “do you LET two people die to SAVE one.” Again: Tuvix was never in any danger to be “saved” from. If no one does anything, then Tuvak and Neelix would have died, and Tuvix will continue living. If someone does something, then Tuvix dies. Full stop. The only enticing part about it is that those two dead people now become alive again through sci-fi wizardry.
The ethical dilemma would have been more high-stakes if, say, Tuvix would have died in a month anyway due to [insert technobabble here]. Then someone doing something might be more of an ethical dilemma. But as it stands, the only ACTION Janeway could have taken would be to end a life. The INACTION would be to allow Tuvix to continue living.
The classical ethics thought-experiment, The Trolley Problem, is fundamentally a question of agency and acts of will. The trolley is going to kill 5 people. Pull a lever and it diverts the trolley to the other track where it kills 1 person. Do you pull the lever and kill 1 to save 5? Does not pulling the lever make you responsible since you are there? And this is more relatable to this conversation: what if instead of pulling a lever, you have to push someone onto the tracks to save the 5?
But in this situation, the trolley has already killed 2 people through no action of your own (or anyone else’s; it was an accident). Tuvix is alive and well and is in no danger of they trolley. But through sci-fi nonsense, if you pick up Tuvix and throw him onto the tracks, the trolley will kill him and somehow bring Tuvak and Neelix back to life. The ethics are clear.
Full disclosure, I consider Janeway to be one of my favourite captains of all time, if not my very favourite. I LOVE Janeway. I think she was fantastic and I’m devastated that Prodigy was cancelled. However, I think in this particular situation, she acted unethically. I don’t blame her, I probably would have done the same thing for my beloved friends. But she did not follow classical nor Starfleet ethics in this case. Her action caused the death of a sentient life (new and unique in all the universe!) for the sake of two dead (whatever that means) friends. IMHO she made a mistake, but she’s human and the mistake just makes her more relatable for it.
Theres a reason she’s sometimes referred to as captain insaneway.
I mean this is the same captain that casually disregarded the prime directive whenever it was convenient for her.
The only wrong choice Janeway made is not shooting Neelix after separating them to avoid future incidents like infecting Voyager with cheese.
This makes me sad.
remember: Pessimism of the Mind, Optimism of the Will! revolutionary Optimism is hard to upkeep but helps with not falling into despair (I know that all too well unfortunately :/)
What’s the future under the nordic compromise?
the so called nordic compromise, is just an implementation of “social” “democracy” and even that has been eroded over the last few decades. It still upkeeps the exploitative nature of capitalism and is largely build on imperialism, racism and oil/fossil fuel money… As such, it still caters to the interests of the rich minority instead of the well-being of humanity at large
Yeah, capitalism and communism have both had pretty bad implementations historically.
Imo the issue is down the us humans. For these systems to work correctly we need to act in good faith, but we are inherently corruptable.
These systems are like beasts that need to be tamed to work properly, but alot of the time the people in charge like to just throw their hands up and go “that’s just how it works!” and not really do anything to fix the issues just because they’re comfortable in the now.
We saw it in how Stalen corrupted Marx’s ideals and ran the Russian State into the ground, and we see it with how western governments have let themselves be corrupted by the influence of big corporate interests.
Lenin already corrupted Marx’s ideals. Stalin just deepened Leninism.
The entire Bolshevik project was fucked.
That said, Russia hasn’t exactly gotten better now that they’re not the USSR anymore.
Well, the USSR were basically just Russians, since they carried out Russification programs just like before when the Tsar was still around.
Though that was mostly under Stalin, but it was still felt in the later periods.
That’s why I feel weird when people start almost deifying Stalin or Lenin, it’s just not true to the vision of Marxism.
Well said. How can someone stop drowning if the rich won’t take their foot off the people’s heads?
Mad Max, but in pyjamas.
Babylon 5.
That’s the future under post-scarcity, not socialism. They have replicators, which has made manual labor, capitalism, and socialism obsolete. We do not have any such technology and therefore cannot achieve such a thing at this time.
We already live in a “post-scarcity” world… there is absolutely nothing humans could need that we couldn’t grow or produce. All the scarcity you see around you is artificially created and maintained - and that means socialism is far, far from obsolete.
there is absolutely nothing humans could need that we couldn’t grow or produce.
Yes, but much of it is made using human labor. Labor is what’s scarce in real life and not scarce in Star Trek, and a technological Holy Grail is required to bridge that gap.
So no, present-day scarcity is not artificial. Not entirely artificial, at least.
Labor is what’s scarce in real life
No, it isn’t. We have more labor on this planet that we would know what to do with if we stopped repressing it in order to keep a small group of billionaire parasites in the money.
and a technological Holy Grail is required to bridge that gap.
Absolutely not… there is nothing humans would need that we couldn’t produce in spades using already existing methods. The heinous abuse and mismanagement of human resources in our current mode of production does not require techno-fetishizing non-solutions - it requires a social solution. Hence, socialism.
It’s like with famines: globally we produce more than enough food to feed everyone, we just choose not to.
Our problem isn’t the production of goods, but the allocation.
Pretty much.
We have more labor on this planet that we would know what to do with if we stopped repressing it in order to keep a small group of billionaire parasites in the money.
We would run out of it very quickly if there wasn’t anything compelling laborers to perform labor. Nobody’s going to grow crops for you out of the goodness of their hearts. That’s hard, miserable, thankless, dangerous work. That’s why capitalism exists in the first place.
The heinous abuse and mismanagement of human resources in our current mode of production does not require techno-fetishizing non-solutions - it requires a social solution. Hence, socialism.
That has already been attempted several times, each attempt ended in catastrophic failure, and that failure itself involved heinous abuse and mismanagement of human resources.
Machines may yet solve this problem for us, but humans definitely won’t, and we’ve got the history to prove it.
We would run out of it very quickly
No. We wouldn’t. The labor would simply be spent on that which people find important.
Nobody’s going to grow crops for you out of the goodness
Says who? PragerU?
That’s why capitalism exists in the first place.
No, Clyde… that’s not it. Maybe don’t extrapolate your politics from Civilization games, okay?
That has already been attempted several times
Yes, it has… and everywhere it was tried it was destroyed by fascists, capitalists and other power-hoarders because they were afraid it might work. For instance, Catalonia in the middle 30s and Ukraine in the early 20s.
Machines may yet solve this problem for us,
No, they won’t.
and we’ve got the history to prove it.
Alt-history doesn’t actually count as real history.
I think it’s closer to communism than socialism or post-scarcity. There’s no democratic control of the workplace to be seen; everybody just shares everything. But they don’t have infinity starships for everyone.
I think the best episode which explores this idea is the DS9 baseball card episode. The card isn’t post-scarcity; it’s extremely valuable personal property.
They don’t have infinite starships because they don’t have infinite energy and raw materials. What they do have is effectively infinite labor, since they can trivially make just about anything (with a few exceptions, like latinum) out of whatever resources are on hand.
I didn’t see the episode you mentioned, so I can’t comment on it.
If you’re a trekkie I guarantee you’ll enjoy it. A fantastic episode.
Talkies are cringe, both is bad
what do you even mean? progressive Trekkies are cool and Tankie is just a derogatory word to describe revisionists
and Tankie is just a derogatory word to describe revisionists
That’s not what the term tankie means.
back to reddit with you
Also nothing is black and white and this meme just furthers the polarized belief that other=wrong makes mine right
Socialism good, capitalism bad. Agree?
No tankie… go away.
There’s nothing tankie about this. Nobody’s celebrating genocide or conquest here.
Don’t you know that anybody who’s not cheerleading for the status quo is a tankie?
It’s the entry drug to communism, and then eventually to tankyism…
There is no such thing as an entry drug, either literally or metaphorically.
The bottom is the society that will happen post-socialism. No matter what political system follows, it will always end up in the hands of those who seek to abuse it. Everybody wants to be wealthy and pain free, socialism requires that everyone feel the same degree of pain and suffering no matter what.
We are doomed to be on this rock to the end of our days, unless we can destroy it slowly enough to show us that we are ruining it, and give us the ability to feasibly evacuate it.
What a load of bollocks.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, even if they remain solely opinions and not facts.
Yours is one of those. We are not leaving this planet before we destroy it, kill each other, or starve to death.
