Her thesis is "The People should never cede their right to make their own personal decisions (with regard to professions, lifestyle, and spouse)".

She's writing in response to "The Giver" as a communist dystopia. I countered with Star Trek as a communist utopia. What are your thoughts? She's retreated for now and wants to rejoin the discussion tomorrow.

i dont think either example is too realistic. in both those cases the people are kind of all happy and the societies are kind of egalitarian. under real totalitarianism you usually have a small elite that use the concentrated power to benefit themselves and then you have the rest of society that is not really happy. which is why propaganda is so crucial to those governments.

"The Giver" though leads you up to the soul crushing "release" of a baby that the author takes pains to make you care for. Star Trek, on the other hand has replicator technology so everyone gets absolutely everything the "need" and material gain has become less important than fulfillment in one's chosen profession.

yes... i suppose. i cant remember much about that book. but they are fiction. typically if a government is taking away the right to make decisions it is for a reason. like state-enforced slavery or apartheid, it is often to benefit a majority at the expense of minorities. particularly in democracies. or to benefit the rich at the hands of the many. but taking away decision making authority does not always equal communism. fascist governments also tend to take away decision making. communists might seize all your disposable income, but you could still have free speech or other rights.

Oh, oh, I wanna play...let me read here...

then again i guess under extreme "communism" where the government is assigning you a house and gives you one option for a car or something, then i guess they are kind of the same.

I think that as soon as we decide to limit our population to a more reasonable level it will become much easier to realise a utopia al-la star trek, but in the current economic ideal of unlimited economic growth this will not be possible.

Human nature is such that we will not find it easy to escape the current competition for resources - even as resources become exponentially easier to acquire, or their utility become exponentially more efficient - that is as the relative reward for control of resources becomes greater - we instead compete for relative position among other humans; and thus the more humans there are the harder it is to become the most powerful...

Star trek's utopia is not impossible, it just requires a generation of humans to believe in an alternative economy and fight for it. Unfortunately the usual result of fighting for something is the oppression of those who have who opposed it - and while i have little sympathy for those who currently hold the status quo power, the oppression of any human being has been the result of every previous or imagined dystopian socialism...

but particularly during the war effort, the nazis were stripping all wealth from their citizens for the war effort. the average german citizen had as little ability to say no to that as the citizens of the ussr had. so aparantly they didnt have the right to make decisions either. if you only have a right until the government thinks you shouldnt have it... then you actually never had that right.

"Her thesis is "The People should never cede their right to make their own personal decisions (with regard to professions, lifestyle, and spouse)"

I think that works for all matters which may be considered intrinsically or naturally private in nature, but cannot work for a matter which is at least public or necessarily-public in nature--

John Stuart Mill was right (you can tell her) that "the right to swing my fist ends where another man's face begins."

You can have the freedom to swing your fist ALL you want, and should NEVER cede that right...but that freedom ends where your private space ends, and so in public, or in another person's space, you do NOT have that right, because if you then swing your fist and hit them you're violating THEIR private right to peace.

"She's writing in response to "The Giver" as a communist dystopia. I countered with Star Trek as a communist utopia. What are your thoughts? She's retreated for now and wants to rejoin the discussion tomorrow."

Well, I'd argue Trek is more a democratic socialist's utopia than a communist dystopia, but anyway...

Neither Captain Kirk nor Picard violate their crewmember's privacy...

Because even though everyone shares resources, no one gives up their right to privacy...

And it's from PRIVACY that personal decisions are allowed to stem.

If she's read it (and even if she hasn't) I'd recommend the Winston Smith quote from Orwell's "1984" to make the point here on the privacy/personal decisions mark:

"Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull."

As long as you have THAT, and can have private, personal thoughts, you have at least some freedom for personal choice--THAT is the freedom you should NEVER cede.

But that doesn't mean that you can ACT OUT every thought that passes through your mind, and the price for living in a society is sometimes reigning in those thoughts that pass through your skull, and NOT punching the Shakespeare-spouting Internet smartass!

;)

Ommegang! My favorite beer. I just finished a pint of it myself.

Any "happiness" in The Giver's communist "utopia" is because the people have absolutely no knolwedge of anything else. Their world is portrayed as grey and uniform. The moment any knowledge of choice is introduced, the entire thing begins to fall apart, and the only way choice can be kept from the people is through force. Hardly a "utopia".

As for Star Trek...try doing anything the Federation/Starfleet don't want you to do. Justice is rather swift, albiet with a smile. There are many choices and many freedoms...and many restrictions, as well.

Jake Sisco in Deep Space 9 wants to buy his father a vintage baseball card one time, but because his *restrictive* society provides "what he needs", he has no money, and can not participate in Quark's auction. His illusion of freedom is dispelled here, because his freedom turns out to be quite constrained when he attempts to interact with anything outside his government shell.

In other words...in both The Giver and the Star trek Universe, the respective government may allow the illusion of choice, but it is only a choice from a per-determined list that is less than the whole of all choices in the universe/humanity. And, whenever a character discovers this limitation of choice - sees a choice they are not allowed to make - it creates conflict, and disappointment.

"She is a good conservative kid listening to her Social Studies teacher (my uber conservative colleague)" is it really appropriate to have teachers pushing their beliefs on students?

"In both The Giver and the Star trek Universe, the respective government may allow the illusion of choice, but it is only a choice from a per-determined list that is less than the whole of all choices in the universe/humanity." I haven't read The Giver, but I would argue that this is no more true of the Star Trek universe than it is of our own. You have to remember that all of Star Trek takes place aboard military starships (or military facilities or non-federation planets) and thus the characters can be expected to adhere to stricter standards.

"Well, I'd argue Trek is more a democratic socialist's utopia than a communist dystopia, but anyway..." How do you figure? I think CA is right in calling it communist, and he never said anywhere that it is a dystopia. Also, please try ending a sentence with a single period sometime, you might like it.

"is it really appropriate to have teachers pushing their beliefs on students?"

HA ha ha ha ha!! have you ever BEEN to school? The only thing you probably find offensive is that she found the 1 in a 1000 conservatives in a school system, instead of being subjected to the typical liberal clap-trap that comes when most teachers open their mouths and spew their broken opinions...leading to the nightly debriefing around the dinner table...(sigh...)

ghug - I used Jake Sisco *specifically* because he is a civilian, living on his own, in the example that I referred to. He is trying to conduct commerce with a non-Federation bar-keeper running an auction. Jake is as independent of the Federation as he can be in my example and is both allowed to make a choice outside of the Federation's rules, wants to make a choice to act, but can't because of the lingering affects of his previous subjugation to the Federation.

@2WL. It seems we have that in common :)

Krellin, I ignored Jake Sisco because DS9 is the antithesis of all things good in this world and I thus don't waste my time on it.

As for the school issue, you know (and like to point out regularly in attempts to undermine my credibility) that I still attend high school. I can tell you firsthand that teachers have gotten in trouble at my school for trying to push their views on us (my eighth grade teacher made us read Howard Zinn, it was glorious and terrible at the same time). Granted, teachers have also gotten in trouble at my school for sleeping with students and doing drugs, so we might not be the best example. Regardless, I don't think it's right to commend a teacher for doing such things, even if many teachers do do it.

" How do you figure? I think CA is right in calling it communist, and he never said anywhere that it is a dystopia. Also, please try ending a sentence with a single period sometime, you might like it."

Oops, said dystopia instead of utopia--my mistake. :)
And there--a sentence that ended with a period! Double-happiness for you! ;)

And (rightly or wrongly, I suppose) I see Trek as a democratic socialist's utopia rather than a communist's utopia because:

1. Still pretty democratic, they have a democracy and everything...and fair or foul, most "communist utopias" end up with a dictator, or "President" that's still El Presidente 50 years later.

"Animal Farm," the first part (up until Snowball's chased away) seems more like a communist utopia, and even that has a strict oligarchical system in place, it's still the very few pigs in charge, and the same pigs, too, Napoleon and Snowball (so actually one might argue they're just one pig shy of a Triumvirate system) and while the other animals vote, their votes are not always exactly heeded and effects very, very little, it's really more of a show than anything else.

And then there are the communists who, paradoxically, dream of a strict oligarchical leadership, rather than that being a tragedy (and a dictatorship then one tragedy further.)

Trek (and I'm admittedly talking more about the Kirk and Picard days, as that's "Trek" to me...I like the other shows, but won't watch them over and over the way I will TOS and TNG, and anyway, when most people think of Star Trek they generally think of either the Kirk era or Picard days) seems more like a George Bernard Shaw sort of dream, really...with socio-economic equality and stability, and poverty eliminated, a system that seeks to help its people peaceably...

I dunno, it seems a lot more like what Orwell (a democratic socialist) and Shaw (a more borderline figure) would have dreamed of than an out-and-out Marxist dream.

Really, the only time I can see it approaching that is the early days of TNG (which were AWFUL) when Picard & Crew would speech-ify on how awful things were back in the days of capitalism and over-consumption and owning things...which Roddenberry was largely responsibly for, granted, but later writers and shepherds of the franchise didn't preach it as if it were a Marxist principle of the Federation, and Kirk's days don't have too much of it either (TOS seemed far more concerned "we," the then-contemporary 1960s-era viewer, would sooner blow ourselves up out of barbaric warmongering and misunderstanding than buy ourselves into oblivion, as it were.)



So, to be fair:

MAYBE Gene Roddenberry's vision of Trek was more communist...

But on the WHOLE the series comes off as still Left-wing, I think, liberal, possibly, democratic-socialist, but in its essence isn't quite so radical as communism.

In fact, that's part of the Borg later on, the BAD guys--they're communism taken to its extreme.

The (often badly done) Ferengi are capitalism taken to its extreme.

So Trek advocates a middle ground...which I think of as democratic-socialism. :)

Re: Teacher's espousing their (asinine) opeing: We actually had a history teacher in recent months tell one of my children that conservative beliefs are close to nazi's...stunning. For the most part, the guy is not a horrible teacher...but, seriously, I try to keep up with what they ar taught every day so I can counter-act bullshit like this, which can happen in any class, any time. My kid's actually are getting a really good education 8when* they stick to the topics..but...just sayin'...

@krellin, I tend to pretend I'm TC in history classes, it confuses the teachers to no end, and it works well to keep such things in check, as most of them have been very liberal. I fully agree that you should be making sure the guy isn't putting his own spin on the curriculum, but I think it should be just as big of a concern to you when your students get very conservative teachers.

@Obi, you're thinking of actual implemented communism, which is far from utopian. I think that Star Trek fits the ideal communist image. I think the Borg represent more of a totalitarian imperialist oligarchy that has taken communist farther than it should be taken: into a level of total conformity. I'd also like to point out that in "Oops, said dystopia instead of utopia--my mistake. :)
And there--a sentence that ended with a period! Double-happiness for you! ;)", both sentences ends with periods followed by unneeded emoticons.

To side step the issue of my colleague. I was a bit too vague (remember the ale?) I do not think that he's using his position to espouse his political beliefs. Rather he's doing what a good social studies teacher does and providing arguments to get the kids thinking for themselves. As is evidenced by the fact that my twelve year old sat down with me earlier this year to watch presdential debates and after twenty minutes of analysis and discussion of the points came to the realization that she is Pro-Choice. Hardly a conservative stance around here.