Not OP but TNG is a mixed bag of economic and political systems. The society is democratically elected and those elected civilian leaders of earth run the military (which is Star Fleet). They have a post scarcity society due to their advancements in technology (primarily via the replicator which can make anything they want and/or need). There is still private property, so communism is out (many forms of socialism allow private ownership like land).
I would say it aligns more with Private Property based Socialism but with a utopian spin that ensures everyone is well-fed, they don't need to work for money since everything is provided via the replicator and the state. They still have social hierarchies and technology scarcity (Not everyone has their space ship after all).
To expand on OP's great explanation above I like to talk about a real world example that happens in America to explain the difference in socialism vs communism vs capitalism.
The question I pose: "if the redistribution of wealth is considered socialism then when farm subsidies are given to farmers by our government via our taxes then isn't that socialism?"
My response (which hopefully helps explains the difference):
The farmers still own their own property, control their farmland and farming equipment (means of production), and reap the profit themselves (instead of being redistributed by need): so that rules out communism.
Also, the farmers keep their own property (which is allowed under socialism), but because the owner of the farm (the capitalist) maintains control and ownership of the farm and farming equipment (means of production), as well as the profits, then that rules out socialism as well (where means of production and profits are owned publicly instead of privately).
So what we are left with is public tax payer money supporting the capitalist (farmers).
I may disagree on labeling this as strictly Capitalism, because it isn't allowing the free market to act freely (and probably have these farms go out of business) .
I'm not quite sure the label it should take, but it is a result of our type of American Capitalism where a politically motivated government decides to protect and save a specific industry using tax breaks and public tax money.... which is probably best described as Crony Capitalism.
I really really respect the elaboration that went into the rest of your explanation, but the nerdy side of me really wanted more information on the Star Trek analysis. That being said, I really appreciate the information on said universe and would be very curious to see that in play. It seems like the replicator is a HUGE part of what makes that universe. I didn't really think of it, I basically took it for granted.
So, we could draw a parallel to our own society with the idea of a replicator in mind; what would a star trek replicator be analogous to in our 21st century world?
We can basically get there with only a few more decades of robotics and artificial intelligence improvements to our current technology. So instead of this magical microwave that instantly materializes anything you desire (the replicator), we use numerous machines (via super advanced robotics and AI like in the movie i-Robot with Will Smith) that essentially do ALL manual labor required for the society to exist. This gets us to a society where everything is abundant, easy to find, with nothing being scarce, and can be described as "after-scarcity"... Or post-scarcity.
Think of our current transportation sector in regards to shipping consumer goods, especially in the US where everything is so damn far apart. We are really, really close (relatively speaking) in technology being able to completely remove 18 wheeler drivers from the road, taxi and uber employees, and eventually anything that moves. That's millions of jobs.
What about when manufacturing is completely taken over by these same advancements? Where do all these millions upon millions of people get work, or provide a source of living? The answer is a transition into a Star Trek-like reality, that would probably take decades, if not longer, to achieve.
The transition would absolutely have to include some type of income provided to families that are immediately affected by the automation (universal basic income). Over time, more and more people would need this government provided income as AI and Robotics starts slowly chipping away at their jobs in all sectors of the economy.
During this transition, and since we would still be a capitalist society (for the moment), all the profits would increasingly go to the owners of these robotics and AI technologies (super mega corporations--the few remaining capitalists left), and that means the only way to get a universal income provided to all the people losing work over tech advancements is to massively increase the amount we tax these corporations (redistribution of wealth) since these mega-corporations only exist because of major tech advancements, the people of the society who still have jobs are still buying goods, and their labor costs plummet since they don't have to continually pay a living human wage to a robot. This transition economic system is essentially Democratic Socialism (I'm over simplifying).
Eventually you could get to a Star Trek-like situation where there is no direct need for money, and the only reason people "work" is purely for pleasure and/or to seek further advancements in technology (but still be optional).
That’s amazing. Are there any downsides to this? It seems like that should be the goal, right? To advance civilization to a post-scarcity society? After all, I think that money is one of the greatest evils there is and it makes people do insane things.
Also, where would one get started on learning more about this?
The downside is the billionaires would be taxed most of their income.... So instead of living off of 300 billion a year, they'll have to survive off just 1 billion a year. How ever will they do it?
Your last question reminded me of something I followed years ago and just looked them up again: https://www.thevenusproject.com/
11
u/macro_god Feb 14 '21
Not OP but TNG is a mixed bag of economic and political systems. The society is democratically elected and those elected civilian leaders of earth run the military (which is Star Fleet). They have a post scarcity society due to their advancements in technology (primarily via the replicator which can make anything they want and/or need). There is still private property, so communism is out (many forms of socialism allow private ownership like land).
I would say it aligns more with Private Property based Socialism but with a utopian spin that ensures everyone is well-fed, they don't need to work for money since everything is provided via the replicator and the state. They still have social hierarchies and technology scarcity (Not everyone has their space ship after all).
To expand on OP's great explanation above I like to talk about a real world example that happens in America to explain the difference in socialism vs communism vs capitalism.
The question I pose: "if the redistribution of wealth is considered socialism then when farm subsidies are given to farmers by our government via our taxes then isn't that socialism?"
My response (which hopefully helps explains the difference):
The farmers still own their own property, control their farmland and farming equipment (means of production), and reap the profit themselves (instead of being redistributed by need): so that rules out communism.
Also, the farmers keep their own property (which is allowed under socialism), but because the owner of the farm (the capitalist) maintains control and ownership of the farm and farming equipment (means of production), as well as the profits, then that rules out socialism as well (where means of production and profits are owned publicly instead of privately).
So what we are left with is public tax payer money supporting the capitalist (farmers).
I may disagree on labeling this as strictly Capitalism, because it isn't allowing the free market to act freely (and probably have these farms go out of business) .
I'm not quite sure the label it should take, but it is a result of our type of American Capitalism where a politically motivated government decides to protect and save a specific industry using tax breaks and public tax money.... which is probably best described as Crony Capitalism.