I felt like DS9 was the show to really showcase how the Federation was NOT communist. Sure, it was socialist; but it had a huge chunk of people living in the periphery of it. There is also the precedent that planets are able to run themselves however they please, as long as they abide to certain “Federation Principles”. What these are we don’t really know but there ARE planets out there that are exploitatively capitalist or just terrible to grow up on that are still a part of the Federation.
This is directly connectable to two historical events:
Death of Gene Roddenberry and control being ceded to other executives who were more liberal.
It was the very first Trek show made following the victory of the US in the cold war, the end of history rhetoric and feeling reaching its height. (While most of TNG was filmed after the fall of the USSR, the first 3-ish seasons were written and shot before that, thus setting a tone among the writers, additionally the impact of the fall of the USSR wasn’t really fully felt until the coup in 1994 which was most of the way through the show’s run) Additionally I believe Patrick Stewart held some sympathies as the time that might have pushed back against any attempts to revise the universe, even if they’d wanted to and I don’t think they wanted to make any major changes during the run of the show.
This can be laid at the feet of Rick Berman really more than anything. Gene Roddenberry was weird, he was leering, but he undoubtedly had some much better politics than Berman and those who followed. In the glow of the victory of capitalism and end of history the whole IP took a very dark turn necessarily on the belief that this was it, this was how things would continue and Star Trek would have to exist in some related context with less utopianism.
Voyager continued or at least didn’t revert these problems though given it’s situation being stranded far outside of the communist controlled space their actions and activities can be more or less justified as frontier and war communism tough stuff. What can’t be as easily bushed aside is the black ops section whatever introduced in DS9, the heavy use of fiat currency among the crew in ordinary situations including gambling, and a lot of other shifts in how the federation is defined and run.
So I agree but I disagree in its inclusion in ST “golden age” canon which is basically just TNG. Hence why I think the IP is not worth fighting over, the liberals won long ago and it’s only ever gotten worse since then. By itself in a vacuum or with TOS TNG is a great if somewhat utopian socialist show. Everything that followed has been decay if not outright plundering in a mirror version of what Russia went through in the 90s of shock therapy and terror.
One episode at the tail end of the series vs a whole series/season that sprouted from that same soil after that. Not undermining my point at all IMO.
Fact is it fell off after the fall of the USSR and Gene’s death, whatever lack of purity it had, whatever internal contradictions the overall direction and feel and politics were not awful but took a turn after that inflection point. They had some liberals on the ship all along obviously or they couldn’t seize control of the property so easily so this really isn’t a point I think as I’m contending historical forces pushed a change through, Gene’s death being one. As a whole TNG was good for a series produced under capitalism. It had problems, it wasn’t a “pure” socialist artwork as clearly it wasn’t being made that way and they had liberal writers and producers whose brainworms got worse after the end of history and Gene’s influence being lost.
I’m not going to reply any further though as I find debating this tiring as it’s just a back and forth of cherry picking and cited examples and counters and it rarely goes anywhere but a lot of visits to online wikis. As I said I don’t like Star Trek so I’m not really up for extended arguments in the weeds with its defenders or those trying to push their favorite series as being within the cut-off window for “okay”/not-okay. I have my opinion, if you have another well maybe you could be right (as long as it’s before Enterprise, if Enterprise or after is included as still okay then well you’re flat out wrong lol).
Okay…? Thanks. I don’t think that was cherry-picking nor was it one episode…especially when that one episode had a continuation in DS9 that was specifically high-lighted as a moment of “fucked up” when Sisko goes nuts. That was a pretty important plot point…not cherry-picking. Also, bringing up that planets even in TNG had their independence either the economy of the organization is socialist or not and that the planets can have NON-SOCIALIST economies isn’t cherry-picking lmfao and the plot/sub-plot I believe of two episodes in TNG and I think at least one in DS9.
I still don’t disagree with you, though. I don’t think it’s revisionism, though. Like yeah, show got worse after fall of USSR and I was never denying that. It’s just that even in TNG…yes it wasn’t perfect. Pointing out those cracks isn’t “cherry-picking”. Nor was I trying to push my “favorite” series when it was Voyager while I’m bringing up DS9. I also don’t see how that undermining your point but…okay?
I felt like DS9 was the show to really showcase how the Federation was NOT communist. Sure, it was socialist; but it had a huge chunk of people living in the periphery of it. There is also the precedent that planets are able to run themselves however they please, as long as they abide to certain “Federation Principles”. What these are we don’t really know but there ARE planets out there that are exploitatively capitalist or just terrible to grow up on that are still a part of the Federation.
DS9 IMO is where the revisionism started.
This is directly connectable to two historical events:
Death of Gene Roddenberry and control being ceded to other executives who were more liberal.
It was the very first Trek show made following the victory of the US in the cold war, the end of history rhetoric and feeling reaching its height. (While most of TNG was filmed after the fall of the USSR, the first 3-ish seasons were written and shot before that, thus setting a tone among the writers, additionally the impact of the fall of the USSR wasn’t really fully felt until the coup in 1994 which was most of the way through the show’s run) Additionally I believe Patrick Stewart held some sympathies as the time that might have pushed back against any attempts to revise the universe, even if they’d wanted to and I don’t think they wanted to make any major changes during the run of the show.
This can be laid at the feet of Rick Berman really more than anything. Gene Roddenberry was weird, he was leering, but he undoubtedly had some much better politics than Berman and those who followed. In the glow of the victory of capitalism and end of history the whole IP took a very dark turn necessarily on the belief that this was it, this was how things would continue and Star Trek would have to exist in some related context with less utopianism.
Voyager continued or at least didn’t revert these problems though given it’s situation being stranded far outside of the communist controlled space their actions and activities can be more or less justified as frontier and war communism tough stuff. What can’t be as easily bushed aside is the black ops section whatever introduced in DS9, the heavy use of fiat currency among the crew in ordinary situations including gambling, and a lot of other shifts in how the federation is defined and run.
So I agree but I disagree in its inclusion in ST “golden age” canon which is basically just TNG. Hence why I think the IP is not worth fighting over, the liberals won long ago and it’s only ever gotten worse since then. By itself in a vacuum or with TOS TNG is a great if somewhat utopian socialist show. Everything that followed has been decay if not outright plundering in a mirror version of what Russia went through in the 90s of shock therapy and terror.
Is it revisionism when this was demonstrated in TNG with the settlers in Cardassian territory? I really feel like you’re ignoring that part.
One episode at the tail end of the series vs a whole series/season that sprouted from that same soil after that. Not undermining my point at all IMO.
Fact is it fell off after the fall of the USSR and Gene’s death, whatever lack of purity it had, whatever internal contradictions the overall direction and feel and politics were not awful but took a turn after that inflection point. They had some liberals on the ship all along obviously or they couldn’t seize control of the property so easily so this really isn’t a point I think as I’m contending historical forces pushed a change through, Gene’s death being one. As a whole TNG was good for a series produced under capitalism. It had problems, it wasn’t a “pure” socialist artwork as clearly it wasn’t being made that way and they had liberal writers and producers whose brainworms got worse after the end of history and Gene’s influence being lost.
I’m not going to reply any further though as I find debating this tiring as it’s just a back and forth of cherry picking and cited examples and counters and it rarely goes anywhere but a lot of visits to online wikis. As I said I don’t like Star Trek so I’m not really up for extended arguments in the weeds with its defenders or those trying to push their favorite series as being within the cut-off window for “okay”/not-okay. I have my opinion, if you have another well maybe you could be right (as long as it’s before Enterprise, if Enterprise or after is included as still okay then well you’re flat out wrong lol).
Okay…? Thanks. I don’t think that was cherry-picking nor was it one episode…especially when that one episode had a continuation in DS9 that was specifically high-lighted as a moment of “fucked up” when Sisko goes nuts. That was a pretty important plot point…not cherry-picking. Also, bringing up that planets even in TNG had their independence either the economy of the organization is socialist or not and that the planets can have NON-SOCIALIST economies isn’t cherry-picking lmfao and the plot/sub-plot I believe of two episodes in TNG and I think at least one in DS9.
I still don’t disagree with you, though. I don’t think it’s revisionism, though. Like yeah, show got worse after fall of USSR and I was never denying that. It’s just that even in TNG…yes it wasn’t perfect. Pointing out those cracks isn’t “cherry-picking”. Nor was I trying to push my “favorite” series when it was Voyager while I’m bringing up DS9. I also don’t see how that undermining your point but…okay?