Back in the days of the cold war, the US headhunted everyone who had Communistic ideas. But the world of Star Trek is Communism. In Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, they go back in time and they have to rediscover what money is, because theis sociaty have become communistic. So why did the US not headhunt Roddenberry?
Star Trek was the 60's, not the 50's. Besides Roddenberry was a cop and a veteran. They did seem to have "credits".
Communism? I'm not sure aren't most of the mayor ranks filled with sons of admirals or something like that?
If only watched voyager and enterprise janeway, paris, archer, tpol all seemed to be social elite but then again I could be wrong I didn't followed in that that thorougly
Actually TOS still had a free enterprise system of sort. people had investments, money (credits), and could even own planets. TNG changed all that, credits were still around but hardly ever mentioned. There was very little enterprise. Picards family had a vineyard, Sisko's family owned a restaurant, but they seemed to be family businesses that had been there forever. The idea of investment was so foreign that when someone who had been cyrogenically frozen for decades mentioned his portfolio to Picard, the captain was clueless. Even when it was explained. There was nobody who had a father, brother, sister, cousing that ran any kind of major business unless you were ferengi. So TOS was still very much capitalistic by TNG it had changed drastically.
Star Trek was utopian. In any utopian society, it's hard to imagine one having capitalist greed. And besides: It's not all that odd. If we had replicators that could make almost anything from food to tools and these things existed in almost any home, our entire capitalist society would be utterly annihilated and hopefully replaced with something utopian. I mean, what would be left then? The answer: the pursuit of "self betterment" which is pretty much what Star Trek envisions. ~String
Actually Star Trek is a Utopian society. It works off of communist and captialist ideals. While Federation citizens have no use for money among themselves other cultures like the Ferengi and Klingons do use monetary trade. Thus it would be necessary for Federation companies to work with money on some level for international economics. But the abundance of free energy in Trek removes the need for charging for many things. Thus no hungry no poor and no homeless. Communism could gaurantee those element so it doesn't work. A Utopian society couldn't work with out either.
The Federation must have some kind of economics because it's not all encompassing. In order to trade, you must give something in exchange or else it's not trading, it's taking. Hence you can still define a notion of GDP or GNP or whatever it would be called for the entire Federation (my sister's the economist, not me. I don't know the difference between GNP and GDP...). Even if you didn't have money, you can define 'worth' to things. Given 'such and such' production a year, how many people can be supported? How many ships can be built? How many light years of travel are done by vessels? All of things would drop in a decaying economy so it's not that the notion of money, investment, trade etc were removed in Star Trek. Besides, most citizens of the Federation have assets in some form which other species want. They don't give away houses for nothing. Earth is essentially paradise. So why live under a bubble on the Moon? Or on some out of the way planet? Why live near borders with hostile aliens? Plenty of things exist in the ST universe which cannot be replicated and so are rare and hence valuable even to the Federation. I find it hard to believe that money can be completely removed from society. f you lived on a plot of land which was the only source of a non-replicatable substance which a lot of people wanted, you'd want 'compensation' if people forced you off your land. Removing the whole issues of poverty, famine, housing etc (so free good food, clothing and roof over your head) and you'd be a step in the right direction, there'd be less of a gap between 'most people' and the least well off of society but there are always people who want more. It's almost genetic. In a society wherea citizen can have all they need to live comfortably (ie like a 1st world person now) and it's all provided by the state because technology renders it almost free, what do you say to the person who says "More please". And someone always will...
This is what is called in the business as "lack of continuity". Where something that happens later contradicts something that is established early in a series. This happen quite a bit in long-lived series.(For example, in one of the first season episodes of MASH, they show Radar smoking one of Henry Blake's cigars like he does it all the time. In a later episode, Colonel Potter gives Radar a cigar to smoke and Radar gets sick because he's never smoked before.) In this ST's case, there was some type of monetary system during TOS of Star Trek. By the time Star Trek IV came out 20 yrs later, someone decided that the Federation didn't use money. Some people like to make a game out of creating explanations within the context of the show for these apparent contradictions, or explaining Why "Number one" from The Cage(first Pilot) and Nurse Chapel look identical. (both were played by the same actress.) Most explanations revolve around their being related, possibly sisters. Harder to explain is why Trelane of Gothos (The Squire of Gothos) looks just like Captain Koloth (The Trouble with Tribbles). (Again, same actor)
BTW, Nothing overtly favoring communism would have ever made it past the network censors of the time. In fact, in the original script for The Trouble with Tribbles, the author had the poisoning of the grain being an act of industrial sabotage. The censors nixed it, saying that the show could not portray any big business as a villain.
So, if Yuri Gagarin went to US, they won't arrest him? I hope not, but unforuntaly they might. Or if a US Field Marshal is a communist spy, they won't arrest him?
