In Star Trek, the Federation has a ship named the USS Tian An Men, “in honor of those who lost their lives during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in Beijing, China”, to directly quote the wiki about it. People like to say Star Trek is a socialist setting, but imo as the series developed, they tried really hard to get away from that and create more of a socdem “utopia” - and wound up biting themselves in the ass in the process, as they started making the setting almost fatalistic due to disillusionment with the liberal West (Piccard is a rather dark, defeatist spin on the Federation and a far-cry from what it was in TOS or the early seasons of TNG).
All of this to say that it would not surprise me if the writers envisioned some peaceful, liberal reunification that would - materially - amount to England dominating the whole island.
The ship is named after the PLA soldiers and Iron Bowl workers massacred during the protests. I know that wasn’t probably the aim, but still.
Also I wouldn’t say that a single ship name is indicative of the entire franchise. It was worked on by thousands of people, and even if they were all diehard leftists, cohesion would be extremely hard to maintain.
Plus I don’t care if it’s Soccdem, if we can get to the Star Trek Federation level of society. I will take that in a heartbeat over the current powers that rule the world today. Though I wouldn’t even say that it’s entirely soccdem, for example the series pushes hard on the “no money” aspect, which would be strange for a soccdem to focus on, but an integral part of communism. They even dunk on capitalists with that one episode where they revive the businessman and dunk on him because the stock market ceased to exist several hundred years ago.
Having watched most of the series, there’s a tonal shift from the earlier material into late TNG. And I’d rather take the Federation over what we’ve got happening now, too. Just pointing out the show’s writers aren’t necessarily Marxists just because they dunk on capitalism and want a moneyless society.
Depends on what you’re remembering. Are you remembering the myth we’re taught about unarmed, freedom-loving student protesters being violently butchered in the Square, run over by tanks under the orders of evil communists? Or are you remembering the reality of a failed CIA color revolution led by a liberal minority trying to hijack protests with the intent of causing a bloodbath to try and destabilize the government?
Star Trek’s inclusion of the ship was stated to support the former, the idea that the “Massacre” happened as taught in the West. It’s not very compatible with socialism to buy into propaganda demonizing socialist countries. Recognizing genuine failures, setbacks, mistakes - sure - but not false narratives intended to drive public opinion against socialism.
No, just did actual research. If you care to engage in a good faith discussion of the topic, by all means we can. If you’re just going to dismiss anything that challenges your worldview as propaganda, then kindly leave me be. I ran out of patience for liberal brainrot years ago.
In Star Trek, the Federation has a ship named the USS Tian An Men, “in honor of those who lost their lives during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in Beijing, China”, to directly quote the wiki about it. People like to say Star Trek is a socialist setting, but imo as the series developed, they tried really hard to get away from that and create more of a socdem “utopia” - and wound up biting themselves in the ass in the process, as they started making the setting almost fatalistic due to disillusionment with the liberal West (Piccard is a rather dark, defeatist spin on the Federation and a far-cry from what it was in TOS or the early seasons of TNG).
All of this to say that it would not surprise me if the writers envisioned some peaceful, liberal reunification that would - materially - amount to England dominating the whole island.
Orrrrrrrrr
The ship is named after the PLA soldiers and Iron Bowl workers massacred during the protests. I know that wasn’t probably the aim, but still.
Also I wouldn’t say that a single ship name is indicative of the entire franchise. It was worked on by thousands of people, and even if they were all diehard leftists, cohesion would be extremely hard to maintain.
Plus I don’t care if it’s Soccdem, if we can get to the Star Trek Federation level of society. I will take that in a heartbeat over the current powers that rule the world today. Though I wouldn’t even say that it’s entirely soccdem, for example the series pushes hard on the “no money” aspect, which would be strange for a soccdem to focus on, but an integral part of communism. They even dunk on capitalists with that one episode where they revive the businessman and dunk on him because the stock market ceased to exist several hundred years ago.
Having watched most of the series, there’s a tonal shift from the earlier material into late TNG. And I’d rather take the Federation over what we’ve got happening now, too. Just pointing out the show’s writers aren’t necessarily Marxists just because they dunk on capitalism and want a moneyless society.
You’re definitely right with everything. Only thing I can add is that the show was probably forced to be “sanitized” due to gaining popularity.
But you are right with your conclusion.
Roddenberry also left after s1
Oh, almost definitely. I don’t doubt there were communists working on Star Trek somewhere before the network “sanatized” it.
I fail to see how remembering Tiananmen Square massacre is not compatible with socialism.
Depends on what you’re remembering. Are you remembering the myth we’re taught about unarmed, freedom-loving student protesters being violently butchered in the Square, run over by tanks under the orders of evil communists? Or are you remembering the reality of a failed CIA color revolution led by a liberal minority trying to hijack protests with the intent of causing a bloodbath to try and destabilize the government?
Star Trek’s inclusion of the ship was stated to support the former, the idea that the “Massacre” happened as taught in the West. It’s not very compatible with socialism to buy into propaganda demonizing socialist countries. Recognizing genuine failures, setbacks, mistakes - sure - but not false narratives intended to drive public opinion against socialism.
Damn you really have swallowed the propaganda
No, just did actual research. If you care to engage in a good faith discussion of the topic, by all means we can. If you’re just going to dismiss anything that challenges your worldview as propaganda, then kindly leave me be. I ran out of patience for liberal brainrot years ago.