posted ago by CensoredCitizen ago by CensoredCitizen +5 / -0

In Star Trek, IDIC is the Vulcan philosophy of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Spock is a staunch advocate of IDIC. Is he dangerously close to social Marxism?

Comments (17)
sorted by:
TallestSkil 10 points ago +14 / -4

He’s played by a communist jew who “blesses” people using a jewish hand symbol in a fantasy world written by a communist jew as a society which is the “perfect end goal of marxism.”

What do you imagine.

cee8hooz 4 points ago +4 / -0

u/CensoredCitizen: Well star trek is too near to marxism.

But some level of diversity isn't completely bad or marxist. Creating conflicts within diverse society is. And marxism is weaponising every minorities against majority (majority including minorities too in usa).

Society could be diverse. But cannot be completely multicultural,cannot be based on completely different values of conflicted minorities.

Marxism plants division and hate in American society,division and hate against it,against American culture. America is really common ground,"melting pot" so calling it racist country by leftists is... well if that would be matter of religion I would call it heretic blasphemy...

80960KA 4 points ago +4 / -0

Roddenberry was a utopianist (even down to "all the girls are pretty and wear miniskirts"), but I don't see much "Marxism" in the world he built.

The Federation is really more like mid-century America as a galactic empire. Totally peaceful nice guys whose "exploratory" ships happen to be armed well enough to outclass just about anything in the quadrant, and who have the best tech on the block.

When economics are broached, rarely, it's just like "we solved that because we're awesome and make awesome tech to solve everything bro", there's not really any implication that anything came about due to politics, it's technological post-scarcity. Energy is too cheap to meter and there's so much of it you can just turn it into matter to make whatever you need or want at the moment.

cee8hooz 1 point ago +1 / -0

Technological post-scarity is impossible for tier 0,72-0,73 civilization probably even for tier <2 (probably 1.x rather). Indeed Star Trek civilization is claimed to be Tier 2. But there are problems here still:

Excluding even greed from equation,excluding even growth of population there is still problem with matter, its availability. Lets mention rare earth metals increasing demand and its small supply.

80960KA 2 points ago +2 / -0

There's a reason it's called science fiction, granted, the rare earths thing is nonsense since that'll be one of the first things astromined if we ever get there. Earthlings weren't building megastructures either, and in-world, only ever actually encountered one Dyson sphere type structure. Raw material isn't really a problem.

That said, Star Trek does have rarity as a concept and it gets used quite a bit. <Thing> isn't replicable due to <technobabble>. Klingon ship needs radiation from the nuclear wessels to recharge its <technobabble> so it can bring whales to the future. Common plot, can be fun.

If you LIKE hard detail and precise worldbuilding when it comes to universe mechanics (I do), Niven/Pournelle is much more what you want than Trek. Trek is a fun space adventure that's a little smarter and takes itself a little more seriously than most of the similar genre on TV, but it's not hard sci-fi. I mean...whales to the future. Beverly Crusher fucks a ghost. Data talks about how functional his cock is. The whole crew gets addicted to video games. That's how silly Trek can canonically get.

(Keep in mind when I talk about Trek, I stopped watching maybe 2 seasons into Voyager and haven't seen anything but a couple of the shitty JJ Abrams movies since. I only know how bad Kurtzman Trek is from RLM's reviews of STD and Picard.)

cee8hooz 1 point ago +1 / -0

Of course it is "science fiction" but star trek includes delusional utopia and as you say - it is all silly.

Big problem being proof Star Trek is infested by marxist delusions is those stupid idea of "post-scarity" itself.

Raw material IS crucial problem by the way, as it is limited and it takes time and energy to deliver it.

Rarity economically is (what a suprise) scarity. And the problem of economy is really prioritizing of use of available resources. Since resources from triangle time-matter-energy cannot be infinite (at least for civilization tier bellow V) it have to be prioritized somehow. And there are 2 ways - centralized prioritizing being called collectively "marxism" here and especially among Americans (despite the fact it is also any other authoritarian or totalitarian one there as well including corporate monopolies), or decentralized and distributed system we call "market".

And we need pricing as a tool for prioritizing technologies and its efficiencies too.

Of course some things could become not scare at all. But probably not all. Especially it wouldn't be the truth about spaceship parts.

80960KA 1 point ago +1 / -0

None of this makes for interesting plot devices. By being so autistic about beancounting you miss the entire point.

"Sir, there's not enough money to build a space fleet and light speed engines don't exist either!" is a pretty shit space story.

cee8hooz 1 point ago +1 / -0

Entire point of calling it marxist is those complete ignorance about economy common with for example... marxism.

Not "beancounting",it is just back to the reality.

Sorry but science fiction usually has at least something small common with reality from the times of Jules Verne - ok ?

80960KA 1 point ago +1 / -0

You niggas are so obsessive about stroking off "capitalism" you prolly call little kids being taught to share their toys "Marxism".

If you don't like "technological post-scarcity", try "magical post-scarcity" because the world of Trek isn't far off from just wizards conjuring shit. Physics is already out the window.

Sorry but science fiction usually has at least something small common with reality from the times of Jules Verne - ok ?

A ship that moves faster than light, runs on antimatter, the engineer is either a drunk Scotsman or a blind guy, the science officer is either an autistic alien or a robot...and the part you find "unrealistic" enough to obsess with is that they don't have to worry about money.

Never mind the weekly violations of basic physics to make the plot go, your problem is that it's not masturbating over Ayn Rand.

Take any good episode of Trek from any era, and the only way it becomes better with "capitalism" is if it's a Quark episode where he's hustling some contraband. Otherwise it's just not something even thought about. Even in less fluffy space sci-fi money isn't mentioned nearly as much as mass and energy. "The cold equations" isn't about some guy doing finance spreadsheets and realizing he's underwater on his house.

jubyeonin 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, but fans of the series and franchise will defend it and insult you for pointing out there's communism in their TV show.

80960KA 3 points ago +4 / -1

Or you know it's totally a utopian fantasy but don't really care because if you throw out utopian post-scarcity fantasy plot devices you throw out like a third or more of space sci fi in general.

coverband 2 points ago +2 / -0

But nobody can explain how the economy in the "Federation" works because it is an technological "utopia".

80960KA 2 points ago +5 / -3

No one CARES because Trek (and most sci fi) isn't that interested in boring beancounter shit.

"Yeah we don't have to worry about how much anything costs, that would get in the way of the author doing fun stuff with like warp drives and shit, so we just handwave it away with dilithium crystals and magic particle bullshit!"

Oh yeah and when Trek writers try to do this, adding in a bunch of gay shit about terrorists and secret conspiracies and poverty and a bunch of other really mundane "topical" socio-political horseshit it's called KurtzmanTrek. It sucks ass, everyone hates it, and it's one of the lowest rated shows on TV.

If you niggas are that autistic about economic bullshit being in your fiction, stick with Ayn Rand.

Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

Was "IDIC" used much in classic Trek, and what was the context?

I don't even remember the phrase until CBS commandeered it to push their new woke agenda.

That said it seemed like 24th century humans lean very much towards social Marxism, if you can apply Marxism to a post-scarcity environment, but there's a very strong market economy and many people living outside the Federation's fantasy bubble.

They didn't have all of today's gender nonsense but homosexuality and pansexuality were considered fine and normal. (but no, neither Kirk or Sulu were pansexual or bisexual)

Different planets kept their own cultures, and different species even had their own starships. So I'd guess infinite diversity refers more to that then everyone being forced to accept every possible cultural norm.

CensoredCitizen [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Trek website Memory Alpha points to the TOS episode "Is There No Truth in Beauty?" as the origin of IDIC. It has a scene with the extremely unlikable Dr. Pulaski (aka Dr. Jones) and Spock reflecting on the moral lesson learned during the episode:

That is pretty vague, but earlier there is this scene:

JONES: Or of their own thoughts and emotions. I was just noticing your Vulcan IDIC, Mister Spock. Is it a reminder that, as a Vulcan, you can mind-link with the Medusans far better than I could?

KIRK: Well, I doubt that Mister Spock would don the most revered of all Vulcan symbols merely to annoy you, Doctor Jones.

SPOCK: As a matter of fact, I wear it this evening to honour you, Doctor.

JONES: Indeed?

Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks. It's pretty funny imagining it's the same Dr. Pulaski alive in Kirk's generation. Crazy old bat.

CensoredCitizen [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

She reached Pulaski levels of unlikability just in that quote. I wonder what possessed the TNG directors to bring back both this actress and aspects of the unlikable character she played in TOS.