/strek/ - Star Trek

>show made by an actual communist

You tell me. It's still a great show though, now fuck off.

>>26553

>Still a great show

Not denying that, nigger. Just some episodes made me wonder wtf is really going on.

>>26554

it had a chance with it's creator, however he never really "got" what he was working on and kept on treading the same grounds out of reason I can only assume. then he left it with actual kikes who turned the show into fanwank and pie complete with all the kikish trimmings.

>>26553

Roddenberry wasn't a communist and regularly had to clarify that. The problem was that he was an insane, spergy idealist who believed humanity could advance in huge strides and just abandon large aspects of modern culture entirely. He believed everyone would be cultured to the extreme, only believing in the loftiest philosophical ideals and only enjoying classical music and theater and self-improvement once they no longer had to work.

>>26559

>He believed everyone would be cultured to the extreme, only believing in the loftiest philosophical ideals and only enjoying classical music and theater and self-improvement once they no longer had to work.

Then he really can't blame people for thinking he's a commie, because that's what most commies believe in a nutshell.

>>26560

Communists believe in the violent overthrow of the ruling class to be replaced with a dictorship of the proletariat that would eventually transform society into communism. Roddenberry's version is specifically against this as this guy >>26559 is basically right, he was a left-liberal idealist who believed post-scarcity, alien arrival on earth and education can uplift humanity without revolution.

>>26560

Basically that kind of champagne socialist/ limousine liberal mindset comes out of vague concepts of guilt, greed and idealism all mixing together.

The person realizes they are far better off than the average man and that seems unfair in some way… but at the same time they also really really *like* being better off… but they also want to be able to think of themselves as a good person. So they gravitate to some idealized version of socialism where they'll be a "important founding member of the party" and thus get to still be "more equal than others" but the average proles will somehow be better off overall than they currently are, which means the person can rationalize themselves as a "good person that selfishly helped their fellow man" and even justify what they have because they've technically did in fact make life for the majority better, even if it's still no near luxurious and cushy as they have it.

>>26560

Technically speaking, art will no longer exist under communism because the purpose of art - to advance the revolution - will be fulfilled. There can be no meaningful art once the utopia is created.

So music, paintings, movies, games, etc will be gone under communism in favor of working an assembly line making 19th century goods and group sex. In that sense Roddenberry is just a classical liberal with some progressive bullshit thrown in. Very much an FDR style Democrat.

>>26565

>Technically speaking, art will no longer exist under communism because the purpose of art - to advance the revolution - will be fulfilled. There can be no meaningful art once the utopia is created.

>So music, paintings, movies, games, etc will be gone under communism in favor of working an assembly line making 19th century goods and group sex. In that sense Roddenberry is just a classical liberal with some progressive bullshit thrown in. Very much an FDR style Democrat.

<By counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard – general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury. Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. Its moral ideal is the worker who takes part of his wages to the savings-bank, and it has even found ready-made a servile art which embodies this pet idea: it has been presented, bathed in sentimentality, on the stage. Thus political economy – despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance – is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything ||XVI| which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that.

t. Marx

>>26560

>because that's what most commies believe in a nutshell.

What commies believe and what commies actually do when given power are two very different things. The whole ideology falls apart in the presence of transporters (near unlimited, instantaneous, low-effort long distance travel), replicators (computerized, automated creation of complex goods, foods, and materials), and general trek-tek.

All that "means of production" and noble proletariat bullshit falls apart when everyone can get have whatever they want without any trouble or just teleport somewhere else where they can't be controlled by a corrupt government.

>>26566

>kike rant about workers having no disposable income in capitalism and therefore not being able to buy DVDs.

Doesn't disprove anything I said.

>>26562

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive; the champagne socialists and Bolsheviks alike both have think that once all those evil jobs and bourgeoisie are eliminated, humanity would uplift itself into a euphoric utopia where everyone works for his fellow man and there's no suffering anywhere.

>>26552

It taught me to sexually assault black women.

>>26568

>the whole ideology falls apart in the presence of communism.

Okay, anon. I suppose next you're going to tell me that communism is NOT a result of the interchange of ideas between John Locke and the Beghards?

>>26566

God damn Marx is such a dry read. How can someone talk so much and say so little? I understand that not everyone is a writer, but this guy is FAR too verbose to explain his philosophy in any useful way.

>>26599

For someone who likes to namedrop philosophers, you sure do have really shitty reading comprehension.

>>26630

If you think that's bad, just remember–compared to his socialist predecessors like Charles Fourier, Marx was actually far more coherent and pragmatic in his ideas. So the rambling, barely-legible stream of consciousness garbage you see in Kapital is actually the best leftists have to offer as explanation for their ideology.

>>26634

There's a lot of irony in your post there and only one philosopher mentioned. Now keep making a total fool of yourself.

>>26630

Marx is basically just for folks that want to make money. He never described himself as left or anticapitalist in any way in his early career and was booted the fuck out of the First International for his policy of National Capitalism.

Marx is a lazy cunt who spoke in declarative statements with no attempt to prove anything, and if you liked the idea of killing christians and heterosexuals you were on-board with his nonsense.

Communism doesn't even work 'in theory.' That's just a meme. In theory it's fucking awful, the theory an angry kike would come up with to get himself a chance to fuck any kid or woman he wanted and annihilate christianity. It's another form of Satanism.

Good to know that TORfags are retarded, regardless of board, I guess.

>>26638

>the theory an angry kike would come up with to get himself a chance to fuck any kid or woman he wanted and annihilate christianity. It's another form of Satanism.

So, you're completely fucking insane and no one should take anything you say seriously?

>>26653

Please take your fat nose back to /leftypol/, wretched hunchbacked ratkike.

>>26654

Nah.

>>26656

It was for your benefit because no one here will buy your lies and love of Judaism. You're just wasting what little brain power you have here, you're liable to lose your job when no one bites. What about little Moshe? Where will he get his newborn gentile matzos if daddy-kike gets canned?

>>26653

Are you going to argue that the communist manifesto doesn't call for the abolition of marriage, parenthood, and religion? You stupid fucks always do this.

>>26552

>troi looks genuinely frightened

because she is an empath she knows what's about to happen to dat azz

>>26658

>Are you going to argue that the communist manifesto doesn't call for the abolition of marriage, parenthood, and religion?

No, I'm going to point out that any credible historian would note that Marx was not a communist or "left" in any way. He got the fuck booted from the International, for starters, and his only credible works are "how to make money 101."

…ironically for all the Jew-obsessed freaks that dickrode the thread, the Jewish millenial anarchist movements did posit an end to marriage and the family.

>>26683

I dunno; it's flat-out canon that Riker is a serial rapist, and she was pretty okay with that…

>>26693

>No, I'm going to point out that any credible historian would note that Marx was not a communist or "left" in any way

So not only are you making an appeal to authority to contradict explicitly leftist arguments which Marx hinself made, but you are doing so to one that doesn't exist?

I ask this a lot here, but are you a retard?

>>26694

Just to add, you do know that Marx wrote "The Communist Manifesto" with Engels right? And that it explicitly called for the abolition of marriage, parenthood, and religion?

Quark gets a sex change and then gets let off the hook for committing a crime

>>26694

>So not only are you making an appeal to authority

No, actually. "Bob said so" is not, actually, in that post.

>to contradict explicitly leftist arguments which Marx hinself made

…like being booted the fuck out of the International for being strongly anti-leftist.

>you are doing so to one that doesn't exist?

We agree on the "doesn't exist" part.

>I ask this a lot here

It's not your fault; folks tend to repeat what they hear a lot.

>>26647

Confirmed.

>>26695

>you should fanboy some completely irrelevant shit that I'm totally obsessed with, but have already been told has no bearing and is at-best undesireable to the person you're talking to.

I… sympathize with your extreme autism, but… no.

>>26699

>Talking about Communism

>The Communist Manifesto is 'completely irrelevant shit'

This is your mind on Communism. Senator McCarthy did nothing wrong.

>>26706

Is pic depicting some mystery meat cunt cosplaying as muslim leia at the office halloween theme day or some shit?

>>26706

I kind of want to subjugate her with my pain stick.

>>26706

It'd be a hard pillar of /strek/ to crack the whole, everyone in the Federation is an Atheist. You could have them happen across a bunch of Muslim Colonists somewhere but touching Islam in Star Trek will bring the writers more flack than leaving it alone since according to some Imams Muslims can't leave Earth.

>>26708

You can tell it's a muslim because the face is asymmetric from generations of veil wearing mate selection.

>>26725

>since according to some Imams Muslims can't leave Earth.

If these people understood Islam and weren't blindly virtue-signalling, they wouldn't be so in love with it in the first place. Remember, these are people who unironically shill for Muslim feminism, so they'd do it anyways.

>>28321

When will you take the Paris Pill?