Peter Thiel Thinks ‘Star Trek’ Is ‘Communist’ While ‘Star Wars’ Is ‘Capitalist’

The Wrap ^ | 01/11/2017 | Thom Geier

[DFG]

In a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd on Wednesday, billionaire tech giant Peter Thiel defended his support of President-Elect Donald Trump and offered some characteristically esoteric opinions on everything from Meryl Streep to “Star Wars.”

To a question noting that “President Obama had eight years without any ethical shadiness,” Thiel replied, “But there’s a point where no corruption can be a bad thing. It can mean that things are too boring.”

[discostu]

The Federation is socialist. The rest of the Star Trek universe is kind of capitalist. But really there’s no much cause for an economic system of any type once you have replicators.

[rjsimmon]

Enterprise itself was always rouge.

I believe you meant 'rogue'... :)

[Ciaphas Cain]

Star Wars is much more classsic fantasy/fairy tale. With science-fiction elements to it.

[Raycpa]

Yes, but for Kirk both are accurate

[silverleaf]

Hey even the clones at the temple in “ jeda” were wearing hijab

But seriously - don’t the Russian haters love it when Kirk uncloaks and blasts the Romulans?

[Raycpa]

Is Donald Trump real life Kirk?

[rjsimmon]

Yes, but for Kirk both are accurate

I dunno, his tastes tended to another color...

[apillar]

Star Wars universe seems mostly pathetic. Most of the planets seem to live like The Flintstones only with rocket ships and cool weapons.

Probably showing my inner geek, but I remember reading some of the Star Wars Extended Universe material where they explained the reason for that. Humans (or the humans of the Star Wars Galaxy) where the first species to discover hyperspace travel something like 100,000 years before the current time-line. Humans then colonized much of the galaxy, while they would engage in limited trade and contact with alien life forms they encountered, they refused to provide the secret of hyperspace travel and other advanced technology. So aliens were stuck in their home systems and greatly limited technologically. It was only in the last 10,000 years or so that hyperspace travel began to spread among other species. That is why, in the Star Wars Universe the movies are set in, Humans are still, by far, the largest and most dominant species and have colonized many worlds across the galaxy, while alien species, for the most part, are still limited to their home systems. That also explains why you see vastly different technological levels, even among alien and human residents of the same planet.

[samtheman]

Why is Star Wars not science fiction?

---

Star Trek extrapolates from today’s technology and civilization to an imagined future based on things as they really are today, such as the existence of the human race and all of human history including the history of the development of science and technology as it actually happened. Although it does add in plenty of unbelievable elements (such as a galaxy littered with aliens that look more like us than we look like chimpanzees, our closest relatives), it is still grounded on things-as-they-are and extrapolates and predicts from there.

Star Wars starts with the proposition that there is no connection whatsoever between earth and the “people” in the story... and then proceeds to make the main race in the story a race of humans that look exactly like us (even down to the different races we have here on earth), without any kind of explanation or background.

And that’s just the beginning, which to me is fantasy... from the beginning.

Then add in the purely magical “force”, and you are dealing with a story of Magic trumping Science. “Use the force, Luke. Use the force”.

Then add in a mix of aliens in which the vast majority of alien races have only a single representative... it just doesn’t look realistic, doesn’t look like it’s even trying to be. Its creator calls it a Space Opera, and to me that’s another word for fantasy.

Star Trek, for all its fantastic elements (and there are some) is not PRIMARILY fantasy... not in my mind. Star Wars is PRIMARILY fantasy... at least to me.

I could go on in more detail but I’m not an expert and it is all a matter of opinion, but in my OPINION Star Trek is SF, Star Wars is not.

And by the way, I enjoyed the last two Star Wars movies and thought them very well done. I particularly liked the way Rogue One tied plot elements together over a period of decades. It was beautiful. But not SF.

[Pollster1]

Thank you. Good answer.

[OttawaFreeper]

Certainly the storylines of “The Cage” and “Return of the Archons” showed the failures of collectivism.

“Without freedom of choice, there can be no creativity. With no creativity, the body dies”-Captain Kirk speaking to the computer Landru.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Plus, they made fun of hippies in TOS.

[agere_contra]

It’s an interesting question.

Many modern Star Trek plots (I’m thinking back to Voyager here) are Science Fiction.

They are driven by some technological idea: e.g. a Holographic character, a spaceship of people who are actually clones made of living metal etc).

I’m not saying that these are always successful stories. They are often intriguing, but it takes more than that to make a good story. A lot of those Star Trek stories just dissolve into technobabble, and use tech as a magic wand to solve plot problems.

Star Wars plots (however) are not much driven by science fiction tropes. They depend much more on narrative and on themes that are justly termed operatic.

“Will this character go to the dark side or to the light?”? “Will these lead characters fall in love?” “Will Princess Leia escape from the Seraglio, sorry, the Hutt Sand Yacht”?

At its best, Star Wars is visceral and successful because it is Space Opera: with themes of Light vs Dark. Good vs Evil, all wrapped up in a package of starships, aliens and laser swords.

Babylon V, FireFly, many other sucessful shows - these were more Space Opera than Sci Fi.

And I think this is a strength. A bold narrative usually makes for better drama than a twisty piece of sci-fi.

Counter example: “The Matrix” - that was a great piece of drama that just wouldn’t have worked without its intriguing Sci-Fi premise.

[Freemeorkillme]

24th Century Star Trek is Fascist. Original Star Trek is pure Americanism.(A western in space.)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Agreed. As any who watched the original stuff would know.

[Gen.Blather]

“Why is Star Wars not science fiction? “

In science fiction, by definition, one fundamental aspect of the universe must be different from our real universe. The plot must hinge on that difference. Without the different rule or law the plot will not work. You might point out The Force, but it is just a plot tool, not a fundamental difference without which the plot won’t work. Star wars is High Noon in space.

[Freemeorkillme]

Obligatory

[Yashcheritsiy]

Meh, I don’t know how useful it is to draw a simplistic dichotomy like this.

One of the reasons why Star Trek is usually depicted without money, etc. is because it’s intended to show a post-scarcity economy. After all, who needs to buy food or clothes when you can tell a computer to synthesise it out of thin air for you? There IS the somewhat unrealistic “good of their hearts” element involved, of course (e.g. why would someone work as a waitress is she’s not actually being paid? What’s the incentive?)

Notably though, in some of the more “frontier” settings (i.e. DS9), they have “gold-pressed latinum” which serves as hard currency, so there is still a money economy in place at least in part of the galaxy.

[DickBrannigan]

Will no one cite the Rules of Acquisition (TNG)?

[Mr. Douglas]

That was an awesome episode!

[Charles Martel]

Original Star trek was always set as the tension between collectivism vs the one. It was Kirk and other characters that broke the collectives rules in order to save the universe.

Yes, TOS was extremely dystopic, always showing how utopian societies stagnate, fail and crumble.