Interesting Yanis Varoufakis.

Written By: - Date published: 8:48 am, January 7th, 2025 - 27 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags: , ,

Star Trek: A humanist communist manifesto for our times – UNHERD – Yanis Varoufakis

That Star Trek depicts a communist society, without of course calling it that, is crystal clear.

Of course the Federation is a Humanist Free Communist society. Not an Authoritarian Communist Oligarchy.

On 9 February 1967, hours after the US Air Force had levelled the Port of Haiphong and several Vietnamese airfields, NBC aired a Star Trek episode featuring a concept that clashed mercilessly with what had just happened in Vietnam: the Prime Directive – a general ban on its Starship captains from using superior technology (military or otherwise) to interfere with any community, people or sentient species, even if non-interference might cost them their own lives.
Turning such a radically anti-imperialist ideology into the cardinal rule of the fictional United Federation of Planets, which American audiences identified as the logical extension of the United States of America, it would have been unsurprising if President Lyndon B. Johnson, or the Pentagon, had demanded Star Trek’s immediate cancellation. Happily, it didn’t. And so it was that, over the 939 episodes (across 12 different series) that followed, Star Trek’s Primary Directive allowed writers and directors to explore its political and philosophical repercussions, including ethical conflicts that led to its frequent violation though never its annulment.

It also allowed for something else: the inference that this futurist Federation could never have matured enough to adopt the anti-imperialist Prime Directive before a humanist version of communism had been established on Earth!

The USA like to think of themselves as the “Federation”. The “Shining city on the hill” a force for “good” in the world. A true Meritocracy. When in reality, they are the merciless imperialist aggressers and very far from a meritocracy.

However, Star trek shows a truly aspirational view of the USA, where they, and our world, become that “shining city on the hill”, many in the West like to see ourselves as, in truth!

27 comments on “Interesting Yanis Varoufakis. ”

  1. Ad 1
    7 January 2025 at 9:33 am

    The early 1960s world of Gene Roddenberry was one in which the United Nations was propelled by postwar humanism and postcolonial liberation had strong intersection; we were all propelled by our own versions of the New Deal/Five Year Plan.

    Roosevelt begat Truman begat Eisenhower (even as Republican) begat Kennedy begat LBJ, each trying harder to sustain that sunny utopian modern form. We had the same here.

    Roddenberry just mashes postwar institutional optimism with the space programme.

    The more recent sci-fi version of this in the late 1990s was Babylon 5 which was a kind of floating UN in space.

    Pretty weird thinking with institutional optimism now.

    Reply
    • KJT 1.1
      7 January 2025 at 9:53 am

      Did you even read the link.

      Reply
      • Ad 1.1.1
        7 January 2025 at 10:29 am

        Yes obviously. Varoufakis presumes the same imagined telos of Keynes but with the usual distrust of technology, over-reliance on politics, and zero useful institutional theory of what one needs to organise to even start the trajectory.

        He plays a lot on being the previous Greek Finance Minister in his bio but he was a a tragicomic wrecking ball and was fired in months.

        Jumping from AI to Hegel to Keynes without recognition of the institutions that enable progress of any kind is just honestly silly. And citing Picard without the original series and captain is just jarringly postmodern. Yanis needs some serious instutionalist theory before he does this kind of pop culture stuff again.

        Reply
        • KJT 1.1.1.1
          8 January 2025 at 9:29 am

          He tried to put the Greek people ahead of German banks.

          Of course that couldn't be allowed to happen. Employment, welfare, super funds and Greeces economy, had to be sacrificed to the banking Gods.

          The wealthy in Greece who had treated tax dodging as a national sport and borrowed instead are untouched, they moved to Spain. German banks profits were assured. Ordinary people who had no part or say in it were thrown to the wolves.

          Note German lending to other countries so their wealthy could buy BMW's was/is a subsidy for German industry. One which the Greek people, who weren't wealthy enough to do, have ended up paying the interest and loans back to Germany. Good racket.

          The quote I placed above was during the Original series.

          Science fiction are imagined futures. The Expanse or Star Trek, vs the current Oligarchies vision, which they are aiming us. One in which we have an aristocratic oligarchy pretending to be advocates of “freedom” with their boot on our necks.

          They are “winning” because they have a coherent vision of the future of “freedom” for themselves and serfdom for the rest of us.

          Reply
        • mikesh 1.1.1.2
          8 January 2025 at 9:47 am

          and was fired in months.

          He actually resigned when prime minister Tsipras accepted the EU's demands, against his recommendations.

          Reply
          • mikesh 1.1.1.2.1
            8 January 2025 at 12:13 pm

            As I understtand matters Tsipras went beind his back. Varufakis did not find out about the deal until it was done. I’m not surprised he resigned.

            I think I got all that info from Varoufakis' book Adults in the Room.

            Reply
  2. Dennis Frank 2
    7 January 2025 at 10:32 am

    Did you even read the link.

    Well, I did, and encountered this:

    For any manifesto to have practical utility, it must offer a theory of change, not just a vision of a splendid future.

    The manifesto, as a political tool for collective solidarity, went out of fashion a long time ago. The point Yanis makes seems valid, yet lacks currency. Neolib orthodoxy has been a binary switch for voters to alternate between the so-called left & right: when both options produce more of the same, a semblance of change suffices because it actually provides continuity to the control system.

    Star Trek’s main lesson for today’s left is that we need to avoid both a conservative techno-phobia and the liberal techno-optimists’ error of focusing on the technology and failing to appreciate that it all boils down to property rights and the political struggles surrounding them.

    A profound point from Yanis there! He also signals the relevance of AI agency and the question of how well machine awareness simulates consciousness. For many folks, near enough is good enough. For precision freaks, not so.

    Today’s moribund left could do far worse than to take its cue from Star Trek‘s bold embrace of a humanist anti-authoritarian communism.

    Too diffident. The task that still awaits is to transcend both the neolib status quo and communism by doing something better. The key point is what killed communism: blind faith in the state. Monolith doing social control is another old sf spectre and the notion is only good for global geopolitics: eliminating warfare. Deploy AI on that basis and we may get to a better world fast, but design the implementing system to be servant or advisor primarily, and only director secondarily. Feedback must be incorporated to prioritise human stakeholder commons ethos as primary determinant of outcomes.

    Reply
    • KJT 2.1
      7 January 2025 at 2:44 pm

      The original promise of the Soviet Union, bottom up democratic rule by works committee, Soviets, was soon taken over by totalitarian oligarchs.

      Reply
  3. SPC 3
    7 January 2025 at 1:54 pm

    Maybe it is both of a utopian society future and also not of this world escapism.

    It's appeal might be that we were on the path to world idealism – then along comes the Laffer curve, neo-liberalism, Thatcherite dissing of the concept of a public collective society, onto libertarianism/Randian thought aka Atlas Network sponsored by those benefiting from the increasing wealth inequality.

    So that it now about the rich elite owning space and the cloud.

    Escaping Planet X to bluesky.

    Reply
  4. KJT 4
    7 January 2025 at 2:42 pm

    Unless the left returns to a clear view of social and economic goals, the narrative will continue to be lost to the Libertarian paradigm of ever increasing power and wealth for those who are expertly stealing our community wealth for themselves. Their "utopia" does not involve rights or even life, for most.

    Reply
  5. Mike the Lefty 5
    7 January 2025 at 4:24 pm

    Interesting discussion.

    Naturally, the creators had to make sure that nobody could accuse them of communism. Even though the witch hunts of the 1950s had died down somewhat, being accused of sympathising with communism was still not a good thing for one's career.

    The Star Trek creators were too clever for the inquisitors. There were some fairly obvious social comments on war, crime and racism, but even these by-passed the usually conservative networks. The episode when Kirk and Uhuru were forced to kiss each other was reportedly the first interracial kiss on prime time TV.

    For me the most obvious social comment on capitalism was on TOS episode "The Cloud Minders" when the cloud city dwellers lived in luxury and leisure and practiced their arts whilst their lower social order kinsmen the Troglodytes (who thought that one up?!) worked and slaved to support it.

    "Where no man has gone before" could well sum up the Star Trek ethos in more than one way.

    Reply
  6. Sabine 6
    7 January 2025 at 6:49 pm

    you could also argue that Star Trek is not communist, mainly due to having been given the 'replicator' as a gift by aliens.

    thanks to the replicator, there was no more suffering, hunger, shortages of anything as the replicator not only made good Earl Grey tea but also organs, tools, metals etc.

    Without the replicator Star Trek could not uphold it's utopia of never ending supplies and food.

    Something the communists of old knew about.

    Waiting lines for Banans in East Germany, 15 year waiting lines for cars, never mind the right to leave the curtain or russia for that matter.

    https://medium.com/make-it-so/the-economics-of-star-treks-replicators-8c875e7975d0

    Reply
    • KJT 6.1
      7 January 2025 at 8:57 pm

      Note. The annual cost of removing poverty worldwide is horrendous!

      Until you become aware of the fact that it is similar to the amount the world spends on arms, every month!

      Reply
      • Sabine 6.1.1
        7 January 2025 at 11:50 pm

        for what its worth, the communists did not fix poverty and spend heeps of money on weapons.

        Reply
        • KJT 6.1.1.1
          8 January 2025 at 9:01 am

          When was anything positive said in the post about the Soviet system? A totalitarian tyranny politically and a top down planned, failure, economically, and a wannabee imperialist.

          Democracy only lasted 5 minutes after the revolution. Debatable that it was any more "communist" than National Socialists were "socialist".

          For what it is worth. The USA and UK, which we are currently trying to emulate, have a revolving door of oligarchic rulers, increasing poverty, shrinking middle classes and massive spending on weapons.

          The USA also have the largest centrally planned, state funded enterprise in the world, ever! A huge make work scheme for their youth, an essential redistribution which allows their economy to survive and a subsidy for their wealthy arms manufacturing.
          "Socialism in action"? Note; Star treks hierarchy is loosely based on the US navy.

          Russia is now "capitalist" but is still, "A totalitarian tyrany politically, and a top down planned failure economically", and a wannabee imperialist.

          Reply
          • mikesh 6.1.1.1.1
            8 January 2025 at 10:20 am

            Democracy only lasted 5 minutes after the revolution. Debatable that it was any more "communist" than National Socialists were "socialist".

            I have generally believed, though I could be wrong, that Hitler got the German economy working again after the collapse of the Waimar republic, using essentially Keynesian or "new deal" policies. Also, I read somewhere that England's Mosley was an early advocate of Keynesianism and the theories of Clifford Douglas; which presumably was why he fell out with Ramsey MacDonald.

            Reply
            • SPC 6.1.1.1.1.1
              8 January 2025 at 3:36 pm

              Not Keynesian really. Oligarchy nationalism?

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Recovery_and_rearmament

              Ramsey MacDonald was on the wrong side of history in managing a depression.

              Reply
              • mikesh …
                8 January 2025 at 4:50 pm

                From your link:

                The policies he inherited [and continued with] included large public works programs supported by deficit spending—such as the construction of the Autobahn network—to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment

                That sounds like Keynesianism to me.

                Reply
                • SPC …
                  8 January 2025 at 5:10 pm

                  Within oligarchy nationalism (a war economy development base).

                  The policies he inherited [and continued with] included large public works programs supported by deficit spending—such as the construction of the Autobahn network—to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment

                  These were programs that were planned to be undertaken by the Weimar Republic during conservative Paul von Hindenburg's presidency, and which the Nazis appropriated as their own after coming to power

                  The financial side of it was the work of Hjalmar Schacht

                  a German economist, banker, politician, and co-founder of the German Democratic Party. He served as the Currency Commissioner

                  Hjalmar Schacht created a scheme for deficit financing, in which capital projects were paid for with the issuance of promissory notes called Mefo bills, which could be traded by companies with each other. Schacht was one of the few finance ministers at the time to take advantage of the end of the gold standard to increase deficit spending.

                  Reply
                  • mikesh …
                    8 January 2025 at 8:33 pm

                    Within oligarchy nationalism (a war economy development base).

                    The policies he inherited [and continued with] included large public works programs supported by deficit spending—such as the construction of the Autobahn network—to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment

                    These were programs that were planned to be undertaken by the Weimar Republic during conservative Paul von Hindenburg's presidency, and which the Nazis appropriated as their own after coming to power

                    The financial side of it was the work of Hjalmar Schacht

                    They were the policies he followed. The question of whether or not they originated with him seems irrelevant.

                    Reply
                    • SPC …
                      8 January 2025 at 8:56 pm

                      If the matter was simply one of whether Germany applied a Keynesian approach … what the new regime brought in was self-sufficiency because they wanted a war economy (and it involved selling off state assets to oligarchs).

                    • mikesh …
                      9 January 2025 at 9:16 am

                      what the new regime brought in was self-sufficiency because they wanted a war economy (and it involved selling off state assets to oligarchs).

                      Which would not have had much effect on GNP without adding infrastructure spending and budget deficits.

          • SPC 6.1.1.1.2
            8 January 2025 at 3:25 pm

            The Bolsheviks expelled the Mensheviks from the Social Democratic Party for their support of the democratic process (to realise governance and sustain governance legitimacy). So no surprise.

            Reply
  7. SPC 7
    9 January 2025 at 9:01 pm

    The Wall Street wolf packs are unleashed.

    The top banking regulator at the US central bank has said he will step down from his role early, citing the "risk of a dispute" as Washington prepares for a new administration.

    In announcing his plans, Mr Barr joins other Washington officials who have pre-emptively announced their resignation ahead of Trump entering the White House later this month.

    Governors of the Fed can only be removed from the board by the president "for cause" – a provision intended to help the bank maintain political independence.

    And just to underline what is going on.

    Gary Gensler, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, previously announced his resignation, effective this month. His term was due to run until 2026 but Trump had vowed to fire him.

    Shares in major US banks headed higher after the news.

    Of course they are.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg1g7zzpgo

    Reply
  8. CD 8
    10 January 2025 at 12:22 pm

    Yanis Varoufakis is a very curious person:

    Eschewing lazy critiques of collectivism, Star Trek rejects it while also acknowledging its lure. When Captain Catherine Janeway rescues a Borg drone (Seven-of-Nine) from the Borg Collective, we are treated to her traumatic reintroduction to humanity. As she is weaned off the Collective, she experiences debilitating withdrawal symptoms, missing desperately the Collective’s voice in her head – a reminder of how authoritarianism can be dangerously attractive to the lonely. But also of how important it is to pay the price of personhood, even at the risk of loneliness which only friendship and creative work can counter.

    And earlier:

    • Picard: People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We have eliminated hunger, want and the need for possessions. We have grown out of our infancy.
    • Offenhouse: You’ve got it all wrong. It has never been about possessions. It’s about power.
    • Picard: Power to do what?
    • Offenhouse: To control your life, your destiny.
    • Picard: That kind of control is an illusion.
    • Offenhouse: Really, I am here, aren’t I?

    Offenhouse upon hearing that he was to be sent back to an essentially communist Earth, asks glumly: “What will happen to me? There is no trace of my money. My office is gone. What will I do? How do I live? What is the challenge?” “The challenge Mr Offenhouse” replies Picard encouragingly, “is to improve yourself, to enrich yourself. Enjoy it!” Marx would have, I am in no doubt, applauded energetically.

    An amazing piece of circular reasoning forming a kind of mental purgatory. The space between illusion and reality is so slim, and opens into a vast chasm. It'd explain why he has the views he does on Israel-Palestine conflict. Here, he re-examines an argument inherent to that conundrum, and ends up on the opposing side! This has not yet transferred to real life. And Marx applauding? Hmmmm probably not? Again here:

    This is not exactly a novel idea. In 350BC Aristotle had predicted that “…if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet, “of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods;” if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves.”

    I can see the points made as legitimate concepts for discussing collective politics. It's an interesting article for thought. At any other level, seems like Varoufakis is doing something else, struggling to believe what he says, not least because the place he arrives is contradictory, ludicrous, horrifying, and predictable. That it is so recently written makes it a powerful portrait – the pause before a significant change. He's caught a glimpse of his own blind spots.

    Reply

Leave a Comment