Entertainment desk
< August 3	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 4

Interview with Majel Barrett-Roddenberry

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen.

I am looking for a interview with Majel Barrett-Roddenberry, she gave at a local convention, where she says that Gene’s political leaning was communist. I have only found pieces (http://kodm.com/ten-things-you-didnt-know-star-trek-creator-gene-roddenberry/) and would like to have the whole interview.

Thank you for your help.

All the best.--178.195.94.230 (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though the author of that piece is a DJ and not a regular news reporter, researcher, or biographer, they may still know where they got the info from. Contacting them might be of use to you. Dismas|^(talk) 10:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it. I guess he moved, because the person who owns the e-mail adress doesn't know him.--178.195.94.230 (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't surprise me that Roddenberry would be described as at least socialist. There is usually nothing but contempt shown for capitalism in Star Trek, such as the portrayal of a capitalist man from our present revived in Star Trek: The Next Generation and the characterization of the Ferengi, which seemed like veiled antisemitism, to me. StuRat (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it seems to be. The Federation is an ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". That qualifies as a communist "ideal", with not much connection to the reality of communism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was the theory behind the Welfare State in the UK when it first started up, right up until Thatcher got hold of it and started to destroy it. And we're not Communist. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No country in the history of the world has ever been communist. It's an unattainable ideal. Human nature gets in the way, dictatorships thrive, and millions of people suffer needless pain (viz. USSR, N Korea, Albania, Cuba). The USSR never claimed to have achieved Communism; it was always "moving towards" it. But the way they carried on, it was never going to happen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were moving with all deliberate speed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were pedalling fast in the opposite direction. They abandoned most elements of humanity, freedom of expression, choice etc under Stalin. Then there was 30 years of Cold War, under which far, far more hideous suffering was inflicted on Russians at the hands of other Russians than by any foreign enemies. Some great model of civilization, that. Gorbachev started to turn things around, then he was out and the whole shebang dissolved. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think human rights violations steadily decreased as the Soviet Union aged. The mass executions, intentional starvation of millions, and shipping to gulags for "enemies of the state" decreased markedly in the later years, becoming more the exception than the rule, starting from when Kruschev replaced Stalin (with Georgy Malenkov wedged in between). It's an interesting pattern that seems to repeat itself in many "evil" nations. They just don't seem to be able to keep up that level for long. Spain under Franco would be another example, as would China or Cuba. North Korea is one holdout I can think of, that's still as bad as ever. I suspect that the Korean War never officially ending allows them to continue to blame everything bad they do on the rest of the world, and thus prop up a regime that could never stand on it's own. StuRat (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to distinguish between communism and Communism. It's clear that state Communism is not an effective way to get to small-c communism; that doesn't prove that small-c communism itself is not feasible. (Probably it isn't, but that's an independent question.) To say it does is like saying the failure of Prohibition shows that it's impossible to get Americans to drink less. —Tamfang (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]