When asked to criticize communism, liberals will simply describe capitalism.

What other modes of production are currently in use by existing nations?

"Communism works the same way, except the party leaders are the ones on top," you think to yourself as the crimson Poverty Line flashes upwards across your field of view. "Capitalism is the only system that works." The wind is rushing hard in your ears now; the bottom of the Money Pit is coming up fast. "Besides, they worked hard to swim in the Money Pool, they deser--." Splat.

Not at all surprising. Hell, Hillary Clinton beat Trump by 2.5 million votes in 2016 and she appointed him to the fucking presidency.

Israel has no regard for the lives of Jewish Palestinians and loves to recruit Christians to the cause of Zionism. Go back to Reddit.

Israel kills plenty of Jews, too. Israel promotes Zionism, not Judaism.

Again, perfectly fair. Before I was a communist, I rejected Marxist concepts as well. I've spent over two decades reading and listening to arguments for and against all sort of political, social and economic ideas. I've identified with centrism, liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy and other ideologies. Today, I consider myself to be a Marxist/socialist/communist not because it's just the latest thing I've hit upon, but because it's what's made the most sense to me. When I use Marxist words and ideas, I don't do so because I'm a Marxist; I'm a Marxist because those words and ideas have helped me to make the most sense of the world. And I'm certainly not demanding, or even asking, you do become a Marxist, I'm just asking you to consider what makes the most sense.

Joseph Sisko's restaurant is his personal property, not his private property since it is not a money-making venture. Since money, and capitalism, do not exist in the Federation, there is no private property in any form. Furthermore, given Star Trek's egalitarian/utopian vision of the future, no one is going to take Joseph Sisko's restaurant -- the laws of the United Earth government (which has direct jurisdiction over Earth) exist (imo) to protect people's personal property, not take it away.

Consider Joseph Sisko's restaurant, Sisko's Creole Kitchen. Joseph owns the restaurant, but he doesn't sell anything. He provides goods and services, but he doesn't make any money. Sisko's Creole Kitchen is not a business, it is a labor of love that Joseph operates for himself and his community.

Additionally, the Federation is very socially liberal but it is not economically liberal. Economically, liberalism is a pro-capitalism ideology and capitalism has been abolished in the Federation.

Given this thread is about whether or not the Federation is a communist or socialist society, Marxist definitions are the most useful, eh? Furthermore, I'd argue that the term Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie very accurately describes American (I'm an American) society, and does so regardless of one's personal beliefs.

From a Marxist perspective, all class-based societies are governed by dictatorships:

A dictatorship is the political dominance of one group of people over others. In a class society, a dictatorship usually favors the interest of certain classes over the others.

Right now, we live in the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie

The bourgeoisie is the ruling class in capitalist society; it owns the means of production and has a decisive influence on production. It lives off of surplus value which it obtains by exploiting the labour power of the proletariat.

Most sources on Roddenberry's political beliefs are people who knew him, and they didn't open up about those beliefs until after his death. Here's an article that I've skimmed:

According to his last wife, Majel Barrett, he identified as a communist. But we know from the many accounts of his unethical business practices that he was also obsessed with making money. He preached peace and love but was infamously difficult to get along with. And he flew the flag for feminism while being a notorious womanizer.

Gene was a delightful man with great creativity and talent, but he was also a deeply flawed man who often failed to practice what he preached.