Starship Troopers - Neofascist or not?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Jeff_F_F 9/29/2007 6:10:16 PM

The truth is, we are already an oligarchy with the trappings of mass democracy. The Republic is dead. I think if we are honest with ourselves we will realize this is true. Certainly the majority of the potential electorate realizes it with their apathy towards the electoral process.

If I was emperor for a day? The single biggest change I would make is to stop "legislation from the bench". The judiciary, from the Supreme Court on down, is not here to decide what the words of the constitution should have meant, nor to make changes to the law because they should be made. They are here to rule on the law as it exists. That single thing is the worst thing to happen to this country, the tyranny of the judicial bench.

I started out disagreeing with you, but found myself agreeing more, but in a different way, because in framing my response I realized that FDR was our Ceasar. (But not our Augustus)

The problem as I see it isn't simply legislation from the bench, because legislation from the bench has its roots in the Executive power grab of the New Deal. Roosevelt was creating a massive power structure under his control, and the Supreme Court was the only obstacle. He sought to overcome that obstacle by threatening to pack the court, forcing the Supreme Court to give itself the power to de-escalate the situation by legislating an out that allowed them to cave to what ammounted to an Executive coup while still maintaining the trappings of the rule of Law. On the other hand you could also say that they resolved the threatened coup by giving in while at the same time taking for the Judiciary power equal to the new power of the Executive. At the same time, Congress was also granted an expansion of power because they were now granted the power to participate in the funding of the Executive bureaucracy.

So the question now is, who will be our Augustus?

I suspect that our Augustus will not be a person because I suspect the founding fathers did a good enough job of constructing the Federal system that no one person can take control. FDR came closest but the Federal system was able to maintain its balance of competing powers and continue. However, power ultimately serves the intrests of power and as such those groups with power seek to compete with all who have power, both individuals and other groups. The groups give and take power amongst themselves but they seldom return it to individuals. I suspect that our Agustus is not an individual so much as a movement toward the increasing control of society by a combination of corporations, government bureaucracies.

Quote Reply

Treadgar RE: Mike_Golf 9/30/2007 7:51:58 AM

"I believe we are of the same generation – I was born in 1962 – and both intuitively and acutely understand the large chasm between the WW2 generation and contemporary America. My pessimism is largely due to the fact that our generation is the bridge between “the greatest generation” and “liberated, contemporary America. ” We witnessed first hand the cultural revolution of the 1970s, where the 1960’s mentality became mainstream. Even more frightening is that today’s youth have the 1960’s generation for parents and grandparents. Soon there will not be anyone under 40 who has had personal contact with “the greatest generation.'"

Well said! Born in 1961 I strongly identify with this statement. The WW2 generation is dying off fast. Where I live they have this air show every summer. One summer I paid a visit and there were lots of people from WW2. One was the Captain of the Memphis Belle, another was one of the guys who put up the first flag at Iwo Jima. Both are dead now. Very sad.

I might be a little less cynical (but not by much!). Things might get bad and "the greatest generation" might be rediscovered despite the efforts of deconstructionists to make them less great. Right now it might be hard for them to understand what it's like when the greenhouse walls come tumbling down. I'm not aiming this comment at any specific political party, I'm just saying there are lots of people out there screwing around right now and making things worse than they should be.

I reread Starship Troopers last summer. I enjoyed it as a kid, but felt it would be dated when I reread it. It’s still a great book, and Heinlein definitely wasn’t promoting fascism. Much of what Heinlein wrote in the book regarding government made sense to me. What they did to the movie was…well also very sad.

From what I've heard RAH came from a place called Butler, Missouri (the Show Me State). I had occassion to visit there often since my grandfather used to own a Ranch there. I can see why Heinlein wrote the way he did, because the people there weren't hip to any "new fangled nonesense" unless it proved to actually be useful.

Treadgar

Quote Reply

TrustButVerify Expanded Universe 10/12/2007 9:55:44 AM

Well, that'll teach me to spend so much time studying... I missed the meat of the thread. Oh well, lots of good reading.
I may have skipped over it but I don't think anyone mentioned Heinlein's feelings on this point- naturally he took a lot of heat for appearing to promote fascism or militarism, so he responded to it in (among other places, I'm sure) his anthology called Expanded Universe. Regarding SST he makes two points: one, that his intent in writing the book was to glorify the infantry; two, citizenship in SST requires federal service, not military service. The first point is pretty much undebatable. The second is a different story; I've read an essay which picks apart the statement and comes to the conclusion that while Heinlein might have intended to make a statement to the effect that most federal service was of a non-military sort, he never got around to putting it in the book. I think the author's intent trumps the omission, personally.

Even granted that not every citizen had served in the military, the question remains: was this a fascist society? I don't think so, if we go by the Merriam-Webster definition. The government simply wasn't a proper autocracy. Heinlein consistently came out against mass rule and direct democracy, but still thought that government was a necessary evil best kept to a minimum. See Glory Road, Stranger in a Strange Land, Time Enough for Love, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and just about every other adult book he wrote for more on that.

Quote Reply

Jeff_F_F 10/12/2007 8:24:06 PM

Not only does the book not seem to express autocracy but the very plot holds personal empowerment as its highest ideal. Its the story of a grunt that rises through the ranks to command the man who was his drill sergeant. That's a very non-fascist story, and might even have been enough to have been considered subversive in a fascist state. If a man can command him who had once been his superior a people can command those who once were their rulers. Turning the world upside down isn't something fascist states tolerate well.

I think a line needs to be drawn between martial and fascist. While martial culture is a very visible feature of fascist states, it is not sufficient to define fascism. Fascist states run their polity--even those within and outside their government who are not military--as an extension of the military, subject to military standards of justice and liberty. A martial state might even involve a militia in which 100% of the able bodied citizenry were expected to be in fact members of the military. It would still not be fascist if those citizens were compelled to maintain military discipline only during actual military activities and if such activities did not dominate their lives, leaving them free to engage in social and political expression without further hinderance.

Quote Reply

Shooter2K 10/14/2007 5:25:48 PM

The failure to understand the differance between Faschisism and Militaristic Governments by many posters in their replies to this question causes me to wonder about their logic. You can have either a Faschist government that is either pro or anti Militaristic and you can have a multi party Democracy or Republic that is either Pacific or Militaristic. The two consepts are not mutualy inclusive or exclusive because they are not related to one an other. Faschism reffers to a Government that only has one Party or choise of leadership. Militarism refers to the effort and reasources allocated to their Military services.

Quote Reply

Shooter2K 10/14/2007 5:38:40 PM

Anyone who has ever taken even the most elementary political science course can understand how this attitude puts Heinlein swuarely on teh conservative, and hence fascistic, end of the political spectrum. Please note that fascism itself is not inherently "bad." Do not confuse the ideology with Nazi Germany. This is no more fair than confusing the ideology of Communism with Marxist Russia, or Maos China.

This post clearly shows the lunacy inhearant in it's authors mind, or lack of mind thereof! To equate Coinservitism with Faschism is idiotic! Faschism is deffined as a single party state and has nothing to do with the political leanings of that state/party. It would be more appropriate to lable the socialist-liborals in the American Democratic Party as Faschist than the Conservitives or Republicans. It is the Dems and Libs who can not tollerate other ideas and refuse to discuss them. It is the Libs and Dems who would limmet your choises in elections to either more or less liboral socialistic choises! Not Republicans.

Just a test for the members reading this; Since socialism has been in force for the last 61 years in Europe, which is an absolute fact, Then why would any reasonable and sane person want to inflict the terrible results here that they have there? The answer is that a sane person would not and it then follows that the persuite of liboral and socialistic ideals is faschist in it's core!

Quote Reply

Ezekiel galactic war 10/16/2007 3:03:26 AM

I don't agree with those that would describe the govt. in starship troopers as facist. The reason being that they were in war, a fight for survival. Whenever there is war it is understood that a nation must be united in purpose and intent. Without the ability to pull together leaves them vulnerable for distruction. Nationalism has become a dirty word due to iits manipulation in the previous century, but nationalism to a certain degree is a necessary ingredient within a nation-state, without it wars it will fight and hardships that history seemingly always deliver will knock it into oblivion. Starship troopers was set in war time, thus individuality in such a context is always diminshed thus giving a false air of facism, when in fact it is the individual coalescing with the group in order to survive. Facism is not about contexts, it is about national aggrandizement in which war plays a corollary to such an end. In starship they were fighting a barbaric alien race that sought the destruction of the human civilization.

As far as serving in the military to be a political member, it seems to me that citizenship isn't a right, but a priviledge in any governing society....who is given the trusteeship should not be taken lightly and the idea of a proactive action in order to obtain entrance and voting priviledges seems rational.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

	News As History - November 21, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us