The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 21, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Military Science Fiction Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Starship Troopers - Neofascist or not?
mike_golf    1/18/2004 9:24:18 PM
Okay, I've read two different pieces that categorized the political scenario in Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" as fascist or neofascist. I've just got to hope they are saying this because they saw the movie, but didn't read the book. While I don't necessarily agree with the concept of earning your citizenship by military service (although I don't fully disagree either) that doesn't make it fascist. In fact, it is made quite clear throughout the book that those who are not citizens hold the military in contempt for the most part and don't value the franchise to vote highly at all. This is quite the opposite of the fascist paradigm, so full of military and para-military propaganda, pomp and spectacle. In a fascist country everyone can vote, but the person they will vote for is pre-determined. Often it is their only choice. I think that Heinlein used the government as a tool to point out some of the flaws in our current government in the US. Heinlein was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand and by precepts of Libertarianism (Originally called Liberalism before Liberal came to be synonymous with social democracy) and was extremely unlikely to ever advocate anything as authoritarian as a fascist government.

So, if you think that the government in "Starship Troopers" is fascist because you saw the movie, read the book. It will dramatically open your eyes to what Heinlein was really getting at. If you think it's fascist and you have read the book, well I just don't understand what you consider fascist.
 
Quote    Reply

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   NEXT
MilesDei    RE:Starship Troopers - in general   2/9/2004 6:59:58 PM
My one word answer: No. I do agree that volunteers make the best soldiers and that volunteer forces are the most effective, but I don?t think that we should rule out the use of conscription. It is not desirable, but it is sometimes necessary and it does have its good points. When every man in a country has had military service, it increases the feasibility of a quick mobilization (advantage is somewhat lessened in this time of gadgets of ever-increasing complexity) and should make a prospective invader think twice. Of course, there are disadvantages: conscripts are often unmotivated or under qualified. And it is harder to use a conscript army because of political reasons: oppositions leaders can make the case that the soldiers are being forced into combat. So, unless you establish separate conscript units and volunteer units (not a good idea), conscription can reduce the offensive potential of an army in today?s society and political environment. However, sometimes, I think it is necessary or at least beneficial to implement conscription, especially in a major war (I hate it when people say ?major conflict,? not ?war.? But I digress.) when volunteering may not yield sufficient recruits. For example, in the American Civil War, President Lincoln implemented the first draft. At least in the beginning of the war, when the prospects for the North looked pretty bleak, popular opinion wasn?t too much in favor of the war. As volunteering wasn?t producing the men, a new system was needed. But quite apart from the military aspects, I think that patriotism, at least in Western countries, is declining, maybe to the point of danger. In a time when it fashionable, at least in some circles, to condemn all war as big bullying countries with imperial ambitions oppressing small, helpless nations so that they (big nations) can rape mother earth for her resources, I fear that if conscription were outlawed or widely proclaimed as immoral, America would be deprived of a useful tool. Admittedly, we haven?t been in any wars for some time that required the return to a draft system to save the nation. Nor would conscripts be useful in small wars such as we have been involved in recently: they wouldn?t even be completely trained by the end of the war even if they enlisted the first day. But it is in precisely those major wars that threaten national survival that conscription would be useful. One hopes that such things don?t come about, but they sometimes do, and if drafting is necessary, then so be it. In short, I think that conscription is more moral in a free society than a totalitarian state. If one lives in the latter, one has no means of changing the laws on conscription. Furthermore, one really isn?t fighting for one?s self and rights, one is fighting for the despot ruling the place. If one lives in the former, he ought to be grateful for his freedom and hopefully he will wish to protect it when it is in peril. Of course, it is his choice, but if he doesn?t wish to defend his rights, part of me wants to tell him to get lost. Note: don?t take my little rant too seriously, considering that I?m not old enough to be conscripted even if we did have a draft system! mike_golf, in other threads you?ve mentioned that were a former cavalryman with combat experience (yes, I?ve been a lurker for quite some time). Since you are a veteran of our noble armed forces, I?d like to hear your opinions on the draft. -MilesDei
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Starship Troopers - conscription   2/9/2004 7:54:31 PM
Hi MilesDei, Thanks for letting me know you read what I post, that's nice to hear. Anyhow, yes, I am a combat vet. And a cold war vet, which in some ways is the same thing. We all expected to go to war on 24 hours notice in the late 70's and early 80's. This led to nearly a combat mindset in the military at the time. Especially if we were stationed in Germany or South Korea. I think that being a combat veteran colors my thinking. My bottom line is that I believe conscription in a free society is absolutely immoral. Here are my two arguments to support that position. First, the individual level. I don't want the men on my flank (or my tank crew) to be anything but men who want to be there and volunteered to be there. That's my very personal and very selfish opinion. I even have trouble with the volunteer Army the US has today where people join to get money for college. They don't really want to be there to serve their country (or for the adventure, which was a big motivator for me when I joined). They want their college money and have no real intention of fighting for their country. I had a soldier in my platoon like that in 1991 and he caused me no end of trouble. If I could have sent him home I would have, and gone into combat a man short. On the higher level, I am convinced that true conscript armies are far less capable than volunteer armies. Voluntary service out of a sense of duty or patriotism is a huge force multiplier. The US did not use conscription after Pearl Harbor to ensure they had enough manpower, they had more volunteers than the military could handle on December 8, 1941. Conscription was used by the US in WWII to manage the manpower, to have the right number of recruits showing up in basic training at the right time, etc. The US military of WWII was the largest volunteer Army the world has ever seen. From a purely military perspective volunteers are much more effective, generally, than conscripts. Further, if the society is truly free then that freedom includes the choice of whether you will defend your freedom or not. Conscription automatically creates a society that is not truly free. I would rather see my country defeated in war than win by soldiers forced to serve against their will.
 
Quote    Reply

zuke135    RE:Starship Troopers - federal service   2/10/2004 9:39:47 AM
Just to throw out another bone... According to my interpretation of the text, and the interpretation reached in the paper I am drawing this from link federal service meant military service. However, the damning evidence against this comes from Heinlein himself, who said federal service was the equivalent of the term "civil service" as used in the US. So working as a postman for two years would give you your franchise. You guys should read that essay, its very interesting and may further some of the original discussion. Of course, I don't consider the book's political system to be fascist regardless of which "federal service" interpretation is used, But some people might find Heinlein's intended meaning to be more digestible.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Starship Troopers - federal service   2/10/2004 10:10:46 AM
Yeah, RAH in this book made it quite clear that if you wanted to serve you would be given the opportunity to serve no matter what your physical qualifications. According to a couple of different spots in the book the vast majority of all men and women who served the Terran Federation were in civil service positions or in community service type occupations.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Starship Troopers - federal service   2/10/2004 1:59:56 PM
I went looking for the essay and the URL was wrong. Here's the corrected URL: link
 
Quote    Reply

MilesDei    RE:Starship Troopers - conscription   2/10/2004 4:38:54 PM
Hi mike_golf I can't argue with either of your statements. Everything I?ve ever read on the subject, as well as common sense, suggests that volunteers make far superior fighters than draftees. The problem with these web postings is that it?s hard to make yourself clear. My point is not that conscription is a good thing, but that it might be necessary at some point. Unlikely, of course, and I hope it is never necessary again. I do not find the idea of conscription inherently immoral, but I will admit that it can be used for political reasons or otherwise corrupted into a bad thing. Do you regard conscription as immoral because it jeopardizes other soldiers? lives and safety because a draftee may not be motivated and well-performing, or because it diminishes personal freedom? Of course, it is pretty easy for me to support conscription, however reluctantly, or at least the preservation of the capability, for several reasons. I am below the age limit. I don?t think it will be reinstated any time soon. I intend to join up anyway. In fact, I?ve meant to do ROTC since I was little, but, unlike those in and out types, stay in for a couple of years. That was a really interesting essay. Thanks for finding the correct link. The author was pretty confrontational (It takes spunk to say that a direct quote by the author, about his own book, is wrong).
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Starship Troopers - conscription   2/23/2004 12:01:01 AM
Hey Miles, When I came of age the draft had ended and we were not, at the time, running the Selective Service at all. As I recall that didn't start up again until 1982 or so, by which time I was in the Army. However, I was a volunteer. So, on a practical note, I consider conscription a poor practice because conscripts don't generally make good soldiers. But, the moral/ethical side of it for me is the removal of personal liberty. Conscription is little better than slavery in my eyes. If you don't willing offer service to your country, then you shouldn't have to serve, period. Of course, you shouldn't get the benefits that service may bring either. Hopefully that clarifies how I feel. By the way, glad to hear that you want to serve. If you do go ROTC just remember to listen to your platoon sergeant :-).
 
Quote    Reply

MilesDei    RE:Starship Troopers - conscription   3/2/2004 5:41:37 PM
Of course. The sergeants are the real backbone of the service.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Starship Troopers - sergeants and officers   3/4/2004 9:46:47 PM
heh, here's some more free, unsolicited advice for you. Officers should listen to their sergeants, but always remember that the bottom line is they are the commander. They aren't a puppet for the platoon sergeant. He's got a lot of experience, he may have, at times, led a platoon himself. But right now he isn't the boss, he isn't responsible for that platoon. You are. So, take command, get advice from your platoon sergeant, and then make the best decision you can. If you goof, don't be afraid to say so.
 
Quote    Reply

Rubicon    RE:Starship Troopers - sergeants and officers   3/12/2004 11:04:45 PM
Hear hear.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Starship Troopers - federal service   3/14/2004 1:15:53 PM
I seem to recall that in the book, however, it is noted that franchise-granting non-military service remains inherently dangerous -- that, basically, a willingness to risk life and limb for the state is the mechanism by which full citizenship is gained regardless of specifics.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Starship Troopers - federal service   3/14/2004 4:55:03 PM
As I recall, the way it is put is that if actual military service is not what you are suited for or available then you will be put to work doing something that is necessary, needed, and generally speaking dangerous. In other words, all those jobs that need to get done but most people won't voluntarily do because they are dull, boring or inherently dangerous. The key concept is that a citizen should be willing to put the good of the state ahead of their own good.
 
Quote    Reply

AchtungLagg    RE:Starship Troopers - federal service   3/16/2004 3:48:48 PM
Starship Troopers is my favorite book of all time, i have reread it many times at different points in my life and I find it to be excellent, as well as thought provoking. In addition, it is a big factor in nurturing my urge to enlist. HOwever, something we havent mentioned, what significance do the "bugs" in your opinions, have, to our world? They were conscripts, got slaughtered by the truckload, but basically kicked Earth's butt until late in the novel.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Starship Troopers - the bugs   3/16/2004 8:27:42 PM
The bugs were there to prove the point that mass conscript armies sent out as cannon fodder cannot, in the long run, defeat professional volunteer armies. In the context of the era the book was written, they represent the ComIntern, just as the Federation represents the Anglo powers.
 
Quote    Reply

AchtungLagg    RE:Starship Troopers - the bugs   3/16/2004 9:28:22 PM
mike_golf....but doesnt Earth resort to conscription? Hm...
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy