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 NEXT

rickdog RE:Starship Troopers - Alternative Suffrage 6/2/2004 6:10:44 PM

The book was not fascist. While there was not much mention of the economic model used, it would be natural that there would be defense contracts during war. Heinlein was always writing about rugged individualism surviving in a darwinian universe. The movies should have had different names. They bore NO resemblance to the book.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:On Conscription as by 2/9/2004 7:54:31 PM 6/2/2004 11:17:49 PM

stim wrote: "Your three historical backings indicate that conscription can be USEFUL and EFFECTIVE, not that it is ETHICALLY right" This is my position exactly. In my opinion two things are true. 1. Conscription is coercion no better than slavery. 2. A free society that can muster enough responsibility and dedication in its citizens to defend itself without resorting to conscription is not destined to remain free for long anyhow. And actually, sadly, if you look at the examples given by Heavycamper you can see that in each case the society shortly underwent massive changes that led to greatly decreased individual freedom and liberties for the citizens. I'm not saying this will always happen, you can't draw conclusions from such a small sampling without a lot of supporting evidence. But empirically it appears to be true that societies which have to resort to mass conscription to defend themselves are not long to retain the freedoms and liberties they consider precious.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:On Conscription as by 2/9/2004 7:54:31 PM 6/2/2004 11:19:49 PM

I need to restate that a bit. Heavycamper only gave one example where my statement is true, the French Levee en Masse. I was thinking he had used the American Civil War as an example also.

Quote Reply

oregon_x_marine RE:On Conscription as by 2/9/2004 7:54:31 PM 6/3/2004 12:21:41 AM

I quickly read Starship Troopers several years ago and am familiar with libertarian thinking (I majored in Political Science), but, with all due respect to Mike_Golf, I can not agree with him about conscription. I have not read all the threads on this subject, so please indulge me. If Mike_Golf doen't like the coersion of the draft, then what do you do about freeloaders? You can not expect a select group of people, whether they be patriotic citizen who serve or the top 5% of taxpayers (who are paying 50% of all income taxes), to keep on giving, giving and giving while others, who do not serve or pay taxes, reap equal benefits. This is an intollerable long term situation. From my quick reading of the book, I think that Heinlin was flat out stating that mass democracy will not last and does not always produce liberty. It's interesting to note that Heinlin's book identified "special/self interest" as a critical failing of mass democracy because "self-interest" is very much a libertarian virtue. I guess you can call me a grumpy conservative because I don't see the USA surviving the next century under the status quo. The balance between civic responsibility and self-interest has been lost, and I don't know how we regain equalibrium without a real change in societal attitudes or a change in political structure.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Starship Troopers - Neofascist or not? 6/3/2004 1:21:37 AM

Hey x_marine, I understand what you are saying. I'm a history major myself, not poli sci. Looked at historically, what you describe, a small percentage of the citizenry that is active within the nation, the majority inactive and "free loading" is the norm, not the exception. Even in this country. I think my thesis regarding societies that adopt mass conscription and then go on to change as a society and lose a significant portion of their freedoms is fairly clear if you look at the American Civil War and its aftermath. Conscription during the Civil War is a real dilemma for me. I consider conscription immoral, but the destruction of the American experiment would have been just as immoral. On the other hand, state's rights is a rallying cry I can get behind. Unfortunately the right that was so near and dear to the South's heart was slavery. Serious dilemma for a libertarian. By the way, for any other libertarians out there, I'm a libertarian in the Heinlein mold, not the Ayn Rand mold. Rand missed the boat on the necessity of pragmatism over idealism.

Quote Reply

wkwillis RE:Starship Troopers 2 6/3/2004 2:45:40 AM

warhammer "Starship Troopers" was published in 1959. Heinlein has some references to the Korean War in it, specifically as to the rumored American prisoners that Eisenhower left behind. It was not written as a commentary on WWII and Vietnam hadn't happened yet. Vietnam did get a reference in "Glory Road". The protagonist was a Vietnam vet sort of draftee that enlisted. His libertarian book was "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress".

Quote Reply

yobbo RE:Starship Troopers 6/3/2004 4:37:16 AM

Its on TV tonight, I'll watch it to see how "fascist" it is.

Quote Reply

ilpars Selective Suffrage in Starship Troopers and possible problems. 6/3/2004 5:13:26 AM

I think selective suffrage like in Starship Troopers eventually will lead to the supremacy of the vote-givers over non vote-givers. Voting is a power not a duty. Eventually politicians will make the progressions towards giving more rights and powers to vote-givers. Such as less tax (or no tax), priority in governmental issues, having right to have special properties. This will lead the non-citizens part of the society to want to be a citizen. But history shows us that power-holders are reluctant to share their power. For example in Starship Troopers only thae ones who serve in the military or government can be a citizen. We can assume that the opening positions in these are limited. Not everybody who wants to be a citizen, will achieve to be one. So in this kind of state there will be a struggle between citizens and wanna-be citizens. There will be a domination of citizens over non-citizens. The net result will be a struggle like patricians and plebeians in ancient Rome.

Quote Reply

oregon_x_marine RE: IPARS 6/3/2004 7:35:57 PM

I believe the book is very explicit on citizenship. No one can be denied the right to enlist in the military or forced out of the military unless they voilate military law.

Quote Reply

oregon_x_marine RE: Mike_Golf 6/3/2004 7:58:11 PM

I have 42 credits of history, but it wasn't clustered properly to qualify for a minor or second major. Therefore I consider myself a somewhat (I mean that in a sincere way) knowledgeable person regarding history. Regarding Libertarians.... While I consider the Left the epotime of the broken clock (i.e. even a broken clock is correct twice a day), Libertarians tend to be (forgive the pun) in the wrong time zone. I like and respect Libertarians but think that self-interest will only take a society so far. Libertarians are fantastic in creating non-government centered solutions to issues, but I choke on the centrality of economics in its worlview; at times they sound like right-of-center Marxism. I do admit to being attracted to the Libertarian idea of smaller political units being (somewhat) culturally and and economically tied together (e.g. Hanseatic League or even the British Empire). It would certainly tame the excesses of chauvinistic nationalism and paternalistic/egalitarian government. But, even given this idea, how are the issues of collective defense andmonopolistic/corpratist/crony capitalism to be addressed? Explain the difference between Heineman and Ryn Libertarianism? How did you become a Libertarian? What era of History did you concentrate in? Do you suft the mises.org web site? It is a fantastic economic site.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE: Mike_Golf 6/4/2004 12:56:40 AM

Hi x_marine: Ayn Rand - the individual and self-interest is supreme. The ideals of the individual as supreme above all else cannot be abandoned for pragmatism. Heinlein - the individual's rights (subtle but key distinction) take priority over that of the community. The individual owes service to the community, but can never be coerced to provide that service. Heinlein's primary source appears to be Jefferson. Pragmatism, when appropriate, takes priority over ideals. Thus conscription during the Civil War is justified to ensure the survival of the US, for example. A Randite would never agree to this. I was heavily influenced through reading Heinlein, for starters. My original choice of major was *grin* Poli Sci, and I concentrated on the Liberal movement of the 18th century. I also read Rand during the same time period. I was starting to have a hard time reconciling my growing belief that the government has no right to coerce me to do anything and my service in the military. About that time, for probably unconscious reasons, I re-read Starship Troopers. I got interested in what I was reading philosophically. Then I re-read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I also was starting to read some essays by J. Neil Schulman. It kind of clicked, but I was having trouble with the absolute self-interest of the Randites, because of my belief in service to community and country. Schulman helped greatly with that, immensely. So, I could be Libertarian in the Heinlein style (Schulman leads, as much as we have a leader, that faction), it fit for me. The best thing about this wing of Libertarianism is the recognition that a truly Libertarian society is unlikely, at best. And that is okay as long as you, the individual, take responsibility for self. My degree concentration is modern western history, 1929 onwards. I do check mises.org and cato.org. If you don't read Cato you should.

Quote Reply

oregon_x_marine RE: Mike_Golf 6/4/2004 2:30:56 AM

CATO is awesome, but, as I posted earlier, I think they miss the boat from time to time. C-SPAN has exposed me to a number of smart Libertarians, and I always love hearing and reading what they think. What prompted me to read ?Starship Troopers? was the National Review?s movie review of the film. I read the review some time after seeing the movie and was quite surprised to learn that the novel had a subtle but important political sub-text. While it was hard to get the film?s co-ed boot camp shower scene out of my mind, I still found the novel surprisingly good. I especially liked reading how the intellectuals failed and the veterans succeeded in building a new civilization. I think the Heinlein school of though is much preferable to Rand?s although admit to thinking that mass democracy is failing ( I?m assuming this is an Randian notion). The issue has haunted me ever since I (partially) read a book by a conservative author about Liberty. The author points out the obvious; liberty and democracy are two different ideas, and a country can truly be democratic yet have very little liberty. ?Starship Troopers? picked at this sensitive intellectual scab and asked the question: is democracy (the way we?re practicing it today) all that its cracked-up to be? I hate the idea of an exclusive aristocracy but am beginning to loath ?modern? man and the cultural narcissism that makes him uncivilized. Although I consider myself a ?new right? (i.e. post WW2) conservative, I am still influenced by the Russell Kirk kind of conservative. In fact I suggest you browse through ?The Portable Conservative Reader? edited by Russell Kirk next trip to the bookstore. Please take the time to read some of the chapter titled ?Capitalism, Socialism and Nihilism,? which is authored by Irving Kristol, so-called father of neo-conservativism and biological father of Bill Kristol (an ?evil? modern neo-con). Kristol has a great intellect but uses it to cut to the point and is easily read and understood. This chapter is actually an excerpt of a book Irving Kristol published in 1978 that is very insightful and directly challenges libertarian ideas. I would be very interested in reading your response to this one article.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE: Mike_Golf - x_marine 6/5/2004 1:05:47 AM

Hey x_marine, have you read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? As a poli sci major you really should. Heinlein essentially uses this book as a platform to discuss his vision of the world of today and where it is headed and his vision of what could be. The society built by the ex-prisoners on the moon, and the liberty they have, although they have no democracy, is contrasted closely with the democracy the earth has, although they have no liberty. The book is Orwellian 1984 in fashion, but much more entertaining. The first time I read it I must have been about 12 or 13 at best. I was kinda precocious, my father was a huge sci fi fan, and he let me read anything I wanted to read. I didn't really get what Heinlein was getting at in the deeper storyline, but I was entertained and I learned a lot of science from it. Over the years I re-read it many times. It is truly his libertarian manifesto. He shows us how all the things we believe the government must do for us could be provided through private means, or aren't really necessary. He also shows us how much more individual liberty we would have if the government was not involved in providing all of our daily services like they are today. I originally considered myself a New Republican, I was very influenced by Ronald Reagan, who was governor of California during my youth. As long as Reagan was the philosophical and intellectual driving force behind the Republican Party I was very much in tune with them. It was only as the Bush-Bush-Dole-Gingrich wing of the party rose to power that I truly became disillusioned with the Republican Party. Reagan brought a brief renaissance to the party, a time of limited government, strong defense, defense of individual liberties. You are right about the Randite Libertarians believing mass democracy is failing. But the Heinlein Libertarians do also. I think, if you look around you, it is clear that we are in the bread and circuses phase of our democracy and it is only a matter of time until our beloved Republic transitions to Empire. The question is, where is our Caesar? We are in the grip of the lowest common denominator dictating and the tyranny of the majority and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Quote Reply

oregon_x_marine RE: Mike_Golf 6/5/2004 2:54:36 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.? They will have no idea that civil society existed for nearly 200 years without all these federal and state programs; when you debate politics, most people believe society would fall apart without large government! God only knows what is going to happen to us, but one thing is for sure, this election is definitely going to be a watershed event. Reagan is an interesting Republican because he is as much neo-con as conservative. Reagan had conservative instincts, a Truman-esqe foreign policy, but ultimately did nothing to roll back the size and scope of government. I?m sure he just didn?t have the political capital to achieve this. My God, it took nearly all of his political capital just to finish the Cold War. I like and admire G.W. Bush but am saddened by his obvious shortcomings (poor communicator, large increases in non-defense spending, etc.). W doesn?t care that he is not a genius but knows what must be done and does it!! I believe history will see him in a far more positive light than his contemporary critics do. Bush?s basic problem is that he can not get elected as a conservative and must spend tons federal money so people will think he is ?compassionate.? This has been the Republican?s problem since Reagan. If you think the Left is having a tantrum now, just think what they would do if all these governmental programs were scaled back. There would literally be civil strife. I understand your use of the term empire but, nevertheless, gag when I hear it. Charles Krauthammer, one of my favorite pundits, says we are an ?empire of liberty.? I like the sound of this but fear that few in this world are willing to defend or fight for such an empire. The Mensheviks and muslims are taking over Europe, and the Asians can not be counted on to defend such an ?foreign? empire. The USA is suffering from overstretch because there is literally no one else to share the burden with. I don?t have a lot of good answers right now. As a Buckley-esqe conservative, I?m torn between patriotism and a form of liberal-internationalism (rule of law, economic freedom, individual rights, etc). I?m still a traditional (Burkean) conservative because I reject all utopian ideas whether they be political (socialism, the UN) or economic (free trade uber alles). I do know that we must ?recapture the law? from Leftist, but 100 years of leftist judicial activism might be irreparable. Everyone says Heinlein is the best, and I will read ?The Moon is a harsh Mistress? unless you advise otherwise. Currently I?m reading a book on Chesty Puller and then will read Donald Kagen?s book on the Peloponnesian War. Are you politically active? If so, for which party? Are you a CA native? If memory serves me you are in Sacramento and work security??? What would you do if you were ?Emperor for the day??

Quote Reply

Strangelove RE:Starship Troopers - Neofascist or not? 6/5/2004 4:14:08 AM

The reviews you read were likely influenced by a casual interpretation of what fascism is. Consider what you wrote: "This is quite the opposite of the fascist paradigm, so full of military and para-military propaganda, pomp and spectacle." STroopers is loaded with a deep respect of military training and discipline. This combined with the scenario where the democratic franchise is earned through military service may lead some readers to interpret Heinlein's world to be similar to Soviet Russia's Communist Party, Nazi Germany, or Hussein's Iraq and Ba'ath party. In this case the ruling party would be the military. My reading of Heinlein was that military service was only one means of establishing citizenship, but I can not recall him actually mentioning others. Frankly, I am opposed to such ideas, even if they have merit. My concern would be that in order to become a citizen and vote one would have to pass a 'citizenship test' which could very easily mimic the form and function of the 'literacy tests' which post-Reconstruction Southerners used to prevent blacks from voting. By shaping what qualifies to become a citizen, politicians could socially engineer (socially gerrymander) the electorate in a manner most pleasing to them. P.S. Starship Troopers is on the Commandant's Reading List for enlisted Marines, and is the second book on that list after Rifleman Dodd. The two books could not be more different.

Quote Reply

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

	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