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
   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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16   NEXT
Jungle-Man    RE:Starship Troopers - Neofascist or not?   10/29/2004 8:34:09 PM
I don't consider ST to be neofascist, and would love to live in a world goverened this way.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Starship Troopers - Neofascist or not?   7/23/2005 8:38:06 PM
I first read the book in 1973, shortly before reading "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Both were wonderful insights for me (seventeen at the time). "The Moon..." seemed like a blueprint for a revolution (very in the air at the time), while "Starship Troopers" struck me as an elemental lesson in citizenship. I like Heinlein's line of logic, and it needs deeper discussion, which the unliberal left will never allow.
 
Quote    Reply

Aurvangur    RE:Starship Troopers - Neofascist or not?   7/24/2005 11:27:30 PM
It can't be said whether the government in Starship Troopers is or is not fascism. There is not enough information to say for sure. Since only veterens can hold political office, it could be said that the veteren party is the only party that can be voted for. Are there sub-parties within the veterens that have real and significant differences? To me, that would be the true determinant of whether the ST government was fascist or not. My second problem with an ST government is that diminshing non-citizen rights quickly lead to defacto conscription. I'll be for a change in government as soon as I can find one that's realistically better. Realistically better.
 
Quote    Reply

The Warrior    RE:Starship Troopers - Neofascist or not?   8/26/2005 12:50:41 AM
Okay, how can this be a facsist movie when a black guy whips a white guy?
 
Quote    Reply

Jungle-Man    RE:Starship Troopers - Neofascist or not?   8/27/2005 5:10:59 AM
what you need to understand Warrior is that the key defining feature of pascism is not racism (although it often happens to be this way) but rather a one party/military-dictatorship. Recent examples would be the Baath party in Iraq and Syria or Chile in the 70's and 80's under general Augusto Pinochet. And also the movie was a complete screwup and doesnt reflect the true meaning of the book at all. This is why we are discussing the book, if you only saw the movie foget everything you saw in it and read the book.
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    RE:Starship Troopers - Lousy Movie   8/27/2005 3:39:46 PM
I'll admit the movie was probably the worst thing I've ever seen...it was so far from the book I actually felt ill leaving the movie. Heinlein was probably spinning in his grave when the movie was released. It was basically Space Bugs meet Melrose Place. Did anyone notice that the only time any M.I. actually used "aimed fire" was to shoot one of his own men??. The book is one of the classics of Sci_Fi, the movie was an insult.
 
Quote    Reply

BasinBictory    Starship Troopers - Great Book, but lousy, yet entertaining movie   12/24/2005 6:20:46 PM
I admit, I never read or even heard of Robert Heinlein until the movie Starship Troopers came out. Being a fan of melodramatic sci-fi war movies, I saw the trailer and was immediately intrigued. When I saw the movie, it was an entertaining space romp with lots of eye-popping special effects, complete with gratuitous violence and female nudity (two thumbs up, there!) Then, being interested in the "based on the book by Robert A. Heinlein" part, I promptly went to the library and borrowed the book. Man - was I ever pissed at Paul Verhoeven and Hollywood in general! ST became my favorite book, and Heinlein my favorite author almost overnight. The hack job they did on the movie was totally disgraceful. The characters and events of the movie only mildly coincide with the book, and the whole coming of age tale of Johnny Rico is lost in the movie. As far as the book being neo-fascist, I think that is a criticism leveled by many who 1) never read the book, 2) have liberal, anti-military sensibilities to begin with, and 3) believe that any tale glorifying fighting and killing is Just Plain Wrong. If anything, the military of ST was much like the US military in the pre-9/11 period - mostly thought to contain those individuals who couldn't land a better job, who were social misfits, and a few idealistic souls who wanted to travel and have adventure. Perhaps where the "fascist" tag gets put on is in the description of Rico's schooling, where stepping out of line was not necessarily punished, because stepping out of line was so alien to the populace's thinking in the first place, that often, punishment wasn't ever deemed necessary.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       9/29/2007 5:58:19 PM
Statements from different points in the thread

blacksmith wrote: "What a novel idea that voting is actually so important that the right to do it should be earned..."

The thing is, the people who have fought and struggled and worked their butts off to get to this country and get their franchise will understand this idea. The people who have been given the right of the franchise by virtue of being born here and turning 18 understand it too. They even know why it is a good idea. But accepting it and promoting it means they may not be able to earn their franchise. They will jealously guard their position at all costs, even the cost of the death of our beloved republic.
willis wrote: "We are going to abruptly move from a government where compromise rules to a government where majority rules. And Liberals are going to be the majority that rules."

I tend to disagree with the idea that compromise is better than self-intrest. Compromise is inherently a lose-lose proposition. Politically speaking, this loss is the loss of power. Operating from a compromise-centered paradigm makes it inevitable that the terms of the compromise and the perception of the need to compromise will be manipulated to engineer unequal compromises. Over time unequal compromise results in transfer of power. Whether those compromises are compromises to win a war, provide security, or feed the poor, the end result is the same. Those who are able to frame the debate are able to manipulate the terms of the compromise to engineer the transfer of power from the people to special intrests.
 
Perhaps self intrest is just as easy to manipulate by framing the political debate to suggest that the transfer of political power is in the self intrest of the people. However when individuals realize that their self intrest is not served it is easier for them to change their position and take back their power if they are operating from a paradigm of self-intrest. If they are operating from the paradigm of compromise it is harder to take back power because they have already accepted that the situation they are choosing is not in their self intrest.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       9/29/2007 5:58:35 PM


Well, federalism was an excellent attempt by Jefferson, Hamilton, et. al. to try to prevent the tyranny of the majority. I wouldn't mind seeing more state's rights, less central government power myself. But, I think we can trace the decline of federalism to two things. The first is the Civil War, Lincoln had to make the central government powerful to win. The second is the rise, post 1900, of a "legislative judiciary". They had to establish the central government as supreme to enable their legislative activities.

I would agree with you if only the Legislative increased its powers, however all three branches did so. To a certain extent this was good because it maintained the Federalist system which was based on competition between powers limiting power, but all of that additional power had to come from somewhere, and both the states and individuals ended up losing out.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       9/29/2007 5:58:55 PM

I'm neither opposed nor in favor of schemes to qualify for citizenship. I see merit to both sides of the question. In today's age of mass democracy, the lowest common denominator and any warm body being able to vote I can see a lot of merit in schemes to attempt to determine which people will be responsible citizens.

The Commandant is pretty smart if he puts ST on his reading list! Not bad for a jarhead :-).

I fear any such schemes to either control the right to vote or to control who those who vote have the right to vote for (term limits) are simply delaying the inevitable. The very fact that these controls are needed to save the electorate from themselves reveals that the battle has already been lost. I'm not saying that delaying the inevitable is not greatly preferable to embracing it.
 
It seems that Roosevelt's presidency was a pivotal point here as well, since it was not until Roosevelt that it was seen to be neccessary to limit the Presidency to two terms.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics