"Starship Troopers & Fascism" Topic

Starship Troopers is considered one of the seminal works of science fiction, and certainly of military science fiction. However, the novel has also been criticized for supposedly promoting fascism. See link

What do you think?

Well it does reward service (though you do need to survive that service).

Want to go into Politics you need to serve.

Want to be call Citizen you need to serve.

I like it, the only issue is that the book is far to short.

Not so much fascist, more like militaristic-meritocracy. Being fairly far to the right myself, there are quite a few aspects of the society Heinlein describes that I find attractive.

I don't think I would describe it as fascist though.

Now Verhoeven's adaptation, even if intended as satire, focuses on all the negatives without a fair view of the positive aspects that Heinlein lays out.

only fascist to the draft card burning hippies of the 60's

Big RAH fan, read the book a dozen times. I can't see any fascism in it at all.
The way I read it, at its simplest, RAH is saying that, to have any right to control the destiny of your civilisation/country you must have been willing to put your life on the line to defend it. If you don't do that, then you should have no control over the system. You're still free to go and do what you want.

I've never understood the comments about fascism or what mindset is behind them. Unless its provoked by "anti-military 'cos guns are scary" or "give me free stuff just because I breath" mind sets.

I suppose I'm just a blinkered dinosaur… Now gets those kids offa my lawn!

One historic model would be Republican and Imperial Rome. Soldiers serve for 20 years then become voting citizens even if they are not part of the aristocrats.

Fascism, at its center, is a state operated entirely or nearly so for the immediate benefit of the class that owns and controls capital.

Heinlein's book, as I recall from a very long time ago, does not suggest that that is how the state operates.

It's not clear that the state in Verhoeven's movie operates that way, either. Verhoeven used the uniforms, xenophobia, and propaganda of the fascist powers, but did not delineate the underlying nature of the state.

Verhoeven suggests, but does not clearly show, that the state is totalitarian, by using imagery reminiscent of the European totalitarian states. However, we do not see the complete penetration of state apparatuses into civil institutions that typifies totalitarianism.

It's not fascist, unless one considers anything that promotes and glorifies war, militarism, extreme nationalism and right-wing ideas such as mandating military service for citizenship as "fascist." Which some people do I suppose.

Hardly even militaristic, since Federal service wasn't exclusively military.

The argument that the book is fascistic is absurd, as it contains none of the elements of actual facism. Granted, it's been a while since I read the book, but:

1.) I do not recall any reference to a "strong man" political leader or dictator of any sort. Instead, the governing body appears to be a broad republic, whose membership is elected but is restricted to those who have served the public for a significant number of years (and not just in the military, but also in civil service roles).
2.) I do not recall any reference to "one party rule."
3.) I do not recall any efforts to silence political dissent, or to force adherence to any political party or ideology or economic or social policy.
4.) There seem to be little to no restriction on economic activity. IIRC, the hero's father is successful and economically well off working solely in the private sector, with no apparent link to any government programs, policies, etc.. He does not have a franchise to vote because his efforts have been solely in the private sector, but otherwise he appears unrestricted.
5.) Military action does not appear to be either expansionist or pervasive.
6.) Miltarism does not seem to at all be the thrust of the society, even if the retired military forms the bulk of the voting populace. It's rather obvious that most of the hero's school mates initially don't really consider military service as any more preferable to any other career possibilities. There certainly isn't a "rah rah goose step" attitude among the public, at least until the Bugs attack Earth, afterwhich the support of the military is hardly unusual or fascistic. ("Oh it's Tommy this, and Tommy that…")
7.) Government control of other aspects of life doesn't seem to be at all excessive, or even in existence, nor does there seem to be any excessive forms of punishment or any punishment for political dissent. Gross violence (namely murder) is punishable by execution, which is controversial for some, but hardly evidence of "fascism" by any logical assessment.

I think the entire argument regarding "fascism" was indeed a reactionary response by avowed pacifists of a left-leaning political bent merely because the book presents a military effort that is both powerful and necessary in the terms of the book, which concept the detractors did not accept as valid, no matter how presented.

So, yes the book is pro-military. But it is not fascist.

I agree with the above. Not fascist.

Some hive mind people these days call anyone with an older (to them) or different point of view a fascist.

"(They) claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." – Buckley

At some point we need to stop taking every one of their knee-jerk belly feel claims seriously.

Dan

The book is pretty right-wing, but not fascist particularly.

The movie, I really enjoyed the part of Doogie Howser, S.S.!

Would you like to know more?

Click

Dan

If the features mentioned by Mithmee define a fascist state then, yes, the federation in "Starship Troopers" is fascist.

And so is Switzerland.

Would you like to know more? click here…..

link

Part of the problem with declaring anything "fascist" is that fascism is actually a rather vague term, even as practiced by actual fascists. Unlike socialism, communism, capitalism, mercantilism, etc.., fascism doesn't have much in the way of an underlying economic philosophy, and also unlike republicanism, monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, meritocracy, theocracy, etc., it really doesn't have much of an underlying systemic governmental philosophy either. Fascism is all about who's in control and who gets to tell everybody else what to do and who needs to be controlled/imprisoned/eliminated for the former to happen. So a strong, centralized government that can dictate its own whims to all on any topic whatsoever (economics, politics, religion, family, etc.) is essentially fascist, and therefore can be intermingled with almost any other point of view, except that of actual freedom. Like almost any totalitarian system, there is only a very thin wall between it and any other (even rival) totalitarian system. All it really requires is mindless adherence to The Cause (which is always ill-defined) and, of course, silence from any opposition. Thus it can form among many different political, economic, social and philosophical points of view, even those that claim to condemn it, or that label their opposition with the very term.

Here are the warning signs:
Belief or statements that the other side is inherently evil or ignorant.
Belief or statements that any other point of view than The Cause's should be silenced or disallowed or boycotted, or even protested violently, in order to deny any route for public advocacy or expression. If that means government action to fine, imprison or bankrupt the opposing view, that's what should be done.
Blaming the problems on one specific group, be it ethnic or racial or economic or religious, or more likely a combination of the same.
An Us versus Them mentality.
A false and grandiose depiction of a "struggle" against exterior forces (usually an easily demonized opposition).
A willingness to attach this opposition to one Messianic leader figure, or to one party or organization in a desire to make this figure or organization supreme over all.

As you can see, the truth is that "fascism" can be easily adopted by the left or the right; it really has no "side" save its own fanaticism.

I think at least one of the authors of that particular article had no clue what fascism is or was. This is a common problem on the left, where "fascist" has no meaning beyond "someone who disagrees with me."

I agree with the above analyses.

Me too.

+1 Narratio

I've never read the book, seen the film, or know anything about it. But I'll stick my oar in, anyway!

From what has been described above it sounds more like it is influenced by Ancient Rome more than fascism.

I think at least one of the authors of that particular article had no clue what fascism is or was. This is a common problem on the left, where "fascist" has no meaning beyond "someone who disagrees with me."

Amen … There seems to be a lot of that going around in the media, etc. I.e. As "you are allowed to have an opinion, unless it disagrees with mine" … Then you are a fascist, racist, Nazi, etc.

So, yes the book is pro-military. But it is not fascist.

Agreed, Heinlein served in WWII with the USN in the PTO. Those were different times. And compared to what some believe today, many who never served. SST's military was completely "alien" to that sort of mindset/thinking, IMO …

From what has been described above it sounds more like it is influenced by Ancient Rome more than fascism.

Yes, very much so IMO too. Unless you are a student of PC, revisionist history, SJW, etc., at least that is what it appears to me. And many in general have a minimum to little or no knowledge of history of any kind. Save for what happened with Kim, last night's game, etc. Again, IMO … I'm willing to say I could be wrong …

Now Verhoeven's adaptation, even if intended as satire, focuses on all the negatives without a fair view of the positive aspects that Heinlein lays out.

Very much so … I'd think Heinlein was rolling over in his grave with the release of that version of SST.

Not just military service to be full citizen. Any government service counts for citizenship.
It's to make sure that the Citizens have skin in the game.

I find it interesting to compare and contrast the political views in Heinlein's novels.
What we find in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is far different from that in ST. Mistress is also more entertaining. To me at least.
ST was written for a didactic purpose, Moon as an adventure.

But one recurring theme in Heinlein is that rights are not given. Often they must be fought for. I have often thought that Glory had a Heinlein-esque theme, that of black ACW soldiers demanding the right to fight for their own freedom.

Shoot. I'd rather read a Heinlein novel than Ayn Rand.
Professor de la Paz, or John Galt?

It is the opposite of Fascism. Starship Troopers is about the strength of societies where the individual freely decides to put his or her life at risk, in benefit of their fellow men. There are not barriers because of race, faith, gender or even physical disabilities. The only thing the individual needs is a personal commitment to the common good.

Heinlein was a Libertarian through and through, not a crypto-Fascist. It shows in his novels.

Here's some depressing news.
I looked to see if The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was "in development" as a movie.
They changed the title to "Uprising". What an uninspiring change. Why?
The second news is that it is being helmed by Bryan Singer, who is currently in the "You'll never work again!" camp with Weinstein, Spacey etc.

It's just as well. It would have been another "RAH spinning in his grave" special.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
That is what I got from the novel. If a person wants to cruise through life without sacrifice to their society, that is possible in the society set up in "Starship Troopers", but if one wants to truly become an active participant in that society, then Federal service is warranted, and the rewards are bountiful. Service to society and country should be amply rewarded.

Nice to see that people "get it", with respect to Heinlein's novel. A lot of intelligent comments on this thread. My faith and optimism for humanity has been temporarily restored.

I'm in favor of whatever government system that lets me take showers with Denise Richards.

The Bugs are more hive/communist than Fascist… ;-)

I with you both Winston and Zephyr1 on those comments !

As presented it was not a Fascist state. I don't see how any such state could survive more than a couple of generations before corruption did it in however. Any state where the franchise is limited tends to tilt toward it being more and more advantageous to those for whom the franchise is allowed – that the US managed to avoid this and expand the franchise is something I might want to read more about now.

Heinlein pointed out that the vast majority of people in service in the Terran Federation were not in the military. Johnny Rico just washed out of all his other options. Also, no one in the military was a citizen, no matter how long they had served; citizenship only came with discharge. Not very fascist.

I agree with many of the above, especially Parzival, but note that Dynaman expresses a feeling that I had when I read the book the third time (just before heading off to boot camp). While not specifically mentioned, the federation must have some constitutional prohibition(s) and a society the rabidly enforces them to prevent corruption of the state.

Sadly, the latter has been felt, and also seems to be emerging, in various countries across the globe.

(I leave this unspecified to stay out of current politics)

Rob

Given that the Libertarian Party adopted a line from one of Heinlein's works "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" as their first official slogan, I find it hard to believe that the very same author would write a crypto- fascist work.

Heinlein served in WWII with the USN in the PTO.

Incorrect. Heinlein left the Navy in 1934 because of his health. He spent World War II working in the Philadelphia shipyard. link

I'm in favor of whatever government system that lets me take showers with Denise Richards.

Co-ed showers in the military doesn't seem very fascist. Though I'll take Dina Meyer over Denise Richards in the ST "Archie Love Triangle." You know, some say Carmen and Dizzy vying over Johnny is like Betty and Veronica with Archie.

I vote for the shower

Fascism was a fairly broad movement which encompassed anything from socialists, authoritarians, romanticists, nationalists all over the political spectrum.

The general idea was that the Great War was a seminal event that resulted in the creation of the "new man" a very popular idea among modernists. Romanticists emphasized the camaraderie, the shared experience and overcoming inhuman odds. Another aspect of the movement was revolutionary, the Old Regime had to make way for a new system (what had to replace it was subject to debate) and of course there are the militarists who felt that everyone should be forced to partake in the army experience and that fighting for the fatherland was the only thing worth doing.

It was a loose grab bag that was redefined by the ones that grabbed power in the end and set the course, often by discarding quite a few or turning them into caricatures of their original beliefs, dying a martyr was a huge help in this.

Heinlein's ideas do touch upon some of the aspects we seen in early fascism, he imagines a meritocratic society where citizenship is dependent on serving the state, intentionally or not, Heinlein never specifies that this can be other than military service.

The problem I see is that Heinlein is essentially an optimist and believes that veterans will rise up and reshape democracy. I can't avoid but think that authoritarian figures will inevitably be part of the movement and try to grab power, just as they have done in the past. Even if you have a group of highly idealistic people who can pull off a Jefferson, the power of populism and the appeal of a strong leader pervades society and revolutions rarely change basic assumptions in the general public, often only reinforcing them.

My view is that ST is a well-meant right-wing fantasy, created as a knee-jerk reaction to the apparent chaos and anarchism Heinlein perceived in society at the time. It has a huge dose of Jeffersonian ideals in a kind of "what if clever and decisive people took charge instead of corrupt politicians" and ignores the sad reality that even veterans and people in the military are exempt from corruption.

I foresee the rise of a group of people who would try to slowly turn the system to their advantage, increasingly restricting access to the service "to weed out the undesirables that attack society" and make it more of a hereditary privilege with the option to co-opt the like-minded to strengthen power. I would draw the parallel to the Roman Cursus Honorium which was meant to be a learning school to educate young aspiring politicians and to reinforce their sense of civic duty had become after a while a mere formality and transformed into a stepping stone to wealth and power.

Heinlein's book is not a piece of nazi fanwankery as some want to believe, it much more nuanced and more importantly it's only the background for the actual story.

Oh, I would like to point out that it was law in nazi Germany that you could not be both a member of the party and be part of the military, this law was never officially rescinded, but regime did allow for almost every possible exception, honorary memberships and the SS as a whole had a special status of their own.

Incorrect. Heinlein left the Navy in 1934 because of his health. He spent World War II working in the Philadelphia shipyard. link

DOH ! My mistake, thank you for the update.

Co-ed showers in the military doesn't seem very fascist. Though I'll take Dina Meyer over Denise Richards in the ST "Archie Love Triangle."

I agree on both points … And now that you mention it I'd take Dina over Denise … But me having that choice of ever becoming a reality is more unlikely than an Alien Invasion …

And BTW, co-ed showers in the military is almost as farfetched as an alien invasion, IMO … probably more …

I've always thought that the society in Starship Troopers owes a debt to Greek democracy and to be a citizen one had to serve your polity. Socrates, for example, fought in two battles as a Hoplite, which was the requirement to be a citizen.

It should be pointed out that active members of the military or civil service could *not* vote in Heinlein's imaginary system; they only gained the vote once they retired. Not sure this was a smart way to do things, given the nature of human beings, but IIRC, the idea was that active military and civil servants would vote to better their own conditions at the expense of the society. Heinlein's idea here was that the voters couldn't then benefit themselves directly by their vote (they couldn't vote to increase their own pay, etc.). The vote must then produce broader benefit for the society as a whole.

Would that work? I don't know… I doubt it's really ever been tried.

As we know historically the US liked the concept of the "Citizen-Soldier". But even then there had to be at least a very small standing army of professionals. But as warfare progressed with technology and in turn tactics, more and more the cadre of a professional military was more advantageous for a number of reasons.

Plus as we see as American Society had evolved/progressed, a draft was no longer a "useful" or acceptable paradigm. And a larger highly trained and high tech military is more effective and efficient. Of course AFAIK the US Military was never more than about 1% or less of the population … And that is fine with me.

Plus current reports again note that only about 30% of the military age individuals would actually pass the various tests, etc. To be "capable" to join the Armed Forces.

And as we saw with the Vietnam War, activists pushed for and got the age to Vote was lowered to 18 opposed to 21. As if you are old enough to be drafted you should be old enough to vote. And I agree with that totally.

Also as a sidebar US women were not allowed to vote until 1920. That was only about 98 years ago. And that too I agree with completely … they should have got the vote !

I always envisioned the world of Starship Troopers as one of the most liberal societies possible.

I got the impression you could pretty much live how you wanted without much in the way of government interference.

However, commit any kind of violent offense and you were going to find out that permissiveness had a very unforgiving limit.

I suspect 90% of the irritation with this form of government is that all the amateur wanna-be legislators out there that see a society that wants more from them than a catchy slogan before they can start reshaping society to their own liking.

The book may not be espousing fascism but I expect that a lot of its self proclaiming "defenders" of the book could fall into the category inadvertently. Not all militarists are fascists but all fascists are militarists. If the left makes a mistake in the use of the word, the criticism is really about militarism.

Good points …

all fascists are militarists.

Not sure I agree with this. If by militarist, you mean someone who supports a traditional army structure, that is a uniformed, disciplined military hierarchy, no, your statement is incorrect. If by this you mean an approach favoring the use of intimidation and violence to impose its views or system on any opposition, yes, you are correct. I can think of many fascistic sorts who state that they loathe military structures, while engaging in or supporting violent intimidation by armed action (and armed need not mean "with guns"). It doesn't matter if the attire is jackboots and silver trimmed black jackets or bandanas and ski masks, if the action is violent suppression of a peaceful opposition, it's still fascistic in nature, whether right or left. If a group acts to silence those who disagree with it, in my book that makes the group the true fascists, whether they march in step or run amuck.

I see it as your latter description. I.e. "If by militarist, you mean someone who supports a traditional army structure, that is a uniformed, disciplined military hierarchy, If this is a "militarist" … than I am guilty … But I don't see that [or me] as a militarist.

However, much more like your second description, I'm sure some SJW, etc., types see little difference in either…

the use of intimidation and violence to impose its views or system on any opposition, yes, you are correct. I can think of many fascistic sorts who state that they loathe military structures, while engaging in or supporting violent intimidation by armed action (and armed need not mean "with guns"). It doesn't matter if the attire is jackboots and silver trimmed black jackets or bandanas and ski masks, if the action is violent suppression of a peaceful opposition, it's still fascistic in nature, whether right or left. If a group acts to silence those who disagree with it, in my book that makes the group the true fascists, whether they march in step or run amuck.

Yes, now this is more of a fascist, etc. than a militarist, IMO. So I agree …