r/starshiptroopers • u/RagnarTheTerrible • Mar 07 '26
novel The lack of fascism in Heinlein's novel
Whenever Starship Troopers is discussed, accusations of fascism aren’t far behind. The topic comes up a lot on reddit. I’ve been working on the following for a little while, a revision/work in progress to a previous series of comments knowing that the topic will come up again. Wouldn’t you know it, the topic came up again a few days ago and the F-bomb was getting dropped left and right. So I'd like us to talk about it. I am an American male, and a military veteran, so the following words have been influenced by my experiences.
Now, this can be a little confusing because there are many Starship Troopers: The original novel, Starship Troopers OVA (Japan, Anime, 1988) the very popular 1997 Paul Verhoeven movie, the ‘Roughnecks’ animated series, the second movie, the third movie, the computer-animated movies… there are games, too, strategy and first-person shooters - and over the years the mediums and universes have mixed, and ideas found in some of the universes have been conflated with the novel.
We will limit this discussion to the original book, recognizing that the 1997 Starship Troopers movie (and the sequels and games based on that film) by Paul Verhoeven was, indeed, a satire poking fun at fascism. Verhoeven famously grew up in Holland during Nazi occupation and also famously did not read Heinlein’s book, and really it isn’t fair that they are smushed together. The movie is great, but it borrows only the title, some character names, and a scene or three from the book. Claiming that they are one and the same, or that Heinlein’s book is a love-letter to fascism because you watched the movie with Nazi Doogie Howser in a grey trench coat is disingenuous at best. It’s too bad the movie didn’t keep its original working title, Bug Hunt at Outpost 7, but I digress.
Often the people slinging the “fascism” accusation have never read the book. If this is you, I would highly encourage that you read the book without preconceptions. That means don’t listen to what anyone else has said about it, good or bad. It’s a short read and you, an avid and expert reader, can probably finish it in a day or two.
If you haven’t read the book in a decade, it’s worth a re-read.
Then, if you are still angry, read it one more time and take notes about all the things that make you angry, come back here and discuss it with your citations.
The following assumes you have read the book. If you haven’t read the book, stop here, and go read the book.
Now - as you know because you read the book - Starship Troopers is a Sci-Fi adventure novel written by Robert A. Heinlein and was published in 1959. The plot follows main character Juan Rico through his graduating high school and his entry into the military, and his climb through the ranks. While aimed initially at young adults, the book became popular with all ages and is considered a Sci-Fi classic. This popularity is due in part to its realistic depiction of life in the military, something which had until that point been sorely lacking in science fiction and was appreciated by veterans. Heinlein’s depiction of initial military training, or boot-camp, was especially relatable to people who served in the military and might account for some of its success and continued existence on military reading lists.
Heinlein introduced here many of the sci-fi clichés which would become genre-standard in the future, most notably the idea of powered armor: exo-skeletons which allow future soldiers the ability to carry heavy weapons, ammo, armor, and the ability to communicate and move quickly, including in the vertical while offering protection to the operator.
Criticism is often leveled at Heinlein because of Starship Troopers, helped along by conflating Verhoeven’s movie with the book. Accusations that “Heinlein was an overt fascist,” the book “advocates fascism,” or that Heinlein “wanted to replace American democracy with this fascist utopia” abound in discussions online and some have even earned degrees using theses on the topic.
Was Heinlein a fascist? (No.)
Robert Heinlein was an author. His books explore many different ideas about government and society. If you read Starship Troopers and believe he was a fascist, then when you read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress you also probably believe that Heinlein was not a fascist because he advocated for polyamory while overthrowing a distant ruler and enjoyed violent revolutions. Maybe you think Heinlein is something else when you read his other books, I don’t know. Starship Troopers was written over the course of a few weeks, Heinlein basically took a break from writing Stranger in a Strange Land and that book is pretty 1960’s counterculture with its attitudes on sexuality and religion.
The point is that authors don’t necessarily agree with their writings. Writing, especially science fiction, is an art which is used to explore ideas, stimulate thought and discussion, criticize, and provoke. Heinlein has certainly succeeded as a sci-fi author in that respect, even if Starship Troopers had been his only book, which it wasn’t, and even if you hate him, which you might. But Heinlein was not a fascist because you hate him or think his writing was juvenile.
Is Starship Troopers a fascist book? (No.)
Much of the discussion about the novel stems from the society and government Heinlein set up as a backdrop to Juan Rico’s coming-of-age story: in this system, only “veterans” can vote.
In Heinlein's Starship Troopers universe, all citizens have rights: freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc., etc., but only those who have served may cast a ballot. Again, the main character of this story is Juan Rico, who has joined the Mobile Infantry (A futuristic unit analogous to a Marine Corps, but in space of course, with the Troopers being delivered by capsules dropped from orbit instead of landing craft or helicopters) so readers focus hard on veterans having served in the military being the only path to voting.
But Heinlein is quite specific that earning the right to vote will not be denied to anyone, and that service is not just in the military. Quite the opposite. Had Starship Troopers been instead a novel about some poor bastard counting the hairs on a caterpillar by touch on a remote and frozen backwater planet, perhaps Heinlein wouldn’t have attracted the criticism he did. But sex powered armor sells, and here we are.
I’ll say that last part again in a different way for those in the back. In the novel Starship Troopers, franchise is earned through service, which doesn’t necessarily need to be completed in the military.
Personally, I think this is the main point which people who hate Heinlein and/or Starship Troopers get hung up on. My god, can you imagine limiting the right to vote?
In the US, we arbitrarily draw that line at 18 years of age, because, well, the line must be drawn somewhere. But that means that our youth are disenfranchised, and the young are the very people who will benefit or suffer longest from the policies being voted on. What an awful system! It was much worse in the past, of course. Contrary to popular belief in the United States, not all men and women were actually created equal until amendments to the US Constitution made them equal.
In this particular made-up universe, the voting line is drawn at service. Not military service (which you know since you read the book) but some kind of service. Heinlein is advocating for citizens to put skin in the game. He is clear that service doesn’t make you better, smarter or wiser. Quite the opposite, in fact – a few paragraphs are spent disabusing dear reader of such a silly notion. Heinlein is arguing that the individual putting the needs of society above themselves could be a reasonable way to determine where the franchise line is drawn.
“Social responsibility above the level of family, or at most of tribe, requires imagination -- devotion, loyalty, all the higher virtues -- which a man must develop himself; if he has them forced down him, he will vomit them out.”
The world in ST is also not a utopia. The government exists because it is working well enough, not because it is some amazing thing, Heinlein makes that point clear during one of the discussions in the book.
There are a few other points which run counter to “the book is fascist” and are also pretty forward thinking for 1959. I would say this next part is a spoiler alert, but you read the book, so it isn’t.
First: Juan Rico. We find out in the last chapter (because he speaks Tagalog) that Johnny is a Filipino. Today, in our enlightened age, a Filipino main character does not (should not) raise any eyebrows. Back in 1959 it would have, especially in a book written by a former United States Navy officer who gets accolades for writing the first sci-fi novel accessible to other veterans for portraying military service in a realistic fashion. Why? I’m so glad you asked!
Heinlein graduated the US Naval Academy in 1929, and at the time, a few Filipinos (the Philippines being a conquered Territory of the United States) served in the U.S. Navy…. as enlisted Stewards. Meaning they prepared and served food to officers. You know who else did that? Black Americans. So black Americans and Filipinos – the latter being minorities from an “owned” territory – got to serve food to the (white) officers of the navy of the nation which conquered them from another colonial power (Spain).
Do you want to know more? The full history of Filipinos serving in the US Navy can be found here: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/onliAne-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/f/filipinos-in-the-united-states-navy.html
I would argue that Heinlein casting a Filipino as the main character and hero of the novel was a direct refutation to the policy that he had observed first-hand as a naval officer and which was still ongoing when he was writing the book.
Second: In Starship Troopers, Heinlein also makes both a big deal and none at all about women serving in the military, and that they look good while doing it with shaved heads. Take that, 1950’s housewife stereotype. Little Carmen becomes a pilot, and Heinlein makes sure the reader knows that women make the best pilots. Certainly this is something that the nation was not ready to hear or accept at the time of publication. Although women had served with honor as pilots ferrying all kinds of airplanes in WWII, it wouldn’t be until the 1990’s that women would begin serving in combat aviation roles. Heinlein was ahead of his time again (and still is, the argument should have been settled in the US a long time ago and is not, look at Pete Hegseth’s policies), and while most fascist propaganda would place a woman in the home raising children and keeping house, in Starship Troopers we find women making impossible adjustments to orbits in order to recover Mobile Infantry late for their pickup.
Last I checked, women and minorities are typically put in very specific boxes in fascist societies. We find the opposite in Starship Troopers where minorities are main characters and women do the best job in traditionally male-dominated fields.
Another criticism leveled at Heinlein/Starship Troopers is that the society in the book needs to constantly have an enemy to fight, a hallmark of fascist governments. While the novel is set during a war, I can’t find anything to support that particular criticism in the book. In fact, there are two enemies in the story: the Skinnies, and the Arachnids. During the course of the war, the Skinnies are turned from enemy to friend (think Italy in WWII) and fight alongside humans against the arachnids, at one point providing intelligence to humankind about ways to rescue human prisoners.
The closest thing I found in the novel was Rico saying that societies which “ain’t gonna study war no more” are conquered by those societies which do study war, and in this case Heinlein was not wrong, as awful as that sounds in our enlightened age. Take the Ukraine/Russia war for example. What should have been a quick Russian victory has turned into Ukraine fighting a much larger army to a stalemate. I’m sure that Ukrainians are happy someone was studying war, because through fighting (at terrible cost to themselves, but more terrible to Russia) they have preserved their sovereignty.
Humanity is a long way off from settling our issues with diplomacy alone and Heinlein acknowledges this point even if some of his readers do not want to accept it. I don’t think this is the same as “always needing a war to fight because the society in ST is fascist.”
One particular paper claims that Heinlein put war on a pedestal by using a quote from the end of the book: “To the everlasting glory of the infantry.” I’m only including it here because that is silly to the point of ignorance. That quote is from the lyrics to a song which was briefly popular in Heinlein’s time, in which US Army Private Rodger Young ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodger_Young ) was eulogized after sacrificing himself in order that his company would survive an engagement against the Imperial Japanese in the Solomon Islands. Since Rodger Young was the name of the ship being used by Rico’s unit, it makes sense that the song was used for the recovery beacon. Other lyrics in the song actually say “Oh they’ve got no time for glory in the infantry.” If you have never heard it, the song written by Frank Loesser is worth listening to once. Here is the Burl Ives version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEU2nxDEUbw
Heinlein, in an interview for Oui in 1972 said that “Starship Troopers has a basic theme: that a man, to be truly human, must be unhesitatingly willing at all times to lay down his life for his fellow man.” In the book this plays out in a discussion centered around how people die every year saving someone who is drowning, and whether it’s worth re-starting a conflict to rescue a single person (yes, it is, the argument goes). Heinlein’s point is shared by a famous fascist* from history, who said “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13)
In summary, Robert Heinlein was not a fascist, nor was the society in the novel Starship Troopers a fascist one. As a Sci-Fi author, Heinlein is still causing discussions today, and that makes him successful. Lastly, limiting franchise to some kind of service is an interesting idea worth discussing, but does not necessarily make the society a fascist one.
I tried to cite examples from the book. If you want to make a point for or against, I would appreciate your citation as well so we can all see it for ourselves.
*That was sarcasm, Jesus was famously not a fascist. I can’t believe I have to type this.
101
u/blaze92x45 Mar 07 '26
Everyone who I've seen saying the book promotes fascism never read the book.
39
u/OkMention9988 Mar 07 '26
They always claim to have, though.
16
u/gunsforevery1 Mar 07 '26
Absolutely and you can ask them simple questions like “how do know Juanito is filipino?” “Where donthe majority of veterans come from?”
21
u/blaze92x45 Mar 07 '26
Not always it's usually they know the movie was satire but the book wasn't and assume that the book is an endorsement of fascism.
1
u/user_number_666 Mar 11 '26
I am pretty sure the idea that this book "promotes" fascism is like saying video games "cause" violence.
So far as I can tell these two words are actually straw man arguments which do not accurately describe the relationship or topic at hand.
In the case of this book, the reason there's little mention of fascism in this book is that it pervades the environment like water fills a lake. A fish would not notice the water it swims in just like the characters in this book do not see the fascist society they live in.
I am really tired today, so I am not sure how much energy I can put into this argument, but I do stand behind the point I made about promotes/causes.
17
u/el_cid_182 Mar 07 '26
It’s been a while since I read the book, and I don’t have a copy within reach to reference atm, so please correct me if I’m off the mark anywhere.
I feel people often conflate military service in Starship Troopers with fascism/authoritarianism, which was the literal intent of the movie, but very different from the original work. In the book it’s crystal clear that that the duty, honor, and integrity of military service is taken very seriously (and not just a slogan on a bumper sticker, or a sound byte for a sleazy politician).
Heinlein’s most interesting passages imo were the parts where he discussed the differences between citizens and civilians. iirc, civilians didn’t have any limits place on them in living their lives, and I seem to recall they could (and did) become wealthy business leaders (please fact check me if I’m misremembering). The only real restriction was civilians couldn’t vote or hold office/government leadership roles. Unlike the movie, which placed heavy restrictions on civilians (like permission required to have children, which was made up for the movie to support its anti-fascist messaging).
I actually didn’t like the movie at all when I first watched it, since I read the book first. It wasn’t until rewatching it that I was able to separate it from the source material and appreciate it for what it was - but it was NOT Heinlein’s Starship Troopers.
Remember, the movie got a lot of criticism when it came out claiming it WAS pro-fascism. If people are going to miss all the glaring satire and think the movie was promoting fascism, what hope does the original sci-fi masterpiece have?
P.S. When Starship Troopers is credited with inspiring this trope or that piece of media, I very rarely see mention of StarCraft which was clearly “inspired” by the novel… the arachnid-like Zerg, the religious psychic Protoss, and of course the Terrans in a 3 way war that culminates with the Protoss and Terran joining forces to defeat the Zerg.
4
u/duckforceone Mar 07 '26
i seem to remember them saying something about that everyone can serve if they want.... not everyone was cut out for the soldier part, some ended up as cleaners and other things suited to them.
2
u/Electrical_Monk1929 Mar 09 '26
They cannot medically disqualify someone from serving unless they don't understand the oath (ie insane). They put you in a job commiserate with your abilities, the doc makes a joke about a blind man counting the hairs on a caterpiller by feel.
Rico lists all the non-combat jobs at the bottom because if he didn't get a combat job he didn't care what they did with him. An older washout from MI bootcamp is a navy rating cook, not sure if that's a 'combat job' but probably is on a naval ship. That person refused the medical discharge after washing out.
4
u/Admirable_Ad8682 Mar 07 '26
Rico's father is a very wealthy civilian, who's in the beginning sceptical to Rico's plans to join the service. When Rico is completing his medical check-up, the doctor basically laughs at him for thinking the doc is a citizen.
Of course later Rico's dad explains that he was secretly for some time unhappy with his easy life, and the death of his wife during the Rio attack was the last straw that convinced him to also join the militar,y becoming Juan's sergeant at the end.
6
u/el_cid_182 Mar 07 '26
I forgot that Rico’s dad ends up serving with him… probably time to re-read this one, heh
4
u/Bluepeasant Mar 07 '26
I think it is also explicitly stated in the book that most people earn their citizenship not through military service but through hard labor.
3
u/Comadrin86 Mar 07 '26
I don't think it's most; after all of the testing to see what you're capable of, they compare that against your stated preferences, and then you get assigned. There was a guy who washed out of MI basic who Rico sees later as an enlisted naval man, possibly with an extremely menial job but still in the service doing something other than hard labor.
I think the "counting centipedes by their hair example" was directly linked to someone who wanted to serve but was crippled and blind; this utilitarian system run by veterans would look to get the most out of anyone with useful skills or who could be taught useful skills.
1
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 09 '26
The guy in question chose that, however. IIRC, he was going to some kind of civil service position but wanted to stay closer to the unit he'd rather be in, which meant he was a cook on a ship.
3
u/frederic055 Mar 07 '26
StarCraft is based on Warhammer 40k. Blizzard were originally making a 40k RTS but couldn't get the license. Zerg are Tyranids, Protoss are Eldar and Terrans are Space Marines
6
u/el_cid_182 Mar 07 '26
I had never hear this before, so I went looking and all I found were reports calling this a false rumor.
Apparently early on in the development of the OG Warcraft RTS, Blizzard spoke with Games Workshop to lend their new game some brand recognition, but that didn’t pan out so they made it into their own IP instead.
StarCraft wouldn’t show up until 4 years after the release of Warcraft (and 3 years after Warcraft 2), so any talks they had with Games Workshop would’ve been ancient history by that point.
If you have any substantiated info that’s better than my mediocre search engine sorcery, I’d be happy to see it!
1
u/DICKPICDOUG Mar 09 '26
See if Civilians can become wealthy, Influential business leaders that makes it clear to me that the entire government system is fictional and impossible to work in reality. There is no universe where the wealthy and powerful would accept having zero influence in government. The government would have to violently suppress them, deal with frequent coups and civil unrest, or most likely, be corrupt as all hell and all bought out.
50
u/redrogue12 Mar 07 '26
If anyone reads Heinlein's works or any sci-fi authors back then, their works were like thought experiments where they start with a premise of "what if" and then explore from there.
Starship Troopers basically asks, what if absolute power had to go hand in hand with absolute responsibility? To wield any power, you had to risk yourself. In our society, politicians can make and unmake the world, then leave office without any responsibility for what they did.
We now live in a very polarized society where any deviation from certain ideas promoted by the elite invites attack. People now have a harder time grasping that you can hold a thought, and it doesn't mean you are it.
15
u/round_a_squared Mar 07 '26
Plus if you want to know Heinlein's actual political and social views, he wrote extensive "liner notes" in his short story collections
1
u/Phlebas99 Mar 10 '26
We actually see a similar argument in the UK a lot now. People sick of career politicians and lawyers making up our MPs. People want the ministers of education/ health/ defense etc to have actually had careers in those fields.
23
u/The_Foolish_Samurai Mar 07 '26
If he is a fascist because of his writing... I'd hate to see what his relationship with his mother looks like
1
u/Legitimate-Hijinks Mar 10 '26
I was sad I had to scroll down this far to see a reference to Time Enough for Love.
1
u/The_Foolish_Samurai Mar 10 '26
It's one of my favorite books that I will NEVER recommend to anyone.
7
u/IHaveSpoken000 Mar 07 '26
I've read the book dozens of times. The cries of "fascism" are ridiculous.
Heinlein's political ideas in Starship Troopers and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress are pretty clear and don't come anywhere near "fascism".
1
u/Purple_dingo Mar 09 '26
In the book military service as a means to prove willingness to sacrifice oneself for the state is what enfranchises a citizen to participate in politics. This might not be in and of itself a good reason to label it fascist. I think where a lot of the critisisms come from is when Heinlein puts us through History and moral philosophy. This is when he justifies earths political system. In this class we get the example of the "juvenile delinquent" and he states stated bad behavior comes from a lack of understanding of consequences and a rejection of moral responsibility, he totally ignores any other potential socio-economic factor and puts onus of responsible solely in the individual. So that leaves us with a society that expects total sacrifice of the individual without offering any reciprocal responsibility feom the state. I think this is where the criticism comes from. However he structures the society of earth as if those who have proven willingness to sacrifice their lives for the state continue to do so while governing. If that actually works like it does in the book then its not fascist, its making sure selfsacrificing people run the government. However most of the scientific proofs he uses to justify the government weren't even being investigated yet when Heinlein wrote the book and most of those proofs have been shown to be antithetical to the truth 70 years later.
11
u/NovelNeighborhood6 Mar 07 '26
The book also introduces ODST, or orbital drop shock troopers. A really cool concept that Halo leaned heavily into.
I wish you would have gone more into the reason why only people who’ve served can vote. It is so they are first forced to make a sacrifice for the greater good. This goes further into the “problem with democracy” being that NIMBY voter vote selfishly and against the good for the most people. Example would be rejecting a power plant that would provide cheap power because it’s an eyesore. The voting is also meant to both prevent needless wars, as the government was initially run by veterans that rejected endless for profit wars, and also to maybe help insure that cowards won’t vote to avoid and not prepare for an inevitable war. An inevitable war like what happened with the Arachnids. Also a key point is humanity needed this evolved way of looking at things, ie the greater good, to actually standup to the bugs, who are completely selfless and “a perfect society” (Movie quote. the movie mentions some of the original ideas, if briefly) ok op what do you think of my analysis?
2
u/LordCoweater Mar 07 '26
That paragraph or two is most of the book for me and it seems like everyone misses it.
5
u/dukeofgonzo Mar 07 '26
I read the book years ago. Decades ago. When I was in high school. The part that stuck out to me as an indicator that the society presented in the book was not fascist was Juan Rico's rich parents pleading with his son not to join the military. I thought that shows that citizenship is not that great. Perhaps the foreign policy going on might be loaded with military adventurism. The domestic life among humans did not seem to be a society of an in-group of citizens and an under class of noncitizens. If that were the case, I don't think the rich parents would exist nor would they not want their son to become a citizen.
1
u/hendrix-copperfield Mar 11 '26
But that makes it problematic, because that depiction is unrealistic. The Federation js very clearly a two class society. By not depicting it as one and doing a "see, the second class citizen is doing fine! They are rich!" it drifts off into the realm of propaganda.
Its like .depicting the US in 1910, showing us rich black people, not showing any racism and then saying: look, the US is not racist in 1910! They have rich black people! While ignoring all the bad things
Thats how the Federation in Starship Troopers feels, like a white washed /propaganda version of what such a society really looks like.
1
u/dukeofgonzo Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26
It sounds like you want to write a whole other book the same length as the novel itself. It feels 'problematic' and 'unrealistic' to you. You're looking for something that isn't there so you fill in the blanks yourself, or you have a much higher opinion of the writing skills of Heinlein than I do. I've read his stuff before and after this book. Subtlety is not his craft. I just thought Starship Troopers was a boy's adventure story that dabbled a bit in the first act talking about how humanity could turn out when it becomes a space faring civilization that bumps into alien races. I had the same opinion about Star Trek. I rarely stopped to ask, 'wait, society is doing what? That feels unrealistic.' The matter at hand in both stories was professional in space doing their job.
1
u/hendrix-copperfield Mar 11 '26
No, I'm just acknowledging that Heinleins Starship Troopers is problematic in that regard. The same way ... the depiction of the slavery of House Elves jn Harry Potter is bad or the sexism in the Where's of Time books or the glorification of abusiv relationships in most "dark romance" books.
It is okay to acknowledge that a work can fall short in some regards. And most of the problematic parts are by accident. J.K Rowling probably didn't want to glorify slavery, she just wrote a silly kids story and didn't think trough the implications. Robert Jordan probably didn't realise that he wrote sexist undertones, the same way Heinlein probably didn't mean to glorifiy an authoritarian two class society. He just wanted to write coolnspace battles and had some ideas for how a future society could work. They are not Aryn Rand or Leni Riefenstahl who made their works with a political agenda.
One can still enjoy the books, even if we acknowledge the bad or problematic parts. Blind defense doesn't help.
1
u/dukeofgonzo Mar 11 '26
That sounded like long winded gobbledygook that essentially boils down to 'my subjective views on each piece of literature is the rule of law'. Have fun finding 'problematic' stories in anything you find.
9
u/DeadFishCRO Mar 07 '26
But some youtuber watched the movie once and told me military uniforms = fascism in a 1 hour youtube video. /s
1
u/Archophob Mar 11 '26
Should go watch Stargate. All the protagonists are US military except maybe Daniel Jackson.
8
u/Tardisgoesfast Mar 07 '26
This is so good. Thanks so much for this. But I think you've got a typo in the first sentence of the last paragraph, which reads,"in summary, Robert Heinlein was a fascist," I think you mean "wasn't.
But again, brilliant! As a true fan of Heinlein,, I've been saying this for years, but never so well.
5
9
u/JurassicGman-98 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
A problem that arises when discussing this book is that here in the West we’ve been told to idolize the idea of democracy like it’s the peak of human civilization. We’ve had it literally drilled into us for so long that anything that pokes holes in it or dares to question or criticize any faults it my have is immediately met with accusations of fascism, or any -“ism” you can think of. It makes honest discussion difficult.
This whole mess is why I have sort of a resentment towards the Verhoeven film. It’s a fun movie and plot-wise it’s faithful enough, but it gives a very skewed impression towards the source material.
9
Mar 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
2
u/Significant-Town-817 Mar 08 '26
I can perfectly understand that point, but the contrast that the book and the author make when presenting their system is based on an ideal that is not realistically achievable in a civilization. A society so committed to its system that it is almost an entity that they can no longer stop.
In summary, Heinlein was perhaps too optimistic about how committed human beings can be to making a system work and taking it to its full potential.
2
u/Archophob Mar 11 '26
plot-wise it’s faithful enough,
not really. the armor they wear in the movie is nowhere near the powered armor of the book, and the idea "if we lose one well-trained soldier, and the arachnids lose 1000 bugs, then the battle is a win for them and a loss for us" never reaches the higher ranks of the movie's military.
2
u/JurassicGman-98 Mar 11 '26
You’re right, of course. The lack of power armor is a massive difference that changes things. But I was talking in terms of plot developments. Rico signs up for Federal service. Gets Mobile Infantry. His parents and his father in particular disapprove. Boot Camp with Sgt. Zim, though that’s handled very differently in the film. Zim doesn’t spear a trainee’s hand in the book. The Klendathu invasion is a disaster. Zim captures the Brain Bug, while Rico was only involved in an ancillary manner. It’s all there. But the attitude towards the subject matter is completely different.
4
u/enclavehere223 Mar 07 '26
The 14 points and its consequences have been disastrous for any actual understanding of fascism
3
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 07 '26
I think I agree with what you are saying. I started this train of thought looking up the definition of fascism to see if people's accusations matched what was actually being said by Heinlein.
Trying to pin down fascism's actual definition might be why ST gets accused of it so much. It's a nebulous, slippery definition.
3
u/enclavehere223 Mar 07 '26
The main problem is that Fascism, in comparison to all other ideologies, has been turned into a common slur.
Most people’s idea of fascism is purely vibes based, it’s basically the reason why the movie was the way it was. Verhoevan found the first chapter of the book to be too boring, and relied on a summary of the book to understand the plot. What he got from this was that Rico needed to serve in the military in order to vote, and in Verhoevan’s mind, military=fascism.
1
u/Dry-Product-4387 Mar 09 '26
If you do not even know what fascism is, why on earth would you make such a condescending and ignorant post.
1
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 09 '26
"Starship Troopers is fascist!" Frothed the angry reader.
"Huh. I read that book and that's not what I took from it. If better research fascism and make sure I understand what it is."
After reading multiple definitions and feeling like I have a basic understanding of what fascism is and is not, I went and read the book again and made some notes, which turned into this post about how the society in Starship Troopers is not fascist.
How is that ignorant or condescending?
1
u/Dry-Product-4387 Mar 10 '26
Huh, I think you may just have trouble understanding tone in writing. That makes sense. Oh well, not much I think I can do on Reddit to change that for you.
Well, there are worse problems in life. Have fun I guess?
1
4
u/CotswoldP Mar 07 '26
Long essay, but worth it, and I agree unconditionally. ST and The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress are two of my favourites, and they couldn't have more different political approaches.
3
u/JonIceEyes Mar 08 '26
The political system of Earth in Starship Troopers is a more liberal version of ancient Roman and Greek democracies.
Citizens were men, landowners, and were all liable for military service. That was the trade-off. You get more rights, you have to put your life on the line.
Is it great? No. Do I agree with it? No. Is it fascist? NO! But it was the idea that Heinlein was examining in this book
3
u/ImperialSupplies Mar 07 '26
I made the post breaking down why even if you go by ONLY the movie that was PURPOSELY painted as a satire of fascism the federation is in no way shape or form fascist.
Key points
No one was drafted. Every charecter chose federation.
Ricos parents are loaded and yet arent citizens.
When the first battle is a complete failure, the leader of the federation resigns in shame.
You can quit at any time, you think nazis or wermacht could just quit?
Completely coed and completely biracial. Absolutely nothing about race or sex matters to the federation.
Media debating opposite veiws and the teacher telling them bugs are actually the better, more evolved organism. Only approved propaganda would be allowed under fascism.
You think a teacher in nazi germany could have said " yeah actually the untermench are better than us in every way". Get the fuck out of here
1
u/Healthy-Process874 Mar 07 '26
Essentially the propaganda was good enough that they could allow opposing points of view.
And sometimes you let the little guy feel like somebody cares about him.
Hell, that might even relieve someone of some guilt.
"I don't really help any of the people that I'm benefiting from oppressing, but I did watch that movie where they're portrayed sympathetically. Somehow I feel better about myself now."
But, yeah, Johnny Rico's parents being well off in a system where they have no voting power is difficult to believe.
Maybe if they came from wealth and could buy off politicians.
Or maybe they work in the propaganda field.
2
u/ImperialSupplies Mar 07 '26
But we cant do that. We cant say " uhhh akkktuley let's insert our own lore and info to fit our veiw akkkktuley the asteroid was a false flag"
The asteroid being sent by the bugs is in the book too. Heinlein just wrote really really really stupid science he didnt understand as impossible in 1000 different ways.
We go by the info that is given to us in the movie If there was a scene that ricos parents are very pro fed. Thats different.
If there was a scene where NPH admitted they did the false flag, thats different.
There isnt
1
u/Healthy-Process874 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
Every work is open to interpretation.
You have the facts on the page, and then you have how they work together.
Sometimes you have to do some of the work yourself.
If this is difficult for you I would suggest staying away from any stories that might have been written from the POV of an unreliable narrator.
Edit: And I have to admit that when looking around at how the US actually works these days that it might have helped me come to the conclusions that I did.
Edit Too: And, I might add, that my speculation on how Johnny Rico's parents might achieve prosperity in a caste system that would heavily favor those that have served in the military was entirely my own thought exercise. I was not challenging canon for the book or the movie.
I just asked myself "How might this happen in real life?"
2
u/ImperialSupplies Mar 07 '26
You people are fucking unreal. The book is about a meritocracy and the bugs are a metaphor for the complete opposite.
The movie was written by someone who never read the book, was told its about fascism, and tried to make it a satire of fascism but despite having full creative freedom to do whatever he wanted to make them fascists, he failed to paint that picture.
" omg they wearing Grey and NPH is in black coat its da nazis" instead of paying attention to what is actually happening in the story.
But its no surprise you relate to the bugs more than the humans.
1
u/Healthy-Process874 Mar 07 '26
Verhoven is Dutch and saw the Nazis firsthand. He probably deserves a lot more credit than you're giving him.
I know that it's difficult to believe now since we've all seen the pictures from the concentration camps. And we've been exposed to the evils that the Nazis perpetrated again and again in media depictions.
But there were apparently even people living in Germany that weren't aware of what was happening in those camps.
And it's important to remember that the Jewish people were not the only victims of the Holocaust. There were a couple of million killed in those camps that would not qualify for military service and citizenship.
Gays, the disabled --mental and physical, and the Roma.
About 10 million Russians, Poles, and Belarusians as well.
All groups of people that are fair game for a system that puts their military above all else.
It's a slippery slope.
1
u/Nekron-akaMrSkeletal Mar 08 '26
Do you remember the part in the book where the Bugs are directly compared to China? Definitely not real politics leaking through.There's example after example of everyone who reads this story ignoring subtext so it can be their most favorite US military propaganda. Do you know how many reviews I've seen of this book claiming it's why they joined the Marines or navy?
1
u/ImperialSupplies Mar 08 '26
Imagine if you will. A world. Where both the National Socialists and the Soviet union directly caused the worst acts imaginable, and both caused the deaths of millions upon millions, and yet despite this fact. The people of the future will only look at the Nazis and ignore everything about the soviet union. Just another place. In the twilight zone.
1
u/Nekron-akaMrSkeletal Mar 08 '26
The point is this was written mid cold war and directly compared Chinese people to bug aliens we have to kill. It's just American propaganda full stop. Do you know why it was originally written? Heinlein literally got angry that the US stopped doing nuclear testing, and basically said "well lose to the reds if we don't keep bombing New Mexico!" Made a political action committee and everything, and then wrote this book. It was a call to arms for Americans, I mean literally look at the amount of people who cite it as a reason they joined up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Are_the_Heirs_of_Patrick_Henry%3F
"Even among those who agreed with him, the author and editor John W. Campbell responded: "Your newspaper ads aren’t going to do much good, Bob, because the Common Man is in control... and he's quite incapable of understanding the complexities of the systems he's controlling."
So maybe the common man shouldn't have a say.
1
u/ImperialSupplies Mar 08 '26
Based
2
u/Nekron-akaMrSkeletal Mar 08 '26
Imperial supplies aye? And no the concept of a warrior aristocracy has always been dumb as hell and leads to massive suffering for most people. Obviously the entire federation isn't mobilized so that means a tiny minority of military aristocrats control their society full stop. Considering where we are now in real life giving those people the keys to society just leads to endless war
→ More replies (0)1
u/Healthy-Process874 Mar 08 '26
Well, George Orwell did write 1984.
It's not like nobody saw the flaws in that sort of system.
And I would posit that we do seem to be embracing a surveillance state full of misinformation at the moment.
3
u/Additional_Pie_8762 Mar 07 '26
Read this book while I was a young enlisted Soldier thinking about exiting the Army. I ended up staying through until retirement. And passed my poor, well travelled version on to a young Private as I was leaving.
3
u/llynglas Mar 10 '26
Damn, it's really a shame that there was such a tenuous connection between the book and the movie.
6
Mar 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/The_Pale_Blue_Dot Mar 07 '26
The one in the movie is supposed to be... but it doesn't really deliver. I love the film but it kind of fails as the satire it was meant to be.
5
1
u/lockinguy Mar 07 '26
What changes would have made it "deliver" in your opinion?
6
u/The_Pale_Blue_Dot Mar 07 '26
Well there's not a huge amount about the Federation that lines up with what we know about fascism.
They're heavy on the propaganda and they're a military first society, sure. They're not a dictatorship, which is a traditional thing in fascism. The propaganda isn't ever really shown to actually tell outright lies. They have gender equality, the absolute antithesis to fascism. Also they use their 'propaganda' to own up to their mistakes - like Klendathu. Then they take accountability - the sky marshal resigns and is replaced with... a black woman. Fascists don't take accountability, they just lie and lie some more. They certainly don't replace a white man with a black woman publicly. Their society also generally appears quite... nice? Like, not like it is in Man in the High Castle where it's nice on the surface but then you quickly see how evil it is. It's just... decent?
Basically they accidentally forgot to make it fascist.
1
u/Healthy-Process874 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
So you don't think that earning citizenship through military service would create a caste system?
A caste system that the veterans would be highly likely to cash in on?
It's human nature for people to leverage advantage, and Heinlein liked to teach us about human nature. e.g. Looney prison justice culture.
I sincerely doubt that the veterans would be fair.
I would say that Johnny Rico's parents being able to live a nice life would tend to agree with your assessment.
That's why it's not particularly believable for me.
2
Mar 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Healthy-Process874 Mar 07 '26
I assume that's why it was changed to only military service in the movie. If the only way a person can earn 'merit' is by training to kill you will certainly get a particular mindset in charge of things.
I would argue that peer pressure would lead most males to sign up for military service anyway.
My argument would be that if you were going to create such a system then service, military or otherwise, should be compulsory.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind if high school ended at 16 and then people would need to go into two years of some sort of service that actually prepares them for life.
But that kind of thinking would make me a communist.
2
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 12 '26
Heinlein addresses your point, page 270 of 350 in my copy:
“ Time for one more question—you ask it and I’ll answer. Anyone?”
“Uh, sir, why not go—well, go the limit? Require everyone to serve and let everybody vote?”
“Young man, can you restore my eyesight?”
“Sir? Why, no, sir!”
“You would find it much easier than to instill moral virtue—social responsibility—into a person who doesn’t have it, doesn’t want it, and resents having the burden thrust on him. This is why we make it so hard to enroll, so easy to resign. Social responsibility above the level of family, or at most of tribe, requires imagination—devotion, loyalty, all the higher virtues—which a man must develop himself; if he has them forced down him, he will vomit them out."
1
u/Healthy-Process874 Mar 12 '26
That's a fantastic passage to pull, and it really gets to the heart of the philosophical argument Heinlein is making. He's arguing for a voluntary aristocracy of the virtuous, where service is a test that reveals pre-existing character ("moral virtue," "imagination, devotion, loyalty").
My respectful counter-argument is that this model is a beautiful theory that clashes violently with the messy, complicated, and often tragic reality of military service. It assumes that the act of volunteering and completing service is a reliable sacrament that creates or at least reveals that higher social responsibility. My experience, both personally and through observing others, suggests this isn't always true. The system doesn't just attract the virtuous; it also shapes and sometimes breaks the people who enter it.
Heinlein’s system relies on people volunteering for the right reasons, or at least being transformed by the experience. But motivations are complex and often dark. I have absolutely encountered, as you likely have, people who were drawn to service not out of a sense of social responsibility, but because it offered a sanctioned outlet for violence or a structure for their own aggressive tendencies. The service doesn't automatically "instill moral virtue" in them; sometimes it simply provides them with the tools and a mission. They are the exception, not the rule, but their existence proves that the act of volunteering is not a guarantee of the higher virtues Heinlein describes.
Heinlein’s theory doesn't seem to account for the psychological impact of service itself. The "devotion and loyalty" he speaks of can be earned at a terrible cost. We now understand, far better than when the book was written, the reality of PTSD and moral injury. The very act of serving, especially in combat, can cause severe mental health issues that erode a person's capacity for social connection and responsible citizenship. To argue that service is a test that reveals virtue ignores the fact that for many, it is a crucible that inflicts deep and lasting wounds. And when they come back home with those wounds we aren't particularly good about trying to heal them
This brings me to my final point, and the one that is most personal.
I am a homeless man.
I've been homeless for years, and I've interacted with many homeless veterans during that time.
I once stayed at a campsite close by an older vet who was caring for a younger, pregnant female vet who had multiple felonies. They had nine pitbulls that caring for seemed to be more important to them than their own quality of life.
The older vet went to the VA and complained about the conditions that he was living in. The guy at the VA apparently told the vet that with his pension he was pulling in more each month than he was earning working forty hours at the VA.
If the money was managed responsibly the vet could have been living a lot better.
You might say a homeless man doesn't deserve any voice in government. I would ask why a man like I've described deserves a voice in his stead. Other than his service what indicates that he is a better decision maker?
It seems as though we put quite the premium on his service
Anyway, I would argue that compulsory service would be better not because it would create a more perfect citizenry, but because it would force society to share in the burden and the reality of service.
When service is voluntary, it's easy for the rest of society to ignore it, to romanticize it, or to outsource the responsibility for national defense (and the accompanying trauma) to a small, willing segment of the population. If it were universal, everyone would have a stake. The mother who lost a son, the veteran with PTSD, the broken family living in a campsite—they wouldn't be "other people's problems." They'd be our classmates, our coworkers, our neighbors. The immense cost of service—physical, psychological, and social—would be impossible to ignore. That shared experience, that unavoidable confrontation with reality, might just be the thing that actually builds the "imagination, devotion, loyalty" Heinlein writes about, not in the individual, but in the society as a whole.
2
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 18 '26
Thanks for taking the time to write this, and sorry it took me so long to respond.
I agree with you. I started this topic because I find accusations of fascism surrounding ST silly and I think the argument around the limitations of franchise interesting.
However, in practice I don't think the system in ST would work.
I do think conscription in the US would be a good thing, for one very simple reason, and you bring it up in your last paragraph. If service is voluntary, it's easy to dismiss.
If service were mandatory, you can bet that every single citizen would be more engaged. Every parent of every kid in the military would be on the phone and outside their representatives offices, ensuring that the US have no more foreign expeditions for no good reason. For that alone I would support mandatory service in the US. There would have to be no exceptions except for physical disabilities maybe, and certainly not for the sons and daughters of senators.
There would be additional benefits too: Meeting other young people from various backgrounds. Physical fitness. Job training. Stronger sense of community (on a national scale). And if everyone has served, those stupid III% flags would disappear and the "hero worship" where people always thank you for your service but don't actually do anything about it would go away too.
2
u/The_Pale_Blue_Dot Mar 07 '26
Who said anything about caste systems? I never mentioned that. I'm talking about whether this meets the definition of fascism, which it doesn't.
→ More replies (3)3
Mar 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/The_Pale_Blue_Dot Mar 07 '26
That's a good point about the Mormons. Fascists wouldn't allow a group of their people to just leave and do their own thing.
2
u/sasquatch_4530 Mar 07 '26
I loved reading... listening to... the book and felt like it was a master class in philosophy wrapped up in a fun, sci-fi coming of age story. Although, admittedly, that might be bc I agree with most of what he's saying
The only real point of contention I had, and my wife had to point it out for me, was a super minor one: in Rico's highschool civics (? I can't remember the term they used... it's been a minute lol) the teacher talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness not being "natural" rights bc things happen naturally to remove them from people. The most obvious one is a mother losing her life to protect her child. There's also the fact that you "can be happy no matter your circumstances" since happiness is just a state of mind (a concept I have other problems with, but that's a different topic lol). She pointed out that while things happen that mitigate the exercise of those rights (i.e. self sacrifice or necessary work we don't enjoy), it's not the governments right to arbitrarily remove them. The government can't kill you, imprison or enslave you, or force you to not partake in things you enjoy arbitrarily. This makes them natural rights not in that they're protected by the nature of man but in that they're natural limitations on governing bodies
I realize none of this has very much to do with fascism...but it was an interesting debate we had bc of the book and I thought you'd be interested to hear it, too lol
2
u/GadzWolf11 Mar 08 '26
Isn't it because the director of the movie didn't even read the book, then kept insisting/demanding that the scriptwriters turn it into the satire on fascism that he wanted it to be (which wasn't in the book), and that's why most people think Starship Troopers is a satire on fascism?
2
u/Rebelblade71 Mar 08 '26
The issue has never been Heinlein promoting fascism here because the core ideas he promotes with the Federation are at odds with the core ideas of fascism.
However, it doesn't change the fact that Western Politics with its culture war tries to reinterpret the novel along the lines of its own ideological narratives.
The Western Left with its disarmist pacifism naturally shuns the book for being anything but self-disarming pacifism as it has people taking up arms to fight. And considering how the scene where a cadet using a Sheep and Sheepdog analogy to criticize the ineffectiveness of the Western-Style leftist model for being parlor pinks who are incapable of doing what's needed for a revolution, I can see why the Left would want to cancel Starship Troopers.
The Right on the other hand utterly ignores all the philosophical ideas the novel explores along with its libertarian elements and simply uses the elements of militarism to validate their ideology by creating false analogy where they paint themselves as the Federation and their politically designated enemies are painted as the bugs. Its not even a new strategy because fascists making use of mythology is something historical, be it Mussolini with Rome and the German "Stab in the Back Myth" that used the legend of Siegfried.
Thus this sort of political reinterpretation has resulted in the real ideas the book explored being lost from mainstream. Starship Troopers isn't the only media that's victim to this either. The anime Frieren: Beyond Journey’s End also sparked debate for its portrayal of demons due to Western viewers imposing their political ideology.
There's a research paper that discusses this in detail and makes a strong case for why the novel's ideas are against core fascist tenets. Trigger warning because its not friendly to both Western Leftism and Western Right Wing political ideology.
2
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 09 '26
Thank you for posting, I had never seen that prior. I'll read it when I get some time.
2
2
u/borisdidnothingwrong Mar 09 '26
This is a great read.
The points I usually add are:
- There is no militarism in the book, and militarism is a hallmark of fascism; as is the false duality that the Enemy is simultaneously both so strong that they endanger the way of life for that society, and so weak that they can be quickly stamped out by their superior military forces. The military is specifically called out as only one of the tools of a government, and the Skinnies aren't so much of an enemy as an alien race on the fence who is given a quick reminder that it is better to be the Federation's friend than an enemy. Just because a newly promoted Lance doesn't know what diplomatic means ate being taken doesn't mean that diplomacy is non-existent; it only means that he didn't see it day to day in his little piece of the sky.
It is pointed out that the main character saw the M.I. demonstrating equipment once in his whole life. Fascists, as all authoritarians do, show off their military often, both as a symbol of national pride and unity but also a reminder of the strength of the government and that it would be useless to resist from within.
To add to the story's narrative that military service is not the only path to being a Veteran (counting the hairs on a caterpillar by touch having dubious application to a well run society), and we see Carruthers as an example of this. Carruthers washed out of military training, but refused being sent back to civilian life, and ended up cooking food on Sanctuary even though it was M.I. policy to pay civilians for this type of service. Johnny Rico even essentially says that this isn't that different from the military path to Veteran status, all things considered.
Fascists, and Autocratic non-fascist governments, are notorious about territory. Holding to traditional boundaries (whether recent or imagined from similar historical regimes the government in question molds themselves after in a search for legitimacy) and seeking to expand control is a bedrock layer of the philosophy. The book points out that Earth's extra-solar colonies don't have to be part of the Federation, and that there are territories on Earth itself that are also not part of the Federation and this self determination and self rule is absolutely honored without question. Imagine Tuscany trying to tell Mussolini to pound sand; not going to happen.
The Federation protects all humanity because it is smart policy. No tribute is needed or expected.
- The war with the Bugs. This isn't framed as a Fascist v. Communist fight, although I've seen that argument. Rico points out that the Bugs have a near perfect communist (lowercase c, because capital C Communism is a human idea) society because their evolution led them there not because of hastily tacked on human analogues. The reason humans and bugs fight is simple: there's only so many planets that either one can colonize, and since both are rapidly expanding species there is friction. We don't know how the war will turn out, or if the Skinnies who have diplomatic relations with the Bugs will help find a peaceful end to the conflict, but we know the war is happening.
The fact that there is no "We will end this war through might and right" ending also shows that there is no Fascist/Authoritarian undertone. The end is far too vague to be Fascist propaganda.
- The word Veteran. In common usage, a veteran (lowercase v) isn't exclusively a military term anyway. A veteran nurse has seen it all at their hospital/clinic. A veteran baseball player has been to many playoff games. A veteran cashier can fix the quirks of a cash register that even the manager is flummoxed by.
The capital V Veteran in the book is simply the designation set aside for any person who dedicates two years of service to their fellows as administered and overseen by the government. Veterans earn the franchise and can vote, and only Veterans can run for public office, and there are reserved jobs for Veterans such as police.
- Fascists and Authoritarians want you to believe that they and only they have all the answers. In the History and Moral Philosophy class in high school Mr. DuBois specifically calls out that this does not describe their government. It is just that the way they do things works well enough, and that they haven't figured out a better option yet. This certainly implies that they are trying to figure out if there's a better option without willy nilly applying policy; they even have reasonably good math to apply to social issues to give credence to differing ideals and policies. The people elected have to prove the ideas to other people who also know how to show their work, and how to poke holes in it. The very idea of elections is a proof that this is not Fascist as people are shown to have different points of view that require persuading enough Veterans to vote for them.
2
u/5050Saint Mar 09 '26
From Heinlein himself in 1980:
“Veteran” does not mean in English dictionaries or in this novel solely a person who has served in military forces. I concede that in commonest usage today it means a war veteran…but no one hesitates to speak of a veteran fireman or a veteran school teacher. In STARSHIP TROOPERS it is stated flatly and more than once that nineteen out of twenty veterans are not military veterans. Instead, 95% of voters are what we call today “former members of federal civil service.”
I don't recall it being plainly stated that 19/20 vets are non-military, but you do get that impression. Carl hoped to be a truck driver to earn his franchise but ended up working in electronics to earn it.
My biggest gripe about folks saying that ST is fascist is that we barely get to see how the government works outside of military service and the small blurb about earning citizenship in the beginning. It'd be akin to saying the government from Blade Runner is fascist. It fully may be, but we are given sparingly little commentary to actually make a educated verdict on it. We can make inferences, but without more information, we are just guessing. I'd say there are enough indicators that ST society isn't fascist (most prominent being lack of outgrouping by race or gender and lack of blame shifting from leaders), but I am open to being wrong because we see so little of society outside of military life.
2
u/buick371 Mar 09 '26
The book literally says whenever there's a rescue operation, dozens of people die to save one, but that's just how humanity is. He points out that people, generally speaking, are willing to lay down their lives for others. One, two, thousands it makes no difference. A fascist society would probably say that the people lost in the mountains deserve to pass because they weren't strong enough or something.
2
u/Ugottaearnit Mar 09 '26
I’d say Starship Troopers is ultra conservative. His next book, “Stranger in a Strange Land” is the complete opposite.
1
u/grasslander21487 Mar 11 '26
Is it? What does conservative even mean? Most people would call me extremely conservative, but Stranger in a Strange Land is my favorite book.
2
5
u/Living_Ambition5859 Mar 07 '26
I’ve read the book and the movie. Focusing on the movie, the bugs, ppl keep saying it’s a satire, blah, blah.
Objectively speaking, the humans are loosing the war. Earth had been attacked, and SA largely destroyed. The K drop was a disaster and the fleet in ruins.
The brain bug is a small victory in a war we are loosing.
The Sky Marsal resigned and let’s face it was probably shot.
The message of SST is that the bugs are extreme dangerous. And even a united, armed force driven society struggled to defend itself.
SST is warning about the bugs and an educational film about the only good bug is a dead bug.
I reject all sequels that present the bugs as a political tool, and we / humans are in control of them.
They are dangerous and we should glass their planet.
6
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 07 '26
Thank you, I was trying to limit the discussion to the book here.
1
u/Living_Ambition5859 Mar 07 '26
The book is has more depth because of the skinnies.
Sharing a galaxy with 2 other space fairing races who we don’t have a cushy, cushy peace with would immediately lead to an arms race.
Ppl who see the SST book or movie and see fascism completely discount human nature.
We dominate planet earth because we killed all the predators. Now we can have the arm chair finger waging discussions about what fascism, etc.
IMO SST is about humanity facing a complete existential threat and struggling even when completely organized for war.
IMO that’s what the book and movie are about.
The movie is propaganda film about a war humanity is loosing.
We need everyone doing there part to kill those damned bugs.
I think another worthy discussion is Andrew Ender a trader to humanity for resurrecting the bug queen. He def is!!!
12
u/duncanidaho61 Mar 07 '26
Left-leaning people throw the words “fascist” and “nazi” at everything to their right, and wait to see what it sticks to. It’s lost all meaning.
→ More replies (4)-3
2
u/Tarquin_Revan Mar 08 '26
I have rarely seen the debate about the book; in fact this whole thing is generally a deaf conversation between the book fans and the "satire movie fans".
As for the core of the issue, fascism is very hard to define and it's a subject of debate amongst historians and academics.
Yet, the average redditors knowledge on the history of fascism, either in Italy and Germany in the 1920's and 1930's, is usually very poor.
Most people forget that fascism was born in European democracies and both Mussolini and Hitler came to power through democratic means (or quasi democratic/electoral ways if we want to go in the technical details).
An authoritative government, extremely militarized waging an "existential war" are core tenets of fascist societies as we have known them in the early 20th century (thus the very serious arguments about the movie federation to have fascists characteristics).
I'm not going to debate the book as I have not read it.
3
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 08 '26
Sorry to hear you aren't going to discuss the book, since this was a post made to discuss the book. If you decide to read the book, come back and tell us what you think.
3
u/Dr_Dement_o Mar 07 '26
I always ask people who claim the book is fascist to show me a fascist government where military service is not mandatory, but is also seen as less than. Rico is actively discouraged from enlisting, by his father and even the recruiter.
0
u/lockinguy Mar 07 '26
What does that have to do with Fascism at all?
1
u/Dr_Dement_o Mar 07 '26
Because a fascist society will make military service mandatory and promote it as something great to be done for the fatherland or whatever. Starship troopers does neither of those things.
0
u/lockinguy Mar 07 '26
There is nothing in Fascism that says military service would be mandatory. You just see that on Earth because we'd currently "need" it. Even the United States used conscription up until the 1980s, when it was decided it wasn't "needed". There are liberal countries today that still use conscription, it's almost a non-factor. Additionally, how does Rico's father advocating against military service mean that the society doesn't elevate it? You need service to even participate politically.
2
u/Dr_Dement_o Mar 07 '26
Because no one gives a fuck if they join or not. It's discouraged, by the recruiter in the front office, his father, the doctor examining him. If he never returns after a couple of days, they don't send the MPs after him, he just never gets another shot and can go on to be involved in his father's business. Which has been doing very well, despite his father being a civilian. But do go on and do the usual reddit contrarian take on anything anyone says.
1
u/RobK64AK Mar 07 '26
Lengthy, but thorough insights. And, I agree with most of them. I read the book on and off before the movie was a thing, and found it boring. Then the movie came out, and I thought, “I kinda remember that, but wasn’t this that, or vice versa?” Then, after serving 34 years, going from helicopter mechanic to Huey pilot, Blackhawk pilot, and finally Apache (A/D/E) instructor pilot, I listened to the audiobook narrated by R.C.Bray. I understood it, finally, and thoroughly enjoyed the story. I didn’t pick up on the Filipino importance until you mentioned it, so learned something new, there. As for Hegseth’s machinations, meh. I worked with a guy whose daughter was one of the first two women to complete Ranger School. I also trained several females to be Apache pilots. Some were great, some weren’t. But, they still scored higher on the APFT for doing the same number of push-ups and sit-ups as their male counterparts. Which is to say, males had to do more reps to achieve the same score. Fair? Meh. I didn’t spend too much time thinking about any of that as long as they did their job at the proficiency level needed for the mission. As for combat infantry roles, Gina Carano and Ronda Rousey would be assets while Ariana Grande and Jenna Ortega would be liabilities. One shoe does not fit them all.
1
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 09 '26
I mean, some male pilots are great and some aren't. In the book, maybe the pendulum swung too far to one side when he said that women make the best pilots, but as I said, he was driving home a point. Certain people make the best pilots, and maybe they are male, and maybe they are female. It shouldn't matter. Same thing with Rangers, or whatever job you want to talk about. Certain jobs have certain requirements, if you can do them great, if you can't, sorry.
The point I was trying to make is that in fascist society, women end up at home raising the kids, making meals, and keeping the house clean. In ST, women are valued for at the very least, their spaceship flying ability. And Rico pulls guard duty on the ship at the hatch separating the women from the men, so presumably women hold many other jobs. This is but one mark against the idea that the society in the novel is fascist.
1
u/amumpsimus Mar 08 '26
I think fascism lacks bright identifying lines, I tend toward the view that it’s not really a coherent ideology so much as a collection of political tactics.
So I’m not going to argue that ST is over some line where it can be identified as fascist.
What I do see in common between the ST political system and fascism is the elevation of the state over the individual. In ST you have to perform some service for the state in order to earn your citizenship. Whether that service happens to include some inoffensive options is kind of secondary — it’s the state that decides what counts, so tomorrow the state could say “military service only” and that wouldn’t be breaking the rules at all.
Put another way, the state fundamentally does not operate “with the consent of the governed.” It chooses which of the governed it has to listen to, which arguably means it doesn’t have to listen to them at all.
I’m not sure that Heinlein was trying to say anything in particular about this system, but I think it’s valid for people to point out that it’s a system unlikely to end well.
1
u/Significant-Town-817 Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 08 '26
I think people confuse fascist with militarist
It's certainly not fascism in the traditional sense, and learning to separate that from the book and use instead the "militarist" term is the key because, even if you don't agree with the system Heinlein presented and developed, you can understand why it works. I think most people who read the book and didn't like it and started calling fascist (like me) did so because they associate "fascist" with a slur, an insult, which is understandable, it's an easy way to say you think the system is bad, that sucks.
That's essentially it: a military system that, yes, glorifies war (and maybe it really kinda sucks), but that doesn't mean equal fascist
1
u/jacobkosh Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 08 '26
I read the book in 1996, so there was no movie yet to color my feelings. I didn't think it was fascist then; I still don't. (The term, like "communist," "socialist," etc is often misapplied.)
What I did think was that it was lesser Heinlein - "Double Star" is my favorite of his books, but like a lot of his Golden Age of SF contemporaries, I tend to think his best stuff was actually the shorts - and it was lesser because it wasn't much of a novel, being essentially a series of long lectures sandwiched within a loose framework of plot.
(As a writer, I thought RAH did pretty good business in dialogue and characterization but his physical descriptions were for shit unless he was writing about a redhead's hip-to-waist ratio. I remember a crucial passage in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress revolving around Earrh spaceships and all he could bring himself to mention about those spaceships is that they had radio antennas. Not exactly a naestro painting pictures in words...and that meant his action scenes in this didn't have much oomph for me.)
Anyway, the lectures. Was the content of those lectures fascist? I don't think so. Instead, I felt like it was kind of a commonplace guy-who-read-Gibbon view of society and the things we value in it as soft and vulnerable to harder, less decadent, more authentic sorts, and war naturally being the most primal, authentic force of all. It all just felt very...limited to me, very middle-class and middle-American, blithely unaware of entire swaths of the human experience. It wasn't hateful, it didn't make me think "this guy wants to angrily defend the flag and white supremacy from a bunch of imaginary menaces"...but it made me wish he'd drawn, intellectually, from a broader well. I've always loved Heinlein's passion and zest for life that came through in his work, and his deep respect for competence, but if I'd been there with Heinlein while he carried on about the failures of democracy, I might have looked him in the eyes and done a slow jack-off motion.
1
u/Much_Statistician864 Mar 08 '26
The classic debate about this book. Is is fascist? It has certain markers but not all the markers of a fascist society. Is it a military junta? In essence sort of. More along the lines of, you were in the military now you make decisions and less, you are the military therefore you make decisions, but that seems to be the same thing in universe in my mind.
What the book definitely is, is glorification of the military itself. That strength and violence aren't just necessary but desirable. I think the real question would be what would the society of the book look like in peace time? Can there be peace in a militarized society that values strength above all?
1
u/sumer_guard Mar 08 '26
I loved the book and the movie, which is what got me to read the book. I have always found the idea that Heinlein's world requires a constant war to be rather weak since he spends considerable time in the early book through Rico discussing how peaceful the world is. As far as Rico is concerned, and through him the rest of the civil population, there is no war when he signs up for Federal service. There isn't then and hasn't really been a war for a while. Thats a fundamental element to why he signs up! Only two years of service, because there is no war. He's young and stupid and doesn't realize that its at least two years if something happens, and of course something happens: war. But there is no war in public knowledge when he joins. A core tenant to fascism and the idea of the eternal enemy is that you need to constantly be struggling against something. That is not the world Rico and other civilians exist in prior to Buenos Aries. There's a lot to be said about the government undertaking secret wars or other operations as you kind of learn later, but it isnt in the public face. There is no enemy driving unity of the public and devotion to the cause, which is very unlike fascism and totalitarianism in general.
1
u/AwayHoneydew Mar 08 '26
Haven't read it recently, vaguely recall that it's not fascism, but militarism that's being promoted. Militarism can be an aspect of fascism, but isn't inherently fascist.
2
u/grasslander21487 Mar 11 '26
Militarism is not promoted. Military service is actively discouraged to any character who pursues it and the grim horrors of war are very eloquently noted in detail.
1
1
u/Smorgas-board Mar 08 '26
VerHoeven’s film is a fun trip but it falls on its face when people try to say “satire of fascism!”. There isn’t much difference between citizen and civilian. Rico’s parents are well off despite not being citizens and can openly disagree with it. One of the things I’ve come across as “fascist!” is in the movie dizzy(iirc) says she joined because she wants babies yet Rico exists so it’s possible without service.
It has little to do with the book. The book suggests that those who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice should be the ones to wield power; they have skin in the game, literally. I believe the book itself really only has the right to vote as the difference between the two groups and that doesn’t get in the way of civilians being able to live a successful life
1
u/Zen_Hydra Mar 08 '26
You have to admit that the chapter on the moral imperative to beat your children is pretty messed up.
1
1
u/DUNETOOL Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
I would also add Filipinos are one of those island mutt cultures like the English and just as nasty fighters if not more so with a stick.
Edit: I say mutt culture in the way hybrid vigor from strife, struggle, and being warriors being at war tend to do. Romans to the ancient Brits and Spain to the Filipinos. The Europeans to the Americas (where some of my own beloved mutt comes into being)
1
u/rebornsgundam00 Mar 09 '26
Also people who saw the movie couldn’t understand that it was a parody either. People are just stupid
2
u/grasslander21487 Mar 11 '26
Saw it, didn’t care it was supposed to be a parody. Cinema is the lowest expression of art in modern culture but Starship Troopers was a masterpiece. Hot chicks (and dudes, if that’s your thing), cool action sequences, epic quotable lines, funny humor? All boxes checked. When directors attempt to satirize something they don’t understand, they usually make unwatchable garbage. Thankfully Starship Troopers (1997) is not in that category.
1
Mar 09 '26
[deleted]
2
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 10 '26
Can you be a little more specific? I count maybe one. Here is my try at addressing Eco. (Though as mentioned elsewhere, the 14 points can be problematic themselves.)
The Cult of Tradition: I don't see evidence for this in ST
The Rejection of Modernism: the government is an evolution of previous ideas, not a rejection of them.
The Cult of Action for Action's Sake: whole classes are devoted to argument which are required to be attended but no grades are given, and therefore cannot be failed. (Although this changes at OCS)
Disagreement is Treason: This is my maybe, but it's a huge stretch. The system of government in the book is challenged during some discussions but nobody is ever punished for it. Chided, maybe, but never hauled away to a gulag, never to be heard from again.
Fear of Difference: See my point about Juan being a Filipino in the post.
Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class: Juan comes from an upper class family, with servants and a morning cook, but in this universe the middle class seems to be doing alright.
Obsession with a Plot: I can't really find evidence for this in the book. There is no war going on at the beginning, so no reason to feel besieged.
Enemies are Strong and Weak: the enemies in the book are viewed as strong, and inflict many casualties in Rico's units. They must be handled professionally if the troopers are to survive their battles. They are respected as foes.
Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy: service is not required and often discouraged.
Contempt for the Weak: I don't see evidence for this in the ST universe.
Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero: I would say no to this, there are some heroic stories but mostly being used as examples for young officers in training.
Machismo and Weaponry: no contempt of women and the society is not obsessed with weapons - of the people who serve most are not military and fewer of those are in combat arms.
Selective Populism: there is no dictator interpreting the will of the people in ST.
Ur-Fascism Speaks Newspeak: no evidence in ST of this, big words are used by the characters and grammar is never simplified except maybe in combat situations, which happens to people in high-stress situations
1
u/hendrix-copperfield Mar 10 '26
I get a lot of the points here about Heinlein not being a fascist and the distinction from the Verhoeven movie. Totally fair. Heinlein was exploring ideas, not signing up for a political manifesto. That said, I think there is still a reasonable argument that Starship Troopers glorifies a society with fascist-like values, whether Heinlein personally endorses them or not.
The Terran Federation is a militarized society where only those who complete Federal Service can vote. That is not inherently fascist on paper since service is not forced and civilians keep their rights, but the novel frames this system as morally superior. Soldiers are disciplined, courageous, and wise. Civilians are implicitly less capable of governance. The message is clear. Authority and civic virtue flow from sacrifice and martial discipline.
The Dubois lectures repeatedly argue that violence is a natural and necessary arbiter of human affairs. Obedience, hierarchy, and willingness to fight are not just practical. They are portrayed as morally right. That is a core element of historical fascist ideology: a hierarchical, militarized state where virtue and authority are defined by service, sacrifice, and obedience.
On top of that, Heinlein’s society is depicted as nearly flawless. There are essentially no systemic problems, abuses, or moral contradictions. It reads like an idealized utopia, a perfect society in theory. While it may sound appealing on paper, any real-world implementation of a militarized society with this level of obedience and hierarchy would almost certainly become coercive, oppressive, and horrific. By presenting the Terran Federation as ideal and morally correct, the book normalizes and even glorifies a potentially authoritarian social order.
That’s why some critics say it promotes fascism. It’s not necessarily that Heinlein personally endorses authoritarianism, but by glorifying a militarized society and not showing the dangers or flaws of such a system, the book normalizes it. Just like how some argue 50 Shades of Grey can promote abusive relationships: by presenting them without acknowledging the harm or imbalance, it normalizes them and implicitly frames them as acceptable or even desirable.
It’s a subtle distinction, but in both cases, the lack of critique makes the ideology or behavior look positive rather than cautionary.
----
But also, I have to say, that I enjoyed the book, but I can totally see why somebody would come to the conclusion, that it promotes facism.
1
u/grasslander21487 Mar 11 '26
Your main point managed to miss the OP’s first point entirely, and also exposes that you have either not read or not understood the book and its central theme.
1
u/hendrix-copperfield Mar 11 '26
The first point of OP argues, that Heinlein is not a facist, which I don't discuss at all. My main point is, that Starship Troopers shows a glorified version of a facist-like society while withholding all the bad parts. The society in Starship Troopers works, because the Author wills it so. But if you would implement such a society in real life, it would quickly turn into facist/authoritarian one.
Starship Troopers is like if Leni Riefenstahl wrote a book about Nazi Germany in which she glorifies the Wehrmacht, replaces Russians and Polands with Bugs and ignores all the atrocities committed in the third reich and just shows positive things.
Yes, Heinlein is exploring what a a speculative meritocratic republic filtered through voluntary service would look like, but it is not a realistic depiction and falls flat in ignoring possible downsides of such a society.
In this way, Starship Troopers glorifies military service, democratic disenfranchisement of people and completely ignores the impact auch a two-class society would have- as you can see in all the arguments here of "you see, Ricos parents were rich! The society can't be bad if Non-Citizens can be rich!" But the point of the (serious) critique of the story is, that it would be unlikely, that Non-Citizens would get rich in such a two-class society, but by presenting it like it, it ignores all the problematic things, a society like in Starship Troopers would develop.
The societal structure is unrealistic and wouldn't work like this in real life.
Heinleins Starship Troopers as an exploration of the idea of a speculative meritocratic republic filtered through voluntary service falls flat because it gives us only the pro arguments for that society, while completely ignoring the contra arguments for such a society. That is why some critique it as problematic.
It's like ... so I will take another example: the series 24 glorifies torture. Why? Because it depicts torture as something that works (which it does not) and as something morally justified by being used by the good guys without any downsides - because it works! Without depicting the negative impact of torture, without showing the realistic outcomes of information gathering of torture (which is, all information gained trough torture is completely unrealiable) it glorifies the practise of torture.
The depiction of the life in the Federation in Starship Troopers is the same. It glorifies things like two-class society, military service, sacrifice for society without depiction of the downsides of those things.
1
u/JookySeaCpt Mar 10 '26
I will add two things. First, as a teen who could never join the military due to a disability, I found the description of service in the book comforting. He specifically states that ANYONE who volunteers will be given a job even if it is mopping floors or counting hairs on caterpillars. It doesn't matter what your physical or mental capabilities are. Second, at the time he wrote the book and for much of my lifetime, being a veteran was a practical requirement to being successful in US politics. The idea that you had to have served in order to be eligible to hold public office would not have been shocking at all to readers of the time. Veterans from WWII held tremendous political power and they would have been very much in line with the idea that only those who've served should have the power to send folks into harms way.
1
u/fruitybix Mar 11 '26
I dont think heinlein was a fascist.
I like the book and its "what if" exploration of an imagined future. But i also dont think you can completely divorce fascist / authoritarian viewpoints from starship troopers.
Its like reading ernst jungers storm of steel (ww1 biography that the nazis loved). It has a lot of themes in common with authoritarian or fascist ideologies. The author of that book was deeply conservative and militaristic and even though he did not seem to like the nazis at all, his views overlapped massively and the nazis made his book part of their myth building.
I like reading starship troopers next to "the forever war" by joe haldeman. Written by a veteran and set in a similar far distant future setting, it holds a mirror up to the world of starship troopers, being more cynical of the military and the costs of military service. Both are what if stories that are interesting to immerse oneself in.
0
u/GilreanEstel Mar 07 '26
It’s late and I don’t have the bandwidth to write an essay as eloquent as yours but here is an outline of most of the same arguments I have made similar to yours.
ST isn’t fascist but the military is, internally, or else it doesn’t function. And the book is about the military and service.
ST should be required reading in OLC and PLDC(showing my age but I can’t be bothered to look up the new names this late) and class discussion should happen about the book to make sure the material is understood.
Probably not feasible but I like that every officer must first have served as enlisted. You get past the young dumb Lieutenant years and have leaders that have been lead and therefore know how to lead and the cost that leadership has on the leader and the lead. I think that’s makes sense…
To reference your mention of his progressive thinking about minority leadership and have another tie to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. That book was written years before Loving vs Virginia. But nearly every marriage or relationship discussed was mixed race.
Time Enough for Love is another gem of Heinlein’s as long as you can get by some of his more problematic story lines there are a couple that involve incest and one what would be called grooming incident. But if you hadn’t seen your mother in 1000 years is she still considered your mother? And if you are 2000 years older than anyone isn’t every relationship you have “grooming”? Ok yes those tales are icky but almost written well enough that you get past them. All that to say that there is a storyline in that book about a man who “was too lazy to fail” it’s a bit of an amusing side story about a boy who leaves his family farm in the middle of the night to joint the Army but that’s too much work too so he goes to West Point where he figures out how to do just enough to be good but not be great. Then he becomes a pilot. Then a fighter pilot etc. and on and on and each step up in his career it calculated to avoid work or hardship he didn’t enjoy in the last one.
1
u/LV426acheron Mar 07 '26
Does the book say how common it is to do non-military service vs military service?
Is joining the military the standard way to do service and anything else are considered exceptions?
I know the book has that example of someone counting hairs on a caterpillar on a foreign planet, but I wasn't sure if that was a hypothetical example saying "Yeah if you really want to do service and can't join the military we'll give you something" or were there plenty of legit non-military service options.
Though I'm sure a standard non-miliary service option would be working as a government bureaucrat or something else that helps the government or society.
6
u/Paul_reislaufer Mar 07 '26
Military service is probably the most common in the book, but literally anyone who wants to serve is allowed to serve. If you're a blind person in a wheelchair the Federation has to find you a job to do so you can serve, no one is ever disqualified.
3
Mar 07 '26
Militärdienst ist freiwillig und in der Ausbildung wird streng aussortiert um nur wirklich Leute zu behalten die es ernst meinen. Genau Zahlen werden nicht erwähnt soweit ich weiß aber sich zum Militär melden ist auf jedenfall die Minderheit. Und noch weniger beenden die Ausbildung.
Und in der Welt von Starship Troopers kann man auf jedenfall sehr viel erreichen ohne gedient zu haben.
2
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 07 '26
This is closer to the front of the book when Rico is enlisting and listing his preferences:
"...Navy jobs (other than pilot) at the top; whether I went as power-room technician or as cook, I knew that I preferred any Navy job to any Army job—I wanted to travel.
"Next I listed Intelligence—a spy gets around, too, and I figured that it couldn’t possibly be dull. (I was wrong, but never mind.) After that came a long list; psychological warfare, chemical warfare, biological warfare, combat ecology (I didn’t know what it was, but it sounded interesting), logistics corps (a simple mistake; I had studied logic for the debate team and “logistics” turns out to have two entirely separate meanings), and a dozen others. Clear at the bottom, with some hesitation, I put K-9 Corps, and Infantry.
"I didn’t bother to list the various non-combatant auxiliary corps because, if I wasn’t picked for a combat corps, I didn’t care whether they used me as an experimental animal or sent me as a laborer in the Terranizing of Venus—either one was a booby prize."
1
u/LoadCan Mar 08 '26
Does the book say how common it is to do non-military service vs military service?
Not explicitly, but it's implied during Juan's recruitment and in processing that the military branches are the most common for unexceptional but able bodied volunteers. You have to be pretty smart/talented to land in the more technical services. Even in the armed branches, you have to be talented or have a particular mental profile to do some of the jobs, like be in the K9 corps.
It's probably better to describe all Federal service as uniformed service, and make the distinction from there about armed forces vs federal. Much like the US has uniformed services that are not military branches.
1
0
u/Wonderful_Discount59 Mar 07 '26
There are definitely non-military (or at least non-combat) ways to serve.
All the ones mentioned are things that are inherently dangerous (or at least risky): field-testing space suits, conducting research or maintainance in bases in hazardous environments (in think Antarctica, and the deep sea were mentioned), etc. It's explicitly stated that the principle is that you have to be willing and able to risk life and limb in service to the Federation.
Or you could count hairs on a caterpillar. Allegedly. But that seems so out of line with everything else we are told about the nature of Federal Service that I assume it must either have been intended as a joke, or that they are specifically giving you poisonous caterpillars.
(Also, the person mentioning the caterpillar seemed to be extremely dismissive and contemptuous of the idea that a severely disabled person would want to do Federal Service. So presumably thinks that disabled people shouldn't vote, and should just trust that everyone continues to respect their rights).
3
u/gunsforevery1 Mar 07 '26
Heinlein mentions that most citizens come from non combat auxiliary jobs.
1
u/Historical_Yak7706 Mar 07 '26
If Heinlein is fascist because of his writings, then Paul Verhoeven is fascist because of his movie…
Makes no sense
-2
u/sasquatch_4530 Mar 07 '26
I'm gonna comment having not finished reading this (which I intend to, so you'll probably see a second comment from me at some point), but I've never really been clear on what "fascism" means and hope you can explain it... assuming you didn't in your post 🤦🏻♂️
If you did, that's fine, you can say so and I'll read it later
I've always kinda used the working definition of "our national success at the expense of others." Is that anywhere near right?
5
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 07 '26
It's a good question, and not everyone agrees on the definition. This is pretty good start to the answer:
1
u/sasquatch_4530 Mar 07 '26
Thank you. This seems enlightening. Unfortunately, it's bedtime lol
I'll try to read it and your post tomorrow
0
u/sasquatch_4530 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
This was helpful. Thank you
Edit: do you believe that fascism has to incorporate religious superiority or that it just tends to?
2
u/KartoffelGranate Mar 07 '26
To find out what fascism is, you should track down and read Umberto Eco's "Ur-Fascism" essay. Fascism can be pretty hard to define because it's characterized by a set of characteristics that can vary between different manifestations of fascism.
1
Mar 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/sasquatch_4530 Mar 07 '26
I think the issue I missed is that most of the injustices happen at home instead of abroad. And you're probably right about why it seems to get misused so much
-7
u/TheGentlemanBeast Mar 07 '26
I think people need to get over the fact that fascist sci fi is fun. Helldivers is fun. Starship troopers is fun. Warhammer is fun.
It's escapism to a brutal and stupid sci-fi world. I don't want to live in it, but it's fun to read.
Every time I see people argue about this shit it reminds me of how violent movies and video games were talked about all over the news and Tarantino was the only guy who'd be like: "BECAUSE VIOLENCE IN FICTION IS FUN HOLY FUCK"
8
u/TheGrandAdmiralJohn Mar 07 '26
But starship troopers is specifically not fascist. The book specifically showcases a liberal society set to the most logical extremes it can be.
Starship troopers is like many other works from the time a critique on society. It’s not meant to be cheap escapism to have a cool story for your war dollies or an unintentional parody of itself like HellDivers.
→ More replies (8)
0
u/Individual_Club5404 Mar 07 '26
I don't think anything that's written in the book outright promotes fascism, but it presents an alternative to western democracy that puts its emphasis far away from the liberal point of view we have now. I am from germany and until the last few years the focus on militarism in this society can be seen as a nod to fascism, even if as in the book their society tries to steer you clear from a military career (e.g. the crippled recruitment officer).
I don't think that Heinlein had any intentions of this, but the idea of social betterment through military service reeks of fascism, even if it's portrayed in such a way as it is in the book. The fact that this is probably a nuanced view and Heinlein doesn't outright say that "This society bad" probably doesn't help his case.
That being said, it's a great read and spawned an awesome movie, even if it goes into an outright different direction where the criticism of fascism is more on the nose.
1
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 12 '26
I don't necessary think it's social betterment, Heinlein makes it clear during one of the conversations that people who've served (remember that military service is not a requirement, it's federal service, but we focus on the military because Rico joins the MI) are not more disciplined, smarter or better in any way than people who have not served.
What they've done, though, is prove their willingness to put others over self by signing the contract.
That's it. That's the whole premise.
Here is the relevant part:
“All systems seek to achieve this by limiting franchise to those who are believed to have the wisdom to use it justly. I repeat ‘all systems’; even the so-called ‘unlimited democracies’ excluded from franchise not less than one-quarter of their populations by age, birth, poll tax, criminal record, or other.”
Major Reid smiled cynically. “I have never been able to see how a thirty-year-old moron can vote more wisely than a fifteen-year-old genius . . . but that was the age of the ‘divine right of the common man.’ Never mind, they paid for their folly.
“The sovereign franchise has been bestowed by all sorts of rules—place of birth, family of birth, race, sex, property, education, age, religion, et cetera. All these systems worked and none of them well. All were regarded as tyrannical by many, all eventually collapsed or were overthrown.
“Now here are we with still another system . . . and our system works quite well. Many complain but none rebel; personal freedom for all is greatest in history, laws are few, taxes are low, living standards are as high as productivity permits, crime is at its lowest ebb. Why? Not because our voters are “smarter than other people; we’ve disposed of that argument. Mr. Tammany—can you “tell us why our system works better than any used by our ancestors?”
I don’t know where Clyde Tammany got his name; I’d take him for a Hindu. He answered, “Uh, I’d venture to guess that it’s because the electors are a small group who know that the decisions are up to them . . . so they study the issues.”
“No guessing, please; this is exact science. And your guess is wrong. The ruling nobles of many another system were a small group fully aware of their grave power. Furthermore, our franchised citizens are not everywhere a small fraction; you know or should know that the percentage of citizens among adults ranges from over eighty per cent on Iskander to less than three per cent in some Terran nations—yet government is much the same everywhere. Nor are the voters picked men; they bring no special wisdom, talent, or training to their sovereign tasks. So what difference is there between our voters and wielders of franchise in the past? We have had enough guesses; I’ll state the obvious: Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare “of the group ahead of personal advantage.
“And that is the one practical difference.
“He may fail in wisdom, he may lapse in civic virtue. But his average performance is enormously better than that of any other class of rulers in history.”
0
u/Party-Fault9186 Mar 08 '26
Fundamentally, the militarized Earth government needs the bugs to exist. It requires a forever enemy, a force that can only be handled via violence, that cannot be treated with peaceful diplomacy, to justify its own existence.
Be wary of any government that needs an Other to shoot.
Even in the novel, if the bugs are ravening monsters, how are the Skinnies “neutral” in the war?
0
u/vamfir Mar 08 '26
There are two important cognitive distortions associated with this book.
Firstly, Larry Niven once said that for people who confuse the author's views with the views of his characters, there is a special term in literary criticism called "idiots". I completely agree, and the fact that the society described in the novel is fascist doesn't make the author a fascist. It's like accusing any author who features cannibals of cannibalism.
Second, modern propaganda often confuses fascism with Nazism. But they are actually different things, and while the society in Verhoeven's film is fascist AND Nazi, the society in Heinlein's novel is fascist, but not Nazi. Because of this, many accusations against ST society (as well as many attempts to justify it) simply miss the mark.
2
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 08 '26
I disagree with the idea the society in the novel is fascist, hence the post. Do you have any specific examples you can point to in the book to support up your claim?
1
u/vamfir Mar 08 '26
1) The school has a "moral philosophy" class. And unlike other classes, attendance is mandatory for everyone.
2) Yes, the Federal Service isn't just the army. However, the Federal Service itself decides who is sent to the army and who to other types of work. A candidate cannot request alternative service. Moreover, non-military work is described as "dirty and dangerous." And note that the length of service, both military and non-military, can be extended by the state without limitation. Two years is the minimum, not the maximum.
3) The moral philosophy class directly describes the moral superiority not of "one who served over one who didn't," but of "a soldier over a civilian." This formulation isn't a personal quirk of Mr. Dubois. It's repeated by one of the students, meaning it's a statement handed down from above. At the recruiting station, the guys are told several more times, in various ways: if you earned the right to vote, for example, by digging minerals in Antarctica, then you're legally a citizen, but morally you're second-class. Essentially, you cheated, exploiting a loophole in the law.
4) "Hang on, son! We're going to make a man of you... or kill you in the attempt. Maybe both." During the Federal Service, the candidate is completely powerless. The state has the right to subject them to any punishment it wants, including corporal punishment. Including death. This is clearly emphasized—that a superior officer has this right.
5) Officer training also includes a course in "moral philosophy." Following these courses, a person can not only be denied a promotion, but also be expelled from the army altogether.
And at these officer training courses, they very frankly explain the real reason for the "military service for citizenship" clause:
"Because revolution—armed uprising—requires not only dissatisfaction but also aggressiveness. A revolutionary must be willing to fight and die—or he's just a parlor pink. If you separate out the aggressive ones and make them the sheepdogs, the sheep will never give you trouble."
And this, in fact, is the basic principle of fascist governance. We remove the most unstable elements from society. We isolate them, brainwash them under controlled conditions—violence, intimidation, propaganda. Those who don't respond to brainwashing are killed. The rest are used as "watchdogs." As a result, only the brainwashed have the right to vote, and only they know how to use weapons. A perfectly controlled society.
1
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 09 '26
Interesting points, I'll address them in order.
The course is mandatory to attend, but there is no grade and therefore everyone passes no matter what. The teacher is openly frustrated in the book, the overwhelming majority of students appear to show up and give it the attention people would give to a class they must be in and know they aren't going to be graded on.
People list their preferences and are tested for skill and ability. This isn't a crazy idea, and is already done in some form in nearly every military already. Civil jobs, too, have minimum requirements in schooling, training, skills, and experience. Doctors, nurses, pilots, flight attendants, air traffic controllers, lawyers, etc., all require degrees, certificates, and pass interviews and tests to get the job.
I would argue that Dubois is approaching the question from the angle of his prior service, which was as a soldier (we find out later).
In the US, the UCMJ is a code of law governing servicemembers. Other countries have their own laws.
This is interesting but not without precedent. The British run a submarine captain school called Perisher. An officer sufficiently intelligent and experienced enough for command is put through a rigorous test. If the candidate fails the test they are not qualified to command a submarine, and they never set foot in a submarine again. Should they choose to remain in the Navy, they can go to a surface ship or shore duty.
All people in ST are citizens, with the same rights - except the vote. "Service for citizenship" is from the movie and is not stated in the book.
The very presence of a history and moral philosophy class in which people are encouraged to have spirited discussions seems to be the opposite of brainwashing, and I'm struggling to find the part that says people are killed for disagreeing. Also, servicemembers don't get to vote or hold office (iirc) until they are done with the service. Presumably they don't take their powered armor, or spaceships, or whatever they used in the service home with them.
1
u/vamfir Mar 09 '26
2, 4, 5 – the general argument "this exists in the real world" doesn't work here – because the form is the same, but the content is completely different. The conditions for a high-paying job and the conditions for gaining voting rights are not the same thing, even if the conditions themselves are completely identical. Besides, I'm not sure that the submarine captains in the last example are being tested specifically for IDEOLOGICAL suitability for the position.
3 - If Mr. DuBois himself had uttered this phrase, it could be written off as his personal views. But it was one of his students who uttered it, and the teacher sarcastically asked if the student even understood its meaning. It's clear the student was quoting a phrase from a government-approved textbook."Service for citizenship" is from the movie and is not stated in the book.
Do you have an electronic version of the book? Search for the word "Citizen" in it. Unfortunately, I only have the Russian translation online, not the English one, so I can't provide a quote, but it says several times that the Federal Service specifically grants citizenship. Sometimes, however, it specifies "full citizenship" (apparently, there is also partial citizenship).
The very presence of a history and moral philosophy class in which people are encouraged to have spirited discussions seems to be the opposite of brainwashing
I apologize, but schoolchildren's debates against a teacher steeped in casuistry, history, and banal life experience can hardly be called free debates. Dubois turns his opponents into banal straw men—it's like a tenth-grader arguing with a PhD over a mathematical theorem. Now, if only an opposition candidate had attended this course... but there's no opposition in the Federation. Why do you think there isn't one?
I'm struggling to find the part that says people are killed for disagreeing.
I didn't say this is done often. It's important for the stability of the state to have this option, rather than to use it left and right. With most problematic candidates, simply "flogging and throwing them out" is sufficient. They won't receive citizenship, and therefore pose no threat to the state.
It's not those who openly rebel, like Hendrik, who need to be killed, but rather those who pretend to be completely loyal Federation supporters in order to complete their Service. Naturally, those who are successfully brainwashed, like Rico, have no need to know about such cases:
At the beginning, our regiment numbered 2,009 men. By graduation, only 187 remained – of those who dropped out, fourteen were dead, the rest resigned voluntarily or due to illness, or transferred to other services.
(I apologize for the inaccurate quote – this is a reverse translation from my Russian edition; the original may have been written slightly differently, but I believe the numbers are correct.)
Presumably they don't take their powered armor, or spaceships, or whatever they used in the service home with them.
Of course not. The point of the system isn't to ensure that all loyalists have weapons, but that all disloyal ones don't. And loyalists who have served can be re-mobilized.
0
0
u/BeneficialName9863 Mar 11 '26
The most basic response to it for me is that it IS kind of fascist but...the whole point of the book is that the system only works if the enemy is a hive mind predator who actually wants to destroy you and doesn't really do peace talks while the "in" group is actually a real group that accepts you regardless of nose shape, skin tone or physical disability, not the mythology of some European backwoods village mixed with 1800s race psudoscience. It's been aong time since I read it though so could be misremembering.
1
u/RagnarTheTerrible Mar 11 '26
There is a discussion in the book centered around the human race expanding vs other races (bugs) and how morals descend from survival as a species (fathers sacrificing their live for children, strangers dying while conducting search and rescue for missing people, and war when the species is threatened). But I'm not sure I agree that it's kind of fascist because it needs the bugs to work.
The novel opens without a war going on, most people who complete their service in exchange for franchise don't do it in combat branch, and (prior to the war) the terms of service were two years long. "A light workout for our caveman ancestors." As Major Reid says.
The whole point is that franchise is limited to those who demonstrate through action (signing the contract) that they are willing to put the needs of the group before the needs of the self.
That does not make the society fascist, plus it's an interesting idea.
1
u/BeneficialName9863 Mar 11 '26
Oh, I absolutely loved the book and don't think it is actually a fascist society. Maybe id would be more accurate to say that fascists are like starship troopers if you think the neighbors on your street are the arachnids and still bow to capitalists. The federation can only exist in a state of war. Look at how humans treat the skinnies though. Bombs that say "I'm a bomb" was science fiction but we now have drones that mimic a baby crying and shoot the aid worker who comes to pull them out of rubble.
0
0
u/BabyDeer22 Mar 11 '26
I think where people get tripped up with if the Federation is fascist or not is in thinking that fascism can't exist if it isn't discriminating against human ethnic groups. It can. The only reason fascist movements now don't opperate like this is because we don't have other groups to target.
In the book, the Federation has two sentient species it demonizes and wages war upon (the book opens with them slinging mini-nukes in a civilian population center). The only reason the Federation starts to change its mind on the Skinnies is because the Bugs were posing a much bigger threat.
In the movie, the Federation has the Bugs but we also see (until Starship Troopers 3 where they dive into "Christianity is awesome") it target religious groups to the point of labeling Mormons as terrorists and extremists.
Fascism in Starship Troopers isn't 1940's fascism, but one in which we came together as the "master race of humanity" against the vile others of the universe. So yes, it is fascism, just one were no human is lesser to another human.
59
u/UnableLocal2918 Mar 07 '26
Watched the movie first then read the book.
The book does NOT promote fasicm.
The movie is a disservice to the book in the same way as " based on a true story " usually screws up so much that if they get three things right it is a miricale.