Starship troopers was a fascist society where most everybody in the society was cool with it. Like, the basic structure of society is never really questioned much, and for that I find it hard to really call starship troopers particularly fascist in its messaging. The main character isn’t fulfilled by becoming a jump marine or an officer, he does both of those things with essentially zero self-reflection. The book makes it a point to show that he makes these big decisions on a whim and doesn’t consider them to be particularly consequential. It’s essentially a book about a guy that’s a part of the machine and isn’t particularly bothered by it one way or the other.
Riiiiight at the end we get a tiny bit of “oorah” when his dad shows up, and even then it’s mostly just like “nice, welcome to the club, Dad.”
Remember, everyone told him signing up for service was a dumb idea, and everyone in the service told him trying to become infantry was a dumb idea. His experiences don’t exactly prove them wrong.
Remember, everyone told him signing up for service was a dumb idea, and everyone in the service told him trying to become infantry was a dumb idea. His experiences don’t exactly prove them wrong.
In the movie when everyone is signing up and the triple amputee recruiter says “the infantry made me the man I am today!” is literally all you need to know
Heinlein’s an extremely weird author overall and had very strange, contradictory views on basically everything. Like Starship Troopers is this incredibly idealist projection of 1950s America as a future globe-spanning state that “works” because of the disenfranchisement of anyone who “just doesn’t care enough about the nation to serve it” and has no thought for the culture or economics of that state because it’s all just vibes based background fluff for Heinlein to poorly philosophize about duty, strategy, and governance, putting forward this ideal elite volunteer superman soldier as superior to unreliable conscripts, praising the idea of strategic terror bombing to demoralize enemy civilians, and to parrot the all-too-common elitist idea that franchise should be restricted to a class of proven reliable and dedicated citizens rather than the whole population.
It’s basically this vibes based “utopian fascism” idealist shit that’s completely and utterly empty - it’s how a fashy sci-fi author writing in the 50s imagined a pretty neat society that he’d like to think about some more.
He even later commented on the politics of the book, disavowing it as “a thought experiment” that he decided he didn’t really like after all, before going on a libertarian-brained rant about how franchise should be locked behind a $1000 pricetag per vote instead.
Funny thing about the “enfranchisement of the human population through military service” is that Heinlein forgot to write in a bunch of enfranchised veterans. There’s a fair amount of unenfranchised civilians and a whole bunch of unenfranchsied active military (cause you aren’t franchised until after you’ve been honorably discharged from the military) and only like one enfranchised civilian… Rico’s teacher from the beginning of the book.
I came away thinking, “Oh, there are so few people who can vote/run for office because the assumption is that most of the people trying to earn the right to be a part of the political process died in the intergalatic forever wars.”
Heinlein couldn’t help himself though and had to really epically DEMOLISH Marx
He had been droning along about “value,” comparing the Marxist theory with the orthodox “use” theory. Mr. Dubois had said, “Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.
“These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value—the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives—and illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in terms of use.”
So he’s at least making the political alignment of his future earth much clearer with this.
I am so tired of rebuttals of Marxism defining the concept of socially necessary labor time and claiming Marxism is now debunked because Marx never accounted for it. It’s literally the first page of Capital.
Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.
does this just completely contradict the point the character (and author) are trying to make or am i too stoned to read?
It’s a kitchen illustration. It completely demolishes Marx in just a couple paragraphs. What more do you ask for!?
Heinlein goes on to define Value a bit more to make his point, but I can’t be assed to go find the quote again. But his point here is that effort is worthless and only the result of the effort matters. But it’s such a joke of a point that I’d have assumed it was satire, if not for the fact that nothing else about the book is satire.
Its an intentional/unintentional misreading of the idea of “labor adding value”. Literally ascribing to Marx/communists the idea that applying any amount of labor to a production task can fundamentally change the output.
Heinlein’s character is basically saying that Marx believes:
“Garbage in” results in “Not garbage out” if enough labor is applied.
Heinlein is the earliest example of the mud pie argument I know of, so it’s possible everyone got it from him. There’s also a CS Lewis story about an impoverished kid choosing between a fancy vacation or making mud pies. He chooses the latter because he can’t fathom what a vacation is. I have no idea if that’s related either but I’ve always had a hunch
Oh yeah that’s right! There’s that random rant by Rico’s teacher that’s just so obviously the author preaching. I forgot about that. It’s so out of place my brain forgot it was a part of that book!
I love how every single anti-communist who rants about Marx “not getting it” will use examples that Marx specifically addressed in volume 1 of Capital.
Riiiiight at the end we get a tiny bit of “oorah” when his dad shows up, and even then it’s mostly just like “nice, welcome to the club, Dad.”
Remember, everyone told him signing up for service was a dumb idea, and everyone in the service told him trying to become infantry was a dumb idea. His experiences don’t exactly prove them wrong.
This is all within the context of the whole movie we’ve been watching up to this point being an in universe propaganda film
His family and everyone around him only were against him joining so him joining could be framed as rebellious within the propaganda
Yeah, it’s basically a fascist society if everyone was down with that, which kinda makes the fascism invisible? Like, it would be very difficult to say that the book was about how great fascism is, because it offers no reason for the reader to consider that a different, but worse, society could exist in this universe.
It would be like saying most books are about about capitalism just because they happen to be set in a capitalist society.
It’s a fascists idea of a fascist society. Or a weird turbo-libertarian’s idea of a cool society that is good, which ultimately is just a fascist society.
One must approach Heinlein’s writing with the knowledge that he is a hugely illiterate reactionary dork making a complete fool of himself for hundreds of pages at a time.
The book is only interesting because it’s embedded in 20th century American society. It is, or was, required reading for us marine corps officers.
Starship troopers was a fascist society where most everybody in the society was cool with it. Like, the basic structure of society is never really questioned much, and for that I find it hard to really call starship troopers particularly fascist in its messaging. The main character isn’t fulfilled by becoming a jump marine or an officer, he does both of those things with essentially zero self-reflection. The book makes it a point to show that he makes these big decisions on a whim and doesn’t consider them to be particularly consequential. It’s essentially a book about a guy that’s a part of the machine and isn’t particularly bothered by it one way or the other.
Riiiiight at the end we get a tiny bit of “oorah” when his dad shows up, and even then it’s mostly just like “nice, welcome to the club, Dad.”
Remember, everyone told him signing up for service was a dumb idea, and everyone in the service told him trying to become infantry was a dumb idea. His experiences don’t exactly prove them wrong.
In the movie when everyone is signing up and the triple amputee recruiter says “the infantry made me the man I am today!” is literally all you need to know
Heinlein’s an extremely weird author overall and had very strange, contradictory views on basically everything. Like Starship Troopers is this incredibly idealist projection of 1950s America as a future globe-spanning state that “works” because of the disenfranchisement of anyone who “just doesn’t care enough about the nation to serve it” and has no thought for the culture or economics of that state because it’s all just vibes based background fluff for Heinlein to poorly philosophize about duty, strategy, and governance, putting forward this ideal elite volunteer superman soldier as superior to unreliable conscripts, praising the idea of strategic terror bombing to demoralize enemy civilians, and to parrot the all-too-common elitist idea that franchise should be restricted to a class of proven reliable and dedicated citizens rather than the whole population.
It’s basically this vibes based “utopian fascism” idealist shit that’s completely and utterly empty - it’s how a fashy sci-fi author writing in the 50s imagined a pretty neat society that he’d like to think about some more.
He even later commented on the politics of the book, disavowing it as “a thought experiment” that he decided he didn’t really like after all, before going on a libertarian-brained rant about how franchise should be locked behind a $1000 pricetag per vote instead.
Funny thing about the “enfranchisement of the human population through military service” is that Heinlein forgot to write in a bunch of enfranchised veterans. There’s a fair amount of unenfranchised civilians and a whole bunch of unenfranchsied active military (cause you aren’t franchised until after you’ve been honorably discharged from the military) and only like one enfranchised civilian… Rico’s teacher from the beginning of the book.
I came away thinking, “Oh, there are so few people who can vote/run for office because the assumption is that most of the people trying to earn the right to be a part of the political process died in the intergalatic forever wars.”
Heinlein couldn’t help himself though and had to really epically DEMOLISH Marx
So he’s at least making the political alignment of his future earth much clearer with this.
I am so tired of rebuttals of Marxism defining the concept of socially necessary labor time and claiming Marxism is now debunked because Marx never accounted for it. It’s literally the first page of Capital.
He also wrote a whole book for people that might be specifically interested in value.
does this just completely contradict the point the character (and author) are trying to make or am i too stoned to read?
Death to America
It’s a kitchen illustration. It completely demolishes Marx in just a couple paragraphs. What more do you ask for!?
Heinlein goes on to define Value a bit more to make his point, but I can’t be assed to go find the quote again. But his point here is that effort is worthless and only the result of the effort matters. But it’s such a joke of a point that I’d have assumed it was satire, if not for the fact that nothing else about the book is satire.
Its an intentional/unintentional misreading of the idea of “labor adding value”. Literally ascribing to Marx/communists the idea that applying any amount of labor to a production task can fundamentally change the output.
Heinlein’s character is basically saying that Marx believes:
“Garbage in” results in “Not garbage out” if enough labor is applied.
Which is complete nonsense.
Lol I forgot that, what is it with everyone trying to demolish Marx with FACTS and LOGIC and using the exact same example of “mud pies”?
Heinlein is the earliest example of the mud pie argument I know of, so it’s possible everyone got it from him. There’s also a CS Lewis story about an impoverished kid choosing between a fancy vacation or making mud pies. He chooses the latter because he can’t fathom what a vacation is. I have no idea if that’s related either but I’ve always had a hunch
Oh yeah that’s right! There’s that random rant by Rico’s teacher that’s just so obviously the author preaching. I forgot about that. It’s so out of place my brain forgot it was a part of that book!
The whole book is mostly just Heinlein preachsturbating.
I love how every single anti-communist who rants about Marx “not getting it” will use examples that Marx specifically addressed in volume 1 of Capital.
This is all within the context of the whole movie we’ve been watching up to this point being an in universe propaganda film
His family and everyone around him only were against him joining so him joining could be framed as rebellious within the propaganda
I haven’t watched that movie, though I’ll get to it someday. I’m talking about the book, which is what I thought the OP post was about.
wow, looks like somebody else read the book
I read the book. Its absolutely a fascist society.
Yeah, it’s basically a fascist society if everyone was down with that, which kinda makes the fascism invisible? Like, it would be very difficult to say that the book was about how great fascism is, because it offers no reason for the reader to consider that a different, but worse, society could exist in this universe.
It would be like saying most books are about about capitalism just because they happen to be set in a capitalist society.
I really want to go off on a tangent about Capitalist Realism in books, but it’s so far removed from the original point of anything in this thread.
It’s a fascists idea of a fascist society. Or a weird turbo-libertarian’s idea of a cool society that is good, which ultimately is just a fascist society.
One must approach Heinlein’s writing with the knowledge that he is a hugely illiterate reactionary dork making a complete fool of himself for hundreds of pages at a time.
The book is only interesting because it’s embedded in 20th century American society. It is, or was, required reading for us marine corps officers.
I’m so sorry you were forced to read an extremely mediocre book. They truly do not care about the welfare of our Marines.
Who is they? We certainly don’t care about the welfare of our marines. May they join their comrades in Davy Jones embrace, and soon.