Utopia Talk / Politics / The Politics of Starship Troopers

Aeros Member	Fri Oct 19 10:57:48 This is actually really good/interesting. Worth the listen. http://youtu.be/kVpYvV0O7uI
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Fri Oct 19 11:01:37 I hope it's based on the book and not the movie. The movie misses half the point.
Aeros Member	Fri Oct 19 11:12:54 It is. In fact he goes into how the director and writer of the movie kinda missed the point, but were so incompetent they accidentally created something good.
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Fri Oct 19 11:20:28 I'll have to book mark it for later. I like a lot of the politics in the book. Especially the part about making people earn the right too vote.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 19 12:03:33 The movie does not miss the point. The movie is explicitly satirising the position of the book as a lens on then contemporary American politics and culture
Seb Member	Fri Oct 19 12:11:16 The intent is very deliberate. It's not good by accident. Remember the scene with the recruiter with the a prosthetic hand? "Mobile infantry made me the man I am", as the camera pulls out to reveal he's got no legs. The explicit satire is service has left him literally part mechanical and immobile. But the deeper satire is the fact that it's clearly perfectly possible for this society to kit him out (as a priveleged citizen no less!) with prosthetics. But his function as a desk jockey within a deeply utilitarian society that values martial functions above all else does not deem it necessary for him to have legs means he does not have them. It's a fascistic society good only at fighting pointless wars against bugs which I think it is explicit that they started.
McKobb Member	Fri Oct 19 12:30:17 The movie sucked and the book is a classic.
Rugian Member	Fri Oct 19 12:37:29 You should have prefaced the link with "would you like to know more?" I'll listen to it later though.
Aeros Member	Fri Oct 19 12:40:28 Everything Seb said was wrong of course. The Terran Federation of Heinlein was not fascist in the least. It's a libertarian power fantasy. The move writer and director confused for fascism, and then attempted to satire but failed in doing that because they made the mistake of leaving the history and politics of the federation in tact. The video goes into it much greater detail but the basic thrust is in the statement "service guarantees citizenship". That is a liberal statement of belief. Anyone can be a citizen if they serve. There is no punishment if they choose not too. Indeed people are actively discouraged from serving. In a fascist state the claim would be citizenship guarantees service, and you are actively discouraged from not serving.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 19 12:49:11 The Forever War is a better response to Vietnam as a book imho. Looking at the book independently of the context, its a just a fairly bog standard space opera. With the conceptual angle, it's clearly flawed. The military industrial complex is not a brilliant pathway to a responsible society - look at the profilgacy and failure to produce a sustainable force. Meanwhile the domino theory approach to containment represented in the federation's approach to managing interstellar peace versus (the book is basically weighing in on the side of the military interventionists against the Nixonian cooption) was pretty much discredited at the time the book was written. As a bit of high concept sci fi, the flaws in the inspiring idea of the book are effectively squewered by the movie. Taken as a pair, the book and the movie are collectively a fantastic bit of sci fi.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 19 12:50:22 By contrast, forever war gets it right: A stupid war, begun by a misunderstanding, rumbling on forever which damaged, not strengthened the moral integrity and values of the Republic.
McKobb Member	Fri Oct 19 12:54:02 Never heard of it :P
Seb Member	Fri Oct 19 18:32:17 Aeros: Have you actually read the book? The central idea of the background is the complete collapse of western civilization circa 1990 due to, inneffect, libertarianism: the excessive individualism of a society extrapolated from how Heinlein saw the counter cultural aspects of American society. It's the whole "we lost Vietnam because of the hippies were irresponsible and selfish and wouldn't have the costs the greatest generation bore to protect liberty" Schick. Society rescued by veterans (explicitly, Vietnam vets), they being the only responsible and disciplined faction able to make the sacrifices and put the effort in to restore order. 1. People have critiqued the fascist angle to SST long, long before Veerhoeven did. 2. Absolutely, how Heinlein presents the federation in the novel is exactly how both the Italian and German fascists portrayed themselves: the organised, militarised, discipline movement of national self renewal after the decadent collapse of a decline into selfish opulent individualism at the expense got society. 3. What fucked up definition of libertarianismndo you have that says you have to become an instrument of the state before you get political rights? Libertarianism says citizenship and full freedoms is a right not a priveledge. Cf to membership of the NAZI party and status. The window dressing is the most ridiculous part of SST. Heinlein makes his regime benign by asserting people would willingly forgo political rights and suffer no consequence and that such a regime would therefore face no rebellion and is instead welcomed by a greatful public who, lacking the discipline, self sacrafice and responsibility instilled by military service, welcomed the new regime. This is laughable. Add the merest soupcon of realism here and what you see is the society fascists probably thought they could achieve, rather than the grim reality they created when you try to put this into reality: political repression would be necessary, and corruption and exploitation of non citizens rife. Nobody would feel safe not to join the party. Sorry, the forces.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 19 18:40:18 The society of starship troopers is to fascism what Galt's Gulch is to capitalism and what Marx's description of communism in das kapital is to sovietism. You can imagine ideological utopias, the practicalities matter. The fact you don't recognise the echoes real practical fascism in henleins utopia is irrelevant. That's what the fascists thought they would achieve. The thing that makes Starship troopers bad sci fi is that Heinlein didn't recognise his high concept idea was 50 years old history that didn't work in practice.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 19 18:41:47 Goddamit I hate shit sci fi fans. High concept and hard sci to is for people who can think. Stick to David Webber Aeros. More your speed.
Aeros Member	Fri Oct 19 18:49:41 Actually the collapse was due to parents and society failing to instill basic morality, not unrestrained. It's important to differentiate between the Libertarianism of Heinlein and what we consider Libertarianism today. To Heinlein there is no such thing as natural rights. The only right nature has is you have the right to die or if a thinking being, to choose to die. Even the act of being born requires an concious effort "the breath of life is purchased with screaming effort the moment you are born". As such rights are something we give to ourselves and can take away at will. Heinlein foresaw a collapse of the western liberal order due to his belief that they viewed rights as a natural cause, rather then something people would have to work at to obtain and maintain. The terran federation subsequently exists as a mechanism to pay the transaction cost of freedoms. The Terran Federation exists not to oppress the people of earth but to protect them. Both from the capriciousness of nature and from Mankinds own inclination to infringe on the rights of others. Civilians in the federation may not have the franchise, but they live free lives of comfort where their needs are fulfilled and their liberties are protected. They can live, pursue happiness, speak their minds, and everything we take for granted in any liberal society. They just can't vote for hold office. That right is only held by people who realize that rights come with responsibilities, and pay their dues to gain the franchise. To Heinlein, there is no natural law that says you deserve to live and if anything, nature is doing everything it can to destroy you. Hence the Arachnids. A perfect force of nature that can not be negotiated with or tolerated to exist. The Arachnids are a stand in both for communism and for nature itself. They cannot be reasoned with, and their only goal is to wipe from existence the individualistic humans. Fortunately for humanity there are the citizens of the federation who volunteer to stand between the civilians and the forces that would destroy them. It's important to note that the Arachnids started the war with the federation and their goals are entirely genocidal. The movie implies a false flag, but there was no false flag in the books or even the movie really. Yet even in the face of an existential threat the federation forces NOBODY to enter service and fight the bugs. That alone is not the actions of a fascist state.
Pillz Member	Fri Oct 19 19:43:42 Yet another topic Seb has to be wrong about.
smart dude Member	Sat Oct 20 00:36:49 Jesus Christ, Seb, stop being an asshole. FFS do you have an off switch? Like why be an asshole all the time? Do you have ANY friends IRL or are just an insufferable piece of shit on the internet?
Dukhat Member	Sat Oct 20 01:32:20 I saw a somewhat interesting conversation and then the cuckservatives interjected their stupid overgeneralizations.
Dukhat Member	Sat Oct 20 01:47:01 Just followed the link. No wonder Aeros lost his mind. This retarded youtuber makes a living selling white male victimhood. Hard pass on shitty content by a retard.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 20 02:52:18 Aeros: The arachnids in the book were simply another technologically advanced society that desires to expand in the same way as humanity. The bugs had lasers and missiles and fought with rifles. In novel propoganda refers to them as mindless, savage etc. but also trails "savages don't build starships". They also have allies in other races. Which is clearly not aligned to the view negotiation is impossible. It isn't actually clear if the bugs started the war - we are told so - but it is also indicated that not all information is clearly so. The society presented is avowedly racist. This might be Heinlein advocating white man's burden, it might be attempting to realistically portray the values of the military (necessarily though on this society, the values of its rulers). Terran tactics and doctrine was basically terror raids against any subject world that steps out of line - the opening terror raid for example. I think you probably missed a lot and failed to understand what in the novel was intended to be propoganda within the fictionalised setting. As for "Heinlein's version of libertarianism", it's not libertarianism. It's pretty much exactly what facists said of the role of individuals in the state. I'm sure Heinlein had in mind something like a fusion of Greek and Spartan ideals, maybe the way Roman Republic saw itself. The symbol of which, the fasces, the bundle of sticks and axe, which is what gives fascism its name. Problem is that we look at fascism from the wrong end of history: the catastrophic end state. Rarely do people look at it from the other end: a utopian vision and solution to the chaos and societal decay of the 1920s.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 20 10:51:01 Smart Dude: I keep track of those people who behave civily towards me. I've long given up being civil to those that don't reciprocate.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 20 14:54:15 Aeros is correct. To reduce the Federation of Heinlein to fascism is missing the mark by quite a lot. The martial overtones can perhaps be mistaken, likely more common if one has watched the movie and then read the book. Some of the answer lies in Ricos parents, which is mentioned in both the book and movie, they are not citizens but they are wealthy and they actively discourage their son from joining service. As seb has already mentioned the stereotypical fascist state requires membership in "The Party" or some other kind of pledge to allow success. Clearly not so in Starship Troopers, where non citizen have freedom of speech and all other rights, but to vote and hold public office.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 20 15:04:21 >>I keep track of those people who behave civily towards me. I've long given up being civil to those that don't reciprocate.<< Interesting, I don't really remember Aeros behaving maliciously towards you or anyone on this board. Certainly nothing in this thread that required a rapid succession of post successively getting less civilized, patting him on the head and telling him to go read books "I think are for dumb people". Stay civil and classy.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 20 15:09:44 It is a actually quite astonishing if you look at the flow of post and time stamps. Seb apparently mulls this over for 5 hours, comes back and asks if Aeros has even read the book, then 10 minutes later says he hates Aeros (a shit sci fi fan) and that he should read stupid people sci fi. LOL?
Wrath of Orion Member	Sat Oct 20 16:12:30 It could be a medication change/imbalance. That pattern of behavior is not uncommon with things like that.
Pillz Member	Sat Oct 20 16:40:58 Medication for something his wife gave him?
Seb Member	Sat Oct 20 16:59:28 Nim: Post 1: like I said - focusing on the difference in outcome as described by the author Vs the practice of fascism in the real world over the structure and principles informing the society is mistaken. To the point of foolishness. As author, Heinlein can dictate certain things: e.g. "well citizens won't exploit non citizens because they are enlightened and responsible, non citizens will be prosperous and political repression will not be necessary as everybody will be content, or necessarily lack the discipline and self-sacrafice to do anything about it". This is nothing more than the difference between communism as described by Marks and Engles vs it's practice. Marks and Engles described the structure and intended outcome, but Lenin and Stalin's society wasn't some perversion: that's what happens when you try to impose what is a deeply flawed structure and set of principles. The corruption, brutality and repression are necessary elements to make that work in a world of real people. Equally there absence in Heinleins novel isn't "evidence" that Heinlein isn't describing an essentially fascist state: it's that he's being a bad author by failing to explore his concepts in a realistic way. The better comparison is what Heinlein says about his society Vs what facists said and genuinely believed they would bring about before they gained power. They are strikingly similar, as are the respective diagnosis of the social ills they are attempting to address. Early facists didn't say "and naturally you will need to be a member of the party in order to prosper in this new society because the consolidation of power means those with power will inevitably abuse it". They depicted their future utopian society much as Heinlein did (as discussed earlier) Only nobody remembers that because we (the West) generally look at fascism from the lens of being either victims of it, or defeating it, and from its degenerate war time state. We have almost never consider it from the perspective of a seductive, utopian, modernist antidote to the Louche laisez-faire 1920s society that it was a reaction to. Those who do not remember history are doomed to reinvent it as a flawed conceptual scifi novel. 2nd and third posts: I really couldn't care less about what you remember; have you considered whether I was sarcastically posing a rhetorical question to underline just how flawed his reading of it is and the extent to which he's missed critical conceptial elements while focusing on the superficial? You might just be missing the point.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 20 17:12:39 No I didn't consider your hostile tone as sarcasm. I think you are perfectly capable of discussing your position without gettin uncivil and then when people tell you you behave like a douche, tell us that you keep a good track of who reciprocates civility. Aeros has in this thread been civil, despite your animosity. I don't have any memory of Aeros behaving maliciously towards me and I have engaged with him many times and disagreed vehemently with him. I have probably treated him with less dignity that he did me. So your diatribe makes no sense and neither does your defensive posture when taken to task. Please enlighten us of your list of transgression Aeros has committed against you. Did he call a transsexual woman a man? Did he deny the existence of a wage gape? What did he do? He is a good man, he believes in global warming and single payer health care I SWEAR!
Pillz Member	Sat Oct 20 18:10:31 "He is a good man" This triggers seb
McKobb Member	Sun Oct 21 01:21:30 Teatrum Mundi!
Seb Member	Sun Oct 21 04:07:46 Nim: Like I said, I keep track. This means longer than a thread, and I really couldn't care less what you think about that not your memory. You a free however to make of that what you like. I'd recommend you focus on the substance at hand rather than innefectual and clearly bad faith policing of norms of engagement that simply a don't exist in this place, againt behaviours you have no issue when aimed at people you disagree with. Pillz: Look rather like I've triggered nim and smart Dude. The snowflakes.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Oct 21 04:41:36 The substance at hand is a sci fi movie, which was being discussed in a civil manner, until you decided to go mental over a disagreement about a fictitious universe. God dam I hate raging fanboys. EVERYONE WHO THINKS SUCH AN SO ABOUT THIS STAR WARS SHOULD DIE! You are the diet coke version of that. Grats? So where is this example of Aeros? I won't hold my breath, since I am well aware of your shit memory and that your moral compass largely entails saying the right words, rather saying words that carry any substance. I wouldn't give you this much grief for this type of shit if you hadn't spent so much time trying beat others over the head and lecture people with your superior moral values. But hey man, be you, stay classy, fight the good fight!
Seb Member	Sun Oct 21 08:33:05 Nim: Mental? You are rather over interpreting it I think. Not surprising if you can't spot a rhetorical question. I think, maybe you should let it go. I said I couldn't care less about what you think. I don't know what led you to the idea I'd the slightest intention of giving you an example. What arrogance to think I must justify myself to you.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Oct 21 12:04:53 Of course I will let it go, we both know you have nothing, so there is nothing to hold on to.
Forwyn Member	Sun Oct 21 13:23:40 "Like I said, I keep track. This means longer than a thread, and I really couldn't care less what you think about that not your memory. You a free however to make of that what you like." Lol. Aeros is one of the most consistently civil people on this board. Even when he's telling me he'll march south to shoot insurrectionists, he's exceedingly polite about it. :(
Seb Member	Sun Oct 21 13:44:09 Forwyn: I don't consider calling someone a cuck civil, sorry.
Seb Member	Sun Oct 21 13:48:04 I would say saying they are an idiot and to stick to David Webber far more acceptable discourse to be honest. But seeing as you are all inevitably triggered, I'm slightly surprised we don't see more moaning about language and tone.
Forwyn Member	Sun Oct 21 15:27:46 rofl Seb. Please provide a link. I've never witnessed Aeros calling anyone a cuck, even to participate in Cuckhat mocking. Lying cuck
Pillz Member	Sun Oct 21 16:17:24 Sebs got a victim complex? How cuckold of him
Seb Member	Sun Oct 21 16:20:49 Forwyn: Do I need your permission to be rude to someone on the internet? This is hilarious. I really hope you didn't think you weren't already on the list of people I hold in contempt.
Seb Member	Sun Oct 21 16:22:51 This is surreal. A bunch of fuckwits getting terribly upset because I'm rude to them, demanding I explain why I am rude, and saying I'm the sensitive one.
Forwyn Member	Sun Oct 21 16:27:42 1. You could freely admit you're an asshole. Most of us here are, and have no problem saying so. You say that you are not, that you are only uncivil to those who do it first to you. 2. You slander someone to defend your false assertions. lol CuckSeb
Forwyn Member	Sun Oct 21 16:28:59 "I really hope you didn't think you weren't already on the list of people I hold in contempt." Awww my feefees are hurt that I'm not admired by a guy that watches his wife get fucked by Jamal. rofl dude
Rugian Member	Sun Oct 21 16:34:06 Seb Member Sun Oct 21 16:20:49 "Forwyn: Do I need your permission to be rude to someone on the internet?" Well if not Forwyn, you should probably be clearing your comments with SOMEONE. Wouldn't want to have your government beating down your door because of this thread after all... @SouthYorkshirePolice In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents, which can include things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing. Hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire. Report it and put a stop to it #HateHurtsSY 1:45 PM - 9 Sep 2018 http://twi...hate-incidents-tweet-1-9345809
Pillz Member	Sun Oct 21 16:37:08 Is Seb the product of institutional cuckoldom?
Pillz Member	Sun Oct 21 16:38:20 His wife could be insulted that he wants to have sex with her, and call the police. Jesus
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 03:24:03 Forwyn: I'm being (mildly) offensive saying Aeros is thick. Which he is. Most people here are considerably more so. Call me an areshole if you like. So why the butt hurt? It's because you've got nothing better as an angle, or because calling Aeros thick is a bit too on the nose? Perhaps because it's true? Aeros is an ex-grunt and people regularly mock him about his medical issues that led to discharge. I don't think he's crying into his pillow at night. Rugian: "Stick to David Webber" probably isn't what South Yorkshire police had in mind as hate.
Forwyn Member	Mon Oct 22 04:34:42 Again, I don't care about you being an asshole, I commented because you justified it by his allegedly being an asshole, then lied - or hey, maybe you confused him with someone else - about him calling you a cuck.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 22 06:03:18 Indeed, if you behave like an asshole, you are in good company. We all get emotional, but no you claimed a rational reason backed up by evidence. Which you then promptly said you didn’t owe us to explain. Ok then.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 06:57:42 Forwyn: I think you are confusing justified - which would imply I have some duty to account for my behaviour - with an simple explanation. I really don't need to prove anything to anyone other than myself. I am confident my assessment of Aeros is accurate, it doesn't matter to me what you think. But I am interested in your double standards. Nim: Oh gosh, there you go with rationality again.
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Mon Oct 22 09:30:28 'It's a fascistic society good only at fighting pointless wars against bugs which I think it is explicit that they started. ' False. The bugs started the war.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 22 09:46:58 LOL :) Remember, he asked Aeros if he had read the book after 5 hours of skimming review likely, did not remember Ricos parents are wealthy and high status in direct contradiction to what he said earlier. >>Cf to membership of the NAZI party and status.<< Called the arachnids ”a high tech civilization”. lol :) And now he doesn’t even remember the most important plot device, that the arachnids ”nuke” Buenos Aires, killing Ricos mother. And he referenced the vietnam war as somehow relevant and having nuanced a book that was published in 1959. This is the ”substance” of this thread from a guy who told us he has a good memory. And Aeros is the one who should read stupid people books! Priceless :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 22 09:54:17 Dam it I ruined a great flame post, the arachnids are technological zerglings in the movie, but not in the book. Anyways, the damage is done.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 12:32:03 Cthulhu: So textually, it's clear in the book that some of what the characters know about the arachnids is propoganda (savages etc.) and pointed out as such by the characters. The war is said from the human side to be started by the arachnids attack on beunos Aires. However (and I may be confusing this) the Skinnys are both referenced as allies of the Arachnids and as some kind of subject of the Terrain Federation. The impression I got when I read it and which stuck with me was that it was possible that the Arachnids are responding to Terran encroachment on the Arachnids sphere, or even coming to the aid of one of their allies. In the context of the concept Heinlein is exploring, the overt "racism" and propoganda seemed to translate to a rejection of cultural relativism and robust statement of universalism of Western values. I.e. rejection of the school's of thought that apologised for Soviet/communist carving out of their own spheres of interest as legitimate or symmetric to the West/NATO. However, the exact relationship between the Skinnys and the Arachnids throws a spanner in the works. There are strong arguments to be made for why NATO is legitimate but the warsaw pact is not. Chiefly NATO being a defensive alliance. The uncomfortable impression I was left with was that the Terran Federation was in that respect much closer to the Soviet Union. Combine this with the human supremacism, and the clear textual references that at least some of what we are told about Arachnids is Terran propoganda etc. unless it is either very poor authorship, the authors intent is an explicit rejection of Liberal Democratic collective security as the basis for interventionism in favour of the kind of imperialism characterised by white man's burden and manifest destiny. Which of course fits with the general fascistic themes. Nim: Aeros posted nine minutes before I did. My post is a continuation of my previous post that was probably open in my browser while I did something else. I simply didn't see Aeros post until I checked for replies to mine. I'm not sure what your angle is about Rico's patents social status - I've never said they were poor or that they needed to be. Thats your argument that somehow it would make it not fascist. I've dismissed this argument already. Rico's parents status isn't relevant because Heinlein isn't describing fascism in practice, but what facists would imagine to be the perfect implementation of the system. Heinlein isn't explicitly modelling fascism though. He is however diagnosing the same fundamental causes of social dysfunction in the West as the facists saw as underlying their societies collapse in the 20s and looking at the same kind of solution. He's reinvented it without realising it because in his mind (as in most westerners mind) facism means corrupt, overcentralised, genocidal and fully mobilised societies. This is essentially the same mistake as Communists who point to Das Kapital and say "no, this is communism, Soviet Russia, Yougoslavia and Maos China don't count because the govts were corrupt, violent and totalitarian". Any attempt to put Heinlein's model into practice and Rico's parents would probably be citizens because Heinlein is willing the ends without the means. Which is why I say it's a poor attempt at high concept sci fi. Now you clearly haven't read the book if you think the arachnids are not high tech. In the movie they explicitly made them animals. In the book they had spaceships, were allied with at least one humanoid species, used lasers, missiles and cybernetics. Go read it! You are correct, it's Korea, not Vietnam Heinlein's responding to with much the same arguments. Forever war was published later.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 12:33:37 Oh nim. You think that's a great flame post? Diddums.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 12:33:54 Poor, sweet, summer child.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 12:38:14 Actually, he might be responding to Vietnam too as it had been 4 years going by then, but probably not as the anti war movement didn't kick off until mid 60s.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Oct 22 14:11:15 The bugs are pretty clearly lower tech than the TF in the book. Not low tech but lower. Their fleet poses little threat and only their massive numbers make them formidable on the ground. Like all communists. Starship troopers treatment of crime and punishment is ideal.
Aeros Member	Mon Oct 22 14:43:35 "Combine this with the human supremacism, and the clear textual references that at least some of what we are told about Arachnids is Terran propoganda etc. unless it is either very poor authorship, the authors intent is an explicit rejection of Liberal Democratic collective security as the basis for interventionism in favour of the kind of imperialism characterised by white man's burden and manifest destiny." I would actually agree with this reading. I would caveat it though that the book implies it was because the current liberal democracies were too tolerant of outsiders and the actions of their owns citizens. To the point that they allowed themselves to decay from within and be challenged from without, i.e. the China War. The Federation does propagandize the bugs, but it is important to remember that the main characters encounter the Bugs outside the context of the propaganda and they are shown to be largely as described by the government.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 16:25:14 Sam: I thought the tech was different rather than necessarily inferior. They don't have powered armour, but equally if the individual arachnids don't have much meaning, powered armour as a tech doesn't fit their needs. It's not a key point, only that "mindless animal savages" propoganda was actually questioned at one point where someone said something like "savages don't build space ships".
Seb Member	Mon Oct 22 16:33:36 Aeros: So if you go back to what the facists described as the problem with the liberal post ww1 govts and their proposed solutions - it's pretty much identical to the kinds of thing Heinlein describes. Stalinism isn't a corruption of Lenin's vision of workers Soviets. It's that the reality is that you can't make that system work and it inevitably requires centralised repression. Similarly while Heinleins description of a muscular, militarised society where political rights are an earned privelege not a universal right might sound like it could be liberal enough to bea free society; societies built on those lines, principles be and values were attempted about three times independently in Europe and each time turned out to involve huge levels of corruption and repression and delivered nothing like the vision. That's what's meant by "its facism".
Aeros Member	Mon Oct 22 18:28:45 Just because someone identifies a problem does not mean their solution is correct. Heinlein and the Fascists saw the same problem but their solutions were wildly different. The fascists saw the problems with liberal democracy and decided a return to traditional divine right monarchy, only with some minor tweaks where the God was the party and the head of the party the monarch was the solution. Roughly speaking. Heinlein by comparison decided the fix was not to get rid of elected leadership, but to restrict the franchise to people who proved they are willing to accept the responsibilities that come with rights.
Aeros Member	Mon Oct 22 18:31:58 There is no mention of a political party, singular leader or any sort of guiding moral vision to the terran federation beyond who ever happens to be in charge at the time and the need to protect human civilization. Hardly hallmarks of a fascist state.
Canadian Member	Mon Oct 22 20:58:01 In terms of SST, Heinlein adapts Spartan society to 20th century sensibilities quite well - there are the citizens, those who serve and are granted their position through service, if not merit, and then the non-citizen/helots, whose rights are restricted in ways left purposely undefined (Heinlein performs a similar treatment on the Terran government itself to prevent comparisons to other forms of government such as fascism).
Canadian Member	Mon Oct 22 21:01:12 That being said, the movie was an intentional parody of fascism - as Cthulhu stated in the second post - the movie misses part of the original point, but it's a lot easier (read: more understandable to the audience) to make a camp movie about fascism than Sparta (at least prior to say, 2006).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 23 00:38:26 Seb regularly has problem telling description and proscriptions apart. If someone used the same trigger words as boogieman group does there is a high likelihood he will group them all together. If you identify the same problem, they are virtually the same, etc. ”You are a nazi and you don’t even know it” -William the bastard It is good to keep in mind here that seb thinks Star Trek Enterprise, was too gritty for the franchise. From that POV everything is fascism, the ”nuances” of SST simply do not exist.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 23 00:42:54 >>Just because someone identifies a problem does not mean their solution is correct.<< Hitler was a vegetarian and champion of animal rights. This is not a serious discussion.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 04:45:19 Aeros: But that's the point, their solutions aren't wildly different in reality. Anymore than the Communism of Marx and Engles is different from the communism of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. It's only because as author Heinlein can insist that preserving political power to a military elite won't require political repression nor entail corruption and abuse of authority that it looks different. The facists didn't Canadian: So I think the Spartan idea is spot on. The problem with that is there are an awful lot of similarities then to the Roman Republic the fascists drew inspiration from. There are the equites, the assemblies, you can obtain citizenship by military service, the role of equites, the consul/dictator as prima inter pares. The key difference is that the Terran Federation can be written as a perfect implementation. What you end up with isn't hugely different, the only key difference being the franchise is more restricted in starship troopers. The key features: restricted civil rights to a priveleged eñites, intertwining and elevation of military service, overseen by supreme figure (Il Duche, King or Skymarshall) nominally accountable to an elected (by the priveleged free) assembly. As an author, Heinlein is free to freeze things there. He doesn't have to deal with the inevitable centralisation of power and wealth and repression that it's a natural feature of these types of systems in the wild.
American Democrat Member	Tue Oct 23 05:38:01 "The movie does not miss the point." The movie misses the point of the book, it does not miss the point of the write and director's perspective of what they took from the book. "The movie is explicitly satirising the position of the book as a lens on then contemporary American politics and culture " The movie is a satirical representative of what they took from the book. And was entertaining. "Everything Seb said was wrong of course. The Terran Federation of Heinlein was not fascist in the least. It's a libertarian power fantasy." Some elements were not all. It has been an argument by some critics, not de facto. "In a fascist state the claim would be citizenship guarantees service, and you are actively discouraged from not serving. " There's a little bit more to it than that.
Nekran Member	Tue Oct 23 08:28:31 I haven't read SST, but imo, if a writer does a good job creating a believable universe, it follows that different people will interpret it in wildly different ways. Just like they do in the real world.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 23 09:35:39 ^lol what? Clearly there is only one way to read SST and if you don’t agree you can fuck off and read stupid people books.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 23 16:33:13 American: Misses the point would mean it did not get the point of the book - Heinlein and others might disagree as to the merits of his proposed society, but not the principles. Structurally, the movie doesn't change much, it just sends up how fundamentally devoid of humanity such a societal structure would be. Nekran: The key point is believable. The problem with SST is the author goes: H: Western society is a decadent liberal mess doomed to collapse because it's insufficiently robust over its own (cultural/racial - delete as you interpret) supremacy. What we need is to reorganise society so that only the good, responsible military types have political power. Critic: wouldn't that lead to a degree of rent seeking by those with power, either at a societal level or corruption? Heinlein: no, responsible military types would not tolerate this, and they'd identify and weed those who might be corrupt and ensure they never got into the system! Non citizens would be allowed to prosper, even more so than citizens, who would never be so irresponsible as to undermine society by rent seeking behaviour. Critic: but surely political repression... Heinlein: ... would be completely unnecessary! Those with a will to power would join the military and become responsible. Those without wouldn't have the inclination to make the sacrifices rebellion would entail. No repression would be necessary! Critic: we, but what about irresponsible, immoral people who have a will to power? Or just those that are ideologically opposed... Heinlein: look, I've written it so they don't exist alright?? My contention is Heinlein did a ruddy awful job here because he's so very obviously advocating a political philosophy rather than exploring a concept. Leaving aside his distasteful diagnosis that considers 1950s American society far, far too individualist to survive (God knows what he'd make of millennials), he accidentally reinvents a form of fascism (by then about 40 years old), doesn't recognise it as such, and skips over the complications. The interesting story in the world of SST is not how the federation makes war on the bugs - it's how it maintains societal cohesion across a number of colonies without resorting to coercive measures and increasing authoritarian control that every other attempt at such a society had inevitably had to do. Instead he writes a story with a bunch of military wet dream tech about human supremacists killing aliens as a proxy to advocating a Western foreign policy based on White Man's burden. Asimov it ain't.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Tue Oct 23 17:30:15 some here is trying really hard to seem relevant,and failing spectacularly.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Tue Oct 23 17:30:38 someone
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 24 01:31:01 lol@Asimov. This is the seb that didn’t understand my reference to psychohistory, when talking about what real social science could hope to achieve, he was like ”I have no idea what you are on about, you have lost it”.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 24 01:40:39 Nim: I know what psychohistory is you pillock (and its centre of practice at the other end of the galaxy, socially, historically and helically speaking). Sprinkling random terms into an incoherent block of text doesn't make a clear or rational line of reasoning. You make some truly weird assumptions - like "Oh, he must have forgotten Rico's patents are rich" when instead it's just an irrelevant non-sequitur in the context of the argument being made.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 24 04:21:16 I didn’t say you didn’t know what it was, but commented on your bewildered answer as to what the relevance of the reference was for the topic. You correctly mentioned party membership (Nazi) as relevant for status, this is a common denominator for the type of colloqiual ”facist” states discussed.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 24 09:58:16 "wouldn't that lead to a degree of rent seeking by those with power, either at a societal level or corruption?" Of course it would. There has yet to be a government that is not inept and corrupt to some degree. While the average human iq is 100, you are not going to get a good government.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 24 10:04:17 "Instead he writes a story with a bunch of military wet dream tech about human supremacists killing aliens as a proxy to advocating a Western foreign policy based on White Man's burden." Thats a lot of leftist buzzwords and whining because seb has his panties in a bunch about human history. Does it bug you that western imperialism and technology has done more good for the non western world in the last century than their entire indigenous history, combined?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 24 10:16:06 I do love how a retard like seb whines about white imperialism in a story where the main character is hispanic and all the pilots are women. Keep up that retardation buddy.
Forwyn Member	Wed Oct 24 10:20:06 Because even when society put their tribal infighting behind them, the dangerous threat of "human supremacism" still looms. Rofl Seb
Seb Member	Wed Oct 24 12:20:24 Sam: Oh dear. You've never really understood the difference between liberal interventionism and imperialism have you? In the context of the point the book is articulating, this matters. Forwyn: Oh gosh. You don't understand allegory?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 24 12:33:31 Nim: The fascists didn't, as a matter of ideology, require all successful people be a member of the party. That became a necessity due to human nature: party membership give access, power and demonstrates loyalty. Without those, you run the risk of falling foul of corrupt and paranoid rivals. Heinlein can pretend this wouldn't be the case but it's unrealistic and he offers no compelling reason why the Terran Federation would be different. The success of Rico's patents isn't an example of how the Terran Federation differs conceptually from fascism, it's an example of how citizens of the Terran Federation differ from realistic portrayals of humanity.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 24 13:39:01 Nim: Bewildered because whatever point it was you were making wasn't coming across. Not because I'm confused about Asimov. And right now, it's not really clear what point you are making about me and Asimov's works.
Forwyn Member	Wed Oct 24 13:51:42 "Oh gosh. You don't understand allegory?" Hard not to. In virtually every space opera involving non-human alien species, we're beaten over the heads with low-brow "we can live together in harmony" rhetoric. "Human supremacists" are inexorably KKK-brand cross burners disrupting an otherwise smooth-running galactic melting pot. It's never heralded as a unifying force, leading to a post-racial society; it's just another -ism to stamp out. Fits very neatly into your "A Spartan militaristic society in which you have to fight for your rights is a de facto Fascist one, or will by default devolve into one" worldview.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 24 15:03:46 Sebs meltdown over starship troopers is hilarious.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 24 15:36:07 Forwyn: Yeah, pretty clear you don't get allegory. The aliens are stand-ins for other races of humans. Sam: I know long posts tax you, but few others find writing a few paragraphs to articulate an idea or argument a melt down.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 24 15:39:07 "The aliens are stand-ins for other races of humans." Of your glacial dissapearances, ideal gas law failures, genes are fake comments, this might be your most retarded idea yet. Lol.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 24 15:40:34 "The aliens are stand-ins for other races of humans." Seriously, how absolutely daft does one have to be to even think something that retarded?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 24 15:43:04 "The tools and methods used for communicting with and understanding an individual are not the same as those you use to try and navigate and conduct research on group level differences and extract even if crude, significant and important insights about us as a species. It may be obvious for some people, but not all. Asimov did though, since his fictional science of psychohistory could only predict large events, not the details on individual level. Smart guy." The paragraph is pretty self explanatory, even without the entire thread, I think most people understand it. Which brings my to my point, that you are too dumb to call anyone else too dumb for anything.
Dukhat Member	Wed Oct 24 16:06:44 Did Sam really bring out his bad climate-change denial arguments as proof of something else? Kill yourself incel.
Forwyn Member	Wed Oct 24 16:41:24 "The aliens are stand-ins for other races of humans." Which, of course, is why it fails as a comparison. When you are presenting a unified human species that bears no ill will based on race, you're presenting a very general framework in which to say, "Xenophobia is bad, mm'kay." Doesn't really apply when alien bugs are nuking your cities, or when Turians are attempting to exterminate your species for activating a Mass Relay.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 24 16:55:59 Cuckhat this is a science thread, and is not appropriate for you. Please restrict your activity to threads appropriate to you, such as gender transition and learning the alphabet. Thanks.
Dukhat Member	Wed Oct 24 17:14:40 Incel.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 24 17:30:07 Sam: "In virtually every space opera involving non-human alien species, we're beaten over the heads with low-brow "we can live together in harmony" rhetoric" So, for example, in Babylon 5, the Centauri / narn dynamic isnt about "what if aliens blah blah blah", it's exploring imperialism and anti-imperialism as a Marxist dialectic. They are just stand ins for exploring the human condition in a work of fiction. Even you yourself recognised the Arachnids are stand ins for communism. It's relatively rare in space opera for a genuine stab at exploring/imagining a truly unique non-human intelligence and how it would react. Examples might be, e.g. the buggers from Ender's game but really they are just there as a foil for Ender and their Alien nature (a hive mind) little more than to reconcile their apparent aggression with non hostile intent.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 24 17:41:26 Nim: Yes. But so what? It's a fragment of text that can be read, but if I were to drop a paragraph like this: "Tax policy is the choice by a government as to what taxes to levy, in what amounts, and on whom. It has both microeconomic and macroeconomic aspects." Into the middle of this conversation you might rightly say "Seb, what the hell are you on about?" It would be wrong for me to then conclude you just didn't understand the meaning of the paragraph. What's missing is the salienceto the wider conversation. I hope that helps. Forwyn: I'm not really sure what your point is. It's kind of like saying "authoritarian systems based on racial superiority are bad mmkay, but when another nation is at war with you over some issue, social cohesion and mobilisation provided by a fanatical hate filled population is great". Is the plot of fiction serve the exploration of the concepts underpinning the setting, and led by them? If yes, conceptual sci-fi. If on the other hand the setting, world building and rules are just a framework for the plot to occur in (and bend to accommodate the plot) then that's more space opera or science fantasy. Parallels with the real world are more likely there for accessibility than as stand-ins. My contention is starship troopers isn't intended as space opera, it's conceptusl and social commentary.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 24 17:48:35 "the Arachnids are stand ins for communism. " Right. Alas you said race. Communism is not a race. Also what if i told you you could both have a moral philosophy AND have a cool story about blowing shit up in space at the same time. Woa. Complex shit man. 2 things at once. Hard for seb to comprehend.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 25 03:23:50 In the context of social science and what it can hope to achieve as some form of unifying theory able to predict things. You didn’t understand this, even though it was abundantly clear from that one paragraph since it is explicitly stated. It was explained several times. Stick with stupid people topics.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 25 03:25:28 But reading and understanding isn’t your strong side unless it involves alot of numbers and equations. We all have our weak points. Don’t worry about it.
	show deleted posts