Heinlein's Starship Troopers

Originally Posted by conon394

Heinlein never meant Starship Troopers to be a satire. But that's the only way modern Hollywood is willing to depict such a thing

An improvement on Heinlein's fascism and bizarre take on classical city state culture however...

Originally Posted by Sphere

I've read the novel and seen the movie, a "bizarre" take on classical city-state culture is a good way of putting it. Certainly not a mistaken understanding, just an odd application because the society is very industrial, technological and middle class yet he throws in the civic idea's of the the landed Greek aristocracy of antiquity. Its not a nice fit of political and economic scenarios, it's like having Silicon Valley run by a War Chief, or Las Vegas with a theocracy.

But then, are you saying that there is no room for the old Greek civic virtue in today's industrialized society? I'd like to think there is, and the only thing it would need would be modernization and adapting to the exigencies of the modern society's needs and principles. As such, Heinlein's idea of linking citizenship to military service brings that old civic virtue up to date, and modernizes it quite well.

Originally Posted by conon394

it prioritizes only one in general kind of sacrifice, and skill set as somehow communicating virtue. Don't sewer workers, Trash collectors, etc serve thier community and country how about pro-bono lawyers and doctors or soup kitchen workers?

First, wouldn't you agree that this brings in the old Greek civic values quite accurately? I'm not saying we should agree with them, only that they accurately represent the old Greek civic virtue. Second, I don't see why we shouldn't agree with them. Sewer workers don't sacrifice quite so much as soldiers do. There are a lot of unpleasant tasks that risk nothing from your life, and don't require any tremendous dedication or self-conquest, past the point of putting on a breath mask and cashing in a fat check from getting paid for these undesirable jobs. Soldiers, especially the skilled ones like Marines, Rangers, and their old counterparts the Hoplites, require you to sacrifice your life, and moreover, you're not a rabble troop, they require you to sacrifice your self-control, all your erratic passions and desires, your whole self, and subordinate all your will to discipline. And they're not even paid a fat check after that; nor were they paid well even in antiquity. I know a lot of Marines, and it seems much more of an honor culture than a 'getting well paid' culture. Which makes sense since they get paid very little, for something that most people (including myself) are simply too weak for; mentally and physically.

As such I cannot think anyone closer to the hoplites than them. On the other hand, citizenship is such a rare and precious thing, which people often throw away for the stupidest reasons, and on stupidest projects. You, with your knowledge of Athenian demagogues, know the tremendous weakness and frivolousness of the Athenian body politic, especially in the 4th century when things began to break down. There was likewise no worse moment for the Roman history when Emperor Caracalla gave citizenship indiscriminantly to everyone. Again I haven't read the book, but just the idea that, if you don't risk your life for your country you don't get to vote, doesn't sound terribly bad straight off the bat...

Interestingly, the animated OVA series from 1988 is the closest to the book.

But I liked Verhoeven's adaptation; the book deserved to be mocked. It's an overly fascist tale with no plot and little characterisation.

Originally Posted by MaximiIian

Interestingly, the animated OVA series from 1988 is the closest to the book.

But I liked Verhoeven's adaptation; the book deserved to be mocked. It's an overly fascist tale with no plot and little characterisation.

Verhoeven's movie was not written with the book in mind--it was a satire of WWII war films and propaganda. Someone noticed that the screenplay had a similar plot as 'Starship Troopers' so the studio bought the rights and renamed the movie and characters so they could sort-of be connected.

Anyway, I read the book a few days ago and it was quite an interesting read. But I don't think Heinlein considers the society in the story as some kind of ideal. RAH was very libertarian elsewhere and one character in the book (who almost seems like a self-satire) calls the whole function of Federal Service 'parasitism' and disdains his son for joining the military; other civilians exhibit similar views.
Also, the society in the book seemed very socially permissive, aside from the militarism it does not seem much like fascist Italy. It's just a good, occasionally humorous SF story that explores a different kind of society than what we currently live in.

Originally Posted by MaximiIian

But I liked Verhoeven's adaptation; the book deserved to be mocked. It's an overly fascist tale with no plot and little characterisation.

There is nothing fascist about it.

I don't think many, outside of the lazy and the angst filled would argue that the system of government would not work better than current ones.

Originally Posted by Phier

There is nothing fascist about it.

I don't think many, outside of the lazy and the angst filled would argue that the system of government would work better than current ones.

Placing some logical requirement on voting rights beyond being alive would yield better policy results, yes. Without a doubt.
I think a monthly exam on current events and politics would probably give better results than military service, though.
Or any kind of standardized test that failed the bottom 90% or more.

Edit: But there is also the ethical consideration--isn't anyone who pays into the system (tax) entitled to a say in how it is directed? Would limits on citizeship only lead to disenfranchisement for many that should be covered under the social contract?

Originally Posted by bleach

Edit: But there is also the ethical consideration--isn't anyone who pays into the system (tax) entitled to a say in how it is directed? Would limits on citizeship only lead to disenfranchisement for many that should be covered under the social contract?

Do people who pay no taxes get less of a vote than those who do currently?

Being our system is heading in a direction where contributors are becoming outnumbered by takers, such a system as in the books would do much to limit that sort of future problem.

Originally Posted by Phier

Being our system is heading in a direction where contributors are becoming outnumbered by takers, such a system as in the books would do much to limit that sort of future problem.

Exactly.

That is reasonable, I agree.

Originally Posted by Phier

Do people who pay no taxes get less of a vote than those who do currently?

Being our system is heading in a direction where contributors are becoming outnumbered by takers, such a system as in the books would do much to limit that sort of future problem.

Yawn and BS.

What is 'fascist' about it? As I already explained fascism is state control of the economy. It has nothing to do with civic virtue. Otherwise you might as well call the ancient Greek city-states fascist.

Originally Posted by SigniferOne

What is 'fascist' about it?

Besides the egregious militarism, nationalism, and statism?

As I already explained fascism is state control of the economy.

Then you explained fascism poorly. State control of the economy is just...state control of the economy.

It has nothing to do with civic virtue. Otherwise you might as well call the ancient Greek city-states fascist.

Most of them, I would. Many were brutal, militaristic, patriarchal despotisms. Sparta the most rancid example amongst them, but the much-vaunted Athens had many unsavoury features that I would define as proto-fascist.

Service grants citizenship!

I do not think much wrong here. At least its better than feeding all these wellfare parasites and professional state sponsored leeches.

There is a review about this movie in the review section.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...38#post6404638

I of course found the book to be interesting. It was not his best work, but still interesting. Personally the movie was terrible. The movie was marketed to the wrong people. The movie's excessive violence and nudity often took away from any message that was being portrayed. All in all the movie was a terrible and weak effort.

A compelling argument! Do you have a newsletter and where do I subscribe?

Originally Posted by vizi

A compelling argument! Do you have a newsletter and where do I subscribe?

No need to argument the obvious unless you find that stupid woman at the register and that smelly Mexican mobbing your floor non-contributing.

This is just TWC's snobbism acting like they are some kind of medieval lords or something...get outa here!

And btw that movie is also Yawn and BS.

Hahaha! Yes the movie was yawn and BS.

Personally, the system in the book would might work. But I would refuse to live in some system. I love my freedom to vote and be a general miscreant..

Originally Posted by vizi

Hahaha! Yes the movie was yawn and BS.

Personally, the system in the book would might work. But I would refuse to live in some system. I love my freedom to vote and be a general miscreant..

Yeah, and what if you retire after 40+ years of working your old ass off? Nazism might work to, and since the juice are just leeches....

It's one of my favourite books of all time. I like the ideal of service gains the vote, and I like the fact that criminals are executed or flogged post haste. Heinlein goes on about how in past times (i.e. NOW) these Dr.Spock types encouraged criminality through their lenient human-rights type bollocks regarding children and crims. Like Pavlov's dog, you've gotta flog the out of them for a lesson to be learned.

Great book. Bring back public executions and the cat-o-nine-tails I say.

Originally Posted by boofhead

It's one of my favourite books of all time. I like the ideal of service gains the vote, and I like the fact that criminals are executed or flogged post haste. Heinlein goes on about how in past times (i.e. NOW) these Dr.Spock types encouraged criminality through their lenient human-rights type bollocks regarding children and crims. Like Pavlov's dog, you've gotta flog the out of them for a lesson to be learned.

Great book. Bring back public executions and the cat-o-nine-tails I say.

I agree, mostly, Whippings are an excellent deterrent. People who commit crimes, 'specially the teens (You can't touch me , ha!) who do what they want, hardly get any punishment, often getting off scott free, or their parents fined. Bring in whippings I can guarentee it'll stop. Pain is the best deterent, after all, if you kow something hurts really bad (like touching a stove top) you wont do it again would you?


What I like about the book, and I think some people overlook this, is it was actually a highly tolerant society, there was virtually no racism or descrimination. You had to be a citizen to vote (but, in what country now is that not true?) but what was great is they did not descriminate on who was alowed federal service, EVERYONE no matter who they where, was entitled.
Blind and have no legs? Not much you can do for the army? You still have the right to join to become a citizen, the Army will just find something you can do, evn if its just sitting in a room counting the hairs on a catapiller.
And I liek that, The society wasn't too bad.
I don't remember many limitations to free speech, but You'd probably get all of it you want as a citizen anyhow.

I think the only thing I did not like about the socety wa the punishment for striking a superior officer: Death.

Originally Posted by thatguy

I think the only thing I did not like about the socety wa the punishment for striking a superior officer: Death.

Striking a superior officer can be taken as an act of mutiny. And the Terran Federation was in a state of emergency at the time, which I imagine would bring stiffer penalties in the military. At the end of the day yer man in the book received lashes, not the gallows.