h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

We've been talking about Starship Troopers over at Ask h2g2 [F19585?thread=84337&post=1859466#p1859466].

The discussion has been about the differnces between the movie and the book. In my view, the book was about political philosphy in a military adventure tale. The movie was a satire about fascism.

Zagreb said of the movie: 'It was an unpleasant ideology - a state run by it's military (although more complex that a straight-up military dictatorship). I'm not surprised the director satirised it. At the same time he did glamourise it, he did show how it could be attractive.'

I disagree. The book, and the movie for that matter, did not describe a fascist state. It was a society that limited the franchise to veterans. It doesn't really show how the civilian society works. It does show that non-citizens can have very succesful lives. Rico's non-citizen father is very well to do.

It was effectively a military government. Only members or former-members of the military could participate in the machineries of government. Since joining the military would entail training, this meant that those who could affect government policy could also be "primed" with ideology.

It is true that it wasn't a fascist government, I was generalising when I said "neo-fascist". It did have some parallels with fascism (a belief in fundamental superiority, militarism, contempt for the universal right of sufferage, the belief that Might is Right) but it did differ from fascism in some ways (there was no preoccupation with race for example).

I've just fixed the typo in "Troopers". I've no idea if it can be fixed on the title at the top

Facism isn't necessarily linked with racism. Mussolini, the godfather of fascism, often spoke out against racism, remarking that it is counter-productive and cowardly. That was until he met Hitler though, after which Italy became a somewhat inconvenient place for Jews to be.

It was a society that mandated classes in the science of History and Moral Philosphy.

In the book, every person has an absolute right to go into federal service. It need not include military service. What they saw as important was that people who got the franchise had at some point in their life took personal responiblity for the good of scoiety.

I don't think that it sounds like a bad idea.

"people who got the franchise had at some point in their life took personal responiblity for the good of society"

Oddly enough, that sounds like Marxism

The difference is that in a socialist dictatroship everyone is forced to do what they're told. They're not taking personal responsiblity. They're being forced to do what they're told for the good of society by their dictatorial masters.

In Starship Troopers residents have a choice as to whether they want to take the step to become citizens.

It should also be noted that current memebrs of the military don't have the vote. So people who are currently subject to military authority are not the running the government.

Marx never expressed a desire for a socialist dictatorship - that was Lenin. Marx's ideas were democratic.

It's still not very similar to Starship Troopers. They seem to have a capitalist society running in the background.

I didn't realize military personnel couldn't vote! It seems a bit ridiculous to me; was this the case in Heinlein's time?

In Starship Troopers, there is a capitalist economy running. It is very similar to modern day America, with one major difference: In order to vote, you must have shown a willingness to put yourself ahead of the group. This is done through military service in Starship Troopers, although Heinlein didn't believe that was entirely necessary.

Heinlein's main belief was that most people, when given the franchise, will simply vote themselves "bread and circuses." The system he uses in Starship Troopers is a method of avoiding that fate. I've written a fair bit about the novel, and could probably expand upon it if I wanted. Some good quotes, taken directly from Heinlein:

"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...
"Under our system every voter and office holder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage"

"A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally has no internal feedback for self correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens...which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'

Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."

The first is from Starship Troopers, the second is from To Sail Beyond The Sunset

Wesley, Marx's ideas were fundamentally authoritarian. It's true that he didn't want a dictatorship, but his ideas, especially as they were founded on revolution, required one to protect the policies of that revolution.

Read up on some of the opinions of the anarchists such as Mikhail Bukanin. They were accusing Marx of preaching effective dictatorship (the red beaureacracy) long before the Russian revolution happened.

Two-Bit, I didn't say the ideas in Heinlein's books *were* Marxist. I said a society based on responisbility for the society (and therefore the state) was vaguely Marxist. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Saint,

Heinlein's ideas betray American militarism. Doctors, Nurse, Sewage workers, even beaureaucrats all help society function and we'd be lost without them. They are as deserving of "the franchise" as soldiers. Soldiers just look better marching though Washington

The Roman Empire (which still managed to last 2 thousand years) didn't succumb because of "bread and circuses". It succumbed because it was effectively a dictatorship and many Emperors were abysmal rulers who did stupid things like let barbarian tribes settle on the marches of the Empire. If the Emperors were elected, this would not have happened. The Empire's main weakness was it's tradition.

Heinlein doesn't believe that doctors and nurses and all that don't deserve the franchise, he just believes that anyone who receives the franchise should have demonstrated a commitment to the good of the whole. An example of this is someone voting for the candidate who promises to give them the most money through lowered taxes. Lowering taxes doesn't benefit the whole, as it leaves less money for public improvement, and the lower classes don't get their taxes proportionally lowered. Soldering really is not as important to his core beliefs as it appears in Starship Troopers. It's simply a means to an end. He believes that any type of public service would work for that system. But Janitorial Troopers just wouldn't sell very well.

And Heinlein doesn't mean that rome fell because of bread and circuses. It's just an example of a fate, which is related to something we commmonly know about. The Roman state became weakened, through whatever means, and then the barbarian invader came in and took over. In modern application, what Heinlein is talking about is this: the American state weakens through people voting themselves less taxes regardless of what the candidate's other policies. Then, defense spending is massively reduced, and another nation, such as China, comes in and takes over. I'll elaborate more later, but I have to go to class.

Fair dues, I accept there is probably more to Heinlein's political philosophy than what is suggested in "Starship Troopers".

If Heinlein was refering to "bread and circuses" and "barbarian entering Rome" regarding his ideas, then I think he was insinuating that what he was criticising was responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire. The US often compares itself to Ancient Rome (it certainly uses many of it's symbols) but I think it's a bad comparison. The US is quite different from the Roman Empire, both in it's politics and how it does things.

I doubt a huge amount of Military spending is needed to prevent another nation "taking over". Britain spends considerably less on it's military than the US, but I'd think we're extremely difficult to conquer. I'd say the same about any western european nation.

American soldiers can vote. I was talking about the vote in Starship Troopers. There you don't get citizen status until your term of service expires.

There's a big difference between what we pay for in the US and what the UK pays for. We pay for a military that can project power in multiple places throughout the world.

We do have a problem with bread and circuses in the United States. Entitlement spending is a huge part of our budget and it's largely untouchable because of powerful interest groups like the AARP.

The British military is fairly largely spread, too. We have troops stationed in Germany as well as Cyprus and I'm sure a lot of former colonies such as Belize. We also have concerns in Kosovo, Bosnia and we were engaged in a major operation in Sierra Leone recently. I'll grant you we aren't as well-spread as the US military, but we don't need to be. It still goes to show you don't have to spend a huge chunk of GNP on the military to keep an effective presence around the world.

How many divisions does the British army field? How many aircraft carrier groups do Royal Navy have at sea? Are there any Bristish super carriers?

Don't get me wrong. I respect what other countries can do, and I appreciate their support when given.

We're the sole remaining super power. We've gotten ourselves entagled throughout the world. Since we're the defacto world policeman, we need a farily large military to project power without sacrifing troops by taking half steps like we did in Vietnam or Somalia.

Oh, where do I start!? This 'ideal society' would exclude all people with physical or intellectual disability, children of course, pregnant women, women with small children (unless they went off before having children, did their military service and prayed to survive with fertility intact through out their service.

It would also exclude people who were pacifist as a matter of conviction. You say 'federal service', but I don't remember that from the book (which I have read - at the same time as Haldeman's 'Forever War', a very instructive compare and contrast, or antithesis, if you will.)

"It should also be noted that current memebrs of the military don't have the vote. So people who are currently subject to military authority are not the running the government. "

Huh? (In a Tim Allen in Home Improvement voice) So, your military personnel are in the same position as prisoners?