Carl Benjamin / Sargon of Akkad / Akkad Daily / The Thinkery / @not_sargon / @WarPlanPurple - Leader of the "Liberalists" & Droning Pseudo-Intellectual Boomer anti-SJW Activist, Applebees Waiter, Mass Shooter Whiteknight

[Leon Breitling]

Carl clearly at the high end of politics, where they tape two microphones together instead of spending a few bucks on something like this:

 

[Foxxo]

I don't understand the fascination though with Starship Troopers now supposedly being an allegory for a Fascist state though. The movie is something different all together, and my interpretation of the book was that Robert Heinlein giving a futuristic interpretation of an amalgamation of modern realities of American militarism and politics mixed with the ancient Greek or Roman ideas of earned citizenship and support of the city state.

It's the "service guarantees citizenship" aspect. Only the soldiers are citizens and may vote, because only the soldiers are putting their lives on the line to protect the society they live in. The idea that only those who serve (or have served) the government's strong arm may have any say in the government is what people are calling fascism. That's not exactly what fascism is, but as George Orwell once said, the word fascism has been tossed around so often that it no longer has any meaning.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

It's the "service guarantees citizenship" aspect. Only the soldiers are citizens and may vote, because only the soldiers are putting their lives on the line to protect the society they live in. The idea that only those who serve (or have served) the government's strong arm may have any say in the government is what people are calling fascism. That's not exactly what fascism is, but as George Orwell once said, the word fascism has been tossed around so often that it no longer has any meaning.

I haven’t read it in a while, so I could be wrong. I could swear though that it included government service that involved risk or sacrifice, so it would also include police and firefighters.

 

[Marco Fucko]

I don't understand the fascination though with Starship Troopers now supposedly being an allegory for a Fascist state though. The movie is something different all together, and my interpretation of the book was that Robert Heinlein giving a futuristic interpretation of an amalgamation of modern realities of American militarism and politics mixed with the ancient Greek or Roman ideas of earned citizenship and support of the city state.

Orange man memes aside, the farther left you go the more likely you are to perceive the current administration as "Fascist", and without trying to dilute the conversation too much Trump has also been likened to classic science fiction villains such as Palpatine and The Mule. When leftists were covering Charlottesville, they highlighted how Trump condemned Dickie Spencer and Antifa and called it a false equivalency, saying antifa only exists because of the likes of Spencer and his followers in the first place.

I haven’t read it in a while, so I could be wrong. I could swear though that it included government service that involved risk or sacrifice, so it would also include police and firefighters.

This is correct. If you work/ed for the government you have the right to decide on government, if you spent your life as a private sector employee you couldn't. Although that doesn't really stop anybody from enlisting for three years and then joining a hypothetical corporate cabal.

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

I haven’t read it in a while, so I could be wrong. I could swear though that it included government service that involved risk or sacrifice, so it would also include police and firefighters.

Correct. It's not actually "military service", it's just "a term of service". And it's described like this, by the recruiter:

"A term of service isn't a kiddie camp; it's either real military service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime . . . or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof. Not a vacation. Not a romantic adventure. "

You have no particular control over what you end up doing - you are allowed to state a preference, but apparently less than 1 time in 20 does your final job reflect what you stated as your preference, because the government decides where you're most useful. It might be something really awful - testing emergency survival equipment on Titan is listed as a possibility, for example. But the only criteria is a willingness to serve, no matter what they ask you to do, and being sound of mind enough to understand the oath of service. They can't turn you away, if you meet those criteria. As the doctor administering the physical quips to Rico, "if you came in here in a wheel chair and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they would find something silly enough to match".

 

[Berrakh]

Something tells me Sargon wouldn’t ever volunteer for service if Starship Troopers was real.

 

[Toucan]

What is the point in becoming a voting member of a country if the prerequisite for gaining that vote is displaying complete and total submission to the ruling order of said country.

 

[Berrakh]

What is the point in becoming a voting member of a country if the prerequisite for gaining that vote is displaying complete and total submission to the ruling order of said country.

It’s to give decision making power to people with a stake in the nation.

 

[Toucan]

It’s to give decision making power to people with a stake in the nation.

But they wont be making any decisions since they already fanatically agree with the current order. They wouldnt want things to change. Its kind of pointless giving them the option when they are all brainwashed true believers.

 

[Marco Fucko]

But they wont be making any decisions since they already fanatically agree with the current order. They wouldnt want things to change. Its kind of pointless giving them the option when they are all brainwashed true believers.

If serving your country meant being brainwashed and unquestionably loyal then why do generals perform revolutions and set up juntas? The society in ST isn't like 1984 where the government demands demonstrably utter loyalty at the drop of a hat, it's modeled after the tradition of aristocratic republics a la Rome, mixing in modern values like anti-racism and more explicit capitalism.

Rome and modern America have had their fair share of anti-establishment types, even if we look at only the military.

 

[Mr.Downer]

Something tells me Sargon would not actually volunteer for service if Starship Troopers was real.

Carl the type of guy that thinks he will be the one to sit back all comfy and lead the masses with his high IQ strategies

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

What is the point in becoming a voting member of a country if the prerequisite for gaining that vote is displaying complete and total submission to the ruling order of said country.

Not submission. Aggressive sacrifice. The people who get the vote in the Federation are the only people who care enough about what happens to get worked up enough to do what's necessary to have a say in it.

 

[Toucan]

Not submission. Aggressive sacrifice. The people who get the vote in the Federation are the only people who care enough about what happens to get worked up enough to do what's necessary to have a say in it.

Otherwise known as fanatic true believers.
What is the point in voting if everyone believes the same thing.

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

Otherwise known as fanatic true believers.
What is the point in voting if everyone believes the same thing.

True belief in what?

There's very little inherent philosophy behind the Federation beyond rampant egalitarianism and a limited franchise. There's not really any implication that they have some overriding belief system, and a fair bit of suggestion that they don't.

 

[Toucan]

True belief in what?

There's very little inherent philosophy behind the Federation beyond rampant egalitarianism and a limited franchise. There's not really any implication that they have some overriding belief system, and a fair bit of suggestion that they don't.

True belief in the then current structure of society.
You also left out the promotion of a culture of all encompassing militarism. And an imperial attitude towards the galaxy which could be considered human supremacist.

My general point, which I failed to make in the first post, was that if Carl wanted to apply the service guarantees citizenship idea either to UKIP or the UK in general it would really just mean that for all time nothing would ever change. I also think its pretty fucking dumb that a person who claims to believe in universalist ideals would try to reduce the franchise. What use is the title citizen if the rights it affords you are optional.

 

[Berrakh]

But they wont be making any decisions since they already fanatically agree with the current order. They wouldnt want things to change. Its kind of pointless giving them the option when they are all brainwashed true believers.

There are worse things to be fair but it’s hardly a liberalist society at any rate.

Carl the type of guy that thinks he will be the one to sit back all comfy and lead the masses with his high IQ strategies

The very elitist civilian mindset Starship Troopers seems to deride.

 

[AnOminous]

But they wont be making any decisions since they already fanatically agree with the current order. They wouldnt want things to change. Its kind of pointless giving them the option when they are all brainwashed true believers.

The United States had a draft during World Wars I and II, and the generation that fought World War II came back and actually did make massive amounts of change, largely in part because they wanted to see a world where such a thing would never again be necessary.

 

[MediocreMilt]

The United States had a draft during World Wars I and II, and the generation that fought World War II came back and actually did make massive amounts of change, largely in part because they wanted to see a world where such a thing would never again be necessary.

Carl, meanwhile, would likely fail the Army physical.

 

[SuperDeeDuper]

Robert Heinlein giving a futuristic interpretation of an amalgamation of modern realities of American militarism and politics mixed with the ancient Greek or Roman ideas of earned citizenship and support of the city state.

the novel has almost nothing to do with fascism.

there are aspects of the book that outright reject modern democratic ideals, though. i wouldn't say that the book was definitively pro-fascist, but it was certainly critical of liberal democracy (and in a serious way rather than the piss-take way done in the film)

Dubois also ridicules the idea of inalienable rights, such as "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", arguing that people only have the rights that they are willing to fight and die for in order to protect.[34][66][69] The novel appeals to scientific authority to justify this position; Dubois repeatedly states that his argument is mathematically demonstrable, statements which have led scholars to label the novel "hard science fiction", despite its social and political themes.[70]

inalienable rights are a fundamental aspect of american-style liberal philosophy, the kind that carlgon larps as being an advocate of (despite being an admitted social liberal who believes in rights as entitlements rather than solely as negative rights like the founders would have)

but whether rights are conceived of as positive entitlements or as negative rights against impositions by others, the idea of a 'right' still implies that you have it as a given. whereas heinlein's conception of rights is one of active assertion that you have the rights. you have to be willing to fight for them, you aren't just granted them out of the box. that flies in the face of any liberal definition of rights, positive or negative

this post is getting autistic but my point is that heinlein's reading of how society should structured is not a one to one mirror of 1950s america or even 'classical liberal' early america. it's much closer to greco-roman style democracy where the element of political participation by the common people is very limited and is treated as a privilege rather than a right. this is what causes people to have the knee-jerk 'muh fascism' reaction, as we saw in the wisecrack video. the idea of a society and its inhabitants openly and honestly recognizing the role of violence and force in the construction and defense of that society makes people's skin crawl, because they have been so thoroughly inculcated by the talking points and mythologies of the current system.

i guess you could say that fascism is more 'honest' (for lack of a better word) in that all political systems and societies rely on the ability to do violence as a means of protecting and sustaining themselves. the problem is that liberal democracy presents itself as a 'peace-loving' system that either doesn't commit violence or whose violence can be framed as righteous when compared to competing ideologies and systems like communism, fascism, monarchy, etc.

so when heinlein creates a vision of a militarized rome-style republic and openly says 'violence is necessary to protect our society,' people think that looks like fascism because fascism is the only modern system that openly said the same thing and didn't try to sweep it under the rug. of course, communist and liberal-democratic societies were and are as violent as any other, they just did their best to downplay it instead of owning it like heinlein does. you see this exact thing when politicians get on the mic and say 'we need to bomb this country to spread freedom and democracy' or when antifa types say 'punch a nazi to stop them from genociding people' or 'confiscate all of the 1%'s capital so we can have free healthcare.' they play word games to try and frame their actions as 'righteous' instead of owning the fact that they are using force to advance their agenda, just like everybody else did throughout history. politics and law are inherently based on force whether anybody wants to admit that or not.

this post is way too long and autistic now so i'm just gonna leave it there

 

[Berrakh]

there are aspects of the book that outright reject modern democratic ideals, though. i wouldn't say that the book was definitively pro-fascist, but it was certainly critical of liberal democracy (and in a serious way rather than the piss-take way done in the film)

inalienable rights are a fundamental aspect of american-style liberal philosophy, the kind that carlgon larps as being an advocate of (despite being an admitted social liberal who believes in rights as entitlements rather than solely as negative rights like the founders would have)

this post is getting autistic but my point is that heinlein's reading of how society should structured is not a one to one mirror of 1950s america or even 'classical liberal' early america. it's much closer to greco-roman style democracy where the element of political participation by the common people is very limited and is treated as a privilege rather than a right. this is what causes people to have the knee-jerk 'muh fascism' reaction, as we saw in the wisecrack video. the idea of a society and its inhabitants openly and honestly recognizing the role of violence and force in the construction and defense of that society makes people's skin crawl, because they have been so thoroughly inculcated by the talking points and mythologies of the current system.

i guess you could say that fascism is more 'honest' (for lack of a better word) in that all political systems and societies rely on the ability to do violence as a means of protecting and sustaining themselves. the problem is that liberal democracy presents itself as a 'peace-loving' system that either doesn't commit violence or whose violence can be framed as righteous when compared to competing ideologies and systems like communism, fascism, monarchy, etc.

so when heinlein creates a vision of a militarized rome-style republic and openly says 'violence is necessary to protect our society,' people think that looks like fascism because fascism is the only modern system that openly said the same thing and didn't try to sweep it under the rug. of course, communist and liberal-democratic societies were and are as violent as any other, they just did their best to downplay it instead of owning it like heinlein does. you see this exact thing when politicians get on the mic and say 'we need to bomb this country to spread freedom and democracy' or when antifa types say 'punch a nazi to stop them from genociding people' or 'confiscate all of the 1%'s capital so we can have free healthcare.' they play word games to try and frame their actions as 'righteous' instead of owning the fact that they are using force to advance their agenda, just like everybody else did throughout history. politics and law are inherently based on force whether anybody wants to admit that or not.

this post is way too long and autistic now so i'm just gonna leave it there

The ultimate point being that it’s not a liberal society, and the skeptic liberalists have a pattern of supporting things totally outside their stated principles as long as it does not offend some cherished sensibility.