I have always had an interest in aviation, space and military technology.
To put it in perspective, I had library card when I was 8. I checked out (and read) everything they had about Sky Lab. It was very amusing when I brought the books back and the librarian asked me if I had read them. We had a great talk about it. She was just as interested and I was first person who'd talk to her as an equal about it.
Grandma thought it would be amusing to hand me "The Classics" when I was 11. What that really meant is she had to borrow and read those books to see if I was reading them. I was, and I was understanding them better than she was.
I was 16 when I finally discovered serious science fiction.
Starship Troopers was it.
I found a lot of interest in that book. Technology was mentioned, but not explained. The effect of the tech was described, but there was no double-talking of the underlying principles.
I read about a private soldier who went from being a boy to being a man.
I read some speculation about a future where a different form of government would rise from the ashes.
What I did not walk away from Starship Troopers with was an impression that that form of government was fascist.
Perhaps that comes from having a great-grandfather who fled Italy to escape REAL fascists (and had to leave behind three of his children).
I seem to have a different copy from everyone else who has reviewed it. I just don't see the Fascism.
I do not see: A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition (unions, other, especially leftists, parties, minority groups, etc.), the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control, beligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war, etc...
In the book I have, there is no mention of what form the government takes beyond that one must do a term of government service to vote. There might be coalition controlled parlamentary politics, we don't know! It's not mentioned in the text.
Juan's father speaks of free speech. Not very suppressed. Juan's family had never had a voter, yet they were wealthy. Rico shared his Roll's copter with Carl. They had an olympic sized swimming pool. Emilio is doing amazingly well for someone who is not part of the ruling party. Remember, "retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control" that means the state runs it. Emilio would not have joined as a Private under a real Facsist government, a business owner is a party member. And since he had never done his term, he was not a party member. Yet he owned a business, delayed putting it on a war footing well into the war and then abandoned it to join the Army. None of that spells central control. He states that he joined because of his son. Not that he was forced to join because he was removed. Old Man Morales was not appointed by the Government, but selected by Emilio. Emilio was also free to move stocks around for Juan's benefit before he resigned.
Not much racism going on here either. The Rico's are Philippinos. Hard to imagine the Philippines becoming THE major world power. But even this is shot down. Xim is not a Philippine name, nor are scores of others mentioned. If there is racism, it is more xenophobia.
The feel of the society that comes across to me is more like America than Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany or even Stalin's USSR. It seems like it's still a represenative democracy, with steep voting requirements. The book even mentions that our voting rights are truncated too. Gotta be 18 to vote, can't be a felon, etc.
There is even an explanation of how it got started too, but so many reviewers seem to miss it. A group of former troops happened across a group of people getting ready to punish another vet. After being left to rot by the peace treaty and basically forced to walk home, they decided that civilians would not be allowed to have a say in punishing him. They would take care of their own, and did what the people were going to do anyway. The decision was elitist, but they created a fairly egalitarian society with it later.
A lot of idiots think that anything that portrays the military positively is "Fascist." The overuse of the word is a hangover from the 1930s, when the Left used it to smear everybody they didn't like, and there were actual real Fascists around in the US and elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think too many people tend to confuse the public service requirement with a military service requirement - they somehow miss his explanation that a person could essentially serve as a streetsweeper for their entire term of service and earn the ability to vote - and then assume that this means the book is portraying a military government. Add in the mention of public lashings as punishment for crimes, and they start thinking "military government + cruel and unusual punishment = fascism".
ReplyDeleteOf course, the fact that that combination is not, by itself, fascism is either completely ignored or just not understood (depending on the reader). I blame the second reason on the public education system and the liberal college system. The concepts of fascism, communism, etc., and the distinguishing features of each, simply aren't taught properly or in a way that they are really understood by students. Mainly, they seem to all get lumped together under "dictatorship".
Ever since the 1930s, "fascist" has been a leftist swear word used to denigrate anything they don't like. As far back as the 1940s, George Orwell was commenting that the word had lost all its original meaning.
ReplyDelete