Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is probably the dumbest idea I've ever seen posted up for debate and taken seriously.

Precisely 0% of the people in this thread seem to be aware that Starship Troopers (both the book and the film) was written as satire.

It's like coming along and saying that the system the Imperium of Man uses should be considered to replace IRL governments.

scarletsquig wrote:This is probably the dumbest idea I've ever seen posted up for debate and taken seriously.

Precisely 0% of the people in this thread seem to be aware that Starship Troopers (both the book and the film) was written as satire.

It's like coming along and saying that the system the Imperium of Man uses should be considered to replace IRL governments.

The movie was definitely satire. But, the book was a genuine essay from Heinlein.

The movie is a fun and campy film that's really enjoyable. The book is a boring, terrible essay about how awesome fascism is.

Are you sure?

I've read it and it was so ridiculous that I just assumed the author wasn't entirely serious. Watching the film first might have coloured my view a bit.

If he was then that's Ayn Rand levels of crazy, right there!

Grakmar wrote:

scarletsquig wrote:This is probably the dumbest idea I've ever seen posted up for debate and taken seriously.

Precisely 0% of the people in this thread seem to be aware that Starship Troopers (both the book and the film) was written as satire.

It's like coming along and saying that the system the Imperium of Man uses should be considered to replace IRL governments.

The movie was definitely satire. But, the book was a genuine essay from Heinlein.

The movie is a fun and campy film that's really enjoyable. The book is a boring, terrible essay about how awesome fascism is.

scarletsquig wrote:Are you sure?

I've read it and it was so ridiculous that I just assumed the author wasn't entirely serious. Watching the film first might have coloured my view a bit.

If he was then that's Ayn Rand levels of crazy, right there!

Have either of you read any of Heinlein's work outside of ST, because he was most assuredly not advocating fascism. In addition the state described in the book doesn't even come close to being described as a fascist state

Some books should not be read when you have a strong "belief" to influence on what you read. Ruins the book. My soldiers looked at me a bit wide eye when I was reading "The Forgotten Soldier" till they in turned read it themselves

scarletsquig wrote:Are you sure?

I've read it and it was so ridiculous that I just assumed the author wasn't entirely serious. Watching the film first might have coloured my view a bit.

If he was then that's Ayn Rand levels of crazy, right there!

Regrettably, Heinlein was entirely serious. In fairness to him, his views and his writing matured, and, even if though I still don't agree with the knee-jerk anti-authority, rugged individualism they espouse, some of his later novels are better, particularly The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

sebster wrote:I find the idea that the only way of making a contribution to society sufficient to allow you to vote/represent is through holding a gun is just really goddamn puerile.

Good thing no one's advocated that. I thought we were talking about Heinlein's book.

Grakmar wrote:The book is a boring, terrible essay about how awesome fascism is.

That is not even vaguely true. I mean, you can hold the opinion that it's boring and terrible, and that's your right. But it's not about facism, and it's a dishonest or extremely ignorant slur to claim that it is. Quite a bit of it is a love letter to the military- but not the military in the sense of glorifying war. The military in the sense of honoring the Poor Bloody Infantry. The citizen-soldiers who live and die in the muck, in defense of freedom (remember this was relatively soon after WWII, and at the height of the Cold War). And of wishing that everyone who makes important decisions that impact the welfare of others had the courage of their convictions to put their life on the line for what they believe, and for the good of society. That's idealistic, but nothing about it is fascistic.

English Assassin wrote:Regrettably, Heinlein was entirely serious. In fairness to him, his views and his writing matured, and, even if though I still don't agree with the knee-jerk anti-authority, rugged individualism they espouse, some of his later novels are better, particularly The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

How much Heinlein have you actually read, and how long ago? His early works (particularly the "juveniles") are some of his best. Middle of career he played around a lot with more high-concept ideas. Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land are particularly prominent, and are both brilliant books in their own right, though with some flaws (particularly Stranger). Late in life he got more self-indulgent, self-referential and wish-fulfullment fantastical (stuff like To Sail Beyond the Sunset, Number of the Beast, and Cat Who Walks Through Walls).

Heinlein was in a somewhat knee-jerk and reactionary mood when he wrote ST, but anyone who's read it, Moon, and Stranger should be able to tell pretty easily that this is a writer who was capable of seeing multiple different perspectives and worldviews, and of advocating ideas in a novel that he didn''t necessarily agree with or think would definitely work in reality. Some consistent themes definitely emerge and are certainly central to his worldview (the whole rugged individualist thing you mentioned, for example). But claiming he sincerely advocated facism based on ST is like claiming Christianity is all about stoning people to death based on the New Testament.

It's sad that Moorcock and few other rabble-rousers yelled "facism!" fifty years ago to stir up some discussion, but people are still repeating that claptrap as if it were true.

sebster wrote:I find the idea that the only way of making a contribution to society sufficient to allow you to vote/represent is through holding a gun is just really goddamn puerile.

... the idea is that you have to be willing to put yourself at risk for the good of everyone before you get to vote on things that effect everyone. As has been pointed out a few times, this does not necessitate military service in the novel.

Mannahnin wrote:Good thing no one's advocated that. I thought we were talking about Heinlein's book.

What thread are you reading? I mean, here's the opening post;
"What I'm talking about is their system; Everyone has basic rights, but only those who serve in their military are granted "Citizenship", granting them even more rights. Some of these rights would include, for us, The Right to Vote, the Right to run for Public Office, and other stuff like that."

He states 'only those who serve in the military'. And then goes on to say that the vets wouldn't get shafted because everyone in congress would have served. So that's one person who's talking about it just being the military.

Jihadin then says he toys with the idea. Horst says its probably a good idea. Chaosxomega said he's always championed the idea.

None of them are referring to the concepts in the book. They are all referring entirely to military service, and military service alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:... the idea is that you have to be willing to put yourself at risk for the good of everyone before you get to vote on things that effect everyone. As has been pointed out a few times, this does not necessitate military service in the novel.

The idea that there needs to be risk is just as bad.

What about a person who works their life as a nurse, and volunteers in soup kitchens on the weekend? Have they contributed as much as a guy who takes up a Quartermaster post in the army, does his minimum term and exits with full citizenship?

What about a great author? I mean, is Orwell more valued than CS Lewis, because the former fought?

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:... the idea is that you have to be willing to put yourself at risk for the good of everyone before you get to vote on things that effect everyone. As has been pointed out a few times, this does not necessitate military service in the novel.

The idea that there needs to be risk is just as bad.

What about a person who works their life as a nurse, and volunteers in soup kitchens on the weekend? Have they contributed as much as a guy who takes up a Quartermaster post in the army, does his minimum term and exits with full citizenship?

Provided that healthcare is provided by the federal government, then yes, the person who works as a nurse has been doing federal service. Presumably they would have to do so at a location and pay scale determined by the federal government for a period of no less than two years, and for as much longer as deemed necessary. And remember that in the example of the novel, serving military personnel don't have the franchise, so it is questionable whether someone who dedicates themselves as a lifelong nurse would.

youbedead wrote:Have either of you read any of Heinlein's work outside of ST, because he was most assuredly not advocating fascism. In addition the state described in the book doesn't even come close to being described as a fascist state

Well, such a society could easily be described as a fascist state. Fascism is a concept with a broad range of definitions, afterall. I don't think I'd use the term, as it is likely to cause more confusion than convey information, but I wouldn't dispute it if someone else was trying to use it to criticise the society in Starship Troopers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:Provided that healthcare is provided by the federal government, then yes, the person who works as a nurse has been doing federal service. Presumably they would have to do so at a location and pay scale determined by the federal government for a period of no less than two years, and for as much longer as deemed necessary. And remember that in the example of the novel, serving military personnel don't have the franchise, so it is questionable whether someone who dedicates themselves as a lifelong nurse would.

Just take it back a second. I commented on people who were in favour of the idea as presented in the film, and by the OP - military service was the only means of qualifying. Then you replied arguing that some form of risk was necessary, and now seem happy to fall back onto the book definition, and ignore your previous point about risk.

So, are you just arguing that many forms of government service would qualify, including many jobs with no more heroism or risk than an ordinary profession?

sebster wrote:

youbedead wrote:Have either of you read any of Heinlein's work outside of ST, because he was most assuredly not advocating fascism. In addition the state described in the book doesn't even come close to being described as a fascist state

Well, such a society could easily be described as a fascist state. Fascism is a concept with a broad range of definitions, afterall. I don't think I'd use the term, as it is likely to cause more confusion than convey information, but I wouldn't dispute it if someone else was trying to use it to criticise the society in Starship Troopers.

If using the term fascism to describe a state with autocratic dictatorial rule or one that 't seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics.' you can't really describe the government in ST as fascist. I could see a argument that it seeks to remove 'unclean' thought but even then it only does so in a single class course in high-school. To call ST fascist is no better then calling Obamacare communist

youbedead wrote:If using the term fascism to describe a state with autocratic dictatorial rule or one that 't seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics.' you can't really describe the government in ST as fascist. I could see a argument that it seeks to remove 'unclean' thought but even then it only does so in a single class course in high-school. To call ST fascist is no better then calling Obamacare communist

I just said fascism has a broad range of definitions... so why would I pick out one definition? It's a complex term, with a variety of meanings that are often contradictory.

There are parallels, for instance, between fascist Spain and Heinlein's society, that could be worth exploring. The problem is, to expand on the point I made above, that to talk about those similarities by referring to fascism will immediately get people thinking of Nazi Germany or something like that, and cause more trouble than it's worth. That's why I said I wouldn't use the term to describe that society, but at the same time someone who does so isn't strictly wrong, because many elements of the society in Starship Trooper share elements with those broadly found in fascism. For instance, the concept of sacrifice for society and the fixation on tradition (particularly military tradition) are strong elements of fascism.

Fair enough, as I said there are parallels but I agree that it is more trouble than it is worth to use fascism to describe the society.

sebster wrote:
I just said fascism has a broad range of definitions... so why would I pick out one definition? It's a complex term, with a variety of meanings that are often contradictory.

There are parallels, for instance, between fascist Spain and Heinlein's society, that could be worth exploring. The problem is, to expand on the point I made above, that to talk about those similarities by referring to fascism will immediately get people thinking of Nazi Germany or something like that, and cause more trouble than it's worth. That's why I said I wouldn't use the term to describe that society, but at the same time someone who does so isn't strictly wrong, because many elements of the society in Starship Trooper share elements with those broadly found in fascism. For instance, the concept of sacrifice for society and the fixation on tradition (particularly military tradition) are strong elements of fascism.

Finding upon analysis points that could be identified in fascism doesn't at all justify calling the analysed object fascist. That can only be judged once analysis as given way to synthesis. Heinlein's work, as described here and elsewhere, are not fascism. Unity doesn't make fascism. Tradition doesn't make fascism. Jingoism doesn't make fascism. You could even arrange all three togheter and yet not arrive at a fascist result. Fascism doesn't have a broad range of definitions, at least not in any significant way in comparison to other political systems. It just has a broad definition.

What thread are you reading? I mean, here's the opening post;
"What I'm talking about is their system; Everyone has basic rights, but only those who serve in their military are granted "Citizenship", granting them even more rights. Some of these rights would include, for us, The Right to Vote, the Right to run for Public Office, and other stuff like that."

He states 'only those who serve in the military'. And then goes on to say that the vets wouldn't get shafted because everyone in congress would have served. So that's one person who's talking about it just being the military.

Jihadin then says he toys with the idea. Horst says its probably a good idea. Chaosxomega said he's always championed the idea.

None of them are referring to the concepts in the book. They are all referring entirely to military service, and military service alone.

No need to assume those that served or serving cannot read a book
I've read the book, I'm sure Horst and Chong read the book to.

Since its been so long we read the book that maybe the movie version appealed to us to

Do you guys think that a Super Troopers approach would help out America? Would an increase in shenanigans and mustache rides help us through these troubled times?

sebster wrote:

youbedead wrote:Have either of you read any of Heinlein's work outside of ST, because he was most assuredly not advocating fascism. In addition the state described in the book doesn't even come close to being described as a fascist state

Well, such a society could easily be described as a fascist state. Fascism is a concept with a broad range of definitions, afterall. I don't think I'd use the term, as it is likely to cause more confusion than convey information, but I wouldn't dispute it if someone else was trying to use it to criticise the society in Starship Troopers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:Provided that healthcare is provided by the federal government, then yes, the person who works as a nurse has been doing federal service. Presumably they would have to do so at a location and pay scale determined by the federal government for a period of no less than two years, and for as much longer as deemed necessary. And remember that in the example of the novel, serving military personnel don't have the franchise, so it is questionable whether someone who dedicates themselves as a lifelong nurse would.

Just take it back a second. I commented on people who were in favour of the idea as presented in the film, and by the OP - military service was the only means of qualifying. Then you replied arguing that some form of risk was necessary, and now seem happy to fall back onto the book definition, and ignore your previous point about risk.

So, are you just arguing that many forms of government service would qualify, including many jobs with no more heroism or risk than an ordinary profession?

Well, actually I was saying that in the book they demanded some level of risk, but Military wasn't the only thing you could do. Since we are discussing if/how/would it be good for this to be applied to America, I am on board with people doing difficult, tedious work, which I would include nursing as, provided the state ran the medical services. You would basically have to be doing it all pro bono, but I'd be on board with it... and I'd have some way of transitioning from the volunteer field to a retired or 'reserve' version of the job where you are doing the same work at a more senior level with better pay and the franchise.

After being a parent, I'm a firm believer that corporal punishment instituted publicly as the penalty for most misdemeanor offenses would eliminate them entirely.

Whatever else about Heinlein, he definitely got that bit right.

The paddles with the holes drilled in it for a better grip on the butt cheek....yes yes bring it back

DOOMBREAD wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:Veterans are being ripped off, but the military isn't under-appreciated. It is massively over-funded IMHO. Such a system is basically a military dictatorship (and we all know how those usually work out) but it is better than the wealthy getting more votes than the middle class, which is basically what has been happening since the "Corporations= People" ruling IMO.

It doesn't actually stop that you know.

Yeah, but if soldiers are the only ones with a real voice, it might make it better, even though such a system would be not much better in the long run.

And then everyone else is getting ripped off. Unpopular representation rarely results in equal treatment between social classes.

CHP 2 pretty much goes indepth about whats happening in the world. Think we all need to reread the ST to get a better handle

sebster wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Good thing no one's advocated that. I thought we were talking about Heinlein's book.

What thread are you reading? I mean, here's the opening post;
"What I'm talking about is their system; Everyone has basic rights, but only those who serve in their military are granted "Citizenship", granting them even more rights. Some of these rights would include, for us, The Right to Vote, the Right to run for Public Office, and other stuff like that."

He states 'only those who serve in the military'. And then goes on to say that the vets wouldn't get shafted because everyone in congress would have served. So that's one person who's talking about it just being the military.

Jihadin then says he toys with the idea. Horst says its probably a good idea. Chaosxomega said he's always championed the idea.

None of them are referring to the concepts in the book. They are all referring entirely to military service, and military service alone.

My bad. I forgot that NO ONE on the first page of the thread (except possibly dogma) had actually read the book or knew what they were talking about. This thread has been more ignorant than most ST threads I've encountered in the past.

My point was that the error had been pointed out, and multiple people had already said that a military government was a dumb idea, and the conversation had moved on. Your original comment seemed a bit of a non sequitur.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Do you guys think that a Super Troopers approach would help out America? Would an increase in shenanigans and mustache rides help us through these troubled times?

I endorse this plan. Our neighbors in Vermont once again are showing us the way.

Kovnik Obama wrote:That can only be judged once analysis as given way to synthesis.

I thought that came at evaluation under Bloom's.

dogma wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:That can only be judged once analysis as given way to synthesis.

I thought that came at evaluation under Bloom's.

Yes, although I don't see how you could process from analysis to synthesis without a priori generating an evaluation. In fact, you should've identified values right around comprehension, or at least application, and they'll 'control' the final objectivity.

Bloom's taxonomy is a bit overly 'mechanistic', even tho I guess its perfect for learning skills.

Edit ; Also, useful knowledge can be gleaned from simple analysis, and seems to me to be the rule. Certain things can't, perception, political organisations, moral ideas, etc maybe because they're epiphenomenal?

Mannahnin wrote:
My bad. I forgot that NO ONE on the first page of the thread (except possibly dogma)...

Its been at least 10 years since I read it, so I refreshed by Wiki which isn't bad summary of criticism.

Mannahnin wrote:

English Assassin wrote:Regrettably, Heinlein was entirely serious. In fairness to him, his views and his writing matured, and, even if though I still don't agree with the knee-jerk anti-authority, rugged individualism they espouse, some of his later novels are better, particularly The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

How much Heinlein have you actually read, and how long ago? His early works (particularly the "juveniles") are some of his best. Middle of career he played around a lot with more high-concept ideas. Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land are particularly prominent, and are both brilliant books in their own right, though with some flaws (particularly Stranger). Late in life he got more self-indulgent, self-referential and wish-fulfullment fantastical (stuff like To Sail Beyond the Sunset, Number of the Beast, and Cat Who Walks Through Walls).

Heinlein was in a somewhat knee-jerk and reactionary mood when he wrote ST, but anyone who's read it, Moon, and Stranger should be able to tell pretty easily that this is a writer who was capable of seeing multiple different perspectives and worldviews, and of advocating ideas in a novel that he didn''t necessarily agree with or think would definitely work in reality. Some consistent themes definitely emerge and are certainly central to his worldview (the whole rugged individualist thing you mentioned, for example). But claiming he sincerely advocated facism based on ST is like claiming Christianity is all about stoning people to death based on the New Testament.

I was still in my teens when I last read any Heinlein (with the exception of ...Mistress, which I dug out a few months ago, thanks to noticing GW's references to it), and - as you guessed - was referring not to the various Lazarus Long novels of the '80s (which I read and enjoyed at the time,but am conscious that I wouldn't necessarily appreciate now), but to the (later than Starship Troopers) "Stranger...", "Glory Road" and the aforementioned "...Mistress", which I still recall fondly now. The library at my school had quite a selection of Heinlein's early stuff which I, at the time, found disappointingly old-fashioned and pulpy compared with his later (or rather middle) material, and with other sci-fi of the same era I had read around the same time (particularly Clarke - whose later material I have also, in retrospect, come to disdain - and Vonnegut). I don't know whether my opinion were I to revisit them today change; perhaps I should find out.

Mannahnin wrote:It's sad that Moorcock and few other rabble-rousers yelled "facism!" fifty years ago to stir up some discussion, but people are still repeating that claptrap as if it were true.

"Starship Stormtroopers" is a piece of polemic, so judge it on that basis. I can't blame Moorcock for perceiving in Heinlein's romanticisation of militarism and authoritarianism, in his disdain for democracy and personal equality, obvious parallels with the public trappings of fascism; a dangerously, disingenuously simplified projection of reality is indeed what we call propaganda when it's not presented as fiction. (It's worth noting how the two writers' backgrounds inevitably coloured their views; for Heinlein, an American who served in the second world war, it was easy for him to see war as a crusade against evil, for Moorcock, who was six years old when it ended, and who grew up in a ruined 1950s London, the war was a shared tragedy which had destroyed Europe, and ended the forward-looking artistic and intellectual movements of the '20s and '30s.)

Frankly, Moorcock isn't wrong either in lampooning the flatness of Heinlein's phlosophical soundbite-spouting, "competent man" cypher-characters, nor the oddly traditionalist message of most American sci-fi of that type (and of most traditional fantasy), nor indeed the ultimately juvenile nature of the "rebellious hero" who at the end of the story has restored the old order and bows his head to get a medal from the princess. Much as I enjoy a little harmless escapism, it's more than a little disheartening to find science fiction "the fiction of ideas" offering nothing more imaginative or radical in its social prescriptions than more of the same; I'm governed by people with opinions like Heinlein's, don't expect me necessarily to enjoy reading about them. Moreover, I can't avoid noticing that it's among those "rabble-rousing" sci-fi writers of the liberal left - Moorcock, Kurt Vonnegut, Philip K. Dick, J.G. Ballard - not the "Eisenhower men" - Heinlein, Isaac Asimov and John W. Campbell - one finds those who, decades later, still enjoy literary credibility outside of the sci-fi ghetto.

A Town Called Malus wrote: Then what ultimately brought the US out of that depression was the enormous mobilisation for World War 2, which could be viewed as another example of huge government spending which reduced unemployment drastically and increased productivity of the country to unprecedented levels.

That's not actually correct. The mobilisation for WW2 would be somewhat an example of an accommodative measure, but the 'hunkering down' of society in general was adoption of a significant level of austerity. There were fewer goods so there was less consumption and less spending on an individual level. Money was put into bonds or saved. The re-ramping of industry primed the pump for the rebound out of the Depression, but it was the unleveraged stockpiles of household cash (personal disposable income) that kickstarted the whole consumption based economy that lasted at least until the late 80s and could be argued is still going on today.

The Depression did not end because of easy access to cheap capital.

English Assassin wrote:I was still in my teens when I last read any Heinlein (with the exception of ...Mistress, which I dug out a few months ago, thanks to noticing GW's references to it), and - as you guessed - was referring not to the various Lazarus Long novels of the '80s (which I read and enjoyed at the time,but am conscious that I wouldn't necessarily appreciate now), but to the (later than Starship Troopers) "Stranger...", "Glory Road" and the aforementioned "...Mistress", which I still recall fondly now. The library at my school had quite a selection of Heinlein's early stuff which I, at the time, found disappointingly old-fashioned and pulpy compared with his later (or rather middle) material, and with other sci-fi of the same era I had read around the same time (particularly Clarke - whose later material I have also, in retrospect, come to disdain - and Vonnegut). I don't know whether my opinion were I to revisit them today change; perhaps I should find out.

Might be worth it. Some of his early stuff (Tunnel in the Sky is classic) still holds up well, though if "pulpy" is purely a negative quality for you, that's a hindrance. The first couple of books with Lazerus Long (Methuselah's Children, Time Enough for Love, the latter moreso than the former) are still excellent, for my money. Later stuff not so much.

English Assassin wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:It's sad that Moorcock and few other rabble-rousers yelled "facism!" fifty years ago to stir up some discussion, but people are still repeating that claptrap as if it were true.

"Starship Stormtroopers" is a piece of polemic, so judge it on that basis. I can't blame Moorcock for perceiving in Heinlein's romanticisation of militarism and authoritarianism, in his disdain for democracy and personal equality, obvious parallels with the public trappings of fascism;

That's not what he does or says in ST, though. Has it been since you were a teen since you read it, as well? That's what you seem to indicate above. There's certainly romanticisation of the military, but I don't think that's really the same thing as romanticisation of militarism. I don't see any advocacy of authoritarianism in the book; that would be antithetical to Heinlein's worldview. Remember, the book is dedicated to the grunts and the NCOs.

I cannot see where you're getting a disdain for democracy out of it, unless it's (in my view) a misiterpretation of what one professor says in the book. One of the teachers says that one of the reasons past democracies failed, in the background of the book, was because people thought they could simply vote for things to get them. Even if you take that one character as representative of the entire worldview/political viewpoint expressed in the novel, that's not a condemnation of democracy as a whole. It's a condemnation of a selfish, lazy, and shortsigned society making irresponsible choices using democracy. Like the ballot initiatives in California which have made it so hard for them to get their budget under control. Which is the same complaint many of us make today. Heinlein loved democracy, and the society in the book (while not described at length) is democratic. Every person has the right to earn their vote by dint of effort and sacrificing two years (usually) of their time, sweat, and discomfort, in return for the power to make choices which impact everyone, not just themselves. His concept being that by working to earn things we value them more, hold them more precious and might (hopefully) exercise that right more responsibly. People who are actively serving cannot vote or hold office, so society can't be controlled by the military; career military officers are completely out of the political picture until after retirement. In the book the characters express that other systems might work as well, but that system has worked for them so far.

English Assassin wrote:Heinlein, an American who served in the second world war, it was easy for him to see war as a crusade against evil,

While many people have (I think, defensibly) seen WWII as in some ways a war in which genuine evil was fought against and defeated, Heinlein has never (to my knowledge, certainly not in ST) expessed the idea that war is generally a crusade against evil, never mind predominantly. That's not even vaguely representative of his views. Rather he expresses repeatedly that it's a brutal, horrible thing only engaged in for pragmatic reasons of resources and survival. If it has any romance, it's in the sacrifices people make to protect one another and their people and family back home.

English Assassin wrote:Frankly, Moorcock isn't wrong either in lampooning the flatness of Heinlein's phlosophical soundbite-spouting, "competent man" cypher-characters, nor the oddly traditionalist message of most American sci-fi of that type

As for the quality of Heinlein's characters, that's mostly a matter of taste, but certainly I'll grant Moorcock's right to express his. Maybe he was an ass in how he chose to do it, but he has every right to that opinion. I do think good and even great artistic works can be made with a protagonist who is, to some extent, a cipher. Drive is an excellent recent movie, for example, which uses the Steve McQueen-style mysterious hero, and I think novels can work without having to tell us everything about the protagonist's inner struggles.

I don't think that Moorcock accurately understood what "type" Heinlein's sci-fi fell into, which also casts some doubt in his capacity at that time for drawing broad conclusions about other writers' merits or the genre's subcategories and themes.

English Assassin wrote:... (and of most traditional fantasy), nor indeed the ultimately juvenile nature of the "rebellious hero" who at the end of the story has restored the old order and bows his head to get a medal from the princess.

No argument here, but IMO it's unrelated.

English Assassin wrote:... Much as I enjoy a little harmless escapism, it's more than a little disheartening to find science fiction "the fiction of ideas" offering nothing more imaginative or radical in its social prescriptions than more of the same;

Once again, I don't think that's in any way descriptive of Heinlein's work. His books may feature characters who agree with and support the philosophical system they live in (like in ST or MiaHM) as easily as they feature those who are happily trying to overthrow it (like in Stranger, though in MitHM of course they're planning a rebellion to throw off Earth's rule), but in none of them will you find that "rebellious hero to old order" pap.

I'm governed by people with opinions like Heinlein's,

No, I don't think that's true at all. Even if you think one book of Heinlein's is representative of all his opinions, which it certainly isn't.

English Assassin wrote:... don't expect me necessarily to enjoy reading about them. Moreover, I can't avoid noticing that it's among those "rabble-rousing" sci-fi writers of the liberal left - Moorcock, Kurt Vonnegut, Philip K. Dick, J.G. Ballard - not the "Eisenhower men" - Heinlein, Isaac Asimov and John W. Campbell - one finds those who, decades later, still enjoy literary credibility outside of the sci-fi ghetto.

"If poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world, science-fiction writers are its court jesters. We are Wise Fools who can leap, caper, utter prophecies, and scratch ourselves in public. We can play with Big Ideas because the garish motley of our pulp origins makes us seem harmless." -- Bruce Sterling

The last thing I'd like sci-fi writers to worry about is literary credibility outside of the sci-fi ghetto. If they can write a simulatneously entertaining and thought-provoking story, they're doing their jobs. Heinlein did his masterfully. Critics who can't see that mostly harm only themselves, except when they misrepresent the writer's work and stoop to slandering him and that work.

sourclams wrote:That's not actually correct. The mobilisation for WW2 would be somewhat an example of an accommodative measure, but the 'hunkering down' of society in general was adoption of a significant level of austerity. There were fewer goods so there was less consumption and less spending on an individual level. Money was put into bonds or saved. The re-ramping of industry primed the pump for the rebound out of the Depression, but it was the unleveraged stockpiles of household cash (personal disposable income) that kickstarted the whole consumption based economy that lasted at least until the late 80s and could be argued is still going on today.

The Depression did not end because of easy access to cheap capital.

You just explained why the Depression ended due to easy access to cheap capital.