Heinlein, fascinating article

[Revoltingest]

To be fair those on the left often use that argument when those on the right use the "socialism" claim improperly.

Neither side uses a dictionary.

 

[icehorse]

Anyway, read it and I'll look forward to your comments.

Thanks for the article and the thread. Uncanny stuff.

It matches up with Orwell pretty nicely.

Now, my recurring soapbox: the oligarchs and kleptocrats are poisoning everything in our society, and fighting them is something 99.99999% of us should all be doing together.

 

[Heyo]

Starship Troopers especially so. I hated the movie since it was largely an attempt to smear the book.

Poe strikes again.
The movie is not SciFi. It's satire, on par with Space Balls and Dark Star. I don't see how people see advocacy for militarism in it.
The book on the other hand, I am not so sure. It doesn't exactly promote libertarian ideas. Maybe Heinlein would have applauded the movie?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Poe strikes again.
The movie is not SciFi. It's satire, on par with Space Balls and Dark Star. I don't see how people see advocacy for militarism in it.
The book on the other hand, I am not so sure. It doesn't exactly promote libertarian ideas. Maybe Heinlein would have applauded the movie?

I know it was supposed to be satire, but it never came across as such. That was the director's claim after the fact. It makes my a bit leery when they make that sort of claim.

 

[Heyo]

I know it was supposed to be satire, but it never came across as such. That was the director's claim after the fact. It makes my a bit leery when they make that sort of claim.

6:20: "Mobile infantry made me the man I am today". Can you say that with a strait face and without legs and only one hand?
That was exactly the point when I was sure it was satire.

 

[Subduction Zone]

6:20: "Mobile infantry made me the man I am today". Can you say that with a strait face and without legs and only one hand?
That was exactly the point when I was sure it was satire.

A "strait face"? Hopefully not. Better have a towel handy. It was simply to painful. I lasted through four and a half minutes of it.

As to losing body parts, that was not that big of a deal since they were rather easily replaced. Why does a man have to be unscarred to be a man? I seriously did not see satire in that film. He did rather badly misrepresent Heinlein's world. So much so that anyone that read the book probably could not watch the movie.

 

[Heyo]

A "strait face"? Hopefully not. Better have a towel handy. It was simply to painful. I lasted through four and a half minutes of it.

As to losing body parts, that was not that big of a deal since they were rather easily replaced. Why does a man have to be unscarred to be a man? I seriously did not see satire in that film. He did rather badly misrepresent Heinlein's world. So much so that anyone that read the book probably could not watch the movie.

And they say we Germans are humoristically challenged ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

And they say we Germans are humoristically challenged ...

If you think that was satire, you might be. And I do believe that the critics said the same thing. If it was satire it totally missed the mark.

 

[Alien826]

Economic authoritarianism (ie, socialism) isn't libertarian.
Liberals try to claim it is, but I spank them when they do.

I didn't say it was. I was just telling you what my own views are. Libertarian on subjects that could be described as
"personal", left wing on common matters.

If that seems a contradiction to you, let me explain. My underlying values have to do with the happiness and well being of individuals. That, in my opinion, is best served by allowing individuals to live their lives as they wish, so long as they don't by so doing interfere with others' ability to do the same, and at the same time believing that there are things that have to be done by Government, like economic safety nets.

 

[Alien826]

Conservatives & liberals...it seems that both
are unaware of socialism being the people
owning the means of production. Alas, they
both think it's having public schools & roads.

Strictly that's true. But in common usage in the USA it tends to mean the "public roads and schools" and so on. I used to challenge people that railed against "socialism" to define the word. Typically they didn't come up with "means of production" definition. I found though that this tactic didn't advance the conversation at all. They know what they mean and I know what they mean. Might as well accept the word and move on.

 

[Alien826]

Heinlein was a graduate of Annapolis with training in engineering. A lot of his fiction, as has been pointed out here by others, supported his opinion that service in the military was a valid and honorable career choice.

In some ways, I see Stranger in a Strange Land following Starship Troopers as a statement of "you don't know me" from Heinlein to those that labeled him militaristic and fascist as a result of the latter work. He did seem to tend to explore taboo subjects and sometimes in odd ways.

I think he was pretty liberal until just after WWII and then did an about face to some degree with strong libertarian influences.

I've been reading Heinlein's work since I was about 8. My father and mother had a couple of his novels in our home library that got me started off. He was from Missouri too.

I like David Brin as well. That was a good article.

It seems I have a fancy for hard science, science fiction authors, though not exclusively.

I agree about RAH.

I think I've read all his adult fiction and a few of the others.

David Brin is good too. Particularly the "uplift" books. For those not familiar, in this fictional universe races were "uplifted" to the status of higher intelligence, etc by other (alien) races, to whom they owed thousands of years of service. Part of it was that nobody could find out who uplifted the human race.

Yes on hard sf. Most of the modern stuff is better described as fantasy, imo, which doesn't make it bad of course.

 

[Alien826]

A "strait face"? Hopefully not. Better have a towel handy. It was simply to painful. I lasted through four and a half minutes of it.

As to losing body parts, that was not that big of a deal since they were rather easily replaced. Why does a man have to be unscarred to be a man? I seriously did not see satire in that film. He did rather badly misrepresent Heinlein's world. So much so that anyone that read the book probably could not watch the movie.

Oddly, I did enjoy the movie, while recognizing that it had little to do with the book, other than presenting a strawman representation to support the idea that the book was fascist and so on. Why did I enjoy it? I don't know. It was fun if taken at face value and ignoring the book.

I have to try to list ways that the film deviated from the book in order to make that point. Please add anything I've missed.

The disabled recruiting officer was in the book, but Johnny Rico later sees him walking along quite normally, with prosthetic limbs. He tells him that he appears that way to discourage anyone who thinks war is glamorous (my words).

The technology in the book was advanced, as you might expect. Powered suits for the infantrymen, various advanced weaponry and so on. Good military tactics, though things go wrong as they would. They were not just thrown into battle WW1 style to be slaughtered.

People were not "forced to join the military to get basic freedoms". Any public service would do, though it was made to be uncomfortable and somewhat dangerous. The only thing a non-citizen lacked compared to the citizen was the ability to vote. Rico's father was not a citizen but had become a successful (rich?) businessman.

All that stuff on TV was total invention as I remember. No doubt added to hammer home the "fascist" point.

Johnny and Carmen were not lovers, just friends. He didn't join up to be with her, but to please his friends.

Carl was a very minor character as far as the story goes. He was killed soon after the "military" part started. No fascist role or nazi uniform.

The "bugs" did not fight with purely natural abilities. They used weapons and had spaceships, as one would expect of a space faring race. There was a "hive mind" aspect though.

Zim never got himself busted to private to get a more active role in the war. He was on rotation as an instructor at the training camp and reappears later as a master sergeant who gets Johnny out of trouble. He did capture the "brain" bug.

The training camp was much more stringent than in the film. It was designed to eliminate all but the toughest. Johnny did get whipped for an infraction though he didn't get anyone killed.

 

[Revoltingest]

If that seems a contradiction to you, let me explain. My underlying values have to do with the happiness and well being of individuals. That, in my opinion, is best served by allowing individuals to live their lives as they wish, so long as they don't by so doing interfere with others' ability to do the same, and at the same time believing that there are things that have to be done by Government, like economic safety nets.

I'm not objecting to your values....just the label.
Libertarianism is about....well, liberty, both social
& economic. (Without the latter, the former doesn't
exist as an emergent property.) Liberty isn't something
provided by government...rather, it is afforded, ie,
creating the environment where it can thrive.

Happiness is a great thing, but tis up to the individuals
to seek it. Liberty enables, but doesn't guarantee it.
Now I propose adding a reasonable level of largess
to the people, ie, social welfare supports, eg, health
care.
Economic liberty (ie, capitalism) provides the income
to pay taxes that pay for the social supports.

 

[Revoltingest]

Strictly that's true. But in common usage in the USA it tends to mean the "public roads and schools" and so on.

I'll acknowledge that the word is in flux. And the wiser
liberals prefer the alternative, "democratic socialism".
Not a perfect label, but better than the more strictly
defined "socialism".
Note that some, AOC, appear to use "socialism" per
the dictionary, because she has expressed opposition
to capitalism

I used to challenge people that railed against "socialism" to define the word.

I rail against it as authoritarian,
& I've posted the same dictionary
definition ad nauseum on RF.

Typically they didn't come up with "means of production" definition. I found though that this tactic didn't advance the conversation at all. They know what they mean and I know what they mean. Might as well accept the word and move on.

Tis up to thou & I to correct them.

 

[Alien826]

I'll acknowledge that the word is in flux. And the wiser
liberals prefer the alternative, "democratic socialism".
Not a perfect label, but better than the more strictly
defined "socialism".
Note that some, AOC, appear to use "socialism" per
the dictionary, because she has expressed opposition
to capitalism

I rail against it as authoritarian,
& I've posted the same dictionary
definition ad nauseum on RF.

Tis up to thou & I to correct them.

Actually, I don't object to the word, however used. What I object to and do try to correct those who do it, is the conflation by many Americans of "socialism" with "communism". Both or either are used to describe anything that is not total laissez faire capitalism.

 

[Alien826]

I'm not objecting to your values....just the label.
Libertarianism is about....well, liberty, both social
& economic. (Without the latter, the former doesn't
exist as an emergent property.) Liberty isn't something
provided by government...rather, it is afforded, ie,
creating the environment where it can thrive.

Happiness is a great thing, but tis up to the individuals
to seek it. Liberty enables, but doesn't guarantee it.
Now I propose adding a reasonable level of largess
to the people, ie, social welfare supports, eg, health
care.
Economic liberty (ie, capitalism) provides the income
to pay taxes that pay for the social supports.

So I'm not allowed to be libertarian in one area of my life and socialist in another. OK.

Good to know you are in favor of (some) social welfare. I think you are a closet socialist!

Oh, I agree about happiness. That's why the Declaration of Independence says "the pursuit of happiness". You are free to pursue it. There is no guarantee that you will attain it. That's why I added "well being". You know, you really can't take that away from a person, no matter what the circumstances. You can only make it more or less difficult.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, I don't object to the word, however used. What I object to and do try to correct those who do it, is the conflation by many Americans of "socialism" with "communism". Both or either are used to describe anything that is not total laissez faire capitalism.

Just be sure to criticize both left
& right for mis-using the word.

 

[Revoltingest]

So I'm not allowed to be libertarian in one area of my life and socialist in another.

Nope. Tis a violation of Revoltistanian law.
Social liberty without economic liberty is rather in
the "liberal" (in the N Ameristanian sense) domain.
Libertarianism has both social & economic liberty.
Also, history shows that replacing capitalism with
socialism has always resulted in authoritarianism
(an emergent property of socialism).

Good to know you are in favor of (some) social welfare. I think you are a closet socialist!

I'm not in favor of it philosophically.
However, it's politically impossible to do without
social welfare cuz of where democracy leads,
& it's necessary for a country's political stability.
So I advocate it in the political realm.

Oh, I agree about happiness. That's why the Declaration of Independence says "the pursuit of happiness". You are free to pursue it. There is no guarantee that you will attain it. That's why I added "well being". You know, you really can't take that away from a person, no matter what the circumstances. You can only make it more or less difficult.

OK.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree about RAH.

I think I've read all his adult fiction and a few of the others.

David Brin is good too. Particularly the "uplift" books. For those not familiar, in this fictional universe races were "uplifted" to the status of higher intelligence, etc by other (alien) races, to whom they owed thousands of years of service. Part of it was that nobody could find out who uplifted the human race.

Yes on hard sf. Most of the modern stuff is better described as fantasy, imo, which doesn't make it bad of course.

I haven't read all of Heinlein's works, but a majority of them. For some stories, several times. The first Heinlein novel I ever read was "Orphans of the Sky" when I was 8 and when I was 10 I read "Stranger in a Strange Land". It was probably a little much for a 10 year old, but I still enjoyed it.

I also like the Uplift books. A couple of favorite short stories of his are "The Giving Plague" and "The Crystal Spheres".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know it was supposed to be satire, but it never came across as such. That was the director's claim after the fact. It makes my a bit leery when they make that sort of claim.

I liked the movie. It wasn't the book, but I still liked it.