Can someone explain to me why humans are always federations or unions or in some other way just the UN in space, but aliens always have single nation states?
Because America is a federation, but the militant human space empire being just America that's taken over would look bad , so it's a 'we're totally the un you guys' voluntary union instead. In nothing but name, because wackjobs
bc with aliens either the fascists won, Britain really did manage to take over the world, or the East India company decided it wanted to be a world government.
This video made me realize that Hive Minds make great sci-fi antagonists. We humans take individualism for granted, but imagine a species that treats intergalactic war like a boxing match. A species with no concept of individualism wouldn't bat an eyelash at losing drones and harvesters. Burning a planet full of people isn't an atrocity, it's just like punching the enemy in the face. The main challenge in the story wouldn't be about who has the biggest planet burners, but how to see from the other's side perspective and coexist.
I actually kind of like the idea of a hive mind after all if all individuality is lost them you wouldn’t Mourn it, kind of like how a cell in your body doesn’t mourn its lack of individuality.
An example of military sci-fi that is critical of the military is The Forever War by Joe Haldeman. Haldeman was a Vietnam vet and Heinlein said it was a much better book than Starship Troopers.
Average mil sci-fi novel -American troops -Made by Tom Kratman, John Ringo-Dingo, or someone nobodies heard of -War is glorious despite every single man from my entire battalion is dead except for me and I now have ptsd, but it’s still glorious
That's why I love Dune. The second book literally starts with the protagonist, who is basically the emperor of the universe, comparing himself to Hitler and hating what his actions caused.
It's either as the other commenter said, ancestral memory, or it's really obscure knowledge. There is still some historians, like the IXians. I believe I remember he references some source material that he asks Stilgar if he read it. At least Stilgar is oblivious to Hitler or Genghis Khan.
@@seekingabsolution1907 its a very vague and distant bit of historical information- I think paul literally refers to Hitler as "emperor hitler" or something similar
Dune is a very funny series because the first is about showing us how a man became the protagonist of dune and the rest of the series is how being the protagonist of dune sucks
@@deadaccount2968 What, the schoolgirl mecha? Yeah, it's called the Nobel Gundam and it's the fighter for Neo Sweden. There's a couple others, but my sources were never reliable enough to confirm where they were from.
This is something I've always thought was really weird. There are so many weird new government types someone could create in a sci-fi setting with ALIENS who are fundamentally different from us, yet they all seem to be unable to stray from the militarism and imperialism that is already so incredibly oversaturated. Seriously, how about branching off into new political territories in your story about new and different worlds.
@@yamibakura8597 there Is posibility they would do any of that to us. Or that we would be so different from each other that we wouldn't even consider there Is "inteligent" life in first place. But we probably kill ourself by accident anyway before we meet aliens.
Sci-fi government idea: Bicracy-ish government where the most important decisions are made by the overseer council: A group of 9 extremely intelligent individuals who had been completely brainwashed to lose all emotions and self interest and to only ever strife for the betterment of humanity. New members can only ever be appointed after close testing and a majority vote. The council doesn't micromanage, however, it has the authority to do absolutely anything through a majority vote, including ordering political purges, immediate army deployment etc. I would expect it to result in Machiavellian but effective rulership, possibly giving humanity edge over other species.
Hard Sci Fi tend to talk about systems that are even more extreme than fascism societies. You have the Xeelee Sequence for example, which is one absolute nightmare of a universe where freedom means nothing and you got more chances of dying because you attempted to comprehend the alien species that enslaved you, or dying in mines and gigantic working infrastructures than dying of old age. Like, this book series is so extreme, Hitler could read it and say "woah man, slow down with the violence, this is too much to handle". Other than that, I think the omnipresence of dictatorships in Sci-fi is mostly due to the fact that most novels were written either before or after WWII, and they used the thematics of a highly regressive system using advanced technology to extend his power even further. Most dictatorships relied on new technologies and scientific discoveries for various inhumane uses.
It's also way easier to just write "Emperor Jusannomion send his Armada to attack the Human Empire" than spell out 85 nations across the 3 supercontinents having representatives, political parties, and a religious obligation to face a revolving door of "holy enemies", especially when readers are dumb and publishers want something that fits in a 5.5x8.5x.067 airport paperback.
Xeelee Sequence literally has humanity in a total war state that is only stable because they're in war. As soon as the war "ends", the whole thing collapses.
Furthermore the Xeelee Sequence, and well, whatever humanity has going on is one of the few universes to be shittier then warhammer40k... which basically asked the question. "Hey how hilariously shitty can we make a system of government without having it realistically fracture at the first sign of chaos."
Heinlein wrote Stranger in a Strange Land. It was a huge hit with beatniks and other weirdos, who started showing up and camping on Heinlein's lawn. So he wrote Starship Troopers and dedicated it to drill sergeants to make the hippies get off his lawn. Looks like it worked really well.
I love warhammer 40k and the Imperium of Man. Do I identify as the politics of the Imperium? Hell no. I just enjoy interesting settings that aren’t just “utopian future!”
From my perspective i see 40k as a grim reminder of how fucked a galactic wide empire could be. Especially in terms of wars and casualties. But there´s also a kind of hope in 40k. Even in reading the grim darkness that the universe throws at humanity, as a species humans are still there. Makes you think what kind of hardships our species could endure and overcome.
But the imperium of man isn't fascist. They're a theocratic necrocracy with more in common with a medieval fuedal empire than Nazi Germany. The commisar themselves are a pretty major give away that the imperium is not fascist and is more like North Korea with its veneration of a long 'dead' leader of 'divine' origins.
What makes WH40K cool is that it acknowlodges how fucked up the Imperium is, even though they are the closest thing to the “good guys” in the setting (yeah, Tau are also huge assholes). But what makes the fight worth it are the small victories, the small battles and heroic deeds in it.
*That's fine, so long as you are self-aware about how horrible the Imperium would be if it was real and you don't un-ironically think of it as a desirable model state.*
@@leogazebo5290 This was more of a note to myself because it was something I relearned earlier today and consistently try to relearn. I find that it's a good reminder to have.
@@leogazebo5290 ah, i see. i did not understand that. thank you for the clarification (i'm being serious btw) really glad i didn't get aggressive/defensive lol
I’d recommend the book series Legend of the Galactic Heroes (the anime is great too but I don’t recommend people 110 episode anime unless they already watch a lot of anime) It’s about the war between two galactic nations, one of which is an autocratic monarchy and the other a failing democracy. The whole series is extremely political and goes very in-depth with its criticism of both systems of power while portraying them through a neutral lens. Many characters uphold democratic ideals to strive for, but know that the current system is corrupt and is not serving the people by continuing a 150 year war and perpetrating a fanatic zeal to fight the evil totalitarian regime next door, all the while the empire is inefficient and stagnant and its leadership is also slowly decaying, but that means that its giving room for talented people to rise in power through achievement. The book goes into great depth over the theoretical failures of the two systems but also the current situation that does not allow for improvement and better serving the people, which is never considered an impossibility and is overall the ideal way to govern humanity. I think you would really enjoy them, there’s 10 books, all around 300 pages more or less, and it goes way more in-depth then I ever could. It’s also an interesting character study of our two main characters, a military hero of the alliance and an upstart ambitions commander in the Empire
@@JeevesAnthrozaurUS In that I am more for the Autocracy - Republican Democracy Is my least liked form of government. In the story Itself, the Autocracy was of more benefit
I'm currently on book seven and loving it. It's a rare series that manages to make both sides of the conflict sympathetic while exploring the inherent flaws in their world views and systems. Though the historical parts of the series can drag on a while.
I want to see a sci-fi setting where actual nation states are left on earth and the aliens also aren't united, but they too live on a planet divided by nation states. A lot of sci-fi books have this obsession with global or intergalactic unity and I feel like that is just very unlikely given how fractured and culturally diverse our planet is.
While its perfectly reasonable that the planet wouldn't be unified, it is very difficult to not have the space around the planet unified. One power will eventually gain control of space, and that power will then gain control of the planet. They may not control all the land or the water, but they would trap everyone else on there. Its similar to how naval power is not easily split and naturally results in one country gaining near total dominance over the sea, but space would be even more decisive because there is no terrain or land mass to hide behind. A contested space would most likely occur when what is in space doesn't offer enough advantage for one side to take control of it. That's the kind of situation the world is currently living in. Nothing in space is worth the money and effort needed to own outer space. Gundam 00 does a good take on this situation.
our plant has done nothing but become less fractured and cultjrally diverse since humans learned to farm. family groups become city states, that become countries that growth and form alliances with other countries. the same goes with every culture in history as well. the only why to maintain a separate country/culture is to remain isolated. and there is simply no way for a technologically advanced planet to maintain that kind of isolation for long. the isolated country will always be at a disadvantage/less developed then its unified counter parts.
@@dexdrako It is true that the planet is becoming more and more united, however a lot of this unity can easily be broken up again. Separatist tensions lead to all sorts of problems right now and they will do the same in the future. Also there might not be one hegemon that unifies earth eventually, but 2 or more each with their own spheres of influence on the planet who compete over space. I'm thinking a USA vs. EU vs. China vs. Russia vs. India situation. None of them would be able to take control alone. Of course a million different ways something like this can play out and eventually there will be a unifying force most likely, the question is just how long that takes and how long it lasts.
Surprised to the The Lost Fleet included here; the main character's pretty dead-set against anything that would destroy the democracy of his people, and it's entirely within his power as a literal living legend to do exactly that. He'd have carte blanche to do pretty much every fascist trick pointed out in this video, and he not only doesn't do it, he talks others who originally were all for it into trying to reform the democracy instead. Atrocities that went entirely without comment at the beginning of the war are roundly criticized by him and, by the later parts of the series, simply don't happen in his fleet. The sort of "internal cleansing" mentioned in the video is something he is often tempted by, (and which other characters explicitly urge him to do) but which he repeatedly rejects, even to the extent of converting other characters to his side. In short, I can see why it seems fascist as there's a lot of corruption on both sides of the war, but the ideals the main character represents (and, tellingly, manages to spread throughout his people and others) is pretty far from it.
"he talks others who originally were all for it into trying to reform the democracy instead." It's not even so much as getting the other characters to reform the democracy but much more so about getting the military to start trusting their civilian leadership again and getting the politicians to stop trying to protect themselves from a coup (and in the process almost inciting one).
The Lost Fleet has its "dumb bureaucratic peaceniks" moments, but it also has a lot of reflection on how hero-worship and jingoist attitudes ultimately corrupt and corrode society in general and the military in particular. Geary is genuinely horrified how many pointless battles and atrocities were sanctified by his name, and how a small ship captain from his day knows more about actual art of war than the new era senior admirals, mostly because the kind of "superior warrior spirit" magical thinking (inherent in that "war as a good thing" aspect of f-word) replaced actual training and education. Then, in the spin-off The Lost Stars he outright shows why and how that kind of "third way" totalitarian society won't work. So, I'd say that while the author has his blind spots, and definitely not a leftist, he has enough self-awareness not to make it as accidentally fashy as your average mil sci-fi. (Or as intentionally fashy as the worst trash in the genre is.)
This is why the Imperium of Man from the 40k Universe is very interesting many outside of the Fandom believe it to be Facist government, but in truth the Imperium is de-centerized Government. It more of a feudal society with small holdings of planets and systems that put fealty to the Emperor of Mankind, and many worlds have different governments on each worlds, like on one world there is a feudal king that believe his rule is divine, and in another there is democratic government that put its officials by popular vote. Most Sci fi Governments are too stable considering how vast the Galaxy, and communication will be the biggest challenge to maintaining an centralized government which if not properly explained feels a bit of a cop out.
Inquisitor Garza I've concluded the Imperium of Man isn't a 'state' or 'empire' at all, at least not in the way that we think of those terms. Rather, it's an idea. Trimmed down to its most basic tenets, it's the idea that humans are alone in a sea of hostile alien creatures who must be exterminated if humanity is to survive and thrive. And the only ones humanity can rely on for support are each other and of course their glorious leader, the God-Emperor of Mankind.
@@lazergurka-smerlin6561 Religion is an integral part of it, yes. Without the unifying force of the God-Emperor as a figurehead, it would be much harder to keep the Imperium together.
After reading Starship Troopers I found the original usage of “stable genius” hilarious. As in, a stable genius is a genetically engineered genius dog that can talk and is as smart as a stupid human... it’s dumb but for a dog is smart. Someone also called them selves a stable genius... the definition still works.
The lost fleet series is actually quite good, i havent finished it yet, i think i am around book 7. Its really funny how many characters want the protagonist to become a dictator but the protagonist its like: "No, my loyalties are wit the alliance". it happens almost 7 times per book.
"The Lost Fleet has strong overtones of militarism" made me do a spit take. One of the central tropes in this series is the main character actively opposing a military takeover even when he seems to be the only grown up in the whole galaxy and would get the dictatorship handed over to him by the people on a silver platter. War is being depicted as eroding any decent human values and deeply traumatizing (basically everyone in this series is hopped up on anti PTSD drugs). In the series war is seen as a sometimes neccessary force but just as important is building coalitions and mutual trust between allies through honesty and humanity. In a spinoff series you can watch the protagonists and their society slowly, almost unnoticeably change from a dystopian, authoritarian hellscape to a more peaceful, more humane society. ("I don't think I could bring myself to order my troops to shoot the protesters. And I don't think they would follow such an order anyway.")
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was shocked when he listed Lost Fleet. The protagonist spends more time fighting the follies of fascism than the actual enemy.
@@aralornwolf3140 insurrection is very anti democracy. Webber also traditionally treats elected politicians and people trying to make peace as dupes at best
16:38 In lost fleet, that ideology of "civilian dont fight so they're not worthy to rule" is in total contradiction with the main character ideology, main character whom happen to be the dude with the most common sense in the alliance military. Geary actually despise that sort of thinking and has to, regulary, repeat that he doesn't want to be a dictator and that the military should answer to elected official.
James, I think a better description of the government in Starship Troopers (the book) is less fascism and more like the Roman Republic of the Punic wars. Also, in the novel, you can get the vote doing something non military; it just has to be something related to serving humanity at large. The desk sergeant at the recruiting station Rico goes to sign up at notes that they have to take everyone who signs up; even if they’re deaf, blind and mute. They’ll find something for that applicant to do, even if it’s counting the hairs on a caterpillar at some research station. Edit: Well back here again. James, my good man, how many Lost Fleet books did you read? Much of the later novels deal with the main character Admiral Geary actively refusing attempts from within his own command to install him as a military dictator. Politicians are often portrayed sympathetically, and the Alliance military is often portrayed as stupid or overly aggressive. If anything, the series as a whole honestly feels more centrist than anything like far right fascism. I understand why Starship troopers is on this list (even if I politely disagree with your interpretation), but I am truly baffled as to why the Lost Fleet is on this list all.
Thank you for saying this! I was worried the comments sections was gonna be filled with biased people who didn't actually know what the books were about.
It's been a long time since I read Starship Troopers, but to my memory their government would be best described as a highly militaristic libertarian republic where citizenship is a wage given for service to the republic, not a birthright.
Just because sci fi has a lot of fascist space empires doesn't mean the work is conveying a fascist messages. Fascist space empires tend to make for good villains. Or in the case of Warhammer 40k-they remind you just how fucked the universe is. I mean think about it. It is a universe dominated by either space fascists or ravenous chaotic monsters out for pure destruction for the sake of it.
Sadly, right-wing pundits ignore it cuz the works make the fascists look kinda cool. Setting it from the perspective of the fascists and not the people/aliens the fascists are oppressing feels strange. Warhammer 40k’s setting is objective nightmarish, but because it makes the human soldier guys look cool, fascist wannabes ignore all depth. They think they’re gonna be the soldiers and not the regular folks who die in coal mines serving the dying Emperor.
I'm gonna be picky here. 02:53 In the novel STARSHIP TROOPERS it is explicitly said serving soldiers are not allowed to vote, and the military does obey the civilian government. This is not a "military elite." Not saying this is a particularly good set of institutions, and am not referring to the motion picture, but I like precision. 04:44 Likewise this is an absurd critique. The novel does not portray this at all. It sees the idea of service as ennobling (as btw do I) and that it just tends to make better voters overall. This is hardly fascism. To be sure, a facist can read it that way--but then fascists can read the Bible and see it as praising the white race (who are never mentioned anywhere in its pages). You also seem to be confusing a paradox with a contradiction. LIfe is full of the former, including the fact that in times of war putting the good of the many before the individual is the only way to defend individual liberty. The latter would be (for example) God both giving humans free will and making it impossible for us to commit sin at the same time. 06:29 This sarcasm frankly grates. You could make this point in a straightforward manner. But to be fair that is a personal response. 09:39 Honestly you seem to be cherry-picking what are fun but not terribly good books, and missing the actual themes involved. CRUSADE was all about remaining sane and ethical amid war, and in many ways the books about the Arachnid War were about that as well. I agree the creation of this living force of nature that had to be exterminated at all costs is problematical to say the least. But the books have a lot more nuance than you're giving them credit for, even if they are the literary equivalent of a delicious but unhealthy pastry you should avoid making a regular part of your diet. 10:56 YOu're missing what is truly absurd about this subplot. The book makes crystal clear the horrors of the Arachnids are generally known, but some people refuse to believe it. Which I supposed might well happen but this clumsy criticism of a "liberal" press doesn't do much to explore this (the CHTOR books by David Gerrold do a much, much better job of exploring this idea). 11:58 Again, super simplistic analysis which even in this rather simplistic series of stories is more complex than you are giving it credit for. INSURRECTION portrays blatant prejudice, and corruption grinding down and hurting a big chunk of members. In effect the Federation government is enacting a kind of gerrymandering specifically to keep the Fringe from having any influence even after their numbers and influence have finally approached that of the Heart and Corporate Worlds. The Fringe doesn't want to run everything, but rather demand that they be treated equally. Not at all what you are describing. 13:48 This is an excellent point. The novel is nowhere near large enough to give any semblance of a realistic or detailed portrait of the context. But the previous books do hammer it home that the Corporate Worlds have been fiddling with regulations and policies to give themselves profits and control over interstellar commerce at the expense of the Fringe. 14:28 You see, this strikes me as the most chilling thing you've said. You literally dismiss economic exploitation and hardship with "that is the way the game works." In fact, after a few generations of this kind of thing, the exploited are often looking for a way to strike back--and blaming them for it makes zero sense. These aren't particularly good books but MY GOD you are cherry-picking to make your point...poorly. 15:01 Again, you are cherry-picking in a manner that goes over the line into dishonesty. Honestly, I think you have a perfectly legitimate point to make about the values of military scifi and how they all too often wander into fascism or at least militarisitic ideology--but your examples are poor ones, at last as you present them.
@Cian McCabe civil service is fascist? Fuck you Civilian Air patrol Fascist, Coast Guard fascist, NASA Fascist, public schools fascist. Every thing is fascist because it is wrong to believe that service to the society is a noble thing. Because that is wrong think.
It's probably just because military sci-fi is by its nature centered around the military and any military, no matter how liberal or libertarian its parent society is, will always have conservative authoritarian undertones.
@@adamnesico Because militaries are organizations constructed around hierarchies of command and base themselves on a traditional culture and preserving its own traditions.
I think Legend of the Galactic Heroes is a very good take on it. Showing the flaws and rights of the systems it shows. Democracy isn't presented as the perfect option, but is represented as the voice of the people. Autocracy isnt represented as an evil sin, but an effecient way to change a society; though essentially plays russian-roulette after the benevolent autocrat (in the case of this story, the "blonde brat" in my pfp) dies. It also shows how people enter the military, both with want and not. One protagonist enters it with revenge and ambition on his mind, while the other protagonist enters due to t being his only choice for University. It also shows how hierarchies can be annoying. One protagonist has to handle antagonists from his subordinates, while the other has to handle it from their superiors.
@@adamnesico because they're organisations built on obeying hierarchies to enforce the will of the country's leaders on another population by force. It's difficult, like really difficult to wage an offensive war on a large scale without a chain of command. it's possible, but like, tricky because keeping control of large groups of soldiers and occupied areas Without reporting to a central command body. That said there is a lot to be said for the benefits of horizontal organisation in war since it allows for alot more versatility and responsiveness. It is just that not many people practice it because of the greater difficulty it creates for making decisions on a large scale.
2:50 It was also military defeat at the hands of a communist regime called The Chinese Hegemony that led to the collapse of Democracy in the book. 14:27 Its true that there are going to be losers in a capitalist economy. But there are actual examples from history where it was made illegal for people living on the fringes to even play the game in the first place. Like when Britain and France made it illegal for the residents of their colonies to open businesses that would compete with firms in the mother country. That isn't really inherent to capitalism. If it were, then there wouldn't be any capitalist countries without colonies. But there are, like Switzerland.
Most “foreign firms” in the world are just owned/started by expats/already wealthy foreigners who got western style education. It would be interesting to see how a business would have evolved from a eastern point of view. I know Spain has some huge coops which are unlike most western firms tho.
@@acceleration4443 There is the Sumitomo Group. They were founded during Japan's isolationist period by a former buddhist monk. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumitomo_Group
Come on, you can't call Heinlein a fascist for writing a fascist book (or two) The guy pretty much wrote a book promoting every ideology imaginable, since he went through more phases than an entire classroom of emo kids. ...That and a bunch more that were basically porn, but at least it was better crafted porn than twilight.
Honestly, this really helps to encapsulate what I love so much about Ender’s Game, and how it’s followed up by Speaker for the Dead, they’re basically an inversion of the “Starship Troopers” setup. The war between the Buggers and humanity was ultimately caused by a complete misunderstanding between radically different species, and the fact that it ends up escalating to genocide is something that the protagonist ends up living the entire rest of his life trying to reverse. Ender’s natural empathy is what’s twisted by the awful society he lives in into his ultimate weapon, and we see the psychological toll that being raised as a child soldier takes on him. Ultimately, it’s his ability to communicate and understand “the other” that make him such a great leader and strategic thinker, and it’s also why he destroys his own legacy and goes on an eternal quest to make up for what he did. I’d definitely recommend Speaker if you read Ender’s Game when you were younger, it’s really good. Card is still a right-wing whacko, don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of misogyny in the way the female characters are portrayed, Speaker gets a little white savior-y, the original version of EG had lot of Cold War era fearmongering about the Russians, and that kind of stuff only gets worse in the later books of the Ender’s Shadow series (and the main series books after Speaker just get... *weird*) but despite all of those EG and Speaker are always going to have a place in my heart.
@@mo-sl4bj Thanks. I guess it depends on what the entry tests are. Like if it's physical stuff physical stuff then yeah I would assume there would be more males than females because like the person said its evolution. Males and females evolved differently. Males are the more physical sex and females the less physical sex. Doesnt male one superior to the other it's just how we developed. If it's like intelligence based testing then yeah theres a bit of a problem with the quote because intellectually I'd say the sexes are identical in capability as far as I know.
Would you rather him ignore the gender imbalance inherit in most militaries? Yes the male characters outnumber the female, but Petra, Lt Anderson, Virlomi, ect. are shown to be completely competent in their own right with Petra being described as the best soldier at Battle School. Plus Valentine shows a glimpse of the normal world and is intellectually shown to be an equal to her brothers. The three are only separated by temperament, not ability. What I loved as a kid was how international the Battle School was. It felt like the whole world was together in this struggle.
@@Gyro_Scope360 The entry test is purely psychological, they are looking for certain character traits in their candidates. Ender's Big brother fails to get into Battle school because he is too violent and aggressive, while his sister fail because she is too empathetic and not aggressive enough. The book claims that girls (battle school admit 5~6 year old children) are far less likely to exhibit the correct psychological for being effective soldiers.
The fringe worlds sound like the Independent Planets in Firefly. This reminds me of how the Alliance only looks like the bad guys because we're seeing their world through the eyes of their enemies.
I mean, the Alliance tortured River into being a psychic killing machine and created the Reavers as a failed mind-control experiment, so it’s hard to *really* argue honestly in their favor.
@@ofthecaribbean That's basically one of the things that caused the break in Insurrection: the seats on their legislature were at least 1 vote per planet, but plants above a certain level of population got extra seats, reasonably enough. Historically the vastly greater populations of corporate and heart worlds gave them overwhelming majorities, balanced by the fringe worlds getting more representation per head (since they were assured of at least 1 vote per planet). As the fringe world population increased, they were reaching the point that some fringe planets were getting more than one vote, while the corporate and heart world vote numbers weren't really going up. then an issue arose that would lead to raising the threshold population for gaining extra votes being increased and the Fringe worlders saw this as intentionally keeping them from getting the voting share that their population now merited. throw in a political assassination of one of their leaders when they almost succeeded in contesting the decision legitmately, and the political process ended up discredited. which side was fascist (could be both), I leave to political theorists.
@@mickbrown7793 I see. Ultimately in a democratic system, equal representation should be assured, so they started out right but committed one atrocity too many
@@ofthecaribbean And there is no way a electoral college can be rig for the benefit of special interest groups. Or said special interest groups won't just buy out the politicians from the start.
Have you ever read The Iron Dream? God that book was a trip but it’s a great critique of the military sci-fi genre and the fandom around it because it takes all their problematic aspects to the most hilarious yet uncomfortable extreme.
The biggest issue with this video is that it seems to have no idea of the concept of militarism, so instead puts forward Fascism as a poor replacement. It is perfectly understandable that a military sci-fi story would say that military force is good and just in certain situations, which is often an unprovoked attack from a foreign power. The challenge with militarism is that it is apolitical. That means that virtually every type of political system can be militaristic. There is a further challenge that what works in militarizes are universal, so every military looks similar. There was very little actual difference between the various militarizes of that fought in WWII, even though the governments involved had radically different political systems. The values of duty, loyalty, and courage were all qualities praised by every military, so a person who knows no context would struggle to infer how a government works by just looking at a military unit. This issue for the video is seen well by Starship Troopers. The radical idea put forward in that book is that a government is only able to stand if the people are willing to voluntarily fight to maintain it. Every type of political government fully believe that compelled military service was both moral and right. Even democracies had no problem forcing a citizen to die. Starship Troopers argued that was inherently wrong, and even that a democracy would be stronger without it. It is a fun point of history that reality has born out Heinlein's vision, though the Marian Reforms had already pointed that out in history.
ever heard of ww1 ? this is what military sci fi is way more close to then nazi Germany. most military scifi barely talk about racial purity or that every single aspect of society should be under the state. its more like the government has a war to win and the military is so obsessed with winning they do everything to win it military and use everything. for example jews were very crucial in ww1 germany military research like poison gas unlike nazi germany who rather put political goals and hinder military ones unlike in the Kaiserreich
1:01 So basically...it's possible and even necessary to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects?
Star Wars doesn't really belong here. The only series' that can really be called military sci fi were the prequels and the Clone Wars. And those series' portrayed war as an almost universal negative that's used as a tool by those in power to retain and grow their power at the cost of those below.
also in the clone ears Multimedia project it was very obvious and also in the movie with every setback the senate was blamed and more and more things were nationalized under the supreme chancellor
There *are* good subversions. I remember particularly one series, whose name I can't recall, which basically chronicles a journey of dissilusion with the human government. We begin indoctrinated into thinking everything in the universe is hostile and violent, and gradually learn that while the universe is very violent, the human government wants us to think that it's unfixable. The story ends with "Humanity" and "The State" being broken apart. Oh, now I remember! Old Man's War.
@Suebian Read the book series. It's way more nuanced than that. Spoilers ahead: Basically: the first book in the series establishes that the universe is full of violent, angry people that want to kill us. This is why, understandably, the Earth government is waging a war against them to protect our colonies and keep them safe. The second book goes into why the universe is full of violent, angry people that want to kill us: because they've done the math and believe that in the long run, the only chance for a species to stay relevant on the galactic stage is to make sure nobody else gets to expand. Several of the most powerful are setting up an alliance to make sure that they, the most powerful starfaring nations, get to keep all of the good planets, and have enough strength to make sure that nobody else gets to expand outside their homeworld ever. The humans aren't invited to join this alliance. However, as we soon learn, there are other aliens out there who think that the violent, angry people are wrong and are trying to move towards more of a collaborative mindset, setting up a kind of counter-alliance to make sure that the first alliance can't succeed in their goals. The humans are ostensibly part of this counter-alliance, but it soon becomes clear that the Earth government is less interested in becoming part of one big happy family, and more concerned with keeping their control over their homeworld and existing colonies. And as part of maintaining that control, they make sure that the colonies and homeworld can never communicate with each other, and that the homeworld never knows exactly what is going on in the greater universe. This is ostensibly to protect them, but in fact, keeps the population separate and disunified so that they can never overthrow the government. The third book is all about how the Earth government has to be overthrown and the status quo has to be broken so that humankind can survive.
Excellent video. Please continue making content like this. I love sci fi, hell, especially military sci fi, but it is filled to the brim with deeply troubling subtexts and philosophies.
Truth be told though fascism really doesn't carry the same connotations in most countries as it does in the west. I get that these books are mostly for a western audience, but the taboo nature of it isn't really as widespread as a lot of people seem to think it is, so even if these books are unintentionally spreading such messages I don't think it really matters.
Without watching the entire video Starship troopers the movie has literally nothing in common with the book. It was originally going to be it's own thing called bug hunt. Somehow the studio owned the rights to starship troopers and decided to just change the title of bug hunt to starship troopers. Hell the director even admitted he never read the book beyond a single page and went "yup fascist" (being entirely wrong but he was never the sharpest tool in the shed) In the book the Terran Federation are not fascists they are their own weird thing closer to the Roman republic if anything. Basically the message of starship troopers is if you want to have a say in how your country is run you need to be willing to sacrifice for your country whether that be your time or your body. The book on several occasions states you dont have to be in the military to get citizenship that is just the way focused on in the book since John Rico is in the military.
Hmm, yes, the only way to change the regime is to serve the regime. And if the regime is horribly corrupt and abusive, and something I would be utterly fucking appalled to support, I still have to spend years of my life supporting the horrific regime that I hate before I'm allowed to push for any kind of reform. Yes, that's definitely not ripe for abuse at all. If you think there is literally any justification for denying suffrage to a country's citizens, on any grounds whatsoever, then I am going to call you a fucking fascist. Because that's what you are.
@@tbotalpha8133 you havent read the book. The government in the story isn't corrupt or abusive its frankly depicted as working a little too well but if you think that's facism I'm going to call you a fucking idiot who wouldn't know what facism was if it smacked you in the face
@@MemeMarine again the book and movie have nothing to do with each other. In the movie the terran federation are facists or well something akin to fascism In the book the terran federation is sorta like the roman republic it's not a dictatorship as anyone can become a citizen (the book specifically states even if you were blind deaf and a quadriplegic if you wanted to be a citizen they could find a way for you to serve even if it was something like volunteering for medical trials) I'm not saying I like the system in the book but to call it fascist is just wrong.
@@hupablom8851 but that's not fascism. Facism offers no chance for the common person to have a role in government there is no representation only dictation. There are no individuals in facism (or communism but that's another topic) there is only the party and the collective. In starship troopers (the book again I cant stress this enough the movie which most people know of starship troopers has nothing to do with the book if anything it's a rather immature parody of the book directed by someone who doesnt understand the book's argument) you dont have to be a citizen to have a good life hell in both the movie and the book Rico's parents are not citizens and are fabulously wealthy. So it's not like everyone is either a slave or a citizen. Furthermore I bring up the example of the quadriplegic because that is exactly brought up in the book as a hypothetical example. You dont have to be a soldier or a lab rat to become a citizen you could do things like be a paper pusher in an office or something people think you have to be a soldier in starship troopers because that was the case in the movie which as I said was a shallow parody of the book. The book's fundamental argument is if you have want to have a say in how the country is lead you should be willing to contribute to the society this isn't facism. Facism would be midnight raids on dissidents censorship of media the labeling of groups of people as undesirables to be rounded up and killed. Again read the book for yourself it's like 200 pages you can read it in an afternoon. Now whether you agree or not with the books stance is another argument altogether but to call it fascist is just wrong and comes across as someone saying "I dont like it therefore fascism"
I don’t know the man, obviously, but David Weber seems to have... issues with liberal politics. In Honor Harrington the big bad is a communist state that is militarily expansive to acquire the resources to fuel its welfare economy. For some fun books and massive political whiplash, consider reading 1632 by Eric Flint followed by 1633 which he coauthored with Weber. 1632 has a protagonist who is a West Virginian coal miner labor organizer that ends with a political alliance with Gustav Adolfus’s Sweden; 1633 opens with ‘that’s nice, but let’s build guns and warships’
In the later books it becomes apparent that the Republic of Haven (pre-Peoples Republic) was a highly successful and respected liberal state that was manipulated into doing completely off the deep-end in order to bring about its own collapse and that of the surrounding states, so that they wouldn't be in a position to oppose the real antagonist.
I'm not sure if communism is necessarily liberal. It always struck me as pretty authoritarian in execution, regardless of its stated intent. Some hippies aside, I can't think of very many liberals who are unironically pro-communist.
The Peeps might be a welfare state but they're pretty far removed from say Soviet or Chinese (Mao era) style communism. They're more like the Roman Empire in that they're a militarily powerful state fuelled on plunder from military conquests, and that needs to placate their citizens with their equivalent of Panem et Circenses (literally "bread and circuses" Roman Emperors and politicians would provide freely to citizens to prevent riots) in the Basic Living Stipend.
@@williamhiers1280 Liberals can't be pro-communist. Liberalism is capitalist, whereas communism is anti-capitalist, advocating for something that's supposed to rid the world of the evils of capitalism. Whether or not these socioeconomic systems have democratic ideals or authoritarian ones at heart doesn't matter.
My god have I come across video with so much density, it could as well be a neutron star. 1. Heinlein's description was of his fictional society at war. Fact that he served in miliatary without ever going into actual conflict means nothing, for most of the history of his federation was also peaceful. What he was trying to do is claim that his fictional society, where military society is tied with citizenship, would be far more ready and effective when it has to deal with unexpected threat. This is simple to see. 2. Crusade, "Free holy ~~land~~ mother terra" but they use word "jihad". And you seriously can't see the authors are EQUATING christian and muslim holy wars? 3. OK, now what the actual fuck. How can you describe killing a hive mind species as a genocide, if you're aware that they're, you know, a hive mind. One mind, many bodies. The "genocide" is actually not a genocide, because only one living entity is killed. That's at worst a murder not genocide. And with how much suffering the entity caused, any single other entity in that setting would be tried and sentenced to death. So, it's an singular execution, rather than a genocide.
Robert Heinlein: "I'm a libertarian" Also Robert Heinlein: "I'm gonna write a book that praises militarism and a borderline fascist 'limited democracy'. And it praises individualism. But the individualists are actually fascists." Also Robert Heinlein: "I'm a libertarian" Again, Robert Heinlein: "I support the Vietnam War"
a society where everyone can earn the civil rights and you can get wealthy without it if you don´t want them, oh yes that must be fascists. Praises militarism??? You mean the will to fight for the survival of your spices against an enemy that wants to kill us all.....uff
@@scheinerchen6471 The book has it where certain rights require being part of the Federal Service (especially military service). That includes the right to vote and hold office. I don't know if the Terran Federation in the book has all the ideas of fascism part of it - which is why I said it praises a borderline fascist "limited democracy." He presents that as a good thing. If he didn't want to praise it and simply was wanting to explore the idea, then he wouldn't have presented the leaders in pretty much only a good light. There is a part of the book where Dubois (Rico's History and Moral Philosophy teacher) ridicules the idea of inalienable rights (for example: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). As for militarism, Heinlein agreed that the book glorifies the military. War is no longer seen as more of a last resort, instead it is pretty much the first thing (probably has something to do with having voters and politicians having been almost all in the military). As far as I'm aware, the reason why they're fighting the aliens is never explained. I've also read where someone argues that Heinlein had created a society that practically requires to constantly be at war in order to function.
@@GrantNukem i'm not sure for the book (it´s over 20 years for my last read of it) but in the movie it was an colony that got atacked first. An illigale colony that get started by civilians against the warnings of the military. An illigale colony that not got removed from the military. on points like this it´s pretty clear for me that could not be a fascist society, they would not allow something like that. For the limited democracy i have only to look around in the western civ. and yeah i can warm my heart for earning your right to vote and hold office. The federal service can be so much more than only the military but the book/movie only shows this part because of the war. The Leaders in a good light, hm (again in the movie) the first skymarshall give up his command after the first defeat and pass it to an poc woman and she is much better in the job, sounds for me very progressiv and liberal (yeah i know, in the movie, now you got me, i have to read the book again)
@心静渊智 sorry for the missunderstanding but we talk about the war between the bugs and humans, not a real war. From a book from 1959 and why the society (in my opinion a very free one) can come over as a fascist one.
@@GrantNukem the federation allows literally anyone cable of understanding the oath of service to enter federal service(which in the book isn’t just the military) and the main character of the book is Filipino
Knowing Steve White and that those books came from playing a strategic tabletop game called Star Fire (same game created Honor Harrington, David Webber's solo series) I was very amujsed by your analysis. I am not saying you are wrong, in fact I'd say you are pretty spot on. I am saying those topics didn't occur to Steve. I don't know David so I can't talk for him, but those books came from the two of them playing this game and how it shook out.
Idea for an Orwell style sci-fi: The character is a secret agent sent to infiltrate an enemy battle ship in a three way war of human empires. He collects information and properly relays it to side. Eventually he discovers something huge (invasion plan, etc.) and quickly reports it, however, after relaying the information he realises that it is oddly familiar to something he had heard before he became an agent. After going through the various nodes and memories he realises something terrible: The three human factions are in fact all controlled by one government which, after realising there are no alien species to conquer threw humanity into a perpetual state of war as to not lose their influence. Soon after the realisation the character is captured and publicaly executed as a spy to raise morale. Obviously, this is an unpolished draft since I basically just came up with this on the spot, but what do you think?
I think it has potential but you have to try to do something that separates it from 1984 other than setting. It's too close, even if it's meant as a retelling. Another beef I have with this is that you have to make sure the government and the world still works and makes sense in a sci-fi setting. Part of the reason why the world governments worked in 1984 was because they stifled information to the extent that people no longer know of anything else, and therefore had no ideas of revolution. The majority of the population was made up of the 'proles' who didn't have any access to information other than popular songs on the radio and that they learned from each other and other forms of idle entertainment. The second reason why the government worked is because the governments all maintained control of their people's emotions. Fear is one of the ways that we've seen, but fear alone does not make a government run well. They also practiced the (Two? Five?) minutes' hate in which the populace was all stirred into directing and channeling any form of restlessness or anger they would have about their situation into hating the political opposition and the country's military opponents. And finally, the government set up a fake underground to catch anybody that decided to go rogue. The revolutionary book by Goldstein might have initially been made by a political dissident, but its entire purpose now is to lure future dissidents away from any legitimate movements and right into the hands of the thought police. The government and setting of 1984 was extremely well thought out in every aspect to answer the question of "why can't the people just rebel?" and if you want to make the story you want then you should do just as much thinking as George Orwell did. If you don't, your story could miss all of the points about 1984 that made the book great and you could fall flat on the pavement. Consider everything. Forget nothing.
Also, how does a nation sustain a war on itself? The only reason the US profited from WWII was because it was blowing up other countries ball bearing plants and oil fields, and it was far enough away others couldn't do the same to them. A nation constantly destroying it's own infrastructure with no long intermittent peace would result in the greatest imperial collapse in the history of man. For a more accurate portrayal of what close, prolonged war does to societies, look at post war Britain or Germany.
@@pjnoonan1423 to add on to this, 1984 works because the three governments aren't one; they are extremely similar in their structure and all do pretty much the same thing, but they're all different countries. Also, the majority of the damage done to infrastructure was in Africa and parts of Asia. It was all centralized in areas that sustained most of the fighting most of the time.
@@florbengorben7651, even then I don't buy the world of 1984. If all of the soldiers are so filled with hatred for the enemy, why hasn't anyone broken the others line? It is naiive to say any government could control the chaos that is war. There are so many variables ranging from the weather to the opponents skill level that even an all encompassing super-totalitarian nation could not stop some waxxing or waning in the line. Even if the government told the generals to stop the advance and it actually worked, the common soldier would begin to question why the so far utterly successful charge would be halted. Eventually, the illusion would be broken for enough soldiers to either start a military coup, or even civilian revolution.
@@pjnoonan1423 the thing is with 1984, it's a fundamentally different society than ours and we don't know exactly why the military hasn't mutinied. What we do know is that there's so little information given to the populace, and combined with conditioning from birth teaching everyone that the place they live in is better than everywhere else and the constant propaganda feed, not only does almost nobody rise up against their superiors, they wouldn't even think of it. And of the the ones that do, they're caught early. 1984 isn't the most believable novel, especially given the fact that stuff had to happen to get the world to this condition of society, but it is pretty darn internally consistent. I'm not the best at explaining stuff from 1984 considering it's been a few years since I read it, but if you haven't already, you definitely should. Even if you think it's wholly unbelievable and preposterous, it'll make you think and at the very least, you can say you've read one of the most influential novels of all time. It's just one of those classics that everybody should read at least once, even if they don't agree with it.
Interesting Essay but I feel you miss a major point: Historically speaking - any time a tribe/group/nation of our species has met another it has always escalated into conflict (at least initially) Inter-tribal rivalry, war, empire, slavery & subjugation etc. It might eventually settle into a peaceful equilibrium once the cost of war exceeds its potential gains, but my point is, for the longest time, the "Optimal" arrangement for a society was a militaristic one - even if peace was your goal, you needed to ensue your tribe was at least strong enough to resist potential aggression from neighbours - Survival demanded it. My point is: If Humanity reached a point where we began to encounter new, sentient species, each with own technology and desire for finite resources we could easily (and rationally) find ourselves shifting into a military first, duty obsessed society.. Especially if we were ever attacked and our democracies were found to be "Sleeping at the wheel" - None of our ideals (Democracy, equality, etc) Are more important to us than survival.
As much as I like Steven Universe, when I first saw the Diamond Authority in Steven Universe, I held out hope that maybe it would eventually come into contact with an intelligent interstellar superpower that would feel compelled to fight back as a preemptive strike. They could've easily used DA's rap sheet against them. This superpower could have argued "do we hunker down and wait for this empire to clash with ours--an enemy that doesn't need to eat, sleep, breathe, or even deal in economics--or do we take the fight to them before it gets out of hand?" and we could be torn between who to root for in this case. Sadly, Rebecca Sugar, didn't even bother to show or even imply humanoid aliens that weren't Gem-based. At any rate, I would like to see a sci-fi war make us torn between who to root for in a war like the Achaeans and the Trojans in Homer's The Iliad.
@@Rynewulf War drama has been a part of Steven Universe. I mean, what do think Rose's Rebellion was? A glorified pillow fight? This is a show that doesn't shy away from dark subject material and themes. They talk about that war, we see glimpses of it every now and then; the consequences it's had, and even Greg himself says, "There's no such thing as a good war." which is very telling of the show. The show even had hints that another Gem War was looming, and Steven managed to avert that crisis.
@@KTChamberlain Fundamentally the problem with Steven Universe can be summed down to "he show even had hints" "hits at" "alludes to" or whatever variant of these you want. Its a distilled version of Utena, Evangelion and a few good ideas, but without the brass balls to actually deliver. Is it the age rating? I fucking doubt that.
@@KTChamberlain Steven Universe makes more sense when you realize that it's a family drama using the interstellar war as a metaphor for conflict. The Diamond Authority aren't fascist leaders, they're abusive family members. Steven's victory isn't about destroying his grandmother, his great-aunts, and his home, it's about healing wounds. Breaking through to your abusive grandma and letting her know that you are not going to buckle down under her abuses like your mother did and that the way that she treats people is wrong and needs to change might not have the same appeal as overthrowing a fascist dictator, I admit.
To be fair in starship Trooper the Bugs are the aggressors so you can’t exactly blame the federation for not wanting to roll over and die. And yes it is made rather clear that the bugs seem to exterminate humanity. So whilst it’s not the utopia Heinlein thought it to be, the federation is by no means in the wrong in the context of the story.
The issue is the ideology. The book's narrative is supposed to have commentary on real life yet the universe it is set in doesn't reflect reality. The Book portrays the Federations fascist actions as justified because the bugs are evil and undeserving of mercy, yet the real life group the bugs represent are much more complicated and, at the end of the day, still human.
Isnt it reveled that it wasn't really a meteor launched by the bugs, but by the federation itself as an excuse to go to war, and actually the humans are the ones colonizing bugs territory?
Genuinely surprised the title before I clicked on it wasn't just 'Starship Troopers.' Appropriate it was the first example you talked about since it's the poster child for fascism in scifi. I read it in middle school before I hit my "able to think critically about media" period so it's only of the books I really want to reread to see if I still enjoy it, now that I'm older and wiser. Also OH GOD THE CRUSADE THING AND NUREMBERG. Big Yikes. Thanks for the video! Super interesting as usual.
@Jason Buford My dude, my pal, it's literally briefly discussed in the video. I'm not smart enough to explain it, and it's been many years since I've read the book myself, but you can find videos discussing that topic (both saying "yes it is" and "no it isn't") pretty easily.
The book (Insurrection) was supposed to be a metaphor for, on the one hand, the American Revolution (fringe settlements economically exploited by powerful groups in the imperial heartland) and the Civil War (the addition of new territory from the Louisiana Purchase preventing the Southern states from catching up to the political power of the North). In both cases, the solution adopted was secession, as happens in Insurrection.
Seriously, you can disapprove of Heinlein personal politics all you want, but please judge Starship Troopers on what is writen IN the book. For exampel citizenship can be gained through military service or through civil serveice. They give a exampel how a blind man counts the legs on a centipede by feeling them. Heinlein may have made the bugs boring two-dimensional enemys, that attack first and do not want to negotiate/communicate, but that do not make the humans facists. Soldier as cannon fooder? In the book? Have you read the book? They routinely wreck the bugs. If it was from the movie, you cant blame Heinlein for that. You point out that Heinlein was not a combat veternan, so what? Are you? Gess not, but that do not prevent YOU to have a opinion on war (that is called dubbel standard) I can go on, but my point you either haven't read the book (or it was very long time ago) or you deliberately misrepresent the book.
Just how recently have you read Starship Troopers? Your conclusion that there was no criticism in there is more than a little off. Yes, Heinlein had some strong opinions on learning duty, but he also pretty obviously recognized how taking things to an extreme could be pretty terrible, and that is reflected in the book.
...no, that's reflected in the movie. Heinlein's book never seriously criticizes the Federation's way of doing things, and the plot grinds to a halt multiple times so that Heinlein's mouthpieces--I mean Johnnie's professors can monologue about why an authoritarian regime where voting isn't a right, but a privilege earned through military service, complete with lauding the veterans who founded the Federation through a coup is the best possible way of doing things . The closest the book comes to criticizing the way the government does things is to say it isn't perfect. Heinlein creates several false dichotomies and seems incapable of finding middle ground - for example, when discussing the death penalty, it's either let the criminals run wild or use the death penalty as a deterrent. Johnnie's professor (Dubois?) and by extension Heinlein is pretty clear that he thinks it's one or the other. This is a problem. Anyone proposing such a this-or-that, one-size-fits-all method of handling anything with no room for compromise which allows for approaching things on a case by case basis is a fool.
Seems someone got his Heinlein from the movie and out of context interviews and nothing else. The man was a true and true Libertarian! He advocated for free love in A Stranger in a Strange Land and for freedom from neocolonialist tyranny in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Libertarianism is a pretty illogical system of governance, though. I'm not saying that liberalism or socialism or fascism is better - they're all about as bad. Again, as the narrator said, you can like something while acknowledging the piss poor parts. Personally Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress are both some of my favorite books, regardless of how I feel about the political connotations.
@@RBEmpathy The primary idea of Libertarianism is maximum possible freedom for the individual and minimum power of control for the state. This based around the premise that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", therefore if power is as spread out as possible then abuse of said power is as limited and ineffectual as possible. The same principal democracy is based on. I don't quite see how that's illogical, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is that presenting Heinlein, a Libertarian, as a Fascist is both inaccurate and somewhat insulting as control by a totalitarian authority is something he would despise.
@@Crick1952 despite the premises, the conclusion of the logic of libertarianism is highly flawed. I think the virtues extolled are themselves at least decent, if not a little particularly classically liberal, but it's really the implications of the ideology I'm interested in. Heinlein was a product of his time. I disagree with many of his ideas, but still respect his artwork. I'm not entirely familiar with his personal beliefs or ideology, so I'll refrain from calling him a fascist.. but based on some of his works, he certainly indicated a preference for some of the same kinds of thought about citizenship, liberty, and militarism.
Utter nonsense and slander: to try to “abolish capital” would lead to mass poverty. Right libertarians believe that society would be immensely wealthier without the burdens of the state, and that civil society would reprise a greater role in caring for the poor in the absence of the state crowding it out with stolen resources. You don’t have to agree with that, but you should at least try to understand what you disagree with. There’s also some vagueness here between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, though they agree on most things.
When I was a kid I got fascinated by a board game called "Starfire". I just thought it was a cool spaceship battle game. I had no idea there was a story behind it. So thanks for letting me know. And as more than one UA-camr has pointed out, a LOT of SciFi civilizations are, to quote, "too stupid to exist".
I am reading a fantasy novel where the MC is a "benevolent" king, proceeds to marry all his 8 queens for political reasons and they just so happen to love him (very convenient author, very convenient) He also proceeds to help other countries in pointless conflicts that cost's his countrymen lifes that do not give nothing to the country and are there only to make the MC look cool and very generous. He then proceeds to, by sheer political influence, force a parent to give up his child to him, because he fancies him as a future husband for his little sister.
Heinlein wasn't remotely fascist (which is a form of totalitarianism). The government in Starship Troopers included freedom of speech, freedom of travel (two things never seen under totalitarian regimes), and no military draft. The only difference was the franchise had to be earned, something everyone had the right to try for. Earning the franchise involved volunteering for "Federal Service", of which the military was a small part. Interstellar exploration was Federal Service. Establishing settlements on the ocean floor was Federal Service. Furthermore, there's a scene in the book where a doctor is asked what if a quadriplegic wants to try? He says everyone has the right to try so they'd have to come up with a task very difficult but doable for that person.
In the end, it seems like fascism implies that physical (or at least personal) forcefulness is the main yardstick by which to measure a nations' and a person's worth.
Calling Heinlein fascist is disingenuous based on Starship Troopers alone. Using Heinlein's fiction to determine what Heinlein believed is fraught with peril and probably impossible.
That's more libertarian than anything. Ursula K Le Guin's The Dispossessed has a better example of anarchism, or anarcho syndicalism to be more specific.
The Moon is a Hard Mistress is also a bit of a might is right scenario. He pushes a libertarian ideal a lot but ignores that all our main characters are privileged so don't need social support. They also kill millions and shrug it off with "they weren't actually nukes".
I have never seen starship troopers as fascist. Pro military perhaps. But the government itself wile a meritocracy, it was also a libertarian leaning constitutional democracy.
@@jaspervanheycop9722 the military was just a part of the services you could perform the get citizenship. And the path least likely to result in you becoming a citizen. And their was no bar to do any public service to get citizenship. If you were deff, dumb, and blind they had to take you. The only obstacle to becoming a citizen was indeed completing a term of service.
Yeah, Heinlein, that well-known libertarian fascist who wrote a fascist state in which all interactions we're voluntary, and no one had to do anything they didn't want to.
"Referred to only as bugs." You have literally never read the novel. Why should I listen to your opinions when you're clearly not knowledgable on the subject.
How does libertarian fascism make any sense? Fascism is an authoritarian ideology where everyone is forced to participate. Calling everything fascist is just so stupid.
The thing about Heinlein is that he never served in combat. People talk about his naval service but forget that he was discharged years before WW2. More importantly he was never allowed back in despite still being young enough to serve. So I always viewed Starship troopers as a form of venting frustration at the system for keeping him away from any form of service during the war. He wrote it while middle aged at a point in his life when the realisation that he was never gonna identify with the WW2 generation sunk in. Lets be honest here there's no way he wasn't asked at least on occasion during the war 'why aren't you in uniform' and he had to say 'medical grounds' despite being a former naval officer. That must have hurt. So Starship troopers was basically Heinlein saying 'you thought I wasn't good enough for the last war I'm gonna teach you how to fight the next war.' A delayed screw you basically.
There's no way to say if the feeling was that visceral but I do agree his discharge left him with some hangups he was working through the rest of his life.
@@yamibakura8597 So I was trying to figure this one out because an authoritarian military state that requires state service for full citizenship rights and divides its society squarely into citizens and civilians is not truly liberal and then it hit me. The Federation lets women join the military. Wow. Imagine being so fashy that Starship Troopers is too liberal because they treat women like actual people.
@@yamibakura8597 The whole movie was a deliberate lampoon of the book: every crazy human character was meant to be a joke at the book, author's and fascism's expense
Yeah but none of the Human characters are crazy- they're just realistic. Not only that, nothing the Humans really do is indicative of fascism or even that morally questionable. For example, the Human propaganda is honest: the bugs are going to try and exterminate Humanity and they are immensely savage monsters. The reason why people repeat the whole "Starship Troopers" is fascism thing is because it the director, a weak, effeminate man saw militarism, grit and true heroism and thought that was fascism. In truth, Fascism is a Socialist heresy, based on Marxism-Leninism, and I can guarantee there's nothing like that in the movie or the book. And like I said above, the author is a LIBERAL, for goodness' sakes.
It's interesting what you see. Cause. Well, the things that stuck with me about starship troopers was the notion of how to encourage a responsible electorate. Cause you don't have to serve in the military to get the right to vote, nor do those who cant vote have no guaranteed rights. But you do have to serve the state in some capacity for at least 2 years to earn the right to vote. Which seen as they said 'something given freely has no value' as their premise, presumably means once you earn it you will damned well vote carefully and actively. The other thing that stuck with me? the fact you can back out of this service at any time with the only consequence being you dont earn the right to vote and can't re-apply. Rico mentions that even with his unit of elite space marine power armour dudes if someone says on the day that they're refusing to go on a mission that the only punishment is they're sent home and their service isn't completed. Granted this is what stuck with me. Not what else is in the book.
Except. the book explicitly states that isn't the case. They have it because "it just works". The thing people should take from Starship Troopers is that almost any form of government will work if the circumstances allow them to work. Of course, circumstances never stay the same so new circumstances will require new forms of government.
And thats fine. But at the end of the day SST was a political statement by its author. And thus should be viewed through political, sociological, and historical lenses. Militant exclusionary polities don't really have great track records doing any of the things Heinlein says they do. Now, that doesn't mean Heinlein was a fascist. But I think some aspects of fascist though are deeply alluring and its easy to not realize when you are paralleling them. Heinlein wanted to elevate military service because he perceived it as an important formative experience in his own life. That doesn't mean that veneration only has the consequences he intended though.
@@Bustermachine Only a minority of those in the books who did service to earn citizenship actually did anything military to earn it. Rico did because well..the story of someone who built water management infrastructure for two years doesn't make a thrilling read. That being said the government of the book was established by the military and only after the kind of convenient implosion of heinlein's fictional ideological opposition that now that i think about it reminds me a bit of Atlas Shrugged, where all the people with politics or economic beliefs that Ayn Rand disagreed with were weak, ineffectual and doomed to failure. Where as everyone who was ideologically aligned with the author was capable and strong. Which, if your political point only works if your opposition are characterized as infantile, i dont think that makes the political work as well...Props to Heinlein though compared to Ayn Rand this element wasn't anywhere near as glaring as it was in atlas shrugged. Looping back, the idea of attempting to create a responsible electorate by making them earn the right to vote is at least an interesting notion(i dont think we have very responsible electorates in the west) even if it being setup by a military coup is not an ideal way of reaching that state... Maybe I'm just jaded because I pay attention to the USA and live in the UK though.
Insurrection is just 1776 in space mixed with modern decolonization, and no Mercantile empires that harvest resources in colonies and give them no economic freedoms or self governance are not Capitalistic. They expressly despise the idea of free trade, floating prices, or individual choice in economic matters. The closest things to a Mercantile empire in recent history would be the Soviet Union, the CCP's Regime, and France's exploitation of west africa. Right behind them would be the UK's empire till the US forced them to abandon Mercantile trade with their colonies in the 1950s. in, "in death ground" and "The Shiva option" is about fighting a hive mind, a single macro organism that sees all other life as unicellular life without regard for the harm it does to feed itself. Unlike with fascists who pretend individuals are part of a hive, this is a real hive mind. It's not rational to pretend that you could reason with it. Nor that the death penalty would not be given if you put it on trial. Crusade is bazaar of strange ideas, but the one you put on blast is truly strange. The reason that the "I was just following orders" excuse fell flat for those on trial there was expressly due to them being the leaders that were issuing the orders. They had extreme amounts of leverage to start a coup or revolt if they wished. With Starship Troopers it's fairly clear you watched the film and never read the book. Your not criticizing the book to any meaningful extent. The film just took the books name, they have nothing in common other then the name. The film is a satire of US interventionism. The book is an entire can of worms onto itself. In the book for example, the humans form an alliance with another species that was forced into being subject state under the bugs. It has a lot reprehensible in it, but it's not what you claim it is. It is however jingoistic in it's message.
It doesn't seem to me that joining the military is an example of suffocating collectivism. Nobody is forced to join the Terran military, they don't have a draft. There's a world of difference between collectivism and sacrificing for the greater good of your own free will.
A bit of unrelated thought... Both fascism and socialism are kind of collectivist - they both emphasise that by working together, rather than as a collection of individuals, we can achieve more. However the intended use of this collective power is wastly different. Facists focus on expressing this power to beat external enemies, while socialists focus the power inward to improve lives of each other. And because of that external focus, fascism actually relies on having an enemy. Or if there are no actual enemy in sight, this enemy is invented. However, on the flip side, if an actual enemy is presented, even non-facist leaning societies can start acting in a facshi way. Simply because any society will have traces of this ideology and wartime will amplify them to noticeable level. So I wouldn't be surprised that in military scifi, all the societies look fachist. After all them being at war is the core premise.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War novels. There’s a lot of similar points in those books as well but with a viewpoint that made me wonder what the author’s opinions on those points were.
This is the reason, for me anyway, I love how the Daleks from Doctor Who are represented. More times than not, Sci-Fi has this things of glorifying Imperialism and Fascism by making it out to be "cool". Yeah, the Space Marines and the Empire of Man are waging senseless and pointless wars, but look at the Space Marines, aren't they cool? Don't they look awesome? Look at them carve that Tyranid in half! Same with the Empire from Star Wars. Look at Darth Vader, isn't he so cool, looks at those Star Destroyers etc. etc. Now, I am NOT saying that anyone who likes or takes interest in these things are Fascists, hell, I love Star Wars, I'm more talking about the tiny majority of Warhammer and Empire fans that take things a little too far outside the realms of fiction. But the Daleks, who would want to be a Dalek? They're petty squid mutants trapped inside impractical dust-bins with whisks and plungers? Thats not cool. But thats the thing. The Daleks personify the pettiness of fascism, and how its warped the Daleks. The Daleks were once the Kaleds, in a pointless war with the Thals, but radiation made them mutate into tiny gooey creature things who can only hate because thats the only thing that remembered after the war with the Thals. Thats whats ingrained into them by their creator, Davros. And thus, their impracticalness is what makes them such a good allegory. No matter how many times they change their technology, the still have the same basic casing design, balls and eyestalks and all.
Your reading and analaysis of Starship Troopers and Starfire is superficial and inaccurate. You leave out important details in both works. In Starship Troopers the right of vote is given to anyone who serves in one of sevrral goverment programs which includes both military and civilian service. Civilian service includes research and public labor jobs. You cannot vote until discharge. You can quit the military anytime you want up to being under fire. This right to quit includes just before entering a drop pod. Your rant on Heinlein only shows you never did any more than skim his works. Read his works. He is for individual rights and the value of doing public service. You show similar poor comprehension of the written text in the Starfire Series. Your ommissions and misreadings are too numerous for here and already shown in other posts.
He got the Starship Troopers reading backwards. The book is the clever satire of militarism and propaganda. The movie jumps in with both feet without a sense of irony.
Universal conscription is an authoritarian, militarist idea whether or not all the conscripts are actually sent to the military. Paramilitary civil service organizations full of conscripts would impart similar values and habits even if nobody had to shoot a gun. The book is quite explicit in saying that public service is as much about the political indoctrination of Terran "citizens" as it is about national defense. The non-military service would still in a militaristic setting, under a government of soldiers. Your civil rights are contingent upon serving and submitting to the destruction of your individuality and its reshaping by military discipline (with or without weapons) into a form suitable either for Raczak's Roughnecks or teaching fascism to children from the lectern of a History and Moral Philosophy class. You belong to the State, a State that has held a stake in you from birth. The State comes before your life. You will serve the State. You will respect the State. You will bear and take life for the State, and give up your own when called upon. Your life depends on the good health of the State. These are the values of universal conscription. These are also the values of space fascism.
@@tankermottind The good of the many and all that. You'll be crying for universal conscription when those fucking bugs are at our solar systems edge, damned space hippy! Seriously though, in a galaxy full of hostile life this might literally be the only way to ensure our species survival. A few civil liberties 🤷♂️ the continued existence of the human species. When you put it into that context, it makes a lot more sense.
@@tankermottind So, you haven't read the book either. It is repeatedly stated that Rico would have had a better life had he gone into business, as his father wanted. In the Federation "your" civil rights are enshrined in the constitution, you have them irregardless of wether you served or not. The only thing you gain by serving is the right to vote. Which you can't while still in the military. The entire point of the Mobile Infantry is that it is entirely voluntary. Even when faced with a genocidal enemy (the Bugs), the Federation still maintains its volunteer military, never switching to conscription.You can always leave training, without it negatively affecting your future. The entire point of the History and Moral Philosophy class is to allow Heinlein some world-building. Even the movie shows that nobody cares about the class and the book explicitly states that the class doesn't matter to the future of the students. You don't have to pass any tests, the teacher doesn't evaluate your "indoctrination". You just have to take it. Then there is Rico's father, who despises the idea of Rico enlisting and tries to bribe him with an incredible vacation on Mars and a promising career as a businessman. He proudly states ""In the first place this family has stayed out of politics and cultivated it's own garden for a hundred years - I see no reason for you to break that fine record." (pages 28 to 29). On the same page Rico admits: ""[..] he (Mr. Dubois) acted as if none of us was really good enough for service". His father openly calls the Federation Service a "useless organ" and "a way to pay inferior people who would otherwise be unemployed". Very fascistic. Of course society's view on the military changes during the book, but that's because they are waging war against a genocidal enemy, that wants to wipe out all of humanity.
So you take shots at Robert Heinlein for Starship Troopers, a book I feel you have characterized poorly, but he is also the author of Stranger in a Strange Land wherein the protagonist is an ardent pacifist who is ejected from the service because he keeps destroying all of their weapons. Shall I then use this same logic to label him the second coming of Mahatma Gandhi? The parallel between fascist ideology and military sci-fi isn't a new one, but it tends to be most strongly advocated by those who haven't served. Beyond that, it is still sci-fi and exploring competing ideologies is a natural fit for sci-fi. Heck, look at the Honor Harrington series also by David Weber. It is unabashedly military sci-fi, but it isn't something I would describe as promoting fascist ideals. To leave print media look at the Dominion War plot in Star Trek or, or jump to anime, Legend of Galactic Heroes. I can think of a half-dozen more examples just off the top of my head. There are examples which support your point, but there are also plenty that contradict it. I could put together an equal number of examples which do nothing but show the waste of war, but that wouldn't justify the idea that military sci-fi promotes anti-war ideology. At the end of the day it feels that you are cherry picking your examples to justify your premise. This may work to influence those who are mostly ignorant of the genre, or to gain echoes from those who agree with your premise before even hearing any evidence, but I can't help but feel it is a touch disingenuous.
I normally have decent expectations for your videos, but not expecting them to be perfect, but man was the bar missed for this one. Bungled definitions in the opening Bungled understanding the idea of service as presented in the book Starship Troopers It's not all military service; just during the war it primarily is, because it's a war. Defensive war at that. But it includes things like trash collectors; etc. And every step of the way, the state TRIES to get you to quit. Which is exactly the opposite of real fascism If you actually pushed off your biases and re-analyzed Starship Troopers you'd find it's actually pushing for a very libertarian society. A militarized one, sure, but a free and prosperous one. It's not giving up your individual desires for the state; it's giving them up for others, through the means of the state. There's a big difference. Saying Starship Troopers is fascist is... extremely shallow. I also love how all the bad things you mention at the end; (around 17:30) are lacking from The Federation. That would be because the Federation actually not fascist. I don't know anything about the other books but like... is it a bad thing to kill the arachnids? Like, is it? And why? Seems pretty reasonable to me. I get how "Well they were so evil so we had to" can be misused by bad people, but that doesn't mean that it's WRONG. Saying christian civilization is superior is (implied) fascist because....? Sounds like thinly veiled christian hate to me
My dude. Every fascist country in history has told themselves that they are fighting a „defensive“ war. Talk to some old people in my grandma’s village in Germany- they‘ll still tell you that Poland attacked them first. That‘s precisely the point he was making about the „victim“ complex. And characterizing the enemies as „bugs“ or „arachnids“ is not only really close to what Fascists called their enemies (pests, etc.) but also makes it a lot easier for the reader to accept their killing without questioning it- after all, they are no human. And the fact that Christian society reminds him of fascism is because pushing a nationalists version of Christianity (as opposed to the „evil“ Jews ) is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, which the church was very complicit in. So that‘s why he associates it with fascism. Now, other interpretations of these books are totally valid, and if you interpret them differently that‘s fine. But there is quite a lot of textual evidence that they are basically fascist wet dreams, so discounting that completely just makes you seem like you didn‘t think it through further than „Well, it‘s not literally like real life fascism in every single way, so it can‘t have fascist undertones“.
+samira Ansari ... Except in this situation the humans are quite literally fighting a defensive war against a species which has, with acknowledgement from the author, killed off entire populations of humans without a care, with the first attack being launched by them against humanity leading to the First Bug war, and then they began invading Federation planets again *after* peacetime was established from the first war, starting the Second Bug War. I don't know about you, friend, but I would call the second war, which started when the Arachnids started invading Federation colony planets and devouring whole planetary populations, a defensive war. +Tyler Rech No, we do not. Fascism is an ideology which embraces authoritarianism and takes it to its logical conclusion by vesting all power in either one individual or a small group of individuals, with the expectation that those people will act in the best interest of the nation. History and human nature both say that that expectation is immensely irrational and has repeatedly shown itself to lead directly to corruption and death. Fascism is like Communism, only instead of pretending to be a utopian commune while killing millions of people, fascism pretends to be a nationalist paradise while killing millions of people.
@Tyler Rech You do realize that by vesting absolute power in fewer and fewer individuals you massively increase both the chance of corruption and the impact of it when it does occur, yes? The reason for this is that when you place all of the power in the hands of, say, 10 people, only five of them need to become corrupt and it is most likely that every decision the group makes will become corrupt as well because only one of the others needs to vote with them. When you reduce that to 8, suddenly only four of them need to become corrupt. When you reduce it to 6, only 3, and only 2 from 4. When you get all the way to having one person with absolute power, only 1 person needs to become corrupt and suddenly the entire system is corrupt. That is why modern political systems place power in the hands of large bodies of people. They may have a president and a chancellor, but those people are held in check by large organizations of people whose entire job is to make sure there is balance in governance. The more corrupt the system, the larger the impact, and when you reduce the amount of people required to pull a majority on national decisions, the impact of corruption steadily increases, because as the number of people required to make any decision approaches one, the likelihood of a decision being made for personal reasons approaches 100%, and the larger the amount of power each corrupt individual has to enact their corruption.
@@samiraansari5686 every country likes to rpetend theyre not the attacker. From rome to America. That doesnt make it fascist. And maybe instead of dog whistling to fascist, since heinlein was a liberal, he used bugs in order to make it so the reader doesnt empathize too much with them. You dont want your reader tonlike the bad guys too much, otherwise your point becomes muddy. The nazis certainly did push Christianity even if they didnt themselves beleive it, because europe was very Christian. However Nazism is very much more atheist, and hitler admired Islam as a possible replacement for germany. Additionally, some churches, like the Catholic church, undermined the nazis. Then throw in that christianity is supposedly very anti fascist, and it just makes no sense So basically theres no reason for anyone to associate christianity with fascism, unless you hate both.
Actually, why would it be genocide to wipe out a hive mind species? I mean, genocide is bad because the leader that declared war on you, and the soldier shooting at you, are discrete sentient beings from the leader's wife, the soldier's young children, the doctors treating their wounded, the guys providing food to their populace, etc. etc. i.e. their civilian populace. The latter group aren't responsible for, nor perhaps even aware of, the actions of the former. There's no reason to kill them except pure vindictive cruelty. But with a hive mind, there's no distinction between the two. They are ALL the same guy who is killing your people; they all CAN and WILL kill your people. Even if their "civilian populace" doesn't possess the means to kill you, they certainly possess the will to do so. It wouldn't be genocide anymore - it'd be killing a single sentient being.
1: Arachnid is a name used in biology describe a certain group of animals. It contains scorpions, spiders and similar type of animals. 1: Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers in 1958. At the time, the US didn't give a damm about Iraq. Saddam came to power in 1979. ( I am assuming you are talking about starship troopers )
Starship troopers is most often misinterpreted as fascism but it's very much apart from other depictions. Most things are voluntary, the state does not have absolute power, there is no hiding the cruelties of war away from the people, the government's victories are freely broadcast. I'd recommend a video called "The politics of Starship Troopers" that goes into excruciating depth about the topic better than I could formulate in a single comment.
@@GrimGoblinLives The point of the system is to educate you, the individual person, what power you hold in being able to vote, and the responsibility that comes with it. Being a Citizen means you can change the system, but guarantees that you don't just take it for granted and vote for the first demagogue that shows up, which is a common problem in everyone can vote democracies.
Grim Goblin It's explicitly stated that military service is only one way of earning citizenship. What you actually have to do is tailored to what you as an individual can be reasonably expected to accomplish, even if you're heavily disabled.
Possibly been noted in the comments before, but a lot of the justifying myths of fascism work very well as justifiers of a basic military sci-fi setup - especially the whole "the world is a stage of racial conflict" thing - because both fascism and military sci-fi need to justify their wars and produce simple, affective understandings of the world. I don't think it's an inherently fascist genre, but the prerequisites of the genre make it easy for someone who isn't particularly well-read on fascism to slip and faceplant into it. Anyway, I do wish we saw more interestingly multicultural unions in the genre. A hivemind with symbiotic individualist cultures living within it and used as auxilliaries would be fascinating to see in play, and might give us more non-evil hives which would be nice.
Yeah, I want to see non-evil hiveminds too. One thing that annoys me is how hiveminds are always depicted as wanting to consume or assimilate everything in their path, behaviour that would be much more fitting for a hyper individualist culture instead. In fact, this is just irl capitalism with its ideology of growth for the sake of growth.
you got lost fleet wrong it main theme is that one person or group cant be in charge of all things instead you need to break up those jobs and tasks and give them to responsible people who are trained I repeat Trained on them and trust them to handle it or ask for help if needed. Also the main enemy of the series is a corporate dictatorship, they even have corporate doublespeak and everything ^-^ really great world building recommend you read and others read it
Have you read Heinlein's "Expanded Universe"? Starship Troopers was not meant to promote a militaristic society (which is more accurate than calling it fascist), but more as a critique of the US reliance on mandatory conscription that continued after World War II and into the Cold War. Now, there are other works by Heinlien that certainly follow the track you started with regarding his disappointment with Eisenhower... Why is it that people keep mistaking militarism for fascism?
if they want to compare military sci fi to a militaristic Germany it should be more often be ww1 germany and not nazi Germany because this would fit way more the military angle than nazi germany that despite hiw nazis dressed was a political takeover where political goals came first in ww1 germany the military basically took over the government and focused soly on military goals thats why wilhelm 2 was basically a figure head. scifi has way more militarism and less national socialism or fascism
Arch warhammer did a video on ''is the imperium of man from 40k war fascist?'' and he came up with some defining characteristics of fascism based on the actions and writings of actual fascists like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler that where pretty interesting.
@@plutochan9931 That is how fascism works in practice, the Reich and Fascist Italy were really not as cohesive as their propaganda would lead you to believe. It revolved around corporatism and a whole dark market of bribes and nepotism. Fascism is the pretension of absolute authority, and the Imperium fits that to a T.
This reminds me of Ursula K. Le Guin's response to the first Star Wars film. She pointed out that the imagery of the closing scene was lifted directly from Leni Riefenstahl. Her essay is worth looking for. I think the implicit fascism of much popular sf is more problematic rhan than the overt fascism of the series you discuss here.
I must disagree with you on the point of The Lost Fleet. While I agree that many characters do hold the belief that the civilian government should be overthrown and replaced with a military dictatorship, the POV character is set against this and works to disabuse the other officers of this notion.
Your definition of fascism to begin with is incorrect, and your understanding of starship troopers is... flawed at best. The state of starship troopers is a military based meritocracy, not a fascist state.
Can someone explain to me why humans are always federations or unions or in some other way just the UN in space, but aliens always have single nation states?
Because America is a federation, but the militant human space empire being just America that's taken over would look bad , so it's a 'we're totally the un you guys' voluntary union instead. In nothing but name, because wackjobs
In Star Wars, the empire was a federation and the rebellion was a military protostate.
It might also be because they're too lazy or uncreative to create different countries for said aliens, so its easier to just lump them together.
bc with aliens either the fascists won, Britain really did manage to take over the world, or the East India company decided it wanted to be a world government.
To save time, most likely. We don't need to know how aliens govern themselves, we just need to exterminate them.
#humanityfirst
This video made me realize that Hive Minds make great sci-fi antagonists. We humans take individualism for granted, but imagine a species that treats intergalactic war like a boxing match. A species with no concept of individualism wouldn't bat an eyelash at losing drones and harvesters. Burning a planet full of people isn't an atrocity, it's just like punching the enemy in the face. The main challenge in the story wouldn't be about who has the biggest planet burners, but how to see from the other's side perspective and coexist.
Thomas Cahyuti Enders game is a prime example of this
Read Forever War. This is basically the story
literally enders game
So...the Tyranids. Got it.
I actually kind of like the idea of a hive mind after all if all individuality is lost them you wouldn’t Mourn it, kind of like how a cell in your body doesn’t mourn its lack of individuality.
An example of military sci-fi that is critical of the military is The Forever War by Joe Haldeman. Haldeman was a Vietnam vet and Heinlein said it was a much better book than Starship Troopers.
Yeah, The Forever War is lit as fuck ;)
It's so good
Average mil sci-fi novel
-American troops
-Made by Tom Kratman, John Ringo-Dingo, or someone nobodies heard of
-War is glorious despite every single man from my entire battalion is dead except for me and I now have ptsd, but it’s still glorious
Anal Percussion I’m convinced Tom Kratman is a racist 13 year old who just used his grandfather as a profile picture
Longlive Glorious Tombadil.
@@georgekostaras Thank you for making me instantly laugh
Goddamn it Kratman
Best military science fiction (The forever war)
Also American Troops but not like that.
That's why I love Dune.
The second book literally starts with the protagonist, who is basically the emperor of the universe, comparing himself to Hitler and hating what his actions caused.
Self awareness, yay. But also I thought most of human history was lost in Dune, how did he know about Hitler and the nazis?
@@seekingabsolution1907 I'm guessing it's from Paul's ancestral memories. Hell, he may have Hitler's own memories.
It's either as the other commenter said, ancestral memory, or it's really obscure knowledge. There is still some historians, like the IXians. I believe I remember he references some source material that he asks Stilgar if he read it. At least Stilgar is oblivious to Hitler or Genghis Khan.
@@seekingabsolution1907 its a very vague and distant bit of historical information- I think paul literally refers to Hitler as "emperor hitler" or something similar
Dune is a very funny series because the first is about showing us how a man became the protagonist of dune and the rest of the series is how being the protagonist of dune sucks
Neo Mexico is, in fact, a space station.
Well, it's no moon that's for sure
Fucking G Fighter, I tell you.
Well, at least it's not as bad as a schoolgirl mecha.
A space sombrero with cactus growing on it.
Onii-chan is watching you Is that an actual thing?
@@deadaccount2968 What, the schoolgirl mecha? Yeah, it's called the Nobel Gundam and it's the fighter for Neo Sweden.
There's a couple others, but my sources were never reliable enough to confirm where they were from.
This is something I've always thought was really weird. There are so many weird new government types someone could create in a sci-fi setting with ALIENS who are fundamentally different from us, yet they all seem to be unable to stray from the militarism and imperialism that is already so incredibly oversaturated. Seriously, how about branching off into new political territories in your story about new and different worlds.
Is even funnier when Amaricans wrote such a story. Considering their history.
I've got a great one coming for you 😘
Dude, that's because obviously if aliens existed, we'd either bone them, conquer them, or annihilate them. There is no other option.
@@yamibakura8597 there Is posibility they would do any of that to us. Or that we would be so different from each other that we wouldn't even consider there Is "inteligent" life in first place. But we probably kill ourself by accident anyway before we meet aliens.
Sci-fi government idea:
Bicracy-ish government where the most important decisions are made by the overseer council: A group of 9 extremely intelligent individuals who had been completely brainwashed to lose all emotions and self interest and to only ever strife for the betterment of humanity. New members can only ever be appointed after close testing and a majority vote. The council doesn't micromanage, however, it has the authority to do absolutely anything through a majority vote, including ordering political purges, immediate army deployment etc.
I would expect it to result in Machiavellian but effective rulership, possibly giving humanity edge over other species.
Hard Sci Fi tend to talk about systems that are even more extreme than fascism societies. You have the Xeelee Sequence for example, which is one absolute nightmare of a universe where freedom means nothing and you got more chances of dying because you attempted to comprehend the alien species that enslaved you, or dying in mines and gigantic working infrastructures than dying of old age.
Like, this book series is so extreme, Hitler could read it and say "woah man, slow down with the violence, this is too much to handle".
Other than that, I think the omnipresence of dictatorships in Sci-fi is mostly due to the fact that most novels were written either before or after WWII, and they used the thematics of a highly regressive system using advanced technology to extend his power even further. Most dictatorships relied on new technologies and scientific discoveries for various inhumane uses.
It's also way easier to just write "Emperor Jusannomion send his Armada to attack the Human Empire" than spell out 85 nations across the 3 supercontinents having representatives, political parties, and a religious obligation to face a revolving door of "holy enemies", especially when readers are dumb and publishers want something that fits in a 5.5x8.5x.067 airport paperback.
"Most novels were written before or after WW2"
*surprised pikachu*
"Yo, evil mustache guy. lemme write a book about aliens and shiet!"
Xeelee Sequence literally has humanity in a total war state that is only stable because they're in war. As soon as the war "ends", the whole thing collapses.
Furthermore the Xeelee Sequence, and well, whatever humanity has going on is one of the few universes to be shittier then warhammer40k... which basically asked the question. "Hey how hilariously shitty can we make a system of government without having it realistically fracture at the first sign of chaos."
Heinlein wrote Stranger in a Strange Land. It was a huge hit with beatniks and other weirdos, who started showing up and camping on Heinlein's lawn. So he wrote Starship Troopers and dedicated it to drill sergeants to make the hippies get off his lawn. Looks like it worked really well.
@RJStockton Heinlein W?
I love warhammer 40k and the Imperium of Man.
Do I identify as the politics of the Imperium? Hell no. I just enjoy interesting settings that aren’t just “utopian future!”
From my perspective i see 40k as a grim reminder of how fucked a galactic wide empire could be. Especially in terms of wars and casualties.
But there´s also a kind of hope in 40k. Even in reading the grim darkness that the universe throws at humanity, as a species humans are still there.
Makes you think what kind of hardships our species could endure and overcome.
@Jason Buford SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE
But the imperium of man isn't fascist. They're a theocratic necrocracy with more in common with a medieval fuedal empire than Nazi Germany. The commisar themselves are a pretty major give away that the imperium is not fascist and is more like North Korea with its veneration of a long 'dead' leader of 'divine' origins.
What makes WH40K cool is that it acknowlodges how fucked up the Imperium is, even though they are the closest thing to the “good guys” in the setting (yeah, Tau are also huge assholes). But what makes the fight worth it are the small victories, the small battles and heroic deeds in it.
*That's fine, so long as you are self-aware about how horrible the Imperium would be if it was real and you don't un-ironically think of it as a desirable model state.*
Louder for those in the back: YOU CAN ENJOY THINGS WHILE ADMITTING THERE ARE SOME UNSAVORY ASPECTS TO THEM
This is important to understand!!
Those in the back: WERE NOT DEAF SO SHUT UP!!!!
@@leogazebo5290 This was more of a note to myself because it was something I relearned earlier today and consistently try to relearn. I find that it's a good reminder to have.
@@roverbernhard4489 it's supposed to be a joke :)
@@leogazebo5290 ah, i see. i did not understand that. thank you for the clarification (i'm being serious btw)
really glad i didn't get aggressive/defensive lol
The algorithm is gonna hate this video but good video
It recommended me it.
I’d recommend the book series Legend of the Galactic Heroes (the anime is great too but I don’t recommend people 110 episode anime unless they already watch a lot of anime)
It’s about the war between two galactic nations, one of which is an autocratic monarchy and the other a failing democracy. The whole series is extremely political and goes very in-depth with its criticism of both systems of power while portraying them through a neutral lens. Many characters uphold democratic ideals to strive for, but know that the current system is corrupt and is not serving the people by continuing a 150 year war and perpetrating a fanatic zeal to fight the evil totalitarian regime next door, all the while the empire is inefficient and stagnant and its leadership is also slowly decaying, but that means that its giving room for talented people to rise in power through achievement. The book goes into great depth over the theoretical failures of the two systems but also the current situation that does not allow for improvement and better serving the people, which is never considered an impossibility and is overall the ideal way to govern humanity.
I think you would really enjoy them, there’s 10 books, all around 300 pages more or less, and it goes way more in-depth then I ever could. It’s also an interesting character study of our two main characters, a military hero of the alliance and an upstart ambitions commander in the Empire
protomous
Do they have the books in English?
Nothing but respect for my commander, Yang Wen-li
@@JeevesAnthrozaurUS In that I am more for the Autocracy - Republican Democracy Is my least liked form of government. In the story Itself, the Autocracy was of more benefit
i only watched the old anime, *Yang Wen-li* gang here. does the novel gets even more in depth?
I'm currently on book seven and loving it. It's a rare series that manages to make both sides of the conflict sympathetic while exploring the inherent flaws in their world views and systems. Though the historical parts of the series can drag on a while.
I want to see a sci-fi setting where actual nation states are left on earth and the aliens also aren't united, but they too live on a planet divided by nation states. A lot of sci-fi books have this obsession with global or intergalactic unity and I feel like that is just very unlikely given how fractured and culturally diverse our planet is.
While its perfectly reasonable that the planet wouldn't be unified, it is very difficult to not have the space around the planet unified. One power will eventually gain control of space, and that power will then gain control of the planet. They may not control all the land or the water, but they would trap everyone else on there. Its similar to how naval power is not easily split and naturally results in one country gaining near total dominance over the sea, but space would be even more decisive because there is no terrain or land mass to hide behind.
A contested space would most likely occur when what is in space doesn't offer enough advantage for one side to take control of it. That's the kind of situation the world is currently living in. Nothing in space is worth the money and effort needed to own outer space. Gundam 00 does a good take on this situation.
@@BulletRain100 I didn't consider that, good point.
our plant has done nothing but become less fractured and cultjrally diverse since humans learned to farm. family groups become city states, that become countries that growth and form alliances with other countries. the same goes with every culture in history as well.
the only why to maintain a separate country/culture is to remain isolated.
and there is simply no way for a technologically advanced planet to maintain that kind of isolation for long. the isolated country will always be at a disadvantage/less developed then its unified counter parts.
@@dexdrako It is true that the planet is becoming more and more united, however a lot of this unity can easily be broken up again. Separatist tensions lead to all sorts of problems right now and they will do the same in the future. Also there might not be one hegemon that unifies earth eventually, but 2 or more each with their own spheres of influence on the planet who compete over space. I'm thinking a USA vs. EU vs. China vs. Russia vs. India situation. None of them would be able to take control alone. Of course a million different ways something like this can play out and eventually there will be a unifying force most likely, the question is just how long that takes and how long it lasts.
Starfall check out Fear The Sky trilogy
Surprised to the The Lost Fleet included here; the main character's pretty dead-set against anything that would destroy the democracy of his people, and it's entirely within his power as a literal living legend to do exactly that. He'd have carte blanche to do pretty much every fascist trick pointed out in this video, and he not only doesn't do it, he talks others who originally were all for it into trying to reform the democracy instead. Atrocities that went entirely without comment at the beginning of the war are roundly criticized by him and, by the later parts of the series, simply don't happen in his fleet. The sort of "internal cleansing" mentioned in the video is something he is often tempted by, (and which other characters explicitly urge him to do) but which he repeatedly rejects, even to the extent of converting other characters to his side.
In short, I can see why it seems fascist as there's a lot of corruption on both sides of the war, but the ideals the main character represents (and, tellingly, manages to spread throughout his people and others) is pretty far from it.
That was my take on the series as well. Civilian oversight is frustrating when your fighting and dieing, but it's absolutely necessary.
"he talks others who originally were all for it into trying to reform the democracy instead."
It's not even so much as getting the other characters to reform the democracy but much more so about getting the military to start trusting their civilian leadership again and getting the politicians to stop trying to protect themselves from a coup (and in the process almost inciting one).
The Lost Fleet has its "dumb bureaucratic peaceniks" moments, but it also has a lot of reflection on how hero-worship and jingoist attitudes ultimately corrupt and corrode society in general and the military in particular. Geary is genuinely horrified how many pointless battles and atrocities were sanctified by his name, and how a small ship captain from his day knows more about actual art of war than the new era senior admirals, mostly because the kind of "superior warrior spirit" magical thinking (inherent in that "war as a good thing" aspect of f-word) replaced actual training and education.
Then, in the spin-off The Lost Stars he outright shows why and how that kind of "third way" totalitarian society won't work.
So, I'd say that while the author has his blind spots, and definitely not a leftist, he has enough self-awareness not to make it as accidentally fashy as your average mil sci-fi. (Or as intentionally fashy as the worst trash in the genre is.)
I think one thing to keep in mind with Heinlein is that he really is all over on the political spectrum
I think part of it is 'What if I made up a fucked up little society?'
I think he is just permanently high on something
This is why the Imperium of Man from the 40k Universe is very interesting many outside of the Fandom believe it to be Facist government, but in truth the Imperium is de-centerized Government. It more of a feudal society with small holdings of planets and systems that put fealty to the Emperor of Mankind, and many worlds have different governments on each worlds, like on one world there is a feudal king that believe his rule is divine, and in another there is democratic government that put its officials by popular vote. Most Sci fi Governments are too stable considering how vast the Galaxy, and communication will be the biggest challenge to maintaining an centralized government which if not properly explained feels a bit of a cop out.
40k is just a big shit storm
Inquisitor Garza
I've concluded the Imperium of Man isn't a 'state' or 'empire' at all, at least not in the way that we think of those terms. Rather, it's an idea. Trimmed down to its most basic tenets, it's the idea that humans are alone in a sea of hostile alien creatures who must be exterminated if humanity is to survive and thrive. And the only ones humanity can rely on for support are each other and of course their glorious leader, the God-Emperor of Mankind.
@@5h0rgunn45 It's sort of like a religion
@@lazergurka-smerlin6561
Religion is an integral part of it, yes. Without the unifying force of the God-Emperor as a figurehead, it would be much harder to keep the Imperium together.
Imperium is simple too large, distance ands communication delays are too large. Some say Imperium of men is more like feudal system?
After reading Starship Troopers I found the original usage of “stable genius” hilarious. As in, a stable genius is a genetically engineered genius dog that can talk and is as smart as a stupid human... it’s dumb but for a dog is smart. Someone also called them selves a stable genius... the definition still works.
The lost fleet series is actually quite good, i havent finished it yet, i think i am around book 7. Its really funny how many characters want the protagonist to become a dictator but the protagonist its like: "No, my loyalties are wit the alliance". it happens almost 7 times per book.
It gets more common in later books. Some captains start threatening to mutiny if he won't agree to being dictator.
@@BigPimp238 lol, poor geary, cant have a couple of jumps without the threat of mutinny.
@@abelninjaboy Something like happened to Stalin, tried to leave the crown 3 times but wasnt enabled to.
"The Lost Fleet has strong overtones of militarism" made me do a spit take. One of the central tropes in this series is the main character actively opposing a military takeover even when he seems to be the only grown up in the whole galaxy and would get the dictatorship handed over to him by the people on a silver platter. War is being depicted as eroding any decent human values and deeply traumatizing (basically everyone in this series is hopped up on anti PTSD drugs). In the series war is seen as a sometimes neccessary force but just as important is building coalitions and mutual trust between allies through honesty and humanity. In a spinoff series you can watch the protagonists and their society slowly, almost unnoticeably change from a dystopian, authoritarian hellscape to a more peaceful, more humane society. ("I don't think I could bring myself to order my troops to shoot the protesters. And I don't think they would follow such an order anyway.")
Lost fleet is a direct criticism of most other military scifi
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was shocked when he listed Lost Fleet.
The protagonist spends more time fighting the follies of fascism than the actual enemy.
@@Aeolusdallas The protagonist making fun of some of the series' book covers was also quite funny.
@@aralornwolf3140 insurrection is very anti democracy. Webber also traditionally treats elected politicians and people trying to make peace as dupes at best
@@aralornwolf3140 Well, yes but that doesn't erase the more problematic elements. Honestly the Lost Fleet books are a great counter example.
16:38 In lost fleet, that ideology of "civilian dont fight so they're not worthy to rule" is in total contradiction with the main character ideology, main character whom happen to be the dude with the most common sense in the alliance military. Geary actually despise that sort of thinking and has to, regulary, repeat that he doesn't want to be a dictator and that the military should answer to elected official.
James, I think a better description of the government in Starship Troopers (the book) is less fascism and more like the Roman Republic of the Punic wars. Also, in the novel, you can get the vote doing something non military; it just has to be something related to serving humanity at large. The desk sergeant at the recruiting station Rico goes to sign up at notes that they have to take everyone who signs up; even if they’re deaf, blind and mute. They’ll find something for that applicant to do, even if it’s counting the hairs on a caterpillar at some research station.
Edit: Well back here again. James, my good man, how many Lost Fleet books did you read? Much of the later novels deal with the main character Admiral Geary actively refusing attempts from within his own command to install him as a military dictator. Politicians are often portrayed sympathetically, and the Alliance military is often portrayed as stupid or overly aggressive. If anything, the series as a whole honestly feels more centrist than anything like far right fascism. I understand why Starship troopers is on this list (even if I politely disagree with your interpretation), but I am truly baffled as to why the Lost Fleet is on this list all.
Thank you for saying this! I was worried the comments sections was gonna be filled with biased people who didn't actually know what the books were about.
It's been a long time since I read Starship Troopers, but to my memory their government would be best described as a highly militaristic libertarian republic where citizenship is a wage given for service to the republic, not a birthright.
@@5h0rgunn45 yes because Heinlein was a huge libertarian.
He does this a lot. It's why I have such a hard time watching some of his videos.
It is a testimony to most people's wilful ignorance that the inventor of free love is labeled a Fascist because of some movie from the 90's.
3:41 "The bugs operate in a hivemind with no individuality. So they are a pretty clear analogue for Communists." -James Tullos
What happend to the introduction song?? It's not quite the same without it...
Although, admittedly, it wasn't very good, that shortcoming was mitigated by it's brevity.
@@whoaitstiger classy
I still think the Introduction Song should be re-recorded with a symphonic orchestra, mixed choir and 4 solists.
"Brevity is the soul of wit"
Just because sci fi has a lot of fascist space empires doesn't mean the work is conveying a fascist messages. Fascist space empires tend to make for good villains. Or in the case of Warhammer 40k-they remind you just how fucked the universe is. I mean think about it. It is a universe dominated by either space fascists or ravenous chaotic monsters out for pure destruction for the sake of it.
Yes, and it could be a warning from the author
Sadly, right-wing pundits ignore it cuz the works make the fascists look kinda cool. Setting it from the perspective of the fascists and not the people/aliens the fascists are oppressing feels strange.
Warhammer 40k’s setting is objective nightmarish, but because it makes the human soldier guys look cool, fascist wannabes ignore all depth. They think they’re gonna be the soldiers and not the regular folks who die in coal mines serving the dying Emperor.
I'm gonna be picky here. 02:53 In the novel STARSHIP TROOPERS it is explicitly said serving soldiers are not allowed to vote, and the military does obey the civilian government. This is not a "military elite." Not saying this is a particularly good set of institutions, and am not referring to the motion picture, but I like precision. 04:44 Likewise this is an absurd critique. The novel does not portray this at all. It sees the idea of service as ennobling (as btw do I) and that it just tends to make better voters overall. This is hardly fascism. To be sure, a facist can read it that way--but then fascists can read the Bible and see it as praising the white race (who are never mentioned anywhere in its pages). You also seem to be confusing a paradox with a contradiction. LIfe is full of the former, including the fact that in times of war putting the good of the many before the individual is the only way to defend individual liberty. The latter would be (for example) God both giving humans free will and making it impossible for us to commit sin at the same time. 06:29 This sarcasm frankly grates. You could make this point in a straightforward manner. But to be fair that is a personal response. 09:39 Honestly you seem to be cherry-picking what are fun but not terribly good books, and missing the actual themes involved. CRUSADE was all about remaining sane and ethical amid war, and in many ways the books about the Arachnid War were about that as well. I agree the creation of this living force of nature that had to be exterminated at all costs is problematical to say the least. But the books have a lot more nuance than you're giving them credit for, even if they are the literary equivalent of a delicious but unhealthy pastry you should avoid making a regular part of your diet. 10:56 YOu're missing what is truly absurd about this subplot. The book makes crystal clear the horrors of the Arachnids are generally known, but some people refuse to believe it. Which I supposed might well happen but this clumsy criticism of a "liberal" press doesn't do much to explore this (the CHTOR books by David Gerrold do a much, much better job of exploring this idea). 11:58 Again, super simplistic analysis which even in this rather simplistic series of stories is more complex than you are giving it credit for. INSURRECTION portrays blatant prejudice, and corruption grinding down and hurting a big chunk of members. In effect the Federation government is enacting a kind of gerrymandering specifically to keep the Fringe from having any influence even after their numbers and influence have finally approached that of the Heart and Corporate Worlds. The Fringe doesn't want to run everything, but rather demand that they be treated equally. Not at all what you are describing. 13:48 This is an excellent point. The novel is nowhere near large enough to give any semblance of a realistic or detailed portrait of the context. But the previous books do hammer it home that the Corporate Worlds have been fiddling with regulations and policies to give themselves profits and control over interstellar commerce at the expense of the Fringe. 14:28 You see, this strikes me as the most chilling thing you've said. You literally dismiss economic exploitation and hardship with "that is the way the game works." In fact, after a few generations of this kind of thing, the exploited are often looking for a way to strike back--and blaming them for it makes zero sense. These aren't particularly good books but MY GOD you are cherry-picking to make your point...poorly. 15:01 Again, you are cherry-picking in a manner that goes over the line into dishonesty.
Honestly, I think you have a perfectly legitimate point to make about the values of military scifi and how they all too often wander into fascism or at least militarisitic ideology--but your examples are poor ones, at last as you present them.
Paragraphs can do miracles
@@aralornwolf3140
See, a miracle
@@aralornwolf3140
Yeah
@Cian McCabe civil service is fascist? Fuck you
Civilian Air patrol Fascist, Coast Guard fascist, NASA Fascist, public schools fascist. Every thing is fascist because it is wrong to believe that service to the society is a noble thing. Because that is wrong think.
Don't let facts and context get in the way of a bad argument.
It makes it a lot more easier to project power fantasies onto characters in a fascist world.
It's probably just because military sci-fi is by its nature centered around the military and any military, no matter how liberal or libertarian its parent society is, will always have conservative authoritarian undertones.
Why conservative?
@@adamnesico Because militaries are organizations constructed around hierarchies of command and base themselves on a traditional culture and preserving its own traditions.
I think Legend of the Galactic Heroes is a very good take on it. Showing the flaws and rights of the systems it shows.
Democracy isn't presented as the perfect option, but is represented as the voice of the people.
Autocracy isnt represented as an evil sin, but an effecient way to change a society; though essentially plays russian-roulette after the benevolent autocrat (in the case of this story, the "blonde brat" in my pfp) dies.
It also shows how people enter the military, both with want and not. One protagonist enters it with revenge and ambition on his mind, while the other protagonist enters due to t being his only choice for University.
It also shows how hierarchies can be annoying. One protagonist has to handle antagonists from his subordinates, while the other has to handle it from their superiors.
@@adamnesico because they're organisations built on obeying hierarchies to enforce the will of the country's leaders on another population by force. It's difficult, like really difficult to wage an offensive war on a large scale without a chain of command. it's possible, but like, tricky because keeping control of large groups of soldiers and occupied areas
Without reporting to a central command body. That said there is a lot to be said for the benefits of horizontal organisation in war since it allows for alot more versatility and responsiveness. It is just that not many people practice it because of the greater difficulty it creates for making decisions on a large scale.
@@seekingabsolution1907 And all the revolutionary armies?
2:50 It was also military defeat at the hands of a communist regime called The Chinese Hegemony that led to the collapse of Democracy in the book.
14:27 Its true that there are going to be losers in a capitalist economy. But there are actual examples from history where it was made illegal for people living on the fringes to even play the game in the first place. Like when Britain and France made it illegal for the residents of their colonies to open businesses that would compete with firms in the mother country. That isn't really inherent to capitalism. If it were, then there wouldn't be any capitalist countries without colonies. But there are, like Switzerland.
Most “foreign firms” in the world are just owned/started by expats/already wealthy foreigners who got western style education.
It would be interesting to see how a business would have evolved from a eastern point of view. I know Spain has some huge coops which are unlike most western firms tho.
@@acceleration4443 There is the Sumitomo Group. They were founded during Japan's isolationist period by a former buddhist monk. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumitomo_Group
Yeah
Come on, you can't call Heinlein a fascist for writing a fascist book (or two)
The guy pretty much wrote a book promoting every ideology imaginable, since he went through more phases than an entire classroom of emo kids.
...That and a bunch more that were basically porn, but at least it was better crafted porn than twilight.
Honestly, this really helps to encapsulate what I love so much about Ender’s Game, and how it’s followed up by Speaker for the Dead, they’re basically an inversion of the “Starship Troopers” setup. The war between the Buggers and humanity was ultimately caused by a complete misunderstanding between radically different species, and the fact that it ends up escalating to genocide is something that the protagonist ends up living the entire rest of his life trying to reverse. Ender’s natural empathy is what’s twisted by the awful society he lives in into his ultimate weapon, and we see the psychological toll that being raised as a child soldier takes on him. Ultimately, it’s his ability to communicate and understand “the other” that make him such a great leader and strategic thinker, and it’s also why he destroys his own legacy and goes on an eternal quest to make up for what he did. I’d definitely recommend Speaker if you read Ender’s Game when you were younger, it’s really good.
Card is still a right-wing whacko, don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of misogyny in the way the female characters are portrayed, Speaker gets a little white savior-y, the original version of EG had lot of Cold War era fearmongering about the Russians, and that kind of stuff only gets worse in the later books of the Ender’s Shadow series (and the main series books after Speaker just get... *weird*) but despite all of those EG and Speaker are always going to have a place in my heart.
Can you give an example of the female characters in the EG series? I didn't pick up in any of that shit when I read the books.
@@mo-sl4bj Thanks. I guess it depends on what the entry tests are. Like if it's physical stuff physical stuff then yeah I would assume there would be more males than females because like the person said its evolution. Males and females evolved differently. Males are the more physical sex and females the less physical sex. Doesnt male one superior to the other it's just how we developed. If it's like intelligence based testing then yeah theres a bit of a problem with the quote because intellectually I'd say the sexes are identical in capability as far as I know.
Would you rather him ignore the gender imbalance inherit in most militaries?
Yes the male characters outnumber the female, but Petra, Lt Anderson, Virlomi, ect. are shown to be completely competent in their own right with Petra being described as the best soldier at Battle School. Plus Valentine shows a glimpse of the normal world and is intellectually shown to be an equal to her brothers.
The three are only separated by temperament, not ability.
What I loved as a kid was how international the Battle School was. It felt like the whole world was together in this struggle.
@@Gyro_Scope360 The entry test is purely psychological, they are looking for certain character traits in their candidates. Ender's Big brother fails to get into Battle school because he is too violent and aggressive, while his sister fail because she is too empathetic and not aggressive enough. The book claims that girls (battle school admit 5~6 year old children) are far less likely to exhibit the correct psychological for being effective soldiers.
@@LostInNumbers Oh well that makes sense then.
The Terran Federation did nothing wrong.
Yeah, the Terran Federation did nothing wrong, but the other 50 Terran Federations throughout fiction can go fuck themselves.
neither did ucf
A man of culture
Forced meme is forced.
The fringe worlds sound like the Independent Planets in Firefly. This reminds me of how the Alliance only looks like the bad guys because we're seeing their world through the eyes of their enemies.
Something like that wouldn't happen in our world. We'd probably implement an electoral college like system to balance representation
I mean, the Alliance tortured River into being a psychic killing machine and created the Reavers as a failed mind-control experiment, so it’s hard to *really* argue honestly in their favor.
@@ofthecaribbean That's basically one of the things that caused the break in Insurrection: the seats on their legislature were at least 1 vote per planet, but plants above a certain level of population got extra seats, reasonably enough. Historically the vastly greater populations of corporate and heart worlds gave them overwhelming majorities, balanced by the fringe worlds getting more representation per head (since they were assured of at least 1 vote per planet). As the fringe world population increased, they were reaching the point that some fringe planets were getting more than one vote, while the corporate and heart world vote numbers weren't really going up. then an issue arose that would lead to raising the threshold population for gaining extra votes being increased and the Fringe worlders saw this as intentionally keeping them from getting the voting share that their population now merited. throw in a political assassination of one of their leaders when they almost succeeded in contesting the decision legitmately, and the political process ended up discredited. which side was fascist (could be both), I leave to political theorists.
@@mickbrown7793 I see. Ultimately in a democratic system, equal representation should be assured, so they started out right but committed one atrocity too many
@@ofthecaribbean And there is no way a electoral college can be rig for the benefit of special interest groups. Or said special interest groups won't just buy out the politicians from the start.
Have you ever read The Iron Dream? God that book was a trip but it’s a great critique of the military sci-fi genre and the fandom around it because it takes all their problematic aspects to the most hilarious yet uncomfortable extreme.
The biggest issue with this video is that it seems to have no idea of the concept of militarism, so instead puts forward Fascism as a poor replacement. It is perfectly understandable that a military sci-fi story would say that military force is good and just in certain situations, which is often an unprovoked attack from a foreign power. The challenge with militarism is that it is apolitical. That means that virtually every type of political system can be militaristic. There is a further challenge that what works in militarizes are universal, so every military looks similar. There was very little actual difference between the various militarizes of that fought in WWII, even though the governments involved had radically different political systems. The values of duty, loyalty, and courage were all qualities praised by every military, so a person who knows no context would struggle to infer how a government works by just looking at a military unit.
This issue for the video is seen well by Starship Troopers. The radical idea put forward in that book is that a government is only able to stand if the people are willing to voluntarily fight to maintain it. Every type of political government fully believe that compelled military service was both moral and right. Even democracies had no problem forcing a citizen to die. Starship Troopers argued that was inherently wrong, and even that a democracy would be stronger without it. It is a fun point of history that reality has born out Heinlein's vision, though the Marian Reforms had already pointed that out in history.
@Cian McCabe You can say that but do you think the Dutch or Polish who saw Panzers drive through their town would agree with you.
ever heard of ww1 ? this is what military sci fi is way more close to then nazi Germany. most military scifi barely talk about racial purity or that every single aspect of society should be under the state. its more like the government has a war to win and the military is so obsessed with winning they do everything to win it military and use everything. for example jews were very crucial in ww1 germany military research like poison gas unlike nazi germany who rather put political goals and hinder military ones unlike in the Kaiserreich
1:01 So basically...it's possible and even necessary to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects?
Star Wars doesn't really belong here. The only series' that can really be called military sci fi were the prequels and the Clone Wars. And those series' portrayed war as an almost universal negative that's used as a tool by those in power to retain and grow their power at the cost of those below.
also in the clone ears Multimedia project it was very obvious and also in the movie with every setback the senate was blamed and more and more things were nationalized under the supreme chancellor
so these guys did, as James put it in a worldbuilding video, an "Ayn Rand"?
i dont think he wants to bore us to death
There *are* good subversions. I remember particularly one series, whose name I can't recall, which basically chronicles a journey of dissilusion with the human government. We begin indoctrinated into thinking everything in the universe is hostile and violent, and gradually learn that while the universe is very violent, the human government wants us to think that it's unfixable. The story ends with "Humanity" and "The State" being broken apart.
Oh, now I remember! Old Man's War.
This is a good comment, it should have more likes
@Suebian Read the book series. It's way more nuanced than that. Spoilers ahead:
Basically: the first book in the series establishes that the universe is full of violent, angry people that want to kill us. This is why, understandably, the Earth government is waging a war against them to protect our colonies and keep them safe.
The second book goes into why the universe is full of violent, angry people that want to kill us: because they've done the math and believe that in the long run, the only chance for a species to stay relevant on the galactic stage is to make sure nobody else gets to expand. Several of the most powerful are setting up an alliance to make sure that they, the most powerful starfaring nations, get to keep all of the good planets, and have enough strength to make sure that nobody else gets to expand outside their homeworld ever. The humans aren't invited to join this alliance.
However, as we soon learn, there are other aliens out there who think that the violent, angry people are wrong and are trying to move towards more of a collaborative mindset, setting up a kind of counter-alliance to make sure that the first alliance can't succeed in their goals. The humans are ostensibly part of this counter-alliance, but it soon becomes clear that the Earth government is less interested in becoming part of one big happy family, and more concerned with keeping their control over their homeworld and existing colonies. And as part of maintaining that control, they make sure that the colonies and homeworld can never communicate with each other, and that the homeworld never knows exactly what is going on in the greater universe. This is ostensibly to protect them, but in fact, keeps the population separate and disunified so that they can never overthrow the government.
The third book is all about how the Earth government has to be overthrown and the status quo has to be broken so that humankind can survive.
"Your protagonist state is like Mussolini's Italy!"
Regular sci-fi authors: "What do you mean?"
Heinlein: *"yes."*
Pluto Chan Yeah they actually are competent
@@plutochan9931 i though those guys from starship troopers are called the UCF (United Citizens Federation)?
@@professionalpussypetter2929 That's what it was changed to in the movies, in the books they're the Terran Federation.
@@Bigred073 thx verhoven for the change then.
actually Italy was aimint to maximize role of state in anything.
Terran Federation was minimalistic state to point of unbelievability.
Excellent video. Please continue making content like this. I love sci fi, hell, especially military sci fi, but it is filled to the brim with deeply troubling subtexts and philosophies.
Truth be told though fascism really doesn't carry the same connotations in most countries as it does in the west. I get that these books are mostly for a western audience, but the taboo nature of it isn't really as widespread as a lot of people seem to think it is, so even if these books are unintentionally spreading such messages I don't think it really matters.
Without watching the entire video
Starship troopers the movie has literally nothing in common with the book. It was originally going to be it's own thing called bug hunt. Somehow the studio owned the rights to starship troopers and decided to just change the title of bug hunt to starship troopers. Hell the director even admitted he never read the book beyond a single page and went "yup fascist" (being entirely wrong but he was never the sharpest tool in the shed)
In the book the Terran Federation are not fascists they are their own weird thing closer to the Roman republic if anything. Basically the message of starship troopers is if you want to have a say in how your country is run you need to be willing to sacrifice for your country whether that be your time or your body. The book on several occasions states you dont have to be in the military to get citizenship that is just the way focused on in the book since John Rico is in the military.
Hmm, yes, the only way to change the regime is to serve the regime. And if the regime is horribly corrupt and abusive, and something I would be utterly fucking appalled to support, I still have to spend years of my life supporting the horrific regime that I hate before I'm allowed to push for any kind of reform. Yes, that's definitely not ripe for abuse at all.
If you think there is literally any justification for denying suffrage to a country's citizens, on any grounds whatsoever, then I am going to call you a fucking fascist. Because that's what you are.
@@tbotalpha8133 you havent read the book. The government in the story isn't corrupt or abusive its frankly depicted as working a little too well but if you think that's facism I'm going to call you a fucking idiot who wouldn't know what facism was if it smacked you in the face
@@shabah2644 A Fascist system depicted as working very, very well sounds exactly like Fascism if you ask me.
@@MemeMarine again the book and movie have nothing to do with each other. In the movie the terran federation are facists or well something akin to fascism
In the book the terran federation is sorta like the roman republic it's not a dictatorship as anyone can become a citizen (the book specifically states even if you were blind deaf and a quadriplegic if you wanted to be a citizen they could find a way for you to serve even if it was something like volunteering for medical trials)
I'm not saying I like the system in the book but to call it fascist is just wrong.
@@hupablom8851 but that's not fascism. Facism offers no chance for the common person to have a role in government there is no representation only dictation. There are no individuals in facism (or communism but that's another topic) there is only the party and the collective.
In starship troopers (the book again I cant stress this enough the movie which most people know of starship troopers has nothing to do with the book if anything it's a rather immature parody of the book directed by someone who doesnt understand the book's argument) you dont have to be a citizen to have a good life hell in both the movie and the book Rico's parents are not citizens and are fabulously wealthy. So it's not like everyone is either a slave or a citizen.
Furthermore I bring up the example of the quadriplegic because that is exactly brought up in the book as a hypothetical example. You dont have to be a soldier or a lab rat to become a citizen you could do things like be a paper pusher in an office or something people think you have to be a soldier in starship troopers because that was the case in the movie which as I said was a shallow parody of the book.
The book's fundamental argument is if you have want to have a say in how the country is lead you should be willing to contribute to the society this isn't facism. Facism would be midnight raids on dissidents censorship of media the labeling of groups of people as undesirables to be rounded up and killed. Again read the book for yourself it's like 200 pages you can read it in an afternoon. Now whether you agree or not with the books stance is another argument altogether but to call it fascist is just wrong and comes across as someone saying "I dont like it therefore fascism"
I don’t know the man, obviously, but David Weber seems to have... issues with liberal politics. In Honor Harrington the big bad is a communist state that is militarily expansive to acquire the resources to fuel its welfare economy. For some fun books and massive political whiplash, consider reading 1632 by Eric Flint followed by 1633 which he coauthored with Weber. 1632 has a protagonist who is a West Virginian coal miner labor organizer that ends with a political alliance with Gustav Adolfus’s Sweden; 1633 opens with ‘that’s nice, but let’s build guns and warships’
In the later books it becomes apparent that the Republic of Haven (pre-Peoples Republic) was a highly successful and respected liberal state that was manipulated into doing completely off the deep-end in order to bring about its own collapse and that of the surrounding states, so that they wouldn't be in a position to oppose the real antagonist.
I'm not sure if communism is necessarily liberal. It always struck me as pretty authoritarian in execution, regardless of its stated intent. Some hippies aside, I can't think of very many liberals who are unironically pro-communist.
The Peeps might be a welfare state but they're pretty far removed from say Soviet or Chinese (Mao era) style communism. They're more like the Roman Empire in that they're a militarily powerful state fuelled on plunder from military conquests, and that needs to placate their citizens with their equivalent of Panem et Circenses (literally "bread and circuses" Roman Emperors and politicians would provide freely to citizens to prevent riots) in the Basic Living Stipend.
William Hiers Liberals cant be communist because then they would be liberals anymore
@@williamhiers1280 Liberals can't be pro-communist. Liberalism is capitalist, whereas communism is anti-capitalist, advocating for something that's supposed to rid the world of the evils of capitalism. Whether or not these socioeconomic systems have democratic ideals or authoritarian ones at heart doesn't matter.
Legend of the Galactic Heroes probably gives the most honest look at a democratic system.
My god have I come across video with so much density, it could as well be a neutron star.
1. Heinlein's description was of his fictional society at war. Fact that he served in miliatary without ever going into actual conflict means nothing, for most of the history of his federation was also peaceful. What he was trying to do is claim that his fictional society, where military society is tied with citizenship, would be far more ready and effective when it has to deal with unexpected threat. This is simple to see.
2. Crusade, "Free holy ~~land~~ mother terra" but they use word "jihad". And you seriously can't see the authors are EQUATING christian and muslim holy wars?
3. OK, now what the actual fuck. How can you describe killing a hive mind species as a genocide, if you're aware that they're, you know, a hive mind. One mind, many bodies. The "genocide" is actually not a genocide, because only one living entity is killed. That's at worst a murder not genocide. And with how much suffering the entity caused, any single other entity in that setting would be tried and sentenced to death. So, it's an singular execution, rather than a genocide.
Robert Heinlein: "I'm a libertarian"
Also Robert Heinlein: "I'm gonna write a book that praises militarism and a borderline fascist 'limited democracy'. And it praises individualism. But the individualists are actually fascists."
Also Robert Heinlein: "I'm a libertarian"
Again, Robert Heinlein: "I support the Vietnam War"
a society where everyone can earn the civil rights and you can get wealthy without it if you don´t want them, oh yes that must be fascists. Praises militarism??? You mean the will to fight for the survival of your spices against an enemy that wants to kill us all.....uff
@@scheinerchen6471 The book has it where certain rights require being part of the Federal Service (especially military service). That includes the right to vote and hold office. I don't know if the Terran Federation in the book has all the ideas of fascism part of it - which is why I said it praises a borderline fascist "limited democracy." He presents that as a good thing. If he didn't want to praise it and simply was wanting to explore the idea, then he wouldn't have presented the leaders in pretty much only a good light. There is a part of the book where Dubois (Rico's History and Moral Philosophy teacher) ridicules the idea of inalienable rights (for example: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness").
As for militarism, Heinlein agreed that the book glorifies the military. War is no longer seen as more of a last resort, instead it is pretty much the first thing (probably has something to do with having voters and politicians having been almost all in the military). As far as I'm aware, the reason why they're fighting the aliens is never explained. I've also read where someone argues that Heinlein had created a society that practically requires to constantly be at war in order to function.
@@GrantNukem i'm not sure for the book (it´s over 20 years for my last read of it) but in the movie it was an colony that got atacked first. An illigale colony that get started by civilians against the warnings of the military. An illigale colony that not got removed from the military. on points like this it´s pretty clear for me that could not be a fascist society, they would not allow something like that. For the limited democracy i have only to look around in the western civ. and yeah i can warm my heart for earning your right to vote and hold office. The federal service can be so much more than only the military but the book/movie only shows this part because of the war. The Leaders in a good light, hm (again in the movie) the first skymarshall give up his command after the first defeat and pass it to an poc woman and she is much better in the job, sounds for me very progressiv and liberal (yeah i know, in the movie, now you got me, i have to read the book again)
@心静渊智 sorry for the missunderstanding but we talk about the war between the bugs and humans, not a real war. From a book from 1959 and why the society (in my opinion a very free one) can come over as a fascist one.
@@GrantNukem the federation allows literally anyone cable of understanding the oath of service to enter federal service(which in the book isn’t just the military) and the main character of the book is Filipino
Knowing Steve White and that those books came from playing a strategic tabletop game called Star Fire (same game created Honor Harrington, David Webber's solo series) I was very amujsed by your analysis. I am not saying you are wrong, in fact I'd say you are pretty spot on. I am saying those topics didn't occur to Steve. I don't know David so I can't talk for him, but those books came from the two of them playing this game and how it shook out.
Idea for an Orwell style sci-fi:
The character is a secret agent sent to infiltrate an enemy battle ship in a three way war of human empires. He collects information and properly relays it to side. Eventually he discovers something huge (invasion plan, etc.) and quickly reports it, however, after relaying the information he realises that it is oddly familiar to something he had heard before he became an agent. After going through the various nodes and memories he realises something terrible: The three human factions are in fact all controlled by one government which, after realising there are no alien species to conquer threw humanity into a perpetual state of war as to not lose their influence. Soon after the realisation the character is captured and publicaly executed as a spy to raise morale.
Obviously, this is an unpolished draft since I basically just came up with this on the spot, but what do you think?
I think it has potential but you have to try to do something that separates it from 1984 other than setting. It's too close, even if it's meant as a retelling. Another beef I have with this is that you have to make sure the government and the world still works and makes sense in a sci-fi setting. Part of the reason why the world governments worked in 1984 was because they stifled information to the extent that people no longer know of anything else, and therefore had no ideas of revolution. The majority of the population was made up of the 'proles' who didn't have any access to information other than popular songs on the radio and that they learned from each other and other forms of idle entertainment. The second reason why the government worked is because the governments all maintained control of their people's emotions. Fear is one of the ways that we've seen, but fear alone does not make a government run well. They also practiced the (Two? Five?) minutes' hate in which the populace was all stirred into directing and channeling any form of restlessness or anger they would have about their situation into hating the political opposition and the country's military opponents. And finally, the government set up a fake underground to catch anybody that decided to go rogue. The revolutionary book by Goldstein might have initially been made by a political dissident, but its entire purpose now is to lure future dissidents away from any legitimate movements and right into the hands of the thought police. The government and setting of 1984 was extremely well thought out in every aspect to answer the question of "why can't the people just rebel?" and if you want to make the story you want then you should do just as much thinking as George Orwell did. If you don't, your story could miss all of the points about 1984 that made the book great and you could fall flat on the pavement. Consider everything. Forget nothing.
Also, how does a nation sustain a war on itself? The only reason the US profited from WWII was because it was blowing up other countries ball bearing plants and oil fields, and it was far enough away others couldn't do the same to them. A nation constantly destroying it's own infrastructure with no long intermittent peace would result in the greatest imperial collapse in the history of man. For a more accurate portrayal of what close, prolonged war does to societies, look at post war Britain or Germany.
@@pjnoonan1423 to add on to this, 1984 works because the three governments aren't one; they are extremely similar in their structure and all do pretty much the same thing, but they're all different countries. Also, the majority of the damage done to infrastructure was in Africa and parts of Asia. It was all centralized in areas that sustained most of the fighting most of the time.
@@florbengorben7651, even then I don't buy the world of 1984. If all of the soldiers are so filled with hatred for the enemy, why hasn't anyone broken the others line? It is naiive to say any government could control the chaos that is war. There are so many variables ranging from the weather to the opponents skill level that even an all encompassing super-totalitarian nation could not stop some waxxing or waning in the line. Even if the government told the generals to stop the advance and it actually worked, the common soldier would begin to question why the so far utterly successful charge would be halted. Eventually, the illusion would be broken for enough soldiers to either start a military coup, or even civilian revolution.
@@pjnoonan1423 the thing is with 1984, it's a fundamentally different society than ours and we don't know exactly why the military hasn't mutinied. What we do know is that there's so little information given to the populace, and combined with conditioning from birth teaching everyone that the place they live in is better than everywhere else and the constant propaganda feed, not only does almost nobody rise up against their superiors, they wouldn't even think of it. And of the the ones that do, they're caught early. 1984 isn't the most believable novel, especially given the fact that stuff had to happen to get the world to this condition of society, but it is pretty darn internally consistent. I'm not the best at explaining stuff from 1984 considering it's been a few years since I read it, but if you haven't already, you definitely should. Even if you think it's wholly unbelievable and preposterous, it'll make you think and at the very least, you can say you've read one of the most influential novels of all time. It's just one of those classics that everybody should read at least once, even if they don't agree with it.
Interesting Essay but I feel you miss a major point:
Historically speaking - any time a tribe/group/nation of our species has met another it has always escalated into conflict (at least initially)
Inter-tribal rivalry, war, empire, slavery & subjugation etc. It might eventually settle into a peaceful equilibrium once the cost of war exceeds its potential gains, but my point is, for the longest time, the "Optimal" arrangement for a society was a militaristic one - even if peace was your goal, you needed to ensue your tribe was at least strong enough to resist potential aggression from neighbours - Survival demanded it.
My point is: If Humanity reached a point where we began to encounter new, sentient species, each with own technology and desire for finite resources we could easily (and rationally) find ourselves shifting into a military first, duty obsessed society.. Especially if we were ever attacked and our democracies were found to be "Sleeping at the wheel" - None of our ideals (Democracy, equality, etc) Are more important to us than survival.
As much as I like Steven Universe, when I first saw the Diamond Authority in Steven Universe, I held out hope that maybe it would eventually come into contact with an intelligent interstellar superpower that would feel compelled to fight back as a preemptive strike. They could've easily used DA's rap sheet against them. This superpower could have argued "do we hunker down and wait for this empire to clash with ours--an enemy that doesn't need to eat, sleep, breathe, or even deal in economics--or do we take the fight to them before it gets out of hand?" and we could be torn between who to root for in this case. Sadly, Rebecca Sugar, didn't even bother to show or even imply humanoid aliens that weren't Gem-based. At any rate, I would like to see a sci-fi war make us torn between who to root for in a war like the Achaeans and the Trojans in Homer's The Iliad.
Trojans all the way! The Argives, even their gifts are dangerous and tricky.
I'm not sure why you're expecting war drama out of the musical, friend and family lesson time rainbow that most of Steven Universe is?
@@Rynewulf War drama has been a part of Steven Universe. I mean, what do think Rose's Rebellion was? A glorified pillow fight? This is a show that doesn't shy away from dark subject material and themes. They talk about that war, we see glimpses of it every now and then; the consequences it's had, and even Greg himself says, "There's no such thing as a good war." which is very telling of the show. The show even had hints that another Gem War was looming, and Steven managed to avert that crisis.
@@KTChamberlain Fundamentally the problem with Steven Universe can be summed down to
"he show even had hints"
"hits at"
"alludes to"
or whatever variant of these you want. Its a distilled version of Utena, Evangelion and a few good ideas, but without the brass balls to actually deliver.
Is it the age rating? I fucking doubt that.
@@KTChamberlain Steven Universe makes more sense when you realize that it's a family drama using the interstellar war as a metaphor for conflict. The Diamond Authority aren't fascist leaders, they're abusive family members. Steven's victory isn't about destroying his grandmother, his great-aunts, and his home, it's about healing wounds.
Breaking through to your abusive grandma and letting her know that you are not going to buckle down under her abuses like your mother did and that the way that she treats people is wrong and needs to change might not have the same appeal as overthrowing a fascist dictator, I admit.
To be fair in starship Trooper the Bugs are the aggressors so you can’t exactly blame the federation for not wanting to roll over and die. And yes it is made rather clear that the bugs seem to exterminate humanity. So whilst it’s not the utopia Heinlein thought it to be, the federation is by no means in the wrong in the context of the story.
The issue is the ideology. The book's narrative is supposed to have commentary on real life yet the universe it is set in doesn't reflect reality. The Book portrays the Federations fascist actions as justified because the bugs are evil and undeserving of mercy, yet the real life group the bugs represent are much more complicated and, at the end of the day, still human.
Isnt it reveled that it wasn't really a meteor launched by the bugs, but by the federation itself as an excuse to go to war, and actually the humans are the ones colonizing bugs territory?
@@skepticmonkey6923 no. That was literally only in the (bad no matter how I look at it) movie.
Movie casual
Genuinely surprised the title before I clicked on it wasn't just 'Starship Troopers.' Appropriate it was the first example you talked about since it's the poster child for fascism in scifi. I read it in middle school before I hit my "able to think critically about media" period so it's only of the books I really want to reread to see if I still enjoy it, now that I'm older and wiser. Also OH GOD THE CRUSADE THING AND NUREMBERG. Big Yikes. Thanks for the video! Super interesting as usual.
@Jason Buford My dude, my pal, it's literally briefly discussed in the video. I'm not smart enough to explain it, and it's been many years since I've read the book myself, but you can find videos discussing that topic (both saying "yes it is" and "no it isn't") pretty easily.
@UniversalWhatnot it's not btw
The book (Insurrection) was supposed to be a metaphor for, on the one hand, the American Revolution (fringe settlements economically exploited by powerful groups in the imperial heartland) and the Civil War (the addition of new territory from the Louisiana Purchase preventing the Southern states from catching up to the political power of the North). In both cases, the solution adopted was secession, as happens in Insurrection.
Seriously, you can disapprove of Heinlein personal politics all you want, but please judge Starship Troopers on what is writen IN the book. For exampel citizenship can be gained through military service or through civil serveice. They give a exampel how a blind man counts the legs on a centipede by feeling them. Heinlein may have made the bugs boring two-dimensional enemys, that attack first and do not want to negotiate/communicate, but that do not make the humans facists. Soldier as cannon fooder? In the book? Have you read the book? They routinely wreck the bugs. If it was from the movie, you cant blame Heinlein for that. You point out that Heinlein was not a combat veternan, so what? Are you? Gess not, but that do not prevent YOU to have a opinion on war (that is called dubbel standard)
I can go on, but my point you either haven't read the book (or it was very long time ago) or you deliberately misrepresent the book.
Soon very soon will join the ranks of BreadTube hahahahahah!!!!!!!!
He just needs to pour a bunch of milk in his face under bisexual lighting while the Soviet anthem plays in the background
@@umangmalik that would be amazing
Good?
Oh that why his take on fiction is so privileged.
I think a video that is about food in fiction would be a good place to formally admit him to Breadtube.
Just how recently have you read Starship Troopers? Your conclusion that there was no criticism in there is more than a little off. Yes, Heinlein had some strong opinions on learning duty, but he also pretty obviously recognized how taking things to an extreme could be pretty terrible, and that is reflected in the book.
...no, that's reflected in the movie. Heinlein's book never seriously criticizes the Federation's way of doing things, and the plot grinds to a halt multiple times so that Heinlein's mouthpieces--I mean Johnnie's professors can monologue about why an authoritarian regime where voting isn't a right, but a privilege earned through military service, complete with lauding the veterans who founded the Federation through a coup is the best possible way of doing things . The closest the book comes to criticizing the way the government does things is to say it isn't perfect. Heinlein creates several false dichotomies and seems incapable of finding middle ground - for example, when discussing the death penalty, it's either let the criminals run wild or use the death penalty as a deterrent. Johnnie's professor (Dubois?) and by extension Heinlein is pretty clear that he thinks it's one or the other. This is a problem. Anyone proposing such a this-or-that, one-size-fits-all method of handling anything with no room for compromise which allows for approaching things on a case by case basis is a fool.
@@williamhiers1280 I didn't say the book wasn't without fault, merely that to claim it was completely devoid of self-criticism is patently false.
@@khodexus4963 Fair enough.
Seems someone got his Heinlein from the movie and out of context interviews and nothing else.
The man was a true and true Libertarian! He advocated for free love in A Stranger in a Strange Land and for freedom from neocolonialist tyranny in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Libertarianism is a pretty illogical system of governance, though.
I'm not saying that liberalism or socialism or fascism is better - they're all about as bad.
Again, as the narrator said, you can like something while acknowledging the piss poor parts.
Personally Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress are both some of my favorite books, regardless of how I feel about the political connotations.
@@RBEmpathy The primary idea of Libertarianism is maximum possible freedom for the individual and minimum power of control for the state. This based around the premise that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", therefore if power is as spread out as possible then abuse of said power is as limited and ineffectual as possible. The same principal democracy is based on.
I don't quite see how that's illogical, but that's not really the issue here.
The issue is that presenting Heinlein, a Libertarian, as a Fascist is both inaccurate and somewhat insulting as control by a totalitarian authority is something he would despise.
@@Crick1952 despite the premises, the conclusion of the logic of libertarianism is highly flawed.
I think the virtues extolled are themselves at least decent, if not a little particularly classically liberal, but it's really the implications of the ideology I'm interested in.
Heinlein was a product of his time. I disagree with many of his ideas, but still respect his artwork. I'm not entirely familiar with his personal beliefs or ideology, so I'll refrain from calling him a fascist.. but based on some of his works, he certainly indicated a preference for some of the same kinds of thought about citizenship, liberty, and militarism.
Robert depends on when you get him. He had his Left and Right eras.
Utter nonsense and slander: to try to “abolish capital” would lead to mass poverty.
Right libertarians believe that society would be immensely wealthier without the burdens of the state, and that civil society would reprise a greater role in caring for the poor in the absence of the state crowding it out with stolen resources.
You don’t have to agree with that, but you should at least try to understand what you disagree with.
There’s also some vagueness here between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, though they agree on most things.
i appreciate you encouraging me to clean my room
I find it funny how many people can read and experience the same thing, but come out with different outcomes and meanings.
When I was a kid I got fascinated by a board game called "Starfire". I just thought it was a cool spaceship battle game. I had no idea there was a story behind it. So thanks for letting me know. And as more than one UA-camr has pointed out, a LOT of SciFi civilizations are, to quote, "too stupid to exist".
I am reading a fantasy novel where the MC is a "benevolent" king, proceeds to marry all his 8 queens for political reasons and they just so happen to love him (very convenient author, very convenient)
He also proceeds to help other countries in pointless conflicts that cost's his countrymen lifes that do not give nothing to the country and are there only to make the MC look cool and very generous.
He then proceeds to, by sheer political influence, force a parent to give up his child to him, because he fancies him as a future husband for his little sister.
What is the book's name?
Sounds like a light novel
Manga?
Heinlein wasn't remotely fascist (which is a form of totalitarianism). The government in Starship Troopers included freedom of speech, freedom of travel (two things never seen under totalitarian regimes), and no military draft. The only difference was the franchise had to be earned, something everyone had the right to try for. Earning the franchise involved volunteering for "Federal Service", of which the military was a small part. Interstellar exploration was Federal Service. Establishing settlements on the ocean floor was Federal Service. Furthermore, there's a scene in the book where a doctor is asked what if a quadriplegic wants to try? He says everyone has the right to try so they'd have to come up with a task very difficult but doable for that person.
In the end, it seems like fascism implies that physical (or at least personal) forcefulness is the main yardstick by which to measure a nations' and a person's worth.
Calling Heinlein fascist is disingenuous based on Starship Troopers alone. Using Heinlein's fiction to determine what Heinlein believed is fraught with peril and probably impossible.
*Video starts*
James: *Big sip* Well here we go...
Me: dis gonna be good
What about anarchism in fiction? Robert E Heinlein also wrote The Moon Is A Hard Mistress.
Well for some reason most people dont know Robert Heinlein wrote anything else except Starship troopers....
That's more libertarian than anything. Ursula K Le Guin's The Dispossessed has a better example of anarchism, or anarcho syndicalism to be more specific.
The Moon is a Hard Mistress is also a bit of a might is right scenario.
He pushes a libertarian ideal a lot but ignores that all our main characters are privileged so don't need social support.
They also kill millions and shrug it off with "they weren't actually nukes".
@@BigPimp238 "The Moon is a Hard Mistress is also a bit of a might is right scenario."
Well, definitely sounds like anarchism then at least.
@@BigPimp238 I too can see it just as anticolonialism.
"War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means"
- Clausewitz
17:38
Me a 40k fan: "I didn't sign up for this shit"
I have never seen starship troopers as fascist. Pro military perhaps. But the government itself wile a meritocracy, it was also a libertarian leaning constitutional democracy.
"Aaackshually its called ebebophilia, officer!"
It's not a democracy if the only way to participate in it is to join the military elite. That's a Junta.
@@jaspervanheycop9722 the military was just a part of the services you could perform the get citizenship. And the path least likely to result in you becoming a citizen. And their was no bar to do any public service to get citizenship. If you were deff, dumb, and blind they had to take you. The only obstacle to becoming a citizen was indeed completing a term of service.
Yeah, Heinlein, that well-known libertarian fascist who wrote a fascist state in which all interactions we're voluntary, and no one had to do anything they didn't want to.
"Referred to only as bugs." You have literally never read the novel.
Why should I listen to your opinions when you're clearly not knowledgable on the subject.
How does libertarian fascism make any sense? Fascism is an authoritarian ideology where everyone is forced to participate. Calling everything fascist is just so stupid.
@@jamy4697 Yeah, no kidding.
The thing about Heinlein is that he never served in combat. People talk about his naval service but forget that he was discharged years before WW2. More importantly he was never allowed back in despite still being young enough to serve. So I always viewed Starship troopers as a form of venting frustration at the system for keeping him away from any form of service during the war. He wrote it while middle aged at a point in his life when the realisation that he was never gonna identify with the WW2 generation sunk in. Lets be honest here there's no way he wasn't asked at least on occasion during the war 'why aren't you in uniform' and he had to say 'medical grounds' despite being a former naval officer. That must have hurt. So Starship troopers was basically Heinlein saying 'you thought I wasn't good enough for the last war I'm gonna teach you how to fight the next war.' A delayed screw you basically.
There's no way to say if the feeling was that visceral but I do agree his discharge left him with some hangups he was working through the rest of his life.
I love that the movie version of Starship Troopers is meant to be a criticism of Fascism and it does it super well
Which explains all of the plot holes and stupid things the human characters do.
Starship Troopers is not a movie that conveys fascistic messages. The Humans in the movie are liberals.
@@yamibakura8597 So I was trying to figure this one out because an authoritarian military state that requires state service for full citizenship rights and divides its society squarely into citizens and civilians is not truly liberal and then it hit me. The Federation lets women join the military. Wow. Imagine being so fashy that Starship Troopers is too liberal because they treat women like actual people.
@@yamibakura8597 The whole movie was a deliberate lampoon of the book: every crazy human character was meant to be a joke at the book, author's and fascism's expense
Yeah but none of the Human characters are crazy- they're just realistic. Not only that, nothing the Humans really do is indicative of fascism or even that morally questionable. For example, the Human propaganda is honest: the bugs are going to try and exterminate Humanity and they are immensely savage monsters.
The reason why people repeat the whole "Starship Troopers" is fascism thing is because it the director, a weak, effeminate man saw militarism, grit and true heroism and thought that was fascism.
In truth, Fascism is a Socialist heresy, based on Marxism-Leninism, and I can guarantee there's nothing like that in the movie or the book. And like I said above, the author is a LIBERAL, for goodness' sakes.
Ender's Game's pretty anti-war. Does that make it a deconstruction of Military Sci-fi fascism?
I guess the material does but the author himself isn't an ally and generally a real piece of shit
@@KiddCrowley Ally to what?
@@KiddCrowley what do you mean by ally
Best military sci-fi book is definitely The Legend of the Galctic Heroes.
Vincent Steele sounds like an absolute Chad.
It's interesting what you see. Cause. Well, the things that stuck with me about starship troopers was the notion of how to encourage a responsible electorate. Cause you don't have to serve in the military to get the right to vote, nor do those who cant vote have no guaranteed rights. But you do have to serve the state in some capacity for at least 2 years to earn the right to vote. Which seen as they said 'something given freely has no value' as their premise, presumably means once you earn it you will damned well vote carefully and actively. The other thing that stuck with me? the fact you can back out of this service at any time with the only consequence being you dont earn the right to vote and can't re-apply. Rico mentions that even with his unit of elite space marine power armour dudes if someone says on the day that they're refusing to go on a mission that the only punishment is they're sent home and their service isn't completed.
Granted this is what stuck with me. Not what else is in the book.
Except. the book explicitly states that isn't the case. They have it because "it just works". The thing people should take from Starship Troopers is that almost any form of government will work if the circumstances allow them to work. Of course, circumstances never stay the same so new circumstances will require new forms of government.
And thats fine. But at the end of the day SST was a political statement by its author. And thus should be viewed through political, sociological, and historical lenses.
Militant exclusionary polities don't really have great track records doing any of the things Heinlein says they do.
Now, that doesn't mean Heinlein was a fascist. But I think some aspects of fascist though are deeply alluring and its easy to not realize when you are paralleling them.
Heinlein wanted to elevate military service because he perceived it as an important formative experience in his own life.
That doesn't mean that veneration only has the consequences he intended though.
@@Bustermachine Only a minority of those in the books who did service to earn citizenship actually did anything military to earn it. Rico did because well..the story of someone who built water management infrastructure for two years doesn't make a thrilling read.
That being said the government of the book was established by the military and only after the kind of convenient implosion of heinlein's fictional ideological opposition that now that i think about it reminds me a bit of Atlas Shrugged, where all the people with politics or economic beliefs that Ayn Rand disagreed with were weak, ineffectual and doomed to failure. Where as everyone who was ideologically aligned with the author was capable and strong.
Which, if your political point only works if your opposition are characterized as infantile, i dont think that makes the political work as well...Props to Heinlein though compared to Ayn Rand this element wasn't anywhere near as glaring as it was in atlas shrugged.
Looping back, the idea of attempting to create a responsible electorate by making them earn the right to vote is at least an interesting notion(i dont think we have very responsible electorates in the west) even if it being setup by a military coup is not an ideal way of reaching that state... Maybe I'm just jaded because I pay attention to the USA and live in the UK though.
Insurrection is just 1776 in space mixed with modern decolonization, and no Mercantile empires that harvest resources in colonies and give them no economic freedoms or self governance are not Capitalistic. They expressly despise the idea of free trade, floating prices, or individual choice in economic matters. The closest things to a Mercantile empire in recent history would be the Soviet Union, the CCP's Regime, and France's exploitation of west africa. Right behind them would be the UK's empire till the US forced them to abandon Mercantile trade with their colonies in the 1950s.
in, "in death ground" and "The Shiva option" is about fighting a hive mind, a single macro organism that sees all other life as unicellular life without regard for the harm it does to feed itself. Unlike with fascists who pretend individuals are part of a hive, this is a real hive mind. It's not rational to pretend that you could reason with it. Nor that the death penalty would not be given if you put it on trial.
Crusade is bazaar of strange ideas, but the one you put on blast is truly strange. The reason that the "I was just following orders" excuse fell flat for those on trial there was expressly due to them being the leaders that were issuing the orders. They had extreme amounts of leverage to start a coup or revolt if they wished.
With Starship Troopers it's fairly clear you watched the film and never read the book. Your not criticizing the book to any meaningful extent. The film just took the books name, they have nothing in common other then the name. The film is a satire of US interventionism. The book is an entire can of worms onto itself. In the book for example, the humans form an alliance with another species that was forced into being subject state under the bugs. It has a lot reprehensible in it, but it's not what you claim it is. It is however jingoistic in it's message.
It doesn't seem to me that joining the military is an example of suffocating collectivism. Nobody is forced to join the Terran military, they don't have a draft. There's a world of difference between collectivism and sacrificing for the greater good of your own free will.
No, but citizenship is walled off from those who don't serve.
Hawkatana but that only involves voting. All other rights come from birth.
@@whitneylackenbauer9782 And participation in one's government is considered one of the most basic human rights.
So by that logic every single civilization is fascist including more than half the countries in this world today. you see how shit this Definition is?
It's also possible to see things that aren't there.
A bit of unrelated thought...
Both fascism and socialism are kind of collectivist - they both emphasise that by working together, rather than as a collection of individuals, we can achieve more.
However the intended use of this collective power is wastly different.
Facists focus on expressing this power to beat external enemies, while socialists focus the power inward to improve lives of each other.
And because of that external focus, fascism actually relies on having an enemy. Or if there are no actual enemy in sight, this enemy is invented.
However, on the flip side, if an actual enemy is presented, even non-facist leaning societies can start acting in a facshi way. Simply because any society will have traces of this ideology and wartime will amplify them to noticeable level.
So I wouldn't be surprised that in military scifi, all the societies look fachist. After all them being at war is the core premise.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War novels. There’s a lot of similar points in those books as well but with a viewpoint that made me wonder what the author’s opinions on those points were.
Twitter!? NO! I was going to SKETCH STUFF while listening!!!
FOol
This is the reason, for me anyway, I love how the Daleks from Doctor Who are represented. More times than not, Sci-Fi has this things of glorifying Imperialism and Fascism by making it out to be "cool". Yeah, the Space Marines and the Empire of Man are waging senseless and pointless wars, but look at the Space Marines, aren't they cool? Don't they look awesome? Look at them carve that Tyranid in half! Same with the Empire from Star Wars. Look at Darth Vader, isn't he so cool, looks at those Star Destroyers etc. etc. Now, I am NOT saying that anyone who likes or takes interest in these things are Fascists, hell, I love Star Wars, I'm more talking about the tiny majority of Warhammer and Empire fans that take things a little too far outside the realms of fiction. But the Daleks, who would want to be a Dalek? They're petty squid mutants trapped inside impractical dust-bins with whisks and plungers? Thats not cool. But thats the thing. The Daleks personify the pettiness of fascism, and how its warped the Daleks. The Daleks were once the Kaleds, in a pointless war with the Thals, but radiation made them mutate into tiny gooey creature things who can only hate because thats the only thing that remembered after the war with the Thals. Thats whats ingrained into them by their creator, Davros. And thus, their impracticalness is what makes them such a good allegory. No matter how many times they change their technology, the still have the same basic casing design, balls and eyestalks and all.
Your reading and analaysis of Starship Troopers and Starfire is superficial and inaccurate. You leave out important details in both works.
In Starship Troopers the right of vote is given to anyone who serves in one of sevrral goverment programs which includes both military and civilian service. Civilian service includes research and public labor jobs. You cannot vote until discharge. You can quit the military anytime you want up to being under fire. This right to quit includes just before entering a drop pod.
Your rant on Heinlein only shows you never did any more than skim his works. Read his works. He is for individual rights and the value of doing public service.
You show similar poor comprehension of the written text in the Starfire Series. Your ommissions and misreadings are too numerous for here and already shown in other posts.
He got the Starship Troopers reading backwards. The book is the clever satire of militarism and propaganda. The movie jumps in with both feet without a sense of irony.
Universal conscription is an authoritarian, militarist idea whether or not all the conscripts are actually sent to the military. Paramilitary civil service organizations full of conscripts would impart similar values and habits even if nobody had to shoot a gun. The book is quite explicit in saying that public service is as much about the political indoctrination of Terran "citizens" as it is about national defense. The non-military service would still in a militaristic setting, under a government of soldiers. Your civil rights are contingent upon serving and submitting to the destruction of your individuality and its reshaping by military discipline (with or without weapons) into a form suitable either for Raczak's Roughnecks or teaching fascism to children from the lectern of a History and Moral Philosophy class.
You belong to the State, a State that has held a stake in you from birth. The State comes before your life. You will serve the State. You will respect the State. You will bear and take life for the State, and give up your own when called upon. Your life depends on the good health of the State. These are the values of universal conscription. These are also the values of space fascism.
@@tankermottind The good of the many and all that. You'll be crying for universal conscription when those fucking bugs are at our solar systems edge, damned space hippy! Seriously though, in a galaxy full of hostile life this might literally be the only way to ensure our species survival. A few civil liberties 🤷♂️ the continued existence of the human species. When you put it into that context, it makes a lot more sense.
@@tankermottind
So, you haven't read the book either.
It is repeatedly stated that Rico would have had a better life had he gone into business, as his father wanted.
In the Federation "your" civil rights are enshrined in the constitution, you have them irregardless of wether you served or not. The only thing you gain by serving is the right to vote. Which you can't while still in the military.
The entire point of the Mobile Infantry is that it is entirely voluntary. Even when faced with a genocidal enemy (the Bugs), the Federation still maintains its volunteer military, never switching to conscription.You can always leave training, without it negatively affecting your future.
The entire point of the History and Moral Philosophy class is to allow Heinlein some world-building. Even the movie shows that nobody cares about the class and the book explicitly states that the class doesn't matter to the future of the students. You don't have to pass any tests, the teacher doesn't evaluate your "indoctrination". You just have to take it.
Then there is Rico's father, who despises the idea of Rico enlisting and tries to bribe him with an incredible vacation on Mars and a promising career as a businessman. He proudly states ""In the first place this family has stayed out of politics and cultivated it's own garden for a hundred years - I see no reason for you to break that fine record." (pages 28 to 29).
On the same page Rico admits: ""[..] he (Mr. Dubois) acted as if none of us was really good enough for service". His father openly calls the Federation Service a "useless organ" and "a way to pay inferior people who would otherwise be unemployed".
Very fascistic.
Of course society's view on the military changes during the book, but that's because they are waging war against a genocidal enemy, that wants to wipe out all of humanity.
@@Mortablunt No the Movie is indeed satire man trust me.
So you take shots at Robert Heinlein for Starship Troopers, a book I feel you have characterized poorly, but he is also the author of Stranger in a Strange Land wherein the protagonist is an ardent pacifist who is ejected from the service because he keeps destroying all of their weapons. Shall I then use this same logic to label him the second coming of Mahatma Gandhi? The parallel between fascist ideology and military sci-fi isn't a new one, but it tends to be most strongly advocated by those who haven't served. Beyond that, it is still sci-fi and exploring competing ideologies is a natural fit for sci-fi. Heck, look at the Honor Harrington series also by David Weber. It is unabashedly military sci-fi, but it isn't something I would describe as promoting fascist ideals.
To leave print media look at the Dominion War plot in Star Trek or, or jump to anime, Legend of Galactic Heroes. I can think of a half-dozen more examples just off the top of my head. There are examples which support your point, but there are also plenty that contradict it. I could put together an equal number of examples which do nothing but show the waste of war, but that wouldn't justify the idea that military sci-fi promotes anti-war ideology.
At the end of the day it feels that you are cherry picking your examples to justify your premise. This may work to influence those who are mostly ignorant of the genre, or to gain echoes from those who agree with your premise before even hearing any evidence, but I can't help but feel it is a touch disingenuous.
I normally have decent expectations for your videos, but not expecting them to be perfect, but man was the bar missed for this one.
Bungled definitions in the opening
Bungled understanding the idea of service as presented in the book Starship Troopers
It's not all military service; just during the war it primarily is, because it's a war. Defensive war at that. But it includes things like trash collectors; etc. And every step of the way, the state TRIES to get you to quit. Which is exactly the opposite of real fascism
If you actually pushed off your biases and re-analyzed Starship Troopers you'd find it's actually pushing for a very libertarian society. A militarized one, sure, but a free and prosperous one. It's not giving up your individual desires for the state; it's giving them up for others, through the means of the state. There's a big difference.
Saying Starship Troopers is fascist is... extremely shallow. I also love how all the bad things you mention at the end; (around 17:30) are lacking from The Federation.
That would be because the Federation actually not fascist.
I don't know anything about the other books but like... is it a bad thing to kill the arachnids? Like, is it? And why? Seems pretty reasonable to me. I get how "Well they were so evil so we had to" can be misused by bad people, but that doesn't mean that it's WRONG.
Saying christian civilization is superior is (implied) fascist because....? Sounds like thinly veiled christian hate to me
This guy massively misunderstands the entirety of Starship Troopers as a novel.
My dude. Every fascist country in history has told themselves that they are fighting a „defensive“ war. Talk to some old people in my grandma’s village in Germany- they‘ll still tell you that Poland attacked them first. That‘s precisely the point he was making about the „victim“ complex.
And characterizing the enemies as „bugs“ or „arachnids“ is not only really close to what Fascists called their enemies (pests, etc.) but also makes it a lot easier for the reader to accept their killing without questioning it- after all, they are no human.
And the fact that Christian society reminds him of fascism is because pushing a nationalists version of Christianity (as opposed to the „evil“ Jews ) is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, which the church was very complicit in. So that‘s why he associates it with fascism.
Now, other interpretations of these books are totally valid, and if you interpret them differently that‘s fine. But there is quite a lot of textual evidence that they are basically fascist wet dreams, so discounting that completely just makes you seem like you didn‘t think it through further than „Well, it‘s not literally like real life fascism in every single way, so it can‘t have fascist undertones“.
+samira Ansari
... Except in this situation the humans are quite literally fighting a defensive war against a species which has, with acknowledgement from the author, killed off entire populations of humans without a care, with the first attack being launched by them against humanity leading to the First Bug war, and then they began invading Federation planets again *after* peacetime was established from the first war, starting the Second Bug War.
I don't know about you, friend, but I would call the second war, which started when the Arachnids started invading Federation colony planets and devouring whole planetary populations, a defensive war.
+Tyler Rech
No, we do not. Fascism is an ideology which embraces authoritarianism and takes it to its logical conclusion by vesting all power in either one individual or a small group of individuals, with the expectation that those people will act in the best interest of the nation. History and human nature both say that that expectation is immensely irrational and has repeatedly shown itself to lead directly to corruption and death.
Fascism is like Communism, only instead of pretending to be a utopian commune while killing millions of people, fascism pretends to be a nationalist paradise while killing millions of people.
@Tyler Rech
You do realize that by vesting absolute power in fewer and fewer individuals you massively increase both the chance of corruption and the impact of it when it does occur, yes?
The reason for this is that when you place all of the power in the hands of, say, 10 people, only five of them need to become corrupt and it is most likely that every decision the group makes will become corrupt as well because only one of the others needs to vote with them. When you reduce that to 8, suddenly only four of them need to become corrupt. When you reduce it to 6, only 3, and only 2 from 4. When you get all the way to having one person with absolute power, only 1 person needs to become corrupt and suddenly the entire system is corrupt.
That is why modern political systems place power in the hands of large bodies of people. They may have a president and a chancellor, but those people are held in check by large organizations of people whose entire job is to make sure there is balance in governance.
The more corrupt the system, the larger the impact, and when you reduce the amount of people required to pull a majority on national decisions, the impact of corruption steadily increases, because as the number of people required to make any decision approaches one, the likelihood of a decision being made for personal reasons approaches 100%, and the larger the amount of power each corrupt individual has to enact their corruption.
@@samiraansari5686 every country likes to rpetend theyre not the attacker. From rome to America. That doesnt make it fascist.
And maybe instead of dog whistling to fascist, since heinlein was a liberal, he used bugs in order to make it so the reader doesnt empathize too much with them. You dont want your reader tonlike the bad guys too much, otherwise your point becomes muddy.
The nazis certainly did push Christianity even if they didnt themselves beleive it, because europe was very Christian. However Nazism is very much more atheist, and hitler admired Islam as a possible replacement for germany. Additionally, some churches, like the Catholic church, undermined the nazis.
Then throw in that christianity is supposedly very anti fascist, and it just makes no sense
So basically theres no reason for anyone to associate christianity with fascism, unless you hate both.
Actually, why would it be genocide to wipe out a hive mind species?
I mean, genocide is bad because the leader that declared war on you, and the soldier shooting at you, are discrete sentient beings from the leader's wife, the soldier's young children, the doctors treating their wounded, the guys providing food to their populace, etc. etc. i.e. their civilian populace. The latter group aren't responsible for, nor perhaps even aware of, the actions of the former. There's no reason to kill them except pure vindictive cruelty.
But with a hive mind, there's no distinction between the two. They are ALL the same guy who is killing your people; they all CAN and WILL kill your people. Even if their "civilian populace" doesn't possess the means to kill you, they certainly possess the will to do so. It wouldn't be genocide anymore - it'd be killing a single sentient being.
>Irak
>Arak
>Arachnids
lol, really subtle there.
What's the joke?
So what point are you trying to prove
1: Arachnid is a name used in biology describe a certain group of animals. It contains scorpions, spiders and similar type of animals.
1: Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers in 1958. At the time, the US didn't give a damm about Iraq. Saddam came to power in 1979.
( I am assuming you are talking about starship troopers )
@@quma2590 I know. Still funny tho
Listening to this while I hang out the laundry. Thanks for the suggestion .
Starship troopers is most often misinterpreted as fascism but it's very much apart from other depictions. Most things are voluntary, the state does not have absolute power, there is no hiding the cruelties of war away from the people, the government's victories are freely broadcast. I'd recommend a video called "The politics of Starship Troopers" that goes into excruciating depth about the topic better than I could formulate in a single comment.
All of this sounds like bullshit excuses for society that still refuses you right to vote if you're not part of the army.
@@GrimGoblinLives The point of the system is to educate you, the individual person, what power you hold in being able to vote, and the responsibility that comes with it. Being a Citizen means you can change the system, but guarantees that you don't just take it for granted and vote for the first demagogue that shows up, which is a common problem in everyone can vote democracies.
@@GrimGoblinLives but a fascist regime wouldn't let anyone vote. Starship troopers isn't a democracy, but its not a fascist
Grim Goblin
It's explicitly stated that military service is only one way of earning citizenship. What you actually have to do is tailored to what you as an individual can be reasonably expected to accomplish, even if you're heavily disabled.
Oh the Sargon video right? I watched that too, it was very interesting.
Here's a link for anyone interested:
ua-cam.com/video/kVpYvV0O7uI/v-deo.html
Possibly been noted in the comments before, but a lot of the justifying myths of fascism work very well as justifiers of a basic military sci-fi setup - especially the whole "the world is a stage of racial conflict" thing - because both fascism and military sci-fi need to justify their wars and produce simple, affective understandings of the world. I don't think it's an inherently fascist genre, but the prerequisites of the genre make it easy for someone who isn't particularly well-read on fascism to slip and faceplant into it.
Anyway, I do wish we saw more interestingly multicultural unions in the genre. A hivemind with symbiotic individualist cultures living within it and used as auxilliaries would be fascinating to see in play, and might give us more non-evil hives which would be nice.
Yeah, I want to see non-evil hiveminds too. One thing that annoys me is how hiveminds are always depicted as wanting to consume or assimilate everything in their path, behaviour that would be much more fitting for a hyper individualist culture instead. In fact, this is just irl capitalism with its ideology of growth for the sake of growth.
you got lost fleet wrong it main theme is that one person or group cant be in charge of all things instead you need to break up those jobs and tasks and give them to responsible people who are trained I repeat Trained on them and trust them to handle it or ask for help if needed.
Also the main enemy of the series is a corporate dictatorship, they even have corporate doublespeak and everything ^-^ really great world building recommend you read and others read it
we must of read diffrent books because Starship troops is definitely not Facist in fact it criticizes fascism along with communism
No, it don't, the original draft of Starship Troopers was a essay how good was for the U. S. use nuclear weapons on Vietnam.
Have you read Heinlein's "Expanded Universe"? Starship Troopers was not meant to promote a militaristic society (which is more accurate than calling it fascist), but more as a critique of the US reliance on mandatory conscription that continued after World War II and into the Cold War. Now, there are other works by Heinlien that certainly follow the track you started with regarding his disappointment with Eisenhower... Why is it that people keep mistaking militarism for fascism?
Most people's brains are smoother than we fear.
if they want to compare military sci fi to a militaristic Germany it should be more often be ww1 germany and not nazi Germany because this would fit way more the military angle than nazi germany that despite hiw nazis dressed was a political takeover where political goals came first in ww1 germany the military basically took over the government and focused soly on military goals thats why wilhelm 2 was basically a figure head. scifi has way more militarism and less national socialism or fascism
Arch warhammer did a video on ''is the imperium of man from 40k war fascist?'' and he came up with some defining characteristics of fascism based on the actions and writings of actual fascists like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler that where pretty interesting.
His definition of fascism is just totalitarianism, which is a part of fascism but not the hole thing.
Arch Warhammer is a chud and a borderline Fascist don't trust his bullshit
@@CollinBuckman >chud
He's a beta, no different from you.
@Tyler Rech Says mr. smoothbrain
@@plutochan9931 That is how fascism works in practice, the Reich and Fascist Italy were really not as cohesive as their propaganda would lead you to believe. It revolved around corporatism and a whole dark market of bribes and nepotism. Fascism is the pretension of absolute authority, and the Imperium fits that to a T.
This reminds me of Ursula K. Le Guin's response to the first Star Wars film. She pointed out that the imagery of the closing scene was lifted directly from Leni Riefenstahl. Her essay is worth looking for.
I think the implicit fascism of much popular sf is more problematic rhan than the overt fascism of the series you discuss here.
seriously? by that you can critize everyone
I must disagree with you on the point of The Lost Fleet. While I agree that many characters do hold the belief that the civilian government should be overthrown and replaced with a military dictatorship, the POV character is set against this and works to disabuse the other officers of this notion.
Your definition of fascism to begin with is incorrect, and your understanding of starship troopers is... flawed at best. The state of starship troopers is a military based meritocracy, not a fascist state.
Your content is so underrated ive been binging it for a while this is amazing