Dear god no!

[Mikey]

Um, the Federation government as depicted in the book is not fascist in any way.

I should explain. I use the term to describe any of that sort of oligarchic or dictatorial state which is presented as a meritocracy, but the qualifications for such are arbitrary (such as a mythical ethnic background...). This doesn't quite fall in there, but close.

Not quite that. Rather, it's that they have so many volunteers that they don't need to make any kind of effort to recruit. It's like today's army had ten times as many volunteers as it needed; why would they bother to advertise? In fact they'd do well to chase people away so that only the most determined enlisted.

The further point is that the MI is what it is because only people who get past that scene - and by implication, truly WANT to be there - will be a member, and therefore a future citizen.

It's not dwelled upon, but many of the characters in the book are not American. Johnny himself is Fillipino IIRC. Zim didn't speak English until he got to boot camp, and many of the recruits in Johnny's class were non American. I think the idea is that Heinlein is making an anti-racism point, albeit a subtle one.

Johnny (AKA "Juanito") is indeed Filipino - he mentions a phrase in Tagalog at the end. It is a point in the book that many of the characters are non-American (although it was a pair of German recruits, not Zim, who spoke no English.) But neither Johnny nor Carmen were Russian, spoke Russian, had Russian roots, or had any other reason to toss out a Russian phrase in casual conversation.

[Graham Kennedy]

I should explain. I use the term to describe any of that sort of oligarchic or dictatorial state which is presented as a meritocracy, but the qualifications for such are arbitrary (such as a mythical ethnic background...). This doesn't quite fall in there, but close.

Um, you have your own private definition of words?!?!

Defining Fascism is a whole topic in itself, but a glance at Wikipedia gives one amongst many from Professor Robert O. Paxton :

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

So, did the book feature these?

No "community decline" is even mentioned in the book. The Federation clearly don't consider themselves as victims or subject to humiliations of others. No militias are seen nor mentioned.

Democratic liberties is a possible one, but in fact the Federation IS a democracy. Elections take place; true the electorate is somewhat limited in numbers compared to ours, but that is by popular choice. Any and every person could become a member of the electorate.

Pursuit of internal cleansing? Totally absent from the book. Lack of ethical restraint? Totally absent from the book.

Pursuit of external expansion? No. True the Federation is engaged in a war, but the book goes out of its way to state that the beginning of the war is unclear and ambiguous; a rising series of tensions, "police actions", "skirmishes", etc which turned into open war once Buenoz Aries was nuked. It certainly wasn't depicted as a war of conquest launched by an aggressive Federation.

Johnny (AKA "Juanito") is indeed Filipino - he mentions a phrase in Tagalog at the end. It is a point in the book that many of the characters are non-American (although it was a pair of German recruits, not Zim, who spoke no English.)

It's in answering them that Zim says "I didn't speak much myself when I got here", IIRC.

[Mikey]

To go in reverse:

I thought Zim's comment referred to him being in a similar situation to the recruits. There were in fact the two German boots, one of whom spoke a little English and the other who spoke none.

As far as fascism - I didn't call it a completely Fascist society, just partially and on the way. The culling of enfranchised citizens by "voluntary" state service certainly fits part of Paxton's definition which you just presented, and the constant reminder of the "spare the rod, spoil the citizen" philosophy presented by Dubois and others intimates a more brutal system geared toward efficiency and service in the name of the betterment of the state as well as the "weeding out" of the less able or willing. All of these are steps on the road I indicated, while still being far enough away for Heinlein to attempt to show the sympathetic side of such a state.

[Graham Kennedy]

To go in reverse:

I thought Zim's comment referred to him being in a similar situation to the recruits. There were in fact the two German boots, one of whom spoke a little English and the other who spoke none.

From the book :

"Heinrich, sir. Bitte." He spoke rapidly to the other recruit and added
politely, "He doesn't speak much Standard English yet, sir."
"Meyer, mein Herr," the second man supplied.
"That's okay, lots of `em don't speak much of it when they get here --
I didn't myself. Tell Meyer not to worry, he'll pick it up. But he
understands what we are going to do?"

It's clear that Zim is not English and didn't speak English until he arrived at boot.

As far as fascism - I didn't call it a completely Fascist society, just partially and on the way. The culling of enfranchised citizens by "voluntary" state service certainly fits part of Paxton's definition which you just presented, and the constant reminder of the "spare the rod, spoil the citizen" philosophy presented by Dubois and others intimates a more brutal system geared toward efficiency and service in the name of the betterment of the state as well as the "weeding out" of the less able or willing. All of these are steps on the road I indicated, while still being far enough away for Heinlein to attempt to show the sympathetic side of such a state.

There is no "culling" of enfranchised citizens; you only become enfranchised once you are done with service. Nor is service especially dangerous, for the most part - remember this is a society that is rarely at war, so much so that Johnny's dad described war as obsolete.

As for the corporal philosophy of their legal and parental systems - I think it's a huge leap to describe a political system as even leaning towards fascism simply because they employ corporal punishment. Corporal punishment has been a feature of virtually every governmental system ever tried. Was the UK's parlimentary democracy system fascist during the last century?

[Mikey]

OK - Zim spoke little or no English before the action of the book.

As far as culling the enfranhised citizens, that's exactly what was going on; unless anyone believes that the "democracy" of Pericles' Athens was a democracy in our modern sense - which I can't see. A better analogy would be contemporary Sparta, but there is a key difference. Rico's father's aversion to Juan's enlistment was later explained, but his mother also expressed her disappointment. In a true "service for enfranchisement" society like Sparta, nobody was against enlistment - Spartan mothers had been known to tell their sons when leaving for a campaign, "Come back with your shield, or on it." So, what Heinlein has is a culture in which enfranchisement is dependent on a form of state service WHICH IS POPULARLY DISREGARDED. There is a subtext, as well, of that enfracnhisement being limited to enlistees - and therefore, to those indoctrinated by the current administration.

True fascism? No. Is it, however, the invertebrate worm to fascism's chordata? I believe so. My prior inability or ineptness in correctly expressing myself semantically doesn't invalidate that.

PS - Zim's or the boots' ESL status, I think, is a secondary indication of the state of things to Juan's casual use of the phrase "ochee chornije" - and Carmen's casual understanding of it.

[Graham Kennedy]

OK - Zim spoke little or no English before the action of the book.

As far as culling the enfranhised citizens, that's exactly what was going on; unless anyone believes that the "democracy" of Pericles' Athens was a democracy in our modern sense - which I can't see. A better analogy would be contemporary Sparta, but there is a key difference. Rico's father's aversion to Juan's enlistment was later explained, but his mother also expressed her disappointment. In a true "service for enfranchisement" society like Sparta, nobody was against enlistment - Spartan mothers had been known to tell their sons when leaving for a campaign, "Come back with your shield, or on it." So, what Heinlein has is a culture in which enfranchisement is dependent on a form of state service WHICH IS POPULARLY DISREGARDED.

I don't see how the popularity of it has anything to do with fascistic leanings. Unless you are suggesting that the government chose that system precisely to keep the electorate small, as some sort of way to avoid being answerable to people? If so then this is simply not supported by the book.

People were against service in the novel because the military was despised by most civilians and because full citizenship was not particularly valued. The former is exactly the opposite of what you would expect in a state with fascist leanings. As for the latter... well right now the majority of the electorate self selects itself out of elections anyway. Does the fact that something like two thirds of people choose not to vote mean that the UK has fascist leanings? Of course not. Nor does the fact that most people in the Federation choose not to become citizens.

If the Federation government restricted service to some small subset of the population on gender, ethnic or religious lines, I'd agree with you. But any adult can enlist and serve and become a citizen - no restrictions whatsoever.

A self selecting electorate does not fascist leanings make.

There is a subtext, as well, of that enfracnhisement being limited to enlistees - and therefore, to those indoctrinated by the current administration.

Indoctrinated in what sense? Can you name an example of what you regard as indoctrination from the book?

[Captain Seafort]

If the Federation government restricted service to some small subset of the population on gender, ethnic or religious lines, I'd agree with you. But any adult can enlist and serve and become a citizen - no restrictions whatsoever.

Indeed, it's specifically stated that it's illegal to refuse a individual permission to enlist, unless they're incapable of understanding the oath of allegiance. The result is that they have to find makework for those who wouldn't even get through the door in a modern military.

[Mikey]

I actually can't quote anything form the book right now, because I am at work and don't have it with me. However, there are ample examples of enlistment, and therefore enfranchisement, being discouraged if not overtly denied. As I said, this is a step on the road.

Your example of people choosing not to vote (or being to apathetic to even make that choice) isn't in any way analagous, because those people are enfranchised, whether or not they choose to take advantage of it.

As far as indoctrination, it's implied by the whole idea of enfranchisement being reserved for people who have gone through military training - and then only delivered upon completion of service (which completion, BTW, only happens after a heretofore unknown and arbitrary length of time, rather than a set tour.)

[Graham Kennedy]

I actually can't quote anything form the book right now, because I am at work and don't have it with me. However, there are ample examples of enlistment, and therefore enfranchisement, being discouraged if not overtly denied. As I said, this is a step on the road.

Discouraged, yes. Not denied. It is a legal impossibility to deny a Federation citizen service unless, as Captain Seafort noted, he is unable to understand what he is signing up for.

I asked one of the doctors what percentage of the victims flunked the
physical. He looked startled. "Why, we never fail anyone. The law doesn't
permit us to."
"Huh? I mean, Excuse me, Doctor? Then what's the point of this
goose-flesh parade?"
"Why, the purpose is," he answered, hauling off and hitting me in the
knee with a hammer (I kicked him, but not hard), "to find out what duties
you are physically able to perform. But if you came in here in a wheel chair
and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they
would find something silly enough to match. Counting the fuzz on a
caterpillar by touch, maybe. The only way you can fail is by having the
psychiatrists decide that you are not able to understand the oath."

Your example of people choosing not to vote (or being to apathetic to even make that choice) isn't in any way analagous, because those people are enfranchised, whether or not they choose to take advantage of it.

But suppose they don't bother to fill in the forms to put themselves on the electoral register? Then they are not in fact franchised. Does that make the government fascist?

[Mikey]

Discouraged, yes. Not denied.

But suppose they don't bother to fill in the forms to put themselves on the electoral register? Then they are not in fact franchised. Does that make the government fascist?

I said discouraged, not denied. As far as not bothering to fill out the forms, you actually consider that analagous to deciding no to serve in the military for an undefined term?

Anyway, what we're missing is that wile perhaps I am not sufficiently intelligent to correctly express myelf, semnatics-wise, I have mentioned on various and sundry occasions that I consider this a precursor or evolutionar predecessor to fascism - not fascism itself. I stnad by that, because otherwise what would Heinlein's point have been in so describing the Federation's workings?

[Captain Seafort]

Anyway, what we're missing is that wile perhaps I am not sufficiently intelligent to correctly express myelf, semnatics-wise, I have mentioned on various and sundry occasions that I consider this a precursor or evolutionary predecessor to fascism - not fascism itself.

Heinlein's society bears no resemblance to fascism - it's a democracy, there's no overt state support or subsidisation for major corporations, and no glorification of the military (indeed, Rico's father expresses disdain for federal service).

I stand by that, because otherwise what would Heinlein's point have been in so describing the Federation's workings?

To depict a society in which the electorate has demonstrated a willingness to risk their lives in the defence of that society, or at the the very least take a more proactive role than dragging their arses off the sofa once every few years.

[Mikey]

Anyway, what we're missing is that wile perhaps I am not sufficiently intelligent to correctly express myelf, semnatics-wise,

Nor am I apparently capable of spelling simple words...

Anyway, Seafort makes a good point. However, I tend to view literature in light of the time it was from, rather than absolutely. Starship Soldiers was serialized little more than a decade after WWII - Heinlein was writing in an era of national involvement in a war effort, not in our apathetic times. It would seem to me that I'd be making a redundant point if that was my essay in the mid-50's.

[Graham Kennedy]

Discouraged, yes. Not denied.

But suppose they don't bother to fill in the forms to put themselves on the electoral register? Then they are not in fact franchised. Does that make the government fascist?

I said discouraged, not denied.

You said "being discouraged if not overtly denied"; I was agreeing.

As far as not bothering to fill out the forms, you actually consider that analagous to deciding no to serve in the military for an undefined term?

Not identical, but alike. In both you have to perform an action to gain the vote. Yes the action is far greater in one than the other, but they are alike in kind.

Anyway, what we're missing is that wile perhaps I am not sufficiently intelligent to correctly express myelf, semnatics-wise, I have mentioned on various and sundry occasions that I consider this a precursor or evolutionar predecessor to fascism - not fascism itself.

Yes, and I am disagreeing with that.

I stnad by that, because otherwise what would Heinlein's point have been in so describing the Federation's workings?

Heinlein's message in the book was nothing to do with fascism. Heinlein was not intending to depict a society which was fascist nor leaning towards fascism in any degree. He was holding the Federation system up as a GOOD thing.

The basic message of the book is that present day democracy places power in the hands of people who have no inclination to use that power responsibly. Heinlein was suggesting that this is unworkable, and that it would be a good idea to restrict power to those who are able to use it well.

His other message is "soldiers are praiseworthy people".

There's an article in Expanded Universe where he talks about this in detail.

[Mikey]

Not identical, but alike. In both you have to perform an action to gain the vote. Yes the action is far greater in one than the other, but they are alike in kind.

I believe that degree does in fact matter in this case.

As far as articles written about this or any other book, my (or your, or anyone's) critique is at least as valid as any "reviewer's."

[Graham Kennedy]

Not identical, but alike. In both you have to perform an action to gain the vote. Yes the action is far greater in one than the other, but they are alike in kind.

I believe that degree does in fact matter in this case.

As far as articles written about this or any other book, my (or your, or anyone's) critique is at least as valid as any "reviewer's."

Um, even if the "reviewer" is Heinlein himself? Expanded Universe is one of his own books. I think his opinion of his intentions count rather more than yours or mine.