You MUST read the book to understand what Heinlein was getting at. Not plain militaristic culture, but one where the right to vote and control the body politic is earned by contributing to the body politic and society as a whole. Just being born and acting like a sponge, doesn't get you the right to vote in his world.
@thehotcam I understand that it's required reading at West Point and other academies. My concern over Heinlein, and Asimov, is that it seems to present a utopian view of fascism. The idea of "citizenship" though is interesting, and Heinlein's vision is certainly plausible, perhaps imminent.
Well, I always thought this film was a bit incomplete, politically. I didn't read Heinlein's book. Generally, militarism isn't a good thing (eg., fascism), which was defeated by liberal democracies in WWII, the same type of political systems criticized by the book and film, and the fascists. But then liberal democracies can become militaristic during times of war and, like the U.S., can have military industrial complexes and very limited democracy. A large military makes war more likely.
@TheForwardGaze "Generally, militarism isn't a good thing (eg., fascism), which was defeated by liberal democracies in WWII"
It's unlikely that anyone would have ever intervened if it wasn't for the fact that the Axis happened to be rampant imperialists as well. The appeasement policy to avoid dealing with them went on for years on end. Is your point that liberal democracy is inherently stronger than militarism btw? If so you may want to look at the numeric superiority involved.
@Gnomefro I think my point was that before WWII America wasn't militaristic but, like other liberal democracies, (eg., Britain, Canada, Australia, etc.) was able to quickly become militaristic in order to counter the threat of fascist imperialism. The inability to wage an effective war was one of fascism's criticisms of liberal democracy. As it turned out, the militaristic Soviet Union was probably what really destroyed fascism. Perhaps we can separate militarism from preparedness.
Not really. What makes war likely is that there is an imbalance of military strength that makes it economically viable to just take your neighbors stuff, and if all armies are small, military strength will be synonymous with amount of people. Countries should have whatever sized army makes sense compared to what their neighbors do.
The biggest problem with a large standing army is that it's a huge economic drain.
@Gnomefro those are good points too. Foreign policy is something I've been trying to tackle as noted in my latest blog. I've been isolationist for decades, and I remain anti-imperialism. But there are issues to consider, issues of world peace and happy stuff like that :) Jesus, the US just keeps pushing our world to the brink. That can't be right.
@Gnomefro I can see your point about a balance of power. I'd include the idea of mutual assured destruction regarding nuclear weapons. The U.S. may be the best example of trying to maintain a large military industrial complex that doesn't result in militarism. But as the world's strongest military power we do overstep, especially in the pursuit of commercial interests disguised as national security interests. Are you in support of international military parity, including the U.S.?
The book is very different from the movie. The recruiting videos presented in the movie would never exist in the society outlined in the book. People were strongly discouraged from volunteering for federal service (not necessarily military, but you had no choice as to the nature of it), and were under extreme pressure to quit if they joined.
But it was your right to volunteer, they could not turn you away no matter how physically disabled you were.
You MUST read the book to understand what Heinlein was getting at. Not plain militaristic culture, but one where the right to vote and control the body politic is earned by contributing to the body politic and society as a whole. Just being born and acting like a sponge, doesn't get you the right to vote in his world.
thehotcam 2 months ago
@thehotcam I understand that it's required reading at West Point and other academies. My concern over Heinlein, and Asimov, is that it seems to present a utopian view of fascism. The idea of "citizenship" though is interesting, and Heinlein's vision is certainly plausible, perhaps imminent.
etzel33 2 months ago
Well, I always thought this film was a bit incomplete, politically. I didn't read Heinlein's book. Generally, militarism isn't a good thing (eg., fascism), which was defeated by liberal democracies in WWII, the same type of political systems criticized by the book and film, and the fascists. But then liberal democracies can become militaristic during times of war and, like the U.S., can have military industrial complexes and very limited democracy. A large military makes war more likely.
TheForwardGaze 3 months ago
@TheForwardGaze thanks for the comment, and I agree with you.
etzel33 2 months ago
@TheForwardGaze "Generally, militarism isn't a good thing (eg., fascism), which was defeated by liberal democracies in WWII"
It's unlikely that anyone would have ever intervened if it wasn't for the fact that the Axis happened to be rampant imperialists as well. The appeasement policy to avoid dealing with them went on for years on end. Is your point that liberal democracy is inherently stronger than militarism btw? If so you may want to look at the numeric superiority involved.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro I think my point was that before WWII America wasn't militaristic but, like other liberal democracies, (eg., Britain, Canada, Australia, etc.) was able to quickly become militaristic in order to counter the threat of fascist imperialism. The inability to wage an effective war was one of fascism's criticisms of liberal democracy. As it turned out, the militaristic Soviet Union was probably what really destroyed fascism. Perhaps we can separate militarism from preparedness.
TheForwardGaze 1 month ago
@TheForwardGaze that's an interesting point.
etzel33 1 month ago
@TheForwardGaze "A large military makes war more likely."
Not really. What makes war likely is that there is an imbalance of military strength that makes it economically viable to just take your neighbors stuff, and if all armies are small, military strength will be synonymous with amount of people. Countries should have whatever sized army makes sense compared to what their neighbors do.
The biggest problem with a large standing army is that it's a huge economic drain.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro those are good points too. Foreign policy is something I've been trying to tackle as noted in my latest blog. I've been isolationist for decades, and I remain anti-imperialism. But there are issues to consider, issues of world peace and happy stuff like that :) Jesus, the US just keeps pushing our world to the brink. That can't be right.
etzel33 1 month ago
@Gnomefro I can see your point about a balance of power. I'd include the idea of mutual assured destruction regarding nuclear weapons. The U.S. may be the best example of trying to maintain a large military industrial complex that doesn't result in militarism. But as the world's strongest military power we do overstep, especially in the pursuit of commercial interests disguised as national security interests. Are you in support of international military parity, including the U.S.?
TheForwardGaze 1 month ago
@TheForwardGaze
The book is very different from the movie. The recruiting videos presented in the movie would never exist in the society outlined in the book. People were strongly discouraged from volunteering for federal service (not necessarily military, but you had no choice as to the nature of it), and were under extreme pressure to quit if they joined.
But it was your right to volunteer, they could not turn you away no matter how physically disabled you were.
jarvy251 3 weeks ago
I never heard of this film - but worth checking out.
55ella2007k 3 months ago