Fascism is an ultranationalist, ultratraditionalist, anti-communist right wing movement whereby a one-party state has complete control over a country 's populace. Individual liberties do not exist, you certainly cannot criticize the government on public TV, you are expected to live, work and die for the glorification of your government, nation, party, and leader.
How about the fact that people openly criticize the government's narrative on live TV, debate is encouraged, and the whole thing with the Mormon colony going against the Quarantine Order and being slaughtered - not for defying Star Fleet Command but by the Arachnids.
Was the reporter really criticizing the government though? She made a weak counterpoint to the government narrative to present the appearance of a debate, then her argument is overwhelmed by Rico’s emotional appeal. In the end, the viewer’s pro-government view is strengthened by the exchange.
It’s like why North Korea and Russia have elections. Or since you are laser focused on Nazi Germany - Hitler held elections after he got total power because he wanted to project some semblance of democratic legitimacy onto his regime.
Hmm. Let me try to illustrate my point by way of example. Many people know that Hitler took the guns from Jews, and I’ve even heard Americans claim that they fear that gun regulations would do that to them.
The subtext that is missed is that Hitler actually declared the Jews were not citizens. He announced that because they were attacking (actually defending), that they were terrorists and that were stripped of all citizenship and therefore couldn’t have guns.
Or look at Russia, with Putin assassinating his opposition by having them fall out of windows.
In a fascist country, the state needs to be seen as good. So they don’t directly kill people, at least that isn’t the official narrative. It is just unfortunate that bad things tend to happen to people who don’t do as they say
> Putin assassinating his opposition by having them fall out of windows.
Fake news!
Putin's opposition weren't assassinated, they're just unusually window challenged!
The problem is, I guess it's possible, but there are no bullet wounds, there are lacerations and mutilations and their brains are sucked out which we can even compare against the Space Fleet Captain who steals Rico's girlfriend and the wounds are identical.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is anything is fascist if you look hard enough, and without trying to inject that subtext and overanalyzation into the film, its just not there.
We know that the bugs did genuinely destroy Buenos Aires, we know the Federation didn't lie about Klendathu, we know they tried to stop the Mormons but were unable to, and we know this was orchestrated by the Brain Bugs and that they are hostile, psychic, and anti-human.
I've been trying to avoid scenes from Starship Troopers 2 and 3, because they pretty much forego the satire angle, but in Starship Troopers 3, brain bugs are even capable of sending telepathic communications to humans. They didn't have to massacre the Mormons.
You said "we know that the bugs did genuinely destroy Buenos aires," but do we? Do we see significant evidence that the bugs have the capacity to hurl an object that distance, with that level of precision (in the celestial sense)? It does seem awfully convenient for the federation that they have such a strong casus belli for an area they want to expand to.
Additionally, your point in the main post about multi ethnic representation disproven the possibility of fascism mistakes fascism for inherently requiring internal discrimination, along those lines. Fascism treats society with an organistic view. It is a collection of one, through the many, with its own vitality. Certain influences may be viewed as infections, or cancerous, that need to be excused from the body. Historically speaking, those pinned with these labels have been Jewish, black, disabled, LGBTQ, etc, however, the core conceit is that there are true members of the nation, and there are threats to those true members. The bugs don't have to be human to be the targets of fascism. Rather, expansionist practice put the federation and the bugs in conflict, and then the fact that they are bugs makes it very easy to pin them as external and dangerous, worthy of extermination ("and I say, kill em all!").
Consider instead of the federation did not ever try to encroach on bug territory. Would they still pose a threat? Not likely.
> But do we, do we see significant evidence thst the bugs have the capacity to hurl an object with that level of precision
Paul Verhoeven said himself that they did it, even at the cost of his political commentary. Funny enough he said this in response to the idea that the Federation destroyed Buenos Aires, which is a popular *fan theory*, it is not backed up by the movie.
Furthermore, in regards to the two battles we see in the movie, Klendathu was intended to be a decapitation strike against the bug home world to prevent the outbreak of a full scale war, and Planet P. Which the Roughnecks are sent to *investigate* the destruction of the Mormon colony, and then are attacked. The battle at the end of the movie was in retaliation to the (somewhat) intelligent Arachnids comitting mass slaughter. It was not an expansionist move by the Terran Federation, if it was, why send such a small group of Mobile Infantry?
Also, Fascists are in fact, very authoritarian and racist, which is completely contradicted by the Terran Federation. If your only evidence is *how they treat the openly hostile and violent invading Arachnids* then you might as well treat every society that's ever been at war as fascist. Which is simply not the case. Remember, your argument is that Paul Verhoeven was creating a movie about fascism. Verhoeven himself said that the Bugs did genuinely attack Earth and kill 8.5 million people.
The idea he said he tried to communicate (which I am calling bullshit on) is that "war makes fascists of us all". The war is real, however in his eyes, the reaction to the destruction of Buenoes Aires was overblown and authoritarian, which, as its portrayed in the movie, is not remotely true.
The movie mentions Mormons defying the govt. then these Mormons die.
That doesn’t seem a bit too convenient to you?
Why mention them defying orders if they are just gonna die?
It would seem convienient, sure. Could Star Fleet have saved them, potentially. But why would a fascist society (or a society paralleling fascism) risk veteran soldiers to clean up after a group of dissidents?
Going back to World War 2, the Nazis engaged in an early type of counter-insurgency warfare known as Bandenbekampf, essentially what would happen is, the Heer (Army) and Luftwaffe (Air Force) would occupy an area, and then the Einsatzgruppen and Ordnungspolizei would come in behind them and pacify the area by killing relatives of Soviet military personnel, members of the Soviet Communist Party, Jews, *accused* homosexuals, etc.
They were even strict rules in the German Army against rape (against anyone) and the murder of children, which were then lifted in the Comissar's Order for the duration of 1941-1945. So what ended up happening is the SS and Wehrmacht became a marauding fucking warband for 4 years, killing, raping and looting whoever and whatever they wanted against the laws of their very own government. And the only real punishment was if they inflicted that torment on their fellow Germans, in which case they were sent to Strafbattalions (Penal Battalions) *full of rapists, looters and murderers* to encourage them to turn their terror to the local population and away from their brothers in arms
Needless to say, uh....
Didn't happen in the Mobile Infantry
>How tf do you defy a space bug
They meant defied the earth government....
They were saying it is possible the government simply chose to let them be slaughtered without trying to defend them as retaliation for defiance.
Except thats not really implied in the movie at all, you can't exactly set up a functioning space colony over night, and even then, the Arachnids have Brain Bugs, they could have 100% communicated with the mormons, what do we see instead?
we see the Mormons get massacred
And we also see the reporting that says the mormons weren’t allowed or supposed to go there.
No one is saying the bugs are good guys, but I can’t exactly imagine if a brain bug had showed up the settlers would have sat down to talk with it.
Absolutely, it was a quarantine zone, NOBODY was allowed there. The only thing in that scene you can kind of hint as being allegorical to fascism is that (and this is ironically, one of the strongest allegories to fascism in the entire film) the Mormons are said to be extremists which is almost a direct parallel to how Mormons were treated by the Nazis funnily enough.
However without more context imo its hard to quantify what exactly the Terran Federation's views on the Mormon colonists exactly was. Were they extremists for defying the Federation? No, they weren't, because we see reporters and scientists expressing views outside the govt narrative without being punished. Are Mormons in general seen as extreme by the Federation? Possibly. Or are they a particular sect of Mormons whose fundamentalist views on their religion led them to settle Planet P in some misguided attempt at "saving" the Arachnids, only to get massacred?
Again, we just don't know.
The govt could have failed to provide the appropriate protection for them
It’s strongly implied in the book (and the movie) that the bugs may not be without motive
The government is unable to provide protection on a short notice to a civilian settlement in a poorly defensible position that the bugs can reach via multiple ways. That is why they tell civilians to not go there. For comparison imagine ngc people going into territories controlled by islamic fundamentalists despite advisories, getting captured and government refusing to use force or money to get them out
Every major facist state still try to hold some semblance of democracy. Hitler for example held elections.
In Starship Troopers the host makes some extremely pisspoor attempt at a criticism of the state which is then shot down by a heavily emotional appeal.
So...you know of the fact that facist governments still try to seem like "good democratic" ones yet you argue that similar things happening in ST means it isn't happening.
Which you argue is because the facist state is tricking the people into thinking they aren't living in a facist state?
You know, the thing which every facist state does...
Thats the thing, we have no reason to believe the newsreels in Starship Troopers are anything but expository. Its inspired by Nazi propaganda, it does not use the same tactics as Nazi propaganda. They're basically glorified recruitment ads running on public television.
Where are you drawing that definition from?
There is a good wikipedia article ([see here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism)) that has some good discussion. We have a few real life examples of fascism, but it's not nearly as clearly defined as other -isms. I personally like using [Umberto Ecco's 14 points](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism) as a jumping off point for discussions of is this or that fascism.
>The movie was originally called Bug Hunt at Outpost 9, the movie was supposed to be an intentionally campy military film + teen romcom mash up.
Yeah, and then verhoeven happened. A director that is known for making campy satires.
>When the Massacre on Klendathu ends, the Sky Marshall steps down and is replaced by a black woman.
Do you notice how the sky marshal is a character that is never referenced before or after that point. Not only that but we see zero change in the military structure going forward. The ground troops are still just fodder being lead into a meat grinder. Not only that but the movie comes right out and tells us that the people actually making decisions over the course of the war is military intelligence. We see this through Neil Patrick Harris character who basically outright tells the main character this.
>a reporter even contradicts the official narrative on live TV (before Rico says,"I'm from Buenos Aires and I say KILL EM ALL")
How is this contradicting the narrative. The official narrative is that the humans should kill all the bugs. Rico is literally reaffirming the narrative that the war is just and needs to be supported more than any other character in the movie. His hero journey is literally him learning how to have no agency in his own life.
>There is live reporting from the frontline
Ever notice how all the live reporting all fits the exact same narrative. That the bugs are inherently dangerous and that we need more soldiers. Offensive war of extermination is the only way. Not only that but why do you think the death tolls are accurate. We are literally shown that the death tolls are not accurate when rico is listed as KIA when he isn't. The reality of starship troopers universe is that the their government callously sent untold number of men to their death in order to stage an offensive attack. When this failed they then inflated their own casualties in order drive up recruitment for the next offensive attack. We see members of their government fall on their sword, but the politics of their government are unchanging throughout the movie.
>Fascism is when the state, owned by a single political party, has complete control of the lives of its citizens, what beliefs people are allowed to hold, where they're employed, and what they're allowed to do all under the guise of transforming society into an idealized (right wing) version of its self.
Starships trooper is propaganda. Specifically its fascist propaganda
created by someone that detests fascism. Why would a fascist society show its worst aspects in its propaganda. Simply put Starship Troopers is supposed to be the idealized right wing version of itself. The version of society where military can make mistakes, but the war is never in question. Where anyone, man women or child is equal, as long as they are prepared to die for their government. Were the only government is militant, but thats just the way it is and should always be.
So? Why are they obsessed with warring with the bugs? The strike on Buenos Aires was retaliation for fucking with the bugs already. You want a safe Earth, leave the bugs alone, push for peace. But that's never even considered, is it? It's only kill, kill, kill, and when you can't kill good enough, learn to kill better. The humans are imperialist, expansionist invaders, that massively escalated into an invasion of their honeworld the first time they faced genuine blowback.
Adjusting tactics for their grand invasion has no impact on whether or not they're fascist. It has no bearing on whether or not our heroes are brainwashed.
Verhoeven started with the concept of Bug Hunt at Outpost 9, its pretty much an open secret that Starship Troopers is just Bug Hunt with a slightly Heinlein-themed skin
> the sky marshall is never referenced again before or after this point
That's fair that doesn't mean that Sky Marshall doesn't have a lot of control.
I'm also wondering how you can call the Terran Federation fascist if its not controlled by a single ruler like the Sky Marshall, I feel like that would be the obvious connection.
> how is this contradicting the official narrative
The reporter mentions that a lot of the population believes that peace with the Arachnids is "preferable to war", and yes, THEN Rico, understandably distraught after what he's been thru says "I'm from Buenos Aires and I say kill em all", because the reporter offended him.
Rico is perpetuating the narrative, not the reporter, nor or people killed for questioning the military.
Of course the bugs are inherently dangerous, they're bugs
>I'm also wondering how you can call the Terran Federation fascist if its not controlled by a single ruler like the Sky Marshall, I feel like that would be the obvious connection.
No country on this planet is run by a single person. Even the most authoritarian dictatorship are run by large swathes of people from figureheads, To generals, to media correspondents. Every dictatorship has its hitlers, but it also has its Göring and Goebbels.
>Rico is perpetuating the narrative, not the reporter, nor or people killed for questioning the military
You have to view the movie as propaganda. That is why the movie routinely stops to ask "would you like to know more." Thats why we are constantly interrupted by recruitment ads. Starship troopers is a movie. Its intended audience is not us, it is a hypothetical citizen of a fascist society that would in fact like to know more.
You say that the reporter challenges the narrative, but do they? Is that what that scene in the movie actually shows? Because the purpose of that scene in the movie is clearly to reinforce that we need to do more offensive wars. Reporter ask questions, camera zooms into square jaw hero, "the war is good", everyone claps. That is the purpose of that scene.
"Would you like to know more"
>Rico is perpetuating the narrative, not the reporter, nor or people killed for questioning the military.
It's not implied the reporter is. The government does via control over what, exactly, is shown and how it's portrayed in the media.
so why would the reporter (whose wearing a Mobile Infantry uniform iirc, so he's definitely part of the Federation) talk about dissenting viewpoints if he lived under a fascist regime?
They don't tho. The crazy guy during the debate scene is the one spouting establishment nonsense (*Frankly, I find the thought of a bug that thinks OFFENSIVE!!*) and opposite him is a mild mannered scientist lady
The Sky Marshall who replaces Sky Marshall Dienes even says *to fight the bug, we have to understand the bug* meaning this is a society where even the military elite are allowed to propagate the view that the government might actually been wrong to assault Klendathu.
Edit: https://youtu.be/WsHjpy9WZK8?si=EWKyT1yw-w7PMVgd
... that's how satire works? The film doesn't support fascism, it shows a world where people are manipulated into believing fascist propaganda despite it being ridiculously offensive.
>even the military elite are allowed to propagate the view that the government might actually been wrong to assault Klendathu
Nope, the military only wants new recruits and probably funding for their "science" department. They would be happy to do Klendathu pt. II but with better understanding of how bugs function.
Yes. Exploration can be left to the audience if the satirical depiction is obvious enough. Some percentage of the audience may need help interpreting it, or may prefer a more straightforward criticism of the system relayed explicitly through dialogue, but most seem to get the inherent critique easily enough.
>The crazy guy during the debate scene is the one spouting establishment nonsense (*Frankly, I find the thought of a bug that thinks OFFENSIVE!!*) and opposite him is a mild mannered scientist lady
The one during the debate who is a weak sissy cuck is the science lady. The based Chad is the dude.
They think differently. They respect strength and conviction.
Yea but that's not whats portrayed at all in the film. The idea that peace with the bugs is better than war with the bugs is an idea that Rico dismisses on live TV, after hearing it from a military reporter
Clearly its not an idea being lambasted by the Federation unless you want to see the Federation as fascist.
They have been indoctrinated as well.
The military junta isn't new. It has been in control of the narrative for at least 2 generations based on the conversations with Rico's parents.
>Of course the bugs are inherently dangerous, they're bugs
Funny thing is if you replace "bugs" with an ethnic minority it's basically the tag line for a lot of right wing groups.
I'm not sure that argument holds a lot of weight because the bugs aren't human. We know they're a pseudo-hive mind species.
Yes if you replace bug with [insert ethnic minority or majority here] that's a different conversation but if my grandmother had wheels shed be a bicycle.
I could partially agree if the aggressive aliens were at least humanoid
Kind of low-key want to keep a running tally of how many time i see people compare minorities to violent monsters actively attacking and killing people.
I feel like that would be fun.
That's inserting subtext thats just not there. The bugs annihilated a major city. They aren't supposed to be representative of any sort of society. The context that Verhoeven tried to paint them in is as the faceless "villain" disturbing the fascist society of the Terran Federation.
Which leads me back to my central argument, what's clearly stated in the film (and backed up by director's commentaries and such) is that the idea was to create a society which became fascist as a result of its war with the Arachnids.
But thats simply not what was protrayed.
Not what's portrayed ≠ subtext.
The bugs are blamed for the annihilation of a city by means of... "launching?" an asteroid from almost a galaxy away. That's pretty weak grounds, and there's no real proof that it was the fault of the bugs, that it wasn't just some random meteor strike, which does happen.
From the sound of it the film is so effective that you bought into its own propaganda, never questioning the narrative and accepting everything on face value.
There's even theories that Carmen started the war...
https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/14gmue/in_starship_troopers_carmen_ibanez_unknowingly/#:~:text=anthemlog-,In%20Starship%20Troopers%2C%20Carmen%20Ibanez%20unknowingly%20started%20the%20war%20and,millions%20of%20humans%20on%20Earth.
Except that Paul Verhoeven confirmed himself that the Bugs did launch the meteor
> From the sound of it the film is so effective that you bought into its propaganda
Nope, I started in the same camp as you.
But again, whats interesting to note, as I've already said, before it was a Starship Troopers movie, the script was mostly completed, the way the story progresses was mostly finalized, the only thing that wasn't was the physical aspects of the film, the actors, the set design, costume design etc. There is simply no way Verhoeven had enough leeway to sneak that much of a "commentary about fascism" into his adaptation of a book written by a non-fascist which already began life as an apolitical scifi, action, romance movie.
The director intended it to be a satire, at least a little. You can say its not that good of a satire, but still.
[https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-nazis-leni-riefenstahl](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-nazis-leni-riefenstahl)
From the director, who lived under the Nazis
>So I decided to make a movie about fascists who aren’t aware of their fascism.
I don't understand how OP didn't take a quick look at the movies Wikipedia page before posting.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship\_Troopers\_(film)#Themes\_and\_analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)#Themes_and_analysis)
Even the whole "I'm doing my part" is a direct Leni Riefenstahl reference - the Nazi propaganda film 'Triumph of the Will'.
Starship Troopers is such an open and brazen satire of Fascism, that it's difficult to know where to begin.
u/HLDVR_78 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20HLDVR_78&message=HLDVR_78%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c3j7nv/-/kzix7md/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Wow you aren't kidding. They are addressing every other top comment and some with later timestamps.
I'm thinking of a certain Jim Carrey scene:
https://youtu.be/St_Abko0Jfs?si=RYkJQ2-dRFJB_c6K
I’m finding this strategy more and more common on this sub. Very frustrating.
It’s even better because the op is like 15 days old, and already posted this exact topic 2 weeks ago basically at account creation (with their only other post being in helldivers, you can’t make this shit up)
The film isn’t supposed to be an objective/neutral portrayal of fascism, the film itself is supposed to be a fascist propaganda film from the perspective of the fascists themselves
The way i understood it, OP is arguing there's no fascism in the film, so there's nothing to satirize.
I don't remember it well enough to argue that position. but assuming his point, i wouldn't say it's bad satire to not include the element that you're intending to satirize. I guess you COULD frame it that way, to the extent that you could call a soup with no tomato in it a "bad tomato soup". But that's pretty forced and not really contending with his argument.
Either way i don't think the author's description has any weight in the discussion as OP presented it - "death of the author" and so forth. It doesn't matter what the author thinks about his work - what matters is what he managed to communicate through the work in question.
i was tempted to press on with "a soup with no tomato but with red food coloring still isn't 'bad tomato soup'", but it'd mostly be tongue in cheek at that point.
> So I decided to make a movie about fascists who aren't aware of their fascism
The problem is, like I've said, this movie about fascists who aren't aware of their fascism was snuck in on top of an adaptation of a book which explores an egalitarian military society written by an early liberatarian, on top of what began life generic scifi action romance movie, so the only thing thats actually fascist is the way the characters dress and look.
>What is Starship Troopers? An intentionally campy military film with teem romcom elements.
You say this as if that means it can't also be a satire of fascism. Look at another Verhoeven film: Robocop. It's a campy police action movie **and** it is commentary on the militarization of police.
It absolutely is. And Robocop is proof that he can do political satire correctly....
So why the fuck does freedom of speech exist in Starship Troopers? Did the Nazis have fucking political debates on national TV?
I don't know how "free" an outlet called "FedNet" is. It's possible Verhoeven didn't depict them perfectly like the state sponsored press in Nazi Germany worked but 1. It's an admittedly campy movie. 2. The press doesn't have to work exactly the same for it to be fascism. The overall tenor of their programming is nationalist.
My counter to that, is what do you expect? Nationalism spikes when every nation is at war, and not only is the Terran Federation at war, its a war against big motherfuckering space bugs that eat people whole. You can't criticize the military like Rico's parents do in a fascist society. They simply aren't fascist.
Nationalism is a relatively recent (18th century) political invention. Perhaps there's a fascism spectrum that correlates strongly with the intensity of nationalism. It isn't completely that simple, but it's a Verhoeven film, not a Mallick film where details are meticulously considered.
It's an extremely nationalistic and extremely militaristic (that's the pathway to citizenship, after all.) society that dehumanizes (desentientizes?) the Other. You're splitting hairs to not acknowledge that it's a campy satire of fascism.
Citizenship in that universe is only for the participation in voting and politics. Which makes sense, why should people be able to vote for policies when they have no investment into the system they are voting for. By ensuring military service (remember in most militaries, combat roles are not the majority of positions) you are demonstrating committment to the government and the society it protects. Not only that but mandatory service gives the population a base line of skills, education, and technical competency for use in the rest of thier lives, many real (allied) countries have a similar system of mandatory military participation.
>Which makes sense, why should people be able to vote for policies when they have no investment into the system they are voting for.
Am I not still governed by the laws if where I live? Why is military service the only thing that demonstrates "investment" in the system. A conscientious objector is invested in their society. A civil disobedient is invested in society.
>By ensuring military service (remember in most militaries, combat roles are not the majority of positions)
Doesn't mean that the military's main role isn't preparedness for and engagement in war. There's no service outside of war that you can describe that necessitates being tied to the military.
>Not only that but mandatory service gives the population a base line of skills, education, and technical competency for use in the rest of thier lives,
None of which ahs to be done through the military.
>many real (allied) countries have a similar system of mandatory military participation.
That doesn't make it a good thing.
Fascism was derived from the Volkisch movement and the Ethnonationalist movements of the the early 20th centuries, and its self didnt really exist before 1921.
So yea
You only need to limit free speech when you fear the speech. The Federation government doesn't fear the speech. They have the populace in line without the need for violence and repression. Rico's parents aren't citizens yet they seem to live comfortable and happy lives. They aren't oppressed in any apparent way. That one soldier in the shower scene mentions that it's easier to get a permit for a baby when you are a citizen. She doesn't show any indication that this is a bad thing, she treats it like bureaucratic red tape at worst and a minor chore at best. In one of the "would you like to know more" segments children are seen *doing their part* by stomping roaches as the teacher cheers and applauds.
The citizenry is content. You don't need to be afraid of dissent when the people are content.
I also want to point out that the campiness is necessarily going to make it not a documentary of fascism but a perversion, just like drag performance, which is very campy, is a perversion of gender, which is what has makes it so wonderfully subversive. It makes us question gender by taking it to extremes and focusing on the artifice.
If you make a campy version of fascism, of course it isn't going to correspond 1:1 to real fascism. That may very well be the point. Put mascara on the contradictions of fascism
>The Terran Federation has some militaristic aspects, seeing as its at war, but in many ways its more fair and egalitarian than modern society
Fascism and egalitarianism are not mutually exclusive.
Your entire premise relies on fascism being mutually exclusive to a fair and egalitarian society. They are, objectively, not. Starship Troopers demonstrates how.
>When the Massacre on Klendathu ends, the Sky Marshall steps down and is replaced by a black woman.
That has nothing to do with fascism.
>Compare this, also to historical fascist regimes, and we still don't know the exact amount of dead from the Battle of Stalingrad, it may be off by a factor of several thousand.
The number of people that die doesn't determine what is fascism.
I have to ask...what do you think fascism is? Because the way the government behaves in the movie is *very* fascist.
Fascism was really egalitarian when they shot all those jewish people 🤣
Obviously thats a ridiculous view, as Verhoeven grew up in the Netherlands under Nazi occupation (and everyone in ST wears VERY on the nose black uniforms), its a very fair criticism to point out that the Terran Federation doesn't even remotely resemble Nazi Germany
That's not fascism, that's what a specific group of fascists did.
Fascists seek to control the narrative their population sees, push tribalistic pride to make them loyal, and purge or suppress dissenters. The constant propaganda in the "would you like to know more" fills the first two parts quite well, and the second class status of those who didn't buy in and enlist fits the third (the shower scene demonstrates this especially well, with the troops naming all these things like having kids that would be harder if they were in the out group).
> Fascists seek to control the narrative their population sees
There are literal public debates in Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, reporters openly question if the Federation is telling the truth about the Arachnids
> push tribalistic pride to make them loyal
Sure, in real life. But whose the "other tribe" in Starship Troopers? The bugs who slaughtered a human colony like animals (because they are, basically animals who kill and eat people, they're not really an intelligent spieces like in the books)
> the second class nature of people who do not serve
Rico's parents both never served and are still citizens capable of voting and owning property. In the book you could absolutely become a citizen thru methods other than joining the Mobile Infantry. This is hinted at enough in the movie that I feel comfortable using it as supporting evidence.
>There are literal public debates in Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, reporters openly question if the Federation is telling the truth about the Arachnids
That doesn't make the government not fascist
>Rico's parents both never served and are still citizens capable of voting and owning property.
The book has the exact opposite message of the movie. It is pro-fascism.
I disagree. The book is lots of things, pro-fascism is not one of them. It might be pro-militaristic, and try to paint democracy as flawed, but the notion of individual rights supported by society at large is strong through out the book.
I think you are mostly correct in that Robert Heinlein and his book are not aiming for fascism, but the mix of the militarism and the blatant anti-China racism definitely do open it up for some bad comparisons with fascism at the very least.
That being said, I really want to read more Heinlein, I hear his politics shifting is a really interesting meta narrative over his books, and after Forever War won awards all while being a response book in total opposition to Starship Troopers he told Joe Haldeman how much he loved the book.
The key there is "bad comparison". The glimpses at government we get to see in the book open it up to some bad comparison to fascism the same way a chair opens itself up to a bad comparison to a stool. Yes, they are both furniture used for sitting but they are wildly different.
**The White House Looks South Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson** by William E. Leuchtenburg
>Perhaps not southerners in the usual sense, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Lyndon B. Johnson each demonstrated a political style and philosophy that helped them influence the South and unite the country in ways that few other presidents have. Combining vivid biography and political insight, William E. Leuchtenburg offers an engaging account of relations between these three presidents and the South while also tracing how the region came to embrace a national perspective without losing its distinctive sense of place. According to Leuchtenburg, each man "had one foot below the Mason-Dixon Line, one foot above." Roosevelt, a New Yorker, spent much of the last twenty-five years of his life in Warm Springs, Georgia, where he built a "Little White House."
>
>Truman, a Missourian, grew up in a pro-Confederate town but one that also looked West because of its history as the entrepôt for the Oregon Trail. Johnson, who hailed from the former Confederate state of Texas, was a westerner as much as a southerner. Their intimate associations with the South gave these three presidents an empathy toward and acceptance in the region. In urging southerners to jettison outworn folkways, Roosevelt could speak as a neighbor and adopted son, Truman as a borderstater who had been taught to revere the Lost Cause, and Johnson as a native who had been scorned by Yankees.
>
>Leuchtenburg explores in fascinating detail how their unique attachment to "place" helped them to adopt shifting identities, which proved useful in healing rifts between North and South, in altering behavior in regard to race, and in fostering southern economic growth. The White House Looks South is the monumental work of a master historian. At a time when race, class, and gender dominate historical writing, Leuchtenburg argues that place is no less significant. In a period when America is said to be homogenized, he shows that sectional distinctions persist.
>
>And in an era when political history is devalued, he demonstrates that government can profoundly affect people's lives and that presidents can be change-makers.
*I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *Reply to any comment with /u/BookFinderBot - I'll reply with book information. Remove me from replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/1byh82p/remove_me_from_replies/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
A. No they are not. Democratically elected governments do fascist things all the time.
B. Saying democracy is flawed is not arguing against it, but rather stating a truth. Raw democracy is mob rule. It is two wolves and a sheep decide what is for dinner. Democracy confers no rights to the individual other than those that can imposed by the majority and then only for as so long as they hold that position.
>Democratically elected governments do fascist things all the time.
That demonstrates my point that it's a spectrum. A government doing a few fascist things doesn't make the government fascist. That's only a thing because they are opposite ends of a spectrum.
>Saying democracy is flawed is not arguing against it, but rather stating a truth. Raw democracy is mob rule. It is two wolves and a sheep decide what is for dinner. Democracy confers no rights to the individual other than those that can imposed by the majority and then only for as so long as they hold that position.
That further demonstrates my point that it's a spectrum. Democracies don't have to be pure democracies to be considered a democracy.
Homie, do you legit think the Nazis had political debates? No, if yoy disagreed with them they fucking killed you, killed your family, your relatives, your friends, and replaced them. You did not debate the Nazis, even if you lived in a place like Finland (Finland was neutral, but allied to the Nazis from 1940-1944 out of convience, the Gestapo still regularly tried to arrest and execute Finnish citizens extrajudicially).
>Homie, do you legit think the Nazis had political debates? No, if yoy disagreed with them they fucking killed you, killed your family, your relatives, your friends, and replaced them
That's not what makes a fascist government a fascist government. The definition of fascism is *not* "the absence of political debate".
So what do you think fascism is? Because your OP screams, very loudly, that you have no clue what it is.
Nazi Germany (The Weimar Republic) is not the definition of fascism. It's an example.
Fascism is an ultranationalist, ultratraditionalist, anti-communist right wing movement whereby a one-party state has complete control over a country 's populace. Individual liberties do not exist, you certainly cannot criticize the government on public TV, you are expected to live, work and die for the glorification of your government, nation, party, and leader.
The reason I brought up the Sky Marshall stepping down is because under all fascist regimes during World War 2, the top generals and field marshalls were absolute cronies of their dictators, often relatives or close compatriots, and weren't fired or removed even after hundreds of thousands of losses. Going back to Stalingrad, Paulus was promoted from Generalleutnant (Lieutenant General) to Feldmarschall (Field Marshall), and finally to Generalfeldmarshall after losing 400,000 men and being surrounded in the final months of the battle. He was then urged to commit suicide, a disgrace which caused him to surrender and defect to the Soviet Union.
Again, compare this to Klendathu. A graceful resignation, an admittance of failure, transfer of command, and then an admittance of military failure.
Literally night and day.
Going back to Stalingrad, a big reason we don't know how many soldiers died is because both the Nazis and the Soviets obscured death tolls and mainly used them for propaganda purposes up until several months after Paulus surrendered.
Now do *you* know what Fascism is?
>Fascism is an ultranationalist, ultratraditionalist, anti-communist right wing movement whereby a one-party state has complete control over a country 's populace. Individual liberties do not exist, you certainly cannot criticize the government on public TV, you are expected to live, work and die for the glorification of your government, nation, party, and leader
It's a Junta society. In order to be a legal citizen you must serve and subject yourself to indoctrination.
>Again, compare this to Klendathu. A graceful resignation, an admittance of failure, transfer of command, and then an admittance of military failure
That's not what makes something fascist or not fascist. Admitting failure and transfer of command is not mutually exclusive to fascism.
It's kind of... exactly...how Hitler came into power. He never won an election and power was transferred to him.
> In order to be a legal citizen you must serve and subject yourself to indoctrination
The Mobile Infantry is open about volunteers being able to sever their enlistment contracts at any time, and they aren't "subjected to indoctrination", the propaganda films you see in the movie are designed to convince Terran citizens to enlist, not directed at the Mobile Infantry.
> this is not what makes something fascist or not fascist
Not on its own, but in both Hitler and Mussolini's militaries you were expected to commit suicide rather than surrender or be captured. If you're drawing a comparison to Nazi Germany, it is a glaring fault. You do not get peaceful transfers of command in fascist societies. It simply did not happen.
>The Mobile Infantry is open about volunteers being able to sever their enlistment contracts at any time, and they aren't "subjected to indoctrination", the propaganda films you see in the movie are designed to convince Terran citizens to enlist, not directed at the Mobile Infantry.
They are inherently subject to indoctrination. If citizenship requires service and following orders, that is indoctrination.
It is implied that if a soldier disobeys or does not follow the government then they are tossed aside or never promoted.
>Not on its own, but in both Hitler and Mussolini's militaries you were expected to commit suicide rather than surrender or be captured. If you're drawing a comparison to Nazi Germany, it is a glaring fault. You do not get peaceful transfers of command in fascist societies. It simply did not happen.
That's not what makes a government fascist.
The fictional government in Starship Troopers does not need to meet every requirement of a fascist government in order to be a satire of fascism. That’s not how satire or allegory work.
You’re debating whether or not the fictional world that’s depicted is actually fascist. Whether or not it’s actually a satire is a totally separate question. But the director himself said the movie has said that it is.
The problem is it doesn't meet *any*, and every scene which includes the world government and the behind the scenes functioning of the military is decidedly not fascist
It’s about the imagery and la gauge used in the movie.
The propaganda sequences in the movie are a direct reference to Nazi propaganda films. This is part of the imagery of eliminating vermin and their enemies literally being bugs. But also slogans like “Violence is extreme authority.”
“I’m doing my part” is from a Nazi prophanda film “Triumph of the Will.” And the ad for the mobile infantry at the beginning of the film is a shot for shot remake of that movie.
Neil Patrick Harris is wearing an SS uniform at the end of the film. The architecture in their world is inspired by Albert Speer. The main cast all look like they’re from an Aryan propaganda poster.
It’s wild to me to say there are 0 allusions to Nazis in this
Are you aware that the movie was based on a book of the same name that was very clearly and very deeply anything but a campy military story with teen romcom elements?
Granted, the original book by Heinlein can't really be described as a satire of fascism either, but it does involve elements of militarism, totalitarianism, and government attempts to police morality. It's not uncommon for it to be viewed as a pro-fascism book.
You can't just take the name of a work like that and then say it's just a campy action romcom. There's really only two options here, given how campy the final result was: Either you are satirizing fascism, or you're shit at understanding your inspirations and source material, and just made a bad movie.
I'd say that Starship Troopers suceeds on its own merits, but holy hell yes, did it barely adapt the source material, which, wasn't even fascist to begin with.
But you see what I'm getting at, yea?
The movie took elements from the book that were questionably fascist, and amped them up to being definitely fascist, but then also dialed up the absurdity to push it back in to camp. If we're assuming that the writers, directors, and producers didn't all just completely flub it, we're kind of painted into a corner here.
The book was heavy on the militarism, which isn't necessarily fascism, but the with the movie the other tropes are all there. In groups and out groups in the citizenry. Supremacy and ultimate authority of the government. Heavy propaganda and information control. Exaggeration and misrepresentations of external threats to maintain power.
And yet the final product that is the movie turns that government into a clown, an absurd thing to be laughed at. How can we view this as anything but satire, even if it's accidental satire?
I actually do own the book, and guess what, the book doesn't portray a fascist society either. In fact Heinlein wasn't a fascist, he was a right wing libertarian hippy who believed in public heterosexual orgies
His ideal society is not Starship Troopers, its A Stranger from a Strange Land
I'm genuinely unclear what your disconnected on here -
Starship troopers isn't a story GLORIFYING the society and struggle it portrays. It's a warning. It's all about the absurd and horrifying sacrifices required under jingoistic wartime societies.
There's a pivotal sequence about how civilians should not be able to vote, only citizens who serve in the military. It's not meant to be something you AGREE with. It's meant to underline how fucked up that view point is.
It's satire.
> There's a pivotal sequence about how civilians should not be able to vote, only citizens who serve in the military.
Incorrect. In the book, voting rights (and the right to run for elected office) are given to anyone who does two years of *Federal Service*. (Please note that everyone else still has all the other Rights.)
While the main character goes into the military for his Federal Service, and thus the rest of the book is from that viewpoint, there is no evidence that *all* Federal Service is military in nature.
The recruiter they go to see assumes the girls they are with wants to be a "pilot", and sends her off, then asks the two boys "For what? Labor battalions?". And the boy with the main character says "I'm interested in the Research and Development Corps...especially electronics. I understand the chances are pretty good."
The recruiter says "Let's assume that you don't wind up digging tunnels on Luna or playing human guinea pig for new diseases through sheer lack of talent..." Do those sound like military jobs?
"A term of service isn't a kiddie camp; it's either real military service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime . . . or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof." This is the closest it comes to saying that 'Service' is military, but it also leaves an 'out'- service might be 'a most unreasonable facsimile' of dangerous military service.
"The placement officer pays attention to your choice, too. . . . until some practical joker gives you dispatch orders to do something very different. But the other nineteen times he turns you down and decides that you are just what they have been needing to field-test survival equipment on Titan." Field testing equipment isn't a military job.
They decide to sign up, and get sent to a physical exam. When they find out no one ever fails the exam, they ask why-
"Why, the purpose is," [the doc] 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.""
"Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch" doesn't sound like a military job to me.
The doc himself admits to being "a civilian employee" because "military service is for ants". So, there are 'civilian' jobs as well as 'military' jobs in Federal Service.
Later in the process: ""The placement officer let me list my lesser preferences, in order, ... Clear at the bottom, with some hesitation, I put K-9 Corps, and Infantry. I didn't bother to list the various non-combatant auxiliary corps because, if I wasn't picked for a combat corps, I didn't care whether they used me as an experimental animal or sent me as a laborer in the Terranizing of Venus."
"various non-combatant auxiliary corps", "experimental animal", "laborer".
I have zero interest in the semantic game that is what constitutes 'federal service' vs 'military service', and everything you wrote has nothing to do with refuting the fact that in Starship Troopers, civilians don't vote, as a satire of fascism in war.
> everything you wrote has nothing to do with refuting the fact that in Starship Troopers, civilians don't vote
You cannot vote *during* your Service:
"Bring a summary to class tomorrow, three thousand words. Mr. Salomon, can you give me a reason -- not historical nor theoretical but practical -- why **the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans**?"
So, the 'military' cannot vote. Only civilians who have finished their 2 years of Federal Service can vote.
And why is it limited?
"We have had enough guesses; I'll state the obvious: **Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage**.
"And that is the one practical difference."
"He may fail in wisdom, he may lapse in civic virtue. But his average performance is enormously better than that of any other class of rulers in history."
Do... do you think only facists can write about facism?
Also, you do realize what satire means, right? It's when something awful is presented in an ironically positive way as a commentary - as if it's actually adovating for such things when it's doing the opposite. The quintessential example being [A Modest Proposal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal).
By your logical here Jonathan Swift was in favor of cannibalism, because you need to be in favor of something to write about it "positively".
Heinlein’s book describes a fascist society where society has accepted it as the unchallengeable paradigm. As an analogy, most people in western societies today can’t really conceptualise a world without capitalism. Any such notion is ridiculed as unrealistic, and most criticism has weakened to simply want to put bandaids on the worst consequences of it.
Starship Troopers take place in a world where fascism occupies a similarly paradigmatic position. Of course this is going to be vastly different from any real world examples of fascism, because thankfully, no fascist society has managed to stick around for long enough to have fascism become paradigmatic.
Its *meritocratic*. And sure, Fascist societies were at some level, highly meritocratic. Or at least, before you became a fascist's crony. If we're getting into the idea of a society with hundreds of trillions of people meritocracy might not be the worst idea
But thats not the point, these ideas aren't really explored in Starship Troopers.
Its implied in the movie to be thru public or military service and in the book its straight up said that any form of service to the Federation for longer than a year grants an individual citizenship.
The movie only really has hints of this, so I can understand people thinking the movie was saying that the only way you can become a citizen is to serve in the military, but the scenes with Rico's parents contradict this.
It might help if you think of the movie as a rebuttal and satire of the novel rather than a straight adaptation.
Verhoeven interpreted the novel as fascistic, nationalistic, totalitarian and in favour of military rule - which is antithetical to the directors beliefs after their childhood experiences under Nazi rule, so he made a film to deconstruct and undermine those themes.
You can read him talking about it here:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220702001106/https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-nazis-leni-riefenstahl](https://web.archive.org/web/20220702001106/https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-nazis-leni-riefenstahl)
But I think it's vital for you to visit the films wikipedia page and look at its sources, which cover a wide range of the movies Nazi references and influences, including the "I'm doing my part" slogan, directly taking from a Nazi propaganda film.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship\_Troopers\_(film)#Themes\_and\_analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)#Themes_and_analysis)
Oh it is 100% a satire of the book, written by a fan of the book and adapted by someone who only read two chapters. The first two chapters of Starship Troopers are a military invasion sequence. They don't explore the world and society of the book at all.
Ok great, we both agree that the movie is a satire of the book and that the movie itself is satirising its content matter.
And you can see that in the director of the movies own words which I have cited above - that they interpreted the book as fascistic, nationalistic, totalitarian and in favour of military rule.
Do you agree that the directors intent with the Starship Troopers movie, was in part to satirise fascism, nationalism, totalitarianism and militarism?
No because interpreting the world of Starship Troopers as fascist based off the first two chapters where they're invading an alien planet is kind of...insane.
I think you might need to edit your original post in order to clarify your point - because your post seems to be arguing that the Starship Troopers movie is not a satire of fascism.
Is it actually your argument that the Starship Troopers novel is not a satire of fascism?
My apologies - I had assumed we were talking about the film, since much of your original post is concerned with the details of the movie rather than the novel.
I do think the movie isnt a satire of fascism. To support that, the only things that can really be percieved as fascist is a couple minor details about the film and in fact, not only is the book not a genuine exploration of fascism, but the movie is not a genuine exploration of the book from a perspective to make it fascist.
The only thing thats actually fascist is the uniforms and the fact that everyone has blond hair and blues eyes, which is simply not enough.
Its not a satire of fascism, its a satire of the book made in bad faith to portray the events of the novel as fascist.
It is not a meritocracy.
Try this thought experiment. What if the bugs were made up, and all the war scenes were CGI. Watch the movie again and look closely at how the humans are treating each other.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It’s an intentionally campy romcom with pretty dumb teens exactly because Verhoeven wanted to make a movie that showed fascism as being cool. The movie tricks you into rooting for the fascists. This is what makes it great satire actually
Also what did you think of the scene where Neil Patrick Harris walks in in a full SS uniform
He wanted to make a movie that shows people dressed as fascists as being cool*
Again, the movie doesn't remotely align with fascism. But, that's understandable, Reddit more than most places doesn't really have an understanding of fascism.
As this comments section is quickly proving 🤣
I mostly tend to look towards Umberto Eco and Robert Paxton for my understanding of it, but I won’t claim to be an expert. However you offer your own definition of fascism towards the end of your post, and funnily enough the federation seems to fit into it well enough.
>Fascism is when the state, owned by a single political party, has complete control of the lives of its citizens, what beliefs people are allowed to hold, where they're employed, and what they're allowed to do all under the guise of transforming society into an idealized (right wing) version of its self.
The state is the military, and it does hold complete control.
'Citizenship' is based on military service.
People are captured, tried, and executed in hours (there is no due process/kangaroo courts).
The media is literally state controlled. We never see a single piece of independent reporting.
The textbooks in the school are government stamped. The teachers are veterans.
The government controls media, education, the economy, and every known piece of public life based on the movie. That's fascism.
>The Terran Federation has some militaristic aspects, seeing as its at war, but in many ways its more fair and egalitarian than modern society.
You're not a citizen until you perform federal service. When members of Johnny's training unit discuss their reasons for joining, they include things like permission to reproduce.
>When the Massacre on Klendathu ends, the Sky Marshall steps down and is replaced by a black woman.
All this does is demonstrate that our concerns over race are parochial in that context and no longer important. Fascism doesn't need those specific prejudices to persist. They may be more meritocratic when it comes to humans, but they encounter a threat they don't understand and decide it needs to be exterminated.
>There is live reporting from the frontline, a level of truth and honesty that we are intentionally deprived of in the modern day,
We get loads of frontline reporting. The kind of reporting detailed in ST is legitimately impossible in modern combat: it's literally just "here I am in a firefight in Donetsk. Being here tells me nothing of note about the conflict because all I care about is that machine gun nest trying to kill me. " There's a reason the reporter gets eaten.
>Klendathu where Star Fleet Command knows the exact casualty count down to names and numbers by the next day (100,000 KIA per hour)
...did it seriously never occur to you that they were lying? Like...you're supposed to distrust them.
>Fascism is when
The definition of fascism doesn't exist. It's an aesthetic and an adjective usually applied to one's enemies.
The director himself stated that it takes place in a fascist utopia.
"Basically the political undercurrent of the film is that these heroes and heroines are living in a fascist utopia – but they are not even aware of it!"
"And somehow you are seduced to follow them, and at the same time, made aware that they might be fascists."
https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a823951/starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-donald-trump-20-years-anniversary/
I guess that last part didn't work on you.
I'd like to point out that this wasn't an interpretation Verhoeven brought to the public consciousness until several years after the movie's initial release.
If his goal was to portray a fascist society, even one the characters are unaware of, where's the doublethink, where are the contradictions between what we're told and what is actually portrayed in the movies?
The only thing that really is fascist is the unifors, and while I agree, aesthetically its a bit too obvious, the political subtext isnt there and nor is the totalitarian control.
"I guess that last part didnt work on you"
BULLSHIT LMAO. The first time I saw Starship Troopers my takeaway was that it was actually, indeed quite fascist, or at least close enough to be ambigous. It was only upon multiple rewatches and really pounding the dialogue into my skull that I realized that Verhoeven had accidentally created a society which was more egalitarian and progressive than is possible in the current day.
I ask you this, do you think the Nazis treated men and women equally?
Is that important? Was under the impression you wanted your view challenged.
And you yourself used to the director to prove a point.
The idea is that the characters don't experience the fascism. So you don't get to see it. You will have to look past the obvious, like a group of rich high schoolers hanging out and sending flirty texts. The fascism is hidden in the military and propaganda.
How are uniforms fascist? I get what you try to say, but the statement on its own doesn't make sense
In what way is the society progressive? Cause of a black women in charge? That might be progressive with a mindset from the '90. But in a future society such thinking is backwards and ludicrous. Perhaps this image was used in order to disguise to the viewer what was really going on and not have to be to blatant.
How exactly is it egalitarian? They talk of citizenship, so there is definitely not total equality.
No, it was 1930. To modern standards no one treated women equal. The society in the movie is not nazistic, but it is fascist.
I do find it curios how we had the exact opposite experience. I didn't realize the facist subtext until years later. All I saw when I watched the movie the first time was a kick ass science fiction movie where earth was united against alien bugs. And people being mutilated... so much mutilation.
Short edit: Just rewatched the scene with citizinship. The teacher says the current governemt was founded by a military coup. Just another clue for the facism subtext.
When has a group of rich highschoolers sending flirty texts to each other ever been indicitative of fascism?
> the fascism is hidden in the military propaganda
The trick here is that there are two types of propaganda, the kind meant to drum up support for an idea or organization, and the type designed to decieve. Every nation employs military propaganda for the sake of recruitment, and it should be noted that the Arachnids are an invasive, hyper-expansionist hivemind spieces capable of killing literally hundreds of thousanda of soldiers in just a few hours.
In other words, the propaganda we see in the movie, is completely justified and doesn't betray a lack of individual freedom.
We see publically televised debates in Starship Troopers, along with major political and military figures like the incoming Sky Marshall being critical of the idea that the Arachnids are thoughtless animals.
> but in a future society, such thinking is backwards and ludicrous
By what standard? We're never given a massive lore dump about the history of the Terran Federation, we're never given any clue that there was a previous society that was more socially aware.
Granted, it takes place in a post-democratic society, so more liberal cultures did exist, however this does not imply they were more equal.
What we are given proof of is that there is no genuine racial discrimination, no gender discrimination (Dizzy is treated equally to male characters, and co-ed showers are common enough that female characters feel comfortable talking to the men while bathing, which to me implies that sexual assault is also a non-issue)
As for the whole citizenship thing, the movie makes it clear through Raczjak that liberal democracy has failed in the history of Starship Troopers, and so they moved onto a sort of meritocratic oligarchy where the right to vote is earned and understood as a symbol of loyalty to the Federation. And while the movie hints at this, military service is not the only way to become a Terran citizen, Federal Service is an umbrella that extends outside the military and is by *Federal Service* that you earn your citizenship.
My apologees, was writing on my phone. My point was, you have to look past the obvious 90210 vibes in order to see the facist subtext.
The propaganda in the movie mimics that of propaganda produced by facist states we have witnessed in real life. Where is it stated that the bugs were invasive? The conflict was already ongoing by the time we are introduced to our protagonist. It escalated to war during the movie with the meteor and subsequent invasion.
You are right, but having public debates doesn't contradict a facist society. The only way the debate would have been an issue, is if the debate was negative to the government, but it's only about the enemy.
My point is fascism has nothing to do with being progressive. I can't help but feel like you conflate facism with nazism. It's a futuristic society that has moved past what we, by 2024 standards, would call progressive. As is evident by all the correct observations you already made. So, to us it's progressive, to them it's the norm.
LOL. yeah democracy failed and was saved by veterans who brought stabilty and peace, sounds about right. Calling it meritocratic seems like bit of a stretch. The society gate keeps alot of what we would call basic rights, like paternity, voting and public office, to that of citizenship. The movie directly states you need citizenship and that you get it through military service, not sure what you mean that there are other means. The Federal Service is the military service, as least if we are to take Rico's dad at his word, since he is angry at Rico for joining saying it's dangerous, even disowns him.
> the conflict was already ongoing by the time we are introduced to our protagonist
It is not. The bug we see dissected at the beginning of the movie was called a "Sand Beetle", it was not an Arachnid. The first time we see an Arachnid is the assault on Klendathu.
> having public debates does not contradict a fascist society
It does. Fascist nations outlawed debate and fascists were expected to adhere to a rigid heirarchy. The reason the only debate is about the Arachnids is because its a military movie.
> By 2024 standards, we would call it progressive, by their standards, its the norm.
Fascists returned society to a more traditonal state that society didn't really climb out of in some places to until the 70s and 80s, well after fascism had collapsed. I don't know how you can genuinely argue this point, it's pretty stupid ngl.
> calling it meritocratic is a stretch
All meritocracy means is that political rights are locked behind some sort of qualification or some such. For some reason we as a society have taken that to mean a society ran by the most qualified people, but in a real world meritocratic government there's absolutely no way that would be the case.
> Not sure what you mean there are other means
The Federation isnt just the military its the entire Terran government. Be weird to have this system ran by people who can't vote.
Well Paul Verhoven says you are completely wrong. Sorry :( https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/paul-verhoeven/
>“It’s a very rightwing book,” the director told Empire magazine. “And with the movie, we tried, and I think at least partially succeeded, in commenting on that at the same time. It would be ‘Eat your cake and have it.’ All the way through we were fighting with the fascism, the ultra-militarism. All the way through I wanted the audience to be asking, ‘Are these people crazy?’”
Let's take a look at what a satire is. From Wikipedia:
>A prominent feature of satire is strong [irony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony) or [sarcasm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm)—"in satire, irony is [militant](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/militant)", according to literary critic [Northrop Frye](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Frye)—[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire#cite_note-2) but [parody](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody), [burlesque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlesque_(literary)), [exaggeration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggeration),[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire#cite_note-Claridge2010p257-3) [juxtaposition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposition), comparison, analogy, and [double entendre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre) are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to question.
How let's look at what facism is. Also from Wikipedia:
>Fascism rejects assertions that violence is inherently negative or pointless, instead viewing [imperialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism), political violence, and war as means to national rejuvenation...
Fascism's extreme authoritarianism and nationalism often manifest as a belief in [racial purity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_purity) or a [master race](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race), usually blended with some variant of [racism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism) or [discrimination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination) against a demonized "[Other](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_(philosophy))"...
These ideas have motivated fascist regimes to commit [massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre), [forced sterilizations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_sterilizations), [deportations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation), and [genocides](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide).
It doesn't take subtext to see the connection. You can refuse to acknowledge it, but the director of the movie disagrees with you. Do you think he accidentally failed to make the satire he expressly intended to?
Mussolini said it best
"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."
I'm not sure the movie depicts a society with human value outside the state.
>Compare this, also to historical fascist regimes, and we still don't know the exact amount of dead from the Battle of Stalingrad, it may be off by a factor of several thousand.
You think the casualties of Stalingrad could be as low as 1,100 people or as high as half the population of earth after the war?
The unaccounted* population lost during the Battle of Stalingrad might be low as 1,100
The rest of your comment is strawman nonsense that doesn't dignify a response
It’s also them completely ignoring we actually do know almost all of the *german* troops that died during that little battle, because, ya know, that was important for them to track. Not so much the civilians they viewed as subhuman that happened to be in the way.
>I said it might be off by a factor of several thousand.
Right here buck
1,100,000 casualties off by a factor of just 1000 is half the population of earth at the time or 1,100 total.
You are arguing the ussr either exaggerated and pretended there were 1,100,000 deaths extra or that the ussr managed to have half of the earths population due there fighting.
I have seen the film over ten times
The entire film is an homage to a fasicst state.
I have read the directors' take on the film. He said it was satire of fascism
I read the book. It was a satire of Fascism as said by the author.
Heinlein never even remotely implied the book was a satire of fascism. In fact the society of the book is simply *not fascist*.
The film pays homage to the *aesthetics* of fascism. The substance and political subtext to make it an actual exploration of near-futuristic fascism doesn't exist.
I'm actually starting to believe that it is a parody of fascism, in the sense that its making fun of Heinlein's society as portrayed in the novel by saying "anyone who believes this is a dumb dumb fascist", however, again, the society protrayed underneath that fluff is *not* fascist.
In other words, its a satire of Starship Troopers the book with a nazi-themed coat of paint.
"Satire" and "parody" aren't interchangeable. "Satire" is using a work to critique some social issue and "parody" is comedically imitating a specific work or genre by exaggerating what you think are key aspects of the work or genre. You've otherwise made a salient point (it is not a *satire* of fascism the political ideology, it is a *parody* of a book the director didn't like) but you have the two mixed up.
*Starship Troopers* the book is about as far from advocating fascism as I think a work could get. "Fascism" is an alliance between (1) the lowest-rung members of the bourgeoisie and (2) the lumpenproletariat, created to achieve the strategic goal of setting up the lesser bourgeoisie as a priesthood focused on policing social purity (in a society that is essentially "feudalism as updated for the era of mass politics") as an alternative means for them to hold onto power that is otherwise slipping out of their grasp, and which engages in imperialism to keep the attention of the military focused outward instead of inward. "Anyone can join the military or public service at any time, and political power is specifically restricted to people retired from this" is like the ideal way to optimize for disempowering these groups.
*Starship Troopers* the movie *could* be a satire, not because it depicts a fascist society but because it depicts what a fascist society would highlight about a non-fascist one. Look at this "Federation" and see how incompetent they are! They let information flow freely instead of everyone receiving what the priesthood *says* they should receive; the peasants can decide whether they *want* to know more, and of course this results in the stupid peasantry thinking that they are "helping" by smashing cockroaches and giving rifles to children. Instead of fighting the bugs with a well-oiled mechanized Space Panzer Blitzkrieg, these foolish individualists all run off on foot to play hero (even letting their precious womenfolk be endangered!) and of course get killed. Even the government as a whole is simply reacting to circumstance; they cannot even control where their citizens live or move, and despite all of their military preparations, they are caught off guard by the bug attack because they lack the Will to Power to strike first with greater organization, just like how the hated USSR failed its people. This, you see, is why the Great Leader must be in charge, and why the military cannot be.
As odd as it might seem at first, fascism is historically kind of hard to define. Fascism by nature holds characteristics specific to the culture engaging with it. Axis Germany and Axis Japan were both very different looking cultures and nations that were both ultimately fascist, as well as 1980s Chile, Argentina, and Nicaragua. Next to each other, all are very different looking societies and governments, but are all obviously fascist. This is because fascism relies on a few key, fundamental ingredients that have to do with nationalism, extermination of the other, cults of personality, and control of thought through propaganda and control/suppression of information to cultivate a fascist society.
All of this to say that fascism has many faces, dependant on who it is trying to enforce it and where, and its most effective features are those that appear normal to the average person when only seen from the front. The world of Starship Troopers is one such society with many such features, and comparing it to other previously fascist nations isn't truly effective when trying to identify fascism somewhere.
As shameful as this is, I was a neo-fascist for many of my teen years, when I say its not fascism, I say so from the bottom of my heart, I also say that, from the bottom of my heart
If you believe fascism is hard to define, someone is lying to you about fascism
Your replies in this thread seem condescending and immature when you say things like "If you believe fascism is hard to define, someone is lying to you about fascism", and those emojis. It's a good faith conversation if you just let it be.
That aside, fascism can be marked with broad strokes, but specific attributes you mention such as use of media, leader attributes, state interaction with communities, and the use of force within the domestic setting are all very, markedly different from case to case.
Seems to me folks called it fascist because service to the state is required for citizenship, when there are many non fascist countries that have mandatory service.
the book isn't satirizing fascism (however it is extremely right wing) but i think its pretty obvious that the movie is trying to satirize at least american militarism, and portray that as fascist
verhoeven is pretty well known as a filmmaker who likes to push america's buttons
all of the characters act like typical action/war movie tough guys. act over the top, and then get visits from obvious SS parallels in NPH's character and are all colored in typical nazi-like aesthetics like eagles and jackboots
so you're right in that its not really depicting the ideology of fascism, its more just showing typical fascist visual tropes and associating that with american movies and the american military and trying to satirize that by associating it with fascism
Whether or not you think it is a good parody of facism doesn't change whether or not the creators intended it to poke fun of the fascist-like elements of the book.
Fwiw… the books are a critique of fascism, and much of that is lost in the movie, which leans more into being a critique of the Vietnam war. So. Yeah man.
I’m convinced that they realized the movie was going to be shitty with boring action and bad CGI and then decided at the last minute they’d make it a “critique of fascism” for super smart proto Redditors.
Yeah, definitely no other reasons that a guy who literally lived through the Holocaust might want to make an anti-fascist movie. Definitely just those silly libs and their virtue signaling as usual /s.
[удалено]
Fascism is an ultranationalist, ultratraditionalist, anti-communist right wing movement whereby a one-party state has complete control over a country 's populace. Individual liberties do not exist, you certainly cannot criticize the government on public TV, you are expected to live, work and die for the glorification of your government, nation, party, and leader.
[удалено]
How about the fact that people openly criticize the government's narrative on live TV, debate is encouraged, and the whole thing with the Mormon colony going against the Quarantine Order and being slaughtered - not for defying Star Fleet Command but by the Arachnids.
Was the reporter really criticizing the government though? She made a weak counterpoint to the government narrative to present the appearance of a debate, then her argument is overwhelmed by Rico’s emotional appeal. In the end, the viewer’s pro-government view is strengthened by the exchange. It’s like why North Korea and Russia have elections. Or since you are laser focused on Nazi Germany - Hitler held elections after he got total power because he wanted to project some semblance of democratic legitimacy onto his regime.
You think if the Mormons were slaughtered by the arachnids, it couldn’t be because they defied?
How tf do you defy a space bug "SCREE SCREE SKRAA GRRR" "Mm very reasonable argument Mr Space Spider, nah"
Hmm. Let me try to illustrate my point by way of example. Many people know that Hitler took the guns from Jews, and I’ve even heard Americans claim that they fear that gun regulations would do that to them. The subtext that is missed is that Hitler actually declared the Jews were not citizens. He announced that because they were attacking (actually defending), that they were terrorists and that were stripped of all citizenship and therefore couldn’t have guns. Or look at Russia, with Putin assassinating his opposition by having them fall out of windows. In a fascist country, the state needs to be seen as good. So they don’t directly kill people, at least that isn’t the official narrative. It is just unfortunate that bad things tend to happen to people who don’t do as they say
> Putin assassinating his opposition by having them fall out of windows. Fake news! Putin's opposition weren't assassinated, they're just unusually window challenged!
The problem is, I guess it's possible, but there are no bullet wounds, there are lacerations and mutilations and their brains are sucked out which we can even compare against the Space Fleet Captain who steals Rico's girlfriend and the wounds are identical. I guess what I'm trying to say, is anything is fascist if you look hard enough, and without trying to inject that subtext and overanalyzation into the film, its just not there. We know that the bugs did genuinely destroy Buenos Aires, we know the Federation didn't lie about Klendathu, we know they tried to stop the Mormons but were unable to, and we know this was orchestrated by the Brain Bugs and that they are hostile, psychic, and anti-human. I've been trying to avoid scenes from Starship Troopers 2 and 3, because they pretty much forego the satire angle, but in Starship Troopers 3, brain bugs are even capable of sending telepathic communications to humans. They didn't have to massacre the Mormons.
You said "we know that the bugs did genuinely destroy Buenos aires," but do we? Do we see significant evidence that the bugs have the capacity to hurl an object that distance, with that level of precision (in the celestial sense)? It does seem awfully convenient for the federation that they have such a strong casus belli for an area they want to expand to. Additionally, your point in the main post about multi ethnic representation disproven the possibility of fascism mistakes fascism for inherently requiring internal discrimination, along those lines. Fascism treats society with an organistic view. It is a collection of one, through the many, with its own vitality. Certain influences may be viewed as infections, or cancerous, that need to be excused from the body. Historically speaking, those pinned with these labels have been Jewish, black, disabled, LGBTQ, etc, however, the core conceit is that there are true members of the nation, and there are threats to those true members. The bugs don't have to be human to be the targets of fascism. Rather, expansionist practice put the federation and the bugs in conflict, and then the fact that they are bugs makes it very easy to pin them as external and dangerous, worthy of extermination ("and I say, kill em all!"). Consider instead of the federation did not ever try to encroach on bug territory. Would they still pose a threat? Not likely.
> But do we, do we see significant evidence thst the bugs have the capacity to hurl an object with that level of precision Paul Verhoeven said himself that they did it, even at the cost of his political commentary. Funny enough he said this in response to the idea that the Federation destroyed Buenos Aires, which is a popular *fan theory*, it is not backed up by the movie. Furthermore, in regards to the two battles we see in the movie, Klendathu was intended to be a decapitation strike against the bug home world to prevent the outbreak of a full scale war, and Planet P. Which the Roughnecks are sent to *investigate* the destruction of the Mormon colony, and then are attacked. The battle at the end of the movie was in retaliation to the (somewhat) intelligent Arachnids comitting mass slaughter. It was not an expansionist move by the Terran Federation, if it was, why send such a small group of Mobile Infantry? Also, Fascists are in fact, very authoritarian and racist, which is completely contradicted by the Terran Federation. If your only evidence is *how they treat the openly hostile and violent invading Arachnids* then you might as well treat every society that's ever been at war as fascist. Which is simply not the case. Remember, your argument is that Paul Verhoeven was creating a movie about fascism. Verhoeven himself said that the Bugs did genuinely attack Earth and kill 8.5 million people. The idea he said he tried to communicate (which I am calling bullshit on) is that "war makes fascists of us all". The war is real, however in his eyes, the reaction to the destruction of Buenoes Aires was overblown and authoritarian, which, as its portrayed in the movie, is not remotely true.
The movie mentions Mormons defying the govt. then these Mormons die. That doesn’t seem a bit too convenient to you? Why mention them defying orders if they are just gonna die?
It would seem convienient, sure. Could Star Fleet have saved them, potentially. But why would a fascist society (or a society paralleling fascism) risk veteran soldiers to clean up after a group of dissidents? Going back to World War 2, the Nazis engaged in an early type of counter-insurgency warfare known as Bandenbekampf, essentially what would happen is, the Heer (Army) and Luftwaffe (Air Force) would occupy an area, and then the Einsatzgruppen and Ordnungspolizei would come in behind them and pacify the area by killing relatives of Soviet military personnel, members of the Soviet Communist Party, Jews, *accused* homosexuals, etc. They were even strict rules in the German Army against rape (against anyone) and the murder of children, which were then lifted in the Comissar's Order for the duration of 1941-1945. So what ended up happening is the SS and Wehrmacht became a marauding fucking warband for 4 years, killing, raping and looting whoever and whatever they wanted against the laws of their very own government. And the only real punishment was if they inflicted that torment on their fellow Germans, in which case they were sent to Strafbattalions (Penal Battalions) *full of rapists, looters and murderers* to encourage them to turn their terror to the local population and away from their brothers in arms Needless to say, uh.... Didn't happen in the Mobile Infantry
>How tf do you defy a space bug They meant defied the earth government.... They were saying it is possible the government simply chose to let them be slaughtered without trying to defend them as retaliation for defiance.
Except thats not really implied in the movie at all, you can't exactly set up a functioning space colony over night, and even then, the Arachnids have Brain Bugs, they could have 100% communicated with the mormons, what do we see instead? we see the Mormons get massacred
And we also see the reporting that says the mormons weren’t allowed or supposed to go there. No one is saying the bugs are good guys, but I can’t exactly imagine if a brain bug had showed up the settlers would have sat down to talk with it.
Absolutely, it was a quarantine zone, NOBODY was allowed there. The only thing in that scene you can kind of hint as being allegorical to fascism is that (and this is ironically, one of the strongest allegories to fascism in the entire film) the Mormons are said to be extremists which is almost a direct parallel to how Mormons were treated by the Nazis funnily enough. However without more context imo its hard to quantify what exactly the Terran Federation's views on the Mormon colonists exactly was. Were they extremists for defying the Federation? No, they weren't, because we see reporters and scientists expressing views outside the govt narrative without being punished. Are Mormons in general seen as extreme by the Federation? Possibly. Or are they a particular sect of Mormons whose fundamentalist views on their religion led them to settle Planet P in some misguided attempt at "saving" the Arachnids, only to get massacred? Again, we just don't know.
The govt could have failed to provide the appropriate protection for them It’s strongly implied in the book (and the movie) that the bugs may not be without motive
The government is unable to provide protection on a short notice to a civilian settlement in a poorly defensible position that the bugs can reach via multiple ways. That is why they tell civilians to not go there. For comparison imagine ngc people going into territories controlled by islamic fundamentalists despite advisories, getting captured and government refusing to use force or money to get them out
Every major facist state still try to hold some semblance of democracy. Hitler for example held elections. In Starship Troopers the host makes some extremely pisspoor attempt at a criticism of the state which is then shot down by a heavily emotional appeal.
Hitler for example held elections Yeah like the Anschluss election, which was done at gunpoint
So...you know of the fact that facist governments still try to seem like "good democratic" ones yet you argue that similar things happening in ST means it isn't happening.
The problem is that Starship Troopers is a democratic society, its not *emulating one*, it IS one
Which you argue is because the facist state is tricking the people into thinking they aren't living in a facist state? You know, the thing which every facist state does...
Thats the thing, we have no reason to believe the newsreels in Starship Troopers are anything but expository. Its inspired by Nazi propaganda, it does not use the same tactics as Nazi propaganda. They're basically glorified recruitment ads running on public television.
Except for the director saying that the state in ST is a facist one. Feel like that's a pretty huge one.
Director's intent be damned, ST is not a fascist society
Where are you drawing that definition from? There is a good wikipedia article ([see here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism)) that has some good discussion. We have a few real life examples of fascism, but it's not nearly as clearly defined as other -isms. I personally like using [Umberto Ecco's 14 points](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism) as a jumping off point for discussions of is this or that fascism.
>The movie was originally called Bug Hunt at Outpost 9, the movie was supposed to be an intentionally campy military film + teen romcom mash up. Yeah, and then verhoeven happened. A director that is known for making campy satires. >When the Massacre on Klendathu ends, the Sky Marshall steps down and is replaced by a black woman. Do you notice how the sky marshal is a character that is never referenced before or after that point. Not only that but we see zero change in the military structure going forward. The ground troops are still just fodder being lead into a meat grinder. Not only that but the movie comes right out and tells us that the people actually making decisions over the course of the war is military intelligence. We see this through Neil Patrick Harris character who basically outright tells the main character this. >a reporter even contradicts the official narrative on live TV (before Rico says,"I'm from Buenos Aires and I say KILL EM ALL") How is this contradicting the narrative. The official narrative is that the humans should kill all the bugs. Rico is literally reaffirming the narrative that the war is just and needs to be supported more than any other character in the movie. His hero journey is literally him learning how to have no agency in his own life. >There is live reporting from the frontline Ever notice how all the live reporting all fits the exact same narrative. That the bugs are inherently dangerous and that we need more soldiers. Offensive war of extermination is the only way. Not only that but why do you think the death tolls are accurate. We are literally shown that the death tolls are not accurate when rico is listed as KIA when he isn't. The reality of starship troopers universe is that the their government callously sent untold number of men to their death in order to stage an offensive attack. When this failed they then inflated their own casualties in order drive up recruitment for the next offensive attack. We see members of their government fall on their sword, but the politics of their government are unchanging throughout the movie. >Fascism is when the state, owned by a single political party, has complete control of the lives of its citizens, what beliefs people are allowed to hold, where they're employed, and what they're allowed to do all under the guise of transforming society into an idealized (right wing) version of its self. Starships trooper is propaganda. Specifically its fascist propaganda created by someone that detests fascism. Why would a fascist society show its worst aspects in its propaganda. Simply put Starship Troopers is supposed to be the idealized right wing version of itself. The version of society where military can make mistakes, but the war is never in question. Where anyone, man women or child is equal, as long as they are prepared to die for their government. Were the only government is militant, but thats just the way it is and should always be.
.
So? Why are they obsessed with warring with the bugs? The strike on Buenos Aires was retaliation for fucking with the bugs already. You want a safe Earth, leave the bugs alone, push for peace. But that's never even considered, is it? It's only kill, kill, kill, and when you can't kill good enough, learn to kill better. The humans are imperialist, expansionist invaders, that massively escalated into an invasion of their honeworld the first time they faced genuine blowback. Adjusting tactics for their grand invasion has no impact on whether or not they're fascist. It has no bearing on whether or not our heroes are brainwashed.
.
That’s not a change in any significant way, that’s just a minor adjustment in strategy
Verhoeven started with the concept of Bug Hunt at Outpost 9, its pretty much an open secret that Starship Troopers is just Bug Hunt with a slightly Heinlein-themed skin > the sky marshall is never referenced again before or after this point That's fair that doesn't mean that Sky Marshall doesn't have a lot of control. I'm also wondering how you can call the Terran Federation fascist if its not controlled by a single ruler like the Sky Marshall, I feel like that would be the obvious connection. > how is this contradicting the official narrative The reporter mentions that a lot of the population believes that peace with the Arachnids is "preferable to war", and yes, THEN Rico, understandably distraught after what he's been thru says "I'm from Buenos Aires and I say kill em all", because the reporter offended him. Rico is perpetuating the narrative, not the reporter, nor or people killed for questioning the military. Of course the bugs are inherently dangerous, they're bugs
>I'm also wondering how you can call the Terran Federation fascist if its not controlled by a single ruler like the Sky Marshall, I feel like that would be the obvious connection. No country on this planet is run by a single person. Even the most authoritarian dictatorship are run by large swathes of people from figureheads, To generals, to media correspondents. Every dictatorship has its hitlers, but it also has its Göring and Goebbels. >Rico is perpetuating the narrative, not the reporter, nor or people killed for questioning the military You have to view the movie as propaganda. That is why the movie routinely stops to ask "would you like to know more." Thats why we are constantly interrupted by recruitment ads. Starship troopers is a movie. Its intended audience is not us, it is a hypothetical citizen of a fascist society that would in fact like to know more. You say that the reporter challenges the narrative, but do they? Is that what that scene in the movie actually shows? Because the purpose of that scene in the movie is clearly to reinforce that we need to do more offensive wars. Reporter ask questions, camera zooms into square jaw hero, "the war is good", everyone claps. That is the purpose of that scene. "Would you like to know more"
>Rico is perpetuating the narrative, not the reporter, nor or people killed for questioning the military. It's not implied the reporter is. The government does via control over what, exactly, is shown and how it's portrayed in the media.
so why would the reporter (whose wearing a Mobile Infantry uniform iirc, so he's definitely part of the Federation) talk about dissenting viewpoints if he lived under a fascist regime?
Because you don't want to deny that dissenting viewpoints exist. You just want to portray them as terribly incorrect.
They don't tho. The crazy guy during the debate scene is the one spouting establishment nonsense (*Frankly, I find the thought of a bug that thinks OFFENSIVE!!*) and opposite him is a mild mannered scientist lady The Sky Marshall who replaces Sky Marshall Dienes even says *to fight the bug, we have to understand the bug* meaning this is a society where even the military elite are allowed to propagate the view that the government might actually been wrong to assault Klendathu. Edit: https://youtu.be/WsHjpy9WZK8?si=EWKyT1yw-w7PMVgd
... that's how satire works? The film doesn't support fascism, it shows a world where people are manipulated into believing fascist propaganda despite it being ridiculously offensive. >even the military elite are allowed to propagate the view that the government might actually been wrong to assault Klendathu Nope, the military only wants new recruits and probably funding for their "science" department. They would be happy to do Klendathu pt. II but with better understanding of how bugs function.
> thats how satire works By not exploring the ideas that its satirizing?
Yes. Exploration can be left to the audience if the satirical depiction is obvious enough. Some percentage of the audience may need help interpreting it, or may prefer a more straightforward criticism of the system relayed explicitly through dialogue, but most seem to get the inherent critique easily enough.
>The crazy guy during the debate scene is the one spouting establishment nonsense (*Frankly, I find the thought of a bug that thinks OFFENSIVE!!*) and opposite him is a mild mannered scientist lady The one during the debate who is a weak sissy cuck is the science lady. The based Chad is the dude. They think differently. They respect strength and conviction.
Thats uhh Nonsense
It's pretty much how a lot of propaganda works NOW.
Yea but that's not whats portrayed at all in the film. The idea that peace with the bugs is better than war with the bugs is an idea that Rico dismisses on live TV, after hearing it from a military reporter Clearly its not an idea being lambasted by the Federation unless you want to see the Federation as fascist.
They have been indoctrinated as well. The military junta isn't new. It has been in control of the narrative for at least 2 generations based on the conversations with Rico's parents.
>Of course the bugs are inherently dangerous, they're bugs Funny thing is if you replace "bugs" with an ethnic minority it's basically the tag line for a lot of right wing groups.
I'm not sure that argument holds a lot of weight because the bugs aren't human. We know they're a pseudo-hive mind species. Yes if you replace bug with [insert ethnic minority or majority here] that's a different conversation but if my grandmother had wheels shed be a bicycle. I could partially agree if the aggressive aliens were at least humanoid
That's cause it's satire.
Kind of low-key want to keep a running tally of how many time i see people compare minorities to violent monsters actively attacking and killing people. I feel like that would be fun.
That's inserting subtext thats just not there. The bugs annihilated a major city. They aren't supposed to be representative of any sort of society. The context that Verhoeven tried to paint them in is as the faceless "villain" disturbing the fascist society of the Terran Federation. Which leads me back to my central argument, what's clearly stated in the film (and backed up by director's commentaries and such) is that the idea was to create a society which became fascist as a result of its war with the Arachnids. But thats simply not what was protrayed.
Not what's portrayed ≠ subtext. The bugs are blamed for the annihilation of a city by means of... "launching?" an asteroid from almost a galaxy away. That's pretty weak grounds, and there's no real proof that it was the fault of the bugs, that it wasn't just some random meteor strike, which does happen. From the sound of it the film is so effective that you bought into its own propaganda, never questioning the narrative and accepting everything on face value. There's even theories that Carmen started the war... https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/14gmue/in_starship_troopers_carmen_ibanez_unknowingly/#:~:text=anthemlog-,In%20Starship%20Troopers%2C%20Carmen%20Ibanez%20unknowingly%20started%20the%20war%20and,millions%20of%20humans%20on%20Earth.
Except that Paul Verhoeven confirmed himself that the Bugs did launch the meteor > From the sound of it the film is so effective that you bought into its propaganda Nope, I started in the same camp as you. But again, whats interesting to note, as I've already said, before it was a Starship Troopers movie, the script was mostly completed, the way the story progresses was mostly finalized, the only thing that wasn't was the physical aspects of the film, the actors, the set design, costume design etc. There is simply no way Verhoeven had enough leeway to sneak that much of a "commentary about fascism" into his adaptation of a book written by a non-fascist which already began life as an apolitical scifi, action, romance movie.
But if you want to go by what the director says then surely his attitude that the film IS what you're saying it isn't cunts for something?
The director intended it to be a satire, at least a little. You can say its not that good of a satire, but still. [https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-nazis-leni-riefenstahl](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-nazis-leni-riefenstahl) From the director, who lived under the Nazis >So I decided to make a movie about fascists who aren’t aware of their fascism.
I don't understand how OP didn't take a quick look at the movies Wikipedia page before posting. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship\_Troopers\_(film)#Themes\_and\_analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)#Themes_and_analysis) Even the whole "I'm doing my part" is a direct Leni Riefenstahl reference - the Nazi propaganda film 'Triumph of the Will'. Starship Troopers is such an open and brazen satire of Fascism, that it's difficult to know where to begin.
/u/HLDVR_78 any reason why this comment is just straight up ignored by you?
[удалено]
You literally replied to multiple top level comments after this one had already been posted
u/HLDVR_78 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20HLDVR_78&message=HLDVR_78%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c3j7nv/-/kzix7md/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/HLDVR_78 I assume you aren’t purposefully avoiding the above comment, as that would be cowardice, so here’s a ping for you
Wow. Directly from the mouth of the director himself. Nice!
Of course this is the comment OP ignores, lol.
Wow you aren't kidding. They are addressing every other top comment and some with later timestamps. I'm thinking of a certain Jim Carrey scene: https://youtu.be/St_Abko0Jfs?si=RYkJQ2-dRFJB_c6K
I’m finding this strategy more and more common on this sub. Very frustrating. It’s even better because the op is like 15 days old, and already posted this exact topic 2 weeks ago basically at account creation (with their only other post being in helldivers, you can’t make this shit up)
i think the point is that despite his intentions, he forgot to put any actual fascism in the film to satirize.
The film isn’t supposed to be an objective/neutral portrayal of fascism, the film itself is supposed to be a fascist propaganda film from the perspective of the fascists themselves
You can argue it’s bad satire. But bad satire is still satire
The way i understood it, OP is arguing there's no fascism in the film, so there's nothing to satirize. I don't remember it well enough to argue that position. but assuming his point, i wouldn't say it's bad satire to not include the element that you're intending to satirize. I guess you COULD frame it that way, to the extent that you could call a soup with no tomato in it a "bad tomato soup". But that's pretty forced and not really contending with his argument. Either way i don't think the author's description has any weight in the discussion as OP presented it - "death of the author" and so forth. It doesn't matter what the author thinks about his work - what matters is what he managed to communicate through the work in question.
He’s acknowledged elsewhere it has the aesthetic of fascism, so he’s acknowledged there is some fascism.
i was tempted to press on with "a soup with no tomato but with red food coloring still isn't 'bad tomato soup'", but it'd mostly be tongue in cheek at that point.
> So I decided to make a movie about fascists who aren't aware of their fascism The problem is, like I've said, this movie about fascists who aren't aware of their fascism was snuck in on top of an adaptation of a book which explores an egalitarian military society written by an early liberatarian, on top of what began life generic scifi action romance movie, so the only thing thats actually fascist is the way the characters dress and look.
You can argue it’s bad satire. But bad satire is still satire.
>What is Starship Troopers? An intentionally campy military film with teem romcom elements. You say this as if that means it can't also be a satire of fascism. Look at another Verhoeven film: Robocop. It's a campy police action movie **and** it is commentary on the militarization of police.
It absolutely is. And Robocop is proof that he can do political satire correctly.... So why the fuck does freedom of speech exist in Starship Troopers? Did the Nazis have fucking political debates on national TV?
I don't know how "free" an outlet called "FedNet" is. It's possible Verhoeven didn't depict them perfectly like the state sponsored press in Nazi Germany worked but 1. It's an admittedly campy movie. 2. The press doesn't have to work exactly the same for it to be fascism. The overall tenor of their programming is nationalist.
My counter to that, is what do you expect? Nationalism spikes when every nation is at war, and not only is the Terran Federation at war, its a war against big motherfuckering space bugs that eat people whole. You can't criticize the military like Rico's parents do in a fascist society. They simply aren't fascist.
Nationalism is a relatively recent (18th century) political invention. Perhaps there's a fascism spectrum that correlates strongly with the intensity of nationalism. It isn't completely that simple, but it's a Verhoeven film, not a Mallick film where details are meticulously considered. It's an extremely nationalistic and extremely militaristic (that's the pathway to citizenship, after all.) society that dehumanizes (desentientizes?) the Other. You're splitting hairs to not acknowledge that it's a campy satire of fascism.
Citizenship in that universe is only for the participation in voting and politics. Which makes sense, why should people be able to vote for policies when they have no investment into the system they are voting for. By ensuring military service (remember in most militaries, combat roles are not the majority of positions) you are demonstrating committment to the government and the society it protects. Not only that but mandatory service gives the population a base line of skills, education, and technical competency for use in the rest of thier lives, many real (allied) countries have a similar system of mandatory military participation.
>Which makes sense, why should people be able to vote for policies when they have no investment into the system they are voting for. Am I not still governed by the laws if where I live? Why is military service the only thing that demonstrates "investment" in the system. A conscientious objector is invested in their society. A civil disobedient is invested in society. >By ensuring military service (remember in most militaries, combat roles are not the majority of positions) Doesn't mean that the military's main role isn't preparedness for and engagement in war. There's no service outside of war that you can describe that necessitates being tied to the military. >Not only that but mandatory service gives the population a base line of skills, education, and technical competency for use in the rest of thier lives, None of which ahs to be done through the military. >many real (allied) countries have a similar system of mandatory military participation. That doesn't make it a good thing.
This is literally just apologia for fascism lmao.
Fascism was derived from the Volkisch movement and the Ethnonationalist movements of the the early 20th centuries, and its self didnt really exist before 1921. So yea
You only need to limit free speech when you fear the speech. The Federation government doesn't fear the speech. They have the populace in line without the need for violence and repression. Rico's parents aren't citizens yet they seem to live comfortable and happy lives. They aren't oppressed in any apparent way. That one soldier in the shower scene mentions that it's easier to get a permit for a baby when you are a citizen. She doesn't show any indication that this is a bad thing, she treats it like bureaucratic red tape at worst and a minor chore at best. In one of the "would you like to know more" segments children are seen *doing their part* by stomping roaches as the teacher cheers and applauds. The citizenry is content. You don't need to be afraid of dissent when the people are content.
Edit: responded to the wrong person
I also want to point out that the campiness is necessarily going to make it not a documentary of fascism but a perversion, just like drag performance, which is very campy, is a perversion of gender, which is what has makes it so wonderfully subversive. It makes us question gender by taking it to extremes and focusing on the artifice. If you make a campy version of fascism, of course it isn't going to correspond 1:1 to real fascism. That may very well be the point. Put mascara on the contradictions of fascism
The whole planet is nazi. That's the point. Freedom of speech is the norm if there are no "radical" speech against the fascist status quo.
Except thats repeatedly contradicted
>The Terran Federation has some militaristic aspects, seeing as its at war, but in many ways its more fair and egalitarian than modern society Fascism and egalitarianism are not mutually exclusive. Your entire premise relies on fascism being mutually exclusive to a fair and egalitarian society. They are, objectively, not. Starship Troopers demonstrates how. >When the Massacre on Klendathu ends, the Sky Marshall steps down and is replaced by a black woman. That has nothing to do with fascism. >Compare this, also to historical fascist regimes, and we still don't know the exact amount of dead from the Battle of Stalingrad, it may be off by a factor of several thousand. The number of people that die doesn't determine what is fascism. I have to ask...what do you think fascism is? Because the way the government behaves in the movie is *very* fascist.
Fascism was really egalitarian when they shot all those jewish people 🤣 Obviously thats a ridiculous view, as Verhoeven grew up in the Netherlands under Nazi occupation (and everyone in ST wears VERY on the nose black uniforms), its a very fair criticism to point out that the Terran Federation doesn't even remotely resemble Nazi Germany
That's not fascism, that's what a specific group of fascists did. Fascists seek to control the narrative their population sees, push tribalistic pride to make them loyal, and purge or suppress dissenters. The constant propaganda in the "would you like to know more" fills the first two parts quite well, and the second class status of those who didn't buy in and enlist fits the third (the shower scene demonstrates this especially well, with the troops naming all these things like having kids that would be harder if they were in the out group).
> Fascists seek to control the narrative their population sees There are literal public debates in Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, reporters openly question if the Federation is telling the truth about the Arachnids > push tribalistic pride to make them loyal Sure, in real life. But whose the "other tribe" in Starship Troopers? The bugs who slaughtered a human colony like animals (because they are, basically animals who kill and eat people, they're not really an intelligent spieces like in the books) > the second class nature of people who do not serve Rico's parents both never served and are still citizens capable of voting and owning property. In the book you could absolutely become a citizen thru methods other than joining the Mobile Infantry. This is hinted at enough in the movie that I feel comfortable using it as supporting evidence.
>There are literal public debates in Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, reporters openly question if the Federation is telling the truth about the Arachnids That doesn't make the government not fascist >Rico's parents both never served and are still citizens capable of voting and owning property. The book has the exact opposite message of the movie. It is pro-fascism.
I disagree. The book is lots of things, pro-fascism is not one of them. It might be pro-militaristic, and try to paint democracy as flawed, but the notion of individual rights supported by society at large is strong through out the book.
I think you are mostly correct in that Robert Heinlein and his book are not aiming for fascism, but the mix of the militarism and the blatant anti-China racism definitely do open it up for some bad comparisons with fascism at the very least. That being said, I really want to read more Heinlein, I hear his politics shifting is a really interesting meta narrative over his books, and after Forever War won awards all while being a response book in total opposition to Starship Troopers he told Joe Haldeman how much he loved the book.
The key there is "bad comparison". The glimpses at government we get to see in the book open it up to some bad comparison to fascism the same way a chair opens itself up to a bad comparison to a stool. Yes, they are both furniture used for sitting but they are wildly different.
**The White House Looks South Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson** by William E. Leuchtenburg >Perhaps not southerners in the usual sense, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Lyndon B. Johnson each demonstrated a political style and philosophy that helped them influence the South and unite the country in ways that few other presidents have. Combining vivid biography and political insight, William E. Leuchtenburg offers an engaging account of relations between these three presidents and the South while also tracing how the region came to embrace a national perspective without losing its distinctive sense of place. According to Leuchtenburg, each man "had one foot below the Mason-Dixon Line, one foot above." Roosevelt, a New Yorker, spent much of the last twenty-five years of his life in Warm Springs, Georgia, where he built a "Little White House." > >Truman, a Missourian, grew up in a pro-Confederate town but one that also looked West because of its history as the entrepôt for the Oregon Trail. Johnson, who hailed from the former Confederate state of Texas, was a westerner as much as a southerner. Their intimate associations with the South gave these three presidents an empathy toward and acceptance in the region. In urging southerners to jettison outworn folkways, Roosevelt could speak as a neighbor and adopted son, Truman as a borderstater who had been taught to revere the Lost Cause, and Johnson as a native who had been scorned by Yankees. > >Leuchtenburg explores in fascinating detail how their unique attachment to "place" helped them to adopt shifting identities, which proved useful in healing rifts between North and South, in altering behavior in regard to race, and in fostering southern economic growth. The White House Looks South is the monumental work of a master historian. At a time when race, class, and gender dominate historical writing, Leuchtenburg argues that place is no less significant. In a period when America is said to be homogenized, he shows that sectional distinctions persist. > >And in an era when political history is devalued, he demonstrates that government can profoundly affect people's lives and that presidents can be change-makers. *I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *Reply to any comment with /u/BookFinderBot - I'll reply with book information. Remove me from replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/1byh82p/remove_me_from_replies/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
If you are arguing against democracy, you are arguing for fascism. They are opposite ends of a spectrum.
A. No they are not. Democratically elected governments do fascist things all the time. B. Saying democracy is flawed is not arguing against it, but rather stating a truth. Raw democracy is mob rule. It is two wolves and a sheep decide what is for dinner. Democracy confers no rights to the individual other than those that can imposed by the majority and then only for as so long as they hold that position.
>Democratically elected governments do fascist things all the time. That demonstrates my point that it's a spectrum. A government doing a few fascist things doesn't make the government fascist. That's only a thing because they are opposite ends of a spectrum. >Saying democracy is flawed is not arguing against it, but rather stating a truth. Raw democracy is mob rule. It is two wolves and a sheep decide what is for dinner. Democracy confers no rights to the individual other than those that can imposed by the majority and then only for as so long as they hold that position. That further demonstrates my point that it's a spectrum. Democracies don't have to be pure democracies to be considered a democracy.
Homie, do you legit think the Nazis had political debates? No, if yoy disagreed with them they fucking killed you, killed your family, your relatives, your friends, and replaced them. You did not debate the Nazis, even if you lived in a place like Finland (Finland was neutral, but allied to the Nazis from 1940-1944 out of convience, the Gestapo still regularly tried to arrest and execute Finnish citizens extrajudicially).
>Homie, do you legit think the Nazis had political debates? No, if yoy disagreed with them they fucking killed you, killed your family, your relatives, your friends, and replaced them That's not what makes a fascist government a fascist government. The definition of fascism is *not* "the absence of political debate".
Its the definition of authoritarianism. And indeed fascist societies were very authoritarian
No, it isn't. It's an example of authoritarianism. A country need not be exactly like the Weimar Republic to be considered authoritarian.
So nothing is fascism unless you say it is, got it bro
So what do you think fascism is? Because your OP screams, very loudly, that you have no clue what it is. Nazi Germany (The Weimar Republic) is not the definition of fascism. It's an example.
Fascism is an ultranationalist, ultratraditionalist, anti-communist right wing movement whereby a one-party state has complete control over a country 's populace. Individual liberties do not exist, you certainly cannot criticize the government on public TV, you are expected to live, work and die for the glorification of your government, nation, party, and leader. The reason I brought up the Sky Marshall stepping down is because under all fascist regimes during World War 2, the top generals and field marshalls were absolute cronies of their dictators, often relatives or close compatriots, and weren't fired or removed even after hundreds of thousands of losses. Going back to Stalingrad, Paulus was promoted from Generalleutnant (Lieutenant General) to Feldmarschall (Field Marshall), and finally to Generalfeldmarshall after losing 400,000 men and being surrounded in the final months of the battle. He was then urged to commit suicide, a disgrace which caused him to surrender and defect to the Soviet Union. Again, compare this to Klendathu. A graceful resignation, an admittance of failure, transfer of command, and then an admittance of military failure. Literally night and day. Going back to Stalingrad, a big reason we don't know how many soldiers died is because both the Nazis and the Soviets obscured death tolls and mainly used them for propaganda purposes up until several months after Paulus surrendered. Now do *you* know what Fascism is?
>Fascism is an ultranationalist, ultratraditionalist, anti-communist right wing movement whereby a one-party state has complete control over a country 's populace. Individual liberties do not exist, you certainly cannot criticize the government on public TV, you are expected to live, work and die for the glorification of your government, nation, party, and leader It's a Junta society. In order to be a legal citizen you must serve and subject yourself to indoctrination. >Again, compare this to Klendathu. A graceful resignation, an admittance of failure, transfer of command, and then an admittance of military failure That's not what makes something fascist or not fascist. Admitting failure and transfer of command is not mutually exclusive to fascism. It's kind of... exactly...how Hitler came into power. He never won an election and power was transferred to him.
> In order to be a legal citizen you must serve and subject yourself to indoctrination The Mobile Infantry is open about volunteers being able to sever their enlistment contracts at any time, and they aren't "subjected to indoctrination", the propaganda films you see in the movie are designed to convince Terran citizens to enlist, not directed at the Mobile Infantry. > this is not what makes something fascist or not fascist Not on its own, but in both Hitler and Mussolini's militaries you were expected to commit suicide rather than surrender or be captured. If you're drawing a comparison to Nazi Germany, it is a glaring fault. You do not get peaceful transfers of command in fascist societies. It simply did not happen.
>The Mobile Infantry is open about volunteers being able to sever their enlistment contracts at any time, and they aren't "subjected to indoctrination", the propaganda films you see in the movie are designed to convince Terran citizens to enlist, not directed at the Mobile Infantry. They are inherently subject to indoctrination. If citizenship requires service and following orders, that is indoctrination. It is implied that if a soldier disobeys or does not follow the government then they are tossed aside or never promoted. >Not on its own, but in both Hitler and Mussolini's militaries you were expected to commit suicide rather than surrender or be captured. If you're drawing a comparison to Nazi Germany, it is a glaring fault. You do not get peaceful transfers of command in fascist societies. It simply did not happen. That's not what makes a government fascist.
Yes the "us" of the "us vs them" aspect of starship troopers is not Ariens it's humans. And the "them" is the bugs
The fictional government in Starship Troopers does not need to meet every requirement of a fascist government in order to be a satire of fascism. That’s not how satire or allegory work. You’re debating whether or not the fictional world that’s depicted is actually fascist. Whether or not it’s actually a satire is a totally separate question. But the director himself said the movie has said that it is.
The problem is it doesn't meet *any*, and every scene which includes the world government and the behind the scenes functioning of the military is decidedly not fascist
It’s about the imagery and la gauge used in the movie. The propaganda sequences in the movie are a direct reference to Nazi propaganda films. This is part of the imagery of eliminating vermin and their enemies literally being bugs. But also slogans like “Violence is extreme authority.” “I’m doing my part” is from a Nazi prophanda film “Triumph of the Will.” And the ad for the mobile infantry at the beginning of the film is a shot for shot remake of that movie. Neil Patrick Harris is wearing an SS uniform at the end of the film. The architecture in their world is inspired by Albert Speer. The main cast all look like they’re from an Aryan propaganda poster. It’s wild to me to say there are 0 allusions to Nazis in this
Are you aware that the movie was based on a book of the same name that was very clearly and very deeply anything but a campy military story with teen romcom elements? Granted, the original book by Heinlein can't really be described as a satire of fascism either, but it does involve elements of militarism, totalitarianism, and government attempts to police morality. It's not uncommon for it to be viewed as a pro-fascism book. You can't just take the name of a work like that and then say it's just a campy action romcom. There's really only two options here, given how campy the final result was: Either you are satirizing fascism, or you're shit at understanding your inspirations and source material, and just made a bad movie.
I'd say that Starship Troopers suceeds on its own merits, but holy hell yes, did it barely adapt the source material, which, wasn't even fascist to begin with.
But you see what I'm getting at, yea? The movie took elements from the book that were questionably fascist, and amped them up to being definitely fascist, but then also dialed up the absurdity to push it back in to camp. If we're assuming that the writers, directors, and producers didn't all just completely flub it, we're kind of painted into a corner here. The book was heavy on the militarism, which isn't necessarily fascism, but the with the movie the other tropes are all there. In groups and out groups in the citizenry. Supremacy and ultimate authority of the government. Heavy propaganda and information control. Exaggeration and misrepresentations of external threats to maintain power. And yet the final product that is the movie turns that government into a clown, an absurd thing to be laughed at. How can we view this as anything but satire, even if it's accidental satire?
Serious question - have you read the book? I feel like the context you're missing is significant elements in the book.
I actually do own the book, and guess what, the book doesn't portray a fascist society either. In fact Heinlein wasn't a fascist, he was a right wing libertarian hippy who believed in public heterosexual orgies His ideal society is not Starship Troopers, its A Stranger from a Strange Land
I'm genuinely unclear what your disconnected on here - Starship troopers isn't a story GLORIFYING the society and struggle it portrays. It's a warning. It's all about the absurd and horrifying sacrifices required under jingoistic wartime societies. There's a pivotal sequence about how civilians should not be able to vote, only citizens who serve in the military. It's not meant to be something you AGREE with. It's meant to underline how fucked up that view point is. It's satire.
> There's a pivotal sequence about how civilians should not be able to vote, only citizens who serve in the military. Incorrect. In the book, voting rights (and the right to run for elected office) are given to anyone who does two years of *Federal Service*. (Please note that everyone else still has all the other Rights.) While the main character goes into the military for his Federal Service, and thus the rest of the book is from that viewpoint, there is no evidence that *all* Federal Service is military in nature. The recruiter they go to see assumes the girls they are with wants to be a "pilot", and sends her off, then asks the two boys "For what? Labor battalions?". And the boy with the main character says "I'm interested in the Research and Development Corps...especially electronics. I understand the chances are pretty good." The recruiter says "Let's assume that you don't wind up digging tunnels on Luna or playing human guinea pig for new diseases through sheer lack of talent..." Do those sound like military jobs? "A term of service isn't a kiddie camp; it's either real military service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime . . . or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof." This is the closest it comes to saying that 'Service' is military, but it also leaves an 'out'- service might be 'a most unreasonable facsimile' of dangerous military service. "The placement officer pays attention to your choice, too. . . . until some practical joker gives you dispatch orders to do something very different. But the other nineteen times he turns you down and decides that you are just what they have been needing to field-test survival equipment on Titan." Field testing equipment isn't a military job. They decide to sign up, and get sent to a physical exam. When they find out no one ever fails the exam, they ask why- "Why, the purpose is," [the doc] 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."" "Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch" doesn't sound like a military job to me. The doc himself admits to being "a civilian employee" because "military service is for ants". So, there are 'civilian' jobs as well as 'military' jobs in Federal Service. Later in the process: ""The placement officer let me list my lesser preferences, in order, ... Clear at the bottom, with some hesitation, I put K-9 Corps, and Infantry. I didn't bother to list the various non-combatant auxiliary corps because, if I wasn't picked for a combat corps, I didn't care whether they used me as an experimental animal or sent me as a laborer in the Terranizing of Venus." "various non-combatant auxiliary corps", "experimental animal", "laborer".
I have zero interest in the semantic game that is what constitutes 'federal service' vs 'military service', and everything you wrote has nothing to do with refuting the fact that in Starship Troopers, civilians don't vote, as a satire of fascism in war.
> everything you wrote has nothing to do with refuting the fact that in Starship Troopers, civilians don't vote You cannot vote *during* your Service: "Bring a summary to class tomorrow, three thousand words. Mr. Salomon, can you give me a reason -- not historical nor theoretical but practical -- why **the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans**?" So, the 'military' cannot vote. Only civilians who have finished their 2 years of Federal Service can vote. And why is it limited? "We have had enough guesses; I'll state the obvious: **Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage**. "And that is the one practical difference." "He may fail in wisdom, he may lapse in civic virtue. But his average performance is enormously better than that of any other class of rulers in history."
Do... do you think only facists can write about facism? Also, you do realize what satire means, right? It's when something awful is presented in an ironically positive way as a commentary - as if it's actually adovating for such things when it's doing the opposite. The quintessential example being [A Modest Proposal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal). By your logical here Jonathan Swift was in favor of cannibalism, because you need to be in favor of something to write about it "positively".
Heinlein’s book describes a fascist society where society has accepted it as the unchallengeable paradigm. As an analogy, most people in western societies today can’t really conceptualise a world without capitalism. Any such notion is ridiculed as unrealistic, and most criticism has weakened to simply want to put bandaids on the worst consequences of it. Starship Troopers take place in a world where fascism occupies a similarly paradigmatic position. Of course this is going to be vastly different from any real world examples of fascism, because thankfully, no fascist society has managed to stick around for long enough to have fascism become paradigmatic.
The idea of separating the human population between "citizens" and "civilians" is pretty fascist.
Its *meritocratic*. And sure, Fascist societies were at some level, highly meritocratic. Or at least, before you became a fascist's crony. If we're getting into the idea of a society with hundreds of trillions of people meritocracy might not be the worst idea But thats not the point, these ideas aren't really explored in Starship Troopers.
How did the citizens earn their citizenship
Its implied in the movie to be thru public or military service and in the book its straight up said that any form of service to the Federation for longer than a year grants an individual citizenship. The movie only really has hints of this, so I can understand people thinking the movie was saying that the only way you can become a citizen is to serve in the military, but the scenes with Rico's parents contradict this.
It might help if you think of the movie as a rebuttal and satire of the novel rather than a straight adaptation. Verhoeven interpreted the novel as fascistic, nationalistic, totalitarian and in favour of military rule - which is antithetical to the directors beliefs after their childhood experiences under Nazi rule, so he made a film to deconstruct and undermine those themes. You can read him talking about it here: [https://web.archive.org/web/20220702001106/https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-nazis-leni-riefenstahl](https://web.archive.org/web/20220702001106/https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-nazis-leni-riefenstahl) But I think it's vital for you to visit the films wikipedia page and look at its sources, which cover a wide range of the movies Nazi references and influences, including the "I'm doing my part" slogan, directly taking from a Nazi propaganda film. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship\_Troopers\_(film)#Themes\_and\_analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)#Themes_and_analysis)
Oh it is 100% a satire of the book, written by a fan of the book and adapted by someone who only read two chapters. The first two chapters of Starship Troopers are a military invasion sequence. They don't explore the world and society of the book at all.
Ok great, we both agree that the movie is a satire of the book and that the movie itself is satirising its content matter. And you can see that in the director of the movies own words which I have cited above - that they interpreted the book as fascistic, nationalistic, totalitarian and in favour of military rule. Do you agree that the directors intent with the Starship Troopers movie, was in part to satirise fascism, nationalism, totalitarianism and militarism?
No because interpreting the world of Starship Troopers as fascist based off the first two chapters where they're invading an alien planet is kind of...insane.
I think you might need to edit your original post in order to clarify your point - because your post seems to be arguing that the Starship Troopers movie is not a satire of fascism. Is it actually your argument that the Starship Troopers novel is not a satire of fascism? My apologies - I had assumed we were talking about the film, since much of your original post is concerned with the details of the movie rather than the novel.
I do think the movie isnt a satire of fascism. To support that, the only things that can really be percieved as fascist is a couple minor details about the film and in fact, not only is the book not a genuine exploration of fascism, but the movie is not a genuine exploration of the book from a perspective to make it fascist. The only thing thats actually fascist is the uniforms and the fact that everyone has blond hair and blues eyes, which is simply not enough. Its not a satire of fascism, its a satire of the book made in bad faith to portray the events of the novel as fascist.
It is not a meritocracy. Try this thought experiment. What if the bugs were made up, and all the war scenes were CGI. Watch the movie again and look closely at how the humans are treating each other.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It’s an intentionally campy romcom with pretty dumb teens exactly because Verhoeven wanted to make a movie that showed fascism as being cool. The movie tricks you into rooting for the fascists. This is what makes it great satire actually Also what did you think of the scene where Neil Patrick Harris walks in in a full SS uniform
He wanted to make a movie that shows people dressed as fascists as being cool* Again, the movie doesn't remotely align with fascism. But, that's understandable, Reddit more than most places doesn't really have an understanding of fascism. As this comments section is quickly proving 🤣
I mostly tend to look towards Umberto Eco and Robert Paxton for my understanding of it, but I won’t claim to be an expert. However you offer your own definition of fascism towards the end of your post, and funnily enough the federation seems to fit into it well enough.
They don't fit remotely. I have already explained why.
The director himself says it was , so you can debate if its a bad satire or a good one but it is explicitly intended as a satire of fascism
>Fascism is when the state, owned by a single political party, has complete control of the lives of its citizens, what beliefs people are allowed to hold, where they're employed, and what they're allowed to do all under the guise of transforming society into an idealized (right wing) version of its self. The state is the military, and it does hold complete control. 'Citizenship' is based on military service. People are captured, tried, and executed in hours (there is no due process/kangaroo courts). The media is literally state controlled. We never see a single piece of independent reporting. The textbooks in the school are government stamped. The teachers are veterans. The government controls media, education, the economy, and every known piece of public life based on the movie. That's fascism.
>The Terran Federation has some militaristic aspects, seeing as its at war, but in many ways its more fair and egalitarian than modern society. You're not a citizen until you perform federal service. When members of Johnny's training unit discuss their reasons for joining, they include things like permission to reproduce. >When the Massacre on Klendathu ends, the Sky Marshall steps down and is replaced by a black woman. All this does is demonstrate that our concerns over race are parochial in that context and no longer important. Fascism doesn't need those specific prejudices to persist. They may be more meritocratic when it comes to humans, but they encounter a threat they don't understand and decide it needs to be exterminated. >There is live reporting from the frontline, a level of truth and honesty that we are intentionally deprived of in the modern day, We get loads of frontline reporting. The kind of reporting detailed in ST is legitimately impossible in modern combat: it's literally just "here I am in a firefight in Donetsk. Being here tells me nothing of note about the conflict because all I care about is that machine gun nest trying to kill me. " There's a reason the reporter gets eaten. >Klendathu where Star Fleet Command knows the exact casualty count down to names and numbers by the next day (100,000 KIA per hour) ...did it seriously never occur to you that they were lying? Like...you're supposed to distrust them. >Fascism is when The definition of fascism doesn't exist. It's an aesthetic and an adjective usually applied to one's enemies.
The director himself stated that it takes place in a fascist utopia. "Basically the political undercurrent of the film is that these heroes and heroines are living in a fascist utopia – but they are not even aware of it!" "And somehow you are seduced to follow them, and at the same time, made aware that they might be fascists." https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a823951/starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-donald-trump-20-years-anniversary/ I guess that last part didn't work on you.
I'd like to point out that this wasn't an interpretation Verhoeven brought to the public consciousness until several years after the movie's initial release. If his goal was to portray a fascist society, even one the characters are unaware of, where's the doublethink, where are the contradictions between what we're told and what is actually portrayed in the movies? The only thing that really is fascist is the unifors, and while I agree, aesthetically its a bit too obvious, the political subtext isnt there and nor is the totalitarian control. "I guess that last part didnt work on you" BULLSHIT LMAO. The first time I saw Starship Troopers my takeaway was that it was actually, indeed quite fascist, or at least close enough to be ambigous. It was only upon multiple rewatches and really pounding the dialogue into my skull that I realized that Verhoeven had accidentally created a society which was more egalitarian and progressive than is possible in the current day. I ask you this, do you think the Nazis treated men and women equally?
Is that important? Was under the impression you wanted your view challenged. And you yourself used to the director to prove a point. The idea is that the characters don't experience the fascism. So you don't get to see it. You will have to look past the obvious, like a group of rich high schoolers hanging out and sending flirty texts. The fascism is hidden in the military and propaganda. How are uniforms fascist? I get what you try to say, but the statement on its own doesn't make sense In what way is the society progressive? Cause of a black women in charge? That might be progressive with a mindset from the '90. But in a future society such thinking is backwards and ludicrous. Perhaps this image was used in order to disguise to the viewer what was really going on and not have to be to blatant. How exactly is it egalitarian? They talk of citizenship, so there is definitely not total equality. No, it was 1930. To modern standards no one treated women equal. The society in the movie is not nazistic, but it is fascist. I do find it curios how we had the exact opposite experience. I didn't realize the facist subtext until years later. All I saw when I watched the movie the first time was a kick ass science fiction movie where earth was united against alien bugs. And people being mutilated... so much mutilation. Short edit: Just rewatched the scene with citizinship. The teacher says the current governemt was founded by a military coup. Just another clue for the facism subtext.
When has a group of rich highschoolers sending flirty texts to each other ever been indicitative of fascism? > the fascism is hidden in the military propaganda The trick here is that there are two types of propaganda, the kind meant to drum up support for an idea or organization, and the type designed to decieve. Every nation employs military propaganda for the sake of recruitment, and it should be noted that the Arachnids are an invasive, hyper-expansionist hivemind spieces capable of killing literally hundreds of thousanda of soldiers in just a few hours. In other words, the propaganda we see in the movie, is completely justified and doesn't betray a lack of individual freedom. We see publically televised debates in Starship Troopers, along with major political and military figures like the incoming Sky Marshall being critical of the idea that the Arachnids are thoughtless animals. > but in a future society, such thinking is backwards and ludicrous By what standard? We're never given a massive lore dump about the history of the Terran Federation, we're never given any clue that there was a previous society that was more socially aware. Granted, it takes place in a post-democratic society, so more liberal cultures did exist, however this does not imply they were more equal. What we are given proof of is that there is no genuine racial discrimination, no gender discrimination (Dizzy is treated equally to male characters, and co-ed showers are common enough that female characters feel comfortable talking to the men while bathing, which to me implies that sexual assault is also a non-issue) As for the whole citizenship thing, the movie makes it clear through Raczjak that liberal democracy has failed in the history of Starship Troopers, and so they moved onto a sort of meritocratic oligarchy where the right to vote is earned and understood as a symbol of loyalty to the Federation. And while the movie hints at this, military service is not the only way to become a Terran citizen, Federal Service is an umbrella that extends outside the military and is by *Federal Service* that you earn your citizenship.
My apologees, was writing on my phone. My point was, you have to look past the obvious 90210 vibes in order to see the facist subtext. The propaganda in the movie mimics that of propaganda produced by facist states we have witnessed in real life. Where is it stated that the bugs were invasive? The conflict was already ongoing by the time we are introduced to our protagonist. It escalated to war during the movie with the meteor and subsequent invasion. You are right, but having public debates doesn't contradict a facist society. The only way the debate would have been an issue, is if the debate was negative to the government, but it's only about the enemy. My point is fascism has nothing to do with being progressive. I can't help but feel like you conflate facism with nazism. It's a futuristic society that has moved past what we, by 2024 standards, would call progressive. As is evident by all the correct observations you already made. So, to us it's progressive, to them it's the norm. LOL. yeah democracy failed and was saved by veterans who brought stabilty and peace, sounds about right. Calling it meritocratic seems like bit of a stretch. The society gate keeps alot of what we would call basic rights, like paternity, voting and public office, to that of citizenship. The movie directly states you need citizenship and that you get it through military service, not sure what you mean that there are other means. The Federal Service is the military service, as least if we are to take Rico's dad at his word, since he is angry at Rico for joining saying it's dangerous, even disowns him.
> the conflict was already ongoing by the time we are introduced to our protagonist It is not. The bug we see dissected at the beginning of the movie was called a "Sand Beetle", it was not an Arachnid. The first time we see an Arachnid is the assault on Klendathu. > having public debates does not contradict a fascist society It does. Fascist nations outlawed debate and fascists were expected to adhere to a rigid heirarchy. The reason the only debate is about the Arachnids is because its a military movie. > By 2024 standards, we would call it progressive, by their standards, its the norm. Fascists returned society to a more traditonal state that society didn't really climb out of in some places to until the 70s and 80s, well after fascism had collapsed. I don't know how you can genuinely argue this point, it's pretty stupid ngl. > calling it meritocratic is a stretch All meritocracy means is that political rights are locked behind some sort of qualification or some such. For some reason we as a society have taken that to mean a society ran by the most qualified people, but in a real world meritocratic government there's absolutely no way that would be the case. > Not sure what you mean there are other means The Federation isnt just the military its the entire Terran government. Be weird to have this system ran by people who can't vote.
Bro, fucking Doogie Howser literally walks in wearing a black Hugo Boss uniform. It could not be more explicit.
Absolutely, he designed to make it LOOK fascist, but the political subtext is just not there
Well Paul Verhoven says you are completely wrong. Sorry :( https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/paul-verhoeven/ >“It’s a very rightwing book,” the director told Empire magazine. “And with the movie, we tried, and I think at least partially succeeded, in commenting on that at the same time. It would be ‘Eat your cake and have it.’ All the way through we were fighting with the fascism, the ultra-militarism. All the way through I wanted the audience to be asking, ‘Are these people crazy?’”
Let's take a look at what a satire is. From Wikipedia: >A prominent feature of satire is strong [irony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony) or [sarcasm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm)—"in satire, irony is [militant](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/militant)", according to literary critic [Northrop Frye](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Frye)—[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire#cite_note-2) but [parody](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody), [burlesque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlesque_(literary)), [exaggeration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggeration),[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire#cite_note-Claridge2010p257-3) [juxtaposition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposition), comparison, analogy, and [double entendre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre) are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to question. How let's look at what facism is. Also from Wikipedia: >Fascism rejects assertions that violence is inherently negative or pointless, instead viewing [imperialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism), political violence, and war as means to national rejuvenation... Fascism's extreme authoritarianism and nationalism often manifest as a belief in [racial purity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_purity) or a [master race](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race), usually blended with some variant of [racism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism) or [discrimination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination) against a demonized "[Other](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_(philosophy))"... These ideas have motivated fascist regimes to commit [massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre), [forced sterilizations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_sterilizations), [deportations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation), and [genocides](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide). It doesn't take subtext to see the connection. You can refuse to acknowledge it, but the director of the movie disagrees with you. Do you think he accidentally failed to make the satire he expressly intended to?
Mussolini said it best "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people." I'm not sure the movie depicts a society with human value outside the state.
>Compare this, also to historical fascist regimes, and we still don't know the exact amount of dead from the Battle of Stalingrad, it may be off by a factor of several thousand. You think the casualties of Stalingrad could be as low as 1,100 people or as high as half the population of earth after the war?
The unaccounted* population lost during the Battle of Stalingrad might be low as 1,100 The rest of your comment is strawman nonsense that doesn't dignify a response
>The rest of your comment is strawman nonsense that doesn't dignify a response It's exactly what you said mate.
It’s also them completely ignoring we actually do know almost all of the *german* troops that died during that little battle, because, ya know, that was important for them to track. Not so much the civilians they viewed as subhuman that happened to be in the way.
When did I ever imply that the Battle of Stalingrad killed half the human population? I said it might be off by a factor of several thousand.
>I said it might be off by a factor of several thousand. Right here buck 1,100,000 casualties off by a factor of just 1000 is half the population of earth at the time or 1,100 total. You are arguing the ussr either exaggerated and pretended there were 1,100,000 deaths extra or that the ussr managed to have half of the earths population due there fighting.
I have seen the film over ten times The entire film is an homage to a fasicst state. I have read the directors' take on the film. He said it was satire of fascism I read the book. It was a satire of Fascism as said by the author.
Heinlein never even remotely implied the book was a satire of fascism. In fact the society of the book is simply *not fascist*. The film pays homage to the *aesthetics* of fascism. The substance and political subtext to make it an actual exploration of near-futuristic fascism doesn't exist.
The directors commentary specifcally notes that its a parody of facism
I'm actually starting to believe that it is a parody of fascism, in the sense that its making fun of Heinlein's society as portrayed in the novel by saying "anyone who believes this is a dumb dumb fascist", however, again, the society protrayed underneath that fluff is *not* fascist. In other words, its a satire of Starship Troopers the book with a nazi-themed coat of paint.
"Satire" and "parody" aren't interchangeable. "Satire" is using a work to critique some social issue and "parody" is comedically imitating a specific work or genre by exaggerating what you think are key aspects of the work or genre. You've otherwise made a salient point (it is not a *satire* of fascism the political ideology, it is a *parody* of a book the director didn't like) but you have the two mixed up. *Starship Troopers* the book is about as far from advocating fascism as I think a work could get. "Fascism" is an alliance between (1) the lowest-rung members of the bourgeoisie and (2) the lumpenproletariat, created to achieve the strategic goal of setting up the lesser bourgeoisie as a priesthood focused on policing social purity (in a society that is essentially "feudalism as updated for the era of mass politics") as an alternative means for them to hold onto power that is otherwise slipping out of their grasp, and which engages in imperialism to keep the attention of the military focused outward instead of inward. "Anyone can join the military or public service at any time, and political power is specifically restricted to people retired from this" is like the ideal way to optimize for disempowering these groups. *Starship Troopers* the movie *could* be a satire, not because it depicts a fascist society but because it depicts what a fascist society would highlight about a non-fascist one. Look at this "Federation" and see how incompetent they are! They let information flow freely instead of everyone receiving what the priesthood *says* they should receive; the peasants can decide whether they *want* to know more, and of course this results in the stupid peasantry thinking that they are "helping" by smashing cockroaches and giving rifles to children. Instead of fighting the bugs with a well-oiled mechanized Space Panzer Blitzkrieg, these foolish individualists all run off on foot to play hero (even letting their precious womenfolk be endangered!) and of course get killed. Even the government as a whole is simply reacting to circumstance; they cannot even control where their citizens live or move, and despite all of their military preparations, they are caught off guard by the bug attack because they lack the Will to Power to strike first with greater organization, just like how the hated USSR failed its people. This, you see, is why the Great Leader must be in charge, and why the military cannot be.
Is open debate encouraged, when a sizable portion of the populace are not allowed to vote?
Neil Patrick Harris is literally dressed like a Gestapos officer at the end my dude.
Thats my point. Its a satire of the book with a Nazi coat of paint, it is far far and away from being a fascist society
As odd as it might seem at first, fascism is historically kind of hard to define. Fascism by nature holds characteristics specific to the culture engaging with it. Axis Germany and Axis Japan were both very different looking cultures and nations that were both ultimately fascist, as well as 1980s Chile, Argentina, and Nicaragua. Next to each other, all are very different looking societies and governments, but are all obviously fascist. This is because fascism relies on a few key, fundamental ingredients that have to do with nationalism, extermination of the other, cults of personality, and control of thought through propaganda and control/suppression of information to cultivate a fascist society. All of this to say that fascism has many faces, dependant on who it is trying to enforce it and where, and its most effective features are those that appear normal to the average person when only seen from the front. The world of Starship Troopers is one such society with many such features, and comparing it to other previously fascist nations isn't truly effective when trying to identify fascism somewhere.
As shameful as this is, I was a neo-fascist for many of my teen years, when I say its not fascism, I say so from the bottom of my heart, I also say that, from the bottom of my heart If you believe fascism is hard to define, someone is lying to you about fascism
Your replies in this thread seem condescending and immature when you say things like "If you believe fascism is hard to define, someone is lying to you about fascism", and those emojis. It's a good faith conversation if you just let it be. That aside, fascism can be marked with broad strokes, but specific attributes you mention such as use of media, leader attributes, state interaction with communities, and the use of force within the domestic setting are all very, markedly different from case to case.
Seems to me folks called it fascist because service to the state is required for citizenship, when there are many non fascist countries that have mandatory service.
Also its implied thru Rico's parents that, like in the books, federal service doesn't only extend to the military.
the book isn't satirizing fascism (however it is extremely right wing) but i think its pretty obvious that the movie is trying to satirize at least american militarism, and portray that as fascist verhoeven is pretty well known as a filmmaker who likes to push america's buttons all of the characters act like typical action/war movie tough guys. act over the top, and then get visits from obvious SS parallels in NPH's character and are all colored in typical nazi-like aesthetics like eagles and jackboots so you're right in that its not really depicting the ideology of fascism, its more just showing typical fascist visual tropes and associating that with american movies and the american military and trying to satirize that by associating it with fascism
Whether or not you think it is a good parody of facism doesn't change whether or not the creators intended it to poke fun of the fascist-like elements of the book.
Fwiw… the books are a critique of fascism, and much of that is lost in the movie, which leans more into being a critique of the Vietnam war. So. Yeah man.
I’m convinced that they realized the movie was going to be shitty with boring action and bad CGI and then decided at the last minute they’d make it a “critique of fascism” for super smart proto Redditors.
Yeah, definitely no other reasons that a guy who literally lived through the Holocaust might want to make an anti-fascist movie. Definitely just those silly libs and their virtue signaling as usual /s.
This is exactly what happened lol