Can someone explain to me why humans are always federations or unions or in some other way just the UN in space, but aliens always have single nation states?

This video made me realize that Hive Minds make great sci-fi antagonists. We humans take individualism for granted, but imagine a species that treats intergalactic war like a boxing match. A species with no concept of individualism wouldn't bat an eyelash at losing drones and harvesters. Burning a planet full of people isn't an atrocity, it's just like punching the enemy in the face. The main challenge in the story wouldn't be about who has the biggest planet burners, but how to see from the other's side perspective and coexist.

Neo Mexico is, in fact, a space station.

Average mil sci-fi novel -American troops -Made by Tom Kratman, John Ringo-Dingo, or someone nobodies heard of -War is glorious despite every single man from my entire battalion is dead except for me and I now have ptsd, but it’s still glorious

An example of military sci-fi that is critical of the military is The Forever War by Joe Haldeman. Haldeman was a Vietnam vet and Heinlein said it was a much better book than Starship Troopers.

That's why I love Dune. The second book literally starts with the protagonist, who is basically the emperor of the universe, comparing himself to Hitler and hating what his actions caused.

Louder for those in the back: YOU CAN ENJOY THINGS WHILE ADMITTING THERE ARE SOME UNSAVORY ASPECTS TO THEM

I love warhammer 40k and the Imperium of Man. Do I identify as the politics of the Imperium? Hell no. I just enjoy interesting settings that aren’t just “utopian future!”

This is something I've always thought was really weird. There are so many weird new government types someone could create in a sci-fi setting with ALIENS who are fundamentally different from us, yet they all seem to be unable to stray from the militarism and imperialism that is already so incredibly oversaturated. Seriously, how about branching off into new political territories in your story about new and different worlds.

Hard Sci Fi tend to talk about systems that are even more extreme than fascism societies. You have the Xeelee Sequence for example, which is one absolute nightmare of a universe where freedom means nothing and you got more chances of dying because you attempted to comprehend the alien species that enslaved you, or dying in mines and gigantic working infrastructures than dying of old age. Like, this book series is so extreme, Hitler could read it and say "woah man, slow down with the violence, this is too much to handle". Other than that, I think the omnipresence of dictatorships in Sci-fi is mostly due to the fact that most novels were written either before or after WWII, and they used the thematics of a highly regressive system using advanced technology to extend his power even further. Most dictatorships relied on new technologies and scientific discoveries for various inhumane uses.

Heinlein wrote Stranger in a Strange Land. It was a huge hit with beatniks and other weirdos, who started showing up and camping on Heinlein's lawn. So he wrote Starship Troopers and dedicated it to drill sergeants to make the hippies get off his lawn. Looks like it worked really well.

The algorithm is gonna hate this video but good video

I’d recommend the book series Legend of the Galactic Heroes (the anime is great too but I don’t recommend people 110 episode anime unless they already watch a lot of anime) It’s about the war between two galactic nations, one of which is an autocratic monarchy and the other a failing democracy. The whole series is extremely political and goes very in-depth with its criticism of both systems of power while portraying them through a neutral lens. Many characters uphold democratic ideals to strive for, but know that the current system is corrupt and is not serving the people by continuing a 150 year war and perpetrating a fanatic zeal to fight the evil totalitarian regime next door, all the while the empire is inefficient and stagnant and its leadership is also slowly decaying, but that means that its giving room for talented people to rise in power through achievement. The book goes into great depth over the theoretical failures of the two systems but also the current situation that does not allow for improvement and better serving the people, which is never considered an impossibility and is overall the ideal way to govern humanity. I think you would really enjoy them, there’s 10 books, all around 300 pages more or less, and it goes way more in-depth then I ever could. It’s also an interesting character study of our two main characters, a military hero of the alliance and an upstart ambitions commander in the Empire

This is why the Imperium of Man from the 40k Universe is very interesting many outside of the Fandom believe it to be Facist government, but in truth the Imperium is de-centerized Government. It more of a feudal society with small holdings of planets and systems that put fealty to the Emperor of Mankind, and many worlds have different governments on each worlds, like on one world there is a feudal king that believe his rule is divine, and in another there is democratic government that put its officials by popular vote. Most Sci fi Governments are too stable considering how vast the Galaxy, and communication will be the biggest challenge to maintaining an centralized government which if not properly explained feels a bit of a cop out.

I think one thing to keep in mind with Heinlein is that he really is all over on the political spectrum

The Terran Federation did nothing wrong.

I want to see a sci-fi setting where actual nation states are left on earth and the aliens also aren't united, but they too live on a planet divided by nation states. A lot of sci-fi books have this obsession with global or intergalactic unity and I feel like that is just very unlikely given how fractured and culturally diverse our planet is.

Just because sci fi has a lot of fascist space empires doesn't mean the work is conveying a fascist messages. Fascist space empires tend to make for good villains. Or in the case of Warhammer 40k-they remind you just how fucked the universe is. I mean think about it. It is a universe dominated by either space fascists or ravenous chaotic monsters out for pure destruction for the sake of it.

The lost fleet series is actually quite good, i havent finished it yet, i think i am around book 7. Its really funny how many characters want the protagonist to become a dictator but the protagonist its like: "No, my loyalties are wit the alliance". it happens almost 7 times per book.

After reading Starship Troopers I found the original usage of “stable genius” hilarious. As in, a stable genius is a genetically engineered genius dog that can talk and is as smart as a stupid human... it’s dumb but for a dog is smart. Someone also called them selves a stable genius... the definition still works.

Surprised to the The Lost Fleet included here; the main character's pretty dead-set against anything that would destroy the democracy of his people, and it's entirely within his power as a literal living legend to do exactly that. He'd have carte blanche to do pretty much every fascist trick pointed out in this video, and he not only doesn't do it, he talks others who originally were all for it into trying to reform the democracy instead. Atrocities that went entirely without comment at the beginning of the war are roundly criticized by him and, by the later parts of the series, simply don't happen in his fleet. The sort of "internal cleansing" mentioned in the video is something he is often tempted by, (and which other characters explicitly urge him to do) but which he repeatedly rejects, even to the extent of converting other characters to his side. In short, I can see why it seems fascist as there's a lot of corruption on both sides of the war, but the ideals the main character represents (and, tellingly, manages to spread throughout his people and others) is pretty far from it.

16:38 In lost fleet, that ideology of "civilian dont fight so they're not worthy to rule" is in total contradiction with the main character ideology, main character whom happen to be the dude with the most common sense in the alliance military. Geary actually despise that sort of thinking and has to, regulary, repeat that he doesn't want to be a dictator and that the military should answer to elected official.

James, I think a better description of the government in Starship Troopers (the book) is less fascism and more like the Roman Republic of the Punic wars. Also, in the novel, you can get the vote doing something non military; it just has to be something related to serving humanity at large. The desk sergeant at the recruiting station Rico goes to sign up at notes that they have to take everyone who signs up; even if they’re deaf, blind and mute. They’ll find something for that applicant to do, even if it’s counting the hairs on a caterpillar at some research station. Edit: Well back here again. James, my good man, how many Lost Fleet books did you read? Much of the later novels deal with the main character Admiral Geary actively refusing attempts from within his own command to install him as a military dictator. Politicians are often portrayed sympathetically, and the Alliance military is often portrayed as stupid or overly aggressive. If anything, the series as a whole honestly feels more centrist than anything like far right fascism. I understand why Starship troopers is on this list (even if I politely disagree with your interpretation), but I am truly baffled as to why the Lost Fleet is on this list all.

3:41 "The bugs operate in a hivemind with no individuality. So they are a pretty clear analogue for Communists." -James Tullos

What happend to the introduction song?? It's not quite the same without it...

It makes it a lot more easier to project power fantasies onto characters in a fascist world.

"The Lost Fleet has strong overtones of militarism" made me do a spit take. One of the central tropes in this series is the main character actively opposing a military takeover even when he seems to be the only grown up in the whole galaxy and would get the dictatorship handed over to him by the people on a silver platter. War is being depicted as eroding any decent human values and deeply traumatizing (basically everyone in this series is hopped up on anti PTSD drugs). In the series war is seen as a sometimes neccessary force but just as important is building coalitions and mutual trust between allies through honesty and humanity. In a spinoff series you can watch the protagonists and their society slowly, almost unnoticeably change from a dystopian, authoritarian hellscape to a more peaceful, more humane society. ("I don't think I could bring myself to order my troops to shoot the protesters. And I don't think they would follow such an order anyway.")

Robert Heinlein: "I'm a libertarian" Also Robert Heinlein: "I'm gonna write a book that praises militarism and a borderline fascist 'limited democracy'. And it praises individualism. But the individualists are actually fascists." Also Robert Heinlein: "I'm a libertarian" Again, Robert Heinlein: "I support the Vietnam War"

I'm gonna be picky here. 02:53 In the novel STARSHIP TROOPERS it is explicitly said serving soldiers are not allowed to vote, and the military does obey the civilian government. This is not a "military elite." Not saying this is a particularly good set of institutions, and am not referring to the motion picture, but I like precision. 04:44 Likewise this is an absurd critique. The novel does not portray this at all. It sees the idea of service as ennobling (as btw do I) and that it just tends to make better voters overall. This is hardly fascism. To be sure, a facist can read it that way--but then fascists can read the Bible and see it as praising the white race (who are never mentioned anywhere in its pages). You also seem to be confusing a paradox with a contradiction. LIfe is full of the former, including the fact that in times of war putting the good of the many before the individual is the only way to defend individual liberty. The latter would be (for example) God both giving humans free will and making it impossible for us to commit sin at the same time. 06:29 This sarcasm frankly grates. You could make this point in a straightforward manner. But to be fair that is a personal response. 09:39 Honestly you seem to be cherry-picking what are fun but not terribly good books, and missing the actual themes involved. CRUSADE was all about remaining sane and ethical amid war, and in many ways the books about the Arachnid War were about that as well. I agree the creation of this living force of nature that had to be exterminated at all costs is problematical to say the least. But the books have a lot more nuance than you're giving them credit for, even if they are the literary equivalent of a delicious but unhealthy pastry you should avoid making a regular part of your diet. 10:56 YOu're missing what is truly absurd about this subplot. The book makes crystal clear the horrors of the Arachnids are generally known, but some people refuse to believe it. Which I supposed might well happen but this clumsy criticism of a "liberal" press doesn't do much to explore this (the CHTOR books by David Gerrold do a much, much better job of exploring this idea). 11:58 Again, super simplistic analysis which even in this rather simplistic series of stories is more complex than you are giving it credit for. INSURRECTION portrays blatant prejudice, and corruption grinding down and hurting a big chunk of members. In effect the Federation government is enacting a kind of gerrymandering specifically to keep the Fringe from having any influence even after their numbers and influence have finally approached that of the Heart and Corporate Worlds. The Fringe doesn't want to run everything, but rather demand that they be treated equally. Not at all what you are describing. 13:48 This is an excellent point. The novel is nowhere near large enough to give any semblance of a realistic or detailed portrait of the context. But the previous books do hammer it home that the Corporate Worlds have been fiddling with regulations and policies to give themselves profits and control over interstellar commerce at the expense of the Fringe. 14:28 You see, this strikes me as the most chilling thing you've said. You literally dismiss economic exploitation and hardship with "that is the way the game works." In fact, after a few generations of this kind of thing, the exploited are often looking for a way to strike back--and blaming them for it makes zero sense. These aren't particularly good books but MY GOD you are cherry-picking to make your point...poorly. 15:01 Again, you are cherry-picking in a manner that goes over the line into dishonesty. Honestly, I think you have a perfectly legitimate point to make about the values of military scifi and how they all too often wander into fascism or at least militarisitic ideology--but your examples are poor ones, at last as you present them.

Star Wars doesn't really belong here. The only series' that can really be called military sci fi were the prequels and the Clone Wars. And those series' portrayed war as an almost universal negative that's used as a tool by those in power to retain and grow their power at the cost of those below.

It's probably just because military sci-fi is by its nature centered around the military and any military, no matter how liberal or libertarian its parent society is, will always have conservative authoritarian undertones.

Come on, you can't call Heinlein a fascist for writing a fascist book (or two) The guy pretty much wrote a book promoting every ideology imaginable, since he went through more phases than an entire classroom of emo kids. ...That and a bunch more that were basically porn, but at least it was better crafted porn than twilight.

Legend of the Galactic Heroes probably gives the most honest look at a democratic system.

The biggest issue with this video is that it seems to have no idea of the concept of militarism, so instead puts forward Fascism as a poor replacement. It is perfectly understandable that a military sci-fi story would say that military force is good and just in certain situations, which is often an unprovoked attack from a foreign power. The challenge with militarism is that it is apolitical. That means that virtually every type of political system can be militaristic. There is a further challenge that what works in militarizes are universal, so every military looks similar. There was very little actual difference between the various militarizes of that fought in WWII, even though the governments involved had radically different political systems. The values of duty, loyalty, and courage were all qualities praised by every military, so a person who knows no context would struggle to infer how a government works by just looking at a military unit. This issue for the video is seen well by Starship Troopers. The radical idea put forward in that book is that a government is only able to stand if the people are willing to voluntarily fight to maintain it. Every type of political government fully believe that compelled military service was both moral and right. Even democracies had no problem forcing a citizen to die. Starship Troopers argued that was inherently wrong, and even that a democracy would be stronger without it. It is a fun point of history that reality has born out Heinlein's vision, though the Marian Reforms had already pointed that out in history.

2:50 It was also military defeat at the hands of a communist regime called The Chinese Hegemony that led to the collapse of Democracy in the book. 14:27 Its true that there are going to be losers in a capitalist economy. But there are actual examples from history where it was made illegal for people living on the fringes to even play the game in the first place. Like when Britain and France made it illegal for the residents of their colonies to open businesses that would compete with firms in the mother country. That isn't really inherent to capitalism. If it were, then there wouldn't be any capitalist countries without colonies. But there are, like Switzerland.

so these guys did, as James put it in a worldbuilding video, an "Ayn Rand"?

Without watching the entire video Starship troopers the movie has literally nothing in common with the book. It was originally going to be it's own thing called bug hunt. Somehow the studio owned the rights to starship troopers and decided to just change the title of bug hunt to starship troopers. Hell the director even admitted he never read the book beyond a single page and went "yup fascist" (being entirely wrong but he was never the sharpest tool in the shed) In the book the Terran Federation are not fascists they are their own weird thing closer to the Roman republic if anything. Basically the message of starship troopers is if you want to have a say in how your country is run you need to be willing to sacrifice for your country whether that be your time or your body. The book on several occasions states you dont have to be in the military to get citizenship that is just the way focused on in the book since John Rico is in the military.

The fringe worlds sound like the Independent Planets in Firefly. This reminds me of how the Alliance only looks like the bad guys because we're seeing their world through the eyes of their enemies.

Have you ever read The Iron Dream? God that book was a trip but it’s a great critique of the military sci-fi genre and the fandom around it because it takes all their problematic aspects to the most hilarious yet uncomfortable extreme.

Just how recently have you read Starship Troopers? Your conclusion that there was no criticism in there is more than a little off. Yes, Heinlein had some strong opinions on learning duty, but he also pretty obviously recognized how taking things to an extreme could be pretty terrible, and that is reflected in the book.

My god have I come across video with so much density, it could as well be a neutron star. 1. Heinlein's description was of his fictional society at war. Fact that he served in miliatary without ever going into actual conflict means nothing, for most of the history of his federation was also peaceful. What he was trying to do is claim that his fictional society, where military society is tied with citizenship, would be far more ready and effective when it has to deal with unexpected threat. This is simple to see. 2. Crusade, "Free holy ~~land~~ mother terra" but they use word "jihad". And you seriously can't see the authors are EQUATING christian and muslim holy wars? 3. OK, now what the actual fuck. How can you describe killing a hive mind species as a genocide, if you're aware that they're, you know, a hive mind. One mind, many bodies. The "genocide" is actually not a genocide, because only one living entity is killed. That's at worst a murder not genocide. And with how much suffering the entity caused, any single other entity in that setting would be tried and sentenced to death. So, it's an singular execution, rather than a genocide.

Truth be told though fascism really doesn't carry the same connotations in most countries as it does in the west. I get that these books are mostly for a western audience, but the taboo nature of it isn't really as widespread as a lot of people seem to think it is, so even if these books are unintentionally spreading such messages I don't think it really matters.

"Your protagonist state is like Mussolini's Italy!" Regular sci-fi authors: "What do you mean?" Heinlein: *"yes."*

There *are* good subversions. I remember particularly one series, whose name I can't recall, which basically chronicles a journey of dissilusion with the human government. We begin indoctrinated into thinking everything in the universe is hostile and violent, and gradually learn that while the universe is very violent, the human government wants us to think that it's unfixable. The story ends with "Humanity" and "The State" being broken apart. Oh, now I remember! Old Man's War.

Honestly, this really helps to encapsulate what I love so much about Ender’s Game, and how it’s followed up by Speaker for the Dead, they’re basically an inversion of the “Starship Troopers” setup. The war between the Buggers and humanity was ultimately caused by a complete misunderstanding between radically different species, and the fact that it ends up escalating to genocide is something that the protagonist ends up living the entire rest of his life trying to reverse. Ender’s natural empathy is what’s twisted by the awful society he lives in into his ultimate weapon, and we see the psychological toll that being raised as a child soldier takes on him. Ultimately, it’s his ability to communicate and understand “the other” that make him such a great leader and strategic thinker, and it’s also why he destroys his own legacy and goes on an eternal quest to make up for what he did. I’d definitely recommend Speaker if you read Ender’s Game when you were younger, it’s really good. Card is still a right-wing whacko, don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of misogyny in the way the female characters are portrayed, Speaker gets a little white savior-y, the original version of EG had lot of Cold War era fearmongering about the Russians, and that kind of stuff only gets worse in the later books of the Ender’s Shadow series (and the main series books after Speaker just get... *weird*) but despite all of those EG and Speaker are always going to have a place in my heart.

Seriously, you can disapprove of Heinlein personal politics all you want, but please judge Starship Troopers on what is writen IN the book. For exampel citizenship can be gained through military service or through civil serveice. They give a exampel how a blind man counts the legs on a centipede by feeling them. Heinlein may have made the bugs boring two-dimensional enemys, that attack first and do not want to negotiate/communicate, but that do not make the humans facists. Soldier as cannon fooder? In the book? Have you read the book? They routinely wreck the bugs. If it was from the movie, you cant blame Heinlein for that. You point out that Heinlein was not a combat veternan, so what? Are you? Gess not, but that do not prevent YOU to have a opinion on war (that is called dubbel standard) I can go on, but my point you either haven't read the book (or it was very long time ago) or you deliberately misrepresent the book.

1:01 So basically...it's possible and even necessary to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects?

Yeah, Heinlein, that well-known libertarian fascist who wrote a fascist state in which all interactions we're voluntary, and no one had to do anything they didn't want to.

I have never seen starship troopers as fascist. Pro military perhaps. But the government itself wile a meritocracy, it was also a libertarian leaning constitutional democracy.

Calling Heinlein fascist is disingenuous based on Starship Troopers alone. Using Heinlein's fiction to determine what Heinlein believed is fraught with peril and probably impossible.

As much as I like Steven Universe, when I first saw the Diamond Authority in Steven Universe, I held out hope that maybe it would eventually come into contact with an intelligent interstellar superpower that would feel compelled to fight back as a preemptive strike. They could've easily used DA's rap sheet against them. This superpower could have argued "do we hunker down and wait for this empire to clash with ours--an enemy that doesn't need to eat, sleep, breathe, or even deal in economics--or do we take the fight to them before it gets out of hand?" and we could be torn between who to root for in this case. Sadly, Rebecca Sugar, didn't even bother to show or even imply humanoid aliens that weren't Gem-based. At any rate, I would like to see a sci-fi war make us torn between who to root for in a war like the Achaeans and the Trojans in Homer's The Iliad.

Heinlein wasn't remotely fascist (which is a form of totalitarianism). The government in Starship Troopers included freedom of speech, freedom of travel (two things never seen under totalitarian regimes), and no military draft. The only difference was the franchise had to be earned, something everyone had the right to try for. Earning the franchise involved volunteering for "Federal Service", of which the military was a small part. Interstellar exploration was Federal Service. Establishing settlements on the ocean floor was Federal Service. Furthermore, there's a scene in the book where a doctor is asked what if a quadriplegic wants to try? He says everyone has the right to try so they'd have to come up with a task very difficult but doable for that person.

Soon very soon will join the ranks of BreadTube hahahahahah!!!!!!!!

Interesting Essay but I feel you miss a major point: Historically speaking - any time a tribe/group/nation of our species has met another it has always escalated into conflict (at least initially) Inter-tribal rivalry, war, empire, slavery & subjugation etc. It might eventually settle into a peaceful equilibrium once the cost of war exceeds its potential gains, but my point is, for the longest time, the "Optimal" arrangement for a society was a militaristic one - even if peace was your goal, you needed to ensue your tribe was at least strong enough to resist potential aggression from neighbours - Survival demanded it. My point is: If Humanity reached a point where we began to encounter new, sentient species, each with own technology and desire for finite resources we could easily (and rationally) find ourselves shifting into a military first, duty obsessed society.. Especially if we were ever attacked and our democracies were found to be "Sleeping at the wheel" - None of our ideals (Democracy, equality, etc) Are more important to us than survival.

Knowing Steve White and that those books came from playing a strategic tabletop game called Star Fire (same game created Honor Harrington, David Webber's solo series) I was very amujsed by your analysis. I am not saying you are wrong, in fact I'd say you are pretty spot on. I am saying those topics didn't occur to Steve. I don't know David so I can't talk for him, but those books came from the two of them playing this game and how it shook out.

Your definition of fascism to begin with is incorrect, and your understanding of starship troopers is... flawed at best. The state of starship troopers is a military based meritocracy, not a fascist state.

I don’t know the man, obviously, but David Weber seems to have... issues with liberal politics. In Honor Harrington the big bad is a communist state that is militarily expansive to acquire the resources to fuel its welfare economy. For some fun books and massive political whiplash, consider reading 1632 by Eric Flint followed by 1633 which he coauthored with Weber. 1632 has a protagonist who is a West Virginian coal miner labor organizer that ends with a political alliance with Gustav Adolfus’s Sweden; 1633 opens with ‘that’s nice, but let’s build guns and warships’

So you take shots at Robert Heinlein for Starship Troopers, a book I feel you have characterized poorly, but he is also the author of Stranger in a Strange Land wherein the protagonist is an ardent pacifist who is ejected from the service because he keeps destroying all of their weapons. Shall I then use this same logic to label him the second coming of Mahatma Gandhi? The parallel between fascist ideology and military sci-fi isn't a new one, but it tends to be most strongly advocated by those who haven't served. Beyond that, it is still sci-fi and exploring competing ideologies is a natural fit for sci-fi. Heck, look at the Honor Harrington series also by David Weber. It is unabashedly military sci-fi, but it isn't something I would describe as promoting fascist ideals. To leave print media look at the Dominion War plot in Star Trek or, or jump to anime, Legend of Galactic Heroes. I can think of a half-dozen more examples just off the top of my head. There are examples which support your point, but there are also plenty that contradict it. I could put together an equal number of examples which do nothing but show the waste of war, but that wouldn't justify the idea that military sci-fi promotes anti-war ideology. At the end of the day it feels that you are cherry picking your examples to justify your premise. This may work to influence those who are mostly ignorant of the genre, or to gain echoes from those who agree with your premise before even hearing any evidence, but I can't help but feel it is a touch disingenuous.

The book (Insurrection) was supposed to be a metaphor for, on the one hand, the American Revolution (fringe settlements economically exploited by powerful groups in the imperial heartland) and the Civil War (the addition of new territory from the Louisiana Purchase preventing the Southern states from catching up to the political power of the North). In both cases, the solution adopted was secession, as happens in Insurrection.

Starship troopers is most often misinterpreted as fascism but it's very much apart from other depictions. Most things are voluntary, the state does not have absolute power, there is no hiding the cruelties of war away from the people, the government's victories are freely broadcast. I'd recommend a video called "The politics of Starship Troopers" that goes into excruciating depth about the topic better than I could formulate in a single comment.

Seems someone got his Heinlein from the movie and out of context interviews and nothing else. The man was a true and true Libertarian! He advocated for free love in A Stranger in a Strange Land and for freedom from neocolonialist tyranny in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Excellent video. Please continue making content like this. I love sci fi, hell, especially military sci fi, but it is filled to the brim with deeply troubling subtexts and philosophies.

I am reading a fantasy novel where the MC is a "benevolent" king, proceeds to marry all his 8 queens for political reasons and they just so happen to love him (very convenient author, very convenient) He also proceeds to help other countries in pointless conflicts that cost's his countrymen lifes that do not give nothing to the country and are there only to make the MC look cool and very generous. He then proceeds to, by sheer political influence, force a parent to give up his child to him, because he fancies him as a future husband for his little sister.

To be fair in starship Trooper the Bugs are the aggressors so you can’t exactly blame the federation for not wanting to roll over and die. And yes it is made rather clear that the bugs seem to exterminate humanity. So whilst it’s not the utopia Heinlein thought it to be, the federation is by no means in the wrong in the context of the story.

It doesn't seem to me that joining the military is an example of suffocating collectivism. Nobody is forced to join the Terran military, they don't have a draft. There's a world of difference between collectivism and sacrificing for the greater good of your own free will.

we must of read diffrent books because Starship troops is definitely not Facist in fact it criticizes fascism along with communism

Your reading and analaysis of Starship Troopers and Starfire is superficial and inaccurate. You leave out important details in both works. In Starship Troopers the right of vote is given to anyone who serves in one of sevrral goverment programs which includes both military and civilian service. Civilian service includes research and public labor jobs. You cannot vote until discharge. You can quit the military anytime you want up to being under fire. This right to quit includes just before entering a drop pod. Your rant on Heinlein only shows you never did any more than skim his works. Read his works. He is for individual rights and the value of doing public service. You show similar poor comprehension of the written text in the Starfire Series. Your ommissions and misreadings are too numerous for here and already shown in other posts.

"The Soviet Union was a totalitarian nightmare for most of its residents." Except the vast majority of workers and peasants who made it possible, the vast majority who's lives greatly improved compared to the Tsar era in virtually all aspects including individual freedom, the vast majority who didn't want it gone, and the vast majority who want it back today across nearly a dozen countries.

Idea for an Orwell style sci-fi: The character is a secret agent sent to infiltrate an enemy battle ship in a three way war of human empires. He collects information and properly relays it to side. Eventually he discovers something huge (invasion plan, etc.) and quickly reports it, however, after relaying the information he realises that it is oddly familiar to something he had heard before he became an agent. After going through the various nodes and memories he realises something terrible: The three human factions are in fact all controlled by one government which, after realising there are no alien species to conquer threw humanity into a perpetual state of war as to not lose their influence. Soon after the realisation the character is captured and publicaly executed as a spy to raise morale. Obviously, this is an unpolished draft since I basically just came up with this on the spot, but what do you think?

When I was a kid I got fascinated by a board game called "Starfire". I just thought it was a cool spaceship battle game. I had no idea there was a story behind it. So thanks for letting me know. And as more than one KZfaqr has pointed out, a LOT of SciFi civilizations are, to quote, "too stupid to exist".

I love that the movie version of Starship Troopers is meant to be a criticism of Fascism and it does it super well

Genuinely surprised the title before I clicked on it wasn't just 'Starship Troopers.' Appropriate it was the first example you talked about since it's the poster child for fascism in scifi. I read it in middle school before I hit my "able to think critically about media" period so it's only of the books I really want to reread to see if I still enjoy it, now that I'm older and wiser. Also OH GOD THE CRUSADE THING AND NUREMBERG. Big Yikes. Thanks for the video! Super interesting as usual.

Be careful, mate. Sargon of Akkad will make a four-hour reply video about how #wrong you are of Heinlein and perfect an angel he is...

In the end, it seems like fascism implies that physical (or at least personal) forcefulness is the main yardstick by which to measure a nations' and a person's worth.

17:38 Me a 40k fan: "I didn't sign up for this shit"

a much needed criticism of this untold issue. This is why Sci-Fi can work as a pipeline to NRx or Slt Right

Did you actually read Starship Troopers? If so, you might want to give it another try to figure out which part of your definition of fascism can be applied to the society depicted in the book. Don't get me wrong, I think it can very well be rightfully criticized for glorification of militarism and obedience to superior officers, who are depicted as wise and good intentioned without exeption. But there is no overall 'obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood' in the book, let alone 'cults of unity, energy, and purity'. There clearly is no 'mass-based party of committed nationalist militants' in the book either. The military holds no political power. Military personnel is not allowed to vote or to hold office as long as they are enlisted. Federal Service, which is not per se military in nature but also included things like labor forces in Antarctica, is just the only way to get citizenship. In fact, the military personnel tries their best to discourage people from joining Federal Service, which probably would never happen in a fascist or military dictatorship. Limiting active and passive voting rights is done by every democracy, nearly everywhere by age and nationality, in some countries also for criminal records. Not to long ago it was widely limited to a specific gender or race, or to landowners. The system depicted in Starship Troopers is what is called a meritocracy, which means, those rights have to be earned. I'm not saying that this is good, but it is not fascist. Large parts of the 'traditional elites' look down on the military, and they are free to do so and still live in freedom and peace, just without voting rights. There are 'ethical or legal restraints', but no 'goals of internal cleansing'. The only parts of this definition met by the Terran Federation are 'abandon[ing] democratic liberties' by limiting voting rights, (which is the only part of the definition I don't like, because it implies that fascism can only arise in a former democracy; one cannot abandon democratic liberties without having them in the first place), and the goal of external expansion. Please feel free to criticize glorification of militarism (and Heinlein, for various reasons) all you want, but don't come up with an elaborate definition of fascism and say it applies to a society depicted in a book you don't like, just because you don't like it. This is somewhat cheap and below your own level of understanding and argumentation.

Have you read Heinlein's "Expanded Universe"? Starship Troopers was not meant to promote a militaristic society (which is more accurate than calling it fascist), but more as a critique of the US reliance on mandatory conscription that continued after World War II and into the Cold War. Now, there are other works by Heinlien that certainly follow the track you started with regarding his disappointment with Eisenhower... Why is it that people keep mistaking militarism for fascism?

i appreciate you encouraging me to clean my room

Might doesn't make right. But without it, you will forever be at the mercy of those who have it. Neglect it at your own peril, and at the expense of everyone in your care.

you got lost fleet wrong it main theme is that one person or group cant be in charge of all things instead you need to break up those jobs and tasks and give them to responsible people who are trained I repeat Trained on them and trust them to handle it or ask for help if needed. Also the main enemy of the series is a corporate dictatorship, they even have corporate doublespeak and everything ^-^ really great world building recommend you read and others read it

A bit of unrelated thought... Both fascism and socialism are kind of collectivist - they both emphasise that by working together, rather than as a collection of individuals, we can achieve more. However the intended use of this collective power is wastly different. Facists focus on expressing this power to beat external enemies, while socialists focus the power inward to improve lives of each other. And because of that external focus, fascism actually relies on having an enemy. Or if there are no actual enemy in sight, this enemy is invented. However, on the flip side, if an actual enemy is presented, even non-facist leaning societies can start acting in a facshi way. Simply because any society will have traces of this ideology and wartime will amplify them to noticeable level. So I wouldn't be surprised that in military scifi, all the societies look fachist. After all them being at war is the core premise.

>Irak >Arak >Arachnids lol, really subtle there.

Note: Paul Verhoeven made his movie to poke fun at Ronald Reagan's "free" world.

Read "the doctrine of fascism" by Benito Mussolini. It explains fascism way more into detail (not trying to discredit jame's explanation of fascism though)

Best military sci-fi book is definitely The Legend of the Galctic Heroes.

The thing about Heinlein is that he never served in combat. People talk about his naval service but forget that he was discharged years before WW2. More importantly he was never allowed back in despite still being young enough to serve. So I always viewed Starship troopers as a form of venting frustration at the system for keeping him away from any form of service during the war. He wrote it while middle aged at a point in his life when the realisation that he was never gonna identify with the WW2 generation sunk in. Lets be honest here there's no way he wasn't asked at least on occasion during the war 'why aren't you in uniform' and he had to say 'medical grounds' despite being a former naval officer. That must have hurt. So Starship troopers was basically Heinlein saying 'you thought I wasn't good enough for the last war I'm gonna teach you how to fight the next war.' A delayed screw you basically.

Insurrection is just 1776 in space mixed with modern decolonization, and no Mercantile empires that harvest resources in colonies and give them no economic freedoms or self governance are not Capitalistic. They expressly despise the idea of free trade, floating prices, or individual choice in economic matters. The closest things to a Mercantile empire in recent history would be the Soviet Union, the CCP's Regime, and France's exploitation of west africa. Right behind them would be the UK's empire till the US forced them to abandon Mercantile trade with their colonies in the 1950s. in, "in death ground" and "The Shiva option" is about fighting a hive mind, a single macro organism that sees all other life as unicellular life without regard for the harm it does to feed itself. Unlike with fascists who pretend individuals are part of a hive, this is a real hive mind. It's not rational to pretend that you could reason with it. Nor that the death penalty would not be given if you put it on trial. Crusade is bazaar of strange ideas, but the one you put on blast is truly strange. The reason that the "I was just following orders" excuse fell flat for those on trial there was expressly due to them being the leaders that were issuing the orders. They had extreme amounts of leverage to start a coup or revolt if they wished. With Starship Troopers it's fairly clear you watched the film and never read the book. Your not criticizing the book to any meaningful extent. The film just took the books name, they have nothing in common other then the name. The film is a satire of US interventionism. The book is an entire can of worms onto itself. In the book for example, the humans form an alliance with another species that was forced into being subject state under the bugs. It has a lot reprehensible in it, but it's not what you claim it is. It is however jingoistic in it's message.

I must disagree with you on the point of The Lost Fleet. While I agree that many characters do hold the belief that the civilian government should be overthrown and replaced with a military dictatorship, the POV character is set against this and works to disabuse the other officers of this notion.

So a society where the rights of the individual are guaranteed by the constitution is somehow fascist? Man, are your readings of Starship Troopers (the book) *_WAY_* off.

"War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means" - Clausewitz

Imagine thinking Starship Troopers is fascist.

I normally have decent expectations for your videos, but not expecting them to be perfect, but man was the bar missed for this one. Bungled definitions in the opening Bungled understanding the idea of service as presented in the book Starship Troopers It's not all military service; just during the war it primarily is, because it's a war. Defensive war at that. But it includes things like trash collectors; etc. And every step of the way, the state TRIES to get you to quit. Which is exactly the opposite of real fascism If you actually pushed off your biases and re-analyzed Starship Troopers you'd find it's actually pushing for a very libertarian society. A militarized one, sure, but a free and prosperous one. It's not giving up your individual desires for the state; it's giving them up for others, through the means of the state. There's a big difference. Saying Starship Troopers is fascist is... extremely shallow. I also love how all the bad things you mention at the end; (around 17:30) are lacking from The Federation. That would be because the Federation actually not fascist. I don't know anything about the other books but like... is it a bad thing to kill the arachnids? Like, is it? And why? Seems pretty reasonable to me. I get how "Well they were so evil so we had to" can be misused by bad people, but that doesn't mean that it's WRONG. Saying christian civilization is superior is (implied) fascist because....? Sounds like thinly veiled christian hate to me

I find it funny how many people can read and experience the same thing, but come out with different outcomes and meanings.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War novels. There’s a lot of similar points in those books as well but with a viewpoint that made me wonder what the author’s opinions on those points were.

Actually, why would it be genocide to wipe out a hive mind species? I mean, genocide is bad because the leader that declared war on you, and the soldier shooting at you, are discrete sentient beings from the leader's wife, the soldier's young children, the doctors treating their wounded, the guys providing food to their populace, etc. etc. i.e. their civilian populace. The latter group aren't responsible for, nor perhaps even aware of, the actions of the former. There's no reason to kill them except pure vindictive cruelty. But with a hive mind, there's no distinction between the two. They are ALL the same guy who is killing your people; they all CAN and WILL kill your people. Even if their "civilian populace" doesn't possess the means to kill you, they certainly possess the will to do so. It wouldn't be genocide anymore - it'd be killing a single sentient being.

Twitter!? NO! I was going to SKETCH STUFF while listening!!! FOol

This is the reason, for me anyway, I love how the Daleks from Doctor Who are represented. More times than not, Sci-Fi has this things of glorifying Imperialism and Fascism by making it out to be "cool". Yeah, the Space Marines and the Empire of Man are waging senseless and pointless wars, but look at the Space Marines, aren't they cool? Don't they look awesome? Look at them carve that Tyranid in half! Same with the Empire from Star Wars. Look at Darth Vader, isn't he so cool, looks at those Star Destroyers etc. etc. Now, I am NOT saying that anyone who likes or takes interest in these things are Fascists, hell, I love Star Wars, I'm more talking about the tiny majority of Warhammer and Empire fans that take things a little too far outside the realms of fiction. But the Daleks, who would want to be a Dalek? They're petty squid mutants trapped inside impractical dust-bins with whisks and plungers? Thats not cool. But thats the thing. The Daleks personify the pettiness of fascism, and how its warped the Daleks. The Daleks were once the Kaleds, in a pointless war with the Thals, but radiation made them mutate into tiny gooey creature things who can only hate because thats the only thing that remembered after the war with the Thals. Thats whats ingrained into them by their creator, Davros. And thus, their impracticalness is what makes them such a good allegory. No matter how many times they change their technology, the still have the same basic casing design, balls and eyestalks and all.

Have you ever read Ender's Game? It is a Sci-Fi military book too. In the book there is de facto a military dictatorship that is in charge of the war of humanity against an alien race. The book realy questions everything from the regime to the whole war. I think it is a really great book and you should read it if you haven't already. (There is a movie too, but the book is way better)

What about anarchism in fiction? Robert E Heinlein also wrote The Moon Is A Hard Mistress.