The difference between Heinlein's and Verhoven's versions of Starship Troopers is that Heinlein wasn't writing a parody. That and the powered armor suits, and the bugs had actual technology. Bug warriors in the book were actually fearsome, they had firearms and used squad tactics instead of just zerg rushing, it was indirectly implied their their wargear was implanted into them surgicly. They were said to be superior to the federation in terms of battlefield coordination and logistics owing to their being eusocial creatures. Warrior bugs were smart but their intelligence was highly specialized. Unlike in the movie the bugs were a peer opponent of the federation not just an infestation that was only a threat due to numbers. In the book peace was never an option not because the bugs were very very alien such that humanity and the bugs had nothing in common in spite of both being advanced spacefaring highly technological civilizations. Basically they were ants with starships and computers and mechanized warfare which was so much more interesting then how the movie portrayed them. Other alien species existed in the background which the federation had peaceful relations with, humanity was at war with the bugs because the bugs had no concept of compromise and it was either us or them.
Bugs had a sense of diplomacy. One of the early sections of the book is the Mobile Infantry attacking a planet of the Skinnies in retaliation for their support of the Bugs. It has been some time since I last read the novel, but I even remember it being a city they attacked.
Something I always found interesting in Starship Troopers was that after the initial Klandathu failure, the Sky Marshal, first presented as some powerful and dictatorial figure, is promptly humiliated and replaced. Not simply by some figurehead, but by somebody who presented a radical change in policy and conduct that then saw positive results. We don't even get that in our current American 'federal' system.
It's interesting to consider that even Verhoeven didn't give even a hint that the Sky Marshal was pressured into resigning, which suggests the Sky Marshal stepped down voluntarily.
@@Justanotherconsumer That's just the thing, it may be that sort of euphemism but that's really grasping at straws. Nothing, absolutely nothing that is shown in the movie itself doesn't give even the slightest reason to assume so. The power structures we see don't even imply in any capacity of something nefarious happening on the background.
In World War II the U.S. military routinely relieved officers of their command if things weren't going well, as they actually wanted to win the war and were willing to do what it took. It's worthwhile noting that an officer being relieved of their command was not a career killer. The failure was not necessarily their fault for all kinds of reasons from simply being the wrong job for them or personality conflicts that derailed effective leadership. They would be reassigned to another job and were sometimes given an even larger command at a later date. The important thing was that when things weren't working out leadership changed. So this is the reality that would have been in Heinlein's mind when he was writing _Starship Troopers._
@@cmbaz1140 its worse then that, they talk about peace, then start a war and send people into battle in ships filled with hundreds of people that explode with one hit, thats kind of monsterious in a way xD like millions of people are dieing so a politician can spend their life pretending to be more moral then others before sending the masses to pay for it in blood.
Remember: in Heinlin’s book made a point that you did FEDERAL SERVICE, not specifically military. You went where the Federation needed you according to your skills and ability.
The Federation was also obliged to accept anyone who asked for federal service , even someone who has a profound mental handicap that limits what they can do. The Federation would have to assess them and work out exactly what they could do which would benefit society then find them a job doing that , it might be sweeping the floors of the regional government office and emptying the bins , but it is a job they can do which needs doing, and at the end they would get citizenship. It was universal suffrage with a authoritarian militaristic twist.
There's a interesting part of the book where Johnny talks to the recruiter about it and he says more or less "You could be blind, deaf, and a quadriplegic and we'd be obligated to find a way for you to serve if you sign up for federal service."
Heinlein himself said that, long after the book was published. But the textual evidence in the book itself strongly suggests federal service is military in nature. Heinlein seems to have written the book with the second philosophy and thought later that he made a mistake in so doing. There's a good essay on the subject at www.nitrosyncretic.com/pdfs/nature_of_fedsvc_1996.pdf.
This is a common misconception. Technically yes it's all federal service but there doesn't seem to be any actual service outside of the military to participate in.
The thing about Roddenberry's Star Trek is that it is utopian. It does require that human beings, specifically, have undergone some process of enlightenment. Whether that is a cultural evolution or something else is never really discussed. The downfall of Star Trek, especially post-Roddenberry, is that this concept quite literally beggars the imagination of every other producer, writer, and director who has tried to tell a Star Trek story. This is not to say that other stories in the vast multimedia federation aren't good stories - there is is plenty of good storytelling under the Star Trek banner. Also plenty of bad storytelling. However, the majority of modern Star Trek has walked back from Roddenberry's vision. You can take your Klingons, Vulcans, Warp Drives, and Transporters - those are all just trappings. The quintessential, and I think very bold, science fiction idea at the heart of Star Trek is the idea that human nature is improvable for the species, and that it does, in fact, improve. I would argue that even many, if not most, self-professed Star Trek fans fail to grasp that essential point. A lot of the fandom enjoy the trappings. A lot of people working in Star Trek-derivative industries, such as games, play up the militarism. Most of the writers of Star Trek shows after Roddenberry stepped away from running the franchise may have given lip service to the concept, but their explanations and usages of the idea have been unconvincing, inarticulate, and often badly mangled. Eventually, I think they just stopped trying, and sadly, I don't know whether the fanbase really noticed. The only other major science fiction work to try something similar that I can think of is Frank Herbert, in Dune. The point of Leto II's rule in God Emperor of Dune, the 4th book in the series, is that he spends 3000 years being literally the worst tyrant humanity has ever known in an attempt to breed a revulsion for charismatic leaders into the human species at the genetic level. I'm not sure the presumed success of this plan is convincingly depicted in the subsequent novels, but that was the stated goal. Certainly, millenia of effort by an inhuman, immortal genius seems like a better mechanism for success than an inexplicable transformation which takes place over a matter of decades. All that said, I do agree with what I understand to be your central point. Starship Troopers depicts a human government that does not require some magical transformation of human nature. It represents a simple, fairly obvious and easy step in reforming the government. Would it actually work as well as Heinlein suggests? I suspect not. We have a number of former servicemen and women in office or running for office today. Some of them do take a more far-sighted view and work toward the, let us say, more sustainable future for everyone. Others, sadly, seem to fall into the same money-grubbing, short-sighted, hate- and fearmongering cesspit that many politicians of all stripes wallow in. For reasons you pointed out, namely that people join the military for different reasons, and also because military service is not guaranteed to have the same transformative effect on everyone, it is, I believe, utopian thinking to imagine that military service is going to 'weed out' any particular class of shoddy statesmanship. On a more conspiratorial note, my impression is that we went into WWII with some very high-minded ideals, and even as we ended the conflict, there are some good things about ourselves we can take some pride in: the Marshall Plan, the Reconstruction of Japan, even the way we conducted the interrogation of prisoners leading up to the Nuremberg Trials. These all point to a society which had a modicum of wisdom and foresight. Even at the time, however, we were undercutting ourselves, by spiriting away those Nazis who had skills and knowledge we felt we could profit from. As much as we may have tried to winnow the wheat from the chaff, I think we inevitably absorbed some of the poison of the fascist mindset. Defending that statement would require a lot more time and effort than I wish to engage in at the moment. So, last thought. I mostly just wanted to stick up for Roddenberry's Utopian vision. The idea that humanity can change for the better seems to be largely forgotten today. To my mind that makes Roddenberry's vision truly transgressive, a mental challenge that maybe we should take up, especially as tools that might actually make it possible are starting to be developed. Instead, tragically or farcically, we seem to want to indulge our worst aspects, even as the ramifications of our short-sighted narcissism threaten to bring about our self-annihilation. And on that cheery thought, I thank you all for paying attention to my long-winded rant.
I'd argue the tools are contemplation and spreading of knowledge. So, I'm of two minds about if the tools to make it possible are new or always there. It's hard for me to argue against the value of (a freely available, uncensored) internet in terms of disseminating knowledge and wisdom. (The challenge is in knowing what is true and what is wise, but it's always been that way.) It's a tool humanity's never had before on this scale, (I'd argue that written language was the last vaguely comparable change in knowledge sharing, and that good machine translation may be the next big leap forward.) as if all of humanity was that small village square that works so well historically. (It just didn't scale up at all, unfortunately.) So provided people keep self reflecting, yeah, I'll concede that on the wider scale improving human nature is reliant on technologies we didn't have before. But I will maintain that any change to human nature is going to be intellectual, rather than physical. (I'm of the view that social engineering, cybernetics, genetic engineering or even biological immortality isn't going to truly change human nature.)
@@davidrhode7019 Heinlein’s SST is arguably even more utopian - it forgets that power corrupts and assumes that that military oligarchy governs in a way that actually benefits those who can’t vote.
You make a reasonable point that military service does not necessarily produce high-minded individuals and that a military dictatorship is not necessarily a good thing, but I think you miss the point that in _Starship Troopers_ most of the citizens did _not_ have a military career. Rather, they volunteered for a few years of service before getting on with their lives. It's not a perfect proxy for wise and responsible behavior, but at least society is not being directed by people who have no skin in the game at all. Your other points are not as good, and in fact you appear to suffer from the chief delusion that led to Nazism: not merely that humans can be improved, but that we even know what improvement looks like. You also seem to be unaware that Germany's Nazism, Italy's Fascism, and America's New Deal were all pretty much the same program - the same program that was the rage among the intellectual class all around the world at that time, with only a few small distinctions separating them. In the years before the war Hitler was a fan of FDR, and members of the Roosevelt and Mussolini families had months-long visits with each other. The U.S. and Germany differed chiefly in which groups the leadership considered undesirable, and how they proposed to deal with them - with U.S. leadership having a slightly lighter touch. When it comes to "improvements" we should remember that humanity has evolved due to pressures that are not necessarily present in every generation. As a result, we don't even necessarily know which traits that seem undesirable today are in fact essential to our long term success as a species. In fact, it would appear that for the last half century much of the American public has made it a priority to erase certain traits from humanity that are essential to what it means to be human, even traits that define humanity and make civilization possible. Fortunately, other traits that many eugenicists would like to remove from humanity have provided some level of resistance to these genocidal delusions. Of course we would all like to see a better world, but we should also be careful that our quest for a better world does not lead to dystopia - as it did in Nazi Germany, the USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and came perilously close in Allende's Chile before Pinochet stepped up to protect his people. If we really want a better world it would seem wiser to mostly keep our hands off the levers and let people succeed or fail on their own, letting the traits that lead to success flourish and the traits that lead to disaster decline, rather than punishing success to subsidize failure as we do in modern welfare states.
I think there are two quite distinct Terran Federations. One for Heinlen's book and one for Verhoeven's film. Heinlen's federation (by his own admission) is an anology to the USA during WWII. A war economy where the state is geared facilitate the military to deafeat the enemy. Here serving in said military is the highest good. Verhoeven's federation in contrast is shaped by his early youth, growing up in the occupied netherlands ruled by an overly aggresive authoritarian regime. Here the military and those who command it are to be mistrusted.
Even in the book, humanity seems to have been jumping constantly from one conflict to another for an unknown number of centuries - its military ruling junta seems to need constant expansionary warfare to justify its existence.This also appears in a different form in Star Trek; the writers introduce elements of military conflict for the purpose of drama (the "Lost era" appears to be a period of primarily peace that lasts from the Tomed Incident in 2305 - a year before Marie Picard gives birth to her son, Jean-Luc - until the Cardassian Wars of the late 2350s to early 2360s (the Dominion War seems to have been an offshoot from the end of the Cardassian Wars, in fact - the humiliated Cardassians ally with the Dominion to regain their lost power, in much the way that World War II ultimately stems from Germany's humiliation at the end of World War I).
The Cardassian Wars are really only "wars" from the Cardassian POV. The Federation was able to maintain a peacetime economy throughout and didn't need to re-deploy ships from other sectors to reinforce the Cardassian border even once. Meanwhile, Cardassia was sending everything it had to the point where it was on the verge of a complete economic collapse. It makes me wonder what foes were on Cardassia's other borders, but AFAIK that's never addressed in canon.
_"Verhoeven's federation in contrast is shaped by his early youth, growing up in the occupied netherlands ruled by an overly aggresive authoritarian regime. Here the military and those who command it are to be mistrusted."_ The hilarious bit is that the supposed fascist authoritarian dictatorship in Verhoeven's film has resulted in a society that - by all appearances - is safe, secure, prosperous, happy, and remarkably transparent.
The justification given for the Federation's citizenship requirements in the book is that "it works." Not that it's more high-minded, or noble, or somehow promotes greater freedom. It simply works. Giving citizenship only to veterans is, in the novel's universe, a stable political system that has kept the domestic peace and protected the borders for a long time, and there's no serious reason to change it. Heinlein liked to cut through bullshit. Paul Verhoeven just seems to like putting characters in fancy-looking uniforms and then mocking them. That probably does go back to his childhood in occupied Netherlands, maybe subconsciously. He doesn't seem especially philosophical to me, but he does share the mental habit of his generation in thinking that high art consists in tearing everything down, and that anything short of libertinism is "fascist". It gets pretty dull to watch after awhile.
@Philistine47 You missed the entire point of the movie, then. "By all appearances" it's stable, prosperous, etc. Because the film itself views the society through the filter of state-sponsored propaganda. It's hilarious that you never caught that!
The Dominion War arc in Deep Space 9 helped to demonstrate just how fragile the utopian aspirations of the Federation actually are, something that has caused some Star Trek fans to bitterly hate DS9 at the time and even to this day. Put the Federation into a conflict with an opponent who can genuinely match or overwhelm their technological advantage, and then have that war drag on for a realistic time frame - instead of being over in two episodes due to a Deus ex Machina plot contrivance in the manner of the Borg from Next Generation - and cracks swiftly start to appear in the Federation's veneer of moral superiority. Attempts to impose martial law and abridge civil rights on Earth, dangerous levels of paranoia about Changeling infiltration, rogue shadowy intelligence organisations trying their hand at a little biowarfare facilitated genocide 'for the greater good', even Sisko himself (in the standout episode 'In The Pale Moonlight') finding himself becoming complicit in a plot to trick the Romulans into joining the war effort against the Dominion through lies, conspiracy and cold blooded murder. Something ugly and morally reprehensible... that was probably the only thing that stopped the Dominion winning the war outright. Garak observes that maybe saving the whole Alpha Quadrant at the cost of the life of one Romulan Senator, one criminal, and of the self respect of one Starfleet officer, is a bargain at the price, and Sisko says himself that he can live with it... he CAN live with it... Put a little pressure on the Federation and that shiny utopian halo starts to slip and tarnish real fast. Any scenario where they can't use what amounts to technobabble fuelled, magic-masquerading-as-technology to find a fix swiftly erodes the notion that the Federation exists above the ugly moral compromises that are, from time to time, the lot of any organisation the size of a Nation State and above. Given that, one wonders how much of a push it would really take to drive the Star Trek Federation into becoming more obviously akin to the Starship Troopers Federation. Probably not nearly as much as many would suppose.
@@BrendanSchmelter DS9 is my favourite Star Trek series too, but among the broader Star Trek fandom it is controversial to this day, and is regularly accused by some people of 'ruining' Star Trek for its less starry eyed interpretation of life in the Federation.
@@gregorygreenwood-nimmo4954 That's hilarious. Outside of the Original Star Trek... And some TSG episodes... I HATED most of TSG, Voyager, etc... couldn't stomach all the Socialistic messaging.
To me, the easiest way to identify the more realistic of the two Federations is to see which one requires heavy-handed propaganda to maintain societal buy-in, whereas the other one makes do with magic walls that dispense unlimited food and manufactured goods.
Both sorted out hunger and poverty. And who cares which is more realistic? One believes in removing the barriers for everyone to achieve their potential, the other one believes in the failure of democracy to survive where gov fixes the cards to make you enlist because soft power is more convenient than conscription by force. There is nothing more realistic about Starship Troopers, the idea that military service makes someone virtuous is so ridiculous that I don't see anyone ever seriously trying it.
@@adamlove3295 exactly. Its the intention. Star trek people start out with Maslow's hierarchy in place. The other is like, you aren't going ro serve the state's needs, no Maslow for you. They are completely different.
@@scottfitzpatrick1939You can still participate in the economy and social discourse in the Starship Troopers federation. You just aren't going to be voting on government offices or in legal referendums. It's like giving testimony in a trail without being a juror. It might not be what you think is fair. But it isn't a system that disregards the needs of the non-citizens. In fact, the citizens do look out for the need for security of the entire population to obtain citizenship. And they almost certainly look out for the other needs as well. Since every government needs a civil infrastructure to survive.
There's little evidence that society at large has access to that technology for their regular needs and wants. Nearly all of what we see is on statships and stations where such technology should be expected to be implemented early on, as energy is available in excess and space is at a premium. What we do see of earth side life and other planetary populations is that they seem to rely largely on traditional food sources and manufacturing. And that makes sense. It's reasonable to tap into a tiny fraction of the energy available in your ship that can bend spacetime at a whim, to feed a few hundred mouths. But to feed the billions of mouths on earth? We know from Voyager that over some time and distance, the energy toll of replicator use is apparently significant even compared to the energy used to propel the craft. Without regular access to service stations they have to ration their use and find detours to stock up on food (among other resources no doubt) to be worthwhile. Considering that one ship probably produces more energy under way than our entire civilization does, and feeding just 150 mouths was a significant draw on that supply, feeding ten billion mouths three meals a day through replicated food would be a profound waste of energy. In short, no I don't believe the federation keeps it's people in line with endless free food and toys. If their moral turnabout is to be believed, I imagine the average citizen has less in terms of personal possessions than we do and are far less gluttonous than we are.
I keep on seeing people miss two main points about Starship Troopers. One, everyone had all civil rights. Property, religion, speech, movement, petition, sit on juries, all of them except the right to vote and run for office. Two, the government ruthlessly protected those rights because anyone, ANYONE could volunteer for federal service. A quadriplegic in a wheelchair could type out the oath with an eye blink interface and have to be accepted. Even if you failed bootcamp you could insist on completing your service elsewhere. I think in the book some guy did just that by ending up a cook on a troop transport. That's a mighty strange designation of fascism as it is currently understood. It seems like the book is actually describing a republic with universal human rights and an open but earned franchise. The problem with making this into a movie is that Heinlein created something unique in political thought. To label the book as fascism or make a movie attacking the straw man so labeled is intellectually lazy. I think many people do so because they are terrified of asking a basic question. Then really debating it. Did Heinlein have a good idea?
#1 is different in the movie, where one of the characters is serving because she wants to have kids. Denying that right is a huge deal, to the point that it’s part of the definition of Jenny’s Side (article 2d of the UN convention).
@@johanneskonig9436 I can see your opinion and it has some points to consider. However a "ruling class" made up of voluntary citizens from the entire population who earn their citizenship through service may be far more resistant to corruption than our current model in the West. It seems obvious that has been suborned by a wealthy elite who could care less about the rest of society. Of course we can say whatever we wish about a fictional system that had never been attempted. But I still think Heinlein's idea has merit. Thank you for your insights and the polite way you have expressed them. It is rare to see courtesy when discussing such subjects and appreciated.
@@Justanotherconsumer The movie was not actually based on the book. It took the title and some features from the book, just as the movie Bladerunner took the title and some features from Alan Nourse's book "The Bladerunner." It would have been better if this video hadn't used the movie for its "b-roll" content, because the movie isn't worth an in-depth discussion.
It's high ground on a gravity well. Heinlein knew this. Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". They had the high ground, and they threw rocks at the enemies. We don't stand a chance against an enemy with FTL travel. They have transcended the law of gravity. And we are as helpless as the dinosaurs who died before us. We had best play nice with them.
This is 75% going to be our policy if we do ever become an interstellar civilization and if there is, in fact, alien life in our galaxy close enough to require such measures.
I mean the core question of these two franchises isn't the same. Starship Troopers is asking the question of how we should organize ourselves, given the way we are. Star Trek however is exploring the question of what would be possible if we strove to become more than we are. It doesn't make the claim that the United Federation of Planets would be the best government for *us,* but it is showing us what we could achieve if we tried to be like them.
If you take a maximally pessimistic view of both franchises, with Starship Troopers actually being fascist and Star Trek's utopia being truly impossible, then Troopers ends up being the end state that societies that try to implement Trek end up in.
@@JonBrase Which as Star Trek goes on it reveals they didn't get the utopia they wanted even with the magical good supplies. It's rather amusing that we still see people refer to start trek as utopian and amazing given what's actually depicted. Like who would've thought the "civilian" agency which carries Planetary scale weapons of WMD's acts like explorers a military, diplomats and trade negotiator, all whilst routinely violating their own rules and laws would at some point try an insurrection?
@@louiscypher4186 We don't see the Federation much in Star Trek though. Let's review the shows... TOS - Starship Enterprise is exploring "strange new worlds" and "going boldly where no man has gone before." They are not flying around the Federation but on the frontier outside of the Utopia. TNG - Repeat of TOS. DS9 - Not even a Federation outpost, orbiting a world that's outside the Federation. When we do see the Federation is in dire straights, being pressed by an enemy of equal strength and we still only see the worst cases as we are only following the big events of the war. Voyager - not even in the same part of the galaxy. and that's all of the shows before the franchise caught an STD. What glimpses we are given into the Federation, outside of the Dominion War, did show it to be quite Utopian. Which is why it was such a big deal when something went wrong there.
@@grimjoker5572 and thus you prove my point. What we see of the Federation is advanced, we do not see this Utopia trek fans rave about. we're told through hamfisted dialogue of this supposed Utopia, yet it's contrasted by a very non utopian reality. Even the wanky dialogue parts are contradictory. First contact carries on about how nobody earns a wage in federation they simply work for the betterment of mankind. Yet TNG repeatedly says Picard owns a vineyard.
@@louiscypher4186 Well no; we do see it in how the people from it respond to the galaxy outside of it. How they structure their military tells us a lot about them. We don't see a very non-Utopian reality anywhere outside of the Dominion War. We see Utopians dealing with the frontier beyond their Utopia and we see glimpses of said Utopia when they go on recreation and the like. There is a difference between doing work, owning property, and needing to earn a wage. It's the difference between trading Pokemon Cards and working at McDonald's. Picard's family owns a vineyard and have for generations because they find this fulfilling, they are part of a group who maintain old French traditions. This maintains Earth's past. Notice how even in DS9 Joseph Sisko doesn't charge anybody for food? Doesn't mention having to pay for goods? It's all a hobby, not a necessity. You can't have the "Paradise Lost" plot of the Dominion War without having a paradise to lose.
Starship Troopers was a largely modernization of Plato's Republic mixed with Heinlein's own experience in the US Navy, particularly for the boot camp sections. You can even see heavy use of Socratic Dialog throughout the novel.
I don't see the connection to Plato at all, the Terran Federation is _deeply_ liberal in its philosophy and statecraft. It's highly individualistic, participation in politics is volitional, there's a sharp separation between public and private life, there _is_ private life. It's hardly innkeeping with Plato's ideas at all.
For a while now, I've considered Starship Troopers as the true mirror universe to Star Trek, mainly because I just feel that the writers of Trek just seem ideologically incapable of making a world opposite to their views without making it comically daft. Also, Blake's 7 is an interesting series that depicts the federation as an Orwellian police state.
Blake's 7 is also interesting in that Roj Blake and his crew are all *against* the Federation but they're not fighting *for* anything other than fighting back for its own sake.
@@Grizabeebles For me, it's a little more nuanced than that. I see B7 as a story of moral decay. Early on they are at least somewhat idealistic, united under Blake's desire to stop the Federation. But over time, they lose their moral compass, and ultimately become little more than pretentious pirates by the end of the series.
@@jasonblalock4429 -- That's a fair view of the series. I suppose its on me for watching the series for the first time as an adult in a post-GWOT world. I simply can't get past the fact that while Blake rails on about how evil the Federation is, he never once talks about a single way to do things better. He just goes on and on invoking "freedom" in the abstract the same way the Dubya did to justify invading Iraq.
@@Grizabeebles Despite being the main character people shouldn't be under any belief that Blake is a good person. The reason he rebels is good, but he himself is a terrible person. His ego continually rears its head throughout Series 2 and gets them deeper and deeper into the shit. Blake, much like almost every revolutionary figure, never gives any thought as to how things should work AFTER the revolution. Sure he might say "oh well we'll all ally together and do it democratically" there'd be nothing stopping someone 100x more ruthless than Servalan assassinating him causing the whole thing to start over again. Blake has no long-term plan other than "destroy the Federation". Whether or not he's assassinated by ex-Federation Officials looking to settle a score or if someone like Avon decides that Blake is too bombastic and uncontrollable and has him whacked, a vacuum would open up for some other apparatchik to take his place. I'm personally of the opinion that if he'd won, Blake would have been entirely corrupted by power and become even worse than Servalan ever was because he's "working in the name of justice and democracy" and would therefore be a true believer and capable of no evil act.
Writers don't generally like writing solarpunk. When things go right it's dull and boring. The only way they'll write solarpunk is if there is something nefarious underneath the surface.
The way to write solarpunk and hopepunk is as competence porn. The challenge is external, and the question is never 'if' they succeed, but 'how.' The enjoyment is watching people who are good at their jobs being good at their jobs.
Conflict is the fuel for nearly all narratives. When there's abundance of every resource, the only conflicts left are ones between characters. Two neighbours arguing over a fence, someone stealing someone else's girlfriend, some clique trying to take over because they think they can run things better, a petty tyrant using their tiny scrap of power to make themselves feel important, etc. If there are any solarpunk authors out there, try writing about "a war of mutual inconvenience" some time.
@@Grizabeebles I honestly think there's a lot of potential there. To strip away the allegory of grand conflict, and to deal directly with the personal struggles most stories are ultimately actually about
My favorite take is when they say Starfleet isn't military, but compare Starfleet to the US Coast Guard---which is: 1) Considered a branch of the US armed services (albeit under a different chain of command than the others). 2) Not generally known for carrying nuclear armaments, or other WMDs in their vehicles (unlike Starfleet, who nuked the heck out of the Romulans in the 22nd century, and routinely carry and deploy antimatter-based weapons from that point forward.)
@@predx13 it’s an armed group that includes the military as a function but military is not all that it does - Starfleet is almost an entire executive branch, not just a department of defense. I mean, probably Starfleet isn’t running education programs for general federation people (Keiko having to do this on DS9 as a civilian, for example) or other activities but they are definitely at least part of the diplomatic arm of the federation as well. Calling Starfleet a military assumes that military is all they do, which is clearly incorrect.
@@predx13 sure, but they’re not the department of education. Kinda shows that they dropped the ball with DS9, though, in that there was a need to support people that were deployed and they didn’t.
Wild enough is the fact that the federation does not practice half the things we think they do. the director of the movie wanted to instill a feeling of fascism, however he kind of failed when you look at facts in the movies at least. Nobody was conscripted it was voluntary for citizenship. The bugs were a threat to humanity so its not an unwarranted genocide considering the bugs had the exact same plan. The federation dealt in plenty of propaganda but who doesn't hell look at the good old U.S of A.
"nobody was conscripted, it was voluntary for citizenship" yeah you don't HAVE to join our military, you just don't get the same rights as everyone else. also you'll be considered a weak, traitorous coward by everyone around you if you don't join thanks to our constant propaganda. totally optional :)
Buenos Aires was a government false flag. The bugs were entirely innocent and the Federation invaded and slaughtered them offensively and not see defensively, to sure up support for the Federation and ensure its own existence.
@@zecorezecron In the book the bugs were ants with starships, computers and mechanized warfare. It was us or them and they were a far more credible threat than in the movie. Individual bugs were smart but specialized. Bug warriors used firearms and had surgically implanted wargear, bug logistics and battlefield coordination was superior to the federation's. The bugs didn't just zerg rush everything with wave tactics and they were highly effective on the battlefield. The only reason the federation held on at all was that their soldiers used powered armor suits that turned each individual soldier into a highly mobile walking tank so individual human soldiers were much more effective than individual bug warriors.
when you mentioned that 'the veterans took over and imposed order', I'm reminded of some later IGN 'Transformers graphic novels' where Prime and Megatron discuss Meg's vision: enlightened dictatorship by him where all needs are met; when Prime asks about free will and the right to self expression, Megs just replies: "It won't be missed".
it as a known-about document (nevermind the details of the document itself) was probably lost in the eugenics wars ? I would imagine that post-ww3 earth, in trek lore, was basically some degree and combination of 'mad max' and 'the postman' (rule of the strong, use of leftover technologies, factionalized and led by the augments and/or those who serve the augments, or xenophobic strongholds by those not strong enough), book of eli (burning of all possible books and documents, destruction of other artifacts), and maybe some other post apocalypse movies or tv serieses. thus, as messy as the whole thing was, ww3 was basically a full-wipe and clean-slate-restart for earth, by the time the vulcans arrived. i suspect that if zephram cochrane had failed, then earth would continue to decline into another technological and social dark age, and it would have been atleast another some-odd-thousand years before earth got back to where it was before the ww3.
That was... exactly how the Republic and Principate sold the auxiliary services to the Gauls and Thracians out in the provinces. The legions hired from citizens but under (say) Marius, were promised they'd get a patch of land at the end. Land means you had space to raise horses and your descendents maybe could try for the equestrian order.
I just re-read Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" It makes me agree with some of your points. For the last 140 years in this country the people who profit from war (and push for it) are not the same that pay the costs. The soldiers who die or come back maimed. The families that carry on without a family member or have to care for someone who was maimed for the rest of their life. I don't believe in conscription (I did however volunteer) I do think that the soldiers should have a bigger say if we rush off to war than the arms manufacturers. Its funny how owning stock in Raytheon can change a dove in congress into a hawk ready to shout "we are making the world safe for democracy" Especially when at the end of up they will be worth millions and hundreds of millions of dollars while not having to see any of their children or grand children come home maimed or killed. Maybe to vote for war or "police action" every congressman who votes such has to send or go themselves into the theater of war?
Smedley Butler was a fascinating person. He became a war hero early in life and a socialist later in life. There's a lot for people to learn from his example.
@stephendaley266 that's because he's an Anglo, even when they're American born they will revert to their collectivist genetics eventually. He's the sonofabitch that stopped the overthrow of the tyrant FDR, true scum loves other scum
@@stephendaley266 He became a socialist in large part because of his absolute revulsion for the blatantly profiteering motives for the wars he took part in. And then doubly so because business leaders had literally tried to recruit him for a coup to overthrow FDR, who he admired.
If you don't want anyone to profit from war then you're going to have to fight with just a sharp stick as no one is going to give you any gun, or ammo, or shells or fighter jets for free. Or you can have some system of forced labor like in the USSR where you do as the government says... or else. And the weapons manufacturers didn't start any damn war, the politicians cannot be allowed to shirk that responsibility. It's their signatures on the congressional authorizations! "Its funny how owning stock in Raytheon can change a dove in congress into a hawk" It's funny because it's obviously the other way around, those politicians were never doves. Did these supposed "doves" ACCIDENTALLY buy shares in weapons manufacturers? Did it then mesmerize them? That's like an arsonist saying they were turned evil as soon as they held the box of matches in their hand. Hmm, do you think the problem might actually be in the heart of the man holding the lit match? And how the fault is in the heart of the politician who votes for war? There is this strange reluctance to actually hold politicians responsible for their decisions. It's always some external materialist factor, no personal responsibility. "Raytheon made me do it!" You're not actually engaging with why politicians vote for war, you're just being fed propaganda that "profits are bad, man" as if profits are only deserving for sacrifice rather than it being a simple transaction for weapons. Weapons that give an astonishing advantage. It's not going to work requiring congressmen's sons go off to fight because even the congressmen who had their sons volunteer and die still believe in it. You have to engage with the reality of the decision-making, not let such important events be used as a political currency to expand more government power elsewhere.
Always bothers me that people think Starship Troopers represents Fascism. After Klendathu, the sky marshal took complete responsibility and stepped down. That doesn't happen under fascism. Our MCs father derides the government and service. In a Fascism he would have been too afraid of his own son ratting him out for saying such things. This is obviously a free speech society simply because of that scene. The requirement to be a citizen has always been a requirement of voting in democracies and republics. The only difference is that in Starship Troopers, you have to earn citizenship through service to your fellow humans. Which is better than the original 'you have to be a land owner' from history.
Facism: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." These qualities are not present in the book or movie.
@@macmcleod1188 the military ran everything - they were the dictator. It doesn' thave to be a single person. And.... didn't they beat the shit out of characters for being marginal fuck ups?
@@stephenkolostyak4087 yeah except that's just not true. Even in the movie that tried to portray it that way they failed. As I've said repeatedly, the TF has a more liberal voter franchise than in any modern democracy before 1919. And the military doesn't have the right to vote until they leave service.
@@stephenkolostyak4087that implies there is no civilian government running and beating trainnee for fuck up is quite an odd concept that not officially exist in modern politics
The Terran Federation is a democratic republic. Paul Verhoeven wanted to make a parody of fascism, but since he is politically illiterate, while skilled as a movie director, he gave the Federation a perfect recreationn of fascist _aesthetics,_ giving them none of the political and philosophical content.
I think he just was focusing on the militarism aspect of fascism. I think it's weird to expect the movie to dismantle every single aspect of fascism within the runtime.
@@chloegoodwin2482 A few problems with that. Really, only German Fascism is heavily militarized. Norwegian Fascism is Anti-Communist, but not militarist in any sense. English Fascism supported the Empire, but there was no increase in the militarization of society beyond enforcing it. Italian Fascism is really just returning back to a more Warlord-esque way of organizing the State. Spanish Fascism was a military Junta, but there was no militarization of society. Portuguese Fascism is more technocratic, putting highly able men in position of power while keeping the Communist chaos-makers away. While American Fascism was more of a Protestant identity movement that came from the Second Klan. With phrases such as "Washington was America's first Fascist", et cetera. But the movement was not at all militarized beyond what American culture and society already was. Comparing these non-nazi fascist movements compared to Switzerland and Finland after the Second World War, makes it seem like Democracies are the militarists, not the fascists. That's why focusing purely on "looking fascist" or by defining every militarized system as fascist. During the Second World War, every country that was involved was militarized. So too, any society at war against an alien bug species would be heavily militarized.... Because you're at war. If you don't touch fascist policy, then by definition you are not dealing with fascism. You are simply looking at uniforms.
There's a problem with this analysis I'm surprised you haven't noticed. Star Trek will often have different writers with different points of view use the faults of the Federation system as fuel for dramatic tension, and so we see those faults played out on screen. Starship Troopers as written is almost completely uncritical of their Federation Government, almost as if it was promoting it. Even Verhoven's adaptation, which the director himself meant to be critical, still didn't engage in the numerous easy ways real people would game the system, undermining whatever principles it was supposed to uphold within a generation or two. Here's one easy method that would just seem natural: Let's say you've finished your service and now you're a citizen. And let us further assume that you've run into a legal problem preventing you from expanding your business. Perhaps it's some regulations, perhaps it's a non-citizen rival. As a citizen, you have political power, and likely a network of connections to other citizens you may have served with. Why, there are probably fraternal organizations of your fellow volunteers you can talk to about perhaps getting that pesky regulation changed, or maybe even get a law reworked to give citizens an advantage in that field. Suddenly you can build a power plant in your non-citizen rival's back yard. All clear and legal. It's for the greater good, after all. Now, let's say that fellow who got that regulation changed for you says "Hey, you know that youtube philosopher who said that mean thing about my favorite movie last week? Turns out he just signed up for Federal Service to live by his principles. I think he could use some 'toughening up.' You still know someone in the placement department, don't you? I think that gadfly could use some time on the front lines." All so reasonable. All so friendly. All too easy to make sure undesirables of any kind rarely survive service. And that's just easy backroom dealing examples. We can look to everything from the Roman Cursus Honorum to the Exams systems of China to find so many ways to game that system. Take some time and think of a few, it's fun! One last thing to consider: The difference in principles and aspirations of a system matter significantly. When there is no war to fight, Starfleet bops around the galaxy talking to people and scanning quasars. But what do you think the Starship Troopers' Federation would do without an enemy to direct itself against? Wouldn't it be terribly worthwhile to invent them? Starship Troopers was an influential book. And there's a reason that a good chunk of that influence was causing other writers to write books such as the Forever War and Bill the Galactic Hero in response to it.
The problem with the meritocratic corruption critique is that it poses a problem that is endemic to our current society outside of the military. Besides going against the principles of service, the finer parts of the argument would probably be illegal already, and the author's (what we would now call) libertarian bent and Rico's family's immense success implies a relatively hands-off government kept in line by either a strong legal system or democratic base - the same things that safeguard liberal democracy. Second, the adventurism critique has always made little sense to me in the context of SST. Why would you want to, on top of military service, go to war? Its not like they need to justify budget increases or new material acquisitions to a civilian government. What material benefit would war bring that peace couldn't? I should think the opposite problem is more likely, that the regime would be more unwilling to fight conflicts that it possibly should. The movie even provides - in its typically heavy handed and propagandistic way - an example of this in the case of Mormon settlers rejecting government warnings and colonizing worlds inside a supposed arachnid area of space and being slaughtered for it. Imagine if instead that were some peripheral, legal colony that was wiped out, with no military reaction from an electorate wary of sending their boys and girls to war. Much of the film is nonsense, since it doesn't make much sense for the type of government portrayed to be so heavily investing in trying to dilute its own electoral power, but that is the closest thing to a structural issue with the system that I can identify. All other weaknesses are shared and amplified with the contemporary universal suffrage democracies that it tries to replace, and the Terran Fed as portrayed in the book is very much a liberal democracy of a sort.
@@RoughnecksSTCfan basically military people want to go to war because it improves their chances of promotion - more prestige, better pay, etc… If you are a hammer and there are no nails, you’re wasting your time and should find another job. War gives a military a purpose and no one wants to live a pointless life so soldiers want war. Or another job.
@@RoughnecksSTCfan A "relatively hands-off" government is kind of in direct opposition to having a strong enough legal system or a responsive democracy. If Citizenship and the political power that comes along with it are meaningless because the civilian government is hands-off, that implies either that there is no reward for service but a healthy glow, or that the real power is in the hands of other forces. Perhaps the military. As to why a militarized system would want war, the answer is simply to maintain power. Whether through budgets, ego, hollowing out the remnants of civilian authority through demands for increased wartime powers, or even to maintain the concept of service as a survival necessity for their own population, it is in the interest of everyone in the upper echelons of a militarized state to have an enemy to rally against. So they'll find one. The entire system of Citizen privilege is on the line.
@briangilmore6804 A "relatively hands-off" govermment is the very definition of liberalism. Political power is not meaningless in such an environment - I like to think people do not usually vote for the purpose of collecting power or resources for themselves but to forward the common good, which is exactly the sort of civic responsibility which Heinlein constantly harps on about in the book. If the common good is served, in most instances, by a liberal approach, this is the sign of a healthy society. There is no need for war to maintain power - I still have no idea where this notion comes from, what sort of external assumptions are preceding it. Even in our own reality we see military governments - outright military dictatorships, mind you - that were not stuck in states of perpetual war. Usually these form because the civilian government has failed or is percieved to have failed, and the military takes over because it has retained a sense of internal 'legitimate' authority and is the very safeguard of the state's existence and thus has the power to do so. In Starship Troopers the military is (barring Heinlein's own later bargaining hypotheticals to the extent of military achieved citizenship) traditionally the backbone of the state itself. Its veterans form the (sustaining my previous note) bulk of the electorate. It doesn't need to justify anything any more than a military does in a universal suffrage democracy and more likely has to justify less - its a safe bet that veterans would not deplete the service of its means to exist, no matter how real or hypothetical its enemies, and any state needs an armed force to even exist. Again, very strange assumptions. No one has been barred from the vote - no one is barred from political power except on the basis that they do not have the desire to achieve it. For every argument that a qualified suffrage somehow inevitably comes to oppress the disenfranchised I can only say; what makes this different from a minority electorate in a universal suffrage democracy? The tyranny of the majority is just as if not more real a threat in democratic theorycraft and it is safeguarded against by... a hands off government, a robust legal framework, and/or a responsible electorate.
@@RoughnecksSTCfan Why would a liberal government be more healthy than a non-liberal one? You DO realize in times of war, governments tend to become less-free to get through them. If a liberal government would collapse, and an illiberal one wouldn't, which is more healthy? ...not that it matters in your example. In an environment where political power is more limited in what it can do, you can do less with political power. That's a straight up tautology. "There is no need for war to maintain power" Without violence, a military has no purpose. Your military dictatorship example proves that, unless you can find me a peaceful military dictatorship. You also have no clue why military dictatorships arise. They are *always* a conservative response to left-wing government. The "failure" angle is mere propaganda by the people setting up the coup. "...no one is barred from political power except on the basis that they do not have the desire to achieve it." Anyone with literally any physical or mental disability!? Anyone who has skills useless to the military, who would be used as cannon fodder during their bug war and almost certainly die!? Come on, buddy... "... what makes this different from a minority electorate in a universal suffrage democracy?" ...we vote on MULTIPLE things? ....things you might not be in the minority for?
Conscription: As a former soldier I was always against it. I am coming around to the idea. Conscription with zero get out clauses and a system that could not be tampered with to decide if the senators son was sent to infantry on a Forward Operational Base or got to fly planes in the US as part of the Home Guard. It would give those with the most power pause before they sent other peoples sons off to die while nation building in one of the most backward countries on earth for 20 years. I suspect that one of the major reasons for the post war consensus was that the working class became real people when the elites shared hardships with them in the 2nd World War. Currently our Elites have no meaningful interaction with the working class.
In spite media portrayals I'd much rather serve under politicians who've served than this who haven't. When my son first talked to me about joining, I told him most politicians view service members as a disposable commodity not people and I'd like to believe those who've been there are more likely to
In Starship Troopers there's no draft. Federal Service is 100% voluntary and according to state ideology it would remain so even during massive manpower shortages or an invasion of Terra itself. If we're talking about sweeping social changes in general, I think "retirement age" should be mandatory. Especially for the politicians. That old adage that "wars are poor young men who don't know each other being sent to die on behalf of old rich men who do know each other" rings true to me. If we want a system that values quality education and a strong social safety net, then everyone has to use it - otherwise they'll never see it as having value *for them* and never want to invest in it.
@@Grizabeebles When you say everyone has to use it? Do you mean outlawing Homeschooling and requiring kids to go to state schools? Because that’s a big no no from me and the problems of Homeschooling you may think of can be solved with Homeschool co-ops where different families get together and have their kids partake in activities or joint learning sessions.
@@crusader2112 Home schooling is a luxury. Most working class families can't afford to have one parent be a full-time unpaid teacher. That's fundamentally why home schooling won't solve the problems of US education.
Something I've always found odd about sci-fi is that few people have children and the ones that do have one, maybe two children. Yet they always have a massive population. I don't believe the maths checks out but maybe I missed something 😅
My guess is that it's mostly people on less developed planets who have many kids. They leave for better job opportunities, that how get a lot of people
When humanity reached the space age, they underwent a population boom that's since died down - think how the midcentury baby boom 's is long over, but it still exponentially increased our population. Kirk notes that, in ~2260 humanity is on somewhere over a thousand planets. Yes, these planets probably don't have the same population as Earth, but that's still a LOT of families having children.
It took you till @10:06 to get to what Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek. In order for humanity to survive and reach the stars. Humanity must change. You pointed out correctly some of Star Trek's Lore issues and their issues with money and how they basically survive in that universe. In one episode they have "Credits" then in another a character cannot buy anything because he has no "money". However at the end of the day this is a very very water-downed understanding of Roddenberry's vision as well as sorta missing the point to Robert Heinlein's vision of future humanity. Both I guess are "Utopias" and something you kinda left out is how Star Trek is viewed more as a "Left" side of the aisle Utopia while Starship I guess can be labeled the other side. Though I do not see it as that either. So no they are NOT THE SAME Excellent Video. Really enjoyed it
I am currently working my way through my library and I am up to Heinlein. I am very much looking forward to re-reading Star Ship Troopers. Soldiers in Scotland deciding they have had enough is looking quite attractive with our current Vote Labour, Vote Conservative. Get no borders and hyper immigration. The UK is taking a particularly totalitarian bent. As a former soldier, I can see the attraction of Starship Troopers light. You shouldn't be able to order men (and it is generally men) into battle if you have never served in a capacity that risked you being put you on or near the forward edge of battle.
I think the non-military side of "Federal Service" needs a companion book. Say someone working on a farm like a middle-aged serf or some "resarch assistant" whose job is to eat aliem flora and fauna on colony worlds to see if they're poisonous.
Make sure that before you read Starship Troopers, you read a biography of Heinlein and also his commentary on World War II and the cold war. What a lot of the analysis of Starship Troopers ignores is that it's an allegory for the very real threat of Communism in the 50s when it was the Soviet Union's explicit goal to export Communism to the rest of the world, violently if necessary. Without that context, Starship Troopers makes no sense.
I was always confused by the dissonance of “no money” and Picard’s family vineyard in France. Wouldn’t a lot of people want that vineyard? Why does Picards family get to have it? It’s not like there are infinite vineyards, beachfront villas or mountain chalets.
Or Barclay's very nice apartment in San Francisco that we see in Voyager. Does service to Starfleet allow you better housing privileges? Does your average person just live in a duplex?
Because it's a post-scarcity society (at least on the core Federation worlds). When you have all of your basic and intermediate needs met, you aren't focused on profit. Picard /works/ that vineyard because he /wants/ to. He's not earning profit. All of his "employees" are there because they want to be, because they're fulfilled by the work. People in general want to feel useful in their own way. Imagine how much more useful to an enlightened society people could be (in terms of art and culture and scientific exploration) if you could get an amazing and healthy five-course meal out of the wall and you never had to worry about a sufficient roof over your head. Anyone who wants the physical trappings that Picard has can have it, somewhere else. Oh, you want a nice desk and a fancy mansion? Enjoy the holodeck.
OK..let me think: -Society is wealthy. -Government make things work, and do not mess with people. -People do not mess with Governement...unless you want to vote or get into politics. -If you want to vote or get into politics...you have to serve first. - Free press is a thing. -Authorities asume their errors and pay for them. -Everyone is good looking...for some reason. LONG LIVE THE UNITED CITIZEN FEDERATION ! ! ...
@@carlosvasquez9890 In the book, the veteran is there to make people think twice about signing to earn the vote. If you continue on and after testing you to make sure you understand the oath and if you pass they’ll let you sign up.
"Service Guarantees Citizenship" is pretty standard Republic stuff, since you know, the Romans, who invented the republic, used that very strategem. Any provincial "subject" could spend 20 years in the Auxilia and be rewarded with roman citizenship and a nice plot of land. Fascism would say "Citizenship Guarantees Service." All within the state, all for the state, and nothing against.
The best part being he never read the book, because the government was merocratic democracy, where those who were not citizens could do everything except vote and participate in government while those who did civil service (didn't have to be military) could vote and work in government. Also you could sign up at any age and it wasn't forced on you to join.
Thank you for this video. I never compared these two sci-fi systems together so directly before. Very interesting, and I agree with your analysis. To answer the question often posed in the movie Starship Troopers, "Yes, I would like to know more!" Looking forward to a future video going into more depth on this alternate system of federation.
I'm pleasantly surprised this came up in my recommended slate. I don't know if I agree with you or not - this is descriptive more than a value judgment - but that's to your credit. I'm glad this video exists, and I'll watch more.
The Federation from Star Trek is a positivist version of the Platonic Ideal of Governance. The Terran Citizens Federation is an Aristotelian Vision of a Federation that is very open, but is also exceptional focused on survival and maximizing personal freedom but keeping those who would mess things up out of the political system by having a limited Franchise
In Starship Troopers there are several passages where it's pointed out how difficult selection for the Mobile Infantry was. In the end the whole point of enlisting and serving to gain the franchise was to teach those who were granted that authority that their decisions had such and impact that at any time it could lead to the deaths of other people. If we're limiting the discussion to just the movie, the first thing drill instructor Zim says to his new class of cadets is that Washout Lane is always an option - so either way the Federation from ST is clearly not "taking anyone who is willing to join"
Star Trek outside the Good Ship Lollipop has always hinted at a dark underbelly as contributing writers slipped in a few tidbits of conflict that were appealing to Roddenberry the WW2 flyer. Ambassador Fox was quite a draconian politician. Overruling planetary sovereignty, threatening Scotty with a Federation gulag. He was however the meddlesome politician that got men killed unnecessarily in the B17 flying wing...to prove a point or score points back home. Kirk's and Riley's colony was very dark...and that governor was appointed by United Earth if not the Federation (which Coon hadn't created yet). Captain Tracey was a starship captain, best of the best sir, with honors,.... Yet he was consumed with greed for cash and power over the immortality mystery of the coms....interesting in this cashless and non property society. That's why TOS and TAS didn't go to future Earth. They just hinted at it 3rd hand. TNG went to Earth and found the Picards owned a vast vineyard handed down by inheritance....so much for no private property.
There's another difference you don't even acknowledge: The mind shattering incompetence and stupidity of the Federation in Starship Troopers. They throw wave after wave of soldiers carrying assault rifles and wearing basically suped up paintball armor, at an enemy that can cut through them like a hot knife through butter, who isn't harmed by any but their most powerful weapons. Starrfleet, on the other hand, is the definition of confidence. Yes, they get complacent in the period between the original series and DS9, but once they run up against a legitimate threat, they get their shit in order and start building ships and weapons that are capable of taking on that threat and defeating it. Starship Troopers NEEDS that massive net because of wasteful tactics. Starlet doesn't. It's also worth noting that Starfleet Academy is for officers. We don't know how enlisted end up in the organization. Even Lower Decks, which shifts focus aware from the bridge crew, focuses on a group of ensigns, not actual enlisted crew
There is such a thing. The test with two candies. The child is offered a candy, with the condition that if he waits and does not eat it right away, but waits two minutes, he will receive another one. Serving in the Army in Starship Troopers is such a test. You already have one candy (all your civil rights and freedoms). But if you serve, you will get more.
@@Mortablunt Right, because not forcing somebody into military service and granting anyone who didn't serve basically all right but to participate in politics is so fascist.... Given that the Starship Trooper universe is also a democracy (cizien can vote) it's not even a dictatorship, unlike Ruzzia as example where elections are a joke with predetermined outcome sas seen in those referendums where Ruzzia doesn't even hold the majority of the population yet still claims a vast majority to be pro ruzzian. Also Starship Troopers doesn't forcibly suppresses opposition, again unlike Ruzzia. Also also again all non citizen have all economic rights, can own businesses and aren't infringed upon by the state...which again is something Ruzzia tends to do with the "window accidents" of so many business owners (or opposition people).... So yeah, by comparison Ruzzia is severly more fascist than the Starship Trooper Federation, and it doesn't even need a satire/parody to be obvious to everyone but a Zombie.
That's more of a trust test more than a waiting test. If you don't trust that the extra candies are going to be delivered to you, you'll take the first one.
Starship Troopers is a story about current day politics but set in space. Star Trek is about how all those things like 'tolerance' and 'education' and 'peace' are all cool and by focusing our efforts on those things + science and technology, we can be better than we currently are. Yes, you can't just apply Star Trek's vision of the world onto current day and expect it to work, but technology is always evolving, everything is becoming more automated. Pretending that it's not happening and that we will not need to do something to adapt to that is part of the reason why people push so hard for it now. We cannot just stagnate and rely on what has worked, because what has worked will not work forever. One day we will have magic food replicators and robots that can build entire starships for us, which means we will have to find something to do with ourselves - and if the answer is 'military service' then you better fucking hope theres big alien bugs out there to shoot otherwise we're just going to be still gunning for eachother.
Even today we have working designs for thorium reactors that physicly can't meltdown, produce next to no waste, won't cost that much to keep running, and produce boatloads of power. Even the waste it does produce can be fed into other reactors that will further use the radioctive material and at the end of the cycle become an extremely tiny amount that can be easially contained for it to decay non-toxiclly. We just haven't built any because it would reduce energy costs to nil values and it isn't profitable for a company. We also produce way more food then we use and with improved transportation infastructure we could transport it everywhere relatively inexpensively. Hell in the US there are massive caves filled with around 1.3 billion pounds of surplus cheese that we don't just give away because it would make cheese sellers lose loads of money. Studies have been done that prove that paying your workers higher wages increases productivity far higher then the cost of those wages, on top of lessening employee stress and making them more loyal and willing to do extra things for free. More paid time off is also proven to do the same thing, so does investing in workers by paying for education and investing in things like solar panels. The reason companies don't do that is because our economy is structured for quick return on investment. Investors only care about quarterly profit and so any initiative that isn't in line with that gets axed. Scarcity is already mostly self imposed in order to keep the statue quo. It would just take a societal revamp and we would live in the star trek world even without the crazy advanced tech.
The similarities aren't a coincidence or convergence: ‘Starship Troopers’ was based on a book of the same name by Robert Heinlein while the original Star Trek was heavily inspired by the book ‘Space Cadet’ which was also written by Heinlein.
This is not correct. The original Star Trek was largely a science fiction version of the concepts of Napoleonic sea stories (like Horatio Hornblower; the original story bible for "The Cage" described Captain Pike as Captain Horatio Hornblower in Space) crossed with the "core cast plus guest stars" format that was very popular for ongoing TV series like "Wagon Train" and "Bonanza" at the time. To the extent that it had sci-fi antecedents, they were "Forbidden Planet" (Gene was highly influenced by Space Cruiser C-57D; I don't think it was a coincidence that when Next Generation was conceptualized, the new Enterprise would be NCC-1701-D) and the TV show "Space Patrol" (the highest-budget science fiction TV program ever to that time).
@katherineberger6329 These other sources of inspiration are certainly worth mentioning. It's just that I would've put Heinlein at the top of the list in terms of world building. "Wagon train to the stars" seems more descriptive of the format or style of the show (rather than what I might call the content). Forbidden Planet was so broadly influential that i's probably harder to find things it didn't inspire, and the focus on life aboard the ship itself does reflect more of the maritime adventure stories you mention, but I think the overall setting was very inspired by Heinlein's books.
TOS (like the other chapters) was a product of its time. Pseudomilitary future fantasy can be found in other TV shows like Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea...and was found in various movies and TV series in the 50s and 60s...from Rocky Jones Space Rangers to Star Trek. These shows share a lot in common with other procedural shows: Dragnet, 12 Oclock High (even borrowed the theme music from that), lawyer shows, various western fort shows, naval movies and shows old and modern....and story ideas borrowed from, Philip Nowlan novels/comics (20s and 30s) Fantastic Tales, Outer Limits and Twilight Zone (aka The Cage). Star Trek is a procedural mystery show. Solve the mystery with the instilled procedure.
One thing the movie left out - and that subsequently gets forgotten by just about everybody who discusses "Starship Troopers" - is that the novel stated that service to the state was a pre-requisite to becoming a Citizen. This wasn't exclusively about military service, just service. In the novel, Rico's school friend Carl ends up in a research station on Pluto that the bugs wipe out. The implication was that he was in some government organisation roughly analogous to NASA. In later interviews Heinlein clarified this point, specifying that not all service had to be military in order to get Citizenship.
The only difference in the images is that one of the two is honest about what makes it all work. The troopers, and their war gear, aren't hidden in a security room in one, while Trek only very rarely lets you see the men with energy shields, and rifles.
Well Trek has transporters in common civilian use by TNG and likely semicommon in TOS. Transporters convert the object or person to energy, transmit the energy as a beam at energy high speeds and then the same or partnered computer converts the energy signal back into matter. However computers must be programmed to UNDERSTAND any aspect they convert to reanimate. So mysteries get truncated. Morover, computers are programmed by Starfleet, United Earth or the UFP specialists...likely at the Daystrum Institute. What could be problematic with that?
Love your content, which I only discovered last night. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Fun fact: The "centavos" remark is a nod to Juan/Johnnie Rico's home country of the Philippines, which uses pesos & centavos as their currency. Later in the novel he's remarked as speaking Tagalog, one of the (if not the most) predominant languages of the PI.
Both Federations are fantasies, but I prefer Star Trek’s hope more than Starship Troopers cynicism. The answer is not weeding out the foolish. The answer is increasing wisdom 😊
With regards to the movie at least, the Federation of Starship Troopers absolutely shows cracks inherent in this own idea. For one, they as a culture value The State over the individual, without defining what that State is or means beyond this vague sense of "humankind". A big theme of the movie that is established very early on is that the humans and the bugs are more alike than they realize: they thoughtlessly sacrifice themselves for their greater whole. The federation dehumanizes its populace through propaganda and privileges. Second, they do exert some control over the public sector: the shower scene brings up things like "having children", wanting to "be a journalist", and other post-service goals for why they joined the service to begin with, which begins to paint this picture that the State does gatekeep civic rights, even if it doesn't necessarily demonize those who don't have them. Thirdly, while their society may look squeaky clean and utopian, it's operated as anything but. Their intelligence is scuffed, they respond to an (alleged) act of aggression from long range by freighting over 100 000 soldiers and dumping them into the middle of a rocky shithole with no objective or goal beyond "kill all those bastards who dared slight us". All of this is in strict contrast to Trek's Federation, which while certainly militarized and definitely more than a little hypocritical, goes to great lengths to ensure there are systems in place to make sure such abuses of power, both civic and military, simply can not happen easily. Starfleet would never be able to declare war on another species over an alleged act of aggression with just the rallying cry of "human kind, not insect, dominates this galaxy", nor would they make time to permit talking heads on TV that say "I find the idea of a bug that thinks offensive". To that end, sure, the picture might be the same, but the artists are quite different, and one of them has a hell of a lot more talent than the other heh. Also, just gonna say, if we count all 50+ years of varying Trek lore and all its contradictions, we should count other Starship Trooper lore too, in which military officials quite literally say they need children to grow up big and strong to be "meat for the grinder". It doesn't get more damning than that lol.
"Oh, I almost forgot to mention. It's not fascist." I have seen many videos here on youtube discussing Starship Troopers. And it's always so disappointing when I almost inevitably hear the video creator state with absolute certainty: "The Federation are the bad guys and the bugs are a metaphor for how fascist regimes dehumanize their enemies.", or some variation of this. I get that most people don't know what fascism actually is (and to be honest, I'm not too sure myself), and many confuse militarism with fascism, but the Federation is in some ways more liberal than many current day democracies. And Paul Verhoeven's attempted character assassination of the book, while entertaining and one of my favorite movies, greatly muddied the waters and poisoned the well in regards to peoples perception and understanding of the Federation and it's values. So, it always brightens my day when I hear someone say that the Federation isn't fascist. Thank you.
Exactly! People just brainlessly parrot that the federation in Starship Troopers is fascist because it has the look and Verhoeven said so but when you look at the world we are presented with there's nothing fascist about it. The news don't lie even when it shows the federation in a bad light! Hell, even the leaders take responsibility of their mistakes and resign.
Fascism is a concept defined a couple of different ways. Militarism is only part of it. The obsession with unity against an enemy (there is always an enemy) is another part. There is always a “them” and an “us” and a clear social hierarchy. “Do you want to live forever?” is a deeply fascist idea - that dying in service of the state is true glory is as fascist as fascist gets. Crusher would not hesitate to send someone to die to save the ship in a fascist system, that death would be their glorious moment of victory. Eco’s essay “Ur-fascism” is helpful in diagnosing it. He gives a series of criteria and while Heinlein’s novel doesn’t check all the boxes it checks enough to be very uncomfortable. Fascism seems like an attractive system - a removal of selfishness in service to a greater whole. Fascism, like any other utopia, never seems to work out the way it’s dreamed, though…
@@Justanotherconsumer You're making way too much from the phase “Do you want to live forever?”. Originally it's from American marine Daniel Joseph Daly who used it when attacking Germans during the WW2. And even more so, nothing fascist about it. The idea is that through glory you achieve immortality. All kinds of political systems use this thinking.
With all due respect, I call bullshit. While the apparent lack of a specific dictator means that the Terran Federation doesn't perfectly fit the definition of fascism, they easily meet the other criteria: 1) Extreme authoritarianism: petty offenses are answered by public flogging of the perpetrator and sometimes their entire families, there is no right to due process when accused of a crime, failure to follow orders or making physical contact with a superior within the military -- no matter how well-intentioned -- is punishable by summary execution, and the state has the right to punish or even execute people who protest the war. Soldiers are subjected to hypnotic conditioning which allows superiors to force them to follow some orders. More broadly, there is not even the slightest hint on institutional limits to the power of the Federation or its agents; a high-ranking official can have you beaten, strip you of all your property, and even kill you without facing even the slightest consequence or having to go through more than a few minutes' process. 2) Extreme nationalism: propaganda is constantly and heavily pushed through media outlets, political dissenters are branded enemies of the state, and schools are required to teach propaganda as a part of their curriculum. The Terran Federation regularly annexes other civilizations' territories and brutally attacks any civilization that doesn't wholeheartedly support them; the novel begins with Rico cheerfully slaughtering his way through a city, deliberately inflicting as much pain and terror as possible, because the "Skinnies" provided nonmilitary support to the Arachnids. 3) Oppressive political control: in addition to the jailing and execution of dissenters, the military leadership of the Federation has complete control over the civilian government in Heinlein's universe; not only does political participation require military service (and the lifelong commitment to following the orders of superior officers), but also Heinlein specifically mentions in Space Cadet that the military maintains chains of nuclear bombs in orbit of all civilized worlds and uses them on any civilian government which 'misbehaves'. So let's contrast this with the United Federation of Planets. The UFP has very strong institutional limitations on the power of its officials both in and out of Starfleet: all citizens accused of a crime have the right to due process and representation, there are no punishments more severe than incarceration, Starfleet is explicitly under the command of the civilian government rather than the other way around, weaker civilizations are given some of the strongest legal protections possible rather than being exploited, and we see several examples of marginalized groups being able to successfully defend their rights without needing to resort to violence. The only thing even vaguely approaching the power of the Terran Federation within the UFP is Section 31, and there's no evidence that they wield any kind of actual authority within Starfleet or the Federation.
star ship troopers is actually demanding that people be better it's just quieter about it. the system proposed is fundamentally a form of voter restriction, a huge % of people fail to achieve citizenship and who applies in the first place can easily be influenced. As with any form of voter restriction it could be used to prevent certain groups from obtaining political power. It would be extremely easy for one group of people if they achieve a significant majority to simply prevent other groups from ever having enough citizens to effect political change. Thereby creating a leadership class within the system. So for the world to work it's still asking that humans be better because it demands that humans not form political factions and aim to destroy all others.
4:25 Picard: "We worked to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." Everybody who loves Freedom: "Sure as I know anything I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people…better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave."
To be fair star trek the next generation was trying to depict a post scarcity economy and did such a piss poor job of it it lapsed into communism. You find yourself wondering why anyone listens to Picard's orders at all? He's not even paying them and would have no moral authority like the commanding officer in a military.
It says something about how any society is going to crumble eventually... Sure, we root for the Browncoats because we're told the story from Mal's perspective, but the Alliance certainly had at least some aspirational notions. Hell in the very first episode, they prioritize saving civilians over pursuing Serenity and her crew and the very fact the heroes had that crybaby buoy indicates this is routine and exploitable Alliance behavior. Any society that seeks to last, has to have some aspirational element to it. Consider that the Independents all only came together when there was an existential threat facing the lot of them. In theory, the Alliance and a centralized system, could better provide for people suffering hardship out on the frontier and provide a buffer for when hardship strikes, as well as accountability to local tyrants. Now granted, we don't see that happen, but again, we're told the story from Mal's perspective and we know for a fact that until their vaunted independence was threatened, the Independent planets did NOT come together to aid one another in times of need, each being more concerned with their own problems and survival. This is all also not to say the Alliance was a good thing or didn't thoroughly _deserve_ to get exposed and destroyed by the broadcast of what happened on Miranda. After all, if the truth can destroy something, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth. But the fact remains that all societies DO strive to make people better, it's just that we do it through laws and social pressure, rather than poison in the water and air. Societies _exist_ because they are better than living in the State of Nature and those who try to break down the society to better serve themselves over the group, are considered criminals and dissidents for that very reason - we want people to be better than selfish animals.
Apparently somebody did not read the Starship Troopers book I wish people would stop saying that the movie was completely the book they are so different it's not even the same thing
People have gotten Starship Troopers wrong since the movie came out. It's definitely not fascism, as others have pointed out, for various reasons that should be pretty obvious to anyone who's actually studied history. Verhoeven admitted he didn't finish the book. 🙄
I love Starship Troopers so much, and it's always annoyed me how many people don't understand it (even the director of the movie, although the movie is still awesome). It is in no way fascist, and Robert Henlien- who detected conscription- was a WW2 vet. I think they'd know more about fascism than we do. Great video, I really enjoyed your analysis
The problem with the starship troopers federation is that it's not a stable system. It doesn't even take human nature into account. In the real world, when you put all political authority in the hands of a military caste, that caste exercises it's authority to become an aristocracy. The starship troopers model lasts, at best, a few generations before going this route.
In Trek lore, you don't really get to see the average Federation citizen living on replicator welfare and burning up hours in the holosuite. Yes, a person is allowed to succeed and better themselves. But what if they have no ambitions to do so? It's unrealistic to expect such sweeping changes in human nature. Even in future utopia.
I've always wanted a series exploring the non Starfleet underbelly of the Star Trek world. You rarely see it, but there is regular encounters with dangerous criminals and others, so that whole side of their world exists.
i tend to think that star trek's cultural thing of self-betterment would be theoretically possible, since there are atleast afew real-world studies that indicate that most people, once the basics of life were taken care of, would probably take to their own hobbies with a passion, and that a significant portion of people would turn into workaholics, to various degrees. (and thusly, the civilian side of the federation would be composed of competing guilds of everything vs everything, in a meritocratic semi-capitalism sort of structure.) Sure, there would be the slice of people who sit around and do literally nothing all day-everyday, but from what i've seen of studies and scenarios. i suspect that said slice of deadbeats, would be pretty low and generally temporary in comparison.
@@Zoie3x8 You are hinting toward Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Self actualization is a wonderful thing, please don't get me wrong. I think Roddenberry had a vision. Here comes the however. The curve of human nature is not steep enough to accommodate 100% altruism. Nor has the Federation(or Sweden, or Switzerland) cured all social diseases. Say, for example, a Federation "penal colony" in New Zealand. I don't doubt your hope. Merely being critical of it. My appreciation toward the thoughts shared here.
One could always imagine that it has something to do with the eugenics wars. Granted, Star Trek lore is... inconsistent at best, but you could probably make a case that all the "humans" in the federation are likely carrying genetic patterns which result from active attempts at improvement, even if they were passed down the natural way. Even if, after the eugenics wars, there were plenty of unaugmented humans around, we've seen how incredibly capable the augmented ones are, and even if the people from the eugenics wars weren't as unbelievably capable as Bashir and his SpEd friends, they (and their descendants) would have had a massive advantage in the harsh conditions which likely followed thereafter before all the warp travel and aliens. Maybe Star Trek works, because the "humans" aren't. Of course, that's presumably not what any of the writers intended, if they intended anything at all.
It doesn't really matter. The thing is that when you have such advanced technology, you just don't need that many workers. The idea of "Everyone must work" is arguably antiquated in the modern age, let alone a future where they have all kinds of advanced AI and robotics. ST is a bit unrealistic because they should be showing a lot more robotic helpers for everyone. Robots lifting things, building things, and so forth. Just going by the doctor on voyager, they had a hologram that could adapt to create new medical procedures and fully act as a human doctor. When you have that level of AI, you're going to have helper robots. A futuristic society like that can provide for its people without requiring the grunt labor that more primitive societies require. If 60% of your people don't want to work? So what? It really doesn't even matter, because you don't even need that many workers. Just imagine if we solve basic robotics and AI in our current reality. If we can create robotic workers cheaply enough, we'll be able to replace a ton of basic professions: Cashiers, stockers, truck drivers, crop pickers and so forth. So if you buy into the AI hype, then we may be pretty close to having a lot of the ST conveniences already. The big limiter for space travel is ships, fuel and so forth, not just having bodies to do basic chores. It's why Starfleet can afford to be so exclusive, because they don't need basic laborers.
I read Starship Troopers in the ‘80s. Paul Voerhoven/Ed Neumier’s film is a great action flick. But it’s not Starship Troopers as Heinlein wrote it. What I got out of the novel is that the fundamental basis of Terran Federation Culture is Personal responsibility. Thank you for saying it’s not fascist.
“Everything I don’t like is fascism” is a summation of modern political discourse in America. Which is hilarious seeing as fascism never took root here compared to several European countries.
The funny thing was fascism did try, like with the Klan. But we all know how that ended. So it's ironic that people try to push a failed ideology as a great specter that looms over America when we have bigger problems than opportunistic wannabe goose steppers who want attention.
Until now. Why the surge to censor other people? How is it that censorship actually has unapologetic champions now? Such creatures used to be afraid to even show their faces --- and for very good reasons. That is actually more in tune with authoritarianism in general than just fascism, but it fits.
I kinda get your point but you forget that there was a massive nazi party in the United states and that A LOT of policies that the nazis installed were inpired by the racist policies of Apartied America. Moreover there was a facist putch in the US that almost one
That is factually wrong. Absolutely wrong. It's easy to point and say a lot of things about America are fascist because they are blantantly fascist. You have to be willingly blind or be a fascist to miss it
"This machine kills fascist" on a Macbook the company which made it has more legislative and political power than any company had in Mussolini's fascist representative legislature.
I just found your channel this morning and I'm glad I did. This is the kind of content we need on the Internet in general and TH-cam in particular. I've noticed that both Star Wars and Star Trek have started exploring the darker sides of their "good guys" over the last decade or so. The social theorist in me wants to blame that on growing distrust in the system from those of us living under it . . .
My country (Malaysia) has National Service but it's stripped down to sort of a summer camp and is drawn by lots. Nothing as intense as Singapore's as it only last a few months for some people. We are a Multicultural Country however politics and race supremacist ideology pushes us apart. Every race regardless will be taught they are oppressed while also taught they are the superior race. However I do notice that people who were selected to do National Service has a better command of the language and is more comfortable with the other races. A sense of unity, instead of divide and racism.
@@MalaysianChopsticks often that intolerance is just fear from not knowing. Spending time with “THEM” makes it a lot easier to realize that they’re not really that scary.
Your opinions are always so contrarian and I love it! I expected you to go Starship Troopers is fash like everyone else. Instead you bring nuance. Who knew TH-cam had space for nuance? I didn’t.
Mike from Redlettermedia once described the Troopers-Federation as the complete opposite to the Trek-Federation. I love how the Feral historian takes a much needed different perspective.
As a former sailor who has seen some of the wider world I can see how Heinlein's story can make for a better person. When you get into some of those third world countries you're seeing people who are impoverished, fiscally or otherwise, on a scale beyond anything that can be seen in the first world. My father grew up dirt poor in Pennsylvania during the 1920s and 1930s. When he hit to India during his service in World War 2, he saw what poverty really was. And seeing that unvarnished truth is what can make a sailor/soldier a better person. It doesn't have to be a service person. Anyone who has served in the Peace Corps, Doctors without borders, etc. can have that type of experience. That's why, in later interviews, Heinlein said any type of service for the greater good earns citizenship.
@@indetigersscifireview4360 the response varies though. Some instead of compassion and responsibility will learn that there are those who want what they have and they have to jealously guard their own or it will be stolen. Fear leads to hate, and so on.
@@Justanotherconsumer those who are disenfranchised that I've seen and the people my Dad talked about would never have a chance to take anything from anyone. I'm talking about people who are so disadvantaged they aren't even considered people in their country. Beggars on the street who can literally be stepped on without consequence.
It is unpleasant to think about the military developing into a caste system. All the talk of social stratification has focused on wealth but there are many more aspects to consider if we want to avoid the looming techno-feudalism.
The US political system is nearly it's own social class nowadays. Long-serving wealthy career politicians gaining advantages for their family members. Those continuing the political legacy or getting boosted into favorable adjacent elite careers. More so than the military I think.
@@NefariousKoel We have a society overrun with lawyers, who themselves are a social caste. And soooo many US politicians are lawyers, too. They create a system that benefits themselves, like beavers building dams, and damn everyone else.
@@NefariousKoel SST explicitly makes the military the political class, so there’s no “nearly” about it. Heinlein’s book is a bit unrealistic and optimistic about those in power not abusing that power. Being a veteran does not inherently make someone trustworthy - I know a couple of vets that are great guys but I definitely recognize that I’m gonna be the designated driver.
@@Justanotherconsumer I was speaking of current situation, so I think there was a miscommunication there. But yes, SST does that and no it doesn't guarantee good decision making either. Humans gonna be human.
The military is a caste system, by design and function and ancient history. In order to fight a war of any sort you need effective command and control which dictates stratification, which is to say hierarchy. A flat social structure may work for a Silicon Valley startup, even though most of the time it doesn't, but it sure as hell does not work for life and death situations, or existential societal organizations. this is human reality
As a nine-year veteran of the US Navy, I wish I would have stayed in. I really loved it. Psychologically I came from a family background of Chaos and in the Navy it was like a new family that gave me order. I'm also a lifelong Star Trek fan. In the Navy it was my Starfleet. I won'ted to be in the military sense maybe six years old. The funny thing is my family are artist LOL. No one convinced me I just felt I was born to wear a uniform. Now I have job still wearing a uniform ha ha ha. Great video. Very thought-provoking.
Another part where the two diverge is in how each enforce laws and punish criminals. The Terran Federation utilizes corporal punishment publicly, hard labor for more serious crimes and capital punishment for murder, due to their history believing that harsh discipline is needed to avoid the mistakes of the past. Where as the Federation utilizes a simple incarceration and therapy system that isn't explored in any greater depth than the former. All the viewer/reader gets is that it "just works". One thing I'll point out though for the Federation is that the attitude of the main characters comes from their back stories. Kirk mellows throughout the show/movies mostly because he gets old and just wants peace. Picard as we learn used to be quite a hot head and it was only the brush with death that caused him to be who we see in the show. I think that gives an important clue to the Federation. Starfleet is made up of largely those people who would dissatbilize society so they're given a purpose and explore the galaxy leaving everyone else to their own devices.
It isn't fascist, fascist gov would either exclude everyone except an small in group from affecting policy direction with no opportunity to gain such a privilege, or force everyone to engage but punish anyone who picked the wrong option in the polls, weeding out anyone who might oppose said policies. they are almost always top down and authoritarian and EVERYONE is expected to hold up the state regardless of personal preference.
Fascism: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." These qualities are absent in the movie and book. The movie (and book) portray a constitutional republic with a limited vote franchise. And that franchise is more liberal than any "democracy" before the early 1900s.
The guts of Starship Troopers... (History and Moral Philosophy) almost non-existent in the film. Many critics ignore the fact that under the stated system.... Soldiers can not vote...soldiers can never vote until they are no longer soldiers. Also...many of those who serve in the military...are not combat soldiers... Many have difficult and sometimes dangerous assignments...that do not entail combat. . Conscription is essentially slavery. In Korea and Vietnam it was slavery imposed essentially on the lowest rungs of society...the poor and politically powerless. Sort of like Frederick the Great who used to brag that (until late in his efforts at least) the citizenry need not concern themselves with his wars...the "dregs" of society would pay the actual penalties involved. Long story, but I was 4-A...permanently draft exempt... Still, I volunteered and became a Marine infantryman in 1968... But I have no disrespect for those who chose to avoid being conscripted by one of the many avenues out there...(sadly, most of the legal means for doing so not easily available to the poor, uneducated, or powerless.) . In countries such as Switzerland and (until later years) Israel...you essentially had "universal military service" which at least spread the burden. Other than the World Wars...the U.S. did not require that and used "Selective Service" to make do almost entirely with the poor, powerless...and patriotic... . Many who call for conscription these days say if not military service for two years...then "public service" welfare type work. So... Your children are sent to a slum in Detroit for two years with the hope that they are not murdered by the drug cartels...whereas the offspring of the wealthy, the powerful and the well-connected either are somehow declared exempt...or they serve their two years in Beverly Hills or Martha's Vineyard... or are used as recruiters for whatever political party is in power at the time... YP
The thing about Starship Troopers is that citizen must serve in the military came from the Roman Republic. In Rome you had to have served in the military to be able to hold office.
Starship Troopers society is completely bonkers, service and danger doesn't necessarily make virtuous men. The society is very clearly cornering your life choices and to say that this is similar to Star trek is like saying banana and apple are same cause they are both fruit. And whether its realistic or not is irrelevant, Star trek shows as our expectations of better society if we would put the effort in...there is quote from Pratchett "You need to believe in things that aren't true, how else can they become?"
The thing is, military service does serve as a "reality check". Spending a decade in school, where you do nothing real, to then spend years in college or university, does not place you in reality. You live in a fairytale land. To then spend your life working in an office. Then, by sending the majority of your young through this system, creates a core of the voting population that have absolutely no concept of reality. Which, is really bad if you believe in Universal Suffrage. Filling the electorate with people who are disconnected from reality is really bad.
100% this. Starship Troopers is about someone's opinion on current day politics and warfare - Star Trek is about science and technology with a healthy dosage of idealism attached. I'm sick of people acting like that's a bad thing or that they MUST be secretly the bad guys because then it's more like 40k which they like more. There is a reason a lot of new tech that comes out is based on stuff that was first seen in Star Trek and yet you never hear about the technology Starship Troopers predicted or inspired. Technology is basically just reskinned modern stuff in Starship Troopers.
The society of the Terran Federation that we're shown isn't really bonkers, it's just a globalized version of American society back in the fifties. I think you were referring to their political system, instead. Again, I don't think it's bonkers either, it's just an otherwise normal liberal democracy, but with limited suffrage. All democracies limit suffrage to some extent, many of them are much more limiting than even the Terran Federation is shown to be. And I don't agree that their society or political system is "cornering [their] life choices" at all, we're _shown_ people living perfectly normal, content lives whether or not they engage with the political system, and we're shown very explicitly that such engagement is actively discouraged.
I used to think badly about military service too. In my time, you had to serve 9 months in the army or do your civilian service in hospitals or old people's homes. Now this obligation no longer exists and I think it was a good thing for society as a whole. This service that every man had to do brought the society together in my eyes. All shared this experience of being at the service for your society.
I think it's worth mentioning that the DTV sequels to Starship Troopers paint a bleak timeline, with humanity continuing to lose ground in the Bug War and becoming increasingly autocratic in response. By the end of the third movie, the Federation has actually converted into a theocracy in, apparently, a last-ditch effort to maintain power in the face of growing discontent. I know the StarTroops sequels aren't well regarded (although the 3rd was actually decent) but it does point to that Federation's level of centralization ultimately becoming its failure point - which I'd personally blame on its stranglehold on the media, but whatev. Meanwhile, for all its problems, the Trek Federation never seems to go that bad. According to Discovery, it ends up crumbling in the early 3000s due to a widespread "natural disaster" style scenario, rather than internal pressures. And hey, 900 years is a pretty impressive run for any empire.
Lmao the federation is a joke and would not have lasted 3 centuries let alone 9 Middle school tier writing is the only reason they magically lasted that long
Really weird change from the book where the bugs turn on their alien allies called the Skinnies when they get in their way, and the Skinnies ally with the Federation against the bugs. Then again, the movies wanted to ignore what Starship Troopers was actually about and just use the name.
The Book Starship Troopers wasn't fascist. The movie was the best satire about Fascism ever depicted on film. Heinlein was a proto-libertarian. My favorite line of his was from Red Planet when he said something to the effect of "Liberals make better societies but Conservatives make better neighbors."
This is a generously rosy interpretation of the Starship Troopers Federation. Its a system rife with many pitfalls, even as described in the book. For starters, when power is the exclusive domain of a self-defined minority, exploitation quickly becomes rampant -- too easy for the ordained ones calling the shots to find a "common good" that just happens to benefit them especially, and to cut off potential opposition by assigning all the recruits who might eventually vote against them to a far-off meatgrinder planet. More broadly, an exclusively military-borne ruling class seems likely to trend towards approaching all problems as military ones -- I'd want at least one counter-balancing estate with a different philosophy mitigating things. There's also a heavily implied military-industrial complex in the Troopers Fed', closely allied with the ruling class to keep society on a war footing and the defense contracts flowing (the film is pretty loud in its implication that the war with the Bugs is entirely manufactured and unjustified). Historically, though you claim the Fed' isn't fascist, it's rather glaring that the genesis of the Trooper Fed is a close echo to what, at least in part, gave rise to the mid-century European fascist movements: bitter post-WWI military veterans feeling they could no longer trust civilians to run things, in large enough numbers to start political movements. Even if the Trooper Fed isn't Fascist in the time we see it, it's got all the ingredients to turn into one quickly: minority franchise on power, death-worship, exultation of war, xenophobia. They're just one lost war away from electing a dictator. I'm more in line with your criticisms of the Trek Fed -- for a "non-aggressive" polity, they sure build a lot of colonies.
@@etexpatriate trek fed’s dark side has been openly discussed in the franchise. SST has only one thing beyond the books I’m aware of, a movie that was at best a loose adaptation, so there’s not really much to work with beyond the utopian ideals. Utopias don’t exist in real life. Power would corrupt, likely in the ways you describe, if it was not a work of fiction. It’s an interesting ideal, but like all utopias it has some bugs.
@@etexpatriate I'm sure you'd have no issues providing passages supporting your claims of an influential MIC steering state policy, if you have in fact read the book twice over. Or to support any supposed permanent state of 'war footing' (a curious thing for a state with no conscription.) The film is nonsense and even there the hostile director was incapable of constructing a consistent narrative towards that end. It shouldnt be relevant to any discussion of SST except as an example of how not to interpret the book.
" More broadly, an exclusively military-borne ruling class seems likely to trend towards approaching all problems as military ones." Actually, no. People who have never been military tend to be more jingoistic than veterans.
The biggest mistake of the starship troopers movie is making the world so ridiculous and over the top, that it makes fascism look fun. This is why Helldivers exists and the fans (including myself) are fanatics.
"It's not fascist" Good for you. It's nice to finally see a TH-cam video that understands the difference between what Heinlein described and what Dougie Houser in von Rundstedt's overcoat suggests. The movie is enjoyable for what it is but totally distorts Filipino Juan Rico's journey.
You sure know how to pick a beautiful location to film, this was a great topic that me and many friends have argued time and time again. Always love to hear your point of view 👍👍
I read the novel recently, mostly to figure out if it was a satire of fascism or a love letter as people keep telling me. I don't think it was either. If it was a satire of anything it would be the modern military recruitment, but I think there's enough material to make an argument for both. What I can say for certain is that it is a genuinely enjoyable read and I would desperately love to talk to Robert Heinlein's mother because I don't know what he was saying about men and women but fucking hell was he shouting it as loud as he could.
Most people who have read it don't understand it because they're stupid.....and from a future that is so disgustingly far away from the mental perceptive place that Heinlein was in it's almost comical. If you understand what you're looking at irs very easy to read and understand. If you're an idiot it just fills all the checkboxes for the propaganda you've been fed your entire life so you relate it to a current year strawman. Starship Troopers was Heinlein's peak when it came to his personal ideology, later on life he suffered nothing but disappointments from people who would spout ideology and then never actually follow through which made him pretty bitter. He's about 90% write in what he writes in the book and if you go over it slowly concept by concept it's very easy to see that he is
In all honesty, I probably wouldn't mind living in Heinleins Starship Troopers universe, but I would hope it would maybe be a bit more Roddenberry like.
algorithmic throttling. takes a lot to break through that. many years of consistent effort. plus they're competing with the easy to digest, noncontroversial infographics style channels. to bite into something like feral historian or zoomer historian, you need to have some fundamental understanding that the public education version of history, the infographics version, is a lie.
I'm here 6 hours after it dropped. Love this guy. But I dunno if the algorithm is pushing him real hard. Still, his content is well thought out, eloquently presented, and interesting, even if I don't know the subject. And he reminds me of Kevin Conroy. I'll always be here for him.
To give credit to the folks who are always pissed that the fans of Starship Troopers in most cases did not read the book and only know the film, yeah it would have been Better if the makers had stuck with the original title of the script Bug Hunt at Outpost 7. To Make the movie franchise something truly original. Verhoeven said that he stopped reading Starship Troopers after a few pages. Well, then just call the movie something else.
the problem is that as italian i really really understand Verhoeven line of thought and why as someone that had felt how a fascist dictatorship his in reality look at the book as fascist. Basically the entire background of the UCF is Italy post wwi with Benny takeover, including motivation and frankly everything we know about this is from the victors aka the government pow. While Heinlen intention were hardly lionizing fascist, weeeel unfortunely and by coincidence it give a lot that vibe once you read it when you are a grown up and learn about your history
@@kirkdarling4120 seem that the original duce was long dead and the entire UFC had gone for collective leadership a la post stalin URSS or more apt after Benny fall from power and before the collapse of the italian state in 1943 (yep Badoglio was the official leader but in practice was something more collective that a single one in charge like before)
This is an interesting idea, but I think IT is more wrong than right. The federation of Star Trek is NOT basically build on a American dream of supremacy, but rather the optimism related to the United Nation after the second World war. I think of it as a vision of the future where the Main problems on earth is solved. THEN, obiously, details from the wrighters culture Will sneak Into the stories.
You know what I find so hilarous about the people who wring their hands about the Starship Troopers federation? There are many liberal democratic republics right now in the world that require military service of their citizens, like Switzerland and Isreal, for example. That is effectively the same thing as "service guarantees citizenship" except you don't have the option of opting out of the military service in exhange for not voting. I don't know anyone who thinks Switzerland is a fascist paradise. If anything, Starship Troopers is too optimistic about how effective requiring military service to vote will be.
You raise an interesting point about Switzerland, Israel, and Fascism. Switzerland may require military service, but they don't often participate in war. Maybe constant warfare is what pushes a society down the path towards Fascism and right-wing authoritarianism. Any country that engages in semi-constant warfare, that sees their neighboring countries as enemies, and sees a portion of their own population as less than human... That country will inevitably turn toward Fascism and self-destruction. It's not a good country to be allies with, either.
Dead Wrong. "Service is Mandatory" and "Service Guarantees Citizenship" are two entirely different things. "Service Guarantees Citizenship" is more like the French Foreign Legion. Though I imagine in practice its more likely to be "come here and be a slave for three years and we'll give you a passport". You'll notice how no country on earth has set up their immigration system like that *and* done away with birthright citizenship.
It is definitely worth recognising that a lot of these countries have or have swapped to offering an alternative civilian service for conscientious objectiors. I think also worth considering an important distinction between mandatory service vs citizenship as a result of service is that inability to serve (or conscientious objection) doesn't prevent people from gaining citizenship rights. As a disabled person, likely unfit to serve, that to me is a very key point. Even in a country with mandatory service, being unfit to serve wouldn't deprive me of any rights due. As to how justified things are, and speaking as an amateur historian: Required millitary service isn't amazing, but it's one of those things where sometimes you can with context see why a country opted for it, usually to try and gauruntee its continued existence either past or present (so, for example, finland mantaining mandatory service for over a century was a historical decision based on the fact that they were concerned Russia might try to re-absorb them, which made sense at the time, and still unfortunately makes sense now). There's also population size to consider. Preferably most armies would want to be staffed entirely by people who chose to join up because a disgruntled conscript is way more of a liability than an enthusiastic serviceman, but if you have a really tiny population the amount of people who want to join up voluntarily might not consistently meet your defence needs. In a country with tens or hundreds of millions of people, if a tiny fraction of the population want to join up, you can still have quite a large army, but in a country with only a couple million people, you're not necessarily playing the same numbers game. Alternatively, there are a lot of very poorly justified examples of mandatory service/conscription being used not for particularly defensive purpose throughout history so yeah, definitely a lot of the time not justified, but it's all about context.
@@Furluge the Swiss are doing what America was supposed to do - the military is the people rather than a separate army. Everyone’s trained to participate specifically so that there can’t be a military coups d’etat - they’d be seizing power from themselves. Israel is… problematic at best. There is an element of it that seems like a modern vibrant representative government, but Bibi’s grip on power and the wartime emergency government raise a lot of alarm bells.
Israel is not a republic lmao, it is quite literally a fascist state go look at their laws And no this has nothing to do with their petty border squabbles or anything else
The real key difference between the Terran federation and start treks federation is that the terrans groom people from a young age into thinking that serving the military industrial complex is the most important part of life, then giving them the “choice” to sign up just for the mere purpose of being accepted in society. Meanwhile the federation is more about allowing people to live the life they want, there’s no real evidence of pro military propaganda and the navy is more inclined to diplomacy then outright invading and exterminate whole species based off whims.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
The difference between Heinlein's and Verhoven's versions of Starship Troopers is that Heinlein wasn't writing a parody. That and the powered armor suits, and the bugs had actual technology. Bug warriors in the book were actually fearsome, they had firearms and used squad tactics instead of just zerg rushing, it was indirectly implied their their wargear was implanted into them surgicly. They were said to be superior to the federation in terms of battlefield coordination and logistics owing to their being eusocial creatures. Warrior bugs were smart but their intelligence was highly specialized. Unlike in the movie the bugs were a peer opponent of the federation not just an infestation that was only a threat due to numbers. In the book peace was never an option not because the bugs were very very alien such that humanity and the bugs had nothing in common in spite of both being advanced spacefaring highly technological civilizations. Basically they were ants with starships and computers and mechanized warfare which was so much more interesting then how the movie portrayed them. Other alien species existed in the background which the federation had peaceful relations with, humanity was at war with the bugs because the bugs had no concept of compromise and it was either us or them.
To be fair, the human warriors in the book didn't get into a circle around a single foe and fire directly towards each other with machine guns. soo...
Considering the movie was reusing assets from a failed screenplay... Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine (An Alien ripoff).
Bugs had a sense of diplomacy. One of the early sections of the book is the Mobile Infantry attacking a planet of the Skinnies in retaliation for their support of the Bugs. It has been some time since I last read the novel, but I even remember it being a city they attacked.
Paul Verhoeven is a master of brutal parody.
@@jenniferbrewer5370 There's a very fine line between brutal parody and contempt for the story.
Something I always found interesting in Starship Troopers was that after the initial Klandathu failure, the Sky Marshal, first presented as some powerful and dictatorial figure, is promptly humiliated and replaced. Not simply by some figurehead, but by somebody who presented a radical change in policy and conduct that then saw positive results.
We don't even get that in our current American 'federal' system.
@@CitizenKanevideos tyrants getting swapped out for new tyrants because the old tyrant was weak is nothing new or praiseworthy.
Just ask Buzz Windrip.
It's interesting to consider that even Verhoeven didn't give even a hint that the Sky Marshal was pressured into resigning, which suggests the Sky Marshal stepped down voluntarily.
@@Sorain1 given that we only hear of it in a propaganda broadcast that he “stepped down” may have been a euphemism for something far less pleasant.
@@Justanotherconsumer That's just the thing, it may be that sort of euphemism but that's really grasping at straws. Nothing, absolutely nothing that is shown in the movie itself doesn't give even the slightest reason to assume so. The power structures we see don't even imply in any capacity of something nefarious happening on the background.
In World War II the U.S. military routinely relieved officers of their command if things weren't going well, as they actually wanted to win the war and were willing to do what it took.
It's worthwhile noting that an officer being relieved of their command was not a career killer. The failure was not necessarily their fault for all kinds of reasons from simply being the wrong job for them or personality conflicts that derailed effective leadership. They would be reassigned to another job and were sometimes given an even larger command at a later date. The important thing was that when things weren't working out leadership changed.
So this is the reality that would have been in Heinlein's mind when he was writing _Starship Troopers._
we tend to just gloss over all the people who die in startreck due to the negligence of their officers
If you ever find yourself in the startrek universe never wear red when going on missions 😂😂😂
@@cmbaz1140 its worse then that, they talk about peace, then start a war and send people into battle in ships filled with hundreds of people that explode with one hit, thats kind of monsterious in a way xD like millions of people are dieing so a politician can spend their life pretending to be more moral then others before sending the masses to pay for it in blood.
Dying stupidly is in the redshirt work contract
@@cmbaz1140 Unless it's Deep Space 9. Then don't wear gold.
@@schmitzjamesandrew Especially if you are an Irish man. The DS9 writers simply loved to torment poor Miles O'Brian at every opportunity.
Remember: in Heinlin’s book made a point that you did FEDERAL SERVICE, not specifically military. You went where the Federation needed you according to your skills and ability.
The Federation was also obliged to accept anyone who asked for federal service , even someone who has a profound mental handicap that limits what they can do. The Federation would have to assess them and work out exactly what they could do which would benefit society then find them a job doing that , it might be sweeping the floors of the regional government office and emptying the bins , but it is a job they can do which needs doing, and at the end they would get citizenship. It was universal suffrage with a authoritarian militaristic twist.
the OP mentions exactly this around 7:45 or so
There's a interesting part of the book where Johnny talks to the recruiter about it and he says more or less "You could be blind, deaf, and a quadriplegic and we'd be obligated to find a way for you to serve if you sign up for federal service."
Heinlein himself said that, long after the book was published. But the textual evidence in the book itself strongly suggests federal service is military in nature. Heinlein seems to have written the book with the second philosophy and thought later that he made a mistake in so doing. There's a good essay on the subject at www.nitrosyncretic.com/pdfs/nature_of_fedsvc_1996.pdf.
This is a common misconception.
Technically yes it's all federal service but there doesn't seem to be any actual service outside of the military to participate in.
And still, I like Root Beer
But it’s so bubbly, and cloying…
Ginger ale is better
@@stevenrichards5028 And... happy. The worst part is, if you drink enough of it, you start to like it... Its insidious...
A&W is the best!
It's insidious.
The thing about Roddenberry's Star Trek is that it is utopian. It does require that human beings, specifically, have undergone some process of enlightenment. Whether that is a cultural evolution or something else is never really discussed. The downfall of Star Trek, especially post-Roddenberry, is that this concept quite literally beggars the imagination of every other producer, writer, and director who has tried to tell a Star Trek story. This is not to say that other stories in the vast multimedia federation aren't good stories - there is is plenty of good storytelling under the Star Trek banner. Also plenty of bad storytelling. However, the majority of modern Star Trek has walked back from Roddenberry's vision. You can take your Klingons, Vulcans, Warp Drives, and Transporters - those are all just trappings. The quintessential, and I think very bold, science fiction idea at the heart of Star Trek is the idea that human nature is improvable for the species, and that it does, in fact, improve.
I would argue that even many, if not most, self-professed Star Trek fans fail to grasp that essential point. A lot of the fandom enjoy the trappings. A lot of people working in Star Trek-derivative industries, such as games, play up the militarism. Most of the writers of Star Trek shows after Roddenberry stepped away from running the franchise may have given lip service to the concept, but their explanations and usages of the idea have been unconvincing, inarticulate, and often badly mangled. Eventually, I think they just stopped trying, and sadly, I don't know whether the fanbase really noticed.
The only other major science fiction work to try something similar that I can think of is Frank Herbert, in Dune. The point of Leto II's rule in God Emperor of Dune, the 4th book in the series, is that he spends 3000 years being literally the worst tyrant humanity has ever known in an attempt to breed a revulsion for charismatic leaders into the human species at the genetic level. I'm not sure the presumed success of this plan is convincingly depicted in the subsequent novels, but that was the stated goal. Certainly, millenia of effort by an inhuman, immortal genius seems like a better mechanism for success than an inexplicable transformation which takes place over a matter of decades.
All that said, I do agree with what I understand to be your central point. Starship Troopers depicts a human government that does not require some magical transformation of human nature. It represents a simple, fairly obvious and easy step in reforming the government. Would it actually work as well as Heinlein suggests? I suspect not. We have a number of former servicemen and women in office or running for office today. Some of them do take a more far-sighted view and work toward the, let us say, more sustainable future for everyone. Others, sadly, seem to fall into the same money-grubbing, short-sighted, hate- and fearmongering cesspit that many politicians of all stripes wallow in. For reasons you pointed out, namely that people join the military for different reasons, and also because military service is not guaranteed to have the same transformative effect on everyone, it is, I believe, utopian thinking to imagine that military service is going to 'weed out' any particular class of shoddy statesmanship.
On a more conspiratorial note, my impression is that we went into WWII with some very high-minded ideals, and even as we ended the conflict, there are some good things about ourselves we can take some pride in: the Marshall Plan, the Reconstruction of Japan, even the way we conducted the interrogation of prisoners leading up to the Nuremberg Trials. These all point to a society which had a modicum of wisdom and foresight. Even at the time, however, we were undercutting ourselves, by spiriting away those Nazis who had skills and knowledge we felt we could profit from. As much as we may have tried to winnow the wheat from the chaff, I think we inevitably absorbed some of the poison of the fascist mindset. Defending that statement would require a lot more time and effort than I wish to engage in at the moment.
So, last thought. I mostly just wanted to stick up for Roddenberry's Utopian vision. The idea that humanity can change for the better seems to be largely forgotten today. To my mind that makes Roddenberry's vision truly transgressive, a mental challenge that maybe we should take up, especially as tools that might actually make it possible are starting to be developed. Instead, tragically or farcically, we seem to want to indulge our worst aspects, even as the ramifications of our short-sighted narcissism threaten to bring about our self-annihilation.
And on that cheery thought, I thank you all for paying attention to my long-winded rant.
Well said.
It's called GNOSTICISM 2.0
A NEW BEGINNING OF KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM
FOR THE FUTURE
I'd argue the tools are contemplation and spreading of knowledge. So, I'm of two minds about if the tools to make it possible are new or always there. It's hard for me to argue against the value of (a freely available, uncensored) internet in terms of disseminating knowledge and wisdom. (The challenge is in knowing what is true and what is wise, but it's always been that way.) It's a tool humanity's never had before on this scale, (I'd argue that written language was the last vaguely comparable change in knowledge sharing, and that good machine translation may be the next big leap forward.) as if all of humanity was that small village square that works so well historically. (It just didn't scale up at all, unfortunately.)
So provided people keep self reflecting, yeah, I'll concede that on the wider scale improving human nature is reliant on technologies we didn't have before. But I will maintain that any change to human nature is going to be intellectual, rather than physical. (I'm of the view that social engineering, cybernetics, genetic engineering or even biological immortality isn't going to truly change human nature.)
@@davidrhode7019 Heinlein’s SST is arguably even more utopian - it forgets that power corrupts and assumes that that military oligarchy governs in a way that actually benefits those who can’t vote.
You make a reasonable point that military service does not necessarily produce high-minded individuals and that a military dictatorship is not necessarily a good thing, but I think you miss the point that in _Starship Troopers_ most of the citizens did _not_ have a military career. Rather, they volunteered for a few years of service before getting on with their lives. It's not a perfect proxy for wise and responsible behavior, but at least society is not being directed by people who have no skin in the game at all.
Your other points are not as good, and in fact you appear to suffer from the chief delusion that led to Nazism: not merely that humans can be improved, but that we even know what improvement looks like. You also seem to be unaware that Germany's Nazism, Italy's Fascism, and America's New Deal were all pretty much the same program - the same program that was the rage among the intellectual class all around the world at that time, with only a few small distinctions separating them. In the years before the war Hitler was a fan of FDR, and members of the Roosevelt and Mussolini families had months-long visits with each other. The U.S. and Germany differed chiefly in which groups the leadership considered undesirable, and how they proposed to deal with them - with U.S. leadership having a slightly lighter touch.
When it comes to "improvements" we should remember that humanity has evolved due to pressures that are not necessarily present in every generation. As a result, we don't even necessarily know which traits that seem undesirable today are in fact essential to our long term success as a species. In fact, it would appear that for the last half century much of the American public has made it a priority to erase certain traits from humanity that are essential to what it means to be human, even traits that define humanity and make civilization possible. Fortunately, other traits that many eugenicists would like to remove from humanity have provided some level of resistance to these genocidal delusions.
Of course we would all like to see a better world, but we should also be careful that our quest for a better world does not lead to dystopia - as it did in Nazi Germany, the USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and came perilously close in Allende's Chile before Pinochet stepped up to protect his people. If we really want a better world it would seem wiser to mostly keep our hands off the levers and let people succeed or fail on their own, letting the traits that lead to success flourish and the traits that lead to disaster decline, rather than punishing success to subsidize failure as we do in modern welfare states.
I think there are two quite distinct Terran Federations. One for Heinlen's book and one for Verhoeven's film.
Heinlen's federation (by his own admission) is an anology to the USA during WWII. A war economy where the state is geared facilitate the military to deafeat the enemy. Here serving in said military is the highest good.
Verhoeven's federation in contrast is shaped by his early youth, growing up in the occupied netherlands ruled by an overly aggresive authoritarian regime. Here the military and those who command it are to be mistrusted.
Even in the book, humanity seems to have been jumping constantly from one conflict to another for an unknown number of centuries - its military ruling junta seems to need constant expansionary warfare to justify its existence.This also appears in a different form in Star Trek; the writers introduce elements of military conflict for the purpose of drama (the "Lost era" appears to be a period of primarily peace that lasts from the Tomed Incident in 2305 - a year before Marie Picard gives birth to her son, Jean-Luc - until the Cardassian Wars of the late 2350s to early 2360s (the Dominion War seems to have been an offshoot from the end of the Cardassian Wars, in fact - the humiliated Cardassians ally with the Dominion to regain their lost power, in much the way that World War II ultimately stems from Germany's humiliation at the end of World War I).
The Cardassian Wars are really only "wars" from the Cardassian POV. The Federation was able to maintain a peacetime economy throughout and didn't need to re-deploy ships from other sectors to reinforce the Cardassian border even once.
Meanwhile, Cardassia was sending everything it had to the point where it was on the verge of a complete economic collapse.
It makes me wonder what foes were on Cardassia's other borders, but AFAIK that's never addressed in canon.
_"Verhoeven's federation in contrast is shaped by his early youth, growing up in the occupied netherlands ruled by an overly aggresive authoritarian regime. Here the military and those who command it are to be mistrusted."_
The hilarious bit is that the supposed fascist authoritarian dictatorship in Verhoeven's film has resulted in a society that - by all appearances - is safe, secure, prosperous, happy, and remarkably transparent.
The justification given for the Federation's citizenship requirements in the book is that "it works." Not that it's more high-minded, or noble, or somehow promotes greater freedom. It simply works. Giving citizenship only to veterans is, in the novel's universe, a stable political system that has kept the domestic peace and protected the borders for a long time, and there's no serious reason to change it. Heinlein liked to cut through bullshit.
Paul Verhoeven just seems to like putting characters in fancy-looking uniforms and then mocking them. That probably does go back to his childhood in occupied Netherlands, maybe subconsciously. He doesn't seem especially philosophical to me, but he does share the mental habit of his generation in thinking that high art consists in tearing everything down, and that anything short of libertinism is "fascist". It gets pretty dull to watch after awhile.
@Philistine47 You missed the entire point of the movie, then.
"By all appearances" it's stable, prosperous, etc.
Because the film itself views the society through the filter of state-sponsored propaganda.
It's hilarious that you never caught that!
The Dominion War arc in Deep Space 9 helped to demonstrate just how fragile the utopian aspirations of the Federation actually are, something that has caused some Star Trek fans to bitterly hate DS9 at the time and even to this day. Put the Federation into a conflict with an opponent who can genuinely match or overwhelm their technological advantage, and then have that war drag on for a realistic time frame - instead of being over in two episodes due to a Deus ex Machina plot contrivance in the manner of the Borg from Next Generation - and cracks swiftly start to appear in the Federation's veneer of moral superiority. Attempts to impose martial law and abridge civil rights on Earth, dangerous levels of paranoia about Changeling infiltration, rogue shadowy intelligence organisations trying their hand at a little biowarfare facilitated genocide 'for the greater good', even Sisko himself (in the standout episode 'In The Pale Moonlight') finding himself becoming complicit in a plot to trick the Romulans into joining the war effort against the Dominion through lies, conspiracy and cold blooded murder. Something ugly and morally reprehensible... that was probably the only thing that stopped the Dominion winning the war outright. Garak observes that maybe saving the whole Alpha Quadrant at the cost of the life of one Romulan Senator, one criminal, and of the self respect of one Starfleet officer, is a bargain at the price, and Sisko says himself that he can live with it... he CAN live with it...
Put a little pressure on the Federation and that shiny utopian halo starts to slip and tarnish real fast. Any scenario where they can't use what amounts to technobabble fuelled, magic-masquerading-as-technology to find a fix swiftly erodes the notion that the Federation exists above the ugly moral compromises that are, from time to time, the lot of any organisation the size of a Nation State and above. Given that, one wonders how much of a push it would really take to drive the Star Trek Federation into becoming more obviously akin to the Starship Troopers Federation. Probably not nearly as much as many would suppose.
These reasons are why I like DS9 compared to TSG. It was more "grounded" in reality vs the lofty Utopian ideals.
@@BrendanSchmelter DS9 is my favourite Star Trek series too, but among the broader Star Trek fandom it is controversial to this day, and is regularly accused by some people of 'ruining' Star Trek for its less starry eyed interpretation of life in the Federation.
@@gregorygreenwood-nimmo4954 That's hilarious. Outside of the Original Star Trek... And some TSG episodes... I HATED most of TSG, Voyager, etc... couldn't stomach all the Socialistic messaging.
That's why I think it was the best ST series. Far more believable.
@@NefariousKoel Yes. Every system has good & bad parts. A give & take. TSG just showed the ups. DS9 revealed some of the UFP's dirt.
To me, the easiest way to identify the more realistic of the two Federations is to see which one requires heavy-handed propaganda to maintain societal buy-in, whereas the other one makes do with magic walls that dispense unlimited food and manufactured goods.
Both sorted out hunger and poverty.
And who cares which is more realistic?
One believes in removing the barriers for everyone to achieve their potential, the other one believes in the failure of democracy to survive where gov fixes the cards to make you enlist because soft power is more convenient than conscription by force.
There is nothing more realistic about Starship Troopers, the idea that military service makes someone virtuous is so ridiculous that I don't see anyone ever seriously trying it.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
@@adamlove3295 exactly. Its the intention. Star trek people start out with Maslow's hierarchy in place. The other is like, you aren't going ro serve the state's needs, no Maslow for you.
They are completely different.
@@scottfitzpatrick1939You can still participate in the economy and social discourse in the Starship Troopers federation. You just aren't going to be voting on government offices or in legal referendums.
It's like giving testimony in a trail without being a juror.
It might not be what you think is fair. But it isn't a system that disregards the needs of the non-citizens. In fact, the citizens do look out for the need for security of the entire population to obtain citizenship. And they almost certainly look out for the other needs as well. Since every government needs a civil infrastructure to survive.
There's little evidence that society at large has access to that technology for their regular needs and wants. Nearly all of what we see is on statships and stations where such technology should be expected to be implemented early on, as energy is available in excess and space is at a premium. What we do see of earth side life and other planetary populations is that they seem to rely largely on traditional food sources and manufacturing. And that makes sense. It's reasonable to tap into a tiny fraction of the energy available in your ship that can bend spacetime at a whim, to feed a few hundred mouths. But to feed the billions of mouths on earth?
We know from Voyager that over some time and distance, the energy toll of replicator use is apparently significant even compared to the energy used to propel the craft. Without regular access to service stations they have to ration their use and find detours to stock up on food (among other resources no doubt) to be worthwhile. Considering that one ship probably produces more energy under way than our entire civilization does, and feeding just 150 mouths was a significant draw on that supply, feeding ten billion mouths three meals a day through replicated food would be a profound waste of energy.
In short, no I don't believe the federation keeps it's people in line with endless free food and toys. If their moral turnabout is to be believed, I imagine the average citizen has less in terms of personal possessions than we do and are far less gluttonous than we are.
I keep on seeing people miss two main points about Starship Troopers.
One, everyone had all civil rights. Property, religion, speech, movement, petition, sit on juries, all of them except the right to vote and run for office.
Two, the government ruthlessly protected those rights because anyone, ANYONE could volunteer for federal service. A quadriplegic in a wheelchair could type out the oath with an eye blink interface and have to be accepted. Even if you failed bootcamp you could insist on completing your service elsewhere. I think in the book some guy did just that by ending up a cook on a troop transport.
That's a mighty strange designation of fascism as it is currently understood. It seems like the book is actually describing a republic with universal human rights and an open but earned franchise.
The problem with making this into a movie is that Heinlein created something unique in political thought. To label the book as fascism or make a movie attacking the straw man so labeled is intellectually lazy.
I think many people do so because they are terrified of asking a basic question. Then really debating it. Did Heinlein have a good idea?
#1 is different in the movie, where one of the characters is serving because she wants to have kids.
Denying that right is a huge deal, to the point that it’s part of the definition of Jenny’s Side (article 2d of the UN convention).
@@Justanotherconsumer
I agree. The movie seemed to create a fascist strawman.
@@johanneskonig9436
I can see your opinion and it has some points to consider. However a "ruling class" made up of voluntary citizens from the entire population who earn their citizenship through service may be far more resistant to corruption than our current model in the West. It seems obvious that has been suborned by a wealthy elite who could care less about the rest of society.
Of course we can say whatever we wish about a fictional system that had never been attempted. But I still think Heinlein's idea has merit.
Thank you for your insights and the polite way you have expressed them. It is rare to see courtesy when discussing such subjects and appreciated.
@@Justanotherconsumer The movie was not actually based on the book. It took the title and some features from the book, just as the movie Bladerunner took the title and some features from Alan Nourse's book "The Bladerunner."
It would have been better if this video hadn't used the movie for its "b-roll" content, because the movie isn't worth an in-depth discussion.
@@kirkdarling4120
Agreed.
You don't have to wipe out a species when you can destroy their spacelift capacity and turn their entire planet into a reservation
It's high ground on a gravity well.
Heinlein knew this.
Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
They had the high ground, and they threw rocks at the enemies.
We don't stand a chance against an enemy with FTL travel.
They have transcended the law of gravity.
And we are as helpless as the dinosaurs who died before us.
We had best play nice with them.
Botany Bay?!
This is quotable material right here!!
I was going to say he glossed over the decimation of the natives when the frontier was being settled.
This is 75% going to be our policy if we do ever become an interstellar civilization and if there is, in fact, alien life in our galaxy close enough to require such measures.
I mean the core question of these two franchises isn't the same.
Starship Troopers is asking the question of how we should organize ourselves, given the way we are. Star Trek however is exploring the question of what would be possible if we strove to become more than we are. It doesn't make the claim that the United Federation of Planets would be the best government for *us,* but it is showing us what we could achieve if we tried to be like them.
If you take a maximally pessimistic view of both franchises, with Starship Troopers actually being fascist and Star Trek's utopia being truly impossible, then Troopers ends up being the end state that societies that try to implement Trek end up in.
@@JonBrase Which as Star Trek goes on it reveals they didn't get the utopia they wanted even with the magical good supplies.
It's rather amusing that we still see people refer to start trek as utopian and amazing given what's actually depicted.
Like who would've thought the "civilian" agency which carries Planetary scale weapons of WMD's acts like explorers a military, diplomats and trade negotiator, all whilst routinely violating their own rules and laws would at some point try an insurrection?
@@louiscypher4186
We don't see the Federation much in Star Trek though. Let's review the shows...
TOS - Starship Enterprise is exploring "strange new worlds" and "going boldly where no man has gone before." They are not flying around the Federation but on the frontier outside of the Utopia.
TNG - Repeat of TOS.
DS9 - Not even a Federation outpost, orbiting a world that's outside the Federation. When we do see the Federation is in dire straights, being pressed by an enemy of equal strength and we still only see the worst cases as we are only following the big events of the war.
Voyager - not even in the same part of the galaxy.
and that's all of the shows before the franchise caught an STD. What glimpses we are given into the Federation, outside of the Dominion War, did show it to be quite Utopian. Which is why it was such a big deal when something went wrong there.
@@grimjoker5572 and thus you prove my point.
What we see of the Federation is advanced, we do not see this Utopia trek fans rave about.
we're told through hamfisted dialogue of this supposed Utopia, yet it's contrasted by a very non utopian reality.
Even the wanky dialogue parts are contradictory. First contact carries on about how nobody earns a wage in federation they simply work for the betterment of mankind. Yet TNG repeatedly says Picard owns a vineyard.
@@louiscypher4186
Well no; we do see it in how the people from it respond to the galaxy outside of it. How they structure their military tells us a lot about them.
We don't see a very non-Utopian reality anywhere outside of the Dominion War. We see Utopians dealing with the frontier beyond their Utopia and we see glimpses of said Utopia when they go on recreation and the like.
There is a difference between doing work, owning property, and needing to earn a wage. It's the difference between trading Pokemon Cards and working at McDonald's.
Picard's family owns a vineyard and have for generations because they find this fulfilling, they are part of a group who maintain old French traditions. This maintains Earth's past. Notice how even in DS9 Joseph Sisko doesn't charge anybody for food? Doesn't mention having to pay for goods? It's all a hobby, not a necessity.
You can't have the "Paradise Lost" plot of the Dominion War without having a paradise to lose.
Starship Troopers was a largely modernization of Plato's Republic mixed with Heinlein's own experience in the US Navy, particularly for the boot camp sections. You can even see heavy use of Socratic Dialog throughout the novel.
Honestly, even Starship Troopers can't touch some of the wild shit from Plato's Republic. No rigged reproduction lotteries to be found there.
I don't see the connection to Plato at all, the Terran Federation is _deeply_ liberal in its philosophy and statecraft. It's highly individualistic, participation in politics is volitional, there's a sharp separation between public and private life, there _is_ private life. It's hardly innkeeping with Plato's ideas at all.
@@robertmartin6800 Replace Philospher Kings with Soldier Kings?
@@Samm815 Heinlein isn't arguing that we should be ruled by soldier kings, and even if he were that isn't what Plato was arguing for either.
_Starship Troopers_ is more in line with Aristotle than with Plato.
For a while now, I've considered Starship Troopers as the true mirror universe to Star Trek, mainly because I just feel that the writers of Trek just seem ideologically incapable of making a world opposite to their views without making it comically daft.
Also, Blake's 7 is an interesting series that depicts the federation as an Orwellian police state.
Blake's 7 is also interesting in that Roj Blake and his crew are all *against* the Federation but they're not fighting *for* anything other than fighting back for its own sake.
@@Grizabeebles For me, it's a little more nuanced than that. I see B7 as a story of moral decay. Early on they are at least somewhat idealistic, united under Blake's desire to stop the Federation. But over time, they lose their moral compass, and ultimately become little more than pretentious pirates by the end of the series.
@@jasonblalock4429 -- That's a fair view of the series. I suppose its on me for watching the series for the first time as an adult in a post-GWOT world.
I simply can't get past the fact that while Blake rails on about how evil the Federation is, he never once talks about a single way to do things better. He just goes on and on invoking "freedom" in the abstract the same way the Dubya did to justify invading Iraq.
@@Grizabeebles Despite being the main character people shouldn't be under any belief that Blake is a good person. The reason he rebels is good, but he himself is a terrible person. His ego continually rears its head throughout Series 2 and gets them deeper and deeper into the shit.
Blake, much like almost every revolutionary figure, never gives any thought as to how things should work AFTER the revolution. Sure he might say "oh well we'll all ally together and do it democratically" there'd be nothing stopping someone 100x more ruthless than Servalan assassinating him causing the whole thing to start over again. Blake has no long-term plan other than "destroy the Federation".
Whether or not he's assassinated by ex-Federation Officials looking to settle a score or if someone like Avon decides that Blake is too bombastic and uncontrollable and has him whacked, a vacuum would open up for some other apparatchik to take his place. I'm personally of the opinion that if he'd won, Blake would have been entirely corrupted by power and become even worse than Servalan ever was because he's "working in the name of justice and democracy" and would therefore be a true believer and capable of no evil act.
Writers don't generally like writing solarpunk. When things go right it's dull and boring.
The only way they'll write solarpunk is if there is something nefarious underneath the surface.
The way to write solarpunk and hopepunk is as competence porn. The challenge is external, and the question is never 'if' they succeed, but 'how.' The enjoyment is watching people who are good at their jobs being good at their jobs.
@@stargate525 Then is dystopia more of a common genre because understanding how things can suck is easier than understanding how things work?
Conflict is the fuel for nearly all narratives. When there's abundance of every resource, the only conflicts left are ones between characters.
Two neighbours arguing over a fence, someone stealing someone else's girlfriend, some clique trying to take over because they think they can run things better, a petty tyrant using their tiny scrap of power to make themselves feel important, etc.
If there are any solarpunk authors out there, try writing about "a war of mutual inconvenience" some time.
I'd never heard of solarpunk so in my mind was steam powered space battleships of steel and brass 😂
@@Grizabeebles I honestly think there's a lot of potential there. To strip away the allegory of grand conflict, and to deal directly with the personal struggles most stories are ultimately actually about
I hate it when folks say that Starfleet isn't a military. Starfleet fights and wins the wars of the Federation. Plain and simple.
My favorite take is when they say Starfleet isn't military, but compare Starfleet to the US Coast Guard---which is:
1) Considered a branch of the US armed services (albeit under a different chain of command than the others).
2) Not generally known for carrying nuclear armaments, or other WMDs in their vehicles (unlike Starfleet, who nuked the heck out of the Romulans in the 22nd century, and routinely carry and deploy antimatter-based weapons from that point forward.)
@@predx13 it’s an armed group that includes the military as a function but military is not all that it does - Starfleet is almost an entire executive branch, not just a department of defense.
I mean, probably Starfleet isn’t running education programs for general federation people (Keiko having to do this on DS9 as a civilian, for example) or other activities but they are definitely at least part of the diplomatic arm of the federation as well.
Calling Starfleet a military assumes that military is all they do, which is clearly incorrect.
@@Justanotherconsumer I work for the DoD. They pay teachers, too.
Whoever says this never watched ds9...
@@predx13 sure, but they’re not the department of education.
Kinda shows that they dropped the ball with DS9, though, in that there was a need to support people that were deployed and they didn’t.
Wild enough is the fact that the federation does not practice half the things we think they do. the director of the movie wanted to instill a feeling of fascism, however he kind of failed when you look at facts in the movies at least. Nobody was conscripted it was voluntary for citizenship. The bugs were a threat to humanity so its not an unwarranted genocide considering the bugs had the exact same plan. The federation dealt in plenty of propaganda but who doesn't hell look at the good old U.S of A.
"nobody was conscripted, it was voluntary for citizenship" yeah you don't HAVE to join our military, you just don't get the same rights as everyone else. also you'll be considered a weak, traitorous coward by everyone around you if you don't join thanks to our constant propaganda. totally optional :)
Buenos Aires was a government false flag. The bugs were entirely innocent and the Federation invaded and slaughtered them offensively and not see defensively, to sure up support for the Federation and ensure its own existence.
@@brassmule There is literally no proof of that in the movie, and in the book the bugs were straight up slavers.
@@zecorezecron In the book the bugs were ants with starships, computers and mechanized warfare. It was us or them and they were a far more credible threat than in the movie. Individual bugs were smart but specialized. Bug warriors used firearms and had surgically implanted wargear, bug logistics and battlefield coordination was superior to the federation's. The bugs didn't just zerg rush everything with wave tactics and they were highly effective on the battlefield. The only reason the federation held on at all was that their soldiers used powered armor suits that turned each individual soldier into a highly mobile walking tank so individual human soldiers were much more effective than individual bug warriors.
@@brassmule Oh, wow. Not every day one gets to see a bugposter. Were you born a traitor, or did a tryst with a bug make you one?
when you mentioned that 'the veterans took over and imposed order', I'm reminded of some later IGN 'Transformers graphic novels' where Prime and Megatron discuss Meg's vision: enlightened dictatorship by him where all needs are met; when Prime asks about free will and the right to self expression, Megs just replies: "It won't be missed".
I wonder if anyone in the "Starfleet is not the Military" crowd has ever bothered about the Geneva Convention?
it as a known-about document (nevermind the details of the document itself) was probably lost in the eugenics wars ?
I would imagine that post-ww3 earth, in trek lore, was basically some degree and combination of 'mad max' and 'the postman' (rule of the strong, use of leftover technologies, factionalized and led by the augments and/or those who serve the augments, or xenophobic strongholds by those not strong enough), book of eli (burning of all possible books and documents, destruction of other artifacts), and maybe some other post apocalypse movies or tv serieses.
thus, as messy as the whole thing was, ww3 was basically a full-wipe and clean-slate-restart for earth, by the time the vulcans arrived.
i suspect that if zephram cochrane had failed, then earth would continue to decline into another technological and social dark age, and it would have been atleast another some-odd-thousand years before earth got back to where it was before the ww3.
Just the same as saying, Come fight for Rome, Join the Legion, See the world ,Fight Barbarians and Gain Citizenship!!!!
That was... exactly how the Republic and Principate sold the auxiliary services to the Gauls and Thracians out in the provinces.
The legions hired from citizens but under (say) Marius, were promised they'd get a patch of land at the end. Land means you had space to raise horses and your descendents maybe could try for the equestrian order.
I just re-read Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" It makes me agree with some of your points. For the last 140 years in this country the people who profit from war (and push for it) are not the same that pay the costs. The soldiers who die or come back maimed. The families that carry on without a family member or have to care for someone who was maimed for the rest of their life. I don't believe in conscription (I did however volunteer) I do think that the soldiers should have a bigger say if we rush off to war than the arms manufacturers. Its funny how owning stock in Raytheon can change a dove in congress into a hawk ready to shout "we are making the world safe for democracy" Especially when at the end of up they will be worth millions and hundreds of millions of dollars while not having to see any of their children or grand children come home maimed or killed. Maybe to vote for war or "police action" every congressman who votes such has to send or go themselves into the theater of war?
Smedley Butler was a fascinating person. He became a war hero early in life and a socialist later in life.
There's a lot for people to learn from his example.
@stephendaley266 that's because he's an Anglo, even when they're American born they will revert to their collectivist genetics eventually.
He's the sonofabitch that stopped the overthrow of the tyrant FDR, true scum loves other scum
@@stephendaley266 He became a socialist in large part because of his absolute revulsion for the blatantly profiteering motives for the wars he took part in. And then doubly so because business leaders had literally tried to recruit him for a coup to overthrow FDR, who he admired.
@@stephendaley266 General Butler was radicalized by the right-wing business moguls' attempted coup against President Roosevelt, who he admired.
If you don't want anyone to profit from war then you're going to have to fight with just a sharp stick as no one is going to give you any gun, or ammo, or shells or fighter jets for free.
Or you can have some system of forced labor like in the USSR where you do as the government says... or else.
And the weapons manufacturers didn't start any damn war, the politicians cannot be allowed to shirk that responsibility. It's their signatures on the congressional authorizations!
"Its funny how owning stock in Raytheon can change a dove in congress into a hawk"
It's funny because it's obviously the other way around, those politicians were never doves. Did these supposed "doves" ACCIDENTALLY buy shares in weapons manufacturers? Did it then mesmerize them? That's like an arsonist saying they were turned evil as soon as they held the box of matches in their hand. Hmm, do you think the problem might actually be in the heart of the man holding the lit match? And how the fault is in the heart of the politician who votes for war?
There is this strange reluctance to actually hold politicians responsible for their decisions.
It's always some external materialist factor, no personal responsibility. "Raytheon made me do it!"
You're not actually engaging with why politicians vote for war, you're just being fed propaganda that "profits are bad, man" as if profits are only deserving for sacrifice rather than it being a simple transaction for weapons. Weapons that give an astonishing advantage. It's not going to work requiring congressmen's sons go off to fight because even the congressmen who had their sons volunteer and die still believe in it. You have to engage with the reality of the decision-making, not let such important events be used as a political currency to expand more government power elsewhere.
Always bothers me that people think Starship Troopers represents Fascism. After Klendathu, the sky marshal took complete responsibility and stepped down. That doesn't happen under fascism. Our MCs father derides the government and service. In a Fascism he would have been too afraid of his own son ratting him out for saying such things. This is obviously a free speech society simply because of that scene.
The requirement to be a citizen has always been a requirement of voting in democracies and republics. The only difference is that in Starship Troopers, you have to earn citizenship through service to your fellow humans. Which is better than the original 'you have to be a land owner' from history.
It's because some peoples understanding of art ends at "Directoral intent"
Facism: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
These qualities are not present in the book or movie.
@@macmcleod1188 the military ran everything - they were the dictator. It doesn' thave to be a single person. And.... didn't they beat the shit out of characters for being marginal fuck ups?
@@stephenkolostyak4087 yeah except that's just not true. Even in the movie that tried to portray it that way they failed.
As I've said repeatedly, the TF has a more liberal voter franchise than in any modern democracy before 1919.
And the military doesn't have the right to vote until they leave service.
@@stephenkolostyak4087that implies there is no civilian government running and beating trainnee for fuck up is quite an odd concept that not officially exist in modern politics
The Terran Federation is a democratic republic. Paul Verhoeven wanted to make a parody of fascism, but since he is politically illiterate, while skilled as a movie director, he gave the Federation a perfect recreationn of fascist _aesthetics,_ giving them none of the political and philosophical content.
Isn't that what Fascism has become? Aesthetics is the only thing considered while substance is ignored?
I think he just was focusing on the militarism aspect of fascism. I think it's weird to expect the movie to dismantle every single aspect of fascism within the runtime.
@@chloegoodwin2482 A few problems with that. Really, only German Fascism is heavily militarized.
Norwegian Fascism is Anti-Communist, but not militarist in any sense.
English Fascism supported the Empire, but there was no increase in the militarization of society beyond enforcing it.
Italian Fascism is really just returning back to a more Warlord-esque way of organizing the State.
Spanish Fascism was a military Junta, but there was no militarization of society.
Portuguese Fascism is more technocratic, putting highly able men in position of power while keeping the Communist chaos-makers away.
While American Fascism was more of a Protestant identity movement that came from the Second Klan.
With phrases such as "Washington was America's first Fascist", et cetera.
But the movement was not at all militarized beyond what American culture and society already was.
Comparing these non-nazi fascist movements compared to Switzerland and Finland after the Second World War, makes it seem like Democracies are the militarists, not the fascists.
That's why focusing purely on "looking fascist" or by defining every militarized system as fascist.
During the Second World War, every country that was involved was militarized.
So too, any society at war against an alien bug species would be heavily militarized.... Because you're at war.
If you don't touch fascist policy, then by definition you are not dealing with fascism. You are simply looking at uniforms.
@@Hugebull Well, yeah. If they were looking for substance, they'd feel bad about themselves every time they looked in a mirror.
To quote Barbie: “I don’t even own the rail roads!”
There's a problem with this analysis I'm surprised you haven't noticed. Star Trek will often have different writers with different points of view use the faults of the Federation system as fuel for dramatic tension, and so we see those faults played out on screen. Starship Troopers as written is almost completely uncritical of their Federation Government, almost as if it was promoting it. Even Verhoven's adaptation, which the director himself meant to be critical, still didn't engage in the numerous easy ways real people would game the system, undermining whatever principles it was supposed to uphold within a generation or two.
Here's one easy method that would just seem natural: Let's say you've finished your service and now you're a citizen. And let us further assume that you've run into a legal problem preventing you from expanding your business. Perhaps it's some regulations, perhaps it's a non-citizen rival. As a citizen, you have political power, and likely a network of connections to other citizens you may have served with. Why, there are probably fraternal organizations of your fellow volunteers you can talk to about perhaps getting that pesky regulation changed, or maybe even get a law reworked to give citizens an advantage in that field. Suddenly you can build a power plant in your non-citizen rival's back yard. All clear and legal. It's for the greater good, after all.
Now, let's say that fellow who got that regulation changed for you says "Hey, you know that youtube philosopher who said that mean thing about my favorite movie last week? Turns out he just signed up for Federal Service to live by his principles. I think he could use some 'toughening up.' You still know someone in the placement department, don't you? I think that gadfly could use some time on the front lines." All so reasonable. All so friendly. All too easy to make sure undesirables of any kind rarely survive service. And that's just easy backroom dealing examples. We can look to everything from the Roman Cursus Honorum to the Exams systems of China to find so many ways to game that system. Take some time and think of a few, it's fun!
One last thing to consider: The difference in principles and aspirations of a system matter significantly. When there is no war to fight, Starfleet bops around the galaxy talking to people and scanning quasars. But what do you think the Starship Troopers' Federation would do without an enemy to direct itself against? Wouldn't it be terribly worthwhile to invent them?
Starship Troopers was an influential book. And there's a reason that a good chunk of that influence was causing other writers to write books such as the Forever War and Bill the Galactic Hero in response to it.
The problem with the meritocratic corruption critique is that it poses a problem that is endemic to our current society outside of the military. Besides going against the principles of service, the finer parts of the argument would probably be illegal already, and the author's (what we would now call) libertarian bent and Rico's family's immense success implies a relatively hands-off government kept in line by either a strong legal system or democratic base - the same things that safeguard liberal democracy.
Second, the adventurism critique has always made little sense to me in the context of SST. Why would you want to, on top of military service, go to war? Its not like they need to justify budget increases or new material acquisitions to a civilian government. What material benefit would war bring that peace couldn't? I should think the opposite problem is more likely, that the regime would be more unwilling to fight conflicts that it possibly should. The movie even provides - in its typically heavy handed and propagandistic way - an example of this in the case of Mormon settlers rejecting government warnings and colonizing worlds inside a supposed arachnid area of space and being slaughtered for it. Imagine if instead that were some peripheral, legal colony that was wiped out, with no military reaction from an electorate wary of sending their boys and girls to war.
Much of the film is nonsense, since it doesn't make much sense for the type of government portrayed to be so heavily investing in trying to dilute its own electoral power, but that is the closest thing to a structural issue with the system that I can identify. All other weaknesses are shared and amplified with the contemporary universal suffrage democracies that it tries to replace, and the Terran Fed as portrayed in the book is very much a liberal democracy of a sort.
@@RoughnecksSTCfan basically military people want to go to war because it improves their chances of promotion - more prestige, better pay, etc…
If you are a hammer and there are no nails, you’re wasting your time and should find another job.
War gives a military a purpose and no one wants to live a pointless life so soldiers want war.
Or another job.
@@RoughnecksSTCfan A "relatively hands-off" government is kind of in direct opposition to having a strong enough legal system or a responsive democracy. If Citizenship and the political power that comes along with it are meaningless because the civilian government is hands-off, that implies either that there is no reward for service but a healthy glow, or that the real power is in the hands of other forces. Perhaps the military.
As to why a militarized system would want war, the answer is simply to maintain power. Whether through budgets, ego, hollowing out the remnants of civilian authority through demands for increased wartime powers, or even to maintain the concept of service as a survival necessity for their own population, it is in the interest of everyone in the upper echelons of a militarized state to have an enemy to rally against. So they'll find one. The entire system of Citizen privilege is on the line.
@briangilmore6804 A "relatively hands-off" govermment is the very definition of liberalism. Political power is not meaningless in such an environment - I like to think people do not usually vote for the purpose of collecting power or resources for themselves but to forward the common good, which is exactly the sort of civic responsibility which Heinlein constantly harps on about in the book. If the common good is served, in most instances, by a liberal approach, this is the sign of a healthy society.
There is no need for war to maintain power - I still have no idea where this notion comes from, what sort of external assumptions are preceding it. Even in our own reality we see military governments - outright military dictatorships, mind you - that were not stuck in states of perpetual war. Usually these form because the civilian government has failed or is percieved to have failed, and the military takes over because it has retained a sense of internal 'legitimate' authority and is the very safeguard of the state's existence and thus has the power to do so. In Starship Troopers the military is (barring Heinlein's own later bargaining hypotheticals to the extent of military achieved citizenship) traditionally the backbone of the state itself. Its veterans form the (sustaining my previous note) bulk of the electorate. It doesn't need to justify anything any more than a military does in a universal suffrage democracy and more likely has to justify less - its a safe bet that veterans would not deplete the service of its means to exist, no matter how real or hypothetical its enemies, and any state needs an armed force to even exist.
Again, very strange assumptions. No one has been barred from the vote - no one is barred from political power except on the basis that they do not have the desire to achieve it.
For every argument that a qualified suffrage somehow inevitably comes to oppress the disenfranchised I can only say; what makes this different from a minority electorate in a universal suffrage democracy? The tyranny of the majority is just as if not more real a threat in democratic theorycraft and it is safeguarded against by... a hands off government, a robust legal framework, and/or a responsible electorate.
@@RoughnecksSTCfan Why would a liberal government be more healthy than a non-liberal one? You DO realize in times of war, governments tend to become less-free to get through them. If a liberal government would collapse, and an illiberal one wouldn't, which is more healthy?
...not that it matters in your example. In an environment where political power is more limited in what it can do, you can do less with political power. That's a straight up tautology.
"There is no need for war to maintain power" Without violence, a military has no purpose. Your military dictatorship example proves that, unless you can find me a peaceful military dictatorship. You also have no clue why military dictatorships arise. They are *always* a conservative response to left-wing government. The "failure" angle is mere propaganda by the people setting up the coup.
"...no one is barred from political power except on the basis that they do not have the desire to achieve it." Anyone with literally any physical or mental disability!? Anyone who has skills useless to the military, who would be used as cannon fodder during their bug war and almost certainly die!? Come on, buddy...
"... what makes this different from a minority electorate in a universal suffrage democracy?" ...we vote on MULTIPLE things? ....things you might not be in the minority for?
Conscription: As a former soldier I was always against it. I am coming around to the idea. Conscription with zero get out clauses and a system that could not be tampered with to decide if the senators son was sent to infantry on a Forward Operational Base or got to fly planes in the US as part of the Home Guard. It would give those with the most power pause before they sent other peoples sons off to die while nation building in one of the most backward countries on earth for 20 years. I suspect that one of the major reasons for the post war consensus was that the working class became real people when the elites shared hardships with them in the 2nd World War. Currently our Elites have no meaningful interaction with the working class.
@@williamvorkosigan5151 I’m still generally not a fan of conscription. I’m more open to tying voting with service in the military/law enforcement.
In spite media portrayals I'd much rather serve under politicians who've served than this who haven't. When my son first talked to me about joining, I told him most politicians view service members as a disposable commodity not people and I'd like to believe those who've been there are more likely to
In Starship Troopers there's no draft. Federal Service is 100% voluntary and according to state ideology it would remain so even during massive manpower shortages or an invasion of Terra itself.
If we're talking about sweeping social changes in general, I think "retirement age" should be mandatory. Especially for the politicians. That old adage that "wars are poor young men who don't know each other being sent to die on behalf of old rich men who do know each other" rings true to me.
If we want a system that values quality education and a strong social safety net, then everyone has to use it - otherwise they'll never see it as having value *for them* and never want to invest in it.
@@Grizabeebles When you say everyone has to use it? Do you mean outlawing Homeschooling and requiring kids to go to state schools? Because that’s a big no no from me and the problems of Homeschooling you may think of can be solved with Homeschool co-ops where different families get together and have their kids partake in activities or joint learning sessions.
@@crusader2112 Home schooling is a luxury.
Most working class families can't afford to have one parent be a full-time unpaid teacher.
That's fundamentally why home schooling won't solve the problems of US education.
Something I've always found odd about sci-fi is that few people have children and the ones that do have one, maybe two children. Yet they always have a massive population. I don't believe the maths checks out but maybe I missed something 😅
Likely because it's far into the future.
My guess is that it's mostly people on less developed planets who have many kids. They leave for better job opportunities, that how get a lot of people
It's called "fantasy" for a reason, there are a lot of things in it that just don't make sense.
When humanity reached the space age, they underwent a population boom that's since died down - think how the midcentury baby boom 's is long over, but it still exponentially increased our population. Kirk notes that, in ~2260 humanity is on somewhere over a thousand planets. Yes, these planets probably don't have the same population as Earth, but that's still a LOT of families having children.
It took you till @10:06 to get to what Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek. In order for humanity to survive and reach the stars. Humanity must change. You pointed out correctly some of Star Trek's Lore issues and their issues with money and how they basically survive in that universe. In one episode they have "Credits" then in another a character cannot buy anything because he has no "money". However at the end of the day this is a very very water-downed understanding of Roddenberry's vision as well as sorta missing the point to Robert Heinlein's vision of future humanity. Both I guess are "Utopias" and something you kinda left out is how Star Trek is viewed more as a "Left" side of the aisle Utopia while Starship I guess can be labeled the other side. Though I do not see it as that either.
So no they are NOT THE SAME
Excellent Video. Really enjoyed it
I am currently working my way through my library and I am up to Heinlein. I am very much looking forward to re-reading Star Ship Troopers. Soldiers in Scotland deciding they have had enough is looking quite attractive with our current Vote Labour, Vote Conservative. Get no borders and hyper immigration. The UK is taking a particularly totalitarian bent. As a former soldier, I can see the attraction of Starship Troopers light. You shouldn't be able to order men (and it is generally men) into battle if you have never served in a capacity that risked you being put you on or near the forward edge of battle.
Heinlein puts it as having skin in the game, that's a good way to explain it
I think the non-military side of "Federal Service" needs a companion book. Say someone working on a farm like a middle-aged serf or some "resarch assistant" whose job is to eat aliem flora and fauna on colony worlds to see if they're poisonous.
his later work sucked he was writing to market and riding his established reputation. but his early works are worth reading.
Make sure that before you read Starship Troopers, you read a biography of Heinlein and also his commentary on World War II and the cold war. What a lot of the analysis of Starship Troopers ignores is that it's an allegory for the very real threat of Communism in the 50s when it was the Soviet Union's explicit goal to export Communism to the rest of the world, violently if necessary. Without that context, Starship Troopers makes no sense.
As a Texan, we're getting their ourselves. We even stole brexit (which was lame as hell but alas), with Texit
I was always confused by the dissonance of “no money” and Picard’s family vineyard in France. Wouldn’t a lot of people want that vineyard? Why does Picards family get to have it? It’s not like there are infinite vineyards, beachfront villas or mountain chalets.
Or Barclay's very nice apartment in San Francisco that we see in Voyager. Does service to Starfleet allow you better housing privileges? Does your average person just live in a duplex?
Because it's a post-scarcity society (at least on the core Federation worlds). When you have all of your basic and intermediate needs met, you aren't focused on profit. Picard /works/ that vineyard because he /wants/ to. He's not earning profit. All of his "employees" are there because they want to be, because they're fulfilled by the work. People in general want to feel useful in their own way. Imagine how much more useful to an enlightened society people could be (in terms of art and culture and scientific exploration) if you could get an amazing and healthy five-course meal out of the wall and you never had to worry about a sufficient roof over your head.
Anyone who wants the physical trappings that Picard has can have it, somewhere else. Oh, you want a nice desk and a fancy mansion? Enjoy the holodeck.
I've been looking forward to Friday morning a lot more than usual lately.
OK..let me think:
-Society is wealthy.
-Government make things work, and do not mess with people.
-People do not mess with Governement...unless you want to vote or get into politics.
-If you want to vote or get into politics...you have to serve first.
- Free press is a thing.
-Authorities asume their errors and pay for them.
-Everyone is good looking...for some reason.
LONG LIVE THE UNITED CITIZEN FEDERATION ! !
...
....they made me the man I am today 😐😑
@@carlosvasquez9890 In the book, the veteran is there to make people think twice about signing to earn the vote. If you continue on and after testing you to make sure you understand the oath and if you pass they’ll let you sign up.
Free press definitely isn't a thing. Would you like to know more?
Is it a uniquely American thing not to get satire? Next you'll be telling Jonathan Swift ate babies.
@@jackdoyle7453 I think he’s talking about the book, which isn’t satire.
"Service Guarantees Citizenship" is pretty standard Republic stuff, since you know, the Romans, who invented the republic, used that very strategem. Any provincial "subject" could spend 20 years in the Auxilia and be rewarded with roman citizenship and a nice plot of land.
Fascism would say "Citizenship Guarantees Service." All within the state, all for the state, and nothing against.
Me as a military man. I love Starship Troopers.
I love how Verhoeven's attempt to satirize fascism makes his "fascist" society look like actually quite utopian, and actually not very fascist at all.
He tried to make an anti facist film and forgot to put in any fascism.
The best part being he never read the book, because the government was merocratic democracy, where those who were not citizens could do everything except vote and participate in government while those who did civil service (didn't have to be military) could vote and work in government. Also you could sign up at any age and it wasn't forced on you to join.
Fascism is always a utopia on the surface.
Why do you think people are so eager to do it?
Except that's not a meritocracy.
He could only grasp the militarized aesthetic, the mechanisms were beyond him.
Thank you for this video. I never compared these two sci-fi systems together so directly before. Very interesting, and I agree with your analysis. To answer the question often posed in the movie Starship Troopers, "Yes, I would like to know more!" Looking forward to a future video going into more depth on this alternate system of federation.
I'm pleasantly surprised this came up in my recommended slate.
I don't know if I agree with you or not - this is descriptive more than a value judgment - but that's to your credit. I'm glad this video exists, and I'll watch more.
The Federation from Star Trek is a positivist version of the Platonic Ideal of Governance. The Terran Citizens Federation is an Aristotelian Vision of a Federation that is very open, but is also exceptional focused on survival and maximizing personal freedom but keeping those who would mess things up out of the political system by having a limited Franchise
That's an excellent comparison.
In Starship Troopers there are several passages where it's pointed out how difficult selection for the Mobile Infantry was. In the end the whole point of enlisting and serving to gain the franchise was to teach those who were granted that authority that their decisions had such and impact that at any time it could lead to the deaths of other people.
If we're limiting the discussion to just the movie, the first thing drill instructor Zim says to his new class of cadets is that Washout Lane is always an option - so either way the Federation from ST is clearly not "taking anyone who is willing to join"
I have always loved Star Trek (the older more cannon iterations anyway) but deep down, I am Mobile Infantry.
Star Trek outside the Good Ship Lollipop has always hinted at a dark underbelly as contributing writers slipped in a few tidbits of conflict that were appealing to Roddenberry the WW2 flyer.
Ambassador Fox was quite a draconian politician. Overruling planetary sovereignty, threatening Scotty with a Federation gulag. He was however the meddlesome politician that got men killed unnecessarily in the B17 flying wing...to prove a point or score points back home.
Kirk's and Riley's colony was very dark...and that governor was appointed by United Earth if not the Federation (which Coon hadn't created yet).
Captain Tracey was a starship captain, best of the best sir, with honors,....
Yet he was consumed with greed for cash and power over the immortality mystery of the coms....interesting in this cashless and non property society.
That's why TOS and TAS didn't go to future Earth. They just hinted at it 3rd hand.
TNG went to Earth and found the Picards owned a vast vineyard handed down by inheritance....so much for no private property.
There's another difference you don't even acknowledge: The mind shattering incompetence and stupidity of the Federation in Starship Troopers. They throw wave after wave of soldiers carrying assault rifles and wearing basically suped up paintball armor, at an enemy that can cut through them like a hot knife through butter, who isn't harmed by any but their most powerful weapons. Starrfleet, on the other hand, is the definition of confidence. Yes, they get complacent in the period between the original series and DS9, but once they run up against a legitimate threat, they get their shit in order and start building ships and weapons that are capable of taking on that threat and defeating it. Starship Troopers NEEDS that massive net because of wasteful tactics. Starlet doesn't. It's also worth noting that Starfleet Academy is for officers. We don't know how enlisted end up in the organization. Even Lower Decks, which shifts focus aware from the bridge crew, focuses on a group of ensigns, not actual enlisted crew
There is such a thing. The test with two candies. The child is offered a candy, with the condition that if he waits and does not eat it right away, but waits two minutes, he will receive another one. Serving in the Army in Starship Troopers is such a test. You already have one candy (all your civil rights and freedoms). But if you serve, you will get more.
A Ukraine supporter is justifying Fascism, unsurprising.
@@Mortablunt Right, because not forcing somebody into military service and granting anyone who didn't serve basically all right but to participate in politics is so fascist....
Given that the Starship Trooper universe is also a democracy (cizien can vote) it's not even a dictatorship, unlike Ruzzia as example where elections are a joke with predetermined outcome sas seen in those referendums where Ruzzia doesn't even hold the majority of the population yet still claims a vast majority to be pro ruzzian.
Also Starship Troopers doesn't forcibly suppresses opposition, again unlike Ruzzia.
Also also again all non citizen have all economic rights, can own businesses and aren't infringed upon by the state...which again is something Ruzzia tends to do with the "window accidents" of so many business owners (or opposition people)....
So yeah, by comparison Ruzzia is severly more fascist than the Starship Trooper Federation, and it doesn't even need a satire/parody to be obvious to everyone but a Zombie.
That's more of a trust test more than a waiting test. If you don't trust that the extra candies are going to be delivered to you, you'll take the first one.
@@Mortablunt it's not justifying fascism, moron, it's called learning responsibility. for once, i have to agree with a "ukraine supporter".
@@Mortablunt you don't even know what fascism is.
Man, I really did enlist out of a sense of duty and obligation to the country I live in.
The cicada in the background while newsreel from Klendathu was onscreen was a nice touch.
Starship Troopers is a story about current day politics but set in space. Star Trek is about how all those things like 'tolerance' and 'education' and 'peace' are all cool and by focusing our efforts on those things + science and technology, we can be better than we currently are. Yes, you can't just apply Star Trek's vision of the world onto current day and expect it to work, but technology is always evolving, everything is becoming more automated. Pretending that it's not happening and that we will not need to do something to adapt to that is part of the reason why people push so hard for it now. We cannot just stagnate and rely on what has worked, because what has worked will not work forever.
One day we will have magic food replicators and robots that can build entire starships for us, which means we will have to find something to do with ourselves - and if the answer is 'military service' then you better fucking hope theres big alien bugs out there to shoot otherwise we're just going to be still gunning for eachother.
Even today we have working designs for thorium reactors that physicly can't meltdown, produce next to no waste, won't cost that much to keep running, and produce boatloads of power. Even the waste it does produce can be fed into other reactors that will further use the radioctive material and at the end of the cycle become an extremely tiny amount that can be easially contained for it to decay non-toxiclly. We just haven't built any because it would reduce energy costs to nil values and it isn't profitable for a company.
We also produce way more food then we use and with improved transportation infastructure we could transport it everywhere relatively inexpensively. Hell in the US there are massive caves filled with around 1.3 billion pounds of surplus cheese that we don't just give away because it would make cheese sellers lose loads of money.
Studies have been done that prove that paying your workers higher wages increases productivity far higher then the cost of those wages, on top of lessening employee stress and making them more loyal and willing to do extra things for free. More paid time off is also proven to do the same thing, so does investing in workers by paying for education and investing in things like solar panels. The reason companies don't do that is because our economy is structured for quick return on investment. Investors only care about quarterly profit and so any initiative that isn't in line with that gets axed.
Scarcity is already mostly self imposed in order to keep the statue quo. It would just take a societal revamp and we would live in the star trek world even without the crazy advanced tech.
The similarities aren't a coincidence or convergence: ‘Starship Troopers’ was based on a book of the same name by Robert Heinlein while the original Star Trek was heavily inspired by the book ‘Space Cadet’ which was also written by Heinlein.
This is not correct. The original Star Trek was largely a science fiction version of the concepts of Napoleonic sea stories (like Horatio Hornblower; the original story bible for "The Cage" described Captain Pike as Captain Horatio Hornblower in Space) crossed with the "core cast plus guest stars" format that was very popular for ongoing TV series like "Wagon Train" and "Bonanza" at the time. To the extent that it had sci-fi antecedents, they were "Forbidden Planet" (Gene was highly influenced by Space Cruiser C-57D; I don't think it was a coincidence that when Next Generation was conceptualized, the new Enterprise would be NCC-1701-D) and the TV show "Space Patrol" (the highest-budget science fiction TV program ever to that time).
@katherineberger6329 These other sources of inspiration are certainly worth mentioning. It's just that I would've put Heinlein at the top of the list in terms of world building. "Wagon train to the stars" seems more descriptive of the format or style of the show (rather than what I might call the content). Forbidden Planet was so broadly influential that i's probably harder to find things it didn't inspire, and the focus on life aboard the ship itself does reflect more of the maritime adventure stories you mention, but I think the overall setting was very inspired by Heinlein's books.
TOS (like the other chapters) was a product of its time. Pseudomilitary future fantasy can be found in other TV shows like Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea...and was found in various movies and TV series in the 50s and 60s...from Rocky Jones Space Rangers to Star Trek. These shows share a lot in common with other procedural shows:
Dragnet, 12 Oclock High (even borrowed the theme music from that), lawyer shows, various western fort shows, naval movies and shows old and modern....and story ideas borrowed from, Philip Nowlan novels/comics (20s and 30s) Fantastic Tales, Outer Limits and Twilight Zone (aka The Cage).
Star Trek is a procedural mystery show. Solve the mystery with the instilled procedure.
One thing the movie left out - and that subsequently gets forgotten by just about everybody who discusses "Starship Troopers" - is that the novel stated that service to the state was a pre-requisite to becoming a Citizen. This wasn't exclusively about military service, just service. In the novel, Rico's school friend Carl ends up in a research station on Pluto that the bugs wipe out. The implication was that he was in some government organisation roughly analogous to NASA. In later interviews Heinlein clarified this point, specifying that not all service had to be military in order to get Citizenship.
The only difference in the images is that one of the two is honest about what makes it all work. The troopers, and their war gear, aren't hidden in a security room in one, while Trek only very rarely lets you see the men with energy shields, and rifles.
Well Trek has transporters in common civilian use by TNG and likely semicommon in TOS. Transporters convert the object or person to energy, transmit the energy as a beam at energy high speeds and then the same or partnered computer converts the energy signal back into matter.
However computers must be programmed to UNDERSTAND any aspect they convert to reanimate. So mysteries get truncated. Morover, computers are programmed by Starfleet, United Earth or the UFP specialists...likely at the Daystrum Institute.
What could be problematic with that?
Love your content, which I only discovered last night. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Fun fact: The "centavos" remark is a nod to Juan/Johnnie Rico's home country of the Philippines, which uses pesos & centavos as their currency. Later in the novel he's remarked as speaking Tagalog, one of the (if not the most) predominant languages of the PI.
Having to earn your franchise before you can vote. Service guarantees Citizenship... I dunno, may be a way to solve some problems?
Both Federations are fantasies, but I prefer Star Trek’s hope more than Starship Troopers cynicism. The answer is not weeding out the foolish. The answer is increasing wisdom 😊
With regards to the movie at least, the Federation of Starship Troopers absolutely shows cracks inherent in this own idea. For one, they as a culture value The State over the individual, without defining what that State is or means beyond this vague sense of "humankind". A big theme of the movie that is established very early on is that the humans and the bugs are more alike than they realize: they thoughtlessly sacrifice themselves for their greater whole. The federation dehumanizes its populace through propaganda and privileges. Second, they do exert some control over the public sector: the shower scene brings up things like "having children", wanting to "be a journalist", and other post-service goals for why they joined the service to begin with, which begins to paint this picture that the State does gatekeep civic rights, even if it doesn't necessarily demonize those who don't have them. Thirdly, while their society may look squeaky clean and utopian, it's operated as anything but. Their intelligence is scuffed, they respond to an (alleged) act of aggression from long range by freighting over 100 000 soldiers and dumping them into the middle of a rocky shithole with no objective or goal beyond "kill all those bastards who dared slight us".
All of this is in strict contrast to Trek's Federation, which while certainly militarized and definitely more than a little hypocritical, goes to great lengths to ensure there are systems in place to make sure such abuses of power, both civic and military, simply can not happen easily. Starfleet would never be able to declare war on another species over an alleged act of aggression with just the rallying cry of "human kind, not insect, dominates this galaxy", nor would they make time to permit talking heads on TV that say "I find the idea of a bug that thinks offensive". To that end, sure, the picture might be the same, but the artists are quite different, and one of them has a hell of a lot more talent than the other heh.
Also, just gonna say, if we count all 50+ years of varying Trek lore and all its contradictions, we should count other Starship Trooper lore too, in which military officials quite literally say they need children to grow up big and strong to be "meat for the grinder". It doesn't get more damning than that lol.
Nearly zero of the stuff in Troopers you find objectionable is in the book - and this video is about the book, not the movie.
"Oh, I almost forgot to mention. It's not fascist."
I have seen many videos here on youtube discussing Starship Troopers. And it's always so disappointing when I almost inevitably hear the video creator state with absolute certainty: "The Federation are the bad guys and the bugs are a metaphor for how fascist regimes dehumanize their enemies.", or some variation of this.
I get that most people don't know what fascism actually is (and to be honest, I'm not too sure myself), and many confuse militarism with fascism, but the Federation is in some ways more liberal than many current day democracies.
And Paul Verhoeven's attempted character assassination of the book, while entertaining and one of my favorite movies, greatly muddied the waters and poisoned the well in regards to peoples perception and understanding of the Federation and it's values.
So, it always brightens my day when I hear someone say that the Federation isn't fascist.
Thank you.
Oh dear dopey I think you just outed yourself as a fascist
Fascism is capitalism in decay.
Exactly! People just brainlessly parrot that the federation in Starship Troopers is fascist because it has the look and Verhoeven said so but when you look at the world we are presented with there's nothing fascist about it. The news don't lie even when it shows the federation in a bad light! Hell, even the leaders take responsibility of their mistakes and resign.
Fascism is a concept defined a couple of different ways.
Militarism is only part of it. The obsession with unity against an enemy (there is always an enemy) is another part. There is always a “them” and an “us” and a clear social hierarchy.
“Do you want to live forever?” is a deeply fascist idea - that dying in service of the state is true glory is as fascist as fascist gets.
Crusher would not hesitate to send someone to die to save the ship in a fascist system, that death would be their glorious moment of victory.
Eco’s essay “Ur-fascism” is helpful in diagnosing it. He gives a series of criteria and while Heinlein’s novel doesn’t check all the boxes it checks enough to be very uncomfortable.
Fascism seems like an attractive system - a removal of selfishness in service to a greater whole. Fascism, like any other utopia, never seems to work out the way it’s dreamed, though…
@@Justanotherconsumer You're making way too much from the phase “Do you want to live forever?”. Originally it's from American marine Daniel Joseph Daly who used it when attacking Germans during the WW2. And even more so, nothing fascist about it. The idea is that through glory you achieve immortality. All kinds of political systems use this thinking.
With all due respect, I call bullshit. While the apparent lack of a specific dictator means that the Terran Federation doesn't perfectly fit the definition of fascism, they easily meet the other criteria:
1) Extreme authoritarianism: petty offenses are answered by public flogging of the perpetrator and sometimes their entire families, there is no right to due process when accused of a crime, failure to follow orders or making physical contact with a superior within the military -- no matter how well-intentioned -- is punishable by summary execution, and the state has the right to punish or even execute people who protest the war. Soldiers are subjected to hypnotic conditioning which allows superiors to force them to follow some orders. More broadly, there is not even the slightest hint on institutional limits to the power of the Federation or its agents; a high-ranking official can have you beaten, strip you of all your property, and even kill you without facing even the slightest consequence or having to go through more than a few minutes' process.
2) Extreme nationalism: propaganda is constantly and heavily pushed through media outlets, political dissenters are branded enemies of the state, and schools are required to teach propaganda as a part of their curriculum. The Terran Federation regularly annexes other civilizations' territories and brutally attacks any civilization that doesn't wholeheartedly support them; the novel begins with Rico cheerfully slaughtering his way through a city, deliberately inflicting as much pain and terror as possible, because the "Skinnies" provided nonmilitary support to the Arachnids.
3) Oppressive political control: in addition to the jailing and execution of dissenters, the military leadership of the Federation has complete control over the civilian government in Heinlein's universe; not only does political participation require military service (and the lifelong commitment to following the orders of superior officers), but also Heinlein specifically mentions in Space Cadet that the military maintains chains of nuclear bombs in orbit of all civilized worlds and uses them on any civilian government which 'misbehaves'.
So let's contrast this with the United Federation of Planets. The UFP has very strong institutional limitations on the power of its officials both in and out of Starfleet: all citizens accused of a crime have the right to due process and representation, there are no punishments more severe than incarceration, Starfleet is explicitly under the command of the civilian government rather than the other way around, weaker civilizations are given some of the strongest legal protections possible rather than being exploited, and we see several examples of marginalized groups being able to successfully defend their rights without needing to resort to violence. The only thing even vaguely approaching the power of the Terran Federation within the UFP is Section 31, and there's no evidence that they wield any kind of actual authority within Starfleet or the Federation.
star ship troopers is actually demanding that people be better it's just quieter about it.
the system proposed is fundamentally a form of voter restriction, a huge % of people fail to achieve citizenship and who applies in the first place can easily be influenced.
As with any form of voter restriction it could be used to prevent certain groups from obtaining political power.
It would be extremely easy for one group of people if they achieve a significant majority to simply prevent other groups from ever having enough citizens to effect political change.
Thereby creating a leadership class within the system.
So for the world to work it's still asking that humans be better because it demands that humans not form political factions and aim to destroy all others.
4:25 Picard: "We worked to better ourselves and the rest of humanity."
Everybody who loves Freedom: "Sure as I know anything I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people…better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave."
To be fair star trek the next generation was trying to depict a post scarcity economy and did such a piss poor job of it it lapsed into communism. You find yourself wondering why anyone listens to Picard's orders at all? He's not even paying them and would have no moral authority like the commanding officer in a military.
It says something about how any society is going to crumble eventually... Sure, we root for the Browncoats because we're told the story from Mal's perspective, but the Alliance certainly had at least some aspirational notions. Hell in the very first episode, they prioritize saving civilians over pursuing Serenity and her crew and the very fact the heroes had that crybaby buoy indicates this is routine and exploitable Alliance behavior.
Any society that seeks to last, has to have some aspirational element to it. Consider that the Independents all only came together when there was an existential threat facing the lot of them. In theory, the Alliance and a centralized system, could better provide for people suffering hardship out on the frontier and provide a buffer for when hardship strikes, as well as accountability to local tyrants. Now granted, we don't see that happen, but again, we're told the story from Mal's perspective and we know for a fact that until their vaunted independence was threatened, the Independent planets did NOT come together to aid one another in times of need, each being more concerned with their own problems and survival.
This is all also not to say the Alliance was a good thing or didn't thoroughly _deserve_ to get exposed and destroyed by the broadcast of what happened on Miranda. After all, if the truth can destroy something, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth. But the fact remains that all societies DO strive to make people better, it's just that we do it through laws and social pressure, rather than poison in the water and air. Societies _exist_ because they are better than living in the State of Nature and those who try to break down the society to better serve themselves over the group, are considered criminals and dissidents for that very reason - we want people to be better than selfish animals.
Apparently somebody did not read the Starship Troopers book I wish people would stop saying that the movie was completely the book they are so different it's not even the same thing
A perfect pairing for my morning coffee.
People have gotten Starship Troopers wrong since the movie came out. It's definitely not fascism, as others have pointed out, for various reasons that should be pretty obvious to anyone who's actually studied history.
Verhoeven admitted he didn't finish the book. 🙄
I love Starship Troopers so much, and it's always annoyed me how many people don't understand it (even the director of the movie, although the movie is still awesome). It is in no way fascist, and Robert Henlien- who detected conscription- was a WW2 vet. I think they'd know more about fascism than we do. Great video, I really enjoyed your analysis
The problem with the starship troopers federation is that it's not a stable system. It doesn't even take human nature into account. In the real world, when you put all political authority in the hands of a military caste, that caste exercises it's authority to become an aristocracy.
The starship troopers model lasts, at best, a few generations before going this route.
In Trek lore, you don't really get to see the average Federation citizen living on replicator welfare and burning up hours in the holosuite. Yes, a person is allowed to succeed and better themselves. But what if they have no ambitions to do so?
It's unrealistic to expect such sweeping changes in human nature. Even in future utopia.
I've always wanted a series exploring the non Starfleet underbelly of the Star Trek world. You rarely see it, but there is regular encounters with dangerous criminals and others, so that whole side of their world exists.
i tend to think that star trek's cultural thing of self-betterment would be theoretically possible, since there are atleast afew real-world studies that indicate that most people, once the basics of life were taken care of, would probably take to their own hobbies with a passion, and that a significant portion of people would turn into workaholics, to various degrees. (and thusly, the civilian side of the federation would be composed of competing guilds of everything vs everything, in a meritocratic semi-capitalism sort of structure.)
Sure, there would be the slice of people who sit around and do literally nothing all day-everyday, but from what i've seen of studies and scenarios. i suspect that said slice of deadbeats, would be pretty low and generally temporary in comparison.
@@Zoie3x8 You are hinting toward Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Self actualization is a wonderful thing, please don't get me wrong. I think Roddenberry had a vision.
Here comes the however. The curve of human nature is not steep enough to accommodate 100% altruism. Nor has the Federation(or Sweden, or Switzerland) cured all social diseases. Say, for example, a Federation "penal colony" in New Zealand.
I don't doubt your hope. Merely being critical of it. My appreciation toward the thoughts shared here.
One could always imagine that it has something to do with the eugenics wars. Granted, Star Trek lore is... inconsistent at best, but you could probably make a case that all the "humans" in the federation are likely carrying genetic patterns which result from active attempts at improvement, even if they were passed down the natural way. Even if, after the eugenics wars, there were plenty of unaugmented humans around, we've seen how incredibly capable the augmented ones are, and even if the people from the eugenics wars weren't as unbelievably capable as Bashir and his SpEd friends, they (and their descendants) would have had a massive advantage in the harsh conditions which likely followed thereafter before all the warp travel and aliens. Maybe Star Trek works, because the "humans" aren't. Of course, that's presumably not what any of the writers intended, if they intended anything at all.
It doesn't really matter. The thing is that when you have such advanced technology, you just don't need that many workers. The idea of "Everyone must work" is arguably antiquated in the modern age, let alone a future where they have all kinds of advanced AI and robotics. ST is a bit unrealistic because they should be showing a lot more robotic helpers for everyone. Robots lifting things, building things, and so forth. Just going by the doctor on voyager, they had a hologram that could adapt to create new medical procedures and fully act as a human doctor. When you have that level of AI, you're going to have helper robots.
A futuristic society like that can provide for its people without requiring the grunt labor that more primitive societies require. If 60% of your people don't want to work? So what? It really doesn't even matter, because you don't even need that many workers.
Just imagine if we solve basic robotics and AI in our current reality. If we can create robotic workers cheaply enough, we'll be able to replace a ton of basic professions: Cashiers, stockers, truck drivers, crop pickers and so forth. So if you buy into the AI hype, then we may be pretty close to having a lot of the ST conveniences already.
The big limiter for space travel is ships, fuel and so forth, not just having bodies to do basic chores. It's why Starfleet can afford to be so exclusive, because they don't need basic laborers.
I read Starship Troopers in the ‘80s. Paul Voerhoven/Ed Neumier’s film is a great action flick. But it’s not Starship Troopers as Heinlein wrote it. What I got out of the novel is that the fundamental basis of Terran Federation Culture is Personal responsibility.
Thank you for saying it’s not fascist.
my man look like michael eddington
In the thumbnail he looks like Admiral Marcus.
he does look like michael eddington!
The chief/Lt. O'Brien cutaway 😂😂😂
“Everything I don’t like is fascism” is a summation of modern political discourse in America. Which is hilarious seeing as fascism never took root here compared to several European countries.
The funny thing was fascism did try, like with the Klan. But we all know how that ended. So it's ironic that people try to push a failed ideology as a great specter that looms over America when we have bigger problems than opportunistic wannabe goose steppers who want attention.
Until now. Why the surge to censor other people? How is it that censorship actually has unapologetic champions now? Such creatures used to be afraid to even show their faces --- and for very good reasons. That is actually more in tune with authoritarianism in general than just fascism, but it fits.
I kinda get your point but you forget that there was a massive nazi party in the United states and that A LOT of policies that the nazis installed were inpired by the racist policies of Apartied America. Moreover there was a facist putch in the US that almost one
That is factually wrong. Absolutely wrong. It's easy to point and say a lot of things about America are fascist because they are blantantly fascist. You have to be willingly blind or be a fascist to miss it
"This machine kills fascist" on a Macbook the company which made it has more legislative and political power than any company had in Mussolini's fascist representative legislature.
*Remember, in **_Starship Troopers_** service guarantees citizenship. In fascism, citizenship guarantees service.*
I just found your channel this morning and I'm glad I did. This is the kind of content we need on the Internet in general and TH-cam in particular.
I've noticed that both Star Wars and Star Trek have started exploring the darker sides of their "good guys" over the last decade or so. The social theorist in me wants to blame that on growing distrust in the system from those of us living under it . . .
@@MichaelJenkins910 and SST (book) fans are absolutely adamant that there is no dark side to their fantasy world…
My country (Malaysia) has National Service but it's stripped down to sort of a summer camp and is drawn by lots. Nothing as intense as Singapore's as it only last a few months for some people. We are a Multicultural Country however politics and race supremacist ideology pushes us apart. Every race regardless will be taught they are oppressed while also taught they are the superior race.
However I do notice that people who were selected to do National Service has a better command of the language and is more comfortable with the other races. A sense of unity, instead of divide and racism.
@@MalaysianChopsticks often that intolerance is just fear from not knowing. Spending time with “THEM” makes it a lot easier to realize that they’re not really that scary.
Your opinions are always so contrarian and I love it! I expected you to go Starship Troopers is fash like everyone else. Instead you bring nuance. Who knew TH-cam had space for nuance? I didn’t.
Mike from Redlettermedia once described the Troopers-Federation as the complete opposite to the Trek-Federation. I love how the Feral historian takes a much needed different perspective.
As a former sailor who has seen some of the wider world I can see how Heinlein's story can make for a better person. When you get into some of those third world countries you're seeing people who are impoverished, fiscally or otherwise, on a scale beyond anything that can be seen in the first world. My father grew up dirt poor in Pennsylvania during the 1920s and 1930s. When he hit to India during his service in World War 2, he saw what poverty really was. And seeing that unvarnished truth is what can make a sailor/soldier a better person. It doesn't have to be a service person. Anyone who has served in the Peace Corps, Doctors without borders, etc. can have that type of experience. That's why, in later interviews, Heinlein said any type of service for the greater good earns citizenship.
@@indetigersscifireview4360 the response varies though.
Some instead of compassion and responsibility will learn that there are those who want what they have and they have to jealously guard their own or it will be stolen.
Fear leads to hate, and so on.
@@Justanotherconsumer those who are disenfranchised that I've seen and the people my Dad talked about would never have a chance to take anything from anyone. I'm talking about people who are so disadvantaged they aren't even considered people in their country. Beggars on the street who can literally be stepped on without consequence.
It is unpleasant to think about the military developing into a caste system. All the talk of social stratification has focused on wealth but there are many more aspects to consider if we want to avoid the looming techno-feudalism.
The US political system is nearly it's own social class nowadays. Long-serving wealthy career politicians gaining advantages for their family members. Those continuing the political legacy or getting boosted into favorable adjacent elite careers. More so than the military I think.
@@NefariousKoel We have a society overrun with lawyers, who themselves are a social caste. And soooo many US politicians are lawyers, too. They create a system that benefits themselves, like beavers building dams, and damn everyone else.
@@NefariousKoel SST explicitly makes the military the political class, so there’s no “nearly” about it.
Heinlein’s book is a bit unrealistic and optimistic about those in power not abusing that power. Being a veteran does not inherently make someone trustworthy - I know a couple of vets that are great guys but I definitely recognize that I’m gonna be the designated driver.
@@Justanotherconsumer I was speaking of current situation, so I think there was a miscommunication there. But yes, SST does that and no it doesn't guarantee good decision making either. Humans gonna be human.
The military is a caste system, by design and function and ancient history. In order to fight a war of any sort you need effective command and control which dictates stratification, which is to say hierarchy. A flat social structure may work for a Silicon Valley startup, even though most of the time it doesn't, but it sure as hell does not work for life and death situations, or existential societal organizations. this is human reality
As a nine-year veteran of the US Navy, I wish I would have stayed in. I really loved it. Psychologically I came from a family background of Chaos and in the Navy it was like a new family that gave me order. I'm also a lifelong Star Trek fan. In the Navy it was my Starfleet. I won'ted to be in the military sense maybe six years old. The funny thing is my family are artist LOL. No one convinced me I just felt I was born to wear a uniform. Now I have job still wearing a uniform ha ha ha. Great video. Very thought-provoking.
Nice try Eddington. We will never join the Maquis against the federation
One point to add: Both federations have a secret police-type force operating out of the shadows.
For my money if you do not PAY taxes you should not have a vote.
6:50 the little squeaks almost made me panic, i thought a creature was let loose within my home
There's usually some critter chiming in. The shrieking bald eagle last year was my favorite.
Thought provoking stuff. Thank you!
Another part where the two diverge is in how each enforce laws and punish criminals. The Terran Federation utilizes corporal punishment publicly, hard labor for more serious crimes and capital punishment for murder, due to their history believing that harsh discipline is needed to avoid the mistakes of the past.
Where as the Federation utilizes a simple incarceration and therapy system that isn't explored in any greater depth than the former. All the viewer/reader gets is that it "just works".
One thing I'll point out though for the Federation is that the attitude of the main characters comes from their back stories.
Kirk mellows throughout the show/movies mostly because he gets old and just wants peace.
Picard as we learn used to be quite a hot head and it was only the brush with death that caused him to be who we see in the show.
I think that gives an important clue to the Federation. Starfleet is made up of largely those people who would dissatbilize society so they're given a purpose and explore the galaxy leaving everyone else to their own devices.
It isn't fascist, fascist gov would either exclude everyone except an small in group from affecting policy direction with no opportunity to gain such a privilege, or force everyone to engage but punish anyone who picked the wrong option in the polls, weeding out anyone who might oppose said policies. they are almost always top down and authoritarian and EVERYONE is expected to hold up the state regardless of personal preference.
Fascism: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
These qualities are absent in the movie and book.
The movie (and book) portray a constitutional republic with a limited vote franchise.
And that franchise is more liberal than any "democracy" before the early 1900s.
*Posts Comment to aid the video in the algorithm.*
I’m doing my part.
The guts of Starship Troopers... (History and Moral Philosophy) almost non-existent in the film. Many critics ignore the fact that under the stated system.... Soldiers can not vote...soldiers can never vote until they are no longer soldiers. Also...many of those who serve in the military...are not combat soldiers... Many have difficult and sometimes dangerous assignments...that do not entail combat.
.
Conscription is essentially slavery. In Korea and Vietnam it was slavery imposed essentially on the lowest rungs of society...the poor and politically powerless. Sort of like Frederick the Great who used to brag that (until late in his efforts at least) the citizenry need not concern themselves with his wars...the "dregs" of society would pay the actual penalties involved. Long story, but I was 4-A...permanently draft exempt... Still, I volunteered and became a Marine infantryman in 1968... But I have no disrespect for those who chose to avoid being conscripted by one of the many avenues out there...(sadly, most of the legal means for doing so not easily available to the poor, uneducated, or powerless.)
.
In countries such as Switzerland and (until later years) Israel...you essentially had "universal military service" which at least spread the burden. Other than the World Wars...the U.S. did not require that and used "Selective Service" to make do almost entirely with the poor, powerless...and patriotic...
.
Many who call for conscription these days say if not military service for two years...then "public service" welfare type work. So... Your children are sent to a slum in Detroit for two years with the hope that they are not murdered by the drug cartels...whereas the offspring of the wealthy, the powerful and the well-connected either are somehow declared exempt...or they serve their two years in Beverly Hills or Martha's Vineyard... or are used as recruiters for whatever political party is in power at the time... YP
The thing about Starship Troopers is that citizen must serve in the military came from the Roman Republic. In Rome you had to have served in the military to be able to hold office.
Starship Troopers society is completely bonkers, service and danger doesn't necessarily make virtuous men.
The society is very clearly cornering your life choices and to say that this is similar to Star trek is like saying banana and apple are same cause they are both fruit.
And whether its realistic or not is irrelevant, Star trek shows as our expectations of better society if we would put the effort in...there is quote from Pratchett
"You need to believe in things that aren't true, how else can they become?"
The thing is, military service does serve as a "reality check". Spending a decade in school, where you do nothing real, to then spend years in college or university, does not place you in reality. You live in a fairytale land. To then spend your life working in an office.
Then, by sending the majority of your young through this system, creates a core of the voting population that have absolutely no concept of reality.
Which, is really bad if you believe in Universal Suffrage. Filling the electorate with people who are disconnected from reality is really bad.
100% this. Starship Troopers is about someone's opinion on current day politics and warfare - Star Trek is about science and technology with a healthy dosage of idealism attached. I'm sick of people acting like that's a bad thing or that they MUST be secretly the bad guys because then it's more like 40k which they like more.
There is a reason a lot of new tech that comes out is based on stuff that was first seen in Star Trek and yet you never hear about the technology Starship Troopers predicted or inspired. Technology is basically just reskinned modern stuff in Starship Troopers.
The society of the Terran Federation that we're shown isn't really bonkers, it's just a globalized version of American society back in the fifties.
I think you were referring to their political system, instead. Again, I don't think it's bonkers either, it's just an otherwise normal liberal democracy, but with limited suffrage. All democracies limit suffrage to some extent, many of them are much more limiting than even the Terran Federation is shown to be.
And I don't agree that their society or political system is "cornering [their] life choices" at all, we're _shown_ people living perfectly normal, content lives whether or not they engage with the political system, and we're shown very explicitly that such engagement is actively discouraged.
I used to think badly about military service too. In my time, you had to serve 9 months in the army or do your civilian service in hospitals or old people's homes. Now this obligation no longer exists and I think it was a good thing for society as a whole. This service that every man had to do brought the society together in my eyes. All shared this experience of being at the service for your society.
I think it's worth mentioning that the DTV sequels to Starship Troopers paint a bleak timeline, with humanity continuing to lose ground in the Bug War and becoming increasingly autocratic in response. By the end of the third movie, the Federation has actually converted into a theocracy in, apparently, a last-ditch effort to maintain power in the face of growing discontent.
I know the StarTroops sequels aren't well regarded (although the 3rd was actually decent) but it does point to that Federation's level of centralization ultimately becoming its failure point - which I'd personally blame on its stranglehold on the media, but whatev. Meanwhile, for all its problems, the Trek Federation never seems to go that bad. According to Discovery, it ends up crumbling in the early 3000s due to a widespread "natural disaster" style scenario, rather than internal pressures. And hey, 900 years is a pretty impressive run for any empire.
And it still exists in some form after the Burn, and since The Burn likely crippled every major faction, gives it the chance to rebuild.
Lmao the federation is a joke and would not have lasted 3 centuries let alone 9
Middle school tier writing is the only reason they magically lasted that long
@@victorkreig6089 Kind of ridiculous to use a "writing bad" as an argument when we're talking about it from an in-universe standpoint...
Really weird change from the book where the bugs turn on their alien allies called the Skinnies when they get in their way, and the Skinnies ally with the Federation against the bugs.
Then again, the movies wanted to ignore what Starship Troopers was actually about and just use the name.
The Book Starship Troopers wasn't fascist. The movie was the best satire about Fascism ever depicted on film. Heinlein was a proto-libertarian. My favorite line of his was from Red Planet when he said something to the effect of "Liberals make better societies but Conservatives make better neighbors."
This is a generously rosy interpretation of the Starship Troopers Federation. Its a system rife with many pitfalls, even as described in the book. For starters, when power is the exclusive domain of a self-defined minority, exploitation quickly becomes rampant -- too easy for the ordained ones calling the shots to find a "common good" that just happens to benefit them especially, and to cut off potential opposition by assigning all the recruits who might eventually vote against them to a far-off meatgrinder planet. More broadly, an exclusively military-borne ruling class seems likely to trend towards approaching all problems as military ones -- I'd want at least one counter-balancing estate with a different philosophy mitigating things. There's also a heavily implied military-industrial complex in the Troopers Fed', closely allied with the ruling class to keep society on a war footing and the defense contracts flowing (the film is pretty loud in its implication that the war with the Bugs is entirely manufactured and unjustified). Historically, though you claim the Fed' isn't fascist, it's rather glaring that the genesis of the Trooper Fed is a close echo to what, at least in part, gave rise to the mid-century European fascist movements: bitter post-WWI military veterans feeling they could no longer trust civilians to run things, in large enough numbers to start political movements. Even if the Trooper Fed isn't Fascist in the time we see it, it's got all the ingredients to turn into one quickly: minority franchise on power, death-worship, exultation of war, xenophobia. They're just one lost war away from electing a dictator.
I'm more in line with your criticisms of the Trek Fed -- for a "non-aggressive" polity, they sure build a lot of colonies.
@@etexpatriate trek fed’s dark side has been openly discussed in the franchise.
SST has only one thing beyond the books I’m aware of, a movie that was at best a loose adaptation, so there’s not really much to work with beyond the utopian ideals.
Utopias don’t exist in real life. Power would corrupt, likely in the ways you describe, if it was not a work of fiction.
It’s an interesting ideal, but like all utopias it has some bugs.
You wrote an awful lot of crap just to say you didn't read the book
@@victorkreig6089 I have, twice, so no points to you, thank you for playing.
@@etexpatriate I'm sure you'd have no issues providing passages supporting your claims of an influential MIC steering state policy, if you have in fact read the book twice over. Or to support any supposed permanent state of 'war footing' (a curious thing for a state with no conscription.)
The film is nonsense and even there the hostile director was incapable of constructing a consistent narrative towards that end. It shouldnt be relevant to any discussion of SST except as an example of how not to interpret the book.
" More broadly, an exclusively military-borne ruling class seems likely to trend towards approaching all problems as military ones." Actually, no. People who have never been military tend to be more jingoistic than veterans.
The biggest mistake of the starship troopers movie is making the world so ridiculous and over the top, that it makes fascism look fun.
This is why Helldivers exists and the fans (including myself) are fanatics.
"It's not fascist"
Good for you. It's nice to finally see a TH-cam video that understands the difference between what Heinlein described and what Dougie Houser in von Rundstedt's overcoat suggests.
The movie is enjoyable for what it is but totally distorts Filipino Juan Rico's journey.
You sure know how to pick a beautiful location to film, this was a great topic that me and many friends have argued time and time again.
Always love to hear your point of view 👍👍
I read the novel recently, mostly to figure out if it was a satire of fascism or a love letter as people keep telling me. I don't think it was either. If it was a satire of anything it would be the modern military recruitment, but I think there's enough material to make an argument for both. What I can say for certain is that it is a genuinely enjoyable read and I would desperately love to talk to Robert Heinlein's mother because I don't know what he was saying about men and women but fucking hell was he shouting it as loud as he could.
Most people who have read it don't understand it because they're stupid.....and from a future that is so disgustingly far away from the mental perceptive place that Heinlein was in it's almost comical.
If you understand what you're looking at irs very easy to read and understand. If you're an idiot it just fills all the checkboxes for the propaganda you've been fed your entire life so you relate it to a current year strawman.
Starship Troopers was Heinlein's peak when it came to his personal ideology, later on life he suffered nothing but disappointments from people who would spout ideology and then never actually follow through which made him pretty bitter.
He's about 90% write in what he writes in the book and if you go over it slowly concept by concept it's very easy to see that he is
In all honesty, I probably wouldn't mind living in Heinleins Starship Troopers universe, but I would hope it would maybe be a bit more Roddenberry like.
How has this guy only got 11k subs? Insane when I think of some of the brain dead horse sh1t TH-cam pushes.
I think the same every time I watch one of his vids. His output is actually worth watching, worth pondering on for bit after the video is done.
brain dead TH-camrs are also extremely common, which perfectly explains the situation.
algorithmic throttling. takes a lot to break through that. many years of consistent effort. plus they're competing with the easy to digest, noncontroversial infographics style channels. to bite into something like feral historian or zoomer historian, you need to have some fundamental understanding that the public education version of history, the infographics version, is a lie.
Click bait drives engagement more than an honest conversation. Because people are easily baited
I'm here 6 hours after it dropped.
Love this guy. But I dunno if the algorithm is pushing him real hard.
Still, his content is well thought out, eloquently presented, and interesting, even if I don't know the subject.
And he reminds me of Kevin Conroy.
I'll always be here for him.
I dont think I've seen a youtuber this profoundly REAL in a long long time
To give credit to the folks who are always pissed that the fans of Starship Troopers in most cases did not read the book and only know the film, yeah it would have been Better if the makers had stuck with the original title of the script Bug Hunt at Outpost 7. To Make the movie franchise something truly original. Verhoeven said that he stopped reading Starship Troopers after a few pages. Well, then just call the movie something else.
the problem is that as italian i really really understand Verhoeven line of thought and why as someone that had felt how a fascist dictatorship his in reality look at the book as fascist. Basically the entire background of the UCF is Italy post wwi with Benny takeover, including motivation and frankly everything we know about this is from the victors aka the government pow. While Heinlen intention were hardly lionizing fascist, weeeel unfortunely and by coincidence it give a lot that vibe once you read it when you are a grown up and learn about your history
@@lukedalton Who was _Il Duce_ in the novel? Could there even have been such a person in that government?
@@kirkdarling4120 seem that the original duce was long dead and the entire UFC had gone for collective leadership a la post stalin URSS or more apt after Benny fall from power and before the collapse of the italian state in 1943 (yep Badoglio was the official leader but in practice was something more collective that a single one in charge like before)
Startrek is a scary universe but the Federation is hilariously outgunned
This is an interesting idea, but I think IT is more wrong than right. The federation of Star Trek is NOT basically build on a American dream of supremacy, but rather the optimism related to the United Nation after the second World war. I think of it as a vision of the future where the Main problems on earth is solved.
THEN, obiously, details from the wrighters culture Will sneak Into the stories.
The United Nations can only exist as long as the United States says it should exist. It's an American project. Nothing else.
Very well done video Bro. You nailed it.
You know what I find so hilarous about the people who wring their hands about the Starship Troopers federation? There are many liberal democratic republics right now in the world that require military service of their citizens, like Switzerland and Isreal, for example. That is effectively the same thing as "service guarantees citizenship" except you don't have the option of opting out of the military service in exhange for not voting.
I don't know anyone who thinks Switzerland is a fascist paradise. If anything, Starship Troopers is too optimistic about how effective requiring military service to vote will be.
You raise an interesting point about Switzerland, Israel, and Fascism.
Switzerland may require military service, but they don't often participate in war.
Maybe constant warfare is what pushes a society down the path towards Fascism and right-wing authoritarianism.
Any country that engages in semi-constant warfare, that sees their neighboring countries as enemies, and sees a portion of their own population as less than human...
That country will inevitably turn toward Fascism and self-destruction. It's not a good country to be allies with, either.
Dead Wrong. "Service is Mandatory" and "Service Guarantees Citizenship" are two entirely different things.
"Service Guarantees Citizenship" is more like the French Foreign Legion.
Though I imagine in practice its more likely to be "come here and be a slave for three years and we'll give you a passport".
You'll notice how no country on earth has set up their immigration system like that *and* done away with birthright citizenship.
It is definitely worth recognising that a lot of these countries have or have swapped to offering an alternative civilian service for conscientious objectiors. I think also worth considering an important distinction between mandatory service vs citizenship as a result of service is that inability to serve (or conscientious objection) doesn't prevent people from gaining citizenship rights. As a disabled person, likely unfit to serve, that to me is a very key point. Even in a country with mandatory service, being unfit to serve wouldn't deprive me of any rights due.
As to how justified things are, and speaking as an amateur historian:
Required millitary service isn't amazing, but it's one of those things where sometimes you can with context see why a country opted for it, usually to try and gauruntee its continued existence either past or present (so, for example, finland mantaining mandatory service for over a century was a historical decision based on the fact that they were concerned Russia might try to re-absorb them, which made sense at the time, and still unfortunately makes sense now). There's also population size to consider. Preferably most armies would want to be staffed entirely by people who chose to join up because a disgruntled conscript is way more of a liability than an enthusiastic serviceman, but if you have a really tiny population the amount of people who want to join up voluntarily might not consistently meet your defence needs. In a country with tens or hundreds of millions of people, if a tiny fraction of the population want to join up, you can still have quite a large army, but in a country with only a couple million people, you're not necessarily playing the same numbers game.
Alternatively, there are a lot of very poorly justified examples of mandatory service/conscription being used not for particularly defensive purpose throughout history so yeah, definitely a lot of the time not justified, but it's all about context.
@@Furluge the Swiss are doing what America was supposed to do - the military is the people rather than a separate army. Everyone’s trained to participate specifically so that there can’t be a military coups d’etat - they’d be seizing power from themselves.
Israel is… problematic at best. There is an element of it that seems like a modern vibrant representative government, but Bibi’s grip on power and the wartime emergency government raise a lot of alarm bells.
Israel is not a republic lmao, it is quite literally a fascist state go look at their laws
And no this has nothing to do with their petty border squabbles or anything else
The real key difference between the Terran federation and start treks federation is that the terrans groom people from a young age into thinking that serving the military industrial complex is the most important part of life, then giving them the “choice” to sign up just for the mere purpose of being accepted in society.
Meanwhile the federation is more about allowing people to live the life they want, there’s no real evidence of pro military propaganda and the navy is more inclined to diplomacy then outright invading and exterminate whole species based off whims.