I don't think it is I can't remember what they call it but they didn't call it a democracy, in reviews people have said its militarism if not fascism. It certainly isn't a democracy if only the military can vote.
As noted earlier, people still in the service cannot vote (although Rico has an epiphany where he realizes he is actually "voting" every time he makes a drop).
Also, the book has examples of people earning citizenship through service that is not actually military. There are references to "labor battalions", working in Antarctica, and perhaps most memorably, the speculation that if a blind paraplegic wanted to sign up, they'd find something for him to do, like counting caterpillar fuzz by touch. I always interpreted it as meaning that military service was one way of earning citizenship, but there were also options similar to the Peace Corps.
The book has a long passage saying how terrible democracy was and how it caused our governments to collapse so even if you could call their world democratic my point still stands the book claims our democracy is wrong and should be abolished so the PC people would still be against the movie.
There were a couple of passages, actually. One was a flashback to his High School course, and the second was when Rico was in OCS.
1. In the High School flashback, Lt. Col. Dubois was saying that what led to the downfall of the 20th century democracies that people could get whatever they wanted simply by voting for it, and not having to work for it.
2. In the OCS course, Major Reid was pointing out how the "unlimited democracies" weren't.
even the so-called 'unlimited democracies' excluded from franchise not less than one-quarter of their populations by age, birth, poll tax, criminal record, or other.As to the PC crowd being against the movie, that's up to them. :)
reply
share
BB-15
9 years ago
by woodmage;
"As noted earlier, people still in the service cannot vote (although Rico has an epiphany where he realizes he is actually "voting" every time he makes a drop).
Also, the book has examples of people earning citizenship through service that is not actually military. There are references to "labor battalions", working in Antarctica, and perhaps most memorably, the speculation that if a blind paraplegic wanted to sign up, they'd find something for him to do, like counting caterpillar fuzz by touch. I always interpreted it as meaning that military service was one way of earning citizenship, but there were also options similar to the Peace Corps."
Everyone in our world does not have the economic situation or the mental stability to be able to successfully serve in the military or the Peace Corps.
The result of the Heinlein system would have a large portion of the populaton not having the vote; the adults who have not finished service and those who would find service a severe hardship or impossible to complete successfully.
"The book has a long passage saying how terrible democracy was and how it caused our governments to collapse so even if you could call their world democratic my point still stands the book claims our democracy is wrong and should be abolished"
Yes, the Heinlein system would abolish democracy as we know it.
"so the PC people would still be against the movie."
I don't see this as a PC issue; it's a contrast between democracy vs. control by a citizen elite.
- The citizen elite idea goes back to ancient Sparta; but the nations run by communist parties had a similar idea.
Orwell wrote about this kind of system in 1984.
When citizenship depends on some elite group's decision, then the chance of corruption is greatly increased.
Many human beings are corrupt. If service can be sabotaged due to corruption, then citizenship can be corrupted.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
woodmage
9 years ago
Everyone in our world does not have the economic situation or the mental stability to be able to successfully serve in the military or the Peace Corps.
As far as economics go, remember that this was a "juvenile" SF novel from the 1950s. Even the poor kids aren't that bad off. And the rich kids like Rico freely share the helicopters they got for their birthdays with their poor friends like Carl, who only had a basement lab.
Regarding "mental stability"... if someone is too mentally unstable to be able to put the group ahead of their own desires, do you really want them making decisions for the group?
The result of the Heinlein system would have a large portion of the populaton not having the vote
Yes, that's covered in the book.
Furthermore, our franchised citizens are not everywhere a small fraction; you know or should know that the percentage of citizens among adults ranges from over eighty per cent on Iskander to less than three per cent in some Terran nations - yet government is much the same everywhere.the Heinlein system would abolish democracy as we know it.
Key words "as we know it".
it's a contrast between democracy vs. control by a citizen elite.
A "citizen elite" which anyone except those unable to understand the oath can choose to join. That is significantly different from the Party in Oceania.
reply
share
BB-15
9 years ago
by woodmage;
"A "citizen elite" which anyone except those unable to understand the oath can choose to join."
There is no simple joining such as in filling out an application.
And more was involved than understanding an oath.
Citizenship requires the completion of a lengthy process ("service") in which success is controlled by the citizen elite.
That completion can easily be corrupted.
And I know this because similar systems in our world have been corrupted.
Getting citizenship is a gauntlet of difficult activites. Camp Currie had about a 10% successful completion rate for basic training.
Military service then is designed to weed out recruits.
The necessary result is elitism where successful completion can be corrupted and arbitrary.
"That is significantly different from the Party in Oceania."
No. Orwell described a very similar system.
A ruling elite which decides who can join it.
This is similar to stories in our world from people who joined Communist parties. They did their service. They became party members and then they could vote in party elections.
"As far as economics go, remember that this was a "juvenile" SF novel from the 1950s. Even the poor kids aren't that bad off. And the rich kids like Rico freely share the helicopters they got for their birthdays with their poor friends like Carl, who only had a basement lab."
Human nature is not changed by a book. What I am discussing is a system of government and how it would work in our world.
If the counter argument is that this system works because the book says so, then there is no need for me to discuss it further.
But if the claim is that the book's system could work independent of the novel in our world, then the description of Carl does not elminate economic circumstances where people can't serve because they need to support their family. Where a person would need to earn as much money as possible and not join service or a Peace Corps type of program.
"Regarding "mental stability"... if someone is too mentally unstable to be able to put the group ahead of their own desires, do you really want them making decisions for the group?"
It has nothing to do with the group vs the individual. Some people can't handle boot camp/military service or the rules in a Peace Corps type of program.
Not everyone can handle extreme pressure and many people have emotional issues.
The assertion that these people should not have the vote is elitism.
the Heinlein system would abolish democracy as we know it.
"Key words "as we know it"."
Oh I certainly know it.
Communist countries are usually called a "Democratic Socialist Republic".
Originally the structure of those states in theory was democratic. A person joined the party through service and then if the citizen elite gave this person its blessing, the individual became part of the the party, voted in party elections (democracy) and the party leaders ruled the rest of the nation.
- The original intention of the early communists was not tyranny.
What they missed was the natural tendency of humans to be corrupt which with a small elite will lead to tyranny.
And that is why the Democratic Socialist Republics failed as democracies.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
WhistlePig
9 years ago
BB-15 -- Holy cow you nailed it.
It is so easy to argue that you need to somehow "earn" a "Right"....but there always needs to be an imperfect human being who makes the rules on "earning" that "Right".
And then another set of imperfect EXECUTIVE human beings who define when and where those rules are broken. For the "Good" of "Whatever".... (usually children or security).
The Founders of the United States of America were geniuses.
But could they ROCK?
https://youtu.be/HgzGwKwLmgM
reply
share