MovieChat Forums > Starship Troopers (1997) Discussion > Is the book really fascist?

Is the book really fascist?

posted 9 years ago by Tyndareon
29 replies | jump to latest

There is one element in the book I must admit struck me as the epitome of fascism, but it was a thought Rico had, not an actual consensus in his society.

Does all such criticism stem from Dubuis' lecture about violence and authority being one and the same?

[–] ttaskmaster 9 years ago

Violence is the supreme authority, from which all others derive... but not all violence is authority, same as not all authority is violence.

Fascism is a bit variable in definition and the society depicted is a bit variable in how fascist it is. That's just the nature of people, really and it'd be even more variable in the real world.

So with all that in mind, there is no epitome as such... just some things that are and others that aren't.

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

Violence is the supreme authority, from which all others derive... but not all violence is authority, same as not all authority is violence.

Is that from the book? I remember the "why use a dagger in the nuclear era" question, that Zim said was not really qualified to answer, and the point was that the state's (or an individual's) control is limited if one cannot direct one's violence in any manner of precision.
That is, a mafia boss who can have anyone assassinated, holds more power than a general who can bomb any small town but doesn't know where the mafia boss is or doesn't have authorization to harm innocent bystanders. It still is violence though.

Fascism is a bit variable in definition

You're absolutely right. It is a propagandistic term, and therefore conveniently vague. Still, if one were so inclined, one could isolate a core aspect that is consistent with itself, for after all, everything that has a word for it, exists in some manner. In my opinion, that core aspect revolves around the notion/dogma that the state (or idea / movement / empire / party) is more important than the individual. And from this key notion stem all other aspects such as the glorification of the army and the suspension of human rights when inconvenient to the state.

there is no epitome as such

Well, based on what I said earlier, in my opinion, Rico's notion that one's duty to the state and the species should be to reside in a planetary system bombarded with heavy radiation in order to speed up the evolutionary process, is easily the epitome of my personal interpretation of fascism, and I think that even the likes of Hitler and Stalin might cringe at the thought.

It still is Rico's personal opinion though. In fact I believe it to be contrary to the social consensus, since his state's dogma demands war - no matter how hopeless - to be waged to free even one prisoner. (A dogma that exposes modern "democracies" who refuse to negotiate with hostage-takers as hypocrites, but I won't open that can of worms if I can help it.)

[–] ttaskmaster 9 years ago

Is that from the book?

Ehhhh..... more or less...

"To vote is to wield authority; it is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives—such as mine to make your lives miserable once a day. Force if you will!—the franchise is force, naked and raw, the Power of the Rods and the Ax. Whether it is exerted by ten men or by ten billion, political authority is force"

I prefer Michael Ironside saying it, though! 

Still, if one were so inclined, one could isolate a core aspect that is consistent with itself, for after all, everything that has a word for it, exists in some manner.

An epitome would have to be a unique combination of core aspects that do not appear in anything else. You can have a dictatorship or a democracy, for example, but straight away you'll get different types of each. You could have a democratic dictatorship, either of which could be direct, representative, semi- or another kind, depending on how you saw it.

That's what I mean by variable.
There are many minds from many walks who struggle to define it and each result is very different from the rest.

In my opinion, that core aspect revolves around the notion/dogma that the state (or idea / movement / empire / party) is more important than the individual.

By that reasoning, I could argue that anyone believing in something bigger than themselves (whether they want a part of it or not) is Fascist, no?

And from this key notion stem all other aspects such as the glorification of the army and the suspension of human rights when inconvenient to the state.

Depends how the army is glorified. As a soldier myself, I have no real problem with this basic concept. A lot of good people doing a lot of good works, especially on the peacekeeping and disaster/aid-work sides.
Human Rights is one thing, but it's just what one bunch of people think and not always what every culture on the planet subscribes to - Those same people might argue that we should enforce their Human Rights thing on everyone, while at the same time insisting that we leave cultures alone to be who they are... before sending us in anyway in the name of Human Rights, only to find those cultures retaliate against our unwelcome interference...

Well, based on what I said earlier, in my opinion, Rico's notion that one's duty to the state and the species should be to reside in a planetary system bombarded with heavy radiation in order to speed up the evolutionary process, is easily the epitome of my personal interpretation of fascism, and I think that even the likes of Hitler and Stalin might cringe at the thought.

But that is just his opinion and how he feels about what he perceives as one's duty.
If the state were to actually enforce this duty on people, however, that might be closer to how Fascism seems commonly defined.

In fact I believe it to be contrary to the social consensus, since his state's dogma demands war - no matter how hopeless - to be waged to free even one prisoner.

Starting to think I really need to re-read the book, now. It's been a good decade at least...!

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

I should have quoted only the "..but not all violence is authority, same as not all authority is violence." That's the part I don't remember reading, although it's been some time for me too - maybe not a decade though. Oh, and yes! Ironside was the reason I read the book in the first place 😜.

An epitome would have to be a unique combination of core aspects that do not appear in anything else.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. An epitome is like a summary, a good representative of the idea. So it's more like a combination of core aspects that appear in everything else, like an intersection in set theory.

By that reasoning, I could argue that anyone believing in something bigger than themselves (whether they want a part of it or not) is Fascist, no?

Not exactly. In the book's terminology, believing in something means that said something has value for the individual. If the individual is prepared to pay the ultimate price to protect something, then said something has absolute value for him.
What would be fascist, is to demand of everyone to ascribe absolute value to something you cherish. After all, what else defines someone but the things one cherishes?

(So it is a matter of uniformity versus individuality. Bear in mind that freedom of speech is not what irks fascists per se, it is dissent. They obviously have no problem with expression as long as it is in agreement with what they believe).

Those same people might argue that we should enforce their Human Rights thing on everyone..

I said "human rights", didn't I? Damn. Sorry about that. I misspoke. I meant rights derived from citizenship, legal rights. "Human" rights or "natural" rights, is a concept I find totally unscientific, to say the least. As Dubuis would say, something given and not earned has no value.

Living in a country where everyone serves in the Army ( it's mandatory), I tend to harbor negative feelings for those who shirk their duties, rather than feeling proud to have served. Other than that, I think the army is an essential tool, like my legs. I don't worship them, but I would certainly risk dying to preserve them.

But that is just his opinion and how he feels about what he perceives as one's duty.

Yes, yes. We are in agreement. That's what I was going for also. That even that, could not be used to condemn the whole system. Besides, Rico was kind of dumb, lol. He was an instrument for the writer to describe the world, because everything had to be explained to him.

[–] ttaskmaster 9 years ago

I should have quoted only the "..but not all violence is authority, same as not all authority is violence." That's the part I don't remember reading

Nah, that was mainly me paraphrasing the first part and adding my own original words thereafter.

An epitome is like a summary, a good representative of the idea.

An epitome is usually a perfect example, the pure embodiment of something, or the quintessential example.
ie Satan is the epitome of evil, Justin Bieber is the epitome of pathetic, Michael Ironside is the epitome of awesomeness...

In your context, an epitome can be a summary, but usually only for a written work. Not so much for a concept, an idea, philosophy, etc. It's a valid term, but hardly ever used, I find. Hence the confusion.

Living in a country where everyone serves in the Army ( it's mandatory), I tend to harbor negative feelings for those who shirk their duties, rather than feeling proud to have served. Other than that, I think the army is an essential tool, like my legs. I don't worship them, but I would certainly risk dying to preserve them.

Here it's a choice, but as with SST, choosing to serve is still worth something to people.
Worth noting that Federal Service is what brings citizenship, not just military service. I always liked that part.

He was an instrument for the writer to describe the world, because everything had to be explained to him.

If it works, though...

[–] criztu 9 years ago

In my opinion, that core aspect revolves around the notion/dogma that the state (or idea / movement / empire / party) is more important than the individual.

I think you don't understand fascism.

Fascism comes from "fascia" = bundle of rods containing an axe.
That is, fascism is essentially outward aggression (the axe) by the totality of the group (bundle of rods). In other words, the whole group is organized with the purpose of conquering external groups.

You take all the constituents of a society: church, state, economy, academy, military, media, etc. and have them work together to expand outwards, to conquer external groups.

Fascism is hegemony, imperialism, conquest - military, political, economic, cultural, conquest of other groups, by having all elements of your group working together to achieve the goal.

As an example, the Roman empire started disintegrating, when it was no longer able to conquer economically, culturally, or religiously. Even though it maintained 100% political and military hegemony.
The Roman gold was depleted in the trade with the orient, oriental culture and religion disintegrated the Roman culture and religion, and eventually, the Roman empire succumbed.

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

Fascism comes from "fascia" = bundle of rods containing an axe.

I learned the etymology in school. The definition is something else entirely (from the etymology). What you describe is definitely a part of it, and well put.

In fact, what you say does not contradict what I said and you quoted. The only addition is the foreign enemy, which in my opinion is irrelevant. I say that, because - and if I understand what you said - the voice/rights/life of the individual is deemed as unimportant when preserving them hinders the war effort, in your opinion.
I just classify the war effort as "interest of the state".

Now if this distinction is a deal-breaker, that is, if you think squashing the individual in the interests of the state is acceptable when the state does not conduct war (and it always conducts war of the economic nature I believe), then yes, we have very different views on the subject.

PS. when you say trade with the orient, do you refer to the eastern roman empire (byzantium)?

[–] criztu 9 years ago

I am not even talking about the individual.

I think you don't understand what the state is. You seem to think of the state as the supreme entity, governing everybody else.
When in fact, as I wrote, the State is only one structure, among many "fascias": the Church, the Military, the Secret Services, the Magistracy, the Banks, the Academy, the Intelligentsia, the Corporations, News Media, Cinema, Sports, the Parliament, etc.

You can find a state at war with another state, while the banks or the corporations in the respective countries are doing business like there's no war.
Take US and SU, although they were supposedly "in a cold war" and killing off their respective soldiers in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, etc., the SU was buying grains worth hundreds of millions of dollars, from the US.
You can have a war between two states while the churches in the respective countries are cooperating like there's no war. Look at Poland, with Joan Paul II and the Polish church doing their best to destroy the Polish state.

War is not always total. It can be waged just to set things straight between two rivaling corporations, or two rivaling banks, or two monarchs, or two churches. An embargo on the enemy country's banks or corporations is not necessarily instated, just because two monarchs are waging war for succession in the respective countries.

Imagine a war where the News Media or the Intelligentsia, are strongly opposing it. Every night on the Tv, they'd criticize the war, encouraging people to desert, resist incorporation, sabotage, etc.
During WW 1, the Germans sent V.I.Lenin beyond the front lines to agitate against the Czar, so he did, until enough structures (army, police, secret services, intelligentsia) decided to turn against the Czar.
Should the Czar controlled all elements of the Russian society, and coordinate them in the war against Germany, Lenin would not have been able to fly for 200 meters, before being shot down and stuffed.

When I'm saying the Orient, I'm saying Parthia, China, India. Rome's gold was sucked away on oriental spice, silk, incense.

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

I am not even talking about the individual.

Then you're talking about a different subject altogether. The subject is whether the book embraces fascist beliefs. Beliefs are held by the individual, so that is the only thing I am interested in.

I think you don't understand what the state is..You can find a "state" at war with another "state"

You can also find a person in inner struggle, battling one's emotions, fears, prejudices, social pressures. Even the reasoning part of one's personality may be easily observed as divided at times. It is still the individual.

The "states" consist of individuals. When a person realizes that one's interests and the the interests of the organisation in which one is a part of, are at cross purposes, catastrophically so, and still chooses to act as part of the organisation, then said person holds beliefs of a fascist nature, more often than not. That is an extreme example obviously, but it highlights the key point; personal beliefs.

When I'm saying the Orient..

I said "trade with the Orient". I meant if you were attributing western or eastern roman empire's fall to said causes.

[–] criztu 9 years ago

The subject is whether the book embraces fascist beliefs. Beliefs are held by the individual, so that is the only thing I am interested in.

Fascism is not a belief, but a way in which the elements of a society are organized.

What you see in Starship Troopers right in the beginning, is the School subordinated to the war effort against the Arachnids. Then you see News Media subordinated to the war effort against the Arachnids, commercials with kids being given rifles to play, and squashing bugs as their duty.
You can see Rico's society is a fascist society, because the school is not teaching the young about giraffes and elephants anatomy, but it teaches them about how to kill an Arachnid.
Kids are not playing with toy excavators in the sandbox, or barbies and kens, but they are playing with rifles and are squashing bugs.

You can also see that Rico goes to war, angered by the death of his parents, NOT because of some belief system. Rico, Dizzy, Carmen, etc. are conditioned and manipulated into war, they are pretty much herded like sheep.

I meant if you were attributing western or eastern roman empire's fall to said causes.

I am referring to the fall of the Roman Empire, roughly 250-325ad.

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

Fascism is not a belief, but a way in which the elements of a society are organized.

That's just your belief. There are two factors forming the configuration you're referring to. The first is the Law, and the second is the collective belief systems of the individuals making up the state. The Law itself is an expression of the will of the people so it really only boils down to the individuals and their opinions.

What you see in Starship Troopers right in the beginning..

That's the movie you're talking about I reckon. And even in the movie, they are teaching them about history first and foremost. As for the kids playing with rifles and squashing bugs.. you are forcing me to ask the question; have you read the book?

..fall of the Roman Empire, roughly 250-325ad

Curious..even if you didn't recognize the eastern roman empire as roman, the western fell at 476. Are you saying that a christian roman empire should not be classified as roman?

[–] criztu 9 years ago

have you read the book?

I haven't read the book, I was only discussing the concept of 'fascism'.
If you consider 'fascism' to be a belief, I understand and respect your opinion.

Curious..even if you didn't recognize the eastern roman empire as roman, the western fell at 476. Are you saying that a christian roman empire should not be classified as roman?

It is considered by historians that the Roman Empire ceased to exist in 285ad/330ad. Out of it, emerged the W.Roman Empire, and the E.Roman Empire. kinda like W.Germany and E.Germany emerged after the fall of the 3rd Reich, or how Ukraine and Russia emerged from the fall of the SU.

"roman" meant citizenship, not ethnicity. "The Romans" meant something like "The Soviets".
Thus, a citizen of the W.Roman Empire, was not a citizen of the E.Roman Empire, even though both empires made use of the term "roman".

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

"roman" meant citizenship, not ethnicity. Thus, a citizen of the W.Roman Empire, was not a citizen of the E.Roman Empire..

Absolutely, I couldn't have said it better myself. I was under the impression the schism took place in 395 though. Not that it matters much of course.

I am not sure the book could be construed as fascist even in the sense you've expanded upon. For example it is explicitly said that the crippled veterans in the recruitment centre are there to discourage people from joining in. There are no ads obviously. Soldiers are not only not celebrated by the people, they actually move only in big groups during leave, to deter mobs. The economy of the state is largely backed by civilians' enterprise, and it does not serve the war effort directly. In fact the only thing connected to the military are civic rights, resembling maybe the athenian democracy to some extent.

Would civilians (non-citizens, independent from contributing to the war effort) even exist in a fascist configuration of the state? (and I don't mean in my interpretation of the word 'fascist')

[–] criztu 9 years ago

Would civilians (non-citizens, independent from contributing to the war effort) even exist in a fascist configuration of the state? (and I don't mean in my interpretation of the word 'fascist')

The state is Obama.
Obama makes $400 000 a year.
You think that a dude who makes $400 000 a year, has "executive powers" over the Rockefellers, who print the very money that Obama receives, as employee of the state? You think that it's Obama who decides that the F17s are going to be contracted by Lockheed, for trillions of dorrars?

You simply don't realize how marginal the state is in matters of power.

In my understanding of fascism, fascism is about above-individual structures, working together. These structures are self-perpetuating, individuals come and go, they are sucked into the structure since infancy, and spat when they wake up and refuse the system, like Neo in Matrix, at which point they're labeled "the enemy".

The individual is irrelevant. His survival is improbable outside the Establishment. Like Mad Max in Fury Road, or like Vic in A Boy and His Dog, scavenging at the fringes of the Establishment, or like you, if you don't find a job at a corporation, in the military, or at the state, or at the church, or in education, etc.
Think of you going freelance. You can't do much without money. Money is the Establishment.

Not even the homeless can live outside the Establishment! They still need money, to buy food from the corporations, because they lack the means to produce their own food, because the Establishment expanded its control over the land, looong time ago.

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

So every civilization in any time in history was fascist?

[–] criztu 9 years ago

I just gave you the example of USSR and USA killing their respective soldiers off in Korea or Vietnam, while doing business and space exploration, together, in harmony.

Right now, China and USA, are doing an insane amount of business, while they're clashing politically and militarily over Taiwan and in China sea.
Observe how the USA has to identify absurd external enemies to mobilize its population, so they had to invent the "terrorists" because the "commies" were revealed to be a joke of a threat.

Historically, the Chinese empire was not expanding outwardly, at all.
Today, Russia doesn't expand outwardly, at all - they maintain frozen conflicts at their borders, and are preoccupied to consolidating power internally.

Germany today, doesn't need an external enemy, to force all segments of society tightly around the axe. They were doing that 80 years ago.
Today, since they are subordinated by the US, they are expanding in a non-fascist way. It's completely different approach than 80 years ago.
China also expands financially, industrially and corporatively, because they can't employ the military, nor the church - to declare crusades or jihads, nor their culture - you won't see any Chinese movie portraying the Chinese protagonist as the ubermensch, with American inferior slaves, lol. You will see however, Disney cartoons from WW2 where the kids are being conditioned to a knee-jerk reaction to the term "nazis".

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

Didn't the USSR force all segments of society around the axe (the propagation/continuation of socialism)?

[–] criztu 9 years ago

ok this is repetitive. read this link about US-USSR trade in wheat, which was going on since at least 1963. - http://www.world-grain.com/News/News%20Home/Features/2013/7/The%20inside%20story%20of%20a%20groundbreaking%20trade%20agreement.aspx?cck=1

The USSR can be described as a civilization of "secured borders". They conquered territories not because they were driven by expansion, but because they need defensible borders. They expanded because the Tatars, Mongols, Ottomans, Poles, were constantly raiding their heartland made of fields, which you can't defend.

Russia has excellent position to trade with China and India, Persia and Turkey, and Europe .
Compare to the US, who is forced to conquer and expand, or become Mexico 2.

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

I wasn't pressing you or anything, just directing your thought in the way I could more easily assimilate it with mine.

[–] criztu 9 years ago

"Socialism" is essentially "the workers have the power". A quick look at Stalin's mustache, and you understand that the workers had no power in the USSR, and nobody was propagating "the workers have the power".

Societies are organized into a very simple dynamic: oppressor-exploited, master-slave, alpha-omega, noble-serf, bourgeois-proletarian, abuser-abused, cathode-anode.

"Socialism" is the idea that it is the slave who has the power, and the master is a parasite.
It's like thinking that the power in a battery comes from the positive pole, and the negative pole is a parasite...

"Capitalism" is the idea that the power in a battery comes from the negative pole, and the positive pole is a parasite, who should thank the negative pole for creating jerbs...

Fascism is the concept that you take all the constituting elements of a society, and have them work together for a common goal. You can find the fascias on the coat of arms of the French Republic; "nazism" stands for nazional sozializmus, so, according to your understanding, Nazi Germany was propagating socialism...

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

A quick look at Stalin's mustache

LOL..
I obviously regard USSR, socialist states and nazi germany as fascist (in the way you mean it).
But I also think they favoured a cultural/ideological counterpart to their political structure, a certain dogma, that promoted self-sacrifice in service to the establishment as the supreme form of self-realization. Isn't that propaganda crucial to making the constituting elements of society lose their..individuality so to speak?
The Chinese are going to implement an app for social networks that measures civic "virtue". Isn't that going to promote (or solidify in my opinion) fascism's grasp in China?

according to your understanding, Nazi Germany was propagating socialism...

Damn right. Just under a smaller moustache..

[–] criztu 9 years ago

I told you, "Socialism" and "Capitalism" are false ideas. The power comes from a dynamic between opposing poles of society, not from one pole only. Just read about dialectics and dualism. Or listen to the song for Married With Children sitcom - you can't have one without the other.

The Chinese are going to implement an app for social networks that measures civic "virtue". Isn't that going to promote (or solidify in my opinion) fascism's grasp in China?

I repeat: fascism is bringing together all elements of the society for a common goal - expanding outwards.
Why the outward expansion? Because that society reaches a level where internal tensions are either externalized, or that society implodes.

Think of Spain. Because it lost its empire, Spain was first stagnating, then disintegrating. By 1930s, Spain was confronted with civil war, so the fascists conquered all Spain. Then they couldn't expand outward no more, so Spain experienced stagnation again, and then disintegration again. So then Franco accepted assimilation into EU, to avoid collapse.

China was fascist during Mao's revolution, when it faced disintegration.
Today, China is nothing like that. It doesn't need to control all elements of society and expand outwards, to avoid implosion.

You have a stereotypical image of China. There's so many Chinese billionaires and corporations, whose interests do not coincide with those of the state or the military, it's funny you still see them as "One party, one leader"...

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

I told you, "Socialism" and "Capitalism" are false ideas.

Seeing as how I don't really disagree with your analysis in any particular point, I find it hard to see where you think I do. (Ok, I might find your dismissal of the power of the state presented a bit simplistically, I mean, were there no Jewish Rockefellers in nazi germany or Russian ones in 1917? But still you're mostly right.)

I don't know much about China, which is why I asked a question. And the question itself doesn't give you any information about my view of China. I could just as well have omitted the name of the country that will implement the app and the question would still be valid.

I am curious though; what do you suppose is the usefulness of this concept that occupies the word 'fascism' in your vocabulary - and you must agree at least that there are as many definitions as there are shades of grey. Why have a word for it?

PS. don't be so combative, we're having idle conversation. For what's worth I find your views quite interesting.

[–] criztu 9 years ago

It is a bit puzzling that you keep calling Nazi Germany a "socialist state", it looks like you ignore what I'm sharing with you: 1. state (in the sense of the government's apparatus) is but one element of society and 2. socialism is a false, ideal, concept.
Check out this list of corporations who made huge bucks during nazi times: Krupp, Porsche, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Hugo Boss, IG Farben, Siemens, Bayer, Degesch, Allianz, etc.
eg. the Federal Reserve, operates independently of the US state. the Federal Reserve is a structure expanding far beyond the US state, you can consider the Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, or China, as territories of the FED Empire.
eg. Google or Apple or Exxon, are transnational entities, they do not give a fcvk about the US state or the American "nation", in fact the US is like a bottleneck, a hindrance in their development.

I donno what to think about an app that measures "civic virtue", it's pretty vague. I am however, familiar with Marcuse's theory that the system evolves toward total administration - the ability of the master to administer all aspects of a slave's life.
But you keep thinking of fascism as a state of mind, a system of beliefs.
I see society as elements, factions, fascias, diverse groups of masters, each exploiting the slaves in different ways.

If you understand dialectics, you understand that the masters are groups which organize themselves with the specific purpose of disorganizing other groups, and enslave them.
Starship Troopers the movie, shows you exactly this process: Rico's life once he decides to become citizen, is a continuous disintegration - mom & pop die, his highschool sweatheart is estranged from him, his lover dies, his friends are estranged or die, his teacher dies.

Thus, the matter of the civilian's beliefs affecting the system, is obvious. Citizens = masters, civilians = slaves.
The slaves are the ones being disorganized, disintegrated, destroyed. They don't have control over the system, they are the ones being controlled.

I am curious though; what do you suppose is the usefulness of this concept that occupies the word 'fascism' in your vocabulary - and you must agree at least that there are as many definitions as there are shades of grey. Why have a word for it?

As much as I tried to envision another meaning for fascism, it is pretty clear: many red and white straps tightly sewn together, make a flag.

Within a society there's more than 1 Establishments, no one structure can exercise 100% control over the others: the Military can't sustain themselves without the Corporations or the State or the Church or the Schools or the Intelligentsia. The Church can't sustain itself without the Schools or the State or the Military etc.
The Church can't subordinate the Military and the State and the Schools and the Corporations, and so on. The Military can't subordinate all other structures.

The only way Fascism works, is when these structures come together driven by own necessity. And it is only when they all reach that point of collapse, that they come together.

the Roman Empire became fascist only when it faced collapse, I donno, during the celtic invasions, or during the punic wars.
Germany after WW1 became fascist, as it faced collapse. and so on.

The use of fascism, as I already told you, is to direct accumulating internal social pressure, towards the exterior, until they reach equilibrium:
- either through colonization (like the British Empire),
- annihilation (like Hitler's WW2 that decimated the populous), or
- hegemony (control of external resources - like American petrodollar monopoly)
eg. Franco allowed Spaniards to emigrate, instead of forcing them to stay in the country. Europe allowed Spaniards to immigrate. Thus, collapse of Spain was avoided.
Should Franco forbade the Spaniards to emigrate, he would have been forced to either invade somebody, or witness a new civil war.

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

But you keep thinking of fascism as a state of mind, a system of beliefs.

That is a concept in itself, and quite useful for a different kind of analysis in a different kind of conversation. But I am past that, in this conversation when I use the word 'fascism' or 'definition', I refer to yours and yours only.

It is a bit puzzling that you keep calling Nazi Germany a "socialist state"..

I could be wrong (obviously), but socialism (as a system, not an idea) seeks to bring all facets of the economic structure of a country under the control of "the people", that is the control of a political party. Everybody works for the party and the party designs every enterprise and economic venture of every citizen or legal entity in the country. It might be stretching the definition, but for all intents and purposes I think a fully realised socialist country must be fascist. If not then it wouldn't be socialist either. For example China ceased being fascist when corporations secured financial independence, but it also ceased being socialist. So, yeah, not the same thing, but in my opinion not observable on its own either. So maybe not only a false concept ideologically, but as a political system too?

I donno what to think about an app that measures "civic virtue", it's pretty vague.

Quite right. Vague thus arbitrary. So if the need arises through financial pressure from the west or what-have-you, the state could theoretically punish citizens or legal entities that have low "civic virtue" (which can even mean having social or economic relations with other low-civic-virtue parties).

I realize though that your position is that fascism ensues by necessity and not by design of a single facet. I really like the elegance of the concept as you outline it - and trust me, nobody appreciates elegance more than a mathematician. And although on one hand I struggle with how limiting it first appears, I am a firm believer in concise meanings, clearly defined forms.
So let me ponder on a final note; different facets have different interests and different agendas, but their will must be expressed through legislation - which is why there are lobbies. So when a law appears that seeks to staunch dissent from a common directive, it shouldn't be thought as just the will of the people in office, but of the interests that put them there in the first place. So it is indeed legal infrastructure that could be utilized to facilitate the change into a fascist state, is it not?

PS. I suppose you realize that the contemporary use (abuse in my opinion) of the word 'fascism', is to generate morality-based arguments to delegitimize the opposing speaker/side. I fear that as useful as it is in historical/social analysis, it avails one little in most modern exchanges. (And most people won't even move past the point in the debate where it is apparent a word has different meanings in the minds of the participants.)

[–] criztu 9 years ago

socialism (as a system, not an idea)

I know it's hard to put everything in order, because the propaganda hits us over the head with a false view of reality, every day.

An 'idea' is something that doesn't exist in reality, only in the mind of whoever thinks of that idea: eg. we should have a system where there's no money, no state, no private property, let's call it communism. Great idea!
In reality, USSR had a governing body, corporations were doing business as usual with American or European corporations, and they basically owned the resources just like the US corporations.

In reality, socialism doesn't exist. It's only an idea put on show by propagandists, to act as a filter through which you look at reality. Like the US elections. Billions of dollars spent on a show, where you choose between Christ and Antichrist.

Everybody works for the party and the party designs every enterprise and economic venture of every citizen or legal entity in the country.

nope. The party is only an interface through which different groups compete or cooperate.

SU had one party; within the party, two main factions, each comprised of smaller factions.
US has two parties, but everybody in those two parties, is a member of the same masonic order. One party with two main factions masquerading as two parties.

So let me ponder on a final note; different facets have different interests and different agendas, but their will must be expressed through legislation - which is why there are lobbies. So when a law appears that seeks to staunch dissent from a common directive, it shouldn't be thought as just the will of the people in office, but of the interests that put them there in the first place. So it is indeed legal infrastructure that could be utilized to facilitate the change into a fascist state, is it not?

No, their will mustn't be expressed through legislation. The force of gravity mustn't be expressed through legislation, for you to obey the force of gravity.

The law is an interface between the oppressors and the exploited. It doesn't regulate the behavior of the masters.
Look at how American corporations migrate to China and India, or fiscal paradises, to maximize their profits. They should stay in the US and pay thousands of dollars as salaries and provide good working conditions, unemployment and schit. Instead they go to China, where they don't have to do any of that.

You can see how the law functions, in Starship Troopers the movie:
1. Rico and Rasczak - two exploited (civilians) want power.
2. The law says they have to "serve", to become masters (citizens) to exercise power.
3. Rico and Rasczak go and die in the war (for narrative purposes, Rico is ressurected, otherwise the movie would've ended right there).

Never, throughout the entire movie, do you see any SkyMarshal fighting the Arachnids or "serving" in any way. They are not subjected to the law.
Think of these two concepts: subject(slave) to the law(master)
This is the concept of Establishment: a group of dudes killed and maimed and took control over the land. They then write a paper that it all belongs to them, given by god. Anyone who wants a piece of the land, has to buy it from them. And to get the money to buy it from them, you have to work for them.
They didn't have to work to buy it from someone else. They killed and maimed. But under them, killing and maiming is illegal!
If you try to kill or maim them to get a piece of land, they will kill you, because you are breaking the law!

. So it is indeed legal infrastructure that could be utilized to facilitate the change into a fascist state, is it not?

"state" in the sense of "country, society".
No. I already told you. Exxon or Apple, are not subjected to the law. You are imagining that Exxon or Apple pay taxes. It's just your imagination. You don't have access to the books of the IRS. You have no idea what's going on in there. You are operating with assumptions.
Or think of the 2008 Bailout. The state increased the debt put on the head of the slaves, to save banks and corporations that were "too big to fail". Oh, really? What about the laws of bankruptcy and capitalism and all that bullschit?

Take a good look at 1984 by Orwell. Everything you read in the media - Bill Gates donated all his money to a charity foundation - is a narrative. It's like the battle between the angels and demons narrated by the church. It exists only as words on papers or on tv.
In reality, Bill Gates is doing whatever he is doing, and the "charity" thingy is only his perception that he should clean up his image, so he commissions a secretary with propaganda (public relations) to reinvent his image in the eyes of the exploited, because he's had enough of being cream pied in the face by random dudes when he's least expecting.

[–] Tyndareon 9 years ago

Rico and Rasczak go and die in the war (for narrative purposes, Rico is ressurected, otherwise the movie would've ended right there).

Never, throughout the entire movie, do you see any SkyMarshal fighting the Arachnids.

Just for the sake of anyone wandering into this thread after reading the title, I should note that this - while true for the movie - does not accurately depict the world of the novel, since Rico never got gravely wounded or whipped, Dubois (=Rasczak) never went back to war since he was maimed but rather enjoyed his freedom as a citizen, and although I don't remember a sky marshal, the superior officer leading the assault on the ground (a general) chose to stay behind and die to guard the retreat, which is exactly the way the real Rasczak fell in the beginning of the book (and not to arachnids I think). (Of course the novel represents the subjective reality in the mind of the author rather than the real world.)

[–] jonathonwisnoski-856-217430 9 years ago

I would not agree Fascism is typically based around totalitarianism. Typically meaning a bad totalitarian regime that you do not like. Most commonly a regime held together by the violence and force of an oppressive police/army. Which is the exact opposite of the book. The society described in the books is a voluntary society, where duties to your society are never forced on anyone, and in fact are highly discouraged and made hard to get. Starship Troopers puts loads of emphasis on civic duty and self-sacrifice, while reinforcing at every opportunity that both are meaningless unless 100% voluntary. While fascism is "duty" and the state sacrificing one of its pawns, all at the point of a gun.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]