Service Guarantees Citizenship: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Fascism

Cutlass

The Man Who Wasn't There.
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
47,751
Location
US of A
I ran across this really interesting article the other day. The subject, Starship Troopers, 20 years later.

20 Years Ago, Starship Troopers Showed Us What Happens When Fascism Wins
Would you like to know more?
By Kenneth Lowe | March 2, 2017 | 2:47pm

“American cinema today is missing all existential thought. There’s no questioning society. No politics. Studios try to make themselves feel good with the movies that make it to the Oscars.”
—Paul Verhoeven, in a 2016 interview with The Playlist

Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.”
—Noam Chomsky, in a 1992 interview with WBAI radio

There’s been quite a bit of revisionist history surrounding Dutch director Paul Verhoeven’s 1997 film Starship Troopers, a movie largely savaged by critics of the time but currently sitting at 63 percent on Rotten Tomatoes due to a conspicuous number of reviews from about a decade after it came out that recognize it as a pointed satire.

Verhoeven himself has vocally affirmed this reading of his misunderstood work. And, for no particular reason in light of our current political climate here in the United States—in which Neo-Nazis and openly racist conspiracy theorists support a president who has no interest in rebuking or denouncing them, and in which Jewish community centers and cemeteries are enduring a wave of terrorism—it’s worth taking a look back at the film as it turns 20 this year.

The Plot: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate the Bugs
Starship Troopers has the most rock-dumb and dirt-simple plot of any science fiction feature in recent memory: Humanity is at war with gigantic creepy-crawlies from outer space, and a crew of determined youngsters must do battle with them. Young Johnny (Casper Van Dien), Dizzy (Dina Meyers), Carmen (Denise Richards) and Carl (Neil Patrick Harris) all decide to enlist in the military, go their separate ways, and reunite to fight the “bugs.” After their home city is destroyed by a bug incursion, they must sally forth on a secret mission to capture a “brain bug,” one of the creatures the military high command believes to be an intelligent alien that directs the mindless, frontline combat bugs.

They do. That’s it. The End.

But try this: Watch Starship Troopers through the lens of somebody in the world in which it’s set. Imagine you’re watching this as a denizen of this legitimately scary society. As Republican candidates for president in 2016 went on about possibly repealing birthright citizenship—a legal precedent established centuries ago that stands unquestioned in nearly every country in the New World—this movie from 20 years ago paints a perfect picture of what a society without it would look like. The film’s newsreels and secondary characters repeat that “Service Guarantees Citizenship,” meaning that if you voluntarily enlist in the military, you are granted citizenship.

Nowhere in this sunny propaganda film of an action movie is there any mention of what not being a citizen means. This is a world where the fascists have already won. All society is geared around and idealizes the military. In the film’s opening scenes, when Johnny and friends are finishing high school, we’re given glimpses into what this is doing to society. Their teachers are disfigured and unhinged war veterans. Michael Ironside plays an amputee who fills his students’ heads with war propaganda, flatly telling them that violence is the solution to political disputes, and maybe you should ask Hiroshima how being a peacenik works out, huh?

Elsewhere, in a cameo I had to look up just to believe my own eyes, Rue McClanahan (!!!) is an entomology teacher who extolls the dangers of the bugs humanity is at war with, all while wearing shaded goggles that are clearly concealing her scarred eyes.

This world isn’t without its dissent and discourse, either. Elsewhere on TV, we see that people do question whether humanity provoked the bugs by encroaching on their corner of the galaxy. These soft, liberal defeatists are shouted down and followed by commercials that show little kids being encouraged to stomp out larval bugs. I’m sure they post lots of fiery rebukes to the military high command on Facebook.

All fascism is about Us vs. Them at base. The most insidious regimes encourage this enmity not just toward other states, but toward other citizens. It’s in the film’s second reel, when the young cadets all head off to boot camp, that we get a few more details about who is the Us and who is the Them. Some of Johnny’s fellow recruits want to do things like have children or start businesses—but the government regulates all those things and only citizens are allowed, or at least fast-tracked to permission. If you aren’t out there sacrificing your limbs for the military’s dumb wars, you don’t deserve any of society’s other benefits. One of the cadets gives a little shrug—perhaps the same one you did when they imposed the indoor smoking ban in your state. That’s just the way it is now.



This is the world that’s raised Johnny and his friends. The government isn’t around to do things like grant newborns the safety of belonging to a state. It’s not there to encourage free thought or to support the endeavors of the individual. It’s there to fill the ranks of its military and make war. Better get the youth ready for it while they’re young.

The Characters: Nobody Knows They’re in a Propaganda Movie
Starship Troopers is so misunderstood because it’s too good at doing the things it’s satirizing. Our window into this dystopian world is the love triangle between Johnny, Carmen and Dizzy. Johnny wants Carmen, who doesn’t seem to care much about him, and Dizzy wants Johnny, who gets over her eventual death in the span of about five minutes. The performances are dopily earnest, the actors selected seemingly for their chiseled Old Hollywood features—Ebert wrote that they look like they come from a Pepsodent ad, and that “the whole look of the production design seems inspired by covers of the pulp space opera mags like Amazing Stories.” It seems impossible that Van Dien and Richards in particular had any idea what kind of movie they were actually in.

Those gleaming exteriors mask totally vacuous and ugly inner lives, of course. The movie essentially tracks Johnny’s rise from a directionless and fickle youngster to a mindless war machine, all in the quest for tail.

There’s a part in every rah-rah war movie that puts our young cocky cadets through grueling, abusive training. For my money, Starship Troopers does it almost as well as Band of Brothers or Glory. You couldn’t ask for a more authoritative and imposing drill sergeant than Clancy Brown, who freely injures and maims his new recruits in an age when you can shout “Medic!” and almost completely heal a compound fracture in mere hours.

Johnny and his lovestruck former classmate Dizzy are easily the most kill-happy squad members in the cohort, and so Johnny is given a squad leader position. When his cockiness gets a fellow recruit killed in a live-fire exercise, it’s his corporal punishment and near-expulsion from the military that are the tragedies. One conversation between Brown and another officer at the boot camp (Dean Norris, of all people) even seems more concerned with sparing Johnny not because of his personal merit, but because the military has already lost the dead recruit and the one who inadvertently shot him, so why waste a third?

Johnny is on the verge of quitting when he learns his home city has been destroyed by a bug assault, and he’s suddenly ready to cast aside all doubt and go to war completely. (Reminder: This film came out four years prior to Sept. 11, 2001.)

The rest of the film sees Johnny and his squadmates slog through the hell of war with the bugs, all while Johnny essentially climbs the ranks chiefly through the death of his comrades. One fellow trooper bites it at the hands of Ironside—a mercy killing—and not a minute later, Johnny is promoted to the dead man’s spot and takes the news with a bright grin and a “Yes, sir!” Great guy to share a foxhole with, is Johnny.

Meanwhile, just as Carmen—off at flight school—casts aside Johnny for a smarmy starship pilot with a nicer uniform, Johnny mostly ignores Dizzy, who apparently loves him so much she’s followed him into a career where you are basically 100 percent guaranteed to get maimed. They’re reunited with their friend Carl, who has become an intelligence officer by virtue of his taking a level in psionics. Compassion isn’t his strong suit, either: If they’re unhappy with decisions like hurling doughboys into harm’s way just to probe for weaknesses in the bugs, well, he says, “Too bad.”

He is dressed in a uniform that is cut exactly the same as a Nazi SS officer’s uniform when he says this.

...

Rest of article can be read here.


Some critical lines of the article include "All fascism is about Us vs. Them at base. The most insidious regimes encourage this enmity not just toward other states, but toward other citizens." Remind you of anything going on in the world today? How about "Republican candidates for president in 2016 went on about possibly repealing birthright citizenship—a legal precedent established centuries ago that stands unquestioned in nearly every country in the New World—this movie from 20 years ago paints a perfect picture of what a society without it would look like. The film’s newsreels and secondary characters repeat that “Service Guarantees Citizenship,” meaning that if you voluntarily enlist in the military, you are granted citizenship." If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, then there's something deeply wrong with you.

Twenty years later, half of your friends and neighbors are okay with immigration purges, travel bans that in practice impact people with a certain religion, and a leader who seeks to de-legitimize the press. As of this writing, he wants to cut social programs and ramp up military spending, too.
 
The enemy in Starship Troopers were bugs, though. The film overall is sort of a gore-comedy. Not to be taken seriously, even to the point of using it to parallel actual crap going on in our own timeline, imo ^^
 
Everyone remembers Pretty White Kids with Bug Problems but nobody remembers Denzel and the Siege. A better down-to-earth movie and way more uncanny.

 
Last edited:
The movie was a comedy. You need to read the book. Read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land as well.

The book by Robert Heinlein is a classic and one of the great military scifi ever written. The premise is that anything given for free is never valued but if something is earned then it will be respected. In the world in the book people are either citizens or tax payers (I think that's what they were called, its been a few years since I read it). Citizens get to vote, can run for office and have to volunteer for military service. Tax payers get benefits, welfare and the benefits of living in the society but do not get a say in how its run. Since obtaining Citizenship requires sacrifice and potential risk to oneself it is used wisely, unlike the world of today where people sometimes vote for the person that's taller :)

A system where the government is elected by people who earned that right sounds like a better system then one where only 60% of random uniformed idiots show up and vote for who knows why. When people can vote themselves benefits at someone else's expense the whole system breaks down and we are approaching that point with the vast numbers of people who pay no taxes but get the same vote as I do. Personally I think if you are on welfare you should not get a vote. When you are capable of taking care of yourself then you can have a say in how things are run, till then shut up and be thankful.
 
And then you'll define "getting a social security pension" or "employed by the government" or "working for a subsidized industry" as 'taking care of yourself'.
 
And then you'll define "getting a social security pension" or "employed by the government" or "working for a subsidized industry" as 'taking care of yourself'.

Employed by the government is still working, as is the subsidized industry. They have jobs they get a vote.

Social Security stops being a pension and becomes welfare once you take out more than you paid in. At that point you are riding on the backs of the workers. When that happens if that stopped your vote I could see the logic for it.

Regardless this would never happen, in the book it took the near collapse of global society to where military veterans re-established law and order and set up a new way of running things. Without that collapse you could never set it up.
 
I don't think it is a good idea to have "earned citizen rights".

Historically it only happened in cases of extra citizens added as a result of non-citizens distinguished in war. Eg some helots got to become perioikoi (i suppose) due to helping as warriors in the Spartan army. Also the case with native populations, i think, in euro imperialism in the new world or other colonies.
 
It doesn't really work, then. A poor person working for a subsidized industry will then go on to have a higher wage. This will result in a higher SS contribution. Then they're less likely to 'pull out more than they paid in'. Same with a government employee.

Meanwhile, a person who works for a non-subsidized industry will not only pay higher taxes, but also will have a lower wage.

And finally, a person's wage doesn't truly represent their contribution to society. A wage represents the demand for your labour, not the output of your labour. And your contribution is measured by your output.

If I have a security company, and there's an emergency call for which they are willing to pay $50/hr to have someone on site .... then the 'contribution' of having someone on-site can be said to be $50. If I have only one unemployed applicant for the position, he could demand a fee of $49.99 of me, and it's still a good idea (handwave away admin costs, numbers are for example only). But if I have *two* unemployed applicants, then, whabam I can negotiate one down to minimum wage.

The value of their output doesn't change. But their SS contributions do. Their net savings do.
 
The movie was a comedy. You need to read the book. Read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land as well.

The book by Robert Heinlein is a classic and one of the great military scifi ever written. The premise is that anything given for free is never valued but if something is earned then it will be respected. In the world in the book people are either citizens or tax payers (I think that's what they were called, its been a few years since I read it). Citizens get to vote, can run for office and have to volunteer for military service. Tax payers get benefits, welfare and the benefits of living in the society but do not get a say in how its run.


The movie has almost nothing to do with the book. The movie was written by people unaware of the book, and only modified later to give a superficial resemblance. The movie does not reflect Heinlein's work or views. And he was approaching the story more from a conservative/libertarian position, rather than the full fascist one the movie became.


Since obtaining Citizenship requires sacrifice and potential risk to oneself it is used wisely, unlike the world of today where people sometimes vote for the person that's taller :)


There's no reason to assume that this would be true. Military and former military people in the US are more likely to vote conservative, and in doing so elect chickenhawks who have no respect for the military, and who treat military members and veterans like crap.


A system where the government is elected by people who earned that right sounds like a better system then one where only 60% of random uniformed idiots show up and vote for who knows why. When people can vote themselves benefits at someone else's expense the whole system breaks down

This is a common as dirt talking point among the authoritarian-criminal crowd. People who want to use government to steal from others constantly use the false claim that people are using government to steal from them, and so they don't deserve the right of being treated as a human.

The irony, of course, is that the less people are able to vote, the more it actually happens that people vote themselves benefits at the someone else's expense. And the more people are able to vote, the less that happens. This is why Republicans so frequently support voter suppression efforts. They know that in order to vote themselves benefits at someone else's expense, they have to narrow the voter pool.


and we are approaching that point with the vast numbers of people who pay no taxes but get the same vote as I do.


Which is another authoritarian-criminal talking point. There is essentially no one in the US who does not pay taxes. A large part of the population does not pay the federal income tax. But that's just one of many taxes in the country. And the only reason so many people don't pay that is that the rich and conservative have voted themselves so many benefits at someone else's expense that most working families no longer make enough money to owe federal income tax.


Personally I think if you are on welfare you should not get a vote. When you are capable of taking care of yourself then you can have a say in how things are run, till then shut up and be thankful.


Which again, is the authoritarian-criminal talking point. Most people who are on welfare are on welfare because the system prevents them from being self sufficient. These people are being blocked from economic benefits by the same people who are trying to now take away that welfare that they forced the people on to in the first place. And to take away basic human freedoms in the process.

The reality is that every time in history that one group has the power to exclude another group from participation in government, that group in power has used that power to take away property, liberty, and rights, from those excluded. And this rule is so true that there can be no excuse for taking away participation in government except for the purpose of taking property and liberty.
 
The movie was a comedy. You need to read the book. Read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land as well.

The book by Robert Heinlein is a classic and one of the great military scifi ever written. The premise is that anything given for free is never valued but if something is earned then it will be respected. In the world in the book people are either citizens or tax payers (I think that's what they were called, its been a few years since I read it). Citizens get to vote, can run for office and have to volunteer for military service. Tax payers get benefits, welfare and the benefits of living in the society but do not get a say in how its run. Since obtaining Citizenship requires sacrifice and potential risk to oneself it is used wisely, unlike the world of today where people sometimes vote for the person that's taller :)
Heinlein was big on the concept of TANSTAAFL - "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" - and made the point in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress that on Luna, not even the air was free - that for Stu (a rich tourist from Earth), air was something he took for granted ("free as air"), but for Manuel Garcia O'Kelly-Davis, it's a quarterly charge.

I never read Starship Troopers (it's in my book collection, though), but I have read Stranger in a Strange Land, or at least the version originally published. There's an alternate version that Heinlein originally wanted to publish but back in the '60s, it was deemed too unsuitable. So there were alterations. Same with Podkayne of Mars, btw. The original version of that Heinlein novel was much darker.

A system where the government is elected by people who earned that right sounds like a better system then one where only 60% of random uniformed idiots show up and vote for who knows why. When people can vote themselves benefits at someone else's expense the whole system breaks down and we are approaching that point with the vast numbers of people who pay no taxes but get the same vote as I do. Personally I think if you are on welfare you should not get a vote. When you are capable of taking care of yourself then you can have a say in how things are run, till then shut up and be thankful.
O-kay... and if a person who was capable of taking care of him/herself should become ill or have an accident that would render it impossible to work and the person ended up on disability benefits, that person should lose the right to vote? If a person lost their job through no fault of their own, that means the person should lose the right to vote?

Wow.

The piece of garbage that is our now-ex Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried that stunt. He didn't outright disenfranchise disabled people prior to the 2015 federal election in Canada, but he put in new legislation called the "Fair Elections Act" that removed a basic document as valid ID for all voters (under the pretense that massive voter fraud was going on, which was simply not true; the only election fraud going on was in his own party with the robocalls) and instead put in a list of alternate ID rules that some people found very difficult to meet - people like the homeless, disabled, seniors, college/university students, and aboriginal voters. But since not many people in those demographics tend to vote Conservative (or certainly not for the fake Conservatives that Harper's party represents), he figured it was a good way to stack the deck against left-wing voters who he thought wouldn't fight back.

As a mobility-challenged, physically disabled voter, I have the right to apply for a special ballot to vote in my home. The way it works is that the riding's Returning Officer sends over a team consisting of a Deputy Returning Officer and Poll Clerk, with a ballot. I show them valid ID (two, in my case - to prove identity and address, since I don't have a driver's license), they give me a ballot, I fill it out, sign some paperwork, the ballot is put into a series of secure envelopes, and my part is done. One of the things they do is take photographs of my IDs.

This last part is problematic. People showing ID at the polling station don't have their IDs photographed. And in 2015, I had a hell of a time getting the Returning Officer to agree to send someone over. She was full of impertinent questions - how do you get your groceries? How do you get your mail? Why don't you just get a ride from someone? It completely whooshed in one ear and out the other that my problem is in getting in and out of vehicles, and the polling station is too far to walk. Groceries? They're delivered, either by the manager of the grocery store, or by Canada Post if ordered online. As for the mail, I don't need to get in and out of a vehicle to get my mail from the lobby downstairs (the building has an elevator, so no need to worry about stairs).

So she started going over the list of IDs. I don't have a driver's license or passport - never needed either of them. I went down the list and told her I could provide two of them, and again she wasn't listening. A bank statement is one of the IDs, and she asked, "When the workers get there, would you log into your online banking and let them see your current bank statement?"

Hell, no. HELL, NO. Elections Canada has no need to see financial documents of any kind, even if they weren't taking pictures. It's none of their business where I bank, how much money I have, where I get it from, and what I spend it on. Money should NEVER be a consideration in the voting process - the only things that matter are if the person is a Canadian citizen, at least 18 years of age, and they vote at the correct polling station in the correct riding, unless they're voting at an advance poll or by mail-in or special ballot.

Well, this Returning Officer decided that she'd send a team over "if she could find someone and if there was time." She said that to a campaign worker for the candidate I planned to vote for, and that campaign worker (who had been advocating on my behalf for my special ballot since I was having trouble arranging it on my own) blew her top. She told the Returning Officer, "NO. This is a federal election, she wants to vote, she's eligible to vote, she has IDs, and there is no "if." You are obligated by law to help her vote."

So in the end I got to vote.

The incident I just mentioned isn't the first time I had to fight Elections Canada for my special ballot. The first time happened several years earlier (still during Harper's time), and the person at the local EC office who tried to deny me my right to vote ended up getting fired because of it, and rightfully so. How many others had she pulled the same stunt with, and how many of those people didn't know their rights and were too intimidated to speak up?

I dare you to try to convince me that I should not have the right to vote.

And then you'll define "getting a social security pension" or "employed by the government" or "working for a subsidized industry" as 'taking care of yourself'.
Amazing, isn't it, how so many people who crow about how they never take a dime from the government are using so many products and services provided by taxes, and in many cases, part of the taxes raised were paid by people who never use those products and services? There are people who are older, or have always been childless, complaining about the school tax.

I don't complain about that. I know that education isn't free, or even cheap. I also understand that some day one of the kids my taxes helped put through school may grow up to become a doctor or other first responder who might end up saving my life or other lives.

Employed by the government is still working, as is the subsidized industry. They have jobs they get a vote.

Social Security stops being a pension and becomes welfare once you take out more than you paid in. At that point you are riding on the backs of the workers. When that happens if that stopped your vote I could see the logic for it.

Regardless this would never happen, in the book it took the near collapse of global society to where military veterans re-established law and order and set up a new way of running things. Without that collapse you could never set it up.
You sound as though you'd be happy in F.M. Busby's novels, either as a member of the Committee Police, part of the Total Welfare bureaucracy, or as part of the Presiding Committee's bureaucracy.

I met Busby back in 1989, at a science fiction convention. Even then I could see part of his story happening - that multinational corporations would take over government. He pooh-pooh'd that, saying, "It's only a story." Busby died before seeing this process begin, when corporations became people. I wonder what he'd say now?
 
Last edited:
No doubt some people really do feel that way - that people with paid forum subscriptions should have greater clout or influence than those who don't have paid subscriptions (aka a form of "forum tax"?), or that their opinions matter more or are more valid.

I've actually encountered people at TrekBBS who think that way. Someone asked me point-blank if I was a premium member. I said yes, and posted a screen shot of the premium members' lounge (only paid members and staff can see it) as proof. They were mollified by that, as though my opinions were suddenly a bit less objectionable to them, or I had more right to them in the first place, since I had paid $$.

I hope that attitude never becomes prevalent here. The person who asked me that question is one of that forum's resident jerks.
 
I think it says a lot about a person's world view when they think the only meaningful way to contribute to society is shoring up the government's monopoly on violence.
 
You could consider it a baseline contribution. Sort of communalizing the very foundation of the state itself, as it were.

Just as an aside, and sorry if I missed it, if you want to get into the scifiinizing that was the concept of citizenship in Heinlein's book rather than the movie, a super high level summary would go something like this: Citizens have the right to vote and hold office - in order to get citizenship, one can engage in service. Terms of service are lengthy, intentionally painful, and intentionally randomly dangerous. Anyone, regardless of ability, can be found a type of service - though more capable people will get more important jobs matched to their ability. All jobs are designed to kill some significant amount of the servicemen/women. All terms of service can be voluntarily quit at any time. So basically any idiot that wants to vote can: if they're willing to do the equivalent of shoveling poo in light clothes during the winter for years with equipment that randomly explodes and kills 10% of the poo shovelers. The same goes for any smart person that wants to vote too, though maybe they'll wind up piloting in an asteroid belt doing things the hard way just because.

I like the book less than I did when I was in my teens, much the same as Stranger in a Strange Land. But it's still a pretty interesting brainspace to wade through for a bit if your to-do reading list is getting a bit light.
 
Everyone remembers Pretty White Kids with Bug Problems but nobody remembers Denzel and the Siege. A better down-to-earth movie and way more uncanny.


Putting on a uniform doesn't turn one into a government drone. There's no way the US military would march in tyranny against the citizenry. Even China and Russia have to use Mongol units to kill their own people. The US is about freedom, and many of the troops in the US military are there in that cause. I was for instance, keeping the Russians out of western Europe. Just ask the Poles and Czechs which side of the iron curtain they wished they were on. For some it takes a loss of freedom to realize its worth. Service to the nation also helps, because we are the nation. So, to an ex military who served the cause of freedom, service for citizenship, as in the right to vote, doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Think about it. Do the filthy rich volunteer to die in the trenches? No its those that serve the good causes they believe in. Except the Germans of course.
 
Putting on a uniform doesn't turn one into a government drone.

Exactly. Of course, people who never served don't understand this and let Hollywood inform their impression of what military life is like.
 
Exactly. Of course, people who never served don't understand this and let Hollywood inform their impression of what military life is like.

Turning up on time and then doing the minimal amount of work possible, hiding in the toilet for long breaks and meeting the minimum standard of C which is a pass
Did I miss anything ?
 
Turning up on time and then doing the minimal amount of work possible, hiding in the toilet for long breaks and meeting the minimum standard of C which is a pass
Did I miss anything ?

Yeah, you missed just about everything. Nice try at sounding clever while insulting the military though.
 
Yeah, you missed just about everything. Nice try at sounding clever while insulting the military though.

It was a dumb ass joke about public workers
It was Petraues that said about about 1/3 rd of the military were making things worse, 1/3 were trying to do the right thing and the last 1/3 were the ones actually fighting the insurrgency properly. Probably sums up any large government organisations and burecacy.. Probably a less with the military due to its recent military adventures resulting in a shake up of command.

Why dont you share with us some insights of the Military ? Media seems to be always reporting only the bad stuff. Like hazing, sexual assualts and corruption.
 
Top Bottom