Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So I just finished reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Heraclitus
    And in any Lunar-Earth war Earth would win.
    I would think that the victor would be whoever could get to the asteroid belt and throw (big) rocks at the other first.
    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
    Iain Banks missed deadline due to Civ | The eyes are the groin of the head. - Dwight Schrute.
    One more turn .... One more turn .... | WWTSD

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Heraclitus
      The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is ok, but the premise is a bit off, I'd think that the harsh environment would encourage collectivist ideals. And in any Lunar-Earth war Earth would win. As a metaphor the book's quite good.
      Win is a relative term. If 10 of the worlds largest cities are destroyed by giant rocks and a billion people lay dead, transportation and communication infastructure is destroyed, can you say they won the war, when the 3 million lunar citizens are all dead?

      Victory at a "good" cost, would of been too high in the book, had the Lunies chosen to hit major cities, even though they said they would never do it.




      Who has read Time Enough for Love? Loved that book, but it got a little "wierd" about halfway through, just like Stranger in a Strange Land got a little "wierd" for the last 50 pages or so.

      Jobe made me laugh till I cried, at least a dozen times.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Heraclitus
        The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is ok, but the premise is a bit off, I'd think that the harsh environment would encourage collectivist ideals.
        On what do you base this assumption?

        There has already been a prime example of the inherent failure of collectivism even in the face of harsh environments.

        The original Plymouth colony was that failed experiment.

        Governor William Bradford's own writings are testament to that fact.

        link:

        http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1...d.html#Private and communal farming


        "Private and communal farming (1623)

        All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

        The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and ****** much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them. "



        Here's the original from Bradford's journal:


        "So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much come as they could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length, after much debate of things, the Gov'r (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all other things to goe on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as more corne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means the Gov'r or any other could rase; and save him a great deall of trouble, and; gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into the feild, and took their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilities; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tiranie and oppression.

        The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may welle evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; - that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a commone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this communitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and ****** much imployment that would have been to their benefite and corn-forte. ..."



        I can't speak to whether or not Heinlien knew this or not, but it seems likely he could have.
        Last edited by uberloz; November 29, 2007, 17:40.
        ..there are known ‘knowns’ There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. ~~Donald Rumsfeld

        Comment


        • #19
          Not sure why you think Heinlein wasn't given props. He's right up there with Clarke and Asimov and ahead of Bova in his era of classical science fiction.

          Surprised Ming didn't like to Sail beyond the Sunset.
          Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
          "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
          2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

          Comment


          • #20
            I collected Heinlein's books painstakingly from second hand stores, years ago. They still have a high place in my bookshelf.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Ming


              However, Heinlein does sometimes take abuse for much of his work after Stranger in a Strange Land. His obsession with death and living forever dominates the themes of his later novels, many of which are nowhere near as good as most of his earlier work.
              Stranger was early 60s and he didn't take much criticism for the books that immediately followed (including the Moon is a Harsh Mistress of course, and several other books generally regarded amongst his best.

              The big change was from the early 70s when he had a period to recover from illness and afterwards his books were quite different - polarising the fanbase.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Elok


                It's been called that, but after reading it I couldn't see it as fascist. Socially retarded and jingoistic, sure, and the fifties mores of the characters were amusing, but not fascist.
                re: Starship Troopers and fascism

                Militarism and Utopia in 'Starship Troopers'
                By Robert Peterson
                Special to SPACE.com
                posted: 04:12 pm ET
                09 June 2000



                Paul Verhoeven's film Starship Troopers is on target for depicting Robert Heinlein's novel as a "fascist utopia." Did that get your attention, Heinlein fans?

                Now, before you track me down and send me hate mail, yes, I have read the book.

                "A lot of casual readers of the novel have a vague militaristic, fascist idea. It's not supported by the book," says James Gifford, a writer and publisher of numerous works about Heinlein.

                Bill Patterson, editor of the Heinlein Journal, agrees, saying that "it's hard to find anything in the book that tends in the direction of fascism."

                People hear the word "fascism" and get angry. It conjures images of an oppressive police state that's out to conquer the world -- Hitler, Mussolini, eugenics, the cult of the nation, 1984.

                What do the dictionaries say?

                "A system of government characterized by dictatorship, belligerent nationalism, racism and militarism." (Webster's New World).

                "A totalitarian government led by a dictator and which emphasizes aggressive nationalism and often racism." (Random House).

                "A system of government with a total dictator, socioeconomic controls, suppression of opposition and usually a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." (American Heritage).

                Aggressive, racist and belligerent. What I found most alarming -- and fascinating -- about Heinlein's novel was how he imagined a fascist society that incorporated these awful ideas, but worked all the same.

                Heinlein showed me an intensely nationalistic, aggressively militaristic, totalitarian and racist ("speciesist?") society, and in spite of everything I believe in, I liked what I saw. When Verhoeven's film demonstrated the same traits in the source material, fans rejected it.

                Let's go point by point. Novel first.

                A military democracy

                Heinlein's Federation is clearly militaristic. Even casual Heinlein fans know that to become a voting citizen of the Federation, you have to serve at least two years in the military.

                The core of Heinlein's novel is why you have to serve to vote -- a thesis found first in Rico's high school History and Moral Philosophy class.

                Rico's teacher, Mr. DuBois, asks "'What is the moral difference, if any, between the soldier and the civilian?"

                "The difference,'" Rico answers, "lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not" (Starship Troopers, page 26).

                While it takes Rico some time -- and a stay on the evolutionarily stagnant planet Sanctuary -- to believe this himself, Heinlein is more sure in his editorializing.

                "[C]an you tell us why our system works better than any of out ancestors? (...) [Because u]nder our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage" (page 182).

                Heinlein scholar Gifford agrees that "the main point is that the duty to the body social is best executed by those who have put their own ass on the line."

                The difficult questions

                Even though it scares me, this idea makes some sense. I like the fact that the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military is a civilian, but all the corruption in our government, gets me thinking, "Hmmm ... maybe I would trust my president more if he had risked his life for our country to earn his right to hold office."

                Heinlein's militarism goes deeper than the service-for-citizenship requirement. A militaristic society bases itself around being ready to fight at any time. Heinlein's Federation bases itself -- prides itself -- on its military readiness, and it's all for the most pragmatic of reasons: sometimes an efficient society needs a war.

                "Let's assume," Rico writes in officer training school, "that the human race manages to balance birth and death, just right to fit its own planets, and thereby becomes peaceful. What happens? Soon (about next Wednesday) the Bugs move in, kill off the breed which 'ain'ta gonna study war no more' and the universe forgets us" (page 185).

                As our guide to the Federation's ideology, Rico reveals his society's dedication to militarism and contempt for those who would run a government without an active military ("ain'ta gonna war no more").

                A totalitarian democracy?

                I'll start my look at the Federation's totalitarianism with a concession: the Federation is firmly democratic, a decidedly un-fascist trait -- citizens enjoy "democracy unlimited by race, color, creed, birth, wealth, sex, or conviction" (page 183).

                But, again, only those who have served in the military can vote. Yes, it's a democracy for those few, but everyone else floats in a disenfranchised void. If the U.S. government were to suddenly limit the vote only to veterans, kick Clinton out of the White House and replace him with a man in epaulets and ribbons, would we civilians still call it a democracy?

                Further, Heinlein's Federation is totalitarian in that only one group of people -- the veterans -- have control of the government. And for one group to keep control, they must suppress the opposition, as the American Heritage definition of "fascism" says.

                As Rico learns in officer training, one of the Federation's biggest advantages is that its very nature suppresses opposition, rendering it impossible.

                "One of the older cadets took a crack at it. 'Sir, revolution is impossible . . . because revolution --armed uprising -- requires not only dissatisfaction but aggressiveness. ... If you separate the aggressive ones and make them the sheep dogs, the sheep will never give you trouble" (page 184).

                Aggression guaranteed

                Ah! "Aggressive"! Coincidentally, one of Heinlein's own characters calls the guys who run the Federation "aggressive," another defining characteristic of fascism.

                Rico further supports this premise, albeit slightly more eloquently.

                "Either we spread and wipe out the Bugs or they spread and wipe us out," he says, "because both races are tough and smart and want the same real estate" (pages 185-186).

                Real estate, no bugs allowed

                This quote dovetails with my claim that Heinlein's Federation is an overtly racist society.

                Now, you may point to the passage about how the Federation is a "democracy unlimited by race, color, creed, birth, wealth, sex, or conviction," and how people of all different nationalities (Rico, Zim, Rasczak, Jenkins, Mahmud, Shujumi) populate it as equal partners under the military banner.

                But what about the Bugs?

                Not only does the nickname "Bugs" for the arachnids of Klendathu sounds too much like a racial slur -- think the derogatory use of the word "Jew" -- but Heinlein's characters unswervingly believe that humans are superior to Bugs, and that humans are destined to spread across the galaxy.

                Rico takes pride in being human and fighting for "our own race." And most importantly, the Federation plans to "wipe out" the Bugs. They want to exterminate an entire species, to commit genocide.

                Now, obviously, it's easier, even justifiable, to hate a race of giant killer insects instead of a small ethnic group of humans because "they attacked us first," but it's a matter of degree, and Hitler also argued from a platform of self-defense.

                The fact remains that Heinlein's characters want to destroy this entire race because they are different from humans -- because we have a "right" to spread across the universe and acquire lebensraum, if you will, and it's better us than them.

                "Man is what he is, a wild animal with the will to survive and (so far) the ability, against all competition," Rico says. "Unless one accepts that, anything one says about morals, war, politics you name it is nonsense. Correct morals arise from knowing what Man is -- not what do-gooders and well-meaning old Aunt Nellies would like him to be."

                "The universe will let us know later whether or not Man has any 'right' to expand through it."

                "In the meantime the M.I. will be in there, on the bounce and swinging, on the side of our own race." (page 186).

                My government above all others

                Nationalism courses through the citizens (or potential citizens) of Heinlein's Federation, as Rico says when he considers going career.

                "Had I ever cared about voting?" he asks himself. "No, it was the prestige, the pride, the status ... of being a citizen" (page 162).

                Rico focuses his developing pride in his own arm of the Federation's state apparatus, the Mobile Infantry.

                Right after he signs up, he threatens a guy who insults the M.I. with a "mouthful of knuckles," and the book closes with one last capsule drop, where the pilot of their ship plays the service's "sweet" beacon song, "To the Everlasting Glory of the Infantry".

                Militarism, totalitarianism, aggressiveness, nationalism, plus a racist doctrine. By these definitions, Heinlein's Federation is a fascist government -- seductively, perhaps compellingly portrayed.
                The latest Space booksbreaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at
                I love being beaten by women - Lorizael

                Comment


                • #23
                  Sorry, not buying it. There's no evidence of control over the media or free expression, or of the elections being rigged, or of "objective enemies," and hatred of murderous aliens =/= contempt for "subhuman" Jews, Gypsies, etc. It's just an unusually militaristic state with limited franchise. The U.S. circa 1820, which aggressively pushed for territory, treated Indians as scum and limited the vote to white males, is not considered fascist. Neither should Heinlein's Federation.
                  1011 1100
                  Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Well, you see what you want to see I suppose...
                    I love being beaten by women - Lorizael

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Time enough for love Heinlein is always a bit odd... it's his trademark in my opinion

                      SiaSL is always my favorite, but Friday ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Heinlein_-_Friday ) is a close second, and then Moon and Time ...
                      <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                      I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I'll have to read his books again I suppose, I re-read Starship Troopers and The Cat Who Walked Through Walls recently and I wasn't impressed...
                        I love being beaten by women - Lorizael

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          His later books are a bit ****.

                          JM
                          Jon Miller-
                          I AM.CANADIAN
                          GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            --"Why did I not read this years ago?"

                            That's a good question ^_^

                            --"re: Starship Troopers and fascism"

                            Unfortunately, the author of this piece seems to take things out of context a bit and ignore parts of the book that don't fit his conclusions. I was pretty sure this was the case, but I re-read the book this afternoon just to brush up, and that is indeed the case.

                            --"Heinlein's Federation is clearly militaristic"

                            While this is on the surface true, he's missing several points here. Number one is that the active-duty personnel aren't allowed to vote. Number two isn't explicitly stated anywhere, but several passages imply that it's only voting that's restricted to veterans. Actual political service is never stated flat out one way or the other, but some of the comments suggest that anyone can go in to politics, it's only voting that's restricted.

                            As the second quote shows, the reasoning behind the standard is definitely more than just militarism. Summing it up as such is a disservice, but required to support his thesis.

                            --"I like the fact that the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military is a civilian,"

                            It sounded like the one in the book was as well, although it isn't stated either way explicitly.

                            --"As our guide to the Federation's ideology, Rico reveals his society's dedication to militarism and contempt for those who would run a government without an active military"

                            Not sure where his complaint is here, unless he's arguing from assumptions that he isn't stating. Which is likely the case, but weakens his case considerably. He seems to be assuming the opposite as self-evident, namely that a government should be run without an active military. It's certainly something that can be argued, but since he doesn't bother to do so, and the book does raise arguments to support its point of view, that leaves him lacking.

                            --"Real estate, no bugs allowed"

                            Ignoring the fact that there are two alien races introduced in the book. One, called "Skinny"s, are initially enemies allied with the Bugs. However, somewhere during the novel they change sides and become allied with the humans. So this supposed racism is obviously not near as blatant as Robert is trying to make out.

                            What's more, a good chunk of the last bit of the book deals with why things turned out this way; namely that they had no way of communicating with the bugs. The last big operation detailed in the book was specifically run with the goal of capturing some of the "brain" or Queen bugs in the hopes that some sort of communication could be established to set up a prisoner exchange.

                            Faced with an enemy who is willing to strike your home world directly but you have no way of communicating with, what are the other options? Again, note that although initially at war with the Skinnies, the humans manage to find a way to communicate with them and eventually ally with them.

                            This entire section of his argument ignores this, and is completely undermined by it.

                            The rest of it, the expand-or-die, is pretty basic natural selection turned into philosophy. Nothing unusual or complex here, and he doesn't ever really turn any arguments against it.

                            --"Nationalism courses through the citizens"

                            A little context dropping here, as the novel tries to talk about patriotism, not nationalism, and they're not quite the same thing.

                            --"Rico focuses his developing pride in his own arm of the Federation's state apparatus, the Mobile Infantry."

                            Considering that the entire novel is told from the viewpoint of a soldier, from trainee to officer, how is this surprising? All military training in every nation ever has tried to instill some kind of esprit de corps. Given the point of view of the novel, this was inevitable. We're given a small glimpse of something similar for the navy, but from the other end, of course, but none of this goes to prove his point.

                            Especially since, as is explicitly stated in the book, it's only the retired military who get to vote.

                            Oh well, don't let the actual novel spoil your argument about it.

                            I prefer the system show in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress anyway, but seeing people attack novels via strawman is just annoying.

                            Wraith
                            "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
                            -- Robert Heinlein, Logic of Empire

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I should add that the novel takes pains to emphasize that ANYONE can join the forces and earn franchise. He explicitly says that if a man completely unfit for battle wanted to earn a vote he could do some sort of weird, unpleasant, but noncombat duty. They're required by law to give everyone who wants it an opportunity to serve, even if it's stupid make-work. So it's not like people are disenfranchised by class; everyone starts powerless, and you can earn the vote by way of hard work regardless of your origin.
                              1011 1100
                              Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Was just about to add that... yeah.

                                In the book, those unfit to fight can do non-com jobs. Which means EVERYONE can vote, they just need to serve to vote.

                                I really cannot disagree with that system. If service to the state is required for a vote and everyone has a fair chance to serve in some way, why not? Is that really undemocratic?

                                I for one am in favor of a civics test to be able to vote now, the only problem is there is no fair wa to administer one.

                                There are "good" reasons and good ways to restrict voting, I do not believe an absolute right to vote is a "moral good" any more then a preference for the color blue is a "moral good".

                                People have expressed the view to me many times that it is somehow a "moral evil" to restrict the right to vote in a non-impartial way. I've yet to get a good answer as to why. We restrict the right to vote as is, felons can't vote(I think they should be able to), children can't vote, so even now, there is no absolute right to franchise in the U.S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X