For Sci-Fi fans: Was Robert Heinlein a Fascist?

Great Debates
1

If you read a lot of science-fiction writers, you will eventually notice some recurring themes and even be able to point out some personality traits. For instance, Arthur C. Clarke is the visionary; Robert Sawyer is the eternally optimistic geek; Michael Crichton (snicker) is the formulaic, technocratic hack, not that that impedes my enjoyment of his work, it’s like a guilty pleasure for me; Ray Bradbury, in his best work, is like a hippie on a bad acid freak-out, twenty years ahead of his time; Philip Dick was a raving (but harmless) psychotic with an identity crisis.

All of this can be gleaned just from their work, without knowing any of their biographies. But the only one that I really dislike, Robert Heinlein, seems to be a fascist. Just look at “Stranger In A Strange Land,” “Starship Troopers,” “Farnham’s Freehold.” (OK, he was also racist and a dirty old man. Ve must continue ze bloodline, little girlie–!)

So how about it? Was Heinlein an escaped German who came over here after the war to put some blood and iron into our sci-fi? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.

2

Outstanding!

I can see it now…

Heinlein: Vee have vays to make you read zee book, and then burn it in the ovens! Yawohl, mein Heir! Heh-heh…

3

Right-wing? Certainly. Sex-maniacal in his later works, yes. Fascist? Hm.

I have heard this before, but always found it difficult to believe. His Sixth sense (about an Asian invasion of the USA) has a lot of racism overtones, but on the other hand he clearly attacked racism in his The moon is a harsh mistress. And what makes you list Stanger in a strange land as an example of his supposed fascism?

4

I don’t think so. He put a lot of importance on individual freedoms and rights, but also on personal responsibility and societies right to remove those who are harmful to it.

5

In “Stranger In A Strange Land,” the hero is a superior being who gets into the habit of “cleansing” the population by winking undesirables out of existence. The hero is later lynched by an unappreciative rabble. OK, this is not the most clear-cut example of fascism in Heinlein’s work, but there are definite overtones.

In “Farnham’s Freehold,” the future has been taken over by black cannibals. Definitely racist. The hero is a balding, middle-aged man (who is pro-nuclear war) who gets to mate with his son’s college girlfriend because the son turns out to be such a wimp.

I didn’t read “Starship Troopers,” just saw the movie. But that future society, constructed after the “failure of democracy,” bases citizenship on military service, and more than one reviewer commented on the Gestapo-like Intelligence uniforms and the Holocaust-era tactic of classifying society’s enemies as “bugs” or other vermin.

6

I’d say he is much more libertarian than fascist. In fact, I would venture to say that he is rather strongly anti-fascist.

A recurring theme of his is opposition to authoritarian government. Very few of his heros are directly involved with the government, and those few that are have a strong “he who governs least, governs best” sentiment.

One of his recurring villians is is a strong, controlling government. Whenever a powerful or personally-invasive government is set up, it is inevetably opposed (and usually defeated) by rugged, free-thinking individualists.

Yes, he can be militaristic, but that is very different from being fascist.

7

Umm, well, you see- the book was not like that so much. As it explained- you got to be a “citzen” by signing up for “government service”- not just the Military. So, stuff like the “peace corps” would count. The gestapo-uniforms are from the movie- only. And, umm, the enemy WAS 'bugs".

Heinlien liked to raise eyebrows. he apparently raised yours. And, you have read only a few of his books- you would have to read more to make such a judgement.

8

There’s a thread somewhere about how Paul Verhoeven was a genius for making a movie that made the good guys out to be really no better than fascists, so that those “in the know” could feel superior by looking down on the masses cheering for the Gestapo. Regardless of whether one thinks this is a good thing, it bore only a passing resemblance to the book. For one thing, in the book, the Mobile Infantry was actually mobile, and didn’t rely on pre-WWI tactics.

Anyways, it’s not as if Heinlein actually advocated that sort of government. I think he was writing about it as an intriguing idea, rather than a plan for the future.

9

Before pronouncing Heinlein a fascist, read more than two or three of his books. His earlier works are much less political and are much smoother reading. There is a constant recurring theme in these books, and the later ones, when read objectively, of basic individual rights and responsibilities. Fascism suppresses the rights of the individual. No Heinlein protagonist is any kind of oppressor. I’d say the most common recurring personality is the rugged indivdualist.

I’ve always heard a lot of people denounce RAH because of the militaristic theme of Starship Troopers. The thing that strikes me is that they seem to ignore the personal sacrifice the elder characters in the story have made: Colonel DuBois’ arm, Fleet Sergeant Ho’s legs, and the OCS Commandant’s eyes. To me, these people epitomize the other side of the coin in Heinlein’s franchise-through-service society. They did not give up their limbs and eyes to gain the right of full citizenship; they gave them up to secure the freedom of all their fellow men and they continue to contribute by nurturing the sense of honor and responsibility of future citizens.

10

It seems to me a person believing in Fascism would not admit to being an oppressor. However, a Fascist would believe that he is being oppressed by certain segments of society, like the mediocre, the weak or the different. “Tyranny of the weak” is a good Fascist slogan.

If Adolf Hitler were to write a sci-fi novel, it would probably resemble one of Heinlein’s.

11

By the way, Heinlein defenders – How come nobody is mentioning Farnham’s Freehold?

12

Well, I haven’t read it myself, it’s kinda hard to find. From what I’ve read and heard, though, there are sympathetic black characters in it.

13

Firstly: You state matter of factly that if Hitler wrote Sci-Fi it would read like a RAH story. Read more than two of Heinlein’s books and ignore all movies “inspired” by his work unless you want to make such a mistake. You are dead wrong. Heinlein has been credited with being one of the first great libertarian authors and wrote in 1946 a book called “Take Back Your Government!” (published much later in the 90s’) which was almost a manifesto for political activism in the common man and similar in approach to the Perot campaign. Heinlein continually advocates personal responsibility hand in hand with personal liberty knowing quite well that you can’t have only one and have prosperity. Yes in many ways his words are sexist and bigoted by todays standards and demonstrate a visible prejudice. Hey guess what, people in his generation were brought up to think certain things and no one told them otherwise. Just like reading anyone who comes from the past you have to filter things a bit. People used to think there were demons in the ocean and the earth was flat too, they were not idiots they were simply ignorant to the kind of enlightenment that we have today. Heinelin also was the most feminist chauvinist I can think of. His femal characthers were feminine indeed and very sexual and would usually be leaders and do as much rescuing as geting rescued. If you insist on commenting further then read Friday, I Will Fear No Evil, and The Number of the Beast and you will encounter only a few of the truly stron femal charachters in his works.

on Farnham’s Freehold: Yep the bad guys were black Africans or the descendants of black Africans. They ate people too. RAH was probably a bigot, I’d think so. See the first section to clarify why I don’t thin he’s burning in hell over it. Ever read any Clemens? The point isn’t that Clemens or Heinlein were bigoted (which it is obvious they were by todays standards) but that they didn’t try to be and in fact they tried to discover such things and banish them. In fact if you read his work you will see that he grew as a human being. The problem you seem to have is that you pick up something written by a human in 1964 (Freehold) and then fail to read something written 87’ (Sail Beyond the Sunset) so you don’t get to see that he was a man who learned and changed his own perspective. When I was a little itty bitty kid I did not know any black people. Never met one. I thought they all owned father and son garbage dumps and dry cleaning businesses, as I grew up I learned a lot more and hope to continue doing so.

I apologize if I come off harsh but I do not take well to people insulting someone who I admire as much as RAH offhandedly and without doing the simple courtesy of reading the man’s work.

14

I would imagine that if Hitler wrote Sci Fi, the main character’s name wouldn’t be Juan Rico. Just one little difference off the top of my head.

15

For a counter-example to “Starship Troopers,” read “If this goes on —” - Heinlein’s novella of army officers rebelling against a theocracy that’s taken over the US and reinstituting a democratic government based on individual rights - hardly a fascist theme.

I’d go with the analysis that he was a libertarian who experienced personal growth on race issues.

16

Dude!! I second all of the above! Read more of his stuff before you label him as a fascist of any sort! I have read, to the best of my knowledge, everything the man published… and much of it multiple times.

Yes, the bad guys in “Farnham’s Freehold” were black… so what? If they were white, would RAH still be a racist? Let me introduce you to the term “plot device”. When the book in question was written, the audience was primarily white… and he needed people who were sufficiently different (to a much more naive audience, and I include RAH in that group) to be believable as the bad guys. He also needed a predominant group in this future world visibly different than the group that had managed to fuck up the planet with a nuclear war… but shock these people, with their darker skin and all, STILL managed to fuck up the planet in their own way! :eek: Oh my GOD!!! Maybe these darker people are not so different from us!

:rolleyes:

Try not to judge before you know what you are talking about, please.

And “Stranger in a Strange Land”… did you actually read it, or did you just skim? Michael does not “cleanse the population by winking undesirables out of existence!”

He does this only a couple of times, IIRC (don’t have the book here, and haven’t read it for a year or so… but HAVE read it about 7 times before!), and ONLY before he is introduced to human values/morals. Once he IS introduced to human society, he does not do this. If he DID continue to “wink undesirables out of existence” he would never have been martyred by the crowd. (BTW: he is NOT lynched, he is shot several times and then literally pulled apart by the mob…I think… is this correct? Anyone got the book handy?)

17

Look, Heinlein didn’t live in the days when people believed in a flat Earth. He lived in the MIDDLE TO LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY, so you can’t blame it on the times he lived in. He was alive for a goodly portion of my own life, and I’m only 35.

By 1964, everyone in America was totally aware of things like civil rights and racial stereotypes, particularly anyone who had been a published popular author since the '40s, and particularly someone who often drew inspiration from news headlines for his stories. Heinlein probably would have read in the papers about King’s “Dream” speech only one year before.

Anybody who wrote about a future race of black cannibals in 1964 would have been seen (in the context of the time, yes!) as being on the side of the Klan and the White Citizens Councils. Such a novel could be interpreted as a racist warning: “If you give the blacks equality, this will happen.”

This was 1964, for crying out loud! And it was still the “good” years of the Civil Rights Movement–the big-city riots and the Black Panthers hadn’t happened yet. Heinlein was definitely making a statement by publishing that book at that time, and I don’t like what he was saying.

Heinlein was definitely no innocent “creature of his time.” How could a “libertarian” who believed in individual freedom be so historically deterministic anyway? How can you say “no one told him otherwise”? Even 100 years ago there would have been people like W.E.B. DuBois telling him otherwise–maybe their views weren’t widely reported, but a writer of speculative fiction, writing about the future rather than staying in the past, definitely would have had access to those views. If Heinlein was such a great writer, then how dare you imply he was like some blank slate who believed everything he was told by society.

He was a creepy right-wing racist because he CHOSE to be, not 'cuz he was ign’ant.

I think your comparison of Heinlein to Clemens is very insulting to Clemens, and not just because Clemens was a much better writer. Clemens, living 100 years before Heinlein, was much more enlightened about race relations. Clemens was a reporter of his own present, and so he reported people using the n-word. Heinlein, writing about the future, reported that first the Russkies would nuke us, and then the niggaz would eat us in the aftermath. There is no comparison between the two men.

Sure, I can give someone credit for changing and growing. Bobby Kennedy changed by '68. Even George Wallace had changed by '76. But reading Farnham’s Freehold was a deal-breaker for me. There is no coming back from that.

And how can you say I haven’t done Heinlein the courtesy of reading his work, when everybody else in this thread is willing to admit I’ve read two??? Two was enough! I tried to read more, but I couldn’t stomach any more scenes in which girls always have some excuse to walk around naked, or have sex with middle-aged men…

I think in order to be a well-rounded SF reader, you don’t need to read any more than two books by one author (unless it’s a trilogy). Hey, I like Ray Bradbury and Philip Dick, and I’ve only read 3 by each of them. Of course, I’ve also read 6 by Robert Sawyer, 6 by Arthur C. Clarke and collaborators, and at least 11 by Crichton, but all of these authors have a more positive view of humanity and more likeable characters.

18

I think I’m remembering “Stranger” better than you. It’s AFTER he’s reintroduced to society, AFTER he “grows up,” matures, starts a religious cult, whatever, that he admits to Jubal Harshaw that he’s been weeding out evil people–“sent to the foot of the line, to try again,” I think he puts it. Basically saying it’s OK to kill people because everyone gets reincarnated, thus preparing himself for his own death.

By the way, “lynched” doesn’t have to mean hung. It just means executed without a trial, for instance by an enraged mob. Shooting and tearing limb from limb will do. The very first Judge Lynch in Ireland threw his own son out the window. Didn’t hang him, but did lynch him.

I hated the lynching scene in “Stranger.” Another example of Heinlein’s bloodymindedness.

19

Asimov made the comment in his autobiography that he noticed a change in Heinlein’s outlook around the late 40’s, not long after he divorced his first wife. Before this point, Asimov said that Heinlein was a hard-core liberal; afterwards, he felt he had become just as hard-core a conservative.

The fascist label is a litle strong. This tends to get stuck to anyone that doesn’t meet with our ultra-liberal beliefs.

For a glimpse of what a SF novel written by Adolf Hitler would look like, read Norman Spinrad’s “The Iron Dream.”

20

Hmmmmmm… as I said, I don’t have the book here, so maybe you are remembering it better than me. (Anyone? RAH fans? Help!! Help!!! I’m sinking!!!)

OK, I’ll give you that one… but I still think RAH wasn’t a fascist!