I have seen the book quoted in defense of near fascists ideas (like that soldiers should have more say in politics and more voting rights then civilians). In full seriousness.

I have never seen it quoted to support anything else.

The book is very clear that everyone, regardless of ability, has a right to perform the term of service necessary for the franchise, and that all have complete freedom of speech.

There are many sloppy criticisms of the book, none of which have bothered to actually understand it.

Convinced pacifists and those unwilling to become part of their army don't get to vote. Everybody who votes is expected to spend enough time in military to be shaped and molded by them. Plus, the book is clear on superiority of soldiers when it comes to making state and political decisions. That are fairly fascist ideas, very straightforwardly.

Besides, my point is about people who quote it. This book quotes are never used for anything else except ideas like this.

Never mind the people who quote it, such as you know them. The book is available on its own, to any who will give it a few hours.

Like most of its critics, you don't know what the book says.

Soldiers aren't considered superior, they don't even get to vote until they retire. It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, not the subordination of all civil institutions to the State. Note that the book's extensive moral philosophizing talks about the collective and general good, but _not_ the importance of the State. It is largely silent about what civil society and its institutions look like. There is no suggestion of a totalitarian thought control apparatus, and indeed the book notes the risk that the electorate will panic and screw up defense policy.

And again, it notes that all persons, franchised or not, have the right to free speech, which is hardly typical of a fascist society.

Further, the book is a thought experiment. Heinlein never wrote another book of the kind, and wrote a number that most would consider positively subversive.

> It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all

No. It requires being soldiers and equates being soldiers to individual willingness to sacrifice himself for the good. Unwuestioningly assuming those are the same ... and also that self sacrifice should be requires.

Those are fascist ideas, really. And here you are defending them, equating the system describe by the book with what book defends.

Because, the book is written from the point on view of fan and contain no other point of view.

That is neither an accurate description of the book, nor my comment, nor fascism.

Shallow reading? It's a one sentence comparison with the movie not my fucking literary analysis.

I've read it a few times and think that's a fine take. What's your issue with it?

I didn't mean for my original message to come across harshly.

The plot is ancillary; the novel is really a description of a certain kind of martial logic, and a criticism of larger society that the author grew up in. Juan Rico is a stand-in for the reader, only there to be a blank slate upon which Heinlein's ideas about society and the military are imparted. It's most more of a treatise than a story.

A lot of people seem to be comparing the book and the movie as if they're on equal footing, which I do not think they are.