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.
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.