In 1959, Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers won the Hugo award as the year's best science fiction novel. Critics and reviewers have been apologizing for that fact ever since. Even admirers of Heinlein as a logician and story-teller condemn Starship Troopers as a "militaristic polemic" glorifying a violent, proto-fascist ethic, creating a polarized society in which heroic war veterans rule over "draftdodgers, effeminate snobs, pacifists, and other animals of low standing." (p. 113)

Evaluating [the charges of fascism and militarism] is complicated by the fact that Heinlein's society is not presented in detail. It is a framework supporting an adventure story, and any scholarly analysis runs the risk of pedantry, of burdening the novel with such a weight of footnotes that it sinks without a ripple. Nevertheless, consideration of the social structure outlined in Starship Troopers in the context of recent scholarship on fascism and militarism suggests that, in fact, neither ideology is embodied in this work, and that critics of Heinlein's views and visions must find new pejorative terms with which to condemn the novel.

The charge of fascism can be most easily dismissed, since the world of Starship Troopers has literally none of the characteristics commonly associated with fascist societies. Such concepts as a revolt against bolshevism, a reaction to liberalism and positivism, and a desire to restore an organic community, can be neither supported nor extrapolated from the novel's context…. More significantly, Heinlein offers no other common bench marks of fascism. There is no indication of a ruling party, a secret police, a charismatic leader, or an official ideology. (p. 114)

At least as significant in demonstrating that Heinlein's society is not fascistic is the absence of racism and xenophobia…. [Starship Troopers] can be called fascist only if fascism is used in the contemporary sense, as a generalized term of opprobrium, impossible to refute on an intellectual level. (p. 115)

If the charge of fascism cannot be substantiated, the accusation of militarism requires more careful consideration. Militarism can be narrowly defined as the tendency of armies to serve themselves instead of war, to seek glory, diversion, or narcissistic gratification at the expense of efficiency. The military system of Starship Troopers is as far from this concept as can be imagined. (p. 116)

But there is another definition of militarism as well, one which speaks both of the exaltation of military ways, military attitudes, and military authorities over their civilian counterparts, and of the permeation of society by military behavior patterns. At first impression, the world of Starship Troopers seems perfectly tailored to these specifications. Flogging is a punishment for minor crimes. Assaulting a serviceman is a serious offense. Police forces are composed of retired career men. Military law takes precedence over civil…. These are points to chill the heart of the civil libertarian…. And for those who might still question the militaristic nature of Heinlein's society, there remains the main theme …—the making of a soldier, described in loving detail and with evident approval.

To evalute the elements of militarism in the world of Starship Troopers, however, it is first necessary to understand that Mobile Infantryman Juan Rico [the protagonist] cannot be regarded as a spokesman for and reflection of his society. He is the universal soldier, and the quintessential career man. He is competent enough at what he does. But he is not that common Heinlein protagonist, the Individual, the Man Who Knows How. (pp. 116-17)

[The society depicted in the novel] is neither militarist nor fascist in the scholarly sense of these concepts…. [Critics] might do well to familiarize themselves carefully with the past from which they believe a given work draws its social and political inspiration. Such knowledge can make possible conclusions and extrapolations in areas where an author intent on telling a story may present no more than the hint of an explanation. It might also indicate that science-fiction writers are not entirely prone to rely on custom and analogy in developing their future societies. (p. 120)