Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9580555" data-attributes="member: 7026594">Well, it's full of idealistic cheering for the idea of military service and civil service in general. Ugh for the former.  Can't imagine why. The latter makes more sense, though yeah, it's a bit of a surprise as it's a good bit anti-war.Right. The whole thing sprang out of 1) A conversation he and Poul Anderson had about compulsory civil service, based on the Swiss system, and 2) His existential fear that the Soviets were beating the West in the space and technology race.Yup. He lectures, and the book's biggest flaw (aside from the ghastly apologism for corporal punishment) is that he doesn't think through and answer some of the implications.  You may be thinking of his comments in Expanded Universe, where he tried to explain that actually most Federal service was NON-military, although that's really not what the book portrays.  I know he rushed in writing it, but he doesn't get to pretend it says something different than is actually in the text.  Chapter 12 does have the following passage, where in officer school they're talking about the vote and why it's limited to veterans: (emphasis mine)No, you're misremembering.  The most consistent through-line of the entire book is the nature of public service and the concept of earning the right to wield the power of of vote by serving first.  That people esteem too lightly what they obtain too cheaply, and the idea (springing from his convo with Anderson) that if people had to earn the vote (that is, the power to wield the force of law on your neighbors) through hard work and personal sacrifice, they'd use it more responsibly.  There IS other crappy stuff in there, but this is the main theme of the book.  There is definitely some implied anti-Communist stuff, but that's more about the Soviets than the Chinese.I think you're misremembering the text and/or interpolating.  The Mobile Infantry is described as chronically short on officers, and as staffing desk jobs with the disabled.  The only "make-work" they talk about is for people capable of understanding and taking the service oath but physically incapable of doing a useful job, for whom it says they'll come up with something equally strenuous and difficult to do matching your capabilities, so you can still earn your vote. From Chapter 2:</blockquote>

Verification