Opinion Science Fiction is a Left Leaning genre

This is a thread about the political stance of a large body of works of fiction, so I feel that Whitehall is the place for this thread rather than Spacebattles Main.

One thing that I can say with reasonable certainty is that over the two centuries or so of it's existence Science Fiction has far more often come from a left leaning source or has adopted a position that was left leaning (at least by the standards of the time). Let's look at a sampling of Science Fiction Works and Authors that most people would consider significant and were financially successful.

  • Frankenstein: written by proto-Feminist Mary Shelly.
  • Jules Verne: wrote works critical of Imperialism (Captain Nemo, an Indian who'd lost his family to British Imperialism and who hates the strong who oppress the weak).
  • HG Wells: Socialist with a lot of Socialist Ideals manifesting themselves in his work (The Time Machine is the big obvious one, but also the Invisible Man and The Sleeper Awakes) and was critical of British Imperialism (The War of the Worlds).
  • Issac Asimov: Prolific SF writer, atheist, feminist, die hard new dealer, supporter of LGBT rights when it was unpopular.
  • Superman*: Lead Character is an Immigrant, was used against the KKK.
  • Captain America*: A comic created in 1940 designed to embody everything American who's villain were Nazis. Unpopular run as a Anti-Communist figure got retconned into being an imposter. Often pitted against US Nationalists.
  • Twilight Zone: a lot of episodes were highly critical of society, usually from a left wing perspective.
  • Star Trek: has as an idealized future a techno-socialist society which a vast number of peoples have set aside their differences and strive together in which in which diplomacy and science are positive traits.
  • XMEN: Allegory against Racism and Prejudice in General.
  • Ursula K. Le Guin: Acclaimed SF writer from a Feminist and Environmentalist Perspective.
  • Star Wars: A dictatorship arises due to militarization and strong man politics and it and it's runaway military/industrial complex needs to be resisted by a rag tag group of teenagers. The basics of this came out just after the Vietnam War.
  • Alien Franchise: Has women in traditionally male roles as well as a corporation willing to send people to their deaths to gain control of the xenomorphs.
  • Mobile Suit Gundam: Highly popular and influential anime which has a distinct anti-war message as a core theme.
  • Terminator: US military builds a superintelligent AI which proceeds to start a nuclear holocaust and plans on exterminating all of mankind on top of feminist themes.
  • The Matrix: Made by a pair of Transgender Women with Transgender Themes woven into it.
  • Avatar: Ferngully in Space.
This is not a comprehensive list, of course.

This is not to say that these works are all the products of Perfect Leftists (especially given the argument you'd get in trying to define what constitutes a "Perfect Leftist") or are 100% Left Leaning even considering that the world they came from. Nor are we saying that Conservative Science Fiction does not exist, but it is a lot less common and a lot less influential. The most Right Leaning form of science fiction out there would probably be military Sci-Fi, but even that is not a hard and fast rule. Leaving aside the occasional reactionary like Kratman most military Sci-Fi for a long time has been onboard with a feminist idea of women serving alongside men in the Space Navy or as Space Troopers which was something many IRL conservatives oppose. A lot of military SF has roots in Robert H. Heinlein's Starship Troopers and Heinlein and while Heinlein at that point did have a lot to say about military service as a positive thing and all that he was also not a conventional conservative by any means. Some of the Post Apocalyptic stuff has a Right Wing bias to it, but post-apocalyptia is a more contested field since the cause of said apocalypse is usually something such as climate change or nuclear war brought about by militarism. Not to say there are not exceptions elsewhere, but those exceptions are less common and more marginal.

As for why this is the case, I can't say for certain. One possible factor is is that science fiction had been a more niche product for much of the twentieth century which was other than the norm, either current or historical. In "The 50-Year Mission: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Star Trek: The First 25 Years" there are some comment about how a writer in the 1960s should quit that weird childish new Trek show and write some Western, though this is more of a historic reason. Maybe it's because people on the left tend to think more about where society is going in a more proactive way where things might be good (UFP, The Culture) or bad (Polluted Cyberpunk Dystopia**) but either way they'll be different from the status quo while conservatives think about an idealized present or romanticized and often mythological view of the past. But I would posit that there is some reason for this either in the subject manner or the culture which is prone to consuming it which leans left.

Would you agree with this or not?

*While there is a whole lot of fantastic elements in both their worlds, Superman is an Alien and Captain America is the product of advanced drugging/genetic modification/something vaguely on that line that would qualify as SF beings. Wonder Woman for that matter has always been a Feminist character, but she's a fantasy being.
**Insert "that's today!" Joke Here.

Zor

Source (Members only)
 
Can someone please explain to me how Starship Troopers (novel) was left leaning?
My take away was that it was a novel all about how having a class-based society rules over by a militaristic government was just the bestest.

Starship Troopers was only militaristic what with the whole "existential war against the xenos" that was going on. At one point its mentioned that the majority of peacetime "veterans" are from non-military branches. So its just that "national service" thing that pops up every now and then from people who pretend they aren't powertripping at the thought of forcing people who come of age to undertake mandatory ballwashing duties for their betters. Except you know, purely voluntary, with the only rights of citizenship being voting and juries. Civilians still had every other freedom we take for granted, complete with Johnny coming from a rich-ass industrialist family of nothing but civilians that gifted him a Rolls-Royce helicopter for his Sweet Sixteenth.

It was neither.

Starship Troopers put forward the question what is the value of citizenship if it has no cost? And how do we make something so vital to society be valued? We require people who desire the benefits of citizenship to take upon a personal cost - military or other forms of service.

I am, of course, referring to the the actual book and not the goofy but fun movie.

Yes, Starship Troopers, where certain rights are only afforded to people who choose to make a sacrifice for the system, to contribute and help propagate what keeps them safe. Rights that a rich boy from Buenos Aires couldn't even get via privilege, but from sacrificing himself for society. It's totally left-wing by advocating for social responsibility; unlike our current left-wing which wants rights and privileges, without the responsibility.

As for Gundam... He may not have named his cat Nigger like another author. But Yoshiyuki Tomino is/was very much an Imperialist for his native Japan. Yes Gundam carries an anti-war message; but it also has plenty to say about politicians who willingly sacrifice others for their own ends, all while avoiding being in battles or doing actual fighting. There's plenty of robot fights and war is Hell, but theres also a lot of "Your leaders are subversive snakes."

Now that I've read the thread I get to give my .02 on Starship Troopers...

First off, Bugs = communists. They are a unified external threat with the no concept of the individual, seemingly infinite in number, they can't be reasoned with, etc. The novel spends all it's time doing two things, showing you the horrors and sacrifices of war and trying to reconcile the need for a fascistic response to communism with the American concepts of liberty and the individual and all that. IIRC correctly it's pretty plain that while 'citizenship' has made a society that does not take war lightly it also creates one that needs war to underpin it's social hierarchy. I think it's a story about the sacrifices people have to make to preserver against an enemy who isn't burdened by such things and the way that such a struggle will forge a society capable of winning it at any cost necessary. A society that in many ways will resemble the enemy it sought to defeat.

Also I agree that the story is not about Johnny really, he is just a pair of boots for us to put ourselves in. Sure the hero narrative is the delivery vector for the story but that's just bait to get you to sit there and listen to Heinlein think about the nature of war and modern society. Huge tracts of the book are straight out of Dubois' mouth and the book is full of philosophizing and civic thought experements that only survive as "lol, over the top nazi stuff!" in the movie.
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo