Comment Not "fascist" (Score 1) 589
Heinlein was ... naively and certainly shallowly libertarian.. But I'm not aware of a definition of "fascistic" that would apply.
As portrayed in the novel just about the only privilege of "veterans" was franchise and a hand-full of government oversight jobs. It was explicitly pointed out in the novel that putting in the time to get veteran status was looked down upon as "unproductive" by much of civil society and that franchise was considered not worth the effort. In other words "veteran" was not a status worth investing in as considered by the majority population. Veteran status could hardly have been exercised to an extent to render government control of private resources a significant effect in that society.
It could not be considered "fascist".
As said I consider much of Heinlein's libertarian leanings as naive ... there are many complex issues he never deeply addressed ... or even showed evidence of having considered.
But there is cetainly evidence that he was not a "pure" libertarian. Not a capitalist take no prisoners but all of everything else thnker. See his early (one of my favorites) "Beyond this Horizon". He presents a welfare state in essence as an idyllic paradise.
Heinlein was, as said simplistically shallow in many of his political presentations. I suspect he was aware that he was painting black and white contrasts in a world of grays. But he was writing science fiction "what ifs" to entertain by limning end-results of his ideas.
-- TWZ