My two sons saw it before reading the book, and they liked the movie, thinking it was a pretty good action/adventure flick, and both kind of blew off the philosophic/political implications of the depicted society. Later, I finally convinced my eldest to read the book. He ended up using about twenty quotes from the book for a debate about political philosophy in his history class (which his side won), and totally changed his opinion of the movie to be very similar to mine. But most people will never read the book (though there were certainly some drawn to it that would never otherwise have looked at it without the influence of the movie), and in their minds Heinlein and fascism will be inextricably linked.

Fighting for that which one believes in is a very important concept in Heinlein’s works. I’m reminded of the character of John Lyle in If This Goes On (from The Past Through Tomorrow stories). When the story begins, he is a member in the military forces of the theocratic dictatorship of the Prophet (an obvious fascist state that fits your dictionary definition perfectly). When he realizes that he is on the wrong side, he turns and fights in army of the resistance. Interestingly, much of his contribution to the resistance is not on the front lines but in desk work and logistical support.

I think the movie version of Starship Troopers has contributed to the misunderstanding of the novel. (I, too, wonder if some people ever read the book.) Paul Verhoven obviously had his own ax to grind when he directed the film. I think Verhoven was trying to make a point similar to Heinlein’s. In his own way, he wanted to expostulate on the dangers of our self-absorbed society, in which citizens accept the propaganda of their government without examining it more closely, thus leading to fascism. (Any contemporary examples come to mind?) His attempt, however, is much less successful. It is shallow and barely scratches the surface in favor of cute-ness and showy action sequences.

It is unfortunate that people have misjudged Heinlein’s intent in this case. But, to those of us who have read more that just one of his books, it is very clear.

In the following articles
http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/

I wrote what I considered Heinlein actually was saying, not “Government is highest thing you must pay fealty to” but that one can recognize that one’s own self-interest can depend on the preservation of higher levels simple self-preservation, even to the level of nation or species.

But what I was complaining about was those readers who don’t actually look at what Heinlein really said. Heinlein did not say “Government is highest thing you must pay fealty to” (far from it), but way too many people reading Starship Troopers seem to gather that impression.

I need to comment on this a little. Actually, IMO, one of Heinlein’s very distinct styles was to write in such a way that the reader was forced to come at the books from his own perspective. You referred to this when talking about his sparse descriptions. This has the effect that you mentioned when a careless reader encounters Heinlein as you said, but it also provides the basis for forcing the thoughtful reader to look beyond simple appearances and examine his own prejudices. At least, that has been my experience since I first read him in 1953.

http://www.heinleincentennial.com/

Quite an interesting site.