Nearly four years ago I reviewed Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers”, and ended by noting I planned to compare his later “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” or Ursula Le Guin’s “The Dispossessed”. I ultimately picked the former, figuring that would be immediately comparable to Troopers while the latter would mostly be of interest compared to the former. Now that comparisons between Dune & Foundation or Stranger in a Strange Land are in vogue I feel behind in my classic scifi.
I noted in my review of Troopers that it was a book intended for juveniles who wouldn’t be expected to question the civics lessons Heinleins delivers via the in-book lessons taught to its protagonist. Moon is certainly a more “adult” novel in that the protagonist is not undergoing any coming of age, and it contains things like continuously expanding “line marriages” contrasted against old-fashioned norms in North America, but in many ways its as much of an adolescent power-fantasy as any comicbook superhero story. One-armed computer technician “Mannie” has the super-power of being (at least at the start of the novel) the only friend of the mischievous super-computer MYCROFT (aka “Mike”) who runs essentially all the infrastructure of the penal colony of Luna. In contrast to James Scott’s “Seeing Like a State”, which held up communists like Rosa Luxembourg and Alexandra Kollontai as examples of people who understood that revolutions unfold through their own unpredictable logic (as, more recently, do riots) rather than anyone’s plan, the revolution here follows the plan of Mike and the “Rational Anarchist” Professor de la Paz. I don’t know if the Professor was inspired by Murray Rothbard (rather than the pacifist Robert Le Fevre, as Brian Doherty claims), but Rothbard was both a professed anarcho-capitalist and a “Leninist” who thought a “vanguard” of dedicated revolutionaries would need to guide the revolution. This Professor is the opposite of Murray Bookchin in equating anarchy with democracy, far from wanting a “big talky collective” at even Dunbar’s scale of a forager-band he thinks even 3 people verges on impractical and the ideal is a single person acting unilaterally (perhaps “dictatorially). Thus the hero of the book overthrows the government and creates a new order via practically omniscient & omnipotent means that nobody else has a chance of doing anything about.
I say there’s no “chance”, but the book does explicitly have Mike assign very low numerical odds to the revolution succeeding initially, but the initial core of revolutionaries proceed optimistically and seemingly without any doubts because these hardy prisoners (and descendants of them, like Mannie) just love gambling and hate authority (and the specific “Authority”) so much. In theory Eliezer Yudkowsky should like that it explicitly frames things as probabilistic, but basically everything proceeds according to plan and so even when there should be higher stakes due to the Federated Nations on Earth becoming the new antagonists after the incompetent Authority is gone, the much higher odds for success now given remove the tension that would normally be there. This later section where they were on war footing reminded me of Starship Troopers for emphasizing how military leaders shouldn’t be distracted/obstructed by democratic politics and how a viable society must come together to defend its existence to the death, but there is a sop to anti-authoritarianism in that they don’t actually force the evacuation of an area that Mike (correctly) predicts will be successfully attacked by the FN. As with the Earthlings who flock to empty sites bombarded as demonstrations by Mike, those who ignore the warnings of danger are deemed to deserve their deaths.
The book doesn’t actually contain much beyond the conflict between the forces of “Free Luna” and their old rulers, so there’s only a smattering of how an idealized anarchy would work in practice. Perhaps it’s because utopia is boring and Heinlein doesn’t think there’s as much interesting to say once the ideal society is already achieved (although there is enough cynicism in him that the inhabitants of Luna don’t have the Professor’s hypocritical purism and seem apt to follow the same path as the US colonies that inspired them). It just seems really lucky that Mannie had no interest in holding power and Mike was (while being the closest thing to God on the moon) a Miltonian rebel who never threatens to actually become a Singleton.* Culturally speaking, there is an odd mesh of Lunar society developing norms (like polyandry & throwing nuisances out airlocks) well-suited to their situation, and de la Paz saying “the traditional way […] should be suspect, considered guilty until proved innocent” and the norms of Earth looked down on as not even serving that planet well. The book is from the 60s and perhaps Heinlein was high enough on the cultural tumult to disregard inherited “metis” while also thinking people (such as himself) were finding better ways of living.
*This is where a comparison to Dune is relevant, since in the series as a whole Herbert intended a harsh Nixonian lesson on “heroes” and the wars they might start, with an actual God-Emperor getting millennia to ensure the galaxy never makes that mistake again.
I had recently been alternating between fiction & non-fiction, but I plan to make an exception with E. O. Wilson’s only novel (at least as far as I know) next as a means of easing away from recent popular social science and back toward some older controversies I planned on delving into over a decade ago, alternating between those and more of the classic scifi I’ve referenced here.
November 11, 2021 at 11:23 pm
For those curious, the last novel I read prior to this was Philip K. Dick’s “The Man in the High Castle”, which I reviewed in a comment elsewhere (as I normally do for fiction). I did review it in light of another WW2 alt-history, “The Plot Against America”, which I also discussed here.
November 12, 2021 at 5:18 am
When I read it as a teenager I noticed that it had many parallels in it to actual processes in history, with the names and subject matter changed, so it does indeed contain those as subtext – there really is deeper stuff there. Since I couldn’t spot the parallel to looming water shortages, I researched it and found it in a fear in the American colonies that taxes would drain hard money from the colonies and so cause even more harm cumulatively and indirectly than directly. That fear was not well founded, though, because there were colonial exports that brought in hard money and because there was a commitment to spend the taxes locally (though that was not clear at first).
November 12, 2021 at 8:19 am
That sounds like mercantilism.
January 5, 2022 at 1:44 pm
I’m not sure that presenting everything in probabilistic terms is a good thing, since in reality we often can’t get the information needed to calculate a probability, or even determine what information would be needed. Meteorologists know that they don’t know all the factors behind weather, but they have extensive records of observable conditions and how they’ve turned out; they also have advanced detection equipment, but that matters relatively little. For a long time, records were enough to achieve surprisingly high accuracy – it’s only lately that almanacs have begun to fail as climate shifts rapidly, making historical data useless. We have no such data for human societies, only incomplete records of what people thought were important at the time.
January 6, 2022 at 12:11 am
A Bayesian would say that we can always calculate “a” probability, even if it’s not accurate, to represent our subjective estimates.
January 24, 2022 at 11:45 am
[…] promised at the end of my last book review, I started reading the late E. O. Wilson‘s only novel before he died, and thus before the big […]
February 26, 2022 at 8:54 pm
[…] Le Guin’s “ambiguous utopia” for a while now, as I most recently discussed in my last review of a scifi novel (which also happened to feature an anarchist society of exiles on a moon orbiting their despised […]
February 28, 2022 at 8:25 pm
In that Dispossessed review I linked to Josh Wimmer’s review of the same novel in a series on Hugo winners. Since I found it worthwhile to go back to his earlier takes on the Heinlein novels I’ve reviewed here, I’ll here link the one on this book:
https://gizmodo.com/heinleins-the-moon-is-a-harsh-mistress-goes-dismayingly-5529181
April 11, 2022 at 9:44 pm
[…] the original series) I figured it was ok for me to do so as well. I had fretted earlier that I was behind in my classic scifi, and perhaps that is true insofar as I read Dune long before I read Foundation when Herbert was […]
May 21, 2022 at 5:51 pm
[…] if he wasn’t seeking an outright victory would have been an improvement. Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress also involved a smaller society taking on a larger one (which admittedly is a better fit for The […]
June 8, 2022 at 4:40 pm
[…] “I, Claudius”) on the Roman (or Byzantine) empire felt more glaring (similar to the feeling that got my on my current scifi kick). Previous antagonists did not resemble real people so much as […]
November 20, 2022 at 11:32 pm
[…] via such brain-altering techniques. Rand is not enough of an enthusiast for revolution (even a libertarian one) to have that change anything, instead just depicting individual freedom via exit, just as Rand […]