Revolt in 2100
Reviewed by J. Neil Schulman
1972
Revolt in 2100 contains three stories, all from Robert
Anson Heinlein's earliest significant body of work, his "Future
History" series. Two of these stories, "If This Goes On--" (a
novel) and "Coventry" (a novella) are among the most libertarian
he has ever penned, and well worth reexamining for those in
search of literature expressing our ideals. The third story, a
short one entitled "Misfit," has no great significance to the
libertarian, and I will therefore dispense entirely with it for
the purposes of this review.
"If This Goes On--" is Heinlein's very first novel and
unlike so many first novels, is still eminently readable over
thirty years after it was written. Written in the late 1930's,
and according to Richard Friedman partially inspired by Sinclair
Lewis's It Can't Happen Here (something I can not verify from
personal knowledge), the most remarkable feature of "If This Goes
On--" is perhaps its many similarities to one of Heinlein's most
recent (and perhaps most libertarian) novel, The Moon is a Harsh
Mistress. This is a point I will elaborate on shortly.
In about the year 2075 A.D. (contrary to the "2100" in the
book's title, and remarkably the exact same year as the
revolution in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress), the United States
is in the midst of a new, but somehow highly technological, Dark
Ages, under the thumb of a theocratic dictator called "The
Prophet Incarnate."
The story opens told first person by John Lyle, a "legate"
fresh out of West Point, and a guardsman in the Angels of the
Lord, the personal guard to the Prophet. While standing guard
outside the Prophet's personal quarters one night, Lyle meets
Sister Judith, a "Holy Deaconess" in the personal service of the
Prophet, that is, she's one of his "virgins." Sister Judith is
even more recently arrived at the Prophet's palace than is Lyle,
and consequently has not yet had the "honor" to serve the Prophet
personally, and she is too naive to know what this service will
entail. John Lyle and Sister Judith see each other for several
other brief moments around the palace, then exactly one month
after their original encounter, their "shifts" meet up again, and
Lyle is standing outside the Prophet's apartments when Sister
Judith is called for her first "service." A few minutes later
when she finds out, she screams making a big scene, and is sent
back to her cell to repent.
Lyle asks his older, palace/politics-wise roommate, Zeb
Jones, what the commotion was about, and upon finding out, swears
that he must rescue Sister Judith. Jones agrees to help, for
reasons of his own, and consequently the two of them are sworn in
as members of the Cabal, a revolutionary organization which is
planning the overthrow of the Prophet's dictatorship, and a
return to the former U.S. republic.
The plot develops, Sister Judith is rescued, and Lyle and
Jones, no longer able to function in secrecy at the palace, are
transferred to the revolution's huge and beautifully-equipped
secret headquarters. The rest of the story involves Lyle's
reorientation to a free-thinking man, and his personal account of
the revolution.
There are many points Heinlein brings out in this story
which he was to also emphasize in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,
ideas such as: revolution is Big Business but necessarily carried
out by amateurs; every revolution is a unique event;
revolutionary action requires a well-manned, well-financed
operation, etc., etc. There are also similarities in the way
Heinlein deals with his characters: remember the way Prof dies
after his big speech in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? Well, in
"If This Goes On--" an old man, looking somewhat like Mark Twain,
according to Heinlein, makes a highly libertarian speech and then
promptly drops dead.
It would seem to me from these similarities that Heinlein's
return to early themes is perhaps a sign that this overall
political orientation is not that markedly different than from
his early writing days--or if it is, you couldn't tell it from
his fiction.
In "Coventry," Heinlein brings out the main principle
explicitly that differentiates libertarians from every other
political philosophy. "No possible act, nor mode of conduct, was
forbidden to you, as long as your action did not damage another.
Even an act specifically prohibited by law could not be held
against you, unless the state was able to prove that your act
damaged, or caused evident danger of damage, to a particular
individual..."
This speech is given by a judge in Heinlein's libertarian
society, the outcome of the successful revolution in "If This
Goes On--", to David Mackinnon, a young, impetuous man who is
charged with punching someone in the nose for verbally insulting
him. Since physical violence is the one thing forbidden in this
society, Mackinnon is sentenced to choose between the Two
Alternatives: either he submits to psychological reorientation to
correct his wish to damage others, or he will be sent to
Coventry, a section of the United States which the new society
has set aside for those persons who wish not to accept the social
contract of not damaging others. Coventry is inescapable, and
the government completely withdraws itself from those who desire
to enter it.
Mackinnon enters Coventry, in the belief that he will find
a "frontier anarchy," but what he finds instead is that the
territory has been divided into three separate states, one, an
absolute dictatorship, one, a continuation of the theocracy of
"If This Goes On--", Prophet Incarnate and all, and the third, in
which he finds himself, a corrupt and repressive republic not
unlike our own. The story revolves about his reorientation to
understand the necessity of the non-intervention doctrine, and
his subsequent agreement to return to the outside world and
accept the ban on force.
The main fault of "Coventry," of course, is that Heinlein
did not realize the market's ability to provide protection
against aggression, and the mistake is also made by the absence
of any reference to attempted restitution to the victim of
aggression for any damage or deprivation caused him, and a
recognition of the principle that punching a man in the nose is
not grounds to remove a man from his property. It might also be
objected that "psychological orientation" is an unessential
issue, as long as a person understands the consequences of
violating someone else's rights.
All in all, these stories are well written, highly
enjoyable, and I would recommend Revolt in 2100 to anyone
desiring a valuable addition to their libertarian library.