sbenzell's review
4.0
What do you think the world will be like 120 years from today? Not just in terms of new technologies but in terms of new political organizations? The book leans on the Rip Van Winkle trope to transport an upper middle class/lower upper class Bostonian 1887ite to the utopia of THE YEAR 2000, and we get his views on the superiority of the society he was transported to.
The US is governed as an almost complete command economy, with almost all workers serving as part of the "industrial army" at the command of the president. The wage for all occupations is equal, paid on a credit card, with equilibrium achieved by varying the hours of different jobs (i.e. if being a doctor was more fun than being a coal miner, the former would serve longer hours). The author (who was later lionized in "Bellamy Clubs" for those enchanted by the vision) assumed that efficiencies from scale and national organization would be tremendous, and offset any reduction in effort and individual initiative. Of course, the piece ignores the Hayekian arguments for the superiority of decentralization, which in my opinion are essential to understanding the failures of real-life socialism. The other big flaw in the economics I see is the ability of individuals to get "bought out" of the industrial army to work on creative careers (this is how e.g. Newspapers and books are supported). However, I wonder whether to the extent that individuals can be "bought out" and paid a different amount for there services, whether this could create selection on the industrial army, and only leave them with the worst workers. I worry this minor deviation from a command economy might unravel the whole thing...
There are some great metaphors for inequality and socialism. Society before socialism is like a cart on a broken road. Society without socialism is everyone carrying an umbrella for themselves -- society with socialism is one giant umbrella for all the streets of the city. Society without socialism is like a desert country with mismanaged water. And so on.
Some of the most interesting stuff is the view on which technologies will be particularly important. A national credit card system + big box stores with one stop shops are mooted as extremely pleasant and efficient for both consumer and distributor. However, the "greatest increase in human felicity" comes from a system of piping in music (or speech-audio like sermons -- BTW no one goes to church anymore they just listen to sermons naked at home IDK) on demand into homes. This is a good book for reminding one not to take for granted these things!
It's a bit of a slog (most of it is quite didactic), with a superficial plot. It's got some very silly economics. Still I really appreciated this insight into how exciting socialism must of sounded in 1887 (just after the death of Marx) in context. I also want to point out some cool Boston connections, in particular the very Emersonian (but of course not nearly as good as Emerson) construction of the Sermon- 3.5 stars rounded up for being weird and different.
The US is governed as an almost complete command economy, with almost all workers serving as part of the "industrial army" at the command of the president. The wage for all occupations is equal, paid on a credit card, with equilibrium achieved by varying the hours of different jobs (i.e. if being a doctor was more fun than being a coal miner, the former would serve longer hours). The author (who was later lionized in "Bellamy Clubs" for those enchanted by the vision) assumed that efficiencies from scale and national organization would be tremendous, and offset any reduction in effort and individual initiative. Of course, the piece ignores the Hayekian arguments for the superiority of decentralization, which in my opinion are essential to understanding the failures of real-life socialism. The other big flaw in the economics I see is the ability of individuals to get "bought out" of the industrial army to work on creative careers (this is how e.g. Newspapers and books are supported). However, I wonder whether to the extent that individuals can be "bought out" and paid a different amount for there services, whether this could create selection on the industrial army, and only leave them with the worst workers. I worry this minor deviation from a command economy might unravel the whole thing...
There are some great metaphors for inequality and socialism. Society before socialism is like a cart on a broken road. Society without socialism is everyone carrying an umbrella for themselves -- society with socialism is one giant umbrella for all the streets of the city. Society without socialism is like a desert country with mismanaged water. And so on.
Some of the most interesting stuff is the view on which technologies will be particularly important. A national credit card system + big box stores with one stop shops are mooted as extremely pleasant and efficient for both consumer and distributor. However, the "greatest increase in human felicity" comes from a system of piping in music (or speech-audio like sermons -- BTW no one goes to church anymore they just listen to sermons naked at home IDK) on demand into homes. This is a good book for reminding one not to take for granted these things!
It's a bit of a slog (most of it is quite didactic), with a superficial plot. It's got some very silly economics. Still I really appreciated this insight into how exciting socialism must of sounded in 1887 (just after the death of Marx) in context. I also want to point out some cool Boston connections, in particular the very Emersonian (but of course not nearly as good as Emerson) construction of the Sermon- 3.5 stars rounded up for being weird and different.
wayfaring_witch's review against another edition
4.0
Interesting book about a possible Utopia that was a possibility in the far off future of 2000 (published in 1888). The protagonist is an 18th century fellow, and you go in his path to learn about this new world. Certainly some Marxist themes. Best read in some sort of book club or group so it can be discussed.
juliebihn's review against another edition
Kind of gimmicky, old book about the wonders of socialism. Pure socialism doesn't work, but Bellamy's arguments against pure capitalism are playing out accurately in my own life right now. Not really recommended, but darn if I didn't feel for the narrator when he experienced a near-tragedy near the end, hokey as it was.
circularcubes's review against another edition
3.0
On second thought, this is not a good summer for me to be reading such a book. Boston in the year 2000 is too far removed from my summer abroad, and I think this book deserves much more in-depth thinking than I have the time to give to it right now. I need to re-read this in the wintertime in a few years, when I can better compare the the United States at the time of the writing of the book, at the time when I give this book a second looking over, and the fictional utopia of the year 2000. I can't help but feel like Bellamy has written a society with major flaws in it, or maybe the concept of an industrial "army" makes me uneasy. I also want to give more thought to the place of women in this futuristic society, and I would love to learn about some of the reactions to this book. Who were its most fervent supporters, what were the arguments of the detractors?
On another note, Bellamy is so evidently not a novelist that it's comical. The plot of this book is laughably bad, although it is obviously minor in comparison to its socialist ideas and futuristic inventions. The plot twists revealed at the end of the book were quite clear from its beginning pages, and the love declarations seemed so out of place after so many chapters detailing the workings of that futuristic society. I regard it as a bit of humor to break up all that deep thinking. I must applaud Bellamy, his work could have been dry and painful to get through, but this is a rather accessible way of getting his message across.
On another note, Bellamy is so evidently not a novelist that it's comical. The plot of this book is laughably bad, although it is obviously minor in comparison to its socialist ideas and futuristic inventions. The plot twists revealed at the end of the book were quite clear from its beginning pages, and the love declarations seemed so out of place after so many chapters detailing the workings of that futuristic society. I regard it as a bit of humor to break up all that deep thinking. I must applaud Bellamy, his work could have been dry and painful to get through, but this is a rather accessible way of getting his message across.
servemethesky's review
4.0
A really interesting portrayal of how society will operate in the year 2000. I enjoyed being frustrated by Bellamy's arguments- it was a very engaging text. However, the ending of the book was the ultimate frustration: a dream? Really? Oh wait, you DREAMED that it was all just a DREAM? Really creative.
Also superbly creative: Edith is the great-granddaughter of his deceased fiancée. Wow! What a surprise!
Aside from the lack of literary innovation, Bellamy's book was thought-provoking and (unintentionally) funny.
Also superbly creative: Edith is the great-granddaughter of his deceased fiancée. Wow! What a surprise!
Aside from the lack of literary innovation, Bellamy's book was thought-provoking and (unintentionally) funny.
charliestyr's review against another edition
4.0
A pretty fascinating book. A man transported to a future from 1887 or there a bouts seeing a world of equality and perfection in economics.
I found the reading pretty heavy going, not being a fan of older style writing, but it did not detract once I got used to it and it was in fact a fairly interesting observational read. I can see why it would have been wildly popular in its day.
I am intrigued to read some of the literary 'responses' mentioned in the foreword in the future.
I found the reading pretty heavy going, not being a fan of older style writing, but it did not detract once I got used to it and it was in fact a fairly interesting observational read. I can see why it would have been wildly popular in its day.
I am intrigued to read some of the literary 'responses' mentioned in the foreword in the future.
sarahbess's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
amittaizero's review against another edition
2.0
"...the Golden Age lies before us and not behind us, and is not far away. Our children will surely see it, and we, too, who are already men and women, if we deserve it by our faith and by our works."
This was part of Bellamy's afterword.
On the day I finished reading the book, 16 million Americans were newly unemployed and US stocks finished their best week in 45 years. Yes, I'm read this during the pandemic.
It's not stellar storytelling -- at all. It's not meant to be. Bellamy's protagonist falls asleep in the late nineteenth century and wakes up in the year 2000 to a transformed world -- and a steady stream of treatises-as-dialogue with his hosts.
It's melodramatic and a little dull but Bellamy was using this as a vehicle for communicating ideas -- his vision of a sort of communist-style America where freedom and equality are both reality.
This was part of Bellamy's afterword.
On the day I finished reading the book, 16 million Americans were newly unemployed and US stocks finished their best week in 45 years. Yes, I'm read this during the pandemic.
It's not stellar storytelling -- at all. It's not meant to be. Bellamy's protagonist falls asleep in the late nineteenth century and wakes up in the year 2000 to a transformed world -- and a steady stream of treatises-as-dialogue with his hosts.
It's melodramatic and a little dull but Bellamy was using this as a vehicle for communicating ideas -- his vision of a sort of communist-style America where freedom and equality are both reality.