Customer Reviews

Time Will Run Back: A Novel About the Rediscovery of Capitalism

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Set in the year 2100, Wonworld is the global socialist police state run from Moscow. Civilization has not progressed (and has even digressed somewhat) since the victory of Marxist socialism over capitalism in the 20th century. A thin, but entertaining, story of political intrigue follows the rise of a new young dictator to world prominence. Because he has been isolated on an island for most of his life (a necessary plot device) he can see that something is wrong in the socialist paradise (but he's not sure what). Slowly and gropingly he (with the help of a similarly-minded politburo member) tries to figure out and correct the problems of socialism. They do this over a modest backdrop of character development and plot twists.

The meat of the book consists of the Socratic arguments between Peter (the young dictator) and Adams (his confidant). Conjoining those arguments are their attempts to implement economic policies (often in dangerous conflict with the status quo) to improve the life of the people. Sometimes they guess right. Sometimes wrong. In either case, Hazlitt uses each situation to teach us something about economics, and this is where Hazlitt shines. He is a master at making economics understandable anyway (in his non-fiction books), but using fiction to dramatize his points works extremely well.

Ultimately, Peter and Adams "rediscover" freedom and capitalism, but not without encountering some difficult philosophical questions - both on their journey and facing them in their future.

"Human nature, chief, seems to be a little more stubborn than Marx and Engels supposed."

The year is 2100. It's been a hundred and fifty some years since the Russian conquest and the establishment of the Soviet Socialist Republic of the World. The new dictator, a non-dictatorial type who achieved his position accidentally through a fortuitous set of circumstances, is grappling with the dual problems of 1) how to brighten the dreary fear-driven existence of the proletariat, and 2) why the Dictatorship of the Proletariat has not withered away as, according to Marx, it was supposed to do.

The Dictator and his top aide (quoted above on human nature) embark on a series of reforms and in the process rediscover money and free market economics.

In the 1950s, the stark reality of the true face of communism was staring down the free world. This seems to have spawned a brief era of un-Utopias: Nineteen Eighty-Four, Animal Farm, Brave New World. There was one more: Time Will Run Back. I discovered this because it's always high on the "this reader also bought" list for people who purchased my own history books. So I kindled it.

As literature, it's nowhere in the same league as Orwell, but it was never intended to be. As Orwell did, this book recreates a world where we are compelled by the state to "be good," with all the horrible consequences. But it is something else: a tutorial on how the Hidden Hand works, how the economy, like ecology, finds the most efficient solutions only when, paradoxically, there is no higher authority making the decisions.

Henry Hazlitt is always a great explicator of the economics of freedom. He is here, too.

America's Forgotten History, Part 1: Foundations
America's Forgotten History, Part 2: Rupture

I read this when I was maybe 13 in the 1970s and it really influenced my understandings of the benefits of free market economics vs planned economies. The plot is a bit stilted, and ideologically it is clearly on the side of less regulation vs more, but in terms of understanding how communism inevitably leads to totalitarianism and on concepts like the "invisible hand" it was very influential for me.

This is essentially an economics textbook disguised as a novel. The plot itself is interesting, reading sort of like a sequel to 1984. It has a love story, an assassination attempt and a few action scenes. And in the middle of all that, it gives a great lesson on how a market economy works and its advantages over Socialism/Communism. Those parts can get dry, but still very readable. Highly recommended for high schoolers, college students or anyone looking to learn while being entertained at the same time.

I have read many times that "Economics in One Lesson" (1946) was much better than "Time Will Run Back" (1951). The argument is that Hazlitt was better at writing about economics directly than he was at putting economic theory into the form of a novel.

However, there is some fresh thinking in "Time Will Run Back." It is not just the same ideas from "Economics in One Lesson" rehashed in the form of a novel.

I loved the idiocy of the government in "Time Will Run Back." The novel is very funny at times because the fictitious government is so absurdly stupid. And the funniest thing - real governments often are exactly like this.

Hazlitt's 'parody' of the mindset of people who live under totalitarianism was so accurate that he predicted, already in 1951, the challenge that occurred when the USSR disintegrated in the 1990's. "Perhaps the greatest vice of the communist system ... was that it destroyed all sense of justice and truth, and made its only 'morality' consist in absolute obedience to the commands of the dictator."

John Christmas, author of "Democracy Society"

I like Henry Hazlitt, I like the ideas he expresses, and I think the plot is very creative and clever. And I agree with other reviews that it is essentially a sneaky way to teach economics.

However, let's not call a duck an orange. This is supposed to be a novel, not a treatise on economics. And I intend to review it as a novel, not as a book about economics. And as for its merits as a novel...it's horrible! I'll try not to reveal many details, but the story elements are almost completely laughable. Very serious and traumatic events happen to these characters and their reaction is to instead...just discuss economics? Yes, I'm sure that's how a character reacts to a life or death situation.

The description of events are horrible and plain. The conquest of Europe is a side-note taking no more than a few sentences of passing remark before they continue to talk about the results of war planning in the economy. Romantic interests take up at most a paragraph before a multi-chapter discussion on economics continues again. The detail of the setting in the novel is definitely not a forté.

And it's not like the discussions are really that well-made, they are incredibly one-dimensional with one character saying "Oh gee, how does that work?" Or bringing up some stupid objection. While the other character expounds on how much of a genius on economics he is. Which is to say: the characters are not well made at all.

The conflict is nothing more complicated than a Saturday morning cartoon show. What with the good guy vs. bad guy set-up made so painfully obvious.

Any attempt at mystery or intrigue is easily deduced before the main character figures it out.

In other words: every single possible area a novel _should_ shine in, falls flat.

You want to know about economics properly? Go read Hazlitt's other book: Economics in One Lesson. His other book can't hold your attention and you want your economics in literature format? Well, you have weird tastes, but then and only then would I guess this book is for you (and because of this sole merit, this is the only reason I'm not rating this book a single star).

To reiterate, as far as novels go: it's bad. You want a better novel about something like this? GO READ 1984 ALREADY!