Reflections on 1/29

Coming out of Tuesday's discussion, I cannot help but be struck by the fact that by the end of the book it becomes clear that the professor, whether knowingly or not, was acting exactly like the governments he so disliked. I think this adds and interesting dimension to the character, because on the surface it is fairly easy to take him as an idealist completely committed to anarchy, compromising only out of necessity. However, in attempting to bring about the revolution he manipulates literally everyone involved, and ends up being more manipulative than the parliament.
The professor's greatest complaint about the parliament as they are beginning to draft laws is that governments make the decision about what is best for all and then make it mandatory. However, throughout the entire course of the revolution the professor, while not using legislation, has decided what is best for all of Luna, and manipulates the situation to achieve his goals for all. While the professor admits his hypocrisy when discussing his preference of stealing to taxation, until I put this all together, I did not realize exactly how deep that hypocrisy ran. With a character as intelligent as the professor, it is impossible to imagine that he was not aware of his own contradictory nature.
While in the end it did turn out that the people of Luna embraced the revolution, it is worthwhile to consider whether this would have happened if the professor hadn't decided that a compromise with the Authority was unacceptable. While, as we discussed in class, it is hard to say whether the authority would have offered a compromise, it is certainly safe to say that the professor did not help the situation. It is and interesting point that Heinlein makes with this character, that one person, who starts with relatively little power, can willingly manipulate such a large situation. It also seems to speak to his views about the willingness of people to compromise their personal ideals when so much power is at stake. While that may be a somewhat unfair view of the professor, it seems to me like the deeper you dig into the character, the less straightforward and trustworthy he is. However, we discussed the fact that the revolution would have impossible without Mike, but I think that because of his manipulative skills the revolution would have been equally impossible, or at least been stopped far earlier, without the professor.