home
Health
Double (anti) utopia: Jack London's Iron Heel. Audiobook Jack London - The Iron Heel The Iron Heel

Double (anti) utopia: Jack London's Iron Heel. Audiobook Jack London - The Iron Heel The Iron Heel

08.04.2019

Jack London

Iron heel

FOREWORD

And yet, as a human document, the Everhard Manuscript is of great interest to us, although even here the matter is not complete without one-sided judgments and evaluations born of the predilection of love. We pass these delusions with a smile and forgive Avis Evergard the enthusiasm with which she speaks of her husband. We now know that he was not such a gigantic figure and did not play such an exceptional role in the events of that time, as the author of the memoirs claims.

Ernest Everhard was an outstanding man, but still not to the extent that his wife thought. He belonged to the large army of heroes who selflessly served the cause of the world revolution. True, Everhard had his own special merits in the development of the philosophy of the working class and its propaganda. He called it "proletarian science", "proletarian philosophy", showing a certain narrowness of views, which at that time could not be avoided.

But back to memoirs. Their greatest merit is that they resurrect for us the atmosphere of that terrible era. Nowhere else can we find such a vivid image of the psychology of people who lived in the turbulent twenty years of 1912-1932, their limitations and blindness, their fears and doubts, their moral delusions, their violent passions and impure thoughts, their monstrous egoism. It is difficult for us, in our reasonable age, to understand this. History says it was, and biology and psychology tell us why. But neither history, nor biology, nor psychology is able to resurrect this world for us. We allow its existence in the past, but it remains alien to us, we do not understand it.

This understanding arises when we read the Evergard Manuscript. We, as it were, merge with the actors of this world drama that has ceased to sound, we live by their thoughts and feelings. And we not only understand the love of Evis Everhard for her heroic companion - we feel, together with Everhard himself, the threat of the oligarchy, a terrible shadow hanging over the world. We see how the power of the Iron Heel (isn't it a good name!) is approaching humanity, threatening to crush it.

By the way, we learn that the creator of the term “Iron Heel”, which has established itself in the literature, was at one time Ernest Everhard - an interesting discovery that sheds light on a question that has long remained controversial. It was believed that the name "Iron Heel" was first encountered by the little-known journalist George Milford in the pamphlet "You Are Slaves!", published in December 1912. No other information about George Milford has come down to us, and only the Evergard Manuscript briefly mentions that he died during the Chicago massacre. In all likelihood, Milford heard this expression from the lips of Ernest Everhard - most likely during one of the latter's speeches in the election campaign in the fall of 1912. Evergard himself, as the manuscript tells us, first used it at a dinner with a private person in the spring of 1912. This date should be recognized as the original.

For the historian and philosopher, the victory of the oligarchy will forever remain an insoluble riddle. The alternation of historical epochs is determined by the laws of social evolution. These eras were historically inevitable. Their coming could be predicted with as much certainty as an astronomer calculates the movements of the stars. These are legitimate stages of evolution. Primitive communism, slave-owning society, serfdom and hired labor were necessary stages of social development. But it would be ridiculous to assert that the dominance of the Iron Heel was just as necessary a step. We are now inclined to regard this period as an accidental deviation or retreat to the cruel times of tyrannical social autocracy, which at the dawn of history was just as legitimate as the triumph of the Iron Heel later became illegitimate.

Feudalism left a bad memory, but this system was also historically necessary. After the collapse of such a powerful centralized state as the Roman Empire, the advent of the era of feudalism was inevitable. But the same cannot be said for the Iron Heel. It has no place in the natural course of social evolution. Her coming to power was not historically justified and necessary. He will forever remain in history as a monstrous anomaly, a historical curiosity, an accident, an obsession, something unexpected and unthinkable. Let this serve as a warning to those reckless politicians who talk so confidently about social processes.

Capitalism was revered by the sociologists of those times as the culminating point of the bourgeois state, the ripened fruit of the bourgeois revolution, and in our time we can only subscribe to this definition. Following capitalism, socialism was to come; even such eminent representatives of the hostile camp as Herbert Spencer have asserted this. It was expected that on the ruins of self-serving capitalism a flower cherished for centuries would grow - the brotherhood of man. And instead, to our surprise and horror, and even more so to the surprise and horror of contemporaries of these events, capitalism, ripe for collapse, gave another monstrous escape - the oligarchy.

The socialists of the early twentieth century discovered the coming of the oligarchy too late. When they realized it, the oligarchy was already there - as a fact, sealed in blood, as a cruel, nightmarish reality. But at that time, according to the Everhard Manuscript, no one believed in the durability of the Iron Heel. The revolutionaries believed that it would take several years to overthrow her. They understood that the Peasants' Revolt arose contrary to their plans, and the First broke out prematurely. But no one expected that the Second Uprising, well prepared and fully ripe, was doomed to the same failure and an even more cruel defeat.

Obviously, Evis Everhard wrote her notes in the days preceding the Second Uprising, they do not say a word about its ill-fated outcome. No doubt she also hoped to publish them immediately after the overthrow of the Iron Heel, in order to pay tribute to the memory of her dead husband. But then disaster struck, and in preparation to flee or in anticipation of arrest, she hid the notes in the hollow of an old oak at Wake Robinlodge.

The further fate of Evis Evergard is unknown. In all likelihood, she was executed by mercenaries, and during the time of the Iron Heel, no one kept records of the victims of numerous executions. One thing is for sure: hiding the manuscript and preparing to escape, Evis Evergard did not suspect what a terrible defeat the Second Rebellion suffered. It could not foresee that the tortuous and difficult path of social development would require, in the next three hundred years, the Third and Fourth uprisings and many other revolutions drowned in a sea of blood, until the labor movement finally won victory throughout the world. It never occurred to her that her notes, a tribute to her love for Ernest Everhard, would lie for seven long centuries in the hollow of a centuries-old oak in Wake Robinlodge, undisturbed by any hand.

Ant o n i M e r e d i t note 1

Earth Theatre! We are shame and grief -

Pictures of familiar carousel ...

But be patient, you'll find out soon

Crazy Drama meaning and purpose!

CHAPTER FIRST. MY EAGLE

I have many reasons for concern. Thoughts, haunting thoughts do not leave me. I have lived an ebullient, active life for so long that peace and quiet seem like a heavy dream to me, and I cannot forget about that furious squall of death and destruction that is about to fly over the world. The cries of the defeated ring in my ears, and before my eyes all the same ghosts of the past note 3. I see the desecrated, tormented human flesh, I see how violence rips the soul out of a beautiful, proud body in order to throw it in an evil fury to the throne of the creator. So we, people, through blood and destruction go to our goal, striving to establish peace and joy on earth forever.

Earth Theatre! We are shame and grief -

Pictures of familiar carousel ...

But be patient, you'll find out soon

Crazy Drama meaning and purpose!

CHAPTER FIRST. MY EAGLE

JACK LONDON

IRON HEEL

FOREWORD

Evis Evergard's notes cannot be considered a reliable historical document. The historian will find many errors in them, if not in the transmission of facts, then in their interpretation. Seven hundred years have passed, and the events of that time and their interconnection - everything that was still difficult for the author of these memoirs to understand - is no longer a mystery to us. Evis Evergard did not have the necessary historical perspective. What she wrote about touched her too closely. Moreover, she was in the thick of the described events.
And yet, as a human document, the Everhard Manuscript is of great interest to us, although even here the matter is not complete without one-sided judgments and evaluations born of the predilection of love. We pass these delusions with a smile and forgive Avis Evergard the enthusiasm with which she speaks of her husband. We now know that he was not such a gigantic figure and did not play such an exceptional role in the events of that time, as the author of the memoirs claims.
Ernest Everhard was an outstanding man, but still not to the extent that his wife thought. He belonged to the large army of heroes who selflessly served the cause of the world revolution. True, Everhard had his own special merits in the development of the philosophy of the working class and its propaganda. He called it "proletarian science", "proletarian philosophy", showing a certain narrowness of views, which at that time could not be avoided.
But back to memoirs. Their greatest merit is that they resurrect for us the atmosphere of that terrible era. Nowhere else can we find such a vivid image of the psychology of people who lived in the turbulent twenty years of 1912-1932, their limitations and blindness, their fears and doubts, their moral delusions, their violent passions and impure thoughts, their monstrous egoism. It is difficult for us, in our reasonable age, to understand this. History says it was, and biology and psychology tell us why. But neither history, nor biology, nor psychology is able to resurrect this world for us. We allow its existence in the past, but it remains alien to us, we do not understand it.
This understanding arises when we read the Evergard Manuscript. We, as it were, merge with the actors of this world drama that has ceased to sound, we live by their thoughts and feelings. And we not only understand the love of Evis Everhard for her heroic companion - we feel, together with Everhard himself, the threat of the oligarchy, a terrible shadow hanging over the world. We see how the power of the Iron Heel (isn't it a good name!) is approaching humanity, threatening to crush it.
By the way, we learn that the creator of the term “Iron Heel”, which has established itself in the literature, was at one time Ernest Everhard - an interesting discovery that sheds light on a question that has long remained controversial. It was believed that the name "Iron Heel" was first encountered by the little-known journalist George Milford in the pamphlet "You Are Slaves!", published in December 1912. No other information about George Milford has come down to us, and only the Evergard Manuscript briefly mentions that he died during the Chicago massacre. In all likelihood, Milford heard this expression from the lips of Ernest Everhard - most likely during one of the latter's speeches in the election campaign in the fall of 1912. Evergard himself, as the manuscript tells us, first used it at a dinner with a private person in the spring of 1912. This date should be recognized as the original.
For the historian and philosopher, the victory of the oligarchy will forever remain an insoluble riddle. The alternation of historical epochs is determined by the laws of social evolution. These eras were historically inevitable. Their coming could be predicted with as much certainty as an astronomer calculates the movements of the stars. These are legitimate stages of evolution. Primitive communism, slave-owning society, serfdom and hired labor were necessary stages of social development. But it would be ridiculous to assert that the dominance of the Iron Heel was just as necessary a step. We are now inclined to regard this period as an accidental deviation or retreat to the cruel times of tyrannical social autocracy, which at the dawn of history was just as legitimate as the triumph of the Iron Heel later became illegitimate.
Feudalism left a bad memory, but this system was also historically necessary. After the collapse of such a powerful centralized state as the Roman Empire, the advent of the era of feudalism was inevitable. But the same cannot be said for the Iron Heel. It has no place in the natural course of social evolution. Her coming to power was not historically justified and necessary. He will forever remain in history as a monstrous anomaly, a historical curiosity, an accident, an obsession, something unexpected and unthinkable. Let this serve as a warning to those reckless politicians who talk so confidently about social processes.
Capitalism was revered by the sociologists of those times as the culminating point of the bourgeois state, the ripened fruit of the bourgeois revolution, and in our time we can only subscribe to this definition. Following capitalism, socialism was to come; even such eminent representatives of the hostile camp as Herbert Spencer have asserted this. It was expected that on the ruins of self-serving capitalism a flower cherished for centuries would grow - the brotherhood of man. And instead, to our surprise and horror, and even more so to the surprise and horror of contemporaries of these events, capitalism, ripe for collapse, gave another monstrous escape - the oligarchy.
The socialists of the early twentieth century discovered the coming of the oligarchy too late. When they realized it, the oligarchy was already there - as a fact, sealed in blood, as a cruel, nightmarish reality. But at that time, according to the Everhard Manuscript, no one believed in the durability of the Iron Heel. The revolutionaries believed that it would take several years to overthrow her. They understood that the Peasants' Revolt arose contrary to their plans, and the First broke out prematurely. But no one expected that the Second Uprising, well prepared and fully ripe, was doomed to the same failure and an even more cruel defeat.
Obviously, Evis Everhard wrote her notes in the days preceding the Second Uprising, they do not say a word about its ill-fated outcome. No doubt she also hoped to publish them immediately after the overthrow of the Iron Heel, in order to pay tribute to the memory of her dead husband. But then disaster struck, and in preparation to flee or in anticipation of arrest, she hid the notes in the hollow of an old oak at Wake Robin Lodge.
The further fate of Evis Evergard is unknown. In all likelihood, she was executed by mercenaries, and during the time of the Iron Heel, no one kept records of the victims of numerous executions. One thing is for sure: hiding the manuscript and preparing to escape, Evis Evergard did not suspect what a terrible defeat the Second Rebellion suffered. It could not foresee that the tortuous and difficult path of social development would require, in the next three hundred years, the Third and Fourth uprisings and many other revolutions drowned in a sea of blood, until the labor movement finally won victory throughout the world. It never occurred to her that her notes, a tribute to her love for Ernest Everhard, would lie for seven long centuries in the hollow of a centuries-old oak in Wake Robinlodge, undisturbed by any hand.
Ant o n i M e r e d i t note 1
Ardis. November 27, 419 of the era of the Brotherhood of Man.
Earth Theatre! We are shame and grief -
Pictures of familiar carousel ...
But be patient, you'll find out soon
Crazy Drama meaning and purpose!

CHAPTER FIRST. MY EAGLE

A light summer breeze rustles in the mighty sequoias, the playful Savage murmurs incessantly between the mossy stones. Butterflies flicker in the bright rays of the sun; the air is filled with the drowsy hum of bees. Silence and calmness around, and only thoughts oppress me, anxiety gnaws. The serene silence breaks my soul. How deceitful she is! Everything is hidden and silent, but this is the calm before the storm. I strain my ears and catch her approach with all my being. If only she hadn't broken out too soon. Woe, woe, if it breaks out too soon! note 2
I have many reasons for concern. Thoughts, haunting thoughts do not leave me. I have lived an ebullient, active life for so long that peace and quiet seem like a heavy dream to me, and I cannot forget about that furious squall of death and destruction that is about to fly over the world. The cries of the defeated ring in my ears, and before my eyes all the same ghosts of the past note 3. I see the desecrated, tormented human flesh, I see how violence rips the soul out of a beautiful, proud body in order to throw it in an evil fury to the throne of the creator. So we, people, through blood and destruction go to our goal, striving to establish peace and joy on earth forever.
And loneliness... When I do not think about what will be, my thoughts turn to what was and will not return again - to you, my eagle, soaring on powerful wings, looking up to the sun, for the sun was bright for you ideal of freedom. I cannot sit back and wait with folded hands for the great events that my husband brought into being, even though he was not destined to see their birth. He gave his best years to our cause and died for it. These are the fruits of his labors, his creation, note 4.
So, I want to devote these languid days to the memories of my husband. There are many things that only I alone can tell of all the living, and after all, no matter how much you tell about such a person as Ernest, everything is not enough. There was a great soul in Ernest, and when everything personal falls silent in my love, I grieve most at the thought that he will not be here tomorrow to meet the dawn of a new day. There can be no doubt that we will win. He built so solidly, so securely, that the building would stand. Death to the Iron Heel! The day is near when the defeated man will raise his head. As soon as this message spreads throughout the world, the armies of labor will rise up everywhere. Something that history has never known will happen. The solidarity of the workers is assured, which means that the international revolution will unfold for the first time in all its vast breadth.
As you can see, I am completely at the mercy of impending events. I lived it day and night - so long that I couldn't think of anything else. And even more so, speaking of my husband, how can I not talk about his case! He was the soul of this great undertaking, and for me they are inseparable.
Like I said, there's a lot that only I can say about Ernest. Everyone knows that he, not sparing himself, worked for the revolution and endured a lot. But I alone know how he worked and how much he endured. For twenty terrible years we were inseparable, and I know more than anyone else his patience, his inexhaustible energy and boundless devotion to the cause of the revolution, for which he laid down his life two months ago.
I will try to simply and in order tell how Ernest entered my life - about our first meeting, about how he gradually took possession of my soul and turned my whole world upside down. And then you will see it through my eyes, you will know it as I knew it, except for the most cherished and dear, which words are powerless to convey.
We met in February 1912, when Evergard, at the invitation of my father, came to our mansion in Berkeley for a dinner party. I can't say that I liked it at first sight - rather the opposite. In the living room, where the whole society gathered, Ernest made a strange, not to say wild, impression. Among the venerable ministers of the church at this dinner, which the father jokingly called the "Sanhedrin", Evergard seemed like a man from another planet.
First of all, he was terribly dressed. The suit, made of cheap dark cloth, bought from a ready-made dress store, sat deadly on him. Yes, Ernest, in his build, and it was impossible to buy anything ready-made. His heroic muscles protruded from under the thin cloth, folds ran up on his athletic shoulders. Looking at his neck, massive and muscular, like that of a professional boxernote 7, I involuntarily thought: so here it is, the last passion of the pope - a philosopher-sociologist, in the recent past a blacksmith apprentice. Even now he resembles a blacksmith - just look at these muscles and a bull's scruff; from these nuggets, "Blind Tom" note 8 of the working class must have been.
And his handshake! It was strong and imperious, and the look of his black eyes too inquisitively, as it seemed to me, lingered on my face. Thus reasoned I, a child of my environment, a girl with class prejudices. I would not forgive a man of my circle for such boldness. I remember that I involuntarily lowered my eyes and, with a sense of relief, hurried to meet Bishop Morehouse, our old friend, who was a charming middle-aged man, with a face and meek disposition reminiscent of Christ, and also very well read and educated.
Meanwhile, the boldness that offended me was, perhaps, the main feature of Ernest Everhard. A man of a direct and open soul, he was not afraid of anything and despised conventions. “I liked you,” he explained to me afterwards. “Isn’t it natural to look at what you like?”
As I said, Ernest was not afraid of anything. He was an aristocrat by nature, despite his belonging to a completely opposite social legerie. Nietzsche would have recognized him as his superman, or, as he put it, "the blond beast," with the essential difference that Ernest gave his heart to democracy.
Busy with the guests, I forgot to think about the unpleasant philosopher from the workers, but when we sat down at the table, my attention was once again attracted by the sparks of laughter in his eyes, apparently caused by the conversation of their reverends. “He is not devoid of humor,” I thought, and almost forgave the guest for his awkward suit. But time passed, the dinner drew to a close, and Everhard said nothing in response to the endless speeches of the priests about the church and the working class, about what the church had done and what it was going to do for the good of the workers. I noticed that dad was upset by the stubborn silence of his protégé. Taking advantage of a slight hitch in the conversation, he turned directly to Ernest and invited him to express his views. He just shrugged his shoulders and said indifferently: “I have no ideas,” and after that, with redoubled zeal, he took up salted almonds.

"Iron heel"

The Iron Heel novel is not only one of the most significant works of Jack London, but also one of the most radical, politically pointed works of all American literature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Like such journalistic works as "Revolution", "How I Became a Socialist", "Iron Heel" was written under the direct influence of the American labor movement, under the influence of the exacerbation of the class struggle in those years. This novel reflected with the greatest force the socialist views of the writer, his conviction in the harmfulness of capitalist society and its inevitable death and deep faith in a better future for mankind, in the inevitable onset of the era of socialism.

When writing the novel, the Russian revolutionary events of 1905 played an important role. The Russian Revolution of 1905, which was the largest revolutionary explosion of the 20th century, had a great impact on the development of the workers' and socialist movement throughout the world, including in the United States of America.

The originality and originality of The Iron Heel lay in the fact that its main theme was the theme of the class struggle, that it reflected the most essential contradictions of the era of imperialism - the contradictions between labor and capital, between workers and capitalists.

The posing of this theme is one of the most characteristic phenomena in the literature of the capitalist countries of the 20th century.

As the contradictions intensified within capitalist society, the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie intensified, writers could not remain aloof from the most important questions of reality. From different positions, from different angles of view, they had to express their attitude towards the labor movement. Bernard Shaw and Herbert Wells in England, E. Zola, A. France, R. Rolland in France, Gorky in Russia - all these writers in the late XIX - early XX century write works on the theme of the labor movement and class struggle.

Jack London did not pioneer this topic in the United States of America. Long before him, some writers tried to address the life of workers. So, in 1861, Rebecca Harding Davis wrote a short story "Life in the foundries", in which she tried to describe the working conditions, life and life of American workers in industrial enterprises. Rebecca Harding Davis can be considered an early forerunner of the realist trend in American literature.

Speaking in literature in the early 60s, she created several stories and novels, the best of which is considered "Margaret Howe".

The theme of R. G. Davis's work was predominantly social. She wrote about the exploitation of workers in American industrial plants, about the slavery of Negroes. Her story "Life in the Iron Works" speaks of the bleak fate of the workers.

Gloomy gloomy city. Smoke rising slowly from the tall chimneys of iron foundries and settling on wet pavements in puddles of thick black sludge. Soot penetrating everywhere. Lines of workers, slowly wandering in the morning and evening to the foundries. Already this introduction, painting a picture of a large industrial city, creates a mood of hopelessness and melancholy. It intensifies after describing the unbearably difficult living conditions of the workers. A low, damp basement with an earthen floor covered in slippery green mold. Stuffy, heavy air. A pile of straw with a torn blanket thrown over it serves as a bed. This is the apartment of the working-class Wolf family. And here is the main character of this story - the smelter Hugh Wolf.

He recalls a hungry childhood and the incessant backbreaking work that began for him so early that it sometimes seems to him that he has worked for centuries. And he sees no glimmer of hope that it will ever end. Forced labor is a curse for people, it sucks all the juice out of them, reduces them to the level of animals. Meanwhile, Hugh Wolf is a gifted person, able to understand and appreciate the beautiful. In his spare moments, he sculpts figures that amaze with strange beauty.

The writer opposes the world of wealth to the world of poverty and need. In this world, self-confident, well-dressed people live, they seem to Hugh Wolf beings of a higher order. The conflict that arises between these worlds leads Hugh to a tragic end. Sentenced to nineteen years hard labor for a theft he did not commit, Hugh Wolf commits suicide.

In its direction, the story of R. G. Davis is very reminiscent of the works of American realists of the 90-900s. And it is no coincidence that some American bourgeois critics call the writer the predecessor of Stephen Crane and Theodore Dreiser.

The story Life at the Foundries is imbued with the spirit of protest against capitalist exploitation. It was written before the American Civil War. This confirms that serious class contradictions, contradictions between workers and capitalists, existed even then, although American bourgeois historians are trying to refute this.

The vulnerable side of "Life in the foundries" is its inherent motive of sacrifice. The author portrays the workers as a passive mass, unable to resist. Hugh Wolf is an unfortunate sufferer, not a fighter for his rights. He is a martyr and an accident victim.

At the end of the story, the motive of Christian reconciliation with reality sounds. The writer takes the true culprit of the theft, Deborah, for which Hugh Wolf suffered, from a dirty, sooty city to an expanse of fields and meadows, to a Quaker prayer house. There she finds peace and "brotherly love."

Another writer whose work theme turned out to be related to the theme of social reconstruction was Edward Bellamy (1850-1898).

Novelist and sociologist, Edward Bellamy has always paid great attention to social issues. The attitude of the writer to modern life and his proposals for the reorganization of society were most fully reflected in the sensational novel The Future Century (1888). In form, it is a utopian novel, many pages of which are devoted to issues of the labor movement. Describing the economic situation in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s, Bellamy emphasizes that "since the great industrial crisis of 1873, strikes have hardly ceased in various industrial districts"*.

* (Bellamy, Looking Backward, N. Y., 1888, p. 6.)

From the positions of the petty and middle bourgeoisie ruined by monopolies, Bellamy criticizes "big capital", its concentration in individual hands. According to him, until the end of the 19th century, there were only small enterprises with little capital, and then the workers were allegedly more independent "and there was no sharp difference between the two classes." But then monopolistic associations appeared, and everything changed.

"In the United States at the end of the 19th century it was impossible to find an enterprise in any branch of industry without a lot of capital" * .

* (Ibid., p. 12.)

"Everything was under the control of syndicates, from railroads to manufactory" * .

* (Ibid., p. 40.)

Having drawn a picture of the social disorder of his time, the writer proceeds to describe the future society. Bellamy does not recognize the revolutionary development of society. He is a supporter of evolution, in which changes occur peacefully, without violence.

The transition from the old system to the new is carried out with him unusually quickly and painlessly. The industry and trade of the country are entrusted to one syndicate, which includes representatives of the people. The capitalists peacefully give up their positions, and the people's syndicate begins to act in the interests of the entire nation.

In the new society, Bellamy has no wars and political parties, the fear of poverty and the pursuit of luxury have been destroyed, money and trade have been eliminated. All citizens are required to work from the age of twenty-one to the age of forty-five. Everyone chooses a specialty to taste. Bellamy's new system is preserved by the state, headed by the president.

The naivety of Bellamy's social utopia in dealing with major political issues was immediately evident. Nevertheless, his book was a huge success. The reason for this was that bourgeois society every year more and more revealed its predatory character. And people who lived under an exploitative system and experienced great dissatisfaction turned in their dreams to the future. Bellamy's novel was written in a clear, intelligible language and had undeniable artistic merit. The author used the "hero's dream" artistic device, which is often found in such works. The main character of the book - West falls asleep in his bedroom in 1887, and his dream continues until the year 2000. When he wakes up, he begins to get acquainted with the new world. In the process of this acquaintance, the author draws his own utopia.

Both Rebecca Harding Davis and Edward Bellamy were certainly sympathetic to the plight of workers in the United States of America. But these writers sought to smooth out the contradictions between labor and capital. They resolutely spoke out against the revolutionary struggle and believed that all controversial issues could be resolved either in the spirit of Christian humility or in the spirit of class cooperation.

At one time, William Dean Howell also stood at this point of view. He was alarmed by the growth of class contradictions, the widening gap between poverty and wealth. He could not remain indifferent, seeing the streets filled with beggars and hungry workers, while the newspapers wrote about the scandals and excesses among the plutocrats.

In the 1980s, 1990s, and 900s, Howells' "rosy optimism" was somewhat shaken. In a number of works written by him at this time, issues related to the existing social injustice are discussed. Thus, in "The Possibility of New Fortune" * he portrayed in an unattractive light the financier Dreyfus, whose despotism suppresses people. In 1893, the first of his utopian novels, The Traveler from Altruria, was published, in which the writer, although he tried to smooth over sharp corners, nevertheless criticized bourgeois America.

* (Howells, W. D., "A Hazard of New Fortunes", N. Y" 1889.)

** (Howells, W. D., "A Traveler from Altruria", N. Y., 1893.)

The novel emphasized the idea that true democracy does not exist in the United States, that many social issues do not find their solution.

With great concern, the writer observes the sharpening of the contradictions between the world of wealth and the poor classes. He disputes the opinion of the ideologists of the Amecan bourgeoisie who defend the existing order. But, like Davis and Bellamy, he argues that there is no need for class struggle, that the transition from one order to another must take place peacefully, without the use of force. In the spirit of Christian humility, he preaches "universal love" and rejects revolutionary methods of struggle as a means of violence unacceptable to him.

This issue was resolved in the same plane in the book by I. Donnelly "Caesar's Column" (1890) *. Describing in a fantastic form the uprising of the world proletariat against the oligarchy that brutally exploits it, the author concluded that the revolution would lead to the death of human society, to the destruction of civilization. In his opinion, the class struggle does not contribute to the establishment of social justice, but destroys "the universal brotherhood of man."

* (Donelly, J., "Caesar's Column", N. Y., 1890.)

The problem of the class struggle was reflected in I. K. Friedman's novel For the Sake of One Bread* (1901). The hero of this Book, Blair Carhart, the son of a wealthy merchant, is fond of the teachings of socialism, goes to work at a metallurgical plant and takes part in a strike. But the strike is crushed, and its collapse is unfairly blamed by the workers on the hero. Blair becomes frustrated with the strike struggle and leaves town, determined to devote her energies to peaceful political activities.

* (Friedman, J. K., "By Bread Alone", N. Y., 1901.)

Friedman's book is imbued with fear of revolutionary struggle. Like Howell, Friedman rejects the idea of revolution, believing that society can only be rebuilt by peaceful means.

In 1905, at the height of the class struggle in the United States, Leroy Scott's The Accidental Delegate was published. The novel touched on the important issue of union leadership. The history of the trade union movement in the USA has always given and continues to give numerous examples of the blackest, most vile betrayal on the part of trade union leaders. While the American workers fought courageously against the capitalists, the trade union leaders entered into a direct deal with them and betrayed the interests of the working people. The image of such a trade union boss, a bribe taker and a traitor, is depicted in the novel "The Accidental Delegate".

* (Scott, L., The Walking Delegate, N. Y., 1905.)

The main merit of the novel lies in the fact that it recreates a very expressive picture of the corruption and profiteering that corrode the American trade unions, shows the mechanics of elections in them, talks about the secret connections that exist between corrupt bosses and their capitalist masters.

With great sympathy, the author portrays the workers. Scott's workers are by no means similar to the downtrodden, oppressed by need and work of workers Rebecca Harding Davis. These are people who are strong in body and spirit, full of self-esteem. The figure of the positive hero of the novel, Tom Keating, is especially memorable.

But L. Scott's book has the typical shortcomings inherent in most of the works of American writers written on a working theme. The workers in Scott's novel are engaged in an exclusively economic struggle. They don't have political demands and don't think to put them up. Leroy Scott has a negative attitude towards any kind of violence. One of the reasons he condemns Baek Foley is that he constantly resorts to violence. On the other hand, he sees one of the advantages of Tom Keating in the fact that he uses "legal", "legal" methods of struggle. Tom Keating has the ability to expose Baxter's businessman, but does not do so, as he sees it, in order to win the strike.

A sentimental stream is visible in the novel, which is especially evident in love and family scenes. The writer is also inclined to melodramatic effects. But, given the weaknesses of L. Scott's book, one cannot but admit that it contributed to the development of the working theme in American literature.

Twain, Garland, Crane, and Norris did much to develop realism in America. Mark Twain in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" (1885) truthfully recreated the picture of life in America in the 50s of the XIX century. In numerous novels, stories, and articles, he criticizes bourgeois society, denounces profiteering and a thirst for acquisition. But Mark Twain, like many other bourgeois democrats, did not rely on the working class, did not see the possibility that the proletariat, having taken power into its hands, could destroy capitalism, creating in its place a new, more reasonable, socialist system. The writer did not know where to look for a way out of the impasse in which modern civilization has fallen. Therefore, over the years, his gloomy, depressing mood intensified, a bitter consciousness of the meaninglessness of life grew. Some of Twain's works, created in the 900s, are imbued with hopeless pessimism, gloomy despair ("What is a Man", "The Mysterious Stranger").

Gamlin Garland wrote about the plight of American farmers, about their difficult life (collections of stories "Main Roads" (1891) and "People of the Prairies" (1898). But he did not touch on the working topic and did not raise the question of the liquidation of bourgeois society.

About the exploitation of farmers by monopolies, about the resistance offered to capitalists, Norris wrote the novel The Octopus, already mentioned by us earlier. Norris was the most radical of this group of writers. But even he did not draw the conclusion about the need for revolutionary struggle. Recognizing that evil exists in society, he replaced the class struggle with the struggle of elemental cosmic forces, which in the end submit to the irresistible goodness of nature.

Stephen Crane in his novel "Maggie, Girl of the Street" (1883) depicted the life of the slums of a large capitalist city, spoke truthfully about the powerless position of women in the conditions of American capitalist reality.

But Crane also did not touch on the work topic. He, like others, was only a critic, not raising the question of changing the existing system.

Theodore Dreiser turned to the image of the class struggle in "Sister Carrie" (1900). An important role in his book is played by the strike of tram workers, accompanied by a bloody clash with policemen and scabs. It creates a background against which the fates of the heroes are depicted, it emphasizes the existence of the most acute contradictions in the country, but the life and struggle of the workers are not the main theme of "Sister Kerry".

The great merit of Jack London in the development of American realism lies in the fact that he acted not only as a critic of bourgeois society, but also as a writer, confident in the need for a revolutionary change in this society and the creation of a new, better social order in its place. The connection of the writer with the workers and socialist movement, the Russian revolutionary events of 1905 contributed to the fact that the theme of the struggle of labor against capital becomes one of the main ones in his work. Already in "People of the Abyss" he showed the appalling living conditions of the English workers.

In journalistic articles and essays, the writer dwelled on the issues of the labor movement, spoke of the need for a revolutionary reorganization.

In the novel "The Iron Heel" these views are further developed and artistically embodied.

The novel was completed in 1906. However, the editors and publishers refused to publish it. The book was only published in 1908. Bourgeois criticism greeted the appearance of the novel with sharp hostility. Reviews appeared in editorial newspapers and magazines that spoke of "the decline of the writer's talent", "socialist propaganda", "an ungrateful topic", etc. The "Iron Heel" did not meet with sympathy in some so-called "socialist circles". The "Socialists" found London's book dangerous and were hostile to its appearance.

In this regard, London bitterly wrote: "Even the socialists, even their own brethren, and they rejected me" (I, 156).

In "The Iron Heel" London talks about contemporary American reality and at the same time gives a forecast for the future. Capitalist society is sharply criticized in the novel. Through the mouth of its protagonist, Ernest Everhard, London argues that American workers do not even receive a living wage for their work.

For the sake of obtaining superprofits, American capitalists mercilessly exploit the labor of children. Everhard points out that there are three million child workers in the country. The novel debunks the "myth of 'democracy' and 'freedom' allegedly taking place in the United States. In fact, the state is completely controlled by the capitalists. They create governments, dictate their laws, control the courts. The capitalist press creates the so-called 'public opinion.'

The arbitrariness of the monopolists reigns everywhere. The Jackson case is an example of this. Worker Jackson, due to the lack of safety at the factory, lost his arm while working. After that, he was fired and denied any benefits. Jackson went to court. But the court, a toy in the hands of the monopolists, only legitimized the decision of the entrepreneurs.

The heroine of the novel, Avis Kenningham, undertakes an investigation into the Jackson case. She talks with the lawyers who took part in the process, with the masters of the factory where Jackson worked, with journalists, with entrepreneurs. Some of them say that Jackson should have received a disability allowance, but then they are afraid to say that this is their personal opinion. Accidents happen all the time in the factories, but the employers always nullify the claims of the workers and do not pay them.

"It would cost shareholders many hundreds of thousands a year," says one of the respondents" (XVIII, 44).

Avis Kenningham is trying to get the Jackson case out to the press. But newspapers and magazines refuse to publish her article.

The Jackson case goes beyond an isolated case. It takes on the significance of a fact of great social generalization, a phenomenon typical of all of capitalist America.

The Iron Heel continues the materialistic and atheistic line that pervades all of Jack London's work. In the novel, that criticism of the church and religion, which we met in the northern stories, is further developed. The writer insistently emphasizes that religion is one of the most important means by which the ruling classes exercise their rule.

An important role in the book is played by the image of Bishop Morehouse. When we first meet him at Professor Kenningham's apartment, Morehouse appears to us as an honest, sincere, but far from real life person. He believes in universal love and denies class contradictions.

Conversations with Everhard give rise to doubts in Morehouse, and in order to eliminate them, he begins to get acquainted with the life of workers. The result is amazing! The Bishop faces a sea of poverty and misery that he could never have imagined. What is he doing? Morehouse is not like other official representatives of religion, pursuing in most cases selfish, selfish goals. He has a conscience, he has his own convictions. He sets himself the task of resurrecting the original spirit of the Christian church, its simplicity and unselfishness.

In the name of this goal, the bishop sells his property and begins to help the poor. However, the ruling elite does not tolerate such freethinking on the part of their servants. The bishop is first declared sick and persuaded to go on a long vacation. Then he ends up in a psychiatric hospital. And finally, he, a completely healthy person, is declared insane and sent to a hospital for the insane.

The Iron Heel also raises the question of the state of science in the conditions of capitalist society.

The heroine's father, John Cenningham, a prominent physicist, begins to take an interest in sociology. However, this hobby of the professor was perceived as a "dangerous eccentricity." Keningham is offered a long leave with pay, as long as he leaves the university for a while. But since the professor does not deviate from the path he has chosen, the reaction proceeds to take decisive action against him. A ban is imposed on a book he wrote about the education system in America. Kenlingham is expelled from the university, his house and his shares are taken from him. The professor turns into an outcast, into a pariah, into a man who earns his living by odd jobs.

His fate once again reminds us how "pure science" is dependent on the arbitrariness of the ruling classes in the bourgeois environment.

Almost simultaneously with Jack London, another American writer, his contemporary Upton Sinclair, worked on the topic of the labor movement. Under the direct impression of the most current events of our time, he wrote the novel "The Jungle".

The history of the creation of his book is well known. In 1904, Sinclair travels to Chicago and within two months, in the most attentive way, gets acquainted with the activities of the famous slaughterhouses. And since 1905, he has been publishing his novel in parts in the socialist weekly Call to Reason. The Jungle was published as a separate book in 1906.

"Jungle" is notable primarily for its direct appeal to modern reality. In the novel, the author tries to highlight the main contradictions of his era. Therefore, the book should not be considered only as a reporter's account of the activities of the Chicago slaughterhouses and the strike that took place there. E. Sinclair set himself another goal. On the basis of the life of workers in the meat industry, he wanted to analyze the situation of American workers in general, their living conditions, relationships with craftsmen, with owners, etc. He wanted to explain to himself and others the reasons for the alarming situation in the country, the sharp aggravation of the class struggle, and the increase in the total number of strikes. and strikes.

“Having finished with Manassa, I began to write The Jungle,” the author later explained, “simply because I was irresistibly attracted by the desire to understand the current crisis for myself, to understand, to penetrate into the very depths, to survive, to explore to the bottom, in the same way, as I did in relation to the previous crisis" * .

* (E. Sinclair, Industrial Republic, L., ed. "Thought", 1925, p. 21.)

In the early works of E. Sinclair, the heroes were mainly representatives of the intelligentsia. In "The Jungle" they appear only sporadically and do not play any significant role in the development of the action. The main role in the novel belongs to the workers, and first of all to Jurgis. Yurgis is a new image for the writer, and, I must say, an image that succeeded him. The fate of Jurgis is instructive not only in itself, but also as an example indicative for many. Suffice it to recall such episodes of the novel as the deception of the unfortunate migrants on the road, when they lose most of their small savings, or their stay in a hotel, where, using their ignorance of the language, they are forced to pay a huge bill. The same fraud is the sale of the house, which they lose, having paid for it three-quarters of the cost. Arriving in America, Jurgis gets a job at the Chicago slaughterhouse. And here Sinclair gives a most detailed account of this huge enterprise, which was the largest monopolist in the production of meat products in the country.

Bourgeois readers were shocked at the time by Sinclair's sensational revelations. Buyers had no idea that they had to buy the meat of tuberculous bulls and the fat of pigs dead from cholera. They did not know that the agents of the owners of the Chicago slaughterhouses specifically sought out old or sick cattle, then the animals were fattened with malt, and from their meat "fragrant beef" was obtained and canned meat was prepared. Buyers never thought that, due to accidents, workers sometimes fell into huge vats in which meat was boiled.

The exposure of the monstrous crimes that took place in the Chicago massacres is Sinclair's indisputable merit. But this was by no means the end of his task. The book tells about the horrendous working conditions, about the impossible life of workers.

Working side by side with adults in the same wild conditions are women and children, whose situation is often more difficult. As a rule, young women are persecuted by the masters, and they have no choice but to give in or lose their jobs. This is what happens to Onna, who is pursued by Connor and ends up in Miss Henderson's brothel.

A stunning impression is made by the birth scene of Onna, who is dying from the fact that there was no money to call a doctor.

The son of Jurgis, one and a half year old Antonas, who drowned in the mud on the street due to lack of supervision, also dies.

Jurgis and people close to him went to America full of great hopes and expectations. They thought about a more prosperous life, about happiness. And they found there the most severe exploitation, the bestial struggle for existence, lies, deceit, betrayal. The fate of the heroes of the book is striking in its tragedy.

Many misfortunes and ordeals fall to the share of Jurgis: the death of loved ones, imprisonment, vagrant wanderings. Returning to Chicago, in order not to die of hunger, he turns into a beggar and begs on the streets. Then we see him in the role of a thief, a "politician", a scab. Each profession opens up some new aspects of life for Jurgis, enriches his life experience.

By confronting the hero with different faces, introducing him to life, the author, together with him, makes a judgment about American reality. Those critics who claim that there are no conclusions and generalizations in The Jungle are hardly right. There are conclusions in the book. They lie in the fact that workers in the United States live and work in unbearable conditions, are subjected to cruel exploitation, have no rights, that they are deceived by politicians, all kinds of businessmen and rogues. And at the same time, there are a bunch of people in the country living in palaces, bathing in luxury, indulging in madness.

Such conclusions arise not only after reading the "Jungle", they are made by the author himself at the end of the book. Moreover, speaking of the failure of the capitalist system, he also proposes a means of getting rid of it, he calls everyone into the ranks of socialists who will create a new society.

Along this path, he leads his hero, who joins the party.

Let us note that the socialism of E. Sinclair does not permit the forcible destruction of bourgeois society. This is peaceful socialism, allowing the possibility of victory by voting for socialist lists in elections, after which the working class will take the reins of government and put an end to private ownership of the means of production.

As already mentioned, the writer in his theory and practice did not go beyond the "socialism of feelings", he did not recognize the revolutionary transformation of life, which was influenced by the theories that were in circulation among American socialists.

This is where the main difference between E. Sinclair and Jack London is rooted. As much as the journalism of Jack London is more radical, more revolutionary than the journalism of Upton Sinclair, so the novel "Iron Heel" is more radical, more revolutionary than "The Jungle". As in journalism, Jack London in The Iron Heel goes further than E. Sinclair, further than most American socialists when deciding on the transition period. If E. Sinclair does not go beyond his peaceful solution, then Jack London shows in The Iron Heel that the capitalists will not stop at violence in order to keep power in their hands. His novel paints a picture of the terrible arbitrariness of the Iron Heel.

The writer was able to show that the monopolists use the forms of bourgeois democracy only as long as it is profitable for them. When the working people achieve victory in the elections, the monopolists go over to an open dictatorship: they establish the most cruel terror in the country and pour blood over the protest of the working masses.

This policy is carried out by the Iron Heel - a government consisting of the largest representatives of monopoly capital. By order of the Iron Heel, the troops and the police shoot the people, disperse the political parties, imprison the leaders of the proletariat.

London has shown other methods of struggle to which the capitalists resort. They devote part of their superprofits to the labor aristocracy and try to split the labor movement. Their faithful servants are the opportunists who betray the cause of the working class.

While E. Sinclair and many American socialists hoped to achieve victory over American capital by peaceful means, by winning elections, London believed that the possibility of a peaceful victory was ruled out, that the American capitalists would immediately go over to an open reactionary dictatorship as soon as bourgeois parliamentarism turned out to be unsuitable for them. This idea of the writer is reflected in the novel.

Even in his publicistic articles, London warned that the ruling classes, placed face to face with economic crises and a growing labor movement, would try to "bridle the masses." "This has been done before," he wrote. "Why not do it again... In 1871, the soldiers of the economic rulers destroyed an entire generation of militant socialists" * .

* ("Jack London: American Rebel", p. 87.)

In The Iron Heel, he more directly and decisively raised the question of the growth of fascist tendencies in the country. William Foster, the leading figure in the American Communist Party, said this well.

“I remember the illusions,” he writes, “that were widespread in the American Socialist Party when I joined it almost half a century ago. These false ideas were basically of the same formally legal, parliamentary character as in all other socialist parties. Seeing , as with each new election campaign the number of votes cast for Debs increased, many members of the party began to believe that only a few years would pass and the question would be directly raised in the elections - for socialism or against it - and the party whose growth in the number of supporters would be expressed in a kind of geometric progression, will get the majority of votes in the elections.This, they thought, will solve all problems, and socialism will be easily established.

This was naive political opportunism. Jack London, for all his weaknesses, was well aware of this. In The Iron Heel, he outlined the rise of fascism and the bitter struggle that would be required to overcome it.

* ()

Foster's statement not only tells us about the writer's anticipation of fascism in America, but also explains to us the reason for the negative attitude of American socialists towards the Iron Heel. Foster writes that warning voices such as London's voice were isolated occurrences. They were drowned out by the voices of the opportunists, who were officially encouraged by the Party.

* (W. Foster, "The Decline of World Capitalism", M., ed. I. L., 1951, p. 151.)

If in The Jungle E. Sinclair sees in the face of his heroes mainly martyrs and sufferers, then in The Iron Heel the masses are not only subjected to oppression and exploitation, but also fight against their enslavers.

In the struggle - the meaning of the present and future. Only in the struggle will the working people overthrow capitalist society and create a new social system.

It should be noted that the writer saw and foresaw what great difficulties the American people would encounter on the road to socialism. The novel indicates that the dominance of the Iron Heel will contribute to the political backwardness of America.

One of the virtues of the book is that, foreseeing the enormous difficulties that the revolutionary movement in America would have to face, London firmly believed in the coming victory of the working class. In his novel, he showed how, as a result of a fierce class struggle, American workers overthrew the yoke of the capitalists and created a new, free socialist society.

In The Iron Heel, London creates a fundamentally new image of a goodie in the face of Ernest Everhard.

The life of Ernest Everhard is given to the revolution. A hereditary proletarian, he had already worked at a factory for ten years. Then he served as an assistant to a blacksmith and became a blacksmith himself. Evergard stubbornly engaged in self-education. He devotes his energy, abilities and knowledge to the cause of serving the working people. Everhard becomes an organizer, a propagandist among the workers. The workers send him as their deputy to Congress, and there he defends their rights. When the armed struggle begins between the workers and the Iron Heel, Evergard becomes one of the leaders leading the masses. The monopolists imprison him, but even from there he leads the preparations for an armed uprising. His activity ceases only with death. Pursuing a policy of cruel terror, the Iron Heel orders his agents to kill Everhard, and he dies for the cause to which he devoted his whole life.

The new hero of London is no longer an individualist, but a man who thinks about the good of the whole society; he not only protests, like the heroes of northern stories, but fights, fights against the exploiting capitalist society for the establishment of a new, socialist system.

When creating the image of Everhard, the writer turned not only to American reality.

The political life of the USA did not give examples of revolutionary struggle. But there were more than enough of them in Russia. The activities of Russian revolutionaries - leaders and organizers of the labor movement, their struggle against the tsarist autocracy served as the basis for creating the image of the protagonist.

The connection with the Russian revolutionary events is visible elsewhere in the book. So, for example, talking about the policy of provocation and violence pursued by the Iron Heel, the writer points out that the American oligarchy was organizing the "Black Hundreds". And then the author's explanation follows: "The Black Hundreds were the gangs of thugs that the autocracy, doomed to death, organized to fight the Russian revolution. These gangs attacked the revolutionaries, and also committed excesses and robbed in order to give the authorities a reason to let the Cossacks into the cause" ( XXIII, 134).

In another place, London says that with the beginning of the Iron Heel terror, the American socialists were forced to go underground. They set about organizing combat groups, which included the bravest, most devoted to the revolution comrades. And here follows the author's note: "In organizing combat groups, the experience of the Russian revolution was also very useful" (XXIII, 184).

Compared to other works by Jack London, The Iron Heel has a number of specific artistic features. One of these features is its inherent sociological nature. Jack London shares his thoughts on modern society, class struggle, social revolution, philosophy, politics, etc.

The main task set by him in The Iron Heel is to create a broad historical canvas, to draw a picture of his own and future era.

In accordance with this task, the class struggle in the novel is portrayed as the main content of modernity. In an effort to convey the grandiose conflicts of the era, to emphasize the fierce nature of the class struggle, the writer turns to the creation of mass scenes. He depicts the suppression of the Kansas rebellion by government troops, depicts a massive popular uprising against the Iron Heel in Chicago.

Against the background of this struggle, representatives of the two warring camps are singled out. Ingram, Van Gilbert and other representatives of the ruling class are truthfully characterized. At the same time, the author does not pay much attention to the detailed description of individual characters. He is interested in them not so much as individuals, but as representatives of the exploiting class.

The writer shows their cruelty, unscrupulousness, their nature of predatory animals. The American reality is depicted just as realistically in the novel: the arbitrariness and dominance of the monopolists and the plight of the masses. Here the author draws a lot of factual and documentary material, and he manages to create a vivid and memorable picture.

The Iron Heel is written in the form of the memoirs of Evis Everhard, Ernst Everhard's wife. Her notes were discovered by scientists after the victory of the socialist system - several centuries after the events described. Provided with comments, they were published in the form of a book about the distant past. This form gives reason to talk about the utopian nature of the novel. On the one hand, The Iron Heel is a realistic work, a novel about modern American reality in London, correctly depicting the prospects for the development of fascism in the United States. But, on the other hand, where the writer speaks of the future class struggle, this is a utopian novel.

The form of the socio-utopian novel determined some of the artistic features of The Iron Heel. The narration in the novel is conducted on behalf of Evis Evergard, and in some cases it is broken, fragmentary. Covering the period between 1912 and 1932, the author deals little with the private destinies of people. This is not part of his task. He focuses his attention on the most important socio-political events, sometimes separated from each other by a segment of several years. The narrative line goes from event to event, with the aim of showing the bitterness of the growing class struggle.

Along with the story in the first person, London resorts to an original artistic device that allows him to express his own attitude to the events described.

He introduces the image of Anthony Meredith, a historian of the era of socialism, into the fabric of the novel. On Meredith's behalf, the foreword and commentary on Iron Heel are written. Their significance lies in the fact that they carry a great ideological and artistic load, complement and largely explain the events in the novel.

Hiding behind a fictitious publisher, through his mouth the writer expresses a number of interesting thoughts on many important issues. So, for example, in the preface, the writer says that the power of the Iron Heel brings suffering and misfortune not only to the American people, it is approaching humanity, threatening it with death.

The author evaluates many events and facts from the point of view of the people of the new, socialist society. Thus, characterizing the era of the domination of capitalist monopolies, he calls this time a "terrible era", which is difficult for people to understand in a new, reasonable age.

Some of the writer's statements testify to the further evolution of his worldview.

In one of the comments, London speaks of Friedrich Nietzsche, who had previously influenced him, as follows: “Friedrich Nietzsche lived in the 19th century of the Christian era; complete madness."

If the novel gives a perspective on the future, then the preface and comments speak of looking from the future to the past, as if evaluating the past from the point of view of people of the future era.

It cannot be argued that the picture drawn by the writer in The Iron Heel is correct in everything. The book does not show the organized struggle of the working masses under the leadership of the workers' party. The writer replaced it with individual terror. To the detriment of the truth, the people are often depicted as some kind of beast from the abyss, thirsting for the blood of their oppressors.

London did not quite succeed in portraying the revolutionary camp. The revolutionaries are presented to him as anarchists and terrorists acting apart from the people.

However, these errors are largely due to the historical features of the theoretically weak American labor movement, in line with which the writer was walking. Such was the fate of not only London. Bernard Shaw in England, Anatole France in France and many other writers abroad who were close to the labor and socialist movement could not completely overcome the influence of bourgeois ideology. And only in Russia, where the center of the world revolutionary movement moved, where there was a real proletarian party that consistently pursued a revolutionary line, waged a tireless struggle against all manifestations of reformism and opportunism, only there were real opportunities for the emergence of works free from the influence of reactionary ideology. Therefore, Russia was the country where the works of socialist realism were first created.

In general, evaluating the "Iron Heel", it should be recognized as the greatest achievement of the writer. We believe that in this novel, for the first time in the literature of the United States, the tendencies of socialist realism manifested themselves. Distinguished by great sharpness, eloquence, persuasiveness, the book testified to the author's deep penetration both into the events of the modern era and into the future. It reflected the most important issues related to the aggravation of contradictions in the United States: the struggle of American workers for their rights, the growth of revolutionary sentiment among the broad masses of the people. At the same time, the writer here expressed confidence in the coming victory of the socialist system.

In both American and Western European literature of that time, there was no work that could be placed next to the "Iron Heel" in terms of the power of exposing capitalist monopolies, in passionate conviction in the need for a revolutionary struggle of the people against their oppressors. Therefore, Jack London should be considered not only as a representative of critical realism in the United States, but also as one of the forerunners of socialist realism.

Bourgeois criticism was not slow to attack the writer. A critic from the Dial declared that "such books have a harmful effect on unbalanced minds, which unfortunately increase in number" * .

* ("Jack London: American Rebel", p. 95.)

The Independent columnist ended the article by saying that "the semi-barbarians to whom such literature appeals may destroy our culture, for they have never laid a single brick to build a noble civilization" * .

* (Ibid., p. 95.)

The main view of the bourgeois press on London's novel was expressed by a critic from Outlook, who wrote that "The Iron Heel" as a "literary work is not very commendable, but as a socialist treatise it is completely unconvincing" * .

* (Ibid., pp. 95-96.)

However, the American socialist leaders outdid the bourgeois critics in scolding London's book. One of them, John Spargo, wrote in the International Socialist Review: "The picture that he (London. - V.B.) has created seems to me deliberate to alienate many whose support we so badly need; it gives a new impetus to the old and the discarded theory of cataclysms; it tends to weaken the socialist movement, discredit the electoral system, and reinforce the chimerical and reactionary idea of violence so tempting to some people.

* (Ibid., p. 96.)

A critic from Arena spoke in the same vein. "The arguments about a violent revolution," he wrote, "are not only stupid, but they can harm the people's cause."

* (Joan London, Jack London and His Times, N. Y., 1939, p. 310-311.)

In an interview given after the release of The Iron Heel, London repeated the main idea of the novel. “History shows,” he declared, “that the ruling classes did not leave without a struggle. The capitalists control governments, the army, the police. One must think that they will use these institutions to maintain power” * .

* ("Jack London: American Rebel", p, 96.)

The Iron Heel has stood the test of time. Silenced by bourgeois criticism in the United States of America, it is widely known in the Soviet Union, in the countries of the socialist camp, among the workers and advanced intelligentsia of the capitalist states. Here is how one of the leading figures in the international labor movement, Harry Pollit, speaks of her: "... how grateful and indebted I am to Jack London for the book that left such an indelible mark on my mind. Far from many works evoke such feelings. London's book belongs to their number. He wrote a lot, I read all his books with great interest, but "Iron Heel" is the best, it will survive everything he wrote. I recommend it to young people. I'm sure it will make you look at things differently, help you understand what the capitalists are up to now in your country, it will explain a lot of what has been going on in the United States of America in recent years, and you will feel an irresistible desire to fight, no matter what the danger, it will instill in your soul great faith in the people with whom you work with and with whom you stand in solidarity. But most importantly: the book will help you become such a socialist that no one can ever destroy your faith in the most wonderful idea that has ever inspired humanity - the idea of socialism " * .

* ("Change", 1956, No. 23, p. 21.)

I became friendly with evil spirits,

And in the mirror one day I

Sorcerer the fate of the homeland dear

Showed everything in private ...

(Beranger)

Frankly, I missed with this novel of London. From what I heard about The Iron Heel, I expected an Orwellian-style dystopia, but only, of course, written from a socialist standpoint. And she did not immediately realize that the writer was cheating: under the guise of a novel, he slipped the readers a Marxist political pamphlet. Actually dystopia only completes it. So if you suddenly have an urgent need to master Marxist political economy, and "Capital" seems too voluminous, go ahead! Ernest Everhard will present you with all the main ideas, and as simply and convincingly as possible.

But don't expect romance. Not living people pass through the book, but ghosts, not excluding even the main characters. “Men and women, our best, most beloved comrades, disappeared without a trace. Today we still saw friends in our ranks, and tomorrow they were no longer counted and we knew that it was forever, that they laid down their lives in the struggle, ”complains Evis Evergard. But we see all these men and women only in passing. They remain just a set of names. Only the insane Bishop Morehouse evokes sympathy.

The plot, like the characters, is subject to the presentation of the author's view of contemporary capitalism. So there is not much to look forward to here. Only at the very end can the reader be rewarded with grandiose scenes of the Chicago uprising.

But the book is full of ideas. "Iron heel" - an accusation brought against capitalism, a warning, a prophecy, cut off in mid-sentence - and what! "Remembering..." Yes, that's right. You can fully appreciate it only if you remember ... well, at least the history of the XX-XXI centuries. And then you can see how its contours rise behind the lines written at the very dawn of the last century - either the Great Depression, or the burning of the Reichstag, or even our reality. The cities of the "golden billion" in comparison with the third world - aren't these the same "miracle cities" that London writes about? And the workers' ghettoes, where "the beast from the abyss lurks", also exist - it's just that globalization has allowed them to be geographically separated from those suburbs where the Western labor aristocracy has settled down so comfortably. And are Western democracies so different from the Iron Heel - you can ask at least the inhabitants of Ferguson about this.

In general, the novel is very controversial from an artistic point of view - but full of brilliant insights.

Score: 8

Apparently, Jack London read "Capital" by Marx and this opus pretty plowed him. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why a talented storyteller and master of creating an atmosphere suddenly took and sculpted a crude and clumsy anti-capitalist agitation. The artistic value of the book is minimal, it's not even a novel, but rather a retelling of an economics textbook in your own words - there is no plot as such, the characters suffer from a fair amount of veneer, and the fake diary format used by the author only worsens everything: London wants to show the whole picture of the horrific plight of America's workers (and it was even worse a hundred years ago than in tsarist Russia) and their struggle with the oligarchs (the author understands this word in a strange way, it is enough to point out the use of the neologism “micro-oligarch”), but the result is an inconsistent synopsis. As a dystopia, "Iron Heel" is very remarkable - quite logical (the threat of capitalism's degradation into an oligarchy was very real, and the very crisis of overproduction that was described with such gusto in the book buried it), all stages of formation are described in great detail (sometimes it was thought - no , this definitely cannot be, and then he remembered the Soviet Union and realized that anything could happen; money loves blood no less than ideology), and despite the fact that the book is hellishly boring, it deserves to stand on the same shelf with " 1986" by Orwell and "Brave New World" by Huxley.

Score: 6

The beginning of summer is a period that does not encourage a teacher to read: tests, exams, preparation of reports. Vacation seems to be out of reach...

But I bought and read The Iron Heel by Jack London. Because in the past month, three different, unrelated people have advised me to do it.

Impressed.

The Iron Heel is an interesting example of how an old book is suddenly updated. The fact that three people commented on this novel in complimentary terms speaks in favor of actualization. Yes, and I myself, fidgeting in my chair, caught myself on the fact that "this is about us."

According to the plot of Jack London, described really briefly, as in a political economy textbook, between 1912 and 1932, events took place that led to the establishment of the regime of the World Capitalist Oligarchy - the Iron Heel. which lasted 300 years. Instead of what the progressive forces of Socialism hoped for. And even in those countries where socialism was established after the unsuccessful and unprepared First Uprising - Germany, France, Italy, Australasia - oligarchic coups took place after the suppression of the Second Uprising ... And even after 700 years after the events described, scientists do not undertake to rationally explain the phenomenon Iron heel.

“And what do we have from the goose, sir xenzhe?” (With)

First, we have socialism, which seems to have already begun, but was postponed for a long time. By returning a handful of socialist countries to oligarchic capitalism. Moreover, the return occurred through the oligarchy of the United States of America, which rallied the entire continent from Panama to Labrador under its rule, and then took advantage of the unsuccessful Second Uprising to blackmail and interfere in the affairs of socialist governments (sic!).

Secondly, Jack London shows that the revolution is needed not by ohlos, but by lone revolutionaries like the nugget scientist from the workers Ernest Everhard, who proves the inevitability of the socialist revolution. But his reasoning (retelling of the classical Marxist scheme) now seems schoolboy. Yes, London quite accurately predicted the Great Depression, first describing it through the mouth of a hero, and then expanding it into a detailed picture, but much has changed since then. It turned out that it is possible to abandon material production altogether, transferring it to developing countries (according to Erenst Everhard), and remain the world hegemon by controlling world finances. True, the prospect of a new Great Depression is now looming, but, as in London's book, the oligarchs will not have problems with the people turned into ohlos. So 300 years of oligarchy is not enough.

Thirdly, everything that Jack London said about the American “free” press of the early 20th century can be applied without any reservations to the Russian press of the early 21st century. The same information filters, the same manipulation of public opinion. Yes, and the courts in the description of the writer, when American bastards, carnivores, kucherens defend unfortunate companies and trusts from these stubborn and shameless ordinary people ... "I'm poisoning me, I'm poisoning!" (With)

Fourthly, the oligarchs in the fight against the revolution use mercenaries - read "private military companies" and "pinkertons" - read "private security companies". It was the mercenaries (private military companies) who suppressed the First Uprising and were preparing, according to the London scenario, to suppress the Second, and the Pinkertons (ChOPs) tracked down Ernest and Avis Evergard and dealt with them. A brilliant example of a prediction, given the strength of various Blackwater Security Consulting, Erinys Iraq Limited, Hart Group, Vinnell Corporation in the current reality. Even now, the strength of the created private armies is enough to suppress any social uprising...

Fifthly, the suppression of the Chicago Uprising (aka the notorious First Uprising) at first is no different from the description of the battles on Presnya in December 1905 in the form in which the foreign press presented it to its readers. But in Jack London, it (the suppression) suddenly develops into something reminiscent of Stalingrad ... With "Pavlov's houses" and "rat war", as the Germans called it.

In general, I am very tempted to say that Jack London predicted both the fall of the USSR and the modern moment when the oligarchs of the whole world, taking advantage of the inconsistency of the actions of the working people, break off their horns.

Score: 8

In the literary world, Jack London is primarily associated with adventure novels filled with the romanticism of the Gold Rush or the mysteries of Alaska, sea voyages or stories about the Indians.

But Mr. London once departed from the canons erected by himself, and wrote a thing that was not at all characteristic of him. Who could have known that his next work after "Sea Wolf", "White Fang" and "Adventure" would be a dystopia with a touch of fantasy called "Iron Heel". Moreover, London showed what was not expected of him. It turned out that London is well versed in the economy, socialism, capitalism, and the history of tsarist Russia is not alien to it. How did it happen that London wrote such a strong work completely out of his style?

Oddly enough, but the plot in a dystopia is not the main thing. The idea and its description, implementation comes to the fore here. But this does not mean that the plot here should be completely flawed.

The plot of the "Iron Heel" can not be called defective. True, exciting and interesting too. Rather, it's a side story. And not bad. The author approached the presentation of history in a rather original way, especially for the beginning of the twentieth century. A certain correspondent from a distant, even for us, future finds the memoirs of Evis Evergard, a revolutionary at the beginning of the 20th century. Thus, we get a novel in the first person, with frequent comments and remarks from the correspondent. The correspondent, by the way, lives in the era of the Brotherhood of Man, in the era of utopian socialism, and, at times, his remarks make the modern reader smile.

Although the novel comes from the face of Evis Everhard, the main character here is her husband, one of the founders of the revolutionary movement, Ernest Everhard. Events develop at the beginning of the 20th century. Ernest is one of the first to feel the trouble looming over the United States. The fact is that, according to Ernest, capitalism is degenerating, and socialism should come to replace it very soon. But, power in the United States is completely seized by oligarchs such as Rockefeller (the author devoted a couple of pages to him). With the help of their countless dollars, they bribe the authorities, create huge trusts. In general, everyone runs the country as a whole and thus prevents the overthrow of capitalism.

Thus, the Iron Heel, the so-called plutocracy, the power of the oligarchs, is in power in the United States. They either eliminate all those who are dissatisfied or turn them into their slaves. It was on such fertile soil that the revolutionary movement arose. If the first half of the book is devoted to getting to know Ernest's ideas and fairly fair and justified criticism, unlike the same Dreiser, of capitalism, then the second half is given entirely to Avis' story about the revolutionaries, their deeds and the atrocities of the Iron Heel.

In general, there is nothing outstanding in the story itself. But Ernest's performances in front of the public really enliven her. His criticism of capitalism sometimes makes one think even about the current state of affairs on our glorious planet. In addition, the author describes several atrocities of the Iron Heel and the plight of ordinary workers and revolutionaries, the basis of the socialist system. A good story with interesting comments.

Many critics saw in the "Iron Heel" a prediction of the imminent arrival of fascism. This is debatable. London looked far further into the future than some of its contemporaries might have imagined. The main idea of the novel is the triumph of utopian socialism, that is, the ideal, when all people are brothers and everyone is equal. He is opposed at first by capitalism, and then by plutocracy.

London brilliantly exposed all the shortcomings of capitalism and literally predicted the Great Depression of the 30s. As the author rightly noted, people must go through all the stages of the evolution of the social system in order to come to socialism. For example, capitalism has long looked not as brutal as it used to be. Thanks to evolution, various trade unions of workers appeared, the courts became more fair. True, the power still remains with the rich and money rules the ball, but thanks to competent PR, all major shortcomings are greatly smoothed out. In Russia, of course, everything is completely different, since capitalism has just begun its formation in our country, therefore the novel The Iron Heel largely reflects Russian reality, but in a more rude and cruel form.

The author also singled out the Iron Heel as a stage of evolution that is completely unnecessary for the development of society. Only in this can one find the similarity between fascism and the Iron Heel created by London. Most of all, the power of the Iron Heel fits the future of writer-created cyberpunk. In fact, the Iron Heel is the united powerful corporations that are ahead of all the combined states of the planet in terms of strength, power, money.

Overall, London showed impressive research into the future of man. He was excellent at identifying and describing in simple terms all the shortcomings of capitalism, creating a truly terrible and terrible Iron Heel and clearly identifying its goals and stages of development. In addition, all this makes you really think and describes the state of affairs in our state as well as possible. And it is not surprising that for his socialist revolutions he chose the first Russian revolution as a prototype and predicted the second.

As mentioned above, the work is constructed in a rather original way, which allows the author to show two points of view on some events at once. That is, the point of view of Avis, a resident of the United States at the beginning of the 20th century, and Antonia Meredith, a correspondent from the 27th century. Well, depending on which century this book is read, then the third point of view, the reader himself. That is, the author managed to establish a connection with the reader and make him think and think, which, for example, is a rarity in our time.

The text itself is replete with descriptions of both the rich life of wealthy US citizens and ordinary workers. Ernest's monologues and polylogues with his participation stand out especially. In which the whole meaning of the work is hidden. In the second part of the novel, London pays more attention to describing the affairs of the revolutionaries and their future.

The text itself is light and not overloaded with abstruse words, the author gives out all his thoughts in a form understandable to anyone. There are quite a few dialogues; here, only two people rarely talk at all. The only thing missing from the text is this action, as in London's earlier works, only at the very end there are a couple of episodes in which a couple of active moments take place.

London managed to create an original world for that time and describe it well. If everything is clear about originality, this is the first novel about plutocracy and oligarchs in the history of literature, perhaps also one of the first books criticizing capitalism and, moreover, with an excellent vision and prediction of the future of mankind.

London managed to create the world of his work quite convincing, largely due to the provision of obvious facts and a successful description of the formation of the Iron Heel. The cruelty of the Iron Heel, the calamity of the working class, the deplorable state of the middle class in the United States of that time (the main class of the capitalist system) showed all this in London. In addition, he studied in detail the first Russian socialist revolution and reflected much of it in his work.

London did not pay much attention to the characters, which is also not typical for his work. Only Ernest Everhard received a detailed study. He is strong both spiritually and physically. Although he comes from a working class background, he understands philosophy and economics much better than many scientists. At times, his self-confidence can infuriate even the reader.

His wife Evis said almost nothing about herself. We can learn about her only by her actions and Ernest's rare remarks. She showed herself to be an ardent revolutionary, a good actress, a loving wife and a person who can change her point of view if she is given convincing arguments.

The rest of the characters appear only sporadically, their appearance lasts a maximum of two pages. It is almost impossible to see rather weak characters in London, but the Iron Heel, unfortunately, is an exception. And weak characters are not an excuse for dystopia, because Orwell turned out to be beyond praise.

Despite the weak characters and the usual plot, Iron Heel is one of the strongest books of its time and one of the best dystopias in general. London showed itself from a completely different, unknown side. An excellent book, a real classic, recommended for reading by absolutely everyone!

Score: 9

This book is Dunno on the Moon, for adults only. Actually, it quite intelligibly shows the attitude of big capital not only to employees, but also to small / medium-sized businesses. In our time, when big capital is quite merged with the state, all these “grimaces” appear in real life, starting with the forced closure of small shops in favor of large retail chains. The language of the book is, of course, rather dry and not "artistic", since it expresses the political position of the author, which should not be retouched by artistic techniques. I think it's a good read for everyone once in a lifetime. Re-reading and putting in some top lists is not at all necessary, this book is useful in the same way as books that describe the real relationship of a person with wildlife, including meetings with predators, poisonous snakes, etc., are useful.

Score: 10

"Iron Heel" - journalism in its purest form. The characters are practically incorporeal. The plot is interesting when it comes to global events. Dialogues - Dialogues are similar to the front pages of old newspapers. And what can be interesting about the journalism of a hundred years ago? First of all, political and social forecast. Let's talk about the forecast.

The "Iron Heel" came out in 1908. Its forecast for the next 15-20 years is a deep crisis, workers' revolutions in France and Germany, brutal suppression of farmer and workers' uprisings in the United States, the establishment of an oligarchic regime, an attempt at a revolution with outside support, the destruction of workers' republics in Europe and the final victory of the international oligarchy with the impoverishment and degradation of 90% of the population. The real trends in the history of the 20th century are the strengthening, at least formal, of democracy (in fact, communism and even fascism are also children of democracy), the reduction of social barriers, fairly stable economic growth, and the improvement of the social status and living standards of 90% of the population. Everything is strictly the opposite. And in the end - in the end the same international oligarchy. Only the oligarchs of Jack London are cruel, intelligent and cynical people, able to ensure three hundred years of domination of their caste. The current oligarchs are much softer, more humane, and, no, not stupider, but more limited. Living under their rule is much easier than under the rule of the Iron Heel, but they can destroy civilization much faster.

The oligarchs are opposed by socialists, fighters for the cause of the people. Who is the people for them? Farmers and other small proprietors are slag, doomed to destruction even before the victory of the oligarchy. People of intellectual and organizational labor are servants of the oligarchs, everything is clear with them. Unskilled workers are drunken rabble. Hundreds of thousands of them can be driven to death in order to divert the attention of soldiers from real revolutionaries. Skilled workers again sold out to their owners. In the future, they will have to blow up entire cities in order to deprive the oligarchy of the mass base. It turns out that the working class is professional revolutionaries. After the victory, they will turn into a new oligarchy, formed on the basis of not wealth, but ideological purity.

In fact, socialists of this type were rare already in the days of Jack London. Even the Bolsheviks are a completely different story. Most of all, these people resemble our Socialist-Revolutionaries of a hundred years ago. And the methods are the same, and the organizational structure, and the same ability to ruin any business, no matter what they undertake. Also interesting is the remark of Evis herself that Nietzsche would have recognized in Everhard his fair-haired beast. Since then, they have managed to forget both the beast and the Socialist-Revolutionaries. But a hundred years later, such fighters against the system began to multiply around the world at an alarming rate. True, now these beasts are not blond, and their eyes are turned to the past, and not to the future, but for whom it is easier.

Score: 5

PS It seems that the respected author held too high an opinion about the oligarchs. He believed that the Iron Heel would patronize the arts and the artists could create something amazing. If only it were so! Well, relatively recently, many of us also argued that with the development of big business, new Morozovs and Ryabushinskys will appear in myriad numbers.