Jack London

Iron heel

FOREWORD

Avis Evergard's notes are not 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 historical document.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 picture 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 selfishness. 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 election campaign in the autumn 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 society, serfdom and wage labor were necessary steps community 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 like 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 for her flight, or in anticipation of her 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. She could not foresee that tortuous and hard way social development will require in the next three hundred years also the Third and Fourth uprisings and many other revolutions drowned in a sea of ​​blood - until the labor movement finally wins 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

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.

"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. WITH different positions, from different angles of view, but 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 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- a curse for people, he sucks out all the juices from them, reduces them to the level of animals. Meanwhile, Hugh Wolf is a gifted person, able to understand and appreciate beauty. 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 live self-confident, well dressed people, they seem to Hugh Wolf beings of a higher order. The conflict between these worlds leads Hugh to 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 social issues. The attitude of the writer 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 19th century it was impossible to find an enterprise in any branch of industry without a large amount 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. This strong in body and spirit people full of self-respect. The figure of the positive hero of the novel, Tom Keating, is especially memorable.

But L. Scott's book has typical shortcomings inherent in most works. American writers written in 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").

Hamlin 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.

On the exploitation of farmers by monopolies, on the resistance offered to capitalists, Norris wrote the already mentioned earlier romance"Octopus". 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 finished 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 ruling classes exercise their dominance.

An important role in the book is played by the image of Bishop Morehouse. When we first meet him in Professor Kenningham's apartment, Morehouse appears to us as honest, sincere, but far from real life Human. 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 christian church, its simplicity and disinterestedness.

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 is John Cenningham, a large physicist becomes interested 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 primarily 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 talks about appalling conditions labor, 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 high 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, vagabond 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 power into their own hands and put an end to private property to 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 implemented by the Iron Heel - a government consisting of, major representatives 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 prevalent in the American Socialist Party when I joined almost half a century ago. These misconceptions were basically the same formally legal, parliamentary character as in all other socialist parties. Seeing how 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 expressed in a kind of geometric progression, will receive the majority of votes in the elections. This, they thought, would solve all problems and socialism would be easily established.

This was naive political opportunism. Jack London, for all his weaknesses, was well aware of this. In The Iron Heel, he in general terms predicted the rise of fascism and the sharp 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, about the class struggle, about the social revolution, about philosophy, about 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 crowd 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. However, the author does not pay much attention detailed description 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" - realistic works, a novel about modern American reality in London, correctly depicting the prospect of 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 has given rise to some artistic features"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 first-person narrative, London resorts to the original artistic technique allowing 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 historical features 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 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 were first created socialist realism.

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 is reflected critical issues associated with 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.

Both in the American and Western European literature At that time, there was no work that could be placed next to the "Iron Heel" in terms of the power of exposing the capitalist monopolies, in the passionate conviction of 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 "Iron Heel" as " literary work little commendable, but as a socialist treatise - 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 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 much of what is going on last years in the United States of America. And you will feel an irresistible desire to fight, regardless of any danger, it will instill in your soul great faith in the people with whom you work and with whom you stand in solidarity. But most importantly, the book will help you become such a socialist that no one will ever be able to destroy your faith in the most wonderful idea that has ever inspired humanity - the idea of ​​​​socialism.

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

The Iron Heel is a diary from the past, found in the distant future, seven centuries later. The events of the diary take place at the beginning of the 20th century, at a time when people felt acute social injustice with the full right to a happy and dignified life. Throwing off the fetters of feudal slavery and falling under economic slavery, humanity continues to be in happy ignorance of its dependent position. Jack London, not without reason a member of the socialist movement, has not yet written “Martin Eden”, a brilliant revolutionary writer, but has already written “White Fang”, a carefree mixture of a wolf and a dog that has undergone all the same lawsuits of social inequality in life. An intermediate variant between "Martin Eden" and "White Fang" was born fantasy novel about the future confrontation between the proletariat and capitalism.

A certain Equilibrium is drawn in my head, a world without the right to their own point of view with fighters for the right to express their own point of view. Why not imagine that instead of burning books and other dystopian enslavement of personal freedom, the world is being ruled by capitalists who are the fruit of the technical revolution, who have eliminated handicraft labor, made this very labor easier, made the product cheaper, made it faster and easier to produce, and at the same time eliminated from the labor of people, entrusting production to qualified specialists and high-performance equipment. The picture before the eyes is drawn beautiful, but London went further. His heroes did not silently look at the development of the situation, arranging their own revolutions with pogroms, strikes and real hostilities.

This time, the US is not at the forefront of world events. Socialism has won everywhere except the last stronghold of capitalism. The more difficult it is for the proletariat to fight for its rights. London sends the reader to Ancient Rome, giving the origins of understanding the meaning of the proletarians - this was the name of the unnecessary layer of society, which did not bring any benefit to the state, only mercilessly bred, creating many new social problems. The fighting unit of socialism is just the representatives of the proletariat - the humiliated and insulted, thrown into the dump, forced to vegetate in poverty and endure hardships. The employer offends employees, does not comply with safety regulations, squeezes out all the juice. The abolitionists who once fought for social justice, when the civil war between the North and the South was raging, could not even think about a possible new misfortune in the form of enslavement of their own population by a separate layer of society, which pulled the vast majority of income and benefits under its control high society. Any injury at work means starvation for the worker, any request for an increase in wages sends the initiators to a beggarly existence. Such a cruel world really existed: it is enough to get acquainted with the work of Dreiser and other American writers of the early 20th century - they all wrote about social injustice and about the humiliated existence of people doomed to live in cruel conditions imposed by employers. London is working much deeper into the situation, he is trying to see what the current situation will lead to. He had his own point of view, which has the right to exist - he outlined it in the Iron Heel.

Power always goes hand in hand with money. Only those in power can raise their salaries, while, for example, doctors cannot do this, meekly watching the unfair distribution of funds. No one wants to go to work just like that, but for the sake of pleasure. Gone are the days when their work helped to survive in the world - now people are forced to earn a living and live from paycheck to paycheck, benefiting society and allowing themselves to feed themselves. But it cannot be that everyone in this world lives only for their own pleasure. We need a compromise. London approached more radically, equating the current situation with slavery, convincing the reader that even in the Bible, slavery is not condemned, but rather approved. Money rules the world and government. In the Iron Heel, the government always chooses what will be more loyal to the capitalists. And the government is also trying to create a favorable environment for itself around. Only the Americans did not profess Confucianism with Taoism, they did not endure humiliation and unleashed an open war, plunging the country into a new split, which dragged on for seven centuries of confrontation.

The Iron Heel is a rather dry book artistically. “Letters of Kempton-Weiss” were not in vain for London. There, the writer spoke from the position of a scientist advocating love from the point of view of physiology, religion, genetics, etc. There is no love in Iron Heel, but there is an economic model of the world. For those who have little idea of ​​modern world crises, the book will be useful. London will clearly demonstrate the ceiling of product sales when the common market is oversaturated, which will lead to a crisis that is simply bound to end in a war. Have you ever thought about the simple truth that if there is a war somewhere, then just some country on our planet is trying to avoid a crisis? No human morality and no other conjectures of the participants in the military conflict should be taken seriously. With the pain of the whole process - just someone looking for profit, trying to shake up their own economy. In fact, The Iron Heel is a work with a very deep meaning, the study of which should at least be included in the school curriculum.

Very caustic London touches the media - the fourth estate. There is no concept of independent media in Iron Heel. They are all supervised by capitalists, they write only information that is beneficial to them. The opposition press also exists, but no one reads it - no one is interested in it. They do not try to remove her from the information flow, she does not interfere with anyone. Simply, this kind of literature causes a smile from the news published in it, bewilderment from points of view and distrust of the conclusions - this is the opinion of the majority. Capitalism is broad - the larger capitalists are squeezing out the smaller ones. The small ones seek protection from the proletarians who are gaining momentum, and they point out with regret the missed moments that they so often publish in their newspapers.

Is it worth it, with all of the above, to touch on the topic of child labor. The child is put to the machine from an early age, squeezed out all the juices and thrown out a little later. It's always been like this... He won't live to see his retirement - one less problem. However, in the "Iron Heel" there is no concept of pensions. The whole situation has been brought to a situation where it is not surprising that social tensions have resulted in a military confrontation, with the actions of the authorities comparable to the events in Tiananmen Square.

"Iron heel", piece of art, in which the socialist views of London were most clearly manifested, is not included in the list of the writer's "top" works. The name of London is rather associated with " White Fang”, “Call of the Ancestors”, “Northern stories”. This novel by London opens up new facets in the figure of the author. London was not only the creator of popular adventure literature for young people, but also a staunch socialist, freedom fighter, and harsh social critic.

However, not all of his contemporaries perceived the novel in this vein, and there were certain reasons for this.

The novel in the writer's work

The Iron Heel, like another rather famous novel by London, Martin Eden, turned out to be misunderstood by most readers. Consistent debunking of the myth of "a man who created himself" ("self-made man"), which was the ideological basis of "Martin Eden", was perceived by the reader as a celebration of human potential. But the Iron Heel was less fortunate - London's colleagues in the Socialist Party condemned the novel, calling it a work that repels new potential members rather than attracts.

And most of the publications involved in the distribution of London's "adventure fiction" simply ignored the appearance of the novel.

In our opinion, the reasons for the relative failure of the novel, which, no doubt, was conceived not only as a contribution to the utopian genre, but also as a way of "promoting socialist ideas to the masses", are partly rooted in the genre heterogeneity of the work.

The duality of the novel

The text of the novel is divided into two main parts. One is a kind of historical document, the diary of the protagonist's wife. The events reflected in the diary of Evis Evergart refer to 1912-1932.

In fact, the events described are the story of a failed uprising against the economic oligarchy, organized by a group of revolutionaries led by the main character - Ernest Everhart. And it is this part, replete with gloomy descriptions of the social hell into which the working class plunged deeper and deeper through the efforts of the capitalists, that forms the so-called “anti-utopian” component of the work. But there is also a second utopian layer in the novel, represented by the comments of the historian Anthony Meredith, who lives in the 27th century, in the era of the onset of socialism.

Both ideological layers of the novel interact with each other, ideologically complementing each other, which significantly deepens the ideological basis of the work.

Brief theoretical background on the genre

The division of the novel into two parts, utopian and dystopian, is a convention. In fact, utopia and dystopia are almost impossible to separate from each other; they are variants of the same genre and are literary expressions of various theories about social development.

The metaphor of utopia is directed to the future and performs rather a propagandistic function in relation to the reader. As a classic example of a utopian novel of the late 19th century, one can name the bestseller of that time “Looking Back: 2000-1887” by E. Bellamy.

The Specificity of the Anglo-American Literary Situation turn XIX-XX centuries was that dystopia during this period, in contrast to the progressive genre of utopia, gravitated towards conservatism. It embodied public anxiety about the future, which was guessed from current public processes. The anti-utopian was afraid of all sorts of risks that could accompany the change and development of society. The dystopia of that time was a kind of defense mechanism against potential changes in the social environment.

The dystopia of that time was a kind of defense mechanism against potential changes in the social environment. This goal was achieved through the creation of a satire on modern social movements, as well as on previous utopian works.

This goal was achieved through the creation of a satire on modern social movements, as well as on previous utopian works. The following works can be named as the most popular anti-utopias of that time: “Caesar's Column. History of the XX century ”I. Donnelly; "The Time Machine" and "When the Sleeper Wakes" by G. Wells.

At the end of the 19th century, it became clear that utopia was an adequate literary way of expressing socialist ideas. The fact is that, according to its genre definition, utopia was intended to describe an “ideal society”, the end of human history, the end point social progress. For its part, socialism was the designation of the same ideal state of human society, devoid of any shortcomings. Such a correspondence between form and content was found in the time period indicated above.

Therefore, the very idea of ​​London to create a socialist utopia based on modern material with some propaganda task looked quite organic and fit into the framework of the earlier literary tradition. As a result, and within the framework of this article, we will have to touch the socialist views of London and trace their reflection in the novel.

Dystopian (dystopian) component of the "Iron Heel"

The "Iron Heel" was created directly under the impression of unsuccessful revolutionary events 1905 in Russia. According to London's daughter, Joan, the defeat that the Russian revolutionaries suffered in 1905 did nothing to weaken the idea of ​​the reality of the revolution in the eyes of London, but only convinced him that it was necessary to act more violently than diplomatically.

Descriptions of the terrible life of the workers, whom society has made like wild dirty animals,

stupefied by constant unbearable hard work and hunger, were unpleasant to the modern readers of London, mainly belonging to the middle class. The most terrible thing for them in the descriptions of the life of the workers was that the element of fiction was quite insignificant. As an example of the strength of the impact of descriptions of London, one can cite an excerpt from the dispute between the protagonist and his future wife, who at that time did not think about the social situation in society:

“As far as I know, you or your father, which is the same thing, are shareholders of the Sierra Company.

What does this have to do with our dispute? I was indignant.

“Not at all, except that the dress you are wearing is splattered with blood. The food you eat is seasoned with blood. The blood of little children and strong men is dripping from this ceiling. As soon as I close my eyes, I can clearly hear how it pours everything around drop by drop.

Readers had to deal not with an abstract description of the industrial horrors of the distant future, but with reality, only lightly veiled as literary fiction. So, for example, it is believed that the events of the final episodes of the novel (description of the defeat of the uprising organized by Ernest, his arrest and the death of many of his associates) were directly inspired by real events. Namely, in 1886, a whole series of strikes took place in the United States, which began with an uprising in the Haymarket in Chicago. During this uprising, a bomb exploded in the ranks of the police, called to pacify the protesters. The leaders of the uprising were sentenced to death penalty, a few years later their innocence was proven, and the explosion was considered a provocation against the disaffected.

The descriptions of the "social abyss" in The Iron Heel are reinforced by explanations of the reasons for creating such a plight for the working class. These explanations are given through the lips of the protagonist, Ernest Everhart, to whom Jack London "gave" almost all of his ideas expressed by him in his journalistic essays ("Revolution and Other Essays"; "Class War").

It should be noted that the genre of utopia, as a rule, implies the presence of an alien character entering a new world for him (the structure of the world can be given with a plus sign - utopia, or with a minus sign - dystopia), as well as the presence a character belonging to this world whose role is to provide explanations to the alien protagonist. An unusual feature of the novel in this context is that the stranger is not the protagonist himself, but the narrator, and the new world for her will not be another country or universe, but another social class. The role of the explaining character was given to the main character - Ernest Everhart.

As an argument for the urgent need for social reforms, Jack London uses modern sociological theories (social Darwinism, Marxism, etc.) and statistical data. However, to create images of revolutionaries, London uses a kind of "anti-scientific device", involving cultural tradition namely, Christian symbolism. The novel contains a gallery of idealized images of revolutionaries who are elevated to the rank of saints and martyrs of the revolution, and the revolution itself is identified with the altar of freedom. Ernest is compared to Christ, the crucified herald of truth. Against this background, the final scenes of the novel - pictures of the suppression of the spontaneous uprising provoked by the authorities in Chicago, acquire an apocalyptic significance: a colossal massacre is depicted, disgusting portraits are given of the "inhabitants of the abyss", the proletariat, which, ideally, should have become the driving force of the revolution.

Thus, by leading the reader through the terrible pictures of social reality, equipped with popular science sociological explanations, London paints, in truth, a colossal picture of the defeat of the uprising, the life of the protagonist.

The novel contains a gallery of idealized images of revolutionaries who are elevated to the rank of saints and martyrs of the revolution, and the revolution itself is identified with the altar of freedom.

Utopian component

The gloomy oppressive descriptions of the social ills of the working class and the unbearably heavy and bloody ending of the novel are to some extent balanced by the presence of a utopian component of the work. As mentioned earlier, to create a utopian layer of the novel, London introduced the figure of the historian Anthony Merredith.

His comments are divided into several groups: comments on the chronology of the “manuscript” and a description of the perspective of historical events, given from the position of science of the “Era of Universal Brotherhood”; comments on certain realities of the historical time described in the novel (data from the point of view of a person of the 27th century); finally, not so much large group comments - those that relate to the position of the narrator.

This layer of the text practically does not give the reader any idea about life in the 27th century, it is only stated. And his arrival and the events described in the manuscript are separated by another seven centuries of revolutionary struggle. Not so much can be singled out from the commentator's notes: the society of the 27th century has outlived almost all the shortcomings of modern society, getting rid of not only social vices, but also the base aspirations imposed by the capitalist way of the economy. Meredith much of modern realities in the novel it seems wild and barbaric. And base human aspirations, which played a prominent role in the 20th century, have survived only as echoes of distant instincts that have become obsolete, briefly manifesting themselves in the behavior of small children of the 27th century.

Most likely, such an arrangement of accents in the work was also due to the fact that the writer himself was more interested in the ways of coming to socialism, and not in the structural structure of society after its arrival. In this spirit, the already mentioned utopia by E. Bellamy “Looking Back: 2000-1887” was created. Knowing the enormous popularity of this work among contemporaries, it is very difficult to assume that Jack London himself was not familiar with this book.

After reading the article, you, like many of London's contemporaries, could have a feeling of bewilderment. Why, being a staunch socialist who advocated a tough need for social reform, offer the reader such an ambiguous novel? The gloomy episodes of The Iron Heel could well outweigh the optimistic fact of ascertaining the arrival of socialism in the eyes of the reading public.

It is extremely difficult to answer this question, or try to justify the genre duality of the novel in some other way. Perhaps Jack London, like his hero, foresaw what a colossal amount of time must pass in intense revolutionary work and propaganda (for example, another 7 centuries) for people to finally come to a rational structure of society. But at the same time, he understood that few of the starving workers, and even those of idealist revolutionary circles, would agree to sacrifice their strength and life for a vague result that even the grandchildren of the modern generation would not be able to enjoy.

The author, however, does not allow his doubts to unfold in full force, he seems to make concessions to himself and, in the end, still wins a happy ending for all of humanity. In support of this view, we can cite a fragment from a letter to Claudesley Jones (one of the first devoted readers and admirers of London, with whom he began a correspondence) dated 1900: “I would like to live under socialism, although I realize that socialism is not is the next step; I know that capitalism must first outlive its own.

First, the world must be squeezed to the limit, first there must be a struggle between nations, not for life, but for death, more cruel, intense and widespread than before. I would rather wake up tomorrow in a socialist state where life flows calmly and smoothly; but I won't wake up; I know that a child must be ill with all his childhood illnesses in order to become a man ... ". ■

Alina Zakharova

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 immense 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 my 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.