"The Iron Heel", a work 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 Wild", "Northern Tales". 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 One is a kind of historical document, the diary of the protagonist's wife.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 at the turn of the 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 social 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 of 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 an 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 the unsuccessful revolutionary events of 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, 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", drawing on 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, there is not a very large group of 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. To Meredith, much of the contemporary realities in the novel seem 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

"Iron heel"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* (Ibid., p. 12.)

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

* (Ibid., p. 40.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* ()

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* (Ibid., p. 95.)

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

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

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

* (Ibid., p. 96.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I became friendly with evil spirits,

And in the mirror one day I

Sorcerer the fate of the homeland dear

Showed everything in private ...

(Beranger)

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

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

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

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

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

Score: 8

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

Score: 6

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

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

Impressed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Score: 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Score: 9

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

Score: 10

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

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

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

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

Score: 5

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

"Iron heel". Social activity

Back in the 1990s, before the start of his writing career, London spoke of the inevitability of the death of capitalism (article "The Question of the Maximum", 1898). The idea of ​​class struggle runs through many of his speeches. It is expressed especially clearly in the article "The Struggle of Classes" (1903), which is based on the materials of his lecture, and then in the preface to the collection "The War of Classes" (1905). London considers the irreconcilability of class interests to be the basis of the class struggle, and sees its completion in the socialist revolution. After the elections of 1904, the writer is inclined to the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism (the article "The reasons for the great success of the socialists in the elections in the United States in 1904"), but already in 1905 he again claims that the workers will take power by force. The Russian Revolution of 1905 reinforced his belief in the inevitability of an armed clash (foreword to the collection War of Classes, article Revolution, 1905). In the article "Revolution", written on the basis of the speeches, London expressed firm confidence in the unstoppable growth of the socialist movement and the imminent victory of the working class, proved this by analyzing the development of the international socialist movement, openly threatened capitalism with a revolutionary overthrow and announced the approach of the world revolution.

Regarding the goal of the socialists and the ways to achieve it, London wrote: “Their goal is to destroy capitalist society and take over the whole world, they do not agree to anything less. If the laws of the country allow, they act by peaceful means, dropping ballots into the ballot box. If the laws of the country this is not allowed, and if violence is used against them, they themselves resort to violence. They respond to rage with rage. They are strong and do not know fear "*.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 674.)

While dwelling in detail on the problems of the class struggle and revolution, London paid less attention to the characterization of socialism as a social system. However, it was clear to him that the socialist revolution would transfer all the means of production into the hands of the working people.

From some of the remarks made by young London, it can be judged that he did not consider socialism to be an ideal system. He believed that, by giving enormous economic advantages over capitalism, socialism would create the conditions for the rapid development of certain kindred races and their triumph.

“Socialism is not an ideal system,” writes London in June 1899, “invented by man for the happiness of all life, of all people, but it was invented for the happiness of certain kindred races.”*

* ("Socialism is not an ideal system, devised by man for the happiness of all life; nor for happiness of all men; but it is devised for the happiness of certain kindred races". Ch. London, v. 1, p. 297.)

Not everything was clear to London yet, and the clarification of his social views was hampered by the theory of the survival of the fittest transferred by him, following G. Spencer, from the animal world to human society. He could not find an answer to the question of what would stimulate progress within the nation. Under socialism, the proletariat that has taken power will destroy the advantages for the strong, thus the struggle between the strong and the weak for food and shelter will be put to an end. And for London, the question remained open, what will stimulate the improvement of man when the law of natural selection loses its force (the article "What is Needed! A New Law of Development", 1901). However, despite this question remaining open to him, the writer was convinced of the enormous advantages of the new system. In numerous speeches and articles, he calls for an active struggle to seize the means of production from the hands of the capitalists and transfer them into the possession of the workers, to build a socialist society. He dreamed of living under socialism*.

* ("I should like to have socialism...", he writes to Clodesley Jones. Ch. London, v. 1, p. 351.)

Many years later, in 1911, in explaining what socialism is, London calls it "a new economic and political system whereby more people are provided with food. In short, socialism is an improved production of food.

In addition, under socialism, not only will the procurement of food be greatly facilitated and it will be obtained in greater quantities, but a more equitable distribution of it will also be established. Socialism promises in time to give all men, women and children food as they need, to enable them to eat whatever they want in abundance and as often as they want.

* (J. London. The Human Drift. London, p. 24.)

The writer considered the unification of the working people to be the decisive condition for the victory of the proletariat in the fierce class struggle. Their strength is in organization. "And it is here," he writes on August 25, 1905, in an address to the Central Workers' Council of Alameda County, "I want to call attention to something that you all know, but which is so important that it should be inculcated constantly." And London repeats and emphasizes: "... the strength of organized labor lies in brotherhood"*.

* (P. Foner. Jack London: American Rebel, pp. 120-121.)

Jack London in 1905-1910 actively acts as a representative of the left wing of the American socialist movement, headed by Y. Debs.

London does not abandon its socialist activities even while traveling on the Snark yacht (1907-1909). In the ports where the Snark stopped, he talks about socialism, enters into disputes with sailors and loaders. Despite a serious illness, he finds the strength to write an article in a Sydney newspaper in which he lays out the foundations of Karl Marx's theory of surplus value and shows that the future belongs to the working class ("Strike Methods: American and Australian", January 1909).

In the same 1909, returning from a trip, London gives a sharp rebuke to the attempt of some leaders of the socialist movement (Spargo, Hillquit, etc.) to remove revolutionary slogans and reorganize the party, practically merge with the American Federation of Labor. In an unpublished reply to English Walling, then a well-known socialist and publicist*, London writes that he is a hopeless revolutionary and an opponent of compromise and will always stand firmly for the preservation of the Socialist Party as a revolutionary. Any compromise, such as the proposed merger with the American Federation of Labor, would, in his opinion, be suicidal at this time. He is convinced that if the socialist movement in the USA takes the opportunist path, this will mean the triumph of the oligarchy and the "iron heel", this would mean a step back for the movement for at least twenty years**.

* (Walling sent similar letters protesting against the proposed compromise to several leaders of the Socialist Party, including D. London and Y. Debs. In response to Walling's letter, Y. Debs writes that the revolutionary character of the party and movement must be fully preserved, at any cost, for if it were to compromise it would mean the end of its existence.)

** (The said letter from London dated November 30, 1909 is in the Huntington Library (Pasadena, USA). A copy of Y. Debs's answer is also there.)

London has been interested in the development of the socialist movement all his life. Among the papers left after his death, he collected clippings of articles on the situation of workers in the USA, articles by Y. Debs, B. Heywood, and leaders of various trends. Among the authors are W. Lippman, P. Kropotkin, E. Bernstein, W. Gent. In the library of London until the end of his life, in addition to the "Manifesto of the Communist Party", there were two volumes of "Capital" by K. Marx, the work of F. Engels "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany", as well as his works "The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science", "The Origin of the Family , Private Property and the State", "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy", and "The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844". The last book is the American edition, provided with a brilliant preface and appendix, written by Engels especially for this edition, and giving an analysis of the development of the labor movement in the USA.

London remains true to the idea of ​​the victory of socialism to the end of its days, even in the years when it withdraws from active socialist activity. However, never before 1905-1906 and never after did the writer develop such vigorous social activity. He lectures on social and political issues in Oakland, Berkeley, Stockton, San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities of California, makes a lecture tour of the United States with reports on socialism and the revolution, speaks to workers, students, intellectuals, before members of women's societies, businessmen.

“Russian universities,” said London on March 20, 1905, in a speech delivered at the University of California, “are now seething, ignited by a revolutionary spirit. impulses. Wake up? Heed his call!"*.

* (A leaflet announcing an evening at Ruskin's club dedicated to seeing off D. London on November 9, 1906 (Jack London's Night). Stored in the Bancroft Library of the University of California, USA.)

Jack London's speeches cause a storm of approval of the revolutionary-minded workers, youth and intelligentsia? and the angry howl of the bourgeoisie, the furious attacks of the capitalist press.

London follows the development of revolutionary events in Russia. Speaking to a wide audience, he calls the Russian revolutionaries who killed the tsarist officials his brothers. The reactionary newspapers bring down a flurry of threats: on the writer, demanding a renunciation of what has been said, but London continues to stand its ground. The writer is being hounded, they are looking for any pretext for bullying, they are accused of immorality. The cities of Pittsburgh and Derby even remove his books from the libraries, while London continues active revolutionary activity, devotes a lot of time to work among young people. In September 1905, he was elected president of the Student Socialist Society, created to promote the ideas of socialism among youth.

When the mayor of Auckland refuses to renew permission to organize socialist rallies on the streets of the city, London proposes to gather in defiance of the ban. He himself is ready to be arrested in order to organize public opinion around the egregious fact of the arrest of the famous writer and achieve the lifting of the ban imposed by the mayor.

London reviews socialist books* and acts as an active publicist. In 1905, one of his best articles "Revolution", a preface to the collection "The War of Classes" was written, in 1906 - the articles "What Life Means to Me", "Rot has Started in Idaho". His articles and speeches express deep faith in the working class and call for revolution. The writer responds to topical social problems, is inspired by the unprecedented growth of the socialist and working-class movement throughout the world, defines its tasks and prospects, clarifies for himself some of the key issues of social life, and finds his place in it.

* (In May 1905, London published a review of the book by L. Scott "Union Secretary", in October - a review of the book "The Long Day", written by a socialist; and in August 1906 - an article about the novel by E. Sinclair "The Jungle ".)

He realized long ago that "socialism is the only way out for the proletariat"*; ceasing to be a proletarian and becoming an artist, London, in his words, "discovered that socialism is the only way out for art and the artist"**.

* (Ch. London, v. 2, p. 16.)

** (Ch. London, v. 2, p. 16.)

In the novels "Sea Wolf" and "White Fang" the action and the main conflicts took place outside the United States, the characters acted in a world alien to the reader. The years 1905-1908 are marked by the appeal of London in artistic creativity to the reality of the United States. The American theme began to interest him as early as 1903 (the stories "Local Color" and "Amateur Evening"), but now this interest is becoming central. In 1905, his story "The Game", dedicated to boxers, was published, and after it - the collection "Tales of the Fishing Patrol", based on the memories of his youth, when he spent much of his time on the San Francisco Bay. In 1907, a collection of short stories, The Road, written in part in 1906, was published, reflecting the vagabond period of London's life. In it, he poses social problems. In 1906, one of the most famous stories of the writer, "The Renegade", was published, dedicated to the problem of child labor.

The fame of the writer, despite the vicious howl of the bourgeois press, and partly thanks to him, is growing. The Journal of Current Literature notes in May 1907 that London has become the most read and most talked about American writer.

* ("Current Literature", 1907, v. XLII, No. 5, p. 513.)

The writer's growing connection with the labor movement and active participation in it brought to life the novel "Iron Heel". It was begun in August and completed in December 1906* (published in 1908). This sharp topical book called for vigilance, readiness to respond with weapons to attempts to suppress the will of the American people, to overthrow the exploitative system; the novel is directed against capitalist monopolies, deals with the coming revolution in America, and is a courageous act of a citizen writer. At the same time, he testified to the evolution of London's artistic method.

* (Ch. London, v. 2, p. 156.)

In a letter to a publishing house asking for the publication of E. Sinclair's book The Jungle, and then in a review of this novel published in August 1906, London described The Jungle as a book of today, breathing truth, written with the blood of the heart, stressed that it depicts what the US is - a home of oppression and injustice, a hell for people, a jungle inhabited by savages. London called Sinclair's novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin of Wage Labor" and believed that it was written for the proletarians*.

* (P. Foner. Jack London: American Rebel, pp. 80-82.)

Now London himself has created a novel for the proletarians, in which he tried to combine a harsh description of the position of the working class at the beginning of the 20th century with showing the way and methods in which he would change his life, a story about how he would live, overthrowing the unjust system of exploitation and building a new society. .

The realist beginning, which received particular development in the work of London, starting from 1903, finds its vivid expression in this novel. In it, the romanticism of the author and his gift as a publicist were also expressed with no less force. It is difficult to find another book by the writer, where the features of his talent would be so vividly embodied and merged.

In The Iron Heel, London subjected American imperialism and the power of the monopolies to devastating criticism. He exposes the sweatshops of white slavery, the exploitation of women and children, and shows the appalling living conditions of the poor. London is convinced that the class struggle is an inevitable companion of the capitalist system.

Drawing on extensive documentary material, the writer exposes the class nature of bourgeois morality, the venality of the court, the practice of perjury used by him, and the complicity of the church. The novel denounces the vile policies practiced by the press and publishing houses of the United States, ridicules low-grade literature.

This work reflects the sore issues of the American labor movement. London exposes the methods of fighting the strikers - provocations, strike-breaking, the tactics of splitting the working-class movement, the desire of the capitalists to kindle a feeling of racial hatred. He ridicules the naive belief of the majority in the power of the ballot box.

Revealing the cunning mechanism of the capitalist state, the book convinces that the true rulers of America are the millionaires and monopolists Rockefellers, Harrimans and the like. And their power becomes limitless. The author shows that the United States is evolving towards an oligarchic system. The ousting and ruin of small competitors in industry and agriculture, the concentration of capital are leading to power a handful of monopolists - the Iron Heel.

The plot of the novel "The Iron Heel" is based on the idea developed by London in the article "The Question of the Maximum" (1898)*. The writer said there that as a result of the ever-increasing concentration of capital, two ways of further development of capitalism are possible: either it will be replaced by socialism, or the dictatorship of the industrial oligarchy will be established. The author emphasized the significance of the chances of the latter. It can triumph as a result of the mistakes and immaturity of the revolution, and if it wins, it can dominate for a number of generations.

* (A rough draft of the novel's concept, held in the Huntington Library, Pasadena, USA, begins with the words: "Oligarchy" see "The Question of the Maximum".)

Some observers and literary critics (in particular, F. Foner in his work "D. London - an American rebel") pointed out the book of W. Gent "Our beneficent feudalism", which sounded the alarm about the impending power of the plutocracy, as the source of London's plan. Ghent's book was reviewed by London in 1903 for the International Socialist Review*. However, as we can see, London spoke about the threat of a seizure of power by a handful of monopolists long before getting acquainted with Ghent's book. Ghent's work apparently helped the writer to clarify something in his views, perhaps from it he also learned some details - including those that are given in Meredith's notes and relate to the policy of the Iron Heel in relation to art.

* (London's review of Our Benevolent Feudalism was republished in the collection War of the Classes, which appeared a year before work began on Iron Heel.)

London's belief in the possibility of a tragic outcome for the destinies of the working class was based on the fact of the growing concentration of capital and the ever greater concentration of the country's wealth in the hands of a small handful. If by 1898, the time of the creation of the "Question of the maximum", the number of mergers of enterprises in the industry was as follows: 1896 - 3; 1897 - 6; 1898-18; then further the process becomes even more intense: 1899 - 78; 1900 - 23; 1901 -23; 1902 - 26; 1903 -8, etc. *.

* (L. I. Zubok. Essays on the history of the USA, p. 205.)

A handful of US billionaires concentrated enormous power in their hands and received the right to decisive influence on the state apparatus, took control of the police and the army, which they could use at any moment. At the beginning of the 20th century, these forces of the state apparatus were repeatedly used by the monopolists to combat the strike movement. London was convinced that the monopolists would use every means to suppress the movement of workers, their attempt to take power after the victory of the socialist candidates in the elections.

One of the characters in the novel, the representative of the Iron Heel - Wixon speaks most frankly about the vile plans of the monopolies. “In the roar of shells, in the screech of buckshot and the clicking of machine guns, you will hear our answer,” he threatens the socialist Ernest Everhard. “We will crush you revolutionaries with our heel, we will trample you into the ground.

The world belongs to us, we are its masters, and no one else can own it! .. And if you managed to win a victory, and even a decisive victory ... don’t you think that we will voluntarily give up power after it will you get in the elections?" *.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, pp. 79-80.)

The quoted statement by Wixon is taken from the chapter "The Philomath Club", which bears the main burden of the ideological concept of the novel*. It is a clash of two ideologies and tactics - socialist and capitalist.

* (Harry Pollitt, in an article on "The Iron Heel," named "The Philomath Club" chapter as his favorite chapter. "Challenge", 1955, No. 46.)

In the same chapter, through the lips of the protagonist Ernest Everhard, the foundations of the socialist program are outlined, which is further developed in the chapter "Mathematical immutability of a dream" and subsequent chapters of the novel. In the chapter "The Mathematical Immutability of the Dream", Evergard, in fact repeating some of the ideas of London's article "The Question of the Maximum", proves the inevitability of the death of capitalism.

London developed in the novel his own ideas about the beginning of the world socialist revolution. The impetus for the revolution, in his opinion, will be the economic factor - the complete division of the international market. The capitalist countries, deprived of the opportunity to sell their surplus goods abroad (the markets have been taken over by oligarchic America), do not know how to dispose of them. “These countries,” the novel says, “remained one thing - to radically rebuild their economy. The system of profits led them to a dead end ... Perestroika in these countries turned into a revolution ... Governments collapsed, centuries-old foundations overthrew. Capitalists, with the exception of two The three countries offered desperate resistance everywhere, but the militant proletariat took power away from them.Finally, Karl Marx's brilliant prediction came true: "The hour of capitalist private property is striking. The expropriators are being expropriated."* Revolutions are taking place in Germany, Italy, France, Australia, New Zealand. Governments of popular cooperation are being created in these countries. It is characteristic that in this era of upheavals and upheavals, London portrays the United States as a gendarme suppressing the revolutionary movement in Canada, Mexico , in Cuba.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, pp. 161-162.)

The writer shows that the workers who act as a united front are becoming a formidable force. The unanimous action of the working class of America and Germany prevents an imperialist war between their countries. The decisive role in this case is played by a general strike (such tactics were promoted in every way by the leader of the socialists, Yu. Debs. Subsequently, London will develop Debs's idea of ​​a general strike in the story Debs' Dream, 1909). But at the critical moment, the betrayal of the leading trade unions paralyzes the proletarian revolution in the USA; As a result of the opportunism and splitting tactics of the trade union leaders, the American proletarian movement is fragmented, which predetermines the triumph of the Iron Heel. In the novel, the author condemns the dogmatism and gullibility of the socialists, who lull themselves with the hope of a peaceful bloodless victory through elections that did not see the bestial essence of American monopolies.

The writer created in the novel "The Iron Heel" images of revolutionaries, new heroes who have already appeared in American reality. The image of the socialist Ernest Everhard, the bearer of the socialist ideology, was a new phenomenon not only in the work of London, but throughout American literature.

Even in the article "Revolution" the qualities inherent in revolutionaries were noted. "Revolutionaries are people of a warm heart," wrote London. "They cherish the rights of the individual, the interests of mankind"*. In the article "What Life Means to Me", published exactly one year later, the writer developed these ideas. “Socialists are revolutionaries who seek to destroy modern society in order to build a society of the future on its ruins. I was also a socialist and revolutionary,” he recalls of the beginning of his socialist activity. “I joined a group of revolutionary workers and intellectuals and for the first time joined the mental life ". Among them there were many brightly talented, outstanding people. Here I met strong and cheerful spirit, with callused hands, representatives of the working class ... "** (italics mine. - V. B.).

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 673.)

** (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 661.)

"Among the revolutionaries, I met an exalted faith in man, ardent devotion to ideals, the joy of selflessness, self-denial and martyrdom - everything that inspires the soul and directs it to new exploits. Life here was pure, noble, alive ... and I was glad that I live. I associated with people of warm hearts who valued a person, his soul and body above dollars and cents and who are more concerned about the cry of a hungry child than the chatter and hype about commercial expansion and world domination. I saw around me only noble impulses and heroic aspirations, and my days were the sunshine, and my nights the shining of the stars..."*. In the American literature of that time there was no other description of the activities of socialists and the characteristics of the noble profession of a revolutionary, made with such love, enthusiasm and inspiration.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 661.)

In The Iron Heel, London attempted to artistically recreate the images of people of a special warehouse, inspired by ardent devotion to ideals and great faith in man.

London's wrestling heroes, who previously fought nature and each other, in this novel came out against the social system. In the foreground, as in previous novels, there is only one hero, but now he is a fighter for the happiness of the working people, the leader of the working class.

This main character was Ernest Everhard, a socialist, a leader who emerged from the depths of the people. He was just one of those hard-working workers with calloused hands, one of those brightly talented, outstanding personalities, strong and cheerful in spirit, who represented the working class, whom London saw at socialist rallies and about whom he wrote with great respect in the article "What does it mean life for me."

The heroic muscles of Evergard stick out from under the thin cloth of his jacket, his neck is powerful and muscular, in the recent past he was a blacksmith, and even now he looks like a blacksmith. In build, this man resembles Bill Heywood, Big Bill, as the workers called him, one of the favorite leaders of the American proletariat.

Evergard is endowed with lofty faith in man, ardent devotion to ideals, readiness for self-denial and martyrdom - all that, according to the author, inspires the soul and directs it to new feats. "He gave his best years to our cause and died for it," London says of his hero*.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 14.)

In 1902, characterizing in the work "What to do?" tasks of the Social Democrats, V. I. Lenin wrote: "... the ideal of a Social Democrat should not be the secretary of the trade union, but the people's tribune ... who knows how to use every little thing to expound to everyone his socialist convictions and his democratic demands to explain to everyone and everyone the world-historical significance of the liberation struggle of the proletariat"*.

* (V. I. Lenin. Works, vol. 5, p. 393.)

It was precisely such a socialist that London portrayed in the novel The Iron Heel - a people's tribune, an inspired agitator and accuser, boldly setting out before everyone - before workers, intellectuals, businessmen - his socialist convictions, openly declaring the world-historical significance of the liberation struggle of the proletariat and its inevitable victory. In the work "What to do?"

B. I. Lenin emphasized that in order to bring political knowledge to the workers, the Social Democrats must go not only to the workers, but to “all classes of the population”*. That's what Everhard does. London did the same in its activities, traveling around various US cities with lectures on the class struggle, the labor movement and the coming revolution. The author put his own words into the hero's mouth, rewriting entire paragraphs from his speeches into the novel. Everhard repeats almost word for word the paragraph we quoted from the article "What Life Means to Me", in which the writer talked about what he "met" with the revolutionaries, having joined the socialist movement **. Everhard utters almost unchanged the threat to the ruling classes, fearlessly thrown by London in a speech, and then included in the article "Revolution".

* (V. I. Lenin. Works, vol. 5, p. 392.)

** (In The Iron Heel, the reader will find these words on p. 67 (Coll., vol. 5).)

“The army of twenty-five million revolutionaries*,” says Ernest, “is such a formidable force that the rulers and ruling classes have much to think about. The cry of this army: “There will be no mercy! We demand everything you own. You won't get away with anything less. All power and care for the fate of mankind are in our hands! Here are our hands! These are strong hands! The day will come when we will take away your power, your mansions and gilded luxury, and you will have to bend your back in the same way to earn a piece of bread, as a peasant in the field or a frail, hungry clerk in your cities oppresses her. Here are our hands! These are strong hands!"**.

* (Evergard pronounces his words in 1912. London in 1905 said: "The army of seven million ..." (see the article "Revolution", Works, vol. 5, p. 674). While working on the novel, the writer assumed that by 1912 the ranks of socialists throughout the world would increase to 25 million people.)

** (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 70.

The fact that London used entire paragraphs from his articles in The Iron Heel was also noted by other researchers. See, for example, the article by I. Badanova "The Book of Revolutionary Anger" ("Scientific notes of the Tashkent Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages", 1956, issue I).)

The Philomath Club chapter, which tells of Evergard's speech to the monopolists, largely reproduced Jack London's socialist speeches to businessmen (one of them took place in Stockton). The frankness of these speeches, fearlessness and revolutionary intransigence, direct threats to take power from the ruling class, solidarity with the Russians provoked in response the angry howl of the bourgeois press. Irving Stone writes about London's speech in Stockton and the reaction to it in the biography of Jack London: "... in conclusion of his speech, Jack shocked the Stockton businessmen with the statement that the Russian socialists who participated in the 1905 uprising and destroyed several high-ranking tsarist officials were his The listeners jumped up from their seats and stonewalled him. The next morning, screaming headlines carried the news across the country: "Jack London calls Russian murderers his brothers." newspapers shouted: "He is an instigator and a red anarchist, he must be arrested and tried for high treason." Jack stood his ground. The Russian revolutionaries were his brothers, and not a single soul would have forced him to renounce them "*.

* (I. Stone. Sailor on Horseback, p. 210.)

There were other clashes with representatives of the ruling class during his lecture tour. “Oh! When I return,” London wrote in a letter dated December 15, 1905, to the socialist Frederick Bamford, “I will have something to tell you about clashes with the owners of society.”*

* (G. L. Bamford. The Mystery of Jack London. Oakland, 1931, p. 199.)

Speech by Ernest Evergard at the Philomath Club,. sounds amazingly bold, and the whole chapter, which seems to be a figment of the imagination, is actually based on facts. The daughter of the writer also speaks about this. The scene at the Philomaths, according to Joan London, is an incident from the personal life of the author*.

* (Joan London. Jack London and His Times. N. Y., 1939, p. 307.)

Grain by grain London collected the image of Evergard, diverting the characteristic features from the real leaders of the labor movement. It is very likely that he also used some of the features of Eugene Debs, a fiery orator, a well-read and intelligent leader of the American proletariat.

The progressive American historian and literary scholar Philip Foner, in his work "Jack London - An American Rebel", cites Ernest Unterman's statement that Everhard was "composed" of three people: Jack London, Eugene Debs and Unterman himself*. London borrowed the name for his hero from his maternal cousin Ernest Everhard.

* (P. Foner. Jack London: American Rebel, pp. 89-90.)

One should not, of course, exaggerate the proximity of the hero of the novel to his prototypes. The image as a whole is the result of creative rethinking. He, as it were, concentrated in himself that ideal of a socialist, as he was drawn as a result of observations and life practice in the mind of the writer. Joan London is right when she says that "Ernest Everhard was such a revolutionary as Jack London himself would like to be" *.

* (Joan London. Jack London and His Times, p. 307.)

Everhard is the positive hero of London and the first image of the leader of the proletariat in American literature, drawn close-up, in relief, visibly, in all the grandeur of his appearance. The writer created the type of socialist and revolutionary that, in his opinion, was necessary to lead the maturing, but fragmented and influenced by trade unionists and opportunists, the labor movement in America. No writer in the United States had the artistic flair and courage to do it on such a scale and with such directness as London did.

E. Sinclair in the novel "The Jungle" only led his hero to socialism. And the socialist T. Dreiser, depicted. in the story "The Mayor and His Voters" (1903), he was not a revolutionary, his activities and views did not go beyond the economic struggle. The greatest American writer Dreiser, who began his career almost simultaneously with London, will make his first attempt to create the image of a revolutionary, leader of the workers, much later in play "The Girl in the Coffin" (1913), a positive hero - a communist will appear in his work in 1927-1928 in the story "Ernita". Before the Great October Socialist Revolution, Dreiser could not understand the doom of capitalism and see the proletariat as its gravedigger*.

* (See Ya. N. Zasursky. Theodor Dreiser - writer and publicist. Moscow State University, 1957, pp. 50-53, 153-158.)

The novel "The Iron Heel" owes much to the image of Everhard. It is this image, despite all the tragic events and bloody denouement, that gives the novel an optimistic coloring. Purposefulness, Evergard's firm belief in the indispensable triumph of the working class illuminate the novel with a bright light.

On the pages of the book, Ernest appears as a mature socialist. He clearly sees his goal and knows the way to it. The goal is the transformation of society, the destruction of exploitation. The way is to get a majority in the elections and take power. In case of resistance of the bourgeoisie, refusal to give up power peacefully and its attempts to forcefully prevent the transfer of power into the hands of the proletariat, it is necessary to respond with an armed uprising of the workers and all working people. Ernest turns out to be more perspicacious than his associates and knows how to correctly assess the situation. He tirelessly warns the party about the likelihood of resistance and the transition of the Iron Heel to the offensive, calls for vigilance and for arms.

In the image of Everhard, London draws a man richly gifted by nature, armed with deep knowledge, possessing an unbending will, courageous and selfless, selflessly devoted to the cause of the working class. The unbending character of the hero is evidence of the strength and capabilities of the working class, capable of nominating such outstanding leaders from among its ranks.

Ernest Everhard is armed with a materialistic understanding of history. This is revealed in the very first chapters, where he enters into an argument with representatives of the ruling class. He attacks the metaphysicians - that is what he calls the idealists - because they go from theory to facts. The scientist, according to Evergard, goes from facts to theory (Chapter I). The hero considers practice, verification by action, as the criterion of truth; he ridicules the subjective idealist Bishop Berkeley. Everhard's words, exposing the philosophizing churchman who claimed that matter does not exist, are full of annihilating sarcasm: "Berkeley, entering a room, always and invariably used the door, and did not climb right through the wall. Berkeley, valuing his life and preferring to act for sure, leaned on bread and butter, not to mention roast beef. When Berkeley shaved, he turned to the help of a razor, for he was convinced by experience that it cleanly removes the stubble from his face "*. It must be borne in mind that The Iron Heel was written in the second half of 1906, when, after the defeat of the Russian revolution of 1905, the reaction against Marxism and its philosophical foundations began, and the reactionaries came out with a broad preaching of clergy and mysticism. London gives a sharp rebuke to idealism, through the mouth of Everhard exposes the churchmen to crushing criticism.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 25.)

Ernest Everhard is shown in many ways: in the family and in public life. We see his irreconcilable hatred of the capitalists and boundless love for the common man - this is evidenced by his first conversations with Avis and the case with Jackson. The author shows the direct, open character of Ernest, his incorruptibility. He is an agitator addressing a crowd of workers on the street, and an angry accuser in conversation with representatives of the ruling classes, without hesitation throwing heavy accusations in their faces: "... the dress you wear is covered in the blood of the workers. The food you eat, seasoned with their blood. The blood of little children and strong men drips from this roof."*

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 40.)

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 116.)

He is an experienced and flexible leader. In the interests of the cause, Evergard knows how to maneuver and cunning when faced with representatives of the ruling class. Pretending to be a simpleton in order to be invited to the Philomath Club, he paints a picture of the bankruptcy of capitalism to the enraged businessmen. He knows that by bribery the capitalists are trying to steal the leaders from the proletariat. Ernest is deeply devoted to the cause of the working class: he refuses a profitable government position offered to him by plutocrats.

Education, breadth of outlook, the theory that he owns, and close connection with reality allow the hero to foresee the course of events: he correctly predicts the coming offensive of the Iron Heel. In his prediction, he relies on facts. Other leaders do not believe him, because they do not want to analyze the course of events of the present, and in their theories there is no place for the oligarchy, and therefore, in their opinion, there will not be one. So London condemns dogmatism, worship of theory to the detriment of practice, the real course-event, the substitution of formulas for a deep analysis of reality.

Evergard devotes himself to a great cause, realizing that "the profession of a revolutionary requires a person his whole life, and his path is full of dangers. He deliberately goes to self-restraint and deprivation. "I often bless fate," he says, I have families, although I dearly love children. If I married, I would not allow myself to have children "*. At the same time, this man is capable of strong love: no woman, according to Evis, was given such a tender and devoted spouse.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 51.)

The reader notices that the hero is outlined from different angles, that his appearance appears quite clearly in the mind, and yet he sees that the hero is not devoid of some schematism.

Evergard near London is given mature, we do not observe its spiritual growth. It remains the same throughout the whole work, and after all, a lot of time passes, grandiose events take place. The reader is a witness to the hero's attempts to influence reality, but the author did not notice the counter process - the influence of reality on the hero. The static image of Everhard involuntarily raises doubts about his vitality, leaves an imprint of schematism; does not save the situation and his well-lit personal life.

You need to be a great artist to understand the inevitability of the reverse process of the impact of reality on a person and its continuity, you need an in-depth analysis and a keen artistic flair. A person in his practice transforms not only nature, but also himself, a person is not free from the society in which he lives. These great propositions of Marxism reveal to the writer the secret of full-bloodedness, vitality of images. Somewhere here lies one of the directions of the influence of worldview on artistry, on the way of depicting the world.

Evergard's struggle is presented in the novel mainly by verbal skirmishes with representatives of the ruling class. In verbal duels, he wins. But his words are little supported by events and deeds. Moreover, as soon as the fight is transferred to the streets of cities, the hero loses. Evergard's statements are given too much space, thereby violating the proportions of the novel, in places it begins to resemble a political treatise. The main character is shown more in statements than in action. All this reduces the artistic merit of the novel, and hence the power of its impact as a work of art.

It is difficult to find among the works of London those where a woman would not actively participate. Often in his stories, she becomes the main character. Again and again the artist turns to the female image, even the titles of the stories testify to this: "The King's Wife", "The Courage of a Woman", "The Daughter of the Northern Lights", "Female Contempt", "What a Woman Can Do"; London devoted his first novel to the "daughter of the snows", and one of the last - to the "little mistress of the big house". Some of the early stories are a genuine hymn to woman. One of them, "Son of the Wolf", the writer meaningfully begins: "A man rarely understands how much a close woman means to him ..." *.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 1, p. 62.)

The ideal of London is a woman - a true friend and selfless helper of a man. More than once she sacrifices herself to save her husband. The images of Indian women are truly charming in their selflessness (Passuk in "The Courage of a Woman", Labiskwee in "What a Woman Can Do", Zarinka in "The Son of the Wolf"), the character of Frona Velz is attractive.

Evis Everhard - the heroine of the novel "The Iron Heel" - retains the best qualities of her predecessors: she has a lot of warmth and genuine, sincere feelings. She is smart and devoted, but her character also has new features. Her devotion to her husband does not arise from blind love for his manhood - strength, dexterity, intelligence, physical beauty, as happened before. She loves him for this, but, in addition, she is aware of the greatness and justice of Ernest's aspirations and becomes his comrade-in-arms. Her feeling is richer than the feelings of the previous heroines of London. In Evis' love for her husband and love for the "people of the abyss". Her feeling is humane and devoid of bourgeois individualism. We will see how London will stigmatize a woman infected with bourgeois morality and betraying her beloved in Martin Eden.

Jack London with daughters Bess and Joan

Having become a revolutionary, Evis did not lose her femininity and did not acquire "manly virtues", as often happens in novels, she did not lose her feminine attractiveness. Evis is direct, emotional, her feelings are artless. She dreams of bringing warmth and affection into her husband's life. She succeeds, and there is no limit to her joy.

The unity of purpose made the friendship of the two revolutionaries particularly complete. Evis does the tasks of the party, but she remains a woman, a wife. She embodies the London ideal of a woman - a female assistant and a devoted girlfriend to a man, that which complements it, as he wrote in "Son of the Wolf", without which a void is created in life that cannot be filled with anything.

Unlike the image of Ernest, the image of his girlfriend is given in development. In her mind, the foundations of bourgeois ideology are being destroyed, with the help of Evergard, she enters the path of revolutionary struggle. True, her path to socialism is facilitated by the writer, it is too straightforward, fast, undeveloped, and therefore not convincing enough. Avis's views change under the influence of several of Evergard's speeches and the Jackson incident. Let us note that Father Avis and Bishop Morehouse go through a similar "accelerated" path of re-education. London did not show all the complexity and difficulty of this path.

The writer briefly sketches in the novel another image of a revolutionary woman, who draws attention to herself by the fact that this is no longer a “London woman”, but a “special person”. We mean Anna Roylston.

This woman risks her life without hesitation, carries out the most important tasks of the organization. As a revolutionary, she worked miracles, she was even nicknamed the "Red Maiden". Anna enjoys great success with men, passionately loves children, is unusually beautiful, but she also does not want to think about marriage, because she believes that the family will prevent her from giving herself entirely to the common cause; Evis would not have had the strength to make such a sacrifice, she is a woman in the London sense of the word.

The prototypes for the image of a brave revolutionary to the writer were well-known figures of the socialist party. At the time when London's literary activity began and his views were formed, he was friends with Anna Strunskaya and Jeanne Roulston. Both of these women contributed to the development of the young writer. Prominent California socialist Austin Lewis claims that they were honest people, confident in their abilities. A high opinion of Strunskaya was given by Eugene Debs, who knew her.

* (A copy of a letter from Yu. Debs dated December 30, 1920, in which Anna Strunskaya is characterized, is stored in the Huntington Library (see Waiting "s papers).)

Jeanne Roulston was ten or twelve years older than London. An unusually strong character, integrity of the worldview, loyalty to her convictions are her distinguishing features. London subsequently often remembered Jeanne. The writer's daughter claims that he portrayed her in The Iron Heel under the name of Anna Roylston "The Red Maiden" *. Such a statement cannot be accepted unconditionally. Most likely, the writer synthesized and creatively rethought the images not only of both women he knew (it was no coincidence that he gave his heroine the name of one and, changing only the letter, the surname of the other), but also other revolutionaries of that era.

* (Joan London. Jack London and His Times, pp. 181-182.)

An important role in the novel is played by Anthony Meredith, the publisher of Evis Evergard's notes, fictional by London. It is he who prefaces them with detailed comments, evaluates the events, the views of the characters, corrects and supplements Evis, the author of the manuscript, explains the events and the meaning of some concepts to his contemporaries. The image of Anthony Meredith, of course, is somewhat peculiar - there can be no question of either his portrait or development, we have before us certain views of a positive character, a man of the future, created by the artist's imagination.

Meredith's assessments must, obviously, by virtue of the fact that they belong to a man of the future, inspire special confidence in the reader. The hero is not only enriched by the experience of subsequent historical epochs, but, no less significant, he lives in the "age of brotherhood", in an era when a new, perfect social formation dominates the earth, replacing capitalism entangled in contradictions and the era of domination that followed it. despotic oligarchy, and therefore he is the representative of a wise people, in contrast to the people of the controversial and cruel age of the contemporaries of London and Everhard.

The writer puts a number of important assessments into the mouth of Meredith. He owns the assertion made already on the first pages of the novel that there is no historical necessity for the coming to power of the Iron Heel and the reason for such a deviation from the normal historical development was the loss of revolutionary vigilance by the socialists. It was their mistakes that pushed back the victory of socialism for several centuries. By warning through Meredith of the threat of monopoly dictatorship, London is trying to alert the careless American socialist leaders, lulled by legends of peaceful electoral victory.

“There is no place for her in the natural course of social evolution,” says London about the Iron Heel, “her coming to power was not historically justified and necessary. We see in it some kind of monstrous anomaly, historical curiosity, an accident, an obsession, something unexpected and the unthinkable. Let this serve as a warning to those reckless politicians who talk so confidently about social processes" (italics mine. - V. B.)*. Warning against the danger threatening the working class and socialism, Meredith-London expresses the historically confirmed idea of ​​the possibility of turning a bourgeois republic into a terrorist dictatorship. Such foresight was of great importance at that time.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 11.)

“Seeing how with each new election campaign the number of votes cast for Debs increased,” the chairman of the US Communist Party, William Foster, characterized this time, “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 him - and the party ... would get a majority 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, understood this very well. In his To the "Iron Heel" he predicted in general terms the rise of fascism and the sharp struggle that would be required to overcome it. But such warning voices as the voice of London were drowned out by the voices of the opportunists, who were officially encouraged by the party "*.

* (W. Z. Foster. The decline of world capitalism. IL, M., 1951, p. 151.)

Meredith's statements are imbued with hatred for the capitalist society. He gives an assessment of society as a whole, characterizes its electoral system, the slave system of labor, the role of the church, lawlessness and the power of money tycoons, ridicules the naive belief in the power of the ballot box and stigmatizes the attempts of capitalists to play on racial feelings. The characteristics he gives to American society are definite and sharp: "People devoured each other like animals, while small predators became the prey of large ones" *, "in the conditions of the wolf struggle for existence, man was not sure of the future" **, the era of domination he calls capitalism "the time of wolf morals and habits"***, etc.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 46.)

** (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 52.)

*** (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 50.)

Meredith's comments also reflect the erroneous aspects of London's worldview. Let's give some examples. Briefly characterizing the age of the Everhards in the preface, Meredith-London writes: "History says that it was so, and biology and psychology tell us why"*. Meredith, or rather London, does not understand that it is not biology and psychology, but, ultimately, industrial relations, economics that explain the contradictions, delusions and atmosphere of the era. Obviously, agreeing with Marx in his view of the prospects for the development of society, with the position on the decisive role of production in its development (we see this from the statements of Everhard), London did not realize deeply enough ** the determining influence of the economy, the conditions of the material life of society on all aspects of human life and on public consciousness as well. The writer approached historical materialism, but the influence of bourgeois theories, especially Spencer's theories with his biological concept, played a negative role.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 10.)

** (In one of his letters of 1900 he correctly spoke of the decisive role of material and economic conditions. Later we will return to this statement of his (see p. 128).)

Elsewhere* Meredith approves of the tactics of individual terror and considers Evergard's organizational activity in this area to be the greatest merit.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 182.)

The novel "The Iron Heel" introduced new characters into the writer's work and therefore, in particular, was an important stage on the path of London as a novelist. If earlier the driving force of his heroes was the desire to get gold and thereby ensure happiness (in many Northern stories), love ("Daughter of the Snows"), the thirst for undivided power ("Sea Wolf"), the struggle for existence ("White Fang"), now the writer's heroes are inspired by a great goal - they fight, risk their lives, die in the name of the happiness of the working people. If the former heroes sought to change their position in life, but not life itself, then Ernest Everhard and his associates seek to change life. This quality of the heroes of London was new not only for his work, but for all American literature. It contained the germs of a new artistic method, the method of socialist realism.

Creating the "Iron Heel", London wrote a book about modernity and for contemporaries. Since it was supposed to be about the future, about the future revolution, the book inevitably became fantastic in form. And the writer did not want it to be perceived as the utopia of his predecessors. The Iron Heel, by the way, does not deal with Utopia, but with the Oligarchy," he noted in a letter to the publisher Brett *. London knew that by calling the novel a utopia, critics would cross out its relevance. Characterizing in the notes to the Iron Heel "the magical effect of words, the author threw a meaningful remark:" The brain of these people (contemporaries of London. - V. B.) was so clouded, such chaos reigned in their thoughts that one thrown word was enough to discredit the most sound conclusions in their eyes and generalizations, the fruits of the labors and searches of a lifetime. The word "utopia" then had such magical power. To pronounce it meant to cross out any economic doctrine, any theory of the transformation of society, no matter how reasonable it may be.

* (London speaks of this in a letter to Brett, October 16, 1906 (on file with the Huntington Library).)

** (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 67.)

London understood that, taking a fantastic form for the novel, he risks a lot. The main risk was that the book would not be taken seriously by the reader, and in order to avoid this danger, the writer brought it as close as possible to the present. He saturated the novel with the facts of living American reality, introduced a lot of references to contemporary authors and people widely known to the country.

You will find in the novel the names of Hearst, Rockefeller, Harriman, the just arrested labor leaders Moyer and Haywood *, you will find quotes from the statements of J. Debsag of President T. Roosevelt, the "mudraker" writer D. G. Phillips, references to writers H. Wells and A. Birsag, prominent California socialist O. Lewis, rector of Stanford University Jordan, etc.

* (See, for example: D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 192.)

The American literary scholar Sam S. Baskett, trying to prove that Jack London did not read Marx's Capital *, cites very interesting facts that indicate the writer's use in the Iron Heel of materials from the socialist weekly Socialist Voice, published in; Auckland. In 1905-1906 its publisher was William McDevitt, the candidate of the Socialist Party for Congress in 1906. Socialist candidate for governor California in the same 1906 was Austin Lewis. He worked for the Socialist Voice. Lewis is referred to in the novel by Everhard, and Meredith recommends him as one of the leading socialist figures of his time, the author of many books on philosophy and political economy**.

** (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 37.)

London knew both McDevitt and Lewis well, especially the latter; about him, in particular, in a letter to Clodesley Jones, he speaks of him as the best lecturer-historian in the West *. Joan London claims that Lewis had a noticeable influence on her father, knew and understood him better than others**.

* (Ch. London, v. 1, p. 289.)

** (Joan London. Jack London and His Times, p. 181.)

Comparing Lewis's weekly articles. and the pages describing Everhard's conversation with Bishop Morehouse, Baskett establishes the closeness of their content. Another article by Lewis, Baskett testifies, summarizes what happens to Morehouse in the book.

London also used other notes from the Socialist Voice in the novel, such as Meredith's account of the strikebreaker Farley on the railroad strikes in San Francisco. To Baskett's report, one can add Outlook Weekly. In one of his notes in the issue of August 18, 1906, it was said about a cripple worker who was mercilessly thrown out of the gate by entrepreneurs. Reported in the note completely coincides with the case of Jackson, described in the novel **. In the notes we find a number of references to various publications and authors of the late XIX - early XX century. The technique of using actual material helped London to bring the novel, fantastic in form, closer to modern reality.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 131.)

** (London himself wrote about this (see Works, vol. 5, p. 61).)

The writer spoke in detail about the methods used by capital in the struggle against the labor movement and the socialists. Here is the story of the explosion of a bomb thrown by a provocateur during Evergard's speech, vividly reminiscent of the explosion on Haymarket Square in 1886, and the massacres that followed. Here is the case of the leaders of the movement, Moyer and Heywood, fabricated to slow down the scope of the labor movement.

London shows how capital, which does not disdain anything, uses strikebreakers, "black hundreds" to fight the revolution. Describing the "Black Hundreds" created in America, the writer relies on the facts of the Russian revolution. He also borrowed some elements from the tactics of the Russian revolutionaries, in particular, the organization of combat groups to kill agents of the Iron Heel*.

* (London himself says in the novel that Russian experience was used in the organization of battle groups by the American revolutionaries (see Soch., vol. 5, p. 181).)

The exploits of the revolutionaries in the novel and the methods of conspiracy may have been inspired by the world-famous exploits of Russian revolutionaries and the novels "The Gadfly" by E. Voynich and "Andrei Kozhukhov" by S. M. Stepnyak-Kravchinsky, with which the author was familiar*.

* (London's letter to A. Strunskaya dated March 10, 1900 contains a confession that he groaned and cried at night, reading E. Voynich's "The Gadfly". The fact that the plot of Stepnyak-Kravchinsky's novel "Andrei Kozhukhov" was known to London, A. Strunskaya wrote in a letter to the author of these lines.)

But the Russian revolution was not only the source from which London drew details for the novel, it generally had an impact on the entire concept of the novel. The bloody reprisals of the tsarist government against the insurgent people convinced the writer of the fragility of hopes for a peaceful transfer of power to the working people, he was confirmed in the idea of ​​the inevitability of an armed uprising *. Joan London, not without reason, stated that "without 1905 the Iron Heel would never have been written" **.

* (“The brutal suppression of the Russian Revolution of 1905,” writes the American progressive historian and literary critic Philip Foner, “convinced him that the socialists would face a brutal and violent struggle by capitalists who set out to maintain their power” (P. Foner. Jack London: American Rebel, p. 88).)

** (Joan London. Jack London and His Times, p. 280.)

With the novel, London emphasized the inevitability of armed struggle and prepared the US socialists for it. “Today, dove, we were defeated,” says Evergard on the penultimate page of the novel, “but this is not for long. We have learned a lot. Tomorrow, enriched with new wisdom and experience, the great cause will be reborn again” *. Thus, the book once again opens up an optimistic perspective. We remember that Meredith's preface emphasized the accidental nature of the triumph of the Iron Heel and hinted at the possibility of another move. With the whole system of the novel, London tried to show that if the socialists had heeded Everhard's warnings and followed his course towards armed struggle, victory would have been assured.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 252.)

In an attempt to shake up the self-complacent socialists, the writer did not stint on the depiction of the horrors that accompany the defeat of the workers. He showed the defeat of several uprisings, the innumerable victims - retribution for mistakes. He even postponed the victory of the working people for a huge period - 300 years, in order to aggravate the shuddering pictures of retribution for dogmatism and gullibility.

Even before the collapse of the uprising, Evergard outlined to Evis his extremely gloomy forecast for the future, the so-called "scheme of gradual social development"*, he foresaw the success of the tactics pursued by the oligarchs to split the proletariat, bribing certain sections of it. A split in the labor movement, he suggested, would enable the Iron Heel to maintain and consolidate power. An era similar to the slave-owning era will come: there will be no strikes, there will only be slave riots. The victory of the proletariat will be pushed back into the distant future. It is significant that Meredith, who is especially trusted by the reader, approves of Everhard's forecast, and in the novel everything happens exactly according to this scheme. And, therefore, it was not excluded that the reader, who became acquainted with the novel "The Iron Heel", might have doubts about the possibility of a general transfer of power into the hands of the proletariat at any time, especially since the defeat of the revolution in the novel was shown in full detail, and the final triumph the working case was not depicted, it was only reported. All this made the book contradictory, leaving an imprint of pessimism.

* (D. London. Works, vol. 5, p. 167.)

Another fact should be added to what has been said: having extensively shown the power of the monopolists and their ability to drown the uprising of the working people in blood, London paid less attention to depicting the possibilities of the proletariat in the struggle for their rights. The role of the working class in the uprising is shown in a clearly distorted way. In the statements of Everhard there is an unshakable faith in the power of the proletariat and its inevitability. victory, but the scenes of the novel depicting the participation of the masses in the uprising do not confirm the confidence he expressed.

Instead of an organized working class, the pages of the book are "people of the abyss" ("the beast from the abyss", as Avis calls it) - a dull, faceless mass, awakened by wine and blood. In the chapter "Chicago Uprising" this wild, brutal crowd rushes from one end of the city to the other, exterminated by dagger fire from machine guns. She interferes with the fighting groups of revolutionaries and dies - this is her role in the novel. In the plan of the uprising developed by the revolutionaries, the "people of the abyss" appear as a danger and a hindrance, and not as an active force. To avoid catastrophe after their intervention in the course of the uprising, it is planned to pit them against the police and their mercenaries in the expectation that while they destroy each other in a bloody battle, the socialists will be busy with the revolution. The revolution, therefore, is carried out by a group of revolutionaries.

Thus, the limitations of London's views on the role of the masses in the revolution are revealed, which reflected the inconsistency and theoretical backwardness of the US labor and socialist movement of that time.

However, despite the author's well-known limited view of the role of the masses in the revolution and other shortcomings, The Iron Heel was a new and striking phenomenon in American literature. She fulfilled her goal - to warn peaceful socialists. London painted an unforgettable image of the revolutionary and his comrades-in-arms, artistically attesting to the appearance of the revolutionary in American reality. The novel is the ideological pinnacle in the writer's work.

Anatole France, in the preface to the first edition of The Iron Heel in French, rightly wrote: “In 1907, Jack London was shouted:“ You are a terrible pessimist. ”Sincere socialists accused him of bringing confusion to the ranks of the party. They were wrong "He who possesses the rare gift of clear foresight should speak out loud about his fears. The Great Jaurès, I remember, used to say more than once: "We do not know enough about the strength of the classes against which we are fighting..." And he was right, as right Jack London, showing us in the prophetic mirror where errors and delusions will lead us.

* (A. France. Collected works in 8 volumes, vol. 8. Goslitizdat, M., 1960, pp. 758-759.)

In carrying out his plan to warn the socialists, the writer, as already mentioned, did not stop at depicting the horrors of defeat. It was significant that, in contrast to the utopian theories of "social evolution" put forward in the novels of Bellamy and Howells, London faced the truth, boldly spoke about the difficulties that await socialists on the way to transforming the capitalist system into a socialist one. He urged to be ready for armed struggle.

The specificity of the task set by the author also determined the specificity of the form. It was necessary to invest in the book a large and sharp material, as comprehensive as possible a critique of the basic vices of capitalism, outline the prospects for the development of the labor movement, give descriptions of armed battles, and, most importantly, all this together should have served as an exciting warning, the main thing is that the book should impress and, once read, it would be impossible to forget. The writer had a huge factual material collected over a decade of active participation in the labor movement, he himself was deeply convinced of the correctness of his views and hoped to convey them to the reader.

London was not going to engage in constructing the image of the future society - this has already been done repeatedly in the novels of his predecessors: Bellamy, Howells and others; he wanted to talk about a much more urgent matter - about the process of transition to a new society, because he knew that this could become a matter of the near future and that the point of view of supporters of peaceful evolution prevails here. The enormous material of today, not yet settled, still pulsing with all the juices of life, had to be put into the form of a book. The pile of materials included sociology, politics, economics, philosophy, history - all this had to be refracted through the prism of the future and conveyed through the fates and actions of people.

The book was cast in a peculiar form: figurativeness combined with publicism, the story of the fate of the heroes - with the presentation of political and social doctrines. Everything was united by pathos, great passion with which the story was told. Not all ideas were conveyed by the author in figurative form - otherwise they would have been enough for a dozen novels. The case of Jackson is a topic for a novel, the history of the evolution of Bishop Morehouse's worldview is also material for a whole book, the preparation and conduct of an uprising is material for a cycle of novels, and Evergard's revelations, his criticism of certain aspects of capitalist America - this is another series of topics for a comprehensive artistic study of explicit and hidden processes taking place in society. London collected all this wealth of ideas in one novel, which could not but leave an imprint on its form. The book can be attributed to the category of novels not only social, but also political.

I. M. Badanova in the article "The Book of Revolutionary Anger" correctly notes that "The Iron Heel" is a work of a completely peculiar genre. This is an artistic and publicistic novel.

* (I. M. Badanova. Book of revolutionary anger (About D. London's novel "The Iron Heel"). "Scientific notes of the Tashkent Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages", 1956, issue I, p. 157.)

The "Iron Heel" must be approached with this measure, considering it as a work specific in form.

Badanova correctly, in our opinion, noticed the fact that the novel is divided into two parts. "There is very little action in the first nine of the twenty-five chapters ... The second half of the book is saturated with action. The utopian element prevails here (more correctly, fantastic. - V. B.). But both parts are closely interconnected. Everything about it is said in the first part that it is only declared there, in the second part of the novel the artist brings it to its logical conclusion..."*.

* (I. M. Badanova. The book of revolutionary anger. Ibid., pp. 157-158.)

"The Iron Heel" was greeted with interest by readers, aroused heated debate and conflicting press reviews. In her memoirs, Georgia Bamford writes how London was reading a novel to a large audience: “He read two chapters from his book, and almost every phrase met with exclamations of approval ... When the reading was over, a crowd gathered around the reader and disputes ensued”*.

* (G. Bamford. The Mystery of Jack London, p. 134.)

The bourgeois press, realizing the danger of London's book, tried either to hush it up, or to focus its attention on its existing and non-existent artistic shortcomings. The magazine "Carent Litrachur" called the "London method" hysterical, contrasted it with the method of Flaubert and Edgar Allan Poe, tried to bring the "Iron Heel" beyond the limits of art *. The novel met, as one would expect, conflicting reviews of the socialists. By whether he was evaluated positively or negatively, one could unmistakably judge the revolutionary nature of the views of this person.

The "Iron Heel" was highly appreciated by Y. Debs and W. Heywood. They, as F. Foner writes, believed that the lessons taught in the novel should be taken into account by the socialist movement*. "This is a great book," wrote a columnist for the Indianapolis News, "one that should be read and pondered . . . it contains a great lesson and a most impressive warning."**

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

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

Periodicals such as Dyle, Arena, The Independent, Outlook published disapproving reviews of the novel. The Dyle wrote of its harmful effect on "unbalanced minds"*. "Arena", calling the "Iron Heel" one of the greatest creations of London, spoke of the "harm" inflicted by it on the "people's cause" **. The opinion of opportunistic socialists, counting on the reformist development of capitalism into socialism, against whom, in fact, the novel was directed, was expressed by John Spargo, who published an article in the International Socialist Review ***.

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

** ("Arena", 1908, XXXIX, Apr., pp. 503-505.)

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

Expressing his disagreement with those who welcomed London's novel, Spargo stated that by discrediting the hope of victory through elections and orienting towards a violent path, the author alienates those who are needed by the socialist movement, and thereby weakens it.

In attacking the novel, the socialists - supporters of the peaceful path - used as a target for their attacks some of its weaknesses, in particular, pessimistic tones *.

* (Joan London. Jack London and His Times, p. 310.)

However, despite the silence, the attacks of bourgeois criticism and opportunists, the popularity of the novel "Iron Heel" grew, it crossed the borders of America. As the English Daily Worker wrote, shortly after its appearance, the novel became a textbook for radical youth in England, a reference book for hundreds of agitators throughout the country*. It retained its significance even half a century later.

* ("Daily Worker" (Lnd.), 11. VIII 1955.)

In November 1955, the British youth newspaper "Challinge" published an article by the chairman of the executive committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Harry Podlit, about the "Iron Heel". It is important to note that with the article by G. Podlit, the newspaper began publishing a series of articles propagandizing the largest works of socialist literature. Pollit highly praised London's novel and recommended it to young people. "The circumstance," he wrote, "that I read The Iron Heel as a young man, greatly contributed to the strengthening of my faith in socialism and the working class, to the fact that this faith became unshakable"*. The author of the article quotes Evergard's words about the life revealed to him when he tied his fate with the fate of the working class - the very words that the writer conveyed to the hero from his article "What Life Means to Me"**. Pollit recalls the energy with which he distributed this book in his youth, and in conclusion of the article characterizes it as follows: "I am sure it will make you look at things differently, help you understand what the capitalists are up to now in your country , it will explain a lot of what has been happening in recent years in the United States of America...

* ("Challenge", 19, X 1955, No. 46.)

** (Quoted on p. 81. See also p. 82.)

And you will feel an irresistible desire to fight, no matter what the danger, it will instill in your soul great faith in the people with whom you work and with whom you stand in solidarity.

But most importantly, the book will help you become such a socialist that no one can ever destroy your faith in the most wonderful idea that has ever inspired humanity - the idea of ​​​​socialism.

* ("Challenge", 19. X 1955, No. 46.)

It should be emphasized that the British Communists again and again turn to The Iron Heel as a source of socialist ideas, a book educating a revolutionary worldview. "One of the great socialist books" recently called it William Gallagher*.

* (W. Gallacher. The Story of Jack the Rebel. "Daily Worker" (Lnd.), 3 III 1960.)

We have already given an assessment of the "Iron Heel" by W. Foster. In 1924, A. Lunacharsky classified London's novel as "the first work of genuine socialist literature"*. The Iron Heel is the most revolutionary book in American literature," F. Foner wrote in 1947**. And to this day no novel has appeared in America that would surpass London's book in this capacity.

* (A. V. Lunacharsky. The history of Western European literature in its most important moments, vol. 2. Gosizdat, M., 1924, p. 188.)

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

The "iron heel", which warned against the danger of fascism, played its positive role at the dawn of the development of the American revolutionary proletarian movement. But it has survived the era of its creation and has not lost its value in our days, when monopolies again and again, after periods of calm, strive for power. In the mid-1950s, during the rampage of McCarthyism, Foster wrote with concern about the fate of his homeland: “The threat of fascism in the United States has never been as great as it is today ... Strong democratic traditions in the United States are not in themselves insurmountable an obstacle to fascism... It is necessary to bring to the consciousness of the workers what horrors of terror, deprivation and destruction are connected with the threat of fascism in our country"*.

* (W. Z. Foster. The Strengthening of Fascist Tendencies in the USA. Kommunist, 1955, No. 1, p. 91.)

It is characteristic that during these years American public figures, referring to the "Iron Heel", emphasized in it a warning against the danger of a fascist dictatorship. The strength of the book, according to contemporary American literary scholar Walter Rideout, "is contained in the second half, where London shows in detail and convincingly that this can happen here" *.

* (W. Rideout. The Radical Novel in the United States. Cambridge, 1956, p. 45.)

Progressive publishers periodically reprint London's novel. It helps shape the revolutionary consciousness of the American working class and the workers of other countries*. It contributes to the awakening of political consciousness. And one can predict the growth of the popularity of this book in the USA as America enters the broad road of revolutionary struggle against the dominance of the Iron Heel of monopolies.

* (Even during the lifetime of London, The Iron Heel was printed in Europe and New Zealand.)

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 Robinlodge.

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

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

Earth Theatre! We are shame and grief -

Pictures of familiar carousel ...

But be patient, you'll find out soon

Crazy Drama meaning and purpose!

CHAPTER FIRST. MY EAGLE

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.