"Iron heel"

The novel "The Iron Heel" is not only one of the most significant works of Jack London, but also one of the most radical, politically acute works of all American literature of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Like such journalistic works as “Revolution”, “How I Became a Socialist”, “The Iron Heel” was written under the direct influence of the American labor movement, under the influence of the intensification of the class struggle in those years. This novel reflected most forcefully the writer’s socialist views, his conviction in the harmfulness of capitalist society and its inevitable death and deep faith in a better future for humanity, in the inevitable advent 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 labor 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 class struggle, that it reflected the most significant contradictions of the era of imperialism - the contradictions between labor and capital, between workers and capitalists.

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

As the contradictions within capitalist society intensified and the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie intensified, writers could not stay away from the most important issues of reality. From different positions, from different angles of view, but they had to express their attitude towards the labor movement. Bernard Shaw and Herbert Wells in England, E. Zola, A. France, R. Rolland in France, Gorky in Russia - all these writers at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century wrote works on the theme of the labor movement and class struggle.

Jack London was not the pioneer of this topic in the United States of America. Long before him, some writers tried to address the lives 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 everyday life of American workers in industrial enterprises. Rebecca Harding Davis can be considered an early forerunner of the realistic movement in American literature.

Having appeared in literature in the early 60s, she created several stories and novels, the best of which is considered “Margaret Howe”.

The themes of R. G. Davis's work were predominantly social. She wrote about the exploitation of workers in American industrial enterprises and the slavery of blacks. Her story “Life in the Iron Mills” speaks of the bleak fate of workers.

Gloomy gloomy city. Smoke slowly rising from the tall chimneys of iron foundries and settling on wet pavements in puddles of thick black slurry. Soot penetrating everywhere. Lines of workers slowly walking 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 the description of the unbearably difficult living conditions of the workers. A low, damp basement with an earthen floor covered in slippery green mold. Stale, 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 - smelter Hugh Wolf.

He remembers his hungry childhood and the incessant backbreaking work that began for him so early that it sometimes seems to him as if he had been working for centuries. And he sees no glimmer of hope that this will ever end. Forced labor is a curse for people; it sucks all the juice out of them, reducing them to the level of animals. Meanwhile, Hugh Wolf is a gifted person, capable of understanding and appreciating beauty. In his free moments, he sculpts figures that amaze with their strange beauty.

The writer contrasts the world of poverty and need with the world of wealth. Confident, well-dressed people live in this world; they seem to Hugh Wolf to be creatures of a higher order. The conflict that arises between these worlds leads Hugh to a tragic end. Sentenced to nineteen years of hard labor for a theft he did not commit, Hugh Wolf commits suicide.

In its focus, the story by 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 in the Foundries" is imbued with the spirit of protest against capitalist exploitation. It was written before civil war in the United States. This confirms that serious class contradictions, contradictions between workers and capitalists, existed even then, although American bourgeois historians are trying to refute this.

The weak point of Life in the Foundries is its inherent motif of sacrifice. The author portrays the workers as a passive mass, incapable of resistance. Hugh Wolf is an unfortunate sufferer, not a fighter for his rights. He is a martyr and a victim of an accident.

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 whom Hugh Wolf suffered, from the dirty, smoky city to the expanse of fields and meadows, to the Quaker meeting house. There she finds peace and “brotherly love.”

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

A novelist and sociologist, Edward Bellamy has always paid great attention to social issues. The writer's attitude to modern life and his proposals for the reconstruction 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. Characterizing the economic situation of the United States in the 70s and 80s, Bellamy emphasizes that “beginning with the great industrial crisis of 1873, strikes almost never ceased in various industrial districts” *.

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

From the perspective of small and middle bourgeoisie Bellamy criticizes “big capital” and its concentration in individual hands. According to him, until the end of the 19th century there were only small enterprises with insignificant capital, and then the workers were supposedly 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 XIX century it was impossible to find an enterprise in any branch of industry without large capital."

* (Ibid., page 12.)

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

* (Ibid., page 40.)

Having painted a picture of the social disorder of his time, the writer moves on to describe the future society. Bellamy does not recognize the revolutionary development of society. He is a proponent of evolution, in which change occurs peacefully, without violence.

The transition from the old system to the new is carried out 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 Bellamy's new society, there are no wars and political parties, the fear of poverty and the pursuit of luxury are eliminated, money and trade are eliminated. All citizens are required to work from the age of twenty-one until the age of forty-five. Everyone chooses a specialty according to their taste. Bellamy's new system preserves the state, headed by the president.

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

Both Rebecca Harding Davis and Edward Bellamy certainly sympathized with the plight of workers in the United States of America. But these writers sought to smooth out the contradictions between labor and capital. They spoke out strongly 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.

William Dean Howell also held this point of view at one time. 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 scandals and excesses among the plutocrats.

In the 80s, 90s and 900s, Howells's "rosy optimism" was somewhat shaken. A number of works written by him at this time discuss issues related to the existing social injustice. Thus, in “The Possibility of New Fortune” * he portrayed in an unattractive light the financier Dryfus, whose despotism suppresses people. In 1893, the first of his utopian novels was published - “The Traveler from Altruria” ** - in which the writer, although he tried to smooth out the rough edges, 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 is absent in the United States, that many social issues do not find their solution.

The writer observes with great concern the aggravation of contradictions between the world of wealth and the poor classes. He challenges the opinion of the ideologists of the American bourgeoisie who speak out in defense of the existing order. But, like Davis and Bellamy, he argues that there is no need for class struggle, that the transition from one system to another must occur peacefully, without the use of force. In the spirit of Christian humility, he preaches “universal love” and rejects revolutionary methods of struggle as an unacceptable means of violence for him.

This issue was resolved in the same plane in I. Donnelly’s book “Caesar’s Column” (1890) *. Describing in a fantastic form the uprising of the world proletariat against the oligarchy that cruelly exploited it, the author concluded that the revolution would lead to the destruction of human society and the destruction of civilization. In his opinion, 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 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, becomes interested in the teachings of socialism, goes to work at a metallurgical plant and takes part in a strike. But the strike is suppressed, and the workers unfairly blame the hero for its collapse. Blair is disappointed in the strike struggle and leaves the city, deciding to devote his energies to peaceful political activities.

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

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

In 1905, at the height of the class struggle in the United States, LeRoy Scott's novel The Accidental Delegate was published. The novel dealt with the important issue of trade union leadership. The history of the trade union movement in the United States has always provided and continues to provide numerous examples of the blackest, most vile betrayal on the part of trade union leaders. While American workers courageously fought against the capitalists, the trade union leadership entered into a direct deal with them and betrayed the interests of the working people. The image of such a 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 advantage of the novel is that it recreates a very expressive picture of the corruption and division that is corroding American trade unions, shows the mechanics of elections in them, and talks about the secret connections that exist between corrupt bosses and their capitalist masters.

The author portrays the workers with great sympathy. Scott's workers are not at all like the downtrodden, oppressed workers of 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 typical shortcomings inherent in most works by American writers written on a work topic. The workers in Scott's novel are engaged in an exclusively economic struggle. They have no political demands, and they do not think of making them. Leroy Scott has a negative attitude towards any kind of violence. One of the reasons he condemned Beck 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 “lawful”, “legal” methods of struggle. Tom Keating has the opportunity to expose the entrepreneur Baxter, but does not do this, as it seems to him, in order to win the strike.

A sentimental current is visible in the novel, which is especially evident in love and family scenes. The writer is also prone to melodramatic effects. But considering weak sides 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 a lot for the development of 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 19th century. In numerous novels, stories, and articles, he criticizes bourgeois society, denounces businessmanship and the 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 dead end into which modern civilization had found itself. Therefore, over the years, his gloomy, depressing mood intensified, and a bitter awareness of the meaninglessness of life grew. Some of Twain's works, created in the 900s, are imbued with hopeless pessimism and gloomy despair ("What is Man", "The Mysterious Stranger").

Hamlin Garland wrote about the plight of American farmers, their difficult life(collections of stories “Main Roads” (1891) and “Prairie People” (1898). But he did not touch upon the labor theme and did not raise the question of the liquidation of bourgeois society.

Norris wrote the previously mentioned novel “Octopus” about the exploitation of farmers by monopolies and about the resistance offered to capitalists. Norris was the most radical of this group of writers. But he did not draw a conclusion about the need for a revolutionary struggle. Recognizing that evil exists in society, he replaced the class struggle with the struggle of elemental cosmic forces, which ultimately 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 and truthfully spoke 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 who did not raise the question of changing the existing system.

Theodore Dreiser turned to the depiction of 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 strikebreakers. It creates a background against which the fate of the heroes is depicted, emphasizing the presence of acute contradictions in the country, but the life and struggle of the workers are not the main theme of "Sister Carrie".

Jack London's great merit 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 who was confident in the need for a revolutionary change in this society and the creation of a new, better social system in its place. The writer’s connection with the workers’ and socialist movements and the Russian revolutionary events of 1905 contributed to the fact that the theme of the struggle between labor and capital became one of the main ones in his work. Already in "People of the Abyss" he showed the appalling living conditions of English workers.

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

In the novel "The Iron Heel" these views find their further development and artistic embodiment.

The novel was completed in 1906. However, editors and publishers refused to publish it. The book was published only in 1908. Bourgeois criticism greeted the appearance of the novel with sharp hostility. Reviews appeared in editorial newspapers and magazines, which spoke about the “decline of the writer’s talent,” “about socialist propaganda,” “a thankless topic,” etc. “The Iron Heel” did not meet with sympathy in some so-called “socialist circles.” London's book seemed dangerous to the “socialists,” and they were hostile to its appearance.

In this regard, London wrote with bitterness: “Even the socialists, even my own brethren, 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.

In order to obtain super-profits, American capitalists mercilessly exploit the labor of children. Everhard points out that there are three million child workers in the country. The novel exposes the “myth of “democracy” and “freedom” supposedly taking place in the United States. In fact, the capitalists are in complete control of the state. They create governments, dictate their laws, control the courts. The capitalist press creates the so-called “public opinion.”

The arbitrariness of monopolists reigns everywhere. The Jackson case is an example of this. Worker Jackson, due to lack of labor protection at the factory, lost his arm while working. He was subsequently 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 trial, with the foremen of the factory where Jackson worked, with journalists, with entrepreneurs. Some of them say that Jackson should have received benefits for his injury, but then fearfully stipulate that this is their personal opinion. Accidents constantly occur in factories, but entrepreneurs always nullify workers' claims and do not pay them.

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

Avis Kenningham tries to report the Jackson case to the press. But newspapers and magazines refuse to print her note.

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

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

The character of Bishop Morehouse plays an important role in the book. 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 Evergard 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 is faced with a sea of ​​poverty and misery that he could not even imagine. What is he doing? Morehouse is not like other official representatives of religion, who in most cases pursue selfish, selfish goals. He has a conscience, he has his own convictions. He sets himself the task of resurrecting the original spirit christian church, its simplicity and selflessness.

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 its servants. The bishop is first declared ill and persuaded to go on long leave. Then he ends up in a psychiatric hospital. And finally, he, an absolutely healthy person, is declared crazy and sent to a hospital for the insane.

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

The heroine's father, John Kenningham, a prominent physicist, begins to become interested in sociology. However, this professor’s hobby was perceived as “dangerous eccentricity.” Keningham is offered a long leave with pay, if only he leaves the university for a while. But since the professor does not turn away from the path he has chosen, the reaction begins to take decisive action against him. A book he wrote about the education system in America is banned. Kenlingham is expelled from the university, his house and his shares are taken away. The professor turns into an outcast, a pariah, a person who earns his living by doing odd jobs.

His fate once again reminds us of how dependent “pure science” is 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 pressing events of our time, he wrote the novel "The Jungle".

The story of his book is well known. In 1904, Sinclair traveled to Chicago and for two months, in the most attentive manner, became acquainted with the activities of the famous slaughterhouses. And starting from 1905, he already published parts of his novel in the socialist weekly “Call to Reason.” The Jungle was published as a separate book in 1906.

"The 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. Using the material of the life of meat industry workers, he wanted to analyze the situation of American workers in general, their living conditions, relationships with foremen, with owners, etc. He wanted to explain to himself and others the reasons for the alarming situation in the country, the sharp intensification 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 drawn by the desire to understand the current crisis, to understand, to penetrate to 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, Leningrad, 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 occasionally and do not play any significant role in the development of the action. The main role in the novel belongs to the workers, and primarily to Jurgis. Jurgis is a new image for the writer, and, I must say, an image that was successful for him. The fate of Jurgis is instructive not only in itself, but also as an example for many. It is enough to recall such episodes of the novel as the deception of 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 kind of fraud turns out to be selling a house that they lose after paying three-quarters of the price for it. Arriving in America, Jurgis gets a job in a Chicago slaughterhouse. And here Sinclair gives a detailed account of this huge enterprise, which was the largest monopolist in the production of meat products in the country.

Bourgeois readers were at one time shocked by Sinclair's sensational revelations. Buyers had no idea that they had to buy meat from tubercular bulls and lard from pigs that had died of cholera. They did not know that agents of the owners of Chicago slaughterhouses specifically looked for old or sick cattle, then the animals were fed with malt, and their meat was turned into “flavored beef” and canned meat was prepared. Buyers never thought that due to accidents, workers sometimes fell into huge vats in which meat was cooked.

Sinclair's indisputable merit was the exposure of the monstrous crimes that took place in the Chicago slaughterhouses. But his task was by no means limited to this. The book talks about horrific working conditions and the impossible life of workers.

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

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

Jurgis’s son, one and a half year old Antonas, also dies, drowning in the mud on the street due to lack of supervision.

Jurgis and those close to him went to America full of great hopes and expectations. They thought about a more prosperous life, about happiness. And what they found there was the cruelest exploitation, a brutal struggle for existence, lies, deception, betrayal. The fates of the book's heroes are striking in their tragedy.

Jurgis experiences many misfortunes and ordeals: the death of loved ones, imprisonment, wanderings as a vagabond. 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 strikebreaker. Each profession reveals to Jurgis some new aspects of life and 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 “The Jungle” lacks conclusions and generalizations are hardly right. There are conclusions in the book. They are that workers in the United States live and work in unbearable conditions, are subjected to brutal exploitation, have no rights, that they are deceived by politicians, all kinds of businessmen and crooks. And at the same time, there are a handful of people in the country living in palaces, bathing in luxury, indulging in madness.

These conclusions arise not only after reading “The Jungle”, they are made by the author himself at the end of the book. Moreover, speaking about the insolvency of the capitalist system, he also offers a means to get rid of it, he calls on everyone to join the ranks of socialists who will create a new society.

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

Note that E. Sinclair's socialism does not permit the violent destruction of bourgeois society. This is peaceful socialism, allowing for the possibility of victory by voting for socialist lists in elections, after which the working class will take the reins of power into their own hands and put an end to private property for the means of production.

As already mentioned, the writer in his theory and practice did not go beyond the framework of “socialism of feelings”; he did not recognize the revolutionary transformation of life, which was influenced by the theories circulating among American socialists.

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

The writer was able to show that monopolists use forms of bourgeois democracy only until the moment it is profitable for them. When the working people achieve victory in the elections, the monopolists switch to open dictatorship: they establish the most severe terror in the country and pour blood on 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, troops and police shoot people, disperse political parties, and imprison the leaders of the proletariat.

London also showed other methods of struggle that capitalists resort to. They give part of their super-profits to the labor aristocracy and try to split the labor movement. Their faithful servants are opportunists who betray the cause of the working class.

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

Even in his journalistic articles, London warned that the ruling classes, faced with economic crises and a growing labor movement, would try to “curb the masses.” “This has been done before,” he wrote. “Why not do it again... In 1871, the soldiers of the economic rulers almost completely 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. The leading figure of the American Communist Party, William Foster, 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 formal legal, parliamentary nature as in all other socialist parties. Seeing As the number of votes cast for Debs increased with each new election campaign, many party members began to believe that in just a few years the question would be directly asked at the polls - for or against socialism - and the party, the increase in the number of supporters of which would be expressed in a kind of geometric progression, will receive a majority of votes in the elections. This, they thought, will solve all the problems, and socialism will be easily established.

This was naive political opportunism. Jack London, for all his weaknesses, understood this perfectly. In "The Iron Heel" he predicted in general terms the emergence of fascism and the intense 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 such warning voices as London's were isolated phenomena. They were drowned out by the voices of opportunists, whom the party officially encouraged."

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

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

In struggle is the meaning of the present and the future. Only through 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 path to socialism. The novel indicates that the dominance of the Iron Heel will contribute to America's political backwardness.

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

In The Iron Heel, London creates a fundamentally new image of a positive hero in the person of Ernest Everhard.

Ernest Everhard's life was given to the revolution. A hereditary proletarian, he was already working in a factory when he was ten years old. Then he served as a blacksmith's assistant and became a blacksmith himself. Everhard worked hard to educate himself. He devotes his energy, abilities and knowledge to serving the working people. Everhard becomes an organizer and propagandist among the workers. The workers send him as their deputy to Congress, and there he defends their rights. When armed struggle begins between the workers and the Iron Heel, Evergard becomes one of the leaders leading the masses. The monopolists imprison him, but from there he leads the preparations for an armed uprising. His activity ceases only with death. Pursuing a policy of brutal terror, the Iron Heel orders his agents to kill Evergard, 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 exploitative capitalist society for the establishment of a new, socialist system.

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

The political life of the United States did not provide 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 main character.

The connection with Russian revolutionary events is also visible in other places in the book. For example, when 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 name given to the gangs of thugs that the autocracy, doomed to death, organized to fight the Russian revolution. These gangs attacked the revolutionaries, and also committed outrages and robbed in order to give the authorities a reason to use the Cossacks” ( XXIII, 134).

Elsewhere, London says that with the onset of the Iron Heel terror, American socialists were forced to go underground. They began organizing combat groups into which the bravest, most devoted comrades of the revolution joined. And here follows the author’s note: “When 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 sociology. Jack London shares his thoughts on modern society, class struggle, social revolution, philosophy, politics, etc.

The main task he set in “The Iron Heel” was to create a broad historical canvas, to paint a picture of his own and future era.

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

Against the background of this struggle, representatives of two warring camps are highlighted. 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 a detailed description of individual characters. They interest him not so much as individuals, but as representatives of the exploiting class.

The writer shows their cruelty, unscrupulousness, their temperament as beasts of prey. American reality is equally realistically depicted in the novel: the tyranny and dominance of monopolists and the plight of the masses. Here the author draws on a large amount of factual and documentary material, and he manages to create a vivid and memorable picture.

"The Iron Heel" is written in the form of a memoir by Avis Everhard, wife of Ernst Everhard. Her notes were discovered by scientists after the victory of the socialist system - several centuries after the events described. Complete with commentaries, they were published in the form of a book about the distant past. This form gives grounds to talk about the utopian nature of the novel. On the one hand, “The Iron Heel” is a realistic work, a novel about contemporary American reality in London, correctly depicting the prospects for the development of fascism in the USA. But, on the other hand, where the writer talks about the future class struggle, this is a utopian novel.

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

Along with the first-person narrative, London resorts to original artistic technique allowing him to express his own attitude to the events described.

He introduces into the fabric of the novel the image of Anthony Meredith, a historian of the era of socialism. The foreword and comments to The Iron Heel were written on behalf of Meredith. Their significance lies in the fact that they carry a large ideological and artistic load, complement and largely explain the events in the novel.

Hiding behind a fictitious publisher, through his lips 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 troubles 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 people of the new, socialist society. Thus, characterizing the era of the dominance of capitalist monopolies, he calls this time a “terrible era”, which is difficult for people of the new, reasonable century to understand.

Some of the writer’s statements indicate the further evolution of his worldview.

In one of his comments, London speaks as follows about Friedrich Nietzsche, who previously influenced him: “Friedrich Nietzsche lived in the 19th century of the Christian era; a demoniac philosopher who, in moments of insight, saw bizarre glimpses of truth, but, having bypassed the entire prescribed circle of human thought, became philosophical complete madness."

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

It cannot be argued that the picture painted by the writer in “The Iron Heel” is correct in all respects. The book does not show the organized struggle of the working masses under the leadership 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 was not entirely successful in portraying the revolutionary camp. Revolutionaries are presented to him as anarchists and terrorists, acting separately from the people.

However, these errors are largely explained by the historical characteristics of the theoretically weak American labor movement, in the mainstream of which the writer walked. This was not only the fate of London. Bernard Shaw in England, Anatole France in France and many other writers abroad, 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 had moved, where there was a real proletarian party that consistently pursued the 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 works of socialist realism were first created.

Overall, when assessing The Iron Heel, one should recognize it as the writer’s greatest achievement. We believe that in this novel, for the first time in US literature, the tendencies of socialist realism appeared. Distinguished by its great sharpness, eloquence, and 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. At the same time, the writer here expressed confidence in the impending victory of the socialist system.

Both in 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 terms of 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 critical realism in the USA, but also as one of the predecessors of socialist realism.

Bourgeois criticism was not slow to attack the writer. The Diel critic declared that "such books have a harmful influence on unbalanced minds, the number of which is unfortunately increasing."

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

The Independent columnist concluded the article with the words that "the semi-barbarians to whom such literature appeals may destroy our culture, for they have never laid a single brick towards the creation of 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 little commendable, and as a socialist treatise it is completely unconvincing.”

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

However, the bourgeois critics were surpassed in their abuse of London's book by the American socialist leaders. One of them, John Spargo, wrote in the International Socialist Review: “The picture he (London - V.B.) has created seems to me deliberate to alienate many whose support we so need; it gives a new stimulus 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., page 96.)

A critic from Arena spoke in the same spirit. “Speculations about 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 said, “that the ruling classes did not leave without a fight. The capitalists control the 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 capitalist states. Here is how one of the leading figures in the international labor movement, Harry Pollitt, speaks of it: “... how grateful and indebted I am to Jack London for a book that has left such an indelible mark on my mind. Not many works awaken such feelings. London’s book belongs to them number. He wrote a lot, I read all his books with great interest, but “The Iron Heel” is the best, it will outlive everything he wrote. I recommend it to young people. I am sure it will make you look at things differently and help you understand. what the capitalists are currently up to in your country, it will explain a lot of what is happening behind last years in the United States of America. And you will feel an uncontrollable desire to fight, regardless of any danger, it will instill in your soul great faith in the people with whom you work and with whom you stand in solidarity. But most importantly: the book will help you become such a socialist that no one will ever be able to destroy your faith in the most wonderful idea that has ever inspired humanity - the idea of ​​socialism."

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

The notes of Avis Evergard 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. Avis Everhard did not have the necessary historical perspective. What she wrote about concerned her too closely. Moreover, she was in the thick of the events described.

And yet, as a human document, the Everhard Manuscript is of great interest to us, although even here the matter is not without one-sided judgments and assessments born of the passion of love. We pass these misconceptions with a smile and forgive Avis Everhard the enthusiasm with which she speaks about 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 believed. He belonged to a large army of heroes who selflessly served the cause of the world revolution. True, Everhard had his own special merits in developing 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 let's return to the memoirs. Their greatest merit is that they resurrect for us the atmosphere of that terrible era. Nowhere will we find such a vivid depiction 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 errors, their violent passions and unclean thoughts, their monstrous selfishness. It is difficult for us, in our reasonable age, to understand this. History claims that this was so, and biology and psychology explain to us why. But neither history, nor biology, nor psychology can resurrect this world for us. We admit its existence in the past, but it remains alien to us, we do not understand it.

This understanding arises in us when reading the Everhard Manuscript. We seem to merge with the characters in this world drama, living through their thoughts and feelings. And we not only understand the love of Avis Evergard for her heroic companion - we feel, together with Evergard 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 advancing on humanity, threatening to crush it.

By the way, we learn that the creator of the term “Iron Heel”, which has become established in literature, was Ernest Everhard - an interesting discovery that sheds light on an issue that has long remained controversial. The name “Iron Heel” was believed to have first appeared in the pamphlet “You Are Slaves!” by the little-known journalist George Milford, published in December 1912. No other information about George Milford has reached us, and only the Everhard 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 election campaign speeches in the fall of 1912. Everhard himself, as the manuscript tells us, first used it at a dinner with a private person back in the spring of 1912. This date should be recognized as the original one.

For the historian and philosopher, the victory of the oligarchy will forever remain an insoluble mystery. The alternation of historical eras is determined by the laws of social evolution. These eras were historically inevitable. Their arrival could be predicted with the same certainty with which an astronomer calculates the movements of the stars. These are legitimate stages of evolution. Primitive communism, slave society, serfdom and wage labor were necessary steps social development. But it would be ridiculous to say that the dominance of the Iron Heel was an equally necessary step. We are now inclined to consider this period an accidental deviation or retreat to the cruel times of tyrannical social autocracy, which at the dawn of history was as natural as the triumph of the Iron Heel subsequently became illegal.

Feudalism left a bad memory, but this system was historically necessary. After the collapse of such a powerful centralized state as the Roman Empire, the onset of the era of feudalism was inevitable. But the same cannot be said about the Iron Heel. There is no place for it in the natural course of social evolution. Her rise to power was not historically justified or necessary. It 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 rash politicians who talk so confidently about social processes.

Capitalism was considered by sociologists of those times to be the culmination point of the bourgeois state, the ripened fruit bourgeois revolution, and in our time we can only join this definition. After capitalism, socialism was supposed to come; This was stated even by such outstanding representatives of the hostile camp as Herbert Spencer. They expected that from the ruins of selfish capitalism, a flower nurtured over centuries would grow - the brotherhood of man. But instead, to our surprise and horror, and even more so to the surprise and horror of the contemporaries of these events, capitalism, ripe for collapse, gave rise to another monstrous escape - 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, imprinted 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 overthrowing it would take several years. They understood that the Peasant Revolt arose contrary to their plans, and the First broke out prematurely. But no one expected that the Second Uprising, well prepared and fully matured, was doomed to the same failure and even more brutal defeat.

Obviously, Avis Evergard wrote her notes in the days preceding the Second Uprising, there is not a word in them 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, preparing to flee or in anticipation of arrest, she hid the notes in the hollow of an old oak tree at Wake Robinlodge.

The further fate of Avis Evergard is unknown. In all likelihood, she was executed by mercenaries, and during the Iron Heel, no one kept records of the victims of numerous executions. One thing is certain: hiding the manuscript in a hiding place and preparing to escape, Avis Evergard did not suspect what a terrible defeat the Second Uprising suffered. She could not foresee that the tortuous and hard way social development will 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 wins victory throughout the world. It never occurred to her that her notes, a tribute to her love for Ernest Everhard, would lie for seven long centuries in the hollow of an ancient oak tree in Wake Robinlodge, undisturbed by anyone's hand.

Earth Theater! We feel shame and grief -

Pictures of familiar carousels...

But be patient, you'll find out soon

Crazy Drama meaning and purpose!

A light summer breeze rustles in the mighty sequoias, the playful Savage incessantly murmurs between the mossy stones. Butterflies flicker in the bright rays of the sun; the air is filled with the drowsy hum of bees. There is silence and calm all around, and only I am oppressed by thoughts and anxiety. The serene silence breaks my soul. How deceptive she is! Everything is hidden and silent, but this is the calm before the storm. I strain my ears and catch her approach with my whole being. If only it didn't break out too early. Woe, woe, if it breaks out too soon!

“The Iron Heel,” a work of art in which London’s socialist views were most clearly manifested, is not included in the list of the writer’s “top” works. The name of London is more likely to be associated with “White Fang”, “The 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 convinced 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.

Novel in creative writing

"Iron Heel", like another pretty famous novel London "Martin Eden" turned out to be misunderstood by most readers. The consistent debunking of the myth of the “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 them.

And most publications involved in the distribution of “adventure fiction” in London simply ignored the appearance of the novel.

In our opinion, the reasons for the relative failure of the novel, which, without a doubt, was conceived not only as a contribution to the utopian genre, but also as a way of “promoting socialist ideas to the masses,” partly lie 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 Avis Everhart date back to 1912 - 1932.

In essence, 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 precisely this part, replete with gloomy descriptions of the social hell into which the working class was sinking deeper and deeper through the efforts of capitalists, that forms the so-called “dystopian” component of the work. But the novel also has a second utopian layer, represented by the comments of the historian Anthony Meredith, who lives in the 27th century, in the era of emerging 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

Dividing 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 represent literary embodiments of different theories about social development.

The metaphor of utopia is aimed at the future and rather serves a propaganda function in relation to the reader. A classic example of a utopian novel of the late 19th century is the bestseller of that time, “Looking Back: 2000-1887” by E. Bellamy.

Specifics of the Anglo-American literary situation at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. was that dystopia during this period, in contrast to the progressive genre of utopia, tended toward conservatism. It embodied public concern about the future, which was guessed from current social processes. The dystopian was afraid of all sorts of risks that could accompany the change and development of society. Dystopia at that time was a kind of defense mechanism against potential changes in the social environment.

Dystopia at that time was a kind of defense mechanism against potential changes in the social environment. This goal was achieved through the creation of satires on contemporary social movements, as well as on previous utopian works.

This goal was achieved through the creation of satires on contemporary social movements, as well as on previous utopian works. The most popular dystopias of that time include the following works: “Caesar’s Column. History of the 20th century” by I. Donnelly; “The Time Machine” and “When the Sleeper Awakens” by H. 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, by its genre definition, utopia was intended to describe “ ideal society", the end of human history, the end point of social progress. For its part, socialism was a designation of the same ideal state of human society, devoid of any shortcomings. This correspondence of form and content was found in the time period indicated above.

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

The dystopian (dystopian) component of The Iron Heel

The “Iron Heel” was created directly under the impression of unsuccessful revolutionary events 1905 in Russia. According to London's daughter, Joan, the defeat that the Russian revolutionaries suffered in 1905 did not in the eyes of London weaken the idea that the revolution was real, but only convinced him that it was necessary to act in a violent way rather than diplomatically.

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

dulled by constant unbearably hard work and hunger, were unpleasant to modern London readers, 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 very insignificant. As an example of the power of influence of the descriptions of London, we can cite an excerpt from an argument 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.

- Absolutely none, except for the fact that the dress you are wearing is spattered with blood. The food you eat is flavored with blood. The blood of small children and strong men flows from this ceiling. As soon as I close my eyes, I can clearly hear how it fills everything around me, 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 under literary fiction. For example, it is believed that the events of the final episodes of the novel (the description of the defeat of the uprising organized by Ernest, his arrest and the death of many of his comrades) were directly inspired by real events. Namely, in 1886, a whole series of strikes took place in the United States, starting with the Haymarket uprising in Chicago. During this uprising, a bomb exploded in the ranks of the police, called to pacify the protesters. The leaders of the uprising were sentenced to death penalty, a few years later their innocence was proven, and the explosion was considered a provocation undertaken against the dissatisfied.

The descriptions of the "social abyss" in The Iron Heel are supported by explanations of the reasons for the creation of such plight of the working class. These explanations are given through the mouth of the main character, Ernest Everhart, to whom Jack London “gave” almost all of his ideas expressed in his journalistic essays (“Revolution and Other Essays”; “War of the Classes”).

It is worth noting that the utopia genre, as a rule, presupposes the presence of a stranger character who finds himself in 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 will be that the stranger is not the main character 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 explanatory character was given to the main character, Ernest Evergart.

As an argument of extreme necessity 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 technique”, 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. On this background final scenes The novel - pictures of the suppression of a 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, taking the reader through terrible pictures of social reality, equipped with popular scientific sociological explanations, London paints, in truth, a colossal picture of the defeat of the uprising, the life’s work 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

Gloomy, oppressive descriptions of the social ills of the working class and the unbearably difficult 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 the 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 historical events, given from the perspective of the science of the “Era of Universal Brotherhood”; comments regarding certain realities of the historical time described in the novel (data from the point of view of a person of the 27th century); finally, a not very large group of comments are those that relate to the position of the narrator.

This layer of text practically does not give the reader any idea of ​​life in the 27th century, it only states. And his arrival and the events described in the manuscript are separated by another seven centuries of revolutionary struggle. Not much can be gleaned from the commentator’s notes: the society of the 27th century has overcome almost all the shortcomings of modern society, getting rid of not only social vices, but also the base aspirations imposed by the capitalist structure of the economy. To Meredith, many of the modern realities in the novel seem savage and barbaric. And base human aspirations, which played a prominent role in the 20th century, were preserved only as echoes of distant, outdated instincts, briefly manifested in the behavior of small children of the 27th century.

Most likely, this arrangement of emphasis 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 his arrival. In this spirit, the already mentioned utopia of E. Bellamy “Looking Back: 2000-1887” was created. Knowing the enormous popularity of this work among contemporaries, it is very difficult to imagine that Jack London himself was not familiar with this book.

After reading the article, you, like many of London’s contemporaries, might be left with a feeling of bewilderment. Why, being a convinced socialist who advocated the strict need for social reforms, offer the reader such a controversial novel? The gloomy episodes of “The Iron Heel” could well outweigh the optimistic fact of stating the advent of socialism in the eyes of the reading public.

It is extremely difficult to answer this question, or try to somehow justify the genre duality of the novel. Perhaps Jack London, like his hero, foresaw what a colossal amount of time would have to 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, but even from the circles of idealistic revolutionaries, would agree to sacrifice their strength and lives for the sake of a vague result, which 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; it is as if he is making concessions to himself and, in the end, still wins a happy ending for all humanity. In support of this point of view, we can cite a fragment from a letter to Claudsley Jones (one of the first devoted readers and admirers of London with whom he began to correspond) dated 1900: “I would like to live under socialism, although I realize that socialism does not is the next step; I know that capitalism must first have its day.

First the world must be squeezed to the limit, first there must be a life-and-death struggle between nations, more cruel, more intense and more widespread than before. I would prefer to 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 overcome all his childhood illnesses in order to become a man...” ■

Alina Zakharova

"Iron heel". Social activity

Back in the 90s, before he began writing, London spoke about 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 “Class Struggle” (1903), based on the materials of his lecture, and then in the preface to the collection “Class War” (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 leans towards the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism (the article “Reasons for the great success of socialists in the elections in the United States in 1904”), but already in 1905 he again asserts that the workers will take power by force. The Russian Revolution of 1905 reinforced his belief in the inevitability of armed conflict (preface to the collection "War of Classes", article "Revolution", 1905). In the article “Revolution,” written based on materials from 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 declared the approach of a world revolution.

Referring to 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 this, they act by peaceful means, casting ballots in the ballot box. This is not allowed, and if violence is used against them, they themselves resort to violence. They respond to rage with rage.

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

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

From some remarks made by young London, it can be judged that he did not consider socialism to be an ideal system. He believed that, by providing enormous economic advantages over capitalism, socialism would create conditions for the rapid development of certain related 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 survival of the fittest, which he, following H. Spencer, transferred 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 taking power will destroy the advantages of the strong, thus ending the struggle between the strong and the weak for food and shelter. And for London the question remained open of what would stimulate human improvement when the law of natural selection lost its force (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 new system. In numerous speeches and articles, he calls for an active struggle for the removal of the means of production from the hands of capitalists and their transfer to the ownership of workers, for the construction of a socialist society. He dreamed of living under socialism*.

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

Many years later, in 1911, explaining what socialism is, London calls it “the new economic and political system, through which more people are provided with food. In short, socialism is improved food production.

In addition, under socialism not only will it be much easier to obtain food and it will be obtained in larger quantities, but also a more equitable distribution will be established. Socialism promises in time to give all men, women and children food according to their needs, to give them the opportunity in abundance to eat whatever they want, as often as they want."*

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

The writer considered the decisive condition for the victory of the proletariat in the brutal class struggle to be the unification of the working people. Their strength lies in their organization. “And it is here,” he writes on August 25, 1905, in an address to the Central Labor Council of Alameda County, “that I want to draw attention to something that you all know, but which is so important that it must be constantly instilled.” 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 acted as a representative of the left wing of the American socialist movement, led by Yu. Debs.

London does not abandon its socialist activities even while traveling on the yacht "Snark" (1907-1909). In the ports where the Snark stopped, he holds conversations about socialism and enters into disputes with sailors and loaders. Despite his serious illness, he finds the strength to write an article for a Sydney newspaper in which he sets 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 sharply rebuffed the attempt of some leaders of the socialist movement (Spargo, Hilquit, etc.) to remove revolutionary slogans and reorganize the party, practically merging with the American Federation of Labor. In an unpublished response to English Walling, a well-known socialist and publicist at the time, London writes that he is a hopeless revolutionary and an opponent of compromise and will always stand firmly for keeping the Socialist Party revolutionary. Any compromise similar to the proposed merger with the American Federation of Labor would, in his opinion, given time suicide. He is convinced that if the socialist movement in the USA follows an 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 J. Debs. Replying to Walling’s letter, J. 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 indicated letter from London dated November 30, 1909 is in the Huntington Library (Pasadena, USA). There is also a copy of Yu. Debs’ reply.)

London has been interested in the development of the socialist movement all his life. Among the papers left after his death, there are clippings of articles he collected on the situation of workers in the USA, articles by Yu. Debs, B. Heywood, and leaders of various trends. Among the authors are W. Lippmann, P. Kropotkin, E. Bernstein, W. Gent. Until the end of his life, in the London library, 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 an American edition, equipped with a brilliant preface and appendix, written by Engels specifically for this edition and providing an analysis of the development of the labor movement in the USA.

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

“Russian universities,” London declared on March 20, 1905, in a speech delivered at the University of California, “are now seething with the revolutionary spirit. And I tell you: university students and students, full of the vitality of men and women, this is a Cause worthy of your romantic impulses. Wake up? Respond to his call!

* (A leaflet announcing an evening at the Ruskin 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.)

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

London is monitoring the development of revolutionary events in Russia. Speaking to a wide audience, he calls the Russian revolutionaries who killed tsarist officials his brothers. Reactionary newspapers unleash a barrage of threats against the writer, demanding that he retract what he said, but London continues to stand its ground. The writer is bullied, looking for any excuse for bullying, accused of immorality. The cities of Pittsburgh and Derby even remove his books from libraries, and London continues to be active in revolutionary activities and 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 city's streets, London proposes to gather in defiance of the ban. He himself is ready to be arrested in order to organize public opinion around the blatant fact of the arrest of the famous writer and achieve the lifting of the ban imposed by the mayor.

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

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

He realized long ago that “socialism is the only way out for the proletariat”*; Having ceased to be a proletarian and become 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 "The Sea Wolf" and "White Fang" the action and 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 London's turn in artistic creativity to the reality of the United States. The American theme began to interest him back in 1903 (the stories “Local Color” and “An Amateur Evening”), but now this interest is becoming central. In 1905, his story “The Game,” dedicated to boxers, was published, followed by the collection “Stories of the Fishing Patrol,” based on the memories of his youth, when he spent a significant part of his time on the San Francisco Bay. In 1907, a collection of stories, “The Road,” written partly in 1906, was published, reflecting the vagabond period of London’s life. In it he poses social problems. In 1906, one of the writer’s most famous stories, “The Renegade,” was published, dedicated to the problem of child labor.

The writer's fame, despite the evil howl of the bourgeois press, and partly thanks to it, is growing. Current Literature magazine noted in May 1907 that London had become the most widely read and discussed American writer.

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

The writer’s strengthening connection with the labor movement and active participation in it brought to life the novel “The Iron Heel.” It began in August and was 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, is dedicated to the coming revolution in America and is a courageous act of a writer-citizen. At the same time, it testified to the evolution of London's artistic method.

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

In a letter to the publisher containing a request to publish 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, and emphasized that it depicts what the USA 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" 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 situation of the working class at the beginning of the 20th century with showing the path and methods by 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 realistic principle, which received special development in the work of London, starting from 1903, finds its vivid expression in this novel. The author’s romanticism and his gift as a publicist were reflected in it with no less force. It is difficult to find another book by a writer where the features of his talent are so vividly embodied and merged.

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

Drawing on extensive documentary material, the writer exposes the class nature of bourgeois morality, the corruption of the court, its practice of false testimony and the complicity of the church. The novel condemns the vile politics practiced by the US press and publishing houses and ridicules low-quality literature.

This work reflects the pressing issues of the American labor movement. London exposes the methods of combating strikers - provocations, strikebreaking, tactics of splitting the labor movement, the desire of capitalists to incite feelings 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 real 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, lead a handful of monopolists to power - the Iron Heel.

The plot of the novel “The Iron Heel” is based on an idea developed by London in his 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 an industrial oligarchy will be established. The author emphasized the significance of the latter's chances. It can triumph as a result of the mistakes and immaturity of the revolution, and in case of victory, it can dominate for a number of generations.

* (Rough outlines of the novel’s concept, stored in the Huntington Library (Pasadena, USA), begin with the words: “Oligarchy” see “The Question of the Maximum.”)

Some observers and literary scholars (in particular, F. Foner in his work “D. London - American Rebel”) pointed out W. Ghent’s book “Our Beneficent Feudalism” as the source of London’s plan, which sounded the alarm about the impending power of plutocracy. Ghent's book was reviewed in London in 1903 for the International Soulist Review*. However, as we see, London spoke about the threat of a seizure of power by a handful of monopolists long before becoming acquainted with Ghent’s book. Ghent's work, apparently, helped the writer clarify something in his views, perhaps from it he also gleaned some details - including those given in Meredith's notes and relating to the Iron Heel policy in relation to art.

* (London’s second review of the book “Our Benevolent Feudalism” was published in the collection “War of the Classes,” which appeared a year before work on “The Iron Heel” began.)

London's conviction in the possibility of a tragic outcome for the fate of the working class was based on the fact of the growing concentration of capital and the increasing concentration of the country's wealth in the hands of a small handful. If by 1898, the time of the creation of the “Maximum Question,” the number of mergers of enterprises in industry was as follows: 1896 - 3; 1897 - 6; 1898-18; then 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 United States, p. 205.)

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

One of the characters in the novel, a representative of the Iron Heel, Wixon, speaks most openly about the vile plans of the monopolies. “In the roar of shells, in the squeal of grapeshot and the clicking of machine guns, you will hear our answer,” he threatens the socialist Ernest Everhard. “We, the revolutionaries, will crush you under 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 even 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 it in the elections?"*.

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

The above statement by Wixon is taken from the chapter “The Philomath Club”, which bears the main load of the ideological concept of the novel*. In it there is a clash of two ideologies and tactics - socialist and capitalist.

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

In the same chapter, through the mouth of the protagonist Ernest Everhard, the foundations of the socialist program are set out, which are further developed in the chapter “The Mathematical Immutability of Dreams” and subsequent chapters of the novel. In the chapter “The Mathematical Immutability of Dreams,” Everhard, actually repeating some ideas in London’s article “The Question of the Maximum,” proves the inevitability of the death of capitalism.

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

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

The writer shows that workers acting as a united front become 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 the general strike (such tactics were strongly promoted by the socialist leader J. Debs. Subsequently, London would develop Debs’ idea of ​​a general strike in the story “Debs’s Dream,” 1909). But at a critical moment, the betrayal of the leading trade unions paralyzes the proletarian revolution in the United States; As a result of the opportunism and splitting tactics of the trade union leaders, the American proletarian movement turns out to be fragmented, which predetermines the triumph of the Iron Heel. In the novel, the author condemns the dogmatism and gullibility of socialists, who lull themselves with the hope of a peaceful, bloodless victory through elections that did not discern the bestial essence of the 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 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,” London wrote. “They value individual rights and the interests of humanity.”* In the article “What Life Means to Me,” published exactly a year later, the writer developed these ideas. “Socialists are revolutionaries seeking to destroy modern society in order to build the society of the future on its ruins. I, too, was a socialist and revolutionary,” he recalls the beginning of his socialist activities. “I joined a group of revolutionary workers and intellectuals and for the first time became involved in intellectual life Among them there were many brightly talented, outstanding people. Here I met strong and cheerful in spirit, with calloused 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 found a sublime 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, lively... and I was glad, that I live. I communicated with people of a warm heart who valued man, 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 trade expansion and world dominion. I saw around me only noble impulses and. heroic aspirations, and my days were the radiance of the sun, and my nights the radiance of the stars..."*. In American literature of that time there was no other description of the activities of socialists and the noble profession of a revolutionary made with such love, delight 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 kind, inspired by ardent devotion to ideals and great faith in man.

London's heroic fighters, who had previously fought with nature and each other, in this novel opposed 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 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."

Evergard's heroic muscles bulge 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. This man's build resembles that of Bill Haywood, Big Bill, as the workers called him, one of the favorite leaders of the American proletariat.

Everhard is endowed with sublime 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 exploits. “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 a people’s tribune... who knows how to use every little detail to express his socialist convictions and his democratic demands to explain to everyone the world-historical significance of the liberation struggle of the proletariat"*.

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

It is precisely this kind of socialist that London portrayed in the novel "The Iron Heel" - a people's tribune, an inspired agitator and denouncer, boldly expounding to everyone - to 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, Social Democrats must go not only to the workers, but “to all classes of the population”*. That's what Evergard does. London did the same in his activities, traveling around various cities in the United States with lectures on the class struggle, the labor movement and the coming revolution. The author also put his own words into the hero’s mouth, rewriting entire paragraphs from his speeches into the novel. Everhard almost word for word repeats the paragraph we quoted from the article “What Life Means to Me,” in which the writer talked about what he “met” with the revolutionaries when he joined the socialist movement**. Everhard also pronounces, almost unchanged, the threat to the ruling classes fearlessly posed 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 page 67 (Works, vol. 5).)

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

* (Everhard pronounces his words in 1912. London in 1905 said: “An army of seven million...” (see article “Revolution.” Works, vol. 5, p. 674). While working on the novel, the writer assumed that by 1912 the ranks of socialists around 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 noted by other researchers. See, for example, the article by I. Badanova “The Book of Revolutionary Anger” (“Scientific Notes of the Tashkent pedagogical institute foreign languages", 1956, issue I).)

The chapter “The Philomath Club,” which talks about Everhard’s speech to monopolists, largely reproduced Jack London’s socialist speeches to businessmen (one of which took place in Stockton). The frankness of these speeches, fearlessness and revolutionary intransigence, direct threats to take away power from the ruling class, solidarity with the Russians evoked an angry howl from the bourgeois press in response. Irving Stone writes about London’s speech in Stockton and the reaction to it in his biography of Jack London: “... at the conclusion of his speech, Jack shocked the Stockton businessmen with the statement that the Russian socialists who took part in the 1905 uprising and destroyed several high-ranking tsarist officials were his brothers! The listeners jumped up and obstructed him. The next morning, screaming headlines spread the news throughout 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 treason.” Jack stood his ground. The Russian revolutionaries were his brothers, and not a single soul would force 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 masters of society.”*

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

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

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

London pieced together the image of Everhard, diverting characteristic features from the actual leaders of the labor movement. It is very likely that he also used some of the features of Eugene Debs, a fiery orator, well-read and intelligent leader of the American proletariat.

The progressive American historian and literary critic Philip Foner, in his work “Jack London - 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 closeness of the hero of the novel to his prototypes. The image as a whole is the result of creative rethinking. He seemed to have concentrated in himself the ideal of a socialist, as he was depicted 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 as revolutionary as Jack London himself would have liked to be.”*

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

Everhard is a 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 was, in his opinion, necessary to lead the maturing, but fragmented and under the influence of trade unionists and opportunists, the labor movement of America. No US writer had the artistic flair and courage to do this 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), was not a revolutionary, his activities and views did not go beyond the framework of economic struggle. The greatest American writer Dreiser, who began his creative path Almost simultaneously with London, he will make the first attempt to create the image of a revolutionary, a leader of the workers, much later. 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 was unable to understand the doom of capitalism and see its gravedigger in the proletariat*.

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

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

On the pages of the book, Ernest appears as a mature socialist. He clearly sees his goal and knows the path 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 comrades and knows how to correctly assess the situation. He tirelessly warns the party about the likelihood of resistance and the Iron Heel going on the offensive, calling for vigilance and arms.

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

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 metaphysicians - this is what he calls idealists - because they go from theory to facts. The scientist, according to Everhard, moves from facts to theory (Chapter I). The hero considers practice, verification by action, to be 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 devastating sarcasm: “Berkeley, entering a room, always and invariably used the door, and did not climb straight 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, because he was convinced from experience that it completely removed 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 onslaught of reaction against Marxism began and its philosophical foundations and reactionaries came out with a wide preaching of priesthood and mysticism. London gives a sharp rebuke to idealism and, through the mouth of Everhard, subjects the churchmen to crushing criticism.

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

Ernest Everhard is shown in many ways: in his family and in public life. We see his irreconcilable hatred of capitalists and boundless love for the common man - this is evidenced by his first conversations with Avis and the incident 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 a conversation with representatives of the ruling classes, without hesitation throwing heavy accusations in their faces: "... the dress you wear is stained with the blood of the workers. The food you eat, seasoned with their blood. The blood of small children and strong men flows 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 be 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 capitalists are trying to steal leaders from the proletariat through bribery. Ernest is deeply committed to the cause of the working class: he refuses the lucrative government position offered to him by the plutocrats.

Education, breadth of outlook, the theory he owns, and a close connection with reality allow the hero to foresee the course of events: he correctly predicts the imminent onset of the Iron Heel. He bases his prediction on facts. Other leaders do not believe him, because they do not want to analyze the course of events of our time, and in their theories there is no place for oligarchy, and therefore, in their opinion, it will not exist. Thus, London condemns dogmatism, admiration for theory at the expense of practice, the real course of events, the replacement of a deep analysis of reality with formulas.

Everhard devotes himself entirely to the great cause, realizing that “the profession of a revolutionary requires a person to spend his whole life, and his path is full of dangers. He consciously goes to self-restraints and deprivations. “I often bless fate,” he says, “for the fact that there is no I have a family, although I dearly love children. If I got married, I wouldn’t allow myself to have children.”* At the same time, this man is capable of strong love: no woman, according to Avis, has been given such a tender and devoted husband.

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

The reader notices that the hero is outlined from different sides, that his appearance appears quite clearly in the mind, and yet he sees that the hero is not without some schematism.

Everhard in London is given a fully formed character; we do not observe his spiritual growth. He remains the same throughout the entire work, but a lot of time passes, grandiose events take place. The reader witnesses 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 nature of Everhard's image involuntarily raises doubts about its vitality and leaves an imprint of schematism; His well-publicized personal life does not save the situation either.

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 in-depth analysis and a keen artistic sense. Man in his practice transforms not only nature, but also himself; man is not free from the society in which he lives. These great principles of Marxism reveal to the writer the secret of the full-blooded, vitality of images. Somewhere here lies one of the directions of influence of worldview on artistry, on the way of depicting the world.

Evergard's struggle is presented in the novel mainly through verbal skirmishes with representatives of the ruling class. He wins verbal duels. But his words are little confirmed by events and deeds. Moreover, as soon as the fight moves to the city streets, the hero loses. Everhard's statements are given too much great place, thereby violating the proportions of the novel, in places it begins to resemble a political treatise. Main character shown more in statements than in action. All this reduces the artistic merits of the novel, and therefore the power of its impact as a work of art.

It is difficult to find among London's works where a woman is not actively involved. Often in his stories she becomes the main character. Time and time again, the artist turns to the female image, even the titles of the stories indicate this: “The King’s Wife”, “The Courage of a Woman”, “Daughter of the Northern Lights”, “Women’s Contempt”, “What a Woman is Capable of”; London dedicated his first novel to “the daughter of the snows,” and one of his last to “the little mistress of the big house.” Some early stories are genuine hymns to women. One of them, “Son of the Wolf,” the writer begins meaningfully: “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 faithful friend and selfless assistant to a man. More than once she sacrifices herself to save her husband. The images of Indian women are truly charming in their dedication (Passuk in “The Courage of a Woman,” Labiskwi in “What a Woman Can Do,” Zarinka in “Son of the Wolf”), and the character of Frona Velz is attractive.

Avis Evergard - the heroine of the novel "The Iron Heel" - retains the best qualities of her predecessors: she has a lot of warmth and genuine, sincere feeling. She is smart and loyal, but her character also has new features. Her devotion to her husband does not arise from blind love for his masculine virtues - strength, dexterity, intelligence, physical beauty, as happened before. She loves him for this too, but, in addition, she recognizes the greatness and justice of Ernest’s aspirations and becomes his ally. Her feeling is richer than the feelings of the previous heroines of London. In Evis’s 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 stigmatizes a woman infected with bourgeois morality and betraying her loved one in Martin Eden.

Jack London with his daughters Bess and Joan

Having become a revolutionary, Avis did not lose her femininity and did not gain “masculine virtues,” as often happens in novels, and did not lose her feminine attractiveness. Evis is spontaneous, emotional, her feelings are unartificial. She dreams of bringing warmth and affection into her husband’s life. She succeeds, and there is no limit to her joy.

Unity of purpose made the friendship of the two revolutionaries particularly complete. Evis carries out 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 friend of a man, something that complements him, as he wrote in “Son of the Wolf,” without which a void is created in life that nothing can fill.

Unlike the image of Ernest, the image of his girlfriend is given in development. The foundations of bourgeois ideology are being destroyed in her mind, and with the help of Evergard, she takes the path of revolutionary struggle. True, the writer has made her path to socialism easier; it is too straightforward, fast, not developed, and therefore not convincing enough. Avis's views change under the influence of several speeches by Evergard and the incident with Jackson. 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 attracts attention by the fact that this is no longer a “London woman”, but a “special person”. We mean Anne Roylston.

This woman without hesitation risks her life and carries out the most important assignments of the organization. As a revolutionary, she worked miracles and was even nicknamed the “Red Maiden.” Anna enjoys enormous success with men, loves children dearly, is extraordinarily beautiful, but does not even want to think about marriage, because she believes that a family will prevent her from devoting herself entirely to the common cause; Avis would not have the strength for such self-sacrifice; she is a woman in the London sense of the word.

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

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

Jeanne Roulston was ten or twelve years older than London. Extraordinary a strong character, integrity of worldview, loyalty to one’s convictions - her distinctive 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 of not only 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 fictional London publisher of the notes of Avis Everhard. It is he who prefaces them with a preface and provides detailed comments, evaluates the events, the views of the heroes, corrects and supplements Evis, the author of the manuscript, explains the events and the meaning of certain concepts to contemporaries. The image of Anthony Meredith, of course, is somewhat unique - there can be no talk of either a portrait of him or his 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 should, obviously, due to the fact that they belong to a person of the future, inspire special confidence in the reader. The hero is not only enriched by the experience of subsequent historical eras, but also, which is no less significant, he lives in the “age of brotherhood,” in an era when a new, perfect social formation, which replaced the contradictory capitalism and the subsequent era of domination by despotic oligarchy, and, therefore, he is the representative wise people, in contrast to the people of the contradictory and cruel age of the contemporaries of London and Evergard.

The writer puts a number of important assessments into Meredith’s mouth. He owns the statement expressed already in the first pages of the novel that there is no historical necessity for the Iron Heel to come to power and the reason for such a deviation from the normal historical development there was a loss of revolutionary vigilance by the socialists. It was their mistakes that delayed the victory of socialism by several centuries. Warning through Meredith about the threat of the dictatorship of monopolies, London is trying to alert careless American socialist leaders, lulled by legends of a peaceful victory in the elections.

“In the natural course of social evolution,” says London about the Iron Heel, “there is no place for her. Her rise to power was not historically justified and necessary. We see in it rather some kind of monstrous anomaly, a historical curiosity, an accident, an obsession, something unexpected and the unthinkable. Let this serve as a warning to those rash politicians who talk so confidently about social processes" (my italics - V.B.)*. Warning against the danger threatening the working class and socialism, Meredith-London expresses a historically confirmed idea about 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 the number of votes cast for Debs increased with each new election campaign,” the chairman of the US Communist Party, William Foster, characterized this time, “many party members began to believe that only a few years would pass and the question would be directly raised at the elections - for socialism or against him, - and the party... will receive a majority of votes in the elections. This, they thought, will solve all the problems, and socialism will be easily established. Jack London, for all his weaknesses, understood this very well. To the Iron Heel he predicted in general terms the emergence of fascism and the intense struggle that would be required to overcome it. But such warning voices as London’s were drowned out by the voices of the opportunists whom the party officially encouraged.”*

* (W. Z. Foster. The Decline of World Capitalism. IL, M., 1951, p. 151.)

Meredith's statements are imbued with hatred of capitalist society. He assesses society as a whole, characterizes its electoral system, the slave labor system, the role of the church, lawlessness and the power of money tycoons, ridicules the naive belief in the power of the ballot box and denounces the attempts of capitalists to play on racial feelings. The characteristics he gave to American society are definite and harsh: “People devoured each other like animals, while small predators became prey to 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 flawed aspects of London's worldview. Let's give some examples. Briefly describing the Everhard age in the preface, Meredith-London writes: “History says it happened, 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 and economics that explain the contradictions, misconceptions and atmosphere of the era. Obviously, while agreeing with Marx in his view of the prospects for the development of society, with the position about the decisive role of production in its development (we see this from Everhard’s statements), 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 those of Spencer 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 about 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 activities in this area to be his 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 in the path of London the novelist. If previously the driving force of his heroes was the desire to get gold and thereby ensure happiness for themselves (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 comrades seek to change life. This quality of London's heroes was new not only for his work, but also for all American literature. It contained the beginnings of a new artistic method, the method of socialist realism.

In creating The Iron Heel, London was writing a book about modernity and for his 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, deals not with Utopia, but with 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 out a meaningful remark: "The brains of these people (London's contemporaries - V.B.) were so clouded, such chaos reigned in their thoughts that one thrown word was enough to discredit in their eyes the most sound conclusions and generalizations, the fruits of a lifetime’s work and search. The word “utopia” had such magical power back then. 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 talks about this in a letter to Brett dated October 16, 1906 (stored in the Huntington Library).)

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

London understood that by taking a fantastic form for the novel, he was risking 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 to modern times as possible. He filled the novel with facts of living American reality, introduced a lot of references to modern authors and well-known people in the country.

You will find in the novel the names of Hearst, Rockefeller, Harriman, the newly arrested labor leaders Moyer and Heywood*, you will find quotes from the statements of Y. Debsag of President T. Roosevelt, the “muckraker” writer D.H. Phillips, references to the writers of H. Wells and A. Birsag, the prominent socialist of California O. Lewis, rector of Stanford University Jordan, etc.

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

American literary critic Sam S. Baskett, trying to prove that Jack London did not read Marx's Capital*, cites very interesting facts about the writer's use in The Iron Heel of materials from the socialist weekly Soulist Voice, published in; Auckland. Its publisher in 1905-1906 was William McDevitt, a Socialist Party candidate for Congress in 1906. Socialist candidate for governor. California in the same 1906 was Austin Lewis. He contributed to the Soulist Voice. Lewis is referred to in the novel by Evergard, 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; He speaks of him, in particular, in a letter to Cloudesley Jones as the best historical lecturer in the West*. Joan London claims that Lewis had a significant 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 articles published in the weekly. and the pages where Evergard's conversation with Bishop Morehouse is described, Baskett establishes the proximity of their content. Another article by Lewis, as Baskett testifies, summarizes what happens to Morehouse in the book.

London also used other notes from the Soulist Voice in the novel: for example, a message about the strikebreaker Farley, given in Meredith's notes, about the railroad strikes in San Francisco *. You can add the Outlook weekly to what Baskett reported. One of his notes in the issue dated August 18, 1906 spoke of a crippled worker who was mercilessly thrown out of the gate by entrepreneurs. What is reported in the note completely coincides with the Jackson case described in the novel**. In the notes we find a number of references to certain publications and authors of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. The method of using topical material helped London bring the novel, which was 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 fight against the labor movement and socialists. Here is the story of the explosion of a bomb thrown by a provocateur during Everhard's speech, vividly reminiscent of the explosion in Haymarket Square in 1886, and the reprisals that followed. Here is the case of movement leaders Moyer and Heywood, fabricated in order to slow down the scope of the labor movement.

London shows how capital, which does not shun anything, uses strikebreakers, the “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 tactics 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 when organizing combat groups by American revolutionaries (see Works, 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 an admission that he moaned and cried at night after reading “The Gadfly” by E. Voynich. 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 reprisal of the tsarist government against the rebellious people convinced the writer of the precariousness of hopes for a peaceful transfer of power to the working people, and he became convinced of the inevitability of an armed uprising*. Joan London stated, not without reason, 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 cruel and violent struggle by the capitalists 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 US socialists for it. “Today, my dear, we were defeated,” Evergard says 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 random nature of the triumph of the Iron Heel and hinted at the possibility of a different move. Throughout the entire structure of the novel, London tried to show that if the socialists had listened to Everhard’s warnings and followed his course towards armed struggle, victory would have been ensured.

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

Making an attempt to shake up the complacent socialists, the writer did not skimp on depicting the horrors accompanying the defeat of the workers. He showed the defeat of several uprisings, the innumerable victims - the retribution for mistakes. He even postponed the victory of the working people for a huge period - 300 years, in order to aggravate the shuddering images of the reckoning for dogmatism and gullibility.

Even before the collapse of the uprising, Everhard outlined to Avis his extremely gloomy forecast for the future, the so-called “scheme of gradual social development” *; he foresaw the success of the oligarchs’ tactics of splitting the proletariat and bribing certain sections of it. A split in the labor movement, he suggested, would provide an opportunity for the Iron Heel to maintain and strengthen power. An era similar to the slave era will come: there will be no strikes, there will only be slave riots. The victory of the proletariat will be pushed into the distant future. It is significant that Meredith, who enjoys special confidence from the reader, approves of Evergard’s forecast, and in the novel everything happens precisely according to this scheme. And, therefore, it was not excluded that the reader who became acquainted with the novel “The Iron Heel” could have doubts about the possibility of the 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 detail, and the final triumph the work's work was not depicted, it was only reported. All this made the book contradictory and left an imprint of pessimism.

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

Another fact should be added to the above: having shown in detail 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 capabilities of the proletariat in the struggle for their rights. The role of the working class in the uprising is clearly distorted. Everhard's statements convey an unshakable belief in the power of the proletariat and its inevitability. victory, but the scenes in the novel depicting the participation of the masses in the uprising do not confirm the confidence he expressed.

Instead of an organized working class, on the pages of the book there are “people of the abyss” (“the beast from the abyss,” as Avis calls it) - a stupid, faceless mass awakened by wine and blood. In the chapter "The Chicago Uprising" this wild, brutal crowd rushes from one end of the city to the other, exterminated by the dagger fire of machine guns. She interferes with the fighting groups of revolutionaries and dies - this is her role in the novel. In the plan of 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 a catastrophe after their intervention in the uprising, it is planned to pit them against the police and their mercenaries in the calculation that while they destroy each other in a bloody battle, the socialists will engage in revolution. A revolution, therefore, is carried out by a group of revolutionaries.

This reveals the limited views of London on the role of the masses in the revolution, which reflected the inconsistency and theoretical backwardness of the US labor and socialist movement of that time.

However, despite the author's well-known limitations in his 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 peacefully minded socialists. London painted an unforgettable image of the revolutionary and his comrades, artistically documenting the emergence of a revolutionary in American reality. The novel is the ideological peak 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 causing confusion in the ranks of the party. They were wrong. Anyone who has the rare gift of clear foresight must speak loudly about his fears. I remember the Great Jaurès used to say more than once: “We do not know enough the strength of the classes we are fighting against...” And he was as right as he was. Jack London, showing us in a prophetic mirror where mistakes and delusions will lead us."*

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

Carrying out his plan to warn socialists, the writer, as already mentioned, did not stop before 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 and boldly spoke about the difficulties awaiting socialists on the path to transforming the capitalist system into a socialist one. He called for being prepared for armed struggle.

The specificity of the task posed by the author also determined the specificity of the form. The book had to contain a large and incisive material, a comprehensive critique of the main evils of capitalism, as possible, 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 was that the book should be impressive and, Once read, it would be impossible to forget it. The writer had a wealth of 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 did not intend to construct an image of the future society - this had already been done repeatedly in the novels of his predecessors: Bellamy, Howells and others; he wanted to talk about a much more pressing matter - about the process of transition to a new society, since he knew that this could become a matter of the near future and that the point of view of supporters of peaceful evolution prevailed here. The enormous material of today, not yet settled, still pulsating 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 destinies and actions of people.

The book was molded into a unique form: imagery was combined with journalisticism, the narrative of the fate of the heroes was combined with a presentation of political and social doctrines. Everything was united by pathos, the 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 an entire book, the preparation and conduct of the uprising is material for a series of novels, and Evergard's revelations and his criticism of certain aspects of capitalist America are a number of other topics for a comprehensive artistic research obvious 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 classified as a novel not just social, but also political.

I. M. Badanova in her article “The Book of Revolutionary Anger” correctly notes that “The Iron Heel” is a work of a completely unique genre. This is an artistic and journalistic novel."*

* (I. M. Badanova. The Book of Revolutionary Anger (About D. London’s novel “The Iron Heel”). “Scholarly Notes of the Tashkent Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages,” 1956, issue I, p. 157.)

“The Iron Heel” must be approached with this yardstick, considering it as a work specific in form.

Badanova, in our opinion, correctly noticed the fact that the novel splits into two parts. “In the first nine out of twenty-five chapters there is very little action... The second half of the book is full of action. The utopian element prevails here (more correctly, the fantastic - V.B.). But both parts are closely related to each other. 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 received with interest by readers and caused heated debate and conflicting reviews from the press. In her memoirs, Georgia Bamford writes about how London read the novel in front of a large audience: “He read two chapters from his book, and almost every phrase was greeted with exclamations of approval... When the reading ended, a crowd gathered around the reader and arguments ensued.”*

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

The bourgeois press, realizing the danger of London's book, tried either to silence it or focused attention on its existing and non-existent artistic shortcomings. The magazine "Current Literature" called the "London method" hysterical, contrasted it with the method of Flaubert and Poe, and tried to take the "Iron Heel" beyond the boundaries of art*. The novel met, as one might expect, with conflicting reviews from socialists. By whether he was assessed positively or negatively, one could unmistakably judge the revolutionary nature of the views of a given individual.

The Iron Heel was highly praised 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 reviewer for the Indianapolis News, “one that should be read and pondered... it contains a great lesson and a most formidable warning.”**

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

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

Periodicals such as the Dale, Arena, Independent, and Outlook published disapproving reviews of the novel. The Dáil wrote of its harmful influence on "unbalanced minds"*. "Arena", calling the "Iron Heel" one of London's greatest creations, spoke of the "harm" it caused to the "people's cause"**. The opinion of opportunist-minded 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 Soulist Review*** magazine.

* (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 argued that by discrediting the hope of victory through elections and focusing on a violent path, the author alienates those who are necessary for the socialist movement and thereby weakens it.

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

* (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 "The Iron Heel" grew, it crossed the borders of America. As the English Daily Worker wrote, soon 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 half a century later.

* (“Daily Worker” (Lnd.), 11. VIII 1955.)

In November 1955, the English youth newspaper Challenge 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 G. Podlit’s article the newspaper began publishing a series of articles promoting the largest works of socialist literature. Pollitt rated London's novel extremely highly and recommended it to young people. “The fact,” 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 Everhard’s words about the life that opened up before him when he linked 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”**. Pollitt recalls the energy with which he distributed this book in the days of his youth, and concludes the article by characterizing it as follows: “I am sure it will make you look at things differently, will help you understand what the capitalists are currently up to 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 page 81. See also page 82.)

And you will feel an uncontrollable desire to fight, regardless of any danger, it will instill in your soul great faith in the people with whom you work and with whom you stand in solidarity.

But most importantly: the book will help you become such a socialist that no one will ever be able to destroy your faith in the most wonderful idea that has ever inspired humanity - the idea of ​​socialism."*

* (“Challenge”, 19. X 1955, No. 46.)

It should be emphasized that the communists of England again and again turn to The Iron Heel as a source of socialist ideas, a book that fosters a revolutionary worldview. William Gallagher recently called it “one of the great socialist books.”

* (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 works of genuine socialist literature”*. “The Iron Heel is the most revolutionary book in American literature,” wrote F. Foner in 1947.** And to this day no novel has appeared in America that would surpass London’s book in this quality.

* (A.V. Lunacharsky. 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 a 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, rush to power. In the mid-50s, during the rampant McCarthyism, Foster wrote with concern about the fate of his homeland: “The threat of fascism in the USA has never been as great as it is today... Strong democratic traditions in the USA are not insurmountable in themselves.” a barrier to fascism... It is necessary to bring to the consciousness of the workers what horrors of terror, deprivation and destruction are associated with the threat of fascism in our country"*.

* (W.Z. Foster. Strengthening fascist tendencies in the USA. "Communist", 1955, No. 1, p. 91.)

It is characteristic that during these years, American public figures, turning to the “Iron Heel,” emphasized its warning against the danger of a fascist dictatorship. The strength of the book, according to contemporary American literary critic Walter Rideout, “lies 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 re-publish London's novel. It helps shape the revolutionary consciousness of the American working class and workers of other countries*. It helps to awaken political consciousness. And one can predict the increasing popularity of this book in the United States as America enters the broad road of revolutionary struggle against the dominance of the Iron Heel of monopolies.

* (While London was still alive, The Iron Heel was published in Europe and New Zealand.)

Buy a book Comments

r31415926 this is the 10th volume of the Complete Works

Alexkurt wrote:

They say that sooner or later the truth always comes out. I kind of doubt it. Nineteen years have passed now, and despite all our efforts, we have not been able to discover who threw the bomb.

Another 3 years have passed, and Kurginyan names the names of the “bombed heroes”

goka

OrthodoxLex wrote:

50076830The book is not complete, unfortunately. The preface, which explains a lot, was not voiced....

Quote:

Let this serve as a warning to those rash politicians who talk so confidently about social processes. ( from the preface)

Practice shows that recipes are selected more quickly.

Hidden text

PREFACE
The notes of Avis Evergard 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. Avis Everhard did not have the necessary historical perspective. What she wrote about concerned her too closely. Moreover, she was in the thick of the events described.
And yet, as a human document, the Everhard Manuscript is of great interest to us, although even here the matter is not without one-sided judgments and assessments born of the passion of love. We pass these misconceptions with a smile and forgive Avis Everhard the enthusiasm with which she speaks about 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 believed. He belonged to a large army of heroes who selflessly served the cause of the world revolution. True, Everhard had his own special merits in developing 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 let's return to the memoirs. Their greatest merit is that they resurrect for us the atmosphere of that terrible era. Nowhere will we find such a vivid depiction 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 errors, their violent passions and unclean thoughts, their monstrous selfishness. It is difficult for us, in our reasonable age, to understand this. History claims that this was so, and biology and psychology explain to us why. But neither history, nor biology, nor psychology can resurrect this world for us. We admit its existence in the past, but it remains alien to us, we do not understand it.
This understanding arises in us when reading the Everhard Manuscript. We seem to merge with the characters in this world drama, living through their thoughts and feelings. And we not only understand the love of Avis Evergard for her heroic companion - we feel, together with Evergard 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 advancing on humanity, threatening to crush it.
By the way, we learn that the creator of the term “Iron Heel”, which has become established in literature, was Ernest Everhard - an interesting discovery that sheds light on an issue that has long remained controversial. The name “Iron Heel” was believed to have first appeared in the pamphlet “You Are Slaves!” by the little-known journalist George Milford, published in December 1912. No other information about George Milford has reached us, and only the Everhard 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 election campaign speeches in the fall of 1912. Everhard himself, as the manuscript tells us, first used it at a dinner with a private person back in the spring of 1912. This date should be recognized as the original one.
For the historian and philosopher, the victory of the oligarchy will forever remain an insoluble mystery. The alternation of historical eras is determined by the laws of social evolution. These eras were historically inevitable. Their arrival could be predicted with the same certainty with which an astronomer calculates the movements of the stars. These are legitimate stages of evolution. Primitive communism, slave society, serfdom and wage labor were necessary stages of social development. But it would be ridiculous to say that the dominance of the Iron Heel was an equally necessary step. We are now inclined to consider this period an accidental deviation or retreat to the cruel times of tyrannical social autocracy, which at the dawn of history was as natural as the triumph of the Iron Heel subsequently became illegal.
Feudalism left a bad memory, but this system was historically necessary. After the collapse of such a powerful centralized state as the Roman Empire, the onset of the era of feudalism was inevitable. But the same cannot be said about the Iron Heel. There is no place for it in the natural course of social evolution. Her rise to power was not historically justified or necessary. It 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 rash politicians who talk so confidently about social processes.
Capitalism was considered by sociologists of those times to be the culmination of the bourgeois state, the ripened fruit of the bourgeois revolution, and in our time we can only join this definition. After capitalism, socialism was supposed to come; This was stated even by such outstanding representatives of the hostile camp as Herbert Spencer. They expected that from the ruins of selfish capitalism, a flower nurtured over centuries would grow - the brotherhood of man. But instead, to our surprise and horror, and even more so to the surprise and horror of the contemporaries of these events, capitalism, ripe for collapse, gave rise to another monstrous escape - 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, imprinted 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 overthrowing it would take several years. They understood that the Peasant Revolt arose contrary to their plans, and the First broke out prematurely. But no one expected that the Second Uprising, well prepared and fully matured, was doomed to the same failure and even more brutal defeat.
Obviously, Avis Evergard wrote her notes in the days preceding the Second Uprising, there is not a word in them 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, preparing to flee or in anticipation of arrest, she hid the notes in the hollow of an old oak tree at Wake Robinlodge.
The further fate of Avis Evergard is unknown. In all likelihood, she was executed by mercenaries, and during the Iron Heel, no one kept records of the victims of numerous executions. One thing is certain: hiding the manuscript in a hiding place and preparing to escape, Avis Evergard did not suspect what a terrible defeat the Second Uprising suffered. She 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 victories 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 an ancient oak tree in Wake Robinlodge, undisturbed by anyone's hand.
Anton Mereditnote 1
Ardis. November 27, 419 of the Brotherhood of Man era.
Earth Theater! We feel shame and grief -
Pictures of familiar carousels...
But be patient, you'll find out soon
Crazy Drama meaning and purpose!

PS
PREFACE 001 - Chapter01 - 00.mp3 ( Rubber Heel / January 12 / Jack London is Born (1876))
highly recommend.