The Iron Heel

“The distinction between being native born and foreign born was sharp and invidious in those days.”

In a footnote, Anthony Meredith alludes to anti-immigration sentiments in the early 1900s, which saw over 14 million immigrants enter the United States in the span of two decades. Meredith frames the hostility against immigrants as outdated and obsolete in the utopian future, where international solidarity has presumably replaced the divisiveness of nationality and race. The comment adds complexity to the history of socialism and labor unions in the United States and Jack London’s controversial legacy on race. London upheld racist ideologies on Anglo-Saxon superiority and social Darwinism that contradicted some of the anti-colonial and anti-capitalist themes in his works. Scholars continue to analyze the contradictions in London’s work and political life.

“His masterfulness delighted me and terrified me, for my fancies wantonly roved until I found myself considering him as a lover, as a husband. I had always heard that the strength of men was an irresistible attraction to women; but he was too strong. ‘No! no!’ I cried out. ‘It is impossible, absurd!’”

Avis is initially unimpressed with Ernest, but in her bedroom that evening, she cannot sleep and is overcome with sexual lust. She fantasizes about being Ernest’s lover and wife and is frightened by how much he stirs her passion. The scene employs the tropes of the domestic and sentimental novel, where a young woman in distress navigates social morales and her personal desires and typically ends up married. In this scene, Avis struggles to deny her attraction to Ernest, whom she describes as “so unlike the men of [her] own class” (25). Her sexual awakening also becomes her political awakening, and she transgresses the expectations of her gender and class.

“The wild Indian is not so brutal and savage as the capitalist class.”

Ernest reverses a racial stereotype to accuse the capitalist class of cruelty and hypocrisy, but the problematic depiction of the “wild Indian” as a symbol of primitivism is a well-worn racist trope of the “other.” It is unclear whether London uses the stereotype with irony and to satirize racism or not. Earlier, in Chapter 1, Ernest employs a similar trope of the “primitive” other to criticize the clergymen for their ignorance of historical materialism. He contends, “[Y]ou are as remote from the intellectual life of the twentieth century as an Indian medicine-man making incantation in the primeval forest ten thousand years ago” (9). Ernest also includes the medieval European scholastics as equally “primitive,” suggesting that his critique extends to any culture that privileges metaphysics over science. Ernest’s insults are intended to indict the capitalists and the Church for their social injustices, but his usage of racist tropes of inferiority and primitivism have been debated among scholars.

“‘The history of the eighteenth century is written,’ Ernest prompted. ‘If the Church was not dumb, it will be found not dumb in the books.’ ‘I am afraid the Church was dumb,’ the Bishop confessed.”

The novel critiques the ways that capitalist values are embedded in social institutions. In this quote, Ernest convinces the Bishop that the Church has historically ignored the plight of the working class to appease the capitalists. Ernest’s attack relies on comparing the history of the Church’s indifference to laborers since the Industrial Age to their ignorance of class exploitation in the present. The appeal to history and how the Church will be remembered in the records alludes to the format of the novel as a found document that testifies to the atrocities of the Oligarchy’s rule. Ernest uses history to demonstrate how the Church has strayed from its tenets, and the lesson urges the Bishop to break the pattern.

“[L]law is one thing, and right is another.”

Avis’s earlier faith in the legal system is demystified when she interviews Jackson’s lawyer, Joseph Hurd, and learns the distinction between law and justice. Joseph contends that the legal system is what is taught in books, whereas rightness comes from morality and a sense of justice. He argues that corporate lawyers are paid lucratively because they can manipulate the system to benefit their capitalist clients. Avis learns that the legal system does not guarantee justice and that, in fact, justice can be bought by the highest bidder.

“[W]e intend to take, not the mere wealth in the houses, but all the sources of that wealth, all the mines, and railroads, and factories, and banks, and stores. That is the revolution.”

Ernest’s revolution is directed toward the titans of industry whose corporations and monopolies generate incredible wealth for the capitalist class by exploiting the working class. Ernest does not simply want what the rich have. His revolution is not a vengeful reversal of fortune, but rather a radical dismantling of industrial capitalism and its role in creating extreme class disparity.

“Ernest rose before me transfigured, the apostle of truth, with shining brows and the fearlessness of one of God’s own angels, battling for the truth and the right, and battling for the succor of the poor and lonely and oppressed. And then there arose before me another figure, the Christ!”

This quote is one of many examples of Avis’s effusive praises of Ernest. In her eyes, he is a man superior not only to other men in her class but also to all humankind. Avis’s hyperbolic compliments can be interpreted as evidence of her submissiveness to a male authority figure. Another interpretation suggests that Avis’s literary sentimentalism elevates revolution as an act of divinity and morality rather than terrorism and abomination, as the capitalist press insists. Avis endows Ernest with Christ-like qualities as a rhetorical strategy to associate the socialist revolution with truth and virtue.

“Society is here used in a restricted sense, a common usage of the times to denote the gilded drones that did no labor, but only glutted themselves at the honey-vats of the workers.”

Meredith explains the negative connotations of the term “society” to his readers in the future, and the sting of his criticism is directed toward London’s contemporary readers. Meredith reverses the meaning of “society” from its connotations of high culture and “civilization” to that of gluttony and indolence. The “gilded drones” allude to the capitalists of the late-19th-century Gilded Age, when industrialization exacerbated the disparity of wealth. The extended metaphor of the beehive suggests that the queen bee is capitalism.

“No girl could live in a university town till she was twenty-four and not have love experiences. I had been made love to by beardless sophomores and gray professors, and by the athletes and the football giants. But not one of them made love to me as Ernest did.”

Avis discusses her sexual desires openly throughout the narrative, and her directness emphasizes the naturalness of female sexuality. She does not speak about her experiences with shame or feel the need to qualify her interactions with various men. In contrast, she contends that “no girl” her age would not have experience, thereby presenting love and desire as a common part of young women’s maturation. The quotation also defines Ernest’s masculinity, as he is depicted as a man whose political vigor is matched by his sexual prowess.

“And so it was, instead of in paradise, that I found myself in the arid desert of commercialism.”

In his impassioned speech to the Philomath Club, Ernest accuses the captains of industry of corruption not only in their businesses but also in every social institution. The metaphor of the desert signifies the erosive exploitation of the upper class and the commodification of everything from medicine to education. Ernest’s evocation of “paradise” suggests that humankind can reach its utopian goals, but the current track of social mobility does nothing but strip society down to a morally barren wasteland.

“I may be executed, or assassinated, but I shall never be crucified. I am planted too solidly and stolidly upon the earth.”

In contrast to Avis’s spiritual view of Ernest, Ernest rejects religious language and the metaphor of crucifixion since these models rely on an abstract, metaphysical world. As a staunch materialist, Ernest insists on the physical and tangible parts of the world, such as the concrete effects of capitalism on the proletariat’s livelihood and working conditions. Ernest accepts that he may die violently for his socialist beliefs and prefers the language of stark physicality that execution and assassination connote. He lives as a materialist and will die like one.

“You are piggish and acquisitive, but the magic of your phrases leads you to believe that you are patriotic. Your desire for profits, which is sheer selfishness, you metamorphose into altruistic solicitude for suffering humanity.”

During his meeting with the middle-class businessmen, Ernest points out their hypocrisy when they complain about corporate competitors. He explains that the very capitalist logic that has made them wealthy is the same logic that has made them vulnerable and at the mercy of trusts. Ernest attacks their insincerity and lack of self-criticism when the businessmen insist that their freedom has been taken away from them. Ernest exposes the irony of their rhetoric by explaining that the concepts of freedom and patriotism are precisely what capitalists use to defend their right to make a profit from others.

“And then, without warning, a mob arose one night, and, under a waving American flag, singing patriotic songs, set fire to the great plant of the Appeal and totally destroyed it.”

Avis describes the destruction of the socialist publishing house that printed the magazine Appeal to Reason and Dr. Cunningham’s book on education and economics. The scene highlights the irony of the flag, purportedly a symbol of freedom. Under a government run by capitalist greed, the US flag comes to signify the dystopian values of censorship and hate.

“[A]ll his lifetime he toiled for others. That was the measure of his manhood. He was a humanist and a lover. And he, with his incarnate spirit of battle, his gladiator body and his eagle spirit—he was as gentle and tender to me as a poet. He was a poet. A singer in deeds.”

Avis locates Ernest’s masculinity in the dual traits of his physical strength and spiritual depth. For Avis, the literary arts play a significant role in accentuating Ernest’s commitment to humanity and the socialist cause. She compares Ernest’s life work to poetry, and the metaphor illustrates how art fortifies politics. Although Ernest tends to insist on his identity as a materialist and monist, Avis regards his emotional and spiritual commitment to the Revolution as the definition of “manhood.”

“And it is so good, that money. It buys so much food. I never knew before what money was good for.”

When the Bishop sells his belongings to feed the needy, he realizes that the true value of money is in nourishing those living in poverty. The Bishop’s spending translates into direct and concrete livelihood, whereas the abstract exchange values of capitalism are employed to exploit labor and maximize profits.

“‘Why does the United States lag behind?’; ‘Get busy, you American revolutionists!’; ‘What's the matter with America?’— were the messages sent to us by our successful comrades in other lands. But we could not keep up. The Oligarchy stood in the way. Its bulk, like that of some huge monster, blocked our Path.”

Avis and her comrades are optimistic that the US will catch up with the rest of the other socialist states, but Ernest warns of the Oligarchy’s efforts to divide them. The quote highlights the internationalism of the socialist movement and the ways that nationalism and capitalism can block solidarity. Ernest reverses the Oligarchy’s vision of dominating the world market not as progress but as decline.

“It was bitter, bloody work, but we were fighting for life and for the Revolution, and we had to fight the enemy with its own weapons. Yet we were fair.”

Avis asserts that the violence enacted by her comrades is distinct from the violence perpetrated by the Oligarchy. For her, the socialists are fighting for survival and equality, whereas the capitalist system uses violence to suppress workers for profits. In an accompanying footnote, Meredith echoes Avis’s characterization that the socialists were fair and mentions that prisoners had a trial and were given warnings. The novel depicts revolutionary violence, tempered by due process, as an appropriate means of overthrowing the prolonged and brutal violence of the capitalist system.

“And yet you call me anarchist. You, who have destroyed the government of the people, and who shamelessly flaunt your scarlet shame in public places, call me anarchist.”

During his speech before Congress, Ernest highlights the hypocrisy of the capitalist class who accuse him of sedition and lawlessness. Throughout the novel, much of Ernest’s rhetorical strategy is in reversing the accusations against the socialists. To him, the true traitors and threats to the American people are the capitalists themselves.

“And then we came to the great hole. There was no warning of the existence of the hole, nor was it a hole in the common sense of the word.”

Avis finds refuge in a great hole in the ground in Sonoma County, and the setting emphasizes her natural surroundings as a protective space. The hole and its lush vegetation are in contrast to the towers of the wonder cities where the privileged and indifferent capitalist class reside. Avis rebuilds the revolutionists’ efforts in the literal earth, which connotes that she is grounded in the cause and their principles. The setting also alludes to the metaphor of grassroots and underground political organizations. In contrast to “the abyss” where working class people struggle to survive, the hole is where political activism and revolution emerge and thrive.

“Every day I practised for hours in burying forever the old Avis Everhard beneath the skin of another woman whom I may call my other self.”

Avis is a dynamic character who transforms dramatically in the novel, from a bourgeois maiden into a fighting revolutionist. She also undergoes another transformation to become an international spy. In order to infiltrate the Iron Heel successfully, she must dispose of her past identity, if only temporarily. Although Ernest is presented as the socialist leader, he remains a relatively flat character who does not change and primarily functions as the political spokesperson. The complexity of Avis’s shifting identities represents both her skill in espionage and the sacrifices she makes to fully devote herself to the cause. The multiple identities suggest that only when the Oligarchy is overthrown can she and others suppressed under the Iron Heel can truly be themselves.

“I talked a great deal, and enthusiastically, as a hero-worshipper might talk, and it was obvious that he was my hero.”

When Avis and Ernest reunite in the hole in Sonoma County, she describes his love for him in terms of hero worshipping. Like many parallels in the novel to London’s personal life, the line may allude to London’s second wife, Charmian Kittridge London, who may have inspired the character of Avis. Kittridge was also a socialist and lived with London on their ranch in Glen Ellen, Sonoma County, the same setting of this scene. In an excerpt from her writing, Kittredge states, “My love for Jack is a sort of worship. Not a fetish sort of thing. It is a grand emotion—a high passion. I seem to love, as always, as in a beaming light of him. Whom better could one worship?” (“Charmian Kittredge London.” Jack London State Historical Park).

“[T]he refuse and the scum of life, a raging, screaming, screeching, demoniacal horde. And why not? The people of the abyss had nothing to lose but the misery and pain of living. And to gain?—nothing, save one final, awful glut of vengeance.”

The chapter leading to the massacre in Chicago is titled “The People of the Abyss,” a term that alludes to London’s book on poverty in the East End of London. Avis’s description of the people as a degenerate mob is a rhetorical strategy that indicts the ruling class. Her language initially appears to confirm all the stereotypes and denigrations that the capitalists hold to classify the proletariat as uncivilized. Yet she punctuates her descriptions of drunkenness and disease by emphasizing that the people have nothing to lose and nothing to gain in a capitalist system. She refers to the “vampire society” responsible for draining the life of the working class (327), and the metaphor denounces the capitalist class for benefitting from the blood and labor of those they oppress.

“Thus did I receive my red baptism in that Chicago shambles. Prior to that, death to me had been a theory; but ever afterward death has been a simple fact that does not matter, it is so easy.”

Avis returns to her religious metaphors for the Revolution and refers to the Chicago Commune as a “red baptism.” The term refers to her introduction to what will be the long and violent fight for workers’ liberation. Avis no longer fears death, as she comprehends that the cause is worth fighting and dying for.