Literature for Liberation

95 readers
2 users here now

Community Purpose: Literature discussion and critique community for Marxist readers and writers.

Rules:

No non-Marxists. This community isn’t a place to debate Marxism.

No oppressive language. As readers and writers, it is essential to remember the power of language and use it wisely. Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, and any other oppressive language will not be tolerated.

No low quality or off-topic posts. This includes almost all memes and other posts not sharing original writing, posing a question, offering analysis, or otherwise initiating discussion around literature.

No nonfiction. An exception is made for original essays or nonfiction with creative value.

No sectarianism. This isn't a place for infighting between tendencies.

Important Reminder: Direct all criticism of original work towards the writing, not the writer.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1
 
 

I've heard some criticism of To Kill a Mockingbird as promoting a "white savior" narrative. I would be interested in hearing what this community's thoughts are on this widely taught novel.

2
 
 

Hello everyone.

Now that we have a few members, I was thinking we could vote on a short story to read throughout the week and discuss next weekend. Comment with any ideas, and the top voted comment by the end of the weekend will be this week's selection. It doesn't have to relate to socialism, but that is definitely an added bonus.

Cheers!

3
 
 
A whispered song once haunted Europe
From fields to factories
The birds, the mules, alike repeat

Почему поля мы трудимся
*Why is it that the fields we toil*
Принадлежит царю
*Belong to the tsar?*
Почему мы работаем до смерти
*Why is it that we work to death*
Ни за что, кроме обрезков
*For nothing but scraps?*

From there it traveled near and far
And the people there rejoiced
Added verses of their own

为什么我们辛劳的果实
*Why is it that the fruit of our toils* 
直接去找楼主
*Go straight to the landlords* 
为什么他们可以坐
*Why is it that they may sit* 
当我们几乎饿死的时候
*While we nearly starve* 

But then a wealthy neighbor
grew bothered by the noise
And so enlisted his police
To choke it into silence

Yet no matter how rich 
and strong the neighbors
The singers, they are far more

So long as one man recalls the tune,
For every windpipe silenced
So will sing a hundred more.
4
 
 

Background

Jack London was many things; he was a writer, an oyster pirate, a prospector, a socialist, and, most tarnishing to our view of him, a proponent of eugenics. London was by no means rich. He was born into a working-class family and was raised by a single mother and a formerly enslaved African American woman. He got his first job at a cannery in his early teens and worked long hours. Dissatisfied, he left and subsequently became an oyster pirate before being hired by the California Fish Patrol. Later, he signed onto a sealing schooner headed for Japan, a journey which would inspire his first published work, "Typhoon off the Coast of Japan." Later, of course, he set off for the Klondike Gold Rush after which he struck true gold with his novel The Call of the Wild.

Socialism

Jack London's novel The Iron Heel is perhaps the best example of his politics in his writing. I admit to not having read that particular book, so I don't have much to say about it. It isn't up for debate that Jack London was a socialist. He often closed his letters with the phrase, "yours for the Revolution." What is interesting, however, about Jack London's socialism is that it was admittedly unscientific. In his essay "How I Became a Socialist," London emphasizes that his socialism grew primarily from his personal experience. Before he was a socialist, London was very much an individualist.

I was proud to be one of Nature's strong-armed noblemen . . . I was as faithful a wage slave as ever capitalist exploited.

Like his socialism later, London's individualism was unscientific and founded only on his personal strength. It was therefore subject to change with life experience. As a sailor, London got a taste of society's bottom most echelons.

I battered on the drag and slammed back gates with them, or shivered with them in box cars and city parks, listening the while to life-histories which began under auspices as fair as mine, with digestions and bodies equal to and better than mine, and which ended there before my eyes in the shambles at the bottom of the Social Pit.

Notice the links to eugenic ideas subtly present even in the foundations of London's socialism. His outrage at the fact that men with "bodies equal to and better than mine" ended up at the bottom of society reveals his yet present individualistic tendencies and Social Darwinist ideas of survival of the fittest. He is outraged about capitalism's contradicting of that principle more or less. That individual strain never really disappeared.

I was now a Socialist without knowing it, withal, an unscientific one . . . Since that day I have opened many books, but no economic argument, no lucid demonstration of the logic and inevitableness of Socialism . . .

The fact that London's Socialism was no more founded on science than his individualism made it no less shaky. By the end of his life, London could hardly be called a socialist at all. It are London's views on the eugenics, however, that are far more concerning.

Eugenics

London's support of eugenics is by far the largest black mark on his legacy. Despite being largely raised by a loving black woman, London was quite racist. He believed white men were generally superior and specifically believed in the "yellow peril" as exemplified by his book The Unparalleled Invasion.

I believe the future belongs to eugenics, and will be determined by the practice of eugenics.

London's support of eugenics, though not as extreme as some, is clear. At the time, it was, in a way, considered "progressive." This belief is exemplified by London's novel, Before Adam. London was no hypocrite. He himself practiced selective breeding in marrying a friend who he believed would produce good children. As mentioned earlier, as London's socialism was unprincipled, his individualism never truly left. That might be one source of this flaw in his image.

Conclusion

Jack London's tale is a reminder to us all that scientific socialism is the only way to avoid falling into traps such as eugenics. Unprincipled socialism, while it may have good intentions, is as subject to corruption as any other political ideology. Marxism is by definition a science; that is what separates it from the rest of the pack.