Marxist criticism's role is not merely to annotate
distortions politely but to reveal their social purpose. Trotsky emphasised
that, like science, art does not seek orders and inherently cannot accept them.”¹
The bourgeois academy, however, requires this kind of obedience: a literary
history that normalises capitalist growth and hides the revolutionary
contribution of the working class.
Teleology as Ideology: “From Puritanism to Postmodernism”
The book’s title presents its ideological stance. It
suggests that American literature evolved from Puritanism to postmodernism,
implying that the latter is the inevitable result of a three-century
progression. This notion of teleology is significant because it subtly endorses
the reactionary view that postmodernism—characterised by its dismissal of
objective truth, rejection of historical causality, and emphasis on
subjectivity—is the rightful conclusion of American literary evolution.
As David North has shown, postmodernism did not originate
from a true philosophical breakthrough. Instead, it resulted from the political
disintegration of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia after Stalinism's
betrayals, the setbacks faced by the working class in the 1970s and 1980s, and
the collapse of the USSR.² Its central dogmas—the “incredulity toward
metanarratives,” fragmentation, pastiche—are the ideological rationalisations
of a social layer that has abandoned any connection to the revolutionary struggle
of the working class. To present this retreat as the “culmination” of American
literary history is to falsify history itself.
A Literary History Without History
Ruland and Bradbury’s approach
exemplifies standard academic idealism: viewing literature as a self-contained
domain driven by the internal development of aesthetic forms. The role of class
struggle—the driving force of American history—is practically missing. It's
possible to read hundreds of pages without encountering the Civil War as a
conflict over the expansion of slavery production³. The transformation of
literary production by industrial capitalism⁴ and the impact of the Great
Depression and the class battles of the 1930s⁵the cultural devastation wrought
by the Cold War anti‑communist purge⁶Instead, literature appears as a polite
conversation among authors, floating serenely above the social convulsions that
shaped their work. This is not history but embalming.
The Erasure of the Working Class
The most noticeable oversight is the absence of the working
class. American literature features a strong tradition of authors who directly
addressed class conflict—such as Jack London, Upton Sinclair, John Dos Passos,
Richard Wright, Tillie Olsen, and others. However, in Ruland and Bradbury’s
portrayal, these figures are merely seen as “protest literature” or
“naturalism," with their political beliefs reduced to stylistic labels.
Their depoliticisation reaches its lowest point in the way
they handle Theodore Dreiser. 'An American Tragedy' (1925), arguably the most
impactful American novel of the 20th century, is not just a naturalist story
but a harsh critique of the American class system—the “American dream” revealed
as a tool that destroys human lives. As David Walsh pointed out, Dreiser
achieved “perhaps the most acute and all-sided alignment of the individual and
national tragedy" because he understood how social forces shape personal
destinies. Ruland and Bradbury can't recognise this because their framework
fails to see class as a significant historical factor.
Why Dreiser Matters
Any Marxist reinterpretation of American literary history
must prioritise Theodore Dreiser. No other American novelist of the twentieth
century directly addressed the harsh realities of capitalism with such honesty.
Dreiser’s major works—especially Sister Carrie (1900) and An American Tragedy
(1925)—stand as the most detailed effort in American literature to explore how
social factors shape individual destinies. As David Walsh has noted, Dreiser
achieved “perhaps the most keen and comprehensive alignment of personal and
national tragedy” within the American canon.
Dreiser is often dismissed, depoliticised, or overlooked by
bourgeois literary historians. For example, Ruland and Bradbury, in From
Puritanism to Postmodernism, portray him as merely a "naturalist" and
a writer focused on "social conditions," viewing him as a precursor
to protest literature. This view erases his political commitments, his
involvement in class struggle, and his sharp critique of American capitalism.
Restoring Dreiser’s proper position involves seeing him not
just as a naturalist portraying social suffering, but as the leading figure of
American realism from a Marxist perspective—an artist who understands the
dialectical connection between individual psychology and social totality.
Dreiser’s Realism and the Materialist Conception of
History
Dreiser’s realism is closely linked to a materialist view of
history. He instinctively and increasingly consciously recognised that social
forces, beyond individual control, shape human behaviour. This perspective
aligns him with the major European realists—Balzac, Tolstoy, Zola—who Engels
praised for illustrating “the social relations of their time”, even if they
held conservative political views.³ Dreiser’s novels reveal: the
commodification of human relationships, the fierce competition of capitalist
society, the ideological deception of the “American dream," and the
oppressive influence of class status.
In Sister Carrie, the protagonist’s ascent reflects the
influence of impersonal economic forces rather than personal determination.
Similarly, in An American Tragedy, Clyde Griffiths' downfall is driven by the
systemic flaws of American capitalism rather than moral failings. Dreiser’s
realism emphasises historical and social contexts rather than psychological or
moral interpretations; it is rooted in materialism rather than idealism.
An American Tragedy: The Novel of the American
Century
An American Tragedy is considered the most significant
American novel of the twentieth century. It uniquely tackles the core paradox
of its time: the hope of endless opportunity in a society divided by class
inequality.
Clyde Griffiths exemplifies a common outcome of a society
that encourages youth to pursue wealth but restricts their access to it. His
story illustrates problems inherent in American capitalism. Dreiser’s success
is in demonstrating how: Clyde’s desires are moulded by consumer culture; his
social class limits his opportunities; economic pressures influence his moral
decisions; and the legal system acts as a tool for maintaining class dominance.
This embodies Marxist realism, exposing social realities through the
individual's fate.
Dreiser and the Class Struggle
Dreiser’s political journey was inconsistent and influenced
by the turbulent events of the early 20th century. He expressed sympathy for
the working class, backed the Russian Revolution, and criticised the abuses of
American capitalism. However, he also, unfortunately, fell under the Popular
Front's ideological pressures. Like many artists of his time, he confused
Stalinism with socialism and sacrificed his artistic independence to serve the
diplomatic interests of the Soviet bureaucracy.
A Marxist evaluation must recognize both aspects: Dreiser’s
realism as a pinnacle of American literature and his political surrender as a
sign of Stalinism's harmful effect on the American left. This duality is
crucial for understanding twentieth-century cultural history.
Ruland & Bradbury’s Falsification of Dreiser
Ruland and Bradbury’s analysis of Dreiser exemplifies
bourgeois literary mystification. They reduce him to a mere 'naturalist,'
overlook his critique of capitalism, ignore his involvement with socialism, and
fail to place his work within the context of class struggle. Instead, they
interpret _An American Tragedy_ as a psychological analysis rather than a
social critique. Their chapter on Dreiser is not only lacking but also driven
by ideological bias. Recognizing Dreiser’s Marxist relevance would threaten the
overall teleological narrative of their book, which ultimately celebrates
postmodernism.
Dreiser reveals the social truth often denied by
postmodernism: that human life is influenced by objective forces, society has
an underlying structure, and capitalism is a historical system with a start and
an end.
Dreiser and the Decline of American Literature
The decline of American
literature after the 1930s cannot be fully understood without considering
Dreiser. He symbolizes the last key figure in a realism tradition that aimed to
expose the truths of American society. Following Dreiser, various forces—including
Stalinism, anti-communism, the Cold War purges, the commercialization of
culture, and the emergence of postmodernism—eroded the conditions necessary for
meaningful artistic engagement with social realities. In the postwar period,
the novel shifted towards formal experimentation, psychological depth, irony,
pastiche, subjectivism, and identity politics. This shift was not driven by
artistic innovation but by the ideological demands of a ruling class that
prefers to avoid confronting reality.
Dreiser and the Marxist Reconstruction of American
Literature
Dreiser is central to any Marxist reinterpretation of
American literary history. He is the author who most deeply understood the
social conflicts within American capitalism and vividly illustrated their
tragic impacts on individual lives. Restoring Dreiser to his deserved position
means placing the working class at the heart of American cultural history. It
also involves rejecting postmodernist claims denying objective truth and
reaffirming the Marxist belief that literature can—and should—expose society's structural
realities. Dreiser’s writings remain vital because the systemic issues he
highlighted are still present. His novels speak not only to history but also to
today’s crises of American capitalism, serving as tools in the ongoing fight
for truth.
The Suppressed Marxist Tradition
Equally absent is the revolutionary Marxist tradition in
American literary criticism: V.F. Calverton, Granville Hicks, Joseph Freeman,
and the early Partisan Review before its capitulation to anti‑communism.
Calverton insisted that literature must be understood as “a social product,
conditioned by the economic and political forces of its time.”⁸ Hicks argued
that the task of criticism was to reveal “the relation of literature to the
class struggle.”⁹ These insights are incompatible with Ruland and Bradbury’s
idealist framework and are therefore ignored.
Nor do the authors examine the catastrophic impact of
Stalinism on American cultural life—the Popular Front’s subordination of
artistic integrity to the diplomatic needs of the Soviet bureaucracy, the
ideological confusion sown by the Communist Party’s zigzags, or the long‑term
damage inflicted by the postwar purge. As Trotsky warned, the Stalinist
bureaucracy represented “the antithesis of socialist culture.”¹⁰ Its influence
on American letters cannot be omitted without falsifying the historical record.
Postmodernism: The Ideology of a Decaying Order
By the time Ruland and Bradbury arrive at postmodernism,
their framework disintegrates into the very phenomenon it attempts to analyze.
They regard postmodernism as a valid literary evolution, linking it to writers
like Hawthorne, Melville, James, and Faulkner. However, this is a distorted
misrepresentation. The gap between nineteenth-century realists—who believed
literature could reveal social truths—and postmodernists—who deny the existence
of truth—is not a progression but a downfall. The fragmentation, irony, and
pastiche that postmodern theorists praise are not purely artistic innovations
but signs of a ruling class that can no longer confront reality.Postmodernism
is the cultural superstructure of a capitalism that has exhausted its
progressive historical role.¹¹
Toward a Marxist History of American Literature
A truly Marxist history would
start not with Puritan theology but with the material development of American
capitalism: including primitive accumulation and the genocide of indigenous
peoples, the slave South and its destruction during the Civil War, the rise of
industrial capitalism and the class conflicts from 1877 to 1934, the betrayals
involving the CIO and Stalinists, the Cold War, and the long decline of
American imperialism. It would also view major writers—Hawthorne, Melville,
Twain, James, Wharton, Dreiser, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Wright—not as isolated
geniuses but as artists who, to varying degrees, reflected the social realities
of life under capitalism.
And it would explain the decline of American literature
since the 1930s not as a sequence of aesthetic fashions but as the cultural
expression of a ruling class that has nothing left to say.
Conclusion: The Working Class as the Heir of Culture
Trotsky insisted that the working class is the heir of all
genuine culture.¹² It does not need a literary history that ends in postmodern
cynicism, relativism, and despair. It needs a literary history that arms it
with the truth—about capitalism, about its own revolutionary role, and about
the profound social forces that shape artistic creation.
Ruland and Bradbury’s From Puritanism to Postmodernism
presents a sanitized, depoliticized, and reactionary view. It should be
rejected not just academically but politically as well. Marxist criticism's
role is to free American literature from academic ideological biases and
reestablish its connection to the fight for human emancipation.
Footnotes
- Leon
Trotsky, Literature and Revolution (New York: Pathfinder Press,
1991), 182.
- David
North, In Defence of Leon Trotsky (Oak Park: Mehring Books, 2012),
245–60.
- Karl
Marx, The Civil War in the United States (New York: International
Publishers, 1937), 54–60.
- Friedrich
Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009), 27–45.
- Mike
Davis, Prisoners of the American Dream (London: Verso, 1986),
89–120.
- Ellen
Schrecker, No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 3–40.
- David
Walsh, “Theodore Dreiser and the Tragedy of American Life,” World
Socialist Web Site, 2001.
- V.F.
Calverton, The Liberation of American Literature (New York:
Scribner’s, 1932), 12.
- Granville
Hicks, The Great Tradition (New York: Macmillan, 1933), 4.
- Leon
Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (New York: Pathfinder Press,
1972), 112.
- North,
In Defence of Leon Trotsky, 258.
- Trotsky,
Literature and Revolution, 40.
Bibliography
Calverton, V.F. The Liberation of American Literature. New
York: Scribner’s, 1932.
Davis, Mike. Prisoners of the American Dream. London: Verso,
1986.
Engels, Friedrich. The Condition of the Working Class in
England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Hicks, Granville. The Great Tradition. New York: Macmillan,
1933.
Marx, Karl. The Civil War in the United States. New York:
International Publishers, 1937.
North, David. In Defence of Leon Trotsky. Oak Park: Mehring
Books, 2012.
Schrecker, Ellen. No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the
Universities. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Trotsky, Leon. Literature and Revolution. New York:
Pathfinder Press, 1991.
———. The Revolution Betrayed. New York: Pathfinder Press,
1972.
Walsh, David. “Theodore Dreiser and the Tragedy of American
Life.” World Socialist Web Site. 2001.
