52
PAR'l'JSAN REYIEW
the revolutionary pioneers in the intensity of their struggle had to ignore.
The latest literary generation may be called the proletarian gen–
eration, because it is the only unified group among the younger writers,
and because most of its members are related in one way or another to
the labor movement, to the Communist Party, and to the literature
growing out of these forces. Besides, this generation is coming up at a
time when the air is charged with discussions about proletarian literature,
when this question is the axis of most significant writing today. I do
not mean to imply that all these writers come from proletarian families,
nor that all are creating unmistabble proletarian literature; but that their
activity mark:s a period in which revolutionary literature is the most
significant and strongest literary current.
Most of us come from petty-bourgeois homes; some, of course, from
proletarian ones. But the gravity of the economic crisis has levelled most
of us (and our families) to a meager, near-starvation existence. Oppor–
tunities for cashing-in are gone, and we have no illusions about their
return. The kind of reputation which used to bring jobs as editors,
lecturers, and readers in publishing houses, holds no lure for us, because
those jobs have been whittled down to a few sinecures for stand-patters
and tight-rope walkers. The bourgeoisie does not want us, and we could
not accept the double-dealing which these jobs require. All of us have
worked, for some time at least, in factories, in stores, and at odd jobs.
Some have had better paying jobs as teachers. But we are all in the
same leaky boat now.
Our economic experiences have stripped us of waverings, of side·
glances toward prosperous avenues. . Our aims have been linked to the
proletariat. Hence many of the proletarian generation; have not had to
make any
transition
to a revolutionary outlook; and for those who have,
the adjustment has not been so difficult as for the older writers. What–
ever transition has been necessary, has been due to our consciousness of
heritage. And our problem has been toj use this heritage in our search
for methods of recreating revolutionary experience. There have been
many differences and conflicts among us, based somewhat on individual
gifts and temperament, but:l mainly on fundamental theoretical and even
class differences. But, for the most part, we have had to make no
jumps; and we have not had to give up anything.
1
The relation of the proletarian generation to the preceding ones
hinges on the attitude we tak:e to our creative problems. It has been
pointed out that the thin line of revolutionary writers who are trying
