As a piece of early dystopian literature, it's fascinating to see what London, writing in 1907, thought the trajectory of a socialist revolution might look like. It lacks the futurism of later famous entries in the genre that follow (Brave New World, 1984), but it does the thing Handmaid's Tale does where it purports to be a discovered manuscript that a future enlightened society later unearths and makes academic commentary on. The footnotes are the best part! In fact, the whole thing is very proto-Handmaid's Tale, being also from a woman's POV. 

That being said, there are a wash of random characters identified only by their last names that it was impossible to keep track of, Everhard is annoyingly smarmy and the narrative gushes over him too much, and generally there was really no one I wanted to root for, because the socialists spend the entire book talking about how glorious the revolution will be and then beef it so badly that the Oligarchy takes over for three hundred years before some actually competent socialists pull it off. And I found it depressing to read about a sudden hostile takeover of America by the hyper-rich 1% that eerily read like my real-time Bluesky feed. UGH.