Marxism in Of Mice and Men

Marxism in Of Mice and Guy

“John Steinbeck: Marxist Advocate?” Considering that the start of time, the world has been contaminated with human greed and appetite for power. However, only a lucky few have the ability to really appease this desire and get to the peak of the financial hierarchy, while the majority of residents scrambles at the bottom, hoping and praying for alleviation from the cruelties of the nonstop oppression in their lives. Nevertheless, in the mid 1800’s, a guy called Karl Marx decided that this continuous cycle of distinction and inequality was wrong.

He thought in a system where everybody was tranquil, happy, and above all, entirely equivalent with one another. Marx was specific that if society might be rid of all types of personal property, our natural goodness– which had actually been distorted by the free-market system– would enable us to reside in this world, sparkling with excellence. Marx’s system, later on called Marxism, captured the attention and support of thousands, including author John Steinbeck.

While writing his novel, Of Mice and Men, Steinbeck appears to have actually been quite understanding towards many elements of Marxism, consisting of how managers encourage workers to mistrust one another, how individuals in non-Marxist systems will always be oppressed by those who have more than they do, and how ladies are typically objectified in private-property-based systems. One popular Marxist tenet in Steinbeck’s novel is the way in which workers are motivated to compete versus each other in private-property-based systems.

This can be seen in the text when the bus chauffeur drops George and Lennie off at an area quite far from the ranch. The bus driver says that the ranch is “Jes’ a little stretch down the highway,” when he drops the two companions off, but they wind up having to walk a cross country (4 ). The bus motorist does not want to help these travelers due to the fact that they do not matter to him, and he is just concerned about earning a living, so for that reason does not take them close to their location. This component surfaces once again when the ranch employer ends up being suspicious of George’s take care of Lennie.

The one in charge asks George why he takes care of Lennie and suspects that George is stealing from him. After George debunks that suspicion, the boss then informs George that he will have his eye on him (23 ). Marxists argue that the “huge employers” encourage and want workers to despise and compete against each other so that they do not discover the power of unity and rise up against their superiors. The ranch boss is so utilized to workers mistrusting one another that this friendship in between George and Lennie slightly baffles and confuses him.

He discovers their relationship uncomfortable and is suspicious because he is shaken by the strangeness. This once again appears apparent when Slim informs George and Lennie to get to supper early. Slim discusses that the two had much better rush “while they’s still something to consume” and that there “won’t be nothing left in a number of minutes” (36 ). If the food only lasts “a number of minutes,” then it seems apparent that there is very little food to begin with. A lack of food causes the workers to compete against each other for their meal, as it is a first come, first serve scenario.

In charges have no factor to give an inadequate quantity of food, for they have the money, and a Marxist might argue that they do this to increase competition in between the workers and deepen the rift between them. Clearly, Steinbeck’s widespread usage of worker-versus-worker mindsets leaves a strong impression of an essential Marxist element. In addition to mistrust in between workers, Steinbeck seems to have stressed another Marxist doctrine: that in a non-Marxist system, the less fortunate will always be oppressed by those who have more than they do.

This can be seen in the text when Curley satisfies George and Lennie and treats them improperly. As quickly as Curley strolls into the bunk house, he begins to argue with George, and he requires Lennie (who would prefer to remain quiet) to answer for himself (25 ). Although Curley has just satisfied these two workers, he instantly tries to exhibit his authority by beginning this quarrel. Curley thinks that because he is the big manager’s son, and therefore more affluent and powerful than the workers, he has every right to apply his supremacy over them.

The author seems to have emphasized this element again when George admits to Slender all the dreadful things that he utilized to do to Lennie. George describes how dumb and naive Lennie was while George played practical jokes on him, and he mentions that Lennie would do anything that George asked, no matter how hazardous it was (40 ). George has something that Lennie does not have, which is intelligence. George utilizes Lennie’s stupidity to his own advantage by deceiving Lennie, an action that a Marxist might think about oppression under this circumstance, because Lennie is too ignorant to comprehend the callousness of George’s jokes.

This Marxist principle surfaces as soon as again when Scoundrels rapidly becomes compliant and loyal after Curley’s better half threatens him. Scoundrels withstands Curley’s wife, however she quickly snaps at Crooks, saying that she could get him “strung up on a tree so simple it ain’t even funny.” After this remark, Crooks’s pang of contumacy immediately withers away (81 ). Curley’s other half is a white lady with a partner who is the boy of the “huge manager”, while Crooks is a black stable buck, so she has far more authority over him. Curley’s better half thinks that she has every right to deal with Scoundrels in this terrible manner since of her greater status.

Hence, through consistently using examples of injustice of those with less at the hands of those with more, Steinbeck seems to show his compassion towards Marxism. A further repeating element of Marxism that Steinbeck depicts in his book is the method which females are dealt with as things rather than people. This occurs in the text when it appears as if there is no love in Curley and his partner’s relationship. Whit mentions that Curley’s other half eyes all the guys on the cattle ranch, which she always takes place to be around the working men rather of eing with Curley (51 ). The point of marriage is to have a genuine relationship built by trust and compassion for one another. Curley and his spouse lack this, which makes it seem as if Curley just keeps better half as a trophy or a mere ownership. This element yet again surfaces when Whit and George talk about Susy’s whorehouse. Whit welcomes George to go to Susy’s place with the other men, where females are “rented” and “utilized” (52 ). These ladies, who are woman of the streets, are spent for, used by the males, and then disposed of.

This relationship is rather similar to the method one may use a basic tool or furnishings, which are both inanimate items, for that reason suggesting that these women are objectified. This is also evident when Steinbeck never provides Curley’s partner a name. Throughout the whole novel, she is called “Curley’s other half” by all the males working on the cattle ranch, instead of Miss, Mrs., or any other female title. The name “Curley’s spouse” suggests that Curley’s wife is an item of Curley’s, simply another one of his lots of possessions. None of the employees have enough respect for her as a person to call her by name, and rather think about her just as “in charge’s other half. Hence, Steinbeck’s repeated usage of the objectification of ladies suggests that he harbors substantial compassion for Marxism. In his unique, Steinbeck seems to continuously use examples of worker-versus-worker attitudes, oppression by those with more, and women’s objectification to reveal the problems of non-Marxist systems. Nevertheless, through the problems that Steinbeck illustrates, he seems to be sending out the reader an essential message: that a number of the problems in free-market economic systems could be repaired with Marxist tenets and concepts.

He hopes that instead of suspecting one another, workers would unify and support one another. Rather of tyrannizing those with less, he hopes that we can see everybody else as an equal. Instead of dealing with ladies as things, we bestow upon them the same respect that we give to males. Although all extreme-Communist nations have actually stopped working to prosper in the past, Steinbeck seems to hope that by placing Marxist components into other financial systems, society may become more serene and simply.

You Might Also Like