Are the Joads communists? - The Grapes of Wrath (1940) Discussion

[–] AirForceVet 12 years ago

It was expressed by many in the literary world that the book had a sub-text of communism.
Until Steinbeck won the Nobel Prize for literature.

But we in it shall be remembered;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers

reply

[–] bhoover247 12 years ago

No, the Joads were just poor.

reply

[–] annie-agard 12 years ago

No. The union organizers in the novel are called "Reds" by some of the cops and owners. Historically, probably some were and some weren't. At that time, the only political solutions to the desperate situations people faced were coming from somewhere left of center.

reply

[–] jaystarstar 12 years ago

Socialism and/or communism sounds a hell of a lot better when the bankers chase you off your land with bulldozers and you gotta buy bread by the slice for grandma to eat.

================

4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.

reply

[–] lolarites 12 years ago

You said it, Buster.

reply

[–] LesterFester 12 years ago

Socialism and/or communism sounds a hell of a lot better when the bankers chase you off your land with bulldozers ...

Why were the bankers chasing people off their land?

reply

[–] annie-agard 12 years ago

Basically the same reason why banks are foreclosing on homes today. People took out mortgages, couldn't pay the banks back.

reply

[–] LesterFester 12 years ago

I agree the banks were forclosing ... but it was no longer THEIR land.

Levon Helm... The Best There Ever Was, The Best There'll Ever Be

reply

[–] annie-agard 12 years ago

You are right, I skipped a step and over-simplified. The banks foreclosed and took the land, then the farmers stayed on as sharecroppers, farming land that they no longer owned. Later, when sharecropping became less profitable, the banks put them off the land.

reply

[–] indy_go_blue44 11 years ago

Isn't anyone who believes in social progress and caring about starving people a stinkin' dirty commie rat?

reply

[–] bill3-1 11 years ago

Today "Socialist" is the buzz word, everybody who voted for Obama and for Democrats are socialists too.

reply

[–] threeeschs 11 years ago

It would be nice if Obama were a socialist. Settling for "Not willing to totally mug the people for the corporate elite" is a pretty feint second prize.

reply

[–] jfd0210 11 years ago

In regard to the first post:
Just because someone is hopeful of everyone getting a fair share doesn't make them a communist.

reply

[–] purrshaped 10 years ago

LOL, spot on there even with feint for faint.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 10 years ago

you are wrong. you claim that democrats and obama is socialist. in fact, it is conservative. just not as extreme as the other side. there is no socialist politics in america. there is only right and extreme right.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 3 years ago

To.some people. As a dedicated anti-Communist for half a century, I disagree. I believe in noblesse oblige - everyone has the right to be treated fairly.

reply

[–] mistedshadow 10 years ago

define communist

reply

[–] Opwiz 10 years ago

who is brainwashed, lol

reply

[–] activista 9 years ago

@davemason72

Brainwashed? He didn't even tell the men exactly what being a "Red" was,because he couldn't. So no, they're weren't brainwashed at all.

reply

[–] swlabr 7 years ago

My parents lived through the Great Depression. Socialism/Communism start to sound good to an empty stomach. But my father joined the Civilian Conservation Corps and built parks and planted trees in Arizona. I have just been scanning some of the pictures he took and he noted on them that those were some of the best days of his life. After that he joined the Army Air Corps. So 20 years after my parents married, I was born and politics were always a lively discussion as I was growing up.

reply

[–] RazoulGoozleSmog (169) 6 years ago

I don't think so, if the Joad's could have their old lives back (owning their own farm and working for themselves) they would of taken it back in a heartbeat. I don't really think the movie/book is pro-socialist just because it shows the dark side of capitalism.

The government camps were never meant to be permanent, just a stepping stone to getting people on their feet.

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 6 years ago

But, they were sharecroppers, Smog. They made the gargantuan mistake of selling the land.

That is the exact same choice that the (Lung's) were faced with in "The Good Earth" - 1937. They did not do what the Joads did, they kept their land & survived their catastrophe(s). & it was the wife who overruled the husband's decision to sell it.

reply

[–] RazoulGoozleSmog (169) 6 years ago

That was a gamble on their part, I don't think it necessarily makes them communists or socialist, they just weren't thinking far enough into the future.

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 6 years ago

I agree, Smog.

reply