MovieChat Forums > The Great Debaters (2007) Discussion > Anyone else notice a slightly Communist/...

Anyone else notice a slightly Communist/Socialist slant to the film?


First of all there was the very obvious example of Mr. Tolson being an unofficial but largely hinted at communist, but there were also other things, such as the first few debates they were at, they seemed to be advocating state welfare and a generally larger government, and for their original debate topic with Harvard they were to be arguing that capitalism is immoral. Did anyone else pick up on this subtle but present leftist slant? Anyone else notice anything else leftist in the movie?

"mr. white, can we borrow you for a minute?" "anything....for a lady"

reply

Haven't seen the movie, yet, but those topics were reasonable for the time frame, I believe. There was a lot of flirtation with the Communism/Socialism in the 30s, with the Great Depression and all, along with the woefully incorrect reporting of the Socialist Miracle of the USSR in the same timeframe.

I'm as libertarian and free-market as they come, but at that time there were a lot of people questioning the future of capitalism, since it was getting blamed for a lot of problems created by and/or made far worse (much like today, for that matter) by government action, inaction, and all around incompetence.

So I don't think I'd find fault with the movie if those ideas were promoted within the context without a great deal of countering commentary, which would have been atypical and unusual for the times. Yeah, I'd be ecstatic if they found ways to at least offer some challenges to make people think, but it wouldn't be easy, to say nothing of out of the ordinary for socialist Hollywood types.

reply

Very well said CorumJI. I couldn't agree more. It does tell the context of the movie's setting and the reality of that time. Cool reply you did pal.

reply

Not only is that accurate, but if you were black in the South during the 20's and 30's, I doubt the idea of capitalism or any other instrument of their day-to-day America would seem very appealing. Famous blacks, Paul Robeson for example, were Communist because they were treated much better in Russia than they were in America. Not only that, but I imagine any alternative would seem appealing when you've 'graduated' from being chattel to being the lowest peg on the totem pole socially. Mel Tolson did have at strongest Communist ideologies and at weakest, Communist sympathies. So to omit that from the movie would be a bit disingenuous.

reply

Robeson was treated well in Russia because he was a useful-idiot propaganda tool. If he had been a Russian citizen and ran his mouth, he'd had been shot or off digging uranium ore with his bare hands in a Siberian gulag.

reply

In USSR the government confiscated private property from the citizens (including cattle, food and seeds), and as a result in 1932-33 there was a famine with more than 5 million dead.

reply

COMMUNIST?!!! OMFG!!! Alert the media!! Someone call Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity! The sky is falling! Someone who doesn't believe in the great glories of interplanetary capitalism has been allowed a word, edgewise. Our Consitution does not allow such things! Oh, wait a minute, I guess it does. Seriously, who effing cares, gwales, unless you are among the fringe dwellers who think Ann Coulter is a rational person?

reply

Well also many black Americans and people such as Helen Keller adovcated for it, because of the idea of equality.

reply

I know - they dummies are hilarious aren't they? And the really funny thing is they're not afraid to public air just how stupid they are.

'Well I've got two words for you - STFU'

reply

That's an amazing leap of logic that would get you kicked off any debate team, Mr./Ms. g_wales! "Advocating state welfare and a generally larger government" and "arguing that capitalism is immoral" simply does not translate to a communist or socialist "slant," any more than "generally" defending capitalism translates to fascism. In fact, something resembling "state welfare" preceded socialism by centuries in virtually all western civilizations.

You also assume that only leftists have ever criticized capitalism. But some of the strongest advocates of social reform have been those who wished to preserve capitalism. The Progressive Era in America, for instance, was driven in large part by small businessmen who feared the concentration of wealth that had begun to occur during the late 19th century. They preferred to stay in business, rather than be gobbled up by some trust or monopoly like Standard Oil or the American Tobacco Company.

Other critics of capitalism weren't socialist, but merely social reformers. Mind you, the word "social" does not mean "socialist"--unless you equate ownership of the means of production with wanting to see, for instance, a country where ten-year-old children don't have to work in factories around dangerous machinery for eight or more hours a day.

I've taught history for nearly twenty years, and that experience has taught me that you sound like someone who learns history from TV personalities who have an ideological agenda about current politics.

reply

Well put, superhet! I'm guessing you actually read books! Socialism = all business run by government. We in the U.S. are nowhere even remotely close to that. In my view, we need more gov involvement in such vital things as medical care, and we sure as hell need a lot more regulation, but those are hardly "socialist" positions in the big picture. The failures of the GOP-run government (and GOP-controlled business) have all but demanded this.

reply

Well, don't beat up on g_welles too much. Tolson was arrested for supporting Socialism. Whether or not he was actually a socialist I don't know, but it is a factor in his history.

reply

Yes, but that's part of the story, rather than suggesting the film has a 'slant' towards communism or socialist, as if there was some hidden agenda involved. None of these things needed to be 'picked up', they were front and center slapping the viewer in the face.

I have no idea what the real Tolson believed or did regarding his support for socialism. The movie only shows that he is in support of establishing a union. I wouldn't call that in itself socialist or communist, unless you consider Detroit auto workers to be socialists.

As far as the subject matter of the debates, it seems like the obvious dramatic choice would be for the Wiley team to conveniently be arguing for the more progressive side in their debates, since it fits the subject matter of the film. In reality I assume for and against in a debate is randomly assigned. But the last debate at Harvard would not have felt as satisfying had the 2 sides been switched.

reply

As far as the subject matter of the debates, it seems like the obvious dramatic choice would be for the Wiley team to conveniently be arguing for the more progressive side in their debates, since it fits the subject matter of the film. In reality I assume for and against in a debate is randomly assigned. But the last debate at Harvard would not have felt as satisfying had the 2 sides been switched.

Actually, I think this cheapened the movie considerably, even though it was technically well-made. It is obviously much easier to make a good argument if one has the moral highground and if one believes in ones side. The mark of a great debater is that they are able to put those things aside and make a good argument for a side that they personally disagree with. The movie completely ignored this, in effect equating debating skill with moral conviction. Had they not done this, it would have given the movie a lot more depth IMO. Ah well.

reply

I totally agree with you- the movie conflates the art of debating with the subject matter being debated.

This was an obvious choice for the makers of the film seeking to satisfy a mainstream audience. After all, how could they make a trailer for the movie had the protagonist debate team had to argue for say segregation in the big finish? ;-)

reply

After all, how could they make a trailer for the movie had the protagonist debate team had to argue for say segregation in the big finish?

Well, personally, if well done I think such a scene (though perhaps not as the finale, granted) could've been terrific. But you said the magic words - "mainstream audience".

reply

superhet writes, "That's an amazing leap of logic that would get you kicked off any debate team, Mr./Ms. g_wales!"

g wales didn't assume anything. Since you didn't notice, most of his post is in the form of a question. This isn't your classroom where you can lecture students
with your liberal misinformation.

Your posting is just full of misleading rubble like "something resembling "state welfare" preceded socialism by centuries in virtually all western civilizations." The truth of the matter is that throughout its history, people commonly starved to death in France, Germany and other European countries right up to period before the Great War. The only thing resembling any form of welfare was private charity usually coming from a Christian church.

Your comments on the Progressive Era being driven "in large part by small businessmen" are ludicrous. It was driven by populist politicians who were supported by giant competitors to those "monopolies." In Standard Oil's case, the competitor was the elements that formed the foreign company Royal Dutch Shell which became the world's largest oil company for nearly a century.

Your nearly 20 years of teaching history has enabled you to have block-out facts that don't support your leftist fantasy.



reply

"...most of his post is in the form of a question". Have you never heard of a Rhetorical Question? The Romans were aware of it over 2000 years ago.

"...has enabled you to have block-out facts..." WTF is a block-out FACT?

Those little kids would make mincemeat of y'all.

reply

Carthur27,

I just got around to reading your amazing response to my post. Amazing because you responded not to anything I said, but rather to something you seem to imagine a leftist nut would say. And you ARE assuming that I am a leftist, which will get a huge laugh from my friends (especially the leftist ones) when I tell them about this (go ahead—guess why!).

First, I didn't say that g_whales assumed anything. Don't know where you got that. And to point out that "most of his post is in the form of a question" has no relevance to what I said not only because his questions were rhetorical, but also because he actually ANSWERED his questions. And it was to those answers that I and others on this board responded.

So calm down and take another look at the relatively cautious things I said, and not at what you imagine a person who is prone to extremism thinks. You didn't lay a hand on me. For instance, even if it were true (and decades of scholarship says it's not) that "the only thing resembling any form of welfare was private charity usually coming from a Christian church," recall that Christian churches in western Europe were far more often STATE and not private institutions (remember the Thirty Years' War? It began as a religious war between nation-states). And yes, as you state, there was a great deal of indifference to human suffering in the west before WWI. And yes, "people commonly starved to death" in Europe. But those facts have nothing to do with the fact that a number of good folks, however ineffective their efforts, tried to help, especially through state-supported Christian charities. So to point out that much of those efforts were, as we say today, "faith based" does not justify your overreaction to my mild observation that “something resembling 'state welfare' preceded socialism by centuries in virtually all western civilizations." Indeed, you didn't refute me; you merely provided evidence to support my claim.

Also, you say that my "comments on the Progressive Era being driven 'in large part by small businessmen' are ludicrous." Then you provide but ONE example to support your claim that “populist politicians who were supported by giant competitors to those 'monopolies' (BTW, why the quotes around the word “monopoly”?) constituted the ONLY kinds of progressives. Well, my friend, as historians have been saying for a few thousand years, it's more complicated than that. You seem to have read a little about American history; good for you (I mean that sincerely). But why not dare to widen your scope and investigate the decades-old debate about this complex subject. I promise it won't hurt.

Finally, you apparently and mistakenly believe that to call someone a "leftist" or "liberal" is to insult them. Any historian who believes in democracy will tell you that centuries of spirited competition between liberals and conservatives in the marketplace of ideas has helped strengthen democracy in ways that both sides benefited from. Sometimes conservatives have been right on the issues, and sometimes liberals have been. In any event, much (note: I'm not saying "all") of the strength of the democratic tradition comes from an admirable mutual tolerance of conservatives and liberals alike. In other words, rather than insisting on the kinds of total victory we've seen in totalitarian states, our liberals and conservatives get to survive to debate another day. The prospect of hate-filled, intolerant leftists or right-wingers (like yourself) totally vanquishing their ideological opponents should scare the hell out of all thinking persons. I'm not saying that you want that, but your curious one-sidedness makes me suspect that you do. Hope I'm wrong about that, but I'm right about everything else in this post.

reply

Woa chillax pal! Ouch! G_wales must have gotten what he/she deserves.

That's some nice insight you have pal. Thank you.

reply

The fact that the name of Hitler is brought in reminds us that the notion of an anti-fascist alliance, led by the Soviet Union, had a hold on the imagination of many American leftist, including blacks. The Germans and Italians were engaged in the Spanish Civil War supporting Franco against the Republican regime which was supported by Stalin. I think that Tolson was a supporter of the Republicans, even though this is not brought in the film.

reply

Well said. When supporting equality is seen as Communist you know your country is in a deep hole of hard right hysterical anti-intellectual schizoid-paranoia

'Well I've got two words for you - STFU'

reply

It wasn't just that there was a Communist/Socialist slant to the movie, it's that there was a leftist movement in history at this time. In 1935, the country was still reeling from the 1929 Crash and was in the middle of the Great Depression. When many people suddenly had Nothing, they suddenly felt that those who had Something should spread it around a little, which they did - FDR enacted many laws and committees to advance the welfare system to help the explosion of America's unemployed.

The controversy came into play because most Americans didn't want a full-on governmental revolution, as had happened in Russia. The fact that they often debated Communist and Socialist ideas is just a "sign of the times," not necessarily a message from the filmmakers.

reply

As others have mentioned here, within the context of the time these were the debates that were taking place everywhere. It was a time when people were absolutely desperate to work, but no work was available, and through no fault of their own people had to seek assistance to feed their families. If you look at some of the photographs that document the Depression, you see families dressed practically in rags, skin and bones, care-worn faces. It's heartbreaking.

The issue of organizing labor unions contains elements that could certainly be construed as Communist. Maybe it's hard today for some of us to comprehend what led some people to have Communist tendencies. We all go to work and there are laws in place that ensure that we are treated relatively well. Such laws were not in place back then. People in positions of power were often free to do almost whatever they wanted, unless workers were able to form a united front against mistreatment.

So try not to judge these concepts from today's standpoint...particularly given that we now know what we know about Communism and Socialism, things which had yet to come to fruition at that time.


Whadda ya hear, whadda ya say!


reply

Grow up.

reply

Senator Joseph McCarthy, so glad you could join us on IMDB, rumours of your death were premature.

Life is just one damned thing after another - Elbert Hubbard

reply

I can only quote mister Tolson himself, when a nigro steals a chicken he gets into jail, when a white man steals obligations he gets into congress. Well you could call me a communist, but that' s just not fair.

I think it' s funny to see how americans call everything what is social or left wing or just anything with a different opinion, immediately communist. But I am from the Netherlands so we are more left wing minded, but not communist because we don" t like those red basterds (:P).

I can' t remember asking a goddamn thing!

reply

Americans live in glass houses.
They live in mortal fear at the mere hint of socialism.

Better to spend everything on the military and give tax cuts to the rich than help normal americans.

Such an inward looking, insular country

Eat the Neocons.

reply

= They live in mortal fear at the mere hint of socialism. =
No so much fear as there should be, since Americans elected Obama into office. Twice.

= Better to spend everything on the military and give tax cuts to the rich than help normal americans. =
Yes. Because protecting citizens rights from criminals and external enemies is the main purpose of the government.
That's the service every citizen buys with their taxes. If you want to help other people, you can donate to charities.

reply

About the only way the POTUS could be considered a "socialist" is if one is so far right that everything looks Left. What has Obama done that is "Socialistic"? The ACA? Nudging the US toward affordable health care when every other industrialized country in the world has some form of universal health care is hardly socialism in a pejorative sense. Unless you think every place is slouching toward communism. Which you may.

Protecting citizens is the main purpose of government? Not unity, justice, promoting the general welfare of the citizenry, or promoting liberty for all? Darn that Constitution. It's gotten so much wrong.

And I really don't know how invading other countries protects the US, but I'm wacky that way.

Noticed even you couldn't defend tax cuts for the rich.

reply

= About the only way the POTUS could be considered a "socialist" is if one is so far right that everything looks Left =
True. It works both ways though. From my point of view (quite right indeed), the only way the POTUS could be not considered a socialist is if one is so left that Obama looks somewhere in the center.

= What has Obama done that is "Socialistic"? The ACA? =
Yes, the ACA is one of the things I consider socialistic. There are also a lot of things he said which have strong socialistic taste in them, probably the most famous line is "if you've got a business—you didn't build that"

May I also remind you that Obama was endorsed by the Communist Party of USA.

= Protecting citizens is the main purpose of government? Not unity, justice, promoting the general welfare of the citizenry, or promoting liberty for all? =
Protecting citizens' rights to life, liberty and property IS justice and liberty for all, I'm not sure how you are opposing one against another.

= Noticed even you couldn't defend tax cuts for the rich. =
I believe it's progressive tax which needs defending. What progressives call "tax cuts" (wow, 35% instead of 39%) I consider laughable - 35% tax is still too high and has to be significantly lowered. Flat tax of 10% seems acceptable. So I support real tax cuts (not cosmetic), and for everyone, not just for the rich.

reply

No, the only way you could consider the POTUS a socialist is if you have no idea what socialism is. Perhaps you haven't paid attention to his economic policies. Which would be an important indicator, amongst others.

The U.S. is the only country in the industrialized world without universal health care. And the world is capitalist, with exceedingly rare exceptions. Even China is capitalistic.

I'm sorry you didn't understand his speech. Perhaps you only heard the sound bite. The things the business owner "didn't build" were the roads, bridges, and infrastructure used by and which support the business. He was making the point that the community, through the government, is crucial in a business owner's success. Which it is. Here's a thought: listen to the man, not what RW pundits say about him.

I don't care who "endorses" Obama. That says nothing about him. If the Kardashians "endorse" him, does that make him a ditz?

Flat tax. Right. Massively benefits the rich and handicaps the poor. Now that's laughable.

reply

No, the only way you could consider the POTUS a socialist is if you have no idea what socialism is

I have a pretty good idea. I was born in Soviet Russia.

Flat tax. Right. Massively benefits the rich and handicaps the poor. Now that's laughable.

Progressive tax is one of the points of Marx manifesto. There you go.

reply

If you were born in the Soviet Union, it's even odder that you mistake Obama for a socialist. I notice you give no examples or "evidence" of his socialism.

Progressive tax is common to the majority of countries. So they are all reading Marx? Might it be because it makes economic sense?

People who are very far Right do see so much as being Left.

reply