Of Mice and Men

John Steinbeck is generally understood to be a man of the left. Of Mice and Men is commonly believed to be about the inequities of the capitalist system and the falsity of the American dream of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.

Yet the novel can actually be read as a condemnation of Marxism.

The novel is commonly said to be about the Great Depression. This fits the Marxist narrative; the Great Depression is supposedly a failure of capitalism. But in fact, there is nothing in the novel that refers to it, or could not have happened at any time before or since. The West has always been full of itinerant laboring men, ranch hands: cowboys. Some say it has to do with the evils of property ownership; but nobody in the novel actually owns any property, and the prospect of ever owning any is presented as something that never really happens. Even “the boss,” Curley’s father, is not the owner of the ranch, but its manager. The situation is not capitalism, but precisely the situation in a Communist/socialist country.

Lennie’s and George’s well-laid plan, the plan of the title, that gangs agley, of owning a little farm and “living off the fat of the land” sounds suspiciously like Marx’s earthly utopia, in which work would always be voluntary. They are even to achieve it by something resembling a “five-year plan.” Involving Candy putting up a disproportionate share of the purchase price: from each according to his means. The rich must pay their “fair share.” And it is, in the end, only a fantasy, unattainable—the Marxist dream is a fantasy. Or rather, it is attainable only after death. It is a vision of the Christian heaven. This is the whole point of Lennie’s death at the end of the book: he gets to “cross the river,” and his life of soft fur is on the other side. This inverts Marxism, which rejects religion as “pie in the sky when you die.” Steinbeck is countering this, calling Marxism the opiate.

Curley’s wife has a fantasy similar to that of the two ranch hands, of being a showgirl or a Hollywood star. And what impresses her most about the idea is, she notes, that she would no longer have to pay for things. “When they had them previews, I could have went to them, and spoke in the radio, and it woulldna cost me a cent, cause I was in the pitcher.” A specifically socialist image, of no longer needing money. But her low-class speech and malapropisms makes it clear to the reader that her dream is improbable, especially in those early days of the “talkie.” She has been conned by men of a higher social class looking for some quick sex. 

Doesn’t her experience here suggest the experience of the proletariat, offered promises of stardom and an easy life from the Marxist intellectuals generally? They, of course, were never going to be allowed the levels of power. They didn’t have the education for it, did they? That would be left to a “vanguard” of experts. It all amounts to a sordid rape.

Everyone in the book has such a fantasy, with the sole exception of Slim, the artist. Everyone is in denial of reality, in favour of some utopian fantasy. At one point, Candy literally puts his arm over his eyes so as not to see; George or Lennie pull their hat brims down. A secondary theme of the novel, taking place just outside of Soledad, “loneliness,” is the need for companionship. But they crave companionship primarily because they need someone else to believe in their fantasy, in order to convince themselves that it is real. This is why George needs Lennie, and why, with Lennie out of the fantasy, he immediately sees the dream of owning a farm as impossible. 

But conversely, and not to be missed, if someone seems to stand in the way of their fantasy, they spontaneously hate them. Lennie curses the dead puppy for dying, because this threatens his fantasy of tending rabbits on a farm. He feels no remorse for the puppy. Candy curses the girl Lennie has just killed, because her death threatens his fantasy of the farm. He seems to have no thought for her as a fellow human. Curley’s wife despises him because being married to him cannot be reconciled with her dream of becoming a movie star. Curley wants to fight any tall man, because they threaten his fantasy of being the alpha male.

This looks like an analysis of the dynamics of the communist movement, and leftist movements generally. They crave collectivism because they need it to confirm some fantasy which otherwise they as individuals would find hard to believe. Not just the fantasy of a work-free life of abundance on this Earth, living off “the fat of the land,” but fantasies of being a “master race,” or things like slavery being morally okay, abortion being morally okay, casual sex and walking out of marriages being okay. Leftism is a form of what psychologists call “denial.” Denial requires collectivism.

And this collectivism turns into discrimination, cruelty, violence and mass murder of anyone who stands, intentionally or inadvertently, in the way of the dream. Kulaks will be killed, or Jews, or priests, or Christians, or blacks, and so forth. The next big guy who shows up will be attacked. A puppy, or a lonely young girl, or a black man, will be scapegoated.

This is, in itself, perhaps a full explanation of human evil. The water snakes, with their periscope eyes, will just keep coming down the Salinas River.

At very least, if Steinbeck had set out deliberately to criticize socialism and leftism with a novel, he could not have done a better job of it.