Analysis  

The Trouble With Steinbeck

by Nicholas Varriano

More Americans learn about the depression of the 1930s from John Steinbeck's novels than from any other source. Too bad Steinbeck got it wrong.

---

John Steinbeck is a perennial favorite among American novelists. His most popular book is "The Grapes of Wrath," a work that is usually studied, not just as a literary masterpiece, but as an accurate characterization of American life. In fact, the book is a textbook example of economic misunderstanding. Whatever its strictly literary value may be, its economic (and therefore, political) fallacies should lead educators who assign it to post a warning: "May be hazardous to your conceptual health."

"The Grapes of Wrath" tells the story of Oklahoma farmers losing their land to banks during the Great Depression of the 1930s. With no work, the dislocated farmers migrate to California in search of jobs. Once in California, large farm owners mercilessly take advantage of the migrant workers. Through the plight of the migrant workers, Steinbeck attempts to demonstrate the death of American capitalism, the system that promises individual opportunity and private property as the reward for taking risks and working hard. The new system to replace capitalism remains nameless, but it is certainly socialistic. Stephen Railton contends, "The goal of the novel is to suggest that a socialized democracy is as quintessentially American as the individualistic dream it will replace" (166). When the system fails, people rise up to demand change. Steinbeck writes, "Paine, Marx, Jefferson, Lenin were results, not causes" (159). At first glance, this list of historical names causes confusion, but it serves to reassure the reader by linking socialism with America's revolutionary tradition.

In "The Grapes of Wrath," Steinbeck calls for a new national order based upon an economic philosophy that intentionally leads his reader down the path to socialism described by economist Friedrich Hayek in "The Road to Serfdom." Socialism refers to a social organization based on government ownership, management, or control of the means of production and the distribution and exchange of goods. Hayek states, "Socialism means slavery" (13). People cannot abandon freedom in economic affairs without also losing personal and political freedom.

Jim Casy provides the voice for Steinbeck's socialistic idealism. Steinbeck states through Casy, a former preacher:

"I got thinkin' how we was holy when it was one thing. An' it on'y got unholy when one mis'able little fella got the bit in his teeth an' run off his own way, kickin' an draggin' an' fightin'. Fella like that bust the holiness. But when they're all workin' together, not one fella for another fella, but one fella kind of harnessed to the whole shebang — that's right, that's holy. "(88)

The fella running off on his own symbolizes capitalism and everyone working together symbolizes socialism. Steinbeck inadvertently produces another symbol in this speech. When he describes one fella harnessed to the whole shebang, he describes the slavery of socialism. The tyranny of government serves as the driver providing direction for the harnessed people.

In order to help the downtrodden, Steinbeck proposes abandoning the individualist tradition. Dispensing with laissez faire policies producing unforeseen wealth and standard of living, Steinbeck calls for the impersonal mechanisms of the free market to be replaced by a social democracy, but Hayek asserts, "Democracy as an essentially individualist institution stood in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism" (25). Democracy extends individual freedom while socialism restricts freedom. In 1848, Alexis De Tocqueville said, "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude" (Hayek 25). Contrary to the myth projected by Steinbeck's novel, socialism leads to totalitarianism, a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of life.

Such canonized literary works as "The Grapes of Wrath" perpetuate the myth that under free market capitalism the rich exploit the poor. As Milton Friedman has observed:

"Wherever the free market has been permitted to operate, wherever anything approaching equality of opportunity has existed, the ordinary man has been able to attain levels of living never dreamed of before. Nowhere is the gap between rich and poor wider, nowhere are the rich richer and the poor poorer, than in those societies that do not permit the free market to operate. "(137)

Steinbeck espouses the exploitation myth in order to generate sympathy for the migrant workers and portray the large landowners and businessmen as villains. But focusing solely on one group of people produces an economic philosophy that is fuzzy or worse. Long ago, economic writer Henry Hazlitt exposed the fallacy of this kind of thinking: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups" (17).

Steinbeck calls for special help for migrant workers, but fails to consider the implications for society at large, although he realized that technology was changing the economic landscape of 1930s Oklahoma. A truck driver tells the novel's protagonist, Tom Joad, "Croppers going fast now. One cat' takes and shoves ten families out. Cat's all over hell now" (Steinbeck 9). Cat refers to a Caterpillar tractor. One man driving a tractor produces the same results as ten families toiling over the land. The departure of small farmers made possible the consolidation of farmland. This, in turn, made possible the use of tractors, fertilization, and irrigation, with an accompanying boom in productivity and wealth. By 1945, Oklahoma ranked third in the nation in the production of wheat (Starr 124). The increase in productivity meant that marginal lands could be farmed at a profit.

Steinbeck mistakenly believes, however, that technology causes the loss of employment for ten families, not realizing that although farming jobs are lost, other jobs are gained. Jobs increase in the production of tractors. Tractor production increases the need for more steel workers. The shipping of finished tractors requires truck drivers. An increase in the use of tractors requires more oil and rubber production. When farmers confront a tractor operator about earning $3.00 a day at the expense of 15 or 20 families, the tractor operator replies, "Times are changing, minister, don't you know? Can't make a living on the land unless you've got two, five, ten thousand acres and a tractor. Cropland isn't for little guys like us anymore" (Steinbeck 39). Thus Steinbeck states the counterargument to his own socialist position. But the farmers fail to see the new opportunities available and instead try to cling to their old way of life.

To his credit, Steinbeck makes the farmers share the blame for the economic collapse in which they find themselves. Muley Graves admits, "I know this land ain't much good. Never was much good 'cept for grazin'. Never should have broke her up. An' now she's cottoned damn near to death" (Steinbeck 50). Farmers continue to work land not suitable for the plow. As they plow the land, the roots of wild grass that held the sod together eventually died and the wind eroded the soil, creating the Dust Bowl.

Rather than turn their anger inward, farmers lash out at the bank that they view as an insatiable monster determined to destroy their livelihood. When crops fail, farmers turn to the bank in order to obtain money to make ends meet and plant next year's crop. To obtain the loan, the farmer uses his land as collateral. After another poor year of crops, the farmer defaults on the loan. The bank owns the land and the farmer becomes a tenant, sharing a percentage of the crop. As the soil becomes more and more depleted, neither the bank nor the farmer can make ends meet. The bank has other options, but the farmer insists on doing things the old way.

From Steinbeck's point of view, however, the banking industry is "the monster [that] has to have profits all the time" (33). Yes, banks need to make decisions that lead to profits because they hold a responsibility to their depositors, who are often poor people like those that Steinbeck idealizes. People have entrusted their money to the bank for security and the opportunity to earn a fair interest rate. The Great Depression hit the banking industry hard. Banks do not possess an endless supply of money. During mid-1929 nearly 25,000 commercial banks were in operation in the United States. By 1933, 10,000 banks ceased to exist (Friedman 76). When the bank makes a loan on a farm that eventually blows away during the Dust Bowl, it fails to recoup its investment. There are no families back East waiting to purchase worn-out land as Steinbeck implies; there is only a loss that someone must take.

Of course, one can view blame as a class phenomenon if one wishes to do so, and that is what Steinbeck does. Describing his business, a car dealer states, "We ain't selling cars — rolling junk. Goddamn it, I got to get jalopies. I don't want nothing for more'n twenty-five, thirty bucks. Sell 'em for fifty, seventy-five. That's a good profit" (Steinbeck 66). Behind the ugly words is an economic reality. The car dealer, like everyone else, including Steinbeck's heroic poor folk, is out to make a profit for the service that he provides. Being a good businessman, he tailors his inventory to the laws of supply and demand. His customers have little money, so he stocks affordable cars. He could choose to sell higher quality cars, but he would be forced to ask for a higher price and there is no demand for higher priced cars. The car dealer provides a service to low-income buyers. The buyer is not forced to make a purchase and is free to look elsewhere for a car of his choosing. A transaction Steinbeck describes as thievery, Adam Smith calls an example of the "invisible hand" at work. According to Smith, "People working for their own gain are led, as if 'by an invisible hand' to promote the public good" (260). Both parties have benefited one another. The auto dealer earns a profit and the buyer obtains a car in his price range. Such transactions, to Steinbeck, should be the cause of guilt.

When Tom Joad enters a private camping ground, he discovers that the proprietor charges fifty cents per day. The proprietor explains that he is just trying to make a living. And Tom replies, "Yeah. On'y I wisht they was some way to make her thout' takin her away from somebody else" (Steinbeck 206). But the proprietor is not taking from someone else. He provides a service that people are free to accept or reject.

Steinbeck proposes that people with limited financial means should be helped by the more affluent. Although the free market provides for the needy through charitable institutions toward which people willingly contribute, socialism takes money in the form of taxation in order to redistribute benefits to select groups; and this is what Steinbeck favors. His ideal is a government housing camp, humbly named "Weedpatch." Interestingly, individual charity is not permitted there.

Weedpatch appears at first glance to be a slice of heaven. It provides toilets with paper, hot water showers, clothes-washing facilities, good drinking water, and dances on Saturday night. But, as Hazlitt remarked, "Everything we get, outside of the free gifts of nature, must in some way be paid for" (31). All government expenditures must eventually be paid out of the proceeds of taxation. As tax rates increase, people have less money to invest in new businesses or purchase products that could in turn create jobs. None of this is visible in Steinbeck's account; only the benefits of government intervention appear.

According to Howard Levant, "The camp people are described as clean, friendly, joyful, and organized, while in the struck orchard they are dirty, suspicious, anxious, and disorganized by the police" (118). But someone must decide how these benefits are distributed.

A closer look at the government camp shows a benevolent tyranny that averages out the will of the people and excludes those unable or unwilling to accept the average, such as the small group of religious fanatics. The children exclude a girl from playing a game because she behaves as a rugged individual, permitting her to rejoin their game only when she conforms to the group.

Leadership of the government camp falls upon Jim Rawley, the manager, who fills the allegorical role of God (Levant 121). He dresses all in white and the frayed seams on his coat suggest the human availability of God-in-Christ. Like God, the camp manager enjoys spending time with his people. When he hears that the religious fanatic woman has described him as the devil, he answers, "I know she does. That's because I won't let her make people miserable. . . . Don't you worry. She doesn't know" (Steinbeck 343). Only God — and, apparently in Steinbeck's world, the civil service — is all knowing and all powerful. But even Steinbeck allows that government programs, unlike God, may not benefit people in the long run.

The camp can provide only limited provisions. It remains stationary while migrant workers move to the next job. The Joad family leaves in search of work because they face the prospects of starvation after being unemployed for a month.

Three hundred thousand migrants poured into California during the 1930s. All of these people were looking for work. By 1933, dollar income was cut in half, total production output fell by a third, and unemployment reached 25 percent of the total work force (Friedman 62). In this economical landscape, the Joads fight for survival. Steinbeck correctly observes, "The more fellas he can get, an' the hungrier, less he's gonna pay" (209). The laws of supply and demand dictate the price paid for labor. The good thing about this is that every person has the choice to accept or reject the rate of pay. Steinbeck advocates government controlled wages, not inquiring about whether laws requiring employers to pay a minimum wage may hurt the people they are designed to help. When a law is passed stating that no person can be hired for less than $10 per day, the first thing to happen is that anyone not worth $10 per day to an employer will be unemployed. Hazlitt points out, "You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less" (135). The minimum wage law prevents the man from earning an amount that his abilities would permit him to earn. Unemployment is substituted for a low wage.

Migrant workers attempt to increase wages by forming a union and striking against the landowners. Steinbeck mistakenly believes that organizing the people will bring prosperity to all. As Hazlitt explains, "The belief that labor unions can substantially raise real wages over the long run and for the whole working population is one of the greatest delusions of the present age" (140). Labor productivity determines wages. The legitimate function of labor unions is to improve local working conditions and to assure that all of their members get the true market value for their services. When labor unions seek to fix the wages of their members above their market value, the attempt brings unemployment. When employees call a strike, the picket lines are designed to prevent other workers from taking the job for the wage that the old employees have rejected. By preventing new workers from choosing the best job alternative open to them, the strikers are insisting on a position of privilege and are using force to maintain this privilege against other workers.

Remember the law of demand. The higher a price of anything, the less of it people are willing to buy. As the cost of labor increases, the number of jobs will decrease. According to Friedman, successful unions reduce the number of jobs available of the kind that it controls (225). Unions have two ways of increasing wages for their members: keep down the number of jobs available or keep down the number of people available for a class of jobs. As a result, people who would like to get such jobs at the union wage cannot do so. These people have to look elsewhere for a job, thus increasing an already overcrowded labor supply that drives down wages. Hayek states, "Every restriction on the freedom of entry into a trade reduces the security of all those outside it" (128). The gains that strong unions make for their members are primarily at the expense of other workers.

Steinbeck decries the treatment of the migrant workers, but fails to provide a better solution than the free market. Jules Chametzky points out that Steinbeck possesses a deep distrust of both organizations and technology (54). Like Thomas Jefferson, Steinbeck envisions America as an agrarian society of small, independent landowners.

An advocate of natural rights, Steinbeck believes, "Those who live and work on the land, who pay for it with their blood, sweat and toil, own the land" (McCarthy 76).

As one of his migrant worker excitedly suggests, "Whyn't twenty of us take a piece of lan'? We got guns. Take it an' say, 'Put us off if you can.' Whyn't we do that?" (Steinbeck 260).

In an article for The Nation, Steinbeck made two suggestions to improve the plight of migrant workers. He proposed that migrant workers be allotted small subsistence farms on which to live and work when there is no call for migrant labor, and he called for the creation of a Migrant Labor Board to help allocate labor where it is needed and to determine fair wages (Lisca 152). These suggestions might conceivably benefit the lives of migrant workers, but they would clearly do so only at the expense of all other citizens. Who is going to pay for the subsistence farms? Who will decide which lucky workers receive calls from the Migrant Labor Board? Increases in wages result in an increase in the cost of a product for all consumers. If consumers are not willing to pay the increased price, production falls and jobs are lost. These are just a few of the problems resulting from a policy that looks only at the immediate needs of a single group rather than long-term effects for all groups.

"The Grapes of Wrath" can be read as a social document of the times, providing a record of drought conditions, economic problems, sharecropping, and migrant life. Steinbeck's main purpose for writing "The Grapes of Wrath" is to persuade his reader to reject conditions that bring suffering and misery to the poor. Railton maintains, "By illustrating the conversions that occur within the Joad family, Steinbeck clarifies the nature of change he wants enacted in his reader" (165). This change involves a concern and love for others and action on their behalf. But the changes that Steinbeck had in mind, like many other economic innovations resulting from the literary imagination, untutored by any serious economic thought, would never benefit the people as a whole, or even many of the individuals targeted directly.

Not all people decided to leave Oklahoma to journey to the Promised Land of California during the Dust Bowl years. One bankrupt store owner stayed in Oklahoma, taking a low-level job with a bank. Later, the man's son opened a store somewhat like his father's but emphasizing low prices. His business strategy proved successful, so he opened another store. His name was Sam Walton and his chain of stores became known as Wal-Mart. By giving people what they wanted, at a price they could afford, he became the wealthiest man in the world, in the process richly demonstrating the advantages of the free market.

As far as I know, there are no novels about the achievements of Sam Walton.

---

Works Cited: Chametzky, Jules. "Other Possible Endings for 'The Grapes of Wrath'." "Readings on 'The Grapes of Wrath'." Ed. Bruno Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. 50-57. Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman. "Free to Choose." New York: Avon, 1979. Hayek, Friedrich A. "The Road to Serfdom." Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Hazlitt, Henry. "Economics in One Lesson." New York: Arlington House, 1979. Hyman, Stanley Edgar. "Some Notes on John Steinbeck." "Steinbeck and His Critics." Ed. E.W. Tedlock, Jr. and C.V. Wickers. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1969. 152-166. Levant, Howard. "The Novels of John Steinbeck: A Critical Study." Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 1974. Lisca, Peter. "The Wide World of John Steinbeck." New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1958. McCarthy, John. "John Steinbeck." New York: Frederick Ungar, 1980. Railton, Stephen. "John Steinbeck's Call to Conversion in 'The Grapes of Wrath'." Readings on John Steinbeck. Ed. Bruno Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996. 165-175. Smith, Adam. "Free Trade." "The Libertarian Reader." Ed. David Boaz. New York: Free Press, 1998. 260-262. Starr, Roger. "Dust Bowl Days." Public Interest. 1 July 1998: 122-125. Steinbeck, John. "The Grapes of Wrath." New York: Bantam Pathfinder, 1972.

© Copyright 2010, Liberty Foundation

Send editorial comments to letters@libertyunbound.com.
All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.

Send web site comments to webmaster@libertyunbound.com.