The Pilgrims Dreamed of Socialism. Then Socialism Almost Killed Them.
Private property was the solution to their failed experiment. But people keep repeating the Pilgrims' mistakes.

Thursday, if you eat a nice meal, thank the Pilgrims. They made Thanksgiving possible.
They left the Old World to escape religious persecution. They imagined a new society where everyone worked together and shared everything.
In other words, they dreamed of socialism. Socialism then almost killed them.
As I explain in my weekly video, the Pilgrims attempted collective farming. The whole community decided when and how much to plant, when to harvest, and who would do the work.
Gov. William Bradford wrote in his diary that he thought that taking away property and bringing it into a commonwealth would make the Pilgrims "happy and flourishing."
It didn't. Soon, there wasn't enough food. "No supply was heard of," wrote Bradford, "neither knew they when they might expect any."
The problem, Bradford realized, was that no one wanted to work. Everyone relied on others to do the work. Some people pretended to be injured. Others stole food.
The communal system, Bradford wrote, "was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment."
Young men complained they had to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."
Strong men thought it was an "injustice" they had to do more than weaker men without more compensation.
Older men thought that working as much as young men was "indignity and disrespect."
Women who cooked and cleaned "deemed it a kind of slavery."
The Pilgrims had run into the "tragedy of the commons." No individual Pilgrim owned crops they grew, so no individual had much incentive to work.
Bradford's solution: private property.
He assigned every family a parcel of land so they could grow their own corn. "It made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been," he wrote.
People who had claimed that "weakness and inability" made them unable to work now were eager to work. "Women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn," wrote Bradford.
The Pilgrims learned an important lesson about private property.
Unfortunately, people keep repeating the Pilgrims' mistakes.
Socialism is more popular than capitalism among college students. Many want everything shared, including their student loan debt.
President Joe Biden wants to give them that by forgiving some of their student debt.
Of course, then the debt would become a common to be repaid by all taxpayers.
That would punish people who had long ago paid off their debt.
It would punish people who studied, worked hard, got jobs, and were working to pay off college loans.
It would people who went to trade school or no school at all.
It would punish poor people because student loans are mostly held by the relatively rich.
Government granted student loans already create bad incentives.
People who don't like or benefit from college are encouraged to take out loans they can't afford and go to expensive colleges anyway.
Colleges increase their tuition, knowing that government will pay what students don't.
Forgiving student debt would make all that worse.
Fortunately, Biden's student loan forgiveness program ran up against legal challenges. I hope it's dead.
Students should learn from the Pilgrims: take responsibility for your own debt, work hard to pay it off, and don't expect the public to fund your bad decisions.
Bottom line: In a common, everybody takes as much as they can. That creates shortages.
Private property creates prosperity.
Every Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for that.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
The thing is, a lot of that is still true. A lot of people work very hard and are poorly paid to provide basic necessities for people who do very little yet make a lot of money. The recent twitter kerfuffle is an example of that.
The people who do the hardest, most necessary work are society's least paid.
During the pandemic, I was an essential worker. I made $11 an hour while laid off useless people made $15 an hour and the laptop class who do nothing made their usual salary.
And the libertarian solution isn't any better. They want to flood the country with cheap labor to push wages for the poor even lower
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
A lot of people work very hard and are poorly paid
Skill sets matter.
Racist!
The people who condemn your words
are the people who condone the abuse
because they are the ones feeding off the hard work
while claiming to be "working smarter!"
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)>>> ONLINE USA WORK
Hardest? Maybe, if they work hard and not smart. Most necessary? Not by a long shot.
Your Econ 101 knowledge is absent. Learn a little before you start throwing around nonsense again.
Does the name "essentials" ring a bell?
The laws of supply and demand apply to labor as well. There's lots of unskilled people out there so they don't get to demand a high price for their labor (this is why minimum wage is so evil, because it makes many unskilled people permanently unemployed by demanding employers pay them more than they can bring into the company). That's why it's advantageous to have a skill. How many plumbers are there? Few enough that, combined with high demand, they're able to command a high price for their labor. Don't know about you, but I've never seen a poor plumber. But I see plenty of poor people with no skills.
The laws of supply and demand apply to labor as well.
Yup. Nailed it. It's so easy and yet so many marxists just can't understand this.
They see x number of hours put into something, and feel that it must be worth more than something that took y hours, where x is greater than y. It makes sense on a certain level. Suppose the people putting x and y hours into their work were of equal skill, then the product that took x hours should be better than the product that took y hours. Skilled craftsmanship and all that. Now suppose they're grade schoolers. Doesn't really matter how much time they put into it. Now suppose they're adults with the skills of grade schoolers. You get the idea.
Now suppose they’re adults with the skills of grade schoolers. You get the idea.
You illustrated your point perfectly.
A friend's no-good lazy son once was really proud of himself for having solved the world's problems by re-inventing Marx's labor theory of value: it was unfair that his father, for example, got paid more per hour to drive a backhoe than he got paid to cut firewood. I said me too, that even though I would cut firewood ten times slower than him, I should get paid just as much for every hour spent doing so as he gt paid. He said that was ridiculous, no one would pay that. He could not see the connection.
Should get him to listen to GWAR's cover of Kansas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UexqiHKFwKg
"Get off the couch and get a god damn job!"
The laws of supply and demand apply to labor as well.
This Econ 101 argument oversimplifies things. Which side is the "supply" and which is the "demand" in the labor market? Are workers the supply with companies that want workers making up the demand, or is it that companies have a supply of jobs with workers having demand for them? It seems to me to be a matter of perspective, unlike the relationship between consumers and producers.
Changing the perspective can influence how we think of the labor market. In practice, it is often about which side has the ability to weather a shortage better or which side has fewer options. In the modern American corporate economy, low-skill workers and others in the working class* are the ones with fewer options for employment. That inherently gives businesses more leverage in negotiating wages.
The development of the "knowledge economy" has allowed highly educated and highly skilled workers to demand a premium salary and benefits package, but obtaining that level of education and skill set is not cheap itself. The days when a high school diploma from a typical public school was a sufficient starting point for a job with decent pay in manufacturing are long gone. Even if you were to say that "useless" degrees in humanities shouldn't be subsidized, a degree in a STEM field or business still costs a lot. How is someone with poor parents supposed to afford it without loans or government support? Even state universities cost over $10,000 a year to attend, assuming a student living with family rather than living in student housing.
this is why minimum wage is so evil, because it makes many unskilled people permanently unemployed by demanding employers pay them more than they can bring into the company
Well, if a person's labor is only worth $5 an hour for a business, is it really something that it needs to pay a separate employee to do? A company with a large office building could easily hire one or two people full time at $15 an hour to keep the place clean, remove trash, and so on. But a very small business might just figure it is more cost effective for its other employees to spend 5 minutes to take the trash outside to the dumpster when it is full or to take turns cleaning the bathroom like they would at their own home than to even bother hiring someone at $5 an hour to do that.
If it wouldn't happen that businesses would exploit desperate people to pay them pitiful amounts just because they could, then sure, a minimum wage would be neither necessary nor desirable. History doesn't give us any reason to think a lack of a minimum wage would simply allow workers and businesses to find mutually beneficial wage floors.
"Oh, king, eh, very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers!"
You are fundamentally misunderstanding how markets (including labor markets) work. Consider a purely barter economy. The laws of supply and demand still work when we're deciding to trade chickens for cows. But the the same apparent question can be asked - which is the supply and which is the demand? The answer is "both". And the math works.
The same holds for the labor market. Producers of labor and consumers of jobs are merely two different ways of talking about the same thing. And producers of low-skilled labor will always be in less demand that producers of high-skilled labor (since the high-skilled laborer could always choose to ignore those skills).
And producers of low-skilled labor will always be in less demand that producers of high-skilled labor (since the high-skilled laborer could always choose to ignore those skills).
I'm not following what you are saying here. And I don't see how you have really addressed most of what I said.
There's the old cliché about people digging holes and filling them back up again. They're working their asses off hour after hour but providing nothing of any value at all.
Milton Friedman observed a ditch being dug by a bunch of men with shovels instead of one man with a backhoe. He asked why not use machines, and they said this way produced more jobs. So he asked why they were using shovels instead of spoons.
This statement by Milton Friedman was made when he was touring the construction site of the Three Gorges dam on the Yangtze river in China. The tour officials and Friedman's responses are as sarcasmic indicates.
Milton Friedman observed a ditch being dug by a bunch of men with shovels instead of one man with a backhoe. He asked why not use machines, and they said this way produced more jobs.
A backhoe can cost $15-80k, depending on size and type, from a quick search. Depending on how big of a ditch you're talking about, and how difficult it would be to transport the backhoe to the location, how often you might need to use it or the cost of renting it from someone, etc., then it could actually be more cost effective to have several people dig for several hours vs. all of that. Using a machine to do a task isn't always going to be more efficient, once you consider the cost of designing and building the machine, maintaining it, fuel or electricity costs, transporting it, etc.
But the main point Friedman was making, that providing more jobs is not a good reason to use manual labor rather than a machine, is still well put.
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://www.LiveJob247.com
"And the libertarian solution isn’t any better. They want to flood the country with cheap labor to push wages for the poor even lower"
This isn't the Libertarian solution. It's the progressive solution. As Reason Editors show us, there are a lot of progressives LARPing as Libertarians.
You can make a decent case that open borders are not to the general benefit of the existing population. But that doesn't make it a non-libertarian position. It's a bit utopian, but it's still the sort of "pure" libertarian position. Libertarians and progressives have very different reasons for favoring open borders.
The people who do the hardest, most necessary work are society’s least paid.
Salaries aren't set by how hard the work is, or how highly esteemed, or how important it is considered.
Salaries are set by the free market for labor, and depend on how many people are willing and able to do a given job, and how many of those jobs are available. If lots of people can do a job and it takes little training, salaries will be low.
And thankfully so, or resources would be misallocated, spending more than needed on certain professions for political reasons, and leaving less money available to spend on other things that employers actually want and need to satisfy consumer demand.
Salaries are set by the free market for labor, and depend on how many people are willing and able to do a given job, and how many of those jobs are available. If lots of people can do a job and it takes little training, salaries will be low.
How many people are willing and able to do a given job will quite often depend on how difficult the work is, how highly esteemed it is, and how important to society it is, among many other intangible factors as well as how much it pays.
I would think that the people that really need to understand how a given labor market works for their own benefit (whether as employer or employee) would not oversimplify things in such ideological terms.
Wait, what? Lawyers say Colorado shooting suspect is non-binary.
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/23/colorado-club-shooting-suspect-non-binary-attorneys-say?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social
I thought it was strange how the media leaned hard into labeling him right-wing because his grandfather is a right-wing figure. They didn't touch his social media or highlight any clues about his personal motivation. I did a quick search and couldn't find much besides a handful of photos. His appearance suggested to me that he is gay. If this is true, then the facts line up with the pulse shooter.
It was strange to me that we didn't have an article about the shooting here, at least in the morning links. Reason is usually all over anything lgbt where they can hate on the right
The bad gun did it.
Pulse shooter wasn't motivated by being a closeted gay, though. He googled "Orlando Nightclubs" and bypassed the Disney club before randomly picking Pulse. He just wanted to shoot up a club in the name of terrorism and picked a gay club by chance.
A lot of rumors about him being a closeted gay came out because that furthered leftist narratives about acceptance, but there's no evidence on any of his devices that he was looking at gay porn, texting with men, or secretly hooking up with men.
If they don’t make these baseless attacks constantly more people will see what. Nightmare the left has created. So this is all they’ve got.
I thought it was strange how the media leaned hard into labeling him right-wing because his grandfather is a right-wing figure.
The 'Sure, this incident was
blue on bluerainbow on rainbow, but the real problem is the red team.' narrative feels very much like the 'noble lies' in support of Jussie Smollett."As we wait for evidence and information to emerge, what we do know is that this violent and unspeakable crime, which clearly targeted LGBTQ people, illustrates two facts: One, the epidemic of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, especially anti-transgender rhetoric, is infecting every part of America, created by politicians in their crass drive for power, parroted by right-wing media outlets, and amplified by social media platforms who prioritize profits over public safety. And two: assault weapons continue to senselessly end American lives and we need common-sense gun safety reform now," said Tony Morrison, senior director of communications for GLAAD.
Right-wing media *and* gun owners. BOAF SIDEZ!
'It's not from the benevolence of the butcher, baker and brewer that we expect our dinner, but from the regard of their own self interest.'
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i've had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here...............>>> onlinecareer1
The Pilgrims Dreamed of Socialism. Then Socialism Almost Killed Them.
The 20th Century Russians Dreamed of Socialism. Then Socialism Killed Most of Them.
The 1960's Cubans Dreamed of Socialism. Then Socialism Almost Killed Them.
The 2000's Venezuelans Dreamed of Socialism. Then Socialism Almost Killed Them or Actually Killed Them
The 21st Century Democrats in America Dream of Socialism. Eventually Socialism Will Killed Them Too.
Socialism never fails...to kill it's citizens.
20 million dead Chinamen can't be wrong.
Apparently the USSR under Stalin starved upwards of 10Million Ukrainians to death as their wheat crop was confiscated and sent into Russia proper. Wonder why the Ukrainians aren’t throwing roses an kisses at the Putino-Russians who invaded their country? Yes, there aren’t nearly as many Putino-Russians there now, but Putin has switched to using his stock of “precision weapons” (mainly rockets and drones) to precisely target hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, electric power infrastructures,…. A NYT reporter "earned a Pulitzer" providing great cover stories for Stalin's work in the Ukraine. Imagine how much better the world will be when he disappears!
"Apparently the USSR under Stalin starved upwards of 10Million Ukrainians to death as their wheat crop was confiscated and sent into Russia proper."
I think it started under Lenin, ie was always confiscating food from farmers to feed the cities, the Bolshevik power base. Ukraine's farmers were almost all either Mensheviks or some variation on that. It was Stalin who forced through collectivization and automation come hell or high water. He denied or ignored the famine causing the death of millions, but eventually he ordered the release of emergency stores, and the spending of precious foreign currency to relieve the famine. This comes down to the bungling and the free and easy attitude with human lives that is typical of so many Communist projects. Big C there. None of us should have a problem with little c 'communal' enterprises.
I’m all with you, but be careful there.
Nardz and Geiger Goldestaadt evidently think that Putin is a Free-Market Libertarian and that anyone who opposes Putin is the Collectivist. If you say “Putin” three times, you might summon Nardz and Goldie out of their realm.
🙂
The ones who call for socialism would be in certain cases likely to have the very skills to benefit from the net gain while others suffer the net loss.
What sort of politics would those be?
While the story of the pilgrims failed attempt at socialism is an interesting lesson, John Stossel is bringing it up during a period when we celebrate a communal meal. A meal that everyone contributes to by their ability, and everyone is feed to their needs. In addition to our own family and friends there will be any number of community meals on Thursday. Now much of this is voluntary, but it does show that people like the idea of communal efforts and communal sharing. While most people don't support full socialism, they want elements of it in a social safety net.
I also think that Stossel is smoking his cranberries and trying to tie the school loans to socialism is a bit of a stretch.
A meal that everyone contributes to by their ability, and everyone is feed to their needs.
Socialism can work in small settings like families and tribes. Being that we're three steps out of the cave with a lot of toys, I wonder if we're hardwired for it. The problem is that it doesn't scale. Once shirkers cannot be identified and shamed, the entire system become one of coercion instead of cooperation. That's when it goes to shit.
Good analysis. I suspect that it is hardwired in us back to the hunter gatherer days.
Your right and we all dislike the shirker who don't carry their load. I would add I also don't appreciate the loudmouth who does his share but thinks he is doing more than the rest. I worked for 50 years before retirement, and I have endured both.
I would add I also don’t appreciate the loudmouth who does his share but thinks he is doing more than the rest.
Ever heard of the 80/20 rule? It says 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people. From what I've seen it's not far off.
I would add I also don’t appreciate the loudmouth who does his share but thinks he is doing more than the rest. I worked for 50 years before retirement, and I have endured both.
We all know *exactly* how you feel.
re: "Socialism can work in small settings like families and tribes."
Exactly. Right up to Dunbar's Number. Once the population exceeds the ability of individual members to keep track of the social relationships with every other member, the entire edifice comes crumbling down.
Why can't the one-world government keep track of all social relationships? And then we can have glorious total communism!
A meal that everyone contributes to by their ability, and everyone is feed to their needs.
I think we had a name for that once.. It's was called slavery.
The people at my thanksgiving dinner are invited. The government isn’t assigning them to come to my house to eat on my dime. Kinda different.
^ This.
Socialism can only be "implemented" at the point of a gun. Turns out forcing people to labor (ie slavery) doesn't result in efficiency. It's really not that difficult to understand. It's pretty much human nature.
Now much of this is voluntary, but it does show that people like the idea of communal efforts and communal sharing.
The "socialism" of pot lucks, which is what M4E seems to be describing, isn't forced on anyone. It works because people are willing to give their labor for this effort and have a large selection of food (goods) without having to be skilled in making everything themselves. In a sense, it's more like a market where a dish someone is talented or efficient at making is bartered for the opportunity to try other dishes.
I can tell you that people that show up without any contribution probably don't get invited the next year.
While most people don’t support full socialism, they want elements of it in a social safety net.
Of course they do. You're describing the people that show up to a pot luck and don't bring anything. Everyone wants a free lunch, why wouldn't they? It turns out that the people that brought a dish don't like providing to someone that didn't. The people that go to work 40 hours a week don't like sacrificing their money to people who aren't willing to work either.
Another way to look at the social safety net is someone brings food to the potluck for 50 years, and then hopes to be let in after they're too old to cook anymore.
Agree here.
They would be invited, not assigned a place by the government.
Where did I say they are assigned a place by the government? Try replying to things I actually say.
Meant for m4e. Try not to be so sensitive.
Try to reply to the right post so you don't look stupid.
... says sarcasmic so wisely.
…. and this is oart of the reason why no one is very nice to you.
"I can tell you that people that show up without any contribution probably don’t get invited the next year."
Either that or the people who contributed last year get genocided out of existence next year by those who contributed nothing.
Socialism can only be “implemented” at the point of a gun.
Private property can only be enforced at the point of a gun, also. You only "own" land if you can use force to keep other people off of it. It is odd to me that on a libertarian website, people don't seem to recognize this. It is libertarians that are always talking about how government is force. The just powers of government are to secure the People's rights, true? If ownership of property is a right, then one of government's jobs will be to use force to protect your property rights.
Socialism is an *aggressive* use of gun force (Dictate/Steal).
Property rights are a *defensive* use of gun force.
USA Governments were formed to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all from those wanting to TAKE, TAKE, TAKE. They were never meant to run around enslaving/dictating/stealing (*aggressively*) as progressives want them to.
What to do when government starts working for the criminals.
Every 'everyone contributes by their ability, everyone takes by their need' Thanksgiving meal I've been to is categorically worse than every 'everyone contributes by their need, everyone takes by their ability' Thanksgiving meal that I've been to.
"Everyone contributes by their ability" = Food poisoning ~25% of the time, per event.
Give them a few more years.
"we celebrate a communal meal."
This is silly. We invite people to have food at our house that we bought on the open market, cooked with equipment we cooked on the open market, and made of ingredients that we bought on the open market.
If the fact that several people collectively eat dinner together is some endorsement of "socialism" then the fact that pretty much everything else is a result of private property, voluntary association, and free(ish) markets ought to be an endorsement of those things.
"Now much of this is voluntary, but it does show that people like the idea of communal efforts and communal sharing. While most people don’t support full socialism, they want elements of it in a social safety net."
Yeah this is the standard thing that lefties like to do. When you choose to offer private charity, why that must be an endorsement of government mandated socialism...or something.
Families are dictatorships, or maybe your childhood was some communistic orphanage where you had already eliminated the dictatorship of the adults and moved directly to dictatorship of the children.
With individuals and families and "community meals" the sharing is voluntary, not forced by the State at the point of a gun.
Exactly. I give zero shits about a bunch of people that want to form their own private communal collective, but if they want to force me into it, it won’t go well for them.
Something all the Democrats need to come to grips with. Universal Healthcare? Wealth Redistribution? etc, etc, etc…. You name it…
All possible; Just turn the Democratic party into a member-subscription business. No need for all the arguing and battling and frustration ——- JUST GO DO IT!
But; They dissociate their minds from the fact they need Gov-GUNS to enslave those icky people to make it happen. THEY CAN’T DO IT.. ITS A FAULTY PLAN. They want others to be forced to do it for them.
It shows extremely strong in their unwillingness to implement it even at the State level. The pot of their slaves isn’t big enough at that level.
Summary; The party of conquer and consume mentality.
People are social animals and like to do things together. It's not a very deep observation. As many have noted, you can't scale that up beyond a fairly small group where everyone knows everyone else.
I don't quite agree, I think that the social animal within us all wants to have some provisions for the unfortunate. We have both large-scale charities and government programs that extend beyond our social groups. While most people would oppose socialism they would also support adding socialist elements to the economy. I live in Wisconsin, but I still expect charities I support and the government to assist people in Florida affected by the recent hurricanes.
Gun Theft =/= Charity.
Need I even mention Republicans have Democrats wiped out on charitable givings.
People are social animals and like to do things together. It’s not a very deep observation. As many have noted, you can’t scale that up beyond a fairly small group where everyone knows everyone else.
This brings up something interesting I read a long time ago, that I am too lazy to try and find again. It had to do with conservative vs. progressive thinking.
The article, based on social science research (I know, questionable scientific validity already), suggested that conservatives tended to be generous toward people that they knew, while liberals/progressives tended to view helping everyone that needed it equally was more important. Whether this thesis is actually true or not in regards to political views, it does bring up a tension that is genuine. How much of our capacity for generosity and compassion should we expend within our close social circle versus providing help to people that might not have a close social circle able to help them?
Focusing charity and aid to people close to us has the advantage of having more control over how resources are used and provides better accountability and efficiency. The downside is that it means that people in need have to be close to those able and willing to help them.
Those unlucky enough to be poor in a poor neighborhood or poor country will have fewer people with extra wealth to share near them. People here in the U.S. that are out of work and can't afford a good holiday meal might have local churches and other charities gathering up supplies and providing volunteers for a bountiful and traditional Thanksgiving for those unfortunates. But in a poor country, there will be people actually starving to death.
This is a very real moral, ethical, and practical dilemma with no easy answers. One thing about political ideology is that it does provide easy answers to complex problems. That is not a strength, however.
The difference is voluntary nature. It's the same with trying to say Christians should also be socialists, based on some of the things that Jesus said, while ignoring others. Charity freely given is given out of love. Charity forcibly given is given out of threat of punishment. The former is a Christian value, the latter isn't. When I invite my parents over for Thanksgiving, I'm doing it voluntarily and out of love. When the government forces me to invite my parents over, I'm doing it out of fear of punishment. There is nothing inherently socialist when charity is freely given. It only becomes socialism when it's enforced by some form of authority. The pilgrims enforced socialism via their colonial compact. It failed. When they went to private ownership, they produced a surplus that led to them sharing the surplus in celebration. This was an act of love.
Actually the problem is that the story Stossel tells (which is exactly the same Thanksgiving moral myth that has been repeated for at least the last 50 years) isn't true.
History is not something we actually want to learn from. It is something we want to use (and if necessary lie about) in order to support/bolster our own agenda of beliefs/arguments/etc.
But I suppose there is something to be thankful about that every year is still proof that we learned nothing and still have a table of turkey and cranberries. Pass the green beans please.
“[History] is something we want to use (and if necessary lie about) in order to support/bolster our own agenda of beliefs/arguments/etc.”
Archeology is no better than history. It may well be worse given that it’s real material artifacts that are the heart of the study, rather than the ephemeral documents of dubious provenance that historians pursue. The stakes are higher, so high they stoop to grave robbery and desecration to further a ghoulishly high proportion of their study.
Lets see here... The Governor under question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bradford_(governor)
Gov. William Bradford wrote in his diary that he thought that taking away property and bringing it into a commonwealth would make the Pilgrims “happy and flourishing.”
It didn’t. Soon, there wasn’t enough food. “No supply was heard of,” wrote Bradford, “neither knew they when they might expect any.”
The problem, Bradford realized, was that no one wanted to work. Everyone relied on others to do the work. Some people pretended to be injured. Others stole food.
The communal system, Bradford wrote, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment.”
But....... IT NEVER HAPPENED?????? ITS A LIE!
I think I just found the stupidity in people's ability to keep repeating the same mistake over and over and over again.
Willful denial.
The entire diary is online as is the relatively brief explanation of the land allocation and the things which led to it. But that would mean understanding the actual subject of sentences and the meaning of words used. Rather than your snippets where you are simply inventing bullshit. His sentence about supply not heard of and not knowing when they might expect any is not about food production. It is about supply SHIPS arriving from London.
TJJ provided actual quotations while you're moving goalposts by twisting William Bradford's words into something else. You've lost, JFree. Take the L.
Horseshit. You want to play battling snippets - do it. I don't give a shit about that dishonest game. You want to actually understand what he wrote - then fucking READ IT - here's the 1623 part that includes all the 'snippets' and more.
I find it odd you point to a link with all those quotes in it yet are still here compulsive claiming its a lie... What; you didn't think anyone would check?
" thank the Pilgrims. They made Thanksgiving possible."
It was the Indians giving food, free of charge, to starving pilgrims, who made Thanksgiving possible. Indians, incidentally, who enjoyed no money economy and would today be deemed socialist.
As I said above, socialism can work in small groups like families and tribes because shirkers can be identified and shamed. When it gets bigger than that coercion is required, and that's when it fails. The natives were living in small enough groups that it worked for them. For the settlers however, being coerced into sharing without shirkers getting shamed, it failed miserably.
"The natives were living in small enough groups that it worked for them."
They were federated in large nations, weren't they? And clan membership spread across the continent, didn't it?
"For the settlers however, being coerced into sharing without shirkers getting shamed, it failed miserably."
It's failing miserably still under capitalism, isn't it? Half the comments here are kvetching about being taxed to pay for freeloaders.
They were federated in large nations, weren’t they? And clan membership spread across the continent, didn’t it?
What does that have to do with the size of tribal units?
It’s failing miserably still under capitalism, isn’t it?
Social programs are indeed a failure in this country. $25T has been spent on the War on Poverty. That's the equivalent of giving a $10K check to every poor person every year since that war was declared. Yet poverty is still winning.
Half the comments here are kvetching about being taxed to pay for freeloaders.
Half the commenters here would complain if they had nothing to complain about.
"What does that have to do with the size of tribal units?"
Tribal units are only a part of the structure of their social organization. There is also family, clan and nation. Your notion that they were isolated into tiny tribal groups is mistaken.
"Social programs are indeed a failure in this country. "
My point was that private property and capitalism are also failing to deal with the shirkers. Singling out the pilgrims is disingenuous.
Hardly. We have a whole lot of safety nets, provided by unaccountable governments who do not care whether there are shirkers or not.
You're pointing at the areas in which our society has rejected the free market and saying "See! The free market doesn't work!"
And I'm unaware of any groups of native Americans who lived in any kind of socialist economy on a tribal level. Not to mention the standard of living provided by such a way of living.
Your notion that they were isolated into tiny tribal groups is mistaken.
I never said they were isolated. What I said was that socialism can function within those small groups. Doesn't mean the small groups don't interact with anyone else. That's like when leftists claim libertarianism means every man is an island. No, it just means that when we cooperate we do so voluntarily instead of with guns at our backs.
"I never said they were isolated"
You seem to be discounting the fact they were also part of larger groups. And if socialism could work among the small groups of Indians, why didn't it work also for the pilgrims, who were even smaller in number?
You are wildly, and I have to believe intentionally, misunderstanding the situation.
Individual tribes were sometimes quite small - basically family groups. Having populations below Dunbar's Number, they could support the mental recordkeeping necessary to make socialism work.
Yes, the tribes were affiliated into larger networks but at that level, transactions were very much not socialistic. They traded with each other using the same market concepts as the most aggressive capitalists. They used money, though not of a kind recognized by Europeans - and not standardized so you could arguably call it an enhanced barter economy rather than a true monetary economy. But it was absolutely a market-based economy.
The Pilgrims landed as a single "tribe" but without the family connections even for a very small group to cooperate in any way resembling socialism. They suffered for the same reason that all large-group attempts at socialism suffer - the free-rider problem.
" But it was absolutely a market-based economy."
Because they bartered? The USSR and Cuba bartered oil for sugar. A couple more examples of your market-based economies.
And yet you ignore the sizes between the Native American tribes and the communist nations. You haven't refuted what Rossami said.
If anything, you've provided another evidence of socialism's failure, because the USSR and Cuba would've even been worse off without those trades.
You seem to be discounting the fact they were also part of larger groups.
You seem to be ignoring that I'm talking about small groups.
And if socialism could work among the small groups of Indians, why didn’t it work also for the pilgrims, who were even smaller in number?
Now you're deliberately ignoring my point which was that it worked for the small groups of natives by talking about larger Indian nations instead.
I don't believe you are arguing honestly. So I'm going to stop now. You are wasting my time.
"You seem to be ignoring that I’m talking about small groups."
Indians are not simply small groups. They are also organized into larger groups. Nations and clans. If they were members of a larger federation, their local organizing would also be influenced, wouldn't it? Why are you discounting this well established tradition as irrelevant?
"worked for the small groups of natives by talking about larger Indian nations instead."
They're precisely the same people. One can be a member of a small group while simultaneously being a member of a larger group. Think of your own situation as the patriarch of the Sarcasmic tribe, while also a citizen of the US.
Fuck off. Come back when you're willing to argue honestly.
"Come back when you’re willing to argue honestly."
I'm not sure what you're arguing about. Is it that the Indian's didn't have a socialistic society, or they did have one only because their tribal units were small?
If the former, I agree it wasn't a worker's state along the lines of Marxism, but it was a society where private accumulation of capital was not the goal. If the latter, I point out that these smaller units were subsumed by various larger units, the influence of which shouldn't be ignored.
You are wildly, and I have to believe intentionally, misunderstanding the situation.
Yep. When he shifted the goalposts from tribes to nations he intentionally and deliberately chose to ignore what we're talking about. So I'm done with him.
My point was that private property and capitalism are also failing to deal with the shirkers.
I don't understand what that means. In socialism shirkers get benefits from the common pool of stuff without contributing to it.
Capitalism doesn't have a common pool of stuff for shirkers to draw from without contributing. So shirkers can't exist.
"So shirkers can’t exist."
Good. We've magicked that problem away. All in a good morning's work. How about this afternoon we tackle the problems of the middle east?
There’s a fine line between helping peole and enabling. We long ago crossed the line as a country and are now spending trillions of dollars enabling young able bodied people to do nothing and live off their fellow citizens.
How can you term individual decisions applied to a few people "socialism"? Actual socialism concerns wielding power 'against' rights, not extending helpful resources in support of retaining rights. The former case would be called a coup, and the latter case would qualify as a judgment.
Wampum, or beads that were strung together, was often used as a medium of exchange for both Native American tribes and settlers during this Pre-Revolutionary era. Other commodities were also used for trade: furs, tobacco, wheat, and maize were all currencies of exchange.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-history-of-money-in-america-from-beads-to-virtual-currency/
They has wampum, corn and tobacco. What they didn't have was a capitalistic money economy along the lines of the Europeans.
Which probably didn’t help them any. What money does is it allows for specialization. If person A can make boats, person B can hunt, person C can fish, person D can build shelter, and person E can make weapons, on their own they’re all going to die. They could work out a barter system, but that only goes so far. Suppose person D hates fish. How will person C trade for shelter? That’s where money comes in. Now person C can sell fish for money, and use that money to buy shelter from person D.
"What money does is it allows for specialization."
Like Kings and princes? The Indians weren't interested in specialization. They stressed sharing and democracy. That's why Thanksgiving was about Indians giving to pilgrims and not the other way around.
I'll bite, understanding that you're most likely not arguing in good faith and do not believe the nonsense you're spouting.
What "indians" are you talking about? Which ones were the noble, selfless, enlightened beings described here and which ones were destroyed before and after Europeans landed on American shores?
And of course they were interested in specialization. Were the squaws often out hunting, waging war, etc? Every society specializes. The degree to which they successfully can specialize (which money contributes to mightily) will in large part determine the overall production and overall standard of living.
I haven't read your response. Do you still want me to reply?
You're not arguing in good faith. I doubt you believe the nonsense you're spouting.
Come up with an actual argument next time.
Like Kings and princes?
You mean kleptocracies run by strongmen? I don't see how that applies here. Can't really specialize when everything you produce is stolen from you by your overlord.
The Indians weren’t interested in specialization.
They also lived in what we would call abject poverty. That's where self sufficiency leads. Poverty. Specialization is how Western society has become so rich.
They stressed sharing and democracy.
Yet they were constantly at war with one another.
That’s why Thanksgiving was about Indians giving to pilgrims and not the other way around.
Aaaaaand that whooshing sound was the point flying over your head.
"Can’t really specialize when everything you produce is stolen from you by your overlord."
That sounds like Europe you're talking about. Specialized Europe, which the pilgrims fled, rather than Indian society.
"They also lived in what we would call abject poverty."
You mean they earned less than $US 3 a day? Not hard to achieve if there's no money to be had, no job, and no employer.
"Yet they were constantly at war with one another."
As were the Greeks who founded democracy and gave us its name.
"Aaaaaand that whooshing sound was the point flying over your head."
If you have a point, state it plainly. I've tried to do so.
"Abject poverty" means that you have to work to survive and most of your labor goes into acquiring the basic needs of food and shelter.
Pretty much one Greek state had democracy and they became an imperialist empire building state.
“Abject poverty” means that you have to work to survive and most of your labor goes into acquiring the basic needs of food and shelter."
Sounds terrible, right? But understand this: it only took a couple hours a day to look after basic needs. The rest of the time was spent resting in the teepee, carving totem poles, sun dancing with squaws, rain dancing with braves, smoking peace pipes, bead trading, war painting, and indulging in the rest of the heap-big popular Indian pastimes.
We get it, you love Marxism and hate free markets. This is why you support the people you support.
" you love Marxism"
I've never read much of Marx, and never been enamored of what I know of his ideas. As a person, him and Engels were more interesting, intelligent, capable and committed. The crowd of those plaguing the comments here could do a lot worse than taking these fine gentlemen as role models.
"and hate free markets"
I love markets, the freer the better. Anytime I visit a town or a city I visit the market. It's often the most colorful, lively, and diverse place. I'm no big fan of shopping, so I often don't even buy anything.
Money is a medium of exchange and was based on and represented real goods, be it gold, silver or whatever. Capitalism. Free trade. If you want to complain about what it's become now I'm with you. It's based on nothing and generated from nothing at a whim and the flick of a switch. Socialism. Stealing. Getting something for nothing.
"Money is a medium of exchange and was based on and represented real goods"
The Indians of the time didn't operate a money economy along those lines. It was socialism avant la lettre. (before the word was coined)
“They has wampum, corn and tobacco. What they didn’t have was a capitalistic money economy along the lines of the Europeans.”
Trueman, once again, proving he can bullshit, hoping the reader is stupid enough to buy it. Fuck off and die, asshole.
Bullshit. Indians knew damned well who had killed what animal, who had farmed what crop, and who made clothes and shelters and canoes. Tribes knew where tribal boundaries were. They waged war all the time. They marked their arrows to know who had killed what or who.
You seem to have some fantasy in your noggin about what noble peaceful primitives they were without the delusion of property. You are wrong.
"Indians knew damned well who had killed what animal, who had farmed what crop, and who made clothes and shelters and canoes. Tribes knew where tribal boundaries were. They waged war all the time. They marked their arrows to know who had killed what or who."
I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
"You seem to have some fantasy in your noggin about what noble peaceful primitives they were without the delusion of property. "
I said they would be deemed socialist, not peaceful. Many of their ideas were adopted by the French enlightenment figures like Voltaire and Rousseau. The French revolution wasn't peaceful, either, but certainly socialistic.
Trueman, once again, dodging and diving, hoping to fool someone with his bullshit.
Fuck off, asshole.
"I said they would be deemed socialist, not peaceful."
Which is wrong. You are wrong. They would not be deemed socialist any more than a nation where the King had a claim on every man, woman and child, as well as their productive output was capitalist.
We get it. You pine for the dictators like Mao who will just know what is needed, what is in surplus and what must be produced. How will they know? You'll get to that later, after they've killed tens of millions of people.
"Which is wrong. You are wrong. "
Point taken. Communist then, not socialist. Apologies to you and Mao.
Yes, we know you love Marx.
” you love Marxism”
I’ve never read much of Marx, and never been enamored of what I know of his ideas. As a person, him and Engels were more interesting, intelligent, capable and committed. The crowd of those plaguing the comments here could do a lot worse than taking these fine gentlemen as role models.
“and hate free markets”
I love markets, the freer the better. Anytime I visit a town or a city I visit the market. It’s often the most colorful, lively, and diverse place. I’m no big fan of shopping, so I often don’t even buy anything.
"I love markets, the freer the better."
So why mischaracterize the Native American tribes as something they were not? We're getting sick of your lies.
"We’re getting sick of your lies."
The lie that Indian society at the time was essentially socialist or socialistic rather than a money economy along the lines of the European monarchies? That lie? The lie that Indian tribes were subsumed under federated nations and clans that stretched across the continent? That lie?
re: "Indians ... enjoyed no money economy and would today be deemed socialist"
Not even slightly. First, they did have a money economy - it just wasn't "money" recognized by the Europeans. Second, even if you reject what they used as money, they still had a barter economy.
Barter economy is not the same as socialism. It's not even close.
A debate between Kondiaronk and Calliere which supposedly took place in 1699:
Kondiaronk: I have spent 6 years reflecting on the state of European society and I still can’t think of a single way they act that is not inhuman and I generally think this can only be the case as long as you stick to your distinctions of “mine” and “thine.” I affirm that what you call “money” is the devil of devils, the tyrant of the French, the source of all evils, the bane of souls and slaughterhouse of the living. To imagine one can live in the country of money and preserve one’s soul is like imagining one can preserve one’s life at the bottom of a lake. Money is the father of luxury, lasciviousness, intrigues, trickery, lies, betrayal, insincerity—of all the world’s worst behavior. Fathers sell their children, husbands their wives, wives betray their husbands, brothers kill each other, friends are false—and all because of money. In light of all of this, tell me that we Wyandotte are not right in refusing to touch or so much as look at silver.
Do you seriously imagine that I would be happy to live like one of the inhabitants of Paris? To take two hours every morning just to put on my shirt and make up? To bow and scrape before every obnoxious galoot I meet on the street who happens to have been born with an inheritance? Do you actually imagine I could carry a purse full of coins and not immediately hand them over to people who are hungry? That I would carry a sword but not immediately draw it on the first band of thugs I see rounding up the destitute to press them into Naval service? If on the other hand, Europeans were to adopt an American way of life, it might take a while to adjust but in the end you will be far happier.
Callière: Try, for once in your life to actually listen. Can't you see, my dear friend, that the nations of Europe could not survive without gold and silver or some similar precious symbol? Without it, nobles, priests, merchants and any number of others who lack the strength to work the soil would simply die of hunger. Our kings would not be kings. What soldiers would we have? Who would work for Kings or anyone else?
Kondiaronk: You honestly think you're going to sway me by appealing to the needs of nobles, merchants, and priests? If you abandoned conceptions of mine and thine, yes, such distinctions between men would dissolve. A leveling equality would take place among you, as it now does among the Wyandotte and yes, for the first thirty years after the banishing of self-interest no doubt you would indeed see a certain desolation as those who are only qualified to eat, drink, sleep, and take pleasure would languish and die, but their progeny would be fit for our way of living. Over and over I have set forth the qualities that we Wyandotte believe ought to define humanity: wisdom, reason, equity, etc. and demonstrated that the existence of separate material interest knocks all these on the head. A man motivated by interest cannot be a man of reason.
Spouting nonsense is one of Trueman's favorite pastimes.
As long as you continue to read my nonsense, I've no complaints.
I actually didn't read a lot of it.
I actually don't care.
Sure you do. You live for it. That’s why you come here even though you’re almost universally disdained and discredited.
"That’s why you come here even though you’re almost universally disdained and discredited."
I gotta be doing something right. You continue to read me and find my comments worth responding to, however milquetoast and ill considered your mercifully brief contributions are.
The mtrueman show has long been tedious. VERY tedious!!
Interesting history. And utterly irrelevant to the point. You are confusing materialism (a particular social goal that may or may not actually be a good idea) with markets (a way that societies achieve their goals).
"they still had a barter economy."
I think they did barter some goods, especially with Europeans. With the French Coureur des Bois, (runners of the wood) working with the Hudson Bay Company. Indian trappers would stack up beaver pelts until they reached the height of a musket. Then a trade would be made. This resulted in, you guessed it, longer muskets.
Does this special case constitute 'a barter economy?' I doubt it. Indian society existed hundreds if not thousands of years before the arrival of the Europeans. The Indian hunter of old times who'd bagged a dear, wouldn't have demanded something he deemed equal in value, half a pair of moccasins, for example, in return for the bit of venison he gave to his neighbors.
Get back to your rickshawing, Watermelon!
"...Indians, incidentally, who enjoyed no money economy and would today be deemed socialist..."
trueman, once again, proving himself full of shit.
Indians who were also living material lives that had not improved for at least 20,000 years in the Americas.
As Kondiaronk implies, socialism is about wisdom, reason and equality. He didn't mention innovation.
Well if Kondiaronk says so, it must be true. No one has ever been wrong about what socialism is.
Most wouldn't be too squeamish about calling Indian society at the time of the pilgrims socialist, or at least socialistic. That's evidently why you, Stossel and the rest of his tribe of clapping seal followers who comment here are intent on erasing Indians and their role in the Thanksgiving tradition.
Whether or not anyone is squeamish, it is wildly untrue. Indian society at the time of the pilgrims was not socialist or even socialistic. You have repeatedly made this claim but presented no evidence in support of it. On the other side of the debate is the entire weight of anthropological evidence about native american cultures, marketplaces and interactions.
"Indian society at the time of the pilgrims was not socialist or even socialistic."
Then why aren't we celebrating their contribution to Thanksgiving? As I mentioned, Stossel and the rest of the commenters here go out of their way to avoid mentioning Indians and erasing their role in the tradition.
So any unanswered question in your mind must equal socialism. I can see why an induhvidual, such as yourself, would reach this conclusion.
I'm glad I was able to clear things up for you. Or something.
And yet you haven't refuted him. Maybe you oughta lose your "silence is socialism" mentality.
The classic equality of owning nothing, right?
And most people would gladly trade wisdom for a washing machine.
Have you tried putting suede in a washing machine? Heap big no no.
That's not entirely true. Ohio had the Mound-Builders and the Toltecs, Aztecs, and Mayans were settled civilizations with massive pyramids, structures, art, and Astronomy and discovery of the concept of "Zero" independent of the Eastern Hemisphere.
Also, beneath the supposedly "pristine" Amazon Rainforests, they've found the clay statues and figurines of several tribes with with complex civilizations. Obviously, those were some improvement of technology over itenerant tribes.
Granted, the Toltecs, Aztecs, and Mayans had barbaric traditions of Sun Worship, Theocratic Totalitarian Kings, slavery, human sacrifice, and cannibalism, but all the rest of the world was a brutal place as well at that time too. I just hope we'll all move away from it one day.
Who also had a strong culture of individual freedom of action, unlike today's socialists.
That's not true. The Thanksgiving was held because the Pilgrims had a bountiful harvest.
"...But people keep repeating the Pilgrims' mistakes..."
And claiming it'll be different THIS time!
So would all those kids in the game if Stossel kept throwing out money...
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i've had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here...............>>> onlinecareer1
As Leo above points out exactly... JUSTICE is the "system" difference between socialism and capitalism. Socialists don't want Justice they want GUN-Theft/Slaves in their selfish greed.
Consider every free-market is "the commons" the only thing that separates capitalism from socialism is a "fair trade" (Justice System) represented by the USD.
What Socialists want is INJUSTICE. Their whole point is to dismiss that Justice system for one in which they can use GUNS instead of *EARNED* USDS to make a living...
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that those who deceptively fan-club for socialism are criminals.
No-one is actually stupid enough to believe it works let alone works better. They're rewarded Unjustly (just like an armed-robber) so they keep pretending it does for their own GREEDY selfish self...
What to do when the government starts working for the criminals instead of to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
"They left the Old World to escape religious persecution."
To be precise, Pilgrims wished to escape religious persecution from others so they could impose their own brand of persecution.
Thank goodness they wised up and wrote a US Constitution.
As history repeats itself over and over and over and over again.
What was that?
They wanted their own society, built along lines they wanted, including religious lines. "If you don't like it, build your own colony."
The Soviets tried the same thing (communal farming), with the same results (mass starvation). They had to allow small private farms to stave off starvation (10% of the land, in private hands, produced 50% of the food.)
"The Soviets tried the same thing (communal farming), with the same results (mass starvation). "
The Nanchang Soviet (1931) was rather successful. Until it was wiped out by the Nationalists. Mao's success comes down to his abandoning the Leninist emphasis on cities and industrial production and focusing his efforts on the countryside.
Pol Pot put even more emphasis on communal farming, communal dining, and communal everything else, was even a greater failure, but never organized the society into Soviets. (workers' councils)
So what’s your point? Just kidding… The Woke Folk will simply conclude that all those old style communists just weren't as clever as our "new breed".
Soviets don't always fail due to inability to feed the population. Sometimes they're simply wiped out by Nationalists.
Well maybe they shouldn't have used a command system that ended up starving people and making them unfit for combat.
Maybe the nationalists should have found better things to do with their time than murdering farmers.
Yep; GUN theft can be successful for a while till everything is conquered and consumed. Just be sure to leave out all the human suffering of the peasants and focus on those of the Regime.
Any excuse... Any excuse at all to support Nazism(National Socialism).
"The Soviets tried the same thing (communal farming), "
The early Zionists did this thing called kibbutzes when they first started to colonize Israel. They continue to this day, with varying levels of private/public property balances.
The unfortunate thing was they never had the thanksgiving, they should have. In that they, tailors and merchants from Poland and Lithuania, were taught how to farm and survive and thrive on the land by indigenous fellahin (peasants) who made the crucial error of being something other than Jewish.
Mr. Stossel appears to be a bit off the mark. There is no evidence that the settlers "dreamed" of socialism. The notion of common ownership was stipulated by the financiers in London. Since there was no royal who was heading up the project, and was therefore the "ruler" by the social construct of the day, the financiers put in the notion of common property, so responsibility was shared by every settler; and they would get their investment back and profits as well. After two years of very poor production, Mr. Bradford brought up the concept of private property and most of the colonists agreed. Subsequently, production shot way up,
In researching this, it was interesting that some insist the colony had socialist ideals while others insist they did not. The former present no evidence for socialist ideals while the latter fail to mention the common property issues, required by the financiers, that led to the poor production.
On an unrelated note from the popular culture of 50 years ago:
"I've been running from side to side. Now I know for sure, that both sides lied" - Let's See Action, Pete Townsend, The Who
A corporation promoting socialistic ideas? Good thing that never happened again.
Summary, "?Real? socialism has never been tried yet."
You are correct about most of the details but are missing the key detail. The Pilgrims - the religious migrants from Mayflower, the economic migrants from Mayflower, the economic migrants from later supply ships to Plymouth, and the economic migrants from the failed second colony at Wessaguset - were all indentured servants. The company owned the land and had paid for the ship passage. And in return for seven years of labor, the deal was that anyone who survived would get 100 acres. But only AFTER surviving seven years and filling up the ships returning to London with profitable goods.
It's a fun tale of shitty bosses, absentee landlords, employees defying the rules, etc.
And yet neither you nor emkcams have been able to directly refute the actual words of William Bradford.
I'd rather take Stossel who directly quotes Bradford than your (deliberately) twisted interpolations.
Very well written article. The reason American democracy succeeds where so many others fail is "private property". Europe and South America are examples of how there is private property but it is all owned by wealthy elite. Essentially capitalist royalty. Nobody beneath them
can buy anything because it is simply not for sale or too expensive. We spoiled Americans like to think all that jungle land down there is a state or national park, but it is not. The land those natives have lived on since long before Columbus is owned by people unknown without the original natives ever being compensated.
I would like to know more about the failed socialism of the colonies. References would be nice. And I do think the young are more socialist because our family units are actually a form of socialism. We don't have to work for breast milk.
I find the idea that capitalism and private property were unequivocally the solution to be somewhat fantastical. It attempts to separate the "socialist" and "capitalist" periods into two, vacuum-sealed epochs. It seems to me that the strongest, most directly evidenced conclusion is that capitalism provides a strong impulse to produce immediately following a period of collectivism. The overarching lesson that I take from this, personally, is that we become so entrenched along our ideological lines that thinking outside of the box becomes impossible. Arguments against capitalism often (and perhaps here, ultimately) devolve into the idea that it's better than the alternative. The issue is that "the alternative" becomes, then, the codified ideological dogma directly opposed — i.e. socialism/communism/whatever.
Maybe capitalism really is, in a vacuum, better than the alternative. None of us live in a vacuum. We live in a world where everything is interconnected. This era of late capitalism has its problems — you would have to live under a rock to claim otherwise — and there's very little reason to believe that a real improvement is on the immediate horizon. Something must change in a fundamental way. Maybe the real "alternative" to capitalism isn't another rigid dogma but instead focusing on compatibilities.
There are much deeper and more nuanced discussions we can have than a zealous ideological argument that often boils down at a psychological, individual level to Us vs. Them. I think we should be far more interested in the idea that capitalism encourages growth after socialism creates a temporary stagnation, rather than blithely using the pilgrims to support our preexisting, immutable beliefs. Socialism, evidently, had a very real utility to the old pilgrims of yore. A brief period shocked the entire system, got old men and women out into the fields. When's the last time we got a commensurate shock?
"Late Capitalism?". The only way Free-Market Capitalism is "Late" is that it is too late to save the hundreds of millions who were murdered by Feudalism, Theocracy, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and all flavors of Statism and Collectivism.
"is that it is too late to save the hundreds of millions who were murdered "
No worries. It arrived on time to give us the scramble for Africa and WWI.
Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism?
Thanks for the Leninism, but do you by chance have an off switch? The mtruenan show has reached high tedium.
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://www.LiveJob247.com
In a civilization of stupid and corrupt people, greed is more predictable.
No lunar colony or mars mission will be run according to the profit motive.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by (gbf-11) doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
You would be forcing the Pilgrims to labor for their meager quotal portion of State-alloted gruel, which would grow smaller and smaller as workers would die of malnutrition, starvation, and exhaustion!
You would be forcing them to worship the Positive Christianity of your favorite regime instead of worshipping or not as they choose!
You would be forcing them into stockades and dunking stools for what you call "lying" and your buddy Nemo Aequalis would would be stacking and burning them like cord-wood if they persisted in what he deemed as "Witchcraft!"
You would be forcing the men to be stud-horses and the women to be brute-sows, until the population exceeded the exhausted carrying capacity created by your coercive Utopia!
You would be forcing them to fight and die committing genocide against the Indians for "degenerating" European diets with wild turkey, wild deer, wild fish and lobster, cornmeal, squash, peppers, jerky, and pemmican!
And you would be presiding over all this brutality in the name of "The Common Good Over The Individual Good," and with the blessing of "Gott Mitt Uns"--God With Us!
With the society you want, humanity will never colonize the Moon, Mars, the Planets, or anywhere else in the Natural Universe!
The world of The Aryan Pure Superman would end up as nothing but a footnote written in geological sediment on a dead Earth!
Be thankful to whatever God or Gods you worship that you and your Aryan Brethren aren't fighting another losing War with Freedom-Loving people!
Fuck Off, Nazi!
You are a liar.
Cite?
Prove your claims, above, or demonstrate that you admit that you’re a liar.
Nazi is as Nazi does. Denial of The Holocaust, wanting to criminalize those who assert that The Holocaust was real, wanting to treat the private property of others as your personal town hall, and disparaging private profit all fit the bill nicely.
Fuck Off, Nazi!
You did not prove your claims because you are a liar.
I will refute your second attempt at lying.
“Denial of The Holocaust,” I have provided evidence of correctly applied logic and science that refutes the holocaust as told that neither you nor anyone else has ever refuted. That may be a brainwashed Jews ignorant definition of a Nazi. It is what it is.
“wanting to criminalize those who assert that The Holocaust was real,” I do want to criminalize the coercion of lying. You’re either lying or admitting that the holocaust is a lie.
“wanting to treat the private property of others as your personal town hall,” Inalienable rights cannot be taken or given away or sold. We carry them with us everywhere we go. If you invite people onto your property to speak, they have the right to speak freely as guaranteed by 1a. If you don’t like that, don’t invite the public onto your property to speak or move someplace without 1a.
“disparaging private profit” The profit motive is a strong incentive for greedy corrupt people. You demonstrate its necessity. When intelligence is required for survival, the profit motive doesn’t cut it.
Your second attempt has been soundly refuted you fucking waste of skin liar.
In the interest of accuracy, there are Nazis who think The Holocaust was real, but say that Hitler was a failure for not finishing what he started. Would you imprison those Nazis for lying or would you join them? Judging from your thoughts against Jews, you sound like you could go either way.
Again, not all lies are coercive. It's a pity you never went on a fishing trip with fishing buddies (technical term in fishing according to Elvin Bishop,) or were never part of a surprise party or that you never had to escape being plundered or murdered (as many Jews did thanks to your ilk.)
And in the case you cited about "town Halls," the Nazis wanted to speak and leafleteer on private property without permission! They are just as awful as the people who litter privately-owned stores with tracts!
So, by disparaging profit-taking as anathema to living by intelligence, are you saying you are smarter than every entrepreneur and businessperson who ever lived? Does this perhaps mean that you think you can run an economy better than all of them put together?
My! For a Nazi, you sure have a lot of Chutzpah! 🙂
Either way, Fuck Off, Nazi!
All lies are coercion and should be criminalized.
Some just demonstrate how pathetic the liar is. Like yours do..
Refuting a lie, the holocaust, doesn’t advocate any behaviour of anyone. Your bigoted brainwashing just won’t let you recognize that simple logic.
I never said that clever people couldn’t be greedy. I said greed does not require intelligence and that matters.
I can refute your pathetic lies any time I want to.
By the way, Mister Aryan Pure Superman: The implementation of all Individual Rights is the right to property. And part and parcel of the right to property is the right to rent or sell property for any amount, including for a profit.
If, as you seem to hold, an Individual has no right to rent or sell his/her/possessive pronoun's property for a profit, then property rights and thus all rights are alienable. And if all rights are alienable, then you stated a lie when you said that all rights are inalienable. Report to yourself for punishment! Raus! Raus! Schnell! Schnell!
And profit and loss are just the market system of prices applied to business, and like prices, profit wnd loss are signals of how well or bad a business is doing at production and exchange.
Without profit and loss, how can owners of any venture know what, how much, and for which market to produce and sell anything?
In the end, a venture that can't run on profit and loss ends up running by fiat...and force. Thus, you would end with Plymoth Rock as being time on The Rock for the Pilgrims..and their work would not mean Freedom.
Chew on that awhile...And Fuck Off, Nazi!
SPRINGTIME in November?? My weather app did Nazi this coming!
Greetings, Utkanos! As you can see, Misek likes his Thanksgivings nice and warm with fire!