The Pilgrims Failed Socialist Experiment

[East of Eden]

An appropriate Thanksgiving topic here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2322871/posts

"William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.

Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims' attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism -- in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."





Question for debate: Why isn't this being taught in schools and are there lessons for us today from this incident?

[Iolo]

An appropriate Thanksgiving topic here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2322871/posts

"William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.

Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims' attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism -- in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."





Question for debate: Why isn't this being taught in schools and are there lessons for us today from this incident?

So the settlers had developed a mature capitalist economy and an organised working class ready to take over? I think not.

[Wyvern]

An appropriate Thanksgiving topic here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2322871/posts

"William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.

Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims' attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism -- in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."





Question for debate: Why isn't this being taught in schools and are there lessons for us today from this incident?

And yet the Roanoke colony which was set up from the start as a purely capitalist venture failed horribly.

[WinePusher]

Question for debate: Why isn't this being taught in schools and are there lessons for us today from this incident?

Why aren't the Venona papers being presented alongside all history lectures concerning Joseph McCarthy? Why is the 19th century of America characterized as a century of Robber Barons? Why are the founders continually said to have been racists and pro-slavery? Because the left has not only hijacked and perverted objective American History, they have also destroyed the quality of education and demolished any program that would give parents a choice when deciding which school they should send their kid to. They have monopolized education as they have monopolized the media and academia.

[Wyvern]

Why aren't the Venona papers being presented alongside all history lectures concerning Joseph McCarthy?

Because a witch hunt is a witch hunt which is exactly what McCarthy was doing. Not to mention as american citizens we have the freedom of association and also of assembly and what McCarthy did was try to make it illegal to associate with a particular assembly i.e. the american communist party. Even if every single person he persecuted were in fact communists no other facts can take away the fact that what McCarthy did was unconstitutional and unamerican. You keep going on about how much in favor of the free market you are but here you are defending a person who tried very hard to strip you of some of your freedoms.

Why is the 19th century of America characterized as a century of Robber Barons?

Because many of the early american industrialists were little more than criminals, especially in the rail and timber industries. Many of them did not become rich due to having a better product or by being more efficient but by having better connections in government in order to secure the best rail lines or the richest stands of timber. Not to mention that collusion was rampant inside the various industries which eventually led to trusts being formed essentially creating monopolies for most raw materials and again removing the freedom from the market you claim to love so much.

Why are the founders continually said to have been racists and pro-slavery?

Face it until the mid twentieth century nearly everyone was racist. Many of the founders were slave owners themselves, if a person owns slaves that's pretty good evidence that they were pro slavery.

Because the left has not only hijacked and perverted objective American History, they have also destroyed the quality of education and demolished any program that would give parents a choice when deciding which school they should send their kid to. They have monopolized education as they have monopolized the media and academia.

And here you are again an advocate of limited government complaining about the government not having a program devoted to your wants. How is it the media is dominated by liberals when the dominant news channel by far is Fox news which we all know is anything but liberal. Also it needs to be said that other than the basic facts there is no such thing as objective history, every generation reinterprets what happened in the past.

[East of Eden]

Because a witch hunt is a witch hunt which is exactly what McCarthy was doing. Not to mention as american citizens we have the freedom of association and also of assembly and what McCarthy did was try to make it illegal to associate with a particular assembly i.e. the american communist party. Even if every single person he persecuted were in fact communists no other facts can take away the fact that what McCarthy did was unconstitutional and unamerican. You keep going on about how much in favor of the free market you are but here you are defending a person who tried very hard to strip you of some of your freedoms.

The witch hunt victims weren't really witches, the Verona papers proved there really were many Communists in the US government, such as Alger Hiss. This is something the left has always lied about. Does it not bother you that in the middle of the Cold War so many of our enemies were in the government?

Because many of the early american industrialists were little more than criminals, especially in the rail and timber industries. Many of them did not become rich due to having a better product or by being more efficient but by having better connections in government in order to secure the best rail lines or the richest stands of timber.

You mean like the Solyndra scandal and the crony capitalism we have under Obama? Spare me from how bad it was in that period. Between 1860 and 1890 real wages adjusted for inflation increased by 50%, while the average workweek shortened. If only Obama had that record. The term 'robber baron' was popularized in 1934 by the radical New York journalist and sympathizer of the Communist Party Matthew Josephson. The real criminals are those who have saddled us with a $15 trillion debt. No corporation has the power to do that, or start a war, or devalue the currency. This is why the Founders were critical of government, not industry.

Face it until the mid twentieth century nearly everyone was racist. Many of the founders were slave owners themselves, if a person owns slaves that's pretty good evidence that they were pro slavery.

As Michael Medved puts it in his book 'The 10 Big Lies About America':

1. Slavery is a timeless, universal institution, not an American innovation.
2. The slave economy played only a minor role in building American power and prosperity, and for the most part retarded economic progress more than advanced it.
3. America deserves unique credit for rapidly ending slavery, not distinctive blame for its establishment.
4. There's scant reason to believe that today's African Americans would be better off had their ancestors remained behind in Africa.

[East of Eden]

An appropriate Thanksgiving topic here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2322871/posts

"William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.

Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims' attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism -- in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."





Question for debate: Why isn't this being taught in schools and are there lessons for us today from this incident?

And yet the Roanoke colony which was set up from the start as a purely capitalist venture failed horribly.

Nobody knows why the Roanoke colony failed, but socialism wouldn't have saved them.

[Wyvern]

Because a witch hunt is a witch hunt which is exactly what McCarthy was doing. Not to mention as american citizens we have the freedom of association and also of assembly and what McCarthy did was try to make it illegal to associate with a particular assembly i.e. the american communist party. Even if every single person he persecuted were in fact communists no other facts can take away the fact that what McCarthy did was unconstitutional and unamerican. You keep going on about how much in favor of the free market you are but here you are defending a person who tried very hard to strip you of some of your freedoms.

The witch hunt victims weren't really witches, the Verona papers proved there really were many Communists in the US government, such as Alger Hiss. This is something the left has always lied about. Does it not bother you that in the middle of the Cold War so many of our enemies were in the government?

Regardless of whether you like it or not the american communist party and being a member of said party are both legal and constitutionally protected. If McCarthy was trying to root out russian spies in the government why is it he spent so much of his time trying to expose people from Hollywood? Why you continue to support and defend someone who so obviously was engaged in unconstitutional and unamerican activities is beyond me. As Franklin once said a person that is willing to sacrifice some of their freedom for more safety deserves neither.

Because many of the early american industrialists were little more than criminals, especially in the rail and timber industries. Many of them did not become rich due to having a better product or by being more efficient but by having better connections in government in order to secure the best rail lines or the richest stands of timber.

You mean like the Solyndra scandal and the crony capitalism we have under Obama? Spare me from how bad it was in that period. Between 1860 and 1890 real wages adjusted for inflation increased by 50%, while the average workweek shortened. If only Obama had that record. The term 'robber baron' was popularized in 1934 by the radical New York journalist and sympathizer of the Communist Party Matthew Josephson. The real criminals are those who have saddled us with a $15 trillion debt. No corporation has the power to do that, or start a war, or devalue the currency. This is why the Founders were critical of government, not industry.

Lol, you'll have to ask Bush about that whole Solyndra thing since the loans were initially approved under his presidency. You also completely ignore the whole issue of what the robber barons did in order to get rich so I'm not sure why you bothered replying to this section at all.

Face it until the mid twentieth century nearly everyone was racist. Many of the founders were slave owners themselves, if a person owns slaves that's pretty good evidence that they were pro slavery.

As Michael Medved puts it in his book 'The 10 Big Lies About America':

1. Slavery is a timeless, universal institution, not an American innovation.
2. The slave economy played only a minor role in building American power and prosperity, and for the most part retarded economic progress more than advanced it.
3. America deserves unique credit for rapidly ending slavery, not distinctive blame for its establishment.
4. There's scant reason to believe that today's African Americans would be better off had their ancestors remained behind in Africa.

How does any of this refute my refutation of WP's claim? Are you going to try to claim that owning slaves is not a good indicator or your stance on slavery?

[Wyvern]

Nobody knows why the Roanoke colony failed, but socialism wouldn't have saved them.

True but we also know that as a capitalist venture it was a failure even before it disappeared. We don't know if socialism would have saved it but capitalism certainly didn't either. Also I don't understand why you brought up socialism since the OP was discussing collectivism in the Plymouth colony.

[East of Eden]

Nobody knows why the Roanoke colony failed, but socialism wouldn't have saved them.

True but we also know that as a capitalist venture it was a failure even before it disappeared. We don't know if socialism would have saved it but capitalism certainly didn't either. Also I don't understand why you brought up socialism since the OP was discussing collectivism in the Plymouth colony.

Uhh, the OP clearly mentions the Pilgrim's failed socialist experiment.