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?

[East of Eden]

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.

So was being in the Nazi party during WWII, would that be OK if we had Nazis in the government then?

Some of these Communist traitors passed nuclear secrets to the USSR and were rightly executed.

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?

That credit goes more to Reagan.

[chris_brown207]

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.

So was being in the Nazi party during WWII, would that be OK if we had Nazis in the government then?

Some of these Communist traitors passed nuclear secrets to the USSR and were rightly executed.

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?

That credit goes more to Reagan.

I am confused, because in this thread your whole point is the "failed experiments of socialism" yet in other posts you have shown to support "socialist" policies such as the subsidization of the farm industry...

Didn't you propose to subsidize the farm industry an additional $10 dollars an hour in farm labor to solve the illegal immigration policy? That on top of the already billions of dollars in annual farm subsidization that is given to the agricultural industry, effectively creating a welfare state for farming that you and every American support anytime you step in line at the local grocers.

[East of Eden]

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.

So was being in the Nazi party during WWII, would that be OK if we had Nazis in the government then?

Some of these Communist traitors passed nuclear secrets to the USSR and were rightly executed.

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?

That credit goes more to Reagan.

I am confused, because in this thread your whole point is the "failed experiments of socialism" yet in other posts you have shown to support "socialist" policies such as the subsidization of the farm industry...

Didn't you propose to subsidize the farm industry an additional $10 dollars an hour in farm labor to solve the illegal immigration policy? That on top of the already billions of dollars in annual farm subsidization that is given to the agricultural industry, effectively creating a welfare state for farming that you and every American support anytime you step in line at the local grocers.

My proposal was in the interest of national defense, and wouldn't be needed if our treasonous, spineless politicians were doing their job. The leftists on this forum seem to favor what you describe as a way to redistribute income, which unlike defense, in not a constiutional function of government.

[chris_brown207]

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.

So was being in the Nazi party during WWII, would that be OK if we had Nazis in the government then?

Some of these Communist traitors passed nuclear secrets to the USSR and were rightly executed.

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?

That credit goes more to Reagan.

I am confused, because in this thread your whole point is the "failed experiments of socialism" yet in other posts you have shown to support "socialist" policies such as the subsidization of the farm industry...

Didn't you propose to subsidize the farm industry an additional $10 dollars an hour in farm labor to solve the illegal immigration policy? That on top of the already billions of dollars in annual farm subsidization that is given to the agricultural industry, effectively creating a welfare state for farming that you and every American support anytime you step in line at the local grocers.

My proposal was in the interest of national defense, and wouldn't be needed if our treasonous, spineless politicians were doing their job. The leftists on this forum seem to favor what you describe as a way to redistribute income, which unlike defense, in not a constiutional function of government.

So socialism is okay as long as you are benefiting from it. Or I should say, socialism is okay, as long as it is enjoyed in the private - allowing one to continue denigrating its evils in public.

My apologies then. In the future I will try to tailor my arguments to fit within the moral and political gymnastics you subscribe to.

[WinePusher]

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.

Freedom of association and freedom of expression is protected under the constitution. Sedition is not, seditious acts are to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Everything you've said here perfectly illustrates how severe the misinformation surrounding McCarthyism is. McCarthy targeted individuals within the government who sought to undermine both the American political and economic system and he was vindicated by the Venona Papers.

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.

Do you want to know what the highlight of the 19th century was? The gilded age. There would have been no gilded age had there been no entreprenuerial activity. It is precisely because of people like J.D Rockefeller and J.P Morgan that America became such a powerful economic competitor in the world. You can attribute American influence and success to Free Enterprise, not government. When the government began to intervene on massive scales we saw the exact opposite. We got more poverty, we got more unemployment, we got more inflation.

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.

Then please explain why the founders endorsed the concept of equality among all people. It's the basis of our declaration of independence, All Men Are Created Equal. If blacks, were excluded why doesn't the text read All White Men Are Created Equal.

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.

And here you are, once again, exhibiting your lack of understanding of what freedom and limited government actually is. Vouchers don't inhibit freedom, they enable freedom by definition. In the framework of education I do believe the government should have a role in making it accessible to everybody. This is one area of the market where governmental intervention is justified. Where I part ways with you is how the government should intervene. Under the status quo, education is a monopoly and is therefore afflicted with all he diseases that come along with monpoly. Vouchers eliminate this and inject competition into this sector of the market even though it is under the jurisdiction of one entity.

[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.

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

You blame me because you can not see the difference between collectivism and socialism. Most of europe is using a socialist system but not a single one of them is collectivist, even the soviet union was only minimally collectivist. On the other hand if you are going to use such loose definitions in order to fit every ideology into the same word you will reduce the word into meaning nothing.

[Wyvern]

So was being in the Nazi party during WWII, would that be OK if we had Nazis in the government then?

Until the US actually entered the war there were very many people that actually backed the nazi regime, the important question is was there even an american nazi party at the time? You seem to be having difficulty differentiating between a political party from another nation and a domestic one. The rules a government operates under during war time are very different than those during peace. The cold war may have been called a war but in no way was it actually one as opposed to WW2.

Some of these Communist traitors passed nuclear secrets to the USSR and were rightly executed.

Here you are having problems differentiating between being a spy and merely being a member of a political party or are you actually advocating that all members of the communist party of america should be executed?

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?

That credit goes more to Reagan.

So you are saying HUAC was being run not by a politician but an actor? All Reagan did was act as an informant but I understand how you want to give Reagan and pretty much any republican credit for everything while at the same time complaiing how horrible all democrats are.

[WinePusher]

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.

Freedom of association and freedom of expression is protected under the constitution. Sedition is not, seditious acts are to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Everything you've said here perfectly illustrates how severe the misinformation surrounding McCarthyism is. McCarthy targeted individuals within the government who sought to undermine both the American political and economic system and he was vindicated by the Venona Papers.

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.

Do you want to know what the highlight of the 19th century was? The gilded age. There would have been no gilded age had there been no entreprenuerial activity. It is precisely because of people like J.D Rockefeller and J.P Morgan that America became such a powerful economic competitor in the world. You can attribute American influence and success to Free Enterprise, not government. When the government began to intervene on massive scales we saw the exact opposite. We got more poverty, we got more unemployment, we got more inflation.

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.

Then please explain why the founders endorsed the concept of equality among all people. It's the basis of our declaration of independence, All Men Are Created Equal. If blacks, were excluded why doesn't the text read All White Men Are Created Equal.

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.

And here you are, once again, exhibiting your lack of understanding of what freedom and limited government actually is. Vouchers don't inhibit freedom, they enable freedom by definition. In the framework of education I do believe the government should have a role in making it accessible to everybody. This is one area of the market where governmental intervention is justified. Where I part ways with you is how the government should intervene. Under the status quo, education is a monopoly and is therefore afflicted with all he diseases that come along with monpoly. Vouchers eliminate this and inject competition into this sector of the market even though it is under the jurisdiction of one entity.

[Wyvern]

Freedom of association and freedom of expression is protected under the constitution. Sedition is not, seditious acts are to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Everything you've said here perfectly illustrates how severe the misinformation surrounding McCarthyism is. McCarthy targeted individuals within the government who sought to undermine both the American political and economic system and he was vindicated by the Venona Papers.

I have no problem with prosecuting traitors and foreign agents. Your misunderstanding is in thinking that all members of the communist party of america are automatically foreign agents or traitors. In fact if McCarthy had limited his manner and scope of investigation to the areas you mention probably very few people would care. But he did not instead he began targeting people outside of government not to mention when people were brought before the comittee many times their basic constitutional right not to self incriminate was denied them, in effect they were considered guilty until proven innocent. As Franklin said those who are willing to sacrifice some of their freedom for some safety deserve neither.

Do you want to know what the highlight of the 19th century was? The gilded age. There would have been no gilded age had there been no entreprenuerial activity. It is precisely because of people like J.D Rockefeller and J.P Morgan that America became such a powerful economic competitor in the world. You can attribute American influence and success to Free Enterprise, not government. When the government began to intervene on massive scales we saw the exact opposite. We got more poverty, we got more unemployment, we got more inflation.

Actually the highlights of the 19th century was the civil war and the expansion of the west, what are you taking your history lessons via catchphrases? To be honest america didn't become a truly major player until WW1 when we freely gave the european nations all the money they needed to slit each others throats. Prior to this time the US was a regional power only. Since you like catch phrases so much have you ever heard of banana republic? Back then that wasn't just a product name it was the term given to most central american nations which were owned by american fruit companies in all but name which came about only when the american government intervened on the behalf of these companies to securea good supply of fruits.

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.

Then please explain why the founders endorsed the concept of equality among all people. It's the basis of our declaration of independence, All Men Are Created Equal. If blacks, were excluded why doesn't the text read All White Men Are Created Equal.

It probably has something to do with the fact that slaves are property not people. This idea in turn comes from the ancient greeks which many of the founding fathers and intellectuals everywhere were in awe of. After all in ancient Athens which is generally considered to be the birthplace of democracy the only people allowed to vote were male land owners, not women, slaves or anyone else that did not own land. And I guess I have to say it again, are you actually going to stand there and tell me that the founding fathers who were slave owners were actually against slavery?

And here you are, once again, exhibiting your lack of understanding of what freedom and limited government actually is. Vouchers don't inhibit freedom, they enable freedom by definition. In the framework of education I do believe the government should have a role in making it accessible to everybody. This is one area of the market where governmental intervention is justified. Where I part ways with you is how the government should intervene. Under the status quo, education is a monopoly and is therefore afflicted with all he diseases that come along with monpoly. Vouchers eliminate this and inject competition into this sector of the market even though it is under the jurisdiction of one entity.

The government already is and has for quite some time now had a hand in making education free and accessible to everyone. The really strange thing is that you are saying this while at the same time a number of republicans are calling for the elimination of the DoE. If you want more than the basic education provided for by the government you are free to do so but why you think the government should pay for your choice is beyond me. There are many areas of the country where the current education system works very well, providing a quality education at a reasonable price. Demanding the entire nation to conform to this idea of yours is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[WinePusher]

Freedom of association and freedom of expression is protected under the constitution. Sedition is not, seditious acts are to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Everything you've said here perfectly illustrates how severe the misinformation surrounding McCarthyism is. McCarthy targeted individuals within the government who sought to undermine both the American political and economic system and he was vindicated by the Venona Papers.

I have no problem with prosecuting traitors and foreign agents. Your misunderstanding is in thinking that all members of the communist party of america are automatically foreign agents or traitors. In fact if McCarthy had limited his manner and scope of investigation to the areas you mention probably very few people would care. But he did not instead he began targeting people outside of government not to mention when people were brought before the comittee many times their basic constitutional right not to self incriminate was denied them, in effect they were considered guilty until proven innocent. As Franklin said those who are willing to sacrifice some of their freedom for some safety deserve neither.

I really can't take you seriously when you start talking about the utility of liberty and the constitution. Relative to America and actual American citizens, people like you would glady scrap or drastically change most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. When it comes to Communists and Islamic Terrorists, you suddenly become strict adherents to the constitution. And besides, I'd argue that the ultimate objective of the rule of law and the constitution is the protection and preservation of life and liberty. When the rule of law and the constitution begin to impede this objective they should be departed from.

Do you want to know what the highlight of the 19th century was? The gilded age. There would have been no gilded age had there been no entreprenuerial activity. It is precisely because of people like J.D Rockefeller and J.P Morgan that America became such a powerful economic competitor in the world. You can attribute American influence and success to Free Enterprise, not government. When the government began to intervene on massive scales we saw the exact opposite. We got more poverty, we got more unemployment, we got more inflation.

Actually the highlights of the 19th century was the civil war and the expansion of the west, what are you taking your history lessons via catchphrases?

lol do you know what the word highlight means? I don't consider the civil war a highlight of the 19th century. The achievement of the civil war, the abolishment of institutional slavery, is something I would consider a major accomplishment for this country that occured during the 19th century. But that to was not a highlight. The gilded age was, only people who have no knowledge of American History whatsoever would dispute that.

To be honest america didn't become a truly major player until WW1 when we freely gave the european nations all the money they needed to slit each others throats. Prior to this time the US was a regional power only. Since you like catch phrases so much have you ever heard of banana republic? Back then that wasn't just a product name it was the term given to most central american nations which were owned by american fruit companies in all but name which came about only when the american government intervened on the behalf of these companies to securea good supply of fruits.

I'm not a proponent of Crony Capitalism Wyvern. What gave you that strange idea?

Then please explain why the founders endorsed the concept of equality among all people. It's the basis of our declaration of independence, All Men Are Created Equal. If blacks, were excluded why doesn't the text read All White Men Are Created Equal.

It probably has something to do with the fact that slaves are property not people. This idea in turn comes from the ancient greeks which many of the founding fathers and intellectuals everywhere were in awe of. After all in ancient Athens which is generally considered to be the birthplace of democracy the only people allowed to vote were male land owners, not women, slaves or anyone else that did not own land. And I guess I have to say it again, are you actually going to stand there and tell me that the founding fathers who were slave owners were actually against slavery?

You see, this is the problem. This is what's so messed up about American education. Read the declaration of independence, the embodiment of American Political Thought:

King George III has waged cruel war against human nature itself violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery . . . This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

That is not an endorsement of slavery, that is not something a 'pro slavery' individual would write.

And here you are, once again, exhibiting your lack of understanding of what freedom and limited government actually is. Vouchers don't inhibit freedom, they enable freedom by definition. In the framework of education I do believe the government should have a role in making it accessible to everybody. This is one area of the market where governmental intervention is justified. Where I part ways with you is how the government should intervene. Under the status quo, education is a monopoly and is therefore afflicted with all he diseases that come along with monpoly. Vouchers eliminate this and inject competition into this sector of the market even though it is under the jurisdiction of one entity.

The government already is and has for quite some time now had a hand in making education free and accessible to everyone. The really strange thing is that you are saying this while at the same time a number of republicans are calling for the elimination of the DoE.

Would eliminating DoE somehow make education not free and not accessible to everyone? No, education would still be a government function, however it would be a function of state and even municipal governments, not the federal government. This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp, the more power that resides within the federal government causes less power to reside within individuals. Your voice, as a citizen, is greatest at the municipal level. When you climb the ladder up to the state level, your voice is reduced by some degree but is still greater than your voice in the context of the federal level.

If you want more than the basic education provided for by the government you are free to do so but why you think the government should pay for your choice is beyond me. There are many areas of the country where the current education system works very well, providing a quality education at a reasonable price. Demanding the entire nation to conform to this idea of yours is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Do you know whow vouchers work? Currently, the government subsidizes the education of your child and decides which school your child attends according to district and location. Under a national voucher system, the government would continue to subsidize the education of your child but you would get to decide which school your child attends. It would do nothing harmful to high quality schools, it would only force poor quality schools to improve.