America's Socialist Heritage

daveman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2010
76,336
29,353
2,250
On the way to the Dark Tower.
The first attempt was the Plymouth Colony.

Socialism damn near killed it.

Morning Bell: Giving Thanks for the Free Market
As described by Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford in his diary Of Plymouth Plantation, the first Pilgrim winters in America were tough. The colonists failed to produce adequate food and shelter, and as a result, many did not survive. But eventually the colony rebounded. The Pilgrims did build sufficient homes and did plant enough crops to feed the entire colony. So great was their bounty that they celebrated with a harvest feast that eventually became the Thanksgiving holiday that we celebrate today. But what was the key to the colony’s turnaround? What drove them from poverty to prosperity? The answer may surprise you.

When the first Pilgrims founded the Plymouth Colony, all property was taken away from families and transferred to a “comone wealth.” In other words, the Pilgrims tried to do away with private property. The results were disastrous. According to Bradford, the stronger and younger men resented working for other men’s wives and children “without any recompence.” And the women forced to cook and clean for other men saw their uncompensated service as “a kind of slavery.” The system as a whole bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the Pilgrims’] benefit and comfort.” Unable to produce their own food, some settlers “became servants to the Indians,” cutting wood and fetching water in exchange for “a capful of corn.” Others tragically perished.

It was not until private property rights were restored and every man was allowed to “set corn for his own particular” that prosperity came to the colony. Bradford reported, “This had very good success for it made all hands very industrious. … [M]uch more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. … Women went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn.”

A profoundly religious man, Bradford saw the hand of God in the Pilgrims’ economic recovery. After witnessing this experiment “amongst godly and sober men,” Bradford concluded that the elimination of private property was incompatible with human nature. He described those who thought they could make men “happy and flourishing” by taking away their property as “vain … as if they were wiser than God.”​
 
I've read this anecdote before and I am not so sure it represents what we would call socialism so much as a society in the grips of a cultish religious orthodoxy.
 
This same douchy story appears on some blog or website every year, except these people can't get their stories straight. Depending on whether its the reactionary conservative or libertarian version, the locations always change. Last year on one of these sites, it was the Jamestown version, written by the late Murray Rothbard or one of his cronies.

The Pilgrims were, contrary to this revisionist bullshit, more like shareholders. The goal was private profit. People got pissed at each other because they had to feed other people that weren't family members.

Jamestown, OTOH, did experience some famine, but it had nothing to do with 'socialism'. The colony was established by the London Company, which was chartered by King James I.
 
Last edited:
This same douchy story appears on some blog or website every year, except these people can't get their stories straight. Depending on whether its the reactionary conservative or libertarian version, the locations always change. Last year on one of these sites, it was the Jamestown version, written by the late Murray Rothbard or one of his cronies.

The Pilgrims were, contrary to this revisionist bullshit, more like shareholders. The goal was private profit. People got pissed at each other because they had to feed other people that weren't family members.

Jamestown, OTOH, did experience some famine, but it had nothing to do with 'socialism'. The colony was established by the London Company, which was chartered by King James I.
So, the diary of the governor of the colony is "revisionist bullshit".

Can you think of a single reason why I shouldn't laugh in your face?

Me neither!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
If anyone wants to dispute this, bear in mind you'll be arguing against Governor Bradford, who was there.

He's not taking questions.

Neither is Ronnie Ray-Gun and, coincidentally, for exactly the same reason.

The rw's idolize that old geezer. Unlike Obama, Reagan spent most of his presidency on vacation OR spending money. They just ignore that he put us so far in debt that we'll be working on it several generations to come but he also put in place a SOCIALIST health care system that Willard the Rat really liked too. In fact, the rw's just love it because they can get free health care and force the rest of us to pay for the care they're too lazy to pay for themselves.
 
This same douchy story appears on some blog or website every year, except these people can't get their stories straight. Depending on whether its the reactionary conservative or libertarian version, the locations always change. Last year on one of these sites, it was the Jamestown version, written by the late Murray Rothbard or one of his cronies.

The Pilgrims were, contrary to this revisionist bullshit, more like shareholders. The goal was private profit. People got pissed at each other because they had to feed other people that weren't family members.

Jamestown, OTOH, did experience some famine, but it had nothing to do with 'socialism'. The colony was established by the London Company, which was chartered by King James I.
So, the diary of the governor of the colony is "revisionist bullshit".

Can you think of a single reason why I shouldn't laugh in your face?

Me neither!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

No, but the author cherry picked quotes. The Pilgrims, and their sponsors in England, did agree to hold their property in common. William Bradford, the governor, wrote extensively about this.

If they were starving, why didn't they ration their food supply? Why did William Bradford declare three days of celebration, which eventually became the first Thanksgiving, if they were starving?

He eventually did give out parcels of land. It had more to do with the settlers resentment with the their living arrangement: having to feed each other (non-family members), having the women do laundry for married men, etc.
 
If anyone wants to dispute this, bear in mind you'll be arguing against Governor Bradford, who was there.

He's not taking questions.

Neither is Ronnie Ray-Gun and, coincidentally, for exactly the same reason.

The rw's idolize that old geezer. Unlike Obama, Reagan spent most of his presidency on vacation OR spending money. They just ignore that he put us so far in debt that we'll be working on it several generations to come but he also put in place a SOCIALIST health care system that Willard the Rat really liked too. In fact, the rw's just love it because they can get free health care and force the rest of us to pay for the care they're too lazy to pay for themselves.
Flag on the play. Impotent Leftist Deflection. Penalty: 15 yards.
 

Forum List

Back
Top