America's Socialist Heritage

[daveman]

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!

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.

You're free to read the entire diary and tell us what he REALLY meant.

Meanwhile, you're perilously close to the truth: People don't like to support other people's families.

Careful. You might burst into flames.

 

[del]

i appreciate you're bringing me fresh examples, but i already knew you were a big believer in horseshit, davey.

 

[daveman]

He's not taking questions.

Links to his diary are in the article.

Care to dispute that socialism failed in Plymouth?

it's not his diary.

That's why I said "Links to his diary are in the article."

The book is here:

Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, 1606-1646 - William Bradford, William Thomas Davis - Google Books

Read it and tell us how Bradford got it wrong.

 

[daveman]

i appreciate you're bringing me fresh examples, but i already knew you were a big believer in horseshit, davey.

It sure is funny how you, an "independent", gets his panties in a wad whenever anyone questions prog dogma.

Don't worry. I won't tell anyone.

 

[regent]

Wow, must be that time of the year again. Won't be long until the Hitler was a socialist thing starts appearing again, and then we start the whole string over ending up with Obama has big ears. Wonder who calls the tune on timing these blogs?

 

[Kimura]

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!

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.

You're free to read the entire diary and tell us what he REALLY meant.

It wasn't his diary. Of Plymouth Plantation was a historical retrospective about life at Plymouth and its settlers.

Meanwhile, you're perilously close to the truth: People don't like to support other people's families.

Careful. You might burst into flames.

Um...not really. It still doesn't change the fact the whole endeavor was a for profit undertaking.

 

[daveman]

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.

It wasn't his diary. Of Plymouth Plantation was a historical retrospective about life at Plymouth and its settlers.

Which included excerpts of his diary.

Oh, wait, I know -- the author deliberately left out all the parts where Bradford said collectivism was groovy. Right?

Meanwhile, you're perilously close to the truth: People don't like to support other people's families.

Careful. You might burst into flames.

Um...not really. It still doesn't change the fact the whole endeavor was a for profit undertaking.

And that doesn't change the fact that collectivism is an historical failure.

 

[Kimura]

It wasn't his diary. Of Plymouth Plantation was a historical retrospective about life at Plymouth and its settlers.
Which included excerpts of his diary.

Oh, wait, I know -- the author deliberately left out all the parts where Bradford said collectivism was groovy. Right?

Yes, I'm sure a 17th Englishman wrote diatribes about collectivism.

Um...not really. It still doesn't change the fact the whole endeavor was a for profit undertaking.

And that doesn't change the fact that collectivism is an historical failure.

I was under the impression the British Empire practiced mercantilism at the time.

Again, for the last time, the whole undertaking was a for profit enterprise. As for Jamestown, King James I charted a company to settle North America, with the goal being trade for the Crown, which equals profits.

How can mercantilism and collectivism simultaneously exist?