March 19th: Wm. Bradford- Capitalism

[PoliticalChic]

March 19th,1590 On this day, William Bradford was baptised (no specific record of his birth).

An original Pilgrim (“separatists”) of the Mayflower, he became the second leader of the Plymouth Colony (1621) upon the death of John Carver. He was the principal architect of the Mayflower Compact, and introduced a system of privatization contending that colonists produced more farming for themselves than for the community. He wrote the following toward the end of his life:

Faint not, poor soul, in God still trust,
Fear not the things thou suffer must;
For, whom he loves he doth chastise,
And then all tears wipes from their eyes.

Bradford described the introduction of capitalism (1623)to replace communal use of the land:

“And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. 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 women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

Long before the failure of modern socialism, the earliest European settlers gave us a dramatic demonstration of the fatal flaws of collectivism.
Happy Starvation Day by John Stossel on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

 

[Dragon]

That was not capitalism. A common mistake among right-wingers, particularly those with John Birch Society leanings, is to suppose that only two possible economic systems exist. The original Mayflower arrangement was communal. Changing that does not amount to implementing capitalism. In fact, the division of land in family lots would better be described as a type of socialism. Now, one or two people owning all the land and having everyone else work to produce a harvest that these few individuals would own -- THAT would have been capitalism.

 

[Wiseacre]

That was not capitalism. A common mistake among right-wingers, particularly those with John Birch Society leanings, is to suppose that only two possible economic systems exist. The original Mayflower arrangement was communal. Changing that does not amount to implementing capitalism. In fact, the division of land in family lots would better be described as a type of socialism. Now, one or two people owning all the land and having everyone else work to produce a harvest that these few individuals would own -- THAT would have been capitalism.

As long as those workers have a choice for where they work or doing on something else or going elsewhere, and they were paid for their efforts and they could leave whenever they wished, that's pretty close to capitalism.

 

[Dragon]

That was not capitalism. A common mistake among right-wingers, particularly those with John Birch Society leanings, is to suppose that only two possible economic systems exist. The original Mayflower arrangement was communal. Changing that does not amount to implementing capitalism. In fact, the division of land in family lots would better be described as a type of socialism. Now, one or two people owning all the land and having everyone else work to produce a harvest that these few individuals would own -- THAT would have been capitalism.

As long as those workers have a choice for where they work or doing on something else or going elsewhere, and they were paid for their efforts and they could leave whenever they wished, that's pretty close to capitalism.

Correct, or at least the illusion of a choice. You're right, what I described could as easily stretch to some form of feudalism or slave-worked agriculture, which would not be capitalist, either.