Rye Catcher
Platinum Member
- Nov 21, 2019
- 12,780
- 7,615
- 940
- Banned
- #81
Yep, she is that stupid, and so are you. Maybe she didn't mean it literally, but the comment was an idiot gram and biddable fools like you believe idiot-grams.
Marxism Nearly Killed The Pilgrims
- Thread starter Red Storm Rising
- Start date
Rigby5
Diamond Member
The Puritan Pilgrims were not at all Marxists in any way, at any time.
The problem was not at all collectivism, communalism, or ccoperation.
It was ignorance, elitism, lack of work ethic, class privilege, etc.
It was not working class who could afford the ship fare.
It was the wealthy elite.
And they expected someone else to do all the work for them.
The problem was not at all collectivism, communalism, or ccoperation.
It was ignorance, elitism, lack of work ethic, class privilege, etc.
It was not working class who could afford the ship fare.
It was the wealthy elite.
And they expected someone else to do all the work for them.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Wrong.
It was the exact opposite.
Almost the whole ship load of Pilgrims were wealthy elite, who expected the servants to do all the work for them.
The sharing contract had absolutely nothing at all to do with their lack of skills, knowledge, or work ethic.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Huh!
Marxism is the single most egalitarian principle, and it is capitalism that needs a "master race" concept to excuse creating the wealthy elite minority in charge.
But I agree with your last statement.
Pellinore
Platinum Member
- May 30, 2018
- 2,073
- 1,189
- 940
83 comments is way too much to waste on this video's ideas.
First of all, they landed in November 1620, about half froze and died during that winter, then with the help of the Wampanoags, they worked out the farming and had a massive crop in 1621. The three-day feast that we all celebrate on Thanksgiving was in 1621, but they didn't turn away from the communal system until 1623. She makes it seem as if private ownership lifted them from starvation. It didn't.
Also, their shared system had nothing to do with socialism. The English system of communal farming was descended from the days of feudalism, when a noble would divide his land up among working families, pool all of the gains, then give each family their cut, keeping the rest as profit; if you think that sounds like an early version of having a job today, you would be correct. The Pilgrims' investors insisted on including the equal ownership in their contract in order to protect their profit, much as the medieval noble protected his. To their credit, they worked it for the first three years, before turning away from the impractical and unfair contract in 1623.
The system of communal farming was nothing like socialism, and even less like Marxism, the Mayflower passengers were dragooned into a lopsided arrangement, and none of it has much to do with our society today. They didn't starve because of their shared ownership system, and they weren't rescued by individualism. She might as well be trying to compare our economic systems with the Lord of the Rings.
Ignore her.
First of all, they landed in November 1620, about half froze and died during that winter, then with the help of the Wampanoags, they worked out the farming and had a massive crop in 1621. The three-day feast that we all celebrate on Thanksgiving was in 1621, but they didn't turn away from the communal system until 1623. She makes it seem as if private ownership lifted them from starvation. It didn't.
Also, their shared system had nothing to do with socialism. The English system of communal farming was descended from the days of feudalism, when a noble would divide his land up among working families, pool all of the gains, then give each family their cut, keeping the rest as profit; if you think that sounds like an early version of having a job today, you would be correct. The Pilgrims' investors insisted on including the equal ownership in their contract in order to protect their profit, much as the medieval noble protected his. To their credit, they worked it for the first three years, before turning away from the impractical and unfair contract in 1623.
The system of communal farming was nothing like socialism, and even less like Marxism, the Mayflower passengers were dragooned into a lopsided arrangement, and none of it has much to do with our society today. They didn't starve because of their shared ownership system, and they weren't rescued by individualism. She might as well be trying to compare our economic systems with the Lord of the Rings.
Ignore her.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,691
- 91,371
- 2,605
- Moderator
- #87
Hate to tell ya, but Marx wasn't born till 263 years after the Pilgrims landed. It was pure socialism that nearly did them in. Everyone shared equally in the groups labor and naturally there were people that didn't pull their weight. Equity was not a viable form of governance then and it won't be now.
.
Last edited:
Confederate Soldier
Diamond Member
Winston
Platinum Member
The lady is a damn idiot and is completely misrepresenting what happened. In fact, the exact opposite happened. The Pilgrims that came here were not "entrepreneurs", as the little idiot proclaimed. They had borrowed the money for the trip and they verbally agreed to pay back that borrowed amount, with interest, by collecting resources to be sent back to England. In return, they were supposed to be taken care of, in the form of food and provisions, for their survival.
Yet when they landed they didn't have so much as a pot to piss in, or cook in, for that matter. No food, no flour, no winter clothing. They were not provided for by "the company", not at all. All they had was what they were able to bring along. The following spring the Fortune showed up, EMPTY. No supplies, no food, not a damn thing to support those colonists, only more "indentured servants for all intents and purposes, and yet they dutifully loaded the ship up with what supplies they had gathered in order to pay their debts. Worse, ships continued to come, carrying few supplies and additional settlers that strained the limited resources of the colony.
The whole concept behind the OP was the free ownership of land. Which is kind of comical. Land was distributed BY THE GOVERNMENT. It could not be bought and sold. And the economic situation did not improve until cattle was shipped to the colony, and that cattle was distributed BY THE GOVERNMENT. To be honest, the historical revisionism exemplified by the OP should be criminal.
Winston
Platinum Member
The Merchant Adventurers were a private corporation. They supplied the financing, they dictated the terms of the agreement, and they failed to meet their obligations. My claims are spot on, no stupid shit like you is going to tell me squat about Colonial America. I mean I will pull up the documents, written at the time, by people that were actually there. Not some stupid ***** that hasn't even had so much as an entry level American history class in college.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,419
- 2,180
They are no more private than the Dutch East India company. They were created by the crown to manage the assigned territory. They put none of their own money into the deal, and the crown simply granted the land to the charter. King Henry V wrote all the rules for their charter and chose the people who managed it.
How the **** is that "private?"
Winston
Platinum Member
Obviously, you don't know what a "chartered company" is. Check out wiki
A chartered company is an association with investors or shareholders that is incorporated and granted rights (often exclusive rights) by royal charter (or similar instrument of government) for the purpose of trade, exploration, and/or colonization.
List of chartered companies - Wikipedia
Notice, "investors or shareholders". And I got to ask, how the hell did the members of the Dutch East India company manage that land without using any of their own money? I mean do you not even bother to think?
It was called, "Adventure Capital", not "communism. And it was the beginning of corporations and limited liability.
Adventure capital was a phenomenon that had taken hold long before the 1600s. One group, the Fellowship of the Merchants Adventurers of England, had been formally recognized as far back as 1505. Rather than act as a formal pool of money or resources, the adventurers had always been a loosely affiliated guild in which individual members participated in the ventures of their choosing. As the century progressed, the capital requirements of overseas ventures had coincided with and propelled development of the joint-stock company—“joint-stock” implying shareholders with transferable interests as opposed to the more intimate, closed nature of partnerships.
Who Paid for the Mayflower? | Bhu Srinivasan
Adventure capital was a phenomenon that had taken hold long before the 1600s. One group, the Fellowship of the Merchants Adventurers of England, had been formally recognized as far back as 1505. Rather than act as a formal pool of money or resources, the adventurers had always been a loosely...
fee.org
You can see, the organization of the Plymouth expedition was far closer to "free markets" and capitalism than socialism or communism. Which is the complete opposite of the claims of the OP.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,419
- 2,180
There is no evidence that the "sharehorlders" paid anything for shares in the company. All we know is that King Henry VIII granted the land. He also chose the managers of the "company" and wrote all the rules that governed it. That makes him the true owner, not the so-called shareholders.Obviously, you don't know what a "chartered company" is. Check out wiki
A chartered company is an association with investors or shareholders that is incorporated and granted rights (often exclusive rights) by royal charter (or similar instrument of government) for the purpose of trade, exploration, and/or colonization.
List of chartered companies - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Notice, "investors or shareholders". And I got to ask, how the hell did the members of the Dutch East India company manage that land without using any of their own money? I mean do you not even bother to think?
It was called, "Adventure Capital", not "communism. And it was the beginning of corporations and limited liability.
Adventure capital was a phenomenon that had taken hold long before the 1600s. One group, the Fellowship of the Merchants Adventurers of England, had been formally recognized as far back as 1505. Rather than act as a formal pool of money or resources, the adventurers had always been a loosely affiliated guild in which individual members participated in the ventures of their choosing. As the century progressed, the capital requirements of overseas ventures had coincided with and propelled development of the joint-stock company—“joint-stock” implying shareholders with transferable interests as opposed to the more intimate, closed nature of partnerships.
Who Paid for the Mayflower? | Bhu Srinivasan
Adventure capital was a phenomenon that had taken hold long before the 1600s. One group, the Fellowship of the Merchants Adventurers of England, had been formally recognized as far back as 1505. Rather than act as a formal pool of money or resources, the adventurers had always been a loosely...fee.org
You can see, the organization of the Plymouth expedition was far closer to "free markets" and capitalism than socialism or communism. Which is the complete opposite of the claims of the OP.
King Henry wrote the rules the colony operated under. That's the bottom line. Your theory that it was a private corporation in the modern sense is pure horseshit. It was simply an arm of the crown,.
Winston
Platinum Member
Do you know about the Boston Tea Party? It was not about the taxes on the tea. Matter of fact, all the taxes due on the tea that was dumped in the harbor were paid. Benjamin Franklin saw to that. The problem was the subsidy that the British government was providing to the very tea company you have mentioned. They had warehouses of rotting tea, and since most of the members of the House of Lords were shareholders, the government granted them special concessions, including refunding them any taxes they had to pay for their tea. It made their tea cheaper than other alternatives. But the colonists, they would have nothing of it, especially since it put domestic tea merchants at a disadvantage. I mean I could go into further detail, like how the governor of Massachusetts sons were tea merchants expecting delivery of that tea, or now the British government threatened the harbor with cannons if they wouldn't accept the tea. But the point of the matter is, yes, the East India Tea Company was a PRIVATE company. Getting government land grants was standard operating procedure back then, a means of raising capital and spurring investment. But that no more made those companies an arm of the government than granting patents to drug companies make them an arm of the government today.
And yes, there is plenty of proof that the Merchant Adventurers, or even the East India Tea Company, utilized privately raised capital to initiate investments. I mean hell, do you think the British government paid for the Mayflower, or the Speedwell, or the Fortune? Do you think the government financed the expedition? How about Jamestown, was it a government financed expedition as well?
Look, it appears your knowledge of the Plymouth colony comes from fourth grade Social Studies class and coloring turkeys. Your believe in the historical revisionism of the OP is strong evidence to exactly that. But, as I said, that historical revisionism is absolutely criminal. I strongly suspect the little ***** in the OP knows the truth and is simply posting up clickbait for fools like you. I am just trying to school you, mostly so you stop making a fool of yourself.
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,552
- 2,645
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,419
- 2,180
I already laid out in detail how the Merchant Adventurers were not a private company. The crown provided the land, the crown wrote their rules, and the crown selected the managers who ran it. That makes it an arm of the crown. That's the bottom line. You haven't got around it.
Last edited:
Rye Catcher
Platinum Member
- Nov 21, 2019
- 12,780
- 7,615
- 940
- Banned
- #98
This seems to meet Marxism:
THE EIGHT BEATITUDES OF JESUS
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Gospel of Matthew 5:3-10
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
What a stupid comment. The "crown" was the legal government of the day, so all deeds, rules, regulations, and laws flowed from the "crown". The crown didn't "pick the managers who ran it" but the King would hardly have given favours to those he didn't like or trust.
But to say that the company is an "arm of the crown" is like saying that no private ownership existed in 1776, which is utterly false.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Nooo! Bastards! Iran lays mines in Strait of Hormuz- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 45
-
-
-
-
