Thanksgiving: Deliverance from Socialism

[Little-Acorn]

A VERY timely notice for all of us.

We who are trying so hard to ignore history, may be dooming ourselves to repeat it.

How many will survive the experience the next time?

----------------------------------------

http://www.post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/545415.html?nav=5071

Thanksgiving: Deliverance From Socialism

by Daniel McLaughlin
POSTED: November 21, 2009

In the fall of the year 1623, William Bradford and the pilgrims who resided in Plymouth Plantation sat down for a thanksgiving feast. It was a celebration of a plentiful harvest. It hadn't been so in the preceding couple of years.

They had arrived in the new world in 1620. After the death of John Carver, the first governor of the colony, in April of 1621, Mr. Bradford was chosen as the second governor. From the start of their journey from England, he had kept a diary of their activities. They had early on decided on communal living and agreed to work all together for a common store of provisions and share equally in its use. He wrote that this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent. It retarded 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 worke for other men's wives and children, with out any recompence." The strong and productive didn't get any more food or provisions than the unproductive, and that was thought injustice. The older and weaker thought it indignity and disrespect to them to have to do the same amount of work as the younger and stronger. He wrote, "for men's wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brooke it."

In other words, people produced less and were discontented when they were forced to work for the benefit of others, at the expense of their own well-being. Plymouth Colony had a first hand taste of the effects of socialism on a community. As Bradford described it, few crops were planted or harvested. For a couple of years, the people languished in misery, and many died.

In 1923, they decided to try something different to get a better crop and raise themselves up. The solution was to give each family its own plot of land, and to hold them responsible for their own welfare. The idea was that, if each family was allowed to prosper according to its own efforts, each person would have the incentive to work harder to plant and harvest more. Again in the words of Governor Bradford: "This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

William Bradford and the colonists had made a profound discovery. They had, in effect, conducted a controlled experiment in political organization. In everything other than property rights and personal responsibility, they continued as before. Under socialism, or communal living, or the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need," the community languished. There was little incentive to produce more than the average. Thus the average declined and starvation and deprivation resulted.

Under conditions of private property, where families trusted in their own abilities, and "every man to his own particular," the people began to prosper. Bradford wrote in his journal several decades later that from that time on, they never suffered from deprivation, but rather the community improved and flourished.

That experiment has been conducted many times over the course of centuries, and indeed the whole of human history. The results are always ultimately the same. Where people are free to enjoy the benefits of their own labors and property, there is progress and plenty. Where property is subject to arbitrary confiscation, there is no incentive to produce. There is no incentive to try to accumulate wealth against unforeseen hardships of the future, and there is dependence, degradation and, ultimately, slavery.

This Thanksgiving season is a good time for reflection. Americans are traveling down a road toward the first Plymouth, the collectivism that leads to misery. As for me, I think we should be turning back toward the second Plymouth, toward personal responsibility and the resulting prosperity. Then we can join Governor Bradford in Thanksgiving for deliverance from the catastrophe called socialism.

[HogTrash]

All marxists and liberals with socialist aspirations should read this thread.

Socialism/communism is a failure no matter what scale it is instituted on.

This failed system makes Big Government necessary because people must be forced to participate...Totalitarianism.

Capitalism has been proven time and again to be the best motivator for the advancement of productivity, technology and civilization.

This is not a personal opinion but the results of a 10 millennium world experiment to determine what political and economical ideology best works for human kind.

Little Acorn deserves a rep from everybody with a brain for this thread. :clap:

[Kathianne]

A VERY timely notice for all of us.

We who are trying so hard to ignore history, may be dooming ourselves to repeat it.

How many will survive the experience the next time?

----------------------------------------

http://www.post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/545415.html?nav=5071

Thanksgiving: Deliverance From Socialism

by Daniel McLaughlin
POSTED: November 21, 2009

In the fall of the year 1623, William Bradford and the pilgrims who resided in Plymouth Plantation sat down for a thanksgiving feast. It was a celebration of a plentiful harvest. It hadn't been so in the preceding couple of years.

They had arrived in the new world in 1620. After the death of John Carver, the first governor of the colony, in April of 1621, Mr. Bradford was chosen as the second governor. From the start of their journey from England, he had kept a diary of their activities. They had early on decided on communal living and agreed to work all together for a common store of provisions and share equally in its use. He wrote that this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent. It retarded 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 worke for other men's wives and children, with out any recompence." The strong and productive didn't get any more food or provisions than the unproductive, and that was thought injustice. The older and weaker thought it indignity and disrespect to them to have to do the same amount of work as the younger and stronger. He wrote, "for men's wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brooke it."

In other words, people produced less and were discontented when they were forced to work for the benefit of others, at the expense of their own well-being. Plymouth Colony had a first hand taste of the effects of socialism on a community. As Bradford described it, few crops were planted or harvested. For a couple of years, the people languished in misery, and many died.

In 1923, they decided to try something different to get a better crop and raise themselves up. The solution was to give each family its own plot of land, and to hold them responsible for their own welfare. The idea was that, if each family was allowed to prosper according to its own efforts, each person would have the incentive to work harder to plant and harvest more. Again in the words of Governor Bradford: "This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

William Bradford and the colonists had made a profound discovery. They had, in effect, conducted a controlled experiment in political organization. In everything other than property rights and personal responsibility, they continued as before. Under socialism, or communal living, or the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need," the community languished. There was little incentive to produce more than the average. Thus the average declined and starvation and deprivation resulted.

Under conditions of private property, where families trusted in their own abilities, and "every man to his own particular," the people began to prosper. Bradford wrote in his journal several decades later that from that time on, they never suffered from deprivation, but rather the community improved and flourished.

That experiment has been conducted many times over the course of centuries, and indeed the whole of human history. The results are always ultimately the same. Where people are free to enjoy the benefits of their own labors and property, there is progress and plenty. Where property is subject to arbitrary confiscation, there is no incentive to produce. There is no incentive to try to accumulate wealth against unforeseen hardships of the future, and there is dependence, degradation and, ultimately, slavery.

This Thanksgiving season is a good time for reflection. Americans are traveling down a road toward the first Plymouth, the collectivism that leads to misery. As for me, I think we should be turning back toward the second Plymouth, toward personal responsibility and the resulting prosperity. Then we can join Governor Bradford in Thanksgiving for deliverance from the catastrophe called socialism.

Tried to rep, but alas. Should that 1923, be 1623?

[Little-Acorn]

Tried to rep, but alas. Should that 1923, be 1623?

Pretty obviously a typo, 1623 makes sense.

[cat slave]

All marxists and liberals with socialist aspirations should read this thread.

Socialism/communism is a failure no matter what scale it is instituted on.

This failed system makes Big Government necessary because people must be forced to participate...Totalitarianism.

Capitalism has been proven time and again to be the best motivator for the advancement of productivity, technology and civilization.

This is not a personal opinion but the results of a 10 millennium world experiment to determine what political and economical ideology best works for human kind.

Little Acorn deserves a rep from everybody with a brain for this thread. :clap:

A standing ovation....:clap::clap::clap:....I dunno how to "rep"!

[Insein]

A standing ovation....:clap::clap::clap:....I dunno how to "rep"!

The "scales" in the upper right corner of a post is how you "rep" a person.

[Agnapostate]

How is "communism" compatible with assignment of labor without consideration of varying abilities? That seems to fly directly in the face of communism, inasmuch as it entails distribution of labor assignments based on abilities. Compensation offered without consideration of labor performace also seems quite at odds with socialism and its meritocratic nature (as it's reliant on labor performance measurement to determine remuneration), and more akin to capitalism and its remuneration mechanism for the product yielded by the result of the combination of one's labor and one's capital...which means that those with much capital can labor less than those with little.

In short, like the idiotic story about the wise university professor and the naive egalitarian class, this is another empty, pathetic, and intellectually bankrupt anti-socialist chain message, just as creationists will often distribute scientifically ignorant commentary in an attempt to "dispute" evolution.

[Little-Acorn]

Compensation offered without consideration of labor performace also seems quite at odds with socialism and its meritocratic nature

Looks like socialist tactic #4: When too many people get fed up with your socialistic (or communistic, nearly the same thing) agenda, tell them lies about how socialism is practiced and hope they believe you.

(yawn)

Some day, these people will come up with something genuinely new.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[Agnapostate]

Can we get to the socialist debate already, where you try to contend with me, and I arrogantly crush every single one of you? *yawn*

This is the usual pattern. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213234)

[HogTrash]

Can we get to the socialist debate already, where you try to contend with me, and I arrogantly crush every single one of you? *yawn*

This is the usual pattern. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213234)I see no sense in debating a system that is a historicly known social and economical failure not to mention it's well documented violations of human rights.

After all, how many communist nations are people flocking too, seeking citizenship?

As Tony Blair once said of the United States - "The best way to take measure of a country is to see how many want in and how many want out".

Ladies and gentleman of the jury.....I rest my case.

[Agnapostate]

I see no sense in debating a system that is a historicly known social and economical failure not to mention it's well documented violations of human rights.

After all, how many communist nations are people flocking too, seeking citizenship?

As Tony Blair once said of the United States - "The best way to take measure of a country is to see how many want in and how many want out".

Ladies and gentleman of the jury.....I rest my case.

Yeah.

That's the kind of nonsense I expected. The lowest kind of rightist regurgitation.

You're several levels below the phase where it might enter your head that an authoritarian political regime's self-description isn't the best criterion to judge its actual political conditions by. Ever heard of the "People's Republic" of China?

[HogTrash]

Yeah.

That's the kind of nonsense I expected. The lowest kind of rightist regurgitation.

You're several levels below the phase where it might enter your head that an authoritarian political regime's self-description isn't the best criterion to judge its actual political conditions by. Ever heard of the "People's Republic" of China?June 4 1989 - Tiananmen Square Massacre...Nobody seems to know exactly how many people were murdered by their own government during what began as a peaceful protest.

Thousands are estimated but as in all communist nations, all of the news outlets and media are government controlled and casualties were denied by the state.

Most were young college students who wanted nothing more than democracy and freedom, something their grandparents gave up decades ago to a man named Mao Tse Tung.

Chairman Mao promised them a better life through communism and the people believed him and followed him and surrendered their property and guns to him.

But on this day these young students tried to reclaim what their fathers surrendered to communism...Unarmed, they faced the guns and tanks of the Chinese Red Army.

They died in the streets and they lost...They are still slaves to the communist totalitarian dictatership that controls every aspect of their daily lives.

Let their loss be a lesson to us...Let their fathers mistake be our warning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzFmw3A3Rok&feature=fvw

[Agnapostate]

Yes, let that be a lesson to us to avoid the dangers of establishing a republic. After all, since the country is called a "people's republic," it must be a republic, right? :laugh:

[Gaffer]

Yes, let that be a lesson to us to avoid the dangers of establishing a republic. After all, since the country is called a "people's republic," it must be a republic, right? :laugh:

Your not part of the us he talks about. Just because a country, like china, uses the word republic in their name doesn't make them one.

[Insein]

Yes, let that be a lesson to us to avoid the dangers of establishing a republic. After all, since the country is called a "people's republic," it must be a republic, right? :laugh:

You are not a communist. No amount of self-righteous arrogance is going to change that. You have clearly laid out your thoughts through numerous posts and it is clear that you are an anarchist. No amount of semantics or obfusication will change the fact that you are trying to change a definition of communism and socialism that has been established for the past 200 years. It may have one time meant what you are describing in the same way that the term "gay" meant happy way back when. It does not now. Communism is defined by the political machines such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the People's Republic of China.

So you can have your arrogance if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy but you will have the knowledge at the end of the day of knowing that you are wrong and that in the grand scheme of things, you're wrong for a reason no one cares about.

[HogTrash]

Yes, let that be a lesson to us to avoid the dangers of establishing a republic. After all, since the country is called a "people's republic," it must be a republic, right? :laugh:Your parents took their ill-gotten capitalist gains and invested it in an education for their smart little beautiful son.

They dressed you up, gave you some pocket money and shipped you off to academia where you discovered the wonderful professor Schweigart.

The good professor began to tell you about the evils of capitalism and the new and improved form of marxism that he had theorized to replace it and you hitched your wagon to his horse.

Your hungry little mind was like a blank slate that the good professor proceded to fill in with his hatred of America and the white man and his amazing new plan to right these wrongs and injustices.

Of course you knew nothing of these things but he managed to sell you on his theories by showing you evidence that what he was saying is true and convincing you to never accept anything to the contrary.

He showed you evidence that was handpicked by him that supported his teachings and convinced you that any evidence anybody else showed you that was contridictory to his was lies and capitalist propaganda.

Now you surf the web spreading the wonderful truths that the professor had shown you in an attempt to enlighten the ignorant masses and make them aware of the beautiful new world awaiting if they will adopt your "plan".

You of course are so convinced that you have been shown the truth and have been warned to not believe anything those capitalist white pigs may say or show you to sway the truths the great and wonderful professor has taught you.

Aggy, the professor did not lie to you...Like you, he actually believes everything he says...You know why?...Because just like you, when he was young and impressionable some college professor just like him, brainwashed him too.

Being a well educated college professor is not an automatic indication of superior intelligence...Believe me, I have met more than my share of intellectual morons of which your professor Schweigart is definately one.

[Gaffer]

Your parents took their ill-gotten capitalist gains and invested it in an education for their smart little beautiful son.

They dressed you up, gave you some pocket money and shipped you off to academia where you discovered the wonderful professor Schweigart.

The good professor began to tell you about the evils of capitalism and the new and improved form of marxism that he had theorized to replace it and you hitched your wagon to his horse.

Your hungry little mind was like a blank slate that the good professor proceded to fill in with his hatred of America and the white man and his amazing new plan to right these wrongs and injustices.

Of course you knew nothing of these things but he managed to sell you on his theories by showing you evidence that what he was saying is true and convincing you to never accept anything to the contrary.

He showed you evidence that was handpicked by him that supported his teachings and convinced you that any evidence anybody else showed you that was contridictory to his was lies and capitalist propaganda.

Now you surf the web spreading the wonderful truths that the professor had shown you in an attempt to enlighten the ignorant masses and make them aware of the beautiful new world awaiting if they will adopt your "plan".

You of course are so convinced that you have been shown the truth and have been warned to not believe anything those capitalist white pigs may say or show you to sway the truths the great and wonderful professor has taught you.

Aggy, the professor did not lie to you...Like you, he actually believes everything he says...You know why?...Because just like you, when he was young and impressionable some college professor just like him, brainwashed him too.

Being a well educated college professor is not an automatic indication of superior intelligence...Believe me, I have met more than my share of intellectual morons of which your professor Schweigart is definately one.

Have to spread the rep around.

[Agnapostate]

Your not part of the us he talks about. Just because a country, like china, uses the word republic in their name doesn't make them one.

Goodness, is that correct? Does that perhaps mean, then, that a country that uses the word "socialist" in their name isn't necessarily "socialist" if no element of their internal conditions is actually socialist? Are you implying, then, that we should judge deeds rather than words? :eek:


You are not a communist. No amount of self-righteous arrogance is going to change that. You have clearly laid out your thoughts through numerous posts and it is clear that you are an anarchist. No amount of semantics or obfusication will change the fact that you are trying to change a definition of communism and socialism that has been established for the past 200 years. It may have one time meant what you are describing in the same way that the term "gay" meant happy way back when. It does not now. Communism is defined by the political machines such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the People's Republic of China.

So you can have your arrogance if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy but you will have the knowledge at the end of the day of knowing that you are wrong and that in the grand scheme of things, you're wrong for a reason no one cares about.

I'm afraid I'm not a fan of the descriptivist theory of language when it's based on shallow misconceptions, and for an important reason. Just as rightists everywhere swell up in fury when the latest capitalist economic crisis is blamed on the free market and when the defeat of Republican legislators is widely hailed as a defeat for conservatives, and just as they angrily insist that there's a significant detachment between "corporatism" and free market capitalism and between Republicans and conservatives despite the alleged popular misconception to the contrary, I challenge the association of "socialism" and "communism" with authoritarianism, a trend that was prophetically predicted almost ninety years ago by Peter Kropotkin in a letter to Lenin. The central difference, as I see it, is that there are substantial theoretical grounds for my own claims.


Your parents took their ill-gotten capitalist gains and invested it in an education for their smart little beautiful son.

Actually, I'm a mix of a few kinds of Indian, so I naturally have a Mongoloid look. But I'm not interested in your insights on the Jewish Marxists that infest academia, particularly since I'm not a Marxist, and since the divergence between Marxism and anarchism has always been the appeal of the former to intellectuals and the appeal of the latter to commoners...the precise opposite of what your disingenuous rambling would convey. If you ever got out of whatever backwater Mississippi dirt farm you call home, you might understand that, sparky. :thumb:

[Gaffer]

Please name a country that has the word socialist in their name.

You are no anarchist. Your an elitist, looking to become part of the new nobility.

[Agnapostate]

Please name a country that has the word socialist in their name.

Ever heard of an obscure one called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Of course, if you conclude that the "republic" self-description doesn't mean that they actually practice republicanism if internal conditions are authoritarian, I don't see any basis for contradictorily claiming that the "socialist" self-descriptions means that they actually practice socialism if internal conditions aren't socialist.


You are no anarchist. Your an elitist, looking to become part of the new nobility.

Sounds dashing, but with the British royal family under so much surveillance, I worry that my strip club attendance would diminish if I were among those ranks.

[Gaffer]

Ever heard of an obscure one called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Of course, if you conclude that the "republic" self-description doesn't mean that they actually practice republicanism if internal conditions are authoritarian, I don't see any basis for contradictorily claiming that the "socialist" self-descriptions means that they actually practice socialism if internal conditions aren't socialist.



Sounds dashing, but with the British royal family under so much surveillance, I worry that my strip club attendance would diminish if I were among those ranks.

The ussr was an alliance. And, in case you haven't noticed, that alliance has broken up. Try again. Find a country that advertises it's socialism in it's name. Lots of them use democratic republic, which they aren't.

The US has new royalty. They are called politicians and the intellectual elite, such as you desire to be. You think your smarter and better than everyone else. Your an elitist, not an anarchist. In an anarchic society you would not survive.

[Agnapostate]

The ussr was an alliance.

Well, goodness, the "U.S.A." is technically an "alliance" too, isn't it?


And, in case you haven't noticed, that alliance has broken up. Try again. Find a country that advertises it's socialism in it's name. Lots of them use democratic republic, which they aren't.

That has absolutely no bearing on my point, which is that a country's self-description isn't necessarily indicative of actual practice.


The US has new royalty. They are called politicians and the intellectual elite, such as you desire to be. You think your smarter and better than everyone else. Your an elitist, not an anarchist. In an anarchic society you would not survive.

My anarchist tendencies of course place me in opposition to the politicians and intellectual elite, as they have an interest in the preservation of the state and capitalism. It would probably be you that didn't survive if your interest in protecting dictatorial private property is as strong as you indicate, since those that violently resist expropriation efforts would be forcibly overcome.

[Gaffer]

Well, goodness, the "U.S.A." is technically an "alliance" too, isn't it?



That has absolutely no bearing on my point, which is that a country's self-description isn't necessarily indicative of actual practice.



My anarchist tendencies of course place me in opposition to the politicians and intellectual elite, as they have an interest in the preservation of the state and capitalism. It would probably be you that didn't survive if your interest in protecting dictatorial private property is as strong as you indicate, since those that violently resist expropriation efforts would be forcibly overcome.

The states chose to join the union. They can also chose to leave the union. In the case of the ussr the countries were conquered and forced through military might to be a part of the ussr. And the bearing to your point is that the ussr no longer exists. So can you come up with any other countries that uses socialist in their names?

As I said, your posts show you to be an elitist. The only anarchy you want is whatever gives you the opportunity to have power over other people. Take what belongs to others with no retribution to yourself. Your actually very much like the present administration.

True anarchists don't follow anyone and don't work as a cohesive unit. They have no loyalties to anyone. They are total individualists. If you are part of a group then you are not a true anarchist. Whatever name you add to the term anarchist nullifies the term. Your an elitist. And your similarities to liberals are far more than your similarities to rightists.

[Agnapostate]

The states chose to join the union. They can also chose to leave the union.

Perhaps in whatever idealistic conceptions you harbor, but I'm extremely dubious of the idea that individual states would be permitted to secede.


In the case of the ussr the countries were conquered and forced through military might to be a part of the ussr. And the bearing to your point is that the ussr no longer exists. So can you come up with any other countries that uses socialist in their names?

You continue to miss the point entirely, which is that a country's self-description is not indicative of actual internal conditions. The "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" is a perfect example of this, as you recognize the the usage of the term "republic" is not indicative of the existence of actual republicanism. I recognize this also, but am merely consistent, and say the same thing of socialism. That the USSR was dissolved is utterly irrelevant to this analysis. Since you're apparently unable to comprehend this, though, the "Socialist Republic" of Vietnam makes the point just as well.


As I said, your posts show you to be an elitist. The only anarchy you want is whatever gives you the opportunity to have power over other people. Take what belongs to others with no retribution to yourself. Your actually very much like the present administration.

True anarchists don't follow anyone and don't work as a cohesive unit. They have no loyalties to anyone. They are total individualists. If you are part of a group then you are not a true anarchist. Whatever name you add to the term anarchist nullifies the term. Your an elitist. And your similarities to liberals are far more than your similarities to rightists.

I don't know where you've gathered your understanding of anarchism, but it seems utterly incoherent. Anarchism originated as an explicitly socialist ideology in 1840, drawing on broadly libertarian currents that preceded it to constitute a coherent political theory. Anarchism has always entailed social organization; it's merely hierarchical social organization that adherents of that movement have been opposed to. You seem to possess some shallow misconception of anarchism involving "chaos" or "disorder" (as most people do), rather than any knowledge of the anarchist theories of Proudhon, Bakunin, or Kropotkin.

[Little-Acorn]

Agnapostate seems to be doing his best to pretend socialism doesn't turn out the way it keeps turning out.

Good luck with that. Maybe you can contact the Pilgrims and let them know they were wrong in the way they changed their economic model in 1623.

[Agnapostate]

Agnapostate seems to be doing his best to pretend socialism doesn't turn out the way it keeps turning out.

Rightists seem to be doing their best to pretend capitalism doesn't turn out the way it keeps turning out. "But Republicans aren't true conservatives! That was corporatism, not capitalism!" The difference is that I'm right.


Good luck with that. Maybe you can contact the Pilgrims and let them know they were wrong in the way they changed their economic model in 1623.

I agree. They should have adopted communism instead. A shame that they never did.

[bullypulpit]

A VERY timely notice for all of us.

We who are trying so hard to ignore history, may be dooming ourselves to repeat it.

How many will survive the experience the next time?

----------------------------------------

http://www.post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/545415.html?nav=5071

Thanksgiving: Deliverance From Socialism

by Daniel McLaughlin
POSTED: November 21, 2009

In the fall of the year 1623, William Bradford and the pilgrims who resided in Plymouth Plantation sat down for a thanksgiving feast. It was a celebration of a plentiful harvest. It hadn't been so in the preceding couple of years.

They had arrived in the new world in 1620. After the death of John Carver, the first governor of the colony, in April of 1621, Mr. Bradford was chosen as the second governor. From the start of their journey from England, he had kept a diary of their activities. They had early on decided on communal living and agreed to work all together for a common store of provisions and share equally in its use. He wrote that this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent. It retarded 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 worke for other men's wives and children, with out any recompence." The strong and productive didn't get any more food or provisions than the unproductive, and that was thought injustice. The older and weaker thought it indignity and disrespect to them to have to do the same amount of work as the younger and stronger. He wrote, "for men's wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brooke it."

In other words, people produced less and were discontented when they were forced to work for the benefit of others, at the expense of their own well-being. Plymouth Colony had a first hand taste of the effects of socialism on a community. As Bradford described it, few crops were planted or harvested. For a couple of years, the people languished in misery, and many died.

In 1923, they decided to try something different to get a better crop and raise themselves up. The solution was to give each family its own plot of land, and to hold them responsible for their own welfare. The idea was that, if each family was allowed to prosper according to its own efforts, each person would have the incentive to work harder to plant and harvest more. Again in the words of Governor Bradford: "This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

William Bradford and the colonists had made a profound discovery. They had, in effect, conducted a controlled experiment in political organization. In everything other than property rights and personal responsibility, they continued as before. Under socialism, or communal living, or the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need," the community languished. There was little incentive to produce more than the average. Thus the average declined and starvation and deprivation resulted.

Under conditions of private property, where families trusted in their own abilities, and "every man to his own particular," the people began to prosper. Bradford wrote in his journal several decades later that from that time on, they never suffered from deprivation, but rather the community improved and flourished.

That experiment has been conducted many times over the course of centuries, and indeed the whole of human history. The results are always ultimately the same. Where people are free to enjoy the benefits of their own labors and property, there is progress and plenty. Where property is subject to arbitrary confiscation, there is no incentive to produce. There is no incentive to try to accumulate wealth against unforeseen hardships of the future, and there is dependence, degradation and, ultimately, slavery.

This Thanksgiving season is a good time for reflection. Americans are traveling down a road toward the first Plymouth, the collectivism that leads to misery. As for me, I think we should be turning back toward the second Plymouth, toward personal responsibility and the resulting prosperity. Then we can join Governor Bradford in Thanksgiving for deliverance from the catastrophe called socialism.

Apparently, only stupid, greedy white people had a hard time living communally in the "New World". The native Americans of the time seemed to have done quite well with it.