1623: The Failure of Socialism; The Triumph of Individualism

[Lawman]

I am actually surprised, I believed in this form of a small communial setting, socialism could work. Guess I was wrong.


A Thanksgiving post by Maynard from "My Girl"

[url="http://www.tammybruce.com/"]http://www.tammybruce.com/[/url]

It's appropriate to take a moment this Thanksgiving to recall what the Pilgrims discovered in 1623.

The original economic model of the Plymouth Plantation was essentially socialist. The property was communally attended to, and the crops equally distributed. It soon became apparent that the land was not productive enough to feed the residents, and further charity from Europe was not forthcoming. The colonists were on their own. The leaders contemplated this rude awakening, and decided they had better compromise their left-wing principles and privatize if they didn't want to starve. This is documented by William Bradford in his journal. Every American voter should read this:

"All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. 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.

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much 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 work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them."

It seems that we keep forgetting this fundamental lesson. And every time we forget, we pay the price.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='395103' date='Nov 27 2006, 04:26 PM']I am actually surprised, I believed in this form of a small communial setting, socialism could work. Guess I was wrong.
A Thanksgiving post by Maynard from "My Girl"

[url="http://www.tammybruce.com/"]http://www.tammybruce.com/[/url]

It's appropriate to take a moment this Thanksgiving to recall what the Pilgrims discovered in 1623.

The original economic model of the Plymouth Plantation was essentially socialist. The property was communally attended to, and the crops equally distributed. It soon became apparent that the land was not productive enough to feed the residents, and further charity from Europe was not forthcoming. The colonists were on their own. The leaders contemplated this rude awakening, and decided they had better compromise their left-wing principles and privatize if they didn't want to starve. This is documented by William Bradford in his journal. Every American voter should read this:

"All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. 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.

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much 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 work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them."

It seems that we keep forgetting this fundamental lesson. And every time we forget, we pay the price.[/quote]


And yet, you appear to be quite comfortable with a status quo that involves a tremendous amount of socialistic policies geared toward the benefit of a relatively small number of oligopoly capitalists. Besides, just because socialism doesn't work in homogeneous, egotistical Anglo-Saxon environments doesn't mean that it doesn't work at all. The arrangements under which these Europeans chaffed so bitterly have worked resonably well for many groups, and only completely break down under pressure from the predations of Europeans and similarly exploitative groups. All this really may demonstrate is the difficulty of pouring new wine into old Saxons.

[Homer_Rice]

Lawman, you crack me up. You're so ham-handed and obvious! You would really serve yourself better to look inward honestly, than to expend effort propping up a dysfunctional and loony world-outlook.

One of the first cautions offered to any prospective historian is to be careful not to read the present into the past. The reason for this is two-fold.

On one hand, if one wants to truly understand past events and the people of any given period, it is important to be faithful to the actual conditions of the period in question, including the ideas and mores of people active in that period. The first task of an historian is to record, as faithfully as possible, the past. On the other hand, historians are often morally obliged to adduce the lessons of the past and to make those lessons do service in the interest of the present and the future. These two kinds of effort are distinct from each other, especially methodologically, but are also related to each other, for obvious reasons.

If one does not perform the first task well, then any attempt to perform the second task will necessarily fall short. Sometimes the shortcomings are insignificant and even humorous. Sometimes the shortcomings have serious social consequences. Generally that depends upon the preponderance of wisdom or foolishness afoot on a wide scale in any given culture. The rule of thumb is pretty straightforward: a truly educated general populace, in terms of both wisdom and moral practice tends to reject silly ideas and constructs built on those silly notions, while a less wise and more immoral culture often gives traction to palpable nonsense.

So let's deal with the piece cited here and point out its proper place. The central question here is this: are the modifications to Plymouth Colony's practice, as recorded by Bradford, a reasonable basis for the lessons drawn by modern commentators?

This particular abstraction from history is often used by two kinds of interest groups: the evangelicals and the radical free-marketers. This slice of history also suggest why evangelicals and free-market radicals often find themselves in alliance, if at times an uneasy one. (That there are many religious evangelicals who are also radical free-market types when it comes to economics ought not be a surprise, either.)

The evangelical argument is easy to follow: Plymouth tried to implement a version of Plato's idea of communal ownership. It failed. Plato was human. God is divine. We ought to follow God's advice.

The free-marketer's argument is also easy to follow: Plymouth tried to implement a version of Plato's idea of communal ownership. It failed. Communal ownership does not work where private ownership does.

So far, so good. But to take this kernel of honest (and mostly on target) criticism and turn it into a diatribe against a straw-man conception of socialism is silly and ignorant. What commonly is described as socialism is simply a 19th and 20th centuries manifestation of those important questions which animate every generation: What is the relationship of the individual to other individuals? What is the relation between the individual to society? What is the relation between the individual and the universe? What is the relation between the individual and the divine?

Now, you can do the work or you can blow it off. That would simply be suggestive of your individual choice on just how to answer these questions.

Plato was not a socialist. Nor were the settlers at Plymouth. What they do represent are singular moments of a continuous tradition between the period of ancient Greece and what might be fairly described as the tail end of the Renaissance. In this case, the unifying concept is the idea of a commonwealth. The notion of a commonwealth is historically traceable, should you choose to expend the effort.

When you say that socialism is a failure and that individualism triumphs, you are only displaying your general ignorance of the first requirement of an historian and that you are satisfied with a superficial set of answers provided by "your team."

I'll give you a worthwhile hint, of import to not only theology but also science. Examine the development of the idea of a commonwealth, from Plato to Cicero, from Charlemagne and Harun al Rashid to the struggles between the Black and White Guelph in Italy, and from Machiavelli through Bodin, Campanella, Thomas More, as well as Grotius and Pufendorf.

Do the work. Or, I guess, you could simply rely on your girl's advice, and vote for John Bolton for President.

[TheBZ]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='395181' date='Nov 27 2006, 06:29 PM']All this really may demonstrate is the difficulty of pouring new wine into old Saxons.[/quote]

You've used this point a few times lately, and I have to admit that I identify with it...

Oh sure, I am philosophically against the looting and exploitation of others...But I have spent most of my life dreaming and writing with the same sensibilities of a Saxon or Norman invader; and it is certainly close enough to the surface that it only takes a few drinks on the town with the boys to make me feel a grim, but opportunistic heart beat inside my chest.

I have no other point to offer...I just wanted to lend personal credence to that point. It will help me clear my conscience before I head out for an evening of wine, women and song.

[quote][i]"The old river in its broad reach rested unruffled at the decline of day, after ages of good service done to the race that peopled its banks, spread out in the tranquil dignity of a waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth... Hunters for gold or pursuers of fame, they all had gone out on that stream, bearing the sword, and often the torch, messengers of the might within the land, bearers of a spark from the sacred fire. What greatness had not floated on the ebb of that river into the mystery of an unknown earth!...The dreams of men, the seed of commonwealth, the germs of empires." [/i][/quote]
[b]Joseph Conrad - [u]Heart of Darkness[/u][/b]
Part 1, Pg. 2

BZ

[Lawman]

"Homer_Rice
it is important to be faithful to the actual conditions of the period in question, including the ideas and mores of people active in that period. "

Homer,

You may recall, I have used this argument myself on occassions.


"I'll give you a worthwhile hint, of import to not only theology but also science. Examine the development of the idea of a commonwealth, from Plato to Cicero, from Charlemagne and Harun al Rashid to the struggles between the Black and White Guelph in Italy, and from Machiavelli through Bodin, Campanella, Thomas More, as well as Grotius and Pufendorf."

........ the States of Kentucky and Virginia. It's a good thing I am in the Military now and avoid property taxes.

This thread lead me to an interesting article on THE FARM, SUMMERTOWN TENNESSEE.

Additionally, this thread reminds me of the story involving an elve named Hermey, who lived in an socialist society and oppressed by a fat man at the North Pole where he was forced to make toys when all he wanted to do was be a Dentist.