Socialism Sounds Good On Paper But It Was Deadly For The Pilgrims

[Addict2sex]

Socialism Sounds Good On Paper But It Was Deadly For The Pilgrims

Socialism Sounds Good on Paper But It Was Deadly for the Pilgrims | SchiffGold

schiffgold.com

Authored by Michael Maharrey via SchiffGold.com,

When I was a kid, we used to say some things only “sound good on paper.” In other words, they seem like good plans, but there is no way they’re going to work in the real world.

That’s socialism in a nutshell.

The Pilgrims found this out the hard way during their first couple of years in North America. Their experiment in socialism turned out deadly.

Turns out, you can’t just ignore economics and human nature.

Socialism really does sound good on paper though, right? We’re all going to own everything together and take care of each other. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.“

It sounds so nice. And we all want to be nice, right? People are emotionally drawn to socialism because it sounds so good. It sounds fair. It sounds — nice.

But do you know what’s not nice?

Corpses.

That’s exactly what happened the Pilgrims got when they took a stab at socialism.

Most Americans don’t know that the Plymouth colony was originally an experiment in socialist utopianism and were it not for a complete 180 a couple of years in, we probably wouldn’t have enjoyed the bountiful feasts most of us will indulge in today. There would have been no Thanksgiving because there would have been nobody left to give thanks.

When the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts on November 11, 1620, they placed all their food and provisions in a “common store.” These folks were forward thinkers. They didn’t even have Marx’s scribblings to appeal to. They set things up on the socialist principle of, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Things got off to a bad start in the new world. Conditions were miserable, as William Bradford described them.

That which was most sad and lamentable was, that in two or three months time half of their company died, especially in January and February, being the depth of winter, and wanting houses and other comforts; being infected with the scurvy and other diseases, so as there died sometimes two or three of a day, in the aforesaid time; that of 100 and odd persons, scarce 50 remained.”

Now, the Pilgrim’s initial struggles didn’t really have anything to do with socialism. They just had the misfortune of landing in Massachusetts at the onset of winter. If you live in New England, you understand their pain.

But even after their first summer, things didn’t improve much. The following fall, the Pilgrims harvested their first crops and again, they all went into the common store.

Now, wasn’t that nice? No greed. Nobody getting any more than they should. Of course, nobody was getting much of anything at all – but still – they had to feel good about themselves, right? Because, after all, the system was fair.

So, in November the ship Fortune arrived with more than 30 new settlers, mostly young men. More manpower was welcome, but according to accounts, they brought “not so much as a bisket-cake” with them. Now they had a meager supply of food in the common store and even more mouths to feed. The future looked bleak as food supplies ran out and the “planned socialist” community faced starvation yet again.

The following year, the harvest was poor in spite of the added manpower. Nevertheless, the pilgrims again put the meager harvest in the common store. Because, you know, it’s going to work this time!

It didn’t.

That winter, they starved.

The colonists were learning economics the hard way.

Richard Grant in his book The Incredible Bread Machine wrote:

“For two years the Pilgrims faithfully practiced communal ownership of the means of production. And for two years nearly starved to death, rationed at times to “but a quarter of a pound of bread a day to each person.” Governor Bradford wrote that “famine must still ensue the next year also if not some way prevented.” He described how the colonists finally decided to introduce private property:
[The colonists] 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. [In 1623] after much debate of things, the Gov. (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set down every man for his own … and to trust themselves … so assigned to every family a parcel of land. 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 Gov. or any other could use, … 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.”

Reflecting on the experience of the previous two years, Bradford goes on to describe the folly of communal ownership:

“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 Platosand other ancients, applauded by some of later times; — that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth 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 labor 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 indivision of victuals and cloths, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice…”

Woah! Some people resented doing all the work? They didn’t work as hard when they knew they weren’t going to directly benefit?

Shocking.

Actually, it’s not shocking at all. It’s human nature. And we all know it.

Now, we can lament the fact. We can say it shouldn’t be that way. We can finger-point and talk about greed. We can get all holier-than-thou and say we wouldn’t act that way (in other words lie). But people will still be people.

Here’s a harsh truth: good intentions and feel-good policies can’t trump basic economics. You can dream of unicorns and lollipops all day, but it won’t change reality.

Scarcity. Human behavior. Incentives. The experience of the Pilgrims vividly demonstrates basic economic principles. Their good intentions could not overpower the cold hard realities of economic principles. They never have. They never will.

 

[Frankfooter]

Your posts are getting weirder.

 

[KDK13]

Most advanced countries have socialism of some sort. Medicine, retirement plans, military funding, etc. USA has Medicare and social security.
Communism is the issue. However, Fox News has its viewers believing socialism is communism. Thus they describe the evils of socialism, but they really are describing communism not socialism.

 

[JohnLarue]

Most advanced countries have socialism of some sort. Medicine, retirement plans, military funding, etc. USA has Medicare and social security.
Communism is the issue. However, Fox News has its viewers believing socialism is communism. Thus they describe the evils of socialism, but they really are describing communism not socialism.

 

[Frankfooter]

View attachment 194749

Quoting Margaret Thatcher on economics?

The trouble with larue is he only wants to try policies that have failed every time they've been put in action.

 

[JohnLarue]

Most advanced countries have socialism of some sort. Medicine, retirement plans, military funding, etc. USA has Medicare and social security.
Communism is the issue. However, Fox News has its viewers believing socialism is communism. Thus they describe the evils of socialism, but they really are describing communism not socialism.

 

[JohnLarue]

Most advanced countries have socialism of some sort. Medicine, retirement plans, military funding, etc. USA has Medicare and social security.
Communism is the issue. However, Fox News has its viewers believing socialism is communism. Thus they describe the evils of socialism, but they really are describing communism not socialism.

 

[Frankfooter]

View attachment 194751

Well, congrats on elevating your posts to using gifs.
That makes them more intelligent than previously but still on the Ayn Rand side of intelligent discourse.

Enjoying your socialist, free roads, health care, schools, libraries and police?
Or are you true to your morals and use only paid toll roads and private security/schools etc?

 

[KDK13]

I only post because it is upsetting to see a false premise/dishonest debate. In the most advanced countries, it is a blend of socialism and capitalism. Thus the debate is how much socialism. The only pure unmanaged capitalism places now are warlord ruled third world countries.

But what happens is communism is described as socialism as a means to kneecap any government efforts that conservatives disagree with. Communism is demonstrably ineffective and ends up awful in so many ways, particularly when applied on a large scale. Thus I'm 100% anti commie. But I'm willing to accept some forms of socialism, but as much capitalism as we can without getting all robber baron like.

 

[Addict2sex]

Your posts are getting weirder.

Are you a communist?

 

[Frankfooter]

Are you a communist?

Are you an alien?

 

[Valcazar]

Wait.
The Pilgrims being all in on corporate control is socialism now?

 

[y2kmark]

Are you an alien?

Lizard brain is certainly a possibility...

 

[Insidious Von]

Lizard brain is certainly a possibility...

Remember, remember the 5th of November.

Wednesday is essentially a kiddie series, why does it resonate with me. The core of S1 is that the USA was founded by religious bigots. The Puritans launched a war of extermination against the native population of North America while Britain was plunged into the Puritan Civil War. King Charles I was beheaded and Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector with unlimited power far beyond any king since Edward I. Then he launched a war of genocide against the Irish. The Monarchy endures in the UK to the present day mainly due to Oliver Cromwell.

So nothing good came from The Pilgrims (Puritans)...Vivaldi never sounded better.

 

[silentkisser]

I only post because it is upsetting to see a false premise/dishonest debate. In the most advanced countries, it is a blend of socialism and capitalism. Thus the debate is how much socialism. The only pure unmanaged capitalism places now are warlord ruled third world countries.

But what happens is communism is described as socialism as a means to kneecap any government efforts that conservatives disagree with. Communism is demonstrably ineffective and ends up awful in so many ways, particularly when applied on a large scale. Thus I'm 100% anti commie. But I'm willing to accept some forms of socialism, but as much capitalism as we can without getting all robber baron like.

The thing is, the right wants unbridled capitalism in the failed belief the "free market" will prevent abuses by companies. But, all we've seen is how these big companies couldn't care less about workers or customers. How many times has an auto maker decided against a recall because it would be cheaper to settle a lawsuit? We don't really know...But I'm sure it happens. And, without unions (which are always called socialist), we'd never have the worker safety/protections that we do today.

LaRue's stupid jpgs don't paint an accurate picture of reality. The one with the bar graphs is just stupid. WE've seen the rich get significantly richer compared to the elevation of the poor. It wouldn't be so bad if they actually contributed to society. But they don't. They actively go out of their way to ensure they don't pay anything close to the tax rate that you and I are subjected to. They spend millions on lobbying efforts to keep or insert loopholes so they don't need to help fund schools, roads or hospitals. Anyone who says differently is delusional.

 

[Frankfooter]

The thing is, the right wants unbridled capitalism in the failed belief the "free market" will prevent abuses by companies. But, all we've seen is how these big companies couldn't care less about workers or customers. How many times has an auto maker decided against a recall because it would be cheaper to settle a lawsuit? We don't really know...But I'm sure it happens. And, without unions (which are always called socialist), we'd never have the worker safety/protections that we do today.

LaRue's stupid jpgs don't paint an accurate picture of reality. The one with the bar graphs is just stupid. WE've seen the rich get significantly richer compared to the elevation of the poor. It wouldn't be so bad if they actually contributed to society. But they don't. They actively go out of their way to ensure they don't pay anything close to the tax rate that you and I are subjected to. They spend millions on lobbying efforts to keep or insert loopholes so they don't need to help fund schools, roads or hospitals. Anyone who says differently is delusional.

Elon is the poster boy of free market thinking.

He went in, fired 75% of twitter's workers, gave the rest ultimatums and now has beds in the unoccupied offices for the serfs left working for him.
Singlehandedly he went and undid a hundred years of woke and socialist policies at his new office.
And the result is a total shit show, twitter will go under, advertisers are leaving, tesla is sinking and he's now a total laughing stock.

Twitter is the perfect example of right wing free market ideals.

 

[Gooseifur]

The thing is, the right wants unbridled capitalism in the failed belief the "free market" will prevent abuses by companies. But, all we've seen is how these big companies couldn't care less about workers or customers. How many times has an auto maker decided against a recall because it would be cheaper to settle a lawsuit? We don't really know...But I'm sure it happens. And, without unions (which are always called socialist), we'd never have the worker safety/protections that we do today.

LaRue's stupid jpgs don't paint an accurate picture of reality. The one with the bar graphs is just stupid. WE've seen the rich get significantly richer compared to the elevation of the poor. It wouldn't be so bad if they actually contributed to society. But they don't. They actively go out of their way to ensure they don't pay anything close to the tax rate that you and I are subjected to. They spend millions on lobbying efforts to keep or insert loopholes so they don't need to help fund schools, roads or hospitals. Anyone who says differently is delusional.

I agree with most of what you said but as socialism has become more entrenched in modern society the gap between the rich and poor is even larger, No?

Study finds gap between rich and poor growing regionally too

Harvard research has found that separation between rich and poor communities has increased during the past 40 years.

news.harvard.edu

 

[Frankfooter]

I agree with most of what you said but as socialism has become more entrenched in modern society the gap between the rich and poor is even larger, No?

Study finds gap between rich and poor growing regionally too

Harvard research has found that separation between rich and poor communities has increased during the past 40 years.

news.harvard.edu

You posted an article that shows that socialism is on the decline in the US.

 

[jalimon]

I agree with most of what you said but as socialism has become more entrenched in modern society the gap between the rich and poor is even larger, No?

Study finds gap between rich and poor growing regionally too

Harvard research has found that separation between rich and poor communities has increased during the past 40 years.

news.harvard.edu

Do you think the gap was created by socialist measures? It was created by the lack of socialist measures.

The gap was created by over capitalism. And it is widening even more.

 

[Brill]

I’m in favour of more socialism like hospitals, schools, libraries, mass transit, police, firefighters, etc but pot luck dinners are often a disaster.
Too many salads and desserts at the first Thanksgiving, not enough meat.