— by Polydamas
In 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders competed to be the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Both of them wanted to succeed President Barack Hussein Obama and to continue his very liberal policies. As a self-described socialist, Senator Sanders attempted to position himself further left than Secretary Clinton by offering the people more bread and circuses from the public treasury. Not to be outdone by him, Secretary Clinton adopted many of Senator Sanders’ policies, attempting to check and sometimes even raise the ante on his proposals. Each of them offered Democrats their own version of socialism, a label appearing to denote a kinder and gentler vision of communism.
Little did Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton know, but, approximately four centuries ago, in the early 1600s, the Pilgrims who arrived in the New World to Plymouth Bay Colony adopted communism. Of course, the specific word “communism” was not known to them then. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would not publish the “Communist Manifesto” until 1848, more than two centuries later. However, they adopted in the Colony the gist of communism, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. All resources were owned in common by all the Pilgrims and everyone shared equally in the fruits of their labors.
According to the leader of the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts, Governor William Bradford,
“The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other ancients, applauded by some of later times;- that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte.
“For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails and cloaths, than he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could; this was thought injuestice . . .
“And for men’s wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dressing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it . . .”
In other words, the Pilgrims embraced communism. They abolished individually-held private property, opting to own all property in common. The elderly and unproductive claimed weakness and inability to avoid work. In contrast, young and able men were deprived of the fruits of their own labors. They were forced to devote their time, efforts, and strength to support the wives and children of other men. All men received the same rewards despite great disparities in productivity. Even the women who performed cooking, washing, and various household services for other men chafed at their collective duties. Productive men and women rightfully considered this communism to be an injustice and a variant of slavery.
In his November 24, 2010 article titled “The Lost Lesson of Thanksgiving”(http://fxn.ws/2fwisiX), John Stossel capably explains that:
“When people can get the same return with less effort, most people make less effort. Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. This went on for two years.
“If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in it, each person has an incentive to be a free-rider, to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon, the pot is empty.”
Plymouth Colony’s Governor Bradford described in his journal the dire situation into which communism had condemned the Pilgrims. “So as it well appeared that famine must still insue the next year also, if not some way prevented”. To avert further disaster, the Pilgrims abandoned their failed experiment with communism and
“begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length after much debate of things, the Gov, (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves . . . And so assigned to every family a parcell of land.”
After the restoration of private property and the institution of individual incentives, Governor Bradford described the results:
“This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means the Gov. or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente.
“The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weakness, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.
“By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plentie, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoysing of the harts of many, for which they blessed God. And the effect of their particuler planting was well scene, for all had, one way and other, pretty well to bring the year aboute, and some of the abler sorte and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, so as any generall wante or famine hath not been amongest them since to this day”.
Had the Pilgrims not abandoned communism, they would have starved to death well before Thanksgiving. They would have never exchanged knowledge and gifts with the indigenous Indians. They would not have learned that Plato’s “Republic” and other utopian fantasies are ultimately an unworkable folly.
When government, whether run by the Pilgrims of four centuries ago or by President Obama and Secretary Clinton today, attempts to override basic human nature, penalizes the productive, and rewards the indolent, only disaster can to ensue. Fortunately, the Pilgrims were wise enough to discard communism and change course just as the American people were wise enough in November of 2016 to reject Hillary Clinton and to elect as their President Donald J. Trump.
========
The Lost Lesson of Thanksgiving
John Stossel
Fox News
November 24, 2010
Had today’s political class been in power in 1623, tomorrow’s holiday would have been called “Starvation Day” instead of Thanksgiving. Of course, most of us wouldn’t be alive to celebrate it.
Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. But the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn’t happen.
Long before the failure of modern socialism, the earliest European settlers gave us a dramatic demonstration of the fatal flaws of collectivism. Unfortunately, few Americans today know it.
The Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally.
That’s why they nearly all starved.
When people can get the same return with less effort, most people make less effort. Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. This went on for two years.
“So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented,” wrote Gov. William Bradford in his diary. The colonists, he said, “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, [I] [with the advice of the chiefest among them] gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land.”
In other words, the people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic.
“This had very good success,” Bradford wrote, “for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many.”
Because of the change, the first Thanksgiving could be held in November 1623.
What Plymouth suffered under communalism was what economists today call the tragedy of the commons. The problem has been known since ancient Greece. As Aristotle noted, “That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.”
If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in it, each person has an incentive to be a free-rider, to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon, the pot is empty.
What private property does — as the Pilgrims discovered — is connect effort to reward, creating an incentive for people to produce far more. Then, if there’s a free market, people will trade their surpluses to others for the things they lack. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the community richer.
Here’s the biggest irony of all: The U.S. government has yet to apply the lesson to its first conquest, Native Americans.
The U.S. government has held most Indian land in trust since the 19th century. This discourages initiative and risk-taking because, among other reasons, it can’t be used as collateral for loans.
On Indian reservations, “private land is 40 to 90 percent more productive than land owned through the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” says economist Terry Anderson, executive director of PERC. “If you drive through western reservations, you will see on one side cultivated fields, irrigation, and on the other side, overgrazed pasture, run-down pastures and homes. One is a simple commons; the other side is private property. You have Indians on both sides. The important thing is someone owns one side.”
Secure property rights are the key. When producers know their future products are safe from confiscation, they take risks and invest. But when they fear they will be deprived of the fruits of their labor, they will do as little as possible.
That’s the lost lesson of Thanksgiving.