Special offer

The first recorded failure of Socialism - The Original Thanksgiving!

By
Real Estate Agent with Orlando Area Real Estate Services

ThanksgivingBy now my regular readers will be aware that I'm a new citizen of the United States (I promise I won't say that after January 1!) and as such I like to investigate the real history of our nation.

So we all know the traditional story of the original Thanksgiving, but it was a bit too perfect for me to accept on face value.

And so I decided to dig a little. And if you are going to really dig into that time, then you have to read the written account by William Bradford - the first Governor of the colony.

You see William wrote a book on the first 30 years of the colony known as "Of Plymouth Plantation". Simplistically the real story is this. Everyone worked the fields and the harvest and everything that was taken was put into a central store and all members of the colony could take what they needed from the store. Not a shock to me that this didn't work. You see what happened was that the lazy realized that they didn't have to do anything. They could sit back and live off the labors of others. And those doing the laboring were not at all happy about it and overall it simply didn't work. There was not enough food to go around. And Bradford realized this too - the slackers wanted to take but not to give. And they system meant they didn't have to.

And so William Bradford as Governor changed things. He gave each family their own piece of land an they could keep everything they needed from that piece of land and then - and only then - if there was anything left over, they could contribute it to a general store (we call this charity today). And once the success had been achieved, the Indians were invited over for some food. So to recap, Socialism failed and people went hungry. Capitalism replaced it and was a huge success. Liberals want to take us back to Socialism!  Why is it so hard for the people of this country of all the countries in the world to get it?

What follows are the original words in case you think I'm making this up. The language is a little difficult to get through, but the message is clear. And if we knew this in the 1600s, then when did we forget it?

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 thing 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; and 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 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 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 labors 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.

So with all of this in mind, it just leaves me to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving! Don't eat too much and please do remember those less fortunate than you.

Image courtesy everythingflex.com

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Copyright © 2008 By Simon L Conway All Rights Reserved.)

Raylene Lewis
Century 21 Beal, Inc. - College Station, TX

Happy Holidays Simon! Hope you have a great one!

Nov 24, 2008 01:47 AM
Mike Saunders
Retired - Athens, GA

Simon - I wish the schools would teach the real story of Plymouth Colony and the first Thanksgiving. Have a great Thanksgiving as a newbie, citizen that is!

Nov 24, 2008 02:02 AM
Katerina Gasset
The Gasset Group & Get It Done For Me Virtual Services - Provo, UT
Amplify Your Real Estate & Life Dreams!

Simon- Socialism, however noble it appears, is always a failed experiment. I speak with authority on this subject, from my family's own experience.

Nov 24, 2008 03:28 AM
David Holzmann
Holzmann & Associates - Mountain View, CA

Simon, thank you for posting this!

Something you didn't emphasize, but which adds even more to it is this:

Socialism assumes that people are basically good and altruistic, that they'll work just as hard for the benefit of the village as they would for themselves.  Who were the Pilgims, if not generous idealists?  They, of all people, would be very inclined (one would think) to work altruistically.  Yet even they, in their piety and giving-nature, were demotivated by the lack of personal reward for their efforts.  The sense of satisfaction for having done right by the village wasn't enough.

As we see the narcissism and greed in our increasingly-secular society running rampant, how likely are we as a me-first-society to be more altruistic than the pius pilgrims?

Nov 24, 2008 05:18 AM
Rob Arnold
Sand Dollar Realty Group, Inc. - Altamonte Springs, FL
Metro Orlando Full Service - Investor Friendly & F

I just hope the socialists don't bankrupt this country for future generations.  How much more national debt and welfare obligations can we lump on the back of the federal government before the whole thing simply implodes? 

Nov 24, 2008 06:03 AM
Inna Hardison
ha media group - Orlando, FL
Wordpress for Real Estate & Design, Print HaMedia Group

David - I would agree with you that it's basically assinine to assume that peope are basically altruistic, however, I think it's only fair to point out that assuming that CEOs and Board Members of corporations are prudents, hence free markets will always take care of themselves, is equally assinine. JMHO, of course.
Simon - have a great Thanksgiving!!!

Nov 24, 2008 12:59 PM
Inna Hardison
ha media group - Orlando, FL
Wordpress for Real Estate & Design, Print HaMedia Group

David - I would agree with you that it's basically assinine to assume that peope are basically altruistic, however, I think it's only fair to point out that assuming that CEOs and Board Members of corporations are prudents, hence free markets will always take care of themselves, is equally assinine. JMHO, of course.
Simon - have a great Thanksgiving!!!

Nov 24, 2008 01:00 PM
David Holzmann
Holzmann & Associates - Mountain View, CA

Sorry, Inna, I'm not familiar with "prudents" as a noun.  (I know the adjective, "prudent."  Perhaps you meant to "nounify" the adjective? :-) )

I wouldn't dare claim that all CEO's or Board Members are prudent. 

But, unless they are particularly foolish, they will make changes to try to adapt to what the markets are dictating.  Depending on their business model, they will either adjust their price, adjust their cost-structure, and/or adjust the quality/quantity of their product/service. 

When people are forced to work for others' benefit without realizing a personal benefit, their productivity will (sooner or later) deteriorate. 

Wise CEO's and Boards of Directors know this, and compensate their employees accordingly to maximize productivity, while at the same time keeping their price, cost, quality, and supply in line with what the market is dictating.

Nov 24, 2008 01:45 PM
Simon Conway
Orlando Area Real Estate Services - Orlando, FL

Thanks for all the comments. And to those trying to defend socialism I once again take you back to the original post and not the "comments war" that nearly always takes place. We discovered socialism didn't work in the 1600s. And now today we are trying right now to see if we can get it to work 400 years later. The very definition of insanity.

Nov 24, 2008 02:29 PM
NJ (Nori) Bosley
*TBD* - Madison-on-the-Lake, OH

Simon,

Very good way to back up your point, tell the "real" story.  Hope your back is feeling abit better.

Take care and enjoy your TURKEY DAY!!!!!!!!

NJ

Nov 24, 2008 02:38 PM
Jay Allen
MovieVoice Production Co. - Paducah, KY
MovieVoice

Simon,

Yes, we can and should learn from history.  However, in terms of economic disparity between the richest and poorest, the 1600s was about as far from 2008 as the 1980s.  A modern day CEO (Lay, Kozlowski, Ebbers, etc.) placed in Plymouth Plantation would have taken most of the food from the central store and then borrowed against what they didn't take to buy other plantations for personal gain.

The US has lots of greedy snake oil salesmen at the top and lots of lazy losers at the bottom.  Based on most reports, by historical standards, crime is relatively low and thus - those at the bottom are not harming society.  However, greed among the top 1% is bankrupting this country.  Socialism may not be the answer, but something as drastic as socialism should be implemented if this country is to succeed.

Anyway, I wish you and your family a very Happy Thanksgiving!

Best regards,
Jay

Nov 25, 2008 04:02 PM
Simon Conway
Orlando Area Real Estate Services - Orlando, FL

Jay - first of all I wish you and yours a wonderful Thanksgiving.

With regards to this, socialism is never the answer. You are in fact excusing the lazy while I have never excused the CEOs. But the thing about the CEOs is that they can be fired by the owners. If the owners choose not to and then there is meltdown then the owners only have themselves to blame. The problem right now is we have forgotten who we are. FAILURE MUST BE AN OPTION because once you remove it with taxcpayer money - which we are printing - then the risk taking will go nuts. You also have to reign in the unions. I was reading this piece from Glenn Beck last night. He is rehearsing his latest stage show in Broadway rehearsal rooms. This is a major production. Well the union dictated that there had to be a certain number of people there. Glenn complied, but most of them were simply sat in chairs doing nothing. Glenn is on stage (it's a one man show with orchestra and major production back up) when the guys in the chairs say "TIME - we have to break now". Break from what? They weren't doing anything!!! BUT - if Beck had not complied then they had the power to shut everything down. Socialism in action. When you pay people to do nothing, chaos will certainly follow.

Nov 26, 2008 12:53 AM
Jon Zolsky, Daytona Beach, FL
Daytona Condo Realty, 386-405-4408 - Daytona Beach, FL
Buy Daytona condos for heavenly good prices

Hi Simon,

Terrific story.

Back to socialism. You all agree that the productivity is deteriorating, and you are correct. But the socialist societies come on the promise of a better life, and it requires productivity. So what they do when there is not productivity, and you need it.

You guess right - Terror. You can't make people work their best without any reason for them, but you can scare them. AND EVEN THIS FAILED. If we do not work, even terror does not really created productivity. People better suffer than work.

The joke in Russia was "you pretend that you feed us, and we pretend that we work". And even two Inna comments do not change this

Happy Thanksgiving

Nov 26, 2008 01:31 PM
Simon Conway
Orlando Area Real Estate Services - Orlando, FL

Jon - I believe the only answer is increased pay for increased productivity. If you work at a car plant and the target is 100 cars a day then you should receive a bonus for every car produced above that 100. there's your REAL incentive to work harder. Of course if the union has already neotiated huge basic salary then you have no incentive.

Nov 26, 2008 02:36 PM
Cheri Smith
Prudential Gary Greene, Cypress TX - Cypress, TX
Realtor Prudential Gary Greene

Very interesting side of the story that we didn't learn in school.

Simon, I agree, but I also think that CEOs should have their salary defined by the productivity of their workers. Some will say it already is but this is not always the case. CAse in point one company my husband worked at. The ceos made enough to own 4 homes and take lavish vacations. When things got bad they cut the bonuses of the workers and still gave bonuses to the CEOs. This is how it works in the corporate world. It's not right. There's too many cooks in the kitchen in most companies anyway. At that last company he worked for.....everyone was a darn manager but no one was really in charge. Most of those people spent their days surfing the net. They continue to raise prices for the general public and never cut back on their own expenses and keep adding to the fat they don't really need. It's time to restructure business principles in this country. It's as if the children are in charge. It's a mad crazy world right now and what you see is the result.

Dec 02, 2008 04:55 AM
Simon Conway
Orlando Area Real Estate Services - Orlando, FL

Cheri - I don't disagree with you that what you describe is wrong. However it is equally wrong to have Government come in and tell these companies how they should be run and what the executives should be paid. That is until we give them $billions at which point we are the owners and we get to make the decisions. Unfrotunately again, the bail out money will not work that way which we all know. The companies should have been allowed to fail. If they had been then I believe the recovery would already be starting.

Dec 02, 2008 06:41 AM
Nogui Aramburo
Linda Craft & Team, REALTORS® - Raleigh, NC
Real Estate Professional in the Raleigh Area

Liberals don't want Socialism. We want the same thing you want. A job, a house, feed our families and educate them. Having a universal healthcare system doesn't mean that you have to give up your land and work for others. When you drive down the road, did you yourself pay for that road? You help pay the taxes on it and the road was built so that you and everyone else can take that road, deliver goods, or emergency aid etc. When you call the police do you write them a check afterwards?

Healthcare should be the same way. The way it is now, is not working. People lose their houses everyday, they go into bankruptcy if they get sick. They stick the hospital with a bill, that we all end up paying for in the long run. Wether or not it works is another matter. I'm sure Obama is going to take long hard look at viable plan for a single payer system.

I think our society will be more productive if people didn't live in fear of what should happen if they or their kids get sick. In a society such as ours, that is totally unacceptable. We should be able to provide healthcare to our citizens, period.

Dec 16, 2008 03:51 AM
Simon Conway
Orlando Area Real Estate Services - Orlando, FL

Noqui - I can only assume you did not read the original blog. The problem with socialism is that is NOT who we are. It is NOT who the Founders wanted us to be. We have a right to the PURSUIT of happiness. That does not mean we will all get there, but we may all pursue the goal. Nowhere in the founding documents does it say we have a RIGHT to free health care - but interestingly, we all have it. You just have to wait in an ER for five or six hours, but it's there if you need it. You say that Liberals want the same things I want - possibly true, but you want me to pay for it if I happen to be successful and those less willing to put in the long hours; or those without the brain to make a financial success of their lives also want ME to pay for THEM to have the same things I have. If you take that argument to its logical conclusion (or perhaps to its logical beginning if you read the original blog), then there is NO INCENTIVE for me to go and make a success of my life when Joe down the street does nothing and has the same things I do. Every time it's been tried in history - EVERY TIME - it has failed. Why will it work here?

Dec 16, 2008 12:59 PM
Broker Nick
South Florida Real Estate & Development, Inc. - Coconut Creek, FL
Broker Nick Relocation Broker Service
Nick Hancock
Dover, DE

Liberals by definition are in support of increased government intervention in the economy, yielding a command oriented economy, yielding socialism.  Perhaps there are certain liberals that do not want socialism, but as a party, they are undeniably affiliated with it.  Everyone wants a job and a bright future.  The case being made here is not that liberals are evil and wish to see the country deteriorate.  I'll bet, however, that the politicians on top know that without socialism, there is no need for them.  If you will: Without socialism, the focus shifts from political science to concrete economics.  I see many complaints about greedy CEO's in these comments.  Nobody wanted to mention the self control it takes to head up a socialist state, the potential for greed that actually VIOLATES the rights of others (which is not possible in true capitalism), and the opportunity for exploitation of the masses (EXPONENTIALLY worse than that of capitalism, which is based on voluntary transaction).  With the intention of being a noble and equal system, it winds up being the most elitest and unbalanced government when actually applied.  The incapable (or the ones best at CLAIMING INCAPABILITY) live like kings, jumping on the backs of the productive until their legs give out.  The only equality reached with socialism is when everyone hits rock bottom.

The benefits of socialism look great on paper, but so do those of every other theory. The idea of me working for what you eat, when applied, will show a much uglier side of greed and self interest than we complain about with capitalism.  Capitalistic greed, on the other hand, drives production and growth, and doesn't violate anyone's rights.

Simon, this is great stuff.  Anyone who reads it and still supports socialism must simply be ignoring logic.  The flaws are made so obvious through your concise example.  There have been volumes written to describe what you've shown in a few paragraphs.  It's a parable for the economic bible.

Jan 28, 2009 02:41 AM