The Pilgrims Were ... Socialists?

[elleng]

Ah, Thanksgiving. A celebration regardless of creed; a time for all Americans to come together after a divisive election year. . .

Historians say that the settlers in Plymouth, and their supporters in England, did indeed agree to hold their property in common — William Bradford, the governor, referred to it in his writings as the “common course.” But the plan was in the interest of realizing a profit sooner, and was only intended for the short term; historians say the Pilgrims were more like shareholders in an early corporation than subjects of socialism.

“It was directed ultimately to private profit,” said Richard Pickering, a historian of early America and the deputy director of Plimoth Plantation, a museum devoted to keeping the Pilgrims’ story alive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/weekinreview/21zernike.html?hpw

[Drale]

1. Indeed they were

they where also illegal immigrants. They settled to far north, and not anywhere near where they're charter said they could settle.

[Recursion]

5. Ah, yeah.... "blown off course" from Virginia to MA

I don't think anybody even expected that to be believed, but it gave James I enough of a fig leaf that he could say he wasn't intentionally expanding his north American claims.

[billlll]

2. others-Einstein, Helen Keller, (Lincoln?)actor ed asner, W.E.B. DuBois,

Einstein photograph online at a S. meeting somewhere in europe. May have followed advice to quiet down about politics once in US. His writing on S. ... On internet... is very progressive but jumps from idea to idea without neatly developing them. He was "active in S. causes" in europe.
Hitler stole his bank acct. and put a price on his head.

Others you may not have known of:
-Milwaukee's mayors for many decades until about (?) 1980.
-Paul Roebson, 30's football all american Rutgers
-Pyramid builders...tomb of Ramses III, 1160 BC. First strike.. Pay was shorted.
-Jesus and the early church
- Old Testament jews- equalized wealth every 50 years (a Jubilee Year) - seems to have been practiced in various eras off and on. Anyone know dates?
-M Luther's follower T Muntzer organized a peasant revolt
-Lincoln reputed to have said "Labor is ever superior to capital"... But not sure if that is authentic quote.
-Many utopian communities in US..early 1800's to present day hippies. Robert Owen an early theorist in that movement.

Additions to this list? Anyone?

[billlll]

6. another item- 6 british Prime Ministers - the Labour Party is avowedly S.

Tho it has strayed from its roots

Its charter says something like "for the end of capitalism" - someone help me on this - fuzzy recall on the exact wording. But as of the '40's, they were still nationalizing basic industries

Trucking airlines electric plants

Coal mining Gas supplies Steel

Telephone Healthcare(date may have been earlier) Railroads

Cartoon fm england-- Andy Capp "Mate, I'm a S'ist".

[jancantor]

9. Sorry, not correct

Socialism is a GOVERNMENT economic system. People voluntarily banding together and sharing is not "socialism". Heck, Mormons and Amish do this. They are not socialists.

The Jesus example you give is a perfect example. At least according to the texts we have (assuming he existed in the first place for the sake of argument) Jesus never argued for a socialist economy. He argued for people and the church to make certain economic choices, but he never argued for socialism. Iow, he never argued for govt. ownership of the means of production, or equality of condition.

The difference between socialism and many of the people etc. you mention is the CHOICE. Socialism offers no choice. People are free to equalize income, etc. and that's not socialism. Socialism necessarily implies govt. force, not personal choice. If it aint forced via the barrel of the gun, it aint socialism.

[cprise]

10. In a corporatist system

If it aint forced via the barrel of the gun, it aint socialism.

Under corporatism, that distinction exists only on paper and the police (the ones carrying the guns) go after non-wealthy/powerful individuals pretty much exclusively. Their suspicions are NOT directed at the corporate class -- EVER. That is what we have now.

[jancantor]

11. Groovy, but non responsive

The reality is that many of the people mentioned (and again, assuming Jesus existed) never advocated socialism. I have a choice. Heck, I can give away all my money. MY CHOICE.

If it aint govt. mandated, it aint socialism.

[cprise]

19. Tax collection per se is also not socialism

...although it does involve government coercion. Otherwise every functioning nation and empire in recorded history was socialist.

I do somewhat agree with your point about Jesus (although I think he could be interpreted in different ways). It irritates me when progressives assume that all they have to do to persuade conservatives is get them to read the sermon on the mount.

[jancantor]

21. I agree

I find it amusing when people adopt a freeperish definition of Socialism in their attempts to "prove" that X endorses socialism.

[Robbie88]

13. Not sure what you're talking about. Any economy in which the ends and means of production are owned

collectively by the community is a socialist economy. The state, while possibly serving as a means for the implementation of such a society, is by no means a necessity.

Also, assuming that the state is used as the instrument for the implementation of a socialist economy, so long as this choice has been made either directly by the people or by those who they've elected to represent them, you can hardly argue that socialist economic reforms are being forced "via the barrel of the gun."

[jancantor]

14. Any govt. economic structure is forced via the barrel of the gun

It's a well used political term, and it makes sense. The point was to draw a distinction between voluntary arrangements (not socialism) and arrangements enforced by law. Only the latter are socialism.

Let me explain to you what "via the barrel of the gun means".

The IRS requires that we pay taxes. If you don't, you face prosecution. If you refuse to come to court, the govt. comes to your door, with guns, and arrests you. If you resist, they will use force. If it escalates, they will and can use a gun. Ultimately, all criminal laws are backed via the barrel of a gun. Whenever you give govt power , in other words criminalize a behavior, you give them the power to enforce it via the barrel of a gun. I can damn well guarantee you that Wesley Snipes, if he doesn't turn himself in will be pursued by men with guns, willing to use them.

We are not "assuming" the state is the instrument for the implementation of a socialist economy, they HAVE to be the instrument, or it isn't a socialist ECONOMY.

People don't voluntarily allow the state to control the means of production, etc. The state gains "voluntary compliance" because people know that when push comes to shove, men with guns will come to enforce the state's power.

[Robbie88]

15. Wrong: "they HAVE to be the instrument, or it isn't a socialist ECONOMY."

There were societies, mainly tribal, that predated the state in which the ends and means of production were owned communally. Such societies were socialist in nature. As long as the ends and means of production are owned and controlled by the community, socialism exists; the state is irrelevant.

"Let me explain to you what "via the barrel of the gun means".

The IRS requires that we pay taxes. If you don't, you face prosecution. If you refuse to come to court, the govt. comes to your door, with guns, and arrests you. If you resist, they will use force. If it escalates, they will and can use a gun. Ultimately, all criminal laws are backed via the barrel of a gun. Whenever you give govt power , in other words criminalize a behavior, you give them the power to enforce it via the barrel of a gun."

Point taken.


"People don't voluntarily allow the state to control the means of production, etc. The state gains "voluntary compliance" because people know that when push comes to shove, men with guns will come to enforce the state's power."

So what about constitutional republican countries with single payer health care systems? Isn't that a form of public control over the ends and means of production? Are you trying to say that those nations only implemented such systems because their people were afraid of "men with guns" knocking down their doors, and not because the majority of citizens found such a system desirable and therefore voted for parties/politicians who supported putting one into place?

[jancantor]

16. Saying a society is "socialist in nature" is not Socialism

as defined in modern societies. GO back and read your Marx, your Engels, etc. People can voluntarily do whatever they want within their own families, groups, religious structures, etc. It's not a socialist economy unless there is a top down structure of control - iow the govt. controls it.

It's the distinction between people voluntarily banding together, which means they can opt out or drop out, or govt. top down saying "you must do things this way"

"So what about constitutional republican countries with single payer health care systems? Isn't that a form of public control over the ends and means of production? Are you trying to say that those nations only implemented such systems because their people were afraid of "men with guns" knocking down their doors, and not because the majority of citizens found such a system desirable and therefore voted for parties/politicians who supported putting such a system in place? "

Not at all, nor am I saying those are socialist economies. They have taken one segment of the economy and decided that centralized govt. control is the way to go. And of course people voted for that. Generally speaking, true Socialist revolution (at least according to theory) was supposed to be violent, not by voting (see: "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" etc.) but nobody is arguing that France is Socialist (well, nobody except for Freepers) because they have single payer.

Single payer health care does not turn a nation's economy into a socialist economy.

Regardless of what economic system a nation has, and how it came about (voting, coup d'etat, etc.) once in place the strictures will be enforced via the barrel of a gun. Try stealing from a bank and saying "to each according to their needs" and see how far that gets you.

[cprise]

22. And then there is social democracy

but nobody is arguing that France is Socialist (well, nobody except for Freepers) because they have single payer.

The devil is in the details. In a democracy, people can vote to advance or curtail state ownership.

[jancantor]

23. Right

France is clearly a capitalistic society. They have a broader social safety net than us. I can;'t stand when people adopt the freeper definition of socialism to make a point, when of course they'd be ridiculing it otherwise.

[Robbie88]

24. "It's not a socialist economy unless there is a top down structure of control "

So what about libertarian socialists or anarchists who argue for a stateless society in which the ends and means of production are publicly owned and controlled via things such as workers' councils? Would such a society not be socialist?

"Single payer health care does not turn a nation's economy into a socialist economy."

I know; I was using that as an example of citizens democratically choosing public ownership/control, rather than private, over a portion of their nation's economy because they felt their needs would be better met.

[Kingofalldems]

17. Interesting. Very familiar.

[jancantor]

20. Hopefully, facts would be familiar to you

as they are to me.

[billlll]

27. Finland #1 press freedom(US #20), #1 quality of life

On the other hand,

Ludlow Colorado - women and children killed by Pinkertons as they, the families of striking miners, huddled inside tents.

About 1911?

[jancantor]

28. Wonderful and this shows what exactly?

Finland doesn't enforce their laws via the power of the gun? Shocking.

Cool. Why don't you go there and rob a bank and see what happens.

[Diclotican]

12. billlll

billlll

When it came to Ramses III, and the pyramid builders 1160BC, It ended after a long strike, where the workers get what they wanted in the end.. Yes the pay was shorted, but in the end, after many weeks of strike, it ended with a pay increase, and that the workers got what they wanted, the luxery and the comfort they have had before beane counters desided it was time to tighten the belt. It was not sheap to build the pyramides... So, even a everpowerfull, mighty Farao who was worshiped as a good, had his limits, when it came to the dam workers... He could have crushed the strike in blood, and Ramses III was not known for his kindness, and as longer as he lived, less kind he got, and was over 90 when he died... And the history said it was a old, crancy man who finaly died after been ruling Egypt for more than 50 year...

Allmoust 5000 year later, in the 1970s, he was in the Musum of Cairo, where some who worked with the mumies discovered that he was been some muldy, in fact he was in danger of been eating up by tiny bugs after a while.. He was then excorted to France, where they had the tools to reqover the old monarc.. And he even got a State Welcome, with all the honor a Head of State can be given. In fact the old man even got his passport, who was going true the roopes. And who statet his name, his age that he was dead and the rest of the things... The French wated to do it with some pomp, after all, Ramses III was one of the most important kings of bronze age.. Egypt never got a King with the same power as Ramses, even tho Egypt was a powerfull kingdom until it was taken by first the greeks, and then the romans and then the arabics and so one, untill the 1920s when she finaly got some selv governent again...

Diclotican

Diclotican

[jberryhill]

3. Not only that, but they also breached their obligations to the corporation.

[Recursion]

4. If the workers are the shareholders, isn't that socialism by definition? (nt)

[elleng]

8. Maybe..

'Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.<1><2><3> As an economic system, socialism is a system of production based on the direct production of use-values by allocating economic inputs (the means of production) and investments through planning to directly satisfy economic demand. Economic calculation is based on either calculation-in-kind or a direct measure of labour time,<4><5> output for individual consumption is distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on individual merit or individual contribution.<6>'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[billlll]

25. seek better definition-- arcane and vague, ambiguous terms

and overlong sentences in the Wiki.

He must have been reading the old classic tomes on the subject. Common fault among intelligent scholars, as the Wiki-ist obviously is.

Elleng on reread my words have a harsh tone... I meant to criticize the definition, not the wiki writer as a person, certainly not you either. The wikiist is surely contributing to the LW and should continue to do so...I only meant to curb the old style of 1800's writing. I regret the harsh tone. Perhaps I got up on the wrong side of the bed! Hope you Elleng and the wikiist have a good day despite this.
----------------------
----------------------
My definition:

Honest full wages,
And kindness...

Are the two core currents.

Many are the variants.

[billlll]

26. H G Wells, Bertrand Russell, G Bernard Shaw, Sid and Beatrice Webb(cofounders of

the London School of Economics (JFK and perhaps Mick Jagger were students) )

... Should be added to the list of interesting S. facts/and advocates

Can anyone add to the list?

[elleng]

29. Thanks, billll. Would like to see definition/description of economic form in Scandinavia.

[66 dmhlt]

7. How Teapublicans view Thanksgiving ...

And everything else:

[swilton]

18. John Locke's Two Treatises of Government

All about the values of private property and destroying the environment on that property in order to make it profitable.