The Naked Socialist
Page 19
Property Ownership Saves the Colony
In 1614, Jamestown’s colony secretary, Ralph Harmor, affirmed that socialism resulted in laziness and a plague of disinterest:
“When our people were fed out of the common store, and labored jointly together, glad was he [who] could slip from his labor, or slumber over his tasks he cared not how, nay, the most honest among them would hardly take so much true pains in a week, as now for themselves they will do in a day, neither cared they for the increase, presuming that however the harvest prospered, the general store must maintain them, so that we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty as now three or four do provide for themselves.”207
According to this same eyewitness, giving the people an investment in the land saved the colony. Ralph Harmor continued:
“To prevent which, Sir Thomas Dale hath allotted every man three acres of clear ground, in the nature of farms ... for which doing, no other duty they pay yearly to the store, but two barrels and a half of corn. ...for the industrious, there is reward sufficient.”208
A short time later, John Rolf discovered that tobacco grew well in the Jamestown region, and an interest in smoking it back home in Europe encouraged the colony’s first cash crop. That’s when Jamestown began to take form and strength. The lessons learned from the 1607 disaster were not forgotten in the U.S. Constitution—180 years later the Founders made socialism illegal and unconstitutional. No one wanted another starving time.
* * *
204 Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, Part 1, 1875, published after Marx’s death.
205 See Peter Force, Historical Tracts, Vol. iii, No. 11; Walter F. Prince, Annual Report of the American Historical Association, Vol. i, 1899, Washington, D.C., 1900; Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, third edition, Touchstone, 2005.
206 See Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1898.
207 See John Smith, Generall Historie of Virginia, for the summary of Ralph Harmor’s True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia ... till the 18 of June 1614, Library of Congress.
208 Ibid.
Chapter 34: Plymouth: No Thanksgiving for Socialism
Like Jamestown, the Plymouth settlers were obligated to follow a certain business model that was, in fact, the same old tired notion of collectivism. The experiment ran from 1620 to 1624.
STORY: Beginning in 1620, William Bradford served as governor of the Plymouth colony, and fortunately for future generations, he also kept a good journal. His writings provide rich details about their failed experiment with the bad ideas of socialism.
After two months at sea, the 102 Pilgrim settlers stepped ashore to their new but cold and desolate wilderness home. They carried with them their freshly penned Mayflower Compact—a charter of laws that declared authority over believers and non-believers alike.
The voyage across the Atlantic had been stressful and exacted a terrible price from the Pilgrims. Upon arrival some of them were too ill to leave ship and just lingered onboard, attempting to recover. Those able to work went ashore for extended periods to construct housing. Their large “common house” of wattle and daub was finished first. Before winter ended, they had completed three more common houses plus seven residences.
Death the First Year
The colony suffered terribly that first winter—45 people died of disease and exposure. By fall of the following year more had died leaving just 53 alive by spring.
All Things in Common
Prosperity eluded them for reasons similar to those in Jamestown. The colony’s merchant-sponsors in London had ordered a very regimented system for living. Everything the colonists produced went into the central storehouse. All the land they cleared and houses they built were held in common—there would be no private ownership.
Guiding this arrangement was a seven-year contract. Point 3 said (all quotes from Gov. Bradford’s writings), “...All profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons, remain still in the common stock until the division.”209 And stated again in point 10, “That all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock and goods of the said colony.”210
Land, homes and gardens were in common as well: “...That the houses, and lands improved, especially gardens and home lots should remain undivided wholly to the planters at the seven years end.”211
Socialism Flops Again
As with Jamestown, the rules and needs in Plymouth were abundantly clear, but getting the people to cooperate for their mutual survival just didn’t work. Those able to work complained about working for others. They complained about receiving the same compensation as those who didn’t work. As Bradford told it,
“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.”212
Industrious Become Angry With the Lazy
Those who were more industrious and fit for the rigors of hard physical labor were angry that they had to do all the work while others did less or none at all. Bradford reported:
“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.”213
The industrious women objected to being treated like maids or slaves for others, and their husbands objected as well. Bradford writes:
“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 brooke it.”214
The 1855 History of Massachusetts by John S. Barry, helps emphasize how socialism self-destructs because it runs so contrary to human nature. He observed the damage of false security in the free handout, and how this let the lazy avoid work or stop it altogether at Plymouth:
“The indolent, sure of a living, would labor only when compelled to; the willing were discouraged by the severity of their toils.”215
Starvation Forces Desperation
In Bradford’s narration, he explained how the whole system was corrupt and the crops yielded little because people kept sneaking around taking what they wished. Bradford wrote:
“Also much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable, and much more afterward. And though many were well whipped (when they were taken) for a few ears of corn, yet hunger made others (whom conscience did not restrain) to venture.”216
Bradford pointed out specifically the decay and corruption that spread among otherwise good and religious God-fearing people:
“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. ...”217
A Thanksgiving at Death’s Door
As for the famous first Thanksgivings of 1621 and 1622, the grand feasts that are bragged about in legend and lore were hardly representative of a surplus of overflowing bounty.
The people feasted alright, but that didn’t mean they had much to live on afterwards. They didn’t know how to raise Indian corn, and it was the Indians who brought the venison. Bradford wrote,
“Now the welcome time of harvest approached, in which all had their hungry bellies filled. But it arose but to a little, in comparison of a full year’s supply; partly by reason they were not yet well acquainted with the manner of Indian corn, (and they had no other), also their many other employments, but chiefly their weakness for want of food, to tend it as they should have do
ne.”218
A comment in Mourt’s Relation, a first-person account of the Thanksgiving event, repeats the same: “...Although it be not always so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want ...”219
Socialism Abandoned
After two deadly years of starvation and suffering, the nightmare of collectivism was ejected in 1623. The more industrious among the settlers approached Gov. Bradford and asked that some land be given to them. Bradford wrote, “That they might therefore increase their tillage to better advantage, they made suit to the Govr to have some portion of land given them for continuance, and not by yearly lot. ...”220
Bradford recognized that private ownership was the answer to their problems. He said,
“And to every person was given only one acre of land, to them and theirs, as near the town as might be, and they had no more until the seven years were expired. The reason was, that they might be kept close together both for more safety and defense, and the better improvement of the general employments.”221
Those with an excuse not to work suddenly wanted to work. For example, Bradford said, “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.”222
Plato is Laughed Out of Plymouth
Bradford analyzed the change that came after private property ownership was implemented. He blamed Plato’s socialistic ideas for the earlier failures:
“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 common-wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser then God.”223
Condemnation of Communism
With private property finally rescuing the colonists from the multiple failures of all things in common, Gov. Bradford happily concludes, “This had very good success for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”224
Of this amazing failure and salvation at Plymouth, modern economist E. A. J. Johnson observed (1961), “One would have to search long for such a damning criticism of communism, or such a penetrating analysis of the causes for its failure as a practical expedient. It restricts production by increasing the real costs involved; it breeds confusion and discontent; it creates a feeling of injustice in the minds of the young and old, the strong and weak, the married or unmarried.”225
Because of the success of Bradford’s changes and the industry of the early Pilgrims, the Plymouth colony became prosperous. It attracted additional settlers who made the risky overseas journey, and it ignited the Great Puritan Migration. This great movement was not just of individual men, but of whole families—educated and capable—who ventured to New England to be free. During the succeeding two decades some 20,000 migrated to the colony and nearby towns.
The Inca Affect
It is interesting to note that more than a century after the Inca empire fell, Jesuit Priests in Paraguay attempted to salvage the local culture from extinction under the spread of European settlements.
The priests tried to force large groups of people into highly regimented societies at remotely scattered missions. From the start, the missionaries were frustrated with the native’s doleful lack of initiative—a problem they tried to resolve with the whip. Unknown to the priests, the native workers had a long-nurtured proclivity to simply take orders, to do as they were told, or to do nothing if they were not told. This was not a change in biological human nature. It was the fallout of the Inca culture of a century earlier that had conditioned the natives to expect their needs to be met without investing personal responsibility.
The Jesuits attributed the Paraguayan’s despondency to the lingering impact of the Inca’s socialistic control, sometimes referred to as the “Inca affect.”
Different Forms of Human Sacrifice
Meanwhile, the first colonists in New England didn’t fare much better than the Inca or the Indians of Paraguay. The English were spared the formal rites of human sacrifices, but they were sacrificed just as well. Their deaths from starvation and harsh conditions came in exchange for a business venture. Instead of having their beating hearts cut out and their heads lopped off while strapped atop some pagan temple, the colonists had to endure death by starvation and related diseases brought about by the violation of the natural rights to own property. In all cases, the ultimate answer and salvation of the colonies came in the form of private, unhampered control over private property.
Learning to Recognize Socialism
The North American natives put great value on the acquisition of property and wealth. What does this say about theories of “all things in common”? What does it say about the importance they put on private ownership and making use of a free market?
How long did the Inca empire exist? What was Inca’s punishment for disobedience or rebellious behavior?
Which of the seven pillars of socialism were actively practiced among the Inca?
Did the Inca respect women? Girls? What happened to parents objecting to the kidnapping of their daughters for human sacrifice?
Did Inca respect individual rights? How were the people organized? Did they have any private property such as clothing, houses, tools, or animals? Why was their dress and personal appearance so tightly controlled?
What similarities can you list between the way Inca crushed the human spirit among his people, and how the ancient Chinese rulers made their people weak?
Why could the Jesuit priests manage so many thousands of Paraguayans with just one or two men? How did the Jesuits deploy the seven pillars of socialism on these native people?
What is the Inca Affect? Did the Jesuits report any issues of the Inca Affect among their flocks in Paraguay? What were some tell-tale signs?
What year was Jamestown started? List a few rules and assignments that show how socialism or communalism was imposed on the colony.
What was supposed to go into the storehouse? Why didn’t it? What resulted?
What year was the starving time? What happened? How many died?
Who is Sir Thomas Dale? When did he arrive in Jamestown? What did he change that turned every thing around for the colony?
Did socialism work for Jamestown? Explain.
When did the pilgrims land in Plymouth? What things did they try to share in common? Did they have a central storehouse?
Why did the most industrious workers eventually became angry about their lives in Plymouth. What happened to the crops and supplies as the people became more desperate?
The pilgrims had a thanksgiving feast in 1621 and 1622. Were these representative of prosperity or poverty? What happened?
What policy change saved Plymouth in 1623?
Did Governor Bradford understand the flawed system that nearly wiped out the Plymouth colony? What did he say about Plato?
What did E. A. J. Johnson say about socialism in Plymouth? What did it restrict? What did it breed? What did it create?
Did socialism work for Plymouth? Explain.
Part VI--SOCIALISM IN RELIGION
“All major world religions have gone through times when its members or leaders practiced Ruler’s Law in one form or another.”
* * *
209 William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, Bradford’s History of Plymouth Plantation, 1606-1646, Ed. William T. Davis, 1908, p. 75.
210 Ibid., p. 82.
211 Ibid., p. 81
212 Ibid., p. 216
213 Ibid., p. 83.
214 Ibid., p. 217.
216 Ibid., Davis, p. 204.
217 Ibid., Davis, p. 147.
218 Ibid., Davis, p. 204.
219 Henry Martyn Dexter, Mourt’s Relation Or Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth, John Kimball Wiggin, 1865, p. 133.
220 Samuel Eliot Morison, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647, p. 145.
221 Ibid.
222 Ibid., p. 20.
223 Ibid., Morison, p. 120.
224 Ibid.
225 E. A. J. Johnson, American Economic Thought in the Seventeenth Century, 1961, p. 234.
Chapter 35: Socialism in Religion
For all the good that people try to do for God and individuals, some religions take it a step too far—they resort to tyranny on their own members, or nonmembers alike, to force obedience.
The eternal clash between religion and socialism is choice versus force. What is religion when force replaces choice? Is a person free to join and leave a religious order rather than obey its strict and strait rules? May a person voluntarily refuse a dominant religion’s teachings?
Personal and Voluntary
Religion is an intimately personal form of private conduct. An individual voluntarily follows the tenets and commandments of a belief system because of his or her conscience and free choice.
A religion that compels or restrains people against their will, whether they be adherents or not, is the embodiment of Ruler’s Law. The Bible provides an example of religious compulsion in the form of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego who refused to bow down to a golden image that Nebuchadnezzar ordered them to worship. As punishment, they were cast into a fiery furnace, but were delivered by the power of God.226