• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Happy Thanksgiving! Right Jabs Pilgrims For ... Communism?

The right gets more ridiculous every day... :roll:

I heard this story about 10 years ago. From what I know of it, it's quite true. Is it not?
 
From my research, the "pilgrims" intended originally to hold all things in common as a community, which on this scale is more of a commune or communitarian-type economic setup.... but yes, it is comparable to communism on a small scale.

The first year they nearly starved.

The second year they implemented a capitalist system with private property, where you owned your production, and they prospered.

It's a good illustration of why systems like communism don't work well, and free enterprise does. Incentive.
 
From my research, the "pilgrims" intended originally to hold all things in common as a community, which on this scale is more of a commune or communitarian-type economic setup.... but yes, it is comparable to communism on a small scale.

The first year they nearly starved.

The second year they implemented a capitalist system with private property, where you owned your production, and they prospered.

It's a good illustration of why systems like communism don't work well, and free enterprise does. Incentive.

According to this Rep the Pilgrims came to America to flee socialism. Guys get your stories straight. :lamo

ThinkProgress » Rep. Todd Akin: The Pilgrims Came To America To Flee ‘Unbiblical’ Socialism In The 1620′s
 
From my research, the "pilgrims" intended originally to hold all things in common as a community, which on this scale is more of a commune or communitarian-type economic setup.... but yes, it is comparable to communism on a small scale.

The first year they nearly starved.

The second year they implemented a capitalist system with private property, where you owned your production, and they prospered.

It's a good illustration of why systems like communism don't work well, and free enterprise does. Incentive.

That doesn't really make sense, how does an economic system make a difference to how crops grow? Did the fact they worked together take away the incentive to survive? Did their cattle not like the colour red? What specifically about a communal style made them starve?
 
That doesn't really make sense, how does an economic system make a difference to how crops grow? Did the fact they worked together take away the incentive to survive? Did their cattle not like the colour red? What specifically about a communal style made them starve?

Native Americans survived for 20,000 years in the Americas by holding all property in common. The reasons the pilgrims almost disappeared was because they had no clue how to grow food in the Americas. They also were not even close to being prepared for the East Coast winter. The assertion that they almost didn't survive because of 'socialism' is quite ridiculous. They wouldn't have survived in 'capitalism' either. The Boers experienced the same thing when they first went to Africa. They couldn't grow food properly because they weren't accustomed to the climate. They didn't have adequate shelter and as a result were subject to all kinds of mosquito diseases. The list goes on regarding just how many things go wrong within the first few years of settlement.
 
This is more proof that during warm Holidays, you do not watch the news, because it will attempt to destroy the good natured celebration with heated debate.
 
I heard this story about 10 years ago. From what I know of it, it's quite true. Is it not?

No it is not.... if anything the pilgrims were communists fleeing right wing conservative Europe.. but to claim they were fleeing Europe because of "communism" when the whole idea of socialism did not happen before several centuries AFTER they left, then it only shows how twisted a world the US right is trying to make for it self.
 
No it is not.... if anything the pilgrims were communists fleeing right wing conservative Europe.. but to claim they were fleeing Europe because of "communism" when the whole idea of socialism did not happen before several centuries AFTER they left, then it only shows how twisted a world the US right is trying to make for it self.

I never said pilgrims fled europe to escape socialism. Care to redirect your reply to whoever you think made that argument?
 
Native Americans survived for 20,000 years in the Americas by holding all property in common. The reasons the pilgrims almost disappeared was because they had no clue how to grow food in the Americas. They also were not even close to being prepared for the East Coast winter. The assertion that they almost didn't survive because of 'socialism' is quite ridiculous. They wouldn't have survived in 'capitalism' either. The Boers experienced the same thing when they first went to Africa. They couldn't grow food properly because they weren't accustomed to the climate. They didn't have adequate shelter and as a result were subject to all kinds of mosquito diseases. The list goes on regarding just how many things go wrong within the first few years of settlement.

Possible, and you are correct about the winter. But, they switched from communal growing and division of goods to a system in which everyone had their own plots to tend for a reason.

Property: William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation 120--21

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 labour 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 labours 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.
 
You'll do anything to **** up something, even a holiday, won't you?

One time I decided to watch Bill O' Reilly during Christmas or give or take a day or so. Extended family was around. Beautiful Montana snowfall on the golf course, fireplaces going....amazing homemade food. And Bill O' Reilly made it sound like the world was on fire, buildings burning down, rioters in the streets over Christmas. I was thinking, never watch a news station on a Holiday. Then again, I don't think the OP would hesitate any to cause a commotion.
 
Stossel is an idiot 90% of the time. The sole actual historical bit of evidence he uses to butress his ideological rant is a selected bit of writing from the Governor who says

"
I assigned to everyone a parcel of land ...."

I was going to ask if Stossel experienced any sense of guilt in even quoting that while at other times railing against thieves and criminals but then realized it would be a silly question.
 
You'll do anything to **** up something, even a holiday, won't you?

you post that as if john stossel were a member of this forum
 
Last edited:
The second year they implemented a capitalist system with private property, where you owned your production, and they prospered.

And from then on they started the occupation and the killing of the American natives.
 
Last edited:
And from then on they started the occupation and the killing of the American natives.

Absolutely. The local Native Americans saved their butts that first winter and within 30 years the Indians has a bounty on their heads and the White man was on his way to committing genocide along with his land stealing. And don't forget this was all justified with religion. Isn't Thanksgiving grand? :roll:
 
Last edited:
What happend to your Bush's on jobs worst track record signature??? :lamo
There is evidence that you know how to start a thread of your very own.;)
 
There is evidence that you know how to start a thread of your very own.;)

I have started a couple of threads but a few have gotten involved. Where have you been dude???
 
Last edited:
That doesn't really make sense, how does an economic system make a difference to how crops grow? Did the fact they worked together take away the incentive to survive? Did their cattle not like the colour red? What specifically about a communal style made them starve?


If I recall right, there was a journal of one settler. It talked about how many people slacked off and didn't work very hard on the "commons", and since they were communitarian it was all "commons". Many younger men wondered aloud, the journal said, why they should work their fingers to the bone to support the wives and children of others, when they recieved only "their need" instead of a return proportional to the amount of work they did.

In short, the lack of incentive lead to a lack of hard work. The communitarian fields, worked by everyone, lead to a "I'll do the minimum necessary, and someone else will pick up my slack" attitude, which lead to a short harvest and a very lean winter in which many died. Lack of incentive, you see.

When they changed to a private-property, own-your-production (capitalist) system, people had an incentive to work hard. If they worked their own fields, no one else was going to "take up their slack" and if they worked hard at it they KEPT the results of their productivity.

This is why capitalism produces plenty, and communism/socialism/etc produces "barely enough" and eventually hovers on the edge of starvation.
 
If I recall right, there was a journal of one settler. It talked about how many people slacked off and didn't work very hard on the "commons", and since they were communitarian it was all "commons". Many younger men wondered aloud, the journal said, why they should work their fingers to the bone to support the wives and children of others, when they recieved only "their need" instead of a return proportional to the amount of work they did.

In short, the lack of incentive lead to a lack of hard work. The communitarian fields, worked by everyone, lead to a "I'll do the minimum necessary, and someone else will pick up my slack" attitude, which lead to a short harvest and a very lean winter in which many died. Lack of incentive, you see.

When they changed to a private-property, own-your-production (capitalist) system, people had an incentive to work hard. If they worked their own fields, no one else was going to "take up their slack" and if they worked hard at it they KEPT the results of their productivity.

This is why capitalism produces plenty, and communism/socialism/etc produces "barely enough" and eventually hovers on the edge of starvation.

Yes, that's accurate:

Property: William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation 120--21
 
Back
Top Bottom