• 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?

That doesn't really make sense, how does an economic system make a difference to how crops grow?

it didn't. it makes a difference in how you work.

Did the fact they worked together take away the incentive to survive?

no, but remember that their individual survival was no longer tied to their individual labor.

Did their cattle not like the colour red? What specifically about a communal style made them starve?

see Post # 25
 
Next year in congress: GOP floats bill to eliminate Thanksgiving as an official holiday. Because COMMUNISTS!
 
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?

Less incentive to work. Less incentive to preserve land that wasn't their's.
 
Stossel doesn't appear to understand the difference between working together and coerced cooperation.
 
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?

The point is, they didn't work together. Some people did the work and some people sat on their asses and let those people do all the work. Didn't work too well, huh?
 
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.

I always thought it's because they made contact with the inguns and they showed them that fish were not poison and corn was not the devil n such. :shrug:
 
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.

The indians didn't tolerate anyone not pulling their oown weight. Those people were kicked out of the village and left to starve. What Leftist community is going to do that?

Apples and oranges.
 
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.

The Pilgrims came to America for religious freedom.

What is it with people and their historical ignorance?
 

From your site. big deal. I like Stossels take better. Socialisms still sucks. That's the point he was trying to make.




Bradford did get rid of the common course -- but it was in 1623, after the first Thanksgiving, and not because the system wasn't working. The Pilgrims just didn't like it. In the accounts of colonists, Mr. Pickering said, "there was griping and groaning.""Bachelors didn't want to feed the wives of married men, and women don't want to do the laundry of the bachelors," he said.The real reason agriculture became more profitable over the years, Mr. Pickering said, is that the Pilgrims were getting better at farming crops like corn that had been unknown to them in England.
 
The Pilgrims came to America for religious freedom.

What is it with people and their historical ignorance?

Exactly. Their colony was more of a church than a government. The Governor was more of a religious leader.

OH, and they didn't found the country, so their views are not really relevant.
 
From your site. big deal. I like Stossels take better. Socialisms still sucks. That's the point he was trying to make.



Bradford did get rid of the common course -- but it was in 1623, after the first Thanksgiving, and not because the system wasn't working. The Pilgrims just didn't like it. In the accounts of colonists, Mr. Pickering said, "there was griping and groaning.""Bachelors didn't want to feed the wives of married men, and women don't want to do the laundry of the bachelors," he said.The real reason agriculture became more profitable over the years, Mr. Pickering said, is that the Pilgrims were getting better at farming crops like corn that had been unknown to them in England.
Stossel's take is spin and inaccurate:

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.

The arrangement did not produce famine. If it had, Bradford would not have declared the three days of sport and feasting in 1621 that became known as the first Thanksgiving. “The celebration would never have happened if the harvest was going to be less than enough to get them by,” Mr. Pickering said. “They would have saved it and rationed it to get by.”

The competing versions of the story note Bradford’s writings about “confusion and discontent” and accusations of “laziness” among the colonists. But Mr. Pickering said this grumbling had more to do with the fact that the Plymouth colony was bringing together settlers from all over England, at a time when most people never moved more than 10 miles from home. They spoke different dialects and had different methods of farming, and looked upon each other with great wariness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/weekinreview/21zernike.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1
 
The Pilgrims came to America for religious freedom.

What is it with people and their historical ignorance?
I think Franco burned all the history books in Spain.
 
The Pilgrims came to America for religious freedom.

What is it with people and their historical ignorance?

Religious intolerance was part of 1600's conservative Europe, where religion was tied intricately with government.
 
Back
Top Bottom