The American Socialist Experiment

[Trey of Diamonds]

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Nearly 10 years ago I wrote the following story for a Canadian Website called Enter Stage Right. They are a Libertarian / Objectivist publication and I was probably their most liberal writer. Anyway, this story focuses on the original socialistic economic system used by pilgrams and why they changed to a capitalistic system.

The American socialist experiment
By Charles F. Wickwire
[SIZE=-2]web posted September 2, 2002[/SIZE]

On November 11, 1620, the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock. The ship lay at anchor until March, the pilgrims living onboard while permanent housing was being built. When the Mayflower finally left, 27 adults and 23 children were left of the 102 people who set out across the ocean. Their governor was William Bradford and under his leadership, these first Americans began to make a new life in the New World.

What very few Americans today know is this very first colony on the shores of America started out as a socialist colony. The Pilgrims at Plymouth set up a common store that worked on the principle of "From Each According To His Ability - To Each According To His Need". Everything that the colony produced was placed in the common store and was then distributed out as needed.

For two years the colony worked to create a socialist Utopia but even with an additional 30 settlers who arrived a year after the Mayflower, the colony barely survived. Each winter the colonist would go hungry being reduced to rations of a quarter pound of bread at times. Governor Bradford relates his experiences concerning the socialist state he had helped to create:

"The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tired sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; --that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontente, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in divission of victails and cloaths, than he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victuals, cloaths, etc., with the meaner and younger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brooke it. "
​

Finally, in 1623, Governor Bradford called a meeting to discuss how to have a more productive growing season and be better prepared for the next winter. Governor Bradford writes:

"All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they [the pilgims] begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length after much debate of things, the Gov. (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set downe every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves... And so assigned to every family a parceel of land. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means the Gov. or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledge weakness, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and opression."
​

It was at this meeting between Governor Bradford and the chief members of the colony that the American free enterprise system was born. Governor Bradford writes about the results of this system:

"By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plentie, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoysing of the harts of many, for which they blessed God. And in the effect of their perticular planting was well seene, for all had, one way and other, pretty well to bring the year aboute, and some of the abler sorte and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, 50 as any generall wante of famine hath not been amongest them since to this day."
​

This little known failed experiment in American socialism isn't taught in today's schools. If it was, our children might grow up to doubt governmental programs that redistribute wealth "from each according to his ability - too each according to his need."

Source: William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647

 

[Alceste]

Interesting bit of history. I can't help but observe that our modern system of taxation to pay for infrastructure, governance, security, education, health care and a basic minimum standard of living for all is not communism, as your final paragraphs suggest.

However well self-interest worked to inspire early settlers to be more productive, I still doubt they let their children go uneducated, or neighbours who had been unlucky in their season starve to death.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

However well self-interest worked to inspire early settlers to be more productive, I still doubt they let their children go uneducated, or neighbours who had been unlucky in their season starve to death.

No, I don't imagine they did. Capitalism increased productivity which in turn allowed for more to be shared. While the article doesn't go into it, I believe the best economic system is one that incorporates aspects of both Capitalism and Socialism. The key is to achieve a balance between the two.

 

[Alceste]

No, I don't imagine they did. Capitalism increased productivity which in turn allowed for more to be shared. While the article doesn't go into it, I believe the best economic system is one that incorporates aspects of both Capitalism and Socialism. The key is to achieve a balance between the two.

I agree. I think Denmark is a good example of getting the balance right, while the US is our best example of getting it wrong.

 

[Mathematician]

Except that's not socialism...?

 

[Alceste]

Except that's not socialism...?

I have noticed that free market proponents often can't distinguish between socialism and communism.

 

[work in progress]

This is revisionist history that gets trotted out every Thanksgiving by the Wallbuilders. For one thing, they somehow overlook the fact that Governor Bradford's "socialist" experment has its origins in the Puritan belief in getting back to authentically early Christian way of life. So that socialism that they are blathering about comes right from Acts of the Apostles, where the early Christian community had no private property and shared everything in common. Even trying to hold out a little, led to the deaths of Ananias and his wife - Sapphira. Funny how all of the right wing propagandists fail to mention that point before they build their case for divinely mandated free enterprise solutions.

 

[Alceste]

This is revisionist history that gets trotted out every Thanksgiving by the Wallbuilders. For one thing, they somehow overlook the fact that Governor Bradford's "socialist" experment has its origins in the Puritan belief in getting back to authentically early Christian way of life. So that socialism that they are blathering about comes right from Acts of the Apostles, where the early Christian community had no private property and shared everything in common. Even trying to hold out a little, led to the deaths of Ananias and his wife - Sapphira. Funny how all of the right wing propagandists fail to mention that point before they build their case for divinely mandated free enterprise solutions.

Besides which, anecdotal evidence is not very persuasive to any thinking person.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

This is revisionist history that gets trotted out every Thanksgiving by the Wallbuilders. For one thing, they somehow overlook the fact that Governor Bradford's "socialist" experment has its origins in the Puritan belief in getting back to authentically early Christian way of life. So that socialism that they are blathering about comes right from Acts of the Apostles, where the early Christian community had no private property and shared everything in common. Even trying to hold out a little, led to the deaths of Ananias and his wife - Sapphira. Funny how all of the right wing propagandists fail to mention that point before they build their case for divinely mandated free enterprise solutions.

That's interesting, I haven't heard the fundies use that excuse yet. I don't see how my article is revisionist though. I make no mention of any religious aspects, just the fact that pure socialism was the first economic system tried and that it failed.

 

[Alceste]

That's interesting, I haven't heard the fundies use that excuse yet. I don't see how my article is revisionist though. I make no mention of any religious aspects, just the fact that pure socialism was the first economic system tried and that it failed.

The article described communism, not socialism.

Socialist economies are based upon production for use and the direct allocation of economic inputs to satisfy economic demands and human needs (use value); accounting is based on physical quantities of resources, some physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time.[5][6] Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution.[7]

Socialism is a broad category that includes social democracy, the effectiveness of which is illustrated best by countries like Denmark, which has the happiest population on earth (The US ranks 23rd - not a bad showing but not a ringing endorsement for letting capitalism run rampant either.)

It also includes libertarian socialism, my own ideology.

Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[9] Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.

Communism would be the accurate term for the form of social organization your article describes.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The article described communism, not socialism.

To be honest, I would have to go back to the research books to find out the political aspects of the early pilgrims. The article was focused on the economics of the colony rather than their politics. Could their form of government been Communistic, sure. They might have voted for everything too, I don't know.

 

[Mathematician]

Saying this experience is an example of pure socialism failing is like cherry-picking Somalia as an example of how capitalism sucks...

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Saying this experience is an example of pure socialism failing is like cherry-picking Somalia as an example of how capitalism sucks...

Why. Please explain.

 

[work in progress]

That's interesting, I haven't heard the fundies use that excuse yet. I don't see how my article is revisionist though. I make no mention of any religious aspects, just the fact that pure socialism was the first economic system tried and that it failed.

It is a popular Thanksgiving myth that David Barton -- the go-to guy for the Christian Nationalists, and Pat Robertson has popularized the story. I first heard it from Rush Limbaugh's show, and it's a staple of every rightwing radio show this time of year. Most of the media stars on the right are fundamentalists of some variety.

If their description of the Common Course Policy is socialism or communism, it's inspiration comes out of the New Testament. But, some historians dispute this and other narratives that are popular today. The arrangement could be more accurately described as working for a company, rather than a socialist system, according to some, and the real reason why they had less success in farming than in the later years was a matter of learning how to grow corn, and make better use of their new land:

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.
“One man’s laziness is another man’s industry, based on the agricultural methods they’ve learned as young people,” he said.
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.

Thanksgiving and the Tea Party - NYTimes.com


​

 

[Alceste]

Why. Please explain.

You pick one isolated anecdote where the most disastrous possible theoretical outcome that could possibly be associated with an ideology prevails and use that to dismiss the entire ideology. If hungry, disgruntled pilgrims illustrate the evils of sharing then ruined, anarchic, starving Somalia illustrates the evils of selfishness. They're capitalists, aren't they?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The arrangement could be more accurately described as working for a company, rather than a socialist system, according to some, and the real reason why they had less success in farming than in the later years was a matter of learning how to grow corn, and make better use of their new land:

Interesting theory, but I don't buy it. Bradford's writings specifically state that the issue was in getting people motivated to work. Working for others was less productive than working for yourself. I think its kind of telling that the pilgrims were so self centered.

Also, you can save all the tea party BS. I studied this my freshman year in high school, (private school of course), in 1980. So this article, written 9 years ago, prior to any tea parties being in existance, was inspired by a class I took in school more than 30 years ago.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You pick one isolated anecdote where the most disastrous possible theoretical outcome that could possibly be associated with an ideology prevails and use that to dismiss the entire ideology. If hungry, disgruntled pilgrims illustrate the evils of sharing then ruined, anarchic, starving Somalia illustrates the evils of selfishness. They're capitalists, aren't they?

Well, I think we are reading a bit more into the article than I intended. If I was writing a college paper on socialism you would certainly have a point. But when writing under the space restrictions of a internet news site you can't really go into that much detail.

 

[Alceste]

Well, I think we are reading a bit more into the article than I intended. If I was writing a college paper on socialism you would certainly have a point. But when writing under the space restrictions of a internet news site you can't really go into that much detail.

No, but you could have used the word "communism" instead of "socialism" for accuracy.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

No, but you could have used the word "communism" instead of "socialism" for accuracy.

I'm not sold on that term for what they were doing. To be honest, since it was more than 30 years since I actually studied the life of the Pilgrims I can't remember how they were doing their politics. Did they vote for certain things? Did they have a more authoritarin approach? If I was still writing politically I would do a follow up and look into it but to be honest, I found politcal writing to be depressing and eventually gave it up.

 

[work in progress]

Interesting theory, but I don't buy it. Bradford's writings specifically state that the issue was in getting people motivated to work.

But he doesn't claim that it was a source of hardship as claimed by your right wing propaganda source trying to reinvent history to fit their social darwinism narrative:

For two years the colony worked to create a socialist Utopia but even with an additional 30 settlers who arrived a year after the Mayflower, the colony barely survived. Each winter the colonist would go hungry being reduced to rations of a quarter pound of bread at times. Governor Bradford relates his experiences concerning the socialist state he had helped to create:
​

Real history outside of right wing land can go by the statements from Governor Bradford himself, who mentions obvious hardships in the first winter after landing in 1621:

"In these hard & difficulte beginings they found some discontents & murmurings arise amongst some, and mutinous speeches & carriags in other; but they were soone quelled & overcome by ye wisdome, patience, and just & equall carrage of things by ye Govr and better part, wch clave faithfully togeather in ye maine. But that which was most sadd & lamentable was, that in 2. or 3. moneths time halfe of their company dyed, espetialy in Jan: & February, being ye depth of winter, and wanting houses & other comforts; being infected with ye scurvie & other diseases, which this long vioage & their inacomodate condition had brought upon them;..............................
​

So, things were bad for the Pilgrims arriving in Plymouth late in the year after a long journey across the ocean. Does his description of the first Thanksgiving sound like they were living in socialist-caused famine until 1623?

In modern spelling
"They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides, they had about a peck of meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports."
​

Working for others was less productive than working for yourself. I think its kind of telling that the pilgrims were so self centered.

The Pilgrims, as mentioned in the NY Times article I cited previously -- came from all across England, and also from Holland, plus there were the crewmen aboard the Mayflower who became unintended settlers, since the ship was not seaworthy to make the return trip to England. So, they were not a united community to begin with, but they still cooperated enough regardless of internal dissension to produce good harvests.

Also, you can save all the tea party BS. I studied this my freshman year in high school, (private school of course), in 1980. So this article, written 9 years ago, prior to any tea parties being in existance, was inspired by a class I took in school more than 30 years ago.

And did you notice that the site you quoted from has no about page? Or information about who is running their rightwing propaganda site and paying for it? I said earlier, that I had heard of this story as far back as 10 years ago, when I used to listen to rightwing radio and read and comment on rightwing blog sites. The Tea Party groups have been part of the right wing continuum that has expanded and inflated these stories as part of their pseudo-American history narrative.

It was at this meeting between Governor Bradford and the chief members of the colony that the American free enterprise system was born. Governor Bradford writes about the results of this system:
​

Well actually I don't trust what they post in this article (wherever they got it from) as Governor Bradford's comments about the glories of free enterprize, because I can go to a legitimate source -- the Pilgrim Hall Museum, where the quotes I used are listed, and see whether or not Governor Bradford started preaching the glories of libertarian capitalism. So many of the so called expert right wing historical authorities are outright liars -- like their top historian - David Barton, who has been caught several times by real historians using quotes out of context, and even fabricating quotes from the Founding Fathers, to create his Christian Nation narrative. Anyway, so how did Governor Bradford see the decision to end the common course and divide up the land:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation 120--21[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1] 1623[/SIZE][/FONT]

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 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 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. 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.
​

Now my skills at reading archaic English aren't the greatest, but my impression of Bradford's note about having to scrap the common course policy is that he considered he considered it a sign of moral failing of the people -- chiefly greed....or free enterprise if you wish! At the conclusion, he states that "men's corruption" was the problem, not the system he had created in the early years of the Plymouth Colony.

And the conclusion of your source that the glorious free enterprise system was responsible for the bounteous harvests in the later years is total bs! Real historians, like Richard Pickering of the Plimouth Plantation, say that the improvements in farming methods in the new land, and growing familiarity with how to grow new crops, have more to do with later success than economic theory.