Socialism not new to America

[grampadac]

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax
Mises Daily: Saturday, November 20, 1999 by Richard J. Maybury

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing thePlymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

[milindh]

The people I've known that came from socialist countries (such as Poland) disliked it for the reasons the writer states and I think it's a bad deal all around myself. The Polish guys I worked with the year before they threw the Communists out felt that they probably could have put up with the so-called classless society where a doctor earns the same as carpenter and lazy people are carried by the rest but they didn't like it at all. One of the guys was an orthopedic surgeon who had defected to California and he told me the above was true and he didn't think was right or fair at all. What really pissed him off, however, was that there really wasn't a "classless" society as they had been promised. The higher elite Communist officials lived very high on the hog while everyone else had to make do with the status quo. The dream promised by the Marxists was just that, a dream, and a lie to boot.

As for the Free Market Capitalism we have all seen for the last ten years (from the last two years of the Clinton adminstration right through the Bush addministration) what an under regulated banking system will do if left to its own "self regulation". The greedheads at the top of the economic world will line their pockets and drive the truck into a ditch in the process. Then they'll get the current president to kinda save the economy using taxpayer dollars to bail out the greedheads and their friends. Those who call Obama a socialist should see that he has just totally implemented the exact plan Bush and (mainly) Henry Paulson (ex CEO of Goldman Sachs) put into play in the last months of the Bush administration. That plan is to bale out the big money interests in the banking world and on Wall Street. Timothy Geightner, Obama's appointment, was part of the team that fought tooth and nail against early regulating of the credit default swaps that put AIG in the crapper. You can still buy credit default swaps from AIG to this very day! Almost nothing has been done to change the way business is done in the banking world since Obama took office. Obama's economic policy so far has just been Business As Usual. Protect the big money and throw a few crumbs (like unemployment benefit extensions and a handful of mortgage gizmos) to people on the bottom. The economic stumulus stuff Obama and Congress have implemented are move right out of Economics 101. Any president , liberal of conservative, would have done the same thing. 99% of all economists in the US would have recommended the same moves. It is pure Keynesian economic philosophy at its most basic. Personally, I think the only things that have been accomplished have been psychlogical. Peoople haven't given up (yet!) like might have happened if we had let the big Wall Street instutions fail on their own lack of merit. In other words the actions of the Obama administration may have prevented a sudden collapse of the economy but what we are experiencing now is a slow and steady decline to a bottom none of us have ever seen the likes of. We are nowhere near the bottom no matter what any of "the experts" may say.

Now, as for Obama's health care reform plan, I guess you could call it "socialist" in nature although I'd be willing to bet my FXR that no one reading this knows exactly what's in the actual plan. It's 2000 pages of gobblygook that no one can understand. Not even Congress. Keep in mind however that ever since the mid 1940's when the first private group insurance were implemented they were decried as ""socialist". Those doing the loudest shouting were the members of the AMA. Henry J. Kaiser, one of the main builders of Liberty ships and tanks in WWII, decided during the war that the workers in his ship yards deserved insurance and started Kaiser Permanente of his own free will. No Commie pressure or strikes. He just felt it was the right thing to do under the circumstances of the times. The other defense contractors, who were making money hand over fist, cried, "It's Socialism! It'll ruin our free market and take away incentives." When I hear someone cry, "Socialism!" or "Fascism" or any "ism!" I look at the source crying the loudest to see what their real and often hidden agendas are.

Is Obama's plan socialist? I don't know. Maybe. If it's like Canada's plan (now there's a nasty bunch of little Commie Hosers for ya) or Great Britain's I'd say it probably is on the Socialist side and I'm not in favor of that kind of plan. They are the least effective of all the government plans in the developed world. Remember, the US is the only country in the developed world that doesn't have government regulated health care. I suppose it is no coincidence that our health care cost eat up 16.8% of our Gross Domestic Product while second place (which I think is Japan) is a little over 8%. These other countries don't neccesarily have government controls on the type and quality of health care. France, Germany, and Switzerland have privately provided programs that are limited in what they can charge the people but they compete with other companies by providing either more or better level plans. You can buy a "Cadillac" policy if you want but rates are government set and everybody is required to have insurance.

What we have in the US is a mess. Dysfunctional is more like it. If you're a poor broke crackhead you get free health care. If you have company provided insurance (which remember in the forties was decried as "Socialist") you're OK. Everyone in between those two extremes is screwed. Buy your own insurance, have a major illness even once and the insurance company will try their best to get rid of you or raise your rates so high you can't afford it. I have some friends that worked in the high tech industry for years and were in a number of different companies as well as finishing off their careers self employed. They now have to provide their own insurance and they pay $2100 a month for the husband and wife alone-no kids! And there is no guarantee the insurance company (Blue Cross) won't drop them first time they end up with a major illness. If that happens they'll have to hire an attorney to fight their battle. And this is all too common.

For me the bottom line is this;

Our present health care system is messed up. Small changes aren't going to help. Right now the fox is in charge of protecting the chicken coop.

If Obama's plan has any leanings towards the Canandian or British system (and I dare anyone to provide real in depth proof and analysis- Not something off Snopes.com) I'm against it. I prefer the French or German style plans. Government regulated prices with the individual private insurance companies competing for our dollars by providing better or more services. Individuals are free to choose their own carriers.

Nuff Said.

Let the name calling and potshots begin. I will not respond in kind at all.

[harold]

i agree with this but what is free trade ? free trade is not fair trade. how do we compete with indian in production when the tarriffs for imports have been removed from goods imported. The out come of this is our standard will be dropped to that of india because it will be the only way to compete with them. I ve seen them , ive been there within the last 2 years, they are lucky to have a 4x4x8 little house. these dementions are decide by the size of the plywood. A shoe manufactured there for 5. 00 carries a tarriff when imported here. Our shoes cost 75 dollars their tarriff is 65 dollars now it comes down to who makes the best shoe not the cheepest.
The perfect servant is the master of those thing given to his hand to rule over, the perfect master is one who rules justly over his servants. I know im just going to catch hell for this but
I dont care , the good ruler prays on his knee's in his closet for wisdom and does right by his people , AND OBAY'S THE LAW , the king does not bear the sword in vain. The constitution is our law built by faith in God. Love God and do right. The presidents that claim to be Christian and this or that is evil are false ,they bear witness of themselves. The presidents that are lawful just Christians wont have to proclaim their faith , we will see it in their works.
Im so proud of the people that come hear. There are articulate and have a good grasp of what is going on in this country and abroad . It is a very hopeful thing. harold