The Truth About Thanksgiving, a Socialism Education Holiday

With the "common stock" of food dwindling under the leadership of people including William Bradford, Thanksgiving began somewhat of a last feast before a mass starvation in the Plymouth and Jamestown American colonies during the early 1600's.

Early US immigrant colonists are well known for dying off in their first year or so of colonization from Europe. Whats less known is how American colonies often converted from socialism to capitalism after their first year of colonization. William Bradford noted "community of property" tactics of redistributing wealth were their founding way of life in saying

"all profits & benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, 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 only what he needed.

Source: mises.org...

This process was reversed in 1623 for the Bradford lead colony, after which starvation was no longer rampant.

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

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."

See source linked above.

a reply to: fractal5

I agree, God prefers Capitalism.

Some people will refuse to see the signs though.

What a piece of "work" (you know what I really mean) . Where in HADES was this found ? Or just made up as they went along.
Seems like a lot of folks are falsely chiming in "stuff" (same as the other ) . Everyone knows the Native Americans pulled the colonists tail out of the fire. Taught em what to grow , and how to grow it. Shared knowledge and supplies with them. Another vain attempt to rewrite history

people work harder if they can keep what they make, if they have to give away what they make there is no incentive to work hard, it`s not like they will get fired for not producing if they don`t produce anything.

Not to mention that it is possible that the pilgrims were really aliens and stuffing is some sort of alien technology

Thanksgiving for dummies

The Indian gave the white man life..

The White man gave the indian death

Just watched this last night and had a lot to think about during the dinner I just had. Such an important lesson lost to time.

My favorite part was how the Jamestown leader was blown away by the productivity of people when they were responsible for their own survival.

I am not from the state's but neither is the commentator on that video, he may live there now and may have lived there for years but He definitely has a definite ENGLISH accent, being British myself I can hear it and very little American accent inflection, indeed what little I can pick up sound's almost put on, his fact's are probably correct though be beware or external critics, sometime's we can provide an objective point of view but remember we also often have our own bias which can take something back form that objectiveness.

Prefer seasoned roasted chicken (crisply skin) anyway with lot's of sage and onion stuffing, lashing's of king Edward (variety) roast potato's (pinched from the American Indians' as well and of course Poka Honas - true American royalty is buried here in a damp English cemetery were she died probably as much of sorrow and longing to go home as from pneumonia), some nice steamed carrot's and other veg and lot's of home made gravy, but maybe that is just because I can't cook a turkey without getting dry sawdust meat no matter how hard I try.

a reply to: Gothmog

Yes and no.

They owed a lot to the Native Americans, but what he cites about early colonial survival is also true. Jamestowns early socio-political organization was based on what they thought were Biblical ideals of the Christian commonwealth. So they did indeed hold all they had in common with all taking a common share. As a result, not enough people put in enough effort to replenish what was taken. Why bother if they all got a share no matter what they did or didn't do?

As a result, they all nearly starved.

This is a separate issue the colony had to overcome on its own whether or not the Native Americans taught it how to survive and live in the new world, which they did. But it doesn't matter if you know what you should do, if you simply aren't doing it because you assume others will be doing it for you. If no one does, then you run out of what you need even if everyone knows what they ought to be doing.

originally posted by: Gothmog
What a piece of "work" (you know what I really mean) . Where in HADES was this found ? Or just made up as they went along.
Seems like a lot of folks are falsely chiming in "stuff" (same as the other ) . Everyone knows the Native Americans pulled the colonists tail out of the fire. Taught em what to grow , and how to grow it. Shared knowledge and supplies with them. Another vain attempt to rewrite history

Sorry Gothmog, I respect you . . . but that sounds like something taught in public schools and not actual history.




Here is a shorter and funner video covering it.

Just remember dear readers if one finds themselves using the phrase "everyone knows . . . " perhaps some individual research is in order.


Mike Grouchy

a reply to: ketsuko
I know. I am a bit "swayed" by my Native American Heritage.

a reply to: Gothmog

Hey, I'm married to someone with that heritage, but it doesn't change the truth.

And honestly, the earliest settlers really didn't want to take anything from the Native Americans either. It took quite a while and quite a few more settlers before people started having that problem.

By the time the Brits showed up to colonize, the area was already under heavy trading with the French and Dutch. It was all about beaver pelts. The French and Dutch liked to meter out small amounts of weaponry, the Brits were much more likely to trade guns. So the indians began trade with the Brits.

It was all the Indians. The Iriquios Nation was eager to develop strong trade relations with Europe, and acted in diplomatic ways with their colonists. If they had wanted to, the united Algonquin tribes could have obliterated most European armies before disease destroyed them. Colonization happened with their acceptance and help.

a reply to: fractal5

Ya know, I have been thinking a lot about why Socialism as an economic model seems to fail under its own weight.

I think personal motivation is certainly part of it... Its human nature to look around and compare. To avoid the chores but still want to reap the rewards.


But isn't it also true that 'no matter how smart any one person is, they aren't as smart as all of us?' or experienced? Or talented?

Because the control in Socialism is centralized, it is immediately hobbled by the collective abilities of the few doing the planning. Smart though they may be, the few just can't have the experience and wide-ranging talents that the many can bring to bear on a problem.

a reply to: fractal5

Ya know, I have been thinking a lot about why Socialism as an economic model seems to fail under its own weight.

I think personal motivation is certainly part of it... Its human nature to look around and compare. To avoid the chores but still want to reap the rewards.


But isn't it also true that 'no matter how smart any one person is, they aren't as smart as all of us?' or experienced? Or talented?

Because the control in Socialism is centralized, it is immediately hobbled by the collective abilities of the few doing the planning. Smart though they may be, the few just can't have the experience and wide-ranging talents that the many can bring to bear on a problem.

what's more likely is that it took a few years for the colonists to adapt to their new surroundings and find ways to survive and produce in the new world, with the help of the natives.
I find it kind of ironic that the natives who were helping these colonists learn what food to grow and such, were for the most part living a the rather communal life that you claim the colonist couldn't. especially when one considers that the land as it was was rather plentiful in game and such.
although, I would venture to guess that the indians teaching them how to take only what you need from the earth and leave the rest for the future did go rather contradictory to the goals of the big business entities that were backing those colonies hoping for a massive profit!!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
what's more likely is that it took a few years for the colonists to adapt to their new surroundings and find ways to survive and produce in the new world, with the help of the natives.
I find it kind of ironic that the natives who were helping these colonists learn what food to grow and such, were for the most part living a the rather communal life that you claim the colonist couldn't. especially when one considers that the land as it was was rather plentiful in game and such.
although, I would venture to guess that the indians teaching them how to take only what you need from the earth and leave the rest for the future did go rather contradictory to the goals of the big business entities that were backing those colonies hoping for a massive profit!!!

So to re-cap, William Bradford wrote down that before 1623 they lived under socialism and were dropping like flies of starvation, and after 1623 when Brandford wrote down they converted to capitalism that they never had to worry about food again. What does that mean to you? That William Bradford is a liar, or converting the economy to capitalism was purely coincidental? Are you aware that every single socialist nation has the same problem of abject squalor and not just initial colonial America? That is a lot of coincidences. I think opposing viewpoints being looked at as an unlimited stream of strange coincidences is not going to get you to an accurate world view. When the facts disagree with you, that is a problem.

a reply to: fractal5

so, while the indians had lived here for ages, without the idea of property rights to land, and survived, you are saying that the colonists couldn't survive without a piece of land given to them and a profit motive driving them??? around half of those settlers were puritans, hard work played an important part of their religion for crying out loud.
I find it rather hard to believe that they all just decided to sit back and relax expecting someone else to do the work. and if they did, well, have to say this but I guess those "savages" weren't as morally bankrupt as the new arrivals were.
I'm not saying that their European ways might have been a hindrance to living in a communal way, but the debt that was incurred getting here also was, as well as the fact that it was a new land and they lacked the knowledge to farm that new land. Heck, even the fact that they didn't land where they were supposed to probably did.

Buck