This common canard appeared today in r/conservative: Sauce

link it cites: https://www.aier.org/article/819-real-meaning-thanksgiving-triumph-capitalism-over-collectivism

Rebuttal to the laughably simplistic claims: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/weekinreview/21zernike.html?_r=0

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.”

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.”

............

brought to you by your friends at srcs

Those who use the Plymouth colony of the early pilgrims as an argument against socialism are forgetting several important points:

1. The pilgrims were not operating in a market economy. That is, they did not have to buy and sell consumer commodities in order to survive. Granted, a portion of what they produced was sent back to England for sale, but the survival of the pilgrims was not dependant upon such exports.

2. There was no division of labor. Every pilgrim was performing the exact same type of work as every other pilgrim, and that work was primarily food production in the form of farming.

3. Because every pilgrim was engaging in the work of food production as a farmer, they could literally eat the product of their own labor and survive off it without ever trading with anyone else. This is not the case in an advanced capitalist society where there is division of labor and the vast majority of the population is not engaged in farming or food production. When people cannot survive exclusively on the product of their own labor (that is, when they can't eat what they themselves produce as an individual), the idea that they have no right to the product of other people's labor loses validity.

EDIT: since some people apparently aren't aware of what I'm talking about, here's an article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/weekinreview/21zernike.html

It's from Rush Limbaugh and sure seems politically biased, but I figured I'd ask.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/11/21/the_real_story_of_thanksgiving

In New World Inc., the authors say that William Bradford had intended a "common course", meaning a "kind of socialist endeavour". The authors don't go into much detail about what this plan really was. Are there further accounts of the kind of "socialist" community the Pilgrims who travelled on the Mayflower originally hoped to establish?

Source: John Butman and Simon Targett, New World Inc.: The Story of the British Empire's Most Successful Start-Up (2018)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dAmroKyzGYWe're off to a good start aren't we, eh? English entrepreneurs who set out to America for greater profits were definitely eager to set up a socialist colony to live in self-sustained peace. Thank god they have a transcript so I don't have to listen to that guy's voice again. I'll use Wikipedia for my claims. Here's the article about Jamestown. Double quoted paragraphs are excerpts from wikipedia.

When the first settlers arrived—at Jamestown in 1607 then Plymouth in 1620—they were operating under an economic system common to all European nations at that time, known as mercantilism. Under mercantilism businesses, especially in colonies, were operated for the benefit of the state. While governments permitted the companies to make profits, their primary purpose was to advance the national interest of England or Spain or France.

Okay, fair enough. The early settlers who came to Jamestown and Plymouth came from England under the Virginian Company of London. They settled on an island that was not inhabited by nearby Virginian Indian tribes (because they thought the place was too shitty), which they saw as a plus. "The island was swampy, isolated, offered limited space and was plagued by mosquitoes and brackish tidal river water unsuitable for drinking. In addition to the marsh the settlers arrived too late in the year to get crops planted." This is what wikipedia says, sounds like the settlers found themselves in a very bad spot, I don't think neither socialism, nor capitalism would help here. So what does Prager University have to say?

The early colonists began their adventure with what they thought was a beautiful idea. They set up a common storehouse of grain from which people were supposed to take what they needed and put back what they could. Lands were also held in common and were worked in common. The settlers owned no land of their own. Though there was no name for this system, it was an ideal socialist commune. And you can probably guess what happened. It began to fall apart almost immediately.

Oh boy. They do not have any sources at all in their video, this script sounds like it's taken out of a fucking children's book. The colonists who set out to conquer America established a happy commune where everyone took what they wanted and placed what they wanted. Wikipedia makes no mention of this. They are true about one thing, none of the settlers owned land on their own, the land 'belonged' to the London Company which employed them and expected them to return the money at a profit they were given to set out on this journey.

"Many in the group were gentlemen unused to work, or their manservants, equally unaccustomed to the hard labor demanded by the harsh task of carving out a viable colony. One of these was Robert Hunt, a former vicar of Reculver, England, who "probably celebrated the first known service of holy communion in what is today the United States of America [at Jamestown, on June 21 1607]." In a few months, 80% of the party were dead; some of the survivors were deserting to the Indians whose land they had colonized."

Kind of ironic how it seems like the actual cause of their first failure was unskilled labour from entrepreneurs Prager U loves to jack off to.

"Two-thirds of the settlers died before arriving ships brought supplies and German, Polish and Slovak craftsmen the next year in 1608, who would help to establish the first manufactories in the colony. As a result, glassware became the "first" of these American products to be exported to Europe."

Again no mention of agricultural socialism. Does not seem like any sort of commune that Prager U described existed, but let's hear what happened next in their beautiful tale.

After about two years, the settlement was reduced to eating shoelaces and rats. Half of them died of starvation. Captain John Smith (of Pocahontas fame) took control of the colony and scrapped the socialist model. Each colonist received his own parcel of land. Private property had come to the New World. “He who won’t work, won’t eat!” Smith told them, citing the Biblical admonition. Well they worked. And they ate. And the colony was saved.

Great, they mention a historical figure so we can atleast try to pin down the time line they're talking about. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong settlement in Jamestown.

"The investors of the Virginia Company of London expected to reap rewards from their speculative investments. With the Second Supply, they expressed their frustrations and made demands upon the leaders of Jamestown in written form. They specifically demanded that the colonists send commodities sufficient to pay the cost of the voyage, a lump of gold, assurance that they had found the South Sea, and one member of the lost Roanoke Colony. It fell to the third president of the Council, Captain John Smith, to deliver a bold and much needed wake-up call in response to the investors in London, demanding practical laborers and craftsmen who could help make the colony more self-sufficient."

Again the myth that early colonizers were anyhow socialist seems more and more loony. Looks like they were employed by a company to make profits that they were failing to give and the company was angry. And here appears our savior Smith who stands up to the dirty socialists!!! Oh, no, wait... it seems like he just sent a strong worded letter that told the investors they're being naive thinking the colony can strive without practical laborers who do all the work.

I feel like I'm missing something. Where the hell did they pull this story out from, is there some paragraph in wikipedia that I missed. Either way this video was complete bullshit and Prager U is filled with intellectual dishonesty. Here's a Slate article that seems to be better informed that refutes the overall general right wing myth that early colonizers were somehow socialist and the thanksgiving actually celebrates the introduction of capitalism.

EDIT: It seems like there's more evidence of some sort of communal working conditions in Plymouth rather than Jamestown as is noted in the Slate article. Although they were not socialist by any means as the workers were employed by a company and all the profit from their labour was supposed to go to it. But Plymouth was merely scouted by Smith and he did not take leadership over there and considering Smith is the central Jesus-like hero in Prager University's fable it would indicate they're talking about Jamestown and their story is absolute bunk. If there are any historical inaccuracies in my post feel free to point them out as I'm no expert, but this video seemed so dead wrong to me I decided to research a bit.

For some reason socialism didn't work for the American Colonists. Richard J. Maybury wrote an article on this.

https://mises.org/library/great-thanksgiving-hoax-1

11/27/2014 Richard J. Maybury

Each year at this time, schoolchildren 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 the Plymouth 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 hard-working 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 field. 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, 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.

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 were 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 the 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 annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863 Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus, the real meaning of Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

How did the colonists screw up, socialists? They were so close to getting a perfect socialist society. Is it inexplicable? Were they just too stupid to get it to work then? Was the climate too changy? What was it?

Plimoth Patuxet is a complex of living history museums in Plymouth, Massachusetts founded in 1947, formerly Plimoth Plantation. It replicates the original settlement of the Plymouth Colony established in the 17th century by the English colonists who became known as the Pilgrims. They were among the first people who emigrated to America to seek religious separation from the Church of England.[1] It is a not-for-profit museum supported by administrations, contributions, grants, and volunteers.[2] The recreations are based upon a wide variety of first-hand and second-hand records, accounts, articles, and period paintings and artifacts,[3] and the museum conducts ongoing research and scholarship, including historical archaeological excavation and curation locally and abroad.[4]

No one was better equipped to report on the affairs of the Plymouth community than William Bradford. Revered for his patience, wisdom, and courage, Bradford was elected to the office of governor in 1621, and he continued to serve in that position for more than three decades. His memoirs of the colony remained virtually unknown until the nineteenth century. Lost during the American Revolution, they were discovered years later in London and published after a protracted legal battle. The current edition rendered into modern English and with an introduction by Harold Paget, remains among the most readable books from seventeenth-century America.

Now I don't know much about politics, but I hear that socialism isn't considered a "good" thing by a lot of Americans, why? And what is socialism?

In Acts 4, it says:

“32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.”

Is this a form of socialism? Could you explain what the difference is?

I'm just wondering how much of this is propaganda (from the religious, or anti-religious angle) and how much this is factual.

What if, for pragmatic reasons, the Arab nations accepted the 1947 partition plan thus resulting in two seperate nations, Israel and Palestine? How would this effect Middle Eastern history?

Hello everyone, I'm John Turner, professor of religious studies at George Mason University.

I'm here to talk about They Knew They Were Pilgrims: Plymouth Colony and the Contest for American Liberty (Yale University Press). If you think you learned more than you needed to know about the Pilgrims and Plymouth Colony in elementary school, think again. This is a book that features the Mayflower passengers but also introduces a wide variety of Native communities and many different groups of English settlers.

Here's the overview:

In 1620, separatists from the Church of England set sail across the Atlantic aboard the Mayflower. Understanding themselves as spiritual pilgrims, they left to preserve their liberty to worship God in accordance with their understanding of the Bible.

There exists, however, an alternative, more dispiriting version of their story. In it, the Pilgrims are religious zealots who persecuted dissenters and decimated Native peoples through warfare and by stealing their land. The Pilgrims’ definition of liberty was, in practice, very narrow.

Drawing on original research using underutilized sources, John G. Turner moves beyond these familiar narratives in his sweeping and authoritative new history of Plymouth Colony. Instead of depicting the Pilgrims as otherworldly saints or extraordinary sinners, he tells how a variety of English settlers and Native peoples engaged in a contest for the meaning of American liberty.

I'll be here for the next few hours (from about 10:00 until about 1:00 Eastern) to talk all things Plymouth Colony, so please flood this thread with questions!

I've heard a lot of skeptics and atheists talk about how Christianity was socialistic and then lost that trait. This is common among some western leftists who are critical of religion, usually not religious themselves, but they do admire some "original" values of Christianity, even as historical inspiration for some of their secular values. Some youtubers such as "Genetically Modified Skeptic" even promote the conspiracy theory that Christianity was infiltrated by modern capitalists, but the truth is that there has always been priests and religious leaders of wide, diverse views on economic and political systems. You can find countless examples and counter-examples of priests and pastors to prove a point. The Catholic Church even got to hold power in many countries by just being neutral about any kind of secular government, focusing rather on calling out bad actions rather than bad systems.

Needless to say, it is true that tight religious communities naturally have a socialist tone, in the sense that they share stuff, help each other, distribute labor, etc. Of course, calling it socialism would be like calling it capitalism to exchange Pokémon cards, but I get their point. So take this in mind because these terms are anachronistic, like talking about the "United States region" 1000 years ago, when it was just native land.

How the first Christians embraced and then rejected 'socialism'

Perhaps the best way to understand why so many Western Christians are skeptic about socialism is in the Bible itself.

In Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-35, the early Christian community practiced radical sharing, holding "all things in common". They sold properties and possessions, distributing the proceeds to anyone in need, ensuring no one among them was destitute. This sharing included communal meals, financial support, and intense unity of heart and mind. However, as Church got bigger, some people started to abuse the system so regulations had to be established. Sometimes the Church also had more poor people than they could care about, so they had almost nothing to distribute. The Church rather encouraged families to keep helping each other and donate for those least fortunate, and consider it part of practicing the faith, which is the establishment of Christian charity.

Paul described this interesting shift later, as the church was growing:

Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. 4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. 5 The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. 6 But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7 Give the people these instructions, so that no one may be open to blame. 8 Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. - 1 Timothy 5

Charity also had some advantages over a socialistic system, and Judaism already had examples of functional charity. Charity is decentralized, it encouraged helping their own family first and then the others, so their family would not be a load to the congregation. Christian charity was established as helping your own first, then your congregation and then everyone else if you can. People are more naturally more likely to help their closest more, so this hierarchy would encourage people to help more. Proscribing this as a Christian virtue also made it a moral imperative.

Charity also did not challenge private property, which motivated people to produce, as they were able to kept their own profits.

But Christians tried again!

Early Christian American colonists, specifically in the Plymouth and Jamestown colonies, experimented with a form of communal property and labor that is often described as socialism or communism. Both colonies initially operated with a "common store" system, where everything produced was shared equally, regardless of the individual work done, which quickly led to extreme food shortages and discontent. The switch to private property led to prosperity, with families working much harder and producing a surplus, which is largely attributed to the motivations behind the first Thanksgiving.

Socialism got violent at religion

Centuries later, Karl Marx formalized his economic theories, which were also very critical of all kind of religion or traditional system. As this economic system was implemented in many nations, religion was discouraged, many religious leaders were prosecuted or even killed. Cultural diversity was also discouraged, and some ethic identities were erased, which also hurt tight communities that used to help each other.

The future

Perhaps technology and more advanced systems will allow socialism to work, in fact many European countries have successfully implemented a mixed system of socialist benefits paid by economic industries (e.g. Norway using oil to pay for everyone's retirement). However, this took years of struggle... people don't realize that Nordic countries such as Sweden and Norway were in huge economic problems in the 1990s. It would also be dishonest to deny the fact many of these countries don't have to invest in military, they rely on NATO (which is mostly the American army), so in a sense they still rely on heavily capitalistic economies still. Same thing for China, which is socialist in many aspects, but still relies on international capitalist practices.

TLDR

Most Christians don't support socialism for the same reason Poland, Russia, China and other countries rejected or drifted away from literal socialism, they just learned it earlier. People are too selfish, and any system that does not account for that will fail. On top of that, socialist and communist parties often targeted religion as dangerous or backwards, which polarized the relationship even more. Yes, some American Christians may be too far on being skeptic about social systems and go all the way to predatory capitalism, which is a valid concern, but also remember that this view is not universal among Christians in America, even less around the world.