Thursday, December 4, 2008

Socialism has been tried here before, and failed

The memoirs of Plymouth governor William Bradford describe the first attempt of socialism in North America; unfortunately if President Obama follows through with his campaign slogans we will experience this again, and with the same result.

Bradford's historical accounts describe failed economic practices that are similar to the “spread the wealth” idea expressed by Obama. The members of the Plymouth colony arrived in the New World with a plan for collective property ownership which reflected the views of the aristocratic class in the 1620s, similar to today’s elitists. The Plymouth charter called for farmland to be worked communally and for the harvests to be shared. "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."

American free marketers will probably not be surprised that the colonists starved. Men were unwilling to work to feed someone else's children. Women were unwilling to cook for other women's husbands. Fields lay largely untilled and unplanted. "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."

Famine came as soon as they used up their provisions. After famine came plague. Half the colony died. However, unlike most socialists, they learned from their mistakes and departed from the socialist paradigm. They gave each person a parcel of land to tend to for themselves. "At length, after much debate of things, the Governor … gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves … And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end."

The results were overwhelming. Men worked hard where before they had constantly malingered. Fields were not only tilled and planted but also diligently harvested. Colonists traded with the surrounding Indian nation and learned to plant maize, squash and pumpkin and to rotate these crops from year to year. The harvest was bountiful, and new colonists immigrated to the thriving settlement.

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

The colonists departed from the socialist intellectual ideas of their time. They concluded that the ancient principles of private property as recorded in biblical times were superior to the utopian speculations of Plato and his 17th-century imitators. Human nature was a fact of life, socialism always fails. No amount of wishful thinking by socialist–minded elites like present-day liberals can change the cold facts of reality today as they were unable in the Plymouth colony.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition … may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's … and that the taking away of property … would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God."

It should be genuinely scary to us all that a leading member of the left intellectual establishment-a group that will rule both of our elected branches-doesn't know about America's first experiment with socialism. On top of that, they don’t care to know. Neither did their socialist predecessors who, ignorantly and blithely, imposed on our forebears a system that led to malnutrition, pestilence and mass fatalities. I think it has always been that way.

People in ivory towers, ivied halls, foundation-funded think tanks or newsrooms still dream of replacing a system that has worked for over two hundred years with a failed notion of “fairness” as expressed by Barack Obama and his supporters. Liberals write books and articles telling the way we live now are wrong and how much better everything would be if we embraced “change” and agreed with them. Not only should we “give to each according to their needs from each according to their means”, but we must willingly give up our superior way of life as compared to most of the rest of the world by embracing the false unsupported premise of environmentalist socialists to save the planet. When the famines, tortilla riots or credit collapses come, (and some already have) the rest of us must deal with the consequences.

It has been proved that the "vanity and conceit" (Bradford's phrase, not mine) of the intellectual elitists ends in disaster-but by then they've already moved on to something else. When we remind them that their ideas have been tried-and found wanting-in the past, they cavalierly deny history, put their hands over their ears and cry even more loudly for "change." If we listen to them, we deserve what we will get.

2 comments:

Eggy1943 said...

Socialism built the United States

Neither black nor white, life is many contrasts. The “capitalist” way of land ownership and wage for your own work is a good way.

Food is quite necessary and farming in the USA provides our food. With all the bounty of crops, but no method to distribute them the USA built Railroads. This was government funded, a socialist product. When the drought hit the west, rail transported their cattle to the Midwest where the cattle thrived and were returned when the drought was over. Rail provides transport of goods to customers. Rail transports resources, raw products to corporations for manufacture. Rail provided passenger transport to work, shopping, travel. Telegraph from the Railroads provided necessary communication. This is USA Socialism.

Telephone came to the USA. Communities and local citizens joined together to form Local Utilities bringing telephone and electricity to their communities. Socialism. When it was realized only the rich could afford schools, Public Schools were funded by communities allowing all children be schooled in Primary Education. Socialism provided the basis to educate the populace of the USA.

As the Auto gained popularity, getting stuck in mud and snow, often unable to make the journey, States built roads and maintain them. The US highway system provides shipping, travel to work and play all done by socialism.

After primary education, at age 18 people choose to work or go to school. Some begin family's and they can do this because they received the necessary education. Health too is a necessity as without health people can not work and take responsibility. A child has no money for health care, nor aged people. Socialized Health care is a necessity for people to provide the best they can for themselves, family and community's. It has long been deemed morally wrong to limit health care to the affluent. Presently we do provide health care for the needy, aged and handicapped. How little more would it cost to simply provide for all? The money now spent on insurances, medical cost to employers, plus the money now in the system would fund National Health Care.

Another benefit of taking health care costs from Corporations and Employers is that it would free that money for their business, which is their primary focus.

Police, fire protection, security, military, hospitals all came from communities providing these needed services. Socialism.

The present financial crisis came from unregulated capitalism. Society must regulate itself just as a family must regulate itself. This is done by society mutually deciding on rules and enforcement of them. Socialism.

Capitalism has it's place just as Socialism does. It is time to develop our lives in the best way, which is a combination of Capitalism and Socialism together providing for the good of the people.

Pauline said...

"The present financial crisis came from unregulated capitalism."

The post prior to mine, quoted above, shows the horrifyingly scary amount of Newspeak-brainwashing that the Left has accomplished in this country..the very Orwellian-speak that resulted in the roots of this economic crisis and the continuing worsening of it.

Let me correct you: The economic crisis began from REGULATED banks lending BY CONGRESS. How? The Community Reinvestment Act ( please note the very scary similarity to the name of the "Reinvestment" in America Act just passed last week to the tune of a trillion dollars by the time it is done).

What is this about? The CRA was begun by Carter, strengthened and expanded under Clinton. It was overseen by the illustrious Barney Frank ( google his history..interesting) and abetted by Chris Dodd.

The CRA regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by telling them they must only back banks which have a certain percentage of black and, later, hispanic mortgages in their portfolio. Banks that didn't abide by this affirmative action lending based on color not ability to pay, where threatened with fines and lawsuits.

ACORN, with Barack Obama's assistance ( I have seen his name listed as one of the attorneys on a lawsuit against..Citigroup I think it was) went on a systematic harrassment lawsuit plan of banks to make them chooose between lending to unqualified people ( and getting Fannie Mae backing as a result), or continue being hassle lawsuited. They made the rational choice to quit the harrassment, especially once risk assessments were regulated into non-existence, people could claim any job they wanted and the banks were not allowed to check references, they let people in with no "skin" in the house, no down payments..nothing. Gave them keys to houses for less monthly mortgage than they were paying in rent.

Then SHOCK, when the balloon payments arrived, what did people do who had no money in the house? They walked. They treated it like a rent raise.

THAT is what started the toxic debt tumble.

It had everything to do with REGULATION. What is particularly galling is that we did not have a single candidate who was courageous enough to TELL THIS TO THE PUBLIC. Why? Every time in the years from 2003-2006 when anyone, including President Bush, tried to change it, we got Frank, Dodd, Raines ( yes, the same Raines with OBAMA now) etc claiming "racism" since the people getting into the houses were black and hispanic. Big bad Republicans just didn't want to see poor blacks and browns in their own houses. And, as we have recently heard, there is cowardice about RACE in our country, but not in the way most people think. It is about being afraid of being CALLED a racist, in spite of having right on your side.