The Pilgrim Experiment With 'Socialism'

Analysis of trends in American politics suggests more and more Americans are comfortable with socialism and seek its institution in the U.S. By definition socialism is recognized as an intermediary stage between capitalism and communism in which it is, “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” It’s also been called the “gateway drug to communism”, and rightly pointed out that it has never worked.

For many years there has been what the left calls “the myth of the Pilgrims and socialism” because this is the time of year when pundits and talk shows speak of the settlers at Plymouth in 1620 trying out socialism and failing. The left rightly points out that this isn’t possible because socialism hadn’t been invented yet. True, but it’s only a matter of semantics. Looking back, we are able to see whatever you want to call what the pilgrim experience with “communal living” was, it failed.

The Pilgrims at Plymouth had decided early on their voyage to pool their resources in the new world. Food, clothing, personal possessions and such were turned in and redistributed to members of the colony as needs arose. This was modeled after the early church in Acts 4:34-35 where it says of the first Christians in Jerusalem, “For none of them needed anything, because everyone who had land or houses would sell them and bring the money received for the things sold and lay it at the apostles’ feet. Then it was distributed to anyone who needed it.” But the Pilgrims soon learned, as did the early church, that the bliss of such communal living lasts only as long as it takes for some of those taking part to learn they can game the system.

William Bradford, governor of Plymouth colony, explains what happened and why is his journal where he writes the communal system was, “found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment … [f]or the Young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine (be upset) that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” So the system was abandoned in favor of giving each family its own parcel of land to farm and charge over its produce, which they could barter, sell or give away as desired. Of that Bradford wrote, “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”

Prosperity ensued when people were given private property to farm as they wished, as well as control over what they did with what they grew. An economy developed and diversified. Those who had non-farm skills (cobbler, blacksmith, seamstress, etc.) were able to pursue their own careers and barter, trade, etc. for whatever they lacked. Everyone prospered once out from under the heavy hand of centralized authority.

Tomorrow we celebrate goodness and blessings in our lives by thanking God for His provision. As we do, remember what history has told us of socialism (and spare me the ignorant statements about it working in Scandinavian counties – it didn’t, which is why they left it, as their own leaders have stated). Remember that collectivism (socialism and communism), in addition to being economically catastrophic, cost nearly 100 million people their lives in the last 100 years, and be thankful America has not followed suit – yet.