William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation – Property
This is just a short excerpt from a book written by William Bradford, a 15th century European colonist, detailing his experience on the plantation of Plymouth in early colonial America. Pretty much every U.S. history class talks about how the early European settlers had horrible problems with death and starvation, but from what I remember from when I was in grade school, they never actually mention WHY the colonists had such problems. History classes gave explicit details of the effects without ever mentioning the cause. As a result, students are left with an incomplete understanding of these important historical events, and no real way to avoid making the same mistakes. For those of you with kids, I highly recommend having them read this book, because they won't get this information in the public schools.
Excerpt:
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. 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 experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. 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. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. 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. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s1.html
"Of Plymouth Plantation," by William Bradford (written between 1630 and 1647)
http://amzn.to/1mvDWtV
Excerpt:
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. 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 experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. 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. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. 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. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s1.html
"Of Plymouth Plantation," by William Bradford (written between 1630 and 1647)
http://amzn.to/1mvDWtV
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean to say that "What happens in a company is collections of actions by individuals"? If so, how is that not a form of collectivism (second definition)?
But anyway, I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction between two teams playing a game of tug-o-war against each other and employees working together as a team within a company. You say the first is collectivism and the second is not, but I don't see the difference. They both seem like teamwork to me, which is the second definition of collectivism (emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity).
Please do not bother to respond any more. You bore me.
Anyway, to address your point, aren't all employees within a company bound to each other to a certain degree? After all, if the product they're working to produce (whatever it is), doesn't get finished, goes over budget, doesn't sell, etc., doesn't that have a negative impact on the entire company, and therefore all the employees? Are they not therefore bound to each other in this sense?
Well worth repeating tho'.
In the study of history and the identification of cause and effect there are many complications. In this case there are the factors of help from the Indians, the fishing potential, and Bradford's decision; most versions only mention the first.
Also, there's an issue with the doctrine of the Mormon church, which follows in very much the same line of thought as the book of Acts in the Bible:
The Book of Mormon - Fourth Nephi, Chapter 1:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/4-ne...
The case for Mormon socialism:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/513...
So yeah, this whole idea that "godlessness" supposedly leads to socialism/communism is not rational. Frankly, I see it as religious people refusing to take responsibility for their own failings, and thrusting blame on those who rejected their teachings, when really it was their teachings that were causing the problems.
However, something I've been thinking about is that there does seem to be one very specific circumstance under which collective ownership actually does appear to work, and that is the stock market. Think about it – if a company is publicly traded on the stock market, doesn't that technically qualify as collective ownership and communalism? It seems that way to me.
This has lead me to conceptualize a theory about Plato's writings that I don't think has been considered before. This may sound crazy, but hear me out. What if Plato was actually talking about some kind of ancient stock market in his writings, and people have simply misunderstood what he was talking about? Maybe I'm totally wrong, but it seems like a plausible theory to me. I dunno. What do you think?
To the stock market-it's not collective ownership. Each person has a specific interest in the company. In a collectivist society, everyone supposedly has an equal share (cough. cough) and in a collective you cannot opt out or "sell" off. In a stock market, you are deciding freely. It depends on the contract-but you would enter into it freely. I guess, we would need to agree on the definition-but a company or investors are certainly acting as a group to achieve certain goals.
In Marxist philosophy, the terms "collectivism" and "communalism" have exactly the same definition, and Ayn Rand always uses the Marxist definition of "collectivism" in her writings. But from my own understanding, the word "collective" simply means "group," and groups are certainly not antithetical towards capitalist enterprise or to a free market. As Robert Kiyosaki said in his book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad," a small business owner operates on the idea that he has to be an individual and do everything himself, while a big business owner values teamwork and cooperation.
Ayn Rand apparently believed that collectivism was always equatable to Communism, while individualism was always equatable to Capitalism. However, Ayn Rand never actually owned or operated a business of any size, and a significant amount of what she says is out of sync with the writings of people who have. Many real life big business owners say things that are totally opposite of Ayn Rand's philosophy. For example:
“The day of combination is here to stay. Individualism has gone, never to return.”
~ John D. Rockefeller
Basically I'm just saying that Ayn Rand didn't totally understand that "collectivism" could potentially have other meanings besides the definition that was used by Karl Marx.
Communists, by contrast, would combine their commune with the government, and try to eliminate money from the system and use Marx's labor theory of value instead, in which value is based on the number of hours taken to do a job. Workers would receive no money in a Communist commune, but instead would be given rations of basic commodities needed to survive. These rations would be equal for everyone, regardless of how hard any individual worked.
That's my theory, anyway. It's just something to think about.
Collectivism: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution.
Since companies vest control in an organizational hierarchy (you might be able to find an example where that isn't true, but even the Starnes Motor Company had the Starnes siblings as owners and a board), ipso facto, they cannot be a collectivist organization.
COLLECTIVISM
col·lec·tiv·ism – noun – \kə-ˈlek-ti-ˌvi-zəm\
: a political or economic system in which the government owns businesses, land, etc.
1 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Hmmm, it looks like the term "collectivism," like most other words in the English language, has more than one definition. I guess the confusion here is over the distinction between definitions #1 and #2. Pretty much every business could be classified as "collectivist" under the second definition, but only some could under the first.
Anyway, thanks for clearing that up!