The Tea Party sees Thanksgiving as a morality tale about finding salvation in Capitalism. The Pilgrims were failed Socialists who turned to Capitalism for survival. Only after foregoing communal ownership of property and allowing private ownership did the colony prosper. (Communism could also have been used, but socialism is the bogey meme du jour.)
The actual historical details are much more interesting than the Tea Party myth.
The Pilgrims formed a start-up and the Merchants and Adventurers of London were their venture capitalists. The Merchants would put up the cash for the supplies and the trip to the New World and the colonists would put up the labor. They signed a seven-year contract in which all land, livestock, lumber, furs, and other trade goods were held in partnership. At the end of the seven year period, the company was to be dissolved and the assets distributed. The Pilgrims were more like shareholders in a corporation than socialists.
Interestingly, only one Pilgrim died on the 66-day voyage. This is attributed to the fact that the Mayflower had never carried passengers, she was a “sweet ship.” Seepage from previous wine cargos had impregnated the ship’s timbers and acted like a disinfectant.
The Mayflower landed in November of 1620 and the first Thanksgiving was held in 1621. The colony’s governor, William Bradford, abolished the communal land arrangement and gave each household a parcel of land, in 1623. It seems unlikely that a colony in the grips of a famine, caused by evils of communal property ownership, would host a three-day feast. The prospects of a famine would come the following year with a devastating summer drought and the seasonal migration of fish and fowl.
Agriculture did become more profitable in following years, in part due to improved cultivation techniques of corn, a crop for which the colonists had no experience, and in part due to the increase in each individual’s exertion on their privately held land.
Two attempts to make payments to the investors were met with pirates, who captured the ships bringing back furs and timber. The investors, fearing a total loss of their investment, settled with the Pilgrims for £1800 after an investment of nearly £7000.
H/T: NY Times, New American, Dictionary of American History.
-David Drumm (Nal)
Feel free to try to doublespeak again.
No, what you did was try to imply that Marxism and socialism are somehow equivalent with that lil’ propaganda piece you followed with.
See, I consider context and totality of statements when I respond, not just the stuff you cherry pick for highlighting.
Gyges, a “mixed economy” and a free market cannot coexist. Im not the one confused by their own argument.
Right B, good one, because thats entirely different from what I said. You got me on that one.
No.
I spent three paragraphs saying that Nazis were fascists in reality and socialists in name only for propaganda purposes.
Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit.
That’s what you get when you’re home schooled – just enough skills to make you annoyingly ineffective.
Ekerya,
Actually, the answer’s in the first part of your post. They’re Communist, and depending on which version of the word socialist you use, they may even have been socialist. Other countries that are\were arguably socialist: France, Sweden, Canada, The U.S. (no really, we’re a mixed economy, which means there’s socialist elements to the U.S.), England, Spain, Rome, (Aqueducts anyone?), numerous tribal societies. Thus, “socialism’s broad spectrum of application, many of which are perfectly compatible with both democracy and most free market transactions.”
Not really that hard.
Fun fact: a certain Mr. Blair was a well known socialist and vehemently against communist dictatorships. It appears you can be for some types of socialism and against others.
http://www.george-orwell.org/l_orwell-essay.html
I highly recommend “Politics and the English Language.” Trying to frame your comments following the “rules” he puts forth in that essay is a challenge, and a great way to sharpen your understanding of your own view.
ummm B you do realize you just spent 3 paragraphs agreeing with me?
“So yes nazis do not equal socialist. ”
I humbly suggest glasses or reading comprehension. One of the two would be an improvement.
The ignorance that is astounding is entirely yours, Ms Home Schooled Happy Meal.
While Mussolini was the father of modern fascism, Hitler greatly admired him and his actions. Fascism was a major influence on the Nazis. Mussolini’s March on Rome in 1922 was an inspiration to Hitler. Less than a month after the March on Rome, Hitler had begun to model himself and the Nazi Party upon Mussolini and the Fascists. It was upon this inspiration and emulation that the Nazis attempted a similar March on Berlin which resulted in the failed Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. Although beloved by Hitler, some of the more radical Nazis like Strasser, Goebbels and Himmler disliked Italian-style Fascism as it was too conservative or capitalist for their tastes. Strasser went so far as to criticize the policy of Führerprinzip – the leader principle under which Hitler was made supreme leader – as a foreign influence created by Mussolini that had no place in Nazism.
As the Nazis gained power, they began to put their own men in charge of companies tied to the war effort, fearful that merely attacking and destroying labor unions for the capitalists wasn’t enough to ensure their willing compliance – a real concern in light the resistance they got from people like Ferdinand Porsche.
In a technical sense, Nazi Fascism is a syncretic form of fascism that incorporated ideas of both the left and the right while rejecting liberalism, democracy and Marxism. In fact, the strong anti-Marxist stance of the Nazis is what led them to vitiate the non-aggression pact with Stalin and attack the Soviet Union – one of the Reich’s biggest tactical mistakes.
The Nazis were socialists in name only and for propaganda purposes. They were totalitarian fascists in reality.
All of this is easily verifiable.
But you continue to blather and respond with more namelessly produced propaganda instead of historical facts, Ms. Home Schooled Happy Meal.
It only goes to further prove where the ignorance truly rests.
Enjoy your squeaky toy.
Bob Esq:
“You are exactly what George Orwell and Aldous Huxley warned us about.”
No way would I go for reading a persons mind. It was a question concerning Kant and his thinking on virtue that you posted.
I would be burned at the stake before I would go along with something like that. Just to be clear.
“socialism’s broad spectrum of application, many of which are perfectly compatible with both democracy and most free market transactions”
Amazing. Truly amazing. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
Anyway lets get back to your “nazis arent really socialist”. Sure the nazis called themselves socialist but acted more like fascists. They didnt seize businesses, they merely imposed severe regulations designed to control and directly dictate , when, how much, and to whom their products were distributed. Namely to the war effort. After all thats what we did in america too, with rationining and directing most of our manufacting base to the war effort. So yes nazis do not equal socialist.
Hmmm lets look at pol pot and the khmer rouge. They stacked up bodies in cambodia like there was no tommorrow. What about the butcher of cuba che guevara, who sells more t-shirts than jack skellington. How about the shining path death squads in latin america? Did you forget about those guys? And lets not forget who inspired them, the grand daddy of mass murder good old mao zedong. So maybe, just maybe, it wasnt propaganda that gave socialism a bad name. Maybe it was the staggering amount of your own people you seem to murder. Oh wait i forgot, all those dont count because they werent run how YOU would run them. I see, you would have only starved half those people to death because you have no idea how to run an economy. Im sure that will make them feel better.
Buddha,
Critical Thinking, it’s not just for breakfast anymore.
The problem is that large sections of our thought processes never got the memo.
Gyges,
I think it is both, but that the equivocation is more important to tea bagger propaganda. Because so many people don’t know that socialism has nothing to do with totalitarianism in reality and it is a value loaded word thanks to 40 years of demonization by the Right in the “name of fighting communism” (an altogether different economic proposition than socialism’s broad spectrum of application, many of which are perfectly compatible with both democracy and most free market transactions), the propagandists rely upon reflexive reactions to help propagate the meme. They are relying upon emotional reaction and not fact and/or logic. Facts and logic are, in fact, enemies of propaganda. It’s much harder to convince someone of a factual untruth than it is to appeal to emotion – also a logical fallacy.
Buddha,
Something’s been bothering me: are we dealing with equivocation, a fallacy of composition, or both?
I’m leaning towards both. As a related example: There’s that stupid argument, “Nazi’s are socialist they have “Socialist” in the name.” To anyone who knows the history of the word socialism, that’s obviously equivocation. However the extension that usually follows is a fallacy of composition “therefore all socialists want a totalitarian government.”
I guess my question is, in your opinion which of those two sides is the more important in tea-bagger rhetoric?
Gipper,
Personally I want to know what Hegel would think of the possibility of discovering an alternate universe where William Shatner had a goatee. It has just as high of a likelihood of happening as your statement that we’re close to being able to “read minds,” and is much more entertaining.
Gippers Ghost: “We cant legislate intention yet, but the technology is fast approaching to be able to read the mind.”
You are exactly what George Orwell and Aldous Huxley warned us about.
Gippers Ghost: “Would Kant make it illegal to have thoughts about stealing or other crimes punishable in law if the technology was available to read a persons mind?”
Absolutely not, since a crime requires not only mens rea but actus reus.
Bob Esq:
We cant legislate intention yet, but the technology is fast approaching to be able to read the mind.
Would Kant make it illegal to have thoughts about stealing or other crimes punishable in law if the technology was available to read a persons mind?
I guess the truly virtuous person would never have an impure thought. That is a mighty big order to fill.
Bob,
I don’t think we’re talking about a duty of virtue here but rather a duty of justice.
Bob,Esq: “A duty of virtue does not involve another person.”
Gippers Ghost: How so? Why do we want to be virtuous? Virtue is necessary in dealing with other people if we accept the premise that human beings are rational organisms. >> We cannot be virtuous in a vacuum. If there were no human beings there would be no need of being virtuous unless you defined virtue as extending your life. >> If you accept the premise of individual man extending his life though alone, then virtue would consist of following nature and obeying natures laws to remain alive.
Is that what Kant means?”
No Socrates; it’s a tad more straight forward than that.
Kant: “All duties are either duties of right, that is, juridical duties (officia juris), or duties of virtue, that is, ethical duties (officia virtutis s. ethica). Juridical duties are such as may be promulgated by external legislation; ethical duties are those for which such legislation is not possible. The reason why the latter cannot be properly made the subject of external legislation is because they relate to an end or final purpose, which is itself, at the same time, embraced in these duties, and which it is a duty for the individual to have as such. But no external legislation can cause any one to adopt a particular intention, or to propose to himself a certain purpose; for this depends upon an internal condition or act of the mind itself. However, external actions conducive to such a mental condition may be commanded, without its being implied that the individual will of necessity make them an end to himself.”
http://www.constitution.org/kant/ntrometa.htm
You guys are deep …. I’d best stick to prostitutes …
You clearly don’t understand tipping points
Sure I do.
15% is the norm, and 20% for exceptional service 🙂
and I know where it is located, China