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)
“It’s almost as important a distinction in argument as the difference between “made up definitions” and “actual definitions”.”
What has ekeyra made up? Shit, socialists make every thing up out of whole cloth with negative empirical evidence and yet they continue on the same path.
Krugman is calling for more stimulus when it is pretty apparent that it didn’t work the first time. Keynes was a third rate mind and so is Krugman.
What is that old saw about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time?
Buddha is Laughing:
the fact that you think mind reading machines will never happen is a guarantee they will. Since you are wrong on most everything you predict or “logically” determine.
But then socialists don’t really care much for reality, it always bites them in the ass.
Ekerya,
I’ll bite. What’s my position? Please Clarify it for me. Of course, being incapable of understanding my own thoughts, I’ll need you to show me where I said what.
You should really learn the difference between “twisting logic” and “kicking your ass with logic”.
It’s almost as important a distinction in argument as the difference between “made up definitions” and “actual definitions”.
B the economy is the sum total of all human interactions. You really want to state you can somehow calculate that mathematically? Id love to see you try.
Gyges if your that confused about your own position regarding socialism and free markets theres nothing i can do to help you except maybe offer some reading suggestions.
And gip i have no hopes to turn them. I just like watching how much they can twist their own logic to fit whatever their position is at any given moment. Its fun watching them dig their own graves.
No.
What you can’t argue with is people who rely upon empirical evidence and fact instead of worshiping the god of money with made up definitions to defend their faith that unlimited greed is both good and without consequence.
As to “reading your mind” technology? Until they can correlate activity (type of thought) to content (specific thought) – which is unlikely in the extreme – mind reading machines will never happen.
Gyges:
I thought I explained that above. It is only my opinion that at some point in the near future it might be possible to determine actual thoughts using this technology. Based on the link above I dont think it is that far out there.
Gipper,
I was asking if you had any citations to support your belief that controlling a mouse with your mind was similar enough to “reading minds” that the second is likely to happen soon.
It’s o.k. if the answer’s no. I don’t know or care enough to argue the subject with you. I just wanted to know what you’re basing your claims on.
Gyges:
there are many links, here is just one. It is technology which is in it’s infancy.
http://www.taranfx.com/control-computer-with-brain-waves
But I would think if one can control something it really isnt a far stretch to make to be able to read thoughts. I dont know anywhere near enough about brain physiology to know if a “normal” human brain thinks the same way. Assuming that an EEG would behave similarly having test subjects think about the same thing.
Kind of like running, we all basically run the same way. But are the neurons that enable us to run firing in the same way or in the same location from individual to individual?
Ekeyra:
Here is a section from some writings by Joseph Goebbels:
“We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!
We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!
We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!
We are for the National Socialist German Workers Party!”
I dont know, sounds to me like those darn Nazis are socialists.
But in any event socialism sucks and does necessarily take away human liberty. You are wasting your time arguing your point of view. These people are hard core leftists and are not going to be persuaded by your arguments no matter how correct you are.
Just take heart that their time is almost over. They have caused enough human misery. Time for a rebirth of liberty. Marxists/socialists/fascists dont like free markets because they cannot control people, at least the leaders are totalitarian. Followers like the people here are enraptured by the siren song of being your brothers keeper.
The fact that Greece, England, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, the US and other socialist countries are basically bankrupt is of no concern. You cannot argue with people whose minds are closed to reality.
Gipper,
Any citations to back this up: “It isnt a very large leap to then read minds. I would imagine the concept “no” has similar attributes in various individuals. As in a certain type of electrical impulse”?
Or are you just guessing?
Gyges:
there is research being done currently to translate brain waves into control of computers and other things.
It isnt a very large leap to then read minds. I would imagine the concept “no” has similar attributes in various individuals. As in a certain type of electrical impulse. So it isnt really that much of a stretch.
Ekerya,
You’re missing the modifiers, “…most free market transactions.” Those two words book-ending “free market” aren’t there for decoration, they change the meaning of the phrase.
Actually, my argument is “all communist might be considered socialist, but not all socialists can be considered communists.” There’ a famous one about squares and rectangles (or rhumbi if Bob’s around).
Since we don’t even agree on what the terms of your statement mean, how could we begin to discuss it? You have to decide what the house rules are before you deal the cards.
“B marxism and socialism are the same idea. The only difference is to which degree you would like to wreck society.”
Logical fallacy of outcome determinism based on the reality of fully functional democratic socialist economies like Canada, the UK and Sweden.
Wrong.
Just like you’re wrong about ‘calculating an economy’. Anything that can be described mathematically can be modeled and ergo calculated.
Seriously, when it comes to propaganda, you’ve brought a knife to a gun fight.
Gyges, the statement B made, and you supported, was that socialism is compatible with free markets. Which is classic example of doublespeak, holding two contradicting ideas and believing both of them at the same time. Also, if your argument is “oh theyre communist not socialist”, i refer you to my statement that you only disagree with who is in charge, not with the system that allowed those attrocities to happen.
B marxism and socialism are the same idea. The only difference is to which degree you would like to wreck society.
Noone has even addressed my intial post that the problem with socialism isnt morality or the nature of mankind, but the simple fact that you cannot “calculate” an economy. It is a problem of assembling relevant data to direct an entire nations economy. It is impossible. Even granting you dont want the government to control all sectors of the economy, giving them control over even one is bad enough. Look at the sad state of affairs regarding “national defence”.
Gyges,
I’ve read the other two, but I’ll have to take a look at “The Lion and the Unicorn”.
Buddha and Ekerya,
Just thought everyone might want to take a minute and look at the essay I suggested reading. “The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius” might also be worth a peek. Heck, let’s throw in “Why I Write,” because it’s also relevant.
Of course English Socialism is different than what Orwell advocated (he was a staunch democratic socialist). Which just goes to prove the point (of Buddha’s), “socialism’s broad spectrum of application.”
It’s almost like I brought it up for a reason.
Pardon.
SB “attempt to engage in”
You aren’t very good at it.
I mean precisely the propagandist doublespeak you engage in, Ms. Home Schooled.
Ekerya,
I don’t exactly see how that contradicts what I said. I was giving the U.S. having a mixed economy as a reason why it could be included as a socialist society, not as a reason why it could be included as a free market.
I don’t think the U.S. is a free market. That’s why I called it a mixed economy and not a free market. Now if you happen to think that it is, I’ll gladly discuss that with you, or even take it off the list of countries that could be considered socialist. It wouldn’t really change my point.
You mean like english socialism double speak? Or did you not comprehend that book either?