The Pilgrims

[Publius]

http://www.hooverdigest.org/991/bethell.html

How Private Property Saved the Pilgrims

When the Pilgrims landed in 1620, they established a system of communal property. Within three years they had scrapped it, instituting private property instead. Tom Bethell tells the story.

There are three configurations of property rights: state, communal, and private property. Within a family, many goods are in effect communally owned. But when the number of communal members exceeds normal family size, as happens in tribes and communes, serious and intractable problems arise. It becomes costly to police the activities of the members, all of whom are entitled to their share of the total product of the community, whether they work or not. This is the free-rider problem, and it is the most important institutional reason tribes and communes cannot rise above subsistence level (except in special circumstances, such as monasteries).

State ownership, as we saw in the Soviet Union, has its own problems. For these reasons, private property is the only institutional arrangement that will permit a society to be productive, peaceful, free, and just. The free-rider problem was plainly demonstrated at Plymouth Colony in 1620, when the Mayflower arrived in the New World. Contrary to the Pilgrims’ wishes, their initial ownership arrangement was communal property.

Desiring to practice their religion as they wished, the Pilgrims emigrated in 1609 from England to Holland, then the only country in Europe that permitted freedom of worship. They found life in Holland to be in many respects satisfactory. But war with Spain was a constant threat, and the Pilgrims did not want their children to grow up Dutch. They longed to start afresh in “those vast and unpeopled countries of America,” as William Bradford would later write in his history, Of Plymouth Plantation. There, they could look forward to propagating and advancing “the gospel of the kingdom of Christ.”

Thirty years old when he arrived in the New World, Bradford became the second governor of Plymouth (the first died within weeks of the Mayflower’s arrival) and the most important figure in the early years of the colony. He recorded in his history the key passage on property relations in Plymouth and the way in which they were changed. His is the only surviving account of these matters.

DRIVING A HARD BARGAIN

The Pilgrims knew about the early disasters at Jamestown, but the more adventurous among them were willing to hazard the Atlantic anyway. First, however, they sent two emissaries, John Carver and Robert Cushman, from Leyden to London to seek permission to found a plantation. This was granted, but finding investors was a problem. Eventually Carver and Cushman found an investment syndicate headed by a London ironmonger named Thomas Weston. Weston and his fifty-odd investors were taking a big risk in putting up the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars in today’s money. The big losses in Jamestown had scared off most “venture capital” in London.

Those waiting for news in Leyden were concerned that their agents in London would, in their eagerness to find investors, agree to unfavorable terms. Carver and Cushman were admonished “not to exceed the bounds of your commission.” They were particularly enjoined not to “entangle yourselves and us in any such unreasonable [conditions as that] the merchants should have the half of men’s houses and lands at the dividend.”

Eventually, however, Carver and Cushman did accept terms stipulating that at the end of seven years everything would be divided equally between investors and colonists. Some historians claim that those who came over on the Mayflower were exploited by capitalists. In a sense, they were. But of course they came voluntarily.

The colonists hoped that the houses they built would be exempt from the division of wealth at the end of seven years; in addition, they sought two days a week in which to work on their own “particular” plots (much as collective farmers later had their own private plots in the Soviet Union). The Pilgrims would thereby avoid servitude. But the investors refused to allow these loopholes, undoubtedly worried that if the Pilgrims—three thousand miles away and beyond the reach of supervision—owned their own houses and plots, the investors would find it difficult to collect their due. How could they be sure that the faraway colonists would spend their days working for the company if they were allowed to become private owners? With such an arrangement, rational colonists would work little on “company time,” reserving their best efforts for their own gardens and houses. Such private wealth would be exempt when the shareholders were paid off. Only by insisting that all accumulated wealth was to be “common wealth,” or placed in a common pool, could the investors feel reassured that the colonists would be working to benefit everyone, including themselves.

The investors unquestionably had profit in mind when they insisted on common property. The Pilgrims went along because they had little choice.

Those waiting in Leyden objected to this arrangement. If the Pilgrims were not permitted private dwellings, “the building of good and fair houses” would be discouraged, they wrote back to London. Robert Cushman was thus caught in a cross-fire between profit-seeking investors in London and his worried Leyden brethren, who accused him of “making conditions fitter for thieves and bondslaves than honest men.”

Cushman responded with an artful case for common ownership: “Our purpose is to build for the present such houses as, if need be, we may with little grief set afire and run away by the light. Our riches shall not be in pomp but in strength; if God send us riches we will employ them to provide more men, ships, munition, etc.”

Common ownership would also “foster communion” among the Pilgrims, he thought (wrongly). Having held discussions with the investors, who seem to have been unyielding, Cushman wanted to close the deal. So he tried to persuade his brethren not to worry about the property arrangements. Those still in Leyden remained unconvinced and unreconciled to the terms, but there was little they could do. Many had already sold their property in Holland and so had no bargaining power.

It is worth emphasizing all this because it is sometimes said that the Pilgrims in Massachusetts established a colony with common property in emulation of the early Christians. Not so. It is true that their agent Cushman used arguments that were calculated to appeal to Christians—in particular warning them against the perils of prosperity—in order to justify his acceptance of unpopular terms. No doubt he felt that a bad deal was better than none. But the investors themselves unquestionably had profit in mind when they insisted on common property. The Pilgrims went along because they had little choice.

The Pilgrims may have been “exploited,” but a greater source of hardship was the harsh environment of the North American continent. This needs to be stressed, given the tendency to regard the wealth of the United States as a product of “abundant natural resources” and the equally erroneous association of the Mayflower and those who arrived in it with the idea of privilege.

THE COMMUNAL EXPERIMENT

The Mayflower arrived at Cape Cod in November 1620 with 101 people on board. About half of them died within the first few months, probably of scurvy, pneumonia, or malnutrition. It is not easy for us to grasp the hardships that the first settlers in this country experienced, even in New England, where the native American Indians were relatively friendly.

By the spring of 1623, the population of Plymouth can have been no larger than 150. But the colony was still barely able to feed itself, and little cargo was returning for the investors in England. On one occasion newcomers found that there was no bread at all, only fish or a piece of lobster and water. “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,” Bradford wrote in his key passage on property.

Having tried what Bradford called the “common course and condition”—the communal stewardship of the land demanded of them by their investors—Bradford reports that the community was afflicted by an unwillingness to work, by confusion and discontent, by a loss of mutual respect, and by a prevailing sense of slavery and injustice. And this among “godly and sober men.” In short, the experiment was a failure that was endangering the health of the colony.

Historian George Langdon argues that the condition of early Plymouth was not “communism” but “an extreme form of exploitative capitalism in which all the fruits of men’s labor were shipped across the seas.” In this he echoes Samuel Eliot Morison, who claims that “it was not communism . . . but a very degrading and onerous slavery to the English capitalists that was somewhat softened.” Notice that this does not agree with the dissension that Bradford reports, however. It was between the colonists themselves that the conflicts arose, not between the colonists and the investors in London. Morison and Langdon conflate two separate problems. On the one hand, it is true that the colonists did feel “exploited” by the investors because they were eventually expected to surrender to them an undue portion of the wealth they were trying to create. It is as though they felt that they were being “taxed” too highly by their investors—at a 50 percent rate, in fact.

But there was another problem, separate from the “tax” burden. Bradford’s comments make it clear that common ownership demoralized the community far more than the tax. It was not Pilgrims laboring for investors that caused so much distress but Pilgrims laboring for other Pilgrims. Common property gave rise to internecine conflicts that were much more serious than the transatlantic ones. The industrious (in Plymouth) were forced to subsidize the slackers (in Plymouth). The strong “had no more in division of victuals and clothes” than the weak. The older men felt it disrespectful to be “equalized in labours” with the younger men.

This suggests that a form of communism was practiced at Plymouth in 1621 and 1622. No doubt this equalization of tasks was thought (at first) the only fair way to solve the problem of who should do what work in a community where there was to be no individual property: If everyone were to end up with an equal share of the property at the end of seven years, everyone should presumably do the same work throughout those seven years. The problem that inevitably arose was the formidable one of policing this division of labor: How to deal with those who did not pull their weight?

The Pilgrims had encountered the free-rider problem. Under the arrangement of communal property one might reasonably suspect that any additional effort might merely substitute for the lack of industry of others. And these “others” might well be able-bodied, too, but content to take advantage of the communal ownership by contributing less than their fair share. As we shall see, it is difficult to solve this problem without dividing property into individual or family-sized units. And this was the course of action that William Bradford wisely took.

PROPERTY IS PRIVATIZED

Bradford’s history of the colony records the decision:

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 in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number.

So the land they worked was converted into private property, which brought “very good success.” The colonists immediately became responsible for their own actions (and those of their immediate families), not for the actions of the whole community. Bradford also suggests in his history that more than land was privatized.

The system became self-policing. Knowing that the fruits of his labor would benefit his own family and dependents, the head of each household was given an incentive to work harder. He could know that his additional efforts would help specific people who depended on him. In short, the division of property established a proportion or “ratio” between act and consequence. Human action is deprived of rationality without it, and work will decline sharply as a result.

Under communal land stewardship, Bradford reports, the community was afflicted by an unwillingness to work, by confusion and discontent, by a loss of mutual respect, and by a prevailing sense of slavery and injustice.

William Bradford died in 1657, having been reelected governor nearly every year. Among his books, according to the inventory of his estate, was Jean Bodin’s Six Books of a Commonweale, a work that criticized the utopianism of Plato’s Republic. In Plato’s ideal realm, private property would be abolished or curtailed and most inhabitants reduced to slavery, supervised by high-minded, ascetic guardians. Bodin said that communal property was “the mother of contention and discord” and that a commonwealth based on it would perish because “nothing can be public where nothing is private.”

Bradford felt that, in retrospect, his real-life experience of building a new society at Plymouth had confirmed Bodin’s judgment. Property in Plymouth was further privatized in the years ahead. The housing and later the cattle were assigned to separate families, and provision was made for the inheritance of wealth. The colony flourished. Plymouth Colony was absorbed into the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and in the prosperous years that lay ahead, nothing more was heard of “the common course and condition.”

Excerpted and adapted from The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages, by Tom Bethell. Copyright Tom Bethell. Reprinted with permission of St. Martin’s Press, Incorporated.

Available from the Hoover Press is The Essence of Friedman, a volume of essays by Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman. To order, call 800-935-2882.

Tom Bethell is a media fellow at the Hoover Institution and Washington correspondent for the American Spectator.

[cormacobear]

First of all the Americas were not "Unpeopled"

What he describes as communal ownership isn't, because they remained in debt to investors. If five people share a house that was bought withna mortgage the five people don't own the house the bank does as it was their capital that paid for it. He assumes there were Freeloaders but provides no evidence of this.

"State ownership, as we saw in the Soviet Union, has its own problems. For these reasons, private property is the only institutional arrangement that will permit a society to be productive, peaceful, free, and just. "

What problems saying something doesn't make it true you need to prove it.
Crime rates in private property states are much higher than in state ownership nations, therefore not peacefull. The poor in private ownership situations do not have the freedom to travel to organize (unionize) and often lack even the freedom to exist because they lack the capital to do these things, thus private property enables freedom for some. Is it just that many starve while a few hoard.

it is true that the colonists did feel “exploited” by the investors because they were eventually expected to surrender to them an undue portion of the wealth they were trying to create.

I wouldn't work too hard either.

[Publius]

First of all the Americas were not "Unpeopled"

What he describes as communal ownership isn't, because they remained in debt to investors. If five people share a house that was bought withna mortgage the five people don't own the house the bank does as it was their capital that paid for it. He assumes there were Freeloaders but provides no evidence of this.

"State ownership, as we saw in the Soviet Union, has its own problems. For these reasons, private property is the only institutional arrangement that will permit a society to be productive, peaceful, free, and just. "

What problems saying something doesn't make it true you need to prove it.
Crime rates in private property states are much higher than in state ownership nations, therefore not peacefull. The poor in private ownership situations do not have the freedom to travel to organize (unionize) and often lack even the freedom to exist because they lack the capital to do these things, thus private property enables freedom for some. Is it just that many starve while a few hoard.

it is true that the colonists did feel “exploited” by the investors because they were eventually expected to surrender to them an undue portion of the wealth they were trying to create.

I wouldn't work too hard either.

If you want to read more about this topic purchase or borrow "How Capitalism Saved America" by Thomas DiLorenzo or The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages by Tom Bethell.

There were freeloaders. As they were starving, people preffered to play in the streets than work.

So basically, they weren't able to pay off their debt through communal labor but were through private labor.

[STI]

You're an idiot. The pilgrims live in a pre-industrialized society. There's pretty much no parallel. Try again (and next time, write the damn thing yourself!)

[cormacobear]

All this shows is that people don't like working to make the rich richer.
That collectively they refused to give over half of their labour to one man who had done no labour, but when set against one another in competition for survival under the conditions of private property; the one wealthy man succesfully maniplulated the populace to give over half their labour to make himself, already rich, richer haveing done no labour himself

[Publius]

You're an idiot. The pilgrims live in a pre-industrialized society. There's pretty much no parallel. Try again (and next time, write the damn thing yourself!)

So because people are working a lathe instead of a rake, their going to work for society?

That was weak, it really was.

What has changed in the last 300 years that would make people behave differently?

Why would I write it myself when articles on the topic already exist than are infinetely better than anything I could write?

[Publius]

All this shows is that people don't like working to make the rich richer.
That collectively they refused to give over half of their labour to one man who had done no labour, but when set against one another in competition for survival under the conditions of private property; the one wealthy man succesfully maniplulated the populace to give over half their labour to make himself, already rich, richer haveing done no labour himself

They collectively chose to starve to death? No they didn't, they were just lazy.

They weren't set against one another. You're reffering to capitalism. This wasn't capitalism. This was the use of private property to sustain you and your family. There was no capital involved, they didn't even have a currency.

One wealthy man? He wasn't wealth. He was a pilgrim who was elected leader and didn't feel like starving to death.

Read the article and comprehend it before commenting, please.

[STI]

So because people are working a lathe instead of a rake, their going to work for society?

With industrialization, the class relations of, well, everywhere, changed dramatically.

And also, people have to work much less than they did in the 'olden days' to produce the same amount.


That was weak, it really was.

This coming from the guy who doesn't have enough confidence in himself to post something that he actually wrote, deciding instead to rip off the work of another person.


What has changed in the last 300 years that would make people behave differently?

The means of production, the relations of production, the easiness of pwning you.


Why would I write it myself when articles on the topic already exist than are infinetely better than anything I could write?

That was my point. You know that it's a shitty idea and you know it looks much better when it's "well-written" (especially if there's a nice name attached to it).

[Publius]

With industrialization, the class relations of, well, everywhere, changed dramatically.

And also, people have to work much less than they did in the 'olden days' to produce the same amount.


How did class relations change? They were "exploited" then and they are "exploited" now as your fellow pinko pointed out.

So the amount changed.

So basically, when something was collective, it didn't work and when it was private, it did.

And your refuation of this is "things changed". Ace work.



This coming from the guy who doesn't have enough confidence in himself to post something that he actually wrote, deciding instead to rip off the work of another person.

If I wrote this exact same article, how would you have reacted differently?


The means of production, the relations of production, the easiness of pwning you.


I'm not arguing those first 2 and last one didn't change at all, my pwning is, was, and will always be impossible.

Tell me, how do those changes really effect todays corn production? Would collective corn growing have the same results today?



That was my point. You know that it's a shitty idea and you know it looks much better when it's "well-written" (especially if there's a nice name attached to it).

How is it a "shitty idea". It's an essay about the pilgrims. Are the pilgrims shitty ideas?

Is the "shitty idea" that collectivization doesn't work? Can you provide evidence that it does or are you going to continue to flail around like a chicken with it's head cut off?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Ammusingly, the indiginous peoples of America, who European colonists began displacing, seem to have managed communal property rather well . . .

The insights made by cormacobear the about rather crucial differences in condition are likewise of some importance.


How did class relations change? They were "exploited" then and they are "exploited" now as your fellow pinko pointed out.

The relationship between farmer, essentially petit-bourgeois, and creditor is rather different in kind than the relationship between proletarian (who does not own the means of production) and bourgeois owner. The relationship to the means by which wealth is produced (Be it land, factory, or any other method) is different, and, thus, the comparison is relatively silly.


Are the pilgrims shitty ideas?

Actually, yes. I rather wish the Puritan scumfucks had sunk. Pourquoi?

[Hampton]

I blame the Puritans for last call.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Tom Bethell
The industrious (in Plymouth) were forced to subsidize the slackers (in Plymouth). The strong “had no more in division of victuals and clothes” than the weak. The older men felt it disrespectful to be “equalized in labours” with the younger men.

The 2nd and 3rd sentences in that paragraph do not support the first; in fact they contradict it.

A stronger man will nearly always be more "productive" than a weaker man...and thus always appear "more industrious".

A younger man will nearly always be more "productive" than an older man...and thus also appear "more industrious".

The charge of "slacker" and "free rider" is an attempt to cloak the physical differences in humans with the garb of "morality"...something you'd expect from religious nutballs.

The truth of the matter is that all the Pilgrims likely worked their asses off...a "lazy farmer" is an oxymoron. A genuinely "lazy Pilgrim" would have stayed in the Netherlands.

The decision to grow their own corn is what "saved" the colony...not privatization.

What privatization accomplished was the institutionalization of the differences in humans found in nature itself.

Thus families headed by or partially consisting of strong, healthy men prospered, growing stronger and healthier still. Weaker men (and their families) grew poorer...which only added to their weakness, of course.

The weaker men probably eventually ended up as semi-serfs (agricultural laborers) of the stronger...or else just died out.

It reminds me of a theologian I happened to read years ago. He pointed out that the "most grievous sin" of an era was always the one most distant from the sin of the rulers themselves.

Thus the defenders of capital preach endless sermons "against sloth"...while remaining discreetly silent about gluttony. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Paradox]

Is the "shitty idea" that collectivization doesn't work? Can you provide evidence that it does or are you going to continue to flail around like a chicken with it's head cut off?

Ever heard of Native Americans? Land ownership was communal, NOT INDIVIDUAL. What do you think the Dawes Act was for? It was the government's attempt to destory tribal/communal ownership and make the Indians into individual land owners by giving individual families or individuals their own plots of land. It also tried to destroy our Native spiritual beliefs and make us into "good civilized christians." :angry: Anyway, the Indigenous peoples were successful in communal ownership... til the Europeans came and stole their lands, slaughtered them, nearly destroyed their cultures, and tried to make them "white."


Congressman Henry Dawes had great faith in the civilizing power of private property. He said that to be civilized was to "wear civilized clothes ... cultivate the ground, live in houses, ride in Studebaker wagons, send children to school, drink whiskey [and] own property." This act was designed to turn Indians into farmers, in the hopes they would become more like mainstream America.

The federal government divided communal tribal lands into 160-acre parcels -- known as allotments -- and gave them to individual tribal members.

http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/frames.../0701_0143.html (http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/stories/0701_0143.html)

Drink whiskey and own property? Well, we all know the effects of alcohol on the Natives, and it was used during treaties so that the Natives wouldn't realize what they were signing. Own property? Yes, abandon your Native cultures and be like whites (if you don't voluntarily, we'll force you to). And look how we turned out. We live on reservations with bad health services, plagued by poverty and a lack of jobs, bad housing conditions, depression is now common, and the highest suicide rate of any ethnic group in the country. But hey, at least now we're civilized. :rolleyes:

[Paradox]

Bradford reports that the community was afflicted by an unwillingness to work, by confusion and discontent, by a loss of mutual respect, and by a prevailing sense of slavery and injustice.

A prevailing sense of slavery and injustice? Hmm... What was that thing that they did to the Africans? Oh yeah! They enslaved them! Go figure. :rolleyes:

[Publius]

They had private ownership, just not private land ownership.

Also, many Indians were nomadic so land ownership would have served them no purpose.

Furthermore, they clearly had the concept of land existance as they fought each other for land to hunt and fish on.

If they didn't believe in land ownership, they shouldn't have a problem giving it to us. It's not theft if it wasn't theirs to begin with. Either they recognized the land as theirs and it was stolen and they didn't so it wasn't. Clearly they did.

They didn't practice it because they didn't need to. They were small, closesly knit groups of people living in a heirical society where rules could be easily and brutally enforced.

Sharing things with people you intimatally know is not the same as sharing with a bunch of strangers.

It's true, they had a communal land system but this was practical only because of their lifestyle. They hunted as a group to improve efficiency and shared the food. If you didn't work, you didn't get anything, they would cast you out of the tribe.

Basically, they made you pull your weight through an authoritarian government.

And you're an atheist so you have no right to whine about a religion being stolen. You should be cheering.

[Paradox]

If they didn't believe in land ownership, they shouldn't have a problem giving it to us.

They didn't believe in INDIVIDUAL LAND OWNERSHIP. LAND WAS COMMUNALLY OWNED. LAND WAS NOT GIVEN, IT WAS STOLEN YOU BIGOT PIECE OF SHIT!!!


And you're an atheist so you have no right to whine about a religion being stolen. You should be cheering.

DON'T YOU EVEN DARE START THIS SHIT. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST, YOU STEREOTYPYING MOTHER FUCKER. I BELIEVE IN GOD. I CALL HIM OMETEOTL. THAT'S HIS MEXICA/AZTEC NAME. ONLY ONE CREATOR, NOT MULTIPLE GODS LIKE STUPID ASS CHRISTIANS TRY TO SAY IN ORDER JUSTIFY THEIR TREATMENT OF MY ANCESTORS, AND THE PEOPLE ON MANY RESERVATIONS TODAY. I ALSO CALL GOD WAKAN TANKA, WHICH IS HIS LAKOTA NAME. DON'T YOU EVEN TRY TO QUESTION MY BELIEFS OR TALK ABOUT ME LIKE YOU KNOW ME, CUZ YOU DON'T, YOU ARROGANT PIECE OF SHIT.

[Paradox]

Basically, they made you pull your weight through an authoritarian government.

Yeah, I guess that's why they had practically no problems with crime, no police, no prisons and such. They really had to beat the people into submission. Taking food wasn't even considered stealing because food was free for everyone. If for some reason someone didn't have any food, they could freely take some. I suggest you read up on the subject before you start talking shit. Here are some books for you to read if you care to:

Wisdom of the Native Americans

The Hopi Survival Kit

American Indian Prophecies

God Is Red

Also check this site:

http://www.mexica-movement.org

Excuse the reverse discrimination, and the anti-Marxist sentiments in the piece on Frida Kahlo. It's a good site to learn the true beliefs and accomplishments of the people of Anahuac.

[Paradox]

PHUN KOMMIE FAKT OF THE DAY!:

Communists like to share the means of production!

In 1990, the USSR Academy of Sciences reported that "Losses of the objects of labor total approximately 70 percent" and "losses during the use of the means of labor [tools, hammers, materials] total 40 to 50 percent"

Taken from "Eat the Rich" by P.J. O'Rourke

See kids? In a Kommunist society, everyone shares and selfishness is abolished!



Yet another display of ignorance and unwillingness to learn the basics. The USSR WAS NOT COMMUNIST!!! Think about it! USSR stands for United SOCIALIST Soviet Republics! Socialism and Communism are DIFFERENT! And depending on who you talk to, some say that Socialist isn't even accurate to describe the USSR. They say it was state capitalist. Communism for the thousandth time is STATELESS, CLASSLESS, AND MONEYLESS! Honestly, I don't know why we waste our time telling you this, cuz you obviously never listen. That or you do it on purpose to piss us off. I'm inclined to think it's the latter, and if it is, it's working.

[Publius]

Do you expect me to respond to that?

And I'm sure your marxist friends support your pagan religion since it's one of the chief goals of communism to destroy religion.

[Publius]

Yet another display of ignorance and unwillingness to learn the basics. The USSR WAS NOT COMMUNIST!!! Think about it! USSR stands for United SOCIALIST Soviet Republics! Socialism and Communism are DIFFERENT! And depending on who you talk to, some say that Socialist isn't even accurate to describe the USSR. They say it was state capitalist. Communism for the thousandth time is STATELESS, CLASSLESS, AND MONEYLESS! Honestly, I don't know why we waste our time telling you this, cuz you obviously never listen. That or you do it on purpose to piss us off. I'm inclined to think it's the latter, and if it is, it's working.

None of that has anything to do with the point of my sig.

When given the oppurtunity, people will steal, capitalism, socialism, communism, it's all the same old story of man harming man, just in different guises.

At least capitalism gives me the freedom to live my life separate from a domineering "society" that would better serve my purposes by dying.

Freedom and oppression over slavery and oppression.

[Paradox]

And I'm sure your marxist friends support your pagan religion since it's one of the chief goals of communism to destroy religion.

I'm still part of the forum, aren't I? People know my beliefs and they still talk to me. They're cool with it. They themselves for the most part may be atheists, but I'm not going to go oppressing people with my Native spiritual views. I believe them on my own. I want Communism just as much as they do, so most of the people I talk to here don't care that I believe in God.

[Publius]

If they weren't so starved for members things might be differnent.

Their materialism doesn't allow them to believe in God. You can't be a marxist materialist and a theist. They aren't compatible.

[Paradox]

When given the oppurtunity, people will steal, capitalism, socialism, communism, it's all the same old story of man harming man, just in different guises.

So what, you think people steal just to hurt other people? Stealing in Communism would be pointless, seeing that goods would be distributed freely, as there would be no money.


Freedom and oppression over slavery and oppression.

And the people who slave in unsafe factories for a few cents making shoes and clothing that people here pay 100+ dollars for? Or the farm workers who still struggle for better pay and better working conditions? Perhaps you don't know that the United Farm Workers have a website. And the Natives on many reservations such as Pine Ridge? You'd think you were in a third world country visiting some of those reservations. And all the people who can't afford healthcare and decent food? My dad worked two jobs and we were still just getting by. And thanks to stress from working those jobs and lack of sleep, again from those two jobs, he had 2 heartattacks. He's since recovered, but can't find any work. He had to go to a temporary work agency, where they had him doing physically strenuous work, which he did against his doctor's advice, because it was all he could find. From there he worked for company that worked for Apple comupters. The management there discriminated against Mexicans and Asians. Some of those workers came in late a couple of times so they them go, but the management themselves came in late and were lazy on the job. My dad expressed his opposition to this, by reporting it, and so the company let him go, saying that "they had more people than they needed." But just a couple of weeks later, they had already found someone to replace him. Now he's been applying to places like crazy, going to interviews, but still, no one has hired him, and he's running out of unemployment. Lot of freedom that is. We can't even afford healthy food. A doctor told my mother to stay away from ground beef, but that's all we can afford. Yeah, a lot of freedom we have. And think of all the food that grocery stores throw away cuz it just sits there and nobody buys it. It's like they don't know that like a billion people starving to death. What a shame.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
Do you expect me to respond to that?

Actually, I'd like to see you respond to this...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ndpost&p=507414 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33296&view=findpost&p=507414)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

Either that or they just weren't doing the same amount of work and they were getting the same wage.

It seems so expressly simple, when they grew all their corn in one collective plot, they starved, when they grew their own corn, they prospered.

How is "lazy farmer" an oxymoron? I lived on a farm. I would know.

What more likely happend is everyone propered, as growing enough corn to support yourself is so pitifully easy a child could do it. It inolves sticking some seeds in the ground, hoeing any weeds, collecting the corn.

That's it. No amount of physicial exertion is required, anyone from 10 to 60 could it. What happend was, people said "Joe down the street will cover for me" and stayed home and dicked off. Most of them did this. Very little corn was raised, it was devided up, they all starved.

When privatized, everyone grew enough corn for his family AND enough to pay the taxes, more than was being done before.

They started from an equal point, and any diversion from that is a result of man's actions, espescially when doing something as easy as raising corn. If you can't support yourself doing that, you don't deserve me help unless you are disabled or otherwise handicapped.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

There's a difference between recongnising possession, and use of land, and reconising the private ownership of land, numbnuts.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 02:04 AM
If they weren't so starved for members things might be differnent.

Their materialism doesn't allow them to believe in God. You can't be a marxist materialist and a theist. They aren't compatible.
Um, actually it is, though perhaps the majority of followers aren't able to see it in the same way. I'm a theist and a leftist, I don't see how economic and social equality conflict with the idea of a higher power. I think more than anything, leftists are concerned with the way religion is put into practice. We can see historically in Latin America, for example, one of the main tactics used by the wealthy class and the church to control the peasants was the idea of an afterlife where they would be the preferred people of God. By doing this, the peasants thought "Well, I guess I can wait until then and just suffer for the time being". Leftists simply believe that we need to fight for justice now and not concern ourselves with what happens after death, and too many theists are stagnant in regard to such action. We need to strive for the goodwill of the earth, not hope that something nice comes afterward. That is the problem that Marxism has with religion, though it is completely feasible to believe in God and agree with our ideas. Essentially, we look down on people's dependence on the church as a median for one's personal faith. I, as a Mexican-American raised Catholic, have always questioned why a priest has such a divine power to communicate with God that I must go to him for confession instead of directly to God himself. Believing in God is fine, depending on an institution to affirm and direct your faith for you is not.

Now, regarding your post, I think that most Communists would agree that those who are able but aren't willing to contribute to society shouldn't expect its support or acceptance. So your theory that Socialism/Communism don't work because people will choose not to work is ludicrous. Obviously, there are points that I did not address, though I feel they have already been answered by other members better than I myself could.

[Xvall]

The Pilgrims also massacred natives in order to support and sustain themselves. Let's do that too!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)It seems so expressly simple, when they grew all their corn in one collective plot, they starved, when they grew their own corn, they prospered.[/b]

It seems "expressly simple" because you misread the article.


Tom Bethell
“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,” Bradford wrote in his key passage on property.

Evidently, they did not grow their own corn at all -- privatization and growing corn were simultaneous events. Since an earlier passage mentions bread, perhaps they were growing rye or what would later be called "winter wheat".


What more likely happened is everyone prospered, as growing enough corn to support yourself is so pitifully easy a child could do it. It involves sticking some seeds in the ground, hoeing any weeds, collecting the corn.

I suspect a real farmer would provide a fairly scathing response to your words.

Meanwhile, I would surmise that the corn raised by Pilgrims was "Indian corn"...not anything remotely resembling modern varieties of corn.


What happened was, people said "Joe down the street will cover for me" and stayed home and dicked off. Most of them did this.

With comments like that, you have no future in the fields of history or sociology.

On the other hand, that is the sort of nonsense that a bourgeois professor of economics would utter...so you might want to go in that direction "career-wise".


They started from an equal point, and any diversion from that is a result of man's actions...

The actions of young, strong, healthy men do not have the same outcome as those who are less endowed when it comes to productive agricultural labor.

This is so obvious that I'm astonished that you attempt to trivialize or simply evade it.

You may indeed have lived on a farm...but it's pretty clear you weren't paying much attention.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:04 PM
If they weren't so starved for members things might be differnent.

Their materialism doesn't allow them to believe in God. You can't be a marxist materialist and a theist. They aren't compatible.
Starved for members? 387 new members were registered in the month of January 2005. It's the second highest number ever.

Otherwise, you are correct. Marxism excludes all possibility of the supernatural; it is entirely materialist.

Our general rule here, by the way, is to discuss matters relating to religion in sub-forum at the top of the OI page.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

It seems "expressly simple" because you misread the article.

This article isn't the only I've read on it. They grew their corn in a collective plot originally.



Evidently, they did not grow their own corn at all -- privatization and growing corn were simultaneous events. Since an earlier passage mentions bread, perhaps they were growing rye or what would later be called "winter wheat".

They grew corn, among other things. They paid off their debt, however, in corn.



I suspect a real farmer would provide a fairly scathing response to your words.

Meanwhile, I would surmise that the corn raised by Pilgrims was "Indian corn"...not anything remotely resembling modern varieties of corn.

"Real farmers" like the people I grew up around did a lot more than grow corn. And I would say most of them would be completely opposed to your ideology so your point is for naught.

"Indian corn" resembles modern corn exactly, except it hasn't been bred as well. It wasn't as hearty, but it was the same thing.



With comments like that, you have no future in the fields of history or sociology.

Or:

"Consider 10 workers who share ownership of the land and who collectively produce 100 bushels of corn, averaging 10 bushels each for consumption. Suppose that one worker begins to shirk and cuts his labor effort in half, rducing out putput by 5. The shirke'rs consumption, like the other workers', is now 9.5(95/10) bushels thanks to the shared arrangement. Though his effort has fallen 50 percent, his consumption falls only 5 percent. The shirker is free riding on the labors of others. The incentive for each worker, in fact, is to free ride, and this lowers the total effort and total output"

History of the American Economy, Gary M. Walton and Hugh Rockoff

Hmm. With comments exactly like that Gary Walton and Hugh Rockoff did quite well in history and sociology.

Is there anything wrong with that model?



On the other hand, that is the sort of nonsense that a bourgeois professor of economics would utter...so you might want to go in that direction "career-wise".

Thanks for the advice.


The actions of young, strong, healthy men do not have the same outcome as those who are less endowed when it comes to productive agricultural labor.

This is so obvious that I'm astonished that you attempt to trivialize or simply evade it.

You may indeed have lived on a farm...but it's pretty clear you weren't paying much attention.

That doesn't contradict anything I said. Yes, I know some people are inherently unequal due to weakness or age, but attempting to equalize everyone is foolish and impossible. How can it be done? The current system seems to do it well enough.

[Publius]

This is the internet, not the real world. If that number meant anything, there would be gaming forums that could defeat you in a revolution.

[redstar2000]

Well, to start with, it would seem that Tom Bethell, you and I are all confused about what the Pilgrims grew.

"Corn" in the Pilgrim vernacular, was what we would call wheat.

"Indian corn" was indeed different from modern corn.

And the pilgrims evidently did not do as badly under "collectivization" as Bethell implies.

http://members.aol.com/calebj/thanksgiving.html

And then there's this odd detail...


They sailed from Plymouth, England and aboard were 44 Pilgrims, who called themselves the "Saints", and 66 others ,whom the Pilgrims called the "Strangers."

The long trip led to many disagreements between the "Saints" and the "Strangers". After land was sighted a meeting was held and an agreement was worked out, called the Mayflower Compact, which guaranteed equality and unified the two groups. They joined together and named themselves the "Pilgrims."

http://www.holidays.net/thanksgiving/pilgrims.htm

What would you like to bet that the "slackers" were previously known as the "strangers"?

And were you aware that this whole account of "the miracle of privatization" is based on a single document -- there's nothing else there at all.


Originally posted by Publius
Is there anything wrong with that model?

Nothing wrong with the math.

If the "pure economic man" of capitalist ideologues actually existed, it would be a good description of reality.

However, that man has yet to be discovered outside the corporate boardroom...and thus does not seem to be a statistically significant representative of human behavior.


And I would say most of them [farmers] would be completely opposed to your ideology so your point is for naught.

No argument there; the remaining individual farmers in the "west" are what the Russians called "kulaks" -- rich peasants with a reactionary ideology. Fortunately, it is capitalism itself that is "liquidating them as a class" -- I expect that by the time of the revolution itself, 99.99% of all farming in the U.S. will be done by corporations.


Yes, I know some people are inherently unequal due to weakness or age, but attempting to equalize everyone is foolish and impossible. How can it be done? The current system seems to do it well enough.

"Foolish and impossible"? The feudal aristocrats once said the same thing...yet we seem to get along without "lords" just fine.

Why can't we get along without capitalists?

"How can it be done?" Obviously it can't be done under primitive economic conditions -- you require a level of technological development far beyond that of the Pilgrims.

The current system is a big improvement over feudalism...but it is not "well enough".

Obviously.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Dysfunctional_Literate]

The strong “had no more in division of victuals and clothes” than the weak. The older men felt it disrespectful to be “equalized in labours” with the younger men.

This suggests that a form of communism was practiced at Plymouth in 1621 and 1622.

Ever hear of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

[Publius]

It seems the distinction was lost on me. I was always thinking of maize




And the pilgrims evidently did not do as badly under "collectivization" as Bethell implies.

Except the part where they almost starve to death.



What would you like to bet that the "slackers" were previously known as the "strangers"?

I would. The strangers likely did slack.


And were you aware that this whole account of "the miracle of privatization" is based on a single document -- there's nothing else there at all.

That's incorrect.

William Bradford's "Of Plymouth Plantation" is cited as is "George Percy's Account of the Voyage to Vrginia and the Colony's First Days" as is "Virginia, The Old Dominion" and "The Story of the 'Old Colodny' of New Plymouth"

These are just the 1st hand accounts cited. In total there 16 citations in the back of my book.


Nothing wrong with the math.

If the "pure economic man" of capitalist ideologues actually existed, it would be a good description of reality.

However, that man has yet to be discovered outside the corporate boardroom...and thus does not seem to be a statistically significant representative of human behavior.

So you don't think something like this would occur in real life even though that exact sort of thing happens all the time? If someone can work half as hard and still get 95% of the payoff (Or whatever the the circumstances may be), they're going to it.

Since it's obvious this sort of thing would occur, the real question is to what extent and to what damage could it cause? I would say it would occur often and cripple the economy.


No argument there; the remaining individual farmers in the "west" are what the Russians called "kulaks" -- rich peasants with a reactionary ideology. Fortunately, it is capitalism itself that is "liquidating them as a class" -- I expect that by the time of the revolution itself, 99.99% of all farming in the U.S. will be done by corporations.

That term was used in Crime and Punishment I do believe.

What is the problem with farming being done by corporations? It certainly could be bad but it could also be good. Food is cheaper, heartier and more accessible now. If we returned to the days of family farmers, millions would go hungry.

I no you aren't proposing this but I just fail to see the wisdom in the logic that corporations are making our lives worse when starvation rates are at historic lows.


"Foolish and impossible"? The feudal aristocrats once said the same thing...yet we seem to get along without "lords" just fine.

Why can't we get along without capitalists?

"How can it be done?" Obviously it can't be done under primitive economic conditions -- you require a level of technological development far beyond that of the Pilgrims.

The current system is a big improvement over feudalism...but it is not "well enough".

Obviously.

Being able to see what happens next week due to the location of a bunch of stars is "foolish and impossible". That we can agree on? Some things are foolish, some things are not.

We could get along without the capitalists, just not as easily.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
So you don't think something like this would occur in real life even though that exact sort of thing happens all the time? If someone can work half as hard and still get 95% of the payoff (Or whatever the the circumstances may be), they're going to [do] it.

In other words, it's the capitalist version of "original sin" -- people are "born in sloth" and only some kind of economic carrot/whip will make them do anything productive.

Like it's theological predecessor, "original sloth" relies on faith. All of the examples when people choose not to be gluttonous or lazy or both must be ignored and attention must rather be paid to really successful gluttons.

Thus, for example, Bill Gates must be canonized...while Linus Tovald probably consorts with the devil.

The problem with the "original sloth" theory is that it ignores the complexity of the way people regard work.

Consider message boards. Here we have a bunch of people spending many hours of their lives discussing (or arguing about) questions of politics, economics, sociology, etc.

Why? Is anyone getting paid to do this? Do we acquire "credentials" of some kind that would lead to financial reward?

In fact, we actually sacrifice to do this stuff -- this is time we could have spent selling heroin, mugging old ladies, or working out a corporate merger that would cost 20,000 workers their jobs.

We do this stuff because we think it's important...worth doing.

(That's why we rarely/never have any real capitalists on the board...they're out making money and have no time for this foolishness.)

Do you think that is "just us"? That we are "special" and that most people are mindless, greedy drones that pursue wealth above all things...particularly unearned wealth.

Are you fully conscious of the incredibly narrow paradigm you've embraced with regard to "human nature"?

People "are lazy" and would live "without working" if they could. But some are born "saints" and "free from sloth"...they will half-kill themselves in labor provided they are allowed to become rich from it. When the hardworking saints do acquire all the wealth, then they can force the slothful to "behave virtuously" (work hard)...under threat of starvation.

It's a logically coherent paradigm that doesn't contradict itself...but it can't explain why some are born "free of sloth".

Is there a "sloth gene" that some late mutation has disabled?


The strangers likely did slack.

They certainly had reason to...I don't imagine living under the rule of the people later known as the Puritans was a big bundle of joy.

But I was implying something different. I think the strangers would have been accused of slacking regardless of whether it was objectively true or not.

An interesting parallel existed in Germany during World War I. It was widely supposed that German Jews were under-represented in the military and that even those who were in the military were more likely to have desk jobs in the rear than be in combat units at the front. They were perceived as "slackers".

So much was this part of the "common wisdom" that the German Army (in 1916) conducted a survey. To their embarrassment, it was learned that German Jews were over-represented in the military and over-represented in combat units on the front lines. It was so embarrassing, in fact, that the results of the survey were suppressed.

It would not surprise me to learn that the "strangers" actually worked harder...and yet were perceived by the Puritans to be "slackers".

And vice versa, of course. Perhaps the "miracle of privatization" has a different explanation -- two groups of people who really disliked each other and were delighted to have their economic relations broken apart.

For all we know, two collective enterprises might have worked just as well as privatization to increase production.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

In other words, it's the capitalist version of "original sin" -- people are "born in sloth" and only some kind of economic carrot/whip will make them do anything productive.

There are a lot of things I would rather do than strenous labor. It's a misrepresentation to say "anything productive" but some people don't want to do some jobs. Some people don't want to do any job. Are you denying this? If it's ignorant of me to say there are some people who are just lazy when there are people who ARE just lazy (Some self-admittedly lazy, might I add) what is it for you for you to say that people aren't? Doesn't the existance of lazy people tell you lazy people exist?

You can canonize Gates and Torvalds, I like them both.



The problem with the "original sloth" theory is that it ignores the complexity of the way people regard work.

First of all, this "original sloth" argument is of your creation so you're doing nothing but striking down your own strawmen and secondly, what is complex about the way we work? That's a rather general statement that fails to take into account the fact that many people don't view their jobs as complex because they aren't.


Consider message boards. Here we have a bunch of people spending many hours of their lives discussing (or arguing about) questions of politics, economics, sociology, etc.

Why? Is anyone getting paid to do this? Do we acquire "credentials" of some kind that would lead to financial reward?

In fact, we actually sacrifice to do this stuff -- this is time we could have spent selling heroin, mugging old ladies, or working out a corporate merger that would cost 20,000 workers their jobs.

Why? Because we enjoy it. Just like I enjoy Pepsi more than Coke and spend my soft-drink dollars there, I enjoy debating on forums more than say, listening to my Beastie Boys CDs or playing Icewind Dale or any other thing I could possibly be doing.

We're not automatons. We don't do things for the same reasons. We don't play sports to get rich (Most of us) and we don't trade stocks for fun (Most of us). When we want to do something fun, we play sports, when we want to make money, we play the stock market. We're not one track minds like communism attempts to make us.



Are you fully conscious of the incredibly narrow paradigm you've embraced with regard to "human nature"?

I'm not sure I have. I think the paradigm (Hate that word, it's so newspeak) isn't so much narrow as accurate.


People "are lazy" and would live "without working" if they could. But some are born "saints" and "free from sloth"...they will half-kill themselves in labor provided they are allowed to become rich from it. When the hardworking saints do acquire all the wealth, then they can force the slothful to "behave virtuously" (work hard)...under threat of starvation.

Why do you quote those things as if I stated them? You seem to be putting words into my mouth.

I don't see where you get this division among men between the supposed hard workers and the supposed lazy people. You find all sorts split among society. I'm sure you find workaholics who think their employees should work as hard as them but you also find brilliant slackers who can work not at all and still accomplish more than nearly anyone else.

But yes, when better workers ascend they employ less talented/experienced/lucky workers. Whether they can be defined as slothful cannot be stated as their particular work effort isn't easy to define.

The system isn't perfect, you do have to work to survive.

But the system is great, you have to work to survive.


They certainly had reason to...I don't imagine living under the rule of the people later known as the Puritans was a big bundle of joy.

But I was implying something different. I think the strangers would have been accused of slacking regardless of whether it was objectively true or not.

An interesting parallel existed in Germany during World War I. It was widely supposed that German Jews were under-represented in the military and that even those who were in the military were more likely to have desk jobs in the rear than be in combat units at the front. They were perceived as "slackers".

So much was this part of the "common wisdom" that the German Army (in 1916) conducted a survey. To their embarrassment, it was learned that German Jews were over-represented in the military and over-represented in combat units on the front lines. It was so embarrassing, in fact, that the results of the survey were suppressed.

It would not surprise me to learn that the "strangers" actually worked harder...and yet were perceived by the Puritans to be "slackers".

And vice versa, of course. Perhaps the "miracle of privatization" has a different explanation -- two groups of people who really disliked each other and were delighted to have their economic relations broken apart.

For all we know, two collective enterprises might have worked just as well as privatization to increase production.

I'm not denying that what you stated could happen.

But when people are starving to death I THINK you can safely say enough food wasn't being produced and therefore, SOME group of people were not working as hard/much as another group. That's simple logic.

Whether they were scapegoats or not is somewhat irrelevent as privatization clared up the problem anyway.

[Paradox]

If we returned to the days of family farmers, millions would go hungry.

Hundreds of millions are already starving to death, even though we are capable of producing enough to feed them. That of course, is because food is produced for profit, not to help starving people. Think of all the food at the grocery stores that gets thrown out because no one buys it and it spoils. That could of gone to help people who need it badly, but the capitalists won't make a profit that way.


Food is cheaper, heartier and more accessible now.

Well, if it's cheaper, then it's not cheap enough. As I already said, we eat a lot of ground beef because it's basically the only kind of meat we can afford. The doctor told my mom to stay away from ground beef, but what can we do? We want to eat healthy but can't afford any of those foods. And 15% fat ground beef is bad enough, if we could afford better, we'd get it, but why do they even sell 30% fat ground beef? It doesn't even look like meat. It's all pale and it looks disgusting. But it's real cheap, so they know someone with not a lot of money will buy it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
When we want to do something fun, we play sports, when we want to make money, we play the stock market.

Or buy a lottery ticket. :lol:

Seriously, I think this further illustrates the paradigm of which I was speaking.

(There's nothing "newspeak" about the word -- its present meaning was suggested by Thomas Kuhn back in the 60s but long after Orwell was dead. It simply means a coherent "framework of understanding" in which new knowledge can be "slotted into place". Marxism, for example, is a paradigm in Kuhn's sense of the word.)

In the capitalist paradigm, human activity is divided into two parts: (1) The stuff we do because someone will pay us and we need the money to survive; and (2) The stuff we do because we enjoy it...it's "fun".

But you've heard of or at least read about what some people have said: What I do for a living is so much fun that I'd do it for free.

Are they crazy? Are they "unconscious" communists? Are they just lying?

Work isn't supposed to be "fun" -- it's work, dammit!

And, sadly enough, that is all too true for most of us. We have no control over what we do, how long we work, under what conditions, etc. Our rulers make those decisions with their own interests in mind, not ours. Their objective is to make us work as hard as we can while paying us as little as they can get away with.

For us, work is drudgery...not all that different, when you get right down to it, from slavery itself. Hence the Marxist term for employment: wage-slavery.

Consequently, the doctrine of "original sloth" does reflect capitalist reality with considerable fidelity. A worker who doesn't "slack" as much as possible (and steal whatever s/he can get away with) is a fool.

The "utopian" conviction of communists is that life doesn't have to be that way.

Capitalists say "oh yes it does" for obvious reasons of self-interest.

Two different paradigms.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 02:45 AM



Hundreds of millions are already starving to death, even though we are capable of producing enough to feed them. That of course, is because food is produced for profit, not to help starving people. Think of all the food at the grocery stores that gets thrown out because no one buys it and it spoils. That could of gone to help people who need it badly, but the capitalists won't make a profit that way.

The problem is being worked on.

Does it help the capitalists for people to starve to death?

Most places where this occuring aren't industrialized anyway. I don't really see what can be done without industrialization happening.



Well, if it's cheaper, then it's not cheap enough. As I already said, we eat a lot of ground beef because it's basically the only kind of meat we can afford. The doctor told my mom to stay away from ground beef, but what can we do? We want to eat healthy but can't afford any of those foods. And 15% fat ground beef is bad enough, if we could afford better, we'd get it, but why do they even sell 30% fat ground beef? It doesn't even look like meat. It's all pale and it looks disgusting. But it's real cheap, so they know someone with not a lot of money will buy it.

You'll move up, don't worry.

[Publius]

(There's nothing "newspeak" about the word -- its present meaning was suggested by Thomas Kuhn back in the 60s but long after Orwell was dead. It simply means a coherent "framework of understanding" in which new knowledge can be "slotted into place". Marxism, for example, is a paradigm in Kuhn's sense of the word.)

I'm aware of the meaning, I was reffering to it's usage, commonly in business. It's just a made-up word used commonly in business like semantics.



In the capitalist paradigm, human activity is divided into two parts: (1) The stuff we do because someone will pay us and we need the money to survive; and (2) The stuff we do because we enjoy it...it's "fun".

As you said later, some people enjoy their jobs.


Are they crazy? Are they "unconscious" communists? Are they just lying?

Work isn't supposed to be "fun" -- it's work, dammit!

Work can be fun.


And, sadly enough, that is all too true for most of us. We have no control over what we do, how long we work, under what conditions, etc. Our rulers make those decisions with their own interests in mind, not ours. Their objective is to make us work as hard as we can while paying us as little as they can get away with.

Yes, that is their objective. You objective is to work as little as possible and get payed as much as you can get away with.

Greed isn't capitalist exclusive by any means.

But through this disparity in wants, a healthy medium is generally reached in wages. Wages continually go up as profits increase.



For us, work is drudgery...not all that different, when you get right down to it, from slavery itself. Hence the Marxist term for employment: wage-slavery.


Nice term, but the fact remains the same: It's not slavery. As you said, some people enjoy their work and would "do it for free". Are they wage-slaves as well? The term becomes rather general once this is established.


Consequently, the doctrine of "original sloth" does reflect capitalist reality with considerable fidelity. A worker who doesn't "slack" as much as possible (and steal whatever s/he can get away with) is a fool.

So through a change in the means of production, all of this would be changed? People wouldn't want as much for as little? But almost everyone, from capitalist to wage-slave, wants as much money for as little work. This isn't some remote thing. It's human nature. It's not a bad thing, just a logical thing.


The "utopian" conviction of communists is that life doesn't have to be that way.

Capitalists say "oh yes it does" for obvious reasons of self-interest.

Two different paradigms.

Two paradigms united by one race of people. If "people" fuck up one system how will they make the other one a utopia? Won't "people" do the EXACT SAME THINGS in either system?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
So through a change in the means of production, all of this would be changed? People wouldn't want as much for as little?...It's human nature.

No, it is "human nature" as shaped by living in a capitalist environment.

Look back to, say 1200CE. People were, if the contemporary accounts that we have are reliable, "spiritually greedy". The main focus of concern was personal salvation...and people made sometimes substantial material sacrifice in the hopes of achieving it.

What happened to "human nature" over the last 800 years? What caused it to change so dramatically?

(One almost has to rule out Darwinian evolution...the time span is just not nearly long enough.)

They were modern humans just like us...in fact we are directly descended from them.

Why are we so different?

Changes in the means of production led to changes in the relations of production...and those changes, in turn, caused the ways that people think and look at the world to change.

It took a long time for that to happen in an era of very slow communications, to be sure. Right up to the 19th century, most people never left the village where they were born.

"Human Nature v.5.x" took quite a while to "win market acceptance" from users.

In the communist view, we are approaching the release of "Human Nature v.6.0" -- and it will be very different from anything seen before.

Here's the difference: "work" will be something we do primarily because we enjoy it -- it will be, therefore, mostly or entirely voluntary in nature.

Isn't that the craziest thing you ever heard? :o

But what do you think that 13th century priest, monk, serf, etc. would have made of you?

He'd probably think you deserved burning at the stake!

I know the feeling. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[dakewlguy]

What happened to "human nature" over the last 800 years? What caused it to change so dramatically?

(One almost has to rule out Darwinian evolution...the time span is just not nearly long enough.)

They were modern humans just like us...in fact we are directly descended from them.

No, Capitalism is not the only changing factor in the last 800 years, changes in human nature may not be all attributed to it. In the last 200 years with the birth of modern society, individualism and the belief that everyone has rights as an individual have developed. Previously it was thought that worth was only determined through proximity to royalty. This changed to everyone feeling they have the rights to live an enjoyable life. It is also here that the gap between the animal self and social self widened hugely as can be seen if you look at trends in manners over the centuries.
It is this which thus led to the fall of Feudalism, tradition and divine rights no longer being satisfactory justifications for keeping certain social groups rights restricted.

Capitalism emerged from this change in thinking, rather than Capitalism caused this change in thinking, too.

[Publius]

But don't you realize what you "want" maybe isn't best for society? I could "want" to be a doctor and I could suck at it. Should I be a doctor?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)I could "want" to be a doctor and I could suck at it. Should I be a doctor?[/b] Yes but you suck at everything you do, yet you persistantly do things.


dakewlguy
No, Capitalism is not the only changing factor in the last 800 years, changes in human nature may not be all attributed to it. In the last 200 years with the birth of modern society, individualism and the belief that everyone has rights as an individual have developed. Capitalism existed before the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution was caused by the need to make more goods for the bourgeois. The existence of bourgeois presupposes capitalism.

The idea of the individual has been born 500 years ago with Erasmus and the Renaissance Humanists, but it has developed into what is now known as "individualism".


It is this which thus led to the fall of Feudalism, tradition and divine rights no longer being satisfactory justifications for keeping certain social groups rights restricted. How do you explain the reinstallation of the monarchs in 1848 if they were "defeated" 48 years earlier?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by dakewlguy+--> (dakewlguy)Previously it was thought that worth was only determined through proximity to royalty. This changed to everyone feeling they have the rights to live an enjoyable life.[/b]

That reminds me of the old historian's joke: "One morning in the spring of 1440CE, everyone rose from their beds in northern Italy with joy in their hearts. Neighbor shouted to neighbor -- The Middle Ages are over! Today's the first day of the Renaissance! Hooray!"

No, people did not just "decide" that "proximity to royalty" was suddenly "worthless".

Much less that everyone had "rights" to "an enjoyable life".


Capitalism emerged from this change in thinking, rather than Capitalism caused this change in thinking, too.

No, my young Hegelian, that is not true.


Publius
But don't you realize what you "want" maybe isn't best for society? I could "want" to be a doctor and I could suck at it. Should I be a doctor?

Are you inclined to "want" to do things that you really "suck" at?

Most people, I've observed, when they discover an activity that they are really good at, want to do it even more and get even better at it.

There was a study done some years ago of concert violinists. It revealed that those violinists who were widely regarded as the most talented and gifted performers were also the ones who practiced their music the most. They were so damn good at it that they wanted to work hard to be even better at it!

Some might think this applies only to "artists" (they're "special")...but I think nearly all humans show this tendency. I know an electrician who makes a decent though far from spectacular living. But he must be pretty good at it because his "leisure" reading seems to mostly consist of books about electrical contracting, solving unusual wiring problems, etc. He finds a fascination in this stuff that's difficult for me to grasp...but there you are.

Another example even further down "the social ladder" -- have you ever chanced to overhear a conversation between two professional gardeners? I did once...and I couldn't believe the complexity of their concerns or the seriousness of their tones.

To be sure, there are some really shitty jobs that still have to be done if society is to function...and those may have to be shared out among all of us. The trash has to be picked up and carried to the dump or we will all get sick and die. Perhaps one or two days a month, each of us will have to ride the truck -- and I expect there will be a great deal of peer pressure on anyone who "slacks" their turn.

On the other hand, there's an enormous amount of work that's done presently simply because we have a capitalist society...the poor lackey who has to shake The Donald's dick after he pisses, carefully wipe it clean, and zip Him up doesn't have to do that any more. Most if not all of the "flunky" jobs will be gone...giving people the chance to do something real with their lives.

Or, if they prefer, recline in the grass and look at the pretty clouds...except when it's their day on the garbage truck.

In terms of general production, I think communism will produce fewer items of consumption...but those items will be superior in quality to those generally available now. There's not much prestige in manufacturing trash; but considerable prestige in making quality stuff that lasts a long time and really "does the job right".

If you do happen to find medicine fascinating, go ahead and give it a try. You might turn out to be pretty good at it after all.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Raisa]

So this long ass story about the pilgrims is what you are going to use to defend private property?

HA!

[dakewlguy]

Capitalism existed before the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution was caused by the need to make more goods for the bourgeois. The existence of bourgeois presupposes capitalism.

The idea of the individual has been born 500 years ago with Erasmus and the Renaissance Humanists, but it has developed into what is now known as "individualism".
I disagree. Far, far too much importance is placed on the supposed industrial revolution. For example in 1700 the % of national output that was from agriculture was at 40. 100 years later, it was still at 35% (England and Wales). Nor was there a sudden technological breakthrough, rather a few slow piecemeal developments. The idea of the individual can be traced back to ancient greek times, however a key turning point was in the late 1800's when the enlightenment occured.


How do you explain the reinstallation of the monarchs in 1848 if they were "defeated" 48 years earlier?
When the Monarch returned in France it was much less powerful. Why it returned at all? There was still a struggle between the Monarchy who controlled the army, and the revolting population, the liberal Monarch was seen as a compromise.


No, people did not just "decide" that "proximity to royalty" was suddenly "worthless".

Much less that everyone had "rights" to "an enjoyable life".

Yeah, of course it was a slow development. As can be seen if you look at the civil rights movement of the 50's or later feminist movements, and still disabled people have not achieved equal rights. So it wasn't a sudden change, but it was around that time when attitudes began to change.


No, my young Hegelian, that is not true.
How could one of the key components of Capitalism have emerged - people moving to cities to sell their labour to factory owners - if firstly the idea of serfs not being owned by the lords hadn't occured?

[Publius]

So this long ass story about the pilgrims is what you are going to use to defend private property?

HA!

Yes. This one piece of anecdotal evidence is the only defense I have for private property. You found me out.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by dakewlguy
How could one of the key components of Capitalism have emerged - people moving to cities to sell their labour to factory owners - if firstly the idea of serfs not being owned by the lords hadn't occurred?

You're actually talking about two different periods here.

Feudalism suffered its first serious blows back in the 14th century with the arrival of bubonic plague in Europe. The enormous number of deaths created a "serf shortage" and the lords began to "poach" one another's serfs.

They did not offer "increased wages", of course -- that was not yet a common idea -- but they did offer relief from some of the more onerous burdens of serfdom; i.e., only one day's labor per week on the lord's crop, no special fee if you got married or had a kid, etc.

Thus the idea was planted among the peasantry that if a lord became "too demanding", one could move on.

Naturally there were many laws passed against this...even laws forbidding lords from poaching each other's serfs. They were essentially unenforcible.

By the 15th century, the serf population had recovered from the plagues...so the lords tried to reimpose all the old conditions and demands of serfdom and the peasants exploded in rebellion. The rebellions were defeated...but the old ways were not reimposed...it was thought "too risky".

And the most rebellious of the peasants who didn't die in the rebellions moved to the cities. The actual numbers were initially small...but grew. (In Germany, towns actually had laws that any ex-serf who remained in the town for a year was "formally declared free of serfdom" forever.)

Now, as to peasants in the countryside moving to the cities to work in factories, that is a much later development. There were no "factories" in the 14th century.

In the 18th century (in England), the landed aristocracy discovered that it was more profitable to "enclose" their lands and grow cash crops for the marketplace. Prior to the "enclosures", a peasant could derive a substantial amount of his annual food from grazing a few head of cattle on the "commons", harvesting nuts and wild plants from the "lord's" forests...even a bit of hunting (though it was illegal and dangerous). Afterwards, there was nothing that many peasants could do but become agricultural laborers or move to the cities...where the new factories were hiring laborers in ever growing numbers.

Note that in both of these periods, there was no "abstract idea" as such that "ordinary people had a right to an enjoyable life" (such an idea was essentially "unthinkable"). People formed ideas of a "better way to live" based on material conditions that they could see with their own eyes.

Marx hypothesized that the same thing would eventually happen to capitalism...that most working people would not be "converted" to the abstract "ideal" of communism so much as they would arrive at communist ideas because of material conditions that they could plainly see.

That remains a hypothesis, of course. We shall probably know if he was right by the end of this or the next century.

"Crunch time" is approaching for the Marxist paradigm.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ComradeRed]

I disagree. Far, far too much importance is placed on the supposed industrial revolution. For example in 1700 the % of national output that was from agriculture was at 40. 100 years later, it was still at 35% (England and Wales). Nor was there a sudden technological breakthrough, rather a few slow piecemeal developments. Irrelevant. When the means of production resided in the hands of "private individuals" as opposed to a hereditery nobility, the econoic system is a capitalism. This is irrelevant to the industrial revolution.


When the Monarch returned in France it was much less powerful. Why it returned at all? There was still a struggle between the Monarchy who controlled the army, and the revolting population, the liberal Monarch was seen as a compromise. I wasn't merely referring to France but also Austria, England, Prussia, et al.

But when Napoleon III came to power in France, he became the Emperor of the French on 2 December 1852. He had dictatorial powers, he was an absolutist. Ferdinand I of Austria practiced absolutist procedures, even though it was Metternich who ruled through the Emperor. Etc.