Skip to content

Material Cited in Footnote #7 in “Ditching Socialism in the New World”

This material also corresponds to footnote #20 in the PDF and printed booklet editions of “Ditching Socialism in the New World,” to footnote #4 in the Foreword for Heed the Pilgrims, and to footnote #20 in Heed the Pilgrims.

In his account of the Pilgrims’ journey to the New World and their settlement at what would become known as Plymouth, Massachusetts, William Bradford (1590-1657) writes, 

William Bradford

The failure of this experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, — that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense. The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice. The aged and graver men, who were ranked and equalized in labour, food, clothes, etc., with the humbler and younger ones, thought it some indignity and disrespect to them. As for men’s wives who were obliged to do service for other men, such as cooking, washing their clothes, etc., they considered it a kind of slavery, and many husbands would not brook it. This feature of it would have been worse still, if they had been men of an inferior class. If (it was thought) all were to share alike, and all were to do alike, then all were on an equality throughout, and one was as good as another; and so, if it did not actually abolish those very relations which God himself has set among men, it did at least greatly diminish the mutual respect that is so important should be preserved amongst them. Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself. I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw that another plan of life was fitter for them.

Bradford, William. Of Plymouth Plantation (pp. 116-117). Portcullis Books. Kindle Edition. Edited by Harold Paget. Book II, Chapter IV

Paraphrase/Summary as presented in “Ditching Socialism in the New World”:

As I said, for two years we operated this way. We faced obstacle after obstacle. Those who worked did so begrudgingly, and many would offer excuse after excuse not to work. Here are some examples.

          • The young unmarried men—those who were strongest and who had the most time and the greatest ability to produce—resented that they were, in effect, being made to work for other men’s wives and children, without any additional compensation.
          • Whether strong or weak, everyone working, whether he did much or little, would wind up with the same amount of food and other resources. If an individual worked a full eight hours in a day, and another worked only two, each received the same. Those carrying the greater load strongly believed this to be an extreme injustice. Can you blame them?
          • Experience counted for nothing; the older men felt disrespected by those who were younger.
          • Under the communal arrangement, the wives had to cook and do laundry for anyone and everyone—not just their own husbands and families. This angered husbands, who, along with their wives, felt this was a form of slavery.

All of this was bad enough, but I’m convinced it would have been a lot worse if we hated each other. No one in our congregation was perfect—not by a long shot. Still, we were a people who had common goals and who sincerely wanted everyone among us to have the best. Our company had more than its share of honest and decent men and women.

Sharing resources sounds so compassionate and compelling. It has great emotional appeal. Operating this way, however, set us at one another’s throats. It bred resentment, disrespect, ill will, selfishness, envy, and greed. It was a dead end that would have killed us all.

A Faulty System

On reflection, I have become convinced that it wasn’t our fault that this plan didn’t work. It didn’t work, and it doesn’t work, because it is a faulty plan! The communal system (often now called socialism) does not fit human nature, and it will fail wherever and whenever it is tried.

Philosophers like Plato called for this kind of communal system (and Plato’s call for it foreshadowed the thinking and writings of Karl Marx later on). Yet this plan works only in socialists’ minds! Oh, they may sincerely believe that eliminating private property and putting the state in charge of producing and managing everything will create a utopia—but it never will. This idea is a complete fantasy. Socialists actually are pretending to be wiser than God! We are grateful that God showed us a better way.

 

This material relates to footnote #7 in the article “Ditching Socialism in the New World.” It relates as well to footnote #20 in the PDF and printed booklet editions.

top image: Front page of William Bradford’s manuscript for Of Plymouth Plantation

Paraphrase copyright © 2019 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.