Tony Rubolotta

No Lie or Omission too Small
October 20, 2008

I write opinions. I form my opinions on the basis of common sense, historical research and my God given ability to reason. Being human, I’ll freely admit to a curiosity (and a slight touch of vanity) about what people think about the opinions I write. In a recent article (“A Tale of Three Plumbers”) I made reference to the fact that Plymouth Colony was America’s first failed experiment in socialism. Plymouth Colony survived and thrived when it abandoned that experiment and turned to free enterprise and capitalism.

I can’t say I was surprised when I read the following comment in response to the article:

“I'm sorry, but anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of history knows that it was coming together, sharing the bounty and working for the common good of everyone that allowed Plymouth colony to survive in the first place! If those people had come ashore and immediately enacted the conservative "value" of "mine mine mine", that colony wouldn't have lasted its first winter.

This article is crap.“

Since when does a “rudimentary understanding of history” substitute for fact? The person that wrote that comment is either deliberately lying or relying on inaccurate and incomplete information. I want to believe the latter though I cannot dismiss the former. Most public school textbooks, left leaning academics and a host of so-called authoritative sources, including those on the Internet distort the story of Plymouth Colony and omit this important fact because it stands in stark contradiction to the lies they tell to promote the ideology they espouse.

My source is William Bradford, who served as governor of Plymouth Plantation for 35 years. Bradford was the man most responsible for putting an end to the failed socialist policies that plagued the colony. Bradford kept a personal journal which I find far more trustworthy than the “crap” that appears on Wikipedia or from the respondent to my article.

Plymouth Colony was bound to a contract with their London investors that required all production and property go into a common pool, from which their debt would be repaid and from which each colonist would receive an equal share. Most published articles agree on this fact, but the truth that followed is what they omit, giving the impression the colony prospered from this socialist experiment. It did not prosper. Here in part are Bradford’s words concerning conditions in 1623, three years into the imposed socialist economic system. Please read this carefully because even though the language is archaic, the meaning is clear.

“All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery.”

Bradford leaves no doubt that the colony was “languish[ing] in misery”, not producing to its potential and no end was in sight. Bradford continues:

“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 thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family.”

Corn was critical to the survival and prosperity of the colony, as both food and a cash crop. It is important to note that socialism was not abandoned in its entirety when Bradford says “in all other thing to go on in the general way as before.” Since we are not privy to what transpired in the debate, we can only speculate that the colonists recognized their contractual obligation with the investors to continue in “the general way as before”. That would change later.

“This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content.”

Bradford could have stopped there, but continued with a very telling sentence concerning human nature.

“The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

Socialism denies the inevitable and unchanging truth that Bradford makes so clear in this single passage. People will work harder and willingly for their betterment and will resist forced labor. Individual prosperity translates directly to community prosperity.

I’m going to conclude with this passage from Bradford’s journal:

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.”

This is a truly profound statement and observation. There is no shortage of people today who applaud Plato and consider themselves wiser than God. Obama, Clinton, Carter and the person responding to my previous article are in that category with many others pushing Plato’s Republic and failed Marxist theories. Bradford’s words detailing the Plymouth colony experience must be suppressed and distorted because they expose the would be economic tyrants who would have us all “languish in misery” to fulfill their fantasies and vanities.

Bradford has more to say. If you are interested in the truth, forget Wikipedia and see for yourself.