Colonial-Socialism?
by Dr. Doug Cardell
America has already tried socialism, and it failed. In 1607, the first English settlers in America created a colony about 100 miles south of present-day Washington, DC. They called their settlement Jamestown. The colonists began their community as a socialist endeavor. They required all the members to relinquish all assets produced to "the common store." There was no buying or selling and no trade except with indigenous people. There was no private property. The lack of private property creates a situation where it is not in the individual's self-interest to work hard. Author John Cooke writes, "It was a premium for idleness, and just suited the drones, who promptly decided that it was unnecessary to work themselves, since others would work for them." It didn't take long for this socialist enterprise to create disaster. At a time and place where requiring every individual's utmost effort was necessary to prevent collapse, the lack of perceived rewards led to the "starving time." The colony suffered more than 100 casualties, and those who were there said people resorted to eating pets and shoe leather. George Percy, the colony's temporary leader while John Smith was in England, said, "And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face that nothing was spared to maintain life and to do those things which seem incredible, as to dig up dead corpse out of graves and to eat them, and some have licked up the blood which hath fallen from their weak fellows." Smith, back from England, tried everything he could think of to make socialism work, including threats to withhold food from those who did not work. Nothing helped, and the economy continued to struggle. In 1611, Governor Thomas Dale began reversing the communal store system. A few years later, he persuaded the London Company to grant a fifty-acre plot to any colonist willing to clear and farm it. Colonist John Rolfe, the man who married Pocahontas, not John Smith as the legend claims, said after abolishing the "common stores" system and restoring private property, the colonists began "gathering and reaping the fruits of their labors with much joy and comfort." According to history writer Andrews, "As soon as the settlers were thrown upon their own resources, and each freeman had acquired the right of owning property, the colonists quickly developed what became the distinguishing characteristic of Americans – an aptitude for all kinds of craftsmanship coupled with an innate genius for experimentation and invention." Socialism was tried again a decade later in Massachusetts when the Pilgrims landed off Cape Cod Bay and founded the Plymouth Colony in 1620. Like the colonists at Jamestown before them, they tried experimenting with socialism and a "common store" system. As in Jamestown earlier, economic disaster followed. Malingering and idleness were common. Few worked to the best of their ability since working harder did not provide increased rewards. In 1763, William Bradford, the colony's governor, like Governor Dale in Jamestown, consigned to all healthy persons or families their own plot of land. Almost overnight, the behavior of the colonists changed. A body of industrious, hard-working producers replaced feigned illness and idleness. Men, women, and even children eagerly went to their fields and labored tirelessly to improve their lives. This new, private property, free-market economy changed life in the colony from an unpleasant, unsuccessful endeavor into a dynamic community resulting in a bountiful harvest, and they held a thanksgiving celebration to rejoice in their success. As with every other attempt at socialism, the colonists institution of socialism meant they had no incentive to work hard, so they did as little as possible. Socialism could only work if human beings were saints, but all of the world's major religions remind us that they are not. We recognize the saintly or astonishingly good individuals because they are so rare. Of the 17 billion people that have ever inhabited earth, the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges about .00004 percent or 1 out of 3 million as saints. If you want to see the difference between common ownership and private property, you only need to take a drive. As you cruise along the roadway, you'll see litter. If you go down an empty dirt road, you will probably encounter "wildcat dumps," where folks who don't want to go all the way to a public dumpsite dump what they wish. And look at the road signs shot full of holes. Now, contrast that with the private property you encounter. Driveways and front yards are usually not littered with discarded soda cups, paper trash, and beer bottles. They don't have dumped refrigerators and old couches lying around. The signage in the yard usually doesn't have bullet holes. The difference between public and private property illustrates what is generally called the Tragedy of the Commons. This tragedy occurs because people have insufficient motivation to expend effort that doesn't benefit them. We may wish it were otherwise, as socialists do, but it is in our DNA and that of all other living things to pursue our self-interest. Private property and free-market capitalism harness this self-interest into spontaneous order. Free markets take the desire to make one's life better and use it to build a trading economy that benefits everyone. Socialism believes it can magically convert all humans into saints despite thousands of years of experience teaching us otherwise. Because of this erroneous assumption, socialism always fails. It has never made a better life for anyone except for the ruling elite in countries where it has been imposed, they get rich on the backs of the poor. In free-market capitalism, those who get rich do so by marketing products and services that benefit everyone.
If you found this article stimulating, please share it with other folks who might enjoy it. And please share your thoughts below. Dr. Cardell would love to hear from you.
Responses