Interesting video. However, the narrator apparently doesn't know the difference between socialism and communism.
It was community ownership that Bradford was describing and neither was there an equitable division of labor.
Assigning plots of land to families was the more socialistic aspect of the effort. However, that didn't prevent the colonists from being subject to the English economic system of mercantilism.
Under that system, the colonists were expected to pay taxes to support the mother country England. That eventually led to the cry "No taxation without representation!"
The Pilgrim forbearers searched the Bible looking for what they called "Biblical Principles." One of the principles they advocated was from Deuteronomy 15.4, "there shall be no poor among you." They envisioned an economic system that would eliminate poverty.
Another principle the Pilgrims picked up on was from Leviticus 25:10. It said: "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." That's the inscription on the Liberty Bell.
The command in the Preamble to the Constitution to "establish justice" also included economic justice so that "there shall be no poor among you." Likewise, the command to "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity" was similarly an economic liberty from the Pilgrims' perspective.
However, the dark side of religion soon raised its head among the Pilgrims, what with running Roger Williams out of the colony because he advocated freedom of conscious, and he was a Baptist.
Later, the Pilgrims degenerated into the Salem Witch Trials, largely because witches were a little more free in the sex lives. To the Pilgrims that posed a threat. It's sort of like gay marriage does today to literalist, fundamentalist Christian communities.
I thank Hempy for his or her comments. They raised my curiosity on some issues I wanted to know more about.
For example, Hempy challenges the video’s terminology – communism versus socialism.
The term “communism” has several definitions in my Merriam-Webster, and these include far more than just the currently familiar Marxist version. Communism more generally means a social organization in which goods are held in common. “Socialism” refers to the government owning and/or controlling wealth and its distribution. Both terms apply to the early European arrivals to Massachusetts
Before even the first group of Pilgrims came ashore in Massachusetts, they had already agreed to the Mayflower Compact – a self-government agreement. This governmental organization would be strengthened as more settlers arrived.
So, based on what the Pilgrims established in Massachusetts, both terms could apply, as right from the start the Pilgrims’ organization was certainly governmental in nature, and control of resources was clearly centralized. I don’t see an issue with the video’s use of terms.
Secondly, Hempy tries to stretch one of the Preamble to the Constitution’s listed purposes – to “establish justice” – to include much more than equal legal rights. Hempy fails to note that the Preamble also indicates – in the very same sentence – that another function of the government is to “promote the general welfare.” That second function seems to properly encompass the real intent concerning poverty, and the wording only mentions promoting welfare. There is no guarantee of eliminating poverty.
What Hempy writes can easily be misinterpreted. The phrase, "there shall be no poor among you" is not found in the constitution. Hempy’s possibly poorly written comment seems to imply those words are found in the Constitution in addition to the Bible. I think Hempy was referring to the previously mentioned quote from the Bible, but that isn’t clear. Anyway, his interpretation has to be one of the more imaginative I have seen concerning the document.
The Bluegrass Institute doesn’t normally get involved with issues of faith beyond strongly supporting the Constitution’s guarantees of unhampered practice. However, on a technical note, I would suggest reading the Bible a bit further into Deuteronomy 15 beyond Verse 4. The promise to abolish poverty is contingent upon following God’s commandments. Check out Verse 5. I don’t think the Pilgrims missed this important qualification to the promise, even if Hempy did. I’m confident the Pilgrims knew that promises concerning poverty were conditional.
2 comments:
Interesting video. However, the narrator apparently doesn't know the difference between socialism and communism.
It was community ownership that Bradford was describing and neither was there an equitable division of labor.
Assigning plots of land to families was the more socialistic aspect of the effort. However, that didn't prevent the colonists from being subject to the English economic system of mercantilism.
Under that system, the colonists were expected to pay taxes to support the mother country England. That eventually led to the cry "No taxation without representation!"
The Pilgrim forbearers searched the Bible looking for what they called "Biblical Principles." One of the principles they advocated was from Deuteronomy 15.4, "there shall be no poor among you." They envisioned an economic system that would eliminate poverty.
Another principle the Pilgrims picked up on was from Leviticus 25:10. It said: "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." That's the inscription on the Liberty Bell.
The command in the Preamble to the Constitution to "establish justice" also included economic justice so that "there shall be no poor among you." Likewise, the command to "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity" was similarly an economic liberty from the Pilgrims' perspective.
However, the dark side of religion soon raised its head among the Pilgrims, what with running Roger Williams out of the colony because he advocated freedom of conscious, and he was a Baptist.
Later, the Pilgrims degenerated into the Salem Witch Trials, largely because witches were a little more free in the sex lives. To the Pilgrims that posed a threat. It's sort of like gay marriage does today to literalist, fundamentalist Christian communities.
RE: Hempy’s Comments
I thank Hempy for his or her comments. They raised my curiosity on some issues I wanted to know more about.
For example, Hempy challenges the video’s terminology – communism versus socialism.
The term “communism” has several definitions in my Merriam-Webster, and these include far more than just the currently familiar Marxist version. Communism more generally means a social organization in which goods are held in common. “Socialism” refers to the government owning and/or controlling wealth and its distribution. Both terms apply to the early European arrivals to Massachusetts
Before even the first group of Pilgrims came ashore in Massachusetts, they had already agreed to the Mayflower Compact – a self-government agreement. This governmental organization would be strengthened as more settlers arrived.
So, based on what the Pilgrims established in Massachusetts, both terms could apply, as right from the start the Pilgrims’ organization was certainly governmental in nature, and control of resources was clearly centralized. I don’t see an issue with the video’s use of terms.
Secondly, Hempy tries to stretch one of the Preamble to the Constitution’s listed purposes – to “establish justice” – to include much more than equal legal rights. Hempy fails to note that the Preamble also indicates – in the very same sentence – that another function of the government is to “promote the general welfare.” That second function seems to properly encompass the real intent concerning poverty, and the wording only mentions promoting welfare. There is no guarantee of eliminating poverty.
What Hempy writes can easily be misinterpreted. The phrase, "there shall be no poor among you" is not found in the constitution. Hempy’s possibly poorly written comment seems to imply those words are found in the Constitution in addition to the Bible. I think Hempy was referring to the previously mentioned quote from the Bible, but that isn’t clear. Anyway, his interpretation has to be one of the more imaginative I have seen concerning the document.
The Bluegrass Institute doesn’t normally get involved with issues of faith beyond strongly supporting the Constitution’s guarantees of unhampered practice. However, on a technical note, I would suggest reading the Bible a bit further into Deuteronomy 15 beyond Verse 4. The promise to abolish poverty is contingent upon following God’s commandments. Check out Verse 5. I don’t think the Pilgrims missed this important qualification to the promise, even if Hempy did. I’m confident the Pilgrims knew that promises concerning poverty were conditional.
Post a Comment