It is amazing that Eddie Hyatt thinks younger men choosing to slouch and slack because older men could not do as much as they are is somehow a favorable portrait of the younger men? That he cannot see they were the problem, not the "system" they had already agreed to! Faking sickness to avoid work is also a sign of the person, not the system. The individual reward was that they would get to pay off their debtors, not that they would be able to build a capitalist empire. The irresponsibility Hyatt misses is the very people he holds up here. It is irresponsible to your fellow Pilgrims to slouch, slack, or pretend to have a headache to avoid do the work you already agreed you would do for the transportation to the new world. The hopelessness that gripped the early Pilgrim colony was more related to the harsh winters and various diseases that were killing of many of the members, not some philosophical disagreement between capitalism and socialism.
"3. Socialism extinguishes hope and generates strife. This socialist system led to a widespread sense of hopelessness. With everyone locked into a closed economic system, there was nothing individuals or families could do to improve their personal lot. Feeling caught in a trap, bickering and strife began to emerge. The older men, Bradford said, felt they deserved more honor and recompense because of their age and resented getting paid the same as the youngsters in their midst. The young men, on the other hand, resented getting paid the same as the older men when they often did more of the work. This sense of hopelessness and the ensuing strife drained energy and discouraged innovative thinking and led to very serious complications for the community." - Eddie Hyatt
What a ridiculous talking point. Nothing is ever as definitive as Eddie makes out. The top five countries measured for happiness metrics all have a Democratic Socialist form of governance. So not all socialism leads to strife. Things like hope and strife all depend on one's perspective. There is plenty of hope and strife in our capitalist society. Sure, the millionaires would be filled with hope but the homeless may not. As much as one can point to capitalism as a reason for many hopes one could also acknowledge that it is the source of much strife. God is not impressed by our carnal theories on economic or governmental organization. It may come as a shock to someone like Eddie Hyatt who has carved out a nice living fleecing God's flock but the United States ranks dead last among 26 developed countries in poverty rate. Sounds like some folks here may be short on hope and long on strife. This is always about individual perspective, including the Pilgrims. The young resented the old and the old resented the young. That has more to do with the individual resentment than the form of government. Eddie also ignores all of the other mitigating factors. Disease and the harshness of winter are historically noted as the primary drivers working against the Pilgrims. Eddie knows this but he is not trying to be a fair historian. He is trying to advance the political goals of the Republican Party and the NAR by deceiving Christians.
'4. Socialism is incompatible with human nature. Bradford believed socialism did not work because it runs counter to human nature as created by God. In Scripture, God rewards individuals for their labor and good works. Capitalism works because it is compatible with the reality of human nature and the world in which we live. I will never forget visiting Eastern Europe shortly after the fall of the Soviet Empire. I was struck by the grey, drab environment. Even the buildings seemed so plain, flat and lackluster. It was obvious that the Marxist system had robbed the people of life, energy and creativity. I am here reminded of the words of Winston Churchill, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."'
To be clear, this is not a defense of socialism, communism or capitalism. I am merely pushing back on the ridiculous notion that God has blessed one or the other. He has not. There can be good works in any form of government. There are also plenty of evil works in every form of government. There were plenty of socialistic themes in the ministry of Jesus. Certainly, free healthcare. Likewise, there are many socialistic portions of our own government today. Capitalism does not "work" as a statement of fact. There are a plethora of capitalist countries that exploit workers for the gain of the ruling elite. That same dynamic by the way exists in this country as well. The top 1% own 99% or the wealth. Considering the number one biblical topic after salvation is taking care of the least in society, it is not very accurate to claim capitalism is entirely aligned with God. Eddie chooses selective criteria and avoids the obvious contradictions. The primary issue for Eastern Europe was always economic. The same drab beaten down look that seems to concern Eddie so much is littered throughout this country as well. Go visit the old factory towns that have watched all of their jobs shipped overseas by our "capitalists" and you will see poverty, husks of burned-out buildings and hopelessness. Again, I am not saying one is necessarily better than the other or worse just to stop dragging God into it. Israel was not built as a capitalist society either. It was a theocracy and then a monarchy. Odd considering Eddie is arguing that capitalism is somehow God's design. Just sheer transparent stupidity.
"When it became obvious that lack and perhaps starvation would be their lot, Bradford and the leaders of the colony decided to make a change. After much prayer and discussion, they decided to dispense with that part of the agreement with their creditors that required them to live communally until their debt was paid. In its place, they implemented a free entrepreneurial system that included private ownership of property (Hyatt, 34-36). According to Bradford, they divided the land around them, allotting to each family a certain portion that would be theirs to work and use for their own needs. Bradford said there was an immediate change. The young men began to work much harder because they now knew they would eat the fruit of their own labors.
There were no more complaints from the older men for the same reason. And now the women were seen going into the fields to work, taking the children with them, because they knew they and their family would personally benefit. Instead of lacking food, each family now grew more food than they needed, and they began to trade with one another for furnishings, clothes and other goods. They also had enough excess to trade with the Indians for furs and other items. In short, the colony began to prosper when they got rid of their socialist form of government and implemented a free entrepreneurial system. Of their experience with socialism, Bradford wrote:
This community [socialism] was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort " and showed the vanity of that conceit of Plato's, and applauded by some of later times, 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 (Hyatt, "1726: The Year That Defined America," 25)." - Eddie Hyatt
Wow, who knew that the secret to the Shangri-La of the Pilgrim colony was capitalism? What a ridiculous conclusion, of course. It is important to note here that the entire premise Hyatt expounds on is flawed. The Pilgrims agreed to collectivism, not socialism. Socialism does not forbid private property, where collectivism does. Perhaps Eddie would have been closer to make the argument against Communism, which is more closely aligned with collectivism. That does not work for Eddie because the goal is to campaign against socialism and pretend capitalism is pure and holy. None of it is true though because there are always evil men in all forms of carnal government. That said, the primary change Bradford made was to switch from the communal space of collectivism. So, the land was divided and everyone would be responsible for their portion. Essentially, Bradford gave in to the griping and moaning and said, fine, work your own land. Eddie openly admits that this changed the hearts of the greedy, whining men and they started to work harder but once again, that is a testimony against the people, not the form of government. Eddie also ignores much of the contributing factors to Plymouth growth. So many died the first winter, almost 50% of those that came on the Mayflower. After those that survived got through some of the initial hardships, more people came. There were only 50 people left in 1621 but by 1623 that had grown to 180 and more importantly, other ships brought them cattle and livestock, which greatly expanded the produce they could sell. It is deviously simplistic selectivism to focus solely on the decision to allow private property while ignoring all of the other clear factors that led to Plymouth growing.
