How ironic. In yesterday's thanksgiving devotional responding to NAR dominionist Eddie Hyatt's rewrite of Pilgrim history, I made an offhand comment that the Pilgrim's initial experiment on governance would probably be described as socialistic and that Eddie would probably speak against that. I just did not realize that it would take him one day to do so. We must understand that as a dominionist, Eddie Hyatt worships this country. It is the idol that he bows down to. He loves the sin and excess it offers him. Eddie has a specific role within the NAR and that is to be a faux-historian. He butchers history almost as bad as he butchers the bible, however. The premise he always works from is that everything American has always been good and wholesome, until the modern-day Democratic Party has ruined everything. The fact that we revolted against England in violation of Romans 13? Yeah, that's acceptable. Slavery? Eddie spins it so somehow, we were on the forefront of freeing slaves, which we most certainly were not. It is also not good enough to extol the American experiment but Eddie has to pretend that it is all godly, even right down to our economic system of Capitalism. The above link is to another article he posted on Charisma News today about the pilgrims, apparently because he is trying to drive sales of his book on the Pilgrims. So, let us reason once more together beloved as we correct both his abuse of scripture and of history.
"Before the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and Venezuela, socialism was tried right here on American soil and utterly failed. The Pilgrims, who established the first permanent English settlement in New England in the fall of 1620, at first attempted a socialist style of living. They disbanded it, however, when it became obvious that their community could not survive with such a system. The Pilgrim's journey to America was funded by a group of venture capitalists who provided the ship and supplies for their journey to the New World. In return, the Pilgrims agreed to live communally until the debt, including interest, was paid. Everyone would receive the same recompense for their work, and everything above their basic necessities would go into a common fund to be used to pay their creditors. In other words, there was no economic inequality. Income produced by farming, fishing and fur trading was spread around and evenly divided among members of the community. They were all equal with only one economic class. They had what modern politicians call "equity," which is a guaranteed equal outcome. William Bradford, who served as governor of Plymouth for many years, told of the challenges of this socialist system and how it almost destroyed their community (Hyatt, "Pilgrims and Patriots," 36-38)." - Eddie Hyatt
The "socialist style of living" was their agreement with the people who funded their journey. It was not decided for ideological reasons but because the funders thought it would turn a profit quicker for them. It was part of the Mayflower Compact I might add, which Eddie raved about in yesterday's article. This system did not almost destroy the community. The first Thanksgiving alone indicated an abundance of provision, not that they were struggling with productivity. The first harsh winter however they only survived due to the native Americans that had befriended them. The intent of the colony was to have common cause to be able to pay off their debt quicker. The NY Times describes the Pilgrims as more akin to shareholders in a corporation rather than subjects to socialism. That does not jive however with the false narrative Eddie Hyatt is always trying to peddle. Because he must try and sell Republican Party talking points, Hyatt is always speaking against things like diversity and equity as somehow evil. Capitalism must always be held up as a divine beacon and thus things like socialism must be cast into the most negative light possible. The reality with the pilgrims however is not that the system failed but rather the people did. As the same NY Times article outlines, people just did not like the system but we will see Eddie allude to that soon enough as he launches into four "lessons the Pilgrims learned about Socialism.
"1. Socialism destroys initiative. Under this socialist system, everyone received the same recompense for their work. No matter how hard, or how little, they worked, all received the same income. With no reward tied to their labor, initiative was destroyed, and everyone put forth their least effort. Why work and dream when you are trapped in a system that mandates equality of outcome for everyone? This socialist system destroyed initiative and almost destroyed the Pilgrim community." - Eddie Hyatt
Once again, Hyatt is being deceptive. First of all, they all agreed to this system as the means to pay off the debt they incurred for the voyage. Keep in mind also that there were only 132 Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower to begin with and only 50 left within one year. Hardly a burgeoning society trying to determine the best economic organizing system. It was not a "socialist system," which is simplistic at best and deceitful at worst. It was the agreed upon method of ensuring they would pay off their investors. So, it was not that their dreams were somehow trapped in this system. That is an absurdity. What did happen is there ended up being a lot of griping and moaning. There was reward for their labor in that they were able to pay down their debt. True there was no early Elon Musk in the Pilgrim colony but there was not supposed to be. If people put forth their least effort that is because of who they were, not the system they were in.
"2. Socialism fosters irresponsibility. Young men, Bradford said, resented getting paid the same as older men when they did so much more of the work. As a result, they tended to slouch and slack since they knew they would receive the same no matter how hard they worked. Knowing they would receive the same no matter how hard or how little they worked, the women often refused go to the fields to work, complaining of sickness and headaches. To have compelled them to go, Bradford said, would have been considered tyranny and oppression. With no individual reward tied to their innovation and labor, everyone gave their least effort. Irresponsibility became obvious throughout the community, and many became gripped with a sense of hopelessness." - Eddie Hyatt
