

How Private Property Saved the Pilgrims - cwan
http://volokh.com/2009/11/26/how-private-property-saved-the-pilgrims/

======
meeech
[http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/family-research-
counc...](http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/family-research-council-is-
thankful-for.html)

~~~
kiba
'grunting "socialism bad, capitalism good" simian dichotomy.'

Perhaps I am biased, but everyone likes to think they're smart and
sophisticated when they said they view the world in shade of greyness.

I keep learning that the world isn't as grey as I used to think. Intellectual
property is very bad. Antitrust laws are stupid. Minimum wage doesn't help the
poor. Farmer subsidy in America is hurting comparative advantage and thus
prosperity in other countries.

Even wars are bad.

"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is
generally employed only by small children and large nations." - David Friedman

Perhaps, socialism versus capitalism isn't so complicated people like to
believe. Maybe it is a matter of "socialism, bad and capitalism, good!".

In capitalism, communes are allowed. Charity is allowed. There's no pretension
that people can be transformed from greedy people to saint or that one
government official can fix everything. Capitalism acknowledges failure when
bubbles are busted, when the free market doesn't give anyone a job of some
type, and when firms doesn't do their job efficiently.

However, socialism thinks everything could be fixed with a redistribution
scheme of some sort. They think if they can elect the "right" official,
everything will be alright. They think they know how to distribute resource
correctly, and efficiently. They can be "just".

So, I go for capitalism every time. I am biased, alright, but I think the
truth is that socialism versus capitalism are not as complicated as people
like to think.

~~~
kungfooguru
I'm sorry, but your definition of socialism is entirely false. If anything
that is the view of the liberal capitalist. That is, that some "official" can
solve the problems and redistribution by this leader and his government will
solve the problems of the world. They are wrong in this thinking.

Socialism means a change in the organization of production NOT the circulation
of value. Its not the liberal idea of, well if we just had the right people
deciding who to take from and who to give to it would be fine. It's the
working class actually running society, which, like the ruling class does now,
they would do for the benefit of the their class. And this is why it would
ultimately feed everyone and house everyone and destroy racism, homophobia,
sexism, etc. Those are products of the organization of production.

Marxism is about democracy. Democracy in the workplace. Votes no longer being
about how much money you have. And I don't mean that just in the sense of
political influence but voting in the capitalist "supply and demand" sense. It
is hard to have a 'demand' vote if you have no money.

I'd lastly like to say that unlike a commune, in the sense of the Pilgrim
commune, socialism does not mean if you are able to work and choose not to
that you are fed.

I'm a member of the revolutionary Marxist organization the International
Socialist Organization. For more info on us check out our paper
<http://socialistworker.org/> and our site
<http://www.internationalsocialist.org/what_we_stand_for.html>

~~~
KirinDave
For people who read this and didn't notice, the immediate conflation of
Socialism and Marxism was a classic example of how radicals try and pollute a
larger issue with their own specific dye. This is not a specific value
judgement towards Marxism on my part, but rather a value judgement on the way
that many Marxist groups try to insinuate themselves in every conversation. I
saw them during the Proposition 8 rallies I attended as well, trying to argue
that Marxism was the only way to get gay marriage approved.

It's perfectly possible and reasonable to engage in socialism without engaging
in Marxism. It's also possible to mix Socialism and Captialism in rational
ways... the US currently does this with the medicine market and it provides a
much more stable system for consumers to buy medicines that are proven to work
(although this new health care bill contains provisions for the government
paying for christian science mysticism, which is a terrible thing in my
opinion).

~~~
kiba
So I am conflating socialism and marxism? Are marxists trying to avoid the
issue? Is it both?

Is it a different issue altogether?

~~~
KirinDave
You are conflating all socialist policies with Marxism.

I do not know what issue Marxists would be trying to avoid, as my personal
experience suggests most Marxists will try and conflate every issue with their
_specific_ economic and social ideology.

We're talking about policies that could be considered "socialist." No one is
talking about a wholesale abolition of the free market system. At least, in
this stage of the game.

------
vannevar
Not sure what the point here is, other than to reaffirm that the US has
historically supported private property, evidenced by the fact that we've
never elected a Socialist administration (no, not even Roosevelt). To those
who think Obama is socialist, I suggest you familiarize yourself with history
before using a term you don't understand. Politically Obama is no more
socialist than Richard Nixon.

------
henrikschroder
Imagine that the pilgrims had been shown how to cultivate rice instead of
corn, then the moral of this story would have been reversed, since growing
rice requires a large collective effort, unlike corn and wheat and potatoes
which can be grown by a single individual and scaled up based on need.

