Skip to main content

Thankful for Real Community: A Thanksgiving Lesson

What follows is a true story – actually, two true stories, or the same story that occurred in two different places in very different times and circumstances. Read on to find out where.

They had been discussing amongst themselves in pairs and small groups for months, concerned with their poverty and lack of progress in improving crop yields, so important to feeding themselves and building a thriving community. What they’d been doing, it seemed, should have succeeded. They all worked the same fields together – clearing, tilling, sowing, weeding, and reaping – everyone in the same fields at the same time. Anyone who might be weak in one skill should have had that weakness made up by others working beside them, with everyone benefitting from everyone else’s unique abilities.

They all had a common purpose. But for the occasional troublemaker, present in every community, they liked each other, helped each other, and took care of each other when some among them fell ill. And, everybody got an equal share of the yearly harvest, accounting for family size. But something was amiss. Their harvests were meager, more meager than the farmers knew they should be.

So they were finally all together, in the same room, discussing the problem and deliberating what to do about it. They all agreed it was not a problem of bad soil. Their problem was not a lack of knowledge or a lack of skill. With accusations flying back and forth, they realized that none of them was truly working as hard as he was capable of doing. But why?

Because they got the same share of the yearly output regardless of their personal effort. It was easy to let others do the work and still get a share, but since everybody saw it the same way, nobody was working to their full capabilities.

The solution was simple. They’d divide the fields and work their own plots individually, keeping the gains for themselves.

The next year, the harvest was bountiful, the best, in fact, they’d ever seen. And since most had produced more than they could eat, everybody had more because of trade.
_________________
This story has likely played out many times in many settings for ages, but one instance is especially relevant for Thanksgiving because it involved the Pilgrims, that community of religious zealots who wanted to separate from the Church of England and who founded Plymouth Colony. For three years, they practiced a form of extreme socialism where all work was shared, including household chores where women were assigned to cook communally and wash other families’ clothes. William Bradford, the colony’s repeatedly re-elected governor, described this briefly in his history, based on his diary. He relates no detail concerning their deliberations before they decided to move away from socialism and to free enterprise except to say that,

“after much debate, the Governor, with the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household… So every family was assigned a parcel of land… This was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been… The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability; and to have compelled them would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

Bradford continued:

“The failure of the experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, — that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort.”

A year later, Bradford went on describe their circumstances after moving to a free enterprise system:

“But before I come to other things I must say a word about their planting this year. They felt the benefit of their last year’s harvest; for by planting corn on their own account they managed, with a great deal of patience, to overcome famine… The settlers now began to consider corn more precious than silver; and those that had some to spare began to trade with the others for small things, by the quart, pottle, and peck, etc.; for they had not money, and if they had, corn was preferred to it.”
_____________
A continent and an ocean away, 355 years later, the same story played out in a little village in China called Xiaogang. The same communal service, at least in farming, was practiced, imposed by China’s authoritarian Communist Party rather than by idealism. The same meager harvests were suffered. The farmers grumbled and debated for years in the same way. And they knew they were capable of so much more. So one day, after the farmers met and decided to divide the land and farm individually, they wrote a contract.

Unlike the Pilgrims, who were self-governing, Xiaogang’s farmers had to be concerned about what would happen if the Communist government found out they were not farming collectively. So the contract had to be made and signed in secret. Among its agreed provisions was a promise that if any of their number were arrested for rejecting communal farming, the others would raise the arrested man’s children.

The farmers of Xiaogang worked very hard, with renewed enthusiasm, secretly competing with each other to produce the largest yields. When Xiaogang’s harvest broke records for how plentiful it was, Communist authorities knew something was amiss and investigated. But as it happened, Mao Zedong was dead. Deng Xiaoping was in power, and when the contract came to light, instead of being punished, the farmers were held up as an example of a new way for China to proceed. Today, that contract is held in reverence.
____________
These two stories, 355 years and thousands of miles apart, teach us that all humans respond to incentives and are self-interested. Thus, giving everyone equal shares as a way to guarantee security actually results in poverty and insecurity. As William Bradford put it, rather than socialism, “God in His wisdom saw that another plan of life was fitter for them.”

Byron Schlomach is Director of the 1889 Institute and can be reached at bschlomach@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


*Bradford quotes are from: Bradford, William, Bradford’s History of the Plymouth Settlement; 1608-1650, rendered into modern English by Harold Paget and published in 1909, originally titled Of Plymouth Plantation, reprint by Mantle Ministries: San Antonio, TX, 1988, pp. 115-116, 141-142. For the story of Xiaogang, listen to NPR’s “The Secret Document That Transformed China.”

Popular posts from this blog

The Truth About COVID-19: Better Than You Think

As the media turns its attention back to COVID-19, there is a renewed push to shut down the economy. Some states have even begun to scale back reopening plans for their economies; others continue to delay opening. It is essential to look past their catastrophizing and focus on the facts of COVID-19. One fact to consider: while testing has risen 23%, the rate of positive results has only risen 1.3 percentage points to 6.2%. Even as alarmists point to the rise in cases, they still admit that the boost in testing has played a role in the rise in the total number of known cases. Therefore, the total number of positive cases is not of much use in this case, as it only paints a partial picture. The rate of increase in total positive cases is a more meaningful measure, and it has barely increased. Even more important is who is getting infected. The data show that recent cases are primarily younger people. But that’s a good thing; these are precisely the people that are key to building herd ...

Cronyism: Feature, Not a Bug, for Used Car Dealer Licensing

Used car dealers in Oklahoma are governed by the Oklahoma Used Motor Vehicle and Parts Commission (UMPV). Like most licensing boards, it is made up of industry insiders. The UMVP's stated mission is to protect consumers from harm, but its structure and history indicate that its primary concern might be protecting licensed dealers from competition. This, of course, is the prime directive of all licensing boards. My recent paper deals with the licensing of used car dealers.   The person hit hardest by this is the hobbyist, especially in times of economic turmoil.   Imagine someone stuck at home due to coronavirus. We'll call him Frank. He can’t work due to the economic shutdown. Unfortunately, Frank’s lack of work does not mean he no longer has to put food on the table for his family. Fortunately for him, he is able to find a good deal on a used car that needs a little work. Frank has all the tools and garage space necessary to fix up the car and isn't violating any quar...

I Abstain: Why I Refuse to Vote in Judicial Retention Elections

Over a million Oklahomans voted in the recent November 3rd election. For most, the presidential race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is what drove them to the polls. However, some were likely confused when they reached the bottom portion of their ballot marked “Judicial Retention Elections.” What are judicial retention elections? Every two years, certain judges are placed on the ballot for a simple yes/no retention vote. These elections stem from Oklahoma’s   judicial selection method , and ask voters whether they want to keep, or retain, certain judges. Elections are staggered so judges only face retention every six years. Many claim that the merit selection method is a more sophisticated, apolitical judicial selection method than the federal model or the partisan election model, but in reality it is   much worse   than either of the two. In essence, the retention vote was a patronizing attempt to make “merit” selection more palatable to   voters back in the...

The High Duty of Elected Officials and Ways They Fall Short

With an election just completed (the alleged voting, anyway), a legislative session coming up, constant talk of spending to offset the impacts of COVID-19, and elected officials trying to mandate our way out of a disease, the duty of elected officials in their official positions is worth considering. The 1889 Institute recently published a booklet for state lawmakers that discusses various issues and possible solutions. Included in that booklet is a short discussion of the central duty of elected officials, which is expanded here. What is the central, over-arching duty of an individual after having been elected to public office? Public oaths of office give a strong hint, and the Oklahoma Constitution is a good place to start. Article XV includes the oath of office, which states that an Oklahoma public official swears to “support, obey, and defend” the constitutions of the nation and the state, that the official will not take bribes, and that the official will discharge duties as best...