Well, you might have something there. Though BOB whispered in my ear that it was actually Shiva at fault for that one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The traditional religious communism of some religious sects, based on the communism of the Jerusalem Church and mentioned in the book of Acts, in no way resembles the arbitrary 20th century communism, so I'm not sure of your point about irony. Firstly there are major problems with this line of argumentation which you present, no where did I assert that Marxist communism was used to establish the Pilgrims, so I don’t see why you are bringing it up. Secondly if you cannot see the irony of communists setting up in America which today is the anti-thesis of those values then are you sure you live in the reality we do? they abandoned that very quickly. Just like anyone today in a democratic, capitalistic society, the Puritans bought and sold goods and made profits on their earnings. Why focus on the consequences, if they didn’t have those communistic values they wouldn’t have even gone to America, and turned capitalist. Also those values still exist very strongly in Pennsylvania. As far as the Amish, I wouldn't consider them founders of America. Do quote where I said they were?
Two points: what characteristics of '20th Century Communism" render it arbitrary? No country in the 20th century was communist. Yes. You read that correctly. I'll repeat it. No country in the 20th century was communist. If you are going to knock, directly or indirectly, a philosophy it behoves you to have at least a marginal understanding of it. Perhaps the clue is in the names: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism was a step on the road to communism, just as capitalism was. No country ever made that final step.
Nevermind that the communist revolution cannot happen until the capitalist revolution is over...so to those who its dead...think again.
What's ironic about that? A religious group who believed in a communal practice who quickly abandoned it for capitalism shortly after arriving on the shores of America. Yeah, that's ironic. :bugeye: Never mind that they weren't even the first group to settle here anyway. The Jamestown colony, which was established pretty much to establish a profitable colony in the Americas to challenge the Spanish, beat the Separatists here by over a decade anyway, so they were the earliest founders. Their communal practice had nothing to do with them coming to America. They came to America because they thought the Dutch were too lax in their religion, because they were afraid their children would adopt Dutch culture, and because they feared that sooner or later that Catholic Spain would attack the Netherlands, and they didn't want to attempt to resettle in England and face persecution. Well, let's see. You said it was ironic that America was founded by communists and then proceeded to use the Puritans and the Amish as your examples. So why did you bother to bring up the Amish then in the thread? Ophiolite Arbitrary, as in dictatorial. Well, my oh my, aren't we the condescending one? I've never heard that before. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But you answered your own question as to what I meant by arbitrary communism. 20th century 'communism' was nothing more than arbitrary totalitarianism, which might explain why I said it was not comparable to the 'communism' of the Puritans. And, by the way, I'd venture I understand communism as well as you do.
If you create an impression of ignorance, of certain facts, in your posts you may expect someone to attempt to educate you as to these facts. Naturally, if you actually know what you are talking about you will feel this free lesson to be patronising. I'm surprised you didn't know that. Since you say earlier that arbitrary=dictatorial, then arbitrary totalinarianism = dictatorial totalinarianism. Is there some other kind? I've no doubt you do, which makes your misapplication of the term even more regrettable.
Well, you were the one that was apparently confused by the application of the term 'arbitrary', which led to your misunderstanding of the intent of the rest of the post. Looks like it went down hill from there. You tell me. You're the one giving free lessons, although I would suggest an oligarchy could be rather totalitarian in nature. I would also suggest that following the death of Stalin, the Soviet Union, with its ruling elite, could be considered much closer in nature to an oligarchy than a dictatorship. But then, you're the one giving lessons. Yes. Very unfortunate. Next time I'll be sure to make use of those little quotation thingies when referring to 'communism', or even better, maybe even italicize the word and give a wink as well, 'communism' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, so as not to confuse anyone about whether I'm referencing 20th century 'communism' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, or true communalism.
What's ironic about that? A religious group who believed in a communal practice who quickly abandoned it for capitalism shortly after arriving on the shores of America. Hmmm…you cannot be this slow can you Spyke? Let’s see what are American taught en masse what the country was founded on, freedom, and capitalistic entrepreneurship (I realize French words like that are taboo), when in reality it was founded on communism and the belief in shared responsibility…hmmm does that sound somewhat contradictory? I don’t care if they “turned capitalist” whatever that may mean, the consequences happened after they arrived in the Americas, thus the country was not founded on capitalism comprende? Is this to hard to understand if so, too bad. Never mind that they weren't even the first group to settle here anyway. The Jamestown colony, which was established pretty much to establish a profitable colony in the Americas to challenge the Spanish, beat the Separatists here by over a decade anyway, so they were the earliest founders. To bad they basically all died…the first successful immigrants I would suppose. Let’s say they were the first to actually make it. Their communal practice had nothing to do with them coming to America. They came to America because they thought the Dutch were too lax in their religion, because they were afraid their children would adopt Dutch culture, and because they feared that sooner or later that Catholic Spain would attack the Netherlands, and they didn't want to attempt to resettle in England and face persecution. That’s doesn’t mean that one of their founding principles was not communism…stop the tangents here, that was a couse of their migration and I never asserted otherwise, stop rationalizing its getting sad now. America was founded by a bunch of Utopian communists. If you cannot see the irony in that, I will show you. Well, let's see. You said it was ironic that America was founded by communists and then proceeded to use the Puritans and the Amish as your examples. Ok that’s illogical now…what’s ur reasoning here A+Z= C? You still have to show outside illogical conjectures where I said whatever nonsense you lied and said I asserted. So why did you bother to bring up the Amish then in the thread? A miniture Cornelius you are!
We can trade 'clever' put downs ad infinitum. Somewhat boring. I'll address a final point. 'Communism' has become a label with a host of attached prejudices and perspectives, often inaccurate, frequently emotional. It is often used as a bogie-man in debates, in preference to well considered argument. In my opinion such looseness serves no one well, at any time. It should be countered. That was the purpose of my original post. I regret that you chose to take it as a personal attack, and, from the tenor of the quotation above, intend to use it as a 'label' in the future.
I can be slow on a lot of things, but not this. The idea was to settle America because James I wanted to imitate Spain and create an empire in the new World. To make a profit for the Crown. That was the reason for the first settlement (that survived at any rate, since Roanoke failed somewhere between 1588 and 1591) in America at Jamestown. And for that matter, the Dutch established the New Amsterdam at roughly the same time as the Separatists were settling Plymouth, 1620 for Plymouth and 1624 for New Amsterdam, and the latter was purely for the fur trade, a capitalist venture. And let's not forget the oldest community in the US, St. Augustine, FL, settled by the Spanish. It was a base for the Spanish to seek treasures in North America. And then the Maryland and the Carolinas were not far behind the Puritans in Massachusetts. While Maryland was chartered to a Catholic and Pennsylvania to a Quaker, both expected to make a profit by selling land to settlers. Neither were communal in nature. So we're left with only one of the many early colonies were established by Utopians. So how do we make the jump to "America was settled by communists"? I already did say they were the first to actually make it, at least English. And not all of them died. While a majority died each year for the first few years, each year the numbers were reinforced and it survived. You never asserted otherwise? Really? Well who was it that said this: "Why focus on the consequences, if they didn’t have those communistic values they wouldn’t have even gone to America,..." That's a pretty assertive statement, despite being completely untrue. No, it wasn't. Only one of a number of communities was settled by Utopians. Of course, one could argue that the original settlers, the Native Americans, were the first communists to establish communities here. So what's a picture of Joe supposed to show me? Getting past the fact that last sentence made absolutely no sense, you stated that America was founded by communists, and then used two groups as examples, the Separatists at Plymouth, and the Amish in Pennsylvania. When I noted that the Amish didn't come to America until a century after the first settlement, so how could they be considered founders, you claimed you weren't implying they were. So I asked then why bring them up in the first place? Speaking of slow... You lost me. The link is bad and I have no idea who Cornelius is, much less a 'miniture'[sic] Cornelius. I guess I'm slow. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
True enough, and I'm sure both of us already know we're clever. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I understand, but undecided and I have had such 'discussions' before, and there have been numerous threads on this forum strictly on what is, and what isn't communism. So you'll have to forgive my informality when I was intent on making another point to another poster. You mean it wasn't supposed to be a personal attack? Well, then, I stand corrected, but, upon taking another look-see... ...so how did you intend for that to be taken? Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly thin-skinned, but at the same time, when someone feels they are being talked down to... Lest I offend anyone, yes.
The idea was to settle America because James I wanted to imitate Spain and create an empire in the new World. Sure that goes for the entire continent really, since the concept of America was not as it is now. So to assert that “the United States of America” was based on that is a stretch. Secondly the Pilgrims are generally regarded as the people who were the first to make American settlements, and their religious piety is always repeated to the world as one of the founding principles of America as we now know it today. That was the reason for the first settlement (that survived at any rate, since Roanoke failed somewhere between 1588 and 1591) in America at Jamestown. And for that matter, the Dutch established the New Amsterdam at roughly the same time as the Separatists were settling Plymouth, 1620 for Plymouth and 1624 for New Amsterdam, and the latter was purely for the fur trade, a capitalist venture. But again you are going on to tangents in reality, those early failed settlements mean nothing, are you speaking Dutch? No, thus another irrelevancy it was those pilgrims that made what we would consider America, America. Of course the British crown which was behind virtually everyone at that time in Empire building wanted a mercantilist colony, but the pilgrims were not there for those reasons. And let's not forget the oldest community in the US, St. Augustine, FL, settled by the Spanish. It was a base for the Spanish to seek treasures in North America. Tangent…and irrelevant…although nice tid bit of useless history. Neither were communal in nature. So we're left with only one of the many early colonies were established by Utopians. So how do we make the jump to "America was settled by communists"? Because they were the first people to settle in America to make America what it is today, and they were here because of their beliefs one of which is communism. You never asserted otherwise? Really? Really, why are you making up arguments that aren’t there, I am even agreeing with you yet you insist on disagreeing with me…sad? That's a pretty assertive statement, despite being completely untrue. Were not these people fleeing from religious persecution, and one of their core religious beliefs was communism? So the only untrue thing here is your spinning. No, it wasn't. Only one of a number of communities was settled by Utopians. Of course, one could argue that the original settlers, the Native Americans, were the first communists to establish communities here. Oh please…I won’t even go there. So what's a picture of Joe supposed to show me? Irony which so escapes you (which mystifies me to a large extent since you aren’t an idiot). I don’t think “Joe” was chasing after capitalists… When I noted that the Amish didn't come to America until a century after the first settlement, so how could they be considered founders, you claimed you weren't implying they were. No I wasn’t all I said was that the traditional religious communistic way of living is still strong in the US Amish communities, no where did I say they found the nation. Sorry if you have a disorder when it comes to interpreting sentences but that is not my problem. You lost me. The link is bad and I have no idea who Cornelius is, much less a 'miniture'[sic] Cornelius. I guess I'm slow. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Indeed…you seemed to have never watched planet of the apes…you damn dirty ape!
The 'concept' of America now is much closer to the Crown's desire to turn a profit than it is to the communalism of those few Separatists. Much less a stretch than attempting to say the United States of America' was based on that one small group of Separatists. Generally regarded by whom? History regards the Jamestown settlers as the first to make a successful American settlement. Some of their governmental practices, yes, such as town meetings, etc, and religious beliefs, of course. But since their communalism didn't even stand the test of time, since they qabandoned it, why would you even attempt to pretend it was a founding principle in America?
The 'concept' of America now is much closer to the Crown's desire to turn a profit than it is to the communalism of those few Separatists. Now this throws American history on its face, firstly if the mayflower had been totally communistic, then the assertion that they turned "capitalist" would be fallicious. Now the assertion made in the US which you towed the line as well was that the Mayflower was primarily a pilgrim based settlement, and here it even asserted that if the ship had been totally Pilgrim based the colony would not have been capitalistic. Generally regarded by whom? History regards the Jamestown settlers as the first to make a successful American settlement. I already agreed with that statement why, I should have said North of Virginia. But since their communalism didn't even stand the test of time, since they qabandoned it, why would you even attempt to pretend it was a founding principle in America? I’m getting really tired of bleating out the same Kantian principle here…the motives not the consequences matter especially when dealing with the motives of settlement…hello…I should not have to repeat the same thing over and over again. All of those failed communities? Show me where I said they were failed communities? Stop with the dyslexia. Last I looked, Maryland was still there. Same for Pennsylvania. Same for St. Augustine. New Amsterdam changed ownership, and withstood a name change, but it's still there as well. None of those are regarded as the pillar of “Americana”, so again tangents. You see America works that way doesn’t it, at least the education system. Pennsylvania came way after anyways as did Maryland to be of any relevance to this discussion, and Spain in Florida was a abortive adventure in the end. The Jamestown settlement established the first representative assembly, the House of Burgesses, with a governor and an advisory council. The assembly met for the first time in 1619, a year before the Pilgrims even landed at Plymouth. The Pilgrims have their place in American history, yes, but to assert that they defined what is America is bordering the absurd. Why? You don’t see Jamestown day do you? You see thanksgiving, who is absurd I or the American conception of history like “Columbus day”? Look I don’t think you get the concept here that facts in romanticized history mean very little, yes Jamestown was great while more then half its population was dying of Yellow Fever or whatever they had there. The American perception of fact is that you celebrate the Pilgrims are the true first Americans as evidenced by your holiday’s. They are what generally define America as America; the place of refuge for these folks Jamestown did no such service. No they weren't, but they were only one very small community, which was soon absorbed in to the larger Massachusetts colony. See me caring? Stop with the consequences now, its getting old. Actually, no. One of their 'core' religious beliefs was not communism. They didn't practice it in England. They didn't practice it in the Netherlands. They practiced it briefly when they first came to America, and I suspect it was an attempt to keep the settlement from starving out. Tell me why they choose America? Oh, I know who Joe was after. I just don't understand what he had to do with your argument about the Separatists. If you're implying that he was a 'communist' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! witch-hunter, yes, so what? Is it your assertion now that 'communists' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! in America in the 1950s somehoiw have a connection with the Separatists? Surely not. I assert that although they believed in wildly different forms of communism surely they were both communists, and it was one of America’s founding principles the Jamestown colony did not really have those principles, they were nothing but Brits who still pledged allegiance to the King, is that a principle of America today Spyke? No tolerance (was) one of America’s principles, and surely the Jamestown colony was not very tolerant. If so, I stand corrected. However, if that was your intent, to what purpose? Needless to say u wouldn’t understand… Sorry. I haven't seen that movie in years. I was disappointed though that the remake left out that line, which was the best part of the original. Ok I understand...this world can be strange.
Throws American history on its face? Are you serious? You act like you've pulled a rabbit out of the hat. The fact that the Separatists weren't alone on the Mayflower is not exactly some secret history that everybody but Americans apparently know about (God, the misplaced arrogance on this board slays me sometimes), and can be found in most any college text. The number of Puritans on the Mayflower is most usually set at 40 members. Yes, there was a majority of non-Puritans on board, and the disagreements between the two groups started almost immediately. And I'm really not sure how you state that the assertion that had the ship been totally Pilgrims and thus would have not been capitalistic helps your argument. Quite the opposite. It helps mine. It supports what I've been saying. Not only did 2/3 of the Plymouth settlement not share the Puritans' beliefs, they came to America in search of the opportunity to make a profit. Too funny. So we have the Jamestown community that was here to make a profit, and established America's first representative government, and 2/3 of the Plymouth settlement was here to make a profit, and then we have a small group of 40 Separatists that tried, and failed, to establish a communal society. My point is made. Thanks. Would it somehow make a difference if the Puritans had settled south of Virginia? It's really quite simple even if continues to fly over your head. If you're going to continue to argue that America today is based on the Separatists, then it can only be based on what the Separatists actually passed down through the generations. Correct? Their communal society didn't survive. Failed motives or intentions of settlement are not legacies that get passed along. What was passed along were values that actually survived the initial settlement, which did not include communalism. >>>"But again you are going on to tangents in reality, those early failed settlements mean nothing, are you speaking Dutch?" Then I can just as easily say that Plymouth is inconsequential. Maryland was chartered only 12 years after the Separatists landed at Plymouth, which is a slightly shorter amount of time than the 13 years between Jamestown and Plymouth. Again. Are you serious? You're actually trying to tell me that Jamestown is romanticized history? The original Jamestown may not exist as anything more than an archaelogical site, but what Jamestown represents to the US, representative government and the first working state assembly, is significantly more important to what is America than Thanksgiving, and certainly carries more weight than some failed communal experiment. And for the record. The Jamestown population was dying of starvation and malaria, which ultimately led to Yellow Fever. What we are talking about here is what America is today, and where that legacy comes from. Right? America is a representative government, whose laws are created by an assembly of representatives by a bicameral congress. Is that best reflected by the representative government established at Jamestown, or the very short-lived communal society a very small group of Separatists attempted? Don't think too long. I don't want you getting a headache. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The point you obviously missed is that the Separatists were soon absorbed by the larger Puritan community, who were not radical Separatists, and who actually held the charter to Massachusetts. And they definitely did not practice communalism. Because they had already tried the Netherlands, which was the most religiously tolerant country on the Continent, and that didn't work out. America was the only real choice left for them. I would suggest you stop with the assertions and actually study up a bit more on both the Separatists and Jamestown. Communism is not a founding principle of America. Period. And if you think the Jamestown settlers weren't tolerant, you should read up more on the Puritans, who had a nasty habit of hanging Quakers. And one of the big problems those non-Puritans had with the Separatists at Plymouth was the latter group's intolerance of others. They called themselves 'Saints' and the rest of the group 'Strangers', and established minority rules for the 'Strangers', despite the fact that they themselves were the minority group. No wonder their experiment with communism failed. Smells like a cop-out to me.
I just have one question .. which i couldnt get a proper anser for.. from any american i'v asked. What exactly are americans free from??????????????????????????
A really fun question to ask, is when you see an American moron say "America is #1" - ask, what are you number one at? Start looking for answers. Look at illiteracy, crime, murder, rape, suicide, gap between rich and poor, lack of health-care access and more . . . .
