Every year, the libertarian capitalists over at The Beacon trot out the same old falsehoods about communism/collectivism when Thanksgiving Day rolls around in the US. Here's my comment that I posted on their blog:
Tell it to the Hutterites (Anabaptists, not Calvinists). They did so well in Canada and the US with their communes that the Province of Alberta actually outlawed for a time their legal right to purchase more land.
They are still doing well -- have been for many decades now that the anti-communal forces aren't persecuting them to death over in Europe from whenst they came.
Your position though is that communal ownership/collectivism never has worked and never can. The Hutterites, and many other groups/communes, are living proof that you are dead wrong and simply repeating false-propaganda ad nauseam, as the Big Lie tactic that it is.
The Pilgrims had problems not because collectivism doesn't work but because of the particulars of their unique situation (including the "deal/contract" itself; they had to pay too much in labor to repay their travel fare, etc.) and their disposition/mentality in the first place.
In 1942, alarmed at the influx of Dakota Hutterites buying copious tracts of land, the province of Alberta passed the Communal Properties Act, severely restricting the expansion of the Dariusleut and Lehrerleut colonies. The act was repealed in 1973, allowing Hutterites to purchase land. This act resulted in the establishment of a number of new colonies in British Columbia and Saskatchewan and at the same time there was expansion into Montana and eastern Washington in the 1940s and 1950s. Today, approximately three of every four Hutterite colonies are in Canada (mostly in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan), with almost all of the remainder in the United States (primarily South Dakota and Montana). The total Hutterite population in both countries is generally estimated between forty and fifty thousand.
Here's more of the same postings from them: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1423
You'll notice this comment:
Tom Usher, in my other post I stated that the actual problem in Plymouth in the 1620s was the British East India Company (BEIC from now on in this post) taking all of what the pilgrims produced and rationing it back to them as it saw fit, regardless of how much or how little each person or family produced.
Well, it wasn't the British East India Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony)#Negotiations), but here was my reply:
...you just shot down Benjamin Powell's article. You've just said that the Pilgrims were not in need of capitalist incentivizing but that they were having too much of their crops confiscated. Am I misreading your comment?
I don't disagree with everything the libertarians say. Sometimes their anti-war statements are close to just right. However, concerning their statements against all things giving-and-sharing-all-with-all economics are flat out false propaganda. I've pointed this out to them before, but they think that ignoring it will work. It won't.