[Sherman Logan]

The problem lay in the Mayflower Compact, which dictated a form of government whereupon property was communally owned and cultivated with the harvest being distributed equally to all from the “common wealth,” anticipating Karl Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

It did no such thing. The MC was very short and said nothing at all about economic structure of the colony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_Compact#Text

The issue arose not as part of the government, but rather because all the colonists were employees of the London Virginia Company, not independent colonists.

It was a company policy, not one imposed by the government, though of course the two were intimately entwined by the nature of the case.

[Col. Bob]

Thank you for the correction. There seems to be nothing in the Compact that specifically dictates a communal style of government. It may be implied in the part of the Compact that states...”do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such as just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought to most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”

As you stated, the colonists were employees of the London Virginia Company, not independent colonists.

The communal style of government appears to be the company’s policy and the phrase, “covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic” seems to lend itself to that style of governance.

Anyway, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Fortunately the colonists changed from a commune to a private ownership style that served them well from then on.

Thanks again for the correction.