We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
They had utopian Christian dreams which were rapidly shattered. A New Jerusalem. They really did feel that they were on a holy mission that had nothing to do with money (except insofar as they owed quite a bit to their sponsoring corporation - which they were never able to repay).
Meanwhile, at the same time and a short distance south, New Amsterdam was a prosperous and rapidly growing Dutch colony. They had a good port and a handy river, but also a spirit of freedom (and diversity!) which the Puritans lacked. I don't think the earlier Dutch settlers had a Thanksgiving in New York. They were too busy making money.
Of course they were involved in slavery. Business is business, and slave running was big business.
But they never considered those African slaves to be inferior human beings to themselves. They probably didn't consider them to be human beings at all (which was quite normal at the time, to not consider slaves to be human beings).
Meanwhile, they were more than willing to trade with anyone who had something to sell on which they could make a profit, irrespective of skin colour, religion, or language.
The people who try to apply 21ˢᵗ century American morals and mores to 17ᵗʰ century practices would would scream bloody murder if someone tried to apply 17ᵗʰ century morals and mores to their practices.
Even today, people think the key to right and wrong in human economic interactions is whether someone is succeeding in making money, as if money were a taint. Societies in which people make money consistently improve lives for their members, and societies that execrate money consistently impoverish them. That wouldn't be so bad if they also believed that being impoverished was spiritually beneficial--not a belief I hold, but one that can be defended consistently--but instead they complain about poverty and specifically about the bad rich people who are less impoverished than themselves. When are we going to learn that money is a morally neutral symbol for value received? It's a promise of future reciprocation. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it; it takes its character from the value received. There's nothing about money that prevents our choosing to do things for free, if we're so motivated. Usually our complaint about money amounts to a demand that other people should serve us for free. And maybe in some situations that's exactly what they should do, but it's hardly for us to decide. We have our hands full deciding how to fulfill our own duties of generous, uncompensated service.
While the point about incentives is sound, it wasn't socialism, but a company town, with everyone working for the company. Also, the rejection of the common course didn't occur until after the Thanksgiving of 1621.