Book of Mormon Socialism

[WalkerW]

Anything by the eminant Robert Conquest is excellent.

"I told you so, you f---ing fools."

[Loran Howard Blood]

I'm glad that you can at least admit to your anti-democratic feelings.

I'm more than happy to, and to align myself with the Founders, for whom democracy was the last form of government (among other forms) they ever considered implementing in America.

Democracy and collectivism are, indeed, not such strange bedfellows.

[Loran Howard Blood]

"I told you so, you f---ing fools."

??

[Vance]

Are you kidding? They've been trying to get our guns for years, they have secularized our society to the point a child can't read a Bible in school and have taxed us past the point where the Nephites thought they were egregiously taxed.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

[Vance]

You seem to be opposed not to socialism, but to the basic concept of democracy.

Democracy as in two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for lunch?

[elguanteloko]

The Black Book of Communism would be a good start. The work of R.J. Rummel is excellent. Anything by the eminant Robert Conquest is excellent. Hayek is fundamental. There has been a substantial amount of new scholarship on the history, nature, and effects of socialism since the fall of the Evil Empire, which you clearly have not availed yourself of. Its time to avail yourself. The history is settled and well known here, so the old tired shibboleths on your part will not be of much use.

There is no such thing as a Marxist or socialist state that is or was not an economic basket case, and there is no such thing as a social democracy that, were it not for its capitalistic elements, would also not be an economic basket case.

Western Eurupe, despite popular and uneducated fantasies to the contrary, as expressed even in this forum, are and have been for quite sometime economically sclerotic, weak, and dissipated states that ever declining economic potential and freedom to their citizenry (with the concomitant declines and restrictions in political and social freedoms).

The bodies buried all around us by the efforts to achieve "a better world" now number substantially over one hundred million. These are facts. They are history. They are also, it appears, for many, many on the Left, so many "inconvenient truths."

I placed the definition of Socialism for a reason (from wikipedia). Again, FYI:

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.^[1][2][3] A socialist society is organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism.^[4][5] This ranges from the establishment of cooperative management structures to the abolition of all hierarchical structures in favor of free association.

If we follow this definition, were the Soviets socialists? They were called that way (by the U.S. and by themselves) but that doesn't mean they were. You can read this: http://www.chomsky.i...es/1986----.htm

You can re-attempt if you want, though I'm still asking Dr. Peterson to support that.

[WalkerW]

??

When Conquest's The Great Terror was being republished after the fall of Communism with new data that verified much of his research, the American publisher asked for a new title. This was Conquest's alleged suggestion.

[frankenstein]

I would also add to this Von Mises' The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, which is a short but succint analysis of the mind set (or sets) that cling to this view of human motives.

just thumping through it it seems more of the same for the era "soviets bad, USA! USA! USA!"

a book which the opening pages begin with Hollywood and Broadway "the most bigoted supporters of the Soviets" is hardly a book that is fair-minded in its analysis, its just more McCarthistic propaganda.

[WalkerW]

just thumping through it it seems more of the same for the era "soviets bad, USA! USA! USA!"

Odd for an Austrian.

I would suggest less thumping and more reflective reading.

a book which the opening pages begin with Hollywood and Broadway "the most bigoted supporters of the Soviets" is hardly a book that is fair-minded in its analysis, its just more McCarthistic propaganda.

You can't be serious.

[why me]

For which I am grateful. Socialism has reduced enough people to unnecessary poverty, and killed more than enough scores of millions. It should go the way of phrenology, liver-divination, leechcraft, witch-burnings, and astrology, which have done far less damage.

Hello Dan.

I am afraid that you are misinformed about socialism. You seem to be a little confused just what socialism is. It wasn't socialism that killed millions, but communism. Also, when it comes to poverty, capitalism is certainly in the business of creating poverty. How many americans are now living in poverty? And in terms of killing...we can say that capitalism and its concept of private property more or less wiped out the American Indian. And it has started wars over imperialistic endeavors.

There are a lot of socialisms out there. First, there is social democracy. One can find many social democratic parties throughout europe that were advocating socialism. Then, there were the Utopian socialists. And then there were the plain socialists who followed Edward Bernstein and his evolutionary form of socialism.

I think that you need to retract your socialism claim. It is very american in its ignorance. I say thank heaven for karl Marx and his comments about capitalism that existed during his time. It was terrible for the working man, woman and child. You just have to read ****ens to catch a glimpse of capitalism within its English Heart.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm more than happy to, and to align myself with the Founders, for whom democracy was the last form of government (among other forms) they ever considered implementing in America.

Democracy and collectivism are, indeed, not such strange bedfellows.

I heartly agree with you here. Since America is not a democracy. If only Logo knew that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hello Dan.

I am afraid that you are misinformed about socialism. You seem to be a little confused just what socialism is. It wasn't socialism that killed millions, but communism. Also, when it comes to poverty, capitalism is certainly in the business of creating poverty. How many americans are now living in poverty? And in terms of killing...we can say that capitalism and its concept of private property more or less wiped out the American Indian. And it has started wars over imperialistic endeavors.

Captialsim (aka free markets) is not the reason there is poverty.

Captialism has nothing what so ever to do with it. And if some one else refernces Smith's book again I am going to club a baby seal. That is right I will club a baby seal to make a better deal.

Now for extra credit, name the movie I just quoted.

BTW there was this little movment in Germany in the 30's called the National Socialist workers party.

Notice the "socialist" in the name.

[frankenstein]

You can't be serious.

cant be serious about what?

A book written in the 1950s which labels Hollywood and Broadway as "the most bigoted supporters" of the soviets is not a book that presents itself as being fairminded in it analysis. and the time of the book fits right in with the waning years of mccarthy; though, yes, the mccarthistic propaganda was sensationalism on my part.

[why me]

Both are closely related evils. As Marx himself made clear, socialism is very much a democratic movement.

Until the socialists actually come to power, that is.

Not to rain on your parade but socialists have been in power in Europe for years. France's second largest party is the Socialist Party. And Social Democratic parties have been in and out of power in Europe for years. You have a very narrow american view just what socialism is. It is based in equality and social justice and when the social democratic ideology was alive and well in Europe, life was great as basic benefits and security were put into place to safeguard a safety net. Now of course, american style capitalism is making inroads into european social democracy. This is mainly due to the EU and its stress on competitiveness. Now there is more poverty, more alienation and marginalization in european societies.

[Vance]

And yet again, this is a mischaraterization of what actually happened and what the D&C elucidates is the central premise of the entire system. The "surrendering of all rights, privileges and ownership of their property" to the Church was not a literal transfer of the property itself to a big warehouse from which the other members of the community could pick and choose other peoples previously owned goods, commodities, and "means of production" for their specific use. The "transfer" was a spiritual and legal one, involving an explicit affirmation that all personal property actually belongs to God, and that all of it, as well as all our time, talent, ability, skills etc. are to be available for and dedicated to the building of Zion. What is was not was a literal transfer of all private material "things" into a literal commons.

The proof of this is in the scriptures themselves. Immediately upon transfer of all private property to the Church, one received it back again as a private "stewardship" that, although not "owned" in the present sense, was private, individual, and personal and the individual responsibility and concern of the steward.

As with the law of free agency and personal stewardship as already understood and practiced in the Church, the Zionic stewardship, while not explicitly "owned" by the steward, is, in very point of fact, de facto "private" property around which the same moral barriers and demarcation lines are erected at the present time. This means that as a member of a Zion community, if I'm hungry and have no means of support, I go to by Bishop and he sends me to the Bishop's storehouse. I cannot walk onto your property (stewardship) in the belief that we have "all things in common" and take what I desire. That would be considered "theft" in the moral sense in Zion just as it is now.

Again, as I've pointed out many times before, saying that "all things belong to the Lord" is very different than saying that "all things belong to the community." "Having all things in common" relates to the covenant relationship with the UO, that is: the covenant relationship of steward to the Lord is one of the common ownership of all things by God and the consecration of it to the building of Zion. It is not indicative, as literally every General Authority who has ever spoken at any length on the matter makes clear, have any relation to an actual economic egalitarianism in any literal sense.

That kind of system would be both counterproductive, economically, for any Zion community (as history has shown it is counterproductive, at various levels of intensity, everywhere and anywhere it is ever implemented as an economic policy) as well as in intense violation of the core principle of free agency

On this point, I should say, David is correct, in a way, that "agency" cannot actually be removed from us by any political or economic system. We can lay, chained and starving in a dungeon, and still have all of our agency intact. Without the freedom to act among a range of alternatives, however, or, in other words, without our "free" agency, agency itself is and remains an abstraction (and an internal mental, psychological state of which we may be aware) of no particular relevance to our mortal probationary state as far as actual acting in the world is concerned.

Without the ability to actually "choose" our own conduct, act upon our motives, and sift alternative choices among a background of actually present and existing possibilities, "agency" is a moot theorem which makes for stimulating armchair philosophical discussion, but has no relevance to that actual business of mortality.

The point is that the freedom which those with David's particular beliefs regarding the economic order of a society wish to eliminate from the economic realm is inseparable from the concept of agency that defines and makes possible through the exercise of freedom the very existence and meaning of the "probationary" nature of mortality and the struggle to choose wisely while within it. It is utterly futile to be an "agent" in the world, economically or otherwise, unless one can consider oneself to be a "free agent." Everyone in gulag has their agency. None have freedom. Agency that cannot be actualized or applied because prevented so by external force may still be agency, but its entire purpose and potential is frustrated and inert.

Agency, in other words, without freedom, is dead, being alone.

True enough, except that "eradicating poverty" is a happy derivative effect of the Celestial law of the UO. It is nowhere mentioned, ever, as the primary, fundamental, or major focus of the building of Zion. the UO is not primarily an economic system, and its central focus is not the eradication of poverty, even though this is a salient and required aspect of the system. The UO is a Celestial social order designed to prepare us to meet the Savior at his Second Coming. It is a matter of personal spiritual purification and refinement that covers the entire spectrum of individual spiritual maturity, of which the economic sphere is only one.

Everything we know about the system, as given in the D&C and as elucidated by the modern Brethren indicates that in Zion markets and economic transactions will be open, free, private, and capitalistic (that is to say, capital will be created, saved, and invested in productive economic activity - the only possible means of eradicating poverty at all). Excess beyond the unique, individual needs and wants of individual families will move to the Bishop's storehouse for the maintenance of the poor. The able bodied poor will not be poor for long, it would seem, so long as the economics of Zion remain of the private stewardship, free market variety. In such a system, economic growth will, in time, engulf most of the poor by making them productive and economically independent in their own right. In time I would foresee, except in a few cases (inadvertent temporary unemployment, sickness etc.) few but the poor who cannot work because of age, disability etc., in need of the Bishop's storehouse at all.

Much of the funds transferred to the Storehouse, indeed, will in time I think be used for other purposes than for maintaining "the poor" in Zion. Indeed, David's socialistic, redistributionist vision of Zion virtually guarantees that much of that society will never be more than a trip to the Storehouse away from want.

Clever. David gets to eat his cake and have it too here. No statement of any of the Modern special witnesses of Christ in our age has ever approximated such a fuzzy, indistinct evasive non-definition of this kind. Those who have spoken on the subject have been crystal clear that the UO is not socialistic, communistic, collectivistic, or "communitarian" in any manner whatsoever.

David wishes to define it as "socialistic" but not "socialism." So then its "like" socialism, but its not rally socialism.

Nice cake if you can get it.

I am glad you showed up.

[WalkerW]

Just because I think frankenstein's McCarthyism comment was so ridiculous, I'm going to post the entire section from which he lifted the quote in order to provide context for the remarks:

The many to whom capitalism gave a comfortable income and leisure are yearning for entertainment. Crowds throng to the theatres. There is money in show business. Popular actors and playwrights enjoy a six-figure income. They live in palatial houses with butlers and swimming pools. They certainly are not

[Deborah]

How many americans are now living in poverty?

And how many of those Americans "living in poverty" have big TVs, cars and electronic games, and cigarettes and alcohol. I don't think most Americans know what real poverty is. Even years ago teaching Headstart I'd visit people's homes and no matter how poor they were they had a nice TV. I didn't even have one back then because I couldn't afford it.

[why me]

Captialsim (aka free markets) is not the reason there is poverty.

Captialism has nothing what so ever to do with it. And if some one else refernces Smith's book again I am going to club a baby seal. That is right I will club a baby seal to make a better deal.

Please read the history of capitalism, especially in the nineteenth century and just see the quality of life for the average worker. It was the socialist movement that helped the worker get basic human rights in Europe. The free market has brought poverty to millions of americans and is now creating more poverty in europe. The free market based on competitiveness is no lover of humanity.

Within europe after the second world war, the elite realized that if they wanted to stave off communism, they would need to implement social democratic policies. And they did. The West German social democratic party and the french socialist party have both been in power and are still major parties. Not to mention other democratic socialist parties within europe. The problem is: they have sold out the workers by adopting the free market during the last 18 years.

[why me]

And how many of those Americans "living in poverty" have big TVs, cars and electronic games, and cigarettes and alcohol. I don't think most Americans know what real poverty is. Even years ago teaching Headstart I'd visit people's homes and no matter how poor they were they had a nice TV. I didn't even have one back then because I couldn't afford it.

Nonsense. Poverty is real in america. Millions are living in poverty, getting their food from bread lines and soup kitchens. Not much different in europe these days as american style capitalism is creeping into the system.

My point: dan was wrong when he confused socialism with communism.

[Loran Howard Blood]

If we follow this definition, were the Soviets socialists? They were called that way (by the U.S. and by themselves) but that doesn't mean they were. You can read this: http://www.chomsky.i...es/1986----.htm

You can re-attempt if you want, though I'm still asking Dr. Peterson to support that.

1. find yourself a serious source other than Wiki please.

2. As to Chomsky, for heaven's sake find yourself an intellectually serious source!

But let's begin with the Wiki definition just for the sake of argument.

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

^{Save for small cottage industries and the underground markets, the Soviet Government owned all resources and means of production in the country. They were the sole employer in all major industries, and "the people," as Marx said, were understood to be the owners of all the means of production through the intermediary of the state, which is the mediating agency of the dictatorship of the proletariat. All the means of production (capital and capital resources) were publicly owned - owned by the state.}

A socialist society is organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism

Here's the problem. This is pure academic theory, and the pure theory has never worked when attempt has been made to apply it to actual governance. Never. Ever. I think it philosophically slipshod to apply pure, abstract theoretical speculations (and you are not the only one to do this. This is logo's specialty) to the actual consistent failures of socialism in practice, and, finding nothing but a historical pattern of failure and calamity, claim that "socialism has never really been tried" because the theory and the practice diverge.

It never dawns on true believers in this form of secular gnostic mysticism that it may not be that "true" socialism has never been tried, but that the theory itself is fatally flawed and hence, cannot be tried without producing the actual empirical and historical failures. The theory, in other words, must and always will produce what appear to be corruptions and bastardizations of the theory, because those corruptions and bastardizations are necessary features of the actual implementation the theory's concepts and prescriptions in the real world (just as people like Lenin. Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Winnie Mandela, Robert Mugabe, and Adolph Hitler are both produced by and inherently attracted to socialist ideas and the requirements of their application).

Perhaps, in other words, socialism has, indeed been tried, over and over again, but that the necessary means required to implement it demonstrate the theory, from which those means derive, to be in deep error. All attempts at full implementation of socialism's utopian ideals have created the same kinds of societies, after all, not just a few here and there.

[Loran Howard Blood]

When Conquest's The Great Terror was being republished after the fall of Communism with new data that verified much of his research, the American publisher asked for a new title. This was Conquest's alleged suggestion.

I knew I liked this guy.

Have you, by any chance, read The Dragons of Expectation?

Something nice to have sitting next to Paul Johnson's The Intellectuals and Sowell's The Intellectuals and Society.

[why me]

BTW there was this little movment in Germany in the 30's called the National Socialist workers party.

Notice the "socialist" in the name.

Have you any idea how that name came to be? Let me explain it to you. Germany had a strong communist and social democratic movement. Hitler, no dummy, decided to change the name of the party from German Workers Party to the National Socialist German Workers Party. The German Workers Party was a right wing party. In fact, Hitler was hired by the German Army to spy on it because they thought that it may be socialist but Hitler found it harmless. But they did send Hitler a membership card. And the rest is history. Hitler named the party the way he did because he wanted communist votes. He thought that with a red flag and a socialist name, he would get support from rank and file workers.

Hitler hated the communists and the social democrats.

[Deborah]

The free market based on competitiveness....

Why do socialist believers think it's a zero sum game. It is the free market which creates the jobs which eliminate poverty. Of course those at the top will make more money; they usually have more experience, more knowledge and know how to make the company more profitable so that everyone ends up better off.

In my own company, it the company as a whole does well, I get a better raise and a bigger year end bonus. It is in my best interest that management does a good job and good management gets good pay.

Unfortunately the economy now, thanks to government interference, is so unpredictable that the free market, what is left of it, is sitting on its hands until they know where it's all going to settle. Otherwise those who are still in business will end up going out of business like many others have. And that is why so many people are out of work and there are bread lines. I think it's going to get worse because current policies are so anti business that everything will remain stagnant.

[WalkerW]

Please read the history of capitalism

I do. Quite a bit. I'm currently reading Deirdre N. McCloskey's Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution led to a tenfold increase in average global per capita income, not to mention the advancement in quality goods and technologies that we all enjoy.

especially in the nineteenth century and just see the quality of life for the average worker.

There is a reason workers moved from the farms to the factories.

The free market has brought poverty to millions of americans and is now creating more poverty in europe.

Poverty was around long before the economic boom of the past two centuries.

is no lover of humanity

I've provided a number of sources that I believe show this to be false.

they have sold out the workers by adopting the free market during the last 18 years

I hardly think adopting market-oriented policies can be equated to selling out the workers.