Stone holm Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Well my wife is taking an American Foundations course from BYUI online. It is a bit amazing how history and political science is sometimes approached in the course. She is called upon to explain whether the United Order is more like Capitalism or Socialism. I suggested that it wasn't really like either, but that Distributism was a closer fit. After watching several films, she finally agreed. She was reluctant to use the term, however, because it was so "Catholic" -- so she didn't see the need. We then discussed, okay -- under the United Order you turn everything over to the Church and the Church gives you back your stewardship. That is fine for Mormons, but what if you aren't Mormon. In that case, you need something that doesn't involve the Church and Distributism embodies the fundamentals of what the United Order was attempting to achieve except it leaves out the Church. In the United Order we have the Church in control, in Socialism we have the government in control, and in Capitalism we have an economic elite in control. The problem with Capitalism being that there eventually winds up being too few Capitalists. In thinking about it, I realize that my parents generation they were really functioning in a distributist economy, and I suspect when most Americans pledge allegiance to capitalism -- they are actually hearkening back to that by-gone era when we were basically living in a distributist economy. If you look at the First Presidency's Proclamation on the Economy, it looks very, very similar to distributism. Comments?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Well my wife is taking an American Foundations course from BYUI online. It is a bit amazing how history and political science is sometimes approached in the course. She is called upon to explain whether the United Order is more like Capitalism or Socialism. I suggested that it wasn't really like either, but that Distributism was a closer fit. After watching several films, she finally agreed. She was reluctant to use the term, however, because it was so "Catholic" -- so she didn't see the need. We then discussed, okay -- under the United Order you turn everything over to the Church and the Church gives you back your stewardship. That is fine for Mormons, but what if you aren't Mormon. In that case, you need something that doesn't involve the Church and Distributism embodies the fundamentals of what the United Order was attempting to achieve except it leaves out the Church. In the United Order we have the Church in control, in Socialism we have the government in control, and in Capitalism we have an economic elite in control. The problem with Capitalism being that there eventually winds up being too few Capitalists. In thinking about it, I realize that my parents generation they were really functioning in a distributist economy, and I suspect when most Americans pledge allegiance to capitalism -- they are actually hearkening back to that by-gone era when we were basically living in a distributist economy. If you look at the First Presidency's Proclamation on the Economy, it looks very, very similar to distributism. Comments?Actually under the UO you could leave at anytime and you were not forced to join. I have no idea if distributionism is the same. And your complain against capitalist is total wrong. It is a false argument. When you go spend your money on things you want to you are engaging in capitalism. What I do with my money involves no "economic elites in control". In a certain sense I agree with Adam Smith and the invisible hand. I think he was right when he talked about that. Anyway carry on.
Bikeemikey Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Actually under the UO you could leave at anytime and you were not forced to join. I have no idea if distributionism is the same.And your complain against capitalist is total wrong. It is a false argument. When you go spend your money on things you want to you are engaging in capitalism. What I do with my money involves no "economic elites in control". In a certain sense I agree with Adam Smith and the invisible hand. I think he was right when he talked about that. Anyway carry on.If you left the united order it was not always the case you got your stuff back.Like wise you have everything to the united order it was not always the case that your stewardship they have you back was what you put in.I have no issues with the united order being similar in some ways to socialism, capitalism or distributionism.
Stone holm Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 Actually under the UO you could leave at anytime and you were not forced to join. I have no idea if distributionism is the same. And your complain against capitalist is total wrong. It is a false argument. When you go spend your money on things you want to you are engaging in capitalism. What I do with my money involves no "economic elites in control". In a certain sense I agree with Adam Smith and the invisible hand. I think he was right when he talked about that. Anyway carry on.Distributism would agree, The only way that the invisible hand works is if it is in fact invisible, and it is only invisible if wealth is widespread. Under distributism you concentrate on producing what you use, in capitalism you concentrate on producing what sells. Distributism focuses on independence and self sufficiency.
Walden Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 We then discussed, okay -- under the United Order you turn everything over to the Church and the Church gives you back your stewardship. How is that different from the ideology that states, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"
Stone holm Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 How is that different from the ideology that states, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"You referring to United Order?
Bikeemikey Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 How is that different from the ideology that states, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"Lack of prophetic administration?I can't really see a difference.
Stone holm Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 Lack of prophetic administration?I can't really see a difference.Are you saying: United Order = Communism with the Church substituted for the Government?
changed Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Here's a talk for everyone:http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/the-united-order-vs-communism/
Stone holm Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 Here's a talk for everyone:http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/the-united-order-vs-communism/Yes, under J Reuben Clark's exposition it would seem that the difference between Communism and the United Order is that in the latter, the Church stands in the shoes of the Government. But, I am beginning to believe that neither capitalism nor socialism come as close to the tenets of the Church as does Distributism.
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 A well regulated economy being necessary for the well-being of a people. We do appoint, elect, and monitor officials to regulate our economy.
CV75 Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Well my wife is taking an American Foundations course from BYUI online. It is a bit amazing how history and political science is sometimes approached in the course. She is called upon to explain whether the United Order is more like Capitalism or Socialism. I suggested that it wasn't really like either, but that Distributism was a closer fit. After watching several films, she finally agreed. She was reluctant to use the term, however, because it was so "Catholic" -- so she didn't see the need. We then discussed, okay -- under the United Order you turn everything over to the Church and the Church gives you back your stewardship. That is fine for Mormons, but what if you aren't Mormon. In that case, you need something that doesn't involve the Church and Distributism embodies the fundamentals of what the United Order was attempting to achieve except it leaves out the Church. In the United Order we have the Church in control, in Socialism we have the government in control, and in Capitalism we have an economic elite in control. The problem with Capitalism being that there eventually winds up being too few Capitalists. In thinking about it, I realize that my parents generation they were really functioning in a distributist economy, and I suspect when most Americans pledge allegiance to capitalism -- they are actually hearkening back to that by-gone era when we were basically living in a distributist economy. If you look at the First Presidency's Proclamation on the Economy, it looks very, very similar to distributism. Comments?My understanding is that the course is to understand “those things that define America and the American experience” which are listed as “the fundamental principles of the American constitution, the strengths of the free-market economy, and historical events that have shaped America’s political and economic heritage.” http://www2.byui.edu/catalog-archive/2010-2011/foundation%20Requirements.pdf Maybe the question is asked for the sake of discussion, there being no “correct choice” between the two options offered since the United Order transcends America and the American experience, the American constitution, the strengths of the free-market economy, and historical events that have shaped America’s political and economic heritage, and comparison any other human philosophy or economic system.
Walden Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Are you saying: United Order = Communism with the Church substituted for the Government?Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. And the only argument that I have heard from an LDS believer against this notion is that the United Order is a voluntary system, while communism is forced. This, to me, seems like an argument that is presented to sidestep the debate regarding the underlying principles of the United Order and communism, by muddying the debate with totalitarian overtures, while neglecting the core values represented by each system. That argument seems to imply that God considers communism the preferred system, except for the totalitarian part that is actually a bastardized version of communism. Or maybe God prefers something like the kibbutz system used in Israel, which is something like voluntary communism?
wenglund Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I am just now beginning to learn about distributism and so I am not in a very good position to compare and contrast it with the United order or Capitalism or Communism. However, I was wondering if those of you who do understand the theory could explain the mechanism for distributing things like property and scarce resources, particularly within a non-agrarian society like what exists throughout most of the developed world? In other words, how would distributism work for a fast-food cook now living in a government-subsidizes apartment in a high-rise building in Harlam? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Vance Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Yes, under J Reuben Clark's exposition it would seem that the difference between Communism and the United Order is that in the latter, the Church stands in the shoes of the Government. Some how, you missed this important paragraph. The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which he could alienate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph, himself said, (History of the Church, Volume III, p. 28). The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system. That, alone, makes a vital distinction between the two.
Bikeemikey Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) I am just now beginning to learn about distributism and so I am not in a very good position to compare and contrast it with the United order or Capitalism or Communism.However, I was wondering if those of you who do understand the theory could explain the mechanism for distributing things like property and scarce resources, particularly within a non-agrarian society like what exists throughout most of the developed world?In other words, how would distributism work for a fast-food cook now living in a government-subsidizes apartment in a high-rise building in Harlam?Thanks, -Wade Englund-I would be equally interested in real world ideas about how it would work for the owner of the restaurant said fastfood worker is employed at, which owner also happens to coincidentally own the apartment said worker resides in. Edited June 5, 2014 by Bikeemikey 1
Opinion Slayer Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. And the only argument that I have heard from an LDS believer against this notion is that the United Order is a voluntary system, while communism is forced. This, to me, seems like an argument that is presented to sidestep the debate regarding the underlying principles of the United Order and communism, by muddying the debate with totalitarian overtures, while neglecting the core values represented by each system. That argument seems to imply that God considers communism the preferred system, except for the totalitarian part that is actually a bastardized version of communism. Or maybe God prefers something like the kibbutz system used in Israel, which is something like voluntary communism?Psalms 50: 2 Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined. There is no beauty or perfection in communism. Zion is celestial law through obedience and cooperation to elevate and beautify all things, that never existed in any society that practiced communism. When you study Zion through the scriptures this theme is consistent...
Bikeemikey Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Psalms 50:2 Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined.There is no beauty or perfection in communism. Zion is celestial law through obedience and cooperation to elevate and beautify all things, that never existed in any society that practiced communism.When you study Zion through the scriptures this theme is consistent...Beautiful things have come out of communist nations.People create beautiful things.People are not communist, nor are people capitalist. People may reside in different climates but as long as people exist beautiful things will continue to be created irrespective of social and governmental structure.
Bikeemikey Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Some how, you missed this important paragraph.That, alone, makes a vital distinction between the two.This distinction you highlight would be great if it had actually always been the case.Title of property was held by the church (or church leadership). Title was infrequently reissued to the steward when they were assigned their allocation. Nor was the steward capable of passing on the stewardship to another.Everything was privately owned. Just not by the person normally in possession of it.
Opinion Slayer Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Beautiful things have come out of communist nations.People create beautiful things.People are not communist, nor are people capitalist. People may reside in different climates but as long as people exist beautiful things will continue to be created irrespective of social and governmental structure.LOL, oh yeah like what? When I see people from North Korea suffering because of communism or people sacrificing they're lives to escape Cuba because of the horror of communism I don't see any beauty just bondage! "People create beautiful things" Sure and communism isn't one of them! There is nothing beautiful about communism. Nothing! But you can preach your propaganda to the ignorant who hasn't studied the subject... Zion is about exlaltation communism is not!
BCSpace Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) She is called upon to explain whether the United Order is more like Capitalism or Socialism. It's Free Market Capitalism free and clear or more accurately it requires FMC to function. Private property and the free use of it is the fundamental principle of it. 'Equal' does not mean equal value of assests. There are no price or supply controls. There is no barrier to accumulating wealth. One is free to enter or leave as one chooses. Etc. For example and according to the official doctrine of the Church: “They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” ( Acts 4:32 ; see also Acts 2:44 ; 3 Nephi 26:19 ; 4 Nephi 1:3 ) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts , designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” ( History of the Church, 6:37–38.)Each stewardship is considered private property (see Reading L-4 ), and the residues and surpluses consecrated for the storehouse became the “common property of the whole church” ( D&C 82:18 ). It is referred to as the “common property” because the covenant members of the order had access to it, according to their just “wants” and “needs,” including the need to improve their stewardship (see D&C 82:17–18 ).The word equal is frequently used in the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants: “In . . . temporal things you shall be equal” ( D&C 70:14 ); “for if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” ( D&C 78:6 ); “appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs” ( D&C 51:3 ). The Lord gave His definition of the term equal: “And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just” ( D&C 82:17 )......................“This procedure [of providing deeds] preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate [transfer], keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said......................President Lorenzo Snow emphasized the importance of individual agency in moving forward the work of consecration: “In things that pertain to celestial glory there can be no forced operations. We must do according as the Spirit of the Lord operates upon our understandings and feelings. We cannot be crowded into matters, however great might be the blessing attending such procedure. We cannot be forced into living a celestial law; we must do this ourselves, of our own free will. And whatever we do in regard to the principles of the United Order, we must do it because we desire to do it. Some of us are practising in the spirit of the United Order, doing more than the law of tithing requires.” (In Journal of Discourses, 19:346.).....................“Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-l-the-law-of-consecration-and-stewardship?lang=eng It's not even correct to say that the UO is an economic system. Rather, it's a covenant to help the poor and one chooses how that will be done. It's obvious that according to the doctrine, many later attempts to practice the UO were in error as well as many current attempts to interpret it. Edited June 5, 2014 by BCSpace 3
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Communism is the idea that the means of production are held by the community(Commons). Early Christians clearly held all things in common. They were Communists.
BCSpace Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Early Christians clearly held all things in common. They were Communists. That is in error according to LDS doctrine. See post 21 above.
wenglund Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 It's not even correct to say that the UO is an economic system. Rather, it's a covenant to help the poor and one chooses how that will be done. I This is an excellent point on multiple levels. There is a vast difference between functioning economic systems and vague economic-related theories or principles. From what little I can tell from my brief reading, if there is any comparison to be made between the UO and Distributism it would be that both are vague economic-related principles and are far from functioning economic systems, and thus can't reasonably be compared with Capitalism or Communism except in very loose and somewhat meaningless of senses.. Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
Walden Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 LOL, oh yeah like what? When I see people from North Korea suffering because of communism or people sacrificing they're lives to escape Cuba because of the horror of communism I don't see any beauty just bondage! "People create beautiful things" Sure and communism isn't one of them! There is nothing beautiful about communism. Nothing! But you can preach your propaganda to the ignorant who hasn't studied the subject... Zion is about exlaltation communism is not! You are confusing communism with totalitarianism. There is a big difference, though the two are often confused because they seem to go hand in hand when communism is attempted on a national scale. For a better example of how I imagine the United Order, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz Is that not communism?
Recommended Posts