Consecration/United Order vs Socialism/Communism

[JLHPROF]

So with a certain politician appearing in the news a lot advocating socialism and all my devout Mormon friends posting anti-socialist, pro-capitalist memes it got me thinking.

With Consecration/United Order being a past, present and future part of the gospel in varying degrees, what do we see as the real difference?
And please provide more of a difference than God and agency?  If all socialists were religious and made all their socializing of government opt-in, would that really change the system into consecration/united order?

For the purpose of this discussion let's just use United Order/Consecration together and not get into debate over Brigham Young's application vs the Kirtland application.
And of course, let's leave current political campaigning out.

I just want to know, "How do you compare and contrast the law of consecration/united order system against the world's socialist/communist methods?"
 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So with a certain politician appearing in the news a lot advocating socialism and all my devout Mormon friends posting anti-socialist, pro-capitalist memes it got me thinking.

With Consecration/United Order being a past, present and future part of the gospel in varying degrees, what do we see as the real difference?
And please provide more of a difference than God and agency?  If all socialists were religious and made all their socializing of government opt-in, would that really change the system into consecration/united order?

For the purpose of this discussion let's just use United Order/Consecration together and not get into debate over Brigham Young's application vs the Kirtland application.
And of course, let's leave current political campaigning out.

I just want to know, "How do you compare and contrast the law of consecration/united order system against the world's socialist/communist methods?"
 

The United Order operates under priesthood keys, restored covenants, and continuous revelation. Man-made systems do not.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, CV75 said:

The United Order operates under priesthood keys, restored covenants, and continuous revelation. Man-made systems do not.

Well by that argument civil marriage is as bad as socialism.
Only marriage under priesthood keys and covenants should be acceptable.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well by that argument civil marriage is as bad as socialism.
Only marriage under priesthood keys and covenants should be acceptable.

Not at all. I'm not talking about what is good or bad, only describing the difference is between the applications of principle.

Unrighteous dominion is hypocritically operating under priesthood keys, restored covenants, and continuous revelation, and that is bad. Absent the advantages of the Restoration, doing the best with what you've got by way of the Light of Christ is not so bad; denying it is bad. Secret combinations are bad. The Lord's way of doing things is good.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not at all. I'm not talking about what is good or bad, only describing the difference is between the applications of principle.

Unrighteous dominion is hypocritically operating under priesthood keys, restored covenants, and continuous revelation, and that is bad. Absent the advantages of the Restoration, doing the best with what you've got by way of the Light of Christ is not so bad; denying it is bad. Secret combinations are bad. The Lord's way of doing things is good.

So you are saying that Socialism/Communism are unrighteous dominion.
Whereas united order/consecration are not.

I am not disagreeing with this, but I'd like to know the WHY?  Is consecration really just God's version of socialism?
And where does that leave capitalism in God's kingdom?

[halconero]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So with a certain politician appearing in the news a lot advocating socialism and all my devout Mormon friends posting anti-socialist, pro-capitalist memes it got me thinking.

With Consecration/United Order being a past, present and future part of the gospel in varying degrees, what do we see as the real difference?
And please provide more of a difference than God and agency?  If all socialists were religious and made all their socializing of government opt-in, would that really change the system into consecration/united order?

For the purpose of this discussion let's just use United Order/Consecration together and not get into debate over Brigham Young's application vs the Kirtland application.
And of course, let's leave current political campaigning out.

I just want to know, "How do you compare and contrast the law of consecration/united order system against the world's socialist/communist methods?"
 

It might be useful to clarify the variety of political, and economic systems which fall under the umbrella of socialism. Just as how free-market fiscal conservatives would actually be considered classical liberals, the term "socialism" is one that has developed in divergent and multitudinous ways.

For example, were the prophets of the Cold War railing against the overall umbrella socialism? Or was it the revolutionary, dictatorial, forced redistribution-of-wealth, state capitalist model found more specifically within Leninist, Stalinist, and Maoist socialist theory? Those models differ in significant ways from socialist political theories such as democratic socialism (specifically in the area of revolution vs. reform, and vanguard party vs. populism), and even more so from social democracy and liberal (in the market-based, individual liberties sense of the word) socialism. Those last two especially actually seek to maintain the capitalist rather than the socialist economic model, with gradual reforms such as collective bargaining, social safety foundations, and other aspects helping to support lower classes.

The problem for much of the United States, and especially members of the Church, is that when they hear the word "socialism" they automatically think Red Scare infiltrators and revolutionary vanguard parties, and they read quotes from prophets which, correctly enough, decried a violent and oppressive ideology which existed during their time. Even Joseph Smith's critique of socialism must be contextualized in the various revolutions and political theories forming in post-Napoleonic Europe. While both democratic socialism and social democracy/liberal socialism can and should be criticized (as should all political theories), I think lumping in certain candidates, and Scandinavian/European/Canadian mixed-economy models in with the USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, etc is not only disingenuous, but wholly unproductive.

Edited March 9, 2016 by halconero

[JLHPROF]

To clarify, I'm not a socialist (well, British by birth, Canadian by naturalization, and now American).
But I get so annoyed by the posts like this from good Latter-Day saints:

And I would like to respond with an accurate gospel response.

Would Christ have been considered a socialist or a capitalist?
Give to the poor, pay your taxes, etc.

[SmileyMcGee]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The United Order operates under priesthood keys, restored covenants, and continuous revelation. Man-made systems do not.

I guess that explains why the united order was such a success...

Edited March 9, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[cinepro]

They are both similar in that both have been colossal failures any time they've been tried.  The only way either can work is if there is a drastic change in basic human behavior, which I guess is what we think will happen during the millennium. 

But it will never work at any scale for any period of time for humans as now designed.

[SmileyMcGee]

33 minutes ago, halconero said:

The problem for much of the United States, and especially members of the Church, is that when they hear the word "socialism" they automatically think Red Scare infiltrators and revolutionary vanguard parties

I feel the same way. The term "socialist" has become a political epithet. 

[rpn]

The difference is the same difference that raising taxes to provide food, shelter and other things to the poor is not the same as charity.

The law of consecration means we give our hearts and minds and our goods freely.    Anything that is compelled (by raising taxes, by the sword, by undermining property rights, and free speech and freedom of thought or action) is contrary to God's plans.    And that is what socialism (and excess taxes) is:   it takes from those who have to give to those who don't have because someone has decided that a good of the society allows or demands that.

When we gladly and generously share our lives, the fruit of our work with others, both friends and strangers, that is charity that makes us better people, and binds communities together in love and caring which has the capacity to change hearts so that there is no more desire to do evil.

 

[SmileyMcGee]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

So with a certain politician appearing in the news a lot advocating socialism and all my devout Mormon friends posting anti-socialist, pro-capitalist memes it got me thinking.

With Consecration/United Order being a past, present and future part of the gospel in varying degrees, what do we see as the real difference?
And please provide more of a difference than God and agency?  If all socialists were religious and made all their socializing of government opt-in, would that really change the system into consecration/united order?

For the purpose of this discussion let's just use United Order/Consecration together and not get into debate over Brigham Young's application vs the Kirtland application.
And of course, let's leave current political campaigning out.

I just want to know, "How do you compare and contrast the law of consecration/united order system against the world's socialist/communist methods?"
 

 While both modern socialism and the united order appear to redistribute resources and/or profits based on need, they seem to differ in the ownership of property. From what I understand, those participating in the united order deeded their property to the order and resources were re-allocated as "stewardships" based on need. With the United Order owning the property, the members had "all things in common." I think profits/products of the order were also allocated based on need. Modern socialism, a la Canada or Scandinavia, is, much like most economies, a mixed system. There is still private property but product/profits are "taxed and redistributed" based on some measurement of need. Whether a country with a sovereign currency actually "taxes and redistributes," or even needs to, in order to accomplish social projects is another matter. 

I personally see the united order or any system of consecration having more in common with socialism than the free-market capitalism touted by neo-classical economists and held as an article of faith by some members. I don't think any economic system is morally right or bad, but I do think some a more suited for different purposes. If you want lots of wealth/consumption and massive inequality then the US system of financial capitalism seems to fit the bill. if moderate wealth with more equality is desired, then some regulation and redistribution is probably better suited for your goals. I personally find our system in the US difficult to reconcile with teachings throughout the standard works. 

Edited March 9, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[hope_for_things]

Interesting question, the main difference I see between Joseph Smith’s theocratic communism and the kind of socialism espoused by Bernie Sanders is that if anything, the vision of Joseph was more radical when you look at the council of fifty and the direction things were headed in his later years. 

There are elements of socialism that are already a part of our current government system; we aren’t an exclusively free enterprise system in the USA today, but more of a hybrid public/private model.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

So you are saying that Socialism/Communism are unrighteous dominion.
Whereas united order/consecration are not.

I am not disagreeing with this, but I'd like to know the WHY?  Is consecration really just God's version of socialism?
And where does that leave capitalism in God's kingdom?

No, I am not saying that Socialism/Communism are unrighteous dominion, but that they are man-made systems as much as capitalism. As such, they have their limitations, and certainly by design haven't Zion directly in heart or mind. But they reflect unrighteous dominion only when the governors' (and sometime the participants') methods of operation are unrighteous, or when they are applied in unrighteous ways or purposes.

The United Order and Consecration are institutions and laws ordained of God and given to man. They are perfect in design. When operated according to His instructions, they operate perfectly. I think the Lord tolerates some human weakness in application, but if unrighteous dominion were ever to be applied, "Amen to the [validity and] the authority" of that system.

As long as the Church can freely operate within any man-made system unopposed, I would say that system is "good enough." Politics and economics are intrinsically linked. The Millennium will show that God's kingdom and His political and economic systems are aligned with the principles of Zion as well.

I think it is no more appropriate to call consecration God's version of socialism than it is to call socialism a man-made version of consecration. Even Pharaoh had a better template to work from in imitating the first order than Marx did! And to much is lacking from either system that reflects the other.

37 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

I guess that explains why the united order was such a success...

No, I wasn't explaining that (see above).

[Analytics]

33 minutes ago, rpn said:

When we gladly and generously share our lives, the fruit of our work with others, both friends and strangers, that is charity that makes us better people, and binds communities together in love and caring which has the capacity to change hearts so that there is no more desire to do evil.

 

Karl Marx would say that's precisely what Communism is.  Of course he might also say that before we can achieve that state we must first get to the point where the working class is allowed to keep the fruits of their own labor, rather than having it systematically robbed from them through exploitative wages.  In theory at least, Socialism is a system that gives the fruit of work to the workers rather than to the property owners.  This has to happen before society can reach the Utopian state of Communism proper, where everybody gladly shares in peace, generosity, and brotherly love.

[mfbukowski]

I trust priesthood leaders

I do not trust politicians.  Not even LDS politicians.

I do not like to relinquish my ability to act in exchange of being acted upon by others who are ignorant.

I do not get to pray about government policies, and secede from a government going astray.   I can leave the church any time I like.

Agency vs force.  I would rather be disobedient to the church and become a Methodist than be disobedient to the government and go to jail.

I do not believe the church will ever enforce it's views by force.

That's the bottom line for me.

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Karl Marx would say that's precisely what Communism is.  Of course he might also say that before we can achieve that state we must first get to the point where the working class is allowed to keep the fruits of their own labor, rather than having it systematically robbed from them through exploitative wages.  In theory at least, Socialism is a system that gives the fruit of work to the workers rather than to the property owners.  This has to happen before society can reach the Utopian state of Communism proper, where everybody gladly shares in peace, generosity, and brotherly love.

I have been to eastern Europe recently and they make jokes about communism-  as practiced- YES I know the difference.  I used to be a "Trot".

There are posters making fun of the old style governments.  There are red (instead of yellow) "minion" characters, with hammers and sickles  stumbling over themselves in cartoons.

They laugh about the old lines and how ridiculous it was.  They have painted all the communist block grey apartment buildings different colors - any you can think of- but they still live in what is/was "state" housing.

It's ironic that those who lived under it find it to be a joke and want to be like the old "America" while we want to be like what they used to be.

I suppose we will find out soon enough.

[mfbukowski]

[mfbukowski]

Google "images communist minions"

[Analytics]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been to eastern Europe recently and they make jokes about communism-  as practiced- YES I know the difference.  I used to be a "Trot".

There are posters making fun of the old style governments.  There are red (instead of yellow) "minion" characters, with hammers and sickles  stumbling over themselves in cartoons.

They laugh about the old lines and how ridiculous it was.  They have painted all the communist block grey apartment buildings different colors - any you can think of- but they still live in what is/was "state" housing.

It's ironic that those who lived under it find it to be a joke and want to be like the old "America" while we want to be like what they used to be.

I suppose we will find out soon enough.

Sure, the communism in the USSR was a joke.  But as another example, communism in China has been one of the biggest economic success stories in history.

But in any case, I'm not advocating communism.  I'm just noting what, in theory, communism actually is.  More to the point, it's fair to compare the theoretical United Order with theoretical Communism, and it's fair to compare how the United Order worked out in the real world with how Communism worked out in the real world.  But it is fundamentally unfair to compare how the United Order works in theory to how Communism works in reality.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well by that argument civil marriage is as bad as socialism.
Only marriage under priesthood keys and covenants should be acceptable.

Yep, pretty much.  

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Karl Marx would say that's precisely what Communism is.  Of course he might also say that before we can achieve that state we must first get to the point where the working class is allowed to keep the fruits of their own labor, rather than having it systematically robbed from them through exploitative wages.  In theory at least, Socialism is a system that gives the fruit of work to the workers rather than to the property owners.  This has to happen before society can reach the Utopian state of Communism proper, where everybody gladly shares in peace, generosity, and brotherly love.

Marx was a utopian idealist. While all those who hate communism vilify him he was basically wondering what was up with all the pregnant girls and children starving in the street and trying to come up with a solution. He came close to our ideal of Zion but left out the God that makes it truly utopian.

Later his ideas caught hold in Russia (which I suspect he would have been somewhat horrified by as Russia was not ready for that leap in his historical progression) and Stalin and, to a lesser degree, Lenin ruined.

I am not convinced that Marx's ideal is workable but I am also not convinced that falling off the horse the other way to avoid even flirting with something socialism might approve of is helpful. Socialism makes such a wonderful bogeyman. It has replaced the Cold War in much of American thought as a scary monster under the bed to distract from our real problems.

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not trust politicians.  Not even LDS politicians.

Nor do I. Government can be a bully but so can other forces in society. I want a government strong enough to do a rough worldly good job and to keep down the other bullies in our society and not so weak that it can be bought like a whore (i.e. like now).

47 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

 While both modern socialism and the united order appear to redistribute resources and/or profits based on need, they seem to differ in the ownership of property. From what I understand, those participating in the united order deeded their property to the order and resources were re-allocated as "stewardships" based on need. With the United Order owning the property, the members had "all things in common." I think profits/products of the order were also allocated based on need. Modern socialism, a la Canada or Scandinavia, is, much like most economies, a mixed system. There is still private property but product/profits are "taxed and redistributed" based on some measurement of need. Whether a country with a sovereign currency actually "taxes and redistributes," or even needs to, in order to accomplish social projects is another matter. 

I am not sure if private property is a vital part of the system or whether it is a concession to the extant laws. 

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

They are both similar in that both have been colossal failures any time they've been tried.  The only way either can work is if there is a drastic change in basic human behavior, which I guess is what we think will happen during the millennium. 

But it will never work at any scale for any period of time for humans as now designed.

I agree that full-scale Zion requires a Zion people. Joseph Smith complained that only a few of the apostles really understood what God was trying to do.

While full-scale socialism is unlikely to work I think the best we can do now is find a sweet spot on the capitalism-socialism spectrum that works in a given culture and run with it. In other words, we should be practical. 

[Sleeper Cell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

With Consecration/United Order being a past, present and future part of the gospel in varying degrees, what do we see as the real difference?
And please provide more of a difference than God and agency?  If all socialists were religious and made all their socializing of government opt-in, would that really change the system into consecration/united order

I would have no problem with socialism -- religious or not -- if participation were truly voluntary and if there were a reasonably fair way that those who changed their minds could “opt out.” By “truly voluntary,"  I mean that, among other things, those who didn’t choose to "opt in" wouldn’t have to subsidize those who did, nor subsidize the portion of the government bureaucracy that administered the socialism.  I would also stipulate that if  government owned businesses compete with privately owned businesses, they must do so on a level playing field.

BTW, one of my direct ancestors was one of the leaders of a socialist “utopia” during the 1840s.  It actually seemed to work fairly well for a few years.  

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

To clarify, I'm not a socialist (well, British by birth, Canadian by naturalization, and now American).
But I get so annoyed by the posts like this from good Latter-Day saints:

And I would like to respond with an accurate gospel response.

Would Christ have been considered a socialist or a capitalist?
Give to the poor, pay your taxes, etc.

Christ said to render unto Caesar that which was Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. Governments aren't God, and invariably are inefficient and corrupt. The United States has become wealthy because it combined capitalism with a Christian ethic, and that combination produced a lot of innovation and great wealth. Socialist countries will always lag behind because of the inefficiencies inherent in the system. Americans who want to be socialist should go live in a nice socialist country like..... China or Russia. Oh, and China doesn't really count as they gave up true socialism. It is part capitalist oligarchy with some socialist policies thrown in. The United Order was not socialism either which transfers all ownership to the state. Sorry, I like my freedom too much. The United Order essentially transferred ownership into a church controlled trust to be divided according to skill, temperament, etc...so effective control and ownership may go to another person or group of persons, but it was not divided up amongst everybody. What the church does now to provide a safety net is decent, but is nowhere near the United Order. In the United States everyone is basically rich according to the world historical standard although we each owe about 100,000 right now... so  maybe it is a false richness....becoming socialist will certainly not make that better.

[Jeanne]

This is one of the conversations where Jeanne sits down..smiles..shakes her head..pretends she understands..and says "yes".

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Christ said to render unto Caesar that which was Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. Governments aren't God, and invariably are inefficient and corrupt.

Somewhere King Benjamin is crying. So are Alma and Moses and many other scrupulous leaders in the world's history. This kind of uniform condemnation is unfair and basically just dodges the problems of government in exchange for an easy dismissal.