Consecration/United Order vs Socialism/Communism

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Come on.  That is pretty funny, as political humor goes.  It sure beats the vitriol that seems to be dominating our current political season.

Re whether Jesus was a capitalist or a socialist.  Didn’t he say that His kingdom was not of this world?  Wouldn’t that sort of rule out all worldly political philosophies (even mine)?  

[canard78]

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.

Socialism hasn't. 

To the OP, equating Communism with Socialsim is like saying a duck and a cow are the same thing. The both have legs and eyes... but they're very different beast. 

It's a shame socialism is such a dirty word in USA. It's really not so villainous. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Come on.  That is pretty funny, as political humor goes.  It sure beats the vitriol that seems to be dominating our current political season.

Re whether Jesus was a capitalist or a socialist.  Didn’t he say that His kingdom was not of this world?  Wouldn’t that sort of rule out all worldly political philosophies (even mine)?  

The ultimate fate of the people of this earth is to live in a culture beyond economic considerations. Capitalism and socialism and all the rest are stubble and will be burned. They are fodder to test us now but they have no eternal value.

[RevTestament]

Just now, The Nehor said:

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.

King Benjamin's government became corrupt remember?

The problem with transferring all ownership control to one entity like a government is that it invariably becomes corrupt. That is a major reason why true socialism has always failed. Say what you want but it is true. Capitalism allows the ownership rights to be diversified so the power is not too concentrated. If all that went to the US government, it would be time to think about calling it quits I think...I just don't want to live in that type of system where one temporal entity has all the ownership, say, power, etc. Of course the point is kinda moot, as in this dispensation God will make an end of all the beasts of the world.

[The Nehor]

2 hours 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.

I agree that that is funny. It is also not how socialism works. I actually hope Sanders wins or at least makes an impact. The Democratic Party needs to actually stand for something again. It has become a committee of dull centrists rushing to the center to grab votes and ruled by political expediency. I am not sure if that is better or worse then the Republicans running to the Right as fast as they can to try to recreate 1960s America as romanticized by senile Baby Boomers.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

King Benjamin's government became corrupt remember?

The problem with transferring all ownership control to one entity like a government is that it invariably becomes corrupt. That is a major reason why true socialism has always failed. Say what you want but it is true. Capitalism allows the ownership rights to be diversified so the power is not too concentrated. If all that went to the US government, it would be time to think about calling it quits I think...I just don't want to live in that type of system where one temporal entity has all the ownership, say, power, etc. Of course the point is kinda moot, as in this dispensation God will make an end of all the beasts of the world.

No, King Benjamin's government was fine. It did not fall apart in his lifetime. Alma took over as chief judge and eventually quit but that was for religious reasons and not because the government was corrupt.

If the real reason that capitalism is better is diversification and dilution of power shouldn't we be quivering in terror at the consolidation of American businesses?

[SmileyMcGee]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

Not sure I'm fully understanding what you are saying, but my view is that private property is merely a legal construct. No laws to define and protect private property means no private property. But private property is the very heart of free-market capitalism. The whole idea of a "free market" is individuals allocating resources based on their own self-interest. I don't see how you do that without private property. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[Sleeper Cell]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

I rather think that they are so busy crying over so much else that is going on in our society that they spend little time reading our MD&DB discussions.  And if they did, I doubt they would waste many tears over a personal insult -- especially one that was clearly unintended.  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

I rather think that they are so busy crying over so much else that is going on in our society that they spend little time reading our MD&DB discussions.  And if they did, I doubt they would waste many tears over a personal insult -- especially one that was clearly unintended.  

It was meant to be hyperbole.

[RevTestament]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, King Benjamin's government was fine. It did not fall apart in his lifetime. Alma took over as chief judge and eventually quit but that was for religious reasons and not because the government was corrupt.

It went corrupt in a few generations. Earthly kingships always do, which is why the Lord told Israel not to get a king, but to let Him be their king.

Quote

If the real reason that capitalism is better is diversification and dilution of power shouldn't we be quivering in terror at the consolidation of American businesses?

Yes, that is why there are anti-trust laws. Monopolies in the past play all kinds of dirty games to retain their economic power. Just ask Philo Farnsworth....

[VideoGameJunkie]

I know Ezra Taft Benson was very against communism.

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Hey!!! Keep your bad politics out. Bernie is not a socialist, he is a social democrat!

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I agree that that is funny. It is also not how socialism works. I actually hope Sanders wins or at least makes an impact. The Democratic Party needs to actually stand for something again. It has become a committee of dull centrists rushing to the center to grab votes and ruled by political expediency. I am not sure if that is better or worse then the Republicans running to the Right as fast as they can to try to recreate 1960s America as romanticized by senile Baby Boomers.

Straw-man points are not funny, that in no way represents what Sanders wants. Sanders wants the rich to pay their Fair Share, that is i no way free stuff. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

China effectively gave up "Communism" in any Marxian sense.  Marxian communism can only exist world wide anyway in what some might call a "one world" government.

Chairman Mao tried to set up the dictatorship of the proletariat and failed.  It didn't work.  Same with Stalin.  Look at Russia now- both are following the same capitalist path, or more accurately, socialism.  The idea of communism has been watered down beyond recognition wherever it has been tried.  Look at Cuba and Viet Nam. 

[volgadon]

Jesus could have been neither socialist nor capitalist. Not because one is right and the other wrong, nor even because both are wrong, but because the concepts had yet to exist.

[Rivers]

4 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?"
 

My understanding is that socialism is forced upon a people while consecration is willingly entered into by people whose hearts have been changed by the gospel. Lucifer's plan vs. agency.  

 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Rivers

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

China effectively gave up "Communism" in any Marxian sense.  Marxian communism can only exist world wide anyway in what some might call a "one world" government.

Chairman Mao tried to set up the dictatorship of the proletariat and failed.  It didn't work....

And that differs from the United Order, how?

[Vance]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

Socialism hasn't. 

To the OP, equating Communism with Socialsim is like saying a duck and a cow are the same thing. The both have legs and eyes... but they're very different beast. 

It's a shame socialism is such a dirty word in USA. It's really not so villainous. 

Well, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was Communist.  So there is that.

 

Communism has been defined as,

Quote

: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property

I don't see a difference between that definition and the one I posted below for socialism.

Perhaps you could tell us, exactly what the difference is.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And that differs from the United Order, how?

Huh?

What are you talking about?  Failed communism is the same as the united order?  

[Vance]

6 hours 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 would NEVER be a socialist.  And neither would King Benjamin.  King Benjamin advocated for the voluntary helping of the poor.  He was king, if he had been advocating for the power of a centralized government to confiscate personal property for the supposed helping of the poor he could have done so.  But he didn't.

 

Socialism is define as,
 

Quote

 

1:  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

 

Which is basically the same as communism.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Vance
clean up

[BCSpace]

7 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?"
 

The official LDS doctrine on the LoC is summarized at the link in my siggy:

The LoC is not an economic system, but it needs free market capitalism to work or be of any real value.  It's merely a commitment by the individual, and not the government, to help the poor.

The LoC does not control supply and demand or one's choices on work and education.

The fundamental principle of the LoC is private property.

It's not a communal system.

Goods are not divided equally.

Equality means everyone's want's and needs have equal standing.

One can amass capital under the LoC and keep it year to year.  For business investment, retirement, a rainy day, a vacation, etc.

No Socialist seeks for Christ and his righteousness.

There can be no forced actions.

The LoC really does draw a line in the sand between Satan's plan (Socialism/Communism) and Heavenly Father's plan (the temporal manifestation being free market capitalism, the ONLY economic system that follows the necessary conditions outlined in 2 Nephi 2).

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

The official LDS doctrine on the LoC is summarized at the link in my siggy:

The LoC is not an economic system, but it needs free market capitalism to work or be of any real value.  It's merely a commitment by the individual, and not the government, to help the poor.

The LoC does not control supply and demand or one's choices on work and education.
Yes and no.

The fundamental principle of the LoC is private property.
True - see #5 below (vs 4)

It's not a communal system.
Goods are not divided equally.
See #1 & 4 & 5 below

Equality means everyone's want's and needs have equal standing.
See #3 below

One can amass capital under the LoC and keep it year to year.  For business investment, retirement, a rainy day, a vacation, etc.

No Socialist seeks for Christ and his righteousness.

There can be no forced actions.
See #2 & 3 below

The LoC really does draw a line in the sand between Satan's plan (Socialism/Communism) and Heavenly Father's plan (the temporal manifestation being free market capitalism, the ONLY economic system that follows the necessary conditions outlined in 2 Nephi 2).
 

This is very comprehensive.  Thank you.

10 minutes ago, Vance said:

Socialism is define as,
1:  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

See #5 below

Adapted from https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/consecrate-law-of-consecration?lang=eng

1. All that believed had all things common: Acts 2:44–45
2. Lying about/Dishonest consecration punished with death: Acts 5:1-10
3. And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken. D&C 42:30
4. One man should not possess more than another: D&C 49:20
5. Every man was given an equal portion by the Bishop according to his family: D&C 51:3-4

• 3 Wherefore, let my servant Edward Partridge, and those whom he has chosen, in whom I am well pleased, appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.
  4 And let my servant Edward Partridge, when he shall appoint a man his portion, give unto him a writing that shall secure unto him his portion, that he shall hold it, even this right and this inheritance in the church, until he transgresses and is not accounted worthy by the voice of the church, according to the laws and covenants of the church, to belong to the church.

 

[Sleeper Cell]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Straw-man points are not funny, that in no way represents what Sanders wants. Sanders wants the rich to pay their Fair Share, that is i no way free stuff.

IOW, jokes at the expense of your candidates are not funny.  

Perhaps if more of the current crop of presidential candidates and their followers had the ability to laugh at themselves, the current political campaign would be substantially less toxic.  Many of our greatest and/or most popular presidents are famous for their ability to poke fun at themselves and laugh at jokes made at their expense.    Abraham Lincoln comes to mind.  

"Straw men points" cannot be funny?  Aren’t most political cartoons essentially caricatures?   Isn’t a lot of humor, in general,  based on hyperbole and deliberate oversimplifications?  

BTW, please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Mr. Sanders advocate free tuition for all college undergraduates?  If so, wouldn’t this be “free stuff?” 

[Sevenbak]

Socialism and the United Order Compared Elder Marion G. Romney Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles  

Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, April 1966, pp. 95-101

"What I am going to give you now is a statement I have prepared in answer to the question, "Is Socialism the United Order?" Some of you may have already heard it. This is the first time I have ever attempted to give a talk a second time. My excuse is that the Brethren have asked me to give this talk here tonight."

 

It's a good and thorough read.  

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1476

 

[SmileyMcGee]

2 hours ago, BCSpace said:

The LoC is not an economic system, but it needs free market capitalism to work or be of any real value.  It's merely a commitment by the individual, and not the government, to help the poor.

I think you're wrong on both points. Consecration is not "merely a commitment to help the poor" but a paradigm shift from the world of private property/ownership to giving everything you have to God. Where capitalism is based on the assumption that self-interest maximizes aggregate utility, consecration seeks to replace self-interest with an interest in the welfare of others. The free-market world of Adam Smith and Neoclassical economists largely ignores the socially negative externalities resulting from market activity, which a law like that of consecration seeks to remedy. Why do you think the consecration requires free market capitalism? Is private property/ownership an eternal principle? Don't get me wrong, capitalism can create wealth faster than any system I've ever seen or studied, but it certainly has it's social problems and costs and wealth does not necessarily equal welfare or well-being. And I certainly don't think that the US form of financial capitalism or some other free-market system is necessary to practice consecration. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by SmileyMcGee