Consecration/United Order vs Socialism/Communism

[SmileyMcGee]

22 hours ago, janderich said:

That is not how Joseph Smith saw it. It was not allocated to you by a central body. It was discussed one on one. When he instructed Edward Partridge on dividing stewardships he said:

 

In the end you still had leaders directing the allocation of resources....your quote even shows this as JS was directing a bishop on how the resources should be allocated. He wasn't just theorizing on the optimal allocation method but directing. Even if we say the United Order was decentralized, you still have a needs-based allocation of resources. The motive was welfare not profit. Again, I don't see how you can argue that it isn't a socialist/communist/communalist system and I really don't understand the aversion to the comparison. 

Edited March 12, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[Robert F. Smith]

This other thread also relates to our discussion here:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67218-mormon-anarchism/#comment-1209602218 .

Edited March 11, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[halconero]

57 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It's an example of why temporal monarchies are a bad idea. It is akin to the VP of the US running off with the southern states to form a new country with a new leadership under him.

That analogy falls apart given that the Land of Nephi wasn't even part of the Kingdom of Zarahemla like the Southern States were part of the United States, and that Zeniff wasn't a secessionist, but a colonist in a far off land.

which is kinda what happened to Israel when it split into Judah and Israel. BTW Solomon the ever-wise king conscripted his northern subjects into basically slave labor to build the temple and his other projects, which is probably what got them mad enough to split off - not such a wise move after all. As a split kingdom they were not much of a match against their more powerful neighbors.

No argument there.

Anyway, the debate is about the wisdom of different types of government, and monarchies are a bad idea. They are inherently unstable and seem to always degenerate into rulership by force and intimidation.

Eh, constitutional monarchies aren't that bad these days. I actually rather like the emergency functions the viceroy (Governor-General) of Canada has.

If that is what the people want, God gives it to them. Socialism is perhaps even worse than a monarchy because all the means of the people to fight back are taken away and given to the oligarchial "monarchy." Monarchies normally just tax stuff, but ownership remains in the people. When you don't own anything, how can you fight injustice in the system? You are worse than a pawn - a pawn owns his space at least. Socialism leaves no room for dissenters, which is why they leave or usually die at the hands of their "wonderful" leaders

Depends on what kind of socialism you're talking about. I would argue that this is not the case in Democratic Socialist, or Social Democracies including the Scandinavian, Mainland European, or Canadian governments.

That is the type of power monarchies have which is why they aren't around too much anymore - people won't put up with them. To put all that power back in the hands of a socialist government which holds all the purse strings is an historically horrible idea. The working Joe tends to like the idea which is how it got hold in Russia and Cuba, but both of those countries had bloody and violent overthrow, and have lagged horribly behind. They are essentially led by kings in sheep chameleon skin. Cuba chased out all of their talent and are now all equally poor - except for the oligarchial rulers of course. They have the potential to be the most wealthy Carribean country. Further, socialism kills the incentive to work hard, innovate, risk all your capital, etc which is why it falls behind and why China gave up on it. China is not communist, and it is no longer socialist. It is an oligarchial hybrid. If that is what people want, I suggest they move there and see what it is like before asking for it.

 

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, halconero said:

Depends on what kind of socialism you're talking about. I would argue that this is not the case in Democratic Socialist, or Social Democracies including the Scandinavian, Mainland European, or Canadian governments. 

A democracy which agrees to redistribute some of its wealth through taxation, is not "socialism" in my book. I actually don't mind some of that. When they start transferring ownership of things to the governing party, then it is true socialism. I am basically a fiscally conservative liberal. Meaning that I believe the government's first responsibility should be protecting the freedoms and liberties of the people in a fiscally responsible way. Any extra money available to the government can be redistributed to those who can be shown to be in need such as the disabled, etc. Of course the debate then becomes how much is that? Well, as much as the people decide to allow. Going into debt to do it is irresponsible and bad government and is what will eventually bring this country down. Now the US is in a false sense of well-being because they haven't had to pay the piper yet, but when everyone realizes they each owe over 100,000, interest rates go up, and/or the dollar falls all this talk of becoming socialist will be a long past afterthought.

The problem with "socialized" democracies is that people decide they want a hand-out. Someone needs to work to create that wealth - it doesn't grow on trees. When people begin to believe they can vote themselves more handouts, the system becomes ever burdened with more demanding more from the "holy government cow of milk." That tends to make government a debt machine unless there is some kind of stops in place. The US system has no stops in place, and is already burdened to the point of collapsing. Will people vote for more taxes to pay for more handouts? If they do fine perhaps, but first the US needs to have enough revenue to stop running an annual deficit, and start to pay down the debt. I think that will be enough burden on the economy by itself to realize more isn't going to help. Everyone in the US is already rich by world standards, and we aren't supposed to covet the wealthy. If we eliminate them, we eliminate the American dream that anyone can make it. That eliminates investment, risk-taking, innovation, etc. It is better to have a system which encourages the wealthy to give which is what Christianity does. Thus, the Christian capitalist system is what has produced that wealth for everybody. I believe a lot of problems can be fixed without throwing that system out the window. In other words passing laws to make insurance, insurance for everybody, and not conditional on good health etc, and probably also capping liability would alleviate most of the problems in our current health system without violating our freedom by forcing us to buy insurance. Anyway, I have probably digressed from the OP enough. 

Cheers

[cinepro]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One might want to take a look at a successful communal system, such as that of Mondragon.  It has been an unqualified success now for generations.  Arriba y adelante.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZoI0C1mPek .

When the workers at Nephi Rubber attempted to create something similar decades ago, Senator Orrin Hatch stepped in and destroyed the effort.

Yet, Mondragon is an excellent example of how we could put the Law of Consecration into full effect in Utah, here and now.  We could create a truly egalitatian society today, which would be the envy of the world.  We could bring back Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution as more than just another department store.

In what way is Mondragon like the LoC, United Order, or Socialism?  It appears to be a worker-owned company with progressive wage and management practices, but do the workers still own their own cars and houses, and other property, and get paychecks?  Do they choose what jobs they perform?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

In what way is Mondragon like the LoC, United Order, or Socialism?  It appears to be a worker-owned company with progressive wage and management practices, but do the workers still own their own cars and houses, and other property, and get paychecks?  Do they choose what jobs they perform?

Like the Israeli kibbutz, all the members of Mondragon own the means of production, and all have an equal vote in determining policy.  However, it is more than simply one company.  It is a huge group of companies or co-ops covering the entire spectrum of societal needs and activities.  Even the schools and university are part of the overall cooperative system.

There is no reason at all why such educational, agricultural, and industrial cooperative systems could not be adapted to Utah Mormon society, and it would not make any difference to me whether we adopted a secular or religious approach to it, although a secular system might be more inclusive.  The road to full implementation of the Law of Consecration would have to be incremental, of course, but the first bold steps would not be anything new.  We might even get some respect from the Hutterites.  Utah was once heavily socialist, but we have been moving in the other direction for a long time.  

McCormick, John S., and John R. Sillito, “Socialism and Utah Labor, 1900-1920,” Southwest Economy and Society, 6 (Fall 1983):15-30.

McCormick, John S., and John R. Sillito, “Socialists in Power: The Eureka, Utah, Experience, 1907-1925,” Weber Studies, 6/1 (Spring 1989), online at http://weberstudies.weber.edu/archive/archive%20A%20%20Vol.%201-10.3/Vol.%206.1/6.1McCormickSilito.htm .

Sillito, John R., “Women and the Socialist Party in Utah,” Utah Historical Quarterly, 49 (Summer 1981):220-237.

Sillito, John R., and John S. McCormick, “Socialist Saints: Mormons and the Socialist Party, 1900-1920,” Dialogue, 18 (Summer 1985):121-131.

[SmileyMcGee]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Like the Israeli kibbutz, all the members of Mondragon own the means of production, and all have an equal vote in determining policy.  However, it is more than simply one company.  It is a huge group of companies or co-ops covering the entire spectrum of societal needs and activities.  Even the schools and university are part of the overall cooperative system.

There is no reason at all why such educational, agricultural, and industrial cooperative systems could not be adapted to Utah Mormon society, and it would not make any difference to me whether we adopted a secular or religious approach to it, although a secular system might be more inclusive.  The road to full implementation of the Law of Consecration would have to be incremental, of course, but the first bold steps would not be anything new.  We might even get some respect from the Hutterites.  Utah was once heavily socialist, but we have been moving in the other direction for a long time.  

McCormick, John S., and John R. Sillito, “Socialism and Utah Labor, 1900-1920,” Southwest Economy and Society, 6 (Fall 1983):15-30.

McCormick, John S., and John R. Sillito, “Socialists in Power: The Eureka, Utah, Experience, 1907-1925,” Weber Studies, 6/1 (Spring 1989), online at http://weberstudies.weber.edu/archive/archive%20A%20%20Vol.%201-10.3/Vol.%206.1/6.1McCormickSilito.htm .

Sillito, John R., “Women and the Socialist Party in Utah,” Utah Historical Quarterly, 49 (Summer 1981):220-237.

Sillito, John R., and John S. McCormick, “Socialist Saints: Mormons and the Socialist Party, 1900-1920,” Dialogue, 18 (Summer 1985):121-131.

"Socialism" these days seems to be a catch-all for any non-market based economic system or program, but I think it's origins were in co-ops that, as you mentioned, allowed labor to own the factors and profits of production. Wasn't the United Order under BY a system of co-ops?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said:

"Socialism" these days seems to be a catch-all for any non-market based economic system or program, but I think it's origins were in co-ops that, as you mentioned, allowed labor to own the factors and profits of production. Wasn't the United Order under BY a system of co-ops?

Very much so.  That was the old ZCMI.  Now we need a Jewish candidate for President to tell us about it !!  Bear in mind, of course, that the socialist Israeli kibbutz sold their products (fruit, vegetables, cotton, fish, chickens, milk, eggs, etc.) within the capitalist market -- and got a good price for it.

[janderich]

20 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

In the end you still had leaders directing the allocation of resources....your quote even shows this as JS was directing a bishop on how the resources should be allocated. He wasn't just theorizing on the optimal allocation method but directing. Even if we say the United Order was decentralized, you still have a needs-based allocation of resources. The motive was welfare not profit. Again, I don't see how you can argue that it isn't a socialist/communist/communalist system and I really don't understand the aversion to the comparison. 

I argue the point because in almost all respects socialism/communism and communalism are contrary to the system. The UO was based on freely consecrating property, the private ownership of it once a portion was returned to the individual, and the private ownership and operation of the means of production.

In fact I find it almost funny that I continue to hear this argument despite what Joseph Smith and other leaders have said again and again. For example Joseph Smith was once asked, "Do the Mormons believe in having all things in common?", to which the Prophet unequivocally replied, "No" (History of the Church Vol 3, p. 28). And yet again he explained to a Methodist minister, "...we have no common stock business among us; that every man enjoys his own property, or can if he is disposed, consecrate liberally to the support of the poor and needy, or the building up of Zion." (History of the Church Vol 2, p 295-296). 

Now of course the UO largely does away with the motive of getting gain one above another. But what of it? It is obviously not capitalism, just as it is not communism. It is a new order, yet to be seen in the modern era. The saints of Joseph's day didn't fully implement it, nor did they in Brigham's day. We must stop comparing it to these lesser systems.

[SmileyMcGee]

3 hours ago, janderich said:

I argue the point because in almost all respects socialism/communism and communalism are contrary to the system. The UO was based on freely consecrating property, the private ownership of it once a portion was returned to the individual, and the private ownership and operation of the means of production.

In fact I find it almost funny that I continue to hear this argument despite what Joseph Smith and other leaders have said again and again. For example Joseph Smith was once asked, "Do the Mormons believe in having all things in common?", to which the Prophet unequivocally replied, "No" (History of the Church Vol 3, p. 28). And yet again he explained to a Methodist minister, "...we have no common stock business among us; that every man enjoys his own property, or can if he is disposed, consecrate liberally to the support of the poor and needy, or the building up of Zion." (History of the Church Vol 2, p 295-296). 

Now of course the UO largely does away with the motive of getting gain one above another. But what of it? It is obviously not capitalism, just as it is not communism. It is a new order, yet to be seen in the modern era. The saints of Joseph's day didn't fully implement it, nor did they in Brigham's day. We must stop comparing it to these lesser systems.

you can claim they are "lesser" systems (whatever that means) but as long as the fundamentals are similar the comparison stands. JS was developing a communal welfare system that he likely picked up from groups of communalists; BY developed a classic socialist system of Co-ops. Simply stamping these systems with the name United Order or having a revelation related to them doesn't change their fundamentals, and comparing them to other socialist systems doesn't diminish them. Current church welfare is just the democratic hybrid socialism of Scandinavia and Canada where profits are generated in a market system and a portion is redistributed based on need. Comparing it to modern socialism does not take away from its goodness. I personally think JS, BY and others' efforts to copy socialist systems is admirable as I think their intentions were to take care of people. 

I think the problem isn't the comparison but that so many have been conditioned by a culture that holds capitalism as sacred to view "socialism" as a dirty word. 

Edited March 12, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[Anijen]

On 3/8/2016 at 4:58 PM, Analytics said:

communism in China has been one of the biggest economic success stories in history.

Not because of Mao. Chinese leaders after Mao were the ones credited for changing the system (Deng Xiaping for one). Deng introduced forms of capitalism into their at one time struggling economy.  The hybrid mix of capitalism in their economy and communism in their ideology has what has helped China survive.

The strategy for achieving these aims of becoming a modern, industrial nation was the socialist economy market merging with capitalism.  Deng argued that China was in stage ripe for economic change. One that kept Chinese culture, but brought in known successful marketing and economic ideas such as capitalism. Deng argued that the Soviet Unions economic model had; "not gone deeply enough into the capitalist phase and therefore needed limited capitalism in order to fully evolve its means of production." 

 

I had a wonderful opportunity to study Comparative Law there in Chongqing, and was pleasantly surprised by this concept. I received the highest grade for my paper comparing US and Chines law (From Mao to Now).

Edited March 14, 2016 by Anijen

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Not because of Mao. Chinese leaders after Mao were the ones credited for changing the system (Deng Xiaping for one). Deng introduced forms of capitalism into their at one time struggling economy.  The hybrid mix of capitalism in their economy and communism in their ideology has what has helped China survive.

The strategy for achieving these aims of becoming a modern, industrial nation was the socialist economy market merging with capitalism.  Deng argued that China was in stage ripe for economic change. One that kept Chinese culture, but brought in known successful marketing and economic ideas such as capitalism. Deng argued that the Soviet Unions economic model had; "not gone deeply enough into the capitalist phase and therefore needed limited capitalism in order to fully evolve its means of production." 

Fair points.  It's important to note, though, that the idea that capitalism is a phase on the road to true communism is straight out of Marx.

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Fair points.  It's important to note, though, that the idea that capitalism is a phase on the road to true communism is straight out of Marx.

Let's not get too political.

This thread is about discussing the differences and similarities between United Order/Consecration and the worldly version that is Socialism/Communism.
And why capitalism is the preferred government for so many members.

I'd like this thread to stay gospel focused please.

[thesometimesaint]

But it is inexorably tied to politics. The production of wealth and who controls it are by definition political/religious concerns.

When we discus Socialism think Sweden not Cuba.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

But it is inexorably tied to politics. The production of wealth and who controls it are by definition political/religious concerns.

When we discus Socialism think Sweden not Cuba.

I think Canada...a less extreme version.

But even if tied to politics, the thread is about the differences between Mormon consecration and the world's socialism.
Not which country has the best government.

[volgadon]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Fair points.  It's important to note, though, that the idea that capitalism is a phase on the road to true communism is straight out of Marx.

However, when Lenin introduced the NEP he got doctrinal pushback.

[Anijen]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'd like this thread to stay gospel focused please.

I am a cynic, with respect to, I usually question peoples motives, that trust is earned, and humans are weak. I wish I was not so cynical.

I believe that it will take the second coming before the world will actually live in a Utopian type of world where there is no poverty and all are equal. I believe I could live that way now, but I do not believe that it would last. In this estate, humans are weak, some are downright evil.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I am a cynic, with respect to, I usually question peoples motives, that trust is earned, and humans are weak. I wish I was not so cynical.

I believe that it will take the second coming before the world will actually live in a Utopian type of world where there is no poverty and all are equal. I believe I could live that way now, but I do not believe that it would last. In this estate, humans are weak, some are downright evil.

Don't have the exact quote handy, but Brigham Young said that Consecration would be the last law the people lived, and possibly only because God changes circumstances to make it necessary.

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think Canada...a less extreme version.

But even if tied to politics, the thread is about the differences between Mormon consecration and the world's socialism.
Not which country has the best government.

I could support a system more like Canada's. No country is purely socialist or capitalistic. We in the US seem to do the best with a vibrant social programs, and well regulated capitalism. Mormon consecration was a failure for several reasons. Primarily that it works as long as everyone was dirt poor. We're fine.The second one person gets something desired by someone else the problems begin. For example; If both of our "jobs" require(needs) overalls we're fine. If your "job" requires a suit. Dollars to donuts I'll want a suit too(wants).

[Alan]

On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 5:02 PM, thesometimesaint said:

But it is inexorably tied to politics. The production of wealth and who controls it are by definition political/religious concerns.

When we discus Socialism think Sweden not Cuba.

Sweden is not a socialist country.

It's a social democracy just like most of the rest of Europe.

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, Alan said:

Sweden is not a socialist country.

It's a social democracy just like most of the rest of Europe.

Please read wrote I wrote. I already said no country is purely socialistic and none is purely capitalistic. Sweden is considerably more socialist than the US, but less so than Cuba.

Edited March 16, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Alan]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Please read wrote I wrote. I already said no country is purely socialistic and none is purely capitalistic. Sweden is considerably more socialist than the US, but less so than Cuba.

I disagree. Sweden is not even close to socialist. Unless, of course, socialism includes private property, private corporations, freedom of speech, multiple political parties and expressions, private investments, free and fair elections, independent judiciary, independent media.... the list goes on.

There is a major difference between a social democracy and socialism. Sweden, like most of the developed world, including tHe US, is a mixed economy. This means that the state participates in the capitalist economy, but does not own it. Unlike a socialist economy which is owned by the state.

I find many Americans I speak with have a very simplistic, almost primitive, understanding of what socialism really is, how it operates, and where it can be found.

[SmileyMcGee]

23 hours ago, Alan said:

I disagree. Sweden is not even close to socialist. Unless, of course, socialism includes private property, private corporations, freedom of speech, multiple political parties and expressions, private investments, free and fair elections, independent judiciary, independent media.... the list goes on.

There is a major difference between a social democracy and socialism. Sweden, like most of the developed world, including tHe US, is a mixed economy. This means that the state participates in the capitalist economy, but does not own it. Unlike a socialist economy which is owned by the state.

I find many Americans I speak with have a very simplistic, almost primitive, understanding of what socialism really is, how it operates, and where it can be found.

The irony. Much of what you said is not concerned with socialism, which is an economic system, but with authoritarian regimes. Not the same. Also, socialism refers to a spectrum of systems involving social ownership of factors of production and does not necessarily mean state control. Do some simple Googling bro. 

[Alan]

10 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

The irony. Much of what you said is not concerned with socialism, which is an economic system, but with authoritarian regimes. Not the same. Also, socialism refers to a spectrum of systems involving social ownership of factors of production and does not necessarily mean state control. Do some simple Googling bro. 

Not true.

If you're going to rely on Google for your information you can expect to be mistaken. Apparently, the earth is flat, the world is run by reptilian shape-shifters, alien abduction is coming to a neighbourhood near you, and the world is definitely going to end on 21st December 2012.

Socialism is a philosophy which has as it's creed "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability". Attempts to impliment such a creed usually fail completely, or morph into something like the Soviet Union or North Korea.

To claim that Sweden is a socialist country is demonstrably absurd.

[thesometimesaint]

7 hours ago, Alan said:

Not true.

If you're going to rely on Google for your information you can expect to be mistaken. Apparently, the earth is flat, the world is run by reptilian shape-shifters, alien abduction is coming to a neighbourhood near you, and the world is definitely going to end on 21st December 2012.

Socialism is a philosophy which has as it's creed "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability". Attempts to impliment such a creed usually fail completely, or morph into something like the Soviet Union or North Korea.

To claim that Sweden is a socialist country is demonstrably absurd.

You're not reading what I keep saying. "I already said no country is purely socialistic and none is purely capitalistic. Sweden is considerably more socialist than the US, but less so than Cuba".

Edited March 18, 2016 by thesometimesaint