Can an active member support a communist party in his country?

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not even close to "alike" and trust me, I know both systems

Where is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" stage in Zion?  The difference is force vs agency for those who are subject to the society.  Marxism requires changing society from outside the individual though compulsion whereas Zion requires internal change and testimony first before one joins the society.

But I agree that most "communists" today do not accept this element of Marxism as originally expressed by Marx, or even know about it, since the CPUSA now advocates the Bill of Rights.  Pretty amazing

You are comparing the ideals of the United Order with the reality of Communism.  Hardly a fair comparison.  The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a juxtaposition of "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," and simply means that the government ought to be controlled by the workers that actually create the wealth rather than by the property owners that exploit them.  The only compulsion that this implies is the bourgeoisie being compelled to stop stealing wealth from the workers; that is hardly something very many people would take issue with which is why, presumably, some faithful Latter-day saints in other cultures support the communist party.

Marxism is similar to anarchism--the idea that government should be abolished and individuals left to govern themselves according to voluntary associations.  Communism is fundamentally about the abolishment of the exploitation of workers so that everyone may be free.  Perhaps the biggest difference between Marxism and the United Order is that Marxism envisions a society where everybody is free and the United Order envisions a society where everyone lives under the righteous rule of God in a theocracy. 

 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

You are comparing the ideals of the United Order with the reality of Communism.  Hardly a fair comparison.  The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a juxtaposition of "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," and simply means that the government ought to be controlled by the workers that actually create the wealth rather than by the property owners that exploit them.  The only compulsion that this implies is the bourgeoisie being compelled to stop stealing wealth from the workers; that is hardly something very many people would take issue with which is why, presumably, some faithful Latter-day saints in other cultures support the communist party.

Marxism is similar to anarchism--the idea that government should be abolished and individuals left to govern themselves according to voluntary associations.  Communism is fundamentally about the abolishment of the exploitation of workers so that everyone may be free.  Perhaps the biggest difference between Marxism and the United Order is that Marxism envisions a society where everybody is free and the United Order envisions a society where everyone lives under the righteous rule of God in a theocracy. 

 

You are HIGHLY misinformed.

Quote

 

Karl Marx[edit]

Karl Marx did not write much about the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, with his published works instead largely focusing on analysing and criticising capitalist society. In 1848 he and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto that "their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions".[6] In the same year, commenting on revolution in Vienna he again highlighted the role of the violence: "there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror".[7]

On 1 January 1852, the communist journalist Joseph Weydemeyer published an article entitled "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in the German language newspaper Turn-Zeitung, where he wrote that "it is quite plain that there cannot be here any question of gradual, peaceful transitions", (rather than force-MFB) and recalled the examples of Oliver Cromwell (England) andCommittee of Public Safety (France) as examples of "dictatorship" and "terrorism" (respectively) required to overthrow the bourgeoisie.[8] In that year, Karl Marx wrote to him, saying:

Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society

— Karl Marx, 1852[9]

 

I made one edit above to clarify the meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

The reason violence is necessary is to effect the change in the minds of bourgeoisie- in effect the incorrect thinking of the bourgeoisie must be erased in society, and so society itself must be re-educated by the power of the proletariat.  This was the goal of the Russian Revolution and every communist revolution since.  The bourgeoisie is not going to sit back and say "Ok fine- just nationalize my business, I will sit back and watch".

What we are doing here is overthrowing what is seen as an oppressive economic system.which is already in place.  One can only overthrow oppression with oppression.

(OOPS- I am shifting back to my Angela Davis days- my old professor....) http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/angela-davis-returns-to-ucla-classroom-45-years-after-controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis

 

Edited May 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

You are comparing the ideals of the United Order with the reality of Communism.  Hardly a fair comparison.  The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a juxtaposition of "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," and simply means that the government ought to be controlled by the workers that actually create the wealth rather than by the property owners that exploit them.  The only compulsion that this implies is the bourgeoisie being compelled to stop stealing wealth from the workers; that is hardly something very many people would take issue with which is why, presumably, some faithful Latter-day saints in other cultures support the communist party.

Marxism is similar to anarchism--the idea that government should be abolished and individuals left to govern themselves according to voluntary associations.  Communism is fundamentally about the abolishment of the exploitation of workers so that everyone may be free.  Perhaps the biggest difference between Marxism and the United Order is that Marxism envisions a society where everybody is free and the United Order envisions a society where everyone lives under the righteous rule of God in a theocracy. 

 

In seeking to identify "the biggest difference," you have steadfastly missed the most important difference of all: the existence of despotism in communist regimes. Participation in the United Order (or, as it is more accurately called, the law of consecration,) is that it is altogether voluntary.

[Analytics]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You are HIGHLY misinformed.

I made one edit above to clarify the meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

The reason violence is necessary is to effect the change in the minds of bourgeoisie- in effect the incorrect thinking of the bourgeoisie must be erased in society, and so society itself must be re-educated by the power of the proletariat.  This was the goal of the Russian Revolution and every communist revolution since.  The bourgeoisie is not going to sit back and say "Ok fine- just nationalize my business, I will sit back and watch".

What we are doing here is overthrowing what is seen as an oppressive economic system.which is already in place.  One can only overthrow oppression with oppression.

(OOPS- I am shifting back to my Angela Davis days- my old professor....) http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/angela-davis-returns-to-ucla-classroom-45-years-after-controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis

 

Highly misinformed about what?  I don't see anything you posted that contradicts anything I wrote or anything I think.  The only difference I see is that from your paradigm the bourgeoisie has a legitimate claim to the property they own while from Marx's paradigm they do not.

I've read the Communist Manifesto and volume 1 of Das Kapital.  I took an upper-level course on Marxist Economics at the University of Utah.  Although he wasn't an activist celebrity like Angela Davis, my professor seemed to know economics and history and really tried hard to put Marx's ideas in the correct historical context.  Perhaps I'm highly misinformed, but that professor didn't think so--he gave me an A.

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Highly misinformed about what?  I don't see anything you posted that contradicts anything I wrote or anything I think.  The only difference I see is that from your paradigm the bourgeoisie has a legitimate claim to the property they own while from Marx's paradigm they do not.

I've read the Communist Manifesto and volume 1 of Das Kapital.  I took an upper-level course on Marxist Economics at the University of Utah.  Although he wasn't an activist celebrity like Angela Davis, my professor seemed to know economics and history and really tried hard to put Marx's ideas in the correct historical context.  Perhaps I'm highly misinformed, but that professor didn't think so--he gave me an A.

The question as I see it was whether or not Marx thought FORCE was necessary to establish communism.

The answer is clearly yes.

One principle difference between Marxist communism and Zion is the use of force.  It is undeniable.

The "politically correct historical context" is the whole ball game right there.  CPUSA now advocates the Bill of Rights.  Marx is rolling in his grave- justifiably

THAT is the difference between the Marxist interpretation from the 50's 60's and 70's and now

Edited May 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In seeking to identify "the biggest difference," you have steadfastly missed the most important difference of all: the existence of despotism in communist regimes. Participation in the United Order (or, as it is more accurately called, the law of consecration,) is that it is altogether voluntary.

You are comparing the reality of Communism with the theory of the United Order. 

The biggest difference in the respective theories along these lines is the context of the societies.  Marxism was trying to deal with an existing society with a well-established bourgeoisie and a massive exploited working class that has no place to go.  The United Order was trying to deal with a small population in the wilderness with basically no capital to begin with.  Trying to create a new Utopia in the wilderness is different than trying to transform an existing country into a Utopia.  But the ideal both societies were theoretically aiming for were very similar--peaceful, free Utopias where everyone happily shared the wealth.

 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You are comparing the reality of Communism with the theory of the United Order. 

The biggest difference in the respective theories along these lines is the context of the societies.  Marxism was trying to deal with an existing society with a well-established bourgeoisie and a massive exploited working class that has no place to go.  The United Order was trying to deal with a small population in the wilderness with basically no capital to begin with.  Trying to create a new Utopia in the wilderness is different than trying to transform an existing country into a Utopia.  But the ideal both societies were theoretically aiming for were very similar--peaceful, free Utopias where everyone happily shared the wealth.

 

From what I know, the reality of the United Order involved some degree of force to implement and maintain in frontier Utah, even though it was theoretically supposed to be completely voluntary and free. Pretty much every social, economic, and political entity involves some degree of force to maintain. It's part of the social contract.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You are comparing the reality of Communism with the theory of the United Order. 

The biggest difference in the respective theories along these lines is the context of the societies.  Marxism was trying to deal with an existing society with a well-established bourgeoisie and a massive exploited working class that has no place to go.  The United Order was trying to deal with a small population in the wilderness with basically no capital to begin with.  Trying to create a new Utopia in the wilderness is different than trying to transform an existing country into a Utopia.  But the ideal both societies were theoretically aiming for were very similar--peaceful, free Utopias where everyone happily shared the wealth.

 

Glad that you now see the difference.

Force.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The question as I see it was whether or not Marx thought FORCE was necessary to establish communism.

The answer is clearly yes.

One principle difference between Marxist communism and Zion is the use of force.  It is undeniable.

The "politically correct historical context" is the whole ball game right there.  CPUSA now advocates the Bill of Rights.  Marx is rolling in his grave- justifiably

THAT is the difference between the Marxist interpretation from the 50's 60's and 70's and now

I'm more interested in comparing the United Order with Marx's own ideas--not with what radicals a century later thought.  I would be quite surprised if Karl Marx would take issue with what I'm saying in this thread. 

The only force that is inherent in Marxism is the force required to take the wealth away from the people who stole it and return it to the people to whom it rightfully belongs.  That type of violence doesn't conflict with the United Order--there is nothing in the United Order that says the people must peacefully allow an elite class to exploit them.  While it is true that the United Order doesn't really say much about how its members should deal with a bourgeoisie class that is trying to exploit them, it isn't because the system is different--it is because the system is described in the context of how to create a new economy in the wilderness, not how to convert an existing economy into a better one.  However, once established both economies are envisioned to function the same way.

Perhaps that is what you are saying though.  The United Order sees a path to Utopia where people walk away from Society and create it out of nothing, while Marxism is about workers uniting, taking control of their own country, and creating a Utopia on a national scale.  That is a valid difference, for the time being at least.  I wonder if any Mormons think Zion can be created before Jesus returns and destroys the wicked.  If Jesus comes back, destroys the wicked, and finally establishes Zion, I hope the survivors compare how many people Jesus killed to how many the Communists killed.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm more interested in comparing the United Order with Marx's own ideas--not how radicals a century later viewed them.  I would be quite surprised if Karl Marx would take issue with what I'm saying in this thread. 

The only force that is inherent in Marxism is the force required to take the wealth away from the people who stole it and return it to the people to whom it rightfully belongs.  That type of violence doesn't conflict with the United Order--there is nothing in the United Order that says the people must peacefully allow an elite class to exploit them.  While it is true that the United Order doesn't really say much about how its members should deal with a bourgeoisie class that is trying to exploit them, it isn't because the system is different--it is because the system is described in the context of how to create a new economy in the wilderness, not how to convert an existing economy into a better one.  However, once established both economies are envisioned to function the same way.

Perhaps that is what you are saying though.  The United Order sees a path to Utopia where people walk away from Society and create it out of nothing, while Marxism is about workers uniting, taking control of their own country, and creating a Utopia on a national scale.  That is a valid difference, for the time being at least.  I wonder if any Mormons think Zion can be created before Jesus returns and destroys the wicked.  If Jesus comes back, destroys the wicked, and finally establishes Zion, I hope the survivors compare how many people Jesus killed to how many the Communists killed.

 

I see chaos and the establishment of a theocracy out of the chaos.  The theocracy does not create the chaos.  THAT is ISIS.

I have never used the word "wicked" in my life.  It is too Disney for me.Cackling witches with poisoned apples.  Man she scared the heck out of me as a kid

Anyway, those who create the chaos get what they started.

There is a difference between force and self-determination.  I do not pay taxes because I am "forced" to, but because I voluntarily determine my own actions and agree that taxes are necessary in a free society.  I drive on the right and stop at stop signs, not because I am forced to, but because I know that accepting law is necessary for ME to live peaceably with others.  It is the difference between positive and negative liberty.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

[Analytics]

 

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

From what I know, the reality of the United Order involved some degree of force to implement and maintain in frontier Utah, even though it was theoretically supposed to be completely voluntary and free. Pretty much every social, economic, and political entity involves some degree of force to maintain. It's part of the social contract.

Of course the United Order entailed force. D&C 104 clearly says that belonging to the United Order was a commandment, and that if somebody that belongs to it doesn't obey the covenant, that person will be "trodden over" by the whomever God appoints to do so.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Of course the United Order entailed force. D&C 104 clearly says that belonging to the United Order was a commandment, and that if somebody that belongs to it doesn't obey the covenant, that person will be "trodden over" by the whomever God appoints to do so.

I was just reading about the Kanab United Order and the conflict between the local bishop and John W. Young, who was appointed "president" of the United Order. No blood was shed, but there was certainly a degree of coercive force involved in attempting to resolve the issue. In a perfect world, the United Order would be totally free and voluntary, but then we don't live in a perfect world, do we?

[jkwilliams]

Communism or any kind of communalism, such as the United Order, seems to rest on the idea that people are capable of being selfless and working together for the common good. Capitalism, on the other hand, rests on the assumption that people generally act out of self-interest. Maybe I'm cynical, but it's obvious that capitalism has been successful, more or less, because it doesn't require a change in human nature. I guess human nature can change in the resurrection, but I don't see it in this life. 

[Analytics]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

I see chaos and the establishment of a theocracy out of the chaos.  The theocracy does not create the chaos.  THAT is ISIS.

I have never used the word "wicked" in my life.  It is too Disney for me.Cackling witches with poisoned apples.  Man she scared the heck out of me as a kid

Anyway, those who create the chaos get what they started.

There is a difference between force and self-determination.  I do not pay taxes because I am "forced" to, but because I voluntarily determine my own actions and agree that taxes are necessary in a free society.  I drive on the right and stop at stop signs, not because I am forced to, but because I know that accepting law is necessary for ME to live peaceably with others.  It is the difference between positive and negative liberty.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

From your link:

 

Quote

Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense. Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes...

Is the positive concept of freedom a political concept? Can individuals or groups achieve positive freedom through political action? Is it possible for the state to promote the positive freedom of citizens on their behalf? And if so, is it desirable for the state to do so? The classic texts in the history of western political thought are divided over how these questions should be answered: theorists in the classical liberal tradition, like Constant, Humboldt, Spencer and Mill, are typically classed as answering ‘no’ and therefore as defending a negative concept of political freedom; theorists that are critical of this tradition, like Rousseau, Hegel, Marx and T.H. Green, are typically classed as answering ‘yes’ and as defending a positive concept of political freedom. 

According to your source, Marx thinks it is both possible and desirable for the state to promote the positive freedom of its citizens.  Do you agree with Marx on this point?

Edited May 23, 2016 by Analytics

[Analytics]

30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Communism or any kind of communalism, such as the United Order, seems to rest on the idea that people are capable of being selfless and working together for the common good. Capitalism, on the other hand, rests on the assumption that people generally act out of self-interest. Maybe I'm cynical, but it's obvious that capitalism has been successful, more or less, because it doesn't require a change in human nature. I guess human nature can change in the resurrection, but I don't see it in this life. 

That's why I like Marxism--it has such a positive view of human nature.  Capitalism is a really cynical economic system.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Analytics said:

That's why I like Marxism--it has such a positive view of human nature.  Capitalism is a really cynical economic system.

Maybe I like capitalism because I'm a cynic.

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

 

Of course the United Order entailed force. D&C 104 clearly says that belonging to the United Order was a commandment, and that if somebody that belongs to it doesn't obey the covenant, that person will be "trodden over" by the whomever God appoints to do so.

With that kind of system everyone has to agree to live it or it doesn't work. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

With that kind of system everyone has to agree to live it or it doesn't work. 

Not only agree to live it but actually live it. Easier said than done, IMO.

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not only agree to live it but actually live it. Easier said than done, IMO.

Yes. I think a system like that was probably only possible with a community like the city of Enoch.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

 

Of course the United Order entailed force. D&C 104 clearly says that belonging to the United Order was a commandment, and that if somebody that belongs to it doesn't obey the covenant, that person will be "trodden over" by the whomever God appoints to do so.

D&C 104 predated frontier Utah. If you are saying it didn't spring into being until the Utah period, doesn't it undercut your argument to be citing this Kirtland-era revelation?

And read in context, the phrase your quoting (incorrectly, by the way) applies only to those who have voluntarily entered into a covenant as a matter of religious belief. No one is forced to enter into it, as is the case with a communist regime that seizes control of a country's government.

Besides, as can be seen from the experiment in frontier Utah, when the participants were unable to live, it ceased to be in force. No one was "trodden down," as it were.

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

D&C 104 predated frontier Utah. If you are saying it didn't spring into being until the Utah period, doesn't it undercut your argument to be citing this Kirtland-era revelation?

I would have thought the folks in frontier Utah were trying to live the revelations Joseph Smith had received.  I don't think their economic experiments in Utah "sprung up" in a vacuum.

 

Quote

And read it context, the phrase your quoting (incorrectly, by the way) applies only to those who have voluntarily entered into a covenant as a matter of religious belief. No one is forced to enter into it, as is the case with a communist regime that seizes control of a country's government.

Besides, as can be seen from the experiment in frontier Utah, when the participants were unable to live, it ceased to be in force. No one was "trodden down," as it were.

According to what D&C 104 actually says, entering into the United Order was voluntary only in the sense that doing anything that God commands you to do is voluntary.  There is quite a bit of coercion in the language, depending on how literally the reader takes what it says.

When discussing the way the United Order works in theory, we should focus the comparison on how Communism works in theory.  As mfbukowski's link about freedom explains, Marxism was intended to promote positive, individual freedom.  In theory, the only people that would be against this are the classes that want limit the freedom of others through brutal exploitation for their own personal gain.  Just because somebody fights against this type of thievery doesn't mean they are somehow against freedom.

In practice, the United Order and communism both failed.  The specific details of their respective failures have more to do with the contexts in which they were being implemented and the scales of the experiments and less to do with any inherent differences in how their Utopias would work once implemented. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

 

According to what D&C 104 actually says, entering into the United Order was voluntary only in the sense that doing anything that God commands you to do is voluntary.  There is quite a bit of coercion in the language, depending on how literally the reader takes what it says.

When discussing the way the United Order works in theory, we should focus the comparison on how Communism works in theory.  As mfbukowski's link about freedom explains, Marxism was intended to promote positive, individual freedom.  In theory, the only people that would be against this are the classes that want limit the freedom of others through brutal exploitation for their own personal gain.  Just because somebody fights against this type of thievery doesn't mean they are somehow against freedom.

In practice, the United Order and communism both failed.  The specific details of their respective failures have more to do with the contexts in which they were being implemented and the scales of the experiments and less to do with any inherent differences in how their Utopias would work once implemented. 

 

 

Doesn't matter how you slice it, establishing a religious order and inviting people to voluntarily enter into it is in no way comparable to a political party seizing control of a government and exercising despotism over the citizenry of a country. Millions of people enslaved and murdered over the years by communist and fascist regimes would no doubt attest to that.

Quote

I would have thought the folks in frontier Utah were trying to live the revelations Joseph Smith had received.  I don't think their economic experiments in Utah "sprung up" in a vacuum.

I made my comment in response to your contention that the United Order was practiced in a closed and isolated society. That wasn't the case in Kirtland.

And even in Utah, the United Order came nowhere near to being implemented throughout the territory. It was an experiment attempted in a few settlements, Orderville in southern Utah being one of them. Those who did not want to be involved presumably could move to a settlement where it was not being practiced.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Glad that you now see the difference.

Force.

When Zion is established across the Earth in the Millenium it will be because a good portion of the population of the planet will be destroyed. Not sure you can say there is no force involved in building Zion.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

From your link:

 

According to your source, Marx thinks it is both possible and desirable for the state to promote the positive freedom of its citizens.  Do you agree with Marx on this point?

Of course.  He happened to be right about that.  The point here is SELF DETERMINATION.  The church advocates positive liberty.  How often have you heard the idea that keeping the commandments gives you freedom??  That the state should establish traffic laws so that we can actually get through intersections without crashing into others?  That the state has rights to establish and enforce laws??   Who would NOT agree with that?

When you join an organization you agree to abide by their rules, and in some cases give them the right to discipline you as you see fit.  Stock Brokers real estate agents and others know this well- as do attorneys.  If you join the Bar Association, they can discipline you but YOUR JOINING IS VOLUNTARY as is your membership in the church.

IF you join the church AND partake of the United Order, they get to discipline you.  DUH.  If you don't like it you walk.

If you are a member of the bourgeoisie and want to keep your stuff- forget about it.  THAT is force.  The state takes it from you.  And in some cases, if you try to escape the state, as in East Germany, you could get shot just for trying leave.

Why is that not clear and why has it taken all these ridiculous posts to establish a simple distinction like this??

I agree with Marx with a lot of things, like that the world exists, that we should be nice to each other and lots of other things.  How was I supposed to answer your silly question?  As if I could not possibly agree with Marx on ANYTHING?  I was a Marxist.  Much of his philosophy comes out of Kant and Hegel.  I love Kant and Hegel- is it surprising I agree with Marx on a few points??  In fact I agree with Hegel on the teleology of history, but I see it from an LDS perspective.  The plan is working itself out.  That's another perspective I share with Marx

Edited May 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Those who did not want to be involved presumably could move to a settlement where it was not being practiced.

Exactly, and thus it did not involve "force"