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

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Maybe I'm cynical, but it's obvious that capitalism has been successful,

 

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

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

You are cynical but don't like cynical economic systems which work because one should advocate what has a "positive view of human nature".  HMMM.....  So we should advocate political and economic views because they make us feel good, not because they work.

Yes, I see why you are a liberal.

 Interesting.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

You are cynical but don't like cynical economic systems which work because one should advocate what has a "positive view of human nature".  HMMM.....  So we should advocate political and economic views because they make us feel good, not because they work.

Yes, I see why you are a liberal.

 Interesting.

Uhhh, Mark, that first quote you've attributed to Analytics was not posted by him; it was posted by jkwilliams.  I don't think your attempt at insulting Analytics works too well with that fact in place.

Edited May 24, 2016 by ttribe

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Uhhh, Mark, that first quote you've attributed to Analytics was not posted by him; it was posted by jkwilliams.  I don't think your attempt at insulting Analytics works too well with that fact in place.

Huh?  LOL!

Maybe you had better research that a little farther.  Unless of course they are closer than I thought.

Edited May 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Uhhh, Mark, that first quote you've attributed to Analytics was not posted by him; it was posted by jkwilliams.  I don't think your attempt at insulting Analytics works too well with that fact in place.

Interesting that you would see being called a "liberal" an insult.

[ttribe]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?  LOL!

Maybe you had better research that a little farther.  Unless of course they are closer than I thought.

Here you go -

 

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Interesting that you would see being called a "liberal" an insult.

What's "interesting" about it?  It's clear you believe it is an insult; that's all I was referring to. =

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Here you go -

 

What's "interesting" about it?  It's clear you believe it is an insult; that's all I was referring to. =

uh, this is so bizarre. see the little curved arrow at the top right of the box saying "analytics said"?

click on it and you will see that it leads to a post- in each case- 2 cases to be exact- in which ANALYTICS writes the words I quoted

I like your posts but now you seem somewhat...... impaired or something.  your mistake is there for all to see.  i was quoting Mr A not Mr W.

I won't talk about it more- it is ridiculous   you gotta keep off that stuff

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

uh, this is so bizarre. see the little curved arrow at the top right of the box saying "analytics said"?

click on it and you will see that it leads to a post- in each case- 2 cases to be exact- in which ANALYTICS writes the words I quoted

I like your posts but now you seem somewhat...... impaired or something.  your mistake is there for all to see.  i was quoting Mr A not Mr W.

I won't talk about it more- it is ridiculous   you gotta keep off that stuff

I'm not impaired.  I know how the software works.  The link you are talking about takes you back to a post where "Analytics" was quoting John.  When you deleted part of the message to only focus on the one part, you deleted the HTML code for the embedded message written by John and it went the next level up to who was responding to John - Analytics.

Now, you can either continue to suggest that I am somehow impaired (which I am not), or you could admit that HTML is not something you have a significant working understanding of and just accept that it's a mistake.

Edited May 24, 2016 by ttribe

[BCSpace]

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

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

Free Market Capitalism, unlike the Corporatism supported by the Left (and some on the Right unfortunately) when they want people to erroneously believe they support Free Market Capitalism (cf. PPACA etc. etc.), is a neutral system in the same way the Plan of Salvation outlined in 2 Nephi 2 is a neutral system.  Any good or evil therein is brought by the individual and not inherently part of the system.

Marxism is inherently evil relative to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Law of Consecration because it removes choice and personal responsibility.

What Marx couldn't quite grasp was why the value of goods was greater than the labor and material cost of producing them.  So he proposed redistribution of the 'surplus value'. In other words, a Marxist doesn't know how wealth is created.  He believes all wealth is stolen and tries to steal it back.

Relative to the Gospel, surplus value, or profit, is the analog of the enticements found in 2 Nephi 2.  Without such enticements, man cannot choose for himself (2 Nephi 2:16).  Under the Law of Consecration, a man may make a profit, or increase his stewardship, and is now faced with the choice of what to do with it.  Does he need it? Can it be put to some greater good?  Does he invest it in order to realize greater profits?  Does he selfishly hide it away? Etc. It's all up to him and no one but God and His authorized earthly representatives can righteously judge him on it in stark contrast to Marxism.

And thus we see how Marxism/Communism/Socialism, all monikers for the same unrighteous principle, is antithetical and contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Law of Consecration.

[JAHS]

29 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

Free Market Capitalism, unlike the Corporatism supported by the Left (and some on the Right unfortunately) when they want people to erroneously believe they support Free Market Capitalism (cf. PPACA etc. etc.), is a neutral system in the same way the Plan of Salvation outlined in 2 Nephi 2 is a neutral system.  Any good or evil therein is brought by the individual and not inherently part of the system.

Marxism is inherently evil relative to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Law of Consecration because it removes choice and personal responsibility.

What Marx couldn't quite grasp was why the value of goods was greater than the labor and material cost of producing them.  So he proposed redistribution of the 'surplus value'. In other words, a Marxist doesn't know how wealth is created.  He believes all wealth is stolen and tries to steal it back.

Relative to the Gospel, surplus value, or profit, is the analog of the enticements found in 2 Nephi 2.  Without such enticements, man cannot choose for himself (2 Nephi 2:16).  Under the Law of Consecration, a man may make a profit, or increase his stewardship, and is now faced with the choice of what to do with it.  Does he need it? Can it be put to some greater good?  Does he invest it in order to realize greater profits?  Does he selfishly hide it away? Etc. It's all up to him and no one but God and His authorized earthly representatives can righteously judge him on it in stark contrast to Marxism.

And thus we see how Marxism/Communism/Socialism, all monikers for the same unrighteous principle, is antithetical and contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Law of Consecration.

I believe the following countries have some form of marxism:
Laos, North Korea, People's Republic of China, Philippines, Vietnam, Cuba, Albania, Russia.
So can we say that Church members should not support or be members of any kind of Marxist party in these countries today?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I'm not impaired.  I know how the software works.  The link you are talking about takes you back to a post where "Analytics" was quoting John.  When you deleted part of the message to only focus on the one part, you deleted the HTML code for the embedded message written by John and it went the next level up to who was responding to John - Analytics.

Now, you can either continue to suggest that I am somehow impaired (which I am not), or you could admit that HTML is not something you have a significant working understanding of and just accept that it's a mistake.

I know nothing about HTML and do not want to.  If I got it wrong, fine, but I responded to those posts exactly like I always do and this is the first time this has come up

You don't even have a dog in this fight-  if I got it wrong I will be glad to apologize to Analytics and/ or John.  On the posts I still see, the words belong to Analytics.  I can reload the page and they still come up as the words of Analytics.

At this point it is a mountain out of a molehill and I don't really care anyway, but if an apology is in order- i will gladly make one- TO THEM not you.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, BCSpace said:

Free Market Capitalism, unlike the Corporatism supported by the Left (and some on the Right unfortunately) when they want people to erroneously believe they support Free Market Capitalism (cf. PPACA etc. etc.), is a neutral system in the same way the Plan of Salvation outlined in 2 Nephi 2 is a neutral system.  Any good or evil therein is brought by the individual and not inherently part of the system.

Marxism is inherently evil relative to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Law of Consecration because it removes choice and personal responsibility.

What Marx couldn't quite grasp was why the value of goods was greater than the labor and material cost of producing them.  So he proposed redistribution of the 'surplus value'. In other words, a Marxist doesn't know how wealth is created.  He believes all wealth is stolen and tries to steal it back.

Relative to the Gospel, surplus value, or profit, is the analog of the enticements found in 2 Nephi 2.  Without such enticements, man cannot choose for himself (2 Nephi 2:16).  Under the Law of Consecration, a man may make a profit, or increase his stewardship, and is now faced with the choice of what to do with it.  Does he need it? Can it be put to some greater good?  Does he invest it in order to realize greater profits?  Does he selfishly hide it away? Etc. It's all up to him and no one but God and His authorized earthly representatives can righteously judge him on it in stark contrast to Marxism.

And thus we see how Marxism/Communism/Socialism, all monikers for the same unrighteous principle, is antithetical and contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Law of Consecration.

ttribe thinks Analytics did not say that

Interesting that you see the page and the quote the way I do.  Two witnesses

And indeed Marxism is totally absurd in a service economy.  To say that I do not own my time and that I cannot charge what I want for my services in a free economy because somehow I have "alienated" my own labor from me is absurd. 

[jkwilliams]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

You are cynical but don't like cynical economic systems which work because one should advocate what has a "positive view of human nature".  HMMM.....  So we should advocate political and economic views because they make us feel good, not because they work.

Yes, I see why you are a liberal.

 Interesting.

I said I like capitalism because it rests on the assumption that humans act out of self-interest. Analytics said that makes capitalism cynical. Your post had Analytics saying both. 

[jkwilliams]

17 hours 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. 

FYI, here's the original quote that Mark attributed to Analytics. In short, one of capitalism's great advantages is that it depends on the (correct, IMO) assumption that humans generally act out of self-interest. Communism (and the United Order, IMO) rest on the hope that humans can put aside their self-interest and sacrifice for the common good. Perhaps that might work in a perfect world, but it doesn't work well in the real world. 

Maybe Analytics is right that capitalism is based on cynicism, but I think it's based on realism.

Edited May 24, 2016 by jkwilliams

[ttribe]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I know nothing about HTML and do not want to.  If I got it wrong, fine, but I responded to those posts exactly like I always do and this is the first time this has come up

You don't even have a dog in this fight-  if I got it wrong I will be glad to apologize to Analytics and/ or John.  On the posts I still see, the words belong to Analytics.  I can reload the page and they still come up as the words of Analytics.

At this point it is a mountain out of a molehill and I don't really care anyway, but if an apology is in order- i will gladly make one- TO THEM not you.

I didn't ask for an apology.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

uh, this is so bizarre. see the little curved arrow at the top right of the box saying "analytics said"?

click on it and you will see that it leads to a post- in each case- 2 cases to be exact- in which ANALYTICS writes the words I quoted

I like your posts but now you seem somewhat...... impaired or something.  your mistake is there for all to see.  i was quoting Mr A not Mr W.

I won't talk about it more- it is ridiculous   you gotta keep off that stuff

That's not what I see. Both of your quotes point to the same post. It's really weird that you continue to insist you are right here, and even take BC's correct quote as proof? Click here: Analytics is quoting jkwilliams...

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by SeekingUnderstanding

[jkwilliams]

25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I didn't ask for an apology.

Nor have I. Sometimes things get misattributed in threads. No big deal.

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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?  

The context of the discussion is that I said in theory, Communism is a lot like the United Order, so one would think that people that are open to such economic systems should be welcomed in the Church.  You responded that the United Order and Marxism are "not even close to alike," and explained that the difference was that the Church is in favor of positive freedom and that Marxism is opposed to it and wants to force people.  To support your point, you linked to an article about positive freedom, which ironically said that Marx was in favor of positive freedom while several other philosophers were opposed to it.

I realize your last question was rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway.  You were supposed to answer the question by saying, "Thanks for pointing out that Marx was actually against forcing people to become communists and that instead he was in fact in favor of positive freedom.  I guess you are right and Marxism is more like the United Order than I thought."

[Mystery Meat]

As a staunch opponent to Communism and someone who has seen its fruits, I must say that I don't see any reason why a good member of the Church could not support communism, just so long as they don't try to bring their political/social philosophy into the Kingdom of God.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, ttribe said:

I'm not impaired.  I know how the software works.  The link you are talking about takes you back to a post where "Analytics" was quoting John.  When you deleted part of the message to only focus on the one part, you deleted the HTML code for the embedded message written by John and it went the next level up to who was responding to John - Analytics.

Now, you can either continue to suggest that I am somehow impaired (which I am not), or you could admit that HTML is not something you have a significant working understanding of and just accept that it's a mistake.

WOW

You were exactly right- I do not still understand how that happened.  I guess you have the right diagnosis above.

I was having problems with the quote functions but still when I went back to check it, it seemed to be two quotes both by Analytics- THAT is what baffles me!

But I am also on pain meds so it was probably ME who was impaired!  Sorry all. 

At least I can see that when I am confident, I am confident, even when totally wrong!

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

WOW

You were exactly right- I do not still understand how that happened.  I guess you have the right diagnosis above.

I was having problems with the quote functions but still when I went back to check it, it seemed to be two quotes both by Analytics- THAT is what baffles me!

But I am also on pain meds so it was probably ME who was impaired!  Sorry all. 

At least I can see that when I am confident, I am confident, even when totally wrong!

I'm sorry you've been in pain. Same here. 

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

WOW

You were exactly right- I do not still understand how that happened.  I guess you have the right diagnosis above.

I was having problems with the quote functions but still when I went back to check it, it seemed to be two quotes both by Analytics- THAT is what baffles me!

But I am also on pain meds so it was probably ME who was impaired!  Sorry all. 

At least I can see that when I am confident, I am confident, even when totally wrong!

No worries.  This kind of thing happens.

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The context of the discussion is that I said in theory, Communism is a lot like the United Order, so one would think that people that are open to such economic systems should be welcomed in the Church.  You responded that the United Order and Marxism are "not even close to alike," and explained that the difference was that the Church is in favor of positive freedom and that Marxism is opposed to it and wants to force people.  To support your point, you linked to an article about positive freedom, which ironically said that Marx was in favor of positive freedom while several other philosophers were opposed to it.

I realize your last question was rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway.  You were supposed to answer the question by saying, "Thanks for pointing out that Marx was actually against forcing people to become communists and that instead he was in fact in favor of positive freedom.  I guess you are right and Marxism is more like the United Order than I thought."

Where did I say the underlined passage?

You are reading things into it that I never said.  I never said that Marxism is opposed to positive liberty- but it is possibly opposed to negative liberty, though I also have not said that.

My one and only point is that Marxism uses force and building Zion does not.  Incidentally I have also never spoken about the "United Order" which was one failed attempt to establish Zion.

The ideal theoretical Marxist state, as defined by Marx, demands the use of force to establish it.  The ideal theoretical Zion state, as defined by the scriptures, does not.

Edited May 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Where did I say the underlined passage?

You are reading things into it that I never said.  I never said that Marxism is opposed to positive liberty- but it is possibly opposed to negative liberty, though I also have not said that.

My one and only point is that Marxism uses force and building Zion does not.  Incidentally I have also never spoken about the "United Order" which was one failed attempt to establish Zion.

The ideal theoretical Marxist state, as defined by Marx, demands the use of force to establish it.  The ideal theoretical Zion state, as defined by the scriptures, does not.

Perhaps a take-away point is that neither system works unless the people under it are committed to it. You cannot promote commitment through force and despotism, only victimization and resentment.

And you can't make a system work if people embrace it half-heartedly or not at all.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps a take-away point is that neither system works unless the people under it are committed to it. You cannot promote commitment through force and despotism, only victimization and resentment.

And you can't make a system work if people embrace it half-heartedly or not at all.

That's why I don't think such systems work in this mortal, fallen world. We imperfect humans have a very hard time setting aside our self-interest in such a way that would make these systems work.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

That's why I don't think such systems work in this mortal, fallen world. We imperfect humans have a very hard time setting aside our self-interest in such a way that would make these systems work.

The city of Enoch is a precedent one could cite to show that it can work in a mortal world.

And the indication I get from my reading is that it did work with the Nephites in the first few generations following the appearance of the risen Christ to them.

But perhaps these examples are too far removed from our day and time to be meaningful to most people.

At any rate, there was no force or despotism involved in these examples, only voluntary love and devotion.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd