We Actually Do Know that Literal “Spirits” Aren’t Real

[Damien the Leper]

On 5/3/2024 at 10:02 AM, Amulek said:

Ugh, Marxian economics is a painfully boring exercise in manipulating input-output tables and is pretty much irrelevant. I would stick with just the chess.

The same could be said for Ayn Rand and the free-market hoax. 

[longview]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

The same could be said for Ayn Rand and the free-market hoax. 

In the glorious days of the USSR, the commissars were forced to "wink" at the underground economy in order to make up for deficiencies of the communist five-year plans. That made it possible for incentives (read free-market) to work its magic! There is NO substitute for free choice when it comes to willing buyers and willing sellers.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, longview said:

That made it possible for incentives (read free-market) to work its magic!

So the result of the free market magic is the dominance of corruption and mafia organizations and oligarchs?

Edited May 11, 2024 by Calm

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, longview said:

In the glorious days of the USSR, the commissars were forced to "wink" at the underground economy in order to make up for deficiencies of the communist five-year plans. That made it possible for incentives (read free-market) to work its magic! There is NO substitute for free choice when it comes to willing buyers and willing sellers.

Considering the extensive economic failures post-USSR and US involvement in helping to establish the system that would fail and continues to fail to this day, I find it hard to believe there is any "magic" involved.

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

So the result of the free market magic is the dominance of corruption and mafia organizations and oligarchs?

Yes. See the U.S. for example.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/3/2024 at 10:02 AM, Amulek said:

Ugh, Marxian economics is a painfully boring exercise in manipulating input-output tables and is pretty much irrelevant. I would stick with just the chess.

How do you see that differing from "MarxIST" economics?

[longview]

24 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Considering the extensive economic failures post-USSR and US involvement in helping to establish the system that would fail and continues to fail to this day, I find it hard to believe there is any "magic" involved.

At the fall of the USSR, high level members of the KGB (including Putin) managed to take control of various industries. This is called a kleptocracy. The people had a very difficult time getting their own small businesses going due to the oppressive diktats of the upper levels of crony bureaucrats, all racketeers. Free enterprise? Pretty much constrained.

[longview]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

So the result of the free market magic is the dominance of corruption and mafia organizations and oligarchs?

What a cynical take on the ideals of free enterprise. I would expect you to understand that it is cheaters, criminals, "gadianton robbers" and cronies that would subvert the free flow of goods and services for their own selfish ends. It is human nature that frequently tries to take advantage. Sometimes it is lobbyists that conspire with legislators to pass unfair laws to constrict legitimate businesses so their clients can charge higher prices. This is called cronyism which has nothing to do with free enterprise.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, longview said:

would expect you to understand that it is cheaters, criminals, "gadianton robbers" and cronies that would subvert the free flow of goods and services for their own selfish ends.

Same with the ideals of communism.

[Peacefully]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

TO THE POSTERS HEREIN:

I want to make it clear that I do not believe nor did I mean to imply that "Joseph Smith was a Marxist".   HE CLEARLY WAS NOT.

My comment was addressed to those few here who have any concept whatsoever about the nature of the philosophy of Hegel and what a "Zeitgeist" is.

Directly translated it includes two words as one meaning "TIME-SPIRIT" or as we say in English, "the spirit of the times".  This term is important to the philosophy of Hegel.

Marx came along and it might be said "co-opted" portions of Hegel's philosophy including the notion of "dialectic reason" which goes back as well as far as Socrates.  Socrates, as we "know" through Plato-(Socrates never wrote a word personally in his life-that we know of-) developed his philosophy through actual conversations with others, not unlike what goes on in this board.   I say something, someone responds.  This process is not a lecture- it is a "DIA-LECT-UR" or a process of reasoning through conversation that develops the truth or falsity, perhaps, of some proposition.  And so we have "dialectical reasoning".   Hegel saw this as essential to developing his notion of "Zeitgeist"- or Spirit of the Times, which vary according to....  THE TIMES!   

Every historic period, on this view then, has its own "spirit" which we usually name, like "Presocratic" "Roman", the "Middle Ages" the  "Renaissance" "Modernism" "Industrial Revolution""Postmodern" etc etc.

So Joseph and Marx lived during the same ZEITGEIST in which the mode of thought was similar.

Joseph saw the history of religion as being divided into periods as well- he called "dispensations".  He saw them as progressions or recessions to the true message God was providing his children. He claimed, in essential, that the Jews kinda had it, then the Christians carried it for a period, then there was a reaction caused by the intrusion  of Greek philosophy which caused the "apostasy", which then necessitated a "Restoration" of the truth.

This is it self "dialectical reasoning".   Action and re-action.  Conversation- as one generation converses with another.

So Joseph was -arguably- influenced by his Zeitgeist and was immersed by dialectical reasoning himself.

So was Marx.  Instead of seeing things as religious "dispensations" as Joseph did,  because Marx was actually anti-religion- Marx saw these stages through economics.  Starting with the discovery of agriculture, money developed etc.  I won't go into all his stages here, they are irrelevant.  Except for the contemporary times. Inevitably - long story short, the Zeitgeists will end in a Utopian society in which all are equal,called "Socialism". This is not the "Socialism" of today- but NO POLITICS! This is not the "Socialism" yet of Marx - it is imperfect, as it were.

Joseph saw dispensations ending in a society called "Zion"  ruled by Christ himself.   Marxist "Socialism" is totally atheist- Joseph's "Zion" is physically RULED by the Son of God, Jesus Christ.  You cannot find two societies more DIA-metrically Opposed that that!

Furthermore, both Joseph and Marx were both materialists- as Joseph included in the D&C- even spirit is matter!  But spirit is more like "energy"- which is compatible with today's science.  

So I hope that explains what I said strictly for those who already knew all this.   I never meant to imply that Joseph was a Marxist.

 

I may not be one of the few, but I understood it was a joke so no worries, lol. 

[longview]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Same with the ideals of communism.

It definitely is NOT the same. Free enterprise is much more preferable as it allows people to choose their career paths and their livelihoods and their management of time and disposition of private property. You are mindlessly demonizing free enterprise simply because criminals and cronies abuse the system if they can get away with it or engage in corrupt practices between lobbyists and government officials.

In communism and totalitarian systems, you become a slave to the state. You are forced into certain jobs. If you act improperly or say the wrong things then you are subjected to bloody purges. Read up on "social credit scores" imposed on the people of Red China. They are forced to have their smart phones with them at all times so the government app will spy on them and control what things they can purchase and where they can travel.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

You are mindlessly demonizing free enterprise simply because criminals and cronies abuse the system if they can get away with it or engage in corrupt practices between lobbyists and government officials.

I am not mindlessly demonizing or demonizing free enterprise at all.  Idealistically free enterprise is great, but the world is not ideal.  Realistically there are problems with full out free enterprise due to the human nature you agree exists that needs to have some sort of control since no one lives in a Zion society these days.  

The idea that free enterprise brought down the USSR is a simplistic, idealized view and ignores the very real result of whatever happened there.  Pointing to the tragedy in Russia as some magical result of free enterprise at work as if some beautiful miracle happened is being blind to what actually happened and is happening.  That portrayal is what I am critical of, not of free enterprise in general.  

My husband had a friend who believed in the power of free enterprise.  He was assassinated in Moscow in front of a metro station.  No one was held responsible.  Free enterprise did not protect him.  

My in laws were told by the US Consulate there not to come back to Russia because the US wouldn’t (couldn’t?) offer any hope of protection from the mafia that was taking over their travel company…a travel company whose premise was to take American business people over on a tour, invite Russians along and let the magic of  networking and free enterprise make wealth for them all while doing good as well (they did a lot of charity projects in conjunction with their work).  My husband, the so not liberal university professor who taught entrepreneurship/business startups, went along on several cruises to teach the Russians the how to part.  I hitched along on two of them.  The business was quite successful, despite the endless problems of making things work in Russia and so  attracted the attention of another mafia group.  Along the way the chef ran off with the money he got from the sale of the quality food for the tours I went on, so we ate millet, borscht, and dried fish for breakfast and lunch for six weeks.  Later they discovered one of the Russian priests running one of the charities they were helping out big time was selling the clothes they collected for the orphan kids—Utahns were very generous with their donations at the time—in order to line his own pocket, free enterprise at work in real life Russia.

We had a Russian business professor live with us for four months while teaching and learning at the university my husband taught at as well as my family living in Russia on a Fulbright grant for four or five months while my husband taught business over there at her university.  My husband walked away with the distinct impression they didn’t really care about him teaching any classes (they had to scramble to get him set up as they were unprepared even with 6 months or more warning he was coming over), they were quite satisfied with how they taught business, but the money they got from the US government was well worth the hassle of hosting him and finding two classes he could teach.

The Russians really did not like Americans coming over and telling them how to do business, but it was easy enough to pretend to listen while counting the money the Americans brought.

The idea I am demonizing free enterprise is ridiculous.  I am criticizing your superficial, honestly ridiculous praise of what went down in Russia.  It was all so wonderfully magical if you ignore the body count and Putin and the oligarchs and the mafia and the endless list of tragedies that occurred and are occurring.  To wave them away as incidentals not worth being mentioned while extolling the magic of free enterprise is not being factual…At the very least.

The communist countries you are referring to as evidence that the ideals of communism are evil were never practicing the ideals of communism.

Edited May 11, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The communist countries you are referring to as evidence that the ideals of communism are evil were never practicing the ideals of communism.

I was honestly very rah, rah with your post until the above. Everytime communism fails- which is everytime- people come along and say, "Well, they just weren't doing it right. But we would do it right." I challenge that idea. The idea is flawed so it can never work in practice. That is why it has never worked. We really need to believe what a prophet of the Lord (ETB) had to say about Communism and it's little sister, Socialism.

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

On 5/3/2024 at 12:02 PM, Amulek said:

Ugh, Marxian economics is a painfully boring exercise in manipulating input-output tables and is pretty much irrelevant. I would stick with just the chess.

How do you see that differing from "MarxIST" economics?

Only in spelling.

I would say that Marxist is more common in popular usage (see, e.g., here), but both refer to the same thing. 

 

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, longview said:

There is NO substitute for free choice when it comes to willing buyers and willing sellers.

Ironically, Karl Marx would agree with you on that. Marx had no interest in making buyers, sellers, or workers do things they didn’t want to do. He simply thought that workers should own the means of production. 

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

challenge that idea. The idea is flawed so it can never work in practice.

That may be accurate.  But since it hasn’t even been closely approximated (from what I can tell, it’s only been used as a way to get power by unscrupulous men anytime the movement became significant), I think it’s premature to condemn all forms of communism.  I doubt it could work outside a small dedicated community unless it existed in a Zion society and I believe there are better forms of government for a Zion society, so I highly doubt we will ever see communism working large scale.

Edited May 11, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

That may be accurate.  But since it hasn’t even been closely approximated (from what I can tell, it’s only been used as a way to get power by unscrupulous men anytime the movement became significant), I think it’s premature to condemn all forms of communism.  I doubt it could work outside a small dedicated community unless it existed in a Zion society and I believe there are better forms of government for a Zion society, so I highly doubt we will ever see communism working large scale.

I think this is where some people get confused. A Zionic society is not a function or initiative of government, but is a natural result love, purity of heart, and honoring covenants:

"2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

...

15 And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.

16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God." (4 Nephi)

Edited May 11, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Only in spelling.

I would say that Marxist is more common in popular usage (see, e.g., here), but both refer to the same thing. 

 

Interesting, thanks.

I studied Marx in the late '60's with Angela Davis and the usage was quite different than today's usage, apparently.  Actually if you look at your chart- it indicates exactly that. 

Language.   Ya jest caint truss it. 

https://journals.openedition.org/ei/6800#:~:text=If we follow Chauvel's (2001,political or even apologetic filiation.

Quote

7 In the 1850s, Marxian referred to Weitling’s thought and then to the opposite of Lassalle and to the opponents of Marx (who seems to have repudiated these terms). The term “Marxist” is pejorative until Kautsky popularized it in the current positive sense in 1883 (see Labica and Bensussan, 1982). Moreover, as Seve observes, Marx and Engels break with the traditional philosophical conception, “they inaugurate a new genre. This is why, quite justifiably, the dialectical materialist study of categories to which their work opens the way is called Marxist philosophy and not Marxian” (1980, p. 286)1. If we follow Chauvel’s (2001) recent distinction between the two concepts, Marxian means an intellectual tradition marked by critical evaluation, whereas Marxist defines a more political or even apologetic filiation. Furthermore, it is worth noting that “Marxist scholars share a common critical analysis of capitalism in general and, more specifically, of neoliberalism, the latter phase of capitalism” (Duménil and Lévy, 2014, p. 26). This distinction between Marxian and Marxist is then key for shedding light on Small's thought and questioning the extent to which his ideas still ring true today.

 

[Damien the Leper]

14 hours ago, longview said:

At the fall of the USSR, high level members of the KGB (including Putin) managed to take control of various industries. This is called a kleptocracy. The people had a very difficult time getting their own small businesses going due to the oppressive diktats of the upper levels of crony bureaucrats, all racketeers. Free enterprise? Pretty much constrained.

The kleptocracy that played into further Russian economic disintegration came from money being funneled into the pockets of oligarchs and KGB members by the U.S. to suppress the "free market" and to subjugation and essentially enslave post-USSR Russians.

[Damien the Leper]

14 hours ago, longview said:

What a cynical take on the ideals of free enterprise. I would expect you to understand that it is cheaters, criminals, "gadianton robbers" and cronies that would subvert the free flow of goods and services for their own selfish ends. It is human nature that frequently tries to take advantage. Sometimes it is lobbyists that conspire with legislators to pass unfair laws to constrict legitimate businesses so their clients can charge higher prices. This is called cronyism which has nothing to do with free enterprise.

A prime example of this is Reaganomics and the cancer that is "trickle down" economics.

[Okrahomer]

Pardon me:  

I was looking for the discussion about spirits? 🤡

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I may not be one of the few, but I understood it was a joke so no worries, lol. 

Oh yes, I instantly knew it was a joke, @MiserereNobis and I often kid each other.  I would love to meet the guy some day- I think we would be instant buddies!

But imo it started to go too far in the comments, and bugged me, so I thought I would explain the truth to all.   I just didn't want the idea that "Bukowski thinks that JS was a Marxist" floating around in somebody's half-memory of the comments.  Memory can be tricky!

I know it was over-kill but I wanted to scrub everyone's mis-memory before it got out of hand!  🤕

[longview]

59 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Ironically, Karl Marx would agree with you on that. Marx had no interest in making buyers, sellers, or workers do things they didn’t want to do. He simply thought that workers should own the means of production. 

Only in accordance with the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Marx famously preached: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." According to wikipedia:

Quote

Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common within the socialist movement. The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French utopian Étienne-Gabriel Morelly,^[7][8] who proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society", including:^[9]

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

But you are NOT free to choose in a totalitarian society.

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I was honestly very rah, rah with your post until the above. Everytime communism fails- which is everytime- people come along and say, "Well, they just weren't doing it right. But we would do it right." I challenge that idea. The idea is flawed so it can never work in practice. That is why it has never worked. We really need to believe what a prophet of the Lord (ETB) had to say about Communism and it's little sister, Socialism.

Would he say the same about the Law of Consecration which is essentially socialism+a god?

[ZealouslyStriving]

19 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Would he say the same about the Law of Consecration which is essentially socialism+a god?

Read my post after that post.

Edited May 11, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving
Clarification.