Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?

[JohnnyRudick]

He didn't say that the cancer was beneficial to the patient. He pointed out that it is not harmful.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:p

So we can have a little Socialism not because it is good for us

but because it is not harmful.

OK, I think I got it:rolleyes:

[FunkyTown]

EDIT: I'm not comfortable using images of starving kids to win an Internet argument.

To sum up the argument to JohnnyRudick:

When you say to compare China's situation with 'Us', can I assume you don't mean 'The United States of America' and instead mean 'All Capitalist Countries'?

If so, please do research on the country of Niger. It is a purely capitalist country with no safety net. People are starving there.

A safety net is important. It always will be. Government can and should help provide that safety net, even at the expense of taxation. You can look at Joseph as an example: If Egypt hadn't taxed grain during the years of plenty, how many would have died during the years of famine?

Edited May 19, 2010 by FunkyTown

[FunkyTown]

Anything that helps people is not necessarily socialism. Socialism is when the government owns and controls the principle industries such as agriculture, utilities, education, health-care, transportation, and much of the root manufacturing industries such as mining, oil refining, etc.

(Enter the strawman argument. My real argument is at the bottom. Feel free to skip my rather embarassing argument below and read the non-confrontational argument below it.)

Gutsy definition, Rosa! I'm uncertain why education is considered a principle industry. Or health care for that matter, but it's not important.

What is important is that government owned manufacturing facilities is socialist. That's gutsy to basically call the Manhattan Project part of the Godless scourge of socialism when it ended World War II and saved millions of American lives that would have been lost in a land invasion.

And to state that you would have wanted the Manhattan Projectt to be performed by a public company instead to prevent the Communist Scourge from invading us with government interventionalism? That's a strong stance. Even stronger since the stance that government must be hands off in the manufacturing instance must means that they should have been free to sell the Nuke to any other country, including Japan... That's an argument that I respect as internally consistent, even though I disagree with it.

Of course, if you're saying that this wasn't your argument and you would rather the government had maintained their private military manufacturing centers, that would make you a bit of a socialist like dorave admitted to.

******

(Real argument)

The definition you've given necessarily includes things like military manufacturing, which is part of your 'Root manufacturing' definition. Education and health care would include things like government run orphanages. By removing all access to controls on Agriculture, you get things like what's happening in Niger: There's food, but nobody can afford it in the country so it ends up being exported.

I'm not going to insult you or myself by really saying you're in favor of dead children and selling nukes to Iran. That sort of histrionics has no place in real debate. However, you must know that government controls have prevented those things historically.

If you agree that some governmental controls are necessary in the industries, or that some exceptions will be made, then you're really saying that you agree with some socialism based on your definition.

And if you're arguing that most governmental controls are wasteful and tyrannical, but not all, then what you need to do is point out the specific ones that are and how you would fix them.

Making sweeping generalizations does not fix issues and is not conducive to making bridges. It's just conducive to confrontational, stupid arguments like the one I posted that I said you could skip over.

Edited May 19, 2010 by FunkyTown

[rameumptom]

Wait... Just so I can confirm... You're saying that China is successfully beating the US at the Capitalism game by using Socialism? o.O

I thought part of the argument was that Government does everything sloppily, poorly and over-budget.

It's because the US is heading towards socialism, while China has opened up its markets. Second, the US is inefficiently regulating our markets, which drags them down; China is focused on using free markets to bring up the quality of their state run companies. Third, we have not fixed our education system; China has aggressively worked on having one of the best science/math/engineering systems/education in the world.

Government can do some things decently. But only if it is focused, and not distracted by a thousand voices. China's dictatorship isn't distracted. Congress is awash in lobbyist voices. We can't fix our schools, because many in Congress are listening to teacher's unions. We can't fix our health care, because Congress listens to lobbies, rather than focus on fixing it. We can't stimulate our economy, because "stimulus" packages end up being political pay-offs, instead of real stimulus.

The reality is, the free market can most often do things better than government. Had we rented armies to manage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would not have lost our soldiers, and would have actually won the wars long time ago. Why? Because of the profit motive. Yes, there would have been more casualties in a shorter period of time, but there would have been a resolution to all of this already. These rent-an-army groups would not have been politically motivated like our standing military is. We have great service men. They do a wonderful job. But their hands are tied by rules and regulations of war.

[JohnnyRudick]

I as do many others believe in a sliding scale sort of world when it comes to government.

I do not believe in "systems" par sa.

To the far left of the line we have Total Government

no matter what you want to call it, it is Total Government.

The only rights the people have is what the Government

gives and can just as easily take away.

It is an abuse of power no matter what it's name.

Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism.

Oligarchy. . .

------------

On the far left we have no government at all.

Mob rule.

The minority is being abused here by the majority as no one

is in control and there is no law.

I think that you have to have some controls and laws for the protection

of minorities from the whims of the majority.

To provide order etc.

I believe many have to be provided for.

Hopefully by charitable giving from those that can or will.

Maybe even a pool of recorces on behalf of the "poor" built up

with willing gifts from those who can or will.

And the help of churches and of coarse the program of the Church.

It is the duty of citizens to see which way the flow of government is taking.

How far left or right.

How much more so called freedom can we stand or how much

more government can we stand.

There is a tyranny of the masses,

A tyranny of the company store

And a tyranny of the Government.

[dorave]

This ends my discussion with you. This has gotten silly beyond absurdity. Arguments can be made out of anything. I can say the sun is the moon and the moon is the sun and argue you that I am right because of Historical context, linguistics, subjective refection etc. This is only arguing for argument's sake and is no longer a discussion but has degenerated to absurd intellectual games, which is contention and in which I have no interest in participating. I am willing to discuss and even debate ideas but not when it degenerates into this.

Thanks for all your contributions Rosa.

[Gatorman]

For me, it became simple. 2 plans were suggested. Their outcomes and goals were the same. There was one simple difference. One allowed choice, the other would force us to reach the goals. That, to me, is one of thedefinition of good vs evil. Choice vs coercion. In a socialist government/society, can we opt out of programs? Can we choose, as an individual, not to take part or fund part of it? In the United Order, can I opt out? So, which follows the Saviors plan and which follows Satan's plan? This is my understanding and my take. YMMV, of course. Only the answers each of us get individually, through our prayers, matters for each of us individually.

[FunkyTown]

Can I ask who you're responding to?

Have you actually read the thread or did you simply read the title of the thread and post an opinion?

Not being confrontational here. I honestly don't know. :) If it's a response to one of the several pages of discussion, it's best to quote the person you're responding to. If you're just tossing an opinion on to this, you might want to read the whole thread as your post doesn't really address anything.

For me, it became simple. 2 plans were suggested. Their outcomes and goals were the same. There was one simple difference. One allowed choice, the other would force us to reach the goals. That, to me, is one of thedefinition of good vs evil. Choice vs coercion. In a socialist government/society, can we opt out of programs? Can we choose, as an individual, not to take part or fund part of it? In the United Order, can I opt out? So, which follows the Saviors plan and which follows Satan's plan? This is my understanding and my take. YMMV, of course. Only the answers each of us get individually, through our prayers, matters for each of us individually.

[Gatorman]

hmmm...Maybe I was in another thread that compared socialism <forced by government charity> vs the united order <free will charity>. Was responding generally, because my response was to the general idea.

Plus. it answers the question in the topic too. :)

Can I ask who you're responding to?

Have you actually read the thread or did you simply read the title of the thread and post an opinion?

Not being confrontational here. I honestly don't know. :) If it's a response to one of the several pages of discussion, it's best to quote the person you're responding to. If you're just tossing an opinion on to this, you might want to read the whole thread as your post doesn't really address anything.

[MarginOfError]

I'm not interested in discussions about "how much socialism is okay?". To me, it's akin to arguing about "how much cancer is okay?".

Ironically, that's a question that clinicians deal with every day. Cancer, at times, seems to be ubiquitous, and it takes many forms. Consider, for instance, prostate cancer. A huge number of men in the US die with prostate cancer, but they don't die of prostate cancer. In the majority of cases, prostate cancer is not anything to worry about--it's benign--and cutting out a benign cancer can have worse side effects than leaving it in. So, in reality, we very often have to ask ourselves how much cancer is okay.

(and for the record, that isn't a straw-man, that's sophistry)

This ends my discussion with you. This has gotten silly beyond absurdity. Arguments can be made out of anything. I can say the sun is the moon and the moon is the sun and argue you that I am right because of Historical context, linguistics, subjective refection etc. This is only arguing for argument's sake and is no longer a discussion but has degenerated to absurd intellectual games, which is contention and in which I have no interest in participating. I am willing to discuss and even debate ideas but not when it degenerates into this.

I hesitate a little to bring this up, but I saw this article today and thought it might be interesting to include

Some early cancer overtreated; few want to wait - Cancer- msnbc.com

[Sicily510]

Wow, I'm so fascinated by all the opinions and the intellectual contributions to this thread. Rosabella you are insightful beyond words in a very humble and meek ways. I totally believe that our government has been corrupted with socialism. We have social fads such as the people who think that their human rights are violated, so they utilize propaganda in a disrespectful way of de moralizing the spiritual principles that this constitution was built from. Its gotten so bad to the point americans don't like being american (how sad, where is patriotism?). Some social propaganda go so far as to victimize themselves and the media desensitizes moralities with accepting immorality, what is the "American Dream"? To be governed by capitalist industries, lobbyist, elite parties who support themselves in the house of representatives while the 99% "We The People" labor for them to reap? What happened to "I have a dream" MLK and "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country". I find no type of patriotism in America whatsoever since JFK, because media fixates the uneducated, promotes the people be gullible, glamorizes war and rich people. How does all these support our Father in heaven? Answer: it doesn't. Heavenly father in the bible did not have men go to war to take from other contries, but he supported men with valor to fight for the safety of there family and home. I believe that the "Book Of Mormon" is true, look into the wise men who wrote the "Declaration Of Independence" and this is prior to the constitution bills of rights that has been reprimanded and tainted with people seeking to rid the constitution of principles.

Heavenly father did prepare and enlighten these "Wise Men" who solely believed in him.

A Principle of the Traditional American Philosophy

1. The Spiritual is Supreme

". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)

The Principle

1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.

Religious Nature

2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.

The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.

An Indivisible Whole

3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.

The Individual's Self-respect

4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential--spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.

Some Things Excluded

5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.

The Truly American Concept

6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.

This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.

America a Haven For All Religions

7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.

The Conclusion

8. Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.

Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle.

Dang, reading this gets to me all the time....how can you argue that our father in heaven did not prepare these men. It's so firm and poignant that as a member of "The Church Of Jesus Christ Of These Latter-day Saints" I find spiritual relief to know that the constitution was created with men of spirit seeking in favor for "We the people". Oh yeah, under "Some Things Excluded" how awesome is it that we are able to choose of our own free will spiritually that even in the American concept there is no intrusion to force us to believe. It must conjure from ourselves individually.

I do not share this to offend but to hopefully educate, because it is required of us from our heavenly father to "LEARN" from our Savior Jesus Christ (who exemplified divine knowledge). Lets not teach our future youths to be dependent but teach them to be leaders, innovators, problem-solvers, and United in the states of America. I humbly share these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

[FunkyTown]

communism is atheistic, and is the result of the gov taking all the power away from religious groups.

Somewhat true. Marxist Communism is atheistic. He called it the 'Opiate of the masses'. However, to state that Communism is the result of the government taking all power away from the religious groups is, I think, a case of the tail wagging the dog.

[skippy740]

Without reading the entire thread... only as a response to the original question "Why does socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?", I give my own immediate knee-jerk response:

Because we no longer rely on God to help us get through days and provide for us. We now have the government. They take care of us, instead of God.

[FunkyTown]

name a communist regime that is not atheistic, and is not a combined church-state system (that allows complete religious freedom for all faiths)

Cuba.

This ain't 1959 anymore, Changed. Things are different. China - While the Communist Party is ostensibly required to be atheist, China itself has a tremendous number of religions. They may be restricted, but the times, they are a-changing.

Thinking of the world in 1950s terms isn't helpful any more.

[Desertknight]

Well, 1. They aren't changing all that fast. Religion is still greatly repressed in communist China. 2. They are only changing because China has been slowly, surely, ceasing to be communist. They haven't been communist economically, for decades, and will hopefully one day, become democratic politically.

In answer to the OP, socialism leans toward atheism because people of faith know that all rights, all responsibilities, come from God. Socialist want to make sure that people understand that it is the State that does that. They don't like religion because the socialist god of the all powerful state, is an angry god and will have no other before it.

[Guest]

Cuba.

This ain't 1959 anymore, Changed. Things are different. China - While the Communist Party is ostensibly required to be atheist, China itself has a tremendous number of religions. They may be restricted, but the times, they are a-changing.

Thinking of the world in 1950s terms isn't helpful any more.

You are absolutely correct, Funky. Especially about Cuba. China, though, is still a "country of particular concern (CPC)" in the International Religious Freedom Act. To be in this list, you have to have a demonstrable number of:

a) Torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;

b) Prolonged detention without charges;

c) Causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction or clandestine detention of those persons; or

d) Other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons.

all because of their religious choice.

So, out of the 5 communist countries left in the world, only China and North Korea are still on the CPC list. Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam have surged in the number of different types of religious meeting houses built. There is some resistance in Vietnam but it is isolated in little villages.

Now, here's an interesting observation. There are 8 countries in the CPC list. Out of the 8 countries - only 2 are communist, 3 are ruled by Islamic religious leaders (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan), 2 are led by single-party or military juntas (Eritrea and Burma), and one is predominantly anti-Muslim (Uzbekistan).

[Desertknight]

I have a bit of a different perspective on China as my Church is still officially outlawed in that country and has had a long history of the communist government there, trying to eradicate it. The government went so far as to create a kind of fake catholic church, the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, complete with fake bishops, priests and deacons, fake churches and worship, all of which is directly controlled by the communist party. There are some 5 million members of the fake catholic church there and 12-14 million underground baptised Catholics. The real, previous, primate of the Catholic Church in China, (ranking bishop), Cardinal Kung, was imprisoned for over 30 years by the communist.

[Tyler90AZ]

Here is a shocker for everyone

There could be a.....

...

...

...

Democratic Communist Christian Country

[norah63]

"A peculiar scheme of communism under a plan known as the stewardship plan was established"

This is how the government wanted the people to think of the Latter Day Saints.

That first line is from a history of Missouri book taught to elementry schools. (copyright 1920)

Gov. Boggs as a democrat gave the orders, the saints paid a high price.

[JudoMinja]

ALL governments become corrupted with time, because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When we create a governing body, we are entrusting the individuals within that body with a very weighty responsibility. It does not matter what form the government takes- monarchy, democracy, republic, communist... Good, responsible, moral leaders make a good governments; and wicked, greedy, irresponsible leaders make bad governments.

Creating a division of power, however, slows that corruption and makes it more difficult for wicked leaders to absolutely corrupt everything under their leadership. King Mosiah recognized this, and when none of his children wanted to succeed him, instead of having the people vote for a new king or calling a new king, he established a system of judges that worked as a republic. Did he do this because monarchy was evil? NO.

"Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you." (Mosiah 29:13)

He established judges because a monarchy entrusts ONE MAN with too much power. All it takes is one wicked ruler, and your government falls apart.

"Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.

For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!" (Mosiah 29:16-17)

Did he consider this republic/democratic system of judges to be flawless? Certainly not. It is merely a system that entrusts power into the hands of many people instead of one man. The corruption of such a system would require the wickedness of not one man, but of the majority.

"Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land." (Mosiah 29:26-27)

Lets compare how long it took for great wickedness to overtake the people with these two different forms of government. We can see from countless examples in the scriptures that in a monarchy ONE GENERATION can see a change from righteousness to complete and utter wickedness. Mosiah uses the example of Noah, because it is familiar to his people, but there are many many more examples.

Once Mosiah established the judges, how long did it take for their government to see corruption? In Alma we can see examples of some attempts to take over during the war chapters, but Captain Moroni and other righteous leaders weed out the "kingsmen". Utter corruption doesn't fall on their government until the people become so wicked as to form their secret combinations and plot and murder those who sit on the judgement seat in 3 Nephi. And what happens to them? The wickedness spreads until the people plot to destroy all the believers of Christ, setting a day and time that their "signs" must come to pass or they will be murdered... And then Christ comes and visits destruction upon the wicked.

What does all this have to do with socialism and communism? Well, these are merely other forms of government- ones which entrust more power to fewer individuals, but not to one man like a monarchy. The form of government itself is not evil or corrupt, but it will only work insomuch as the people entrusted with the power remain just and righteous.

The fewer people there are that hold the power, the faster corruption follows; but such always follows with enough time.

[HEthePrimate]

Regardless of the nation you're in, I've noticed a tendency for people with left-wing political leanings to want to reduce the influence of religion in our society.

What to you mean by 'reduce the influence of religion in our society'? I believe in separation of church and state, but I don't think that's a left-wing or right-wing issue. I know people from all over the political spectrum who support separation of church and state. Also, supporting separation of church and state does not mean we want to reduce the influence of religion in our society. We just don't want the state controlling religions, or religions using the power of the state to promote their beliefs and agendas.

Have you noticed this to be a general theme in socialism? And if so, why do you think socialism and the decline of religion in society are so related?

What do you mean by 'socialism'? Normally it is defined as a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution are owned by a centralized government or otherwise collectively owned. However, I often hear Americans refer to countries like France as being 'socialist,' but having been to France, I can tell you that their means of production and distribution are by no means collectively owned, and the private sector is alive and thriving. They do have universal healthcare, but even that is not 'socialism,' per se, as much of the healthcare is provided by private entities.

Anyway, no, I have not noticed this to be a general theme in socialism, nor do I think the decline of religion is related to socialism. Though if you subscribe to the Nephite Cycle theory that when people are prosperous, they tend to become proud and feel less dependent on God, then maybe if a socialist country took good enough care of its citizens, they could fall into that trap. But the Nephite Cycle would apply in capitalist countries, too.

[EarlJibbs]

Without reading the entire thread... only as a response to the original question "Why does socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?", I give my own immediate knee-jerk response:

Because we no longer rely on God to help us get through days and provide for us. We now have the government. They take care of us, instead of God.

You have defined socialism with very few words. That is what the government wants. Dont rely on yourselves. Dont rely on God. Rely on us (the government) for your needs and protection.

What is scary is that socialism is the stepping stone to what we all claim to hate in America... that is Communism. Capitaslism is not perfect, but it certainly doesnt sound like Satans plan.

[Guest]

You have defined socialism with very few words. That is what the government wants. Dont rely on yourselves. Dont rely on God. Rely on us (the government) for your needs and protection.

What is scary is that socialism is the stepping stone to what we all claim to hate in America... that is Communism. Capitaslism is not perfect, but it certainly doesnt sound like Satans plan.

Okay, back-up just a minute. Socialism is not a form of government and neither is Capitalism. It is an economic theory. So, looking at both of those in that context and then comparing it with Satan's Plan, I present that Socialism IS the state of God's Kingdom... commonly called Law of Consecration.

So, no, Socialism doesn't sound like Satan's Plan at all.

Now, of course, there's a reason why the law of consecration was not imposed on the members of the Church... we're not ready for it. But please don't say it's closer to Satan's plan than capitalism is, because that would not be correct.

[HEthePrimate]

Capitaslism is not perfect, but it certainly doesnt sound like Satans plan.

Have you read the words of Korihor lately? (Alma ch. 30)

[EarlJibbs]

Okay, back-up just a minute. Socialism is not a form of government and neither is Capitalism. It is an economic theory. So, looking at both of those in that context and then comparing it with Satan's Plan, I present that Socialism IS the state of God's Kingdom... commonly called Law of Consecration.

So, no, Socialism doesn't sound like Satan's Plan at all.

Now, of course, there's a reason why the law of consecration was not imposed on the members of the Church... we're not ready for it. But please don't say it's closer to Satan's plan than capitalism is, because that would not be correct.

Okay, I admit it, after reading your comment and re-reading mine, it doesnt come out correctly. So in all honesty, thank you for pointing that out.

Socialism, or communism for that fact is not closer to Satan's plan any more than Capitalism. But you place those economic theories in todays society and what would you get? Something closer to Satan's plan because of the evil hearts of men. And that is scary.

I agree that there was a reason that the law of consecration was not imposed on the members. We as a society are definitely not ready.