The (civil) (Obama-free) socialism thread

[Just_A_Guy]

OK, so we've had some . . . differences of opinion as to the degree to which a government's embrace of socialism does or does not involve forcible compulsion.

I guess my question for those who have been defending some form of socialism conceptually, is

1) Assuming arguendo that neither the USSR nor any of its satellites, nor China, nor "National Socialism" as practiced in 1930s Germany, represented a "true" socialist state: which historical nation-state (discounting the Nephites following Christ's visit) do you see as coming closer to the ideal of socialism as you understand it;

2) In that nation-state, what happened to the individuals who did not want to live under and devote their material means to such a regimen;

3) In building a truly socialist community, what should happen to those who are unwilling to materially support the socialist endeavor;

4) What role, if any, does private property play in your ideal socialist state; and

5) How do you keep motivating the members of a socialist community to continue to labor for the common good, once they recognize that they will "get theirs" regardless of how hard - or whether - they work to contribute to the collective economy?

I'm making a personal goal in this thread that I'll try not to jump down anyone's throat. I just want to see how fundamentally different my understanding of socialism is, from that of those who claim to embrace it.

Thanks in advance.

[Guest]

So just to be clear, we're not supposed to talk about that dirty socialist Obama in this thread?

[applepansy]

Thank you for voicing my questions. I've been reading but because I didn't want to argue I haven't participated. I'm most likely only going to read this thread too. :)

[Wingnut]

(discounting the Nephites following Christ's visit)

Why are we discounting this example? (Genuinely curious.)

[estradling75]

Why are we discounting this example? (Genuinely curious.)

Most likely because of the destruction of the wicked. I say this because most of Just_A_Guys questions are about how do you handle people that basically selfish and stubborn... A type a people that God can get away with killing off in large number to met his ends... But no one less then God can and still have it be a good idea

[Just_A_Guy]

What Estradling said, and also because I'm not convinced the Book of Mormon is at best ambiguous on most of these questions if it addresses them at all.

I guess I could add a sixth question: Is your ideal socialist nation-state attainable in a secular society? If not, to what degree should secular government pursue that ideal anyways?

Edited November 15, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[annewandering]

A type a people that God can get away with killing off in large number to met his ends... But no one less then God can and still have it be a good idea

In the case of the Nephites they chose to live that way. God didnt kill anyone off and they were not afraid he would. Just to clarify this rather misleading statement.

[Just_A_Guy]

In the case of the Nephites they chose to live that way. God didnt kill anyone off and they were not afraid he would. Just to clarify this rather misleading statement.

So . . . Any thoughts on the questions as-asked?

Thanks -

[estradling75]

In the case of the Nephites they chose to live that way. God didnt kill anyone off and they were not afraid he would. Just to clarify this rather misleading statement.

With all due respect Anne you need to go re-read 3 Nephi 10 and 11... Where it clearly states that all the wicked are killed off before Christ comes and before they all begin living with all things in common. Now they did hold it together for nearly four generations after that. Until the wickedness of the rising generation destroyed it.. Thus the Nephites time worked because of the lack of wickedness and failed when the people returned to wickedness.

Just_A_Guys question is how do you set it up to work while the people are wicked, given that all scriptural examples show that it will fail if the people are wicked

[annewandering]

Is your ideal socialist nation-state attainable in a secular society? If not, to what degree should secular government pursue that ideal anyways?

An ideal socialist nation-state in a secular society? In general I would say no. We are not nearly close enough to perfection to do ideal.

However, I see no reason we cant implement the parts of it that would fit, and be useful, into our imperfect world.

We can make sure everyone has health care. We can make sure that people willing and able to work can make a decent wage and have safe working conditions. We can make sure that a good education is available to everyone. We can encourage people to care about each other. With that we can encourage fair enterprise. Education and a healthy economy both contribute to that. We can enforce laws that prevent speculation and manipulation being used to profiteer in our economy.

None of this needs to be done all at once but they can be, and should be, goals for the improvement of our people and this country.

[annewandering]

With all due respect Anne you need to go re-read 3 Nephi 10 and 11... Where it clearly states that all the wicked are killed off before Christ comes and before they all begin living with all things in common. Now they did hold it together for nearly four generations after that. Until the wickedness of the rising generation destroyed it.. Thus the Nephites time worked because of the lack of wickedness and failed when the people returned to wickedness.

Just_A_Guys question is how do you set it up to work while the people are wicked, given that all scriptural examples show that it will fail if the people are wicked

I admit I had forgotten that but I do remember that there were a number of times that people did actually live with all held in common, without all the wicked dying before hand but, no, they did not last very long.

As I said in my last post, I do not believe that an imperfect people can result in an ideal society. I am impressed that some here seem to be saying that if we were not wicked it would be possible but BECAUSE of our wickedness it isnt. Are you implying that if we were not wicked it would work?

[estradling75]

I admit I had forgotten that but I do remember that there were a number of times that people did actually live with all held in common, without all the wicked dying before hand but, no, they did not last very long.

As I said in my last post, I do not believe that an imperfect people can result in an ideal society. I am impressed that some here seem to be saying that if we were not wicked it would be possible but BECAUSE of our wickedness it isnt. Are you implying that if we were not wicked it would work?

I will not imply... I'll come out and state it... I think that the United Order (aka all things in common) is a Celestial Law. Those individuals and even small groups that are capable of living a Celestial could do so. But that is a very small number.

But when you start talking putting those ideals into a large group (like the Federal or Local government) you will have it fail because the many of the people can not live(Choose not to) a Celestial law.

[annewandering]

I will not imply... I'll come out and state it... I think that the United Order (aka all things in common) is a Celestial Law. Those individuals and even small groups that are capable of living a Celestial could do so. But that is a very small number.

But when you start talking putting those ideals into a large group (like the Federal or Local government) you will have it fail because the many of the people can not live(Choose not to) a Celestial law.

I do not disagree. Still we can do some things deemed socialistic. Our country will never be perfect but we can still keep trying to improve. :)

[volgadon]

2) In that nation-state, what happened to the individuals who did not want to live under and devote their material means to such a regimen;

What do you in any state with those individuals that are against it?

[volgadon]

What do you in any state with those individuals that are against it?

Let me hasten to add that this is a very serious question which each and every regime, goverment, state, religion, church, community, organisation, etc., must ask. There will always be a range of varying answers.

[Just_A_Guy]

Let me hasten to add that this is a very serious question which each and every regime, goverment, state, religion, church, community, organisation, etc., must ask. There will always be a range of varying answers.

Sure, but this is your ideal socialist state. What do you think is the best means of enforcement?

(And I realize your own perspective might not necessarily jibe with the preferences of other socialist-sympathizers who may contribute here.)

Edited November 15, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[annewandering]

Sure, but this is your ideal socialist state. What do you think is the best means of enforcement?

(And I realize your own perspective might not necessarily jibe with the preferences of other socialist-sympathizers who may contribute here.)

In an ideal socialist state there would be no need for enforcement.

[Anddenex]

I am confused where the Book of Mormon talks about anything socialistic?

[Guest]

What do you in any state with those individuals that are against it?

Go to jail?

[volgadon]

Sure, but this is your ideal socialist state. What do you think is the best means of enforcement?

Not something I can answer as a pure hypothetical, especially with no details provided.

(And I realize your own perspective might not necessarily jibe with the preferences of other socialist-sympathizers who may contribute here.)

Of course. We aren't mindless drones.

[volgadon]

Go to jail?

Sure, if you want to keep it on the Monopoly level.

[volgadon]

I am confused where the Book of Mormon talks about anything socialistic?

The beginning of 4 Nephi is the most obvious example.

[skippy740]

Here is my problem with socialism as far as I understand it: 'You receive according to your need.'

Who determines 'your need'? The controlling government body or unions.

Socialism kills ambition. Why work harder to invent or improve things if all your extra effort is redistributed to others... because of their 'need'?

Without rewards, we are all subject to the results of minimum required efforts of others.

Socialism seems to want to change the nature of man to a nature where we no longer want to have self-interest desires. I think that human beings are incapable of engineering such a society... unless we have unlimited resources - food, money, land, etc. The Star Trek universe has solved it with food/clothing replicators and transporters. Too bad it's fiction.

So far, the intention of Government spending is spending money as though there is an unlimited supply. TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch! Someone's gonna pay something, someday. Right now, I'm not against a raise in taxes for our current fiscal crises. It's simply not enough. There needs to be a reduction in Government spending... because there is not an unlimited supply of resources to fund a "utopia" community.

I do understand that there are somethings that are things best done "cooperatively" versus individually. This is why a capitalistic society requires taxes. This link describes the best attitude to have in paying taxes (for me): The Goose That Lays the Golden Eggs by Jim Rohn : Inspirational Quotes - Personal Development - Motivational Quotes & More - Jim Rohn International

I look forward to more posts on this subject to see what others see that I'm not seeing. I promise to be open-minded.

[volgadon]

Socialism kills ambition. Why work harder to invent or improve things if all your extra effort is redistributed to others... because of their 'need'?

Without rewards, we are all subject to the results of minimum required efforts of others.

Come visit the Jezreel Valley. Show me the swamp and I'll show you how socialism kills ambition.

[Guest]

Come visit the Jezreel Valley. Show me the swamp and I'll show you how socialism kills ambition.

I'm not following. Jezreel Valley is under Israeli Government - Parliamentary democratic.