On socialism.

[jerome1232]

On the lighter side of things (There is no explicit content in this song)

Wow I was wrong, unlinking song.

Edited October 22, 2014 by jerome1232

[The Folk Prophet]

On the lighter side of things (There is no explicit content in this song)

 

I suppose that depends on what one means by explicit.

 

I liked the Benson video better.

[jerome1232]

I suppose that depends on what one means by explicit.

 

I liked the Benson video better.

Ooops, meant to only link the one song, the other ones probably are explicit. I like the benson video better too I fixed it now.

Edited October 22, 2014 by jerome1232

[james12]

Thank you, james12, for that greatly useful overview. I find your principles most worthy. Let us then discuss them

 

Considering work, EF Schumacher* lists the purposes of work, as follows:

1. To provide useful goods and services
2. To enable everyone of us to use and thereby perfect our gifts like good stewards
3. To do so in service to, and in cooperation with, others, so us to liberate ourselves from our in built egocentricity.

If we accept these purposes, which seem good to me, it is worth noting that there is nothing in them that suggests that we should work to become wealthy, or wealthier than our neighbours, or wealthier than we need. These ideas are other-centric, rather than self-centered. I wonder, therefore, what you make of them?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

*EF Schumacher, Good Work, Sphere Books Ltd, 1980, London

I would agree with them. I would also agree with your assessment that one does not need to posses more than another. In D&C 38:26-27 we read: 

For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thtou here; and to the other; Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there - and looketh upon his sons and saith I am Just? Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.

Of course this far most would agree, but the process to get to such a state is key.

[james12]

Thank you, james12, for that greatly useful overview. I find your principles most worthy. Let us then discuss them

 

Considering self reliance, I'm in favour. But there are clearly spheres where it makes sense to gang together as a society, or a nation, rather than totally go it alone.

 

Take defence. Should we fund a national army, or load our selves up with guns and knives and ammunition, and employ 'security' staff, loaded up with guns and knives and such, or simply trust to the state to deter those with greedy eyes on our homes, land, families and assets? And our security staff, should they also employ a private army? and so on.

 

There are many other occasions when it just makes sense to pool resources, rather than fund things independently, as an individual, a family, or a church. The bigger the insurance pot, the better for all those involved, I submit. Healthcare is one of these occasions, but so might be infrastructure construction, or educational provision.

 

Now, I am not saying we should not be self reliant, as far as we can be. I wholly agree with the idea that we should do what we can to improve our own resilience. So much is prudent common sense. I am just suggesting that there might be situations when a nation might be better positioned to provide all with a service than each individual is, on his or her own, for themselves alone.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

I agree that pooling resources can be useful, but with an important caveat; by doing so, government has a responsibility to increase freedom and not limit it. D&C 98:5 states, "And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me". If the machine of government begins to slow, and the majority of people find themselves caught in the cogs and harmed by it instead of improved, then government has ceased to become a benefit, and is instead a hindrance to freedom of the people. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Hi estradling75. There was a lot in your post to consider. Nevertheless, this idea about socialism being about equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, struck me as importantly false. And so I needed to interject, Socialism is not necessarily Marxist Communism!

Best wishes, 2RM.

My suspicion, though, is that in a democracy any form of socialism will n the long run tend towards Marxist communism; because people inherently like to get free stuff and will elect the people who seem most likely to give it to them. It seems to me that there's a quote out there--from de Tocqueville, maybe?--to the effect that the American experiment would unravel once the populace understood that they could vote money to themselves.

It is worth noting that Mormonism does have a rich history of what could be called a form of voluntary socialism: the 'United Order". Its hallmarks were private ownership of property, contributions to the communal pot as determined by mutual consent between the individual and his bishop, legal freedom to leave the collective, and an absolute refusal to enforce the rules of the order through force of arms; for these reasons, Mormons tend to get kind of prickly about equating it with "socialism" or (heaven forbid!) communism. Much of this, I think, was driven by Mormon apostle Ezra Benson. Benson coordinated LDS humanitarian efforts in post-WW2 Europe. He saw firsthand, and intensely resented, the way the communists in eastern Europe forced religion more or less underground.

The underlying theory of the United Order was a principle called the "Law of Consecration", and Mormons still teach and consider themselves bound by that principle even though we've pretty much given up on the United Order for the time being.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[kapikui]

2RM.  Learning that you're from England makes it a lot easier to understand your position.  It is a very European mindset you're displaying.

 

One thing you seem to want to be understanding is how accepting Mormons are of Socialistic ideas. Part of the problem is that most of the people on this board are American, and American Mormons tend to be exceedingly Conservative, in the traditional U.S. sense of the word, which, as has been discussed, more similar to Classical Liberalism.

 

In other countries your mileage may vary with respect to the political beliefs of Mormons.

 

There are a few things that are doctrine with respect to political philosophy however:

 

I have no idea how much you know about the founding of the United States and the core philosophies under which we were founded, so I'll give a bit of a crash course.

 

The founding document of the United States is the Declaration of the Independence in which we declared that we were now a separate country from England. To quote it in part

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

 

To put this in modern parlance, power is held by the people, not the government.  It is granted to the government by the people to perform only those tasks that are absolutely necessary.  If the government becomes despotic, it is not only their right to overthrow it, but their duty to do so. The government only exists to secure the basic rights of the people, and for no other reason.

 

Now what does this have to do with LDS doctorine? 

 

D&C 98:5 

 

 5 And that ^alaw of the land which is ^bconstitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me

 

.

 

Also  D&C

 

 77 According to the laws and ^aconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the ^brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

 

 

D&C 101:80

 80 And for this purpose have I established the ^aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the ^bshedding of blood.

 

 

The Constitution of the United States, though more of a legal and organizing document than the Declaration of Independence and less inflammatory, was based on the very principles, and with the same philosophy as the Declaration.

 

The men who wrote both documents are spoken of in what we believe to be revelation from God as having been inspired to do so.

 

Now this does not mean that someone with some socialistic leanings can't be a good Mormon, but it is clear that church doctrine seems to lean toward needing, at least for a time, a minimalistic government. Indeed it is rather clear that the Restoration, as we call it, couldn't have happened without such a government.

 

Now as far as understanding why so many Americans see Fascism, Communism and Socialism as pretty much the same thing, because to us they pretty much are.  They're all forms of government control, and lead pretty much the same place. Many of us see it as a form of slavery.  I can never rise above my "station".  I can't fail, but I can't ever really succeed, and if I somehow do, everything I've worked for will be taken away and used for something I don't agree with. Why should I work hard if you're just going to steal it from me?  I'll do the absolute minimum. 

 

For a better explanation, look into the 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen.  Even if you disagree with it, it will give you a mental model for better understanding how many Americans see the difference, though we generally haven't really organized it in our own brains to the degree that it is described there.

[estradling75]

An aspect of the Rich History that JAG did not mention...

 

We failed at it...  we failed hard.  We simply were not ready to live as required to make it work.

 

We expect to try again one day, but from the records we have of the few groups that pulled it off...  All had large helpings of divine intervention to make it happen.

 

Thus when I see or hear someone talking about trying to do it again with the government or other such method that does not involve divine intervention, well I feel pretty safe in assuming it will crash and fail horribly taking those involved with it down with it.

 

I would guess that I am not the only one who feels this way.

[2ndRateMind]

Thanks, all, for your various inputs. I have a lot to consider, now! and will get back to you, as seems appropriate to me, in due course. Meanwhile, I just wanted to say, that while freedom is clearly 'a good thing', it needs to be balanced by the interests of other people's freedom. As someone famous once said, freedom for the pike is death for the minnow.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited October 23, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

Thanks, all, for your various inputs. I have a lot to consider, now! and will get back to you, as seems appropriate to me, in due course. Meanwhile, I just wanted to say, that while freedom is clearly 'a good thing', it needs to be balanced by the interests of other people's freedom. As someone famous once said, freedom for the pike is death for the minnow.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

And that is why the United States is not a direct democracy.  It's a REPUBLIC built upon democratic principles.  Switzerland is the only country I know that is a direct democracy.  In America, therefore, we don't go by the rule of majority - we go by the rule of law.  So that, even if the majority wills to eat the minnow, it can't if such an action goes against the established constitution.

Edited October 23, 2014 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

In America, therefore, we don't go by the rule of majority - we go by the rule of law.  So that, even if the majority wills to eat the minnow, it can't if such an action goes against the established constitution.

 

Well, that was the theory, anyways . . .

Edited October 23, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Well, that was the theory, anyways . . .

 

Yep... I can debate with good support that the USA is actually an oligarchy...