Russia-Ukraine conflict

[Carborendum]

45 minutes ago, Traveler said:

How do you define socialism?

Now that I've addressed the definition and its ability to interface with the Law of Consecration, let me tell you about the philosophy behind it.

Communism:  No owns anything.  

Socialism: The government owns everything.

Capitalism:  Individuals own everything.

Law of Consecration: The Lord owns everything.  But he gives us stewardship to use for our own upkeep as well as furthering His work on earth.  And He will judge us for how we execute that stewardship.

 

Communism:  Any time you make/create something, anyone is allowed to make use of it at any time.  I own it just as much as you.  So, why can't I take the car that you just built over the past year?  It's mine just as much as yours.  This is normally thought of as theft.

Socialism: If I spend a year making a car, it belongs to the government. They can confiscate it at will.  This is normally thought of as slavery.

Capitalism:  I can obtain through free negotiations with another party the right to own materials and tools to build a car.  I can then use the car, or sell it, or give it away.  I can also consecrate it to the Lord and let him guide me as to how I should use it best to further His work on earth.

[zil2]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

...Definition of Socialism...

I'm confused.  What happened to the cows?

[Carborendum]

10 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I'm confused.  What happened to the cows?

Back by popular demand:

ANARCHISM You have two cows. You keep the cows and steal another one. You ignore the government.

CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell one of them, and buy a bull. The cow and bull have a great love life; you sell the movie rights to Hollywood. Then you go into real estate.

COMMUNISM You have two cows. The government takes both cows. The government sells the milk in government stores. You can’t afford the milk. You wither away.

DEMOCRACY You have two cows. Your neighbors outvote you 2-1 to ban all meat and dairy products. You go bankrupt.

FASCISM You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

LIBERALISM You have two cows. You give away one cow and get the government to give you a new cow. Then you give them both away to a vegan family because they seem malnourished.

NEW DEALISM You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the sink. The government insists there is a giant storage tank where all the milk goes.

SOCIALISM You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbor.  He sells you some milk.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

On 5/12/2023 at 3:10 PM, Carborendum said:

Back by popular demand:

ANARCHISM You have two cows. You keep the cows and steal another one. You ignore the government.

CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell one of them, and buy a bull. The cow and bull have a great love life; you sell the movie rights to Hollywood. Then you go into real estate.

COMMUNISM You have two cows. The government takes both cows. The government sells the milk in government stores. You can’t afford the milk. You wither away.

DEMOCRACY You have two cows. Your neighbors outvote you 2-1 to ban all meat and dairy products. You go bankrupt.

FASCISM You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

LIBERALISM You have two cows. You give away one cow and get the government to give you a new cow. Then you give them both away to a vegan family because they seem malnourished.

NEW DEALISM You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the sink. The government insists there is a giant storage tank where all the milk goes.

SOCIALISM You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbor.  He sells you some milk.

According to you understanding - Which is the Kingdom of Heaven most like?  Or is there another?

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Or is there another?

He already answered before I made the joke about the cows.  The Kingdom of Heaven does not use a man-made political / economic system.

[Carborendum]

40 minutes ago, Traveler said:

According to you understanding - Which is the Kingdom of Heaven most like?  Or is there another?

The Kingdom of Heaven doesn't have an "economic system" for goods and services as we know it.  For the rules of economics to apply, we need to have "scarcity."  That simply doesn't exist in Heaven.

[Traveler]

13 minutes ago, zil2 said:

He already answered before I made the joke about the cows.  The Kingdom of Heaven does not use a man-made political / economic system.

I agree but with a caviet - that man-made political/economic systems tend to copy and counterfeit parts of the kingdom of heaven.  So the question is – what man made system ought we use while we wait on the era when Christ will reign.   But then the one we ought to use may not be the one in principle that is most like the kingdom of Heaven.  For example, we are informed in the Book of Mormon that in principle a kingdom with a king is most like the kingdom of heaven – with the understanding that the king is a righteous man of G-d.  Obviously, history has demonstrated that maintaining a righteous king is impossible.

The question is a trick question.  The answer is better understood by asking the question correctly – but this I will leave as a lesson for the reader.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I agree but with a caviet - that man-made political/economic systems tend to copy and counterfeit parts of the kingdom of heaven.  So the question is – what man made system ought we use while we wait on the era when Christ will reign.   But then the one we ought to use may not be the one in principle that is most like the kingdom of Heaven.  For example, we are informed in the Book of Mormon that in principle a kingdom with a king is most like the kingdom of heaven – with the understanding that the king is a righteous man of G-d.  Obviously, history has demonstrated that maintaining a righteous king is impossible.

No, you actually missed the point of the statement.  It isn't about "man-made" at all.

The very concept of "economics" as a tool to analyze how we create and distribute goods and services simply doesn't exist in heaven. 

It doesn't exist.  It is not "similar" or "different" or "counterfeit."  Economics doesn't exist in heaven. 

You might as well ask "what kind of medicine should we use on earth that is most similar to the medication we would use in heaven?"  We don't get sick in heaven.  So, we wouldn't even have such a thing.

If you can understand that much, I can then proceed to answering what I *believe* to be your underlying question.  But until you understand this, there's not much point in giving you more.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

The Kingdom of Heaven doesn't have an "economic system" for goods and services as we know it.  For the rules of economics to apply, we need to have "scarcity."  That simply doesn't exist in Heaven.

I would submit that there are laws and a method of economy by which all things of value are obtained in heaven.

 

Doctrine and Covenance 130:20-21

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

Just now, Traveler said:

I would submit that there are laws and a method of economy by which all things of value are obtained in heaven.

Read my post more carefuly:

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

The very concept of "economics" as a tool to analyze how we create and distribute goods and services simply doesn't exist in heaven. 

But you won't understand this until you get off that one-track mind of yours.  I'm done.

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Read my post more carefuly:

But you won't understand this until you get off that one-track mind of yours.  I'm done.

You are correct - I do not understand how it is that blessings are not and cannot be needed goods and services????  I only ask the questions because what is obvious to you is not obvious to me - I need a logical connection.  

I apologize if my confusion causes you anxiety.

 

Tlhe Traveler

[zil2]

49 minutes ago, Traveler said:

what man made system ought we use while we wait on the era when Christ will reign

The one that's legal where you are:

Quote

D&C 58:22 Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

[NeuroTypical]

48 minutes ago, zil2 said:

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

what man made system ought we use while we wait on the era when Christ will reign

The one that's legal where you are:

Quote

D&C 58:22 Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

There may be an occasional exception that proves the rule, America gaining it's independence, stuff like that.  But yep, that's the rule.  

[mirkwood]

Pretty sure a Constitutional Republic is the best system until Christ puts in place His theocracy.  

 

If you disagree, instead of posting, go to LDS.org and plug Constitution into the search bar and read away.

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Pretty sure a Constitutional Republic is the best system until Christ puts in place His theocracy.  

 

If you disagree, instead of posting, go to LDS.org and plug Constitution into the search bar and read away.

It is not so much that I disagree – except that it does not seem to matter so much what the system of government or economy may be as it is the character of those in positions of authority.  

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is not so much that I disagree – except that it does not seem to matter so much what the system of government or economy may be as it is the character of those in positions of authority. 

True, but some systems lend themselves to corruption more rapidly than others.

[Traveler]

15 minutes ago, zil2 said:

True, but some systems lend themselves to corruption more rapidly than others.

I think more in terms of evolution.  Corrupt individual will evolve towards increased corrupt methods and solutions and honest individuals will evolve towards increased honest methods and solutions.  I also agree with the Book of Mormon that honest methods can be corrupted easily and quickly evolve into corruption with corrupt individuals in power but to reverse this process once corruption has gotten hold and corrupt individuals are in power – that only bloodshed will remove the corrupt individuals.

I think there is an attitude (at least in the USA) that it is possible to change the country for the better just by going to the polls and voting for the correct political party.  I am of the mind that such thinking is naive.  Corrupt individuals will gladly change political party if needed to maintain their corrupt influences.   Even our prophets have counseled that we seek honest individuals to govern us over any type of method of government or political party.  

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

36 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I think more in terms of evolution.  Corrupt individual will evolve towards increased corrupt methods and solutions and honest individuals will evolve towards increased honest methods and solutions.  I also agree with the Book of Mormon that honest methods can be corrupted easily and quickly evolve into corruption with corrupt individuals in power but to reverse this process once corruption has gotten hold and corrupt individuals are in power – that only bloodshed will remove the corrupt individuals.

I think there is an attitude (at least in the USA) that it is possible to change the country for the better just by going to the polls and voting for the correct political party.  I am of the mind that such thinking is naive.  Corrupt individuals will gladly change political party if needed to maintain their corrupt influences.   Even our prophets have counseled that we seek honest individuals to govern us over any type of method of government or political party. 

Nonetheless, the premise holds.  Allow me to rephrase it to suit your perception that it's all about corrupt individuals (which indeed, it is, and I doubt anyone would disagree with your basic idea here):

Some systems make it harder for corrupt individuals to get away with corrupt acts.  Some systems make it easier to notice corruption and thereby prevent or prosecute it.  Other systems make it super easy for corrupt individuals to carry out their corrupt acts and succeed in more and more corruption.  Other systems make it difficult to notice or to prevent or to prosecute corruption.

So while the system itself is insufficient, it is possible to design systems which resist or encourage corruption, thereby aiding either those who wish to retain integrity, or those who wish to engage in corruption, depending on the design of the system.

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, zil2 said:

True, but some systems lend themselves to corruption more rapidly than others.

This is particularly true of theocracies. But @mirkwood is right, if your Kingdom of God turns out to be real, then it will be a theocracy first and foremost. 

And @Carborendum is also correct that it's difficult to approximate what other forms of government may be in play, because that theoretical scenario plays out in an economic reality that the world has never seen. Cynics like me will still call it glorified (theocratic) socialism ("no rich or poor among them" and such), but I concede that that's ultimately an oversimplification of what is taught about the Kingdom.

[Vort]

8 hours ago, Godless said:

12 hours ago, zil2 said:

True, but some systems lend themselves to corruption more rapidly than others.

This is particularly true of theocracies.

I guess that explains why communism always fails so dramatically.

[Carborendum]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

I guess that explains why communism always fails so dramatically.

I had the pleasure of being a coworker to a particularly amiable atheist.  He once made a humorous comment about the circle/line symbol that we see on the on/off switch on our computers.  He called it a "religious symbol."

In my quasi-aspergers mindset I thought he was being literal. I honestly thought he was under the impression that it was somehow derived from some ancient religion or other.  He was only partially joking.

He explained that he was using a slightly broader definition of religion.  In the end, I realized that it wasn't a "broader" definition.  It was the "correct" definition.

We speak of things in terms of "religion", "philosophy", and even "ideology."  But in the end, they really are all religions.  They are a belief system to whom we devote our lives to living and wanting others to live.

Communism is a religion for those who believe in an all-powerful being which they call "the state." And those who are disloyal are apostates.  And apostates should be enslaved.

[Traveler]

 

On 5/16/2023 at 11:06 AM, zil2 said:

Nonetheless, the premise holds.  Allow me to rephrase it to suit your perception that it's all about corrupt individuals (which indeed, it is, and I doubt anyone would disagree with your basic idea here):

Some systems make it harder for corrupt individuals to get away with corrupt acts.  Some systems make it easier to notice corruption and thereby prevent or prosecute it.  Other systems make it super easy for corrupt individuals to carry out their corrupt acts and succeed in more and more corruption.  Other systems make it difficult to notice or to prevent or to prosecute corruption.

So while the system itself is insufficient, it is possible to design systems which resist or encourage corruption, thereby aiding either those who wish to retain integrity, or those who wish to engage in corruption, depending on the design of the system.

 

21 hours ago, Godless said:

This is particularly true of theocracies. But @mirkwood is right, if your Kingdom of God turns out to be real, then it will be a theocracy first and foremost. 

And @Carborendum is also correct that it's difficult to approximate what other forms of government may be in play, because that theoretical scenario plays out in an economic reality that the world has never seen. Cynics like me will still call it glorified (theocratic) socialism ("no rich or poor among them" and such), but I concede that that's ultimately an oversimplification of what is taught about the Kingdom.

I would propose that the most nefarious display of corruption within a government, religious or any other system of society is to maintain an outward display of the particular social order that inwardly is deliberately exercised differently.  There are very few government, religious or social systems that I find much to disagree with concerning what they outwardly claim to be and represent.  What I object to is what is carried out in practice – especially from secrets, hidden from public view meetings and operations of control.

Many claim to not like certain kinds of governments.  I find this odd because our Doctrine and Covenants clearly states that governments are instituted by G-d – what scripture does not say is that individuals in power of governments are divinely approved.  Thought I believe they will be held responsible in the next life before G-d.  It is my understanding that corruption is the result of the laws with exceptions expecially exceptions for those in power.  That the point of secret combinations (which I believe have influences in and have penetrated all governments of these Latter-days) was to exempt themselves from the law.  My problem with the political parties of this nation are not so much what they say they stand for as it is the effort to prosecute those of differing political persuasion what they exempt for themselves.  In essence the effort by secret combinations to illuminate  competition.

I have a similar concept of media reports of the news concerning politics and things.  I believe it is possible for secret combinations to make attempts to control narratives of the news and reports of the media.  I am not concerned with liberal reports of the news any more than I am concerned with conservative reports of the news.  My concern are reports of the news that claim or pretend to not have a bias.  I do not think that is reported is not as important is how it is presented.  I also think the media ought to be open to multiple points.

On another note - I have been accused of single threaded thinking.  I do have a bias for my opinions, impressions and research.  I am willing to explain in detail my logic, opinions and conclusions.  I am willing to consider other opinions as long as such opinions are willing to discuss and respond to my questions (without getting upset).  If I get upset in an exchange - I believe it is because I am wrong or incorrect and being influenced by unclean or dark spirits and will withdraw without comment.  I will also withdraw if logic is no longer present or acceptable. 

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

On 5/15/2023 at 11:08 AM, Traveler said:

According to you understanding - Which is the Kingdom of Heaven most like?  Or is there another?

 

The Traveler

 

Not his, but in scholarly work it would probably be closest to either Religious Communism or Religious Socialism.  I love the terms because it puts Religious Capitalists and Feudalists instantly on their toes because they hate the terms and want to ignore these things.  Many dislike the idea that the Lord's ideas as described in the scriptures, for many scholars, actually fall correctly into the fields of socialism or even communism.  It drives them nutty.  Thing is, Feudalism could actually also exist in a Religious Socialistic society IF one sees that ONLY GOD is King and is THE KING. 

To start, Karl Marx saw religion and what religion had done, but changed the ideas of it from the Lord to the State.  Thus, differing Marxism or Marxist Communism (which many in the West now call Communism, but do not realize that it is Marx they are referring to, without seeing the rest of what would be seen as communistic or communist in all of society and all it's branches) from Religious Communism (who, though there are different religoius entities that have started the idea, in Christianity it roots back to the Lord, Peter, and the early Church and how they did things as described in Acts).

He stated

Quote

"As Christ is the intermediary unto whom man unburdens all his divinity, all his religious bonds, so the state is the mediator unto which he transfers all his Godlessness, all his human liberty".

                                                                                                                 -Karl Marx

This reliance on state defines his new ideas taken from religion, but it is only a mere copy of the true thing.  The state cannot replicate God and is an untrustworthy keeper of such things.  Only the LORD is trustworthy and uncorrupt enough to truly do these things.  Which brings us to the idea of Religious Communism.

In Religious Communism the idea would be that EVERYTHING is created and made by the Lord.  This means he ALSO owns everything.  In that light, you can be given what you need, but it is STILL the Lords stuff at the end of the day.

This is especially pertinent to land, where the land is owned by the Lord and so no one can truly own their land. (this can also be seen in Joseph Smith's time where he would grant land to some members, but when they apostatized it was seen as still being owned by the church and taken and given to another).

Religious Socialism may be more apt though, as it varies greatly from group to group (and I'd group the early Saints in Utah under the banner probably, and perhaps the ONLY example of a HIGHLY socialistic society being HIGHLY successful). 

It can vary from being almost Communist (and in fact, some of the Christian Socialist chose the term Socialist rather than Communist because of the bad connotations Communism has held) to being closer to an almost capitalistic/feudalistic type society.

In this I'd expect that everything is owned by God and he gives out to us as we need things.  However, as we are his heirs, we also can expect to inherit all he has. 

The differences of course will be with the Kingdoms of Heaven.  In the Telestial I expect it will be greatly different than the Celestial.  In the Telestial it may be more of a thing where we are given that which will make us joyful and happy, but not burdened down with more than that.  Though ultimately owned by the Lord, we will be able to have and possess things as we need them to make us happy and joyful (or so I think...nothing stronger than that...not even belief...just thoughts on the matter).  In the Celestial I imagine we have the ability to CREATE more things which we then can call our own, and hence we are making MORE rather than taking possession of that which already is. 

Just a thought on it.

edit:  TLDR - Communism and Socialism run by the state as we see today are creations of the Adversary as imitations and mockeries of the REAL thing that was created by the Lord, where you have something almost exactly the same, BUT it is run by the LORD and his counsel instead of the State.

Edited May 30, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

On 5/15/2023 at 1:45 PM, Traveler said:

I agree but with a caviet - that man-made political/economic systems tend to copy and counterfeit parts of the kingdom of heaven.  So the question is – what man made system ought we use while we wait on the era when Christ will reign.   But then the one we ought to use may not be the one in principle that is most like the kingdom of Heaven.  For example, we are informed in the Book of Mormon that in principle a kingdom with a king is most like the kingdom of heaven – with the understanding that the king is a righteous man of G-d.  Obviously, history has demonstrated that maintaining a righteous king is impossible.

The question is a trick question.  The answer is better understood by asking the question correctly – but this I will leave as a lesson for the reader.

 

The Traveler

In answer to your question, in the areas of study for worldly education (rather than spiritual or religious), the early saints practiced a form of Socialism or Communism which is termed...Religious Communism or Religious Socialism (depending on which you feel most like using). 

It's just a categorization (like Lions being Mammals, Frogs being Amphibians, etc). 

I would think that if we were using worldly classifications, we would use the system that was utilized either under Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.  This would probably be classified the same under Religious Socialism.

Many here have very weird ideas of how it would work (they get to keep everything they have...that's not how it worked under Brigham Young OR Joseph Smith...normally quite the opposite unless you were already very poor...which many of the Saints were...most posting here are NOT in that state of poverty). 

It would be HARD to institute at first.  In the end, if it could be pulled off and the Saints stayed productive, I think it could work.

On 5/16/2023 at 10:18 PM, Vort said:

I guess that explains why communism always fails so dramatically.

Ezra Taft Benson was particularly strong on this point.  Communism (as based on Marx and furthered by others) is a copycat from the adversary.  It is based on the the way the Lord would work (which some would call Religious Communism as classified by what is described in the Acts in the New Testament...though the Saints have another name for it under the Law of Consecration and the United Order), but instead of the LORD and his servants being in charge...it is corruptible men.  It is a mockery of the Lord's way of doing things on top of that...made to make men miserable rather than happy.  It was created as a mockery to make people unhappy rather than to build them up and make them joyful. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by JohnsonJones
clarity

[mordorbund]

On 5/30/2023 at 5:52 PM, JohnsonJones said:

This is especially pertinent to land, where the land is owned by the Lord and so no one can truly own their land. (this can also be seen in Joseph Smith's time where he would grant land to some members, but when they apostatized it was seen as still being owned by the church and taken and given to another).

You mentioned this in another thread and I replied with links to various land deeded to individual saints that would have been legally binding. Many others on this site also provided references from the scriptures to show that what you’re describing is not the way the Lord directed it. Again, I’ll ask for citations. Do you have any references I can look up that shows the Church reclaiming land that was already deeded to a saint under consecration?