LDS Socialism


Rize
 Share

Recommended Posts

Please do not confuse voluntary participation in the United Order, or any other voluntary plan, with socialism.

Church leaders apparently made the statements you quote, however, the Gospel has always emphasized the agency of the children of men.

No one is ever righteous in compelling another to participate in charity against their will, and, as such compulsion is a basic tenet of socialism and communism, it is, therefore, evil.

Redistributionist schemes by government have been criticized by President Benson, and socialism has been criticized by every President of the Church before he served in that same office.

The church has NEVER advocated compulsory redistribution of wealth.

The Lord has always encouraged those with means to share with their less fortunate neighbors.

OK, I believe there is are serious discrepancies in what LDS doctrine teaches and the political stance of the majority of members of the church. I understand that for the most part the church proclaims it does not get involved in politics, but I see serious conflicts in what is taught in the church compared to the dominant political ideology of the Mormon people.

For example: The Mormon doctrine called the "law of consecration" administered under the United Order is taught by the LDS church to be the higher law, and "tithing" is the lower law. Comparable to Old Testament vs. New Testament. The law of consecration basically explains that everyone must give all their money to be equally distributed throughout the society.

In 1875, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued a Proclamation on the Economy; here is an exert:

Shouldn't the fundamental idea of the members of the church be to work towards redistributing their wealth throughout society. I have read through other threads on this board and have found very scathing attacks against socialism.

In 1901 Utah had 100 socialists occupying political offices throughout Utah. In 1917 LDS apostle David O McKay stated in a conference that "It looks as if Russia will have a government 'by the people, of the people, and for the people." (April 7, 1917 Conference Report).

So basically I am confused as to why such a dramatic difference in official church doctrine and the ideology of right wing, ultra-conservative beliefs of the majority of the LDS members. I guess this can be transferred to the Christian right as a whole, but it seems more predominant here in Utah. Shouldn't a true Christian believe in universal health care, and true economic equality for all. Didn't Jesus teach that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it would be for a rich person to enter heaven, and the first thing Jesus told his apostles was to redistribute their wealth to the poor and serve them? I don't recall any conditions on these doctrines, like saying "The poor people are lazy, or people will take advantage of a system that provides equally to all."

"You would have classes established here, some very poor and some very rich. Now, the Lord is not going to have anything of that kind. There has to be an equality; and we have to observe these principles that are designed to give every one the privilege of gathering around him the comforts and conveniences of life.” Lorenzo Snow (Journal of Discourses 19:349)

"It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another" (Doctrine and Covenants 49:20).

"Appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (Doctrine and Covenants 51:3).

"That now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality" (2 Corinthians 8:14).

"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" (4 Nephi 1:3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please do not confuse voluntary participation in the United Order, or any other voluntary plan, with socialism.

Church leaders apparently made the statements you quote, however, the Gospel has always emphasized the agency of the children of men.

No one is ever righteous in compelling another to participate in charity against their will, and, as such compulsion is a basic tenet of socialism and communism, it is, therefore, evil.

Redistributionist schemes by government have been criticized by President Benson, and socialism has been criticized by every President of the Church before he served in that same office.

The church has NEVER advocated compulsory redistribution of wealth.

The Lord has always encouraged those with means to share with their less fortunate neighbors.

True but in another fact is that the church is not suppose to be caught up in poltical parties either.

On the same point I do find many of the poltical stances by some church members baffling in context with some of the gospel teachings. Some of them do seem contradictory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True but in another fact is that the church is not suppose to be caught up in poltical parties either.

On the same point I do find many of the poltical stances by some church members baffling in context with some of the gospel teachings. Some of them do seem contradictory.

This is a multinational church. Of course it won't endorse a particular candidate or party. It wouldn't be prudent. But that is neither her nor there in this thread. The church always has stood for the freedoms enlisted in the Constitution. Among which is the right to own property. By the way, the church does take a stance on political issues prohibition and gay-marraige being a couple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialised health care is not a bad thing, saying so would insult a British institution that has been going strong for the past 50 years, and contributed to the health and well-being of a Nation.

I am American, my parents are Military. Previous generations were farmers, ranchers, frontiersmen, so you can't accuse me of being unpatriotic. Socialised health care would mean an increase in taxes, but not nearly as much as I had to pay for Health Insurance while living in the States. The UK provides a basic level of health care to everyone. We can pay for additional Health Insurance, that gives us access to some hospitals that put the UCLA Medical Center to shame. This is a system that would work well in the USA. A basic level of healthcare available for all, but better services, faster responses, etc. for those willing/able to pay extra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't bothered to read every post, and I apologize for that and the fact that I have no intention of reading them all. The topic is kind of old.

But, for Rize's benefit, I will point out that I agree, LDS doctrine teaches a form of redistribution of wealth. At the same time, however, you have to look at how the church redistributes wealth. If you look back at the history of the Church, and its current practice, it is up to the bishop's to redistribute wealth. The redistribution takes place at the smallest organizational level possible. The Lord designed this to maximize the effectiveness of the program for those who needed to use it.

What's more, the Church only teaches redistribution of wealth so long as this redistribution creates the opportunity for the recipients to pursue their own wealth. The phrase "Helping others help themselves" seems poignant.

It should also be remembered that, even under the United Order, bishops did not have ultimate discretion about the use of consecrated possessions. There was paperwork to fill out, and detailed records had to be kept about what the bishop had discretion over and what he didn't (See History of the Church, Vol 2). If a man increased his livestock by 100 sheep, simultaneously, papers had to be filled out in which the man consecrated so many sheep to the bishop and kept the remainder. The paperwork wasn't filled out until the bishop and the man agreed to what the community's needs were and what the man could afford to give without affecting his family's well being. The bishop did not have the authority to order a man to give away property.

The US Welfare program is the method by which we redistribute wealth in this country. While I believe there is a need for some redistribution, it is very poorly executed. In contrast to the Church's method, the government redistributes wealth from a high level. Policies are written about who may and may not receive welfare--and what they may receive--by people with no real connection to those that need the welfare support. It's a system that allows for great abuses and has enslaved more people than it has liberated. It's a system in great need of reform.

Unfortunately, the best solution for the problem is to hire thousands and thousands of case workers whose job it would be to oversee the distribution of welfare support. These case workers would be responsible to see that each recipient's needs are met and that they are working towards self-sufficiency. Three big snags on this idea: 1) this inflates the size of the government, which nobody wants; 2) we don't have enough trained case-workers qualified to do this work; 3) the government would never allow itself to lose so much control over how welfare funds are spent (a very bad thing about government in my opinion). Reason 3 is why we probably don't see the government giving religious leaders 'welfare budgets' to work the welfare program.

So yes, LDS doctrine teaches a redistribution of wealth. But such redistribution has to be done at a local level, and with the goal of recipients becoming self-sufficient enough to require no redistribution of wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoops, forgot to mention the main thrust of my post above.

If we were in the US, my wife and daughter would be dead. My wife had rapid-onset pre-eclampsia which would not have been caught if we lived stateside. Reason being, the first symptom was my wife had a swollen face that she thought was down to allergy, but we swung by the doctor because we were taking the car to the mechanic, and they are within walking distance of each other. 15 minutes later, my wife was off to the hospital in an ambulance, sirens blaring. Our daughter was born a few hours later by induced natural birth.

If we had been stateside, we wouldn't have even gone to the doctor,as we couldn't have afforded the co-payment that month. The pre-eclampsia would have killed my wife in a few day's time. The ambulance ride would have sent us in to poverty, and the emergency birth wouldn't have been covered by the insurance we could have afforded, so even if it was caught, we'd be bankrupt or swimming in unrecoverable debt. So the Nationalised Health Service in the UK saved my family. So HA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, Dear~

While I don't feel quite intelligent enough, or learned enough, to give a lengthy post about socialism vs democracy on this thread....

and while I believe Rize gave a lot of good points and thoughts to support his argument towards socialism.....

the bottom line of this, is I smell a troll!! What is my definition of a troll? Someone who is on LDS net to attack the church of Jesus Christ of LDS's in one form or another....and for all his intelluctual prowess, his knowledge, and his good manners (well sort of on that one)....that is what Rize has been doing throughout this thread.

For some reason, the LDS church as a whole is not meeting up to Rize's expectations on giving to the poor, even though it has been explained several times to him throughout the thread our belief in agency, and not forcing people to give their money away...(Yeah, I do admit, Rize did give a very good argument that while we don't force people to pay their tithing, their salvation is on the line if they don't, basically.....)

Again, it's the inference that our church is somehow wrong, falling short, and not meeting up to whatever the Troll's latest expectations are, and so said Troll is getting onto LDS net to manipulate our air time and demand our attention. Albeit, this is the most "intelligent" exchange of troll ideas I've seen since I've been on this site...

Don't feed the trolls......

Edited by Dove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is a year old.

A free-market economy is simply defined as one wherein all transactions within the system are based on mutually agreeable terms. In such a system, no person is compelled by violence.

A state socialist economy is defined as one wherein transactions are evaluated by a government entity, and if thought beneficial to THEIR understanding, are accomplished via compulsion.

What occurs in such a system of compulsion are shortages and surpluses. Parties on the benefiting side of compelled transactions will maximize that benefit (if they are allowed to get a certain amount of clothing at the cost of others they will take the maximum amount allowed). Parties on the paying side of compelled transactions will look to minimize that payment (they will look for every means to lower their tax burden, just as millions of Americans do today, and to take advantage of any applicable benefits).

Without free-market mechanisms, the governing body in this system is unable to make good decisions about supply and demand (they don't know if the people taking the clothing are really using it all). If they aren't, a secondary market emerges (an example is the large black market for food stamps in the United States) wherein the surplus is liquidated below par (the secondary food stamps are sold much cheaper than face value because the sellers paid nothing for them).

Shortages occur when government underestimates the demand for a given socialized product or service. The governing entity, not having a price system to evaluate supply and demand may underproduce (or call for underproduction) unwittingly. In this case, a secondary market emerges wherein products are sold above par value. This actually limits the allocation of this product to only the direct recipients designated by the government and then a secondary group willing and able to pay much higher prices than free-market equilibrium (the rich).

The design of state socialism is claimed to be the maximization of overall public benefit in the production and distribution of goods and services from scarce resources. The trouble is, without the necessary tool of a free-market price mechanism all the shortage and surplus causes state socialism to actually prevent such a maximization. Resources will be wasted.

For this reason, socialist countries actually use free-market analysis of non-socialist countries to evaluate their allocation of resources! This is true! The USSR did so!

If we want to maximize the total economic output of our system, and therefore provide the maximum benefit for the most amount of people, a free-market is the best way to do so.

On the subject of the United Order, it was competely voluntary, a participant could withdraw without the threat of violence or imprisonment at any time. Under state socialism this is not so.

-a-train

Edited by a-train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is providing health care to all regardless of their economic situation unhumanitarian?

Also, socialism and communism are different. Its also worth pointing out that socialism is an economic system, a true Christian or LDS member would strive for a system of economic equality therefor supporting a socialist democracy. As the first presidency said in the Proclamtion on the Economy, the growth of wealth in a small minority creates a class system where the poor are exploited. This is occurring under capitalism, socialist reforms would work to ensure wealth and power is not accumulated by the small minority of rich and instead would be redistributed equally providing basic necessities for all.

I urge you to read a book called 'None Dare Call It A Conspiracy' by Gary Allen. That will shed new light on your socialism branding!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialised health care is not a bad thing, saying so would insult a British institution that has been going strong for the past 50 years, and contributed to the health and well-being of a Nation.

I am American, my parents are Military. Previous generations were farmers, ranchers, frontiersmen, so you can't accuse me of being unpatriotic. Socialised health care would mean an increase in taxes, but not nearly as much as I had to pay for Health Insurance while living in the States. The UK provides a basic level of health care to everyone. We can pay for additional Health Insurance, that gives us access to some hospitals that put the UCLA Medical Center to shame. This is a system that would work well in the USA. A basic level of healthcare available for all, but better services, faster responses, etc. for those willing/able to pay extra.

I agree with you on that Gabelpa. I spent a semester in France while studied abroad. Best experience I ever had. I did get sick and I was amazed at the fast treatment I recieved for a cold not to mention the cost for a doctor was only 25 Euros and the price of medication was about 15 Euros. I had a student health care insurance and it was all paid back but being unemployed with no insurance now in the states and having to pay 80 to 100 dollars for seeing a doctor for a cold and about 45 to 50 dollars for medcine. There is a diffrence in the cost and the care in Europe. I think the Health Care system here ought to be improved. It's just too cost prohibited to people who want treatement but can't afford it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you on that Gabelpa. I spent a semester in France while studied abroad. Best experience I ever had. I did get sick and I was amazed at the fast treatment I recieved for a cold not to mention the cost for a doctor was only 25 Euros and the price of medication was about 15 Euros. I had a student health care insurance and it was all paid back but being unemployed with no insurance now in the states and having to pay 80 to 100 dollars for seeing a doctor for a cold and about 45 to 50 dollars for medcine. There is a diffrence in the cost and the care in Europe. I think the Health Care system here ought to be improved. It's just too cost prohibited to people who want treatement but can't afford it.

The disparity between health service costs in the U.S. and in France which you experienced are not the disparity between health services in a free-market system and such services in a socialized system. It is the disparity between two different socialized systems.

Over 45% of the healthcare expenditures in the U.S. last year were funded by the government. Further, the regulations and control government has over healthcare in the U.S. is already at socialized levels.

The United States has not allowed the medical services industry to operate a free-market within our lifetime. That, in fact, is partly why it is so expensive. Another reason however, is the rise in nominal prices due to increases in our nation's money supply (inflation).

The rise in money prices due to inflation is not uniform in an economy, it usually consolidates in certain sectors. Products and services that people simply cannot or will not do without are the easiest in which such rises can accumulate. Medical services are certainly among those things.

Although we sure hear a lot of noise about the Americans who don't have health insurance (although nobody bothers to look into what percentage of them are in that position voluntarily versus involuntarily), about 85% of Americans have health insurance.

Medical service costs would be dramatically reduced with a return to free-markets. With that reduction, affordability would increase the number of those insured.

If, on the otherhand, we institute a manditory single-payer program, the only means government will have to supress prices is simply price controls (exactly how Canada and the UK do so). With that, comes all the market woes associated with the loss of the free-market price mechanism: shortages and surpluses.

Today, the global black market for donor organs and other medical commodities is enormous. If the U.S. goes to single-payer, this black market will go galactic. Much of the more specialized treatments will be made even more exclusive to the wealthy.

The best solution for bringing the best healthcare to the most amount of people at the very lowest prices is free-markets. I just hope one day I may live to see such a thing.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The disparity between health service costs in the U.S. and in France which you experienced are not the disparity between health services in a free-market system and such services in a socialized system. It is the disparity between two different socialized systems.

Over 45% of the healthcare expenditures in the U.S. last year were funded by the government. Further, the regulations and control government has over healthcare in the U.S. is already at socialized levels.

The United States has not allowed the medical services industry to operate a free-market within our lifetime. That, in fact, is partly why it is so expensive. Another reason however, is the rise in nominal prices due to increases in our nation's money supply (inflation).

The rise in money prices due to inflation is not uniform in an economy, it usually consolidates in certain sectors. Products and services that people simply cannot or will not do without are the easiest in which such rises can accumulate. Medical services are certainly among those things.

Although we sure hear a lot of noise about the Americans who don't have health insurance (although nobody bothers to look into what percentage of them are in that position voluntarily versus involuntarily), about 85% of Americans have health insurance.

Medical service costs would be dramatically reduced with a return to free-markets. With that reduction, affordability would increase the number of those insured.

If, on the otherhand, we institute a manditory single-payer program, the only means government will have to supress prices is simply price controls (exactly how Canada and the UK do so). With that, comes all the market woes associated with the loss of the free-market price mechanism: shortages and surpluses.

Today, the global black market for donor organs and other medical commodities is enormous. If the U.S. goes to single-payer, this black market will go galactic. Much of the more specialized treatments will be made even more exclusive to the wealthy.

The best solution for bringing the best healthcare to the most amount of people at the very lowest prices is free-markets. I just hope one day I may live to see such a thing.

-a-train

A-Train I am sorry but I have to disagree with your reponse. I believe Free Market would be a terrible idea for health care.

The problem with the health care system is that it is for profit. Prices go up because money has to be make to make a profit.

If I could afford insurance I would buy it in a heartbeat. It is not a choice I like or willingly accept. It's because it's not affordable.

On the other side of the fence are my parents, my father worked with Civil Service with the Federal Government. He has insurance that is close to being the exact same thing the senators and congressmen hold. However, it's getting harder to meet deductables espically in retirement years. It's not perfect but it is insurance. I was cut off this insurance because frankly he could no longer could afford to carry me on his policy.

Insurance is going to have to be reformed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A-Train I am sorry but I have to disagree with your reponse. I believe Free Market would be a terrible idea for health care.

The problem with the health care system is that it is for profit. Prices go up because money has to be make to make a profit.

This centuries old Marxist claim has been disproven innumerable times by economists from every part of the world. I want you to think about it for a minute.

The assertion is "Profits make products and services more expensive."

How does one make profits? Does one obtain profits by raising or lowering the number of his/her clients? What effect does price have on one's number of clients? If you have noticed that lowering prices will enable one to sell their products and/or services to a broader number of people, then you are starting to understand one of the most basic dynamics of free-market capitalism and its effects: mass production.

Now think about this please for a moment. What does 'mass production' imply? Does it imply expensive products only available to the rich, or does it imply products available for the masses?

Also think about the effect of high profits. If profits are high for a given product or service, what effect will that have? If you considered that it will invite more people to want to provide that product or service, you are right. High profits bring more producers (competition). Competition drives prices down.

Think about this also. Do entities looking to make a profit wish to see costs get higher or lower? Decreases in costs mean increases in profits. This is why producers are in constant search for ways to provide their product or service at a lower cost. If you sell widgits for $5, it is more profitable if you can produce them for $2 than for $2.50.

Once an entity is able to lower its production costs, it is able to provide its products/services at a more competitive (lower) price in the market.

Take the example of Henry Ford. His idea was to put an automobile in every American driveway. Why did he want to do this? Charity? Did he make any profit in his endeavors? He made huge profits. How did he do it? By making the automobile LESS expensive, a LOT LESS expensive, less than half price.

Ford's Model T was introduced at about $850 (about $20,000 in modern nominal terms). The least expensive cars at that time were $2000 (about $48,000 today), with luxury models up to $5,000 ($118,000 today).

Through innovation in manufacturing, assembly, and ultimately in distribution, Ford made cars affordable. All of this was in the effort to make a profit. It made the convenience of the automobile, once reserved only for the wealthy, a reality for the common American.

Now consider the fact that today one can buy a new car for much less that a Model T (remember to consider the Model T at $20,000 because of inflation) with so many more features that it boggles the mind. Antilock Brakes, air-conditioning, CD players with XM radio, cruise control, fuel injection, A TOP, the list is enormous. This is the result of a century of competitive innovation in a profit seeking free market (albiet regulation continues to slow the process).

The cost of personal computers has fallen at mind-numbing rates for decades. Why? Because government socialized the personal computer business and took profits out of the costs? No. Because massive entrance into a very PROFITABLE market produced sharp competition and enormous innovation which has made PCs better and less expensive.

Consider one by one the various technological devices in your home. Think about how many of these were available only to the rich a century ago, and many were not available at any price. When refrigeration technology was developed, competing businesses sought to mass produce refrigerators in the effort to make a profit. New innovations in the technology resulted and prices fell dramatically. Today, like the automobile, the masses have refrigeration which was once reserved only for the rich.

So with all this unimpeachable evidence, why do some still push the old Marxist bit? Because companies want to stop being so innovative. They don't like free-markets. They don't like competition. They don't like working so hard. So what do they do? They hire lobbyists to push for laws that will protect them. They want special licenses that will prevent competitors from eating away at their business. They want government contracts to assure them their business. They want protectionist tarrifs from government to prevent foreign competition.

The lobbyists push all of this with compelling arguments that sound as though it will actually benefit the public at the expense of the evil corporations. The truth? It will cause the public to pay higher prices at the aggrandizement of favored cronies. The real advocates of government intervention ARE THE BIG BUSINESS GUYS that so many seem to think government will protect us against.

Economists have understood all of this since before there was a United States of America, yet we continually suffer for lack of the masses understanding it.

Huge reform IS needed, but not in the direction of more intervention and cronyism. We need free-market competition to be fully restored so that the prices of medical services can fall again.

-a-train

Edited by a-train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just wondering.... my thought is that the Law of Consecration, and Socialism/Communist is different. The Law of Consecration still has self governing, while socialism is where those in charge say who gets what, who is poor and who is needy.

In the Law of Consecration it's up to you to decide how much your family needs (you still have your agency), it's not dictatored to you. In communism a dictator decides. The people give up freedom of choice.

I had more thoughts.. but my mind just went blank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

Just wondering.... my thought is that the Law of Consecration, and Socialism/Communist is different. The Law of Consecration still has self governing, while socialism is where those in charge say who gets what, who is poor and who is needy.

In the Law of Consecration it's up to you to decide how much your family needs (you still have your agency), it's not dictatored to you. In communism a dictator decides. The people give up freedom of choice.

I had more thoughts.. but my mind just went blank.

I don't know much about the LoC, but it seems to me that distribution of wealth and resources would be dictated mostly by the Church. I could be wrong though.

Another thing to keep in mind is that dictatorship isn't an innate quality of socialism/communism. It's just been the most visible historical model so far. An ideal Socialist State would put the means of production, to include wage control, into the hands of the workers. I doubt that this will ever happen though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've understood, fully living the Law of Consecration could not be done unless living in the social conditions of the United Order. The unique thing about the United Order is that is theocratic in nature, and its leaders are humble men inspired by God. It is the ideal church government, and literally that- church government.

However, it is unwise and impossible to live in our current situation, as all members must be willing participants and faithful adherents to the LDS faith. I doubt one could get it to work in Utah as things are right now; too much chaff among the wheat. For right now, it's an ideal that we understand we cannot live righteously and therefore do not attempt to live. Like the intertwining of Body and Spirit, the best social circumstances arise from a healthy, God-inspired intertwining of Church and State; but anything less than God-inspired and God-lead quickly becomes corrupt.

That's my opinion on the matter, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An ideal Socialist State would put the means of production, to include wage control, into the hands of the workers. I doubt that this will ever happen though.

What a paradox. It will never happen because socialism takes the means of production and wage control OUT of the hands of the workers. In socialism, a single worker would have no right to produce on his own. Suppose he decides to make t-shirts, he would not be allowed. The machines, the cotton, the labor force, would all be owned and controlled by the "workers" as a whole.

Whoever controls the voice of the workers controls everything else. A group of workers has to somehow convince or compel the others, or at least a majority, to vote "YES" for the production of t-shirts if such a society is to get any. So the minority workers, who want to make t-shirts, don't have any control over any means of production while the majority, which doesn't want to make t-shirts, has their way.

Free-markets allow for each individual worker to control his own means of production. If indeed there are many who wish to reap the benefits of his production, he will be able to produce more for them. The worker who sets up a small t-shirt production facility in his basement, can use the profits from strong sales to make a larger facility and increase production. In this system, the members of society who want t-shirts can have them, the others are not compelled in any way to lend their efforts to the production, distribution, or consumption of t-shirts.

In a free-market, if demand for t-shirts falls, only the producer of t-shirts will directly suffer any loss due to over-investment. He will quickly become aware of the t-shirt surplus and will stop allocating resources toward their production, leaving such resources available for other producers (the cotton he does not buy will be available for producers of boxer shorts who are seeing an increase in demand, for example).

In a socialist system, not only are the workers not free to produce anything, they are not free to consume anything. They are only free to consume whatever the socialist bureau sees fit to produce. If they want or need more, or something else, they are not free to consume it just as they are not free to produce it.

This becomes sharply annoying when we consider whether or not we are to produce copies of sacred texts (Bibles, copies of the Book or Mormon, copies of the Koran), chapels, temples, sacred vestments, and so forth. Imagine if we LDS folks required a U.S. government bureau to produce our garments, the copies of the Book of Mormon which our missionaries give out, the temples, etc. Would we have them?

Workers in a socialist system do not control anything. They are slaves. They merely produce and consume whatever is decided through whatever process (whether democratic or otherwise) is established for making such value judgments.

The slaves on American plantations lived in such conditions. They had no power to decide what to produce, how much to produce, or how to distribute it. They had no voice in what they consume, when the consume it, how much they consume, or how they obtain it. Does it matter if the master of the plantation is a white man or a black? A woman or a man? A single individual or a group? Do such changes free the slaves? Suppose the plantation master actually works among the slaves himself. Does this free them?

Does it free a slave if the master of the plantation is another slave? What if it is a group of slaves? Are the slaves now free? What if the slaves as a whole make their decisions, but those who wish not to go along with the majority are compelled to do so. Are those dissenters free? What real control do they have over the means of production?

Socialism does not put the means of production into the hands of the workers, it puts the means of production into the hands of whatever body controls the bureau which controls the means of production.

-a-train

Edited by a-train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, don't forget about Jesus. He too wanted us to give big time!

;)

Jesus broke some major state socialist rules. He turned water to wine and fed thousands with only a few loaves of bread and a few fishes. He did this production and encouraged consumption without any government authorization. This would be a major "no no" in a socialist state.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus broke some major state socialist rules. He turned water to wine and fed thousands with only a few loaves of bread and a few fishes. He did this production and encouraged consumption without any government authorization. This would be a major "no no" in a socialist state.

-a-train

Sounds like socialism is being confused with over-bureaucratization. Sort of like in Terry Gilliam's movie Brazil. Reminds me of a University office worker who once said to me, "Sorry Sir, but rules are regulations!".

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like socialism is being confused with over-bureaucratization. Sort of like in Terry Gilliam's movie Brazil. Reminds me of a University office worker who once said to me, "Sorry Sir, but rules are regulations!".

:)

Our subject is clearly state socialism. There is no such thing as "non-bureacratized compulsary state socialism". As an advocate of free-markets, I highly approve of private socialism. A group of individuals who willfully form a collective and live within it should not be in any way hampered by government from so doing. It is when people are compelled by violence to enter into such orders and are forbidden to produce or consume according to their own conscience that I begin to object.

Jesus produced wine and food without involvement in any socialist system either public or private.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus produced wine and food without involvement in any socialist system either public or private.

-a-train

But he would have made a poor capitalist, since his supply came at a time of great demand and his profit was not in coins. He freely gave his gift. Couldn't make the Fortune 500 with that attitude!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he would have made a poor capitalist, since his supply came at a time of great demand and his profit was not in coins. He freely gave his gift. Couldn't make the Fortune 500 with that attitude!

? A GOOD capitalist brings his supply at a time of great demand. That is the whole point: to supply demand. Now if capitalism is in anyway defined such that it does not allow the supplier to exchange his/her supply on his/her own terms, it is not free-market capitalism. Jesus was in no way compelled to the terms of his offering his supply, he gave it completely on his own terms. He personally took control of the means of production and produced according to his own value judgments. He then supplied demand on his own terms. This is the very definition of free-market capitalism.

PS, who cares about the fortune 500?

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between Socialism as a political engine, and the Law of Consecration as instructed and organized by the Lord, is that Socialism is forced on to the people by a few for the benefit of those in power, and Consecration is a voluntary system by the people for the people, where none benefit any more than their needs.

WB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share