Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

(Just bopping in to say that I moved this whole discussion to a new topic, as it was really off subject. Carry on, with a promise in your heart to stay on topic in future.)

You're right C is for. I'm sorry. I'll be better next time...... forgive me?

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:

vorpal blade wrote:The perfect system has been revealed, and capitalism is at the heart of it.

Woah, wait, what? Capitalism is the Law of Consecration now?

That's mostly right, Sam. Where have you been? You should read the Ensign article I referenced for further details. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h ... 82620aRCRD

Basically, here is the idea. Joseph Smith was commanded to bring forth and establish Zion. The Prophet received several revelations to help him restore the same laws and principles upon which Enoch's Zion was built. The Church was not able to fully realize this goal, but we still have the understanding of what is required.

On February 1831 (see D&C 42) the Prophet received the “law of the Church,” called this because it established the laws of Church government and introduced the economic system of Zion. It was called the law of consecration, with the aim to eliminate poverty.

Nelson, Ensign wrote:The law of consecration is a law of the celestial kingdom, requiring that all members of the Church shall consecrate their property (including time, talents, and material wealth) to the Church for the building of the kingdom of God and the establishment of Zion. The Legal administrative agency for carrying out the law is the united order. This organization receives consecrated properties, gives stewardships to donors, and regulates the use of surplus commodities. The law of consecration is the commandment; the united order is the revealed economics system.

Now, if you continue to follow the article you will see, as laid out in D&C 42, that a key principle of the united order, the revealed economic system, is that

Nelson, Ensign wrote:the Church deeds back to the donor (steward) property to maintain himself and his family. Thus the individual is made a “steward over his own property... as much as is sufficient for himself and family.” (D&C42:32) The individual's stewardship is regulated “according to his family,... his circumstances and his wants and needs” (D&C 51:3) “inasmuch as his wants are just” (D&C 82:17).
...
The united order operates under the principle of private ownership and individual management. It is neither communal nor communistic. Each man owns his own property with an absolute title. The individual family is preserved. There is no common table.

It is clear that the united order, the revealed economic system of the law of consecration, which is a celestial law, is based upon capitalism. That's what capitalism is, the individual ownership of property and the private means of production and distribution of wealth.

In Conference Report Oct. 1941, p. 113 we find

Harold B. Lee wrote: [the united order is] more capitalistic... than either Socialism or Communism, in that private ownership and individual responsibility will be maintained.

President J. Reuben Clark explained how the systems we have in place today are helping us to prepare to live the united order. This includes our capitalistic economic system.

President J. Reuben Clark wrote:The United Order... was built upon the principle of private ownership of property; all that a man had and lived upon under the United Order, was his own. Quite obviously, the fundamental principle of our system today is the ownership of private property....

My quotes from President Lee and President Clark come from the Ensign article.

So, the law of consecration is a celestial law, the united order is the revealed economic system in the law of consecration, and the united order is based on capitalism.

Marduk wrote:Ok, let's get a few things straight.

Let's do.

Marduk wrote:1) The economic system that will be present during the millennium does not exist on the earth today, in any shape or form. We as humans are too flawed to live it. Even when the saints were living higher economic principles, this was still not a perfect system. God will yet reveal that, through the mouth of his prophets. To dogmatize on an issue where the Lord has not made clear his will is to blaspheme, plain and simple (unless you are the prophet, obviously).

Not true. See my answer to Sam. As President J. Reuben Clark said:

J. Reuben Clark wrote:“The United Order … was built upon the principle of private ownership of property; all that a man had and lived upon under the United Order, was his own. Quite obviously, the fundamental principle of our system today is the ownership of private property. …

The United Order, the revealed-by-prophets economic system of the Law of Consecration, which is the perfect celestial law, is based on capitalism, which is the fundamental principle of our system today (or was in 1931).

Marduk wrote:2) All economic systems have good and evil in them. Just as every human has good and evil in them. A perfect law can only appeal to a perfect people. Since no one on this earth is perfect, we lack the capacity to create such a plan.

We didn't create the united order, it was revealed to us by God. Capitalism, or the free ownership of property and the means of production, is as old as Adam, and was instituted by God at the time Adam left the garden of Eden. It is not true that all economic systems have good and evil in them. We have had revealed to us perfect laws, which appeal to me, anyway, and I am not perfect. Capitalism is not a plan created by man, it is basically freedom and individual stewardship and ownership.

Marduk wrote:3)Capitalism, while possessing many good tendencies and principles, was not revealed doctrine. It may have been inspired, and to some extent I certainly feel that it was, being far superior to anything that there was to offer at the time, but it is absolutely flawed, since it is of human creation, not revealed by the prophets.

Capitalism was revealed to man by God. See Genesis. See the Doctrine and Covenants. See all the scriptures. Capitalism is what you have naturally, by God, until someone takes away your property and liberty.

Marduk wrote:4)Communism, when used as a substitute for religion, is devilish. Anything that would point away from Christ is pointing towards hell.

Is this the first time we agree? I agree. Furthermore I would ask, "When has communism not been used as a substitute for religion?" I believe it has always been used as a substitute religion, because a belief in God is contrary to the fundamental philosophy of communism. Marxism views the whole history of man as an economic struggle between classes. The morality of Marxism is tied to this belief, and doesn't leave room for a purpose of life in which man struggles to live laws given by God.

Marduk wrote:5)Marxism that does not require the dissolution of the family or the abolishment of religion, but encourages equality, hard work, and love for one's fellow man, cannot possibly be anti-Christ. These are all gospel principles.

It depends on who is interpreting Marxism as to whether it argues that the family is fundamentally evil. Many Marxists do believe this. Equality (as in the sense that we are all children of God, who loves all of us), hard word, and love for one's fellow man, are gospel principles, but I don't believe they are Marxists principles. A Marxist hopes that people will work hard and love their fellowmen, as this would help Marxism to succeed. But there is nothing in Marxism which encourages one to work hard. On the contrary, there is much which encourages a person to work as little as possible. There is no incentive to work hard, as there is in capitalism. Hard work is rewarded in capitalism, but there is no reward for hard work in Marxism. It is human nature that if there is no reward, no incentives, then the natural man will work as little as he can get away with. He will choose to spend his time and efforts on some pastime, hobby, or interest that does not benefit others. And nothing in Marxism encourages one to love his fellowman. It is only when we freely and voluntarily work to help others, as we do in capitalism, that we learn to enjoy those feelings of satisfaction and spirit which encourages us to love our fellowman. A love for our fellowman comes from God, not from man made systems such as Marxism. Capitalism gives us the freedom to choose to treat others with equality, and love one another, but capitalism is not a religion and it is not a social order. It is an economic system. We turn to Christ to develop Christ like attributes. We turn to true religion in capitalism.

Marduk wrote:6)Any government or economy can only work with consent of those it seeks to include within its governance. Yes, a government that would force the donation of all that one possesses, at point of gun or bayonet, is tyrannical. But so then is the government that refuses basic necessities to the poor. Tyranny by action or refusal of action amounts to the same villainy.

We are agreed that a government is tyrannical that forces the donation of all that one possesses. However, it is not the business of government to provide, or refuse to provide goods and services to the poor. According to the inspired (we might say, revealed) principles of our Constitution, government provides the opportunity for individuals to provide for themselves, and for individuals to help the poor, according to their feelings and ability. In my opinion the Constitution says that government has no right to take from one person and give to a poor person even the basic necessities. This is tyranny--to take the property of one person and give it to another. This is organized and state-control theft, only we don't call it theft because the government doesn't call it a crime. However, this whole point has nothing to do with capitalism, but is a question of the role of government. Capitalism is not a political theory.

Marduk wrote:7)Capitalism does not, and cannot, provide an equal and fair opportunity to all. The position into which you are born is almost certainly the position into which you will die. Wealth rarely changes hands in capitalism. Perhaps in an ideal world, but in the one we live in, just about every economy in the world has failed to change that simple fact. The children of the wealthy by and large remain wealthy, and the children of the poor by and large remain poor. That is one of the colossal injustices in this world, one that will be resolved in the world to come, and no economic system crafted by the hands of men has power to do it. Again, it is only when we are united in charity, and when the entirety of a people are moral, no flaw in a system will prevent them from all sharing in that wealth.

By definition capitalism is the fair and equal opportunity for all to own the means of increasing wealth, and to acquire wealth. Capitalism does not favor anyone. It is not true that in America the position into which you are born is the position in which you will die. I was born dirt born, but I'm now comfortably well off. My ancestors time after time started from scratch and made a living by dint of hard work. This is a great system, where anyone with a strong desire to succeed can succeed. What makes the biggest difference is not the wealth or poverty of the families into which we are born. It is the teachings and values instilled into children when they are young. There is a cycle of poverty because very often poor children are taught the flawed Marxist theories that you teach; that it doesn't matter how hard they try, the system will bring them down. They often have no desire to learn or improve themselves. Those who have a strong desire to succeed overcome the false traditions of their fathers, and get out of poverty. Most of the perpetual poor are apathetic, spurn education, look down on those who wish to improve themselves, get pregnant early, and fall into the clutches of the welfare state. Not that the poor can't have happy lives and achieve the celestial kingdom. Worldly wealth is not necessary. In some countries where capitalism is not allowed to function freely, it is true that wealth is restricted, and most of the poor don't have much of a chance to obtain it.

Being "united in charity" is not necessary, as the many success stories prove. The City of Enoch, following the United Order, managed to perfect themselves until they were taken up into heaven. The "entirety of a people" being moral is not needed. There were many wicked people on the earth at the time the City of Enoch was perfected. But the United Order, and not a flawed economic system, seems to have been necessary for these people to learn to share the wealth in the Lords way.

Marduk wrote:8)Because of these points, it behooves us not to become to attached to any of the doctrines of men, e.g., any earthly economic system. All these shall pass away. Only the pure love of Christ guiding the hands of men will lead us to where we need to be. And once we have a heart capable of that charity, those things (the economy of Zion, to coin a phrase) become more apparent.

Agree. I'm not attached to any of the doctrines of men, or any earthly economic system. I am attached to building up and establishing Zion in the Lord's way, which is through Celestial laws, including the law of consecration. And the perfect, revealed, economic base of the establishment of Zion is capitalism, the system we have today of private ownership of property and the means of production and distribution of wealth.

Have you read much Marx?

Marx distinguishes between personal private property and capitalistic private property.

I'm trying hard to stay out of this, as I'm behind in homework, but I'd like to suggest that "capitalism" as a system consists of far more than private property (which itself is a complex topic).

I consider myself both a marxist and a capitalist. I believe much of Marx's description of capitalism's flaws are true. However, his prescription was severely flawed, and even though it is well-argued that no "marxist" revolution has actually followed Marx's ideas, it's also been well-established that revolution "of the workers" is fundamentally incompatible with Marx's hope for a classless society. I don't believe Capitalism is at all Godly; in many ways it's awful. But it is also extremely good in some ways and it's the best we have at this point.

An interesting link, upon which I will not comment at this time.

Tao wrote:An interesting link, upon which I will not comment at this time.

A very interesting link. Elder Harold B. Lee said what I have been trying to say, but he said it so much better than I can. I was amazed at his prophetic vision of where this country is headed.

I don't think it's fair to call capitalism "celestial," because I highly doubt I'm going to be paying anybody to do anything for me in the celestial kingdom. Why would I? There are no time limitations and I can do anything I care to do myself, or in cooperation with others, as suits my pleasure.

The problem is, at present we have time limitations and we aren't perfect. If God wanted a computer, he could find some matter and organize one--I'm sure he's an unsurpassed electrical engineer. If I wanted a computer, I would have to spend years studying electrical engineering, invest millions (or billions, perhaps) of dollars in the equipment necessary to build a reasonably powerful, reasonably-sized computer, and then build one. Not worth the effort.

So we have this clever system we call capitalism. If there's money to be made by making and selling computers, people who like money will make computers and sell them. If some people particularly enjoy making computers, they may make and sell them at a lower price, because the enjoyment they get out of it is part of their compensation. If somebody is particularly good at making and selling computers, they can do it more efficiently and at a lower cost than others, and so they can sell them at a lower price, too. The result is that each industry tends to involve the people who are good at and/or enjoy that particular business, and prices are lower for consumers. Nearly everybody wins.

I say it's a clever system. It is. I'm astonished at how well it works, really. I certainly wouldn't say it's a celestial system. Inspired? Sure, why not--God can use imperfect systems just as he can use imperfect servants to further his purposes. Revealed? Probably not. I believe the Constitution was inspired but not revealed, too. It's a pretty clever system, too, and reviewing our nation's history, I'm often astonished at how well it has worked. It's certainly not perfect, though, nor was it when it was first adopted.

Assuming I make it to the celestial kingdom, I'm not going to be paying anybody to organize planets for me. Nor am I going to try to organize a government with executive, legislative, and judicial branches with checks and balances. It's going to be a theocracy, in the most literal sense of the word, and the only political and economic system is going to be what God wants. We're all going to be perfect, though, so that won't be a problem...

I like the link too, I find especially interesting the Lorenzo Snow quote (the full text is floating around on the internet)—it sounds a lot like capitalism, it sounds a lot like socialism, and yet it's distinct and transcends them both.

I had read a fair amount about what Karl Marx had written, both from those who agreed with him and those who disagreed with him, but I actually hadn’t read much of his own words. Well, now I have read the Communist Manifesto.

In the Communist Manifesto the history of the world is to be interpreted as a history of class struggles. In modern times we have supposedly divided up mostly into just two hostile camps, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. “By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour.” “By proletariat,” Marx and Engels meant “the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.”

I see a lot of similarity between Karl Marx and the Nephite dissenter, Amalickiah. Both used great swelling words of flattery to gain support. Both use hate speech to create a false sense of antagonism and supposed injustice to both inspire and harden the hearts of their audience (proletariat or Lamanite), blinding their minds, and stirring them up to anger so that they would go to battle against the designated enemy, who otherwise would have been their friends. Both used distortions, half-truths, and lies. Both used untrue and ugly stereotypes to demonize another “class.” Both wanted their audience to believe in a false history of exploitation, oppression, and injustice on the part of the Bourgeoisie or Nephites.

In regard to the private ownership of property Marx seems to be saying that it is okay for the proletariat to own sufficient property to meet their needs, but it is not okay for the bourgeoisie to own private property, which the communists believe was illegitimately obtained.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

In any event, Marx wanted to do away with any privately owned property which you could use to earn money: land, transportation, factories, tools, equipment, and so forth. This is diametrically opposed to the United Order, and to capitalism.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote: I don't believe Capitalism is at all Godly; in many ways it's awful.

I consider agency and the right of an individual to own private property to be gifts from God. This is the essence of capitalism. So I would say capitalism is a gift from God. I'm not saying it is Godly.

Can agency and private property be used in awful ways? Certainly they can. But this doesn't make agency and private property awful. Capitalism is not awful if some people use their wealth in awful ways. Marxism and socialism may take away your wealth, so you don't have it to use in either good or bad ways, but that doesn't make these systems better than capitalism. It makes it worse.

dzhonatan wrote:I don't think it's fair to call capitalism "celestial," because I highly doubt I'm going to be paying anybody to do anything for me in the celestial kingdom.

The essence of capitalism is agency and individual private property. I can well imagine these things to exist in the Celestial kingdom. On this earth there are some consequences of capitalism, such as hiring someone to do something, which may not be the case in the next life. Incidentally tithing is said to be an eternal law, but how can you pay tithing in heaven? You can interpret an eternal law in various ways. You can also interpret a celestial law in various ways.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:I like the link too, I find especially interesting the Lorenzo Snow quote (the full text is floating around on the internet)—it sounds a lot like capitalism, it sounds a lot like socialism, and yet it's distinct and transcends them both.

If you are referring to these words of Lorenzo Snow,

Lorenzo Snow wrote:Lorenzo Snow spoke these words:

Ye toiling millions who in the sweat of your faces earn your daily bread, the day of your redemption draweth nigh. Cease to waste your wages on that which helps to keep you in want. Regard not the wealth of your enemy and your employer is your oppressor. Seek for the union of capital and labor. Be provident when in prosperity. Do not become a prey to designing men who seek to stir up strife for their own selfish ends. Strive for your rights by all lawful means, and desist from violence and destruction. Dissipation and vice are the chains that bind you to slavery.

Men and women of wealth, use your riches to give employment to the laborer; take the idle from the crowded centers of population, and place them on the untilled areas that await the hand of industry. Unlock your vaults, unloose your purses, and invest in enterprises that will give work to the unemployed and relieve the wretchedness that poisons the moral atmosphere around you. Make others happy and you will be happy yourself.

then I see only a direct attack on the Communist Manifesto, and its attempt to pit the employee against the employer, and a plea for rich people to voluntarily use their wealth for good purposes. There is no socialism in this, no state ownership of the means of production of wealth, no compulsion by government, merely capitalism. It is just pure capitalism.

vorpal blade wrote:I had read a fair amount about what Karl Marx had written, both from those who agreed with him and those who disagreed with him, but I actually hadn’t read much of his own words. Well, now I have read the Communist Manifesto.

I'm impressed that you read it! Now try to slog through Capital with me, which is where he says his smart stuff. It's not nearly as readable, it's very theoretical, and it's more centered on an examination of how capitalism works. I think it's incomplete in some ways (and I'm sure you'll agree) but it's far more rigorous than the manifesto. The manifesto is a polemic which defines Marx's prescription for revolutionary overthrow (which, as I mentioned before, I don't agree with). It is, however, a good introduction to the Marxist view of history, and it's forecast of the inevitable implosion of capitalism (still hasn't happened yet... unless, like some, you think the bailout somehow marks the death of capitalism).

In the Communist Manifesto the history of the world is to be interpreted as a history of class struggles. In modern times we have supposedly divided up mostly into just two hostile camps, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. “By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour.” “By proletariat,” Marx and Engels meant “the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.”

I think that's a fair assessment. But also, it's important to know that Marx also represents cultural forces more philosophically than historically. He draws significantly from Hegel, and tries to frame his arguments in terms of conflicting thesis/antithesis, with an emerging synthesis.

I see a lot of similarity between Karl Marx and the Nephite dissenter, Amalickiah. Both used great swelling words of flattery to gain support. Both use hate speech to create a false sense of antagonism and supposed injustice to both inspire and harden the hearts of their audience (proletariat or Lamanite), blinding their minds, and stirring them up to anger so that they would go to battle against the designated enemy, who otherwise would have been their friends. Both used distortions, half-truths, and lies. Both used untrue and ugly stereotypes to demonize another “class.” Both wanted their audience to believe in a false history of exploitation, oppression, and injustice on the part of the Bourgeoisie or Nephites.

You do believe that economic classes have existed, and exploitation has been a problem in history, right? Because if you don't believe that the rich classes have ever exploited the poor, I can see how you'd reject Marx outright. As it is, I agree with you that Marx's manifesto is off-puttingly polemical and it's a bit too passionate. There <i>is</i> a lot of enmity here, but whether its misplaced depends on whether you put stock in Marx's theories (not fully explicated here) that Capitalism (in the sense of the possession of the means of production by a small, privileged group of people) is inherently exploitative. It requires a different way of looking at production and value than, say Adam Smith, but if you look at it from Marx's pretty rational perspective of value, you can see how he reaches those conclusions. I think that's all covered in the first chapter of Capital, but you might want a secondary text to help summarize the salient points.

By the way, I believe demagogues on both sides of the aisle in contemporary politics fit the mold you just described.

In regard to the private ownership of property Marx seems to be saying that it is okay for the proletariat to own sufficient property to meet their needs, but it is not okay for the bourgeoisie to own private property, which the communists believe was illegitimately obtained.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

In any event, Marx wanted to do away with any privately owned property which you could use to earn money: land, transportation, factories, tools, equipment, and so forth. This is diametrically opposed to the United Order, and to capitalism.

[/quote]
That's somewhat accurate, but again, this is an area of prescription. He believes it is just when people own the means of their own production—for example, I'm a video editor. If I own my own video camera and computer and work for myself, I own my own means of production. However, if I work a wage job, where I can't afford a camera or computer and I thus have to work on my employer's terms, this relation of production will likely be exploitative. I think a fair translation of the Marxist idea is that everyone equally owns the means of their own production—i.e. the workers together own the factory (and the workers, not the factory owner or the shareholders, make the profits), I own my own video equipment, you and your fellow scientists own the whatchamacallits you research with, the farmers own their land (rather than working someone else's land), etc. The products produced by these endeavors would be private property.

Now, the problem with Marx's prescription here is that in practice, when it's not the capitalists who own the means of production, somebody else does: the State. And another power structure simply grows where the old one was, and it's even worse. Power is still consolidated in the hands of the few and that's inevitable.

Here's what I find strange: in my experience with the welfare program of the church, food and welfare distribution isn't really "produced" using private means of production. It's produced with church-owned facilities: canneries, orchards, etc. are owned collectively by the church. Now in the system of capitalism in general (encompassing America's economic systems), the church is a private entity, but if we're talking an economic system WITHIN the church, we find that the means of welfare production are not private but public entities. Now, by no means is that communism, but I think in the united order we will probably have some public means of production. Not that it really matters—as I understand it, if I need a tool or piece of land or what have you to perform my job, it will be given to me according to my needs. So yes, there is private property (or stewardship or whatever you want to call it). But the main difference between the united order and the capitalistic system is that property will not be concentrated in the hands of the few.

I don’t have time to do this subject justice, but I probably won’t have time during the rest of this week, so I’ll say a few words now. I’ve now made a quick reading of chapter 1, volume I of Das Kapital. Ugh, what horrible writing. Political science is repulsive enough to me, but economics?

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:You do believe that economic classes have existed, and exploitation has been a problem in history, right? Because if you don't believe that the rich classes have ever exploited the poor, I can see how you'd reject Marx outright. As it is, I agree with you that Marx's manifesto is off-puttingly polemical and it's a bit too passionate. There <i>is</i> a lot of enmity here, but whether its misplaced depends on whether you put stock in Marx's theories (not fully explicated here) that Capitalism (in the sense of the possession of the means of production by a small, privileged group of people) is inherently exploitative. It requires a different way of looking at production and value than, say Adam Smith, but if you look at it from Marx's pretty rational perspective of value, you can see how he reaches those conclusions. I think that's all covered in the first chapter of Capital, but you might want a secondary text to help summarize the salient points.

I don’t think that economic class conflict theory is a valid way to look at history. It is too simplistic, often incorrect, and ignores the real conflicts and issues of history. I think the Bible and the Book of Mormon show that the conflict between good and evil is how we should be looking at history.

I don’t believe that wealth is a good indication of a class. People gain wealth, lose all of it, and sometimes gain it all back again. I think Marx would have had a better argument saying that history is the story of the conflict, exploitation, and suppression of left-handed people by right-handed people. But then, what would Marx have had to gain by saying that (unless he was left-handed)?

Have rich people ever exploited poor people? This is undoubtedly true. Have poor people exploited rich people? This is also true. Marxism claims that capitalism deprives poor people, the so-called “working class,” of the just rewards of their labor, or deprives them of the same opportunities as the rich. I don’t believe that. I think that, historically, some people have used law to keep themselves in power and in wealth, and this abuse of power by a “ruling class” has tended to exploit or suppress the poorer population. But this has nothing to do with capitalism. As you point out, when individuals or an oligarchy of the proletariat gain power they use the power of the Communist state to exploit and suppress others.

It appears to me that the only value Marx appreciates is the sweat labor of the poor. He seems to fail to appreciate how hard the capitalists work. The “working class” needs the entrepreneurial value added by the capitalist. The proletariat needs the direction, the organization, the capital of the capitalist in order to give value to his efforts; otherwise he can accomplish nothing of significance. Without the capitalist his wealth is meager, or non-existent. As Lorenzo Snow implied, the working man needs the rich man to give him employment, to take a person who would otherwise be idle in the crowded centers of the population, and provide him the capital to improve the “untilled areas that await the hand of industry.” The proletariat needs the rich man or woman to “invest in enterprises that will give work to the unemployed.” Without the rich capitalist the poor “class” can’t effectively use the labor-value they otherwise give. Many a Marxist regime has learned to its regret that when they get rid of the Bourgeoisie they lose the power to lift themselves out of poverty and backwardness. It is not that the proletariat suffers from the exploitation and suppression of the rich, it is that the poor are not capable of creating wealth without the capitalists.

I don’t agree that in this country, at least, capitalism is limited to a small, privileged group of people. Every one of us, who has the ambition, work ethic, talent, and is willing to take risks can become a wealthy capitalist. Private property is widely held, though unevenly held. Small businesses are crucial, and numerous. Capitalism is not inherently exploitative, but is a boon and blessing to lift the poor out of poverty. Marx doesn’t seem to understand how capitalism helps the poor. The only way Marx reaches his conclusions is to ignore the economic value of the capitalist.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:By the way, I believe demagogues on both sides of the aisle in contemporary politics fit the mold you just described.

Evil speech by evil people is evil, whether spoken by someone on one side of the aisle or the other.


The Church welfare system is strange, in a way. The goal is not to make a profit or become an efficient economic wealth producing unit. In some of the welfare industries the goal is to provide meaningful work, which gives people a sense of dignity and self-worth, who might otherwise be unemployed. So, they plan to be inefficient in order to give work to more people. Another goal is to provide us with work learning opportunities so that we can be self-sufficient. I’ve learned a lot about having a productive fruit orchard from working in Church owned orchards. It is almost as though actually producing goods and services to help the poor is a by-product of the welfare system. We also grow a desire to help others as we work in Church welfare programs.

I can understand Marx’s point of view better when I consider him the product of the society in which he lived and was familiar with, and the rapid industrial growth characteristic of his times. He must have lived in a rather stratified system of class distinctions, almost like a caste system, which he confused with economic distinctions. He no doubt saw some heartless capitalists taking advantage of the lack of social mobility, and the lack of educational opportunities of the poor, during the important transition period to industrialization of the 19th century.

vorpal blade wrote:I don’t think that economic class conflict theory is a valid way to look at history. It is too simplistic, often incorrect, and ignores the real conflicts and issues of history. I think the Bible and the Book of Mormon show that the conflict between good and evil is how we should be looking at history.

That scares me so much. Talk about "too simplistic" and "often incorrect."

The scriptures are inspired of God...and a lot more complex than "good vs. bad."

What human historian would you trust to judge the goodness or evilness of all other humans? Isn't perpetuating this sort of worldview and sense of history exactly why the Middle East hates America?

As has been stated, the Communist Manifesto is intended to be a polemic piece, not a comprehensive ideology. Yes, history can't be looked at only in terms of economic conflict, but we certainly can't ignore it. We're talking about serfs vs. kings, labor unions vs factory owners, or on the other side of the world, caste system conflicts. To say that there is no validity in these conflicts is to ignore a large section of human endeavor.

To another point, one that I made reference to earlier, but didn't explain, I'd like to explain the concept of state capitalism, which is what I would argue was present in almost every communist state that we have known. In a very real way, Marxism allows for far more ownership of personal property than capitalism does. Let me explain.

What capitalism entails is that those with the capital own the property. This capital is concentrated in the hands of a few; mostly large corporations. An individual may own quite a bit in this country, his house, his car, etc. But he, for the most part, does not own his means of production. Think about it. How many people in this country are self employed? Quite a few, sure, but they pale in comparison to those employed by any of various large corporations. Most of our means of producing wealth is in these corporations. Now, what happens if we take those means from the corporations and give them to the government (the state?) We haven't given anything back to the people. In a very real sense, all we've done is create one super corporation that controls everything. Not driven by financial motives, this corporation becomes unwieldy and inefficient, at best barely providing for the needs of its customers (the citizens) and at worst, holding its goods in tyrannical control of the populace. What needs to happen is for each individual to own the means to his own production, as he can best see what needs to be done in it, rather than those outside.

Now, you've made the argument that without material incentive, (in the form of a paycheck, promotion, etc.) that this man will not produce anything, being far more content to be lazy than work at said profession. Now this ideology may creep up in some, but let's take a look at that argument in a larger context. Does a man have no incentive for education that does not improve job marketability? Does he have no incentive to keep a clean and orderly house, manicure the exterior, engage in physical fitness, or work hard for charitable or religious organizations? The answer to all of these is clearly no, since we have literally millions of examples to the contrary. The motivation comes to inherently do what one does better. I, for example, am I writer. I strive that my points may be clear, my characters may be complex and flawed, my story line may be interesting, and so forth. Do I do these things because I feel they will make my skills more marketable? No, I've resigned myself to the reality that I will most likely never make any money off of my writing. I do so because I enjoy being better at what I do. And I think you'll find the same in anyone who works for themselves, from the auto mechanic to the painter, and anywhere inbetween or elsewhere.

Also, you made the point that people work hard and are rewarded for their efforts. You say that you were "dirt poor" when you were born, and worked hard to be "comfortably well off." I commend you for this, but you and I both realize that this is not common. It is a fools argument to say that all have equal access to these benefits. For example, education is critical in earnings. I don't have the statistics, nor do I care to look them up since I'm sure you'll agree on this point, but a college graduate will earn far more in a lifetime than a high school graduate, who earns far more than his peers who did not complete high school (on average. There are exceptions of course). But tell me how easy it is to go to college when your parents work multiple jobs just to put food on the table, versus a child whose parents pay entirely for college, in addition to providing all other needs to be met during that time period? Or when no one in your family has an education themselves? Or when the high school that you can go to, the public school, is not even an accredited institution? There are many, many other factors that inhibite the impoverished from becoming wealthy, but this is just one.

Lastly, I would pose a question to you. You've conceded that the law of consecration requires an initial (at least) redistribution of wealth, in that all must give up their goods, in order to be reassigned stewardships. How does this fit at all into capitalism?

I find this conversation legitimately fascinating. And, (and this tipping my hand as to just how nerdy I am) I'm reminded of a quote from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which is one of the best strategy games ever created:

Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse.

CEO Nwabudike Morgan
"The Centauri Monopoly"

Specifically the first part. One of the things you learn when you begin a study of economics is that ALL behavior is economic in nature. Resources are limited, and individuals live to establish a specialization (and a subsequent comparative advantage) to acquire what they can of those resources. Everything else is peripheral to that fundamental truth, no matter what label you put on it. If it weren't so, we'd all be making six-figure salaries to watch TV while we eat delicious food, drive Ferraris, and are married to Shakira. Capitalism works, so far, because it accepts this truth.

Cognoscente, you have given me the desire to dig out my Alpha Centauri game and play it again. Kudos.

Have fun kicking Chairman Yang's ass.

"Please don't go. The Drones need you. They look up to you."