#56108 Government programs to help the poor

[Marduk]

Hey Bismark, thanks for contributing. It is always nice when someone interjects into a conversation with something valid to say.

By the way, this post is going on to page 3.

[bismark]

finally. snarkiness noted.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

finally. snarkiness noted.

bimark, if I was a girl, and you weren't already engaged, then I would so marry you.

[Marduk]

ANYWAYS, back on topic.

Vorpal, this may surprise you, but I agree with most of what you've said. My intent isn't necessarily a criticism of capitalism in general, it is a criticism of the attitude that capitalism is right for everyone everywhere always. As much as I dislike socialism and communism, they are sometimes the right answer for specific issues. As much as I like Marxism, it sometimes isn't the right answer for some people at some times. And as much as unfettered capitalism has caused a lot of harm to a lot of people, it has also been beneficial in many ways.

As far as the specific issue, yes, the governments who made those deals were at least partly to blame. They were corrupt and shiftless, and looked outside their borders for quick fixes to economic problems, rather than take the effort to repair their own infrastructures. Yes, the American corporations were to blame. They engaged in, frankly, racist behavior in their hiring and employment practices, and the indigent people were forced to accept it, since they had neither other employment options nor the financial wherewithall to create their own alternatives. Yes, the American government was to blame for interfering into local politics where it had no place to do so. It certainly is not the responsibility of the United States government to protect with subterfuge and military might private companies' foreign interests. Were all these things fixed, the problem would be far more insignificant, if it had existed at all.

But last of all, capitalism was also to blame. It allowed for companies to pay far less than fair value for land and resources, both natural and human. It allowed for practices that were not sustainable, under the guise that it was profitable in the short run. I have no issue with a government that restricts the environmental impact a company is allowed to have, as well as requiring that it pay fair wages and engage in business practices that are sound both in the short and long run. Remember Vorpal, when capitalism is not checked, or rather, when the human greed of capitalism is unchecked, it isn't the intelligent, well trained, capable individuals who feel the pinch. It is the uneducated, the impoverished, the minorities.

[vorpal blade]

The constitution and subsequent government of this country were designed by men. They were inspired by God, and insofar as they are and were inspired, they are good. But it is certainly far from perfect, as I'm sure you'd agree.

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

I understand this verse of the Doctrine and Covenants to mean that God designed the Constitution of this land.

God would not be a perfect Being if he had established something by the hands of wise men whom he raised up unto this very purpose that was less than perfect.

I believe the Constitution was as perfect as it could be when it was written. The disregard for our Constitution that we have seen in the last century or so has made our current government far less perfect than it was, and a return to constitutional principles would make our government far better.

[vorpal blade]

My intent isn't necessarily a criticism of capitalism in general, it is a criticism of the attitude that capitalism is right for everyone everywhere always. As much as I dislike socialism and communism, they are sometimes the right answer for specific issues. As much as I like Marxism, it sometimes isn't the right answer for some people at some times. And as much as unfettered capitalism has caused a lot of harm to a lot of people, it has also been beneficial in many ways.

And my opinion is that capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production, is a righteous principle that is always right for everyone everywhere. I don't believe socialism, communism, or Marxism are ever the right answer to government or economic problems. I think socialism, communism, and Marxism are governmental systems as well as economic systems, and these systems are in conflict with the only Constitution I know of established by the Lord.

[vorpal blade]

But last of all, capitalism was also to blame. It allowed for companies to pay far less than fair value for land and resources, both natural and human. It allowed for practices that were not sustainable, under the guise that it was profitable in the short run. I have no issue with a government that restricts the environmental impact a company is allowed to have, as well as requiring that it pay fair wages and engage in business practices that are sound both in the short and long run. Remember Vorpal, when capitalism is not checked, or rather, when the human greed of capitalism is unchecked, it isn't the intelligent, well trained, capable individuals who feel the pinch. It is the uneducated, the impoverished, the minorities.

It was not capitalism to be blamed. Every form of government can be criticized for paying far less than fair value for land and resources. I believe this is more of a problem in socialist and communist countries than in capitalist countries. I also believe that with American capitalistic companies the people were paid far more than they were earning before the Americans entered the country. I think examples of exploiting the land are far fewer under capitalism than under every other economic or government system.

I don't think you and I can sit back and determine what is a fair wage.

I agree that human nature must be checked or else it is the disadvantaged who suffer most. And I believe that states that foster capitalism are much better at checking human nature, or human greed, than socialist or communist countries have ever been. The communist nations have been the worst polluters, the worst exploiters of the nation's resources, the worst in record of paying slave wages, the worst in expropriating and the worst in unsustainable economic development. That is because those at the top have had no controls to check the worst of human nature. And these systems foster the worst to rise to the top.

[Marduk]

Your fervor is appreciated, but I think a bit misdirected. We need to keep in mind that we as humans are always playing between ideals. No system has ostensibly ever been "capitalist" or "communist" or "Marxist". These are merely abstracts intended to illustrate ideals. The invective language used to attack a system which has never actually existed is (although understandably so) intransigent at best.

But let's look more closely at some of your conflicting arguments. You claim that God designed the constitution, and then say it was as perfect as it could be when it was written. You attack God's perfection, or at least, attach it to the percieved perfection of the constitution. This begs the question, can God create or ordain a system that is less than perfect? The answer to this is without question, yes. I think you'd agree that a characteristic of a perfect principle or law is that it is unchanging. God's law has changed many times, however. Time and time again, we have seen imperfect systems, instituted by a perfect being, through imperfect men, for imperfect men. The only constant has been God. Remember that the constitution, although brought about by God for his purposes, was not only brought about through imperfect men, but they were also men of almost no understanding of the nature of God, heaven, or the eternities. Our constitution, although brilliant in language, and all but unprecedented in terms of bringing earthly governments closer to heavenly standards, is not scripture, nor should it be seen as such. It, like any other document or corresponding system created by man's hand, is a temporary solution.

Next, you claim that socialism, communism, and Marxism are all governmental systems. While this is at odds with how almost all scholars have looked at and studied them, and you have yet to provide a backing for why you see it this way (which, again, the onus is yours, as you are the one disagreeing with the categorization as has been generally accepted), the most glaring flaw is that you continually cast capitalism as being necessarily free from governmental restraints. Your argument, as I see it, is that capitalism is ownership as it exists free from governmental restraints, and all other systems involve governmental restraints on ownership. This argument has two fatal flaws. The first, and more obvious, is a critical misunderstanding of Marxism as it is defined. Marxism means that the people, not the government, own the means of production. It is in essence a democratizing of the more plutocratic capitalism. I suppose this can be overcome by arguing that Marxism is overly idealistic, and that it has never existed in society. The second, and more devastating flaw, is that ownership by nature of the definition requires governmental restraint. Go back and re-read Locke. The concept of someone "owning" anything is one created by our governance, and hence must have governmental backing. Since ownership is inherently a man-made concept, it requires us to have deeds, bills of purchase, exchanges based on intermediary sources, and all sorts of structural contigencies that just would not exist without an overarching government.

I'll wait for your response to these two before offering others.

[vorpal blade]

Since definitions of the terms I am using seem to be in question, let me post the dictionary definitions. I did not create these definitions; they are the ones I find in the dictionary (http://www.onelook.com/). Where a word has more than one meaning I have selected the definitions I am using.

socialism
Noun: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
Noun: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

political
Adjective: involving or characteristic of politics or parties or politicians (“Calling a meeting is a political act in itself – Daniel Goleman”)
Adjective: of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power (“Political opinions”)
Adjective: of or relating to the profession of governing (“Political career”)

state
Noun: a politically organized body of people under a single government (“The state has elected a new president”)
Noun: the group of people comprising the government of a sovereign state (“The state has lowered its income tax”)

ownership
Noun: the act of having and controlling property

communism
Noun: a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society
Noun: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

collectivism
Noun: a political theory that the people should own the means of production
Noun: Soviet communism

Maxism
Noun: the economic and political theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that hold that human actions and institutions are economically determined and that class struggle is needed to create historical change and that capitalism will ultimately be superseded by communism

capitalism
Noun: an economic system based on private ownership of capital

government
Noun: the act of governing; exercising authority (“He had considerable experience of government”)
Noun: (government) the system or form by which a community or other political unit is governed (“Tyrannical government”)
Noun: the organization that is the governing authority of a political unit (“The government reduced taxes”)

The words socialism, communism, Marxism, and capitalism need not apply in a pure or ideal condition to any real state, nation, or government in order for us to use the words. We can apply the words to characteristics of any system which meets the definitional requirements.

As you can see socialism, by definition, cannot exist among any group of people without the existence of a state, since the state owns the capital. A state is a form of government, by definition. This is what I mean when I say socialism is both an economic system and a governmental system.

Communism, by definition, is either a form of socialism, which as we have seen requires a certain form of government, or it is a political theory favoring collectivism. As a political theory it is a governmental system, by definition of “political.” In addition, collectivism is a political theory, and therefore a governmental system. Also, collectivism says that people should own the means of production. This cannot mean that the individuals privately own the means of production, because that would be capitalism and not collectivism. What it means is that the people, as a group, own the means of production. Now, whenever a group owns things in common there must be some form of government, or else there is no authority to control the property, which leads to chaos. There has to be rules and laws governing the use of the property held by the collective. Therefore communism cannot exist without an accompanying governmental system of a particular type. This is what I mean by communism is both an economic system and a governmental system.

Marxism, by definition, is an economic and political theory, and therefore cannot exist in reality without a certain kind of governmental system. Furthermore, by definition, Marxism leads to communism, which we have seen cannot exist without chaos unless a governmental system supports it. Your definition of Marxism is what the dictionary calls collectivism, with your addition that the government does not own the property. However, as we have seen by definitions, it is meaningless to say that the government does not own the property, the people do, because the government is “the people,” by whatever governmental process is used to determine the control of the people’s property.

In practice what it means when you say “the people own the property” is that you either have the tyranny of mob rule—where two wolves and a sheep sit down to decide what to eat for lunch—or you have a dictator who arises to form a totalitarian state pretending to represent the general rule of the people. However, even in the ideal case Marxism is either identical to capitalism, where the property is privately owned, or capital is not owned privately, but is controlled by some form of government. And if the authority to control the property rests with the government, then by definition of ownership the government owns the property.

Capitalism, on the other hand, has nothing in the definition concerning a political theory or nature. It is purely an economic system. It can exist without any form of government because the decision making power of how to use capital rests solely with the individuals who privately own the capital. This country was founded on the idea that government does not grant rights to individuals, God gives those rights. Ownership is not a concept created by government; it is as old as Adam, and was divinely established in the beginning, as recorded in Genesis chapter 1, and elsewhere, as you know.

The role of government, according to the principles in our Constitution as established by God himself, is to help protect and safeguard these God-given rights, including the right of ownership of property. The government helps protect and maintain that right in some cases by recording deeds and bills of purchase and other proof of ownership. However, in many cases the right of ownership is legally established merely on the basis of a long history of control over the property. It is not that our government grants us ownership in any way. Ownership requires no government backing, and ownership does not by definition require government restraint. This is part of the reason that our Constitution established by God is in conflict with governmental systems compatible with socialism, communism, or Marxism.

In some countries with a totalitarian history governments have unrighteously usurped the God-given right of the people to own private property. In these governments it might be that you have no legal right of ownership unless specifically granted by the king or ruler. But in our country we have recognized a higher source to the right of private ownership, that granted by God which cannot be justly taken away from us without due process.

Governments do have the right to restrict your usage of private property so as to prevent your harming your neighbors, but this does not follow from the definition of ownership. It follows from the rights of individuals to be protected from harm; in other words to their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Governments also have a right to a portion of your property to support the necessary and required functions of government, as outlined in the Constitution. Government does not have the moral right to take our property for other purposes, though other governments, not our own, may have a legal right.

In conclusion, I am using the standard, common definitions of the words socialism, communism, Marxism, and capitalism. The burden of proof is on you to show why these definitions should not be accepted. I do not say that capitalism is necessarily free of governmental restraints, I say that capitalism is the only system we are discussing which does not require a governmental system for its existence. Governments are necessary when people live in proximity to each other, and all governmental systems require restraints on ownership in order to assure the rights of all individuals in the system.

Now, let me discuss God’s establishing the Constitution, or establishing anything else, for that matter.

Everything God reveals is perfect. Everything God establishes is perfect. By this I mean that it is built upon eternal, true principles and applied flawlessly to a particular situation. God works with imperfect individuals, and these individuals may misinterpret God’s revelations, or misuse the system God has established.

Furthermore God will establish rules, laws, and practices that are perfectly suited to the imperfect people and time when he establishes it. The principles will not change, but the practices may change. The system will be perfect, but change with time. As an example, God may reveal at a certain time that only married men may hold the priesthood, and if he established that then the system would be perfect for the time and circumstances, which God perfectly understands. Later the situation may change, and God might reveal that boys as young as twelve years old may hold the Aaronic priesthood. If God did that, it would be perfect for the new situation. A perfect system, changing to meet changing conditions, but with unchanging eternal principles. As we evolve the practices of the system evolves with us. However, uninspired changes to, or uninspired interpretations of the Constitution are harmful to the people. Our government has become increasingly more socialistic contrary to the eternal principles found in the Constitution of our land.

I strongly affirm that the framers of our Constitution had a great deal of understanding of the nature of God, heaven, and the eternities. I wish that I could say as much for all members of the LDS church. Some of the framers may not have been believers in any of the false churches of their day, but they were righteous and God-fearing men. You say that the Constitution was created by man’s hand, and I say that that is in contradiction to what the scriptures say.

[Marduk]

Before I begin, let me first say kudos for your two wolves and sheep analogy. It made me genuinely laugh. I'm reminded of the boston massacre, and what almost happened were it not for John Adams' intervention. I would say more on this particular analogy, and where it is apt, but since we would disagree on that, and it only bears marginally on the conversation at hand, I'll leave it be.

Let me also take this opportunity to thank you for continuing to have this discussion with me. You and I have many disagreements, some doctrinally based, others not so much, but since we both firmly believe in allowing the discussion to continue unrestricted by malice or arrogance, it, for the most part, has happened in that manner. Thanks again. Civilized dispute seems to be an art that is all but lost.

Now, on with the show. Based on the definitions that you have given me (which I disagree with, for the record, but I agree with them enough for our purposes here for the moment), you come to the conclusion that capitalism can exist independently of a state, but that no other form can. You do this by saying that, as socialism is ownership by the state, it requires a state, which is true. However, it does not follow what sort of government this will be. It is very possible for a populace to democratically vote that their possessions be collectivized into state hands, for example. I'm not saying this is immoral or moral per se, just that socialism is compatible with many different forms of government. I'm sure you'd agree that this is the case for the other systems as well, so I won't dwell on that point. As to whether there must be "rules and laws (to govern) the use of the property held by the collective", as you say, I agree. But that is the same in any company now, these rules and laws are just given from the top down, as opposed to more democratically. We would do well here to remember that man has only those rights which he can defend. Let me give an example.

What is property? I go to the store and I purchase a chair. I now say that I own that chair. Why? Because I bought it with money that I earned. Let's look at those concepts. Did I make the chair? Did I grow the component parts out of the earth? No, I didn't do either of these things. Someone, at some point, did, but they did so not under their own name. They did it in the name of one company or another, and the component parts traded hands several times along the way. Did I exchange something of mine for the chair? Sure, in a way. But currency is meaningless without a backing body, in this case, the United States government. Was that currency mine? Again, in a way. I exchanged my labor to some company for that currency. If we go to the roots of all physical production, which is what we're talking about here (I won't even get in to the term of intellectual property, because then I'll be typing all night), it goes back to land (or water, but let's not get picky). At some point, someone harvested raw materials from the earth. These were then shaped, combined, and processed in many numbers of ways, costing many man-hours of production. So we can value any particular product based on those two concepts: the raw material and the time to process it. But who owns the land?

Someone bought it from someone else for said currency, on down the line. If we move up the chain, invariably someone owned the land because they either got there first and claimed it, or else they killed or fought the owners for it. Or, looking from the beginning forward, God first gave Adam the earth for his inheritance. This is all well and good until more than one person lived on the earth. After that, it became unclear who owned what. So whereas the concept of ownership is a divinely given one, to say that ownership in a capitalist sense is so done requires a bit more contorting of scripture.

Let's, for our purposes here, separate the concept of communism and socialism. I know you don't like this, but it makes more sense to do so. We'll keep the concept of socialism as state ownership of property, and define communism using the first definition you provided, namely, a political theory that the people should own the means of production. Communism, therefore, can exist free of the state per se, since it is ownership in collective, as opposed to in state. We can see this quite readily even in capitalism. Say my brother and I are both auto mechanics in our spare time, so we buy a little shop together. We would communally own this shop, not with one of us over the other, but both having equal say and right in what happens. Now let's say this shop gets to be a bit much for us to manage, so we bring in a third brother to help us with, say, the accounting. Now, we're all brothers, so we listen to each other's words and give them weight just as we would our own. No one of the three is above another, even though each have different responsibilities. We've liked the way this worked, so we brought on a few more individuals, outside of the family now, to help us with our growing shop. Each of them has equal weight and importance, despite performing different tasks. We each have an interest in seeing our little shop grow, as any profits are handled with everyone's input. Guess what? We have a communist auto repair shop.

Remember that communism doesn't dictate that all property be collectivized, just the means of production, and even these only need be done within specific industries and groups. If we have an automobile (because apparently I'm using car examples today) factory, collectivizing it means that those decisions and production are split and decided evenly by everyone in that factory, as opposed to by a board or CEO. Those individuals would still own their own homes, cars, clothes, etc. They may even, depending on their local government, still be responsible to pay for everything; e.g., no socialized medicine. I hope this little example clears up some of our definitions.

Now, as to the second part. Our founding fathers were honorable men, certainly. They were even God fearing, as far as they understood who (or what) God was. But we cannot say they had more understanding of him than we presently have. To do so is to ignore close to 200 years of revelation. Any individual who is familiar with Joseph Smith's vision has far more understanding of God than any of our founding fathers. Were it not so, there would have been no need for a restoration.

Using your own definition, if our constitution is perfect, it must be malleable and change with the changing times and circumstances. Just as our own church operates far differently now than it did in 1830, so many changes have to be made to the constitution, and the way in which we interpret it. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the “it isn't in the constitution, so it shouldn't happen” defense. If this were the case, women and blacks could not own property or vote, we would have no freedom of speech or right to bear arms (or freedom of religion for that matter), Franklin Roosevelt would probably still be president somehow, the list goes on and on. (Or perhaps you'd like to make the defense that only the first ten amendments were valid? Because the only moral congress we have had was the first one?)

And I stand by saying that the constitution was established by the hand of man. These men, although inspired, were not prophets. The constitution is not scripture. And this is fully in accordance with everything that our canonized scripture says, and to say otherwise is ignoring modern revelation.

[vorpal blade]

I hope you won’t enjoy any less the analogy of the wolves and sheep when I tell you I heard it on the Glenn Beck show.

What I said before was “capitalism is the only system we are discussing which does not require a governmental system for its existence.” This is quite different from “capitalism can exist independently of a state, but that no other form can.” Small-scale communism can exist independently in a tolerant overarching state, but it will still require some kind of local level of rules and regulations to govern the members of the commune, which constitutes a government on a level lower than the state in which the commune exists. In capitalism an individual does not require a committee, or governmental system, to decide what to do with personal property.

Regarding your example of a “communist” auto shop. Your example of a small scale government is created by capitalist methods, and is really nothing more that a capitalist corporation where everyone in the corporation is a full partner and on the board of directors. Are you saying that communism is nothing more than a subset of capitalism? Just a special case? Is communism just “smiley-face” capitalism?

This situation becomes more complex when we move it from a small group of people who have no differences of opinion--where the question of ownership doesn't come into play--to a wider situation. There will have to be more laws and regulations and much more restrictions on individual liberty. By the way, what do you do if the other members of your “communist” auto shop decide to kick you and your brothers out of the shop, without compensation for all the hard work and capital you have invested, and run the shop by themselves?

I have a hard time understanding the distinction you are trying to make between collectivized property and privately owned property. Any property, including your house, car, clothing, etc. can be used as a means of production. Can you give me a source where Karl Marx made the distinction you are talking about?


God designed the Constitution to be amendable for a good reason. Changes do need to be made as time goes on. But we must be careful to make only inspired changes, while not changing the just and holy principles upon which the Constitution is based. I’ve started reading a very interesting book which I highly recommend. It is called Just and Holy Principles, Latter-Day Saint Readings on America and the Constitution, edited by Ralph C. Hancock, 1998. It consists of essays written by Church leaders, many of whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Here is an interesting paragraph taken from the editor’s Introduction:

We have noted that LDS teaching about the wisdom of the Founding readily acknowledges that it was both conditioned by the past and open to the future. Still, there can be no question of completely reducing the Constitution to its historical conditions or of making it indefinitely open to re-interpretation. If the document framed in 1787 remains a touchstone today, this is because, in some admittedly imperfect way, it aims at “the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles” (D&C 101:77). Thus J. Reuben Clark, though ever alert to the developmental character of the Constitution, emphatically warned the Saints in 1938 against the dangers of the new State, declaring that the “Great Fundamentals” must not be abandoned (p. 100, 101). Similarly, Levi Edgar Young had warned in 1937 that even small changes made in the name of “progress” might undermine constitutional liberties. President Heber J. Grant pleaded with members in 1944 never to depart from the inspired Constitution. And President David O. McKay affirmed plainly that “there are some fundamental principles of this republic which, like eternal truths, never get out of date…Such are the underlying principles of the Constitution.”

[Marduk]

No, I don't enjoy it any less. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Glenn Beck is very charismatic and well spoken. It often makes me laugh when folks count Obama's charisma against him, and then venerate Glenn Beck, who, in my opinion, is just as charismatic. When did being charismatic and an orator become a bad thing? (Sorry for that comment. It is getting a bit far afield, and we're far enough afield as it is)

As far as the constitution is concerned, I think our perspectives are actually fairly close. It is easy to speak in caveats, as both of us are well given to do. But when it comes down to it, we aren't disagreeing that it was established by the hand of God, or that it is based on eternal principles. We also aren't disagreeing that it isn't without fault, and requires that it change to meet the needs of a growing and changing populace, while remaining true to correct principles. What we are disagreeing about is just what those principles are, and, (unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) we as mortals our forced to live our lives in margins that are not clearly defined. We are required to come to conclusions based on our own study and communion with the spirit, and while both of us disagree with the conclusions that the other has come to, it resolves nothing, and is also inaccurate, to impugn the method or character. (not that I'm accusing you of either, just that it bears mentioning)

As far as Marx is concerned, my interpretations are just that, interpretations. Few authors have laid foundation to as many different schools of thought as he has. For better or worse, he sparked intense thought and rhetoric by detractors, supporters, and everyone in between. Let me at least attempt to show where I'm coming from, and hopefully you'll see it at least as a plausible conclusion, if not necessarily the one you take.

Marx talking about a proletariat revolution, taking the means of production from the bourgeoisie. While he suggested this as a Hegelian inevitability, he remained intentionally unclear as to what form this would take. Trotsky's "permanent revolution" split with Stalinist thought insofar as Stalin suggested that an intermediary capitalist evolution needed to happen in underdeveloped countries, or "two-stage theory". Trotsky suggested that "permanent revolution" needed to take place, which means, at least in use by Trotsky, more of a global revolution that encompassed both developed and underdeveloped nations. These theories can further by categorized (although still incomplete in describing Marxist thought) by the means used to evolve. Two-stage theory seems much more accepting of gradual change (although that isn't how it has evolved in practice; most two-stage theorists, or rather, most who were revolutionary in character rather than just ideal, although that's an in depth idea that is far to involved to do more than just mention here, believed in bringing about capitalism through military force. This is actually what Stalin's goal was; here, I'm borrowing heavily from left communist ideology, but as we've discussed, and I'll go further into detail if this is something that interests you, he created essentially state-capitalism, which is much closer to socialism than actual communism. Wow, that was quite the in-depth parenthetical interruption. I hope that I was clear.) Utilizing left communist theory to a limited extent, and leaning almost completely on anarcho-communist theory (which is a movement either within, or having close ties to left communism, depending on who you ask) there is an ideology which advocates the use of non-violent means to achieve gradual change; these advocates suggest things such as labor unions. Lech Walesa's work can be taken in view of this; in many ways his work was much more communist than Stalin's, and hence at odds with it. We can carry this school of thought to a conclusion that, although grossly oversimplified, can be seen as hundreds of mini-revolutions, within individual industries, factories and companies as opposed to a collective revolution. This theory is reluctant at best, contrary at worst, to accept a total collectivization of all property. Hopefully this is evident with the way I've explained it, if not, I can explain it further, but this explanation is wordy already, and I'd like to not give a deluge of communist theory if I can avoid it.

My example, although abstracted to the point of losing a lot of meaning, (and, it goes without saying, but overly simplistic) was intended to illustrate this sort of movement. Because collectivization takes place in various industries and workplaces, it never has the reach (at least, not by force of ideal, there have been some who have suggested that once these improvements happen in industry, it will have a spill-over effect into every day life, but I'm not suggesting that. It is of tangential importance anyway.) to affect our day to day affairs; that is to say, no one has any interest in how the affairs of your house are performed, except the members of that house. The reason it happens within a given factory, however, is because those line workers do have a vested interest in the affairs of that factory.

I hope this illustrates why my conjecture is one possible ends to the scenario that Marx described. I don't claim it to be the only solution to what Marx described as an inevitability, merely that it is one of many.

[vorpal blade]

My purpose in questioning the “communist” auto shop is that a lot of ideas sound good in theory but fail in practice. I think what would happen if capitalism were allowed to freely compete with your collectivized industries and workplaces then people would choose capitalism as being more rewarding and better at protecting their private interests. The devil is in the details, as they say. Not that the devil is behind communism…well, actually, a lot of folks think that. I understand being young and idealistic, I was once so myself. Now I understand that there is wisdom, often unarticulated, in long-standing customs and laws. In particular there is great wisdom in the revealed principles of the Constitution, which is not studied enough these days.

There have been many attempts in the past to establish the ideals of communism. These communes have lasted only a little while before falling apart. When a strong religion holds the people together the collectivism lasts a little longer. Sometimes brute force has been used to make the people conform to communism, and I believe that is immoral. Sometimes people can abandon correct principles and voters, or at least a majority of those voting at a particular time, might give away some of their rights and privileges for the sake of security. For a mess of pottage. That is what I am worried about happening in our country. That is what I see happening little by little in our country.

Unless you believe that your own wisdom is greater than that of all the prophets, I think there is value in studying what the prophets have said about the great principles in our Constitution. Ultimately “[w]e are required to come to conclusions based on our own study and communion with the spirit,” yet we fortunately do have the words of the prophets to guide us in the study of the Constitution. I’d like to present what the prophets have said in subsequent posts.

We might possibly be gaining an understanding of what the other is saying; when you state where we are in agreement, I don’t disagree with you as much as I did before.

[vorpal blade]

Here are some excerpts from President Ezra Taft Benson regarding our Constitution. I put in bold some statements that seem particularly appropriate for this discussion, although both talks should be read in their entirety.

The first comes from a General Conference talk given In October 1961.

It is time, therefore, that every American, and especially every member of the priesthood became informed about the aims, tactics, and schemes of socialistic-communism. This becomes particularly important when it is realized that communism is turning out to be the earthly image of the plan which Satan presented in the pre-existence. The whole program of socialistic-communism is essentially a war against God and the plan of salvation—the very plan which we fought to uphold during “the war in heaven.”

Up to now some members of the Church have stood aloof, feeling that the fight against socialistic-communism is “controversial” and unrelated to the mission of the Church or the work of the Lord. But the President of the Church in our day has made it clear that the fight against atheistic communism is a major challenge to the Church and every member of it...

The fight against godless communism is a very real part of every man's duty who holds the priesthood. It is the fight against slavery, immorality, atheism, terrorism, cruelty, barbarism, deceit, and the destruction of human life through a kind of tyranny unsurpassed by anything in human history. Here is a struggle against the evil, satanical priestcraft of Lucifer. Truly it can be called, “a continuation of the war in heaven.”

In the war in heaven the devil advocated absolute eternal security at the sacrifice of our freedom. Although there is nothing more desirable to a Latter-day Saint than eternal security in God's presence, and although God knew, as did we, that some of us would not achieve this security if we were allowed our freedom—yet the very God of heaven, who has more mercy than us all, still decreed no guaranteed security except by a man's own freedom of choice and individual initiative.

Today the devil as a wolf in a supposedly new suit of sheep's clothing is enticing some men, both in and out of the Church, to parrot his line by advocating planned government guaranteed security programs at the expense of our liberties. Latter-day Saints should be reminded how and why they voted as they did in heaven. If some have decided to change their vote they should repent—throw their support on the side of freedom—and cease promoting this subversion.

When all of the trappings of propaganda and pretense have been pulled aside, the exposed hard-core structure of modern communism is amazingly similar to the ancient Book of Mormon record of secret societies such as the Gadiantons.

What is the official position of the Church on communism? In 1936 the First Presidency made an official declaration on communism which has never been abrogated. I quote the concluding paragraph:
“We call upon all Church members completely to eschew communism. The safety of our divinely inspired constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that communism shall have no place in America.”

We must every keep in mind that collectivized socialism is part of the communist strategy. Communism is fundamentally socialism.

Communism and socialism, closely related, must be defeated on principle.

It is significant that 118 years ago the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism, made this official entry in Church history: “I said I did not believe the doctrine.” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p.33)

No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction. These evil philosophies are incompatible with Mormonism, the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

What can priesthood holders do? There are many things we can do to meet the challenge of the adversary in our day:

We should know why paternalism, collectivism, or unnecessary federal supervision will hold our standard of living down and reduce productivity just as it has in every country where it has been tried. We should also know why the communist leaders consider socialism the highroad to communism.

Second, we should accept the command of the Lord and treat socialistic-communism as the tool of Satan. We should follow the counsel of the President of the Church and resist the influence and policies of the socialistic-communist conspiracy wherever they are found—in the schools, in the churches, in government, in unions, in businesses, in agriculture.

[vorpal blade]

The second talk from President Ezra Taft Benson was given on September 16, 1986. Some of his words at that occassion.

To understand the significance of the Constitution, we must first understand some basic, eternal principles. These principles have their beginning in the pre-mortal councils of heaven.

THE PRINCIPLE OF AGENCY

The war that began in heaven over this issue is not yet over. The conflict continues on the battlefield of mortality. And one of Lucifer's primary strategies has been to restrict our agency through the power of earthly governments.

THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man: and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them....

believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life....

believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rigts by the laws of such governments. [D&C 134:1-2, 5]

In other words, the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.

THE SOURCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The third important principle pertains to the source of basic human rights. Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise. We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

PEOPLE ARE SUPERIOR TO GOVERNMENTS

The fourth basic principle we must understand is that people are superior to the governments they form.

GOVERNMENTS SHOULD HAVE LIMITED POWERS

The fifth and final principle that is basic to our understanding of the Constitution is that governments should have limited powers. The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess.

By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by the people. No individual possesses the power to take another's wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either. The creature cannot exceed the creator.

MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE DOCUMENT

Sovereignty of the People

First: Sovereignty lies in the people themselves. Every governmental system has a sovereign, one or several who posses all the executive, legislative, and judicial powers. That sovereign may be an individual, a group, or the people themselves. The Founding Fathers believed in common law, which holds that true sovereignty rests with the people.

Separation of Powers

Second: To safeguard these rights, the Founding Fathers provided for the separation of powers among the three branches of government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.

The use of checks and balances was deliberately designed, first, to make it difficult for a minority of the people to control the government, and second, to place restraint on the government itself.

Limited Powers of Governmental

Third: The powers the people granted to the three branches of government were specifically limited. The Founding Fathers well understood human nature and its tendency to exercise unrighteous dominion when given authority. A constitution was therefore designed to limit government to certain enumerated functions, beyond which was tyranny.

The Principle of Representation

Fourth: Our constitutional government is based on the principle of representation. The principle of representation means that we have delegated to an elected official the power to represent us. The Constitution provides for both direct representation and indirect representation. Both forms of representation provide a tempering influence on pure democracy. The intent was to protect the individual's and the minority's rights to life, liberty, and the fruits of their labors—property. These rights were not to be subject to majority vote.

A Moral and Righteous People

Fifth: The Constitution was designed to work with only a moral and righteous people.

The Crisis of Our Constitutional

At this bicentennial celebration we must, with sadness, say that we have not been wise in keeping the trust of our Founding Fathers. For the past two centuries, those who do not prize freedom have chipped away at every major clause of our Constitution until today we face a crisis of great dimensions.

The Need to Prepare

1. We must be righteous and moral. We must live the gospel principles—all of them. We have no right to expect a higher degree of morality from those who represent us than what we ourselves are. To live a higher law means we will not seek to receive what we have not earned by our own labor. It means we will remember that government owes us nothing. It means we will keep the laws of the land. It means we will look to God as our Lawgiver and the source of our liberty.
2. We must learn the principles of the Constitution and then abide by its precepts. Have we read the Constitution and pondered it? Are we aware of its principles? Could we defend it? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? The Church will not tell us how to do this, but we are admonished to do it.
3. We must become involved in civic affairs.
4. We must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, and our advice. We must be wisely informed and let others know how we feel. We must take part in local precinct meetings and select delegates who will truly represent our feelings. I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. But it will not be saved in Washington. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—men and women who will subscribe to and abide by the principles of the Constitution.

[Marduk]

Words from a prophet. Words perhaps more relevant now, in some ways, than at the time which they were given. When it seems we are willing to give every freedom in the name of security. One need look no further than the patriot (how inappropriately named) act, our detaining of men without even accusing them of crimes, our willingness to kill and torture anyone if it means we feel a measure more of security. I agree with almost all of those two talks.

Let me point out a few key points. First, I'd like to point out that the first talk is dated from a time when President Benson was not yet president of the church. A nitpicky detail, perhaps, but remember that when anyone except the prophet says things that are not found within other revealed works, we may take it as personal opinion. Even so, I agree with almost all of what he said. Or, I agree with all of what he said, I would just change slightly the way he said it.

First, it certainly is key that he refers again and again to it being "godless" and "atheistic". We can certainly see these as principles that fight against our very nature, as children of God. Anything that says otherwise is evil, insofar as it says it. But certainly communism isn't godless per se, although it has been so with many present-day examples. Second, he refers to "socialistic-communism", saying that "communism is fundamentally socialism". That is a very broad statement to make, but certainly with the examples he had at his disposal, it was the case. I've offered a different term for this, I've called it "state capitalism". In reality they are both the same thing. I hope I've shown you why some communism is socialist, but not all of it is.

I would offer an analogy here, and I hope you'll indulge me and stay with me through it. It may sound inaccurate at first. Socialism is evil in the same respect that the law of Moses is evil. What I mean is, socialism is a lower principle than other economic principles. It certainly is not the worst economic system, but regressing to it would be akin to choosing to live the law of Moses when we have been given the law of Christ. But what about those who don't have the law of Christ, or any law? Certainly moving to the law of Moses is a step up, albeit a temporary one. (Of course, this analogy fails to address the fact that at certain times, people have been commanded to keep respective laws, and that has superseded all else. But even in the time of Moses, those who understood principles of the law of Christ were allowed to live it.)

I would question exactly what is meant by supporting policies that lead in the direction of socialism and communism, or that “the government owes us nothing.” Powerful words, but I think overly dichotomistic. We wouldn't presume to depend on the government for everything we need. But we certainly feel it owes us some things. A military capable of defense, roads for community use, a legal system to protect our liberties, to name a few. These provisions are clearly spelled out in the constitution. It isn't that some would draw a line on these and others wouldn't, it is a question of where that line is drawn.

I would agree that any attack on our agency is one of the most perfidious attacks in Satan's arsenal. But any law that puts provisos on our actions does not curtail agency. We are familiar with (hence I wont belabor) the idea that agency cannot exist without law, and I'm sure we can all acquiesce to the truth of it. Remember that agency requires us to submit our will to Him in order for it to be maintained. Any submission to any lesser source, including a government founded on moral principles, is wholly inadequate to maintain agency.

In short, what I would suggest is that communism that offers a substitute for Christ or agency is flawed insofar as it does this. But certainly there is a humanism in much Marxism that needs to be recognized for what it is, and that is a genuine concern and care for our neighbors. A group of individuals who choose to worship God and choose to collectivize their means for production is one of the most noble and moral ways one could live their life.

[vorpal blade]

I’m glad that we both reverence the words of the prophets. I understand the difference between the words of an apostle and the words of the President of the Church, but I don’t think we can lightly dismiss the words of an apostle as mere “personal opinion.” Remember, we sustain the apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

President Benson was well known for referring to the godless and atheistic aspects of communism, which are great evils, but he also refers to many other evil aspects of socialism and communism. President Benson understood the fundamental nature of communism, not just modern examples of it. I agree that many communist countries have instituted a form of “state capitalism,” which is a form of socialism, but I believe President Benson is pointing to the fact that this statism is fundamental to communism in a practical realization of it.

I understand your analogy. But President Benson would say that our Constitution is the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised, and yet this is likened to the Law of Moses. President Benson would not have called the Law of Moses an evil system. Clearly President Benson saw socialism as going in the wrong direction, away from the higher law of our Constitution. I grew up listening to President Benson talk, and I had occasions to talk to him privately. I can assure you that President Benson thought socialism was evil because of the negative effects it had, and not for its limitations.

President Benson believed that the government only owed us what we had given to the Constitution with limited powers. Certainly “By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will.” I think he was clear as to what he meant about the government not owing us anything.

I don’t know what you mean by saying that agency cannot exist without law.

I believe that President Benson would say that what you see as the “humanism” of Marxism is actually the heart of the United Order, but Marxism is merely Satan’s counterfeit of the United Order. In the United Order we have love and concern for our fellowmen, and wish to share with the less fortunate our blessings. That is a good impulse. A noble and moral impulse. But in practice you need the political structure of the Constitution to protect you from exploitation and subjugation if you try to practice collectivism. I believe that is inherent in President Benson’s wisdom. I see Marxism as dangling aspects of the law of Consecration, but mixing it with false and damaging principles.

To better illustrate my comments I will post another talk by President Benson. Yes, I realize he was not the President of the Church when he gave this talk at BYU in 1977.

[vorpal blade]

I put certain words in bold.

A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion
EZRA TAFT BENSON
________________________________________
Ezra Taft Benson was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this devotional
address was given at�Brigham Young University on 12 April 1977.
© Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.
Complete volumes of Speeches are available wherever LDS books are sold.
For further information contact:
Speeches, 218 University Press Building, Provo, Utah 84602.
(801) 422-2299 / E-mail: [email protected] / Speeches Home Page
________________________________________
My beloved brethren and sisters, humbly and gratefully I stand before you this morning and seek an interest in your faith and prayers that the message that I have may be accompanied by the Spirit. It is a wonderful sight that I view here this morning. It is good to be with you, my beloved young friends, distinguished members of the faculty, and special guests.

My wife and I have just returned from a glorious weekend at St. George, where I had the privilege of addressing three overflow audiences, two in the largest auditorium they have at Dixie College and made up largely of young people, and one on the fourth floor of the temple in a Solemn Assembly. We were honoring the centennial of the dedication of the St. George Temple, the first one to be erected in the western part of the country. We are still basking in the aftermath of another great general conference of the Church. Never in my memory have we had more explicit warnings from prophets of God; and nowhere in the world are there men better prepared or more obligated to issue such warnings.

The Celestial Kingdom

Today I want to discuss some principles and laws of the celestial kingdom, and some of the fallacies of their perverted counterfeits in the world. I share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. The celestial kingdom, residence of God, our Eternal Father, is comprised of men and women who have complied with divine law and who were not deceived by the craftiness of men or the doctrines of devils. They are just men made perfect through the mediation and atonement of Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:69). They are obedient to celestial law; for, as the Lord has said, he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory (D&C 88:22).

Celestial laws, embodied in certain ordinances belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, are complied with by voluntary covenants. The laws are spiritual. Thus, our Father in Heaven has ordained certain holy sanctuaries, called temples, in which these laws may be fully explained, the laws include the law of obedience and sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration.
I want to speak more particularly this morning about this one law--the law of consecration. It is that one's time, talents, strength, property, and money are given up to the Lord for the express purpose of building up the kingdom of God and establishing Zion on the earth. Or, as we read in Doctrine and Covenants 105:5, "Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom."

Much has been written about this law and its attempted implementations in the early history of the Church; and much deception has taken root, even among some of our members, because of misinformed opinion or misguided interpretations. Some view it as merely an economic alternative to capitalism or the free enterprise system, others as an outgrowth of early communal experiments in America. Such a view is not only shortsighted but tends to diminish in importance a binding requirement for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.

The vehicle for implementing the law of consecration is the united order. The basic principle underlying the united order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; and, therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of our property, because it belongs to him. The united order was entered by "a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken" (D&C 42:30), according to the scriptures. In other words, an individual conveys his titles to all his property to the Church through the bishop. The property becomes the property of the Church. You read about this in the forty-second section of the Doctrine and Covenants.
The bishop then deeds back to the consecrator by legal instrument the amount of personal property required by the individual for the support of himself and his family, as the Lord declares, "according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3). This becomes the private, personal property of the individual to develop as he sees fit. It is his stewardship. When an individual produces a profit or surplus more than is needful for the support of himself and his family, the surplus is then placed in the bishops storehouse to administer to the poor and the needy. Under the united order, idleness has no place, and greed, selfishness, and covetousness are condemned. The united order may therefore operate with only a righteous people.

It has been erroneously concluded by some that the united order is both communal and communistic in theory and practice because the revelations speak of equality. Equality under the united order is not economic and social leveling as advocated by some today. Equality, as described by the Lord, is "equal[ity] according to [a man's] family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3).

Is the united order a communal system? Emphatically not. It never has been and never will be. It is "intensely individualistic." Does the united order eliminate private ownership of property? No. "The fundamental principle of this system [is] the private ownership of property" (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1942, p. 57).

Two separate groups of saints have fully implemented this divine law. The first was the united order under Enoch, wherein the Lord designated this people Zion, "because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." We read of this in the seventh chapter, eighteenth verse, of Moses, in the Pearl of Great Price. A second instance was the Nephite civilization following the visit of the Savior to the Western Hemisphere after his resurrection. This is recorded in 4 Nephi, the third verse particularly. The failure of the early Saints in this dispensation to live according to the fulness of the law is explained by the Lord in revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 101 and 105.
I repeat and emphasize that the law of consecration is a law for an inheritance in the celestial kingdom. God, the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and all holy beings abide by this law. It is an eternal law. It is a revelation by God to his Church in this dispensation. Though not in full operation today, it will be mandatory for all Saints to live the law in its fulness to receive celestial inheritance. You young people today abide a portion of this higher law as you tithe, pay a generous fast offering, go on missions, and make other contributions of money, service, and time.

Satan's Counterfeit System

But whenever the God of heaven establishes by revelation his design, Satan always comes among men to pervert the doctrine, saying, "Believe it not." He often establishes a counterfeit system, designed to deceive the children of men. His aim, as it was before the foundation of this earth was laid, is to thwart the agency of man and to subjugate him. Throughout all ages of mankind, the adversary has used human agents and despotic governments to establish his purpose. Satan is determined to destroy all that is dear, all that will ennoble and exalt man to a celestial kingdom.
Isaiah foresaw the time when a marvelous work and a wonder would come forth among men (see Isaiah 29:14). Isaiah also predicted that there would be those that "seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they [shall] say, Who seeth us?" (Isaiah 29:15). He saw the time when the work, man, shall say of him that made him, "He made me not," denying his creation (see Isaiah 29:16). It is well to ask what self-proclaimed atheists came on the human scene following the restoration of the gospel, who established secret works of darkness to overthrow nations by violent revolution and who blasphemously proclaimed the atheistic doctrine that God made us not. Yes, Satan works through human agents. We need only look to some of the ignoble figures in human history who were contemporary to the restoration of the gospel to discover fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. I refer to the infamous founders of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Today, if we are alert, we can see further fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies.

Communism--a System Antithetical to the Gospel of Christ

Through the instigation of Marx and Engels, a most successful counterfeit to the united order was introduced into the world. The declaration of principles found in their Manifesto to the World advocated the overthrow of capitalism and free enterprise, the abolition of private property, the elimination of the family as a social unit, the abolition of all classes, the overthrow of all governments, and the establishment of communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society. All this was to be accomplished by revolution.

On July 3, 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members. I quote it in part; I hope you will get a copy of the full statement for your files. In part, the statement reads:

. . . Communism is not a political party, nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. . . .

Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism.

To our Church members we say, Communism is not the United Order, and bears only the most superficial resemblance thereto. Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action. . . .

Communists cannot establish the United Order, nor will Communism bring it about. . . .

Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a Communist.

We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [and shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.

Signed,
President Heber J. Grant
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay
The First Presidency

You students have only to read some of the speeches and writings of the exiled Russian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to appreciate this farsighted warning of the First Presidency.

I have been on both sides of the Iron Curtain several times. I have talked to these godless leaders face to face. I say to you with all the sincerity of my soul that since 1933 this godless counterfeit to the gospel has made tremendous progress towards its objective of world domination, for over one-third of the human family are now under totalitarian subjugation.

Today we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of men. It is a battle between two opposite systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle today is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom, so called, is that we have got to learn to live with communism, to give up our ideas about national sovereignty. You hear that repeated today. Tell that to the millions--yes, the scores of millions--who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of communism. Learn to live with communism? Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear.

The gospel of Jesus Christ can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom. As members of his Church, we have a major responsibility to do all in our power to see that freedom is preserved and safeguarded. I pray that God will bless you to see communism for what it really is: the greatest system of human slavery that the world has ever known. May you not be deceived into believing that the communists have moderated their goal toward world domination. I say to you that so-called detente is a fraud. Time will prove it to be such.

There is no excuse for any BYU instructor to grant a forum to an avowed communist for the purpose of teaching communism on this campus. It may be done on other campuses in the United States, but it will not be done here.

Socialism--a Philosophy Incompatible with Man's Liberty

Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord's plan is collectivized socialism. Socialism derives its philosophy from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels. Communism in practice is socialism. Its purpose is world socialism, which the communists seek to achieve by revolution, and which the socialists seek to achieve by evolution. Both communism and socialism have the same effect upon the individual--a loss of personal liberty. As was said so well by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "The two are as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties."

Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. So belief in God must be suppressed, and with that gone freedom of conscience and religion must also go. Those are the first of our liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: "I said I did not believe the doctrine" (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33).

Socialism Disguised under Welfare State Measures

As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.

This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. I have recounted here before what took place in the St. George Temple when the Founding Fathers of this nation visited President Wilford Woodruff, who was then a member of the Twelve and not president of the Church. The republic which was established was the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised to lead men toward celestial principles. We may liken our system to the law of Moses which leads men to the higher law of Christ.

Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]

That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!
Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something" (U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 1975, p. 49). President Grover Cleveland said--and we believe as a people--that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.

The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this "equality" is the system of transfer payments. This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year; and, with increased benefits and greater numbers of recipients, even though the tax base has been increased we will have larger deficits in the future.
Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program--a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government--precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.

Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced--that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest.

Are we part of the problem or part of the solution?
Recently a letter came to my office, accompanied by an article from your Daily Universe, on the matter of BYU students taking food stamps. The query of the letter was: "What is the attitude of the Church on taking food stamps?" The Church's view on this is well known. We stand for independence, thrift, and abolition of the dole. This was emphasized in the Saturday morning welfare meeting of general conference. "The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership" (Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3).

When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers' money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them. You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society--to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord's base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man's social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for "something for nothing" may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.

Society may rationalize immorality, but God cannot condone it. Society sponsors Sabbathbreaking, but the Church counsels otherwise. Society profanes the name of Deity, but Latter-day Saints cannot countenance it. Because society condones a dole, which demoralizes man and weakens his God-given initiative and character, can we?
I know what it is, as many of your faculty members do, to work my way through school, taking classes only during winter quarters. If you don't have the finances to complete your education, drop out a semester and go to work and save. You'll be a better man or woman for so doing. You will have preserved your self-respect and initiative. Wisdom comes with experience and struggle, not just with going through a university matriculation. I hope you will not be deceived by current philosophies which will rob you of your godly dignity, self-respect, and initiative, those attributes that make a celestial inheritance possible. It is in that interest, and that only, that I have spoken so plainly to you.

My Hope for You, the Youth of Zion

In opening my remarks to you, beloved youth of the Church, I attempted to share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. In closing my remarks, I share with you my hope for you:
I hope that you learn through your struggles the joy of achievement.
I hope that you recognize in the gospel of Jesus Christ a solution to our problems, temporal and spiritual.
I hope that you marry well, live together in love, rear a family in righteousness, and have joy and rejoicing in your posterity.
I hope that you follow the example and counsel of him whom the Lord has appointed as prophet, seer, and revelator.
I hope that you learn the joy of work, the ability to postpone wants, and the economic independence not to be a slave to any man.
I hope that you keep yourselves clean morally and spiritually, that your confidence will wax strong in the presence of God, as the scriptures say, and the Holy Ghost will be your constant companion (see D&C 121:45–46).
I hope that you will be united in philosophy, purpose, and action to the laws of the celestial kingdom.
I pray God's choicest blessings on you, my beloved brethren and sisters. May I say to you that there isn't anything in this world that's right that the leadership of this Church wouldn't do for the youth of the Church; and so I hope and pray that you realize the hope of those who love you and serve you and the possibilities of your potential as sons and daughters of God. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[Marduk]

I'll reply in full to this when I have more time (that is, if you'd like. This seems to have become a two party discussion, and I don't know if anyone but you or I actually reads it, Vorpal. Nevertheless, I'm willing to continue the discussion as long as you'd like.)

But first, I just have a question. We are at the same precipice today as we were when he spoke, and the same precipice during Clinton's first years in office. Why, if it is so important to eschew any sort of government aid program, was president Benson the last to speak on it, and even then, predominantly as an apostle, and far less so as president of the church?

[vorpal blade]

It does appear that we are the only two seriously posting here. But there may be others who occassionally read it, or will in the future. I think it is worth continuing.

As to your question I'll give it some thought and give you a better answer in a few days.