Capitalism v. Marxism, United Order, Law of Consecration

[vorpal blade]

I've known people who thought that the Church taught that they should be economically on the left. They feel that the United Order and "having all things in common," was the ideal economic system, and this is what we should be striving for, which to them indicated a politically left view. I don't think this is a correct view of Church doctrine.

There is an argument to be made that we are not selfless enough for the higher economic order, and until we are worthy to live the higher law we must live a lower economic order. While I believe that to be true, I believe that the law of consecration and stewardship, having all things in common, and the United Order are not principles of collectivism and socialism. They are quite different, in my opinion. The higher economic law is fundamentally capitalism and private property, with free enterprise an essential ingredient. That puts the higher law well on the right of the economic political scale.

In the United Order people recognized that everything really belongs to the Lord. They gave all they had to the Church, without holding anything back. What is important to note is that after that the bishop gave back to the individual all that the individual needed. This became their private property, to do with as they wished. What they did with their private property was not controlled at all by the wishes of the group. They were not regulated as to the way they handled this stewardship from the Lord. With that private property, that capital they had been given, they engaged in free enterprise as an individual. This is very different from socialism and the political left economically. In the Lord's plan individuals consecrate what they have, but are then given a stewardship which they handle as a private enterprise with complete autonomy, and using capitalistic principles.

Every year the individual gives an accounting to the bishop of his stewardship. He keeps what he needs for his family, and for the legitimate needs of the growth of his private business enterprise. Here is where unselfishness and love of fellowmen comes in. He voluntarily gives up some of the personal wealth he could have kept to have a house, or car, or clothes that would be superior to the others in the United Order or living the same law collectively as he is. He is not forced in any way to share with the others. He is not taxed - though he is expected to pay tithing. This again is extremely different from Marxism, socialism, and collectivism as it is usually known. The bishop helps the individual to see how well others are doing, and counsels with the individual so the individual can see better what he should give up and what he should keep. But the church and the bishop does not have any control over the individual's property.

Actually, you can live the law of consecration and stewardship right now by giving to the Church all that you don’t need.

That’s my point of view, anyway.

[Marduk]

Yes, Vorpal, and it is important to note that it is just that, your point of view. I'd never heard of a reading of the law of consecration as essentially capitalistic in nature. I think you're way off, but then again, that's just my point of view.

It is important to note, however, that under the few examples of the law of consecration we have (early church, post-Christ Book of Mormon), any members who held back property from the group were essentially removed from the group. It only works if EVERYONE gives EVERYTHING to the group.

On the other hand, Marxism does lack one key ingredient. Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses (and given the religion of his time, I can't say I blame him) and theorized that eventually, we as humans would evolve beyond the need for religion. I can't help but wonder, had he seen the LDS church and the strides it had made, if he might've changed that view.

Let me just say, lastly, that all in all, I think the efficacy of any system depends wholly on the morality of the individuals living it. In an entirely free-market system, strong morality allows for a lot of charitable contribution, people working towards common goals, and consistently working hard. Poor morality leads to greed, oppression, and selfishness. In a Marxist system, strong morality allows for strong work ethic, a desire to care for individuals who need it, and pride in one's own workmanship. Poor morality leads to a desire to have dominion over one another, to hold back wealth, to not contribute to the well-being of society as a whole. Far more important to our economic health is our desire to serve one another than the specifics of the system in which we live.

[vorpal blade]

It is important to note, however, that under the few examples of the law of consecration we have (early church, post-Christ Book of Mormon), any members who held back property from the group were essentially removed from the group. It only works if EVERYONE gives EVERYTHING to the group.

It is important to note, which is why I already noted it in my remarks preceding your comment.

Yes, Vorpal, and it is important to note that it is just that, your point of view. I'd never heard of a reading of the law of consecration as essentially capitalistic in nature. I think you're way off, but then again, that's just my point of view.

It is my point of view, and also what I believe to be the official Church position, and what all the prophets have taught. Don't take my word for it, though. Search for yourself. There have been interesting articles printed in the Ensign, and talks given in General Conference that support my point of view. Consider the article published in the Ensign, January 1979, by William O. Nelson. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h ... 82620aRCRD

Speaking of the united order, the Lord said: “It is my purpose to provide for my Saints … but it must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:15–16; italics added)

The Lord’s economic system differs in significant ways from other methods of relieving poverty. These other methods include philanthropy—an outright gift to the poor by an agency or benefactor; government-sponsored programs—attempts to redistribute the wealth among citizens by taxing the more affluent to provide for the less affluent; and communalism—the pooling of private property and money to community ownership so that each member holds equal ownership in community goods. These are the distinctive features of the Lord’s “own way”:

1. Entrance into the united order is wholly voluntary, as evidenced by a consecration of all one’s property to the Church.

2. The united order is not a supplemental assistance program; it is the economic system in Zion. It provides a standard of living commensurate to one’s needs, wants, circumstances, and ability to expand one’s stewardship.

3. 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.

The Prophet rejected communalism. When he arrived in Kirtland in 1831, he found some of the Saints organized into a communal society called “the family.” He soon had them abandon that for the “more perfect law of the Lord.” (History of the Church, 1:146–47) When asked later, “Do Mormons believe in having all things in common?” he answered no. (History of the Church, 3:28) In Nauvoo, he recorded this entry in his journal: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo, everyone is steward over his own.” (History of the Church, 6:37–38)

The united order, according to Elder Harold B. Lee, is “more capitalistic … than either Socialism or Communism, in that private ownership and individual responsibility will be maintained.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1941, p. 113)

4. The united order should not be confused with various “united orders” that were practiced in Utah. President J. Reuben Clark observed, “In practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations. This is also true of the organizations set up … in Utah after the Saints came to the valleys.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1942, p. 55)

5. The united order is not socialism. The “equality” spoken of in the united order is based on (1) family size, (2) family circumstances, (3) family wants (these are to be “just”), and (4) family needs. (See D&C 51:31.) As President J. Reuben Clark observed, “Obviously, this is not a case of ‘dead level’ equality.” (The United Order and the Law of Consecration, Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1945, p. 25)

6. The united order will only be implemented by revelation to the prophet of the Church, not by legislation or some political program.

There's lots more good stuff in the article. Consider this:

President J. Reuben Clark explained how these practices—tithing, fast offerings, and Church welfare—have brought the Church closer to the principles of the united order:

“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. …

I'll be glad to find other articles and quotes by General Authorities, if needed.

Looking at an article in Wikipedia about Marxism really is, I'd say there is a lot more in Marxism that goes against Church teachings. I think everywhere Marxism has been tried it has been a disaster.

[Marduk]

The only reason I included in my comment the idea of an individual holding part back from the larger whole being removed from said group is because it was nowhere to be found in your comment. Also, you haven't given me a quote by a general authority, only by a man who is quoting general authorities. While this may be percieved as splitting hairs, I only mention it to point out that any of those comments can be construed differently than the intent given in the article. As a slight tangent, for example, let's look at Joseph Smith's comment in the article. " 'Do Mormons believe in having all things in common?' he answered no." Clearly, that exact phrase has been used to apply to what the Lord's people have believed at certain times. I take this to mean it simply wasn't in practice in 1831. He very well might've been asked, do Mormons practice eternal marriage? To which the answer would have been no, it had not yet been revealed.

I don't blame individuals, especially in this society, for the perspectives they have on Marxism (although, what they know is more accurately referred to as Communism) given the examples they have had to work with, but we are talking about a more abstract ideology, not necessarily one that has been put into practice by any known government of which we know.

Some corrections about just what Marxism entails, and what it does not, perhaps would do for clarification here. It does not dissolve the family unit. It does not (entirely) remove personal property. It is not everyone having the same amount of everything. As Marx said, "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability." In other words, people are given what they need; a larger family would clearly need more food and living space than a smaller one, hence that allowance would be made. Marxism is, in its strictest sense, the people owning the means of production. Under a Marxist system, you may own your clothes, house, car, etc. But you could not own the factory that you went to work in, that would belong to the community at large.

[Marduk]

For some reason, the forum would not let me post the reply I had originally, so I've cut in half. Here's part two.

A key principle of capitalism is that an individual who is smarter, stronger, or works harder than his fellow man deserves more than they do. The CEO, for example, is providing far more to the economy than the street sweeper, hence deserves to be paid far more for his efforts. There is no limit to this difference in capitalism, in fact, if the powers that be determine that the street sweeper is not valuable enough to society, he may be denied even enough to provide for basic needs, food, etc. regardless of how hard he works. This certainly doesn't sound like a Christian principle, to allow his fellow man to starve, even when he is working hard. It also seems egregious to be giving the CEO hundreds, or even thousands, of times the amount of money to pay for his needs while his neighbor iss starving in the street. Yet this is a fundamental principle of capitalism. If what you are doing isn't deemed valuable enough to society, then you must change professions or starve. If your choice of profession allows you to make billions and keep it all for yourself, this is your right as a capitalist. Hey, that's your reward for providing this important service to society.

This post is getting quite long, and the post box is doing that annoying thing where it jumps to the top of the post after every character, so let me wrap it up. We in this country have a very wrong-headed idea of what Marxism is, because we have been given bad examples (read: Russia and Cuba, to name two.) Certainly the economy under Christ will be far, far different from anything we have mind of now, and we need to remember to keep our minds open for what that economy will hold, and not become too attached to our current misconceptions.

[NerdGirl]

Just so you both know, I am reading this discussion with much interest. The capitalism vs. socialism issue is one on which my opinion is constantly evolving.

[vorpal blade]

That jumping to the top of the post is annoying, isn't it?

The only reason I included in my comment the idea of an individual holding part back from the larger whole being removed from said group is because it was nowhere to be found in your comment.

It took me awhile to figure out a possible explanation for our difference of opinion here. What I had said was "In the United Order people recognized that everything really belongs to the Lord. They gave all they had to the Church, without holding anything back." I was thinking that an individual couldn't join, or was punished by God (as was the case in the Bible) if they held something back. Which seemed like the same thing as what you said. But now I see the difference. You are saying that even after they join the United Order they must continually give everything they have to the United Order, including all their profits (increases). That is not how the United Order worked. There was no threat of expulsion or being removed from the group if you didn't continue to give everything to the United Order. Once you got your title to all the property to be under your stewardship it couldn't be taken away from you, nor could the increase or profit you got with that property. You could not be removed from the group for holding anything back after you had once joined and given, for one time only, all that you had at the time of joining. Is that the difference of opinion?

Also, you haven't given me a quote by a general authority, only by a man who is quoting general authorities. While this may be percieved as splitting hairs, I only mention it to point out that any of those comments can be construed differently than the intent given in the article. As a slight tangent, for example, let's look at Joseph Smith's comment in the article. " 'Do Mormons believe in having all things in common?' he answered no." Clearly, that exact phrase has been used to apply to what the Lord's people have believed at certain times. I take this to mean it simply wasn't in practice in 1831. He very well might've been asked, do Mormons practice eternal marriage? To which the answer would have been no, it had not yet been revealed.

I gave you an article published in the Ensign, the official publication of the Church. These articles are very carefully reviewed. While the articles are not doctrine, and can have errors, I think the burden of proof is up to you to show how the General Authorities might have been taken out of context. Speculation on your part really doesn't adequately answer the quotes given. You need to look up the quotes I gave, and you need to come up with good quotes of recognized Church authorities that agree with you. Until you do that, the quotes I gave for Harold B. Lee, Joseph Smith, and J. Reuben Clark are still good.

I don't blame individuals, especially in this society, for the perspectives they have on Marxism (although, what they know is more accurately referred to as Communism) given the examples they have had to work with, but we are talking about a more abstract ideology, not necessarily one that has been put into practice by any known government of which we know.

Some corrections about just what Marxism entails, and what it does not, perhaps would do for clarification here. It does not dissolve the family unit. It does not (entirely) remove personal property. It is not everyone having the same amount of everything. As Marx said, "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability." In other words, people are given what they need; a larger family would clearly need more food and living space than a smaller one, hence that allowance would be made. Marxism is, in its strictest sense, the people owning the means of production. Under a Marxist system, you may own your clothes, house, car, etc. But you could not own the factory that you went to work in, that would belong to the community at large.

Here is the definition I use for Marxism. http://www.onelook.com/?w=marxism&ls=a

Quick definitions (Marxism)

▸ 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 untimately be superseded by communism

It seems to me that the goal of Marxism is communism. Communism is defined as http://www.onelook.com/?w=communism&ls=a

Quick definitions (communism)

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

I think it is interesting what Ezra Taft Benson said about Communism in the November 1979 Ensign: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h ... 82620aRCRD

Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion. It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan. The false prophets of Communism predict a utopian society. This, they proclaim, will only be brought about as capitalism and free enterprise are overthrown, private property abolished, the family as a social unit eliminated, all classes abolished, all governments overthrown, and a communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society established.

On 3 July 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members:
“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. …
“We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [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: Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, The First Presidency, in Deseret News, 3 July 1936; italics added).
More recently, President Marion G. Romney, in the First Presidency Message in the September 1979 Ensign, wrote: “Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the gospel plan, and … it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. Communism is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land” (p. 5).

[vorpal blade]

A key principle of capitalism is that an individual who is smarter, stronger, or works harder than his fellow man deserves more than they do. The CEO, for example, is providing far more to the economy than the street sweeper, hence deserves to be paid far more for his efforts. There is no limit to this difference in capitalism, in fact, if the powers that be determine that the street sweeper is not valuable enough to society, he may be denied even enough to provide for basic needs, food, etc. regardless of how hard he works. This certainly doesn't sound like a Christian principle, to allow his fellow man to starve, even when he is working hard. It also seems egregious to be giving the CEO hundreds, or even thousands, of times the amount of money to pay for his needs while his neighbor iss starving in the street. Yet this is a fundamental principle of capitalism. If what you are doing isn't deemed valuable enough to society, then you must change professions or starve. If your choice of profession allows you to make billions and keep it all for yourself, this is your right as a capitalist. Hey, that's your reward for providing this important service to society.

The definition I use for capitalism is http://www.onelook.com/?w=capitalism&ls=a

Quick definitions (capitalism)

â–¸ noun: an economic system based on private ownership of capital

Also, from MSN Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/ ... capitalism

cap·i·tal·ism [ káppit'l ìzzəm ] noun
Definition: free-market system: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit

I think a consequence of capitalism and a free-market system is that market forces are going to determine how much a person earns. Another key principle of capitalism is that an individual is free to choose his or her own profession. If a certain profession is not deemed important enough to keep a person from starving, then obviously no one should choose that profession. No one forces him to choose a particular profession. If the profession of street sweeper is important to society then market forces will ensure that the job is adequately paid. The job will go vacant, if people are free to choose, until the offering price for doing the job reaches the level that someone will take the job. We are not "allowing the street sweeper to starve," we are allowing a person the opportunity to decide what level of compensation he is willing to work for. If an individual asks too much, and another individual is willing to do it for less, the job will go to the lowest bidder. No one is being forced into anything, least of all starvation.

The alternative to allowing the demand to dictate the price, or the demand for a person with a particular skill to fill a job needed, is for a state power to dictate how much a person should receive for his services. This causes all kinds of problems, is more politically motivated than objectively determined, and assumes that others, who are not directly involved, are more capable of deciding what a person should earn than those closely associated with the situation. Another "solution" is to gang up on the individual who is deemed by the gang as "earning too much," and steal his legally obtained earnings from him.

In other words, the alternative to letting a person earn as much as he can, and be paid as much as he can get for his services, is the unchristian principle of taking his property from him by force. And that's what communism and socialism and Marxism do, they are systems that deny the individual the fruits of his labor using the powers of the state. The myth that there will be a classless society of equals, where people magically do the right thing without any self-interest, isn't going to happen with worldly systems.

The United Order is capitalism. No one tells you what job to take, no organization determines how much you earn for doing your job. You are allowed to make billions, if that is what your efforts are worth. Capital is privately owned. The means of production and the distribution of goods is privately owned. You are motivated to make a profit, both to grow your private enterprise or stewardship, and by the desire to bless the lives of yourself, your family, and others as you voluntarily share a portion of your increase with your fellowmen.

[Marduk]

A couple of quick clarifications before I write a bit more lengthy post.

One, it is my understanding of the way the law of consecration worked, an understanding taken from D&C 42, that, after the "first consecration", an individual who got more money or property than was necessary for their support was to give that "residue" to the bishop, who would then dispense of it as necessary. (See especially verse 33.) And certainly, in Book of Mormon times, all things were held in common. That's actually more stringent than most Marxist interpretations.

Second, Marx could not claim that communism (at least, Russian bloc communism that we are most familiar with, and the kind that all of the general authorities in those quotes are railing against) is what naturally followed, since that developed well after his manifesto. I'll take a look for a definition that is a little more fitting for our discussion and present it shortly.

[Tao]

To me, the ideal is capitalism without greed or socialism without indolence.

Touching this and the soapbox post titled 'Intellectual rationality', I wonder if one struggle we have with the plotting of political viewpoints is an left/right (and up/down in this case) simplification of a non-euclidean array. While I tend to feel that extremes are often inherently unstable, I find it interesting how often they seem to striving toward remarkably similar points. (Sometimes a protracted political debate feels somewhat like an argument over flightpaths to the nearest active Australian volcano, in my eyes.) Regardless of which end of the elephant you're holding, only tragedy is found in the refusal to let go.

[Marduk]

Hrmm, was gonna have a reply in a different direction, but of course, Tao has to bring the weighted voice of reason into the discussion.

On that point, I think that millennial economics (if we can call it that) will embrace ideals of what we now see as capitalism, while eschewing others. Similarly, those wonderful principles of Marxism will be brought forth, while burning away those, how shall we say, less-than-enlightened principles. As I said in my first post, more critical above all is the morality of those you would rule.

It reminds me of what was said of politics in the book of mormon. A king can rule wisely and well, or can be corrupt and bring the people down. A system of representation can rule wisely and well, or can be corrupt and bring the people down. It is all in the morality of the government and the governed.

This (coupled with Vorpal's comment) brings me to an interesting question, that I"ve always wondered, but I'll have to ask the question in a different post. This one is off topic enough as it is.

[vorpal blade]

One, it is my understanding of the way the law of consecration worked, an understanding taken from D&C 42, that, after the "first consecration", an individual who got more money or property than was necessary for their support was to give that "residue" to the bishop, who would then dispense of it as necessary. (See especially verse 33.) And certainly, in Book of Mormon times, all things were held in common. That's actually more stringent than most Marxist interpretations.

Quoting again from the Nelson Ensign article,

As revealed in section 42 and other revelations (see inset box), the united order is based on these principles:

1. The fundamental principle is that the earth is the Lord’s and all that man possesses belongs to him. “I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine. … All these properties are mine. … And if the properties are mine, then are ye stewards.” (D&C 104:14, 55, 56)

2. The individual voluntarily enters the united order and covenants with the Lord to consecrate his time, talents, wealth, and property to the kingdom of God (see D&C 42:30). This he does by deeding to the bishop his entire property.

3. The Church then 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&C 42:32) 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).

How is a judicious determination of a family’s wants and needs to be made? As clarified by letter from the Prophet to Bishop Partridge, “by the mutual consent of both parties” (the bishop and the donor). (History of the Church 1:364–65)

4. The balance, which is not returned to the steward, is called “residue” or surplus. This is retained by the bishop “to administer to those who have not … that every man who has need be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.” (D&C 42:33) Surplus is kept in the bishop’s storehouse.

5. If a man produces on his stewardship more than is required for his family, his wants, and his needs, that excess is annually returned to the Church and it too becomes the common property of the Church. Out of these storehouse commodities, the bishop is authorized to give to those who qualify food, clothing, sustenance, and “stewardships.”

This is the Lord’s answer on how the Saints of this dispensation, like Enoch’s, may have “no poor among them.”

As I see it, there is no requirement that a person be kicked out of the United Order for failing to give back an amount that someone feels is sufficient. The amount of residue, which is voluntarily returned, is determined after the steward and the bishop sit down and determine what the needs and wants are for the man and his family. And, as I understand it, for a proper growth in the man's business or stewardship.

Second, Marx could not claim that communism (at least, Russian bloc communism that we are most familiar with, and the kind that all of the general authorities in those quotes are railing against) is what naturally followed, since that developed well after his manifesto. I'll take a look for a definition that is a little more fitting for our discussion and present it shortly.

I don't believe that the General Authorities were referring to Russian bloc communism. They didn't say that, and it doesn't make sense. They were talking about the evils of the theory of communism as well as how it had been practiced. Look at the principles of communism they address--the lack of private property, the loss of individual freedom, and the loss of free enterprise, the overthrow of the family as a social unit--it is in the writings of Marx.

[vorpal blade]

To me, the ideal is capitalism without greed or socialism without indolence.

I believe that greed is not inherent in capitalism, it is inherent in the natural man. One finds greed in all economic forms. The communist or socialist may be greedy for power or control of others. Communist leaders may not have had personal wealth, but they had the freedom to use the wealth of the nation that, in effect, gave them great personal wealth. Capitalism does not breed greed. And one can be a complete capitalist and be without greed.

One of the problems with socialism might be called indolence; a tendency to kill the desire to work hard, to progress, to be inventive, to improve oneself and society, to take initiative, to be free to exercise our agency.

Touching this and the soapbox post titled 'Intellectual rationality', I wonder if one struggle we have with the plotting of political viewpoints is an left/right (and up/down in this case) simplification of a non-euclidean array. While I tend to feel that extremes are often inherently unstable, I find it interesting how often they seem to striving toward remarkably similar points. (Sometimes a protracted political debate feels somewhat like an argument over flightpaths to the nearest active Australian volcano, in my eyes.) Regardless of which end of the elephant you're holding, only tragedy is found in the refusal to let go.

Communism is not an alternate path to get to the same result. It is, as Ezra Taft Benson wrote, Satan's counterfeit to the gospel's plan. It will lead in the opposite direction to that of the United Order.

[vorpal blade]

Similarly, those wonderful principles of Marxism will be brought forth, while burning away those, how shall we say, less-than-enlightened principles. As I said in my first post, more critical above all is the morality of those you would rule.

Some economic systems, such as Marxism, communism, and socialism are inherently flawed and will bring it's people down. It cannot be saved by the morality of those who live in the system, the system itself must be changed. There are no wonderful principles of Marxism. It is a corrupt system. So say the prophets.

[Marduk]

Ok, a few links to help clear some things up. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... arxism.htm

This needs some perusing, but one of the key elements it brings forth is that

There is no set of principles and beliefs which can be set out once and for all and stamped with the name of “Marxism”. Marxism is a movement, and as such can only be understood through a critical examination of its history. While this movement bears the name of its founder, Karl Marx, Marxism is not a movement of followers, but it is nevertheless a movement which is integrally concerned with an interconnected body of theoretical and political writing which traces its origins back to Marx.

Rereading president Benson wrote, it was rife with references to what Stalin and the soviet bloc did. He even mentions Cuba getting a foothold in the American continent. It seems pretty clear that this is exactly what he was talking about when he spoke so disparagingly of that form of communism, and rightly so. Although, I think the philosopher said it best when he said that soviet communism cannot rightly be described as Marxism, and is better described as state capitalism. One fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism is to say that it requires all property be owned by the state. This could not be more wrong. As a matter of fact, in the anarchist marxist model, there is no state.

Again, Marxism does not require the abolishment of property as a whole, only suggesting that the means of production cannot be owned, and that all men should be equal in labor. In other words, that no one be allowed simply to "live off investments", or own large factories or corporations. Every man is paid for his labor, and expected to labor hard. However, no man is paid above another. Every man is expected to take pride in his workmanship. Marx did suggest that once this was established, the family unit would eventually dissolve, arguing that it is a contract of convenience, one used to raise children, so that the father can work and the mother can raise family. When we couple an LDS perspective with Marxist thought, however, and acknowledge the family as an eternal unit, rather than a temporal one (which of course, Marx could've had no conception of), we can see that life in the family unit and the other marxist principles can coexist harmoniously.

Let us remember a key principle of capitalism, at least, as it is established here on this earth, is to profit at all costs. If one can make a large profit by starving his neighbors or destroying the environment, so be it. A corporation's first and foremost goal is to be profitable, not to provide a good service, produce quality goods, or be altruistic, in fact, some of these things can be contrary to that first goal.

Contrast that with what Jacob said about wealth. "...ye will seek them (riches) for the intent to do good-- to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted." Jacob 2:19

Certainly there is much immoral and inherently flawed with our current economic system.

[Damasta]

Let's be clear that unregulated capitalism has its evils, too. One of the worst is the fact that "if there's someone willing to buy it, there's someone willing to sell it." That accounts for such evils as recreational drugs, pornography, prostitution, thuggery, etc. Ultimately what we have to accept is that any man-made system (capitalism, communism, humanism, rationalism, etc.) will try to 'save' people and will fail. And that is the essence of the anti-Christ. Capitalism is flawed and will ultimately fail. Marxism (as envisioned by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao) is flawed and will ultimately fail. During the Millennium God will institute a perfect system and it will be different from any man-made system that has ever been practiced. The corollary to realizing that every man-made system will fail to fix the world's problems and usually creates new ones, is to realize that the only thing that will save us all is the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

[vorpal blade]

Rereading president Benson wrote, it was rife with references to what Stalin and the soviet bloc did. He even mentions Cuba getting a foothold in the American continent. It seems pretty clear that this is exactly what he was talking about when he spoke so disparagingly of that form of communism, and rightly so.

President Benson did more than talk about a particular form of communism.

Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion. It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan. The false prophets of Communism predict a utopian society. This, they proclaim, will only be brought about as capitalism and free enterprise are overthrown, private property abolished, the family as a social unit eliminated, all classes abolished, all governments overthrown, and a communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society established.

I think Marxism, in it's many forms, is generally characterized by this statement. We can quibble about whether it is all private property or just the property used to create wealth, such as the land, the factories, the offices, the means of distribution of goods and services, and so forth. We can also disagree about whether Marxism wishes to abolish the family, as Engel said because it is inherently exploitative, just like the rich class exploits the working class. But other than that President Benson is clearly talking about a wide variety of Marxist philosophies, including yours. And clearly President Benson thinks these ideas are evil.

Let us remember a key principle of capitalism, at least, as it is established here on this earth, is to profit at all costs. If one can make a large profit by starving his neighbors or destroying the environment, so be it. A corporation's first and foremost goal is to be profitable, not to provide a good service, produce quality goods, or be altruistic, in fact, some of these things can be contrary to that first goal.

No. That is not a principle of capitalism, just like your other statement about capitalism was not correct. Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned. How those individuals conduct their business is a matter of calculation and morality, but it is not a principle or even characteristic of that economic system. If someone is not concerned with his neighbors, that is his personal problem. He will lose customers and go out of business unless he is careful to maintain the goodwill of his customers. The profit motive drives him to care for his neighbors, to care for the environment, to provide good service, produce quality good, and at least appear to have the best interests of the community at heart. Because in capitalism people have choices. Some people will act badly, and will for a time get away with it. Laws are framed to protect society from the harmful effects of individuals acting selfishly. This also is part of a capitalist society. Capitalism is not a license to lie, cheat and steal.

Marxism, and other economic theories are not less susceptible to individuals who which to harm their neighbors. One could say that a key principle of Marxism is to fight capitalism at all costs. The worst polluters have been those who call themselves Marxists. The worst offenders for deliberately starving their own people have been people who called themselves Marxists. You may wish to disassociate yourself from them as I disassociate capitalism from the acts of a few bad people.

Contrast that with what Jacob said about wealth. "...ye will seek them (riches) for the intent to do good-- to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted." Jacob 2:19

Now that is a key principle of capitalism. We seek profits so that we can do all of these good things.

Certainly there is much immoral and inherently flawed with our current economic system.

There is much immorality and flaws in human nature, but it is not inherent in capitalism. What is wrong with our current economic system is that it is not capitalistic enough.

[vorpal blade]

Let's be clear that unregulated capitalism has its evils, too. One of the worst is the fact that "if there's someone willing to buy it, there's someone willing to sell it." That accounts for such evils as recreational drugs, pornography, prostitution, thuggery, etc. Ultimately what we have to accept is that any man-made system (capitalism, communism, humanism, rationalism, etc.) will try to 'save' people and will fail. And that is the essence of the anti-Christ. Capitalism is flawed and will ultimately fail. Marxism (as envisioned by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao) is flawed and will ultimately fail. During the Millennium God will institute a perfect system and it will be different from any man-made system that has ever been practiced. The corollary to realizing that every man-made system will fail to fix the world's problems and usually creates new ones, is to realize that the only thing that will save us all is the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

All societies require laws to protect it's members from the harmful actions of others. This is true whether we are talking about capitalism, socialism, marxism, or other. There is nothing particular to capitalism that makes it more likely to have the evils you mention. It is true that in an authoritarian state, where the government largely restricts the rights and privileges of its people, and has a large internal spy system, that the government has more power to curb such evils.

Capitalism, unlike the other systems you mention, does not exit to "save" people. Its purpose is simply to provide everyone an equal and fair opportunity to earn a living and gain wealth. Capitalism is not flawed, and will be the basis of the United Order, the economic system established by God. The perfect system has been revealed, and capitalism is at the heart of it.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

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

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

[Marduk]

Ok, let's get a few things straight.

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