On socialism.


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, this topic cropped up, briefly, on another thread I didn't want to derail. And, I thought, some of you others, who hadn't followed that particular line of discussion, might want to have your say.

 

Now, I know in America, you sometimes talk about socialism as if all socialists were Marxist Communists.

 

In Europe, we have a more subtle view of socialism. We left-sympathisers do not, for example, necessarily subscribe to the labour theory of value, or the idea that history is best explained by the struggle between classes, or that all means of production should be owned by the state. And I have noticed that those of you who are Mormons, and kindly reply to my comments, tend to the right, politically.

 

So, I thought, it might be a good idea to hash this out, so that I can get to understand whether being LDS necessarily involves a neo-liberal, capitalist political ideology.

 

In Europe, I suggested elsewhere, socialism simply involves ideas like free healthcare at the point of need, an equal access to opportunity, and, should we get to live that long, a guaranteed minimum pension. It is not radical, I suggested, just kind on those who may contribute much to society, without ever becoming wealthy.

 

So, are Mormons required to be right-wing, politically? Are there Mormon scriptures that suggest they ought to be? Is the idea of the state evening out inequalities contrary to LDS teaching?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mormons are not required to be right wing, certainly some are not. But there are certain principles which we believe are fundamental to the happiness of the individual and to society. Two of these key principles are work and self-reliance. We endeavor to support people, programs, and policies that foster these principles. Thus the church does not believe in systems which lead to dependence. Giving should be designed to help people get in a position to help themselves. If a system does not encourage a person to lift themselves above their circumstances, but instead enables them to live off others, then that program is not building up but tearing down. 

 

There are of course situations where someone is not able to support themselves. In such a situation we believe the responsibility lies first, where possible, with the individual, then his family, then the church. As a last resort, we may turn to the government. 

Edited by james12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more leftist Mormons I know are about as convinced their political beliefs support LDS beliefs as I am about my more libertarian ideas. There is certainly no rule.

On another note, I guess I don't understand the tendency to label socialism when it isn't what socialists imagined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, james12, for that greatly useful overview. I find your principles most worthy. Let us then discuss them

 

Considering work, EF Schumacher* lists the purposes of work, as follows:

 

  1. To provide useful goods and services
  2. To enable everyone of us to use and thereby perfect our gifts like good stewards
  3. To do so in service to, and in cooperation with, others, so us to liberate ourselves from our in built egocentricity.

If we accept these purposes, which seem good to me, it is worth noting that there is nothing in them that suggests that we should work to become wealthy, or wealthier than our neighbours, or wealthier than we need. These ideas are other-centric, rather than self-centered. I wonder, therefore, what you make of them?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

*EF Schumacher, Good Work, Sphere Books Ltd, 1980, London

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, james12, for that greatly useful overview. I find your principles most worthy. Let us then discuss them

 

Considering self reliance, I'm in favour. But there are clearly spheres where it makes sense to gang together as a society, or a nation, rather than totally go it alone.

 

Take defence. Should we fund a national army, or load our selves up with guns and knives and ammunition, and employ 'security' staff, loaded up with guns and knives and such, or simply trust to the state to deter those with greedy eyes on our homes, land, families and assets? And our security staff, should they also employ a private army? and so on.

 

There are many other occasions when it just makes sense to pool resources, rather than fund things independently, as an individual, a family, or a church. The bigger the insurance pot, the better for all those involved, I submit. Healthcare is one of these occasions, but so might be infrastructure construction, or educational provision.

 

Now, I am not saying we should not be self reliant, as far as we can be. I wholly agree with the idea that we should do what we can to improve our own resilience. So much is prudent common sense. I am just suggesting that there might be situations when a nation might be better positioned to provide all with a service than each individual is, on his or her own, for themselves alone.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, james12, for that greatly useful overview. I find your principles most worthy. Let us then discuss them

 

Considering work, EF Schumacher* lists the purposes of work, as follows:

 

  1. To provide useful goods and services
  2. To enable everyone of us to use and thereby perfect our gifts like good stewards
  3. To do so in service to, and in cooperation with, others, so us to liberate ourselves from our in built egocentricity.

If we accept these purposes, which seem good to me, it is worth noting that there is nothing in them that suggests that we should work to become wealthy, or wealthier than our neighbours, or wealthier than we need. These ideas are other-centric, rather than self-centered. I wonder, therefore, what you make of them?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

*EF Schumacher, Good Work, Sphere Books Ltd, 1980, London

 

 

The problem with socialism as outlined above is human nature.  How does it deal with those unwilling to work for the common good, but instead will only work if it benefits them directly and is more then willing to live off the efforts of others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with socialism as outlined above is human nature.  How does it deal with those unwilling to work for the common good, but instead will only work if it benefits them directly and is more then willing to live off the efforts of others?

 

I don't see how this is any more a problem for socialism, with poor people living off the efforts of others, than it is for capitalism, with rich people living off the efforts of others.

 

Nevertheless, in my experience, poor people do want to improve their lot, and will go to extreme lengths to do that, including working for derisory wages. I think the 'free-rider' issue is largely a scare story, put about by those who don't want to be taxed for a social security net. At least, so it seems in my own country, the UK.

 

We might also notice that anyone who lives off the efforts of others, rich or poor, is denying themselves the benefits of work, as Schumacher lists them, and is really only cheating themselves.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how this is any more a problem for socialism, with poor people living off the efforts of others, than it is for capitalism, with rich people living off the efforts of others.

 

Nevertheless, in my experience, poor people do want to improve their lot, and will go to extreme lengths to do that, including working for derisory wages. I think the 'free-rider' issue is largely a scare story, put about by those who don't want to be taxed for a social security net. At least, so it seems in my own country, the UK.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Lets start with some basic facts.  People working is required to generate and maintain any kind of life style.  Lets call it money to simplify the idea.  Money does not come from no where, it comes from labor

 

Ok in capitalism  you either sink or swim by the labors of your own hands.  Its kind of brutal if you get sick or for some reason can't labor, but that is drives people to improve their lot because (in theory) they can.  They labor, therefore they generate money, that they can use to support themselves. In this system there will always be those that can't for what ever reason make it work and there for are poor and needy. They really depend on individuals acting out of charity to help them out.  This system while potentially quiet harsh to the poor and needy is really quite stable

 

With socialism it doesn't matter how hard you work, how skilled you become, you will have the same thing as everyone else. Same amount of money or lifestyle.  It does not take much to reach the conclusion that if you don't have to work hard (or work at all)  to keep the same standard of living/money as everyone else then why work?  A large enough system with enough people working you can support a few like this. But the more people that "wise up" to the scam the less workers you have.  The less workers you have the less money/lifestyle the system can support, and you begin a downward death spiral of the socialist system.  As that progresses you find that even those that are willing to work hard to help others can't keep up, can't work hard enough.  Because of this the system fails.  When the system fails everyone who depend on it is poor and needy and no one has the ability to help anyone.  Until they break from the system and work for themselves.   Unless of course you change human nature 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

...With socialism it doesn't matter how hard you work, how skilled you become, you will have the same thing as everyone else... 

 

Hi estradling75. There was a lot in your post to consider. Nevertheless, this idea about socialism being about equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, struck me as importantly false. And so I needed to interject, Socialism is not necessarily Marxist Communism!

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi estradling75. There was a lot in your post to consider. Nevertheless, this idea about socialism being about equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, struck me as importantly false. And so I needed to interject, Socialism is not necessarily Marxist Communism!

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

Ok... Its possible  that we are using different definitions of Socialism...  So lets toss it entirely..

 

What do you mean by equality of opportunity?  For me I see that under capitalism more or less.  If I am willing to work for it I can do just about anything.  I have chosen the opportunities that balanced what I wanted with how much I was willing to work to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right-winged principles tend to go more hand in hand with LDS on moral issues (like abortion and homosexuality), and even left-leaning Mormons tend to the more conservative views in these issues (though even that, not exclusively). Healthcare issues you'll see Mormon point-of-views all over the map on though.

 

For me it tends to be a practicality issue. It's nice to say we'll control these things with government. Practically, it just doesn't seem to work out, all-in-all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest problem of socialism is in the execution and not the the theory.  Once you allow elected politicians to channel money from some people to others (for any reason), the people who get the money come to believe that they are entitled to it and they will continue to vote for candidates who keep that money channel open.

 

Unless people have some skin in the game, they won't make any effort to control costs.  I have an aunt who was told 10 years ago to stop smoking.  She refused, and in the last 2 years of her life she ran up several hundred thousand dollars in medical costs.  I think the government should have billed her estate the total cost of her medical care, but I am called "cruel" and "heartless" by my relatives (mostly her heirs) who think citizens have a right to free medical care in any desired quantity for any reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, this topic cropped up, briefly, on another thread I didn't want to derail. And, I thought, some of you others, who hadn't followed that particular line of discussion, might want to have your say.

 

Now, I know in America, you sometimes talk about socialism as if all socialists were Marxist Communists.

 

In Europe, we have a more subtle view of socialism. We left-sympathisers do not, for example, necessarily subscribe to the labour theory of value, or the idea that history is best explained by the struggle between classes, or that all means of production should be owned by the state. And I have noticed that those of you who are Mormons, and kindly reply to my comments, tend to the right, politically.

 

So, I thought, it might be a good idea to hash this out, so that I can get to understand whether being LDS necessarily involves a neo-liberal, capitalist political ideology.

 

In Europe, I suggested elsewhere, socialism simply involves ideas like free healthcare at the point of need, an equal access to opportunity, and, should we get to live that long, a guaranteed minimum pension. It is not radical, I suggested, just kind on those who may contribute much to society, without ever becoming wealthy.

 

So, are Mormons required to be right-wing, politically? Are there Mormon scriptures that suggest they ought to be? Is the idea of the state evening out inequalities contrary to LDS teaching?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

nope. in the past tho the right wing tended to have more of our values than the other side. Actually i'd support a from-the-ground-up type of socialism (seperate from a government) if I knew everyone would be honest and open. (but thats not gona happen till well after christ comes). The trick is that it has to come from the people themselves and can't be dictated by a central entity. Otherwise you get the USSR type of deal, forcing people to do good things generally backfires, and the system ends up being abused quicker than the capitalist route.

there are good things that can be done somewhat socialistically, the problem is when too much is forced upon too many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another note, I guess I don't understand the tendency to label socialism when it isn't what socialists imagined.

 

You tend to get it on both sides, where there are individuals who espouse the the Gilded Age or the Red October the reality is a bit more towards the center than the other side's talking points usually suggest.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism, in my opinion, only works in the family unit or in a small scale society of common interests (like the military community).

 

Reason: 

1.)  All members of the society have something that binds them to each other - "blood relations" or the military in this case - that tend to overcome the human tendency of greed and promotes the spiritual desire for love - repentance, forgiveness, and sacrifice.  Therefore, one does not need to be compelled to be good.

 

2.)  Not only can you exclude people from getting on the island... you can vote a member off the island... so those who just can't be good without compulsion can get surgically removed from the society.

 

Socialism only works when it is centered on the desire to Love.  Without love, it fails.  Because, socialism is built on the premise that man is ultimately selfless - they labor for the good of society.  The society cannot sustain itself with a mass of self-serving folks.

 

As far as LDS is concerned - this is, of course, our ultimate goal - to desire to labour for nothing but Love... Love of God and Love of Neighbor as Ourselves.  But central to God's plan is the freedom of choice.  The minute this freedom is removed from any individual, a core Christian value is thrown out the window.  Therefore, the law of consecration was changed to a lower law in our current covenant as humanity in today's time is not ready for the full version.

 

Let's juxtapose Capitalism to this... Capitalism is built on the premise that man is ultimately self-serving.  The system, therefore, has natural equality of opportunity and natural safeguards to greed.  Anyone who desires to do good can improve the system but good doesn't need to be compulsory for the system to sustain itself.  But Capitalism only works when it is centered on knowledge.  The minute someone does something out of ignorance, the natural safeguard fails and you end up with the greedy controlling the system.

 

As far as LDS is concerned, Capitalism is also compatible due to its respect for free agency - basically, this is why God chose Christ over Lucifer... free agency is worth suffering for.  Lucifer's plan was to make doing good compulsory.

 

As far as what I personally think... I believe the Mortal Estate of the Plan of Salvation is Capitalist while the Eternal Estate beyond the veil is Socialist.  The Mortal Estate is where we are still tied to the weaknesses of the natural man, therefore, the system accounts for it.  The Celestial Kingdom is where everybody is already in that state of "Being One with Christ", so it is naturally selfless - those who are not in that state are sent to their own commune.  So, while I'm still mortal, I believe that the Capitalist system is the successful system.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. Satan's plan was to save everyone. The specifics of how he was going to do that are not recorded.

 

It's a logical conclusion.  No unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of God.  Satan will save everyone.  Not everyone desires to be clean.  Ergo, Satan will make them clean regardless of their desires.  The specifics of how he was going to do that are not recorded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, I suppose, monarchical and any other governmental theory are not mutually exclusive.

 

You're making me think... let's see... okay, I got it!  Monarchical is mutually exclusive to Switzerland.

 

 

But then... everything is mutually exclusive to Switzerland... hardiharhar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a logical conclusion.  No unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of God.  Satan will save everyone.  Not everyone desires to be clean.  Ergo, Satan will make them clean regardless of their desires.  The specifics of how he was going to do that are not recorded.

 

On the other hand one could argue, based on 2 Ne 9:25, that he could withhold the Law to achieve such a goal. In such a case, he wouldn't have been forcing everyone to be good but rather forcing everyone to be ignorant. Of course both suggestions are operating from the premise that his plan would actually work in some convoluted fashion. That premise could very well be flawed, that is his plan could have been a very persuasive, "A wizard did it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand one could argue, based on 2 Ne 9:25, that he could withhold the Law to achieve such a goal. In such a case, he wouldn't have been forcing everyone to be good but rather forcing everyone to be ignorant. Of course both suggestions are operating from the premise that his plan would actually work in some convoluted fashion. That premise could very well be flawed, that is his plan could have been a very persuasive, "A wizard did it."

 

Sorry anatess...I missed your reply somehow. But Dravin covered it here.

 

The only thing we know is that Satan planned to remove our agency. Force is one possibility. Removal of accountability is another, as agency requires both choice and accountability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand one could argue, based on 2 Ne 9:25, that he could withhold the Law to achieve such a goal. In such a case, he wouldn't have been forcing everyone to be good but rather forcing everyone to be ignorant. Of course both suggestions are operating from the premise that his plan would actually work in some convoluted fashion. That premise could very well be flawed, that is his plan could have been a very persuasive, "A wizard did it."

 

 

Sorry anatess...I missed your reply somehow. But Dravin covered it here.

 

The only thing we know is that Satan planned to remove our agency. Force is one possibility. Removal of accountability is another, as agency requires both choice and accountability.

 

You know, I never did think of it that way!  It still amazes me how I get to learn more of the gospel everyday... even seemingly basic things as these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share